The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.232 E Hall St.HPC019-002737-073-14-050 HPC019-00 ~_ Pace Residence Minor HPC 232 E. Hallam St. f 7 ~ 0irk -3 H 6 3 K 1 61 p - 1 1 P 1 -- - ~ CASE NUMBER HPC019-00 PARCEL ID # 2737-073-14050 CASE NAME Pace Residence Minor HPC PROJECT ADDRESS 232 E. Hallam St. PLANNER Nick Lelack CASE TYPE Minor HPC OWNER/APPLICANT Linda Pace REPRESENTATIVE Mt. Daily Enterprises LLC. DATE OF FINAL ACTION 8/23/00 CITY COUNCIL ACTION PZ ACTION HPC Reso 37-2000 ADMIN ACTION Approved BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED 6/1/01 BY J. Lindt PARCEL ID: ~2737-073-14050 DAit RCVDE|7/10/00 # COPIES: CASE NO~HPC019-00 CASE NAME; Pace Residence Minor HPC -i PLNR: j (4; c k L--eleck PROJ ADDR:|232 E Hallam St CASE TYP:|Minor HPC ~ STEPS:~ OWN/APP:|Linda Pace ADR~232 E. Hallam St. C/S/Z: ~Aspen/CO/81611 PHN:1925-2709 REP:~It. Daily Enterprises LLC * ADR:]PO Box 1537 C/S/Z:~BasaIUCO/81621 PHN:| FEES DUE:|480 D ~ FEES RCVD:|480 STAT: ~~--- REFERRALS| REF:| BY| ; DUE:| [ MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED . 11 - 1 3 1 DATE OF FINAL ACTION:| ~~~2:3~3/Â£33 1. CITY COUNCIL: REMARKS~ Pz: H ft fae 50' -47,:tap CLOSED:U/~p ( BY: LY , U 41 DRAC: - p ppA~~~4~4~~~~ â€ž~AÂ·~J BOA: PLAT SUBMITD: ~ PLAT (BK,PG):| ADMIN: %060 Nk-6 :'4 DEVELOPMENT ORDER ofthe City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order, hereinafter "Order", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, "Development Orders", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights", of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order allows development of a site specific development plan pursuant to the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein. The effective date of this Order shall also be the initiation date of a three-year vested property right. The vested property right shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless a building permit is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption, extension, reinstatement, or a revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. After Expiration of vested property rights, this Order shall remain in full force and effect, excluding any growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject to any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date of this Order. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site specific development plan as described below. Linda Pace, 232 E. Hallam. St., Aspen, CO 81611 Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number 232 E. Hallam St. Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property Landscape Plan Approved Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan HPC Resolution #37-2000 Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions) September 2,2000 Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) September 3,2003 Expiration Date of Development Order (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.) Issued this 2nd day of September, 2000, by the City of Aspen Community C32~%?ent Director. Joyce (~lson, Community Developti*ht Deputy Director I I. PUBLIC NOTICE Of DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 232 East Hallam Street, by resolution of the Historic Preservation Commission numbered 37 series of 2000. For further information contact Julie Ann Woods, at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Dept. 130 S. Galena St, Aspen, Colorado (970) 920-5090. s/City of Aspen Account Publish in The Aspen Times on September 2,2000 MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Appeal Committee THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director FROM: Nick Lelack, Planner RE: 232 East Hallam - Variance from the Fence Residential Design Standard for a a Berm in the Front Yard Setback, and Landscape Plan DATE: August 23,2000 APPLICANT: Linda M. Pace 2 . .7 y L' .. 'T#'t .61 .- 1 14Â©'4,*~*@4 117 -,? i k REPRESENTATIVE: 1.: 33:463 .... Mt. Daly Enterprises, LLC 4 'â€¢ 2/1-64 4'. , LOCATION: 4 1. 10-IT 232 East Hallam LAND USE: .... 4 ,. $ 4 Single Family Residence #.. - R, 1441'~~~ '*li ZONING: .. ... - R-6 LOT SIZE: 19,555 FAR: . :t. ..313,14~~ f~ ->* te . 4,500 square feet h' SUMMARY: '.* :I:t'got''wl '- 9 . 1.h :. . . 4, . The applicant is requesting a .... variance from the fence Residential Design Standards for a berm in the front yard setback and approval for Â· a . a landscape plan both on site and in . 4,4 ./ A . . 4 4%4.*4Â©$14Â«, * -7- ... 1 the right-of-way. : 4~ ; 0.:: ile,WIFf. REVIEW PROCEDURE The Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAC) may grant relief from the Residential Design Standards at a public hearing if the variance is found to be: A) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, B) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, C) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. STAFF COMMENTS: Linda M. Pace ("Applicant"), represented by Mt. Daly Enterprises LLC, is requesting approval for a landscape plan for the right-of-way and front yard of her property. The proposal includes a berm on the Applicant's property, which requires a variance from the fence Residential Design Standards. On July 26, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) approved Resolution 37, Series of 2000; the resolution approved a variance for a 6' fence forward of the front facade of the house and denied a berm in the front yard setback. A condition of the approval was to remove the berm within 14 days (by August 23,2000). On August 23, the Commission reconsidered the resolution and approved a revised condition of approval requiring that the berm be removed by October 15, 2000. The Resolution also requires the Applicant to submit a landscape plan for the Commission's approval for the front yard and right-of- way. In the recent past, the eastern portion of the property has been screened from Monarch and Hallam Streets by large trees in the right-of-way. During the construction of the addition to the historic landmark, the Applicant removed trees in the right-of-way exposing the house to the streets. Now, the Applicant wishes to recreate a screen to block automobile lights from shining into the residence, as well as to make other landscape improvements to the front yard and right-of-way. The Applicant, HPC Monitors, and City Staff (Parks, Engineering, and Community Development) met twice to discuss an appropriate landscape plan for the property and right-of-way. The Parks and Engineering Departments support the proposed landscape plan, but strongly encourage the provision of a 4-foot wide crusher fine trail in the public right-of-way connecting the sidewalk in front of the subject property to the trail east of the property. Community Development Staff also supports the landscape plan for the right-of-way, but remains concerned about the proposed berm. Land Use Code Section 26.410.040 prohibits man-made berms in the front yard setback because berms eliminate the visibility of a houses and front yards from streets. In this case, there has not been visibility to the eastern half this lot in recent history. The Applicant is proposing a landscape plan that includes a berm, which is to be hidden from street view by trees. Staff does not believe any of the three (3) review criteria are met to warrant a variance for the berm in the front yard setback. Further, Staff is concerned that approving the berm will set a precedent for allowing berms in front yard setbacks with dense vegetation screening berms. Consequently, houses become less pedestrian friendly and out of context within the historic character of the community. In sum, Staff recommends approval of the landscape plan with a 4-foot wide crusher fine trail in the right-of-way connecting the sidewalk in front of the house to the trail east of the property, and denial of the berm variance. RECOMMENDATION: 8 Staff is recommending approval of the landscape plan excluding the berm and ~ with a crusher fine trail in the public right of way, and denial of a variance from ~ pr the Residential Design Standards for a berm. / RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE STATED IN THE POSITIVE): ~~Â· ~ ~ "I move to approve Resolution No. t, Series of 2000, approving the landscape plan and ju_ C approving a variance from the Residential Design Standards for a berm in the front yard N setback for a single family residence at 232 Ijâ‚¬ Hallam." 5 ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Landscape Plan 6%33 *yu) 62"47 ffl - berm-p 604-16 clÂ«004:r A kloyiz UnÂ£-2 + ?â‚¬4 -2,0 *4 -* 4â‚¬6 45 StÂ« Unoy,%45 222â‚¬=Q- 0â€¢ Be jew Fl * 1* y-' +1-pka,A + % MA'Â§1 41 facK U u_. 1 -* 0 0+ AL Â·-C-4Â·AGâ‚¬ 0-52... Lk U :* AD le* wl Rf-hrtÂ· u, erte.- Mil jeÂ·Â¢t-reA a. . fre *v- St>tg + o K 4 0\ \ 040(rw Â·â‚¬00,ld,1~QAj~~Â· Â£5 , * 4,0,Z VM)*- *k CAr i *ia_ 41- O- +V AA 4, no berm - CMÂ»-4*J- 34 LYL- 4 435 12* 1 1110.01 113* 44 14-- eA? u 4-- 0- p le ce--20~oe--00Â· 0 -trect, -itu* I 6 4 1% l Ovt +D * i k 0,0 406_ 47 â€¢*~Lj' 1 t-- woÂ¢ I. (104--- 0~AU*b< Â¥91 k- - veoWLU vj\ ,LfyÂ·,ILE- f~~vÂ·k--~ Avfek r \ EXHIBIT A 981 KING STREET REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS SECTION 26.410 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAC) may grant relief from the Residential Design Standards at a public hearing if the variance is found to be: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, e) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Section 26.410.040(A) SITE DESIGN. The intent of these design standards is to encourage residential buildings that address the street in a manner which creates a consistent "facade line" and defines the public and semi- public realms. In addition, where fences or dense landscaping exist, or are proposed, it is intended that they be used to define the boundaries ofprivate property without eliminating the visibility ofthe house andfront yard from the street. Section 26.410.040(A)(3) SITE DESIGN - Fences. Fences, hedgerows, andplanter boxes shall not be more than forty-two inches (42") high, measured from natural grade, in all areasforward ofthefront facade of the house. Man- made berms are prohibited in the front yard setback. In response to the review criteria for a DRAC variance, Staff makes the following , findings: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, Staff Finding: Staff does not believe the variance for a berm meets this review criteria, and directly conflicts with the intent of the Site Design standard. The standard specifically prohibits landscaping in the front yard setback which reduces the visibility of a house and front yard from the street. b) a more effective method Of addressing standard in question; Or, Staff Finding: Staff does not believe the proposed berm provides any element which more effectively addresses the site design standard. Staff does not believe this criteria is met. , c) clearly necessary for reasons offairness related to unusual site specijic constraints. Staff Finding: Staff does not believe any unusual site specific constraints exist on this lot that would warrant granting the requested variances. The site has existed as part of the original townsite at the end of Monarch Street for over 100 years. The only changes have been man made, including an addition to the historic landmark and landscaping. No natural hazards such as steep slopes, avalanche areas, flood planes, rock falls areas, etc. threaten this site. A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMITTEE APPROVING A VARIANCE OF THE FENCE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD FOR A PARCEL LOCATED AT 232 EAST HALLAM, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. Parcel ID # 2737-073-14-050 Resolution No. , Series of 2000 WHEREAS the applicant, Linda M. Pace, represented by Mt. Daly Enterprises LLC, has requested a variance from the fence Residential Design Standards for a berm in the front yard setback, Land Use Code Section 26.410.040(A)(3), for the property located at 232 East Hallam; and, WHEREAS all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410.040 must meet one of the following criteria in order for the Design Review Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant an exception, namely the proposal must: a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, and WHEREAS The Planning Staff, in a report dated August 23, 2000, recommended denial of the variance for a variance for a berm in the front yard setback; and, WHEREAS a public hearing, which was legally noticed, was held at a regular meeting of the Design Review Appeal Committee on August 23, 2000, at which the Committee considered and approved the variance for a berm in the front yard setback by a vote of to CO. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Design Review Appeal Committee: That the Residential Design Standard variance for a berm in the front yard setback, Section 26.410.040, is approved for a historic landmark at 232 East Hallam, Aspen, Colorado, with the following conditions: 1. All prior City of Aspen approvals shall remain in full force and effect. 2. The Applicant shall include a 4-foot wide crusher fine trail in the public right of way connecting the sidewalk in front of the property to the trail east of the property. APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE at its regular meeting on the 23rd day of August, 2000. . APPROVED AS TO FORM: DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMITTEE: City Attorney Chair ATTEST: City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Appeal Committee THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director FROM: Nick Lelack, Planner RE: 232 East Hallam - Variance from the Fence Residential Design Standard for a 6-foot Fence and a Berm in the Front Yard Setback - Reconsider Resolution No. 37, Series of 2000 DATE: August 9,2000 SUMMARY: Last meeting on July 26,2000, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) approved a Residential Design Standard variance for a 6-foot fence front of the front facade of a house and denied a variance for berm in the front yard setback for the Pace residence at 232 E. Hallam. The resolution requires the Applicant to remove the berm in the public right-of-way within 14 days of the approval (today) and to grant the City a trail easement by August 26. A separate condition requires the Applicant to "submit a landscape plan for review by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) Staff and Monitor, Parks Department, and Engineering Department, and approved by the HPC." Since July 26, City Staff and HPC Monitors have been working with Linda M. Pace, Applicant, and her representative, Mt. Daly Enterprises, LLC (Julia Marshal), on a landscape plan. The Applicant is requesting additional time to remove the berm and convey the trail easement until after HPC approves the landscape plan so that all landscape work can occur simultaneously. The reason for a delay in granting the trail easement is ensure that the subject and neighboring properties have been correctly surveyed for an accurate description of the trail easement. Staff and the Applicant will present a landscape plan to the HPC at the next meeting, on August 23,2000. Staff recommends approval of the request; the only changes to the Resolution would be the timing of events and not the substance of the decision. Specifically, Staff recommends the revised conditions: 1. Prior to any additional work on the fence on the subject property: a. The Applicant shall grant a permanent and non-revocable trail easement to the City of Aspen for the existing trail across the property located at 232 East Hallam within 30 days ofthis public hearing by October 15, 2000. If the trail easement is not conveyed to the City of Aspen within this time frame, this approval shall be rendered null and void and the portion of the fence forward of the front facade of the house shall be removed immediately at the owner's expense. At -3 b. The existing berm in the right-of-way shall be removed within 11 days of this publie-hearing-by October 15,2000. 2. Prior to the construction of the proposed fence in the public right-of-way, the Applicant shall apply for apply for an encroachment license from the City Engineer's Office. 3. The Applicant shall submit a landscape plan for review by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) Staff and Monitor, Parks Department, and Engineering Department, and approved by the HPC. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE STATED IN THE POSITIVE): "I move to reconsider Resolution No. 37, Series of 2000." "I move to approve the revised Resolution No. 37, Series of 2000, approving the fence and denying the berm Residential Design Standard variances for a single family residence at 232 East Hallam." A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ACTING AS THE DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMITTEE APPROVING A VARIANCE OF THE FENCE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD FOR A PARCEL LOCATED AT 232 EAST HALLAM, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. Parcel ID # 2737-073-14-050 Resolution No. 37, Series of 2000 WHEREAS the applicant, Linda M. Pace, represented by Mt. Daly Enterprises LLC, has requested variances from the fence Residential Design Standards for a 6-foot fence forward of the front facade of a house, and a berm in the front yard setback, Land Use Code Section 26.410.040(A)(3), for the property located at 232 East Hallam; and, WHEREAS all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410.040 must meet one of the following criteria in order for the Design Review Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant an exception, namely the proposal must: a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, and WHEREAS The Planning Staff, in a report dated July 26,2000, recommended approval of the variance for a 6-foot fence forward of the front facade of the house, and denial of the variance for a berm in the front yard setback; and, WHEREAS a public hearing, which was legally noticed, was held at a regular meeting of the Design Review Appeal Committee on July 26,2000, at which the Committee voted six to zero (6-0) to both approve the variance for a 6-foot fence forward of the front facade of the house, and deny a variance for a berm in the front yard setback. