Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ec.230 Lake Ave.Wogan Lot Split.1986lga(o- E:C-- oa Woe, C 13DIVt510 Ke�vh an ZV -9fo E elix-\ ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street O Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES City 00113 -63721 - 47331 -52100 - 63722 - 47332 -52100 - 63723 - 47333 -52100 - 63724 - 47341 -52100 - 63725 - 47342 -52100 - 63726 - 47343 -52100 - 63727 - 47350 -52100 - 63728 - 47360 -52100 REFERRAL FEES: 00125 -63730 -47380 -52100 00123 -63730 -47380 -52100 00115 -63730 -47380 -52100 County 00113 -63711 -47331 - 52200 - 63712 - 47332 - 52200 - 63713 - 47333 - 52200 - 63714 - 47341 - 52200 - 63715 - 47342 - 52200 - 63716 - 47343 - 52200 - 63717 - 47350 - 52200 - 63718 - 47360 - 52200 REFERRAL FEES: 00125 -63730 -47380 - 52200 00123 -63730 -47380 - 52200 00113 -63731 -09000 - 52200 00113 -63732 -09000 - 52200 PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00113 -63061 -09000 - 52200 - 63063 -09000 - 52200 - 63062 -09000 - 00000 - 63066 -09000 - 00000 - 63069 -09000 - Name: Address: Check # Additional Billing: GMP/CONCEPTUAL GMP/PRELIMINARY GMP/FINAL SUB/CONCEPTUAL SUB/PRELIMINARY SUB/FINAL ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HOUSING ENGINEERING SUB -TOTAL GMP/GENERAL GMP/DETAILED GMP/FINAL SUB/GENERAL SUB/DETAILED SUB/FINAL ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HOUSING ENVIRONMENTAL COORD. ENGINEERING SUB -TOTAL COUNTY CODE ALMANAC COMP. PLAN COPY FEES OTHER SUB -TOTAL TOTAL Phone: Project: Date: — # of Hours: cis i rn I, 6�$s, Flo+ --y5 S20 s.f �/7 Mfg 6 �JDn /brob�y nrl i % vryr L<,Y0GW aA'g / — I— 1l? •J v�cti .(l;t S tti r� ie J (,r1� ���� D�P,��o,, d� d�rro�uT4 AY" 6r/r,' Y /Q}",IDl) L?n)�, s��l �i1� 6PTf.0! — lDuS� JlD�ycI1F�J /n�'A1/' fD t7�. Cs �J Q�1 P r67(-� �Cf1 D In!ore3e.t J) Il (Croons Q��Brh �i de, kuA -- To (�� Date . fi r _TimeO-' -� �, You W ;re, Out M of Phone AREA C E NUMBER EXTENSION TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL WAS IN TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT RETURNED YOUR CALL Message ��:.n1� •% ,jvplQy lf'fez�I(i, 4wv.fK`J,rd f (k dvrk Nt 1 J A Operator CHALLENGER' 01761 CITE' OF ASPEN 130 south galena street aspen, colorado: 81611 303-925 -2020 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM NAME JOHN B. WOGAN, JR. and JAQUELINE T. WOGAN ADDRESS 230 Lake Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 PHONE (303) 925-2041 DATE SUBMITTED June 24,1986 FEES , $ 1,570,00 (Application for Subdivision Exception and Growth NAME OF PROJECT Wogan Lot Split Management Exemption for Wogan Lot Split) PRESENT ZONING LOT SIZE, LOCATION R-6 21,576 sq. ft., Legal Description set forth on artarh Pri Exhibit "A" See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein. (indicate street address, lot and block number. May require legal description. A vicinity map is very useful.) QWS-fly 3 Sao 1 -S"V i6 W_-Fc.w{I1behksCIF- CURRENT BUILD -OUT -5,39g" sq. ft. _ units PROPOSED BUILD -OUT 8,417 sq. ft. 2 single-family residencesunits DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING USES Property contains a single-family residence comprising less than 3,500 sq. ft. DESCRIPTION OF LAND USE PROPOSAL See Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein. TYPE OF APPLICATION Subdivision Exception for Lot Split APPLICABLE CODE SECTION (S) Subsections 20-19 and 24-11.2(d PLAT AMENDMENT REQUIRED X YES NO DATE PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE COMPLETED April 7, 1986 ATTACHMENTS: 1. All applicants must supply Proof of Ownership in the form of a title insurance commitment or statement from an attorney indicating that he/she has researched the title and verifies that the applicant is the owner of the property (free of liens and eucumbrances.) 2. If the process requires a public hearing, a Property Owner's List must be supplied which gives all owners within 300 feet in all directions in some cases and adjacent owners in some cases. 3. Number of copies required (by code and/or in pre -application conference.) 4. Plat by Registered Surveyor X Yes _No 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Wogan Lot Split DATE: August 21, 1986 LOCATION: 230 Lake Avenue, SE 1/2 Lot 12, Lots 13, 14 and 15, Block 103 Hallam Addition, City of Aspen. ZONING: R-6. LOT SIZE: 21,675 sq. ft. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicants, John B. and Jacqueline T. Wogan, request a GMP exemption and subdivision exception for the purpose of splitting a 21,675 sq. ft. parcel into two lots, approximately 13,209 sq. ft. and 8,466 sq. ft. each. BACKGROUND: Application for a lot split of this property was first processed in 1984 under the name of the owner Bennis. After it is was sold, the application was reviewed by City Council as the Wogan Lot Split. On October 9, 1984 Council denied the requested lot split. From the minutes of that meeting it appears that Council's concerns were the effects of building and lighting on the Hallam Lake sanctuary, the visual impact of development on Lake Avenue and traffic impacts. At this time Council was also considering a moratorium on lot splits. APPLICABLE SECTION OF THE CODE: Ordinance No. 8 of 1986 amended Section 24-11 . 2 (d) of the Municipal Code to allow a GMP exemption for splitting of merged lots in the Aspen townsite and early additions for the construction of single family houses on each lot created. The subject property is in the Hallam Addition and is eligible for the lot split GMP exemption subject to City Council approval. Attached is a copy of Ordinance 8 listing the relevant review criteria. Section 20-19 (a) (1) , (2) and (3) state the Planning Commission's criteria for reviewing subdivision exception as follows: 1) That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the subject property such that the strict application of the provisions of this chapter for which an exception is sought would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; and • 0 2) That the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicants; and 3) That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area in which the subject property is situated. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: A. Referral Comments: 1. Engineering Department - In a memorandum from Elyse Elliott dated July 23, 1986 a number of plat deficiencies were pointed out. Most corrections have subsequently been made to the plat. 2. Aspen Center for Environmental Studies: On July 29, 1986 Tom Cardamone, Director of A.C. E. S. , stated the following concerns: a. Outdoor lighting on the two houses would allow predators to see their prey better in the A.C. E. S. sanctuary. As a result of the increased city lights Hallam Lake has already lost goose nests, blue herons and snowy egrets. b. The location, height, and any potential decks on a new house should be established to minimize visual impacts and intrusion onto Hallam Lake. C. Care should be taken that no dirt or debris is dumped over the bank as it would effect the surroundings of Hallam Lake. d. Hot tubs and the like should not drain into Hallam Lake. e. Cutting and severe trimming of trees can have detrimental effects on the pristine quality of the Hallam Lake Avenue. B. Planning Office Comments: The character of the Wogan property is distinguished by the relatively flat area on the edge of the mesa with mature cottonwoods along Lake Avenue and the western border of the property. There are numerous cotton- woods, aspens and evergreens over six inches in diameter located around the existing house and within the western yard where a second house would be sited. The back portion of the property includes steep slope going down to Hallam Lake. The applicant has submitted a building envelope that would 2 restrict development away from the steep bank and protect most of the existing trees. The building envelope appears to mitigate most potential problems regarding Hallam Lake and the effect on the character of the Lake Avenue street- scape . In addition, Section 13-76 requires approval by the Parks Director and Building Inspector prior to removing any trees over 6" in diameter. There are 6 such trees within the envelope and we believe that care should be taken to design the house in a way to preserve those trees. TO further protect the interests of Hallam Lake we believe that the envelope should be adjusted to be 45 feet south of the northwest property line. Because of the flat site, there are few outstanding environ- mental concerns other than the protection of trees and construction activities as may affect the hillside. If those trees on the new lot cannot be saved, they should be replaced on the site. Similarly, there are many trees directly abutting the existing house. If this house is demolished or expanded, then the trees removed should be replaced to help maintain the character of the property as it contributes to the Lake Avenue neighborhood. It should be noted that the existing house has some association with Herbert Beyer and is not designated as an historical structure; therefore it is not at this time subject to review before it is altered or demolished. The applicant has addressed the review criteria of Section 24-2(d) in the application Exhibit "B"; and the Planning Office agrees with their argument. PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATIONS: We recommend that the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the requested sub- division exception and GMP exemption subject to the following conditions: 1. A building envelope shall be designated on the plat as proposed except that the northwestern line shall be adjusted south by forty-five feet. 2. Applicant shall agree to limit the placement and illumination of lights on the subject property to minimize impacts on the A.C. E. S. property. 3. Applicant shall agree to join any future improvement districts in the event they are formed. 3 4. A subdivision exception plat conforming to Sections 20-15 and 20-16 and to be approved by the City Engineer shall be filed with the County Clerk and Recorders Office. Included on the plat shall be a note meeting the provisions of Section 24- 11.2(d)(4). 5. A statement of subdivision exception shall be filed with the County Clerk and Recorders Office to the satisfaction of the City Attorney. 6. A park dedication fee shall be required for construction of a new house. 7. Both houses shall be restricted to single-family residences pursuant to Section 24-11.2(d). 8. No dirt or debris shall be dumped over the bank that goes down to Hallam Lake. SB. 814 4 proPo55ad Lo'Lin r un C01,513tV4 :Y P11 , ostaLvtLiMe Av53J t / Pr, O P - - to be by cItyCo.-, p�+.14,re.34 ?� - �. �►�� s � 2 �� d 7 + �- LDT 16 C, G s k 99. ;y' +'�."cyv rr•1O ccBc.Q C,D I, WLQCLL7 W JOUNSON. N50N-'.Dt,IGFcL L0W e5l t�SSJCILITES, INC). N R�;GISTEREC7 SURVEYOGt IN Twc— STATE OF CCLDPAt , CO -Ti FY 7ULT CN 7 ic- t oTE, DAY OF N,)GUST, 19717, A 5UR\/EY WL 5 MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION OF iT-JE PG2Q4PER7Y So�tN "QI ZEON AND D ONE STORY MA50tjwt-�5E. WAS FOUND TO BE LJC.C�TE0 EtJTIQELY PV-ZO - PQRTY LINES. /,LL E457=MI=NT5 OR ENCPOLC-WMENTS IN EVIDENCE OR V N)3NN m ME LIRE SNOW N. 5410 SUrZVE S TRUE LAND L�)RpTE TO T�;�I K=STCF MY �ICANLEDG� LAN D BELJ E F. LIKE 1VIV--. mlu I, HAROLD W STATE OF 15'TH .AY SHOWN HEF AS SHOWN. HAROLD W. JONNS0N-L0WSFELL0W 8t �SSC�CIpTES,1tJC. CHARLES C. NICOLA ATTORNEY AT LAW 1940 FIRST INTERSTATE TOWER NORTH 633 SEVENTEENTH STREET DENVER,COLORADO B0202 (303) 292-9902 September 24, 1986 Aspen City Council Aspen, Colorado Gentlemen: I own the property at 315 West Smuggler in Aspen. Sometime ago I wrote you in support of the appli- cation made by Mr, and Mrs. John B. Wogan for per- mission to construct two residences on their property at 240 Lake Street. It is my understand- ing that their application was denied. I am advised that they have made a second similar application with you. Again, I wish to support that application. The Wogan property is close to mine, and I would much prefer to see two houses on their lot rather than a duplex. In my opinion there are already too many large duplexes on Lake Street. I urge you to act favorably on their application. Very truly yours, CCN:lm VICTOR, A. UUNDY, ARCHITECT FAIA NANCY LUNDY 701 MULBERRY LANE, BELLAIRE, TEXAS 77401 Mr. William L. Stirling Mayor, City Council of Aspen Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Wogan Lot Split Parcel ID#2735-124-01-002 Dear Mr. Stirling: Our vote is against a lot split for the Wogan Property. 713/ 664-2330 We have lived across the Street from the Bayer House property, now owned by the Wogans, for 16 years. We have been a part of Aspen since 1949. Therefore we are deeply alarmed with the way certain parts of Lake Avenue have become grotesquely overbuilt. The Wogans, who have already contributed to this condition, are once again planning to choke their new property with two large houses. And then perhaps move on, leaving their neighbors and Aspen with the irrevocable loss of green space, as they did with their former house next door. Priscilla Barnard and the Sam Mitchells, the original owners of the Wogan and Mar- shall properties, bought the lot between them specifically to protect the land as open space. The foresight they used in the early 60's has resulted in untold pleas- ure, not only for the subsequent owners but all of their neighbors and passersby. If the Wogans are allowed a lot split, even with conditions, the future owners of the Marshall and Hume properties will demand the same. The inevitable conclusion will be a repeat of the monstrous overbuilding across Lake Avenue from Triangle Park, and the ruination of the entire corridor to the Tent. This is such a special walk, so unique in its beauty, it breaks my heart to see it destroyed by greed and self-serving notions of what "progress" means. For these reasons, we are against a lot split for the Woaan property. We are for maintaining the concept of one house on the whole property. One house, even a dup- lex, is better than two. We feel the future of Lake Avenue will be better protected with the denial of a lot split. Since ely, NANCY L DY NL:ghm Enclosures: 4a: Copies F E L L O W A M E R I C A N I N S T I T U T E O F A R C H I T E C T S N A T 1 0 N A L r 0 U N C I L O F A R C II I T E C T U R A L REGI STRAT ION B O A R D S Z QW/ 1f�fiA �• .�� f r 0 0� oa a / f r Q: n z 0 0 Cl) a 133a S W I H1 H�l3 cch/ H- G, 1 VICTOR A. LUNDY, ARCHITECT, FAIA AUGUST 18, 1986 The attached Diagram (showing the Holy Cross Electric System) is herewith submitted to demonstrate the orientations of the houses involved with respect to each other and to the existing open green area that should be preserved. The open green area is strategically located at the end of North Street and apimportant juncture with Lake Avenue. With the existing buildings to the east forming an effective "wall" to Hallam Lake, the open area is all the more important. It is part of the history of the area, an important part of the beauty of Lake Avenue, the reason so many people walk,to the Tent for music, etc. What is in place now works as an effective open"green" for all the houses marked in yellow on the attached sheet. To plug that with yet another large man-made object would effectively destroy what works now for six houses immediately concerned. That beautiful swath of green is o.ne;.of the last remaining visual connections of the "West End" area of Aspen with Hallam Lake to the East. k The Mitchell House is a classic, properly seen by all across the generous green. yet All these views would be clogged up forever by the intrusion of another building, If the'Wogans are allowed a lot split, even with conditions, the future owners of the Marshall and Hume properties will demand the same. The gross overscaled, over- building now in place across Lake Avenue from Triangle Park should be stopped. The concept of .one house on the whole Wogan property should be maintained. When Mrs. Mitchell and Prissie Barnard decided not to build there ever - they made an infinitely wise decision, that reached beyond personal gain - it was a wise idea, good for the whole West End of Aspen, and for the future. Spoiling that should not be permitted. Aspen and the future of Lake Avenue will be far better protected by denying the Wogan Lot Split. l/ a LU o m w = cc) z o dM_ T_ CU to � cc � `°' STATEMENT OF EXCEPTION in FROM THE FULL SUBDIVISION PROCESS ," FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBDIVIDING THE WOGAN PROPERTY ro = AT 240 LAKE AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO WHERAS, __3OHN B. WOGAN, JR. and JAQUELINE T. WOGAN (hereinafter referred to as "Wogans") are the owners of a parcel of real property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, Wogans have requested an exception from the full subdivision process for the purpose of subdividing the property described on Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Aspen, Colorado, at its regular meeting on October 14, 1986, determined that Wogans' request for such subdivision was appropriate and granted the same, subject however, to the conditions described hereinafter. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of Aspen, Colorado, does determine that the application for exception from the full subdivision process for the purpose of subdivision of the property described on the attached Exhibit "A" is proper and hereby grants said subdivision, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the foregoing exception is expressly conditioned upon: 1. No building permits for the new lot shall issue until the submission to and acceptance by Tom Cardamone, Director, Aspen Center for Environmental Studies, of a lighting plan designed to reduce the lighting impacts on its Hallam Lake Sanctuary. 2. Wogans agree to participate in any future improvement districts encompassing their property. 