HomeMy WebLinkAboutlanduse case.boa.lot3hoagsubdivision.010-93
~
(
<>
(
\
.....
NOTIce OF PUBLIC HEARING
CASE #93-10
CHARIF SOUKI
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, 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:
Time:
August 12, 1993
4:00 p.m.
Owner for Variance:
Appellant for Variance:
Name: CHARIF SOUKI
Address: C/O BROOKE PETERSON
315 E. HYMAN
BROOKE A. PETERSON
Location or description of property:
LOT #3, HOAG SUBDIVISION
Variance Reauested: PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE (C) CONSERVATION
ZONING CATEGORY. FRONT YARD SETBACK IS 100 FEET. SEC 5-217(0)(4)
CHAPTER 24 ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE. APPLICANT APPEARS TO BE
REQUESTING A 70 FOOT FRONT YARD VARIANCE REDUCTION TO CREATE A 30
FOOT FRONT YARD.
Will apPlicant be represented bv counsel:
Yes: X
No:
The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment
130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611
Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Jan Carney Deputy City Clerk
c
,r'''''
",", j
,."......
,.,..'''\
""...-1
'~'.-
BROOKE A. PETERSON
LAW OFFICES
BROOKE A. PETERSON
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE
13031 925-8166
FACSIMILE
13031 925-1090
ROBYN J. SMERLlNG"
OF COUNSEL
ERIN FERNANDEZ HAZEN, P.C,""
.ALSO ADMITTED IN NEW YORK HAND DELIVERED
AND CONNECTICUT
City of Aspen/Planning & Zoning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
C~r''i':-;:;:;, , J;T;~\ I
;1, ill'
. II
';L-~UL_' ~ !993 ,UII
---,-~.,!)I
"'''LSO ....OMITTED IN FLORIDA July 19, 1993
....ND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Re: Lot 3. Hoaq Subdivision
, ---'
Dear Sirs:
Enclosed please find the City of Aspen Board of Adjustment
Development Application duly completed by this office, as well as
the proposed site plan for the improvements which are proposed to
be constructed upon Lot 3 of the Hoag SUbdivision.
We are requesting a variance from the One Hundred (100) foot set-
back in this situation to a distance of thirty (30) feet as it is
our desire to keep the improvements as far away as possible from
any known avalanche hazard. A similar variance was previously
granted on this same property but this variance has expired
according to Leslie Lamont. The same reasons that the variance was
sought originally are the reasons that we are making this
application.
In speaking to Francis Krizmanich, we agreed that the denial
for a building permit application was an unnecessary formality.
Please inform me as to when this matter will be placed on the Board
of Adjustment schedule. This needs to be as soon as possible,
given that the Planning Office will not process our 8040 Greenline
Review Application until such time as the variance is granted.
Also enclosed is the list of adjacent property owners, based
upon in formation provided by the Pitkin County Assessor's office,
and our application fee of Fifty Dollars ($50.00).
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Very truly yours,
BAP/mlp
Encls.
cc: Charif Souki
1"""'.
\.
---
--
BROOKE A. PETERSON
LAW OFFICES
BROOKE A. PETERSON
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE
13031 925-8166
FACSIMILE
13031 925-1090
ROBYN J. SMERLlNG.
OF COUNSEL
ERIN FERNANDEZ HAZEN. P_C...
. ALSO AD"'IITTEO IN NEW YORI(
AND CONNECTICUT
August 3, 1993
..ALSO ADMITTED IN FLORIDA
AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
City of Aspen / Board of Adjustment
c/o Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk
305 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Application for Variance
Lot 3. Hoaq Subdivision
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
As you may know from your review of your packet, the office of
the undersigned represents Charif Souki the contract purchaser of
Lot 3 of the Hoag Subdivision. As some of you also may recall,
this property has been the subject of numerous reviews by the City
of Aspen in the past, one of those being an application for a
variance from the 100 foot front yard set back in the Conservation
Zone District. That variance was granted by the Board of
Adj ustment, but has now expired. Mr. Souki, as contract purchaser,
is seeking to acquire the subject property and to build upon the
property the same structure, with minor design, changes as was
previously approved, and for which the variance was previously
granted.
