Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.CU.1357 Mountain View Dr.A86-94t. 3^ I CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 10L94 94 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: D 2735- 013 -09 -011 A86 -94 STAFF MEMBER: KJ PROJECT NAME: Allen Conditional Use Review for an ADU Project Address: 1357 Mountainview Drive Legal Address: Lot 1, Block 2, West Meadow Subdivision APPLICANT: Doug Allen 925 -8800 Applicant Address: 225 N. Mill St., Suite 210, Aspen REPRESENTATIVE: Representative Address /Phone: Aspen, CO 81611 -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- FEES: PLANNING $ 0 # APPS RECEIVED 1 ENGINEER $ # PLATS RECEIVED 2 HOUSING $ ENV. HEALTH $ TOTAL $ 0 TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL:_ 1 STEP: X 2 STEP: P &Z Meeting Date ✓ PUBLIC HEARING: 'YES_; NO VESTED RIGHTS: VlfS NO CC Meeting Date DRC Meeting Date REFERRALS: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Dir. Aspen Water City Electric Envir.Hlth. Zoning PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO Parks Dept. Bldg Inspector Fire Marshal Holy Cross Mtn. Bell ACSD Energy Center School District Rocky Mtn NatGas CDOT Clean Air Board Open Space Board Other Other DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: w DUE: �� I ____________________ _ _ _ ---------------- FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: Z INITIAL:L,%) _ City Atty — Housing City Engineer _Zoning _Env. Health — Open Space — Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920 -5090 City Land Use Application Fees: 00113 - 63850 -041 Deposit -63855 -042 Flat Fee - 63860 -043 HPC —� - -` -63875 -046 Zoning & Sign Permit -- —� -- —� - MR011 Use Tax County Land Use Application Fees: 00113 -63800 -033 Deposit' - 63805 -034 Flat Fee - 63820 -037 Zoning -- - - -- - 63825 -038 Board of Adjustment Referral Fees: 00113 - 63810 -035 County Engineer 00115- 63340 -163 -- City Engineer 00123- 63340 -190 _ Housing - - -- 00125 -63340 -205 Enviromental Health Sales: 00113 - 63830 -039 County Code -69000 -145 _ Copy Fees -- Other Name: Address: 2V Tbtal llaie:�,�Z-�---> Check: Project:f�ElceSS reT y Case No: No, of Copies _ M.TST-ITTI-10 =1T TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director RE: Allen Conditional Use Review - Public Hearing DATE: November 22, 1994 -------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to construct a single family home with an attached accessory dwelling unit. Staff recommends denial of the conditional use for an accessory dwelling unit. APPLICANT: Doug Allen LOCATION: 1357 Mountainview Drive ZONING: R -15 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: To provide an approximately 350 square foot attached studio accessory dwelling unit pursuant to Ordinance 1 requirements. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please find the referral comments from the Housing Office, exhibit A. STAFF COMMENTS: Conditional Use Review - Pursuant to Section 24 -7 -304 the criteria for a conditional use review are as follows: 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: The proposed accessory dwelling unit is an attached, primarily above grade unit on the first level of the home. The size is 350 square feet of net liveable. This should be verified by the Housing Authority. The unit must comply with the Housing Guidelines and the requirements of Ordinance 1 and shall be deed restricted as a resident occupied unit for working residents of Pitkin County. It is unclear from submitted plans whether the roof overhand is wide enough to protect the entrance to the ADU from shedding snow. The front door to the unit is on the west side of the home. 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: The surrounding neighborhood is entirely residential. The protective covenants of the West Meadow Homeowner's Association restricts all parcels, except Lot 1 Block 1, which is a duplex lot, to one detached single - family dwelling house. The covenants also address the occupancy of residences stating that "each residence... shall be occupied as single - family residences." Staff has met with and received a letter from homeowners of the association with regard to Mr. Allen's request. Please see attached letter, exhibit C. Although the City does not enforce protective covenants, the provision of an accessory dwelling unit is not a use by right. Ordinance 1, 1990 does provide an alternative ( cash -in -lieu) when an accessory dwelling unit is found to be inappropriate for a specific neighborhood. Mr. Allen has already paid cash -in -lieu in order to pull a building permit, however he also anticipated a refund pending approval of an accessory dwelling unit. 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: The attached accessory dwelling unit, according to the plans, has one seperate entrance which is outside of the primary residence. Unlike most accessory dwelling units, this unit does not have a second entrance into the main home. The submitted site plan does not indicate how an occupant would access the accessory dwelling unit from either the street or the garage and driveway. The driveway /garage is on the east side of the parcel while the entrance to the ADU is on the west side of the parcel. A defined pedestrian link to the ADU from sidewalks /alleys /carports has always been encouraged during the development of ADUs. West Meadow homeowners have expressed concern that a second dwelling unit will add more traffic to an otherwise quiet, single family, neighborhood. 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: Although the site was vacant, no new services are required for the ADU. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; and 2 C RESPONSE: The proposal includes a studio accessory dwelling unit. However, at a June 25, 1994, West Meadows homeowner's meeting the applicant indicated that the ADU was to be used as an office and guest space. Please see minutes, exhibit D. 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: The conditional use is an attempt to comply with Ordinance 1 requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the ADU finding that the conditional use request does not comply with standard B: "The conditional use is 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 ac- tivities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development." The provision of an accessory dwelling unit must be reviewed for compliance with the above criteria. The review continues to be a public hearing to inform nearby residents of the potential density increase in their neighborhood. Although the City does not enforce protective covenants, Ordinance 1 does provide alternatives to the development of an accessory dwelling unit. Therefore staff would recommend the provision of a cash -in -lieu payment verses an accessory dwelling unit. ALTERNATIVE: If the Commission votes to approve the ADU, staff would recommend the following conditions of approval: 1. Prior to a refund of the affordable housing fee, the applicant shall: a. provide a site plan indicating a pedestrian link with the front door of the ADU and public right of way; b. submit a floor plan of the ADU for verification of net liveable square footage; c. upon approval of the deed restriction by the Housing Office, record the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office with proof of recordation to the Planning Department. The deed restriction shall state that the accessory unit meets the housing guidelines for such units, meets the definition of Resident Occupied Unit, and if rented, shall be rented for periods of six months or longer; d. floor plans of the ADU shall be submitted to APCHA for review of net liveable calculations and kitchen appliances; 3 2. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 3. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement districts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in the public right -of -way. 4. The ADU shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling unit on building permit plans and shall comply with U.B.C. Chapter 35 sound attenuation requirements. 5. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy the Planning Department shall inspect the unit to determine compliance with the conditions of approval. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to deny the conditional use for 1357 Mountainview Drive, Aspen, finding that the conditional use does not comply with review standard B." ATTACHMENTS: A. Housing Referral Comments B. Plans C. Citizen Letter D. June 25, 1994 Minutes E. Public Notice 4 NOV 01 "94 03 :12PM ASPEN HOUSING OFC P.1 a - EXHIBIT A T0: Kim Johnson, Planning Office FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office DATN: November 1, 1994 RN: Allen Conditional Use Review for an Accessory+ Dwelling unit Parcel ID No. 2735- 013 -09 -011 The Housing Office recommends approval for the requested accessory dwelling unit based on the following conditions: Accessory dwsping units shall contain not less than three hundred (300) square feet of allowable floor area and not more than seven hundred (%db) square feel of allowable floor area. The unit shall be deed restricted, meeting the housing authorhy's guidelines for resident ompied units and shall be limited to rental periods of not less than six (B) months in duration. Owners of the principal residence shall have the right to place a qualified employee or ompleyses of his or her choosing in the accessory dweping unit. The applicant states that the proposed accessory dwelling unit is to consist of approximately 350 square feet of living area, and be located within the single family residence. The accessory dwelling unit shows that it does have a private entrance, but there is some concern as to the exterior access of this unit. This should be clarified before approval. The kitchen must also be built to the following specifications; Minivan - For Accessory Dwelling Units and Caretaker Dwelling Units, a minimum of a tero-bumer stave with oven, standard sink, and a 6 -cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer. Before the applicant can receive building permit approval, the applicant must provide to the Housing Office actual floor plans, showing the net liveable calculation of the accessory dwelling unit, and a signed and recorded Deed Restriction, which can be obtained from the Housing office. The Housing office must have the recorded book and page number prior to building permit approval. \w0rd \referra1\&1j=.adu NQ. O� '94 14: -I IHLJDORL k CU* P,o OC PC N p dXHIBIT B �- � I �. � _ -- _ . � -- -�-- -g- ,s--- --- . - - - -- - - -T _. N v ....:., __ _.__ _ _. z N� _ �_ -- �� EXHIBIT C ZV- V4 EXHIBIT D MINUTES OF THE WEST MEADOW HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION June 25, 1994 The meeting was called to order by Chair Millard Zimet at 7:00 P.M. at the home of Millard and Susan Zimet. MEMBERS PRESENT: Millard Zimet, Ernie Fyrwald, Michael Logsdon, Sherry Draper Ferry, Eddie Irwin, John Emmerick, Dave Amory, and Elva Fitzpatrick. Doug Allan was present for a short time. PROXIES FROM: Robert Christianson, Dave Stapleton, John and Bette Oakes, Laurel Blocker, Dick Miller, Carroll Allen and Roy Vroom. 01 rA&W.l, IqN The minutes r were approved as read. ; Millard gave a report on the Architectural Control Committee meet- ing. Doug Allen presented plans for a home on his corner lot, but the plans were not comprehensive enough for the committee to make a decision as to their compliance with our covenants. Doug will present the committee with more plans later and that he plans an accessory unit to be used as a guest unit and a home office. Millard discussed the committee's concern about having ADU's and the density of the neighborhood. City law does not force a home- owner to rent the accessory unit. Doug pointed out that it is a Pitkin County law that a homeowner cannot live in an accessory unit and rent his main house. Michael Logsdon made a motion to approve ADU's in our neighborhood. Since our covenants do not permit them, he amended his motion to permit ADU's according to city regulations (not to be over 700 sq. ft.) and to grandfather the two existing ADU's. Ernie seconded the motion. For 10 Against 7 Dave Amory made a motion that if.a homeowner is forced by the city to build an ADU, then the homeowners' association will have to abide by it. If not forced, then to prohibit an ADU. Millard seconded the motion. For 7 Against 10 (2) There was much discussion again as to Eddie Irwin's situation. Eddie said that he had presented full plans to the Architectural Control Committee in 1985 and that they had been approved.by Michael Logsdon. There were no such plans in the box. Elva and Dave Amory, who have been on the Architectural Control Committee and have never missed a meeting, insist that Eddie has never presented any comprehensive plans that we could make a decision on. The only thing that we have seen is a building permit for a two -car garage, not a two -story garage. The dissension as usual was between those who would like to keep the neighborhood as single family dwellings versus those who want to relax the covenants in the belief that it will raise property values. Elva expressed her opinion that by keeping single family homes only, our property values will increase as it will be the only such neighborhood left around Aspen. Michael prefaced a motion to dissolve our homeowners' association by saying that he didn't see any problems and that our association had not accomplished anything but bickering. Ernie seconded the motion. For 8 Against 8 John Emmerick made a motion to adjourn at 8:35 P.M. Millard second- ed the motion. Respectfully submitted, Elva Fitzpatrick, acting secretary in the absence of Marjorie Brenner EXHIBIT E AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) I, Pamela J. Hope, upon oath depose and say that I mailed the attached Public Notice Re Allen Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit to adjacent property owners this 9th day of November 1994. ( a. Pamela J. Hdpe STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of November, 1994, by Pamela J. Hope. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: �/ %h N) Y Grin. '- > IC _ I r 4'va' v A- Notary Public 225 North Mill, Suite 210 Aspen, Colorado 81611 .` pUB��C MWOA 1024 NOV 22 '94 04 :35PM STAPLETON AGENCY DAVID E. STAPLETON T0: EESLIE LAMONT, PLANNING — CITY OF ASPEN SUBJECT: A.D.U'S Dear Leslie: P.1 Please accept this letter as a request to reject the-Application for an'A.D.D. for Mr. Doug Allen. This request is not because of Mr. Allen's request, but• because of the property covenant's in West Meadow Sub_ division, This area is if not the last bastion for single family dwelling's in Aspen, it is close to it. The area is single family, permanent residences with one or two exception's and only one street for,ingress and egress. The addition of 18 more unit's on the street would destroy what a majority of the resident's who live there bought their residences for. Thank you for your concern's. Post•lt° brand tax transmittal memo 7871 1 rNwaM I. (303) 925.7442 Home 1350 Mountain View Drive Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925.1230 Business Douglas P. Allen Patricia K. Massender Leslie Lamont Community Development Dept. City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 LAW OFF ICES OF DOUGLAS P. ALLEN 225 North Mill Street, Suite 210 Aspen, Colorado 81611 November 9, 1994 Re: Lot 1, Block 2, West Meadow Subdivision Dear Leslie: (303) 925 -8800 FAX (303) 925 -9398 Pursuant to our conversation last week, I enclose an enlarged floor plan for the accessory dwelling unit to be located in the single - family residence to be constructed on the above lot. Also enclosed are two blue line prints also showing the same unit as it is integrated into the single - family residence. This will supplement your file in greater detail than the information you presently have. Regarding the situation concerning accessory dwelling units in this subdivision, please be advised that there are at least two approved and constructed accessory dwelling units on this street in this subdivision plus the duplex in the subdivision directly across the street from my lot and duplexes behind my house and to the West of my house as well as throughout the neighborhood in both directions. This unit not only serves a real need as stated by the long range goals for the City of Aspen but serves a very practical need in making available affordable housing for local employees on a non - subsidized basis. If you have any further questions concerning this application, please contact me immediately so that we can address them prior to the hearing. rdially, Don as P. Allen DPA /pjh Enclosures LTR \071 County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY } as. POSTING OF A PUBLIC HEARING State of Colorado } FOR A PITRIN COUNTY DEVELOPMENT PERMIT The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says as follows: I, Douglas P. Allen being or representing an Applicant for a Pitkin County Development Permit, personally certify that the attached photograph fairly and accurately represents the sign posted as notice of the public hearing on this matter in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the sign was posted and visible continuously from the 6th day of November 19 94 to the 22nd day of November 94 19_. (Must be posted for at least 15 days before the public heard ng). roc/ (L - S Signature Subscr }bed and sworn to before me this qW day of November 1994 by Douglas P. Allen WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. (Attach photograph here) My commission expires: 9/24/96 Notary Pub ic's S gnature 225 North Mill, Suite 210 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Address ASPEN /PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920 -5090 FAX# (303) 920 -5439 October 21, 1994 Doug Allen 225 N. Mill, #210 Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Allen Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit Case A86 -94 Dear Doug, The Community Development Department has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that this application is complete. We have scheduled this application for review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at a Public Hearing to be held on Tuesday, November 22, 1994 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. Should this date be inconvenient for you please contact me within 3 working days of the date of this letter. After that the agenda date will be considered final and changes to the schedule or tabling of the application will only be allowed for unavoidable technical problems. 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 Community Development Department. Please note that it is your responsibility to mail notice to property owners within 300' and to post the subject property with a sign at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing. Please submit a photograph of the posted sign as proof of posting and an affidavit as proof of mailing prior to the public hearing. If you have any questions, please call Kim Johnson, the planner assigned to your case, at 920- 5100. Sincerely, Suzann LWolff Administrative Assistant apz.ph PUBLIC NOTICE RE: ALLEN CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, November 22, 1994 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen to consider an application submitted by Douglas P. Allen, Aspen, CO, requesting approval of a Conditional Use Review for an approximately 350 square foot Accessory Dwelling Unit attached to the proposed single family residence. The property is located at 1357 Mountainview Drive; Lot 1, Block 2, West Meadow Subdivision. For further information, contact Kim Johnson at the Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920 -5100. 9/Bruce Kerr, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission ASPEN /PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone 920 -5090 FAX 920 -5439 MEMORANDUM TO: Housing Director FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner RE: Allen Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit Parcel 1D No. 2735- 013 -09 -011 DATE: October 21, 1994 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Doug Allen. Please return your comments to me no later than November 4. Thank you. Doug Allen Office Pick -up October 24, 1994 RE: Cemetery Lane ADU Cash -in -Lieu Dear Doug, ASPEN • PITKIN PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT As a confirmation of our phone conversation regarding refund of an affordable housing cash payment, the City will accept the appropriate cash amount in order to release a building permit with the caveat that a refund shall only be granted within the. same fiscal year upon satisfaction of an alternative housing mitigation solution (accessory dwelling unit or deed restriction of the principal dwelling). The City's fiscal year coincides with the calendar year. If an ADU is the owner Is.choice for mitigation, the Planning & Zoning Commission must grant its approval as a conditional use and the appropriate deed restriction must be recorded before the request for refund can be submitted to the Planning Office. The request for a refund must be accompanied by a handling fee of $215.00 to cover the