Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.boa.19960912AGENDA ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT COMMISSION Regular Meeting Thursday September 12, 1996 4:00pm A, r � Meeting Room, City Hall C I T`( c i t_. I. ROLL CALL I I . MINUTES III. COMMENTS A. Commissioners Comments B. Staff Comments C. Public Comments (not concerning items on the Agenda) IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case #96-09 Ed Van Deusen (Debra & Gary Moore) 233 North Spring Street, Aspen, CO 81611 Lots 1, 2 & S 1/2 of Lot 3, City of Aspen, Oklahoma Flats VI. ADJOURN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT EPTEMBER 12,1996 CASE #96-09 DEERA & GARY MOORE ..................................................................................................... 233 NORTH SPRING STREET ......................................... ....... ........... <................................................................ I 6 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 12 !, Rick Head called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. with Ron Erickson, Jim Iglehart, Howard DeLuca, David Schott and Dan Martineau present. Charles Paterson was excused. Minutes MOTION: Erickson moved to approve the minutes of August 8, 1996. Seconded by Head. ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION PASSED. Case #96-09 Debra & Gary Moore 233 North Spring Street Rick Head stated the applicant, Debra and Gary Moore, requested a side yard_ set- back variance for the construction of a 4' x 16'x 5'6" high enclosure. Gary Mo ,( re said this would be a storage shed placed into the set -back about 3 feet to bes�. for mowers, gardening tools, etc. Moore noted other trash cans not enclosed ar(, turned over from animals getting into them. He said only one neighbor was opposed to this storage enclosure. He submitted three letters from neighbors v!ho) supported it. Debra Moore stated the only home impacted was Jim Morse and I° was in favor of this enclosure. She showed pictures of what would be covered rap. Gary Moore said roofing was the same as the house. He commented Denise Re (_ h sent pictures of their cars parked in the street, which was when the utilities were, being redone. Moore showed a photo of Chuck Roth, City Engineer, and two Holy Cross Trucks. He further stated the other pictures of cars were the neighhhc,�rs and not their cars. Debra Moore said aside from Denise Reich's pictures and letters, they are visihle to the public from the Rio Grande Trail and that the street comes to a dead end' . She said they wanted to make it (yard) look clean and neat. Moore commented that some of the neighbors had trash cans in front of their houses and it was qu ) 1''_e unsightly. She said they wanted to put the garbage cans out reach of the bears. Head asked for questions from the Board. Martineau inquired why the need for something 4' x 16' for garbage cans. Martineau asked why the setback was needed if the enclosure was less than 16', . ' Moore responded the setback was at 3 and the enclosure at 4' was also to b,j-1 used for lawn mowers, garden tools and enough other belongings to fill it. Mr. Moore said two sheets of plywood wor fA.dl, out to be 16 feet. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 12 1996 Sara Thomas, Planner, stated the house was on the property line at this point. DeLuca asked the actual square footage of the house and the allowable square footage. Moore replied 4,980 was the actual and the allowable was 5,400. Head found the allowable square footage interesting because another lot was 14,000 sf and allowed 4,500 sf building under the City Code. Thomas replied the ADU and garage added bonus square footage. Thomas said the bonus of 250 sf for the ADU and 250 for the garage. She further explained the garage is calculated with the first 250 sf exempt, the next 250 sf are calculated at .5 against the FAR. Moore stated the 4,980 included decks, garage and ADU. Debra Moore showed pictures of the proposed enclosed area. DeLuca asked the reason for not putting the enclosure behind the house where it was legal. DeLuca expected the enclosure be made to look good. Moore said that side of the house was highly visible from the trail. Head stated there are letters from Howard L. Hanson, Eugene and Judith Seymore, James Morse, Ed VanDeusen and Denise Reich regarding this variance and the letters were placed into the record. DeLuca asked Thomas for staff recommendations. Thomas replied staff was comfortable granting the variance on that side of the residence because of the building envelope, stream margin review and lack of visibility from Rio Grande Trail. Thomas said that visibility was the main issue. Moore stated there was a door and a small deck off the ADU on the trail side of the house. Moore noted the setback area could barely be seen from the street, neighbors, path or anywhere. Erickson asked the applicant to express the hardship or practical difficulty. Moore responded the practicality of storage for trash. Moore said the neighborhood had trash cans everywhere. Debra Moore stated they want it to look nice and they take pride in their area. Gary Moore said they get 95% compliments on their house. Debra said Denise's trash was moved to the park area. Erickson said the City requested that Ms. Reich move her trash cans to that area so she would have additional parking. Hoefer asked the applicant if they wished to add the pictures into the record. Moore responded yes. The photographs were added to the record. 