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Design Review Appeal Committee: That the Residential Design Standard variance for a 6-foot fence forward the front facade of the house, Section 26.410.040, is approved and berm in the front yard setback is denied for a historic landmark at 232 East Hallam, Aspen, Colorado, with the following condition: 1. Prior to any additional work on the fence on the subject property: a. The Applicant shall grant a permanent and non-revocable trail easement to the City of Aspen for the existing trail across the property located at 232 East Hallam by October 15, 2000. If the trail easement is not conveyed to the City of Aspen within this time frame, this approval shall be rendered null and void and the portion of the fence forward of the front facade of the house shall be removed immediately at the owner's expense. b. The existing berm in the right-of-way shall be removed by October 15,2000. 2. Prior to the construction of the proposed fence in the public right-of-way, the Applicant shall apply for apply for an encroachment license from the City Engineer's Office. 3. The Applicant shall submit a landscape plan for review by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) Staff and Monitor, Parks Department, and Engineering Department, and approved by the HPC. APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE at its regular meeting on the 9th day of August, 2000. APPROVED AS TO FORM: DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMITTEE: City Attorney Chair ATTEST: City Clerk 08/08/00 TUE 16:23 FAX 9709278487 LIPKIN WARNER 0001 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Pos! OFFice Box 1.537 JULI'A MARSHALL 73400 Two Rivers Rd #43 MT DALY ENTERPRISES LLC Bo,Â·alt Colorado 81 621 9 970 927 3138 Fox 970 927 8487 'adnly@x,pris nel August 8. 2000 Mr. Nick Lelack Community Development Department City of Aspen Via: Fax 920.5439 Re: Pace Residence. 232 E. Hallam Street Mr. Lelack, As a result of the meeting held yesterday at the Pace residence, my client is requesting an addit onal extension of time lo remove the berm from the Hallam Street right-of-way. HPC's motion originally requested her to do within 14 days of the motion and you previously granted us an extension until yesterday's meeting. Now we are requesting on extension until October 15, 2000 to remove the berm. This additional time will allow us to address outstanding issues, including the trail and easement, encroachment license and complete all necessary construction. Please cell if you have any questions or concerns and please call as soon as possible to let me know your decision on our request. Sincerely, Julia Marshall cce Linda Pace and Laurence Miller MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Appeal Committee THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce 0hlson, Deputy Director.JAO FROM: Nick Lelack, Planner RE: 232 East Hallam - Variance from the Fence Residential Design Standard for a 6-foot Fence and a Berm in the Front Yard Setback DATE: July 26,2000 ....R ...2 APPLICANT: 4 Linda M. Pace ~ â€ž--+1 T.Al'll'llilillimilibill~lillill'/46:il/3/2~nl REPRESENTATIVE: .. - ..,L- - 1 imililiz'al. Mt. Daly Enterprises, LLC ,~~- i e- LOCATION: 91 ti 1.1 1 ' If Z 4,41:fe-- 9- 232 East Hallam .214:7 It - .'I'.4~ -.ri--*V I.-* '6*f9ii LAND USE: Single Family Residence ZONING: One request is build a 2 foot. 8 inch berm in the front yard R-6 setback. Trees would be planted on the berm. 6, :7:. ~. . 41*,.;41Â·:49*fiÂ· LOT SIZE: 04706Â·.i 19,555 FAR: 4.500 square feet & /Â· Â·I Â·.~4:'â€¢.' 44 :â€¢/- .AY'*~t' 't.~ '-' 2 ~'iwi:Â».-. SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting U LE variances from the fence and berm :49 0 I 5-47 ---/- - VEJL~ Residential Design Standards. In addition. the Applicant will need to - .... .rÂ· obtain an encroachment license . I from the City to build the fence in The second request is to build a 6-foot fence in the front the right-of-way, but this issue is yard setback. The partially constructed fence would be not the subject of this hearing. completed to the street to shield the property from the trail. REVIEW PROCEDURE The Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAC) may grant relief from the Residential Design Standards at a public hearing if the variance is found to be: A) in greater compliance with the goals o f the AACP; or, B) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, C) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. STAFF COMMENTS: Linda M. Pace ("Applicant"), represented by Mt. Daly Enterprises LLC. is requesting approval for variances from the fence Residential Design Standards for a fence and berm at an existing residence at 232 East Hallam. Land Use Code Section 26.410.040(A)(3) Site Design states that where fences or dense landscaping exist or are proposed, it is intended that they be used to define the boundaries of private property without eliminating the visibility ofthe house and front yard from the street. The fence subsection standard states that fences, hedgerows, and planter boxes shall not be more than forty-two inches (42") high, measuredjrom natural grade, in all areas forward of the frontfacade of the house. Man-made berms are prohibited in the front yard setback. One proposal is to construct a 6-foot fence along the east end of the property forward of the front facade of the house. The fence would extend an additional 30 feet from the property line to the street in the public right-of-way. The picture on page 1 shows that the fence is partially constructed. A separate application to the City Engineering Office is required for approval of the fence to be located in the public right-of-way. According the application, the reason for the request is to define the boundaries of the Pace' s private property Ie"IMF4"&44'-:r;~03117 '' .1 =r.111;4 '14.1 , 1 from the existing public ~ ?>tri~Â·f 1 / trail, shown on page 1. .amillis#AL M,lt..14 17, * A... . -4 : Some "incidences" have .....WIE, A#&-9/ deÂ® :AB,-A '- r occurred on the east end of :=.1679,4,4 such aspeople camping on ~ 41. '2~J ]0 20,1 1' 0*7~ the corner of her parcel. In exchange for approval - ..1 .lt ,:'t #kf-:b'. :t'vf'#~ ?,0" i .Â·,3.541:h :.i'Â·1*9Â·J of the higher fence, the ..Ill I.Em/Mifts, 5,2.i#Mir;%1,18#fl : Â·1~,5 -,ki,11. r : ej' ?15,01; 2â‚¬ 7~.4. Applicant will convey to Ii' the City of Aspen a permanent trail easement , ~ 1%,1 L, Â·:â€¢ f;~, 0,*uÂ·â€¢E~, pk ~ ~2~39' f ~~' Â·~t ]:t'.,â€¢0 ie, .. crossing the corner her :1~,4,-,~144.~.t*e.~Ir~,1~ 11,1V ~Ra~~16#~-*. 221462-, property. Staff supports this request for a 6-foot fence finding that it meets the intent of the standard, which is to define the boundary of the property without screening the historic landmark from the street. Staff also believes it complies with the Aspen Area Community Plan, Action No. 78: Improve Pedestrian Infrastructure. This action specifically calls for improving the east-west pedestrian travel conditions through the West End through the addition of a walkway that is detached from the street or that provides some separation between people and moving traffic. This trail provides an important connection from the West End to the Post Office, grocery store. Rio Grande recreation areas and more. even though it is not identified as a planned trail on the AACP's Open Space and Trails map. This picture shows the continuation of the trail behind the Applicant's property. The trail encroaches on this, the southwest corner. of the Applicant' s property. Staff recommends a condition of approval be that the Applicant shall convey the trail easement to the City of Aspen within 30 days of this approval. If the easement is not conveyed to the City, this approval shall be null and void and the portion of the fence forward of the front facade of the house shall be removed immediately at the owner' s expense. The second request is to construct a 2-foot, 8-inch berm in the front yard setback planted with trees and shrubs. The Applicant constructed a berm in front of the house that encroaches onto the public right-of-way. Parks Department Forester Stephen Ellsperman has required the Applicant to remove this berm. The application states the berm would establish privacy for the 11 lilli 1 11!1 'llull(eli i Ill ji! / ii Il residence, as well as to tie Yes. 'together the front of the house so that the front porch becomes E.JU I even more important to the street." The Land Use Code illustration to the right explicitly prohibits man made berms in the front yard setback as shown in the No. illustration to the right. Although the proposed berm Aim would be smaller than the one shown in the illustration, it would have the same effect, which is to screen the historic landmark from the street. Staff recommends denial of this request finding that the proposed berm does not meet any of the variance review criteria. In addition, the berm would directly conflict with the intent of the site design standards, which states that where fences or dense landscaping exist or are proposed, it is intended that they be used to define the boundaries of private property without eliminating the visibility of the house and front yard from the street. In sum, Staff recommends approval of the fence variance and denial of the berm variance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the Residential Design Standard variance for a 6-foot fence, finding that it is in greater compliance with the AACP because the permanent trail easement, and denial of the variance for a berm, finding that none of the review standards are met and it directly conflicts with the intent of the site design standards, for a property located 232 East Hallam. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE STATED IN THE POSITIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. _, Series of 2000, approving the fence and berm Residential Design Standard variances for a single family residence at 232 East Hallam." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Development Application EXHIBIT A 981 KING STREET REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS SECTION 26.410 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAC) may grant relief from the Residential Design Standards at a public hearing if the variance is found to be: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP: or, b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Section 26.410.040(A) SITE DESIGN. The intent of these design standards is to encourage residential buildings that address the street in a manner which creates a consistent "facade line" and defines the public and semi- public realms. In addition, where fences or dense landscaping exist, or are proposed, it is intended that they be used to define the boundaries of private property without eliminating the visibility ofthe house and front yardfrom the street. Section 26.410.040(A)(3) SITE DESIGN - Fences. Fences, hedgerows. andplanter boxes shall not be more than forty-two inches (42") high, measured fromnaturalgrade, in allareasforward ofthefront facade ofthe house. Man- made berms are prohibited in the front -yard setback. In response to the review criteria for a DRAC variance. Staff makes the following findings: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, Staff Finding: Staff believes the variance for a 6-foot fence meets the intent of the site design standard, which is to define the boundary of the property without screening the historic landmark from the street. Staff also believes it complies with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Action No. 78: Improve Pedestrian Infrastructure. This action specifically calls for improving the east- west pedestrian travel conditions through the West End through the addition of a walkway that is detached from the street or that provides some separation between people and moving traffic. This trail provides an important connection from the West End to the Post Office, grocery store, Rio Grande recreation areas and more. However, Staff does not believe the variance for a berm meets this review criteria, and directly conflicts with the intent of the standard. The standard specifically prohibits landscaping in the front yard setback which reduces the visibility of a house and front yard from the street. b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, Staff Finding: Staff does not believe the proposed fence or berm provides any element which more effectively addresses the site design standard. Staff does not believe this criteria is met. c) clearly necessary for reasons offairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff Finding: Staff does not believe any unusual site specific constraints exist on this lot that would warrant granting the requested variances. No natural hazards such as steep slopes, avalanche areas, flood planes, rock falls areas, etc. threaten this site. A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMITTEE APPROVING VARIANCES OF THE FENCE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD FOR A PARCEL LOCATED AT 232 EAST HALLAM, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. Parcel ID # 2737-073-14-050 Resolution No. , Series of 2000 WHEREAS the applicant, Linda M. Pace, represented by Mt. Daly Enterprises LLC, has requested variances from the fence Residential Design Standards for a 6-foot fence forward of the front facade of a house, and a berm in the front yard setback, Land Use Code Section 26.410.040(A)(3), for the property located at 232 East Hallam; and, WHEREAS all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410.040 must meet one of the following criteria in order for the Design Review Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant an exception. namely the proposal must: a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. and WHEREAS The Planning Staff, in a report dated July 26. 2000, recommended approval of the variance for a 6-foot fence forward of the front facade of the house. and denial of the variance for a berm in the front yard setback; and, WHEREAS a public hearing, which was legally noticed, was held at a regular meeting of the Design Review Appeal Committee on July 26.2000, at which the Committee considered and approved the variance for a 6-foot fence forward of the front facade of the house and a berm in the front yard setback, by a vote of_ to _ C_-_3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Design Review Appeal Committee: That the Residential Design Standard variance for a 6-foot fence forward the front facade of the house and a berm in the front yard setback, Section 26.410.040, is approved for a historic landmark at 232 East Hallam, Aspen, Colorado, with the following condition: 1. Prior to any additional work on the fence and/or proposed new berm on the subject property: a. The Applicant shall grant a permanent and non-revocable trail easement to the City of Aspen for the existing trail across the property located at 232 East Hallam within 30 days of this public hearing. If the trail easement is not conveyed to the City of Aspen within this time frame, this approval shall be rendered null and void and the portion of the fence forward of the front facade of the house shall be removed immediately at the owner's expense. b, The existing berm in the right-of-way shall be removed within 14 days of this public hearing. 2. Prior to the construction of the proposed fence in the public right-of-way, the Applicant shall apply for apply for an encroachment license from the City Engineer' s Office. APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE at its regular meeting on the 26th day of July, 2000. APPROVED AS TO FORM: DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMITTEE: City Attorney Chair ATTEST: City Clerk C \home\nickl\Active Cases\Pace Res Design Standards Variances.doc 'â€¢, 11- t'~'it~ 11 : 1 Pos Ofhce Bc, 1537 . Â·'4#tÂ¢ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT I \Ill'LIA MARSHALL 23400 Two, 2.Â·,es Rd #-13 MT DALY ENTERPRISES LLC Brisclt Colocics B !62 1 T al. n 1 -' 4 i ; / ' 124 4/ J "21 + 411 -1 'â€¢ .. - 'CXC !9$:SCF': -Â·9Â· f J . July 6, 2CC0 Ms. Amy Guthrie Historic Preservction Director City of Aspen Decr Amy and the Historic Preservation Committee, P:ecse fir,d enclosed cn ccolication requesting c vcricnce b c term and fence at the Pace Residence Iccated ct 232 East Hallcm Street in Aspen. The recuest for a 6' high fence accated in the right-of-way at the southeast ccrner of the prcperry stems from Lindc P oce's offer to convey to the City of Aspen o cermcnent trail ecsement crossing the ccrner of her oroperty. The fence will extenc cpproximcrely 30' from the front property line to the street. The posts that are currenTly iccated in the field designate the length of the fence. This trcii hcs existed for mcny years and is cn important link to the pest office and Clark's McrkeT :rcrn Mcr,crcn cr.d Halcm Streets cos The West End. Its oer -. -it is Â·,ve:I appreciated. Unfortunately for Linda. the proximity of her hcuse to this trcil has brought about scrre unfortunate incidences such as her fir.ding people carrping in the trees ct he ccrner of her Icwn. The procosea fence will estcitish c deer bcundcry and provide prorec:ion for her croperry while allowing the Trail TO ce improvec so :hcT Inis becomes cn even mere usec cnd scfer wcy to descent down the hill. While the easement for the trail brings cbcut c unique situcticn. the histcriccl aspects of the residence uncerlies the request fer c vcricnce -cr a berrn cn lincat orocerty within the frcnt ycrd setbcck. Throughout the years, Linda Mcs had vcricus recuests for improvernents toner oroperty brought before the Historic Preservcticn Committee. Linda has fcllowed and established with HPC whcT improvements con happen and the nature cr -hose irncrcvemer.:5. With c ?crrner =PC, Lindc's recuesT tr c fence frorn the wrought iron [ence ccross Fre -1'cril CÂ·r ner proger-ry Â·wcs ceries. Since *e ncuse :s Iccated where the heed lignts cf the ccrs coming dcwn Mcncrch streer shine direcily into the ycrd and hcuse, some type of screening is,mcercrive. In :he review of The hcuse prior to the most recent rencvaticn, HPC recuesrec :nct the new cdciticn nct be able frcrn the street, thus emancsizinc :Re his:cric! cscect of tie rricrs-rc 'cof -cr-,cn cr :hie sweiling. The term accsm,plis,nes mcry things. In ccrduncticn with the ferce, the Derm establishes privacy for c person who is helping the City hcve permcnent access to the post office crec. The term, with the accompcrying picrizing of :rees cr,c snrucs, fuifills h:PC's reques: ?cr screening. The berm reinforces 'HPC's ecrfier dedsion to emphasize the histcric cspects of the house by being c vegetative solution which dces not compete with the wrought iron fence. The vegetation ties together the front of the house so thct the front porch becomes even more importcnt :c the street. The berm itself, ct 2'-80' is less hign then the cllowctie 30-6" tell fence. The terrn is currenrly encrocching on the street but will te pulled bcck so that it remcins cn crivcte crccerry. I hcve sccken to Steor,en Elscermcn from :re Pc:Ks Deccrunent cna he hes no c'cjectic,n to The berrn. He hes beer revievving cur Ficns Grid Cbserving tree protection C R c -ree mitigc:icn tr :ne curcricn cf -fils cr-jec:. I cocrecic:e ycur time in ical<,rig ccrefully c: this recwes;. Piecse feel free to contact me if you have cny ques:ions. Sincerely. 