Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutlanduse case.boa.lot3hoagsubd.002-97 .1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CASE #97-2 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 BASEMENT MEETING ROOM, 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 26, Official Code of Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you caonot 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 Meeting: Date: February 13, 1997 City Council Meeting Room Time: 4:00 P.M. Owner for Variance: Applicant for Variance: Name: Highlands Investments Ltd. c/o Valerio/Johnson Gibson - Reno Architects, L.L.C. Address: c/o Gibson Reno, 210 East Hyman, Aspen, CO 81611 Location or description of property: Hoag Subdivision, Lot 3, Aspen, CO 81611 Variances Requested: Applicant is requesting a Variance that will change the 100' Front Yard Set Back to a 30' Front Yard Set Back. Will applicant be represented by Counsel: YES: X NO: The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Charles Paterson, Chairman AGENDA ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT COMMISSION Special Meeting Thursday, January 22, 1998 at 4:00 p.m. Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall I. ROLL CALL II. MINUTES III. COMMENTS A. Commissioners Comments B. Staff Comments C. Public Comments (not concerning items on the Agenda) IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case #98-01 Durant Condominium Association 718 - 748 South Galena Street, Aspen, CO Variance from the required height, setback and floor area requirements to construct 5 exterior elevators. B. Case #97-2 Hoag Subdivision Lot 3,1125 Ute Avenue, Aspen, CO - Valerio Variance extension request for variance granted 2/13/97 VI. ADJOURN 1_.. BROOKE A. PETERSON GIDEON I. KAUFMAN* LAW OFFICES OF KAUFMAN & PETERSON, P.c. 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE (970) 925-8166 FACSIMILE (970) 925-1090 HAL S. DISHLER "* OF COUNSEL: ERIN L. FERNANDEZ- . ALSO ADMITTED IN MARYlAND - ALSO ADMnTED IN TEXAS - ALSO ADMITTED IN FLORIDA VIA HAND DELIVERY December 16, 1997 City of Aspen Board of Adjustment c/o Sara Thomas, Zoning Officer AspenlPitkin Community Development Dept City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Lot 3. Hoal! Subdivision Dear Sirs: Please allow this letter to serve as an application on behalf of my client, Highlands Investment, Ltd., for an extension of the seventy-foot (70') front yard setback variance granted on February 13, 1997. Copies of Sara Thomas' Memorandum of February 4, 1997 and our Development Application are attached hereto for your reference. Highlands Investment, Ltd. respectfully requests that the variance approval be extended for one (1) year pursuant to the powers of the Board of Adjustment set forth in the City of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.108.070(3). As you know, this is a very steep site and since the variance has been granted, my client has been engaged in discussions and studies regarding the best manner in which to engineer the driveway to the site. The plan for the driveway to Lot 3 still needs the approval of the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to its 8040 Greenline review authority. My client is extremely concerned with the sensitive nature of the site, and these hardships which it has encountered include the time and expense involved in making sure that all aspects of construction on the site are done in the most environmentally sensitive manner which is economically feasible. Furthermore, all of the circumstances set forth in Section 26.108.040(1) and (2) in the original application are still applicable to this request. The location of the home with a thirty-foot (30') front yard setback will still locate the residence away from the avalanche path on the property, and this City of Aspen Board of Adjustment December 16, 1997 Page 2 location is still the least hazardous area on the parcel as determined by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The proposed location with the variance continues to be in conformance with the 8040 Greenline standards since it will allow the residence to be constructed with a minimum of grading and disturbance to the site. Therefore, the standards set forth in Section 26.108.040(1) have been met. As was stated in Ms. Thomas' Memorandum, this variance is the minimum required to permit development on the parcel in the least hazardous location. Our request, therefore, is still consistent with Section 26.108.040(2). Lastly, the unique nature of this site and the strict application of the zoning code would cause my client practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship. There are most definitely special circum- stances associated with Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision, and the extension of this variance will not confer upon my client any special privilege denied to other parcels in the same zone district. Pursuant to your authority, we respectfully request that the variance granted on February 13, 1997 be extended for one (1) more year, until February 13, 1998. Should you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. Yours very truly, BAP/ljk Enclosure cc: James Valerio (via facsimile) Mark Johoson (via facsimile) August Reno (via facsimile) Thomas Todd, Esq. (via facsimile) letters\asp-board of adjustment lJl.ttP 'iu C~0 . '--./' .1. 26.108.070 26.108.070 Expiration. A. Expiration. Unless vested as part of a development plan pursuant 10 Section 26.52.080. and except as otherwise established by the board of adjustment, a Yariance granted under this chapter shall automatically expire after twelve (12) months from the date of approval unless development has been commenced as illustrated by the issuance of a building pennit. B. Extension The ooard of adjustment may grant a one time extension of a development order inCOtpOl1lling a variance for up to twelve (12) months. All requests for an extension must be submitted thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the existing development order. must demonstrate good cause showing that an extension is necessary. and must demonstrate that the circumstances as set ,fOrth in Seetion26.108.040 ~r (2) are still applicable. (Ord. No. 69-1990. g 5: Code 1971. g 10-107) (S €.1Z Biliw.) _ ]6:108:040 Standards applicable to variances. A. In orderro authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26. the board of adjustment shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: I. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes. goals. objectives. and policies of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and this title: 2.' The grant of Yariance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parceL building or struClUre: and 705 I ..._~ BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 13. 