3. A park dedication fee shall be paid upon construction of a new residence upon the unimproved portion of the newly divided lots. 4. Each of the newly created lots are exempt from GMP only for single-family residences pursuant to Section 24-11.2(d) of the Zoning Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado. 5. No dirt or debris shall be dumped over the bank sloping from the back of the newly divided lots down to Hallam Lake. 6. Wogans agree to void the demolition permit obtained by them on September 8, 1986, for the purpose of razing the structure at 240 Lake Avenue, Aspen, Colorado, and, for the period of the moratorium on demolition, further agree that they will neither oppose nor object to the review of this structure, in the same manner that other structures are being reviewed for historic designation, or its designation as a historic structure, if such designation is recommended. - 1 - BOOK 5'�7 PAGE 711 DATED this % day of1986. JOHN B. WOGAN, 1R. JAQUELINE T. WOGAN CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporate By WILLIAM L. IRLING, ffayor APPR9VF,E� AS TO FORM: PAUL J. TADDUNE, City Attor ey I. KATHRYN S. KOCH, do hereby certify that the foregoing Statement of Exception from the Full Subdivision Process for the Purpose of Subdividing the Wogan Property at 240 Lake Avenue, Aspen, Colorado, was considered and approved by the Aspen City Council and that the Mayor, William L. Stirling, was authorized to execute the same on behalf of the City of Aspen. KATHRYN . KOCH, City Clerk STATE OF COLORADO / ) ss. COUNTY OF l�r IXII ) y: Aforegoing instrument was acknowledged before me thisa?� day 1986, by JOHN B . WOGAN, JR . and JAQUEL INE T . WOGAN. • Pu��,\G ---tTNESS my hand and offic • al seal. <<P4y commission expires: ;?�/ J�'y ry Public" STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me ��',i.kj day of 198 by William L. Stirling, as MayoI, nd�hryn S. och as Ci Clerk of the CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: pt, 0/27/88. {� tary 15�b exception stmt/LOTSPL - 2 - 00 soox 527 PAGE712 EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL 1 All of Lots 13, 14 and 1.5, Block 103, Hallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado PARCEL 2 Lot 12, Block 103, Hallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, excepting therefrom: A tract of land being the Northwesterly 1/2 of Lot 12, more fully described as follows: Beginning at the most Westerly corner of said Lot 12, thence around a curve to the left with a radius of 483.05 feet, a distance of 25 feet (the chord of which curve bears S. 23*11'30" E. 25 feet); thence N. 65°19'30" E. 125 feet; thence around a curve to the right with a radius of 385.05 feet, a distance of 18.53 feet (the chord of which curve bears N. 23°11'30" W. 18.53 feet); thence S. 68`17'30" W. 125 feet to the point of beginning. PARCEL 3 A tract of land in the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., said tract is more fully described as follows: Beginning at the most easterly corner of Lot 15, Block 103, Hallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, thence N. 44*34' E. 33.50 feet; thence N. 50'03'30" W. 127.32 feet to the point on the Northeasterly line of Lot 12 of said Block 103; thence around a curve to the left with a radius of 358.'05 feet, a distance of 129.71 feet along the Northeasterly lines of Lots 12, 13, 14 and 15 of said Block 103 to the true point of beginning, the chord of said curve bears-S. 35003' E. 129.01 feet. County of Pitkin, State of Colorado •0 N r] MEMORANDUM TO: Fred Gannett, City Attorney's Office FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Wogan Letter of Exception DATE: December 23, 1986 After reviewing the letter of exception for the Wogan Lot Split prepared by Mr. Luhman on December 11, 1986 I have the following comments: 1. I agree with your comments on condition 1. (add Planning Office so to coordinate the review of lighting), 2. (regarding agreement to join improvement districts) , 3. ("paid" and not payable), 4, 5, and 6. 2. A final condition of approval was made by council on October 14, 1986 that the applicant shall agree volun- tarily to be subject to HPC review criteria on any alteration to the Beyer House until the expiration of the Moratorium on Demolition of Historic Structures and will not oppose individual historic designation of the Beyer House at 240 Lake Avenue. This condition should be added to the letter of subdivision exception. sb.357 CITY OF ASPEN 130 south galena street aspen, Colorado 81611 303-925 -2020 MEMORANDUM TO: STEVE FR: FRED RE: WOGAN LETTER OF EXCEPTION DATE: DECEMBER 16, 1986 Please review the enclosed letter of exception with respect to applicant's rendition of conditions imposed by the City Council. I have the following concerns with the enumerated condit- ions. 1. Should the Planning Department be co -listed with Tom Cardamone as being responsible for signing off for the lighting concern? 2. The sentence should be amended to read "Wogans agree to participate in any future improvement districts encompassing their property." 3. Would it be preferable to require payment of park dedica- tion fees upon receiving the building permit? 4. OK, I guess. 5. Perhaps the clause should read as follows, "dumped or caused to be dumped over the bank...", and should their be a penalty clause requiring the applicant to correct any spillage and/or damage to Hallam Lake? 6. Fine as is. 0 • r , ?�' LAW OFFICES GIDEON I. KAUFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Box 10001 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 305 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 GIDEON I. KAUFMAN TELEPHONE AREA CODE 303 December 11, 1986 925-8166 HAND -DELIVERED Paul Taddune, Esquire Aspen City Attorney 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Wogan Lot Split Dear Paul: Enclosed for your review and approval is the original Subdivision Exception Agreement which we have prepared in connection with the referenced matter. Please note that, contemporaneous with the delivery of this document to your office, the final survey has been delivered to Elyse in the Engineering Department for her review. Naturally, it is our hope that with this simultaneous review, together with your prompt attention to the enclosed, will result in the finalization of this project within the next few weeks. Thank you for your thoughtful attention. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, a Professional Corporation M chafd -S. Lu RSL/bw cc: Jack and Jackie Wogan STATEMENT OF EXCEPTION FROM THE FULL SUBDIVISION PROCESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBDIVIDING THE WOGAN PROPERTY AT 240 LAKE AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO WHEREAS, JOHN B. WOGAN, JR. and JAQUELINE T. WOGAN (hereinafter referred to as "Wogans") are the owners of a parcel of real property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, Wogans have requested an exception from the full subdivision process for the purpose of subdividing the property described on Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Aspen, Colorado, at its regular meeting on October 14, 1986, determined that Wogans' request for such subdivision was appropriate and granted the same, subject however, to the conditions described hereinafter. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of Aspen, Colorado, does determine that the application for exception from the full subdivision process for the purpose of subdivision of the property described on the attached Exhibit "A" is proper and hereby grants said subdivision, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the foregoing exception is expressly conditioned upon: 1. No building permits for the new lot shall issue until the submission to and acceptance by Tom Cardamone, Director, Aspen Center for Environmental Studies, of a lighting plan designed to reduce the lighting impacts on its Hallam Lake Sanctuary. 2. Wogans agree to participate in any future improvement districts formed to benefit their property. 3. A park dedication fee shall be payable upon construction of a new residence upon the unimproved portion of the newly divided lots. 4. Each of the newly created lots are exempt from GMP only for single-family residences pursuant to Section 24-11.2(d) of the Zoning Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado. 5. No dirt or debris shall be dumped over the bank sloping from the back of the newly divided lots down to Hallam Lake. 6. Wogans agree to void the demolition permit obtained by them on September 8, 1986, for the purpose of razing the structure at 240 Lake Avenue, Aspen, Colorado. DATED this day of , 1986. (SIGNATURES AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ON FOLLOWING PAGE) - 1 - • • CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation By WILLIAM L. STIRLING, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: PAUL J. TADDUNE, City Attorney JOHN B. WOGAN, JR. JAQUELINE T. WOGAN I. KATHRYN S. KOCH, do hereby certify that the foregoing Statement of Exception from the Full Subdivision Process for the Purpose of Subdividing the Wogan Property at 240 Lake Avenue, Aspen, Colorado, was considered and approved by the Aspen City Council and that the Mayor, William L. Stirling, was authorized to execute the same on behalf of the City of Aspen. STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF ) of KATHRYN S. KOCH, City Clerk The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day 1986, by JOHN B. WOGAN, JR. and JAQUELINE T. WOGAN. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1986, by William L. Stirling, as Mayor, and Kathryn S. Koch as City Clerk of the CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: exception stmt/LOTSPL Notary Public - 2 - EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL 1 All of Lots 13, 14 and 15, Block 103, Hallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado PARCEL 2 Lot 12, Block 103, Hallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, excepting therefrom: A tract of land being the Northwesterly 1/2 of Lot 12, more fully described as follows: Beginning at the most Westerly corner of said Lot 12, thence around a curve to the left with a radius of 483.05 feet, a distance of 25 feet (the chord of which curve bears S. 23*11'30" E. 25 feet); thence N. 65'19'30" E. 125 feet; thence around a curve to the right with a radius of 385.05 feet, a distance of 18.53 feet (the chord of which curve bears N. 23*11'30" W. 18.53 feet); thence S. 68"17'30" W. 125 feet to the point of beginning. PARCEL 3 A tract of land in the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., said tract is more fully described as follows: Beginning at the most easterly corner of Lot 15, Block 103, Hallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, thence N. 44*34' E. 33.50 feet; thence N. 50'03'30" W. 127.32 feet to the point on the Northeasterly line of Lot 12 of said Block 103; thence around a curve to the left with a radius of 358.'05 feet, a distance of 129.71 feet along the Northeasterly lines of Lots 12, 13, 14 and 15 of said Block 103 to the true point of beginning, the chord of said curve bears-S. 35*03' E. 129.01 feet. County of Pitkin, State of Colorado MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THW : Robert S. Anderson, Jr. , City Manager FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE : Wogan Lot Split DATE: October 8, 1986 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the proposed subdivision exception and GMP exemption for the purpose of a lot split subject to t e nine �� conditions listed below. LOCATION: 240 Lake Avenue, SE 1/2 Lot 12, Lots 13, 14 and 15, Block 103 Hallam Addition, City of Aspen. ZONING: R- 6 . LOT SIZE: 21,675 sq. ft. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicants, John B. and Jacqueline T. Wogan, request a GMP exemption and subdivision exception for the purpose of splitting a 21,675 sq. ft. parcel into two lots, approximately 13,209 sq. ft. and 8,466 sq. ft. each. rev1;r4 1ot111"es kPl"'"304 I 'I t I1 %) `7f, r fit lof $it?* ft Yi;� ,,+ tb �� BACKGROUND: Appf ication for a lot split of this property was first processed in 1984 under the name of the owner Bennis. After the property was sold, the application was reviewed by City Council as the Wogan Lot Split. On October 9, 1984 Council denied the requested lot split. From the minutes of that meeting it appears that Council's concerns were the effects of building bulk and lighting on the Hallam Lake sanctuary, the visual impact of development on Lake Avenue and traffic impacts. At this time Council was also considering a moratorium on lot splits. APPLICABLE SECTION OF THE CODE: Ordinance No. 8 of 1986 amended Section 24-11 .2 (d) of the Municipal Code to allow a GMP exemption for splitting of merged lots in the Aspen townsite and early additions for the construction of single family houses on each lot created. The subject property is in the Hallam Addition and is eligible for the lot split GMP exemption subject to City Council approval. Attached is a copy of Ordinance 8 listing the relevant review criteria. Section 20-19 (a) (1) , (2) and (3) state the Planning Commission's criteria for reviewing subdivision exception as follows: • 1) That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the subject property such that the strict application of the provisions of this chapter for which an exception is sought would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; and 2) That the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicants; and 3) That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area in which the subject property is situated. Section 20-19 (c) states the criteria f or City Council's review of a subdivision exception as follows "... (Council) deems certain requirements to be redundant, serve no public purpose and to be unnecessary in relation to the land use policies of the City of Aspen under the facts and circumstances presented and not with- standing the exception, finds that the proposed subdivision will substantially comply with the design standards of this chapter." ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: On August 19, 1986 the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 in favor and 2 opposed to pass a motion recommending denial of the proposed Wogan Lot Split, based on the findings that (1) denial of the subdivision exception would not deprive the property owners of the opportunity for reasonable use of their land and (2) granting of this subdivision exception would be injurious to neighbor's properties. KEY ISSUES: The Planning Commission expressed the following concerns: 1. Development of two new single family houses to the maximum allowable FAR may be incompatible with the character of neighborhood and the natural environment of Hallam Lake. 2. The existing house, designed in part by Herbert Beyer, has historic significance and should not be demolished. 3. The lots would have unusual shapes as the proposed lot line bows out to create a larger building site in the front ( Lake Avenue) portion of the lot. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: A. Referral Comments: 1. Engineering Department - In a memorandum from Elyse Elliott dated July 23, 1986 a number of plat deficiencies Fa were pointed out. Most corrections have subsequently been made to the plat. 2. Aspen Center for Environmental Studies: On July 29, 1986 Tom Cardamone, Director of A. C. E. S. , stated the following concerns: a. Outdoor lighting on the two houses would allow predators to see their prey better in the A.C.E. S. sanctuary. As a result of the increased city lights Hallam Lake has already lost goose nests, blue herons and snowy egrets. b. The location, height, and any potential decks on a new house should be established to minimize visual impacts and intrusion onto Hallam Lake. C. Care should be taken that no dirt or debris is dumped over the bank as it would effect the surroundings of Hallam Lake. d. Hot tubs and the like should not drain into Hallam Lake. e. Cutting and severe trimming of trees can have detrimental effects on the pristine quality of the Hallam Lake Avenue. B. Planning Office Comments: The Wogan property contains a relatively flat area on the edge of the mesa with mature cottonwoods along Lake Avenue and the western border of the property. There are numerous cottonwoods, aspens and evergreens over six inches in diameter located around the existing house and within the western yard where a second house would be sited. The back portion of the property consists of steep slope going down to Hallam Lake. The applicant has submitted a building envelope that would restrict development away from the steep bank and protect most of the existing trees. The building envelope appears to mitigate most potential problems regarding Hallam Lake and the effect on the character of the Lake Avenue street- s cape. While some P&Z members are concerned that the new house location and potential size are not appropriate, the Planning Office continues to believe that the proposed building envelope restricts development to the most logical area of the site, allows for landscape screening and allows f or a house to be built that would not be out of character in size or architecture with the neighborhood. Section 13-76 requires approval by the Parks Director and Building Inspector prior to removing any trees over 6" in N diameter. There are 6 such trees within the envelope and we believe that care should be taken to design the house in a way to preserve those trees. To further protect the interests of Hallam Lake we recommend that the envelope be adjusted to be 45 feet south of the northwest property line. The applicant has indicated that the proposed lot line and building envelope would be changed to eliminate this problem. Clarification is anticipated at Council's meeting. Because of the flat site, there are few outstanding environ- mental concerns other than the protection of trees and construction activities as may affect the hillside. The existing house, in part designed by Herbert Beyer, is not designated as an historical structure, but is listed on the 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures as updated. The applicant obtained a demolition permit prior to the six month demolition moratorium effective September 22, 1986. Therefore, demolition can proceed if the owners desire. Staff considers the existing house to be an important historic resource that should be preserved. One of the intended benefits of the Zoning Code, which by reference in Section 20-9(c) also applies to subdivision activities, is stated in Section 24-1.2 (i) "to preserve our areas of historical and archaeological importance, and provide for adequate open space and preservation of scenic views. Objective 1 (d) of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Historic Preservation Element (adopted October, 1986) is to "discourage demolition of significant historic structures identified and evaluated in the 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures as it has been amended in 1986." Accordingly, staff recommends that the demolition permit for the 240 Lake Avenue house be voided by the applicant as part of a subdivision exception agreement. In so doing, the applicant's property would then be subject to the Demolition Moratorium and any legislative action (anticipated within the next 5 months) effecting the ability to demolish, remove, or alter historic structures. In conversations with the appli- cant's representative, we find a willingness to accept this condition as part of your approving the lot split. The applicants are expected to present more information about their intentions to preserve the house at your meeting. It should be noted that the lot split may be the best and one of the only ways to save the existing house from demolition or extensive alteration/expansion. The applicants have addressed the review criteria of Section 24-2(d) in the application Exhibit "B"; and the Planning 4 1� \ RWI-`1 Office agrees with the arguments they have presented. PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDED MOTION: We recommend that Council approve of the requested subdivision exception and GMP exemption wiht the following motion: "Move to grant subdivision exception and GMP exemption to the Wogans for the purposes of a lot split, subject to the following conditions: 1. A building envelope shall be designated on the plat as proposed except that the northwestern line shall be adjusted south by forty-five feet. 2. Applicant shall agree to limit the placement and illumination of lights on the subject property to minimize impacts on the A. C.E.S. property. A lighting plan shall be submitted to A. C.E.S. Director, Tom Cardamone to his acceptance prior to issuance of any building permits. 