0 7.1 ~fultÂ» j i, / LA'l.9 /|'~-U/-, J ' Julia Mcanc!1 I - V - ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM fc> 1. Project name , a e e K As i cl 2 91 U . 2. Project location Â·'63,7. 9Â»d â€žLolla,/M <-~'r-er'r i A<,09.r, G\,oracti For Le.cial 8,26criotion %26Â· drichÂ«{ gueT (indicate stredt address, lot'and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning 3% u 4. Lot size 11,555.6 50. ft 5. Applicant's name, address and phone number Landa M Â· PacY.- 1'2.5.1129 131 9 0 â‚¬ 41 4 2 1 \ O M th.at + At (En ral o vced. - .- 1 ' 2!i f 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number Mt DÂ« C M En-4't F),-MÂ·65 LLC P. 6. RO M l5 -57.0 5 Cl. Sk It 2 0 f, A f 61 d D SibYl 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA Final k PC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD Â« Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD Relocation HPC Subdivision Text~Map Amend. Historic Landmark GMQS allotment GMES exemption Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condominiumization Design F eview Lot Split/Lot Line Appeal Committee Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property) 1 9 t,'noil-0 -Parnitu Ouvt,il;yNt f 10 24-CU rfull-Â·el 4 4 5(0 9.0 4-r. lit 5 598 Â¥ Ocr h 5 n /fevaus Ar>o< ovÂ«(5 : Wa,riavit, regoati aranted at Frr\-al 6.22 r,vievv a 'U 0 00 r c Val o A G / e.4 / RE . 1 & i 9. Description ofdevelopment application Aoo'\(catu>,n is F/rice<ting A 0- <A '~ lugh 6.4 7,\ 01.CA A. (9 LO Filkh UncIA .\A -Â¥ rof,+ 41(/'1 Sâ‚¬.4 baCL~ Â· 7(12 applical-ton (5 #Or J a Varl'enÂ« f <brn '' 9,291,64.2Eiti.(_ U 0-29(nA Standards 10. Have you completed and attached the following? 4 Attachment 1- Land use application form 4- Response to Attachment 2 Response to Attachment 3 / C. ....) .1......1 J - 1 ./r i Â· i r nurl , 1./1 ..... r .-In i i I.--r.-_) 4 1 %=-14 1 22-JU / u r. 2 02/11/1995 01:18 9709204496 ASPEN PAGE 01 . I -9- 1,1 r ~urÂ·, r J Yux I 'vt,b 21 52 1254 /41 06/29/00 THU 15:46 FAI 970*27*437 LING "ARNEX 41 002 r ASPEM/'incm COMMUNTr, DEVELOPME*r DUAKTMINI Aer-ment fur hymâ€¢al d City of Aspen Deâ€¢â€¢5â€¢p-â€¢1 Appk,Opâ€¢ 7- Crrf OF ASPEN Cheâ€¢ig:*ft= Crn â€¢nd 1-End i . fl-Fa C t. Câ€¢:,i:*UW A'PLICAND ACKEE A5 FOU.OVS 1. APPWCALvT Qu â€¢cbmind to Clrr â€¢a xoplic~i= fbr M in ar 14 2 G . Â¥drian e.z- 4.f= 4 4. P,-MS T Z'- 9" ~khji .0,r. U.~ro Ki Yard se* t=ck Chevia/Sc. THE PKOJECT) 2. APPUCAN-r unxbDir"Dd# =d *:71% th= C.69 g/ As,m C"TE'"19= 2460- 45 (Sir'* gf 19991 Imbiabn a TI 21,DxD, br Luâ€¢* W= ilijgniceu eR Ic pâ€¢yin-â€¢ af a~ p~oeming &:Â¤ 0 0 cvndition pricednrir 0 2 11 b Of 4,ptâ€¢Corraa CO:npl,tniess. 3 42â€¢LiCÂ»-r -Cm.goc thlb=a=â€¢OC# f==r, ors,=opâ€¢ c~-prvsÂ¢dpr=jed a l, col go.jibl, c tan 1002 0 8*cronin 00 adl cg== of Ule =58 049*d in procc=62* 21â€¢ 19#Ucatior, APPUCANT =d CITY &,e=Â· ap= mat k 13 b b *ing of S. p.*c S= APPLICA>IT rmak. F,trte: or;,c Unial 4-5,+1 ..4 8 d}Aig.21.hrÂ· peÂ·*t Â®*laigul coâ€¢Z1 D, k babed X AFPLICANT c. . mom:bl, b.,6. AFFUCAM,P= ddbac,1 cos= m.r ,=,u. BelÂ»-94 *,0, he.vo wdier ip,Ov,ti AM'LICAX; 1*re., h Mit W bate=d my <081*; $1*#gr câ€¢sh UquMÂ» id -â€¢11 ....kz â€¢:Mag#/ pe=Ic,a upgm 7Â¤dtcatien Â» 2. CITY -ben B eÂ· Irâ€¢ ry = com ue 1:,currod. CITY Eve= a â€¢Cl k Dermad 2%,1,Â·u~ the grmsr,r r,ruing cfrÂ¤o.f/ * 8111 0058 = pr:== APPLKANT-3.pplkâ€¢Zion CTY 94 APPLICANT FUrth,r .0- dÂ»r i & 6,prtecia b CrTY 9,5 v coc:plet 9-=Eme or pre:cot iwilvt'rar 'dilg;'309 *3 28 Pbulwgi C,=~a,ca dy'or City Cound m 'oable the Mtg=Ans Collâ€¢Â»too afulor C:* COOMIN v mahâ€¢ 99.uy r=qÂ¥~râ€¢d Kading; for prtyâ€¢,1 coc~de=Â£on. -1-ss current baks 9, pul ia 8.11 pr- co *chica 3. 'rbo,be. APPLICANT Vrâ€¢â€¢5 2= in goasz*== of tze CITY'; -tÂ¥â€¢r of ir, 2* 0 eglic= 8.U f=. pâ€¢iof M â€¢ *EZâ€¢â€¢Mal:=gl,ja cf Ipptiar=t Co=via==m. APFLICANT shill F, an im:i .1 depo:ir 97 liu .z.out< .: 5 4 i# Â· 0Â© .bjob b *2 1 , 5 haâ€¢= cf Cs=st=ir, D...lo,1-t =~ c:=te~ utd d Kif r.c=,ici .00 9,2.4 9. imi:61 6â€¢masâ‚¬~ AFPLICANT ij=il pq addictomd m-hly Wainp = CITY = rricbua. Iht C:TY jur me Prncut, of tu mil=on f~zionâ€¢01 â€¢Oevt, 9644 01 -Wpro,â€¢1 miw Such p=r:Â©dic p~,n== .h=11 bâ€¢ made .i:hil 30 de, of erâ€¢ Wi/4 2=. A~LICANT baL#,=r li:reg, ihil fhil=rt re p., 5=Ch aorwed oma flall be Pe=ach &,r â€žspesica of ptoersing. 6.4 20 =u aÂ». â€¢ iII buiMia; per:mic bâ€¢ 1994 41&1 dii Ggza =logic.4 w ah cue prgr=*14 hp, 8=3 92â€¢i Crrr 0/ 45 PIN UPLIANT 416*_JAh- _ 4 -Ak/>Fl, 47 /72,1. Anâ€¢ 10- -- 6< J UAâ‚¬ 30 747 0 0 Assuaz 444'â„¢2 94 5 N . fna i 4 mz yutta 6177 Ant#14Â»0 7-+ 73205 12/27/99 02/06/1995 22: 19 9709204496 ASPEN PAGE 03 -- , .... , , -Il J 4 , tÂ¢ 4 1 4 0.-6 1 66 P 9, LINDA M. PACE 232 East Hallam Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 925-2709 June 28,2000 To Whom It May Concern: This letter authorizes Julia Marshall or other representatives of Mt. Daly Enterprises, as designated by Julia Marshall, to represent me in the following matters: 1) Apply for a variance from the Historic Preservation Commi55ion or the Design Review Appeals Board with respect to the fence at 232 East Mallam. 2) Obtain an encroachment license from the Engineering Department of the City of Aspen with respect to landscaoing at 232 East Maliam. All documents related to these matters should be directed to- Julia Marshall Mt. Daly Enterprises 23400 Two Rivers Rd. Suite 43 P. 0. Box 1537 Basalt, CO 81612 (970) 927-3138 Sincerely, Unda M. Pace FROM : ALPINE SURVEYS INC PHONE NO. : 9709252688 JUN. 27 2000 05:09PM Pl SURVETORb CERT-1FICATE 1, JAMIES) M KEE:,CA, k-]ElÂ«Spr CEMFI Pr THÂ»I ON MAY 5,1196 1 K/lAOE A VIOUAL INÂ©rECTION AND A FIELD 50'Ql/Dr 70 [CEATE. TWE OFU VEWAY, FENCE.5, ADDI TIONIAL- TmEEÂ© AN O CE?KJXI-hi LANDeCAJE FEAIUM=5 OF THIC FBOre<21 r SP-laVIH 1-E:EMON . KID (45*5WEAE KUNED E<Imf'T- .AS et-OWN AN[P NOTED 1-4E1<E~.1 ALFINI E fUMA/ErD, Ibc. err-,__-_--_.... JANI Et F. REDEA, L. 5, 9 1 54 eug.v=.rog-'Â© c rgri Ficâ‚¬ m 1, JAVZÂ© M REDEÂ«, WERE=r CEKTIFy TH/KE ON AMIL4,2(IO VIADE A VIâ‚¬xAL INDFEEFICK] OF 1-1-15- FAS:rEÂ·Krr Sk-la/N k-1EgEON A>Â·IP FOLOND KIC) a-HAHEEED EXCEFT /45 â‚¬=HOWN AND K.CrEEP 1-4 EggoN.J. AL-f"Â®15 CUMb/51 INC, ,[=37---, JAN/1Ed R ~65Â©Em / PATE S L. 5.11 54 - 9 - NOT-E, FITKI MI CCUND' TITLE, INC. CAD E KE. FUr-3906 FR WAâ‚¬:) Otâ‚¬.0 !>4 TH E FREF5Ngâ‚¬~ON OF Th-11 9, 64/A/Er- LEGAL DE.566 1 FTION : DAGIMMING AT THE. 5. W. CDKNEA CF LOT MI, 8?LOCK 71, CAIGINAL AMEN TOWÂ»15]TE ; THENCE 1-4 14- 50'41"Â£ 165. 11 PERT ALONe THI WESTEALT LIME OF &410 LOT P-1 Ar-IC) THE- EXTEN&!ON THEKLOF, THEMCE- 3 7802Â©'CO" 2 U. 025 FUT, THENCE. 5 22-*'aD'E 1)6.17 FEET, THENCE .5 12Â°51'CZE)"YV 75.01 FEET 723 Trim MORTM LLNE OF M,ALLArt Â·57?K.Z.ET ' EXTENDE-O, THENCE 19 75'01'J)" W 139.65 FEET ALON 6 601 1 0 HZ*TH LINE I) THIC FOIPIT CT 8,5-6/ Nril NG, COM1>'Nril rÂ·*s 19, 812 EQ. FT. /10&2 04 LESS Â« PACE DESCIZIPTl 014 ~ FOR NAN] ON AT 927-8439 FAX 0 -I. 44 .4 FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Fidelity National Title Insurance Company 17911 Von K.arman Avenue, Suite 300 Irvine, CA 926 14-623 110111 r..... Commitment for 9 e Insurance AdeR, National litte buw=ce Company A Stock Cog.ny COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation, herein called the Company,for valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy orpolicies 0/tit/e insurance, asioentified in Schedule A. in favor of the proposed insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee oft/le estate crintere:t coveredhereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A,upon payment of thepremiums and chargestherefore; 211 subject to the provisions of Schedules,1 and 8 and to the Conditions and St/pulations hereof. This Commitment sha# be effective only when the identity of the proposed fnsured and the amount of the policy or policie5 committed for have been inferted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at thetirne of the issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent endorsement Thif Commitmentis preliminary tothe issuance of such policy or policieiof title insunnce and all liability and obligauons hereunder shall cease and tÂ·Â·rminace six (63 months after the effective date hereof or when the po/icy or policies committed for shall issue, hichever first occun, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies ;5 not the fault ofthe Company. This Commitment shall nor be validor birding uncil countenigned by an authorized omcer or agent. iN WiTNESS WHERIOF, che Company has caused this Commitment:obesigi:,dandseated.to become.Â¥Wid .. .1 .. =. -un. when cÂ©untersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company, 1/ in actor~ne with iii 87,-fiÂ«3 4 C - 4222-2-:1 37 f Commitment is effective as of the date shown in Scheduie A as -Effective Date.' t plijda C.=i~ TY#4 1... Wl I. *1-,MIA-~ A,/.4 C.1/-â€¢0 81611 Fk~lity National Titte insuranceCompany 970-,S#-176* rh-- ,70.013-652'7 bl ~@~_,/â€¢~ ATTEST --0 0444Â¢24'Lj 1 1 1 ti.7 1 !? A / L4+f- AuthÂ¥/* Slinacure S.C..7 FORM 27-83-65 (9194) Valid Only if Schedule A and B are Amched ALTA COMMITMENT - 1900 The Co..10- O, 011â€¢ reild/**al *I *m*= and Â¢h-,00 be p,/ MI. M me b... 94 thellue 49% The,e~.,e, D, /lk,<DI Wi be â€¢~uÂ®d 4-*re- 6-â€¢-dâ€¢ted.*-40 1 Cir: CON.vuTMENT FOR TrTLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A : 1. Effective Date: March 20,2000 at 8:30 AM Case No. PCTL3906PR 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: i (a) ALTA Ownets Policy-Form 1992 Amounts 0.00 < Premium$ 0.00, Proposed Insured. Rate: j (b) ALTA Lcan Pclicy-Form 1992 AmountS 0.00 f PremiumS 0.00 Proposed Insured: Rate: Tax Cedcatet $10.00 3. Ttle to the FEE SIMPLE estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested in: LINDA MARIE PACE 4 The land referred to in this Commitment is situated in the County of PITKIN Stateof COLORADO and is described as follows: See Attachect Exhibit "A" .- .3.-- ...~~C~--fulfa. -, :-9.42....41640-4ZOI. 1-~..... :. --. FIT]UN COUMTY TrrLE INC. Sdhedule A-PG. 1 601 1 HOPKINS This Commitment is invalid ASPEN, CO. 81611 ' unless the Insuring 970-925-1766 PA,visions and Schedules 970-9254527 FAX Aand 8 are attached. ALI-fORIZED ACE>Er ~ , 93 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION A Wact of land comprising all of Lots R & S, Block 71, in the City and Townsite of Aspen and a portion of vacated Hallams Street according to Uie Willifs Map recorded December 6, 1949 in Plat Bock 2 at Page 37 as Reception No. 97096. and a portion of unplatted Seclbon 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M., De entire parcel being more fully described as follows: Beginning at the South West Comer of Lot M, Block 71, City of Aspen: tence N 14'50'49" E 163.12 feet thence S 78'23'00- E 66.08 feet thence S 22'58'00" E 116.19 feet thence S 12'59'00" W 75.09 feet to the Northerly line of Hallam Street thence N 75'09'11" W 139.65 feet to the point of beginning. , Â·.---_14-44-rL- Â·-rÂ·~â‚¬*AA<g#ZERTIF-f - -fn-J-r r--Â·. --.7 1:-4â‚¬29,2-2~'ti-}~t<77VjÂ» --75~ , 0. \or.. 4 11' 1 . SamyULE B - SECTION 1 REQUIRED,IENTS The following are the requirements to be complied with: ITEM (a) Payment to or for me account of the grantors or mortgagors uf the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. ITEM (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate of interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record to-wit THIS COMMITMENTS FURNISHED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY, IT IS NOT A CONTRACT TO ISSUE TTrLE INSURANCE AND SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS SUCH. IN THE EVENT A PROPOSED INSURED IS NAMED THE COMPANY HEREBY RESEBVES THE RIGHT TO MAKE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND/OR EXCEPTIONS AS DEEMED NECESSARY. THE RECIPIENT OF THIS INFORMATIONAL REPORT HEREBY AGREES THAT TAE COMPANY HAS ISSUED THIS REPORT aY THEIR REQUEST AND ALTHOUGH WE BELIEVE ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS ACCURATE AND CORRECT, THE COMPANY SHALL NOT BE CHARGED WITH ANY FINANCIAL LIABILITY SHOULD THAT PROVE TO BE iNCORRECT AND THE COMPANY IS NOT OBUGATED TO ISSUE ANY POLICIES OF TITLE INSURANCE. ' 1 -0 1-2~Â·7 .'-*-I-~Â·9698914Â·:-=*23~'B--1 ---Â· -â€¢-"- - -t=â€¢;Cat=SZNE'Â£9L<#A.=--Â·, 3 - .4--I<- ------ :- --,-r,v. ~Â«i*frer=: 17:25-9-9-372.-7..913~-~3*1. â‚¬:.~LU~f~:~F-Uf:*9141=723..r-*S:.~Cut=-SU-- +-,-7-33..7.-3: ..1-- pin - - /1 .el . e.-4 SCHEDULE B SECTION 2 EXCEFrIONS The policy or policies to be issued will contain excepbons to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Rights cr dairns of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easemena or daims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines. shortage in area, encoachments, 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 hereafter firnished. imposed by law and not shown by the pubt records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances. adverse daims or other matters, if any, created, first appeanng in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effectve date hereof but pnor to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest cr mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment 6. Taxes due and payable, and any tax, special assessment charge or lien imposed for water or sewer service or for any other special taxing distnct 7. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract or remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or imersect the premises hereby granted as reserved in United States Patent recorded in Book 55 at Page 2. 8. Reservations and exceptions as set forth in the Deed frum the City of Aspen recorded in 8ook 59 at Page 329 providing as follows: -That no Me 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" 9. Encroachments and all matters as disclosed by Survey of Alpine Surveys dated August 16,1983 . , '' . ~.4 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DISCLOSURES The Owner's policy to be issued, if any shall contan the following items in addition to the ones set forth above. (1) The Deed of Trust, if any, required under Schedule B-Section 1. (2) Water rights, dams or title to water. (NOTE: THIS EXCEPTION WILL APPEAR ON THE OWNERS AND MORTGAGE POLICY TO BE ISSUED HEREUNDER) Pursuant to Insurance Reguiaton 89-2: NOTE Each title entity shall notify in wrmng every prospec#ve insured in an owner's title insurance policy for a single famity residence (induding a condominim or twnhouse unit) (i) of that title entity's general requirements for he deletion of an exception or exclusion to coverage relating ta unmed mechanics or matenalmerm liens. except when said coverage or insurance is extended to the i isured under the terms of the policy. A satsfactory affidavit and agreement indemnifying the Company against unfiled mechanics' and/or Materialmen's Uens executed by the persons indicated in the attached ccpy of said affidavit must be furnished to the Company. Upon receipt of these items and any otlers requirements to be specmed by me Company upon request Pre-printed Item Number 4 may be deleted from the Owners policy when issued. Please contact the Company for further information. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing contained in this Paragraph shall be deemed to impose any requirement loon any title Insurer to provide mechanics or materratmens lien coverage. NOTE W the Company conducts the owners or loan dosing under drcumstances where it is responsible for the recording or ming of legal documents from said transaction, the Company will be deemed to have provided "Gap Coverage". Pursuant to Senate Bm 91-14 (CRS 10-11-122), (a) The Subject Real Property may be located in a Spedal Taxing District (b) A Certificate of Taxes Due listing each taxing jurisdiction may be obtained form ele County treasurer of the County Treasurefs Authorized Agent (c) Information regarding Special Distncts and the boundanes of such districts may le obtained from the Board - of County Commissioners, the County Cierk and Recorder, or the County ASSâ‚¬Sjor. NOTE. A tax Certificate will be ordered from the County Treasurer by the Company and the costs thereof charged to the proposed insured unless wntten instruction to the contrary are received by the company prior to the Issuance of the Title Policy anticipated by this Commitment This commjtmer:r is invalid unless Schedule B-Section 2 the Insuring Provisions and Schedules Commitment No. PCT-3906PR A and B are attached. t-9 ~ <> r 1/ CONDmONS AND STIPULATIONS 1. The term "mortgage",when u5â‚¬d herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, orothersecurity in$trument. 