The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.ec.200 W Gillespie St.A46-90 -- .. ... CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 8/1/90 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: COi'l '}7,iS- I'}'J ',},/-W/ A46-90 ( , STAFF MEMBER: ;:T PROJECT NAME: Moores Lot spHt ~ \IP-1m r~, fJ~ ' Project Address: 200 W. Gillespit Legal Address: APPLICANT: John and Rebecca Moores Applicant Address: Box 1146. Suqar Land. TX 77487-1146 REPRESENTATIVE: Joe Wells 136 Representative Address/Phone: ..l>6'2' Midland Park Place FC? Aspen. CO 81611 PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: $780.00 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: 8 TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: )C' OeD, Pro("'~"2\ STEP: P&Z Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO a/'i U, CC ~eting Date ~ ~ C1-;\ \~ .' ,";' - ID/~~ Pla~n~Director Approval: Insubstantial Amendment VESTED RIGHTS: PUBLIC HEARING: YES NI;>, t:.-- ~~{<..t ;22 v.. , ' '/ ~ NO J VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO or Exemption: Paid: Date: REFERRALS : City Attorney , , k >( city Engineer ~M,l"'lA/:: y Housing Dir. ~+'<. A''',pX Aspen Water . , city Electric (,I. ,r "".." Envir. Hlth. .i!-~ " ,- Aspen Con.S.D. . / fl ,J,t', ~ , .LP('x'~/ ~ Mtn. Bell J(i',;~ School District X Parks Dept':' Rocky Mtn Nat Gas Holy crossDV~ State Hwy Dept(GW) x: Fire Marshal State Hwy Dept(GJ) Building Inspec~ Roaring Fork ' Other ~-;:' /'ft"c/""'- Energy Center >?/f " / C{() , INITIALS: w . f!. ( t:-,~ DATE REFERRED: ;~;~L -;~~TI~~~--=====-~~TE =;~~;~~7=r-);71c;T~;~;~~~~=== I ___ City Atty ~ City En~neer >< Zoning, tnv. Health ---X Housing --X- Other: In ('4tJttDA-:z:e-s; FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: ~ {! . ' ~'- ~,J LAW OFFICES OF HERBERT S. KLEIN "".... HERBERT S. KLEIN GEORGE M. ALLEN' MILLARD J. ZIMET" JACQUELINE K. LISLE WILLIAM L LAWRENCE' PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 201 NORTH MIll STREET SUITE 203 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-8700 TELECOPIER (303) 925-3977 filE COPl lalsoadmihedinHawaii 'alsoadminedin NewYorli "alsoadmlMedinTexas TELLURIDE OFFICE: P.O. BOX215 300 WEST COLORADO AVENUE SUITE 28 TELLURIDE, COLORADO 81435 (303) 728.5151 TELECOPIER (303) 728-3069 October 31, 1995 VIA HAND DELIVERY Mr. Stan Clausen Aspen Community Development Director 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Lots 1 and 2 - Moores Lot Split Dear Stan, This letter is in furtherance of our meeting several weeks ago with Michael Lipkin to discuss the Hallam Lake ESA guidelines, the City design guidelines and FAR calculations for the above referenced property. During that meeting I discussed with you the loss of square footage for FAR purposes due to the vacated portion of Gillespie Avenue. I indicated that during our investigation of the attributes of the property prior to my clients' (Noelle and Cecil Hernandez) committing to acquire these lots, I reviewed planning office records for the lot split which calculated the allowable FAR for this subdivision but did not exclude the vacated portion of Gillespie Avenue. The lot split application was processed and approved by the City Council in October of 1990. The final plat was approved by you on January 30, 1995, the City Engineering Department on February 1, 1995, the City Council on February 6, 1995, and recorded on February 10, 1995, only a couple of months before the acquisition by Mr. and Mrs. Hernandez. A copy of the plat is enclosed to aid in your consideration of our request. In the planning office records which I reviewed, an evaluation of the site was made by the planning staff and stated the allowable FAR and the method used by the staff in its FAR calculation. This calculation specifically indicated the items which were to be deducted from the FAR calculations. As you can see from the enclosed memorandum from the planning office, dated October 12, - - . Mr. Stan Clausen October 31, 1995 Page 2 1990, the vacated portion of Gillespie Avenue was not deducted from Lot Area (see condition No.9 on the enclosed memorandum). Only those matters, such as easements, which are referred to in the definition of "Lot Area" in the City Land Use Code at section 3- 101, were deducted. It is also significant that an area of the lots referred to as the "Excepted Area" was specifically excluded from area calculations (see condition no. lIon the enclosed memorandum). The memorandum clearly shows that staff was concerned with establishing FAR limits for this subdivision. The code regulation which reduces lot area for portions of vacated streets is poorly codified and obscure. It was adopted in 1989 and is found at section 5-502 and is titled "zoning of Vacated Streets". It is not surprising that the staff did not apply its provisions when all the deductions from Lot Area are contained or referred to in section 3-101. The lots were platted in the same configuration as reviewed by the staff and there were no changes in the code between 1990 and the platting which change the applicable provisions. Please also note that the final plat, recorded in Plat Book 35 at page 99, has a City Council sign off that states that the plat was approved by Council on October 22, 1990, shortly after the date of the enclosed memorandum. Mr. and Mrs. Hernandez contracted to purchase the property in April of 1995, just two months after the final plat was recorded. I believe it was reasonable and appropriate for Mr. and Mrs. Hernandez to rely on the FAR calculation and methodology used by the planning office during their review of the zoning matters affecting the property prior to conunitting to acquire the property. The timing of this investigation almost inunediately after the completion of the Moores Lot Split platting also supports their reliance on the credibility and relevance of the planning office analysis. Mr. and Mrs. Hernandez consulted with me and with Joe Wells during their due diligence investigation of the property and at no time did any of us have any reason to question the statistical information contained in the City's records upon which the approval of the subdivision was based. The property lies within the Hallam Lake ESA and is subject to rigorous design guidelines which will ensure that the massing and location of structures built on these lots will be consistent with City codes and policies. This property is adversely impacted by the recently adopted City design guidelines which deduct sloped areas from lot coverage for purposes of calculating FAR. My clients' were already financially conunitted to acquiring the ,...- ....# .* Mr. Stan Clausen October 31, 1995 Page 3 property when the City decided to impose the slope reductions and rather than walk away from substantial earnest money, they believed that the FAR remaining available would be just enough to meet their needs. The reductions based on slope are significant and the unanticipated deduction of the vacated portion of Gillespie street is now creating a hardship on their ability to realize a reasonable square footage for the improvements on these lots, especially in light of the significant price paid for these properties due to their location and building potential. According to our calculations, the FAR lost because of the vacated portion of Gillespie street is approximately 200 square feet in the aggregate between the two lots. Although this may not seem to be a significant amount of space, when it is coupled with the slope reductions, the other reductions in FAR brought about by the recent design regulations and the ESA regulations, this square footage has become very critical in allowing my clients to build a house that they, their children and family members can enjoy. Because of the impact of the slope reduction regulations and in order to more fully comply with the requirements of the Hallam Lake ESA regulations, Mr. and Mrs. Hernandez are considering an application to the City to revise the lot lines between these lots. Therefore, depending upon the ultimate lot configuration, the square footage loss might be slightly different with respect to each lot. However, the loss of square footage from the vacated portion of Gillespie Avenue will continue to be a problem for them. In light of the foregoing, I ask that you allow the square footage of vacated Gillespie Avenue to count towards lot coverage for purposes of FAR calculations in this instance. We believe that fairness and equity clearly support such a result. From a legal point of view, there is certainly an equitable estoppel issue present under these circumstances. I have not taken the time to provide you with a lengthy legal argument and analysis of estoppel cases, because, having dealt with you on other matters, I know that you are a fair and reasonable person and I am optimistic that the facts contained in this letter and the attached copy of the planning office memo will be sufficient for you provide the relief we are seeking. After you have had a chance to consider these matters, I would appreciate hearing from you. If you are able to deal with this - ..... """ # Mr. Stan Clausen October 31, 1995 Page 4 issue promptly, it would greatly assist my clients in their architectural planning. Thank you very much for your anticipated cooperation. Very truly yours, HERBERT S. KLEIN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ~ ~>> -::--'..'7~ He~ert S. Klein By: jk\hernandez\24 Enclosure / cc: Michael Lipkin / Cecil and Noelle Hernandez v - , ~b " MEMORANDUM FROM: Mayor and City Council Carol O'Dowd, City Manage~ Amy Margerum, Planning Director~ Kim Johnson, Planner TO: THROUGH: DATE: RE: MOORES SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR A LOT SPLIT at the N.E. corner of Gillespie st. and Lake Ave. (Metes and Bounds Description in the SE 1/4 NE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 west of the sixth P.M., city of Aspen); Second Reading of Ordinance 65 (Series of 1990.) --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of this Lot Split (revised configuration 9/28/90) with conditions as required by the Engineering Department and the Land Use Code section on Lot Splits. As per Council's instruction at first reading, the conditions of approval have been expanded to inc1ude required compliance with the proposed Hallam Lake Bluff ESA which will be considered by Council on October 22. COUNCIL GOALS: This project reflects Council emphasizes fair and consistent treatment processes. goal #14 which in governmental BACKGROUND: The applicant seeks to split a 34,058.64 s.f, parcel into two lots. As per a revised configuration dated 9/28/90, Lot A will be 24,071.08 s.f. Lot B will be 9,987.56 s.f. The site is located in the R-6 Zone district. Pursuant to Section 7- 1003 A.2. of the Aspen Land Use Code revision date 8/14/89, lot splits are exempt from general subdivision requirements, but do require a approval by city Council. Subdivision approval shall be by ordinance. See proposed plat (revised configuration 9/28/90) Attachment "A". First Reading was held on October notification required by Land Use Code was provided by the Planning Office. 8. 15 day newspaper Section 6-205 E.3.a. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Engineers Jim Gibbard and forwarded memos regarding the proposed lot split "B". ) Their comments are reflected in the list Chuck Roth (Attachment of proposed 1 .. conditions of approval. Since reviewing the 9/28 lot revision, Engineering staff feels comfortable with the new lot configurations. The Yvonne Blocker with the Housing Authority submitted comments (Attachment "C") which are also reflected in the recommended conditions of approval. George Robinson with the Parks Department has no problems with the proposal as long as all City Of Aspen tree removal codes are met. He added that relocating the irrigation ditch easement is not a problem as long as the streets and Engineering Department are satisfied with the new alignment. Judy McKenzie from the Water Department forwards this comment: "Concerned with easements for water to Lot B - at this present time they have no access to water other then off of Lake Ave." Tom Cardamone, Director of A.C.E.S. submitted a letter of tentative approval of this lot split based on preliminary agreement with the Moores' architect regarding certain issues. As the City is still in the process of creating an Environmentally Sensitive Area overlay for the Hallam Lake Bluff, Mr. Cardamone is working with individual owners and their representatives to lessen the impact of development on the A.C.E.S. nature sanctuary. The "formula" which A.C.E.S. is promoting: 1. Excludes development from the bank. 2. Establishes setback and stepped back building parameters which allow for alterations on a site by site basis. 3. Provides for significant screening with native trees and shrubs. 4. Protects A.C.E.S. from dogs, other predators, intrusive lighting, etc. Please see Mr. Cardamone's letter, Attachment "D". PROJECT DISCUSSION: The current use is a vacant single family residential parcel. The neighborhood is predominantly single family residential. Another lot split request is in progress directly to the south (Erdman property.) Proposed lot sizes would allow maximum development of a single family residence on each lot with an accessory dwelling unit for each (as required by Ordinance 1, 1990.) The lot split request complies with the subdivision exemption requirements of Section 7-1003 A.2.A. : CONDITION a: The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the ci ty Council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds 2 '" .~ parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the city of Aspen on March 14, 1969. RESPONSE: The property is a metes and bounds parcel and has not been subdivided after adoption of subdivision regulations. CONDITION b: No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district and the applicant commits that any lot for which development is proposed will contain an Accessory Dwelling unit. When there is demolition on the property which makes it subject to the provision of Art. 5, Div. 7, Replacement Housing Program, the standards of that program shall supersede these requirements. RESPONSE: No more than two lots are being created, both conforming to the underlying district requirements. The newly created lots will be 24,071.08 s.f. and 9,987.56 s.f. Access and other surface easements are subtracted from the areas of the lots. The lots comply with the 6,000 s.f. minimum for the R-6 Zone District for single family residences. The applicant understands that any lot for which development is proposed must contain an Accessory Dwelling unit as required by the Land Use Code. **Accessory Dwelling Units are Conditional Uses, requiring site specific review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission.** Upon approval configurations, be: of the lot split with the 9/28/90 lot the following FAR and site coverage limits will Lot A: FAR maximum 4,358 s.f.(access and proposed irrigation easements are subtracted from lot area for calculating FAR); site coverage maximum - 20% (4,814 s.f.) Lot B: FAR maximum 3,593.9 s.f.(proposed irrigation easement subtracted from lot area); site Coverage maximum- 28.4.% (2,836 s.f.) Note: Accessory Dwelling units which are 100% above grade allow for a floor area bonus up to 250 s.f. to the main residence. CONDITION c: The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of an exemption under the provisions of this article or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Sec. 8-104 (C) (1) (a). RESPONSE: The lot has not previously received a lot split exemption nor any other subdivision exemption. CONDITION D: A subdivision plat is submitted and recorded after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this Article and growth management allocation pursuant to Art. 8. RESPONSE: A condition of approval will be that the 3 ....... \"...'" subdivision plat will be recorded only if notes are added to the plat indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots,~nd that any further units will be developed under the provision of Article 7 and growth management allocations of I Article 8. INfo ~tu\ ~. ~ M rU /IlK ~ I Dj-rV 10 . ALTERNATIVES: without a lot split, the property may be (J redeveloped as one or two detached residences (single ownership) or one duplex. with a Conditional Use permit, the property could be used for Day Care, Church, School, Museum or Accessory Dwelling uses. RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends approval of the Moores Lot Split request with the following conditions: 1. The plat must meet all of the Engineering requirements in Municipal Code Chapter 24, section 7-1004 D. 2. Prior to filing a final plat the applicant must agree to join any future Improvement Districts. 3. One joint driveway access will be allowed for both lots via the 20' access easement across Lot A. 4. The applicant must verify approval for water service to Lot B from the Aspen Water Department prior to filing the plat. 5. The irrigation easement, if moved to the proposed location, must be a platted easement with legal description, subject to Engineering, Parks and Street Department's approval in writing. 6. Development on these parcels must meet the storm water design requirements of Section 24-7.1004.C.4.f. of the code. 7. An Accessory Dwelling unit must be included on each lot for which development is proposed as a requirement of this Lot Split. Each Accessory Dwelling unit must comply with the Housing Authority's requirements and must receive Conditional Use approval by the Aspen Planning and ,Zoning commission. 8. Prior to issuance of any building permits, Deed Restrictions for the Accessory Dwelling Units shall be approved by the Housing Authority and recorded by the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. 9. The Floor Area and site coverage limits will be: Lot A: FAR maximum irrigation easements calculating FAR); site Lot B: FAR maximum easement subtracted from 4,358 s.f.(access and proposed are subtracted from lot area for Coverage maximum - 20% (4,814 s.f.) 3,593.9 s.f.(proposed irrigation lot area); site Coverage maximum- 4 ...,."-...., ''-- ,... 28.4.% (2,836 s.f.) 10. The 10' Side Setback requirements. Front Setback for Lot B along N45 OO'OO"E shall be a to be dimensioned according to applicable zoning 11. The "Excepted Area" on the plat shall be removed from any area calculations. 12. Development proposed for any lot(s) resulting from this lot split shall conform to the terms and requirements of the Hallam Lake Bluff Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) if such ESA is enacted prior to issuance of any Building Permits for construction on said lot(s). 13. A Subdivision Exemption Agreement listing the conditions of approval shall be included as a note section on the final plat. 14. The final plat will be signed by the Planning Office and recorded by the City Clerk only upon complete satisfaction of the above conditions. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to have second reading of Ordinance 65 (Series of 1990) approving the Moores Lot Split with conditions. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: :;: COIl C"c....-r ATTACHMENTS: "A" - Proposed Plat "B" Engineering Referral Comments "C" Housing Authority Referral Comments liD" Referral from Tom Cardamone, A.C.E.S. Ordinance 65 under consideration, with amended condition regarding compliance with the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA jtkvj/Moores.ccmemo 5 ""~.... I""" - Joseph Wells - I 6 Joseph Wells, AICP Land Planning and Design Kim Johnson Aspen/pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen CO 81611 Dear Kim: I am forwarding for your review our proposed language for the conditions to be shown on the Moores Lot Split Plat. As you have suggested, we anticipate that the conditions will be listed under the heading "Subdivision Exemption Agreement." Please let me know if the language is acceptable. If so, I will ask Alpine surveys to add the language to the Plat. Sincerely, 1 _"pO "!/ 'h~.; '~-I / &'(o----II/~~~ Joseph Wells, AICP JW/b cc: Jed Caswell Brooke Peterson Michael Doyle 130 Midland Park Place, Numher F2 Aspen, Colorado 816n Telephone (303) 925-8080 Facsimile (303) 925-8275 q~ MEMORANDUM FROM: Mayor and City Council Carol O'Dowd, City Manager A~l~ Amy Margerum, Planning Director~~' Kim Johnson, Planner TO: THROUGH: DATE: RE: MOORES SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR A LOT SPLIT at the N.E. corner of Gillespie st. and Lake Ave. (Metes and Bounds Description in the SE 1/4 NE 1/4 of section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 west of the sixth P.M., city of Aspen); First Reading of Ordinance 6S' (Series of 1990.) --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of this Lot Split (revised configuration 9/28/90) with conditions as required by the Engineering Department and the Land Use Code section on Lot Splits. COUNCIL GOALS: This project reflects Council emphasizes fair and consistent treatment processes. goal #14 which in governmental BACKGROUND: The applicant seeks to split a 34,058.64 s.f. parcel into two lots. As per a revised configuration dated 9/28/90, Lot A will be 24,071.08 s.f. Lot B will be 9,987.56 s.f. The site is located in the R-6 Zone district. Pursuant to section 7- 1003 A.2. of the Aspen Land Use Code revision date 8/14/89, lot splits are exempt from general subdivision requirements, but do require a approval by City Council. Subdivision approval shall be by ordinance. See proposed plat (revised configuration 9/28/90) Attachment "A". REFERRAL COMMENTS: Engineers Jim Gibbard and Chuck Roth forwarded memos regarding the proposed lot split (Attachment "B".) Their comments are reflected in the list of proposed conditions of approval. Since reviewing the 9/28 lot revision, Engineering Staff feels comfortable with the new lot configurations. The Yvonne Blocker with the Housing Authority submitted comments (Attachment "C") which are also reflected in the recommended conditions of approval. George Robinson with the Parks Department has no problems with 1 ''''.'' the proposal as long as all city Of Aspen tree removal codes are met. He added that relocating the irrigation ditch easement is not a problem as long as the streets and Engineering Department are satisfied with the new alignment. Judy McKenzie from the Water Department forwards this comment: "Concerned with easements for water to Lot B - at this present time they have no access to water other then off of Lake Ave." Tom Cardamone, Director of A.C.E.S. submitted a letter of tentative approval of this lot split based on preliminary agreement with the Moores' architect regarding certain issues. As the city is still in the process of creating an Environmentally Sensitive Area overlay for the Hallam Lake Bluff, Mr. Cardamone is working with individual' owners and their representatives to lessen the impact of development on the A.C.E.S. nature sanctuary. The "formula" which A.C.E.S. is promoting: 1. Excludes development from the bank. 2. Establishes setback and stepped back building parameters which allow for alterations on a site by site basis. 3. Provides for significant screening with native trees and shrubs. 