The architectural firm of Gibson and Reno represents Mr. Souki
with respect to this application. You will find enclbsed herewith
a copy of a letter to my offices from Gibson & Reno regarding the
reasons for which the variance is being granted. It will further
be demonstrated to you at the hearing the reasons for this request
of variance. Although this is a legally approved subdivided lot
within the City of Aspen, the building site upon this property is
very narrow, and this is the reason for the requested set back
variance. This is a natural condition not created by the
applicant, or by any of the applicant's predecessors in title, and
c
,-
'-"
City of Aspen / Board of Adjustment
August 3, 1993
Page Two
is therefore an appropriate subject for variance pursuant to the
Aspen Municipal Code. The variance set back will not be from a
well travelled public street as the road servicing this property is
not well utilized, and in addition, there is a large amount of
vertical distance between the road and the proposed building site.
I wish to emphasize that we are not seeking to change the design of
the home and its location, and therefore, this variance is
necessary to allow the structure to be built.
We thank you very much for your time and attention to this
matter.
Very truly yours,
B
n
BAP/mlp
Encls.
cc: Charif Souki
___'_'0"._.1..___
.""'''.~,
",- ,,.
~ GIBSON & RENO' ARCHITECTS
DAVID F. GIBSON. AlA
AUGUST G REND, AlA
SCOTT G SMITH, AlA
August 3, 1993
Mr. Brooke Peterson, Esq.
315 E. Hyman
Wheeler Square Offices
Aspen, Co.
925-8166
To: Mr. Brooke Peterson, Esq.
RE: Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision
FROM: Augie Reno
We, Gibson & Reno, are pleading our case to the Board of Adjustment
for exemption on the minimum front yard setback regulation of 100
ft. per the Aspen Land Use Regulations because of the nature of the
site.
Over 75% of Lot 3 is an avalanche path. Placement of the
building is restricted to the location indicated on the site plan:
between the Utility easement and the Public Trail easement.
Weare therefore unable to provide the necessary 100 ft.
setback, and are limited to a maximum distance of 30 ft. for
accessibility, without placing the structure at risk from an avalanche.
Furthermore, there are aesthetic and environmental
considerations to which we must as architects adhere to. By
maintaining our present location, we uproot less vegetation than if
we were to place it further up hill where the grade increases
considerably thereby requiring more earth moving.
Finally, regarding the issue of aestheticism, the building will be
much less obtrusive by sitting lower on the hill side.
d 1 [j Fe. COCJf'ETl AVENUE . ASPEN, COLORADO B 161 1 . 303/925-5968 . FAX 303/925-5993
'5' 6124735369
SUSAN RAPPAPORT
..-
08/09/93 12..:.34
P01
GARY AND SUSAN RAPPAPORT
3940 WALDEN SHORES ROAD
W AYZA T A, MINNESOTA 55391
PHONE: (612) 473-3065
FAX: (612) 473-5369
August 9, 1993
Remo Livagnino
The City of Aspen Board of Adjustlllcnt
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
FAX (303) 920-5197
Dear Remo,
We own the property alllS Ute Avenue, Lot 5, Hoag's Edition, and we have comments
about the variance request for LOI 3, Hoag's Edition, about which the Board of
Adjustment plans to meet on August 12 at 4:00PM.
Hopefully, you are aware of the long history about the development ofiliat property. We
urge you to review the file on it (Leslie Lamont, at Planning and Zoning office, probably
has it or can get it), as it went through variance, P & Z, and finally revocation ofits
building permit. You will also find letters from us in that file, detailing the many issues
that we found and still Bnd objectionable,
We believe that the approval ofa development plan for lot 3 should be denied because the
slope is extremely steep, and the resulting tree removal and excavation will cause high risk
of rock slides and avalanches both during and after construction. Hfor some reason you
do approve it, we urge you to make that approval contingent on certain conditions:
. The owners/developers MUST post a performance bond before any work
whatsoever begins on that project.
· The new road to access the property and the original Nordic Trail road must be
completed in at lcast as good a way as the city planning office originally stipulated.
This includes re vegetation, boulder walls, avalanche mitigation, etc. _ all of this
was detailed in earlier documents on file with the city. Because the original
developer did not have a performance bond, he was able to really open up some
nN...i... ........_ __ _.~_ _ _i. _ t . . . . _
~
UCVClUl'CI UIU nUL OlIve a perrormance DOna, De was atlle to really open up some
~de areas on veryst~ep and treed terrain. One of the results,...'lsides big scarring,
IS that there are ilL, ous snow slides on the trail. The trail oj closed for all of
March and April this year, and while it was a heavy snow year, there were slides in
other years too, which had not happened before those roads were cut. A1J. a matter
IZl
offact, a slide came over the road and lodged against the roofand back ofoUl'
neighbor's home.