2. If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance. adverse daim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B hereof. and shall fail to disdose such knowledge to the Company in writing.the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act of reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose 5uclt knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge tothe Company, oriftheCompany otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance. advene claim or other matter, the Company at irs option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly. but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previoudy incurred punuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and StipUlatiOn3. 3. Uability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual 1055 incurred in reliance hereon In undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule 8, or (c) to acquire or create the egate of interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In rio event shall such liabilic, exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies committed for and such liability k subject to the insuring provisions, exclusion from coverage,and the Conditions and Stipulations of the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commitment except as expresdy modified herein. 4. Any claimof loss ordamage,whether or not based on negligence, and which ar ses out of the status of the title to the esrate or interest or the lien of the insured mortgagecovered hereby or any action asserting such claim, shall be restricted to the provisions and Conditions and Stipulations of the Commitment. , , .,t r.'.be.. 414'**)84*#SWAN'"Wn" I'.. ~44 7 . . 1 4,? 5 9 Al c 'f 9 ~ ~< 1â€žME#l u 4 r 9,1 Cl le /4' 1 1 -* RUD ~ ~/ //b ) R .oil/- 9 ,i Â· ..1 0,0 J. 1- . 0 ' U .1 4144 0:~,pneâ€žP / 0 ke -Â»1 -kiÂ» 47 ' 4/s ~ ' 0 0 , .. 4 -f C -<4244 Â£ 44 tf- fsilver Queen --- e..142 r. 4 J -.U//bl 40-ft ,â€¢4 .4 .D 0 Gohdola - ' d k O\ tÂ·,wÂ·'1 -, y hefy/( \ % 1 *6\/ T 1 -42Â« Im /1 4 1 Â¥,2 'flh. e 9 1 1 . )1 't,~ L 0,4 Â·.1 .*</R \ R \ 1% 47 7 t. 6-/ â‚¬A 135// - -93 1,21 91.Â« ' . C '4 ' M/7 1 \35 1 4/ 8 1 . A INIP , -- r- \ liv yi Wi< A / -1 2-340 m-Â» ci 2 -43 nu. 1 A *, '9*1 ~ _39~4--1 1 -& 1 k . j â€¢L /7-8 2 k 's., 4 %1 <\ 1--L , .f _3<:16[ / -/4/ 2 4 -9 -i~ __ A D 3 *040 0, /* . 02Â· a \ C f) (i / fic .. lf5 ~= :*1#AW-Al& 0, - .-1 1 I h Ted /-7/-Â· 1\-1-1 'S 13 CL W pul/.P#4'i.7.Fmi- 1 1 'spt . R - U 1 , . a .A Gl ./--23'IER,%84. *& C - < n/vÂ¢r DrAÂ·-5<2*EL--9 </ d' ~ 1--~FR>it N /,-,/ -%4~t,C \RT 4 n (,m.Wl 1 < ~--21 Â·r 4 15Â« U CRelle Creek Dr \ ~ 8 t r ~1--A- at iÂ· Ja UpploH C I I, ri,-~ -6 2 .- ~--- 1 4 4244 Mf,roâ€ž creeK U 0 - 10 1 / . 41-95#,TH .401 ., 941 ~13 1 J. .1, 1'. 'Â· 0 11 1.:i - f ' *1'? t . 4 '64. - 111:% 18 944, . 99 1 /0/ /6 4 3. ' - 4-1 /1- . 11 .6 r I ' . .. ' # i % 1 1- . t.1-Â·. , 4\ '' ' PltkIn Me,m Dr I r + 4 b 1\ E -,) 19.1-'.':.1.1 . M I Â« 11* 22 4 ....... "1 JeW-H Â¥â‚¬ ,1. *l / 1 -&: 2/ /T m 2 3 -0 r 11 Â·31Â¥:,/1-4 ~ 0/ ./ "li Ptâ€¢U:â€¢43 2 Sl / 41 /+ , . *4.2/. - - 6- â‚¬ 1--r.4* C C 0 3 0, '2~04' R / 7 4, 4 ---- 1291,4 0 0 , 1 i / 4240 ~:%~~A ~ ~ 0 0 k 1-- le '6'.i: ' 1 L.1 ..1441- f r 8 p <4 La ihi - 4 ar*< + .r--1.2-----3 I. IS/wt 00 , S #M-$/*'Mi ~ ~;k,M;Â·trk+'4Â£63&191~4 ; 1. ,M.tr.t.'.Mrâ‚¬.4,4, ir. -r'.9. 4 1 1 4,*0 2% 11 4.,'*:46 Â¢ r,0-.1 1,1 t. '944, A.41 .5 1. 4 / 1 ...K 6, 4 1 , .P,1:0.4.'p.fipe TI'... 'Â· p" , I , 11 'r 4:ad esoltu tfsft-4 - KLEIN-ZIMET PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION HERBERT S. KLEIN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 201 NORTH MILL STREET MILLARD J. ZIMEr SUrrE 203 MADHU B. KRISHNAMURTI ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TEL: (970) 925-8700 *also admitted in New York FAX: (970) 925-3977 August 7,2000 RECEIVED VIA HAND DELIVERY AUG 0 7 2000 Ms. Julie Anne Woods ASPEN / PITKIN Aspen Community Development Director COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO. 81611 RE: Appeal of Denial of DRAC Variance Application - Linda M. Pace, (the "Applicant") for Property located at 232 E. Hallam St., Aspen (the "Property"). Dear Ms. Woods, Please consider this letter as an appeal under Sec. 26.316.030 of the City Land Use Code ("LUC") of the denial by the Historic Preservation Commission ("HPC"), acting as the Design Review Appeal Committee ("DRAC") o f the Applicant's request for a variance for a six foot high fence along the front yard of the above described Property and for the placement of a two-foot eight-inch high berm within the front yard setback. The application was approved in part and denied in part by Resolution No. 37, Series of 200() (the "Resolution"), adopted on July 26,2000. A copy of the Resolution is attached for your convenience. The Resolution granted approval for the six-foot high fence along the portion of the Property forward of the front facade, required the conveyance of a trail easement to the City and denied the request for the location of the berm within the setback. It also required the removal ola portion of the existing berm that was placed within the City right of way. The Applicant remains willing to work with the City in dealing with the City's desire to obtain a trail easement through the Property, however, the terms of the Resolution require the granting of the easement in an unreasonably short time and there are legal issues and survey issues that exist with respect to the easement that have not yet been resolved. The Applicant also objects to certain of the conditions of the Resolution and the denial of the variance for the berm located in the setback. This appeal will facilitate a resolution of these issues and will "stop the clock" on the unrealistic time frames required by the Resolution. We hope you will consider this appeal in this context. The Applicant appeals several aspects of the Resolution. They are as follows: 1. The Resolution conditions the granting of the variance for the fence upon the conveyance of a trail easement to the City. Generally, such an exaction is an unlawful taking Ms. Julie Anne Woods August 7,2000 Page 2 unless the installation of the fence created a need for the trail. In this case, the trail presently exists and the fence will not impede the use of the trail by the public. In fact, the reason the Applicant has sought the variance for the fence is to mitigate the adverse impact of the existing trail on her home. Therefore, there is no connection between the need for the trail easement and the approval of the fence. We acknowledge that the Applicant offered the trail easement in consideration ofthe variances requested, however, the City did not approve the variance for the berm, which was part of the application. Under these circumstances, the condition of the Resolution that requires the grant of the easement or removal of the portion of the fence forward of the front facade (Cond. la.) is an illegal condition and beyond the jurisdiction of the DRAC to impose.. The fence can remain, but the Applicant is not obligated to convey the easement. 2. The requirement (Cond. la) that the easement be granted within 30 days or the approval of the fence is void, is an unreasonably short time and is arbitrary and capricious. There are legal issues to be resolved, such as insurance coverage and a re-survey which the City acknowledges is necessary, but which cannot take place before Sept. 1. 3. The requirement (Cond. 1 a) that the existing berm located in the City right of way be removed within 14 days is also an unreasonably short time and is arbitrary and capricious. The Applicant has agreed to remove this portion o f the berm but needs a reasonable amount o f time to have the work done. There are significant trees and plant materials that need professional care in their removal and relocation. A permit for this removal may be necessary and this work needs to be scheduled and accomplished in a reasonable manner and time frame. 4. The requirement (Cond. 2) that the Applicant apply for an encroachment license from the City engineering department for the construction of the portion of the 6 foot fence located in the City's right of way, may not be feasible. Although the Applicant can apply for the license, the City engineering department has indicated that it may not approve the license for the fence. Thus, we have conflicting positions from the DRAC and the engineering department. In this context, the condition is arbitrary and capricious because it may not be able to be complied with by the Applicant and the location of the 6 foot fence in the right of way is an essential component of the variance application and the Applicant' s willingness to provide the trail easement. In fact, under the terms of the draft ofthe easement agreement, the City has offered to pay for the cost of construction of this segment of the fence. If the City's engineering department can sabotage this element of the easement, the City will have reaped the benefit of the easement but its obligation to pay for the fence will be avoided. The City should take the responsibility for obtaining the license agreement from its own engineering department and the timing of the requirement for the easement agreement should take this into account.. 5. The denial of the variance request for the retention o f the berm within the setback is appealed for three reasons: First, due to existing vegetation within the City right of way which lies between the improved portion of E. Hallam Street and the property line, the berm within the Ms. Julie Anne Woods August 7,2000 Page 3 setback is not visible from the street. There is no effect whatsoever on the public from the existence ofthis berm. An in this factual context, the berm complies with the intent of the design guidelines. Second, the HPC in a prior application dealing with the addition to the historic residence on the Property, encouraged vegetation and screening that would shield the view of the non-historic addition from the street so that the historic elements of the house were visible and emphasized. Significant trees have been installed within the berm in order to achieve the HPC ' s goal. Third, the City Parks department indicated to the Applicant's landscape architect that it had no problem with the berm and its trees which are located in the setback. The Parks Department is the primary City agency charged with the installation and removal of trees and their direction was of significance to the Applicant. This inconsistency in direction from City agencies and the DRAC creates an arbitrary application of the law. 6. Lastly, the Resolution is ambiguous. The last "Whereas" clause indicates that the variance request for the berm within the setback was denied. However, the first paragraph of the official findings portion of the Resolution, appearing after the words, "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED..." , implies that the request for the berm in the front yard setback was approved. As such, the Resolution language is ambiguous and its enforcement will be arbitrary. We look forward to working with staff prior to the hearing with the City Council on the issues raised by this appeal and in an effort to resolve our differences. Other representatives of the Applicant will be in contact with you shortly as I will be on vacation until August 21St. I request that no hearing on this appeal be scheduled until after my return. Thank you very much for your anticipated cooperation. Very truly yours, KLEIN-ZIMET PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION By: 'Herbert S. Klein ec: Lawrence Miller Linda Pace Julia Marshall pace\appeal.apl Uo/Ul/UU 1Ub 14:41 rAA Â¥1'UWZ,0457 LIPKIN WARNER 40003 ' AUG-01-2000 TUE 02:36 PM FAX NO. P. 02 ARESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ACTING AS THE DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMITIEE APPROVING A VAR1ANCE OF TIIE FENCE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD FOR A PARCEL LOCATED AT 232 EAST HALLAM, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. Parcel ID # 2737-073-14-050 Resolution No. 37. Series of 2000 WHEREAS the applicant, Linda M. Pace, represented by Mt. Daly Entcrpriscs LLC, has requested variances from Thc knce Residential Design Standards for a 6-foot fence forward of the front facade of n house, and a berm in the front yard setback, Land Use Code Section 26.410.040(A)(3), for thc property located at 232 East Hallam; and, WHEREAS all applications for appeal from thc Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410.040 must meet one of the following criteria in order for the Design Review Appeal Committee or othcr decision making administrative body to grant an exception, namely the proposal must a) yield greater compliance wilh the goals ofthc Aspen Area Community Plan; b) morc effectively address thc issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual sile specific constraints, and WHEREAS The Planning Staff. in a report dated July 26, 2000, rccommended approval of the variance for a 6-foot fence forward of the front facadc of the house. and denial OI the v,riancc for a berm in the front yard setback; and, WIIEREAS a public hearing, which was legally noticed, was held at a regular meeting of the Design Review Appeal Committee on July 26,2000, at which the Committee considered and approved the variance for a 6-foot fence forward of the front facade of the house. and denied a varia= for a berm in the front yard setback by a vote of six to zero (6.. 0). NOW, THEREFORE, BE lT RESOLVED by the Design Review Appeal Committee: That thu Residential Design Standard variancc for a 6-foot fence forward the front facade of the hOU32, Section 26.410.040, is approved and a berm in the front yard selback for a historic landmark at 232 East Hallam, Aspen. Colorado, with the following condition: 1. Prior to any additional work on the fence on the subject properly; a. The Applicant shall grant a permanont and non-revocable trail easement to the City of Aspen for the existing trail across the property located at 232 East Hallam within 30 days of this public hearing. If the trail easement is not VVI VAl V. 14.0 19â€¢ 96 raa giv.6,9.0, Llrall, WAKINEK .UU4 'AUG-01-2000 TUE 02:36 PM FAX NO. P. 03 conveyed to the City of Aspen within this time frame, this approval shall bc rtndered null and void and the portion of the fence forward of the front facade of the house shall bc removed immediately at the owner's expense. b. The existing berm in the fight-of-way shall be removed within 14 days of this public hearing. 2. Prior to the construction of the proposed fcncc in the public right-of-way, tile Applicant shall apply for apply fur an encroachment license from the Cily Engincer-s Cffice. 3. The Applicant shall submit a landscape plan for review by thc Historic Preservation Commission (IÂ·IPC) Staff and Monitor, Parks Department. and Engineering Department. and approved by the HPC. APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE at its regular meeting on the 26'h day of July, 2000. APPROVED AS TO FORM: DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMITTEE: City Attorney Chair ATTEST: City Clerk 08/01/00 TUE 12:59 FAX 9709278487 LIPKIN WARNER 0001 f -3 "f i' 19?91 ./ 1- .41 .4111 ~LXNÂ·OS CAPE ARCHITECT 4 0':4.4 , 'i. L Pos, Office Box 1337 L : VULfA 'M,AR SHALL 23400 Two Rivefs Rd =43 MT DALY ENTERPRISES LI C Bosoll Colorado 8 1021 4 194 7, ...i Tel 970 927 3138 311 p h. 9/0 927 8487 1, f Â· b '4 K. m,dcl,0,â‚¬2500 is, fle! . i :': 41: 91.0 -5-4101 July 31. 2()00 Nick Lelack Community Development Department City Â©f Aspen Dear Nick Lelock. Thank you for your efforts to meet with my client Linda Pace concerning the removol of her front yard berm. My client is requesting an extension of time to remove the berm. which the HPC motion requested her to do within 14 days of the motion. She would like to wait until after she has meet with you and the other City of Aspen departments before she proceeds with any action on the berm. We are anticipating this meeting taking place or Monday August 7,2000, after which we can address the berm. Please call if you have any queslions or concerns. Please call as soon as possible to let me know your decision on our request. Sincerely, Â®AU 1}4jÂ» Julia Marshall A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ACTING AS THE DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMITTEE APPROVING A VARIANCE OF THE FENCE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD FOR A PARCEL LOCATED AT 232 EAST HALLAM, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. Parcel ID # 2737-073-14-050 Resolution No. 37, Series of 2000 WHEREAS the applicant, Linda M. Pace, represented by Mt. Daly Enterprises LLC, has requested variances from the fence Residential Design Standards for a 6-foot fence forward of the front facade of a house, and a berm in the front yard setback, Land Use Code Section 26.410.040(A)(3), for the property located at 232 East Hallam; and, WHEREAS all applications for appeal from the Residential Design Standards of Section 26.410.040 must meet one of the following criteria in order for the Design Review Appeal Committee or other decision making administrative body to grant an exception, namely the proposal must: a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, and WHEREAS The Planning Staff, in a report dated July 26, 2000, recommended approval of the variance for a 6-foot fence forward of the front facade of the house, and denial of the variance for a berm in the front yard setback; and, WHEREAS a public hearing, which was legally noticed, was held at a regular meeting of the Design Review Appeal Committee on July 26,2000, at which the Committee considered and approved the variance for a 6-foot fence forward of the front facade of the house, and denied a variance for a berm in the front yard setback by a vote of six to zero (6- 0). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Design Review Appeal Committee: That the Residential Design Standard variance for a 6-foot fence forward the front facade of the house, Section 26.410.040, is approved and a berm in the front yard setback for a historic landmark at 232 East Hallam, Aspen, Colorado, with the following condition: 1. Prior to any additional work on the fence on the subject property: a. The Applicant shall grant a permanent and non-revocable trail easement to the City of Aspen for the existing trail across the property located at 232 East Hallam within 30 days of this public hearing. If the trail easement is not T conveyed to the City of Aspen within this time frame, this approval shall be rendered null and void and the portion of the fence forward of the front facade of the house shall be removed immediately at the owner' s expense. b. The existing berm in the right-of-way shall be removed within 14 days of this public hearing. 2. Prior to the construction of the proposed fence in the public right-of-way, the Applicant shall apply for apply for an encroachment license from the City Engineer' s Office. 3. The Applicant shall submit a landscape plan for review by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) Staff and Monitor, Parks Department, and Engineering Department, and approved by the HPC. APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE at its regular meeting on the 26th day of July, 2000. APPROVED AS TO FORM: DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL COMMITTEE: City Attorney Chair ATTEST: City Clerk ASPEN HISTOI ll~-, PRESERVATION COMMISU..JN MINUTES OF, August 9,2000 Chairperson Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. In attendance were Mary Hirsch, Jeffrey Halferty, Susan Dodington, Heidi Freidland, Christie Kienast, Rally Dupps, Lisa Markalunas and Melanie Roschko. Gilbert Sanchez was excused. Staff in attendance was Historic Preservation Officer, Amy Guthrie and Chief Deputy City Clerk, Kathleen Strickland. 232 E. HALLAM - EXTENSION OF APPROVAL DATE Nick Lelack, planner relayed to the board that a variance was approved for a six- foot fence in the front facade o f the house at the July 26,2000 meeting. The berm variance was denied. In the conditions of approval the berm was to be removed within 14 days and a trail easement was to be given to the city within 30 days. The applicant has asked for additional time in order to do all the landscaping in the front and on the public-right-of-way of their house at the same time. Regarding the trail easement they are having complications with their neighbors regarding their property lines. The applicant requests that the dates are changed to October 15, 2000 and staff is in agreement. Rally expressed his concern regarding the project and the numerous changes requested. Staff also agreed with Rally. Nick stated that the applicant is going to do more work in the pubic right-of-way than initially planned. Nick informed the board that the applicant has filed a formal appeal against the denial o f the berm variance because they could not meet the dates. With the date changes they will withdraw their appeal. MOTION: Melanie moved to approve the revised resolution #37, 2000 approving the fence and denying the berm residential design standard variancefor a single-family residence at 232 E. Hallam, second by Christie. Yes vote: Suzannah, Mary, Susan, Heidi, Christie, Melanie, jeffrey. 435 W. MAIN - L'AUBERGE - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Mick Lelack, planner informed the board that this is an application for a minor development to the non-historic residence, managers unit. The 1 08/09/00 WED 10:34 FAX 9709278487 LIPKIN WARNER 0001 '',LANDSCAPE ARCIIITECT JULIA 'MARSHALL 23400 Two Rivers Rd 1143 Post Office Box 1537 MT DALY ENTERPRISES LLC Boiull Colorado 81671 TOI 970 92/3138 . Fax 9/0 727 8487 : mrd.1,10.Â·.opri,-net 0*tare)' TO ,- /4(oK- le/BLAC- 4- fact 1413Ub# e , 132* 13.-1Â·trACIFV! 91-. \lfc, 129 9%0Â·5435 \ Ne/, hi (ok'. AU-fou,( In#YAW(im. dir*P *2-- s ke,FAS - 3Â»- 1 ll.950- 1 8,16( LArick,HAI,e. 9*1â‚¬1 40 *eg 41+~ -* ger -Opti mil . -TA*3 & 90 A T- AC *Â·a yed *01Am %041 4&3----361Â« Kothb n,ed -Ar FAÂ·stn* uu. mzrs or 4Mb' d.j,-CÂ£Â« -1,0 -1'k ou,rb. I m- 1 1 Â£2 7 6 ~4*, wÂ«- pi~- eet vef wk -9-xes) M * cd# 1 04 { 15 VÂ¢41-fj 41+ 9\A- U Â· fARAP A>teri~ (co 44& crviled A.Â£ 1 4 0 j.r 'd/5 WE-- 0.- 44- \or(4(1/-. N: 0 0 ' 111*TORI O H 0 04 E- t y uyl ~ C - \- --L 5 1 es / 1 4:: f.1. f i 0.24 0 Â»3 J .4 / 1 BENIM W/ AH}UÂ®Â¢ F#o Fo4# P rÂ·v.,j' + Fl.owla/13 114.,AIL -1 2- PINUM. / E-/WEÂ»eNT - 2 092 t L .h.ly<Jetjuu k Fir'& C e-:7>k Tpe OF 1 / A 7 71Â°hA-1 ,-r' 8*.Miri0rblM*46<\' K , 4-EFAM--2Â©' .U /7 t 1( p. 1 ~7-15 r?,~pwrN M.M. F, ..1/ 0 4/ / . .- / I *9<jUPâ€¢Ideet'BA/8 -FY,N,k / . 1 < NA X Vf 0,2 6op -i. E / h 501> .1.-0. AS & 49.r Ne# 5 Ree / / - 6 403 2 NLP ----- \01, -2 ~A,Ulfl :4 / 19Â»f 514 i CRASM Ul, FINE PATH - 73,3-\ tâ‚¬DWENS\- ..., / tr / 3 ~r Ext *TING- 6 flulze ..\ t *i,0*yiati f ( A ~ 61Â»16* 17 1>12 KEywovep 4/' / YALK 14*iDENCE HM #TION *1 /Wi.DAV~ â€¢Crb*n!4~4, lit, 1 ' 4 0PKN,E -1-D BE -rkANS't-ANTED 7 2 V C-/ 0.9.'1Â·oce 5011,8 1.= 0, \ 08/09/00 WED 10:19 FAX 9709278487 LIPKIN WARNER 40-'41 = 1 094.0.0 / " '711 '>aSY,Uy 3/Ne .11*Ct Um/ t 2* No 1140 749 /1 -----liwid-#4*VA d 3/I 0,01,{ 3 4 al- 3<,mjcle f V 1 /'.//- r(14#J10#01 / f -Â£-r-+1 m,%44 9 4 N !1417(3 4 1 ~~ 0 . 74-\rÂ« C 1 --I ' ;1; AJA , x.\ / 6 - 4:1AA/14'AO,0, 14>1 :,f-'. 922 0 *1909 ivoo r.. Sit;119 -:ir,~L -> p- .I~ th.,K~ C muN ./"4149, @ 3 WA/tâ€¢[19Eldld ri~-5 404 ~ " 2 4 -1/Vild/14 7 f f 1 -3 21ZN k. 1~ -:Wd 939111 / 1,- 'd n - UL <vAN L' ' 71 *3 Linal,433 C -2, #- @i ( 006 9 Â·91'09 3 '14,41141*34) F" 4 1,N Â¢ ao#,2 i ' 0( 2 )\ r -4 -- 4443) 7 ~ -3 '9(,2.--a,yiI# Â·. 4 8*,14 -,2 . tew---v-0--0- Â·- =4- / .~Dnâ€¢19 --* *Je ' . tr NONIgl.yaN14 ~NIJ,f . hULAPâ‚¬ 4* 1 Nâ‚¬FvM-9 9 30 44Â£ 3 , A e -3 : < 1 1- 1 -11+00- / / \ 1 -7 7 1 A.V f \ 41 I 1/ C- ~024Â« FF,/ y )Â·Â·- 49404 0141 ,/,/'ll, 914 AAold + r./Y.J.\\ 4 1, ; \4_/ 541%*Re /AA W13 9 1 '1'9\7.~4 1 *W 11Â¥-L , I 97â€¢nf,9 JrÂ¢1*4410-4NOW 99,11 1 1 I- .Un 1 / /4 1 , 08/09/00 WED 10:20 FAX 9709278487 LIPKIN WARNER 0 0Qi 08/09/00 WED 10:15 FAX 9709278487 LIPKIN WARNER ;-.-Â·. LANÂ·DS,JAVE ARCHITECT Post Office Ba. 1537 JULIA MARSHALL 23400 Two Rivers Rd #42 MT DALY ENTERPR15 E5 LLC Boial Colorado 81621 Tel 970 92/ 3138 Â· Fox 970 927 S487 MtÂ¢|Cl|YW;Ot>rli,f'lei ~ Er 9,1/000 12: 14(Â» lul#-cAL Ft: fga- Feside,Â«ct ,Â£62Â·Â· E.11*([un 51-. W & : Â·94 9 tb Â· $4 81 %65 3 Al i OK : F#livwiÂ¥'1 B'* 17no 440>~LS fn- di*' i,4.0,3 bi#~M #FOU/ 15 th224'11~4{- 81 30 40. ']uli,- MAr yAL[l will 44 42/ â€¢42/f?.E . M+2 GUE,3 7*las kedi, #44 445/*s. -Â»Vt* 1 4-3 UAW'VOUNK- A 1 M 101 OK, 6 ~ H#04& 1 I 09-4 -*/1 t- ) --- 1 1- -+ -] J- ~ 0 E.\1*'S j~tij 1 : h"rathu / f Tâ€ž446?1/ANTEP 'H'Rtld -1 8 9 H k j. 4 / B EllÂ·Al W/ 5 H }LUEâ‚¬ F# O 704#p 1-K,All. -Pi + Flowek-3 0 / -A EA$ E }wr N T V :. 1. TDE D F r ~ 4/ 1 \44 2 fwke-- .02 \ 124 / -&/MMM~* / , -- Â«==F ---- c wk 13Â·Ac -e L r 1 _ -1. n>t.,nrxfÂ£vcz,*M~- b / --- b '.4~ -F17 -- T .Â¢Ny\./442 P 4 .r ST. 1 T Â»---9 12 - , \91111+ 7 - -*.-C~v<- .4-E Â© Ar PAANT-i NEL~ 11 At r f* /1 w4 6-1.dtrÂ¥-0- 1 j ?-04%-4 Or 403 1 YA-- --,Â»211 .0-- hed,1-f A jk/' N\... - FwW BILÂ·3 4 ... . 4 / ButvltiR -DE l~ i N ATI N60Â· 4 f FM t.6 ~ 1 L 909 n 4 / Â»\Ct f 2 FATH 7,~rr~ *Flutte -Tp IDE KEMAO VE,2 /.-ff<f__ffil-Efttrk HIpt tfT) DIN *1, I T 1 gplulci -rp BE 7kANipt-A NTTP /W[ . ltÂ«T ENTE*F},PI,4â‚¬41 llc, 0.9. Leo o 5Â£4 i L 1 .y 10 1 RP/. B .1 1.1000 - . . J . 7.U- ...4kr..tu. *- 0 -4.- - -- 4 , 9 Vt,T<\ \- / j --- -t t...73#Ad:04; --dÂ·iÂ·~:h,/~.4,#6.:*i~I#i-I-a9 '- '11Â£12:~t 'j 1 , r------ . 93;Er.27Â«===3=-21--- i t:Â· r.3 0 / 111 1 1 7-2/ h I ' 1 - . - i j.--j - 14,0 129-1 OK 1,1 F P 1 F .T-1 1 I - f 1 - 1 1 1 4 :,71 . - - 11 1 1 ---- J 12 i H Ta I 2,-t:Arg 61 i I - 1 i It' 12 Ill 103 F = FÂ«141 Ne E )JI E = ttl \LP\Ne ERTENACE~ t L D + Â· r--3< 27 ' ~41 990 4 k--------t---J -------------------2 L-- 23' 6--------I-- 2--------------- 1-------- Ill - 1 11 r-1 1 9\ 1 It 'It,\ I /\ !1 *ft 1 - -__ 1 5/(7Â»h - - 042 sTMET Â£*42.-AING E HALLAM ST -- ~ 014 er?-2-ET EFÂ¥4 90 ., V / /< i.0/ -PUX - 1 \ 7~ i it' 1 1 r ------------ 1 ' f zo' -33' 1% .6 Gr-- -f - ------------- --- 02 - -247 / 4--f i i 6--\-4- /j52,4.t ) j -/ 4- / / i 1- 3 --- El--' ill Al , u \\ 1 ----i.- 11 /K// & 94Â©13 ril-- ; 6 /r gr B //10/ i r M G (1 -.1 \ 1 - 1 PARKING 9 - // T / / i.i n ..1 0 / f-\-1-Â» 49 4 , 1- l , I .1 1 - Â».2 5 e 1 \ AREA ----- I i *.96 -'-1 E--I---3 - 1----------- 1 1----6141 ~2 1 5.Â« - / - 1 ------ --1 / / V - 1 4-3 CO , k- --- 711 1/ -- 1 -- 1 .-- L / *Fi 0 Z ~-u/ . . LU .*----- AO ~ C l EIY~- M r * / 1 =\ T 1 -vj Z PARKING AREA -1] Fi< L -// 1 + 4 - \ \ yl ' : 1 1 Pace Residence 1 i it 1 , T 7894. ' , 1 1 + 232 East Hallam Street i: Aspen, Colorado 9\ O 4 /--2-BLEEKER sT - < Hallam Street Neighborhood Block Plan - 0 1 17 zinÂ£7 : 2-1 Â«91 L 1 4 / _--_~f---14 Scale: 1"=50' I / ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1. Project name Fae. e. \49.Sidnj te, 2. Project location ,=232 9'nvt Ila [lavn (<+Flet , AspÂ·0n & Co rade For 1,9 (\ description Ste ctitar.44{ Shie-t (indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description) 3. Present zoning (2\4 4. Lot size 19,555.6 54. ft 5. Applicant's name, address and phone number Ltnda M . Pack.- 9'2,5.1109 131 9092 9-1- ct Motn <lt,jaci- , ASFeN, Colonulo 2161< 6. Representative's name, address, and phone number Mt, Octly Ent-erpv EsÂ£,5 L Lc P. 6. Ro x l5 53, 8 Gl. S Cdt 3 0 i A V-a d D Idell 7. Type of application (check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Conceptual HPC Special Review Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD V Minor HPC Stream Margin Final PUD Relocation HPC Subdivision Text/Map Amend. Historic Landmark GMQS allotment GMQS exemption Demo/Partial Demo View Plane Condominiumization Design Review Lot Split/Lot Line Appeal Committee Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the property) 1 8 ingLE; Family Dwk,ll,noj , 0.0 r>(-blti 01,li-tly 4,50Â£~ Sc~ 4-f. 5 b,ct Â¥ ooth 5 Previous Appauds : Variatiet Feq(jats granted al' Final Rec re v i p.w a Ad u per o val 0 11 6 / e.4 / R C . L 9. Description of development application Ave\(catt>n Ts [2406< ting Q 1% B *l- q d Alq h Uf M ol n d a (0 -0.98 4,91.eÂ£ in -Pron,+ Yar,1 Set back . TY)Â£. applica-1~ lon s 40< a Van'Qnd ~rb m 4 FZ.egclential D-esiq n Stardard 5 " 10. Have you completed and attached the following? 4 Attachment 1- Land use application form 4 Response to Attachment 2 Response to Attachment 3 7-03-2000 3:16PM FROM HONDO PARTNERS 2102125474 P. 2 02/11/1995 01:18 9709204 ASPEN PAGE 01 JNQU Yâ€¢k< f lytz.â€¢0 2 1 63* 1 2(54 /,1 P j 06/29/00 TUU 15:46 FAI 970*274487 LI/BIN â€¢ANNEN 4;002 Apia!Â¥rre COMMUNTri DEVUO/11<11Â« DErâ€¢Ir,ACÂ¢[ AFT"mt 5,< *em-1 â‚¬ Ckey of Asca De-elâ€¢p-- App}*1Â®a F- CITY OF ASPEN 0-tan- CT'r) and 1-1'nd i M. Fa e b Owriia-r A'FLICAND ACKEE AS FCC-LOWS - - - APPLICANT b=s Eubs,md m Crer =p,Itca:ion &* 2. APPLICANT u.*r-ds ed qgiv# alm Cky of Aspla Oldol- 1* 65 (Se- ef 49991 Imbil-â€¢ a !70 moic#wâ€¢ Er Luld V- F,O-- - me -yin- of IU peoce:*log &15 b * condition p,-dim to a .ter.R-joe of BPOK.=1 J .1 .ness. 3. 45'IUMANT =WCITY ;pog thâ€¢,1--*â€¢ er h im. Inal or,copâ€¢ 0, lie proposed p.,j., ir 1, Co[ pos.#bl, C 0.1 11,0, 0 1*cr,in 01 Rill .=m of 2/ 0.8 -011â€¢,d in pro,1-62: m. app&,catitta APPLICANT =d CrTY luta' â€¢2- ant il i, 8 *0 Umms* of thâ€¢ pvrOB th# APPUCANT rnâ€¢kâ€¢ paymens of. Aairial d..0,11 =1 t:, **IWI:al pernÂ¢E *41%Â£0UI com b k balld m APPLICANT 05 0 knon:ht, b.,6 AFFLICA,rr.-5....Si, ,-r...MÂ».,hs.1.â€¢he.*Ui*Wr VWn,Â¥~* APPLICANT I/IM h *111 * bal-*d Dy M.bl#; pâ€¢-r eash Uqui# ad â€¢411 â€¢1â€¢ke Â£6*10841 ,emâ€¢= ign -trication by k CITY -Den m gy ar, M--2 - com - incur~d CITY Mm a â€¢111 be De:râ€¢:ed #:rough tbe grt~,r rerging of r-*W W -- m prge- APPLECANT-5 .p.U==, 4 CITY ed APPLICANT *1hc 40. *.r iE 4 6Â¤0.vocmble & CITY -0 80 comple. p~=1*mt or Fls=R 'imazi= Cl.UL-n m . Pla=u. C-p== INVor City CounÂ¢U m '0*ble UMÂ¢ M-mns Commi-100 4,$/ar C,19 Coâ€¢~11 99 m- 11%:mUy requis,d Mod@ngÂ» ler projee; coaddes:504. **4â€¢ss curfent 6,11,<141 i:, Pdd ianall fig, m *chied 5 Th~II-*. APFUCANT Vr- ih= in 00=â€¢ir=- of te CrrY's w,iuâ€žw â€¢f 23 r,*ht # 9411,1 S.U 6. ..10, .. 4,12.91,;Iwi2= 01 4.91=00,1 complit==*. APM-ICANT shill p., In inidil de,mi, 21 ch. -O-015 4,0.00 -8 in *w 1 15 bm= of [1 - -7 3,vitom=~ =â€¢ ime- ind 4 ER#*1 M-dai 50- muiled 6, in*al imposit AM'LICANT â€¢1=11 pmy addiMQI,Ed mo,ghly Wilins, m Crâ„¢ te rrimbur. 11â€¢ Crrr Ibr me p,gc=tng of 00 #pil,=on megion-1 --, c,ludlo; pon *preval Nâ€¢- Such pinodic P.yâ€¢,re,0 0,11 b. -de -i,hia 30 de, of châ€¢ bill,4 d=. APILICANT (Ur:1**r Vium 02 fhal,21 re Biv :ach acen)â€¢0 90- th,W be pounds *rat=pmâ€¢Sion of proer,$â€¢114 aud 6 - cm,â€¢ 0,11 bul<< pe=zin b. 0.11*4 -di 411 4-0 i-ci=dwah cue Proms=g h.Â¥Â¢ 8- paid. crrr O, ASPEN AFFUCANT .Â· zL,i, -* A-/ -: JuY>â‚¬ 39 :4700 "129/*4 404,Â¢,In 9 4 5 N. Ma / r) Avt Pl,lu- Sgn An#~.6 TA 73205 12/27,99 , 02/06/1995 22:49 9709204496 ASPEN PAGE 03 - -- I , ..... P 1..... J Â£ 1 LIc 1 / 34 / 9 LINDA M. PACE 232 East Hallam Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 925-2709 June 28,2000 To Whom It May Concern: This letter authorizes Julia Marshall or other representatives of Mt. Daly Enterprises, as designated by Julia Marshall, to represent me in the following matters: 1) Apply for a variance from the Historic Preservation Commission or the Design Review Appeals Board with respect to the fence at 232 East Hallarn. 2) Obtain an encroachment license from the Engineering Department of the City of Aspen with respect to landscaping at 232 East Hallam. All documents related to these matters should be directed to. Julia Marshall Mt. Daly Enterprises 23400 Two Rivers Rd. Suite 43 P. 0. BOX 1537 Basalt, CO 81612 (970) 927-3138 Sincerely, Unda M. Pace FROM : ALPINE SURUEYS INC PHONE NO. : 9709252688 JUN. 27 2000 05:09PM Pl ra SURVETOâ‚¬5 CERTI FICATE- 1, JA]vIEED M Mr.*CA, HEirlieDT (IMTIFT THÂ»cr Ob.4 WAY 5, 1196 1 h/IACE AVIOUAL INâ‚¬,rECTION AND A FIELD â‚¬DOMVEr-TE) L.CLÂ«TT- TI-16 174 VEWAN-, FE.NE.r.5, ADDI TONAL TmEEÂ© AN D <I.M.1*1-N LANDÂ©OVE FEATUACE> or THE [1KOYE'Krr- 51--laeÂ·1 +-115:M:EON . KID c]--0Â¢HGES WE_1~2 Rl>413 DEEFT.AS â‚¬,HOWN AND hIOTEP KNE-ltr~1. Alr IN E SURVE're, IhIC. err: J,ANIED F. ltEDEA, Cy<TE_: L. 5.91 64 SUIeVEMOIâ‚¬Â© C Efll F ICATE 1, JAVIre Ft lUE>ELÂ«, 1-IMICE[=pr CEKTIFY- THÂ«F ONI ArK.IL4,2CDO 1 WADE A VIâ‚¬3041_ INDFED-ICNI OF Tl--1E FBOFEKT-T SMagN 1.-1 DMON ANP R,UN D KIC) C.HAHISED EXCEFT,45 â‚¬4-IOWN /AMID LOTE[) 1-1EgrON. ALfÂ®115- 90<Vere, IKE, DO JAVI Ed F gES>Ex, PATE ~ _ t..5. 1 ID.Zi NaTE' PITKIN CCUNTY Tll-LE, INC. CADE NO. FET -3906 rlf. W*â‚¬2 0â‚¬DED IN Ti--1E- F'FAEPA<Air*J OF: 11-419 90<V''Er: LEGAL DESCAIFTION : MaIMMING AT Ti-IE 5. W. caltrif-1~ CF LOT Mt, bLOCK 71, DAIGINAL Aâ‚¬fliN TOWNOITE ; THEriCE M 14- 50'49"Â£ 165. 11 FEIT Al-0196 THE. WESTEALT LIME OF SAID LOT M *r'ID THE_ EXTE.HaION 'TMERIOF. THEMCE- 3 78"29 'co" E Ga 08 FEET, WHINCE. 5 22Â°*'aD"E 1)4.17 ffET, 7*lf Na .5 12Â°51 'Co" W 75- 01 FEET TO Trim MORTM L /NE. OF MA LLA 11 Â·5T M-ET EXTENDE-12, THENCE M 75Â°671' J)"W 139.65 FEET ,ALOT*3 .511 13 NEKTH LINE 10 TME. POINT Of: bt-6/NMING, aDMTA/NI NG 19, 812 -SQ . FT. FlOKE OR. LESS, /P PACE DESCIZI P71 old -J FOR NANON AT 927-9439~ FAX . 633 FIDELITY ~~ NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY 1 â€¢â€¢â€¢ a ' Fidelity National Title Insurance Company 17911 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 300 Irvme, CA 92614-6253 Illilli 0.4 ) 6,9 8 lÂ»t V Commitment 10. Atle Insurance Fidelily National litle Insurance Company A Seâ€¢ek Com,.. COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE FIDELITY NATIONALTInE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation, herein called the Company, forvaluable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy orpolides of title insurance, 25 identified in Schedule A. in favor 0/theproposed insurednamed in ScheduleA, as owner ormortgagee ofthe estate orinterest coveredhereby in che land described or referred toin khedule A. upon payment of theprerniums and charges therefore; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and 8 and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof. This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent endorsement. This Commicmentispre/iminarytotheissuance ofsuchpolicy orpolicies-of titieinsuranceandallfiabilityand obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six (6) months after the effective date hereof or when the po/icy or policies committed for shall issue. whichever first Occun. provided that the failure to issue such po/icy or policies is not the fau/! ofthe Company. This Commitment shal/not be validor birdinguntilcountersignedby an authorized officer or agent /N WITNESS WHEREOF. the Companyhas causedthis Commitment tobesigred andsealed. to become valid when countersigned by in authorized officer oragent of the Company, all in accordance with its By-laws. This Commitment is effective as of the date shown in 5chedu/e A as "Effective Date." -Ink... - .1 1. liallailm %* - â‚¬01~-/O 81011 Ficklit,Nationalntlelnal,anâ€¢â€¢Company 17 SEAL ME -/3-*cÂ¢ 3~ c_ ~6-~/ ATTEST 1 lim!,8 kit Countersigned l/%' W~ r.v 1 60â€¢â€¢-r AuthortÂ¥ 61Â¢nature bL., FORM 27Â·83Â·66 (9/94) ALTA COMMITMENT. 1900 Valid Only if Schedule A and B are Attached n A- .... I . ./ ... I I - '..,..ce.(thettle/"1191Â».Therel..,..polky(.1/111bel-ed -#1).6.- h.-6- 1-1- 611â€¢â€¢ 61â€¢14 4- . r., COMMI'IMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A : 1. Effective Date: March 20,2000 at 8:30 AM Case No. PCTL3906PR 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: i (a) ALTA Ownets Policy-Form 1992 Amount$ 0.00 ~ Premiums 0.0Â¢ Proposed Insured: Rate: i (b) ALTA Loan Policy-Form 1992 Amount$ 0 00 ' Premium$ 0.00 Proposed Insured: Rate. Tax Certmcate~ $10.00 3. TRIe to the FEE SIMPLE estate or interest in the land described or referred to in tllis Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested in: i LINDA MARIE PACE 1 4 The land referred to in this Commitment is situated in the County of PITKIN Stateor COLORADO and is described as follows: See Attached Exhibit "A" MTKE COUNTY TITLE. INC Sdhedule A-PG. 1 601 E HOPKINS Tlkis Commitment is invalid ASPEN, CO. 81611 uriless the Insuring 970-925Â·1766 Pbvisions and Schedules 970-925-6527 FAX A And B are attached. AUTHORIZED AGENT -- . 