Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.boa.201906061 AGENDA ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT June 6, 2019 4:30 PM, City Hall Council Chambers 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I.SITE VISIT II.ROLL CALL III.COMMENTS IV.MINUTES IV.A.Minutes - December 13, 2018 boa.minutes.20181213.docx V.DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI.PUBLIC HEARINGS VI.A.Dimensional Variance Request - Minimum Setbacks A property referred to as 777 Gibson Ave. Memo_777Gibson.pdf Draft Resolution_BOA.docx Exhibit A_Staff Findings.docx Exhibit B_Application.pdf 777 Gibson - Exhibit D.pdf Exhibit E -Parks Commnts.pdf Exhibit F_Extended Legal Description.docx Exhibit G_Public Comment received through 5_30.pdf VI.B.Dimensional Variance Review - Front Yard Setback 546 McSkimming Road 546 McSkimming - Memo.pdf 546 McSkimming- Resolution Of Approval.docx Exhibit A- 546 McSkimming Rd Variance Review Criteria.docx Exhibit B- 546 Mcskimming Rd Application.pdf Exhibit C- Public Noticing.pdf VI.C.Withdraw of Resolution No. 4, Series of 2018 which Granted a Front Yard Variance for the Property at 431 / 433 W. Hallam 1 2 431 W. Hallam_Variance Withdraw Request_ Memo.pdf 431 W. Hallam_Resolution to Withdraw Variance_Final Draft.docx Exhibit A_Resolution No. 4 Series Of 2018.pdf Exhibit B_Letter From Chris Bendon To Withdraw Variance Request.pdf 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 (affidavit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clarifications 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 11) 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 or not met. Revised April 2, 2014 2 Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment December 13, 2018 1 Staff Comments ............................................................................................................................................2 Commission Comments................................................................................................................................2 Minutes.........................................................................................................................................................2 Public Comment not on the Agenda.............................................................................................................2 Declaration of Conflicts of Interest...............................................................................................................2 431 W. Hallam Street – Front Yard Setback Variance Request...................................................................2 3 Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment December 13, 2018 2 At 4:30 p.m.; Mr. Sandler called the regular meeting to order with Board Members Farrey, Feddersen, Bentzin and Frank present. Also present from staff Jennifer Phelan, Kevin Rayes, Andrea Bryan and Linda Manning. Staff Comments Ms. Phelan thanked the board for their service. Commission Comments None. Minutes Mr. Farrey moved to approve the minutes from August 8, 2018; seconded by Ms. Feddersen. All in favor, motion carried. Public Comment not on the Agenda None. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest None. 431 W. Hallam Street –Front Yard Setback Variance Request Mr. Sandler opened the public hearing. Kevin Rayes, community development, told the board this is a front yard set back variance request. The property is located in the R6 zone. It contains a duplex with a lot that is just over 6,000 square feet. He showed an image of the front of the house. The existing house complies with the front yard setback of 10 feet. He showed an image of the side of house and one of the side/rear. The alley is part of the property to the south. This property does not have alley access. It will be redeveloped with a single family dwelling. The proposed design originally complied with all setbacks, 10 foot front, 10 foot rear and 15 foot combined side yard. There are trees on site, some will be retained but some must be removed. The applicant has coordinated with the city forester and he has determined that several large cottonwoods may not be removed. The applicant is requesting a 5 foot front yard variance for a setback to accomodiate the trees. To grant a variance there is specific criteria that must exist. First is the grant of the variance the minimium variance that would make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure. Staff finds this is not met. The Forster has tried to keep tree mitigation to the edge of proeprty to maximize the building envelope in the center of the parcel. Staff believes a modified design of the house could accommodate the trees and comply with all the setback standards of the R6 zone district. Second is there 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. Staff feels it is common for lots to accommodate physical features such as trees and steep slopes. This is not a unique circumstance. Finally is granting of a variance would not confer upon the applicant any special prividgles denied by the terms of this title and the code to other parcels, buildings or structures in the same zone district. The applicant claims the lot configuration is abnormal for the R6 zone which creates a unique hardship for the new design by limitiating the potential building footprint of the parcel. They pointed out 431 has a length of 86 feet and width of 70 feet. A typical lot is this zone is 30 by 100. In R6 the minimum lot size is 6,000 square feet. For a non historic lot the typical lot would consist of 60 by 100 feet. A lot like this would have a 10 foot front yard and a 10 foot rear yard setback and a combined 15 foot side yard setback. 4 Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment December 13, 2018 3 A lot like this would have 80 feet front to rear to build. One of the design standards specifics the articulation of building mass. There are several ways to meet this criteria. One of the ways to do this is to make sure the building is no longer than 50 feet. With a lot that has a building envelope of 80 feet, if they were to comply with the articulation of building mass their lot would be reduced to 50 feet. The building envelope would consist of 45 by 50 feet. Compared to what 431 W Hallam breaks down to the lot configuration is 70 feet by 86 feet. Having the same set back standards but it does not have any residential design standards that have anything to do with buildign envelope from side yard to side yard. The house could be stretch all the way across and the lot configuration is actually advantageous to the property. A typical lot would have 2,200 square feet, 431 would have 3,500 square feet. The proposed design is 71 by 48 feet. We received 3 public comments. The summary is the existing dwelling is already too close to the street at 10 feet. Because it is a scrape and replace the owners should comply with the setbacks of the zone districts. Granting the variance creates uncertany and negatively affects property values. Applicant Chris Bendon, representing the applicant, Connery Family trust, Nancy Connery. Mr. Bendon showed images of the property along Hallam. The building right now is about 30 feet back from the curb. The proposal is about 25 feet back. He showed the view along 4th with the trees the city forester does not want to grant a removal permit for. The properties on both sides received tree removal permits for similar trees. In conversations it became more obvious permits would not be granted. We started to look at alternative designs to accommodate the trees. The access point has to be in this location. He showed a map of the parcel. It is a truncated lot. The property does not have alley access. I know of only one other lot that does not have alley access and is configured this way. He showed a map with the 10 foot set back and trees to be removed and ones to be kept. Sliding the whole project north 5 feet avoids this whole conversation and is a simple solution. The code allows the Board of Adjustment to balance vairous community objectives. Scott Kaufman owns a property on the other side of the street. P&Z has the ability to look at building mass and he reveived a variance from them. The neighbor to the east has a historic property and went to the HPC for the purpose of balancing community objectives. Their project received variances to acomodiate the resource including setback variances. We’ve had conversations with our neighbors. We have some boundary line issues we need to deal with. They have been productive. We are asking for the 5 foot setback variance. It removes the need to pursue a variance on the tree removals. The objectives the community has on tree preservation and different zoning requirements and residential design standards are a set of community objectives you are being asked to rebalance. We think there are very clear physical limitations with the trees. There is the inability to access the alley. It is a unique property. We disagree with Kevin’s analysis on the potential footprint. The property has a legal barier in recceiving a tree removal permit. There is a political barrier in some respects as well. We do see it as a hardship. The design exercises that we have gone through. Could we take a 20 to 30 percent hit on our gross size, sure, but that is way beyond a minor inconvience. That is substantive and pretty severe. The Board of Adjustment is established for this exact purpose. We think this is the right thing for your board to do. Nancy Connery, owner, said she is one of five family members. They have been coming to Aspen since 1989. Her dream to do this. She hopes we can figure out a way to make this work. Jennifer Phelan, community development, said the two other properties cited by Chris, one received a residential design variation not a variance. The HPC has a number of incentives for historic properties to redevelope and have different criteria for granting approvals. Mr. Sandler asked what is the criteria for the forester for not granting the removal. Mr. Bendon said he is concerned for the overall tree canopy city wide but down to a neighborhood level as well. There have been other tree removals in the area that make him uncomfortable to allow for tree removals here. If we took his offering to go to council and debate this in front of them we would say we have equity issues. You allowed it for neighbors for the same types of trees but not for us. It is a little different than the way we originally progressed. It may have something to do with a new city forester. The trees are at a point 5 Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment December 13, 2018 4 where they can’t be moved. The front yard has a cottonwood the forester feels is appropriate to remove. The ones he does not want removed are evergreen. Mr. Farrey asked are there fire code issues with trees that close to a structure. Mr. Bendon said we’ve had that conversation and recently done some pruning. Ms. Phelan said in conversations with the forester and priority it has to do with species, diameter and maintiaing trees along the perimeter. Ms. Bentzin asked about the possibility for a design modification that would maintain the 3,000 square feet that stays within the design envelope. Mr. Bendon said Nancy looked at different design modifications. The only place to access the parcel is a root structure. There are significant above and below grade impacts if we are locked into the setbacks. Mr. Farrey said the access point is landlock. This lot is uniquely shaped. Mr. Bendon said there is one other lot near the ice garden configured this way without alley access. Ms. Phelan said we do have other lots that are rectangular but there is a slice in the front. There are lots around town that are not perfect rectangles. Mr. Sandler opened the public comment. 1. Bubba Engelstone said he lives across the street at 434 Hallam since 2002. We look forward to not looking at the house that is there now. For us the house will be built to a certain height and moving it 5 feet forward will impact our view and change what we see. Moving it forward will be a negative impact on our property. We look forwarad to the project being done but moving it forward negatively impacts us. 2. Scott Hoffman said he lives to the west of the house on the other corner. They are going to scrape and replace this house. We are sensitive to the challenges she is facing. I support what she is trying to do. It is a unique lot. There are oppertunities and options to make adjustments to design but there are limits to what you can do. 3. Michael Brown said he own property in every direction of this lot within a few blocks. He supports the setback for the hardship that is being created. It is very challenging to work with the city forester. There is no incentive to tear down to utilize your development right even though you are ultimately going to have to pay in to migitate to plant a tree to mitigate for it. Given the hardship, the set back is insignificant for preserving the tree. If the applicant wanted to make a legal case for it, as a taxpayer, he does not support the city defending a legal case if the applicant pursues it for such an insignificant issue. Mr. Sandler closed the public comment. Ms. Phelan stated staff does not feel there are special circumstances that would require the variance. Mr. Bendon replied it is a unique site. We want to be responsive to the tree policy but we want to develop the property. This is within the jurisdiction of the Board of Adjustment. In regard to Bubba’s comments, it is a fair comment. If you push it closer it will trim off a portion of the view. We live in a community where not everyone is a fan of development. He has been pretty fair in his comments. He could say he does not want any development. Nancy’s interest is to fit into the community. I get his concern but we feel we have a hardship that we need some variance on to exercise our development right. Mr. Sandler said it would be one thing if you were asking for 20 feet but you are asking for 5. There has to be a fair balance between the government and the people. Mr. Frank stated it is less than 5 feet over the existing 10 foot setback to the face of the roof eave, even less to the face of the building. It is about a 4 foot shift to save the trees. Ms. Feddersen said a lot of people think the property line is from the curb. Where is the 5 feet. Mr. Bendon said the house to the front façade is roughly 30 feet now. 6 Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment December 13, 2018 5 Mr. Sandler said the adjacent house is closer to the street. Mr. Bendon said they received variances and are closer to the street than what we are asking for. Mr. Sandler moved to approve Resolution #4, Series of 2018; seconded by Mr. Farrey. Roll call vote. Boardmembers Fedderson, yes; Bentzin, no; Frank, yes; Farrey, yes; Sandler, yes. Motion carried. At 5:18 p.m.; Mr. Sandler moved to adjourn; seconded by Ms. Feddersen. All in favor, motion carried. Linda Manning City Clerk 7 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Ben Anderson, Planner II THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: A property referred to as 777 Gibson Ave; Setback Variances MEETING DATE: June 6, 2019 Applicant 777 Gibson, LLC Peter Fornell, Manager Representative Chris Bendon BendonAdams, LLC Address Not yet formally addressed Referred to as 777 Gibson Ave. Legal Description A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE- QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT “A” OF QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 9, 1991 IN BOOK 658 AT PAGE 784, CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. (See Exhibit A for more information on legal description) Parcel ID # 2737-073-00-014 Zone District Property is located in both R-30, Low Density Residential and R-15, Moderate Density Residential – dimensions for R-30 used for analysis as required by code. Land Use Request Variances to front, side, and rear yard minimum setback requirements. Figure 1. Location of ”777 Gibson Ave.” Represented in blue, the lot is adjacent to the intersection of Gibson and the Oklahoma Flats trail. Summary: The application proposes variances to front, rear and side yard setbacks in the R-30 Zone District to accommodate a single-family residence on an oddly shaped lot that contains steep slopes, a sidewalk easement and a City of Aspen trail. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of a 10 feet front yard setback, a 10 feet rear yard setback, and 5 feet side yard setbacks. These dimensions are different from those requested by the applicant. 8 Page 2 of 10 REQUEST OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The Applicant is requesting the following approval from the Board of Adjustment: • Variance (Chapter 26.314) to grant dimensional variances from the minimum front, rear and side yard setbacks required by the R-30 zone district. (The Board of Adjustment is the final review authority.) Figure 2 – Detail of property, including relationship to Gibson Ave, the sidewalk and the Oklahoma Flats trail. Actual lot configuration is shown in green. The sidewalk along Gibson is located on this property and defined by an easement agreement 9 Page 3 of 10 E XISTING CONDITIONS The lot referred to as 777 Gibson is a “remainder parcel” from the adjacent Creektree Subdivision. When the lots that were included in the subdivision were drawn from the fathering parcel, this area of land was on the fringes and not ultimately included in the subdivision. It is oddly shaped, is defined by steep slopes, contains an easement for the sidewalk along Gibson Avenue, and is crossed by a section of the Oklahoma Flats trail. It remains undeveloped except for an encroaching carport built by the neighboring property owner to the south (this situation is in process to be resolved). Important to the review for the variance request, this property has portions that are located in two different zone districts; R-30 and R-15. In this situation, the Land Use Code requires the more restrictive of the two zone districts to establish the dimensional requirements for the lot. The R-30 zone district has the following setback requirements: Front yard: 25 feet Side yard: 10 feet Rear yard: 15 feet The application of these required setbacks to this specific lot precludes any developable area that would accommodate even a minimum development right. PROPOSAL In response to the impact of the required setbacks, the Applicant proposes a reduction to the R-30 setbacks. Specifically, the following setbacks are proposed: Front yard 5 feet Side yard 3 feet Rear yard 3 feet These setbacks would be necessary to accommodate the specific design for a single family home and a lap pool that is included in the Application. Please see Figure 3 and 4 below to see the proposed setbacks and site plans for the Applicant’s design. 10 Page 4 of 10 Figure 4. Proposed Site Plan. The foot print for the proposed home is shaded in grey. Figure 3. Proposed setbacks – 5 feet front yard, 3 feet side and rear yards (identified by the grey, dotted line. There is no development proposed for the northern portion of the property. The buildable area within these proposed setbacks is identified in green. 11 Page 5 of 10 Figures 5 and 6 below depict the floor plans and elevations for the proposed home design. Figure 5. Proposed floor plans. The upper edge of the upper image would face Gibson Ave. The lower image is the lower level. Figure 6. Elevations. The upper image would face Gibson Ave. The lower image would face the Oklahoma Flats trail 12 Page 6 of 10 Based on a net lot size calculation for the property (accounting for deduction for steep slopes), the allowable Floor Area for the lot is approximately 2,785 square feet. The proposed home (as currently designed by the Applicant) would be approximately 2,430 square feet. Additionally, it is important to note that the easement agreement with the City of Aspen for the Gibson Ave. sidewalk establishes that the front yard setback will be measured from the edge of the property (edge of curb with Gibson), not from the sidewalk. The combination of the proposed five feet front-yard setback and footprint of the Applicant’s design would in effect create a zero setback from the sidewalk. REVIEW: The criteria for receiving a variance are strict. A property owner must demonstrate that reasonable use of the property has been withheld by the City, in relationship to specific site conditions, 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 holds 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. If a variance is granted, the land use code requires that a series of standards and circumstances be met. Of particular importance to evaluating the request of this application, is the following: “The grant of a variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure, and…” (26.314.040.A.2) Please see Exhibit A - Variance Review Criteria and Standards, for a complete presentation of the variance review criteria, standards, and required circumstances. STAFF DISCUSSION The combination of the shape of the lot and application of the required setbacks of the R-30 zone district make development of this property impossible – literally preventing the placement of any size of a single- family home. Factor in the steep slopes, the easement for the Gibson Ave. sidewalk, and the presence of the Oklahoma Flats trail – and the difficulty of developing this property becomes evident. Staff’s evaluation is that a hardship on the property is created if R-30 setbacks are strictly applied. As such, staff supports a setback variance. The question then becomes, what is the “minimum variance that will make possible reasonable use of the parcel…”? Applicant’s Proposal Staff cannot support, nor make findings within the Variance review criteria for the applicant’s proposed setbacks. This position is based on the following issues: 1) Neighborhood context and character, and impact to neighboring properties – The City of Aspen has been intentional over the years in establishing dimensional requirements that differentiate the distinct residential zone districts. In this case, the lot in question is located in both the R-15 and R-30 zone districts. On the topic of setbacks, both zone districts require 25 13 Page 7 of 10 feet front yard setbacks and 10 feet side yard setbacks. R-15 allows a slightly less restrictive ten (10) feet rear yard setback (R-30 requires 15 feet). These setbacks create consistent urban forms within neighborhoods and create expectations about the distances between neighbors and the potential impact of one property on an adjacent property. On the south side of Gibson Street, from the Old Powerhouse (to the west) to Matchless Dr. (to the east), all property is zoned either R-15 or R-30 with the setbacks (particularly front yard) required of these zone districts. The proposed setbacks would create a home that will relate very differently to Gibson Ave. than any other home on this side of the street. Staff acknowledges that there are properties on the other side (north side) of Gibson that have similar front setbacks to what is being proposed. Importantly though, those conditions were created due to improvements to Gibson Avenue that then impacted the street’s relationship to existing homes. On the rear and side yards, the proposed setback of three (3) feet is very different than the required R-30 15 feet rear yard setback and ten (10) feet side yard setbacks. In the proposed design, there is structure (the wall of the living room) that is three (3) feet from the property line. Granting City approval for a new structure to be built closer to a property line than allowed in any other residential zone district would not be appropriate, nor consistent with the outcomes pursued by the Land Use Code in staff’s view. Staff has similar concerns about the construction of a proposed lap pool that would be three (3) feet from the property line (where a neighboring property owner would otherwise expect a ten (10) feet setback. At the rear of the property, the two-story elevation of the proposed home would be potentially located three (3) feet from the property line. The neighbors and users of the Oklahoma Flats trail would otherwise expect a 15 feet setback in this area. 2) Impact to Gibson Avenue and sidewalk during and post construction – The City Engineering Department is concerned about the feasibility of a construction management plan that will not have significant impacts to Gibson Ave. and the sidewalk during construction due to the proposed setbacks. Similarly, there are concerns about snow removal and snow storage for both the sidewalk and street with little or no area between the street and the proposed home. Again, a proposed five (5) feet front yard setback would create a condition where the majority of the front façade of the home is immediately adjacent to the existing sidewalk. Perhaps most importantly, the proposed project has designed two parking spaces, requiring a new curb cut that would requiring exiting the parking spaces onto a curved section of Gibson. 