Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.1395 Snowbunny Ln.0059.2007.ASLU ,. THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0059.2007.ASLU PARCEL ID NUMBER 2735.0131.2.003 PROJECTS ADDRESS 1395 SNOWBUNNY LANE PLANNER JESSICA GARROW CASE DESCRIPTION RES. DESIGN STANDARDS. REPRESENTATIVE AV 10 PROPERTIES, LLC DATE OF FINAL ACTION 06.10.08 CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON: 12.09.10 ps _„ a , DEVELOPMENT ORDER of the City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order, hereinafter "Order ", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, "Development Orders ", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights ", of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order allows development of a site specific development plan pursuant to the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein. The effective date of this Order shall also be the initiation date of a three -year vested property right. The vested property right shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless a building permit is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption, extension, reinstatement, or a revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. After Expiration of vested property rights, this Order shall remain in full force and effect, excluding any growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject to any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date of this Order. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site specific development plan as described below. AV 10 Properties, LLC, 1395 Snowbunny Lane Aspen, CO 81611 Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number Block 1, Lot 1 of the Snowbunny Subdivision, City of Aspen, CO, parcel ID 2735 - 013 - 12 - 003 Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property The applicant has received a Residential Design Standard Variance from the fence standard (Land Use Code Section 26.410.040.A.3). The approved fence location is outlined in the Attached Resolution and Plans. Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and /or Attachment Describing Plan City of Aspen, Planning and Zoning Commission, Resolution 33, Series 2007 (attached), Residential Design Standard Variance. Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions) December 16, 2007 Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) December 17, 2010 Expiration Date of Development Order (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.) Issue t s 16th s ay of December, 2007, by the City of Aspen Community Development Director. (, / Chris Bendon, Community Development Director Section 18: Vested Property Rights The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site - specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 1395 Snowbunny Lane, City of Aspen, by Residential Design Standard Variances approval by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING ONE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE FOR 1395 SNOWBUNNY LANE, LOT 1, BLOCK 1 OF THE SNOWBUNNY SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, CO, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL NO. 2735- 013 -12 -003 Resolution #33, Series 2007 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from AV 10 Properties, LLC, represented by Michael Hoffman and Dan Furth, requesting approval of one (1) Residential Design Standards Variance to construct a new fence at 1395 Snowbunny Lane; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned R -15 (Moderate Density Residential); and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended denial, of the proposed land use request; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on December 4, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 33, Series of 2007, by a six to zero (6 — 0) vote, approving one Residential Design Standards Variances for the development of a new fence on the property located at 1395 Snowbunny Lane, Lot 1, Block 1 of the Snowbunny Subdivision, City of Aspen, CO; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission fords that the development proposal meets the applicable development standards and that approval of the development proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves one (1) Variance from the Residential Design Standards from Fence Standard (Land Use Code Section 26.410.040.A.3), for the development of a new fence on the property located at 1395 Snowbunny Lane, Lot 1, Block 1 of the Snowbunny Subdivision, City of Aspen, CO. The Planning and Zoning Commission approves a fence along Cemetery Lane from Snowbunny Lane to the southern boundary of the property. From Snowbunny Lane to a point designated as point "A" on the attached plat, neither the fence nor any shrubbery and landscaping, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.050, shall be more than forty-two (42) inches in height. From point "A" to the southern boundary of the property, the fence may not be greater than six feet in height. Point "A" shall be deemed that point on the fence line that is closest to the house, as designated on the attached plat. Pursuant to the Land Use Code, the applicant shall not be allowed to construct or plant anything that shall obstruct the view of traffic from Snowbunny Lane. The plat attached hereto is Exhibit A. The variance is from the following language, as stated in Land Use Code Section 26.410.040.A.3 in effect on December 4, 2007: "Fences. Fences, hedgerows and planter boxes shall not be more than forty-two (42) inches high, measured from natural grade, in all areas forward of the front facade of the house. Man-made berms are prohibited in the front yard setback." Section 2: Vested Rights The development approvals granted pursuant to this Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution shall be vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of the development order. Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 4 day of December, 2007. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Dylan Johns, Chair c ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Attached Exhibit A: Site Plan showing approved fence location, Point "A ". G: \cityUessica \Cases \1395 Snowbunny Lane \P &Z \1395SnowbunnyPZ Reso_12 4 07FINAL.doc SFF Ie599Z60[B+W'90999Z60161 ZL9L800 u.dw B /C6 MI Y 000C00OOO 0 otn s isenbea e]UBIJen euer AuungmouS L6E l• '8 96C 6 einpeugand edeospues %UmJ i N en 6 xadn ,(uun mou 6 Ulllue , M5 1 y 1 §§ hi ueld bulpeio 10 q S Id 1 9 uopea ►_I a . �s � �.`3a 3N1d1V Or — a N le b ,. N - — — *s.., W a W — ------- - - - --- O o �U _ , U � he� tt- 0 . Q1 3l A M 6 - - - - - _ 3..6C,00.90N ��� -IL IIIIN I ( -- ;i:,' ----\ \ ...,„, a _ tPo t \ -m■sIi - - \ \ N w 4 L.., ,, , , ,g, , _s_.....,. \ e 1- iit, I ith: i o � ��� I I �I r J 7 t' \ v si \ s° z. \ o. a i C ' f111/ I IIIi ' 4 \ \ \ \ a C N. ° " 111-1111 i , \ \\ C rink 1 , I A - 1 LL! \ \ \ \ � � a I L v v -\ ' M. Il . ¶4e _ : n 11 t , ...,_<, 4 Ni r �° 9 W. i1 J ( Tl Pie , a i' i C 3 l I '�i, / I \ /' 56° e ire, 6 Ic p r 0- -a C e 1 '� C G �� m o , P o C ` et 0° L €3E E' •a. 6 e ! 14 5 :fi 3 ? ;IS it `^ 8 L a € o S3 ° s � a a sk e� i i x' _ ° + ,y 2-, e i a9 k 33 E ' F it_: ° y ;e i - i i a v s. e S I o aft OW 9 9 P. a in ° • 8 - - : - C _ I C= 1£ .3 s e --- - 5 2 g ;g% 58 i =6 I.4 L i a 6 e e c 5 e 8 2 - a.S i e : y i 3 8 51 0 52 e% i; i a ff i s ' P .: ;`.i a k �vd zis° e , 2:5,7; l £ ° fill a i_ '.3 n 9 e :2° @ S 4E :'=v Il l .a8 � i e9 o bi ! : S i ° : °t •e i v• i1£ :tC ii G°a : ti: 0121:221 v : a ° [• 0 8 aa } ie i l'°S '!•Y u : i i eE.3 a s il set- YnY °� Ses`•_a i' ,ee _ (// < ,11- E.: •= : - 1 °lEk •.Y iea ; a s \h.ri✓w" W Fu 1 £ ".8a§ i e ea Ce °z 13 8 • 'doss 5rES 2 = • : ¥_p1. 6 297:24:217:':: :• - a ° - E ei9g' ns a at ' Dy.°S 3y =_g_ - 38 it ainie 336' r. 9a;<5H2!2 e:' :E3 i£`° 2 15 U' - n n . » v . . _ _ _ _ _ _ -x. • ,s F1 9 y 4 e a 3 i wr.-' a ( ° 3 a :Ts; s 9 '� • z ° g s =' o83 4 ..4 ! 4 . G Tk 4 W e 9 5 9 i �" W 9 F 7 n � 5e g1 s ? e e r > 3 ` l e e P it go 4 x 1 I: 4 !� °Y. 11 g x Se. "S_ Y x _ _ . g g J .' a i i Z s x; ' 4 F eg 4. s w £ <h cdh) b ri! 'sa'e 'a - w Y. ?a Writ,. - s I "'; . ;§ . H F. , 3. u ig iz E ?$ 5es.0, gErI S sa wl :ks .. LL I�, ;.- 3x, r._ sx�a ., ii . __ 1 i o.' If • 8 F "8i' ® w. n 1Casea 8[ " 1 � tlaM S:i r nI a 3 a > 3 a ¢3g o .i " ;I a EIE I; • n e e a . o ae°Se e , ia . : a a g " .. ? " w 3 - 4 g Z o i 45 i aiaa : :. s .1 Val �F : =lil :! °. !: € i . _k : a 6 � : i 0 vi Li a3 It w f a a a dal 3 // °g e. s a - - / , ' / / 1 � 71 ��\ 1 —._. 11-4 e L1_ H .I 1 e.. HY p. e .r a ., Z ® i 0 Z !� � ° - o � ea,- tl s I �P 66G 9 u E I. < 7 E9 P b U = ' 0 a s mo e e , 6 O 1 _ a 3 : � Q ° ear -6 ' ° p < F 3 € ' ii x a c g 41 - n r. p� � o r 9 a Id-PEE ...e 3 3 ae: ,. E" O !!P Q4ra • g� q �{ F[i]ip 0 THE CITY OF ASPEN January 14, 2008 Dear Neighbor: On December 4 2007 the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution 33, Series 2007 approving a Residential Design Standard Variance for 1395 Snowbunny Lane. The granted variance allows a fence of six (6) feet in height to be built on a portion of the yard along Cemetery Lane and a fence forty -two (42) inches in height on the remaining yard along Cemetery Lane. A "Point A" was designated at the hearing, and is illustrated in the attached plans, as the point where tie fence may transition from forty -two (42) inches in height to six (6) feet in height. The fehce may be no higher than forty -two (42) inches from the corner of Snowbunny Lane and Cemetery Lane to "Point A" and from "Point A" to the end of the property line the fence may be six (6) feet in height. The resolution also requires that all landscaping from the corner of Snowbunny Lane and Cemetery Lane to "Point A" be limited to forty -two (42) inches in height. The landscaping was planted prior to this Planning and Zoning Commission action, and some trees were planted that exceed the forty -two (42) inch height restriction. Due to the snow and frozen ground, it is difficult to remove these trees at this time without risk of them dying. After consultation with the Applicant, the City Attorney's Office, and the Parks Department, the Community Development Department has determined that these trees may remain in their current location until the spring and the ground has had an opportunity to thaw. Once the snow has melted and the ground has thawed, the Community Development Department and the Parks Department will work with the Applicant to remove these trees and ensure that all landscaping complies with the Planning and Zoning Commission's Resolution. Depending on the weather, we anticipate that this will occur by May 2008. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at jessicaggci.aspen.co.us or 970.429.2780. Cheers, Jessica Garrow City of Aspen Long Range Planner 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 -1975 , PHONE 970 920 5000 • FAX 970.920.5197 www. aspengov.com Printed on Recycled Paper - 9959 9Z8'OLB Wi' %NW 9Z8'OL61el • ZL914 00 uedFV' 66E6 408'O'd 9 'm �c 0 0000 0 c 0 000 .1 I asenbaa aouepeq auei AuungMOUS L6£!, '8 56£ L 8 11 N amioa�iya�y adeospuei M . 1 1 M 2'88$ _ .g - � ueld 5 ulpeag xaldnQ �(uungmoug 6U!UUe�d 'g U�ISO I '6 J Oc^ N VR, t7 O Jcp ,��� ��� � � 3NId1V OD V1U u \ 0 i c 0 • W " 1 1: $ 'n 14 ?I. \ - -- , _ _ _ _ — 3 . 6 £�00.90N �� c .1‘x '<:i `' .` f _ `" \ O -- ( - II laffi 1.--C•JN %.--,., Cn N- AI ! &.- \ \ \ -;,.„--% \ 0 s \ ,,,, e , \ \ tit , I \ o\ \ , ,. f,...,,,.. ‘\ 1; ? fr . l / \ \ ,� 's O,, \ w a 2 / o .. \ \\ s \ 3 � ss \ \ 1 11 r � v \ p ,b try �II € * i I II ' . \ \ C 1+t �i� III I r_r rr I r \\ \ \\ off$ ' I r Rmr la \ \ n 11"" 0 u . �rrr arOrJ r ` 11 \ \\ 1 N \ \ \ I 111 ( �� /jjr \ \\ \ a ( ( 1 • 1 \ 1 i t 4". A I _ � _\ \ \ \ ( = ° °= f` — --`- -4 arm + / ^a �j/ j \ \ I �. r ■ / � � Aroma li .t a il ^ � � /� � , ! � rr a i / S., le. E'L'9A�%s -:.7 1 . RIR) / .. ti / o • _ of o � 1,v, r 44� IC! / n' q / y b3�! I / �v 91I a ' e :cep, 00: II / t. i s� fr-' a N\11'1141111111 \ /' a Ok Poi L ° $rv E•5 �€ a s s E gga s 8 ^fie' .$ PI °4 9 q €<. € k . u E w . E ^ ! • a 3 ` , 3 , O 4. 2 ,r. �i ., Fyn 4 5� 4 � So E s a ;a °$ ° •:S + sc Y ; e g o • ♦ _ C 8'1 ' "•082 @ 0 L $ 8 148 E + V 3.1 i:S i .9 3'.o g g - " S - I yy cl. 74 9 :R 2 ug a $ Y w ➢e . 1 : E c •5 2 E E o � 3 •a 4 °' No `E . o ° ° a° .o! a ea` .as ` ' -E Oi €. ,11 -- c " , : ° ° 'e' t E' - "o "':8 9°�Y 5'1 .g •s.� - e a ° S 9 . L° sa' m�a S ':em +YmDs 8 : E ,J _ U° t ° e E � . E e -v. - f i 9 E E :i : X 8 . s _ , E a N ° p0: Y i Ts;a 2 :1 4z E:a4 i ° °ice y '.° i 0 o9 e 2 i °c� € sN ° ��.� E $ °` .c ° Vii 11 °; 1 1=0:1 a 8 o u ill 2 ,°E i� a• � E°C.!!if_'!`ili ei<<oe: t; Pa • + 2ao9S!o'•- o:i 6c 421 Fl ! er•2$- ovF E ; ES34i ct c ai EcEc9$ gii: i Se i ° 8 ec'ge sa28 : _..22- e E EEaiS .. ,....s.., E;,, , ...". . `2• v . 2ii . l wE E 2t.7222 /y ':1.8°. _4 ° E9 ° ▪ ";IVE28. $ 2 .F! li p2; Y = Eh2 ;10 . '8_s=2 °° '$�g8:9SS " " =� 2` g5°yY 58 � s�aa S�'9cm:oa •sio= - FEpngii8s� 'v[';E°�:g_°g t : =`-ia ii:in8c` Eas66e Cmna°AWI es°UUiv6cf.=8<2<°iffil OthiUw63.° ig Eio _... RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING ONE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE FOR 1395 SNOWBUNNY LANE, LOT 1, BLOCK 1 OF THE SNOWBUNNY SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, CO, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL NO. 2735- 013 -12 -003 Resolution #33, Series 2007 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from AV 10 Properties, LLC, represented by Michael Hoffman and Dan Furth, requesting approval of one (1) Residential Design Standards Variance to construct a new fence at 1395 Snowbunny Lane; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned R -15 (Moderate Density Residential); and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended denial, of the proposed land use O 0 request; and, ~ WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on December 4, 2007, the c N g Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 33, Series of 2007, by a six to N l zero (6 — 0) vote, approving one Residential Design Standards Variances for the r 4 development of a new fence on the property located at 1395 Snowbunny Lane, Lot 1, 8 if Block 1 of the Snowbunny Subdivision, City of Aspen, CO; and, v c WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and o 8 considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code 4i N o as identified herein; and, o �a' WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission fmds that the development n~ a proposal meets the applicable development standards and that approval of the development w ,E;)! @ proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, a o WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves one (1) Variance from the Residential Design Standards from Fence Standard (Land Use Code Section 26.410.040.A.3), for the development of a new fence on the property located at 1395 Snowbunny Lane, Lot 1, Block 1 of the Snowbunny Subdivision, City of Aspen, CO. The Planning and Zoning Commission approves a fence along Cemetery Lane from Snowbunny Lane to the southern boundary of the property. From Snowbunny Lane to a point designated as point "A" on the attached plat, neither the fence nor any shrubbery and landscaping, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.050, shall be more than forty-two (42) inches in height. From point "A" to the southern boundary of the 1._, property, the fence may not be greater than six feet in height. Point "A" shall be deemed that point on the fence line that is closest to the house, as designated on the attached plat. Pursuant to the Land Use Code, the applicant shall not be allowed to construct or plant anything that shall obstruct the view of traffic from Snowbunny Lane. The plat attached hereto is Exhibit A. The variance is from the following language, as stated in Land Use Code Section 26.410.040.A.3 in effect on December 4, 2007: "Fences. Fences, hedgerows and planter boxes shall not be more than forty -two (42) inches high, measured from natural grade, in all areas forward of the front facade of the house. Man-made berms are prohibited in the front yard setback." Section 2: Vested Rights The development approvals granted pursuant to this Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution shall be vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of the development order. Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 4 day of December, 2007. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AN I ZO NG COM1V j G- ��� City Attorney Dyla s s, r ATTEST: < G dp ckie Lothi n, Deputy City Clerk Attached Exhibit A: Site Plan showing approved fence location, Point "A ". G: \city \Jessica \Cases \1395 Snowbunny Lane\P &Z \1395SnowbunnyPZ Reso_12 4 07FINAL.doc 1liiii 11111;:1 11 {"{111(f 4 1 1 P 1 1 ; ' i 111111.11 C 11 l 11 : ; 11.14 1 r l r 11 r ` rF 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 r•- 1 1 eF 1 : 1111 i f3. 1 f 11101.11f 1}112:{: ;,111jsreq.0 y 1F=i1. 1 1 1F 1, !11 1 4111{ 1.i1C -t 91 I liieF:i 111 1 .'ils i ;f` 1 11;11l i11; 1;11 311 Fid ii+ ` i!3 d1 1 I 141111 fit 1r 1- 1f.. 1 1pe li M1111 (1 1I E, i 1 rs 1#111 `� 1 i ii: : ;I ui '-11 1 111 �1r111g r. :1i C 1 p111 1'i1F 1 ') ^ 1 1` 4111 1 @ i1piC r ; 1 I 1 1 1 1. * I I1F 1 $' X1:1 ;1 111 i i 111 1i1 1C 1 i it 1 1 I Fiiiii i i I ill 1 11 1 1 :eg`gt 111 '1 F ill 1 1 1 ar ia . il f I I Ig 1 NI i e! 1 1 f1` 1 f 1`.1111 iii A i 111 - 11 ' Ili 1 ; li 1 ; 1' "1 ;1 9 i `i e 1> 1- k ,it f 1; 1 1 x 11 l s -_ 4. ,7„ lt1 ; 1 1 1 1 i : 1:11 � 11 r f ' C 111.1:11 Ili 1 mid $3 s 9 F s � 4 __ � r d./z it / aa ,i,91 / Ili , , I ii ) I'1J !J / z 4 li ,e' r 3 t e / , 7 A l s \, A r , ___, db , , - - Sitv n4 I 11 11C I a . i ' 1 \ fl d 9 n S S ` H r "t Il� 4 1 , I � � � 1 $ a 11 11_1 ai L ii it � \"1 - 1 1 4 'O / _ LA a II CI I � IA.,1' I tee, \ /v 111. ° __ \ \`I 1�� -r 191 1 r 1 1 -� = I \\ I° I � �Tani R \ 1 lit \ rill 0-114- 111 iO� � \ \ \ .. = '_" ii R> AV 9 A A <� ;1 .; I II {n a/ le i 4, g jai , \ (_ T, g I i . J ; . i ,i,c- Rit. V O \ \ e°y'i\ \ \\ \ 4 I =I � � I Y .' c. ii Y \ X 6 \ l: 1�1yr i ' § ; , ,. c., l"o \ _ _ _ 6""/11 'F� % d. .---- Nac'cb'JS'[ _ CO op N s o im ALPINE Design & Planning Snowbunny Duplex Grading Plan F' `�? 2 w r g , Landscape Architecture Ls.) ;a 1395 & 1397 Snowbunny Lane Variance Request 6' Fence an Cemetery Lr22; 222v2Eis' vo. a nn. r.cOMIZ m PO928 m.mmuu a s r., ... ,....., e .....; , , , . ...gyp, \_,, •... e : ' ; , „- ' .. `' v k R` 406 j "M r . +l. �* '‘" Atili / 141 . ..s d Ati ..: . . -: ' ' , ' ... 4.. ,''' lk:.:1,' *' . i �: c i '"� FPM , i " .t �1, : . • Li, , i. f it R'- fib W b ' i ii la ;al i ..r S' r I TS -- r . ., 4 I //( 4 /` , E'E./vc 7)7E', A- - - ... ,i / ( - - 77 - it / , 4 7 Z:/1172.//' \ �/,�Q j✓jf -.. 4..S r 6E $ ' /4'5 II (//jf 7 / ,,!. . 0/P, i c ., /) / 71 ..„... . , . ',1 ' , ..., . . . . . iY _ a � '.� - : . .' ' . ' ' - ''••• • .... • -_-, y te s _ �. y y � • -._ /,‘ i 4 • c L I . dirc-' , fre/P4‘t//45' )// e ,z (5/EWA is - c-A 7 --,4 ' " 67 ' 4/ _____ ) / ter / ? CF ,'0 c''' � �P s ^''`jt . ,, ,% _ �` ] r t e f 4 ., -, y . „ � � , , d. .a R ° ` it is . S i ^. ri ' 1.'''' , a if L . '7" ! .. } Y � 'tip t -.4 `+� r }� e i : � i �" -'!'a4 ti Y r " _ 3 * i.. .._ - #'— '::e t # L 114 .,, ' , - ■‘ • 1 ''' ' 4 " ' ' 4 - ItA:z.:..' ' ;,. :. ''': 4,,,W744, r.. .-- I": 1 ' ':. .. ''' ' " II .' ' `,_ .1., : ::‘,. ' 4 : .' - 1 ... I .,... . l _ ,r E. OF i f - _ , , - _ 1F L :. , h - ' y : . 1 • It _ ■ 1 i , ' ��i • y fi �7 3 ff -''r ,� d ' ;� a a s 5 � die ti l' c (........5-167e/ify A----- ( j - -/4.74 e / ' l'' . 0 ... 4 . ,(14 / / / 77 — , ?", //V-e--"Vr>" 7--", . J islt,/,',7 Ors/ �� 57(tiE • 7 ' R 1 Y ( f,.f • i • � 1 t �\ 6a s es \ ' ' Y - • E • ,.. .: • k tl u , d y,:. ,41s t #p,,, . - Sr, } ti ` s Y u ,t om _. � { , d !` itifW ....- 1' .ia 3 i 4' fib' : Y 0 7 c --j c) .. ../ 4 7 ../. . 1, . i , , . / '''' " - a' + • �, . _ ' .�- ... t iii U,' , gig a + t _ ; 4r3 , rr�r /yrr .} z. T . . ' , y t ' , ' a 4 , a .. . , s r r 1 . ,714.^ * �e _ 1 :S i i/ 1 r 0 . � y ' IJ a w. . -.. M.t r 1 ......'...r./...5:71/fiti/76()//1/ 4/ o. pz-L5--#0,0,ve0Al2)/IrcZcs car/vii? ;T1 47W/ o �yo� /((s �-e1 / ______ 7 ,e o 6 ,7J' ,__5 ,Aq1:::',4/ ,, , . „ .,., „. !. U _,. Y .., ... .,.. ,.. . ..„. ....,....... ••. R a. . .. - . r.„. , ,„.., • ......„....- :,. • - ... -_---..„-•• ,.......,,:- -y.,..,tr.,,,,,••...„. _• - -- . -I ' .'. • 4 S . '•°., • r _ 4 • �i: , o• J 1 ' _ - kg ",i 4 7 - -.-- - I 1 / I / /1 /1/ . c , , 0 I /// i, z 'pe 0 i - A - A _______________ ( 05;:7 -- e 9 . y ',/v, 4 ‘ ,5-- /r/ii / g/ v i v ... _ , .,... ,,, . ,..., ,_ 4 . , . s ' * r - e aL r gl t . ,;X: . - +. ••-"� ,� ,4t,''''''' .. -' > .-..."44,'''''' g y C Y'i r a r • //69AT-7/t7//'-C-- • al i ///t */ r e v / z -- c - 7 - --. fk) / f. f /7/ �� . . v S 4 ' IF • r ' I ; • Icy �• c j; ,- S'. ` *. ` . . _ A.. • •' r . �, a V � - OW n + - a. S , 4 _ , i. . 1 1/ . - # 04 7ii e7 c y dy 4 /5 "- / 1:5 - ) 1° _c - , / 4 7, 44,0 - ' s _. -- _dif 7 - -, 'Af / .(0//7 r .. . i 11' 1) # • ' -- j 4 ,# r„ . , . i� , vl r . 16 :: A. 7 -t4.t.. t �t.'. - :`fir' _ s • z.� ° ;0, -M L _. • c WIN N ...... b xx.ff a..... 0 . ii.,i,:,-_ ii., . ' . r ..y • 1 5 ■ �4s T 9 ,VL �� 11 1,24s C ,E i C---7e/Wier/ <4 , o ) 4 MMMSSS �.� Vii ti 4•'• - , - f.1 a - -14" -w ` Y :_ .. f - ` • PI: y t w f i' �- • ,gyp. , ,y.� • m , . F f a � • Y " 1 T 1 _ .. .. q ,+,F..* .„.� # ` 9 f ilki • i ',A 4* . • 3A k X � ' t, mm�t ' w �+ • .r..,. .. ,,,, it" . J ti °a. ". k ',7 ))) { {{ ,,, is • may; J ff7V ,9-,e ��� Gt/7� 1 1 /4 77L r c s J2 dz c X /i/C4', . %/ 4 , i re'ie/./1/ /tiat ri m �„ A 7 .p..-4,:.-1 `ice + ■ Or . \ t :_;•-• ' ' ' -41 1/11- - IIN 6 wit tali 114W :::.'-: . ... V . A66. -4416 1ii. **444411 / 44 ‘ � ` +�' ... "'- $ .. T - , ;r >' z c am - -- r. t kt } ` .✓- • .1. _ .4% ' Eu:2' 4 2 . ,rte t^ �,�l;�, • 1. f . •Fr �, e t vc i, ,. Y , �' rS. s . .Y<m,. ":. ter .: ",�. • is3alt std ,. �� �.. -C r d t r , . 47,‘,.. s L ems Dic c g 74/ 2 4/ 7 2 ,� �`" ,oL ,/_ //,- c_4(5_7zz- --Ii6 C/tic / cA '''''' -ve---5--- 119 / , /e/f ,.. f ,,, t / /e-...,,, a • t o . - -, i Pi ric ) - - 9 ,... , .,,,, ,.., . 4 A ', , , "+�' A !, ii 1r, C. -t.-. � - �' ' Y � . - 71`x! s' 7 ''' ' . 75::: i-,:-,,,....ifitli,, - vat 4 ;1- ... I., - a+n ...rtrM .h,.. s Zig i Vipne '- t x'104'' � d ?�f _k M1SiA t''''"''''94.-:- ' P''' ..' -- ' . t" k >. N Y � I1 1 � S .F i„ S hV ' �� � g � Fr s3a a x_ :,;:f � q -c�: z,r sw' .`.A +- ti. te` [ • Z,� ` yA( y / V �� ■ , ( ? I/7H ..., ‘,..„ . .., ...,..,,„. ,:..... • ...,,, , 5,.'. C,• • • . i • '..., • • L.' ' k• i ii' 44.1 ' . : 0 ' 1 . <.• . .. !, .' . . A ..,. ' / :, • - 7+hif .,'. , / .:'...' ■ v ; ;;:' ...:. 0 ' 4 .1:2a ' 7 4 : 3 . L • • ' .• t ' • • ' ' .. 'i". . ... I:, --• , " A N r ...--,„ • -, -, ••- k..., .. 1‘ 1,. ':4: :"..„. ' '-. ''- •'• • . 4.4.,-, • .,,, • ---1„:-. ' .. . i i, I .. „....:.....,,,v.,,.....-774 d• • • . "ON ss ','.°''' • t • I. r '''' ; • .• , — • . 4 , , : , ,... _ dilleb; ? ' . -; ' ..■ `fa ..1.!,' *:414';'• ,, ,. .,......-, ,. r • ..,.. ,44,‹..c. ,' • - .•-/ ' ' • 't . - • N / - '.- - :,.,;•..;.- 1 • - .. •;'''•' ".- ' •• p.,,....,1- • • - : .... ,-.:::.-.:‘_.. - - . . . - ''' ''' --,' - '` "".-: .4 --. . 1 . , .''''''''' -j '''.',,).•:: , . . „: , .. 0 ., ,. faf,- , , • ...3 .-0, \ '• - . • '' '0.- -,-... ',„,... .... '.. 1 . v ' • ', ./:..-7' - 44 ..... . -... ... , . .:i.': fr.:•-•.',1 ' ..•-• - - -ti ' ' 24?'....- , • .. - •••••:-••:•...4. cte:,...„, : ..:. • ,.•. • t•••••••• - : '• ', •-.g. • -. ' t- - •, • ,-;,,t.; : .„:•-i -" 5:)40:., . •".:':-,•,;.:,.....,.„,;,.' -.,.:;-/. . . •-... I ., . • . .. , :,.. . --, 4:f t.-- • -•;:t i . - . .. • „., ..- :-.,-.,-. • . . 7 '''.• • "—. . 7 - - -:-°- ' • •-4 * : - . . . .. -:..... . . . •';-•-•-_----- ------,;: • --, -- , .. .•._- ..., .:,.. . . . _. . . .._ . . ....... 1 i , fir 491 T . n4 - if 4°'- In D , !.'s IVO - , n I i t . ,. ,� � P N � • 'P i% r wr , T]D.yS3 Id - 'Imirilfpf,, i it 1 , rs...........________________/2 Irlir w fc, ; IL! liNk..44— "fir fi: 7 '11 „ --..; i'l kr t 1 tt Oi 116:1) - 1 1 II I 4 I lb. 4 **-- 11 c ', If i ha ...._ 41114141 po, , _..ii"... '' A S i ' 444,. ! 0 X Se s Are , , ip _ ____ Lk.. r 41(> i I II t j 1 . n fi ! , \ , ' �• - - .- , r 8_ LAJ 0 ''' w — ,r 1:911.0 ® r ~ r 44.4 , 6�F it T- 1111111111 — illIllp 1 I {V !� \, o I i Na NOOlN3n0 4 .).). C .- . 1 C� 'twu Ee2a ue snBu yea -.In '�wsesze we �w sass sza°�en zieeoa�.e.r exe sae oe 9 m ..d.,,, 6q Penmaae ' 2 W 1 H so ABuenonell Weld auei 6uungmouS L6El 8 S6El a,npaygvy ade0epue1 ',...1 . 24 'e _ � g g l xaldnd RuungmouS 6upueId V u61Sea Mg 3N1d1V 3.6400,90 [[ ` A. ,) „ 0 "" Nre -- rat , .%.,, \ il 1 c. 1G d .,4_ ,. p i � � 1 /41, ta 1 Jai,. C � =r . ,.... , 11/4 eon ,�y °� _ r t l� <� % 0. .\ I ��� _ o.� w0 ` rery,�Arv-14 1 4PS ' ,,, . A ,11_ linemen 1=1 a — j � � � .� � I : �," - �: � I E o Et A m I —�L � 49i a -msAm. litil Nqrfj■ A PIlli1 4 4■ ' a 1 trnii faka4 ♦� Ika 'FYI • Ilk v at s lit r v iptit#,,, 1 \ I tg '' \ AO, Nik g J0° L nyh _ £ 3 e s i q ° S '. ) Rigel £4 n ii { g i 4 a R i£ R', i S = i V 91; i i ;6o € . I i .fi I ' a a v g i. g g: s €i 5 et P n g y ! I qiy S E p 8• g 4 i aigf 1 P rag i . g i 3 j - , 'vY P g ga A i f ° 0} A F 9, A Y' •- ! '. f g ip 4 4i�i Ili z x s ga 3 e,4gg z :.ii rti ° § 3 PS e e.:i ; g i { Za P i 3f gg. si F? so ei t it _ °g ii__ E y i� • 3 S gF i 9 q 1' ; ZR ; iP ! g s .ER i; ta x e g _ ... i Ni $ Y 4$ r 3 34i 5 E CO 3i i g F Y i ' it P! e $ - i C 'FeS i-,% i g 2; • • 0 0 rig Land Title Guarantee Company CUSTOMER DISTRIBUTION Land Title WARANTEE COMPANY Date: 09 -20 -2007 Our Order Number: Q388194 -2 Property Address: 1397 SNOWBUNNY LANE ASPEN, CO 81611 If you have any inquiries or require further assistance, please contact one of the numbers below: For Title Assistance: Aspen Title Dept. Arne Simonsen 533 E HOPKINS #102 ASPEN, CO 81611 Phone: 970 - 925 -1678 Fax: 970 -925 -6243 EMail: asimonsen@ltgc.com MORRIS & FYRWALD REAL ESTATE *TMX* 415 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 Attn: DAN FURTH Phone: 970 - 925 -6060 Fax: 970 - 920 -9993 Copies: 1 EMail: aspendan @sopris.net Linked Commitment Delivery %SO 0 irk Land Title Guarantee Company Date: 09 -20 -2007 Land Title Our Order Number: Q388194 -2 IAJARANTEE COMPANY Property Address: 1397 SNOWBUNNY LANE ASPEN, CO 81611 Buyer/Borrower: TBD Seller /Owner: AV 10 PROPERTIES, LLC Need a map or directions for your upcoming closing? Check out Land Title's web site at www.ltgc.com for directions to any of our 54 office locations. ESTIMATE OF TITLE FEES TBD Commitment $194.00 If Land Title Guarantee Company rill be closing this transaction, above fees will be collected at that time. TOTAL $194.00 Form CONTACT 06/04 THANK YOU FOR YOUR ORDER! 0 rig LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY INVOICE Land Tide GUARANTEE COMPANY Owner: AV 10 PROPERTIES, LLC Property Address: 1397 SNOWBUNNY LANE ASPEN, CO 81611 Your Reference No.: When referring to this order, please reference our Order No. Q388194 -2 - CHARGES - TBD Commitment $194.00 -- Total -- $194.00 Please make checks payable to: Land Title Guarantee Company P.O. Box 5440 Denver, CO 80217 0 Old Republic National Title Insurance Company ALTA COMMITMENT Our Order No. Q388194 -2 Schedule A Cust. Ref.: Property Address: 1397 SNOWBUNNY LANE ASPEN, CO 81611 1. Effective Date: September 18, 2007 at 5:00 P.M. 2. Policy to be Issued, and Proposed Insured: "TBD" Commitment Proposed Insured: TBD 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is: A Fee Simple 4. Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at the effective date hereof vested in: AV 10 PROPERTIES, LLC 5. The land referred to in this Conunitment is described as follows: LOT 1, BLOCK 1, SNOWBUNNY SUBDIVISION AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT RECORDED MAY 2, 1957 IN PLAT BOOK 2 AT PAGE 229. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. • a ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B - (Requirements) Our Order No. Q388194 -2 The following are the requirements to be complied with: Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record, to -wit: THIS COMMITMENT IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY, AND NO POLICY WILL BE ISSUED PURSUANT HERETO. NOTE: ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS OR EXCEPTIONS MAY BE NECESSARY WHEN THE BUYERS NAMES ARE ADDED TO THIS COMMITMENT. COVERAGES AND /OR CHARGES REFLECTED HEREIN, IF ANY, ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE UPON RECEIPT OF THE CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL REAL ESTATE AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO. ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B -2 (Exceptions) Our Order No. Q388194 -2 The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. 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. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. Taxes and assessments not yet due or payable and special assessments not yet certified to the Treasurer's office. 7. Any unpaid taxes or assessments against said land. 8. Liens for unpaid water and sewer charges, if any. 9. RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE THEREFROM SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED JUNE 07, 1888, IN BOOK 55 AT PAGE 2. 10. EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY AND OTHER MATTERS AS SET FORTH ON THE PLAT OF SNOWBUNNY SUBDIVISION RECORDED MAY 2, 1957 IN PLAT BOOK 2A AT PAGE 229. 11. EASEMENT 5.00 FEET IN WIDTH ALONG REAR AND SIDE LOT LINES FOR UTILITY PURPOSES AS SET FORTH IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED MAY 2, 1957 IN BOOK 181 AT PAGE 255. 12. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER CLAUSE, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED MAY 02, 1957, IN BOOK 181 AT PAGE 255. 13. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF DECLARATION OF TRUST RECORDED AUGUST 08, 1958 IN BOOK 184 AT PAGE 435. ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B -2 (Exceptions) Our Order No. Q388194 -2 The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 14. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF ASPEN RECORDED OCTOBER 27, 1993 IN BOOK 728 AT PAGE 350. 15. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF ASPEN RECORDED OCTOBER 27, 1993 IN BOOK 728 AT PAGE 354. LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY and LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY - GRAND JUNCTION DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS Note: Pursuant to CRS 10 - 11 - 122, notice is hereby given that: A) The subject real property may be located in a special taxing district. B) A Certificate of Taxes Due listing each taxing jurisdiction may be obtained from the County Treasurer's authorized agent. C) The information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor. Note: Effective September 1, 1997, CRS 30 -10 -406 requires that all documents received for recording or filing in the clerk and recorder's office shall contain a top margin of at least one inch and a left, right and bottom margin of at least one half of an inch. The clerk and recorder may refuse to record or file any document that does not conform, except that, the requirement for the top margin shall not apply to documents using forms on which space is provided for recording or filing information at the top margin of the document. Note: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 3 -5 -1, Paragraph C of Article VII requires that "Every title entity shall be responsible for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title entity conducts the closing and is responsible for recording or filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed ". Provided that Land Title Guarantee Company conducts the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the legal documents from the transaction, exception number 5 will not appear on the Owner's Title Policy and the Lenders Policy when issued. Note: Affirmative mechanic's lien protection for the Owner may be available (typically by deletion of Exception no. 4 of Schedule B, Section 2 of the Commitment from the Owner's Policy to be issued) upon compliance with the following conditions: A) The land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single family residence which includes a condominium or townhouse unit. B) No labor or materials have been furnished by mechanics or material -men for purposes of construction on the land described in Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 6 months. C) The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against un -filed mechanic's and material -men's liens. D) The Company must receive payment of the appropriate premium. E) If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be purchased within six months prior to the Date of the Commitment, the requirements to obtain coverage for unrecorded liens will include: disclosure of certain construction information; financial information as to the seller, the builder and or the contractor; payment of the appropriate premium fully executed Indemnity Agreements satisfactory to the company, and, any additional requirements as may be necessary after an examination of the aforesaid information by the Company. No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured has contracted for or agreed to pay. Note: Pursuant to CRS 10 -11 -123, notice is hereby given: This notice applies to owner's policy commitments containing a mineral severance instrument exception, or exceptions, in Schedule B, Section 2. A) That there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased, or otherwise conveyed from the surface estate and that there is a substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other minerals, or geothermal energy in the property; and B) That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner's permission. Nothing herein contained will be deemed to obligate the company to provide any of the coverages referred to herein unless the above conditions are fully satisfied. Form DISCLOSURE 09/01/02 0 JOINT NOTICE OF PRIVACY POLICY OF LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY, LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY - GRAND JUNCTION, LAND TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY This Statement is provided to you as a customer of Land Title Guarantee Company and Meridian Land Title, LLC, as agents for Land Title Insurance Corporation and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company. We want you to know that we recognize and respect your privacy expectations and the requirements of federal and state privacy laws. Information security is one of our highest priorities. We recognize that maintaining your trust and confidence is the bedrock of our business. We maintain and regularly review internal and external safeguards against unauthorized access to non - public personal information ( "Personal Information "). In the course of our business, we may collect Personal Information about you from: * applications or other forms we receive from you, including communications sent through TMX, our web -based transaction management system; * your transactions with, or from the services being performed by, us, our affiliates, or others; * a consumer reporting agency, if such information is provided to us in connection with your transaction; and * the public records maintained by governmental entities that we either obtain directly from those entities, or from our affiliates and non - affiliates. Our policies regarding the protection of the confidentiality and security of your Personal Information are as follows: * We restrict access to all Personal Information about you to those employees who need to know that information in order to provide products and services to you. * We maintain physical, electronic and procedural safeguards that comply with federal standards to protect your Personal Information from unauthorized access or intrusion. * Employees who violate our strict policies and procedures regarding privacy are subject to disciplinary action. * We regularly access security standards and procedures to protect against unauthorized access to Personal Information. WE DO NOT DISCLOSE ANY PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOU WITH ANYONE FOR ANY PURPOSE THAT IS NOT PERMITTED BY LAW. Consistent with applicable privacy laws, there are some situations in which Personal Information may be disclosed. We may disclose your Personal Information when you direct or give us permission; when we are required by law to do so, for example, if we are served a subpoena; or when we suspect fraudulent or criminal activities. We also may disclose your Personal Information when otherwise permitted by applicable privacy laws such as, for example, when disclosure is needed to enforce our rights arising out of any agreement, transaction or relationship with you. Our policy regarding dispute resolution is as follows. Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to our privacy policy, or the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. Form PRIV.POL.ORT • Commitment to Insure ALTA Commitment -1970 Rev. OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation, herein called the Company, for a * * * valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title inmaance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor Ci * * of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land * described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor: an subject to the provisions of * Schedule A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof. This Commitment shall be effective only when the indendty of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy a * policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of this * •111. Commitment or by subsequent endorsement. TNs Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and an lability and obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS 1. The term "mortgage", when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. 2. If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fan to disclose such knowledge to the Company n writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act of reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure of the proposed Insured to so disdose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclose such kno'Medge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment amain*, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations. 3. Liability of the company under this Cam fitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof or (b) to dininate exceptions shown in Sdedue B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies committed for and such liability is subject to the insuring provisions and the Conditions and Sdpdadons and the Exduslens from Coverage of the form of policy or policies committed, for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein. 4. Any action or actions a rights of action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring against the Company arising out of the status of the tide to the estate or interest or the status of the mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment must be based on and are subject to the provisions of this Commitment. STANDARD EXCEPTIONS In addition to the matters contained in the Coditiorrs and Stipulations and Exclusions from Coverage above referred to, this Commitment is also subject to the following: 1. Rights or daims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or daims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises wand disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. 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. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse daims er other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Old Republic National Title Insurance Company has caused its corporate name and seal to be hereunto affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A, to be valid when countersigned by a validating officer or other authorized signatory. OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY n A Stock Company •Mph. TITLE „ ' 400 Secant Avenue Sant v * * % : I �_ `() 1 1.. (1 M _ _ Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 = v 4 * a �py,�I����L„�JeAXy� (612) 371 -1111 - m X or * Authorized Signature a rt y * * d OTO • MS • . CC.ORT '.... © • e 0 : a Y W @ a ai 4 -a si .ar A a8g $ �a 9 • z gl: _8ac :Wa a t it w 4 t a Y,l4e @ 4F4c v_ w ° I a 3- f G @a 1 s pd s y' i a4 s . 4 s= • a: fs0 a e E. 8i ec e 5 4 a 'CI ^15 a1 is LL 4za @ "i_e a 9 n ti " w 11 a a 3 1 3/ 0 §" 3 s a a s 3 a � _. a$ « az d Li: = a a a ?re F3F� v _ a A 6 � ' x ss iyayi $ ua # _. 1 - - ,a w F w E ® u a ,- Sia " 4415 c4 B e Y$" • - :.5..,e...4 a = a g 1 e ` 4 I 4 e o 4 . 1 As !c9 " e a� s : v g 9 ' 9. a_E S a s i - d : Q - E _ a a , Zi 4 y a c ,K v E4, €- b e i S a° �� - s 4 a eat f u a= a — - " i , - - ` t ® o as .a: & sir e .. I 4c 7, - 4 : - e .a ~ '4: a: x $ x c ::x �. " < i; a s . 