Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.planning.246313303002DOCUMENT .LAYOUT THIS FILE MAY OR MAY NOT CONTAIN ALL OF THE 11VFORMATION LISTED BELOW IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER Summary Sheet Resolution for the BOCC and/or P&Z Ordinance for the BOCC and/or P&Z Determination for the Hearing Officer Administrative Determination. Staff Memo Application Public Notice, Acceptance Letter, Referral(s) Letter Site Plan Miscellaneous Plat copies (llxl'n PARCEL ~: 2463-133-03-002 DATE RGYD:_r- /COt~5:~ CASE NO P121-91 CASE NAAiE: Papish/Gardner Special Reviewfor Separation of Substandard Lots PLNR:~~ PRgJADDR: 0946 Handy Dr Lot 2 Pnnce Creek Village Tratls OYtMVfAPP:Popish,Dominicand AD C/S/Z'~~ pHN:r"'--" REP^' ADR:~ C/S/Z:~~ PHN~~ PEEffi DUE:~~ FEES RCVD~~ ALLOCATED HOURS:~~ g6 OVER' MTq DATE REF~~ BY~~. DUE:r~ PH e , NOTICED DATE OF FNdAL ACTION: ~~ No ~ .. 8OCC Reso: No ~~~~ BOCC Ord: PZ: HRG Off: ~~... 91-82 #339898 ~.OSED:~ . B'Y: ~~~ HO INDEX: ~~ ADMIN: ~~ FY.ATRECORDED~~ PLAT (BKi~: NA ADMIN INDEX: ~- VRAPPROVAI.DATE:~~ VRE}WIRE5:~~ CASETYF; Special Reviewfor Separation of Su CASETYP5: CRSE TYp2: C4ffiE't1'P6: CASE l"rP3: CASE TYP7: CA5E Ti'P4: Dake Scanned: 7/18/87 is.. ,:? F8a LocoSion: FF Box 96 ::- . F . ..g.':'n' ^ ' .. ., _ r _ .~.. -... .. a s ,'•~~;~} DATE RECEIVED: 9 27'91 DATE COMPLETED: n1 PROJECT NAME:. F Project Address• APPLICANT- Domini Applicant Address: REPRESENTATIVE: Representative ~,u.srrsv~/ G v~ `:~~~..~ _ ..~ , M,,, ., PAID:. (YES) NO .AMOUNT: S1022 NO.OF COPIES RECEIVEDA 3 TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: X 2 STEP: P&Z MEETING DATE ~~/3 /~ ~ PUBLIC HEARING;.. YES NO VESTED RIGHTS.:. YES BOCC Meeting Date PUBLIC .HEARING: YES. VESTED RIGHTSS YES. Staff Level: 1041 Minor Hazard Review: 1 ---------------- REFERRALS... , '/ Attorney -Aspen ConsoT S.D. Engineer _Mtn.Bell Housing -Holy Cross Aspen Water -Aspen Fire Envir.Hlth. -Basalt Fire Manager -Carbondale Fire Div.Wildlife Div.Water Res. Caucus -Airport Manager Zoning _CO Geo.Survey Other: /~,f DATE REFERRED : I O / `T l ~ ~ IN FINAL. ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: ~ County -County Engineer Housing Envir. Health School District Rocky Mtn Nat Gas State Awy Dept (Glwd) (GrJtn) Snowmass Vill USFS (Carbondale) USFS (Aspen) BLM City P&Z Homeowners Assn. 'IALS e d~ 6 :AL: Zoning Other. FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. 2463-133-03-002 P121-91 STAFF MEMBErR•~/ ML +- _~.YJP(.lOl-1 KP,/i~~ Yom(/ #339898 32/^4r""i 13: 3i Sec ~.~0 FtK b65 x'14 '' ~ SiTvia Davis,y ,-itkin Cnty C1erE::, Doc x.00 ~ X33 _~ 3_t3Gz zu(~3- RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF PITRIN COIINTY, COLORADO GRANTING APPROVAL OF THE POPISH/GARDNER"APPLICATION TO SEPARATE TRACTS 1, 2 AND 3 OF THE PRINCE CREEK VILLAGE.TRACTB_ PZ-91-~ WHEREAS, Dominic Popish and Sandra.. .Gardner.. (hereinafter "Applicants") have applied to Pitkin County for Special Review approval tq separate cumulated Tracts 1, 2 and 3 of the. Prince Creek Village Tracts subject to Section 7-2.4(a) of the Land Use Code; and , WHEREAS, the Planning and--Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission") reviewed this .application at a regularly scheduled public hearing on December 3, 1991, at which time evidence and testimony was presented with respect to this application; and WHEREAS, the Commission finds that the subject lots have merged due to .their substandard ,size. in relation to the adopted zoning for the property; and WHEREAS, the Commission. finds that. Section 7-2.4(a) of the Land Use Code applies specifically to the separation of cumulated lots within platted subdivisions; and WHEREAS, the Commission finds ..that the. subject lots are situated within a platted subdivision, and therefore., do comply with the provisions contained within Section_7-2.4(a) of the Land use Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that_it does hereby approve the Applicants' request to separate these cumulated #339898 1~/^4/91 13: 3i Fec $.c7C> Pk:: bb5f'"""G 315 „r, ~ _ Silvia Dave Fitk:i n'Cnty C1 er t;, Doc $. ~~~j ' Resolution No. PZ-91-~ Page 2 lots subject to the following condition: L Tracts 1 and 2 are subject to 1041 Hazard Review and General Submission .approval by Pitkin County, prior to issuance of a building permit for either parcel. APPROVED by the Commission at their .regularly scheduled meeting on December 3, 1991. ATTEST: oCYv~..D ~~~ Debb: a SkeSan, Planning Office. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PITRIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION . /~ ~ ~,_.. Chairman. Date ( Z ~l 2 7 t APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ------ Tim Whitsi t, County Att U~l~~--~--'"- Suz a Kbnc an, Cou ty Planning Director MEMORANDUM TO: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner RE: Prince Creek Village Tracts - Separation of Substandard Size Tracts 1 and 2. DATE: December 3, 1991 Z ~ X3-(33- ~3-o©Z REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Special Review approval for the Separation of Substandard Size Lots pursuant to Section 7-2.4 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. The purpose of the separation is to provide two separately developable parcels. The application is attached. APPLICANT: Dominic Popish and Sandra Gardner. APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Kim Morse. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: Dominic Popish had applied to Pitkin County for a minor 1041 Hazard Review and during this review it was determined that Tract 2 had merged with Tract 1, and required separation. A copy of the application letter is attached... LOCATION: Tracts 1 and 2 of the Prince Creek Village Tracts are located in Section 13, Township 8 South, Range 88 West of the 6th P.M. ZONING: Tract 1 is 5.66 acres and Tract 2 is 5.59 acres. Both are zoned RS-30 PUD. ACCESS: The property is accessed via the Cotiznty Prince Creek Road to Handy Drive, the interior road system. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicants are requesting Special Review approval for the separation of substandard size lots pursuant to Section ~-2.4 of the Land Use Code. The Code. criteria .and staff review of this application follow: (a) Any lot which is substandard as to area/or width situate within a platted subdivision which did not require and Bid not receive approval by the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to those County Subdivision Regulations adopted in the Commissioners' Resolution 72-17 (or any amendment thereto) shall be considered separately developable for the purpose of erecting (or maintaining) one (1) single-family dwelling on each such lot (without regard to the fact that contiguous lots may be owned by the same person) if the same shall be processed as and receive approval as a use by special review pursuant to Section 6-3 of this Code.. The reviewing agencies ~ ~, shall, in addition to the criteria otherwise established. by this Code for special review approval, consider the following: (1) The number of substandard lots developed in the area - -and the effect of separate development on the character of the neighborhood and purposes of-the zone"category; Response: There are six substandard lots in the subdivision. and two of them are developed. The adjoining subdivision (Prince Creek Village), has 14 lots and 13 are developed. The separation of these lots would. be compatible with a majority of the existing neighborhood. (2) The extent to which the lots. comply with existing subdivision regulations; Response: The subdivision has a community water system with individual septic. systems. The road system complies with the current County Road Standards. The subdivision _did not... require subdivision review when at the time it was created on March 19, 1972. (3) The effect of separate development on available utilities, roads and.. other public services; Response: The water system, Holy Cross and phone service are adjacent to the property boundaries. The applicant's will need to meet the requirements of the Sheriff's Department to mitigate potential wildfire hazards.. (4) Any physical limitations of the lots; Response: Both lots have steep slopes, however there are flat benches