3. Applicant shall agree to join any future improvement districts in the event they are formed. 4. A subdivision exception plat conforming to Sections 20- 15 and 20-16 and to be approved by the City Engineer shall be filed with the County Clerk and Recorders Office. Included on the plat shall be a note meeting the provisions of Section 24-11 .2 (d) ( 4) . 5. A statement of subdivision exception shall be filed with the County Clerk and Recorders Office to the satisfaction of the City Attorney. 6. A park dedication fee shall be required for construction of a new house. 7. Both houses shall be restricted to single-family residences pursuant to Section 24-11 .2 (d) . 8. No dirt or debris shall be dumped over the bank that goes down to Hallam Lake. 9. The applicants shall agree to void the permit obtained for the demolition of the house at 240 Lake Avenue and shall state this commitment in the Statement of Sub- division Exception. JIT-1 / ^c %� 1 I' i� �� S►1 � �...��,t t U h I 1 s 6 G� 9 � /%4 w i� M t�' /�f�Yr �tiv Gl� �',,/ M vrz�`►�iur�� • E MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THFU Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office RE: Wogan Lot Split DATE: October 8, 1986 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the proposed subdivision exception and GMP exemption for the purpose of a lot split subject to the nine (9) conditions listed below. LOCATION: 240 Lake Avenue, SE 1/2 Lot 12, Lots 13, 14 and 1-5, Block 103 Hallam Addition, City of Aspen. ZONING: R-6. LOT SIZE: 21,675 sq. ft. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicants, John B. and Jacqueline T. Wogan, request a GMP exemption and subdivision exception for the purpose of splitting a 21,675 sq. ft. parcel into two lots, approximately 13,209 sq. ft. and 8,466 sq. ft. each. BACKGROUND: Application for a lot split of this property was first processed in 1984 under the name of the owner Bennis. After the property was sold, the application was reviewed by City Council as the Wogan Lot Split. On October 9, 1984 Council denied the requested lot split. From the minutes of that meeting it appears that Council's concerns were the effects of building bulk and lighting on the Hallam Lake sanctuary, the visual impact of development on Lake Avenue and traffic impacts. At this time Council was also considering a moratorium on lot splits. APPLICABLE SECTION OF THE CODE: Ordinance No. 8 of 1986 amended Section 24-11 .2 (d) of the Municipal Code to allow a GMP exemption for splitting of merged lots in the Aspen townsite and early additions for the construction of single family houses on each lot created. The subject property is in the Hallam Addition and is eligible for the lot split GMP exemption subject to City Council approval. Attached is a copy of Ordinance 8 listing the relevant review criteria. Section 20-19 (a) (1) ,(2) and (3) state the Planning Commission's criteria for reviewing subdivision exception as follows: • 1) That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the subject property such that the strict application of the provisions of this chapter for which an exception is sought would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; and 2) That the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicants; and 3) That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area in which the subject property is situated. Section 20-19 (c) states the criteria for City Council's review of a subdivision exception as follows "...(Council) deems certain requirements to be redundant, serve no public purpose and to be unnecessary in relation to the land use policies of the City of Aspen under the facts and circumstances presented and not with- standing the exception, finds that the proposed subdivision will substantially comply with the design standards of this chapter." ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: On August 19, 1986 the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 in favor and 2 opposed to pass a motion recommending denial of the proposed Mogan Lot Split, based on the findings that (1) denial of the subdivision_ exception would not deprive the property owners of the opportunity for reasonable use of their land and (2) granting of this subdivision exception would be injurious to neighbor's properties. KEY ISSUES: The Planning Commission expressed the following concerns: 1. Development of two new single family houses to the maximum allowable FAR may be incompatible with the character of neighborhood and the natural environment of Hallam Lake. 2. The existing house, designed in part by Herbert Beyer, has historic significance and should not be demolished. 3. The lots would have unusual shapes as the proposed lot line bows out to create a larger building site in the front (Lake Avenue) portion of the lot. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: A. Referral Comments: 1.. Engineering Department - In a memorandum from Elyse Elliott dated July 23, 1986 a number of plat deficiencies 2 C1 • were pointed out. Most corrections have subsequently been made to the plat. 2. Aspen Center for Environmental Studies: On July 29, 1986 Tom Cardamone, Director of A. C. E. S. , stated the following concerns: a. Outdoor lighting on the two houses would allow predators to see their prey better in the A.C.E.S. sanctuary. As a result of the increased city lights Hallam Lake has already lost goose nests, blue herons and snowy egrets. b. The location, height, and any potential decks on a new house should be established to minimize visual impacts and intrusion onto Hallam Lake. C. Care should be taken that no dirt or debris is dumped over the bank as it would effect the surroundings of Hallam Lake. d. Hot tubs and the like should not drain into Hallam Lake. e. Cutting and severe trimming of trees can have detrimental effects on the pristine quality of the Hallam Lake Avenue. B. Planning Office Comments: The Wogan property contains a relatively flat area on the edge of the mesa with mature cottonwoods along Lake Avenue and the western border of the property. There are numerous cottonwoods, aspens and evergreens over six inches in diameter located around the existing house and within the western yard where a second house would be sited. The back portion of the property consists of steep slope going down to Hallam Lake. The applicant has submitted a building envelope that would restrict development away from the steep bank and protect most of the existing trees. The building envelope appears to mitigate most potential problems regarding Hallam Lake and the effect on the character of the Lake Avenue street- s cape. WY_ile some P&Z members are concerned that the new house location and potential size are not appropriate, the Planning Office continues to believe that the proposed building envelope restricts development to the most logical area of the site, allows for landscape screening and allows for a house to be built that would not be out of character in size or architecture with the neighborhood. Section 13-76 requires approval by the Parks Director and Building Inspector prior to removing any trees over 6" in 3 diameter. There are 6 such trees within the envelope and we believe that care should be taken to design the house in a way to preserve those trees. To further protect the interests of Hallam Lake we recommend that the envelope be adjusted to be 45 feet south of the northwest property line. The applicant has indicated that the proposed lot line and building envelope would be changed to eliminate this problem. Clarification is anticipated at Council's meeting. Because of the flat site, there are few outstanding environ- mental concerns other than the protection of trees and construction activities as may affect the hillside. The existing house, in part designed by Herbert Beyer, is not designated as an historical structure, but is listed on the 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures as updated. The applicant obtained a demolition permit prior to the six month demolition moratorium effective September 22, 1986. Therefore, demolition can proceed if the owners desire. Staff considers the existing house to be an important historic resource that should be preserved. One of the intended benefits of the Zoning Code, which by reference in Section 20-9(c) also applies to subdivision activities, is stated in Section 24-1.2(i) "to preserve our areas of historical and archaeological importance, and provide for adequate open space and preservation of scenic views. " Objective 1 (d) of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Historic Preservation Element (adopted October, 1986) is to "discourage demolition of significant historic structures identified and evaluated in the 1980 Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures as it has been amended in 1986." Accordingly, staff recommends that the demolition permit for the 240 Lake Avenue house be voided by the applicant as part of a subdivision exception agreement. In so doing, the applicant's property would then be subject to the Demolition Moratorium and any legislative action (anticipated within the next 5 months) effecting the ability to demolish, remove, or alter historic structures. In conversations with the appli- cant's representative, we find a willingness to accept this condition as part of your approving the lot split. The applicants are expected to present more information about their intentions to preserve the house at your meeting. It should be noted that the lot split may be the best and one of the only ways to save the existing house from demolition or extensive alteration/expansion. The applicants have addressed the review criteria of Section 24-2(d) in the application Exhibit "B"; and the Planning 4 • • Office agrees with the arguments they have presented. PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDED MOTION: We recommend that Council approve of the requested subdivision exception and GMP exemption wiht the following motion: "Move to grant subdivision exception and GNP exemption to the Wogans for the purposes of a lot split, subject to the following conditions: 1. A building envelope shall be designated on the plat as proposed except that the northwestern line shall be adjusted south by forty-five feet. 2. Applicant shall agree to limit the placement and illumination of lights on the subject property to minimize impacts on the A. C.E.S. property. A lighting plan shall be submitted to A. C.E.S. Director, Tom Cardamone to his acceptance prior to issuance of any building permits. 3. Applicant shall agree to join any future improvement districts in the event they are formed. 4. A subdivision exception plat conforming to Sections 20- 15 and 20-16 and to be approved by the City Engineer shall be filed with the County Clerk and Recorders Office. Included on the plat shall be a note meeting the provisions of Section_ 24-11 .2 (d) (4) . 5. A statement of subdivision exception shall be filed with the County Clerk and Recorders Office to the satisfaction of the City Attorney. 6. A park dedication fee shall be required for construction of a new house. 7. Both houses shall be restricted to single-family residences pursuant to Section 24-11 .2 (d) . 8. No dirt or debris shall be dumped over the bank that goes down to Hallam Lake. 9. The applicants shall agree to void the permit obtained for the demolition of the house at 240 Lake Avenue and shall state this commitment in the Statement of Sub- division Exception. 5 CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION: SB.814 EXHIBIT "B" The applicants propose the division of their property into two lots. The property comprises 21,576 sq. ft., as described on the preceding Exhibit "A", also known as 240 Lake Avenue, Aspen, Colorado. Application is made under Subsection 20-19 Exceptions and Exemptions from the Definition of Subdivision; and Subsection 24-11.2(d) Exemptions from Growth Management and Allotment, as amended by Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1986, entitled "An Ordinance of the Aspen City Council Repealing and Re -Enacting Section 24-11.2(d) to Change the Eligibility Requirements for the Growth Management Plan Exemption for Lot Splits." The applicant proposes one lot of 9,203 sq. ft. and a second lot of 12,473 sq. ft. The property is in the R-6 Zone which carries a minimum lot area requirement of 6,000 sq. ft. A subdivision exception, pursuant to Subsection 20-19 is appropriate in this instance. The contemplated lot split is not within the intent and purpose of the full subdivision process because it results in minimal growth and development impacts. The purpose and intent of the full subdivision process as set forth in Subsection 20-2 states: The purpose of this regulation is to assist the orderly, efficient and integrated development of the City of Aspen; to insure the proper distribution of population and coordinate the need for public services with governmental improvement programs; to encourage well planned subdivision by setting standards for subdivision design and improvement; to improve land records and survey monuments by establishing standards for surveys, plans and plats; to safeguard the interests of the public and the subdivider, and provide consumer protection for the purchaser; to acquire a desireable public area; and to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of and visitors to the City of Aspen. The splitting of merged lots in the original townsite and subsequent additions was determined by the City Council to have minimal growth and development impacts under Subsection 1 of Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1986. In accordance with that determination, and the desire by Council to effect in -filling of existing residential neighborhoods for efficient land utilization and property taxation, the Council, under Ordinance No. 8, exempted certain development activity from complying with the allotment procedures. This proposal is consistent with Subsection 24-2(d), as amended by Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1986, which states: - 1 - 0(1 ter The following development activity shall be exempted from complying with the allotment procedures hereinafter provided for, subject to the review of the Planning & Zoning Commission and/or the Aspen City Council where it is so specifically indicated: (d) The construction of one single-family residence on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where the following conditions are met: (1) The tract of land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Board of County Commissioners or City Council; or the tract of 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. Any tract of land granted a subdivision exemption by the City Council after January 1, 1984, shall be eligible for a lot split GMP exemption if all other applicable Code provisions are satisfied; (2) No more than two (2) lots were created by the subdivision; (3) The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of an exemption under the provisions of this section or a "lot split" exception or exemption pursuant to Section 20-19. (4) A subdivision plat is submitted and recorded by the applicant after City approval indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots, nor additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to Chapter 20 and an allocation pursuant to Section 24-11.1. (5) The application was reviewed by City Council at a public hearing held pursuant to the standards of Sections 24-12.5(c)(1) and (2). The proposal set forth herein meets the preceding requirements. The subject property was acquired by the Wogans by that certain Warranty Deed dated July 16, 1984, and recorded in Book 469 at Page 660. Under the merger language set forth in Subsection 20-4(c), the parcel shall be considered an undivided parcel for purposes of the subdivision regulations. - 2 - This property is described by metes and bounds, and it has not been subdivided after the adoption of the subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969. Two lots will be created by the proposed subdivision, and no exemption under Section 24, nor an exception or exemption pursuant to Section 20-19 has been granted. While there is a legal precedent for a lot split of this nature, and it certainly fulfills the qualifications of the building code for a lot split, the strongest arguments supporting this application are from a planning standpoint. The West End was historically made up of modestly scaled residences with occasional large houses on large lots. In recent years, very large duplexes have been built that overpower their lots and their neighborhoods. This is particularly true of the three duplexes to the east of the Wogan property, and as this pattern continues, a continuing deterioration of the scale, texture and charm of the West End occurs. We have the alternative on this property of seeing two modestly scaled structures of roughly the size historically seen in the West End, rather than