HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.675 S Alps Rd.A8-92 ORDINANCE NO. 31
(SERIES OF 1992)
AN LOT THE MOSES E LOT P SPLIT, A LOT C SUBDIVISION
LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE
MITCHELL PARCEL AND THE MITCHELL /BORNEFELD PARCEL, AND VESTED
RIGHTS FOR 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW, SUBDIVISION, AND THE LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT ALL LOCATED ON ASPEN ALPS SOUTH ROAD, CITY AND TOWNSITE
OF ASPEN
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 24 -7 -503 and 24 -7 -100 C of the
Municipal Code the applicant, Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc., the
Aspen Alps Homeowners Association and George Mitchell have
submitted an application for subdivision of Lot 2 of the Moses Lot
Slit and a lot line Mi adjustment Mitchell
tchell /Bornefeld parcelall loc t d on the Aspen Alps South Road,
City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24 -6 -207 of the Municipal Code, the
applicant has also requested Vested Rights of the subdivision and
lot line adjustment and 8040 Greenline; and
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing held April 7, 1992, the
Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the 8040 Greenline and
Subdivision proposal; and see
WHEREAS, Commission approved t
attached CommissionResolution6,exhi Greenline
bit Aattached
incorporated herein); and
WHEREAS, the Commission also recommends to the City Council
subdivision approval for Lot 2 Moses Lot Split; and
WHEREAS, the subdivision of Lot 2 eliminates the floor area cap of
3,800 square feet that was originally imposed upon Lot 2 during the
1987 Moses Lot Split, and allowable floor area shall hereafter be
consistent with the R -15 zone district Section 24- 5- 202(D)(10) of
the Municipal Code and the 1992 8040 Greenline approval by the
Commission; and
WHEREAS, subdivision and lot line adjustment were reviewed by the
City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
That it does hereby approve Subdivision as recommended by the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission for Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split,
Aspen Alps South Road, City and Townsite of Aspen, for the
1
development of a 5,000 square foot (allowable floor area) single
family home with the following conditions:
1. Simultaneous with the recordation of the final plat, the
applicant shall convey Lots 2A and 2B to the Aspen Alps Homeowners
Association with restriction on said lots against any further
development. Further development shall include but not limited to
additional lot area for floor area, bedrooms and density purposes
on existing Alps buildings or the tennis courts lot and land
conveyed by the owner of Lot 2 Moses Lot Split.
2. A final plat and subdivision agreement shall be filed within
180 days of final land use approval by the City Council in the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder office. The final plat shall be
reviewed and approved by the Engineering and Planning Departments.
3. The final plat shall depict the following:
a. the tennis courts and land on Lot 2 Moses Lot Split that
is conveyed to the Aspen Alps Condominium Association.
b. That Lots 2A and 2B are restricted against any further
development or additional lot area for floor area, bedrooms
and density purposes on existing Alps buildings or the tennis
courts lot and land conveyed by the owner of Lot 2 Moses Lot
Split.
c. The new access onto Lot 1 Moses Lot Split.
d. Graphic description of the zoning designations of Lot 2
Moses Lot Split.
e. No parking allowed along the Aspen Alps South Road unless
approved by the Fire Marshal.
f. An easement indicating Lot 2 Moses Lot Split access off of
the Aspen Alps South Road.
g. All improvements on the site including the entire length
of the actual access road and the revised access easement
including the roadway surface.
h. The contents of the final plat must meet Sections 24-7 -
1004-D.1 and -D.2 of the municipal code. There must be a
statement by the surveyor, either in a surveyor's certificate
or in a general note, that all easements of record have been
shown on the plat. The date must be within the past 12
months.
i. The tract presently identified as the USFS Tract shall be
deed restricted against further development.
2
4. The width of the access easement to Lot 1 across Lot 2 shall
meet code requirements (20').
Section 2
That is does hereby approve the Lot Line Adjustment between the
Mitchell parcel and the Mitchell /Bornefeld parcel (to be conveyed
to the Aspen Alps Homeowners Association) on Aspen Alps South Road
with the following conditions:
1. The lot line adjustment between the Mitchell parcel and the
Mitchell /Bornefeld parcel (to be conveyed to the Aspen Alps
Homeowners Association) shall be depicted on the final subdivision
plat for Moses Lot 2.
2. The final plat shall contain a note stating that no additional
floor area shall be granted to the Mitchell parcel due to the
increase in lot size.
Section 3:
That is does hereby grant Vested Rights for this Subdivision, Lot
Line Adjustment and 8040 Greenline as approved by the Commission
on April 7, 1992 (see attached Resolution , exhibit A attached
hereto and incorporated herein) for a period of three (3) years
with conditions as follows:
1. The rights granted in the site specific development plan
approved by this Ordinance shall remain vested for three
(3) years from the date of final adoption specified
below. However, any failure to abide by the terms and
conditions attendant to this approval shall result in
forfeiture of said vested rights. Failure to timely and
properly record all plats and agreements as specified
herein and or in the Municipal Code shall also result in
the forfeiture of vested rights.
2. The approvals as granted herein are subject to all rights
of referendum and judicial review.
3. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall
exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent
reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or
the general rules, regulations or ordinances of the City
provided that such reviews or approvals are not
inconsistent with the approvals granted and vested
herein.
4. The establishment herein of the vested property right
shall not preclude the application of ordinances or
regulations which are general in nature and are
applicable to all property subject to land use regulation
3
by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to,
building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical
codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site
development approval, the developer shall abide by any
and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and
mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is
granted in writing.
Section 4:
The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to be published
in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen no
later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption hereof.
Such notice shall be given 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 Title 24, Article 68,
Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following -
described property:
The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said
notice shall be the ordinance granting such approval.
Section 5:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of
this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional
by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision and such
holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
thereof.
Section 6:
This ordinance shall not effect 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 7:
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
day of at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City
Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a
public notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper
of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by
day City Council of the City of Aspen on the Y a
, 1992.
4
John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of
, 1992.
John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
5
ORDINANCE NO. t
(Series of 1987)
AN ORDINANCE REZONING LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF APPROXIMATELY L
E ASPEN ALPS CONDOMINIUMS EAST THE
SILVER QUEEN GONDOLA AT THE BASE OF ASPEN MOUNTAIN,
THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITRIN COUNTY, COLORADO
FROM C (CONSERVATION) TO R -15 PUD (RESIDENTIAL)
WHEREAS, an application has been submitted by the Gaard
Moses family to rezone to R -15 (PUD) a one acre parcel of land
generally located on the old Midland Railroad spurline, southeast
of the Aspen Alps, east of the Silver Queen gondola and specific
ally described in Attachment 1; and
WHEREAS, the parcel is presently zoned C (Conservation); and
WHEREAS, as part of the rezoning request, the Moses family
has submitted a subdivision exception request for the purposes of
creating two lots; and
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing held on January
28, 1987. The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend
that the subdivision exception and rezoning be approved; and
WHEREAS, the application has been found to be generally
consistent with Section 24 -12.5 of the Land Use Code which .
establishes criteria for rezoning; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has found that due to the existing
topography of this particular site east to.aithe of the Little Nell
ski run, the old Midland Railroad spurline rather than the 8040'
elevation line is a logical dividing line between the C (Conser-
vation) zone and residential districts; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has considered the recommen
dation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and has determined
the proposed rezoning to be compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land use in the vicinity of the site.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
That it does hereby rezone to R -15 PUD the area generally
located southeast of the Aspen Alps Condominiums, east of the
Silver Queen Gondola at the base of Aspen Mountain (specifically
described in Attachment 1).
$ection 2
That the Zoning District Map be amended to reflect the
rezoning described in Section 1 and the City Engineer's authoriz
ed and directed to amend the map to reflect the zoning change.
$ection 3
That the City Clerk is directed upon adoption of this
ordinance to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
$ection 4
If any section, sub - section, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or
unconstitutional by and court of competent jurisdiction, such
portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent
provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
$ection 5
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
day o 1987, at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers,
Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to
....................
which hearing notice of the same shall be published once in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by
the City Council of tue City of Aspen on the 23rd day of
February, 1987.
William L. Stirling, May,
ATTEST: y
Kathryn . Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this e,73 day of Ate
1987.
William L. Stirling, MaPor
ATTEST:
ellac 73,44141
Kathryn S 7 Koch, City Clerk
gh.49
•
Attachment 1
Legal Description
A tract of land situated in Section 18, Township r 0 of the
84 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, being p a
Nell Mining Claim MS 3881 AM described as follows:
Beginning at corner no. 5 MS 3881 (Little Nell) thence North
43028'44" East 136.76 feet along the line 5 -4 MS 3881; thence
South 43028'44 ", East 203.47' to line 1 -4 MS 1830 AM (Chance);
thence South 45000' West 297.01' feet along line 1 -4 MS 1830
30 AM
(Chance); thence North 05019'34" West 259.54 feet to the point of
beginning containing 1.0 acres more or less.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
THRU: Diane Moore, City Planning Director 0
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning
DATE: April 27, 1992
RE: Moses Lot 2 Subdivision, Lot Line Adjustment and Vested
Rights, Aspen Alps South Road, City of Aspen, First
Reading Ordinance_i
SUMMARY: The applicant seeks to subdivide Lot 2 of the Moses Lot
Split and a Lot Line Adjustment between subdivided Lot 2 and the
Mitchell parcel. The applicants also seek Vested Rights for 8040
Greenline, Subdivision, and Lot Line Adjustment approval.
Subdivision is a two step review. The Planning and Zoning
Commission reviewed the subdivision and recommends approval with
conditions to Council.
_ A Lot Line Adjustment is a one step review by City Council.
Please see attached Ordinance ::I, Series of 1992 for the
subdivision and lot line adjustment, Attachment A.
APPLICANT: Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc., the Aspen Alps
Condominium Association, and George Mitchell as represented by Alan
Richman
LOCATION: Lot 2, Moses Lot Split on the Aspen Alps South Road
ZONING: L /TR, R -6, R -15 (PUD)
BACKGROUND: The applicant seeks to demolish an existing single
family home on Moses Lot 2 and rebuild a 5,000 square foot home
with a 500 square foot garage. The applicant also seeks to
subdivide Moses Lot 2 to include the Mitchell /Bornefeld parcel.
Please see attached maps depicting the various proposals, exhibit
B.
The applicant has several objectives with regard to the purchase
of the 4+ acre parcel from Mitchell /Bornefeld and Lot 2 of the
Moses Lot Split. They are as follows:
1. The 1987 lot split that created Lots 1 and 2 of the Moses lot
Split was conditioned upon a limitation on the area of the homes
not to exceed 3,800 square feet of floor area per house.
11
The applicant requests that the restriction be lifted and replaced
with a 5,000 square foot allowable floor area restriction.
2. The applicant requests that the lot line of Moses Lot 2 be
revised to include sufficient lot area to allow a floor area of
5,000 square feet. The required land area is provided by the 4+
acre parcel purchased from Mitchell /Bornefeld. This requires a
re- subdivision of Moses Lot 2 because a lot line adjustment is
meant for small technical boundary adjustments and adjustments that
do not affect the development rights or permitted density of the
affected lots. In addition, the applicant seeks to amend a prior
condition of approval.
3. 8040 Greenline review is required for the development of the
new single family residence on Moses Lot 2. The 8040 Greenline was
reviewed and approved by the Commission at their April 7, 1992
meeting.
4. The applicant intends to convey the remaining land area (the
land that is not needed for an allowable floor area of 5,000 sq.
ft.) to the Aspen Alps Condominium Association, a Colorado non-
profit corporation. The tennis courts, which are defined in the
Land Use Code as a separate parcel because of the long term lease,
will also be deeded to the Association.
The Aspen Alps Condominium Association, in an attempt to preserve
the open space around buildings 300, 400, 500, and 700 and the
parking along Aspen Alps South Road and tennis courts tried to
purchase the 4+ acres. But technical reasons have prevented the
Association from assessing homeowners for the acquisition of
property. The Aspen View Homesite, Inc. is willing to convey the
property to the Association.
The Association commits to restrict the two parcels (land deeded
by Lot 2 and the tennis courts) against further development or
utilization of the land for density and floor area purposes
provided Lot 2 is allowed 5,000 square feet of allowable floor area
for the development of a single family residence.
• 5. A Lot Line Adjustment is also requested to clear up a survey
error between the platted Aspen Alps South Road and the actual road
and to convey to Mr. Mitchell the area which he currently uses for
parking. Lot Line Adjustment review is done by the City Council
and therefore is not covered in this memo.
mo CURRENT ISSUES
A. Background - According to the application the applicant has
recently purchased Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split. The applicant has
also obtained an option to purchase an approximately 4 acre parcel
2
e
e
known as the "Mitchell /Bornefeld property ". This parcel surrounds
the 300, 400, 500, and 700 buildings of the Aspen Alps..
There are separately owned parcels within the Alps development -
the Mitchell House; the Aspen Alps 300, 400, and 500 buildings;
the Aspen Alps 700 building; and Lot 42 which is a small tract of
land owned by the US Forest Service. An application to obtain the
USFS tract has been filed by Mitchell /Bornefeld pursuant to the
Small Tracts Act.
B. Project Description - The 83 unit Aspen Alps Condominiums lie
within the L /TR, R -6, R -15 (PUD) zone districts. When the original
plat was filed in the 1960's by the developers, Mr. Mitchell and
Mr. Bornefeld, they only designated those lands on which the 300,
400, 500, and 700 buildings were constructed as general common
elements, owned by the unit owners as tenants in common. The
developers retained ownership of the remaining property that
surrounds the buildings.
The Aspen Alps Condominium Association has determined that it would
be in the owner's best interest to secure greater control over the
undeveloped parcels within the Aspen Alps area. The Associations'
intent is to prevent future development which may substantially
affect their property. In addition, the Association wishes to
obtain title to the road and parking areas that serve their
buildings.
According to the application, in order to secure the surrounding
undeveloped property the Association has entered into a contract
to purchase the Mitchell /Bornefeld property and must assign this
contract to Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc. (owner of the Moses Lot
2) who will convey a significant portion back to the Association
for open space.
The property owner of Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc., a past Aspen
Alps homeowner, proposes to demolish the existing single family
residence on Moses Lot 2 and build a new 5,000 square foot
residence containing 5 bedrooms and a 500 sq. ft. garage.
The driveway to Lot 2 will be provided off of the Aspen Alps South
Road. Gaard Moses also proposes to create a new driveway spur off
of the South Road thereby creating a separate access for Moses Lot
1.
The proposed expanded Moses Lot 2 parcel encompasses two underlying
zone districts. A survey provided with the application confirms
that more than 75% of the land area within the proposed Lot 2 is
zone R -15 (PUD) with the remainder of the lot is zoned
Conservation. The Aspen Land Use Code, Section 5 -508, states that
when a use is allowed in all underlying zone districts and more
than 75% of the land area of the parcel is within the zone district
permitting the higher density, then "the use shall be developed
3
1. Simultaneous with the recordation of the final plat, the
applicant shall convey Lots 2A and 2B to the Aspen Alps Homeowners
Assocaition with restriction on siad lots against any further
development. Further development shall include but not limited to
additional lot area for floor area, bedrooms and density purposes
on existing Alps buildings or the tennis courts lot and land
conveyed by the owner of Lot 2 Moses Lot Split.
2. A final plat and subdivision agreement shall be filed within
180 days of final land use approval by the City Council in the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder office. The final plat shall be
reviewed and approved by the Engineering and Planning Departments.
3. The final plat shall depict the following:
a. the tennis courts and land on Lot 2 Moses Lot Split that
is conveyed to the Aspen Alps Condominium Association.
b. That Lots 2A and 2B are restricted against any further
development or additional lot area for floor area, bedrooms
and density purposes on existing Alps buildings or the tennis
courts lot and land conveyed by the owner of Lot 2 Moses Lot
Split.
c. The new access onto Lot 1 Moses Lot Split.
d. Graphic description of the zoning designations of Lot 2
Moses Lot Split.
e. No parking allowed along the Aspen Alps South Road unless
approved by the Fire Marshal.
f. An easement indicating Lot 2 Moses Lot Split access off of
the Aspen Alps South Road.
g. All improvements on the site including the entire length
of the actual access road and the revised access easement
including the roadway surface.
h. The contents of the final plat must meet Sections 24-7 -
1004-D.1 and -D.2 of the municipal code. There must be a
statement by the surveyor, either in a surveyor's certificate
or in a general note, that all easements of record have been
shown on the plat. The date must be within he past 12
months.
i. The tract presently identifie as the shall be deed
restricted against further developme .
3. The width of the access easement to Lot 1 across Lot 2 shall
meet code requirements (20').
8
Staff recommends approval of the lot line adjustment with the
following conditions:
1. The lot line adjustment between the Mitchell parcel and the
Mitchell /Bornefeld parcel (to be conveyed to the Aspen Alps
Homeowners Association) shall be depicted on the final subdivision
plat for Moses Lot 2.
2. The final plat shall contain a note stating that no additional
floor area shall be granted to the Mitchell parcel due to the
increase in lot size.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve the subdivision for Moses Lot
2 with the conditions recommended by the Planning and Zoning
Commission." •
•
"I move to approve the lot line adjustment between the Mitchell
parcel and the Mitchell /Bornefeld parcel (to be conveyed to the
Aspen Alps Homeowners Association) with the conditions as
recommended by the Planning Department."
"I move to adopt Ordinance _ , Series of 1992, on first reading."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Ordinance , Series of 1992
B. Maps and Site Tabulations
C. Referral Comments
9
t
city council 1 —y,
approveld By ordinance
ORDINANCE NO. _
(SERIES OF 1992)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING SUBDIVISION'F0
LOT 2 OF THE MOSES LOT SPLIT, A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN TH
MITCHELL PARCEL AND THE MITCHELL /BORNEFELD PARCEL, AND VESTED
RIGHTS FOR 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW, SUBDIVISION, AND THE LOT LINE 6;
ADJUSTMENT ALL LOCATED ON ASPEN ALPS SOUTH ROAD, CITY AND TOWNSITE v ��/
OF ASPEN '
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 24 -7 -503 and 24 -7 -1004 C of the
Municipal Code the applicant, Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc., the
Aspen Alps Homeowners Association and George Mitchell have
submitted an application for subdivision of Lot 2 of the Moses Lot
Split and a lot line adjustment for the Mitchell parcel and the
Mitchell /Bornefeld parcel all located on the Aspen Alps South Road,
City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24 -6 -207 of the Municipal Code, the
applicant has also requested Vested Rights of the subdivision and
lot line adjustment and 8040 Greenline; and
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing held April 7, 1992, the
Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the 8040 Greenline and
Subdivision proposal; and
WHEREAS, the Commission approved the 8040 Greenline review (see
attached Commission Resolution _, exhibit A); and
WHEREAS, the Commission also recommends to the City Council
subdivision approval for Lot 2 Moses Lot Split; and
WHEREAS, subdivision and lot line adjustment were reviewed by the
City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
That it does hereby approve Subdivision as recommended by the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission for Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split,
Aspen Alps South Road, City and Townsite of Aspen, with the
following conditions:
1. Simultaneous with the recordation of the final plat, the
applicant shall convey Lots 2A and 2B to the Aspen Alps Homeowners
Association with restriction on said lots against any further
development. Further development shall include but not limited to
additional lot area for floor area, bedrooms and density purposes
on existing Alps buildings or the tennis courts lot and land
1
conveyed by the owner of Lot 2 Moses Lot Split.
2. A final plat and subdivision agreement shall be filed within
180 days of final land use approval by the City Council in the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder office. The final plat shall be
reviewed and approved by the Engineering and Planning Departments.
3. The final plat shall depict the following:
a. the tennis courts and land on Lot 2 Moses Lot Split that
is conveyed to the Aspen Alps Condominium Association.
b. That Lots 2A and 2B are restricted against any further
development or additional lot area for floor area, bedrooms
and density purposes on existing Alps buildings or the tennis
courts lot and land conveyed by the owner of Lot 2 Moses Lot
Split.
c. The new access onto Lot 1 Moses Lot Split.
d. Graphic description of the zoning designations of Lot 2
Moses Lot Split.
e. No parking allowed along the Aspen Alps South Road unless
approved by the Fire Marshal.
f. An easement indicating Lot 2 Moses Lot Split access off of
the Aspen Alps South Road.
g. All improvements on the site including the entire length
of the actual access road and the revised access easement
including the roadway surface.
h. The contents of the final plat must meet Sections 24-7 -
1004-D.1 and -D.2 of the municipal code. There must be a
statement by the surveyor, either in a surveyor's certificate
or in a general note, that all easements of record have been
shown on the plat. The date must be within the past 12
months. SFS +T °"'`,
The tract presently identified as the shall be deed
estricted against further development.
le ti The width of the access easement to Lot 1 across Lot 2 shall
Meet code requirements (20').
Section 2
That is does hereby approve the Lot Line Adjustment between the
Mitchell parcel and the Mitchell /Bornefeld parcel (to be conveyed
to the Aspen Alps Homeowners Association) on Aspen Alps South Road
with the following conditions:
2
1. The lot line adjustment between the Mitchell parcel and the
Mitchell /Bornefeld parcel (to be conveyed to the Aspen Alps
Homeowners Association) shall be depicted on the final subdivision
plat for Moses Lot 2.
2. The final plat shall contain a note stating that no additional
floor area shall be granted to the Mitchell parcel due to the
increase in lot size.
Section 3:
That is does hereby grant Vested Rights for this Subdivision, Lot
Line Adjustment and 8040 Greenline as approved by the Commission
on April 7, 1992 (see attached Resolution , exhibit A attached
hereto and incorporated herein) for a period of three (3) years
with conditions as follows:
1. The rights granted in the site specific development plan
approved by this Ordinance shall remain vested for three
(3) years from the date of final adoption specified
below. However, any failure to abide by the terms and
conditions attendant to this approval shall result in
forfeiture of said vested rights. Failure to timely and
properly record all plats and agreements as specified
herein and or in the Municipal Code shall also result in
the forfeiture of vested rights.
2. The approvals as granted herein are subject to all rights
of referendum and judicial review.
3. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall
exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent
reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or
the general rules, regulations or ordinances of the City
provided that such reviews or approvals are not
inconsistent with the approvals granted and vested
herein.
4. The establishment herein of the vested property right
shall not preclude the application of ordinances or
regulations which are general in nature and are
applicable to all property subject to land use regulation
by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to,
building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical
codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site
development approval, the developer shall abide by any
and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and
mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is
granted in writing.
Section 4:
3
The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to be published
in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen no
later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption hereof.
Such notice shall be given 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 Title 24, Article 68,
Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following -
described property:
The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said
notice shall be the ordinance granting such approval.
Section 5:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of
this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional
by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision and such
holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
thereof.
Section 6:
This ordinance shall not effect 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 7:
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
day of at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City
Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a
public notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper
of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by
the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of
, 1992.
John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of
, 1992.
4
John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn 8. Koch, City Clerk
5
_ --
City Council =bibit
Approved ___ , 19
By Ordinance
- NW
0 00 o
r QQ= ` VC)
7 0
C � 1 T} 1 • • zi. ....07::::7". : / II, r + d
, - .-. ._,..,. __
op Li i 1 C/c -
1 �jI c`1 '.�
1, - II I .___
V I •R • l
1
VICINITY MAP = i COO
Title
EXISTING CONDITIONS
REPLAT OF LOT 2, MOSES LOT SPLIT
ZZ
1
AREA TABULATION
ASPEN ALPS + MITCHELL - 15ORNEFELD 0.398 ACRES
LOT 2 , MOSES tsar SPLIT
A= ENTIRE PARCEL AREA 6 .754
NET GOVERNMENT LOT 42 0 .44 6
MITCHELL F -1005E SITE O:23
ASPEN ALPS- PARCELS l-I
15= TOTAL OUT PARCELS 1 .9 6 3
C = NET ACCE55 EA5EMENTO 0.7
NET Al ZA OF REPEAT (A -1,-C) 4.478 ACRES
zz/
AREA TABULATION
LOT 2 1.026) ADZES
LOT 2.A 2.24 H
LOT ID 0.6 I I
TOTAL AKEA 4.o76 ACRES
.LOT 2 ZONING
R -1 5 331673'5 sq. Fr. = 75.32 %
CQN SE{�VATIO N . 1 1, 0549 5Q. FT = 245
TOTAL AREA 44,7°8.7 5Q. FT . = 100.00 °°
°au scz3 414,_ at ali,
0 `,�. e�� �S�
C::::7 1111111. / 0 i A, ' `t ��� 1 C am(/ 4 Sp �'V %- ` ii G al )
�_ 1 /}�.'i (f
' '
"
v 1 :F - M
___I__ -it ZG
k -4 Z_____AN --ji -:
.1 tuiCt
1 144
iW
v N � 2
VICINITY MAP s care = I" = iQ
,t„ \ 4
�.�! \ < <
�lli -•.-------- , e "unman .....o...,., ' .. ._._:. \ , 4 -
t . 1 / ; 4 1 l 1 Rk iA�`�,C
e t 6 .+ /may' i i �
hilt
iii i
s+r a vr�.anaa4l l A. ', ` �1 ' J ° i hi • w
14
y "� a- " e r a \ S. : • -,. t yy$` \:.` � y .' / • . -" �,
S � . ` r }•I • a
t� M < %4 t ` F \
q . l ` E FY \ r
��. 4 t
�4. R N\ Y \ - •
f
•
c " .vt. _
f\ - /
.\ \ _ ? I / •
.� z e% ` \ ;
a� r
?R x J
a \\ / .r ^ t /
\./ 4
z3
.....,..._.........„......... . ..
__....
......•..........-
• --,..,\,, . fri .
•
ik..,
/ 7z- /4 \ \
cre -
r .. C •
Z iTh c- „,:z.,.. < .................... \,‹ 1, \
c4X e r \ li 7\ \
/ 1 4 • , i ..- "-- . • \ ,.
.`"- •;,......>„ ?•- • z,.." \
N -
; Fit, .. :-..,,.• .:`
o tc,..-.. . \-.. • . ,
... ,
I a4.- :.-7 -:\ -7 i_ --- .. • - , \ \
a - •
. e"
• •T \
4- • \
• ,
. 9' , ,,,,,
e. \
,
e \
:.: V ir - •
n . . .
. \
::'\
9 4
A • 1 , te° , ,/ „- ,
.".....:— •
... A
4 /Al (lif
. i • i r'
I '-'-' 4# 0 • f• e
•
. i I t Itsta . • . * .
LK': • - e t . ... A '
x / sy I 31
7.011
1. ,"! ' -- \ ; , 1 4 ..:- • • • y... z /p a
il 'Of:',, ‘ 4 a
v t
1
. . .
- a -r•-• C -
- V ('
• L,... ...: ./, ‘..3.ggi
— - `--,---),. ,
3.• : 3, , •
1 - 4 i ' .• a • . k 7 .• ...;:r..H ef4(r." :4'..
A '4CP
, .4* 1 l ; : •
(1) .
2: r
0 50 a 250 20: 15,er
i: I: en" g•g
- ,
5.4, • :-.4,:.7
,.
;4. 7: SI
,
LQU rer •—•—•,
...,
/
a - x
• .
NOW: Inn • 227 N.c222 z ...2 1 r - 2 .
...5: •- 54 ?fates
......... s.. wofsco ••••,...• Z
PROPOSED REPLAT ,....,, Abine cs _ swweYs. 'lc •.: :27 92 ; t'
tOT 2. MOSES LOT SPUT aonus ...-712
2-6
•
I
i \ g •.
I 411
Ll ".� JIGM1M
1 1 i i / n Asr�ur T \ . 4 ° y • <
int I i \ atik•-LLts..--.._ . RD I I rx i l •• •• • • \/ ?.SP rkki >- PA ,a2 DIME WITH • •
� 1.-- �� 6 OP's G RK Gr P TI£.. /
i 4 " � � F �: / MET EXTRA II PAN(� I & is L9 :1 LONlo
J• ti .'\ : : , E}-rn C 1.-EN -- LL H OF DRJVE. / "
\ I S \ \ It : ' •� - i) t FW6A THl i fKE+ 4 UP "'—
y �tj1 � PF E�k = &•'" I \ \'y i 1 _ \ • � C'QV
Al ,I \ \ \ � 1, '�i \ :'' " ' . 5 MErPcGE55 J , a��" a�� • ' 0 <
•
11\ \ \t I i � L \� • \ � ` }� .. .i . �R lOT I o h 4
' \ 1 \ \.\ • \ 1 /t ; . ; , f ? I � • � ' CJs ,
LO� '� 1 i .. l i i S I .5 o
t m 9.6 ''lit I I T 1 \ a bi°i%i, fir∎ l r ��s E .
1 I 1 1 o p / Eris 9G ;.
• �o_ ,4 1 1 � y aP . ,4 8' DIA. I . ( 5U-1EDULE C
i i 57 73 \ ` V';" l qA rl $-Is BUILDING F IVELOPE
(SHADED)) Ib WNWE
3J e t . / . e 0 - • . ' MO5eS w\ 2 -14.
� d 4 - I ei
t
-- • F ' • 10' SIDE Yap
��J SETBACK
I / °/ � OF rt:
p ASPEN:
I T� /ti --....-9,5,,e, 6 - G .
f ��
i CO UN �N �, 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW 7 - 9 OT SPLIT b - Co "
vroposed Development Plan REPLAT O LOT 2 MOSES LOT T r v 9
LOr �' ��` Aspen, Colorado 1a_ 7' _ T : LIT -- Pe - 7" •
0 20 40' /', Voorsaflga[ & Associates, Architects P.1, - n "
i 246 West 38R Street
i New York, NY 10018
• NORTH •
Alan Richman Planning Services
CB
Box 3613
Aspen, Colorado 81612
3 i
ra
City Council Exhibit_
APproved , 19
By Ordinance --
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
Engineering: The following comments are provided as a follow up
to several site visits and review of the application:
1. Existing conditions map shows access drive with note about
parking along drive. Twenty feet is required to be provided for
emergency access. There cannot be parking in this 20' easement.
