Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ec.200 W Gillespie St.A46-90MOORES LOT SPLIT- 2735-121-21-001 A46-90 ��� �� - �o 7 (� ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303)920-5090 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES City 00113 -63250-134 GMP/CONCEPTUAL -63270-136 GMP/FINAL -63280-137 SUB/CONCEPTUAL -63300-139 SUB/FINAL -63310-140 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS -63320-141 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS REFERRAL FEES: 00125 -63340-205 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 -63340-190 HOUSING 00115 -63340-163 ENGINEERING SUBTOTAL County 00113 -63160-126 GMP/GENERAL -63170-127 GMP/DETAILED -63180-128 GMP/FINAL -63190-129 SUB/GENERAL -63200-130 SUB/DETAILED -63210-131 SUB/FINAL -63220-132 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS -63230-133 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ kgg!t;> 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 CITY/COUNTY CODE -63090-123 COMP. PLAN -63140-124 COPY FEES -69000-145 OTHER SUBTOTAL TOTAL - T -4 Name: Q Phone: Address: Project: J �7 Check # Date: Additional billing: #of Hours: k9 DATE RECEIVED: 8/1/90 DATE COMPLETE: �t PROJECT NAME: Project Addre Legal Address: APPLICANT: John and Rebecca Moores Applicant Address: Box 1146, Sugar Land, TX 77487-1146 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. Jdl -,? 1-001 A46-90 STAFF MEMBER: tis REPRESENTATIVE: Joe Wells 136 Representative Address/Phone:-Iv92"Midland Park Place Fa Aspen, CO 81611 PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: $780.00 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: 8 TYPE OF APPLICATION: P&Z Meeting Date 1 STEP • C& CJ. Pr"(-, T2 STEP CC 7ting Date / Pla Vinggirector Approval: Insubstantial Amendment City Attorney City Engineer Housing Dir. �'D Aspen Water City Electric Envir. Hlth. Aspen Con.S.D. DATE REFERRED: FINAL ROUTING: PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES Np PUBLIC HEARING: ES NO J VESTED RIGHTS: or Exemption: YES NO Mtn. Bell/?�`� Parks Dept., Holy Cross W c,�- Fire Marshal Building Inspector - Roaring Fork Energy Center z/z d /C�") INITIALS: DATE ROUTED: Paid: Date: A School District Rocky Mtn Nat Gas State Hwy Dept(GW) State Hwy Dept(GJ) Other :Ifi. �n �✓ < ; ., INITIAL City Atty City EnVeer i� Zoning Pnv. Health Housing _ Other: /� ^S FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: PZM2.19.91 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 every one 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's opinion is is if the applicant is willing to re- locate the structures that granting the special review for J 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 -located 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 10,000sgft. 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 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. 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 this to the point that we can resolve your concerns with vegetation regardless of how the top of slope gets defined. 1 9 0 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 is that the screening and the vegetation and the distance from the top of the slope are 2 different issues. 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. 10 r: 0 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 x are going to start losing the intent of this. s s 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 PZM2.19.91 Jasmine: Under the scenario that Kim has suggested which involved moving the buildings back to the other setbacks, what would be the degree of encroachment into the slope as the Planning Office would measure it? 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 Uo 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 the applicant's measurement and the Planning staff measurements? Is it where you took your 3 points? 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 B and that must be changed to be within 300--700sgft 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 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 '-hat. I was thinking that some Evergreens Aght 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 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 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 would like to say that it seems to me that if we re -write 6 to say that the applicant is adopting the measurement as shown 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 work on that language in the ordinance to make it very clear. I think the question is who decides where those points are. 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. I think they are fairly accurate. 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 -located 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. Because it will occur with the moving of the house. 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 Lake ESA and Special Review and Conditional Use Review with the changes to the Planning Staff memo dated February 9, 1991. (attached in 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 -located to the south side of the property. The reason for that is there is son-i 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 the driveway to the south of the landscaping improvements. Would you rather we put it in the easement or shall we solve it with staff? Jasmine: I think you can resolve that with staff. The Commission is already sufficiently deranged for one night. I declare this meeting adjourned. 16 Time was 7:12 0 HERBERT S. KLEIN GEORGE M. ALLEN' MILLARD J. ZIMET' JACQUELINE K. LISLE WILLIAM L. LAWRENCE' 'also admided in Hawaii 'also admided in New York 'also admitled in Texas VIA HAND DELIVERY LAW OFFICES OF HERBERT S. KLEIN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 201 NORTH MILL STREET SUITE 203 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-8700 TELECOPIER (303) 925-3977 October 31, 1995 Mr. Stan Clausen Aspen Community Development Director 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Lots 1 and 2 - Moores Lot Split Dear Stan, • FILE COPY TELLURIDE OFFICE: P.O. BOX 215 300 WEST COLORADO AVENUE SUITE 2B TELLURIDE, COLORADO 81435 (303) 728-5151 TELECOPIER (303) 728.3069 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, 0 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. 11 on 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 committing to acquire the property. The timing of this investigation almost immediately 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 committed 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 i By: Herbert S. Klein jk\hernandez\24 Enclosure cc: Michael Lipkin Cecil and Noelle Hernandez' 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager XP Amy Margerum, Planning Director FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner DATE: October 12, 1990 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 include required compliance with the proposed Hallam Lake Bluff ESA which will be considered by Council on October 22. COUNCIL GOALS: This project reflects Council goal #14 which emphasizes fair and consistent treatment in governmental processes. 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 8. 15 day newspaper notification required by Land Use Code Section 6-205 E.3.a. was provided by the Planning Office. 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 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 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. 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 of the lot split with the 9/28/90 lot configurations, the following FAR 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.) 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, and that any further units will be developed under the provision of Article 7 and growth management allocations of Article 8. W/O nQ � � Lp�. 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 - 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- 4 28.4.% (2,836 s.f.) 10. The 10' Front Setback for Lot B along N45 0010011E 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. 