which should be utilized for the building sites. Both lots are subject to 1041 hazard review requirements. (5) The configuration of the lots as it affects their suitability for separate development; Response: These lots are configured suitably for separate development. They both have direct access to Handy Drive. (6) The degree of economic loss to the owner if separate development permission is not. granted (including a consideration of the value of the .lots if separately developed vis-a-vis their value if used in conjunction with each other); Response: The owners of Tract 1, 2 and 3 purchased their properties after they were merged into one parcel. The owner of Tract 3 constructed a residence in the late 1970's and has thus utilized the development. right to this larger merged 2 parcel. Sandra Gardner, owner of Tract 1, purchased her lot in 1983 and Dominic Popish, owner of Tract 2, purchased his lot in 1990. Both Tract 1 and Tract 2 have changed ownership from the original developer prior to their purchase, thereby creating a economic difficulty if the parcels cannot be separated. (7) The history of acquisition (including a consideration of the purposes'°of the purchase and whether or not the.. lots were involuntarily acquired); and Response: Dan Handy owned all land in the Prince Creek Village Tracts Subdivision and also the Prince Creek Village Subdivision. He did not sell Tracts 1, 2, and 3 until Y979, 1979 and 1977 respectively, after the merger provision of the County had been adopted (1975). (See chain of title and letter -from the Planning Office dated September 26, 1991, Attachment 1). Dan Handy sold Tract 1 in 1979 to Wilhelmina Eymer, who then sold it in 1983 to Sandra Gardner. Dan Handy sold Tract 2 in 1979 to Gary Sievert, who then sold it to Dominic Popish in 1990. Dan Handy sold Tract 3 in 1977 to Evelyn Bowers, who presently owns this tract. (8) The historical use of the lots. Response: Tract 3 has a single family residence since the late 1970's. Tracts 1 and 2 have been vacant. SUMMARY: The Planning staff .opinion is that this .application complies. with Section 7-2.4 of the Code. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the application for Separation of Substandard Sized Lots (Tracts 1, 2 and 3 of Prince Creek Village Tracts) subject to the following condition: 1. Tracts 1 and 2 are subject to 1041 Hazard Review and General Submission approval by Pitkin County, prior to issuance of a building permit for either parcel. pz.sr.separate.popish.gardner 3 September 20, 1991 Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Dominic Popish/Sandra Gardner, Tract 2 & 3, Separation To whom it may concern: Please consider this letter an application for the separation of lots: Tract 1, Tract 2, and Tract 9 - Price Creek Village Tracts Subdivision. This application shall address the criteria of Section 7-2.4 of the. Pitkin County Land Use Code. These lots are over 5 acres and there is a .plat" of the subdivision filed in the county clerk's office."' These lots were subdivided in 1972. At that time, much higher zoning and density existed. The county negatively affected the economic value of these lots, downzoning them from multi-family use. Not allowing them to be subdivided now would be a real economic loss, and something that. does not benefit the .community or the `developer. Many of the lots in the area .are already developed. The cumulation provision of the code that has taken affect and brought these lots together was meant to 'limit development of land in Pitkin county. The lots affecteri here really do not apply to the reasoning behind the zoning because they are outside of Carbondale and in a fairly rural area- far away from the high priced, highly developed area in and around Aspen. ' This cumulation was brought to attention due to the 1041 which Dominic Popish and Kim Mox•se were in the process of receiving. This separation is needed to complete the 1041 and allow us to sell this land or build on it ourselves.. Sandra `and Alfred Gardner have lived in the area for 20 years. Both`Dominic and Kim has have lived in Aspen alI their lives and ,did not know something like this could ever legally happen. We only wish to follow the procedures set before us and,.... get this separation accomplished. We believe we will meet all,_of the criteria necessary to do this below, and that it will satisfy your requirements. 