administrative cost of processing the refund. Any interest generated by-the cash -in -lieu payment will be not be returned. If you have any questions please contact me at 920 -5100. sincerely,' Kim Jo h n Planner cc: Bill Drueding, -Zoning Enforcement Officer 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORADO 87611 PHONE 303.920.5090 • FAx 303.920.5,197 Prvircl m,mxlel epee " LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS P. ALLEN 225 North Mill Street, Suite 210 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Douglas P. Allen Patricia K. Massender October 18, 1994 Aspen Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Application for Ordinance 1 - -ADU To Whom It May Concern: (303) 925 -8800 FAX (303) 925 -9398 This application is submitted on behalf of myself, Douglas P. Allen, 225 North Mill Street, Suite 210, Aspen, Colorado 81611, 925 -8800, also represented by myself. The street address is 1357 Mountainview Drive. Legal description, Lot 1, Block 2, West Meadow Subdivision, Pitkin County, Colorado. Ownership is fee simple in Douglas P. Allen. Attached to this letter is a copy of a title commitment for this property. Attached to this letter is the Land Use Application form and an 8 -1/2 x 11 vicinity map locating the parcel. The proposal is for an accessory dwelling unit consisting of approximately 350 square feet of living area located within a single family house. The unit will be accessed by a separate outside entry door under a roof overhang. The accessory dwelling unit has adequate natural light, ingress and egress, and will be finished in the identical manner as the rest of the house. A set of drawings reflecting the entire property and its development is attached. Also attached is a list of adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the subject property with their addresses. The conditional use applied for is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan as the accessory dwelling unit accomplishes one of the goals of the Plan of having affordable housing available locally for local employees. The use is consistent and compatible with the character of the neighborhood in the immediate vicinity of the parcel as there is a duplex residence one directly across the street, directly behind the property, and several across Cemetery Lane from the property as well as other accessory dwelling units located on Mountainview Drive and on adjoining streets. i Aspen Planning Office October 18, 1994 Page 2 There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the property's use as a bus stop is adjacent to the property and all utilities are at the property. In addition, the conditional use is the supplying of affordable housing and complies with all standards imposed on such uses. DPA /pjh Enclosures LTR3 \056 " 1�1T1hU R7Etrf 1 IAND USE APPUCATION FORM 1) Project_ Name Allen Residence 2) Project Location 1357 Mountainview Drive, Aspen Lot 1, Block 2, West Meadow Subdivision (indicate street address, lot & block number, legal descr on where appropriate) 3) Present Zoning R -15 .4) rat Size 15,000± 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone $ Douglas P. }Men, 225 North Mill %Street, Suite 210, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925 -8800 6) Representative-s Name,' Address & Phone Q Douglas P. Allen, 225 North Mill Street, Suite 210 Aspen Colorado 81611 (303) 925 -8800 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply)_ Conditional Use Conceptual SPA _ Qonoeptual historic Dev. Special Feview Final SPA _ Final Historic Dev- _ 8040 Gr-eenl ne Conceptual PUD _ Minor Historic Dev- Stream Margin Fl[7a1 em FUD _Historic Demolition Mountain view Plane _ Subdivision historic Designation bandomi.niu m+i nation' _ ?ext/t* Amendment (W_S Allotment rat Split /Iat ri rhP GMaS Exemption. - Adjustment 8) Description of Ddst-inrcy Uses '(ember and type of existing structures; approximate sq- ft -; number of bedrooms; any previous approvals grimed to the property) - None. 9) Description of Development Application New residence, Ordinance 1 ADU 10) have you attached the followincP- Yes Response to Attachment 2, Minimm suf ^i ion Contents Yes Response to Attachment 3, Specific submission Contents Yes Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application Owner's Name ^ " Type of Application Description of the project eve opment ng n AA - - n_ -_ do o - no The applicant has been requested to respond to the following items and provide the following reports: Land Use Code Section Comments s Referral Agencies The review is. Z onI (CC onl�) (1 &Z and CC) Public Hearing: (es) (no) Deposit for the Application Review: Referral agency flat fees: TOTA L DEPOSIT (Additional hours are billed at a rate of 6 v.) Te Apply Submit Ilse Following Information: Proof of ownership. —4—� Signed fee agreement. Applicant's name, address ae.d telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which also states the name, address and tele shone purnber of the representative. 'Ibtal deposit for review of the application S. copies of the complete application pack anal maps. 6. Summary letter explaining the request (existing conditions and proposed uses), including street address and legal description of the property. 7. An 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. 8. Site plan shall include property boundaries, lot size, proposed access, and physical fear es (drainageways, streams, rivers, etc.) 9. i0. These items need to be submitted if circled: List of adjacent properly owners within 300 feel of the subject property with addresses. `mob. Site photos. C. Proof of legal access to the parcel. d. Historic Preservation Commission review /approval. r EDWARD D. IRW' P.O. BOX 4673 ASPEN CO 81612 GEORGE SELLS OMNIBUS GALLERY 533 E. COOPER AVE. ASPEN CO 81611 GIDEON I. KAUFMAN P.O. BOX 10001 ASPEN CO 81612 HOWARD DE LUCA MARJORIE DE LUCA 1030 CEMETERY LANE ASPEN CO 81611 JAMES F. DYKES JOAN P. DYKES 1362 SNOW BUNNY LANE ASPEN CO 81611 JOHN M. LOGSDON CHRISTINA M LOGSDON P.O. BOX 5073 ASPEN CO 81612 JOHN W. REESE BEVERLY REESE 1340 SNOWBUNNY LANE ASPEN CO 81611 LARRY A. LEEPER ALICE A. LEEPER 30 MAROON CT. ASPEN CO 81611 MEL SEID 1104 DALE AVENUE ASPEN CO 81611 MICHAEL L. SPALDING 1360 SNOWBUNNY LANE ASPEN CO 81611 5527 5567 GT�I�I7 8643 12151 5402 13832 & 13833 5423 5397 12152 WILMA GROSSMAN 5361 C/O GARY GROSSMAN 306 LINCOLN LONGMONT CO 80501 PAUL H. WIRTH ,, 5566 P.O. BOX 59 ASPEN CO 81612 PAUL S. BECK 5276 GLENNIS GEORGE BECK 2928 SNOWMASS CREEK RD. SNOWMASS CO 81654 RICHARD L. MILLER 5444 SHARON L. MILLER 1345 WEST MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE ASPEN CO 81611 ROBERT W. HUGHES 5575 MARILYN A. HUGHES 533 EAST HOPKINS ASPEN CO 81611 ROY VROOM 5553 SALLY JEAN VROOM P.O. BOX 6879 SNOWMASS VILLAGE CO 81615 SIGRID J. STAPLETON 5529 1350 MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE ASPEN CO 81611 THOMAS J. SCHROEDER 5516 BETSY ANNE SCHROEDER 1375 SNOWBUNNY LANE ASPEN CO 81611 VALERIE J. EDGINGTON 9126 1045 CEMETERY LANE ASPEN CO 81611 WILLIAM J. FERRY, JR. 5417 SHEILA S. DRAPER P.O. BOX 1298, ST. JOHN, US VIRGIN ISLANDS 00831 