The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutlanduse case.boa.122 Eastwood.001-05 a: N N '" N" '" I.!) '0 ~~, (Xl '" '" "'"N ..,. ....C I'- .. I"- "" 001.... ~'" 1.0 0. <!i) & '" ~ '-' - RESOLUTION NO. 01 Series of 2005 ....... A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, CASE NUMBER 05-01, GRANTING A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR 122 EASTWOOD DRIVE, LOT 15, EASTWOOD SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN WHEREAS, Lorraine Mack submitted a request for variance, dated December 1, 2004 to the Board of Adjustment as outlined in Section 21.04.070(b); and WHEREAS, this matter came on for hearing before the Board of Adjustment on February 3, 2005 where full deliberations and consideration of the evidence and testimony was presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1. Findings of Fact. The Board of Adjustment makes the following findings of fact: 1. A request for the variance granted was initiated by: Lorriane Mack on 122 Eastwood Drive, Aspen, Colorado. " " 2. Notice of the proposed variance has been provided to surrounding property owners in accordance with Section 26- 304-060(E) (3) of the Aspen Municipal Code. Evidence of such notice is on file with the City Clerk. Q: 3. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and Chapter 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code. o u >- ~ z " o u ;;; " ~ a: ~ > a: " a: > ~ .. 4. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make Possible the reasonable use of the parcel, bUilding or structure. 5. The literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms of Chapter 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining that the applicant's rights would be deprived absent a variance, the Board considered certain special conditions and circum- stances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, - -. ..., structures o~~uildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant. Section 2. Variance Granted. The Board of Adjustment does hereby grant the applicant the fOllowing variance from the terms of Chapter 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code by a four to zero (4-0) vote: A thirty (30) foot front yard setback variance for the construction of a garage. Section 3. Condition Upon Which Variance is Granted. The variance granted by Section 2, above, is specifically conditioned upon and subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant stipulated that if this house is torn down and rebuilt the variance shall be null and void. APPROVED AS TO FORM Q. \ J+= Ci: Y Attorney INTRODUC D, READ AND ADOPTED by the Board of Adjustment of the City n on the r a of February 2005. Ch I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting Deputy City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the Board of Adjustment of the City of ~o~eCing held on che day hereinabove "caced. \ . -'.- . ..) , . Duty City C erk . 2 111111111111111111 11111 1111 111111 111111111 11111 11111111 ~~7~~~! 70: 22M SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 11.00 D 0.00 ',,_. ""_d.._~___~,.,.._.,_.~_..~__........~____,__..~_~_". _ M",--"-_ 130 S. Galena SI. Aspen CO 81611 (970) 920-5090 (970) 920-5439, fax City of Aspen Community Development Department Fax To: Pat McAllister From: Sarah Oates Fax: 925-1090 Pages: 3 Phone: Date: March 2, 2005 Re: Resolution for Mack approval CC: o Urgent 0 For Review 0 Please Comment 0 Please Reply 0 Please Recycle . . Comments: Hi Pat- Here's the resolution. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. "" " t ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ [ ~ ~ \n <\)~ \j~ ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (' ,~ ~ J ~ ... ~ ; '!hI,I' ~ ~ ~ III < ....... ~~ > ~ _\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ...s ~ C) \J .. ~ ... .... ~~ \S'l ~ " . .oj I~I\. ~ \.\.J ~ /~ f =~ I" ....... r:c \-~ t ), ) . , ~. @J I,{) ~ j iO ~ "( ... \ -' . $ ~I: , ~ 4j~ - ~ i ! "" ~ .-- ,.- I '<(~~ ,...;;;;;;.'.....::: . .I t4ii1 ~ ~~~ \ - / J - ~, - C J -, = --+-- _._.__.~ .. ~ - - i \D . - ,-,- l..,;,....-' \l) " , , ~. . Q" ~ J .... ~ . ~ IS.) " , , \ l( .~ ~ . , q:, ,\ ~ , ~ . "' ~ :::.~ --- ~l..... , .. ..., ~ "1.. ~ , ~ \J" '<-Z V\, $ ~c,) ~ , ~ - \U\: ~ v\<. ~ { ~ it~ \3~ r- --- ... " ~ ~ ~ \f:( -P '\ ... , ~~ . . , 1::: .. . l . . \ . I I~~ , ,~ ~~ .. (~0 ~\_~ . "- ..--..,,~ .J C ~ \ ... ~ . ~ ~ ( -~ . ~)rl~ ,\ ~ .., Yil , - -- J ~ . i' ,,':-- . \ ~ .J . . ~ J ~ . \1\ ~ ,~ ~ \~ C .... I' \ \ 6hbi+ "1/' -\-v 2:Qh\'bi t- ,\ A I( . ~Q.Ctrcl $ ~ P\dJ Ll'&b-rn~-b -Rpph'C[t-t1on \='01 \fh.,rv\,i\la- 'oj f-te....b ~ lorrQ,,"J\v f\J\O,_(j~ S~\.e m~+tcL -PA8~ 3 0+ '-1 L~h,~d- .3> .._--~"._-- "~"~"-"~- . --_.~....~"..~.,-~"",-",._~.-......"..-.- ..JJI .. tJrll., I r 3p'-01l CITY Scr81'\C/F.. I II ?;o-o ()I(I&I"'AL- c.-ovtVf't ~er8ACJt:- \ .. .. - eA$6M€r'/"1 ---- .,- - .--"'- - - - - -- - ------- . ~,..... { ::t ::::~ OW \1 ~ ~ ~ tl. ~ /II ,'':> ~ ~ ~ ~ ..... :::"1 01 \)\ ~ ~ ~ ~ <J ~ tl t\\ ~ ~~ ~ ....... ~ ('l.. ~ ..... \II ... ............ ~'>- ;t ......... U\ ::t~~ ~1'~ :} ~ :t. ~ ~ ~ , ~ N ~ V . . .. ~ ~ ~~ if' t)~ ~ _~;,i.',,~'. "'~~--'" .~~ })~ 1\~ "'r- t ~~ (1\~ OJ ""i ~ ~ -<. ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ) IJ'I ~ ) '< l ). ~ 0\ l ~ V\ 0'1 ~ \ - ~ ~ ~ r j"0 \ 'db'Oc, )0)'O~ ~v.~'OJ..\o1 ,\,v-o C\J~\i },.9 ,pv"O~ .>:0/\ ...1Ojuo~'OJ!\<1c.\i ;-Vd~~?17 jO ?J'OO'2l. llV,-\-~4~"11-:l'~ ,X ,,+~9~,-,\Y.3 . . ~ .)0. \1\ ~ ~ \) ) \\ ). ~ ~ ~ ~ v . , .. \ ... '\ ~-1 ...- b ~ ~ ~G'Od >i 'J '0 It! ~ VI )"'O..J J 0"'" "pv -0 q..>';)'\1 1\'1 -;;)) \;\"0 ~.)"o/\ -'OJ\AO~,,Y'oJ~\d<iV -TVI~\.MtSVl~?V -j'O r-.roo~ ,:v" -r~4~'1X3 ot "v" -\-~"I ~vp<3 ~~~~ ~ .:: ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~ % ...... ~ 'i ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~......~" U\ G~ ~ ~ ~l~ ~~C\ ~ '" t'\ ~). ~~ ~'t ~ :t. ~ 'l ~ \11 ~ ~ t) ~ ~ ~ .> ..,,,..,...,,....,-~- \lI /_..//'---- --"'-'- y:>/ /1 ~( \ \ .. \ ~ .."" .)3 ~ " ' t\ ~ ~ "1 ~ " t;;) , 1\ I / ,I .- - -- 1; / .- .,'- . / I . " I \ I I \ N I ~ , I Q I \ I , I I I ,....., I .;t I \-.../ I ') ~~ -:i :::: ~ ... ,~ ~ ,..... ..... ~~ ~~ l't \~ \ . ~ I' ~ \' ~ :l ~ .:t , ' " . , ~~ ~ (- ~- ~:t-- ~! Q\ , "- " ..,.,<~.-- ,......_-~.~-- -- ~~ ~~ )3", ~~ )J )- ~ (T1 ------ .!1~ I " CTt.7 -0 ~ jO -z ~b-o<i )P~H ~l.-ll-OJ")01 pU'-o <1'>-;;)11 f..c; 'gJVYJ~.)"()f\ JO-j- "\A~~"J~,d<iV -1\.Kdw.,s'lfl''\f..:TQ ?J-o;J2> \IV" -'r~9:V\)(:3. at ,:l.'i-~~~,",,){3 ... ., -.-/ \l\ :;: ~ (1) -; ~ . ~ . ~ . ::: ~ ~ ~ ~ 10 ".,.-'" -t----- \ -- . ! . I '""'~........~ ~~~~ .........):"'... ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ \.-I \) f\ }~~ ~ ~ ~ l' ~ ~ ~ ....-.... ....,._~.~--~.... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \: \\... 'l\ ~ (l't ~ Jl ~ ~ ~ (1) )a ~ ';l. ~ '> ~ ~ ~ t;) ~ .lI - - " ~ ~ . \' ~ ... , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0\ " ""\. / / / T ~ ~. "<. -.../ (b ~ '" ~ ~ ...... \ ~ ..,. l . \ \ \ ' \ lII! ~\~ ~,'" / ~ ~\ ~\ 17 (~'\ \ 7 I I. ..... ~ 1/ j'. , ./ '- Vv 1f .~J Ci) ~O" ti- , '\ '\ \. '\. '\. ); / / / / / - - - - -- / /' " : '\./ . , * ,....., ..".,.._.~-- ,-, ,,', -.......". L 'T -a .; . I r~ " - .... ;0 -' , t; ~ - - II .... ('. ~ I--- ~ - 4 ,r'"""\ 1.-1 ".,,'" H jO It -;;l~-od ')\"0"0 IA ~ \A~':H) Ol"fl'-A? '1..ntt ^'1 -e) u"O~ )"0 j\ .J OJ \.Ao!-r'o:)~\dc\v-tL)dwtS"Y1ff\7'jO p-oo~ II tt:, t~9~~ l~ 0+)" -\- ~C1. ~ l1B . w..",.,_.,........"...." .~,...;"",..., 6 ~CHMUESER I GORD~C1V1~:l'~~ ENGINEERS jSURVEYORS """\ I Ie W. 6TH. SUITE 200 ,,',"','_1, ....",.,' P.O. BOX 2 I 55 "'I.'L1""urrr ',I. I r'-,luc>(J '~I '1"'"./. 1"_0. BOX 3088 GLENWOOO SPRINGS. CO 8 I 60 I ASPEN, CO e 161 2 CRESTEO BUTTE. CO 8 I 224 970-945-1004 970-925-6727 970-349-5355 FX: 970-945-5948 FX: 970-925-4 j 57 FX: 970-349-5358 January 27, 2005 ~ .-sQIT Mr. Gideon Kaufman, Esq. Kaufman, Peterson & Dishier, P.C. 315 East Hyman Ave., Ste. 305 Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Mack Residence, Siqht Line Analvsis Dear Gideon: I am writing in follow-up to our discussions and site visit to the Mack property at 122 Eastwood Drive in unincorporated Pitkin County near Aspen, Colorado. The purpose of our visit was to look at a potential garage addition to the property with regard to its possible effects on sight distances onto the subdivision road. Conclusions It would be my opinion that the addition of a garage in the location of the current off- street parking area at 122 Eastwood Drive will have no adverse effects on sight distances for drivers exiting the property or for drivers on Eastwood Drive. The view approaching from the west is already constrained by a tall (6 foot +) solid fence structure that matches the location of the proposed garage wall. The sight line for a driver backing out of the garage for vehicles approaching from the east will be maintained by the placement of a large window in the east wall of the proposed garage. The home is located on an essentially straight segment of Eastwood Drive with overall sight distances that are more than adequate for the posted speed of 25 miles-per-hour. One minor recommendation would be to trim the lower tree branches (many of which appeared to be dead) from the trunks of the aspen trees along the sight line within the property to the east of the proposed garage to a height of about 5 feet above the elevation of Eastwood Drive (see attached sketch). Discussion The existing home at 122 Eastwood Drive is an older home that was built (I'm guessing) in the 1960's or early 1970's. It is one of several homes along the subdivision road with a parking area or garage that is located relatively close to the edge of the common road. Unlike some of the homes in the area with garages close to the road, the outside parking area is "at grade" relative to the road and a driver backing out does not need to carry speed to make the roadway in the wintertime. Sight lines for a vehicle backing out of the parking area are currently limited to the west by a solid fence in the range of 6Y, feet high. Although our site visit on January J'h took place with extensive snowpack on the ground, it appears that the pavement edge on 6 January 27, 2005 Mr. Gideon Kaufman, Esq. Mack Residence Page 2 r- "- .-.... - Eastwood Drive is between 5 and 6 feet from the existing fence line. Under current conditions, a car backing out onto Eastwood Drive is probably just a foot or two into the pavement before the driver has a clear view to the west. I would note that drivers approaching from the west have a good view of any car backing out of the parking area, well in excess of the minimum stopping sight distances required in the 2003 Pitkin County Asset Management Plan for County Roads, Trails and Properties. While the view to the west is clearly constrained by the fence, the proposed garage will not extend any further toward the road and, therefore, will not exacerbate the sight distance for a driver exiting the property. Sight distance to the east from the existing parking area is generally good, certainly meeting County minimums and limited only slightly by the understory vegetation of some small to medium size aspen trees in the summer. Based on our initial conversations, architect Heidi Hoffman has modified the garage design to incorporate a large window on the east wall that will allow a driver about to exit the garage the same view that currently exists. The current garage design would therefore maintain existing sight line conditions onto Eastwood Drive both east and west of the Mack property. One potential improvement may be that fact that a driver in the garage is entering a vehicle without snow, frost, rain or fog on the windows and may therefore have a better view than from a car that has been parked outside all night. I hope these comments are helpful; please feel free to contact me if I may provide further comment or detail. Very Truly Yours, Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. tV I~ c::::....-. < Jay W. Hammond, P.E. Principal, Aspen Office JH/jh Mack_GK1 s c "'""'\ - MACK RESIDENCE SIGHT LINE ANALYSIS PHOTO EXHIBIT January 7, 2005 Photo 1: Approaching from the east. . Photo 2: Approaching from the west. .. . ."..?-- . ... . ~ . . .. - 'PROf'O~E t)\~e. E.. .,-RIMtII,,,-," j!o l't E. eA'Glw,,"P ~dAO (/(.t?W.) . 4- 4- . I "'1"""'1'- STt:?'-'Y F"''''I''IC. ~t.JS6 ..../ I r I .' I. I I e~/~TlH8 I loWe;R.. I 06C/f:;. I - ~ifE frJbJnNl I I . . /'It? R rff" I MACK I'?ESIOef/cE ~ , , I /~'2- cA5TWt:;16)O DI<.'J A5Fe'N I N,T.:='. f I . I -" I . - . - -. S7~eeT 8Hr~Y GATe v ! G#.""l/et... ,-I P',...P.KJN(." ~CPVI'CTY^~ -- V]1 - 5'M~ I""'- --- - The City of Aspen Board of Adjustmemt Attn: Rick Head, Chairman 130 S. Galena, 2nd Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Herb and Lorraine Mack, #0122 Eastwood Drive, Aspen, Colorado, Request for Variance for Carport/Garage We are neighbors of Herb and Lorraine Mack. We strongly support their request for a variance so that they can have a garage/carport. When the City rules change, long time residents should not be penaIized and we urge you to approve their variance so that their cars can be protected from the elements. We feel it is very important that they have the garage/carport, especially as they grow older and infirm, in order to lessen the hardships and difficulties of using their cars in the sometimes very harsh mountain elements. We very much appreciate your service to the City of Aspen and specifically with regard to the Macks. Please let us know if we can provide any further assistance. Sincerely, Dwayne and Margaret Romero Eastwood ~~~~ l"'- I".... - ~..- November 7, 2004 The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment Attn: Rick Head, Cbainnan 130 S. Galena; -r Floor Aspen, Colorado 8161 ] Re: Herb and Lorraine Mack. #0122 Eastwood Drive, Aspen, Colorado, Request for Variance for Carport/Garage We are longtime neighbors of Her!> and Lorraine Mack. We strongly support their request for a variance so that they can have a garage/carport. When City rules change, long time residents should not be penalized and we urge you to approve their variance so that they and their cars can be protected from the elements. We feel it is very important that they have the garage/carport, especially as they grow older and infinn, in order to lessen the hardships and difficulties of using their cars in the sometimes very harsh mountain elements. We very much appreciate your service to the City of Aspen and specifically with regard to the needs of the Macks. Please let us know if we can provide any further assistance. Sincerely, Mr. &. Mrs, Gene Clausen 284c~ood /~ / ~ / A;/'UA i' / (. / ~f'/!-'-- -~-_::!::'.::;"':_':::::l:.:";; ,-'- & .(J '. 'if) .J.zl/..?:.._..J.:1. /U?""W~ c ......... ~- November 7, 2004 The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment Attn: Rick Head, Chairman 130 S. Galena, 2"d Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Herb and Lorraine Mack. #0122 Eastwood Drive, Aspen, Colorado, Request for Variance for Carport/Garage I am a longtime neighbor of Herb and Lorraine Mack. I strongly support their request for a variance so that they can have a garage/carport. When City rules change, long time residents should not be penalized and I urge you to approve their variance so that they and their cars can be protected from the elements. I feel it is very important that they have the garage/carport, especially as they grow older and infirm, in order to lessen the hardships and difficulties of using their cars in the sometimes very harsh mountain elements. I very much appreciate your service to the City of Aspen and specifically with regard to the needs of the Macks. Please let me know if I can provide any further assistance. Sincerely, J an Alling 244 Eastwood '~ r'" ',-, ~ November 1,2004 The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment Attn: Rick Head, Chairman 130 S. Galena, 2nd Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Herb and Lorraine Mack, 122 Eastwood Drive, Aspen, Colorado, Request for Variance for Carport/Garage Dear Mr. Head: We are long time neighbors of Herb and Lorraine Mack. We strongly support their request for a variance so that they can have a garage/carport. When City rules change, long time residents should not be penalized and we urge that you approve their variance so that they and their cars can be protected from the elements. We feel it is very important that they have the garage/carport especially as they grow older in order to lessen the hardships and difficulties of using their cars in the sometimes very harsh mountain elements. We very much appreciate your service to the City of Aspen and specifically with regard to the needs of the Macks. Please let us know if we can provide any further assistance. Thank you. Sincerely, ,dk ~'L- odk /),/1"""/"',,..-, . I' I 9 I EI{0/J4i20of t*'"' - ,....... -- The City of Aspen Board of Adjustmemt Attn: Rick Head, Chairman 130 S. Galena, 2nd Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Herb and Lorraine Mack, #0122 Eastwood Drive, Aspen, Colorado, Request for Variance for Carport/Garage We are neighbors of Herb and Lorraine Mack. We strongly support their request for a variance so that they can have a garage/carport. When the City rules change, long time residents should not be penalized and we urge you to approve their variance so that their cars can be protected from the elements. We feel it is very important that they have the garage/carport, especially as they grow older and infirm, in order to lessen the hardships and difficulties of using their cars in the sometimes very harsh mountain elements. We very much appreciate your service to the City of Aspen and specifically with regard to the Macks. Please let us know if we can provide any further assistance. tJ~ L/J2 OuJ )J~ (( fi ~ 0 1"3 i Eastwood Drive Page 1 of 1 c ....... '"-" --\j1 t( 'Kt , 0/-1- Donna Fist1er From: Carolee Murray [zgcarolee@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 1 :14 PM To: Donna Fisher Subject: Variance To Whom It May Concern: As an Eastwood homeowner with a tricky garage myself, I am concerned about Ms. Mack being safely able to enter and leave a garage so close to tihe street. I certainly am not against her building a garage, but it does seem as if tihe plan could be improved. Perhaps fill could be used (as in the case of my side parking area) or tihe garage cantilevered so it would be further back on her lot. As it stands now the street is quite narrow and to have tihe garage come witihin five feet of roadway appears to be a safety hazard. Thank you for your consideration. Carolee Munray 82 Eastwood Drive Aspen 1/6/2005 '/yI1' ::-'~ "IV __l._ "" /VU}I T \;/ .."-~ ~ "",,' ~-- "' -if:JiF'" i'"'''''''''''_''' - 1\"t"'U1! ~ . -"'" ., L - -- "'"" MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Adjustment THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Director Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer ~ FROM: RE: 122 Eastwood Drive-Mack Residence DATE: January 6, 2004 ------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The applicant requests a front yard setback variance for the construction of a garage. The property is currently developed with a single-family residence. The property is zoned R-1SB, is accessed via Eastwood Drive and has a required front yard setback of thirty (30) feet. The applicant is requesting a thirty (30) foot front yard setback variance. Eastwood Drive is a thirty (30) foot wide dedicated right-of-way tllat cuts through the north portion of the parcel. The property, along with the rest of the Eastwood Subdivision, was annexed into the City of Aspen in 1987 and Eastwood Drive was subsequently dedicated as a right of way, requiring that the setback be taken from the south edge of the dedication rather than the middle of the right of way or property line. Therefore, the existing house is located partially in the required front yard setback as is the proposed garage addition. The applicant owned and developed the property prior to the 1987 annexation, road dedication and change in location from which the front yard setback is required to be measured. The parcel is approximately 14,SOO square feet lot with the thirty (30) foot wide right of way dedication in the front yard. The property is adjacent to Highway 82 on the south lot line and other R-1SB lots to the east and west. All lots take their access off of Eastwood Drive rather than Highway 82. Please refer to the attached drawings and written information provided by the applicants for a complete presentation of the proposed variance. APPLICANT: Lorriane Mack, represented by Gideon Kaufman LOCATION: 122 Eastwood Drive, Lot IS, Eastwood Subdivision REVIEW STANDARDS AND ST AFF EVALUATION: Pursuant to Section 26.314.040 of the Municipal Code, in order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements - '-' """'"". ,.,...." of Title 26. the Board of Adjustment shaJl make a finding that the foJlowing three (3) circumstances exist: 1. Standard: The grant of the variance wiJl be generaJly consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and this title. Response: Granting the variance will not conflict with the goals of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan or the requirements of the Aspen Municipal Land Use Code. 2. Standard: The grant of the variance is the 1111111mum variance that wiJl make possible the reasonable nse of the parcel, building, or structure. Response: Reasonable use of the parcel already exists, as there is an existing single-family residence on the parcel. 3. Standard: 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 mmecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's right would be deprived, the board shaJl consider whether either of the foJlowing 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 wiJl not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan the terms of this title to other parcels, buildings or structures, in the same zone district. Response: Staff recognizes that circumstances have changed since the applicant original purchased 122 Eastwood and that a carport addition was originally contemplated with the residence. Nonetheless, in reference to Standard 3, staff has consistently found that not having a garage should not be considered a deprivation of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same district. A garage is an amenity, not a necessity and based on this, staff cannot support the variance request as we do not feel that this will cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or deprive them oftheir rights. ALTERNATIVES: The Board of Adjustment may consider any 'of the foJlowing alternati ves: ./ Approve the variance as requested. c '"' "'-....,..... ,/ Approve the variance with conditions. ,/ Table action to request further information be provided by the applicants or interested parti es. ,/ Deny the variance finding that the review standards are not met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the request for a thirty (30) foot front yard setback variance for the construction of a garage be denied finding that Standards 2 and 3 have not been met. RECOMMENDED MOTION: (All motions are worded in the affirmative) "1 move to approve the request for a thirty (30) foot front yard setback variance for the construction of a garage finding the review standards have been met." r ., ~ THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION PACKET DATE~ l/ / 20!2. r.( ( APPLICANT HERB & LORRAINE MACK CASE# 05 -0 } c/o Gideon Kaufman PHONE 925-8166 MAILING ADDRESS 122 Eastwood Drive, Aspen, CO 81611 c/o Gideon Kaufman PHONE 925-8166 OWNER HERB & LORRAINE MACK MAILING ADDRESS 122 Eastwood Drive. Aspen, CO 81611 LOCATION OF PROPERTY Lot 15, EASTWOOD SUBDIVISION (Street, Block Number and Lot Number) WILL YOU BE REPRESENTED BY COUNCIL? YesA- No_ Below, describe clearly the proposed variance, including all dimensions and justification for the variance (additional paper may be used if necessary). The building permit application and any other information you feel is pertinent should accompany this application, and will be made part of this case. Please see Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Applicant's SignatureL REASONS FOR DENIAL OF BUILDING PERMIT, BASED ON THE ASPEN CITY CODE, CHAPTER 26. AN OPINION CONCERNING THIS VARIANCE WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD BY THE ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF OFFICIAL HEARING DATE DATE PERMIT DENIED DATE OF APPLICATION " EXHIBIT "A" BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE BY HERB AND LORRAINE MACK 1. INTRODUCTION. Applicant, Herb and Lorraine Mack (the "Macks") are the owners of the real property located at 122 Eastwood Drive, Lot 15, Eastwood Subdivision (the "property"). The Property is currently zoned moderate density residential (R- 15B). Under the R-15B zoning, the front yard setback for the property is thirty feet (30') (see City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.710.070D4). The Macks request a twenty foot (20') front yard setback variance for a garage (see Site Plan attached hereto as Exhibit "1" and made a part hereof). The Property is located in the Aspen Grove/ Eastwood/Knollwood ("Eastwood") area, and was annexed by the City of Aspen in 1987. At the time of annexation, the R-15B zoning was adopted for the area. The Property is unique in that Eastwood Drive runs through the property and at the time of the annexation, the city's method of measuring the front yard set back was different from that of pitkin County. Specifically, because of the annexation and rezoning, the front yard setback is measured from the edge of the thirty foot Eastwood Drive right-of-way, not the front property line, as was the case prior to annexation. As a result, the proposed garage, although permitted under zoning existing prior to annexation would now not fit in the front yard set back. In fact, the front yard set back calculations from the edge of the 30 ft right of way as opposed to the front lot line made the existing structure on the property non conforming. The applicant has lost a significant portion of the useable part of their lot due to set back and right-of-way measurement. This amounts to a severe hardship and practical difficulty. The applicant seeks the minimum variance. We feel that a variance is appropriate under the circumstance an appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you at your next available meeting. 2. HISTORY. (al When the Macks had the house built in 1973, it was located in pitkin County. At that time, the front yard setback under R-15 County zoning was thirty feet, and was measured from the front yard property line. (b) The Eastwood area, (including the Property) was annexed by the City of Aspen, pursuant to Ordinance No. 28 1 , , (Series of 1987), dated June 22, 1987. 28, Series of 1987, is attached hereto part hereof. A copy of Ordinance No. as Exhibit "2" and made a (el Under Ordinance No. 25 (Series of 1987), dated June 22, 1987, the City of Aspen created the "Moderate Density Residential" (R-15B) zone district. A copy of Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1987, is attached hereto as Exhibit "3" and made a part hereof. (dl Under Ordinance No. 26 (Series of 1987), dated June 22, 1987, the City of Aspen zoned the Eastwood area, (including the Property), R-15B. A copy of Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1987, is attached hereto as Exhibit "4" and made a part hereof. (el When the improvements on the Property were built in 1973, which was prior to the June 22, 1987, annexation of the Property by the City, the Macks caused to be prepared an improvement survey and building plans which included a carport located in the same location as the proposed garage under this variance application (please see Improvement Survey and Plans for Lot 15, Eastwood Subdivision, Mack Residence Addition, dated October 16, 1973 and revised December 1973, attached hereto as Exhibit "5" and made a part hereof). When the house was built, it was designed around a future carport which would be built when they could afford it. The Improvement Survey shows the proposed carport and configuration in relation to Eastwood Drive, as well as the front property line. The Improvement Survey also shows the carport in relation to the 30 foot front yard set back measured from the lot line existing under pitkin County regulations prior to annexation. Under the prior zoning, the setback was measured from the front yard property line and, as a result, the now existing structure on the property and the as yet unbuilt carport were conforming with the 30 foot setback. As a result of the annexation and adoption of the R-15B zoning for the property, the City of Aspen changed the method of measuring the front yard setback such that it is now measured from the edge of the thirty foot Eastwood Drive right-of-way, (which uniquely traverses the interior of the property) not the front yard property line. As a result, the as yet unbuilt car port, became non-conforming. In addition, as a result of the new method of calculating the front yard set back the available square footage for construction on the Property was severely reduced. 