3) Concerns about ability to meet other city code requirements – This lot, particularly due to the steep slopes that define it, will present significant engineering and building challenges including but not limited to soil stabilization, foundational structures, and stormwater management. The City Engineering Department has raised a number of questions in this regard. The minimal proposed setbacks potentially exacerbate these challenges in placing foundations and above grade structures closer to property lines than the City allows in any other residential zone district. Setbacks have a purpose, with definite land use outcomes in mind. The proposed setbacks in the application undermine these outcomes and further complicate the site conditions that define the lot. 14 Page 8 of 10 If variances to setbacks are granted, the approval will emphasize that the variance does not exempt the property from compliance with all other sections of the Aspen Municipal Code – including compliance with Building, Engineering, and Parks Department requirements and the standards of the Land Use Code. 4) Potential impacts to Oklahoma Flat Trail – This trail is extensively used and has recently received improvements including retaining walls and a new surface. These improvements have been implemented adjacent to and across this property. Three (3) feet rear yard setbacks would place the completed home in very close proximity to the trail. City Parks staff has raised concerns about impacts to the trail during and after construction. A three (3) feet setback from the trail would create both visual and potentially physical impacts to the trail both during and after construction. 5) Dimensions required by building code – The IBC establishes a preferred 5 feet minimum setback for residential structures from property lines. Structures can be built closer to the property line than this minimum but are then potentially required to provide additional fire protection in the structure’s design. Staff’s Proposal To state again, staff agrees that the application of the required R-30 setbacks does not allow reasonable use of the property. While staff cannot support the Applicant’s proposed variance, staff does support reduced setbacks and proposes the following: Front yard: 10 feet Rear yard: 10 feet Side yard: 5 feet These proposed setbacks would not eliminate, but would reduce some of the concerns stated above, while providing what in staff’s view is a “reasonable use” of the property. Figure 7 (on the next page) shows the impact of staff’s proposal in establishing a buildable area. The available “footprint” established by these reduced setbacks is approximately 1,240 square feet in area, 65 feet in length along Gibson Ave., 15 feet deep at its narrowest point, and just more than 30 feet deep at its widest point. Staff acknowledges that these setbacks would not allow the specific home or the lap pool that has been proposed by the applicant. However, staff does find that the footprint established by these setbacks creates potential for building a single-family home on an otherwise challenging site. Ultimately, this is what the Variance chapter of the Land Use Code Requires; that if a hardship is present, a variance will be the minimum necessary to allow “reasonable use.” More importantly, these setbacks create conditions that would reduce the previously stated concerns of Community Development, Engineering, and Parks Department staff. Specifically: 1) A ten (10) feet front yard setback provides at least a five (5) feet buffer from the sidewalk along Gibson Avenue. This additional five (5) feet (from the applicant’s proposal) reduces impacts to the sidewalk and street during construction, creates more room for snow removal/storage, and provides opportunity for some buffer between the sidewalk/street and the front façade of a home. 15 Page 9 of 10 2) A ten (10) feet rear yard setback provides an experience for neighbors and users of the trail that is more consistent with conditions in the neighborhood. This additional seven (7) feet (from the applicant’s proposal) reduces visual impact for neighbors and trail users, and provides more area during and after construction to accommodate foundations and storm water mitigation requirements. 3) Five (5) feet side yard setbacks reflect the minimum dimensions in any of Aspen’s residential zone districts. This dimension allows for standard residential construction designs and would reduce impacts to neighbors both during and after construction. While these setbacks do not eliminate the concerns associated with developing this lot, staff proposes these setbacks as a compromise that would allow reasonable development, while not allowing development to completely undermine the importance of setback requirements and make more difficult the compliance with other City standards Staff is making one additional recommendation related to the variance. This is a non-conforming lot in the R-15/R-30 zone districts due to its small size of 7,691 square feet of gross lot area; where minimum lot sizes are 15,000 square feet (R-15) and 30,000 square feet (R-30). This quality of the site combined with other already described constraints make it particularly important that development, if allowed by a granting of variances, is as minimal as possible. Staff is therefore recommending that if variances to setbacks are granted, that approval be subject to a condition of approval that this lot could not be a receiving site for a Transferable Development Rights (TDR). In other words, this lot could not extinguish a TDR to add additional floor area. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustment approve variances for a front yard setback of ten (10) feet, rear yard setback of ten (10) feet, and side yard setbacks of five (5) feet for the property referred to as 777 Gibson. These are reductions from the required setbacks of the R-30 zone district. Additionally, staff recommends that this site, if variances are approved, could not be a receiving site for a TDR. Figure 7. Approximate buildable area resulting from staff’s proposed minimum setbacks – shown in blue. 10 feet, rear yard setback 10 feet, front yard setback 5 feet, side yard setbacks 5 feet, side yard setbacks 16 Page 10 of 10 RECOMMENDED MOTION The draft resolution is written in support of staff’s proposal of a reduced, 10 feet front yard setback, a 10 feet rear yard setback, and 5 feet side yard setbacks. The following motion can be used to approve the resolution as written: “I move to approve Resolution No. XX, Series 2019, granting approval for a variance to a front yard setback at the property referred to as 777 Gibson Avenue, reducing the required front yard setback to 10 feet, the rear yard setback to 10 feet and the side yard setbacks to 5 feet, subject to conditions as stated in the resolution.” ALTERNATIVE MOTIONS Alternative 1 – Support of the Applicant’s Request “I move to approve Resolution No. XX, Series 2019, granting approval for variances to front, rear and side yard setbacks at the property referred to as 777 Gibson Avenue, but amending the Draft Resolution to establish the required front yard setback at 5 feet, the rear set back at 3 feet and the side yard setbacks at 3 feet, and subject to conditions as stated in the resolution.” Alternative 2 – Denial of the Variance. “I move to deny Resolution No. XX, Series 2019, denying approval for a setback variance at the property referred to as 777 Gibson Avenue.” Attachments: Exhibit A – Variance Review Criteria, Staff Findings Exhibit B – Application Exhibit C – Public Notice Affidavits Exhibit D – Comments from the City of Aspen’s Engineering Department Exhibit E – Comments from City of Aspen’s Parks Department Exhibit F – Extended Legal Description Exhibit G – Public Comments received as of 12:00 pm on 5/30/19 17 Board of Adjustment Variance Request “777” Gibson Ave. Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. XX (SERIES OF 2019) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTING APPROVAL FOR DIMENSIONAL VARIANCES TO SETBACKS, FOR A PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT “A” OF QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 9, 1991 IN BOOK 658 AT PAGE 784, CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. Parcel ID No. 2737-073-00-014 WHEREAS,the Community Development Department received an application for the property referred to as 777 Gibson Avenue(the Application) from777 Gibson, LLC; Peter Fornell, Manager (The Applicant) represented by Chris Bendon of BendonAdams, LLC, for the following land use review approval: Variance, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.314; and, WHEREAS,the subject property is zoned Moderate Density Residential (R-15); and, Low Density Residential (R-30); 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 – February 27, 2019, as applicable to this Project; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development staff reviewed the Application and provided recommendation; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment reviewed the Application at a duly noticed public hearing on June 6, 2019; and, WHEREAS,during a duly noticed public hearing on June 6, 2019, the Board of Adjustment approved Resolution No. XX, Series of 2019, by an X to X (X - X) vote granting approval of 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: General Approval Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Board of Adjustment hereby approves a Setback Variance for the property located at 910 Gibson Avenue and described as follows: 1. Front yard setback is reduced from 25 feet to ten (10) feet. 2. Rear yard setback is reduced from 15 feet to ten (10) feet. 3. Side yard setbacks are reduced from ten (10) feet to five (5) feet 18 Board of Adjustment Variance Request “777” Gibson Ave. Page 2 of 3 4. The setback variances apply only to Parcel 1, identified in a site improvement survey. (attached as Exhibit A) 5. Pursuant to an access easement (recorded at Page 773, Book 368) for the Gibson Avenue sidewalk, the front yard setback shall continue to be measured from the property line along Gibson Avenue. 6. All other setbacks and dimensional standards required in the R-30 Zone District remain in effect. 7. The approved variances do not exempt the property from compliance with all other aspects of the Aspen Municipal Code, including, but not limited to building codes and engineering requirements. 8. A TDR is not permitted to be landed on this lot as a condition of receiving the variances. 9. This variance shall expire 12 months from the date of approval. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicants 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. 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,adopted, passed and approved this 6th day of June 2019. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: ________________________________________________________ James R. True, City Attorney Andrew Sandler, Chair Attest: ___________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk Exhibit A – Site Improvement Survey with identification of approximate building envelope based on approved setback reductions. 19 Board of Adjustment Variance Request “777” Gibson Ave. Page 3 of 3 Exhibit A Approximate buildable area created by approved variance to minimum setbacks 10’ front, 10’ rear, 5’ side 20 Exhibit A Variance Standards and Staff Findings 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 Staff Findings: Setbacks have numerous, important purposes within the Land Use Code. The proposed setbacks in the application undermine these purposes of setbacks by failing to give appropriate buffers between the public right-of way and neighboring properties. While staff acknowledges the need for a variance from the required R-30 setbacks, staff can not make findings on this standard with the proposed setbacks in the Application. Staff’s proposed variance to setbacks has basis in other (and neighboring) residential zone districts. 10 feet in the front is consistent with R-6. 5 feet on the sides is consistent with R-6. 10 feet in the rear is consistent with several zone districts, including R-15 – in which a portion of the property in question lies. These dimensions are less than those required in the R-30, but they do relate to other residential zone districts – with the purposes of creating buffers with neighboring properties and uses. Staff finds that the proposed variance in the staff recommendation (10’ front, 10’ rear, and 5’ side setbacks), while not eliminating all of the potential concerns of development on this property, is consistent with the Land Use Code. 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: Based on a net lot analysis, the approximate maximum allowable Floor Area for the property is 2,785 square feet. The proposed design in the Application is approximately 2,430 square feet. While the steep slopes on the property limit allowable Floor Area from what would otherwise be allowed on a flat similarly sized lot, this calculation does not set the threshold for “reasonable use”. Reasonable use is not the same as maximum allowable development. In this case, the site constraints set a different standard for “reasonable use”. The shape of the lot; the slope of the lot; the relationship of the lot to Gibson; the relationship to the Oklahoma Flats trail all contribute to a different standard for “reasonable use”. Staff finds that the proposal in the Application goes beyond reasonable use and the request goes beyond the threshold of a “minimum” variance. Staff’s proposed dimensions for the setback variance creates a building footprint that is approximately 65 feet in width parallel to Gibson, about 15 feet at its narrowest point, and 30 feet at its deepest point. This creates a building footprint of roughly 1,240 square feet. The setbacks required for this footprint are 15 feet less than allowed for the front yard, 5 feet less for the rear yard, and 5 feet less for each side yard. Staff finds that these dimensions would be a “minimum variance to make possible the reasonable use of the parcel”. 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 21 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: The shape of the lot, among other constraints, when combined with the setback requirements of the R-30 zone district, does not allow for any developable area on the property. The setbacks for the R-30 zone district do not contemplate a lot of this shape. – particularly the intersection of the 25 feet front setback and the 15 feet rear setback. This lot is different in this way than other lots that are subject to the required setbacks. Staff finds this condition applies. 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. Staff Findings: The staff proposed variance dimensions will allow the construction of a single- family residence – that will be likely smaller than the allowable floor area for the lot. If a setback variance is granted, the development will need to comply with all other City of Aspen requirements. Staff finds this condition applies. 22 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM February 21, 2019 Ms. Jennifer Phelan, AICP Community Development Dept. City of Aspen 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 777 Gibson Avenue Setback Variance Ms. Phelan: Please accept this application for Setback Variances to allow for the development of a single- family home on the property referred to as 777 Gibson Avenue. The property is located at the intersection of Gibson Avenue and Maple Street in the Smuggler neighborhood. Required setbacks of the R-15 and R-30 Zone Districts are prohibitive to development on this property. The parcel is owned by 777 Gibson LLC, managed by Peter Fornell. All appropriate authorization forms have been included as exhibits to this application as required by the Land Use Code. The setbacks stipulated by City zoning preclude any development on this unique lot. The setbacks leave a very thin, 8-inch-wide swath of land to locate a home. This dimension precludes any reasonable development, significantly beyond a practical difficulty or mere inconvenience. This application seeks a Setback Variance to establish new setbacks that will allow the owner to exercise the development right associated with this parcel. 23 777 Gibson Page 2 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM Property The property is described on the survey as consisting of two parcels connected at a single point. “Parcel 1” is a 5,436 square foot area of land. “Parcel 2” is a 2,255 square foot area of land. Together, these two parcels compose the subject property with a total land area of 7,691 square feet. The Property consists of remainder lands from the 1978 Creektree Subdivision. The subdivider (Grover) owned a large area of land known as Track A. Grover applied for and gained subdivision approval from the City of Aspen for the Creektree Subdivision, which did not encompass this entire Track A. Several remainder parcels were created, including the subject Property. Later that same year, Grover conveyed these remainder parcels to new ownership. The Property changed hands a few times and is now owned by the applicant, 777 Gibson LLC. A thorough history of the property is attached to this application. “Parcel 1” can be accessed easily from Gibson Avenue. The simple access from a public way and the physical width of the property in this area will support development of a home. Development of this area will not affect the Oklahoma Flats Trail . This area of the property is the only practical area where the owner can express the property’s development right. Parcel 1 is undeveloped save for a bandit carport structure. The sidewalk adjacent to Gibson Avenue runs along the front yard. The map to the right highlights “Parcel 1” and the photo below shows Gibson Avenue to the right and the “Parcel 1” portion of the property to the left. 24 777 Gibson Page 3 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM “Parcel 2” is smaller and less accessible than Parcel 1. This parcel’s frontage along the Gibson Avenue right-of-way is horizontally and vertically separated from the street’s driving surface. The parcel is crossed by a paved bike trail although it does not appear that an easement was ever granted. The steep slopes on this portion of the property would be challenging to develop. The map to the right highlights “Parcel 2,” with the dotted area being the Oklahoma Flats Trail. The photo below is taken along the trail looking south with the “Parcel 2” portion of the property to the right. 25 777 Gibson Page 4 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM Zoning According to the City of Aspen Zone District Map, the property appears to lay within two zone districts – the Moderate-Density Residential (R- 15) Zone District and Low-Density Residential (R- 30) Zone District. The “flagpole” portion of Parcel 1 falls within the R-15 Zone District and the remainder of the property falls within the R-30 Zone District. The graphic to the right shows the City’s zoning map with the grey dashed line showing zone district boundaries and the subject property highlighted in green. Both R-15 and R-30 Zone Districts allow for the development of a single-family home, a height limitation of 25 feet, and have the same Floor Area allowance. Setbacks for each Zone District do vary and are further described in the Setbacks section of this application. Net Lot Area The property has 7,691 square feet of gross lot area. The property is located on a slope with grades in excess of 20% resulting in a reduction in Net Lot Area as shown in the table below. Also, see attached property survey with slope analysis. A sidewalk easement along the Gibson Avenue right-of-way does not affect the Net Lot Area. Slope Category Land Area % “counting” as Net Lot Area Net Lot Area Under 20% 3,356 sf 100% 3,356 sf 20-30% 516 sf 50% 258 sf Over 30% 3,869 0% 0 sf Total Net Lot Area = 3,614 sf 26 777 Gibson Page 5 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM Floor Area Pursuant to Section 26.575.020.C, the maximum reduction of Floor Area due to slopes is 25%. With the extent of steep slopes on the property, the reduction in Floor Area based on slopes is 30.7%, exceeding the 25% limit. This application assumes a maximum reduction in Floor Area related to slopes, with a resulting Floor Area of 2,785 sf. The following chart shows the Floor Area calculation. R-15 / R-30 Zoning Code Calculation method Floor Area Calculation Floor Area Notes 7,691 sf Gross Lot Area For a property size between 3,000 and 9,000 sf: 2,400 square feet of floor area, plus 28 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in Net Lot Area, up to a maximum of 4,080 square feet of floor area. 4,691/100 x 28 + 2,400 3,713.48 sf This is the Floor Area with no reduction for steep slopes 3,614 sf Net Lot Area For a property size between 3,000 and 9,000 sf: 2,400 square feet of floor area, plus 28 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in Net Lot Area, up to a maximum of 4,080 square feet of floor area. 614/100 x 28 + 2,400 2,571.92 sf This is the Floor Area with slope reduction factored in Reduction in Floor Area based on slopes 3,713.48 - 2,571.92 1,141.56 sf or, 30.7% The slopes account for a 30.7% reduction in Floor Area Maximum 25% reduction of Floor Area 3,713.48 x 25% 928.37 sf The Code’s maximum Floor Area reduction Allowable Floor Area (assuming maximum 25% reduction) 3,713.48 - 928.37 2,785 sf This is the allowable Floor Area after accounting for the maximum slope reduction 27 777 Gibson Page 6 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM Setbacks The City’s required setbacks (R-15 and R- 30) effectively eliminate any and all potential for a home to be located on the property. A small sliver of land in the center of the Parcel 1 portion of the property is the only setback-compliant portion of the property. These 64sf to 127sf, 8”-wide slivers represent 0.8 to 1.7% of the property. The map to the right diagrams the developable area of the Parcel 1 portion of the property. Obviously, a home cannot be physically located on this small sliver of land. Restricting a home to this degree represents a severe hardship on the land owner and a complete revocation of the property right. Proposal For the development right to be exercised on this property, the applicant seeks Setback Variances to allow for a modest home to be developed on the property. The Parcel 1 portion of the property has been selected as an appropriate development site and the proposed setback dimensions pertain only to this portion of the property. The proposal includes ancillary structures, a lap pool, on the narrowest portion of the property. The proposed design and plan view are shown to the right and below. Additional detail can be found in the attached plan set. The applicant reserves the right to make adjustments to the architecture that comply with City standards. R-30 = 64 sf building area R-15 = 127 sf building area 28 777 Gibson Page 7 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM Requested Setbacks The proposed setbacks allow for a 2,430 sf (Floor Area) home to be developed on the Parcel 1 portion of the property. The chart below summarizes the proposed setbacks. These setbacks enable an area of 4,092 sf in order to develop the home, or roughly 53% of the property. Sheet A.1.001 of the proposed plans depicts the precise locations and dimensions of the proposed setbacks. Setback R15 R30 Proposed Front 25 Feet 25 Feet 5 feet Side Yards 10 feet 10 feet 3 feet Rear Yard 10 Feet (Principal) 15 Feet (Principal) 3 feet Although the proposal calls for a home of 2,430sf of Floor Area, the applicant is not waiving any dimensional allowances prescribed by City zoning. No improvements are proposed on Parcel 2 at this time and the application does not request setback adjustments for this portion of the property. Residential Design Standards The new home is required to meet the City’s Residential design Standards. All aspects of the Standards are met with the proposed design. A completed checklist of the RDS is attached as Exhibit 2. 