HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.boa.20181213
AGENDA
Aspen Board of Adjustment
REGULAR MEETING
December 13, 2018
4:30 PM City Council Chambers
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I. SITE VISIT
II. ROLL CALL
III. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
IV. MINUTES
A. August 8, 2018
V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 431 W. Hallam Street- Front Yard Setback Variance Request
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
VIII. BOARD REPORTS
IX. ADJOURN
Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings
1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda)
2) Provide proof of legal notice (affi d avit of notice for PH)
3) Staff presentation
4) Board questions and clarifications of staff
5) Applicant presentation
6) Board questions and clari fications of applicant
7) Public comments
8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments
9) Close public comment portion of bearing
10) Staff rebuttal /clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment
1 1 ) Applicant rebuttal/clarification
End of fact finding.
Deliberation by the commission commences.
No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public
12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners.
13) Discussion between commissioners*
14) Motion*
*Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met o r not met.
Revised April 2, 2014
Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment August 9, 2018
1
Staff Comments ............................................................................................................................................ 2
Commission Comments ................................................................................................................................ 2
Minutes ......................................................................................................................................................... 2
Public Comment not on the Agenda ............................................................................................................. 2
Declaration of Conflicts of Interest ............................................................................................................... 2
1015 Waters Avenue – Variance Request ..................................................................................................... 2
Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment August 9, 2018
2
At 4:30 p.m.; Mr. Sandler called the regular meeting to order with Board Members Farrey, Feddersen,
Hopson, Frank and Bentzin present. Also present from staff Jessica Garrow, Kevin Rayes, Andrea Bryan
and Linda Manning.
Staff Comments
None.
Commission Comments
None.
Minutes
Mr. Sandler moved to approve the minutes from March 8, 2018; seconded by Mr. Farrey. All in favor,
motion carried.
Public Comment not on the Agenda
None.
Declaration of Conflicts of Interest
Mr. Hopson stated he has a conflict on the application and will recuse himself. Ms. Feddersen stated she
lives at 1050 Waters Avenue but is not an owner of that unit. She is moving out in October. This will not
affect her or her decision.
1015 Waters Avenue – Variance Request
Mr. Sandler opened the public hearing.
Kevin Rayes, community development, reviewed the current conditions at the property. 1015 Waters
Avenue is located in the R15 zone. It is a non-conforming lot due to the small lot size. The minimum lot
size is 15,000 square feet. This lot is only 6,000. Currently there is a single family dwelling on the lot.
Across the street is a multi-family complex. The property owner is planning to redevelop with a new
dwelling. They hired a firm to design the new structure. This design complies with all the required
setbacks of the R15 zone district. He showed images of the proposed design. It includes a 25 foot front
setback and a 10 feet rear and side yard setbacks. In the south west corner of property is a 10 foot ditch
easement. During the time of design, the architect was unaware the ditch was here. The proposed design
is encroaching on the easement. The applicant is requesting to move the design 9 feet forward to comply
with the ditch easement. This would leave a 16 foot front yard request opposed to the 25 foot required
setback to now comply with the 10 foot ditch easement. The applicant is arguing that this combination of
the undersized lot and the setback requirements of the zone district, as well as the10 foot ditch easement
qualifies for the development hardship. Staff does not agree with this and are proposing denial of the
variance. The land use code talks about standards applicable to a variance. Criteria #2 says grant of a
variance is the minimal variance to make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure.
Staff finds this is not met because even though there is a 10 foot ditch easement it is only in the rear
corner of the lot and not impacting the entire rear of the lot. We feel the design can be accommodated by
a modification. The second criteria we find not met is land use code part 3A which states special
conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure that are not applicable
to others in same zone district, and which do not result from the actions of the applicant. Staff finds this
Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment August 9, 2018
3
not met because although there is a ditch easement in this yard it is not unique to this parcel. Other lots
have things like steep slopes and trees they need to work around. Lastly, criteria 3B states granting the
variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied the terms of this title and the
municipal code other parcels, buildings or structures in the zone district. Staff finds this criteria is not met
because by granting this 9 foot variance this parcel would not comply with the setback requirements of
the R15 zone district. Staff is recommending denial based on these criteria.
We received two public comments over email. Both state opposition to the variance. The concerns were
a lack of parking along Waters Avenue. They mention concerns with the view along Waters Avenue and
how granting the variance would impact the view. I spoke with the City Forester and he mentioned there
are a bunch of trees in the front yard and if the variance is granted the trees would most likely be
removed. They are opposed to the removal of the trees.
Mr. Frank asked if the other properties along Waters are R15 and undersized lots. Mr. Rayes replied he is
not sure how many undersized lots there are in the R15 district but there are others.
Applicant
Gretchen Greenwood
Greg Hemming, owner
Chris Hendrickson, builder
Ms. Greenwood said it is a non-conforming lot in the R15 zone at 6,000 square feet. There are a few
6,000 square foot lots on Waters Avenue. Most of the lots are larger than 6,000. Even though it is an
R15 lot it has the same setbacks as a larger lot. It still requires the 25 foot front and 10 foot rear and side
yard setbacks. There are unique characteristics that affect the design that it only has access to Waters
Avenue. That changes the way you access the garage. It also has very steep slopes and the Wheeler
ditch. Initially in designing the project there is no recorded easement for the ditch. I submitted this
project to the building department on April 4th. This is our second land use application for this property.
Our first application was to have a historic assessment of the grades when nothing was on the property
because the city has a code to determine floor area based on the slopes of the site. We are already battling
a 270 square foot reduction in FAR because of the rear slopes. At the time I met with engineering and
planning on the site and we discussed the ditch. It never came up that there was going to be a prescriptive
easement. We submitted to the building department the plan with the 25 foot setbacks and the
engineering department came back and said we are calling a prescriptive easement on the ditch. That is
not the hardship, that is just the city making up things as you go along. In designing this we thought it
would be better if there was a reduction in FAR. Better for the neighbors and everyone involved. In
terms of location, we have no problem giving the City an easement, but we have to shore because we are
up against the hillside. That is one of the hardships, we need three feet of shoring. What that give us is a
16 foot setback. The garage has to be set back from the building 10 feet and is set back from the street 33
feet. Because of the code it does create additional parking on the site, but it is an odd design element to
push the garage 33 feet back. The ditch is a hardship, the over dig we need to do, the 10 foot setbacks are
all hardships. By granting a variance the front of the porch will be 16 feet and puts the bulk of the house
closer to the street and allow for better views for both the neighbors. It is a win situation for everyone. I
disagree that the email comments are negative. It seems like they are complaining about the
neighborhood rather than this property. We can fit six cars on the property. The only person affected by
the 9 foot variance is the owner. The site is complicated and has issues. The setbacks required on a small
lot make it a difficult project and effect the development ability on this parcel. She does not agree with
the city’s recommendation of denial.
Mr. Sandler said the one thing we have learned is we try to look at these things as a perspective of balance
and hardship as well as from a resident’s side. One the one hand you want to adhere to what the city is
saying. On the other hand, you look at it from a common sense perspective. When these codes were
passed for R15 and when the house was built has the code changed. Jessica Garrow, community
development, said the code has changed a lot over time especially in this zone. Ms. Greenwood said
multiple homes are located in the setback and one is over the property line. She said she sits on the board
Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment August 9, 2018
4
and they are for residents to represent residents, not the government. I’m of the same ilk as you and
appreciate that comment.
Ms. Feddersen asked about the trees. Ms. Greenwood replied they are being mitigated for and they are
working with Aspen Tree Service.
Mr. Sandler asked what will happen if you don’t get the variance. Ms. Greenwood stated we will load the
FAR to the east side. There is no reason to push it back in to the hill side. Mr. Farrey replied other than
the setback requirement. Ms. Greenwood said on a non-conforming lot. Mr. Farrey said if you went back
and showed this development on an overlay of what is existing that would be helpful.
Ms. Feddersen said the main issue with neighbors is they don’t want the front of the house to be closer to
the road and create less parking.