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: <<a<< ATTACHMENTS: "A" - Proposed Plat "B" - Engineering Referral Comments "C" - Housing Authority Referral Comments "D" - 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 �7- Joseph Wells Joseph Wells, AICP Land Planning and Design October 12, 1990 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, Joseph Wells, AICP JW/b cc: Jed Caswell Brooke Peterson Michael Doyle 130 Midland Park Place, Number F2 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone (303) 925-8080 Facsimile (303) 925-8275 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager Amy Margerum, Planning Director FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner DATE: October 3, 1990 RE: MOORES SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION N.E. corner of Gillespie St. Bounds Description in the SE Township 10 South, Range 85 City of Aspen); First Reading of 1990.) --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- FOR A LOT SPLIT at the and Lake Ave. (Metes and 1/4 NE 1/4 of Section 12, west of the sixth P.M., of Ordinance /6 (Series 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 goal #14 which emphasizes fair and consistent treatment in governmental processes. 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 • 0 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. 6 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 of the lot split with the 9/28/90 lot configurations, the following FAR 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.) 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: Without a lot split, the property may be redeveloped as one or two detached residences (single ownership) or one duplex. With a Conditional Use. Permit, 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, 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 - 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 0010011E 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 KIM JOHNSON CC CHUCK ROTH CC JACK REID From: George Robinson Postmark: Sep 25,90 11:13 AM 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. MESSAGE DISPLAY TO KIM JOHNSON From: George Robinson Postmark: Aug 22,90 10:39 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. llttachment"D" September 4, 1990 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. n. 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 RESOLUTION 191— a 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 to the Planning Office an application for the development of two residences, one on each of the two lots; and 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 LL 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 J 01_ 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. IT 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: Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk e4t—a a^�^n , Chai an CVl�1 [ O(L �A.SM -�G� / 2 *AL V" MEMORANDUM 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 Summary: The Planning Office recommends tabling this multi - review 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. �J • Staff Comments: Staff made a few observations not directly related to the specific review criteria: - The lot split plat has yet to be filed. It appears that residences. This a cov ed wal,� runs between the two crosthe lot line and side setbacks therefore it cannot be allowed. - 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 Accessory Dwelling 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 unit 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 are provided as required by the approval of the 1990 Lot Split. Accessory dwellings are conditional uses in the R-6 zone. 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 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 or fill, other than native vegetation planting, shall take place below the top of slope. • • Response: No development or excavation is proposed below the top of slope except for native vegetation plantings. Further discussion of the method of determining the top of slope is contained in the Special Review section below. 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 • Response: A lighting plan was not submitted with the application. The applicant commits that all lighting will comply with this requirement. 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 applicant states that no disturbance will occur below the top of slope line. Dry wells or other engineered methods will be installed to replicate historic drainage patterns. 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 cicsely 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 R 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. 7If 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' setback shall be taken from this revised line. 0 E 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. The chimney shall be relocated further from the slope to � ,6,�Z ``Le•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 W 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 (Series of 1990) for the Moores Lot Split. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: o G 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 MOORE'S LC SITUATED IN HALLAM'S ADDIT] Q W G� g a� W r F HERE! /LG E3 P/E ✓E MAF 0 Q ti�Q��Q Q� ST FQ � � Q�ti PQ Q QEE O 4 R�i �'�Om O �\\J`l �Qip\Jn Qh S EEr Q �Q OQ Qn � a o ��o o VICINITY MAP k�p o Q 5CALE = 1 " - ICE' 0� _ PROPERTY DESCRIPTION A TRACT OF LAND 51TUATED M THE 5E I/4 NE 1/4 OF SECTION 12 / TOWNSHIP 10 5OUTH/ RANGE 55 WEST of THE SIXTH PM./ GITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, .COLOKAPO/ BEING MORE FULLY DE�iZIP�EI" A5 FOLLOWS 51 �3Ef—yINN I NG AT A POI NT vJHENCF- THE tA5T I//a Co KNL� 01 5A1 D 515 TION IZ 6EAIz5 .56,14o14'1-7°E `ioA• 35 FEET T+--IENC.E N 5I °52'00" W 1 -� -50 FEf-T G00°3600° T-IEN� 'N W/ 120.0I FF-E- Tl--IEHCE S t ° 57 ' 0o" E I4 t3 / FEET THENCE N,-)iRTH 5.II FEE Ti TgP-ACE N8707'00'1E Cv.35 FEET, ]r-HENCE NC I °550011E &67.07 FEET; HEI-IGE EAST 7HF-r\ G:_ °E 92•(p3 FEET;. -^ lrI I-t- c- ,-7- Arr-�11c /a /- A : A51 AKE �,,ETW AN p WE51 FOUN DATE Joseph Wells Joseph Wells, AICP Land Planning and Design September 28, 1990 Mr. Chuck Roth City of Aspen Engineering Department 130 South Galena Aspen CO 81611 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. 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. Sinc6rely, t_'..Joseph 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 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 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 ADDRESS. 215 SOUTH MONARCH ST. Alpine Surveys, Inc. Post Office Box 1730 Aspen, Colorado 81612 303 925 2688 &F'rm -'fig- 201 11110 CtT't oT ASPFN 1 Rio 5WT14 STmr=-T ASPEN, CO l(o t ubb 00. 90- 41- MoOe.s ,VTEA-t2 WCK • �.R�r;�r 3 ti. SEl 2 1990 I 9 A,0 MEO A-Stj-f- 0 1-0 Cz f3P t P-0 W (TI-t y�5U T> tf PF-b fb aE a r,EA,bCA:1-0N or- TEE lePAGhTIoN f�ASEutENT ON Tttz M00� S l-cT 5PL-tT'. OVJ Thar lr-�Mct4nW co ?I ► 4AUe At-�10 SE+M►3 i N f� THt 2-0 I v3 kDE- ACCt✓513 A A) D U T1 L(Tt' EASCM EN T Mao ED TF-N Fr- T TO ,� CCOM t�t0 DF�1 1=- THE ft>✓1,oCATr-- D I Iz f-t GATT O N tA-se MF.+N T . I-fc sc oTuA G E TD T-t� f L k7 ©OT AWA-IT coNFll�nnrhlo►� r4LTAA -ta) 8�� srt INS T g,C'LDGM-T-o 1 R(z{6A�-IotJ EASE►�1✓N i I KI &W 5 I-1 Alef- D1%15K btE jf'& Cr 30tt�A►t�6 AT vA M>✓ S t31�A•ST� CC,. WAG IA A a YAM! vow w�-t-5 5?1}3E W 11"i - F/iW � Of TN'E U 1l U F 4QEMUI` . 16u iLAA-i FEAC44 ME 'I�IF � T� -:c.iTi,. 707, Attachment "C" MEMORANDUM TO: rrI6,nninv., FROI.,r,. DATE RE., MooreE, Lut Split Pii�-Cel ID# 2735-121-21-001 Wma AM-= SUX_',LA,RY - ee -,aea'& ap�.:roval of a , it X4 pt On subdivision for a i0t xjlit lnt-two parclej-e C1 1C, .1153 susi.-sre feet and 23,767 square Ifikot ato on 7-10r)-. (.A,, (2.. ;.-(ld E;-,smption for the devslopr,:ent of Ar, %, -�slling unit Pach lot under Section B-104 1B)71-.(d) 'b % k I APPLICANT: Mvs. 7ohn Me -ore Appr,jCAFTfS LOCATIONI 2�3,0 Wt',Si. ZONING: R..6 R t Q,W,, z Is, r ; appreivdi b:i a-; per Secticr. 7- 1003 'A' (2) fo�, the split of a lot f,ar the, tf dovelopnert of r,,ro 1; :ached singla- f amily dwei"-.Inij on fcrv.ed by a 1,: Z: apA, 1.1-, 4rti,,Led subsequent to November 14, 17'7, -here a7.1 of th,� -:Zonditions are met. Bscti;;n 71-lcol. (A) (2) 'L) reic,A!.rsz- that rvr�Y,e than two (2) lute arA ct-oatswl. b, - Ict ap'it, Loth 1Wdi conform to the req-"irezenta of tt.-, vT;d6r.-,y_'n,; zone �: _stvic.t aril the applicant comnits that ary -Pz:i tAftic.1. is *r,7-pc-,it-jd will contain an Acceasory Dwo,Mnj '')zit . HpplKant raVea- a, �pproval as per Sec6­ion 8-134 (6) (W, Wla i c h a! 1,.-,wo by the Conmris3ion for t',e davc1op!rarit no ztcrij 4;%an cna &,zillinq unit per. each ­,n t, parc*1 .