WILMA GROSSMAN 5361 C/O GARY GROSSMAN 306 LINCOLN LONGMONT CO 80501 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE DENIAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AT 1357 MOUNTAINVIEW DRIVE, LOT 1, BLOCK 2, WEST MEADOW SUBDIVISION, ASPEN, COLORADO. Resolution No. 94 -,J� WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24 -5 -202, an accessory dwelling unit is a conditional use in the R -15 zone district and must be approved by the Planning and Zoning commission pursuant to the review criteria in Section 24 -7 -304 of the Aspen Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, Doug Allen submitted an application for a 350 square foot attached accessory dwelling unit to the Planning Office; and WHEREAS, several neighbors responded to the public notice for the conditional use review; and WHEREAS, in consideration of the standards for review of a conditional use and the public input from the neighborhood regarding the allowed uses within the West Meadow Subdivision, the Planning Office forwarded a recommendation to deny the conditional use finding that the conditional use does not comply with standards B of Section 24 -7 -304 of the Land Use Code; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing on November 22, 1994, the Planning and Zoning Commission heard input from residential neighbors in opposition to the accessory dwelling unit request; and WHEREAS, in consideration of the staff's comments and the public input, the Commission voted 5 -2, with 1 abstention, to deny the accessory dwelling unit request because it failed to meet all of the review criteria of Section 24 -7 -304. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it denies the request for the accessory dwelling unit at 1357 Mountainview Drive finding that the proposal does not comply with the following review standards, to wit: 1) The proposed conditional use is not consistent or compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity, and does not enhance the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel. 2) The applicant commits the increments need for co tional se. W. uce Kerr, Chairman �7 4? _ to Sigr4d to supply affordable housing to meet increased em loyee generated by the Jan Ca ney, Deputy ity Clerk 0 C ") RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 22, 1994 Chairman Bruce Kerr called meeting to order at 4:30 P.M. Answering roll call were Tim Mooney, Marta Chaikovska, Robert Blaich, Sara Garton, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Bruce Kerr. Steven Buettow later in the meeting. Roger: Over on Midland ROW now called Little Cloud- -when they apparently took a Caterpillar tractor and made that road, they piled a great big berm right adjacent to the Midland ROW and this is a fairly high obvious berm which I don't recall seeing in the plans which we made comments to the County P &Z. I would like the County P &Z to respond, Leslie, as to why we have a berm there when it wasn't on their original plans. There is an observation structure behind it as well. I think it is a temporary thing. They can take clients up and see what a pretty view it is. The light over the front door is never on at night. And that is a dangerous situation. Robert: When I went to get my packet yesterday somebody had removed them from my box. I don't know what kind of security measures we have here but if anybody can walk in and help themselves to this information -- Jan: I think the news people do that. This has happened numerous times in the past. Robert: Well, there is an article in the paper today. They read it somewhere. STAFF COMMENTS Leslie: Stand would like to have a discussion with P &Z about where we want to go with the feed -back that we got on the symposium and the direction that we want to take. We are also planning a joint work session and City Council before you actually see proposed code amendments in January and February. February 19 is the interim overlay expires unless Council chooses to extend it. December 5th is the brown bag lunch meeting on small lodges for anyone who is interested. PUBLIC COMMENTS MOTION PZM11.22.94 Marta: I move to recommend to City Council approval of the 204 East Durant Subdivision PUD request to reduce the western side yard setback to 0 only to the extent shown on the plans. I further move to approve Special Review for the affordable housing parking plan to provide 3 parking spaces for the 4 affordable dwelling units. These approvals are subject to the conditions of approval in the Planning Office memorandum dated November 22, 1994 provided that Condition 41 shall now read "The applicant shall work with the Engineering and Parks Departments during installation of the sidewalk and pruning of the trees ". That becomes new condition #1 same. Jasmine seconded this motion. Bruce closed the public hearing. Roll call vote: Conditions #2 and #3 remain the Marta, yes, Robert, yes, Tim, yes, Sara, yes, Roger, no, Jasmine, yes, Bruce, yes. ALLEN CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW AND REZONING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Leslie made presentation as attached in record. She read into record a letter from David Stapleton requesting the rejection of this application because of the property's covenants in the West Meadow Subdivision. Leslie: I just want t add one more point. When someone is required to comply with Ord #1, they have 3 options available to them. #1 is to propose an accessory dwelling unit that meets our standards and criteria. the second one is to pay cash -in -lieu fee. the third is to defer the accessory dwelling unit and payment if this their primary residence and they are a working resident of Pitkin County and they intend to live there they can defer the cash -in -lieu or the accessory dwelling unit until such time as they sell to a second home owner. So Ord #1 has several options in it and accessory dwelling unit is not the only alternative for the applicant to choose. Bruce: I need clarification about Ord 1's application to vacant FA N land previously subdivided lots PZM11.22.94 Does Ord 1 apply to that? Leslie: Yes. Ord l applies to every piece of vacant land in town in which someone is going to propose to build a single family home or duplex residence. Or if someone has a single family home and they tear it down to build or if someone has one unit on a duplex lot and are going to build a second unit on the duplex lot. Then to comply with Ord 1 they have the 3 alternatives. There is a 4th alternative. You can actually deed restrict the home to RO. Marta: Exactly where is the ADU located in relation to the street? Allen: It is on the corner of Mountain View Drive and Cemetery Lane. The ADU is on the Cemetery Lane side near where the bus stop sign is. Marta: Why exactly - -I have heard what the homeowners are saying but why exactly are they upset about this? Allen: There are 2 previously approved ADUs in the subdivision. Immediately behind my house is a duplex. Next door, that is a duplex. Across the street is a duplex. Across the street to the north is a duplex. It is surrounded by duplexes on the