1997 Charlie Paterson opened the regular meeting at 4:09 p.m. Rick Head, Jim Iglehart, Ron Erickson, and Howard DeLuca were present. David Schott was excused and Dan Martineau absent. City Staff present were David Hoefer and Sara Thomas. PUBLIC HEARING: CASE #97-2 HOAG SUBDIVISION LOT 3, 1125 UTE A VENUE VALERIO PROPERTY Charlie Paterson asked for the notice of posting. David Hoefer stated for the record the notice was sufficient. Roy Parsons, Architect, provided the notice. Brooke Peterson, Attorney for Applicant, explained this was the second time that this applicant was before the Board. He said the last variance expired due to the lack of construction activity by the previous owner. He noted the 8040 Greeline was approved by P&Z in December of 1996. Parsons stated the site was very steep and accessed by a shared driveway from the side with an elevation that hits the middle of the building. He said the site is large but covered by an avalanche path with concerns for the location of the property and driveway access. There is a 100' setback required which would place the building 40' up the slope and extend the driveway up hill with switch backs. He noted this was not a viable alternative, especially because the 8040 Greeline would not allow. Parsons said with the 100' setback for the avalanche path, the building would be too small and the site difficult to build on. He commented that because of the lot size and location, it was given conservation zoning. He said this was the most site specific location. Peterson explained Sara Thomas' Memo reflects the requirements for granting the variance very adequately. No public comments. Ron Erickson asked the total square footage. Parsons replied that it was toned down to about 5,500 sf. Rick Head stated that amount of square footage is less than what was actually allowed in the conservation zone. Erickson stated that would be true if were a typical lot, but it is not. He said that a 2,000 sf house would probably be able to be placed on this lot without the 70' variance. Head said they would need a variance whether a 2,000 sf or 10,000 sfhouse was placed on this lot. Parsons explained that even a 500 sf cabin would have the same problem with the variance because of the elevations. Erickson asked where would 1 _____-J...__~ BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 13. 1997 the building have to be moved back to for a 60' variance. He said that it appears the way the house is designed there are 10' - 20' of variance not needed. Erickson stated the Board was required to allow a minimum variance. Parsons answered that much time was spent on the 8040 Greenline and the garage location (the front facade). He said there would be more grading required by moving the house farther up the hill and farther away from the driveway access. These mature trees may be disturbed moving the house up the hill. Erickson asked for a copy of the 8040 Greenline. He said that he reviewed the last time this site came through and he could not see any difference in the building envelope. Head asked if there was a re-vegetation plan in the 8040 Greenline for the switch backs behind the house. Peterson said they were required to have retaining walls and avalanche impact lodes as recommended by Art Mears in his avalanche analysis dated 1/97 (and was made part of the 8040 Greenline review). He noted the unused driveway easement through the lot shall be vacated and the upper portion re-vegetated with the lower retained solely as a trail easement. Head favored the 70' setback and was scrutinized about 3 or 4 years ago. He saw no reason to amend the request and felt it was very clean variance. DeLuca favored the house lower on the hill, to keep it where it was located. Erickson stated the variance request could be reduced with design changes. Iglehart was in favor of it. Paterson said this was looked at before and had concerns about . moving it up 10' which could cause more problems and this was the best solution. Erickson was surprised there were no neighbors present. Head stated there were two more houses being constructed adjacent to this one. These houses and lots were in the county but shared the same driveway. MOTION: Rick Head moved to approve the variance request for a seventy foot (70') front yard setback variance at 1125 Ute Avenue, Hoag Subdivision Lot#3, finding that the review standards have been met. Ron Erickson second. MOTION APPROVED 4-1. (Jim Iglehart, Howard DeLuca, Charlie Paterson and Rick Head for, Ron Erickson opposed.) CASE # 93-3, LEWIS RESIDENCE - 935 GillSON Charlie Paterson stated the applicant requested an 18' variance from the front yard set back requirement to construct a garage. 2 ,11 AVALANCHE HAZARD ANALYSIS, BARKER PROPER1Y, ASPEN, COLORADO PREPARED FOR MR. JACK I3ARKER Arthur 1. Hears, P. E.. Inc. Gunnison, Colorado January, 1987 J%?Ii .- j I. _ .....,U was requested by Mr. Jack Barker of Aspen and has the follo\1ing objectives: 1. site inspection of avalanche terrain; 2. analysis of avalanche characteristics and risk; 3. review of previous work; 4. recommendations. , The report is site specific, thus the results and recommendatiGn~ cannot be extended to other locations. AVALANCHE CON01TIONS Avalanches affecting the Barker property in Sec. 18. T. 10 S., R. 84 N., City of Aspen. originate on the northeast-facing slope of Bell Hountain. Avalanche starting zones are located immediately belovl promin- ent cliffs at approximately 8,800 feet elevation, as much as 1000 feet above the valley floor. The starting zones, or areas in which unstable snow accumulates, are small, steep, and generallY discontinuous. There- fore, avalanches will usually be small and unlikely to reach the 8arker property. However, major avalanches can occur in response to exceptional weather and/or snowpack conditions at any time during the Movember- April snow season. Major avalanches are known to have deposited debris on the old railroad grade in 1964, 1973, and 1974. The largest and most frequent avalanches occur in the approximately 50-yard wide open slope on the western edge of the property, which is also the site of the avalanches that are known to have reached the railroad grade. A ski trail and the proposed access driveway to the Barker property cross the lower portion of this path. - I _ - ....~, ,~~rsed aspen. This stand of trees, which is the proposed site of the new home, shows no sign of avalanche damage for the life of the forest (approximately 80 years). Site inspection showed some damage to aspen Iii thin the forest, but this was apparently caused by an unusually heavy early June snowstorm in 1984. This storm produced similar ~ideSpread damage throughout. central Colorado. The avalanche conditions at this site were discussed in a detailed report to Steve Crowley and Thomas O. f1cAuley which I~as authored in 1973 by l,~itney tl. Borland and Hans Frutiger. [n my opinion, the 8orland! Frutiger report was a thorough and accurate appraisal of the avalanche conditions at this site. The present study discusses in greater detail the nature of the risk involved in building within the potential avalanche area. PROPOSED DEVELOPI1ENT AND AVALANCHE HAZARD Discussions and a site inspection liith fIr. Jack Barker provided"- detailed information about the layout of the proposed development. The development layout and building envelope is shown on the attached map. The development is subject to avalanche hazard of 2 types: 1. hazard on the access driveway that crosses the open avalanche path discussed above; and 2. hazard to the house, which will be built approximately 50 feet east of the prominent avalanche path, within the timber wedge. Because hazards "1" and "2" differ significantly, they are discussed separately below. The access driveway is clearly within the boundaries of the main liestern avalanche path. Both upper and lower legs of the proposed _' .~, avalanches may have also reached the dri velvay a Ii gnment, but gone undetected. Although fi rm data on avalanche frequency is not available, an average frequency (at the drive- W~y) of 3-5 years seems reasonable, based on vegetation damage and the sporadic and discontinuous historical record. Overall risk is based on avalanche frequency and the proposed use of drivelvay. If we assume an exposure time (to the avalanche) of 1 minute per trip' and 10 trips per day on the driveway, total daily exposure is 10 minutes (out of 1,440 minutes per day), or 0.7% of the time. If the avalanche occurs once in every 3 years on the average, the joint proba- bility, P, that an avalanche will reach someone while he is traveling the driveway is computed P = (4) (10/1440) = 0.23% per year. .. This calculatiDn assumes random avalanche occurrence and random driveway use. In other words, the prevailing avalanche and/or weather conditions will have no influence on the use of the driveway. From the standpoint of risk assessment, this 0.23% annual probability should be compared with other risks that are co~only accepted. For exa~ple, daily travel during unstable avalanche conditions is common on Loveland, Berthoud, and Red ~Iountain passes, each of which is crossed by numerous avalanches every year. Some of these avalanches occur more often than once per Year. Depending on the route taken through Colorado, the avalanche hazard encountered on a trip to Aspen may exceed the risK.tn ascending the driveway. .