2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 12,199. DeLuca asked Thomas what the allowance for trash enclosures was in the code. Thomas replied there was no provision in the code for setbacks. Thomas said dumpsters in the commercial core are in alleys, but areas without alleys are supposed to have the dumpsters enclosed by a fence. Head asked if there was a response to the Denise Reich letter. Ms. Moore stated that Ms. Reich felt resentment toward the Moores because her brother had sold the lot to them. Head commented that this board had given Moore a variance of 3 1 /2 foot in the front yard to save trees. Moore said they had asked for 7 feet and were granted 3 1 /2 feet. Head further stated there was discussion of what was actually built vs. what was actually approved. DeLuca said the sketch at the time of the first meeting and what was granted with the upper story on the property line was different. DeLuca said the sketch was not clarified in the minutes and when it was brought to this board the second th-ne the wall did go straight up and the sketch showed it differently. He said the variance was granted because of this sketch. Moore explained when you go through the process for permits and Design Review wanted preliminary sketches then wanted plans. Moore said when referred back to the booklet, the board did not have anything to say. He said then they had to go through stream margin review, the conditional use review and each time they had to adjust something to make someone else happy. Moore noted their building envelope was not set until the stream margin review was done and that was one of the last approvals. He said it took 16 weeks for the process and never had set the plans. Moore noted that something was wrong with the process. DeLuca said atone of the first meetings, Moore had shown an elevation sketch. DeLuca stated in the minutes that he was willing to give a variance because only the first floor was encroaching not the second. Moore said when the variance was granted, 5 additional feet were taken off the other end. Moore said this started changing everything. DeLuca said some things (rules) have changed and the sketch/plan go into the record and if it (sketch/ plan) was not the same as the building, you will be tearing it down. Moore stated that they did save a lot of trees. Head asked if there were any more questions for the applicant. il Dan Martineau stated he was in favor because reasons for the shed are laudable but, the board was only to grant a variance if there was a hardship. Martineau said I BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 12 1996 that what was described was not a hardship. He was torn because he didn't see anything wrong with what they were doing but he was "stuck in the middle". Jinn Iglehart agreed with Dan and had hoped that during the applicant's planning stage they would have accounted for this storage area, but that was why they were here. He said he wasn't opposed to it and doesn't think it offended anyone but he was "Caught between a rock and a hard spot" in trying to determine a hardship. Ron Erickson agreed that if he had built a 4900 sf house he would have built storage areas into the house. He said this house was built from scratch, and Moore had come before this board for a variance from the 4700 sf house. Erickson said he didn't see a hardship. David Schott agreed with the rest of the Board. He said that he would love to see it but (the enclosure) was in the setback and the residence was pushed out about as far as it could go. He said that there was no hardship. Howard DeLuca said the enclosure was a great idea and hated seeing the trash cans up and down every street in the city and because of animals, trash was everywhere. DeLuca stated he had the same problem at his house with the set- back and enclosure. He noted that the Moore's enclosure was low impact only 5 ft tall and an oversight on Moore's part but DeLuca did not necessarily see a hardship. DeLuca said that it was too bad that zoning did not allow relief to enclose trash cans. He further noted his Homeowners Association required trash out of sight. DeLuca stated that in this commission's rules you can not create your own hardship and that was what Moore did. DeLuca said he saw the need for this enclosure but difficult to vote for it. Rick Head said the hardship had been created by the applicant. Head noted this house had been looked at in every way possible with a three car garage but had no where to store lawn mowers. He said the shed probably would not be obtrusive but this board already gave relief once before and he can't vote for this enclosure. Debra Moore said their trash cans would not be in their garage and it was a shame their trash cans had to be in the public eye near this newly created park. She said r their trash would be right across from Denise Reich's and the trash will be strewn all over the place from the bears. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 12.1991 Moore stated he understood that the board had to follow the rules for hardship. DeLuca asked for the definition of a temporary structure. Thomas stated the definition of structure includes temporary or portable. She said that if they h"d fenced it without a roof, then it wouldn't be an issue. Definitions from code: Fence means a structure, including berms, which serves as a barrier intended to prevent escape or intrusion, to mark a boundary, to shield or screen view, or to serve any similar purpose. Fences shall be permitted in every zone district provided that no fence shall exceed six (6) feet above natural grade. Fences visible from the public right-of-way shall be constructed of wood, stone wrought iron or masonry. On corner lots, no fence,. retaining wall, or similar object shall be erected or maintained which obstructs the traffic vision, nor on corner lots shall any fence, retaining wall, or similar obstruction be erected or maintained which exceeds a height of forty-two (42) inches, measured from street grade, within 30 feet from the paved or unpaved roadway. Plans showing proposed construction, material, location and height shall be presented to the building inspector before a building permit for a fence is issued. Additionally, foliage shall be placed and maintained so that it will not obstruct vehicular visibility at intersections. Structure means anything constructed, installed or portable which requires location on a parcel. It includes a movable building which can be used for housing, business, commercial, agricultural or office