other side and there are 2 ADUs that were previously approved in this subdivision. I have heard that more traffic in the subdivision and higher density is the reason for the upset. There isn't going to be any higher density. This room will be in the house and if this room is used as a bedroom in the house, somebody will live in that bedroom. And if it is used as an ADU, somebody will live in the ADU. I have talked with Leslie because I was upset about her recommendation of denial because I had gotten very positive input from the staff prior to it being turned over to Leslie. I explained that I would be willing to restrict it to occupancy to 1 person who does not have a car on the site. There are 8 conditions of approval. I would be willing to add those 2 more conditions as conditions of approval. I want to have an ADU in that house. It helps me defray the cost of the house and it is compatible. It is not an intense use and it is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel. Most of the houses around me are true duplexes - -2 large units in one house. This is a 350sf accessory dwelling unit just like the code provides to be an accessory to a P C 0 PZM11.22.94 single family residence. If you read condition b word for word, it complies with everything in there. Bruce opened the public hearing. Dave Amery: I am in a duplex across the street from Doug. And that duplex was grandfathered into the subdivision. It was probably illegally built. And it had to be grandfathered in because somebody sort of skammed their way in. But the general character of Mountain View Drive is single family residences. We are the exceptio to that rule. All around us are duplexes. That is true. But we have always had in our subdivision covenants a rule against duplexes and we are trying to desperately hold onto that. I have a letter from myself and my wife. A letter from Betty Cipriano who lives in a duplex across the street on Cemetery Lane. A Letter from Roy Vroom. A letter from Will and Sherry Parry. These letters all stated their opposition to this application. (attached in record) Showing pictures (attached) . This is the lot. And dirt is literally spilling out onto he access and out onto the main artery. It is very close. He basically doesn't have anyplace to put dirt at this point. Most of his stuff is parked in current access problems. An ADD will contribute to problems of parking and access. A developer of a 1 million dollar spec house should not be able to enhance his sale price by being able to advertise "with and attached caretaker unit" which I believe is one of the things that may happen. From past actions it is clear Mr. Allen will only be a resident until this house sells. Also there is no reason for a tenant to provide "offsetting" revenue while the house is on the market for him. In prior situations he developed the duplex on Cemetery Lane. Before that he developed houses on Silver King Drive. Each of those houses has radically changed the neighborhood look - -the look that is in it. Our subdivision covenants prohibit duplexes. If more ADUs are granted it may lead to more duplexes in the future. We are currnetly fighting a battle on that. Higher density and more traffic. ADU approval could lead to destruction to one of the few family neighborhoods left in this part of Aspen. We are concerned the ordinance will create a "caretaker community" rather than actual employee housing. I would like to question as to the statement that 2 ADDS are officially approved. Name me who those are. I know Ernie has 9 asked to do one. PZM11.22.94 Leslie: It was approved as conditional use review. Laura Blocker also. Both of those properties are within this subdivision. Elva Fitzpatrick: I have lived in this community for 32 years. We know when the property that we had covenants and that ADUs were not allowed. We have an architectural control group and every time plans are submitted they are submitted to this group. Doug's plans are not approved with an ADU. And I wonder too sitting here listening do our covenants - -how much bearing do they have? Do you go over our heads on that? We always thought that this is our neighborhood. We have our covenants. And that each person must abide by these covenants. So Mr. Allen knew that when he bought. And at our last meeting - -I have the minutes - -I took the minutes and I have all the proxies. The minutes are not approved. But I would ask that you put off making your decision. Roy Vroom: I just wanted to put on record I originally subdivided that property back in 1958. The covenants except for one corner definitely prohibited more than a one - family dwelling of any kind. As far as I am concerned those covenants still stand. Anything that exists now I would look upon as bandit units because I never approved them. I never heard of even asked to vote on it - -any of the current so called ADUs. I don't even know where they are. I still own a lot right next door to Mr. Allen so I am obviously concerned. In fact so concerned as much as I was back in 1958. I had to sue Pitkin County to remove a gravel crusher and an asphalt batch plant right across Cemetery Lane. And I won! They did remove it. I am vehemently against this. Mike Lux: I live at 1325 Mountain View for 7 years. I also have the privilege of being the president of the homeowner's association during the term where Laura Blocker and Ernie Fairwall got their ADUs approved. The covenants as I read them does restrict duplexes. At the meeting that Elva mentioned we had a vote and I don't know if you got the score there but I would say that the ADU unit in question was approved by the jury of the voters of our subdivision. And I think it should be approved. It is already been established that the units have been built. I am sure Mr. Allen wouldn't apply for an ADU unit if Ord #1 wasn't in place nor would Laura Blocker. This is something that is brought on by the Ord #1 being in place. Mrs. Stapleton: The minutes in question that Mike is talking about and Elva brought up - -they have not been approved. There isn't a 2 /3rds majority to pass the ADU. The proxies that were for the 10 C PZM11.22.94 ADUs were all copies so I question their being legitimate. So we cannot use those minutes. They are not valid. We have been there for 27 years in our house and raised 5 children there. There is a whole new influx of young people raising their children now. There are 18 houses on that street and there are 21 children and it is just a great little family neighborhood. And we just do not want, even if you have a 300sf ADU that comes in, that is still an extra car. I don't care - -it might be 2 cars. And we just do not want the added traffic or congestion on our nice little family oriented street. Dan I don't think since we have covenants that specifically state that duplexes are not allowed - -that is it! And David had filed that nothing can be done for a year. Bruce: Our decision tonight will not decide anything about your homeowner's association - -the validity of your minutes - -even the validity of your restrictive covenants. That is not our purview