22 I t.2 Â·.2 lu EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION A tract of land comprising all of Lots R & S, Block 71, in the City and Townsite of Aspen and a portion of vacated HallarrIs Street according to the Willit's Map recorded December 6, 1949 in Plat Book 2 at Page 37 as Reception No. 97096, and a pottion of unplatted Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M., the entire parcel being more fully described as follows: Beginning at the South West Comer of Lot M, Block 71, City of Aspen: thence N 14'50'49" E 163.12 feet thence S 78'23'00" E 66.08 feet. thence S 22'58'00" E 116.19 feet mence S 12'59'00" W 75.09 feet to the Northerly line of Hallam Stleet thence N 75Â°09'11" W 139.65 feet to the point of beginning. 11' 6/VV 1. V' . .....1 ....1 ... -- 1 - .... . SCHEDULE B - SECnON 1 REQUIREMENTS The following are the requirements to be complied with: ITEM (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors uf the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. ITEM (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record to-wit THIS COMMIâ„¢ENT IS FURNISHED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY, IT IS NOT A CONTRACT TO ISSUE TITLE INSURANCE AND SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUEp AS SUCH. IN THE EVENT A PROPOSED INSURED IS NAMED THE COMPANY HEREBY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO MAKE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND/OR EXCEPTIONS AS DEEMED NECESSARY. THE RECIPIENT OF THIS INFORMATIONAL REPORT HEREBY AGREES THAT THE COMPANY HAS ISSUED THIS REPORT BY THEIR REQUEST AND ALTHOUGH WE BELIEVE ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS ACCURATE AND CORRECT, THE COMPANY SHAL. NOT BE CHARGED WITH ANY FINANCIAL UABILITY SHOULD THAT PROVE TO BE INCORRECT AND THE COMPANY IS NOT OBLIGATED TO ISSUE ANY POLICIES OF TITLE INSURANCE. ' SCHEDULE B SECTION 2 EXCEPTIONS The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, 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 hereafter f imished. imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessment charge or lien imposej for water or sewer service or for any other special taxing district 7. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract or remove his ore therefcm, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted as reserved in United States Patent recorded in Book 55 at Page 2. 8. Reservations and exceptions as set forth in the Deed from the City of Aspen recorded in Book 59 at Page 329 providing as follows: '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". 9. Encroachments and all matters as disclosed by Survey of Alpine Surveys dated August 16,1983. \12 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DISCLOSURES The Owner's Policy to be issued, if any shall contain the following items in addition to the ones set forth above. (1) The Deed of Trust it any, required under Schedule B-Section 1. (2) Water rights, claims ortitle to water. (NOTE. THIS EXCEPTION WILL APPEAR ON THE OWNER'S AND MORTGAGE POLICY TO BE ISSUED HEREUNDER) Pursuant to Insurance Regulation 89-2: NOTE: Each title entity shall notify in wrmng every prospective insured in an owner's title insurance policy for a single family residence (induding a condominim or townhouse unit) (i) of that title entity's general requirements for the deletion of an excepbon or exclusion to coverage relating to unfiled mechanics or materialmens liens, except when said coverage or insurance is extended to the i isured under the terms of the policy. A satisfactory aflidavit and agreement indemnifying the Company against unfiled mechanics and/or Materialmen's Liens executed by the persons indicated in the attached copy of said affidavit must be furnished to the Company. Upon receipt of these items and any others requirements to be specmed by the Company upon request. Pre-printed Item Number 4 may be deleted from the Owners policy when issued. Please contact the Company for further information. Notwmistanding the foregoing, nothing contained in this Paragraph shall be deemed to impose any requirement upon any title insurer to provide mechanics or matenalmens lien coverage. NOTE. W the Company conducts the owners orloan closing under circumstances where it is responsible for the recording or filing of legal documents from said transaction, the Company will be deemed to have pruvided "Gap Coverage". Pursuant to Senate Bill 91-14 (CRS 10-11-122), (a) The Subject Real Propetty may be located in a Special Taxing District (b) A Certificate of Taxes Due listing each taxing jurisdiction may be obtained form tie County treasurer of the County Treasurer's Authorized Agent (c) Information regarding Special Districts and the boundaries of such districts may oe obtained from the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor. NOTE: A tax Certificate will be ordered from tile County Treasurer by the Company and the costs thereof charged to the proposed insured unless written instruction to the contrary are received by the company prior to the issuance of the Title Policy anticipated by this Commitment. This commitment is invalid unless Schedule B.Section 2 the Insuring Provisions and Schedules Commitment No. PCT-3906PR A and B are attached. . Art" CONDmONS AND STIFULATIONS 1. The term"mortgage",when used herein, shall includedeed of trust, trust deed, orothersecurity instrument. 2. If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance. adverse daim or other matter aHecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss ordamage resulting from anyactof reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disdosesuch knowledge tothe Company, or iftheCompany otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect. lien, encumbrance. adverse claimor other matter, the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall nor relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditiom and Stipulations. 3. Uability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual 1055 incurred in reliance hereon m undertaking in good faith (a) to ccmply with the requirements hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate of interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liabilit, exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies committed for and such liability i; subject to the insuring provisions, exclusion from coverage,and the Conditions and Stipulations of the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein. 4. Any claim of loss or damage, whether or not based on negligence, and which ar ses out of thestatus of thetitle to the estate or interest or the lien of the insured mortgagecovered hereby or any action asserting isuch claim, shall be restricted to the provisions and Conditions and Stipulations ot the Commitment. 1 ~~2â€¢6., rl.2.-=Li~/6-~:4 11!'.i .k.4, Â·1 - -â€¢ME.6--*;tall-â€ž....0-92' qvt.. *i ~ 'r 18 Community Pages ,0 44;<in - -0.1999 USWEST -'t ":, 0 Â£-i-/Â»1 1 -/.1--* I - - ~ y Aspen Street Maps Pack ~ U U U - 1 + 21Â» 1 - irt 0 /1 61. \\ \U S 19 \ 4/PO- 4.. 44 1 7 \0\70>70 7eol m 17 4 ReÂ«440 5 '*4>Â®4 -<=44*\ N ighthawk Or 1% e 04 11 W '\ 2-7 4 1 44 70>46 0. f tA e 2 M 0 46 20$* .044 Mountain Wew Dr ist - 2>42 44- ~44 't 14 Rd D 1 464,0-44 Snow d lo 0 A 4 -'04 0., Â· .Rd ' 4 060 1 ) Â£07,7 0 r'- Red Mtn Rd ; < ~00~< Snow unny Ct ~ m 1 1 sierra 1 Or AGO 42. 1% -~13*+I Salvation 4 To Airport, 8asalt ~6 1 # , 9 2 Aspen \ %46 1 % 0 Institute f Hunt 4/ 9 9 p & Truscoh tti 4 -7 1 1 59 f Mly=:\ 0Imr> 1 f *% b Q -4 It 2 14 .4, 4.00 E & \12 2 0 Tent ~od Duck Â£,7 4 0 82 e w j i. 3 ...5. f:f : *. Hallam ~ -6 / \ Pe rl Ct - Lake 9 1 jA Gillespie SA / $ 78 4 . 7 34 ' GoN Coursâ‚¬i 7 1 ( (? b 4,7 f f~ 4 /7 . 2- ' .Â·,>Â· 4.Â· ; ~ i~ 9 9 1* y 0, smÂ£, //e st % Fir - Vine St + " ~+ E k ~ nÂ©' St 1 - 4 // CO # i Â«\ -1 2 '* c t. th 0 8 e % 9.74 20 4 4, laila Â· ~ Maroon Creek Rd k 9, , 5 0 -8 4 8, Theatre 4/6 \\13. SOUt V * 81 st & 4 Tent Â£ 21 6.- 4* 1 *inci . 3* <m> 0 -3 9 / e * ., =234> 0 0 1 X.,- - 7 6 4 2 * . '82 4 07'/00Â«hh 4' 1~ . CO 1 1 fR- *t C .,7 ~ To Maroon Lake .**: gm m 1 H manAv 2' b bmr* 7<2 ,4 0. primrosse path '0 'e, e -0 b= Â¢ C .2 **A 4 LRI 813 2 + ,pepurkspÂ£,;~in ~4 j ~ 1 Aspen Jea,~92 224, Mall C'.4.i 47 Of * -1 *2 De, 0-21 Duran G~tÂ»_OST /14. Ob' V ' West Summitist =41 6 t 0 43.1 F g jr- Â«51 <os p, 1 /1- , \9.0. 6 lEi f 1 i \ 1 \It 1 , i 1 1 12' ' # h 2',t, %) 1.U .6 ! '.)- . ' 2 :la 3.0. 1 '7 8*9 To Ashcroft , 11*14 th a a A 1 - aL ,4- S,~ Map CopyrightÂ© 1999 U S WEST mill 3:'69Â·hpi-:Â· . I- 4/U cont-u,â€ž,~~ 00, 29 41. p I ly p 9 1/3 t' 'NDSCAPE ARCHITECT Post Off ice Box ]537 O'LIA MARSHALL 23400 Two Rivers Rd #43 MT DALY ENTERPRISES LLC Basalt Colorado 81621 Tel 970 927 3138 Fax 970 927 8487 mtdaly@sopris.net '44 Lf" , r E';401 5 0% ..i :,1 4. sa ..... July 6,2000 Ms. Amy Guthrie Historic Preservation Director City of Aspen Dear Amy and the Historic Preservation Committee, Please find enclosed an application requesting a variance for a berm and fence at the Pace Residence located at 232 East Hallam Street in Aspen. The request for a 6' high fence located in the right-of-way at the southeast corner of the property stems from Linda Pace's offer to convey to the City of Aspen a permanent trail easement crossing the corner of her property. The fence will extend approximately 30' from the front property line to the street. The posts that are currently located in the field designate the length of the fence. This trail has existed for many years and is an important link to the post office and Clark's Market from Monarch and Hallam Streets and the West End. Its benefit is well appreciated. Unfortunately for Linda, the proximity of her house to this trail has brought about some unfortunate incidences such as her finding people camping in the trees at the corner of her lawn. The proposed fence will establish a clear boundary and provide protection for her property while allowing the trail to be improved so that this becomes an even more used and safer way to descend down the hill. While the easement for the trail brings about a unique situation, the historical aspects of the residence underlies the request for a variance for a berm on Linda's property within the front yard setback. Throughout the years, Linda has had various requests for improvements to her property brought before the Historic Preservation Committee. Linda has followed and established with HPC what improvements can happen and the nature of those imorovements. With a former HPC. Linda's request for a fence from the wrought iron fence across the front of ner property was denied. Since the house is located where the head lights of the cars coming down Monarch street shine directly into the yard and house, some type of screening is imperative. In the review of the house prior to the most recent renovation, HPC requested that the new addition not be visible from the street, thus empnosizing :ke historical ascect of the manscrd roof portion of the dwelling. The berm accomplishes many things. In conjunction with the fence, the berm establishes privacy for a person who is helping the City have permanent access to the post office area. The berm, with the accompanying planting of trees and shrubs, fulfills HPC's request for screening. The berm reinforces HPC's earlier decision to emphasize the historic aspects of the house by being a vegetative solution which does not compete .9 7 f # 4 0, with the wrought iron fence. The vegetation ties together the front of the house so that the front porch becomes even more important to the street. The berm itself, at 2'-8" is less high than the allowable 3'-6" tall fence. The berm is currently encroaching on the street but will be pulled back so that it remains on private property. I have spoken to Stephen Ellsperman from the Parks Department and he has no objection to the berm. Pie has been reviewing our plans and observing tree protection and tree,mitigation for the duration of this project. l appreciate your time in looking carefully ct this request. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, 0 82# f i.tok<V Julia Marshall Cuthbert L. Myrin Jr., 07:22 PM 10/10/00 -0600, Glidden House Solutions Page 1 of 2 Reply-To: <Bert@Myrin.com> From: "Cuthbert L. Myrin Ar" <Bert@Myrin.com> To: "'Nick Lelack"' <nickl@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Glidden House Solutions Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:22:39 -0600 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal Hi Nick, A productive meeting should focus on solutions. I shared the information underlying my survey with you in an e-mail attachment shortly after Labor Day and suggested you forward it to Julia Marshall, Herb Klein, Linda Pace, Lawrence , or whoever may be able to work toward a solution. This past weekend I received the completed survey which comports with what I shared with you. Because I have not heard any conflicting concerns about my survey I expect the meeting tomorrow to accept my survey as fact and focus on solutions to move forward on the vital issues of the fence and access. I hope we spend the time tomorrow resolving the issues of the fence and access. However, if Julia plans to discuss surveys, I will defer these to our legal counsel for later determination. Instead of discussing conflicting surveys we should agree on two courses of action. One course of action assuming that the survey Julia presents is correct and a second course of action assuming the survey I sent to you is correct. I understand your thought that the meeting tomorrow may be to present and talk about information, and then have a final meeting later in the week. However an alternative to designing a meeting to occur twice is to focus on the issues in the first meeting without being sidetracked by underlying data. Ideally underlying data would be shared and hammered out prior to a meeting, however this does not appear to be the preferred method of Ben or Julia. In any event, hopefully we can find two solutions and let the underlying data make the choice between the two solutions at a later point without meeting a second time. If the surveys conflict, I will attempt to focus the meeting on finding two solutions rather than postponing the discussion of solutions as was done in a past meeting. Would you communicate this to Ben, as I misplaced his last name/email address, so he too may lead us toward finding two productive solutions in the unexpected event that the underlying data conflicts. Although it appears that Ben and Julia chose not to share much information with you, I do thank you for passing along what little they have shared. - Bert -----Original Message----- From: Nick Lelack [mailto:nickl@ci.aspen.co.us] Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 1:13 PM To: Bert@Myrin.com Subject: RE: Glidden House Fence Meeting Hi Bert, I don't know if Parks has received the required information to determine the proper location of the trail easement. Ben and I have played phone & e-mail tag about the meeting, but not what documents are available and what is not. Perhaps the meeting tomorrow is to present and talk about the Printed for Nick Lelack <nickl@ci.aspen.co.us> 10/11/00 Cuthbert L. Myrin Jr., 07:22 PM 10/10/00 -0600, Glidden House Solutions Page 2 of 2 information, and then have a final meeting later in the week to work out the details. I will call Ben and leave a message asking whether or not he has any information yet; if he does, I will get it to you ASAP - this afternoon or tomorrow morning. Thanks. Printed for Nick Lelack <nickl@ci.aspen.co.us> 10/11/00 Cuthbert L. Myrin Jr., 01:37 PM 10/10/00 -0600, RE: Glidden House Fence Meeting Page 1 of 1 Reply-To: <Bert@Myrin.com> From: "Cuthbert L. Myrin Jr." <Bert@Myrin.com> To: "'Nick Lelack" <nickl@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: RE: Glidden House Fence Meeting Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:37:25 -0600 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal Hi Nick, I can meet tomorrow at 2:00pm however I find it extremely arrogant that Julia chose not to contact me and advise me of the meeting. To compound this I have yet to receive any material from her that is to be discussed in the meeting. I explained the benefit of circulating the material and requested this via facsimile from her this past weekend. I am baffled why the City would participate in a meeting without requiring receipt of the material to be discussed in advance. Although I plan to attend the meeting, I am very disappointed in how the City is handling preparation of this meeting. If you have any material please forward me a copy via e-mail or call me to leave a voicemail (925-2691) that it is in the accordion folder in Community Development. Perhaps a meeting without material will result in a signed agreement concerning the fence. However, I am inquiring, without enumerating previous written requests, if an agreement resolving the fence is not signed this week, can I expect the City to immediately enforce the removal of the framing on the ROW. If not, then what is the timeline? Thank you. - Bert -----Original Message----- From: Nick Lelack [mailto:nickl@ci.aspen.co.usl Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 10: 11 AM To: Bert@Myrin.com Subject: Re: Glidden House Fence Meeting I just received word that the meeting is scheduled for tomorrow at 2 pm at the property. Printed for Nick Lelack <nicki@ci.aspen.co.us> 10/11/00 Cuthbert L. Myrin Jr., 08:50 PM 10/8/00 -0600, Glidden House Fence Meeting Page 1 of 1 Reply-To: <Bert@Myrin.com> From: "Cuthbert L. Myrin jr" <Bert@Myrin.com> To: "'Nick Lelack"' <nickl@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Glidden House Fence Meeting Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 20:50:33 -0600 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal Hi Nick, Hope you enjoyed a great long weekend. Thank you for the news that Julia is organizing a meeting for this week. You'll be out on Monday so I'm planning on meeting Tuesday - Friday at 5:00. From 1:00 until 2:00 is the most efficient time for me