4. Protects A.C.E.S. from dogs, other predators, intrusive lighting, etc. Please see Mr. Cardamone's letter, Attachment "D". PROJECT DISCUSSION: The current use is a vacant single family residential parcel. The neighborhood is predominantly single family residential. Another lot split request is in progress directly to the south (Erdman property.) Proposed lot sizes would allow maximum development of a single family residence on each lot with an accessory dwelling unit for each (as required by Ordinance 1, 1990.) The lot split request complies with the subdivision exemption requirements of section 7-1003 A.2.A. : CONDITION a: The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the city council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption ,of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 14, 1969, RESPONSE: The property is a metes and bounds parcel and has not been subdivided after adoption of subdivision regulations. CONDITION b: No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district and the applicant commits that any lot for which development is proposed will contain an Accessory Dwelling unit. 2 When there is demolition on the property which makes it subject to the provision of Art. 5, Div. 7, Replacement Housing Program, the standards of that program shall supersede these requirements. RESPONSE: No more than two lots are being created, both conforming to the underlying district requirements. The newly created lots will be 24,071.08 s.f. and 9,987.56 s.f. Access and other surface easements are subtracted from the areas of the lots. The lots comply with the 6,000 s.f. minimum for the R-6 Zone District for single family residences. The applicant understands that any lot for which development is proposed must contain an Accessory Dwelling unit as required by the Land Use Code. **Accessory Dwelling units are Conditional uses, requiring site specific review by the Aspen Planning and zoning commission.** Upon approval configurations, be: of the lot split with the 9/28/90 lot the following FAR and site coverage limits will Lot A: FAR maximum 4,358 s.f.(access and proposed irrigation easements are subtracted from lot area for calculating FAR); site Coverage maximum - 20% (4,814 s.f.) Lot B: FAR maximum 3,593.9 s.f.(proposed irrigation easement subtracted from lot area); site Coverage maximum- 28.4.% (2,836 s.f.) Note: Accessory Dwelling units which are 100% above grade allow for a floor area bonus up to 250 s.f. to the main residence. CONDITION c: The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of an exemption under the provisions of this article or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Sec. 8-104 (C) (1) (a). RESPONSE: The lot has not previously received a lot split exemption nor any other subdivision exemption. CONDITION D: A subdivision plat is submitted and recorded after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this Article and growth management allocation pursuant to Art. 8. RESPONSE: A condition of approval will be that the subdivision plat will be recorded only if notes are added to the plat indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots, and that any further units will be developed under the provisions of Article 7 and growth management allocations of Article 8. ALTERNATIVES: redeveloped as or one duplex. without a lot split, the one or two detached residences with a Conditional Use Permit, property may be (single ownership) the property could 3 be used for Day Care, Church, School, Museum or Accessory Dwelling uses. RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends approval of the Moores Lot Split request with the following conditions: 1. The plat must meet all of the Engineering requirements in Municipal Code Chapter 24, section 7-1004 D. 2. Prior to filing a final plat the applicant must agree to join any future Improvement Districts. 3. One joint driveway access will be allowed for both lots via the 20' access easement across Lot A. 4. The applicant must verify approval for water service to Lot B from the Aspen Water Department prior to filing the plat. 5. The irrigation easement, if moved to the proposed location, must be a platted easement with legal description, subj ect to Engineering, Parks and street Department's approval in writing. 6. Development on these parcels must meet the storm water design requirements of section 24-7.1004.C.4.f. of the code. 7. An Accessory Dwelling unit must be included on each lot for which development is proposed as a requirement of this Lot Split. Each Accessory Dwelling unit must comply with the Housing Authority's requirements and must receive Conditional Use approval by the Aspen Planning and Zoning commission. 8. Prior to issuance of any building permits, Deed Restrictions for the Accessory Dwelling units shall be approved by the Housing Authority and recorded by the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. 9. The Floor Area and site coverage limits will be: Lot A: FAR maximum 4,358 s.f.(access and proposed irrigation easements are subtracted from lot area for calculating FAR); site Coverage maximum - 20% (4,814 s.f.) Lot B: FAR maximum 3,593.9 s.f.(proposed irrigation easement subtracted from lot area); site Coverage maximum- 28.4.% (2,836 s.f.) 10. The 10' Front Setback for Lot B along N45 OO'OO"E shall be a Side Setback to be dimensioned according to applicable zoning requirements. 11. The "Excepted Area" on the plat shall be removed from any area calculations. 4 ,. ....."" > MESSAGE DISPLAY TO CC KIM JOHNSON JACK REID CC CHUCK ROTH From: ..... _ L Geofije Robinson . ___- IU..f:Ml Subject: MOORE LOT SPLIT Message: THE PARKS DEPARTMENT HAS NO PROBLEM WITH RELOCATING THE IRRIGATION DITCH ON THE MOORE LOT AS LONG AS IT IS NOT A PROBLEM WITH THE STREETS DEPT, ENGINEERING OR PLANNING. -------========x========------- "'., .,~ \... ." "-.f MESSAGE DISPLAY TO KIM JOHNSON From: George Robinson Postmark: :39 AM status: Certified Previously read Subject: MOORES LOT SPLIT PARCEL ID# 2735-121-21-001 Message: I HAVE REVIEWED THE APPLICATION FROM JOE WELLS FOR JOHN MOORES SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR A LOT SPLIT. THE PARKS DEPARTMENT HAS NO PROBLEM WITH THE VEGETATION AS LONG AS ALL CITY OF ASPEN CODES ARE MET AND APPLIED. THE CITY IRRIGATION DITCH EASEMENT SHOULD BE PRESERVED. -------========x========------- . '- .Attachment"D" Aspen Center for Emironmental Studies P.O. BOX 8777 . ASPEN, COLORADO 81612. 303/925-5756 .... 1 I 11I.--~nBAr Ms Kim Johnson Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Kim: The following are my comments regarding the Moores lot split for Parcel No. 2735-121-21-001. These remarks are made in my capacity as the Director of the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies and as a representative of ACES' Board of Trustees. Our recent and growing concern over the negative impacts of development by ACES neighbors has been translated into a positive working relationship with several of our neighbors. We recently endorsed lot split applications in the two separate cases of Wogan and Merriam. This occurred after being approached by the applicants and working out mutually agreeable terms. Our agreements allowed for set- backs, low lighting, vegetative screening, domestic animal control, and in general, the conservation of the natural condition of the Hallam Lake bluff which provides a protective buffer between the Hallam Lake wildlife sanctuary and the developed portions of surrounding private properties. More recently, ACES has worked with the Planning Office and the Planning and Zoning Commission to hammer out the details of an Environmentally Sensitive Area overlay which would assure that protective provisions would apply to all ACES neighbors to prevent negative impacts on Hallam Lake as well as ACES neighbors. Since the ESA overlay is not likely to be approved prior to City Council's consideration of the Moores lot split application, ACES suggests that approval of this application be contingent on acceptance by the applicant of terms comparable to those outlined in the recently approved Merriam lot split. In fact, ACES endorses the Moores lot split if such terms are applied with the exception of the 15' setback which we think could be altered to allow for limited building within the 15' setback providing the average setback is 15' or greater and a substantial screen of native trees and shrubs exists or is installed. The Moores architects, Tim Hagman, Larry Yaw, and Michael Doyle have been very helpful in working with ACES to craft a workable formula for the -2- proposed ESA overlay. ACES Trustees are happy with the formula which: 1. Excludes development from the bank. 2. Establishes setback and stepped back building parameters which allow for alterations on a site by site basis. 3. Provides for significant screening with native trees and shrubs. 4, Protects ACES from dogs, other predators, intrusive lighting, etc. We very much appreciate the interest and cooperation we have received from the Planning Office. Sincerely, Thomas M. Cardamone Naturalist-Director . t t) '~.; ) ) ~. ,~, ""..... "'..'/ ....... RESOLUTION #91-l#- A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GRANTING APPROVAL FOR HALLAM LAKE BLUFF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT' OF TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITH ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS LOCATED ON LOTS A AND B OF THE MOORES LOT SPLIT PLAT (AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LAKE AVE. AND GILLESPIE ST.) WHEREAS, on October 22, 1990, the Aspen city council approved Ordinance 65 which granted a Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split to John and Rebecca Moores; and WHEREAS, one of the conditions of approval contained in Ordinance 65 requires and any development within the two lots created by the Lot Split shall comply with the Hallam Lake BlUff Environmentally sensitive Area (ESA) review criteria; and WHEREAS, the Moores submitted application for the development of the two lots; and to the Planning Office an two residences, one on each of WHEREAS, the required planning processes were ESA review, Special Review for encroachment into the applicable ESA height and setback along the slope, and Conditional Use review for accessory dwelling units; and WHEREAS, on February 19, 1991 at a regularly scheduled public hearing, the Planning and Zoning commission considered the merits of the application, referral comments from Tom Cardamone of the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies, and recommendations from the Planning Office; and WHEREAS, the Commission voted unanimously to approve the ESA Review, Special Review, and Conditional Use with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION that it does grant approval for Hallam Lake Bluff ESA Review, Special Review and Conditional Use Review for Lots A and B of the Moores Lot Split Plat with the following conditions: 1. The lot split plat must be filed prior to filing deed restrictions or issuance of any building permits. Conditional Use 2. The size of the accessory unit for Lot B must be changed to be within 300 to 700 square feet of net livable area as defined by the Housing Guidelines. Revised floorplans shall be submitted to and approved by Planning and Zoning staff. 3. Prior to issuance of any Building Permit for the individual 1 , ) . . '~ -- 'J , l ,.-, '" f .... lots, each Accessory Dwelling unit must be deed restricted for a period of fifty years as a resident occupied unit with a six month minimum lease. The Housing Authority must approve the deed restriction prior to it being filed with the pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. 4. Proof of recordation of the deed restrictions shall be forwarded to the Planning Office and the Housing Authority. Hallam Lake Bluff ESA Review 5. The applicant shall provide for Planning's review an amended photograph #3 which shows the two building elevations and proposed pine tree plantings. staff shall evaluate this information to determine if additional .evergreen plantings will be required to provide a 50% winter vegetative screen. 6. The applicant shall adopt the Planning Office's determination of the top of slope for Lot A as shown on Attachment "B" of the 2/9/91 Planning memo. The 15' setback shall be taken from this revised line. 7. The site specific development plan as approved shall be filed at the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office after signature by the Planning Director and Planning and Zoning Chairperson. 8. Any amendment to the site specific development plan must be reviewed according to the terms of the Land Use Code section governing the Hallam Lake Bluff E.S.A. Special Review 9. Both structures shall be moved onto the front and side setbacks of their respective lots to minimize intrusion onto the top of slope setback as much as possible. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on February 19, 1991. Attest: Planning and Zoning commission: J~~~ T4~ WeltGI'I A.n?~n:Qn, Chai an(Vlc.e..) JAS H. l I-X:.. \y c:;.e.c Jan Carney, Deputy city Clerk 2 MEMORANDUM ~.~ (pi. s~o ~ ... -- ......... TO: Planning and Zoning commission FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office RE: Moores Hallam Lake Bluff ESA and Special Review and Conditional Use Review DATE: February 9, 1991 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- sUDIJ!Iary: The Planning Office recommends tabling this multi- rev~ew item. The commission should direct the applicant to relocate the proposed residences to minimize encroachment into the top of slope setback and height limit. The landscape plan should include additional evergreens upon evaluation of photos indicating the building elevations through the deciduous vegetation. Also, the applicant must reduce the net livable area of the accessory dwelling unit on Lot B to comply with size limitations contained in Ordinance 60 (1990.) Applicant: Mr. and Mrs. John Moores, represented by Joe Wells Location: 200 W. Gillespie, north and east of the intersection of Lake Ave. and Gillespie st. (Lots A and B of the Moores Lot Split, approved in October 1990.) Zoning: R-6, overlain by the Hallam Lake Bluff Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA). Proposal: The Moores propose to build one principal residence on each of the two lots, each residence to contain an accessory dwelling unit. Both homes will be accessed by one driveway off of Gillespie st. Please see Attachment "A" for site plan, site sections and selected floor plans. Referral Comments: Tom Cardamone with A.C.E.S. reviewed the proposal and spoke with staff about it. He plans to attend the meeting to speak about the application. He appreciates that the applicant worked with ACES to help develop a workable set of criteria during the development of the ESA overlay. The applicant's landscape designer met with Tom at A.C.E.S. to try to visualize the vegetative cover needed for the property. Photos were taken and submitted in the application. He would like to see the outlines of the buildings and proposed ponderosa pines drawn onto photo #3 to get an idea of winter visibility through the deciduous vegetation. While the summertime vegetation would appear to provide the required 50% cover, more evergreen plantings may be needed for winter screening. Tom thinks that a few substantial evergreens (14-16 feet tall) might need to be planted on the flat area above the slope. ~'~G~/ ~~. ....... 1........ ......... ~ staff Comments: Staff made a specific review few observations criteria: directly not related to the - The lot split plat has yet to be filed. It appears that a co~ed wal~ runs between residences. This cros~the lot line and side therefore it cannot be allowed. the two setbacks, - The driveway may not be totally within the access easement. The development plan must include the easement to verify this. - Square footage of the residences was not given. This might be important to Lot B because of the oversized accessory dwelling unit. Conditional Use for Accessorv Dwellinq units - As a result of the Lot Split action, any development on these lots must contain an accessory dwelling unit, requiring Conditional Use approval. The uni t in the Lot A home is proposed to be 370 s. f. The Lot B unit is proposed to be 842 s.f. The following standards must be addressed for each of the two proposed units: A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is proposed to be located; and Response: As earlier stated, the units by the approval of the 1990 Lot Split. conditional uses in the R-6 zone. are provided as required Accessory dwellings are B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; and Response: As attached units, they are as in character with the neighborhood as the main homes. C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; and Response: In general, these two units will not create impacts 2 r- ....,.... ,""" ~ over and above the proposed principal residences. The unit proposed for Lot B (the guest house) exceeds the 700 square foot size limit for ADUs as required by the latest language contained in Ordinance 60 (1990). However, the unit as proposed is 842.3 square feet. There is not a variance process for the size of ADUs, so it must be reduced to comply with Ordinance 60. The FAR of the parcel must still comply with R-6 requirements (taking into consideration any FAR "bonus" for 50% of the ADU square footage.) The proposed ADUs are configured as one bedroom or studio units, not requiring a dedicated parking space. D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools; and Response: The lot split required drainage easements be provided along the south borders of both lots. Other public facilities are already provided for the neighborhood. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; and Response: These units are proposed in order to comply with the City's affordable housing goals. F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter. Response: Other than the size issue of the Lot B ADU, the proposed units comply with all other additional standards and requirements. --------------------------- Hallam Lake Bluff ESA Review: This is the first project to be reviewed under the recently designated Hallam Lake Bluff ESA. The intent of this overlay area is to provide a minimal level of protection from development impacts on the A.C.E.S. nature preserve below this hillside. Attached for your reference is Ordinance 71, 1990. Please keep this with your Code book for future reference. The review standards and responses are as follows:. 1. No development, excavation vegetation planting, shall slope. or fill, take place other below than the native top of 3 - ........, - ...J Response: No development or excavation is proposed top of slope except for native vegetation plantings. discussion of the method of determining the top of contained in the Special Review section below. below the Further slope is 2. All development within the 15' setback from the top of slope shall be at grade. Any proposed development not at grade within the 15' setback must be approved by special review pursuant to Section 7-404D of this Article 7. Response: Staff is not comfortable with the method of determining top of slope for Lot A. Discussion of this is contained within the Special Review section below, as both lots would then appear to encroach into the top of slope setbacks. The applicant is pursuing special review for Lot B. Staff is reviewing Lot A under this criteria also. 3. All development outside the 15' setback from the top of slope shall not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a 45 degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by the Zoning Officer utilizing that definition set forth at Section 3- 101 of this Chapter 24. Response: Staff suggests that the method of calculating the top of slope line for Lot A should be revised. See Special Review discussion below. It would then appear that the main residence will exceed the height limit. If the structure is relocated as per staff's proposal (Attachment "B"), this problem would be lessened somewhat. Staff did not have time to redraw a section reflecting this situation. The residence on Lot B exceeds the height limit and is reviewed later in this memo. 4. A landscape plan shall be submitted with all development applications. Such plan shall include native vegetative screening of no less than 50 percent of the development as viewed from the rear (slope) of the parcel. All vegetative screening shall be maintained in perpetuity and shall be replaced with the same or comparable material should it die. Response: The project's Landscape Designer met with Tom Cardamone at the site. Limited pruning of cottonwood saplings is suggested by Tom to promote quick regrowth of the vegetation that had been previously cut down. The building elevations and proposed pine plantings should be added to the applicant's photo #3 to clarify the buildings' visual impact. Further discussion of the landscape plan is contained below. 5. All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the nature preserve or located down the slope. 4 -"'"' '1../ ......, '''.I Response: A lighting application. Theapplicant with this requirement. plan was not submitted with the commits that all lighting will comply 6. No fill material or debris shall be placed on the face of the slope. Historic drainage patterns and rates must be maintained. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained down the slope. Response: The below the top methods will patterns. applicant states that no disturbance will occur of slope line. Dry wells or other engineered be installed to replicate historic drainage 7. site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect, or engineer shall be submitted showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top of slope, and pertinent elevations above sea level. Response: Hagman Yaw Architects have submitted sketches included in the application and your packet (Attachment "A".) ------------------------------- ESA Special Review: Four review criteria must be met in order to grant a Special Review for location of any above or below grade structure within the 15' setback from the top of slope or above the height limit established by the 45 degree angle originating at the top of slope. The application requests Special Review for Lot B as the structure clearly intrudes into the setback from the top of slope as well as the height limit. Additionally, for Lot A, staff feels that the top of slope line as submitted by the applicant does not accurately reflect the true contours of the site. The application states that the three points were chosen to smooth out the irregularities of the slope, and that discussion during the code amendment process determined that an applicant may choose any three points to establish the top of slope. After listening to the tape of the 10/2 P&Z meeting, staff is assured that it is not the ultimate discretion of the applicant to determine the three points. The Commission could decide if the chosen points accurately reflect the topography. At that meeting, commissioner Peyton stated that it would probably be appropriate to choose a point at each side and one near the middle. This would compensate for "concave" or "convex" lots. Chairperson Anderson stated that an applicant should contact staff if there's a question how to apply the top of slope definition to a specific project. For Lot B, the applicant used six points closely following the 5 "'"""' -, ......,) ....,... contours to determine the top of slope. Conversely for Lot A, the applicant chose to use only three points, two being within 15-20' of each other near the south and east property line. In effect, a large concave part of the site is traversed to the obvious benefit of moving the structure closer to the slope. Attachment "B" reflects how staff redrew the top of slope for Lot A using the same philosophy that the applicant used for Lot B. This moves the setback line into the site, the building then encroaching approximately 11 feet. The review criteria and responses are as follows: 1. A unique condition exists on the site where strict adherence to the top of slope setback will create an unworkable design problem. Response: The "guest house" proposed for Lot B encroaches into the setback as well as the height limit. Please see the applicant's section sketches provided in your packet. Both lots resulted from the recent lot split proposed by the Moores. The two homes were being designed at the same time the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA was being developed. Specific to this, Condition #12 of the lot split approval which City Council imposed on the properties reads: "Development proposed for any lot(s) resulting from this lot split shall conform to the terms and requirements of the Hallam Lake Bluff Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) if such ESA is enacted prior to issuance of any building permits for construction on said lot(s)." It is staff's opinion that the owner and architect proceeded with extensive design efforts for both homes prior to the lot split being finalized and in full knowledge that an ordinance was being developed which may bear on the design of both structures. The applicant shows that two sections of the guest house are located 6-7 feet into the top of slope setback. This situation is a self-imposed hardship caused by his choice of lot configuration. Both lots are currently vacant, and it is the burden of an owner/developer to design within the constraints of land use regulations in place at the time application is submitted. There has been no "vested right" for any building design on this property. A structure could certainly be designed to fit within the top of slope setback (and height limit) and the front and side setbacks for the lot (see Attachment "B".) 