The final plat must indicate that parking along road is not
permitted unless approved by the Fire Marshall.
2. The final plat will have to reflect all improvements on the
site including the entire length of the actual access road. The
access easement must be revised to include the roadway surface.
3. The contents of the final plat must meet Sections 24-7 -1004-
D.1 and -D.2 of the municipal code. There must be a statement by
the surveyor, either in a surveyor's certificate or in a general
note, that all easements of record as indicated on Title Policy
No. , dated , have been shown on the plat. The
date must be within the past 12 months.
4. The indicated access easement does not connect with the new Lot
2 or its parking area. Regarding Gaard Moses' new driveway
proposal, the Parks Department expressed concern that the health
of the trees between which the driveway is proposed will be
jeopardized. The condition of approval should state that
construction activities contemplated within the drip line of any
trees greater than 6" in diameter must be approved by the Parks
Department.
Also, the width of the access easement to Lot 1 across Lot 2 shall
meet code requirements (20').
5. The applicant shall provide a letter from a registered
professional engineer that all applicable geotechnical concerns of
the Lampiris letter submitted with the application have been
complied with during construction. This letter must be submitted
prior to final inspection and accepted by the city engineer.
6. Water service - Please obtain comments from Water Department.
There may be agreement in place regarding hook -up reimbursement for
previously constructed water main extension.
7. The request for increased floor area does not appear to be in
conformance with structure size intent as discussed in letter from
Gideon Kaufman, representing Moses, to Alan Richman, Planning
Director, dated October 23, 1986, which requested rezoning and lot
split approval.
10
8. Since vegetation contributes to slope stability, no vegetation
shall be removed from the slope.
9. The applicant shall agree to join improvement districts formed
for improvements to the public right -of -way particularly Ute
Avenue.
10. The development must meet on -site drainage retention
requirements of Section 24- 7- 1004.C.4.f.
11. The applicant is advised to check with the neighbor, Gaard
Moses, concerning his experiences with roof snow shed problems in
this heavy snowfall area.
Parks Department: Tree removal permits are required for any trees
over 6" in caliper.
Fire Marshal:
1. The Department does have access and a hydrant is available for
fire fighting.
2. Brush should be trimmed within 30' of the structure. This does
not apply to a single specimen of trees or ornamental shrubbery
used as ground cover provided they do not form a means of rapidly
transmitting fire from the native growth to any structure.
3. Remove any portion of any tree with 10' from the outlet of any
chimney. Maintain any tree free of dead wood that is adjacent to
or overhanging the roof. Maintain roof free of leaves, needles
or other dead vegetation.
4. State forest service guidelines for wildfire should be reviewed
by owner.
11
ATTAHCMENT A
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING 8040 GREENLINE AND RECOMMENDING
TO THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL
FOR LOT 2 OF THE MOSES LOT SPLIT,
ASPEN ALPS SOUTH ROAD, ASPEN COLORADO
Resolution No. 92-0
WHEREAS, a duly noticed Public Hearing was held by the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission ") on April
7, 1992 to consider the 8040 Greenline and Subdivision application
for Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split; and
WHEREAS, the applicant proposed to demolish an existing home
on Lot 2 and redevelop a single family residence;and
WHEREAS, a 1987 Lot Split created Moses Lots 1 & 2 with a
condition upon the size of the home not to exceed 3,800 square feet
of allowable floor area; and
WHEREAS, the applicant proposed to increase the size of Lot
2 to encompass the open land area between four of the Aspen Alps
buildings, the Mitchell House and the Aspen Alps tennis courts; and
WHEREAS, the applicant proposed to retain enough land area
required for a 5,000 square foot home in the R -15 Zone District and
convey the rest of the land area (approximately 3 acres) to the
Aspen Alps to be deeded against further development; and
WHEREAS, in exchange for conveying the open space to the Aspen
Alps and deeding it against further development, the applicant has
requested an increase in the limited floor area of Lot 2 up to
5,000 square feet of allowable floor area; and
WHEREAS, the reconfiguration of Lot 2 and the conveyance of
the rest of the parcel to the Aspen Alps requires subdivision
review; and
WHEREAS, the development of the new home is above the 8040
elevation thus requiring 8040 Greenline review; and
WHEREAS, the Commission reviewed the 8040 Greenline for the
new single family residence; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED by the Commission that it
does hereby approve the 8040 Greenline for a new single family
residence with the following conditions:
1. The allowable floor area of the new single family home shall
be no greater than 5,000 sq. ft. The height shall be 25 feet.
2. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall provide
a letter from a registered professional engineer that all
applicable geotechnical concerns of the Lampiris letter submitted
with the application have been complied with during construction.
This letter shall be accepted by the City Engineer.
3. The development shall meet on -site drainage retention
requirements of Section 24- 7- 1004.C.4.f.
4. The applicant shall comply with all applicable City regulations
addressing wood burning devices in the new residential unit.
5. All requirements for the R -15 (PUD) zone district shall apply.
6. All the required parking shall be provided on -site.
7. The applicant shall provide a housing mitigation fee pursuant
to Ordinance 1, Series of 1990, for the demolition and
redevelopment of the single - family home.
8. No further development shall occur on Lot 2 Moses Lot Split
outside of this approved building envelope.
9. No vegetation shall be removed from the slope except as
required by conditions 13 and 14.
10. Tree removal permits shall be required for those trees over
6" in caliper that are removed. Pursuant to representations made
by the applicant 16 trees shall be preserved which include all of
the Spruce trees. The applicant shall replace the seven Aspen
trees which must be removed.
11. Any construction activities contemplated within the drip line
of any trees greater than 6" in diameter must be approved by the
Parks Department.
12. Mr. Moses shall work with the Parks Department to ensure that
the two large pine trees on either side of the new drive will not
be endangered by the new drive.
13. Brush shall be trimmed within 30' of the structure. This does
not apply to a single specimen of trees or ornamental shrubbery
used as ground cover provided they do not form a means of rapidly
transmitting fire from the native growth to any structure.
14. Any portion of any tree with 10' from the outlet of any
chimney shall be removed and any tree that is adjacent to or
overhanging the roof shall remain free of dead wood. The roof
shall be free of leaves, needles or other dead vegetation.
15. The applicant shall work with the public agencies to ensure
that proper utilities are supplied to the new home and a
proportionate share of the public improvements to serve the project
will be borne by the applicant.
2
f
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 02/10/92 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: 02/11/92 2737- 182 -63 -002 A 8 -92
STAFF MEMBER: LL
PROJECT NAME: Moses Aspen View Homesite Subdivision, Lot Line
Adjustment and 8040 Greenline Review
Project Address: Lot 2, Moses Lot Split
Legal Address: T10S, R86W, Section 18
APPLICANT: Leon Hirsch, Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc.; Aspen
Alps and George Mitchell
Applicant Address: 150 Glover Avenue, Norwalk, CT 06856
REPRESENTATIVE: Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning Services
Representative Address /Phone: Box 3613; 920 -1125
Aspen, CO 81612
PAID:(YES) NO AMOUNT: $2809 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED 6/6
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP:
P &Z Meeting Date 04/07/92 PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
1st / 2nd
CC Meeting Date 4/27 / 5/25 PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
d. Proc.
VESTED RIGH • YES'. NO
Planning Director Approval: Paid:
Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date:
REFERRALS:
X City Attorney Mtn Bell School District
X City Engineer X Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn NatGas
Housing Dir. Holy Cross State HwyDept(GW)
Aspen Water X Fire Marshall State HwyDept(GJ)
City Electric Building Inspector
Envir.Hlth. Roaring Fork Other
Aspen Con.S.D. Energy Center
DATE REFERRED: February 12, 1992 INITIALS: cic
FINAL ROUTING: DATE �ROOUTED: ti)
7j INITIAL:
City Atty )(City Engineer )(Zoning _Env. Health
Housing _ Other: /� C
/
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
#348316 09/03/92 16:22 Rec $6A�00 FK 687 PG 895
Stria Davis, Pitkin Cnty CIE , Doc $.00
SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
R
REPL • • F j T 2 1/ PLIT
(A Lot Line Adjustment)
AND
THE GEORGE P. MITCHELL AND H.A. BORNEFELD. JR. PROPERTY
THIS SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 2,4 day of
ik„g u s , 1992, by and between MOSES ASPEN VIEW HOMESITE, INC., a
Colorado corporation ( "Moses Aspen View ") and GEORGE P. MITCHELL AND H.A.
BORNEFELD, JR. ( "Mitchell /Bornefeld ") (collectively "Owners ") and THE CITY OF
ASPEN, a municipal corporation ( "City ").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Moses Aspen View owns that certain real property located in the City of to
the lat thereof of
ecord in�Book 9 at page 83 of the Office Moses
of heCle k Split, d Recorder of
Pitkin County, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Mitchell /Bomefeld own that certain real property (the "Property ")
located in the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, a complete metes and
bounds description of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, on June 8, 1992, the City Council of the City of Aspen granted approval
pursuant to Sections 24 -7 -503 and 24 -7 -1004 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen
(the "Code ") for the Replat of Lot 2, Moses Lot which dsththe Subdivision
as t
e Pro er y
(see Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1992, a copy and
WHEREAS, the approval of the Replat of Lot 2, Moses Lot Split and the Subdivision
of the Property, was conditioned upon Moses Aspen View and Mitchell /Bornefeld complying
with agreement for Lot 2, Moses Lot the
as replat entering into subdivision
and the Property; and
WHEREAS, Moses Aspen View and Mitchell /Bornefeld have submitted to the City
for approval, execution and recordation a plat for the Replat of Lot 2, Moses Lot Split and
the subdivision of the Property (the "Plat ") and the City agrees to approve, execute and
record the Plat on the agreement of Moses Aspen View and Mitchell /Bomefeld to the matters
described herein, subject to the provisions of the Code, the conditions contained herein and
other applicable rules and regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City has imposed conditions and requirements in connection with its
approval, execution and acceptance of the Plat and such matters are necessary to protect,
promote and enhance the public health, safety and welfare; and
WHEREAS, Moses Aspen View and Mitchell /Bornefeld are willing to enter into such
agreement with the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and
the approval, execution and acceptance of the Plat for recordation by the City, it is agreed as
follows:
`48316 09/03/9 16:x' Rec 0.00 eh 687 PG 896
Se Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00
1. Description of the Replat and Subdivision. The Replat and Subdivision which
the City Council approved consists of three (3) parcels. Lot 2, Moses Lot Split, and a
portion of the Property, have been approved and replatted as the Replat of Lot 2, Moses Lot
Split as shown on the Plat. The balance of the Property has been further subdivided into
Lots 2A and 2B as shown on the Plat.
2. Acceptance of Plat. Upon execution of this Agreement by all parties hereto,
and upon approval of the Plat by the Engineering Department and Planning Office, the City
agrees to approve and execute the final Plat of the Property submitted herewith, which
conforms to the requirements of Section 24 -7 -1004 of the Code. The City agrees to accept
such Plat for recording in the Office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder upon payment
of the recordation fee and costs to the City by Moses Aspen View and Mitchell /Bornefeld.
A reduced size copy of the Plat has been approved as part of this Subdivision Agreement and
is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
3. Public Improvements and Landscaping. The Replat of Lot 2, Moses Lot Split
and the Subdivision of the balance of the Property involves no public improvements or
landscaping.
4. Restrictions. Lots 2A and 2B of the Property are hereby restricted pursuant to
the provisions of Ordinance No. 31 as follows:
(a) The floor area, bedroom and density attributed to Lots 2A and
2B shall not be utilized by the Aspen Alps Condominium Unit
Owners for purposes of increasing the floor area, bedroom
number or density of existing or future Aspen Alps
Condominium Units;
(b) No further development or additional lot area for floor area,
bedrooms and additional density or major new recreational
facilities such as tennis courts and swimming pools shall occur
on said Lots 2A and 2B;
(c) Parking along the Aspen Alps South Road shall only be allowed
outside the twenty (20) foot paved road unless approved by the
Fire Marshal of the City of Aspen; and
(d) In the event either Moses Aspen View or Mitchell /Bornefeld or
the Aspen Alps Condominium Association acquires title to
Government Lot 42, Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84
West, of the 6th P.M., as depicted on the Plat, such party shall
restrict said Government Lot 42 against all development.
The "Revised Mitchell Homesite" parcel shown on the Plat shall not be entitled to utilize any
originally nally described in Book 256 at page 812tin size over and the office of the and parcel as
d Recorder of
Pitkin County, Colorado.
5. Material Representations. All material representations made by the Owners on
record to the City in accordance with the approval of the Subdivision shall be binding upon
the Owners, their successors, assigns and personal representatives.
2
#348314 09/03/92 16:22 Rec $60.0c f( 687 PC 897
Silvi Davis, PitF::in Cnty Clerk $.00
6. Enforcement. In the event the City determines the Owners are not in
substantial compliance with the terms of this Agreement or the Plat or Ordinance No. 31, the
City may serve a Notice of Non - Compliance and request that the deficiency be corrected
within a period of forty -five (45) days. In the event the Owners, or either of them, believe
that they are in compliance or that the non - compliance is insubstantial, the Owners, or either
of them, may request a hearing before the City Council to determine whether the alleged
non - compliance exists or whether any amendment, variance or extension of time to comply
should be granted. On request, the City shall conduct a hearing according to standard
procedures and take such action as it then deems appropriate. The City shall be entitled to
all remedies at equity and at law to enjoin, correct and /or receive damages for any non-
compliance with this Agreement.
7. Notices. Notices to the parties shall be sent by the United States Certified
Mail, Return Receipt Requested, Postage Prepaid, to the addresses set forth below or to any
other address which the parties may substitute in writing. Such notices shall be deemed
received, if not sooner received, three (3) days after the date of mailing of same.
To the Owners: Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc.
150 Glover Avenue
Norwalk, Connecticut 06850
With a copy to: Michael J. Herron, Esq.
Garfield & Hecht
601 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
George P. Mitchell
Mitchell Energy & Development Corp.
2001 Timberloch Place
The Woodlands, Texas 77380
H.A. Bomefeld, Jr.
Mitchell Energy & Development Corp.
2001 Timberloch Place
The Woodlands, Texas 77380
With a copy to: Leonard M. Oates, Esq.
Oates, Hughes & Knezevich
533 East Hopkins
Aspen, Colorado 81611
To the City of Aspen: c/o City Manager
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
With a copy to: City of Aspen Attorney
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
8. Binding Effect. The provisions of this Agreement shall run with and constitute
a burden on said Lot 2, Moses Lot Split and the Property and shall be binding on and enure
3
#3 09/03/92 16:22 Rec $60,4:0 BK 687 PG 898
. a Davis, Pitk:in Cnty Cler. Doc $.00
to the benefit of the Owners, their successors and assigns and to the City, its successors and
assigns.
9. Amendment. This Agreement may be altered or amended jointly by written
instrument executed by all parties hereto with the same formality as this Agreement is
executed.
10. Severahility. If any of the provisions of this Agreement are determined to be
invalid, it shall not effect the remaining provisions hereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Subdivision
Agreement the day and year first above written.
ATTEST: CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation
!S 5 tt4etse—e By:
G
1114
K S. Koch, Ci Clerk John Be nett, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
°\\ , City Attorney
MOSES ASPEN VIEW HOMESITE, INC., a
Colorado corporation
By: mpor
-sn Huse , Pr
/ �a
G -,rge P. Mitchell
H.A. Bornefeld, Jr.
4
EXHIBIT B
•
#348316 09/03/92 16:2 Rec $60.00 EK 687 PG 901
Silvia Davis, Pit4in Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00
ORDINANCE NO. 31
(SERIES OF 1992)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING SUBDIVISION FOR
LOT 2 OF THE MOSES LOT SPLIT, A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE
MITCHELL PARCEL AND THE MITCHELL /BORNEFELD PARCEL, AND VESTED
RIGHTS FOR 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW, SUBDIVISION, AND THE LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT ALL LOCATED ON ASPEN ALPS SOUTH ROAD, CITY AND TOWNSITE
OF ASPEN
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 24 -7 -503 and 24 -7 -1004 C of the
Municipal Code the applicant, Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc., the
Aspen Alps Condominium Association and George Mitchell have
submitted an application for subdivision of Lot 2 of the Moses Lot
Split and a lot line adjustment for the Mitchell parcel and the
Mitchell /Bornefeld parcel all located on the Aspen Alps South Road,
City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24 -6 -207 of the Municipal Code, the
applicant has also requested Vested Rights of the subdivision and
lot line adjustment and 8040 Greenline; and
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing held April 7, 1992, the
Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the 8040 Greenline and
Subdivision proposal; and
WHEREAS, the Commission approved the 8040 Greenline review (see
Commission Resolution 6 (1992), Exhibit A attached hereto and
incorporated herein); and
WHEREAS, the Commission also recommends to the City Council
subdivision approval for Lot 2 Moses Lot Split; and
WHEREAS, the subdivision of Lot 2 eliminates the floor area cap of
3,800 square feet that was originally imposed upon Lot 2 during the
1987 Moses Lot Split; and
WHEREAS, the applicants have offered to voluntarily prohibit all
future development on Lots 2A and 2B of the new subdivision as
created herein, consisting of approximately three acres of valuable
open space and an existing tennis court area, in exchange for the
City granting permanent vesting for the development of a 5,000
square foot (allowable floor area) residence upon Lot 2 within the
subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the existing underlying zoning for the subdivision allows
for the construction of a single family residence of 5,000 square
feet (allowable floor area) on Lot 2; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the neighborhood and
community at large will derive a significant benefit from the
1
#3453,16 09/03/92 16:22 Rec %60.j BF::: 687 PG 902
Sil y a Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk bloc x.00
permanent preservation of remaining open space within the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council may grant vesting of site specific
development plans for periods in excess of three years where
warranted in light of all relevant circumstances in accordance with
C.R.S. Section 24 -68- 104(2); and
WHEREAS, subdivision and lot line adjustment were reviewed by the
City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO:
section 1
That it does hereby approve the Moses Lot 2 Subdivision as
recommended by. the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission consisting
of Lots 2, 2A, and 2B, Aspen Alps South Road, City and Townsite of
Aspen subject to the following conditions:
1. Simultaneous with the recordation of the final plat, Lots 2A
and 2B shall be conveyed to the Aspen Alps Condominium Association
subject to deed restrictions in favor and for the benefit of the
City of Aspen permanently prohibiting any future development on
said lots. Further development shall include the application or
crediting of the lots toward additional lot area for floor area,
bedrooms and density purposes for all existing or future Aspen Alps
Condominium Association buildings. For Lots 2A and 2B, further
development shall include additional floor area, bedrooms and
density or major new recreational facilities such as tennis courts
and swimming pools. The deed restrictions shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Attorney.
2. A final plat and subdivision agreement shall be filed within
180 days of final land use approval by the City Council in the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders office. The final plat shall be
reviewed and approved by the Engineering and Planning Departments.
3. The final plat shall depict the following:
a. Lots 2, 2A and 2B;
b. that Lots 2A and 2B are restricted against any further
development or additional lot area for floor area, bedrooms
and density purposes for all existing and future Aspen Alps
Condominium Association buildings. The documents restricting
Lots 2A and 2B shall be referenced by the Book and Page
number.
c. the new access onto Lot 1 Moses Lot Split;
d. graphic description of the zoning designations for Lot 2;
2
#34 j16 09/03/92 16:22 Rec s600 Br 687 PG 903
• Silvia Davis, Fitk:in Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00
e. no parking allowed along the Aspen Alps South Road unless
approved by the Fire Marshal;
f. an easement indicating Lot 2 access off of the Aspen Alps
South Road.
g. all improvements on Lot 2 including the entire length of
the actual access road and the revised access easement
including the roadway surface;
h. the contents of the final plat must meet Sections 24-7 -
1004-D.1 and -D.2 of the Municipal Code. There must be a
statement by the surveyor, either in a surveyor's certificate
or in a general note, that all easements of record have been
shown on the plat. The date must be within the past 12
months;
i. in the event any of the applicants obtain title to the
USFS Tract as depicted on the plat they shall deed restrict
said tract against all development. Said deed restriction
shall be in favor and for the benefit of the City of Aspen and
shall be approved by the City Attorney.
4. The width of the access easement to Lot 1 Moses Lot Split
across Lot 2 shall meet code requirements (20').
Section 2
That it does hereby approve the Lot Line Adjustment between the
Mitchell parcel and the Mitchell /Bornefeld parcel (to be conveyed
to the Aspen Alps Condominium Association) on Aspen Alps South Road
with the following conditions:
1. The lot line adjustment between the Mitchell parcel and the
Mitchell /Bornefeld parcel (to be conveyed to the Aspen Alps
Condominium Association) shall be depicted on the final subdivision
plat for Moses Lot 2.
2. The final plat shall contain a note stating that no additional
floor area shall be granted due to the increase in lot size of the
Mitchell parcel.
Section 3:
That it does hereby grant Vested Rights in perpetuity for this
Subdivision, Lot Line Adjustment, and 8040 Greenline including a
5,000 square foot single family residence (allowable floor area
which includes exemptions allowed for in Chapter 24 of the
Municipal Code) as approved by the Commission on April 7, 1992,
(please see Resolution 6 (1992), Exhibit A attached hereto and
incorporated herein) with conditions as follows:
3
#3483C09/03/92 16:22 Rec $60.00 687 P8 904
Silvia Davis, P'it Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00
1. Any failure to abide by the terms and conditions
attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of
said vested rights. Failure to timely and properly
record all plats and agreements as specified herein and
or in the Municipal Code shall also result in the
forfeiture of vested rights.
2. The approvals as granted herein are subject to all rights
of referendum and judicial review.
3. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall
exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent
reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or
the general rules, regulations or ordinances of the City
provided that such reviews or approvals are not
inconsistent with the approvals granted and vested
herein. •
4. The establishment herein of the vested property right
shall not preclude the application of ordinances or
regulations which are general in nature and are
applicable to all property subject to land use regulation
by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to,
building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical
codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site
development approval, the developer shall abide by any
and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and
mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is
granted in writing.
Section 4:
The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to be published
in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen no
later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption hereof.
Such notice shall be given 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 Title 24, Article 68,
Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following -
described property:
The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said
notice shall be the ordinance granting such approval.
Section 5:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of
this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional
by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision and such
holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
4
C #348316 09/03/92 16:22 Fe'$60.00 BK 687 Ps 899
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Doc $.00
0_41(1E04/Li( -1
STATE OF COLORADO )
ul,t�ie'k L ) ss.
COUNTY OF )
is instrument is hereby acknowledged before me this /,e day of
a 1 1 , 1992, by Leon Hirsch as President of Moses Aspen View Horifhsitet
nc. a Co orado corporation. ,ti• % • *•
Witness my hand and official seal. (r 1 J
My commission expires Milli- j ( 1 (�� � �� ' 1 ,
_. , tie,t C _
tar
N y Public
STATE OF TEXAS )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HARRIS )
This instrument is hereby acknowledged before me thisoc ' day of
0; 41..C. , 1992, by George P. Mitchell.
Witness my hand and official seal. •
My commission expires: C� ttLJ '--1 �) /961V
1
DEBRA B.ccov iLL'Z4_, 2 c- (1 a-7_
r *, Nat Pul a. Mated Torras Notary Public •
Ni Onastlan Fxpa y
AUGUST 31, 1994
) ss.
COUNTY OF HARRIS )
(� This nstrument is hereby acknowledged before me this 7 S
day of
l� is , 1992, by H.A. Bornefeld, Jr.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
A
�`Q J• SL4N '' 1
ls` PG '1 �
j � �� ` _ No Publ
} s14/toft0°
b'. FXpiatS
10058. 5
. • #348316 09/03/92 16:22 Rec $60.00 BK 687 PG 905
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00
thereof.
section 6:
This ordinance shall not effect 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 7:
�c..)
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 269
day ()Oran at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City
Hall, Aspeg Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a
public notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper
of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by
t�ty Council of the City of Aspen on the 0 21
day of
{ t , 1992.
/ PG, (Frr
John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST: ia`
Kathryn . Koch, City Clerk
����' " FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this Y day of
%^-e- , 1992. 9,4 13
John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
itt ._ /t
Kathryn S. 'och, City Clerk
5
#348 09/03/92 16:22 Rec $60. i'� 687 F6 900
Si1v1 Davis, Pitkin Cnty C1erk:,"lioc $.uO
EXHIBIT A
A tract of land situated in Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th
P.M., more fully described as follows:
Beginning at a point whence Aspen Townsite Corner No. One bears South 38 °35'30"
East 321.70 feet and South 28 °28'00" West 93.91 feet;
Thence North 38 °35'30" West 223.91 feet;
Thence South 50°15'00" West 102.08 feet;
Thence North 39 °56'30" West 51.36 feet;
Thence South 49 °48'00" West 80.47 feet;
Thence North 39 °52'04" West 96.21 feet;
Thence North 26 °22'42" West 34.68 feet;
Thence North 13 °51'00" West 47.51 feet;
Thence North 28 °34'00" East 57.60 feet;
Thence North 39 °56'30" West 5.50 feet;
Thence South 67 °16'58" West 40.08 feet;
Thence North 72 °08'37" West 44.48 feet;
Thence North 49 °47'51" West 79.80 feet;
Thence North 70 °09'49" West 72.21 feet;
Thence South 14 °43'47" West 10.34 feet;
Thence North 80 °30'00" West 80.75 feet;
Thence South 44 °59'00" West 67.30 feet;
Thence South 04 °30'00" West 593.34 feet;
Thence North 43 °29'00" East 112.76 feet;
Thence South 43 °46'00" East 207.95 feet;
Thence North 45 °00'00" East 69.36 feet;
Thence South 43 °46'00" East 5.00 feet;
Thence North 45 °00'00" East 170.64 feet;
Thence North 21.32 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 48.60 feet (the
chord of which bears South 58 °40'14" West 21.15 feet);
Thence North 45 °00'00" East 243.38 feet;
Thence South 45 °00'00" East 127.37 feet;
Thence North 53 °51'00" East 152.24 feet to the Point of beginning,
EXCEPTING THE FOLLOWING PARCELS RECORDED IN THE PITKIN
COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER'S OFFICE; Buildings A, 13 and C, Aspen
Alps South, as the same are shown on the Condominium Map recorded in Plat Book 3
at page 54 and the 700 Building, Aspen Alps South, as the same is shown on the First
Supplement to Condominium Map of Aspen Alps South recorded in Plat Book 3 at
page 373; the Mitchell House Site as described on the Plat; and Govemment Lot 42,
Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M.
10061.
,r EXHIBIT C
'1/4 1 1
lilt m.u.o AL ca ,N 1 1
11I c4 t c"�.c..•i4 Mr;
t'. aac / 3 42 1 - _i i I- PVC
I • gar / - x S-
11 `�' ;11, — r t $ F _ .s
'4�' ..F• r � C . K C:° «- - fi�err--
11 t o
I�i &_ Ti S�I. tl`vf F:. F h x i + q \P ie l acr < x ' U) Yt•
vF ei
11 ''s. te_ '° - - • "a ! �.� \Zx, y ••yy Ir a+ -� „ r__ I r
11 ! r 'yam � \ C p \� \ \ \\� \ a - ; 0, \3 !0 y , 4 :xe 1 r. C4 III t �Y'�,]rmt -r Za i h _ \�� \ c ti ?; �\ ' �`, s r �A �J < co •'
ppa Ua -,�\\ !\\ rx wa a : - Y '‘,2-Z\ � 1 t , a r x n 1-+
, �ri N P' ;d� a.� /� \ \` t— rig ,:f.:-.& r ., F r a •1 Q
'5'0„ 1R 111 ' /,S a 7 tiF t a " >. 6 ^" ", i w i 41
to SS e -_ - I' . Xi ii* ` ' i &i !.; ' ...it. t IA
t. \ \\ ' _ S i 1 Vt , \
: . { G 1LY.F s ` � S e , - - Y � , a v \ \ $ c SF , ft tilt .y 17:°;;;;;;;t1§ e 5 ,, '. .nc ab', s < \i ,� , r. 1-+.
p� Ai - F• I� `S 4f ZGs, o � + " � + mega, n \ 1 V '- \�\ t 6„ o s� n �tt t ! / /,-/ /
... °"". is 6 "• u =ooh °w - . \ e rt . • 7 !I ) �
S n,v -T E--, ^ van _ i ` \ = \ \ \ _ <.4` _ " ^T " .. ,I Z J` I I
... ' : I - ____ � ` \t om � "' N k ,� i __-_ _ \ `\ `• if{
N_atsVPUV,.arPUa1JN— O a . d i 'F E 5 3 „ .� • ' . ! ' a . ' a .. <11 ? b , u \\ Y .
os c p ., eF^ )q C$c IN R xk iz F z t ,
6C e . - 4 ' s Cti 6; se 3 r i € i', S `* +_.�., >``� �d�� F O �1
L r $ 6C'jSB�EA o 6 � �� ` . i ;4. t '7 ° x i i ' n T.