29 777 Gibson Page 8 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM Removal of Illegal Carport Structure The southern panhandle of the property includes an improvement, a carport structure, presumably built by the neighbor to the east. The property to the east is known as the River’s Edge Condominium Association. Condo Unit A of River’s Edge is owned by Antonio Marziale. Unit B is owned by Frontier LLC. Illegal carport viewed from Gibson Avenue. November, 2018 This structure was not built by the applicant, or its predecessors. No authorization for this construction is or was ever provided by 777 Gibson LLC, or its predecessors. 1997 aerial photo showing no carport No easement exists and no building permits appear to have been issued by the City of Aspen for this structure. Research of the City’s aerial photography indicates that the structure just “showed-up” one day. 1 2004 aerial photo showing no carport 1 source of aerial photos – City of Aspen Geographic Information Systems: https://cityofaspen.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=b9f64a3b244f4cea995660860e0d43 66 30 777 Gibson Page 9 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM 2008 aerial photo showing carport 2012 aerial photo showing carport Portion of 2018 property survey highlighting illegal encroachment The City of Aspen has issued a Notice of Violation and Correction Notice to the neighbor, requiring demolition and removal of the illegal improvement. 31 777 Gibson Page 10 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM Stream Margin Review Stream Margin Review, according to Section 26.435.040.A of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, applies to properties either within 100 feet of the high-water line of the Roaring Fork River, or a tributary, or within the Flood Hazard Area. City of Aspen GIS depicts the parcel beyond the Stream Margin Review Area. The property is more than 100 feet from the high-water mark of the Roaring Fork River. A section of the City’s Stream Margin Review map is shown to the right.2 The area highlighted in blue represents the 100-foot buffer area. The Property is also not located within the Flood Hazard Area, according to the Flood Insurance Rate Map on file with the City of Aspen Engineering Department. The grey shading highlights the Flood Hazard Area. Based on the Property being more than 100 feet from the high-water mark and not within the Flood Hazard Area, the proposed development is not subject to the City’s Stream Margin Review. 2 Source - https://mapaspen-cityofaspen.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/stream-margin?geometry=- 106.831%2C39.189%2C-106.804%2C39.195 32 777 Gibson Page 11 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM Literal enforcement of the R-15/R-30 setbacks eliminates any potential for this property to be developed. The proposed home is modest in size and responsive to the City’s design standards. The setbacks proposed are the minimum necessary to make for reasonable use of the property and to avoid a hardship on the owner. We believe the Board of Adjustment’s approval of the setback variances is well within the spirit and intent of the City’s Land Use Code as well as necessary to avoid an unreasonable hardship upon the landowner. Approval would be defensible from a standard-of-review standpoint and a responsible action of the Board. We look forward to your review and commentary and an opportunity to discuss this request with the Board of Adjustment. Please let us know if we can provide additional information, if we can assist with a site visit, or if we can respond to your input in any way. Kind Regards, Chris Bendon, AICP BendonAdams LLC Attachments: 1. Response to Review Criteria 2. RDS Packet 3. Application Form 4. Authorization to Represent 5. Proof of Ownership 6. Agreement to Pay 7. HOA Form 8. Pre-Application Summary 9. Vicinity Map 10. Property History with Exhibits A-J 11. Site Improvement Survey 12. Proposed Plans 33 Exhibit 1 Review Criteria page 1 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 – Title 26 of the Municipal Code (known as the Land Use Code) provides zoning limitations and development standards for properties in the City of Aspen. The purpose of Title 26, stated in 26.104.020 includes the analysis of various development factors “and the legitimate rights and reasonable expectations of property owners.” The Property consists of remainder lands from the 1978 Creektree Subdivision. The subdivider (Grover) owned a large area of land know as Track A. Grover applied for and gained subdivision approval from the City of Aspen for the Creektree Subdivision, which did not encompass this entire Track A. Several remainder parcels were created, including the subject Property. Later that same year, Grover conveyed these remainder parcels to new ownership. The Property changed hands a few times and is now owned by the applicant, 777 Gibson LLC. A thorough history of the property is attached to this application. The “purpose” of both the R-15 and R-30 Zone Districts includes use for long-term residential uses with customary accessory uses. Following are the purpose statements for the R-15 and R-30 Zone Districts, as stated in the City of Aspen Land Use Code: 34 Exhibit 1 Review Criteria page 2 The property is zoned for single-family and duplex development and the owner has a legitimate and reasonable expectation to be able to develop a single-family home. A variance to required setbacks to enable the development of a home on this property is consistent with the purpose of the Zone District (both the R-15 and R-30 Zones) 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure. Response – The application proposes a home of roughly 2,430 square feet (Floor Area) with a single-story building facing Gibson Avenue and a partial basement. The property has a Floor Area allowance of 2,785 square feet and a height of 25 feet. The home’s size is very modest. Provided the slope of the site and the limited basement proposed, the gross area of the home is expected to be in the 2,700 to 3,000 square foot range. This represents approximately half the gross area of homes developed on Aspen’s smallest lots in the R-6 Zone District and approximately a third to a fourth of the gross area developed on typical lots in the R-15 and R-30 zone districts. The “total heated area” of three homes surrounding this property, according to the Pitkin County Assessor, are 6,064 square feet, 6,211 square feet, and 9,385 square feet. A fourth adjacent property, a duplex home, is listed as having 9,505 square feet of heated area. These properties are all within either the R-15 or R-30 Zone Districts. Other non-adjacent properties located in the R-15 or R-30 Zone District show total heated area for numerous homes in the 6-8,000 square foot range and an occasional home exceeding 11,000 square feet of heated area. In comparison to the surrounding properties, the proposed home is very modest in its size. 35 Exhibit 1 Review Criteria page 3 The proposed home, utilizing 2,430 square feet of Floor Area, accommodates a three-bedroom home. The above-mentioned surrounding properties have 5 to 10 bedrooms each and typical homes in the R-15 and R-30 Zone Districts appear to have 5-7 bedrooms, according to available Pitkin County Assessor information. In comparison to the surrounding properties, the proposed home is very modest in its size. The applicant has taken special care to design the home and the requested setbacks to be that which is necessary to make reasonable use of the property. The three-bedroom home will accommodate the owner’s needs, and a typical small family’s needs, without excessive mass and scale. Common areas of the home are efficient, providing for the needed function. While the proposed home may use less that the allotted Floor Area and Height, the applicant is not waiving his right to the dimensional allowances prescribed by zoning. The proposed setbacks have been arranged to be the minimum necessary for the property to be developed. The architectural renderings and internal layouts are provided as informational items and not as limitation. The applicant may decide to change the architecture and interior layouts in ways that do not conflict with city zoning or development standards. 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 – Residential use, and derivatives of residential uses such as a vacation home, are the only uses allowed in the R-15 and R-30 Zone Districts. The property is not allowed to be used for commercial purposes. The property’s slopes and its limited size eliminate any reasonable use as an agricultural operation. Other uses such as a Group Home or a Child Care Center require face the same challenges with the setback restrictions. Plus, these uses are listed as “conditional uses” and may not be appropriate within the existing residential setting. Reasonable use of the property is limited to its ability to be used for residential purposes. The City’s required setbacks, for both R-15 and R-30, eliminate any and all potential for a home to be physically situated on the property. The chart to the right shows the prescribed setbacks according to the R-15 and R-30 Zone Districts. Setback R15 R30 Front 25 Feet 25 Feet Side Yards 10 feet 10 feet Rear Yard 10 Feet (Principal) 15 Feet (Principal) 36 Exhibit 1 Review Criteria page 4 The diagram to the right (and shown at a larger scale in the drawing set) maps the effects of these prescribed setbacks on the property. A small sliver of land in the center of the Parcel 1 portion of the property is the only setback-compliant portion of the property. The small sliver of land is 64 square feet if using the R-30 setbacks and 127 square feet if using the R-15 setbacks. The narrow section of each sliver is approximately 8 inches wide. These slivers represent 0.8 to 1.7% of the total property area. Obviously, a home cannot be physically located on an 8-inch-wide sliver of land. The extremely limited area and the narrowness of the sliver of land prohibits the development of a home and depletes all reasonable use of the property. Restricting a home to this degree represents a severe hardship on the land owner and a complete revocation of the property right. A typical R-15 parcel (100ft wide x 150ft deep) provides a development area within the property equal to approximately 61% of the total property area. A typical R-30 parcel (200ft wide x 150ft deep) enables approximately 66% of the property to be used for development. The proposed setbacks for this property result in approximately 53% of the property being used for development. (Certain allowances for minimal development within setbacks are not counted in these figures.) Typical lots in the R-15 and R-30 Zone District enjoy the ability to construct a home, or a duplex home, with the full floor area allowance provided by the Zone District. Setbacks of the R-15 and R-30 Zone Districts are proportionate to the sizes or a typical lot in these zones – 15,000 to 30,000 square feet. The small size and unique layout of this lot, with long strips of land and the limited land area, creates a situation where the setbacks overlap each other (front setback occupies the same area as the rear setback, sides, etc.) and eliminate any practical area to situate a home. The small size and unique layout of this lot is unlike the layout of similarly situated lots in the R- 15 and R-30 Zone Districts. The special condition of this lot is very unique. The applicant did not create this situation. The parcel has existed in this configuration for decades and is not the result of the owner’s actions. A complete history of the property is attached to this application. The setback situation is far beyond an inconvenience. Complying with the setbacks, literal interpretation, removes any ability to develop this property. The requested setbacks are the minimum necessary for the property to be developed and to provide the property with the same privilege allowed other properties in the same zone district, pursuant to the City’s Land Use Code. R-30 = 64 sf building area R-15 = 127 sf building area 37 Residential Design Standards Administrative Compliance Review Applicant Checklist Standard Complies Alternative Compliance N/A Sheet #(s)/Notes B.1.Articulation of Building Mass (Non-flexible) B.2.Building Orientation (Flexible) B.3.Build-to Requirement (Flexible) B.4.One Story Element (Flexible) C.1.Garage Access (Non-flexible) C.2.Garage Placement (Non-flexible) C.3.Garage Dimensions (Flexible) Instructions: Please fill out the checklist below, marking whether the proposed design complies with the applicable standard as written or is requesting Alternative Compliance (only permitted for Flexible standards). Also include the sheet #(s) demonstrating the applicable standard. If a standard does not apply, please mark N/A and include in the Notes section why it does not apply. If Alternative Compliance is requested for a Flexible standard, include in the Notes section how the proposed design meets the intent of the standard(s). Additional sheets/graphics may be attached. Disclaimer: This application is only valid for the attached design. If any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the applicant shall be required to apply for a new Administrative Compliance Review. Address: Parcel ID: Zone District/PD: Representative: Email: Phone: Page 1 of 2 Exhibit 238 Standard Complies Alternative Compliance N/A Sheet #(s)/Notes C.4.Garage Door Design (Flexible) D.1.Entry Connection (Non-flexible) D.2.Door Height (Flexible) D.3.Entry Porch (Flexible) E.1.Principle Window (Flexible) E.2.Window Placement (Flexible) E.3.Nonorthogonal Window Limit (Flexible) E.4.Lightwell/Stairwell Location (Flexible) E.5.Materials (Flexible) Residential Design Standards Administrative Compliance Review Applicant Checklist Disclaimer: This application is only valid for the attached design. If any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the applicant shall be required to apply for a new Administrative Compliance Review. Page 2 of 2 39 777 Gibson Avenue 2737.073.00.014 777 Gibson LLC; Peter Fornell, Manager 625 So. WestEnd Street #4; Aspen, CO 81611 970.379.3434 p.fornell@comcast.net BendonAdams 300 So. Spring St. #202; Aspen, CO 81611 970.925.2855 chris@bendonadams.com Development of a new home on a vacant lot n/a n/a 1 0 n/a Setback variance. 3,575 Exhibit 3 40 777 Gibson Avenue 777 Gibson LLC R-15 & R-30 7,691sf 3,614sf 0 2,785 2,430 0 25' ~15' - 25' 5' - 10/15' 3' - 10' 3' - na na - na na - na na - na nana na na na na na Non-conforming lot size, non-traditional property layout, bike path crossing property. Setback variances to allow 5' front and 3' sides and rear. 41 December 26, 2018 Jessica Garrow, AICP Community Development Director City of Aspen 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 ® BendonAdams RE: 777 Gibson Ave; Aspen, CO. Ms. Garrow: Please accept this letter authorizing and Bendon Adams, LLC, to represent our ownership interests in 777 Gibson Avenue and act on our behalf on matters reasonably associated in securing land use approvals for the property. If there are any questions about the foregoing or if I can assist, please do not hesitate to contact me. Property -777 Gibson Avenue Legal Description - A PARCEL OF LAND LOC AT ED IN THE SOUTHE AST ONE­ QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QU ARTER OF SECTION 7, OWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., AND BEING MORE PARTICUL ARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" OF QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 9, 1991 IN BOOK 658 AT PAGE 784. Parcel ID No. -2737.073.00.014 Kind Regards, Peter Fornell, Manager 777 Gibson LLC 62 5 South West End Street #4 Aspen, CO 81611 300 SO SPRING ST I 202 I ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 I BENDONADAMS.COM Exhibit 4 42 Exhibit 5 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 777 Gibson LLC; Peter Fornell, Manager379.3434p.fornell@comcast.net777 Gibson AvenueAspen, CO 81611625 South West End Street #4Aspen, CO 81611Peter Fornell, Manager777 Gibson LLCExhibit 61,300Parks1,9506325151 777 Gibson LLC; Peter Fornell, Manager p.fornell@comcast.net 970.379.3434 777 Gibson Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 12.26.19 Exhibit 7 52 ASLU Gibson Ave. lot Stream Margin/RDS Parcel ID No. 273707300014 1 CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Justin Barker, 970.429.2797 DATE: 3/13/18 PROJECT: Gibson Ave. lot (needs an address) REPRESENTATIVE: Chris Bendon, Bendon Adams – chris@bendonadams.com TYPE OF APPLICATION: Stream Margin Review/Residential Design Standards DESCRIPTION: The applicant owns a unique parcel of land that is adjacent to Gibson Avenue near the intersection with Maple Lane. The property is currently vacant and has a public trail crossing it and a sidewalk easement. Development on this site could be challenging due to the lot size, configuration and the presence of the trail and sidewalk easements. In reviewing the official zone district map it appears that the pro perty may be located with two different zone districts (R-30 and R-15). The property contains a development right and is subject to Section 26.710.022, Zoning of lands containing more than one underlying zone district. The applicant may request a formal administrative determination as a separate application regarding the development right and zone district requirements as they pertain to this property. The property is located within the Stream Margin Review area. Any potential development on this site requ ires heightened review pursuant to Section 26.435.040. Stream Margin Review is administrative unless the applicant is requesting a variation from a standard or an appeal of the top of slope (P&Z review). Any residential development on this property is also subject to Residential Design Standard review pursuant to Chapter 26.410. Residential Design Standard review will be combined with Stream Margin Review, either administratively or with P&Z. Alternative Compliance (administrative, flexible standards) or a variation (P&Z, non-flexible standards) from any of the design standards may be requested as part of the application. Given the challenging site configuration, the applicant may choose to request dimensional variances for the setbacks. A request for dimensional variance requires Board of Adjustment (BOA) approval, or may be combined with other applicable reviews at P&Z. Com Dev. Staff will pull a representative from the engineering department and parks department to assist with the review and have a consistent presence through the design and development of any project. New development will also be subject to the parking requirements of Chapter 26.515. Below is a link to the Land Use Application Form for your convenience: https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/View/1835 Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.314 Variances 26.410 Residential Design Standards 26.435.040 Stream Margin Review Exhibit 8 53 2 26.515 Transportation and Parking Management 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements 26.710.022 Zoning of lands containing more than one underlying zone district 26.710.050 Moderate-Density Residential (R-15) 26.710.080 Low-Density Residential (R-30) Below is a link to the Land Use Code for your convenience: https://www.cityofaspen.com/276/Title-26-Land-Use-Code Review by: Community Development Staff BOA or P&Z if variance/variation requested Public Hearing: None if administrative review only BOA (variance only) or P&Z (stream margin/RDS variation) Planning Fees: $1,300 deposit for 4 hours of staff time for administrative review only OR $1,950 deposit for 6 hours of staff time for dimensional variance OR $3,250 deposit for 10 hours of staff time for stream margin/RDS variation $81 flat fee for administrative determination Referral Fees: $325 deposit for 1 hour - Engineering $1,300 flat fee - Parks Total Deposit: $2,925 for administrative review only OR $3,575 for dimensional variance OR $4,875 for stream margin/RDS variation (additional/less planning or engineering hours will be billed/refunded at a rate of $325 per hour) $81 for administrative determination Please submit a paper copy of 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. 54 3  HOA Compliance form (Attached)  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 § 26.435.040.C, Stream Margin Review standards.  A site improvement survey (no older than a year from submittal) including topography and vegetation showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor by licensed in the State of Colorado. The survey shall also depict the 100-year floodplain, high water line and Top of Slope.  Any additional application materials as required by Subsection 26.435.080.C.2.  An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.  Completed copy of the Residential Design Standard Checklist: https://www.cityofaspen.com/280/Documents-and-Permits. If the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted:  Total deposit for review of the application.  a digital copy of all application materials provided in pdf file format. 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. 55 Exhibit 9 777 Gibson – Vicinity Map 56 49591282.1 730 E. Durant Avenue, Suite 200, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone: 970.925.6300 Fax: 970.925.1181 www.shermanhoward.com B. Joseph Krabacher Sherman & Howard L.L.C. Direct Dial Number: 970.300.0123 E-mail: jkrabacher@shermanhoward.com February 20, 2019 City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado Re: 777 Gibson Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 Ladies and Gentlemen: Our firm represents 777 Gibson, LLC (“777 Gibson”), the owner of certain property in Aspen commonly known as 777 Gibson Avenue (the “Property”), previously owned by Doug Allen.1 Due to the complexity of the title history for this Property, in support of our client’s Board of Adjustment application for setback variances, we are rendering the opinion that the legal creation of the Property is consistent with and not in violation of the City of Aspen Municipal Code requirements for subdivision. In rendering this opinion, we have relied upon the Title Insurance Commitment of Land Title Guaranty Company dated December 19, 2018 Order No. Q62009917-3. As I will outline further in this letter, the Property consists of two remainder parcels (shown on the map below in orange cross-hatching) resulting from a fathering parcel vested by a quiet title action in 1967, a subdivision of the property in 1978, a subsequent quiet title action in 1991, and several previous and intervening conveyances. A summary of the title background for the Property relevant to this determination is set forth below. 1. In 1967 in Civil Action 3483, the Pitkin County District Court issued a decree quieting title to a large fathering parcel in favor of G. E. Buchanan and Jean Francis for Tract A, which is depicted below and appears to match a large parcel identified on the historic Oklahoma Flats Addition Plat.2 1 See Vicinity Map attached as Exhibit A and Improvement Survey attached as Exhibit B hereto. 