2. Any intrusion into the top of slope setback or height limit is minimized to the greatest extent possible. Response: For the same reasons as stated above, staff feels that little effort was made to fit the structure to the site in light 6 /", -, './ \.., of the ESA provisions as adopted. An important consideration which was not addressed by the applicant is the other setbacks required for the two lots. Staff studied both sites and building footprints regarding the front and side setback requirements. Attachment "B" shows how the structures (white footprints) could be rearranged on the lots to keep the intrusions into the setbacks to a bare minimum. For Lot B the white footprint shows that the house would be in the setback by only a couple of feet. The applicant's proposed location (the grey footprint) shows the structure into the setback 6 to 7 feet at two areas. Also, the chimney on the guest house is located in the part of the house closest to the slope, creating a +/- 20 foot intrusion into the height limit, which conflicts with this review criteria. As described in the ESA standards above, staff feels that the Lot A top of slope should be corrected. This would cause the residence to encroach into the top of slope setback by approximately 11 feet. If the home on Lot A were relocated toward the front and side setback as shown in Attachment "B", the intrusion would be kept to around 5 feet. Staff would support approval of this minimized intrusion. 3. Other parts of the structure or development on the site are located outside the top of slope setback line or height limit to the greatest extent possible. Response: Both building facades move back from the slope except for limited parts of the building. This criteria is satisfied, especially if the structures are relocated as staff proposes. 4. Landscape treatment is increased to screen the structure or development in the setback from all adjoining properties. Response: In Tom Cardamone's discussions with the landscape designer, it was determined that a 50% vegetative screen currently exists, if only selective pruning of the cottonwood saplings occurs. Tom and staff feel that additional plantings of substantial evergreen trees be installed along the top of slope especially if the Commission does not feel that the structures should be moved back into the site. He suggested "substantial" to mean 14-16 foot spruces and pines. They must be planted in the flat yard area on top of the bluff so the installation of the +/- 6 foot diameter root balls will not destroy the slope. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends tabling the proposal for the following reasons which should be revisited by the Commission: 1. the discrepancy between staff's and the applicant's method of determining the top of slope/setback for Lot A 7 ,...-. ....... '''" ./ '" .... 2. the ability for the applicant to relocate the structures towards the front and side setbacks on both lots to reduce encroachments into the top of slope setback to a minimum 3. the accessory dwelling unit for Lot B exceeds the 700 square foot maximum as required in Ordinance 60 (1990) 4. the need to add the building outlines on the photographs for better evaluation of the vegetation screening and/or need for additional evergreen plantings Before bringing this proposal back onto the table, the applicant should submit to the Planning Office revised site plans, section sketches, and floor plans which address these four concerns. ~If the Commission does not wish to table this item, preferring instead to approve it relying on further staff review, the following conditions should be imposed: 1. The lot split plat must be filed prior to filing deed restrictions or issuance of any building permits. Conditional Use 2. The size of the accessory unit for Lot B must be changed to be within 300 to 700 square feet of net livable area as defined by the Housing Guidelines. Revised floorplans shall be submitted to and approved by Planning and Zoning staff. 3. Prior to issuance of any Building Permit for the individual lots, each Accessory Dwelling unit must be deed restricted for a period of fifty years as a resident occupied unit with a six month minimum lease. The Housing Authority must approve the deed restriction prior to it being filed with the pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. 4. Proof of recordation of the deed restrictions shall be forwarded to the Planning Office and the Housing Authority. Hallam Lake Bluff ESA Review 5. The applicant shall provide for Planning's review an amended photograph #3 which shows the two building elevations and proposed pine tree plantings. staff shall evaluate this information to determine if additional evergreen plantings will be required to provide a 50% winter vegetative screen. 6. The applicant shall determine the top of slope for Lot A by using six site sections. The 15 I setback shall be taken from this revised line. 8 - 1.." ""'"'\ ....."'1 7. The site specific development plan as approved shall be filed at the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office after signature by the Planning Director and Planning and Zoning Chairperson. 8. Any amendment to the site specific development plan must be reviewed according to the terms of the Land Use Code section governing the Hallam Lake Bluff E.S.A. Special Review 9. Both structures shall be moved onto the front and side setbacks of their respective lots to minimize intrusion onto the top of slope setback as much as possible. I' '\.,( The chimney shall be relocated further from the slope to ~\~~~UCe intrusion into the height limit. Attachments: "A" - Application site Drawings, Floor Plans "B" - Staff sketches with proposed building relocations Ordinance 71 adopting the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA jtkvj/moores.esa.memo 9 ",<' " 12. A Subdivision Exemption Agreement listing the conditions of approval shall be included as a note section on the final plat. 13. The final plat will be signed by the Planning Office and recorded by the City Clerk only upon complete satisfaction of the above conditions. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to have first reading of Ordinance G9~ (Series of 1990) for the Moores Lot Split. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: f- Ct1n?-vr. ATTACHMENTS: "A" Proposed Plat "B" Engineering Referral Comments "c" Housing Authority Referral Comments "D" Referral from Tom Cardamone, A.C.E.S. Ordinance under consideration jtkvj/Moores.ccmemo 5 LC SITUATED IN HALLAM'S ADDITJ '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~... . > i; . OI'~ /Of HERE! . c:Jk;r;;;:::," ~ D co f1!2]l&J ~"-~S . DfntES ~ ~~ lib!$~r;;;;; ~ t;5,,~ ~ fi:~~~~~~{;;;;:::] t;;;;:)..~~r;;:;:s"~~ f;5,,~~€i:t(;;;;:]~ c:::J$el~~ c:::::J ~~r:::::::k?JJ;;;:J:i~~~,... -, ~ c:::$~~~fi:fei(;;;r ? e D ,...B-1/f;J~bic;:J 8" c:::::; t::] €iJ {;;::] r:::::;\5@"ts "c::::Jp Cj e r:!5Ef;j &~... c::::J ~D ~..~ ~ j"Sc::::JIS D Cj ~e.?r;;;::jfij €3 t::3;;; c::::::::._ VICINITY MAP SCAU':> I". lceo I PROPERTY DESCRIPTION A TRACT Of LAND olTUATED I~ THE OE VA NE 1/4 OF :JECTION 12.( TOWN~IP 10 ~H, RANGE 55 'w'E?T OF THE. 311<TH P.M./ CIIY Of A5PEN( PITkiN COUN~CDLORA[x)/ BEI~ MORE FULLY DE?CRIf7t::I7 A'::) R:UO.N'0 ' BE6INNINS AT A FDINT vlHENCEIl-lEEA:JT IA CORNER. of'?AID SECllON 12 BEAR'? 5<PL(I4'I7"E ",!Q.q.:?'5 FEET/ THENCE: Nt)'jo.5Zlod'w 17,50 FEET. TI--IENCt::: NeDo 3/)IOO"VV 12.001 Ff.E.-G n-JENCE orJ4"5l'Od'E iL,'Z)7 FtET; 1HE:N:::E NORTH 5."11 FEET; T1-iENCE NB7007'CO"E (P37 FEET; Ti--IENCE NCD"IoS5'CO"E U(p.07 FEET, , -'-HCI-."E E'^""-' -21 / I t"cp- : LI "'--' J--"..--'I :..J, -:0 ,l_..._~: THEi'-IGf 50'1"52'00"[ '12-<;;3> fEE-G -.~ 'r".v--,~ C.,--"o/,t:::o~l1r:: /;0 Ir ~......-r.....- ] 05 WIIt XAL -- Bt\SI' AfZE 3ETvv AND WES1 fCX)N DATE ~ - '-' - ....-/ Joseph Wells Joseph Wells, AICP Land Planning and Design " ";\.- I Mr. Chuck Roth City of Aspen Engineering Department 130 South Galena Aspen CO 81611 t Dear Chuck: . I am forwarding for your review a revised lotting scheme for the Moores property, If this addresses your concerns, would you let me know as soon as possible so that we can have this change added to the other plat changes which we have in progress? , When we met with you on September 26, I was unaware of the fact that one of our problems with Lot B is that if the size increases to 10,000 sq.ft., we would then be required to meet the more restrictive setback provisions for lots of that size and that would tend to force the house for Lot B back toward Hallam Lake. This is not desirable because of ACES concerns and we are trying to be responsive to their suggestions. t I hope you can appreciate the fact that the owners have already spent in excess of $50,000 on architectural fees to date, so we are trying to avoid changes which impact on the design unless the changes are necessary to comply with the adopted subdivision regulations of the City. Sj..1ic~rely, I ' ~/ (4eph Wells, AICP JW/b cc: Jed Caswell Kim Johnson Brooke Peterson Michael Doyle Tom Cardamone 130 Midland Park Place, Number F2 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone (303) 925-8080 Facsimile (303) 925,8275 /.., MEMORANDUM To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer ~~ D Re: Moores Lot Split Recent information requires that the engineering department provide further comments on the above reference application. 1. This property has been in discussion for some four and a half months concerning relocation of an irrigation ditch easement. This issue must be resolved in writing to the satisfaction of city parks, streets, and engineering departments prior to further consideration of the application. 2. The map which was submitted does not qualify as a plat. A plat must be submitted which meets the requirements of section 24-7.1004D.2.a. Of special concern will be the statement by the surveyor that all easements shown on a referenced, recent title policy have been shown on the plat. 3. The engineering department is concerned about the proposed shape of Lot A. The shape appears to violate the intent of section 24-7.1004C.4.c(3) of the code by having a reverse angle in the property boundary. The original parcel contains this reverse angle, but the lot split provides the opportunity to reduce the non-conformity. Additionally, the thin section of Lot A which is about seven feet wide by a hundred feet long presents a dilemma. If setbacks are deducted from the space, there is no developable space left, so how can it be included in developable area? Does the city want to approve a one hundred foot long by seven feet wide lot shape? What will its use be? A dog kennel run for Lot A which is actually adjacent to and down wind from Lot B? This does not appear to be an acceptable shape even though staff is having difficulty finding a specific code section which prohibits the shape. 4. Development of these parcels must meet the storm water design requirements of section 24-7.1004.C.4.f of the code. cc: Jed Caswall, City Attorney Bob Gish, Public Works Director Jim Gibbard, Project Engineer CR/cr/memo 90.162 -- NEW STREET ADDRESSl.,..., 215 SOUTH MONARCH ST, Alpine Surveys, Inc. 414 NOFI19 Mill Stroet Post Office Box 1730 Aspen. Colorado 81612 303 925 2688 ....... ....., ~-)' ,~ , ,.,' ,:". Sf? 2 1 199il ~,,' , l..'i.y' (:~ ,>,..,r "...",j I-\R. ~ ROfH '"tl.\6I\..1ECel Ub Df.f'Af=rMlSIlT C\T't Dr A "'fI'ON \ '70 '500'l11 ~A ~-nacr:.f M>rf'N, Co 'illlo I' \JOB rJo. ~- 4~ Mooe€s .:p~ c..ij\JCK: I I-lMl~ r.u1J ~t4:-0 iO U)/,lfle.,.A vJlTlt '(uti TItf: f'R> fb"lED ~&.ClYmoN of Tlt€ 1e.~GAnON eA5EMe:NT O"-l 11tt. 1-100~5 loT 7f'L..IT. o~ Tltf et-.lCl..a'>W Q)f"1 \ I+Ave At.-~ 'i>Ht)N1J IfJ UO l1fE. tol v.)\t<:e. 4~ M)P VTlL-tT\1 f;.A~eMeNT io101lI'-O -reN fetf NO~~L.,,\ TO A-CCOI\.\~r)'DA1f-. l1tE jeel-OCAfCD I ~te\Gr't110N tM,eI-'.PNT' , I AM f"F!e~etST\.."\ Al>PI~6 ~ ~F-QUI\2e.O [....MJ"6lJ/I6E 10 TIll=- fU\1 !buT MI.-If l..O~A~A;no~ it:vM'16\) BMceE ~ttnWlt-lb ~ ~Lo~ \ ~~6ATh:>N EA'i>cI-lW.. r lJ6W $f+~ 't>C~K "'I'~ \IJ 11\1 So'il1e\!\.I.-tJO - fA-UA t.I IIf TttE- eejJt..~\CA f.l<)1lA>1~ otJ ure AIlEtJUE. '1~ 1l'\.k-1 ~ ltlt: ~ AT ,\1..5-4,,:>11, 01~ceecL"\ I ~~ <-JA1tIJ!!. ~ ~~T"ED CC'. \-MGMAl-l YM vot:. 1,ojPll-? - ~ O'? !3 '?C: \ ~i r: .. '-.J. ". J I IC ':'"ITr", ~::; '.'" '-:,::::0 1 ~ : loIEMORAl-<DUM I TO: K:;~I Jdlm3'J!' I l'c/l.t'1l'1tn<;r FROM: 'i'fr'_"\on~ t.~. '"'t;..'}(~r. I H:ouu~. is' DATE: ~ ~ ~~ - :- ": ., LL,. "~,""". --.. RE: M()o.res tot Sp}it Pdrcel lrl 2133-121-21-001 Slr.I_ ..... _-"'..",\uC:~':':: '~_L ......1 ,."1' .\l:'O"..a II!_...... _ ft.,.r '.~. ..c~; ~ .:r::l=_=:G:~.':m.lo':;l.:IllI,=::c I I st""',:'\Fi'i A:,,! II'" . ,et aPlJI:'Ova: 0' ~i<<IIlr,pt.i'm for a 10., II~' l' ~l''i.~ tw:> parG9j.e .;! 10, .:~J S~I' (Q eqw ~& t..-.; ~"j: ~ "!::: >n'-Ie',:; I,A) (2. ~nd ...W." E develoorr,e.nt ~'f ii. ,0" ,2!iOlV "..'aIling ..nit f',r . .. Section 8-11)4 (B) ,1; (0) , AppTICANT' Nr. . ~l '3, J0hr, l1c.ore APPLICM'T S \-<;!'..<>, ~n. j., -IE :"c:~ep:'j We:lls r..OCA'!:rON I 2 \1 W. 'II': . iI' ,~pit. ZON !NG: R'.6 -- -- G Attachment "e" p.OL 'om &ubdivi..ivn "'(,let and 23,767 6mption fOl the '.!Ie:' lot under rtEQ"ll:S I A:. ,lj _,ar' ';:1 ~et"" .11;';> ':It d 1 b -J:t:~1'\t .- 6. P6 r Sectler: 7- ~003 IA) (2) lil.1:(I <:;.1 s1;:i;alvliti<:l'" 0, .t~pdQ'1 f.:> the split of 1I lot t\-;'1" tht:, ..~u: P'-~ c d..l,.telo:)!~~rat. 0... (,:r~~ :., { c. _ached single- family dWel. ;n'J <?~ 1 fcnr,,act by t 1 . ..pI ~.~ 3r. ted subsequent to NOv..m~er 14, 1~'; '~hero ll' 1 {,~ th fell;;." :.nq <,:onditions are met SGct1'~rl ~-l(;' (.... (:Ii ':b) r~C;:'.1~re.: thdt. ;J1! e. then two (2) lots ar" C~H"'....:1 ')~, t'\Cl let "p;,i", ";;..1".1' 1)'"", <.onform to tll,;! req~ire.'.ant,. of '":. ,dQ);}.y':n'J ZNH;? ""tdct ai'" tDe applicant commit. tha fU:,) ,: ~l Nh:' er ,!,a"..l,:.p'l'.ft ,t iF; \c, oo,.d "/ij.l cor.tain an t\cce.,.Ol: ;)u':;' l' oJ ;'1it ....ppll~<lnt.. ~cque',: ~ .,)proval Sls pe~' Seedor: i3-1~'9 a ,:..tac-'ied residontial \mi t or dup -;,..1< S'rAl"! RI'.C,)MJ1Et';:,l, r ( one .:.et.!!ch(w ~ l~. dev&lopmer.t c,r ~;, the d6velCJp)1~er,~ -!(.1. contii t ioned .lpc. '. , F,..CClIn[; c, nd .~ppl Molly ;',welln'1 ~. ~~( ac(;a~~o~'y r ie '"I 0 < tn." ~". -::"'~~' iO'lo;,J.ng: I.-a;. (, tho pill!' 1.1; '..11ir,,;.,n 'Y 1\..'t'.,:.. .1.1''':, 1. An ~CCiH'.\C Y' '-'f! sq\:.ar. fl\et til"d 1(" <:. e.ncl to; I.(,C:~ ..d Ji t:" ' '1 owntlc- of t.tH, ',tet ~,.,. 1 .ng ~ni:. :thE 1 t'.h(\l'l 1; 30 ".l.1a ~ (.c h+'.6.r'~ad ~~ 0 3. ~6: "! .ins .1r it- 9~' c:otn'.a~. f ...t' P 1"\( 1- ,.,0 fie' :; f .)( j '..;1 developr,lent. of ) include the . Approval of ",nits shall bo lees than 300 .. livdble area re,lidence. The qv ired to re'lt \J~; 1 3 "3L' 11: ... - ",---- (l F ;"".,:,; II:. :1:!T;' ~~C= ?-;"C' :.~".:~O F-', D.2 o q . or l~t!ae tl:r; '~,1i ; O'.l, if 1:; 1S rentl.\d (, :'''i!'l-",.;d, it ff"lall be done " '1 compl..a;;c< \. Ln t;h~ HOUB: ng dea19".aa's gu,id" '~l.r.eili for s\lch .~ u 'r and. !3ha:"::' b", l'M,teod or lGr.!i:,~d '_,;, a \To:rk.!."'.:j r.Qeldent fer. a t",i n.)t l",sl, trIer, !Ii>: COf:dCLI\':1v., .1l:mt,he 'The Owner of an acc",s"""t'Y (il-a:~J.i :ll~ ,,':5.1:: .,hail t:~\'e the I ight to ~hcl"le& the tenant, proviJe-:t t:hdt t:lf; ': ElL Y',t ,-,thf,rl.'illl'-' \1\"8tf.\ t.ho. d<,tiro.ition or eo \Jerki.ng reaic.6n~ ~r) i", t11ll'.1 i ~ ied Cj ::'hB At,p'" JPi tkln county Houslnq AI.lt:;<.lri'.j , VJ':.' t~l (,c:::',lpa;1ci'. For 't~la purp~.e of thi!l proV~~iOn, a unlt shll' bd ce~fidered I~ntea it it i~ occupied pUr5U~:.1t to a le'lb~1 ,',r renH,!ll e.'-lr~e)nerY ',hlCt. ::.'0" ,ir€.s a payment by the :Ir~nt of ~t . th8n , n~~inal bwoun~ of r.rt. '..i..,,- ,U80 th.. rlt't livdltl'l Iiq\lil:!:'s'foat of the unl.t il3s\T.ance of' d l.u i ~ :1 ~l\g permit and the I",Sft th" a",' ~nition or "d\lslling unit" :< , /0, plll.r1 c..ec;; ';' shall 1;.. ap')"';J'1 ,0. accc'J 9:0>:'1 d~'(-:, 1 j ''''2 as per (' it.i' Code V(J 'ty ~ _~, to 3. T< d...ed l'a"Yl ~_ a1>,l::' ,"e e.lblfitt...d b" ti H01~6 Lng AU'_ho~'J. 1 .. ,,~pt'o\'II.:, prior '_0 iIH&';'~:l'1C' per~it for ~~M ~I~_ ir;" Tba a~pruY.~ i&~d rast recorda':; by :.hu ,,'It.,.i', ~ourlt.y c: '!rx~nCi f(4'c<.ll:dsl"l!l' the iss~an~~ ~! ~r~ ~~j ii,~ pur.ita. Own~r to tr.e of ill buildi"a iction muet. i:l. ff ice prior to .. ... ;." ".1" ~tr:' ,";;'.' '" '" '.. :1',: "'\.\~' ?~;:"-.:': '. 'l:('i~~/,:'~i;' :~:;,/''''''O'~' . . . "An l,~\.::"".,t;f"':.:i;~'.~.-:. ~ 1"': "." O"J ",'; ~.~'-';i";,'.. ~.;. ',:~, .fs, -:;"'1.,:,,' . Attachment "tti::f~~;SiJ.~~~~.p" ':-;';'" . . r' 'if ,:' . .~.... ~ '.'~' ~..!,,:'-', ,.;. , ~':;?~~J\~j~i;~~:1~.{;' "\i;.. <;:~,:~:;(;';~;;~~,::' i;>,,;i:~ . '. ,.:'~{~;:.(:, . -i:~: . . ~~ .;.>..""!1{.,.,.;,' ".; '..,.... i ~,'~ ',. ,;.~-..J,.:. '.;'''', ," :.N. .-.t;.'".. ." . ~ r......)"'"'lF~~'-~l~l~.,r~:...~~I.,...._ '-/..,- :<...;~.~~.r''''_''\,. ',;:.'C;' . tJ'~";"'"'''l''''''' _.;:.,.. I .~~" / &>/.i;;"", ,~ ~ ~l'\o", ., '(. .. ~"...;.'~..' .....~', "j' '::J;/!'41" \. .' > v,.. ~;~:fit "t~;~~~' ;,~:;~.~~~,'3:~'.~'t..1r'. :.....::>:',.-~S..-~~~il.:..\.:/, X.>~? {'::':" ~ "'/;'.:->-\ .,'.\; ," " '~"'\" '..;,~ "c9;( ,... ~ ~.;..~ ~!.t' ~~'h"V""....~" ~.t~", ",. ";.. .... r.. .... , " . ".'. _ J' -', ~""" /:.. ...J9" \. " "'1"'''~\''lzt.f' f:'",,:,,';>:i';.!r,.-.'(. ',' "c. ,.,,' :,,;:,,';'~~-,'~~". :""":i~.{~'r:,r: . ',;..',.~.';'''' ~~"'L<''''i>.~..-''.';/ ',..<\'9.i' A'\- . l~"'h~ .I'.I;:~1'+';:l"'.~""f'~""-:::..-'S."'l ';'f~J''':'''1''''';o';<>''''''-;\~;<~,:"":\"",,,,,,,,,,~,,...-,:.. :.~".,> ....~'{;""j ~.\ '1/ ~ ""ti ~ \~~Ifg'.''''':::~:;)J<'f'c:,~ ._.:;~.',.,...;t..jt..t.::'---;':':"';~.:'1::';~;'.:. i ~'':v. ";;,;,'~"";.o.';'~':~,:.,:;.~:- ',.,7 ~ 41' I ~~~~~1~ ~~tAA~.'~;~~ki~c$;;"~' :,~)-::r~~f~;~.tf~~~~.~~~~"~:,:~~;;!:;h~~ ~;~ ~Al; :;.';~'~~;i'~:r~.li:~,.;.-~.::;;.~~;, : ';a'~ I' 1if}1X,' ~/.:.*...,,,.~ '1{~~"';:-'" '4/!'.!'.l!,/r,.,'!,,,')c;'~:\".(l,,:..j'~j",,_~~,~"i.",'~,~,. ;.~~ .'\:," ."Vll~:r,t,,: ,'..-;? '2#1- ~."""~"'Yj.' 'f. .t~~E;I';;'A~. U' --....'~..."',,":...~ ,;:.(,... t," 'f':.....i ,'~ "''''., ~ "', . "'~'~'~".., . r~/;, ~'I !ll{E:...~t;..~,....'ts,1.kkJ:Jri:-~'"~..(:.1f.:,..;I'.:<~~~e::~b,:t~;t~~...;..~...~":;:'~ir'\"i',..l~. ~.:;A!""f;'I', ~ ii,i' r ~;?~[~m:;~I~'t~!Ty~tt~':C'hfl~;,I(;'fffij,~,;,rf'::,l:;~ihli,~;.:: (,:, 1-'<{'. :;('~~(t~:', :"",':" '. 1 t~..~ w,'<:'1I: ", 1.1>'!." ..~;;AJi(eA~~.... ',. ':1:" :>....\:'. ",~, . "'..J. '.-'. ,-); ~ ',' ',' ..' , I' 1 <;;. .t..:..:;..~. O"!w"l'. ,v~/Pr: - '{t ~1'''' "'~.>>'I' ,"slt.'.~~:tJ~"'.""';I.~r:.'t'" ~"',.""" ~i'" :..- ,\\;;.... b.O~:,/ ,. i . .~>:fi,,"*,.J:~?XCI:"r' " I.!'!' '1.' eIJ."" ;:.~,.,. "~'.'~'~;"')"""l''''''' . . ,,'..{ ;,'\1,"~,":~ :." .-1 I " ~~~\I~~:'''''''~?l tI cih:.fA' .... ' ;)~~';.IJ~~' :;.;"i:',1'/~.I:"..I~J'" ,\.~ r' f..t-~""" \. .",;~ ,J ;'<", J ,WJI: ":$.(.~.. ~","";A? ~.. ~'In ~ "",,~B.' '1 .. h' ....., 'cR... ,,~ .. '.@ '... .) I ,~,,>f '."",,-, "'.\"ll,""'~'.'~'() ......~Iif<-J.i~.,;\.,...~.;':".01~ ~...~ """'1>>". . . ':~~,:. -~f~<:~J~:'(~"I~f.~;t"->::,';t'-la,~~:"lt(i'e" "v.;.;;,~,;').~-:-: 0\' ':.: ;.i';"J~C:..::./-;.I,.:.. 1:_ ~;:":I, '~"B'''~\'rhl:t: 1.,.jf,,'r"',;"'I"'m;';"-~' '/:l,',,-,. .~.~ ~.,..',",....1--"'i""""-'" .,'J.,." 1 '~~ ~~.t ~J-'-I~' 'v-,.-J"+'..'r:..;..;':r ~-.... >4-;" :;,.ffit."" .~{, ~ :..r, \_ . 'f ~ ,\ i..."'/~. I I ';;'~' , '~.~" ':'~\o.#( ~'nr~ 110 l~~'" ~I~~ 1.,. .........' , :--..""~"~ /", . .. '''.It-.,.....i,...l~ G..~.c-.~. '.~..'" .~j. , .....- ,~" ""'7'" I' '. . ~"'!. ,>'-I;~ ,;:' "i'... r '.' - . IS;;-l'i:" ~,.. '.>':.0;;".,< ";J', -. ',.' ,.. . . ,.... ".' .....,.. I "~if '-"r~ l\ '.' .. 8 ~ '~~ '.;:v~ 'f-; ,,,.' ',', ". . .. " ~ \-,.. ..:~~~~~.~~ ~~;':':::,,?'-l.r..; 2{ J''"';. ~;v.:. j ~ ~_." 'f: J'\~:',' ~;"" ~...-_:':,..;.. I - -oN ,,,,~~~t,..-TI- ~ 1.-.. j' J ',"i, ,'" -...:4'tci......~f' \'"~t .( . '. . ': ,.: . ','. i 11<"/(.... ,'.., I ":' 'ff#;:,,'?;.Vj' ~..~ ",' ,'.,TO ,-~"tt-.;,"-'v ..-IIfJi!' "'~'. 0"" '~~,"'~'" ,.','. A '.' I '" :>",,~.,.~.,~ I'" .~."".;;!. ',,'Z1 :-!>:"j.,p ..,., ~ ~.f,:." '"" ;. . '. ~ '. ;.,,<' ,.~-!.~~ ". "" :. I '. '. 1 "~ l')..- , \~-'''A. 'S;IlJ. ::-.";:,- .....s:) f.! .- -;.t,O: ..'{1./,::t '...,' "Ii "~,/\,.-tJ,....~ oJ/' . "14" , .~.,,,, ':;-~'~'"!i1r;\'.<il.tkl''' 'l'~"'~' ,'. ",~q. ",~;.""";,,.. '.'0.'t....,.. iY\;~ ....,,, \"'1 ,f' , 'it ~,""'\.. 'f'....t'lr::~~.;,(~)~.,t~~...,~...... ' ~.';..' .,....~~ j!-~..}-l.;,.....,:.--""":..t.....\/>{~~,." ~.~ ;:-;.it;1~J ., . :;~,r. .&.r,~' ~;rn:~ \';1.(:,;- ":"'}. , :. '>hi: '" ~;>\: ..",!.:.", .(.i':;.i":"~ .!f"" ' / ". "1 :. 1 '\ '~.,if,! ~~4 ;;;l'~ It~",I~",,"f ~ -I- d;:.$ ";~:t" 'i!l''''''''<'' '''",i".."tM...!i'' ,~"; \,~ " . I', I ~~';.~~O ~';"~"'t ~'~!I.:;k~'J':...;.t.~'~~.t:~",.7 \~~i. ljl,.1;:.,..,:;.,';:i:o.;'....'>..~~..::'i,..:-,~ ~, "'"'. ":'J '. 'i7l':':'~O .~t:J'f~ Jj~" ~~11,. ,;j.""" ;. ~~~ :;.. .14.... V,'H tr .~/ ~,'.~~""'':~/''J.'~ '.;.' C:::::' ""r- ......1; . \, " I ~~~, 11\... "''''...'-1 ) ~~'" .' "(:)t . '. .-!l,'" '0 '~';io:..~ 'i,. ,,,, ~.' ~' --",", "'I' '~?t~;~'l') ~:{7:~:.~~lt~.~~~;~:~:iit~d~f. d."U-L :,'ff~~V:Z~;f~.'-~'.*;J.;;1:~ \oi;!~". ~ ~~=:.I:;I':'.~ II~I '~.o- ,~~-","ii",I'l>! .".s~...::':.'.:;.,:.~,.."'."" ''''~''r...)t;.',,:,.... <{ ,....:,. ,'O.>O\.Y''-:. ..... '-_~ '~I; . ' .' OJj~\j'......~.,....I....~"'''l'''.....f. {.~\'~,. ~ :l",,~~~. ."1nSl"( .......}_._"r.... ,O-",~ I' '"1-1' l!l'~.<P.l"""<"'...I.'il ~ .I~'r-l.-..':.I. 'S'f.-,~.,."',.,<;..,;.~y.<l',' "'~.....",,".r~..(.; .,''', I'" M,z~;~.\ ;fr.;:,:'.~...';':,: '~l ;I'";,~:' ~~'. ",:-,~ :'".....~~'!;f~rt~Ii,:~i ,7~ I';i;'~~ ~ ' ":'. ( ;::".".~~.;~ J'-.i :.:1 . ~<~...-:(.: 'I ' ~ ..'....QlH.. f'l~"V" ~"~JJ ! ~'t .,.;, ",.. ........,. ,.,..~,,' .-.-/....R,'..'.;..rn "'. .. '.."" .; ;" ., '" I 00 .'>jt>;'';;'i'(, 't~~'~\-"'" It..i. ..,.,:;-~ :t,,:.!..',;I'.'';-''.''~of.<~;!;'~. .....-.".......'.."'0 ~ .'Ht1 ft,~., '--";. ';., , . ....." 'j'''''., .". B...o . ...,i.....~>~. <"- ". ''''''''\(''"''... ';';'. .., 'I r.' r-- .I:!t"':r. " '1; .".' .~... I. .,....'. .~':\!~" ....'/ 'J<." ,.~:;.. '.n. .u . . p'. .' . F==ll ....-\:'(.~:~~ ...::~.,:..,. ',~), I"'~~' "~""...' -'.;;,(::.;.:.,,1',~, " .'i';'.N ;!'.;j",~,. .,' I' ., oCi''lo-/'<l:- ~'''~''.''....., ~. . \!.I~-..'" ~-'.t . \;, , ... ': ,~~ r".' ' , f"":! . 't'1"'." 1;.. ...~,. "J' ".l , ...(;, "'.".....1... .. '.... ":41 ,.... I 'i=:!1 'i~;{~ ~.~~.~~;.. ':;c~~~_~_ ~ ::::'~..,~j:i:i,~i..:,;::.~.:..-=:.::__ .:.~~~_:.:._~:.._~ ~ ...'I.'~ '';~ .. -.. ~~ ~..j""";-:'J'" '/~.'\..~~~...l->;:,..'lf'1 ~....~... '~,f... ~'.'~ : ~ \'(. 'j'" '~' I . ~ .....,... \j. "'.. I r',,~.~.,.. ',' .... ~,o>>'I:....,~)p,:~T. ,,~ .:.j ~,. . l'f " I , .r. ;:1I'~'~i1t I.l ,', ;.\ ....',. ,.,.,". J, .:~ '.,t;t,';.t:.1:'"'t:.t~"~~';'~."1"~" '1<;' ~"'" ~ " ,.'. ;,..,". ''-'::'';~'~''':'. .il~ . . .~ ....,. ~ I ''''':,c',,, 71+ ....\~.\,,!.~.,.: ,".;'" ;;"'~;"'~:\j?;!i(i";:.P",,<:'~;;' '"." ,.,'.'" 'IoU'''..."!!.,.., :1 I. ::!' I ~~1\?;- ~:s~~..~~,~~~f:.,~~.;;,'.,:~" .~~:~-.J.I~~~~;,:.~:f\'!:,;!j;~j~~r.~>,;;:~,;:..'h;:: ~:'i;.'} ,.,t,;;,f"kf'~.;I.