8 as , 5 a a 0 6Y it ES X .g C it EN i M O w' 3 3 ,. .g i a U °$ 3.5 [s - A • F / / a to Ilk LL 1 . - e _ " ri FO v3,-2 z \\ \ - 0. qin R o 5, -. - . )1•000 0, , liii, ... 5 . ag ' ry Zw -- - .. b Z ® ; ® g• O , o D - d i 3 8 e t 9 9 iv 1../ z 9 _ o p a p d . x I; S 0_ �0 0 q f itil f9 . '.,' x a l y s 'a a t...! '' "er d43 a 111''''(' I1 * . , f z 5 g a ! ; ^ ' €ara t-� . 0 ,64 a; o a a 3 • E919a1 "�Q o'. 4. G 0 , f //�� w " 4 a ` 3 g 1 a c ¢: w it U FS aaae_ .a > W cl Q V a C� $ Si' - a s � o 0( tl, b I € .r` • 0 a:b I €!a �� a . � ;, C r y w \ 1 Lti •d iv - 4, ! r ; vry _ . W N f N X a ,..,„, , ) ar / •e,. r 4 / „ � s m "t 5, u _......�.._ o e .. i Ta ' r L 3 - / f y en ft? "1,.. •' w f .• G .. ` O s �A { N ; • lo G �� V r i : W S • . - a ° � w r 2 I V ■ O a;, , - k N W `_,` ° I ,ret. 1 4 — _ i ',' a ' Cr) 0 , �/ ' z E I / \ N I N F e 3, • 5` Z � r N I .Fir ,e�' 'A1:t I .O k /+ ' p :.. P i 7 a .+. , V i LS Illi 1 — Pirr . '* ,. .�� � As G � tltl a, � +k.`._ """••� • � - 7 } east � a y _." f ; , .. g / '04 N O ,i / 5r7 _ / / /° v � ■ / O I , 1 5 "$rl g 0 w a — ) g .aft a o f c: I s -bea a F. co f . `.; A N r � I L � I 5 � � 9 � i m ar 1J ° ( �� o �✓ 3 rig Land Tide Guarantee Company Land Tide Date: 09 -20 -2007 connne.ec comvnn. Our Order Number: Q388194 -2 Property Address: 1397 SNOWBUNNY LANE ASPEN, CO 81611 Buyer/Borrower: TBD Seller /Owner: AV 10 PROPERTIES, LLC Need a map or directions for your upcoming closing? Check out Land Title's web site at www.ltgc.com for directions to any of our 54 office locations. ESTIMATE OF TITLE FEES TBD Commitment $194. If Land Title Guarantee Coapany will be closing this transaction, above fees will be collected at that time. TOTAL $194. Form CONTACT OS/04 THANK YOU FOR YOUR ORDER! C 3 LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY INVOICE Land Title GUARANTEE COMPANY Owner: AV 10 PROPERTIES, LLC Property Address: 1397 SNOWBUNNY LANE ASPEN, CO 81611 Your Reference No.: When referring to this order, please reference our Order No. Q388194 -2 - CHARGES - TBD Commitment $194.00 -- Total -- $194.00 Please make checks payable to: Land Title Guarantee Company P.O. Box 5440 Denver, CO 80217 C 3 Old Republic National Title Insurance Company ALTA COMMITMENT Our Order No. Q388194 -2 Schedule A Cust. Ref.: Property Address: 1397 SNOWBUNNY LANE ASPEN, CO 81611 1. Effective Date: September 18, 2007 at 5:00 P.M. 2. Policy to be Issued, and Proposed Insured: "TBD" Commitment Proposed Insured: TBD 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is: A Fee Simple 4. Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at the effective date hereof vested in: AV 10 PROPERTIES, LLC 5. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: LOT 1, BLOCK 1, SNOWBUNNY SUBDIVISION AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT RECORDED MAY 2, 1957 IN PLAT BOOK 2 AT PAGE 229. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B -1 (Requirements) Our Order No. Q388194 -2 The following are the requirements to be complied with: Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record, to -wit: THIS COMMITMENT IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY, AND NO POLICY WILL BE ISSUED PURSUANT HERETO. NOTE: ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS OR EXCEPTIONS MAY BE NECESSARY WHEN THE BUYERS NAMES ARE ADDED TO THIS COMMITMENT. COVERAGES AND /OR CHARGES REFLECTED HEREIN, IF ANY, ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE UPON RECEIPT OF THE CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL REAL ESTATE AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO. ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B -2 (Exceptions) Our Order No. Q388194 -2 The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. 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. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. Taxes and assessments not yet due or payable and special assessments not yet certified to the Treasurer's office. 7. Any unpaid taxes or assessments against said land. 8. Liens for unpaid water and sewer charges, if any. 9. RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE THEREFROM SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED JUNE 07, 1888, IN BOOK 55 AT PAGE 2. 10. EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY AND OTHER MATTERS AS SET FORTH ON THE PLAT OF SNOWBUNNY SUBDIVISION RECORDED MAY 2, 1957 IN PLAT BOOK 2A AT PAGE 229. 11. EASEMENT 5.00 FEET IN WIDTH ALONG REAR AND SIDE LOT LINES FOR UTILITY PURPOSES AS SET FORTH IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED MAY 2, 1957 IN BOOK 181 AT PAGE 255. 12. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER CLAUSE, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED MAY 02, 1957, IN BOOK 181 AT PAGE 255. 13. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF DECLARATION OF TRUST RECORDED AUGUST 08, 1958 IN BOOK 184 AT PAGE 435. • 0 ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B -2 (Exceptions) Our Order No. Q388194 -2 The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 14. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF ASPEN RECORDED OCTOBER 27, 1993 IN BOOK 728 AT PAGE 350. 15. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF ASPEN RECORDED OCTOBER 27, 1993 IN BOOK 728 AT PAGE 354. 0 • v LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY and LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY - GRAND JUNCTION DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS Note: Pursuant to CRS 10 -11 -122, notice is hereby given that: A) The subject real property may be located in a special taxing district. B) A Certificate of Taxes Due listing each taxing jurisdiction may be obtained from the County Treasurer's authorized agent. C) The information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor. Note: Effective September 1, 1997, CRS 30 -10 -406 requires that all documents received for recording or filing in the clerk and recorder's office shall contain a top margin of at least one inch and a left, right and bottom margin of at least one half of an inch. The clerk and recorder may refuse to record or file any document that does not conform, except that, the requirement for the top margin shall not apply to documents using forms on which space is provided for recording or filing information at the top margin of the document. Note: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 3 -5 -1, Paragraph C of Article VII requires that "Every title entity shall be responsible for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title entity conducts the closing and is responsible for recording or filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed ". Provided that Land Title Guarantee Company conducts the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the legal documents from the transaction, exception number 5 will not appear on the Owner's Title Policy and the Lenders Policy when issued. Note: Affirmative mechanic's lien protection for the Owner may be available (typically by deletion of Exception no. 4 of Schedule B, Section 2 of the Commitment from the Owner's Policy to be issued) upon compliance with the following conditions: A) The land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single family residence which includes a condominium or townhouse unit. B) No labor or materials have been furnished by mechanics or material -men for purposes of construction on the land described in Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 6 months. C) The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against un -filed mechanic's and material -men's liens. D) The Company must receive payment of the appropriate premium. E) If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be purchased within six months prior to the Date of the Commitment, the requirements to obtain coverage for unrecorded liens will include: disclosure of certain construction information; financial information as to the seller, the builder and or the contractor; payment of the appropriate premium fully executed Indemnity Agreements satisfactory to the company, and, any additional requirements as may be necessary after an examination of the aforesaid information by the Company. No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured has contracted for or agreed to pay. Note: Pursuant to CRS 10 -11 -123, notice is hereby given: This notice applies to owner's policy commitments containing a mineral severance instrument exception, or exceptions, in Schedule B, Section 2. A) That there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased, or otherwise conveyed from the surface estate and that there is a substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other minerals, or geothermal energy in the property; and B) That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner's permission. Nothing herein contained will be deemed to obligate the company to provide any of the coverages referred to herein unless the above conditions are fully satisfied. Form DISCUJSURE 09/01/02 • 3 JOINT NOTICE OF PRIVACY POLICY OF LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY, LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY - GRAND JUNCTION, LAND TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY This Statement is provided to you as a customer of Land Title Guarantee Company and Meridian Land Title, LLC, as agents for Land Title Insurance Corporation and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company. We want you to know that we recognize and respect your privacy expectations and the requirements of federal and state privacy laws. Information security is one of our highest priorities. We recognize that maintaining your trust and confidence is the bedrock of our business. We maintain and regularly review internal and external safeguards against unauthorized access to non - public personal information ( "Personal Information "). In the course of our business, we may collect Personal Information about you from: * applications or other forms we receive from you, including communications sent through TMX, our web -based transaction management system; * your transactions with, or from the services being performed by, us, our affiliates, or others; * a consumer reporting agency, if such information is provided to us in connection with your transaction; and * the public records maintained by governmental entities that we either obtain directly from those entities, or from our affiliates and non - affiliates. Our policies regarding the protection of the confidentiality and security of your Personal Information are as follows: * We restrict access to all Personal Information about you to those employees who need to know that information in order to provide products and services to you. * We maintain physical, electronic and procedural safeguards that comply with federal standards to protect your Personal Information from unauthorized access or intrusion. * Employees who violate our strict policies and procedures regarding privacy are subject to disciplinary action. * We regularly access security standards and procedures to protect against unauthorized access to Personal Information. WE DO NOT DISCLOSE ANY PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOU WITH ANYONE FOR ANY PURPOSE THAT IS NOT PERMITTED BY LAW. Consistent with applicable privacy laws, there are some situations in which Personal Information may be disclosed. We may disclose your Personal Information when you direct or give us permission; when we are required by law to do so, for example, if we are served a subpoena; or when we suspect fraudulent or criminal activities. We also may disclose your Personal Information when otherwise permitted by applicable privacy laws such as, for example, when disclosure is needed to enforce our rights arising out of any agreement, transaction or relationship with you. Our policy regarding dispute resolution is as follows. Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to our privacy policy, or the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. Form PRIV.POL.ORT • Commitment to Insure ALTA Commitment -1970 Rev. OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation, herein called the Company, for a 4 * * valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor * * of the proposed Insured named in Sdxedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land desaibed or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the provisions of * Schedule A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof. This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted n Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of this * * 11111- * Commitment or by subsequent endorsement. This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such poky or policies of title insurance and al liability and obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or pokdes is not the fault of the Company. CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS 1. The tern "mortgage", when used herein, shall include deed of Lust, trust deed, or other security instrument. 2. If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse daim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fa to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shag be reheved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act of reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure of the proposed Insured to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise ac actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations. 3. Liability of the company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such lability exceed the amain stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies committed for and such Iiablity is subject to the insuring provisions and the Condtons and Stipulations and the Exclusions from Coverage of the form of poky or polities committed, for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein. 4. Any action or actions or rights of action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring against the Company arising out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the status of the mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment must be based on and are subject to the provisions of this Commitment. STANDARD EXCEPTIONS In addition to the matters contained in the Conditions and Stipulations and Exclusions from Coverage above referred to, this Commitment is also subject to the following: 1. Rights or claims of paries in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or daims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a len, for services, labor or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse daims or other matters, if any, created, first appealing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acpdres of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Old Republic National Title Insurance Company has caused its corporate name and seal to be hereunto affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A, to be valid when countersigned by a validating officer or other authorized signatory. OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY A Stock Company '; t * Ir1.F�i., _ n 400 Second Avenue Sash :a P ** * * / / O-/J J/ �. 1 t.. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 • c, * * i = �� (612) 371 -1111 * ; Authorized Signature ' " * * *° ., 0 ) 0 . CC.ORT " "' w __ W r -- -, M'I.�tt � K M ' : 4 O ' .7 i , l l�'i.-% : __ vim THE CITY OF ASPEN y � 0 2 1A .$ 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET F.•► rs } cri, 0004626326 JA ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 - 1975 •A _'k`••• ' MAILED FROM ZIP C1 CARISCH SHARON G REV TRUST 50% 641 E LAKE ST #226 WAYZATA, MN 55391 NIXIE 853 5E 1 06 01) RETURN TO SENDER NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSEC UNABLE TO FORWARD lall DC: 01611190230 *1479-03626 - 5539i$S7gn *Jbo JI„ ?nn11)11)nnhI nO f111I'II luilti ti(Jialltid Z R h y u O 15 �� + �s: '� r t � 200 �i`.�:.� yam'' . � r THE CITY OF ASPEN 'r F };'. tih .� 02 1A -- -- L S14' ! L 0004626326 J 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET '.41 & 5 f l'• MAI FROM ZIP ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 -1975 SIERRA VIEW CONDO ASSOC COMMON AREA NIXIE 802 5C S 74 01/21 RETURN TO SENDER INSUFFICSENT ADDRESS UNABLE TO FORWARD BC: 61611190230 *1479 - 061771 -1. 81511Q1902 11/111/1 11,11iuti11 II . II l(InIIn(n lO(iII(I1(1111 ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.30 (E), /1 . � ), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 1 361 / P7 ` ) /) `) Y V 1 I ► V , Aspen, CO � C SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: '. l , 200 STATE OF COLORADO ) • ) ss. County of Pitkin(� ''")) - - I. ie i C/ C IAV ( V CJ (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner. s ti Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the - public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice.: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty -two (22) inches wide and twenty -six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ day di 200 to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(B)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitldn County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) _ l 0 0 - • Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description g and the notice to and listing of names and • addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived, However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days • prior to the public hearing on such amendments. • jgna /k ?,�ii� • The fo egoing " davit of Notice" was aclmowledged befor me this' M da of N U1�litNl. ✓VllN , 2001, by �y PUBLIC NOTICE c _ RE 1395 SNOWDUNNY LANE - RESIDENTIAL WIINESS !v y/ HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL DESIGN STANDARDS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, December 6, 2007, at a My commission expire - q D 0 meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspe Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities n yyA/ Meeting Room, eCity Hall, 130 B. Galena SL, As" / y pen t o conside an a li c at ion submitted by AV 10 Properties LLC, 1395 Snowbunny La Aspen. i1 t ;:1 � r SO * Colorado 61611, owner of the subject property. otary Public represented by Mic ael Hoffman PC approval and Da of a n �� i Furth The applican s requesting Residential Desig uldeline Variances townQ. Z JOlF1 Tt'y street a s (6) foot noe along Cemetery Lane _ ' �' The property is leg y described as Block 1, Lot of the Snowbunny bdivislon. City of Aspen = ; For further lntorma contact Jessica Garrow at 1 5 � � ', the City of Aspen Community Development PJG� part ment. 130 S. Galena St.. Aspen, CO, (9]0) De- %i ti .'` Q : 429.2780.leu¢ag ®ci aspen co.us. F 0 ,•" sl Dylan Johns, drab O F ' - ` r .�' • Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission ATTACHMENT'S: " / / •:,, {' " • Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on Novem- I bar te. zao (aese6s) COPYOF TBB PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGH) LIST OF THE.O WNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL • • ier ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE n ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: A f r 1 t S 4' Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: `Oct e.M[ .r 1 , 2001 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) \Ile \ Sin R (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. J Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty -two (22) inches wide and twenty -six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen 05) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the 13 ay of A k fr mhef , 200 =j , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. v Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amend -nts. Signature The for going "g ffidavit of Notice" was acknovyledged befoye met 'sZ Q day of f ifrei vt f 4 , 200 by It t ti_ > An ¢Y PUPc, ;O th WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL f jE, PAICHAEL My commi Sion e : res • H OFFMAN % 1 t po. 151 t •' Notary Public ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL ''.■, ' ' ' - $ Fr i . ',...' .:, f.':,. . . , , .. - l?'''' • 't ' ' " ...1 ' ''''' ' 4 ' ' . ',7. ,, ..; • ' '. -)- ''''•`.. , k .- .;°• ,''4." " • - ... ,. - 7,, i -,,. ,0 7 . •. t .*,.. i ';.,$.:. -'..., :- f`.. 1 ..,, . ,.,„ -• .,...,. ,...1, . ,:.,..,.., ...„ . , ?..... '-k,.... . ta , . . • 1 ... 4 .. i . . : ,.. -p. ,.., . ..'.: . 1 ■ ,1,. ,...; , , .. • . . • , . ., , .., ,,,, . _ - . • ■-., . . . I . . q : ° -• ; , .. , '7 7 - , , ...-.74. ,!. • '. f ; . ' ' • 4.. 4f.A • ,,...... ti • $( .'-,, li ' ;:: C i ' . ,, ,,.. , , f,.,- " /,.. it . . . :.7 ' , ' '''''..,. '. ' 4._ .;,: '' A • T - i.2.' - , - - ,,':::-"" . '1 ,'i ' ::: . ''' . .... ' ''''-' ..''. ' '''' --, ' :7- ''' ,...-• -.. - ' P - ‘=- .= :."': •--, , ,-7-7, ..".7 ' . ' 7 ::: ,... ,-' ;',' ..7 .- ,--: .ii ::" . • :, ,;.: ..; '..:.. ' .. :: 7 17 it ,.., - : ,.. ,:„.. „, :,_;:. i, -. ..::. ,.......„ ,, _,... ,.... ::.• , : -- , . v. , - :::. ----• -,-; -.= . :--- .-.'-: .. , .--, .±.r.. -- i 7- ‘,..,. ' ' .. - ■ . ,-.: zr • -L`: ----. ".:. ....7.: .'' ''''` ,.. • ''..,'" -' 7--' ''.7'.'7 e'r, p ; T ^ ,- :--- --.: :.•: :.-'.1 .7 .7.- ',.. .,-; ; ------ L., - :."-=. "..7. .7-' :,„...,- 0.4.9 ..,•:,, E =`• - ..- ---.- .`...; . --- '47 :-. . ;,-. , „: -,- - = ....-7 .° ,...; , ,..t :: ' ' - : g - ; ■ .-. • ,,, , t I ' ="1 4 - -. . - . — = - : . , .,, ' 5 - • - • : . . . . - . . ' ', : ,' • ,7, , - - -3 • . . -- .- • — :.: = 7 p , .Th - - .'-' - •r- ,- — ,-,.... — ....4 _ .:: --.. -,•- ---- • -,,/- ir ••••• • ... ,, ....! ...•.• ,7:. ...; ='...- F:7 •I'i. ". .. - • --.-... •-•.; : •-• '..... '''' , ..... , 4. .,7-.: F•_-;" F. - 7: 7 . -- . . -- : ' ' x -7 -`," `. .- ` - • :- ' , 7 i- --- - -: - , - • 7 ' n ...., „ , • _ ... - : E- --:- F-. ., 7 ,..-- --- -: . : :.-... • -; 7 - ' - • .' . ,7 . 7.-.7 ._ 4 • .7 ',:i0F,, / .-' :•••' ,7.: ::: •• r * `......: = ..-.. .7 , ' ,:--; ,:-.‘ :7, .... ,...,,,, . - - _-_, .::: :--' i - - X ,•-• '-''' .." ',..., ..... .-- - .., ... - -__,..., ..4,,. .-. ?.,-- f.•-_,' -...-- :•... ....^ - ::, ''' :' '." ' :." ` .1'7, - , n , , ,.. - = ... .....-: .7 .-= • :re: :---,. = z.. 7 ,'.'.. :..-. - - - : , . 7 .: = ;,..... .7- :..:. ' 7.,:; •••,• ' ,-•.. 7 .,, ',..- ' rr. , r% F • • :. .7 '.'.. ., 7, , _ ' ° - . : -- ; r ' 7 - , • . - 7. - '. , , ` ,.., " . . .': - ' . . ,. . . ' , .., I . . , . 1 ; -- • r . . = ' N ,(:. =, .. - 7 :-.-- 7 :.•-- '..." 7.2 " T ., ' ''.... ...-: .7 ''-': 7.: :: .., ^ : = .. ....,. . 7, . , = -,- , :: -, ,-.: , •:. . .,7 -, , , ,.. , , F• •,:, : I . 7 , . ,:_•,_ . ..f. i ...., .... ..- ..,- .... limy A wiy* n 1166• ,mod Hp.r o 1 f► ® ANGRY ®sleo• 1 BASS RAIFIEL I REV TRUST 60% BECK PAUL & GLENN'S FAMILY LP LLLP BASS MICHELE N REV TRUST 80% C/O OTTE & COTE CPAS PC BEIRNE DAVID M & LILY 7 1345 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR 1280 UTE AVE STE 18 31 N STAR CIR ASPEN, CO 81811.1029 ASPEN, CO 81811 ASPEN. CO 81611 BERTHOLF HEIDI M OPRT BORDEN NANCY S 25% BROWN DONNA L PO BOX 166 PO BOX 25425 - 1425 SILVERKING DR ASPEN, CO 81612 DALLAS, 'TX 76228.1428 ASPEN, CO 81811 BRYANT BROOKS T & EUZABETN F CARISCH GEORGE L REV TRUST 50% CARISCH SHARON G REV TRUST 50% 1354 SIERRA VISTA DR 19760 LAKEVIEW AVE 841 E LAKE 8T 0220 ASPEN, CO 81611 DEEPHAVEN, MN 55331 WAYZATA, MN 55381 CITY OF ASPEN DAVIDSON ARIAIL SC017 DITZLER TIMOTHY A & VIRGINIA K 130 S GALENA ST PO 8OX 5141 1395 SIERRA VISTA DR ASPEN, CO 81811 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 DUCHESS CORPORATION F P 6 P LLC ON C/O NANCY PAVED' BARTON 966 CEMETERY ARTHUR B JR 9610 DUMBARTON 11803 GLOWING SUNSET LN 966 CEMETERY LN LAS VEGAS, NV 89135.1666 HOUSTON, TX 77026 ASPEN, CO 61611 FOULARD MICHAEL W & GEORGIA FURTH MARY P & DANIEL 7 GLACIER STAR LLLP GATOURA PO BOX 8849 2930 REVERE ASPEN, CO 81612 1480 ASPEN, CO KING DR HOUSTON, TX 77019 ASPEN, CO 81611 GLADPOR LTD HORNER HEIDI C HORNING ROBERT P & KHARA M 411 SWEET BAY AVE 1263 BUNNY CT 1005 CEMETERY LN PLANTATION, FL 33324 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611-1015 JORDANIDES DENNIS KLIKA YVONNE TRUST 80% KUBAN KARLA 16271 WALRUS LN KLIKA RIOO8 20% 982 CEMETERY LN HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92846 S A BOX 171 ASPEN, CO 51811 ASPEN, CO 81812 LASSALETTE JOHN M & KRISTEN L LEVY DENISON S LEYDECKER MARK 980 CEMETERY LN 1335 SNOWBUNNY LN 1285 BUNNY CT ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 MACKEY EILEEN 5 REV TRST 25% MANOERACHIA ULLIAM T MCDONALD STEPHEN PO BOX 25425 1350 SIERRA VISTA DR 1310 SIERA VISTA DR DALLAS, TX 75226.1425 ASPEN, CO 81811 ASPEN, CO 81811 kismet= WS/ polsr • Consult= la twills www,awnymm Dulls= N =bark AVERY. 5160• um du drigsnwnt d'Instructlon 1d00 -GO -AVERY easy Peel Labels 41 1 • IMININII Se* Instruction Sheet I 1r Use Avery. TEMPLATE 5160 A(' � Paper Isl. for Easy Pad hetura j % ®AVERY ®5160 O I l NELSON KRISTIN K REV TRUST PFEIFER CHRISTOPHER M PYRAMID VIEW LLC 1345 SIERRA VISTA 201 N MILL ST STE 103 ATTN STEPHEN MCDONALD ASPEN, CO 81811 ASPEN, CO 81611 761 KALAMATH DENVER, CO 80204 REESE JOHN W & BEVERLY ROARING FORK PTNR LTD 25% ROBINS KENDRA STITT 1340 SNOWBUNNY LN PO BOX 25425 1450 SILVER KING DR 61 ASPEN, CO 81611 DALLAS, TX 75226.1425 ASPEN, CO 81811 SCHIFFER SPENCER F SCHOCHET KENNETH BARRY SCHREIDER FAMILY PARTNERSHIP 122 CROWN MOUNTAIN DR WEISS GAYLE BASALT, CO 81621.8382 950 CEMETERY LN 5000 FIFTH AVE 0110 ASPEN, CO 81611 PITTSBURGH, PA 15232 SCHROEDER THOMAS J & BETSY ANNE SEVERY BETTY K TRUSTEE 1375 SNOWBUNNY LN 1390 SIERRA VISTA DR SIERRA VIEW CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81811 ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA SIUCH JOHN A SIMPSON ELEANOR P REV TRST 25% SPALDING MICHAEL L ROSNER MIRIAM JENTINA PO BOX 25425 1265 BUNNY CT DALLAS, TX 75225 -1425 1360 ASPEN, CO 81611 LN ASPEN, CO 81611 -1090 ASPEN, CO 81811 STITT HAROLD L & AUSTINE N SWARTZ ROBIN F TIERNEY MICHAEL P & CATHY C 1450 SILVER KING DR 01 14740 MULHOLLAND DR 1325 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR ASPEN, CO 81811 LOS ANGELES, CA 90077 ASPEN, CO 81611 TRETTIN HENRY & LANA WHITMAN GERALDINE B 0331 APPLE DR 1382 SNOWBUNNY LN BASALT, CO 81821 ASPEN, CO 81611 Etiquetas ladles 4 paler • Consulter la feu0k www.avery.com Utilises le pabarft AVERY 5160 Sens de chatgament d'InstructIon 1-800 -GO -AVERY 4h'y Michael Hoffman, P.C. ,en" /? ' ' F I ‘1, A YS SO p p1 .._, .__tlSTBs ^ i S. Mill Street, Suite 202 � I H E FIRST men, Colorado 81611 1 n ` 7c " n n m. _..._,..... - C o CtiGoYB e CARISCH SHARON G REV TRUST 50% 641 E LAKE ST #226 WAYZATA, MN 55391 NIXIE 533 SE 1 06 11/17/C RETURN TO SENDER NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO FORWARD BC: 01611249782 4 1479- 02537 -13 -5 01611 @2497 Il nlnnll�llun�lln �Il n 1, liln IIIl nlui lrin,I�IJ u11 5539151709 0003 1r ,t7 :> .. —.___ Michael Hoffman, P.C. `�° PM ° b r" A Y S $O S. Mill Street, Suite 202 t + "' " fl an, Colorado 81611 , , . l _ I l i E c n o ^ nq 1 .1)0 E BROWN DONNA L 1425 SILVERKING DR ASPEN, CO 81611 NIXIE 002 SE 1 74 11/17/07 RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED - NOT KNOWN UNABLE TO FORWARD BC: 81611249752 *1479- 02539 -13 -44 81611$82S11B243? IL�L�rrIIJL����II, ��II��LLI��IId��I „�IJ�L��I,LI��II t- Mlcnael HOflf11af1, Y. V. p r - 106 S. Mil Sabel Suite 202 I.' E 1! Aspen. Colorado 81611 fa C �� E s 1 NELSON KRISTIN K REV TRUST 1345 SIERRA VISTA ASPEN, CO 81611 X 902 NDE 1 9060 74 11 /IBA FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND BIXEL'LESLIE M PD BOX 1062S ASPEN CO 81612 -7334 RETURN TO SENDER C PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 1395 SNOWBUNNY LANE - RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, December 4, 2007, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by AV 10 Properties LLC, 1395 Snowbunny Lane, Aspen, Colorado 81611, owner of the subject property, represented by Michael Hoffman PC and Dan Furth. The applicant is requesting approval of a Residential Design Guideline Variances to construct a six (6) foot fence along Cemetery Lane. The property is legally described as Block 1, Lot 1 of the Snowbunny Subdivision, City of Aspen. For further information, contact Jessica Garrow at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2780, jessicag @ci.aspen.co.us. s/ Dylan Johns, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on November 18, 2007 City of Aspen Account eC1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range PlannerAI THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director MEETING DATE: December 4, 2007 RE: 1395 Snowbunny Lane — Residential Design Guideline Variances — Resolution No.Z9eries 2007 — Public Hearing (Parcel 2735-013-12-003) �J/ APPLICANT /OWNER: PROPOSED LAND USE: AV 10 Properties, LLC The Applicant is requesting to construct a new fence. REPRESENTATIVE: Michael Hoffman and Dan Furth STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning LOCATION: Commission deny the requested variance. Lot 1, Block 1 of the Snowbunny Subdivision, City of Aspen, CO, commonly known as 1395 SUMMARY: Snowbunny Lane. The Applicant requests of the Planning and Zoning Commission approval one (1) variance CURRENT ZONING & USE from the Residential Design Standards to R -15 Moderate Density zone district. construct a new fence. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission: • Residential Design Standards Variance from the Fences standard to construct a new fence within the City of Aspen pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.410. PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant, AV 10 Properties, LLC , represented by Michael Hoffman and Dan Furth, has requested a variance from the Fence standard to construct a new fence at 1395 Snowbunny Lane. The property is located in the Moderate - Density Residential (R -15) zone district. The 21,115 square foot lot contains a duplex structure and is located on the comer of Cemetery Lane and Snowbunny Lane. A corner lot contains two front lot lines which divide the lot from the street right -of -ways. When properties are located on corner lots, the owner is required to choose a Page 1 of 3 front yard for the purposes of setbacks and Residential Design Standards.' Because Cemetery Lane is the busier road, the owner chose to take the front yard on Snowbunny Lane, while the remaining yard along Cemetery Lane is allowed at a reduced front yard setback. Each of the facades is considered a "front" facade under the Land Use Code regulations. Additionally, the Land Use Code has sight triangle standards for all corner lots. The standard requires that for thirty (30) linear feet from the intersection that fences be no more than forty -two (42) inches in height. The proposal is to have a forty-two (42) inch fence for thirty (30) feet and then step it up to six (6) feet to the property line. STAFF COMMENTS: RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS REVIEW: As part of the land use review, the Applicant is requesting approval of a Residential Design Standard variance from the Fence Standard for the proposed new fence. The intent of the Residential Design Standards is to "preserve established neighborhood scale and character" and require "that each home, while serving the needs of its owner, contribute to the streetscape." Further, the Standards encourage views of yards and the home to be preserved from the public realm. Indeed, the Design Standards state that "Low fences and hedges may be used to delineate the edge of a property, but it is important not to close off views of the front lawn and house." The "Site Design" section of the Residential Design Standards, which the Fence standard is a part of, state that "where fences or dense landscaping exist or are proposed, it is intended that they be used to define the boundaries of private property without eliminating the visibility of the house and front yard from the street." The proposed fence fails to meet the intent of the design standards, as it would clearly cut off any view of the yard. A forty -two (42) inch fence would clearly define the property line, while also meeting the intent of respecting views to the yard. The Fence standard is only applicable to front facades. Due to the nature of this parcel, it has two (2) front yards, so the standard applies to both. Staff does not find that the neighborhood character necessitates this variance. The six (6) foot high fences on front yards which abut Cemetery Lane were built before the design standards prohibited them. If these parcels are ever redeveloped, they would be required to meet the forty - two (42) in fence standard. The Applicant states that the lot suffers a unique hardship because of its location on a corner lot. Staff does not find this standard is met. There are many properties in Aspen which are located on a corner. All of these properties are treated similarly and are not permitted to have fences taller than forty -two (42) inches. Staff recommends against the requested variance the allow a six (6) foot fence. Staff does not find there are significant constraints on the lot which would dictate this variance. The lot Section 26.575.040.0 provides the regulations for 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, which shall meet minimum setbacks for a front yard in that zone district. The remaining yard bordering a street shall be two- thirds (' /3) of the required front yard setback distance for the zone district. The rear yard must coincide with the rear alignment of neighboring Tots, regardless of which yard is considered the front yard by the owner." 2 Section 26.575.050 provides the regulations for sight triangles: "On corner lots, no fence, retaining wall or similar object shall be erected or maintained which obstructs the traffic vision, nor on corner Tots shall any fence, retaining wall or similar obstruction be erected or maintained which exceeds a height of forty-two (42) inches, measured from street grade, within thirty (30) feet from the paved or unpaved roadway." Page 2 of 3 is a corner lot and is being treated the same as any other corner lot in town. Further, the proposed design does not meet the intent of the standard, and does not provide an "appropriate design" given the development pattern in the neighborhood. Landscaping could be used to provide additional screening. RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the proposal, Staff finds the project fails to meet the variance criteria for the Residential Design Standards. Staff recommends denying the requested Fence variance based on the findings contained within Exhibit A. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMITIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. _, Series of 2007, approving, a variance from the Fence Residential Design Standard to construct a new fence on the property located at 1395 Snowbunny Lane." ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A — Review Criteria and Staff Findings EXHIBIT B — Application with Site Plans EXHIBIT C - Citizen Letter from Michael Spalding Page 3 of 3 r RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING ONE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE FOR 1395 SNOWBUNNY LANE, LOT 1, BLOCK 1 OF THE SNOWBUNNY SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, CO, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL NO. 2735- 013 -12 -003 Resolution #_, Series 2007 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from AV 10 Properties, LLC, represented by Michael Hoffman and Dan Furth, requesting approval of one (1) Residential Design Standards Variance to construct a new fence at 1395 Snowbunny Lane; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned R -15 (Moderate Density Residential); and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended denial, of the proposed land use request; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on December 4, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. , Series of 2007, by a to _ ( — ) vote, approving one Residential Design Standards Variances for the development of a new fence on the property located at 1395 Snowbunny Lane, Lot 1, Block 1 of the Snowbunny Subdivision, City of Aspen, CO; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission fords that the development proposal meets the applicable development standards and that approval of the development proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves one (1) Variance from the Residential Design Standards from Fence Standard (Land Use Code Section 26.410.040.A.3), for the development of a new fence on the property located at 1395 Snowbunny Lane, Lot I, Block 1 of the Snowbunny Subdivision, City of Aspen, CO as illustrated in attached Exhibit A. The variance is from the following language, as stated in Land Use Code Section 26.410.040.A.3in effect on December 4, 2007: "Fences. Fences, hedgerows and planter boxes shall not be more than forty -two (42) inches high, measured from natural grade, in all areas forward of the front facade of the house. Man-made berms are prohibited in the front yard setback. • Section 2: Vested Rights The development approvals granted pursuant to this Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution shall be vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of the development order. Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 4 day of December, 2007. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Dylan Johns, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Exhibit A: Site Plan showing approved fence location and heights. G: \city\Jessica \Cases \218 S Third \P &Z \218sThirdPZ Reso_11 20 07.doc 3 EXHIBIT A: REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS The Planning and Zoning Commission may grant variances from the Residential Design Standards if the proposed application meets the following: a) Provides an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting, or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or, b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site - specific constraints. The following are Staff's findings in regards to the variances being requested by the Applicant. Variance Requested 1. Fences. Fences, hedgerows and planter boxes shall not be more than forty -two (42) inches high, measured from natural grade, in all areas forward of the front facade of the house. Man-made berms are prohibited in the front yard setback. 1 ill { • _ II! I ja 9 11 11110111 J Yes No a) Provides an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting, or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or, Staff Finding: The property in question is located on the corner of Snowbunny Lane and Cemetery Lane. Because this is a corner lot the property has two (2) front lot lines, one on Snowbunny, which is treated as the Primary front yard, and one on Cemetery, which is treated as the Secondary front yard. The Applicant states that the neighborhood context is one that includes six (6) foot tall fences on Cemetery Lane. These fences were constructed before the residential design standards, and would not be permitted under today's code. If the owners of these properties wished to rebuild their fence they would need to come into conformance with the code. Staff does not find that the variance should be granted under this standard because all new fences must conform to the forty -two (42) inch in standard. Exhibit A, Staff findings for 218 S. Third St, Page 1 C 3 Further, because this lot is a corner lot it must abide by the site triangle standards in the code (section 26.575.050, Fences) which require that fences be no more than forty -two (42) inches in height within thirty (30) linear feet of the comer. The proposed fence would be forty -two (42) inches to thirty (30) feet and then jump up to 6 feet. Staff does not find that this design would meet this variance standard. b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site - specific constraints. Staff Finding: The applicant states that the lot is uniquely situated on the corner. Staff does not find this is a hardship because all corner lots in the city are treated the same. Staff does not find that this criterion is met. Exhibit A, Staff findings for 218 S. Third St, Page 2 -. x111 C Michael L. Spalding 1360 Snowbunny Lane Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925 -6810 micksp(aicomcast.net November 28, 2007 City of Aspen Community Development Department Attn: Jessica Garrow 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Jessica: I am writing this letter to express my concerns about the application for a variance to build a six foot tall fence at 1395 Snowbunny Lane. The fence is being built on the corner of two streets which have already become dangerously obstructed with the planting of trees and shrubs, such that it is impossible to see cars approaching from either direction when one attempts to pull onto Cemetery Lane from Snowbunny Lane. By allowing tress to be planted in the right of way, the City has already allowed a dangerous situation to become even worse. Please do not further exacerbate the situation by allowing a six foot fence to completely block the view plane of drivers pulling onto Cemetery Lane. I encourage you to come over to Snowbunny Lane and try to pull southbound onto Cemetery Lane. You will see for yourself how dangerous the intersection is. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 7 ,4 2 1 102 1 . 15 - 1 @Mtn. Dec, 4. 2007 10:26AM t;UMMUIIIIY Utv t!urMt l No. 1559' F. 3! MEMORANDtr TO Chris Benclon, Community Development Director FROM: Joyce A. Allgaier, Deputy Director RE: 1395 ee 1397 Snowbunuy Lane- Residential Design Standard Variance- Building Orientation DATE: April 14, 2006 SUMMARY: MARY: John Muir Architects, Inc., represented by Alan Augustynowica, has applied for a variance lion the Building Orientation requirement in the residential design atandsids to construct a new duplex on the vacant parcel located at 1395 & 1397 Snowbunny Lane. The proposed application is attached as Exhibit `B ". APPLICANT: AV -10 Properties - Gerald Schlief ZONING: R -15 (Moderate Density Re- sidential) REVIEW PROCEDURE: The Community Development Director rosy approve approve with conditions, or deny a variance request from the residential design standards pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410.020(D), Variances. S TAY r COMMENTS: The parcel of land that is subject to this application is a corner lot located on the northwest corner of Snowbunny Lane and Cemetery Lana. The building orientation residential design standard requires that both of the street facing facades of a singl,- family or duplex be parallel to the adjacent streets. The streets adjacent to the property intersect at approximately an acute fogy -seven + (47 +) degree angle. Staff believes that the proposed variance satisfies the review standards for granting a variance from the residential design standards because strict adherence to this standard would likely create a less than functional interior space given this shag angle at which streets intersect with each other. Additionally, Staff finds that The primary. (and longest) facade of this structure feces Snowbunny Lane, where the building orientation standard is met, Staff finds this variance to be necessary for reasons of fairness related tc site - specific constraints. RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that this application meets the applicable review standards for granting a variance from the building orientation residential design standard and recommends that the Community Development Director approve this variance request. 1 ,rk >iti -Pcy itrAviNty— Dec. 4. 2J0) 10.26AM LVIYIIYIVi011 etvtturmtst No. 15591 P 54 RESIDENTIAL, DESIGN STANDARD V c g REv Iuw REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF k7NDlNGs The Community Develo meat Director may approve up to three (3) vaziances from the Residential Design Standards if the proposed application meets thi: following: a) Provides an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context In which the development is proposed and prrpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in thy' criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting, or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine f the exception is warranted; or, b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specifk constraints The following are Statd'a Endings in regards to the variances being requested by the Applicant. Variance Requested Building allegation. The front facades of all pr;lncipul structures shall Ye; No., Yes be parallel to the street On corner lots, both street facing "t^ t.rd�,�4 P y ; . 4 4 f g facades mast be parallel to the ' � I intersecting streets. On .:Yerv ear s•treei. the ant acade of all stn ctur;� front f � shall be parallel to the Tangent of the rnidpoim of the arc of the street. ----� a) Provides an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and purpose of the particular standard In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting; or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or, Staff Finding, Most of the other residences in the immediate area do not have the lot constraints that this parcel does related to the 'wilding orientation standards. The subject property has two frontages along roadways, and the building orientation requirement will be met along one frontage. Staff believes tha: the proposed orientation respe;is and fits into the context of the neighborhood setting. Staff finds this criterion to be met. u e c , 4. 1 U () f IU: /AM vvravIUIYII uEveivralean No. 1559 P. 6 • b) Be clearly nee ^essrtr> for reasons of .fairness relates° to unusual site - specific constraints. Staff Figdinz The proposed design has a facade that is parallel to Snowbunny Laue, but the facade of the structure facing Cemetery Lana is not parallel to the street, The Applicant puts forth that it would be impractical to construct a residence that is parallel to both of the adjacent streets, given the acute forty -seven + (47+) degree angle at which the .streets intersect. Staff agrees with the application in that the lot is unusually shapl!rd and has frontage on two streets. Staff Ends tlii 9 criterion to be met. Deg 4. 2017 10:26AM° CUmmUNI P utvtLO MEN1 No. 1559' F. 4: A1e'k'AoVAL: I hereby approve a variance request from the 'building orientation retiidearial design standard to allow for the construction of the dupes at 1395 & 1397 Snowbunay Lane, as represented on the plans attached hereto as Exhibit "$ ", 3 A1Aft data b P Chris Bendon, Community Development irector ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -• Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit 13 -- Application APPROVED APR 1 7 2006 canto) In DEVELOPIAENTWWCP, ilNOFA$PE • 2 1362 Snowbunny Lane Aspen, Co. 81611 City of Aspen Community Development Dept. 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Co. 81611 Nov. 26, 2007 Dear Jessica Garrrow and Dylan Johns: This letter is regarding the application for a Fence Height Variance at 1395 Snowbunny Lane. The hearing is scheduled for Dec. 4. I wish to be a good neighbor to the people moving to 1395 Snowbunny Lane, as they will be residing directly across the street from me. However, I do have a concern for the visibility when turning from Snowbunny Lane onto Cemetery Lane. The new residents at 1395 Snowbunny Lane will also have this concern when they move in , as they also have to tum onto Cemetery Lane at this intersection. If you send someone to observe this intersection, they will note that the visibility is already obstructed on this comer, so my concern would be to avoid further obstruction. The new owners have assured me that they will be lowering the fence height at the comer to address this concern, which is good. The item they have NOT addressed is that within the last week, they have planted Evergreen Trees in what appears to be the City Right of Way very close to this dangerous corner. The new Evergreens are already affecting the visibility at this comer, and when they grow bigger, which they will, it will be even worse. There are also Evergreen Trees planted on the corner OPPOSITE on Snowbunny Lane in the City Right of Way, the address on that corner is 1392 Snowbunny Lane. I have no idea if these evergreens were allowed when this building was built a few years ago, but the growth of these trees on the corner has created an extremely dangerous traffic situation when turning from Snowbunny Lane onto Cemetery Lane. Someone from your department should definitely check out this comer as it is right across Snowbunny Lane from the property proposing the fence variance. If something can be done to trim, or eliminate the trees on the comer of 1392 Snowbunny Lane, it should be done ASAP as this comer is an "Accident waiting to Happen ". There is heavy traffic on Cemetery Lane and you virtually cannot see at all to pull out from Snowbunny Lane onto Cemetery Lane on this side of the intersection ( just this morning I collision with a truck there ). ' Yours truly, Geraldine Whitman ( phone # 925 - 1458) CITY OF ASPEN ^,OMMUNI?I OEVEIOPMEN1 Denison Levy 1335 Snowbunny Lane Aspen, CO 81611 925 -1787 Dylan Johns Jessica Garrow City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Public Notice 1395 Snowbunny Lane Dear Jessica and Dylan: 1 am against the variance request for a 6 foot fence at the above mentioned property. I drive a VW Jetta and took the attached pictures sitting in my car at the intersection of Snowbunny Lane and Cemetery Lane. As you can see by the pictures, a 6' fence would greatly impair the view for turning onto Cemetery Lane. I would also really appreciate your looking into the trees on both sides. I was not aware that at an intersection such as this trees would be allowed to be planted in the right of way. These pictures I think show how dangerous these trees make it to enter onto Cemetery Lane and I would really appreciate it of some could be removed and others pruned at the bottom the way one of them has been. Thank you so much for checking into this. If possible, 1 would appreciate a response to my letter. Sincerely, Denison Levy RFe''"' COiwt #AuNIit uc4ELOPMENT r IMEMMIEMINOMMMIIMINIMENIMIEllb. 411.11.1111111. • �. � t // li - - --,-- . r Yy 1 i j —_, '" .4.— ...,; 3 r ti,: I .,. --t 1 ti I � II •� l .* 1 ,. ; .4 .. . ,, , I , ... .... A .i.__ ,. i c i I ,---,_.< r 1 y , }, � ; t " J y • t'4. •• • . i 1 .....: 1 ( ....i •••-••-• i 1 '• ,, 11, 1 - tfiteol ,, . . -7.. -,4=4.... i 1 ' L ,4 2 : 3 ...- 'L 4e_ ' (S i , 9 . , et R 1 ip, ` 'r Rah n . • 7 s , v t i f 1 G i I 1 c ___ iist.: e .,... ..,,, . . ..... , .....„.____, s �. t t t; fv_ l.J\ .. • I C • . _ _, 4..a , l'' ' ..'• t --. —1...... ' i... T. t ___ .. ..,_,L, ,. ,,...... - ' ,,, c, , ,... ,_ . ,. _ _ _ , . ...._ ,. c.„. „....... .i 4 e f ;' 4,i i,1 , f' ,-- . i p ! 1 y 1 1 Fi . _... F , E, „..,' ... f ./ '," T-;20.. Pi ._ . . . . I) 5 » 4 w / { ' G / G \ y \ % � \ » - v.., �� 5 -. � \ t i. ,.r. < . .< \ /; , - -- - z««v � � � ® r ƒ \ 2 2 . w w� . � ^ 2 t° � - � » % \ »� ƒ \ + »0 . �� 4 y :y, S a . , ����� ` +\ Geraldine Whitman � � i - �� h 1362 Snowbunny Ln. Aspen, CO 81611-1057 y � - / 3 0 s � � J f 44 • ��e iyetz3ol8A43 .P1) CIAP Michael L. Spalding 1360 Snowbunny Lane Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 925-6810 micksp(a,comcast.net November 28, 2007 City of Aspen Community Development Department Attn: Jessica Garrow 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Jessica: I am writing this letter to express my concerns about the application for a variance to build a six foot tall fence at 1395 Snowbunny Lane. The fence is being built on the corner of two streets which have already become dangerously obstructed with the planting of trees and shrubs, such that it is impossible to see cars approaching from either direction when one attempts to pull onto Cemetery Lane from Snowbunny Lane. By allowing tress to be planted in the right of way, the City has already allowed a dangerous situation to become even worse. Please do not further exacerbate the situation by allowing a six foot fence to completely block the view plane of drivers pulling onto Cemetery Lane. I encourage you to come over to Snowbunny Lane and try to pull southbound onto Cemetery Lane. You will see for yourself how dangerous the intersection is. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, rr _ • V Com Denison Levy 1335 Snowbunny Lane Aspen, CO 81611 925 -1787 Dylan Johns Jessica Garrow City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Public Notice 1395 Snowbunny Lane Dear Jessica and Dylan: I am against the variance request for a 6 foot fence at the above mentioned property. I drive a VW Jetta and took the attached pictures sitting in my car at the intersection of Snowbunny Lane and Cemetery Lane. As you can see by the pictures, a 6' fence would greatly impair the view for turning onto Cemetery Lane. I would also really appreciate your looking into the trees on both sides. was not aware that at an intersection such as this trees would be allowed to be planted in the right of way. These pictures I think show how dangerous these trees make it to enter onto Cemetery Lane and I would really appreciate it of some could be removed and others pruned at the bottom the way one of them has been. Thank you so much for checking into this. If possible, I would appreciate a response to my letter. Sincerely, Denison Levy RFrr"' D L_., s ,„/ CIS EN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CCM 1362 Snowbunny Lane Aspen, Co. 81611 City of Aspen Community Development Dept. 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Co. 81611 Nov. 26, 2007 Dear Jessica Gar row and Dylan Johns: This letter is regarding the application for a Fence Height Variance at 1395 Snowbunny Lane. The hearing is scheduled for Dec. 4. I wish to be a good neighbor to the people moving to 1395 Snowbunny Lane, as they will be residing directly across the street from me. However, I do have a concern for the visibility when turning from Snowbunny Lane onto Cemetery Lane. The new residents at 1395 Snowbunny Lane will also have this concern when they move in , as they also have to turn onto Cemetery Lane at this intersection. If you send someone to observe this intersection, they will note that the visibility is already obstructed on this corner, so my concern would be to avoid further obstruction. The new owners have assured me that they will be lowering the fence height at the corner to address this concern, which is good. The item they have NOT addressed is that within the last week, they have planted Evergreen Trees in what appears to be the City Right of Way very close to this dangerous corner. The new Evergreens are already affecting the visibility at this corner, and when they grow bigger, which they will, it will be even worse. There are also Evergreen Trees planted on the corner OPPOSITE on Snowbunny Lane in the City Right of Way, the address on that corner is 1392 Snowbunny Lane. I have no idea if these evergreens were allowed when this building was built a few years ago, but the growth of these trees on the corner has created an extremely dangerous traffic situation when turning from Snowbunny Lane onto Cemetery Lane. Someone from your department should definitely check out this corner as it is right across Snowbunny Lane from the property proposing the fence variance. If something can be done to trim, or eliminate the trees on the corner of 1392 Snowbunny Lane, it should be done ASAP as this comer is an "Accident waiting to Happen ". There is heavy traffic on Cemetery Lane and you virtually cannot see at all to pull out from Snowbunny Lane onto Cemetery Lane on this side of the intersection ( just this morning liter. collision with a truck there ). ' °F e D Yours truly, Geraldine Whitman ( phone # 925- 44a3 3 0 200 efl� &-et CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT f • PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 1395 SNOWBUNNY LANE DESIGN STANDARDS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be bold on Tuesday, December 4, 2007, at a meeting to begin at 430 p.m. before the Aspect Palming and Zoning Conunission, Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by AV 10 Properties LLC, 1395 Snowbunny Lane, Aspen, Colorado 81611, owner of the subject property, represented by Michael Hoffman PC and Dan Furth. The applicant is requesting approval of a Residential Design Guideline Variances to construct a six (6) foot fence along Cemetery Lane. The property is legally described as Block 1, Lot 1 of the Snowbunny Subdivision, City of Aspen. For further information, contact Jessica Ganow at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2780, jeaorng@J4 ape tco us. s/ Dylan Johns. Clair Aspen Planning and Zang Commission Published in the Aspen Tans on November 18, 2007 City of Aspen Account LAW OFFICE OF E. MICHAEL HOFFMAN, P.C. 106 SOUTH MILL STREET SUITE 202 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 FACSIMILE E -MAIL TELEPHONE (970) 920 -1019 Mhoffman @emhlaw - aspen.com (970) 544 -3442 October 18, 2007 Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Minor Development Application for Lot 1, Block 1, Snowbunny Subdivision, according to the Plat thereof recorded May 2, 1957 in Plat Book 2A at Page 229, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado ( "the Property "), including a Variance Request from the City of Aspen's Residential Design Standards Dear Jennifer: On behalf of our client, AV 10 Properties, LLC ( "the Applicant "), a Texas limited liability company, please find attached its Minor Development Application for the Property referenced above. The Application consists of the following documents: A. Land Use Application Form; B. Dimensional Requirements Form; C. Variance Request from the Residential Design Standards, as discussed herein in this letter dated October 18, 2007; D. Aerial Photograph of Snowbunny Lane, created on September 21, 2007; E. Aerial Photograph of West Aspen, created on September 21, 2007; F. Photographs of Cemetery Lane, taken October 17, 2007; G. Snowbunny Duplex Condominium Map; H. Title Commitment No.Q388194 -2, prepared by Land Title on September 20, 2007; I. Agreement for Payment of the City of Aspen Development Application Fee; and J. Development Application Fee, check no. 2564, in the amount of $1,410.00. Variance Request As part of the Minor Development process, the Applicant hereby requests a variance from the City of Aspen's Residential Design Standards, Section 26.410 of the City's Land Use Code ( "the Code "). If granted, the requested variance would allow the Applicant to build a six -foot fence along the rear property line on Cemetery Lane to provide additional privacy to the lot and buffer against automobile noise on Cemetery Lane, a busy thorough -fare in the area. 4 Jennifer Phelan October 18, 2007 Page 2 The Property is located at 1395 Snowbunny Lane, on the corner of Snowbunny and Cemetery Lanes, as shown in the enclosed aerial photographs. The City required, and the Applicant wishes to formally designate, Snowbunny Lane as the street the Property and the Snowbunny Duplex faces and Cemetery Lane as the street up to which the Property and the Snowbunny Duplex backs. Thus, the front facade of the Snowbunny Duplex faces Snowbunny Lane. As stated above, the Applicant wishes to screen its backyard from Cemetery Lane by building a six -foot fence along its rear property line, which action requires a variance from the City of Aspen's Residential Design Standards. As you know, the purpose of the Residential Design Standards (the "Standards ") is to: preserve established neighborhood scale and character and to ensure that Aspen's streets and neighborhoods are public places conducive to walking. The [Residential Design S]tdards do not prescribe architectural style, but do require that each home, while serving the needs of its owner, contribute to the streetscape. Section 26.410.O10.A. The Standards place great weight on the relationship between front facades and the streets they face: "by orienting buildings parallel to the street and maintain a certain consistency in front setback patters, there is interaction between residents and passersby and the built environment." Section 26.410.010.A.1. Further, The area between the street and the front door of the home is a transition between the public realm of the neighborhood and the private life of a dwelling. Low fences and hedges may be used to delineate the edge of a property, but it is important not to close off views of the front lawn and house. Section 26.410.010.A.2. Residential Design Standard 26.410.040.A.3 requires that fences built forward of the front facade of the house "shall not be more than forty-two (42) inches high, measured from natural grade." The Residential Design Standards do not similarly restrict the maximum allowable height for fences and fences built along rear boundary lines. Because the Property is not subject to Section 26.415 of the Code, the requested variance may be granted if it, once granted, would: a. provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting on a broader vicinity as the Board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or b. be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site - specific constraints. 0 O Jennifer Phelan October 18, 2007 Page 3 Section 26.410.020(D)(2)(a) and (b). As stated above, the Applicant wishes to designate Snowbunny Lane as its front property line and Cemetery Lane as its rear property line. Accordingly, the Residential Design Standards would apply only to that portion of the Property located forward of the front facade of the Snowbunny Duplex. Because the proposed fence will be located behind the front facade of the Snowbunny Duplex, it meets the requirements of the Residential Design Standards. The proposed fence is also consistent with adjacent fences and fences in the immediate neighborhood, as evidenced by photographs enclosed with this application. Further, the proposed fence will be located wholly on Applicant's property, will not exceed six feet in height, and will be constructed in accordance with applicable design standards. To this end, the proposed fence does not otherwise harm or interfere with any of the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan or the Code, including the Residential Design Standards. But, its height will go a long way toward providing the property privacy and an additional buffer against the automobile traffic on Cemetery Lane. Approval of the requested variance is also "clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site - specific constraints." Section 26.410.020(D)(2)(b). The Applicant's property is uniquely situated on a busy corner, with approximately 250 feet of Applicant's "backyard," or rear boundary line, abutting the busier Cemetery Lane. The Applicant, like all property owners, desires and deserves privacy on his property — which the proposed fence would provide. These special circumstances - the size of the lot, the location of the lot, the growth on Cemetery Lane, and the corresponding increase in automobile traffic along Cemetery Lane - are not a result of the actions of the Applicant. The Applicant and I appreciate your consideration of this Minor Development Application, including the variance request described above. Please call me with any questions. Sincerely, E. MICHAEL HOFFMAN, P.C. E. Michael Hoffman cc: AV 10 Properties, LLC Dan Furth 3 \ \ , � � Oq�4SPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ato ofk,3 GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PACKET ( THE CITY OF ASPEN Attached is an Application for review of Development that requires Land Use Review pursuant to the City of Aspen Land Use Code. Included in this package are the following attachments: 1. Development Application Fee Policy, Fee Schedule and Agreement for Payment Form 2. Land Use Application Form 3. Dimensional Requirements Form 4. Matrix of Land Use Application Requirements /Submittal Requirements Key 5. General Summary of Your Application Process 6. Public Hearing Notice Requirements 7. Affidavit of Notice All applications are reviewed based on the criteria established in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code. Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code is available at the City Clerk's Office on the second floor of City Hall and on the internet at www.aspenpitkin.com , City Departments, City Clerk, Municipal Code, and search Title 26. We strongly encourage all applicants to hold a pre - application conference with a Planner in the Community Development Department so that the requirements for submitting a complete application can be fully described. Also, depending upon the complexity of the development proposed, submitting one copy of the development application to the Case Planner to determine accuracy, insufficiencies, or redundancies can reduce the overall cost of materials and Staff time. Please recognize that review of these materials does not substitute for a complete review of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. While this application package attempts to summarize the key provisions of the Code as they apply to your type of development, it cannot possibly replicate the detail or the scope of the Code. If you have questions which are not answered by the materials in this package, we suggest that you contact the staff member assigned to your case or consult the applicable sections of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Aereement for Payment of City of Moen Development Application Peal CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and /1k Al O r 4cC (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: J. APPL h submitted to CITY an application for (hereinafter, THE PRO ). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that the City of Aspen has an adopted fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the Ml extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees It will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission and /or City Council to enable the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in MI prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that In consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior o a determination of applica completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of S which is for hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, PLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of 5235.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT / / i / / By: By: ChrisBemdon CtRat-a W. SClt.t.l Community Development Director Date: 9 j n / n 7 Baling Address and Telephone Number: • iir : _1!% c$ ( (lei tLi t illtra &RIZI Prer ; 97oS7 RECEIVED OCT I 2007 CITY or ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 4 s ATTACHMENT 2 —LAND USE APPLICATION APPLICANT: / l /'� /1 , Name: � j 1' c �o ( � Q'i'^ ° C/ / Location: S� ] `1;) Lf _DA,,. _4, J f/0fi474i/f 71( 77 /95- 7 (Indicate street address, lot .` i k number, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) Z 155 t 13 - 1 2. - CU 2 ) REPRESENTATIVE: o // , /J / (� Name: F. , 1 / r PP adzd, /// dz 14 4 4 Address: M6 /r/,/.Gf ''t / /i/rTi 1Y./ 4A, .0"2 , 0 BCI i t* Phone #: 54/ 4/4 l 7`7"(7 1-,2iS PROJECT: / . o o Name: A //iJ A. Jut. / Iii, , / . -I Address: Al I A /i. .. vw . Phone #: 10 TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): ❑ Conditional Use ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Conceptual Historic Devt. ❑ Special Review ❑ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ❑ Final Historic Development ❑ Design Review Appeal ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ Minor Historic Devt. ❑ GMQS Allotment ❑ Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) ❑ Historic Demolition ❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Subdivision ❑ Historic Designation ❑ ESA — 8040 Greenline, Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption (includes ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane "ij El Lot Split ❑ Temporary Use [v1" Riffles ej �� ❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Text/Map Amendment p L Exls ING CONDITIONS: (descri *lion of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) \/ d' / d s, / 4ti,4' l/�/ / / .. OPOS : (description of pro Dosed buildings, uses, modifications, etc ) 6 ri///1l.,. on �- f e %ul'/%J� _ � 1 Have you atta 1 the following? FEES DUE: $ ❑ Pre- Application Conference Summary ❑ Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement ❑ Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form ) C E EVE D ❑ Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Stand All plans that are larger than 8.5" x 11" must be folded and a floppy disk with an electronic copy of aN,t syittfn 2007 text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. t CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ' ' Oct. 19. 2007 11:24AM No. 1440 P. 2 ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUI . EMENTS FORM Project / c7 a a J �!i .y 4,ji. • , Applicant: £LY_it2 rJ ,)27 _ . . Location: em/zts s.�w: A, o Zone District: / Lot Size: Lot Area: (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial. net leasable: Existing: NIA- Proposed.: `N & Number of residential units: Existing: 2.. Proposed.: Number of bedrooms: Existing: 10 Proposed Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): 1ik DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing :,S2.R2 Allowable: 5 Proposed :. ZS 2. Principal bldg. height: Existing: 2,5 ' Allowable: 2+5 r Proposed: Access. bldg. height: Existing: 'NPv Allowable: alp Proposed: til On -Site parking: Existing: 8 Required: Proposed: %Site coverage: Existing: 25 .3 equired. Proposed: % Open Space: Existing: 74.77 Proposed :: Front Setback: Existing: Required: 25' Proposed: Rear Setback: Existing: Required: /O' Proposed: _ Combined E/R: Existing: • Required 3,5' Proposed.: Side Setback: Existing: Required: ID' Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: , Required: 10' Proposed: Combined Sides: Existing: Required' 20' ,Proposed.: Distance Between Existing 8 Required: Proposed. Buildings Existing non- conformities or encroachments: Variations requested: Received Time Oct. 19. 2007 9:40AM No. 1432 O 0 . i o, y 3 0 - > el IN) • U E N N N a� 4 0. = 0. at! 4 4 7 J > o b ° L a s a " N l a O L L L V a O F 4 w U= 0 ▪ C p( _ as L e = e c) N •° o.d o 9 E E EU 4= (A 'O u Q 9 9 99 a . Z C Q= Qa _ — E a e aQ L L L W o W W a"i > > a e '°^ a e e 0 e 0 e e 'E 'E 0 ` N o u 0 Z 0,.., N N N— •• N em N N N N el *I N N V1 N W a • a D � °' 3 m 3 d 3 d U a. Co) O • a4 � w z w z O F" U z 6 u a C w . a cc ° c8 a a ga . -r O d e dxa3Z � 444 V U rUV °O o .4 k 4 a ot Q ict V7a �C dE- Q aaaa a > - ��z f q o z o a a'S E-i d �' © �Q o 4 N a ^ci�i`a • a E E q .? o N o 4 E� z E W • v u u d No y' a d a = Q p W C 2d .t ', d U p U w a a o p 1 4 Z r e ° .J a Cl.. d L 9 y ln 9 LL .0 • E c M o'a O E o Ge a lin In t-: a r E 'E In In a; M M N p C • . S M M y a - .- 'O a 0 p '� N e E ` N N N a O E a li 1-1 a M a E 2 2 vv m GInIn ^i — M M a N N N N m M en 1 `- U .. 0 0 0 0 0 ti ti , o ti . .r N N 00 a e M F- ..„ p• = y i� . ti M in v v t 0 0 N N 't v N h Z G = y 00 00 0 0 — ..w O Q e—. r N N n .-I O: Q a_ M M W E ° atr'rr r'rrrr " =rrrr r re Mr r _ 0 b pp i_ o> E '� W Z Z Z 7 K ' © a a V > w w 1 w a 7* O w U N Q Z F Z 3 7 w a = c O a s x xw ,w p S � F 7wwazw F z W z W a z z O FFZ F > 0 7 , V a1 > C C > a = w F S w t Q w 5 m a E z a o ; 4 k¢ = m F Q F Q c _ v W z a ✓ r� is, a ` �' w p F Q q d o a Era O o a- a a 2 V z W V v, U al a c oo S 00 zx a. B \ \ } # 4 ) 4 , \ ) \ j \ \ k \ , uN & . . Tis )u 4,§ E E -]!!a ■ ; ; ,.a!! ei / 2 a _ \ \/� § �\ 0 > 0. tIg ; cyl ; \§42\)i$§ cn q� ?g / � ; e a -$ ® ! ( ! § 2 22$ § ]!{ # 2& » /) \ k k 4Eu ®) ) T. 0 0 .0 qi Po k\ In /} NI ...I NI IN NI NI NI ) ® I }( § § \ 2§§ § : ) ; %; at ) zoy ; § j ) � \ / _ ( f ) \)0 >" s » . mz;§k[ 2 K ; 9 1 u k ; 2 )ra z a a } * ATTACHMENT 4- CONT'D- SUBMITTAL KEY 1. Land Use Application with 12. Accurate elevations (in relation to system in the area of the proposed Applicant's name, address and telephone mean sea level) of the lowest floor, subdivision. The contents of the plat shall number, contained within a letter signed including basement, of all new or be of sufficient detail to determine by the applicant stating the name, address, substantially improved structures; a whether the proposed subdivision will and telephone number of the verification and recordation of the actual meet the design standards pursuant to representative authorized to act on behalf elevation in relation to mean sea level to Land Use Code Section 26.480.060(3).20. of the applicant. which any structure is constructed; a Subdivision GIS Data. demonstration that all new construction or 2. The street address and legal substantial improvements will be 21. A landscape plan showing location, description of the parcel on which anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or size, and type of proposed landscape development is proposed to occur. lateral movement of any structure to be features. constructed or improved; a demonstration 3. A disclosure of ownership of the that the structure will have the lowest 22. A subdivision plat which meets the parcel on which development is proposed floor, including basement, elevated to at terms of this chapter, and conforms to the to occur, consisting of a current certificate least two (2) feet above the base flood requirements of this title indicating that no from a title insurance company, or elevation, all as certified by a registered further subdivision may be granted for attorney licensed to practice in the State of professional engineer or architect. these lots nor will additional units be built Colorado, listing the names of all owners without receipt of applicable approvals of the property, and all mortgages, 13. A landscape plan that includes pursuant to this chapter and growth judgments, liens, easements, contracts and native vegetative screening of no less than management allocation pursuant to agreements affecting the parcel, and fifty (50) percent of the development as Chapter 26.470. demonstrating the owner's right to apply viewed from the rear (slope) of the parcel. for the Development Application. All vegetative screening shall be 23. The precise wording of any maintained in perpetuity and shall be proposed amendment 4. An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating replaced with the same or comparable the subject parcel within the City of material should it die. 24. Site Plan or plans drawn to a scale of Aspen. one (1") inch equals ten (10') feet or one 14. Site sections drawn by a registered (1 ") inch equals twenty (20') feet, 5. A site improvement survey including architect, landscape architect, or including before and "after" photographs topography and vegetation showing the engineer shall be submitted showing all (simulations) specifying the location of current status of the parcel certified by a existing and proposed site elements, the antennas, support structures, transmission registered land surveyor, licensed in the top of slope, and pertinent elevations buildings and/or other accessory uses, State of Colorado. (This requirement, or above sea level. access, parking, fences, signs, lighting, any part thereof, may be waived by the landscaped areas and all adjacent land Community Development Department if 15. Proposed elevations of the uses within one - hundred fifty (150') feet. the project is determined not to warrant a development, including any rooftop Such plans and drawings should survey document.) equipment and how it will be screened. demonstrate compliance with the Review Standards of this Section. 6. A site plan depicting the proposed 16. Proposed elevations of the layout and the project's physical development, including any rooftop 25. FAA and FCC Coordination. relationship to the land and it's equipment and how it will be screened. Statements regarding the regulations of surroundings. the Federal Aviation Administration 17. A sketch plan of the site showing (FAA) and the Federal Communications 7. A written description of the existing and proposed features which are Commission (FCC). proposal and a written explanation of relevant to the review. how a proposed development complies 26. Structural Integrity Report from a with the review standards relevant to the 18. One (1) inch equals four hundred professional engineer licensed in the development application. (400) feet scale city map showing the State of Colorado. location of the proposed subdivision, all 8. Plan with Existing and proposed adjacent lands owned by or under option 27. Evidence that an effort was made to grades at two-foot contours, with five -foot to the applicant, commonly known locate on an existing wireless intervals for grades over ten (10) percent. landmarks, and the zone district in which telecommunication services facility the proposed subdivision and adjacent site including coverage/ interference 9. Proposed elevations of the development properties are located. analysis and capacity analysis and a brief statement as to other reasons for 10. A description of proposed 19. A plat which reflects the layout of success or no success. construction techniques to be used. the lots, blocks and structures in the proposed subdivision. The plat shall 28. Neighborhood block plan at I1. A Plan with the 100 -year floodplain be drawn at a scale of one (1) equals one 1 " =50' (available from City Engineering line and the high water line. hundred (100) feet or larger. Architectural Department) Graphically show the front scales are not acceptable. Sheet size shall portions of all existing buildings on both be twenty-four (24) inches by thirty -six sides of the block and their setback from (36) inches. If it is necessary to place the the street in feet. Identify parking and plat on more than a one (1) sheet, an index front entry for each building and locate shall be included on the first sheet. A any accessory dwelling units along the vicinity map shall also appear on the first alley. (Continued on next page.) sheet showing the subdivision as it relates to the rest of the city and the street '4., yr Indicate whether any portions of the 35. Exterior Lighting Plan. Show the houses immediately adjacent to the location, height, type and luminous subject parcel are one story (only one intensity of each above grade fixture. living level). Estimate the site illumination as measured in foot candles and include minimum, 29. Roof Plan. maximum, and average illumination. Additionally, provide comparable 30. Photographic panorama. Show examples already in the community that elevations of all buildings on both sides of demonstrate technique, specification, and/ the block, including present condition of or light level if they exist. the subject property. Label photos and mount on a presentation board 31. A condominium subdivision exemption plat drawn with permanent ink on reproducible mylar. Sheet size shall be twenty-four (24) inches by thirty-six (36) inches with an unencumbered margin of one and one -half (1 1/2) inches on the left hand side of the sheet and a one -half (1/2) inch margin around the other three (3) sides of the sheet pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.480.090. 32. A description and site plan of the proposed development including a statement of the objectives to be achieved by the PUD and a description of the proposed land uses, densities, natural features, traffic and pedestrian circulation, off -street parking, open space areas, infrastructure improvements, and site drainage. 33. An architectural character plan generally indicating the use, massing, scale, and orientation of the proposed buildings. 34. A written description of the variance being requested. • ATTACHMENT 5 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURE 1. Attend pre - application conference. During this one -on -one meeting, staff will determine the review process which applies to your development proposal and will identify the materials necessary to review your application. 2. Submit Development Application. Based on your pre - application meeting, you should respond to the application package and submit the requested number of copies of the complete application and the appropriate processing fee to the Community Development Department. 3. Determination of Completeness. Within five working days of the date of your submission, staff will review the application, and will notify you in writing whether the application is complete or if additional materials are required. Please be aware that the purpose of the completeness review is to determine whether or not the information you have submitted is adequate to review the request, and not whether the information is sufficient to obtain approval. 4. Staff Review of Development Application. Once your application is determined to be complete, it will be reviewed by the staff for compliance with the applicable standards of the Code. During the staff review stage, the application will be referred to other agencies for comments. The Planner assigned to your case or the agency may contact you if additional information is needed or if problems are identified. A memo will be written by the staff member for signature by the Community Development Director. The memo will explain whether your application complies with the Code and will list any conditions which should apply if the application is to be approved. Final approval of any Development Application which amends a recorded document, such as a plat, agreement or deed restriction, will require the applicant to prepare an amended version of that document for review and approval by staff. Staff will provide the applicant with the applicable contents for the revised plat, while the City Attorney is normally in charge of the form for recorded agreements and deed restrictions. We suggest that you not go to the trouble or expense of preparing these documents until the staff has determined that your application is eligible for the requested amendment or exemption. 