2 3. STANDARDS FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE. (a) Granting the requested variance will be consistent with purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this title. The granting of the variance will only serve to bolster the stated objective of City Council in rezoning the area, as well as the objectives and goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this title. (b) The grant of this variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the proposed garage. The proposed garage will be located in the same place as originally planned, and legally permitted prior to the annexation. There is no other location on the Property for the garage which is realistically feasible, both from the standpoint of physical configuration of the property, and the method of calculating the front yard set back afer annexation. (c) Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this title would deprive Applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the Macks unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. Many homes in the Eastwood area have garages. Please see Exhibit "6" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Many of these garage border the edge of the right of way and are in all likelihood made non conforming after annexation because of measurement of the front yard setback from the edge of the right of way and not the property line. If the variance is not granted then the Macks will be denied a right commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district. (d) Eastwood Drive runs through the property, and setback measurements from the edge of the thirty foot Eastwood Drive right-of-way, caused by the annexation and rezoning, has prohibited the Macks from constructing a garage which was permitted under prior zoning. These are special conditions and circumstances which we believe are unique and amount to a severe hardship and practical difficulty.' 1 Johnson v. Board of Count v Commissioners of El Paso Countv, 406 P.2d 338 (Colo. 1965). Revision in zoning which prohibited landowner from construction which was permitted under prior zoning constituted peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties, as well as exceptional and undue hardship. 3 (el None of this has resulted from the actions of the Macks. (f) Accessory uses are permitted as a matter of right in the R-15B zone district. The Macks' proposed garage meets the definition of accessory structures set forth in the Code. (gl The Macks have health/safety concerns which are paramount and unique. The Macks are elderly. Not having a garage in which to park their vehicles has become increasingly difficult in the harsh winter climate of the Colorado mountains. The Macks no longer feel safe from injury in having to access and clear snow and ice from their vehicles, as well as driving them to and from the property. Mr. Mack, who is elderly and has been ill, after living there for 30 years is simply not able to safely handle the burden associated with the winter conditions, and is concerned for the health and safety of both him and his wife. 4 -. . EiV\;b;-\- 'Z"+n E)(hibi+ ';411 !!Cr.' r.;.E1. . ~("'d cC AclilA~hy\en+ App'l;cOI-ncV1 ~.A vil_ f.:Jif919 ,fe, YCA('ICAV1ce by He.rbctnd LC(r'(Ai ne. H'lCk ., LI. ORDINANCE NO. e>VtP ?C\.3e l O~ (p (Series of 1987) ... ~ .... l! ::z:.. fa;::' z< ~\ C. ~i: \" ~ i= N ~ lie I'i w r AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING TERRITORY TO ~E CITY OF ~EN_ S REFE~ED TO AND DESCRIBED IN THAT PETITION FO~ ANNEXATION OF T~RRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN CERTIFIED BY THE CITY CLERK ON APRIL 27, 1987, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE "ASPEN GROVE/EASTWOOD/KNOLLWOOD SUBDIVISION (EXCLUSIVE OF BLOCK 4)" . ~ .- w I'\,)~ CD - ~ ....... WHEREAS, a petition for annexation of territory to the City of Aspen was certified by the city Clerk on or about April 27, 1987, whereby that territory referred to and described in said petition commonly known as the "Aspen Grove/Eastwood/Knollwood Subdivision (eXClusive of block 4) " was petitioned for annexa- tion to the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, on April 27, 1987, the City Council of the city of Aspen by Resolution No. 14 (Series of 1987), which resolution is incorporated by reference herein, found and determined that the aforesaid petition was in substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 1 of Section 31-12-107, C.R.S., and .. .. established on April 27, 1987, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen city Hall, as a date, time and place to hold a hearing to determine if the proposed annexation complies with applicable parts of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, said hearing was duly noticed as required by Section 31-12-108, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, the hearing was conducted on the aforesaid annexa- tion petition on April 27, 1987, as aforesaid, and upon the 5'/')"5 d-/ s +-- , . .. I .d- ./ f. .-.- rr":"'- \L-l___."~ l- "-('.~ CY-J.; _~f;;T1 " '-~ - clChibi+ "l" o~ E)(hbi+ "A'l ~oo..r-d o~ AdjlAS-t-met1-\- Appl,G::\.+;on+:or eCG;: 541 F~GE9S0 Vo..6o.nce. by Herb and Lorr-CA.ine.. Mac/< fo.fje 2- of (p completion of the hearing, the city Council, by Resolution No. 14 (Series of 1987), set forth its findings of fact and its conclusions based thereon and found that the requirements of the applicable parts of sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S., have been met; that an election is not required under section 31- 12-107(2), C.R.S.; and that no additional terms and conditions . are to be imposed with respect to said annexation; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 31-12-111, C.R.S., the city Council desires to annex the area proposed in the aforesaid petition for annexation by ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That tract of land described in the petition for annexation of territory to the City of Aspen, commonly known as the Aspen Grove/Eastwood/Knollwood Subdivision , which petition is hereby incorporated by reference, and as shown on the annexation map thereof and more particularly described as follows, is hereby annexed to the City of Aspen, State of Colorado: Beginning at a point on the northeasterly right-of-way of Colorado State Highway 82, said point being the westerly corner of the Starodoj Subdivision; thence southeasterly along said State Highway and Starodoj Subdivision along a curve to the left 245.67 feet, the chord of said curve bears South 26 23'16" East, 245.65 feet; thence continuing along the Starodoj Subdivision south 28 33'30" East, 109.49 feet, and South 29 16'30" East, 31.90 feet to the south corner of said SUbdivision, being also the Southwest corner of the Eastwood Subdivision; thence continuing along said State 2 ,-. E,Kh\bi+ "2" +0 :t=/Ch;bi+ 'A" lSoo..rd of A-djlAS+men+ ApplicC\.+lon for e~1l 541 p,tGE981 VCl("lctnce.. by' Herb aN Lorra.;ne. Vlo.ck "Po..9e.. 3 of-.Co Highway and the southerly boundary of the Eastwood subdivi- sion; South 29 31'30" East, 17.8 feet; South 29 37' East, 67.8 feet; thence along a curve to the left 277.5 feet, the radius of said curve being 533.0 feet, with a central angle of 29 5'; South 59 27' East, 104.1 feet; thence along a curve to the left 305.9 feet, the radius of said curve being 533.0 feet, with a central angle of 32 53'; North 87 40' East, 171.7 feet; thence along a curve to the right 454.16 feet, the radius of said curve being 613 feet, with a central angel of 42 27', to a point on the southerly boundary of Lot 1, Block 5, Knollwood Subdivision; thence continuing along the state Highway and the boundary of Block 5, Knollwood Subdivision, South 47 45' East, 43.5 feet; South 37 22'30" East, 68.9 feet; South 45 43' East, 182.53 feet to the South corner of said Block 5; thence departing the State Highway and continuing along the boundary of Block 5, Knollwood Subdivision; North 18 25' East, 125.20 feet; North 00 09 East, 1312.50 feet to corner 4 of the Highland Placer, USMS 6120; thence North 77.10 feet to corner 4 of the Highland Placer, USMS 6120AM; thence North 892.6 feet more or less along the Aspen Grove Subdivision, Block 3 to the northeast corner of said Block and Subdivision being also corner 5 of the Highland Placer, USMS 6120AM; thence North 81 04' West, 1180.02 feet more or less to corner 6 of said Highland Placer, USMS 6120AM; thence South 00 15' West, 167.79 feet; thence South 41 03' East, 197.57 feet to the northerly corner of Lot 11, Block 1, Aspen Grove Subdivision; thence southerly along said Aspen Grove Subdivision, Block 1, South 59 50' South 45 04' South 75 53' South 41 19' South 74 47' North 55 46' North 72 42' South 80 14' South 59 49' West, West, West, West, West, West, West, West, West, 145.92 feet; 207.92 feet; 52.96 feet; 108.31 feet; 53.02 feet; 67.34 feet; 70.75 feet; 71.81 feet; 64.50 feet; 3 ....... Et<l-1;bit- ''2'' -to E.)(V1;bit- 'A.1 BGG;r 5,11 PAGE982 ~oG\\d 0.9 A~ \0-s+-lY1en1- Ap?lic.cd'ioVl+cr- Yt:l("io..nCe.. .by l1ed;:) and (....:o,ra..\YH:.. Mo..ck. t>o.:3 e. 4 o~ (p South 24 59' West, 98.41 feet; South 50 58' West, 59.40 feet; South 14 27' West, 3.53 feet more. or less to the northeasterly boundary of the Woerndle Annexation to the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado; thence easterly and southerly along said Woerndle Annexation; South 34 21' East, 400 feet; south, 132.18 feet; thence along a curve to the right 231.84 feet, the radius of said curve being 250 feet, with a central angle of 53 08' to an intersection with the north- easterly right-of-way of Colorado State Highway No. 82, thence South 21 30' East, 86 feet more or less to the point of beginning. section 2 The aforesaid annexation shall become effective in the . manner prescribed in and immediately upon compliance with the requirements of section 31-12-113, C.R.S. section 3 The city Clerk of the city of Aspen is hereby directed as follows: (a) To file one copy of the annexation map with the original of the annexation ordinance in the office of the City Clerk of the city of Aspen. (b) To certify and file two copies of this annexation ordinance and of the annexation map with the Clerk and Recorder of the County of Pitkin, state of Colorado. (c) To request the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County to file one certified copy of this annexation ordinance and of the annexation map with the Division of Local Government of the Department of Local Affairs. 4 Eih;b;+ "~" m F xhibi+ {:All gc>o.'('cl o,{: Acjv..st-h'16'\-\- AppliC.od-)oV\+-or "CAriCl\'\Ce. by' Herb and !-or'(ai ne.. Vlack Section 4 Po.g e. 5 of. ~ caCi( 1)f11 11,~t'903 ,..... ~1. _ .HiJC: (] If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance 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. Section 5 Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to affect any right, duty or liability under any ordinances in effect prior to I the effective date of this ordinance, and the same shall be continued and concluded under such prior ordinance. Section 6 day A pUblic hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the ~/3 Of~ ~ 1987, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen city Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the city Council of the City of Aspen on the ~~ ~ . #<..P , 1987. day of ~./--- '- ~~. ""''''''''''''1' ." OF '" . .... ... .(. ...., ,":"'1.' "tf/I " /. ~-FTEST~....".."\ r" t,:--: 1 ,j.// _ . i""i. : ! )4~ 'V;,~.~'" . toch, city Clerk " ',. . t'";h....;:' .~ ,...." c..,,.,, \I ~\." 5 >.fJw'. l\\\ .- ", ~ "r' ; I :" III " E::)<h;b'+ "lll +0 'F,fl'b'+ "A'I .' -~~ I 0 B~ g oo.,d C)~ Adj /AS+ 1'Yle.n+ AppliCCl.'hon tor Vo.-r,o..nce. by 8erb a.n.c\ L-crrOLi ne.. Ma.ck. 'P'38e G, o~ Co 541 p.~Gf984 FINALLY adopted, '~ - ~_. '<.d-_ L-<. '/.___ . .... .; , /3"'-^-- passed and approved th~s day of , 1987. ~ ;t/~~~- william L. stirling, May~ :~ fOCh, 'C.~:. ,..: .I it. . ,~ 1J{'6'ft"~""' /" .1., ..... <4'1",,,1" ""'!:..'",. 6 E)Chib:+ "3" +0 &,hibr+ '~t( ORDINANCE No.;;1.5 eoornv. ot:AdJv...s1-rne.m-App,Iic.s>.tibl1 +orVo.rit\.nce. by' Herb &V\Q (Series of 1987) L.crro.ine. Mt\.ck f' . po.g e I 01-5 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AMENDING SECTIONS 24-2.1 and 24-3.2 AND 24 3.4 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE SO AS TO CREATE THE "MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-1SB)" ZONE DISTRICT WHEREAS, the property owners of the Aspen Grove/East- wood/Knollwood Subdivision (exclusive of Block 4) have petitioned the city of Aspen to be annexed; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has approved a resolution indicating their intent to annex the Aspen Grove/Eastwood/ Knollwood Subdivision; and WHEREAS, the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office notified property owners within the Aspen Grove/Eastwood Knollwood' Annexation area of a public meeting on May 19, 1987, to discuss zoning for the area; and WHEREAS, the property owners have expressed a desire for the creation of a new zone district which precludes duplex residences and is comparable as possible to County R-15 zoning; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning commission held a duly noticed public hearing on June 2, 1987 to consider the creation of the R-15B Moderate Density Residential zoning district recommended by staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council, having considered the recom- mendation of the Planning and Zoning 'Commission pertaining to Sections 24-2.1,24-3.2 and 24-3.4 of the Municipal Code, Council desires .to amend Sections 24-2.1, 24-3.2 and 24-3.4, so as to create the moderate density residential (R-15B). ;5 ..,..,~, E.~h~bi-t "311 +0 ElCh,brt- IlA" poa.ro of- 4~tme.nt Appl\C9\~o\"\ tor \/Gl.ri~nc.e. by \-Ierb o.K'.ct rrOliVie.. l'1o..ek:. P~e. 2.0+ 5 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO Section 1 That subsection (a) of section 24-2.1 of the Municipal Code of the city of Aspen, Colorado be and the same is hereby amended to add a section "29", a new zone district entitled Moderate- Density Residential (R-15B), said section to read as follows: That the schedule of Permitted and Conditional Uses set forth in section 24-3.2 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen is hereby amended to establish regulations pertaining to the R-15B Moderate Density Residential zone district, said amended schedule to read as follows: "(29)" R-15B Moderate Density Residential" ~~-...-. /" ", INTENTION (~TTED US~) The intent of the Moderate- Detached residential Density Residential (R-15B) dwelling; Farm and garden Zone District is to provide buildings and uses, areas for residential provided that all such purposes with customary buildings and storage areas accessory uses. Lands in are located at least one the MOderate-Density hundred (100') feet from Residential (R-15B) Zone pre-existing dwellings on District are similarly other lots.1~Home,,_o.9..21J,pa- situated to .those in. the.~ions_l.<ACCessory, building"s Moderate-Dens~ty Res~den-(' and uses;- -- ~. tial (R-15) and R-15A) Zone- Districts but are those in which single-family struc- tures are a permitted use and duplexes are prohi- bited. In this zone district, any structure or part of a structure which contains one or more rooms in addition to a kitchen section 2 CONDITIONAL USE None. -? 7 ~ 2 ~- INTENTION and a bath facility intended and designed for occupancy by family or guests independent of other families or guests shall be deemed to be a dwelling unit as set forth in section 24-3.1(g). E)<h\bi-\- II!:/ -ro E)(V\ibi+ '/\" , BoarG o-f- Adj~met'\-\- AV?\\~+lcW\ ~I \!o,:("\o..v"\c.e. by \-\ elb otnd L-Dr ro-.i YJe. l"1C\.cl( PC\.~ e. ~ of- 5 section 3 That schedule for Area and Bulk Requirements set forth in section 24 Municipal Code district be amended and the same is hereby amended by the regulations pertaining to the R-15B Moderate Density Zone District, as foIl Area and Bulk Reauirements city of Aspen R-158 Zone Minimum Lot Size (sq.f.t) Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling unit (sq. ft.) 15,000 15,000 / Minimum Lot width Minimum Front Yard Dwellings Accessory Buildings All buildings except dwellings and accessory buildings Minimum Side Yard Dwellings << Accessory Buildings All Buildings Except Dwellings and accessory buildings Minimum Rear Yard Dwellings Accessory Buildings All Buildings Except Dwellings and Accessory Buildings Maximum Height Minimum Distance Between Principal Building << Accessory Building Percent of Open space for Building site External Floor Area Ratio Internal Floor Area Ratio Off-Street Parking Residential Uses 75.' 30' 3D' V'/ 30' 5' 5' 10' 5' 10' 25' No Requirement No Requirement See Exhibit A No Requirement One space per bedroom or 2 spaces whichever is less 3 """'^" section 4 Ei-h; bit II 3 II +c c;<.hlbi+ I/,A 1\ ~rd. C>~ Adiu.s\-men\- kPP\iC.ol-nCV1 .for Va("lo..nc.e. by I-\e,b o...nt\ l.-crr~;V\e \l\0\.<:..K. . ?~ e... L{ of 5 city Clerk is directed upon adoption of this ordinance to re That the in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 5 If any section, SUb-section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of nance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by and court 0 jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the rernaini thereof. section 6 A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the ~L;; / ~ d 1987, at 5:00 P.M. in the city Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen -, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be pub1is a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. the INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by the City city of Aspen on the 22nd y~~e~~ william L. Stirling, Mayor ATEST: , // ,fllrhr, ) xl ~ Kathryn . K.och, city Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this /3 day of ~r ,1987. ---~. ? ~ William L. stirling, Mayor GH.AHC 4 """. LOT SIZE (single-Family structures) 0-3,000 3,001-9,000 9,001-15,000 15,001-50,000 50,000+ EXHIBIT . ~"' ~1.""ib\+ "3'1 -Th i:.)ch~bi+ 'A II '6oo..n1 '*' Ae\~lASt\'Y"O')T A??l ic.C\.-noVl .for II A n '/0.(", ex. Y\ ce. by 1-\ e("b o..Y"\.C! I...or("O.;V\ Y\ acl< 1'0..:3 e 5 of S EXTERNAL FLOOR AREA RATIO STANDARD ALLOWABLE SQ. Fr 0 80 s. fo for each add. 100 s.f. in lot area .70x(0-2,400) 28 s.f. for each add. 100 sof. in lot area .70X(2,400-4,080) 7 Sof. for each add. 100 s.f. in lot area .70X(4,080-4,50Q) 6 s.f. for each add. 100 s.f. in lot area .70x(4,500-6,500) 2 s.f. for each add. 100 s.f. in lot area .70x(6,500+) , , ~ " . E~V\\bi+ I' Y I' -\-0 E/chi bi+ '~ II \Soo..rd o~ M \tAsl-met"\1- App\;o:-.{)on ~r V~(iC\nce bY \1erb ar.d Lorrt:\;V'(MC),c.kORDINANCE No. ~ PlA.5e. \ o+: 5 (series of 1987) BOOK J~: I PAGL.A:"" 5 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN ZONING APPROXIMATELY 79 ACRES OF LAND KNOWN AS THE ASPEN GROVE SUBDIVISION, EASTWOOD SUBDIVI- SION, KNOLLWooD SUBDIVISION EXCWSIVE OF KNOLLWooD, BLOCK 4 MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO, AISO KNOWN AS THE ASPEN GROVE/EAS'lWooD/KNOLLWooD ANNEXATION AREA: GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF THE SALVATION DITCH AND NORTH OF STATE HIGHWAY 82, THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO TO R-15B WHEREAS, the property owners of Aspen Grove, Eastwood and Knollwood Subdivisions exclusive of Knollwood, Block 4 (herein- after referred to as the Aspen Grove, Eastwood/Knollwood Annexa- tion Area specifically described in Exhibiit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein and have petitioned the City of Aspen to be annexed; and WHEREAS, the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office notified property owners within the Aspen Grove/Eastwood/Knollwood area of a public meeting on May 19, 1987, to discuss zoning for the area; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning commission held a duly noticed public hearing on June 2, 1987 to consider the creation of the R-15B Moderate Density Residential zone district recommended by staff and the application of the zone district to the Aspen Grove/Eastwood/Knollwood annexation area; and WHEREAS, the City council has considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning commission and has determined the proposed zoning to be compatible with surrounding zone districts and land use in the vicinity of the site. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY ~OUNCIL .... :!! ..... -. ~ ZCII c:.i= z< -.- ...'" ",'" "'~ a_ OCll '" ct ". ,. OF THE N to W "I:l.- CJ U1 CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: ca .... - -- ::-= . ar:o ... , , " Si \~bi-\ \14 II ~ E.x hibi+ "A' '800..,0. of. A~\.^s'hnen+ ADph'C9\tian ~ r y'~'('iCtnc.e. I::>y Herb a.l',.cn~rr~in e.. ~a..ck. section 1 P03 e 2. of 5 That it does hereby zone to R-1SB Moderate, Density Residen- BOOK 547 PAGE19Z tial that area commonly know as the Aspen Grove/Eastwood/Knoll- wood Annexation Area which area is specifically described in Exhibit A, attached hereto. Section 2 That the zoning District Map be amended to reflect the zoning described in section 1 and the city Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to amend the map to reflect the zoning change. section 3 Inasmuch as the area zoned by this ordinance consists of a newly annexed area with existing structures, the remodeling, renovation, reconstruction additions to existing structures and new construction in the area described in Exhibit "A" shall be deemed to have satisfied all requirements of section 24-6.2 of the Municipal Code pertaining to 8040 Greenline review. section 4 That the City Clerk is directed upon adoption of this ordinance to record a copy in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. section 5 If any section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconsti tutional by and court of competent jurisdiction, such 2 . . "...., E..)C hi :..-'1+ /f 4 \I.to t=.)(h bii I~ 'I tsco.rd o.f ~~tAs+me.n+' AW Ii CAtion -tb, \ja.'rio..Y\0€. by \-\e(""b o..l"I::i t.;O(\o..iV\e. Mo...cK portion shall be deemed a separate, BOo1i 547 PAGE193 f'0\8e. 5 O+- S d1stinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. section 6 A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the /~("w-'day Of~~!_, 1987, at 5:00 P.M. in the city council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by 1987. city of Aspen on the 22nd day of June, ~~ William L. stirling, yor the City Council of the ".' i oF .(. .,' ,:\ .... w"-,.b. .... U ", 1""- . /' ATTEST:..'..... ti f ~ adopted, passed and approved this /~~ay.of , 1987. ~,<A william L. stirling, Mayor ~~ . . !och, ;-, L F.. ~,. - '; C. .. :: ... . ,;) cra.. ......,.. , .J:.r..II.J..... .$ J,....4.......~ .." (. OP. f.. J ,0:.' . 1\"'\ . It " II ! ~ " 3 I o :;; _J :>:::: I ClZ 00 0- 3~ ......x IJlw 4:z Wz (4: W ~ Ii: t? Z W Cl.. IJl 4: , , . " il,,(I. ,! i :i.-.;, " ...!. I I .1_ ." {<Iil-.t : .. 1:1 !!i . : .. F ":'1ili: .1" 'I.!r-"I i 1 !~, ',",' "1 I",. o l I - -. -. ,.0, :i:ij ;'i:U" 1 J !!! i' :,':::ili -~i~; .!I'\~;! ~ . I',t "I 1.l;."I: ("1' !~!!~,JI I ! ',,' ~ ('il",I, -:!,1i "SP,"i I! II. .! 11":111;,,' . _.,.... _ _ . or ,Pl. l:;P ,oti ~l L i;l! I! .;I.,{ilc, ..,: ~ ~:':I r' I ;.. r1 f _.: ,:;: II ,.l~ .il; i.1 :1. ill i" -: Ii .:I'-ili" ~il~H IlI;!!-. :'::' j11i Ii I~i-~i!rl ...:.. ""'1-" ;1 "." 'I..... o"!I-.,- i:J1iJI ,.ilU.I.:;i.:'....i...:;_1 :.-.':'Wi ~ 11;1. .J!.~II:i,I!.I~; 1lij;1 i:iit;lrll llli:i h!!f"i ;Ii;i:ii:,'(.d~ ;1'1 h~~I;!:d f"..i' ::i,.."ul{!.t!-:.-:.Ji\!' (M,':d ;-11,' ",I.!'i!=;ri:iU,I.t..,IiS';'l!:;J-:i!' ~'I.; :"I'II'Yl~ ..i1ii.;\'......",.:,d.li. !;U "'I.~Wm!lI;i;i:lm:ih;~;!::~: ! .:~:~)~d::.i; ~; . ~ ~! i: : i ! '. Ii i~i ;~i i!~1 (~. "il: II! f:it Iii i~~i !~i .... II. i~;J :.I :'i= H "'t t. Iii t; ". I! 1-, :::-:u.u":!; .111 'i:Ui'imin; ii 't..tu:;...,;h'J" efr..II~:.,!!Ji : afi!Uhi!i!i'!!i ~i:i":in.~~;h,I;~~ .nUnl~ll!'-li'"!: 1.1'.1....:1,.".'. h!i Wim!lih; ,Ii' ii1~ ". m "'\ I;)!. IiI, "I. i~ II I' I 11., BOOK 547 PAGEt94 'E'f.l-1 ;6;+ q'Lf 1/+0 E'ihibit- Jtll ~(Aro cf.MjlAst-vnefti- App\iC.o.hcn for Vo..rl,oJ) e. 6y \-1-erb ~nd LorrO\in MClCk ? 0..,3 e L{ of. 5 ;)1' ., II; i'! I~ . i!l, ll! \ ti hi ijW !tJ. . utI! . , Ii :' j; .. ~; ( "' 'I'~!i ;1;;., .'1.1& =i.~:: ,.:Hr' IP;-' .lir.~~ !"....!.' '-:: ill;;::'!t" 1!'I"!! . .,;. " ;11':' !J.I,I \1.1",' ih~i,i" ... ;I.bt, . '.. \r ;~l~~ , t '. f ,.... . , t:)C~~6i-\- 114" ~ Ef(hibit IIAII ~f"d o+- Adik<;,t-rnenI- AR>.lic..o.-\ioY\ tor Vo.("\Mce ';{lt6"b a.1"Cl L-o~\t)e tJI o.ck. EXHIBIT "A" 'PAge '3 of 5 LOT SIZE (Single-Family structures) 0-3,000 3,001-9,000 9,001-15,000 15,001-50,000 50,000+ EXTERNAL FLOOR AREA RATIO STANDARD 80 s. f. for each add. 100 s.f. in lot area 28 s.f. for each add. 100 s.f. in lot area 7 s.f. for each add. 100 s.f. in lot area 6 s.f. for each add. 100 s.f. in lot area 2 s.f. for each add. 100 s.f. in lot area BOOK 547 PAGE195 ALLOWABLE SQ. FT. .70x(0-2,400) .70x(2,400-4,080) .70X(4,080-4,500) .70x(4,500-6,500) .70x(6,500+) , - '- -., -.... ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 122 Eastwood Drive , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Februarv 1 ,200_ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, PATRICK D. McALLISTER (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 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 and was continuously visible from the _ day of , 200_, to and including the date and time ofthe 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. (continued on next page) 114~/F :r: v r- "- ~ ......." 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. i~j'A'A'-kJ/1Cd/~/.1 ~ Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this dvay of January ,200--2, by PATRICK D. McALLISTER. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL M~'(~~:~ Notary Public ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBliCATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL 'Jam Frea Printing . Use Averye TEMPLATE 51608 BEAUSEANT TRUST 198 EASTWOOD DR ASPEN,CO 81611 BRUCATO JEFFREY PO BOX 1448 ASPEN, CO 81612 EASTWOOD HOME LLC 107 S SEVENTH ST ASPEN, CO 81611 GERSON PETER & JULIE PO BOX 1209 OLATHE, KS 66051-1209 JEFFERS FAMILY PARTNERS L TD PO BOX 7916 ASPEN, CO 81612 MURRAY CAROLEE 82 EASTWOOD RD ASPEN, CO 81611 PETERSON BROOKE A 0222 ROARING FORK DR ASPEN, CO 81611 RASTEGAR All REZA 8403 WESTGLEN DR STE 100 HOUSTON, TX 77063 SUSMAN ELLEN S & STEPHAN D 2121 KIRBY DR #85 HOUSTON, TX 77019 TIEL DOUGLASS SAM P TRUST 1/2 C/O WADE & COMPY 770 SOUTH POST OAK LN STE 100 HOUSTON, TX 77056 _^"I,...........'!!IA'-' tG\. - www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY '''"'' "-"'11/" "'.... \- - BICKFORD SCOTT R 338 LAFAYETTE ST NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130 BURSTEN GABRIELLA PO BOX 2061 ASPEN, CO 81612 FREEMAN HELENE P 0246 ROARING FORK DR ASPEN, CO 81611-2239 HAUS ART LLC PO BOX 296 WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 LESTER DAVID W 1/2 INT 424 PARK CIRCLE #TH1 ASPEN, CO 81611 NELSON KAREN TRUST 5544 S LEWIS AVE STE 400 TULSA, OK 74105-7169 PISANO GUY 1056 ASHLAND AVE GLENOLDEN, PA 19036 REVEAL JON ALLIE & MARIE CHANTAL 82 WESTVIEW DR ASPEN, CO 81611 TIBMA JOANNE GILLEN & PETER TRSTE PO BOX 2317 ASPEN, CO 81612 A1I3^"-09-00S-~ - \i\ AVERY@ 51608 BOYD KYLE K PO BOX 9949 ASPEN, CO 81612 DILLINGHAM DALE PO BOX 2061 ASPEN, CO 81612 GALLAGHER BETTE F TRUST PO BOX 121 ASPEN, CO 81611 HEWEY GERALD & ROSALYN 0203 ROARING FORK DR ASPEN, CO 81611 MORADA VENTURES INC 1500 SAN REMO AVE STE 176 CORAL GABLES, FL 33146 OTTO MARIA M 21 E 66TH ST #9FL NEW YORK, NY 10021-5853 R G B CONSTRUCTION CO C/O KEMP HOMES 777 CRAIG RD CREVE COEUR, MO 63141 STILLWATER RANCH OPEN SPACE ASSOCIATION 1280 UTE AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 TIEL DOUGLASS PAULA TTRUST 1700 W LOOP SOUTH #725 HOUSTON, TX 77027 .09~5 llYldWll ~a^" asn .c:.._.... . __. . ...__ ~\ c '" <-4" ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 122 Eastwood Drive , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: February 3 , 2002-. STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, RF:DRTSHAH WIT,SON (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 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 and was continuously visible from the _ day of , 200_, 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. (continued on next page) c - .-..( 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. ~~w~ Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was ac~wl~~fore,:\ this.td day of .....j:l rJl1a.~ ,2002, by ----fr V'l W SCl V\ /'~~~ '~:j.:~,nft""" ..~~",--".....", "',.'...'/ ~' S'~~ ", ) I ~/ "'. ~ D -r A ,~ ~ :~O ,,\'. = : ...-..................- . .~ i ~ .. .:.-) \CJl,'. PU [3 L IL: 25.' "1:" . . '('--.,.' '~"1~..f' .,,().,',: ~~~ .........0'.,. 7/111 OF CO\~\\\.. '1JJUu"'ln~\~t\ WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: ~ /21 /01- ?1~<-?W ~~ Notary Public ATTACHMENTS: COpy OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL Jam Fre~ Printing Use Ave~ TEMPLATE 5160iID BEAUSEANT TRUST 198 EASTWOOD DR ASPEN, CO 81611 BRUCATO JEFFREY PO BOX 1448 ASPEN, CO 81612 EASTWOOD HOME LLC 107 S SEVENTH ST ASPEN,CO 81611 GERSON PETER & JULIE PO BOX 1209 OlATHE, KS 66051-1209 JEFFERS FAMILY PARTNERS L TO PO BOX 7916 ASPEN, CO 81612 MURRAY CAROLEE 82 EASTWOOD RD ASPEN, CO 81611 PETERSON BROOKE A 0222 ROARING FORK DR ASPEN, CO 81611 RASTEGAR All REZA 8403 WESTGLEN DR STE 100 HOUSTON., TX 77063 SUSMAN ELLEN S & STEPHAN D 2121 KIRBY DR #85 HOUSTON, TX 77019 TIEL DOUGLASS SAM P TRUST 1/2 C/O WADE & COMPY 770 SOUTH POST OAK LN STE 100 HOUSTON, TX 77056 ---- - ......