another large duplex. In addition, siting two smaller structures rather than one large one will result in a design which incorporates the existing trees to the best advantage. For these reasons, this lot split will be of benefit to the neighborhood. The applicants have submitted an improvement survey attached hereto as Exhibit "C", and request that the approval of this application be granted subject to the applicant's submission of a subdivision plat which conforms to Section 20-15 and 20-16, and approval by the City Engineering Department prior to recordation. - 3 - • • M E M O R A N D U M To: Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office, Aspen City Attorney, and City Council From: Law Offices of Gideon I. Kaufman, P.C. Re: Lot Splits and Review Standards Date: 10/8/86 The City of Aspen has chosen to regulate through its Subdivision Regulations various land use items which many jurisdictions do not regulate. By choosing to regulate items such as lot splits and condominiumizations, it became necessary to treat these differently than traditional subdivisions. Therefore, the City has adopted a policy to except these minor subdivisions from the full subdivision rules and regulations. Historically, Aspen has used Section 20-19 to grant relief from the strict application of the formal subdivision process to those individuals seeking lot splits. Because of the mandatory applicaion of the doctrine of merger by Aspen, many of these divisions were extremely minor and this form of relief was particularly appropriate as an exemption from the definition of subdivision. Before its amendment in 1983 (see copy attached hereto as Exhibit "A"), exceptions were only granted by the Planning Commission under very limited circumstances which have been retained under the current ordinance as Subsection (a)(1), (2), and (3); and exemption from the definition of subdivision was granted by City - 1 - Council following the receipt of the recommendation of the Planning Commission. The final sentence of that ordinance after requiring consideration of applications in both situations by the Planning Commission, required that the grounds for granting the exception or exemption be entered in the Minutes of the "granting body". This particular phrase suggests that the statutory scheme contemplated a grant by the Planning Commission, in the case of exceptions, and by the City Council in the case of exemptions. Unfortunately, this scheme presented some very real problems in that Subsection (a) would not allow any variation from design standards, and required findings of undue hardship, deprivation of reasonable use of land, and denial of a substantial property right if exception were not granted, as well as the finding that the exception not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area of the subject property. A further difficulty resulted from the fact that the exemption was specifically limited to eliminating a particular division from the definition of subdivision contained in the Code. Being an all or nothing type of provision, there was no procedure by which the Council could grant partial exemption. In 1983, the City Council, after a lot of investigation, determined that the former exception and exemption section of the subdivision regulations was too restrictive, and amended its provisions to provide for full exemption from the - 2 - • 0 subdivision definition with an advisory opinion from the Planning and Zoning Commission, if so desired (see Subsection 20-19(b)), and an additional exception procedure with the exception to be granted by the City Council after a review based on standards which are entirely different from those imposed upon the Planning Commission (see Subsection 20-19(c)). Under the new Subsection (c) which establishes this procedure, design standards need only be complied with substantially, not strictly, and the Council need only determine that the exception go to those certain requirements which it deems redundant, to serve no public purpose, and to be unnecessary in relation to the land use policies of the City of Aspen. Because these standards are so close to that contained in Subsection (b) of "not within the intent and purpose of this chapter", it seems fairly clear that the thrust of this amendment is to provide the City Council with the statutory authority to grant partial exemptions or, more accurately, exceptions from those portions of the subdivision regulations which are redundant, unnecessary to its land use policies, and serve no public purpose in the particular context. Because this amendment was done in connection with the moratorium on lot splits, it is fairly clear that a necessary concomitant of the City Council's determination was the determination that lot splits, as a matter of policy, were entitled to exception from the full subdivision process - 3 - because it was redundant, served no public purpose, and was unnecesary in relation to the land use policies of the City of Aspen in connection with lot splits. The only remaining determination is how the proposed split will substantially comply with the design standards of the subdivision regulations. In connection with this legislative expansion of authority under Section 20-19, the City Council also reserved the right to seek an advisory opinion from the Planning and Zoning Commission as it did in its amendment of the exemption provision of this particular ordinance. This type of opinion is frequently sought where a somewhat more controversial or complex decision is involved, and allows for a greater input from the public, as well as more time to reflect on the nature of the exception requested. However, that advisory opinion provision does not change the standards to be applied in assessing the exception for which application has been made. In point of fact, it makes absolutely no sense to seek an advisory opinion regarding how to apply specific standards and have the advisor turn around and render that opinion based on entirely different standards. This is, in fact, what has occurred in the exception process. For reasons which are unclear, Planning Office memos written last May concerning the same project disclose an expansion of the standards of review from those contained in Section 20-19(c) to include those standards set forth in Section 20-19(a). The shift in emphasis which was first advocated at that time ultimately came to fruition when - 4 - Planning and Zoning recently refused to recommend the Wogan Lot Split based on the standards set forth in Section 20-19(a). Not only is the application of these standards irrelevant to those which are to be used by the City Council in its review under Subsection (c), but it is impossible to say in connection with a lot split or a condominiumization that the denial of the exception would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. Even if denied, the applicant could still have the reasonable use of his land and could still continue to enjoy substantial property rights. The City's intent was to develop some type of review over lot splits and condominiumizations, but certainly not to preclude them. However, if we apply 20-19(a) as the standard that the Planning and Zoning Commission has to review, exception applications as they apply to condominiumizations and lot splits, the P&Z would be forced to deny every condominiumization and lot split because it is not possible to meet those criteria. Clearly, Subsections (a) and (c) deal with the grant of exceptions in differing situations. Each subsection contains its own standards for the grant of such an exception, and appropriately, Subsection (a) is much more restrictive since it purports to grant sole authority for the Planning Commission to grant exceptions in very limited situations apparently involving physical circumstances or conditions on - 5 - the land. In fact, this is what one would expect in a situation involving the delegation of legislative authority to a subordinate board, and is based on the general principle of municipal law which requires that a municipal corporation which seeks to delegate its authority to subordinate officers and boards, may do so only where there are fixed and- certain standards or rules which leave little or nothing to the judgment or discretion of the subordinate body. Big Sandy School District No. 100 - J, Elbert County v. Carroll, 433 P. 2d 325 (Colo. 1967). Loup -Miller Const. Co. v. City and County of Denver, 676 P. 2d 1170 (Colo. 1984). Clearly, the legislative grant of authority to the Planning Commission for the granting of exceptions under Subsection (a) complies with this principle of municipal law by setting very limited and specific standards for its exercise. However, the use of those standards in rendering an advisory opinion to the City Council is riot only irrelevant to the advice required by the City Council, but may have the negative effect of perpetuating the restrictive standards intended by the City Council to narrowly define the authority of one of its subordinate boards in very limited situations. It also runs counter to the policies and practices of the City Council in granting exceptions for lot splits and condominiumizations. In the past, both the Planning Office and Planning and Zoning Commission have chosen to ignore the standards of 20-19(a) because they have never denied a lot split or condominiumization based on those criteria. However, a better approach would be not to apply these rules and regulations rather than to ignore them. Clearly, the standards stated in 20-19 (c) for the City Council are more appropriate standards because they acknowledge the intent of review for lot splits. That is the standard that both the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council should apply. To have the Planning and Zoning Commission apply a standard different than the City Council and make a recommendation to the City Council based on different criteria makes absolutely no sense. lot split memo/DAILY4 - 7 - EXHIBIT "A" j RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Section 20-19 Exceptions and Exemptions Certain exceptions from the strict application of the provisions of this chapter and exemptions from the definition of a subdivision set forth in Sec.20-3(q) hereof may be obtained under the following conditions: (a) The Planning Commission may grant exceptions from the strict application of one or more of the standards, requirements and other provisions of this chapter (other than the design standards in Sec.20-17) when, in the judgment of the Planning Commission, undue hardship may result from struct compliance. No exception -shall be granted unless the Planning Commission finds: (1) That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the subject property such that the strict application of the pro- visions of this chapter for which an exception is sought would deprive the applicant of the I reasonable use of his land; and (2) That the exception is necessary for I the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial i ! property right of the applicant; and (3) That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare i or injurious to other property in the area in which the subject property is situated. i (b) Following receipt of a recommendation from the the Planning Commission, City Council may exempt a particular division of land from the definition of a -36- U • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Loaves I subdivision set forth in Sec. 20-3(s), when, in the judgment of the City Council, such division of land is not within the intent and purpose of this chapter. No such exception or exemption shall be granted unless a written application therefore has been sub- mitted to and considered by the Planning Commission, and the grounds for granting such exception or exemption have been entered in the minutes of the granting body by motion or resolution duly adopted. Section 20-20 Subdivision Fees (a) Upon submitting a conceptual presentation or plat to the City Planning Office for review, the applicant shall pay to the City an initial fee of One Hundred ($100.00) Dollars, plus an additional amount determined as follows: (1)For R-15,R-30,R-40,RR and Conservation Districts, the fee shall be Five ($5.00) Dollars, Twenty -Two ($22.00) Dollars, and Three ($3.00) Dollars per dwell- ing unit for the conceptual, preliminary and final plat reviews respectively. (2) For all other zoning districts the fee shall be Sixty ($60.00) Dollars, Two Hundred Eighty ($280.00) Dollars, and Thirty -Five ($35.00) Dollars per acre of land for the conceptual, preliminary and final plat reviews respectively. (b) - If in the opinion of the Planning Commission, a special study is necessary for the review of a plat, and said study cannot be executed by the City Staff, i the owner shall employ at his expense, a licensed pro- fessional or person(s) qualified to do the particular study. Prior to employment to conduct such study, the -37- • • • • EXHIBIT "B" The applicants propose the division of their property into two lots. The property comprises 21,576 sq. ft., as described on the preceding Exhibit "A", also known as 240 Lake Avenue, Aspen, Colorado. Application is made under Subsection 20-19 Exceptions and Exemptions from the Definition of Subdivision; and Subsection 24-11.2(d) Exemptions from Growth Management and Allotment, as amended by Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1986, entitled "An Ordinance of the Aspen City Council Repealing and Re -Enacting Section 24-11.2(d) to Change the Eligibility Requirements for the Growth Management Plan Exemption for Lot Splits." The applicant proposes one lot of 9,203 sq. ft. and a second lot of 12,473 sq. ft. The property is in the R-6 Zone which carries a minimum lot area requirement of 6,000 sq. ft. A subdivision exception, pursuant to Subsection 20-19 is appropriate in this instance. The contemplated lot split is not within the intent and purpose of the full subdivision process because it results in minimal growth and development impacts. The purpose and intent of the full subdivision process as set forth in Subsection 20-2 states: The purpose of this regulation is to assist the orderly, efficient and integrated development of the City of Aspen; to insure the proper distribution of population and coordinate the need for public services with governmental improvement programs; to encourage well planned subdivision by setting standards for subdivision design and improvement; to improve land records and survey monuments by establishing standards for surveys, plans and plats; to safeguard the interests of the public and the subdivider, and provide consumer protection for the purchaser; to acquire a desireable public area; and to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of and visitors to the City of Aspen. The splitting of merged lots in the original townsite and subsequent additions was determined by the City Council to have minimal growth and development impacts under Subsection 1 of Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1986. In accordance with that determination, and the desire by Council to effect in -filling of existing residential neighborhoods for efficient land utilization and property taxation, the Council, under Ordinance No. 8, exempted certain development activity from complying with the allotment procedures. This proposal is consistent with Subsection 24-2(d), as amended by Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1986, which states: - 1 - The following development activity shall be exempted from complying with the allotment procedures hereinafter provided for, subject to the review of the Planning & Zoning Commission and/or the Aspen City Council where it is so specifically indicated: (d) The construction of one single-family residence on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where the following conditions are met: (1) The tract of land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Board of County Commissioners or City Council; or the tract of 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. Any tract of land granted a subdivision exemption by the City Council after January 1, 1984, shall be eligible for a lot split GMP exemption if all other applicable Code provisions are satisfied; (2) No more than two (2) lots were created by the subdivision; (3) The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of an exemption under the provisions of this section or a "lot split" exception or exemption pursuant to Section 20-19. (4) A subdivision plat is submitted and recorded by the applicant after City approval indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots, nor additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to Chapter 20 and an allocation pursuant to Section 24-11.1. (5) The application was reviewed by City Council at a public hearing held pursuant to the standards of Sections 24-12.5(c)(1) and (2). The proposal set forth herein meets the preceding requirements. The subject property was acquired by the Wogans by that certain Warranty Deed dated July 16, 1984, and recorded in Book 469 at Page 660. Under the merger language set forth in Subsection 20-4(c), the parcel shall be considered an undivided parcel for purposes of the subdivision regulations. - 2 - • • • 0 This property is described by metes and bounds, and it has not been subdivided after the adoption of the subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969. Two lots will be created by the proposed subdivision, and no exemption under Section 24, nor an exception or exemption pursuant to Section 20-19 has been granted. While there is a legal precedent for a lot split of this nature, and it certainly fulfills the qualifications of the building code for a lot split, the strongest arguments supporting this application are from a planning standpoint. The West End was historically made up of modestly scaled residences with occasional large houses on large lots. In recent years, very large duplexes have been built that overpower their lots and their neighborhoods. This is particularly true of the three duplexes to the east of the Wogan property, and as this pattern continues, a continuing deterioration of the scale, texture and charm of the West End occurs. We have the alternative on this property of seeing two modestly scaled structures of roughly the size historically seen in the West End, rather than another large duplex. In addition, siting two smaller structures rather than one large one will result in a design which incorporates the existing trees to the best advantage. For these reasons, this lot split will be of benefit to the neighborhood. The applicants have submitted an improvement survey attached hereto as Exhibit "C", and request that the approval of this application be granted subject to the applicant's submission of a subdivision plat which conforms to Section 20-15 and 20-16, and approval by the City Engineering Department prior to recordation. - 3 - • • VIC 0R A. LUNDY, ARCHITECT FAIA NANCY LUNDY 701 MULBERRY LANE, BELLAIRE, TEXAS 77401 Mr. William L. Stirling Mayor, City Council of Aspen Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Wogan Lot Split Parcel ID#2735-124-01-002 Dear Mr. Stirling: C Our vote is against a lot split for the Wogan Property. 