\\ .VH//��i 111,,, s ,. W 0`
> > > o o > o 3 \ • 'n t o o ' �∎ ,> \ r
w ,6 K R v £ ?..s.- 45 2 z �� 7 . ?; Y \ / o'. ♦4 `.t C �' 'J
g :_ g f It r T •
0
rs
r[ V t vim, &
i I I _ E" �S c •i > ux :z catz 390 s ^' O
� fz 5x� B > � ., cec A ] ft € - � N 4 16 q R 42s,,,!;;744 -:.:z.:::"...-Ps 4 i g T
°P ! y y°5 �.1 %o s4 ]r � € VI '..1:0 c g° 8 f'3tq s R r t Q -
a-, R z'
si
P. ;15'' R 9 -S r 4 l s§z ° €R9� 4 ___ J=i - ' o , a f a 2 C SRF1;;J..?' ; $ ° i ff�
.
s. #t c fi s x c y " n • se IO - `1 .k - -4 -a t x .. a 0 tac . ti O
a 6 1 tx Yk t" -. ! V \ ! ! r.� J � ,:- S6v ." %2 =.2!1 c l y sa — 4
p rA r e V Z
f 1 erg
'hi, it 4 m ✓( M \ i •p; " ; a -�G x
; �Y 6 9 e ' tR��b e } F h� t m m H
e Y L , $ $
-A `\ \Y L kE] 53° i'Z Y tf S m
N x r 7. 6 a . V° ` S �v " ° ^. ;S 2.2:4e7.5 ia$a Z •
q V- b 6 a s s 6. t . q - ° x ] 4R F G1 �ix
an S o- cIA I. SC 3: ; � \-G "' '4 k L f 3 R' t - -' < a VI
;4 z e . - ) zy C t f d 6 A O
R g c�
_ x 72 Ld ° C a 0. 4K ;t: . '^ 0.0 C
F S fi r ]'i V. s -it”z • x i `tf C x 4 6 a q' i " G ? X fYa{P SatF c F 9 Zy = ~ _
°` [. R 9x L 1:€ F b' P A f > x
S t i ec c °;08 ' s, .t 6 x V ag 0] 9 � L fie 6 6f a a. e S 4 t ] c t 3 - - ' D -ti
} 72 o 7; ; .3_ i.- . .g rt - °e L ] .4t
K 6 I f j -, ;" 1 .15.; ;;; ' C x. tq r y Fti' Y _ 1. [t:5 . Z aal0 2 D
D
t ] a ` St t ? - a [ Le ? r 4 .. 0
1 e s I. ° t4 r _ o f ' I �m r
g i - ..4 y 2 .a -x p 2 s o k tS mrA D
t$ =
q : x '(L t x ? S o > 3 s r 4q;15,! t. 7 e c z c I) . o o m
1Dv t a t - l � z 2 ib t a - a . I - ,u2 i r
f c E 6 Y D m 7:
''l R 6 Ft . . 2
4 . 1 ;i .� � ,- - OZ z, i0 m D
; yN 1 's [ Z
[ ..Z a �Z - ] c Z, D n -£ ^ X 0
0 Z
:TIDY, . 10 - Z : 0> D� n 0
• t y o -10 - g3Z ▪ .e - - vZ
w - . 7 ] x _ - . D D - O ] A Z 0 2
O ti : s f . O • inn - s yr
D - p
Z �C �
r - z a v .. -C m
FA
,� _ - ten `I -
ii
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.G. JUL - 2
RONALD GARFIELD* ATTORNEYS AT LAW TELEPHONE
ANDREW V. HECHT ** VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING (303) 925 -1936
ROBERT E. KENDIG TELECOPIER
MICHAEL 1. HERRON * ** 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE (303) 925 -3008
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
JANE ELLEN HAMILTON
*Mao admitted to
New York Bar June 30, 1992
••also admitted to
Oistrici of Columbia Bar
^also admiacd to
• Florida Bar
Leslie Lamont
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Planning and Zoning Resolution 92 -6, Moses Lot Split
Dear Leslie:
I am sending this letter to clarify your undated letter in
reference to the above matter, a copy of which is attached hereto.
The reason I am writing is that I was concerned as to what was
meant by Alan's understandings. Alan has explained to me that his
understandings are set forth in his letter to you dated June 22,
1992, a copy of which is also attached hereto.
On the assumption that that is correct and in order to clarify
the record, I would appreciate your signing the enclosed copy of
this letter that will indicate that your letter to Alan was in
response to his letter of June 22, 1992 and that the understandings
referred to in your letter are those stated in his letter.
Very truly yours,
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
Michael J. Herron
MJH /bc
enclosures
I agree that the foregoing statements are correct.
AP
r� JLLNl►A
eslie Lamont, alanner
JUN — 2 S— 5 2 T H U 8 : 3 5 A S P E N P R O P E R T I E S P_ 0 1
r .
t�
1
Aspen /Pit ���'' � ing Office
130 `, �; :r treet
Asp I 611
(303) 92i ;t , ' = `r`•‘• 920-5197
Mr. Alan Richman
Alan Richman Planning services
Box 3613
Aspen, Colorado 81612
RE: Planning and Zoning Resolution 92 -6, Moses Lot Split
Dear Alan,
it s
'this letter is to cortirm that your understanding of conditions 15
for the 8040 Greenline and 2a of the Subdivision recommendation in
92 -6 are correct.
•
s2c
Leslie Lamont, Planning
Post brand tax transmittal memo 7671 I # or pages ■
To V.‘ `4. Q(16
From
Co. (,aaG. te,(14Ae -st co.
Dept. Phone Ai ota
Fex# p. ys... 3 008 FaxM gr 2S r `d'3 l3
. ic{leuu.w:ar�9
.)t recycled popot
ASPEN P E N PROPERTIES P. 6 1
J UN — S —'3 '-�- THU 15 :7S
Post -W brand fax transmittal memo 7671 I # of Moo
Yo "`` l, r�ll 1 ( 2.R \y 4.,. From Pk, \ �..
CO , (raa . te okQ Co. Y
Dept. mono at a4 Gas
Fa " tkt -S 30a % Fen d p1.21i 4
June 22, 1992
Ms. Leslie Lamont, Planner
Aspen /Pitkin county Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: P &Z RESOLUTION 01 APPROVAL, LOT 2, MOSES LOT SPLIT
Dear Leslie,
This letter is a follow -up to our telephone conversation today,
during which we spoke about P &Z Resolution 92 -6, which grants 8040
Greenline approval and recommends Subdivision approval for Lot 2,
Moses Lot Split.
Since the Resolution has been recorded and cannot be changed, the
applicant requests that the City clarify the following two
conditions within the Resolution.
condition 15 of the 8040 Greenline approval requires the applicant
to bear "a proportionate share of the public improvements to serve
the project ". We wish to clarify the meaning of the term "public
improvements ". We understand this term to mean those costs
associated with necessary public utilities (water supply, sewage
disposal, and electric, telephone and natural gas service) and
public roads, sidewalks and drainage ditches serving the site.
Condition 2a of the Subdivision recommendation (which also appears
verbatim in City Council ordinance 31) requires the final plat to
depict the land which is to be, conveyed to the Aspen Alps
Condominium Association. We understand this condition to require
us to clearly depict Lots 2A and 2B, which are to be so conveyed.
We would appreciate it if you would please let us know, in writing,
if our understandings of these two conditions are correct.
Very truly yours,
ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES
Alan Richman, AICP
r�lau �tc�. plasm sewieed
to 3613, rf4*a s, ids, t /61 t Pia 1303) 920-1125
June 22, 1992
Ms. Leslie Lamont, Planner
Aspen /Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: P &Z RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL, LOT 2, MOSES LOT SPLIT
Dear Leslie,
This letter is a follow -up to our telephone conversation today,
during which we spoke about P &Z Resolution 92 -6, which grants 8040
Greenline approval and recommends Subdivision approval for Lot 2,
Moses Lot Split.
Since the Resolution has been recorded and cannot be changed, the
applicant requests that the City clarify the following two
conditions within the Resolution.
Condition 15 of the 8040 Greenline approval requires the applicant
to bear "a proportionate share of the public improvements to serve
the project ". We wish to clarify the meaning of the term "public
improvements ". We understand this term to mean those costs
associated with necessary public utilities (water supply, sewage
disposal, and electric, telephone and natural gas service) and
public roads, sidewalks and drainage ditches serving the site.
Condition 2a of the Subdivision recommendation (which also appears
verbatim in City Council Ordinance 31) requires the final plat to
depict the land which is to be conveyed to the Aspen Alps
Condominium Association. We understand this condition to require
us to clearly depict Lots 2A and 2B, which are to be so conveyed.
We would appreciate it if you would please let us know, in writing,
if our understandings of these two conditions are correct.
Very truly yours,
ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES
1 4 1.4hA s
Alan Richman, AICP
Mr. Alan Richman
Alan Richman Planning Services
Box 3613
Aspen, Colorado 81612
RE: Planning and Zoning Resolution 92 -6, Moses Lot Split
Dear Alan,
This letter is to confirm that your understanding of conditions 15
for the 8040 Greenline and 2a of the Subdivision recommendation in
92 -6 are correct.
Sincerely,
Leslie Lamont, Planning
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
THRU: Diane Moore, City Planning DirectoF
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning l
DATE: June 8, 1992
RE: Moses Lot 2 Subdivision, Lot Line Adjustment and Vested
Rights, Aspen Alps South Road, City of Aspen, Second
Reading Ordinance 31, Series of 1992.
SUMMARY: The applicant seeks to subdivide Lot 2 of the Moses Lot
Split and a Lot Line Adjustment between subdivided Lot 2 and the
Mitchell parcel. The applicants also seek Vested Rights for 8040
Greenline, Subdivision, and Lot Line Adjustment approval.
Subdivision is a two step review. The Planning and Zoning
Commission reviewed the subdivision and recommends approval with
conditions to Council.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council approved Ordinance 31, Series of
1992 at First Reading April 27, 1992.
Council tabled second reading at the May 26, 1992 hearing in order
for the applicant and staff to review Vested Rights legislation and
determine the scope of requested vesting for this project.
The City Attorney, along with the Planning Director, have
determined that the 8040 Greenline review for the Moses Lot 2
redevelopment and subdivision was in fact a site specific
development plan that approved a 5,000 square foot (allowable floor
area) single family residence. Therefore, the applicant requests
that the subdivision of Moses Lot 2, the lot line adjustment
between the Mitchell property and Aspen Alps South Road, and the
8040 Greenline approval, which includes a 5,000 single family home,
be vested for 3 years pursuant to Section 24 -6 -207 of the Municipal
Code.
The attached Ordinance has been amended to reflect the vesting of
this project.
Although previous attachments and review criteria have been
eliminated from this memo the entire packet was submitted as part
of the public record at the May 26, 1992 hearing.
c
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve the subdivision for Moses Lot
2 with the conditions recommended by the Planning and Zoning
Commission."
"I move to approve the lot line adjustment between the Mitchell
parcel and the Mitchell /Bornefeld parcel (to be conveyed to the
Aspen Alps Homeowners Association) with the conditions as
recommended by the Planning Department."
"I move to approve vested rights with the conditions as recommended
by the Planning Department for 8040 Greenline Approval, Subdivision
and Lot Line Adjustment."
"I move to adopt Ordinance 31, Series of 1992, on Second Reading."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Ordinance 31, Series of 1992
2
ORDINANCE NO. 31
(SERIES OF 1992)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING SUBDIVISION FOR
LOT 2 OF THE MOSES LOT SPLIT, A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE
MITCHELL PARCEL AND THE MITCHELL /BORNEFELD PARCEL, AND VESTED
RIGHTS FOR 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW, SUBDIVISION, AND THE LOT LINE
ASPEN
NT ALL LOCATED ON ASP4N PS SOUTH R , CITY AND TOWN= ,
WHEREAS, pursuant o Sections 24 -7 -50 and 24 -7 -1004 C of th - "'
Municipal Code the applicant, Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc., the 1
Aspen Alps Homeowners Association and George Mitchell have
submitted an application for subdivision of Lot 2 of the Moses Lot • / ,
Split and a lot line adjustment for the Mitchell parcel and the
Mitchell /Bornefeld parcel all located on the Aspen Alps South Road, i `/
City of Aspen; and
P /,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24 -6 -207 of the Municipal Code, the /._t
applicant has also requested Vested Rights of the subdivision and •
lot line adjustment and 8040 Greenline; and c 1 '
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing held April 7, 1992, the/
Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the 8040 Greenline and 6
Subdivision proposal; and
WHEREAS, the Commission approved the 8040 Greenline review (see
attached Commission Resolution 6, exhibit A attached hereto and
incorporated herein); and
WHEREAS, the Commission also recommends to the City Council
subdivision approval for Lot 2 Moses Lot Split; and
WHEREAS, the subdivision of Lot 2 eliminates the floor area cap of
3,800 square feet that was originally imposed upon Lot 2 during the
1987 Moses Lot Split, and allowable floor area shall hereafter be
consistent with the R -15 zone district Section 24- 5- 202(D)(10) of
the Municipal Code and the 1992 8040 Greenline approval by the
Commission; and
WHEREAS, subdivision and lot line adjustment were reviewed by the
City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
That it does hereby approve Subdivision as recommended by the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission for Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split,
Aspen Alps South Road, City and Townsite of Aspen, for the
1
development of a 5,000 square foot (allowable floor area which
includes exemptions allowed for in Chapter 24 of the Municipal
Code) single family home with the following conditions:
1. Simultaneous with the recordation of the final plat, the
applicant shall convey Lots 2A and 2B to the Aspen Alps Homeowners
Association with restriction on said lots against any further
development. Further development shall include but not limited to
additional lot area for floor area, bedrooms and density purposes
on existing Alps buildings or the tennis courts lot and land
conveyed by the owner of Lot 2 Moses Lot Split.
2. A final plat and subdivision agreement shall be filed within
180 days of final land use approval by the City Council in the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder office. The final plat shall be
reviewed and approved by the Engineering and Planning Departments.
3. The final plat shall depict the following:
a. the tennis courts and land on Lot 2 Moses Lot Split that
is conveyed to the Aspen Alps Condominium Association.
b. That Lots 2A and 2B are restricted against any further
development or additional lot area for floor area, bedrooms
and density purposes on existing Alps buildings or the tennis
courts lot and land conveyed by the owner of Lot 2 Moses Lot
Split.
c. The new access onto Lot 1 Moses Lot Split.
d. Graphic description of the zoning designations of Lot 2
Moses Lot Split.
e. No parking allowed along the Aspen Alps South Road unless
approved by the Fire Marshal.
f. An easement indicating Lot 2 Moses Lot Split access off of
the Aspen Alps South Road.
g. All improvements on the site including the entire length
of the actual access road and the revised access easement
including the roadway surface.
h. The contents of the final plat must meet Sections 24-7 -
1004-D.1 and -D.2 of the municipal code. There must be a
statement by the surveyor, either in a surveyor's certificate
or in a general note, that all easements of record have been
shown on the plat. The date must be within the past 12
months.
i. The tract presently identified as the USFS Tract shall be
deed restricted against further development.
2
4. The width of the access eas to Lot 1 across Lot 2 shall
meet co a requirements (20')
&sup ,
Section 2 - J J �
That is does hereby approve the Lo Line
o •justment between the
Mitchell parcel and the Mitchell /Bornefeld parcel (to be conveyed
to the Aspen Alps Homeowners Association) on Aspen Alps South Road
with the following conditions:
1. The lot line adjustment between the Mitchell parcel and the
Mitchell /Bornefeld parcel (to be conveyed to the Aspen Alps
Homeowners Association) shall be depicted on the final subdivision
plat for Moses Lot 2.
2. The final plat shall contain a note stating that no additional
floor. area shall be granted to the Mitchell parcel due to the
increase in lot size.
Section 3:
That is does hereby grant Vested Rights for this Subdivision, Lot
Line Adjustment, and 8040 Greenline including a 5,000 square foot
single family residence (allowable floor area which includes
exemptions allowed for in Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code) as
approved by the Commission on April 7, 1992, (please see Resolution
92 -6, exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein) for a
period of three (3) years with conditions as follows:
1. The rights granted in the site specific development plan
approved by this Ordinance shall remain vested for three
(3) years from the date of final adoption specified
y(� below. However, any failure to abide by the terms and
conditions attendant to this approval shall result in
forfeiture of said vested rights. Failure to timely and
e properly record all plats and agreements as specified
herein and or in the Municipal Code shall also result in
fl I j the forfeiture of vested rights.
g ,71
�� 2. The approvals as granted herein are subject to all rights
of referendum and judicial review.
3. Nothing in the approvals pprovals provided in this Ordinance shall
exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent
reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or
the general rules, regulations or ordinances of the City
provided that such reviews or approvals are not
inconsistent with the approvals granted and vested
herein.
3
4. The establishment herein of the vested property right
shall not preclude the application of ordinances or
regulations which are general in nature and are
applicable to all property subject to land use regulation
by the City of .Aspen including, but not limited to,
building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical
codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site
development approval, the developer shall abide by any
and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and
mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is
granted in writing.
Section 4:
The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to be published
in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen no
later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption hereof.
Such notice shall be given 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 Title 24, Article 68,
Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following -
described property:
The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said
notice shall be the ordinance granting such approval.
Section 5:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of
this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional
by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision and such
holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
thereof.
Section 6:
This ordinance shall not effect 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 7:
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
day of at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City
Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a
public notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper
of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
4
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by
the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of
, 1992.
John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of
, 1992.
John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn 8. Koch, City Clerk
5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager( ►�/
THRU: Diane Moore, City Planning Direct r
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning \\
DATE: May 26, 1992
RE: Moses Lot 2 Subdivision, Lot Line Adjustment and Vested
Rights, Aspen Alps South Road, City of Aspen, Second
Reading Ordinance 31, Series of 1992.
SUMMARY: The applicant seeks to subdivide Lot 2 of the Moses Lot
Split and a Lot Line Adjustment between subdivided Lot 2 and the
Mitchell parcel. The applicants also seek Vested Rights for 8040
Greenline, Subdivision, and Lot Line Adjustment approval.
Subdivision is a two step review. The Planning and Zoning
Commission reviewed the subdivision and recommends approval with
conditions to Council.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council approved Ordinance 31, Series of
1992 at First Reading April 27, 1992.
Please see attached Ordinance 31, Series of 1992 for the
subdivision and lot line adjustment, Attachment A.
BACKGROUND: Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc., the Aspen Alps
Condominium Association, and George Mitchell as represented by Alan
Richman, have submitted an application for a lot line adjustment,
subdivision and vested rights.
The applicant seeks to demolish an existing single family home on
Moses Lot 2 and rebuild a 5,000 square foot home with a 500 square
foot garage. The applicant also seeks to subdivide Moses Lot 2 to
include the Mitchell /Bornefeld parcel.
Please see attached maps depicting the various proposals, exhibit
B.
The applicant has several objectives with regard to the purchase
of the 4+ acre parcel from Mitchell / Bornefeld and Lot 2 of the
Moses Lot Split. They are as follows:
1. The 1987 lot split that created Lots 1 and 2 of the Moses lot
Split was conditioned upon a limitation on the area of the homes
not to exceed 3,800 square feet of floor area per house.
r"
The applicant requests that the restriction be lifted and replaced
with a 5,000 square foot allowable floor area restriction.
2. The applicant requests that the lot line of Moses Lot 2 be
revised to include sufficient lot area to allow a floor area of
5,000 square feet. The required land area is provided by the 4+
acre parcel purchased from Mitchell /Bornefeld. This requires a
re- subdivision of Moses Lot 2 because a lot line adjustment is
meant for small technical boundary adjustments and adjustments that
do not affect the development rights or permitted density of the
affected lots. In addition, the applicant seeks to amend a prior
condition of approval.
3. 8040 Greenline review is required for the development of the
new single family residence on Moses Lot 2. The 8040 Greenline was
reviewed and approved by the Commission at their April 7, 1992
meeting.
4. The applicant intends to convey the remaining land area (the
land that is not needed for an allowable floor area of 5,000 sq.
ft.) to the Aspen Alps Condominium Association, a Colorado non-
profit corporation. The tennis courts, which are defined in the
Land Use Code as a separate parcel because of the long term lease,
will also be deeded to the Association.
The Aspen Alps Condominium Association, in an attempt to preserve
the open space around buildings 300, 400, 500, and 700 and the
parking along Aspen Alps South Road and tennis courts tried to
purchase the 4+ acres. But technical reasons have prevented the
Association from assessing homeowners for the acquisition of
property. The Aspen View Homesite, Inc. is willing to convey the
property to the Association.
The Association commits to restrict the two parcels (land deeded
by Lot 2 and the tennis courts) against further development or
utilization of the land for density and floor area purposes
provided Lot 2 is allowed 5,000 square feet of allowable floor area
for the development of a single family residence.
5. A Lot Line Adjustment is also requested to clear up a survey
error between the platted Aspen Alps South Road and the actual road
and to convey to Mr. Mitchell the area which he currently uses for
parking.
CURRENT ISSUES:
I. According to the application the applicant has recently
purchased Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split. The applicant has also
obtained an option to purchase an approximately 4 acre parcel known
as the "Mitchell /Bornefeld property ". This parcel surrounds the
300, 400, 500, and 700 buildings of the Aspen Alps.
2
•
There are separately owned parcels within the Alps development -
the Mitchell House; the Aspen Alps 300, 400, and 500 buildings;
the Aspen Alps 700 building; and Lot 42 which is a small tract of
land owned by the US Forest Service. An application to obtain the
USFS tract has been filed by Mitchell /Bornefeld pursuant to the
Small Tracts Act.
II. The 83 unit Aspen Alps Condominiums lie within the L /TR, R-
6, R -15 (PUD) zone districts. When the original plat was filed in
the 1960's by the developers, Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Bornefeld, they
only designated those lands on which the 300, 400, 500, and 700
buildings were constructed as general common elements, owned by the
unit owners as tenants in common. The developers retained
ownership of the remaining property that surrounds the buildings.
The Aspen Alps Condominium Association has determined that it would
be in the owner's best interest to secure greater control over the
undeveloped parcels within the Aspen Alps area. The Associations'
intent is to prevent future development which may substantially
affect their property. In addition, the Association wishes to
obtain title to the road and parking areas that serve their
buildings.
According to the application, in order to secure the surrounding
undeveloped property the Association has entered into a contract
to purchase the Mitchell /Bornefeld property and must assign this
contract to Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc. (owner of the Moses Lot
2) who will convey a significant portion back to the Association
for open space.
The property owner of Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc., a past Aspen
Alps homeowner, proposes to demolish the existing single family
residence on Moses Lot 2 and build a new 5,000 square foot
residence containing 5 bedrooms and a 500 sq. ft. garage.
The driveway to Lot 2 will be provided off of the Aspen Alps South
Road. Gaard Moses also proposes to create a new driveway spur off
of the South Road thereby creating a separate access for Moses Lot
1.
The proposed expanded Moses Lot 2 parcel encompasses two underlying
zone districts. A survey provided with the application confirms
that more than 75% of the land area within the proposed Lot 2 is
zone R -15 (PUD) with the remainder of the lot is zoned
Conservation. The Aspen Land Use Code, Section 5 -508, states that
when a use is allowed in all underlying zone districts and more
than 75% of the land area of the parcel is within the zone district
permitting the higher density, then "the use shall be developed
using the dimensional requirements and off- street parking
requirement of the Zone District permitting the higher density,
which shall be calculated on the basis of the land area and
development of the entire parcel ".
3
e-
- Thus, in addition to acquiring the land to prevent future
development, the proposed re- subdivision of Lot 2 is necessary to
increase the land area to permit a 5,000 square foot residence
pursuant to R -15 zone district requirements.
For pertinent Subdivision, Lot Line Adjustment and Vested Rights
review standards please see attachment D.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends subdivision approval
for Moses Lot 2 with the following conditions:
1. Simultaneous with the recordation of the final plat, the
applicant shall convey Lots 2A and 2B to the Aspen Alps Homeowners
Association with restriction on said lots against any further
development. Further development shall include but not limited to
additional lot area for floor area, bedrooms and density purposes
on existing Alps buildings or the tennis courts lot and land
conveyed by the owner of Lot 2 Moses Lot Split.
2. A final plat and subdivision agreement shall be filed within
180 days of final land use approval by the City Council in the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder office. The final plat shall be
reviewed and approved by the Engineering and Planning Departments.
3. The final plat shall depict the following:
a. the tennis courts and land on Lot 2 Moses Lot Split that
is conveyed to the Aspen Alps Condominium Association.
b. That Lots 2A and 2B are restricted against any further
development or additional lot area for floor area, bedrooms
and density purposes on existing Alps buildings or the tennis
courts lot and land conveyed by the owner of Lot 2 Moses Lot
Split.
c. The new access onto Lot 1 Moses Lot Split.
d. Graphic description of the zoning designations of Lot 2
Moses Lot Split.
e. No parking allowed along the Aspen Alps South Road unless
approved by the Fire Marshal.
f. An easement indicating Lot 2 Moses Lot Split access off of
the Aspen Alps South Road.
g. All improvements on the site including the entire length
of the actual access road and the revised access easement
including the roadway surface.
4
• h. The contents of the final plat must meet Sections 24-7 -
1004-D.1 and -D.2 of the municipal code. There must be a
statement by the surveyor, either in a surveyor's certificate
or in a general note, that all easements of record have been
shown on the plat. The date must be within the past 12
months.
i. The tract presently identified as the USFS Tract shall be
deed restricted against further development.
4. The width of the access easement to Lot 1 across Lot 2 shall
meet code requirements (20').
Staff recommends approval of the lot line adjustment with the
following conditions:
1. The lot line adjustment between the Mitchell parcel and the
Mitchell /Bornefeld parcel (to be conveyed to the Aspen Alps
Homeowners Association) shall be depicted on the final subdivision
plat for Moses Lot 2.
2. The final plat shall contain a note stating that no additional
floor area shall be granted to the Mitchell parcel due to the
increase in lot size.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve the subdivision for Moses Lot
2 with the conditions recommended by the Planning and Zoning
Commission."
"I move to approve the lot line adjustment between the Mitchell
parcel and the Mitchell /Bornefeld parcel (to be conveyed to the
Aspen Alps Homeowners Association) with the conditions as
recommended by the Planning Department."
"I move to approve vested rights with the conditions as recommended
by the Planning Department for 8040 Greenline Approval, Subdivision
and Lot Line Adjustment."
"I move to adopt Ordinance 31, Series of 1992, on Second Reading."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Ordinance 31, Series of 1992
B. Maps and Site Tabulations
C. Referral Comments
D. Review Standards for Subdivision, Lot Line Adjustment and
Vested Rights
5
r NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Commission
recommends to the City Council subdivision approval of Lot 2 of the
Moses Lot Split with the following conditions:
1. A final plat and subdivision agreement shall be filed within
180 days of final land use approval by the City Council. A final
plat shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering and Planning
Departments.
2. The final plat shall depict the following:
a. the tennis courts (Lot 2B) and land on Lot 2 Moses Lot
Split that is conveyed to the Aspen Alps Condominium
Association (Lot 2A).
b. Notes shall refer to Deed , Book , Page
indicating the restrictions against any further development
on Lots 2A and 2B, or additional lot area for floor area,
bedrooms and density purposes on existing Alps buildings for
the tennis courts lot and land conveyed by the owner of Lot
2 Moses Lot Split.
c. The new access onto Lot 1 Moses Lot Split.
d. Graphic description of the zoning designations of Lot 2
Moses Lot Split.
e. No parking along the road unless approved by the Fire
Marshal.
f. An easement indicating Lot 2 Moses Lot Split access off of
the Aspen Alps South Road.
g. All improvements on the site including the entire length
of the actual access road and the revised access easement
including the roadway surface.
h. The contents of the final plat must meet Sections 24-7 -
1004-D.1 and -D.2 of the municipal code. There must be a
statement by the surveyor, either in a surveyor's certificate
or in a general note, that all easements of record as
indicated on Title Policy No. , dated have
been shown on the plat. The date must be within the past 12
months.
i. The USFS tract, if conveyed to Mitchell /Bornefeld, or heirs
and assigns shall be deed restricted against further
development.
3. The width of the access easement to Lot 1 across Lot 2 shall
meet code requirements (20').
3
•
APPROVED by the Commission at their regular meeting on April 21,
( 1992.
ATTEST: ASPEN PLANNING AND
d----,X �• _ ZONING COMMISSION
-- Carney, Deputy City Cler Jasmine Tygre, Chair erson
1
City Council Exhibit,
Approved , 19 _
By ordinance
,� kea,,7�
o ES oo�o o� -
� Tii.:Actic-it o R te + ;,
C _ Cr
i U 7
O
/ , 7
Cd 1 'i,; -i.�, �
p/T °F 1 o ' ' t c 1
FT ' COL ^ ✓ fv + ; C' % rd' ` ' N N
I kz,
,I==- /a,
P I `� V
L I
VICINITY MAP . , , _,
Title
EXISTING CONDITIONS
REPLAT OF LOT 2, MOSES LOT SPLIT
Zz
AREA TABULATION
ASPEN ALPS + MITCHELL - WR■EPELD 6.356 ACRES
LOT 2, MO-5E5 Lor SPLIT 0.395
A= ENTIRE PARCEL AREA 6.75,E
NET GOVERNMENT LOT 42 0 .44 6
MITCHELL F -I0U5E SITE 0.2333
A5PEN ALPS PARCELS 1.254
b= TOTAL OUT PARCELS 1.963
C= NET ACCE55 EASEMENTS 0.715
NET AREA OF REPLAT (A- D 4.076 ACKE5
y r/ f'
fit..., ,-,,,
AREA TABULATION
LOT 2 1.026 ACRES
LOT 2A 2.241.
L O T 215 O. 8 I I
TOTAL AKEA 4.o7o ACRES
LOT 2 ZONING
R - 15 33473.8 5Q- Fr. = 75.32 %
CONSERVATION 1 I, 03/4.9 5Q. FT" = 2468%
TOTAL AREA 44 ,706.7 SQ. FT. = 100.00 °°
Q� t / AQ Q _ _ tic3:9 o o > a`
8;7 di
1 1111111.1 ilk
i , . OF i a ve...;:c
N ,r
' `�.• 1 C S
00 �Fit/ % ��. ' ; 5. 11
1 4 Q z G F
el ,T �( �
r4 8 :l
-
�1 L---� lam_ R
J
1 v/ t V
VICINITY MAP SCALE.= "= IMO
z>
r^
0
7
•
r,<
ibi . IIK ". -r 'e 4.
> \ \ \� \�J
\ " =it • • '')+' .: /.4 .1 ‘■ % %14 '
s tcs t. k
/ : l e i /
' c ! /
• a
ff. •\ _\ /
yf y \ /
7
_17 ?j / •
\, 1
g \\ / r 4
J
8
'G ;;: j .
.
G3
M
t,9 � r �.