--.... ~ - www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY " - \ .."" - BICKFORD SCOTT R 338 LAFAYETTE ST NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130 BURSTEN GABRIELLA PO BOX 2061 ASPEN, CO 81612 FREEMAN HELENE P 0246 ROARING FORK DR ASPEN, CO 81611-2239 HAUS ART LLC PO BOX 296 WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 LESTER DAVID W 1/2 INT 424 PARK CIRCLE #TH1 ASPEN, CO 81611 NELSON KAREN TRUST 5544 S LEWIS AVE STE 400 TULSA, OK 74105-7169 PISANO GUY 1056 ASHLAND AVE GLENOLDEN, PA 19036 REVEAL JON ALLIE & MARIE CHANTAL 82 WESTVIEW DR ASPEN, CO 81611 TIBMA JOANNE GILLEN & PETER TRSTE PO BOX2317 ASPEN, CO 81612 AlI3^".09-00S-~ - @ AVERY@ 5160iID . ." BOYD KYLE K PO BOX 9949 ASPEN, CO 81612 DILLINGHAM DALE PO BOX 2061 ASPEN, CO 81612 GALLAGHER BETTE F TRUST PO BOX 121 ASPEN,CO 81611 HEWEY GERALD & ROSALYN 0203 ROARING FORK DR ASPEN, CO 81611 MORADA VENTURES INC 1500 SAN REMO AVE STE 176 CORAL GABLES, FL 33146 OTTO MARIA M 21 E 66TH ST #9FL NEW YORK, NY 10021-5853 R G B CONSTRUCTION CO C/O KEMP HOMES 777 CRAIG RD CREVE COEUR, MO 63141 STILLWATER RANCH OPEN SPACE ASSOCIATION 1280 UTE AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 TIEL DOUGLASS PAULA T TRUST 1700 W LOOP SOUTH #725 HOUSTON, TX 77027 .09~5 3lYldW31 ~a^" asn ".................lIln. r ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (El, ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: /22 (-;n ~ t-wocd b r "";) /</ OS , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: ,200 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, ~ (A,.teS L /1(/\ J}- (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\"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 her,o. - Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which fonn was obtained from the \ . Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, '~aterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not I'ess than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) 4ays prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the da~of , 200_, to and including the date and time of the pu~lic 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 any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns 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. (continued on next page) 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 has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. ~~ ~cll ature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was ~owledged be~ ~~day of ~ v- - ,2002 by - J.z <- S :;\ PUB~I aTICE RE: REQUEST FOR SE ACK VARIANCE FOR 122 EASTWOOD DRIVE NOTICE IS H BY GIVEN thai a public h",'ng wm '" h,' on Thu,,"'" F"'"'" 3. 2005 at a meeting to begin at 4:00 p.m. before the Aspen Board 01 Adjustment, City Council Cham- bers, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an ap- plication submitted by Lorraine Mack requesting a thirty (30) loot front yard setback variance lor the construction 01 a garaje at \22 Eastwood Drive. ../ for further information, c,::mtact Sarah Oates at the City 01 Aspen comml' nily Development De.- partment, 130 S. Galena 5:;" Aspen, CO, (970) 429- 2167,saraho@cLaspen,c<{Ls. sjRickHead Chair, Aspen Board 0\ Adjustment published in The Aspen Times on January 23, 2005.(2315) WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL Y/~3?~ My commission expires: A Notary Public ATTACHMENTS: COpy OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: ! 22 r;;ClJ-...A)~d Dr SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: I! (; Ips . , Aspen, CO ,200 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. Connty of Pitkin ) I, :\:~: VV\ .as { _ (' V\ni-J " (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: X 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 n(Jtice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained frob the Community Pe\;elopment Department, which was made of suitable, " waterproofmat~ials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches ~de and twenty-s.Ix (6) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one;;1i~ in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the4;&lM"ic hearing and was continuously visible from the day of .,~ ').' ,200_, to and including the date and time of the public he'arifrg: 'A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. ~ Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Co~unity Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) cIivs prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by fust class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns 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. (continued on next page) 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 has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged bdQre ~day of Q)~, ,200'1', by 0::"~ 1-..'\ ~NOTICE RE: REQUEST-' - TBACK VARIANCE FOR 122 EASlWOOD - N011CE.JS,_ - - GIVEN that B- pubUc hearing will be h~ on ""d.y, JM""Y '. _ " . meetJng'to beglnat 4:00 p.m, bdore,tbe Aspen Board of AdjUstment, City COWldlChlUflbers, 130 S. GaleIia.St.._Alipen, to conSider anappJicatlon subrfdttec'l-by Herb and Lorrlane Mack requesting ----fa twenty (20) foot front yard setback variance for the COMtructlon ofa garage at .122 Eastwood DrIve. .. "' For further informatiOn, contactSatatl;~Oate$ at the City 01 Aspen Community _DeveJGpment De- pattmem,. 1-30.5. Galena St.; Aspen.- CO, (~10) 429- 2767,~I.aspen.co.us. My commission ex S~ Notary Public O/Ill<k- ct:.a!r. Aspen Board ot_Ad)wtment - --4FubUstled In The pen TImes on [)ecember J8, 2004.(2219) . ATTACHMENTS: 70PY OF THE PUBLICATION PH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL '" o ~ ~ r ~ '" o z WESTVIEW DR ROA.RING FORK DR EASTWOOD DR ~'-~"--~~'~",,,~~~- HWY.82 '- t"'" --. GIDEON I. KAUFMAN* HAL S. DISHLER** PATRICK D. MCALLISTER LAW OFFICES OF KAUFMAN, PETERSON & DISlll.ER, P.C. BROOKE A. PETERSON OF COUNSEL . ALSO ADMITTED IN MARYLAND .. ALSO AOMmED IN TEXAS 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 30S ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE (970) 925-8166 FACSIMILE (970) 925-1090 December 1, 2004 HAND-DELIVERED Ms. Sarah Oates Aspen Community Development 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Herb and Lorraine Mack, 122 Eastwood Drive, Aspen, CO Request for Variance for Garage Dear Sarah: Enclosed herewith please find nine (9) copies of Application for Variance, including cover sheet, Exhibit "A" to cover sheet, and Exhibits 1-5 to Exhibit "A". Also enclosed is a current mailing list of all property owners within a 300 foot radius of the subject property, which we obtained from the pitkin County GIS Department. Also enclosed is a check in the amount of $177.00. It would be appreciated if you would please advise us of the hearing date, and provide us with a copy of notice to be mailed to the owners within 300 feet, as well as the sign for posting. If you require any further, please let us know. sincerely, PDM/bw Enclosures KAUFMAN, PETERSON & DISHLER P.C. A Professional Corporation By gJZl;~t?ft~/~ ;atrick D. McAllister -- "..... '-~ RECEIPT Board of Adjustment Application . ASPEN /PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Date: I d..-/C '/0 i Check #: lj/ I 0 Receipt for Board of Adjustment application for the following case: M a.C4,< \/GU'ranQ -- 130 SOUTH GAlENA STREET' ASPEN, COlORADO 81611-1975 . PHONE 970.920.5090 . FAX 970.920.5439 Prinh>rlMR.cvclPflP>n~' """ ....... /""..... .....",J" GIDEON I. KAUFMAN. HAL S. DISHLER** PATRICK D. MCALLISTER LAW OFFICES OF KAUFMAN, PETERSON & DISHLER, P.C. BROOKE A. PETERSON OF COUNSEL . AlSO ADMITTED IN MARYLAND .. ALSO AOMmED IN TEXAS 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 305 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE (970) 925-8166 FACSIMILE (970) 925-1090 December 2, 2004 HAND-DELIVERED Ms. Sarah Oates Aspen Community Development 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Herb and Lorraine Mack, 122 Eastwood Drive, Aspen, CO Request for variance for Garage Dear Sarah: Enclosed herewith is the current mailing list of all property owners within a 300 foot radius of 122 Eastwood Drive, Aspen, Colorado. We obtained it from the pitkin County GIS Department. The document may not have been included with the package we delivered yesterday. If you have any questions, please call. Thank you for all your help. Sincerely, PDM/bw Enclosure KAUFMAN, PETERSON & DISHLER P.C. A Professional Corporation By !f~v4~~~/tq 1atrick D. cA lister Jam Free Printing Use Averylf!) TEMPLATE 5160411 I"" '- BEAUSEANT TRUST 198 EASTWOOD DR ASPEN, CO 81611 BRUCATO JEFFREY PO BOX 1448 ASPEN, CO 81612 FREEMAN HELENE P 0246 ROARING FORK DR ASPEN, CO 81611-2239 HAUS ART LLC PO BOX 296 WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 LESTER DAVID W 1/2 INT 424 PARK CIRCLE #TH1 ASPEN, CO 81611 MURRAY CAROLEE 82 EASTWOOD RD ASPEN, CO 81611 PETERSON BROOKE A 0222 ROARING FORK DR ASPEN, CO 81611 RASTEGAR All REZA 8403 WESTGLEN DR STE 100 HOUSTON, TX 77063 SUSMAN ELLEN S & STEPHAN D 2121 KIRBY DR #85 HOUSTON, TX 77019 TIEL DOUGLASS SAM P TRUST 1/2 C/O WADE & COMPY 770 SOUTH POST OAK LN STE 100 HOUSTON, TX 77056 1lD09~S @A}JaA'd ~ - www.avery.com 1-S00-GO-'VERY - BICKFORD SCOTT R 338 LAFAYETTE ST NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130 BURSTEN GABRIELLA PO BOX 2061 ASPEN, CO 81612 GALLAGHER BETTE F TRUST PO BOX 121 ASPEN, CO 81611 HEWEY GERALD & ROSALYN 0203 ROARING FORK DR ASPEN, CO 81611 MARTIN JAY & DOROTHY R 4A OXFORD ST CHEVY CHASE, MD 20815 NELSON KAREN TRUST 5544 S LEWIS AVE STE 400 TULSA, OK 74105-7169 PISANO GUY 1056 ASHLAND AVE GLENOLDEN, PA 19036 REVEAL JON ALLIE & MARIE CHANTAL 82 WESTVIEW DR ASPEN, CO 81611 TIBMA JOANNE GILLEN & PETER TRSTE PO BOX 2317 ASPEN, CO 81612 A1I3^"-o9-oOg-~ wo~..(j~^~.MMM - - @ AVERY@ 5160411 BOYD KYLE K PO BOX 9949 ASPEN, CO 81612 DILLINGHAM DALE PO BOX 2061 ASPEN, CO 81612 GERSON PETER & JULIE PO BOX 1209 OLATHE, KS 66051-1209 JEFFERS FAMILY PARTNERS L TO PO BOX 7916 ASPEN, CO 81612 MORADA VENTURES INC 1500 SAN REMO AVE STE 176 CORAL GABLES, FL 33146 OTTO MARIA M 21 E 66TH ST #9FL NEW YORK, NY 10021-5853 R G B CONSTRUCTION CO C/O KEMP HOMES 777 CRAIG RD CREVE COEUR, MO 63141 STILLWATER RANCH OPEN SPACE ASSOCIATION 1280 UTE AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 TIEL DOUGLASS PAULA T TRUST 1700 W LOOP SOUTH #725 HOUSTON, TX 77027 IlD09~S Ulfldll\lU ~aA'rt asn 6unulJ..I aaJ..I WIU KAUFMAN, PETERSC'\ DISHLER, P.C. OPERA TI NG )ec'OUNT 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE SUITE 305 ASPEN, CO 81611 n' '"..JMMUNITY BANKS OF COLORADO ~970_544.8Z82 -~ 82-201-1021 ~ ~ o PAY ("J }.J E I~ H)!k/ f(r1J ,. TO CfT! of THE ORDER OF DATE -("7.-/ (IC) V- I I S {Vi S K <J ~ J)d-CN1 ~~"J DOLLARS $ t 17_ OJ 6'i . .. o 11'00 ~ ~ ~oll' -t1: ~o 2 ~o CO ~ :\1: bOO b 2 "l l ~ . o ~ " E ~ 00 ... KAUFMAN, PETERSON & D1SHLER, P.C. OPERATING ACCOUNT DETACH AND RETAIN THIS STATEMENT THE ATTACHED CHECK IS IN PAYMENT OF ITEMS DESCR'SED BELOW IF NOT CS![l.RECT PLEASE NOTIFY US PROMPTLY. NO AECEIPT DESIRED: twonuXE BUSINESS FORMS 1+800-323-0304 _.cleIUllGfonns.com DELUXE - FORM WVCG-3 V-2 DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT l ~ //01 H pel( \) (OfZ(LcfYZ/, 1,'77.(1) V.2 EXHIBIT I "A" 15 pages .-., MEMORANDUM 15 TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., city Manager ~ Glenn Horn, Planning Office ~ steve Burstein, Planning Office Creation of R-15B Zone District and Zoning of Annexed Areas: Aspen Grove, Eastwood, Starodoj and Knollwood THRU: RE: DATE: June 16, 1987 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Planning office and the Planning and Zoning commission recommend. that the City Council approve on first reading Ordi- nance -25 (Series of 1987) creating the R-~5B zone district and Ordinance 1r_ (Series of 1987) zoning the Aspen Grove/Knol1- wood/Eastwood annexation area R-15B. There are minor differences between the Planning and zoning commission (P&Z) recommendation and the staff recommendation which are addressed in this memoran- dum. BACKGROUND: The Aspen City council has initiated annexation proceedings to annex the Aspen Grove, starodoj and Knollwood Subdivisions (see Map 1). Although City Council has sole author- ity for annexation, the Aspen P&Z is required by the Municipal Code to recommend zoning of the annexed area . The P&Z held a public hearing on June 2,1987 to consider initial zoning for the annexation area. Prior to the P&Z public hearing, a public meeting was held on May 19, 1987 to discuss proposed zoning. The objectives for zoning the area, based on policies presented to City Council are: l,/ 1) To not Substantially change development rights (either to increase or decrease) from that allowed under the current County zoning regulations; /' 2) To avoid creating non-conforming uses or structures through the change in jurisdiction and the jurisdiction's regula- tions; ,.r..' To arrive at zoning that satisfies the residents regard- ing problems that were not addressed under County regula- tions, such as through removal of certain non-conformities; 4) To create a zone which may be applicable to other annexa- 3) "1j"c, r-. ..-, tion areas; and 5) To insure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. DESCRIPTION OF AREA: The annexation area consists of approxi- mately 79.3 acres, directly east of Aspen's city limits. Most of the area is north of Highway 82 on the rOlling mountainous terrain of the south side of Smuggler Mountain, between 8,000 I and 8,400 I elevation. Block 4 of the Knollwood Subdivision is south of Highway 82 and borders the Roaring Fork River. There are approximately 114 parcels within the four subdivisions. Approximately 27 lots are undeveloped. Buildout of the area consists of some 84 single-family houses and three duplexes. The subdivisions were approved by the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners between 1963 and 1971. The Roaring Fork Bast Neighborhood Kaster plan of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan designates the future land use of the entire annexation area "Low' Density Residential" (LDR) , described as follows: "A designation recommended for existing. residential subdivisions which may be suitable for additional development based upon an analysis of land use characteristics and the ability of the community to provide services. Principal uses include clustered single-family dwellings. The density of Low Density Residential development will vary from three units per acre to one unit per two acres. depending upon the land's unique site characteristics and compatibility with surrounding areas." PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The current pitkin County zoning of the entire area is R-15 Residential. When the City staff originally met with residents in the annexation area, the Planning Office staff mentioned that the preliminary zoning recommendation was R- l5A. Within the R-l5A zone district, duplex structures are permitted. By comparison, duplex structures are prohibited in the County. Residents at the meeting indicated they were strongly opposed to zoning which would enable new duplex units to be built because the area is a single-family neighborhood and the addition of duplexes would change the character of the area. Other differences between the City and County R-15 zone districts include: floor area ratio calculations, setbacks, height, parking requirements and conditional uses (see Table 1). Dwelling units and basement FAR are defined differently in the City and County Codes. In addition, the 8040 Greenline would apply to some properties in the area ,in a different way than does the 1041 County environmental hazard review. .... ,-. . 2 ^ Table 1 r--. A COlllparison of Area & Bulk Requirements in Pitkin County's R-15 Zone with the City of Aspen's R-15A Zone Area & Bulk Reauirements Minimum Lot Size Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Minimum Lot Width Minimum Front Yard Dwellings Accessory Buildings All Buildings Except Dwellings and Accessory Buildings Minimum Side Yard Dwellings & Accessory Buildings All Buildings Except Dwellings and Accessory Buildings Minimum Rear Yard Dwellings Accessory Buildings All Buildings Except Dwellings and Accessory Buildings Maximum Height Minimum Distance Between Principal Building & Accessory Building Percent of Open Space for Building site External Floor Area Ratio Internal Floor Area Ratio Off-street Parking Residential Uses Other Uses City of Aspen R-15A Zone Pitkin County R-15 Zone 15,000 15,000 10,000 15,000 75' 75' 25' 30' 30' 30' 3D' 30' 5' 5' 10' 5' 10' 10' 5' 5' 20' 10' 25' 28' 10' No Requirement No Requirement No Requirement Sliding Scale .16 No Requirement No Requirement One per bedroom 2 Conditional Special Review Use Review ..- Source: Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, May 1987 '""",,,,-.- 3 ~ ~ Based upon comments from residents, staff proposes enactment of a new zone district entitled R-15B. As you begin to address the issues analyzed in this memorandum it will become evident to you as it has become evident to the staff that the City Council needs to provide the Staff and property owners in annexation areas some basic policy direction regarding the following questions. o To what extent should the City of Aspen create zoning changes which are custom made for individual annexation areas? o Should code amendments which are designed to address specific problems of annexation areas be initiated now are addressed as part of the city code rewrite? Based upon our work session last week, it is the staff recom- mendation that you utilize the following guidelines relating to "Development Potential within Existing, SUbdivided, Generally, Built out Areas" to assist you during the zoning process. . 1) Guideline Apply zoning to annexed areas which generally maitains the same development rights within the City as within unincorporated areas. 2) Guideline '1// Strive to avoid zoning designations which make conform- ing land ukses and structures non-conforming. Guideline 3) Consider, when appropriate, creating new land use zone districts or special code amendments which may also be applied on a City-wide bases to addresss specific problems but avoid creating custom land use legislation to address isolated, special interest problems. 4) Guideline When creating new land use legislation for annexation areas, the city should consider the effects of the new legislation on the remainder of the City of Aspen. with these overriding policy considerations in mind, specific issues relating to the differences between the County R-15 zone district and the proposed R-15B zone district are addressed below. """',-- 4 ,,-,. ,..-.., 1. Floor Area Ratio Calculations: Maximum FAR in the County R- 15 zone districts is .16, while the City uses a sliding scale. For the purpose of comparison, a house on a 15,000 square foot lot may not exceed 2,400 square feet in the County. In the City a house on a 15,000 square foot lot may not exceed 4,500 square feet. Numerous residents expressed concern that the City FAR .allowance is too great for this mountainous suburban area, and the character of the area would be negatively affected if the City FAR limitations were used. Residents have suggested several options, including to use: (a) County .16 FAR, (b) .20 FAR, (c) .21 FAR, (d) .21 FAR for lots up to 17,000 square feet and the sliding scale for lot area above '17,000 sq. ft. and (e) .7 of the sliding scale. Table 1 presents FAR's using suggested methods of calculati- on: Table 2 Floor Area Ratio Comparison Lot Area (s. f.) FAR Calculations (s.f. ) .7x City City Sliding Sliding .16 .20 .21 .21* Scale Scale 15,00.0 2,400 3,000 3,150 3,150' 4,500 3,150 17,000 2,720 3,400 3,570 3,570 4,620 3,234 20,000 3,200 4,000 4,200 3,975 4,800 3,3.60 40,000 6,400 8,000 8,400 4,950 6,000 4,200 * .21 FAR up to 17,000 sq.ft., 6 sq. ft. of floor area for each additional 100 sq. ft. in lot area -. Source: Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, May 1987 "'- 5 ,..-... ,..-.., It has been noted that the current .16 FAR may be too restrictive because some, houses built prior to County bulk regulations are non-conforming and it may be desirable to remove their non-conforming status. In addition, owners may wish to add on to their small conforming structures slightly exceeding the current FAR limitation. As you can see, there is a minor difference between the maximum floor area under .20 FAR and .21 FAR when building on a 15,000 sq. ft. lot. Both allow for a moderate sized expansion from the existing .16 FAR (600 to 750 square feet) while under the City's sliding scale a much larger structure can be built. The residents and P&Z should determine whether .20 or .21 FAR is better suited for the area. The concept of a sliding scale calculation fer lots over 17,000 sq. ft. in area seems to have merit, as it would preclude the building of houses much greater in size than existing houses in the neighborhood which would be conse- quently be out of scale. We note that most subdivision lots are around 17,000 sq. ft., however, there are a few unsub- divided parcels, very large lots and contiguous undeveloped lots where much larger houses could be built. The FAR established by multiplying .7 by the City sliding scale accomplishes a similar calculation as alternative (d). It may be easier to administer. staff supports the .7 multi- plier sliding scale measurement. The P&Z also supported this approach, but felt that perhaps a .72 or a .73 multi- plier might be more acceptable to the property owners in the annexation area. 2. Allowance of Duplexes: A key concept of the R-15B zone district is to allow for the continuation of the single- family nature of the neighborhoods annexed into the City and to prohibit duplexes. This concept. has received strong support from residents because it is believed that the character of the area would be threatened by added density, including the serviceability of narrow roads winding up the hill. At the May 19th meeting, it was pointed out that there are three (3) duplexes in Eastwood that were legally built prior to county regulations. These duplexes are fairly smaIl structures located on lots 6, 9 and 10. Under the County R- 15 zoning, these uses are non-conforming and cannot be expanded. If made non-conforming uses in the City, these structures can still not be expanded without receiving variances. Options of dealing with these properties include: 1) Create a special provision in the non-conforming section of the Code "grandfathering" in these struct- '..y, 6 ,-.... ~ ures to allow for expansion without need of a variance; 2) Zone the 3 properties R-15A, which would allow for them to be made conforming duplexesl; Continue the single-family restriction. 3) Option 1 entails creation of another detailed special provision in the non-conformities section of the Code, already generally acknowledged to be the most convolu- ted and confusing part of our zoning code. Certainly, the interest of code simplification is not served. This option is more attractive than Option 2 from the point of view that it would relieve the owners of the duplexes form their non- conforming status, while not giving them FAR allowances above their neighbors under the proposed R-15B zoning. However, it is questionable if further modification of the non-conformities section of the Code is in the general interest of the neighborhood or the City. staff can prepare an amendment to Section' 24-13.4, Non-Conforming Uses, accomplishing this exemption if the P&Z and/or City Council desire to pursue thisalternative. Zoning the duplexes R-15A would constitute "spot zoning" of three separate parcels. Problems with this approach include creating a discrepancy in development rights from neighbor- ing properties otherwise similar in character and exposure to legal challenge. Please note that the City initially considered zoning the entire area R-15A, making these properties conforming while ,adding development rights to many single-family residences. However, when neighbors requested continuation of the single-family character of the area, it was agreed that such limitation is desirable. The Planning Office and City Attorney's Office recommend against this approach. Option 3 would not improve nor worsen the status of duplex use currently under the County Code. To expand, the owner of a duplex would have the burden of demonstrating hardship to the Board of Adjustment to receive a variance. It should be noted that the City has no abatement policy regarding non-conforming uses or structures. Furthermore, in the case of removal or. destruction, a duplex can be repaired or replaced. within two years of the loss. Perhaps the main advantage of non-conforming duplex status in the City over the County is the ready ability to condominiumize the units. 1 Within the R-15A legally created duplexes constructed prior to the application of R-15A zoning may remain as free market duplexes. ......... 7 p.", ,.... ,-., .r-, The Planning Office and the majority of the P&Z favors Option 3. because an increased burden is not added to the, duplex properties, andR-15B zoning appears to be the most desirable and reasonable for the general area.. The other options open the City to legal challenge for spot zoning, or entail further complication of a Code section that we want to simplify. 3. Setbacks, Height, and Off-Street Parking Requirements: The general concept of the R-15B area and bulk requirements is to establish parameters consistent with the County require- ments, as are acceptable to residents. Some residents have said they prefer the CountyR-15 30' front yard setback for k dwell ings (City front-yard setbacks is 25'), 5 r side yard, F setback for dwelling (city side yard setbacks is 10') and\;' maximum h~ight of 28' (city height is 25'). Staff supports continuing the County area standards in the R-15B zone . district, thereby not making structures non-conforming. J! , However r we cannot support maintaining the County 28' height .),JI' \\ limit and instead propose a 25' height limit. The city L- ,,!' limitation was a major consideration in the development of ,\-,!,,'- the City's Floor Area Ratios. A different height limit for\" the R-15B would be inconsistent with all City residential," zone districts and previous City policy. In the case of i 1 front yard setbacks, the 30' minimum requirement would not . allow new structures or additions to be built out of sync 6 . with neighboring homes. Off-street parking requirements in the County are two spaces; we propose for the R-15B zone, 1 space/bedroom or 2 spaces, whichever is less. The P&Z supported the staff's recommendation regarding dimensional requirements with the exception of the proposed height limitation. The P&Z recommends a height limit of 28 feet rather than 25 feet. 4. Conditional Uses: Conditional uses in all City residen- tial zone districts are: open use recreation site; public school; church; hospital; public administration building; day care center; museum and satellite dish antennae. The. County R-15 zone districts treat these uses in a variety of ways: Church (on at least. 2 acres with 30' setbacks), hospital, day care center, and satellite dish antennae are special reviews. A public school is allowed by right (on at least Id acres with 3D' setbacks). Private schools, public administration building, and museum are prOhibited. In additio~, the County allows junk yards, guest ranch, community center and farm buildings by special review. Residents questioned if any of the condi tional uses are appropriate in the subject annexation area. Allowing no conditional uses in the R-15B zone district is an option 8 "......, --. that should be considered. staff notes thai; there are similarities between the city conditional uses and' the County special review uses both of which are allowed only afterP&Z reviews impacts and grants approval. The entire purpose of the respective reviews is to ensure that a conditional use is appropriate in the requested location, determined on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, it should be noted that the City's annexation policy is to pursue annexing other County subdivisions on the periphery of the city. The R-15B zone district may be appropriate for other annexed lands; and, for the sake of simplicity, we should try to keep the list of additional zone districts no longer than it needs to be. Staff supports maintaining the current city conditional uses in the R-15B zone district. We question whether the special reviews allowed by the County R-15 have been problem- atic in the annexation area and we suggest that the City conditional uses will be no more troublesome for these neighborhoOds. 5. Dwelling Unit Definition: A resident attorney expressed fear that the dwelling unit definition in the Municipal Code could be interpreted so that some mUlti-level houses in the annexed area are considered duplexes. Section 24-3.1 (g) defines a dwelling unit as "one or more rooms, in addition to a kitchen and/or bath facilities,' intended or designed for occupancy by a family or guests independent of other families or guests." For example, a finished basement containing a bedroom, bathroom, and sliding glass door might be considered a separate "dwelling unit". The County definition does not contain the inclusion of a bath. The Planning Office, Zoning Officials, and Code Simplifica- tion Task Force have identified the dwelling unit definition to be a difficult issue of interpretation, given the breadth of design options of a residence. It is also generally recognized that this definition has broad implications for the entire City. Staff believes that the only appropriate way to deal with the issue is through the Code Simplifica- tion process. This process is a major effort on the part of the City and interested citizens to come,to grips with some long-term problems with the Code; and it is anticipated to be completed in the fall, 1987. The P&Z does not concur with the timing associated with the Staff recommendation. The P&Z recommends that the dwelling unit definition be addressed now rather than as part of the code simplification/rewrite. 