-r,1ntaJn:,.n,) a ,,etac�hed reeideritial unit or duplex. " (,�,j - STAFF c;f the development of & one Astach(.j--a 76mily -:uellIng pav on �o include the dev-91orment of cik. d C, Wellin; -.nit. Approval of the davelopirartt !cl- zach of tha IvV-11inG ::,nits shall be conditioned upon, vhc, foilowing: 1. An accasaovy -7�;alllng unit ahall contain rc�- leas than 300 square feat and nclt "ti,r.,re than 650 allluatia fe*t -kf livable area and be Locetod Within �t attached to es, princ.&jpal residence. The owner of tho accasr.vzy dws2l unit ehAll no", be -4,,,Aqv.1jred to rent AM] ,E��iI�/� 11: [tJ R F F+J4�iPl `tf 1YFt: 3 9Grt3 P. 0 or leaae the �;. i v, b,A: xf it is rent ad tar :,�sae:6d, it._ shall 'Do done so in compl-�anlce tt.i k, t+ijs Housing desiq—,'.4e's qu.ide �.ines for such a ur..t , and zhall Y-.z ranted or learmed t,a a working resident fcr a t ee n, of not issr Ihar, six co.r,.secUtiVii .nonthst The Owner of an accesaJry k�haii rive the i:+ght to chc09e the tenants, provided that. 4hf, --ent-4nt. :nth+;rwioz mikets th4t d-fir:.ition of a working resident F.-0 is gija13 fied bj ttie Asper;r'Pi'tkin County Housing Aut-:or. i{.y prior to oc--upancy. For taa purpo se of this provision, ,� u1j7.t ha17. be coneidered rtotsd if it is occupied pursuant to a je4Et a or rental a.greemen�: -,phi+:^ req,.Urss a payment by the ter,a.nt of it:Gre :than a nc:ninn1 arourit of ,rer:t; f 2. A plan c;tsc;r .,-, ver,..fy the ttet livable ;'eat of the unit shall to ap'.>>011ed Pf'.,r to of a Luild;ng pezlmit and the accic%zor°y dve 1i,%q ,- t. skeet the 4n1inition Of ''dwelling unit' as per City Code, 3. A dead shaI1 be subyritted by t;, : owner to t.re Houair:g Autiio-1 z- ys: ~ �np. a�;n) prior :_G jgs,;',nce of a building per, :it for Mina a�' �, r i' . The �pprc��� �e,ai3 s"ts't .r ; of ion must bit recorded by the ?it.?;i:� .gunty clork and Aft-m-�:c�3e�'s` .rP+`ice prior to the igsar W= xsr: z,u; yd:L�.g p,armlt�.. i Rfw.l._ wl-�IF6§ S5, -A 4 61 U i4 y 71 .It NfIl. 14 7 r zZ k57 74 1.30 ; ",IfWV .4 v f LOT -z ZI x :; "Al a4 0-7/ FT xf k4. z Z, V LO I -A V. T- - - - - - - -------I------ ------ , _00 w -VA-MAM5 20,o6 lvj t,Tl L i Ty m jEN 7- Q 75.00 0 77 14 w 5w 145-7Z AVENUE 1 i • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager i Amy Margerum, Planning Director '� FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner DATE: September 14, 1990 RE: MOORES SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION N.E. corner of Gillespie St. Bounds Description in the SE Township 10 South, Range 85 City of Aspen); First Reading of 1990.) FOR A LOT SPLIT at the and Lake Ave. (Metes and 1/4 NE 1/4 of Section 12, west of the sixth P.M., of Ordinance (Series 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 goal #14 which emphasizes fair and consistent treatment in governmental processes. BACKGROUND: The applicant seeks to split a 34,058.64 s.f. parge 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. he 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 of. the lot split with the 9/28/90 lot configurations, the following FAR 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.) 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: Without a lot split, the property may be redeveloped as one or two detached residences (single ownership) or one duplex. With a Conditional Use Permit, 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 201 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 - 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 101 Front Setback for Lot B along N45 0010011E 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 I A, IN 57::V7 A SkT "IE fo -Ulf rl, . A.6 V J� T. lot > rt -VAMT -9 D go w 106 - AM'475:5 T V3 E9 ji o 771 :51100. 14 b .7L AVENUE , Arl- Ar At am. ST r 79F LOT 45�1_ 44 OW M, e V.. •� �e "'�S't,�r��-�L �� �; � n �'1,.�a'ti1.1.'!'i :,,.. ' ..! �d!.•]/ - R I zi 0. 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. 17, OZd PROPOSED MOTION: I move to have first reading of Ordinance (Series of 1990) for the Moores Lot Split. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: 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 • 0 May 15, 1990 LAW OFFICES BROOKE A. PETERSON A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-8166 TELEFAX: (303) 925-1090 Mr. William Ness City of Aspen Parks Department 506 East Main Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Irrigation Easement on Moores Property 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, BROOKE A. PETERSON P.C., A Professional Copo ption cc: Edward Caswell, Esq. Chuck Roth Larry Yaw Joseph Wells CITYu, 13 0 ' 'o* aspen, May 23, 1990 Brooke A. Peterson, Esq. 315 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 rs f_b galena street d_o;.�81611 1�5,.4610 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 1 0 0 LAW OFFICES BROOKE A. PETERSON A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 1303) 925-8166 TELEFAX: 1303) 925-1090 May 29, 1990 Mr. Edward Caswell City Attorney - City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: J. Moores PropertyfIrrigation Easement Dear Jed: MAY i 1 1990 CITY ATTORNEY'S L_ OFFICE 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, BROOKE A. PETERSON, P.C. BAP/glh cc: John & Rebecca Moores Larry Yaw Joseph Wells 7 P U 1> 1 r� All, .r> 0 Joseph Wells Joseph Wells, AICP Land Planning and Design July 31, 1990 GIs. 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. ncer ly, ��seph Wells, AICP JW/b Enclosure 130 Midland Park Place, Number F2 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone (303) 925-8080 Facsimile (303) 925-8275 0 L�] 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: August 9, 1990 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. MESSAGE DISPLAY TO KIM JOHNSON From: Judy McKenzie Postmark: Aug 31,90 9:20 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. Le(linard Hite Consulting Water, rnglnE:t,rs, Inc. GreggrS. Ti en Eyck 24011 : OteciO ;Ireet Suite ;U) ! 0enve:, , o&)rado 80202-1143 ! (303) 455.9589 • FAX {303) 4S5-3115 Leslie H. Botharn Ross Bethel Jon R. Ford September 10, 1990 1 '�Oat;-it" brat fax transmittalt-i1crT10 7671 p of pages ► Mr. Chuck Roth i'° ' City Engineering Department Co. , ,- City of Aspen Uie p--`��� 130 S . Galena Str_e } _ 4.h I o ct'.r/�1 6 Aspen, Colorado 82611, Fax.4 �s L Dear Chuck: Co. L r Fhone # In accordance with your: request this letter is to confirm my meeting with Mr. ','om Car.caamone, Naturalist Director, Aspen Center for Environmental St.ut3ies, on Tuesday, September 4, 1990. regarding impacts on Hallam Lake: and adjacent wetlands due to relocation of an irrigation easement for the Moore's riot Split. His only concern was 'Uhat the discharge point not directly affect or contaminate HaIllam r�ako. Field investigation indicates that the discharge point of the relocated irrigation easement is more than 100 linear feet downs--red.m from dal+ -am Lake and there would be no introduction of water into the lake frotn the easement. I am enclosing a copy of tte current easement as you requested and a map showing the current location and th proposed location of the i irrigation easeirerit. As I understood our last meeting regarding this matter, the City Engineering r)spartment conceptually agreed to the relocation if concerns of Mr. Torn Carda tone were addressed. If you have any question or comments regarding the above, please contact me through our Denver office. very truly yours, LEONARD RICE ONSUL''TING WATER ENGINEERS, INC. A.J. Zabbia, Jr. Project Manager Civil Design and AJZ/llb 910HYA01 Co 3truct;ion Observation cc: Tom Card.amone Mike Doyle Joe wells Water Rights Ground Water Civil Design and Construction Water Resources Planning 20 YEARS OF EXCELLENCE 1970 — 1990 Attachment "C" • P. 01 MEMORANDUM TOjo,, ,neor, Piar,)nin; FROM: Vonne LAIQoker, Housing DAT&: September 10, 1990 RE: Moores Lot Split Pa.cel ID# 2735-121-21-001 srCtela�.r41[§A�R�:Y4�.:.�._� ��:f�4.tl�vcvw�.ns,r.a�,rwa�a.®a,.t+,sxa=�:T.��nr�ar�r.:.as*n�r..