1 1
1, :
ill ; Y
' �� u Z I h • \ .. , Foy \\ � A Z .
r 304 )0 i) ':) i s i
P; I I N420700 03 ` Y4 \gi \� \ 4 • / / ' /
' ! x� �. , ��— 42 0° 1 2055 7000 30
uY:.“ :uhw
by erx '�ay c ' PV � f /\ \
3Y
� \ . r 5 \ \ •
e � p u \ e� C
♦�i4' S iS it I '•�. \
c1 \, /'
', .;, '' ..o r j , \ . \ \
/
a t t \,� y
s \ ' \ v /
i t
4,:i' �`'. �\ ' Y
M i, -I- : A vr- N2
vA
i
8 7
°3 n d8 p d §U, A
N 0 Z DU —I D N roro m
0 0 a� .2 74 74 > 1,z4 m a
ii m > i > s O > co
y 4 3 a Z h ov-
F1—
Elj : • g m_ Z
Nv
Cr u
8xal
8 &N
tom; J
p
F
r.
AS A - _ - —
I
i 700 BUILDING — Y �� i is, ms
\ V
,•
P Yl W
'�.'t .S+L J
1 i e
ii / �e SIGfrM
_ i , I j . „ 4 STING ASPHALT I \ \ U G e et
o \, v \ Mupsoosays
� � � � }.. {• -.... \ .; PRO � I , �_ � �- _ -. :
W I z mo\ s � c '. q � I / \ \ �
\ 2 •• fR / D
I :!'^Lrl E • ., v_,,,� . �Zp, HALT PAKE2 PKIV.= WITFI ~ ''
1- �— ` \ ti \ € _ •� R E T AI NItW 1 m L5 A LON&
a I ° ENTI LENItH OF p21�/�/
' ' \ A Ni \ t — is
\, : 3 t \ A !t$Ke;tL FzOM IF/i4 "cat. 4 UP
rI c
, \ •4 \ EXISTING
:fS k � � ` ^ I1 y 0.4
�,\ �� i. .. -, \ • " c. C \---QT 1 d , (P
I ` I ` \ :' VATE fY�E55 . P , 0 �
{ , 1 \ 1 \ • � p,....� ^ 5EMEi•IT . N AM r P' • \ 1 � � \ R LET I o JO h 4 4p
Lol �. i \, \ \ � , Chili/ . , " � s
0,1 1 t 1 \ 1 \ \ �/' 6 1[ . EI t "}° 4 34
1 I \ 1 1 ' \N$5' 15': -
- -1___ 1 1 I I 0 EXISTING TIt�EES
• 0' - 1 , ,,,,;\ <5h I ff 8' DIA. . ,( i.
1 � � 57o ) 3 1 V 1� l bh, r ' : BUILDINC.F IVELO - HEpU�..E 0
3 7' 1 °` % (SHADED) > ; - I 4 CONtrEP
i E t' L, ti k / MOSR.5 2 i "
� �`\ C7» F . . 10' SIDE yARD � r:v'eWO -i'\ - -12"
j�
I C
. A r •
SETBACK / Q'
�°T� o �„�
/ K% y p - - 7' ASPEN
i'roposed Development Plan w 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW 9" ii , ? ., ,- REPLAT OF LOT 2 MOSES LOT SPLIT C - G" "
I LO / ` Aspen Colorado % - 9 „
IU -
0 20 40' rT S: o L 1 7 Voor i f%eC& Associates, Architects P. T - 7
1 / 246 West 38tR Street
NORTH Nev.? York, NY 1001
0) •
Alan Richman Planning Services
Box 3613
Aspen, Colorado 81612
3 )
/
City Council Exhibit
APProved , 19
By Ordinance
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
Engineering: The following comments are provided as a follow up
to several site visits and review of the application:
1. Existing conditions map shows access drive with note about
parking along drive. Twenty feet is required to be provided for
emergency access. There cannot be parking in this 20' easement.
The final plat must indicate that parking along road is not
permitted unless approved by the Fire Marshall.
2. The final plat will have to reflect all improvements on the
site including the entire length of the actual access road. The
access easement must be revised to include the roadway surface.
3. The contents of the final plat must meet Sections 24-7 -1004-
D.1 and -D.2 of the municipal code. There must be a statement by
the surveyor, either in a surveyor's certificate or in a general
note, that all easements of record as indicated on Title Policy
No. , dated , have been shown on the plat. The
date must be within the past 12 months.
4. The indicated access easement does not connect with the new Lot
2 or its parking area. Regarding Gaard Moses' new driveway
proposal, the Parks Department expressed concern that the health
of the trees between which the driveway is proposed will be
jeopardized. The condition of approval should state that
construction activities contemplated within the drip line of any
trees greater than 6" in diameter must be approved by the Parks
Department.
Also, the width of the access easement to Lot 1 across Lot 2 shall
meet code requirements (20').
5. The applicant shall provide a letter from a registered
professional engineer that all applicable geotechnical concerns of
the Lampiris letter submitted with the application have been
complied with during construction. This letter must be submitted
prior to final inspection and accepted by the city engineer.
6. Water service - Please obtain comments from Water Department.
There may be agreement in place regarding hook -up reimbursement for
previously constructed water main extension.
7. The request for increased floor area does not appear to be in
conformance with structure size intent as discussed in letter from
Gideon Kaufman, representing Moses, to Alan Richman, Planning
Director, dated October 23, 1986, which requested rezoning and lot
split approval.
10
4 i ✓
8. Since vegetation contributes to slope stability, no vegetation
shall be removed from the slope.
9. The applicant shall agree to join improvement districts formed
for improvements to the public right -of -way particularly Ute
Avenue.
10. The development must meet on -site drainage retention
requirements of Section 24- 7- 1004.C.4.f.
11. The applicant is advised to check with the neighbor, Gaard
Moses, concerning his experiences with roof snow shed problems in
this heavy snowfall area.
Parks Department: Tree removal permits are required for any trees
over 6" in caliper.
Fire Marshal:
1. The Department does have access and a hydrant is available for
fire fighting.
2. Brush should be trimmed within 30' of the structure. This does
not apply to a single specimen of trees or ornamental shrubbery
used as ground cover provided they do not form a means of rapidly
transmitting fire from the native growth to any structure.
3. Remove any portion of any tree with 10' from the outlet of any
chimney. Maintain any tree free of dead wood that is adjacent to
or overhanging the roof. Maintain roof free of leaves, needles
or other dead vegetation.
4. State forest service guidelines for wildfire should be reviewed
by owner.
11
`pity Council Exhibit 1
Approved , 19
By Ordinance
ATTACHMENT D - Review Standards for Subdivision, Lot Line
Adjustment, and Vested Rights
I. Subdivision Review: Pursuant to Section 7 -1004 C of the Land
Use Code the following criteria for the re- subdivision of Lot 2 are
pertinent to this review:
la. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: In 1975 land designated "open space" (above the 8040
elevation) was changed to Conservation. This included the Moses
parcel.
In 1987 the Moses parcel was rezoned from Conservation to R -15
(PUD). The rezoning was granted, as stated in the Planning Office
memo, because the property lies well out of sight of the Little
Nell Slope and due to the grade changes is clearly distinct from
the open slopes and surrounding open space with which "C"
Conservation zoning is intended to protect.
Also in 1987, the Moses parcel received a subdivision exemption for
a lot split creating Lots 1 and 2. A condition of the Lot Split
was the acceptance of a voluntary floor area cap of 3,800 square
feet. The Planning Department accepted this cap to ensure
compatibility with surrounding residences. At the time, according
to the Planning Department memo, the Aspen Chance homes ranged in
size from 3,065 sq. ft. to 6,000 sq. ft. and the home sizes in the
then proposed 1010 Ute subdivision were expected to range from
3,000 sq. ft. and 4,300 sq. ft.
The proposed re- subdivision does not affect the original conclusion
from the 1987 rezoning or Lot Split. Lot 2 is primarily increasing
its size to protect undeveloped land within the Aspen Alps from
future development which is consistent with the large open space
feeling of the Aspen Chance Subdivision to the east of the property
and the Little Nell ski slope on the west side. Although the
increase in Moses Lot 2 enables a larger home (the specific size
and location will be covered within the 8040 Greenline review), the
additional land in the acquired parcel from Mitchell /Bornefeld will
be deeded to the Alps in such a manner as to prevent additional
density and additional floor area for the existing Alps buildings.
lb. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the
character of existing land uses in the area.
Response: The project is consistent with the character of the
neighborhood. The surrounding land uses are single family and high
density multi - family adjacent to the Little Nell ski slope. Most
of the single family homes (with the exception of Moses Lot 1) are
larger than the proposed residence on Lot 2. In addition, as the
application states, by preserving most of the land surrounding the
Aspen Alps the development will be consistent with the open space
character of Aspen Mountain.
lc. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the
future development of surrounding areas.
Response: The proposed development is replacing a single family
home on Lot 2. In addition the proposed re- subdivision of Lot 2
will preserve the open area from future development that could have
significant traffic impacts upon the Aspen Alps South Road and Ute
Avenue, and severely reduce the amount of open space that exists
in the area.
By redeveloping the single family residence on Lot 2, the new home
will be moved further from the home on Lot 1. Currently the two
homes appear as on large structure.
ld. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all
applicable requirements of this chapter.
Response: The re- subdivision of Lot 2 will allow a structure that
is conforming with the R -15 (PUD) requirements. All requirements
for the R -15 (PUD) zone district shall apply. In addition, the
applicant will provide a housing mitigation fee pursuant to
Ordinance 1, Series of 1990, for the demolition and redevelopment
of the single - family home.
2a. Land Suitability - The proposed subdivision shall not
be located on land unsuitable for development because of
flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rock
slide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any
other natural hazard or other condition that will be
harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the
residents in the proposed subdivision.
Response: These conditions were considered in the 8040 Greenline
review. A letter was submitted by Dr. Lampiris attesting to the
suitability of the parcel for development (attached to this
review). A condition of the 8040 Greenline approval requires
confirmation that the requirements of the Lampiris letter were
adhered to during the construction of the single family home on Lot
2 of the Moses Lot Split.
2b. Spatial Pattern - The proposed subdivision shall not be
designed to create spatial patterns that cause
inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of
public facilities and unnecessary public costs.
Response: There are no unnecessary public costs associated with
this proposal. All utilities are available near the site.
According to the application, all public improvements to serve the
project will be borne by the applicant. Although the Aspen Alps
South Road is a private road, the Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc.
has been granted an access easement. A water tap fee may apply for
the new residence if the existing home on Lot 2 did not pay tap
fees in the past.
II. Lot Line Adjustment: Pursuant to Section 7 -1003, the following
criteria for a lot line adjustment are as follows:
1. It is demonstrated that the request is to correct an
engineering or survey error in a recorded plat or is to permit
an insubstantial boundary change between adjacent parcels.
Response: The purpose of the adjustment is to convey to Mr.
Mitchell those areas that he currently uses for parking. The
parking currently lies between his property and the Aspen Alps
South Road (Mitchell /Bornefeld property). The second intent of the
adjustment is to convey to the Aspen Alps the portion of his lot
that is now occupied by the Aspen Alps South Road. A recent survey
shows that actual improvement are not located where they are
platted.
According to the application the parcels that are to be transferred
to Mr. Mitchell which equal 954 square feet. The parcel being
transferred to the Aspen Alps equals 131 square feet. Mr.
Mitchell's parcel will increase a total of 823 square feet which
according to the application does not change the nonconforming
nature of his property.
2. Both landowners whose lot lines are being adjusted provide
written consent to the application.
Response: Both landowners have provided written consent.
3. It is demonstrated that the request is to address specific
hardship.
Response: According to the application, Mr. Mitchell and the Aspen
Alps Homeowners wish to clear up the inconsistencies associated
with Mr. Mitchell's parking and the Aspen Alps South Road.
4. The corrected plat will meet the standards of this division,
and conform to the requirements of this chapter, including
the dimensional requirements of the Zone District in which
the lots are located, except in cases of an existing
nonconforming lot, in which the adjustment shall not increase
the non - conformity of the lot.
Response: Mr. Mitchell's parcel is an existing nonconformity.
According to the application, the Mitchell home is located on land
designated Conservation with a small piece being designated L /TR.
The lot contains approximately 9,950 square feet and is
nonconforming because the minimum lot size in the Conservation Zone
District is 10 acres. The adjustment adds approximately 823 square
feet to the parcel and thereby slightly reducing the nonconformity
of the lot. The new subdivision plat will record the adjusted lot
lines thus correcting the survey error.
The small reduction in the Mitchell /Bornefeld property does not
affect potential nonconformity of the lot because the parcel will
be restricted against further development pursuant to the
Subdivision of Lot 2.
5. It is demonstrated that the lot line adjustment will not
affect the development rights or permitted density of the
affected lots by providing the opportunity to create a new
lot for resale or development.
Response: The lot line adjustment will not impact development
rights or density of any of the properties involved as no new lots
can be created by this minor adjustment. As a condition of
consenting to the lot line adjustment the Aspen Alps Homeowners
Association will place a note on the final plat that no additional
floor area be granted to the Mitchell parcel due to the slight
increase in lot size.
III. Vested Rights - Pursuant to Section 6 -207 the applicant seeks
to vest the 8040 Greenline Approval, subdivision and lot line
adjustment. Adoption of Ordinance provides for the vesting of
property rights for a period of 3 years from the effective date
hereof. The approval shall be subject to all rights of referendum
and judicial review and such rights shall begin with the date of
publication provided for in Section 6- 207(D), zoning that is not
part of the site specific development plan shall not result in the
creation of a vested property right. Nothing in this approval
shall exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent
reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general
rules, regulations and ordinance of the city of aspen provided that
such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval.
As a condition of this site development approval, the applicant
shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing,
electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is
granted in writing.
r^
Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D.
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
0185 INGERSOLL LANE
SILT, COLORADO 81652
(303) 9633600 (24 HOURS)
January 20, 1992
Alan M. Richman, AICP
Box 3613
Aspen CO. 81612
RE: Aspen Alps Lot
Dear Mr. Richman:
I have completed my geologic investigation of the proposed
building site on the maps which accompany this report. The
building site lies - altong the east. slope of the lobe
containing the Little Nell Ski Run. This is in the southern
part of the Town of Aspen, within the Aspen 7 1/2 minute
quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado.
The building site lies on a gentle east slope near a small
debris fan surrounded by trees and covered by native grasses.
It is between the home of Gaard Moses and other Aspen Alps
buildings. The lot is irregularly shaped with the building
envelope as shown.
The geology of the site consists of clays, silts, sands,
gravels and boulders of colluvial and some debris flow material
bit deposited perhaps hundreds of years ago. These materials are
generally graded and sorted and are probably between 50 and 70 feet
thick at this site. The underlying bedrock cannot be
determined but is probably one of the Paleozoic carbonate or
sandstone units fractured by faulting common to this area.
This faulting is mostly from 30 million years ago and - there
is no evidence of recent activity. It is still prudent to
•
• design the home to conform to Seismic Zone II of the Uniform
Building Code.
The fan which has been discussed is a geologic concern
but can be mitigated and should not present problems to the
the home site because of the distance involved and the
relative low energy of the flows. The building site is away
from the base of the steep slope to the west, but instability
in this steep slope is possible; therefore, the rear (west)
wall of the home should be at least six feet above finished
grade and designed to accept forces of up to 200 pounds per
square foot. There should be no doors or windows in this interval
within the six foot level. If the steep slope in cut, the rear
wall should also act as a retaining wall to the toe of the slope.
The material of the site is suitable for the development of a
3/
. r
•
single family home, but soils engineering studies should be
performed at the site specific level to insure proper
k i foundation design, especially in view of the possibility of
hydrocompactive soils on the fan. Final landscapinc should
include positive drainage away from the home in all
I' directions, particularly because it is possible for some of
the mud slurry from a debris flow to reach near the site.
Water for domestic use and waste disposal will be through
municipal sources. The access already exists to the site.
This is generally a good site from a geologic standpoint, but
. the previous recommendations should be followed. Additionally,
the home should be designed to preclude the accumulation of radon
i'S as as this is becoming standard
9 g practice in the State. If there
are further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
ri
. Sincerely,
Nicholas Lampiris
Consulting Geologist •
1 h
•
3.
Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D.
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
0185 INGERSOLL LANE
SILT, COLORADO 81652
(303) 9833600 (24 HOURS)
•
January 20, 1992
•
swi Alan M. Richman, AICP
Box 3613
Aspen CO. 81612
•
RE: Aspen Alps Lot .
Dear Mr. Richman:
I have completed my geologic investigation of the proposed
building site on the maps which accompany this report. The
!r` building site lies along the east. slope of the lobe
containing the Little Nell Ski Run. This is in the southern
part of the Town of Aspen, within the Aspen 7 1/2 minute
quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado.
The building site lies on a gentle east slope near a small
• debris fan surrounded by trees and covered by native grasses.
It is between the home of Gaard Moses and other Aspen Alps
buildings. The lot is irregularly shaped with the building
envelope as shown.
•
The geology of the site consists of clays, silts, sands,
gravels and boulders of colluvial and some debris flow material
04 deposited perhaps hundreds of years ago. These materials are
generally graded and sorted and are probably between 50 and 70 feet
thick at this site. The underlying bedrock cannot be
determined but is probably one of the Paleozoic carbonate or
sandstone units fractured by faulting common to this area.
This faulting is mostly from 30 million years ago and
is no evidence of recent activity. It is still prudent to
design the home to conform to Seismic Zone II of the Uniform
Building Code.
The fan which has been discussed is a geologic concern
but can be mitigated and should not present problems to the
the home site because of the distance involved and the
relative low energy of the flows. The building site is away
from the base of the steep slope to the west, but instability
in this steep slope is possible; therefore, the rear (west)
wall of the home should be at least six feet above finished
grade and designed to accept forces of up to 200 pounds per
square foot. There should be no doors or windows in this interval
within the six foot level. If the steep slope in cut, the rear
wall should also act as a retaining wall to the toe of the slope.
The material of the site is suitable for the development of a
3/
i
single family home, but soils enaineering studies should be
performed at the site specific level to insure proper
foundation design, especially in view of the possibility of
' hydrocompactive soils on the fan. Final landscaping should
include positive drainage away from the home in all
;1 directions, particularly because it is possible for some of
the mud slurry from a debris flow to reach near the site.
Water for domestic use and waste disposal will be through
municipal sources. The access already exists to the site.
This is generally a good site from a geologic standpoint, but
. the previous recommendations should be followed. Additionally,
the home should be designed to preclude the accumulation of radon
S. as as this is becoming standard
g g practice in the State. If there
are further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
. Sincerely,
:
l ')10:14
Nicholas Lampiris •
Consulting Geologist .
J
d 9
•
3,
(IK4 ,l
/ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL, 7, 1992
Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:30pm.
Answering roll call were David Brown, Tim Mooney, Sara Garton,
Bruce Kerr, Richard Compton and Jasmine Tygre. Roger Hunt was
excused.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
There were none.
STAFF COMMENTS
There were none.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were none.
MINUTES
Leslie to fill in blanks on page 29.
Tim made a motion to approve minutes of March 17, 1992.
Richard seconded the motion with all in favor.
134 EAST BLEEKER LANDMARK DESIGNATION
Jasmine opened the public hearing.
Roxanne made presentation as attached in record.
After brief discussion:
Jasmine asked for public comment. There was none.
MOTION
Sara: I move to recommend landmark designation for 134 East
Sleeker finding that designation D, E and F have been met.
Tim seconded the motion with all in favor.
Jasmine closed the public portion of the hearing.
MOSES SUBDIVISION AND 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW
Jasmine opened the public hearing.
PZM4.7.92
Leslie made presentation as attached in record.
I have some changes. The first condition of approval - -I have
added the word "allowable" after garage. "Shall be no greater than
5,000sqft. The height shall be 25 feet.
Jasmine: Did you want to take out 500sqft garage?
Leslie: Right. To be allowable floor area.
And then I would eliminate condition #2. And in it's place a
condition to read "Prior to issuance of any building permit the
applicant shall ask Leslie
New condition #3 will read: Prior to final inspection the
applicant shall present a letter which shall criteria
final inspection.
We are not eliminating the original #3. All the numbers will be
changed.
And then condition #9 - -old #9 - -No vegetation shall be removed from
the slope - -that is as required by condition #10 - -old #10.
l #13 and #14 are requirements by Fire Marshal.
And #15- -The applicant shall work with the public agencies to
ensure that proper utilities are supplied to the new home and all
public improvements- -
#1. The final plat and subdivision agreement shall be filed within
Then #2b- -Notes shall refer to Deed Book , Page
indication the restrictions against any further development on Lots
2A, 2B, or additional lot area for floor area, bedrooms, ask
Leslie
And finally letter i - -The USFS tract, if conveyed to
Mitchell,Bornefeld, or their heirs, shall be deeded against future
development.
There were no questions from members of the Commission at this
time.
Jasmine then asked for comments from the public.
Alan Richman, representative for applicant:
"I WILL BE BRIEF."
2
A ,
PZM4.7.92
( After discussion which then lasted an hour:
Jasmine asked for public comment:
George Gleason: I think this is a very generous offer. I am just
delighted to see We live right across from the tennis courts
on Ute Avenue. And the land which is just south is probably
one of the few places in Aspen that still looks like it did in
1961. There are trees and bushes and Willows and stream going
through there and it looks just like it did then.
Gaard Moses: I want to echo what George just said. I believe that
. It is a very complicated issue.
There was no further public comment and Jasmine closed the public
portion of the hearing.
After further discussion:
MOTION
David: I would like to move that we recommend approval of the 8040
Greenline with conditions #1 through #15 as recommended by the
staff. However with the new condition #2 to be deleted and
condition #15 amended to read °The applicant shall work with the
public agencies to insure that the property facilities are supplied
to the new home in a proportionate share and that all public
improvements
Jasmine: So now what happened to condition #2? Delete completely?
David: I proposed that the new condition #2 be deleted completely.
Go with the original #2.
Tim seconded the motion.
Roll call vote: Tim, yes, David, yes, Sara, yes, Richard, no,
Bruce, no, Jasmine, no.
MOTION
Sara: I recommend approval of the Moses Lot #2 8040 Greenline
Review with the following conditions #1 through #15 with condition
#2 to read "Prior to final building inspection the applicant shall
provide a letter from a registered professional engineer that all
applicable geotechnical concerns of the Lampiris letter submitted
with this application have been complied with during construction ".
This letter shall be accepted by the City Engineer. Condition #15
shall read as David amended.
3
( PZM4.7.92
David seconded the motion.
Someone asked a question here.
Sara: To meet Nick's conditions. And drop the Chen letter
altogether so that doesn't apply to this lot.
Someone asked a question.
Sara: Right. Not prior to the building permit.
Roll call vote:
Tim, yes, David, yes, Sara, yes, Richard, no, Bruce, no, Jasmine,
yes.
Motion carried.
Sara: Leslie - -you understood David's revised #2
Leslie: Right.
SUBDIVISION
Jasmine: I would entertain a motion to recommend approval of the
re- subdivision of Moses Lot #2 with the conditions as amended at
the meeting
Richard: I move to recommend to Council subdivision approval for
Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split with conditions 1 through 3 as
recommended and amended by the Planning staff.
Tim seconded the motion with all in favor.
LOUSHIN CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
Jasmine opened the public hearing.
Kim made presentation as attached in record.
Jasmine asked for public comment.
There was none.
Jasmine asked if the applicant had any problem with the conditions.
?: None at all.
4
PZM4.7.92
Tim: What about the parking?
There was an answer but not audible.
Tim: I move to approve Conditional Uses for two attached accessory
dwelling units within the proposed Loushin Duplex at 904 E. Cooper,
with the four conditions recommended in Planning Office memo dated
4/7/92. (attached in record)
Richard seconded the motion with all in favor.
Jasmine closed the public hearing.
MENDENHALL STREAM MARGIN REVIEW
Kim made presentation as attached in record.
Sunny would like to change in #1 the word disturbance to
destruction. The reason being that there will be some cleaning up
of the site. The owners will want to remove that disturbed
vegetation. And then add in the last sentence -- Revegetation is
required for any disturbed soil on the site - -and additional
planting shall be permitted after destruction. This will allow
replacement of destroyed vegetation.
#6 - -add to the end
#8 - -In the second line the sentence starting "A barricade shall be
erected -- because of the formation of the slope - -he wants to scratch
that entire sentence KIM
Jasmine asked Sunny if there was anything he wanted to add.
Sunny: mumble it was about deed restriction.
Jasmine: So we would have #10 which would say something like "The
compliance with Ord #1, the structure will be deed restricted to
resident occupancy ".
Kim read - -Deed restriction to resident occupancy on Lot ? shall be
filed This must be 7
MOTION
Tim: I move to approve the Stream Margin Review for the Mendenhall
parcel on Red Butte Drive with the conditions presented as listed
in the April 7, 1992 Planning Office memo specifically including
a building envelope for the existing residence on the Lot 2 and a
new residence and building envelope on Lot 3 with the amended #10.
5
PZM4.7.92
Richard seconded the motion with all in favor.
GOODING GMOS EXEMPTION FOR CHANGE IN USE
Kim made presentation as attached in record.
MOTION
David: I would like to move to approve the Change -in -Use from two
office condominium units to one two - bedroom freemarket residential
condominium for the Gooding units 201 and 20 in the Park Central
West Condominiums with the conditions recommended in the Planning
Office memo dated 4/7/92. (attached in record)
Richard seconded the motion with all in favor.
Meeting was then adjourned. Time was 6:45pm.
Janice M. Carney, City Deputy Clerk
6
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning
RE: Moses Lot 2 Subdivision and 8040 Greenline Review
DATE: April 7, 1992
SUMMARY: The applicant, Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc., proposes
to re- subdivide Lot 2 of the Moses 1987 Lot Split and seeks 8040
Greenline Review of a proposed single family home for Lot 2.
The.8040 Greenline Review is a one step review by the Commission.
Subdivision is a two step process requiring a recommendation from
the Commission to be forwarded to Council.
The applicant proposes to comply with Ordinance 1, Series of 1990
criteria by cash -in -lieu.
APPLICANT: Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc., and the Aspen Alps
Condominium Association as represented by Alan Richman
LOCATION: Lot 2, Moses Lot Split on the Aspen Alps South Road
ZONING: L /TR, R -6, R -15 (PUD)
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant seeks to demolish an existing
single family home on Moses Lot 2 and rebuild a 5,000 square foot
home with a 500 square foot garage. The applicant also seeks to
re- subdivide Moses Lot 2 to include the Mitchell /Bornefeld parcel.
Please see attached maps depicting the various proposals,
Attachment A.
The applicant has several objectives with regard to the purchase
of the 4+ parcel from Mitchell /Bornefeld and Lot 2 of the Moses Lot
Split. They are as follows:
1. The 1987 lot split that created Lots 1 and 2 of the Moses lot
Split was conditioned upon a limitation on the area of the homes
not to exceed 3,800 square feet of floor area per house.
The applicant requests that the restriction be lifted and replaced
with a 5,000 square foot allowable floor area restriction.
2. The applicant requests that the lot line of Moses Lot 2 be
revised to include sufficient ' lot area to allow a floor area of
5,000 square feet. The required land area is provided by the 4+
acre parcel purchased from Mitchell /Bornefeld. This requires a re-
subdivision of Moses Lot 2 because a lot line adjustment is meant
for small technical boundary adjustments and adjustments that do
C 0
not affect the development rights or permitted density of the
affected lots. In addition the applicant seeks to amend a prior
condition of approval.
3. 8040 Greenline review is required for the development of the
new single family residence on Moses Lot 2.
4. The applicant intends to convey the remaining land area (the
land that is not needed for an allowable floor area of 5,000 sq.
ft.) to the Aspen Alps Condominium Association, a Colorado non-
profit corporation. The tennis courts, which are defined in the
Land Use Code as a separate parcel because of the long term lease,
will also be deeded to the Association.
The Aspen Alps Condominium Association, in an attempt to preserve
the open space around buildings 300, 400, 500, and 700 and the
parking along Aspen Alps South Road and tennis courts tried to
purchase the 4+ acres. But technical reasons have prevented the
Association from assessing homeowners for the acquisition of
property. Therefore, the Aspen View Homesite, Inc. is willing to
convey the property to the Association.
The Association commits to restrict the two parcels (land deeded
by Lot 2 and the tennis courts) against further development or
utilization of the land for density and floor area purposes
provided Lot 2 is allowed 5,000 square feet of allowable floor area
for the development of a single family residence.
5. A Lot Line Adjustment is also requested to clear up a survey
error between the platted Aspen Alps South Road and the actual road
and to convey to Mr. Mitchell the area which he currently uses for
parking. Lot Line Adjustment review is done by the City Council
and therefore is not covered in this memo.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
Engineering: The following comments are provided as a follow up
to several site visits and review of the application:
1. Existing conditions map shows access drive with note about
parking along drive. Twenty feet is required to be provided for
emergency access. There cannot be parking in this 20' easement.
The final plat must indicate that parking along road is not
permitted unless approved by the Fire Marshall.
2. The final plat will have to reflect all improvements on the
site including the entire length of the actual access road. The
access easement must be revised to include the roadway surface.
3. The contents of the final plat must meet Sections 24-7 -1004-
D.1 and -D.2 of the municipal code. There must be a statement by
2
r
the surveyor, either in a surveyor's certificate or in a general
note, that all easements of record as indicated on Title Policy
No. , dated , have been shown on the plat. The
date must be within the past 12 months.
4. The indicated access easement does not connect with the new Lot
2 or its parking area. Regarding Gaard Moses' new driveway
proposal, the Parks Department expressed concern that the health
of the trees between which the driveway is proposed will be
jeopardized. The condition of approval should state that
construction activities contemplated within the drip line of any
trees greater than 6" in diameter must be approved by the Parks
Department.
Also, the width of the access easement to Lot 1 across Lot 2 shall
meet code requirements (20').