to attend although I'll make anytime in these days work however I need to know at least 24 hours in advance to arrange covering the time away from my employer. I think the meeting would be more productive if the material to be discussed is in the hands of the participants at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. (e.g. the survey I e-mailed to you shortly after Labor Day, together with the 4 proposals mentioned in that e-mail and the survey Julia referenced as completed around Labor Day together with the various proposals she plans to present.) I visit Community Development most week days and the accordion file combined with notice in an e-mail or telephone message would be an effective method of sharing materials with me. Did you share my e-mail and attached survey with Ben? If not, can you provide me with his e-mail address? In addition to the information that Julia will provide, some more information from the City would be beneficial. First, what is the dollar amount (or an estimate of some sort) budgeted for spending by the City on the fence? Second, what was the dollar amount (or an estimate of some sort) saved by the City by surveying the lines of the Pace parcel but choosing not to survey the lines of the property adjacent to the proposed easement? Please let me know of any other information you can think of related to the fence and the access. Although I am hopeful that we can meet this week and I will make my schedule accommodate others, I want to know from you that if we do not meet this week, through no fault of myself, that I can expect the City to immediately enforce the removal of the framing on the ROW. Thank you. - Bert -----Original Message----- From: Nick Lelack [mailto:nickl@ci.aspen.co.ua] Sent: Friday, October 06,2000 8:26 AM To: Bert@Myrin.com Subject: Re: Glidden House Fence Date Julia called and said that she is organizing a meeting with all of us for next week - including you - over the proposed trail easement and fence. I thought she had contacted you, but I guess not yet. I don't know when the meeting will be held. I guess Ben was out of the office all week. I have to run and will be back in on Tuesday. Printed for Nick Lelack <nickl@ci.aspen.co.us> 10/11/00 Cuthbert L. Myrin Jr., 09:39 PM 10/5/00 -0600, Glidden House Fence Date Page 1 of 1 Reply-To: <Bert@Myrin.com> From: "Cuthbert L. Myrin Jr." <Bert@Myrin.com> To: "'Nick Lelack"' <nickl@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Glidden House Fence Date Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 21:39:06 -0600 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal Hi Nick, Are things moving toward signing an agreement for a solution to the fence by October 15? As mentioned previously, I have waited several months, all the while living adjacent to the frame of a 6 foot fence, and furthermore I was promised a survey in early September. Please let me know of an outside date for an agreement or in the absence of a signed agreement a date that I can expect the City to enforce the removal of the framing on the ROW. (e.g. October 15, 2000) Thank you. - Bert -----Original Message----- From: Nick Lelack [mailto:nickl@ci.aspen.co.us] Sent: Tuesday, October 03,2000 7:49 AM To: Bert@Myrin.com Subject: Re: Glidden House Fence Hi Bert, I briefly talked with one of Julia's employees yesterday after sending the e-mails to you. She said that the original grade is being restored, which included a slightly different grade on the Pace property. She also said that Julia has photographs demonstrating that they are returning the grade to its previous condition. I hope to talk with Ben this afternoon about his work with Julia on the fence and trail easement. Printed for Nick Lelack <nickl@ci.aspen.co.us> 10/11/00 Cuthbert L. Myrin Jr., 09:29 PM 10/2/00 -0600, Glidden House Fence Page 1 of 1 Reply-To: <Bert@Myrin.com> From: "Cuthbert L. Myrin jr." <Bert@Myrin.com> To: "'Nick Lelack" <nickl@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Glidden House Fence Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 21:29:43 -0600 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal Hi Nick, Thank you for following up on my e-mail to Sarah about the berm. While installing the sod today they seem to have removed another layer of roeks/dirt so as to obtain a grade in the ROW roughly consistent with the sidewalk. While the finished product still appears to contain a small berm, it is most visible from the interior of the yard where it begins with a cement/stone wall, and from the street is certainly more consistent with the neighborhood such that it's no longer an issue in my book. Thanks also for your call to Ben at the Parks Department. It sounds like Ben and Julia may already be working toward alternative solutions that are more consistent with the neighborhood. I gave Julia my phone number the other day because she offered to coordinate a meeting with everyone involved with the fence. I haven't heard from her, but if you do, or if you initiate the meeting, please let me know the details to attend to move toward a solution. Although I'm hopeful that a fence solution consistent with the neighborhood is an achievable goal in the next two weeks, I'd like to be reassured that if an agreement is not signed by October 15, that the existing unfinished posts be removed. The date could be later, but setting a time in the foreseeable future may encourage resolution or result in the removal of the underlying unpermitted framing until a resolution is reached. Thank you. - Bert From: Nick Lelack [mailto:nickl@ci.aspen.co.us] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 10:15 AM To: C.L. Myrin Jr Subject: Re: Glidden House Fence Steve Hunter called Mary, the person in charge of the landscaping at the Pace residence about your concerns over the berm, without naming you. She said that all work in the ROW is at grade to the lilacs. Apparently there is a grade change from the lilacs to their lawn on their property; the reason for the slightly different grade is to save the lilacs by not exposing their roots. I have not been over there for several days, so I am just relaying to you what I have learned. If this doesn't sound accurate, Mary, Steve, and I are happy to meet with you over there to look at the work being done. I called the Parks Dept. to talk to Ben Dodge about the survey. He is out today, but I left him a message to get back to me ASAP. I willlet you know what I find out as soon as I talk to him. Printed for Nick Lelack <nickl@ci.aspen.co.us> 10/11/00 C.L. Myrin Jr, 09:01 PM 9/28/00 -0600, Glidden House Fence Page 1 of 1 From: "C.L. Myrin Jr" <bert@myrin.com> To: <nickl@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Glidden House Fence Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 21:01:38 -0600 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal Hi Nick, I spoke with Julia today regarding the fence. She said Jim Reser provided Ben at the Parks Department the survey as promised on a timely basis around Labor Day. I'm wondering if what Julia said is true, then why was I left out of the loop on receiving a copy for discussion? What is the process for me to get a copy of the survey that Julia refers to? In any event, I heard that the fence was in negotiation beginning in November 1999. On Monday we will be a month short of a year long process over this fence. My understanding is that some sort of extension was granted until Sunday, October 15 to resolve the landscaping and fencing. What are the effects of not obtaining a solution by October 15? If the location of the fence is not resolved by Sunday, October 15, or the previous weekday, Friday, October 13, I'm curious about the ability of the City to enforce removal of the fence posts that are on the City Right of Way? I have waited several months, and was promised a survey in early September. Therefore, from my position, I have gone beyond any expectation of a patient neighbor. I'm certainly not suggesting a resolution on the fence needs to occur by October 13, but it seems reasonable that if a final binding agreement is not signed, the partially constructed fence should be removed within 3 days of October 13. Of course it may end up being reinstalled at some point down the road somewhere around this area, but until then this eyesore could be restored to its more natural state. Please let me know what the plan is to move forward. Thank you. - Bert Bert@Myrin.com Cuthbert L. Myrin Jr. PMB 101 300 Puppy Smith St. # 203 Aspen, CO 81611 (562) 268-9628 -Voicemail/Fax (970) 925-2691 Voicemail Printed for Nick Lelack <nickl@ci.aspen.co.us> 10/11/00 C.L. Myrin Jr, 08:46 PM 9/12/00 -0600, Glidden House - HalfHouse - Fence and Trail Access Page 1 of 2 From: "C.L. Myrin Jr" <bert@myrin.com> To: <nickl@ci.aspen.co.us> Ce: <chuckr@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Glidden House - Half House - Fence and Trail Access Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 20:46:32 -0600 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal Hi Nick, While we wait for Jim Reser's survey, Dave MeBride was able to survey the area. (see attachment) Although Dave's survey reflects Aspen Townsite Line 4-5 more conservatively in respect to the Half House than indicated on Jim's survey of the Glidden House, it leads to the same conclusion. That is, the northwestern corner of the Half House property is at the intersection of the northerly line of E. Hallam and the easterly line of N. Monarch, currently marked by a 6-foot redwood fence post. The northerly boarder does continue east, as reflected on the attached survey, but the distance is irrelevant because the issue is whether the easement, as located, achieves the goal of providing access east of the easterly line of Monarch. The attached survey concurs with your July 27,2000 e-mail belief that the Half House and Glidden House property lines abut allowing for a 42" fence to run on the property lines and block access to this trail. Fortunately we caught this before an agreement was signed. It certainly would have been difficult to explain why the City paid for fencing in part of the Hallam St. public right of way for the exclusive benefit of the owners of the Glidden House and in return the City received no useful trail access. In any event, I have several thoughts on my goal of not living adjacent to a nearly solid 6-foot high fence while providing various options for each party: 1. (a) The fence shall be no higher than 42" forward of the front most faga(le of the Glidden House; (b) The fence shall run within the property lines of the Glidden House; and (c) the City shall receive access across the northern 4 feet of Half House property for a set term of years. 2. (a) Allow the fence as it stands, 6-feet high; and (b) Glidden House owners compensate owners of Half House for providing the City access across the northern 4 feet of the property in perpetuity. 3. (a) Realign the trees and trail to essentially continue the E. Hallam Street sidewalk until it joins the Clarks Market Property; (b) landscape with small evergreens (or a very short nondescript fence) the southern border of the trail to discourage "shorteutting" across the public right of way adjacent to the Half House property; and (c) obtain access in perpetuity across the northern 4 feet of the Half House property. This is similar to what was previously agreed upon except it benefits the Half House with the effective privatization of the public right of way rather than the Glidden House. 4. (a) Realign the trees and trail to cross the Glidden House property, entirely avoiding the Half House property. I imagine these options, and others, would require tweaking and addition of Printed for Nick Lelack <nicki@ci.aspen.co.us> 10/11/00 C.L. Myrin Jr, 08:46 PM 9/12/00 -0600, Glidden House - Half House - Fence and Trail Access Page 2 of 2 details but I wonder if this provides a stepping stone for moving forward? If an agreement is not reached by October 1, 2000, I am curious about whether the City would require the owners of the Glidden house to remove the existing fence posts and the concrete footings so they do not sit through the winter? Please feel free to forward this on to Julia Marshall, Herb Klein, Linda Pace, Lawrence , or whoever may be able to work toward a solution. Perhaps you can arrange a meeting on site? I am free daily between 1:00 and 2:00. Let me know if you have any questions or comments. Thank you. - Bert Bert@Myrin.com Cuthbert L. Myrin Jr. PMB 101 300 Puppy Smith St. # 203 Aspen, CO 81611 (562) 268-9628 -Voicemail/Fax (970) 925-2691 Voicemail LIÂ£,-~ Survey - Dave MeBride 091200.pdf Printed for Nick Lelack <nickl@ci.aspen.co.us> 10/11/00 1. -*- I: f . I - orth Line of East Hallam St. ~--- 0 - - - - - - - - 6,\ I - - -- - -- - 4 ERR SPIKE 9%740% /.-$/.- - . - DISK ~.. 1-- -- 25947 .. 1 571 ~ \1 0- . -- 1 -- -. .- - â„¢. t -/ m i -fE 0 CO C 0 1 Z 1 O 1 ---4 1 0 / FRI C.L. Myrin Jr, 01:53 PM 7/27/00 -0600, TY Page 1 of 4 ' From: "C.L. Myrin Jr" <bert@myrin.com> To: <nickl@ci.aspen.co.us> Cc: <saraho@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: TY Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:53:30 -0600 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal Hi Nick, Thank you for your timely explanation of the current status of the proposed easement. I look forward to getting together next week, perhaps on site. Have a great weekend. - Bert Bert@Myrin.com Cuthbert L. Myrin Jr. PMB 101 300 Puppy Smith St. # 203 Aspen, CO 81611 (562) 268-9628 -Voicemail/Fax (970) 925-2691 Voicemail -----Original Message----- From: Sarah Oates (by way of Nick Lelack <nickl@ci.aspen.co.us>) [mailto:saraho@ci.aspen.co.us] Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 10:01 AM To: bert@myrin.com Subject: FENCE !!! Hi Bert, I am writing to respond to you about the proposed fence on the Pace property. The Applicant met the public noticing requirement for the public hearing last night, so additional comments are not relevant to their decision. No due process issues are involved unless you challenge their affidavit that they did not meet the public noticing requirements. A couple of key issues are involved here that I will briefly elaborate on: The first is that according to the Parks Department, your property and the Pace property abut, so a trail easement is required to guarantee access to Clark's Market, the Post Office, Rio Grande, etc.. I very clearly made the point last night that the GIS map does not accurately show the property lines. No trail easement means you and the Paces could put up 42" fences on your property lines and thereby block West End residents from this trail. So, the Parks Department interest in negotiating the trail easement and paying for the fence was in getting that permanent trail easement. Second, the only action HPC could take last night was on the fence ON the Pace property - the fact that it will be 6' rather than 42" for a small portion of it located on the southern portion of their property which is actually front of the front facade of the house. The section of the fence that I believe you are talking about is actually in the public right of way - the side that abuts your property. I also Printed for Nick Lelack <nickl@ci.aspen.co.us> 10/11/00 C.L. Myrin Jr, 01:53 PM 7/27/00 -0600, TY Page 2 of 4 stated clearly that this section of the fence was NOT part of the discussion last night because HPC does not have purview over what happens in the public right of way - that is the purview of the City Engineering Department. One of the conditions of approval is that the Applicant (Pace) apply for an encroachment license from the Engineering Department within 30 days for the section of the fence in the right of way - the portion most visible to your property. The approval for the higher fence on their property last night in no way guarantees that the Engineering Dept. will approve the encroachment license for the fence. However, the Parks Dept. supports the request and HPC made comments to the effect that they would prefer (1) not to see the fence extended beyond where it is currently framed in the right of way and (2) not see a solid fence. What I will do is to organize a meeting between you, the Engineering Dept., Parks Department, and myself to discuss the fence issue in the right of way prior to the Engineering Dept. signing off on an encroachment license for the fence. The meeting would allow us to look at the surveys, as well as the height, design and location of the fence. I can try to arrange for a 1-2 pm meeting next week at the earliest - I cannot get everyone together as early as today for such a meeting and I will be in a meeting almost all day tomorrow. In addition, I would have a very hard time getting people together after 5 pm - we all have night meetings or go home, and will not meet on weekends. I hope this answers some of your questions. I will be in touch regarding a meeting of all interested parties. >From: "C.L. Myrin Jr" <bert@myrin.com> >To: <saraho@ci.aspen.co.us> >Cc: <johnk@ci.aspen.co.us> >Subject: FENCE !!! >Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 22:14:39 -0600 >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 >Importance: Normal > >Hi Sarah, > >Please forward this e-mail to the person in Community Development who is >recommending approval of the Pace property fence at the height of 6 feet >running across the city right of way. I was out of town and missed the HPC >meeting Wednesday evening, but I understand from that meeting that Community >Development is recommending approval of the fence without regard to my >assertion that the easement being acquired is in the wrong location. >Additionally, please forward this to the person in charge of the >encroachment license for this fence. >Dear Community Development and Encroachment License Department: > >I understand that in exchange for an easement at 232 E. Hallam the City is >recommending and paying for a fence to be built within the city right of >way. I have two problems with this: First, I don't approve of the height >and location of the fence. Second, I don't believe the proposed easement Printed for