�•asarsaezaar_��amessoe SUMUiLARY: A p ax-ant .requests approv:,al of ax:asnrpt.ion Fzroxrl subdivision for a jot split into two parcels cf ir, ZA3 square feet and 23,767 square feet ate �P&r Pv-A t on. R-1003 r A) (2 and. GMQ E;,zmption for the devslcpmont of asn aoCassory dwelling, unit fcx each lot under Section 8--104 (E) (I (d) . APPLICANT: ?fr. F_-ttd Mrs. ?ohn Moore APPL,ICANT(S REP'RE:iENTAT IV 1ToAeph Wells LOCATION f 200 Wrai, =il lOSPie ZONING: R• 6 REQ:tESI: Aipplacant: e:poaBte approval h granted a_3 per Sec:ticr. 7_ 1003 ;A) (2) 16i;:h &11.01,- e.),:.ar+ption for, the splAt of a lot fyx the dervelavpnert of ore ;i3 detached. single- famllv dwell i.hy on a[ lt; forred by fa 1 ,�;Z; spl s.t granted subsequent to Novtmber 14, 1977, where all of the follc wr,? ng conditions are met. Section 7-100'= (A, (2' ;L) req,,Alres� that t?y mcre than two (2) lots are created. bay ".i;e sot sp .i`�, sot h tuts conform to the req"ir•e-nenta of tht undorlying zorte d'st ric':t and the applicant commits that any lot for wh-1c3► is prc.pcged will contain an Accessory ► woll ng 'Unit. App: icant raq+ttest�&- approval as per Section 6-104 (B) ;.j (d) wt cn all,, -Wig axenrpti.a:t by the Commission for t".e devcloprent of no ,Ttc e than ana ?.ccesscrr,. &,.,tilling unit per each dwol.li-;,g irai'.: -'M k parcel c.ontainlI ng a detached residential unit or duplex. STAF RAC, iEti': �t`T1Ls G Re;:c,,rt en < Approval c;f the development of one dettch(-id f8tnil px10t include the develornent of th��. rc-g l.:red Fat:cFt�ti�v�"'j d olliri-v snit-. Approval of the develop?rent, for oac,,h of, t ho Iveil in7q, units shall be conditioned upon t t following: 1. An aocasso,,y r..;el .:.tZg Vr.i _ aha l contain rx t teas than 300 square facet and no r,.rre t�.hain °30 a;_ua±- ¢ feet: cE <°� t livable area and b4.+ loceted ith, n 'er a,ttachad to ,.. principal residence. The owner of 4-ho accasr:�;zy dweiiinq unit shsli not lie c*xgvired to rent -' ::It:1. .-. r, r .- r--.-:1:.. l r;. -'k-- -.1U _.-_;U r. lI- or lease the uili*_, 4f iC is pentad or I cased, it.- aaa? 1 bo dune so in compl::an ce c it;ri trim Housing desiq-iaa'a gu.idslires for such a unit, and sh&t, Y-re rented or leesr_d t 1 a working mesident for a terse of not i�sss 4 ,ar3 six corsecutive monthe r the Owner of an accesaor: y dws.11 in, tin it t�ha l i have the r li ght. to chc;ose the tenant, provided that t,`te- t-eflaYit oth€Trwiae mete th4 definition of a working residen-11 ka gi)al f'ied by Arpe;:EPitkin County Housing Aut; or. i.';y prior to occupancy. For the purpose of. this provision, .1 un).t:. ,;hal). be considered ra.rl�tsd if it is occupied pursuant to a lease or rentAl a.qreemennhio^ reg�Arss a payment by the teriarft of r,!O*r�-i t: an a rcr final oroun - of rent. 2. A plant chsc], to ver:.tu tha 71e; livable avp,r'e feet of the unit shall be ap_1oroved to isa,L!ance of a building pernit and the accessory Imit naet: vae dti.t'ini:tior. of "duelling unit" as per City Code, 3. A deed t'es'.riet4,. n Ht: a.i be kubyri.tted by t:�;�: owner to '�'k:e Housing AuT�'o;:; - ao� approval prior ?_.o of a building permit for tho taw :,.?ter'= j . The approve—:: dead rostx t ction must be recc_rdad by the ?It?t"I Hounty Clark and Racordars' . ;sff ice prior to the iss-.i&rer c..= ar,;- vui 11intl pOrmitE. 1* • MEMORANDUM To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer 0--le- 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 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 • 0 Attachmerfi "B" MEMORANDUM TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department V DATE: September 12, 1990 RE: Moores Lot Split --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- Having reviewed the above application and made a site visit, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. The plat that was submitted does not meet all the requirements in Municipal Code Chapter 24, section 7-1004 D. The applicant has indicated he will make the necessary additions before final approval. 2. The access easement shown on the site plan meets Engineering Department requirements. However, pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 19 section 101, access for both lots must be from one curb cut. 3. The applicant must agree to join a Special Improvement District if one is ever formed. jg/moores cc: Chuck Roth Subdivision Exemption Agreement 1. 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 Coverage 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 join 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. Upon recording of this plat in the records of the Clerk and , Recorder of Pitkin County, the irrigation easement granted to the City of Aspen at Book 336 and Page 288 shall be relocatedL Q to a location along the south property line as shown on this plat. ;Owner grants to the City the right to uti ize said easement f r the transportation of storm drainage wat r across the prop ty, provided tha the ty agrees that an ,use of the eas ment \sh 11 be acc plished with a subgrade installation, QilwnrLe!��Q 7. The City of Aspen confirms that upon recording of this plat in the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Lots A and B shall each be considered conforming lots and shall not be considered an undivided lot under the provisions of Section 7-1004(A)(5) of the land -use regulations of the City of Aspen. 1'•n;r.t••J :�t.5 07 P.)I.t`�p�� �i,_Jg77 Jullw-Ilsar B.'tnrAt!r'licr tlbp'tuiii �r-ems _.. e� - .�. - •. • _ r Lydia Perry 1Lrquand hereby +' y oranta and ennvovo to the _ - City of Aspen, a municipal corporation, a perpetual l0' eaNaeat.': .3' on each ■ide.of the centerline described below over and across -: a poretnn ^t !M ►.y tEl ot-3cctlon ,t2, Township 10 South, R.Yye 6S )het, of tJ ttb Prlactpal Meridian, for constructing, maine�inlnq, � ` `_- repalriof arid:.pt'illx%Ag a surfaca irrigation ditch. The Center-�. - is - lime of said &&moment in aMn.. .►- rlsi wq - p-'r CwL•Lil 'n' •sucaadt :. �-•--_ Aareco and d/seribid-ai !o�'lowi-- --_- -� -- _ _ �^ uC Beginning at the South -wit -corner Bloek 90 - _ or•Ballan's Addition, 'mence the Easofe y'corner Vsof said sectioa:l2 (a brans cap in place) Deco -^ ""-' •- ~ J--K1'23'31•,911:16 teat h' ._ (the record tie at Book 156'"" Page 431 it S94#14' :7•E 906.35 feet) a thence M6!•.d2'00•M:'. •"'_ w _'_'.. :430'1Nt-to the! True Point of Beginning Of•theCeat:f• -line'of the easemanti thence Moo•36'0o'J:11107't«•tr-� �= r .�. thence N26•42.12•9, e.14 feet? thence Xl6•02!31•L, 18.93 feet? y 'st. :6- thence.S0/•00'42•L,'53.39 fe&tr;tbance tir Y12•26'lB•E, 2S.01 feet, thence 1177•6/'36•i,-9.97 feet: thence r<Tw'<.cw':- .:.•.- 3B.S7 fNtt'.tMncO 272�' Y a:U .:.anw 1163!33.29•!i, 20.13 ;teeCl wly' �wLm� �l chance• S26'02'53•?., 16.91 feet,"t)r♦aLti'•a6S0.13-f"j_; '"-_• ee.e4 Sc_t to thu Point of _Termination -Ol�tbe_Ceatar=;s, lino or tar ,aaerw1,t. sold point Deiag'om`the North= -i.. -�' ... eaet.elt rra_arry floe of -maid Marquand Dwe—".. * +7A$as _ Y:^:^r--c exeen.liny etid 9:,09teninQ the aide-llnet`Of rne thi Nrrat•-- N to terminate on the property lines—''•+�'•^•'+'••" y J# The.Clt of As y pen agrees to, restore Any :landlcapllr4 damaged by��.3e y . t1►l:: lnstallation.-.anA'to;mintjiri`tM ditch -in a'sound condltlori='`'"-^'A-T -xih to prav*nt erosion om iteep iYOpva a2� :7yT_ —._' :-Y_-� .^.' .'.. ':' r.;•Y�i .•.% . •?.Tje i '�'r'IW"r..2 tAk1� ar . 9'r".. beervia9l•hOwwt,tto .t a~"'.yip!' (r0;mRt�Yg3r�pq rsuccessor* and. enjoy: tlou o.latini?ici.sepalti' isop'eceion`"�ind gpes•:,�F `:t.=K= i�a-�: :a�i..-. ,r..:+...w..w+rirs s'+.r :.,e• Y�--'i4rstr �ai.�ti'ct•.-S�iI :M4't 1.�:.. '�D•L}+ LSc.eut.d'ai�dYM•i�}'^-d�!,41s _1,�,.:f=��r"}•::,otyy-.g;�i 1f77:,3T-'J"5.,.,,,..:__S •- ....: a..'s�w��.r�.T+3"'9�'.2�y..'*.l'.'''':%�f+'�►i.i`•7'' . •Y �i ,T.•ti--'k `^,�,� • I. APPLICATION FOR LOT SPLIT (57-1003(A)(2 The Applicants, yr. Mrs. John Moores, re,uest 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 §7-1003(A)(2), a split of a lot shall be approved when four conditions are met. The Application is in co-apliance 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 demolition 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 3MQS exemption pursuant to :53-104(C)(1)(a). 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 II. GMQS EXEMPTION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF §8-104(B)(1)(d) The applicant 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 §8-104(B)(1)(d), the Planning and Zoning Commission may grant exemption from GMQS procedures for the development of no more than one Accessory Dwelling Unit per each dwelling unit on a parcel containing a detached residential unit or duplex. Under the provisions of §8-104(3)(2), the Commission shall grant the exemption if the application meets the standards of 53-104(3). 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 :rust commit to provide an Accessory Dwelling Unit in order to be eligible for lot split approval. 