6. Basement FAR: "Subgrade" Space 100% below existing grade is presently excluded from the City's FAR calculation, as """.. 9 -.. , -- '","....- defined in Section 24-3.1 (ee) . In the County Code, all subgrade space is included in FAR. Consequently, a house with an FAR excluding subgrade space maybe larger than a house with the same FAR that includes the subgrade area. Residents of this annexation area have stated they want to limit the size of houses to only allow minor expansions over the present FAR. An option for consideration is to set FAR at .16, and then through the. change in definition of subgrade space those structures with 100% below grade areas would then have added floor area available. However, we expect that because of the hillside terrain, the great majority of structures do not have basements 100% below grade; rather, most are split levels opening up to a lower level down the hill. Therefore, this change in definition would effect few residents; and it is most appropriate to establish the FAR that works for the majority of homeowners, as discussed above. The city is working on changes to our complicated FAR definition as part of the ,code simplification effort. Staff anticipates that a definition more similar to the County's, including all habitable space within the structure, will be considered. If such a definition is adopted next fall, the confusion for annexed areas will be eliminated. 7. 8040 Green1ine Review: The 8040 elevation line runs through the bottom' part of the subj ect annexation area. As a result, the entire area north of Highway 82 appears to be subject to the 8040 Greenline Review. Since Greenline Review applies to development within fifty (50) yards of the 8040 elevation, it is quite certain that the whole area is subject to this review. At the neighborhood meeting, residents expressed concern that the 8040 Greenline Review may be largely inappropriate for this area. The following issues arose: 1) The area is an old subdivision and largely built out. Few environmental issues are likely to be associated with new development activities. One of the key issues prompting 8040 review was the elevation of the water tank so to assure reliable service to residents. This is not applicable because the water tank serving this area is above the 8300 I elevation. 2) 3) The one-step (P&Z) review process may be an unnecessary hassle for minor additions. 4) Development activities are currently only subject to Planning Director approval through County 1041 regula- "',;>'"'"' _,e 10 f"'"", r-. tions. A number of options are available to deal with this problem, including: 1) Change the elevation for Greenline Review in this subjecting only the top part of the Aspen Subdivision to the review process (perhaps elevation) . area, Grove 8140 2) Exempt all subdivisions date. development from annexed into the Greenline Ci ty after Review in a certain 3) Restructure Greenline Review Planning Director approval activities. procedures to allow for of minor development All of these options require amending Section 24-6.2 pertaining to the 8040 Greenline Review. As part of the Code simplification process, amendments are forthcoming that would undoubtedly remedy this problem. The main question is when new regulations will be in effect. The city's approach to code amendments through code simplification is to undertake ,one comprehensive rewrite and to avoid making numerous minor amendments in the interim which may only muddle the Code further. Therefore, we are not prepared to amend Section, 24-6.2 as part of this annexation effort. We note that the third option listed above, creating a Planning Director minor development review procedure, is being developed at this time to address a more general problem. within a few months it should be in effect. Staff recom- mends that this approach be used to address the problem in the Aspen Grove,Eastwood, Knollwood annexation area. It is our intention to modify 8040 Greenline Review similar to the manner in which the County recently amended the 1041 review. The basic concept will be to create a provision for staff approval of 8040 applications with insignificant impacts. Minor 1041 applications in the County now take approximately one week to approve. We intend to establish criteria to determine when a review can be just a staff sign-Off. The P&Z recommendation differs from the Staff recommendat- ion regarding this issue. The P&Z recommends that a higher elevation line than the 8040 Greenline be utilized as the basis for Greenline' reviews on the east. side of Aspen and that the legislation to establish this new elevation line be created now rather than as part of the code rewrite. ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The P&Z recommends approval "'- 11 I~ .~ of the ordinance creating the R-15B zone on first reading and the application of the zone to the annexation area. However the P&Z recommends that the height limit for the zone be 28 feet and that the fOllowing code amendments also be initiated immediately, rather than as part of the code rewrite, to' address the concerns of the property owners 1. Revisions to the City definition of a dwelling unit. 2. Revisions to the code procedures regarding the 8040 Greenline review to establish a higher elevation line for the east side of Aspen. The P&Z made this recommendation regarding new code amendments despite the staff's advise that code amendments be incorporated within the Code simplification/rewrite. The P&Z felt code amendments were important enough that they should be initiated immediately. PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDA'l'ION: approval on first reading of : The Planing Office recommends 1) Ordinance series of 1987 establishing the R-15B zone district. ---- 2) Ordinance series of 1987 zoning the Aspen Grove/Ea- stwood/Knollwood annexation area R~15B. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to read and approve on first reading Ordinances and Series of 1987" CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION: 5' ~I.dlur ~ PW/1J (tv, ( Co PI"'/ f5fP/ ~fto.lti, S' "Z-~#f {>If. , e'J<CIij'r -J: WOlolliP 1fIItk( 4 lleit;ff'r br ~tt{c I'hr f,f- ik. -z:;~yC- ~)I ff 1<< >@rr, 11'; r- -- 12 1// ---, .~ Table 3 . Moderate-Density Residential (R-15B) Purpose, Permitted Uses, Conditional Uses Purpose: The purpose of the Moderate-Density Residential (R-15B) Zone District is to provide areas for residential purposes with customary accessory uses. Recreational and institutional uses customarily found in proximity to residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in the MOderate-Density Residential (R-15B) Zone District are similarly situated to those in the MOderate-Density Residential (R-15) and (r-15A) Zone Districts but are those in which single-family structures are a permitted use and duplexes are prohibited. Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted as of rig~.Ari the Modera te- Dens i ty Res idential (R-15B) ~""'Zlme---DJ..strict...-.-----. c' 1) 2) Detached residential dwelling; Farm and garden buildings and uses, provided that all such buildings and storage areas are located at least one hundred (J.OO ') feet from pre-existing dwellings on other lots; Home occupations; Group homes; and Accessory buildings and uses. /v \ / \ .- '/ 3) 4) 5) >""'...., - Conditional Uses: The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the MOderate-Density Residential (R-15B) Zone District, subject to the standards and procedures established in Art. 6, Div. 3. 1) Open use recreation site; 2) Public school; 3 ) Church; 4) Hospital; 5) Public administration building; 6) Day care center; 7) Museum; and 8) Satellite dish antennae. Source: Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, May, J.987. 13 "-,, ,1"""\ Table 4 Area and Bul.k and Off-Street Parking Requirement in the R-15B zone . Area and Bulk Reauirements city of Aspen Proposed R-15B Zone Minimum Lot Size (sq.f.t) 15,000 Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit (sq. ft. ) 15,000 Minimum Lot Width 75' Minimum Front Yard Dwellings Accessory Buildings All buildings except dwellings and accessory buildings 30' 30' 30' Minimum Side Yard Dwellings & Accessory Buildings All Buildings Except Dwellings and accessory buildings Minimum Rear Yard Dwellings Accessory Buildings All Buildings Except Dwellings and Accessory Buildings Maximum Height 5' 5' 10' 5' 10' 25' Minimum Distance Between Principal Building & Accessory Building No Requirement Percent of Open Space for Building site External Floor Area Ratio No Requirement .7 multiplier times the City Sliding scale Internal Floor Area Ratio No Requirement Off-Street parking Residential Uses One space per bedroom or 2 spaces whichever is less SB.ANNEXATION '""""",, 14 ~: o o o 5: J ..J o Z ~ I oz 00 0- s:t: f-x (f)w <<z Wz 1<< w > ~ CE: ~ z W 0.. UJ <:( j",:' 'll!i ,~ "",).... r, J'; ., , I .. ! if I ; J' I If):~ 1. ~ Irr pj J;of ' 'Iii ~ l'~jl :'1' ;!ii ]!ilj~;1 i I II; ~i ;jlJIILj !; i j'i !:. .i J JI. .t 1 ".~ ~. ~ Ii!: .1111~Ji: I ~ "!,. II ~llj:;Ji! Ii'i' ""fI".' i I 1'111 !'"-I'. .l!'l. jii! ;1'1 . 1 il" "f I;ucti!l ':j' 11 ~ I. J - 6' 1':11 ;1, !f I. :f~ lH J~:: ;-,! II ;.; lid "5:i ?i~: ;,; !~:l ;~Ji ..il :i; !tw i1J~ I.! =. n ~=~~ If .:I,I,u' ffli:f If!: ilJ :.~, ;~I: II I!I.~ .!~I ~. !)' 11..,.r- :J -J IIJ' -I ,- f"iJ~1 f!:rl! rtf;;i'I ;:;I.:J ;Jil~~Jir id:CI1.~ i! I;,j j'llh~JII,I;;:!il'I;I:lil~I;,,1 i'II!II'I~! f.1j1' .~ I' S" . I . I r h f j:ii; :;ji~!II{!,U'=i".:!~t fifill'tl' f.f.t '1.'~'li.:r.:,I"IIlI:-:;J ~.,' , 111- 'l'l; i I ~ -p,.... '.' It H I" ~I j i idl .ld;S;il:(jI;i!;,;j~:!'I\I~I\III~!I.I! Ii;: \"1 .....;0. ,..."1 f ...11, !' , , 1~ I! I ~ I . . :!:!: ~! ! '.'I"'i ;: ; l!tif , MAP 1 ^ , I Ih '1. !11.~1 ~J~ 'Iii Hi '=i- "i ,.Ii !!.i c' ;:i j~f: ;jJ tl'; ...-;:"::~",,,,"hl: It;' P;:::';::' ..f..J ,tiii:;;.,i~lu ':': :i:~" H~:i .! Ill' :!t:t'~!!:'II.... I .,::UJUII i::'..h .':':iI'n'wJ::.F~":". ;~i~;;!~~~;t:l;~:H IJJ~llljfii!!!mIl 'n id~ IlllJ iht "" "I' "I I' d.! ii; !II' " , il, ;1., I'; r!11 "I if, )1" w -'1 !ir !. un Ii Sa I. ., j; !i ., h \" "I I. ;-'l~i 1-, :f~:r ,il!;, "j"" Ii It; -1';-1 (hill' . iii.. .,,- ;n ril,i /. "-' ilf1i::~.t .~". i!!j.! .' ;1!lh I;,I~I . . jt,{ I'll"'ll - uf. U. :dhf.! :. EXHIBIT ." =; :>'\' i:", ..;:: 2< ,,\ c:a::!~ \" ~ .= N \fj ~ ,l w s:.. AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING TERRITORY TO ~E CITY OF ~ENjS REFE~ED TO AND DESCRIBED IN THAT PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF T!RRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN CERTIFIED BY THE CITY CLERK ON APRIL 27, 1987, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE "ASPEN GROVE/EASTWOOD/KNOLLWOOD SUBDIVISION (EXCLUSIVE OF BLOCK 4)" I "Bit t;.f.'.Ii 9~ BCGA 0~! l'.:sf m L- = r- i--j N~ CD ~ 6 pages ..... ""' ORDINANCE NO. ;lIP (Series of 1987) WHEREAS, a petition for annexation of territory to the City of Aspen was certified by the city Clerk on or about April 27, .1987, whereby that territory referred to and described in said petition commonly known as the "Aspen GrovejEastwood/Knollwood Subdivision (eXClusive of block 4) " was petitioned for annexa- tion to the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, on April 27, 1987, the City Council of the City of Aspen by Resolution No. 14 (Series of 1987), which resolution is incorporated by reference herein, found and determined that the aforesaid petition was in substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 1 of Section 31-12-107, C.R.S., and established on April 27, 1987, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, as a date, time and place to hold a hearing to determine if the proposed annexation complies with applicable parts of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S.: and WHEREAS, said hearing was duly noticed as required by Section 31-12-108, C.R.S.; and v WHEREAS, the hearing was conducted on the aforesaid annexa- ----------.---- tion petition on April 27, 1987, as aforesaid, and upon the ......,,~ 5c1~5 ~/s-4-- , . ;d ./ ,', I" .. ........._...." l.- L'._ --- L~ ~\, 0 J./~;T!" ',- --y'- I -, II n.....i~" .....l,i..,.., 541 p~GE9BO completion of the hearing, the City council, by Resolution No. ~- 14 (Series of 1987), set forth its findings of fact and its conclusions based thereon and found that the requirements of the '---.----..- ,"-" -- VQ flO\ )f ~ ~ /1 . It :~? applicable parts of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-105, C.R.S., ~--"._..'.. have been met; that an election is not required under Section 31- 12-107(2), C.R.S.; and that no additional terms and conditions are to be imposed with respect to said annexation; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 31-12-111, C.R.S., the City Council desires to annex the area proposed in the aforesaid petition for annexation by ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That tract of land described in the petition for annexation of territory to the City of Aspen, commonly known as the Aspen Grove/Eastwood/Knollwood Subdivision , which petition is hereby incorporated by reference, and as shown on the annexation map thereof and more particularly described as fo110ws, is hereby annexed to the city of Aspen, State of Colorado: Beginning at a point on the northeasterly right-of-way of Colorado State Highway 82, said point being the westerly corner of the Starodoj SUbdivision; thence southeasterly along said State Highway and Starodoj Subdivision along a curve to the left 245.67 feet, the chord of said curve bears South 26 23'16" East, 245.65 feet; thence continuing along the starodoj Subdivision South 28 33'30" East, 109.49 feet, and South 29 16'30" East, 31. 90 feet to the South corner of said Subdivision, being also the Southwest corner of the EastwoOd Subdivision; thence continuing along said State 2 CDt;;( 541 p,'GE981 Highway and the southerly boundary of the Eastwood Subdivi- sion; South 29 31'30" East, 17.8 feet; South 29 37' East, 67.8 feet; thence along a curve to the left 277.5 feet, the radius of said curve being 533.0 feet, with a central angle of 29 5'; South 59 27' East, 104.1 feet; thence along a curve to the left 305.9 feet, the radius of said curve being 533.0 feet, with a central angle of 32 53'; North 87 40' East, 171.7 feet; thence along a curve to the right 454.16 feet, the radius of said curve being 613 feet, with a central angel of 42 27', to a point on the southerly boundary of Lot 1, Block 5, Knollwood Subdivision; thence continuing along the State Highway and the boundary of Block 5, Knollwood Subdivision, South 47 45' East, 43.5 feet; South 37 22'30" East, 68.9 feet; South 45 43' East, 182.53 feet to the South corner of said Block 5; , thence departing the State Highway and continuing along the boundary of Block 5, Knollwood Subdivision; North 18 25' East, 125.20 feet; North 00 09 East, 1312.50 feet to corner 4 of the Highland Placer, USMS 6120; thence North 77.10 feet to corner 4 of the Highland Placer, USMS 6120AM; thence North 892.6 feet more or less along the Aspen Grove Subdivision, Block 3 to the northeast corner of said Block and Subdivision being also corner 5 of the Highland Placer, USMS 6120AM; thence North 81 04' West, 1180.02 feet more or less to corner 6 of said Highland Placer, USMS 6120AM; thence South 00 15' west, 167.79 feet; thence South 41 03' East, 197.57 feet to the northerly corner of Lot II, Block 1, Aspen Grove SUbdivision; thence southerly along said Aspen Grove Subdivision, Block 1, South 59 50' South 45 04' South 75 53' South 41 19' South 74 47' North 55 46' North 72 42' South 80 14' South 59 49' -- West, West, West, West, West, West, West, west, West, 145.92 feet; 207.92 feet; 52.96 feet; 108.31 feet; 53.02 feet; 67.34 feet; 70.75 feet; 71.81 feet; 64.50 feet; 3 BGO;' 5,11 p~cf982 South 24 59' West, 98.41 feet; South 50 58' West, 59.40 feet; South 14 27' West, 3.53 feet more or less to the northeasterly boundary of the Woerndle Annexation to the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado; thence easterly and southerly along said woerndle Annexation; South 34 21' East, 400 feet; south, 132.18 feet; thence along a curve to the right 231.84 feet, the radius of said curve being 250 feet, with a central angle of 53 08' to an intersection with the north- easterly right-of-way of Colorado State Highway No. 82, thence South 21 30' East, 86 feet more or less to the point of beginning. section 2 The aforesaid annexation shall become effective in the . manner prescribed in and immediately upon compliance with the requirements of section 31-12-113, C.R.S. Section 3 The city Clerk of the city of Aspen is hereby directed as follows: (a) To file one copy of the annexation map with the original of the annexation ordinance in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Aspen. (b) To certify and file two copies of this annexation ordinance and of the annexation map with the Clerk and Recorder of the County of Pitkin, state of Colorado. (c) To request the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County to file one certified copy of this annexation ordinance and of the annexation map with the Division of Local Government of the Department of Local Affairs. " '",,- 4 ["'1:'" ~!I1 ~'~f983 ,,-,,;(\ '.... ~!.. .tljJ Section 4 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance 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. Section 5 f,./ .' . '. /" --- ;/ ' Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to affect any right, duty or liability under any ordinances in effect prior to '--~-~-';..7:'-'-'~- --_:_~--C.';- ~,._---~.~--..__._---~--_.__..._-_.__.._"--~_. the effective date of this ordinance, and the same shall be continued and concluded under such prior ordinance. Section 6 day A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the ~/3 Of))~ ~ 1987, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the ~~ ~. x.p , 1987. day of ___-f'/'------ '--- y~. .. ..",..../"" \l\l '" \,\' ... OF .(. "'" ,,":''\..' V" ...... l6'.j:'TEST~...~:~ ~"'-,., ..' -'. ~ ~: "..,.,: ~". ". ~ ~ Ik city Clerk ,~""" "",.,.". 5 Boml 541 p,~Gt984 /3......^-. day of FINALLY adopted, '~ . \<..1__ '-<--1....- ..., J passed and approved this , 1987. ,1lTlri-'i'fl':, ,\.......'( .';1"""1S .,'.... ,.~",". ..... ~l' ".. " U ..'04. '. ~.." :0' ".-Y :;::,' #';;(: ~. ;~>.. . ~och, '. . .- " " .' " " J~"" .....,-- ./~, ./ ~. ./ william L. stirling, May 6 I EXHIBIT "e" 10 pages ORDINANCE NO. d.5 (Series of 1987) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AMENDING SECTIONS 24-2.1 and 24-3.2 AND 24 3.4 OF THE HO:NICIPAL CODE SO AS TO CREATE THE "MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-15B)" ZONE DISTRICT WHEREAS, the city of Aspen has approved a resolution indicating their intent to annex the Aspen Grove/Eastwood/ Knollwood Subdivision: and WHEREAS, the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office notified property owners within the Aspen Grove/Eastwood Knollwood' Annexation area of a public meeting on May 19, 1987, to discuss zoning for the area; and WHEREAS, the property owners have expressed a desire for the creation of a new zone district which precludes duplex residences and is comparable as possible to County R-15 zoning; and WHEREAS, the Aspen planning and Zoning commission held a duly noticed public hearing on June 2, 1987 to consider the creation of the R-15B Moderate Density Residential zoning district recommended by staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council, having considered the recom- mendation of the Planning and Zoning 'Commission- pertaining to Sections 24-2.1,24-3.2 and 24-3.4 of the Municipal Code, Council desires to amend Sections 24-2.1, 24-3.2 and 24-3.4, so as to create the moderate density residential (R-15B). ;5 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO section J. That subsection (a) of section 24-2.J. of the Municipal Code of the city of Aspen, Colorado be and the same is hereby amended to add a section "29", a new zone district entitled Moderate- Density Residential (R-15B), said section to read as follows: That the schedule of Permitted and Conditional Uses set forth in section 24-3.2 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen is hereby amended to establish regulations pertaining to the R-15B Moderate Density Residential zone district, said amended schedule to read as follows: "(29)" R-15B Moderate Density Residential" /---------'-, INTENTION (~'ITED US]~.~__) The intent of the Moderate- Detached residential Density Residential (R-15B) dwelling; Farm and garden Zone District is to provide buildings and uses, areas for residential provided that all such purposes with customary buildings and storage areas accessory Uses. Lands in are located at least one the MOderate-Density hundred (100') feet from Residential (R-15B) Zone pre-existing dwellings on District are sin;i1arly other lotsJ~Homa_o..GS:':lpa- situated to :those 1n. the _.~jqn?; -<ACCessory. building:s---? Moderate-Dens 1 ty Res1den- (' and u~es~' --- ---2. tial (R-1.5) and R-1.5A) Zone -, Districts but are those in which single-family struc- tures are a permitted use and duplexes are prohi- bited. In this zone district, any structure or part of a structure which contains one or more rooms in addition to a kitchen Section 2 CONDITIONAL USE None. 7 , """"..... 2 INTENTION and a bath facility intended and designed for occupancy by family or guests independent of other families or guests shall be deemed to be a dwelling unit as set forth in section 24-3.1(g). section 3 That schedule for Area and Bulk Requirements set forth in section 24 Municipal Code district be amended and the same is hereby amended by the regulations pertaining to the R-15B Moderate Density Zone District, as foIl Area and Bulk Reauirements city of Aspen R-15B Zone Minimum Lot Size Minimum Lot Area (sq. f. t) Per Dwelling unit (sq. ft. ). 15,000 15,000 / 3D' 30' / Minimum Lot width Minimum Front Yard Dwellings Accessory Buildings All buildings except dwellings and accessory buildings Minimum side Yard Dwellings & Accessory Buildings All Buildings Except Dwellings and accessory buildings Minimum Rear Yard Dwellings Accessory Buildings All Buildings Except Dwellings and Accessory Buildings Maximum Height Minimum Distance Between Principal Building & Accessory Building Percent of Open Space for Building site External Floor Area Ratio Internal Floor Area Ratio Off-Street parking Residential Uses 75.' 30' 5' 5' 10' 5' 10' 25' No Requirement No Requirement See Exhibit A No Requirement One space per bedroom or 2 spaces whichever is less 3 section 4 That the city Clerk is directed upon adoption of this ordinance to re in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 5 If any section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of nance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by and court 0 jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaini thereo f . section 6 A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the ~~ 13.> d 1987, at 5:00 P.M. in the city council Chambers, Aspen city Hall, Aspen -, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be publis a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. the INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by the city city of Aspen on the 22nd y~ne;y?~ william L. Stirling, Mayor ATEST: ~ tt:t: r 2c! city Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this /3 day of ~r ,1987. ~~.?~ William L. stirling, Mayor ,... GH.AMC -- 4 LOT SIZE (Single-Family structures) 0-3,000 3,001-9,000 9,001-15,000 15,001-50,000 50,000+ ~,", - EXTERNAL FLOOR AREA RATIO STANDARD 80 s. f. for each add. 100 s.f. in lot area 28 s.f. for each add. 100 s.f. in lot area 7 s.f. for each add. 100 s.f. in lot area 6 s.f. for each add. 100 s.f. in lot area 2 s.f. for each add. 100 s.f. in lot area ALLOWABLE SQ. FT. .70x(0-2,400) .70X(2,400-4,080) .70X(4,080-4,50Q) .70x(4,500-6,500) .70x(6,500+) BOOM J<;: I PAGC_v JC ORDINANCE No. ,;;)..& (Series of 1987) 5' AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN ZONING APPROXIMATELY 79 ACRES OF LAND KNOWN AS THE ASPEN GROVE SUBDIVISION, EASTWOOD SUBDIVI- SION, KNOLLWOOD SUBDIVISION EXCLUSIVE OF KNOLLWOOD, BLOCK 4 MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO, ALSO KNOWN AS THE ASPEN GROVEjEASTWooD/KNOLLWOOD ANNEXATION AREA: GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF THE SALVATION DITCH AND NORTH OF STATE HIGHWAY 82, THE CITY OF AsPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO TO R-15B WHEREAS, the property owners of Aspen Grove, Eastwood and KnollwoodSubdivisions exclusive of Knollwood, Block 4 (herein- after referred to as the Aspen Grove, Eastwood/Knollwood Annexa- tion Area specifically described in Exhibiit "AU attached hereto and incorporated herein and have petitioned the city of Aspen to be annexed; and WHEREAS, the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office notified property owners within the Aspen Grove/Eastwood/Knollwood area of a public meeting on May 19, 1987, to discuss zoning for the area; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning commission held a duly noticed public hearing on June 2, 1987 to consider the creation of the R-15B Moderate Density Residential zone district recommended by staff and the application of the zone district to the Aspen Grove/Eastwood/Knollwood annexation area; and WHEREAS, the City council has considered the recommendation of the Planning and zoning Commission and has determined the proposed zoning to be compatible with surrounding zone districts and land use in the vicinity of the site. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY dOUNCIL 'OF THE c-. :!! N _ . -t CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: ~ ::z:'" W ,. <>i= ::z:< W -t- c:lt ....> U1 ".co .,s::..- .. ",> <>~ 0 ..... ..... =-= ". - .. CJl .... '" -.I ,. BOOK 547 PAGE192 Section 1 That it does hereby zone to R-15B Moderate, Density Residen- tial that area commonly know as the Aspen Grove/Eastwood/Knoll- wood Annexation Area which area is specifically described in Exhibit A, attached hereto. section 2 That the zoning District Map be amended to reflect the zoning described in Section 1 and the City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to amend the map to reflect the zoning change. section 3 Inasmuch as the area zoned by this ordinance consists of a newly annexed area with existing structures, the remodeling, renovation, reconstruction additions to existing structures and new. construction in the area described in Exhibit "A" shall be deemed to have satisfied all requirements of section 24-6.2 of the Municipal Code pertaining to 8040 Greenline review. Section 4 That the city ordinance to record Clerk and Recorder. Clerk is directed upon adoption of this a copy in the office of the pitkin County ~,_. 2 ,,, '-<'C' '""",,0,' BOO!! 547 PAGE193 portion shall be deemed a separate, d~stinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. section 6 A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the /a,,,",-'day Of~~!_' 1987, at 5:00 P.M. in the city council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the city of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ. AND ORDERED published as provided by law by the city Council of the City of Aspen on the 22nd day of June, ~.<~ William L. stirling, yor 1987. ",' '( QF .{. ""0~"'u,-~ , ATTEST:,.'.t .. tf ! .. adopted, passed and approved this /~~ay.of ~,~A william L. stirling, Mayor , 1987. ....~~. '." fOCh, :. s. . ' " '1':1'&I" ,.- . s. t"JI' . ""'........ ~ 'J(....4.......) " o p,1, A \\\." . I'''' 'It .. , . ! ~ " 3 I o 3' _J ~ I OZ 00 0- 3~ I-X CflW <iZ Wz l<i W :;:: 6:: o z W CL Cfl <i ~,-, ...... , .f I: .i,_:! ; ,." I , , 'I. .! ",:' ; I :". ~ i , I~': .... I~ '. I'" ,I,' ,., ,n . , I'- Iii :!0,1 -I. :P1 1'".!('"' 1 .;! '.:. if;'I.t}! ,." l.!_, ,"'. .' "'-.." I'" hi' t. . 'I 'f ""1' :;;~; :' f:\~;' . . l'l;i; 1.! :!~J:: I';" 'I~l' I I 'I' . In,. ,.' l-t: I.~. ii' I 'I .1 I.r! \", ir!" I r I . .J'\l i I ;';~l i'~: .:! J: '!-ii ii ;,i 1M 'I "d. 1:;"I\li !i ~- "f' , . il :;:1 '," .... " r ....1 '. "'_,_' ii' -:. "I: j J _1 u "1': If ,': rOt to" o ~i' l' ~; !'.' '} : I' ~i-~:fif ",.1 !'!:.II :.:_1. :...1 l.tI.!.., :!1' 'hiW'-..~'..f..!' ._;:1 :{i'!i;i ; ,~;II~!IHi:I,I!:i'~,:!iiHiih~~H i~~~{;;~i "tI'. . I , . t ..,.....it..l -1,' I" j! 'iii.:'inl~!.I,I'n',:ifn:., !imW," 1.1.,J.'''''"r.......:I.t)I.1i'!l': _.to '_'" i."1 f'Y~' !Urji'H':: H.!I:~,llill.!1 ;i:; II.h."I;i!;I!:!liil.....!.,..:: ..11 ,'001,,(1.111....1..,1...01111,,.,,,. ! :~ : ~, , i ~ i j: : 'I ! nn::"q, .. it I I -'- i !;i .h' !;d iJ: ':,; III 1:;- 1 ii !~_~i !:'! ::!I 'I. :.,. 1" :t'. iii-II:: .;HmHi~i;:~ :H' IS'U::II,;,I. .1" ~H~ulu.h!J' ; ;...t("'~-ll'.. IJ_ ;;~~.:~~:~~;iH~ i~~~ '~lm~iH!t)I:!i~ immmhmhd ~!j ! i:l~ -,. h~ 1m! {I" It!f dt' ill! II.! ;l! ., I" I: '" i'~ ':1 I; , i" l I I ." I I" Hi h. !'I U!li . , _!.!.~ Ii '. i; ! ~ i' ,-: I~ -,- J(~ .' !; f i! 'I"!i ;l;~i. ~ ~l il: .I,,~. .:iil' ' f..I, \-... 'I"'~ t..l.!./.~: ill~l::'i~" I !~l ~~ .' .j',.' ft:':1 I,tr . ';"',",' . tl!~ : t,'(I;.!" . Iffl' :,~c1: , , BOOK 547 PAGE194 '. . I "'".. LOT SIZE (Single-Family structures) 0-3,000 3,001-9,000 9,001-15,000 15,001-50,000 50,000+ '- EXTERNAL FLOOR AREA RATIO STANDARD 80 s. f. for each add. 100 s.~. in lot area 28 s.f. for each add. 100 s.f. in lot area 7 s.f. for each add. 100 s.f. in lot area 6 s.f. for each add. 100 s.f. in lot area 2 s.f. for each add. 100 s.f. in lot area BOOK 547 PAGE195 ALLOWABLE SQ. FT. .70x(0-2,400) .70x(2,400-4,080) .70X(4,080-4,500) .70x(4,500-6,500) .70X(6,500+) I' ,.A, . 