5. Board Review of Application. If a public hearing is required for the land use action that you are requesting, then the Planning Staff will schedule a hearing date for the application upon determination that the Application is complete. The hearing(s) will be scheduled before the appropriate reviewing board(s). The Applicant will be required to mail notice (one copy provided by the Community Development Department) to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property and post notice (sign available at the Community Development Department) of the public hearing on the site at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing date (please see Attachment 6 for instructions). The Planning Staff will publish notice of the hearing in the paper for land use requests that require publication. The Planning Staff will then formulate a recommendation on the land use request and draft a memo to the reviewing board(s). Staff will supply the Applicant with a copy of the Planning Staff's memo approximately 5 days prior to the hearing. The public hearing(s) will take place before the appropriate review boards. Public Hearings include a presentation by the Planning Staff, a presentation by the Applicant (optional), consideration of public comment, and the reviewing board's questions and decision. 6. Issuance of Development Order. If the land use review is approved, then the Planning Staff will issue a Development Order which allows the Applicant to proceed into Building Permit Application. 7. Receipt of Building Permit. Once you have received a copy of the signed staff approval, you may proceed to building permit review. During this time, your project will be examined for its compliance with the Uniform Building Code. It will also be checked for compliance with applicable provisions of the Land Use Regulations which were not reviewed in detail during the one step review (this might include a check of floor area ratios, setbacks, parking, open space and the like). Fees for water, sewer, parks and employee housing will be collected if due. Any document required to be recorded, such as a plat, deed restriction or agreement, will need to be reviewed and recorded before a Building Permit is submitted. ATTACHMENT 6 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICING REQUIREMENTS Three forms of notice are required by the Aspen Land Use Regulations: publication in the newspaper, posting of the property, and mailing to surrounding landowners. Following is a summary of the notice requirements, including identification of who is responsible for completing the notice. 1. Publication - Publication of notice in a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen is to be done at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. The legal notice will be written by the Community Development Department and we will place the notice in the paper within the appropriate deadline. 2. Posting - Posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the property is to be done fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. It is the applicant's responsibility to obtain a copy of the sign from the Community Development Department, to fill it in correctly and to bring proof to the hearing that posting took place (use attached affidavit). 3. Mailing - Mailing of notice is to be made to all owners of property within 300 feet of the subject development parcel by the applicant. It is the applicant's responsibility to obtain a copy of the notice from the Community Development Department, to mail it according to the following standards, and to bring proof to the hearing that the mailing took place (use attached affidavit). Notice to mineral Estate Owner. An Applicant for surface Development shall notify affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application for development. The applicant shall certify that the notice has been provided to the mineral estate owners. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of public hearing. ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: , 200 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty -two (22) inches wide and twenty -six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of , 200, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) 0 Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this day of , 200, by WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: Notary Public ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL --, had beer+ r. Pe in,tus I I1-..IX Eie Ldt Heard Nevlpete Fpm Rents Falpet Ieb DS? _. _..._ u 6,t e ev 2., e tL: ] d s• la a s7 9 A lag 1 :. 9 U _..... A412.4Aa MI g. g . Man Cwlan Fjatd+' Ydwun t Pieces , adzes Fee Surrmy Sub parage CAMEROS ROAM tlalay Fee; p ° y I1P.M *T T w '13XAi0W&INY IN ibmi% 9.2007.A5LU .� API/SOiel i et, 1ASPEN statedCO J 4,161611 J C i MagletPenat l J Raging Dunes lad+W APpbd 10/19120 7 L1 z i Reledl J Status !panting ApPOVedI t� � Desa RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS Nswd 1 L find I J SWtiled IDAN FIRTH 9432332 Clock Fon D9 Evpiet 11011320]8 J Ovaw Las Name lAV 10 5170g507155, U.0 J Fif Memel 5773WOODWAY DR WO Phone HOUSTON TX 77067 P Ovals ItApgirst7 Les Nme }AV 10 PROPERTIES, LLC J Rs Name 5773WODDWAY DR PLO Nowt [tot d 127939 J(HOUSTON T %77057 Lender — __ Les Namel J Fes Nevis Ptoe I Enter IN pnmi hp, code AswnDddbl —ill` Record 2 d2 J c i U \ � , � Ii \ 1 U �V�J 27 36 -02 . Ll- 0 l. 0 9.-1 aTE,14 Eile Edit Record Navigate FQrm Reports Format Iab Melp Ii*b * >X ki-'/ -4.~[ Q·' ® -~ f lj. j--lf N i * -4 r.] i) ~= ~mp i : 20 7 0 4-F- 0 0/.3 3 49 [b O Main~ Custom Fjelds ~ Actions ~ Fees | Fee Summart ~ Maluation ~ Parcels | Sub Permits ~ Conditions ~ Routing klistory ~ Permit Tppe ~ Permit # ~0060.2007.ASLU n Address ~1550 HOMESTAKE DR .gj Apt/Suite ~ 0 1 City |ASPEN State |EE--~] Zip ~81611 gj 1 Permit Information --3.3.- 23-.r . ~ Master Permit ~ Routing Queue |ask,07 Applied 110/23/2007 3 91 ~ Proiect ] ..2,~ Status 1 pending Amoved 1 --11 - 1 Description ~VARIANCE FROM RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STABDARDS Issued ~ -_1 Final I 2 1 2 Submitted ~RICHARD NEILY Clock {Enning Days ~ 0 Expires ~10/17/2008 -] Owner ~ " ~ -3 Last Name ~FISHER £| First Name ~CAROLE C |PO BOX 12372 ASPEN CO 81612 I I Phone #70] 925-1392 12 Ownerls Applicant? Applicant 1 , Last Name ~FISHER g| Fnt Name iCAROLE C IPO BOX 12372 IASPEN CO 81612 Phone ~(970] 925-1392 Cust # j25763 41 Lender « ~ "" -~ -- - Last Name ~ jj Fwst Name j Phone ~ E nter the pamit type code 1 AspenG011{b] ~ Recad: 1 of 1 O,1 Vt,10 J< - D sm N Moint} , xoqi 01 sdno,9 gel IJ913rmits O 4- l 1 %\§24\4 4 U.i>bit- 10 i 1- UPDATE: (10/29/2012) The court of appeals handed down its decision in this case and the preceding case. The decisions are rather lengthy and too complicated to summarize here. Council members have been provided with a memorandum from the city attorney's office summarizing the decisions in this and the preceding case. As in the preceding case, the Supreme Court has now denied the Petitions for Certiorari. After a status conference with the judge, it was determined there are no further issues to be resolved. This case is now closed. PROJECT: JEROME VENTURES LLC, ET AL. VS. CITY OF ASPEN DEPT: City Attorney Status: Open CONTACT: James R. True Date Opened: 9/10 DESCRIPTION: This is a declaratory judgment action involving the City's effort to collect the Real Estate Transfer Taxes (RETT) on a transaction that involved the transfer of property through a deed in lieu of foreclosure. The Plaintiff in this case obtained ownership of the Jerome Hotel by acquiring a loan that was given to the prior owner by Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital, Inc. Traditionally, the holder of the note acquires the property at the completion of a foreclosure action then sells the property to a new buyer to recoup the bad debt. On that sale to the new buyer, the City collected the RETT. In this case, the holder of the note has retained ownership and seeks to avoid the RETT by asserting that this was a foreclosure action. Although the Council has amended the code to address this purported loophole, the City disagrees with the Plaintiff's interpretation of the old code. UPDATE: (10/29/12) This case and all issues related to it have been dismissed. PROJECT: CAROLE C. FISHER V. THE CITY OF ASPEN DEPT: City Attorney Status: Open CONTACT: James R. True Date Opened: 11/08 DESCRIPTION: Carole Fisher has filed an action against the City seeking judicial review of P&Z's decision to reject a variance for improvements done in the front yard of her home on Homestake Drive. Counsel has just accepted service of process and will commence certifying the record in this case. UPDATE: (10/29/12). The denial of the variance request could not be appealed to City Council. We have tried to reach a resolution that would be acceptable to the owner and the City but have not done so yet. Production of the record has been completed. It is possible that the Plaintiff here may just seek a discussion before Council in executive session through a settlement conference. If Council is willing to do this, such would be scheduled at some time in the future. Plaintiff has filed its opening brief. The City has until February to respond. However, at an executive session on January 25th, the Council and Ms. Fisher discussed a settlement proposal that will involve an amendment to the code and a resolution of this matter. This will return to Council in a public context in the future. However, the work required to make this conform to our agreement has now been pompleted. It is 4elieved that his matter is resolved. C 0 4.4.-- 6/\ vvit#4 24 =t b (4 Ll t. 1% \ 5 PROJECT: ASPENITALL, LLC. v. CITY OF ASPEN DEPT: City Attorney Status: Open CONTACT: James R. True Date Opened: 4/09 DESCRIPTION: Aspenitall, LLC, apparently owned by the Birdman family, filed suit against the City of Aspen alleging that the City had improperly removed 2 hour parking signs in front of their house on South Mill and replaced them with "No Parking" signs. The removal of public parking in this location was based on standards related to road width. It is also associated with changes that occurred on the street due to development on the other side of the street. The parking that was previously allowed and that has been removed was within the City right-of-way. The Birdman's exhausted their administrative remedies. Since there was no procedure that allowed the Birdman's to appeal to Council, they filed this suit. UPDATE: (10/29/12). A trial was conducted on December 6, 2010. On April 9, 2012, the Court issued an Order finding in favor of the City on all issues. The City filed a Bill of Costs for $2,700 incurred in this case. That request was granted on May 2gm However, the Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal. PROJECT: MARKS v KOCH DEPT: City Attorney Status: Open CONTACT: James R. True Date Opened: 10/09 DESCRIPTION: Marilyn Marks sued the city clerk claiming that the city clerk unlawfully denied Ms. Marks request to inspect ballot images created as part of the tabulation process in the last municipal election in May 1009. Ms. Marks claims that the Colorado Open records Act entities her to inspect the ballot images. The city denied her access to the images as there is a state law that requires the city clerk to secure the cast ballots for a period of 6 months after an election and thereafter destroy them. In addition, the city clerk is of the opinion that to release the ballots would cause substantial injury to the public interest in that voters have a right to a secret ballot. Public disclosure of cast ballots, or images of ballots, may be used to identify individual voters and thus violate the right of voters to cast a ballot in secret. The city filed a motion to dismiss. A few days before the scheduled hearing (March 22-23, 2010) Judge Boyd granted the City's motion to dismiss. UPDATE: (10/29/2012) On September 29, 2011, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case with directions. A Petition for a Writ of ././6/5 TUTTLE SURVEYING SERVICES To: Carole Fisher From: Jeffrey A Tuttle P.L.S. 1550 Homestake Drive Tuttle Surveying Services Aspen, Colorado 81611 727 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601 Ph. (970) 928-9708 Date: April 30,2012 Fx. (970) 947-9007 Project- 1550 Homestake Berm Email jeff@tss-us.com I, Jeffrey Allen Tuttle being a Professional Land Surveyor in the State of Colorado hereby certifies to the City of Aspen, that the top of the berm (located on Lot 19, West Aspen Subdivision also known as 1550 Homestake Drive) is no higher than 42' (42 inches) from a point at the toe ofthe berm, using an elevation of 1000.65 at the said toe of berm, it was determined that the highest point of the ~0**Al®3.88 which is a difference of 3.23 feet (39 inches). ,£974/) 0.HE G/8724& M ...43 Yl , A -„u .·: 5(-?doss.- e ·-:1 AM* 0 6 /0 7 ~ 20 ) 2, /77 : 9.' M Jeffr~Alk~Uittle. P.L. 84)133638 1% £ L AWD 91#4 »»ssss, NEILEY & ALDER ATTORNEYS Please Reply To: RICHARD Y. NEILEY, JR. 201 North Mill Street, Suite 102 EUGENE Al. AIDER 6800 Highway 82, Suite 1, Upper Le\'el Aspen, Colorado 81611 JOHN F. NEILEY Glenwood Springs, Colorado 8i6oi (970) 925-9393 (970) 928-9393 Fax (970) 925-9396 Fax (970) 928-9399 November 6,2009 HAND DELIVERY James R. True, Esquire Assistant City Attorney 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Carole C. Fisher v. The City of Aspen, Pitkin County District Court, Case No. 2008 CV 38 Dear Jim: As we have discussed, I am requesting the opportunity to discuss settlement o f the above-referenced litigation with the Aspen City Council in Executive Session. This letter constitutes a settlement proposal and offer of compromise which, pursuant to Colorado Rules of Evidence, Rule 408, is inadmissible in judicial or other proceedings. BACKGROUND We represent Carole C. Fisher, the owner of the real property at 1550 Homestake Drive, Aspen, Colorado 81611. During 2006 and 2007, Ms. Fisher constructed a new residence on her property pursuant to a building permit issued by the City of Aspen. During the course of construction, she excavated for the basement of the home and determined that it would be more cost efficient and less environmentally degrading to utilize the excavated materials on site. She, therefore, recontoured the property with the materials from the excavation and avoided the necessity of trucking those materials to an alternate site. In early-2007, Ms. Fisher obtained a Certificate of Occupancy for her home following complete inspections of the property. At the time the Certificate of Occupancy was issued, the excavated materials had been placed on site in essentially the same configuration as exists today. In the spring of 2007, Ms. Fisher began a landscaping project for her residence that involved the installation of trees and bushes and an underground irrigation system. The landscaping minimized the amount of grass so as to utilize irrigation water most efficiently. At Letter to Mr. True November 6,2009 Page 2 the time the landscaping was installed, there was no requirement ill the Municipal Land Use Code for any permit associated with that work. In September of 2007, after the project had been completed, Ms. Fisher received a Notice of Violation from Todd Orange, the Community Development Zoning Officer. That Notice of Violation asserted that Ms. Fisher had constructed a berm on her property in violation of § 26.410.040 of the Residential Design Standards, which prohibit manmade berms in the front yard set back. Ms. Fisher, through the undersigned's office, timely responded to the Notice of Violation. Although she denied violating the Residential Design Standards and denied that her landscaping constituted a benn, at the direction of City Staff, we prepared and submitted an Application for Variance from Residential Design Standards. The Application was heard on February 5, 2008 by the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission which voted to deny the requested variance. At the February 5,2008 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting, Ms. Fisher presented letters from 16 of her neighbors in support of her landscaping. Ms. Fisher explained that she had proceeded with her landscaping project in the good faith belief that the recontouring o f her lot was approved by the City o f Aspen when her Certificate o f Occupancy had issued. She also explained that, in reliance on the Certificate of Occupancy, she had spent tens of thousands of dollars on landscaping. Nonetheless, she was not successful before the Planning & Zoning Commission. As a consequence of the denial of the application, on February 19, 2008, the undersigned submitted a Notice of Appeal of the action of the Planning & Zoning Commission pursuant to Chapter 26.314 of the Land Use Code, which provides for appellate review by the City Board of Adjustment. City Staff refused to allow the appeal. Thereafter, we commenced the above-referenced litigation seeking review pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106 and also seeking declaratory relief. MS. FISHER'S POSITION Although the litigation involves a number of claims related to the Notice of Violation and the procedures surrounding the denial of her application, there are three principal areas that we believe justify an equitable resolution as proposed below. First, Ms. Fisher relied in good faith on the City' s issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for her property with the current site contouring in place. She spent tens of thousands of dollars installing landscaping based upon that reliance and only after her project was completed was she served the Notice of Violation. We believe that equity and good conscience dictate that Ms. Fisher's landscaping should be allowed to remain in place. Notwithstanding, she is willing, reluctantly, to modify the landscaping as described below. Second, we do not agree that the landscaping on the Fisher property constitutes a berm. The landscaping within the setback varies from several inches to approximately 55 inches Letter to Mr. True November 6,2009 Page 3 above natural grade. The landscaping does not obstruct the relationship between the public right-of-way and the house but merely softens that relationship and provides an element of privacy. The Residential Design Standards depict a "berm" as a solid wall of dirt substantially higher than the height permitted for fencing and hedgerows, topped with a solid line of trees. This is not what was placed on the Fisher property. There is no definition in the Land Use Code of what constitutes a "berm." Furthermore, 16 of Ms. Fisher's immediate neighbors like the landscaping and consider it consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Additionally, Ms. Fisher's home is heavily impacted by the traffic on Homestake Drive. She is immediately across the street from the Aspen Municipal Golf Course and has experienced numerous errant golf balls landing on her property which, on occasion, have damaged automobile windows. The shoulder of the street directly across from the Fisher residence is heavily used in the winter for parking for cross- country skiing and for dog walking. Thus, the extent o f landscaping installed is reasonable. Third, Ms. Fisher was denied an opportunity for an appeal to the Board of Adjustment as required by Chapter 26.314 of the Land Use Code. The Land Use Code is clear that an adverse decision from a decision making body may be heard in an appeal before the Board of Adjustment. Staff at Community Development refused to allow this appeal to go forward. We believe there are significant issues presented in the litigation in the Pitkin - County District Court upon which Ms. Fisher is likely to prevail. However, we would prefer to reach a negotiated resolution of this dispute. MS. FISHER'S PROPOSAL Ms. Fisher is willing to modify the landscaping so that it does not exceed a height o f 42 inches at any point within the front yard setback. This would be consistent with the height allowed for fences, hedgerows and planter boxes. Since Ms. Fisher can, by right, construct a fence of 42 inches in the front yard setback, we think allowing landscaping of a similar height would be consistent with the intent of the design standards that an element of openness be maintained in the front of residences. In addition, Ms. Fisher is willing to remove, if require by City Council, decorative boulders placed within the City right-of-way as part of the landscaping. In exchange for this proposed settlement, Ms. Fisher requests a revocable license for landscaping within the City right-of-way. In this regard, we note that without exception residences on Homestake Drive and within the neighborhood have installed landscaping within the City right-of-way with no objection from the City. Letter to Mr. True November 6,2009 Page 4 Appended hereto are the following: 1. A survey of the Fisher residence which depicts the landscaping iii place and highlights in red the area in excess of 42 inches in height; 2. A photograph of the front of the Fisher residence showing the landscaping as installed depicting the area in excess of 42 inches with a red line; 3. Copies of the letters of support received from Ms. Fisher's neighbors; and 4. A copy of our Notice ofAppeal dated February 19, 2008. CONCLUSION Ms. Fisher respectfully requests that City Council exercise its discretion to settle the pending litigation based upon the proposal set forth herein. Please contact me to discuss setting Executive Session to discuss the litigation and settlement with City Council. VFGh~~ly yours, 1 V & ALDER ~A j f Richard Y. Neiley, Jr. RYN/agk Enclosure M.m p,0 l.-l,AD A .11- 04 i 02/d , who reside at 175 CA,Wrnal-D *14,13' approve of Carole Fisher's existing landscape design at 1550 Homestake Dr. and sup- port her efforts to obtain a landscape variance from the City of Aspen. Comments: -[Ae [*Ail>64*p ik[G, 41- 1§50 1-6-Mes-INCE UrAS BALM 44 Cep -twe Alet 44 (3'0 2-14-0-oD, -Dr- 1 3 6,e-all,L>i- --t>ss i AN Et> 1-0 1(-a,ALD ft«0 -tus- sltle-12· a,LA)b 1 Al 6 4<2.2,4 A A b 64*5 -R> e·G»/ 1--MAA, 6 +4-r Ptut>f EK,ECUX-€O \A) LTIA 4,6,1-l VE -r~LfEES »lb Pt/L rS . 1 to? 0 +\Ats C.ANI 7*"& 91*MAN Al ls. h Signature V. 1 ~ AI-,ux--e-'u Date 414 3, /247 8/ 1/We d075* 1 624# , who reside at /9 9 y I-knics Lk c approve of Carole Fisher's existing landscape design at 1550 Homestake Dr. and sup- port her efforts to obtain a landscape variance from the City of Aspen. Comments: tu.~__ 0*1 -/ Signature f7 / 0 09_lfT /4~ L>cr I Date 7-/ 31 0 2 1/We 641(~ 01 1\F.,Pj-9 'whores\de at 1 9* Ri M €51[414 /0/~ approve of Carole Fisher's existing landscape design at 1550 Homestake Dr. and sup- port her efforts to obtain a landscape variance from the City of Aspen. Comments: 31 Couk 9 L &* -90-u Li U. k< cda.,7 & cok 4- 9441 Signatur Date 2 - 4-0 f 1AA A- J) .2 J A A Al )(/ 1~ \ANe ( 1/U v v ,-,u-, , who reside at 14 5 6 11 N.tr h 29 approve of Carole Fisher's existing landscape design at 1550 Homestake Dr. and sup- port her efforts to obtain a landscape variance from the City of Aspen. Comments: 1 0 8 04 32 9 0 Po l l u-1-i ~_ 1 Il* 5 0,0 0-reen I d--c Qu i Rouju n S inouL oln ll- ha_~« U\441-0 61 Cuvuj ·- pla V«-6~~- - 2- <6 10/4- R Mif c<_ bu y(3.- - 6 Old- Wi /0~~z- 5 u,VA- ta~·01 + 1-,-1 Win)£,c . Signature 6 OAob-\-9 bUV' Date & 9~00 1/We R 0/t# 4 91'21. 4»0 Et,Let -1.,0 reside at 1,9,0 St r ' 6 approve of Carole Fisher's existing landscape design at 1550 Homestake Dr. and sup- port her efforts to obtain a landscape variance from the City of Aspen. Comments: 1 204-0 16 »436*0- 1 4- A»'h tri/01/41 -tu (24-0 4/ (A/LE« .u£ e i a/IC) M-e-/ 1?A .. ,/7 Signature 351 403-1 / 0.10/ Date 2-Zztic* 0 FROM : STITT FAX NO. : 561 659 211111 3. 04 2008 04:16PM Pl pw"11[:,1 0'lult:, luuu d Idl luseape VarianCe MOIA the CIty 01 Avr-n Comments 4 %4-4.2/ Bu-1, fL£14- (U-. 1--43·0]14' 40·u -kij Ltdu *-6_uf -1u~-2~ dm(»22 n- j fl -~ 91«/ 02-11_ 4/,=44 Au=-·/ l242.-£0314--2 /«a-3/£1 t€k-Zt- L--.2.t-,6E-*--de/. .2 /*f~2-2€---~Cz»,-e»C-- Le--, 9-t~- 1 6114 - 4£16 4,6 C OV Signature- E/L,k'*{- v j v. *4.-/6.U L t(l» LiL© 4 Date 40« FAX 946-920.9950 Feb 05 08 01:59p Curtis Kaufman 970-544-0060 p.1 teb Ub 08 Ul=b-/p Great , ice btualos 21/U-6/U-VV P. 1 1/We~FCO 5 88~e,/Pv ,whoresideat £?DI (2116-»-Fy{-lt-(--b OLD 6 1 P *52-v' C_C PI- 6(/ approve of Carole Fishefs exising landscape design at 1550 Hornestake Dr. and sup- port her elforts to obtain a laidscape variance from me City of Aspen. Comments: / /1 ri-/noull e€ 7-64Q_ /00·~CefEA>fo .639< c_,4,--,-p=Lraot -~ ED 61- T» E- E I -9 t-& 1/12 f .t BEA-,7 1-46 2 A fijq. 1 £4 S C-« p TAT E-Ev Ar,OJ F /Ll A- 61 A -O r-J a La f -u. 4 1- 81 p.-kt-0-, :|A u rrad-G-t, 7-11 li- F , 1 H- E- A s LA.-1 k~ S C A /0 fi_ hA S BE-¢1 j D t, -0 ¢%- U 1 7 M 6.- y L €. L L EL•v r ZA £ TE : a-1 ts C r y L E /3--/ 0 E,-4 1-4 A A 02. i 714 4- ,-v & C 6 14 ge,1 140( b r-, 0(4 --4 -rat W Appei- Ank-' ti ' P £ S As €. A PA-2 0 e < l . Signature (L /E- a Date 3-/1/0-7 f , l"te 0 1 , 4-ourup , who reside at 9 & 5 (Uff, a. R cl approve of Carole Fisher's existing landscape design at 1550 Homestake Dr. and sup- port her efforts to obtain a landscape variance from the City of Aspen. Comments: Bw (+U y€df 6#69 204 R~£ C f ~ 5 puo *ob l«_ - Signature A 64-way Date $ .4. 0% EEd€j+ 1--01 4 el L y/*:74- \/\Ne O bool ~ L)/OV<, *0 resideal l LRPO 140 it.A EAL AR. PA__ approve of Carole Fisher's existing landscape design at 1550 Homestake Dr. and sup- port her efforts to obtain a landscape variance from the City of Aspen. Comments: UE Lbut-Jf- /-1- /O 0 6- S F e_oc + 1 '£ 4 signature am*fv --- Ectdk- a- 3~01 Date ~/7 - l* 0=0_, t 1/We C.[ TJ- + Cd,fo© 600*-lblwNho reside at 1 6 / 0 Ar Ov«,541:e D·,K vt- approve of Carole Fisher's existing landscape design at 1550 Homestake Dr. and sup- port her efforts to obtain a landscape variance from the City of Aspen. Comments: 80/J-5 ca~A-~ 15 kice - 50(-1-3 -Af AL: Zk bor-1«4- - --45 te-Faili~-_- dUL. Signature ~NAL 2.~:~9.02~4,~' Date 2 -4 - 0% e '/we Tk ?b, 1 f FS , who reside at 85-6- 614 Ht Id Roah approve of Carole Fisher's existing landscape design at 1550 Homestake Dr. and sup- port her efforts to obtain a landscape variance from the City of Aspen. Comments: kj~ i 9 0'h(Jolt_ Ad 41,1 42-i 8Â¥) Lage f-o )··+) *A~. Ii> 6 5~ 4 Nk//)4 Jlk- 4 4 Vygra· Signature 9 44 Date 1/4 -< ~ C U A 1, rt-7 L/£ l 1 1 ~9~1~60-t~-0 Lf 84.'0>-.44--1 tf--(-,1.,0-fll--E,/ i - c-/) ly« 1, 61141 7LA if r / C t.jth 43 1~ C. ./1 1 ~ i r h . 4 3 1---0 Et---225-77 LACY.)14< 11. \J UU 04-jELLinj 0- C 171.3 C (7<Fe-60- lidbi c- os ir-00-1-7. 44/ i 6/ 1 ,/10 Lj.JEW a~ A 9< L~,~G...P·~ti U I ~.-077»1:'1-211~- 9 94£~« 1 l' A - 4 - , A. w • v-YE.4.-7 A f ./--h , e <) / f '901- <ir 31/3, 1%~ 124.All V ' d U «l o & \/\Ne ~Al) E-r-- ~-0-r $ m IE ,whores\deat /6-25<~,£.VER[\/4 G.- ~R. approve of Carole Fisher's existing landscape design at 1550 Homestake Dr. and sup- port her efforts to obtain a landscape variance from the City of Aspen. Comments: Signature .-~-.0•J~ "~t.,1Eul, Date_-1.j flb--0'zr,, 7 00 R 1/We 1443 3 12&144 , who reside at 1 690 ke·*1 4ati 1)0 approve of Carole Fisher's existing landscape design at 1550 Homestake Dr. and sup- port her efforts to obtain a landscape variance from the City of Aspen. Comments: 70 2-<2641 ~25 wal , 0 144 3- A ix neo Cnic£,pt- -io .toRM d ccop' Mj ttit- gr~u.ul J /ti'A &11 tte <fret- Pt\5< ce- 06 4.ke_ 610\44 4 Ae, 110»t Signature 4-4 993»y\%3 Date 41 4 i 88 To: Planning ana Zoning Comrn,ssior From: Marilyn Marks A Rlt i U /Vvvul/Vi~- RE: 1550 Homestake Drive proposed variance Hearing Feb 5,2008 ! am writing in support of the application for varjance filed by Carol Fisher for 1550 Homestake Drive. I have received proper notice of the application, and have carefully observed and considered the landscape design in question and the impact on the neighborhood. I am fully supportive of the landscape plan, and the plantings and diversity it adds to the otherwise somewhat barren area of street frontage on Homestake. I own the property next door to Ms. Fisher (1520 Homestake), and encourage the additional plantings, trees, and shade which help break up the masses of large houses facing the street and the cleared area of the golf course. I plan to build my personal residence on the adjoining lot at some time in the future. It is likely that I am the neighbor most impacted bythis landscape plan, which I feei enhances the neighborhood. Please let me know if you have further questions of my support of this variance request. i will be out of the countrv on February 5. Otherwise, I would planto attend and speak personally on behalf of this variance which I believe enhances the design elements ot tne street. i may be reached al 970 404 2225 or Marilvn@AmenOffice.cory. Marilyn Marks ywe -32~skpk k Shill,413) or-Jwhoreside at /030 ,9,1'LA- 3<-,·ril DY--;VL approve of Carole Fisher's misling landscape design at 1550 Hornestake Dr. and sup- port her efforts lo obtain a landscape variance from the City of Aspen. Comments: 1 k 12._ -l-h kn k 41-,-2- ne-,0 horne an d . 1 85Â¥>e.£1 alb -+1-2- L OLA 3 1. a-9 €_ CL i ( 1 5-50 Hornâ„¢-ake_ 1 ooks GL Lot#5Ont- . --- 622- hor-- -thart- it Sets <a_ ya c.eal arrt -fly- 04-6 e,rs 'An -Ph-t nil<*.6,-110£0 who cor-e_ Condicker; r.9 _build;,¤ j re- rr,oc:G./1,4 7- or 5~PrL.t 6,/15 Up --1-·A t,y- la,7(#5(-apt-5 '177 ~-#12 fu-J-ur- - 1 Signature ====4412-·L-:.6.:~ Date 2--/ s 1 ~ i ./ NEILEY & ALDER ATTORNEYS Please Reply To: RICHARD Y. NEILEY, JR. 201 North Mill Street, Suite 102 EUGENE M. ALDER 6800 Highway 82, Suite 1, Upper Level Aspen, Colorado 81611 JOHN F. NEILEY Glenwood Springs, Colorado 8i6oi (970) 925-9393 (970) 928-9393 Fax (970) 925-9396 Fax (970) 928-9399 February 19,2008 VIA HAND DELIVERY -· ': --3.- Mr. Chris Bendon 2- - Community Development Director - . City of Aspen i - 130 South Galena Street - Aspen, CO 81611 Re: NOTICE OF APPEAL PURSUANT TO LAND USE CODE, CHAPTER 26.316 Denial of the Carole Fisher Application for Interpretation of the Residential Design Standards or, - Alternatively, for the Grant of a Variance for 1550 Homestake Drive, Lot 19, West Aspen Subdivision, Filing No. 2, City of Aspen, Colorado, Pitkin County, Colorado, Parcel ID No. 2735-024-01-022 Dear Mr. Bendon: Please accept this letter as our Notice of Appeal in connection with the above-referenced matter. A public hearing was held on the Carole Fisher Application before the City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission on Tuesday, February 5,2008. The Application involved two matters. First, the -~ - Application sought an interpretation of the Residential Design Standards that the landscaping on the f .. . Applicant's property did not constitute a "berm." Second, the Application sought a dimensional variance in the event that the Planning & Zoning Commission determined that the landscaping was a berm to allow the landscaping to exceed the 42 inch maximum height for walls and fences established by the Residential Design Standards. The Planning & Zoning Commission deterrnined that the landscaping constituted a berm and denied the request for a dimensional variance. We believe the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision was in error for several reasons. The Residential Design Standards do not define what constitutes a "berm." The Residential Design Standards include an illustration showing a berm as a continuous earthen barrier planted with trees. The Applicant' s landscaping does not constitute a berm based upon the depiction shown in the Residential Design Standards. Even if the landscaping could properly be characterized as a berm under the pictorial definition of the Residential Design Standards, a dimensional variance should have been granted -based . - - upon the evidence presented. The Planning & Zoning Commission concluded that the Applicant's -- .; landscaping was not in character with the neighborhood and did not represent an appropriate pattern of i -- - development in the neighborhood. This finding was patently incorrect and not supported by the evidence. Letter to Mr. Bendon February 19, 2008 Page 2 The Applicant presented 16 letters from adjacent property owners in support of the variance application. There was no public opposition to the granting of the variance. Photographs submitted by the Applicant demonstrated that similar landscaping features have been incorporated into many properties in the neighborhood. The Planning & Zoning Commission also improperly concluded that the Applicant's property was not uniquely impacted by proximity to the Aspen Municipal Golf Course. The Planning & Zoning Commission improperly concluded that all of the residences on Homestake Drive were equally ,--. impacted by golf balls landing on and damaging their properties. This conclusion was not supported by the evidence presented, which demonstrated that the other residences along Homestake Drive within the trajectory of golf balls from the tee boxes were protected by landscaping and vegetation screening. Without the landscaping, such protection will not be available to the Applicant. Additionally, the Applicant' s installation of landscaping on her property occurred only after the City of Aspen Community Development Department had issued a certificate of occupancy for the properly. At the time the certificate of occupancy was issued, the Applicant's property had been fully contoured with the materials that were on February 5,2008 deemed to constitute a berm. The Applicant relied upon the issuance of the certificate of occupancy in installing the landscaping vegetation on her property. It would work a substantial hardship on the Applicant to require that the landscaping now be removed. It is my interpretation of the Land Use Code, after consultation with City Attorney James R. True, that this appeal will be heard by the City of Aspen Board of Adjustment pursuant to Chapter 26.314 and Land Use Code §§ 26.316.020 and 26.410.020.D.2. Please let me know at your earliest convenience what, if any, additional materials are needed for the appeal hearing and when the hearing -- will be scheduled. We recognize that under the terms of the Land Use Code; appeal hearings are generally supposed to be held within 30 days of the initiation of the appeal. In the event it is not possible to schedule the appeal within that time frame, please let me know so an appropriate date can be arranged. Thank you for your courtesy and prompt attention to this matter. Very truly yours, NEILEY & ALDER A - 1 j. Lk aid. 4-14210.~0 3* _ j , 0 C< (9 Ov / 09.6- -Richard Y. Neiley, Jr. RYN/agk cc: Carole Fisher James R. True, Esquire (for the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission) Jessica Garrow, Planner li.-- .1 -I.... .--- 441MM~ Elll ~.MINfq'~,1 <IF~I..~r~Fki, 1?1 ~ .10-Mi , PUB/irK„wn. 4 2 ·•11 . 1 ~-En 1 -' , 1-4 U• A <. 1 , - i . 1 .C, 1 4, . '~ -'6•, - '~ill"914' · ' AM - - 1'·4# 6.41 41' . 1 7 i 7/ 1/.1,4 1/~#Vlf.f•, l'YA.: - 1 I /1 19,1. Â¥ 311· Iii}! 1, i i A I Al' ip•' Al , > 1 , 1 1 6 ' 1*M.JAIM-, x1-'4 · ----. .44, 4 AliMUNO , . 4 . f. 1 fy e . .1 - . -„I~**TriZE&14k .~ •,49. f. . .·.~ ... :~ „„._--.#.„ *, ,„, ..4 nir,.,-. 3 4./2/5~Omrm/*1 t,* *f~rok'' ti.rf , * ill.~~~'~L; P ' ./ f A 3% . 1~ 4, f ,<· ?:2, 11 1 1. ?ll'1:1. 24 : ''41 v .4 --. f -. ......U'. .•, 00£41- '3*[~r,18<14'10,1,237 M....„#„ .i.44-:·.,49. ....Tij„* , le. I 1/. 9 , . ...li r w r - U=....a.. 4 Of .,0 vi.1 1.,f . + D 11~,i€ Af - . 1/ 11 '. . tu'W-1~ >-af.r,--t --- t 'i 1 ., ltd' . ~1 1 Ii- . I ' . /.1 r. f .11/6 ..., 1,~41:-1>'•11~1"75 9't• ,!L u. 1 ·11 -W 4 . LTEMWUrbil#Lii# h,·1!*klf~i .., '9 k I + 1 &.16.149/,1/13'llf/7-1 a./9N ..1. I f 1'H 1 1 41 'Il; ..1.- 1•'Al/4 19& L/ ,_1.2= 1 .,1,1 1: 1 1. 12 11'"mwirl;i.,1, 1 1 '6 ./6 4.. 7- 1 --£.tby·'f ''N ' 'i,fl') 2 . '. .'.."'/' 1|"Imi · ... 1 KIE ~ il , · 1•. i i J j'*t I j >. g' L .·.~. ' 2,/, ' 34<•,1 :P . t.--·-} 9 1, ·'41.''UN=.3 2441#Â¥,tittil:1~ 21 344 0 9 . 1 , 2:r,z...i-F + L .... ---- - · , :PiI,2 41 'I.-2.6 ,#·> 4 f"A- ' , ·-jbti)-9:.~.*i~ 'Pia.,.2 ~ ~':<'i~~14~~~ dj.•2P.~~?.4~112€1~4<'j~ ~~4·ew',~:*2~U~3'tci~, i.il)'~~ '~ ~~41~»'~~~'0~~'~'~'~"~~'~ ~ ~~;~~~~~~~N''TL,L ,~tak'.,k,t' ~,1 0 ' . /6'1 Nalm 4/ WI- A. 4 I. .7 NIT*' F.i A - *7i,i,5, Â¥~- 4111 -IQ . J r..... . '.4122*32/'A/flit ·ic~:Ikikillill""Ill/1,13ZINE I - 7-*#in"/.a/%:ttk,&186&56/11.1/1- 1319/'m'/////pj/mixir.ry,4972 ///4#8~~1~4124&642__ ·ttgm79BWF/42,1 , '.777. . 4 :S.t;: 4 ' .*18& 6 ' '-B ' r +I. I. 5 - 1 ·1 4 , # 3 :, ' L i: 111, .7,.,.1 · Te A j . . ''b > ,; tiv · . / 1 14;-4- , 4 2 ·, Prk: . --- 1 :·· - ~,2 4 ''. it ' - 1.2 ....:.. ' I y>..ty€/2/· '24 .4 AW..%* *rt·. - :*. q. -5 4 1 Rl· 1414 3 1-0. · .F I .. , e. . ·-t.i k . 7 ·, It>i .. 4 -277 ... I . A. 16 ' I I 7 .. . 14~.*1 L..1,5 94 b. 5.421 3 419't . 4, 1. .4 4 . .r . U·. ·: ' 1•2/9/ ' . : Jf + - 214- :9. 12- 41 I . I , . t 4.1:99 - . t· 2. ''11 & .r.., ' ¢ .- 1.. ..4,42, .4. I , I 1 19 T -t, ..7% 1, . A- '6.' v.,it' 1,1 19 6*In > I - . I -01 -8 4 'At · . 7 w - = *r t, 3 /7 1 ·~tt' f , ~. ----'. . 12 ti 4 1, 3 4~i'/9- 2 ' 1, , 5 14 1 . 1 7 - 4 f . + . a ¢ 4 L. 7 - , . 2 , ,. -44%0 j ' . , I : .6. rk.-In 244..:: 11,~JIA.. w.. 1 1 --Palt,4.. ,~r--r_L ---.----0-1 4,/~t,·~i'*li> .--- ... . T..... *C 4. E P .5 4 -4 . i ' 0.~ . f,~ 1•~&42. L I I . . t ·4' V' I .' . . It.4 1.1 -,1,~44 4 I ' ·1'19'2 .7 . 34 4 * i.r $:7 . * 0 1-U'll , 400"*ti . 44 - - :4 .A~ki 2516'.116 ..rti- 1 11 ·· , I. >9.8~'. 1 r 11 4 . .f: f - .. 4. . 4 ..t , . .. 4 4 9022 -, I. 9.V 'I . . . ~44~~~~ty'A - -- - I. > 1, .,..,. 4%44* . p 4 -2 .16~4/2../W-- 7 + ,.. 4 - -6 / e • .,4 .»'4 -7 · .. t. . 140%29 - . 04 .. . . 1,7 . - + hm ./ ' . •4 . A.#63L.*D@-ZSA//1/4 -- ..CN , ..0. -6- . 32: 106.1.* 47.-r-1 r ..2 i, ' •··L , r r • ,1229,/)&<e..,FA*/4 r . IMmt : W"·- -724~2$*~222*14~&~--2-~,~~r' r :1'*C#'~-1-~ : 4, . ~~~~~'~~~~_~t~~*r.-~1 ... .. ., -1. 41:.~45'11~,0-302•11G':•~ 14'.1 4 1 44-- Jessica Garrow From: Chris Forman ent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 6:17 PM 0: Jessica Garrow Subject: 1550 homestake Jessica, I just went by the property in question. They have a variety of species including blue spruce, mugo pine, some type of cherry (maybe sandcherry), crabapples, and lilacs...may be a few more i missed. I don't think that transplanting these trees will be easy, but i don't think that it's impossible. I would imagine that the root systems have not traveled very far in 2 years since their planting occurred, therefore much of the original root ball could be defined to give a good chance for transplant survival....this means that they could root prune just outside the original root ball, dig 'em, wrap them in burlap and complete the move. I would not recommend doing this during the summer. 1 would recommend late fall, or very early spring prior to leaf emergence. I do expect that some of the plants/trees may not make it due to the shock of being planted, removed and replanted. 