~-"., .... UB uccupied continuously, especially during severe weather and avalanche conditions. Although the building envelope is approximately 50 feet inside the timber wedge (east of the avalanche path), it probably is exposed to avalanches of exceptional volume because these will spread laterally as they descend and enter the undisturbed forest. As a rough estimate, the building site could be reached by avalanches with return periods of 50-100 years (1-2% annual probability). A building located here and intended for winter occupancy must be designed for avalanche impact and deposition loads. Final design criteria should be developed in conjunction with building plans and should include: 1. Specification_of avalanche forces (resolved into mutually perpendicular directions); and 2. Oetermination of loading criteria (static or impact). None of these design parameters can be specified at present because details of building size, shape, and orientation strongly control the details of interaction with the structure. However, experience at many avalanche sites in North America and Europe indicates that construction of an "avalanche-proof" structure is feasible at this location. RECOMI1ENDA nONS The following recommendations consider the avalanche characteristics and relative hazard as discussed above. 1. Avoid placement of permanent structures within the prominent west avalanche path. 2. Allow residential construction within the timber wedge and inside the building envelope as specified by Mr. Jack Barker during our field inspection on December 16, 1986 (see attached map) . ~ .., _' .....0 Vt:: I." _.~,allcne risk is small when compared to the risk accepted at many mountain sites (e.g., Vail, Juneau, Ketchum, Alta). the potential hazard should be cprefully discussed with and understood by future developers or owners of the site. They may reduce the risk even further through learning about the nature and timing of'avalanches. '"""'" ( I ( / , . .f".Q3.)J. :$. 1_~ 2~pM C;~~.; ?-_.~t'lQ>ITJ(IN ca1 tEll TO 9-9255993 P.2.Bl - , , .. "r MEMORANDUM FROM: Board of Adjustment '. X' Stan Clauson, Comml.lnlty,Development Director Julie Ann Woods, Cemmu!'Iity Development Dep irectorCf1!' Sara Thomas, Zoning Offic;er ' . TO: THRU: RE: DATE: 1125 Ute Avenue. Hellg SUbdivision Lot #3 February 4.1997 ~=====S========____D~2".==..=..=====-==."."=-~==~~.~....-~-· SUMMARY: The applicant requests liI variance from the front yard setbac:k dimensional requirement for Lot #3 of the Hoag Subdivision. The 3.04 acre lot is located in the Conservation Zone District. which h&l8 a required front yard setback of one hundred feet. (1 00'). The applicant is proposing a front yard setback of thirty feet (30'), requiring a front yard setback variance of seventy feet (70'), in order to locate the proposed residence away from a significant avalanche path that exists on the property. The Board of Adjustment approved iI 70' foot front yard setback variance request for this lot en March 23, 1989. (See attached Exhibit ~A'1. The previous owner' was granted an 8040 Greenline app~al from the P&Z c;ommisslon in 1990. The 8040 approval was revoked In 1993 when the 'FI&Z c;ommission found that the previous owner had violated or failed to comply with the conditlans of approval. The previous Board of AdJlilstment variance approval automatically expired as of March 23, 1990, due tel the lack of the Issuance of II building permit The current owner was granted 8040 Gl'ftnllne approval on December 17,1996. Both P&Z and staff approved the location of the proposed residence. finding that the location was in ~he least hazardous 'area of the parcel. The P&Z was aware that the approval was based on the project receiving the front 'yard setback variance. Please refer to the attached drawings :and written information provided by the applicant for a complete presentation ohhe proposed variance. .FFEB 11 '97 12:29PM GIB & RENO'ITKIN COM DEU TO 9-9255993 P. 3' e2 ~. APPLICANT: Highlands Investment, Ltd. C/o James Valerio LOCATION: 1125 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado Hoag Subdivision, Lot #3 REVIEW STANDARDS AND STAFF EVALUA.TION: Pursuant to Section 26.108.040 of the Municipal Code. in order to authori~e II 'rclriance from the dimensionai requirements of Title 26. the board of adjustment shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist, . . 1. Standard: The grant of the variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and this title. ~..pons.: A condition of approval for development in an area located above the 8040 greenline is that the design and location of the proposed development are compatible with the terrain on the parcel and that any grading will minimize dlsturbanca to the terrain. The proposed location of the residence meets these standards. The required 100' front yard setback would force the applicant to extensively grade the driveway and disturb a greater amount of the natural terrain. 2. Standard: The grant of the variance Is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use or the parcel, builcling, or structure. Response: The constraints placed on the lot by the avalartche hazards and the slope limit a safe location for the .propOHd residence. The 70' front yard setback variance appears tD be the minimum required to permit development in the least hazardous . location posaible. 3. Standard: Literal interpretation and enforcement of the tenns and provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels. In the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In detennining whether an applicanh right would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a. There are special conditions and circumstances whioh are unique to the parcel. building or structure, which are not applicable to ether parcels. structures or buildings in the lame'zone diltrict and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or . fF_Ej3 JJ. ::X!. 1.?...: 3gJ'pM G~a .~LRJ:~Q'rTKIH CCI'1 DEU TO ~P.4.1i13 "- ". b. Granting the variance will not c:onfer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and the terms of this title to other parcels, buildings or structures. in the same zone distriCt. Response: The parcel is significantly impaGted by the steepness of the site and the large area of the lot that is covered by an Avalanche Path Zone. . These conditions are unique tg this parcel and granting II "arianGe will not confer special privileges to the applicant. ALTERNATIVES: The Board of Adjustment may consider any of the following alternatives: . ' Approve the variance as requested. . Approve the variance with conditions. . Table action to request further information be provided by the app'llcant or interested parties. . Deny the variance finding .that the review standards are not mel . RECOMMENDA TlON: Staff recommends approval of the front yard ..U-ck variance ,.quest In order to permit development on the parcel in an area IOGated outside of the identified avalanche path. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the ~u.stfor a seventy foot (10') hot ya.. 7"25 UtlI A...... H... SoIldMa'" Lot 13.. finding that Ute review sta . rds have been ~" . , ,'Airl tAc:.c.. '. TCT;L P. e3 . , ~ .' CITY OF .A.SPEN' BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPUCATION DATE Jan. 16, 1997' 19_ CASE iF APPUCANT Gibson-Reno Architects. L.L.C. PHONE 925-5968 MAILING ADDRESS 210 E. Hyman. suite 202 ASgen. CO 81611 O~ Hiqh1ands Investment. Ltd. PHONE 925-1860 MAILING ADDRESS c/o ,James Valerio .P.O. Box 1376 Asoen, CO, 81612 LOCATION OF PROPERTY .. 