2 See Quiet Title Decree C.A. 3483 attached as Exhibit C hereto and marked-up Improvement Survey prepared by David McBride and revised April 4, 2018 depicting outline of property quieted pursuant thereto and Map of Lux Placer Showing Oklahoma Flats Addition recorded at Reception No. 94466 of the Records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder (the “Records”), attached as Exhibit D. Exhibit 10 57 2 Buchannan Tract A and Prior/Subsequent Divisions Under Section 26.480.020(A)(1) of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, the subdivision requirements do not apply to “[a] division of land created by judicial proceeding or order of a court of competent jurisdiction in this State, or by operation of law, provided that the city is given notice of and an opportunity to participate in the judicial proceeding prior to the entry of any such court order.” The City of Aspen was a named defendant in Civil Action 3483. Thus, pursuant to Section 26.480.020(A)(1), the decree (and the depiction of the Buchannan Decree parcel as a lot on the historic Lux Placer Plat, as further discussed below) 58 3 created the northwestern boundary of the western parcel of the Property (shown on the map above in cross-hatched orange and labeled as “Western Parcel.”) 2. In September, 1977, Buchanan and The Colorado National Bank of Denver (apparently as Trustee for Jean Buchanan’s interest) conveyed Tract A to Guy F. Grover (“Grover”)3, excepting from that conveyance a parcel in the Northern portion of Tract A created by a 1952 deed from The Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Company to Robert L. Kopp and conveyed in slightly modified format in 1962 by Kopp to Pitkin County, memorialized in a recorded plat and depicted in green on the map above (the “Pitkin County Exception Parcel”).4 Pursuant to Section 26.104.100 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code (“Code”), a “Lot” is defined as follows: “A defined individual area or unit of land resulting from subdivision and reflected on a recorded plat approved by the City; or if created and recorded prior to the adoption by the City of subdivision regulations or prior to its annexation into the City, a unit or area of land designated by a separate and distinct number or letter which is illustrated on a plat recorded in the office of the Clerk and Recorder for Pitkin County.” [Emphasis added] The Pitkin County Exception Parcel was a duly platted and legally existing Lot created before the implementation of the subdivision regulations in 1976. The Pitkin County Exception Parcel Lot boundary establishes the eastern boundary of the Western Parcel, and the northern boundary of the eastern parcel of the subject Property (shown on the map above in cross-hatched orange and labelled as “Eastern Parcel”). Because the Pitkin County Exception Parcel was a Lot created by the 1952 and 1962 conveyances and plat, its creation pre-dates the City of Aspen subdivision requirements implemented in 1976 and establishes legally recognizable boundaries for the aforementioned boundaries of the Eastern Parcel and the Western Parcel of the Property. The recorded plat depicting the Pitkin County Exception Parcel also depicts the alignment of Gibson Avenue, which establishes the northeastern boundary of the Eastern Parcel. 3. In February, 1978, Grover obtained approvals from the City of Aspen for and recorded the Creektree Subdivision PUD Plat, carving the Creektree Subdivision out of the balance of Tract A. This subdivision created several new, smaller parcels from the balance of Tract A, which remained in Grover’s possession (the “Remainder Parcels”), and legally created 3 See Trustee’s Deed and Special Warranty Deed recorded in Book 335 Page 476 at page 477and Quitclaim Deeds recorded at Book 335 Page 480 and Book 335 Page 482 of the Records, attached as Exhibit E hereto. 4 See Quitclaim Deeds from The Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Company to Robert L. Kopp and from Robert L. Kopp and Amelia Kopp to the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County recorded at Book 175, Page 592 and 198 Page 457; Plat of Survey recorded in Plat Book 2A Page 281, attached as Exhibit F hereto. 59 4 the southern, western, and southwestern boundaries of the Eastern Parcel and the southwestern boundary of the Western Parcel.5 4. In December, 1978, Grover conveyed the Remainder Parcels (or some portion thereof adjacent to the Creektree Subdivision) by Quitclaim Deed to Midwest Sailboats, Inc. In 1981, Midwest Sailboats, Inc. conveyed the Remainder Parcels to Neligh C. Coates, Jr.6 5. In April, 1991, a Decree Quieting Title to Michael J. Garrish in Case No. 89 CV 135 severed the southeastern portion of Tract A, depicted in blue on the diagram above as the “Garrish Tract” (now the River’s Edge Condominium).7 The City of Aspen was a defendant in that case. Thus, pursuant to Section 26.480.020(A)(1), the southeastern boundary of the Eastern Parcel of the Property was legally created. 6. In 1991, Grover conveyed the Remainder Parcels after severance of the Garrish Tract to Douglas P. Allen. Coates and Allen each conveyed their interests in the Property to our client in December, 2018 in the current configuration.8 It is our opinion that the carving up of the Property by several pre-1976 conveyances, along with the City’s approval of the 1978 Creektree Subdivision and the 1967 Buchannan quiet title decree, Garrish Tract Quiet title decree in 1991 and several historic recorded plats, operated to legally create the Property in a manner not inconsistent with the City of Aspen subdivision requirements. Sincerely, B. Joseph Krabacher 5 See Creektree Subdivision PUD Plat and Second Amendment to Creektree Subdivision Plat attached as Exhibit G hereto. 6 See Quitclaim Deeds recorded at Book 360, Page 514 and Book 404 Page 878 of the Records attached as Exhibit H hereto. 7 See Decree Quieting Title, Case No. 89 CV 135 recorded at Book 645, Page 512 of the Records and attached as Exhibit I hereto. 8 See Special Warranty Deeds recorded at Reception No. 652836 and 658217 in the Records attached as Exhibit J hereto. 60 6 49489072.1 EXHIBIT A (Vicinity Map) 61 7 49489072.1 EXHIBIT B (777 Gibson Improvement Survey) 62 63 8 49489072.1 EXHIBIT C (Judgment C.A. 3483) 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 9 49489072.1 EXHIBIT D (Diagram Depicting Creation of Property) 79 80 81 10 49489072.1 EXHIBIT E (Buchanan Conveyances to Grover) 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 11 49489072.1 EXHIBIT F (Creation of Pitkin County Exception Parcel) 91 92 93 94 12 49489072.1 EXHIBIT G (Creation of Creektree Subdivision Parcel – Plats) 95 96 97 98 99 13 49489072.1 EXHIBIT H (Conveyances of Property to Coates and Allen) 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 14 49489072.1 EXHIBIT I (Decree Quieting Title 89 CV 135 -- Garrish) 108 109 110 111 112 15 49489072.1 EXHIBIT J (Conveyances from Coates and Allen to 777 Gibson, LLC) 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 Exhibit 11122 the PBRworkshop 301 W. HYMAN STE. #6 ASPEN CO 81611 970-274-0481 or amos@pbrworkshop.com Site Plan DATE REVISION TITLE TITLE Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" 1.7.19 BOA DRAWINGS unless noted 8'-6"22'-0"1 8'-6"22'-0"2 777 GIBSON PARCEL ID 2737 - 073 - 00 - 014 SITUATED IN SE1/4 SW1/4 SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH. RANGE 84 WEST 6TH P.M. CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO VICINITY MAP - N.T.S. (PROPERTY IN GREEN) A.1.001 N VIEW FROM WALKING TRAIL VIEW FROM GIBSON AVE. EAST VIEW FROM GIBSON AVE. WEST "PARCEL 2" = 2,255 SQ.FT.+/- "PARCEL 1" = 5,436 SQ.FT.+/- TOTAL PROPERTY = 7,691 SQ.FT.+/- EXISTING SIDEWALK GIBSON AVENUE MAPLE LANE "PARCEL 2" PROPERTY LINE "PARCEL 2" NEW 6' HIGH PRIVACY FENCE EXIST. RETAINING WALL SITE PLAN EXISTING RETAINING WALL EXISTING SIDEWALK EXISTING CURB OKLAHOMA FLATS WALKING PATH 100' = 7929' 5'-2" 5'-0" 4'-4"6'-6" 5" 7'-2" 3'-11" 3'-6" 3'-3" 4'-3" 3'-0" PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED SETBACKS AT GRADE PATIO LAP POOL 18'-0" PROPOSED CURB CUT 2'-7" Exhibit 12 123 the PBRworkshop 301 W. HYMAN STE. #6 ASPEN CO 81611 970-274-0481 or amos@pbrworkshop.com Setback Study DATE REVISION TITLE TITLE Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" 1.7.19 BOA DRAWINGS unless noted 777 GIBSON PARCEL ID 2737 - 073 - 00 - 014 SITUATED IN SE1/4 SW1/4 SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH. RANGE 84 WEST 6TH P.M. CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO A.1.002 VICINITY MAP - N.T.S. (PROPERTY IN GREEN) ZONE DISTRICT R-15 SETBACKS: FRONT YARD = 25' REAR YARD = 10' SIDE YARD = 10' ZONE DISTRICT R-30 SETBACKS: FRONT YARD = 25' REAR YARD = 10' SIDE YARD = 15' SETBACK STUDY N PROPOSED SETBACKS SETBACKS: FRONT YARD = 5' REAR YARD = 3' SIDE YARD = 3' CITY OF ASPEN ZONING MAP - N.T.S. (PROPERTY IN GREEN) "PARCEL 1" "PARCEL 2" PROPERTY LINE TOTAL AREA PROPSED TOTAL AREA R-15 TOTAL AREA R-303'-0" 5'-0" 25'-0"10'-0 " 15'-0 " 3'-0" 10'-0" 15'-0 " 10'-0 " 3'-0" 3'-0" 3'-0" 4,092 SQ.FT 127 SQ.FT 64 SQ.FT"PARCEL 2" = 2,255 SQ.FT.+/- "PARCEL 1" = 5,436 SQ.FT.+/- TOTAL PROPERTY = 7,691 SQ.FT.+/- PROPERTY LINE 124 the PBRworkshop 301 W. HYMAN STE. #6 ASPEN CO 81611 970-274-0481 or amos@pbrworkshop.com Concept Drawings DATE REVISION TITLE TITLE Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" 1.7.19 BOA DRAWINGS unless noted 777 GIBSON PARCEL ID 2737 - 073 - 00 - 014 SITUATED IN SE1/4 SW1/4 SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH. RANGE 84 WEST 6TH P.M. CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO N 1 UPPER FLOOR PLAN Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 LOWER FLOOR PLAN Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 3 EAST ELEVATION Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 5 NORTH ELEVATION Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 6 WEST ELEVATION Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" 4 SOUTH ELEVATION Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" ENTRY CL. CL.CL.CL. HALL UP DN.KITCHEN DINING POWDER LIVING BED 1 BATH 1 BATH 2 BED 2 FAR CALCULATIONS TOTAL GROSS LOT AREA = 7,691 SF +/- 1. GENERAL FLOOR AREA UPPER = 1,950 SF LOWER = 430 SF 2,430 SF BED 3 BATH 3 MECHANICAL/ STORAGE A.1.003 15'-4"11'-10"13'-3"15'-4"23'-4"13'-0"15'-4"TOTAL NET LOT AREA = 2,572 SF +/-(25% REDUCTION DUE TO SLOPES) ALLOWABLE FAR: R-15 ZONE = 2,785 SF +/- R-30 ZONE = 2,785 SF +/- PROPOSED FAR = 2,430 SF +/- 2. VERTICAL CIRCULATION = 50 SF 3. ATTIC & CRAWL SPACE = 0 SF 4. DECKS, BALCONIES, TRELLIS = 0 SF (LESS THAN 15% OF ALLOWABLE FAR) 5. FRONT PORCH = 0 SF 6. PATIOS = 0 SF (ALL PATIO AREA LESS THAN 30" ABOVE/BELOW GRADE) 7-15. NOT APPLICALBE = 0 SF (N/A) (N/A)8'-0"8'-10"(25% REDUCTION DUE TO SLOPES) (25% REDUCTION DUE TO SLOPES) (Applicant not waiving rights to zoning allowances) Floor Area, heights, architecture, and interior layout provided as information, not limitation. Applicant may make adjustments to proposed architecture and interior layout that do not conflict with City standards. (Dimensions provided as information, not limitation) 125 From:Mike Horvath To:Ben Anderson Subject:777 Gibson Date:Wednesday, April 3, 2019 7:17:33 AM Attachments:image001.png Ben,   Engineering needs more information on numerous topics. Responses should include narratives, possibly a conceptual plan, and narratives should include variance request topics laid out in COA URMP Section 1.2.7. These narratives need to touch on safety and impacts to the general public. Please provide responses to the following topics before we can fully review setbacks requested:   1. Stormwater: How will stormwater be accounted for since site is completely filled with structures? Please provide a narrative/conceptual plan on how this will be addressed. 2. Head in parking: Turning movements and site distances need to be examined. Please provide narrative that includes sight distances and how this situation provides safety to pedestrians and vehicles. 3. Constructability: No sidewalk exists across Gibson and roadway is not wide enough to accompany two way traffic and a pedestrian walkway. The sidewalk cannot be closed during construction. How will the foundation be constructed without encroaching onto the sidewalk? Please provide a constructability narrative that discusses foundation, excavation stabilization, sidewalk etc. 4. Slope Stability: Steep slope analysis is required for sites with slopes greater than 30%. The study needs to be performed by the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) at the applicant’s cost. 5. Sidewalk: The sidewalk easement requires maintenance of the sidewalk. Construction of house cannot prohibit future maintenance of sidewalk. Please provide narrative on how sidewalk will be maintained moving forward. 6. Snow Removal: With the sidewalk directly adjacent to the street and house, where will sidewalk snow be removed to? Also, the Engineering Standards require 30% of all paved areas (driveway) on site to remain open for snow storage adjacent to paved area. The current proposed development allows not areas for snow storage. Please address snow storage. 7. Trail: The trail below the proposed development has a permanent earth retention system. Please verify that proposed development will not negatively affect system.   Please forward these comments to the applicant. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks.   Mike Horvath, PE, CFM City Engineer II Engineering Department 126 201 N. Mill St. Aspen, CO 81611 970-429-2776 www.cityofaspen.com            127 From:David Radeck To:Ben Anderson Subject:RE: Gibson "lot" Variance Date:Tuesday, May 7, 2019 4:27:34 PM Attachments:image005.png Hi Ben, Parks comments for this request are as follows: Parks currently plows snow on both the Oklahoma Flats trail and the sidewalk section that runs along Gibson Avenue. If this variance is approved, the new homeowner will be required to maintain the walk along Gibson Avenue with the understanding that snow cannot be placed into the road. No snow will be allowed to be shed off of the roof or the lot of this proposed building site onto the Oklahoma trail. The trees on this lot are stabilizing the hillside and any removals will need to be approved by the City Forester. Soil stabilization that may be required for this lot cannot encroach into the trail easement. Thanks! Dave David Radeck Project Technician Parks Department 585 Cemetery Lane Aspen, CO 81611 p: 970.429.2025 c: 970.274.2175 f: 970.920.5128 www.cityofaspen.com   To apply for a Tree Removal/Dripline Excavation Permit, register here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SFNewUser   Tree Removal/Dripline Excavation Permit Online Permit Application: https://cityofaspen.force.com/applicantportal/s/login/? startURL=%2Fapplicantportal%2Fs%2F&ec=302   If you need assistance for the online portal, please contact customer support: sfsupport@cityofaspen.com or call 970-920-5065  128   From: Ben Anderson  Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2019 4:15 PM To: David Radeck <david.radeck@cityofaspen.com>; Hailey Guglielmo <hailey.guglielmo@cityofaspen.com> Subject: Gibson "lot" Variance   Hi Hailey and David - here is a link to the application for the special lot on Gibson. Please be in contact if you have questions – it is a doozy. Hailey – could you let me know who will be the review engineer on this? X:\City\Ben_Anderson\Gibson_lot Variance\gibson lot_variance Cheers, Ben   Ben Anderson, AICP Planner II Community Development Department 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 970.429.2765 www.cityofaspen.com www.aspencommunityvoice.com Notice and Disclaimer: This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Further, the information or opinions contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If applicable, the information and opinions contained in the email are based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance.   129 Exhibit F Extended Legal Description A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST ONE- QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT “A” OF QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 9, 1991 IN BOOK 658 AT PAGE 784, CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. Exhibit A of Quit Claim Deed (Book 658, Page 784) PARCELS OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST ONE- QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., BEING THAT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN QUIET TITLE JUDGEMENT CIVIL ACTION No. 3483 OF PITKIN COUNTY LYING NORTHERLY OF LOT 1 CREEKTREE SUBDIVSION AND THE GARRISH TRACT AS DESCRIBED IN QUIET TITLE DECREE RECORDED IN BOOK 645 AT PAGE 512 AND EXCEPTING ALL OF GIBSON AVENUE AS SHOWN IN PALT BOOK 2A AT PAGE 281. THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCELS BEING SHOWN AS CROSS HATCHED AREAS ON THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT “A” PROPERTY INVESTIGATION BUCHANAN PARCEL DATED MAY 21, 1991 PREPARED BY ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS, INC., PITKIN COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO. 130 From:Stirling, Bill To:Ben Anderson Subject:777 Gibson Ave. Date:Thursday, May 30, 2019 3:01:23 PM Dear Members of the Aspen City Board of Adjustment, I admire the applicant, who brought the affordable housing certificates program to the City of Aspen, an important and ingenious method of creating affordable housing in our town. The applicant is a resourceful developer and has a string of successes in his wake. However, I cannot understand how this steep piece of ground could ever have been approved for a building site. It must be one of those that slipped through the cracks or was part of some trade off in the past. It bridges two zone districts, and must have been some odd remainder parcel through the give and take in approving other subdivisions in that immediate area. For starters any construction on this steep site would compromise the Oklahoma Flats Trail in a major way. This trail leading down the hillside, over the bridge and into town is an important amenity for all the residents on the east side of Aspen. The City spent a lot of money recently taking a bit of the pitch out of this bucolic trail, and also did some nice landscaping. All of that money and effort would be for naught, if the feeling of this trail is changed. Without the set backs requested, there is no way this lot should ever be developed. Even with the 4 foot set backs requested, it is not even a marginal building site. Is it possible with modern construction techniques to build a residence on this very steep site? Possibly, but that does not mean it should happen. I believe it would be a major mistake to consider this application as even being serious. Because for various reasons the lot is platted, an applicant can ask for an approval to build. Maybe it is a “legal lot,” but that does not mean it should ever be developed. Construction access would be a nightmare. It will take many yards of concrete to shore up that hillside. What a that would be. They would have to close off that section of Gibson for months to give construction trucks access. I understand the long time owners recently sold to the current owners. I would posit that the new owners entered into a highly speculative deal to research, test and see if there is any way to get the City to approve their application. The applicant was shrewd and am sure got a very good price. I would suggest, even if it is a legal lot, that some creative way should be considered, short of approving a building right, but which might be a combination of the City’s contributing some money coupled with the applicant seeking a Federal tax right off, because the building opportunity would be expunged by mutual agreement. It might not bring any significant profit to the applicant, but could be in the long term best interest of the Town. Trying to get a building approval for a marginal, or remainder lot, is a highly speculative action, and not a good thing for any of the neighbors in the immediate area, and not something anyone driving by in the future would believe could have ever happened. A building approval may be good for the applicant, but it is not in my mind a good thing for our community.131 I will be out of town for the B of A meeting next week. Please share my email with the B of A members. There must be a creative alternative approach to solving this puzzle. The Applicant is a wizard, and could apply his acumen, not for self- aggrandizement, but by coming up with a compromise, short of building, which could be a benefit for the entire community. Sincerely, Bill Stirling, 118 Maple Ln, Aspen. BILL STIRLING DOUGLAS ELLIMAN REAL ESTATE DIRECT: 970.920.2300 OFFICE: 970.925.8810 MOBILE: 970.948.8287 FAX: 970.920.2131 Bill.Stirling@elliman.com 630 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 101, ASPEN, CO 81611 MY LISTINGS At Douglas Elliman, we won't ask you for your social security number, bank account or other highly confidential information over email. *Wire Fraud is Real*. Before wiring ANY money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have the authority to bind a third party to a real estate contract via written or verbal communication. This email is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete it. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not keep, use, disclose, copy or distribute this email without the author's prior permission. We will never send or ask for sensitive or non-public information via e-mail, including bank account, social security information or wire information. We have taken precautions to minimize the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise you to carry out your own virus checks on any attachment to this message. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. The information contained in this communication may be confidential and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege. If you are the intended recipient and you do not wish to receive similar electronic messages from us in the future then please respond to the sender to this effect. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Company. Douglas Elliman may engage a third party vendor to answer telephone, email, text, and internet inquiries. This vendor acts as an agent for Douglas Elliman, and keeps all information confidential. 