The Nordic tTllil is scarred and damaged, and we are especially concerned with the
unacceptable part directly above our home. The easement along OUl' property line,
(which was designated as a utility easement, by the way), has been trashed. The
terrain is uneven and not graded for proper drainage. There are rocks, boulders
and dead tree strewn around. On the upper side of the road, there are enonnous
tree roots that have been exposed from the road cutting. There is one large double
trunk tree in particular that could seriously damage our home ifit falls, and while
the Forest Service agrees that it could fall and has given us pennission to remove
it, we feel that the expense and responsibility should be borne by those who
originally damaged it or the new owners,
· During any building, roads or homes, there must be construction fences which
protect our property as well as our neighbors, from debris, boulders, etc. falling
down upon us.
. There must be limitations set on the number of trucks and large vehicles that can
go up and down there, and they must not be allowed to use the Nordic Trail which
was designated originally and should remain a non-vehicular road.
· Needless to say, a responsible person and agency must be appointed to closely
monitor any of these stipulations that you approve. The previous owner agreed to
many things and then did not do them. No one was there to check on him or red
tag him for his lack of compliance,
Please also review the agreement between the subject property and the Newfoundland
Claim next door. The Newfoundland has access rights across the Hoag #3 property.
They are also part of this puzzle and the potential for future problems. Both of these
properties should be part of the same sorts oflimitations, because of the fragile nature of
their location.
We urge all the members of the committee to personally go to the site, so they can
appreciate the seriousness and difficulties of building in that area,
Thank you for allowing us to express our views. Please do not let these issues drop into
the craclcs! We would also appreciate being copied on the outcome of the meeting.
Sincermo '
.J,'~t ^^-..L p_ ..,.
~
-::J\\
"
--k1~'lf,r~",~,
" ~.')~J;~J
Gary B. RaPpaportrt
Susan H, Rappapo
. Tommy Coleman
cc, .
Jack DaVIs
"''',
lID
"'''
f
~,. ""
LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS
OF LAND ADJACENT TO
LOT 3. HOAG SUBDIVISION
Bayoil (USA), Inc.
600 Travis st., #610
Houston, TX 77002-3007
Gene Golub
Golub & Company
625 N. Michigan Avenue
Chicago, IL 60611
Gary B. and Susan H. Rappaport
3940 Waldron Shores Road
Wayzata, MN 55391
Gordon Miller
Stanley Shaffran
0164 W. Lupine Dr.
Aspen, CO 81611
Jane Z. and William R. Frazer
250 Tunnel Road
Berkeley, CA 94705
Thomas B. Coleman
321 st. Charles Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70130
City of Aspen
410 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Department of Agriculture
United States Forest Service
800 W. Hallam
Aspen, CO 81611
\ r'"
'-
"
1
~ WAI; ,
'.-21ilgJr
II
,
,
;'
AVALANCHE HAZARD ANALYSIS1 HARKER PROPERTY1 ASPEN I COLORADO
PREPARED FOR
MR. JACK BARKER
Arthur I. ~~ars. P.E., Inc.
Gunnison, Colorado
January, 1987
~~-----'-----' ,,,.1 ,~,___ _,_
.-
/'''-
"
1 NTRODUCTl ON
This analysis of avalanche hazard Has requested by l.lr. 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 5.,
R. 84 \1., City of Aspen, originate on the northeast-facing slope of Bell
Mountain. Avalanche starting zones are located immediately below 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 Barker
property. However, major avalanches can occur in response to exceptional
weather and/or snowpack conditions at any time during the tlovember-
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.
_... - 0001, _,_w'.....w... .... ......___000.
,...-..",
"
-2-
The slope immediately east of the prominent path supports a thick,
triangular wedge of Douglas fir with interspersed 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 within the forest. but this
was apparently caused by an unusually heavy early June snowstorm in 1984.
This storm produced similar widespread damage throughout central Colorado.