11?S TTt-p 11,,1" Hn"rT Sl1hClivi "inn T.nt In (St:reer. Block Number and Lot ~umcer) WILL YOU BE REPRESENTED BY COlJNCJL: YESl NO_ Below, describe cle:u-ly the proposed variance. including all dimensions JIld justific:uion for the variance. (Additional paper may be used if necessary.) Tne building pennit :l!lplic:ltion and any other information you feel is pertinent should accompany this application. and will be made part of this case. We are requesting a Variance that will chanae the 100'~rontyard s~tback to a 30' Front yard Setback. See attached letter for additional informat"ion. Applicant's Signamrc ~rB . '3IP REASONS FOR DENIAL OF BUILDING PElt.'VIIT, BASED ON THE ASPEN CITY CODE, CHAPTER 24. AN OPINION CONCERNING THIS VARIANCE WILL BE PRESEi'ITED TO THE BOARD BY THE ZONING DEPARTML"l"T STAFF. DATE PERMIT DE:'IIED OFFICIAL DATE OF APPUCATION HEARING DATE ;.~ "' V ALARIO-JOHNSON BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATON DAVID GIBSON AlA We are requesting a variance from the 100' Front yard Setback required by the "Conservation" Zone District. Site conditions, avalanche hazard and 8040 Green1ine approvals present the need for a 30' Front yard setback. AUGUST RENO AlA The Hardships/Justifications relevant to our request are as follows: 1) Site Conditions: This is a very steep site (30%-40% slope) that is heavily covered with tall, mature evergreens. The lot is located above Ute Avenue and the most appropriate access will be from a shared driveway at the North East corner ofthe property. Maintaining a 30' Front yard and a 30' Sideyard Setback allows driveway access with minimal grading and reduces the total area of disturbed site vegetation. The 100' Front yard Setback would require extensive grading for an accessible driveway and would disturb considerably more vegetation if the building envelope was placed higher up the slope. 2) Avalanche Hazard: Although the site is a large parcel (3.04 acres) a large portion of it is covered by an Avalanche Path Zone which should not be built in. (See attached Site Plan and Avalanche Hazard Analysis.) Honoring the 100' Setback will force the building envelope into the Avalanche Path, creating an unacceptable hazard. The 30' Setback allows the building envelope to be located safely away from the identified avalanche path. 3) On December 17, 1996 this project was granted approval for an 8040 Green1ine review and Conditional Use for an AD.U. The issues focused on concerned the bui1dings location on the site and minimizing the impact on the site. The determination is that the current design, which is based on a 30' Front yard Setback, is the best location for site compatability and a building envelope farther up the slope is not appropriate. The 8040 Review Committee was aware of our need to receive a variance for the Setback and their approval anticipated a successful application. SCOTT SMITH AlA GIBSON. RENO -ARCHITECTS, L.L,C,' III 210 E. HYMAN N" 202 ASPEN COLORADO 81611 970.9255968 FACSIMILE 9;0.9255993 P.O. BOX 278 117 N. WILLOW N'"2 TELLURIDE COLORADO 81435 970.728.6607 FACSIMILE 970.728.6658 ~ Valario/Johoson Page 2 4) This project has undertaken a lengthly approval process. In 1990 an 8040 Green1ine approval was granted to a previous owner. At that time a variance was granted that allowed for the 30' Front yard Setback. In 1993 the 8040 approval was revoked and subsequently the Setback Variance has lapsed. We believe the same conditions and justifications that resulted in grating the Variance then exists now. Our request for a variance allowing for a 30' Front yard Setback, we feel is the most desirable, and appropriate way to address the issues of site compatability, avalanche safety and design sensitivity. valjohn.doc ~ ~9~8 00\1lJ010:> 'N3dS\1 . lOl31S '3nN3^\1 N\1~^H lS\13 O~l '::)'T' Sl031IHOH\1' ON3H 'l/ NOSE'I~ OCJV!,IO'O::) 'N3dSV'C# .LO, NOISI^ICJ8r1S ~VOH NOISSllI\ISnS NOSNHOr- /OI~3'''^ :1:>3rOlld l-V L096 ON J ::nrOlW Of'l ONlM~ltO :AIlNN..O :llVO .t,.;, !: ... .."... i'. , . " !'::. 0.: / / / / / / ,/ '7-- '.:;' . g J i ~ . .-1 ~, . g -.'"> \ ' ~ '-"'-"'-... ~ ~ - ", ~. z ; ~ If 9 1-,;; I :H I . I I I I I I I I .-...... I '1.. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I " I ~ i I . . ~ ~ ~t III ~ v', , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , '" ", '" " " ',,- , , , ... ..~ .. '( '", ~ 2~ <(:l! oJ. D. ; W l- ii i b I " 8 ,... -> ~ i , II q ~ ~ c m - (l. Q) 9 ..., .- ~ (IJ .. ~" L096 ., 1>/ 1. zl :UVG rJ"IY:MI 11919 OOVl:l010::J 'N3dSV . WZ 31S '3nN3^V NV....AH 1SV3 OlZ .::>" Sl:J31IH:JI:J\f' ON31:J 'll NOS81~ OCVlofO'O::> 'N3dSV'C# ..1..0' NOISI^IC8flS D'lfOH NOISSIWanS NOSNHOr /OIl:t3'''^ :!:J3rOlJd "ON ullIro..... "Oft Ot<Ml.VWO :A8 NN.O \ a\ g rJJ )' .I ~ ~ " I / . ",/. ;' / ?tl I~ /1 ~ / " 'I / ,1 ~ f '" / / , ill I / I, >- I I ~I 'l' I ~I ,"': -- I - / ~ I~ I / : I / / I I / i I I I / / I I I I ( / ~ / I I / - I I I / / ~ ."\.. I I / / '.J.. I / I i.{ I I ~ ~ I I / / I I I ! I ~ W I I I ~ I I / w CD I I I ~ / / > I- - .. - I- J ,. l' --- ,s, . . I , lUYQ :"J"lY:)8 1191S oaVllO'OO 'N3dSV . Wl 3lS '30N3^V NVI'IAH ISV3 Oil .0..,., S~031IHOllV. ON311 'Ii' Nosal~ oaVUO"lOO 'N3dSV~E# .LO, NOISII\JCIanS OVOH . NOISSlwans NOSNHor /OU::l3'V^ :103rOlld EV' L096 'OOJ..:)3f'Otf.d "'OtC ONW,YYO :u NMO ",'P"'" I........ 1 ........ I '- I ................ / / / / / I I / I -I I I I I "- ........ ....... ....... ....... ....... ,. I / / / / / / I / / I / ( I I lJ ::) C < .c .. III ID E l G) 0 Cl 0 III a: ... u 0 ... ",d'"". G) en - a: E o o ... "0 G) CD - Q) > Q) .J .c u G) ~ ... Q) ~ ~ 0" .JS lJ ~ U918 00lf1:l010:> 'N3dSIf . ml: 3l.S '3nN3^If NlfrlAH ISlf3 Oil: '0-'" S1:>3.1IH:>l:lV' ON3lf 'i NosalS oavuo,oo 'N3dsv'(:# .L<n NolSII\IaOnS IENOH NOISSlwans NOSNHO.... /OIH3'''^ . :.L:>3roW v" L096 "ON' 13iro.... :A.lINMCI ,. . " 'I I " I' _ -!. f _____..:.....J .' '. \ "'j./ I> -zl :a!YO :J"lY.:JII U919 00111:1010:> 'N3dSlI . Wl3.1S '3nN3^" NlIl'lAH 15113 OIl '0"'-' 5.L03.LIHOl:lV. ON31:1 'lI NOS81!:) oavuo-,oo 'N3c1S'lf'(;# .LO, NOlS1J\ICJ91S 9VOH NOISSllIIISns NOSNHor /OU::l3'''^ :1:>3rol:ld sv L096 'ON l:>i1rotu "ON I)ffW,YYQ :A.8NMO ........ ..... ........ ..... ...... ...... ........ ........ ......,. I I ~ I (,) Q) I C I I I I '\, I E I , I '\, I 0 ~ , 0 I ... (,) -----) t 'tl I Q) Q) C / m I / I / ... I Q) I .... Ul I IV :E I I 0 - Q) E' > 0 Q) I 0 ..J , ... "- I 'C ... , Q) Q) "- m - --) I "- ~ / >- E .. / 'tl " ;"..,.... / I :J 0 ::) ~ / I .... 0 en ... 'tl Q) m i - l {3 .- :"W"lY:' 1l9~B OaVl:lOW::l 'N3dSV' Wl3.LS '31lN3^V NVl'lAH lSV30ll .::>" S.103.lIHOIN' ON3U Y NOSUlU OOVya'OO .J.O'1 NOISII\IOSlIS DWOH NOISSlwans NOSNHOr /Oll:l3''''^ :I:J'lrolld g" .LOQ6 'Off J.nro"", ... "'YMG 1A..NMa III III ... f! c Cll ! . c . U :: - IC ,- l1. ~ &! C -I l~gq - . 0 III flD f ~ 0 ! c S~ .. Cll Cll 0 1- j Cll ~ S. ~ 8 j .3 " I- I .9 .9 ... ..., ,Ii ... l!! ..i1; ~ CI) ~ '0 .. ... ,Ii ""ell'" ~ . :! . r > CIl CiS a. ii: j C III ~ Q) .. a. ~ '> .9 .! '0 tIl '0 ~ ( . :J . 1Il .. - '0 0 C C j tIl Cll W ~ W . ~ 0 0 CJ 0 .9 ... ... a CI) CI) .r: ~ ..., (/)~ t ~ ..., c ca ~ .. .~ CI) 0," ws z~ ~ '1,\ .. ,'\ , , I, ., ..-, I 'I - ( . tl tl II d d '" II r.I .' ~ n r:I d tJ oj - f ) 03, >~ - ~~ - III .... c G) U III ,''''' ~ '0 .. III "".,~ Cll ~ .9 CJ ~ . \ I!( C CI) .. .,1> U :UYQ :'J1Y3I U9lU OaVl;1010:> 'N3dSV . lOl3.J.S '3IlN3J\V NVrlAIt lSV3 Oil .:>" SJ.:H1JIt:>llV - ON311 'II NOS BID oavuo,o:> 'N3dsv'EoIl .LO, NOISII\I09OS ~ NOISSlllllanS NOSNHor /0Il.I3IV^ :1:>3row LV .l.O96 'OtIJ.:J;1rotu 'ON tJNW.vwa :AIIMMO ,. ,-----1- I I I I I I I I I I I I it i: E I I : > CD > 109 CD S~ I S' o. S b ICO .. '" 0 01 GI '" .5 01 .. .. Q. i .~ GI ! . :J .9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , ,y""'~ - I I C I c: 0 0 I .- .- .. .. I ~ m I Q) - - I W W ------- J: .. 'c-,...,.-" :J ~ -'- 0 ] en ~ I l~ St C ~ Q.N .. (II ftlO ~;: ::I", .-1 _ MEMORANDUM FROM: Board of Adjustment /7 Stan Clauson, Community Development Director /"V ell}J. Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Deput!y6irector,,_v " Sara Thomas, Zoning Officer TO: THRU: RE: 1125 Ute Avenue, Hoag Subdivision Lot #3 DATE: February 4,1997 -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The applicant requests a variance from the front yard setback dimensional requirement for Lot #3 of the Hoag Subdivision. The 3.04 acre lot is located in the Conservation Zone District, which has a required front yard setback of one hundred feet (100'). The applicant is proposing a front yard setback of thirty feet (30'), requiring a front yard setback variance of seventy feet (70'), in order to locate the proposed residence away from a significant avalanche path that exists on the property. The Board of Adjustment approved a 70' foot front yard setback variance request for this lot on March 23, 1989. (See attached Exhibit "A"). The previous owner was granted an 8040 Greenline approval from the P&Z commission in 1990. The 8040 approval was revoked in 1993 when the P&Z commission found that the previous owner had violated or failed to comply with the conditions of approval. The previous Board of Adjustment variance approval automatically expired as of March 23, 1990, due to the lack of the issuance of a building permit. The current owner was granted 8040 Greenline approval on December 17, 1996. Both P&Z and staff approved the location of the proposed residence, finding that the location was in the least hazardous area of the parcel. The P&Z was aware that the approval was based on the project receiving the front yard setback variance. Please refer to the attached drawings and written information provided by the applicant for a complete presentation of the proposed variance. "''' APPLICANT: Highlands Investment, Ltd. clo James Valerio LOCATION: 1125 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado Hoag Subdivision, Lot #3 REVIEW STANDARDS AND STAFF EVALUATION: Pursuant to Section 26.108.040 of the Municipal Code, in order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the board of adjustment shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. Standard: The grant of the variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and this title. Response: A condition of approval for development in an area located above the 8040 greenline is that the design and location of the proposed development are compatible with the terrain on the parcel and that any grading will minimize disturbance to the terrain. The proposed location of the residence meets these standards. The required 100' front yard setback would force the applicant to extensively grade the driveway and disturb a greater amount of the natural terrain. 2. Standard: The grant of the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building, or structure. Response: The constraints placed on the lot by the avalanche hazards and the slope limit a safe location for the proposed residence. The 70' front yard setback variance appears to be the minimum required to permit development in the least hazardous location possible. 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 unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's right would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or _. b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and the terms of this title to other parcels, buildings or structures, in the same zone district. Response: The parcel is significantly impacted by the steepness of the site and the large area of the lot that is covered by an Avalanche Path Zone. These conditions are unique to this parcel and granting a variance will not confer special privileges to the applicant. ALTERNATIVES: The Board of Adjustment may consider any of the following alternatives: . Approve the variance as requested. . Approve the variance with conditions. . Table action to request further information be provided by the applicant or interested parties. . Deny the variance finding that the review standards are not met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the front yard setback variance request in order to permit development on the parcel in an area located outside of the identified avalanche path. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the request for a seventy foot (70') front yard setback at 1125 Ute Avenue, Hoag Subdivision Lot #3, finding that the review standards have been met." NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case 189-6 JACK BARKER/WESTERN HERITAGE LOG HOMES, INC. 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 Council Room, 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, then 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: Time: March 23. 1989 4:00 p.m. Owner for Variance: Appellant for Variance: Name: Jack Barker Joseph S. Zaluba Address: Box 3379, Aspen, CO.81612 Location or description of proper tv: Location: 1125 Ute Ave. Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision Variance Requested: Property is located in the "C" Conservation Zoning area. Front yard setback required is 100ft. Chapter 24 Sec 5-217 (0) (4). Applicant is asking that setback be set at 25ft. A 75ft variance. Will applicant be represented bv counsel: I The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena Streetl, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk Yes: x No: '\, I --,._~ BAM3.23.89 Fred: Action by the Board of Adjustment requires a minimum of 4 aye votes. The question should have been phrased in the positive as opposed to the negative. Anne: Which is what we are doing now. on this one. I think we should finish Remo: We have a motion and he is withdrawing his second. hear a second to Josephine's motion? Do I Anne: Yes: Rick: I would be in favor of granting a variance subject to a deed restriction. That is the only way I would agree to that. Josephine: I already said I wasn't going to change the motion. Roll call vote: Anne, no, Rick, no, Josephine, no, Charlie, yes, Remo, no. variance denied. CASE #89-6 JACK BARKER/WESTERN HERITAGE LOG HOMES. INC. Remo read into the record request for variance. record) (Attached in Joseph Zaluba, purchaser of the property from Jack Barker: Jon Mulford, Zaluba's attorney: Joseph: This property is located in the Hoag Subdivision which is above ute Avenue. It is Lot #3. The lot is a 3 acre site ,,,hich is impacted by an avalanche area which is defined by a report by Arthur Mears. Our main hardship is this avalanche path. We want to be outside of that so we are attempting to set this house with the driveway situated such that the house and the driveway are excluded from the avalanche path coming down on the Lot #1 Hoag. This will also allow us easier fire and police access. It will alS0 minimize the general impact of the house from ute Avenue. BecJuse of the steepness of the site we can't really move up the hill. We could never meet the 100ft setback anyway with meeting Ithis setback on the side. So we have chosen this site based on our main hardship being the avalanche situation across this existing drive. That is our basic argument. 16 r BAM3.23.89 Jon: This existing drive is a deeded easement for access to this property over here. Remo: And it goes above your house. Joseph: It goes above. That is correct. Ron: Where is the trail.head for the ute Trail? Joseph: Down here. Ron: And is that also where the road continues to go off? Joseph: Yes. That is correct. adjacent to the ute Trail. There is a driveway right Anne: The properties that are right on ute Avenue--the duplexes existing--do they have a requirement of 100ft front yard setback? And did they get a variance? Remo: They are not in Conservation zone. Rick: Why was this zoned Conservation when the immediately adjacent properties seem to be a different zone? Remo: Because it goes up the steep part of the hill. The steepest part of the hill. Rick: But what was the purpose of it being Conservation? Remo: I think they have'a 1080 zone too, don't they? Joseph: 8040. That is right. Bill Drueding: Anything above Little Nell's is Conservation. Ron: I want to ask our city Attorney--I drove up that road and I saw examples of avalanche coming down through the forest. Looking at this thing, the lot line doesn't--they are siting this house a good 2 or 300ft up that road-- Joseph: Approximately. that first duplex. It is up a ways. It is right behind Ron: The point I was trying to make is that these plans and the siting of the house they don't show any avalanche danger to the east. Yet I saw an avalanche there. Joseph: I think you are right. There is one there. 