3 C� r 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 application for a conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider, 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 affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; and 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. GMQS EXEMPTION FOR DEVELOPMENT INVOLVING A LOT SPLIT (§8-104(C)(1)(a)] Development which may be exempted from GMQS 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 pursuant to §7-1003(A)(2). Under the provisions of 58-104(C)(2), the City Council shall grant the exemption if the application meets the standards of 58-104(C)(1). It should be pointed out, however, that no standards for review are included in that section. 0 • GENERAL APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS [$6-202(3)1 1. Application form is attached as Exhibit 1. 2. Applicants' letter of consent is attached as Exhibit 2. 3. The street address of the parcel is 200 ;9est Gillespie. The legal description of the parcel is included on the attached plat. 4. Disclosure of ownership is attached as Exhibit 3. 5. A vicinity map locating the subject parcel is included on the attached plat. 6. Description of Proposal. Under the provisions of §7-1004(A)(5), the townsite lots in the parcel have continous frontage, have been in single ownership and are therefore considered merged into an undivided lot. The Applicants propose to split the 34,060 square foot parcel into two parcels of 23,767 square feet and 10,293 square feet each, as shown on the plan submitted with this application. 6 • L As discussed above, the application complies with the relevant review standards of the City's land -use code and therefore qualifies for exemption from the terms of subdivision. 7. owners of property within 300 feet of the parcel are attached as Exhibit 4. 7 W • • EKiI3IT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1) Project Name 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 dame, Address & Phone # John and Rebecca Moores P. 0. Sox 1146, Sugar Land, Texas 77487-1146 6) Rapresentative's Vane, Address & Phone # Joseph Jells 602 Midland Park Place, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-3080 7) Ripe of Application (please check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual Historic Dev. Special Review Final SPA Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin Final PUD Historic Demolition ~fountain View Plane X Subdivision Historic Designation Exemption Condominiumization Text/"lap Amendment GMQS Allotment Lot Split/Lot Line GMQS Exemption Adjustment 8) Description of Existing Uses (number and type of existing structures; appro- ximate sq.ft.; number of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the property). The parcel is presently vacant. 9) Description of Development Application Request for approval of subdivision exemption for lot split to divide the parcel 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 �- Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents Response to Attachment 4, Revi34 Standards for Your Application EXHIBIT 2 July 30, 1990 Ms. Amy Margerum, Director Aspen/Pitkin County 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, J hn Moores Rebecca Moores P 0 Box 1146 Sugar Land TX 77487-1146 Form No. 1402 (1170) • ALTA Owner's Policy Form B — 1970 (Amended 10-17-70) A MLI?IC ti EXHIBIT 3 G 4 • POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE ISSUED BY First 41norican Title Insurance 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. unmarketability of such title. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, First American Title Insurance Company has caused this policy to be signed and sealed by its duly authorized officers as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A. First American Title Insurance Company gy PRESIDENT ATTEST G, �-�. SECRETARY D 714597 orm No. 1402 i6/8 i 1 • ,LTAOwner's Policy -che • •�hedule A File No. 400633-0 Amount of Insurance $ Date of Policy February 15, 1990 at 3:57 P.M. SCHEDULE A Policy No. D 714597 Premium $ a, m. p.m. 1. Name of Insured: JOHN JAY MOORES and REBECCA BAAS MOORES 2. The estate or interest in the 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 referred 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. Form tVo. 1402-C • • ALTA Standard Policy Western Region Order No. 400633-0 (Rev. 9/87) Policy No. 0 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 could be ascertained byan inspection of said land orby making inquiryof persons in posses- sion thereof. 3. Easements, claims of easement or encurnbrances 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 authorizing 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 1n 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 therein. 9. "Any possessory rights against that part of subject property lying Easterly of a wire fence on the Eastern part of subject property which may arise by virtue �ff *LLst rl of s id fence as shhe n o :ha ce aig provement Survey No. 6-�:5 of A�pine �urveys, Inc. la ed Becem er p12, 196�. 10. Easement and right of way for a water line upon the conditions and limitations 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. Form No. 1056-4 All Policy Forms SCHEDULE C Order No. 400633 Policy No. D 714597 The land referred to in this policy is situated in the State of Colorado County of P i tk 1 n 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, Hallam'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 follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Block 90 of Hallam's Addition, whence the East one -quarter corner of said Section 12 (1954 brass cap) bears South 64°2313411 East, 911.14 feet (record call at Book 256 at Page 651 is South 64°1411711 East, 904.35 feet); thence North 89°52100" West, 13.50 feet; thence North 00/3810011 West, 120.01 feet; thence South 89°52100 East, 14.83 feet; thence North 5.91 feet; thence North 87*0710011 East, 6.35 feet; thence North 69°55100" East, 66.07 feet; thence East 31.61 feet; thence South 89°521 East, 92.63 feet; thence South 07°45' East, 49.46 feet; thence North 89°52' West, 49.30 feet; thence South 29*0710011 East, 114.60 feet; thence South 37°06100" East, 37.94 feet; thence South 89*4310011 West, 80.22 feet; thence South 8603110011 West, 148.72 feet; thence North 40.00 feet to the Point of Beginning, 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. • Title Insurance Company Vincent J. Higens 601 E. Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Christina M. Davis President (303) 925-1766 • (303) 925-6527 FAX Vice President EXHIBIT 4 ADJACENT OWNER'S STATEMENT Pitkin County Title, Inc., 3 duly licensed Title Insurance 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J" JAY MORES RESECCA &1SS tCORES P.O. BOY, 1146 SURGARLAND, IF" 77487 THE ERDMAN PARTNERSHIP P.O. BOX 12395 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN CENTER FOR ENVIROMENTAL STUDIES 100 E. PUPPYSMITH ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 LUCY REED HIBBERD 2222 EAST_TENNESSEE STREET DENVER, CO 80209 STERLING A. COLGATE ROSEMARY W. COLGATE 422 ESTANTE LOS ALAMOS, NM 84544 CHARLES W. BRADY 45555 STELLA DRIVE ATLANTA, GA 30327 LE RAY DIGILIA JOHN WILLIAM DIGILIA P.O. BOX 4305 ASPEN, CO 81612 ALEX KAUFMAN KATHRYN BUMGARONER CHEEK P.O. BOX 6221 EDISON, NJ 08818 METES AND BOUNDS SUBJECT PROPERTY METES AND BOUNDS METES AND BOUNDS UNIT A, LBH CONDOMINIUMS UNIT B, LBH CONDOMINIUMS LOT 1, NORTH ST. SUB LET 2, NORTH ST. SUB LOT 1, CHEEK SUB Vincent J. Higens President MORTON A. HELLER P.O. SOX 98 WOO Cv CREEK, CO 81656 ,-i. AR"H!UR _ITTELL TRUSTEE, ET AL P.O. BOX 1748 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73101 JOHN H. CHEEK JR. KATHRYN BUMGARONER 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 DENKER, 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 31612 PHOEBE '!ASSEY RYERSON P.O. BOX 4222 ASPEN, CO 81612 PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. • Title insurance Company 601 E. Hopkins, Aspen. Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766 • (303) 925-6527 FAX LOT 2, CHEEK SUB LGT 3, CHEEK SUB LOT 4, CHEEK SJ8 LOT 5, CHEEK SUB Christina M. Davis Vice President LOT 6, N1/2 LOT 7, BLOCK 100 HALLAMS S1/2 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 • PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. • Title Insurance Company Vincent J. Higens 601 E. Hopkins. Aspen, Colorado 81611 President (303) 925-1766 • (303) 925-6527 FAX JAMES P. HUME 1120 NO. LAKE SHORE DRIVE CHICAGO, IL 6C611 CITY OF ASPEN 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN INSTITUTE 1000 NORTH 3RO STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 JANET SCHRIEBER 452 WORTH AVENUE PALM BEACH, FL 33480 BRUCE BERGER SUITE 604 342 MADISON AVENUE NEW YORK CITY, NY 10173 ANNE F. FARISH #16E, 2200 WILLOWICK HOUSTON, TX 77027 JAMES, JOAN 8 GAIL MERRIAM 1884 MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE TIBURON, CA 94920 AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE LOTS 7-9, BLOCK 103, HALLAMS METES AND BOUNDS METES AND BOUNDS LOT 13, SECOND ASPEN COMPANY SUB Christina M. Davis Vice President THE "WESTERLY AND EASTERLY TRACTS" HALLAMS ADDITION ALL OF LOTS 5-9, PT OF LOTS 10 8 11 „ BLOCK 4, ASPEN COMPANY SUBDIVISION METES AND BOUNDS vi�yj OF ywl� 44u�S� I1-29.5 $- qoo Wes[ Main Street, Suite tookF g7o qzo ttgz'LIPKIN WARNER DESIGN PARTNERSHIPAspen, Colorado816u 970 920 3 816 5 tr C.�i•D E �, LAND USE REGULATIONS § 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 reduces 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 (30) 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 a nrimary residence. Yard means ari 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 § 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 M) the distance from the exterior wall to the property line) —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 (30) 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 (V2) of the right-of-way width as if such private way were dedicated for public use. C. Corner 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 (I/s) 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 the improved, bordering properties; or, if only one of the adjacent properties has been improved, the setback of the new construction shall conform to this chapter. E. Transitional yards. Where 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 arterial 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. 1Von-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 LAND USE REGliLATIONS § 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. No. 1-1990, § 5; Ord. I Io. 60-1990, § 1; Ord. No. 71-1990, § 1) Supp. No. 2 1595 FILE COPY 0 ASPEN . PITKIN PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 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 tc be virtually on an axis with Lake Avenue. Considering vacated Gillespie Avenue 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 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 . PHONE 303.920.5090 • FAx 303.920.5197 P-mdm--ycW Pap. DIRECT FAx LINE: 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 adjustment and a confirmation by this department of the allowable floor area of the parcels. nvV N . If you have any questions, please feel free to call or Stan Clauson. Sincerely, Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director cc: file %t7"tA #9M&*J f t 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. ( ) 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 PZM2.19.91 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 every one 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 C 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 loft 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'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 -located 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,OOOsgft. 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 oven 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 PZM2.19.91 i 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. ?: My understanding is that we have been monitoring the water in C 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. i Joe Wells: I would like the opportunity to work on this to the point that we can resolve your concerns with vegetation regardless of how the top of slope gets defined. E 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 is that the screening and the vegetation and the distance from the top of the slope are 2 different issues. 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. 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 PZM2.19.91 Jasmine: Under the scenario that Kim has suggested which involved moving the buildings back to the other setbacks, what would be the degree of encroachment into the slope as the Planning Office would measure it? 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 the applicant's measurement and the Planning staff measurements? Is it where you took your 3 points? 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 }o 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 B and that must be changed to be within 300--700sgft 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 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. 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 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 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 would like to say that it seems to me that if we re -write 6 to say that the applicant is adopting the measurement as shown 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 work on that language in the ordinance to make it very clear. I think the question is who decides where those points are. 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. I think they are fairly accurate. 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 -located 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. Because it will occur with the moving of the house. 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 Lake ESA and Special Review and Conditional Use Review with the changes to the Planning Staff memo dated February 9, 1991. (attached in 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 -located 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 the driveway to the south of the landscaping improvements. Would you rather we put it in the easement or shall we solve it with staff? Jasmine:I think you can resolve that with staff. The Commission is already sufficiently deranged for one night. I declare this meeting adjourned. 16 Time was 7:12pm. r4AW 6MI sSL� +.0 ---------------------------------- 2. 0 Hallam lake E.S.A. — Proposed Planting Screen 1. Selected young cottonwood saplings. Other saplings pruned out 2. Windows or views from the guesthouse and. Patio to Hallam Lake through openings in the vegetation. 3. Ponderosa Pines. The penes are located to satisfy the 50% vegetation cover where there are currently openings during the winter. The penes screen the build* m th e but allow one to view the lake anc�the wildlife beneath the canopy. 4. Western Red Birch. The shrubs extend wildlife area beyond the top of the slope This creates the possibility of viewing birds from inside the house by bringing their habitat closer. 5. Mt. Ash or Serviceberry. The shrubs are l below the top of slope and enhance the wil� aspect of the property. Moores Residence Hallam Lake E.S.A. Mt, Daly Enterprises NTS i x= i m a i i a i& i i m" Q Q& Vowq T.. MOORES LOT SPLIT rb �, 0• 1 i6 1 `\ NOT-OT'COe �,• �-----------I-----_------ - SITUATED IN HALLAM S NORTH 511 „1 ADDITION, ASPEN, COLORADO Jm•!2'oD•e 14.Pl I _----- - Ja _-____ - ----------------- ____________ o -' AM AEAtATiD fY NNKM YW+tRW✓ ' ' .11 I f" F — ------ ---- - CERTIFICATE OF ---------- 1�1� ' OWNERSHIP AND DEDICATION .iw- Krwl ALL MEN a'nroE rRtxrvn t»�TI,a1s+wY vlvlcc� HERE I REiacv OWNNelEtXA ly Or L ons zzR m ANr mle At8 NEJt(ON, HEFXVr FLAT ANO .A/EA✓10e W LM.-, INTO IOT"� I A AEM[EIDCx AN64er ew cop TM''r NAaCer roAIV �roL�• I 5511 I I o� I I ° , 1 E.,U72 rr I F4• T �� lI a 2:J FQfi WOE . KCSD AND LA•OCIGIIOJNO UnUrr I w, 0 At. E ANO r+OTCD rER[Q. I! M[Ff M1Y OCOKATCI, tA'd MINI JIMAJ ANO _ 1 or TI E CMNICKJ PI TlM[WILE dd� LOMA AND AND �1 I 1 i i 1 A /J PICK I[ExERNG FAMLIE 6UC 19 AW MVITCC5 AND fp[ THE eEN[FIT BALL Imurr IgAFAN1E� j ;i.' VICINITY 6fAP I f PBOPERT MPTION PIf fILR1 d'1NE 51JTHPAST OA,QLAA1TKOFnIC IC,Kr/1A.'�1 --------J-------- --------------I__ .---_L__----__ -------�+r_----- ONE-aLiARTER OF 5KT0H 12 LWftYKO JODDy KAWC fY_• --NOV5P'OD'W 1510 VACATED - ---- mtit4 TI[RCN IOF5 35 To ____- __.._._-_ PIOCNY.FI,VfANaiA(IL'11o,-2,CITYAtOTOA'P+SITLEJr L iD ri W,f E AlLe55 J; �� A5R N, 1(aKi d IOP ! !7 O, 011RA 2, Ayr[N a'1dKNrT 1, p ANO J NQFA"sAtl4'•,II X`I. el i}01, AND FACT Or LAKE N CALI Y r AKNE7 ,J (JI.IIJ1 rAYLENi GILLESPIE ---------------------------•--_-__._ � A0.YCt N1� f[YRIOCO Y�IRIOMS• /ti Z______ _.._.- NON COTA, RgOROfO PK. )f4, l6 tPJJ ltE GILLESPIE----"---------- FAlCMCNI JIaSW' ce61+•a ,, AT nE SCUM CA,-il [Ow Y.f of t4U t7 (M , W IAM(5 tpW r+,T N1ET IEA K-A71CJI" [ASt hENF (QR/C[5 \ AOCNtKA+, W1 tlQ n4 tA•fr I,* i�WTER f:OPLK C1I SAK' 1"'I SGTiCN f2 (M% FRAM CAT'PLARS 5WTH E4-25'J•:•EnSi, 5 W 1 `\. 