713/ 664-2330 We have lived across the Street from the Bayer House property, now owned by the Wogans, for 16 years. We have been a part of Aspen since 1949. Therefore we are deeply alarmed with the way certain parts of Lake Avenue have become grotesquely overbuilt. The.Wogans, who have already contributed to this condition, are once again planning to choke their new property with two large houses. And then perhaps move on, leaving their neighbors and Aspen with the irrevocable loss of green space, as they did with their former house next door. Priscilla Barnard and the Sam Mitchells, the original owners of the Wogan and Mar- shall properties•, bought the lot between them specifically to protect the land as open space. The foresight they used iR the early 60's has resulted in untold pleas- ure, not only for the subsequent owners but all of their neighbors and passersby. If the Wogans are allowed a lot split, even with conditions, the future owners of the Marshall and Hume properties will demand the same. The inevitable conclusion will be a repeat of the monstrous overbuilding across Lake Avenue from Triangle Park, and the ruination of the entire corridor to the Tent. This is such a special walk,.•so unique in its beauty, it breaks my heart to see it destroyed by greed and self-serving notions of what "progress" means. For these reasons, we are against a lot split for the Wogan property. We are for maintaining the concept of one house on the whole property. One house, even a dup- lex, is better than two. We feel the future of Lake Avenue will be better protected with the denial of a lot split. Since ely, NANCY L Y NL:ghm Enclosures: Copies F E L L O W A M E R I C A N I N S T I T U T E O F A R C H I T E C T S N A T 10 N A L C O U N C I L O F A R C II1 TE C T U R A L R E G I S T R A T 1 0 N B O A R D S eps z Y P J 0a � � J \y - g '- s o d + h !7d J J 1' ! JCi ,1 133 r o �r z r ,r I/ w r/ U lI I i� 133a1s� ' J u If W I i! W 0 oalHt ' i O W m G, VICTOR A. LUNDY, ARCHITECT, FAIA AUGUST 18, 1986 The attached Diagram (showing the Holy Cross Electric System) is herewith submitted to demonstrate the orientations of the houses involved with respect to each other and to the existing open green area that should be preserved. The open green area is strategically located at the end of North Street and apimportant juncture with Lake Avenue. With the existing buildings to the east forming an effective "wall" to Hallam Lake, the open area is all the more important. It is part of the history of the area, an important part of the beauty of Lake Avenue, the reason so many people walk,to the Tent for music, etc. What is in place now works as an effective open"green" for all the houses marked in yellow on the attached sheet. To plug that with yet another large man-made object would effectively destroy what works now for six houses immediately concerned. That beautiful swath of green is one;.of the last remaining visual connections of the "West End" area of Aspen with Hallam Lake to the East. x The Mitchell House is a classic, properly seen by all across the generous green. yet All these views would be clogged up forever by the intrusion of another buildings If the'Wogans are allowed a lot split, even with conditions, the future owners of the Marshall and Hume properties will demand the same. The gross overscaled, over- building now in place across Lake Avenue from Triangle Park should be stopped. The concept of.one house on the whole Wogan property should be maintained. When Mrs. Mitchell and Prissie Barnard decided not to build there ever - they made an infinitely wise decision, that reached beyond personal gain - it was a wise idea, good for the whole West End of Aspen, and for the future. Spoiling that should not be permitted. Aspen and the future of Lake Avenue will be far better protected by denying the Wogan Lot Split. i L VICTOR A. LUNDY, ARCHITECT FAIR NANCY LUNDY 701 MULBERRY LANE, BELLAIRE, TEXAS 77401 Mr. William L. Stirling Mayor, City Council of Aspen Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Wogan Lot Split Parcel ID#2735-124-01-002 Dear Mr. Stirling: Our vote is against a lot split for the Wogan Prpperty. 713/ 664-2330 We have lived across the Street from the Bayer House property, now owned by the Wogans, for 16 years. We have been a part of Aspen since 1949. Therefore we are deeply alarmed with the way certain parts of Lake Avenue have become grotesquely overbuilt. The Wogans, who have already contributed to this condition, are once again planning to choke their new property with two large houses. And then perhaps move on, leaving their neighbors and Aspen with the irrevocable loss of green space, as they did with their former house next door. Priscilla Barnard and the Sam Mitchells, the original owners of the Wogan and Mar- shall properties•, bought the lot between them specifically to protect the land as open space. The foresight they used irk the early 60's has resulted in untold pleas- ure, not only for the subsequent owners but all of their neighbors and passersby. If the Wogans are allowed a lot split, even with conditions, the future owners of the Marshall and Hume properties will demand the same. The inevitable conclusion will be a repeat of the monstrous overbuilding across Lake Avenue from Triangle Park, and the ruination of the entire corridor to the Tent. This is such a special walk,.so unique in its beauty, it breaks my heart to see it destroyed by greed and self-serving notions of what "progress" means. For these reasons, we are against a lot split for the Woaan property. We are for maintaining the concept of one house on the whole property. One house, even a dup- lex, is better than two. We feel the future of Lake Avenue will be better protected with the denial of a lot split. Since ely, NANCY L Y NL:ghm Enclosures: Copies FELLOW A M E R I C A N INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS NATIONAL COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURAL REGISTRATION B 0 A R 0 S `f a z rim L1 i oaiH1�-- 0 l ^ 11 W I I �J Q / 111 \� ti 8 it 11 11 ,1 11 I G, 1 r "yt11s I- mlflll�r3 � / .7 • VICTOR A. LUNDY, ARCHITECT, FAIA AUGUST 18, 1986 The attached Diagram (showing the Holy Cross Electric System) is herewith submitted to demonstrate the orientations of the houses involved with respect to each other and to the existing open green area that should be preserved. The open green area is strategically located at the end of North Street and apimportant juncture with Lake Avenue. With the existing buildings to the east forming an effective "wall" to Hallam Lake, the open area is all the more important. It is part of the history of the area, an important part of the beauty of Lake Avenue, the reason so many people walk to the Tent for music, etc. What is in place now works as an effective open"green" for all the houses marked in yellow on the attached sheet. To plug that with yet another large man-made object would effectively destroy what works now for six houses immediately concerned. That beautiful swath of green is one;.of the last remaining visual connections of the "West End" area of Aspen with Hallam Lake to the East. The Mitchell House is a classic, properly seen by all across the generous green. yet All these views would be clogged up forever by the intrusion of another building, If the'Wogans are allowed a lot split, even with conditions, the future owners of the Marshall and Hume properties will demand the same. The gross overscaled, over- building now in place across Lake Avenue from Triangle Park should be stopped. The concept of'.one house on the whole Wogan property should be maintained. When Mrs. Mitchell and Prissie Barnard decided not to build there ever - they made an infinitely wise decision, that reached beyond personal gain - it was a wise idea, good for the whole West End of Aspen, and for the future. Spoiling that should not be permitted. Aspen and the future of Lake Avenue will be far better protected by denying the Wogan Lot Split. i • LAW OFFICES GIDEON I. KAUFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BOX 10001 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE. SUITE 305 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 GIDEON I. KAUFMAN October 9, 1986 Steve Burstein City Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Wogen Lot Split Dear Steve, ocr -s yes '� TELEPHONE AREA CODE 303 925-8166 In response to concerns raised by the Planning Office and Planning and Zoning Commission, please note that an amended plat has been submitted containing amendments which modify the building envelope to preclude building on the back forty five (45) feet of the lot nearest Hallam Lake. The amendment also reduces the lot size by one thousand (1,000) square feet, thereby reducing the allowable FAR on the proposed new parcel. We feel that these changes address the legitimate concerns raised during the review process. Thank you very much for your help. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON KAUFMAN, P.C. qd I'K By. Gi de Kaufman Y t PRINCIPAL INJIL OINC, ENV8 !� cf,15 5 p0 {rt I C' TGz 1 t' sp �\0----1— r AID I pD�`At zA��� I I F,tp f I ! 1 / 1 o 8 utiw \� i �+ t=c 0 . N ' i t8cw � + eraw_ _\ o. .O 2 O. `\ r + !�,4G6 SQ, Ft. ,tto QE50aa C&P J I + I+7"TO%2.C. , • 3.•PIZOW �. PPP } I • � B•pdL�rV � t ��j i� + + p° io Gwy I7•Cw�* r \ ! Z Cw 0 J t; 1 J+ In-t2' GWs r i B�PhP�I 2 ts�� 12 -OT 13 A-+ __� I + 8°Mt'al —r 13,209 S q. Ft ++ + Id C�v.! ! IoGYJ nJ i" O i 65.00, L`v'11=CO irQo QE5L74 is 41 ST��TE OF COLD Rl , DO 1 aEGzE�Y CER— :,U5T. Ic37"T, 50QVQY WL\5 M&OE UNDER M E M O R A N D U M To: Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office, Aspen City Attorney, and City Council From: Law Offices of Gideon I. Kaufman, P.C. Re: Date: Lot Splits and Review Standards 10/8/86 The City of Aspen has chosen to regulate through its Subdivision Regulations various land use items which many jurisdictions do not regulate. By choosing to regulate items such as lot splits and condominiumizations, it became necessary to treat these differently than traditional subdivisions. Therefore, the City has adopted a policy to except these minor subdivisions from the full subdivision rules and regulations. Historically, Aspen has used Section 20-19 to grant relief from the strict application of the formal subdivision process to those individuals seeking lot splits. Because of the mandatory applicaion of the doctrine of merger by Aspen, many of these divisions were extremely minor and this form of relief was particularly appropriate as an exemption from the definition of subdivision. Before its amendment in 1983 (see copy attached hereto as Exhibit "A"), exceptions were only granted by the Planning Commission under very limited circumstances which have been retained under the current ordinance as Subsection (a)(1), (2), and (3); and exemption from the definition of subdivision was granted by City - 1 - • 0 Council following the receipt of the recommendation of the Planning Commission. The final sentence of that ordinance after requiring consideration of applications in both situations by the Planning Commission, required that the grounds for granting the exception or exemption be entered in the Minutes of the "granting body". This particular phrase suggests that the statutory scheme contemplated a grant by the Planning Commission, in the case of exceptions, and by the City Council in the case of exemptions. Unfortunately, this scheme presented some very real problems in that Subsection (a) would not allow any variation from design standards, and required findings of undue hardship, deprivation of reasonable use of land, and denial of a substantial property right if exception were not granted, as well as the finding that the exception not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area of the subject property. A further difficulty resulted from the fact that the exemption was specifically limited to eliminating a particular division from the definition of subdivision contained in the Code. Being an all or nothing type of provision, there was no procedure by which the Council could grant partial exemption. In 1983, the City Council, after a lot of investigation, determined that the former exception and exemption section of the subdivision regulations was too restrictive, and amended its provisions to provide for full exemption from the - 2 - • subdivision definition with an advisory opinion from the Planning and Zoning Commission, if so desired (see Subsection 20-19(b)), and an additional exception procedure with the exception to be granted by the City Council after a review based on standards which are entirely different from those imposed upon the Planning Commission (see Subsection 20-19(c)). Under the new Subsection (c) which establishes this procedure, design standards need only be complied with substantially, not strictly, and the Council need only determine that the exception go to those certain requirements which it deems redundant, to serve no public purpose, and to be unnecessary in relation to the land use policies of the City of Aspen. Because these standards are so close to that contained in Subsection (b) of "not within the intent and purpose of this chapter", it seems fairly clear that the thrust of this amendment is to provide the City Council with the statutory authority to grant partial exemptions or, more accurately, exceptions from those portions of the subdivision regulations which are redundant, unnecessary to its land use policies, and serve no public purpose in the particular context. Because this amendment was done in connection with the moratorium on lot splits, it is fairly clear that a necessary concomitant of the City Council's determination was the determination that lot splits, as a matter of policy, were entitled to exception from the full subdivision process - 3 - because it was redundant, served no public purpose, and was unnecesary in relation to the land use policies of the City of Aspen in connection with lot splits. The only remaining determination is how the proposed split will substantially comply with the design standards of the subdivision regulations. In connection with this legislative expansion of authority under Section 20-19, the City Council also reserved the right to seek an advisory opinion from the Planning and Zoning Commission as it did in its amendment of the exemption provision of this particular ordinance. This type of opinion is frequently sought where a somewhat more controversial or complex decision is involved, and allows for a greater input from the public, as well as more time to reflect on the nature of the exception requested. However, that advisory opinion provision does not change the standards to be applied in assessing the exception for which application has been made. In point of fact, it makes absolutely no sense to seek an advisory opinion regarding how to apply specific standards and have the advisor turn around and render that opinion based on entirely different standards. This is, in fact, what has occurred in the exception process. For reasons which are unclear, Planning Office memos written last May concerning the same project disclose an expansion of the standards of review from those contained in Section 20-19(c) to include those standards set forth in Section 20-19(a). The shift in emphasis which was first advocated at that time ultimately came to fruition when == Planning and Zoning recently refused to recommend the Wogan Lot Split based on the standards set forth in Section 20-19(a). Not only is the application of these standards irrelevant to those which are to be used by the City Council in its review under Subsection (c), but it is impossible to say in connection with a lot split or a condominiumization that the denial of the exception would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. Even if denied, the applicant could still have the reasonable use of his land and could still continue to enjoy substantial property rights. The City's intent was to develop some type of review over lot splits and condominiumizations, but certainly not to preclude them. However, if we apply 20-19(a) as the standard that the Planning and Zoning Commission has to review, exception applications as they apply to condominiumizations and lot splits, the P&Z would be forced to deny every condominiumization and lot split because it is not possible to meet those criteria. Clearly, Subsections (a) and (c) deal with the grant of exceptions in differing situations. Each subsection contains its own standards for the grant of such an exception, and appropriately, Subsection (a) is much more restrictive since it purports to grant sole authority for the Planning Commission to grant exceptions in very limited situations y. apparently involving physical circumstances or conditions on ='� the land. In fact, this is what one would expect in a situation involving the delegation of legislative authority to a subordinate board, and is based on the general principle of municipal law which requires that a municipal corporation which seeks to delegate its authority to subordinate officers and boards, may do so only where there are fixed and certain standards or rules which leave little or nothing to the judgment or discretion of the subordinate body. Big Sandy School District No. 100 - J, Elbert County v. Carroll, 433 P. 2d 325 (Colo. 1967). Loup -Miller Const. Co. v. City and County of Denver, 676 P. 2d 1170 (Colo. 1984). Clearly, the legislative grant of authority to the Planning Commission for the granting of exceptions under Subsection (a) complies with this principle of municipal law by setting very limited and specific standards for its exercise. However, the use of those standards in rendering an advisory opinion to the City Council is riot only irrelevant to the advice required by the City