Ms. Greenwood showed an image of how the home would sit if they don’t get the variance overlaid on
the current proposal. The front porch is midway past the garage. Adding 9 more feet to the back would
benefit everyone and not affect the parking. Non-set back areas and set back areas have different
requirements for what you can and cannot do in it. We would like to be granted the 16 foot setback for
the front yard. None of the neighbors called me but I would have been happy to walk through the plan
with them. We as a team think it is a better plan all together.
Mr. Frank said you originally designed the house with the RDS and 25 foot setback in mind until the
ditch easement was discovered. Ms. Greenwood replied I did. Honestly, I wanted to come in for a
variance even before because it is better for the property if it was away from the ditch.
Mr. Frank asked about the code on the easement. Ms. Garrow said the comments on the easement came
from the engineering department. There are typical requirements that development needs to be set back
from the centerline of any ditch in town. It does happen in other developments. Ms. Greenwood stated
she has designed two developments on Waters and has never some across this.
Mr. Sandler asked about the ditch. Ms. Greenwood said it is the water that supplies the mall. Andrea
Bryan, city attorney, said it is a requirement especially for new developments where the property owner
grants us an easement. If it is discovered that the easement hasn’t been recorded, we require them to
grant a 10 foot on the centerline easement. This is not an unusual circumstance from that aspect. The city
adopted certain engineering standards and water distribution standards and I assume that requirement is in
there. Ms. Greenwood said we think it is a better plan if we just move the building forward.
Mr. Farrey said I can respect that. The most telling thing is from the dimensional requirements from
community development as far as the front setback, where existing structures have a 15 foot setback and
you are proposing going a little bit further versus the 25 that it fall in to in the new code. Is it a foot
further set back than the existing structure. To put it in front of the existing structure is not fair to the
neighbors. Ms. Greenwood replied it is not in front of any property. It is back a foot and a half. The
comment from the staff affecting the view, nothing is affected. Ms. Garrow said the purpose of zoning is
when you are redeveloping that you are coming into conformance with the requirements that the city has
outlined. This is a complete scrape and replace and it is why we feel pretty strongly it should be in
conformance. This is a changing neighborhood. There are older structures that maybe don’t comply with
the existing zoning but when they come in and apply to redevelop they will be asked to comply with
existing zoning. We may have a different recommendation if this ditch was over a larger portion of the
property. But it really is tucked within that corner. From our reading of the land use code and the criteria
set in the land use code we don’t believe it is a hardship. Ms. Greenwood replied it is true what you say
but it is a quarter of the property.
Mr. Sandler opened the public comment.
1. Mark Cindrich, owns adjacent property for 28 years with wife Melinda. In the winter and
summer the neighborhood is filled with cars. There is a swale in front of the property. By
Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment August 9, 2018
5
moving the driveway they are capturing the whole swale and parking area. I feel bad they have a
small lot but that’s what they have. We have a 6 foot setback. He would like you to take into
consideration how this will affect the parking. The ditch has been there forever.
Ms. Feddersen said they have a large parking area and I don’t see anyone parking there. Is it for
public parking. Mr. Cindrick replied it’s supposed to be.
2. Melinda Cindrich said I didn’t know what they were doing. The neighborhood is special. I don’t
want them to build some monster thing that is going to block our views and tear down the trees.
Mr. Sandler closed the public comment.
Ms. Greenwood said the existing garage is 15 feet. Our driveway will be 17 feet and the garage is set back
34 feet from the property line. That is not from where people park, that is from our property line.
Ms. Garrow said the packet includes a resolution for approval and denial. The approval only varies the
front setback all the other setbacks would remain. What I saw in the presentation was a request for a 19
foot setback. If the board agrees to grant approval you may want to talk about that rear setback and if it
should be varied. Ms. Greenwood said it is just a tradeoff. We are not trying to put in a swimming pool
or anything back there. We want to keep it all natural. I was just suggesting it as a tradeoff. We are here
because we feel it is a better plan for the neighborhood. She showed an image of the existing garage. It is
16 feet. There is no parking here. We are only moving 17 feet over to the side. Anyone can park outside
of the property line. We are also going to put in a fence. There is absolutely no change to the comings
and goings of people and their cars. We feel it is a better plan for the neighbors. Pushing the house back
affects those views in the back. The right place for the building is to have more open space in the back.
Mr. Sandler asked Chris as the developer if he has anything to add. He replied the city has rules and we
have to abide by them. If there are opportunities like this to have a variance that will actually make the
house sit in the neighborhood and be the same as where the other houses are at it is where the variance
should be applied.
Ms. Garrow stated we recommend against. We don’t think it meets the criteria.
Mr. Farrey said hardship is awfully hard to prove here and that is our first and foremost job, to prove
hardship. The site presents its challenges. Your plan is specific to this site and thoughtful. When you do
new construction, you have to come into conformity and that should come to no surprise to someone who
inherits it or buys it. That is what is tough here. On the emotional side a lot of the issues revolve how
this is presented in the front and you are doing a foot better than what is in place. That, addressed with
neighbors a while back may have went a long way. That said, it is a new construction and not a remodel,
it is no surprise you have to come in to conformity. You still get the same square foot. Your plan is 30
percent better. Within this neighborhood you have to conform to the new setbacks and that is no surprise.
Mr. Frank said however unfortunate the timing of the ditch is, it is in the code. It is unfortunate it was
missed so deep in to the process.
Mr. Sandler said we always like to deliberate on the side of the citizen, but we need that hardship. For me
it is the fundamental of the hardship.
Ms. Greenwood said it is the non-conforming lot, large setbacks for a 6,000 square foot lot that are meant
for a 15,000 square foot lot, small building area, slopes and one access in to the site. All create the
hardship.
Mr. Frank said any structure on this street that does a scrape will have to comply with the 25 foot setback.
If we offer you a variance for a nearly 50 percent reduction in the setback and in 30 years your home is
the sore thumb out on the street. Ms. Greenwood replied people won’t tear their houses down. They will
Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment August 9, 2018
6
go right to the 30 percent rule to remodel. Mr. Frank replied that option is on the table for you too. Ms.
Greenwood replied that is not an option. We are presenting the right way to go.
Mr. Frank moved to deny Resolution #3, Series of 2018; seconded by Mr. Farrey. Roll call vote.
Feddersen, yes; Bentzin, yes; Frank, yes; Farrey, yes; Sandler, no. Motion carried.
Mr. Sandler moved to adjourn at 5:35 p.m.; seconded by Ms. Feddersen. All in favor, motion carried.
Linda Manning
City Clerk
Page 1 of 4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Adjustment
FROM: Kevin Rayes, Planner
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
RE: 431/433 West Hallam, Front Yard Setback Variance Review
Resolution No. __, Series of 2018
MEETING DATE: December 13, 2018
APPLICANT:
Connery Family Trust, 135 Ward Street,
Larkspur, CA 94939
REPRESENTATIVE:
Chris Bendon,
Bendon Adams, LLC
LOCATION:
431 West Hallam Street
CURRENT ZONING:
Medium Density Residential
(R-6)
SUMMARY:
The applicant requests a 5-ft. variance
from the minimum front yard setback (10’
to 5’) to redevelop this site with a single-
family residence. The request is based
upon the location of several large spruce
trees located along the south property
line.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff does not support the front yard
setback variance request and therefore
recommends denial of the project.
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Figure 2: 431 West Hallam Street, Looking South
Page 2 of 4
REQUEST OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: The Applicant is requesting the following approvals from
the Board of Adjustment:
• Variance (Chapter 26.314) to grant a dimensional variance for this site, reducing the minimum
front yard setback requirement of the R-6 zone district (The Board of Adjustment is the final
review authority).
BACKGROUND:
431/433 West Hallam Street contains a duplex dwelling located in the R-6 zone district. The site has a
gross lot area of 6,027 square feet and is 86.75 ft. wide and 70 ft. deep. This configuration is somewhat
atypical with most surrounding lots being 100 ft. deep, abutting the alley. The R-6 zone district has
minimum front and rear yard setbacks of 10-ft. This parcel has a total side yard setback requirement
of 15-ft with a minimum side yard setback of 5-ft. Several large spruce trees are located along the rear
of the property.