1. Number of substandard lots developed°in the area and the parcels in the subdivision a connecting subdivision (Pric 13 of them are developed. If would be clear that all esthetics and good building within the price guideline important community function. £eaory."' There are six substandard ~,... nd' two of `them are "developed. The e Creek Village), has 14 lots and one looks at both subdivisions it lots were designed separately with areas in mind. These `lots fall of locals., and fulfill a very The merging of Tracts 1; 2, and 3, Popish/Gardner Page Two thus, further downzoning of this property, does not make any sense to the property owners or the community. The lots are more valuable to the .community as separately developed parcels. 2. subdivision reQ'ulations. The subdivision has a community warmer system with individual septic systems. The subdivision did not require subdivision review or standards when it was developed in 1972, yet the Prince Creek Village subdivision which it connects to did have to go through subdivision review and standards and was approved in May 1972. 3. Effect of separate development on avaiiaDie u~ttl.~tc5_._ road and other public service"s 'This subdivision together with Price Creek Village subdivision has absolute water rights to three different sources. The water system was originally set up to fulfill all needs of all the 20 single-family homesights and is still set up to do gust that. Holy Cross"Electric has transformers already set up specifically for the use of these„ tracts, and they were set with the development of these specific. tracts in mind. There is a phone pedestal directly on Tract 2. 4. Physical limitation of the lots. These 1Pts all have flat building areas, with no physical limitations. 5. Confisuration of the lots. These lots are configured suitably for separate development, are "separately accessed, and easily lend themselves to separate development. G. Economic loss to owner it no separate aeveiorxneu~. There would be a tremendous degree of economic loss for all owners involved if separate development permission is not granted. We bought this property in good faith, having no idea of this possibility. Dominic Popish. bought this land with his savings and also has a loan with the bank. Sandra Gardner• bought the land with the intention of building a home in"which to retire. It is not as if we bought this property understanding that the lots were merged, and decided to take the economic risk.. of trying to separate them. We bought the property, obviously assuming we had the right to build a house there; or the right to sell it to someone who wanted to build. It is the county`s action that has created the economic impact on us,`and therefore, the division of these lots should be permitted. 7. History of acquisition. Dan Handy owned all land in the Price Creek Village Tracts Subdivision and also the Price Creek Village Subdivision. He did not sell Tracts one, two and three, till 1979, 1979, and 1977 respectively. Tract 1 was ,sold in 297a Popish/Gardner Page Three and again in 1983 to Sandra Gardner. Tract 2 was sold in 1979 and again in 1990 to Dominic Popish. Tract 3 wa`s 'sold in 1977 to it's present owner. 8. I-tistorical use of lots. These lots were subdivided in 1972. Tract 3 has a house on it; Tract S and 2 have been vacant. Adjacent property owners and verification of ownership of lots have been already submitted to Mary Lackner. Please find attached a copy a map which shows the area and the effected lots as they relate to both_subdvsions. If you have further questions, or need further information from us, please feel free to calla 920-2196. SpLincere lyJ~ Dominic Popish Y4~ Sandra Gardner Luc}, oZ 1 ~[tcc~' `~ X31. .'i"W}' li,: ~I Y~vSMnei~`~,x\~"~i ^~~^°n - ~ ATTACHMENT 1 ~~ Aspen/Pi 130 i (303) 9'~! ning Office.. Street 1611 920-5197 September.26, 1991 Sandra Gardner 7091 Frying Pan Road Basalt, CO 81621 Re: Merger of Tracts 1 and 2 Prince Creek, Tracts Dear Ms. Gardner, As you are aware, Tract 1 and 2 of Prince Creek Tracts have merged into one parcel. This has taken place due to the following zoning and land use changes: 1. Prince Creek Tracts- recorded book 4 page 251, March 9, _ ..a_.. ~...r,. 