The avalanche conditions at this site were discussed in a detailed
report to Steve Crowley and Thomas D. McAuley which was authored in 1973
by Whitney M. 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 Mr. 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
western avalanche path. Buth upper and lower legs of the proposed
..,r"^'
-3-
driveway have been overrun 3 times during the past 22 years, (in 1964,
1973, and 1974), as noted above. Smaller avalanches may have also reached
the driveway alignment, but gone undetected. Although firm data on
avalanche frequency is not available, an average frequency (at the drive-
way) 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
driveway. 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 = (j) (10/1440) = 0.23% per year.
This calculation 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 commonly accepted. For
example, daily travel during unstable avalanche conditions is common on
Loveland, Berthoud, and Red Mountain 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 in
ascending the driveway.
,.--.-."--,,,.- I ,...__.,......,.-...-.._....._,,','_.,..~
-4-
In contrast, avalanche exposure of the house is less tolerable
because we must assume it will be occupied 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.
RECOMHENOA TI 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 Hr. Jack Barker
during our field inspection on December 16. 1986 (see attached
map) .
..,__--.-"___,,.,1
"..~
-5-
3. Accept the avalanche risk on the driveway because this risk is
small compared with others normally taken in winter travel.
Although the avalanche risk is small when compared to the risk
accepted at many mountain sites (e.g., Vail, Juneau, Ketchum, Alta),
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.
.'
,,,.......
(]
""-'
"'.
"
'~
2
o
-
rn
)
jj
m
~
rn
~
g
J:
elf
~
~\ ..I
'\~
~~E
j!~<r
~i~
'"I ~
~~
"
"
"
"
"
"
~-
-.,
~
)
~'
~ '4,~\ ~~
~;-\\, \
a \ ~' <2J
~ ~~ G3~~
=--~
(2)
o
\
\
\
\
\
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
f\
~ 1,
\~
51 ?~
}I. ~~
~
.
I
..,'"
, '
, '
c. '
JI '
" '
1/1/ ""'"
. . '
, "
J ,~
"f ,: ", . ~~' .
. . ,. ., (
. 1 ,. '.0
: ' ',<. ',(
. " , "
J ;.7 ,... """ i
Ir' · C', ' '
, ;/ ~ ;.;, ",;
f I ..' ,"- t
.' I . "
-i ,( ., " " ;
'. I ..\ '> f." "" ~.
'\!- ~// '..:', . ",
, - '. '.
, " ' " . .,
, ".! ('" .... ',;.." /;;-
\~\:Y/ ~.:j':r~~( /~ ,-;...:E./ ..-
..~l ~fz? ,'''' 1.."'- .~"0:.. ,,/ .............
or .~ " :; .. ",'.' ." .. .,>/..._-f.?'
~'" ' . , ' - ." ,- -- .
.V....I / ., ,. ..-:;/,.............../
, . . ....~ 'i' / Pr- /., . /.. ..-
//.....I;'l.~/~/ ,.,/., \ ~~':D"
..oj'',' tl 1'-1' ",/ ,/ .," /" ,4'
....,' ',. '. . t- ~", / " ~/0
, ",,'..Y-'''''. /' lS I ~'~ ,/
.:.J"/ - 0/,' ,.D"'../
o "'1 ,..' . ..,.D '''/
,~I / ,Co / '
'1'//\ ' - ~ /,;~//./, ;//
'" 1 ' )',
" , 1 IH ,....
_ "...... /1 " / 0.~;' ~ - .
.i: I',"" , ' J
..I'''./' ,"
.~ ",.' " '-", 1- I ' St .
~l' / / >,-,,-,( / ,:. ":d/ l'/i
o I ,..'/....... " ·
(. / S' .;' i'''','-~ I
II / ~. ,....~\ / ,: /1:"' 7-=::.~~1::~:r7'.~'''.'
J ' " .
, { r/,,\ I / ."" /' '
1 .... "7'
I "
; /' ,/ '1/
i I I',' . I
I " I~' /
1/ " /
I' , I
I' /
I,' /
1-
('
v;
-<-
0,,'0'
...'
" 1-
(,. 0
')...
" 0'
..-
("Ill
00
"
('
)
c
'-
'-'
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
,
..
,
,
" ."-
c
....
", ~#
, .'
. ""0
",,''', \,>~,\:\...-.
... . "; '\,,\'
."
': \
\
.
,
"
..
i\7
D.