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing duplex dwelling and replace it with a new single-family
dwelling. The applicant requests a 5-ft. variance from the minimum front yard setback (reducing the
setback from 10’ to 5’) to accommodate the new structure. The request is due to several large spruce
trees located along the south property line, which are required to be maintained by the Parks
Department. The applicant believes the presence of these trees and the abnormal lot configuration
creates a development hardship. The applicant states that a 5-ft. variance will enable an acceptable
tree preservation plan and will allow the property owner to exercise the property’s complete
development right.
Figure 3: 431/433 West Hallam Street Site Location
Map
Page 3 of 4
REVIEWS:
SETBACK VARIANCE: The criteria for receiving a variance (Exhibit A) are strict. A property owner must
demonstrate that reasonable use of the property has been withheld by the City and can only be achieved
by the City providing a variance. In situations where all, or practically all, reasonable use of a property
is made impossible by development regulations, the City has the ability to grant a variance to avoid a
“regulatory taking”. The property owner must demonstrate that his rights, as compared with owners
of similar properties, have been deprived. In considering this criterion, the Board of Adjustment must
consider unique conditions inherent to the property but which are not the result of the applicant’s
actions and are not applicable to other parcels, buildings or structures.
Figure 4: 431 West Hallam Proposed Site Plan with Requested 5-ft. Front Yard Setback
5.2-ft. setback
Page 4 of 4
Staff Comment
The R-6 zone district has a minimum front yard setback of 10-ft. Although the spruce trees along the
south end of the lot may impact the minimum rear setback requirement of the property in certain
locations, staff believes that the required setback does not create a development hardship that is unique
to this parcel. The City Forester worked with the applicant to maximize the building envelope of the
parcel while also minimizing the disturbance to the trees on site. The massing can be modified to
accommodate setbacks and tree protection needs without losing reasonable use of the property. The
Parks Department requires trees of a certain size, health and species be preserved and focuses on trees
along the edge of a property be maintained to accommodate development towards the center.
Properties often must accommodate physical features such as ditch easements, steep slopes or trees.
Additionally, while the configuration of 431 West Hallam Street is inconsistent with surrounding parcels,
the size of this lot meets the minimum gross lot area of the R-6 zone district.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustment deny the granting of a setback variance for the
development of a new single-family dwelling. The criteria require that reasonable use of the parcel be
achieved by granting of a variance or that a unique, site-specific condition warrants a variance.
Although the proposed dwelling was designed to meet the floor area maximum and the setbac k
requirements of the R-6 zone district, it impacts the spruce trees along the south end of the lot.
Properties often need to accommodate physical features such as steep slopes or ditch easements. An
alternative design could accommodate these trees, lessen, or remove the need for the variance
request, and potentially still allow building to the allowable floor area.
PROPOSED MOTION:
Staff recommends denial of the request. Two motions are proposed. The first approves the resolution
while the second denies the resolution.
Motion 1.
“I move to approve Resolution ___, Series 2018, granting approval for a Front Yard Setback Variance
as depicted in Exhibit A to the Resolution.
If the Board decides that the criteria are not met for a Variance, the following motion may be used:
Motion 2.
“I move to deny Resolution ___, Series 2018, granting approval for a Front Yard Setback Variance as
depicted in Exhibit A to the Resolution.
Attachments:
Exhibit A – Variance Review Criteria, Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Application
Exhibit C – Affidavit of Public Notice
Exhibit D – Public Comments
Board of Adjustment
Resolution No. X, Series 2018
Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. X
(SERIES OF 2018)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPROVING
A DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS
NORTHERLY 70 FEET OF LOTS A, B AND C, EXCEPT THE EASTERLY 39” OF LOT
C; BLOCK 36; CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 431/433
WEST HALLAM STREET.
Parcel ID No: 273-512-433-001
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application for 431
W. Hallam St. (the Application) from Connery Family Trust (Applicant), represented by Chris
Bendon, Bendon Adams for the following land use review approvals:
· Variance, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.314; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned Medium Density Residential (R-6) and,
WHEREAS, all code citation references are to the City of Aspen Land Use Code in
effect on the day the application was deemed complete – August 23, 2018, as applicable to this
Project; and,
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on October 25, 2018, the Board of
Adjustment voted to continue review of the Application for a future hearing on December 13,
2018; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment reviewed the Application at a duly noticed public
hearing on December 13, 2018; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on December 13, 2018, the Board of
Adjustment approved Resolution X, Series of 2018, by a X to X (X-X) granting approval for a
Dimensional Variance Review, as identified herein.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, the Board of Adjustment hereby grants a front yard variance request to reduce the
minimum front yard setback from 10-ft. to 5-ft for the site-specific design presented at the
hearing.
Section 2:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation
presented before the Community Development Department and the Board of Adjustment
Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be
complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an
authorized authority.
Board of Adjustment
Resolution No. X, Series 2018
Page 2 of 3
Section 3:
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
FINALLY, approved this 13th day of December, 2018.
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
__________________________ ______________________________
James R. True City Attorney Andrew Sandler, Chair
Attest:
_______________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Approved site plan
Exhibit A: Approved site plan
Board of Adjustment
Resolution No.
5.2-ft. setback
Board of Adjustment
Resolution No. X, Series 2018
Page 3 of 3
Exhibit A –Variance Review Staff Findings
Chapter 26.314, Variance
A. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the
appropriate decision-making body shall make a finding that the following three (3)
circumstances exist:
1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals,
objectives and policies of this Title and the Municipal Code; and
Staff Findings: The purpose of the City’s land use code is very general. It does,
however, speak to the legitimate rights and reasonable expectations of property owners.
Staff believes a reasonable expectation is that zoning limitations are observed and
enforced as uniformly as practical. Staff finds the criterion not met.
2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the
reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and
Staff Findings: The spruce trees along the south property line impact the rear setback
requirement but could be accommodated with a modified design.
Staff finds the criterion not met.
3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title
would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the
same zone district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as
distinguished from mere inconvenience. In determining whether an applicant's
rights would be deprived, the Board shall consider whether either of the following
conditions apply:
a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel,
building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or
buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of
the applicant; or
Staff Findings: Although the proposed dwelling complies with the floor area
maximum and was designed to meet the setback requirements of the R-6 zone district,
it would require removal of several large spruce trees along the south property line.
Properties often need to accommodate physical features such as ditch easements,
steep slopes or trees. An alternative design could accommodate these trees or lessen
the variance request.
Staff finds the criterion not met.
b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege
denied the terms of this Title and the Municipal Code to other parcels, buildings
or structures, in the same zone district.
Staff Findings: Receipt of a setback variance would grant special privilege of the
proposed dwelling to avoid the setback requirements of the R-6 zone district. Staff
finds the criterion not met.
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
August 16, 2018
Ms. Sarah Yoon
Historic Preservation Planner
Community Development Department
City of Aspen
130 So. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: 431 W. Hallam St. Request for Setback Variance
Ms. Yo on:
Please accept this application for a front yard setback variance to construct a single-family
home at 431/433 West Hallam Street. The site has a 6,027.5sf gross lot area and is located
in the R-6 Zone District. Trees on and adjacent to the site cannot be removed and reduce
the property’s development right. The resulting development footprint does not enable full
access to the property’s floor area.
In discussing the trees and possible tree-removal
permits with the City Forester, removal permits for
these trees will not be granted by the City. A
setback variance along the northern property line,
allowing a 5-foot front yard setback instead of the
required 10-foot setback, will enable a tree
preservation plan acceptable to the City Forester.
The applicant, Connery Family Trust, requests a 5-
foot front yard setback variance.
The property is zoned Medium-Density
Residential, R6, and currently contains a side-by-
side duplex residential structure built in the mid-
1960s. The property is not listed as a historic
resource. The existing home has a Floor Area of
1,813 square feet.
View of property from 4th Street looking east
431 W. Hallam
Page 2
The 431 parcel configuration is
inconsistent with typical townsite
lotting. Typical parcels, arranged
along Original Townsite lots, are
100 feet deep with widths in 30-
foot increments – 30’x 100’ , 60’ x
100’, etc.. These typical lots have
alley access and access from at
least one primary street.