Nick Lelack <nicki@ci.aspen.co.us> 10/11/00 C.L. Myrin Jr, 01:53 PM 7/27/00 -0600, TY Page 3 of 4 >will provide the desired access to the Clark's Market parcel. > >Per a survey provided to you by Linda Pace (232 E. Hallam) my property line >(218 N. Monarch) is located in a different location than indicated on the >GIS map. My property description is based on a vacated portion of Hallam >and contains all that part of Hallam east of the easterly line of N. Monarch >up to Line 4-5, from the original city and townsite of Aspen. As you will >notice, the Pace survey indicates Line 4-5 exiting the Pace property on the >eastern side of the Pace property. This placement of line 4-5 to would >enlarge my 218 Monarch parcel and provide it with several feet of property >line running along the northerly boarder of Hallam before turning to the >south east and running with line 4-5. This would result in my parcel having >less of a triangular point at the northern end and more of a straight line, >being that the northwest corner is the corner of the Northern line of Hallam >and the Eastern line of Monarch, and the northeast corner is extended to the >east. > >Per the Pace survey of line 4-5, and the several feet of adjacent property >line between the 218 parcel and Pace's, it would appear that an effective >easement would require the southern part of the triangular easement to >extend west of the easterly line of Monarch. The apparent current location >of easement does not seem to extend west of the easterly line of Monarch. >Instead it looks as if it stops short of the easterly line of Monarch, >providing no benefit in the way of access. > >Extending the easement further to the west, along the Pace's southern >property line is complicated by the existing evergreen hedge. Instead it >would appear more beneficial for an easement to cross the 218 N. Monarch >parcel. As an owner of the parcel at 218 N. Monarch, I have attempted on >several occasions to convey the Pace's representation of the property lines >to John Kreuger. Based on my understanding of the position of the City at >Wednesday's HPC meeting, my communication has gone unheard. The Pace >easement could prove useless. Moreover, a fence along line 4-5 and along the >easterly line of N. Monarch, property that I own, could potentially restrict >access, resulting in just the opposite of the stated goal of improving >access. Please do everything in your power to recommend against the fence >as currently proposed. > >I suggest the fence run along the southern property line of the Pace >property rather than in the City right of way. Furthermore, it should >conform to the residential design standard of 42 inches forward of the front >most fagade of the house as indicated in red ink on the plans on file with >the city. If you are interested in learning more about my position, I would >be glad to stop by Community Development with several surveys or meet on Printed for Nick Lelack <nickl@ci.aspen.co.us> 10/11/00 C.L. Myrin Jr, 01:53 PM 7/27/00 -0600, TY Page 4 of 4 >site. I am available weekdays from 1:00pm until 2:00pm, after 5:00pm or all >days on weekends. Please let me know of your plans before 5:00 on Thursday >July 27, so that I may make an informed decision on my next step with regard >to the height and location of the fence. - Bert > > >Bert@Myrin.com >Cuthbert L. Myrin Jr. >PMB 101 >300 Puppy Smith St. # 203 >Aspen, CO 81611 (562) 268-9628 -Voicemail/Fax (970) 925-2691 Voicemail Printed for Nick Lelack <nickl@ci.aspen.co.us> 10/11/00 VvVVV CUTHBERT L. MYRIN JR. PMB 101,300 PUPPY SMITH ST. #203 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE: (970) 925-2691 FACSIMILE: (562) 268-9628 E-MAIL: BERT@MYRIN.COM August 23,2000 VIA HAND DELIVERY James F. Reser Alpine Surveys, Inc. 215 South Monarch Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Line 4-5 Original Town-site of Aspen, Northerly line of East Hallam, and Easterly line of North Monarch (as applied to old Abels House and Glidden House Property lines) Southeastern corner of Glidden House Property, and adjacent border with Trueman Aspen PUD. Dear Jim: John Krueger, of the Aspen Parks Department asked that I provide you with information regarding the property lines referenced above. The northern portion of the parcel at 218 N. Monarch is defined on the west by the vacated part of Hallam east of the easterly line of N. Monarch. (See Exhibit "A") It is defined on the east by Line 4-5 from the original Townsite of Aspen. It is defined on the north by one of two scenarios. The more often suggested theory, as supported by your 5/19/98 survey of 232 E. Hallam, indicates the northern boarder of 218 N. Monarch is the northerly line of the vacated part of Hallam Street continuing east from the easterly line of N. Monarch until it intersects with Line 4-5. (See Exhibit "B"). A less suggested alternative is that Line 4-5 intersects the easterly line of N. Monarch at a point south of the northerly line of the vacated part of Hallam resulting in a northern boarder lying south of the northerly line ofthe vacated part of Hallam. (See Exhibit "C") Following are three points of view sustaining the more often suggested theory indicating the northern boarder is the northerly line of the vacated part of Hallam. First, consider your 5/19/98 survey of the 232 E. Hallam parcel. (Exhibit "B") This survey indicates Line 4-5 exiting the 232 E. Hallam parcel on the eastern boarder of that parcel. If the line continues in a straight line from that boarder, it would intersect with the northerly line of Hallam resulting in the northeast corner of 218 N. Monarch parcel abutting the northerly line of Hallam. Second, consider the Willits Map from 1896. (See Exhibit "D") Line 4-5 intersects the northern boarder between Lots D and E, in Block 78. This places Line 4-5 in a similar position to that which you assert in your survey. Third, consider the City GIS Map. (See Exhibit "E") If a straight line is drawn from the northern boarder of the 3 lots west of 232 E. Hallam, this line will exit the 232 E. Hallam property on the eastern side, again, similar to what is represented on your survey. All three theories above indicate that Line 4-5 intersects the northerly line of E. Hallam Street east of the easterly line of N. Monarch Street. This results in a northern boarder of 218 N. Monarch that is the northerly line of the vacated part of Hallam Street continuing east from the easterly line of N. Monarch until it intersects with Line 4-5.. The distance of this northerly line is undetermined. One belief supporting an alternative is as follows: A 9/29/97 survey by Stephen L. Ehlers shows the northerly part of the parcel at 218 N. Monarch as a somewhat triangular point. See Exhibit "F" This drawing does not correlate with your survey of 232 E. Hallam, the Willit's Map or the GIS representation of the northern property lines of the lots east of 232 E. Hallam. Adding to the suspect representation of the one alternative opinion is the absence on the survey of a portion of the property at 218 N. Monarch north of Lot D, Block 78 but southwest of Line 4-5. This property is a portion of Hallam Street "from its intersection with the easterly line of North Monarch Street, thence easterly to its intersection with Line 4-5 of the Aspen Townsite, as the same was vacated by Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1957. ." Note that this portion of Hallam Street, although not included on the one suspect opinion, is reflected as 194.14 square feet on the 3/20/79 survey by "Survey Engr's, Inc." (See Exhibit "G"). From what I can tell, the 232 E. Hallam parcel abuts the 218 N. Monarch parcel along the old northerly line of the vacated part of Hallam Street. I am doubtful that the three concurrent theories supporting your representation of Line 4-5 are flawed. Furthermore, the one alternative opinion contains many inconsistencies and is likely an anomaly. If I can assist with more maps or other legwork, please let me know as I would be glad to do whatever research I can to clarify these property lines. Thank you again for taking the time to establish, on behalf of Linda Pace, the common boundary line of 232 E. Hallam and 218 N. Monarch being the northerly line of the vacated part of Hallam Street continuing east from the easterly line ofN. Monarch until it intersects with Line 4-5. Sincerely, 136Â¢r- Cuthbert L. Myrin Jr. ec: John Krueger, Aspen Parks Department , iyinÂ© and being in the Councv of Pitkin an .tate o , The North 38 feet of Lots A,B, and C, in Block 73, in and to the City and Townsite of Aspen, ard all that part of Hallam Street in the City of Aspen from its intersection with t he easterly line of North Monarch Street, thence casterly to its intersection with Line 4-5 of the Aspen Townsite, as the same was vacated by Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1957, of the Ordinances for the City of Aspen, subject, however, to the reservation of an easement For the 11.se, opÂ·eration, construction and maintenance of public utilities to be placed under- gro Ini and overhead including, but not exclusively, power and telephone lines, water lines, gaa mains, sewer mains and other utility easements of a like nature, excluding roals and suN'ace easements. .. . '. . p f' i #1 9 aIr e , i. Â· : 1 : e f ' i r r 2. , . R p. f t.,C whi i 1 .... . 4 . 4-4 4 -~\ 0-5 -I- \ . 0 ... \ ... 1... I . - I 0 --.- 4 / ... 0 1 N \ 1 \ i i i / . 1 % : . ,A, 1~Â©I I f 0\\'\\\\: 9 \ \ \\ \\\\4 7.00. i J . - - FMME *Mlor>\ 't - \\ 9 0 rh " H .1 \4 .... 4 0 4 i ...Â·.I j tÂ·~~ Â·_Â· Â· zo . I 'P If i 4 1. 1 J . 1 1 454 .07 1 h. - thÂ« i \H - ' 31 ~! a, - ~ 6,4~6 i : Â£ --{ 12~-~~- 9 *w-- - Â· r, \ 11 9 J -1- ij 'Â· i in~o s.red\ 6 1 1 42â‚¬ 6 J., \ VICTORIAN \\\1 ''' \ FloujE \ \ \ \ \ 1 0 2 T .1., 4 -3~ - i--~- t~ /fl nh,Jj Vy er . :4 /0.5 0\ \ \ . RI .u.â€¢ 5 la :*S:-:20 .: 2 -=ik\\\1 i r~4,-h,h~Ll- , = A 1 )\ . 1 . :4111 C 3,/1.16Â«0 ..1 kerv-- 9,- \ 1/ r . M 2>.. h j . DLDO. 71 . 1 1 01 ' 1 M 8'0'' 11- W ~ COT- J ID9.65 ' Â£84. M..W-, ---4 ---/.0 0 - HALLAM STAUT Exhibit w N 4- DC)' 41" - , 1 . T * '24 6.% 0 ../ - :.Alill I : .* . 'A*1 ' . 1, 4 40 . 1111" I . :il i./ :- .1/,A~~.Â¥ .* i ../6- I .. 5-' % * 4 . I I : .*fill/4."/ir,Al * . ./.P~.I . , 11~92:r-I - 1 lili 1..'-I. - t . 41 . .4 1 4 . " 11/,4. . 1* + 1 â€¢ Â£4' '-1â€¢ 4 . I. . . . 4 . ..b + I t â€¢p . I .. Â·Â· Ulk . :4. . 1 - . .. I ' '* r .. S - Pace . 91 1 - ++ . I Â¢ I r . f. t. 232 E. Hallam -*=-1 , + , 4 - 9 -* 1 11 42....+ & '41.. . +P, 4 . ...... . 9:. I I 4 : + ++ 1 42 + 4 4. 7 . I + .-li I 9.5.- u + Mt . bTrail ' 1 7<1 ... 4- t:. . . . A . . 1 k. - . 1...... ~ te. 4 ~ 4. ' I , 4 ./ 4.4... 0 - -. 4. , :4 eÂ· . ' East Hallam Clark's Market ~ I .9 + .... 4 . S. .f. 4 .. .C . * r - Trail - t 'lillir -./4/4/All,li.& .. ---I .........=I- Ii/.-.'I'.- i.. 1.~ . 0. 7 Proposed t .' 1 Trail Easement / -1..â€ž .. +./ t . il 1 . ... ..i /// 4 W U.L.GS *AAe - \SiG -StÂ¥ i 1 1 -> , '+ 6 i c '-6-1.r / Il G-Â· r . â‚¬ A . p -/4,4 31 z . __. .... 1 4 - 7 / Ar-k - \-1 1 .1,0, t, " , 1' 2 2.9 '1111 /7/\ - }~,A -18 kil-1 u-ith. /1\ L..r *.404*â€ž U, f . ERM-,g-r...Â£40Â·04.4/' 'IA. 4-Â«I \70 1-- ll 1 1 1 A "2. * F 4 - A 7Â¥11 Jok LION IATION/' --U-e7/ 07â€¢ . ~ /,Out-y- 1 PÂ«---332--29? M 40.--. 4 V i . 9 Â·E , 6/ %940.07 9 F cma.. -- foil- 3 / - 1-6 , ~ 1 11/ ---1 11/,J 4 4 teÂ·U.ov . j 19*.li/lyl,2. 7.1 \ & 9 ' < 14 -~ hT :k 1 l 0~f ril 4 . 1 / . \ . / 41 / 6 ~ C %1,\\ ... 1 1.-4 .& 0 , 2 1. r (yÂ·Â·Â·~ ___~_ 3'Â£,--~,1 3 Oft-4 ~r/' c .. -9 mt, 1 J~# 4 6 * ,(/H/61Â»-,32 L ' ' Â·NO. ' BALLAM 4 2 herb Â¢'9~ JE t r ' 1 6 k .1 L....1 -1 1 : I - l.,/ 4 7 , 1'~ L Â£ A j.LE U-t.Dri 2 9 4 v. 27 - g *9'2-1.s; r : 1 \ U r - - 3 #At 6_ 1[y 7 '.7 Val I 1. ILN Y 1 it .,/ --0, u 7.-al ' 41/itit 7 ' 1*. 44 , 4-21 "larâ€¢111 241â‚¬3 14 & 1 - Wip-C . Ni Plo Ji> 9'Al' P c -q...r. -~i~~ 1; 2"120 ~1 r\. 2 . Â«.*\.Mud LE -4. ' r #~ * U ---r -US ! : 1 = \CONCI - 4 11*1.5 1.:11:1.usli .1.rt-17-, J-31% = 6-k -- b -Ii -:---2,6...1 ,+ A S \ . ' .4 \ 0 .2 m. gp:,fb 9 Â® ' 3'' I. ,-4 4-4 1-4 . IÂ·22â€¢.4 ' f. *iâ€ž. 50'. t. \9 - A '*F OIl c 8 0,8 P L 8 ' 9 \Â¢ .. 43 6 - 1.kÂ»24% -\3~' r\\ 4 + 4=.. - D , ..I?L Â·.* lr:g blzlIT- rÂ». =LE I . r P , 1~ -\-42:= C. - 4 J 0 1 .9 , .- -gal)--4-!*abl '~-=1 Â»t=NFRL'14% 194 - ...412*1 * |'.lat... oph' - 39.-IA , ~tbi. -./ , '. 1 ..\ 1 .' J.7 4.1 4 f b ~Â»7-4. \&,1 : k*41Â¥11 $ 1 4 DIC . 1,1 1 Ok 4 - -4- ' lei /3 ./ , 9 --/4 A /4 1Â» - Aqk" ~vou-cNi_.21'- 2 v. - k - e }44.. . ' ..t + <10 l.b< . -7Ne>*f#~rhy E Le f 1* fl- m.74 I - 1 - ~ 47-,- A ' - --Vi Ok 61 1 -v- ---U, j. k.91-0 1 - otja'I.-1 . ell -1 A 1 - ' ,- h ju--09Â« , S % 24 >F'.9 /0 74 0 4* . 0 00 -32<662' . f . - , 0 - J -1 / 1* .4 '09,4- . i V 'Â·21,Â· 1~%1Â»iÂ·rq < 4 ,-. -.. 104' r.-,4 ---4-4 ~ "'0.i*-E~ / 9.7-1 ' ~. $ 1 - 0 /P g - rk 4 )'. 2/ ., FTY-944*--0 WI~#LL ... 442-9~01#961 4 11 4.141.1 iqi*E - 1 -1 1 -- , 4 -21 'u Â·i 'Â· .7. .P - C - -1 1- 1 C k , ;i .54 1, r e RJ;*r . f#2 -lij k il,1.9,9,Wh ;> 5~~*-ivo-~.- k Â· C ,/ + e e # *44 1 4 ; 1 .1 4 . . ' 7 4., . 'tl A~V l46 21,723 3-31 tri,1 4?11~~ N~ 1.,1. 3.1 I h.Â£ M r)-- ' 1 1 )')' 4'. 2. l le- 42 ' 4 - L -Â¢ I ! - W>*.8 66 2- r' : ,:1; Â· 1 y r 44/ il #/24 578 / 4/1#91$-,fl<' g t./2/,-,.5/4-:.4-.- , H.4 ,/ 0 - i ,% '. 04 -7, L /r r ' Art -h--â€ž2Â»Â· , ... ' 1 M.17.- P U 6 4 4 ~11 #1.&rm iQ! - ' **790*/1 0 E z Â· -* /th--2 ~_f - 4 â€¢ *2 135~~:~~.. * L",-j.v/ 141-4:r f ...4.Â»,Â»- ru - 7- 7434{i"t. fk=-r-4 --1 tr/gepAL.,4/il i /4 / . 11 2 4.46 4- 4*4. f .ill f i h:r**[1 8.13 'mmwitb .:m,-~2>=..[d -.Â·- k 2 4'iNk .â€¢L- N ,4 ; iwet~.EVT --ra a,-Pile~--Ii.'1 , 7-JCL=.4.. \ M '' 1.t Â£ 7 ,!,7 .4 '53:~F ''11.~1----~1--- I 0.JaL,~rki,l6 Kitth'*ruil/ 1. 910*Â¥ - : d r ..Â»--- ---1 #/14-/el ,09,61>. L. 77 44,17.,{4..P> 1.r/ ME-.0 -, Al . , ....... Â«,9/-1-~ ......... .B jrt... .1. .-Â· 1., + t ~ 496â€¢* * i T~FE.ki 9 ~~ t~~ #0 +Â· /~10~~- J//6 '~~ -jk im )..1 -~ I -I .4 . 4. 41. .. 1 4 . ff'*.dill - ire 4.*4 - 2 A T .. Â¥./ , -4 , I ..51 1, . ~ 67 414 . 1, e I I 1 1*. Â·Â·. is.~I.% i -1 . â‚¬ . . 4 0- - /4 1.7 , :,4 + Â· Â· . I.-02. I : p . t.. I.& lip... -.. 1$.1. 31>4 .1 . .. . $ .. 9â€¢16 .. 4 4 - Pace 1'. z 4 3 . .... 232 E. Hallam : I . 4 t . ... I . .. + 0 -al'll- -. . 1.4 2 4 .. , * 1 . . 4 , i h'* .4 :7. -â€žfilli , ~Trail iE"5.SM,- Â·Â·,4 r 1 -* . -f IM- : 1 . 4, 1% ./ . i . 41~ r . mr . I ... . T 4 + ..4, if*., +. - East Hallam . ' 0 I .1 . : Clark's Market . +. -. ... . 4 ..' %4 . 2/9 . et .*.lit. ..+ 4.. --,3 -â€ž~- ~ Trail -1.- 2 . .. '. 0- 2 Proposed I ..4.616.. 7 Trail Easement F .11â€¢â€¢ 1 1 1, .. 346. - . 4. 1:W .. 44 4. . i ...0 -# 4 ..W-:T 14 4 --... -1 -M# $ .' 1 8/1 1 Â·Â· . I + , ..11'.-7 t - . . .:4 , 1...t I . . 1.. .4. . It:> 75 . St .0 1 1 1 Ii I 3SnOH JO 3003 1 1 d V 1 4,5'~ 1 1 \ .00 06 3.14.605Â£9 \ rr rs Dul 0Â¥,44 ..900. 1 R . 1 1 le I 1 . 71 1 \ | F?Ezzl * 1 ..r' 1 J. .C" / e , cr bupeod -I.Â£ - Mt j mi pl X I 9 4 4/ 91 e Z j / 5 wo,04 1 a 7 . ~1 1 -Â»Â·043-81 0. 2,0 , 1/ / .1 7, 1 E___6CEL.Z. - - -3--- A- 244 _ 1__ \ \ 1 - e// 0 -~1,0 1 -- *-i-- - -U 1 0 i.- e 8 e I k 1. =Jah02 1 - 1 V ~-*~3Â»4~Â°isef~ 9*Â° < 011+3 358$i R O... e S }Vy'liVH. ~31'VOVA- . d N. 11 OS 522 \ \ ON#,Ing ~ 1/ .000/ '1:1331 | ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ \ J 1 .-2 /44 , 1 . 22 1 ..0 -<1 ,/2. 0 1 -9 \94. --1- * c31> ..V--- 0 Kl 4 < iN34 Â»*36-- - ~ / 0% 1 Â·911_ ' / .09'02 k -0, 0 3.90.'35.fLS / 42 1 4 4*180 73Avaly -*<ij *61.t,-Zgs 146 9/NX NlfÂ·*5 354#3 , t <4Ne- 15, 49 *0 \4 0491 11 Stsâ‚¬ ' 06'4'4~ At'd"< 1 , MONARCH STREET OF BEARING:5 <N,40 54 '44'E) 109.93 ' '1.- - (38.00) ..4 \-,A 1 1 1.90' CALC. Z0 - 6 9- I 44 IO OA . 4 n 21.5 2 ' OK --311 l . 1 /4.2, :00 .-- * 6, 4 6 AN,-4 11 mz 1 11_ r 1 0 1,1 1 D lut J 0 Alousâ‚¬ 5, - &16 Une r 0,0. 1 OM.-U'.-.---1.-------- Cl' 1 --1 889_Â£-1 9 -0 O.H ~1 (5110 N VIi-U Fl -8 9 - ,i P 4 0 m 1 LAM ' 1, . 8 o r O 2-34 - m H 1 1, 4@ #11 -=.1 rfu 1.- 212 i 4 0114 = P.1 Â· E e 2 0 IlL- '71 - Its GREENMOL>â€¢BIC ~ A D 0 0 M- , 217 )X 4 03 14 -0 12 2 4, - 1. 0 0 A Â· O r . 0 - ' 2 4 9 0" Pt , N 0 11_ R ga 1 - 14 l<A 20.1 CALE (38 00' 1 15.25' P. 0 (S.R- SCS 44' W.') 53.SS' 7 D .4 1 -6 - 2 . . 0 U --7 / rr Exhibit "ll" l. L L O \1 J WN & i tv i r# V 10-1 7/.93% 447+24.94 4 (,Lbob lili 'be -9LLS) 454 dVO Wn-19 Trail Access Between 232 Hallam and 218 North Monarch Existing Proposal: In exchange for granting an easement for a triangular parcel on the southeast corner of the 232 Hallam property: â€¢ Allow and pay for a 6-foot privacy fence that encroaches on the public right of way Pro's: ? Con's: â€¢ City of Aspen dollars spent to build a privacy fence for a private property owner on the public right of way â€¢ Until the North boundary of the 218 North Monarch property is known, it is not actually clear whether the 232 Hallam easement guarantees access â€¢ The portion of the fence encroaching on the public right of way will essentially prevent future use of the right of way by the city (for example construction of a sidewalk down Hallam). â€¢ Disrupts city appearance and character -- sets a precedent for others to also "negotiate" for privacy fencing Alternate Proposal: In exchange for granting an easement across the northern corner of the 218 North Monarch property: â€¢ Do not permit fence at 232 Hallam to exceed 42" forward of the main fagade of the house â€¢ Do not permit the construction of a fence at 232 Hallam outside the property lines and on the public right of way â€¢ Place signs as you approach the easement conveying "This trail crosses private property, please be courteous. - Aspen Parks Department" â€¢ Agreement not to develop existing trail beyond its current condition â€¢ Indemnity agreement for 218 North Monarch owners â€¢ Provide or allow for shrubs to be planted alongside 218 North Monarch side of trail Pro's: â€¢ City of Aspen dollars are not spent to construct a privacy fence for a private landowner â€¢ Guarantees access to trail between 232 Hallam property and 218 North Monarch property lines â€¢ Does not prevent future use of the public right of way along Hallam â€¢ No 6-foot privacy fence, therefore preserving victorian appearance and character of a historic part of Aspen Con's: 0 9