\
<
\ ~\
\ \
;~
o-
J:
"
t<
.
u
\
\
,
,
.,\
. ,
,
,
'"
~ "...
~;..
I.-
\/
I
~3
D~~
.$"
.~r
" Q~
, .
( ,
.
/1
( ..0.......
~I .1." t
() ~I
,,<Ii
..
..
pi
r
~ "J
:;-
. s
.;
f: I'
. ~
< ..( ~
D ~
.
.
.'
.
"
u
o.
,.
.
~ "
, 0
~ ~ .
". - .
" '"
....
.
,
o
;'
.
.
:.....
''''.
~:'6
D. .
..,.I'li
0"",
~!~il
-t't.~
'i~'U
IIlCJ~;
:~!~
("'0 ~
&~~r
.."''''; III
!O" o.
~'o~
~.("'o
oc'"
(",'
,,"
. n
,~=<<
0"<
0'.
f"
""1,
',.
......
....-{
(I'..
.,.
.,"
County I of Pitkin
)
} ss.
}
AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY POSTING OF A
VARIANCE HEARING BEFORE THE CITY OF
ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (Pursuant
to section 6-205(E) (b) of the Muni-
cipal Code)
State of Colorado
The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says as
follows:
I,
.~~CVK. E
A, ~IC\>..~~.J
, being or
representing an Applicant before the. Pitkin County Board of
Adjustment, personally certify that the attached photograph
fairly and accurately represents the sign posted as Notice of the
variance hearing on this matter in a conspicuous place on the
subject property (as' it could be seen from the nearest public
from the
that the
/'i'S''fi.-
said sign was posted and visible continuously
way) and
day of
'5'.-<,,,, ""q" Al!Gvs,
, 19~,
, 19-1.L.
. full days before the
-
ature
S~~~d and owo,
this - da of
19 ,by
me
WITNESS MY HA..I><D AND OFFICIAL SEAL. 1"(
. My Commiulon elfPlt~ ':11'%f "
My Commission expires:
e
-,
~<, ,/
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
CoAse '13 'Ie
Q"'"I',IY
S(I'fC~
I have complied with the notice requirements of section 6-
205 (E) (3) (Cl of the Aspen Land Use Regulations of the Aspen
Municipal Code by mai1inq of notice, a copy of which is attached
hereto by first class, postaqe prepaid, U.s. Mail to all owners of
property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property
on~u-;,6' , ...!!!?-, leA> . /~---- r--'
/ \
/ \
I
I
STATE OF COLORADO
)
) SS
I
COUNTY OF PITKIN
/~he fOregOi~/~avit.).p~mailing
c...--- day of , ~.
I
WITNESS my hana and official seal.
was signed before me this
My commission expires:
My CommIsolan explree 9/Zl/96
'f.~;N) lll'~
ary pub11
-
-,
T') J te 6u1t d I) +' /lW1/51 ;71~f1 j
.I cucvld l,kQ./o o[[2,.cr fOJr1fT!"f'/ 0)1 ('Ao/-.-{ S,)'/!<I;' rpav,c51 ..(0, '" T :JIll/lei V1r'O/I<P
CJ 0
,(Or AI!] h0t71"'~II<-- oV/ !fIe jjve!,"" o;,d /0 (?v,;r~9" d'/ 0It051//7/'I -/0 Ij,I~p",/,lf:>
J. 9/101/1 e. j;'o~ +Ao-l Ore,,- {J lo~? 1//2 ;JvPf1vr? ~~d t'lI'j"/lc/:nq Ct (011;1 ;J" J3"'/I~jl< / ~ ,
p (Oe"'i" j-y hI" A I A d I Ie /! >f-(" C Ivb 15 a 001/1 /0 Vol' d<'vt' 10 IN" <:1- I CJ b,; ec I -/;) I J", d,-vl'lof/l1Pl1i
o+-I-Ae ore"'111 9-f'lIl'fol,ond j() {~arl+ 'SovJus- (Pf;I/('",-I--l'o('o 20/?lflj Vc7('\Ollc<,: 1 ,
:; flee I .fICO III " Tj, 15 ~5 A.. 5,."fI.'J 1-/' i/C I hPd J, tv! 0 1ft ^ e WOO d"d 0 r('cL (/'~.;c jo /",;-'1 ..J ~:7 .;.