-,. . ; I"~ ,', ....;.,~.':t.;l :=t:t."t;'\':, "'"t4,\"'l;:/:.'?:!: '" ~ ~ <~..'f~t<-"::~J,~,~~.......:.'e"~, I '''''~.'''''.'i';' .....,J. ~~.~l~T.., ~{'.~..~~~~'.~.:J~ '. I' '. t"'e.....if)....,...~.~,..,?~""',.....f. ...~..I'.,..'1l&:S......~~.i..':\- '.'....,I'"i.' 'r"".-.~...1"'~.~Sl ..~,".:' I In,OS t.~'&~ ;i;J~<~,\:; ..;'~:<;}U.t.,; ....H ~li,..l4'r1~l'a'l:';t(1" ~n~~r..::...;<,,;. ;'.~, ~";.,.,..'lt~"":. '~i;.!.' '"C> ~~:~.. Y"'......~.l!'~ -'.. .....,'.. ','" ,<( 'rJ' 4'."'""...~ .-.~.".,.....:r:~....ol' -- .~. " ",' ,1i.J':o.~,.'"~ . I ~~~~.,,~.o. ~1'']tt'''' '\ t '\:. ~'!.::. 9' ",;~, ~:. ~ ~'~:'"lo- ..'~':Jt,~...." ~."',' ~..,,/:,..:.....< ~ ~ ,,,:,'t,, ,';' ~.'" :':~;.,:'~', . .~..... '." ,,' , r.tJ.t'lC); _ ll;;'.~~ .c)"'. >r.., , ..' "-'-"I' .>0 ,t:o..:!~..('"."'j."-,.,, !/.. . '.r-o'" ,I... '''"'''' .....,~. ~ 'I 'I " I 8 J,~V~ {t'"r,"!'" \..~lr..~,\-"i.. ',;',""<. ,.... ..'~~._~.. .......,j':.,..'~'.'..'~ r."'.,...,."~'f_',"t.i....... '<-', " . M.1 -;;\':: '" :;It-':'(, \"'; '.\!,~'.>.' ,,1'~"1"""!-" ..i':.~'t..:;~, ~;~".;; .. . '.,.;.; "" "~'6~<..,., """.. I" I I-...JI_ I '~"'~"'~f . '?1.~~~': .(..... r;s.:....,";;"-/-.~~ , ~~1~~~ ";~~:?,.:.;;. ~'4 T,,~.';:.-:.~:.,-~:'J.- ..' ";'.::'. "'~"1..;.r,./{.jj;/,~~.. ~j' I I' ' ~. ~,.'1:" . .'. I ~'1 " I'. ~\~ ,..., \" ... .. "'J~'''''~ .'''!,i ...:;;",.- '.~' ",.!',.,. \'.. , . ,"', :", ... ","..,""; '... _I'l<>', _ I . ! .\;.jl>.;'~ '\:';;"". ,,\:':.-lr .~~ II'':' \ ,\" .,;. '~-r" " ~ ".:-~',-t. l."'lt.~\.>' 'i,..~,,;,! ~: . ~ . ..... ,,!' v '. "~," I'~~~; .~ 1"J......"".t~,... '". 'I . ":1 ~ "~1!^''l(~''':'.l, ~-~~.~~.). .:,\.....:.-\''1',). '~..~:~I' :;:.....' Y:'(t '\',.'~ i.',~.,--",.. '.,!, " ,t ...i"""/o",;,'~;-')... '.'i.v....~ I' I 1.0 ~;~('~,.~:;.,.,~ 111'" b..~ '... .\'!'.... 'v \ 'J ",'l..;' '. "i 'fI'....':~.~i.~."':'..t ~ ,. M.' ~:.{,:.: '/,' :~','}; -'~~l,.'l..$ .to;;: VJ,."~,~' ': I' \. l- I' I If) .~..1.J;,';:lto;..~ ~~":. ~".\"t. -{. .~"'~ . ';.I.~.t;;tlt.. .fl::~~"... '~.,;.;,.?'...'...., -;-', ...-(~~,~"':-....~"' .'."'" , \ ' t*1-~I:f"'f' .~,.~,...\(. ~..\',..~'. ;1~ff"':O~I".'...,~ ~u.. .....rJ ',' ....':..'",..,,'.r'....~,;J,i.~~..' ~ I ~ :t ..,t:,\!'l.,~," ~{.. .~:~\:'-:.. ';j,{ ":::1" '~"';,:''';-;:..: '.:::! . ...;:.,;:.:::.~..:"....::~:.....:....q~:..::::::7:..:.-1 \U 11>>.\ ~N:,'.'~:~ .;:.i<:..>;.,\~~";:,\.:'... '. ;~i':; "'l.:- H:" ";'; ,.'. ", . .' ," . 'i.-..:. .... . I \~~~ \ ~\ f'(!;"'',;.l4">Q,,''V'\:;\,c.\.-' ,+':,"1:'~',~(~ l;'.,;..-i'::,..~;;..... . '::<"-'" I IW~~ I\?,,~r-' ,Y'I;./ ,...~.~,Q.-::.,.. '. ",.. .. "I~"""'"~~''''' ,".-....,:}.... .~."""'" I 'b" ~ I ,Ih<~).>i,l.. O.""~,,l... ,';" "rl",:"<'i'~~;':"',':t-';;i-<.,.-.. .....;,....,".~!.:; .. I FJ~~. ',.""'~.,.,..,'-';n~.;..."I,..,<'",... .1''''. ;;;;"~~ "','~',.......... .,..,....,...,,'"' 'I" .... 1< I "'J~"J'o:. ",.~1.: ,~...,. ":..c.....__, '.: - ~...., .,.' ~..., ~ ,_' .fl.1 ~:;),;s:; ..".., " \'., 'I"l",':'..t"~""''':''~''''~''f.'', ' . , .-: "', ., I 1lJ\... I v ~'''l.,'~'!i,~r'::i% F:;~\r"\:\ ,I'("::'i'::'-:;'~i;'~~~~~""(;;~'~:i;i;,:"", .' .. ..i'-Y.;.'- " I ~ ~~ ~\ ';';:;!;"I:.,!:,w:.'";",,. "'" \~ "I . (. "-;;;":',;:;;':['.;. .~..... "':;>i.. , I. 1~;::! 1_ 'l~q.ct."'''J-;c.:...,.:.,).;...:~.. ~"~:.\ ," ,I \ ~ I...... . 1-'1...~...t."......n"( ~~:"..1:to: .~. .',~ .""1 , I~ t:.: I.Q. .....~...".'~.J~."..~ ~.:>\~ '..\ "lo~I."~ l.'..#~.$'.(i.......,... y"':., '" "1.'.',"\'.~ . I _ _..:::) \'1 ~:i~~.~~~j!e:;~~,;~~ ::~ ;~.~, ,'V-'l \'.\ :~! . I':'; ';:~~~"t"'r";-t"::;';}:':';~~~'~ " ' . . '. .' ':'''::;tr:~.. : :.~, .1..'. I ~'* 1 :&.\ ~':'" 't,:..!)>' ,......\ . --.. 'C'(":. .!f''tr..,.. ","1.~' ., <' '. . '.., .' > ~." I' ~ ."lr. "':;",,:~.'." ",:;' ---f;' ""<'~i"'.."".'~~'".",."t. ", .,',' ',"';;'';1,'.. "'. ;"l' I 1"- ,"0;. .:l<;:;..;)'~''',) -"":"1:0.;.'. .\ ...A~' R-:':-'~:;';''1+':''~:'"':..;t~Io'.~:t.J!.:~' '. ,>,~'f. r:'l~ ;~'';, '-l~.:,'~ 1....1 \\;. $. "~~~::;"''Ic:.t '.1\.',;; ,~ . ";,\.,%......~~.~I;i<t, 'ii~l"'l\~ "::---::''';''''4k';<'' "';'., .',. .~,,_, I 00'0 I' ''''-'ifl; '"''~l.~'/jv.::>f''' J~~~;::.::"!t...-{~;~"'--...,---":.. ~ 1'\" ~:'h.,. ':'~',"l;: ~_ '~C~M,~ .~.~. . ~ ,,~, ::V.wt. . .~~- '- .....~.".,m.."....., .--- - --~~",.. .,. ,. Hl.:>lON 'iiZ"'~:fI 'l'- "~fl:~" '.-------" -----...:s.:_~:1~.."..1-'..-: .~~~''''--''b ". '--==;._ O' ' ",)I.'.; .~'.;.o':' ~'(.', :"~""9Y.-' r.~"<-~'"r",,"~7.;r~..:~ - --=:_-':.~. '~., "".',.. v' .~ rr. ~~ :;'\f.\," ,,',' toy, .'~., '. ,.... .r.. J/J.rf~~.''-'''il.J1i1i:l m:..7~:JJfi.J.~~- _..-""_ WoI : -"Jr;" '~,1;?~)' ,. , /.'r.!;.-{ ,~"~ .),\);tr:~~~~~i.,ff ,,)t,:';i.-" " "'~'.:~'f';-~~~"--;':- , ~. ~r'rU 0/;"" 'I ("1<~' ..."f~'i'-''''''.....;v.'~P:ZY':.'..'~''..fIO'O&I''~'~~ ~" ~,.' n, "" ;. ,:'I:'i' .,~)),!.t~,~: rL1 <\. :~.; / ;:~::~~;C';.: :~z-;~ '~I ';q:JN. 9'\', /.~,,'!'>::';':'i'>;" ';;i'&i'~,wr;;:r.;-;~r-;:<<" ,...., "'.' >ki\'~'t' ;~;r'''<' :fo.~~l'>",(..','"., :,J.,;; <','C. ? ..' .'.' ~~">?::i~\r~;~~$t.~ .2~'~r\'~,~~,:.. . (:~,'~'\';:;:):~"\~;Yo/'4~it,~t:;"(:w.y:;r):,'.., i_ ~.:'~~::'\..!f!r";'t';.\.~~.' .-;..._>P;I':':". . ':.1:. ", ~ .'i..,,~.., i..,. .~....~ ;.' ~. .p.--'" /" , ... ... w ~ z w ~ 8 I Ii-> - ....8 '" .. E 0) ~' 18 r:.. 12.e'JI~ro VJ\--r6' Yz,~/q 0 :Qj -. .,. MEM.1tA!mUM T.: Mayer an. City Ceuncil Carel .'.ew., city Mana~er III ~ Amy Mar~erum, Plannin~ .irecter(}~~ Kim Jehnsen, Planner TIm.UGH: FROM: DATE: RE: MOORES SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR A LOT SPLIT at the N.E. corner of Gill.espie st. and Lake Ave. (Metes and Bounds Description in the SE 1/4 NE 1/4 of section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 west of the sixth P.M., city of Aspen): First Reading of Ordinance ~ (Series of 1990.) --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of this Lot Split (revised configuration 9/28/90) with conditions as required by the Engineering Department and the Land Use Code section on Lot Splits. COUNCIL GOALS: This project reflects Council emphasizes fair and consistent treatment processes. BACKGROUND: The applicant seeks to split ~.64 s.f. par~' ' into two lots. As per a revised configurat10n dated 9/28/90, ~ Lot A will be 24,071.08 s.f.' Lot B will be 9,987.56 s.f. lie site is located in the R-6 Zone district. Pursuant to section 7- 1003 A.2. of the Aspen Land Use Code revision date 8/14/89, lot splits are exempt from general subdivision requirements, but do require a approval by City Council. Subdivision approval shall be by ordinance. See proposed plat (revised configuration 9/28/90) Attachment "A". goal #14 which in governmental REFERRAL COMMENTS: Engineers Jim Gibbard and Chuck Roth forwarded memos regarding the proposed lot split (Attachment "B".) Their comments are reflected in the list of proposed conditions of approval. Since reviewing the 9/28 lot revision, Engineering Staff feels comfortable with the new lot configurations. The Yvonne Blocker with the Housing Authority submitted comments (Attachment "C") which are also reflected in the recommended conditions of approval. George Robinson with the Parks Department has no problems with 1 ,""" --- the proposal as long as all City Of Aspen tree removal codes are met. He added that relocating the irrigation ditch easement is . not a problem as long as the streets and Engineering Department are satisfied with the new alignment. Judy McKenzie from the Water Department forwards this comment: "Concerned with easements for water to Lot B - at this present time they have no access to water other then off of Lake Ave." Tom Cardamone, Director of A.C.E.S. submitted a letter of tentative approval of this lot split based on preliminary agreement with the Moores I arclii tect regarding certain issues. As the City is still in the process of creating an Environmentally Sensitive Area overlay for the Hallam Lake Bluff, Mr. Cardamone is working with individual' owners and their representatives to lessen the impact of development on the A.C.E.S. nature sanctuary. The "formula" which A.C.E.S. is promoting: 1. Excludes development from the bank. 2. Establishes setback and stepped back building parameters which allow for alterations on a site by site basis. 3. Provides for significant screening with native trees and shrubs. 4. Protects A.C.E.S. from dogs, other predators, intrusive lighting, etc. Please see Mr. Cardamone's letter, Attachment "D". PROJECT DISCUSSION: The current use is a vacant single family residential parcel. The neighborhood is predominantly single family residentiaL Another lot split request is in progress directly to the south (Erdman property.) Proposed lot sizes would allow maximum developmen~ of a single family residence on each lot with an accessory dwelling unit for each (as required by Ordinance 1, 1990.) The lot split request complies with the subdivision exemption requireme~ts of section 7-1003 A.2.A. : CONDITION a: The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the pitkin county Board of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption ,of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 14, 1969. RESPONSE: The property is a metes and bounds parcel and has not been subdivided after adoption of subdivision regulations. CONDITION b: No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district and the applicant commits that any lot for which development is proposed will contain an Accessory Dwelling Unit. 2 , "..-... " " When there is demolition on the property which makes it subject' to the provision of Art. 5, oiv. 7, Replacement Housing Program, the standards of that program shall supersede these requirements. RESPONSE: N:o more than two lots are being created, both conforming to the underlying district requirements. The newly created lots will be 24,071.08 s.f. and 9,987.56 s.f. Access and other surface easements are subtracted from the areas of the lots. The lots comply with the 6,000 s.f. minimum for the R-6 Zone District for single family residences. The applicant understands that any lot for which development is proposed must contain an Accessory Dwelling unit as required by the Land Use Code. **Accessory Dwelling units are Conditional Uses, requiring site specific review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning commission.** Upon approval configurations, be: of. the lot split with the 9/28/90 lot the following FAR and site coverage limits will Lot A: FAR maximum 4,358 s.f.(access and proposed irrigation easements are subtracted from lot area for calculating FAR); site Coverage maximum - 20% (4,814 s.f.) Lot B: FAR maximum 3,593.9 s.f.(proposed irrigation easement subtracted from lot area); site Coverage maximum- 28.4.% (2~836 s.f.) Note: Accessory Dwelling units which are 100% above grade allow for a floor area bonus up to 250 s.f. to the main residence. CONDITION c: The lot under consideration, ,or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of an exemption under the provisions of this article or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Sec. 8-104 (C) (1) (a). RESPONSE: The lot has not previously received a lot split exemption nor any other subdivision exemption. CONDITION D: A subdivision plat is submitted and recorded after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this Article and growth management allocation pursuant to Art. 8. RESPONSE: A condition of approval will be that the subdivision plat will be recorded only if notes are added to the plat indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots, and that any further units will be developed under the provisions of Article 7 and growth management allocations of Article 8. ALTERNATIVES: redeveloped as 'or one duplex. without a lot split, the one or two detached residences with a Conditional Use Permit, property may be (single ownership) the property could 3 ,......., ,......., be used for Day Care, Church, School, Museum or Accessory Dwelling uses; RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends approval of the Moores Lot Split request with the following conditions: 1. The plat must meet all of the Engineering requirements in Municipal Code Chapter 24, section 7-1004 D. 2. Prior to filing a final plat the applicant must agree to join ~ny future Improvement Districts. 3. One joint driveway access will be allowed for both lots via the 20' access easement across Lot A. 4. The applicant must verify approval for water service to Lot B from the Aspen water Department prior to filing the plat. '. 5. The irrigation easement, if moved to the proposed location, must be a platted easement with legal description, subject to Engineering, Parks and street Department's approval in writing. ,St Development on these parcels must meet the storm water design requirements of section 24-7.1004.C.4.f. of the code. 1, An Accessory Dwelling unit must be included on each lot for which development is proposed as a requirement of this Lot Split. Each Accessory Dwelling unit must comply with the Housing Authority's requirements and must receive Conditional Use approval by the Aspen Planning and Zoning commission. S. Prior to issuance of any building permits, Deed Restrictions for the Accessory Dwelling units shall be approved by the Housing Authority and recorded by the pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. 9. The Floor Area and site coverage limits will be: Lot A: FAR maximum 4,358 s.f.(accesS and proposed irrigation easements are subtracted from lot area for calculating FAR); site Coverage maximum - 20% (4,814 s.f.) Lot B: FAR maximum 3,593.9 s.f.(proposed irrigation easement subtracted from lot area); site Coverage maximum- 28.4.% (2,836 s.f.) 10. The 10' Front Setback for Lot B along N45 OO'OO"E shall be a Side Setback to be dimensioned according to applicable zoning requirements. 11. The "Excepted Area" on the plat shall be removed from any area calculations. 4 "A" ,~.... /'" ,. 8 Iii> - ".8 ~ :if s:; 0) w :;;J Z w ~ <oJ r-;- o ::! 'l'/ I '," I ' I~I I~\~ I~ r::. I ~ l'- I ~I ' \~\ I~ \~I. I~ " ' " g ",,' ."'v.' ~' '0, 18 I~, 12.eJl~e1) Vtr,e' }lUlio 1""', /"'",\ 12. A Subdivision Exemption Agreement listing the conditions of approval shall be included as a note section on the final plat. 13. The final ,plat will be signed by the Planning Office and recorded by the City Clerk only upon complete satisfaction of the above conditions. J.\-- 14 ~), (J,", '~" _/. "1l . ~ ,..u ,., (.. k(:"< PROPOSED MOTION: I move to have first reading of Ordinance (Series of 1990) for the Moores Lot Split. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: J "0/1.1 Irv'i"-& ;/ !i-() tJ(// 22- ATTACHMENTS: "A" Proposed Plat "B" Engineering Referral Comments "C" Housing Authority Referral Comments "D" Referral from Tom Cardamone, A.C.E.S. Ordinance under consideration jtkvj/Moores.ccmemo 5 ,- .'/ LAW OFFICES BROOKE A. PETERSON A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 <(', ,< ..~ .t".,Vv '.,." d~ " '" lI. V ~ ' :00 ~~ ",\' ., ..-6 . >v~ 0~'\ -- IJ"~ ...nnn 13031925-8166 TELEFAX: 13031 925-1090 Mr. William Ness city of Aspen Parks Department 506 East Main Aspen, colorado 81611 Re: Irriaation Easement on Moores ProDertv Dear Bill: At the suggestion of Chuck Roth, the city Engineer, I am writing to you regarding an irrigation easement for the benefit of the city which affects a piece of real property recently acquired by my clients, John and Rebecca Moores. The property is located at 200 West Gillespie street in the West End. The property was formerly owned by Lydia Marquand, and in 1977 she granted an easement for irrigation purposes to the city. A copy of this easement is enclosed for your reference. To the best of my knowledge, and of everyone connected with the property, the easement has never been used. My clients have asked me to inquire as to whether or not the city might agree to give back the easement, as its area affects the floor area ratio calculations for my clients' new home. I would appreciate it if you would examine the enclosed document and then contact me so that we might discuss this matter. As my clients are beginning to work on the plans for their new home, your prompt attention would be most helpful. Thanking you in advance for your cooperation, I remain, Yours very truly, By BAP/glh cc: Edward caswell, Esq. Chuck Roth Larry Yaw Joseph Wells '-..,." ,(~< (.,lo;:.J:i~ ,_ ,CITYT~; ::~~"SPEN . 13 0 .'~:~f",'i~fir e e t asp ;~'*o,~f,tJ'ta,)"",',,~,.,:ib,W~1611 3'0'31<<it~:;rif20 Brooke A. Peterson, Esq. 315 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Moores Property Irrigation Easement Dear Brooke: After reviewing your May 15th letter regarding the City's irriga- tion easement with the pertinent department staff and the City's water counsel, the city feels it is not in a position to honor the Moores' request to vacate the easement. I have been advised that the easement is presently earmarked for utilization in future ditch expansion and, hence, not appropriate for vacation. I regret that we could not accommodate the Moores. Very truly yours, '-..... =~ Edward M. Caswall city Attorney EMC/mc cc: Public Works LAW OFFICES ~1E@EUW~ID BROOKE A, PETERSON A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 }MY J I 1990 .... U' 1 .'1 1303) 925-8166 TELEFAX: 13031925-1090 CITY ATTORNEY'S L OFFICE Mr. Edward Caswell City Attorney - City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: J. Moores propertv/Irriqation Easement Dear Jed: Thank you for your letter of May 23, 1990. I am sorry That the city cannot vacate the Easement at this time. Would the city consider allowing the water to be piped underground, at my client's expense, and modifying the Easement in that respect so that we might include the area in our floor area ratio calculation? Please let me know your's and Bill Ness' thoughts on this matter. Thank you for your attention. . Yours very truly, P.C. ration '7 BAP/glh 'l pu [) I pJ. D."// cc: John & Rebecca Larry Yaw Joseph Wells Moores pt(}J( ,.... '-' -.., v Joseph Wells Joseph Wells, AICP Land Planning and Design AUG fie Ms. Amy Margerum, Director Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen CO 81611 Re: Moores Lot Split Dear Amy: Enclosed please find an Application for Subdivision Exemption for a lot split for the 34,060 square foot parcel described on the attached plat, along with a check in the amount of $780.00 for the filing fee. The property is within the R-6 zone. 'Please schedule this application for review as soon as possible. If it is not yet being handled automatically in the City, we would also like to request vesting of the approvals of the lot split, as well. / ~seph Wells, AICP J,Vb Enclosure 130 Midland Park Place, Number F2 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone (303) 925-8080 Facsimile (303) 925-8275 """ ..." MEMORANDUM TO: city Engineer Housing Director Water Department Electric Department Parks Department Fire Marshal Tom Cardamone, ACES FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office RE: Moores Lot Split Parcel ID# 2735-121-21-001 DATE: ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Attached for your review and comments is an application from Joe Wells for John Moores requesting Subdivision approval for a Lot Split. Please return your comments to me no later than August 31, 1990. Thank you. --., '0.".,.# MESSAGE DISPLAY TO KIM JOHNSON From: Jut M~~nJ:!ie bI Postmark: :20 AM Status: Certified subject: MOORES LOT SPLIT Message: CONCERNED WITH EASMENTS FOR WATER TO LOT B - AT THIS PRESENT TIME THEY HAVE NO ACCESS TO WATER OTHER THEN OFF OF LAKE AVE. -------========x========------- ...~ ", ,.... , C\) _-.--._- ...........- - - - - --- - ...... - Leonard Rice Gregg S, Ten Eyck Leslie H, Botham Ross Bethel Jon R. Ford Leonard Rice Consulting Water Engineers, Inc. 24011'illeenth S.reel, Sulle 300 I Den',,;. COlota~o 80202-1143 I 1303i 455,9589 . FAX (303)455,0115 ---_._-~---_..._----------- Mr. Chuck Roth City Engineering Department City of Jo.spen 130 S. Galena street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Chuck: In accordancEl with your request this letter' is to confirm my meeting with Mr. Tom Cardamone, Naturalist Director, Aspen Center for Environmental studies, on Tuesday, September 4, 1990. regarding impacts on Hallam Lake and adjacent wetlands due to relocation of an irrigation easement for the Moore's Lot Split. His only concern was tllat the discharge point not directly affect or contaminate Hallam Lake. Field investlgation indicates that the discharge point of the relocated irrigation easement is more than 100 linear feet downstredm from Hallam Lake and there would be no introduction of watec into the lake from the easement. I am enclosing a copy of the current easement as you requested and a map showing the current location and the proposed location of the / irrigation easement. As I understood our last meeting regarding this matter, the City Engineering Department conceptually agreed to the relocation if concerns of Mr. Tom Cardamone were addressed. If you have any question or comments regarding the above, please contact me through our Denver office. Very truly yours, LEONARD RICE CONSULTING WATER ENGINEERS, INC. A.J. zabbia, Jr. Project Manager Civil Design and Construction Observation AJz/llb 910HYAOl co: Tom Cardamone Mike Doyle Joe Wells Water Rights Ground Wster Civil Design and Construction Water Resources Planning 20 YEARS OF EXCELLENCE 1970 - 1990 ~ Attachment "e" 0':3/13/90 11: ~-~ "..",_ ;--~CJ'),.: j I,.j(=, ~i.JTH. :::0:; ';::-::CJ ~~,3t.:O P.Ol MEMORANDUM TO: K;~~1 JohnS{)\" Flanl'l:in<;.l FROM: YVOllne BlookElr, liou.inq ~~~- '- 4_~,l!:'1..,....... J,V, --_~,' RE: M()ores Lot Split Pd~cel 1D# 21j5-121-21-001 &'m.........___ml=::t;.;t.:-:r.=::::.:_~':~r:;.::4.I:tf\ '<<~__f\f'~tw',.lJl__... .......;.:.&,iJ,.Jf.,.,...I<t~J\!:H'~'G~=__D=_:a=ft_:lis_.u_ SU~JIiARY: A::-)~,lic!ll~t :req:uaet~ Il.pp:oval ofax41l1'.pt.ion from subdivision for a lot .pH i:. 1nt.o t".o parcels .:f 10 1293 squa r8 feet and 23,767 square. f,u.1=; lUS l:.~r Bect:Lon 7-1003 I,A) (2 i and GMQS 1!:;,smptiofl for the deveoloprr,ent of ar. acc.MlliClry d..'elling unit for each lot under section 8-104 (B) (li(d). APPLICANT: Nr. f., nc. Mrs. 10hn MO':>:l:e APPI,ICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Jo!\eph W.s,lls LOCATION I 200 West Gilhapi" ZONING: R'-6 REQ'JJl:S'!, Applic,mt ';'e~f,l.!lBte ilpprOVlll PH 9ri1rrt~<i. aOl per Section 7- 1003 (A) (2) 1thich ",UC>Wii subdivhio1'1 ey,:sr;\ption for: the spl.oit of a lot fOl;' the, pU::-'pCIH' of d(>\'61opm~t't of Ol>~ (1) detached single- farn.l.1y <iwelU,nq \'):-\ a lot, fermed by a l;::,t split grtmted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all of the follcwing conditions are met. SQcti,~l'l 7-100, (A) (2i (b) re<;r...treo;; that n:;; more than two (2) lots arl; oreated bf t,],CI let sp:'it., b<:>ti\ lotlr conform to the requit'e:ment,a of th,; u.:r,d$t'lyini;j z,'me f.\lst:t'ict and the applicant commits that any It}t tot. -.rhich develr..pment is prcpoa..d will contain an ;..ccselllorl Dw",l1:!.'l'j Unit.. AppH~ant requetl.ts approval as pex' Sect.ion !l-l04 (!ill (1) (d) whicn all~WI!l el<~ltptbll by the Com:nissicn for the dlilVt,loj?1I'erlt of no !ner;;; than tll'lil '-\oeeas:n:y d'Jalling unit per each dWfoIlling ',mH: .;;t) a pa:ccl!l 00:1to.10::19 a d"tached residential \mit or duplax, STArr REC()Ml1EN'Dl,'!:fijll: Rec"m1,:..n'~ ,"PPl'o1,'al "f, thE; development of one dat!chod 1lI11'.;'1... ff:l.l'tdly dWfLEj.n'l pEU' let '1:0 include the dev,,-,lopT.'lElnt of th".t"Hiu:l'r41d e.c<;a&i!i<:n:y c'.\'.,ltllir,~ \;ini\':. Approval of the developmeTLt ~CL' Qach of: th<'l a~Ci;\l!l!$':<r.y dWClll 1 iii<j units shall be conditioned up en i:.hlJ ft;llo.,.-ing: 1. An aCCa"l'iIOi.'i" d'.;"U. ing L1r::l t ~h~.L. ct:>nt.zd.n net. leas than 300 sque.rl< feet and lKi't ,<,.:oL'<;' t.h!111 &50 s;:;uata f",..t: ,;f t"o;ot livable ar'ea ~nd b... i.c,c~t'lld within (.i't at:t&chaa '.;0 Ii. prin(':dp..l residence. The ownlilJ:' of t.t", i'.ICc9".I1;ay d',lall.:i.ng unJ.t, sh.!<l: not be. '''i1>qv.ired to rent. U"::" -'- ~,"c:jL; 11: -, t; I _. - ,':~~ ...-i:.! i ,..:. _,l.-,_ :'.~'L: =-.'."-,:::U I-'.