17 I. _. BAM3.23.89 Ron: Not only that but an avalanche guy reported one in 1973 in his report. They had one in 1988 and 1989. Joseph: I think you are right. But that was on the adjacent property and there is avalanche down on this mining claim there. Ron: I saw the results of that avalanche not 3ft from that easement on that road in the woods. My concern is, Fred, if we grant a variance and he gets buried by an avalanche, what is the City's liability? Joseph: structure avalanche We are going through 8040 also. We can design this which we will probably be required to under 8040 for in the back. Ron: I am not concerned about where you want to build a house or how big you want to build or anything like that or whether you have a right to build it. I am concerned that the avalanche report did not go deep enough and you may be putting yourself in the face of an avalanche and then your heirs are going to corne back and say "Well, we think granting a variance saying there was no danger zone". I don't want to see something like that. Remo: What is the City's responsibility? Can they build in the avalanche path? Fred: This applicant will have to go through 8040 Greenline Review. One of the criteria in the 8040 Greenline Review will be the hazards created by the sit.e. If they determine that there are hazards that make construction impossible they will deny the application or force remedial steps. That is the level that that liability issue will be addressed at. .Joseph: We have chosen the safest site to build the house and therefore my case is I am pleading that I need a 25ft setback to ~uild this in the safest place on this lot. The other considerations we will take up at the 8040. Fred: If you grant the variance today there is no guarantee that this house will be built at that zone. The 8040 Greenline Review may dictate other changes. Josephine: Then we could still use as our practical difficulty the avalanche path. Fred: Absolutely. Anne: You have this road easement and you are showing that the 18 ,,"''"'' BAM3.23.89 25ft setback you are requesting is from the far side of the road. Bill: We take from property to property line. Anne: So even if there is a road coming through it you don't worry about that. Bill: No. Anne: Could you put this house back 10ft more? Ron: Move it west? There followed many suggestions regarding moving the house. Anne: We are supposed to grant the minimum variance. Charlie: So that you have a 30ft side yard--just sliding it straight back along parallel to the left line. Joseph: Yes. I think we can do that. Anne: t.hink 10ft, If you can comprQmise and come back a little bit then I you will get approval a lot easier. If you can go back I will be willing to grant the variance. Remo: I went up there and walked that and was shocked to see t.hat snow avalanche coming through dense trees--big trees. Also I was shocked to see that it had impacted the house below the road. One of the avalanches came right across the road and was into the house below. Can we modify the variance by asking to put a retaining wall to deflect avalanche. several: That is what the 8040 Greenline Review is for. are going to take care of all of that. They Ron: You could write a letter asking them to consider the dangers of avalanche. That was my big concern. Josephine: t.rees are that not trees. I didn't feel concerned about that because those so big. When the trees are that big that is evidence a powerful avalanche has come down and taken out the Remo: But very dense situation. in fact they had knocked down trees in another area of forest and had come to the road in a very similar 19 . --~--I- "".., BAM3.23.89 This is a non-conforming lot of record, right? You have 3 acres here. You are required to have 10 acres. Joseph: Right. Remo: And required. frontage. requirement bedroom and it doesn't even have the frontage on it that is I think you are required to have 400ft of minimum There is a. parking requirement and the parking is 1 space for each bedroom. And they have a 3 they only show a 2 car garage. Anne: It is 5 bedroom. Joseph: The fact that we are moving it up will help that. The only negative to moving it up is we are going to have to cut a little more out of the mountain. We will have to landscape that. But we will go through that on 8040 with them. And if we have to meet parking it might be the only way we could do it anyway would be to move it up. Remo: My only other concern is that destruction of the very t.rees to build a house which are supposed to better protect you. r am thinking about a minimum of taking out of trees. Fred: That is not within your purview. I would urge you to erticulate those concerns at the 8040 stage. Remo asked if there were any further questions. There were none and he closed the public portion of the meeting.oseph Anne read into the record a letter from Robert and Carole Howard stating their objections to the variance. (Attached in record) Ron read into the record a letter from Gary and Susan Rappaport stating their objections to the variance. (Attached in record) MOTION Rick: I move that we approve Case #89-6 for this 30ft side yard restriction. Remo: Move the house to the--side yard setback as indicated in the drawing. Anne seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Anne, yes, Rick, yes, Josephine, yes, Charlie, yes, Remo, yes. 20 _. BAM3.23.89 variance granted. Ron: I would like to make it a part of the record and request Remo to write a letter to the 8040 Review Committee that we have granted a variance, visited the site and are concerned about avalanche conditions and would they please be extra careful in their review. Note: Just for the record this was done and the 8040 Review Committee did read the letter into their record. Anne made a motion meeting be adjourned. Josephine seconded the motion with all in favor. Time was 5.50pm. ~\ , i '-.. /1{r'.c..i'j Janic1 M. carney, ~. 21 - 1- /.~,'-" MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: WELTON ANDERSON, Chairman-Planning & Zoning commission REMO LAVAGNINO, Chairman-Aspen Board of Adjustment BARKER: Lot 3 Hoag Subdivision-8040 Greenline Review March 28, 1989 At the scheduled meeting of the Board of Adjustment on March 23, 1989 we heard and granted a variance to applicant Jack Barker: Lot 3 Hoag Subdivision (Case #89-6). We granted the front yard setback variance to more safely situate the structure in a denser stand of larger trees, out of the major avalanche path. In walking the road to the lot, there were substantial avalanche occurrences that crossed the road. Looking uphill I noticed maj or snow movement had occurred in trees the size and density similar to conditions on the subject property. While the Board felt a need to further avalanche threat, it did not want to Commission's role in their 8040 Greenline mitigate encumber Review. the potential the Planning The Board has asked me to write this memo to express our concerns and offer recommendations for your consideration. Under the direction of the Engineering Dept. we felt that a deflection barrier should be constructed uphill to direct any snow movement away from the structure and toward the main avalanche path. The protective barrier should be strong enough to withstand avalanche impact and deposition loads. Further, that there be a close monitoring and minimal removal of trees during construction. cc: Cindy Houben, Planner 1-... . . THE CITY OF ASPEN 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 I City fax # (970) 920-5197 City phone # (9"/0) 920-5000 Total pages including this cover sheet: 3 TO:~ COMPANY: GuOSO^, laPJo FAX#:~"6 -S493 PHONE#: , FROM: ~ DEPT: Ct..