1972. Ao County approvals required for su}~dvisions with parcels larger than_5 acres, at this time.. 2. April 14, 1975, Resolution 75-28, downzoned the Prince Creek drainage to R5-160 zone .district, requiring a 160 acre minimum lot area. 3. June 2, 1975, Resolution 75-51, substandard sized lot and cumulation provision adopted. This 'resolution required lots to "merge" if they did not _ meet minimum zone. acreage. 4. March 14, 1977, Resolution 77-33, rezoned the Prince Creek drainage to RS-30 zone district,, requiring a 30 acre minimum lot. area.,. The chain-of-title information submitted by Kim Morse indicates ...,..~, .s~,..H ~. ~,.w that: Dan Handy held ownership of Tract 1 from .1972 until June 7, 1979 at which time it was sold to Wilhelmina Eymer. . , .:_. ~,,.. _ ,,. ~.;v. ~~ ~ .._~. ,,..... Dan Handy held ownership of Tract 2 from 1972 until June 20, 1979 at which time it was sold to ,Gary Sievert. Dan Handy held ownership of Tract 3 from 1972_until,January recycled paper ~ ~ 26, 1977 at which. time it was,sold to Evelyn Bowers. Since these three parcels have merged, they need to be separated under Section 7-2.4 of the Land Use Code, to become legal r.~. developable parcels.. ~It is my understanding that Tract 3 has a single family residence, therefore separation of this lot becomes _, only a technicality. At the present time Tract 1 and 2 are to be considered merged with Tract 3 and possessing no devel.opaerit rights of their own. The Planning Office fees for a Separation of Substandard Lots application requires a deposit of $912`(based on an estimated 6 hour review at $152/hr.). Additional hours are billed at,$152/hr. if more than six hours are needed £or review of the application. Once the Separation of Substandard Sized Lots hearing is completed. ,. v..~ . andassuming you received ~approval~;you will still need to obtain a 1041 Hazard Review; approval. prior to development of Tract 1. If you are disturbing slopes of 30$ or more with your access or building .envelope a "full" 1041 Hazard Review will be required. ~~ If you do not need to disturb slopes of ~0~ or more, iae xna'y"be able to process your application as a "minor".review if there are not any other mapped or known hazards affecting tTie"building envelope or access. Please set up a pre-application. conference with me prior to applying for a 1041 Hazard Review. A'"full" review requires a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. and generally takes three to four months once an application is completed. We also require a deposit of $912 for the 1041 Hazard Review, plus two referral fees of $55 each. A "minor" review is a flat fee of $152, in `addition to two referral fees of $55 each.. _ Please feel free to contact me for a pre-application meeting on to answer any additional questions you may have. I can be reached at 920-5090. Sincerely, Mary Lackner, Planner cc: Kim Morse ,` , . DOMINIC POPISH 10't1 HAZARD REVIEW LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS SINCE 1972 PRICE CREEK VILLAGE TRACTS TRACT 1 TRACT 2 TRACT 3 TRACT 1: 1972. Dan Handy Helen Handy (Representative of Dan Handy Estatel June 7, 1979 Wilhelmina E. Eymer May 27, 1983 Sandra..Gardner , TRACT 2: 1972 Dan Handy Helen Handy (Representative of Dan Handy Estate) June 20, 1979 Gary Sievert July 10, 1979 Gary Sievert, Peter and Joan Christoffer April 23, 1990 Dominic Popish TRACT 3: 1972. Dan Handy Jan. 26, 1977 Evelyn M. Bowers ,~,, , September 20, 1991 Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Aspen, CO 81611. Re: Dominic Popish/Sandra Gardner, Tract 2 & 3, Separation To whom it may concern: Please consider this letter an application for the separation of lots: Tract 1, Tract 2, and'Tract 3 - Price Creek Village Tracts Subdivision. This application shall address the criteria of Section 7-2.4 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, These lots are over 5 acres and there is a plat of the .