>..:J.;:;' 0;, / or ieaae the lmi'.:, but it it is re.ntad or leaead, it shall bEl done so in compl;~lI.nc~~ Idtb the Housing desi9\'.aa's guide.lines for such a unit, and shall be rented or le&lil.:d t;,:; &. working :teeldent for a ter..n .;;)f not iE'S!> than six cOl<3ecutiv'C! :nonthe. The Owner of an aCCas6ot'Y dll'611i'(1'1 m~it ~;hl!H h!lve. the Light to choose the tenant, provided that. the tenar.t othilrwiaJ~ m...atl!! th<t d$:tinitlon of a working' resic.ent end iM ql1alif.ied by the AGpcm/Pitkin County Housln(j Aut;:.ority ;:..1.0::: to (;,cCtlpal'loj'. For ttlS purp~.e of this provision, .3, unit Sl'HliU bill cQrl,idered :::61~t.<:l it it is occupied pursuant to a leas~ or rental ~greemen~ which ~eq~ir6s A ~ayment by the t",nant of n!o'(."ct than n nominal sll'ount of 1:"erJ:.. 2. A plan cheo;, t'~1 wn'i.fy the net. livable IIq\Htre feet of the untt shall be approved p~lor to iaeuanG& of ~ building permit and the accessory dwell i!\Q !,!nit :f.Ull';: meet the d~fi.rdticl'l of "dwelling unit" as per city code. 3. A deed res-::ricti.;ll'l shall be eubnd.tt.6d 1:11' ti',fr, Owner to the Houslnq Autil01:'1t.~. for approval prior to is!l;lU,nCe of II bul1cUna ~ . .. perm~t for tho prcparty. The approv~d deed ra$t~iction must b. recorded 'by the ?1tk.inc;otlr:i:.y Clark and Recordsrs I, Office prior to the issaanc." cf ar.y i'>ui:.:Hng pHrlll.iti>, # . ... ; MEMORANDUM To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, city Engineer C!.---f- Date: September 26, 1990 Re:Moores Lot Split Recent information requires that the engineering department provide further comments on the above reference application. 1. This property has been in discussion for some four and a half months concerning relocation of an irrigation ditch easement. This issue must be resolved in writing to the satisfaction of city parks, streets, and engineering departments prior to further conside~ation of the application. 2. The map which was submitted does not qualify as a plat. A plat must be submitted which meets the requirements of Section 24-7.1004D.2.a. Of special concern will be the statement by the surveyor that all easements shown on a referenced, recent title policy have been shown on the plat. 3. The engineering department is concerned about the proposed shape of Lot A. The shape appears to violate the intent of section 24-7.1004C.4.c(3) of the code by having a reverse angle in the property boundary. The original parcel contains this reverse angle, but the lot split provides the opportunity to reduce the non-conformity. Additionally, the thin section of Lot A which is about seven feet wide by a hundred feet long pr~sents a dilemma. If setbacks are deducted from the space, there is no developable space left, so how can it be included in developable area? Does the city want to approve a one hundred foot long by seven feet wide lot shape? What will its use be? A dog kennel run for Lot A which is actually adjacent to and down wind from Lot B? This does not appear to be an acceptable shape even though staff is having difficulty finding a specific code section which prohibits the shape. 4. Development of these parcels must meet the storm water design requirements of Section 24-7.1004.C.4.f of the code. cc: Jed Caswall, City Attorney Bob Gish, Public Works Director Jim Gibbard, Project Engineer CR/cr/memo_90.162 1. x ~J; f)1 ~ , Subdivision Exemption Aqreement As a condition of obtaining subdivision exemption approval of Lots A and B, Moores Lot Split, owner agrees that any further subdivision of the property or construction of additional dwelling units shall require receipt of approvals pursuant to the regulations of the city of Aspen in effect at the time, including subdivision regulations and growth management allocation procedures, if applicable. Unless further subdivision of the property is approved pursuant to the regulations of the city of Aspen, or unless the City of Aspen adopts more liberal site coverage or floor area limitations affecting the property, maximum site coverage and floor area included in external floor area ratio calculations shall be limited as follows: site Coveraqe Floor Area Lot A Lot B 3. As a condition of obtaining a building permit for Lots A and B, owner agrees to provide on each lot one deed-restricted Accessory Dwelling unit in compliance with the regulations of the city of Aspen in effect at the time. 4. Owner agrees to J o~n in the formation of any proposed improvement district which benefits owner's property. 5. As a condition of Obtaining a building permit for Lots A and B, owner shall demonstrate compliance with the storm drainage requirements of Section 7-1004(C) (4) (f) of the Aspen Land-Use regulations. 6. .G~J i;,j:'1 1V' ;t. I'IW~ . i. , ''L h,"'/<- , 0 C. ,l.' 7. B. ~ .s!CSA (~ W.-fJ. 11-- I f~ ~ 102/10 I I I ~. -l%;Ll ~ ... e:! .....1. .......,. ,~ ,;vi :~~ ~ :::r:... ':"7":!. oj ,..-.. '-'" '" I. APPLICATION FOR LOT SPLIT [S7-l003(A)(2)] The Applicants, Mr. & Mrs. John Moores, request approval of exemption from subdivision for a lot split, in order to divide the metes and bounds parcel described on the attached plat into two parcels of 10,293 square feet and 23,767 square feet each. Under the provisions of S7-l003(A)(2), a split of a lot shall be approved when four conditions are met. The Application is in compliance with those four conditions as follows: A. The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the City Council. B. No more than two lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district, and the Applicant commits that any lot for which development is proposed will contain an Accessory Dwelling Unit. No demol i t ion on the property is proposed, as the parcel is presently vacant. C. The lot was not previously the subject of an exemption under the provisions of this article or a lot split GMQS exemption pursuant to S8-l04(C)(1)(a). 1 ,j ,-, 1..../ ,...-.... .....-" D. A subdivision plat will be submitted and recorded after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots, nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to the City's land-use regulations and growth management allocation pursuant to Article8. 2 1 ...., " '..,iI II. GMQS EXEMPTION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF S8-l04(B)(1)(d) The atlplicant has committed that if either of the two lots is developed as a single-family or duplex site, that one accessory dwelling unit will be provided on that lot. Under the provisions of S8-l04(B)(1)(d), the Planning and Zoning Commission may grant exemption from Gr1QS procedures for the development of no more than one Accessory Dwelling Un it per each dwell ing uni t on a parcel containing a detached residential unit or duplex. Under the provisions of S8-l04(B)(2), the Commission shall grant the exemption if the application meets the standards of S8-l04(B). It should be pointed out, however, that no standards for review of Accessory Dwelling Units are included in that section. An applicant for a lot split must commit to provide an Accessory Dwelling Unit in order to be eligible for lot split approval. 3 'I c o III, CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ARTICLE 7 DIVISION 3) An Accessory Dwelling Unit is a conditional use in the R-15 zone district. When considering an a~~lication for a conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commiss ion shall cons ider, where applicable, the following standards: A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is proposed to be located: and B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development: and C, The location, size, design and operating characteris- tics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties: and D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage system, and schools: and E. The applicant commits to supply meet the incremental need for generated by the conditional use: affordable increased and housing to employees F. The proposed conditional use complies with all addi- tional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter. Additional information regarding the conditional use request will be provided prior to filing for a building permit. 4 -'! ,.... ,...." "--" ...,"~ IV. GHQS EXE11PTION FOR DEVELOPt1ENT INVOLVING A LOT SPLIT [~8-l04(C)(1)(a)] Development which may be exempted Erom G11QS procedures by the City Council includes the development of one detached residential dwelling on a vacant lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977 pLlrsuant to ~7-l003(A)(2). Under the provisions of ~8-l04(C)(2), the City Council shall grant the exemption if the application meets the standards oE ~8-l04(C) (1). It should be pointed out, however, that no standards Eor review are included in that section. 5 't r' \..,," ~ .....,,; GENERAL APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS [S6-202(B)] 1. Application fo~m is attached as Exhibit 1. 2. Applicants' lett~~ of consent is attached as Exhibit 2. 3. The st~eet add~ess of the pa~cel is 200 ~est Gillespie. The legal description of the pa~cel is included on the attached plat. 4. Disclosu~e of owne~ship is attached as Exhibit 3. 5. A vicinity map locating the subject pa~cel is included on the attached plat. 6. Desc~iption of P~oposal. Unde~ the p~ovisions of P-1004(A) (5), the townsite lots in the pa~cel have continous f~ontage, have been in single owne~ship and a~e therefore consider~d me~ged into an undivided lot. The Applicants p~opose to split the 34,060 square foot parcel into two pa~cels of 23,767 square feet and 10,293 squar~ feet each, as shown on the plan submitted with this application. 6 '" c - "''' As discussed above, the application complies with the relevant review standards of the City's land-use code and therefore qualifies for exe~ption from the terms of subdivision. 7. Owners of progecty within 300 feet of the parcel are attached as Exhibit 4. 7 'l ~",..." r"", "-' "'.,./ EXHIBIT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1) Project )lame MOORES LOT SPLIT 2) Project Location See attached legal. Parcel is located at 200 Nest Gillespie. 3) Present Zoning R-6 4) Lot Size 34,060 square feet 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone t John and Rebecca Moores P. O. Box 1146, Sugar Land, Texas 77487-1146 6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone t Joseph NeIls 602 Midland Park Place, Aspen, Colorado 81611 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): (303) 925-8080 Conditional Use _ ConceptlBl SPA Special Review Final SPA 8040 Greenline _ Conceptual POD _ Stream Margin Final POD Mountain view Plane X Subdivision - Exemption Condominiumi.zation _ Text/Map Amendment Lot Split/Lot Line - Adjustment 8) Description of Existing Uses (ml11ber and type of existing structures; appro- ximate sq. ft. ; nunber of bedrooms; any prenous approvals granted to the property) . ConceptlBl Historic Dev. Final Historic Dev. Minor Historic Dev. Historic Demolition Historic Designation G'IQS 1Il1otment _ GMQS Exemption The p3.rcel is presently vacant. 9) Description of Developnent Application Request for approval of subdivision exemption for lot split to divide the p3.rcel into two lots of 10,293 sq.ft. and 23,767 sq.ft. each. 10) Have you attached the following: X Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents --x- Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents --x- Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application j """ ~', .." ',,,.j!' EXHIBIT 2 July 30, 1990 Ms. Amy Margerum, Director Aspen/Pitkin COLlnty Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen CO 81611 Re: Application for Lot Split Dear Ms. Margerum: This letter is to confirm that we are the record owners of the property located at 200 West Gillespie, subject of the attached lot split Application. We will be represented by Joseph Wells during the City's review of this application. Sincerely, ~/ Moores h1~ Rebecca Moore s POBox 1146 Sugar Land TX 77487-1146 I ,.~ -,~" Form No. 1402 (1/701 AL TA Owner's Policy Form B - 1970 (Amended 10 17-70) '-" -." .... '" " AME/(f S C ~ EXHIBIT 3 .., 't- POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE ISSUED BY First A mcrican Title Insllr~'Ulcc Company SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE EXCEPTIONS CONTAINED IN SCHEDULE B AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS HEREOF, FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation, herein called the Company, insures, as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A, against loss or damage, not exceeding the amount of insurance stated in Schedule A, and costs, attorneys' fees and expenses which the Company may become obligated to pay hereunder, sustained or incurred by the insured by reason of: 1. title to the estate or interest described in Schedule A being vested otherwise than as stated therein; 2. any defect in or lien or encumbrance on such title; 3. lack of a right of access to and from the land; or 4. unmarketabitity of such title. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, First American Title Insurance Company has caused this policy to be signed and sealed by its duly iluthorized officers as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A. ", .. '. .\\11 I'!I, " " First America.n Title Insura.nce Company " BY PRESIDENT "/1 f . ! i [ . ~ I!' I !:~ ATTEST C.1~LJ. .../2/ SECRETARY ;1(.' 11;1,"'\ T"\, ...,... It ~""_ 'I nrill ~lo '.10? ,G:9i\ LT,1.')wr~l~(5 r:',licy ,;!l('clUIP f\ "...., ....._r , " SCHEDULE A File No, 400633-0 Policy No. D 714597 Amount of Insurance $ Premium $ Date of Policy February 15, 1990 at 3:57 P.M. a.m. p,m. 1. Name 01 Insured, JOHN JAY MOORES and REBECCA BAAS MOORES 2. The estate or interest in Ihe land which is covered by this policy is, FEE 3. Title to the estate or interest in the land is vested In' JOHN JAY MOORES and REBECCA BAAS MOORES In Joint tenancy 4. The land (eferred to in this policy is described as follows, THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION SET FORTH ON SHEET ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE INCORPORATED HEREIN AND MADE A PART HEREOF. ,".J .-. ~_..... Form No. 1402.C AL TA Standard Policy Western Region (Rev. 9/87) '-j -" Order No, 400633-0 Pol Icy No. D 714597 SCHEDULE B PART I This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of: Section One: 1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records, 2, Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which cOLlld be ascertained by an inspection of said land orby making inquiry of persons in posses- sion thereof. 3. Easements, claims of easement or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records. 4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by public records. 5. Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts aLlthorizlng the issuance thereof; water rights, claims or title to water. 6. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. Section Two: 7. Right of the Proprietor of a Vein or Lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or Intersect the premises hereby granted, as reserved In United States Patent recorded June 8, 1888, In Book 55 at Page 2, 8, Easement and right of way for constructing, maIntaining, repairIng and utilizing a surface Irrigation ditch, as granted by LydIa Perry Marquand to the City of Aspen, a municipal corporation, by the Instrument recorded October 11, 1977, In Book 336 at Page 288, saId easement being 10.00 feet In width and lying 5,00 feet on each side of the centerlIne more particularly described there I n. 9, "Any possessory rights aga I nst that part of subject property I y I ng Easter f y of a wire fence on the Eastern part of subject property whlch may arIse by virtue Qt_e~lstenr.e of said fencelas showndoB that cectalog'mprovement Survey No. /j6 115 ot "I p Ine ~urveys, nc. date ecember '1.2, 1 8Y, 10. Easement and right of way for a water line upon the conditions and I Imitations specIfied, as granted by General Efforts Corporation, Inc. to Robert F, Starodoj and Paula A. StarodoJ by the Instrument recorded June 1, 1987, In Book 537 at Page 965, said easement being 5.00 feet In wIdth and lying 2.50 feet on each sIde of the centerline more partIcularly described therein. " "..'" FQ~nJ No. 1056.4 Ail Policy Forms Order No. 400633 Pol Icy No. D 714597 SCHEDULE C The land referred to in this policy is situated in the State of County of Pitkin Colorado and is described as follows: That part of the Southeast one-quarter of the Northeast one-quarter of Section 12, TownshIp 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M. (IncludIng thereIn Lots 35 to 37, Block 90, Hal lam's AddItIon to the City and Townsite of Aspen, part of Lots 3 to 8, Block 2, Aspen Company Subdivision, and part of Lake and GillespIe Avenues adjacent), described as fol lows: BegInning at the Southwest corner of Block 90 of Hal lam's AddItIon, whence the East one-quarter corner of said SectIon 12 (1954 brass cap) bears South 64023'34" East, 911,14 feet (record cal I at Book 256 at Page 651 Is South 64014'17" East, 904,35 feet); thence North 89052'00" West, 13,50 feet; thence North 00038'00" West, 120.01 feet; thence South 89052'00 East, 14,83 feet; thence North 5,91 feet; thence North 87007'00" East, 6,35 feet; thence North 69055'00" East, 66,07 feet; thence East 31,61 feet; thence South 89052' East, 92,63 feet; thence South 07045' East, 49,46 feet; thence North 89052' West, 49.30 feet; thence South 29007'00" East, 114,60 feet; thence South 37006'00" East, 37,94 feet; thence South 89043'00" West, 80,22 feet; thence South 86031'00" West, 148.72 feet; thence North 40.00 feet to the Po I nt of Beg I nn lng, EXCEPT that portion thereof, If any, lying with those certaIn tracts of land conveyed by ElIzabeth H, Paepcke to Aspen Center for Environmental StudIes, a Colorado non-profit corporation, by the Statutory Deeds recorded December 30, 1969, In Book 245 at Page 481, and December 30, 1970, In Book 252 at Page 784. ", / PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. ','" Vincent J, Higens President Title Insurance Company 601 E Hopkins. Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766 . (303) 925-6527 FAX Christina M, Davis Vice President EXHIBIT 4 ADJACENT OWNER'S STATEMENT Pitkin County 7itle, Inc., 3 duly lice:lsed Title Ilsurdnce Agent in the State of Colorado hereby certifies t,e following list is a current list of adjacent property owner's within three hundred feet of the Subject Property. as obtained from the most current Pitkin County Assessors Tax Rolls. NAMES AND ADRESSES BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION DiN JAY t1XJRES REBECCA BlISS UXX<ES P.O. HOX 1146 SURG\RIA'lD, TEXAS 771,87 METES AND BOUNDS SUBJECT PROPERTY THE ERDMAN PARTNERSHIP P.O. BOX 12395 ASPEN, CO 81612 METES AND BOUNDS ASPEN CENTER FOR ENVIROMENTAL STUDIES 100 E. PUPPYSMITH ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 METES AND BOUNDS LUCY REED HIBBERD 2222 EAST TENNESSEE STREET DENVER, CO 80209 UNIT A, LBH CONDOMINIUMS STERLING A, COLGATE ROSEMARY W. COLGATE 422 ESTANTE LOS ALAMOS, NM 84544 UNIT B, LBH CONDOMINIUMS CHARLES W, BRADY 45555 STELLA DRIVE ATLANTA, G~ 30327 LOT I, NORTH ST. SUB LE RAY DIGILIA JOHN WILLIAM DIGILIA P.O. BOX 4305 ASPEN, CO 81612 LOT 2, NORTH ST. SUB ALEX KAUFMAN KATHRYN BUMGARDNER CHEEK P.O. BOX 6221 EDISON, NJ 08818 LOT 1, CHEEK SUB -} Vincent J, Higens President MORTON A. HELLER P,O. SOX 98 ~OOCv CREEK, CO 81656 ~. AR;~UR _ITTEL~ TRUS TEE, ET AL P.O. BOX 1748 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73101 JOHN H. CHEEK JR. KATHRYN BUMGARDNER CHEEK CLONMEL ROAD NASHVILLE, TN 37220 ROBERT P. GILLMAN ELEANOR L, GILLMAN 2390 EAST ORANGEWOOD AVENUE ANAHEIM, CA 92806 CAROL G. CRAIG P.O. BOX 18 WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 HOUSTON R. HARTE ANNE P. HARTE 476 WESTWOOD DRIVE DENVER, CO 80206 JAMES K. DAGGS GAY DAGGS 640 NORTH 3Ro STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 ELIZABETH ANN ALTEMUS 620 NORTH 3RD STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 MORTIMER M, DENKER DORIS DENKER P.O. BOX 1566 ASPEN, CO 81612 PHOEBE MASSEY RYERSON P.O. BOX 4222 ASPEN, CO 81612 ~, PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc, . " Title Insurance Company 601 E. Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado B1611 (303) 925-1766 . (303) 925-6527 FAX LOT 2, CHEEK SUB _OT 3, CHEEK SUB LOT 4, CHEEK SUB LOT 5, CHEEK SUB Christina M. Davis Vice President LOT 6, Nl/2 LOT 7, BLOCK 100 HAL LAMS 51/2 LOT 7, LOT 8, BLOCK 100 HALLAMS LOTS 4, 5, 6, BLK 102, HALLAMS LOTS 7, 8, BLK 102, HALLAMS LOTS 1 & 2, SUNNY ACRES LOT 3, SUNNY ACRES i , .-, PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc, "', "'~,,/ Viocent J. Higens President Title Insurance Company 601 E. Hopkins. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Christina M. Davis (303) 925,1766 . (303) 925-6527 FAX Vice President JAMES P. HUME 1120 NO. LAKE SHORE DRIVE CH:CAGO, IL 60611 LOTS 7-9, BLOCK 103, HALLAMS CITY OF ASPEN 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, CO B1611 METES AND BOUNDS ASPEN INSTITUTE 1000 NORTH 3RD STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 METES AND 80UNDS JANET SCHRIE8ER 452 WORTH AVENUE PALM BEACH, FL 33480 LOT 13, SECOND ASPEN COMPANY SUB BRUCE BERGER SUITE 604 342 MADISON AVENUE NEW YORK CITY, NY 10173 THE "WESTERLY AND EASTERLY TRACTS" HALLAMS ADDITION ANNE F. FARISH #16E, 2200 WILLOWICK HOUSTON, TX 77027 ALL OF LOTS 5-9, PT OF LOTS 10 & 11" BLOCK 4, ASPEN COMPANY SUBDIVISION JAMES, JOAN & GAIL MERRIAM 1884 MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE TIBURON, CA 94920 METES AND BOUNDS I' Lc"<:L0 .' AUTHORIZED ~ I / / / / / , / / '-- --------- ?1'~&.-~1 VI~W Of t'Wt-J ~us~ 11'1"\.~> 1'lo Sc.-,t<l. €" . III LIPKIN \\'AR;'>;ER DESIG:\' PART;.;ERSHIP , . I 400 West .\lain Street, Suite 100 I Aspen, Colorado 8r6n '9709'0 "4' i V \ Z- F 970 920 3816 .