Council, but may have the negative effect of perpetuating the restrictive standards intended by the City Council to narrowly define the authority of one of its subordinate boards in very limited situations. It also runs counter to the policies and practices of the City Council in granting exceptions for lot splits and condominiumizations. In the past, both the Planning Office and Planning and 0 i Zoning Commission have chosen to ignore the standards of 20-19(a) because they have never denied a lot split or condominiumization based on those criteria. However, a better approach would be not to apply these rules and regulations rather than to ignore them. Clearly, the standards stated in 20-19 (c) for the City Council are more appropriate standards because they acknowledge the intent of review for lot splits. That is the standard that both the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council should apply. To have the Planning and Zoning Commission apply a standard different than the City Council and make a recommendation to the City Council based on different criteria makes absolutely no sense. lot split memo/DAILY4 - 7 - EXHIBIT "A" RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 leaves IORY M C. F. MOECREL B. B. a L. CO. Section 20-19 Exceptions and Exemptions Certain exceptions from the strict application of the provisions of this chapter and exemptions from the definition of a subdivision set forth in Sec.20-3(q) hereof may be obtained under the following conditions: (a) The Planning Commission may grant exceptions from the strict application of one or more of the standards, requirements and other provisions of this chapter (other than the design standards in Sec.20-17) when, in the judgment of the Planning Commission, undue hardship may result frorl struct compliance. No exception shall be granted unless the Planning Commission finds: (1) That there are special circui-fistances or conditions affecting the subject property such that the strict application of the pro- visions of this chapter for which an exception is sought would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; and (2) That the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant; and (3) That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area in which the subject property is situated.. (b) Following receipt -of a recommendation from the the Planning Commission, City Council may exempt a particular division of land from the definition of a -36- i 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves /OIIM M C. I. MOECKCL L. CO. subdivision set forth in Sec. 20-3(s), when, in the judgment of the City Council, such division of land is not within the intent and purpose of this chapter. No such exception or exemption shall be granted unless a written application therefore has been sub- mitted to and considered by.the Planning Commission, and the grounds for granting such exception or exemption have been entered in the minutes of the granting body by motion or resolution duly adopted. Section 20-20 Subdivision Fees (a) Upon submitting a conceptual presentation or plat to the City Planning Office for review, the applicant shall pay to the City an initial fee of One Hundred ($100.00) Dollars, plus an additional amount determined as follows: (1)For R-15,R-30,R-40,RR and Conservation Districts, the fee shall be Five ($5.00) Dollars, Twenty -Two ($22.00) Dollars, and Three ($3.00) Dollars per dwell- ing unit for the conceptual, preliminary and final plat reviews respectively. (2) For all other zoning districts the fee shall be Sixty ($60.00) Dollars, Two Hundred Eighty ($280.00) Dollars, and Thirty -Five ($35.00) Dollars per acre of land for the conceptual, preliminary and final plat reviews respectively. I (b) If in the opinion of the Planning Commission, a special study is necessary for the review of a plat, and said study cannot be executed by the City Staff, the owner shall employ at his expense, a licensed pro- fessional or person(s) qualified to do the particular study. Prior to employment to conduct such study, the -37- I hereby certify that on this �,, day of 198 , a true and correct copy of the attached NotIce of Public Hearing was deposited in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, to the adjacent property owners as indicated on the attached list of adjacent property owners which was supplied to the Planning Office by the applicant in regard to the case named on the aforementioned public notice. r//anet Ly n RaczaIC PUBLIC NOTICE RE: WOGAN LOT SPLIT Parcel ID#2735-124-01-002 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, Qc6apo _13�1.9IfG , at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. before the City Council of Aspen, Colorado, in City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application submitted by John B. and Jaqueline T. Wogan, request- ing subdivision exception and GMP Exemption approval for the purpose of splitting several combined townsite lots into two separate lots. The property is improved with one home and the applicants propose to construct a single-family dwelling on the newly created lot. The property is located at 230 Lake Avenue, Aspen, Colorado. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020, ext. 223. s/Will iam L. Stirling Mayor, City Council of Aspen, Colorado Published in the Aspen Times on L City of Aspen Account. N.5 • September 2, 1986 Dear City Council Members: I would like to voice my disapproval over the application of Mr. & Mrs. Wogan for a lot split. The Wogans, in the past petitioned the P & Z and recieved rezoning for most of the east side of Lake Avenue. At that time they built a large new home then claimed as their last home, it has since been sold and again they pled "hardship" for a lot split that will clutter our street, not to mention force their nearest neighbor to also lot split thus a precedent for continuation. Where do we vote, we, their neighbors, vote no more lot - splitting and especially request that in the future lot splitting be treated as a variance, in that neighbors be advised of such applications. To us it is a large variance. Sincerely; ,--- - Idorth Third 925-3996 CC. Aspen "'ides yrs. t'Valter Paepcke Dr. & 14-rs. R. Morgan }:= "ce'1P5 . P a E'ORight �;17Y • TO: Steve Burstein, FROM: Elyse Elliott, DATE: July 23, 1986 MEMORANDUM Planning Department Engineering Department JUL 2 8 06 RE: Wogan Lot Split ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Engineering Department has the following comments on the above application: The proposed lot line will create a non -conforming encroachment. The corner of the existing structure encroachs approximately 2' onto the new lot. We feel that the lot line should be re -arranged so as not to create this encroachment. According to R-6 zoning requirement, the side yard setback should be at least 51. There are several deficiencies on the plat, these include: - no Title. - no Vicinity Map. - the City/County boundary should be marked. - not all trees are shown. - utilities should be shown. - There is no approval block for City Engineer, P & Z, Mayor and City Clerk, and Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. EE/co/Wogan 0 • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ORDINANCE NO. (Series of 1986) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REPEALING AND REENACTING SECTION 24-11.2(d) TO CHANGE THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN EXEMPTION FOR LOT S PL T1' S WHEREAS, the City Council of Aspen, Colorado (hereinafter "Council" ) deems it to be in the best interests of the City of Aspen to amend Section 24-11.2(d) (1) of the Municipal Code to allow for a growth management plan exemption for the purpose o-f lot splits of undeveloped combinations of townsites lots but to exclude approved subdivisions from eligibility for this growth management plan exemption; and WHEREAS, Council has made the following findings with regard to said Code amendment: 1. The splitting of merged lots in the original townsite and subsequent additions has minimal growth and development impacts. Permitting a GMP exemption for this activity provides a pressure relief valve from the merger provisions of the Code. However, requiring a pre-existing unit on the lot before it can be split may cause speculative developi�ent simply to gain the eligibility to create the second lot and is therefore undesireabl e. 2. In -filling of existing residential neighborhoods that may result from this Code amendment is generally desireable from the standpoints of available service, efficient land utilization, and property taxation. 0 • l RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS �J7 -----. - _ 1 3. The number of potential lot splits in newer subdivi- sions is greater than the potential in the older part of the City and could entail significant growth and development impacts. 4. Neighbors should be able to rely on the assumption that large subdivision lots zoned for more than one unit will not be resubdivided without undergoing the full Gr:P and subdivision process to better address develop- ment impacts. WHEREAS, having received and considered the recorzmendations of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commis- sion"), Council desires to amend Section 24-11 .2 (d) (1) ; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That Section 24-11 .2 (d) of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, be repealed and re-enacted to read as follows: (new language is in bold, old language is crossed out) (d) The construction of one single-family residence on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to 1,7ovembor_ 14, 1977, where the following conditions are Iu et (1) The tract of land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Board of County Commis- sioners or City Council; or the tract of land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivi- sion regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 2 0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1969. Any tract of land granted a subdivision exemption by the City Council after January 1, 1984, shall be eligibile for a lot split GMP exemption if all other applicable Code provisions are satisfied; (2) No more than two (2) lots were created by the subdivision; (3) The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of an exemption under the provisions of this section or a "lot split" exception or exemption pursuant to Section 20-19. (4) A subdivision plat is submitted and recorded by the applicant after City approval indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to Chapter 2.0 and an allocation pursuant to Section 24-11.1. (5) The application was reviewed by the City Council at a public hearing held pursuant to the standards of Sections 24-12.5 (e) (1) and (2) . &,at-ion-Z If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Section 3 A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the day of A1.11Z11- , 198(15, , at 5: 00 P.M. in the Community Center., at Lone Pine and Red Mountain Roads, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the ��_ day of y� william L. Stirling, Mayor � ATT EST : / Kathryn S Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved on this 19 8.47i William L. S- xling, iiaycp ATTEST: / Kathryn S.Aloch, City Clerk SP,.9:jlr 4 day of •1��a y�4 i Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 9, 1984 Schilling said there are some problems with the request; one is singling out an individual property.for special treatment with respect to utility rates. Schilling said there will ij be lost revenues to the city, the flat rate would be $340 a month, metered would be $150 I' per month. Schilling told Council the cost of replacing the tank would be between $8,000 and $10,000. Schilling said the original agreement between the city and Pfister has no stipulation to special consideration for service charges. Schilling said there are three tap fee waivers in the agreement, and Council should consider what to do with these is waivers if the agreement is amended. City Attorney Taddune said the city had extensive negotiations with Pfister about the water tank on his property. Pfister is not happy with the present arrangement. Taddune said staff consensus is that the city would offer to replace the cistern in return for Pfister waiving the taps. Pfister would pay the tap fee when connecting on the city system. Taddune said the original agreement was that the city could build the tank, Pfister would get three tap fees and the city would restore any damage. Pfister received a tax credit for donating. the tank site. Taddune said in terms of development potention, the location of the water tank on Pfister's property would be attractive. Taddune said the staff agrees the original agreement is very fair and adequate. Pfister would like something different. Taddune said the amendment requested is the city would build a cistern for $8,000 to j $10,000, Pfister would forego the water taps and come on line. Taddune said he would like to analyze this further and report back to Council. Mayor Stirling asked if the money is available in the water management program. City Manager Schilling said the staff would have to investigate the source of the funds. Mayor Stirling said having a 2 million gallon water tank on site is significant in terms of development potential and adds value to the property. mayor Stirling moved to refer this to the city manager and have him report back to Council as soon as possible after consultations with Pfister; seconded by Councilman Blomquist. All in favor, motion carried. Taddune told Council Pfister does not want metered water service, and the agreement calls for metered water service. Mayor Stirling said this should be part of the report back to Council. WOGAN LOT SPLIT Mayor Stirling opened the public hearing. Colette Penne, planning office, read a mailgram from Lundys into the record opposing separating the Wogan lot into two parcels. Ms. Penne read a letter from Ann Altemus opposing another building on Lake Avenue. A letter from Charles Nichola with no objection to the application was read into the record. Ms. Penne told Council there will be a parcel of over 13,000 square feet with an existing house and subdividing off a parcel of 8500 square feet, which would only allow a single family house. The larger lot could contain a duplex, if the owner goes through GMP competition or it could contain an employee unit with a GMP exemption. Ms. Penne said this meets the criteria for lot splits; there is an existing dwelling, there are no more than two lots being created, and this lot has never been the subject of a lot split. The utilities are accessible. Ms. Penne said the planning office recommends approval with five conditions. Gideon Kaufman, representing the applicants, said he has been meeting with Mrs. Paepcke and A.C.E.S. to address their concerns on impacts on Hallam Lake. Kaufman agreed to three conditions to mitigate impacts on Hallam Lake. They will refrain on both lots from any lighting that might effect Hallam Lake. Any construction on thin property will be supervised to preclude any construction materials from going down the hill. They will work on language addressing screening and architecture. Ms. Penne suggested these be added as part of the motion. Mayor Stirling said the last condition is vague, at this point. Kaufman said he would work out an agreement with A.C.E.S., who is concerned about what will be built on this lot. Councilman Knecht moved to disapprove the subdivision exception for the purpose of a lot split for the parcel as submitted; seconded by Councilwoman Walls. Ronnie Marshall, adjacent property owner, opposed the lot split. Ms. Marshall said this area is special, and if the lot split is allowed it would set off a lot of problems. Ms. Marshall said most of the property owners in this area are opposed to this. Henry Pedersen, adjacent property owner, said he is against the proposed lot split. Andy Hecht, representing Mrs. Paepcke, said she is concerned because the situation at the sanctuary of Hallam Lake is very precarious. Over the last five years, there has been building that has had impacts on Hallam Lake and are encroaching on Hallam Lake. Hecht said he feels they can work out an agreement with the applicant that will satisfy the concerns. Tom Cardamone., A.C.E.S. said Hallam Lake has become a living room centerpiece for fancy houses. Cardamone said Hallam Lake tours have turned into a house tour, rather than a wildlife tours. Cardamone said some day there might not be any wildlife at Hallam Lake. Cardamone said they would like to keep Hallam Lake as pristine as possible. Cardamone said they have lost a quantifiable amount of animals, like the great blue herron and snowy egret. Cardamone said if there has to be another.house, they would like it to be discreet with low visual impact. They would like clearly defined restrictions on height and visibility and screening and give Hallam Lake someprotection. City Attorney Taddune said this is an expedited review and a request for an exception from the full subdivision process. Ms. Marshall said she lost part of her property in a storm and if a house is built there, more land will go down the hill. Kaufman said the applicant has the right to build a duplex on this property. The way the lot split is configured, the development will be closer to the front. Kaufman said there has been the precedence of lot splits before; they have complied with the requirements of the code. Kaufman said they are willing'to meet the concerns of A.C.E.S and will get better protection than if a duplex is built. The capability for development is inherent on this lot. Kaufman said there is no evidence presented to justify a denial, and asked Council approve this with the conditions presented. 