'l J ..../ (r.J i/"';~ - t!\,. . v / EXHIBIT :5 I t1D" 5 pages A"lJell CiLv -'fuuncii. ~22 ; -1-98-7 R",,, ul a r-Mee t:trrq ORDINANCE #28-,--SERIES---6F--i.-9ir7 - Annexing Knollwood, Eastwood, Aspen Grove Councilman Isaac moved to read Ordinance #28, Series of 1987; seconded by Councilwoman Fallin. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE 1128 (Series of 1987) AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN AS REFERRED TO AND DESCRIBED IN THAT PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN CERTIFIED BY THE CITY CLERK ON APRIL 27, 1987, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE "ASPEN GROVE/EAST- WOOD/KNOLLWOOD SUBDIVISION (EXCLUSIVE OF BLOCK 4) was read by the city clerk Councilman Isaac moved to adopt Ordinance 1128, first reading; seconded- by Councilman Tuite. Councilmembers Tuite, yes; Isaac, yes; Fallin, Mayor Stirling, yes. Motion carried. Series of 1987, on Roll call vote; yes; Gassman, yes; ORDINANCE #25, SERIES -6F--I9il7 - Creating R-15B Zone District Councilwoman Fallin moved to read Ordinance 1125, Series of 1987; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE 1125 (Series of 1987) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 24-3.2 AND 24-3.4 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE TO CREATE THE MODERATE DENSITY RESIDEN- TIAL (R-15B) ZONE DISTRICT was read by the city clerk Councilwoman Fallin moved to adopt Ordinance 1125, Series of 1987, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Isaac. Glenn Horn, planning office, this annexation does not include block 4 Knollwood QR_~~__south side of the highway. The surveyor drew-rhis up with the highway--as-tne-alv~s'16n:---glock 4 and the Sparovic subdivision will be annexed subsequently. Horn told Council this is 114 parcels, about 80 acres, 4 subdivisions, all zoned R-15 in the county. Horn pointed out in the R-15. zone district in the county, only single family houses are permitted; duplexes are not permitted. Horn told Council there are 3 existing legal non-conforming duplexes created prior to the down zoning in the county. Horn told Council staff met with the property owners prior to P & Z meeting to discuss the zoning in the area. Horn told Council most of the residents would prefer to have a zone 17 Regtrl err- M<:t: L.i w., ---- A......t:Il--eity Cuullci~l .'Tune" 2"2 ; - :t98-7 district which precluded new duplexes in these subdivision, as opposed to the R-15A, in which duplexes are permitted. Horn reminded Council when the R-15A zone district was created, there was a provision which required new duplexes to restrict half the units to employee housing guidelines. The residents have said duplexes would change the character of their neighborhood in the areas proposed to be annexed. /' Horn noted, based on these comments, staff tried to develop a new zone district, R-15B. Horn said they started with comparing the county R-15 and the city's R-15A, and tried to develop R-15B in such a matter as to not create any non-conformities. Horn said in most cases, they have not created non-conformities; however, there are some cases where some will be created in height and the def ini tion of a duplex. Horn said the issues of creating non- conformity can be resolved prior to annexation. Horn said the residents. feel the city's sl iding FAR scale is too permissive in the size of houses that could be built and would change the character of the neighborhood. Horn recommended going with .7 of the city's sliding scale. This would permit some expansion of structures but would keep the area consistent with the character. P & Z had discussed .72 to .74 of the sliding scale but did not make a recommendation. Councilman Isaac asked if .7 of the sliding scale will work in other areas proposed to be annexed. Horn said he would have to look into that to see if R-15B will fit in other subdivisions. Horn said there are 3 non-conforming legal duplexes, and the issue is whether Council wants to provide some relief for them or to have them continue as legal non-conforming duplexes. One option is to amend the non-conforming section of the code. Another option would be to spot zoning these duplexes R-15A. Hor~ said the other alternative is to leave the duplexes as legal non-conforming duplexes, which is recommended by staff and P & Z. Councilman Isaac said he is willing to try the .7 FAR approach but would like to know how it will fit in other areas. Gideon Kaufman said the county has a .16 FAR and it has been discussed changing this to .2 FAR, which would be equivalent to a .74 or .75 in the city's proposal. Councilwoman Fallin said she is concerned about leaving the duplexes non-conforming. Councilman Gassman said he feels strongly Council should not be trying to solve zoning problems by annexation as long as they are not creating any more problems. Horn reported P & Z recommended a 28 foot height limit, which would match the existing height limit in the county. Staff recommended at 25 foot height limit because of the debate when 18 Re-aula..L MccL~II\.t --. A::>>lJcu--city--eoul1\,.;.i.l J'lITle' 22-;-- 1 987 the existing FAR was adopted in the city. There was a lot of discussion, and the city height limit was reduced to 25 feet. Horn said P & Z disagrees with this, and Ordinance 125 reflects the P & Z recommendation. Horn presented a letter from resident, Nick McGrath, stating the height I imit should be 25 feet but there should be legislation to create remedies for existing structures to exceed the height limit. McGrath also addresses the definition of a duplex and the 8040 greenline review. Councilman Isaac asked the impact on existing structures of going with a 25 foot height limit. Horn said there is significant impact in terms of making structural repairs. Councilman Isaac said he would go with the P & Z recommendation; Councilwoman Fallin and Mayor Stirling said they prefer 25 feet. Councilman Gassman said if 28 is existing, not to change it; Councilman Tuite agreed. The consensus is 28 feet. Horn brought up the conditional uses in the R-15B zone district, and conditional uses are not unusual in any zone district. Horn pointed out residents are reluctant to see some of these condi- tional uses in the neighborhood. Residents have to have some faith in the discretion of the P & Z as to whether these uses are appropriate conditional uses. Horn said the city should retain the flexibility of leaving these conditional uses in and rely on the discretion of P & Z. Mayor Stirling noted these subdivision are about 80 percent built out. Councilman Tuite asked if these conditional uses are for consistency purposes. Horn answered yes. There is a public hearing in front of P & Z for any of these uses. Wainwright Dawson suggested there is a strong sentiment in the community for more homogenous neighborhood covenants where the homeowners decide what they would like to see in their neighborhoods. Horn said by not adding these condition- al uses, these options would be precluded entirely. Bil Dunaway said 90 percent of the conditional uses are approved. Dunaway said he would like to see some of these conditional uses deleted. Mayor Stirling moved to delete all the conditional uses; seconded by Councilman Gassman. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Isaac. Motion carried. Councilman Isaac pointed out if the city uses R-15B in other proposed annexation areas, these conditional uses are already in existence and should be left in. Horn brought up the dwelling unit definition, .One or more rooms in addition to a kitchen and/or bath facilities, intended or designed for occupancy by a family or guests independent of other families or guests". Horn told Council there is reluctance on some of the property owners to accept annexation if this defini- tion of a dwelling unit is to be continued to be used. Horn said the problem is "kitchen and/or bath facilities intended for independent occupancy". Horn said there could be some discretion .--. - 19 Re~ulcll. MccLlllu A,; ~t: II City-Cmmctl June-22.-l~87 '- given to the zoning official in determining what is a separate uni t and what is not. Horn said Council can address this definition outside the code re-write. Council can postpone the decision until the code is re-written which has implications on the residents' support of this annexation. Horn said the definition was written to address numerous short term uses in residential areas in the city, and there are valid reasons for the definition staying in the code. Horn said Council should look at the implications of deleting this defini- tion for the rest of the city. Mayor Sti rl ing said he does not want anything to ,slow down the annexation program so this should be dealt with now. Gideon Kaufman said the two issues in this annexation are the definition of dwelling unit and the 8040 greenline review. Kaufman said in the hilly areas there are many two-level homes with sliding doors and a separate way to get into the house with a bathroom downstairs. Kaufman said this area would become subject to a zoning officer's interpretation that they are duple- xes. Kaufman said the residents do not want to be worse off if they are annexed. Kaufman noted these areas are not now subject to 8040 review, and they should not be. Kaufman suggested Council modify 8040 review so that it does not apply to the majority of structures or only applies to new structures. Kaufman suggested the definition be re-written so that these structures are not construed as duplexes. Councilman Gassman said if Council deleted the reference to bath facilities in the definition, it may take care of the problem. It is the kitchen facilities Council is concerned with. Horn said he can research the legislative intention of the definition before second reading. Mayor Stirling asked if Council wants to integrate the issue of the definition of duplex and 8040 in Ordinance #25. Council agreed. John Kelly said the worst thing the city can do is create a zone district which creates problems which have to be fixed later on. Council requested a definition for this zone district, and then have staff work on the defini- tion for the code re-write. Kelly pointed out virtually every lot in the proposed annexation areas would be affected by an 8040 review. Mayor Stirling said Council will either exempt existing structures or will set a higher elevation. Councilman Gassman said he does not feel the 8040 regulations apply to a previously platted subdivision. Steve Burstein, planning office, told Council some of the reasons for an 8040 review are water constraints; however, in this subdivision there are two water tanks. Other constraints are environmental and visual. Kelly said if new const r uct ion on an undeveloped lot, needs 8040 review, fine. Councilwoman Fallin asked if 104l review applies ,-' in this subdivision in the county. Horn said 1041 review does ....- 20 Recruiar MccL.i.ll'-'1 A;:)LJt::'u -etty--euulJ\.,;..i.l J1Il1l!"' -22"-.- -1-9"8'7 "'-.-... not apply in platted subdivisions. Horn said he will work on these amendments before second reading. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Gassman, yes; Isaac, yes; Tuite, yes; Fallin, yes; Mayor Stirling, yes. Motion carried. ORefNANCE 126. SERIES~-T~ - Zoning Aspen Grove Councilwoman Fallin moved to read ordinance #26, Series of 1987; seconded by' Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE 426 (Series of 1987) AN ORDINANCE ZONING APPROXIMATELY 79 ACRES OF LAND KNCMN AS THE ASPEN GROVE SUBDIVISION, EASTWOOD SUBDIVISION, KNOLLWOOD SUBDIVISION EXCLUSIVE OF KNOLLWOOD, BLOCK 4 ALSO KNOWN AS THE ASPEN GROVE/EASTWOOD/KNOLLWOOD, ANNEXATION AREA; GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF THE SALVATION DITCH AND NORTH OF STATE HIGHWAY 82, THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO TO R-15B was read by the city clerk Councilwoman Fallin moved to adopt Ordinance .26, Series of 1987, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Tuite. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Fallin, yes; Isaac, yes; Tuite, yes; Gassman, yes; Mayor Stirling, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANC~-122. SERIES OF 1987 - Appropriations Councilwoman Fallin moved to read Ordinance '22, Series of 1987; seconded by Councilman Gassman. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE .22 (Series of 1987) ~ - AN ORDINANCE RECOGNIZING GENERAL FUND REVENUES OF $3,120; APPROPRIATING GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES OF $81,640; TRANS- FERRING $1,000 FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND; RECOGNIZ ING WHEELER TRANSFER TAX FUND REVENUES OF $27,500; APPROPRIATING WHEELER TRANSFER TAX FUND EXPENDITURES OF $27,500; RECOGNIZ ING ASSET REPLACEMENT FUND REVENUES OF $10,310; APPROPRIATING ASSET REPLACEMENT FUND EXPENDITURES OF $28,140; APPROPRIATING LODGE AREA SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND EXPENDITURES OF $10,000; APPROPRIATING ELECTRIC FUND EXPENSES OF $391,925; APPROPRIATING EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND EXPENDITURES OF $76,000 was read by the city clerk Councilwoman Fallin moved to adopt Ordinance 422, Series of 1987, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Gassman. Roll call 21 EXHIBIT BOOH J':: I PAGL_\:;"c I "E" 5 pages ORDINANCE No. ,;;)..VJ (Series of 1987) 5' AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN ZONING APPROXIMATELY 79 ACRES OF LAND KNOWN AS THE ASPEN GROVE SUBDIVISION, EASTWOOD SUBDIVI- SION, KNOLLWOOD SUBDIVISION EXCLUSIVE OF KNOLLWOOD,' BLOCK 4 MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT nAn ATTACHED HERETO, ALSO KNOWN AS THE ASPEN GROVE/EASTWOOD/KNOLLWOOD ANNEXATION AREA: GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF THE SALVATION DITCH AND NORTH OF STATE HIGHWAY 82, THE CITY OF AsPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO TO R-15B WHEREAS, the property owners of Aspen Grove, Eastwood and KnollwoodSubdivisions exclusive of Knollwood, Block 4 (herein- after referred to as the Aspen Grove, Eastwood/Knollwood Annexa- tion Area specifically described in Exhibiit "An attached hereto and incorporated herein and have petitioned the city of Aspen to be annexed; and WHEREAS, the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office notified property owners within the Aspen Grove/Eastwood/Knollwood area of a public meeting on May 19, 1987, to discuss zoning for the area; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning commission held a duly noticed public hearing on June 2, 1987 to consider the creation of the R-15B Moderate Density Residential zone district recommended by staff and the application of the zone district to the Aspen Grove/Eastwood/Knollwood annexation area; and WHEREAS, the City council has considered the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and has determined the proposed zoning to be compatible with surrounding zone districts and land use in the vicinity of the site. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY cSOUN~IL 'OF THE <""> - N - -< '"' :z:U> W a;:= :z:< W -<- c:>> -<> I.D ,.'" .::..- .. m> c>~ :s:.- ",,," 0 =x: "" - '" CJ1 - ... ..... CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: 80llK 547 PAGE19Z section 1 That it does hereby zone to R-15B Moderate, Density Residen- tial that area commonly know as the Aspen GrovejEastwoodjKnoll- wood Annexation Area which area is specifically described in Exhibit A, attached hereto. section 2 That the Zoning District Map be amended to reflect the. zoning described in section 1 and the city Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to amend the map to reflect the zoning change. section 3 Inasmuch as the area zoned by this ordinance consists of a newly annexed area with existing structures, the remodeling, renovation, reconstruction additions to existing structures and new. construction in the area described in Exhibit "A" shall be deemed to have satisfied all requirements of section 24-6.2 of the Municipal Code pertaining to 8040 Greenline review. section 4 That the city Clerk is directed upon adoption of this ordinance to record a copy in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 5 If any section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase or ,"""'" '"- portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by and court of competent jurisdiction, such 2 ." BOO!! 547 PAGE193 portion shall be deemed a separate, d~stinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. section 6 A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the /~""'-'day Of~~/_' 1987, at 5:00 P.M. in the city council Chambers, Aspen city Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ "AND ORDERED published as provided by law by 1987. city of Aspen on the 22nd day of June, ~<~ William L. stirling, yor the City Council of the ..,' i Q F ,(- ,..,' ~ ......lJ.-~ ... I(.; ", '""".;f, ATl'EST: "'''''.' . Ii ! " Kathryn ~och, .~. ",~ . r3!j^tl~~Y, adopted, passed and approved this /~~day. of ~~ , 1987. ~,,~A William L. stirling, Mayor ",,,"',~"'" ~.,.... t.a ..~~ '.. foch, . i. S' . ' " .: . s'" r...H. EMJ.,. ~ '7[.............,) ,...' o P.'.. I \'~ . .1' .,." I' ~".,' :....... ,~""'... ""- 3 / o ~ _J , I I i .i.';!, ;I,l" r I 1.,- .: ',:0;1:",; I ::.: .." I" "1'" ,I,' rOIl!!' . , Ii' Ii :1,,1.,. :ljl 11".''""1 1 1 -d ..' if:.I~li! . _ "'" I I I', ." I",;.." ,,_... I'i' =, . 'I 'r .~.I' .;:;! II 'ii.' . . oJ'i' hli;:II' ,..!:! o.lj....jl " I I. 'I' I (",:; "_,I~ 1<1' , "f It' ,. I . \t!. W!:;1 . I II! .J '{:j1 ;'1 ;:;:1 ,.r: .:!. J f -;-.d Ii ;;'. fif: !Jr!: ;if:,'! ji:i::',!1 r; .:J1t:.:l ..I.; ':1=1.(1 .\ U :,.' II .:1'.110. !1:1' lJ : J; !..o 'il: p I~r.~..!r ",., I'!: ,I I :.~. 1,\: ~1 ..rt.!t'l . . , If ..., .f' :'.1 . . J l_,t~'~ j'ili f~i;~:'III'i.r'l: i;lr~!1 ~il:,;i::1 "'.. .'." s ' .... It:!! l!i:~i.""l';:'I!il~i;!II;r'it h~.II'~i : ',. ,'<1, i '-l~ .. I _t: ~.. Ii,' i~'j~ :i;i::{!!K:.I~i:!i:if:;":i ~:!U.:I"" .tif' :'~'~'-lr,'H:::.!~,~~lm (:\"",'!i i! I' J ,_:..l . U t.. .J..,' ". ..I;!II!k'.!I'lfl..(oli:!,.olf...;I. ,I,. ,I '. ~ ,\.. ,. II!;' . t '1 ..11 ,1..1.. ..III....I........ll1l.J.,... ! ~ I ::lZ ::JO ::l- ?;~ X :nw <iz ..LIZ I<! w ~ i:: :...::> z ..LI CL :n <! . ~: d: ~.l ; ;1 .1,. '.! :;:I'!\' . :. ~. l ^- - Ii .1, 1. iJ11 ;11 'ii, r' .:.. ,," II. I: " " ~ ;;Ij !!.! ..... 'i: ii;! 1" :,.. ~i; ~1!Ji~ _ I,~" ;HHH!~~i;:~ :HI l:oUHII.:11. 'J"! isH-::.t1J1~11!j. . ;;Hr:n~H;~H;;~~ 'H!HHH11)i.'!i~ imHiHHdHr:!i ,I;' i:l~ 1m! rhl olts '" I,ll ,I.! ,,:'~ H: :)1' " II, 1: '" i!~ "I I, , "I[ i I' "" !;: I!;.! \ !r,; . ufl, 5~ '. is ! ~ '. '- " I~ ,,- S!:; .' I; f i! '1"Ii ;l;;i, "j"" 'i ll~ . .'~' fi!Hr. l'f" '"" 7n li.l.i ,r '-:: j!m;:'i~':" 01','- h~l:l I .1, ~ \i;~iE ~ ., L..tl',. ,,_ 1~' ;'~(1: , . BOOK 547 PAGE194 '" I \, LOT SIZE (Single-Family structures) 0-3,000 3,001-9,000 9,001-15,000 15,001-50,000 50,000+ ........ EXTERNAL FLOOR AREA RATIO STANDARD 80 s. f. for each add. 100 s.~. in lot area 28 s.f. for each add. 100 s.f. in lot area 7 s.f. for each add. 100 s.f. in lot area 6 s.L for each add. 100 s.f. in lot area 2 s.f. for each add. 100 s.f. in lot area BOOK 547 PAGE195 ALLOWABLE SQ. FT. .70x(0-Z,400) .70x(2,400-4,080) .70X(4,080-4,500) .70x(4,500-6,500) .70X(6,500+) EXHIBIT I "F" 4 pages RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOVEMBER 2, 1995 Chairman Charles Paterson called the meeting to order at'4:10 p.m. Present were: Charles Paterson, Rick Head, Howard DeLuca, and Jim Iglehart. Excused were Ron Erickson and David Schott. The clerk informed the Board that Erickson requested the election of Vice-Chairman be removed from the agenda and rescheduled at a later time when all members of the Board were present. The Board honored the request and the election is scheduled for the November 30, 1995 meeting. CASE 195-14 JOSEPH , JUDITH ZANIN . Paterson opened the public hearing and informed the applicant, Joseph Zanin, that four votes were needed to pass the application, and informed the applicant if he wished to postpone to another time certain when more members were present, he could do so. Zanin chose to proceed with the hearing. Proof of Posting Affidavit was presented by the applicant. Attached in record. Paterson read the variance requesting a variance of 8 feet into the front yard for a garage addition. The applicant was not represented by counsel. Zanin presented and stated when he built his house 30 years ago there were not many restrictions and he had the setback at that time. Zanin said he wanted to make an addition to his garage because he now has a one car garage; he has two automobiles and one is parked on the street. The Homeowners' Association of his subdivision would like the car off the street and parked in a garage which would be partially hidden from view from the street. Zanin presented photographs showing where he parked his second car and other two-car garages in the neighborhood. Zanin said the driveway would be the same and would not be widened. Paterson asked about the additional building to the side of the garage. Zanin replied and referred to the additional building as a shed and said it would be removed. Head asked of Alan Fox. Zanin answered Fox was a homeowner in his neighborhood and a member of the Homeowners' Association. Zanin stated he had to get approval from the Homeowners' Association for the garage addition. Head asked if there was a letter from the Homeowners' Association. Zanin replied there was a letter attached in the application from Don Fleisher which made reference of Alan '--- BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOVEMBER 2. 1995 Fox's approval. Attached in record. Drueding stated the Planning Office supported the application. Drueding mentioned Zanin was to save certain trees shown on the site plan by going around them; some aspen trees would have to be removed along the edge. Head said he felt it was a safety point to get cars off the street. DeLuca asked for clarification and viewed the site plan. DeLuca asked the depth of the existing garage. Zanin replied the depth of the existing garage was 21 feet. DeLuca stated his concern was a 25 foot garage depth and the Board was to give the minimum variance. Head stated the encroachment was on the front so it would not really matter what the Board granted on the back part. Iglehart asked to view the building permit sets. The Board viewed the plans and had random discussion regarding the size of the vehicles, the required space needed for additional garage space and the access to the garage. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, entered the meeting and introduced himself. Hoefer said he would be attending most of the meetings of the Board of Adjustment in the future. Paterson closed the public portion of the meeting. There were no public comments. DeLuca asked what the situation would be, if in the future, another owner decided to build a second floor. Drueding responded there would be the need to grant another variance because it would be decreasing a non-conformity over the setbacks. The Board would be granting only a variance for the garage. Iglehart stated he was fine with the request. Head stated he found no problems with it and liked to get this kind of application, especially with the support of the Planning Office. Head said he was in favor of granting the variance. Paterson stated his only concern was he had not heard a hardship except for the fact that the applicant had to park on the road. Paterson felt it was a practical difficulty; other neighbors in the vicinity had two-car garages; it was an open area; so, he was in favor of granting the variance. ~~. ,g, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOVEMBER 2. 1995 MOTION Head moved to approve Case No. 95-14 for the reasons mentioned. Iglehart seconded. Vote was Paterson, aye; Head, aye; .Iglehart, yes; DeLuca, yes. Unanimous in favor, motion carried. Paterson stated a resolution would be made up for the approval of the application. The clerk confirmed the next meeting date of November 30, 1995 and informed the Board of a party scheduled for that same date for all Boards and commissions of the City at 5:00 - 7:00 p.m. The clerk inquired as to whether the time for the regular meeting should be moved to an earlier time. Paterson responded if there was just one applicant the time should remain the same at 4:00 p.m. If there were more applicants the time should be moved earlier to 3:30 p.m. The Board agreed. The resolutions drafted by city attorney and typed by the clerk were discussed. Iglehart asked if plans were attached to the resolutions. Drueding replied the plans were kept in the city clerk's office. Drueding stated if the Board felt any information presented was pertinent the Board should note it as an exhibit to be kept by the clerk in the applicant's file as part of the record. -" Iglehart asked if applicants, in their applications to come before the Board, are required to have that kind of information to present. Drueding stated it is stated that the zoning office is to see that an application is complete. He said he could advise an applicant to submit the minimum, but it is the applicant's case and he had limitations, and the information discussed was not required. DeLuca asked regarding the Warner Bros. 5 foot rear yard setback variance granted; he did not remember it being for the entire length of the property. The reason for the 5 foot rear yard setback being granted was for a swimming pool. Hoefer stated DeLuca's point was well taken, the Board needs to be as specific as possible when writing things down, so there is no question; just reading the resolution itself. Iglehart asked if it would be wise of the Board not only to state what the variance was given for, but also put a statement, "per attached plans". Hoefer stated that was a great idea and suggested the language "pursuant to the plans submitted". ,.~ - ~ BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOVEMBER 2. 1995 ".~, Paterson stated he would like to have more details resolutions instead of short sentences. Drueding stated the Board had to "highlight" the reasons for granting or variances. Paterson stated he had written the languag~, plans submitted" on the resolutions when signing them. on the he felt denying "as per DeLuca said specific locations, setbacks, and footage should be written into the motions. He said it is a matter of record and something to go back to. MINUTES MOTION Head moved to approve the minutes of October 11, Winfield Arms Condominimum Association; unanimous in favor, motion carried. 12, 1995, Case #95- Iglehart seconded. MOTION Iglehart moved to approve the minutes of October 12, 1995, Case #95-12, Warner Bros. Records, Inc.; DeLuca seconded. Unanimous in favor,motion carried. MOTION Head moved 13, Larry seconded. to approve the minutes of October 12, LedinghamjNorma Dolle - Snow Queen Unanimous in favor, motion carried. 1995, Case #95- Lodge; Iglehart Hoefer stated if any members of the Board had any questions before the hearings to feel free to call him. He advised to send a copy of the resolution to the applicants after recording with a cover letter. MOTION Head moved to adjourn the meeting; Iglehart seconded. Unanimous in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, -6h.CVlDn '--l'Yl , ~~ 6 Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk -- - J. EXHIBIT I "G" 2 pages RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 13, 1995 Vice-chairman Charles Patterson called the meeting to order at 4:00 P,M, Answering roll call were Howard DeLuca, Ron Erickson, Rick Head, Jim Iglehart, and David Schott, Remo Lavagnino, Chairman, was excused. CASE # 95-1 BROOKE PETERSON/DIANE TEGMEYER Vice-chairman Charles Patterson read request for variance as attached in record, Brooke Peterson presented application to the Board and presented Affidavit of Notice to Vice-chairman Charles Patterson. Letter from neighbor, Owen Freeman, was also presented in support of Mr. Pete;::-son's application and ',vas read, for the record, by Howard DeLuca, (Both documents attached in record) , f ( Discussion commenced among Board members, Bill Dreuding of Planning, and Brooke Peterson, Board members asked as to the reason for an enlargement of the kitchen, and square footage was verified, Brooke Peterson explained that Diane Tegmeyer was a gourmet cook and needed a larger kitchen; Bill Dreuding answered questions regarding the square footage and documents, Vice-chairman Patterson requested comments from the public, There were none and he, therefore, closed the public portion of the meeting, MOTION Ron Erickson moved for approval of case of 30 feet in order for a 13 foot front . the kitchen, Patterson seconded, all carried, for a front yard yard variance to voted in favor, setback enlarge motion MINUTES Minutes of the December 15, 1995 meeting were addressed, Vice- chairman, Charles Patterson, asked if any corrections or comments, MOTION e".".' -. Rick Head moved to approve minutes, Erickson seconded, all voted in favor, motion carried, \ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 13. 