•
•
5. The applicant shall provide a letter from a registered
professional engineer that all applicable geotechnical concerns of
the Chen & Associates letter of May 27, 1987, and the Lampiris
letter submitted with the application have been complied with
during construction. This letter must be submitted prior to final
inspection and accepted by the city engineer.
6. Water service - Please obtain comments from Water Department.
There may be agreement in place regarding hook -up reimbursement for
previously constructed water main extension.
7. The request for increased floor area does not appear to be in
conformance with structure size intent as discussed in letter from
Gideon Kaufman, representing Moses, to Alan Richman, Planning
Director, dated October 23, 1986, which requested rezoning and lot
split approval.
8. Since vegetation contributes to slope stability, no vegetation
shall be removed from the slope.
9. The applicant shall agree to join improvement districts formed
for improvements to the public right -of -way particularly Ute
Avenue.
10. The development must meet on -site drainage retention
requirements of Section 24- 7- 1004.C.4.f.
11. The applicant is advised to check with the neighbor, Gaard
Moses, concerning his experiences with roof snow shed problems in
this heavy snowfall area.
Parks Department: Tree removal permits are required for any trees
over 6" in caliper.
3
0 0
Fire Marshal:
1. The Department does have access and a hydrant is available for
fire fighting.
2. Brush should be trimmed within 30' of the structure. This does
not apply to a single specimen of trees or ornamental shrubbery
used as ground cover provided they do not form a.means of rapidly
transmitting fire from the native growth to any structure.
3. Remove any portion of any tree with 10' from the outlet of any
chimney. Maintain any tree free of dead wood that is adjacent to
or overhanging the roof. Maintain roof free of leaves, needles
or other dead vegetation.
4. State forest service guidelines for wildfire should be reviewed
by owner..
STAFF COMMENTS:
A. Background - According to the application the applicant has
recently purchased Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split. The applicant has
also obtained an option to purchase an approximately 4 acre parcel
known as the "Mitchell /Bornefeld property ". This parcel surrounds
the 300, 400, 500, and 700 buildings of the Aspen Alps.
There are separately owned parcels within the Alps development -
the Mitchell House, the Aspen Alps 300, 400, and 500 buildings,
the Aspen Alps 700 building, and Lot 42 which is a small tract of
land owned by the US Forest Service. An application to obtain the
USFS tract has been filed by Mitchell /Bornefeld pursuant to the
Small Tracts Act.
B. Project Description - The 83 unit Aspen Alps Condominiums lie
within the L /TR, R -6, R -15 (PUD) zone districts. When the original
plat was filed in the 1960's by the developers, Mr. Mitchell and
Mr. Bornefeld, they only designated those lands on which the 300,
400, 500, and 700 buildings were constructed as general common
elements, owned by the unit owners as tenants in common. The
developers retained ownership of the remaining property that
surrounds the buildings.
The Aspen Alps Condominium Association has determined that it would
be in the owner's best interest to secure greater control over the
undeveloped parcels within the Aspen Alps area. The Associations'
intent is to prevent future development which may substantially
affect their property. In addition the Association wishes to
obtain title to the road and parking areas that serve their
buildings.
According to the application, in order to secure the surrounding
undeveloped property the Association has entered into a contract
4
r-•
to purchase the Mitchell /Bornefeld property and must assign this
contract to Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc. (owner of the Moses Lot
2) who will convey a significant portion back to the Association
for open space.
The property owner of Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc., a past Aspen
Alps homeowner, proposes to demolish the existing single family
residence on Moses Lot 2 and build a new 5,000 square foot
residence containing 5 bedrooms and a 500 sq. ft. garage.
The driveway to Lot 2 will be provided off of the Aspen Alps South
Road. Gaard Moses also proposes to create a new driveway spur off
of the South Road thereby creating a separate access for Moses Lot
1, please see attached site plan showing the proposed driveway spur
attachment B.
The proposed expanded Moses Lot 2 parcel encompasses twa underlying
zone districts. A survey provided with the application confirms
that more than 75% of the land area within the proposed Lot 2 is
zone R -15 (PUD) with the remainder of the lot is zoned •
Conservation. The Aspen Land Use Code, Section 5 -508, states that
when a use is allowed in all underlying zone districts and more
than 75% of the land area of the parcel is within the zone district
permitting the higher density, then "the use shall be developed
using the dimensional requirements and off - street parking
requirement of the Zone District permitting the higher density,
which shall be calculated on the basis of the land area and
development of the entire parcel ".
Thus, in addition to acquiring the land to prevent future
development, the proposed re- subdivision of Lot 2 is necessary to
increase the land area to permit a 5,000 square foot residence
pursuant to R -15 zone district requirements.
The proposed development on Moses Lot 2 is above the 8040 elevation
thus requires 8040 Greenline review.
C. Subdivision Review: Pursuant to Section 7 -1004 C of the Land
Use Code the following criteria for the re- subdivision of Lot 2 are
pertinent to this review:
la. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE: In 1975 land designated "open space" (above the 8040
elevation) was changed to Conservation. This included the Moses
parcel.
In 1987 the Moses parcel was rezoned from Conservation to R -15
(PUD). The rezoning was granted, as stated in the Planning Office
memo, because the property lies well out of sight of the Little
Nell Slope and due to the grade changes is clearly distinct from
5
o
the open slopes and surrounding open space with which "C"
Conservation zoning is intended to protect.
Also in 1987, the Moses parcel received a subdivision exemption for
a lot split creating Lots 1 and 2. A condition of the Lot Split
was the acceptance of a voluntary floor area cap of 3,800 square
feet. The Planning Department accepted this cap to ensure
compatibility with surrounding residences. At the according
to the Planning Department memo, the Aspen Chance homes ranged in
size from 3,065 sq. ft. to 6,000 sq. ft. and the home sizes in the
then proposed 1010 Ute subdivision were expected to range from
3,000 sq. ft. and 4,300 sq. ft.
The proposed re- subdivision does not affect the original conclusion
from the 1987 rezoning or Lot Split. Lot 2 is primarily increasing
its size to protect undeveloped land within the Aspen Alps from
future development.- Although the increase in Moses•Lot 2 enables
a larger home (the specific size and location will be covered
within the 8040 Greenline review), the additional land in the
acquired parcel from Mitchell /Bornefeld will be deeded to the Alps
in such a manner as to prevent additional density and additional
floor area for the existing Alps buildings.
lb. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the
character of existing land uses in the area.
RESPONSE: The project is consistent with the character of the
neighborhood. The surrounding land uses are single family and high
density multi - family adjacent to the Little Nell ski slope. Most
of the single family homes (with the exception of Moses Lot 1) are
larger than the proposed residence on Lot 2. In addition, as the
application states, by preserving most of the land surrounding the
Aspen Alps the development will be consistent with the open space
character of Aspen Mountain.
lc. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the
future development of surrounding areas.
RESPONSE: The proposed development is replacing a single family
home on Lot 2. In addition the proposed re- subdivision of Lot 2
will preserve the open area from future development that could have
significant traffic impacts upon the Aspen Alps South Road and Ute
Avenue, and severely reduce the amount of open space that exists
in the area.
By redeveloping the single family residence on Lot 2, the new home
will be moved further from the home on Lot 1. Currently the two
homes appear as on large structure.
ld. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all
applicable requirements of this chapter.
6
RESPONSE: The re- subdivision of Lot 2 will allow a structure that
is conforming with the R -15 (PUD) requirements. All requirements
for the R -15 (PUD) zone district shall apply. In addition, the
applicant will provide a housing mitigation fee pursuant to
Ordinance 1, Series of 1990, for the demolition and redevelopment
of the single - family home.
2a. Land Suitability - The proposed subdivision shall not
be located on land unsuitable for development because of
flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rock
slide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any
other natural hazard or other condition that will be
harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the
residents in the proposed subdivision.
RESPONSE: Please refer to the 8040 Greenline review.
2b. Spatial Pattern - The proposed subdivision shall not be
designed to create spatial patterns that cause
inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of
public facilities and unnecessary public costs.
RESPONSE: There are no unnecessary public costs associated with
this proposal. All utilities are available near the site.
According to the application, all public improvements to serve the
project will be borne by the applicant. Although the Aspen Alps
South Road is a private road, the Moses Aspen View Homesite, inc.
has been granted an access easement. A water tap fee may apply for
the new residence if the existing home on Lot 2 did not pay tap
fees in the past.
D. 8040 Greenline Review: Pursuant to Section 7 - 503 the following
review criteria apply for a 8040 Greenline Review -
1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be
located is suitable for development considering its slope,
ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence
and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche
dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic
soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils,
or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site
to a location acceptable to the City.
RESPONSE: Please see attached letter from Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D,
consulting geologist, Attachment C. The building site is away from
the base of the steep slope to the west, but instability in the
slope is possible therefore the rear wall of the new home should
be at least six feet above finished grade and designed to accept
forces of up to 200 pounds per square foot. There should be no
doors or windows on this wall below the six foot level. He also
recommends that if the slope is cut, the rear wall should also act
as a retaining wall to the toe of the slope. Soil engineering
7
studies are recommended to insure proper foundation design and
drainage away from the home to avoid potential mud slurry from
debris flow.
The applicant has committed to following all mitigation techniques
outlined in Dr. Lampiris' report.
The Engineering Department recommends that the applicable
geotechnical concerns raised during the 1987 Lot split that are
germane to Lot 2 also be reviewed and incorporated into development
of the parcel. In addition Engineering recommends that no
vegetation on the steep (west) slope be removed to avoid potential
slides.
2. The proposed development does not have a significant
adverse affect on the natural watershed,. runoff, drainage,
soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution.
RESPONSE: As recommended in Dr. Lampiris' letter the applicant
will grade the site to insure that drainage flows away from the
site. In addition the development must comply with the on -site
drainage retention requirements of Section 24- 7- 1004.C.4.f.
3. The proposed development does not have a significant
adverse affect on the air quality in the City.
RESPONSE: The applicant will comply with all applicable City
regulations addressing wood burning devices in the new residential
unit.
4. The design and location of any proposed development, road,
or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which
the proposed development is to be located.
RESPONSE: The building site is located on the flat portion of the
site and avoids cutting into the bank at the rear of the lot. A
display board will be made available for Commission to review the
location of the proposed home on the site.
A two story log home is proposed for the site and has been designed
to blend into the slope and natural vegetation which surround it.
Natural materials such as wood and stone will be used on the home
and are compatible with the terrain and the Moses home on Lot 1.
The home on Lot 2 will be accessed off of the Aspen Alps South Road
via an easement and is maintained by the Condominium Association.
Gaard Moses also proposes to create a new access to Lot 1 off of
the South Road thus eliminating the need to drive right by the
proposed home on Lot 2. The Engineering and Planning Departments
have reviewed this new access and are comfortable with the minimal
amount of fill required to build the new drive. Mr. Moses shall
8
dun+" ...✓
work with the Parks Department to ensure that the two large pine
trees on either side of the new drive will not be endangered by
the new drive.
5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable,
disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land
features.
RESPONSE: The architects have located the proposed home on the
flat portion of the site and avoid disturbance of the steep slope.
Twenty -three Aspen and Spruce trees, of at least 6" in caliper are
located in or near the building envelope. The site plan indicates
that 16 of the trees will be preserved including all of the Spruce
trees. The applicant has committed to replace the seven Aspen
trees which must be removed. Tree removal permits shall be
required for those trees over 6" in caliper that are removed.
•
6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize
the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open
space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource.
RESPONSE: The building envelope is sited in such a manner as to
limit grading and cutting of the parcel. The parcel is already
accessed by the Aspen Alps South Road. New driveways shall be cut
for Lots 1 and 2 however their impact should be minimal. The new
driveways will extend about 20 feet off the existing road.
The site cannot be seen from the base of the mountain and the
center of town. The site can be seen from the Gondola or if a
skier or hiker looks over the edge of Little Nell. However the
building site is approximately 50 -100' below the top of the slope.
7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the
structure will be designed to blend into the open character
of the mountain.
RESPONSE: The proposed floor area of the new single family home
is 5,000 sq. ft. with a 500 square foot garage. (The re- subdivided
lot could support 6,000 sq. ft. of floor area.) The height
limitation in the R -15 zone district is 25 which ironically is less
than the limit of 28 feet in the Conservation Zone District.
Although the applicant is requesting that the 3,800 sq. ft. floor
area cap be increased to 5,000 sq. ft. the majority of the parcel
will be sterilized against further development. The site is tucked
into the hillside and as previously mentioned is only visible from
the Gondola, Lot 1 of the Moses Lot Split and the upper Aspen Alps
units. The steep wooded slope is being preserved and Mr. Moses has
submitted a letter approving_of the redevelopment of Lot 2,
Attachment D.
9
The proposed size of the home is considerably less than those homes
in the Aspen Chance Subdivision and the individual multi - family
Aspen Alps buildings.
The existing homes on Lots 1 and 2 are so close together that they
appear as one structure. The redevelopment of Lot 2 will move the
building envelope away from the home on Lot 1 thus providing more
of an open feel on the two parcels.
8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are
available to service the proposed development.
RESPONSE: Please see referral comments. The existing residence
is already provided with public water and sewer service. Utilities
are available to the site.
A booster pump may be necessary to mitigate low water pressure and
to sprinkle the house for fire protection. Tap fees may be
required for the new home.
The ACSD indicated that the Alps is served by private lines and
although an upgraded line was installed for the existing residence
this past fall the applicant may need to upgrade the Alps lines for
the new home.
The applicant has committed to working with the public agencies to
ensure that proper utilities are supplied to the new home.
9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed
development, and said roads can be properly maintained.
RESPONSE: The development will be accessed by the private Aspen
Alps South Road. The road serves approximately 35 residences. The
replacement of the existing home does not create the need for an
upgrade in the road. All the required parking shall be provided
on -site.
10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed
development so as to ensure adequate access for fire
protection and snow removal equipment.
RESPONSE: Fire protection is adequately provided for by the
existing road. If necessary a booster pump and sprinkler system
will be installed if required by the Fire Marshal. Snow removal
is privately provided.
A parking easement on Lot 2 has been quit claimed by
Mitchell /Bornefeld to Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc. Lot 2, to
allow the preferred driveway for Lot 2 to be developed.
10
•
11: Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan: Parks /Recreation /Open Space /Trails Plan
map is dedicated for public use.
RESPONSE: There are no trails designated for this parcel. As a
condition of the 1987 Lot Split a nordic /pedestrian /bike easement
was provided on Lot 1. The Midland Trail is located just above the
property.
RECOMMENDATION:
A. The staff recommends approval of the Moses Lot 2 8040 Greenline
review with the following conditions:
1. The floor area of the new single family home shall be no
greater than 5,000 sq. ft. with a 500 square foot garage. The
height shall be 25 feet: -
2. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall provide
a letter from a registered professional engineer that all
applicable geotechnical concerns of the Chen & Associates letter
of May 27, 1987, and the Lampiris letter submitted with the
application have been complied with during construction. This
letter shall be accepted by the City Engineer.
3. The development shall meet on -site drainage retention
requirements of Section 24- 7- 1004.C.4.f.
4. The applicant shall comply with all applicable City regulations
addressing wood burning devices in the new residential unit.
5. All requirements for the R -15 (PUD) zone district shall apply.
6. All the required parking shall be provided on -site.
7. The applicant shall provide a housing mitigation fee pursuant
to Ordinance 1, Series of 1990, for the demolition and
redevelopment of the single - family home.
8. No further development shall occur on Lot 2 Moses Lot Split
outside of this approved building envelope.
9. No vegetation shall be removed from the slope.
10. Tree removal permits shall be required for those trees over
6" in caliper that are removed. Pursuant to representations made
by the applicant 16 trees shall be preserved which include all of
the Spruce trees. The applicant shall replace the seven Aspen
trees which must be removed.
11
0
11. Any construction activities contemplated within the drip line
of any trees greater than 6" in diameter must be approved by the
Parks Department.
12. Mr. Moses shall work with the Parks Department to ensure that
the two large pine trees on either side of the new drive will not
be endangered by the new drive.
13. Brush shall be trimmed within 30' of the structure. This does
not apply to a single specimen of trees or ornamental shrubbery
used as ground cover provided they do not form a means of rapidly
transmitting fire from the native growth to any structure.
14. Any portion of any tree with 10' from the outlet of any
chimney shall be removed and any tree that is adjacent to or
overhanging the roof shall remain free of dead wood. The roof
shall be free of leaves, needles or other dead vegetation.
15. The applicant shall work with the public agencies to ensure
that proper utilities are supplied to the new home and all public
improvements to serve the project will be borne by the applicant.
B. Staff recommends approval of the re- subdivision of Moses Lot
2 with the following conditions:
1. A final plat and subdivision agreement shall be filed within
180 days of final land use review. A final plat shall be reviewed
and approved by the Engineering and Planning Departments.
2. The final plat shall depict the following:
a. the tennis courts and land on Lot 2 Moses Lot Split that
is conveyed to the Aspen Alps Condominium Association.
b Notes shall refer to Deed , Book , Page
indicating the restrictions against further development or
additional lot area for floor area and density purposes on
existing Alps buildings for the tennis courts lot and land
conveyed by the owner of Lot 2 Moses Lot Split.
c. The new access onto Lot 1 Moses Lot Split.
d. Graphic description of the zoning designations of Lot 2
Moses Lot Split.
e. No parking along the road unless approved by the Fire
Marshal.
f. An easement indicating Lot 2 Moses Lot Split access off of
the Aspen Alps South Road.
12
g. All improvements on the site including the entire length
of the actual access road and the revised access easement
including the roadway surface.
h. The contents of the final plat must meet Sections 24-7 -
1004-D.1 and -D.2 of the municipal code. There must be a
statement by the surveyor, either in a surveyor's certificate
or in a general note, that all easements of record as
indicated on Title Policy No. , dated , have
been shown on the plat. The date must be within the past 12
months.
i. The USFS tract, if conveyed to Mitchell /Bornefeld, deeded
against future development.
3. The width of the access easement to Lot 1 across Lot 2 shall
meet code requirements (20').
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the 8040 Greenline Review
for Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split with conditions 1 -15 as
recommended by Planning staff."
"I move to recommend to Council subdivision approval for Lot 2 of
the Moses Lot Split with conditions 1 -3 as recommended by Planning
staff."
•
ATTACHMENTS:
"A" - Site Plans and Maps
"B" - Driveway Spur to Lot 1 Moses Lot Split
"C" - Dr. Lampiris Letter
"D" - Mr. Moses Letter
13
•
o e
ATTACHMENT "A"
•
•
o CZ ■*". i /....._ r ____C::::/ t ''''■ ; : ' I
/
C.5-3 /Ir ' '
0 s 3
1
ti J, f p i
+ '
C_
FT
N-1 .cv `M .'l
^ _ _
I
�i ti p
1 I , ,
VICINITY MAP a,. ; ,H,_,
Title
EXISTING CONDITIONS
REPLAT OF LOT 2, MOSES LOT SPLIT
•
0 0
�I'
I
44 'I
bt ktNi _ 1
:f. \ 0
.......„.....„ re ‘ : „ . . 0 - ‘110 „ .... S5, 4/4 .41,,TE ,3Ae. ; 4 I
',. • i • 4 %.,„ . ...% e -..' -.14, ir / IVA, -
mt ii
. ::::-.. .....,.., ._...„ , ' i<
i
ill I r ■ 1 • �
' S f
0 :4‘ - .1 / /
\ \
• /�
}} r
1i \ 1 C
5 \ � ,,�/ •
s ,
i j
I
, ,.
•
•
AREA TABULATION
ASPEN ALPS + M ITCHELL- 60RNEFELD 6.356 ACRES
LOT 2 M05E5 Lor SPLIT 0.398
A = ENTIRE PARCEL AREA 6.7511
NET GOVERNMENT LOT .42 O.
MITCHELL HOUSE SITE
ASP ALP5 PAR
15= TOTAL OUT PANELS 1.963
C= NET ACCE55 EA5EMENT5 0.713
NET AREA OF REPLAY (A- L)-C) 4.078 ACRES
0 0.
AREA TABULATION
LOT 2 1.026 ACRES
LOT 2A 2.2,E i.
LOT 2D 0.611
TOTAL AREA 4.078 AGKES
• LOT 2 ZONING
R - 15 33,673.15 5Q. FT. = 75.32 %
CONSERVATION . 11,03_4.9 5Q. FT = 24.68%
TOTAL AREA 44,706.7 5Q. FL = IOO.00 o
--,.,c-_,_ r ,_ Czio 4 4 Pet t re3 „ waiiiiij
c � � P e.� A ir 9
Q „,„,„,.4 ` ti ` n�� ���
i gs fr -.
, ,
crr� , i , o, z.,`I
� - C' 4,5„ % a G ,
Or
i
v 3 ,
L 4 1 1 1 - 2 - di__ _AN 6_,,,-,„,
N I
VICINITY MAP SCALE.= I" =ICCO
a ` \ / �/ \ \
F � \
t I ' / Y % ! // � _ \\ t i \ \
:_ �� ._ \
/ I : .1-- 7/
t 4...‘ \ ; , ,i en.........; /144 2
/ \ \
.‘ \ '1 . wc C. t ;1 / " ../ . 4..; t 71 \
Il < z. / .. , \
.: ' 77,
e / j( 4 i i,- , ?.,. a /,
\ .
i I
S i Om • �� s c r te ' -.t die`f .� \\
•
r fity
I .�-v y N •
,.. � '``1 l i • 6 ,
as . 1��~ , 3 � 1 ESL Of
g. re' .7. e. 0 50 CO
p — l.c 9:E' L.. . _.I. 1 . 31' Fc-fT
ROPOSED REPEAT _ , '. , •...r. 2 a: V .s'
—_ su..en.w�
�T �. MOSES LOT �q am.amee 84 ..
c • _ ____ ___ _ ____— _ _ ,
i . •
ATTACHMENT "B"
1 ASPEN A -- —
700 BUILDING k , , ,-
( I \ \
I 4
I 1 i e
\ ‘ /
\ -
I 1 i i 2 / •
1 - ii EXISTING ASPHALT in I
I •cr "v
\ S Ie. N cC
bl 1 z,___ • is --- --c ..„ • L I 1 \ \ 4
i \ I . t... ■ _ _ 1 ; 2 •,„ 1 • 4. ,
Z -:,,_ _ '. NJ .., ..? 1 • tfr . A \ 7 --- ) / ,„
.. T 6 t io • 41- i ,c G ASP )c
1-1,ALT rA:ar, DRIVE WITH '
• 4.„ I A LO
ETAI
kk ), x E
1. Is : - 0 c mic 1 . : KTRA,. 4 4 K t. TIE
/ .
.pi
1 t . P ih. • . -...: . , O ./ I :,..- Ir-NINC.• W l... N&
' -1 ILI P. X /* '•44 - --...._. "-- ir E14 I-61 OF pgiVe ,...
: • "FAKKus a : Rom Ar. 4 UP --- /
I ....
_ rt. , \. , :4- .. ,
• fe" E g
t‘k... \ 4
‘ 4 til 4 4
iy ,11 . ...v 4 • :le ; 44, , ,\
„--‘,.. 1 rx_v-eij
it 1 ., ,..‘,...?„, , 4, _,N I
ir,„, .,‘,...4_,.__1‘ e pisrr
i 1 EWA_
--1. tir 1 I ' ■ , e .., a.' ex
1 . \ zi 1 , -- — - -
1 , . 1 S .„ \ -. .. . VATE Arcf • ." • 0 4 `
gi
2 i 1 I \ 1 t ',I 4' * 4 c N1.>, •g LOT I ' 4 2 6 ‘ b
• \ ., , / A ,
i, LOl 2 \ \ ■ . f Eos 4 . .
, , e
e •
J ., ; MO5th PUT.. t \ , wf v on, . ‘ A - • , 0 4 -; .3/4,„ f , njx 4,. tv
\
0 1 CD 34 Apc. \ v-i; i i.‘ 3 6 \ ■ ' .)" g
,
• L I 1 \ ‘ 1 1 • a is a j Ao
- 1- . .- .
‘ I ',‘ 1 . EXISTING:TpS
I 1 t ,, • J ) Allilrif
8' DIA. (
• 0 ;- ‘ - ..., 1 • ,f9 .3 ,/, t a
- 5CHEPULE 0
5 7 '3 k i- -4/ . T., BUILDING IiIVELOPE '
3 7 1 e- l k ..c
I 1>‘ ID (SHADED) s. ' . 2 - lb CONIFE2
u s' F (5 ••• V • e / Mose S
14' "
• 9, • 10' SIDE 'IAD / 1 c.A v - e k)....)o
- ---......C 4 ,7 - „ ,_
1 SETBACK . / 4 - I ti
/ '
i ../2--,.....„ 5pt.)-Ir
- 7 ASPEt
1 ••• .... -......-9,5 6 G .
C C- ) Z7"--: \/ / / 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW 7 9"
i'roposed Development I'lan A r , 7 ). 2. ,-..... REPLAT OF LOT 2 MOSES LOT SPLIT 8 - 4'
i LOT I
I a / ---...., Aspen, Colorado
/U JC - 7 T 5FL IT 10 - '
1 20' 40 • -, --. --. 7
° I Voorsaftget & Associates, Architects P. z 0 ,
/ 246 West 38 Street
, t / New York, NY 10018
NORTH
ED Alan Richman Planning Services
Box 3613
• Aspen, Colorado 81612
, --
tr l Jr :.:.•. i
° A Y
g' v °4 $:v '9 I "I z ° t E
I I I i ;z �`��
f : -
i
{
ip v
iiA
-�' .ir
b g [S q I •
ti i �.
i
�
1
I ;1 1 I.
1 " ...? ,
, i,',11:5.:
b44 ."C f'��j':' iry
K M r
v ,x
z s Sr4 " " z g .
i ,pa
>, r x1.71
\ � • 03 ;w ' 44. 4 7 , va . A
L . ..) C i h ' • f h.. r4i is�i
� ' . ,r ) 4
• r •+ 5
"a • r. a _ .
4 p l
f J , sni • ♦ _.; ` '''� S � f4
l l z ,ii�; r1 .. :, ,•. d ro .. . ,:g".""��.
l 1, x 7 w �' -'q' -r -. c" ? 4,541
� Aot. l � , h, t, < 5� . & k'
R �. , r. ' af, �`F,wl t
• ~ ei ' ,k� ti f . J ft e 1 g Y Pt G r '�+t Y 10 f • t r ,: x 4 '+ U' : <, , : : ty � • � it 4 e Z
G $ � t '' : L • J '' is '+tv CJ, w '�` s * t -t4 "F v l r -y:A v 4 » to
4 1, ••;•' ,. ' 2 '.. , :
yL, ' � - .1 r ; n 2 � � '.1':.
'�u.`x . f - ' 6
N Y r ' ,z '�''' ', r ,, ` ` a , J ' ` i,,,C. i s°.Aj rt:,7 � •
` �u,{.,� t i" 4 a k .,. '� - {K .r.h:? i: nt ';�' \ "' /
,••., i
k - I
1.____, ^ d u
0
g
7 ,,, In o
in 14
i "� - :_ •\
ZZ 0 y�
tic., z ``
y..° _. _....1 I ' '
a y >"� P t t. W
r a
� ., _' .
.
c I: j:
'T
r
A —i
. 1 t I I ! ` , 1 ' 7
�'' I ,
\ 1
V II, • ,
li
ii _ Zi i ''
W
W
1 Rio
9
; n
Y 1 n ' 0 1 m
. ' \ N
_a \ '1 \ I - i 1
J i`
t
V z a a
z }CI 5 oe 3
w o u wz u.
j zfgW 53 � z
cr 3E 82 2 as 2
_..
esk
. .
,
- e ,_._.
, ::,,
, I bq
i
Y
g
1 1 8 i 1 1 1 i 0 11
•
• illi r
0cr g 11 § iii il
I
/4 fj . •
'
- - ....... -
A...1 1 .,
- A 1
" • -. 4 I ' I .: 1 • •• ' • I •
, I ir-, — 1_ 0 1:;;•, •: . I PAILII ?? , 4 1 1 -1C-10 - f e ••
• U--,--1;. • •.' • ;•.r:‘ ,. ., . I'll ra.:, a •I
,...-
,--•
: ' '' -- P. ' . , : i
C , ' t 'ft• 1 I ! ' ; ;
•-•,
...... .. 1 . . .1
2 ?
r ' 5 •T! RI A :
. .
i ,
l li.
■
2 I 2 • 2 I 2 1
... . I •
i 1 '2 . : 1 I f I .
• ; - • - , 1 ' 1 /
..., ...I. , ri, : , •-!., .,; I., • ri . it ;
. : • • • • i 1-4 i
• I • 1 : ,
t-e • I '
1 - L I • I
' ‘-‘: 1 . C n I. • ' : ; . I . ;
4 i s- i ,
1 : 111 1 I • .. t i 1 . • ----
f• t
• .• ,, I ii
Il I 1,, t It i .', • :
4
..
- k „
••• k
V A I h - II:. / : ........r.sti
,
.. , I L. / - 11 : i
i ; L •I
I I r , i , ; I •____1 ..• i : , .
% •....
-
v .•
;) ' t‘ • 1 - illi •-• ' r 1
--•-
Il I ' • • i •---- i: ••• ' 1
. % .
' III! • 11 . ; 1 11 1 :41 ! • i ' i
.i ..1 N ,•-‘,
„,,,,..,. ,..., , , ,I li ''. • . '. Nri 1 ' - ;
- ..
• 1
. : , oi,
• • . ;
; f ; •1 ., , ' ,
/y
,,
:,
,_
...-
. .
A
• ' 1
• .. .: :. . ...
ri---- : —717-(17
• .. ••• . --..! + k., • Is, • -; L.:L
• . • ..i.-r---t•- ----1 1 , ! .• ; • , •
/
•••
.. ,
•
-"-- Tirr: - -
, .