1 didn't see any that are stressed to the point where they couldn't be attempted. Please let me know what else may be helpful for you. Would you like me to ask Flynn if he is available for the meeting on thursday? Chris Forman, City Forester 585 Cemetery Lane Aspen, Colorado 81611 970-920-5120 p 970-920-5128 f hrisf@ci.aspen.co.us 1 4 NEILEY & ALDER ATTORNEYS Please Reply To: RICHARD Y. NEILEY, JR. 201 North Mill Street, Suite 102 EUGENE M. ALDER 6800 Highway 82, Suite 1, Upper Level Aspen, Colorado 81611 JOHN F. NEILEY Glenwood Springs, Colorado *6oi (970) 925-9393 Fax (970) 928-9399 (970) 928-9393 Fax (970) 925-9396 February 19,2008 RECENC@ + 28 1 9 0,3 CITY CF AS VIA HAND DELIVERY PEN: «IMMUNITY DEVE!:OPMENT Mr. Chris Bendon Community Development Director City ofAspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: NOTICE OF APPEAL PURSUANT TO LAND USE CODE, CHAPTER 26.316 Denial of the Carole Fisher Application for Interpretation of the Residential Design Standards or, Alternatively, for the Grant of a Variance for i 550 Homestake Drive, Lot 19, West Aspen Subdivision, Filing No. 2, City of Aspen, Colorado, Pitkin County, Colorado, Parcel ID No. 2735-024-01-022 Dear Mr. Bendon: Please accept this letter as our Notice of Appeal in connection with the above-referenced matter. A public hearing was held on the Carole Fisher Application before the City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission on Tuesday, February 5,2008. The Application involved two matters. First, the Application sought an interpretation of the Residential Design Standards that the landscaping on the Applicant's property did not constitute a "berm." Second, the Application sought a dimensional variance in the event that the Planning & Zoning Commission determined that the landscaping was a berni to allow the landscaping to exceed the 42 inch maximum height for walls and fences established by the Residential Design Standards. The Planning & Zoning Commission determined that the landscaping constituted a berm and denied the request for a dimensional variance. We believe the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision was in error for several reasons. The Residential Design Standards do not define what constitutes a "berm." The Residential Design Standards include an illustration showing a berm as a continuous earthen barrier planted with trees. The Applicant's landscaping does not constitute a berm based upon the depiction shown in the Residential Design Standards. Even if the landscaping could properly be characterized as a berm under the pictorial definition of the Residential Design Standards, a dimensional variance should have been granted based upon the evidence presented. The Planning & Zoning Commission concluded that the Applicant's landscaping was not in character with the neighborhood and did not represent an appropriate pattern of development in the neighborhood. This finding was patently incorrect and not supported by the evidence. Letter to Mr. Bendon ~ February 19,2008 Page 2 The Applicant presented 16 letters from adjacent property owners in support of the variance application. There was no public opposition to the granting of the variance. Photographs submitted by the Applicant demonstrated that similar landscaping features have been incorporated into many properties in the neighborhood. The Planning & Zoning Commission also improperly concluded that the Applicant's property was not uniquely impacted by proximity to the Aspen Municipal Golf Course. The Planning & Zoning Commission improperly concluded that all of the residences on Homestake Drive were equally impacted by golf balls landing on and damaging their properties. This conclusion was not supported by the evidence presented, which demonstrated that the other residences along Homestake Drive within the trajectory of golf balls from the tee boxes were protected by landscaping and vegetation screening. Without the landscaping, such protection will not be available to the Applicant. u. Additionally, the Applicant's installation of landscaping on her properly occurred only after the City of Aspen Community Development Department had issued a certificate of occupancy for the property. At the time the certificate of occupancy was issued, the Applicant's property had been fully contoured with the materials that were on February 5,2008 deemed to constitute a berm. The Applicant relied upon the issuance of the certificate of occupancy in installing the landscaping vegetation on her property. It would work a substantial hardship on the Applicant to require that the landscaping now be removed. It is my interpretation of the Land Use Code, after consultation with City Attorney James R. True, that this appeal will be heard by the City of Aspen Board of Adjustment pursuant to Chapter 26.314 and Land Use Code §§ 26.316.020 and 26.410.020.D.2. Please let me know at your earliest convenience what, if any, additional materials are needed for the appeal hearing and when the hearing will be scheduled. We recognize that under the terms of the Land Use Code, appeal hearings are generally supposed to be held within 30 days of the initiation of the appeal. In the event it is not possible to schedule the appeal within that time frame, please let me know so an appropriate date can be arranged. Thank you for your courtesy and prompt attention to this matter. Very truly yours, NEILEY & ALDER /7 1 Et- Ul Aid 4- 1 1ti-11 6.jact- U 43 Richard Y. Neiley, Jr. RYN/agk cc: Carole Fisher James R. True, Esquire (for the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission) Jessica Garrow, Planner NEILEY & ALDER ATTORNEYS Please Reply To: RICHARD Y. NEILEY, JR. 201 North Mill Street, Suite 102 EUGENE M. ALDER 6800 Highway 82, Suite 1, Upper Level Aspen, Colorado 81611 JOHN F. NEILEY Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (970) 925-9393 Fax (970) 928-9399 (970) 928-9393 Fax (970) 925-9396 February 19,2008 RECEIVED FEB 1 9 2000 VIA HAND DELIVERY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY CF ASPEN : 7 Mr- Chris Bendon f ~ -· Community Development Director - City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street - Aspen, CO 81611 Re: NOTICE OF APPEAL PURSUANT TO LAND USE CODE, CHAPTER 26.316 Denial of the Carole Fisher Application for Interpretation of the Residential Design Standards or, Alternatively, for the Grant of a Variance for 1550 Homestake Drive, Lot 19, West Aspen Subdivision, Filing No. 2, City of Aspen, Colorado, Pitkin County, Colorado, Parcel ID No. 2735-024-01-022 Dear Mr. Bendon: Please accept this letter as our Notice of Appeal in connection with the above-referenced ' - matter. A public hearing was held on the Carole Fisher Application before the City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission on Tuesday, February 5,2008. The Application involved two matters. First, the - Application sought an interpretation of the Residential Design Standards that the landscaping on the - , f · Applicant's property did not constitute a "berm." Second, the Application sought a dimensional variance in the event that the Planning & Zoning Commission determined that the landscaping was a berm to allow the landscaping to exceed the 42 inch maximum height for walls and fences established by the Residential Design Standards. The Planning & Zoning Commission determined that the landscaping constituted a berm and denied the request for a dimensional variance. We believe the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision was in error for several reasons. The Residential Design Standards do not define what constitutes a "berm." The Residential Design Standards include an illustration showing a berm as a continuous earthen barrier planted with trees. The Applicant' s landscaping does not constitute a berm based upon the depiction shown in the Residential Design Standards. Even if the landscaping could properly be characterized as a berm under the pictorial definition of the Residential Design Standards, a dimensional variance should have been granted based c upon the evidence presented. The Planning & Zoning Commission concluded that the Applicant' s -0 landscaping was not in character with the neighborhood and did not represent an appropriate pattern of 6 , development in the neighborhood. This finding was patently incorrect and not supported by the evidence. Letter to Mr. Bendon February 19, 2008 Page 2 The Applicant presented 16 letters from adjacent property owners in support of the variance application. There was no public opposition to the granting of the variance. Photographs submitted by the Applicant demonstrated that similar landscaping features have been incorporated into many properties in the neighborhood. The Planning & Zoning Commission also improperly concluded that the Applicant's property was not uniquely impacted by proximity to the Aspen Municipal Golf Course. The Planning & Zoning Commission improperly concluded that all of the residences on Homestake Drive were equally impacted by golf balls landing on and damaging their properties. This conclusion was not supported by the evidence presented, which demonstrated that the other residences along Homestake Drive within the trajectory of golf balls from the tee boxes were protected by landscaping and vegetation screening. Without the landscaping, such protection will not be available to the Applicant. Additionally, the Applicant's installation of landscaping on her property occurred only after the City of Aspen Community Development Department had issued a certificate of occupancy for the property. At the time the certificate of occupancy was issued, the Applicant's property had been fully contoured with the materials that were on February 5,2008 deemed to constitute a berm. The Applicant relied upon the issuance of the certificate of occupancy in installing the landscaping vegetation on her property. It would work a substantial hardship on the Applicant to require that the landscaying now be removed. It is my interpretation of the Land Use Code, after consultation with City Attorney James R. True, that this appeal will be heard by the City of Aspen Board of Adjustment pursuant to Chapter 26.314 and Land Use Code §§ 26.316.020 and 26.410.020.D.2. Please let me know at your earliest convenience what, if any, additional materials are needed for the appeal hearing and when the hearing will be scheduled. We recognize that under the terms of the Land Use Code, appeal hearings are generally supposed to be held within 30 days of the initiation of the appeal. In the event it is not possible to schedule the appeal within that time frame, please let me know so an appropriate date can be arranged. Thank you for your courtesy and prompt attention to this matter. Very truly yours, NEILEY & ALDER A < ~00 Ul cu_Cl (2-01 ' - 1 ~ - 5 Lkja1, Richard Y. Neiley, Jr. RYN/agk cc: Carole Fisher James R. True, Esquire (for the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission) Jessica Garrow, Planner ./1 - NEILEY & ALDER ATTORNEYS RECEIVED 201 North Mill Street, Suite 102 Aspen, Colorado 81611 i -28 1 0 7001 CITY '7 3,SPEN COMMUN - OPMENT Jessica Garrow, Planner City of Aspen Community Development 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 HAND DELIVERY RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DENYING ONE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE FOR 1550 HOMESTAKE DRIVE, LOT 19, WEST ASPEN SUBDIVISION, FILING NO. 2, CITY OF ASPEN, CO, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL NO. 2735-024-01-022 Resolution #8, Series 2008 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Carole C. Fisher, represented by Richard Neiley, requesting approval o f one (1) Residential Design Standards Variance to maintain a berm at 1550 Homestake Drive; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned R-15 (Moderate Density Residential); and, WIIEREAS, upon review o f the application, and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended denial, o f the proposed land use request; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 5, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 8, Series of 2008, by a four to two (4 - 2) vote, denying one Residential Design Standards Variance to allow a berm in the front yard setback on the property located at 1550 Homestake Drive, Lot 19, West Aspen Subdivision, Filing No. 2, City of Aspen, CO; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, tile Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal does not meet the applicable development standards and that approval of the development proposal is not consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is not necessary for the promotion ofpublic health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby denys one (1) Variance from the Residential Design Standards from the Fences standard (Land Use Code Section 26.410.040.A.3), to allow a berm in the front yard setback on the property located at 1550 Homestake Drive, Lot 19, West Aspen Subdivision, Filing No. 2, City of Aspen, CO. Section 2: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Coinmission of the City of Aspen on this 5~1 day ofFebruary, 2008. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: j€ity Attorney Dylan Johns, Chair I J 4-0 (c O v LAN J BAA> 3 ATTEST: £ 3~ 0 'v- 4. 4 ,41* 2. r V 1 i 4 din i Y- A' L-Pa-- - 1 U/1/ cfd, 0'un ~ckie Lothi~Â¥, Deputy City Clerk G:\cityUessica\Cases\1550 Homestake Dr\P&Z\1550HomestakePZ Reso_2 5 08FINAL.doc AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, February 05,2008 4:30 p.m. - Public Hearing Sister Cities Meeting Room I. ROLL CALL II. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public D. Next Resolution #6 III. MINUTES IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST V. AGENDA ITEMS: A. Code amendment regarding voting - JT, Resolution No. 06 B. Code amendment regarding public notice - JT, Resolution No. 07 C. 1550 Homestake Drive, Residential Design Variance - JP/JG Resolution No. 08 D. Aspen Club, Conceptual Specially Planned Area and associated requests - JG, Resolution No. 09 VI. BOARD REPORTS VII. ADJOURN ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 5,2008 COMMENTS: 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST ................................................. - CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING VOTING. 2 CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING PUBLIC NOTICE.. 3 1550 HOMESTAKE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN VARIANCE ................................ J ASPEN CLUB CONCEPTUAL SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA AND ASSOCIATED REQUESTS .10 1 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 5,2008 Dylan Johns opened the regular meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission in Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30 pm. Jim DeFrancia and Michael Wampler were excused. Commissioners Cliff Weiss, Stan Gibbs, Dina Bloom, LJ Erspamer, Brian Speck and Dylan Johns were present. Staff in attendance included Jim True, Special Counsel; Jennifer Phelan, Jessica Garrow, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS: Jennifer Phelan requested that the planning commission meeting end at 6:30 pm so that the P&Z Members could attend the caucuses. Phelan noted there was a conference in Denver next month for members of the planning commission to attend if interested. Brian Speck attended the Telluride conference 2 years ago and expressed how much he enjoyed meeting people from other communities. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Dylan Johns said that he was conflicted on the Aspen Club. PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING VOTING Dylan Johns opened the public hearing. Jim True stated this came from the attorney's office regarding a 2-2 vote, a tie vote has no action and a matter could sit in limbo in city council if all four of the council members kept their votes. True said if there was an ordinance on the table that received a 4-1 against that was considered a no action and there has to be a motion for a denial; the ordinance of denial would have to pass with at least 3 votes. True said the procedure for denial needed to be codified formally; particularly a 2-2 situation that is deemed a denial; a 1-4 vote is deemed a denial. This changes the denial to an affirmative denial. LJ Erspamer stated this was a good clarification/change brought by the attorneys. MOTION: LJ Erspamer moved to approve Resolution 006-08 seconded by Cliff Weiss. Roll call vote: Speck, no; Weiss, yes; Bloom, yes; Erspamer, yes; Gibbs, yes; Johns, no. Approved 4-2. Discussion of the motion: Dylan Johns said that personally he did not feel that a tie vote should result in a denial; he doesn't have a problem eliminating the need for an affirmative denial of the vote. Jim True explained that was in the charter that a 2-2 vote resulted in no action; there has to be 3 affirmative votes to pass an ordinance. Johns said that at least limbo gives the applicant a chance to re-plead 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Februarv 5,2008 their case rather than a denial. Cliff Weiss said that a denial doesn't mean that you can't come back with some change in the facts and re-plead your case but limbo is totally nowhere. Johns said that you have to substantively change your application and it has to be a certain period of time after you have originally submitted the initial one. Stan Gibbs asked ifthe process was any different given a 2-2 tie and a 3-1 denial; does 3-1 denial mean that you have to go all the way back to square one with the process or do you still get to appeal the case, which you can do with a 2-2 as well. True replied it was the same thing; this makes all of that the same a 2-2 vote is the same as a 1-3 vote or a 1-4 vote or 2-3 vote, anything that's less than 3 positive. True said that 2-2 would be deemed denied, no more action has to take place. PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING PUBLIC NOTICE Dylan Johns opened the public hearing. Jim True explained that this was to clarify some notice issues that have come up and most substantive one involves the content of the notice itself. True wanted to include the contact information for the applicant, which should be on the notices that were sent out in some form better than the way it is now. That would include the contact phone number, mailing address or email address o f the applicant or representative and that should be in the notice; it makes it easier ifthe neighbors know how to contact the owner or the representative. True said another problem was that the notice says hearing at such and such a day, time and places often the hearing is continued and sometimes the notice stays up through the whole process and sometimes it doesn't. But after the initial hearing it means nothing and the intent was to let people know the hearing can be continued; there was a question of whether or not the notice should just stay up the entire time with a requirement for that so the notice stays up. Currently there was no requirement that the notice stays up now; it would require an affidavit at every hearing that the notice was up prior to this hearing. The final thing was the list for mailing either comes from the assessors' office or GIS, so GIS should be codified. Cliff Weiss asked if the resolution required an email address or phone number or mailing address. Jennifer Phelan replied that the address ofthe owner was currently on the notice but this provides more flexibility that it could be either the mailing address, the email address or phone number and gives the option o f the authorized representative. Phelan said that she will recommend the applicant's representative be put on the notice. True noted this changed the notice requirement 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 5,2008 from address to mailing address or phone number or email address of either the applicant or the applicant's representative; now it was the name and address ofthe applicant. Weiss said that he was sensitive to the privacy side ofthis. True said this gave a better chance of someone being able to contact someone to talk about the project. Stan Gibbs asked if there was a difference in how the public should be informed of a continued hearing. True responded that he saw a difference because often the first hearing could be continued because the agenda was too crowded and the public shows up and the real hearing wasn't for two months; he thought the public should be notified and the posted notice has to be up before any continued hearing and the code currently does not say that. LJ Erspamer said the email address could be a problem with spam filters so email maybe should be an additional source rather than sole source. Phelan said that the other thing to consider with privacy issues was what kind of information should be out there and to what extent. Phelan said that if someone comes into the community development office to look at the application all of the contact information is there. Weiss said the point ofthis was to make it easier for neighbors to make contact; he asked i f it was possible for the date of the hearing on the sign to be updated. True replied that could be required but that change was not in the resolution; that could be done to change the date on the notice 15 days prior to the continued hearing. Gibbs asked what i f there were continuances less than that 15 day notice period. True said that was correct and that time frame could be adjusted; people that were familiar with the process know that can happen. True said that it was the person that was not familiar with the process. Dylan Johns asked why couldn't the sign have the contact information for the City be the Community Development Department for the possible future meetings. No public comments. True asked i f anyone proposed a re-draft o f the resolution to include a requirement that the notice stay up throughout the process. Johns said that could be handy but not that it necessarily needed to be updated to reflect every single meeting date. Gibbs agreed that it was useful and important for the public to know that an action was pending on a property. Phelan suggested having something in the timeline to cover i f a sign gets stolen or lost. True said that was the case now submitting an affidavit stating the sign was posted for 15 days. Phelan said maybe the reliance was on the first posting and it was just a requirement that a notice is maintained to the best of the applicant's ability so it doesn't create any legal issues if a notice has to be replaced. True said that it could be written to the best of the ability and not necessarily require the affidavit that it has been up the entire time. Erspamer wanted to see the date of every meeting posted on the sign; it could be done with a 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 5,2008 sticker and indelible marker to make it current. Weiss stated that it was the applicant's responsibility to maintain that posted sign. Johns said that the contact info would be better to be filtered once with a phone call which was better than just an email or letter in the mail. Gibbs said that these were alternatives so the applicant can choose which one they want to put on the notice. Johns said the way it was written it looked like a phone number and a mailing address or an email address. True said that was not his intention; he intended all three to be alternatives. True said that he could make it clearer to either a mailing address or an email. Weiss said that the mailing address should be a requirement and the email or phone should be an either or. Gibbs asked why they had to have a mailing address. Weiss responded that you can send an email but you don't always have a way to confirm the recipient received it. Johns said registered mail would give you that. True clarified that a mailing address would be required and either a phone number or email. Weiss said it would be an option to add the email or phone. True said it was not consistent with the way Jennifer proposed the notice requirements to be one of the three; mailing address, phone number or email. Phelan said that she would be telling staff and publications to use the mailing address. Phelan said the notice in the newspaper now says applicant and address and the proposed change would be either applicant and mailing address or applicant' s representative and mailing address; in any notice the planner on the case is included with contact phone number. Weiss said this was more complex than he thought and suggested the resolution be re-submitted with the changes made to keep the sign up during all continuances and the difference for a newspaper to a posted sign. True said that he would re-draft the resolution with the language to the best o f the applicant's ability. MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to continue the public hearing on the Code th Amendment for noticing Resolution #007-08 to February 19 seconded by Dina Bloom. All in favor. PUBLIC HEARING: 1550 HOMESTAKE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN VARIANCE Dylan Johns opened the public hearing for 1550 Homestake Drive. Jim True stated the notice was accepted. Jessica Garrow explained the applicant was Carole Fisher represented by Richard Neiley; the applicant requested a variance from the 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Rt,GULAR MEETING MINUTES February 5,2008 fence standard from the residential design standards to maintain a berm that had been previously constructed. Garrow stated that a portion of this berm was located in city right-of-way so regardless of the commission's action tonight the applicant will be required to obtain a right-of-way encroachment permit from the city engineering department for that portion o f the berm that is in the right-of-way and that would be in order to maintain that portion. Garrow utilized applicant exhibit 6 in the packet to delineate the property line and the setbacks and the berm. Garrow stated the portion of the berm violated the residential design standards because the standards state berms cannot be constructed in the front yard setback; because it was in that setback area was why the variance was required. Garrow noted there were two criteria to review this request; the first was that the berm provides an appropriate pattern of development given the neighborhood context or that the berm was necessary due to a site specific constraint. Garrow said that staff did not find the berm was appropriate given the context of the area. Residential Design Standards encourage that use of the yard and the home be preserved from the public realm; low fences and hedges may be used to delineate the edge of a property but is important not to close off view of the front lawn and the house. Staff thinks this berm (shown in applicant attachment 4) cuts off any view from the public realm of the house and that front yard area. Applicant attachment 5 is the aerial map and the property was outlined; it is across from the golf course. Garrow said there were possible site issues with the berm and would be part of the encroachment license from the engineering department. Staff does not feel that this variance was needed for any context reasons; further staff does not find site specific constraints. Garrow said the applicant stated the berm was necessary because of the lot's unique location across from the golf course; again all lots on the golf course deal with errant balls more than likely but they are still required to abide by the residential design standards. All ofthe lots by the golf course and Cemetery Lane are required to abide by the residential design standards and all areas of town. Staff does not recommend in favor of granting this variance because it does not meet the review criteria. Rick Neiley stated that he represented Carole and Jamie Fisher. Neiley said they don't agree with the staff recommendation and when you understand this property and the context of where it is and how this berm came to be there's one of two possible outcomes that they would like. This isn't a berm as it's defined by the design regulations and secondly there are site specific constraints related to this particular house and the context o f what's been developed on the street in relationship to the golf course that makes this a unique situation. Neiley said the 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 5,2008 way this berm came about was that when Carole and Jamie were building the house they removed the excavation from the foundation when the new house was placed on the backside of the lot and used it to re-contour the front yard. Neiley said at the time that this was done a certificate of occupancy was issued by the city without any comment about this constituting a berm or without any indication that there was some need to go through a design standards review with respect to the landscaping of the property. Neiley said the certificate of occupancy was issued about a year ago the berm as it was referred to by the city was considered by Carole and Jamie to be landscaping o f their front yard and was to avoid the trucking of the materials off site and to create some protection from what they discovered during construction were projectiles emanating from the golf course in the form of golf balls that were breaking automobile windshields o f people who working on the property and the applicants vehicles. Neiley distributed photos (exhibits 7 to 29) to the commission; one photo showed last winter when they received the certificate of occupancy. Neiley said that Carole and Jamie thought they were engaged in landscaping, which does not require design review consideration or a building permit and in the summer of 2007 made arrangements to have some trees, shrubs and plantings on the berm and the Fishers' got served with a notice from Community Development Department and then this application was submitted. Neiley said they do not view this as a berm and the elevation doesn't change on the western end. Neiley said there was an area of about 200 square feet that was 6 inches higher and one area o f about 30 square feet that was 13 inches above what would be permitted for a fence or wall across the front of this property, it goes up to 55 inches and that was intentional because the trajectory of gol f balls that come across and this protects and shields automobiles that are located in the driveway. Neiley said that Homestake Drive has become a busy street and the proximity of the property to the cross country ski facilities the street across from the house is used extensively as public parking area. Neiley said they preferred landscaping to a 42 inch wall or a 42 inch fence, which could have been constructed immediately on the property line and would have been less aesthetically pleasing and less consistent with the neighborhood. Neiley said the objective was not to completely disassociate the house with surrounding properties, pedestrians on the street or with the community but to provide a reasonable amount of screening from the impacts of heavy traffic, the impacts of being immediately adjacent to a public facility and the impacts of golf balls flying across the golf course and causing damage to the property. Neiley said there were no design guidelines regarding a berm in the code. 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RtuULAR MEETING MINUTES February 5,2008 Neiley submitted 16 letters (exhibit 29) from neighbors in support ofthe application. The letters were from Marilyn Marks, Shirley Doon, Linda Nevin, Allison Bone, Kelly Doherty, Sandra Pember, Ron & Selvy Gray, Austine Scott, Curtis Kaufman, Liz Stewart, Chuck Lyons, Clint & Caven Goodrich, The Phillips, Allison Daily, Janet Guthrie and Kurt Bresnitz. Carole Fisher noted the front yard was actually the back yard. Fisher said the house was finished and got the "co" and we thought great everything is done and 5 or 6 months later its summer and we went to plant what we thought was our finished front yard and she based her landscaping on what was in the neighborhood. Cliff Weiss asked when the home was built. Neiley replied it was built in 2006 and finished in January of 2007. Weiss asked when was R-15 put into place. Garrow replied this was part o f the residential design standards that were adopted in 2003. Phelan said there was 2003 and 2005. Johns asked i f there was a requirement for current properties to conform to design standards. Garrow answered that any property that would come in for a redevelopment would be required to abide by all applicable design standards and this standard is applicable to all properties. Stan Gibbs asked if a landscape plan was required on a development such as this. Garrow replied it was not; these kinds o f things would be reviewed i f there were a tree that the parks department was interested in saving or i f there was tree mitigation that occurred as part of a redevelopment. Phelan said that the landscaping or berm may not have been very visible with snow in the winter. Johns asked i f anyone had a copy o f the grading and drainage plan or any other site plan. Garrow said she could pull the building permit file. Neiley said he did not have with him. Weiss asked how high the berm was at the highest point. Neiley said the highest point was 55 inches at about 30 square feet and all the rest of it was 42 inches or less. Neiley said it wasn't intentional that they went over the square footage. No public comments. Weiss said he lived on Cemetery Lane and there were many properties with berms; it was not in character with the neighborhood. Weiss requested that zoning walk around the neighborhood to let people know what is legal and what isn't. Weiss 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 5,2008 said these folks had their "co" and in the same breath he did not like what this was doing to the neighborhood and he didn't like trees on the corners that you can't see past. Brian Speck said that he did not find the berm offensive and it did not seem inconsistent with the area. Dina Bloom agreed with Brian and said it was consistent with what she saw in the neighborhood. LJ Erspamer said that you can get zero landscaping without the rolling hills or whatever you want to call it but thought it was out of character with the new zoning in the area; he agreed with the staff findings. Stan Gibbs said that he did not believe this was a unique situation; everybody along the golf course has the same problem. Gibbs said the definition of a berm was pretty straight forward and he said there were alternate solutions like a fence at 42 inches. Gibbs said that the issue with the "co" doesn't qualify as a grant of any kind of rights beyond what the code would require. Gibbs agreed with staff. Dylan Johns agreed that it was somewhat in context with the neighborhood although a person who purchased a property in 2005 and there wasn't a new condition that sprung up since then should be automatically grandfathered. Johns did not see an overwhelming cause for a variance just because you live on a golf course; golf balls come. Johns said that he could not support this variance. MOTION: LJ Erspamer moved to approve Resolution 4008-08 approving a variance from the Fence Residential Design Standards to permit a berm in the front yard setback on the property located at 1550 Homestake Drive; seconded by Stan Gibbs. Roll call vote: Speck, yes; Weiss, no; Bloom, yes; Erspamer, no; Gibbs, no; Johns, no. Motion failed 4-2. MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to deny Resolution #008-08 approving a variance from the Fence Residential Design Standards to permit a berm in the front yard setback on the property located at 1550 Homestake Drive; seconded by LJ Erspamer. Roll call vote: Speck, no; Bloom, no; Gibbs, yes; Erspamer, yes; Weiss, yes; Johns, yes. Motion to deny approved 4-2. 9 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RLGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 5,2008 PUBLIC HEARING: ASPEN CLUB CONCEPTUAL SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA AND ASSOCIATED REOUESTS LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing on the Aspen Club. Jim True stated the notices were accepted. Jessica Garrow said that because this was a large case and asked i f the commissioners had any specific questions or any further clarification that was in the packet so that she can provide that information at the next meeting. Garrow said that the applicant would give a presentation on the idea behind this redevelopment project not getting into the specific review criteria but why we were seeing this application and continuing this meeting to February 19th where staff would give a formal presentation and the commission would take public comment. Sunny Vann stated he was the representative for the applicant and introduced Michael Fox. Michael Fox stated that the reason the Aspen Club was putting in this application was that the Aspen Club was unique, all the employees and members were very proud of and an integral part of this community. Fox said to date there were over two hundred employees, over nineteen hundred members and thousands of weekly visitors to the programs of sports medicines, physical therapy and the myriad of activities that go on at the club on a daily basis. Fox said that gathering places were slowly disappearing in Aspen and the Aspen Club was one o f the places where people come and gather and there was still a sense of community. Fox said looking to the future of the Aspen Club there were a lot of choices and some were easy and some were much more difficult choices. Fox noted that town was changing and they were dealing with a change in competitive landscape with the Aspen Recreation Facility, which has become a direct subsidized competitor to the Aspen Club. Fox said there were increased operating costs; things were more expensive today than a year ago and certainly more expensive than 15 years ago when he first took over the club. Fox said the developers that have come to talk to him have told him that he could make more money tearing the club down and building houses. Fox said the reason they were here was because he did not want to do that and the Aspen Club was important and unique. Fox wanted to make something that continues to fit the needs of this community and continues to provide a service that you can't find anywhere else; he said they have an asset and a community and group ofpeople that we can be proud of and we are putting together a program that says how do we make the Aspen Club better. Fox said the program that they have put together is unique and this facility upon completion will be the first in the country to combine holistic health and sustainable development; those two things haven't been put together in the past. Fox said this project would have a smaller carbon footprint 10 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 5,2008 than it does today; this project will create less traffic when it's done on Ute Avenue than exists today. Fox said when the project is done it will bring employees who live down valley into town into the community and be able to give back 3 hours a day to somebody and have the employees live at the Aspen Club. Fox said the Aspen Club has an opportunity to bring people and keep people in the community with the new job opportunities in sustainable development and holistic health. Fox said they remodeled the club 15 years ago and so many things change in 15 years in terms of health and well being and a lot of the ideas that made sense 15 years ago don't make sense today, they are not relevant anymore. Fox said they were taking green building processes and applying them to individual buildings, residences, office, retail and then applies to a community. Fox said they were going to use solar pv, geothermal heating, smart building materials and in terms oftraffic they were putting a plan together to mitigate traffic with the goal being having less traffic when they are done than they have today. Increased shuttle service, the ability to check out an electric car, bike share, car share programs for employees that live on site (they could create a model for the city), paid parking programs for guests as an auto disincentive; they were trying to look at all the different tools in how to get people out of cars and the goal of reducing traffic for their neighbors. Fox said that they were looking at modular construction for the project. The affordable housing would house 150°/0 of the requirement on site. Fox said his analogy for the redevelopment ofthe club was sort of like the Jersey Shore to get to be with your whole family; what they were looking to do at Aspen Club Living was to have an interval project with 2 weeks fixed so that you can come out with your whole family and when you are here you are with the same 18 families every year and the whole thing is focused around living and staying healthy. It will be a 2 week retreat in Aspen. The sale o f the interval units pay for the improvements to the club and the HOA will help keep the expenses low for the local memberships; the owners will underwrite new programs like stress management, weight management, living with diabetes and living with cancer etc. Fox said this makes the Aspen Club a better community resource, allows growth for the future, allows the creation of something everyone can be proud of, creates a facility with little developmental impacts yet in terms of community impacts it has a fantastic impact and allows them to be a better employer and allows them to be a better health club owner. Fox said this redevelopment allows them to develop better programs, develop integrative uses for the club that tie back into the larger Aspen community. Fox said that they were looking for the commissioners comments. 