1995 ELECTION OF OFFICERS MOTION Ron Erickson moved to table the election until the next meeting when Chairman, Remo Lavagnino, would be present, Head seconded, all voted in favor, motion carried, MOTION Vice-Chairman patterson,"moved for a motion of adjournment, Iglehart seconded, all voted in favor, motion carried, Meeting was adjourned at 4:35 P,M, - ShQj(D(t '--I'll. ~(') Sharon M, Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk - 2 c)~ " EXHIBIT . - r ,-, >. I "H" r , 10 pages :? .. ., , CI'l'Y- OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Date: February 7, 1989 Case No.: f1- '3 Appellant: PETER HUTTER Address: P.O. Box 157, Aspen, CO 81612 Phone: Q7,-17,7 Owner: PETER HUTTER Address: P.O. Box 157 , Aspen, CO 81612 925-1257 Location of Property: Lot 30. Block 1. EASTWOOD SUBDIVISION a/k/a 297 Eastwood Dr., Aspen, CO (Street and Number of SUbdivision Block and Lot Number) , Building Permit Application and prints or any other pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part of CASE NO. : THE BOARD WILL RETURN THIS APPLICATION IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ALL FACTS IN QUESTION. USE ADDITIONAL PAPER IF MORE SPACE IS NEEDED. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EXCEPTION SHOWING JUSTIFICATIONS See Addendum attached hereto. Will you be represented by counsel? Yes X No --------------------------------------------------------------- Kaufman, Attorney for Applicant (Applicant's Signature) PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR TO FORWARD THIS APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND REASON FOR NOT GRANTING: A~ ~~ Signed Status PERMIT REJECTED, DATE ~~J~1 APPLICATION FILED ~VgJsr ' MAILED ~L'nJr ' DECISION DATE DATE OF HEARING f(~ SECRETARY ~'lI'~1'J .. /)"'?J " , , , ." ?"" . - "'-Property is located in 'the R-lSB zoning category. Chapter 24 Sec 5-204(0) (4) and (6) Front yard setback is 30 ft and rear yard setback is 10 ft. Chapter 24, Article 3. Definition, Sec 3-101 Required vards adiacent to private roads. All required yard setbacks under Zone District regulations are based on distance measured from the right-of-way line of a dedicated public way. Where there is "no public dedication' and the lot line extends to the centerline of the right-of-way, the required yard setback shall equal the distance specified under Zone District regulations, plus an additional distance equal to one-half (1/2J of the righ~-9f-way width as if such private way were dedicated for public use.- - - "-,,. " -, Since this prdperty line goes to the middle of a private road the total front yard setback would be 45 ft. The applicant appears to be requesting a 20 ft front yard variance leaving the front yard at 25 ft. (Hutter) \ "",-,- " Variance ReQUest Property is located in the R-15B zoning category. Chapter 24 Sec 5-204 (D) (4) and (6) Front yard setback is 30ft and rea r yard setback is 10ft. Chapter 24, Article 3. Definitions, Sec 3-101. Required yards adiacent to private roads. All required yard setbacks under Zone District regulations are based on distance measured from the right-of-way line of a dedicated public way. Where there is no public dedication and the lot line extends to the centerline of the right-of-way, the required yard setback shall equal the distance. specified under Zone District regulations, plus an additional distance equal to one-half (1/2) of the right-of-way width as if such private way were dedicated for public use. Since this property line goes to the middle of a private road the total front yard setback would be 45 ft. The applicant appears to be requesting a 20 ft front yard variance leaving the front yard at 25 ft. (Hutter) Since this property line goes to the middle of a private road the total front yard setback would be 45ft. The applicant appears to be requesting a 20ft front yard variance leaving the front yard at 25ft. - -- \....... -'" Planninq Staff Comments: Eastwood was annexed within the last year. During that process the configuration of the yards verses our definitions and the private road definition were not considered. Definition: YARD, FRONT means the yard extending the full width of a parcel, the depth ,of which is measured by the least horizontal distance between the front lot line and the nearest surface of the principal builqing, such distance being referred to as the front yard setback. YARD, REAR means a yard extending the full width of the parcel, the depth of which is measured by the least horizontal distance between the rear lot line and the nearest surface of the principal building, such distance being referred to as the rear yard setback. This lot configuration was not considered and the Planning Director has told me he will address this situation in the future so as not to cause a situation of this type. (Hutter) ADDENDUM Applicant's property is a unique lot in Eastwood Subdivision. It is a "corner" lot which has a road surrounding most of the lot. When the city of Aspen adopted its new Code, the new Code took into account traditional City lots; however, the language in the Code did not contemplate lots such as this. This lot is unique in the sUbdivision, unique to the City, and, as such, the Applicant has a hardship. The shape of the lot and the location of the road, as well as the Code oversight in not contemplating setbacks on lots such as his, creates a hardship requiring a variance. Peter has a practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship in carrying out the strict letter of the zoning law in attempting to build on his lot. The Planning Office and Building Department support this application. If a variance is not granted, the Applicant will lose over 65% of his lot to setback and right-of-way calculations. This will require him to build a tall, narrow house, that will not only be a burden for him, but, at the same time, a burden for his neighbors who all support this variance, The Applicant i~ seeking a minimum variance, Where the configuration of the lot reduces our flexibility, we are seeking a 20 foot front yard setback variance, However, where the configuration of the lots permits, we are seeking no variation from the underlining setbacks, We have endeavored to seek a minimum variance, as is shown on the attached Plat. A traditional lot in the city of Aspen loses 30% of the lot to setbacks and open space. The Applicant, even with the variance he is seeking, will lose over 51% of the lot, well above what a typical lot owner would have. We feel that a variance is appropriate, and hope that you will agree in the granting of this variance. We would appreciate an opportunity to discuss this matter with you at your next available meeting. ,,- '"- ~',l/ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 16. 1989 vice Chairman Charlie Paterson called meeting to order at 4:00pm. Answering roll call were Ron Erickson, Anne Austin, Rick Head, Josephine Mann and Charlie Paterson. Remo Lavagnino was excused. CASE #89-3 PETER HUTTER Gideon submitted the affidavit of posting and the sign of posting. Charlie read into the record the variance request. record) (attached in Anne read into record letter' from John C. Dobbs as opposed to variance. (attached in record) Ron read into record letter from Ann Hodges in support of the variance. (attached in record) Gideon: This is one of the few times that we have a real simple and non-controversial request for a variance and one of those that truly fits within the scope and purpose of what the Board of Adjustment is set for. In discussing this with Alan Richman it became apparent that what happened was when we annexed a lot of the new properties into the City we did not take into account, when the new code was drafted, lots of this type of configuration. There was an oversight in terms of the code drafting as to what would happen with a lot like this. This is the only lot in the subdivision that is situated as it is. The problem is that the road goes all the way around it. So we have a situation that comes up with this particular case--not only do we have a right-Of-way that takes part of the lot out, we then have a situation with setbacks in which there was no flexibility for staff. So if you use the right-Of-way and you use the setbacks you end up losing almost 70% of the lot. This creates a real hardship in terms of being able to build. A number of the neighbors are here in support of this applicant. ,,-... -- One of the other key elements that we always talk about in terms of variance is whether or not we are asking for a minimum variance. And I think that we are definitely asking for a minimum variance. This particular lot is losing almost 12,500ft out of a total of 19,000ft. That is almost 70% of the lot. The average lot in Ea'stwood loses only 30% of the lot to setbacks. BAM3.16.89 with the variance that we are requesting we still will lose 55% of the lot. So we are not even asking to get to where everybody else is. We are asking for a minimum variance that will enable us to build a house that is in character with the neighborhood and does not block the views of some of the neighbors who are here in support. It gives us just a fair opportunity to develop the lot. If you look at the criteria we clearly have special circumstances which are unique to the parcel. It doesn't result from the actions of the applicant and we are not asking for any special privileges. " Peter Hutter: One part is going to be 2 story and one part 1 story. I wanted to move the 2 story part forward to get it out of Bill Dunaway's view of the Pass. Bill Drueding: When they annexed this, Glenn Horn was the principle planner to'the annexation. And they never considered this situation. So we have to live with it at this point and everybody is going to have to go for a variance. Charlie: But it is one-of-a-kind situation, don't you think? Fred: rises to be This will come up on a case by case basis. or falls on its own merits. But I don't think we seeing a lot of them. Each case are going Charlie asked for comments from the public. Bill Dunaway, neighbor: I hate to see that vacant lot being built on. But you have to realize that he has only a front yard and a rear yard which is definitely a hardship as far as I am concerned. He can build a house in a much smaller envelope but then it will have to be higher. And that height would impact most of the neighbors. So I would support a variance for that reason. Margaret Lowe: I have a home on the lot next door to theirs. And I feel that I would be the one that would be impacted most of all. And I see no reason why they should not have a variance. I am much in favor of it. Gary Moore: I am also a neighbor. I also am familiar with the lot and the request for a variance. I support the variance also on the same facts that Bill Dunaway stated because of what type of house they would have to build on that lot if the variance wasn't approved. I am also a contractor so am familiar with what they have to do. - 2 BAM3.16.89 Penny Evans: When you restrict a building envelope to the degree that sometimes you do around here we create what I consider unacceptable. You can allow a little bit more flexibility to the owners of a lot so that they can site the house' in a more appropriate place and to a more creative area. Art Groves: My wife and I would much rather see a house on a scale in accordance with a variance as requested and are in agreement with the applicant. Bill Drueding: When they annexed this they just didn't account for this situation. And they will probably remedy this later on. But at this point I am in favor of this as the zoning officer. They are being penalized by the right-of-way and not every subdivision has that problem that this particular road does. It is unusual' and I am in favor of it and I think the Planning Department is. They just didn't consider it. We would have to state the motion as giving them a setback as being 45ft and then coming from their property line 15 and 10 is 25. It would be a 20ft variance. Anne: But I would like to spell that it stays within the footprint of the sketch presented to us. \-, Charlie closed the public portion of the meeting. Josephine: I would be willing to grant a variance. Ron: I would be willing to grant the variance. I think there is a hardship here. Howeve~ it concerns me that all I am looking at is a little pencil drawing on a plat map. I would like to see something more. It gives the applicant a great deal of leeway. I feel that the applicant really hasn't supplied a great deal of information concerning what the structure is going to be on the lot. I think there are ways of minimizing this variance a little bit more than they have done with this diagram. Anne: I would be in favor of granting this variance. I think that the shape and the size of the lot is a definite hardship. I think that they have been very sensitive to the neighbors as far as the height and the placement of the footprint and I don't feel that they are trying to maximize the size of the allowable FAR. So I would be in favor of granting the variance. Rick: I, too, share my colleague's remarks and it with and in the spirit of the general master plan. of granting a variance. is consistent I am in favor f. '"- 3 BAM3.16.89 Charlie: I also agree with that. variance. I think it is a minimum Charlie re-opened the meeting for further public comments. There were none. MOTION Josephine: I move that we grant a variance for a 20 foot front yard variance with the understand that we have seen only a footprint of ~he proposed structure and that we would expect anything dramatically different from that to come before us again as Bill Drueding sees fit. Fred: The intent is to' not to grant a variance of the shaded areas. It is to grant a variance that is in keeping of the footprint in the relief. What I propose is that you be granted a variance that gives you relief from the front yard setback and incorporate by reference this plat including the footprint so that you get relief--a 20ft variance relief from the setbacks. And as further modified by your footprint and that any substantial change comes back to the Board for further review Everyone voted in favor of the motion. CASE 1189-4 THOMAS H. DITTMER Charlie read into record variance requested. (attached in record) Ted Gardenswartz, attorney for the applicant: Presented posting and affidavit of posting. The main posts will be 6 x 6 and there are slats across the top. We are at the allowable FAR. I believe that this is more akin to an unenclosed porch than a dwelling area. The purpose is to grow vines. It is a trellis. It is not to be a living area. It is not an enclosed area on the sides or the top. There is about a 12 inch space between each of the slats on the top. ,;.."~.~~ Michael Lipkin, architect: I was the architect for this house. I also was the subdivider for the property and established the building envelopes. This pergola stretches slightly outside. I am also the architect for the house directly to the east under construction and represent the landowners of the house directly - 4 - - 'R€.~~' iUV I ',I /-1 ........,:"'-<- I -- -.. ~./O' ....... --........... r I ","'''J. I_'.."")-t:, 1_'" I ( I I I_(~<I: :e, .-~~s. ~~""efoo....Y" ~~ ;- .~~k$ ~-h--re.bo.:,,- C _,,~j> ,'{\oI..O....-r.~dl. '-.'So, lY ! r I ,,~. ~egal Description: Lot 30, Eastwood Subdivision, City of Aspen, 'Pitkin county, Coloraao. " I hereby ,ertify that on August 22 an~ 24, 1988. a survey was performed by me on the aOOvf"descrtbe-~.,.Cft-a1""1'al1d';' 'lttr-easeibentt;-erl~1'"O-a(:l'frnel\'U ai'ld'ttghts- of-way 1n evidence or known to me are shown. This survey is true and correct to the be~ of,my knowl~ge and beltef. EXHIBIT I "r" (,>", I 16 pages NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CASE #93-13 THOMAS AND SUSAN HILB BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to the Official Code "of Aspen of June 25,,, 1962, as amended, a public hearing will be held in the SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM OF city Hall, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such other place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24, Official Code of Aspen.' All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. Particulars of the hearing and requested variance are as follows: Date and Time of Meetinq: Date: SEPTEMBER 2, 1993 Time: 4: 00 p.m. Owner for Variance: Appellant for variance: Name: THOMAS & SUSAN HILB SVEN ALSTROM, AIA Address: C/O OCEAN PACIFIC IMAGES, INC. 4600 EAST 48TH AVE., DENVER 80216 Location or description of property: 127 MCSKIMMING ROAD--LOT 1 ASPEN GROVE SUBDIVISION' variance Requested: PROPERTY IS' LOCATED IN THE R-15B ZONING CATEGORY. REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK IS 30 FEET. SECTION 5- 204(D) (4) ASPEN LAND USE CODE. APPLICANT APPEARS TO BE REQUESTING A VARIANCE OF 18 FEET TO ALLOW A 12 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO BUILD STAIRS. will applicant be represented bv counsel: Yes: No: X The city of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Jan Carney Deputy city Clerk BAM9,2.93 at that level it is raised probably 4 to 5 feet off the alleyway, Rick: Notwithstanding the fence and the Improvement District I have not heard a practical difficulty or a hardship that I could even commence to consider in this, By the applicant's own admission it is purely financial and a convenience to the applicant. And I would be denying this variance, Charlie: I have a similar problem. I didn't see a practical difficulty or a hardship, It is a convenience, That is about it, And I don't think I would be in favor of this variance. Ron: I agree. Bill: I agree, Remo: I have nothing more to say. It is that our guidelines-- you are giving us reasons that are pertinent to everybody in the same vicinity and zone, And you have to make a presentation to us that somehow--you know, everyone in 1975 or whenever the changes were made were in setbacks and things of that nature, Everyone in that district came under the same problem that you used for us to grant you a variance, At one time it was 5 feet, now it is 10, Everyone in that same vicinity and zone has the same problem, So unless you have something that is so different, so unique to this particular property then it is very difficult for us to grant you a variance, Claussen: I couldn't come up with a different one, MOTION Rick: I move to deny the variance in Case #93-14. Ron seconded the motion with all in favor, MOTION Ron: I move to table minutes of July 15 and August 5, 1993, Rick seconded the motion with all in favor, MOTION Rick made a motion to adjourn meeting. Ron seconded the motion with all in favor, Time was 5:55 P.M, Janice eputy Clerk ...,....~ (........ . 15 BAM9,2,93 plan (attached in record) is being offered as the footprint for the property and it not be expanded, Bill seconded the motion, Roll call vote: Howard, yes, Ron, yes, Bill, yes, Charlie, yes, Remo, yes, Variance granted, CASE #93-13 THOMAS & SUSAN HILB Remo read variance request. (attached in record) Sven Alstrom, architect for applicant, presented affidavit of posting and mailing. (attached in record) The applicants bought this house on McSkimming Road. Showed photos, This was the triangular side that was annexed into the City~ And so the house was non-conforming when it was brought in under annexation. We have a lot of FAR left, That is not what we are trying to do here, The existing stairway is only 30 inches wide and it has a beam located above the lowest riser that has only 6 foot 5 clearance. So Susan came to me with the thought that the best thing to do with the house is move the stair to the side of the building and that way she could have a better stairs, That is what this presentation is, based on, The home is on a triangular site and has non-conforming existing setbacks on 2 sides, We chose a place for the stair on the side toward McSkimming Road because it works better for internal placement, If she does any future expansion she will have to come back to this Board again, At this time it is really a safety issue and something that will make her home a lot easier to use, Remo: Where is the existing stairway? Discussion over plans, Susan Hilb: My husband and I are very short. When we bought the house we unfortunately--we saw it once for maybe 10 minutes--and then when we got into the house the risers are different heights even, I don't know how it was allowed to be built that way. We had a guest who hit his head, And if we were to have a fire and to think of trying to evacuate the second floor it is a real safety issue, And because of the way the beams are placed in the house it is impossible to come up from anywhere within the current floor plan because it has the big beams that are there, , ,,-1"'" - 7 BAM9.2.93 Remo: Are you saying that you can't widen it? Hilb: No, You can't eliminate the 2 beams that support this. Alstrom: Also if you were to widen it she would have less than a 36 inch hallway from the master bedroom, So if she widened the stairs she couldn't get to the master bedroom, More discussion over plans. Rick: There may be another area, Alstrom: Well, there is not another area, We have studied that out,' This side we would also have to come to the Board, Hilb: And it has a lot more visual impact, Remo: You should have a plan showing where the site-- Alstrom: Board. I have never presented an alternative solution to this Remo: It is not an alternative solution, We just want to know where the setbacks are in relationship to the house so we know what we are dealing with and see if we could find alternatives, Ron: You don't know if the staircase is illegal or anything else, Drueding: I am not qualified to say if it is illegal. That is the Building Department's issue, Charlie: If they do any remodeling to this house other than the stairway they have to do something to get that stair up to code? Howard: I would say 99% of the time they would be required to bring this stairway up to code. I just went through it today. We only did a 20% remodel on a and we had to bring the entire hosue up to electrical code, would happen if they did any work on this, house This Ron: The applicant came before us asking for a variance based on an unsafe condition. I don't know that that condition is unsafe, I don't know that that stairway is not up to code or anything else, If that could be shown then maybe I could agree that there is a hardship or practical difficulty in this case. But I haven't seen anything that this is illegal. Howard: To establish a hardship you have to establish the fact that if you did build the stairs back out this way you would also ,......< ......... 8 BAM9.2,93 be inside of the setback, So that you are forced to go one way or the other. And this would be more visually pleasing etc, But without a site plan we really don't know that. Hilb: We are within the already impacted area. And if we go the other way the house is on the edge of the green belt. Remo: See we don't know that, That is what we are telling you, We don't have a site plan showing where the house is on your land. Charlie then read into the record a letter from Don Fleischer from the Aspen Grove Homeowner's Association stating their approval of this project, (attached in record) After further discussion over plans-- Ron: Right now I am not ready to grant a variance, My problems of site plans are real important to me. I don't know what is going on here and I think this is a severely restricted lot, It was one of record when the applicant purchased it. So she purchased it with those deficiencies knowing there were deficiencies, This is a minimal variance but I haven't seen a hardship or pract ical difficulty, They haven't shown me why this has to be the way it is. And I can't tell them what I need to see that is the proof. Remo: In other words you would want verification that they can't use the interior stairwell and therefore they can't get up to the second story and how else would you-- Ron: I just don't understand this at all. Rick: That stairway has been servicing the upstairs for 25 years. This was a duplex at one time, I understand that the lower level was one unit and the upper stair was another unit, But they put this stairway in here probably no more than 7 or 8 years ago, Maybe 10 years ago. But it seems to have served the purpose-- It was legal, It was a non-conforming not only to size but as to use, It was a duplex that should have been a single family, And they re-converted it to a single family, put this stairway in-- Howard: As far as the Building Dept is concerned it is illegal. The stairway is not a legal 30 inches wide. And the risers have to be a certain rise and in a situation of liabilities I would say that there might be a hardship, If somebody went in there and it was a fire and they got knocked out and the person died because they didn't see the beam, there is a possibility of a hardship there, And a practical difficulty, They did not create the ." problem, The stairway is illegal. ,~~ 9 BAM9,2,93 Ron: But is a variance the only solution? More discussion over plans. , Ron: Bill, did you inspect the inside of this house? Drueding: No. Howard: If Sven is actually accurate about wha,t he is talking about the 30 inch wide stairway is illegal, The headroom at 6 foot 5 is also illegal. It has got to be 7 feet. And if they have to bring it up to code with a beam that is a structural beam then we are going to a position where they have to restructure the house around the stairway, (discussion over plans) Ron: My problem is I am being asked to grant a variance based on unsubstantiated information, I feel very unhappy about doing something like that, I think Rick does too, He has asked if it was possible to satisfy our concerns and table this motion for a week, Howard: someone and say I would like to do that myself, I would like to have that is of authority like the Building Dept walk in there "This stairway is illegal and-- Ron: If I had the assurance that there is a safety condition that exists there that by granting a variance we would solve that safety problem, bring the building up to code, there was no other place to put that then I would have no problem. Remo: But it is part of the record, What they have said is part of the record, The variance would be based on what they say and it is part of the record, Rick: For Ron and I this variance is not going to happen unless we are satisfied as to the information that we have, And I think the only way to satisfy our concerns is to table to give the applicant time to get us the information we need, Howard: I do agree that I think we should table it and I think that you should consider that at this point, In the meantime if you can get someone from the Building Dept or a contractor or whatever to sign a piece of paper that says this is an illegal stairway and a safety issue from an insuranc~ point of view, Alstrom: Whose authority do you want certified? another licensed architect to look at it? Do you want ~~ '"- 10 BAM9,2.93 Members: The Building Dept because they are the people that are going to come in and tell you. They will do that. For $30 you can 'have them come over and inspect the stairway and give you a piece of paper that they have rejected it. The other thing that might help is to have an insurance person look at it. Rick: I think we are all in agreement that if we discovered that the stairway is a non-conforming and out of code and that it would require lifting the whole second floor up another foot or two then I could see-- Alstrom: It does, Rick: But I haven't in my mind been satisfied to that, prefer tabling, I would Charlie: We also should have drawings. and elevation or section through of that stairway, Rick: I would really like to get over there on site, Alstrom: It is just an interesting set of circumstances where a non~licensed person is going to make it more authoritative statement than a licensed one, Charlie: But you haven't done anything with drawings, You are only telling us verbally, If you had given us an elevation or a section of this difficulty right here, we could have looked at something. That is where the Board is having difficulty, It was then discussed about having a site inspection and meeting at 3:30 at the site, Alstrom: Do you still want the Building Dept statement? Remo: Oh yes. Yes, we want something in writing from them, MOTION Rick: I move to continue Case #93-13 to date certain of September 9, 1993 with a site visit at 3:30 P,M, and regular meeting at 4:00 P.M. here at City Hall. Ron seconded the motion with all in favor. .....- --- Remo read request for in record) 11 She then read into the record the memo as follows: , The Preservation Committee did approve conceptual development structure at 702 West Main Street, They made 2 a recommendations to the Board of Adjustment, That the' oard of Adjustment grant a reversal of the required side yard setb ck so that on the easterly side of the yard there be a 5 foot setba and on the west side of the yard 6,66 feet, This is a corner lot a a so it would require your approval, Also they recommended that e variance be granted for the use in the Office Zone as it is appr riate. Remo: We have to amend the motion to include to have to come back to Ron: How much is 6,66. What is the setback? Remo: What is the variance that you want? Kaufman: Technically I think we are goi you for that because we 'did not notice, MPT And then we will have to come back Kim: The reason for that is be use this building is adjacent to an historic landmark which is articularly small building, We are I trying to grant such relief ween the 2 of them as possible, ''-- Remo: That didn't come us so we are not hearing that. Remo then asked for pub c comment, There was none and he closed the public portion of the hearing. MOTION Ron: I make a motion that we approve a variance for Case #93-~2 granting the a minimum lot area and lot width, Remo: given We a eady have a motion and a second, And we have actually he variance. Do we have to again do this procedurally? Worcest It would be the safest course, yes, motion, one voted in favor of the motion, CASE #93-13 THOMAS AND SUSAN HILB CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 2. 