132 From:Mario Strobl To:Ben Anderson Subject:777 Gibson Ave Date:Wednesday, May 29, 2019 4:43:33 PM Hi Ben, just wanted to voice my opinion on the proposed construction on Gibson. Hopefully the zero setbacks are not granted. That is the only sidewalk on that section of street, not to mention that it will impact the trail down to the river that was just finished at great cost. Where is all the construction equipment going to be stored as well as ports potties? The only way I see a building, carport and swimming pool is cantilevered over the trail. Also lots of trees will be cut down. I realize people have the right to build on their property but I can't think of a worse and most difficult location to build. Thx, mario strobl Sent from my iPhone 133 From:Alex de L" Arbre To:Ben Anderson Subject:Concerns re: 777 Gibson Date:Thursday, May 30, 2019 9:11:53 AM Hi Ben, Thanks for your time on the phone yesterday. My name is Alexandra de L'Arbre, and I am the owner of 200 Cottonwood Lane, located about a block from 777 Gibson. I'm writing to express my concerns about any setback variances granted to a future structure proposed on this property. My family and I (including a dog and two small children) use both the sidewalk to the north of the property and the Oklahoma Flats path below the property several times a day. This corridor is already cramped with the Fox Crossing structures built to the sidewalk on the other side of the street. I fear more structures that abut the sidewalks and pathways will deteriorate the character of this area and cause safety issues with pinch points for pedestrians, bikers, and cars. Please let me know if I can provide any further detail. Thank you for sharing my input with those involved in making this decision. Best regards, Alex de L'Arbre 200 Cottonwood Lane, Aspen CO 81611 (805) 403-1271 alex.delarbre@gmail.com 134 135 May 29, 2019 Mr. Ben Anderson Aspen City Planning and Zoning Aspen City Hall Aspen Colorado 81611 Re: 777 Gibson Re-Zoning LETTER OF PROTEST Dear Mr. Anderson, Thank You for meeting in person with me yesterday. Again, I am John Carbona the owner, and manager of Ninfa International LLC, the owner of 855 Gibson Ave. and member of Rivers Edge Homeowners Association LTD. I am new to the area only just recently acquiring my property, so I will apologize first, for the strong tenor of this letter. I am writing to oppose the granting of “ANY” set back variance requested for the single-family home and swimming pool being proposed on 777 Gibson Ave., which is scheduled to go before your board on June 6th 2019. Unfortunately, as I told you in person, I have to be in Florida on this day, but, Mr. Chris LaCroix of Garfield and Hecht P.C., is representing me in this matter, and will be present at the meeting. I firmly believe that everyone should follow the City of Aspen Building codes for all building projects. I also maintain under special circumstances variances or exceptions to those rules should be considered, but only in times of hardship. I do not agree that a variance asked for by a local developer who knowingly purchased 777 Gibson Ave. with this “existing blemish”, and who has far more than a general knowledge of restrictive setbacks would be considered that type of a hardship. Actually, by granting “any” variance to the developer, you create other and more real hardships. Examples would be, one to the local neighbors, one to the indigenous animals and birds who use the shrubs and mature trees for life and food, and to visitors and users of the Trail who walk it every day. 136 I ask where is the fairness and equitable rights to the nature and towns people in the area if you put the developers rights any higher than all of our collective rights? I understand the City is in a tight squeeze over the situation, and clearly wants and should be equitable to all parties. I understand there are development rights to the property, I understand that the developer is a good man who builds affordable housing in the area, I also understand he has home field advantage in this matter, BUT granting rights to build a home and pool or anything on this piece of property is not the answer and not equitable to me or the others protesting. I suggest other alternatives. Use some of the enormous amounts of money you have and protect this piece of land by buying it. Trade it with some other parcel you may have, do anything but please DO NOT GRANT this project permission to move forward. This would be a costly decision, as we as a group fully intend to exercise every resource we have to stop this project. • l believes the construction project itself will cause substantial detriment to the public good and to the neighboring residential community. A house sitting on the sidewalk of Gibson Ave. is not in keeping with our neighborhood. This is not New York City. I bought here in the City of Aspen because of the healthy setbacks and privacy afforded through the Zoning rules. • I believed it would be impossible to start a construction job at this site, as there are no parking or staging areas for construction crews, trucks, garbage haul services and the like. • A two-car garage right on Gibson Ave., five feet from the curb, is DANGEROUS and will not allow a driver to back out of his/her garage and see the street, he/she is blocked by the garage walls, that is, until the car is already on the street, and has run someone over or caused an automobile accident. • I suspect the project would require closing Oklahoma Flats Trail during construction, and this is a well trafficked path for employees living in the area. • Gibson Ave. and surrounding streets are not able to handle the type or amount of traffic generated by this development in the short term. That intersection (Gibson/Maple) is crucial to the folks living in Smuggler. Consider entry and egress, if a fire broke out in Smuggler, it would be a DISASTER as streets would be obstructed to emergency vehicles. • The neighboring community that I have personally communicated with, feel it will negatively, effect the community and create a multiyear hardship on some of our current homeowners, by loss of rental income and property value depression. • The development will forever change the Oklahoma Flats Trail, that was a joint effort of private and public money to have a natural space for the folks to commute by foot into town who live up here. A construction project would negatively impact those walkers and people who enjoy a quiet stroll. 137 Can you imagine a loud pool party over the trail, with party throwers looking down on the people below? • The project will remove vegetation and trees that are crucial to the habitat we protect dearly. I recently asked our City for permission to clean some dead underbrush on a property line I share with them along the river. My argument is that, some of this dead matter, was a hazard and potential fuel for a fire. Only one has to be reminded of the Malibu and Basalt fires to understand the potential hazard. Our City responded and said, I could not clean up the dead shrubs, because, “We need to maintain understory vegetation along the riverfront, it provides critical habitat protection for the riparian area, Parks would not allow removal”, I think the variances asked for would remove, understory vegetation and habitats the City protects, again where is the equity and fairness to me and my neighbors? • The developer must look for a more suitable property for his project, and the City should spearhead this. This is the definition of “PUBLIC” in Public Service. • The present variance request must be denied, because this kind of gross violation of Aspen’s standards puts developers’ profits above public’s interest and sets a horrible precedent. • To quote a friend neighbor and colleague Mr. Tim Hurd , do not kick the can down the road, even if it strategically allows another City Agency to take another swipe at the project, that is not fair to the developer, stop it now and stop any false expectations or stress. Respectfully, John A. Carbona Manager Ninfa International LLC Owner: 855 Gibson Ave. Aspen Co. 138 From:Eric Carlson To:Ben Anderson; Matt Kuhn; Jeff Woods; Austin Weiss; Jim True Cc:lynne carlson; Tim@bluesprucelp.com; eugeneseymourmd@mac.com; TTodd@hollandhart.com; rvolk64528@aol.com; john@carbonacapital.com; vinodgupta1946@gmail.com; wdb@rodel.com; patti.clapper@pitkincounty.com; pauln@everestcpi.com; jennyhurd@gmail.com Subject:Objection to Proposed Development 777 Gibson Avenue Date:Thursday, May 30, 2019 11:22:57 AM Attachments:image001.png To all concerned: My wife and I are the Owners/Managers of Aspen Joy LLC –the owner of 735 E. Francis Street in Oklahoma Flats. The corner of our property line is approximately 10 feet from the lot line of this proposed development. That said, while we are not officially adjacent to the development, we are so close that we would like our concerns to be given the weight of an adjacent property owner. We strongly object to the proposed development for the following reasons: Subjective & Unfair Application of Established Building Codes: We applied for a building permit approximately 2 ½ years ago for the purpose of adding two dormers to our existing roof line. These proposed dormers did not impact anyone’s line of sight and were lower than the peak of our roof. Not a single neighbor had an objection as it had literally no neighbor nor environmental impact. Nonetheless, the city denied our proposed plan and said that no variance would be issued as our proposed plan did not meet some esoteric code. As such, we were forced to modify our plan in order to fully comply with the building codes. Our experience begs the question as to why no variance was allowed for our non- impactful, unopposed proposal and yet a developer who is apparently known to the city seems to be getting preferential treatment. Likewise, when we recently wanted to remove a dead tree, we were required by the City of Aspen to solely remove ONE limb as the hope was that the rest of the tree would survive. As this proposed development at 777 Gibson Avenue can only reasonably occur with significant variances to set-backs and would necessitate the removal of many trees, again it appears that the established building codes are being unfairly and subjectively applied. Nuisance and Impact of Construction: We object to the Nuisance of construction activity in very close proximity to our home. We will be adversely affected by the increase of construction traffic, construction noise and general increased activity by the development of this site. The primary benefits of The Oklahoma Flats neighborhood are the privacy and integration with nature—both of which will be negatively impacted by developing the parcel at 777 Gibson Avenue. In just the past several years we have had deer, wild turkeys, wild fox, and numerous bear on our property and we hate to think of the impact this development will cause to their habitat. This proposed development does not meet established City of Aspen Building Codes and will require drastic, unprecedented variances that will have significant negative impacts on neighbors, citizens using the Oklahoma Flats Trail, and wildlife in the area. Storm Water Runoff: We have strong concerns regarding the control and environmental impact of storm water runoff (especially during the construction process) should this site be developed. The entire Oklahoma Flats neighborhood and the Roaring Fork River lie directly below via a steep incline to the proposed site. What is the plan to control this runoff both during construction and 139 thereafter? Ben- please confirm receipt of this e-mail and the inclusion of our concerns in the official review of this proposed development. Best Regards, Eric Carlson | President | Chicago Nut & Bolt, Inc. 150 Covington Drive, Bloomingdale, IL 60108 Office: 630.529.8600 ext 405 | ecarlson@cnb-inc.com 140 141 142 143 Page 1 of 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Sophie Varga, Zoning Enforcement Officer THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: 546 McSkimming Road, Dimensional Variance Review Resolution No. __, Series of 2019 MEETING DATE: June 6, 2019 APPLICANT: Karring LLC, 5390 Kietzke Lane #202, Reno, NV 89511 REPRESENTATIVE: Colleen Loughlin, Zone 4 Architects LOCATION: 546 McSkimming Road CURRENT ZONING: Moderate Density Residential (R-15B) SUMMARY: The applicant requests a front yard setback variance from the required 30’ for this site to allow for a new retaining wall. A varying setback from 0’ to 19’ is required to expand the driveway with new/redeveloped retaining walls. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not support the front yard setback variance request and therefore recommends denial of the project. Figure 1: Vicinity Map 144 Page 2 of 5 REQUEST OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: The Applicant is requesting the following approval 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-15B zone district (The Board of Adjustment is the final review authority). BACKGROUND: 546 McSkimming Road contains a single-family dwelling unit. The site has a gross lot area of 16,727 square feet. 9,143 square feet of the gross lot area has slopes greater than 20%. This is typical for the zone and surrounding neighborhood. The R-15B zone district has minimum front yard setback of 30’, minimum side yard setback of 5’, and a minimum rear yard setback of 10’. There is currently a boulder retaining wall in the front yard setback that is up to 7’ in height. Title 26 of the Municipal Code allows retaining walls which do not exceed 30” vertically above or below the lower of natural or finished grade. 546 McSkimming Road is part of the Aspen Grove Subdivision which was created in 1958 and annexed into the city in 1987. This subdivision is one of the only areas of the city that is zoned R-15B (Moderate-Density Residential). The R-15B zone is exempt from Residential Design Standards and 8040 Greenline Review. The McSkimming Road neighborhood is located on the lower portion of Smuggler Mountain. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing boulder retaining wall and replace it with an engineered retaining wall. The new retaining wall would further reduce the setback in order to create a larger driveway. An additional retaining wall in the setback would be necessary to support the new, larger driveway. The applicant requests a varying setback from 0’ to 19’ from the minimum front yard setback (reducing the setback from 30’) to accommodate the new walls. The request is due to the applicant’s belief that the presence of steep slopes on the property creates a development hardship. The applicant states that the dimensional variance will enable an acceptable driveway width for life-safety reasons. The widened driveway would allow for a easier turn-around to exit the driveway and the replaced upper retaining wall would more effectively retain the steep slope above the house. 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 is able to grant a variance to avoid a “regulatory taking”. The property owner must demonstrate that their rights, as compared with owners of similar properties, have been deprived. In considering these criteria, the Board of Adjustment must consider unique conditions inherent to the property which are not the result of the applicant’s actions and are not applicable to other parcels, buildings or structures. 145 Page 3 of 5 Figure 3: 546 McSkimming Road Proposed Drive and Retaining Wall (Rendering) Figure 2: 546 McSkimming Road Proposed Site Plan with Requested Varying Front Yard Setback 146 Page 4 of 5 STAFF COMMENT After reviewing the application, Staff is concerned regarding the project’s compliance with the applicable review criteria. None of the three criteria are met (see Exhibit A – Variance Review Staff Findings). Regarding Criterion 1, Staff finds the criterion not met. Staff believes a reasonable expectation is that zoning limitations are observed and enforced as uniformly as practicable, and the granting of a variance would not be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of Title 26 and the Municipal Code. When reviewing Criterion 2, Staff finds this variance is not the minimum necessary for reasonable use of the site. The home has been in use since 1964 and reasonable use of the property (including the driveway) has been established. Staff finds that Criterion 3 is also not satisfied. A special circumstance or condition does not exist that is not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district. Steep topography is consistent with the surrounding landscape and subdivision; this zone district is largely developed on the slope of Smuggler Mountain. The current design presents an inconvenience, not a hardship. Granting the proposed setback variance would grant special privilege to this parcel to avoid the setback requirements of the R-15B zone district. REFERRAL AGENCIES Both the Parks Department and the Engineering Department were referred to review this request. Parks will permit this design. Engineering’s main concern is that all construction takes place on the parcel, not in the right of way. The applicant is sure that this requirement will be met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of this application as the review standards are not met. This application reflects a request of convenience, rather than a hardship. The applicant already has reasonable use of the lot. There are alternative design solutions that would lessen the encroachment into the setback. The inconvenience that the applicant is experiencing is not unique and could be remedied via a different design. If granted, the Resolution has been drafted so that it is only for the purpose of constructing the expanded driveway and retaining walls. The amended front-yard setback should not permit the construction of any other improvements. PROPOSED MOTION: Staff recommends the board make a motion to deny the Resolution. In the alternative, the board can make a motion to approve the Resolution, which approves the variance request. 147 Page 5 of 5 ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Variance Review Criteria, Staff Findings Exhibit B – Application Exhibit C – Affidavit of Public Notice 148 Board of Adjustment Resolution No., Series 2019 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. (SERIES OF 2019) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPROVING A DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 3, BLOCK 3, ASPEN GROVE SUBDIVISION, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 546 MCSKIMMING ROAD. Parcel ID No: 273-718-102-002 WHEREAS,the Community Development Department received an application for 546 McSkimming Road (the Application) from Karing LLC (Applicant), represented by Colleen Loughlin, Zone 4 Architects, 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-15B) 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 – April 11, 2019, as applicable to this Project; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment reviewed the Application at a duly noticed public hearing on June 6, 2019; and, WHEREAS,during a duly noticed public hearing on June 6, 2019, the Board of Adjustment approved Resolution , Series of 2019, by a to () vote, 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 30’ to a varying 0’ to 19’. This variance shall only be applied to those improvementsreflecting the driveway expansion and retaining walls as displayed in Exhibit A, Approved Site Plan.No other development shall be permitted in the amended front-yard other than those permitted setback projections defined within Land Use Code Subsection 26.575.020.E.5, Allowed Projections into Setbacks. 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. 149 Board of Adjustment Resolution No., Series 2019 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 acourt 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 6 th day of June, 2019. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: ________________________________________________________ Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Andrew Sandler, Chair Attest: _______________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk Attachments: Exhibit A: Approved site plan 150 Board of Adjustment Resolution No., Series 2019 Page 3 of 3 Exhibit A: Approved Site Plan 151 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 parcel has been reasonably used since the original development; the minimum necessary has been established. Additional design options are available that would lessen the need for a variance and still improve circulation. 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:Interpretation and enforcement of Title 26 creates an inconvenience for the applicant, not a hardship that other lots do not experience. The physical features present on the parcel are not unique to the R-15B zone district. Properties often need to accommodate physical features such as ditch easements, steep slopes or trees. It’s clear that there are sometopographic burdens on the site; however these site issuesare a consistent occurrence throughout the zone district. The inconvenience that the applicant is experiencing is not unique and could be remedied via a different design. The site condition was present when the property was purchased in 2018.Staff finds the criterion not met. 152 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 to this parcel to avoid the setback requirements of the R-15B zone district. Development in the 30 foot front yard setback is a common occurrence in this zone district, created prior to the annexation of the area. New development is required to meet current dimensional standards. Granting this variance will establish a precedent for other homes along McSkimming Road when development is requested in the setback.Staff finds the criterion not met. 153 November 2017 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LAND USE APPLICATION Project Name and Address:_________________________________________________________________________ Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) _____________________________ APPLICANT: Name: ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Address: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone #: ___________________________ email: __________________________________ REPRESENTIVATIVE: Name: _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Address:________________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone#: _____________________________ email:___________________________________ Description: Existing and Proposed Conditions Review: Administrative or Board Review Have you included the following?FEES DUE: $ ______________ Pre-Application Conference Summary Signed Fee Agreement HOA Compliance form All items listed in checklist on PreApplication Conference Summary Required Land Use Review(s): Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) required fields: Net Leasable square footage _________ Lodge Pillows______ Free Market dwelling units ______ Affordable Housing dwelling units_____ Essential Public Facility square footage ________ 154 KARIN G LLC 5390 KIETZKE LANE SUITE 202 RENO, NV 89511 155 1 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY DATE: March 6, 2019 PLANNER: Bob Narracci, 429.2754 PROJECT NAME AND ADDRESS: 546 McSkimming Road Retaining Wall Setback PARCEL ID# 273718102002 REPRESENTATIVE: Colleen Loughlin, Zone 4 Architects DESCRIPTION: (Existing and Proposed Conditions) The site at 546 McSkimming Road contains a retaining wall paralleling the driveway that serves the subject property, and which is located between the driveway and the McSkimming Road right-of-way. The property is in the R-15B zone district. The minimum front setback required in the R-15B zone district is thirty (30) feet. The existing dry-stacked stone retaining wall, located within the 30-foot front setback, is failing. The property owner proposes to remove the existing retaining wall and reconstruct an engineered concrete retaining wall. Both the existing and proposed replacement retaining walls are approximately seven feet in height. Seven foot +/- retaining walls constructed in areas of the lot which conform to the minimum required setbacks, are allowed by the Land Use Code. Since the retaining wall reconstruction is proposed to occur approximately one (1) foot +/- from the front property line, approval from the Board of Adjustment is required. The request for a setback variance may be submitted pursuant to Land Use Code section 26.314.040, Variances and will be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. To authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the Board of Adjustment 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 the terms of this Title and the Municipal Code to other parcels, buildings or structures, in the same zone district. RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS: Section Number Section Title 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.314 Variances 26.710.070 Moderate-Density Residential (R-15B) For your convenience – links to the Land Use Application and Land Use Code are below: Land Use Application Land Use Code REVIEW BY: • Staff for complete application • Board of Adjustment for approval 156 2 REQUIRED LAND USE REVIEW(S): • Dimensional Variance Request (Front Setback) PLANNING FEES: $1,950.00 deposit for six hours of staff time ENGINEERING FEES: $325 / hour, billed with planning case. PARKS DEPARTMENT FEES: $975 flat fee TOTAL DEPOSIT: $3,250.00 (additional/lesser planning hours are billed/refunded at a rate of $325/hour ). APPLICATION CHECKLIST – These items should first be submitted in a paper copy.  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 to application).  An 8 ½” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.  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 approval associated with the property. While complete architectural drawings for the pr oposed work 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 scaled site plan. Existing and proposed.  