~.. subdivision filed in the county clerk`s office. These lots were subdivided in 1472. At that time, much higher zoning and density existed. The county` negatively affected the economic value of these lots, downzoning them from multi-family use. Not allowing them to be subdivided ,now would be a real economic loss, and ~~... ~. ..»ti., ,,. ~ ~~..,. something that does notbeneft the commu~nity'or t e developer. Many of the lots in the area are, already developed. The aumulation provision of the ,code ,that has taken affect and _ ~.n .~ _w brought these lots together was meant to limi~ ~,__~ ._ t development of land in Fitkin county. The lots affected here really do not apply to the reasoning behind the zoning because they are outside of Carbondale and in a'fairly rural area far away from the high priced, highly developed area in and around Aspen. This cumulation was brought to attention due to the 1041 which Dominic Popish and Kim Morse :were in the process of receiving. This separation is needed to complete the 1041 and .allow us to sell this land o Gardner have lir_build_ on, it ourselves Sandra and Alfred ~.. ,.~. ,._ ~w,.u, ,. ,,~. w ~, ..., ,,.~, : _. ved in the area for 20 years. 'Bofh~Dominic and' Kim has have lived in Aspen all their lives and did nat know something like this could ever legally happen.' We only wish to follow the.. procedures 'set before us apd get this separation accomplished. We believe, we _„will meet all of the criteria .:_ r ..... ..~.. n,..-rAV.n +Nwih .. .x >n'+nT titt.0. .. ~...... ia.iko necessary to do this below, and that it will~~~satisfy your requirements. 1. parcels in the sub connecting subdivs. 13 of them are deve would be clear t esthetics and good within the ...price important community oped. Tf one looks at at all lots were des . . .. <..... 1 wilding areas `in mind. guideline 'of locals, a function. The merging of r separa~cely wicn These lots fall fulfill a very acts 1,` 2, and 3, w, ,,; .: ~,.~ ~, ti ~ ..~ ~ , ~ ~ . w ,_ Popish/Gardner Page Twa thus, further downzonng of this property, does not make any sense to the property owners or the,communty. The lots are more valuable to the community as separately developed parcels. 2. Extent to which the lots comply ,.. ,.. ~ _ subdivision reuulations. The subdivision ha a, ~... system with~individ'ual"sep`tic~"systems'.` The subd require subdivision review or standards when it: y.~._....~ YwW. 1972, yet the Prince Creek Village subdivision w`ti; to did have to ,,go through subdivision review a was approved in May 19.72. 3. er __ ,ot connects lards and Price Creek Village subdivision tiers " absolute water rights to three different sources. The water system was originally set up __ . N . 7~ ~,~ ~<.,., .... to fulfill all needs of_a11TM the 20 .single-family homesights and is still set up to do 5ust that. Holy Cross Electric has transformers already set up specifically for the use of these tracts, and they were set with`the development of these specific tracts in mind. There is a phone pedestal directly on Tract 2". 4. Physical limitation of the lots. These lots all have flat building areas, with no physical limitations: 5. Confiavration of the lots: These lots are configured _ ». suitably for separate development, are'separately accessed, and easily lend themselves to eparate development. ' G . Economic loss to ocn There would be a tremendous „deg ..~_. owners involved if separate granted. We bought this property. of this possibility. "Dominic P savings and also has a loan with.. bought the land with the intentio~ to retire. It is„not as if we bo ,..,,__. that the lots were merged, and d of trying to separate them. We assuming we had the right to boil sell it to someone who wanted.. to action that has created the econo~ the division of these lots should ree ` of ` economic `loss fbr all development' permission is not in good faith, having no idea opish bought this land with his, _.:_. of building a home in which ht this property understanding ided to takemt2ie economic risk ought the property, obviously a house.: there, or the right to build. It is the county's .._ c impact on us, and therefore, e' permitted. 