~,,; (; 11u~ ,. l...tJO Use We " LAND USE REGULATIONS S 3,101 Top of slope means a point or a line connecting at least three (3) points determined by the point of intersection of two fifty. foot lines, one line being the level of the existing grade above the slope and the other line being the angle of the existing slope, both lines measured on a site section drawing. Trail means a multi-purpose easement designed to provide safe and easy passage for nonmotorized means of travel. Use means the purpose for which land or a building is designated, arranged, or intended. or for which it either is or may be occupied or maintained. Utility/trash service area means any area used for the placement of garbage or trash containers or mechanical equipment accessory to the principal structure or use; provided, A. All utility/trash service areas shall be fenced so not to be visible from the street. and such fences shall be a minimum six (6) feet high from grade. All fences shall be of sound construction and shall have not more than ten (10) percent open area. B. Whenever this chapter shall require that a utility/trash service area be provided abutting an alley. buildings may extend to the rear property line if otherwise allowed by this chapter provided that an open area be provided which shall be accessible to the alley. and which meets the dimensional requirements of Article 5. Division 2. C. A minimum of fifteen (15) linear feet of the utility/trash service area shall be re, served for box storage, utility transformers or equipment. or building access. and a minimum of five (5) linear feet of the utility/trash service area shall be reserved for trash facilities, unless the dimensions of the area are reduce 1 pursuant to Section 7,404(C). Vested property right means the right to undertake and complete the development and use of property under the terms and conditions of a site specific development plan. Watercourse means any river or stream located in the City of Aspen, including. but not limited to. the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams. Working resident is a person who works in Pitkin County a minimum of thirty (301 hours per week, nine (9) months per year, or who is handicapped based upon the Housing Authority Guidelines, or who is a former working resident who is a senior (sixty (60) years or older) or retired and. for the purpose of deferral of housing impacts, must be utilizing the dwelling in question as r re i nc Yard means an open space which is not wholly or partially enclosed by buildings. not in an alley or street, unoccupied and unobstructed from the ground skyward, except as otherwise provided in this chapter, provided it meets the following requirements, A. Projections into required yards. Yards shall be unobstructed from the ground to the sky except for the following allowed projections, 1. Building eaves-Eighteen (18) inches; Supp. No.2 1593 S 3-101 ASPEN CODE 2. Architectural projections-Twelve (12) inches; 3. Individual balconies not utilized as a passageway (provided they do not project more than one.third (1/3) the distance from the exterior wall to the property lineJ-Four (4) feet; 4. Fire escapes required by the Uniform Building Code- Four (4) feet; 5. Uncovered porches, slabs, patios, walks and steps, which do not exceed thirty (30) inches above or below natural grade shall be permitted to project into the yard without restriction. Projections may exceed thirty (301 inches below grade if de- termined to be required by the chief building official for window egress; 6. Fences, hedges and walls less than six (6) feet in height-No restriction on loca- tion. B. Required yards adjacent to private roads. All required yard setbacks under zone district regulations are based on distance measured from the right-of-way line of a dedicated public way. Where there is no public dedication and the lot line extends to the centerline of the right-of,way, the required yard setback shall equal the distance specified under zone district regulations, plus an additional distance equal to one,half (V,) of the right-of-way width as if such private way were dedicated for public use. C. Comer lots. On a lot bordered on two (2) sides by intersecting streets, the owner shall have a choice as to which yard shall be considered as the front yard, such yard to meet minimum setbacks for a front yard in that zone district. The remaining yard bordering a street may be reduced by one-third (1/3) of the required front yard setback distance for the zone district. The rear yard must coincide with the rear alignment of neighboring lots regardless of which yard is considered the front yard by the owner. D. Yards in developed areas. Where an unbuilt lot is bordered by property developed prior to the effective date of this chapter, any of which is nonconforming as to front yard setback distances for the zone district, the required front yard for the unbuilt lot shall be the average of the setback distances of both of t.he improved, bordering properties; or, if only one of the adjacent properties has been improved, t.he setback of the new construction shall conform to this chapter. * E. Transitional yards. \Vhere two (2) lots share a common side lot line are in different zone districts, the lot in the more intensive zone district shall observe the required yard setback distance as established for the less intensive use zone district. F. Yards adjacent to arterial streets. On a lot bordered by a designated art.erial street, the minimum front yard setback distance for the district shall be applied to the portion of the lot. adjacent to the arterial street, regardless of building orientation. Where a lot is bordered on two (2) sides by intersecting arterial streets, the provisions listed under the corner lot situation shall apply. G. Non-aligned lots. For any lot in the R-6 zone district in excess of nine thousand (9,000) square feet which is not aligned along the traditional Aspen Townsite lot lines, the building inspector shall measure the side yards from the two (2) shortest sides of the Supp. No.2 1594 .... L.AND USE REGULATIONS ~ 3-101 lot which are opposite from each other and the front and rear yards from the two (2) longest sides of the lot which are opposite from each other. Yard, front means the yard extending the full width of a parcel, the depth of which is measured by the least horizontal distance between the front lot line and the nearest surface of the principal building, such distance being referred to as the front yard setback. Yard, rear means a yard extending the full width of the parcel, the depth of which is measured by the least horizontal distance between the rear lot line and the nearest surface of the principal building, such distance being referred to as the rear yard setback. Yard, side means a yard extending from the front yard to the rear yard, the width of which is measured by the least horizontal distance between the side lot line and the nearest surface of the principal building. (Ord. No. 47,1988, ~ 6; Ord. No. 6-1989, ~~ 1,2; Ord.Ko. 1.1990, ~ 5; Ord. Ko. 60,1990, ~ 1; Ord. No. 71-1990, ~ 1) c Supp_ No.2 1595 -- . - FILE COpy f~,~~~ . ASPEN, PITKIN PLA:-JNI:-IG & ZONI!'JG DEPARHIE;';T COI,!\IL'\ITY DE\'EtOP;..lE\T DEPART.\IE.\T November 17, 1995 Martin Mata Lipkin Warner Design Partnership 400 West Main Street, Suite 100 Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Hernandez Residence Residential Design Guidelines Dear Martin, Staff reviewed your submittal for the Hernandez residence last Monday, November 13, 1995. It was understood that the review was for the main residence on Lot A. Staff was pleased with the overall orientation of the home which appears to draw from the existing pattern of building footprints on both Lake and Gillespie Avenues, However, staff did find that there were several items of the proposal that did nbt comply with the Residential Design Guidelines. The following findings were made by staff during the review: 1. Although the location of Lot A is uniquely situated compared to the traditional grid pattern of the west end, the orientation of the garage doors should be considered as if the home is on a corner lot. Based upon the plans submitted, the garage is the most forward part of the house when viewed from Lake Avenue. The garage doors appear to' be virtually on an axis with Lake Avenue. Considering vacated Gillespie A venue as the front street the garage is indeed setback from the front of the house by ten feet, however when one also considers Lake Avenue, the garage should likewise be recessed from the facade of the home by ten feet. Therefore staff finds that you do not comply with the guidelines as they pertain to the orientation of the garage. 2. It is unclear from your plans whether the front porch is 50 square feet. 3. All elevations of the residence must be submitted to determine compliance with the Guidelines. It appears from the submitted plans,.that the south elevation and the Hallam Lake elevation have exterior expressions that are between nine and twelve feet above the level of the finished floor. Therefore, the floor area of the interior rooms that 130 SOl'TH GALE~,\ STREET . ASPE\. COLORADO 81611 . PHO....E 303.920.5090 . F.u 303.920.5197 Prio,.,.;J00 "",'d.up.ll"" DIRECT FAX Lj:-,jE: 303,920.5439 / , are exposed by the exterior expressions shall be counted 2: 1. As we discussed, I will seek an interpretation as to whether the recessed second floor would be considered in the 2: 1 formula or not. Please note, this is not a Guideline that may be waived. 4. We will need a better site plan that indicates driveways, ground planes and a clear indication of the front door. In summary, a redesign of the home to comply with the Guidelines is recommended, However, if you wish to pursue a variance from the Guidelines, we suggest you combine that review with the site specific Hallam Lake ESA bluff review at the Planning & Zoning Commission. The Ordinance provides for one review by one board when multiple land use reviews are required. I would also suggest that any further review be combined with a more specific development plan that includes the proposed lot line adjLlstment and a confirmation by this department of the allowable floor area of the parcels. I'" \,\\.v l\ ' If you have any questions, please feel free to call~ or Stan Clauson. Sincerely, , \/ /-..:> ~-~ Leslie Lamont, DepLlty Director cc: file '\\c;. '1.- ~'l, \---:1 k. ",-"-. -t\,V~L' ~\Y\'-U\_'("i \ ~JI,-\... ),-.J.-c'-,\. l.......;<'-.'-..- ~ '- '-- ~~ (-:n._ C\.J \ .- \, ~~ ,\ Oe5l6tW /a_~. " ~lS" portion of the proposed building must also be one (1) story in height for a distance of twelve (12) feet. () If the adjacent structures on both sides of a proposed building are one story in height, the required one story volume of the proposed building may be on one side only. () If a proposed building occupies a corner lot, and faces an adjacent one story structure, the required one story element may be reversed to face the corner. Garages and Driveways "'" *' ( ) All portions of a garage, carport or storage area parallel to the street shall be recessed behind the front facade a minimum of ten (10) feet. j ,.. () Garages below natural grade, garages with a vehicular entrance width greater than twenty four (24) feet, and garages with a vehicular entrance width greater than 40% of the front facade in total shall meet one of the following conditions: ( ) All elements of the garage shall be located within fifty (50) feet of the rear lot line or ( ) All elements of the garage shall be located farther than one hundred fifty (150) feet from the front lot line, or ( ) The vehicular entrance to the garage shall be perpendicular to the front lot line Areaways ( ) All areaways, lightwells and/or stairwells on the street facing side(s) of a building must be entirely recessed behind the vertical plane established by the portion of the building facade which is closest to the street, calculating floor area ratio Accessory dwelling unit or linked pavilion. For the purposes of PZM2.19.9l ( do have a Don house. There are a couple of them that we have heard of that it sounds as though friends of the owners were actually going to be living in them. Bruce: There might be a way to do a confidential type of survey that we send out to everyone of these units that have been approved and ask for a response without them having to indicate who they are or what their address is just to find out how they are being used. Is it sitting vacant or is it being used? Richard: We could also get a survey through the Housing Office to find out--OK, so many of these have been approved, how many have come back to ask for approval for a renter? MOORES HALLAM LAKE BLUFF REVIEW SPECIAL REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Jasmine opened the public hearing. Kim made presentation as attached in record. SETBACKS ( Kim: Review standards state that all development within 15ft of the setback from the top of slope shall be at grade or any proposed development not at grade be approved by Special Review. I have stated that I am not comfortable with the way that the top of slope for Lot A was established. For Lot B which is kind of a convex lot--the land form moves out in a way towards the bluff before it drops off. The applicant shows 6 points of reference to create the top of slope in the setback. The opposite way to calculate it for Lot A is a concave lot and comes in the applicant shows 3 points of reference traversing basically the big swail that comes into the site. The other setbacks on the lot those being 10ft front setback on the west side of the property and if you move the structure which is my version of the site plan if you move that against the front setback it in effect takes away most of the non-conformity with my version of the top of slope. I have done basically the same thing with Lot B. Moving the structure as close onto the other setbacks as possible reducing the amount of encroachment into the 15ft setback. What staff I s opinion is is if the applicant is willing to re- locate the structures that granting the special review for 7 PZM2.19.91 ( whatever encroachments are left which in the case of Lot B is 1 or 2 feet in the case of Lot A it would still be 4 to 5 feet. Approving the Special Review given that the structures were in fact moved back to minimize whatever encroachment exists. HEIGHT According to the sketches on Lot B the fireplace is also located on the most outward edge of the structure. I asked in a condition that the chimney be re-Iocated so that the tallest part of the house is not the closest part. It does encroach into the height setback as does the rest of the structure although the chimney is more pronounced. Jasmine: What is the total square footage of the 2 lots. Joe Wells: Approximately 35,000. Lot A is roughly 25 and Lot B is roughly 10,OOOsqft. ,LANDSCAPING The landscaping issue is something that can potentially be used to mitigate the encroachments. ( Tom Cardamone: I am not here to unconditionally support or undermine what Kim is recommending. I am also here to say that she was a great help in getting ESA in place. One of my major goals is to preserve the hillside around the lake. In this case it has been preserved 100%. That is important to recognize. The existing vegetative cover exceeds 50% in my opinion. In my meetings with Julia we have talked about additional plantings as an enhancement to the property and the Moores as much as additional screening to ACES. In working with the Moores, Michael Hagman and Doyle when ESA was just a concept and they were very willing to work with us and realize the importance of establishing some sort of protection, The kinds of criteria that I presented to them at that time was the notion of stepping back roof lines, softening the facades and using vegetation to break up the outlines of the buildings without protruding views from the homesites. As far as I can tell they really did respond to that. I do have a concern with the way the top of slope on Lot A was drawn. It is very difficult to pinpoint top of slope and. my opinion was that if we are "arguing over a few inches or ~ven a few feet that I didn't want to make that a stumbling block that would kill ESA and make it an impossible process. But I do feel that this interpretation on Lot A is too big in it's magnitude 8 PZM2.19.91 and I would like to see the Planning Office's interpretation accepted as a precedent and at the same time I think it is worth strongly considering mitigating the impact of that and encouraging them to be 15ft setback with vegetation rather than moving the building. Moving a building is a big cost. And from our point of view moving the building 5ft could--an alternative could be putting a couple of Spruce trees in there and end up with the same effect. If indeed the building is only 4ft away from the top of a steep slope that would de-stabilize it by a basement level excavation it is worth the Moores considering their responsibility to keep the hillside stable and think about that. There is one discrepancy that I caught. There is ground water on the site that is going to be intercepted by the excavation. We have come up with a plan that actually will carry that ground water to a percolation hole to a midpoint on the hillside where it will be distributed in a surface system. In here I read that there would be no disturbance to the surface of the hill or excavation. That is a contradiction. c ?: My understanding is that we have been monitoring the water in those test holes and we notice that in the spring runoff the water tends to rise because apparently there is a level of permeable soil that the waters coming off of the ___mumble_. That is only true for 2 months of the year. For 10 months of the year that is dry and when Don Erdmann dug his foundation it was dry. So to say that we are going to intercept ground water when we dig that hole is really not true. Jasmine: I think we have a real problem in this application in that there are 2 issues. One which is the actual visual impact and the other one which is compliance with the ESA that we spent so much time working out. It may very well be that from a visual point of view properly selected and ideally situated vegetation in terms of mitigating the visual impact of the guest house which the most pressing. But there is also the calculation of the slope and I think that from my point of view that is something that is in addition to the vegetation covering it up. If we had decided that we don't want building within a certain number of feet from the slope as determined, it doesn't matter how you cover it up. And I think that those are 2 separate issues. J Joe Wells: I would like the opportunity to work on point that we can resolve your concerns with regardless of how the top of slope gets defined. this to the vegetation 9 PZM2.19.91 ( Jasmine: My interpretation is that there was not to be, unless there was some special and unusual circumstances, that there was in general not to be development within that 15 feet. Mari: What we are being asked to accept is that if someone spent a lot of money in design fees that that is supposed to be accepted as a criterion for special and unusual circumstances. I don't really buy that. I am leery of accepting that criterion for fear that anyone from then on will use it as a precedent. That does not strike me as being a valid criterion. Sara: I recall in the process too of reassuring Mrs. Farrish that her circumstance might be unusual because of her trees and there were certain restrictions with her lot too. But I agree with Mari. I would rather see that special review be for special circumstances. Tom, aren I t you concerned that every development along Hallam Lake now will come for Special Review within the 15 foot? ( Cardamone: Yes. I think that is a real concern. What is difficult here is that there won't be any more development proposals coming fOrward that were being designed during the time that we were also designing the ESA. Jasmine: The point I make vegetation and the distance different issues. is that the screening and the from the top of the slope are 2 Bruce: My comment on this calculation of top of slope--I believe the ordinance says that the calculation is to be made by the zoning Officer which I assume is the Planning Staff. Joe: It says that the top of slope will be established by 3 points. Bruce: But it also says at least 3. Height shall be measured and determined by the zoning Officer utilizing the definition set forth. I remember us talking about how are we going to pick those 3 points and the problems that we would anticipate coming up. And here this is the first application and we are already there. It seems to me this is a point to be discussed between the Planning Office and the applicant to work out some kind of resolution. Jasmine: The intent of the ordin?nce has to do with the enforcement of the ordinance when it comes to a specific measurement. It is obvious to me that the intent of the ordinance was to be as protective as possible of the environment, 10 PZM2.l9.9l ( Therefore deviations from the measured 15ft were not be undertaken capriciously and that measurement should be on the conservative and environmentally sensitive side. I would tend to think that the applicant could get a definite sense from the members of the Commission that they would much prefer to see the building envelopes moved back from the slope. Bruce: Question to Tom Cardamone: The overall intent of this ordinance I think you stated, was to protect the Hallam Lake Preserve and to be sensitive to these property owner's rights. I think I understood you to say that you thought that through adding vegetation that protection of the Hallam Lake area could be accomplished. Now the area that was designed to be protected has said that they are going to be satisfied with vegetation. Maybe we are straining too hard to enforce little details of the ordinance when we have complied with the overall intent of it. ( Cardamone: My main interest in re-interpreting the top of slope of Lot A was not to necessarily change the location of the building but set a precedent for top of slope. That was my main concern. That the interpretation is too liberal because then we are going to start losing the intent of this. Richard: Essentially what the applicant has done with their interpretation of top of slope was to use the 2 end points on the lot. And the middle one just happens to be close to one of the end points of the line and fall onto it. And if you put the same interpretation on Lot B the top of slope' which cuts off that convexity it actually goes right through the corner of the proposed building. So if we use the same kind of interpretation on the convexity that they have used on the concavity they are actually over the edge of the slope. And of course we need some adjustment either way on that. But I think they have not done everything possible including moving the building back. The idea of Special Review is when we are at a point when we can't do anything more. And I don't think we are at that point yet. Sure they have changed the roof line a little bit but I haven't seen anything else being done in terms of moving it as far to the other setback as possible. They are pushing the setback on the Hallam Lake side without being all the way to the lot setback on the other side and not proviqing reasons why they can't do that. So I am certainly not at a point where I could give Special Review approval to this application. 11 PZM2.19.91 ( Jasmine: Under the scenario that involved moving the buildings back to would be the degree of encroachment Planning Office would measure it? Kim has suggested which the other setbacks, what into the slope as the Kim: It is like 1 and 1/2 to 2 feet here and here maybe. We are talking almost--you can't hardly measure it at 1 to 10 scale and then over here it was like 4 to 5 feet or 3 to 4 feet. Jasmine: So we can consider that a minimal encroachment? Kim: And with the condition of added vegetation which is what the Special Review criteria specifically states. Jasmine: It seems to me that if in fact we can maintain the interpretation of the measurement that if the applicant is willing to make the adjustment I have indicated on these diagrams then the amount of encroachment that we are talking about is much smaller and we are still preserving the interpretation of the slope and the measurements thereof. To me that makes this a much more acceptable way of dealing with this situation and does not compromise our position as regards future development in this area. ( Sara: Also more palatable to me would be to say if they agree to move the envelope that in the approval we specifically say that this in no way is to be considered a measurement. We do not agree with the measurement of the setback. Jasmine: What we are doing is we are saying we are moving this back that the applicant has agreed to move back the building envelope as measured with only very miner encroachment and that by Special Review because the applicant has done that the miner encroachment especially in view of the fact of the vegetation would then be acceptable. But we are confirming our measurement- -the Planning Office measurement. Bruce: What is the difference between measurement and the Planning staff measurements? took your 3 points? the applicant's Is it where you Kim: I acknowledge that they used 6 points on Lot B and I chose 6 points on Lot A. From one corner of Lot A to the other it follows the 78-56 line almost to the T. Bruce: I don't know that the ordinance says who picks the points and where they have to be. We talked about whether they ought to be at the property lines on either end and one in the middle or whether it be just arbitrary. The ordinance doesn't speak to that and it doesn't say clearly that it is either the applicant 12 PZM2.19.91 \. or the staff that picks those points. It seems to me that we may have some work to do on the ordinance. And in lieu of that, if the applicant can buy into at least on this application the measurements as done by staff and leave the buildings where they are and screen with vegetation then maybe we have got a deal. We still have to do some work on the work on the ordinance. It is not clear as to who does what. Kim: In an earlier discussion with Commission it was determined if we are taking away the ability for someone to build farther out to the slope, as a concession, we are giving them a greater ability to move out to the side. That is why I calculated all these setbacks to see if we could move the structure over. Jasmine: It seems to me that the sentiment of the Commission generally is that if the applicant is willing to move the buildings back as indicated in Kim's drawing that we can re- write the conditions and go ahead with an approval based on these conditions. Jasmine then asked for public comment. There were no comments and she closed the public portion of this hearing. ( CONDITIONAL USE #1. Lot split plat must be filed prior to filing deed restrictions or issuance of any building permit. #2. Has to do with the size of the accessory unit of Lot Band that must be changed to be within 300--700sqft of net livable area as defined by the Housing guidelines revised floor plan shall be submitted to and approved by Planning & Zoning staff. #3. Would be the same. #4. Which is recording the deed. That would be the same. ESA REVIEW #5. That language is OK, isn't it? Kim: Yea. If the Commission would feel comfortable with just the staff review of planting. Mature vegetation. There was general agreement on this. I Joe: What is the benefit of photographs if you can't use it for your determination? 