11 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 5,2008 Sunny Vann noted this was a conceptual review and this application was for the scope and the breath ofthe project and come back at final with the traffic study to help mitigate those concerns. LJ Erspamer asked which code this application came under. Jessica Garrow replied the current code. MOTION: Dina Bloom moved to continue the public hearing for the Aspen Club to February 19~h seconded by Stan Gibbs. All in favor, approved. Adjourned at 6:30 pm. 40 . L · U) - 4 - Li,€UL A LIG-m. Jfkie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 12 Transcript February 5,2008 - Planning & Zoning Commission - 1550 Homestake JOHNS: I will now open the public hearing for 1550 Homestake Residential Design Variance. And just also wanted to let everybody to know because of the caucuses tonight we are going to be adjourning at the latest 6:30 possibly earlier depending where we wind up. I don't think we reached a formal when we want to break by kind of thing. Do we have notice on this? NEILEY: We do. I missed your discussion but I , we did everything according to Hoyle. TRUE: The rules as they are now. NEILEY: As long as they haven't changed anything ERSPAMER: We're working on it JOHNS: Okay. Jessica, please. GARROW: I haven't been before you guys in awhile so I'm Jessica Garrow, long range planner up in community development. And this is the application for 1550 Homestake Drive. The applicant is Carole Fisher represented by Richard Neiley and the applicant is requesting a variance from the fence standard, the residential design standards, to maintain a berm that had been previously constructed. A portion of this berm is located 1 Transcript February 5,2008 - Planning & Zoning Commission - 1550 Homestake in city's right-of-way so regardless of your action tonight the applicant will be required to obtain a right-of-way encroachment permit from the engineering department for that portion of the berm that is in the right-of-way and that would be in order to maintain that portion. What I've done is I've taken the survey that was attached as applicant exhibit 6 in your packet. So the property line is delineated by this blue line on the property, so this blue line here and then the setbacks are in yellow, those are the setback line, this is the properly line and outlined in red is where the berm is. So this portion of the berm is actually located in the city's right-of-way. So regardless of the action on this side of the berm the applicant will need to get an encroachment license for this portion. This portion of the berm violates the residential design standards, which say that berms cannot be constructed in the front yard setback, so because it is in that setback area that's why the variance is required. So you have two criteria to review this request. The first is that the berm provides an appropriate pattern of development given the neighborhood context or that the berm is necessary due to a site specific constraint. Regarding standard 2 Transcript February 5,2008 - Planning & Zoning Commission - 1550 Homestake one, staff does not find that the berm is appropriate given the context of the area. The Residential Design Standards encourage that use of the yard and the home be preserved from the public realm. This standard states that low fences and hedges may be used to delineate the edge of a property but it is important not to close off view o f the front lawn and the house. Staffreally thinks that this berm, which is shown in applicant attachment 4 which is picture up on the top here; that this cuts off any view from the public realm of the house and of that front yard area. Applicant attachment 5 is this aerial map and 1 outlined the property in silver so that that you guys could see that a little bit better. It is across from the golf course, there are holes that you tee off from here and that you hit this way, so you hit parallel to where the house is. ?? Speak for yourself. GARROW: Hopefully you are hitting and avoiding sand trap over here and you are also hitting back this way on this purple. So you are hitting toward the general direction of the site but the house is over here and you are hitting to this area over here. So, the Cemetery Lane area, a lot of times when we talk about the 3 Transcript February 5,2008 - Planning & Zoning Commission - 1550 Homestake residential design standards it says well those were meant to apply just to the west end. Well, even in Cemetery Lane, you are not permitted to have a berm in your front yard setback. It eliminates any kind of relationship to the street and in this case it would eliminate any relationship to the golf course, if that was something that you thought was important. And the other problem with this particular berm is that there are possible site issues and that's part of the encroachment license that would need to be obtained from the engineering department. But there is the tree that's on the corner of the berm, which I guess the easiest one is over here, and there are rocks here and the tree is there. There was some concern from the engineering department when they reviewed this that could result in site constraints that we woul(in't want to create. So, staff does not feel that this variance is needed for any context reasons; further staff does not find that there's site specific constraints. The applicant has argued in the application that the berm is necessary because of the lots unique location across from the gol f course; again all lots on the golf course deal with errant balls more than likely but they are still required to abide by the 4 Transcript February 5,2008 - Planning & Zoning Commission - 1550 Homestake residential design standards. So, we don't feel that there is any kind of site specific constraint with this particular lot as opposed to any of the neighbors. All of the lots on the gol f course are required to abide by the residential design standards and the standard does apply equally to the Cemetery Lane area as all areas of town. So, staff does not recommend in favor of granting this variance; because we do not feel it meets the review criteria. If I can answer any questions, otherwise. JOHNS: Why don't we get the applicants presentation. NEILEY: Thank you. I'm Rick Neiley. I represent Carole Fisher who is here with her husband Jamie this evening. Well, we obviously don't agree with the staff's recommendation but I think when you understand this property and the context of where it is and how this berm came to be, there's one of two possible outcomes that we would like. One is that this isn't a berm as it's defined by the design regulations or secondly that there are site specific constraints related to this particular house and the context of what's been developed on the street in relationship to the golf course that makes this a unique situation. The way this berm came about is that when Carole and Jamie were building the 5 Transcript February 5,2008 - Planning & Zoning Commission - 1550 Homestake house they removed the excavation from the foundation when the new house was placed on the backside of the lot and used it to recontour the front yard. At the time that this was done a certificate of occupancy was issued by the city without any comment about this constituting a berm or without any indication that there was some need to go through a design standards review with respect to the landscaping of the property. At the time the certificate of occupancy was issued, which was just about a year ago, the berm as it's been referred to by the city, was thought by Carole and Jamie to be really simply landscaping of their front yard and was done really, to avoid the trucking of the materials off site and to create some protection from what they discovered during course of construction were projectiles emanating from the golf course in the form o f gol f balls that were breaking automobile windshields o f people who working on the property and of the applicants' vehicles. I am going to pass around a picture that was taken last winter. Do we need to mark these as specific exhibits or can we do them. That's a picture ofthe front of the house last winter before the trees were, had bushes and shrubs 6 Transcript February 5,2008 - Planning & Zoning Commission - 1550 Homestake were planted that also has snow in the picture but that was the condition as it existed at the time of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. So Carole and Jamie, thinking that they were engaged in landscaping, which is not something that requires design review consideration or a building permit, went ahead and in the summer of 2007 made arrangements to have some trees and shrubs and plantings, many of which are low growing lilacs, mugo pines and natural native vegetation planted on the berm, again as what they considered to be landscaping. Well they got served with a notice from the Community Development Department and hence we submitted this application. So at the time that the landscaping was done there was no indication that this might constitute something they would conceivably violate the design standards. You will notice from our application that we don't really view this as a berm. We had a survey done in order to depict the outlines of the landscaping but when you look in the design guidelines at what constitutes a berm you see a continuous dirt barrier that appears to have vegetation, trees planted on top of it which significantly obstructs the view of the residence from the road 7 Transcript February 5,2008 - Planning & Zoning Commission - 1550 Homestake and this really doesn't do that all in fact in the western corner of this property the elevation change is in certain respects almost non-existent. We have an elevation point here of 1000 and it's the same here, it' s the same across the front it goes up one, two, three feet. There are two sections on the landscaping that exceed what is permitted within the front yard setback for fences and walls, which is 42 inches. There is an area of about 200 square feet, which is 48 inches or about 6 inches higher than a wall or a fence that could be constructed in the front yard and there's one area of about 30 square feet that is approximately 13 inches above what would be permitted for a fence or wall across the front of this property, it goes up to 55 inches right in this corner and that was intentional because the traj ectory o f gol f balls that comes like this and it protects and shields automobiles that are located in the driveway. If I could steal back that exhibit for a minute I'm going to put this up, it's a little easier, I think, for you to see what we are talking about by looking at a blow up of the GIS aerial photo. This is the property we are talking about here. The tee boxes are all back here and there are some trees but what happens is as these tee 8 Transcript February 5,2008 - Planning & Zoning Commission - 1550 Homestake boxes are used errant gol f balls fly in this direction and have caused some significant damage. Carole told me today that she has a bucket full of golf balls that have landed in the front yard, some of which have caused broken windows etcetera. The house closer to the tee boxes already has extensive landscaping in front of it and barriers of trees and the house on the other side is protected by a line of very large spruce tree. I'll pass some additional pictures around. GARROW: The first one is labeled as applicant exhibit 7. How many other pictures? NEILEY: Oh, about a dozen. 1 ' 11 mark them. GARROW: Can we one exhibit number for all of the pictures, or do we need to do separate? TRUE: Whichever, it doesn't matter as long as each picture is somehow delineated. It would be 7a, b, c, d or you could do it 7,8,9,10. Let's just do it numerically. NEILEY: There are a couple other factors that we think are unique to this property. Homestake Drive has become a very busy street, you might not guess it from looking at the aerial photograph but this road I think this is Chapman down at the end provides access to 9 Transcript February 5,2008 - Planning & Zoning Commission - 1550 Homestake the new bridge construction and there is a very large snow dump located right in this corner of the city property. As a result there has been extensive traffic generation on Homestake which ties into Cemetery Lane for considerable amount of the time that Carole and Jamie have lived here. I'm going to pass you some photographs; the first two show the signage put up on the road to notify people of what's transpiring on Homestake and then the second group of photos show you what they put up with on a daily basis. Now this isn't entirely unique to this property. It is a situation which is common to many of the properties on the street but I think in conjunction with the exposure to the golf course. Which we are not trying to create an association with we are more interested in creating a disassociation with, that creates some unique characteristics to this property. TRUE: Those were 8 and 9 right? NEILEY: We have two 9's. TRUE: I changed one of those to 12. NEILEY: Also because of the proximity of the property to access to the cross country ski facilities on the golf course, the street across 10 Transcript February 5,2008 - Planning & Zoning Commission - 1550 Homestake from the house is used extensively as public parking area. And we think it's appropriate again to create not a complete disassociation because when you look at the pictures of the house you'll see that it's not completely disassociated in fact there's a very apparent view of the structure from the street but it's fair to say that we preferred the concept of contoured landscaping to a 42 inch wall or a 42 inch fence, which could have been constructed immediately on the property line and which probably would have had a similar effect when planted with trees and shrubs but which nonetheless would have been I think less aesthetically pleasing and less consistent with the neighborhood. The next set of photographs that I'll pass around. What were we on 15? TRUE: 16. NEILEY: Okay, a couple other views o f the house and then I'll pass around some photographs that show, actually just one view of the house, surrounding properties on the street and then on adj acent Cemetery Lane, so the objective is not to completely disassociate the house with surrounding properties, with pedestrians on the street, with the community but to provide a 11 Transcript February 5,2008 - Planning & Zoning Commission - 1550 Homestake reasonable amount of screening from the impacts of heavy traffic, the impacts o f being immediately adjacent to a public facility and the impacts of golf balls flying across the gol f course and causing damage to the property. Carole went around the neighborhood and contacted her neighbors about whether or not they felt that this was appropriate treatment for the property, whether they thought it was consistent. Of all the people she contacted she received no negative feedback. And I am going to submit as a bundle which will be exhibit 29, when we're done looking at the photographs, 16 letters from her neighbors, all of which are supportive of this application. TRUE: You can. This is 28. NEILEY: These are all people who are her neighbors, who are part of this neighborhood and who to the extent that there are impacts from this type of treatment in front of the house are arguably the most impacted or the most affected without exception they are saying things like great solution to the hazard of golf ball problem. It looks great, we love it. Matches scale of the street. It's a green idea, lawns won't have created any privacy, it's kind o f a busy road in the winter and summer. I'll pass these 12 Transcript February 5,2008 - Planning & Zoning Commission - 1550 Homestake around, most of them are short, the one on top happens to be the longest one. But they are all supportive of this kind of treatment. When you look at the enlargement of the aerial view you can see that many of the houses particularly the newer residences have extensive landscaping or berms. Some of the older houses do not and undoubtedly there is an explanation for that and one is that they are looking straight across at the mountains and want to preserve the mountain view but the second is that historically this was a much quieter neighborhood than exists today, both in terms of truck traffic, the cross country facilities on the golf course, the golf course itsel f and we think that it is really to the extent that this landscaping exceeds the 42 inch height limit. It's so minimal as to be not a berm but even if this commission thinks that it constitutes a berm and I would point out that there is no specific definition of a berm in the design guidelines anywhere other than the picture which is a part of your packet. Even if it is considered a berm I think that site specific constraints are such that it is appropriate to have a minimal extension of the landscaping or the berm if you will above the 42 inch limitation for walls or fences to 13 Transcript February 5,2008 - Planning & Zoning Commission - 1550 Homestake protect the driveway area from gol f balls and to create an element of some privacy from the public impacts on this property. I don't know, Carole do you have anything that you want to add? FISHER: I think that one thing that we didn't say is that on this particular side of the street, it faces south and it's facing the views and your front yard is kind of a unique situation. Your front yard is actually your back yard, but we don't have any yard behind us and that's where we live so if you had a flat lawn to the street, which is a complaint of a lot neighbors now is that you are basically living on the street with just a lot of activity and no privacy at all and this kind of alleviates that problem. NEILEY: I'll be happy to answer any questions or respond to any concerns that anyone has. Mr. True TRUE: For the record there was a packet of letters that is going around and we did list that as number 29 and there are 16 pages that are part ofthat. It's a little easier to describe the individual pages when they are the pictures that's why I did it differently. So that's one exhibit, 29. 14 Transcript February 5,2008 - Planning & Zoning Commission - 1550 Homestake JOHNS: Okay. Are there any questions, questions only for the applicant or staff? WEISS: When the home was built ? NEILEY: The home was built in 2006 and finished in January of 2007. FISHER: In 2007 one year ago we got the C/O. Also Rick I don't know if I can say anything more but just that the area when we finished the house and when we got the C/O and we thought great okay everything is done and then 5 or 6 months later it's summer and you go to plant your front yard,what we thought was our finished front yard and everything was in order. No one ever said anything and I lost my train of thought there. So, oh and I looked around at the neighborhood, that's where I was going, and thought okay what else is in this neighborhood and across the street there was the house at the very end of the street there's a berm in front of that house and it is very well done and they look really nice and going from what was in the neighborhood that's what I based the landscaping on. JOHNS: Thank you. WEISS: Question for staff. When was the berm design element of R-15 put into place? 15 Transcript February 5,2008 - Planning & Zoning Commission - 1550 Homestake GARROW: This is part of the residential design standards, which these were a part o f the standards that were adopted in 2003. PHELAN: There have been changes over time, there's 2003 and 2005. So which is prior to both of us being here, so we are assuming that they were originally instituted in 2003. JOHNS: Is there was a requirement for current properties to conform to design standards. GARROW: Any property that would come in for a redevelopment would be required to abide by all applicable design standards and this standard is applicable to all properties in town. JOHNS: So pre-existing, pre-dating conditions are in PHELAN: We consider these to be established. ERSPAMER: So those pictures that we are looking at some of them could be pre-existing before this ordinance went into effect. PHELAN: Correct. NEILEY: LJ, I think some of them are pre-existing. There's a couple of along Cemetery Lane that were new this summer and we are not aware of a design variance application coming in for them. I don't know about some of the other ones on the street, some of the more heavily landscaped properties, I think are probably, 16 Transcript February 5,2008 - Planning & Zoning Commission - 1550 Homestake probably pre-date the adoption of the design standards because of the extensive amount of landscaping that exists. The reason we showed those pictures isn't to suggest that those are approvals that were granted since the design standards were adopted but to demonstrate that this is not inconsistent with the design patterns in the neighborhood and to emphasize that when Carole designed this, Carole and Jamie designed this they were looking around at what their neighbors had done over the years in order to be complementary to that. And frankly when you look at the picture o f what constitutes a berm in here I don't think that a normal homeowner would look at that and say that's what we did with this landscaping up here. And there is no other definition o f berm in the regulations which maybe a deficiency but I'm not sure that the homeowner ought to be charged with that. Certainly this was inadvertent in that the materials from the construction of the residence were used to re-landscape the property in an effort to avoid trucking it off site and to make the landscaping consistent with the neighborhoods, neighborhood and to protect the property from gol f balls and traffic and etcetera. 17 Transcript February 5,2008 - Planning & Zoning Commission - 1550 Homestake JOHNS: Thank you. Any more questions? GIBBS: Yeah, I have a couple. Is a landscape plan required on a development such as this. GARROW: No, it's not; these kinds of things would be reviewed if they would be impacting a tree that the parks department was interested in saving or if there was some kind of tree mitigation that would have occurred as part of a redevelopment. I did talk with the parks department and the person who was involved in this particular project is no longer with the parks department, so I wasn't able to talk with that person but did talk with another person over there and was told that this that the parks department was involved because of some tree mitigation issues that were going on as part of the redevelopment but they signed off on it and we're not aware of any conflict with residential design standards and they did not notice or weren't aware that it was in the public right-of-way at the time that they signed off on. GIBBS: So a plan, a landscape plan is not required, the development still has to conform to issues such as berms or whatever we want to call them. So when a final inspection is done for co 18 Transcript February 5,2008 - Planning & Zoning Commission - 1550 Homestake they don't look at the landscaping because it is not part of the plan requirement. PHELAN: Parks isn't going to let. GIBBS: To generate a C/O. GAR-ROW: When zoning looks at it and the building department looks at it for a co they should be looking for those issues and we are not sure why they weren't caught in this case. PnELAN: Well I don't know if the C/O was issued during the winter and there is snow. NEILEY: It was PHELAN: It might not have been very visible. GIBBS: There would be a process in place that should have been caught as part of the normal co plan check. GARROW: Yes. PHELAN: On a single family home they will go and do a site inspection. JOHNS: Do you have a copy of the grading and drainage plan or any other site plan? GARROW: I don't have one here I can pull the building permit file. JOHNS: Do you have one? NEILEY: I don't have one with us, no. 19 Transcript February 5,2008 - Planning & Zoning Commission - 1550 Homestake GIBBS: You mentioned that you had a lot of support from neighbors, what about the person that complained? Do you have anything to say about that? NEILEY: Other than being told that there was a complaint we don't have any information about it. We don't know GIBBS: Were you contacted by the person directly? NEILEY: We were not. We understand it was Mike Maple and Jamie and Carole went over to his house a couple of times in an effort to talk to him about it but didn't find him at home. He lives in a different neighborhood, apparently, over on Mountain View or. PHELAN: We don't go out and look for non-compliance issue. When we follow up on something it's on a complaint issuance basis so if we have received a written complaint they would not be here tonight more than likely. WEISS: Question. How high is the berm at its highest point? NEILEY: The highest point, which is this corner right here is 55 inches. And that's the area there's about 30 square feet there that's 13 inches over that 42 inch fence wall height. There's an area that then is the next layer down, which is 48 inches, that's about 200 square feet so that and other than that all rest of it is 42 inches 20 Transcript February 5,2008 - Planning & Zoning Commission - 1550 Homestake or less so you know we've got about 230 square feet right here which is sort o f the line o f the golf balls where it was built up to a total of 55 inches. JOHNS: Any further questions? NEILEY: They didn't go out and measure it when they put it up, they did it in a way they thought was esthetically pleasing and would provide the protection from the golf balls. It wasn't intentionally 200 feet, 200 square feet over the 42 inches or anything that. The thought never arose until we got a letter from com dev. JOHNS: I will now open this hearing for public comments. If anyone would like to comment about this application please stand and state your name for the record. Okay, I don't think that we have anybody tonight so we will return to the commission for a discussion and what not. I just want to remind everybody again this is a design variance request and need to make sure that your comments and/or reasons for voting for or against this are referenced to the review criteria that we have in exhibit A. So with that being said, I'll open for discussion. 21 Transcript February 5,2008 - Planning & Zoning Commission - 1550 Homestake WEISS: I live on Snowbunny Lane and first I'm very annoyed with the city because this is going on all over my neighborhood. There are pictures in here ofhomes I'm familiar with and we've got bandit berms everywhere and if it's not berms it's fences if it's not fences it's trees that block that make exiting from our streets so dangerous we've been here before. To me it's not in character with the neighborhood, I understand the purpose of why this design code was written but if you are not going to enforce it. I don't think that if you asked any of my neighbors about berms that any of them have a clue. I only built my own home 2 1/2 years ago, but I've been around a long time so I know about it but my next door neighbor doesn't know about it and he's got a berm and a not very pretty one either I might add. The character of the neighborhood is changing but it's not just the single home that's doing it, it's way too many homes now. I think that i f you have a zoning officer and these people need to patrol at least once in awhile and should see what's going on out there. If nothing else let people homeowners know in the R-15 what's legal and what isn't. These folks had their C/0, they thought that there's no problem with this; in the same 22 Transcript February 5,2008 - Planning & Zoning Commission - 1550 Homestake breath I do not like what this is doing to the neighborhood; I don't like fences going up to the 6 foot high and I don't like berms that are way too high and I don't like plantings going up on every corner, trees that you just cannot see past. And I'll leave it at that. JOHNS: Okay. Brian do you have any comments? You've been awfully quiet tonight. SPECK: Actually I don't find the berm offensive and I certainly can understand this client's situation. There was one argument made by Mr. Neiley about the materials used on this site that I don't agree with to use his argument. If you have any materials that you can use on site so that was an interesting argument. If you move it and you are in violation, you're in violation whether it's from materials on site or not but in this case and with the scenario given I'm not objecting to this. I don't call it a berm, landscaping. JOHNS: And your basis on the review criteria would be? SPECK: Well my basis is that it's not really it doesn't seem inconsistent to me to the area. Only one person, I mean I read all of those letters I know most of the people in that immediate area support 23 Transcript February 5,2008 - Planning & Zoning Commission - 1550 Homestake it, which is very important to me and other than maybe I have some issue with the 55 inch height. JOHNS: So you generally find it consistent with the context of the neighborhood. SPECK: Or what was happening in the neighborhood. BLOOM: I'm going to go with Brian and it was really consistent with what I saw in the neighborhood, pictures. I don't really find it offensive. It goes very well with Cemetery Lane going by the pictures. JOHNS: LJ? ERSPAMER: I like those letters from the neighbors, however xerilandscaping is a very good idea and I think that you need xerilandscaping without these rolling hills or whatever you want to call it. I do think it's out of character with the new zoning in the area and it says it right here. We were talking about it earlier this looks different than this so I am going to agree with the staff findings. GIBBS: I don't believe this was a unique situation; everybody along the golf course has the same problem. I have a difficult time giving a variance. We either have control over development and i f we adhere to the code and if people don't like the code we change 24 Transcript February 5,2008 - Planning & Zoning Commission - 1550 Homestake the code. Or we get in a situation where we don't have anything to enforce anybody and they can just do what they want. I think the definition of a berm is pretty straight forward and I don't think we really need to argue that this is not a berm. I think that in terms o f protection of the property a fence along the property line that was 42 inches tall would probably do just as much if not more to protect the property, so there are alternate solutions to this particular problem. And I think the issue with the C/O I don't believe in a mistake by the city in this particular case at least and I don't think any mistake qualifies as a grant of any kind ofrights beyond what the code would require. So 1 would have to agree with staff on this one myself. JOHNS: Thank you. Would anyone like to make a motion? This one's a little, I agree that it was somewhat in context with the neighborhood although I don't necessarily think that a person who's purchased a property in 2005 and there isn't a new condition that sprung up since then, should just necessarily be automatically grandfathered a condition such as this end. It's a tough one because the neighbors seem to be pretty supportive of what they've done. 25 Transcript February 5,2008 - Planning & Zoning Commission - 1550 Homestake SPECK: I want to remind you a sand trap is a berm on city property. WEISS: No offense, but that's a rollover. JOHNS: It's not necessarily a front yard for the golf course but I think in this one I don't see an overwhelming cause here for a variance just because you live on a golf course; golf balls come. I lived on a golf course, this golf course, for 4 years and we got hit by some golfballs sometimes but that's part of getting great views and living on a golf course so I'm not going to support this one. JOHNS: This is resolution number 8, whoever wants to make a motion ERSPAMER: I move to approve Resolution #8, Series of 2008 approving a variance from the Fence Residential Design Standards to permit a berm in the front yard setback on the property located at 1550 Homestake Drive. JOHNS: Great, do we have a second? GIBBS: Second. JOHNS: Jackie, would you call the question please. LOTHIAN: You bet. Brian. SPECK: Yes. LOTHIAN: Cliff. WEISS: No. 26 Transcript February 5,2008 - Planning & Zoning Commission - 1550 Homestake LOTHIAN: Dina. BLOOM: Yes. LOTHIAN: LJ. ERSPAMER: No. LOTHIAN: Stan. GIBBS: No. LOTHIAN: Dylan. JOHNS: No. LOTHIAN Did not pass. GARROW: That is a failed motion so we, in order to take action we need a second motion. So I would suggest move to approve Resolution 8 denying the variance. So you just change the word approving that is in the packet to denying. ERSPAMER: So we needed the motion in the positive first. GARROW: Yes. WEISS: I move to make such a motion #9 ERSPAMER: Second. JOHNS: Jackie. LOTHIAN: Brian. SPECK: No. 27 Transcript February 5,2008 - Planning & Zoning Commission - 1550 Homestake LOTHIAN: Dina. BLOOM: No. LOTHIAN: Stan. GIBBS: Yes. LOTHIAN: LJ. ERSPAMER: Yes. LOTHIAN: Cliff. WEISS: Yes. LOTHIAN: Dylan. JOHNS: Yes. LOTHIAN: Okay. JOHNS: Let's take care of the last item on the agenda. 28 ragC 1 01 14 ?*.cany- Ahied--7- e ' % 1, Vhs' -4,1. A . 1.1. k 11 1 i i.. 3 4.Ii, 1?(Ff 4 8 I 1 1.j,f 11 : E .1, 1> %42"1354 '. 'it~l 11#eptivt. : '11 2 1 +W..Vul,1 1 11,1 -, '. ~ 44,2 ' *1 f.i.,w#*1 1ll'. ' <it' i ~-lilpw·., 4 .,flj~JX39FJO//46• ifkht.ki/#///Fli --lunkz -4. .~.. ·\f~ 4 k.r N € 4 - % . - i . - '*47 -,I. - 1 1 1 - 0.4.4 I 4 9 '- 1,7 rf i 01 2 4 ' . I . ... I. , I . , ---7 4-i· ,. , * 2: t I , -- 14 , l 92" . Id",A' All 1 \r 01 Landscaping at time of C. O..JPG _p4776 Socrr -js- € 4 01~2- ixit I AOT ... 43 1 1. -1 <, . 44 / CONSTRUCTION ACCESS tax - . ROUTE *" 4¢(f - . L 4 .. 1. i 'f :* 94Â¥- %169>A: 1.. 9-117; 1243 6... Ei ~:-n.f, 2.. i' t m 23'322'? **9; *' * 2 1'41 1 134 . 4- 12* . t>4. 1,(t¢ ..: '. 1&11 4:tic y b 4 ·· 1 4!.r j . d. Ct:/ 3 1;4 ./ I 4 . P K . ..,V t' :, 9:,4,4 ... , K 4/40». I .. ..•. r.w·.ir:....6. 4. ... . 4.. 3. . a 436 + ./- I .. . i '4. * . .· 5: imMULUE DE-2.J :-t~ .M e . Sll,H 11* DR, - . f -*4 ..P-44. .... . . F fÂ¥ I 0. . *4, .. .49 . :LI . ·r. 4*./. . 1: 0 - AW,Rilip; '0.J,~F . 5 3 1-2$ 1~ 9 le.J - I- I I .7 · · 1 9 .. 7 9/* '. 4*cf 0 ... ragC / 01 11 I ./* , j t 1 . 42 ,-- *.1 ..... L - - <.-*.- - 13, - -- I - 7--#..k -. i I - 1 /"413£1 . . ... ~ . - -· r. 67 ,V - -i,i /11¢4 J//0.1 - -0 -- lia J -.24 . . 1.f . i.4-,p / I ./ I. + d. 1 1 -0 - I - r . . . 1- 1.4 11 0 ~ efrl - I' ' 21 Service Rd usage.JPG -4 C 8 €lb rat%0 0 01 11 703 ...~ I 1 6 j 7, 1 . - 4. 7 --- I -1- $ 1 - - - 6, . -1,0 - . 4 f 0. , .F' F e 'Al- -- 027„ - *0 61 4- - --- -I :,f- 1406#/4 2-- 3. 44 9 - - 41 . 4 /~ 0 2 r 22 Service Rd usage.JPG I r 4,-9 1 1 i 021Â¥*4 ZE -.7 . . t..27% · 4 4 e. 2 · : . - 91 .. I I.P. . r. e 4 '' I . . :: . 34/af.*T#E . lip"18 :#.7·1/ « I .:r:~:.4// ' - ' /' · 44./ . -1 .1 0 - 4/ 4 I .&,4, 4 f .6,111 4 1441 : · ae. ..:6: ...:,1,14.'.' , I. „ '.11. , , 4ah , 4, . flip.. , 1 A Str . 5. , ........ el I. €.<f' ' , 't £ r. .4 - & - - I /' 0 ' I. 7- R I ~, i ' - . ..... C 7·5. ~'-,4.'' . ·f ..·-trl * 13:h 1 - .A,1 #19.@~ , - . 1'· • i . I. . :i(J q . .1 .. 4- . 9,2/· '2 • I ilk- ~ , 1 1 9110 - 41¢f.* -7. --r 7-- ; 0 /'4}1-.0& --•c:j i. k ~ . ·€?-:..• 4.. 4 -. 4*0. .2*P ·i· M.9807· .k. 1 -t, . d;# Ill V ¢ - I. b/. .1 - 91* 1. - I - F -- 6 I ..i>*/ . ti 2X 4 . . 14: .I"Bdth ,i ·- ./22•~ . r .**E»7,*~322*222··t. ..St. F: . 2:i· ' ,-1.. 1 CM.-... 79- / I & 1 . . /2.:gm'*7... 1 emal-, I.X.qu'jpoirk*E,?,39·rf:r.W""FAAE- V V. A-/ 4 I - 1 5- · 2 131,14: il:t. d"d-- · .CH. . - .4. ag>: »: 2,54£96&. - -· w.~.31'2, 1,1 · . .6.-4-.... .PA'. 1 1, .. A r;. 4' t-lttri,%':·:. ' '}~~y·, ,- 5 . · 1 -9- 2 --~ 425,4- 4 19. ..2 2. :22, ,. bt Â¥l,-B ' : .4,4.72·£«¢·f91*PA.i~~.:t';7. #1€4$ Al E- ... ... 4 2 :.:....i'. ':421:Ye!'*1. J:,fu *79 f - % - 1 '94 14., 910 , .4 2. 4 1 : . 4.: .9 40'. , la..-- ..~ 7~64{.A ' C.; .' 4%': 1 4.> . - .11< 2 2 4 j 32 t . 4 tt'z - . 4.- L » 1 'f I -7. AW· .. -. . 4 - . 1/2: • , Li . .- .«11~'.9 .1 ..€.. I. -1 Z --I----I- , - - . , . J- ---- . 7 *' . ... 5 11 . 1 -4 ..1. - . I -4¢;r *r, „,·07.4.26•-1 - + . , 4 .,f 1 . - S 4. 1 4 -V - -- "ti.at -' .- 4 4 -7 -- 4. . 11 'ff,- - . 4 t 3 - 4, . b * - . I -I - , I I -' 461 . ~':§4~i.l '} I . . I 1/- 1 79 f . 1 ./ 44 ,·. '49 f 0, -O 224 . ·r· · 0.-- A... 10 I 1¢/" 1 . 1 f r , ~1»,lill«· f 4, r 'J, 1' - i }3 Vt'. 2 1 '11.¢1*· dlt. 1+ 4 h. 7 :94 9/ 4 ·•t, ..'1· . I. ... /' -6- Â¥ e . - - 4 t. 0 - - - 4.* li,!/ 4 19 .. 1 '. ...d ~ . UN . - •' . , 4« . d .9 -11 ·' E-- 4. 1, 14 111 94 J..P,11,1~ A ·14... gL . ~~~~~ N J . r 'r. i .... 1 -1L Â¥f . "T -6 'Ju',11,:11.,1~"'.11.Wt-I' - 1. 11. 11111,1 1'' F , 1 f M 4 /4 ~I' -1 ~ '. ./11 ic' 1 1,;F : ..UU. F.7-1.- t, 1~16/./...bl.,d "IFY itaL...;..dild"ll"ll-.-1_ 102/1 4.4 . 0. 4 ' •1~~**4 - . 1 . I . 1.21011* G 'lli ... ' .M ..1-.~ . '1 «*'" 1 1 1 111,111 *M .. .. 1 - ,0. •1 7,rl"- „ '1 1 I·.1.' t Ir V .1 , I 1. £ 1\l<. . 4 .FA , 1 , 1. 410 " * .1. . ..1 24 . , f /R4 - 4 <3 : -- FWN A I I. ., --& .r 4 i : -7 . ' I ./M· 7% -i . . e - Air 1 IA r .1 · .....'·i , .. ... 1 r 4, 9%,1 , - - - 142 17 ~,_ 4 I.J 4 , ---./.WIWINk&. 4 p kihiv't <'Vem.8/684' - . 1 .. 1 1 41:9Â¥h-„.--2 ~~~~ ~~~~~ L ~ --k -W.,120%.4-4. - ¢ 1, 1 .9-'. .. '1 IF.hÂ¥~~ r 5 1 , ....1 .../. it:VA ..,2 . , · ·'1 . .. 1. dil- 7- 1/.4./1- '4... lk" .41¢11~$34:i.1.... 4. '*J. '4~ .. .b.E.,Ir-·.· Ill 1 ~1 . *42 2'. '. gy' 4*0.2. '114: . 4 ' 1.1 2 1 7 /9 194> 1 , :22... - 1 . f..,2 '· 4 j =Clit / 11/ '/ 1 . '-* Ith ./ L . 4 --'Rmes. - *FO///Mitt<14451:1 LUEEP';~7- 'MT. UL.ir · I . r~f 7 1 76;i Â¥ -4,4 I <37/...0 .. ,¢4*24-4. b. 9. ' .· · 7 k a *r - 1 44 4.97 'r, , '4*,Vt :Al, I . f€ , e -. 451.*11Â¥:..1 ..th ./. .... t 2.-13 A•0¢.e..,1--64 I . $ & . ')+ -£&bld--4 444 '.1... ·· · 9 ' 12 ''' • .1 42 1 U... . ,. :a/9.1 • - 7 447 --TWF: W:,wqv, - T-,r,# •~46*42 * -5. .2' · 6. . 81.#. . ... *4 14:. 1.2. I ..9 . i 6 -1 2 ,-- .0 1 . 6 40, 4 -'r 1~ft' &4 71%2$. -5#< 19,ip F ..40»77/ t ..5..Iff *»eic J N ~· A r . £.Afli'~ , . ft...21.0,Ke . 3 6 I I Â¥r. -'*tr ·- · .,C ' 1 AL- s-,4, 6,: -. 3· ·-·t Tr, 1 . 6 4,4 , 41 - I . , ./ 4 -4. r .02 1 ' _ ........ 11% r agC J 01 14 Nby- ~ - --- F.«0:34 0 . 1 . F.M . . a r ' S€.: 'MZ,ARr A ..1 . 11 I . P 9 f* p q . 4. - , 07.,41.5.31: - .'f, 1 I , 6,4.2 et= 14= .- 7 7 - . - I. . ...it/.:- I m~ LE=j#62-, i - p frit,:445, - j -#,qpr,.. 7,+. 14· i · . 27!.30' 4 / , . 03 Neighbor across the street.JPG 4 li . t®*74. 1.,1,~4*~10~~ 1 ./'.,i. . '.~ I ... 41.e I. + .11. 4.·4*4·/ 19,1* 4 : -~451168#44>t - . 4,+ ' %7 . f295<&Fi '+b I. I. te<Xpli.4, - . . .. 41»47 · * 2. . I . '11% ,$.63 . 1 .. f- A. 1."~7¢R4rÂ¥~i.,t ~1, 93-:1.r#M/A I * 1.t .i •,2 . ..: 7Â¥*42% I '/ I 3. , I 9...~ ..... 14 ~~, . 91 ~ - - * 7114 4 -...JAM¢,i.1'. ,,%~~ ..,:T,C~,tr. \r7 '. · r f.. - en JA,-0 4.44.· '· 1. - . . . 4 ~ C' . -,4 - ..- *I.- t , . - . ' I./. . I ., 1 . ..*1667>A- -,or- ...1-, 74.;4:}16., ·.4. Al.2 ... 'tr*>,i. Ql ~ :.. --. 4=294- -0, - I . - . ..... t .* 46 -pi A. e. ..: ~. . I 1.411-' - ... ly 1. ........ fu /, -*-'* A' 04 ~~:4. I I : , I I f*· th, I. 4 • ' SL. .... .:,-e. . 0 1> 1 ir.0 eS,*V/WK: ~ ~ A ~~T•~ • 75*~ E'12 '. ~ ~1 4 " .- ' 4 . 1~~ 0 ~+ ~ ~2~ 4'~'1Â¥~~~1, ~ 1** 41;4D ' ~tÂ¥1 . I. , , * „C '., Â¥ ' . 4,0 -h / 4 . . . g'.A: ' . 0, -*1 . ... 7 -... e .-. - . 4.29 r ... 0. ......119. V - '4~ 'f°~41:140*5~2; ., e ...~- . 4: N . ...... . •=1 1. . It . '*17Â¥1 . 44% , e .4 , . ..'. , S 4., .6 4 224 - .' %.. .. < . S.* 1' :I . 4.~I-· .$ , . .... 4 . ."t 3 4 & - 0 . I . -9 ./ f 1 40 ' 4.- -e .4. 1 4 , 0% I 4/ 1 44* . 14, 1 0 .1 . · , im-4-I I I ' '·•11///1/6/4,C•OT......../.-,V,•I'll'llill/t'll'll./.B.' I 1%' 'lt '. , I . t.1 - . - a ..4, 6 - . ..4 .<. - ... ... I ragC y 01 14 4 .~ 1,- 4." ,~ 1 1 3 r I , 4 . W,ta' ' / '17.,f \.;34 . 11 4 42 6....2 4 C i 'bp· I Yto.. I I '' 24' d>tk. 4. 144 ~14 / 4. 1, 20, L-.1 *•4 I - ; '0·-1-rAW!, *A,ew, .. q, ~; 1 , , 1/0 7 - .,5, - 4.1 <27.;.4 "f ... '~ ' - I.& . ,:,1.27. .rf*(. . 9 ' - 4 - 4 ~·-r,1 . , I *79. - t. 1. ./ ·4 ' ··24~4< + I f , % J.-4 0**t.:.-9.J.. ' 2/4 , 1 + r * I -- 1 2.f - .4 1 '... . 44<*A ',I . U h,9 4 .4 - 4 .0 9 1/ 1 I 7.44, , .A- 1 . c. 4 I 1' b " 4 ' '' 34%~ 4 4 ~<5 ::. . t -2 I ....7.1 ...,flfL"«*I. I./ 9.* 1 1 4 . 1-'.-Il'-/p k•hi~r,~ I - . .Airt= - ..C · fUp-::·*ek-AY· - - - - I./,... ...-4 40. - ' - t 4„ .,1.. - . .A. . -2 . . f f - 6 4-9/3/***at + * 64* ) . .. 1 4. . . 1 .. . - t:Zi.,0, 4WP' 1.- r t.. , 66: I. 09 Character of the neighborhood. JPG 4 20 *1/0 1 - .... . -: " . 'IrD" 2, ,-t . C." ;~'~~, yo~..~~~<'~~Avd~~~~~v·.~ ' VQ./I tv/4 : / 1 : ke>*> hir-, 1 7 1,·. r't,0Kt •I·i . 4 .1 '. F .,.C.Er•t.f'G~ .4 , 042,2 ~414 '9 :: A i + 1 11:'3Fl . ' 9 ,6,416/br1 r/jttik# eI,* -fwr,t\: ,. . f ; .. ..1 1(24 - 4* *:' '4- 44, - ' 07¢XA.:D. fr&vT.-0,2 . . /,6,4 :46+9.¢.19:.t:'' 1\ 3 . & -*4' / · 4. ./ 0./.1/ *,A . . 1 . ..L h. ' :'*- Ii. ~1 I J.36< .9. 4 . . . ' . . .... 14, ~. 4, 994 . e. - . /-. f':4* - fi;*7442:~i~/<4* .11/~:ri .. ff 1 re. .\09 1 9 0. . 1 - 7, . t 1- 1 * .-141 4/ ...1- 1 i , - . 1 034<4 V' -1 i 4 I. 9 . <%.6.dw> n. - 4.42*- 4 I < F.4%91,:1 -/ 1 Â¥ . . . 4 .... . 74 1 i /4 1 , A r + . . t- i ' *re» r. C rk- ,„ 7 ... -4. ... - A: 14 9 ' -' -. .. -1 6 .4; 4-- -4 0 . --r 11- , a 3% V- 'r= 7 1 - 14 1 ,-- ...............i I. I 4 1 f. F 1.- 16: .d~ I. . - h - . . 4/4, 1 , k, T .- L.7 ' 4 . /14 1 . · ..Ar - - , - . 41. 6 - - $. fla 'h. 1/ -- - - - 44. ... .,e- .I<. 4,4. 24 4. *lit - ..-I ........ 47 01- i 4 ®, 4.- i .4 '*C- , A t.» 2. ,7 1 '. t~•b· L. ' -~ £ 1, ; *45'2··?.Firif..E,~.:£7;NiAJ·· 2, 7*IW/AR&~UI,,~~ 46*W"**7441 -14. '' ' * ·,Ct-J,-, 71Â¥1.,E,J.kli . , . 1 *.9-a , ,, ---0.,1.0.1,2,93.1.