1993 ,.."""<" (- 2 BAM9,9,93 Remo asked the applicant if they had anything more they wanted to add to what already had been heard, Susan Hilb: For the record that the Building Dept carne ~nd stated that the stairs--- Remo: Yes and I think maybe Bill should take a look at it, It might be helpful, Hilb: We appreciated you all corning by to see because it is hard to describe, Remo: It was us. It is good that the Building inspector carne by to see 'it also. good to have someone down there to verify what you were telling Sven Alstrom, Architect for the applicant: dimensions that I didn't knowuthe pipe, He confirmed 2 more Remo asked if the Board had any more questions, There were none, MEMBER COMMENTS Ron: I went over to look at it, And I still have trouble granting the variance because I think that there is another way of doing it, And I think the staircase can be moved back away from the beam that you hit your head on and brought up to code, The whole staircase can be moved further west. Howard: The point is, Ron, after you left we realized that this wall here is the foundation wall--that is the bearing all of the structure going this way, So it presents more of a practical difficulty if they have to move that door as you are saying, What happens is if you have to go back into here like this as you were saying, you have extended in through the bearing the wall and now you are--in this way you have no bearing anymore, Discussion over plans-- Ron: Based on the plans as presented I would not grant the variance pecause I think there is another way of solving the problem, There was a suggestion to put in a spiral staircase, Howard: If you put in a spiral staircase you have to be able to get around it to get to the other rooms, So you need 3 feet plus 3 feet plus 3 feet plus 3 feet. Now you are talking 12 feet and I don't see 12 feet in here, You need to get around it from the garage. You need to get around it from every different angle and you also need 6 and 1/2 to 7 feet in the middle, So, yes, it is a great idea but it probably doesn't work in <,""< '"'-" 3 BAM9,9,93 this room without encroaching on the bearing wall, I think that is the main point, This is a very large bearing wall here and by cutting into it you are creating structural problems. Granted it could be done, You could jack the house up, etc, etc, I don't see it, I look at it--I don't see it, I see major structural problems to try to move the door--all you are doing here is you are leaving this bearing wall in here--removing this doorway that is in here now, That is what he is doing at this point, He still has to maintain a 3 foot hallway which is at this point--not at this point, Rick: Ron, what is your reticence about where the proposed stairway is? Ron: I have no reticence about where they want to put the staircase if I grant them a variance at,all, Rick: Are you saying this is a convenience for the applicant? Ron: Yes, I do, I think it is an economic sort of thing, It may even be aesthetic, I think there are a lot of problems in that area that have to be addressed by the Building Dept, And I don't think they have been addressed in this plan, They are going to have to tear all that out anyway, I thought they are asking for a variance because it was just easier for them to add space outside and get additional part: in their building than it is to work within their own structure, So I don't see a really practical difficulty or hardship preventing them a property right their neighbors would enjoy. Howard: I don't agree with Ron because of the fact that by trying to put that staircase where Ron wants to put it--there are a couple of different rules that you have to go by, One is that you have to have a 3 foot landing at the top of the stairs which I am not sure if you can maintain a 3 foot landing plus the rise and run of the stairs and still miss the beam downstairs, That beam downstairs is there. I wouldn't want to be the guy trying to move it. The structural part of the house here which is the old existing outside wall of the house--if you try to cut back in like we talked about-- if you make the doorways back in you would still be involving the major structural change in the house back in here, I don't even know what you would run into. We know the bearing on this wall is buried here, From this point over I can't tell you if the bearing swings and goes this way which it very possibly could, At lot of times that is what they did in those old houses, They would run a bearing this way and then they would run it this way, If they did that this is a bearing wall here also, We don't know that, _. (\...- So I do see a practical difficulty. I do see a very unique situation 4 ~,.",.,.." ;t:6j~~,'" <::8:i:;:- ,.,.'- l'X~'"' ..".. "- BAM9,9,93 with this property because the whole house is non-conforming, I don't think that the neighbors have the same situation that they have,here because they are--they have the utility easement on one side of the house which restricts them there. They have setback on the other side of the house, The only place they can build is over by Salvation Ditch, What we are looking at is do they have a practical difficulty and, yes, I do see one, Remo: We do have to base it on the information that is presented. I think that should be part of the record, That if we grant this variance it is on the plans that were submitted to us at this time, And if they change that possibly we might have to reconsider, If they take some of those load-bearing walls out and move them or have to move them, then we have a different situation, Howard: Then we don't have a practical difficulty anymore, I do agree with you, If this changes because the Building Dept changes or makes them change it then I would like to look at it again before they go ahead and build it, If they took the beams out then you wouldn't have a problem anymore, Then you could make the stairway legal, I agree with that 100%, Bill: I would vote to grant the variance, I think bringing the non- conforming building up to an improved standard is all positive, Discussion over plans, Ron: We go through all of this trying to help them out and then they are not going to do it anyway and we are wasting everybody'S time because these plans have not been scrutinized by the Building Dept, I would be willing to table this until after we have the Building Dept look over those plans and come back to us or come back wi th some sort of solution, There are 2 Qr 3 problems in that area, All of them have a bearing on what we grant for a variance, I feel very uncomfortable about granting a variance before that, Remo: I am going to grant the variance, I don't agree with Ron that there are right now solutions to this problem, I would give them the variance with some cut-back on these stairwells, Ron: The beam that is the crux of this whole problem could be an illegal beam regardless of whether there is a staircase there or not. If they have to remove that beam they are going to raise the opening of that staircase without moving it. Discussion over plans, Howard: If you make this stairway legal by bringing it in here then you have encroached on this hallway by making it 30 inches wide, And now this wall has to be removed again. When you move the wall then you 5 BAM9,9,93 are going to have to remove this wall and then you are removing the entire side of the house in order to make one stairway fit in, Now you can tear the house down and start allover again too. Remo: They are in non-compliance of the code right now. This suggests to me that there is a safety factor involved, And so we are trying to alleviate that problem by bringing it up to code, And if we do it in the house that is terrific, Then if we can't we still want to make it a legal stairway, I don't think it is in the City's interest to leave that stairwell the way it is, Ron: It is going to happen one way or the other. If we don't grant a variance they still have to bring it up to code, Rick: No they don't, Remo: It is not a good thing to leave it they way it is, Howard: They wouldn't be able to do any construction to the house till they bring that stairway up to code. Remo: They would have to bring a lot of things up to code. Howard: In that house I wouldn't want to go through the Building Inspector for one or the other, -A lot of times I go through a house to see if they are electrically sound for a client who is going to buy, I see how much they are going to put into it and I see things that scare me sometimes, If you are going to do any building, though, you had better be aware of it, The Building Dept should seriously look at these plans and make sure what they are doing is OK and above board, And if they are going to remove this entire bearing wall anyway and put a steel beam in then the point is that the stairway may be able to fit in, I couldn't tell you by looking at it. I do know that right now if you make that stairway wide enough to make it legal it would make the hallway illegal, Rick: I strikes me that if they are going to remove this whole bearing wall as shown on these plans why couldn't they re-configure the stairway to-- Howard: They are removing walls. Rick: Just half the wall. Howard: If you make the stairs 36 inches wide then you don't have a 3 foot hallway. Francis Krizmanich came in, r- :....... Remo: Francis, we are looking at a plan that has not been approved by the Building Dept, It was looked at in terms of one consideration 6 BAM9,9,93 . ",","-" which is something that was going to be built outside of this envelope to put in a staircase that would infringe on the setbacks, Now in order for us to look at that we have to have reasons why we would allow that to happen and the applicant tells us he only has a 30 inch stairwell going up to the second floor, He is not in compliance and he showed us various reasons why he cannot put that stairwell inside this house. Because of load bearing walls, because of egress, ingress to certain bedroom doors that don't allow a 36 inch hallway, Those have not been addressed by the Planning Office as far as these plans go, So we don't know whether he has to come into compliance now by removing some load-bearing walls that are too low and may have to .be removed anyway, So we are having difficulty in granting him this variance because we don't know whether there is a possible solution inside the house based on the plans that are presented to us which have not been approved by the Planning Office, Howard: Unfortunately you aren't the right one to be asking about this, Plan check is who is going to go through these drawings and make decisions on this application, They may say bring this beam to code. Then we come to a different situation, Remo: We don't look at financial consideration, There comes a point where through someone having to come up to code and having to go through a remodel of most of the house that that then becomes a practical difficulty in my mind, We "are not forcing him to come up to code but we don't want him to have an illegal situation, There is a safety factor, Alstrom: Simply put the purpose of this project is to put a conforming stair in so, yes, I can say that this stair does meet UBC and I don't believe the Building Dept will find violations in the proposed work. More discussion over plans, Alstrom: The reason we proposed it at this location is we are trying to make minimum encroachment and get a code-compliance stair, If we were to explore an alternative like Ron has speculated I don't think it will work and I furthermore think what we are proposing is actually a better stair because it is part of the kitchen and the garage, It really will work better than tearing up the whole first floor framing, Remo: What our problem is--can we have a solution that is reasonable in the area where the stairs already exist to put it interior. We can't determine that right now because none of these plans have been OK'd by the Planning Office, No planner has looked at it and said "Take this bearing wall out. You got to take this out. You want to bring it up to code". Then we may be looking at something that says "Hey, he can put it in there now", ,p"'... , .......- 7 BAM9,9.93 When we went down to look at the property and according to these plans I concur with the applicant that there is just no place to put it that is reasonable unless you start going back and tearing this wall down and tearing that wall down and everything gets pushed back, Then I think practical difficulty as far as I am concerned. To keep it inside the house comes into play and gives us a reason for granting the variance on the outside, But we don't know whether these plans are correct the way they are, MPT Remo: It looks like the Board is not ready to grant you the variance on the basis of the information that you have presented to us, And if we had more solid evidence that this is what you have to comply with- Alstrom: It goes back to what some of you--I don't come into this Board very often but it is very similar to the comments that my finding of the stair was illegal". Just as my telling you the stair was illegal I am telling you that 20 years of experience--I had the structural engineer on site--that these are the plans I have prepared and that they do in fact meet UBC, I don't see another reasonable alternative, So you say that I have to go to the Building Dept again, It seems a little redundant, [' '."" Remo: Do we have a written report from the engineer? Alstrom: No, developed, But he was on site, That is how these plans were Howard: The big point, Sven, is that one beam, Ron's point is this beam is being removed and what is going to be put back in it's place, Will it make this stairway headroom-wise legal? Alstrom: Yes, But only the headroom will be legal, It doesn't affect--the bearing wall location--not just a portion of it that-- not just in that one room but that would force us to go in both rooms and relocate the bearing wall of the house. And I think that is pretty extreme, Howard: The biggest deal that I see is if we don't grant you the variance to do the stairs then you are not going to do another set of stairs, You are not going to try to make this legal, You will remain with an illegal staircase that if. some day in the future somebody comes down the stairs and whacks their heads and sues you then it will become a safety thing and webasically-- MPT MOTION #,...." Bill: I make a motion that we approve Case #93-13. (,- 8 BAM9.9,93 Rick seconded the motion, Ron: I am going to have to vote against the variance. I feel there are architectural problems in this area that haven't been addressed as yet, This is a non-conforming structure in almost every way possible, They put that in the code for a reason, We have to be very careful before we allow them to expand a non-conforming use, Not only that but what happens if there are illegalities or non-code-specificproblems someplace in the house? Are we allowing them to increase a non- conformity that is going to be a bigger problem in the future? Remo: When he goes for this, don't they check all the other aspects of the house and make them up to code? Howard: The way the Building Code has been in the last year they will make them go through hoops, And it is very possible that once they get done it will cost them more money than she can imagine to bring it up to code. I don't know. I do know that electrically they will walk through this house and if'it has aluminum wire in it for any reason they will all have to be taken care of, If it has a non-conforming situation as far as outlets next to bathrooms etc--It will be brought up to code, In a situation like this there is a very good possibility that they will go through the house and say "OK, this is illegal, This is illegal, This is illegal--fix it", Ron: So we can grant them the variance and then they can go in there and find out that to bring-it up to code is too much, And the reason for granting the variance is moot, Rick: The hearing is only good for a year, It is not in perpetuity, Remo: I would like to propose something that wasn't brought up, It is up to us to grant a minimal variance. And we can get a foot less extension out into here by bringing this whole stairway back to where this door closes rather than a foot away from it before the stair steps start, There was some a banister or consideration, point brought to my attention that code likes to have rail before you hit the stairwell, That may be a I don't know if it is a requirement or not, Howard: It is a requirement, It has to extend the bottom stair by 5 inches, Alstrom: I think a foot would work, Howard: Yes, You might get a foot out of it and still maintain the 5 inch banister, - 9 ,,",,^," t ,,>,"''''- !,- BAM9.9,93 Remo: I would like to add that onto the motion so that the minimum variance is -- Bill: I would add to the motion "To be reduced to the mipimum that meets specifications", Rick agreed to this for the second, Roll call vote: Rick, Yes, Ron, no, Howard, yes, Remo, yes, Bill, yes, Variance granted. Meeting was adjourned, 10 fr I EXHIBIT ItJ" 19 pages RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS NOVEMBER 12. 1987 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 15. 1987 Charlie Paterson made a motion to approve the minutes of October 15, 1987 with corrections. Anne Austin seconded the motion with all in favor. ROLL CALL Answering roll call were Remo Lavagnino, Charlie Paterson, Josephine Mann, Rick Head, Anne Austin. Ron Erickson and Francis Whitaker were excused. CASE '87-12 ASPEN SKI LODGE CONDO ASSOCIATION Property is located in the L-3 zone category. Front yard setback is 10 feet. Canopy encroaches 10 feet into the front yard setback. Sec 24-13.3 la) prohibits the enlarg ing of a noncon- forming structure. The Affidavit of posting was presented. Sunny Vann: The applicant is David F. Jones and the Aspen Ski Lodge. The Aspen Ski Lodge has been proposing to undertake a variety of physical improvements for their property this Fall in order to basically address some public safety issues to the area. And to enhance the operation of the Lodge itself. They are proposing to ,reconstruct the existing fence that screens the pool area and to make improvements to the public sidewalk in the area and the parking area and to install additional landscaping. And to partially enclose the existing entranceway. -,.. If you are familiar with the Aspen Ski Lodge the little area right next to the staircase is currently open. There is a canopy that covers the area of the sidewalk and steps out about 2 steps under a covered canopy and then enter the ski lodge itself. Because of the proximity of that entrance to the sidewalk and the fact that guests are required to unload and depart from the sidewalk itself at the level of traffic that exists on the Main Street we have had some safety problems in the past. Particularly when the snowplow pile the snow directly up on the sidewalk. David has to maintain that all the time to keep it clear. There are problems of not being able to get the van up to the curb itself to be able to unload passengers. The Police Department has a problem with the location of the van blocking the school crossing and the inability of the officers to see the ( \_- flashing lights themselves. And the little portal also creates a sound problem as well as the lower fence which currently exists. The street grade on Main Street has been elevated over time as each new surface has been put in. As a result this level from the entry areas are all below street grade. The noise itself is funnelled through the opening. It reverberates around the inside. It is particularly troublesome in the summer and when there is no air conditioning in the lounge facilities and the reception are all open. In order to address the problems the applicant is reconstructing this fence, installing new sidewalk, correcting the grade problems which exist with the sidewalk there now. There are some ponding problems that occur. And partially enClosing this entrance with an extension on the fence itself. The HPC has approved the exterior modifications of the building. The Engineering Department has approved the streetscape and sidewalk improvements. In fact has issued a permit for that. The other remaining issue is the so-called nonconformity which results from enclosing the front of this structure. The canopy itself is in the setback. It is currently included in FAR. I originally did not construe this to be an increase in the nonconformity as there was no increase in FAR. Remo: It is included in the FAR? Sunny: Yes. Bill has taken that position. We had a recent FAR takeoff and it is his position that it is necessary for the access to the building and therefore the area is inCluded in FAR. My feeling was that since we were back from the edge of the canopy itself, we were not protruding any further into the setback and therefore we were not increasing the degree of the nonconformity. Bill's position is that by simply constructing something in that area, we are in fact increasing it. I spoke to Alan Richman about it and the code is not clear without debating the specif ics of it, he suggested that I come to the Boar d of Adjustment. .C The hardship or problem arises out of the history of this lodge. David Jones has been here before. It was the original Smuggler Inn which was constructed by Hans Cantrup pr ior to the adoption of zoning and it was rezoned in 1974. The largest nonconforming structure and the nonconforming use in the district when the new relations were adopted in 1974. Dave acquired the property. He and his partners approached the City with a desire to rebuild it. They were told that total reconstruction of the project would exceed the requirements of the nonconforming section of the code at the time and it looked like the project was going to be denied. However a decision was made that it could be "repaired". Although for all practical purposes, it was completely demolished and reconstructed. Approval was granted by the Board of Adjust- ment to grant a variance from the monetary limitation under the 2 nonconforming section of code. The property was reconstructed. The problem was it had to be reconstructed essentially in the exact footprint of the previous building which was nonconforming. So the brand new Aspen Ski Lodge, although it did get an approval from the Board of Adjustment became both nonconforming structure and a nonconforming use as well. Subsequent to that after the reconstruction took place the City reassessed its position toward nonconforming lodges and the Planning Office adopted the L-3 legislation and this property as well as most of the other lodges which were scattered outside of the Lodge District were rezoned. This permitted the old facilities to be torn down and recon- structed and in some cases slightly expanded. Had that legislat- ion been in place at the time this lodge was reconstructed he would have been required to conform to the setbacks and the requirements and so forth that were in place as of 1974. In fact this particular reconstruction served as sort of a roll model to the City on what could be done toward preserving our lodge inventory. The hardship that we noted in our memorandum to you is that he was pursuing public policy. He reconstructed his lodge pursuant to the regulations that were in place at that time which required him to build within the setback. The legislation subsequently changed and other properties were not burdened by similar constraints. As a result he has certain practical difficulties which he cannot reasonably resolve in any other manner unless he is granted this variance. He would like to relocate the entrance at the corner which would enable people to load and unload off of Garmisch Street which would remove the necessity for the vann and the limo service along here which would resolve the police department's problem regarding the school crossing. We would have better landscaping and sidewalk here for the people to use. And the enclosure itself would help to eliminate what is an increasing problem--the noise itself. It is the minimum variance that could be granted in order to resolve this problem and we believe that given the circumstances surrounding the history of the lodge that it is a necessary for the enjoyment of the property right as evidenced by the expenditure that has been made to upgrade this facility in the past. Remo: I understand that the footprint was to remain the same. Cindy Houben: I am here from the Planning Office and Alan Richman. He is in support of these changes because of the history and because the applicants, at the time, were forced to work within the footprint of the building and now that, the L-3 zone district is in place they feel like this lodge is actually put into a position where it has to work around the regulations that have happened since the time that it was built. ,C Remo: I understand that the footprint was to remain the same and 3 I assume that the same amount of units would be allowed and with no increases. Sunny: That is correct. Remo: Did you have any leeway? Could you put the units wherever you wanted within the framework of the footprint? Sunny: I did not bring the construction drawings but the site plan shows the old footprint of the building and the new footprint. Remo: I understand the footprint. I am talking about inside the footprint. Sunny: Moving the units around? Remo: Yea. Sunny: I don't think there was a condition placed on it. I think it was a practical problem of that is the only way you could get that number of units in that footprint. Remo: I think I am for this variance but I have a lot of problems with your presentation. And I feel that it is a little flawed and I think if you use your--I mean here is a thing that was demolished in 1979. The footprint remains the same. The footprint isn't changing now if we grant you the variance. So all of these problems that you have that were in place before you demolished the existing building could have been solved at the same time. Now you are telling me a required access to the lodge from Main Street--unquestionably the most heavily travelled street in the City. That should have been a consideration in 1979. The applicant's ability to maintain a dry entryway is severely hampered. Those could have been addressed in 1979. The entry opening is quite narrow. These things--if they were narrow--they should have been addressed at the time. We are not changing the footprint now. We are changing things internally that could have been addressed. Noise is a particularly troublesome problem. That could have been addressed. Lack of air conditioning. Why didn't you put one in? All of these things since it was totally demolished and reconstruction was limited to the footpr into It seems to me that it is relevant to the problems of improvements that could have been made to alleviate the deficiencies at that time. c Sunny: There are several--with respect to the problems of Main Street and the traffic and so forth--I think Dave will be the first to tell you that that problem is substantially greater today than it was in 1979. In terms of the street grade being 4 higher, in terms of the traffic problems associated with the opera tion of the lodge. But with respect to some of your other points, I would have to agree. Remo: And even beyond that--it says reconstruction of the Smuggler served as a roll model. If it was a roll model, I am sure you are talking in terms other than the deficiencies that we are talking about here. Sunny: In terms of the concept of allowing nonconforming lodges. Remo: I don't understand the reasoning that says "Had the regulations been in place in 1979 the applicant's problems would not exist". Sunny: That's correct. Anne: They wouldn't have had to build within the footprint. Remo: But that is not the problem. You are still not expanding from that footprint. That is not the problem. The problem is you are still within the framework of the footprint. And you are trying to alleviate problems that could have been allev'iated at the time that you had the same footprint in 1979. Sunny: Since I didn't process the approval for the recon- struction, I can't tell you whether they could have been allev- iated at that time or not. Obviously air conditioning could have been a choice they could have made at that time. But as far as whether or not they could have moved the entrance in 1979 or whether or not that was desireable, I really don't know. Remo: Well, it says "These difficulties include the inability to provide convenient and safe access to the lodge and the inability to realistically address the ever worsening problem of traffic- generated noise". Again, you didn't have to put it on Main Street. Main Street obviously even in 1979 was a major thoroughfare and if you wanted to project what was going to happen to Main Street, it wasn't going to decrease in traffic. Sunny: I guess all I can say, not having been there, was that the decision was an attempt to reconstruct the facility. It had the original footprint, units and so forth and the kinds of problems which have come up since then were not anticipated at that time. And it was an uphill battle-- (~ Remo: OK, but your argument is not in that sense. Sunny: It was an uphill battle to obtain the ability at that 5 time simply to reconstruct it. It was not only a nonconforming structure but a nonconforming use. Remo: But that is not your argument in this. That is not what you said in