13 PZM2.19.91 ( Kim: Well, what I was hoping is that you could show mature vegetation in there with the structures and just get an idea if 2 trees are going to be enough or is it going to be 4 trees. And with the top of the roof shown. I will look at their landscape plan and try and make a determination on that. I was thinking that some Evergreens might be appropriate in order to protect animals in the winter time. #6. Mari: Why don't we say "The applicant shall adopt the Planning Office's 3 points. Jasmine: Adopt the Planning Office determination of the top of slope as shown on attachment B of the memo. The applicant shall adopt the Planning Office determination of top of slope-- Bruce: Kim, did you use 3 points or did you use 6 points? Kim: I used 6. c Bruce: Well, if the ordinance says 3 I think we need to come up with a way to calculate it on at least 3. Kim: What is ironic about this case is that we are probably never again going to see a situation where an applicant is going to propose development on 2 side-by-side lots. You are right. It would have been more applicable for both lots to come in with just 3 points. If you want to say 3 then the 3rd. being equal distance, I think basically we are getting at this center point. Bruce: We are worried about setting a precedent. We need to know what precedent we are setting. If we are setting the precedent that the Planning Office is going to determine the top of slope and you are going to use 3 points or 6 points, let I s make sure we know what we are doing. The ordinance says 3--at least 3. And if we are going to use 3 as our standard then let's figure out is that just going to be arbitrary to staff or is it going to be the end points with 1 in the middle equal distance. What is it going to be? Mari: I think that we should be working on the ordinance to that it is the staff's call on where those points or how po~nts are needed depending on the particular lot, J Jasmine: That's why I if we re-write 6 to measurement as shown mean many would like to say that it seems to me that say that the applicant is adopting the on attachment B which was done by the \. 14 PZM2.19,91 ( \ Planning Office that that will give us a direction for future determinations. Mari: We probably need to make it very clear. those points are. to work on that language in the ordinance I think the question is who decides where Joe: I think Jasmine's language will work because the ordinance does give the flexibility of using more than 3. Jasmine: #7. Is pretty standard. We don't have to do anything with #7. #8. Also is pretty standard. # 9, As it now says "Both structures shall be moved onto the front and side setbacks of their respective lots to minimize intrusion onto the top of slope setback as much as possible. And again we might want to refer back to the drawings. Kim: You could. Those are very rough sketches. are fairly accurate. I think they ( Jasmine: So you think #9 is all right as it stands? Kim: Yes. On their site plan they have to indicate at a really accurate level what the setbacks are. #10. The chimney. Michael: The chimney shall be re-Iocated to reduce intrusion. Are we talking about where it sits in the floor plan--just moving it? Mari: Why not strike #10 because it will be moved back. Jasmine: OK. We will strike #10. the moving of the house. Because it will occur with MOTION Jasmine: I will entertain a motion to approve this Moores Hallam Lake ESA and Special Review and conditional Use Review, etc. Mari: I move to approve the Moores Hallam Review and Conditional Use Review with Planning Staff memo dated February 9, 1991. Lake ESA and the changes (attached in Special to the record) Richard seconded the motion with all in favor. \ 15 PZM2.19.91 ( Joe: Kim rightly pointed out that the driveway as shown is on top of the irrigation easement which we are showing re-Iocated to the south side of the property. The reason for that is there is some landscaping features on the adjacent property that was done by the adjacent owner that encroaches into the ROW. In order for us to move the driveway into the easement we would have to rip those landscaping improvements out and we would just as soon not do that. We are hoping to be able to convince the city to accept an underground use of this easement in any case so that any improvements that would be installed in that easement would be underground because we are giving the city the right to use that storm drainage. We would like to leave landscaping improvements. easement or shall we solve the driveway to the Would you rather we it with staff? south put it of in the the Jasmine:' I think you can resolve that with staff. The Commission is already sufficiently deranged for one night. I declare this meeting adjourned. ( \ 16 0.-.-('" I . ,. Qd' ! ,cc" " j .. ~ ~ .., ~ ~ J: I .( oj r4 ~ ~ Jar"Nllt1INT .j\" .",.- 4l Ql lI.I ;a !! : ,.. "'":5 e~ ~ ~!:2 '. J J! lil.; s.5.: ~ .~ ~i ~ o ~.. ]~$1.1~ .., 9' 'il~ oj 2.9 fll:'~ ~ ~.:rl'S Iii ll,s .. ~ ~ i5 ~ !!-o ~f:: eJ e ~ ~ lB~ -tJi~; Q) .....u ~a = =~ 58"~ U-:l~:-a "S! ,s~ ~ '~.e.s .a;!;h t:~ f S~ .~'O bG4I ::5;,a >.] ~ e ~~m~ t:...ll:l" . ~g 'i3 ~ ~~].~ ~ ~ i~! in ::'-g .~~ Xl~hs~ ia.s'S'e, 'E'lla ~ ~ ..:;j ;l!",!, ~ ~ .., ~.s Jj o.~ ~a ~=t: a ClfJj Q ~ o:s &!~~.o ~.s~ ~~ ~SB ~~~~~,s e~i~ ~.s'll -e:::l 't:l 041 -8.... B 1tJ";i~ "S.oi5,Ql <r:;1J~ ~= ~u .f'h.[g~ nd :in ...: c-J ...-;'l' "="~ j:f ~j ,; ... ui Xl ~ ~.~ -8~.! .- ~ ~ m '" &l ~ j~~~ / .e. ~e .. ~~ .. ,~~ . " _ ~ _ _ ... _ .. _ ~ _ _ _ _ ;a _ .. _ - - ,1i~Jt ~fI~~' ~iT .,.; i~, "'~ I it, ":(; [ I~ { <!>~~ ~\~ .~'" ~.~~~\?fij.)izi\~ ~J.~}.f ;;~,~~ ~ It II ~8 ~< ~~ ~8 If.J.z ~ ~ ~~ OE ~~ rn If.J.~ ~~ 6~ O~ ~~ .. II . d . . . . II . ." . .. . -- - -- II .-.... ~,~h~ ~Ij~; ~lp~~ S,~.2 '" >.~ ~ j""I< e '~~~! .g<~ 5 ~~~%i~ 'l~' .... l<__,,~~Cl ~~g~~ "".~. ." <0 ~ tl.lj!l t", 2~~ls~!! ~<~ .', <o<~~t i5~ ~~~1~9 €i,i.1 -< !!~~~gf. '2i~~'t i:: e: l~~ ~~ ~~~~!~ ~ili~~g~;~ dl.~j ~a:: !~~~~_< ~~P'~~ t:~ ~~~ _<1\.,-' "z~6t'... a:::Z :o''j;)~'lti "~"",,,": ",,, !o~,,~ c,cc,~ u c H,,~,<~ _.~>'('jF'-ll i ~':'r--t ""...,., ~~,~~~;; i 'l~3~' I', -~!a~ ~~H5~ ~ 'Q'o~., 0'........ - ~".gl _,dj,.,~ ~ i'"~-1~g~~ ~ ".1' . ~..,~~~ >-, ll'.;~!t zli ~i~'h~' "'''''.~i" .o..iqe",-Z ~:m~m ~ EXHIBIT 6 ~- (" -' 2~ i~.:!: :! ';\~8~~ ~~~i i g~ij~~ tl~f"~ ~ i! .rs~:' ~~ll ~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~'~ i~<~; i~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~r~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~6G ~O ~~~~i~~Q ~~~~~ ;~~~€;~~ ;~ ~~~~~2~~ it~~;l I"'~ti, ~, ~~i>t'>' .~~.~; ,~o,.>t",. _.".;;t i-~"" ~~;5J~l;ir8288::;~88~88B8.t S~~Sl< ~~I~i~~~~~~~~~~9~~~8 ~~~l~ ~~~~~~~~;~~~~~~nE~~ ~~~~~~ ~;~;~!~R~~!~~~!R~~~~ i!~~~~ t~;~~~UUMY ~uuuu'~:~~~ . ;~p~~~!=ti~~~~~~g~i~ ~~z~~~ ~~~=~!~~~~~~~=~~~~!~ ~Sf,~g~ ~~~r~-~-rr____rr____ ~V~~U~ :<' i ~h~& II~f~,U ! i!b' !';iH ~jH~ ,-"J.. _.o....'! '" ~i!l: 8~fl;1"'ii ;;Ji~!.i ...., "'Z"~- , ~ ~ I' ~ ~~ ' 3~ ~~ ~ t: u~ , ,. '" ~ I' I ,S -Q ,z ':1:= :~ , ,,0 ~~ ~~~ ! j , /:r::--:~::~: f~-:::-'!-:~::~it~'>~l'jt~, ~~ ~ i:jJ1I! Ii! l~ iJ ~ <'F "I ~,i ~o ~:i!"; ~~- J < ~~-~ ~;. 1 i ..l,;~"l" ~3 8 ~.,~! 19 A ~ ~~ .~ .,~u; i ~I~i .f ", <m ~ ~I ~ ~ ~!p . ~~:~""! ~I~ i : ~~~t+,__ ~ 2S ~~~; ~ ~h> r~5~ I t u ~b~Ji '-'-_, ,Ci "!< i :SUol i : "'1~Ni I !~rk' : : ~ i! ' ~ ~! : i ~ i; rt-. ;~~ II rx-, ----_. ,_~-~-- --~, lLn_n~ ;:::;9,~ ! . ~~~J , < ;:'0 Gig i u:~~ ,,E j: ~i3~~ , ~------------------------~ , , , , , , , , , , , , l-__~~~_~____________~___ I "' z '" -I --fi!'. ~. j?~;~~;li ~~!i:'~dt ,"~h~~i '$O'F\"O~I n;J:~~H' :t~~~ ''}!Coo: __;;~~r~ -0: oj' . ~ -~- ~ , , '!i:.-o:;\., I 'H~ ~ ~~~~z: '" . II ",1lI"'1 ofi~ ~!:e!~~l~ ~~~ ~g!~~~~ , ~----~-----------------~------------~--------------~-------~----- :;; ~ 52 -v..'-:~, .,,-.l(,-1 :, ~ ~ '40' AI<t'I\ 1.2 I~ rru.?, : 4 If; , Cl ~l ' i~ ~ ~/1 i ji,'~ ii :~~ ../ i ~ l:~:, ../:! ,,: ~ lJ [=ft1 ~ jJ!~!i W \~ ~: :ll t.l \ '; ;, 111 ~ ~ "J' :'i1 ~ 5:::1.. ,_,-;:;,,_...-~~____.., _~:_u__________ ~ \ ~ \, :: 1 t< \ '. \ " i;: \ \ \ I \ ~ \\\\ """"" . '" \ I. \. i 1 \ ~ ~ 1 1 , ; ~ ~ \. \, : nm~~<I: _nmm __nm~ : 'j_ : j \: : q a : : ~ ~ 1 t' \ \ : _.I; : ' ~ ~ l" \ \ :E: ~~:: : c , , I..., ~~:: ,\. \ \, ~ I : <: co;' : ~ (7rfig~i~::~~::i~:~::~~; \;~ i ""_"'I I"'.OOi^.tr1N :.) ~i); : :~ ~ u I I~ .8 "8 : :~ ~I~ I 1 ~~~ I I ~i'~ : : : ' ~~-------------- g iii Ss i5 z 3.11N3.AV '" ~ '" rJJ '" ..l ..l (3 I >-... ~ -,0 I' !i~'~i~!~~U~ 1 ~t ~"2~~~~~F! ~~ ., <<,~~~." V ~ IHii!:Ui;~' !-[ ,,~~~,~:i~!Uq i l:l ~!'i'<Q; .,< . I Cd 0'1 jl;f;._-;;;~('J j!:_oP ~ I ~ ~,~Hl~~~~~;~ ~1 ~. ,!.., l)'~~ ~u=s=~ ~ I :~c.'~" :!lo '" .. 1-!<'::~;:!It~{fJ:l ~ !'" 'F9"<~,~~h,~o W'l~~i!l~~,~ . _,",~H~~~.~.~<. If Id II 'I I i ~ .' HI. ~ il~ i , ~ 3.XV'l s III II 'I'J 'tIt 1l!1 HI Ilt~ III1 hi' .,' [,'1 I" p,1I It!f -------~~--------~---------~--------------------r~--- , , , , , , , I , '" g '" I ~l I '* JrJI i .1 I .' I 1.. i_L_LL4---t-. / / / ~ '......._--/ .....,-.... .//- , " ~. . . Z ~~ z p;:Cl . ~ SUi . "- ~. . ~ ::EO: '- / t < .., ~. ~~ .~ , I I J / / / / / " / / _/ , ~ .- 1 6 ", / / ~ 1 ~ .- ",. " \ \ "- ...., -- , '- ~~ . ------- , i I. . , i I ! ,.....1 f9i ol ~b Ql i, O!: Ql< t) . s::rIl Qlr"'l :g Q.l "'..00: &!j g; e ...~ 0_ o ol ~::t: .;u.y~ !6 >. ~~!m \:IV ~",. ~:! -~ ~ ;Li: __ I, +-,: ,i :; , ' .....+~ .:; .. .. ... . .... /, .-t;; -- -- . - r . ~ r. . ;;: -- '" . I ....... .U..Ll.j-L; : ~ f--Ttt " , ~ ~ .! ,/ / / / / / / // / -< , -< = o ., u c8 C'\I >" al ~ - " ... -- <1l r > - o <1l< CJ . I':~ <1lr"l ~ Q.) CIJ~ <1l al ~....:l ~ S ...~ 0_ o al ::s:x: I . I I I I I I I I I ~ I , I I I , ......... ;:: t. ~J -- --- --- --- ....----_..... -~--~----:. - - '0 -- ----! --:- --- ---- t- " 1 .x < . :.: , o ~ . o " ;>, o:l ;:: Q) > o Q) , gj~ 000 ..<:: . ...,r>::l ., Q) gj -'< c:Jj ~ S ... o:l 0- 0- ::E~ 'I) , I ! , .~ !i- , ,- j- ,- ! C'I:) ~ " i 11 .. iI 11 11 .. . .. ~ It .. d F ~' ~ ~ !:! "' >i ~ '" ~ " ~ ~ ~ i " ~ 8 '" """" fi5 r.r. Q. Ii !:< I, I: ,'1 :~;l :' ),"" "]0" ,h/"0l,. ., " "" '\ '" ~ " 'y", ". ",,~ ~;~ ;~~ ~ ~'~, - ~I~i ::; 3:1(] ~;I ' ~~~~~ y 0, .r;l"- ~ '-J , I' II I> ...., i ",< ,....'-~.~ "t/", z ~ < c . z ~ . ~ .....1-0 <~~~ -----< --- o o /: , ~ ~ ~ ~ <I ~ < "' ~) :@ ~ i~, -~~-~--.. -------_..~--------.._------ - -------------- Ci0 r.' \~ @ , ~:i ~-~ .~~ ~- r --....,...---- __--r Ii ~jlmi 0 , I,: .1: :"~ : I ~I:CQ " m/ ICI!' \ / " " I / \ ![ltl ~, I '. :,I~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ .- W , <I , , C' lilETI d:Jt --~/ ------------~~~ ',~' . . . . . . . I I . . . u. ~ I I , ~ I I .....--===-_~i LLL-.L.l_j__ I ; , - I -. _.,____._;III,I~ _. "~~::: ,,, .~ ' .... b CV b > '" o c <( 00 ~ Q) UJ ::l o .<:: ..., UJ Q) ~ 6 j s CIS :::: CIS :r:: OJ ~ o o ::E i. 11- ~ 11 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . f . . . . t . '4) ------- - 'fJ-l-- o .-~ s...--...-..-....-. ~, ~ "f) ~ ~ z 8 ~ ~ ~ ..", j ! 2' ~ z Z ~ ~~ > 'c , ~U'. c, c .0 ~1i ~ ')~ ~~ ~' C, '-J'~' " l<t .. . "'" 0' " ~.(i c" ~~ '" " ~- _.1 '" ,. "i~ , ~;; 1 ;~p ,~ , , Cl'll.:; ;' ", " "'" L_u.: " 1< '"' > ~, . ~'; a ~ r;;:- _0- ---,--___ , ---,.--- - ------------ .M-(,C .. o o -i~--- ~~ !d. " ? " ~ ~, , ~ , - p--=-- ~ I :0-- -Q-- -0 . ~, cl-' , . '. /; o o , ~ , r @" . < , ' - ,,-' . = 7.:" 'f _ .....:~ '" _;LC ~ ~~:;:: ~~~ 1~} t~:! ~"i -____.r1 '" -: '" ::1 ~I :-:i ~I ;;i! ~I :-1'. ;:1' ;:1: G 1I .. .. ., iI iI .. Ii ~ . ~ ~ ~ . b ~ M . . a ~, -." :J ~ ~ 1 .<'<._'...... -;;:; ~ ~ X ::: ;,:: ;r, ------~ po !j; ~ ~ ~ , , ~ * ~ " "" ~ I 0 " ~_ ~ i " '~ .~ (~, (1. y f .. I @ I i :' i .'_~'9 .i< :'1 o ~~-- -.."",C/ , ~. -~.--:-~~- I' """-':N --~-------- ---- - ~:~~ ,. " ~~- ~ ~. . h ~~I! ~;l ~~ ~ ~;~ ..~ ' ,---------'-~-----.;. - ~.~~~--- --. -~- - "' :-r------- - :~1 -- '"' , , I I~ I II " '~ lEE , 1 ~ , ! 7. ~ ;:: -- '" '" = y. - ~ '- /~ E8 I 'm 1-"------ ""t--- --,--- 0\ - -- FiI l....i....! D ' 1-" I ! :=.., [0 j ____ D ~ ; t , , 'I' - ~\2.' I,j ~~. Ii! ----,,[) ~ ~ ~ -- ;j ~ t :J ~ ~ 't MAc.IMeter ''a .. I / /k It( , ~/ . I / I / I I I I ., ('". I I I / I ( / I ( \ \ \ L I I /' ...- ...-./ ...- / I I MIS. > \ . "'~ //--......_- /' - /' /' /' /' _/ 10' ,.' ~ \ , ? Western E.s.A. Boundry . " . " \. \ " , 36' 5'1>" " " .,''t~ ,~ ~ 1 , l ~ t ;; , JkS.4fI t ~ - ~ -- -------- .~ --- ~ -- '- ~.....---.--.... -- ---- ~ --- -- ---- --~ ~ ,,2 .., 'Jj < 00 r.j t Iu C, '" - - ., ~ :.:s 1:: i .,f, ~.. :~':-.,;' ~ J < 00 r.j E .2l ~ ", \ " ~". ~ ....L(\IOJW, 0/ .' ;",," ------ ' - ".'" ".'" ,'" /'...... ,.,.'...., "" ,.,,.;' NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS RE: MOORES CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, SPECIAL REVIEW, HALLAM LAKE BLUFF REVIEW AND GMQS EXEMPTION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 19, 1991 at a meeting to begin at 4: 30 pm before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado to consider an application submitted by John and Rebecca Moores requesting Conditional Use Review, Special Review, Hallam Lake Bluff Review and GMQS Exemption approval for Lots A and B of the Moores Lot Split. The applicants propose a new single-family residence and accessory dwelling unit on each lot. The property is located at 200 West Gillespie Street, Hallam Lake Addition, Aspen. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena st., Aspen, CO 920-5090. sIC. Welton Anderson. Chairman Planning and Zoning commission c " , ".I ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920-5090 January 21, 1991 Joe Wells 602 Midland Park Place Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Moores Hallam Lake Bluff Review, Conditional Use Review and GMQS Exemption Case #Al-91 Dear Joe, This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that this application is complete. We have scheduled this application for review at a public hearing by the Aspen planning and Zoning commission on Tuesday, February 19, 1991 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm. The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to the application is available at the Planning Office. Please note that it is your responsibility to post the subject property with a sign for the public hearing and to mail notices to property owners within 300' of the subject property. If you have any questions, please call Kim Johnson, the planner assigned to your case. Sincerely, Debbie Skehan Administrative Assistant ~~ r '-' MEMORANDUM TO: Housing Office Tom Cardamone, ACES FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office RE: Moores Hallam Lake Bluff Review, Conditional Use Review and GMQS Exemption DATE: January 21, 1991 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by John and Rebecca Moores requesting Hallam Lake Bluff Review, Conditional Use Review and GMQS Exemption approval. Please return your comments to me no later than February 5, 1991. Thanks -- MEMORANDUM TO: KIM JOHNSON, ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE PHIL OVEREYNDER, WATER DIRECTOR~ JULy 21, 1994 FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MOORE WT SPLIT This memo will confirm the availability of water service for the proposed Moore Lots A and B, located on Lake Avenue and Gillespie. The area to be served is within the Aspen City limits. Water service for domestic uses consistent with City zoning requirements will be provided under a water utility connection permit, issued by the Aspen Water Department. Issuance of a water utility connection permit is provided for under Section 23.56 of the Aspen Municipal Code. Issuance of the permit is subject to payment of the applicable utility investment charges and verification that the proposed utility connection complies with City standards. cc: Kris Everhart Larry Ballenger PO:rl phiIlmoore.mem ,.... ."...... .......... "to'" PUBLIC NOTICE RE: MOORES LOT SPLIT . NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on t a meeting to begin at 5:00 pm. before the Aspe y oun , city council Chambers, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Joe Wells on behalf of John and Rebecca Moores requesting approval of a Lot Split. The applicants propose to divide the property located on the N.E.comer of Gillespie and Lake Avenue into two lots of 24,083 s.f. and 9,977 s.f.The property is more specifically described as being located. in section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena street, Aspen, CO, 920-5090. s/William L. Stirlinq. Mavor Aspen city Council ================================================================= Published in The Aspen Times on October 4, 1990. City of Aspen Account. ----. ,',>1... , )> ~"""'"->",.......~ ( ORDINANCE NO. tJ ~ (SERIES OF 1990) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR THE MOORES LOT SPLIT, DESCRIBED IN METES AND BOUNDS, AT THE N. E. CORNER OF GILLESPIE ST. AND LAKE AVE. WHEREAS, pursuant to section 7-1003 of the Aspen Land Use Code, a Lot split is a subdivision exemption by the city council; and wHEREAS, John and Rebecca Moores, represented by Joe Wells, has submitted an application for the lot split of a 34,058.64 square foot parcel described in metes and bounds in the SE 1/4 NE 1/4 of section 12, Township 10 south, Range 85 west of the sixth c P.M., city of Aspen); and wHEREAS, the Engineering Department, Aspen/Pitkin county Housing Authority, Aspen Parks Department, Aspen Water Department, Aspen Fire Marshal, and the Aspen Center for Environmental studies, having reviewed the application has made referral comments; and WHEREAs, the planning Office, having reviewed the application pursuant to section 7-1003, and reviewing referral comments from various agencies recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. The plat must meet all of the Engineering requirements in Municipal Code Chapter 24, section 7-1004 D. 2. prior to filing a final plat the applicant must agree to join ( any future Improvement Districts. ( ( c _.-..-^.--~_.~,~---~---~-----~~~~-",.~<"..-.--.,.-,".__..,.~'>~.' requirements. 11. The "Excepted Area" on the plat shall be removed from any area calculations. 12. Development proposed for any lot(s) resulting from this lot split shall conform to the terms and requirements of the Hallam Lake Bluff Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) if such ESA is enacted prior to issuance of any Building Permits for construction on said lot(s). 13. A Subdivision Exemption Agreement listing the conditions of approval shall be included as a note section on the final plat. 14. The final plat will be signed by the Planning Office and recorded by the city Clerk only upon complete satisfaction of the above conditions. WHEREAS, the Aspen city council having considered the Planning Office's recommendations for lot split does wish to grant the requested Subdivision Exemption for the Moores Lot Split. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: section 1: That it does hereby grant a Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split, with the previously mentioned conditions recommended by the Planning Office, to the 34,058.64 s.f. parcel described in this ordinance. section 2: That the city Clerk be and hereby is directed, upon the --'''....... MEMO TO FILE - MOORE LOT SPLIT 9/16/94 - Kim Johnson Upon review of the irrigation easement relocation, city staff is satisfied that condition #5 of the approval ordinance has been met. :->~~\ VICINITY MAP 6CAlE. ,'" IC(X)I, E& e t:::::._ CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP AND DEDICATION Kt-PN ALL ME~ e>YTHBE ~~ Tl-4AT JOHN uAYIVlCO~ AHO, REeECCl'- BM~ tv'OOl<.e>, IN 0OINiTE.HA~ e~ ~E: J<:E:CORD . OWNE~ OF THE. lAND? Df.~Ice:D /oJ'lO vr.p\CTEO ~ HERf!l( Pv\T AND -'UeDl'I"KJE :y,1O lANE>> It-IlO ID15 A ANO, P:J..~ LQ8- 6f'L1T, ^~ ~HOWN A.ND DE~8EO HERfON, ~ ~e.y(l)Mlwlrn AND I6f<.E:E 1'6 R:lUDW'O . . . . L ;rHE 20 R:xJf WIDE: KLeb A1-IO UNDE~D 1TflUlY ". I:)\~EMENT e.H::MIN AND NOTED HERECJN 1::J ~ OfOIC'\TED 10 THE rERPE:1\JAl::.. !RIVATE: AND 1-01-I' EJ(C.LleIv'E (J:lf. ~O OENEFlT Of THE ONNER? F".....t1TIMElOllME Of ~ID lOl!> A AI-JD e ANO TI-lEJR REJPECoTlVE rAMILI!2t .we~ AND INVIT~ AND fl:)R. jl-iE OCNEfIT OF ALL UTILITY' Wtill'J\NIE!l, . 2. THE: 10 FCXJT wiDe I~ ,.t,Np,'~ ~EA.5E1&NT' ~N N-lD NoreD HEfi:r;aN. I~ ~ lJEDlOJ"Et) 10 THE GlTY" . Of~PEN fOf<. THE.~l1Cti OF ~M-~ WA~ ~THE pfO'Ef(!'(. . <, ,'..... 8. crHl::> ~T 1e.1H roN~ WITH,rli::~~Of'.c' . ~ 7-1i::04(0) Ofn-tf'~1>lP ~;~ ,:JF:THE;C(;l'( ,. Of A~N, ....,. . "(%;(,;,''';'' :';i;ii-:""'" . 4, OWNER.~ ~ 1O-aH THE FO~11a-t OF~ r~ . , IIVI~ENT ~WHCi:1,~,~..~.~2':i. .\,c,';;'<+>: !5.A~ 10 LOT':> ^ I'INO ll> ~f,e'~r'::WAY.:oFiHE~"~"">'C. EA~EMENT ON AN::> ~ IOTA'~"'ONHOI:i~~/ ,,"""Me . , . _,,'.,'. . _ ~L :"(":;.<:~:,,l<1:;':',_,~"'I,;:~,.;>,':,/{,(,~~;~,;-):,:')':)i::';:/ (0, "ll-JE ~'-l WATU. PEP'~'i'!1\~ .. .. _'t;c"'C!( IIV-'\lL.^e>lU1'( VI': .wo.TE~ ~~'lO'~l.;-"'::l2t~~!i(i'; .. 7-:,.~tHE ~,b; . i,';~;c;t. "~"; . h ~~~..~ "t'~~ . . :"'H' ~. . .~. . . .J.ttor.,~ ~^1Oi . '.. , ~:J;i::;r;;~%~~~:t(i:t,~ SITUATED IN HALLAM'S ADDITION, ASPEN, COLORADO . I"""'" ,-. ~ ~~,g :'){ {:)~ . '}, ':.~ . ';\,:;:.;~~;?!fu , ,.;!.J.t .. I: t " " ,. ! - ~.. .' ;:'-':.' C",; ~\: t- ,.".,,,~""""'O,",,__,-,,,~,,__,'.<,=r.,''''''''''''_ 5 iON I \ \ \ \ \ \ I EA~T J~1' 52'eX)"E 'lZ.(P? '5 .:)1 (pI y), 75e,? ___i1IO:.JI,,'O'YeLLCWf'i4Sn::G4f , "S //.1 \ I~'v '6 \(p.W \ /$20/5/ : , .c cf2 .,," / ", \ CJ '" \(J> is'\ O..J 1-)" // / \, \ 0 '>< '9 ' . ,0 _'" __ 1\' .l>-. \\ '0 (g:.D _--------- ~ _~/- ,,/"\ I \ \_"C.HJ...5_0~~r:..N} J~f!.t;!,:!~~~H_~~E.?__ ~--~--,&. _-------- _ __ - __/ ~r-.. \-CfNJ'EfdNE 0/ IOr!_y.-'IDE J!:If{,I!.~T7ON ti\.- ~ t _------- . -- __-- I', EA"..,:MEN"T/ /Y.)OK,}(,,~A.GJ!2t)6 rn ~ \~'" rl _-- ____ - -- _------....-- ; '--Af/OREPLAC~OB7EA';Ei.iENT-5;o:;NBEiCW- -----~"' ~,__ __- 1>-- 1>- ;;:.,'1 I, 0 _------- I ).. -0 It--I It I r - I N ~ ~ ~:: I) ,I : I r1\ i!t l'lr I I > \ . j , '" I Se>9'II'OO""; 37. :'J I ' . ;;;1 Hi' .,.-----.--- -,-- -- ,.. t. __~FOU/v'D. 'ffLUM/PLA~CAf' ~: II' I ' I ' N~9:;FOO:w 4HO L'!>20/5/!, ~Iil I) I I J ~I) I:i (I t iii"ll' I 1" .....il II I \ I ~It III I \ r: ~II \:1: I \ 5 ~:l I \ ,'I !." 111 l ,. ;),: I:' , I l.yll II' I O ;t'1 III f :... :jl ' I '8'" ",: 'I ' ' z ~I ~ i '\\ .:3:11 , r' ~:l I '\ 01tl J \ ~ I ! \,\ ,1 oj ,\ ! \, / 1'11/ \ /:j:r LOT B '\" , Y ~I (: (11 02'29 ACRE. " :' "I FoU'VD' I ", It I: I YE1...LDW f'l..A.!)TIC I I \ .-----NW52'(X)'~ I~~ 0\~~~~EL;O..:~---I-----~~~- ~-----L--------------------~"------ ___________________________ f: 2D FT WIDE ACLE/5 i:r '1)< ~ ~ t!ilM;,N~rfP ~ G!LLlES~~~___________________________________ ___------------------- ----~_-:---:~~:: ~A~"MEl'IT SH(:NIN ON LOT ^ ~f(DW 8K. 3}4 fl$ zee), ' '.. .___---- EA"E /<1El'1I \ RtflJ'-'-J W'J'- . ",. . -:-1:E'::~>O lhi;r./fr.."w;a iF;R/Go\TION "'" sg"!i IP'W 4'!>'OO'W Ftt8.-"'-"." .;"--7_ . .",~~,,,,,"n,^ '-"'*" . 70.1 Cj"'", ,..._~,"_.-.~LLOwf'U.