that we are not a court of law. We are not going to decide the validity of those covenants. If you as a homeowner's association at some future time choose to pursue enjoining Mr. Allen or enjoining Mr. Fairwall or anybody else from using the ADUs that have apparently already been approved and built, that is between your homeowners association and those individual property owners. It is not our position to decide on the legality or not of ADUs and whether that becomes a duplex defacto. So don't misunderstand the process tonight. We are not going to be making that decision. Our decision will merely be whether this ADU as proposed fits within the City of Aspen code guidelines for approval of an ADU. Dan our finding will be based on whether this ADU as proposed meets those criteria. Stan Clauson: Staff has taken this question up with the City Attorney. And has very clearly gotten instruction that it is not appropriate for the City staff to attempt to enforce covenants that exist in the various neighborhoods. In general current zoning theory and int he Ordinance specifically an accessory dwelling unit is really considered to be consistent with single family homes and not the creation of a duplex unit. The accessory apartment concept emerged some 10 or 12 years ago really in response to changing patterns of living, smaller family size and the need to alter the single family home concept to meet those needs. Amery: I know that is a legal opinion. I read the ordinance quite carefully and unless I miss the intent of the ordinance, the ordinance was developed at a time when ADUs were being destroyed and knocked down so that people could build huge houses on a lot and actually get rid of the accessory dwelling unit and that was 11 PZM11.22.94 the idea and the intent of that was to make sure that none of these were lost in the process of a developer coming along and building a large house on a lot and saying during that process that employee housing disappeared. So it was to keep the employee housing in those areas where it already existed. Whether it is to create more I think this board has to really sit down and consider - -if you are going to start a policy - -an ordinance and keep enforcing it, you want t also look at what is the impact of my decision. If I take and make this decision does it open the door for a possible proliferation and a whole change of a neighborhood character. Bruce: Leslie, you mention the 3 options. Whose option is it? Is it the applicant's or the city's option? Leslie: To comply with as Doug Allen for a single family duplex home which he is proposing - -a single family home, it is the applicant's option to pursue one of the options. But I would like to remind the P &Z the reason why we keep the accessory dwelling unit in review for public hearing which is in the Cemetery Lane area was one of those neighborhoods that was heavily discussed during the adoption of Ord 1 and it was to let the neighborhood know what was happening to them. That is why the accessory dwelling unit is a conditional use. It is not a permitted use. It must go through a review. But to answer your question it is up to the applicant to choose what they would like to do but if you choose an accessory dwelling unit you have to through a review process. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Marta: There are a few distinctions that I see in this that this gentleman pointed out. An ADU is not a duplex. And Mr. Allen has said that the would restrict it I think this person who has the ADU may not have a car. This house is on the corner of Cemetery Lane and Mountain View Drive. Cemetery Lane is a busy street no matter what. If a car was being used by your ADU it would certainly not go down with I would consider a rather quiet street. There are people who want ADUs who have nannies, caretakers, household help. This is a changing lifestyle type of an arrangement that people have wanted. And they will want more and more in the future. We are addressing whether this ADU really is compatible with the neighborhood and given that there are duplexes around I don't see that it would be incompatible. Although I sympathize with the homeowners I don't see that there is an overwhelming circumstance here that would say that it would impact on the neighborhood. Sara: I would like to recommend to the homeowner's association 12 PZM11.22.94 which happened before. We suggested that they look hard at their covenants and there are things that you may feel you need to add to those covenants. You may feel those covenants are strong enough now but as Stan pointed out that isn't our purview or jurisdiction. Jasmine: My problem with ADUs is that most of the time they tend not to be occupied by anybody at all which I am sure the residents would really prefer. They tend to be used as guest bedrooms. I think that the applicants willingness to put a restriction on there that there will be only one person occupying it will have the effect of being basically a guest bedroom. So I think that because the unit is so small and because the applicant's willingness to limit the occupancy to I resident I think you are not going to have much more of a serious situation than you would have if it was just another family member living there. You already have 2 approved ADUs in your subdivision which makes me wonder why this particular one seems to be so upsetting. I think it is just because of the trend but I think your concern about the ADUs and the proliferation doesn't make any sense at this point because they already exist. I think this particular one is going to have a minimum impact with the additional restrictions on it. Vroom: Regarding approval of the other so called ADUs when and how was that done? I never knew they existed. Bruce: You would not have been notified if you were far enough away. Vroom: I don't recall ever having received any such notice on either one of those so- called ADUs. This is the first one. Leslie: I know that Ernest Behrwall and Laura Blocker went through the public notice process. Stapleton: What is happening here is our neighbor that to our east is also planning an ADU. He is going to live in there, rent out his house and he also lives down in his house, rents it out. And you are saying about proliferation. If Mr. Allen is approved it is just going to be a chain reaction down the whole block. So right, he is just applying for a corner of our street and those people aren't going to be driving through the street but then what is going to happen to the rest of the neighborhood? Why would we have covenants? Bruce: Under the City of Aspen code ADUs are a conditional use in all single family areas. As I understand your covenants your covenants prohibit duplexes. So there may be a problem with your 13 PZM11.22.94 covenants. But what we have to do is determine whether this use is consistent with these criteria. Allen: What you are hearing here tonight is NIMBYsm at it's worst. Almost half of the letters in opposition to this tonight - -one comes from the guy that created a duplex - -Roy Vroom who hasn't lived in the neighborhood