7. History of acquisition. Dan Handy owned all land in the Price Creek Village Tracts Subdivision `ad also the Price Creek STillage Subdivis2on. H' ~ ~-, ~ . _..: ' e did not sell Tracts one, two and three, . , , ., ~..,..., , .w till 1979, 1979, and 19:77 respectively. Tract l was sold in 1919 ' ,~ Popish/Gardner Page Three and again in 1983 to Sandra. Gardner. Tract z was soic ro~.~.: and again in 1990. to Dominic Popish. Tract 3""was so~.~ it's present owner.. 9 7.:'tU . _. 8. Historical ns® of lots These lots were subdivided in _. a ,, ., 1972. .Tract 3 has a house, omit;"Tract Wand 2~~liave been vacant. Adjacent property owners and verification of ownership of lots have been already submitted to Mary Lackner. Please find attached a copy a map which shows the area and the effected lots as they relate to both subdivsions..__, If you have further _questions, or need further information from us, please feel free to call. 920-2196. Sincerely, c,c~ ~% Dominic Popish ~~ Sandra Gardner. . ~, ASPEN/PITRIN PLANNING_OFFZCE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920-5090 FAX# (303) 920-5197 October 4, 1991 Kim Morse 415 AABC Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Popish/Gardner Special Review for Separation of Substandard Size Lots Case #P121-91 Dear Kim, The Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that this, .application is complete. We have scheduled this application for review at a_public hearing by the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, December 3, 1991 at a meeting to begin at 9:00 AM. Should this date be inconvenient for. you please"contact me ..within 3 working days of the date of this letter. After that the agenda date will be considered final and changes to the schedule or tabling of the application will only be allowed for unavoidable .technical problems. The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to the application is available at the Planning Office. Please note that it isyouur responsibility to post the subject property with a sign within 15 days of the public hearing and to remove it from the property within one .week following the hearing. Please submit a photograph of the posted sign to the Planning Office prior to the public hearing. If you have any questions, please. call Mary Lackner, the planner assigned to your case. Sincerely, Debbie Skehan, Office Manager _k ~ NH..... c .. e. , ,c ni, »~. t.. F ~ `s ~ ~,:.'.. PIIBLIC NOTICE RE: POPISH/GARDNER_SPECT7rT• REVIEW ,FOR $BPARATION OFASIIBSTANDARD ~. - ~ ., . ,. BIZE 'LOTS NOTICE ZS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday,'December 3, 1'99`"1""aka meeting to begin at 9:00 am before the Ptkin County Planning and Zoning Commission, Commissioner`s Meeting room, 506 East Main Street, Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Dominic Popish and Sandra Gardner requesting approval of"S'~~o"Yal Review for Separation of, Substandard Size Lots pursuant to_,Section 7,2x4 of the PitknACountya Code. The request is for separation of WTracts 2 aft 3, Prince Creek Village Tracts, Carbondale, Section 13; Tcwnshi South, Range 88 West of the 6th P M. For further information, contact Mary Lackner at_the Aspen%Ptkin Plari~iiing Office, 130 South,Galena St., Aspen, C0 (303) 920-5090. ,,,,/ ~ ~ r ,. i .: ~~ ~ i !` r. c- , CERTIFICATE OF MAILING RE: POPISH/GARDNER SPECIAL, REVIEW FOR SEPARATION OF SUBSTANDARD. SIZE ,.LOTS... I hereby certify that on this 29th day of October,, 1991, a true and correct copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was deposited in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, to the adjacent property owners as indicated on the attached list of adjacent property owners which was supplied to the Aspen/Pitkn Planning Office by the applicant in regard to the case named on the Public Notice. By: Debbie Skehan Office Manager frm.mailing . rs~M «m,.d!a&evF U. ,~ >,,.. wn; «,~ma..bw~i«,~>xa.~..ri+-k~,.adrwew.<~Rna~~irf~3