.-' • - 7 : 7 ;...7--)c— 77 ', c
-......,: ---:•%'-'7.
i ,, . ; 1 • T ,
.., .... \,/, ,,i,...- ; „,...„;(,,,!..: l i t '•,,, ; ; i •..,:), i : .
i•
, - •• , : . .. - • --
I : •-. J • - 1i. : : .11
1 cr
1 t 1 : . ; • q , , i:•
• • i: ; : f ; ! 1 ' , <41
• 1 11; : ;
. ,
0 4
‘...., 1 A.,.
1 i !I le ril
. •.( A
IR 1 4,
' 2...., ,‘ Ad . -,,,i;■
g ,--
1 .,-•
Htj
2g 1 7--
6
•
-
: % ..•
ATTACHMENT "C"
•
Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D.
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
0185 INGERSOL. LANE
•
SILT, COLORADO 81652
(303)9633600 (2O HOURS)
January 20, 1992
i> Alan M. Richman, AICP
Box 3613
Aspen CO. 81612
RE: Aspen Alps Lot
Dear Mr. Richman:
I have completed my geologic investigation of the proposed
building site on the maps which accompany this report. The
building site lies along the .east slope of the lobe %•.
containing the Little Nell Ski Run. This is in the southern
part of the Town of Aspen, within the Aspen 7 1/2 minute
quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado.
The building site lies on a gentle east slope near a small
debris fan surrounded by trees and covered by native grasses.
It is between the home of Beard Moses and other Aspen Alps
buildings. The lot is irregularly shaped with the building
envelope as shown.
•
The geology of the site consists of clays, silts, sands,
gravels and boulders of colluvial and some debris flow material
Si deposited perhaps hundreds of years ago. These materials are
generally graded and sorted and are probably between 50 and 70 feet
thick at this site. The underlying bedrock cannot be
determined but is probably one of the Paleozoic carbonate or
sandstone units fractured by faulting common to this area.
This faulting is mostly from 30 million years ago and there
is no evidence of recent activity. It is still prudent to
design the home to conform to Seismic Zone II of the Uniform
Building Code.
The fan which has been discussed is a geologic concern
but can be mitigated and should not present problems to the
the home site because of the distance involved and the
relative low energy of the flows. The building site is away
from the base of the steep slope to the west, but instability
in this steep slope is possible; therefore, the rear (west)
wall of the home should be at least six feet above finished
grade and-designed to accept forces of up to 200 pounds per
square foot. There should be no doors or windows in this interval
within the six foot level. If the steep slope in cut, the rear
wall should also act as a retaining wall to the toe of the slope.
The material of the site is suitable far the development of a
ATTACHMENT "D"
GAARD MOSES
P.O. Box 21
Aspen, Colorado 81612
April 1, 1992
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen /Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 816111. .
Re: Hirsch /Aspen Alps
Dear Leslie:
I write this letter to follow up our conversations on the
site concerning the Aspen Alps' sale of land to Mr. Hirsch, and
Hirsch's modification of conditions of the Moses Lot Split.
The Aspen Alps and Mr..Hirsch have promised to provide me
mitigation measures which would lessen the impact of the
proposed changes on my residence. Based on these assurances,
this letter shall serve to confirm my consent to the removal of
the 3,800 FAR limit on the Hirsch property, and to Mr. Hirsch's
purchase of land from the Aspen Alps.
If you have any additional questions, please feel free to
contact me.
Very truly yours,
Gaard Mo es
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: MOSES ASPEN VIEW HOMESITE SUBDIVISION, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT,
AND 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW
NOTICE I8 HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, April 7, 1992 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before the
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission, 2nd floor Meeting Room, 130
South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado to consider an application
submitted by Alan Richman, Box 3613, Aspen, Colorado 81612,
requesting a subdivision, a lot line adjustment, and an 8040
Greenline approval. Property location: Lot 2, Moses Lot Split,
part of Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 86 West, part of the
Aspen Alps.
For further information, contact Leslie Lamont at the Aspen/
Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920 -5090.
s /Jasmine Twits, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in The Aspen Times on March 19, 1992.
City of Aspen Account
ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone 920 -5090 FAX 920 -5197
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
Parks Department
Aspen Fire Protection District
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
RE: MOSES ASPEN VIEW IIOMESITE SUBDIVISION, LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT AND 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW;
PARCEL ID N2737- 182 -63 -002
DATE: February 12, 1992
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Alan Richman,
requesting a subdivision, lot line review and an 8040 greenline review.
Please return your comments to me no later than March 16, 1992. The Design Review
Committee has been scheduled for March 5, at 3:00 p.m., City Hall Council Chambers.
Thank you.
3
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
SUMMARY SHEET I1
Date: 3/ c ChairPerson: h i4A15J
i lll�w
Case Nam, : 't.-A• •a ,: as
A•ent •e•rese, .I 1
tat vs: r► ■,..
Case .•e:aS .� .. a _ a-st a-a :� � 1.►.110• ��..
REFERRAL COMMENTS SUMMARY:
Cit Engineer• (memo f ominq�: ,Jeri no )
Cl vin t in fl� 4 Fw .0 .: inae, rs y7 am-P Jl
1
fI
County Engineer: (memo : yes no )
Environmental Health (memo: yes no )
►
i e Departm -nt: memo.46, no WI e I ►
•
Parks •ep- rtment: (m y ) I _
• / 1
Building Department: (memo: yes no )
Housing Authority: (memo: yes no )
Attorney: (memo: yes no )
O r : W — C�� rA�l.�1
-CR 2, n a� ra t , Ln &)
I II
Ge. al C • e .�� & I
V' ._ _ in 1 111 v�
I 1
Yb. L
r
ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone 920 -5090 FAX 920 -5197 FEB 2 d 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer _
Parks Department
Aspen Fire Protection District
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
RE: MOSES ASPEN VIEW HOMESITE SUBDIVISION, LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT AND 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW;
PARCEL ID #2737- 182 -63 -002
DATE: February 12, 1992
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Alan Richman,
requesting a subdivision, lot line review and an 8040 greenline review.
Please return your comments to me no later than March 16, 1992. The Design Review
Committee has been scheduled for March 5, at 3:00 p.m., City Hall Council Chambers.
Thank you.
00 6 o/1;/r F %
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO LESLIE LAMONT
From: Wayne Vandemark
Postmark: Mar 02,92 2:40 PM
Status: Certified Urgent
Subject: MOSES
Message:
WE DO HAVE ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY NOW. THERE IS A HYDRANT AVAILABLE
FOR FIRE FIGHTING. BRUSH SHOULD BE TRIMMED WITHIN 30' OF THE
STRUCTURE. THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO A SINGLE SPEIMEN OF TREES,
ORNAMENTAL SHRUBBERAY USED AS GROUND COVER, PROVIDED THEY DO NOT FORM
A MEANS OF RAPIDLY TRANSMITTING FIRE FROM THE NATIVE GROWTH TO ANY
STRUCTURE. REMOVE ANY PORTION OF ANY TREE 10' FROM THE OUTLET OF ANY
CHIMNEY. MAINTAIN ANY TREE ADJACENT TO OR AVERHANGING FREE OF DEAD
WOOD. MAINTAIN ROOF FREE OF LEAVES, NEEDLES OR OTHER DEAD VIGITATIVE
GROTH. STATE FOREST SERVICE GUIDLINES SHOULD BE REVIEWED BY OWNER.
X
T
MEMORANDUM
To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer n,.?
Date: March 5, 1992 `' ,_
Re: Moses Aspen View Homesite Subdivision, Lot Line Adjustment, and 8040
Greenline Review
1. Existing conditions map shows access drive with note about parking along drive. A
Twenty feet is required to be provided for emergency access, therefore there cannot be
parking in the 20'. The final plat must indicate that parking along road is not permitted
unless approved by the Fire Marshall.
2. The final plat will have to reflect all improvements on the site including the entire
length of the actual access road. The access easement must be revised to include the
roadway surface.
3. The contents of the final plat must meet Sections 24 -7- 1004 -D.1 and -D.2 of the
municipal code. There must be a statement by the surveyor, either in a surveyor's
certificate or in a general note, that all easements of record as indicated on Title Policy
No. _ , dated , have been shown on the plat. The date must be within the
past 12 months.
4. The indicated access easement does not connect with the new Lot 2 or its parking
area. Also, the access easement to Lot 1 across Lot 2 is insufficient width to meet code
requirements (20').
0 This application includes a parcel of land, Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split, that was
studied in 1987. There is a Chen & Associates letter dated May 27, 1987, on file that
discusses building foundation, slope stability, debris flow, flooding, and abandoned mines.
Recommendations of that letter must be followed for any development on the reconfigured
Lot 2, Moses Lot Split. We recommend a condition of approval that the final inspection
include a letter from Chen & Associates, or other similarly qualified professional, that the
applicable contents of the 1987 letter have been satisfied by the project as constructed.
6. Water service - Please obtain comments from Water Department. There may be
agreement in place regarding hook -up reimbursement for previously constructed water
main extension.
i7. Obtain comments from: NtITIMX:ccaneil, Parks Department, Fire Marshall
The request for increased floor area does not appear to be in conformance with
structure size intent as discussed in letter from Gideon Kaufman, representing Moses, to
Alan Richman, Planning Director, dated October 23, 1986, which requested rezoning and
lot split approval.
J9 The applicant shall agree to join improvement districts formed for improvements to
- A ^ - the public right -of -way. w ie
10. The development must meet on -site drainage retention requirements of Section 24-
7- 1004.C.4.f.
11. The applicant is advised to check with the neighbor, Gaard Moses, concerning his
experiences with roof snow shed problems in this heavy snowfall area.
fq cc: Bob Gish, Public Works Director : li •
../--,
t e n " fi t k
1 C . ` e
C
A
M92.103
MEMORANDUM
To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer e
Date: April 1, 1992
Re: Moses Aspen View Homesite Subdivision, Lot Line Adjustment, and 8040
Greenline Review
This memo is written as an addendum to my memo of March 5, as a follow up to our site
visit of March 30, and as a clarification of items that you requested.
1. It appeared that the applicant was willing to accept the improvement district language
as it was presented. It would not be appropriate to limit the scope of the condition to
Ute Avenue only since the only public access through the property also traverses Original
Avenue as well as other city streets. It is conceivable that the property could be included
in larger improvemnt districts than just Ute Avenue.
e •�
2. I check wit the Parks Department about Gaard Moses' new driveway proposal.
The health trees between which the driveway is proposed will be jeopardized. The
condition of approval should state that construction activities contemplated within the drip
line of any trees greater than 6" in diameter must be approved by the Parks Department.
3. Since vegetation contributes to slope vegetation, no vegetation shall be removed from
the slope.
4. The applicant shall provide a letter from a registered professional engineer that all
applicable geotechnical concerns of the Chen & Associates letter of May 27, 1987, and the
Lampiris letter submitted with the application have been complied with during
construction. This letter must be submitted prior to final inspection and accepted by the
city engineer.
cc: Bob Gish, Public Works Director
M92.114
MEMORANDUM
To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer
Date: April 7, 1992
Re: Moses Aspen View Homesite Subdivision, Lot Line Adjustment, and 8040
Greenline Review
This memo is written in response to your request for clarifications and additional
i nformation. i - 1 • }
Ai
The following additional con • itions of approval are suggested:
Prior to issuance of any building permit, the ap • cAnt ail submit a letter
or report • -- . . ° _ = : • - _::_,« 011 - : _ _- in= tl3e -St t of
• ' . • - - : .: -' •• -1 respon • to each of the issues itemized
in criteria 1 and 2 of the 8040 Greenline review standards. (w Fl
I
Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall submit a letter,- or report/ �`
prepared by an engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado,
which letter• -e rer- shall confirm that the recommendations ^d
eft were followed during construction. T s`
Grk
Please note that the municipal code section on 8040 Greenline does not specify that
responses be answered by an engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado.
The section on stream margin review is clear in that regard. However, it is my
understanding and interpretation of Colorado Revised Statutes that responding to items
1 and 2 of the 8040 Greenline review standards constitutes the practice of engineering,
and further that only an engineer registered to practice in Colorado is permitted by law
to practice engineering.
cc: Bob Gish, Public Works Director
John Worcester, Assistant City Attorney
M92.121
ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920 -5090 FAX# (303) 920 -5197
February 12, 1992
Mr. Alan Richman
Alan Richman Planning Services
Box 3613
Aspen, CO 81612
Re: Moses Aspen View Homesite (Lot 2, Moses Lot Split)
Subdivision, Lot Line Adjustment, and 8040 Greenline Review
Case A8 -92
Dear Alan:
The Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the
captioned application. We have determined that this application
is complete.
We have scheduled this application for a Public Hearing before the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, April 7, 1992 at
a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m.; and for 1st Reading before the
Aspen City Council on Monday, April 27, 1992 at a meeting to begin
at 5:00 p.m. Second Reading and Public Hearing will be on Monday,
May 25, 1992. Should these dates be inconvenient for you please
contact me within 3 working days of the date of this letter. After
that the agenda dates will be considered final and changes to the
schedule or tabling of the application will only be allowed for
unavoidable technical problems. The Friday before the meeting
dates, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo
pertaining to the application is available at the Planning Office.
Please note that it is your responsibility to mail notice to
property owners within 300' and to post the subject property with
a sign prior to the public hearing on April 7, 1992. Please submit
a photograph of the posted sign as proof of posting and an
affidavit as proof of mailing prior to the public hearing.
All applications are now being scheduled for the Development Review
Committee (DRC). The DRC is a committee of referral agencies which
meet with Planning and the applicant early in the process to
discuss the application. This case is scheduled for March 5, 1992
at 3:00 p.m., City Hall, City Council Chambers.
If you have any questions, please call Leslie Lamont the planner
assigned to your case.
Sincerely,
Cindy Christensen
Administrative Assistant
filets Ride a se Pea sacg. Seweea
tat 8618, tiara &Mafia 11612 P (308) 920-1 /25
April 9, 1992
Ms. Debbie Skehan, Office Manager
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: MOSES ASPEN VIEW HOMESITE LAND USE APPLICATION
Dear Debbie,
The purpose of this letter is to formally request that the Planning
Office accomplish those procedures necessary to vest the 8040
Greenline Approval recently granted to Lot 2, Moses Lot Split.
We also request that the forthcoming ordinance adoption process
which City Council will undertake for our subdivision approval
provide for vested rights for that aspect of the project. It is
our understanding from your earlier memo that first reading will
occur on Monday, April 27, while the public hearing will be on
Tuesday, May 26 (due to Memorial Day holiday). Please let me know
if these dates remain correct.
Please pass this letter along to Leslie so she can address the
necessary requirements in her Council memo and ordinance.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Very truly yours,
ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES
A its.
Alan Richman, AICP
cc: Mickey Herron
Pam Cunningham
IIP _ _
o,
BUILD JG
y 1
W ��
�n Q � -4 Q }T u�5icrs d , uw1nennun
1 SIGNMANERS -_
/
I ) $ C A SPHALT �' G � Pil IC
/ U vfii ; / , I ,
i
7 , I `. , , , j, � ' Beal 0005 Alps nsoen,CaeulI 90392592x2
I 2 ' FRONT/Y4ED /
•TBACIC i
i
I a l 1' � - iF f ra . /Er' PKIV. ��
' � PROPOSED BSI G ,
7 \ - y ...� XI KA PP�KI C K e t Ir - .,--�
1 _ 1 y FOOTPRINTS
\ ' rNal / \ A\ 111 • �1r I � c0?/ F1. 2 AKE OF � e c In
t
i \ ' \ " `-� f ECG DRrv>i ° '� P � �
`t y; I \ A A " 1' 01 -- C A L T 1 '
9
p e
y �lr, p.��- 1 � . 10 , ,� G�' A Y a
9
,,, \ ■ 1 \ \ ya \ C °Qv� -
■ V A \I � s ss y I�A7E - PCCE`,5 ,t�' n
\ t 1 , )EMEr,r m cr
' I ■ 1 \ \ \ \ 1 1 \ ' :' � �� �, \ j - -• OR LOT iF.• v� ha -\";,4--- y LO I, _� �1__ J� f t '' ? l
• \
-710 i NI1 LO SflLITm , V , 4 l � ' �jl ��l�j " 'V ° r `�� 49 i r
1 1 \ 1 , ■ ■ ' \. N 15': Flo S
` ` I g o ' \ \ 1 . col 1 4 • I� , , 8' SSTING'IRES w
570 �3 ' k - 1 Q 1 / ' ° � BUILDING vELOrE SCHEDULE of TREES
37 I 17- 1 \ a� o (SHADED) r ' - IO CONIFER 13 - 10 1 A
CO ‘ �`` 3/4. iT F • 10' SIDE YA)t`b / -3 12" 15 -- 9"
o SETBACK 4 i8 0 g"
/T 7" ASPEN I7
Proposed os¢d Develo ment Plan c' �z. 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW 7 - 9" " 19 - g
1 D LOT I Q TY -- "( REPLAT OF LOT 2 MOSES LOT SPLIT 8 - co'' i 20 - 7
Aspen Colorado ° - 9 21 - 7 "
0'� 0' 40' —� ` -- -_T sfl — IT �\ 10 7" " 2)_ 6"
1 1
Voors &Associates, Architects P. ,2 _ � ,� 1
2G- 10" 1
246 West 38th 3kvt
NORTH New York, NY 1001 g .
Alan Richman Planning Services
Box 3613
Aspen, Colorado 81612
1
INS �
4
St
M
LOT 2 MOSES LOT SPLIT
SUBDIVISION AND 8040
GREENLINE REVIEW
APPLICATION
r
r
,. SUBMITTED TO
CITY OF ASPEN /PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE
r FEBRUARY,1992
l
SUBMITTED BY
ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES
BOX 3613
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
(303) 920 -1125
Alas gases Pift Stag, Soweeua
Sex 3613, r¢q&us, e eeasda. 2/612 Piss` (303) 980 -1125
February 5, 1992
-� HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
_ Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: SUBDIVISION /8040 GREENLINE APPLICATION, LOT 2, MOSES LOT SPLIT
y Dear Leslie,
Attached please find six (6) copies of the subdivision/8040 greenline review application for
Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split and the parcel of land surrounding the Aspen Alps known as
the Mitchell/Bornefeld parcel. Six (6) copies of the following three (3) maps have also been
provided at full scale:
1. Existing Conditions Map;
2. Proposed Replat Map; and
- 3. Schematic Elevations, Section.
Also attached is a check in the amount of $2,809, of which $2,584 is in payment of the
Planning Office land use application fees for subdivision and $225 is in payment of the
Engineering Department referral agency review fees. Letters have been provided
authorizing my firm to represent the applicants, Aspen View Homesite, Inc., the Aspen Alps
Air and George Mitchell.
I believe you will find the application to be complete in all but two respects. We are still
in the process of obtaining the list of property owners within 300' from Pitkin County Title
(Exhibit G). They have been unable to obtain the most current tax list from the Pitkin
County Assessor and Treasurer, as is required by Section 6 -204 E3c of the Aspen Land Use
Regulations. This list is due out imminently and we will provide the necessary stamped
s envelopes soon thereafter, but certainly in advance of the required public hearing notice for
the Planning Commission subdivision review.
,. Ms. Leslie Lamont
February 5, 1992
Page 2
We are also anticipating receiving a signed copy of the Quit Claim Deed from
Mitchell/Bornefeld to Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc., (Exhibit K) which conveys the
O. parking easement. A copy of the Quit Claim Deed without signatures is included in this
application. A signed copy will be provided to you within the next week.
Should you have any questions or need any additional information during the period of staff
review of the project, please feel free to contact me at the address or phone number above.
Thank you for your assistance while the application was being prepared and for your
continuing attention to this project.
Very truly yours,
ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES Aki
A Alan M. Richman, AICP
Wf
NIA
MO
1
I. APPLICATION REQUEST
The applicant, Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc., a Colorado corporation, has recently
+� purchased a 0.398 acre parcel of land known as "Lot 2, Moses Lot Split ". The applicant has
also recently obtained an option to purchase an adjacent 4+ acre parcel of land known as
"the MitchellBornefeld property ". This parcel of land surrounds the 300, 400, 500 and 700
buildings at the Aspen Alps.
Both parcels of land are shown on the attached map, labeled "Existing Conditions ". The
map also identifies those parcels of land which are under separate ownership. These parcels
include the "Mitchell House ", "Aspen Alps South (300, 400 and 500 Buildings) ", "Aspen Alps
South (700 Building)" and "Lot 42 ", a small tract which is owned by the U.S. Forest Service.
An application to obtain said tract has been filed with the Forest Service by
MitchellBornefeld, pursuant to the Small Tracts Act.
The applicant has the following objectives with respect to these parcels:
1. The lot split approval in 1987 which created Lots 1 and 2, Moses Lot Split, was
conditioned upon a limitation being placed over both lots that the homes which
would be built thereupon would not exceed 3,800 square feet per house.
The applicant requests this restriction be lifted with respect to Lot 2 and replaced
with a restriction that the maximum size house allowed on the parcel will not exceed
5,000 square feet of countable floor area and a 500 square foot garage (which, by
definition, is not counted against floor area).
2. The applicant requests that the lot lines of Lot 2, Moses Lot Split be revised, to
include sufficient lot area to allow the requested floor area for the proposed
•
residence. This request requires approval of a re- subdivision of the lot by the City.
3. The applicant requests 8040 Greenline Approval for the proposed replacement home
to be located on the new Lot. A proposed site plan, with building envelope and
footprint, and proposed building elevations are contained in this application package.
4. The applicant intends to convey the remaining land within the MitchellBornefeld
property to the Aspen Alps Condominium Association, a Colorado non -profit
corporation. The Aspen Alps Condominium Association is a co- applicant to this
application. The Condominium Association has sought to obtain this property for the
past several years to preserve the open space around the 300, 400, 500 and 700
buildings and because the parcel contains the Aspen Alps South Road, parking for
the buildings, and the Condominium Association's tennis courts.
Since the tennis courts are subject to a long term lease, which the Aspen Land Use
Regulations define as a subdivision, they will be designated as a separate lot.
3.
The Condominium Association commits to place a restriction against the future
development of the two lots conveyed to it, such that they cannot be used to obtain
additional floor area or density in the Aspen Alps complex, provided a 5,000 square
foot replacement home is approved on Lot 2 for Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc.,
with reasonable conditions.
5. As described in the attached letter from George Mitchell, a lot line adjustment
between the parcel known as the "Mitchell House" and the Mitchell/Bornefeld
property is also requested. The purpose of this adjustment is to convey to Mr.
Mitchell those areas which he currently uses for parking and which lie to the west of
the Aspen Alps South Road and to convey to the Aspen Alps that portion of his lot
now occupied by the Road.
Copies of the Title Insurance Policies for Moses Lot 2, the MitchellBomefeld property and
the Mitchell House are included in this application as Exhibits A, B and C, respectively.
r
<.. Letters authorizing Alan Richman Planning Services to submit this application on behalf of
the applicant and co- applicants are attached hereto as Exhibits D, E and F, respectively.
A list of owners of property within 300' of the properties, prepared by Pitkin County Title,
is attached as Exhibit G.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Aspen Alps is an 83 unit condominium development, the majority of which was built
during the 1960's. Zone districts which cross the property include L/TR, R -6, R -15 (PUD)
and Conservation.
When the original and first amended condominium plat of "Aspen Alps South" were
recorded during the 1960's, the developers, Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Bornefeld, designated
those only lands on which the 300, 400, 500 and 700 buildings were constructed as general
common elements, owned by the unit owners as tenants in common. The developers
retained ownership of the remainder of the property, which entirely surrounds these
buildings. The existing conditions map, attached hereto, reflects this prior subdivision, shows
the existing ownerships within this property, and provides a tabulation of land areas within
these ownerships and access easements.
Recently, the Condominium Association determined it would be in the owners' best interests
to have greater control over the area's destiny, by securing those lands surrounding the
existing buildings. Their intention was not to further develop the property, but rather, to
_ preclude inappropriate development which might occur in the future which could
substantially affect their surroundings. The Condominium Association also wished to obtain
title to the road and parking areas which serve their buildings.
2
w
r
In order to complete this transaction, the Association has entered into a contract to purchase
the MitchellBomefeld property. This contract has been assigned by the Association to
Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc, the owner of the adjacent parcel, Lot 2, Moses Lot Split.
— The contract provides that at closing, a portion of the property will be conveyed to Moses
Aspen View Homesite, Inc., and the balance will be conveyed to the Condominium
Association.
The proposed development program for the property is to demolish the existing single family
residence on Lot 2 and to build a new residence, not to exceed 5,000 square feet, containing
five bedrooms, plus a garage not to exceed 500 square feet. The proposed building envelope
for the residence and garage is shown on the drawing labeled "proposed development plan ".
The driveway to the site, also shown on the drawing, will be provided from Aspen Alps
South Road, a private road which is maintained by the Aspen Alps. One parking space will
be provided for each bedroom, two of which will be in the garage.
The application procedures to which this development is subject are subdivision and 8040
Greenline Review. There are several issues addressed within the context of the subdivision
application. First, a replat of Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split is necessary to increase the size
° of the parcel to approximately 1 acre. This size is needed to allow the requested 5,000
square foot floor area and because the new lot has more than one underlying zone
designation.
Section 5 -506 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations provides rules for properties on which
there is more than one underlying zone district. Section 5 -506 B2 states that when a use is
allowed in all underlying zone districts, as is the case herein, and more than 75% of the land
area of the parcel is designated with the zone district permitting the higher density, then "the
use shall be developed using the dimensional requirements and off- street parking
requirements of the Zone District permitting the higher density, which shall be calculated
on the basis of the land area and development of the entire parcel ".
Alpine Surveys has provided a site tabulation of the proposed lots, included on the
" "proposed replat map ", demonstrating that more than 75% of the land area within proposed
Lot 2 is zoned R -15 (PUD). The remainder of the lot is zoned Conservation.
The subdivision application also includes a request for a lot line adjustment between
consenting adjacent owners, the Aspen Alps and George Mitchell, as provided by Section
7 -1003 Al of the Aspen Land Use Regulations.
.- Since the proposed development is located above the 8040 Greenline, an application for
8040 Greenline Review is also included herein.
Specific responses to the criteria for Subdivision Review are contained in Section III of this
application. Responses to the criteria for 8040 Greenline Review are found in Section IV.
3
ASPEN I 700 B LDING
\1 i N /�
1 I 1 / / EXISTING ASPHALT \
/ I I I DRIVE \
!Lil `' ' PROPOSED
r \ 1 °�:' • LOT LINE
\ \ I ? 25' FRONT YARD
-y I \ SETBACK \ •
• \ 1 PROPOSED BUILDING
;" > "�� FOOTPRINT
\ , �
\ v / \ \ \ ' ' � • �• \ 4:1 1
1 • \ \ / I
1 A A 1 \ \ k EXISTING
\ \ « ACCESS DRIVE ____--8
\ 11 \ \ • I \ I
i \ it \ � -\
I'l 1 Vi n, -
/ � 1 V A /.
1 A I "\
/ I 1 1 \ \ 11 \ ;
( 1 I \ \ \ 1 \ \ \ Cr. re , rP \' 4 I '1\ �/ •
i \ '/
\ o i o \ CO \ \ \ ` ` �/ gi) \ ~ L ,./....
I
I \ \ 1 \ 1 I I ,\ \• 1 • \ \ . , /
L - '1 - \ 1 \ \ EXISTING TREES V'
— , - 1- ,4 „ I 1 8'DIA.
BUILDING ENVELOPE
..' k � (SHADED)
4.
10' SIDE YARD
SETBACK
”' Proposed Development Plan 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW
W REPLAT OF LOT 2 MOSES LOT SPLIT
i Aspen, Colorado
- 0' 20' 40' 80'
Voorsanger & Associates, Architects P. C.
246 West 38th Street
NORTH New York, NY 10018
ED .
4 Alan Richman Planning Services
Box 3613
"• Aspen, Colorado 81612
III. RESPONSE TO SUBDIVISION REVIEW CRITERIA
This application is submitted for subdivision review by both the Planning Commission and
-� City Council, not as a subdivision amendment, which would only be reviewed by Council, all
as provided in Section 7 -1006 B of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. The applicant and staff
agreed on this process for these reasons:
* The proposed new lot is substantially different in size from the existing Moses Lot
2; and
The applicant is requesting to revise a condition of the prior lot split approval.
A. Replat of Lot 2, Moses Lot Split
The criteria which follow below are taken from Section 7 -1004 C of the Aspen Land Use
Regulations, Subdivision Review Standards.
Criteria: The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive
Plan.
Response: The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan designated lands on Aspen Mountain above the
8040 topographic line as "Open Space ". In 1975, when the Aspen Zone District Map was
amended to bring it into conformance with the Plan, these lands were zoned Conservation.
A letter written by Bill Kane, the Aspen Planning Director at the time of the 1975 rezoning,
addressing the Moses parcel, helps to explain the thinking behind the 1973 Plan. Bill's letter,
attached hereto as Exhibit H, states that "Conservation zoning was applied to lands which
were generally considered of public interest to remain in an open space condition. This
included skiing and skier access to the base of the mountain. Being a public, open space
zone, we did not intend this district to cover existing residential development."
The Moses parcel was rezoned from Conservation to R -15 (PUD) by the City of Aspen in
1987. A review of the public record, including the Planning Office staff memo, a portion of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit I, indicates the reason the rezoning was granted.
In a memo from the Planning Office to City Council dated March 23, 1987, it was stated that
because the Moses property lies below and out of sight from the Little Nell slope, it can be
distinguished from other lands east of Little Nell which are at grade with the ski slope and
highly visible to the general public. Staff's opinion was that the recognized community goal
of protecting the mountain sides and skiing runs from development would not be
„ compromised by the Moses rezoning, due to the site's topography. The memo goes on to
suggest the Midland railroad spur, which lies above the Moses Lot Split homesites, may be
a better dividing line between the Conservation and residential zone districts than is the 8040
line, the current line of demarcation.
5
It is clear that the proposed building envelope shares the topographic characteristics that set
the Moses property apart from many other lands zoned Conservation. It is not visible to the
skier using the Little Nell slope, nor is it visible from Aspen. It does not provide skier
access to the mountain, nor does it contain features of public interest. Its re- subdivision and
development should, therefore, be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and
the Aspen Land Use Regulations.