~~ O~ FAX #0 o. 61J!!j PHONE #: t) .. 5~"-, MEMO: tJmee. OF P~~I-'<:'" ~~ M"'-6. t3e ~ ~ ' 12-.~b-r AT ~ ~ pLStae ~21~ / -ptm-OS OF Fb~~ St~ ~ US,- of ~ 6e\tr. -rHMl~ YOW. . rr:L' 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET' ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 . PHONE 920.5000. FAX 920.5197 -J_ ,-. / , I ag Lot #3 SAYOIL (USA), INC. 600 TRAVIS ST., # 6110 HOUSTON, TX 77002-3007 300' Rad. Mailing List AJAX PAFW C r TV DF: ASF'EN 130 S GALENA 8T ASPEN CO plio 11 . GOLUB, GENE GOLUB AND COMPANY C/O 625 N. MICHIGAI\I CHICAGO, IL 60611 UTE CEMETERY CITY DF ASF'EN 1:50 S GALE~IA GT ASPEN CO 81611 DAVIS I G JR 110 S MARION AVE VENTNOR NJ 08406 ;., HIGHLAND INVESTMENTS & JOHNSON, KAREN HOLLAND & HART -C/O 600 E MAIN ST ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN SKIING COMPANY CHANCE LODE POST OFFICE BOX 1248 ASPEN, CO 81612 FRAZER, ,JANE Z. FRAZER. WILLIAM R. 250 TUNNEL ROAD BERKELEY, CA 94705 RAPPAPORT SUSAN H & GARY B TRUSTEES RAPPAPORT SUSAN H REVOCABLE TRUST 3940 WALDON SHORES RD WAYZATA MN 55391 COLEMAN, THOMAS B. 321 ST. CHARLES AVE. NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130 FORIER JOHN & CLARK NEAL J SHIRSAT AJAY D F'O BOX 11 WOLCOTT CO 81655 f " ;~~ject: ~~I~f-Ij;e;-'~~~if~RANSMITTAL Arch. proj. # q(,tJ7 Date: I / l7 / f17 ... , I We Transmit: X Herewith _Under Seperate Cover _Per Your Request Via: Mail ~ Messenger Fax Federal Express UPS The Following: _Specifications _Drawings Addenda _Payment Application Product Literature Samples _Change Order Shop Drawing X Other Date: 1/1 v /'f1 . For Your: Information _Record / Use Review _Approval >< Dist. to Parties Action Taken: _Approved Reviewed Revise & Resubmit Make Corrections _Submit Specific Item _ No Exceptions _ Rejected LETTER GIBSON.RENO . ,... R CHI TEe T S, L. L.C. . ill 210 E. HYMAN N" 202 Description: F'~ ~z:.!~&-/'" yu"'~ ,?OO f2.r.-L' I/1IU.. .(I~ flee, II () 00 p~ ASPEN COLORADO 81611 970.925.5%8 FACS1MILE 970.925.5993 Copies: --:r -I ""''''':~ti!:.bvk "" J:I:,.:.....~ t:j ~ {...:>t ~j tlt- G'3,tr-n 4 f e.-A,'-r.-~ >:fL~b; t' J' P.O. BOX 278 117 N.WILLOW NO 2 Copies To: (With end.) TELLURIDE COLORADO 81435 970.728.6607 FACSIMILE 970.7286658 Submitted bY:_~-pjll\oV~ , GIBSON & RENO' 210 EASTHY ASPEN; . ... .6~1 (970) 921;-5966 ALPINE BANK ASPEN. CO 81611 82~1021 2043 1/16/97 'AYTOTHE JRDER OF Aspen City Clerk $ **110.00 One Hundred Ten and 001100* ...********************* ***** **** ** * ***** *** *******.****************...... * ** *** * ** * ** ** DOLLARS ,...,SecuIflyIealur8s ~- Oe\aiISonbad<. Aspen City Clerk 11'00 2ol, :III' .: ~o 2 ~o :ll,o 71: 101000'S~ .. "AEMO ValariolHoag Board of Adjustment Applicatiou ._.~~.~--I pA~ " , . CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION DATE Jan. 16. 1997' 19_ CASE if APPLICANT Gibson-Reno Architects. L.L.C. PHONE 925_5968 MAlLINGADDRESS 210 E. Hyman, Suite 202 As~en, CO 81611 O~ Hiqh1ands Investment. Ltd. PHONE 925-1860 c/o James Valerio P.O. Box 1376 Asoen, CO. 81612 LOCATIONOFPROPERTYull?~ TTt-" 7",,, RO'Hl C;l1hCliviRion (Streer, Block Number and Lot ~umber) MAlLING ADDRESS Lot .n WlLL YOU BE REPRESENTED BY COlJNCIL? YES.l. NO_ Below, describe clearly the proposed variance, including all dimensions and justific:mon for the variance. (Additional paper may be used if necessary.) The building pemrit applic:mon and any other information you feel is pertinent should accompany this application. and will be made part of this case. We are requesting a Variance that will chanqe the 100'~rontyard S~tback to a 30' Front yard Setback. See attached letter for additional informat:ion. Applicant's SignatUre ~Y> ~W . ~ REASONS FOR DENIAL OF BUILDING PElt.'VIIT, BASED ON THE ASPEN CITY CODE, CHAPTER 24. AN OPINION CONCElt."'lING THIS VARIANCE WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD BY THE ZONING DEPARTME~l STAFF. DATE PER.'vITT DEJ,\IIED OFFICIAL DATE OF APPLICATION HEARING DATE ;.. -_.j V ALARIO-JOHNSON BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATON DAVID GIBSON AlA We are requesting a variance from the l()(}' Front yard Setback required by the "Conservation" Zone District. Site conditions, avalanche hazard and 8040 Green1ine approvals present the need for a 30' Front yard setback. AUGUST RENO AlA The Hardships/Justifications relevant to our request are as follows: 1) Site Conditions: This is a very steep site (30%-40% slope) that is heavily covered with tall, mature evergreens. The lot is located above Ute Avenue and the most appropriate access will be from a shared driveway at the North East comer of the property. Maintaining a 30' Front yard and a 30' Sideyard Setback allows driveway access with minimal grading and reduces the total area of disturbed site vegetation. The 100' Front yard Setback would require extensive grading for an accessible driveway and would disturb considerably more vegetation if the building envelope was placed higher up the slope. 2) Avalanche Hazard: Although the site is a large parcel (3.04 acres) a large portion of it is covered by an Avalanche Path Zone which should not be built in. (See attached Site Plan and Avalanche Hazard Analysis.) Honoring the 1 ()()' Setback will force the building envelope into the Avalanche Path, creating an unacceptable hazard. The 30' Setback allows the building envelope to be located safely away from the identified avalanche path. 3) On December 17, 1996 this project was granted approval for an 8040 Green1ine review and Conditional Use for an A.D.U. The issues focused on concerned the buildings location on the site and minimizing the impact on the site. The determination is that the current design, which is based on a 30' Front yard Setback, is the best location for site compatability and a building envelope farther up the slope is not appropriate. The 8040 Review Committee was aware of our need to receive a variance for the Setback and their approval anticipated a successful application. SCOTT SMITH AlA GIBSON. RENO .ARCHITECTS, L.L.C." III 210 E. HYMAN N" 202 ASPEN COLORADO 81611 970.9255968 FACSIMILE 970.925.5993 roo BOX 278 117 N. WILLOW N"2 TELLURIDE COLORADO 81435 970.728.6607 FACSIMILE 970.728.6658 ValariolJohnson Page 2 4) This project has undertaken a lengthly approval process. In 1990 an 8040 Oreenline approval was granted to a previous owner. At that time a variance was granted that allowed for the 30' Prontyard Setback. In 1993 the 8040 approval was revoked and subsequently the Setback Variance has lapsed. We believe the same conditions and justifications that resulted in grating the Variance then exists now. Our request for a variance allowing for a 30' Prontyard Setback, we feel is the most desirable, and appropriate way to address the issues of site compatability, avalanche safety and design sensitivity. valjohn.doc " ,f',;, (19 ~8 OaVl:10100 'N3dSV . ZOZ 31S '3nN3^ V NVi'lAH 1! .~.,., Sl031IHOl:l\1' ON3l:l 'll N OO'lf~O'O~ 'N3dS'If'C# .1..0' NOlSlJ\lOalS D'lfOH NOISSlwans NOSNHor /OU::l3'''A :1: L096 ff "ON !:)3ro~ ON OOIMWtlO :A8 NMO :llva :'31Y:)9 ? / ? ~ " " ~ ~ u.: J i ~ . .-l ~~ . ~ . ~ . g <r --..-.....____--.... ~ 1 z , I ~ . r "-...'c IS II / ( =1"":)1 ~ ~9~9 OOVl:1010:J 'N3dSV . lOl 31S '3nN3^\f NV~AH iSV3 ':=>II Sl::J31IH::Jl:lV' ON3l:l 'l1 NOS oav~O"1O:=> 'N3IdSV'E:# .1.0' NOISU\Kl9nS DVQH NOISSIWanS NOSNHOr /OU::f3'''^ :l:)3f .L096 r .ONJ.::Jiro.... -... z.l..... :A,8NMQ t6 g J1 )' l - q)' b I 8 .. ~ i II q ~ .. ~ t .. 11l - :~ /1 / I I I I r ~ .ONJ.:J3ro..... -.... :10.8 HMO , :UYO ~ 1191e OOlfI::lO'O:> 'N3dSIf . WlllS '3nN3^1f Nlfl'lAH 1S\f3 -0"11 S~031.IHOl:lV' ON31::1 'It NOS OOVI:IO""KX) 'N3dSv'E# .L~ NOISlI\Ja9"lS 9YOH . NOISSIWSnS NOSNHOr /OIH3'''^ . : 1:>3r /....... I , / ........ / '....... I I I / / / I I I " ....... ....... ....... ... lJ / / / / / I / / / ( I I I I I I ::::) Q ~ E Q 10I Q) m " ozl :uvo :-;nV:a8 ~~9~9 OmH:1010:l 'N3dS\f . 