<17-*43Â¥VÂ¥|4 . , ...LC 4#r- * -· 3. t.vi ...4 · . . 1 ' . 4 3,·- y:' ;- 4 +. A w , .% 1 %·ilvl -r.*-9. D > '23 .....:,4~-.,1..~f-9t~12~~~~~~~<~4~~~~~~~' : .L . . I t- . YJ'* I. 1%,- 91. b A,# . :,-,04 I .. .. 1 . '. ,• • UU*54~ UZI::%/.I ,..1 - 11 . 4 1- ./1-- /ga•-/ - .0..5 9 J-· 4 - '6 : .A ,)47.1. . ... 4. •' --.I.1.3:li:<,44ti~~-41~.-~4*3~44.:..: 35~~2 6*.- : . 10*-, . I. €*04 . - i, 1-- . ...% - . €r , U¢~•1' · 41 ~~~ ff ' kh. '~OW. i*Â¥*2~'- trpi,4 2<*-.It Fi -6 I L *8 -74 . /,444£ '4* LA 40--T/6, I- A Yele=-:44 J .., A ..4 - v - 71·:.12'24>2~3Â¥UP&~3 ·«,06-Al , ik· Rf..9,3 70•ap, . - . 6 0·:J .... 4 ... v 11- *.9 ' i .,4. · · •1-'+... 1- 9 4 *16#' Z... - V·7 4 .-2. ' i %, 1 . 41 / w.,1 :*/IA ' p *'* +D-' Fj.: I'.2 .~~~'~~ - 0 - 4F ---4 , -- r . .j ,>rotop,~44-, ..,..~. 149 1*«1»-5/. c.. . .. . J,1,·, . , I - 07 - -4 ..4- >; 1.mdj j ;lt, 3. , 91, .1 . ...© . 1 :y¢*'.3.531-.3.Ir/.1,~10*~ 1"l.~2-~< 4 11 - . , d . .. --1 ... I. € , 4.1,453. -,4 4 . 4,0'. - 4 -4 Z. , 0 :FL' 0 4, 'E.A ..1.C 7 72, I .~ 9-LE ~r. < d 4/ /-4%-1/4./. . #~$*6*-4-~ - · 4.44'tw ir •/52 --0 LA u f '.1 3.23 7£ f. '462 *.....24 15~4 ~< 4 ~'?~dk ' 44?1."-- -20 Al?11, '1,41(-1 .1* "0'*-f ' 71,~:i•.rzy . . ~~,_ ~ - 4-- 49~-1 L. .2 ..# I 4*1*&"I.'al). 42•...P.*W.'* £ I - */ Ligm..41.- *;1. ~ ~~ I .0 -/ _ ~-%yar r14* Ate.~ r :*... , - € '2 92 4, bi -4 3,73 -3~- -4-2 3» I -, V. ~'1.9. -1-2'ex--' . r 1· - 9 r-' -I k - I f.4..1 ·,- . a:Z'.->71'Ve_ 2., , 4 • r - - . 4 1, 1 14 9 1, . th0 P' ./ '. 4| A .' I .: til.4 '~~ ' 7( 1 . ' . ' " I' .5*£84.13 1 1,0.· C~·111:(, ..12'i.-t '1 k fi, '2 111+1 f.,;,0,4,4'4.1 . . 4,1 ?1.,4 .. -I - ... ... - f h> 3 -Mqi~ -4.0 ,+ /UN'?2>'4': . * I.W. ".2.LTL. ./- 1 41... 4 . 'r . p vk .0422*r *-9,"I. I, $. --9- - 4 0 ' n'.4 - 1. · -09*»tik . 4111 .24 6.44. 1 3 -. ~ 34. 39 k9 u. X. .. . .1 4 4 +,1 .., : . ..} 1.1 4 , 1., 9. ''k r 4 •./ irb" .F '.- 1.:- . 1 . 91% Y I . . 1 ' I . -i.:1 0 -. r . I . 1, TA Al .. 2 +09 1 .--1, 'p: t -4.L . 4 *L 0 y ' /- 3 , . / ' F· 4 ' . 0 4 ' . d.wr>·.:611· .· - . . 2 ~' 294./* · 3. I ·,Â¥12*>?r~ Y€-3€ 49 ~· ~ ~ - . ' ~fr . : 4 -4 91=: >t·1 - <Li -:44 4, #th £. .. 9. . lai . 4 1 :. 14 . , . r ..1.' , q¢., - .J · ''¢ ' ~'. r)-t'~/ ~ "~ ~f-' f v. ·* N . F¥¥• h ; ~ 4%*613*f 9,1.2- I y M#44. -iL-..3':R,60· ~- :40 4·- >4- , 4. I. - 0 44 r .. . ./.1.. . " . - 9'e 1 6 2/ , . 1 ".ty .2 ... A · U 3 C k.7% I ...5 . 41 a ..4 ... 1,4 + k - I. I · ~-4 241.--7 'i...1--10* *9-- ·--- - -- 4'2 · I-- . '' ' . . 1 â„¢, L,) 'k· • -i le.f . I . . . .0 - .R ' : - V.. A ' I € . . 1 , 4#.2¢ 2. .. r.-F. / Al...4, . r · r.· /'///7.EL·JA ..1. , . .. 'C - 0 ...1 f, 9 -Mad 'AARM- # -r-_.Ay; . 9#16 7. r. , I , IR.. I -1- , I . 7 4 . . W . ---'Ij'h7/0.F ' 1 r--„ -' -- ·" ' c . el - 1 . r.,Irr- .14 4.-¢3 D .... ...9.-~i#Z# .. 4 . - 1 I L I I V 132-- I . ;1. .., 4/4 ->.11 e 14•Bd,FWRd,Lmi,UVVY ©,; :..4 14' . . - V . h\ 0- r . Â¥24 . +74 .r u .- . »442 F >f . P ... 2 -1, r »<-7- - lip, 'Fl .. . 1 %// ·--- #m I -/ I l D ,t /1* 4.1- · 6-· 4318447*4114 9.flf¢32, .1.L j'U~~~·F '9*4~· ' r mili 4 4 r . Itr* . 4 4 L h 4 . r 0 70 - -- 41 / 1:19 I - . 9 1 .17 1. -- S.* - - r. 9 ' 6/ ·1. t. 2»54 0 . 4 1 ..Al'.i...15.. 2, 4 . . 1 .... , 4 t , . e 41, Ir . i . F ' rt' 4" 4. 1, 2 - ·.1: rj I . X, -7 . C 3 i,t. . 3 . ,(r 4 ·, 3 ·rÂ¥ ' 4- - I 7, L. . I I +0/V• 1-16· - <:.1, . .. 1 - ., -... . , Al . h '. 4 - - J 5© €4~ -:. · . . . 4 - .-., . 7 91 12'' . 1 4, 31. . -4 re , i . r . . '. - . -- ..M--,1 4 - -, 2.. .. rf --f: »,9 , *Ar~ . .f..» t·le:~5~I*Irit ~.~ 9.;,7/ 2... r«Si:* r. y U '¢*1 -'C· Mt/..&*3Yft It ·~' f, ..,'·,:2- 1 l 72,4. i -7 C' 7 7„„/ '-lj*j- - 13£4*MWN/klif0:'~b;v< Ic '•4..10*/2{c,·233, 4 - 1041'1, t:,£1&4?.L„ ,, 0% ' . 4. / - ,..:'. 9/':tLY #4, r f '4.. j / V.> 91: 4 i 4 - 4 1• 'V' 4-6 , 1 A-' .6 -1 4 . '1:J.,~443§1€U . 1 - - - I . 4- 14 - '-4/ ,, - 7)*. ' I *27:t•.:3% ·'rt#> . -·94..... 1% ''*4;1 -p Zi 47:P..:.....4.-2-»44 .~, i 4» b .- .C .. 9Bt e ., 44 ' A. 1 ... . ' 5·-·«r~41 :1: r ':~, : 4 . 414 . U. ... J. . ' ' 4.k ./ .f '1':-. . - F, A,~£.6 ."/ T.F + 4. I - - 40 ' 44 1 2 4 . 4 ' - ~*1· · 1 · . U 5. r-.9 ;4*1/*. '. 51 3*'**P - t. 'Of.... .r - r....- . 'lr· -. · ,/Ux f fit . I .$. 7 & .Za#.:4/ .. •A <-~' f re 42 ·i e .# 2 1 . " -,$ . .1 -},1 . :.p * I .. Tr . 4*>* I * I - 2 -1, · ' .3.<Vi,eri-.-6 (frbi: 4, . , 91,1 ' Jr..... 77... Ses ...2~ #-=U..*,ul'tit.~4,JA.· AND'·« r . .. I r i St-cr .9 4/ »~i~'...I:Xqeta€.- ' < *40.414€-1- , K G &6 ·. 14·3442. "Zil#11//4 ./-- -' ~CU' AX.. - M . - ' ' t * 2'/5.r 1*.W:.. f ... W 1 4 '04'* 1 - 6 - '. u.,4 - 13:9€,f y. . a .49, 4 4. '39696 C:. 1*..,3..'*7,04*?.It'l'l<.1/7 9 ·2 4/il i ~t,f k.- '7~4,9(3 44( f . i ..... ..,.tigh.•7;6 -3, %.9... ../ ./. : •f.*. : . t '41*·~ 2 ·· , p., i . . ....7..Fe Y , . 0.--,49;t.i.:46 ,:,~~4~42. .:r ' , . ':'~-,.'1- 7 29726 490-499*0*i>.p/tu : ...r '.' 9.TA~t..i. L. ·· . I' ·JI~/ %414'ELL S:9%44....?:1*,i, 4.- 1, 6 .-'*'·.f:.-*~~aT-'*. ~~ .. I £/·. I t 1 ./ . . . I ./ :- 440 --.Ce' ill 24-4.4 ,; t, 75: * 4. 9 4 4. LI . · ' I ki,1 . Ir#fi'' gIl 4#4536 1- - -3.. ht;*Ardf&._>.~*WEL i.,4 - harwkg-*" :. tw-4*151 --~--Tiv~~/*27%- ¢49**f -4-:,. .4.. *t. A-. . .0 .. 4-< 0,74 »CL i. 4,1, 4 4 I . .'/ / . : 1., '40 . I . I . • V 44. * -.. 4*5,2 -r - .4 P - -i~t .*Le. + l.,IA'- .R ' r ' i · ..:utiouu -C -·~/ . ~ £*<1. ..0. ... , /14'44/ ........ 2 ?.F ,Â¥7. p . Â¥43, - *-Il . . ' /4 '5,6 · :.1 ¢ IC>11 =41AIL,Wil#/*Witt I . .. . t 3' %~/&Nt f+4'&4:hau? .I' ' 4.- ,·. .. -.'W W -·ck.;1. 429·:47:pc.,A ..'. 9.41 ki . fÂ¥*W .2 " *3#· .i ..flj<jL. :*4471'Fiht #04*4* '5174:3/ :74"Ye~"'mPNF,JF ,+4'.: ..:9{49«.2.312~:,41' 7#k 7. : .*#.Af; ·12 - 0 1,1' 'f ·Af' 4..4,- i.~1-jit . , ' -4 · :3aal: , , 1 ft .:4,1 -, 011/1.k,JEM.ti~d,1.., . 44 - b' 41 , . 'T -*·N.» 02*» .. 2 ~9;~~*A 8~-* i ?'* ~ 0"9 F1ll#B Ii,** *:~*~~.& ~9.Ir,LI.*H~,g~ idi =7 ' *4.-' *:*.'' 1%%44,7-' I . ,& ..1,4 . . I.V... flu ragC l U 01 14 A wr ---------- 75? . f '·· 1"0.201, . 4 4 * 46*. :9 4 ..' 1 f'*.4.. >.,19"Ffpr1*Mi:., 1.. 41.... .3 0 ,.., I 9© 4. ·. :A 4 . ... . . - 2...4 . 11 ./ 4 .. 1 . ... , ' 1 . 9.116 + : , , ·K . *7.24...la' . 4 . I .... I /4 1 ; Â¥ 1 p . 5 , .. .1 . 81 ,.Pill-%7,,1 ~- 't- . 0 3 14 32 I R. · f ..· 3-1*l· 4 . 149 '..5.R '. I I. . r, ...... t>C c -4 , 'jiff. M + A *Mik .... . I I .1 6-4 ' 77 I· 4·4, py -1 . ' , 66 . € 1 - r .... . Ct . 1 1.:-- 9 - 11. . ,- etsÂ¥.... 1 ..13, I -. 10 / 4 . ... e. ,. 1.q . --9"''ar# 46 . 1 ---9'£ 14.6.Ii A-Unitil • .......U : . r 411,1 . t. <431- - , r.- - Yal 'I ft 44 ..45*~ ...1 <9"liMiliIill'll'll'll'll'll'll' 78/~/.-'£.4.;928.......................illillillill'llir - . - .- 1,4 N.t:- : 1 -51"".i'",i. 10 Characterof the neighborhood.JPG « A» 4, 4 .....4 . . 4, -1 1 .1 4.:' I + I. , , . ..... . . 2 / '4:411 4 . ..1 :. 4 2, ..4-1 £ . 9 ~ t..:33*i-4-il :.-2 . ¢,0 ./qg S' A... 9*0- , ·,· '•-ru 4. r' .,4 .t. . : '*4:3144 ..2/ 1 1.4 f · •' -ywrtir/fmj,k~QUD·.Mik , 2 17¢ 4 -144 4?.0 ' .54.... 1 . 3. 4 6 - & ,#fic'Abi<Li/41:191. 0 1, ./ .~ . 2~- <e. , ill'lk , 1 M.' .' 1 & -- r· 0 .61. ·' .r . I 411 2 I - A .' . .IX. ./i ·• I -r#,Adie,4 1 . : .9........42,29(9/ , :Ak*,4.,1 -8 * , C.... .04 7,•.9.: i .... .25 0 9 · ... 1 . flo'· I . I ill-,1.. ' 0.'. . , ,..€*/42 3{41 /..% N»'.1~lt*41 4-«: 7.6 . 4- . / U+I. . 71 /1'. . , .: 1 . , -- I. . 1 N. % r 4 I t. - 1 V , . .1 € . t. F. /1///////// day/ 1 .. 1. ..t, I , ,t. .. 4 Â¥*0: 41 4 1 . h - AA i k , 4, , r. te/tr. . 4 r. 2-37.2, 4 ./ 0 ». , ·· ··' 7 -'*qp< r,~ip///A A j. C ir Aill. Ali. ~ 1 1.1 1.....7/V".A t . p' I.*W ''/ .tt .. . -A ., I 4%4**4/4&' 3* 0247...../- . . 13 t. . A..'' . ' ·..'frilf.'','* l.. h.' , · r -1- . . -/13'04kjit i~'~ 1 + ' . ./'. 2 7., , 50 .>.911~ I ." 1'.73. ...1.€7¢, 1 7 k *1 4- It 1 A. .t : % .,t 44 To: Planning ana Zoning Commission I - / . From: Marilyn Marks M In i. Al. -- \Fvw.vv RE: 1550 Homestake Drive proposed variance Hearing Feb 5,2008 I am writing in support of the application for variance filed by Carol Fisher for 1550 Homestake Drive. lhave received proper notice of the application, and have carefullv observed and considered the landscape design in question and the impact on the neighborhood. I am fully supportive of the landscape plan, and the plantings and diversity it adds to the otherwise somewhat barren area of street frontage on Homestake. I own the property next door to Ms. Fisher (1520 Homestake), and encourage the additional plantings, trees, and shade which help break up the masses of large houses facing the street and the cleared area of the golf course. I plan to build my personal residence on the adjoining lot at some time in the future. It is likely that I am the neighbor most impacted by this landscape plan, which I feel enhances the neighborhood. Please let me know if you have further questions of my support of this variance request, i will be out of the country on February 5. Otherwise. I would plan to attend and speak personally on behalf of this variance which I believe enhances tile design elements ot the street. I may be reached at 970 404 2225 or Marilvn@AspenOTTice.comi Marilvn Marks Uvve -32-scpk k Ske.1151 -Gfwho reside at /(030 '51,11,IA-k-,-fil Driv-C- approve of Carole Fishefs eodsling landscape design at 1550 Homestake Dr. and sup- port her efforts b obtain a landscape variance from the City of Aspen. Comments: k ,-2- -4-h , n k 427.e- ne-10 horn£- an 60 45*€-6 al-\3 -+U- landscaf-e_ cut- 1 550 Horn£6Â¥akt j ooks a. Ugi50- -- . LOe_ hope_ -4-kad- 3 + 15-245 dk- y re coe-el e.,1-0 44< 04-6 ers 0,-n -Ph -t nei *bc,Aood 1,0 6 o a-.r -e-_ 1 9 Cond'ld-Q-; r.3 -bu'; ld.'~9 j re-,71004-/1, n 7- or·- 5'~r-LA Civi0 Up +Aeff Y- 1(Le(#5(Clpt-5 11 1,7 -1--A £ -~Jurt-·- . Date 1/ 5 1 ~~ 96 la,MI> A LJ ill Wed , who reside at 2'15 C+WrywELD Fr*-p approve of Carole Fisher's existing landscape design at 1550 Homestake Dr. and sup- port her efforts to obtain a landscape variance from the City of Aspen. Comments: -TAE ~-*ht b &6*p (Al, G~ dr igsD 1-6,4£ S-·GLK·E U·AS Gatill»3 0243 tlie ;4et 4-11 ero 2-140-€DD, t=r- 1 3 6,y-=ratt,L>t 3>12>£ b G- N Et:> -70 1(-je-ALD (14,*-0 -MAE SUf-F- (bc Al D L Al 6 ,&*EA A A b ti-*S t> e.12>Al 1*\A, G +1-r F«U->f ELecufre© \UiTIA /4*<T-NE --rt-e.'ES S#lb Pl-.6*t-S. 1 NU? 0 4.Ut 3 CANI 74% We,ukra Ars ls. Signature 1-1-2 41= Date -4-La 3, /247 8, \1\Ne , who reside at /9 1 P I.J.Kics Lk e_- approve of Carole Fisher's existing landscape design at 1550 Homestake Dr. and sup- port her efforts to obtain a landscape variance from the City of Aspen. Comments: luY-- COi ~fr q.~_ '414-- Ft« -/ Signature 491 4« Date D- 111°9 1/We 641( 7 i.j-10 ktf--4 ,whoresideal 1 9* J,6/les{«14 /0, approve of Carole Fisher's existing landscape design at 1550 Homestake Dr. and sup- port her efforts to obtain a landscape variance from the City of Aspen. Comments: k< odU.9 1 60,4 4- 944 - Arf Signatur « p'WART& Date 2 - 9- 0 f \ANe 1,©«Dgy- , who reside at 165£5 Si N-€-0- h 09 approve of Carole Fisher's existing landscape design at 1550 Homestake Dr. and sup- port her efforts to obtain a landscape variance from the City of Aspen. Comments: AJO 9 0-1 sm 1 90 Poll u-ti rpl_ 1 6 a Green Idcau -1 houxj ns UJ oulinl + h ELLEN CA.201-C- d CA/vug - pm VOLO~ 9/13· <5 10/4 R \€f ou bu 5,~cj_ 1-r 60 ad (/0 ike 5 U Wl N-/1 A Signature 6 *.649 Unlu/ Date &14-0© Ime R €*t, 4 ~-~ i (4~/ 63- 1.,0 reside at l@£10 St'LUJAF#42*WRI K approve of Carole Fisher's existing landscape design at 1550 Homestake Dr. and sup- port her efforts to obtain a landscape variance from the City of Aspen. Connnnents: 6% 44 +14 08696' 'l f % A/v Y(VO\).£6 t,Le LOA,o€e, ~ (CU~LC,U; l aue L t- cle ~e, 10/ <x 1 /7 Signature Py) 43-1/ ix- Date 2-14/06 0 FROM : STITT FAX NO. : 561 659 211111 0. 04 2008 04:16PM Pl pw, & 1,gl 011 Una lu Ul a idifuscape variance Trolrt the CIty 01 41 Comments. J o_*tutl-/ (14- /L -2-bt- Cu--1-41,-U' U k£, 442/17,1/1, 11 ~*-111_~ 1*9;vQ) 40-/UO- +4-*1-4 121-AP ki,U--0-2, Ji 06~+ 9-0/Lit" lf»-4 14«/ 0-+ \ _9-2-/ lec»-/1 Ck--6~- tiv-4-4-46~ 4--~ £604/3/ -1NA tutdn-z· PL A / I Signabre-A'£~~-«,C v 1 V NU-/1/VI \ Date 490 f-Ax 946 920·9950 . f Feb 05 08 01:59p Curtis Kaufman 970-544-0060 p.1 tel] Ub Uti U lib-/p breat Fice btualos 217U-VkfU-:1 P. 1 1/Wedqlri 5- 4.4E/»,v ,.horesideat 903- CKA-v Fl.,~~_b AD 8 1 PiE- C-C Ff 6(/ approve 01 Carole Fishefs ®Osing lamiscape design M 1550 Homestake Dr. and sup- port her e,fortstn obtain a laidscave varimice from me aty d Aspen. Comments: / /1 ry«ou'l c>e- 7-CAQ_ /JACe=fil)fo--33«. C- Arj),clc r. e c - 02 67- -EfA €- F L S 1-+ 1/0 €.4 Ba- 6--A. z c.i Ecp TAT ficiu Ar/o= /1 A- /1 49 L_o r-3 6 u I TH 1-AS-- F> ~-- 24 A NA 6 24 444 THI-i_ Ff-'14£56 LAA }asc,4/o a. HAS B€-el,J t>:. 06 L.5 I »-4 G y L ELLE-6, ' - TACTE : A.-' ts f r Y L 'i- /6-J 0 €_,-4 14 A A LC. i 9» €_ /V (12- C 6 14 Re>,1 1-4ge h Appel- /9-SA-3 2-9 , P L S A--f € /4'vwl C e¢ / f Signature 11 1 -b Date 1/«07 C # \DNe 'U11 4-0un* , who reside at 9 & 5 GAWf, dd. R cl approve of Carole Fisher's existing landscape design at 1550 Homestake Dr. and sup- port her efforts to obtain a landscape variance from the City of Aspen. Comments: YPIL Ukit ge&p Utf leph U d ' 5 PLO f ~30b &*L - Signature -37 47 M-lua AA- Date $ · 4 · O% LF cleN+ F--a (4 4 l.. >/0~ 61)- 1/We 0!104 · -l-9 013 f , who reside at ~ po Ho,« eLE ky, PA__ approve of Carole Fish6r's existing landscape design at 1550 Homestake Dr. and sup- port her efforts to obtain a landscape variance from the City of Aspen. Commehts: l©L LD*----CE /4- ~0 0 1-p 9 0- e_0(+ 1 It L 4 Signature d161- 9~9K --% 44- a_ -5~1 Date l, - 4 ~ L - , t V 1/We C.1 iJ-- + C.~6© 60~0*-lbkwho reside at 16/0 1-l.Ov«,5+46 D'Tivt- approve of Carole Fishefs existing landscape design at 1550 Homestake Dr. and sup- port her efforts to obtain a landscape variance from the City of Aspen. Comments: La/4-5 c.a~"i 1 5 Vule - 5 u l*+3 414.ft- AL: tkbor- 1«4 - -4-5 +eF-~,uU.3-- 34.2., 0 Signature &4£ G.jle·07~4-,A Date 2 -4- 0% - 'me Tk ?L I f ps , who reside at 82-5- (1(kfie Id 82 approve of Carole Fisher's existing landscape design at 1550 Homestake Dr. and sup- port her efforts to obtain a landscape variance from the City of Aspen. Comments: K'llf 0,11(Jolt- And 41~ 04# 1* 16* 3-0 H») .A. 33; 6, rt <,4 44/na 4- 6 4 'fd Signatur~ C~ 1 44 Date .11 41*( f-- 9 A I /xAA 4 , r' 11/ :14__ 01 gr Il I jujtj 0 I C V i LJ - A -i 0 - (~- CL- 9-4__, 4-8,~04_01 14- LU-t-' 7\ C~ /5 f572) 6-1-0-}3~Lf J 0 i », Oj U_ At 3132 AVQ,2%) 12 v OF„SS ~---· i t> 1 £ 14 01-<·96 0- £ 6 ~f-0.- ~ 14«-»l..Ct_i to··--0-->-v. 3./.LJE-, , '01 »Coft LO ~.-~OFR_./72#J.- \49- 3 i bwt 2 VA G-~2 4-Q_»4~-~-od ~ A- '«PU\AUL UU« 0 0 31 41 ot \I\Ne ~*-BE -r- ~-O-T- #(21 E ,whores\deat /62 5~=,LveR~/Al & ~R. approve of Carole Fisher's existing landscape design at 1550 Homestake Dr. and sup- port her efforts to obtain a landscape variance from the City of Aspen. Comments: 993=-1.1/ la-« A- Signature 4.47#1~ Date (o_ ity> 3, 2 00% Ime 1<U~ 7--blet-+-<i-€) , who reside at 4 69 All 44 '1)0 approve of Carole Fisher's existing landscape design at 1550 Homestake Dr. and sup- port her efforts to obtain a landscape variance from the City of Aspen. Comments: 3-0 Bact th mm, 0 14 4 2 t.i, a nee- En~ u,f -i) -ltui d icap; M j but &41 1 ju 861 4 44*7- 1 5\ 012- #Leme 4 A.£ 4000\,« - Signature <94 3~18*iq~~\'~3 Date & 4. 88 li v ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 1 5-ED #makwit»-1 , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: ifibr V CAA/k /* , 200Â¥ STATE OF COLORADO ) County of Pitkin ) I, (4(k» 4, Rek»0-0 - (name, please print) being or representing ah Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) o f the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. J Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproo f materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days riorto the public hearing and was continuously visible from the j<~ day of ..=2**620'AA , 2008 , to and including the date and time o f the public headng. A photokraph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. ~ Mailing ofnotice. By the mailing o f a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date o f the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part o f a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal o f this Title and enactment o f a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other su fficient legal description o f, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners o f real property in the area o f the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed gbping map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency d~tri® all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such tri ments. 144- -- Signature The foregoing "Affidavit ofNotice" was acknowledged before me this C day of Ti>yf OwN/~,1~ , 200_tby Kw,Uce,6 4~,14tiU,uj41 1*•-4,~ f-'·qdZA,CALIP WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: 9- 19 -07 •,O . EUGENE M. 1 . tt- d~ ALDER i NotaryPDblic /n L) OF co-1- ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL ........~ ·17 - 11 1. 11- S 1.2/ 1, V 4 '11 . . • •11 - 6 - < a ..4 » 1 fil $ .6'Kil :9 f *- .V . . 13 .3.//Ft 'Le 1== C .9 4 C .:~1 . \ 1/1 J : r .1 v»y . 1 al 1 . O- te. A· ·· fl: i t ... . .3#r - /.1£7621;. -*-pt. * 0& -~A~j~n ../.4/./.42 , 2 1,6 7 ·\7·*:. t.' . . 4 . - - .2-- -24- .0 - .,4.3 . * - 4 - 0.. 929 - .... . I . (1ill:li N . . 3 -·4416 - -mi--... 4047'j, . ~ ~ 2-- 3- - I. $ 0 <% - -. w- 7 I f k 4 1 PUBLIC N - -7 '1 4 'Ne..1~ I Z t . 1., ,- . DATE FEAKMARY 5...,i,v 4 0- f. %, 'IL. .. i. 0 11 TIME 1+©3~0 '3 N\. ..th i. I : 4 'PE C : - PLACE~ , /r *~>~ .' ~* ~ ~ -~ ~~~ ' ~~> L/-3 -- PURPOSE ~*~ fi · , 2, -+ - -r - - 49~~*¥€.* ~ ··· . f../0 i'. , . .a,1 , f .... 7.7 ..... V . 4 Easy Peel Labels E*1 1 A I See Instruction Sheet 1 EDi] Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® [UN! 1Fe -aper for Easy Peel Featurel ] ~AVERY®5160® i MILLER JOHN W TRUSTEE 50% MILLER KATHERINE L TRUSTEE 50% OLEARY J CAVANAUGH JR 1490 SILVER KING DR 1490 SILVER KING DR 1500 SILVER KING DR AePEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 FINGERHUT BERT COUCHMAN DIANE P WESTERN DEVCO LLC PO BOX 4580 4416 GRASSMERE 1490 LAFAYETTE ST #306/LEGAL DEPT ASPEN, CO 81612 DALLAS, TX 75205 DENVER, CO 80218 TAYLOR RICHARD & MURIEL SCHUBERT INVESTMENTS LP WALKER JOHN E & JEANNE B 1595 SILVERKING DR 1575 SILVERKING DR 2007 FOREST GARDEN DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 KINGWOOD, TX 77345 GUTHRIE JANET BLUEPOINT PROPERTIES LLLP MARKS MARILYN R PO BOX 505 1450 SILVER KING DR 930 W FRANCIS ST ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 TAYLOR J DAVID DALY THOMAS J & JUDITH J ARESTY WENDY 221 N STARWOOD DR 1590 HOMESTAKE DR 1610 HOMESTAKE DR ASPEN, CO 81611-9724 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 AZOUZ REVOCABLE TRUST PINE PHILIP A CITY OF ASPEN 14900 VENTURA BLVD #330 50 S COMPASS DR 130 S GALENA ST SHERMAN OAKS, CA 91403 FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33308 ASPEN, CO 81611 PYRAMID CREEK RESTAURANT WAGNER DUER 111 CITY OF ASPEN C/O CITY OF ASPEN 1830 CITY CENTER TOWER Il 130 S GALENA ST 130 S GALENA ST FORT WORTH, TX 76102 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN GOLF PRO SHOP SHLOMOS ON THE GREEN DEHAN STEPHEN E & ALISON G C/O SSI VENTURE LLC 39551 HWY 82 PO BOX 92889 299 MILWAUKEE ST #502 ASPEN, CO 81611 AUSTIN, TX 78709-2889 DENVER, CO 80206-5045 Etiquettes faciles & peler A Consultez la feuille www. avery. com Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5160® Sens de chargement d'instruction 1-800-GO=AVERY =1 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 1550 HOMESTAKE DRIVE -RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 5,2008, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Carole Fisher, 1550 11omestake Drive, Aspen, Colorado 81611, owner of the subject property, represented by Richard Neiley. The applicant is requesting approval of a Residential Design Standard Variance to allow a berm forward of the front fagade of the house. The property is legally described as Lot 19 of the West Aspen Subdivision, Filing No. 2, City of Aspen. For further information, contact Jessica Garrow at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2780, jessicag@ci.aspen.co.us. s/ Dvlan Johns, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published iii the Aspen Times on January 20,2008 City of Aspen Account ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 1 5 5-0 #6mE 5 Frd, e ~fle€ , Aspen,co SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: -Fice &6 52 4:3*.1,200.2 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) L AN 9 Ele Sco 2,/14 (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: ~' Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) U days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of , 200 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photographofthe posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area ofthe proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. 442 510 Signatd e The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before mq this 23 day of Cxf~» tko·A ; , 200_3 by ,~-20;/- C -€1//,1- 45- C.- ---<-/6-/1 V j WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL Sunday, Janui PUBLIC NOTICE My commission expires: 0% ~ i D < 30\ (23 RE: 1550 HOMESTAKE DRIVE - RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS ~ NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing q i\_L<P C 0/4 0 tet- will be held on Tuesday, February 5,2008, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Notary Public Plannjng and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., As pen, to consider an application submitted by Car , ole Fisher, 1550 Homestake Drive, Aspen, Colo rado 81611, owner of the subject property, j<RYPO. represented by Richard Neiley. The applicant is re questing approval of a Residential Design Stan dard Variance to allow a berm forward of the front N m P fagade of the house. The property is legally de • scribed as Lot 19 of the West Aspen Subdivision, Filing No. 2, City of Aspen. 0 For further information, contact Jessica Garrow at f LAURA i the City of Aspen Community Development De 1 MEYER : partment, 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO, (970) ATTACHMENTS: 429.2780, jessicag @ci.aspen.co.us. 40.0 ..49 sl Dylan Johns. Chair 1Â¥44)f Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission COPY OF THE PUBLICATION Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on January 20, 2008. (1073522) PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SI~WA\Assion Expkes 08/10/2010 E OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL EL MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner JM(3 THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Directordi MEETING DATE: February 5,2008 RE: 1550 Homestake Drive - Residential Design Guideline Variance - Resolution No. _, Series 2008 - Public Hearing (Parcel 2735-024-01-022) APPLICANT /OWNER: PROPOSED LAND USE: Carole C Fisher The Applicant is requesting approval of a variance to maintain a berm in the front yard REPRESENTATIVE: setback. Richard Neiley STAFF RECOMMENDATION: LOCATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Lot 19 ofthe West Aspen Subdivision, Filing Commission deny the requested variance. No. 2, City of Aspen, CO, commonly known as 1550 Homestake Drive. SUMMARY: The Applicant requests of the Planning and CURRENT ZONING & USE Zoning Commission approval one (1) variance R-15 Moderate Density zone district. from the Residential Design Standards to maintain a berm. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission: • Residential Design Standards Variance from the Fences standard to maintain a berm in the front yard setback within the City of Aspen pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.410. PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant, Carole C Fisher, represented by Richard Neiley, has requested a variance from the Fence standard to maintain a berm in the front yard setback at 1550 Homestake Drive. The property is located in the Moderate-Density Residential (R-15) zone district and contains a single- family home. The City was made aware of the berm located in the front yard setback when the Zoning Officer received a citizen complaint. Following this complaint, the Zoning Officer contacted the owner with a zoning letter citing the Residential Design Standards which Page 1 of 3 prohibit berms from being placed in the front yard setback.1 The owner decided to make this variance application in order to maintain the berm in its current location. A portion of the berm is located in the public right-of-way. The Planning and Zoning Commission may only grant a variance for the portion o f the berm on the property. All improvements in the right-of-way must be approved by the Engineering Department with an encroachment license. Regardless of the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision on the variance, the owner will be required to obtain an encroachment license in order to retain the improvements that are in the right-of-way. STAFF COMMENTS: RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS REVIEW: As part of the land use review, the Applicant is requesting approval of a Residential Design Standard variance from the Fence Standard to permit the existing berm to remain in the front yard setback of 1550 Homestake Drive. The intent of the Residential Design Standards is to "preserve established neighborhood scale and character" and require "that each home, while serving the needs of its owner, contribute to the streetscape." Further, the Standards encourage views of yards and the home to be preserved from the public realm. Indeed, the Design Standards state that "Low fences and hedges may be used to delineate the edge of a property, but it is important not to close off views of the front lawn and house." The "Site Design" section of the Residential Design Standards, which the Fence standard is a part of, state that "where fences or dense landscaping exist or are proposed, it is intended that they be used to define the boundaries of private property without eliminating the visibility of the house and front yard from the street." The berm fails to meet the intent of the design standards, as it clearly eliminates views of the yard from the street. As the photographs of the property in the Application illustrate, the construction of the berm eliminates any relationship to the street. The house does not meet the streets instead it looks like the lot has been dug out and that the home sits half a story below the street, when in fact it is at the same level as the street. Some landscaping is appropriate for all front yards, but building a berm as was done in this case is not appropriate. Instead of providing a positive relationship with the street, berms cut a home off from the street. Staff does not find that this design meets the neighborhood context or provides a better design solution given the context. The Applicant states that the lot suffers a unique hardship because of its location across from the golf course. Staff does not find this standard of unique hardship is met. Staff recognizes the owners' concerns with regard to proximity to the golf course, but Staff does not find that this represents a site specific constraint. There are other lots in the vicinity of the golf course that are required to abide by the same design standards as this lot. Staff recommends against the requested variance to allow the berm to be maintained in the front yard setback. Staff does not find there are significant constraints on the lot which -would dictate this variance. While the lot is near the golf course, it is being treated the same as all other lots near the golf course. Further, the proposed design does not meet the intent of the standard, and does not provide an appropriate design" given the development pattern in the neighborhood. ~ Section 26.410.040.A.3, Fences, states "Hences. hedgerows, and planter boxes shall not be more than forty-two inches (42") high, measured from natural grade, in all areas forward of the front fagade of the house. Man-made berms are prohibited in the front yard set back." Page 2 of 3 RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the proposal, Staff finds the project fails to meet the variance criteria for the Residential Design Standards. Staff recommends denying the requested Fence variance based on the findings contained within Exhibit A. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMITIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2008, approving, a variance from the Fence Residential Design Standard to permit a berm in the front yard setback on the property located at 1550 Homestake Drive." ATTACHMENTS: DEF) fU- ExHIBIT A - Review Criteria and Staff Findings EXHIBIT B -Application with Site Plans Page 3 of 3 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING ONE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE FOR 1550 HOMESTAKE DRIVE, LOT 19, WEST ASPEN SUBDIVISION, FILING NO. 2, CITY OF ASPEN, CO, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL NO. 2735-024-01-022 Resolution # , Series 2008 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Carole C. Fisher, represented by Richard Neiley, requesting approval of one (1) Residential Design Standards Variance to maintain a berm at 1550 Homestake Drive; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned R-15 (Moderate Density Residential); and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended denial, of the proposed land use request; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 5, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. , Series of 2008, by a to (_ - _) vote, approving one Residential Design Standards Variance to allow a berm in the front yard setback on the property located at 1550 Homestake Drive, Lot 19, West Aspen Subdivision, Filing No. 2, City of Aspen, CO; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets the applicable development standards and that approval of the development proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves one (1) Variance from the Residential Design Standards from the Fences standard (Land Use Code Section 26.410.040.A.3), to allow a berm in the front yard setback on the property located at 1550 Ilomestake Drive, Lot 19, West Aspen Subdivision, Filing No. 2, City of Aspen, CO. The variance is from the following language, as stated in Land Use Code Section 26.410.040.A.3 in effect on February 5,2008: "Fences. Fences, hedgerows and planter boxes shall not be more than forty-two (42) inches high, measured from natural grade, in all areas forward of the front facade of the house. Man-made berms are prohibited in the front yard setback." Section 2: Vested Rights The development approvals granted pursuant to this Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution shall be vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of the development order. Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as i f fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 5th day of February, 2008. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney Dylan Johns, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Exhibit A: Site Plan showing approved fence location and heights. G:\city\Jessica\Cases\218 S Third\P&Z\218sThirdPZ Reso_11 20 07.doc EXHIBIT A: REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS The Planning and Zoning Commission may grant variances from the Residential Design Standards if the proposed application meets the following: a) Provides an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting, or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or, b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. The following are Staff' s findings in regards to the variances being requested by the Applicant. Variance Requested 1. Fences. Fences, hedgerows and planter boxes shall not be more than forty-two (42) inches high, measured from natural grade, in all areas forward of the front facade of the house. Man-made berms are prohibited in the front yard setback. ix: lit.' 4. Yes No a) Provides an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting, or a broader vicinity as the boardfeels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or, Staff Finding: The property in question is located near the golf course at 1550 Homestake Drive. The Applicant states that the improvements are consistent with the scale and character of the area. To Staff s knowledge there are no other front yard berms on this block. All residential properties in Aspen, including lots near the golf course, are required to meet this design standard. Berms create a barrier between a home and the street, and the intention o f the design standards is to ensure a street presence in all areas of town, not just the West End. Staff does not find that the variance should be granted under this standard. Exhibit A, Staff findings for 218 S. Third St, Page 1 b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Staff Finding: The applicant states that the lot is uniquely situated across from the golf course and is subject to errant golf balls because of its location. While this may be true, Staff does not believe this is a site specific constraint. All lots located adjacent to the golf course deal with golf balls from the golf course, and all are required to abide by the provisions in the Municipal Code, including the Residential Design Standards. Staff does not find that this criterion is met. Exhibit A, Staff findings for 218 S. Third St, Page 2 --- CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Pavment of Citv of Aspen Development Apalication Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and Carole C. Fisher (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for Variance from Residential Design Standards (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of 2000) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of$ 1,614.00 which is for hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of $235.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT //9/lx By: By: V Chris Bendon Richard Y. Ne~i·*er, Jr., Attorney Community Development Director Date: /Of 11)/ 6+ Bill To Mailing Address and Telephone Number: Neiley & Alder 201 North Mill Street, Suite 102 Aspen, CO 81611 970-925-9393 LECEIVED NOV 9 1 2007 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT ATTACHMENT 2 -LAND USE APPLICATION PLICANT: Name: Carole C. Fisher Location: 1550 Homestake Drive, Aspen, CO 81611 (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 273502401022 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Richard Y. Neiley, Jr. Address: Neiley & Alder, 201 North Mill Street, Suite 102, Aspen, CO 81611 Phone #: 970-925-9393 PROJECT: Name: Variance from Residential Design Standards Address: 1550 Homestake Drive, Aspen, CO 81611 Phone #: 970-925-1392 TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): Conditional Use El Conceptual PUD U Conceptual Historic Devt. Special Review U Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) U Final Historic Development Design Review Appeal U Conceptual SPA U Minor Historic Devt. GMQS Allotment £ Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) El Historic Demolition GMQS Exemption U Subdivision U Historic Designation U ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream U Subdivision Exemption (includes %1 Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane El Lot Split U Temporary Use E Other: Rdsidential U Lot Line Adjustment ~ Text/Map Amendment Design Standards Variance EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) single family residence with landscaping PROPOSAL: (description ofproposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) approval of existing landscaping or variance related thereto RECEIVED Have you attached the following? FEESDUE:$1.614.00 0 Pre-Application Conference Summary . 1 Zoul D Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement NOV (; , El Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form n/ a ASPEN £1 Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards BUILDING DEPARTMENT All plans that are larger than 8.5" x 11" must be folded and a floppy disk with an electronic copy of all written (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. U J El Elgl U·f APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FROM RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS Property: Lot 19, WEST ASPEN SUBDIVISION, Filing No. 2 County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, with an address of 1550 Homestake Drive, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Property Owner: Representative: Carole C. Fisher Richard Y. Neiley, Jr. P. O. Box 12372 Neiley & Alder, Attorneys Aspen, CO 81612 201 North Mill Street, Suite 102 Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 925-9393 (970) 925-9396 fax aspenlaw@sopris.net APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FROM RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS In this Application, Carole C. Fisher ("Applicant") seeks a variance from the Residential Design Standards of Chapter 26.410 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. Specifically, the Applicant seeks a variance from Code Section 26.410.040A.3. That Code Section provides, "Man-made berms are prohibited in the front yard setback." On September 17, 2007, the Applicant received a letter from Todd Orange, Community Development Zoning Officer for the City of Aspen, in which it is alleged that the Applicant was in violation of the Municipal Code for constructing a "berm in your front yard." Following receipt of this letter, the Applicant contacted and met with Mr. Grange. Mr. Grange, as a result of the receipt of a citizen's complaint, concluded that the Applicant had unlawfully constructed a berm in the front yard of her residence at 1550 Homestake Drive, Aspen, Colorado. The Applicant does not agree that she constructed a berm in her front yard. Rather, she installed contoured landscaping in conjunction with the construction of a new residence on her property. The landscaping does not conform to the depiction of a "berm" in the Municipal Code. The Residential Design Standards depict a "berm" as a ridge of earth upon which a line of trees is planted obscuring the front of the residence. As demonstrated by the pictures appended hereto, the landscaping on Applicant's property is not a continuous barrier lined with trees on the top blocking the fagade of the building. Because of the south-facing orientation of the property, the Applicant constructed the residence on the northerly portion of the lot along the rear yard setback line. The purposes of locating the residence in this area were to take advantage of solar gain, remove the residential improvements the greatest possible distance from the street, and be consistent with the residences surrounding the property on Homestake Drive. As a result, the Applicant has virtually no rear yard and uses the front yard for the patio and outside living area. During the course of construction, the Applicant used materials excavated from the site to contour the front yard. By so doing, the Applicant minimized the amount of trucking related to the construction proj ect and reincorporated the native materials into the landscaping on the property. At the time the certificate of occupaney was issued for Applicant' s new residence on the property, the contouring of the site had been completed. The Applicant received final approval and the certificate of occupancy was issued without any objection from the City. In the spring and summer of 2007, the Applicant added plantings to the landscaping. Applicant's property is immediately across Homestake Drive from the Aspen Municipal Golf Course. The Applicant purchased the property in 2005 and began construction in the fall of that year. During the construction season of 2006, the Applicant discovered that the proximity of the Aspen Golf Course resulted in errant golf balls landing on her property and occasionally breaking automobile windows. She, therefore, contoured the front yard so as to protect the driveway and parking area on the property from golf balls. The highest elevation of the contouring and landscaping on the property is immediately adjacent to the driveway and effectively screens automobiles from the impacts of the golf course. Although the Applicant does not consider her landscape improvements to constitute a berm, she has elected to pursue this Application for Variance so as to eliminate any possibility that she could be deemed in violation of the Municipal Code. Because of the proximity to the golf course and the history of having vehicles damaged by errant golf balls, the Applicant believes that her landscape Page 1 of 3 improvements are necessary and reasonable even if they are deemed by the Community Development Director to be a berm under the Residential Design Standards. The Residential Design Standards provide that landscaping should be installed in such a way that it does not eliminate "the visibility of the house and front yard from the street." (Section 26.410.040Aj The Design Standards allow fences, hedgerows and planter boxes of up to 42 inches in height forward of the front fa~ade of the house as a matter of right. The majority of the contours of the Applicant's front yard are less than 42 inches. The grade of the front yard was contoured during construction such that the highest point is approximately 55 inches above natural grade. This point is the area adjacent to the driveway that was designed to protect against golf balls. The Design Standards do not prohibit the installation of trees, bushes and other plantings in the front yard. Indeed, the definition of "development" in the Land Use Code expressly excludes "landscaping" from that term. A building permit is not required to installlandscaping. The Design Standards anticipate their application to neighborhoods that are pedestrian oriented. Particular emphasis is placed on neighborhoods with alleyways where parking areas and secondary structures can be located along the alleys. The Applicant's neighborhood is on the fringe of the municipal boundary. There are no alleyways, and many of the properties have dense landscaping, walls and fences that protect the residences from the automobile traffic of the neighborhood. The Applicant had no option but to place her driveway and parking area in the front of the house, exposed to the Municipal Golf Course. The Residential Design Standards state that, "... it is important not to close off views of the front lawn and the house." The Standards state that their purpose is "to preserve established neighborhood scale and character...." (Section 26.410.010) The Applicant's landscaping enhances the beauty of the front yard, compliments the landscaping in the neighborhood and does not obscure the views of the house. The Applicant's improvements are consistent with the scale and character of her neighborhood. The Residential Design Standards recognize that variances may be granted by the Community Development Director so long as the variance provides "an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard..." and is "clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to site-specific constraints." (Section 26.410.020D.1) The Applicant recognizes that general consistency with the Standards should be maintained unless the unique circumstances of the subject property warrant the granting of a variance. In the instant case, the Applicant does not believe that her landscaping, for which a permit is not required under the Municipal Code (because it is not considered "development"), constitutes a berm. If the City concludes that the landscaping falls within the definition of a berm (a term that is not defined in the Residential Design Standards), the Applicant believes that a variance is appropriate for the following reasons: 1. The materials used in contouring the property in connection with the installation of landscaping came from the site and were used on site to minimize truck traffic, promote "green" building, and enhance the aesthetics o f the property. 