The 431 parcel is just short of
three lots wide (86.75 feet wide)
and 70 feet deep with no alley
access. The southern 30 feet of
the townsite lots are part of the
Pioneer Park ownership to the
south and not included in the 431
ownership.
Combined with the physical space
limitations of the trees required to
be preserved, the property’s build-
out potential is reduced by
approximately 20% or 1,300 sf. of
gross interior area (including
basement). The financial impact
of this reduction is severe,
representing an unnecessary
hardship.
Changing the Front Yard (north)
setback from 10 feet to 5 feet will
alleviate the hardship. This 5-foot
variance will enable an acceptable
tree preservation plan and will
allow the property owner to
exercise the property’s complete
development right.
R6 Setbacks
Front 10 feet for house
15 feet for accessory buildings
Rear 10 feet for house
5 feet for garage and accessory buildings
Sides 5 feet each
15 feet combined
Requested Setbacks
Front 5 feet for house
15 feet for accessory buildings
Rear 10 feet for house
5 feet for garage and accessory buildings
Sides 5 feet each
15 feet combined
431 W. Hallam
Page 3
Response to Review Standards:
Section 26.314.040.A –
In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the
appropriate decision-making body shall make a finding that the following three (3)
circumstances exist:
1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals,
objectives and policies of this Title and the Municipal Code.
Response – The City’s Land Use Code and various
ordinances and policies regarding development are
intended to balance the aspirations of the community and
individual property rights. Occasionally, the regulations
overlap in a way that an individual property is burdened
with unnecessary hardship, an inability to achieve
appropriate balance between community aspiration and
property rights.
In this case, preservation of the significant trees on the
property is a goal of the City. Tree removal permits will not
be granted, according to the City’s Forester. The physical
footprint around the trees, the “dripline”, significantly
restricts the location where development can occur.
The Land Use Code recognizes this potential overlap and provides a mechanism to
“rebalance” objectives. A dimensional variance is “a deviation from the terms of this Title
(the Land Use Code) which would not be contrary to the public interest when, owing to
special circumstances or conditions, the literal enforcement of the provisions of this Title
would result in undue and unnecessary hardship.” 1
The proposal to vary the front yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet allows for the desired
balance between community aspiration and individual property rights to be achieved.
2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the
reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure.
Response – Reasonable use of the parcel includes reasonable ability to achieve the
develop right established for the property. In discussing the necessary setbacks from
trees, driplines, and root systems with the Forester, the 5-foot variance is the minimum
necessary to accomplish an acceptable tree preservation plan and accomplish the floor
area allowance prescribed in the City Land Use Code.
1 Section 26.314.010
431 W. Hallam
Page 4
Without this variance, a 20% reduction in Floor Area is incurred. The reduction in
basement area and upper floors, the property will lose roughly 1,300 square feet of gross
interior area. The financial impacts of this reduction are immense and a severe impact
upon the property owner.
3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title
would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the
same zone district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as
distinguished from mere inconvenience. In determining whether an applicant's
rights would be deprived, the Board shall consider whether either of the
following conditions apply:
a) There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the
parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels,
structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result
from the actions of the applicant.
b) Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special
privilege denied by the terms of this Title and the Municipal Code to other
parcels, buildings or structures, in the same zone district.
Response – This parcel is affected by multiple
unique factors. The truncated lot dimensions limit
the footprint within which a new structure must fit.
The inability to access the property from an alley
requires access from a primary street. Between
city ditches and prominent street trees, there is
essentially one location to access the property.
This circumstance was not created by the
applicant.
The ability to remove existing trees to accommodate the property’s development right is
significantly less flexible than on similar parcels. The parcel to the east was granted tree
removal permits to accommodate a new home. The parcel to the west, across 4th Street,
was granted tree removal permits to accommodate a new home. The trees on this
property, the 431 property, will not be granted similar flexibility. Observing the trees, the
“drip-line” areas and the “root-zone” areas, significantly impacts the area available for
development and significantly impacts the economic conditions of the property.
431 W. Hallam
Page 5
We have attempted to address all relevant provisions of the Code and provide sufficient
information for your review. Please let us know if you need additional information or would
like to schedule a site visit.
Kind Regards,
Chris Bendon, AICP
BendonAdams, LLC
chris@bendonadams.com
Exhibits:
1. Land Use Application Form
2. Pre-Application Conference Summary
3. Fee agreement
4. Homeowners Association Compliance Form
5. Authorization for BendonAdams
6. Proof of Ownership
7. Vicinity Map
8. Mailing addresses of property owners within 300 feet of the property
9. Property survey
10. Context map with photos
11. Site plans showing setbacks
431 West Hallam Street
2735-124-33-001
Connery Family Trust
135 Ward Street; Larkspur, CA 94939
415.987.5323 nancyjconnery@comcast.net
BendonAdams
300 So. Spring St. #202; Aspen, CO 81611
970.925.2855 Chris@BendonAdams.com
Existing duplex structure to be redeveloped with new single-family home. Request is for a 5'
frontyard setback, where 10' is required, to avoid removal of significant trees.
BOA
Variance
na na na
na na
3,250
Exhibit 1
AS LU
431 West Hallam
Variance
2735-124-33-001
1
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Sarah Yoon, 970.920.5144 DATE: June 24, 2018
PROJECT: 431 West Hallam Street
REPRESENTATIVE: Chris Bendon, BendonAdams, LLC
DESCRIPTION: The property at 431 West Hallam is duplex property in the R-6 zone district located on a corner. The irregular
lot dimensions are 86.75’ x 70’ with an approximate lot size of 6,073 square feet. The south end of the lot shares a property line
with 422 West Bleeker, whose property spans across the alley. 431 West Hallam includes a number of large cottonwood and
spruce trees along the front and rear property lines.
The applicant plans to demolish the existing duplex and develop a new single-family residence. The property is subject to
Residential Design Standards and compliance with those standards may be included as part of the application or submitted at
a later date. After preliminary discussions with the Parks Department, spruce trees on the south west corner of the property and
the larger cottonwood trees towards the north are required to remain. The applicant is to work with the Parks Department to
formalize the requirements related to the trees, but this requirement may impact the building placement of the proposed
residence.
The R-6 zone district requires a minimum of a 10’ front and rear yard setback for the principal building. The applicant is requesting
a front yard setback variance of 5’ in order to move the overall building forward to best maintain the existing trees on site. This
request for a dimensional variance may be submitted pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 26.314, Variances, and will be
reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. The applicant shall address the applicable review criteria, listed below:
26.314.040. Standards applicable to variances.
A.In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the appropriate decision-making body shall
make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist:
1.The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of this Title and
the Municipal Code; and
2.The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or
structure; and
3.Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights
commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as
distinguished from mere inconvenience. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the Board
shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply:
a)There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which
are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result
from the actions of the applicant; or
b)Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the terms of this Title
and the Municipal Code to other parcels, buildings or structures, in the same zone district.
Exhibit 2
2
Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience:
Municipal Code:
https://www.cityofaspen.com/191/Municipal-Code
Land Use Application:
https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/View/1835/Land-Use-Application-Packet-2017?bidId=
Land Use Code Section(s): 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.314 Variances
26.710.040 Medium-Density Residential (R-6)
Review by: Staff for completeness and recommendation
Board of Adjustment for approval
Public Hearing: Yes.
Neighborhood Outreach: No.
Referral Agencies: Engineering and Parks.
Planning Fees: $1,950 for 6 billable hours of staff time.
Referral Agencies Fee: $325 for one hour deposit with Engineering, $975 Parks flat fee
Total Deposit: $3,250. Additional/ lesser hours will be billed/ refunded at a rate of $325 per hour.
Please submit the completed application to the Community Development Office on the Third Floor of City Hall:
Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement.
Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).
Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a
current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report,
or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all
mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the
owner’s right to apply for the Development Application.
Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address
and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.
HOA Compliance form (Attached).
An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating both parcels within the City of Aspen.