38,03 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 9, 1984 Councilman Collins said Lake avenue is very narrow, is on a curve and multi -intersections. Councilman Collins said putting more cars and traffic on this street is hazardous. Councilman Knecht said Council agreed at an earlier meeting that there would be no more lot splits. Councilman Blomquist said this can go through the subdivision process. J All in favor, with the exception of Mayor Stirling. MERRIAM LOT SPLIT :I Colette Penne, planning office, told Council this is a'one-step review. This parcel is ; in the R-15 zone, is 2.76 acres of 120,225 square feet and is located at 850 Roaring Fork road. There is an existing dwelling. Ms, Penne said a lot split is a very low density alternative for this parcel as it is so large. No more than two lots are being created; this has not been the subject of GMP provisions or gone through a lot split. The new lot can have a single family dwelling; there are large enough for the possibility to compete for a duplex under GMP. Ms. Penne pointed out the configuration of the new lot gives a very small area for frontageon Roaring Fork road, it is only 20 feet. Councilman Blomquist asked if the subdivision regulations set a minimum front lot. Ms. Penne said this is not in violation of the subdivision section. Chuck Brandt, representing the applicant, told Council if the Code requires more than 20 feet, they will provide it. Andy Hecht, representing Mrs. Paepeke, told Council this would have an impact on Hallam Lake depending on how this is built:. Mayor Stirling -pointed out there is not a proposal for a trail on this property. Tom Cardamone, A.C.E.S., pointed out where the Aspen Institute trail system is and where the Hallam Lake trail system is. Councilman Knecht moved to disapprove the subdivision exception for this lot split; ,seconded by Councilman Blomquist. Councilman Blomquist asked if this parcel is part of an existing subdivision plat. Brandt told Council this is part of two subdivision plats. Councilman Blomquist asked if there are any restrictions on the parcels. Brandt said there are no restrictions. City Attorney Taddune said part of this request is for expedited review, rather than going through the full subdivision review. Brandt suggested rather than denying this request, Council. could ask for a two-step process and have P & Z review this. Brandt said there is no opposition to this lot split. Councilman Knecht said he has problems with lot splits, and people have depended on only having one house on this lot. Councilman Knecht said people get lot splits, add duplexes, employee housing and offend other people's views. Councilman Knecht said he feels it is bad business for the town to have lot splits. Brandt said the applicants intention is to gift the other lot to their grandchildren. Councilman Knecht said he is not interested in lot splits; it is ruining the,town. Mayor Stirling said until Council addresses a change in the Code, people have a right to lot splits. Councilman Knecht said this can go through full subdivision. Councilman Blomquist said this issue has been raised by many citizens, the over-densifying of the town. Councilman Blomquist said he would like to direct planning to come up with a solution to this problem. Councilman Collins said the road serving this parcel is sub -standard. Councilman Collins said there is a need to look at the sewage infrastructure in this area. All in favor, with the exception of Mayor Stirling. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #26, SERIES OF 1984 - Refunding Bonds Mayor Stirling opened the public hearing. Finance Director Sheree Sonfield told Council there are too many bonds on the market and requested this be tabled for two more weeks. Councilman Knecht moved to continue the public hearing and table Ordinance #26, Series of 1984, for two weeks; seconded by Councilman Blomquist. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #30, SERIES OF 1984 - Appropriations Mayor Stirling opened the public hearing: There were no comments. Mayor Stirling closed the public hearing. Councilman Knecht moved to adopt Ordinance #30, Series of 1984; on second reading; seconded by Councilman Blomquist. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Walls, aye; Knecht, aye; Blomquist, aye; Collins, aye; Mayor Stirling, aye. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #31, SERIES OF 1984 - Water Extension/Owl Creek Club Mayor Stirling opened the public hearing. City Attorney Taddune told Council he is trying to work this out with the applicant and requested this be tabled for two weeks. Councilman Blomquist moved to continue the public hearing and table Ordinance #31, Series of 1984, until October.22; seconded by Councilman Knecht. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #32, SERIES OF 1984 - Appropriations Councilman Knecht moved to read Ordinance #32, Series of 1.984; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE 432 (Series of 1984) AN ORDINANCE RECOGNIZING GENERAL FUND REVENUES OF $85,000; REVERSING .A'TRANSFER OF $85,000 FROM THE REVENUE SHARING FUND TO THE GENERAL FUND; RECOGNIZING LAND FUND REVNUE OF $9,000; APPROPRIATING LAND FUND EXPENDITURES OF $18,000; REDUCING REVENUE SHARING FUND REVENUE OF $85,000; APPRPPRIATING EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND EXPENDITURES OF $25,000; APPROPRIATING ASSET REPLACEMENT FUND EXPENDITURE OF #33,100 was read by the city clerk PRE —APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY i AJ-4. -17111)1 .11. A, 0 q .-? - " �' PROJECT- 1 AIfPLICANT' S REPRESENTATIVE: ►Jri,� I Urvi> REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: OWNERS NAME - J aljx� � -Ta�t& W SUMMARY 1. Type of Application: 1�hP 2. Describe action/type of development being requested: 3. Areas in which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of reports requested: Policy Area/ Referral Agent Comments �Dotoyn� _ /V _ aY('IAAt�e Poor CDuncj ) aQni H� - ��DI%D7a� oPpYi�j►Ow rn,Y n � btsp� � t IM,(�rt�R�M11� 4*pf 9L 47d) 4. Review is: (P&Z Only) S. Public Hearing: �,,(YESI (CC/BOCC Only) (NO) (P&Z then to CC/BOCC) I Ffee a, skpj 6. Did you tell applicant to submit list of ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS? Q(YES) (NO) Disclosure of Ownership: (YE$) :(NO) 7. What fee was applicant requested to submit:3-70 010 8. Anticipated date of submission: L/'/)- ?6 9. COMMENTS/UNIQUE CONCERNS: ject Number _ Section/Par .e SubmittedLL U .3unty ain street 11 �y LAND USE APPLILi,. ado 816 TO 3E COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT: NAME JOHN B. WOGAN, JR. and JAQUELINE T. WOGAN ADDRESS 230 Lake Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 PHONE (303) 925-2041 (Application For Subdivision Exemption and Growth NAME OF PROJECT Wogan Lot Split Management Exemption for Wogan Lot Split) PROJECT LOCATION: (On attached sheet, locate on zoning map, showing boundaries of any natural hazard and resource areas, any other special regulatory districts, Section 5, Land Use Code; and locate on appropriate CSU/ ERA Maps any areas not covered by the above.) TOTAL AREA 21,576 sq. ft., Legal Description set forth on attached Exhibit "A" EXISTING USE(S) Property is currently vacant PROPOSED USE(S)2 single-family residential lots (approximate square footage for each) One 12,576 sq. ft., and the other 9,000 sq. ft. PRESENT ZONING OF SITE R-6 DESCRIPTION OF LAND USE PROPOSAL See attached Exhibits "B" and "C" incorporated herein by this reference. TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING OFFICE TYPE OF APPLICATION: REZONING GROWTH MANAGEMENT P.U.D. SUBDIVISION SPECIAL REVIEW x EXEMPTION BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW 35-acre + SUBDIVISION REVIEW PHASE: PRE -APPLICATION April 7 1986 DATE COMPLETED GENERAL SUBMISSION P.C. ACTION DATE BOARD ACTION DATE DETAILED SUBMISSION P.C. ACTION DATE BOARD ACTION DATE FINAL PLAT BOARD ACTION DATE EXHIBIT "A' FAIICEL 1 All of lots 1l{{ 14 and 15, Block 101, HALLAN's ADDITION to the City and Towneite of Aspen, Colorado. ?ANTE(, 2 .,Ot 12, Block 101, HALLAM'S ADDITION to th-9 City and Townaite of Aspen, Colorado EXCEPTING THEPEIROMi A tract of land being tho Northwesterly 4 of Lot 12, Moro fully described an followar Beginning at the most Westerly corner of •aid Lot 12, thence around a curve to the left with a radius of 443.O3 test, a distance of 25 feet (the chord of which curve bear@ J 23'11'30' K. 23 toot)p thence N. 470I9'20' E. 12S f*eti thence around a curve to the right with a radius of 345.05 Coot, a distance of 11.93 feet (the chord of which curve bears M. 23'11110' W. 10.7S feet)! thence B. 416174l0' W. 125 fast to the point of beginning. tL ' A tract of land in the NE% of the 8E4 of •action 12, Township 10 south, Nang* IS Most of the 4th ►.R., said tract is more fully described as follows# Bag9 inning at the Host *esterly corner of Lot 15, Block 103, Mallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of A@ on, Colorado, thence N. 44•24' B. 13.50 feed thence N. 50.03) 01 W. 127.12 feet to tha point on the Northeasterly line of Lot 12 of said Block 1011 thence around a curve to the left with a radius of - 311.05 feet, a distance of 129.71 feet along the North*a terly lines of Lots 12, 13, 14 and 15 of said Block 101 to the true point of beginning, the chord of said curve bears 2. 35*01' ■. 129.01 foot. Ccunty of ►itkin state of Colorado EXHIBIT "B" The applicants propose the division of their property into two lots. The property comprises 21,576 sq. ft., as described on the preceding Exhibit "A", also known as 240 Lake Avenue, Aspen, Colorado. Application is made undE!r Subsection 20-19 Exceptions and Exemptions from the Definition of Subdivision; and Subsection 24-11.2(d) Exemptions from Growth Management and Allotment, as amended by Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1986, entitled "An Ordinance of the Aspen City Council Repealing and Re -Enacting Section 24-11.2(d) to Change the Eligibility Requirements for the Growth Management Plan Exemption for Lot Splits." The applicant proposes one lot of 13,076 sq. ft. and a second lot of 8,500 sq. ft. The property is in the R-6 Zone which carries a minimum lot area requirement of 6,060 sq. ft. � ion A subdivision pxcBe�emiarr, pursuant to Subsection 20-19 is appropriate in this instance. The contemplated lot split is not within the intent and purpose of the full subdivision process because it results in minimal growth and development impacts. The purpose and intent of the full subdivision process as set forth in Subsection 20-2 states: The purpose of this regulation is to assist the orderly, efficient and integrated development of the City of Aspen; to insure the proper distribution of population and coordinate the need for public services with governmental improvement programs; to encourage well planned subdivision by setting standards for subdivision design and improvement; to improve land records and survey monuments by establishing standards for surveys, plans and plats; to safeguard the interests of the public and the subdivider, and provide consumer protection for the purchaser; to acquire a desireable public area; and to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of and visitors to the City of Aspen. The splitting of merged lots in the original townsite and subsequent additions was determined by the City Council to have minimal growth and development impacts under Subsection 1 of Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1986. In accordance with that determination, and the desire by Council to effect in -filling of existing residential neighborhoods for efficient land utilization and property taxation, the Council, under Ordinance No. 8, exempted certain development activity from complying with the allotment procedures. This proposal is consistent with Subsection 24-2(d), as amended by Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1986, which states: - 1 - 0 • The following development activity shall be exempted from complying with the allotment procedures hereinafter provided for, subject to the review of the Planning & Zoning Commission and/or the Aspen City Council where it is so specifically indicated: (d) The construction of one single-family residence on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where the following conditions are met: (1) The tract of land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Board of County Commissioners or City Council; or the tract of 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. Any tract of land granted a subdivision exemption by the City Council after January 1, 1984, shall be eligible for a lot split GMP exemption if all other applicable Code provisions are satisfied; (2) No more than two (2) lots were created by the subdivision; (3) The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of an exemption under the provisions of this section or a "lot split" exception or exemption pursuant to Section 20-19. (4) A subdivision plat is submitted and recorded by the applicant after City approval indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots, nor additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to Chapter 20 and an allocation pursuant to Section 24-11.1. (5) The application was reviewed by City Council at a public hearing held pursuant to the standards of Sections 24-12.5(c)(1) and (2). The proposal set forth herein meets the preceding requirements. The subject property was acquired by the Wogans by that certain Warranty Deed dated July 16, 1984, and recorded in Book 469 at Page 660. Under the merger language set forth in Subsection 20-4(c), the parcel shall be considered an undivided parcel for purposes of the subdivision regulations. - 2 - This property is described by metes and bounds, and it has not been subdivided after the adoption of the subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969. Two lots will be created by the proposed subdivision, and no exemption under Section 24, nor an exception or exemption pursuant to Section 20-19 has been granted. The applicants have submitted an improvement survey attached hereto as Exhibit "C", and request that the approval of this application be granted subject to the applicant's submission of a subdivision plat which conforms to Section 20-15 and 20-16, and be approved by the City Engineering Department prior to recordation. As the improvement survey depicts, there presently exists a single-family residence on the property comprising less than 3,500 sq. ft., well within the setback and FAR requirements for the proposed 12,675 sq. ft. lot. - 3 - A l,nu oly of Connacl OF ASPEN, INC. 602 E. HYMAN • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • (303) 925-3577 June 20, 1986 Barbara Purvis Re: Surrounding property owners of a part of Lot 12 and all of Lots 13, 14, and 15, Block 103, Hallams Addition, vested in John B. Wogan, Jr. and Jaqueline T. Wogan. A search of the records of this office and those of the Assessor and Treasurer of Pitkin County, Colorado, reveals the following parties as the owners of property adjacent to the Wogan property: BLOCK 40, HALLAMS ADDITION AND BLOCK 40, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Lots 1 and 2 DW Ringsby Enterprises, a partnership P.O. Box 7240 Denver, Colorado 80207 Lots 3,4,& W1/2 of 5 Martin M. Block and Beate S. Block 311 W. North St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 E1/2 Lot 5 and portion Victor A. Lundy and Anstis B. Lundy of Lake Avenue Lots 6&7 301 Lake Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lots 8 and 9 Ralph W. Ball (K&L in City and Townsite 215 St. Paul St. #103 Denver, Colorado 80206 Lots 10, 11, 12 Charles C. Gates, Jr. and June S. Gates (M, N, & 0 in City 999 S. Broadway and Townsite) Denver, Colorado 80202 Lots 13, 14, 15, & 16 Catherine M. Conover (P, Q, R, & S in City P.O. Box 57 and Townsite) Glade Park, Colorado 81523 BLOCK 41, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Lots D, E, & F Charles C. Nicola and Betty B. Nicola 1940 First Interstate Tower North Denver, Colorado 80202 • • Lots G, H, & I Commerce Savings Association 111 Soledad, Suite 1300 San Antonio, Texas 78205 BLOCK 101, HALLAM ADDITION Lots 14 through 20 (inclusive) BLOCK 103, HALLAMS ADDITION Lots 5 through 9 (Inclusive) (Described by metes and bounds as a tract in Section 12-10-85) Lots 10 & 11 William A. Nitze 150 East 42nd Street New York, New York 10017 Jams P. Hume 1120 N. Lake Shore Drive Chicago, Illinois 60611 Ronnie Marshall 320 Lake Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 SHAW AND W.P.W. JOINT VENTURE SUBDIVISION Lot 16 Phillip M. Holstein, Jr. 0254 Magnifico Road Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lot 17 Stevenson Building and Design, Inc. 1001 N.W. 62nd Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 212 LAKE AVENUE CONDOMINIUMS (LOT 18 SHAW AND W.P.W.) Unit A Jack A. Newman 13500 Oxnard Van Nuys, California 91401 Unit B Henry J. Pedersen P.O. Box 144 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Lot 19 Tercero Corporation Attn: Joe Roberts 4400 One Williams Center Tulsa, Oklahoma 74172 Lot 20 John J. Nicholson and Lou Adler c/o Roberts S. Colbert P.O. Box 67006 Los Angeles, California 90067 BLOCK 102 HALLAMS ADDITION Lots 4, 5, & part of 6 James K. Daggs and Gay Daggs 720 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Pg. 2 E Part of Lot 6 and Lots 7 & 8 Lot 9 and part of Lots 10, 11, and 12 Part of Lot 10 Part of Lots 11 & 12 Elizabeth Ann Altemus (formerly known as Elizabeth Ann Horowitz) P.O. Box 5000 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Sheldon B. and Marianne S. Lubar 8160 North Green Bay Road Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53209 Delbert J. Copley P.O. Box 1045 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Arthur B. and Amelia Trentaz 315 Lake Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 SECOND AND SMUGGLER CONDOMINIUMS (LOTS A, B, AND C, BLOCK 48, CITY AND TOWNSITE) Unit A Roddey Burdine P.O. Box 8001 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Unit B Andrew Jackson Frishman and Belinda B. Frishman P.O. Box 465 Aspen, Colorado 81612 HALLAM LAKE AND PARK (UNPLATTED) Aspen Center for Environmental Studies 100 East Puppy Smith Road Aspen, Colorado 81611 (UNPLATTED PARCEL) - HALLAM PARK VICINITY ROADWAYS AND PUBLIC SQUARE Elizabeth H. Paepcke c/o Morrison & Morrison, Ltd. 105 West Adams Chicago, Illinois 60603 The City of Aspen Colorado A municipal corporation 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Pg. 3 r Although our search was thorough and we belive the statements herein to be true, this is neither a guaranty or opinion of title and it is understood and agreed that Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. neither assumes nor will be charged with any financial obligation or liability on any statement contained herein. Thank you. r Brian Coyl President BC/pdm Pg. 4 EXHIBIT 'A' A CEL All of lot 13{ 11 and 15, Block 101, NALLAII's ADDITION to the w City and Tonslte of Aspen, Colorado. LAKgZL 2 .ot 12, block 101, NALLAM's ADDITION to thq City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado! EXCEPTING THEREFROM, A tract of land being the Northwesterly 4 of Lot 12, more fully described as follower Beginning at the most Westerly corner of said Lot 12, thence around a curve to the left with a radius of