Criteria: The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses
in the area.
Response: The character of the existing land uses surrounding the proposed subdivision is
sis
single- family and multiple - family, visitor- oriented development. Adjacent uses to the
subdivision are the Moses homesite, the multi - family buildings of the Aspen Alps, and the
single - family residences in the Aspen Chance Subdivision, most of which are much larger
than the proposed replacement home on Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split. By preserving most
s' of the land area within the subdivision as open space, the development will be consistent
with the open space character of Aspen Mountain.
Criteria: The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of
surrounding areas.
r
Response: Because of its location, the proposed development lot is not surrounded by other
parcels which are anticipated to be developed. The proposed building location will benefit
the adjacent Moses homesite, by setting the new home further back from that residence.
The increased setback will help the two structures to appear as separate buildings with their
own massing, rather than the single mass they now portray to those driving along Aspen
Alps South Road or those looking down from the gondola.
The proposed development will also benefit the Aspen Alps, by bringing the road and
parking areas under the ownership of the people using them. This change will secure the
existing uses in the area, but will not promote growth, due the Aspen Alps' intent to restrict
the parcel against further development.
A third benefit from the proposed subdivision comes from the proposed lot line adjustment,
which addresses an existing situation where the parking for the Mitchell property is not
located on Mr. Mitchell's lot, but the Aspen Alps South Road is on his lot.
Criteria: The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements
of this chapter.
Response: The applicant has carefully reviewed the requirements of Chapter 24 of the
Aspen Land Use Regulations and believes this application is in compliance with all of its
applicable provisions.
•• 6
asi
it
Criteria: The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development
because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide,
steep topography or any other natural condition that will be harmful to the health, safety or
welfare of residents in the proposed subdivision.
Response: See the responses to this issue presented within the 8040 Greenline Review
Application, which follows.
w
Criteria: The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause
inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public
a cost.
Response: The property is already served by all necessary public utilities. The existing
.. residence is on the City's water system and utilizes the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District treatment facility, although the service lines within the Aspen Alps property are
a
private. Electric service is provided below ground to the site. Aspen Alps South Road is
a private road, over which Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc. has been granted an access
easement. Since these facilities already exist, there should be no inefficiency, duplication or
premature extension of service from this subdivision proposal.
B. Lot Line Adjustment: Mitchell and MitchellBornefeld Lots
The criteria which follow below are taken from Section 7 -1003 A of the Aspen Land Use
Regulations, Subdivision Exemptions.
Criteria: It is demonstrated that the request is to correct an engineering or survey error in
a recorded plat or is to permit an insubstantial boundary change between adjacent parcels.
Response: The letter from Mr. Mitchell, attached hereto as Exhibit F, demonstrates that the
purpose of this adjustment is to convey to Mr. Mitchell those areas which he currently uses
for parking and which lie between his property and the Aspen Alps South Road and to
convey to the Aspen Alps that portion of his lot now occupied by the Aspen Alps South
Road. The corrections are necessary because of recently discovered survey problems in this
area, showing certain improvements to be incorrectly described as compared to their actual
location.
The attached drawing labeled "Mitchell Lot Line Adjustment" shows the three parcels to be
transferred. Parcels A and C, comprising 954 square feet, are to be transferred to Mr.
Mitchell, while Parcel B, comprising 131 square feet, will be transferred to the Aspen Alps.
The net increase in parcel size is 823 square feet, which does not change the nonconformity
i of the Mitchell parcel.
Criteria: Both landowners whose lot lines are being adjusted provide written consent to the
4f application.
7
r
•
,
ii .
°
N
SCALE t" m +0
Mitchell Lot Line Adjustment
ALI'INt 5utzva -(, (NC,
me, No, 87-159 -,
.r h J
= 0 8 � \
o ron 10.72'
kl P/RGEL 7S m — \ \ MI
r R N �/ o N \\\I
o S \
t . \
\ \
a.
. M(TGHELL s \\
A, )31C. 256, PH, Olt ' ? y , '�_ = \ \
PARCEL. C It \\
° /24.4$•
. \\
N 86•30 .1p0, "5.'74
a.
a
alll
a 8
r
Response: Exhibits D and F provide the written consent of the landowners to this
application.
Criteria: It is demonstrated that the request is to address specific hardship.
Response: The specific hardship associated with this situation is that Mr. Mitchell currently
uses areas for parking which are not on his parcel and that the Aspen Alps South Road is
on his parcel. The applicants wish to eliminate both of these inconsistencies.
Criteria: The corrected plat will meet the standards of this division and conform to the
requirements of this chapter, including the dimensional requirements of the zone district in
which the lots are located, except in cases of an existing nonconforming lot, in which the
adjustment shall not increase the nonconformity of the lot.
Response: The applicant agrees to submit a corrected plat meeting the standards of this
chapter following approval of the lot line adjustment. The Mitchell House is principally
.. located on land designated Conservation, with a small piece being designated L/TR. Lot
AV calculations performed by Alpine Surveys demonstrate the lot contains approximately 9,950
square feet, and is, therefore, nonconforming. Its nonconformity is unchanged or is reduced
slightly by this adjustment, which increases its size by approximately 800 square feet.
The small reduction in the size of the Mitchell/Bornefeld lot will not affect its conformity,
since the lot will be restricted against further development.
Criteria: It is demonstrated that the lot line adjustment will not affect the development
rights or permitted density of the affected lots by providing the opportunity to create a new
lot for resale or development.
Response: The development rights and permitted density of the Mitchell House lot will not
be affected by the adjustment, since the additional area will not create a lot of sufficient size
to permit it to be split. Moreover, as a condition of consenting to the lot line adjustment,
the Condominium Association will place a note on the final plat that no additional floor area
be granted to the Mitchell parcel due to the increased lot size.
The development rights and permitted density of the Mitchell/Bornefeld lot will not be
affected, since the lot will be restricted against further development.
IV. RESPONSE TO 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW CRITERIA
The criteria which follow below are taken from Section 7 -503 C of the Aspen Land Use
Regulations.
Criteria: The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for
development, considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence
-w.
9
and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to
contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils or,
where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the
City.
—
Response: The applicant has engaged Dr. Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D, consulting geologist, to
assess the suitability of the site for development, considering its ground stability, slope and
— whether it contains any other potential geologic hazards. Dr. Lampiris' findings are
contained in a report, attached hereto as Exhibit J.
Dr. Lampiris finds that the building site lies on a gentle east slope, near a small debris fan,
surrounded by trees and covered by native grasses. His reports states that "The fan which
has been discussed is a geologic concern but can be mitigated and should not present
problems to the home site because of the distance involved and the relatively low energy of
the flows. The building site is away from the base of the steep slope to the west, but
instability in this steep slope is possible; therefore, the rear (west) wall of the home should
— be at least six feet above finished grade and designed to accept forces of up to 200 pounds
per square foot. There should be no doors or windows in this wall below the six foot level.
If the steep slope is cut, the rear wall should also act as a retaining wall to the toe of the
slope."
Dr. Lampiris also finds the material of the site to be suitable for the development of a
single- family home, but recommends soils engineering studies be performed at the site
specific level to insure proper foundation design, due to the likelihood of finding
hydrocompactive soils from the fan. He also recommends that final landscaping include
positive drainage away from the home in all directions, insuring that any potential mud slurry
from a debris flow does not harm the house.
The applicant hereby commits to following all of the mitigation techniques outlined in Dr.
Lampiris' report.
Criteria: The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the
natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water
pollution.
Response: The proposed development will not have a significant adverse affect on the
natural watershed, nor cause increased runoff, drainage or soil erosion. As recommended
by Dr. Lampiris, the site will be graded to insure that drainage flows away from the home
site. The applicant will, if so required by the Engineering Department, install drainage
facilities to insure that historic drainage rates off the property are maintained following the
property's development, as previously mentioned by Jim Gibberd of the City Engineering
Department, during a site visit last year. Grading techniques and on -site retention methods
typical to residential construction will be employed to mitigate the increased impervious
surfaces associated with site development.
10
0
a Criteria: The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air
quality in the City.
Response: There should be no significant impacts on air quality from the re- development of
the residence on this site. The existing residence contains one wood burning device. The
applicant will comply with all applicable City regulations addressing wood burning devices
" in the new residential unit.
Criteria: The design and location of any proposed development, road or trail is compatible
with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located.
Response: Voorsanger and Associates, Architects, have analyzed the site and identified the
building envelope shown on the drawings entitled "Proposed Development Plan" and
"Schematic Elevations ". The drawings show the site's existing contour intervals and
demonstrates that the envelope uses the flat portions of the site and avoids cutting into the
as
embankment at the rear of the lot.
The architects have created a pictorial display of the development site by taking pictures
from various vantage points and pasting the proposed building footprint and the conceptual
building elevation onto the photographs. A display board containing these photographs will
,,. be made available to the Planning Office during the staff review of this application and will
be presented to the Planning Commission at their meeting to review the application.
a The photographs show the proposed house to be a relatively modest structure. The photos
clearly show that the building envelope will be placed on the flat portion of the site and will
not cut into the steep embankment. The two story log house blends into the slope and
natural vegetation which surround it and will use natural materials, such as wood and stone,
which are compatible with the terrain and the adjacent Moses residence.
The proposed homesite will be accessed by a driveway directly off of Aspen Alps Road
South, a private road which is maintained by the Aspen Alps Condominium Association.
The driveway will be relatively flat as it leaves the main road and enters the property. Its
establishment will require minimal land disturbance.
Criteria: Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain,
vegetation and natural features.
Response: The architects have located the building envelope so as to use the flat portion
of the site and avoid disturbance of the steep slope at the rear of the property, which we
believe is the site's most important natural feature.
Since the site is generally covered with vegetation, some removal of trees will be necessary.
a During a site visit last year with Bill Ness, Parks Director, he indicated he would require
one- for -one replacement of any tree over 6" caliper which is removed. The surveyors have
�. 11
identified 23 Aspen and spruce trees of this dimension near the building envelope. The
proposed development plan shows that 16 of these trees will be preserved, including all of
the spruce trees. Several of the Aspens have been saved by shifting the envelope's location.
The applicant commits to replace the seven Aspen trees which must be removed. The
applicant will also endeavor to design around any of these seven trees which can be
preserved when actual building plans are prepared and submitted.
Criteria: The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit
cutting and grading, maintain open space and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource.
Response: The development of a single house cannot be clustered. Instead, the applicant
has appropriately placed the building envelope to minimize the need for roads, limit cutting
and grading, maintain open space and preserve the scenic features of Aspen Mountain. The
«� applicant commits that the proposed replacement house will be located within the identified
building envelope and will avoid the steeper sections of the lot.
By using the existing Aspen Alps South Road, new road construction is minimized. The
.. proposed driveway will only extend about twenty feet off the existing driveway shared by the
two existing houses. Cutting and grading will also be minimized by locating the building
envelope on the flat portion of the site and not cutting into the steep embankment behind
the building envelope.
The site is invisible from the base of the mountain and from the center of town, so its
development should have virtually no impact on the open character of the mountain. The
site can only be seen when looking directly down from Silver Queen Gondola or if a skier
or hiker stopped along the very eastern edge of the Little Nell slope and peered over to the
site, which sits 50' -100' below the actual skiing surface.
The proposed building envelope preserves the critical open space at the rear of the parcel
and meets the minimum required setback of 25 feet from the front of the property.
Criteria: Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to
blend into the open character of the mountain.
Response: The proposed house will meet the R -15 maximum height limitation of 25 feet
which, interestingly, is less than the 28 feet allowed in the Conservation Zone District. The
re -drawn lot being created by this application could support a house of over 6,000 square
feet under Aspen's floor area regulations. The proposed house, instead, will contain a
maximum of 5,000 square feet of countable floor area, plus a 500 square garage, which is
exempt from floor area calculations. In addition, the land area being conveyed to the Aspen
Alps is being restricted against further development. Zoning of this land would support at
least a duplex and a single family residence, neither of which would be required to compete
in Aspen's Growth Management Quota System.
12
tS
The photograph labeled "aerial view - proposed massing" was taken from the gondola and
uses the technique of painting the proposed building elevation onto the photo. It
demonstrates the size of the proposed residence, which is similar to the adjacent Moses
home and considerably smaller than the Aspen Alps 700 building. Although photographs
to this effect were not taken, the proposed residence is considerably smaller than most of
the homes at the nearby Aspen Chance Subdivision, some of which contain 10,0000 square
feet.
The existing residence and deck on Moses Lot 2 is located virtually right on the lot line and
is within several feet of the Moses home. This location causes the two units to appear as
one single mass when observed from the gondola or when driving on the private road up to
the Aspen Alps 700 building. The proposed building envelope is about 20' from the
property line, while the expected footprint is approximately 40' from the property line. This
increased separation will allow the two homes to be perceived as individual masses and
should compensate for the new home's increased size.
Criteria: Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed
development.
Response: The applicant has contacted representatives of the Aspen Water Department,
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District and Aspen Volunteer Fire District to determine the
adequacy of basic services for the site. The existing residence is already provided with public
water and sewer service.
During conversations last year, Larry Ballinger of the City Water Department and Wayne
Vandemark, Fire Chief, suggested it may be necessary to use a booster pump to address low
water pressure at this elevation and to sprinkle the house to ensure adequate fire protection.
The applicant will meet both of these requests if technical studies demonstrate the need to
increase water pressure.
Tom Bracewell of ACSD indicated that the District's public lines end at approximately the
tennis courts, well below this site, but private lines serve the Aspen Alps buildings which
feed into the ACSD system. An upgraded service line was installed for the existing
residence this past fall. The applicant will meet the reasonable requests of the District to
serve the replacement house.
Electric service is presently provided to the site below ground. The provision of electric
service to the replacement house should not create any land use impacts.
In summary, basic services are provided to the site by local utility companies and the
applicant agrees to comply with their reasonable requests in order to serve the replacement
residence.
- Criteria: Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development and said roads
can be properly maintained.
13
Response: The proposed development will be served directly from Aspen Alps South Road,
which is privately owned and maintained. This road already serves approximately 35
residences. The replacement of one of these units will not significantly affect its capacity.
The road will continue to be privately maintained.
Criteria: Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to
ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment.
Response: The existing road adequately provides access for fire protection equipment. As
noted above, if determined to be necessary, the proposed house will be sprinkled and a
booster pump will be installed to improve fire fighting conditions for the site. Snow removal
will continue to be privately provided.
An parking easement exists on Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split, which conflicts with the
preferred driveway location for the house. The area within the easement has never been
used for parking by Mitchell/Bornefeld, who hold the easement. The applicant, therefore,
requested and MitchellBomefeld agreed to quit claim the easement back to Moses Aspen
View Homesite, Inc.
A copy of the quit claim deed is attached hereto as Exhibit K. The parking easement has
therefore been eliminated from the proposed replat map.
Criteria: Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan:
Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map is dedicated for public use.
Response: No trails designated on the Plan map cross the site. The Midland Trail, which
is shown on the Plan map, is located just above, but not on, this property.
V. CONCLUSION
The applicant has responded to all criteria of the Aspen Land Use Regulations applicable
to the project, pursuant to direction given by the Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office and
other City staff during pre- application meetings. Sufficient evidence has been provided of
the project's compliance with said criteria and the applicant has made commitments in order
to insure that the proposed homesite will mitigate all development impacts.
Requests by any reviewing agency for additional information, or clarification of the
statements made herein will be responded to by the applicant in a timely manner.
14
EXHIBITS
MtR Commonwealths
Land Title Insurance Company
Exhibit A
SCHEDULE A- OWNER'S POLICY
CASE NUMBER DATE OF POLICY AMOUNT OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER
PCT -5392 5/16/91 @ 10:17 A.M. S 900.000.00 128 - 034769
1. NAME OF INSURED:
LEON C. HIRSCH AND TURI HIRSCH. EACH AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 50% INTEREST
2. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND HEREIN AND WHICH IS COVERED BY THIS POLICY IS:
IN FEE SIMPLE
3. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST REFERRED TO HEREIN IS AT DATE OF POLICY VESTED IN:
LEON C. HIRSCH AND TURI HIRSCH. EACH AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 50% INTEREST
4. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS POLICY IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
LOT 2, MOSES LOT SPLIT, according to the Plat thereof recorded June 26, 1987 in Book
19 at Page 83. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. Together with an easement for
ingress and egress as set forth in instrument recorded in Book 330 at Page 946; as
Amended by instrument recorded in Book 528 at Page 684 and Second Amendment recorded in
Book 544 at Page 652.
- - PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC.
,- /t l ` 1 �� 601 E. HOPKINS AVE.
a' Cou tersigned Authorized Agent ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
(303) 925 -1766
THE POLICY NUMBER SHOWN ON THIS SCHEDULE MUST AGREE WITH THE PREPRINTED NUMBER ON THE
COVER SHEET.
l� Commonwealth,
tJ Land Title Insurance Company
v.
SCHEDULE B- OWNERS
CASE NUMBER DATE OF POLICY POLICY NUMBER
PCT -5392 5/16/91 @ 10:17 A.M. 128- 034769
• TIIIS POLICY DOES NOT INSURE AGAINST LOSS OR DAMAGE BY REASON OF THE FOLLOWING:
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 heretofore or hereto-
' after furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records, created,
suffered, assumed or caused by the insured, agents or contractors of the insured.
5. Water rights, claims or title to water.
-- 6. Taxes for the year 1991 not yet due or payable.
7. Reservations and exceptions as contained in United States Patent recorded in Book
175 at Page 213.
8. An Easement for Parking Motor Vehicles. granted unto H. A. Bornefeld Jr. and George
P. Mitchell by instrument recorded June 24, 1977 in Book 330 at Page 945.
9. Terms. conditions, obligations and provisions of Affidavit as set forth in
instrument recorded May 11, 1987 in Book 535 at Page 700.
10. Terms, conditions, obligations and provisions of Statement of Exception from the
Full Subdivision Process for the purpose of Subdividing the Moses Property as set
forth in instrument recorded June 26, 1987 in Book 540 at Page 186.
11. A Non - exclusive Easement as set forth in Deed recorded in Book 330 at Page 946; as
amended by instrument recorded in Book 528 at Page 684 and Second Amendment recorded
in Book 544 at Page 652.
12. Easements, Rights -Of - Way and other matters as shown and contained in Plat of Moses
Lot Split recorded in Plat Book 19 at Page 83.
EXCEPTIONS NUMBERED 1, 2 & 3 ARE HEREBY OMITTED.
4339133 12/03/91 14:22 Rec $5.00 BY. 663 PG 496
• Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00
r Recorded at o'clock_ M.
7 Reception No. Recorder
9 6 RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
9 e: T WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
u.
,, n I U Michael J. Herron, Esq.
ti a L Garfield & Hecht, P.C.
o a 601 East Hyman Avenue
„ E , Aspen, Co. 81611
E.
U a
r4 c n� QUIT CLAIM DEED
LEON C. HIRSCH AND TURI HIRSCH, for ten and no /100 ($10.00) dollars and other
good and valuable consideration, in hand paid, hereby sells and quit claims to MOSES ASPEN
VIEW HOMESITE, INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION, whose address is 150 Glover
7 Avenue, Norwalk, Connecticut 06850, the following real property in the County of Pitldn, State
,,, of Colorado; to wit:
Gi LOT 2, MOSES LOT SPLIT, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
a = , THEREOF RECORDED JUNE 26, 1987 IN BOOK 19 AT PAGE
a o w 1 83, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO,
u_ a. TOGETHER WITH AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND
o
EGRESS AS SET FORTH IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED 114
BOOK 330 AT PAGE 946; AS AMENDED BY INSTRUMENT
W ° bi K1 RECORDED IN BOOK 528 AT PAGE 684 AND SECOND
fa-p" RECORDED
RECORDED 114 BOOK 544 AT PAGE 652.
with all its appurtenances.
Signed this et day of November, 1991.
Leon C. Hirsch
Tun Hirsch
STATE OF CONNECTICUT )
)ss.
COUNTY OF Fael+ee )
The foregoing Quit Claim Deed was acknowledged before me this 7 141 day of
November, 1991, by Leon C. Hirsch and Turi Hirsch.
Witness my hand and official seal.
ti My commission expires: 3/11/9
1 ^ p .
N 0 T ARy
�u
Notary Public ✓.. P U B L
w ° -7t1 E G`\- c.)
na:e:gmirie
® Commonwealth.
Land Title Insurance Company
- • Exhibit B
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
SCHEDULE A
1. E44ectLve date: 12/10/91 @ 8:00 A.M.
Ca.ee No. PCT -2853 C4
2. Pottcy on poLLcLe-6 to be .i44u.ed:
✓ (a)ALTA Owneh'4 Poti.cy -Foam 8-1970 Amount $ 900,000.00
(Rev. 10 -17 -70 E 10- 17 -84) oh 10/21/87 Phem.Lum $ 2,068.00
PROPOSED INSURED: MOSES ASPEN VIEW HOMESITE, INC., A COLORADO
✓ CORPORATION
(b)ALTA Loan. PoLLey, Amount $
�-
(REV. 10-21-87) Phem.Lum $
PROPOSED INSURED:
(c)Alta Loam conbt&aetZon Poti,cy, 1975 Amount
(Rev. 10- 17 -84)
PROPOSED INSURED: lax Cunt. $
3. Title to the FEE SIMPLE eztak.e oh Lnten.e-bt Ln. the Land de4chZbed oh
he 6 e hhed to Ln. th ih Commitment ib at the e6 4 ecttu e. date keheo4 v e4ted
- .i.n.:
GEORGE P. MITCHELL AND H.A. BORNEFELD, JR.
4. The Land he4enhed to Ln this Commitment de6chLbed a4 dottow4:
PLEASE REFER TO EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
Countenh-i.gned at: PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. Schedule A -PG.1
601 E. HOPKINS Th 6 Commitment .i.6 .Lnva -Ld
ASPEN, CO. 81611 U•nLe64 the In.,wni.rg
303 - 925 -1766 PhoVZ4Lon.6 and Schedule-6
Fax 303- 925 -6527 A and 8 ahe attached.
Awth.ohJ. zed o44-i.ceh oh agent
Commonwealth.
Land Title Insurance Company
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A Tn.a.ct o4 Land eituated in Section 18, Town.bhip 10 South, Ra.n.ge
84 Weet o4 the 6th P. M., mote. 4wUy deec./abed alp 4ottowe:
Beginning at a point whence Aepen Towrus.i.te Conner, No. One beams South.
38'35'30" Eah-t 321.70 fleet anal South 28'28'00" We.t 93.91 beet;
AN Thence North. 38'35'30" We.dt 223.91 fleet;
Thence South. 50' 15' 00" We4t 102.08 fleet;
.. Thence North 39'56'30" Went 51.36 fleet;
Thence South 49'48'00" West 80.47 fleet;
Thence North 39'52'04" Went 96.21 fleet;
Thence North 26'22'42" Weet 34.68 fleet;
Thence North. 13'51'00" We-tit 47.51 fleet;
- Thence North 28'34'00" Ea2t 57.60 fleet;
Thence North 39 ° 56'30" Weet 5.50 fleet;
Thence South 67'16'58" Weet 40.08 fleet;
Thence North. 72'08'37" Weet 44.48 fleet;
Thence North 49 ° 47'51" Wa,et 79.80 fleet;
Thence North 70 ° 09'49" We-At 72.21 fleet;
Thence South 14 ° 43'47" Weet 10.34 fleet;
Thence North, 80 ° 30'00" Weet 80.75 fleet;
Thence South 44 ° 59'00" WeAt 67.30 fleet;
Thence. South 04'30'00" Weet 593.34 fleet;
Thence North 43'29'00" Eaet 112.76 4e.et;
Thence South 43 Ea.et 207.95 fleet;
Thence North 45 ° 00'00" Ea.at 69.36 fleet;
Thence South 43 ° 46'00" EmAt 5.00 4e.et;
Thence. North 45 °00'00" Eaet 170.64 fleet;
Thence North. 21.32 fleet along a, c.wmve to the might having a radio. o4
48.60 fleet (the chord o4 wh.i.ch. bean South. 58'40'14" Weet 21.15 4eet);
Thence North. 45 °00'00" Ea.et 243.38 fleet;
Thence South 45 ° 00'00" Em4t 127.37 fleet;
Thence North. 53 ° 50'43" Ea.4t 152.24 fleet to the point o4 beginn.i.n.g.
AND EXCEPTING THE FOLLOWING TRACTS RECORDED AT THE PITKIN COUNTY CLERK
AND RECORDERS OFFICE; PARCELS 1 AND 2 OF ROOK 217 AT PAGE 131, BOOK 235
AT PAGE 538 AND BOOK 256 AT PAGE 812.
ALSO EXCEPTING GOVERNMENT LOT 42.
COUNTY OF PITKIN,
STATE OF COLORADO.
® Commonwealth.
Land Title Insurance Company
SCHEDULE 8-SECTION 1
REQUIREMENTS
The 4ot- towing ane the negwinement4 to be comptted wait:
ITEM (a.) Payment to on bon, the account o4 the gnan.t044 on montga.gon.a
o4 the 4wtt con-side/cation 404. the estate on 4./Ltene -t to be in waed.
ITEM (b) Pnopen .i.n4tnwnent(4) cheating the e4tate on .i,nteheet to be
-i.n.awr.ed moat be executed and duty 4.i.ted 404 necond to-wit:
1. Deed Fnom : Geonge P. M.itchett and H.A. Ro ne4etd
To : Mo4e4 A4pen View Home4Lte, Inc., a Cotonado
Conponati.on
2. Evidence 4a i44ac.tony to the Company that the Dee-La/cation o4 Sate,
r Notice to County A44e4404, a4 negwi}.ed by H.R. 1288, Notice to
Cou.nty 444e4404, ha.a been compti.ed with and that no 4ee4 on
pc-no ex i.at on ane cwwcen tty du.e.
3. Cehti4Lc.ate o4 Non- 4oneLgn Statu4 o4 Individu.at Tnan.44enon 4Zgned
by Geonge P. Mach.ett and H.A. Ro4n.e.4etd.
4. Ceht2.6-i.cate o4 Good Standing o4 Mo4e4 A4pen. View Home4 -i te, Inc., a
Cotonado Conpocation, Z44u.ed by the Secmetan.y o4 State o4
Cotonado, mwat be de.t•i,vened to and appnoved by P.ithi.n. County
T.itte, Inc.
5. Evidence 4at 44acatony to the Company that the Dec.tahatLon o4 Sate,
Notice to County A44e44o4, a4 negwaed by H.R. 1288, Notice to
Cownty A44e44on, h.a.4 been c ompti.ed with and that no 4e.e4 04
penat/Le.a ex.i.at on ane cwcentty due.
Th.i.4 commitment -is Lava Ld wnte44 Schedule 8-Section 1 PG.1
the In4u.n.Ln.g Pnou- i.e.Lon.e and Sch.eduQ.e4 Commitment No. PCT -2853 C4
A and 8 ahe attached.
• EM Commonwealth.
Land Title Insurance Company
SCHEDULE R SECTION 2
EXCEPTIONS
., The potLcy on poti.cie4 to be 4.e4u.ed wit./ conta.i_n excepti.on.6 to the
dottowJ.ng u.nee4.6 the dame are dL6po4ed o4 to the 4atl44actl.on o4 the
Company:
1. Ri.ght4 on etaim4 o4 pan Ze4 .i.n po44e.64.i,on not hhown by the pwb.P i.e
n.econd4.
2. Ea4ement .6 , on ctal.m4 o4 ea6ement4 , not hhown by the pu,bt tc 4eco&dh .
3. VL4cnepanc.i.e4, con4t,eis .is bowtdany R ne6, hhonta.ga Zm anew,
encnoachment-6, and any 4act6 wh.ieh a connect hun,vey and Zn.6pecti.on
o4 the pnemZze4 wowed d.i.aceo4e and whLch ane. not 4h.own by the pwbt e.
necondh.
,. 4. Any tZen, on /ri.ght to a tZen, don. 4env.ice.6, labor on mateni,at
heneto4on.e on henea.6tex 6u'cn.i.6hed, .unpo4ed by law and not hhown by
the pu.b.P Lc. neco4d4.
_ 5. De ect4, tLen4, encu.mbnance -6, adven4e cea.i.mh on other, mattea.e, i4
any, uteri-ad, 4ZAzt ap p eanZng .i.n the pu.b•Le necondh on attach.i.n.g
4u.b4equ.ent to the e44 ec ttve date hereo4 but pn.i.on to the date the
propo4ed £n.auned acgwin.e.6 o4 record bon value the ehtate on .i.ntene.at
on mortgage th.en,eon covered by tkL4 Commitment.
6. Taxe.6 dwe and payable; and any tax, hpec)np a44e44ment, change on
tLcn Zmpo4ed don water, on hewer. 4eJLV.CCe on 4 on any other hpec i..at.
taxing dZztn Lc.t.
7. RehenvatLon.6 and excepti.oft4 az contained .i.n. United State.6 Patent4
` neconded Jan.u.ait.y 20, 1898 Ln Book 136 at Page 173 and neconded
May 20, 1948 Ln. Book 175 at Page 213 a4 4o-Q_ow-6:
That the pnemZzeh hereby gna.nted, with the exceptLon o4 the hun.6ace
may be entered by the pnopnZeton o4 any other, veLm on ledge, the
top on apex o4 wh.Leh tZe4 owtzLde o4 the boundary o4 4a.Ld granted
.. pnemZze6, 4houed the name -iat , it6 dtp be bound to penetrate,
Lntenzect on extend .into ha i.d pnem -i4e6 , bon, the punpohe o4
extracting and removing the one dnom hush othen vela, lode on
Ledge.