1Ol: 3.1S '3nN3^\f N\fWAH l~ -::>" S.L:J31.IH:JHV' ON3H '& N O<lVUO"lOO 'N3dS""E# .LO, NOISIJ\ICI9lS SVOH NQISSIWanS NOSNHor /Ol~~"^ . :1: 'fI L096 .ONJ.::aro.... "ON 0NlM'tlIO :A.INMU ....... " " .... "- " ~ (,) Q) C I I I I , E I I 0 I ~ "- 0 I (,) .. -----'>1 'tl Q) Q) I C / In I / I .. I Q) I .. I/) I i I I 0 i !..I 11 tt;I .u)8e 'OH1.:l11f"CMW .. --,WMCI :.......-a ..... :JI"'IY:' 119~B OOVI:IOlO:> 'N3dSII . WlllS '3nN3^V NIIWAH IS '01"1 S.l::l3J.IH::ll:lV' ON3U 'II Nl OOyya,oo .J..O'1 NOISII\I09"lS OWOH NOISSIWans NOSNHOr /OIl:J3'V^ 'I:> III III .. I!! c lJl J ~ c . = ~ - c: r! - , . 0 III tlD - J J c I 3~ .. 0 .- lJl '" j 0. ..., i .. I!! ~ .. .. ~ .I: . .5 . en en a- i ~ " Q) .. 'l:l a- lii ~ ( . . - 'l:l 0 lJl C C W ~ ~ S 0 ~ .. en en ..., I en ~ I ~ ca" i W~ I , " '. ---- ': '\ , II , (, It { d . dd ~ d p ~ d " Ii d d d ], .. .A J 3, '" tI L096 "ON .t3rotw 'ON ONIMYlfQ U '>1 WO :UMMO :'J1V:MI - . . . > cg j~ .. "" . "" Q. ! -.. E . ~ 00 . 10.1 oJ a:O o .Ii l:Il "" I .~ ::J L 19111 OOVl:t010:> 'N3dSV . lOl:US '3nN3AV NVrlAH U "3-'-' S.1:>:uJH:>IlV - ON3l:l 'll N oavUO"103 'N3dsYEtII .1.0' N()ISIIUClB"lS 9W'OH NOISSIWanS NOSNHor /0IH3IV^ :1: .. ,----- i= > cg jb . 01 ~ ._..._____1,. ,II AVALANCHE HAZARD ANALYSIS, BARKER PROPERTY, ASPEN, COLORADO PREPARED FOR MR. JACK BARKER Arthur L l1ears, P,E., Inc. Gunnison, Colorado January, 1987 J%?Ji - ~ I' -.- ~.... ~ - .~-.I. __oW nct. requested by Mr. Jack Barker of Aspen and has the following objectives: 1. site inspection of avalanche terrain; 2. analysis of avalanche characteristics and risk; 3. review of previous work; 4. recommendations. . . The report is site specific, thus the results and recommendations. cannot be extended to other locations. AVALANCHE CONDITIONS Avalanches affecting the Barker property in Sec. 18, T. 10 S., R. 84 W., City of Aspen. originate on the northeast-facing slope of Bell Hountain. Avalanche starting zones are located immediately belovl promin- ent cliffs at approximately 8.800 feet elevation, as much as 1000 feet above the valley floor. The starting zones, or areas in which unstable sno\~ accumulates, are small, steep. and generally discontinuous. There- fore, avalanches will usually be small and unlikely to reach the Barker property. However. major avalanches can occur in response to exceptional weather and/or snowpack conditions at any time during the Movember- April snOH season. Major avalanches are known to have deposited debris on the old railroad grade in 1964, 1973. and 1974. The largest and most frequent ayalanches occur in the approximately 50-yard wide open slope on the western edge of the property, which is also the site of the avalanches that are known to have reached the railroad grade. A ski trail and the proposed access driveway to the Barker property cross the lower portion of this path. .~~___..-..J ._.j~C"eo aspen. This stand of "ees, which is the proposed site of the new home, shows no sign of avalanche damage for the life of the forest (approximately 80 years). Site inspection showed some damage to aspen within the forest, but this was apparently caused by an unusually heavy early June snowstorm in 1984. This storm produced similar ~ideSpread damage throughout'central Colorado. The avalanche conditions at this site were discussed in a detailed report to Steve Crowley and Thomas D. ~1cAuley which was authored in 1973 by \~,hitney n. Borland and Hans Frutiger. In my opinion, the Borland/ Frutiger report was a thorough and accurate appraisal of the avalanche conditions at this site. The present study discusses in greater detail the nature of the risk involved in building within the potential avalanche area. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND AVALANCHE HAZARD Discussions and a site inspection with 11r. Jack Barker provided' detailed information about the layout of the proposed development. The development layout and building envelope is shown on the attached map. The development is subject to avalanche hazard of 2 types: 1. hazard on the access driveway that crosses the open avalanche path discussed above; and 2. hazard to the house, which will be built approximately 50 feet east of the prominent avalanche path, within the timber wedge. 8ecause hazards "1" and "2" differ significantly, they are discussed separately below. The access driveway is clearly within the boundaries of the main western avalanche path. Both upper and lower legs of the proposed _' u'Oldncnes may have also reached clle ori ve\~ay a 1 i gnment, but gone undetected. Although fi rm da ta on avalanche frequency is not available, an average frequency (at the drive- w~y) of 3-5 years seems reasonable, based on vegetation damage and the sporadic and discontinuous historical record. Overall risk is based on avalanche frequency and the proposed use of drive\~ay. If we assume an exposure time (to the avalanche) of 1 minute per trip' and 10 trips per day on the driveway, total daily exposure is 10 minutes (out of 1,440 minutes per day), or 0.7% of the time. If the avalanche occurs once in every 3 years on the average, the joint proba- bility, P, that an avalanche will reach someone while he is traveling the driveway is computed P = (4) (10/1440) = 0.23% per year. . This calcul ahon assumes random avalanche occurrence and random drive\~ay use. In other words, the prevailing avalanche and/or weather conditions will have no influence on the use of the driveway. From the standpoint of risk assessment, this 0.23% annual probability should be compared with other risks that are commonly accepted. For exa~ple, daily travel during unstable avalanche conditions is common on Loveland, Berthoud, and Red Mountain passe~ each of which is crossed by numerous avalanches every year. Some of these avalanches occur more often than once per Year. Depending on the route taken through Colorado, the avalanc'he hazard encountered on a trip to Aspen may exceed the risk..i.n ascending the driveway. . ~" v~~upled continuously, especially during severe weather and avalanche conditions. Although the building envelope is approximately 50 feet inside the timber wedge (east of the avalanche path), it probably is exposed to avalanches of exceptional volume because these will spread laterally as they descend and enter the undisturbed forest. As a rough estimate, the building site could be reached by avalanches with return periods of 50-100 years (1-2% annual probability). A building located here and intended for winter occupancy must be designed for avalanche impact and deposition loads. Final design criteria should be developed in conjunction with building plans and s,hould include: 1. Specification_of avalanche forces (resolved into mutually perpendicular directions); and 2. Determination of loading criteria (static or impact). None of these design parameters can be specified at present because details of building size, shape, and orientation strongly control the details of interaction with the structure. However, experience at many ayalanche sites in North America and Europe indicates that construction of an "avalanche-proof" structure is feasible at this location. RECOMf1ENDA T1 ONS The following recommendations consider the avalanche characteristics and relative hazard as discussed above. 1. Avoid placement of permanent structures within the prominent west avalanche path. 2. Allow residential construction within the timber wedge and inside the building envelope as specified by Mr. Jack Barker during our field inspection on December 16, 1986 (see attached map) . - -----~~ .... u vt' I"" ..._,,~I'" rlsk is small when compared to the risk accepted at many mountain sites (e.g.. Vail. Juneau, Ketchum, AHa). the potential hazard should be carefully discussed with and understood , by future developers or owners of the site. They may reduce the risk even further through learning about the nature and timing of avalanches. .___.__..~_.__~__.__,_.--J ,,- " ( /