this. What you said is that the inability of the applicant to address the Aspen Lodge problem of safety and noise because of the status as a nonconforming structure would deprive the applicant of enjoying--I am suggesting to you that you are alleviating those problems with the same status, the same footprint and everything else that goes with it. You are not changing anything of the status of what it was or what you are encumbered with. You are just--it is the practical difficulties that exist are really because of the applicant not addressing these problems at the time of total reconstruction. Is that a fair statement? Sunny: As I said I wasn't there. Dave: That may be a fai,r statement in one sense but grossly unfair in another sense to just brush off the zoning questions that existed when I tore down the Smuggler and had to rebuild in 4 and 1/2 months the new structure on the same footprint to the point where--and I don't know if it is important here but we have some very small rooms that Mr. Cantrup built--20S, 210, 212 sq ft. So this goes back to an early question of yours--we essen- tially rebuilt the same rooms, the same place with the same size and same footprint within the wall. But we did put in conforming 8 ft ceilings and that kind of thing. The entryway--now I have to go on recollection--it was pretty hectic at that time in 1979. The office was here. That was where it had to be. I was so controlled as to what I could do. Remo: The office will still remain there? Dave: The office still remains there but I have to tell you that the traffic load, if you remember since 1974 when I moved here-- Main Street was Main Street but it reallywasn' t all that bad. Main Street right now destroys the life style of anybody who works on Main Street, who lives on Main Street. It's awful. The traffic is the worst I have ever seen. And the noise is awful. This isn't the Aspen that we all want. And what we are trying to do is address that problem. Further when it rains or when it snows, the people that are working around here or my guests coming in and out get splattered and splashed and as we all know we have dust that comes up. So that is really not a good life style. That is not what we are all here for. And tha,t is not what we are coming to visit for. To me this is a serious problem. If someone lives 4 blocks away from Main Street, it is not a problem. c When we built this in 1979 we literally had such constrictions. They were just unbelievable, catch 22s, 3s and 4s. And all that 6 we are trying to do by enclosing this and being able to relocate the fence and relocate the entryway, to deal with that safety problem--see what the problem with guests and my workers and me not having to be splattered by Main Street traffic and assaulted by the noise pollution. . Sunny: I guess, Remo, had they anticipated this level of problem and given the fact that this setback existed in 1979, they could have requested in addition to the right to rebuild. You have to remember that the variance that was granted was not for encroach- ments or setbacks. It was a variance from a limitation on the dollar amount of money. They could have asked at that time to do this right here. This was not anticipated at that time. Remo: I will address that later. You are going to reconstruct the existing wood fence and you are also going to do something to the sidewalk and additional landscaping. You are not here for that. Can I ask you why you are reconstructing the fence? Is there a sound consideration? Is it a 6 ft fence? Dave: No it is not. It is a 4 and 1/2 feet. Remo: Which fence is this now? ( Dave: This is the Garmisch and-- Remo: I walked up to the Garmisch fence and it is above my head. And not only that it is on a grade coming up from the sidewalk to the bottom of the fence and then goes up 6 ft. Sunny: The reconstruction of t"he fence is dictated in part by HPC concerns. We want to move the entrance to the Garmisch side. Originally we were going to leave the fence and enclose this portion and have it come along here. HPC, in order to keep from having the straight wall, asked us to-- Remo: Jog the fence-- Sunny: CCLC and the Engineering Department now want to have a straight sidewalk. Remo: Are they getting rid of trees then? Sunny: No. They are relocating some trees, There are some diseased ones that they are replacing and there is a big dip in the sidewalk that goes down here as well. This is not safe. So we are putting in a new sidewalk--we had to raise the grade over here to eliminate this whole drainage and so forth so there is a new sidewalk type put in here. We are adding to the landscaping as well and do the fence at the same time. It is slightly higher which will help to some extent to reduce the noise. ,,~. -- 7 Remo: Well, whatever--I mean you are not here before us for a variance on fences so it was just more out of curiosity. The canopy which is in the setback is also on City property. It extends onto City property. Sunny: There is an encroachment license I believe which exists. There is a survey right here. There is a slight encroachment here and I bel ieve there is a reference on that that an encroachment license has been granted. Remo: That is all right. Rick Head: Is there going to be wheelchair access? Sunny: This is a City approved standard specification ramp that exists at this time. So yes, you can come in here and there is no change in grade. The entrance area is at grade here. Rick: I would like you to explain to me again how moving this entrance is going to substantially change the dropoff area for your guests coming into the airport. Dave: Parking currently exists on the side and the intention is to reserve the first 2 spaces for loading and unloading for the ski lodge. Right now the entrance, as Sunny has pointed out, this dash line here, this is all paved and there are some steps coming down into that area. That is the main entry and we want to change that so that there is no opening--that is the whole idea of this whole fence. There is no way to get in here. People are brought here. They are brought about 12 feet further away from the street than they are now. So this is almost a straight shot into the main entryway. This will be snowmelted all the way down through here. It will make ,a substantial difference because it is very unsafe at the moment because people are opening car doors out into Main Street. This area has a sign now that there is parking to the corner and it also has an area that is reserved for limousines for the lodge itself so that would be removed and appropriate City signs would be placed there. Anne: This whole walkway is open? Sunny: Yes to the glass doors. Wayne: This is the existing overhang here. So there is little opportunity to put your bags down and open the door under a cover. Sunny: The building was basically built exactly to the same size ." of the old building. It is slightly over FAR $0 there is no '- 8 additional square footage that can be used to cover the ramp itself although that would be desireable. Wayne: One circumstance that I could add. It has changed since 1979 is that the curb and gutter along that portion' of Main Street has settled unevenly. And there is no consistent flow line so you tend to get pockets of water standing all the time. This is along the Main Street section. I am working with the Engineering Department to try to rectify that situation but because of the changes in the grade on Main Street, it appears there is always going to be at least the opportunity for some standing water. We don't have that problem on Garmisch. Josephine: I think all my questions have been answered. Wayne: about 5 of your There is a net gain of quite a few shrubs and boulders-- large Aspen Trees as a result of this. That is not part consideration but I did want to bring it up. Josephine: I Main Street. door for me to to do it and etc. unloading am really glad to see you get that entrance off I sometimes dr ive an old car that has this huge open out and get out on Main Street. I don't like I really think it is important to get those vans and cars unloading onto Garmisch Street. ( Charlie: Is this a new glass door set out from the office area? wayne: Yes. Charlie: Under the canopy. Wayne: Yes. Charlie: And what is the reason for that? wayne: To create an airlock situation. Charlie: But it is open to-- Wayne: It is a separate enclosure. It has to be closed from the pool because of state regulations. Remo: But it is not now. Wayne: There is a fence that goes across there that separates it. ,.-- l'- Sunny: This entry creates a formal entryway. It creates a partially enclosed are underneath this canopy. I believe in subsequent improvements they made them go back to the Building Department to further enclose this area. That is basically all they can do because of additional FAR. And since that area is 9 ,_, enclosed he may be able to do it if he is able to get a building permit. That is a separate issue. Wayne: There is a gate that runs from the edge of the staircase back to here. It separates that area from the pool. Charlie: Is there anything that separates the footpath from the pool area? Wayne: There will be also a physical separation from the pool area because of state regulations. Charlie: So that people can't fall in. Sunny: There are other improvements which he is undertaking on the property. There are improvements around the pool itself which he wants to do in the future. Charlie: They don't concern us at this time. Dave: They may not concern you but one of the things we have addressed because we are on Main Street, we have a lot of indigents, and I don't mean young workers but we have some real street people and they cruise up and down here and they just feel free to walk right in and this will not let them feel very free to walk in so our guests and our work staff are going to have a greater measure of security by virtue of relocating to here. Unfortunately that is becoming a concern that most of us don't want to see but it is real. Charlie: There will be no physical gate at that entrance. That will be just an open area. Remo: I would like to know what happens to the steps that now lead down to-':' Dave: They are to be taken out. because frankly our summer guests person and some of them have a hard I am glad to get them out tends to be a more mature time navigating those steps. Remo: One of the problems you alluded to is--although I know it is a problem but it is not unique to your particular situation is the snow pileup. If you want to go down Main Street, it happens to every other lodge on Main Street. So this is not a unique problem to your particular site. The only defense is that the school crossing might have some bearing as far as safety and welfare. Dave: It is a little bit more acute here because we are on the wrong side of the street. .- '- 10 ,J Remo: Well but there are lodges on your side of the street also. But you are also in the setback. Dave: Because of circumstances beyond my control. I would not have built that building right there. That is right but" they are not built on the setback so this never sees the sunshine. Remo: It is incumbent upon us to give you the minimum variance allowed. That is what we have to do. I am not an architect and I don't know, but in order for you to alleviate the problems that you are talking about, one is noise and one is--I would relocate that wall in a different area which serves the same purpose. I just did it now and it is putting that wall back 10 feet which you don't even have to come to us actually. And lined up with the staircase and going across before you get into the entryway. Dave: That doesn't serve as an incentive for people pulling up an parking here to unload. Remo: Sure--you can still put a fence there. Anne: But then how are you going to get in? Remo: You get in the same way you are getting in. I am just saying you have other alternatives. And I don't know whether you have explored them or not but again because we do have to give a minimum variance and I can see that possibly this might work. If you can do what you successfully want to achieve by granting you a lesser variance than you want and achieve the same purpose. Sunny: What you define by putting a wall here is a more minimum variance than putting it here? Remo: Actually, putting it where I told you doesn't require a variance. It meets code. You are 10 feet back. You would get a 1 foot var iance. I haven't measured it but where I drew the I ine-- Sunny: We are also asking you to consider the decision which - Bill Drueding has made and that is by placing the wall there it is increasing the degree of nonconformity. I have a real problem understanding if the canopy is already encroaching-- Remo: I know, we have already gone through this. Sunny: How are we increasing our degree of nonconformity? Wayne: There is also a structural problem with the canopy which we have not mentioned to date. Because again that is not __ something "that we typically deal with but the canopy itself was ""- not designed properly and it currently sags about 4 to 5 inches at this end. It's self supporting theoretically but because of 11 the way it was built, you can actually see it ark from the point where it is attached to the building here. Here there is an ark so in order for us to solve the problem we need to have--there are three 4 inch columns in here to have strengthened the roof and if we get back into here we can't do that. There is no way we can getat it to solve the problem. So that is the other reason for putting the wall out into this location is to solve that physical problem with the canopy. Sunny: The other aspect is too--this fence needs to be here. Once we got to this point you are saying we can just put a fence across it. Remo: Right. Sunny: Well to be a fence the Building Department would probably say you can't go all the way up to the top. Remo: No. 6 feet. Sunny: with 6 feet we would have this crack-- Remo: Right Sunny: that we would get in the canopy-- Remo: Right. That is allowed. Sunny: Which is allowed under the regulations. I am not sure we could get HPC approval. Remo: Well, we don't know that yet. Dave: I can guarantee it. We are very concerned about this. Charlie: But you are saying the parking would still be here? Remo: Yea. They are using this now to get to the same point here. The only difference is that this area here is enclosed. This is all open. So why wouldn't this be open? That is all I am saying. The only thing I find really-- Dave: The only thing certain here is 1 am going to get sued. Not the Board, not the City, 1 am going to get sued if there is a problem. That is a safety ingress/egress. You wouldn't design like this. Remo: No. Dave: It just is not logical. You have a down stairwell right ,- here-- '"- 12 Remo: You are getting rid of it you said. Dave: No, the stairwell has to stay. Remo: I don't know if we are looking at the same thing. The steps going down-- Sunny: The stairwell itself here, the staircase exits right-- here is the upstairs-- Remo: I know, I saw-- Sunny: So what it does it dumps everybody right in front of the stair itself. You have got doors here. Remo: We are talking about noise as one of the factors that we were talking about before, right? Sunny: Yes. Dave: Your solution takes care of noise but then creates a problem far greater for me in that it creates a safety hazard. If I am in a fire and I have got to run out through this little maze, I am very uncomfortable with that door there as opposed to the door here-- Remo: Well you would have a little extra space but still have the same problem. Sunny: The other aspect too, Remo, is that I think that the long range plans are since this canopy comes back here--in other words this is all underneath--you can't do anything FAR wise because of this nonconformity problem but he can't enclose this. I think it is his intention at some point to come back as he makes further improvements to enclose this area to create a more functional lobby. And to create a way to get into this building to take this door which is sitting right in front of the stairwell-- Remo: Well, that allows an even greater area-- Sunny: And moving it here. So if you put a wall there then you have no ability to use this space. It is a covered space. Remo: Well you can come this way as a covered space which you-- Sunny: You can only come back through here--this area right here which is right in front of the stairwell. What he needs to be able to use is this area here. Right here is his checkin desk at the moment. And he can enclose the space-- ...........'" i '-" Remo: OK, I understand. I am going to have to defer to the Board and have them decide how they feel about this. 13 Charlie: This is all one level now, is that correct? Sunny: Yes, the canopy itself is one level. Charlie: Under the canopy is all one level and there are no more steps here at all. Sunny: pool. It is the pool level. It just goes right out by the Charlie: And this is the staircase going-- Sunny: Up to the second floor. Charlie: This one going here. Sunny: Yes. Remo: what I understand about the canopy the way it was designed where the snowmelt will come right down on the steps. It is just incredible. I couldn't believe that myself. Dave: And what we are trying to do is correct a couple of areas ~- that didn't get considered in the short time of processing this whole thing and building it back in 1979. And I would urge you to consider approving the glass door. Sunny: By allowing this wall to go to the ceiling, effectively you seal off this area now which is completely exposed to the elements. Remo: I understand. So you are asking not only for the wall on the outside but you are also asking for the doors, right? Sunny: If you concur with Bill's-- Remo: We are not viewing that decision. Sunny: Well, we did ask you, in the event that you concur. You said that you concurred in the past. Then we are requesting a variance based on the hardship. Remo: Here is what we looked at, Sunny~ Property is located in the L-3 zone category. Front yard setback is 10 feet. Canopy encroaches 10 feet into front yard setback. Sec 24-13.3 (a) prohibits the enlarging of a nonconforming structure. Sunny: This is a summary of my-- ^,.- Remo: OK. That's what our variance consideration is. know as far as our reading this that's what-- We didn't ~- 14 Sunny: It says "See attached application." Remo: We don I t even have a lawyer or the Building Ipspector here. Sunny: My instructions were, given the complexity of it, in this space, I said, "See attached application". I wrote the application. I appealed his order. He said ,that-- Remo: So we have to make 2 decisions here. Is that what you are telling me? Sunny: You could make 2 decisions. Remo: Well, we have to if that is' your appeal. But that's not what we are-- Sunny: He said that since the issue had come up before that I ought to state a case for the variance itself. That is what I did. Remo: So then you are not appealing his decision. ( Sunny: We request that-- Remo: I know. It is a misunderstanding. Sunny: We requested that you review his decision. And then I said "In the event that the decision stands, the rational for the variance is as follows:" That is what ,is outlined on the application. So, yes, you could take a two-step action if you wanted to. Wayne: One final comment which is a takeoff on something that David said and that is that the Fire Marshal, Wayne Vandemark had requested an 8 foot clearance--we were pinched down because of a concern of the HPC. This angle specifically creates a problem where this is about 6 feet here. The more secure we make this and the more conflicts with people coming out of the steps, people coming out of the door, milling around, if you will, in an emergency situation, the less comfortable he is going to be. He did agree that this was acceptable. He wanted more of a clearance here because the HPe concerns. We tried to balance that. This becomes more of a problem with a gurney with traffic and that sort of thing. Remo: We haven't taken any of those things out. relocated the door and put--the effort is to tell relocate the door and you put up-- We have just you that we -.' Rick: Who is "we?" 15 Remo: Well, me. I have. Wayne: What it has done of course as Sunny has pointed out is to eliminate this area and it forces everyone to make movements in a very constricted area. Remo closed the public portion of the meeting. Anne. I would be in favor of granting the variance as it is requested. I think the severity of the problem could not be foreseen. I agree that the traffic on Main Street was not as heavy back then. I don't like the idea of people unloading on Main Street and with the snow in the winter--I know from observing cars that are parked along the street for more than 2 days during a snow storm that you can't even get into the car to drive it because the mud is so thick on the windshield. So I would like to see this off of Main Street and I think that the professionals can come up with the best solution and I hate to try and re-design a wall to try and get the minimum variance in this situation. Remo: Well, we are not asking them to change their site location. It would still be on-- """"," '~:;l;::'i'i, it!i:j:!G1 Anne: But you are talking about moving a wall. Remo: Moving what wall? Anne: This wall here. Remo: No. Just putting up a fence. They are allowed to put a fence there which would keep people from coming in on Main Street. They are allowed to construct a 6 foot fence. Now whether they got HPe approval or not is another thing. Anne: But I think you are creating a wind tunnel by hav ing a fence and all this-- Remo: But then we have an enclosure--or I have indicated that-- Anne: The enclosure here. restricting this area in restriction. Yea, but I think then you are really here and I don't like that kind of Remo: Well, the restriction is only Anne: For the flow-- ~. ) __.'/"'" - Remo: The thing about the restriction has only been put on us because of the canopy. That is all. Because the canopy exists. If the canopy didn I t exist, they would have a free flowing ramp 16 .,~..) like they had before you reach the canopy. It's OK. ,I am just pointing those things out. Charlie: I think the issue here is undoubtedly the safety and welfare of the public and I have never been in favor of re- designing a designer's application and I think when I look at this I feel it is the answer to their problem in the manner which least affects us in any way. And if you are looking for a minimum variance I think this is a minimum variance. By moving a wall around and creating other problems that we haven't studied and we haven't been able to foresee such as that staircase and people coming and going from another floor for instance, I wouldn't be in favor of saying a minimum variance would best serve by moving a wall to another location. I would be in favor of granting the variance as it has been requested by the applicant. Rick: I agree with CharI ie in pr inciple. In my years on the Board I am starting to notice that we are in the business of re- designing lousy architecture. And here is another example of that. But I am in favor of granting this variance and I am basing my opinions on a couple of things not the least of which is all the problems inherent with the rezoning. I think the HPC approval and the Planning Office recommendation for approval weighs heavily. The fact that they are not increasing FAR I think weighs heavily as well. I share Charlie's feeling that it is a minimum variance. I'don't like the idea--I am sorry but--I think quite often Bill in the Building Office really takes a narrow interpretation. I take the safety factors into consideration. I go with this variance. Josephine: I think the hardship in this case is that they did their reconstructing before the L-3 zoning. So they had a number of limitations to work around. I do not see the granting of this--the constructing of this partial enclosure as an increase of a nonconformity. Remo: So you are saying we are breaking this down into two--we are going to consider that? Josephine: Well, I would think that we could each just state our opinion on that so I am just stating my opinion. Remo: Would you be in favor then of looking into that. My problem with that is that we are getting into a precedence setting situation here with the Building Inspector and the Building Department in a sense that if we say that this is not infringing on FAR or not enlarging the nonconformity--that is the issue, right? ..-, C\.- Rick: I don I t think we are overruling his interpretation. 17 . ,,/If>''''' '~ Remo: I am asking Joe if that is what she means. Josephine: Are you saying that you think that is increasing the nonconformity? Remo: No. I am just asking what you are telling me. I thought you said that this is not increasing it. Josephine: In my way of looking at it, this is not increasing the nonconformity. It is there. I don't see this as an increase of it. I am not terribly concerned about that nonconformity. I figure it is sort of a fluke that it is there and so I would just like to get rid of this. Remo: I guess what I am saying is if we determine that by putting that--we are not enlarging a nonconforming structure. We have made a determination that the Building Inspector was wrong in his interpretation. Josephine: So you would like us to ignore it. Remo: not. No. I want to know whether we want to discuss that or .......~". Rick: I think we should strike all the language referring to expansion of the nonconforming-- Remo: And grant the variance. Charlie: This was just something that was mentioned and we don't have to act on it. Josephine: Let's just leave it out. The hardship I addressed. I would want to grant this variance because I feel that it is a real asset to the health, welfare comfort of Aspen residents and visitors. I just think it is a good safety measure for a number of reasons. Remo: It was not 'my intention to design this project. But I t'hought it was incumbent upon me and us as a Board to insure that minimum variance ,was granted and that is why I offered it to the Board. I would be in favor of granting this variance just on my gut feeling but not at the expense of diminishing the integrity of the Board. So I probably will be the token no vote in this because that is the way I feel. MOTION ,"'-' Rick Head: I move that we approve Case 187-12 for the enclosure of the northern wall and the addition of the new glass doors. "- ''-'" CharI ie Paterson seconded the motion. 18 j'W''',,,.... ~~ 41"- t-. r t~ Roll call vote: Anne Austin, aye, Rick Read, aye, Josephine Mann, aye, Charlie Paterson, aye, Remo Lavagnino, no. Variance granted. Charlie made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Josephine seconded the 5:45 pm. motion with all in favor. , l~~1ttilL m ' ~. c.'n;Y~7"'pu,y 19 The time wa s k EXHIBIT I "K" 1 page '-' 26.104.090 Reserved. 26.104.100 Definitions. As used in this code, unless the context otherwise requires, the following terms shall be defined as follows: Academic Uses: The use ofland or buildings for educational activities with attendant research, housing, administration, and public venues, Academic Uses may include public or private school, uni- versity, teaching hospital, research facility, testing laboratory, library, auditorium, administrative of- fices, faculty housing, student housing, or similar uses, Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). A deed restricted dwelling unit attached to or detached from a principal residence situated on the same lot or parcel, and which meets the occupancy, dimensional and other requirements set forth in Section 26.520 of this Title, and requirements set forth in the As- pen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines, Accessory structure or building, A building or other structure that is supportive, secondary and subordinate in use and/or size to the principal building or structure on the same parcel or lot (See, Chapter 26,575,140, Supplementary Regulations -- Accessory uses and accessory structures), - --- Accessory use, A use that is supportive, secondary and subordinate to the principal use of a lot, parcel, building or structure, (See, Chapter 26,575,140, Supplementary Regulations -- Accessory uses and accessory structures), Accessway, An area intended to provide ingress or egress to vehicular or pedestrian traffic from a public or private right-of-way or easement to an off-street parking, loading or similar area, Affordable housing, A dwelling unit or units subject to the size, type, rental, sale and occupancy restrictions and guidelines for affordable housing adopted by the City as part of the Affordable Housing Guidelines, (See, Chapter 26,520, Supplementary Regulations -- Affordable Housing), Affordable Housing Guidelines, Guidelines recommended by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and adopted by the City Council to govern the development of, admission to, and occupancy of deed restricted affordable housing units in the City of Aspen and Pitkin County, Agricultural Uses: The use of land and buildings for the production of crops, animals, animal products, and the keeping oflivestock including riding stables, arenas, orchards, nurseries, flower pro- duction, dairy operations, fisheries, animal husbandry services, or similar uses. Agricultural uses shall not receive the general public or support a membership or academic club" Alley, A public or private way for vehicular traffic having less width than a street and used as a secondary access to abutting property, normally at the rear, - "'- 11