s P/I!Or~ ~ by !'i/I/cir"'c!'; ()'! ()PDple Q (peS/<.' f j /5> h~ / -";U>a) !~11'( 1,/,~4 //;'y' !?"'V)lp
kc Cj':J{f.t Sovk, 1//11(cJ.o(J'5€ jor/pvplot -I-J..e5f>9P11?I/rveOf"f'd5>/wAnl1l)p)I 'Actve ;/,('
,oPJll/,,)o bVI!d OAfW).P/(1 bv+5oo/len .fj,Q)I~/..en ff'COVI',f7:CJI1If19- vonOI1CeS frOM
)'''- (e ,';}vl,,;iO/15 fAo/-- Ao Ve b.,o 1",1 IYlIPO~'" j by ;)e C fly /0 fro lee -!- -!'~o 1,0/1 Vifa/11 ':>;'11.
//150; ;,/'~ (3oacdo.f!11Jv,/rMJlf SIC)f1 r"rYP~l-ln#- -tAe 20111nq,. va rIo/1/: e. ;'05 h"'<'r:
1'/5 ;i1'@for5'er"ro(dCl/5;r,obolo/L+o('aCl/;{>k I I)O~~ r Om no f S vre o.f +) e n i/m G~r
-rclo(,s. COtl~lclprr,19 -tJf' !p(lff:/A (J Jtfne If/valvfdl howPIv/"rf ,-!-)05 bf'pn ;nt7I~ dof5.rl-
:; fI()'f IJ,ore I (lOW; 0/1 /), e 0 J.'lu nc7J" CJ! /J Vfl v.,} I'd- .;T A 1 lee. I f' -I kf 0/('"," Pvl"(' Y day ofld )cy ~<?
.)o/c('r:! -Cor 1/, J'?A(Jv!rJBvo/'.fy -lA,s /r-(3riY'J/,on (OrrU'rnil1~ .fIe.. 519(( l soy -IAo-l-I
we !ookp,j {o, r+ bl/I T dOf/1- /<(l01.</ f'y'Qclly -//efo';i1/M 0+ +J.e fru{JPr1f' cJl1J
j /'f1o t b-e ,1fp,,, ,/~ ~ou;r)' T I'd v~ ocl., vI" Iy 1M h f' fo! I l T;'o (...<2. ;po /cPI1 tvl ii]
nvm be, 0 + ~l'Of{-e \ 1\ +- ~e \osi .f: \y (Jays wAo VJof' !-A E' or ("0 nD? 1/10 r Iy 10 (1 J .;),,'(
,1+"';'/ 1,,){Ar(\~ 0+ l~,c il"C<,Vf'S) '~or 0 ?O("(\(j VOi'O nce,
QlmS" JellY CAtJr+ Sovk,) f'('fj("'f'-.,I for 0 zC)nl(l~ VOrIOll{-{'~or /','3
proporJ'y O}'1 Uj.~ I4vl'/1"'<" 1-'- oa 1Y'<(IrJ~~5<"/15/';'re are. 0l7d5ftovlr:! he
)rO~H~eJ, fn",/ce ))"(11 oh{'! '/')e rv'les -IAc.-I-or-e d~5r8/1iPj 10 proJf'c.f /-A'S
';. riP 0. .
1~ j}p~/.f}
qJ '7rOC). "'t
11'0 he 1 ;110 h.. (JOM I d
.: ') (';1("'f mnra },)e Ii' /;;!i:! Boor J a -c ;1 clJvj-!il1<"n! OJ'ill - I CM" lei h'prc ! I tCi l
'.,~) ;<c' ;;r J f non) /0 'VI/Pr- I \ Ii d, "! E') 0 Vi d 0 d vC)C(, Ie. ('0 ~ (_ I,or' (' I
, I I I tr vi', - n T 501./ foe: I / f/,/6 c/ Ii
i,c!.n/c'" d f-APlr r'<"5pOASI bl;'~ 10 k,,"f jl!.::; J- 5/~n j),"N',
--,
-
GARY AND SUSAN RAPPAPORT
3940 WALDEN SHORES ROAD
W A YZA T A, MINNESOTA 55391
PHONE: (612) 473-3065
FAX: (612) 473-5369
~~
~I:;
August 9, 1993
Remo Livagnino
The City of Aspen Board of Adjustlll~nt
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
FAX (303) 920-5197
Dear Remo;
We own the property at 115 Ute Avenue, Lot 5, Hoag's Edition, and we have comments
about the variance request for Lot 3, Hoag's Edition, about which the Board of
Adjustment plans to meet on August 12 at 4:00PM.