3
Site improvement survey (no older than a year from submittal) including topography and vegetation showing the
current status, certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado.
A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed
development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application and relevant land use
approvals associated with the property. While complete architectural drawings for the proposed redevelopment
are not required, the applicant must adequately demonstrate the need for variances and the location of the
variances.
Written responses to all review criteria in Section 26.314.040.
A proposed site plan.
Once the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted:
2 copies of the complete application packet and drawings.
1 digital PDF copy of the complete.
Total deposit for review of the application.
Disclaimer:
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current
zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The
summary does not create a legal or vested right.
Exhibit 3
1,950 6
325 1
975 Parks
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6
Exhibit 7
431 W. Hallam – Vicinity Map
Exhibit 8
ueue
ue
ueueueueueueueueueueueueueueueXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXUTXELXELXEL
XEL
XEL XTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXG
A
S
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGASXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUT
XUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUT XTVXTVXTVXUTXUTXUT XTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXWL
XWL
XWL
XWL
XWL XWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLx
x
xssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
ssssssssssssx x x xxxxxxxxXUTXUTx
x
x76.6'26.9'14.4'4.1'
4.1'14.3'26.9'47.9'LOT ALOT BLOT C(Except E'ly 39" (3.25')SINGLE STORY DUPLEX(WOOD FRAME CONST.)Appro
x
.
P
a
r
t
y
W
a
l
l
L
o
c
.
(Not S
u
r
v
e
y
e
d
)LOT D(Inc'l E''ly 39" of Lot (3.25')Fnd. 1" Iron Pipe(NE Cor. Block 36)Fnd. No. 5 RebarFnd. Rebar w/CapL.S. 9184(NW. Cor. Block 36)(Site BenchmarkElev. = 7908.43'Fnd. Rebar w/CapL.S. (# Illegible);ĞĂƌƐEϲϮΣϯϴΖt͕ϭ͘ϬϲΖͿCorner LocationCurrently within Fenced Areaof Adjacent Const. Project(See Note)Fnd. Rebar w/CapL.S. 25947;ĞĂƌƐEϰϱΣϰϯΖt͕Ϭ͘ϯϯΖͿFnd. Rebar w/CapL.S. 25947Fnd. Rebar w/CapL.S. 20151(Basis of Bearing)LOT EGARAGE FOR PROPERTYLOT 1-PIONEER PARK CONDOS(422 W. BLEEKER)ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss ss ss ss ss ss
10.0' Wide Easement (Bk.234-Pg.656)Along Sewer Service Line10.0' Wide Easement (Bk.234-Pg.656)Along Sewer Service LIne10' Easement (Bk.234-Pg.656)Along Gas LineApp
r
o
x
.
P
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
S
e
w
e
r
S
e
r
v
.
L
i
n
e
(
S
e
e
N
o
t
e
)
Approx. Position of Sewer Serv. Line (See Note)City of Aspen Control Mon.6th & Francis St.Marcin Engineering-L.S. 37999City of Aspen Control Mon.7th & Francis St.Marcin Engineering-L.S. 37999SMH-A-9-3 (Aspen Consolidated Sewer District)Rim = 7910.57'Inv. In = 7903.45'Inv. Out = 7903.06'SMH-A-9-2 (ACSD)Rim = 7908.22'Inv. In = 7901.03'Inv. Out = 7900.82'Wood Privacy Fence (Typ.)74.38'BLOCK 36
Wood Privacy Fence (Typ.)Carport12" CMP 1.0' Wide Open Ditch1.0' Wide Open Ditch Assumed Locati
o
n
B
u
r
i
e
d
1
2
"
C
M
P
Water Service ShutoffConc. WalkConc. WalkWood DeckConc. CrawlSpace EntryConc. EntryConc. DrivewayStepStepInterio
r
L
o
t
L
i
n
e
Interio
r
L
o
t
L
i
n
e 5.2'10.7'5.0'5.0'XUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTLOT F10' Rear Setback Line10' Front Setback Line5' Side Setback Line
5' Side
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
L
i
n
e Water Service Splits within Duplex(per City of Aspen Water)Curb Flow LineTop Back of CurbNOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGALACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARSAFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTIONBASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TENYEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLCCIVIL CONSULTANTS502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623(970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM 8/16/2018 - 16254-RJ - G:\2016\16254\SURVEY\Survey DWGs\16254-ISP.dwgSCALE: 1" = 200'GENERAL UTILITY NOTES:The locations of underground utilities have been plotted based onutility maps, construction/design plans, other information providedby utility companies and actual field locations in some instances.These utilities, as shown, may not represent actual field conditions. Itis the responsibility of the contractor to contact all utility companiesfor field location of utilities prior to construction.1 inch = ft.( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALE010102010405IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT431 & 433 WEST HALLAM ST.SHEET 1 OF 2U.S. SURVEY FEETPROPERTY DESCRIPTIONLots A, B and C, Except the Easterly 39 Inches of Lot CBlock 36City and Townsite of Aspen, according to the Plat thereof filed March 25, 1880 in Plat Book 1 at Page 1.TOGETHER WITH an easement ten feet in width across the southerly 30 feet of said Lots for installation and maintenance ofgeneral utilities as created, defined and established in Deed recorded June 17, 1964 in Book 207 at Page 388 andAgreement Defining Easement recorded May 16, 1968 in Book 234 at Page 656.NOTES1) Date of Survey: December 20-22, 2016. Updated: August 15, 2018.2) Date of Preparation: December 27, 2016--January 02, 2017. Updated: August 15, 2018.3) Basis of Bearing: Bearings are based on the 2009 Marcin Engineering-City of Aspen Control Map, yielding a siteďĞĂƌŝŶŐŽĨ^ϳϰΣϭϴΖϰϱΗ ĨƌŽŵƚŚĞEtŽƌŶĞƌŽĨůŽĐŬϯϲ͕ďĞŝŶŐĂĨŽƵŶĚƌĞďĂƌǁŝƚŚĐĂƉŵĂƌŬĞĚ>͘^͘ϵϭϴϰĂŶĚthe NE Corner of Block 36, being found 1" Iron Pipe, as shown.4) This survey does not constitute a title search by Sopris Engineering, LLC (SE) to determine ownership oreasements of record. For all information regarding easements, rights of way and/or title of record, SE reliedupon the Title Commitment prepared by Title Company of the Rockies, Inc., Commitment No. 0704571-C,Effective Date, February 23, 2015 and the documents and plats of record as shown in the Source Documents,hereon.5) The sanitary sewer service lines are shown hereon utilizing a scan of an Aspen Consolidated Sanitation Districtmap showing the approximate location of the service lines.6) No easement of record was found for the utilities servicing the property near the SE corner and crossing throughLot 1, Weaver 2nd Amended Plat.7) The survey was performed with approximately 10"+/- of snow on the Subject Parcel--so some topographicalfeatures may not have been located. City of Aspen snowplowing operations have covered the concrete curband concrete pan. Some portions of the concrete curb and pan are shown are for illustrative purposes only andwill be located as conditions allow.8) The adjoining property to the east is currently under construction and is fenced with a large excavationarea--therefore no topography shots were obtained as the finished ground is undergoing change.9) Regarding the sanitary sewer line services easements and natural gas easement both being across Lot 1, Weaver2nd Amended Plat: We have shown 2 easements based on the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District mapping,however it is not known if at the time the easement was recorded in 1968 if there was only one line andtherefore one easement. Should there be redevelopment of the property perhaps only one easement would benecessary and may need to be reconfigured based on an actual field location.10) Address: 431 and 433 West Hallam Street.11) Pitkin County Parcel No.