in years. That is why he doesn't know what is going on. The other 2 letters come from the only people in the neighborhood that live in a duplex. My lot is close to half an acre in size. It is not a tiny lot. It is 15,000sf. This house covers less than 200 of the lot. There is SO% open space on this lot and contrary to what has been said, I haven't pushed any dirt off my lot or close to the edge of my lot. It is all entirely on my lot. And that dirt is going away as soon as the backfill of the foundation is done. This is still a single family residence. An ADU is not a unit of density. It doesn't create a second unit. I didn't ask to max the FAR. I didn't ask for an ADU bonus. Bruce then closed the public hearing. Bruce: I am going to abstain from voting. The reason for this is that nearly all of these folks are my neighbors. I live across the street from this lot. Bob: I an,going to start with the recommended motion that staff has made. I move to deny the conditional use for 1357 Mountain View Drive finding that the application does not comply with review standardsa Roger seconded the motion. Tim: I really don't think that I am happy with the presentation o t5ie information here. I don't think that the intentions of the applicant are to really use it as the intended use and so I think therefore it doesn't comply with letter e. And the amount of information that we really have I would like to see personally enough - -I am no architect and I am not a draftsman. It is very difficult for me to know whether or not this is a quality living unit. The spaces that are here are really being provided with the intention of giving a quality home to someone living in an ADU. I would like to see elevations. I would like to see plans that I can understand. I would like the applicant to provide us with the amount of information that shows that not only is there an ADU going to be provided here but it is a quality ADU and his intentions are not to use it as an office, not to use it as a guest unit but to have someone who is qualified to live in this and provide quality life in this unit. I am going to vote against it because I don't think it qualifies for e either. And I am hoping 14 C 7) PZM11.22.94 that it does come back to us. And I hope that we basically do have the intention of having a quality life for someone who needs an affordable dwelling unit in this community. Allen: I don't have any problem with that and I will comply with what the Housing Authority wants to be done. ROLL CALL VOTE Steven, yes, Marta, no, Robert, yes, Tim, yes, Sara, yes, Roger, yes, Jasmine, no. Motion carried which was a recommendation for denial of the ADD. LANGLEY SUBDIVISION REZONING SPECIAL REVIEW GMOS EXEMPTION AND LANDMARK DESIGNATION Leslie made presentation as attached in record and presented affidavit of public notice also attached in record. Langley: What we are trying to do is give you an idea of what the project will have. This process has been the most confusing convoluted thing I have ever seen in my life. We are trying to adhere to the Aspen Area Community Plan, The Neighborhood Guidelines, Historic Preservation Committee, Planning & Zoning, the State Highway Department. We have jumped through as many hoops as can be put in the way. on the one hand we are hearing "Listen, we want the private sector to get involved in affordable housing ". We want this to happen. We don't want our families to have to move down valley. That is exactly what we are doing. And at every turn it is "Well, gee This is encroaching here. This competes with the historic house there ". Medical school seems to be a breeze if we can get through this! What we have endeavored to do is create a neighborhood within the community. We had to send out 139 notices to people who live within the 300 foot area. of those less than 231 of them had local addresses. We are not dealing with locals here. Right now our vision and what we are working towards is these will all be local families. We would occupy the back center house here. It will be free market. Can I afford a free market house - -no. Can I afford a category 4 house - -maybe if I am lucky. The only way I am going to get an affordable house is to do something like this. We have responded to staff comments. We wanted to get rid of the barn initially. We didn't get rid of the barn. Now that is being preserved. We have taken the historic house, moved it over. This is probably going to strengthen it from what it is now. is DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO Case No. 94CV_4!�!L FILE() MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF RECORD AND ORDER ------------------------------ -------------- ------- - - - - -- 1w, -------------------- DOUGLAS P. ALLEN, °Gh1, CGt Gtif gjG Plaintiff, v CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, Defendant. COMES NOW the Plaintiff herein, through counsel, and respectfully respects an Order of this Court ordering Defendant to certify to this Court and file the transcript of the record of the November 22, 1994, public hearing, or portion thereof, concerning the Application of Plaintiff herein for a Conditional Use Permit for an accessory dwelling unit, together with a Certificate of Authenticity therefor and as grounds therefor states as follows: 1. Plaintiff filed his Complaint pursuant to C.R.C.P. Rule 106(a)(4) on December 22, 1994. 2. C.R.C.P. Rule 106(a)(4)(III) provides that if the Complaint is "accompanied by a motion and proposed order requiring certification of a record" the Court must order a transcript of the record, or portion thereof, together with a certificate of authenticity, to be filed in the Court by a specified date. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for an Order of this Court to certify that portion of the record of the November 22, 1994, public hearing before it which pertains to the Application of Plaintiff herein for a Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit and file a transcript of the same, together with a Certificate of Authenticity, with this Court on or before .1995. Dated: December 22, 1994. LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS P. ALLEN By P UAL Douglas P. Allen, #8864 Patricia K. Massender, #21961 225 North Mill, Suite 210 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925 -8800 This Court, having reviewed Plaintiff's Motion, hereby orders Defendant, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, to certify that portion of the record of the November 22, 1994, public hearing before it which pertains to the Application of Plaintiff herein for a Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit and file a transcript of the same, together with a Certificate of Authenticity, with this Court on or before -f 0-2 1995. Dated:_ -^-� �� g / i$Y-THE COURT: PLNW9.12M Court Judge ll!�-iS` ?ti t "itir+ttlliftFjX4tf Allen v. City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission District Court Case No. 94CV.23 Page 2 of 2 i A9-..�, - Dl,rlu�� J >>/zz /9¢ f s 0 efw� _ _ 6u'. .-,lew a� ''- z ; , a,Aa AV--WJB63r.jlrp A-- - ■ , "'Awl Al" l a n � y.� I • p