Plans for the proposed retaining wall. Once the application 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 application.  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 t hat may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. 157 Land Title Gua ra ntee Company Customer Distribution PREVENT FRAUD - Please remember to call a member of our closing team when initiating a wire transfer or providing wiring instructions. Order Number:QPR62010252 Date: 03/25/2019 Property Addres s :546 M CSKIMM ING ROAD, ASPEN, CO 81611 PLEASE CONTACT YOUR CLOSER OR CLOSER'S ASSISTANT FOR WIRE TRANSFER INSTRUCTIONS For Closing Assistance For Title Assistance Roaring Fork Valley Title Team 533 E HOPKINS #102 ASPEN, CO 81611 (970) 927-0405 (Work) (970) 925-0610 (Work Fax ) valleyresponse@ltgc.com Buyer/Borrower KARING LLC Deliv ered via: Store Doc uments on Disk SUTTON PLACE INVESTMENTS Attention: NIKA K DARAGAN 101 HUNTINGTON AVE SUITE 2100 BOSTON, M A 02199 (617) 217-3509 (Work ) (617) 217-3501 (Work Fax) nik a.daragan@s uttonpl.com Deliv ered via: Electronic M ail 158 Order Number:QPR62010252 Date: 03/25/2019 Property Addres s :546 M CSKIMM ING ROAD, ASPEN, CO 81611 Chain of Title Documents: Pitkin county recorded 03/06/2018 under reception no. 645667 Plat Map(s): Pitkin county recorded 09/03/1963 at book 2 page 291 159 This Report is based on a limited search of the county real property records and provides the name(s) of the vested owner(s), the legal description, tax information (taken from information provided by the county treasurer on its website) and encumbrances, which, for the purposes of this report, means deed of trust and mortgages, and liens recorded against the property and the owner(s) in the records of the clerk and recorder for the county in which the subject is located. This Report does not constitute any form of warranty or guarantee of title or title insurance. The liability of Land Title Guarantee Company is strictly limited to (1) the recipient of the Report, and no other person, and (2) the amount paid for the report. Prepared For: SUTTON PLACE INVESTMENTS This Report is dated: 03/15/2019 at 5:00 P.M . Address: 546 M CSKIM MING ROAD, ASPEN, CO 81611 Legal Description: LOT 3, BLOCK 3, ASPEN GROVE SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED SEPTEMBER 3, 1963 IN PLAT BOOK 2A AT PAGE 291 AS RECEPTION NO. 116127, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. Record Owner: KARING LLC We find the following documents of record affecting subject property: 1.WARRANTY DEED RECORDED M ARCH 06, 2018 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 645665. 2.DEED OF TRUST RECORDED MARCH 06, 2018 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 645667. ***************** PROPERTY TAX INFORM ATION ********************** Parcel No.: 273718102002 2019 Land As s es s ed Value $180,000.00 2019 Improv ements Assessed Value $90,660.00 2018 real property tax es UNPAID in the amount of $9,870.16. **************************************************************** Land Title Guarantee Company Property R eport Order Num ber:QPR62010252 160 161 162 163 WWW.ZONE4ARCHITECTS.COM 546 MCSKIMMING ROAD VICINITY MAP 1806 PROJECT:PROJ. NO.: SCALE: DATE: REVISIONS: 03.12.2019 N.T.S. 546 MCSKIMMING ROAD HIGHWAY 82N 164 C:\General CADD 12\Gxd\15160AB.gxd -- 03/19/2019 -- 02:17 PM -- Scale 1 : 120.000000 165 April 01, 2019 HAND DELIVERY Mr. Bob Narracci City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 546 McSkimming Residence | Retaining Wall Setback Dear Bob: On behalf of the owner of 546 McSkimming Road, Zone 4 Architects would like to submit a Dimensional Variance Request application to the City of Aspen with the request for a variance of the retaining wall height allowed in the front setback in the R-15B Zone district (30 feet). The reasons for making this request are due to constraints on 546 McSkimming existing front yard setback, existing nonconforming boulder walls which are failing, and zoning requirements capping retaining walls within a setback at 30” in height. The majority of the hardship is created by the existing boulder wall which is in disrepair and exceeds the 30” height allowed by Zoning in setbacks. The existing front yard setback is 30 feet. We are proposing to allow for a variance within this setback which will allow for an engineered retaining wall to replace the non-engineered boulder wall. The new wall will be designed to accommodate adequate retainage and site drainage. Front Yard Setback Allowed projections into the setback include lands cape walls, berms, retaining walls, stairways and similar structures, which do not exceed 30” vertically above or below the lower of natural or finished grade. Improvements may be up to 30” above or below grade simultaneously, for up to a 60” total. Improvements may exceed 30” below grade if determined to be necessary for the structural integrity of the improvement. The existing retaining wall reaches a height of about 7’-0” at its highest point to retain the existing grade above the property. Maintaining a new retaining wall at 30” above grade significantly affects the buildability of the retaining wall as described below: A significant remodel is under construction at the residence and the existing water line was discovered to be need of an upgrade. Replacing this waterline instigated the discussion with the City regarding how to shore the existing boulder wall, as the water line runs underneath it. When looking to replace the existing water line in its current location, the boulder wall was not understood to be the handicap that it has become. The property owners are simply looking for the ability to build a retaining wall that will protect their property in the event of the existing boulder wall’s failure, and to increase the life safety of exiting their driveway onto a blind hairpin turn. 166 Proposed Setback Variance The Proposed Setback variance would make the shoulder of McSkimming Road safer for the public and other residents of the neighborhood, improve water runoff for all residents below 546 McSkimming as a full Civil drainage plan will be triggered, stabilize the hillside at the cost of the homeowner, and create a safer exit at the blind hairpin turn. Thank you for your consideration, Zone 4 Architects, LLC Cc: File Applicant 167 If there has been a misunderstanding, inaccuracy, or omission of some part of the discussion or resolution, please contact Zone 4 Architects immediately. CODE RESPONSES – BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS PROJECT: 546 McSkimming Rd. DATE: 03 | 04 | 2019 CODE SECTION: Chapter 26.314 Variances PREPARED BY: Zone 4 Architects, LLC Code Requirements: 26.314.010 Purposes Variances are deviations from the terms of this Title 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. Variances shall only be granted in accordance with the terms of this Chapter. Granting this variance would: 1. make the shoulder of McSkimming Road safer for the public and other residents of the neighborhood; 2. Improve water runoff for all residents below 546 McSkimming; 3. Stabilize the hillside at the cost of the homeowner; 4. Create a safer exit at the hairpin turn 26.314.020. Authority The Board of Adjustment, in accordance with the procedures, standards and limitations of this Chapter shall approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove a development application for variances to the terms of this Title. 26.314.030. Authorized Variances Variances may only be granted from the following requirements of this Title 26: A. Dimensional requirements Requesting a variance for height of retaining wall allowed within the 30’ front yard setback for life safety reasons. 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 (3) circumstances exist; a. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of this Title and the Municipal Code; Life safety and longevity of the property and adjacent public Right of Way will be improved with this variance. b. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; Existing boulder wall places the property in imminent danger. An engineered retaining wall would rectify this unsafe condition and allow for a safer turnaround for the Handicap-Accessible vehicle used by the applicant for their son. 168 If there has been a misunderstanding, inaccuracy, or omission of some part of the discussion or resolution, please contact Zone 4 Architects immediately. The existing boulder wall exceeds the 30” code-allowed height for a wall within a setback and the proposed wall will be similar in height in order to retain the hillside. A setback variance will allow the property owner to maintain the use of their driveway while improving the failing condition of the boulder wall, which in turn benefits the other residents of McSkimming Road. c. 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 mer e inconvenience. Consider whether either of the following conditions apply: i. 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; The existing hillside is so steep that a 30” tall stepped retaining wall would impact the existing driveway dimensions. The existing boulder wall is not sufficient to hold back the existing hillside. Existing railroad tie wall is in disrepair and earth is falling into the driveway. The property owner would be faced with a hardship and lesser driveway condition if the setback variance is not granted. ii. 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 parce ls, buildings or structures, in the same zone district. The grant merely makes the driveway more accessible for the ADA van, protects the property from damage if the boulder wall and hillside were to fail, and brings the existing nonconformity up to life safety codes. 169 02 DATE Date: Scale: Drawn by: REVISIONS WWW.ZONE4ARCHITECTS.COM Z4A CD SETZ4A 6.29.18 CD SETZ4A 10.18.18 BY A101a 4/8/2019 AS NOTED EXISTING SITE PLAN 546 MCSKIMMING ROADASPEN, COM C S K I M M I N G R E S I D E N C EY:\Shared\Data\_Z4 Projects\1806 546 McSkimming\Model\Archive\2019-04-04_McSkimming_v21.pln ZONE 4 ARCHITECTS IS NOT LIABLE OR RESPONSIBLE AT ANY TIME FOR ANY CHANGES TO THESE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION.c 2015 ZONE 4 ARCHITECTS, LLC. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ZONE 4 ARCHITECTS LLC. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ZONE 4 ARCHITECTS LLC. ZONE 4 ARCHITECTS LLC. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED13 CHANGE ORDERZ4A 01.25.19 14 ASI 013Z4A 02.08.19 K-8336CERICBATHLITHOCAST VITREOUS CHINALAVATORYLADENAK-2215 VITREOUS CHINALAVATORYLADENAK-2215 N3'-1" MIN. 3'-11 19/64" PER MFR. EL. 100'-1 1/4" EL. 99'-11 1/4" PROPER T Y BOUNDA R Y PROPERTY BOUNDARYPR O P E R T Y BO U N D A R Y EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN 8155 8160 8165 8170 8 1 7 5 818 0 818 5 81908195 8185 8185 8180 8175 8170 81 6 5 8 1 6 4 8 1 6 3 81 6 2 81 6 1 8166 8167 8168 81 6 9 8184 8183 8182 8181 81808180 8182 8183 8184 8178PR O P E R T Y BO U N D A R Y 819 0 819 5 8 2 0 0 PAVED DRIVE EXISTING RETAINING WALL MCSKIMM I N G ROAD EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN, TYP. PROPOSED DECK EXISTING BOULDER WALL, TYP.PROPERTY BOUNDARY(S 84 58' 00" W 138.34') 137.89' FIELD(5' SIDE YARD SETBACK)LOT 2OWNER: SHANNON, JOEL I. & MARGARET B.(10' RE A R YA R D SE T B A C K ) (30' FR O N T YA R D SE T B A C K ) (30 ' FRONT YARD SETBACK ) NEW ROOF EDGE TO PROPERTY SETBACK APPROXIMATE UTILITY METER LOCATIONS (N 10 53' 00" W 40. 5 0 ') 41. 0 4 ' FIE L D (N 76 40' 00" E) 21.80' FIELDWALLS DASHED BELOW OUTLINE OF EXISTING ROOF WALLS DASHED BELOW EXISTING GAS METER, RE: SURVEY EXISTING CABLE UTILITY BOX, RE: SURVEY (7.5' UTILITY EASEMENT)(7.5' UTILITY EASEMENT)(7.5' UT I L I T Y EA S E M E N T )LOT 4OWNER: SHANNON, JOEL I. & MARGARET B.EXISTING FENCE (TO REMAIN) CONNECT FOUNDATION DRAIN TO EXISTING FOUNDATION DRAIN EXISTING RETAININ G WALL MCSKIM M I N G ROAD APPROX. LOCATION OF EXISTING FLAGSTONE WALKWAY TO REMAIN EXTERIOR PATH LIGHTS , RE: LIGHTING CONDENSING UNITS. RDS STANDARDS DO NOT APPLY. 2 2 6 6 A A B B C C 4 4 5 5 F 1 1 D D D.1 3 3 E E 1' - 6 "+/- 3 1/2"3'-3 1/2"PER MFR.EL. 100'-1 1/4" [8178.10']T.O. F.F. MAIN LEVELG C LOT 3, BLOCK 3 ASPEN GROVE SUBDIVISION CONTAINING: 16,727 SQ. FT. +/-NBOARD OF ADJ.Z4A 04.08.19 01 EXISTING SITE PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0" EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED CONTOUR PROPOSED ADDITIONS 1. ARCHITECTURAL T.O. SLAB 100'-0" EQUALS SURVEY ELEVATION 8178.0'. 2. ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN USED TO LOCATE RESIDENCE ONLY. (SURVEYOR TO CONFIRM EXACT LOCATION IN FIELD PRIOR TO EXCAVATION). ALL OTHER INFORMATION SHOWN FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. 3. EXISTING CONTOURS SHOWN FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. 4. REFER TO SURVEY FOR ACCURATE EXISTING CONDITIONS INCLUDING TOPOGRAPHY AND LOCATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES. 5. REFER TO LANDSCAPE AND CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR PROPOSED GRADING AND DETAILED LANDSCAPE INFORMATION, INCLUDING TREE REMOVAL + MITIGATION. 6. G.C. AND ARCHITECT TO FIELD VERIFY FINAL GAS AND ELECTRICAL METER LOCATIONS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. REFER TO CIVIL + ELECTRICAL DOCUMENTS FOR GAS AND ELECTRIC METER LOCATION. 7. G.C. AND ARCHITECT TO FIELD VERIFY FIRE ALARM AND STROBE LOCATIONS WITH FD PRIOR TO INSTALLATION (IF REQUIRED). 8. REFER TO LIGHTING DOCUMENTS FOR EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLAN. SITE PLAN KEYNOTES: CONTOUR LEGEND 170 02 DATE Date: Scale: Drawn by: REVISIONS Z4A WWW.ZONE4ARCHITECTS.COM CD SETZ4A 6.29.18 CD SETZ4A 10.18.18 Y:\Shared\Data\_Z4 Projects\1806 546 McSkimming\Model\1806_McSkimming_BOA_v21.plnBY A101b 4/8/2019 AS NOTED PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1" ACTUAL ZONE 4 ARCHITECTS IS NOT LIABLE OR RESPONSIBLE AT ANY TIME FOR ANY CHANGES TO THESE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION.c 2015 ZONE 4 ARCHITECTS, LLC. THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF ZONE 4 ARCHITECTS LLC. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED OR COPIED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ZONE 4 ARCHITECTS LLC. ZONE 4 ARCHITECTS LLC. SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW STATUTORY AND ALL OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING COPYRIGHT THERETO. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED546 MCSKIMMING ROADASPEN, COM C S K I M M I N G R E S I D E N C EK-8336CERICBATHLITHOCAST VITREOUS CHINALAVATORYLADENAK-2215 VITREOUS CHINALAVATORYLADENAK-2215 NEL. 100'-1 1/4" EL. 99'-11 1/4" PROPER T Y BOUNDA R Y PROPERTY BOUNDARYPR O P E R T Y BO U N D A R Y EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN 8155 8160 8165 8170 8 1 7 5 818 0 818 5 81908195 8185 8185 8180 8175 8170 81 6 5 8 1 6 4 8 1 6 3 81 6 2 81 6 1 8166 8167 8168 81 6 9 8184 8183 8182 8181 81808180 8182 8183 8184 8178PR O P E R T Y BO U N D A R Y 819 0 819 5 8 2 0 0 PAVED DRIVE MCSKIMM I N G ROAD EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN, TYP. PROPOSED DECK EXISTING BOULDER WALL, TYP.PROPERTY BOUNDARY(S 84 58' 00" W 138.34') 137.89' FIELD(5' SIDE YARD SETBACK)LOT 2OWNER: SHANNON, JOEL I. & MARGARET B.(10' RE A R YA R D SE T B A C K ) (30' FR O N T YA R D SE T B A C K ) (30 ' FRONT YARD SETBACK ) NEW ROOF EDGE TO PROPERTY SETBACK (N 10 53' 00" W 40. 5 0 ') 41. 0 4 ' FIE L D (N 76 40' 00" E) 21.80' FIELDOUTLINE OF EXISTING ROOF EXISTING GAS METER, RE: SURVEY EXISTING CABLE UTILITY BOX, RE: SURVEY (7.5' UTILITY EASEMENT)(7.5' UTILITY EASEMENT)(7.5' UT I L I T Y EA S E M E N T )LOT 4OWNER: SHANNON, JOEL I. & MARGARET B.CONNECT FOUNDATION DRAIN TO EXISTING FOUNDATION DRAIN MCSKIM M I N G ROAD EXTERIOR PATH LIGHTS , RE: LIGHTING NEW SITE WALLS, RE: LANDSCAPE OUTLINE OF NEW CONCRETE RETAINING WALL OUTLINE OF TEMP. CONCRETE SHORING WALL OUTLINE OF NEW RETAINING WALL EXIST. LOW RAILROAD TIE WALL BEYOND PROPERTY LINE TO BE REMOVED OUTLINE OF NEW CONCRETE RETAINING WALL OUTLINE OF TEMP. CONCRETE SHORING WALL 2 2 6 6 A A B B C C 4 4 5 5 F 1 1 D D D.1 3 3 E E 1' - 6 " EL. 100'-1 1/4" [8178.10']T.O. F.F. MAIN LEVELG C LOT 3, BLOCK 3 ASPEN GROVE SUBDIVISION CONTAINING: 16,727 SQ. FT. +/-NBOARD OF ADJ.Z4A 04.08.19 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"01 BOA PROPOSED SITE PLAN EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED CONTOUR PROPOSED ADDITIONS 1. ARCHITECTURAL T.O. SLAB 100'-0" EQUALS SURVEY ELEVATION 8178.0'. 2. ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN USED TO LOCATE RESIDENCE ONLY. (SURVEYOR TO CONFIRM EXACT LOCATION IN FIELD PRIOR TO EXCAVATION). ALL OTHER INFORMATION SHOWN FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. 3. EXISTING CONTOURS SHOWN FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. 4. REFER TO SURVEY FOR ACCURATE EXISTING CONDITIONS INCLUDING TOPOGRAPHY AND LOCATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES. 5. REFER TO LANDSCAPE AND CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR PROPOSED GRADING AND DETAILED LANDSCAPE INFORMATION, INCLUDING TREE REMOVAL + MITIGATION. 6. G.C. AND ARCHITECT TO FIELD VERIFY FINAL GAS AND ELECTRICAL METER LOCATIONS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. REFER TO CIVIL + ELECTRICAL DOCUMENTS FOR GAS AND ELECTRIC METER LOCATION. 7. G.C. AND ARCHITECT TO FIELD VERIFY FIRE ALARM AND STROBE LOCATIONS WITH FD PRIOR TO INSTALLATION (IF REQUIRED). 8. REFER TO LIGHTING DOCUMENTS FOR EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLAN. SITE PLAN KEYNOTES: CONTOUR LEGEND 171 ----GRADING AND DRAINAGEROARING FORK ENGINEERING 592 HIGHWAY 133 CARBONDALE COLORADO, 81623 PH: (970)340-4130 F:(866)876-5873CHECKED BY:#DESCRIPTION DATE DRAWN BYCONSTRUCTION DRAWN BY:JOB #:546 MCSKIMMING ROAD ASPEN, COLORADO 2019-11FORJWJRBG1 -----.--.----- 2 172 173 May 7, 2019 Tim Andrulaitis Senior Project Manager 432a East Hyman Ave Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Existing Driveway Landscape Wall 546 McSkimming Road Remodel – Aspen, Colorado Tim, The existing landscape wall to the east of the driveway at the above project consists of timber cribbing toward the north end and boulder construction at the higher portions at the south end. It appears that various timbers and boulders have shifted over time. Inherent with these types of landscape walls, they will likely continue to move throughout their lifespans. It is our opinion that it is prudent to replace these walls with an engineered retaining wall system. Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, Evolve Structural Design LLC Steven R. Edmiston, P.E., S.E. Senior Engineer 05/07/2019 174 M C S K I M M I N G R E S I D E N C E | 0 5 . 0 7 . 2 0 1 9 RETAINING WALL VIEWS APPROACHING RESIDENCE 175 M C S K I M M I N G R E S I D E N C E | 0 5 . 0 7 . 2 0 1 9 RETAINING WALL VIEWS FROM ROAD ABOVE LEAVING DRIVEWAY 176 592 Highway 133 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • 970.340.4130 • www.rfeng.biz Page 1 of 2 546 McSkimming Variance Request To: Board of Adjustments Aspen, CO 81611 From: Richard Goulding Principal Engineer 592 Highway 133 Carbondale CO, 81623 Ph: 970-340-4130 Fax: 866-876- 5873 cc: Colleen Loughlin Date: 05.06.2019 Re: 546 McSkimming Variance Request Board of Adjustment, The driveway is 13.5’ wide (see image) in places in its current configuration due to the cross slope of the site. 16’ is typically required for emergency access(ambulances). The proposed uphill wall within the setback can create a wider platform across the driveway to achieve this. We acknowledge there is a 14’ wide pinch point closer to the entrance. That is because the design is not proposing walls within the right of way as they are not permitted. Sincerely, Richard Goulding 177 Page 2 of 2 178 M C S K I M M I N G R E S I D E N C E | 0 4 . 2 4 . 2 0 1 9 E X I S T I N G B O U L D E R W A L L EXISTING RAILROAD TIE WALL AT DRIVEWAY END EXISTING RAILROAD TIE WALL AT DRIVEWAY END EXISTING RAILROAD TIE WALL AT BOULDER WALL 179 M C S K I M M I N G R E S I D E N C E | 0 4 . 2 4 . 2 0 1 9 E X I S T I N G B O U L D E R W A L L EXISTING BOULDER WALL EXISTING BOULDER WALL EXISTING BOULDER WALL BEHIND GARAGEEXISTING BOULDER WALL BEHIND GARAGE 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius Pitkin County GIS presents the information 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 is solely responsible and liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or data obtained on this web site. 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. From Parcel: 273718102002 on 05/08/2019 Instructions: Disclaimer: http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com 187 318 MCSKIMMING ROAD LLC NEW YORK, NY 101110212 45 ROCKEFELLER PLAZA 5TH FL FIR WARREN LLC DENVER, CO 80209 595 S BROADWAY #200 GSS PROPERTIES LLC CARBONDALE, CO 81623 PO BOX 66 CLANCY J ANTHONY REV TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 521 MCSKIMMING RD ZINTERHOFER AERIN NEW YORK, NY 10151 745 5TH AVE 32ND FL SUPPLEE SHELLEY BAKER ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 4863 SCHMIT CHAD & KIRSTEN ASPEN, CO 816112219 400 MCSKINNING RD SHANNON JOEL I & MARGARET B HOUSTON, TX 77254 PO BOX 540165 BAYM FAMILY LLLP URBANA, IL 61801 708 W DELAWARE AVE KLING WILLIAM H REV TRUST MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403 110 GROVELAND TER FIR DAVID LLC DENVER, CO 80209 595 S BROADWAY #200 CROCKETT RUFUS ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 3837 SUPPLEE PAMELA MILLER ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 4863 WARREN REDWOOD LLC DENVER, CO 80209 565 S BROADWAY #200 SHANNON JOEL I & MARGARET B HOUSTON, TX 77254 PO BOX 540165 HAMPLEMAN MARGOT BASALT, CO 81621 PO BOX 2017 LITTLE RICKI L ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 7954 JIRANEK PAMELA MILLER ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 4863 FOX ALAN F DENVER, CO 80209 3550 BELCARO LN MAYER PAULINE M ASPEN, CO 81612 0628 MCSKIMMING RD MCHUGH JOHN J ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 7954 287 MCSKIMMING ROAD PARTNERS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 1065 CEMETERY LN #B ASPEN GROVE CEMETERY ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 624 NORTH ST BIRRFELDER PETER ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 787 SUPPLEE ROBIN BILLINGS ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 4863 DAVID REDWOOD LLC DENVER, CO 80209 595 S BROADWAY #200 188 WWW.ZONE4ARCHITECTS.COM 5 4 6 M C S K I M M I N G R O A D Public Noticing Picture N.T.S. PROJECT:PROJ. NO.: SCALE: DATE:2019.05.20 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS 189 Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Kevin Rayes, Planner THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: 431/433 West Hallam, Front Yard Setback Variance Withdraw of Resolution No. 4, Series of 2018 MEETING DATE: June 6, 2019 SUMMARY: On December 13, 2018, the Board of Adjustment approved Resolution No. 4, Series of 2018, granting a 5- ft. variance from the minimum front yard setback (reducing the setback from 10’ to 5’) to accommodate the development of a new single-family dwelling at 431/433 West Hallam Street. The request was due to the presence of several large spruce trees located along the rear of the property, which were required to be maintained by the Parks Department. Following the hearing, the Community Development Department received an application from SHC- Aspen, LLC. represented by Peter Thomas, Praxidice P.C, appealing the approved variance. During a public hearing on March 11, 2019, City Council remanded the appeal back to the Board of Adjustment for further review of the variance request. Following the Council hearing, the Parks Department determined it would permit the removal of the trees in the rear yard of the property. The homeowner representative submitted a letter (Exhibit B) stating that with permission to remove the trees, the proposed design of the new dwelling will comply with the setback standards of the R-6 zone district and a variance is no longer required. A request to withdraw the variance has been submitted. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustment approve a new Resolution, voiding Resolution No. 4, Series of 2018, which grants a front yard variance. Because Parks will permit the removal of the trees in the rear yard, the proposed dwelling no longer needs to accommodate them and can now comply with the setback standards of the R-6 zone district. PROPOSED MOTION: Staff recommends approval of the request. “I move to approve Resolution ___, Series 2019, voiding the variance granted by Resolution No. 4, Series of 2018. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Resolution No. 4, Series of 2018 Exhibit B – Letter from Homeowner Representative Requesting Withdraw of Variance 190 City Council Resolution No. X, Series 2019 Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. X (SERIES OF 2019) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VOIDING A DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE 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:2735-124-33-001 WHEREAS,the Community Development Department received an application for 431 W. Hallam St. from Connery Family Trust (Homeowner), 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 Board of Adjustment reviewed the Application at a duly noticed public hearing on December 13, 2018; and, WHEREAS,during the public hearing on December 13, 2018, the Board of Adjustment approved Resolution No. 4, Series of 2018 (Reception No. 652891), by a 4 to 1(4-1) vote, granting approval for a Dimensional Variance, as identified herein. WHEREAS,pursuant to Chapter 26.314.080 – Appeals, on December 27, SHC- Aspen, LLC (Appellant), represented by Peter Thomas, Praxidice P.C. sought an appeal; and, WHEREAS,during the public hearing on March 11, 2019, City Council considered written and oral argument from the representatives for the appellant, and the Community Development Staff and remanded the appeal back to the Board of Adjustment for the approval of Resolution No. 4, Series of 2018, for a dimensional variance; and, WHEREAS,following the Council hearing, the Parks Department determined it would permit the removal of the trees in the rear yard of the property; and, WHEREAS,the applicant has withdrawn its variance request, without prejudice. 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 voids Resolution 4, Series of 2018, recorded in the Pitkin County real property records as Reception No. 652891 and that such resolution shall be of no further force or effect. Section 2: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. 191 City Council Resolution No. X, Series 2019 Page 2 of 2 Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. FINALLY,approved this 6 th day of June 2019. APPROVED AS TO FORM:APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ________________________________________________________ Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Andrew Sandler, Chair ATTEST: __________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk 192 RECEPTION#: 652891, R: $28.00, D: $0.00 DOC CODE: RESOLUTION Pg 1 of 4, 12/26/2018 at 10:35:30 AM Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO RESOLUTION NO. 4 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 p N WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application for 431 W. Hallam St. (the Application) from Connery Family Trust (Applicant), represented by Chris Z) 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; L and, WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on October 25, 2018, the Board of r Adjustment voted to continue review of the Application for a future hearing on December 13, 2018; and, t O WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment reviewed the Application at a duly noticed public hearing on December 13, 2018; and, 4 WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on December 13, 2018, the Board of r-- Adjustment approved Resolution 4, Series of 2018, by a 4 to 1 (4-1) vote, granting approval for a Dimensional Variance Review, as identified herein. N NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE 0 CITY OF ASPEN,COLORADO THAT: S Section 1 N Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal P 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• oAll 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. RECEPTION#: 652814, R: $23.00, D: $0.00 Board of Adjustment DOC CODE: RESOLUTION Resolution No.4, Series 2018 Pg 1 of 3, 12/20/2018 at 02:38:04 PM Pagel of 3 Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO 193 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 13''day of December, 2018. Appro d a o orm: Approved as to content: ndr n,Assistant City Attorney Andrew Sandler,Chair yAtfttesManning,City Cler Attachments: Exhibit A: Approved site plan Board of Adjustment Resolution No.4,Series 2018 Page 2 of 3 194 Exhibit A: Approved site plan 5.2-ft. setback 1 n, I. F KEY trees removed trace Meserv d S'FRONT SETBACK PLAN Board of Adjustment Resolution No.4, Series 2018 Page 3 of 3 195 Exhibit A: Approved site plang X .. 5.2-ft. setback i KEY I weM © trees removed E trees Preserved r S'FRONT SETBACK PLAN Board of Adjustment Resolution No.4, Series 2018 Page 3 of 3 196 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM April 22, 2019 Mr. Kevin Rayes Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Withdrawal of Application 431 W. Hallam St. Setback Variance Mr. Rayes: Please accept this letter as formally withdrawing, without prejudice, the setback variance application for 431 West Hallam. The City of Aspen Parks Department has issued tree removal permits for the property sufficient to enable full use of the property’s development rights. The tree removal permits are conditioned upon review and issuance of a building permit for the new home. We have been assured by Parks staff that these permits are reliable and have taken steps to complete permit documents for submission in the near term. We appreciate all your efforts in reviewing the variance application. Please let us know if you need additional information to vacate this application. Kind Regards, Chris Bendon, AICP BendonAdams, LLC Copy: Nancy Connery, Owner Chad Schmit, Garfield & Hecht Exhibit B- Letter Withdrawing Application 197 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 7 7 7 C?1!?_F ^ z119 . , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: �Lvc_ 6 ,20Iq STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, (4to G (name, please print) being r rep esentinA 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: _ 'v 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.&,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, PDs that create more than one lot, and new Planned Developments 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. ignat The foregoing.,"Affidavit of Notice"was aaknowled ed b18fore me this_eday ofMau , 20A, by NREIAEpproFppeePrttyrreterced HEARING WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL 777 Gibeon Avenue Public Hearing:Thursday,June 6,2019;4:30 pm ^ Meeting Location:City Hall,t. Aspen, ambers CO 81611 My commission xpires: 1io :S.GalenaSt., P refer- red Location: An undeveloped property red to as 777 Gibson Avenue although a formal ad- desshadjacent to of been iG'bson Avelnueroperty is located Parcel IDN 2737.073.00.014 Notary Public Le al Description: A PARCEL OF LAND LO- CATED IN THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF RECTION MARIA RENEE ESPINOZA 7,TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF DESCRIBED INRLY NEEXHIBIT 'AD BEI O OF QUIT RE CLAIM NOTARY PUBLIC DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 9, 1991 IN BOOK 658 AT PAGE 784,CITY OF ASPEN,COUNTY OF STATE OF COLORADO PITKIN A of QuitOF COLORADO Deed ook 658,Page 784) PARCELS OF LAND LOCATED IN HMENTS AS APPLICAB E: NOTARY ID 20184028029 THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF SECTION 7, 4TION MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 10,2022 TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH,RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6TH P M BEING PORTION EJE - ERTY DESCRIBED N QUTIUDGEMNNTE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN) CIVIL ACTION No.3483 OF PITKIN COUNTY LY- SUD NORTHERLY S ONAND THE GAR ISH1TRACT AS DEE AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED IN BIOOK 1645 AT PAGE 5DECREE RECORDED 12 5112 AND EXCEPTING ALL OF GIBSON AVENUE AS SHOWN.IN PALT FBOOK 2A AT PAGE 281. THE ABOVE DESCRI- BEDCHPARCELS BEING SHOWN AS ED AREAS ON THE ATTACHED E ROISS 'A TION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE "A"TT PROPERTY INVESTIGATION BUCHANAN S. §24-65.5-103.3 PARCEL DATED MAY 21,1991 PREPARED BY AS- PEN SURVEY ENGINEERS,INC.,PITKIN COUN- TY,STATE OF COLORADO. o nn� n,;,innlo CITY OF • DEVELOPMENT AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 777 Gibson Avenue Aspen,CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: June 6 , 20 19 STATE OF COLORADO ) SS. County of Pitkin ) 1, Chris Bendon (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 21 day of May ' 2019 ,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 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) iMarch, 2016 City of Apen 1130 S. Galena St.1(970) 920 5050 CITY OF • DEVELOPMENT 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 tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum,Subdivision,Spas or PUDs 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 any way 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 allbusi e s ou r fifteen(15)days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature The foregoing"Affidavit Notice"was acknowledged before me this f day of ,20A? by �S A� WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL FMARIARENE t ESPINOZA My commission expires:TARY PUBLIC OF COLORADORY ID 20184028028Nota Public ION EXPIRES JULY 1o,2022 ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPY OF THE PUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICES (SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICED AS REQIURES BY C.R.S§24-65.5-103.3 !March,2016 City of Apen 1130 S.Galena St. 970)920 5050 i r 1 •y:°. 1 � ap t , r� °� 4.'�;► k rt� ;; �. rP �9 14 r nr,• .t .. H Y ,:a -ya+irt dil r r 14 .: '.Av wl i - . • ®.��! .ti .. t� �A Stir, t i 4lip i Y � a t � �a ilk +� r V�w Fyr� f Y r d .t s .rig, "SY• .1. w� .ArXi. o11�iI i CITY OF ASPEN Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street,Aspen, CO 81611 phone: (970) 920-5090 www.cityofaspen.com NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RE: A property referred to as 777 Gibson Avenue a formal address has not been issued Public Hearing: Thursday, June 6,2019,4;30 PM Meeting Location: City Hall, Council Chambers 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 81611 Project Location: A property referred to as 777 Gibson Avenue; although a formal address has not been issued. The property is adjacent to 851/855 Gibson Avenue. Parcel ID#2737.073.00.014 Legal Description: A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE- QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6T" P.M. AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" OF QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 9, 1991 IN BOOK 658 AT PAGE 784,CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN,STATE OF COLORADO. Exhibit A of Quit Claim Deed (Book 658, Page 784) PARCELS OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF SECTION 7,TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6T" P.M., BEING THAT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN QUIET TITLE JUDGEMENT CIVIL ACTION No. 3483 OF PITKIN COUNTY LYING NORTHERLY OF LOT 1 CREEKTREE SUBDIVSION AND THE GARRISH TRACT AS DESCRIBED IN QUIETTITLE DECREE RECORDED IN BOOK 645 AT PAGE 512 AND EXCEPTING ALL OF GIBSON AVENUE AS SHOWN IN PALT BOOK 2A AT PAGE 281. THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCELS BEING SHOWN AS CROSS HATCHED AREAS ON THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A" PROPERTY INVESTIGATION BUCHANAN PARCEL DATED MAY 21, 1991 PREPARED BY ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS, INC., PITKIN COUNTY,STATE OF COLORADO. Description: The applicant is requesting multiple variances to the minimum yard (front, rear, and side) setback requirements in the R-15 and R-30 Zone Districts (portions of the property lie in either of the zone districts). The property is located between Gibson Avenue and the Oklahoma Flats Trail (a portion of the trail crosses the property), is oddly shaped, and contains steep slopes. A variance to setbacks, if granted, will define the buildable area for the property. Land Use Review: Dimensional Variance (Setbacks) (over) Decision Making Body: Board of Adjustment Applicant: 777 Gibson, LLC; Peter Fornell, Manager 625 South West End Street#4;Aspen, CO 81611 More Information: For further information related to the project, contact Ben Anderson at the City of Aspen Community Development Department,130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2765, ben.anderson(@cityofaspen.com 't is0 18119 ia 29 Subject property is depicted in green. Setback variances are proposed to Parcel i. 16119 C ,. ii[LSei"vi"i t['::k: I)•1pffin COIP.ITY 710.4. ••,'.tk '.f ?�:.. PLT 6C!A Pa.:01 -1PARCEL 2 m taxa uosr.= i G)•.. 5 O ::•. ,gas SrEWLK EASL`lEN 13 PO rEa LMN BMI -m17716,� I �.. •h.....:� ry�<;y I ;PARCEL 1� } ',s,I�a m '6,17084Tl3 LY.ERCTS[AP � 4-i• • f".ii• ply IX1R.99 ? AL(: •� L5+16128 LS/16129 : * SA'*1 i.CO0. CITY OF AVE'EV Ott Cf A9�CV /I:FjS � ti� �lY� (19]&41') j (:r IOf 1 ( �y ENCROACHMENT 83COND A)O%DXM l*.i Cliffi77M 947f. v% ALG L6�16179 3e +51 16'.29 Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius From Parcel: 273707300014 on 05/12/2019 tTKIN COUNT C��NJ 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 information 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 is solely responsible and liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or data obtained on this web site. http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com EQT ASPEN 18 TRUST THALBERG K MARITAL INC TRUST CITY OF ASPEN 3002 S LIPSCOMB 128,HITCHING POST RD 130 S GALENA ST AMARILLO,TX 79109 BOZEMAN,MT 59715 ASPEN,CO 81611 FOX CROSSING CONDO ASSOC JUST HAVE FUN LLC BLEEKER STREET REV TRUST COMMON AREA PO BOX 26131 PO BOX 22 ASPEN,CO 81611 ANAHEIM,CA 92825 ASPEN,CO 81612 STROBL MARIO J ELDEN RICHARD&GAIL M CURLEY LESLIE DIANE 110 MAPLE LN 2430 N LAKEVI EW AVE-#11 S PO BOX 8783 ASPEN,CO 81611 CHICAGO,IL 60614 ASPEN,CO 81612 KAUFMAN STEPHEN M TRUST OAKES KEN JQT ASPEN 18 TRUST 5120 WOODWAY#6002 204 COTTONWOOD LN 3002 S LIPSCOMB HOUSTON,TX 77056 ASPEN,CO 81611 AMARILLO,TX 79109 MORIARTY RYAN J JUNG DENNIS PAUL&LISA KANE SOSNA DOMINIKA 625 E MAIN ST#102B PO BOX 8351 113 MAPLE LN ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 FLYNN JOHN RYAN B&Z 2010 REV TRUST EARL MONTY&CAMILLA 208 COTTONWOOD LN 728 E FRANCIS 114 MAPLE LN ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 816112175 VOLK EVERGREEN LLC SIMPSON PATRICIA A&CHARLES W WALNUT STREET TOWNHOMES ASSOC 730 BAY ST 116 MAPLE LN COMMON AREA ASPEN,CO 816111468 ASPEN,CO 81611 506 WALNUT ST ASPEN,CO 81611 ZUPANCIS ROBERT L NINFA LLC BROOKS LAURIA J PO BOX 9609 PO BOX 2568 3009 SE 19TH PL ASPEN,CO 81612 FORT MYERS,FL 33902 CAPE CORAL,FL 33904 FORDE CANDICE MARIE 529 WALNUT LLC RIVERS EDGE CONDO ASSOC 210 COTTONWOOD LN 529 WALNUT ST COMMON AREA ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 851 GIBSON AVE ASPEN,CO 81611 DELARBRE ALEXANDRA B&Z 2010 REV TRUST SHORR FAMILY REV TRUST 200 COTTONWOOD LN 728 E FRANCIS 18270 N 96TH WY ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 SCOTTSDALE,AZ 85255 KING CHRISTOPHER&DONNA CLOUATE GOLDSTEIN GERALD H&CHRISTINE S Z&B 2010 REV TRUST PO BOX 3065 PO BOX 2045 728 E FRANCIS ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 BYARD ANNE/MORRIS JAMES LIV TRUST PETTUS KRISTINA&WYATT SHOAF JEFFREY S 860 GIBSON AVE 1600 RANDY DR PO BOX 3123 ASPEN,CO 81611 GRAHAM,TX 76450 ASPEN,CO 81612 FISHMAN STEVEN&JODIE FAM TRUST ASPEN VIEW RESIDENCES CONDO ASSOC COOK DAVID ALLEN 505 WALNUT ST COMMON AREA 111 MAPLE LN ASPEN,CO 81611 798 GIBSON AVE ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 SPRUCE PLACE TOWNHOMES HOA WEBER MATTHEW M&ISMELDA P KIERNAN KATHLEEN COMMON AREA PO BOX 11365 212 COTTONWOOD LN 511 SPRUCE ST ASPEN,CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 CITY OF ASPEN D&L GORDON FAMILY LLC MACK EDWARD E TRUST 130 S GALENA ST 15 W 53RD ST#16B 321 N CLARK ST#1000 ASPEN,CO 81611 NEW YORK,NY 100195401 CHICAGO,IL 60654 BASS ASPEN LLC FOXY LLC ASPEN STREAM LLC PO BOX 9096 15280 ADDISON RD#301 444 N MICHIGAN AVE#2905 ASPEN,CO 81612 ADDISON,TX 75001 CHICAGO,IL 60611 GONZALES LISA JOHNSON ELIZABETH A LEBBY FAMILY TRUST 105 MAPLE LN 115 MAPLE LN PO BOX 1352 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 CITY OF ASPEN CLARENCE JUSTIN URBAN BLIGHT CONDO ASSOC 130 S GALENA ST 212 COTTONWOOD LN COMMON AREA ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 925 GIBSON AVE ASPEN,CO 81611 BERKMAN KATHY&ANDREW GONZALES STEVE FUENTE DAVID&SHEILA 3706 SUNSET BLVD 105 MAPLE LN 701 TERN POINT CIR HOUSTON,TX 77005 ASPEN,CO 81611 BOCA RATON,FL 33431 MALTER MARCI A REV TRUST CITY OF ASPEN FRONTIER LLC 9 W WALTON ST#1401 130 S GALENA ST PO BOX 27395 CHICAGO,IL 60610 ASPEN,CO 81611 OMAHA,NE 681270395 VARE DARLENE DESEDLE TRUST ASPEN JOY LLC FOX CROSSING CONDO ASSOC 1024 19TH ST#7 150 COVINGTON DR COMMON AREA SANTA MONICA,CA 90403 BLOOMINGDALE, IL 60108 ASPEN,CO 81611 SMUGGLER HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION SEYMOUR FAMILY TRUST SERIES A OF NEVADA LOOMIS LLC OAK LN,COTTONWOOD LN, MAPLE LN 390 N SPRING ST 206 COTTONWOOD LANE ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 BENEDETTI CHRISTINE Z&B 2010 REV TRUST 111 MAPLE LN 728 E FRANCIS ASPEN,CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81611 Board of Adjustment: I have several concerns over the proposed variances to accommodate a single-family residence referred to as "777 Gibson Avenue". Thank you for taking them into consideration; I'll address a few here. CONSIDERING VARIANCES AND HARDSHIPS: How could a setback variance even be considered for this property? Or a 'hardship' be considered? Have you walked the proposed building site? It's a small triangle of land on a precariously steep hill above a well-traveled multi-use path. The area has been wild and wide-open for years...providing enjoyment for path users and neighbors alike. This property should not have a home on it. In my opinion, it should be purchased by the City of Aspen and protected from development. This area is open, wild and free and it would benefit the entire neighborhood if it remained as is. OKLAHOMA FLATS AND TAXPAYER MONIES: In the past few years, the City of Aspen Parks Department did a major overhaul on the Oklahoma flats trail which included changing the steepness of the grade (for safety), adding retaining walls and landscaping. I don't know what the exact dollar amount was (trying to find this out) but I assume this was taxpayer money that funded these improvements. This trail is one of Aspen's busiest commuter paths and is a staple for residents of Hunter Creek and Smuggler. By my research it was closed for construction in May of 2016 and re-opened 8/31/16. See attached article from Aspen Public Radio dated August 31, 2016. This proposed property is directly adjacent to the Oklahoma Flats trail and all the work that was recently completed. I foresee that this newly renovated area would be deeply impacted if somehow/someway a home was allowed to be built just above this area! How could you build here if there is no 'buffer zone' or proper setbacks to make building actually possible? Will the construction equipment be placed on the trail as it is hoisted up to the job site by a crane? Or lifted down by crane from Gibson Avenue (one of the busier thoroughfares in the area). CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT: I found a Construction Agreement online from April 2016 (see attachment) that is not signed or dated. I am assuming this was the actual agreement entered into with the previous owner of the property, Doug Allen. The section that concerns me is Section 8 under Trail Construction. Section EIGHT states: 8. The City and Owner have discussed the possibility of a lot line adjustment and/or exchange of property involving adjacent property currently owned by the County. The City agrees to assist Owner in the pursuit of such lot line adjustment and/or exchange with the County. The parties recognize, however, that such lot line adjustment and/or exchange would require a land use approval by the City. Nothing herein shall be deemed to be consent to the approval of the application for the lot line adjustment and/or exchange. Such application shall be processed and approved as any other request for a land use approval. What 'lot line adjustment' are we talking about here... exactly what does this mean? By Doug Allen allowing the City of Aspen to improve the trail is the city now somehow indebted to the new owner to help him change lot lines around and potentially allow various setbacks and modifications of the building code? I would certainly hope this is not the case! In all my research this is the only thing I can find that potentially shows why the City of Aspen would want to help the new property owner with any kind of foreseen "hardship". This is concerning to me and I would like further clarification. HAND RAIL: Anyone using the new improved trail has noticed the temporary wooden handrail that was installed. I have been wondering if that was the final rail as it has been there for some time. I found in the Oct 2018 City of Aspen Capital Report that there is $55K budgeted for a new metal handrail to be installed in 2019. I am unable to determine how long this has been in the budget, but would assume it was part of the original budget for the improvements. Has there been a delay in installing this final rail while the City of Aspen waits to determine what is happening with the proposed building of a home here? Is there a delay in installation because the City of Aspen is aware this new rail (and all the recent improvements) could possibly be damaged if a home were to be built here? I'm curious about this as well. Thanks for including my concerns and comments, Summer Richards June 4, 2019 TO: City of Aspen Board of Adjustment RE: 777 Gibson Ave request for variances FROM: Patti Clapper Dear Board Members, The purpose of my letter is to request that your Board defer making a decision related to the 777 Gibson Avenue variance request until after your Board has conducted a publicly noticed .site visit. It is one thing to see maps; photographs, plans for a property, but for a property with as many significant variance requests as being made for this property, I truly believe that a site visit is more than justified and would be of enormous benefit to your Board. I have lived in this neighborhood, in the Smuggler Trailer Court, for 32 years and I am more than familiar with this property...having walked by it before/after the sidewalk was constructed, having walked up/down the Oklahoma Flats Trail weekly if not daily. Therefore, the reason why I am requesting that your Board visit this site, that you see it for what/where it is, and how your decision WILL impact the Smuggler neighborhood. I also think it is of great importance that your Board consult with the City of Aspen Attorney as to the ongoing, pending litigation,related to this parcel. It is my understanding that there are litigation concerns between the owner of this parcel and adjacent neighbors. In closing I would like to thank you for serving on the City of Aspen Board of Adjustment. I truly appreciate your time and willingness to serve on this Board. Sin erely, Patti Clapper 218 Cottonwood Lane Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 379-3702 Pattic@sopris.net From: EUGENE SEYMOUR To: Ben Anderson Subject: External development at 777 Gibson Date: Monday,June 3,2019 7:51:57 PM Dear Ben, I live at 717 E. Francis Street Other have eloquently laid out the case against the 777 Gibson development I won't repeat their arguments since I want to focus on the fact that trees will have to be removed in order for the proposed development to proceed I don't have to remind you about the strict regulations regarding tree removal. Therefore, I object to the proposed development based on the removal of those existing trees in addition to the arguments put forward by others. Sincerely, Eugene Seymour MD MPH 310-486-5677 From: SAMUEL BARNEY To: Ben Anderson Subject: 777 Gibson Date: Monday,June 3,2019 7:02:32 PM Hi Ben, I'm not sure if I missed the opportunity to comment on this application, I'll continue as if I have not missed the opportunity. I'm writing in support of the application, as drawn, for the current applicant only. My support is based on PBR Workshop as the designer/drafts person, Chris Bendon as the planner, and Peter Fornell as the owner- if changes occur to the team structure, my support is withdrawn. I believe this team will make every attempt to address the issues as described in the comments and concerns and build a quality project with as minimal of impact to the community as possible. I think this is a legal lot and the applicant should be allowed to build a home there. I'm not necessarily in agreement with the swimming pool but the applicant would be subject to REMP fees which appear to be offsetting the energy use by a factor of 3x when utilized by CORE. It would be great if the project used it's own renewable energy to power the pool equipment. I would welcome Peter as a neighbor. I know Peter is building this as a personal project, he is a full time year round resident who is a great citizen of Aspen. 