---2735-124-33-001.12) City of Aspen Zoning-Medium Density Residential (R-6). Setbacks are: 10.0' Front, 10.0' Rear and 5.0' Side.13) Per the Aspen/Pitkin County GIS Slope Analysis mapping utilizing 2008 Metro Area data and dated June 1, 2009and the topography produced by this survey--the slopes on the subject parcel are in the 0%-10% range.14) Hazard Analysis: Per the City of Aspen Surface Drainage Master Plan, dated Nov. 2001 there are no GeologicHazards on the property.15) Per the FEMA-Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Map No. 08097CO203C, effective date June 4, 1987, thisproperty/site is situated in Zone X-being an area determined to be outside of the 500 year flood plain.SOURCE DOCUMENTS:xPLAT-City & Townsite of Aspen -(Plat Bk. 1-Pg.1).xPLAT-Weaver Subdivision 2nd Amended (Plat Bk. 30-Pg. 92).xPLAT-Weaver Subdivision (Plat Bk. 12-Pg.58).xPLAT-Pioneer Park Condominiums (Plat Bk. 12-Pg. 57).xDOCUMENT-Deed (Bk. 207-Pg. 388).xDOCUMENT-Agreement Defining Easement (Bk. 234-Pg. 656)xDOCUMENT-Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Map (Showing Sewer Services-Supplied by ACSD)xRESOLUTION-City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Variance (Rec. No. 608735)ALL OF THE PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO RECORDS-UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATEI hereby state that this Improvement Survey Plat was prepared by Sopris Engineering, LLC (SE) forChristopher S. Connery and Nancy J. Connery, Trustees of the Connery Family Trust UTA dated December16, 2004 and The Title Company of the Rockies.I furthermore state that the improvements on the above described parcel on this date, December 22, 2016,except utility connections are entirely within the boundaries of the parcel except as shown, that there areno encroachments upon the described premises by improvements on any adjoining premises, except asindicated, and that there is no apparent evidence or sign of any easement crossing or burdening any part ofsaid parcel, except as noted. I furthermore state that this property is subject to reservations, restrictions,covenants and easements of record or in place.The error of closure for this survey is less than 1/15000.______________________________________Mark S. Beckler L.S. #28643MONUMENT LEGENDCITY OF ASPEN SURVEY CONTROL PT.INDICATES FOUND MONUMENT, AS SHOWNSEWER MANHOLEWATER VALVEELECTRIC TRANSFORMERELECTRIC METERTELEPHONE PEDESTALCATV PEDESTALEXISTING CONDITIONS LEGENDSIGNEXISTING 8" SANITARY SEWER MAINXSAXSAEXISTING 8" WATER MAINXWLXWLEXISTING GASEXISTING TELEPHONEXGASXGASXGASEXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRICEXISTING CABLE TVXUTXUTXUTXELXELXELXTVXTVXTVASPENPROPERTY DESCRIPTION, NOTES, VICINITY MAP,SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE, MONUMENTSExhibit 9
ueue
ue
ueueueueueueueueueueueueueueueXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXGASXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXUTXELXELXEL
XEL
XEL XTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXG
A
S
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGAS
XGASXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUT
XUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUT XTVXTVXTVXUTXUTXUT XTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXTVXWL
XWL
XWL
XWL
XWL XWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLXWLx
x
xssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
ssssssssssssx x x xxxxxxxxXUTXUTx
x
x76.6'26.9'14.4'4.1'
4.1'14.3'26.9'47.9'LOT ALOT BLOT C(Except E'ly 39" (3.25')SINGLE STORY DUPLEX(WOOD FRAME CONST.)Appro
x
.
P
a
r
t
y
W
a
l
l
L
o
c
.
(Not S
u
r
v
e
y
e
d
)LOT D(Inc'l E''ly 39" of Lot (3.25')Fnd. 1" Iron Pipe(NE Cor. Block 36)Fnd. No. 5 RebarFnd. Rebar w/CapL.S. 9184(NW. Cor. Block 36)(Site BenchmarkElev. = 7908.43'Fnd. Rebar w/CapL.S. (# Illegible);ĞĂƌƐEϲϮΣϯϴΖt͕ϭ͘ϬϲΖͿCorner LocationCurrently within Fenced Areaof Adjacent Const. Project(See Note)Fnd. Rebar w/CapL.S. 25947;ĞĂƌƐEϰϱΣϰϯΖt͕Ϭ͘ϯϯΖͿFnd. Rebar w/CapL.S. 25947Fnd. Rebar w/CapL.S. 20151(Basis of Bearing)LOT EGARAGE FOR PROPERTYLOT 1-PIONEER PARK CONDOS(422 W. BLEEKER)ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss
ss ss ss ss ss ss
10.0' Wide Easement (Bk.234-Pg.656)Along Sewer Service Line10.0' Wide Easement (Bk.234-Pg.656)Along Sewer Service LIne10' Easement (Bk.234-Pg.656)Along Gas LineApp
r
o
x
.
P
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
S
e
w
e
r
S
e
r
v
.
L
i
n
e
(
S
e
e
N
o
t
e
)
Approx. Position of Sewer Serv. Line (See Note)City of Aspen Control Mon.6th & Francis St.Marcin Engineering-L.S. 37999City of Aspen Control Mon.7th & Francis St.Marcin Engineering-L.S. 37999SMH-A-9-3 (Aspen Consolidated Sewer District)Rim = 7910.57'Inv. In = 7903.45'Inv. Out = 7903.06'SMH-A-9-2 (ACSD)Rim = 7908.22'Inv. In = 7901.03'Inv. Out = 7900.82'Wood Privacy Fence (Typ.)74.38'BLOCK 36
Wood Privacy Fence (Typ.)Carport12" CMP 1.0' Wide Open Ditch1.0' Wide Open Ditch Assumed Locati
o
n
B
u
r
i
e
d
1
2
"
C
M
P
Water Service ShutoffConc. WalkConc. WalkWood DeckConc. CrawlSpace EntryConc. EntryConc. DrivewayStepStepInterio
r
L
o
t
L
i
n
e
Interio
r
L
o
t
L
i
n
e 5.2'10.7'5.0'5.0'XUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTXUTLOT F10' Rear Setback Line10' Front Setback Line5' Side Setback Line
5' Side
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
L
i
n
e INV. EL. = 7907.0'INV. EL. = 7907.3'Conc. Curb & Pan (Under Plowed Snow at time of survey)Conc. Curb & Pan (Under Plowed Snow at time of survey)Stop Sign4th & Hallam SignNo Parking SignWater Service Splits within Duplex(per City of Aspen Water)13.3" Dia.-26' Drip38" Dia.-72' Drip15.2" Dia.-30' Drip30.3" Dia.-60' Drip25.9" Dia.-51' Drip19.9" Dia.-40' Drip10.3" Dia.-20' Drip14.3" Dia.-28' Drip15.2" Dia.-35' Drip14.9" Dia.-30' Drip13.7" Dia.-26' Drip16.4" Dia.-32' Drip16.7" Dia.-33' DripCurb Flow LineTop Back of CurbNOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGALACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARSAFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTIONBASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TENYEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLCCIVIL CONSULTANTS502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623(970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM 8/16/2018 - 16254-RJ - G:\2016\16254\SURVEY\Survey DWGs\16254-ISP.dwgGENERAL UTILITY NOTES:The locations of underground utilities have been plotted based on utility maps,construction/design plans, other information provided by utility companies and actual fieldlocations in some instances. These utilities, as shown, may not represent actual fieldconditions. It is the responsibility of the contractor to contact all utility companies for fieldlocation of utilities prior to construction.1 inch = ft.( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALE010102010405IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT431 & 433 WEST HALLAM ST.SHEET 2 OF 2U.S. SURVEY FEETMONUMENT LEGENDCITY OF ASPEN SURVEY CONTROL PT.INDICATES FOUND MONUMENT, AS SHOWNSEWER MANHOLEWATER VALVEELECTRIC TRANSFORMERELECTRIC METERTELEPHONE PEDESTALCATV PEDESTALEXISTING CONDITIONS LEGENDSIGNEXISTING 8" SANITARY SEWER MAINXSAXSAEXISTING 8" WATER MAINXWLXWLEXISTING GASEXISTING TELEPHONEXGASXGASXGASEXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRICEXISTING CABLE TVXUTXUTXUTXELXELXELXTVXTVXTVNOTES:1)Basis of Elevations: Elevations have been determined by GPS observation andrelated to the 2009 Marcin Engineering City of Aspen Control Map and being basedon an elevation of 7720.88' (NAVD 1988) on the NGS Station "S-159". Thisestablished a site benchmark elevation of 7908.43' on the Northwesterly propertycorner (NW Cor.-Block 36) being a found rebar with cap, marked L.S. 9184, asshown.2)Contour Interval: One (1) Foot.3)At the time of the survey there was approximately 10"-12" +/- of snow on the ground-sosome pertinent features may not have been located. This includes but not limited to:concrete curb & pan along 4th Street and Hallam Street, grade breaks, etc.CURB AREAS CURRENTLY UNDER PLOWED SNOWEXISTING CONDITIONS TOPOGRAPHY MAP
431 w hallamvisuals of home and exisƟ ng treesaspen | coloradoPIONEER PARKW HALLAM STN 4T H S T W BLEEKER STN 3RD ST