Hopefully, you are aware of the long history about the development of that property. We
urge you to review the file on it (Leslie Lamont, at Planning and Zoning office, probably
has it or can get it), as it went through variance, P & Z, and finally revocation of its
building permit. You will also find letters from us in that file, detailing the many issues
that we found and still find objectionable.
We believe that the approval of a development plan for lot 3 should be denied because the
slope is extremely steep, and the resulting tree removal and excavation will cause high risk
of rock slides and avalanches both during and after construction. Iffor some reason you
do approve it, we urge you to make that approval contingent on certain conditions:
. The owners/developers MUST post a perfonnance bond before any work
whatsoever begins on that project.
. The new road to access the property and the original Nordic Trail road must be
completed in at least as good a way as the city planning office originally stipulated.
This includes re vegetation, boulder walls, avalanche mitigation, etc. - all of this
was detailed in earlier documents on file with the city. Because the original
developer did not have a perfonnance bond, he was able to really open up some
wide areas on very steep and treed terrain. One of the results, besides big scarring,
is that there are numerous snow slides on the trail. The trail was closed for all of
March and April this year, and while it was a heavy snow year, there were slides in
other years too, which had not happened before those roads were cut. As a matter
,~,.~,
...
.
of fact, a slide came over the road and lodged against the roof and back of our
neighbor's home.
The Nordic trail is scarred and damaged, and we are especially concerned with the
unacceptable part directly above our home. The easement along our property line,
(which was designated as a utility easement, by the way), has been trashed. The
terrain is uneven and not graded for proper drainage. There are rocks, boulders
and dead tree strewn around. On the upper side of the road, there are enormous
tree roots that have been exposed from the road cutting. There is one large double
trunk tree in particular that could seriously damage our home if it falls, and while
the Forest Service agrees that it could fall and has given us permission to remove
it, we feel that the expense and responsibility should be borne by those who
originally damaged it or the new owners.
. During any building, roads or homes, there must be construction fences which
protect our property as well as our neighbors, from debris, boulders, etc. falling
down upon us.
. There must be limitations set on the number of trucks and large vehicles that can
go up and down there, and they must not be allowed to use the Nordic Trail which
was designated ori inally and should remain a non-vehicular road.
. Needless to say, a sponsible person and agency must be appointed to closely
monitor any of the stipulations that you approve. The previous owner agreed to
many things and th n did not do them. No one was there to check on him or red
tag him for his lack of compliance.
Please also review the agr ement between the subject property and the Newfoundland
Claim next door. The Ne oundland has access rights across the Hoag #3 property.
They are also part of this zzle and the potential for future problems. Both of these
properties should be part f the same sorts oflimitations, because of the fragile nature of
their location.
We urge all the members fthe committee to personally go to the site, so they can
appreciate the seriousness and difficulties of building in that area.
Thank you for allowing us to express our views. Please do not let these issues drop into
the cracks! We would als appreciate being copied on the outcome ofthe meeting.
Sincer~ ". ~
~~:Zr~~~J~f\~\J I
", 'J (<~ ,.'
, <lC}{;'l[ t~ cLpfJi'I)/
Gary B. Rappaport
Susan H Rappaport
cc: Tommy Coleman
Jack Davis
c
250 Tunnel Road
Berkeley, CA 94705
July 8, 1993
Board of Adjustment
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Gentlemen:
We own half of the duplex at 1105 Ute Ave., adjacent to Hoag Subdivision (tAl' ~
Lot #3 . We object strongly to a variance for Charif Souki to reduce the front )
yard setback to 30 feet.
We commend the wisdom of the Aspen planners in imposing the 100-foot
setback requirement. This is a wooded alpine area in which the effect of
development upon the natural beauty should be minimized. When we
bought our property we understood that the zoning would not allow a
structure to be built with the proximity to our house now proposed. The
setback variance would have an adverse impact on our property value and,
more importantly, on our enjoyment of this wonderful setting.
We request that the requested variance not be granted.
Sincerely,
~/W~F
William R. Frazer
jti?U -to ~~
Jane Z. Frazer
-j
51:// fcWb
~