1) Staff findings - certainly there are other locations within the City of Aspen where building envelopes are established, as opposed to setbacks, this could be another one. As the memo indicated, the residence is smaller than the allowable floor area projection and I support that as well as the language regarding TDR receiving. Staff recommended setbacks would result in an entirely different shaped project, one that would be taller and I do not support that. 2) Engineering comments - In general, I agree, allow the applicant to address the comments with their permit submission. 3) Parks comments - In general, I agree, allow the applicant to address the comments with their permit submission. I believe most of the citizen comments can be addressed through an adequate CMP and adhering to the City's codes. Peter and his team certainly have challenges ahead of them during construction if allowed to move forward, based on the steep slope and general site constraints but nothing insurmountable in my opinion, other than appeasing other citizens who wouldn't be happy with any development whatsoever at this location. Best regards, Sam Barney 211 Cottonwood Lane (970) 309-1836 From: Eddie Bradley To: Ben Anderson Cc: "Timothy Hurd" Subject: Development of 777 Gibson Ave Date: Monday,June 3,2019 8:55:56 AM Letter of Protest As Trustee for the two trust owners (EQT Aspen 18 and JQT Aspen 18) of the property at 731 Bay Street I would like to protest the allowance of the variances requested by the developer (Mr. Fornell) for construction of a residence at 777 Gibson Ave. I am aware of many letters written enumerating the specific reasons for refusing the variances requested and I am hopeful that the authorities will give weight to those arguments. My observations are: #1 Variance requirements are put in place by cities to control development and provide reasonable rules for growth and property protection for exiting owners. Occasionally variances from existing requirements make perfect sense because of the unique situations where exceptions are warranted. From what I can see from the maps and drawings concerning this proposal this project does not appear to warrwnrt exceptions.The elevations and shapes required to fit on the property are extreme and unattractive. #2 The trail heading up the hill to Gibson (just recently completed) by the city and our generous neighbor Mr. Hurd to the Roaring Fork River foot bridge represents a significant investment and provides a wonderful pathway for people living above Gibson to access town. Any structure that would be allowed to hang over this path or interfere with the natural environment created along the path would be a shame and a waste of the investment. #3 Any structure built that would look down onto Oklahoma Flats and the homes below would be restricting privacy and therefor the value of those homes. I understand a developer wanting to build something that could be sold for a profit, however, I would be amazed if the City of Aspen would approve the variances required to fit a structure in such a strange place when it has so many negatives attached.Aspen has a reputation for being strict and refusing requests for seemingly small common sense changes in structures and vegetation and this construction proposal does not make any sense at all. I know the adjacent property owners in the area affected are all opposed and want to vigorously protest the granting of any building variances requested by Mr. Fornell Thank you for your consideration. Edward Bradley Trustee for EQT Aspen 18 &JQT Aspen 18 Autolnc, LLLP 901 S Fillmore Amarillo,Texas 79101 806-236-0853 806-372-9600 ewb@autoinc-usa.com This message is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. TO: BEN ANDERSON Subject: For consideration and inclusion in Thursday, June 6 meeting packet and BOC viewing before such meeting. FROM: Anne Byard/James Morris, 860 Gibson, Avenue. In reference to the application for variance setbacks at the 777 Gibson lot: Given the size, shape, and position of the lot, its proximity to trail, road, and sidewalk, and neighboring homes, and the steep slope of the hillside it is evident that the R-30 setback rules that apply would prohibit any sort of development right. Studying the proposed single-family home, parking and lap pool dimensions, setback requests, and projected engineering and building issues it is remarkable to us that this lot was ever considered as buildable or purchasable for that purpose. It is understood that a property owner must demonstrate that reasonable use of a lot is being withheld in order to apply for variances. However, the requested setbacks and the plans for a 2,430 sq. ft. home plus lap pool extending the length of the panhandle of this lot go well beyond "reasonable use" of such a property encumbered by site conditions, road proximity, easements, snow, run-off and fire restrictions, as well as trail, land, and neighborhood character issues. It appears that no consideration was given to neighborhood character or impact, nor to neighbors or trail users when this lot was purchased and request for variances were made. The proposed two-story home's setback back from the sidewalk as well as staff's proposed setback would be a blight on the neighborhood. It would blatantly mock the Land Use codes that restrict other Aspen and neighboring homes to comply with the R-30 required setbacks. It is quite unimaginable that not only the proposed setback request but the staff's proposal to accommodate the variance request would pass the BOA as an acceptable compromise especially with current easement regulations. Any comparison to the lack of setback to the property on the north side of Gibson Avenue is invalid as when the road was widened in the late seventies or early eightie the City choose to confiscate the land rights and property line of the lots there which extend right into the middle of the current paved street. In other words, no variance or setback rules were involved in these property ending up without setback and so close to the road. The City of Aspen has indeed been intentional over the years in establishing dimensional requirements in zone districts and for good purpose. This is why neighbors live in expectation that they are safe from impact from variance requests for maverick, "remainder parcels" that are picked up for profit. We respectfully request BOC to deny or further restrict variance requests for this lot. Thank you, Anne Byard/James Morris. June 6, 2019 Mr. Ben Anderson and Members of the Board of Adjustment, Re: 777 Gibson Setback adjustments. I oppose the board making a decision today as I do not believe sufficient facts have been gather to make a prudent decision. The main issues seem to be: A. Does the current owner have a "developable right" even though the current legal setback requirements indicate the property it is not developable. If it is determined that the current owner does have developable rights, what is a "reasonable" foot print? 1. Since 1991,the previous owner was apparently denied reasonable development, in the owner's estimation, because he never developed. 2. The current owner proposed eliminating the majority of the setback requirements as "reasonable" 3. The staff recommended a "reasonable compromise" As a longtime owner of property in Aspen, I would like a definitive calculation of"Reasonable" in this circumstance, not a subjective judgement by the various parties involved over the years. As an example: Why not consider taking the direct off set owners and calculate their foot print relative to the size of their property and use that as the criteria. B. Minimize the impact on the trail because of its extensive use. C. I believe the property corners and the corners of the footprint should be actually located on the ground so the board, neighbors and trail users can realize the true impact on the trail and Gibson St. of a structure on this property. What this Board decides may be setting a precedent for all Zoning in Aspen. Richard W.Volk 730 Bay St. i _ cn CD• rQ CD 0 •. •y.! �' s - - < .•' _ • , �v f N n � o 3 D N (D CD o 3 o Z -1 -4- Q _ O CQ Cn C- =3 (D O CD CQ — �' rfl CD (D O CD + CD O CD m =3 (D �+ < O (D CCD (D O CQ (D CD O '{ CD '� CD Q CD � Cf) m -- -- —• — �. Cn cc < cn U) CD = O C:D 7U o O n nm l< CD CD O < (Q cD (D CD (n CD v ,-+ Cf) O n O Q O CD 0 --h-i, CQ (D CD �- T CD — Q (D CD . 7D CD CD C7 CD (D cD v � (D CD O r-t (D c� O (D CD _ � CD CD ,+ C�D CD v � Cl) Q (D � O ,� Q QJ O C7 ? cc) (D Q) CD Q n0 On O S= (DQL) QL) Sy O Cn n = — _ cD G (D o cD (D (D (D v — �, -_ � O v m C — Cn O CD (� Q — (Q < �' =3 QJ (D — C.) 0 cn CD — (D (D (D '� CD O v w = O v CD = - ID (D - Cf) � O O CD O (n ,�- (D Sy CT - C� 13. O CD x CQ � O CD D- D O O H �, - Q U cD (n Cl) Q - cD v Q �- cQ — �- O -0 i v =3 � � � — ° o � v CD � CD (D U'. = r-« n (DCD cn (D �' C OL) o c — C- �- m o (D (D -� O :37 n r+ (D (D CQ r+ O O '-'' CD CD X CD =+ M (D —- � O 0 Cn (D � n O -+ Q j Q O C) -h - CQ (D =7 3 n v C v O —. o 0- v - n O cQ 0 (D — (D o D �u v 7 — m -0 oim — O > N N L7 �zm D 3 win Z n - ► .. r t X '1!.'"'. T '�- .!g •fid �' r '' \Y ' . rn � C n o 0q m o cn ,(Y ;qts'• .,� * �'1'y''�� �+;ca .�'` T •r' ' �,:- �, fJ• + R P_✓7 ,s. d •s Y • µ- ` I- • JI rf .:�r,• ;'�Y;at" !l� '•r^' 'tet'. �i�' ..x� :N�• \ �Yn ' �/}� rtyy'-.,7'�,.If'� ,++FFAY(yY •TY—T '� j' ,.y_ i_• �•{,,• Ti M1`�may- - '�! '•C •. „7- _ _ -.OQ lr IM'�5' ji ' ter, .0 - r `� '. .• ,r}= I Y _ to kms• �. ms„µ �: (♦y�y����' .. � �ti+ ;�� k 1 -. � �•kjf�'-'� _ ;tom � j` •ti y �. fi- ,'� of iT� .'� Zht`�l•.,1 f. i! i y �qa s .s -, + +`�i r'A, fin .,s"�'S,� •'� C3 .'�;• �1� y-. !fi c11 •'\'�r3} r!+ y;''� ty{ r' •r � r1 �. � {. i� r' 'I y 'it ♦ 1 n , �I� f ..• -�1 ! -r.... _ _ � :rS�I �.jh �� t���( s}1. f� I i r.y. r, \• 'j �.�—O _ ) .! � { -� t i I �'4 � f{j,;l ti�*�� ti'rily�. iS'}'• t ;j: . , ��i _,-y: ,, mm L: �m T t F D � ' A n y C) Pftlk � y n Z cD cD �— O C) cD y. ^* p cD -7 —i m CD �_ � o v � y Q 0 2) cD O O- CDm � Z N• (n � 2) F-� ftftm CD CD ffto. CQ "Z3 CD O cQ �- 1. vZft O CD p ,,,r, —_ �D (n CD 0 CQ CO (n CD C? _ O .,� CD CD C) a CD -+, — % CD O - D (n CD CD cn CD a v `C p n N CD Ffto. :3 -7 m O O C O n -Q �• � CDZ3 � .� (D CD CD Q y cn O (D O cn Ri o C!) CD a CD N _. O n O (D cn ` _■ —, t y �, O CD ? O O p. CD CD cn p o cn ftft' (D �. N ( v cD O' n sy p p ce � z Z ■ CD (D p —• C) i D 3 C7 N (D Z M cn m —, (DwAN < D m CD z CD CD (D Ti N (D z "< O � (D n g ° o n Q (D CD -400 (D C7 (Dcn -� N CD (n n — 2 C a o c II v n Sy ° cD cD Z O 0 D -• �, � CD O O._._ t O O O O 11 4 co CD\. rr 1 CD W 00 CD CD ----�� CD rr, \ - Q O. Z 0 1 CD z CD CD z: — -- CD CD O t3o O Oho o O 1 � co �• O 'm m A N 00 CD ? — CD ` O ^, C C/) '-� 0 0o D -� * Z [ADS DD (D — m cOD nnD O v) CD r-r r- 0r- 00r- < o � — 00 00 0p < � o < � r.F � (D -;t) 7D m �Dm — DmD ^ "i► 2) O z Opo oMo r ? �L O O ZO m O (/� —, (� CD n c m ^F — O Dm (D —• Zn A —. m o (D Q z CD V O N o m () CD (h Z (� N 1 � o o Z =r—j b—I o a n m �� Z N m I � I cD :Z7 z CQ G) 0 --z QJ M D O � � (D � m m c W � cn M p .0 p C) — m (D (D < z m y C) (n QJ n -ft. m O QL) N a cn o (D cD C/) _ CD C O A N_ V _ CD y CD < QJ T ' a CD n Z CD m � � C O O CD - m c) CD� QJ m O �- O QJ _ o _ O 7 m 3 -0o3 =) - ? y — -v CD Q o C c � CD CT C w m o ,-� p n O ° �' v o Z oo (D (D CD cD r' p- cn — m ° � C) oa) y0 CD cn r+ cQ `< CD �.,, cn (-C) CT o cp O o° m o =7 o o ° ° CD CD � � owe �. D (D o v 0 O _ _ V 00% Cf) v X cQ CD E3 - v — o o (D O �, o < � � < , Qv N cD p -0CT S _. o o CD 0- (D 0 — m ° c') cD o cQ = v ,-� Cl) CD C/)3 v . O ? -ml Q Q (D `< CD _. 0 ° _ D c � X m m CQ � Z C) N D o � O Z °rJ b—Io y�, �m n I � co Wa' � � �' � � cn O n Op' O (D (D CT v n � o — —� m Zoo (D � D � O O Cn c CD z m �.4, CC --1n Q C7 CD CD C = (D Z- C) CSD C/) CD O O. W Q �. y' n CD CD CD `< CD V) (D O (D Z CD (D o (DO p 0 0 m —. o n CD Cl) � �• O p n (f) O CD CD (D (q 0 (D � � O � O =3 ,-4- O ►. Zoo CD Zs n (D C) CD -- CO � O n CD • y p �' �, D cn v CD -�. (D (D o- ,{ o- (D o cn m CD O O 2) Q Q y0 � � yCO7 ZT cp Q CVMM'' 2) � 2) D CD � � =3 (n O 5 O N Sv -7Cf) -0 M o �' 0 --% (D O (D -0 C/) E --r :3 p cn cD v o Z CD 0 �• (D y �. n n 2) CD CD CS' z (D (D (D cD CD CD �' v �• O CDr-« r+ 7D CD (D RomeQ` O CD — �. n cD (D n O � O 14% _ (D -% p- n cD _ O m owl(D Qoi - CD CD CD CL n Zftp' � U) � -u cn -- Oaty (D n -7 cn n ft-ftO Q o O < M fl, (D = cD CD O �. (D Q Q m (D C7 p' ,�+ --1 n cn (D (D o --% =- � (D O2) 0 m C .7. Z m tar— if ink �g G ot Ni . - 1 � � '"� ♦� •,a .�. r < '.0 _��� r • :'.0 Y .�i i I � j i ," ,/3y r✓ jk t• r WES „ r ;3 xy ,•� ,T. + �,� '„ !I i.•.ry +�`� key?_, ;t CITY OF AsPEN COMMUNITY 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: 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) OCTI Marcli 2016 0) 920 5050 F ASPEN .,0MVV*4i i f DEVELCiMNT CITY OF • DEVELOPMENT 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 tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum,Subdivision,Spas or PUDs 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 any way 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. _Ay-ee� Signature The foregoing"Affidavit Notice"was acknowledged before me this day of ���Z- 20 , by Ana dei l-lfflss v WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL,A f TARA L. NELSON ��ZVU NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: NATE OF COLORADO �p f ^ n A #20014030017 1�C�`Sim ssion on Exx pires September 25,2021 Notary Public ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPY OF THE PUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICES (SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICED AS REQIURES BY C.R.S§24-65.5-103.3 March, 2016 City of Apen 1130 S. Galena St. 0) 920 5050 'w k i _ "''.•, t'"*� a` 'c•: l �',- ^`Tl.,�,_ � 4 ty s rf'-�;'• , tr�� T Jr1T +V. •:iii �'-:� T��•`~`- • -riY;+ ;-:.+.,•.�i `t.pa ,4a4ti''w.�,,-t���.^..,�i�nny���? 1- 'A PUBLIC � . Date: taCe. c'tV 1-tai'. Purpose: a Applic'mr. CO Wlt-'ry F'ai;jily T rust. 35 VVard ire t, (-,iRS requests from: tri(? BO -jr AdjUStmeint, a 5-foot varlancc) fri)n the minimum required front yard setback {i U' to 5') to redevelop this property with a single-family residence. . :. For further inforinatiorn conlact K(..,vin Rayes with Communh Development at 970.429-2797 NOTICE of PUBLIC HEARING: 431 West Hallam Street Project Location: 431 W. Hallam St.; Aspen Land Use Reviews: Front Yard Setback Variance 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. 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 BendonAdams 300 So Spring St 202 Aspen, CO 81611 970.925.2855 bendonadams.com i i I i i I I i i i i i I Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius From Parcel: 273512433001 on 09/28/2018 TKIN A C ouNT 1�;VD,c\g 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 information 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 is solely responsible and liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or data obtained on this web site. http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com 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 E 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 V' AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 3l PJast a,w` L ,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: _9,VWS O Ct' S 1774:.36/ern , 20 J S STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, (name,please print) being or rep esenting an Applicant tot 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. Signabik The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice"was acknowle ged bore me this�� day of n , 20 I , by NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING . RE:437 West Hallam Street Public Hearing:Thursday,October 25,2018: WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL 4:30 PM , Meeting Location:City Hall.Council Chambers 1 130 S.Galena St.,Aspen,CO 81611 J Y fires: Project Location:431 West Hallam Street.Legally M commission Described as:The Northerly 70 feet of Lots A.B _ission expires: and C.except the easterly 39 inches of Lot Block 36,City and Townsite of Aspen,accordingg the •� ; Plat thereof filed March 25.1880,in Plat Booto k 1 at j r page Description: The applicant.Connery Family �( V Trust. 135 Ward Street, Larkspur CA 94939, re- L 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. - r AA ( - I���_ � ��• Land Use Reviews Req: Minimum Front Yard Set- �•, back Variance Decision Making Body: Board of Adjustment Applicant:Connery Family Trust,135 Ward 'ACHMENTS AS APPLICAB E•. `'T``-r�' `�` `��-' -7'°-�" Street Larkspur,CA 94939 l / y - More Information: For further information related to the project,contact Kevin Rayes at the City of As- ,ICATION '`t!'l-0 itf'11S510f1 EX-'I v°, ,;! pen Community Development Department. 130 S. U r C;11�e;��4f202i Galena St.'Aspen,CO.(970)429.2797. THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)��Y�' a� kevin.rayes@cityofaspen.com. Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on October 4. RS AND GO VERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED 2018. 0000315007 • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §§24-65.5-103.3 Exhibit C- Affidavit of Public Notice AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304:060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE I ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 3 Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: a5- 0 4.go 20 a' STATE OF COLORADO ) . ss. County of Pitkin ) (name,please print) being or rep?-esenting an Applicant tot 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 notiee-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 conduct6d.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) Exhibit C- Affidavit of Public Notice r 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 iA the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. SignatuAe The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice"was acknowle ged before me this J day of NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ' RE:431 West Hallam Street WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL Public Hearing:Thursday,October25,2018; i 4:30 PM Meeting Lacatton:C1,C081611 ry Hall,Council Chambers 1 130 S.Galena SL,Aspen,C0 816tt — ) - Project Location:431 West Hallam Street,Legally My commission expires: Zl Described as:.The Northerly.70 feet of Lots A,.B and 0.except the eeslal 39 ll of Lot C,Block 36,-City and wt. d Aspen,according to the l Plat thereof riled March 25,1060,in Plat Book.1 at page'bescrlption: The applkant,:Connery Family VVV '•Trust,.135 Ward Street, Larkspur CA 94939, re- quests a 5-foot variance from be minimum front Notar Public . yard setback(10 feel 10 5 feel)to redevelop the ske y wdh asingle-family resident:,The request Is due to several large spruce trees along the south properly I line.The valiance.request is a response to the pros• �r.+�s:xa„•.,,,. encs of these trees.Th:application Is tohe consld- t{ i :erect by the Board of Adjustment. 1•l�R 1. _ { l :�i"'•44 . :=the Reviews Req: Minimum Front Yard Set- back Variance - N r Decision Making Body: Board or Adjustment ,L r-r• Apprlcantt Connery Family Trust,135 Ward "�ACINTS AS t).i PLICABE• v Street larkspur,CA 94939 + 1 r�1 i r J r•f n ? Morelnformetlon: For lurcher Information related r r�*� � �t M the project,contact Kevin Reyes et the,City of As ,1CATION ivlu�V I'ro l51?Lri E>,�, U e' r�rp.I-: 45 j(;)t pen Community.Dever menl Department, 130 S. Galena,ye Aspen, spanx0)429.2797, r'HEPOSTED NOTICE(SIGN) kevin.rayes®cilyofaepen.com. . Published In the Aspen Times Weekly on October 4,. ;RSA"GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED 2918.0099315097 - • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 Exhibit C- Affidavit of Public Notice OF • DEVELOPMENT 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 I, 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) iL._CEIvED 0C] 1. March, 2016 City of Apen 130 S. Galena St.1(970) 920 5050 i V OF ASPEN GMRLINiTY DEVtli>MNT Exhibit C- Affidavit of Public Notice CITY OF • DEVELOPMENT •AR 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 tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum,Subdivision,Spas or PUDs 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 ( �� ----, 20 , by''hn a Ne`A v T WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL TARA L. NELSON G� z5 NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: TATE OF COLORADO :.ARY x #20014030017 �/`NU(W n ' r,sion Expires September 25,2021 Notary Public ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPY OF THE PUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICES (SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICED AS REQIURES BY C.R.S§24-65.5-103.3 2016 • •- 1 1 1 5050, • • . • 0 • • lie It `,gyp �r � T� 1�1 Exhibit C- Affidavit of Public Notice ,' Date: - - Time: 4:Z3Ci t4 h I�l{ter itV w i-y A, - I, IIIJIf.If f.t];711 c • lltitL7v Purpose; �lplall�.�ult Connory FC-On y Trust- VVaril Street, Lmk ;;Itr1 t:;A c �►�J: �� r,Pquests frol-rt the BOzird of w y. Adjustment, a 5-foot variallu; trio„ the minimum required front yard Wit_ �:•. setback (701 to 5') to redevelop this property with a single-farttily residence. For further information cont��ct I<cvin Hayes with Community Develoent at 970.429,2797 .h i Exhibit C- Affidavit ublic--Notice NOME OF PURM HlEARM 431 West Hallam Street k' Project Location: 431 W. Hallam St.; Aspen I Land Use Reviews: Front Yard Setback Variance Ct-tY t_j , SPA fj Decision Making Body: Board of Adjustment 130 S. Galena Street, Hearing Date: October 25, 2018, 4:30 p.m. Aspen, CO 81611 clearing 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 i 25, 1880, in Plat Book 1 at page 1. 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 I the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St,, Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2797, kevin.rayes@cityofaspen.com BendonAdams 300 So Spring St 202 Aspen, CO 81611 970.925.2855 bendonadams.com 1 Exhibit C- Affidavit of Public Notice Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius From Parcel: 273512433001 on 09/28/2018 ' KIN 4 C OUNT 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 information 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 is solely responsible and liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or data obtained on this web site. http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com Exhibit C- Affidavit of Public Notice 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 NEWYORK,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 Exhibit C- Affidavit of Public Notice 530 HALLAM LLC JOSEPH RUSSELL C&ELISE E 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