~llCCAP . , " "-ON~/JAf2-.""M YEL/O'N't'LA::>TIC CAt' --ic.AVENUJE>,. I OAI ~eA"Y LS 'IV, O'IW W/TM:~ CLJIUJER.' . I E ROM A N ~Iz lOT S P liT - Tf~k.~:~4ifji::;~+ ,.... ~________ ____ _,_ ___~Cl___ __ --1---------~-_;_--1---~--------------~~~'.'~. !, I. I . 1 BLOCT.t 103 HAlmA ut' s ADmT~O!N ';1;)/:\ I I ~ ..' AUf ,I; .,.,<1..,1""'" I I I . 1,.:i'I;;;')';: I I-II-! I . ,I,"~ \ m 010 i I, ,.!~&~?~..,;~d~;, : ....1.... I ~ . 1 I 1 1 I I :.' I I J NORm I I 1 : I .~,,~~ ~fT I~ ~ I i .1 I I ., J I 1 "&60 Of~' Jl.If ~ ~ ^!:I faJND ONn;~ I . f'L^T /'R. m:lW\'l ~~ eaN ~ ~ ON -me: ~ING OF I NOO'oo'~ eElWEflil .;ovTHWE5r cor:f'# OF'~ '10, I HAI.I.).M'} ~ ^ f\JINT 120,00 rea TWj I J:OI:WElI!:. ANO ON, WE5TfA.'f' UI-E OF I'I!XJ' If> I ~TAW~D ~'1175 !W F'<JI)HD IN rv. ~1l-E I-_J~~N!.___LOf~_~ _~~y ~~y'f' ______ I .,'" 11<>'1. , , 1 I I I i, '.' · ..' ,,<.t :AWI~SI1~J~e:H,.W ~, Hff(U>'( I CfIUlI'YTHI\TI AAVE ~I'MEO ~I'INAL MT 0I'Tlf:!~ I ID.!..~!I :rw;r.1l-lE IOCA'IlON OI'TI-If oJ1!lI~ 1P.U:l'If:1'; I lNI~ lOf'~I'J'U'HIl!! ~ /'H) lJOUTl' ~~, 1 ..c../l-..........,.." ..........e.rr AU-EN!EMENT~ 1"I!,e. F~ I ~m~l~ tfiiC( NC.. 07145"17, AND c:nH:.R I .~Nls= ~Ta:( J#)C~"" ~ ra:EON ~__11'fJII"~~__~F't) nt.1 ~:!'IRVl'Y2.Ab1~e---- I OF ~.!?;AMP1HAT n-ErvaTtP ~ ct1i~10 TJ.v.>E I . ~Ol'l THe ~ll?/TH~ ~ Hot6 A. MA1I-iEMATl""L I CJ.a:A]flI!. Wln-t A LlfVIIT of I "" 10,000 ~ WA'J I'El':fOl</vtIW i\ =~ ~ ~=~:E':::::: :;e;~,: ef.A,1. 1l-ll~ 'Z-~;or OAY' OF. jk. "'10#0" I 1"'15. _ .. F, q~s t Ti~~ I .A:J'INE ~ 1I~. M' 1 I L. ,..-----. ,^..~" ......~~,.""~~..--.-._.... '/'v..i: i LL..:.u~~ ,L:'L1--'r,'( (At' L;;'; 'liM N4" 44.52 E " ",0 . r-l?.o.vJ ~EQ~D L,Y2NEP. FoUNI)' -'" ffUDW PLA:5TlCGJJr .... L520/5/ -. 'i,;.. ",';::" ;' ,:' I F' <LL~4"""- -Xf'. ./ .,......, . i~' _"C' '-",7 .- ''''.'.: \:".1, NDT07'O:/E (P?>S l'Ol"TH 51; _____ ,j/'l'1',Z'oo"E i'i 57 ~ c H Y ~- ~- - . AIpIne~. Inc. . " f __ 0fIlI>>... 1130 ~c.d'l ~.. hlm --- . ION . c .-,~. :;END INDICAn:~ .::>r:.TYEllOW ~ICQf' 0t.J RE-tlAf':.. ~ p Z ~ ~ I"""~'" 1..,. J;I.l ~ < C.:t .. -- ~'.;; ,>- C tv\~'-\ r~e:-J \ - (p -- PZM2.l9.9l do have a Don house. There are a couple of them that we have heard of that it sounds as though friends' of the owners were actually going to be living in them. Bruce: There might be a way to do a confidential type of survey that we send out to everyone of these units that have been approved and ask for a response without them having to indicate who they are or what their address is just to find out how they are being used. Is it sitting vacant or is it being used? Richard: We could also get a survey through the Housing Office to find out--OK, so many of these have been approved, how many have come back to ask for approval for a renter? MOORES HALLAM LAKE BLUFF REVIEW SPECIAL REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Jasmine opened the public hearing. Kim made presentation as attached in record. SETBACKS /' '\ , 1 -~.,~~ Kim: Review standards state that all development within 15ft of the setback from the top of slope shall be at grade or any proposed development not at grade be approved by Special Review. I have stated that I am not comfortable with the way that the top of slope for Lot A was established. For Lot B which is kind of a convex lot--the land form moves out in a way towards the bluff before it drops off. The applicant shows 6 points of reference to create the top of slope iri the setback. The opposite way to calculate it for Lot A is a concave lot and comes in the applicant shows 3 points of reference traversing basically the big swail that comes into the site. The other setbacks on the lot those being 10ft front setback on the west side of the property and if you move the structure which is my version of the site plan if you move that against the front setback it in effect takes away most of the non-conformity with my version of the top of slope. I have done basically the same thing with Lot B. Moving the structure as close onto the other setbacks as possible reducing the amount of encroachment into the 15ft setback. ) What staff I s opinion is is if the applicant is willing to re- locate the structures that granting the special review for 7 """ '-'.' , ~ PZM2 .19.91 whatever encroachments are left which in the case of Lot B is I or 2 feet in the case of Lot A it would still be 4 to 5 feet. Approving the Special Review given that the structures were in fact moved back to minimize whatever encroachment exists. HEIGHT :"~t.. According to the sketches on Lot B the fireplace is also located on the most outward edge of the structure. I asked in a condition that the chimney be re-Iocated so that the tallest part of the house is not the closest part. It does encroach into the height setback as does the rest of the structure although the chimney is more pronounced. Jasmine: What is the total square footage of the 2 lots. Joe Wells: Approximately 35,000. Lot A is roughly 25 and Lot B is roughlt 10,000sqft. LANDSCAPING The landscaping issue is something that can potentially be used to mitigate the encroachments. Tom Cardamone: I am not here to unconditionally support or undermine what Kim is recommending. I am also here to say that she was a great help in getting ESA in place. One of my major goals is to preserve the hillside around the lake. In this case it has been preserved 100%. That is important to recognize. The existing vegetative cover exceeds 50% in my opinion. In my meetings with Julia we have talked about additional plantings as an enhancement to the property and the Moores as much as additional screening to ACES. In working with the Moores, Michael Hagman and Doyle when ESA was just a concept and they were very willing to work with us and realize the importance of establishing some sort of protection. The kinds of criteria that I presented to them at that time was the notion of stepping back roof lines, softening the facades and using vegetation to break up the outlines of the buildings wi thout protruding views from the homesi tes. As far as I can tell they really did respond to that. I do have a concern with the way the top of slope on Lot A was drawn. It is very difficult to pinpoint top of slope and my opinion was that if we are 'arguing over a few inches or even a few feet that I didn't want to make that a stumbling block that would kill ESA and make it an impossible process. But I do feel that this interpretation on Lot A is too big in it's magnitude ) 8 .,'. ..-..~ ., # -- ) - '-" '"'" PZM2.19.91 and I would like to see the Planning Office's interpretation accepted as a precedent and at the same time I think it is worth strongly considering mitigating the impact of that and encouraging them to be 15ft setback with vegetation rather than moving the building. . i!!!- Moving a building is a big cost. And from our point of view moving the building 5ft could--an alternative could be putting a couple of Spruce trees in there and end up with the same effect. If indeed the building is only 4ft away from the top of a steep slope that would de-stabilize it by a basement level excavation it is worth the Moores considering their responsibility to keep the hillside stable and think about that. There is one discrepancy that I caught. There is ground water on the site that is going to be intercepted by the excavation. We have come up with a plan that actually will carry that ground water to a percolation hole to a midpoint on the hillside where it will be distributed in a surface system. In here I read that there would be no disturbance to the surface of the hill or excavation. That is a contradiction. ?: My understanding is that we have been monitoring the water in those test holes and we notice that in the Spring runoff the water tends to rise because apparently there is a level of permeable soil that the waters coming off of the _mumble_. That is only true for 2 months of the year. For 10 months of the year that is dry and when Don Erdmann dug his foundation it was dry. So to say that we are going to intercept ground water when we dig that hole is really not true. Jasmine: I think we have a real problem in this application in that there are 2 issues. One which is the actual visual impact and the other one which is compliance with the ESA that we spent so much time working out. It may very well be that from a visual point of view properly selected and ideally situated vegetation in terms of mitigating the visual impact of the guest house which the most pressing. But there is also the calculation of the slope and I think that from my point of view that is something that is in addition to the vegetation covering it up. If we had decided that we don't want building within a certain number of feet from the slope as determined, it doesn't matter how you cover it up. And I think that those are 2 separate issues. Joe Wells: I would like the opportunity to work on point that we can resolve your concerns with regardless of how the top of slope gets defined. this to the vegetation 9 I"', "",.-' -. PZM2.19.91 Jasmine: My interpretation is that there was not to be, unless there was some special and unusual circumstances, that there was in general not to be development within that 15 feet. '~Mari: What we are being asked to accept is that if someone spent a lot of money in design fees that that is supposed to be accepted as a criterion for special and unusual circumstances. I don't really buy that. I am leery of accepting that criterion for fear that anyone from then on will use it as a precedent. That does not strike me as being a valid criterion. Sara: I recall in the process too of reassuring Mrs. Farrish that her circumstance might be unusual because of her trees and there were certain restrictions with her lot too. But I agree with Mari. I would rather see that special review be for special circumstances. Tom, aren't you concerned that every development along Hallam Lake now will come for Special Review within the 15 foot? Cardamone: Yes. I think that is a real concern. What is difficult here is that there won't be any more development proposals coming forward that were being designed during the time that we were also designing the ESA. \. Jasmine: The point I make vegetation and the distance different issues. is that the screening and the from the top of the slope are 2 Bruce: My comment on this calculation of top of slope--I believe the ordinance says that the calculation is to be made by the Zoning Officer which I' assume is the Planning Staff. Joe: It says that the top of slope will be established by 3 points. Bruce: But it also says at least 3. Height shall be measured and determined by the Zoning Officer utilizing the definition set forth. I remember us talking about how are we going to pick those 3 points and the problems that we would anticipate coming up. And here this is the first application and we are already there. It seems to me this is a point to be discussed between the Planning Office and the applicant to work out some kind of resolution. Jasmine: The intent of the ordinance has to do with the enforcement of the ordinance when it comes to a specific measurement. It is obvious to me that the intent of the ordinance was to be as protective as possible of the environment. i 10 ,.... \..- ~ PZM2.19.91 Therefore deviations from the measured 15ft were not be undertaken capriciously and that measurement should be on the conservative and environmentally sensitive side. I would tend to think that the applicant could get a definite sense from the members of the Commission that they would much prefer to see the building envelopes moved back from the slope. Bruce: Question to Tom Cardamone: The overall intent of this ordinance I think you stated. was to protect the Hallam Lake Preserve and to be sensitive to these property owner's rights. I think I understood you to say that you thought that through adding vegetation that protection of the Hallam Lake area could be accomplished. Now the area that was designed to be protected has said that they are going to be satisfied with vegetation. Maybe we are straining too hard to enforce little details of the ordinance when we have complied with the overall intent of it. ) Cardamone: My main interest in re-interpreting the top of slope of Lot A was not to necessarily change the location of the building but set a precedent for top of slope. That was my main concern. That the interpretation is too liberal because then we are going to start losing the intent of this. Richard: Essentially what the applicant has done with their interpretation of top of slope was to use the 2 end points on the lot. And the middle one just happens to be close to one of the end points of the line and fall onto it. And if you put the same interpretation on Lot B the top of slope' which cuts off that convexity it actually goes right through the corner of the proposed building. - So if we use the same kind of interpretation on the convexity that they have used on the concavity they are actually over the edge of the slope. And of course we need some adjustment either way on that. But I think they have not done everything possible including moving the building back. The idea of Special Review is when we are at a point when we can't do anything more. And I don't think we are at that point yet. Sure they have changed the roof line a little bit but I haven't seen anything else being done in terms of moving it as far to the other setback as possible. They are pushing the setback on the Hallam Lake side without being all the way to the lot setback on the other side and not providing reasons why they can't do that. So I am certainly not at a point where I could give Special Review approval to this application. ) 11 o ....... PZM2.19.91 Jasmine: Under the scenario that involved moving the buildings back to would be the degree of encroachment Planning Office would measure it? Kim has suggested which the other setbacks, what into the slope as the Kim: It is like 1 and 1/2 to 2 feet here and here maybe. We are talking almost--you can't hardly measure it at 1 to 10 scale and then over here it was like 4 to 5 feet or 3 to 4 feet. Jasmine: So we can consider that a minimal encroachment? Kim: And with the condition of added vegetation which is what the Special Review criteria specifically states. Jasmine: It seems to me that if in fact we can maintain the interpretation of the measurement that if the applicant is willing to make the adjustment I have indicated on these diagrams then the amount of encroachment that we are talking about is much smaller and we are still preserving the interpretation of the slope and the measurements thereof. To me that makes this a much more acceptable way of dealing with this situation and does not compromise our position as regards future development in this area. "'", Sara: Also more palatable to me would be to say if they agree to ; move the envelope that in the approval we specifically say that .,.,- this in no way is to be considered a measurement. We do not agree with the measurement of the setback. Jasmine: What we are doing is we are saying we are moving this back that the applicant has agreed to move back the building envelope as measured with only very miner encroachment and that by Special Review because the applicant has done that the miner encroachment especially in view of the fact of the vegetation would then be acceptable. But we are confirming our measurement- -the Planning Office measurement. Bruce: What is measurement and the took your 3 points? the difference between Planning staff measurements? the applicant's Is it where you Kim: I acknowledge that they used 6 points on Lot B and I chose 6 points on Lot A. From one corner of Lot A to the other it follows the 78-56 line almost to the T. Bruce: I don't know that the ordinance says who picks the points and where they have to be. We talked about whether they ought to be at the property lines on either end and one in the middle or whether it be just arbitrary. The ordinance doesn I t speak to that and it doesn't say clearly that it is either the applicant '\ ; 12 - '-' ""'" PZM2.19.91 or the staff that picks those points. It seems to me that we may have some work to do on the ordinance. And in lieu of that, if the applicant can buy into at least on this application the measurements as done by staff and leave the buildings where they are and screen with vegetation then maybe we have got a deal. -> We still have to do some work on the work on the ordinance. It is not clear as to who does what. Kim: In an earlier discussion with commission it was determined if we are taking away the ability for someone to build farther out to the slope, as a concession, we are giving them a greater ability to move out to the side. That is why I calculated all these setbacks to see if we could move the structure over. Jasmine: It seems to me that the sentiment of the Commission generally is that if the applicant is willing to move the buildings back as indicated in Kim I s drawing that we can re- write the conditions and go ahead with an approval based on these conditions. Jasmine then asked for public comment. There were no comments and she closed the public portion of this hearing. /' '\ 1 ~ CONDITIONAL USE #1. Lot split plat must be filed prior to filing deed restrictions or issuance of any building permit. #2. Has to do with the size of the accessory unit of Lot Band that must be changed to be within 300--700sqft of net livable area as defined by the Housing guidelines revised floor plan shall be submitted to and approved by Planning & Zoning staff. #3. Would be the same. #4. Which is recording the deed. That would be the same. ESA REVIEW #5. That language is OK, isn't it? Kim: Yea. If the Commission would feel comfortable with just the staff review of planting. Mature vegetation. There was general agreement on this. Joe: What is the benefit of photographs if you can't use it for your determination? \ ) 13 " J ~ , ) -. "'"' PZM2.19.91 Kim: Well, what I was hoping is that you could show mature vegetation in there with the structures and just get an idea if 2 trees are going to be enough or is it going to be 4 trees. And with the top of the roof shown. I will look at their landscape plan and try and make a determination on that. I was thinking that some Evergreens j.light be appropriate in order to protect animals in the winter time. #6. Mari: Why don't we say "The applicant shall adopt the Planning Office's 3 points. Jasmine: Adopt the Planning Office determination of the top of slope as shown on attachment B of the memo. The applicant shall adopt the Planning Office determination of top of slope-- Bruce: Kim, did you use 3 points or did you use 6 points? Kim: I used 6. Bruce: Well, if the ordinance says 3 I think we need to come up with a way to calculate it on at least 3. Kim: What is ironic about this case is that we are probably never again going to see a situation where an applicant is going to propose development on 2 side-by-side lots. You are right. It would have been more applicable for both lots to come in with just 3 points. If you want to say 3 then the 3rd, being equal distance, I think basically we are getting at this center point. Bruce: We are worried about setting a precedent. We need to know what precedent we are setting. If we are setting the precedent that the Planning Office is going to determine the top of slope and you are going to use 3 points or 6 points, let's make sure we know what we are doing. The ordinance says 3--at least 3. And if weare going to use 3 as our standard then let's figure out is that just going to be arbitrary to staff or is it going to be the end points with I in the middle equal distance. What is it going to be? Mari: I think that we should be working on the ordinance to mean that it is the staff's call on where those points or how many points are needed depending on the particular lot. Jasmine: That's why I if we re-write 6 to measurement as shown would like to say that it seems to me that say that the applicant is adopting the on attachment B which was done by the 14 1"'\ ,. 'J >' : e ~ ) c - " ,.1 PZM2.19.91 Planning Office that that will give us a direction for future determinations. Mari: We probably need to make it very clear. those points are. to work on that language in the ordinance I think the question is who decides where Joe: I think Jasmine's language will work because the ordinance does give the flexibility of using more than 3. Jasmine: #7. Is pretty standard. We don't have to do anything with #7. #8. Also is pretty standard. #9. As it now says "Both structures shall be moved onto the front and side setbacks of their respective lots to minimize intrusion onto the top of slope setback as much as possible. And again we might want to refer back to the drawings. Kim: You could. Those are very rough sketches. are fairly accurate. I think they Jasmine: So you think #9 is all right as it stands? Kim: Yes. On their site plan they have to indicate at a really accurate level what the setbacks are. #10. The chimney. Michael: The chimney shall be re-Iocated to reduce intrusion. Are we talking about where it sits in the floor plan--just moving it? Mari: Why not strike #10 because it will be moved back. Jasmine: OK. We will strike #10. the moving of the house. Because it will occur with MOTION Jasmine: I will entertain a motion to approve this Moores Hallam Lake ESA and Special Review and Conditional Use Review, etc. Mari: I move to approve the Moores Hallam Review and Conditional Use Review with Planning Staff memo dated February 9, 1991. special to the record) Lake ESA and the changes (attached in Richard seconded the motion with all in favor. 15 ,.., - PZM2.19.91 Joe: Kim rightly pointed out that the driveway as shown is on top of the irrigation easement which we are showing re-Iocated to the south side of the property. The reason for that is there is som~ landscaping features on the adjacent property that was done by the adjacent owner that encroaches into the ROW. In order for us to move the driveway into the easement we would have to rip those landscaping improvements out and we would just as soon not do that. We are hoping to be able to convince the city to accept an underground use of this easement in any case so that any improvements that would be installed in that easement would be underground because we are giving the city the right to use that storm drainage. We would like to leave landscaping improvements. easement or shall we solve the driveway to the Would you rather we it with staff? south put it of in the the Jasmine:' I think you can resolve that with staff. The Commission is already sufficiently deranged for one night. I declare this meeting adjourned. 16 .- t "eey;>' A~EN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE ~ 130 South Galena Street 11 _ I; g/\ Aspen, Colorado 81611 TJ yep -/u (303) 920-5090 ;AND USE APPLICATION FEES City /00113 -63250-134 . GMP/CONCEPTUAL -63270-136 GMP/FINAL -63280-137 SUB/CONCEPTUAL -63300-139 SUB/FINAL -63310-140 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS -63320-141 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS! -=r'Xtl -O"t, CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS REFERRAL FEES: 00125 -63340-205 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 -63340-190 HOUSING 00115 -63340-163 ENGINEERING SUBTOTAL County 00113 -63160-126 GMP/GENERAL -63170-127 GMP/DETAILED I -63180-128 GMP/FINAL -63190-129 SUB/GENERAL -63200-130 SUB/DETAILED -63210-131 SU B/FI NAL -63220-132 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS -63230-133 ALL 1-STEP APPLlCATIONSI ~~ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS -63450-146 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REFERRAL FEES: 00125 -63340-205 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 -63340-190 HOUSING 00113 -63360-143 ENGINEERING PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00113 -63080-122 -63090-123 -63140-124 -69000-145 CITY/COUNTY CODE COMP. PLAN COpy FEES OTHER SUBTOTAL TOTAL :.;--)((') . ffiI Additional billing: #01 Hours: -- - , I I