111 IA feGT(%K CALL I111T>. 251•A, F-11115 AVENUE feel. 4UD 4'W'17'F AN, ♦M 3y I[[T), I-"1 114. at Nast'. 01.51'0'>'WtIT. I"0 rCCT, T PEW[ N0CP100•SCOO WE5T, 12v OI FC[T, r] ' f1Cr([ $•A1f11 �,'3A'M EA51, 1411 FEET, P(KE Nonni 5AI FClT Pf "LE"" T-CIQH O77yy77O[F (J15T, 60! FEET I • .T .. �_____.._... _.._.L .. .�_j PE W,E NORM 61.99'00'WT, 6407 rftf 1 i i I BIJOCIt IOa IIALI.A.g'S ADDITION I HC1LE MOT n1 (e ref: IS I I 1 II i 114:K1 SOn11( DY�00•kA57, 4146 FEEIL 41 , 1 I 1 I ! I PULL NORTH 0,•52'00•WE51, 41 3 0 FEET 1 I I I ! T x.cf "In" 2,•OT�•EASr. 1146D FEET 1 I P i1�iG DIRECTOR'S A PPROVAL 1' ! nENCE .Samr 1,,4 o•EAx AO�I ze, T. =rk 01.4+Y'OD' WEST M.22 FeH, 1 I 1L15 INAL RATA TNT vaxe, LCn Srur111 A _MO by �K THEKE •jmm1 8•!I 00• W; , we 7!,Cip I I W 1 UTY ir AIPCN BANNING ou &XX T F5A_-_ wY Or •I. l 11ErCE. NXTH 4000 FE LIT W PC FdNI. C, Pbw1E•n (. i ,111p / :D i NORTH E.ctlt I I NT R R ON TRAfa, K M,. Lr1N& WITH T1p,C i1VCly Of LANO C`" EO LW ELITAECII+ M M1tr4L ICI 0 ! q y JO 90 I 1:D rt i RAlJ14M. ORy:TOA , r AIMN CENTER 1dt CN.VKONNEtfjAL AMOO 11, A COIORAO'I I NA:HtRX'Ir COIEMIRA2u1, a TK 51ATI/%2LY R[DS K[COKDtO 1 1 I II.Iu 1. ..1��_-�.•�"-V_.. _.•.�� 1 / I DEC2 MPCR XJ, A41, M1 PWK Z Ai HfiC 46I, AIE) TLCf MCIw 1 i YNf-I'-20' 1 CITY ENGINEER'S APPROVAL / I - 1 1 1 I I }- J p, 1':A, 11 It OK 2y2 AT rNHE 704 i I 1 tSV' 15 M e AR1G • It if KW 11,EMS SHC N, M4 rOJW ON I— Tl FS �INY.L R/S Or TIE �,.�,� LOT SFL IT I! MFWNN0 pY nM �• �/� c 1 MAT. AKL ",OWN TO PAA MEN JET 1'rOtO 01+ i PVRIW OF urr AIfEN wAMM" a LYAf`nCRJNc nn>_ i_r cMrd TITLE �RTIa a�AT/_ I 1 IJrn IO'I MTWE[NE 1O111HWCST [gCN[Rd W ......._-.. -+1110 • I I ' f7Al ADpTCN f, n ICAM I'aCA RfI F TH> I ; I A'. "I IIOE •'t lKreWAriJN , IT— - -- -- 1 '0AJER. AW CA.I rl :R;r LY LIPS OF PIOfK A> I A.r NSn% I11LI IN 1 I. I 1 / i I f,'AHAJ., IN JTNC OTE ROLORA[AJ, IKImm, IKIKRS IIMI 1 I I 1>TAOEllIEO DY L'l 117! AND fCLPO N RR R[' i CITY CE[.VEel ,[A I IAKE DI µp R" IN F ENAI Nt7dtH, M.aTNI -E__..--._- / �__INRV,EKN, LOr llq rKp[gY GELD L.lAY 11Tl PY -----_L-__-----/ I I'I IIAJ Cl.a:rAKC RE OwNKR7 N FEE NWLE OF THE KILA ______-__+J FW"Cn CE•1KECO ANTI MIX ED I4W."0010 CITYCOUNCIL --- OV [Aertrvm', RIGfnS cR•wAr ArA, nM1A11:RMK[•in rt"', - AP PR AIt_A___ I 1116 1YW 11A1 dfl[ vaW4y IOT MIT 1APrWNW tW I1R IAIi, III I, I Ill. IA.�•1 "M' BLOCK IOY i 1 SIlHYEY41i R .CERTl£IS A1t:.. --- rY G** r L °r Tlt UTY OF A -RN oN PICA_ . _ PAT .A 1 I - A REOIlrmw LINO JUMTVK, I MILD,' ,1110 A:A11111111 (QITIrAINtI 1 I CECnrY THAT I f µY[ PREMJRD PO FN& MT 01 PIE MOORC5 t. ECLJIED nE11.. --. PAY or. , r"O I I 5M.1 T, PIAT P[ LOCATION Of M OJT510e ODA4P ,, • •'- I II I1111 U1 LOT I INC5, FII WIP NO IMLITY CAbEWNT, / - AIP41N. Kr'' 1 '0We'N'IUIKeIEA-,CMCr.I, ALL IMJE..tN1l FCK FK5f W"o-JI F�411 N.,MAR.K ✓ATI"I01411, ;1141 IN", I AHI JIKAu4 TITLE V*JKAI 2ItAXY r,O D714y17, ANO OI1tK ; W Uttf1tKK 1 fEARItCI ARE ASE.REATELY AtO COKKSTL+SrCWti IEMON !4r1 :e aOL0.4W .n K� t_.-II'"EMS)"E°la a>te°eLuu2>�aent"Qmu^[Jy° . CLEKK 6 RECORDER§ ACCEPTANCE F.tvjN aF Re',aLn AnD nIN THE rtNT[n IdA canraKM w iwlE I d I 9TAIRLD ON THE r.KaA+D. T M 9A W K" A 1AAT1[I./ATl L TH""C[[rWQA drK FLDKC6 xlJf WAt, AMC rMO FOR THE KIRI!6pNG CERTIFICATE WAIACrNOWLEP6W 5! 1tE Al: I a I CL[r%M WITH A LIMIT Or I RI QOCO AIV WA! TRFOKMCD Flury MTN1C dtCG dT1ECy ANO RCORRR ON THE nEl_ _-. LWY Of .-_.—,'"0 Dr LYNM T7TC`C I I IN A°OftM"CE WITH CCI. M71, T uE l0, nnE N, AS tt7 OF. rrr, MAR Or pOLORALO AT_OtIOCK_•M 01 All TITLE COCRICATON I I AHNOEO TEI--ERrd_� '110, ANO RECDKOW ______-____ I I IN WITW56 Wt1,ROF I HAVE .SET W fiAtO AND OFFICIAL IN POOK—AT fl'ELA> IRCrtr NO W171J:`h MY ~ANDC'F1 Y L J[AL TI15_OM d--_.-_ ,N10. MY CCNNRJSKAV IDrrIKE!•.-.. ' ALJ'INE JLfMY] I-C DY•__.._ CLERK CO- 1T, C01-EK —_ 1 l9 _T MTICIN fOU4T1; C1AGR/'D.t NOSACy 11/DLIC. � . - I row o Alone u wi ' k)c: a 'ti J zT Y, e"Ker� I. ! w MOORES LOT SPLIT 3KO ws ill, eEll 2w Los Mill, Ig-im W. Aw i OM!N YAW ARCHITECTS ue � :I1�\1 IN ldIIU IV7\.iM �14/1\.Nrll _ Gillespie Ave. X }� _ - z�__loads I 6 d �� rt -- ----------- b ----------- b ----------- a ----------- b ----------- F3 ----------- ef ,o ---------- 14 61 C- I a; r r ■ A r 0 I 0 1 1 1 --rj ---------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - cr --------- --- --------------------- 0 • � AtrAcomar "'s 14 s NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS RE: MOORES CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, SPECIAL REVIEW, HALLAM LAKF'. 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. s/C. Welton Anderson, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission • 6 January 21, 1991 ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920-5090 Joe Wells 602 Midland Park Place Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Moores Hallam Lake and GMQS Exemption Case #A1-91 Dear Joe, Bluff Review, Conditional Use Review 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 L� 9 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 FROM: PHIL OVEREYNDER, WATER DIRECTOR(V� DATE: JULY 21, 1994 SUBJECT: MOORE LOT 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 phil/moore.mem • • PUBLIC NOTICE RE: MOORES LOT SPLIT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, October 22, 1990 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 pm. before the Aspen City Council, 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. corner 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. Stirling, Mayor Aspen City Council Published in The Aspen Times on October 4, 1990. City of Aspen Account. ORDINANCE NO. (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 �. 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 l 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 - 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 0010011E shall be a Side Setback to be dimensioned according to applicable zoning requirements. i 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 adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in Cthe office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 3: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the day of , 1990 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the d day of 1990. William L. Stirling, Mayor C ATTEST. i Kat:1rYT. S . Roch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of �;" , 19� z ATTEST: 164� athryn . :loch, City Clerk 0 William L. S irling, 9ayor 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. E 0 1VI00$ FES .I.JUT PLC SITUATED IN HALLAWS ADDI7'ION9 ASPEN, COLORADO I Oki I w V cez] I 7PAT FNzr OF71 F- 'Wn-�T,•OW-QVARTEF- OF T+HE t-,,ofQ-H6a,,-3T ONE,QUWTEJ?- OF 56OL*4 12 MWK-Ajjr jo -0 jrH' RAW -D E t)!5 V�MT Cf -M (IFTH F"- (1iih)6;Z-r1-EKfJN ICr5:35 TO 37, MMK 90 WLjAkj'5 AppITICK -Ty AND 10W 5fft OF A-*fT:N' iklif Cr JCFM 3 T�f Cl N 10 - ' 2, At?MN (nAMW ANP rART orbWl);�"; Z L AND GILLEt"ClE AVMX5 ADLASENT), MCM1XV Alb �- 5Il5G4NNlW- AT Ill-C =NWm C0F4qtK.0F KaX 10 OF HALLAM5 ADMION, wHINM THE_tw ct'E-aApTm cnmt4m OF _-,Ajo 9=TION 12 (19% moc � o5-'CAr);-Rw6 -'amq W23'.54' ter,911. 14 FEET (KECDkP,CkL-,'iNA:Im ?-5co AT r,&r ,e =JTH 7��F- N604;H 50 F TeT .01 5z 601 J w� VFj" 74-iE WE N=H FELM "07. Ff 3 "Ai :THEwZ w-w �4. THENCE ZoUrm THECE 50UfH' Tr y 74EWE NORTH J of 1� -p -30, 1910fnt 4; ft nE A weN -n COMPANY 14:- EXMXED T*Hr5-m&j—CW M Or c4XAI�ny Or fwam, Iv j' 4P CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP AND DEDICATION KNOW ALL MEN 15Y THESE PKEf:;,EN THAT JOHN JAY MOORE5 AJ-V REP-ECC^ f3AA9 vioa1 � , IN oolKT TEXIANCY-, E5EING THE: RECORD OWNER,') OFTHE. LA1-4P5 0E-'5Cf-'If5EV AND DEPICTED HERE " HFRErr I`LA-1 ANC,5Ub2yt0E 5A,11) LANV�) INTO Lr-7175 A AND E5 Vjbo� Lor-, ,!!-PL[T, A'5 SHOWN AND [:)EaCM13M HEREON, ANC? COWIT' AND /AGFEL ^5 FOLLOWS I. THE 20 FcoT woE ACCErJ5 AND UNDEF,&N[) UTILITY E^51f-tvIENT 5HOWN AMC NOTED HEREON 0 HEREBY 0E0rATEJ::) ID THE rEKPF--PJAL rpi%,,ATE AND WON-EXCLV51'/E U--)E AND 6ENE]"IT OF THE CWMER-7 F'Rai/iTIME TOT'IM' OF --All) 1.01`'3 A A440 D ANP THEIR RESPECTIVE rAMILIE5 G0E-5T5 AND INVITEES AND FOR THE DENEFIT OF ALL UTILITY 04FANIE5. 