AB1234431 w hallamA1234keyviews of front of houseother context photosBExhibit 10
Exhibit 11
Exhibit C- Affidavit of Public Notice
Exhibit C- Affidavit of Public Notice
Exhibit C- Affidavit of Public Notice
Exhibit C- Affidavit of Public Notice
Exhibit C- Affidavit of Public Notice
Exhibit C- Affidavit of Public Notice
Exhibit C- Affidavit of Public Notice
Exhibit C- Affidavit of Public Notice
Exhibit C- Affidavit of Public Notice
Exhibit C- Affidavit of Public Notice
Exhibit D- Public Comments Received
431 West Hallam Street Setback Variance
Public Comments Received
1. Alan Sirkin, 426 W. Hallam St.
Comment (sent over email): Although I am very happy that the old duplex will be replaced by a
brand new modern single-family home, I am concerned however about the look of the
frontage. The property to the east of this site (417) was just rebuilt and also was converted from
a duplex to a single family home and now has an abundant amount of green space with big
setbacks in part of the front. The plan for 431 shows that the current duplex has only a 10’
setback and the proposed variance would reduce this to 5’. Looking at the entire south side of
the Hallam block, the current duplex already looks much too close to the street compared to
the other properties with the entire front only at 10’. To reduce the setback even closer to the
street would not look right. I am sorry to object, but the 400 block needs to look good with
adequate green and open space along the front of the new home.
2. Elyse Elliot, 610 W. North St.
Comment paraphrased (discussed over phone): Opposes the granting of the variance.
Mentioned that because this is a scrape and replace project, the owner should comply with
current zoning regulations like the surrounding properties in the R-6 zone district. Also
mentioned that although the lot may consist of an abnormal configuration relative to
surrounding parcels, the owner should have been aware of this prior to purchasing the property.
CITY OF • MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060(E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
431 West Hallam .Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
October 25 , 20 18
STATE OF COLORADO )
SS.
County of Pitkin )
1, Anna Reilly Thimons (name, please print) being
or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with
the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060(E)of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
Paper or paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)days
prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
V Posting of notice: By posting of notice,which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable,waterproof
Materials,which was not less than twenty two(22) inches wide and twenty-six(26)
Inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height.
Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15)days prior to the public hearing on the
4 day of October 2018 'to and including the date and
time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice(sign)is attached
hereto:
V Mailing of notice. By mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development
Department,which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E) (2) of
The Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15)days prior to the public hearing, notice
was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S mail to all owners of
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty(60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy
of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach,summarized
and attached,was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section
26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary,
including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was
presented to the public is attached hereto.
(Continued on next page)
71'.ECEIVED
OCT12016 0) 920 5050
`` OF ASPEN
.,�Miur"�.H i r DEVttOPWNT
CITY OF • MMU-NITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested,
To affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30)days prior to the date scheduled
for the initial public hearing on the application of cevelopment.
the names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax
tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum,Subdivision,Spas or PLIDs that create more
than one lot, new Planned Unit Development, and new Specially Planned Areas,are
subject to this notices requirement.
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in anyway to be
changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title,to whenever
the text of this Title is to be amended,whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title
and enactment of new land use regulation,or otherwise,the requirement of an accurate
survey map or other significant legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names
and addresses of owners of real estate property in the ears of the proposed change shall be
waived. However,the proposed zoning during all business hours for fifteen (15)days prior
to the public hearing on such amendments.
Signature
The foregoing"Affidavit Notice"was acknowledged before me this day
of �L % ��Z' ' 20 ID, by F�r►a Nei
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
TARA L. NELSON Gr Z ZVU
NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires:
NATE COLORADO
ID
'VARY ID#!20014030017
ssion Expires September 25,2021
Notary Public
ATTACHMENTS AS APPLI CABLE:
• COPY OF THE PUBLICATION
• PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICES (SIGN)
• LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCII-S NOTICED
BY MAIL
• APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICED
AS REQIURES BY C.R.S§24-65.5-103.3
March, 2016 City o-fApen 1130 S. GaRri ri ri
wt'-
! r 'v!
1
1p
L �
t
PUBLI't NOTlt;�..
Date: October 2
5. 2(.)1 tat
Time: ..3i; p
Place: City Haii, 130 S Galena st
Council Chambc_.rs
Purpose:
Applicant. Connery Family Frust. 135
Warta Street, Larkspur CA x+4939,
requests from the Board of+
Adjustment, a 5-foot variance fro,,-,
the minimum required front yard
setback (IQ' to 5'} to redevelop this
property with a single-family -
residence.
For further informatior7 contact Kovin
Bayes with Comrriuniiy DevE40pment
t
at 970.429.2797 '
S
k
1
r
F i
r NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
4431 West Hallam Street
r
N 4 Az 4
� Project Location: 431 W. Hallam St.; Aspen
Land Use Reviews: Front Yard Setback Variance
C"I Y 0 ". 5PLN Decision Making Body: Board of Adjustment
130 S. Galena Street, Hearing Date: October 25, 2018, 4:30 p.m.
Aspen, CO 81611 Hearing Location: City Hall, Council Chambers; 130 S.
p: (970) 920.5000 Galena St; Aspen, CO 81611
f: (970) 920.5197
www.aspenpitkin.com
Project Description: The applicant requests a 5-foot variance from the minimum front
yard setback (from a minimum of 10 feet to a minimum of 5 feet) to redevelop the site with
a single-family residence. The request is due to several large spruce trees along the south
property line located where the house would otherwise be developed.
Legal Description:The northerly 70 feet of Lots A, B and C, except the easterly 39 inches
of Lot C, Block 36, City and Townsite of Aspen, according to the Plat thereof filed March
25, 1880, in Plat Book 1 at page 1. i
Parcel ID: 2735-124-33-001.
;
Applicant:Connery Family Trust, 135 Ward Street, Larkspur CA 94939. Nancy Connery,
manager. Represented by BendonAdams.
More Information: For further information related to the project, contact Kevin Rayes at
the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO,
(970) 429.2797, kevin.rayes@cityofaspen.com
BendonAaams
300 So Spring St 202
Aspen, CO 81611
970.925.2855
bendonadams.com i
Pitkin County Mailing List c►f 300 Feet Radius
From Parcel: 273512433001 on 09/28/2018
tTKIN
A C0UNT'
Instructions:
This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be
printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to
page" or"shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the
margins such that they no longer line up on the labels
sheet. Print actual size.
Disclaimer:
Pitkin County GIS presents the informaJon and data on this web
site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to
ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic
system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral
estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County
does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners.
Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning
the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content: at this
site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and
reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the
user. The user understands he or she s solely responsible and
liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or
data obtained on this web site.
http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com
a
DUNCAN SKIHAUS LLC NATIONWIDE THEATRES CORP VANCE STEPHEN M 2017 TRUST
600 TRAVIS#3550 PO BOX 847 625 E MAIN ST#1026264
HOUSTON,TX 77002 CARLSBAD,CA 92018 ASPEN,CO 81611
433 BLEEKER KS LLC NEISSER JUDITH E QPRT BLEEKER STREET PROP LLC
PO BOX 4068 132 E DELWARE PL#6201 PO BOX 491246
ASPEN,CO 81612 CHICAGO,IL 606111428 LOS ANGELES,CA 90049
CLARKS ADDITION CONDO ASSOC SHELBY LLC STONEHILL PROPERTIES LLC
COMMON AREA 1201 WILLIAMS ST#6 2517 LA MESA DR
317 N FOURTH ST DENVER,CO 80218 SANTA MONICA,CA 90402
ASPEN,CO 81611
CITY OF ASPEN HILLMAN TATNALL L REV TRUST BLAICH JANET S TRUST
130 S GALENA ST 504 W BLEEKER ST 319 N FOURTH ST
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
MAGGOS LAURA P CITY OF ASPEN ASPEN RETINA SURGEONS LLC
317 NORTH 4TH ST 130 S GALENA ST 5014 WOODHURST LN
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 MINNETONKA,MN 55345
HENRY KRISTEN 330 WEST BLEEKER ST LLC MACDONALD BETTE S TRUST
525 W HALLAM ST 1000 POTOMAC ST NW#102 15 BLACKMER RD
ASPEN,CO 81611-1246 WASHINGTON,DC 20007 ENGLEWOOD,CO 80110
KEEFE FAMILY TRUST NAMADA PARTNERS GP COLLETT JOHN&VIRGINIA C
3435 BELCARO DR 780 THIRD AVE 22ND FL 1111 METROPOLITAN AVE#700
DENVER,CO 80209 NEW YORK,NY 10017 CHARLOTTE,NC 28204
SIRKIN ALICIA ASPEN DRAGONFLY PARTNERS II LLC BLOCKER LAURA G
3500 N BAY HOMES DR 250 W 55TH ST 37TH FL PO BOX 9213
MIAMI,FL 33133 NEW YORK,NY 100197684 ASPEN,CO 81612
AGGER DAVID ALDEN REV TRUST FISCHER SISTIE DOUBLE D CONDO ASSOC
PO BOX 2129 442 W BLEEKER 300 W BLEEKER ST
SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94126 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611
BLAICH ROBERT I TRUST SEAL MARK STILWELL REED&CLAIRE
319 N FOURTH ST PO BOX 9213 191 UNIVERSITY BLVD#304
ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 DENVER,CO 80206
530 HALLAM LLC JOSEPH RUSSELL C&ELISE = DAHL W ROBERT&LESLIE A
623 E HOPKINS 3682 WILLOWICK RD 83 PECKSLAND RD
ASPEN,CO 81611 HOUSTON,TX 77019 GREENWICH,CT 06831
403 W HALLAM STREET LLC GLENN SALLY RAE 318 FOURTH STREET LTD
PO BOX 3695 504 W HALLAM AVE PO BOX 445
BASALT,CO 81621 ASPEN,CO 81611 HOUSTON,TX 77001
EGGLESTON ROBERT H JR&TRACY H 501 WEST HALLAM LLC 430 WEST HALLAM LLC
434 W HALLAM PO BOX 3389 256 BAL BAY DR
ASPEN,CO 81611 VAIL,CO 81658 BAL HARBOUR,FL 33154
GALLANT MELVIN M TRUST SHC-ASPEN LLC HILLMAN DORA B TRUST
309 N THIRD ST 15 E 5TH ST#3200 504 W BLEEKER
ASPEN,CO 81611 TULSA,OK 74103 ASPEN,CO 81611
LARNER GLEN&TRACY L
3737 ELLA LEE LN
HOUSTON,TX 77027
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
!i 31 PJPS-t !lir a st ,Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
—1"v,s 0cf- aS 0 4. 36 Bm ,202
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
County of Pitkin )
(name,please print)
being or rep•esenting an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof
materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six
(26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in
height: Said notice was posted at least fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing
on the_day of ' 20__, to and including the date and time
of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach,
summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as
required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the
neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and
a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt
requested,to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty(30) days prior to the
date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development.
The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current
tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAs or PUDs that
create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and. new Specially
Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement.
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any
way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this
Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be
made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or
otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal
description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of
real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the
proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning
agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing
on such amendments.
1
Signa e
The fore ping"Affidavit of Notice"was acknowle ged be ore me this f day
of , 20_1 by
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
RE:431 West Hallam Street
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
Public Hearing:Thursday.October 25,2018;
4:30 PM
Meeting Location:City Hall,Council Chambers
130 S.Galena St.,Aspen,CO 81611
Project Location:431 West Hallam Street,Legally My commission expires: ' Z/
Described as:The Northerly 70 feet of Lots AA B
and C.except the easterly 39 inches of Lot C,Block
36.City and Townsite of Aspen,according to the
Plat thereof filed March 25.1880,in Plat Book 1 at %w
page Description: The applicant,Connery Family G'V
Trust, 135 Ward Street, Larkspur CA 94939, re-
quests a 5-foot variance from the minimum front Notary Public
yard setback(10 feet to 5 feet)to redevelop the site
with a single-family residence.The request is due to
several large spruce trees along the south property
line.The variance request is a response to the pres-
ence of these trees.The application is to be consid-
ered by the Board of Adjustment. TA
n/
Land Use Reviews Req: Minimum Front Yard Set-
back Variance NO e��h�• t'�-iEiL t{�
Decision Making Body: Board of Adjustment
Applicant:Connery Family Trust,135 Ward 'ACUINMNTS AS APPLICAB E: STt�TE c,:-r`o.1.0 IAGL�
Street Larkspur,CA 94939 �144 j�p• Y��++�rr~r•; n n1 i
More Information: For further information related -KATION n J. w 7
to the project,contact Kevin Rayes at the City of As- r ",I�'l'o�lrnission Ex ire,5 F,,rr; S n
pen Community Development Department, 130 S. _ __p __ �•C�ll�( -.,2... A
Galena St.,Aspen,CO,(970)429.2797, TIIE POSTED NOTICE(SIGH)
kevin.rayes•cilyof aspen.com.
Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on October a, RS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
2018. 0000315007
• APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE
AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3
Exhibit D- Public Comment
Thank you for the opportunity to voice our opposition to the proposed variance request for 431
West Hallam. Since we own the property located at 417/421 West Hallam Street (located
immediately to the east of the 431 West Hallam property) we have several concerns should the
variance be granted.
First, we feel that the strict adherence to Aspen's land use codes has helped to create a unique
area in the West end of Aspen that has helped to enhance the value of the entire area. Granting
setback variances should only be done when the affected property can strictly comply with land
use code criteria for the granting of setbacks. Otherwise, the granting of setback variances
without strict compliance with the land use code creates uncertainty, and
sets precedents which could detrimentally affect the future value of properties. With respect
to the requested setback variance for the 431 West Hallam property, we believe that the
applicant has not adequately demonstrated that the requested variance is the minimum
necessary "to make possible the reasonable use" of the applicant's property, as required by the
land use code. Also, we believe that the applicant's adherence to the applicable setback
provisions of the land use code would not "deprive the applicant of rights commonly owned by
other parcels recognized in the same zone district", nor would it "cause the applicant
unnecessary hardship, as distinguished from mere inconvenience", also as required by the land
use code. Rather, mere economic hardship appears to be the primary, if not the only, basis for
the applicant's requested setback variance.
Second, we are concerned that by allowing this variance, the door will be opened for others to
come forward and demand potentially more questionable variances. Along these lines, while
our property was under prior ownership, it received certain variances which were the direct
result of its including a historic structure, no such facts or circumstances exist with respect to
the 431 West Hallam property. Rather, the applicant intends to, and is legally intended to
demolish the existing non-historic structure on the property, and therefore, has a "blank slate"
to work with in redeveloping its property.
Third, if this setback variance is granted, with our property being located directly east, this
exemption will directly and adversely affect the sight line to the west of our homesite. This
will create both an economic and aesthetic hardship for us, and defeats one of the primary
purposes of setback restrictions, which is the protection of viewplanes.
Our vote is to keep the setback and maintain the integrity of the neighborhood and
we respectfully request that the Board of Adjustment deny this request.
Thank you for allowing us to voice our concerns.
Sincerely,
Jim and Susannah Adelson
SHC Aspen, LLC