2. The property is located in unique proximity to the Aspen Municipal Golf Course where errant shots from the tee boxes to the southwest frequently land on the property with resulting damage that is mitigated by the landscaping. Page 2 of 3 3. Most of the contouring of the property is at or below the 42 inches expressly permitted by the Design Standards for front yard improvements. A small area of approximately 200 square feet is 48 inches above grade or 6 inches above that expressly permitted by the Design Standards. An area of approximately 30 square feet is no more than 13 inches above the maximum of the Standards. That area is adjacent to the driveway and parking area where it is necessary to shield the property from golfballs. 4. The recontouring of the site was in place at the time of final building inspection and the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, and the Applicant had no idea that this might constitute a violation of the Municipal Code. 5. The landscaping does not obscure the front of the residence and in fact constitutes the front yard of the house visible from the public street. 6. The landscaping is consistent with the character of the neighborhood and does not reduce the relationship between pedestrian and the "built environment." The landscaping is appropriate considering the neighborhood context in which is it located. 7. The property is not located within the urban grid of Aspen. Rather, the neighborhood in which the property is located is on the fringe of the City in an area without sidewalks or other urban characteristics. All parking areas must be accessed from the street as there are no alleyways. Many of the properties in the neighborhood are screened by dense vegetation, walls and fences. 8. The property is subject to a unique hardship, the proximity to the Municipal Golf Course, resulting in exposure to golf balls from the Municipal Golf Course, which hardship was not created by the Applicant. Thus, the granting of a variance will not constitute a precedent applicable to other properties. In the unique conditions presented by this Application, it is appropriate for the Community Development Director to determine either that (1) the landscaping on the Applicant's property does not constitute a "berrn" and, thus, does not require a variance or (2) if it is considered a berm, a variance should be granted to allow the landscaping to remain in place based upon the circumstances set forth above. Page 3 of 3 SCHEDULE OF ATTACHMENTS 1. ProofofOwnership; 2. Authorization to Represent; 3. August 23,2007 letter from Todd Orange to Carole Fisher, received on September 17,2007; 4. Photographs ofproperty, depicting landscaping; 5. Aerial view of neighborhood; 6. Survey ofproperty. ATTACHMENT 1 PROOF OF OWNERSHIP Cret OP .PEN HRETT PAID CITY oF ASPEN cir 31 ODE DATE REP NO. DATE REP NO. WRETT PAID 1-4--6 & 0 24 9 7+ 1-4-09 0/ 094 9 74 WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, made January 312005, Between THOMAS J. DALY and JUDITH J. DALY of the County of PITK1N, State of CO, GRANTOR, AND CAROLE C. FISHER, GRANTEE whose legal address is : P.O. BOX 12372, ASPEN, CO, 81612 of the County of PITKIN, State of CO WITNESSETH, That for and in consideration of the sum of ten dollars and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the grantor has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell and convey and confirm unto the grantee, her heirs and assigns forever, all the real property together with improvements, if any, situate and lying and being in the County of PITKIN, State of COLORADO, described as follows: LOT 19, WEST ASPEN SUBDIVISION, FILING NO. 2, According to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 3 at Page 308. 505702 TRANSFER DECLARATION RECEIVED 01/04/2005 TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the grantor either in law or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described, with the appurtenances, unto the grantee, her heirs and assigns forever. And the Grantor, for their, their heirs and assigns, does covenant, grant, bargain, and agree to and with the Grantee, her heirs and assigns, that at the time of the ensealing and delivery of these presents, their is well seized of the premises above conveyed, has good, sure, perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in fee simple, and has good right, full power and lawful authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments, encumbrances and restrictions of whatever kind or nature soever, exceM those matters as set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The grantor shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the grantee, her heirs and assigns, against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming the whole or any part thereof. The singular number shall include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of gender shall be applicable to all genders. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the grantor has executed this deed. The person authorized to receive this document is: SIGNATURES ON PAGE 2 RICHARD Y. NEILEY N. MILL ST., SUITE 102 'EN, CO 81611 111111 lilli lilli 11111 m 111 &111 Ill lilli lili lili 01/04/2005 10.40; 505702 Page: 1 of 3 p SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 16.00 0 310.00 SIGNATURE PAGE TO WARRANTY DEED PAGE 2 9--4=Fal _111*51/* THOMAS J. DALY JU NH J. DA>fz:7 STATE OF COLORADO ) SS COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this cl day of JANUARY, 2005 by THOMAS J. DALY and JUDITH J. DALY. WITNESS my hand and official seal (21.qipue my commission expires: 11*ry Public ~ ~ Joy S. Higens/Notary Public -''lmbb~ My Cornmission expires 4/22/06 # i-' NOTARP i. i State of Colorado *.. 4/8LIC 4 7 PCT19371 L 9.4.ak/ 111-lilli 111-lillill' Ill 1 11 111 lilli 111 lili 01/04/2005 10:40¢ 505702 Page: 2 of 3 SILVIA DAL.S PITKIB CC-N-Y CO R 16.00 D 310.00 EXHIBIT"A' 1. Taxes for the year 2005 not yet due or payable. 2. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract or remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted as reserved in United States Patent recorded February 8, 1955 in Book 180 at Page 334. 3. Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Plat of subject property recorded September 5, 1968 in Plat Book 3 at Page 308. 4. Existing leases and tenancies. 11111111111'll lili 11111111111111111111 01/04/2005 10:40% 505702 Page: 3 of 3 SILV.A DAL.S PITKIh COUN:Y CO R 16.00 D 310.00 ATTACHMENT 2 AUTHORIZATION TO REPRESENT AUTHORIZATION TO PROCESS APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE TO: City of Aspen Community Development Department FROM: Carol C. Fisher RE: Real Property Described as Lot 19, WEST ASPEN SUBDIVISION, Filing No. 2 County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, with an address of 1550 Homestake Drive, Aspen, Colorado 81611 I hereby authorize Richard Y. Neiley, Jr. and Neiley & Alder, Attorneys to process an Application for Variance with respect to the above-described property. CAROLE C. FISHER m ATTACHMENT 3 AUGUST 23,2007 LETTER FROM TODD GRANGE TO CAROLE FISHER, RECEIVED ON SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 18 07 03:07p Grer Divide Studios 970-9 9950 P. 1 10, u q ~ )'t~01 THE CITY OF ASPEN Date: August 23 Carol Fisher 1550 Homestake Dr. Aspen, CO 81611 Mailing Address P.O. Box 12372 Aspen, CO 81612 Re: Berm violation Dear Mrs. Carol Fisher: It had come to my attention, through a citizen complint and a visit by your property, that you are in violation of the City's Land Use Code against building a berm in your front yard. Thank you for coming in the Community Development office August 6th to inquire about the complaint and inform yourself about the variance appeal process with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Following are the specific sections and regulations of the Land Use Code, "Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations" 26.575.050 and "Design Review Standards" (26.410.040); Bolded sections are for the purpose of emphasis only. 26.575.050 Fences. Fences shall be permitted in every zone district provided that no fence shall exceed six (6) feet above natural grade or as otherwise regulated by the Residential Design Standards (see Chapter 26.410). Fences Visible from the public right-of-way shalI be constructed ofwood, stone, wrought iron or masonry. On corner lots, no fence, retaining wall, or similar object shall be erected or maintained which obstructs the traffic vision, nor on corner lots shall any fence, retaining wall, or similar obstruction be erected or maintained which exceeds a height of forty-two (42) inches, measured from street grade, within thirty (30) feet from the paved or unpaved roadway. Plans showing proposed consguction, material, location and height shall be presented to the building inspector before a building permit for a fence is issued. Additionally, foliage shall be placed and 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET, ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 PHONE 970.925,5090 FAX 970.920.5439 Sep 18 07 03:07p Grep' Divide Studios 970-92- -950 p.2 maintained so that it will not obstruct vehicular visibility at intersections. (Ord.-No. 55- 2000, § 16) 26.410.040 Residential design standards. 3. Fences. Fences, hedgerows, and planter boxes shall not be more than forty-two inches (42") high, measured from natural grade, in all areas forward o f the front facade of the house. Man-made berms are prohibited in the front yard set back. Fence, yes Aim** 1 Fence, no -. 1 Violations of the City's code can result in a citation into Municipal Court and fines of up to $ 1,000 per day. As I mentioned on the phone, I am sending this letter to 8-lly inform you of the City's requirements: procedures and consequences. Your immediace removal of this berm would be very appreciated. In the alternative you may choose to pursue an appeal, if so please submit your Land Use Application packet, I well need response as to which action you will be taking within 15 days. If you have any questions regarding this matter. please call me at 429.2767. Regards, °U /16011 w- Todd Grange Community Development Zoning Officer City o f Aspen Copy: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET, ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 PHONE 970,925.5090 FAX 970.-720.5439 ATTACHMENT 4 PHOTOGRAPHS OF PROPERTY DEPICTING LANDSCAPING 4_ t.: - ..1". 9.Mil.-p- - I v .:La/Ly' 9-/6 . ..... - .44. 4 4 *7.*94 1 .. 4. - 2 . : I .i·17.1-4§:i.'blk - - , Ill... · M..0 - 9,4 r '. .' 4,24'409 494"//1 '* .... r : - -1 -*42 -.I-.'C ....4. 1.-/W e. 44 6 0 k le X J f =4 4 . r 4 4 I .- i . r -- - 4 4, . 4-4 - '4 - * kt . 1 46 : 4.- 61 7 ./4.1, . 1 .. 1 . If . 1. *'-r'il *t - ·· • *4 ..* 14 A »33'.„P='...3.4 1,<RK . -' I e It . se=:7. '.. *12 4,5 . 1 -hk j' , 4 -9// I. ,)' I . f. , :12- a.. 9 I I I .4., *64 ... 1. e. .. V ... I e K a 5.14..6'0- y $ er - f.8: P p ...,- I . ·41 4 - 7/ 3. *A . :. Y ..4.6 r 1 . , 4 e 'r I ')%.d f. 7.,4 - , * , - I y. . 4 , A fil y . 2 ./·* - 1 0 . / I r:lpt .1 I -- 1 . . .- I . - 4 -=== : !7-Y r i ( 1 -TA -- - , 1 ---- --- 1, -- I. * -- /riwillill.Villilip---7 -: 7> -1 -1. J 1 I. 17. * L. ' . 1 J 6 0 .7-4 ' 9. 9 JIT ~' i iii K »11.1 * le I % 4 R. ' .6 1 7.MtÂ¥ 1,/1/ 4 . I . 61 3,Â¥ 1 Â¥ t P R ... *9 - 1 I. X I .4 4 e ' · 0 ~ ~ - .... I <44< ' %4 7. . t - I . , . tle .0 ..4$, ' <, ~ 44 - .13 / 3.29 :"t€~, 6 . - 14%34 6," . i , 4 49'- .' 4 , 12 . 1 .412/4 k.L : .»r, ' 01. t.t :0 ke *00/4/ 41 1. r U §9255 . ~ •th - ... *. 1 0 4 .4:4., k 4. 1 •. 1 42449rd, 1, # =- - ·4£41~r 4/*'tutt**11:- -- - ....St ./.4 . 0 •1·* 0, ' 3 ..''L....: 1,/dillillilli *~ '36,1.01*t : 71 ': U h vilili; , - *-4 5 ,#,F:*•. 4 0 2 2 2., -flut:*54, 8,9 A 1:Af' ··": I ...... 6-- 'VIE . I ... c .: G . 4 f %20$.9 Â¥U , 3204?41 -*9:t. JB. ' TA ..0 1 - 4 k '4 1-a .4. . 4. * 9 ,/ Y'JI: ..h V I / 1 ' 4,1 · 4 4.$ t ' 1,• i C. " 0 " ' '147 4 /l w· 44'KI,· ... ' 2 2 .34 • - .1. i..,-*. -I . 1'*1- 6.V - 1:iiiiiiii~iiiiiiiiiiii , 2€'te¢ C r/1. 1, I'l, 21 - 1~ i ..40 Li*- t 2 ... < ~ L '1 1 1 T M Ile ;IA 1.. 0,4 e I> 4.' I 4 'U 0 :44,1 - 4 4 3 NS' I :9 I - m .. e m .4.- £ 1 . I V.#AE~ + j ~ t.9 ..'-Lk • ./ 7.9, ,> 4 4 - r 4#9 . ht % . . 0- A MAnt MW hm:Flt + 9 ~' 14*1 -,T- W Y. -4 't.Fl I ~. . 6 9/tal' 2-27~ 4 ./. I , '6 % 2 »>116 ..1- ..< ,/./Wpl i~ , -:'*. 1...= 1... ,--0=14.1~ - L...:Cb:t~ . Â¥ ' : I 4 422. 66- ...... #. -M.hil/till.li r r , a- I.-il I.. . 14-7 T - . 1. - -.0'k-•--...· ..i · i.p. - & 7.: 1% 1~.-». 0 ... '. & 9% 4 9.,1 2,; - . 0 - . 0-31 .1 z .24 li./fil *- N ... r -- -./ . 9 - - -<$4*I./.1,/4: L_~ y. I .-' 4 11-,40 9 - . A r e 51.. '.,e ./.. , * il -I;,7:- . 2 .4 . 3 -- .9 , i ~,2 r . .4 h 44 ... 8, I I , · £9 .. i'T~ ·· • - . I. - · 7 -r . y . 12 4 J * 7' :*:3 ·ta - 4 .,:t , :· /*3* )1124, W fr . 4.,J : + ·A,4 - 41 G, 1 . . T. 2. '/ I Uvt & i'&/i ~ ~ ~- 4 Y *t *' 6 7-,6 -~ . 4 - 0.- . + -4. id. - .. 41*3 4 i b fy., I , . 1, .-- . % , , , r. - #. f' . ;1'''l -7 - ' * --. I ..- -I , St. "..~ ./ -4 -il--*.- .1/ 1.1. Ver- f -· 8 1 934 t , - r ~-"-- 1~Fly j ff tf 17-v·- . .1.. , 6 .1. 4. If . p •4r» 1 14+ 1 ~ . 147 . 4 -2 ·\ 1 · A *....{ . - -*... -1': > 41 t . 94: . I. 1 . Al 2 -*~FE«J~ 44... 7 , :7.: . . 4... 1 .1 , -·,--1.. #-m-W. '414.>. V£ 4. :/0. 4 4. . -* r . . 1 V ..r i. 91- 1-4 ~11:.: .' , 4/ ' -* . ·4' ,~Gh. . P N .* a.- . UNA ; '. +' e t . - . . . . y .7 7 Ok--4.~- % 4 '13 ' 9 , 31% ¢ K '44'71 . 6,4,2 Am"/11#4- rif . '12,%4.4~-1 G. - I . C / D·~ ..1.ru.%# I , 4 4,22 .. 1 4 , 44'. e ..«9 , . 32-4%41 il£,1.· 1** 1 .'f -; s :-1. · . . >',UQ~1~'~ And* irpe jj'. F ''•1 k 1.~ A.. I-J t.7.19 .72*7 . - -1.- - t . + t,ti .74.2*91. ' 4 1,0 . . < it.7. 0 - et.. =r·2 4-** 44 1• 1 19 ..1. I--.1 WIKE 1: . , 32~ I .z e 4, 1 0 t. : .w. e..' lz,K : I 24. - 7 90.C. '' .., 22-2~2/ 4. ..n . - 4 4.,*ar.1%404,- -', ~ 4 *.4 -A- f j ,0 V#%$2 " '.A 7£- 2 t.. ff,42-28~~Il"'26~44. .. t e 7 ~ If . I- 34 I,/04 ...~~.1 11/2/,Lit ,-71 :3~04; * 4-*h I.,4-~45:~ irz~6- I V' 7, ~~-~<< -··4~- - 2,4*!Inipi thry 44 -* , 4 K...:. A u b:- · 4 403 2-·4 44:. .. .: do)'A .4 ' . F 1. : - 2111 . 4 - . .... . 41* ,r . . a . '4 .4 ... 1 . e'T : 4 94 4 4 47 . i.2,42'*31> f ,. 49' 1 + ..hip.-**7 , ; -7 4% . 1 t ATTACHMENT 5 AERIAL VIEW OF NEIGHBORHOOD 1 .r 1 a .4. R U-A - 1,7 - -9~91,91 NE,XY .5.......lir 0 -/In • , 'tri.,· ·-AL~twilarIZLiqUm:'NK'Wi- 1 4-14 <d'Efiliz.':. EL 44,4 k 44/2 1 4 . ... 6 I 4,0 f - . ..2 1 . . )101-.- ,- 4.h -:x ,:4 9 4 ~ 7 t~ ~~,ELL Wi*w,902*4 1, 43. r . , trqI'la.u,4#29 *ra: ..,¢'.. 7. 1 It .-1· 7 ': p . . IhL . E -blt•. Pr.11 2169. hii*$~.1;2.2~~,2. ~- .2 I m ..7 - Â¥ . 4 2. .Chi'1&1""274/4%3... . 2:; , .& '' Alt '3 - + . : t. .r..1 , , fl , g ?A. '021.. . , t.'i EL ./ '*I- A t.- i.@i vy 18 .'.. 40*14J- , #t 4..' p e v.4 : 247.4 r . ¢ 3 17 €,A . r .. . 4 :4 -*7A 1./.L44:69-4.,9/ '*4Â¥ i • .: bc r , :/ 4.-E -m€*VIS' v-V~ -_ ae/ENEI.„. · L. . I 1· - I 94 , 44 - .9 17 -#60219// . - -71 7 0 ... 61 ' ~ ./*I' I // . ' I./ a. - f, .- .2 ...., k.. . ..4 4 , 1- . -3 ~ .-L J . 9. . . : 7 A r , ':' ..., I ' 1£~5 - A- - t 46 r it¢ .' f ¢ . h.- 2 2 1% 4.9» , 1 . , . .1 - ... i p. I ..~ - . €-29 1 .-" . r'~ER. I r. .0- 3~7-- . f»' b j 4/\, *4 , . 1550 Homestake Drive 1-t~ ji~ 2/li////// i D@44 '7 4 . .e F -4- 0,- N , 51·1& 4 50 100 . 1 .. .....3 9.r \ 1 4 4 '~ 1~ : Feet A. · ~ i <,uÂ¥4* 7~i~~~ A-td& / r 1' •' - 1 inch equals 100 feet Ir , i *..1 14 . - 4 \1 ,/ 1 ': #*.I-/kit...4-,T ..9 , -44 K /4 0. 0 4 - This map/drawing/image is a graphical representation ' k * 9 .5 . . . ~: -- ../r~ g k r i '.Tf , of the features depicted and is not a legal · '· . 0 22 2 representation. The accuracy may change 1 4 721 0 - «51 .31/14..Atill 2 .1 4 & * i I: depending on the enlargement or reduction. 2-'·. 7 f a x• i 4 4 9% . .... Copyright 2007 Aspen/Pitkin GIS 4 . . 14'7 4"2 + .4 ... * -.. 7 - - -b.#*. 2,3 k- · ··· I I ...4 ..'.?1 . I 7 tilt - -- 12 - -I '- -- - -~~ 4.0 · . .. 15, I 4 .t'/ ' Z.,4/ . 5. r €lt + ."F 7 1 4 . .. 4 +34« ke 1 L € . * . 12> , 4 ' X .1 6 3. . 1 i , - V 44/ . ht· - 4% .71 W. 4-. .£ .1~. ez. - .. 4.. 5 ...- 1 .ik . - . 4 + V 3,7 r V F, . J 0 I F I ' - t 55 .4 D ./ ./ / ' *I-- 1·* · 41:. 9 946 .t . I.:.L I I ... -1,ta-32'/Wt• 0 - 2- -' i ' f . f 1. · C 4 14 4 -I · • • t. f U. - ' /*...4 3/'·. - #* i 4 * ••j:*. .~ g _ *.,- k#.7.49" 0 , € . R 1 J" u --gr- * t. ey. 'I -4 4 8 /7.-:1/9-Fl /1- ... 22 4 - I , Ir.-0 .Illat.1-Â¥UI·4- -0 '-8 4 4 4 f, J . #990 +Ir» ' 9, r. f -9> w : *gui ~4 *- t . 3 1 9 1 31.-. 1 . I 0 --9.= .-. 4,4 1/--3».rfu'--0- : Ij 4 1 - t</Ir 12 ,-I' 4/0, . 71 Al: P 2 : 1 51 r - - I. 1 -'. '3+ : -- . .1. * > al.'. . I 1 -*1 3 . , 7 5 ': 0 2 5 ... - I . .. . 1 - fl- 4 '~t * .' 1 :/. 1% Ni'=4 : # Mi' 2/W./I' 0l . I fil/6 r k ·- 0 -· i , ..4..,/4 i *Ek,-W.~ .' & F el .% ... **: , . 1 . ..' 6 0 L 1 0: 1 lf, 6 - 9.1, , , . > 4.~~ , I a. .. 14 %4.47 · ' - 4. p $ 1/9.* =4 . 1 ..f 1* r . ty.1 . 4 4 ' t.·'- r -I- .Lic lik - -~ - . 4 / .4 1~ - 4 - f.11 0 1 4 ' Q. 39. I - * 1 .4.-~3- - / r ... r 7.~ - t #0 I 1 ...dic - b · ~#/& 2 0:it .1 . A. * I . 1 *·*3. 7"2/--9/17$22 /-. i... 4 e . A *r- i A#it- d t*\1* fknit~ 1 . . t,4 9Aft at ZIE/?0® / ~» heapt. h - .. .. .Z.4 . t.1 7' 1 ~17+ 2 f + kl Â¥ d" *. ~~- ~V - 1-»--'!4<*' ~ .' =te ·Al: L..~ * . 1 4 I '' . ** · 11 K:•' >« ... - f 4 if j.4 -1** I . 44*14'. 2.. . h-t, . 'K ' f&7#44' ,.f.·'-54,~'·7~ . 4 . r. 1 , vv 14 tr.. <%7 ., 1.. ...1f:mial.rd':31~d ~.9:~~ i.* 7.~.Ir~,41 I ~a . d * . :*44 ,{ 1£ ./ /*/ *~ iut' .- 1':-7' 3 - - 1 r . 12..11 25 13£ A -4 - 9---- 1. r an-, A . ..>.6 7. 1/-7/*.01- I ./' *JAI#.ati 1.7 4, 2.1. 44 - '44*:S"44#~iL#:%14;Jqi,0.'8¢,#Il,u· 6.,/4: 1 4 - 2 . .7 • TE h :,4 - 2. * * -- *•49*31 +1 /*2*, Aji'~ . 4 c 1 k A . 1 79* 42 1 1 ' N. 4 9, 1 - .- 4% 4 N & 99 1 7. r € . ..34 -,. 44.,1.4.8 1 *AL.' 6,441».s' 0* 1.*t , r Vt- 4 ...r I . -4 *...162. 1.*Il-' 2% I --< .t== -r I . C.*11¢4Â¥ i.'~*%426~.44'. ." . 90*44%.A f~[ 4,#3&21*!*4.41 , 1 ...'./-9/12 I - . 1 4 1*47/./.4//4 -,4 ...%*y'llilli:Her, .TY .1291 C.W .4%9/7. 167 : 4 --7 C 1 4 f 7- r ~-MMÂ¥~. 9, '. 1 . Ith,$ 0 17' . 4../5, - Ah, I - V4ip. -- I <Jell ...7.- $ . .t . * ·fÂ¥&,2* J '1 .. ik *CA 46 -- ./4 . 4-*%27, *m~E r N.. ' W t./Wkt J 4% \.'--# f ,#///3.'>t 1550 Homestake Drive 4 4 99*ire·11. 9:< : it 2, 2 * 1-- I I *I,Fl~ 4<: N . ~ •---I/1/"Ilial/:.'Ifillillililillgill'rl" ill,LE,(Ld"Sh'filzz:Fll":Icuizzilit.. 4/:MI"*4,4/.19/ 44~*~ j A *0 2,99 --# i '1-- 9. h'. O 50 100 1 . -i-- - /3... 2- , '5.5.4 Feet ~ d tr.'ll/*il.4 1/I - -1,-i I _~fil /8...i ...I- '4.-, . 4 diw 9/ flami**/1 *-0 :1»4,- 1 inch equals 100 feet , r ,./.* UP . 21 ... ~'t 7 -- ... ---- u e ¢ e . This map/drawing/image is a graphical representation . . .11 representation The accuracy may change , ..1 ~ \ 4 lit 1///EAU,YARI 1.¢- Ar3*:.lek.Jltflifi1~ , I I - 4., 2.-92 of the features depicted and is not a legal + M I j.,ti* -6./1 -4551 - depending on the entargement or reduction < Copynght 2007 Aspen/Pitkin GIS 1 . , , h 42?1 ./ :Â¥''ic ./.~ I 4. /144 Al ill-Il€ ...j/ 1 . I SK/b~/F -m::~:::ijAW=:0 41-fnq ,> F. . , : ¢ a ..6, ·r A i I. 1-. .6 IF i *N. 't ' I i 0 4, '' 01 ' 4 R .1 ·.:4 *~* i· 4~7,,6 6 1 m. r- . C I fillililli3.59'll'll . 05/1/26.Vill C i# 2. ' 40 , :z ibs·Vt-liti,4, : t. 4"'A t..1 ;4:W> c j 4, M E r . 31 t . 6 7 t. n 6 , - 4/w--.411.1 Zib , 1 1 wip ..4. . c - p. 1 , 4 0. - , 1/I'll'll'll'll,h , A , I . 4 41 A.44, 44 11 , 3., W,~ 620 - 1 ~h -16~ k - W .1. 1: / *)/ € ..#9 ., - Lige . 40 : ..42.'.1 ft....1, , . ... I * , t 4il) 1% -i. 1 14 1 :·. . 1 b I r 9*02 'A $ 1/9/air. * .'Al& 31/1,5 :4"IhJA \./.4 'limilllii//901"frt' , ~per. 2 - 4 N. D 'AP ,7 ~ *i :/ - --Ill . I . -I-/Ir, 1 .,1,7.)- --1.-- ..'#. : 0 4.re / 4 , 3 , i. ·,i . D-: 1,12. ..27&:-4 4, /4/91 7 1, ' v. 4 I ./ . I V : 'r,~ \ ..4 k. .1- .. ., W .!4, I . ......1111 1 i L derzteliwil/'Ch</Al'll'llililim"Hi *4& ~»2 74\*-al= -r 4 7/652,7 ' . 1 2 - ra, ;4>11£1 */ 96 450/m/ 19*: f.k , r k.<Plk. r -Sh ../.1/./'/Il 1 3444 .. .r, ..F/4 .. 0-9 0 1. y r . 3 4" A. by 4 . # <*41/*T54- : 41 3~ 12 te -1- 4, 1 1-, 4 ./ . %91 , i - r. , 1 . 9 -V 44 / 3 .1 A C 04' . 4% . i- 0 . 20 5, a . . · C" 4. 01% :.422 ......2 \. , 40, . . , 07 4, - Â¥ .14 4 1 -t htil,·, - -r '',4 - 4 4 & 1% 4. N . . . 1 1 -1-1 A ./.= ATTACHMENT 6 SURVEY OF PROPERTY THE CITY oF AsPEN Land Use Application Determination Of Completeness Date: 10/10/07 Dear City of Aspen Land Use Review Applicant, We have received your land use application and reviewed it for completeness. The case number, name, and property identification number assigned to this property is _not assigned_. The planner assigned to this case is not assigned ,- Your Land Use Application is incomplete: / We found that the application needs additional items to be submitted for it to be deemed complete and for us to begin reviewing it. We need the following additional submission contents for you application: 1. _A land use application 2. _Written responses to the review criteria. section 26.410.020 D.2. 3. - A clearer site plan showing the location of fence and at what point and for what length the variance is being requested. Please submit the aforementioned missing submission items so that we may begin reviewing your application. No review hearings will be scheduled until all of the submission contents listed above have been submitted and are to the satisfaction of the City o f Aspen Planner reviewing the land use application. 61 Your Land Use Application is complete: If there are not missing items listed above, then your application has been deemed complete to begin the land use review process. Other submission items may be requested throughout the review process as deemed necessary by the Community Development Department. Please contact me at 429-2759 if you have any questions. Thank You, «21«914 J----- J6nnifer lib;lan, Deputy Director City o f Aspen, Community Development Department C:\Documents and Settings\jennifep\My Documents\Templates\Completeness Letter Land Use.doc m folbw - vp City of Aspen Community Development THE OrY oF AsPEN Zoning Complaint Form The Colorado Open Records Act stats that public records such as this complaint form may be open to public inspection. Therefore, you ma not wish to provide any information you consider confidential. In order to file a formal complaint, you will need provide a name, address and telephone number. Caller Informvion: AA / Name: Al. 14- 11 1Cvp k Phone: 926.9 0 4/ 6 Address: Caller Requests Contact After Follow Up? ~ NO Complaint Information: , Address: 1 6-50 Hmyle i ABU Owner Name: 0-0.>Co\-Ves\A « 9 a 91 13 9-2. When did offense occur?~~,s La-*& Sc.p ¢,~ t-ks 4.tuel~ A Nature of the Complaint € DeS. 1€-h 6=4 pr9~col-474&2~~~2~6£0 Ali~£*t~~6%21~. 2 6 0 Lky>n cd- . 119 s- vnf: 04 e.-r. 9 ' Wc..J 6 1~ $ Mtd Cc,»~64.-t Follog~e* ind Resolution: 0 j or-00.8 €44.0) 4 1 *42%:63*th~s#8634£323?1 F,92;R51- L 67 l.-g-4 ·~:Pa~~t L,~.d use 141)f 1, abeA *00 se un Bll (146& 08- E € 1, -13 0 8 /9 /13 71 Addit®~al Comments: ct~(Qv ('j@( i PBNEA,·g© + s-yk orn-EP 10,) Clup 00·nouoedlun. uka'2,•0~,t- ¢:rF~L + --* nu.'17 6y- 06,ut- 02(14EN#YLL.- - Frzrr o e€, .1.~UM:jil ago~--212 L + 9 + 2- 01 ,=e'./64 44 0.«-uae,um • *Ah/au#L #YM 84:5 - 5014\~ 902.»U 04*~~ \It ~ kfir mall-,kl - fle #3.3,11*-2,1 1 Ar. 614•,4. - 14 9+2 01j- 111 CLiticbri th k ev \r Name: a~Gt*Ne.N ~di Date: 7/ 3{ C q 9 +2 D ket r o u vy¢ 4* 4 A Time: //: 39 Referred to: 4% IT.6 Action Ta,},co ¢02€, 6.04( Name: f .14 01 hee 1-' 44,#4-z~£- A Date: 8 (oc (07 0-e/4 Ne,10«14 A £4 toi ,» - O%141 )*4-~~Rjttu 1 0 fk Mo 4*14* LE GL JIbr· RILLF THE CITY oF AspEN ./ A Date: August 23 - w c,-6 Tr~26£9 621 -F- fl r'~ Su C.e,,6 Fru,2 12u_ke 1- -7-1- 6 0 Carol Fisher 1550 Homestake Dr. Aspen, CO 81611 Mailing Address P.O. Box 12372 Aspen, CO 81612 Re: Berm violation Dear Mrs. Carol Fisher: It had come to my attention, through a citizen complaint and a visit by your property, that you are in violation of the City's Land Use Code against building a berm in your front yard. Thank you for coming in the Community Development office August 6th to inquire about the complaint and inform yourself about the variance appeal process with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Following are the specific sections and regulations of the Land Use Code, "Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations" 26.575.050 and "Design Review Standards" (26.410.040); Bolded sections are for the purpose of emphasis only. 26.575.050 Fences. Fences shall be permitted in every zone district provided that no fence shall exceed six (6) feet above natural grade or as otherwise regulated by the Residential Design Standards (see Chapter 26.410). Fences visible from the public right-of-way shall be constructed of wood, stone, wrought iron or masonry. On corner lots, no fence, retaining wall, or similar object shall be erected or maintained which obstructs the traffic vision, nor on corner lots shall any fence, retaining wall, or similar obstruction be erected or maintained which exceeds a height of forty-two (42) inches, measured from street grade, within thirty (30) feet from the paved or unpaved roadway. Plans showing proposed construction, material, location and height shall be presented to the building inspector before a building permit for a fence is issued. Additionally, foliage shall be placed and 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET, ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 PHONE 970.925.5090 FAX 970.920.5439 maintained so that it will not obstruct vehicular visibility at intersections. (Ord. No. 55- 2000, § 16) 26.410.040 Residential design standards. 3. Fences. Fences, hedgerows, and planter boxes shall not be more than forty-two inches (42") high, measured from natural grade, in all areas forward of the front facade of the house. Man-made berms are prohibited in the front yard set back. Fence, yes 1,1!lmt:; il-Wk 4 „1'fillii 1-*.11111111111111 MIN '11'1.1'VW~1111-T 'i:'lli \ il Fence, no 1, 1!.1]J ,; 11 /6/.u K ,~~fj Violations of the City's code can result in a citation into Municipal Court and fines of up to $1,000 per day. As I mentioned on the phone, I am sending this letter to fully inform you of the City's requirements, procedures and consequences. Your immediate removal of this berm would be very appreciated. In the alternative you may choose to pursue an appeal, if so please submit your Land Use Application packet. I well need response as to which action you will be taking within 15 days. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at 429.2767. Regards, Todd Grange Community Development Zoning Officer City of Aspen Copy: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET, ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 PHONE 970.925.5090 FAX 970.920.5439 • r SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION ' 6 2-'fe COMPLEVE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY: B. Received by ( Printed Name) < 0.~1 of Dell PIA • pomplete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete . Sig~4 dem 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. ,/ 4 nE] Agerh\ • Print your name and address on the reverse - / 3.- --UT- osseA so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. D. Is delivery address different fro tter·rq? ¤ 1. Article Addressed 5-- If YES, enter delivery address bAy,£ \..EL~ C«vo L 4-is liev- \419.>' 7.0,BOX /2372- 3. Service Type 4410 CO. 8 I (e\-2, *IQ Certified Mail O Express Mail O Registered /S·,Return Receipt for Merchandise O Insured Mail O C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) O Yes 2. Article Number f (Transfer from serviceu o , 91 7108 2133 3933 3468 3562 , PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 1 . . r 3 UNTED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First-Class Mail ~ Postage & Fees Pa·d USPS J Permit No. G-10 ' Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box 0 -7-6 C i h of Asmo 0-o mmo NA,\ Ub ue-C opote,~rH>pt. / 30 ©©cyt~ GLie_ A- 5-1-. Ayete Co 8 { 61< - i 973 201'u iu.-J j a%vi /7-72 -70-0 *Gr-0./l.~~- . LAh M &121, IN *FL i E. P» .V v NEILEY & ALDER ATTORNEYS Please Reply To: RICHARD Y. NEILEY, JR. 201 North Mill Street, Suite 102 EUGENE M. ALDER 6800 Highway 82, Suite 1, Upper Level Aspen, Colorado 81611 JOHN F. NEILEY GIenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (970) 925-9393 (970) 928-9393 Fax (970) 925-9396 Fax (970) 928-9399 September 25,2007 HAND DELIVERY Mr. Todd Grange Community Development Zoning Officer City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Carole Fisher; 515 Homestake Drive, Aspen Dear Todd: I represent Carole Fisher. My client has asked me to respond to your letter dated August 23, 2007 that she received on September 13, 2007. While my client does not acknowledge any violation of the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen, she has asked me to assist her in the preparation of an application for a variance to the Design Review Appeal Committee under Land Use Code § 26.410.020. We have just received a current survey of the property. I will be out of town from tomorrow through October 4,2007. Thus, it will not be possible for me to submit the variance application until after I return. It is my hope that we can have a complete application filed by October 12,2007. If you wish to discuss this matter, please feel free to call me. While I am away, I can be reached on my cell phone at 970-948-9393. Otherwise, I will contact you upon my return to Aspen to discuss the processing our variance application. VerÂ¥ truly yours, NBilyY & ALDER 1 i h Llit , Itichard Y. Neiley, Jr. RYN/agk ce: Carole Fisher 1.0 NEILEY & ALDER ATTORNEYS Il North Mill Street, Suite 102 Aspen, Colorado 81611 HAND DELIVERY 9?Se. ~irgy Mr. Todd Grange Community Development Zoning Officer City of Aspen SEP 2 4 2007 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 CITY OF ASPE> COMMUNiT\' OckcluI ML . . 0 . . 0 . . 4--i 7€ 308 Ali LOT 18 t 1 37.vat= 1' A ~00 100 p/bed cap L.S. #33638 (to be set or original recovered) 10.00' th an aluminum cap 0#egible) 0 ible) found at the t 19 using a bearing of 44 monuments. rearch by this liscover cord and 44 *e time of this survey. FOUND # 5 REBAR WITH ALUMINUM CAP rights of way and/ or requirements 74*34 (ILLEGIBLE) BENCH -to Northeet;rly V | he Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. MARK TOP OF CAP = 1000.0, \\\ corner Tet,phon, |~ In Plat Book 3 at Page 308 and as shown hereon and restrictions as shown on the Plat of West Rist. 0 1 eep - &lih ..1 . survey some improvements may not be shown. . 7000 /72/4/ ~ 1 Edge of Pavement \\11 Bev. 1000.23 pie, Hawthorne etc.) r Edge of Pavemer, Bev. 1000.37 being a Registered Land Surveyor M , hereby certify that this map of ·epared by me and under my ' made by me and under my 12, 2007 and that both the survey and map the best of my knowledge and belief. jo)04)02- L.S.33638 DATE ip complies with National Map opographic maps. Where checked within 1/2 the contour interval hould be plotted within 1/50" of 4 design should be based upon intact Tuttle Surveying Services Formation· 1-I Not.ile TUTTLE SURVEYING SEWICES 4 27< r.2. . 00207·ado law, you must commence -cuy' 29 .£ action based upon any defect in 226 Heather Lane this survey within three years after you -2c 1550 Homestake D'ri've Drawn by: JT fi:rst discover suck defect. In no event may Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Sur'U eu Dote: 09/20/07 any legal action based upon any defect in this survey be commenced more than ten years (970) 928-9708 (FAX 947-9007) from the date of the certificatiwl shown TUTTLE SURVEYING SERVICES hereon. cjtuttle@rof.net Aspen, Colorotdo 81611 /ov 1 . 0 . 0 . . . . . A O. 00 0 . WM¢sm:~.A 0 0 . . . . .0 0.0 ..0 0 04 00 , 0 0 , 0 . . 00. ./ C~ 43 M-I 0 - 44 -fll. .444 .. .4. ... -4. '0004"4 7/4. 0:J - -. I Illilillillilililiiw~i~~~~~~.i~Ii~~I~mR~~Ili~~~~~~~~~~~r·'11111":Ill'.- - --- Ah#bil.-:0~ MIP /''M L• 1 '' I - 4*ar~k 4,-ygilillilailillillf ' b -:.- A Ar ~~141ll Se~ , D. - 4 -0 . . . -92,~ l:) 0 ./&/ n I .4 . * . 4 0 42 .. - -:2.1~illl-X~ 9 ., ,/ 8 41·15 ..... IN All< mikA- P..1 .40 I I /4 4/ ... I '' .-.. -- 0 '' ' ' " ' e ..r At!%1·7~ 59712.. . - I. I . , : I--- -.. .. · 2?5~ 0. . 1111 .......0, - 4, 4, 207 <St;·ABL* 4 . ..L - L . C .... : «filtit 1 " - .. I. .- I '. 0 4 . ...... . . ... . I . . 1 r ... * * i I . .. 4 4 ip / "' i ... .. I . . . I . 0.... , 0 4 B / , - - .4 .~ . .. , .0 , ' .2 0 . .a . 2 . I - 4 , I .. ' ..6, .'. a. C.-. / 4 44¢.1 2 00 u / 61 k 2.- . . . . € .444- 1 . 4 . / A N: 016 9% . --. . I . . I * V. 13 4 1 -238 - 1 14 0.1 . 1 . 0 -- 111 .. . - 1 5 4 6 9 0 0 Aiv .... p---- 1*(€1 A.' 2" - - le . - 4' + . 4 \1/ 'PO« ~ . 4 b p €9-1 - ~ P. I . : -,1 1/ . 54**b ,/.7. I -0 - Â¥-Vi .B f h 1,5 9 . a.tr . - -./ -F// =-> .... '447% P.I.-f .4 4 ;38/ f~ 411-i>*494*FLC#:4 . ..,1,1~748*241=AP- ... ..'ll . -~ I•-PÂ¥~95-- 1,17'/~16 71. .. / 4. 4-* 1** *124.: 1 4 .... .. . r . 'A-ip/pir . - 5 ..e:*1,3*: .. 1 7€me'll~ I - 'CT*Att*& i ..3,;C PKNVY.-a , *yi-~. ' 15*./e 4211 / 3» 1 :1 24'.,fVAPAW,~AA. ... 4 223 1,- 8 1,-'dif 2,1.,..49/4445. .c / /q .'.1, 4 , i / ....... ./.1/- 1-.- ..... ' '1 '*»-9~Z'?~4*9;/5.~r,1(1*44~2*4 ... . I . ... 2 .. . '...i-,~ · 0 r. fg< 1e;~Cuia rR<~ifi* ir.W.~,~.~ .. . I. . - > %24; 146# ' I y ,-*f#'</2, r,9,·· . 4''/"·4:. ~'4•~~2<..D- 'ft,t, 4 . ." 4.. i.'... . . . .4 0 . . ... Surve 3/ -- --Il- out unt 09 BEAM -1 Lot 19, West Aspen Sub division 4 According to the Plat recorded in Plat Book 3 ott Page 308 8* €>h Boulder .c~A/TWEr . 029 4 2\. - r-9% 411 l/2 0 -1 \V /- County of Pitkin, State of Colorado ~*ir)00 - M~: A. 8. 22.5--2- - 42:49 9 --2 79$r-lr -2- --4203•'*'- <1,4>.12 8.7 29\ 424 - L .2.·um"I#;--r-= 081.0 .. h 0 , ·U -8-/3 / . 0 · 4 7. 6 4 f.t GRAPHIC SCALE 7 ~ ~0:>EX QU ' 1 *#-91 O 5 10 9 40 1 1 1 1 1 Cut;~ 10.00' ~ C.-< 6/. 0• h - -1- - - 8. 10 00 20-77 /8 4 r / 94441 (IN FEET) 1 inch = 10 ft #, Sidewalk / / Contour Interval= 1' lili - -th- , r 9 *L - .. 7 2-?:*44 -7- 6.- / - x FOUND# 5 REBAR VWTH 1/ 0 1 lili » ALUMINUM CAP OLLEGIBLE) 0 A 8 P.O.B. Site Legend and Notes: '49 ,814-Ne 441_t< 4'* - a indicates found monument as described. f .-/ // -4 4 1,00 - % indicates #5 rebar with red plastic cop LS. #33638 (to be set or original recovered) / 1/1 1 fl ~ %3 j 4/# 7 indicates Aspen Tree 14 J TIll /*-0 -* l' ~ i 1xx */Abl~un 0 J 12 / Patio // \Pqtio / tr<00144 // \ I 3.9167 indicates Pine Tree 4 -- 14 0 05 rebor with on aluminum cop 07/egible) found at the 10.00' 1 4 i c 244111 1 0 411 )41\'.\ ./ a .# 00 / 1/ - Becrings are based upon c #5 rebar with an aluminum cop 0#egible) 1 \\ D di found ot the southwester/y comer and a \1 ~ --* Fence 0 1 4 northeasterly comer both of subject Lot 19 using a bearing of 2 - /7 ---- -- -- . \Rquo 2.5000 \1 - 5*9 b iR . 1 '' i'/2 N74'58'34"E between the two described monuments. 67* \ t.-41\1-1 \ * i 4,0.00 --5 cy -998 - This survey does not represent o title search by this suneyor to determine ownership or to discover ./ 5-- Bev. 1000.59. •t / 3 ,4147 easements or other encumbrances of record rind ~ - d€8-of e~~.·&~-- .7642 -~·02? bel -230 - / 44 no title commitment was provided at the time of this survey. 29„9.emAR TH y.*4Â¥0 - -riC< - 2 LOT 20 0.9.hitim ve-r Pol,/t>/ - th's property is subject to easements, rights of way and/ or requirements 1 51 1 ELk \ '~LEGIBLE) BENCH 6:5 --4 Arm, f <-9£#.<14 1 1000 MARK TOP OF ~~>~ - re us,goted :,r shown in the records of the P/7*/n County Cler* a,·,d Recordek __ CAP = 1000.0' 25' Front Yard Setback Line 1 lili - Th:9 Property is subject to easements and restrictions as shown on the P/ct of West Elev. 1000.40 j 31 re/ephohe ~'%4. / *Lanvscope 1 9 Aspen Subdivision Filing No. 2 recorded in Plat Book 3- at Page 308 and as shown hereon. -CZ Stor'es (typical) 60*0&40 0 944 +10.00' - Due to snow cover at the time of this survey some improvements may not be shown. -ay / 3 Vicinity Map Legend and Notes: - o Landscaping Stone -< 1-91?« 4 3/(bibi. 4414 imp\Alk N/ 4 P'\¢*f 612 0.95- 149 9 Edge of Povement ~ - ~~} Aspen Tree ~ Bev. 1000.23 C f\\~ 24*440,4=<driB\ 4% )) -~ Tree (Chenb Orabopple, Hawthorne ate.) Elev. 999.48 _ Edge of Povement , i 4 0 Elev. 1000.37 - *; Bush (Li/ac etc.) - ~ Coniferous Tree fteart -01 00 #4 -*3 1 .51 4 7000 , O . 90 r i - 1 <e $44 00 0 «AUL 760 14% I - COP Rock Wall i 0 0 / 40' «2 1 - 22$6 - CO -- 00 0 - DO - =4 0 . e \~ ,/Edge of povement . 0 1% Dev. 1000.37 i 0 -Ust Wotsm - 2 0 J 2,1- .. al L Surveyor's Certificate: r L' e 0& Bil the State of Coforodo, do hereby certify that this map of ®P *iw *AL# ,"11 .Hip ' 4 JEFFREY ALLEN TUTTLE, being a Registered Land Surveyor in Bev. 1000.36 57= 00 . supervisj##S#%195:*0urvey made by me and under my Edge of Povement .0 .- 0 e existing conditions was prepared by me and under my ¢52? 63~4> 0 9......J super*(*00€9*42*Rber 12, 2007 and that both the survey and map ~ .0 & 6 0%© I ore *li Glida-06&u?6*Jo the best of my knowledge and belief. 4 #- 8 0 00 1 0 =0-/-4, C...,24, 11'64 · 46 0 1 , o )04)03- 72.0.4/ ke V: 38: & . Cl • JEflgf7*14=EN Tutl'glit LS.33638 DATE - 00 0 & C. - 0 0 ... . 1.0 9 0 0 Note:€1*:Ct42*01 y map complles with National Map Accuracy Stdoards for topographic maps. Where checked 90% of points should be within 1/2 the contour interval and well defined points should be plotted within 1/50» of their true position. Critical design should be based upon , spot elevations, please contact Tuttle Surveying Services - for this spot elevation information. N*A)e 1 ~ TUTTLE SURVEYING SERVICES .4'Reey·.4. .., ..0., ado law, you must commence 're C Berm Survey 1550 Homestake Drive Drawn by: my teyed act€on based upon any defect €n 226 Heather Lane JT this survey within three years qfter you frst discover such, defect. In no eve·,d may Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Date: 09/20/07 any legal act€on based upon any ddect €71 this survey be commenced more than ten years (970) 928-9708 (FAX 947-9007) Aspen, Colorado 81611 0 ,nom the date of the certification shown TUTTLE SURVEYING SERVICES .. hereon cjtuttle@rof.net /99 1 humnt #thme¢* *lp • • e 1992*6'02