2. THE 10 FCOT WM IRRIGATION AND _Tr)KM orArN EASEMENT *-40WN AND NOTED HEREON 15 HEREp4f 0MGKTV TO THE C47r- OFA:!)FEN FOR THE TFAf45F09TATK)H OF --jv-)PM vK'6jN/k'&e WATEfZ ACF0j-5 THE ffZ7rEf--Jy. -a TH15 FL,1�1 15 tH CoNru<KAW_F- WITH TiHE,5TANpAgV5 OF 5E=" 7- 1 C-704 (D) OF THE VINO L95E REC-OI TCN5 OF THE C4 1Y 0FA5rEN- OWNEP-,5 AC-FF-E -To JOIN THE 1701WATION OF ANY rFnr05r--o 'wn`zNEmD-ff OnnzX:;F5 WH01 BENEFIT ow,qER51 mrorEgM 5. E-A'AMU-55 TO Ot-4 ALCf5 ND A AtV E�, --+iALL 5E V't' VOW OF THE ACM55 '5EMENT ACROEf--) LOr A5 --N-OWN ON THi5 FLAT. (o- THE WATEK PEFAFUVIENr f4A,5 COWI11144'w 14-E &'A1LACdLI1Y OF WATER, --EKVICE r-') UX5 A ANID;, IV. 7. A)FUN THE F*XICOtIrV HM'rLAT IN 7-FE' , OF-r CLMIK AND ftecor-aeg or-IrmcaN en I EA-O$Ekft-� C-KAt� prorEjluy. 8. A5 L — "- 1"' "F . m t . . . . . . . . . . . iiti L LLU61. f'C.9: � r/C CAP 5 'i/134 I Ng144•SZE 1.�0 � �CLOw PL.45rti UP ^1 — LS EAST S�1' 52'00° E 42 (03 15 F19- 1D' YELL(-/ P/s15TC CAo 75 t33-A 00'� L � \ ' S 20/5/ NW'07'00' E (p �,5 NI5 LA5COENT l5 BEING A.l` -----------------ice JM*-"3Z'00"E t-+ 83 - ---(�12W,IN � lour w1oEB--- ,i- `%•���_—AND REPLIAC.FO OY' FA5ENENT 51•K 589'11 r II -4 FOUND • yELLOw P4.415M GP T N09-52'00-W 41 30 L620/5/ 1A\ — WII �I,I y I' LOT A ' I I � \ 8 Q 4,; ii' 0 553 ACRE \�.5 EAST \\ S 0, 6.02 ��9• '\o� 9 0 N I 4i�,-50 s LOT a229 ACRr Dw Pu�r�c \ "'IP c,rry �•Bvt, L520/5/�VACAT ElID-------------------------------- 5 y� Iz- p 2O FT tiv. DE ACC.EY 5[ O AND UNDERGROUND p - L)TIUTYF�1ENr------------- -- ytll�,lE I�TION EASE r ------GILLESPIE --------------------------------------------- rt FgSFMENT SI iOWN ON LOT A RECORDED AK. 334 R5. 286) 50v 45'U7°w 60 \:mow k Y aob✓PU577CCALAVP �y yrf *j q •. YELLOW I 4g, L.5 CrS4 ' .,AVENUE GW ,tfG4R G5 913�i ® ILL! W/TN£39 CORNER • t 1,\ ' ;END I E R® M A N I L 0 T S P L I T reuow �usnc c� �''��.'�'�' I �Iz Lx/>E�b'IR, L:S 20IS1 NDICATES Sl=T YEUOw 'L _trrIC CrY O►.I i2 EBA ( G t BLOCK 103 HALLAg' S ADDITION 010 I " NING DIR W i i I I T 453 FI KAL. PLAT OF T+-1E Vf 00R1'E9 L�JTt I I U cpF A7PEr1 PLANNING PIICFL7DR;T}Ijg OGS 1 '11015l r I NORTH ; I 1 ' O 5 10 20 30 1 50 100 FT , ? 4 5CALE- r-ter I I CITY I B'C"115 OF PSE^RJNGTHE NIONL&fNT5 5HOwN A,� FOUND oN THIS Ti3O 1NAL PLAr.OFTHffj I PLAT AKA IQVOWN TO VE MEN tU avED ON THE PEAKING OF G ' NOC.06 1 81=iWEEM .J0L1TH WEy'( COI�fV� OF 90, • i �� ADOTTOON n POINT 120.00 FEET W1 TH15 C•OMEit. AND ON. WE3rMY' UNE OF M CK IOTA -'+EP BY.L•5 'I175 AND FOUND IN MAC4 PER -5-E IMPA9VUIENT LOFTWI Pr4PERtY P"`[ ,4kY 1473 BY------ q,�� �� tc,�`Y,,I cilf, ' TRYFYOR'S CERTIFICATE u9 � I. MAr, I, A.K.i7rXLYLY VV`(Y 6UK11 LJM, ►-Mdl I Cmr-Y TI•VST I I AYF- P'KEmwo THI5 FNN.. PLAT OF TI.OE wvQeES PAC T�-qS► '� GAY O INTERNA[ WT �tT T�v1r-�1-IE LOCATION OFTHE a ltIfI a eair. W n< ;? or LINI:9, . PR WE AT.E5o5 ArD L M u7Y EJ,SCtmNT, l�l / •'��'�. , � a� :� , y I NEW iwj;Anot4 waocrMENi ALL EA')EMENT5 PER FiRtrr OENNET r� ? � : � rr� �;+• . AOrMCANTITLE It0RANCt 60 .NG. 0714597, AND OTHER W I F CURES AXE A=X:R 1TaY MD COKMTU' StOOWN FEON l = <• �'' �---gidli.7�E�1+15E_DlA�1:JZ�ALC.IELQ.�c]R1flY�.AN2 cncn,�nr� -- `'' ��� ;'�., , , ,- '�• OF I CO 9, AND •M/'R' TM M.ArTW LOTCON fMM -10 rH2t E �y ! Whap ON THE GrWriP. THV5 'XXVEY' HAS A MATKMATIUL TH15 94A1. PLATCXTf� F. r I jW-o IIACE WITH A LIMIT OF 1 IN 10,000 A44P WAS rERF0MNWD FIU IN THE OH°CE;�TF f 1N K 912ANCf- WRN C.9-9. 1973, TITLI< 3S, TITLE 51, A5 coJNTf TK� OF.PIN, Of. h1 D• . IN 1A/iM`.� 1Vf I WIVE .o@T MY WIND ANP OFFIC!AL IN OEM. TI-t b DAY OF1`195.F. A:.P1t 5t ING. -27 fto office an Tf-w y7" r ' ;F- `. { Y id. 1� ley t SCALE I" - 10' 0 10 20 1 FOOT CONTOURS 2376 TBM 100 A 1954 BRASS CAP CORNER NO. 5 M.S. 3905 HORIZONTAL CONTROL NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT ON THIS PLAT WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS PLAT BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON. THE CERTIFICATION IS VOID IF NOT WET STAMPED WITH THE SEAL OF THE SURVEYOR. I I I 9� 9018• 9018 \ 0L ^ \ � N \ j> \ _ �/J► D \ 1 \ jl 91 ® �� ® \ \ O R.O.W. AREA / / /V 7� _ 94 \ IN QUESTION 06•^ _ c _ / 622 SO. FT. 75G J — /- --97 �\ I � N � / ENTRY \ O \ 9.2 Y I / / SILL 96.6 o / 4 0 95 A h z TOTAL AREA 11250 SO. FT. / / / / �D m ol� I I 97___ o 0 / 3 N O UNIT B I h TO BE DEMOLISHED I - ' 1 - 1 I STORY CMU HOUSE UNIT A Y � Z a w/ IIIIIEW:4 � 7g 06 00 -K, %$ I� pO SHED g018� SHED SMUGGLER LOOP CONDOMINIUMS LEGEND AND NOTES • FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT AS DESCRIBED SET SPIKE SURVEY CONTROL $ WOOD FENCE IT IS SUGGESTED THAT AT ATTORNEY REVIEW THIS PLAT N REGARD TO HIGHWAY NO. 82 R.O.W. NO TITLE INFORMATION WAS FURNISHED TO THE SURVEYOR POSTED ADDRESS: 450 SOUTH RIVERSIDE AVENUE BEARINGS BASED ON FOUND CITY MONUMENTS FOR THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF BLOCK 35 ASPEN TOWNS ITE S 75'09'11"E CERTIFICATION 1. JOHN HOWORTH. HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED FROM FIELD NOTES OF A SURVEY PREFORMED UNDER MY SUPERVISION DURING M Y 1993. THIS SURVEY VOID UNLESS WET STAMPED. SIGNED THIS -7 DAY OF 1993. \��\`•�1111I!!!!'!!Ilijj�i{j, JOH o HOWORTH P.L.S. 25947 1 �so\\ ✓G;N TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY OF THE "AMENDED MOLLY GIBSON LOOP CONDOMINIUMS BLOCK 8. RIVERSIDE ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN. PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO. PREPARED BY ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS. INC. 210 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 PHONE/FAX (303) 925-3816 DATE JOB 5/93 23081 I I I I FAST 5b`i°52'00"E Q2lo'� 31•(0l 75 �31t)5 ,IOU N87°o7'oo"E Co.35f NORTH 5.`TI _-- / J CENT£P//a�E Of /OFT W/DE /KKEGA77ON336, PAGE 266 `-------------------------CP S5`i°II'00"W 1 hl 1 1 I I\ NE7577 47 7 I11I' LOT A �� I I \ In\ I � o 24,0E)92 FT i �\\ I I i N89052'00"W GILLESPIE I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I L — — — — — — -4 I I I BLOCK 102 ------------ I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I 2- � wi I � i I I o, LOT B 9977 FT4 A I I --------L--------------------\- VACATED Z 20 FF WIPE ACCE55 AND UTILITY EA5EMENT ,�5 &3 5f5(D 31'00 `N GEILL ESI II1E I I I I I I I i I I I 1 I � ; I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I — — — — — — — — — — — — — I I I I 5.22 AVENUE \\ - - - - - - - �-------------------I--------� i j li I I I II II � I I I I I i II I II II I I / / I I I / / — — — — — — — — — — ---- ------------1-----------------/ J / BLOCK 103 HALLAM'S ADDITION / W I I I I I I I I I I I I I MOORES LOT SPLIT SITUATED IN HALLAM'S ADDITIQN, ASPEN, COLORADO o ; S o� 8 aG OF F HERE! 0 a o QEok �pr Q� 4 Q Q Q QyG`Q�t��QrEQ'p� Q Q OQ QF�Q Q�� VICINITY MAP 5CALE , I" - Imo' PROPERTY DESCRIPTION A TRACT OF LAND 51TUATED IN THE SE I/A NE 1/4 OF SECTION 12 / TOWN5HIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 55 WEST OF THE 51XTH F'M., CITY Of ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLOKA00, ?5EING MORE FULLY DE5CKIpe[7 A5 Fot1.OW5 - t3EE71NNING ATA FOINT WHENCETHf-: itAST IA co1zNEK OF5A1D ` 1ON IZ 5EAR5.5Co4'14'1-7"E ToA.35 FEET, T+-IENC.E N M °52'OO"W 13.50 FEf-T • . TI-IENGE t IOOP35'00"h/ 120.01 Fj{ i ; 71-IENGE 5ag°52'0O"E 14.83 FEET/ THENCE NORTH 5.91 FEE-T-i TqF-NCE N8707'00"E (0.35 FEET; THEtNcE No°551oo"E (G•07 FEET�- 7HENCE EA5T 31•C I FEE1,, THENCE 58'I°52'OOIfE R2 Cv3 FEET/ 7NE1`IGE 507*45°C O"E 49.z* THENCE H89°52'O0°W °07l l 41.3o FEET. THE.NGF 52i oo f: 14'. ,O FEE n-IENGE 5370o(ploo"E 379,4 FEET; 7HFf. r-F. 561°43'00"V✓ 60-77 FEET; THEE 56(,°31'001f W —THEN" 148-72 FEET t-OK.TI-I 40-00 FEET 70TIE POINT OF ��INNIN6� CoNITAINII--e 55/5`1-i 5Q. FT/ MOR1=oK LI=55, EXCEPTTHAT rORTON THE-KEOF CONVEYED 13Y EUZA0E'TT--I H. PAEFCKE TO THE ASPEN C.ENTEfz F"OK ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, KECOKDED IN F SIG 245 AT F?GE -4,51 OF THE PITKIN COUNTY iFECOKDS. NOTICE: According to Colorado law you must commence any legal action based �1 ur�ed I4evisions 1. 10. ` 0 upon any defect in this survey within three years after you first discover such defect. Alpine e Surveys, Inc.or In no event may any action based upon any defect in this survey be commenced Office 7. 27 10more than ten years from the date of the certification shown hereon. Post Os fiee Box 1730 Aspen, Colorado 81611 303 925 2688 05 10 20 30 CIO 50 100 FT 5CALE, 1 " , 2D' UA515 OF 5EARING , THE MONUMEN75 - aA v N AS FOUNl7 ONTH15 PLAT AKE KNOWN TO HAVE [SEEN 5ET 5A5EP ON THE KARING OF N06°00'E L3e"`1W F-H 7HE 50JTHWE5T COKNEK OF 01P--K 90, HALLAVIh ADDITION AND A 1`01NT 120.00 Ff-ET FROM TH15 COKNFiZ AND ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF P5LOCK qO A5 E5TA�31-ISHED 13Y L.5. 9175 AND FOUND IN I LACI PER THE IM('?�V/EMENT SURVEY OFTHI5 f ROPE1�TY DARED DULY I`173 EY L.5. 9164 Title MOORES LOT SPLIT SEP 10, Job No 90.4 2 Client MOOKE5