8. Re2en.vatLon.6 and exctpti.on.6 az contained -in United Staten Patent
neconded Au.gu.6t 26, 1949 In Rook 175 at Page 299 a4 bottowh:
A /Ught o4 way boo d.i teh.e4 on canat6 con.6tnucted by the aw.th.on.Lty
o4 the Un.i..ted Sta teh .
w
9. RezenvatZon -6 and exceptZonb a4 conta.Ln.ed 4n United State4 Patent
neconded Atgurt 26, 1949 In Book 175 at Page 299 az 4ollow4:
The right o4 the pn.op4ceton, o4 a vein on lode to extna.at and remove
h.-6 one thenebnom, 4houed the flame be bound to penetnatte on
.i.ntenzect the pnem-i.ee4.
CONTINUED
r9 Commonwealth.
Land Titre Insurance Company
10. A non- exclu.4i.ve penpetuivt ea4ement 404 pedezth an, vehiculah and
otheh tna44i.c az het 404th i.n i,netnaument 4cconded June 24, 1977
in Book 330 at Page 946; and Ag4eement 04 Amendment Concebning that
Cen ta2m Grant 04 Ea2emen t ad 4e t 4 obth. 4 t i,nistn.ument heco4ded
Ja.nu.a .y 27, 1987 in Book, 528 at Page 684; and Second Agheement
o4 Amendment Concehmtng that Certain. G4an.t 04 Ea.aement a4 het
r 404 Lit inbtnument n.eco4ded Amgu.6t 27, 1987 in Booh. 544 at Page
652.
11. Tenm4, condi ti.one, ob.t i.gatLon.e, o4 Ea.eme.nt Ag4eement az -0et
4o4th Ln. 41.n.64.42ment 4eco4ded Jwty 27, 1984 Ln. Booh. 470 at Page
780.
1 2 . An Ea.eemen t 4 oh i.nghe.a.e and eg4.e-64 , city wateh tLn.e.e and 4eweh
tZn.e ass Set 4 o4th i.n in4tn.ument 4eco4dcd July 2, 1974 i,n Booh.
288 at Page 899.
13. A penpetua.2 non- exclae.ive ea.eement 4on, pedezthi.an., vehiculah and
otheh tha444.c az 4et 4obth. Zit 41,n.4t4ument 4.ecobded Au.gu.4t 7, 1968
W. .i.n. Booh. 235 at Page 796.
14. Ea.aement 4 oh a 4oad and 4 on. pah/Ung ass het 404th Zn. 4.n.et4ument
%eco4ded December. 20, 1965 in Book 217 at Page 593, and 4eco4ded
Aagwbt 1, 7968 Ln. Booh. 235 at Page 722.
7 5 . A 4.i.ght o4 way a.s .et 4 oath in Deed hecohded June 1 8 , 1973 Ln. Booh.
276 at Page 977.
16. Tevcm4, condLtLon.a, obti.gation4 and phovi.ai.one o4 Ag4eement az 4et
404th i,n. i.n4t4aament 4.eco4ded Jaawar.y 28, 1975 in Booh. 295 at Page
888.
17. Re.ee4.vati.ond o4 att 04 the mi.n.euxt. , mine -tat depo4it.4, mine/a.t
0424, and natahat gaheh o4 even.y h,i.nd and natu c., together, with, the
b,i.ght o4 Ln.ghe.e4 and eg4.e.a 404 the puh.po -ae o4 mining, dr i t t ing and
exptohLag 4aLd land 4on ,n nehalz az 4e,een.ved i.n. Deed 4ecohded
Ap4.it 28, 1961 Ln. Book 193 at Page 595.
7 8 . Ea zement 4 on hoadwaye az contained in Lnztn.ument 4econded Mahch.
26, 1968 As Booh. 234 at Page 131.
Th-i-s commitment i4 Lmvatid u.nle .43 Schedule B- Sect -Lon 2 PG.2
the Intsun.i.n.g P4ov.44..on4 and Schedw.te.e Commitment No. PCT -2853 C4
A and B ahe attached.
6 Commonwealth.
r Land Title Insurance Company
SCHEDULE R-SECTION 2
CONTINUED
Ex.cepti.on.e numb¢h.ed NONE are hen.eby omitted.
The Owneh.'A Pot.cy to be £44ued, a4 any, -Matt contain the 4ottowZmg
atem4 £n, adda Zon. to the on.e.e 4¢t 4ohth above:
(1) The Deed o4 Tr.u.at, 4.4 any, requiked under Schedule R- Section. 1.
(2) Unpatented ma.nZmg c Q.a.im4; 4e4eMcva i.on.e oh ex.eept4 -on.e £n. patent¢
on an Aeta awth.ouzi.n.g a44uance theheo4; water rt.ght4, cLaiJn4
04 taste to Water.
Puh4uant to In.awcance Regwiat.Lon 89 -2;
r NOTE: Each tatte entity hha2L n.ok4.4y an whiting every pro4pecti.ve
Zn4waed a .n. an 0wne4'4 t tte La-auh.a.n.ce poRt.cy 404 a .eangte 4amity
ne.Lden.ce (Ln.ciu da n.g a condominium or townhow. e. u.ni t) (L) o4
° - that .t tte ent.ity'4 genenat requZhement4 404 the deteti.on o4 an
ex.cepti.on oh excticaLon to coverage re2ati.n.g to anti-Led mecha.ni.ca
oh maten.i.a.P.mervs ti.e.n-6, except when -saLd coverage oh £n.auh.a tee. 4.e
extended to the 4n4uh.ed Linden the term4 o4 the poai.cy. A
4ata44actohy a44.iday.et and agreement Ln.demn.L4y4ng the Company
aga.i 4t tui.4Zted meeha. Lca' and /or Matehia2men.'4 Lana executed
by the peksonh a.n.dLcated Ln the attached copy o4 4aa.d a444.davat
moot be 4uhni4h.ed to the Company. Upon reeeLpt o4 theee. ate.md
and any otheh.a n.egwinement4 to be 4peci.4aed by the Company upon
requeat, Pre - printed Item Number. 4 may be det¢ted 4rom the
Owner'4 po.ttcy when a44ued. PLea4e. contact the Company 404
4unth.eh Zn.4ormatton. Notwath.atandLng the 4on.ego4.ng, nothLn.g
contained 4n tha.a Para.g4a.ph Ahnt.t be deemed to £mpobe any
requth.ement upon any title Ln.auh.eh to p40vi.de mecha.n.i_cb or.
mateh.iatmen6 LLen cov¢hage.
NOTE: 14 the Company conducta the ownen.a' cto4Ln.g wmdeh
a- hcum.atancea when.¢ 4t a s 4e.apon4ZbLe 404 the recording or.
4 -L&n.g o4 legal documents 4rom 4at.d than sactZon, the Company
watt be deemed to have prova.ded "Gap Coverage ".
Pux4want to Senate RLtt 91 -14 (CRS 10 -11 -122);
(a) The Subject Real Property may be Located an a Special Taxing
,. D.i.atht.ct;
(b) A Cei ti.4tc.ate o4 Taxed Due P i..at4.n.g each tax.i.n.g jwu.bdZe.ti.on
may be obtained 4rom the County Theo-au/Leh o4 the County
Treaauh.er' 4 AuthoJuLz ed Agent;
(c) In.4 okmatZon regard.t.n.g S pec i.at Da4th.Lct4 and the b oundan.i.e4 o4
-such d.i,eth.Lcta may be obtained 44om the Bond o4 County
Comma44t0ner.4, the County Cte4t and Recorder, or the County
4442.4404.
NOTE: A Tax CeitZ4Zcate wat be ordered 4rom the County
Thea4ureh by the Company and the co4t4 thoh.e4o4 eh hged to
the propo4ed a.na.uned unte44 written Ln.atnu.ctLond to the
contnah.0 aim rece -cved by_ the companu pnt.or to the .L44Liance o4
the Taste Poti.cy anti.cLpated by th.i..a Commitment.
Th.i.e commitment a4 -i.nvata.d unte44 Schedute R- Section 2
the In.auhtng ProuL4Lon.e and Scheduled Commitment No. PCT -2853 C4
A and R are attached.
JAN 29 '92 12:51 P.3/9
Exhibit c
r -LI Cr : EM.9 4.E A
es
NUMBER
AMOUNT
PI -781 -0
I $352,000.00
•
Dated this 12th day of ,holy 19. 5,. it the hour of 1 _1 5 _oclock2.•td.
I, The name of the insured and the estate, or interest of the insured in the land described below and covered by this policy
h as follows:
GEORGE P. MITCHELL
?, The land, the title to which is insured, Is described or known as follows:
A tract of land containing all of Lots 7, 8, 9, 10 and a portion
of Lot 6 of the Lite Subdivision and portions of Lots 33 and 38
in Section 18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the Sixth
Principal Meridian, Pitkin County, Colorado, and a portion of the
M and Y Lode Mining Claim USMS 3921 AM. more particularly described
as follows:
Beginning at a point whence Corner No. 1 of the Aspen Townsite
bears S. 38 ° 35 1 30" East 321.70 feet and bears Se 28 ° 28' West 93.91
feet; thence N. 38 ° 35'30" West 226.29 feet; thence S. 50 ° 15 1 (lest
100.23 feet; thence N. 39 °56'330" West 49.26 feet; thence S. 49 °48'
West 81.71 feet; thence N. 39 ° 56 1 30" West 96.24 feet; thence
N. 27 ° 09' West 34.27 feet; thence N. 13 ° 51 1 West 47.51 feet;
thence N. 28 ° 34' East 57.60 feet; thence N. 39 °56'30" West 5.50
feet; thence S. 68 ° 00 1 West 39.00 feet; thence N. 73 ° 06 1 West 44.47
feet; thence N. 50 ° 18 1 West 79.60 feet; thence N. 70 ° 41' West 72.53
feet; thence S. 16 °15' West 9.29 feet; thence N. 80 ° 30 1 West 80.75
feet; thence 5. 44 °59 West 67.87 feet; thence S. 04 ° 30' West 451.20
feet; thence S. 68 °22' East 96.10 feet; thence N. 43 ° 29' East 36.86
feet; thence S. 43 ° 46 1 East 235.23 feet; thence N. 45 ° 00' East 390.71
feet; thence S. 45 ° 00' East 101.65 feet; thence N. 53 °51' East 155.48
feet; to the point of beginning.
JAN 29 '92 12:51 p P.4i9
This Policy does not insure against loss or damage by reason of the following:
1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown of record, including unrecorded easements.
1. Any state of facts an accurate survey would show.
Mechanics liens, or any rights thereto, where no notice of such liens or rights appears of record. -
Taxes and assessments not yet due or payable; and Special Taxes or Assess.nents certified to the office of the
-
County Treasurer = w and any and all unpaid taxes.
,,.5. Mineral reservations appearing in Document No. 111295, Book 193
.. at Page 575 and Document No. 108677, Book 188 at Page 598 of the
records for Pitkin County, Colorado. •
). Reservations and exceptions as contained in patents from the United
States for the City and Townsite of Aspen under the provisions of
the Act of Congress, approved on the second day of March, A.D. 1867,
entitled "An Act for the Relief of the Inhabitants of Cities and
Towns, upon the public lands." "Provided, that no title shall be
hereby acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar, or copper
- or to any valid mining, claim or possession held under existing laws;
and provided further that the grant hereby made is held and declared
to be subject to all the conditions, limitations, and restrictions
- contained in Section 2386 of the Revised Statutes of the United
States, so far as the same are applicable thereto." Also, subject
to any vested and accrued water rights for mining, agricultural,
q manufacturing, or other purposes, and rights to ditches and reser-
voirs used in connection with such water rights as may be recognized
-- • and acknowledged by the local customs, laws, and decisions of courts,
and also subject to the right of the proprietor of a vein or lode-
" to extract and remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found
to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted. And there
is reserved from the land hereby granted, a right of way thereon
for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United
States.
. Deed of Trust from George P. Mitchell to the Public Trustee for the
use of Bank of the Southwest National Association to secure
$352,000.00, dated July 12, 1965, and recorded July 12, 1965,
in Book 214 at Page 43 of the records for Piticin County, Colorado
iss
Exhibit D
AIM
January 15, 1992
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen /Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: REPLAT /8040 APPROVAL FOR LOT 2 OF MOSES LOT SPLIT
Dear Ms. Lamont,
We hereby authorize Mr. Alan Richman to represent the Aspen Alps
Homeowners Association with respect to the subdivision application
to replat Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split and to obtain 8040 Greenline
Review Approval for development of a 5,000 square foot home on the
parcel. The Aspen Alps Homeowners Association is a co- applicant
with Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc., the landowner.
Mr. Richman is authorized to submit the land development
application on our behalf and to represent us in meetings with City
of Aspen staff, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission and the
Aspen City Council.
Should you have any need to contact us during the course of your
review of this application, please do so through Mr. Richman's
office. The Aspen Alps Homeowners Association can also be
contacted directly through our Manager, Ms. Pam Cunningham, at 925-
7820. Our address, should you need to send us any material by
mail, is 700 Ute Ave, Aspen.
Thank you for your assistance in the processing of this submission.
Sincerely,
Herb Winter, President
Aspen Alps Homeowners Association
Exhibit E
January 22, 1992
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen /Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
- Aspen, Colorado 81611
w RE: REPLAT /8040 APPROVAL FOR LOT 2 OF MOSES LOT SPLIT
Dear Ms. Lamont,
I hereby authorize Mr. Alan Richman to represent me with respect to
the subdivision application to replat Lot 2 of the Moses Lot Split
and to obtain 8040 Greenline Review Approval for development of a
5,000 square foot home on the parcel. The Aspen Alps Homeowners
Association is a co- applicant with Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc.,
the landowner.
Mr. Richman is authorized to submit the land development
application on my behalf and to represent me in meetings with City
of Aspen staff, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission and the
Aspen City Council.
Should you have any need to contact me during the course of your
review of this application, please do so through Mr. Richman's
office. His address and phone number are contained in this
application.
I can also be reached through my attorney in Aspen, Mr. Mickey
Herron of Garfield & Hecht. His address, should you need to send
any material to him, is 601 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, Co. 81611.
His telephone number is 925 -1936.
Thank you for your assistance in the processing of this submission.
Sincerely,
Leon Hirsch, President
Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc.
SAN 27 '92 09 :29AM MITCHELL ENERGY CO H P.1
Post.ft'" brand fax transmittal memo 7671 it at pages •
a 71/
co.
Dept. Phone 0713 low
# ntaf)3 -90_ I/21 aae /3 -377 -109/0
Exhibit F
Jemmy 23, 1992
Alan Richman
Planning Consultant
P.O. Box 3613
Aspen, CO 81612
RE: Authorization for Inclusion in Land Use Application
Dear Mr. Richman:
e. You are hereby authorized in connection with the Land Use Application which you
are submitting for Leon Hirsch or Moses Aspen View Homages, Inc. and /or the Aspen Alps
Condominium Association to include resolution of certain matters relating to my residential property
which abuts the property which H. A. Bornefeld, Jr. and I 4ave agreed to sell. Specifically, the
maters to be dealt with are lot line adjustments to my lot which will accommodate the existing
situation relative to the Aspen Alps South Road in place by making portions of the property owned
by Mr. Botnefetd and myself which lie to the West of the Aspen Alps South Road or which I use
for parking, part of my lot, and making any portion of my lot, now occupied by the Aspen Alps
South Road part of the parcel to be sold by us. i
Very T ly Your ,
George P. Mitchell
.e
.,e
er
Exhibit H
710 East Durant Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
September 13, 1985
To Whom It May Concern:
I,have been asked by Gaard Moses to clarify the Aspen rezoning
., process:of 1975, based upon my best recollection. While I
receive requests like this from time to time, I do not normally
respond, simply because my memory of individual land use
situations is not usually relevant to current problems. However,
in the case of Gaard's land at the base of Aspen Mountain, I do
remember, in general, the basis for the application of the "C ",
Conservation Zone.
Conservation zoning was applied to lands which were generally
considered of public interest to remain in an open space
condition. This included skiing and skier access to the base of
the mountain. Being a public, open space zone, we did not intend
this district to cover existing, residential development. It is
possible that the C zone was extended to areas on the base of
Aspen Mountain which contained residences which were not
identified in our land use inventory.
This letter is written to help clarify the zoning process which
took place at the time. I have not been retained by Gaard or his
attorney.
Sincerely,
Bill Kane
Former Aspen /Pitkin County
P1'anning Director
_ j
ti
i
•
....." II
Exhibit I
MEMORANDUM
- TO: Aspen City Council
w THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager J c,
FROM: Glenn Horn, Assistant Planning Director
RE: Moses Rezoning /Subdivision Exception
- DATE: March 23, 1987
a SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
Gaard Moses and his family are requesting a rezoning from C
(Conservation) to R -15 PUD (Residential) and a subdivision
exception for the purposes of creating two lots in accordance
with Section 20_19(c) of the Land Use Code. It is recommended
that the City Council approve on second reading the attached
ordinance which rezones approximately one acre of land located
south of the Aspen Alps and east of the gondola from C to R -15
PUD and approve the subdivision exception request.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Gaard Moses.
LOCATION: Just to the southeast of the Aspen Alps and east of the
Silver Queen Gondola at the base of Aspen Mountain (please refer
to Attachment 1).
ZONING: C- Conservation (See attachment 2).
SIZE: 1 acre (43,560 s.f.).
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting rezoning from
Conservation (C) to R -15 and a subdivision exception for the
purposes of creating two lots in accordance with Section 20 -19(c)
of the Land Use Code.
SITE DESCRIPTION: Attachment 3 depicts the subject property on a
topographic map. We encourage you to carefully study the
topography of this area because it has a very significant bearing
upon our zoning recommendation.
The map shows that the Moses property is well above the 8040
Greenline elevation. There are two existing residential struc-
tures on the site which have been located in the ideal building
site from the public's perspective. The site is flat and is
located over 70' below the Little Nell ski slope to the west.
The building site also avoids the very steep grades to the west,
south, and east. This large elevation change between Little Nell
and the structures isolates the buildings from the ski slope.
For years, until the gondola was constructed, few people in the
community even realized that the Moses property was developed.
•.- With the construction of the gondola, the site has become visible
from the lift but remains relatively isolated from the ski
slopes.
- The existing structure on the east side of the site is approxi-
.. mately 2,800 s.f. in size. The upstairs portion of the structure
is Gaard Moses' residence. The downstairs contains a studio
workshop including a kitchen and bathroom. Technically, the
structure on the east side of the site is a duplex. The struc-
ture on the west side of the site contains 1,700 s.f. and is a
duplex.
SURROUNDING LAND USES: The Moses property is bounded by the
Little Nell Ski slope to the west (C zone), the Alps Condominiums
to the north (C zone), the Aspen Chance Subdivision to the east
(R -15 PUD zone) and undeveloped ground to the south (C zone). A
spur of the old Midland railroad traverses the subject property.
-- The applicant permits the Aspen /Snowmass Nordic Council to cross
his property on a newly constructed trail located above the
existing development.
As you well know from our recent residential growth management
submissions, the area around Ute Avenue east of the gondola is in
transition. "The barn ", one of Aspen's funkiest old residential
buildings, which was located just to the east of the Moses
property has been demolished and replaced by modern residences in
the Aspen Chance Subdivision. One single - family house in the
Aspen Chance Subdivision is approximately 6,000 s.f. while a
smaller single - family unit is 3,065 s.f.. There is also a duplex
of approximately 5,450 s.f. in size. Proposed residential
structures in the 1010 and 1001 Subdivisions are expected to
range between 3,000 and 4,3000 s.f. in size.
PLANNING OFFICE COMMENTS
BACKGROUND: The history of the Moses property affects our zoning
recommendation. it was established and recognized by the Aspen
City Council in June of 1979 that the subject property contains
two legal, single - family, dwelling units. Based upon the staff's
review of existing City records, we have concluded that any
additional dwelling units which currently exist on the site
beyond two legal units are illegal. The applicant and his
representative have discussed the problem of the illegal dwelling
units with the staff. The applicant's goal is to legalize the
- existing structures and make them conforming. Therefore, the
applicant has committed to remove a kitchen from each structure
and convert the buildings into single - family residences.
2
MASTER PLAN: Although the subject site is located just outside
the boundaries of the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan, it is possible to
use the Plan as a guide for this parcel. The land use pattern
suggested by the Plan would indicate that the mixed - residential
district is the most appropriate district for the subject site.
The applicant's R -15 zoning request is consistent with this
district.
ZONING ISSUE: The staff has researched the process by which the
subject site came to be zoned C. Bill Kane, former Aspen /Pitkin
Planning Office Planning Director, indicates in Attachment 4 that
C zoning was applied to lands at the base of Aspen Mountain which
were generally considered of public interest." According to
Bill, it was not the City's intent to zone existing residential
developments C, but the district may have been applied to devel-
oped land containing residences which were not identified on the
land use inventory. A search of historic land use inventories
shows that the Moses property was not identified as developed.
Given the isolation and vegetation of the site it does not
surprise us that the property was missed during the inventory.
The R -15 zoning request for the Moses property should be evalua-
ted based upon the criteria of Section 24- 12.5(d) of the Zoning
Code which are listed below:
1) Compatibility of the rezoning proposal with the
surrounding zone districts and land use in the vicinity
of the site, considering the existing neighborhood
characteristics, the applicable area and bulk require-
ments, and the suitability of the site for development
in terms of on -site characteristics.
2) Impacts of the rezoning upon expected traffic genera -
tion and road safety, availability of on and off - street
parking and ability to provide utility service in the
vicinity of the site, including an assessment of the
fiscal impact upon the community of the proposed
rezoning.
3) Impacts of the rezoning upon expected air and water
quality in the vicinity of the site.
4) Analysis of the community need for the proposed
rezoning and an assessment of the relationship of the
rezoning proposal to the goal of overall community
balance.
5) Compatibility of the proposed rezoning with the Aspen
Area General Plan of 9166, as amended.
6) Whether the proposed rezoning will promote the health,
3
safety and general welfare of the residents and
visitors to the City of Aspen.
Each of the criteria are addressed below:
1) The applicants R -15 zoning request would be consistent
with the land uses and zoning to the east of the
subject site if a mandatory PUD requirement is applied.
The PUD designation is essential because the designa-
tion requires slope density reduction calculations to
be made in the event that the applicant seeks to build
duplex structures.
At first glance, it may appear to be inconsistent with
the C zoning to the south and east to zone the Moses
property R -15 PUD. However, an understanding of the
topography as depicted on attachment 3 indicates that
there are unusual site characteristics which lead us to
believe that R -15 PUD is appropriate for this site
- despite the adjacent C zoning and the 8060 elevation of
the site.
Due to the visual isolation of the only building site
on the parcel, seventy feet below the Little Nell
slope, the Moses site can be distinguished from other
lands in the C zone which are also east of Little Nell
but by contrast are generally at grade with the ski
slope and highly visible to the general public. In our
opinion, the recognized community goal of protecting
the mountainsides and skiing runs from development
which was re- affirmed in the Little Nell SPA review is
not compromised by the Moses rezoning due to the
topography of the site. In fact, due to the topography
of this site and the transition of the south side of
Ute Avenue to a residential area, we believe as a
general rule, the Midland railroad spur line rather
than the 8040' Greenline might be better a dividing
line between the C zone and residential districts for
properties to the east and out of sight from Little
Nell.
2) If the applicant converts the two duplexes to single -
family structures, impacts on the road system will
probably be decreased as a result of this rezoning.
3) The rezoning should probably not affect air and water
quality.
4) The rezoning does not affect community balance.
5) As indicated in the proceeding Master Plan discussion,
the rezoning request is generally consistent with the
4
1973 Aspen Land Use Plan.
6) The rezoning of this property to conforming status will
most likely enhance the health, safety and welfare of
Aspen residents and visitors by creating a conforming
use capable of major renovations or demolition and
reconstruction.
Our R -15 PUD zoning recommendation is conditioned upon the
applicant converting both structures to single - family dwellings
- and his voluntary commitment to limit the total size of each
single - family residence to 3,800 s.f.. Based upon the Code, if
the parcel is rezoned R -15 PUD and the proposed lot split is
approved single - family structures totaling 4,640 and 5,173 s.f.
could be built on each lot. Therefore, the applicants commitment
to restrict the potential square footage per house to 3,800 s.f.
is significant and also insures houses which are the same size or
smaller than existing and proposed housing sizes in the area.
This commitment can be insured through the 8040 Greenline
process, to which any additions to the existing units must be
subject.
SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION REQUEST: Attachment 5 depicts the proposed
subdivision exception plat. Section 20 -19(c) of the Code enables
the City Council to grant exceptions from the strict subdivision
requirements of Section 20 when it is determined that the strict
application of Section 20 would be redundant, unnecessary and
serve no public purpose.
Jay Hammond, City Engineer has commented that the Moses property
is currently served with potable water from surface sources,
including a spring and the Durant Mine run -off through a junior
water right. According to Jay Hammond, the subdivision exception
review process is a logical time for the applicant to upgrade the
water system by connecting to the City water system. It has been
agreed that prior to a granting of a Certificate of Occupancy for
the remodeling and /or reconstruction of at least one of the
dwelling units on the site both dwelling units will connect to
the City water system.
Jay also notes that the subdivision exception plat is acceptable
with one exception. The plat should show an easement for the
Nordic (pedestrian /bicycle trail).
Pi8 RECOMMENDATION
The P &Z unanimously recommends that City Council rezone that
Moses property from C (Conservation) to R -15 PUD and grant a
w
subdivision exceptio subject to the following conditions.
1) The applicant commits to convert each of the existing
duplex structures to a single - family dwelling by
5
Exhibit J
Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D.
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
.,.. 0185 INGERSOLL LANE
SILT, COLORADO 81652
(303) 963 -3600 (24 HOURS)
..w
January 20, 1992
Alan M. Richman, AICP
Box 3613
Aspen CO. 81612
RE: Aspen Alps Lot
Dear Mr. Richman:
I have completed my geologic investigation of the proposed
building site on the maps which accompany this report. The
building site lies along the east slope of the lobe
containing the Little Nell Ski Run. This is in the southern
part of the Town of Aspen, within the Aspen 7 1/2 minute
quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado.
The building site lies on a gentle east slope near a small
debris fan surrounded by trees and covered by native grasses.
It is between the home of Gaard Moses and other Aspen Alps
buildings. The lot is irregularly shaped with the building
envelope as shown.
The geology of the site consists of clays, silts, sands,
gravels and boulders of colluvial and some debris +low material
deposited perhaps hundreds of years ago. These materials are
generally graded and sorted and are probably between 50 and 70 feet
thick at this site. The underlying bedrock cannot be
determined but is probably one of the Paleozoic carbonate or
sandstone units fractured by faulting common to this area.
This faulting is mostly from 30 million years ago and there
is no evidence of recent activity. It is still prudent to
design the home to conform to Seismic Zone II of the Uniform
Building Code.
The fan which has been discussed is a geologic concern
but can be mitigated and should not present problems to the
the home site because of the distance involved and the
relative low energy of the flows. The building site is away
from the base of the steep slope to the west, but instability
in this steep slope is possible; therefore, the rear (west)
wall of the home should be at least six feet above finished
grade and designed to accept forces of up to 200 pounds per
square foot. There should be no doors or windows in this interval
within the six foot level. If the steep slope in cut, the rear
wall should also act as a retaining wall to the toe of the slope.
The material of the site is suitable for the development of a
=single family home, but soils engineering studies should he
.. performed at the site specific level to insure proper
foundation design, especially in view of the possibility of
hydrocompactive soils on the fan. Final landscaping should
include positive drainage away from the home in all
directions, particularly because it is possible for some of
the mud slurry from a debris flow to reach near the site.
Water for domestic use and waste disposal will he through
municipal sources. The access already exists to the site.
This is generally a good site from a geologic standpoint, but
am the previous recommendations should be followed. Additionally,
the home should be designed to preclude the accumulation of radon
gas as this is becoming standard practice in the State. If there
are further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
e
Sincerely,
fla
Nicholas Lampiris
Consulting Geologist
•
`r
r
w
r Se
a
Exhibit K
Recorded at o'clock . M.
Reception No. Recorder
r RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
Michael J. Herron, Esq.
Garfield & Hecht, P.C.
41111 601 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
IS
OBIT CLAIM DEFD
,,. H.A. BORNEFELD, JR. AND GEORGE P. MITCHELL, for TEN AND NO /100
DOLLARS ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, in hand paid, hereby sells and
quit claims to MOSES ASPEN VIEW HOMESITE, INC., whose address is c/o Michael J.
Herron, Esq., Garfield & Hecht, P.C., 601 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611, the
.. following real property in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado; to wit:
•-" AN EASEMENT FOR PARKING MOTOR VEHICLES
APPURTENANT TO THE 0.326 -ACRE TRACT IN PITKIN
•• COUNTY, COLORADO DESCRIBED IN BOOK 288 AT PAGE
898 OF THE RECORDS OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER OF
PITKIN COUNTY, SAID EASEMENT COVERING A TRACT
OF LAND IN SEC. 18, T. 10 S., R. 84 W., 6TH P.M., BEING
M PART OF THE. I,ITTI,F, NAIL MINING CI .AIM MS '3881 AM
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON LINE 4 -5 OF MS 3881 AM
(LITTLE NELL) WHENCE CORNER #5 OF SAID MS 3881 AM
BEARS S. 43 °28'44" W. 118.76 FT.; THENCE N. 43 °28'44" E.
18.00 FT. ALONG LINE 5 -4 MS 3881 AM; THENCE S.
was 43 °28'44" E. 70.00 FT.; THENCE N. 58 ° 04'16" W. 71.35 FT.
TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 629 SQUARE
FEET, MORE OR LESS.
LOCATED IN THE COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF
COLORADO, WHICH EASEMENT WAS REIMPOSED BY
VIRTUE OF CURATIVE DEED RECORDED ON JUNE 24,
1977 IN BOOK 330 AT PAGE 945 OF THE RECORDS OF THE
CLERK AND RECORDER OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
with all its appurtenances.
It is the intention of this Quit Claim Deed to extinguish all rights of the Grantor in the
above - referenced easement.
Signed this day of February, 1992.
H.A. Bomefeld, Jr.
George P. Mitchell
at