I13.03 fast, a distance of 25 feet (the chord of which curve bears s. 23•11'I0' E. 25 feetll thence N. e9019120' E. 129 feeti thence around a curve to the right with a radius of IeS.OS feet, a distance of 11.93 feet (the chord of which curve bears N. 23•11130' W. 11.75 feetll thence $. $00171200 W. 125 feet to the point of beginning. PANEL a , A tract of land in the NEB of the sz% of Section 12, Township 10 south, Range 15 Nest of the /th P.M., said tract is Mars fully described as follower Eagqinning at the met easterly corner of Lot 15, Block 103, Nallam's Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, thence N. //•2/' E. 21.50 feet) thence W. 50'01)30' W. 127.12 feet to the ppooint on the Northeaster)yr line of Lot 12 of said $lock 10I1 thence around a curve to tha left with a radius of 318.05 feet, a distance of 121.71 feet along the Northeasterly lines of Lots 12, 13, 11 and 15 of said $lock 101 to the true point of beginning, the chord of said curve bears s. 35103' R. 129.01 feet. Ccunty of Pitkin state of Colorado • • L I P K N S T RY K E D E S I G N P A R T N E R S H Steve Burstein Pitkin County Planning Department 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Wogan Lot. Split Dear Steve: We are making this land use application and a decision on the location of the new common lot line a little more quickly than we'd like because of the lead time it takes to get on a Planning and Zoning Commission agenda. What you see is our best shot at the new common lot line. 1 would appreciate your letting me know when we've gotten to the point where a modest modification of a proposed common lot line would have to be determined. In any event. I'll be in touch when I get back inot town in late June. I hope this doesn't create too much confusion, but it is our desire to produce the best possible choice for both of our client and the community at large. Yours truly, Michael Lipkin 4 P POST OFFICE BOX 3 0 0 4• ASPEN, COLORADO 8 1 6 1 2 3 0 3 9 2 0 1 1 4 2 2 3 5 EAST 1 1 T H STREET • NEW Y O R K, NEW YORK 1 0 0 0 3 2 1 2 5 9 8 0 4 9 2 • June 23, 1986 Ms. Nancy Crelli Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Application for Subdivision Exception and Growth Management Exemption for Wogan Lot Split Dear Nancy: Enclosed are the following documents: 1. Original and three copies of the above -referenced application; 2. Check payable to the Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office in the amount of $1,570.00 ($1,490.00 application fee plus $80.00 engineering review fee); 3. Adjacent property owners list prepared by Stewart Title; and 4. Photocopy of correspondence dated June 6, 1986, from Michael Lipkin to Steve Burstein. Please contact me once the determination has been made that the application is complete. Very truly yours, LIPKIN-S KER D I LP TNERSHIP By /i ayne Stryker Enclosures cc: Jack and Jackie Wogan cc: Law Offices of Gideon I. Kaufman, P.C. • • VERIFICATION OF APPLICATION We, JOHN B. WOGAN, JR. and JAQUELINE T. WOGAN, as owners of the property described on Exhibit "A" of the attached Land Use Application for the Wogan Lot Split, join in this application and verify the truth and accuracy of the representations set forth herein. JO N B. WOGAN, JAQUELINE T. WOGAN wogan app/LANDUS - 4 - 0 MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer FROM: Janet Raczak, Planning Office RE: Wogan Lot Split/GMP Exemption Parcel ID# Case No. 024A-86 DATE: July 9, 1986 Attached for your review is an application submitted by Michael Lipkin on behalf of Jackie and John Wogan, requesting subdivision exception for the purpose of a lot split of combined townsite lots and GMP exemption approval for the construction of a single family home on the subdivided lot whiczt does not have an existing unit. HISTORY: The applicants, John B. Wogan and Jaqueline T. Wogan, are the owners of 230 Lake Avenue in Aspen (part of Lot 12, all of Lots 13, 14 and 15, Block 103, Hallams Addition) . The applicants indicate that the subject parcel is 21,576 s.f. and is improved with one single-family dwelling unit consisting of approximately 3,500 s.f. The applicants are requesting subdivi- sion exception approval for the purpose of a lot split and exemption from growth management for the purpose of building an additional single-family residence. Combined townsite lots can be split and a single-family dwelling can be constructed under the regulations defined in Section 24- 11 .2 (d) , 20-19 , 24-20 .4 (c) and 24-13 .6 of the Municipal Code. "24-13.6 Nonconforming lots of record (d) If two (2) or more lots or combinations of lots and portions of lots with continuous frontage in single ownership (including husband and wife as in all cases a single owner) are of record at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this zoning code, regardless of diverse times of acquisition, and if all or part of the lots do not meet the requirements established for lot width and area, the lands involved shall be considered to be an undivided parcel of the purposes of this code, and no portion of said parcel shall be used or occupied which does not meet the width and area requirements established by this code." In addition, Section 24-20.4(c) states: "If two (2) or more lots or portions of lots within the original Aspen townsite or additions thereto have continuous frontage and are in single ownership (including husband and • 0 wife as in all cases a single owner) on the effective date of this section, the lots or portions thereof involved, regardless of diverse times of acquisition shall be consi- dered an undivided parcel for the purposes of this chapter, and conveyance of any, whether or not along lot line, shall constitute a subdivision." It appears that the property in question is comprised of part of Lot 12, all of Lots 13, 14 and 15 and a tract of land in the NE 1/4 SE 1/2 of Section 12, T2S, R85W. All or part of the lots do not meet the requirements established for lot width and area making them non -conforming lots (while combined, they are conforming lots) . In addition, all of the lots are contiguous and have merged. Therefore, the applicants are required to obtain subdivision exception approval in order to split merged lots into two (2) lots. The following applies in order to split the lots: "24-11.2 Exemptions. (c) The construction of one single-family residence on a lot subdivided after November 14, 1977, where the following conditions are met: (1) The tract of land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Board of County Commis- sioners or City Council; or the tract of land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivi- sion regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969. Any tract of land granted a subdivision exemption by the City Council after January 1, 1984, shall be eigible for a lot split GMP exemption if all other applicable Code provisions are satisfied; (2) No more than two (2) lots were created by the subdivision; (3) The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of an exemption under the provisions of this section or a "lot split" exception or exemption pursuant to Section 20-19. (4) A subdivision plat is submitted and recorded by the applicant after city approval indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to Chapter 20 and an allocation pursuant to Section 24-11.1." The applicants proposal is eligible for GMP exemption pursuant to Section 24-11.2(c) (1) above. No more than two (2) lots are proposed to be created. From preliminary investigation, it appears that no previous subdivision exemption or lot split has been granted on this parcel. ISSUES: In your review of this case, please address the follow- ing issues: o Subdivision requirements as may be applicable in Section 20- 16 . o Utilities access and ability to service properties o Curbs, gutters, sidewalks, improvement districts o Platting requirements (for final palt not submittal at this stage) o Easements o Significant trees and shrubs o Building envelope Please note that this is only a preliminary review of the application and you should not base your comments only on the items noted above. Please review this application and return your referral comments to the Planning Office no later than 22nd. M.13 EXHIBIT "B" The applicants propose the division of their property into two lots. The property comprises 21,576 sq. ft., as described on the preceding Exhibit "A", also known as 240 Lake Avenue, Aspen, Colorado. Application is made under Subsection 20-19 Exceptions and Exemptions from the Definition of Subdivision; and Subsection 24-11.2(d) Exemptions from Growth Management and Allotment, as amended by Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1986, entitled "An Ordinance of the Aspen City Council Repealing and Re -Enacting Section 24-11.2(d) to Change the Eligibility Requirements for the Growth Management Plan Exemption for Lot Splits." The applicant proposes one lot of 9,203 sq. ft. and a second lot of _12,473 sq. ft. The property is in the R-6 Zone which carries a minimum lot area requirement of 6,000 sq. ft. A subdivision exception, pursuant to Subsection 20-19 is appropriate in this instance. The contemplated lot split is not within the intent and purpose of the full subdivision process because it results in minimal growth and development impacts. The purpose and intent of the full subdivision process as set forth in Subsection 20-2 states: The purpose of this regulation is to assist the orderly, efficient and integrated development of the City of Aspen; to insure the proper distribution of population and coordinate the need for public services with governmental improvement programs; to encourage well planned subdivision by setting standards for subdivision design and improvement; to improve land records and survey monuments by establishing standards for surveys, plans and plats; to safeguard the interests of the public and the subdivider, and provide consumer protection for the purchaser; to acquire a desireable public area; and to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of and visitors to the City of Aspen. The splitting of merged lots in the original townsite and subsequent additions was determined by the City Council to have minimal growth and development impacts under Subsection 1 of Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1986. In accordance with that determination, and the desire by Council to effect in -filling of existing residential neighborhoods for efficient land utilization and property taxation, the Council, under Ordinance No. 8, exempted certain development activity from complying with the allotment procedures. This proposal is consistent with Subsection 24-2(d), as amended by Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1986, which states: - 1 - The following development activity shall be exempted from complying with the allotment procedures hereinafter provided for, subject to the review of the Planning & Zoning Commission and/or the Aspen City Council where it is so specifically indicated: (d) The construction of one single-family residence on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where the following conditions are met: (1) The tract of land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Board of County Commissioners or City Council; or the tract of 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. Any tract of land granted a subdivision exemption by the City Council after January 1, 1984, shall be eligible for a lot split GMP exemption if all other applicable Code provisions are satisfied; (2) No more than two (2) lots were created by the subdivision; (3) The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of an exemption under the provisions of this section or a x "lot split" exception or exemption pursuant to Section 20-19. (4) A subdivision plat is submitted and recorded by the applicant after City approval indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots, nor additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to Chapter 20 and an allocation pursuant to Section 24-11.1. (5) The application was reviewed by City Council at a public hearing held pursuant to the standards of Sections 24-12.5(c)(1) and (2). The proposal set forth herein meets the preceding requirements. The subject property was acquired by the Wogans by that certain Warranty Deed dated July 16, 1984, and recorded in Book 469 at Page 660. Under the merger language set forth in Subsection 20-4(c), the parcel shall be considered an undivided parcel for purposes of the subdivision regulations. - 2 - This property is described by metes and bounds, and it has not been subdivided after the adoption of the subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969. Two lots will be created by the proposed subdivision, and no exemption under Section 24, nor an exception or exemption pursuant to Section 20-19 has been granted. While there is a legal precedent for a lot split of this nature, and it certainly fulfills the qualifications of the building code for a lot split, the strongest arguments supporting this application are from a planning standpoint. The West End was historically made up of modestly scaled residences with occasional large houses on large lots. In recent years, very large duplexes have been built that overpower their lots and their neighborhoods. This is particularly true of the three duplexes to the east of the Wogan property, and as this pattern continues, a continuing deterioration of the scale, texture and charm of the West End occurs. . We have the alternative on this property of seeing two modestly scaled structures of roughly the size historically seen in the West End, rather than another large duplex. In addition, siting two smaller structures rather than one large one will result in a design which incorporates the existing trees to the best advantage. For these reasons, this lot split will be of benefit to the neighborhood. The applicants have submitted an improvement survey, attached hereto as Exhibit "C", and request that the approval of this application be granted subject to the applicant's submission of a subdivision plat which conforms to Section 20-15 and 20-16, and approval by the City Engineering Department prior to recordation. - 3 - EXHIBIT 'A' A CRL All of lots 13t LL 11 and 1S, elock 101, MAAWS ADDITION to the City and Towneite of Aspens Colorado. PARCEL 2 ..ot 12. block 101, HALLAM'S ADDITION to thq City and Townsits of Aspen, Colors do aXCaPTIMO THR "T ROMi A tract of land being the Northwesterly i of Lot 12, sore fully described as follow , beginning at the most Westerly corner of said Lot 12, thence around a curve to the left with a radius of II1.0S feet, a distance of 23 feet (the chord of which curve bears S. 21'11'10' a. 23 test,, thence N. 49011110' a. 12S feet, thence around a curve to the right with a radius of 185.09 feet, a distance of 11.53 feet (the chord of which curve beers 14. 214111100 W. 11.19 feetll thenco S. 484174700 W. 123 feet to the point of beginning. 7[ T�j A tract of land in the Ma% of the 69% of Section 12, Township 10 south. Mange IS West of the Gth ►.M.s said tract is sore fully described as follows, 8:14Inning at the Host easterly corner of Lot IS, Block 101, Hsllam's Addition to the City and Townsits of As en, Colorado, thence M. 11.21' a. 11.30 feet, thence N. 30001��0' W. 127.12 feet to the point on the Northeasters line of Lot 12 of said •lock 101, thence around a curve to the left with a radius of 171.OS fast, a distance of 129.71 feet along the Northeasterly lines of Lots 12, 11, 11 and 15 of said slack 101 to the true point of beginning, the chord of said curve bears b. 13'01' a. 12/.01 feet. Ccunty of ►itkin State of Colorado a N 499'500 x 7883.0 N gc.1a+259 J Cooper Aer,-1 survey co . - .-_ -_ -- ------ - _ _ -1_� «y l ' N 0 I!t N 499'0p0 N 4g,3, x 7821.4 r M.H. ` X , 1 _ 7822.8 7823.5 co ( m � �7827.7 x, j x x7823.0 I /_ x 7823.3 x7865.7 ���� �� 7823.3 Y� W A T E R L E V E L� � H A L L A M 7825.2 r ; 7826.7 x \ G L A K E r R H IV. V 1 .7 x 7826.8 a�p0 SCALE I = N 50 2° 0 x ;ONTOUR INTE-R 44 = _ _ ,82gd . 4,3ap - rJ x x 7879.6 Y 1 ' I x - —.'880 x x - . x x 7881.2 x J � y r7 l � 1} x 7881.6 x 7881.8 % 45 kr-. ROfD IN 5cx---.44 2,5S, P, C r Z, , - Pt TKIt-J CCkJNTY CI ERK& RECCDER 1 3g.00 Re 35e o,.;, �. 1_=12,37i o 1 -- mo' -- _ - _-- AND R EBAR& C f' aq on D l$,; M p,'70 1 qA C,�- LD 7NE'O di f \, o N .1 I \po ov i 9 W \2•d.\ N jf� ! h,466 Sq, Ft. + Z / i'.ro'2' ILDT i S / I }0 l 13C W+ \•9 7"45m j \ g..� CN 3'PIN'ON zc.N W. JOHNSON, A REGISTERED SURVEYOR IN THE I I 2 cv STATE SOF COLORADO DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ON THE �✓�°�N� \0 - 15 TH DAY OF JUKE 1984, I HAVE INSPECTEb THE PROPERTY a 5�12ic�Ti2 I �>„� SHOWN HEREON AND FOUND THE IMPROVEMENTS LOT i3 ` AS SHOWN. TO BE i 71 j \\ . HAROLD W. JOHNSON L. S 91 O 18 Ivt7 aEBotz & Cpb {" R CtSTE�ZEK� SUi=2VEYO[� IN -T C STATE OF Uhl Dp,, Q pyN��E� Ems_ LAKE, T1 F`( 1-' ON —i iE t�T11 JAY QF p;U'ST, 191 ?', L� SUC�VEY ER W 5UpLG2VI510K3 OF TUE. PQC)pERIY 5t WN WAS ML�C7E UND 4 IEG?EOtJ I�NC� L1 Ot'JE SiDt -( MA czvuo�isE was Fou"070 BE L+. ci%TEo 1= -TIRELY WtiTt-A N 7c 4c- P�- TPEF�TY LINES. 41..L EA,SLMENTS OR E��C:-�MENTS It.j �VIUf;NCIr pR ►mot h1PJ O M E LIRE St-10W ( 1. StaI CD SU 7VE,` (i S TRUE LAND LYl:U QU EATc- TO T� ST CIF MY K>\1C`A!V �s~L7C;� AND 8E1.._1 E F. JC)L4"50N-t )NGF6LLOW & 4SSOCc Q� CNN �1V U �-�� f z i. i M i2QV�rriE{�lT SURVEY WA L.LAW3 WRIT ION J(:D-I N'5C)N - L C) "G F� L. L_OW a L�SScDC "7c--5 , I NC . g0X 5547 St'JQ WMASS V1LLi%GE, CULogRLC>o F tr 15 NO- -70 - 213 LtiL)605-T 24, i�?? .3 J - W g'. 0 %i1466 Sq,.Ft. bE'/2 LOT 1-2 LOT 13 IR = -lva--,5,cD 5 L = 1-7 5. C:)o - 1, I-"QOUDW JO"Nt)ON, dK � _� TQS, *1 C) ,c), t5( t", t\l -, 4 IN TWC- 5TL\.-VE OF CC)LOP.&00, 00 CER- Tl Fy 7LAza Ot-A -qAL- IC-;T 14 CLAY 0v: LOG05T, k9i-[-T, A:5UWEy wNS NAL,C Ut\)DV-L? My 5UP'Li:ZV15101'� OF -Tl-iE SA -OWN "L��EON ot,3E_ -S-To�Z� , -T14C: !�o ALS"C) N-rot 1&-TL- TO TI-All bC=570F MV KN�NJL.ECG�=r Lib 5E U C- F-. J0I,4NS50N-L0W—>F6LL0W E3Y: L 5, -7 Pl-Tv-I�COON-Ty C&Rv, & REGovzc)Ep R= +plK3E&6speN I 0 v Zia v d 4 7 TMO « - CX• LOT 15 lug 7"CW-,, C\Q rg;, pi 4w z z 13,209 Sq. Ft. rQ . P. i co -1 R,10 t2tF3.�L28 CLAP FAo qr=E3"p a. cj�x:, 1, HAROI-R." W. JOHNSON, A REGISTERED SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF COLORADO DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ON THE 15'TH DAY OF JUNE 1984, 1 HAVE INSPECTEbTHE: PROPERTY SHOWN aHEREON AND FOUND THE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE AS SHq-.WN. HAROLD W. JOHNSON L,S. 9018'k