purposes, either temporarily or permanently. "Structure" also includes roads, walkways, paths, fences, swimming pools, tennis courts, signs, sheds, and other accessory construction. "Structures" do not include fences or walls used as fences less than six (6) feet in height, poles, lines, cables or other transmission or distribution facilities of public utilities. MOTION: Erickson moved to approve the request for side yard setback variance for 233 North Spring Street finding the three review standards are met. ALL OPPOSED, MOTION DENIED. Meeting adjourned at 5 :10 p.m. hackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk `J, MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Adjustment THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director FROM:. Sara Thomas, Zoning Officer RE: 233 N. Spring Street - Ed VanDeusen, represented by Gary Moore DATE: September 4, 1996 SUMMARY: The applicant requests a variance from the side yard setback dimensional requirement in order to construct a storage enclosure. The property is located in the R-30 PUD zone''' district, which has a required ten foot. side yard setback. The dimensions of the storage enclosure are 4 feet by 16 feet, requiring a setback variance of approximately four feet. Please refer to the attached drawings and written information provided by the applicant for a complete presentation of the proposed variance. APPLICANT: Ed Van Deusen, represented by Gary Moore LOCATION: 233 N. Spring Street 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: The property is located directly across from a portion of the Rio Grande trail system, a key component of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Any development on the property is highly visible to the public. Granting the variance will permit the storage enclosure to be built in an area that does not impact the public and will minimally impact the neighborhood. 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 storage enclosure could be constructed on the south side of the property, requiring no variance. However, with the constraints of the stream margin review building envelope, and the visibility of that portion of the property from the Rio Grande trail system, locating the enclosure on the north boundary of the property appears to make possible the most reasonable use of the parcel. 3. Standard: Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant 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 the terms of this title to other parcels, buildings or structures, in the same zone district. Response: The placement of structures on the property has been restricted by the stream margin review building envelope. In addition, the property is located in an area where the visible impact to the public is great. The proposed location of the storage enclosure minimizes the visual impact to the public and to the neighborhood, and does not encroach into the stream margin building envelope. 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. A Deny the variance finding that the review standards are not met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the request for a side yard setback variance be approved. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the request for a side yard setback variance for 233 N. Spring Street finding that the three review standards are met." CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION DATE S — X 7 19� APPLICANT R� U 4 N 0 GEE UK 5 F= tit MAILING ADDRESS�- CASE # PHONE 9 ,� �� �3'0 '7 OWNER F D �� a s L ;= S K) _ PHONE q ,�- 5— c� d 7 5 MAILING ADDRESS S A W LOCATION OF PROPERTY 3 `� V- C R to S l t. '� S f zL oT- (Street, Block Number and Lot Number) '� Z-� o F ASPS !J Oi; LA-f* c MA- F1-/ - WILL YOU BE REPRESENTED BY COUNCIL? YES_ NOX Below, describe clearly the proposed variance, including all dimensions and justification for the variance. (Additional paper may be used if necessary.) The building permit application and any other information. you feel is pertinent should accompany this application, and will be made part of this case. ) e-, 1 0, Applicant's Signature REASONS FOR DENIAL OF BUILDING PERMIT, BASED ON THE ASPEN CITY CODE, CHAPTER 24. AN OPINION CONCERNING THIS VARIANCE WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD BY THE ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF.f��c�s I�Of �n �� �� ;vim � i'`� ��. {��>� oA t /Jks- t--- AJ �` l , 4 DATE PERMIT DENIED G' " OFFICIAL DATE OF APPLICATION � � h (0 HEARING DATE � 1 ( — NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CASE #96-09 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 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 stu-rotulding 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: September 12, 1996, City Council Meeting Room Time: 4:00 P.M. Owner for Variance: N�une: Ed Van Deusen _-address: 233 North Spring Street, Aspen Co 81611 Location or description of property: 2 33 North Spring Street, Aspen Co 81611 tn Lots 1,2 & S 1/2 of Lot 3, City of Aspen, Oklahoma Flats Variance Requested: Applicant for Variance: Debra & Gary Moore Applicant is requesting a side yard setback variance of approximately 4 feet for construction of a storage `:�clostu-e. Will applicant be represented by Counsel: YES: NO: X The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Charles Paterson, Chainnan ®EN ICE REICH, INC. August 26, 1996 City of Aspen The Board of Adjustments Dear Board of Adjustments: A variance was granted to the Gary Moore property at 233 N. Spring by the Board of Adjustments on May 25, 1995. The variance was granted on the basis of hardship due to the Cottonwood trees. These said trees were cut down during the construction period at 233 N. Spring Street, the very reason the variance was granted. The park department admitted that the trees were cut down and mitigated by a 10-12 foot berm on the North Side of the home and yet not one tree was replaced along the river. I have enclosed Remo's statement from the meeting .of May 25, 1995. Demo Lavagnino stated from the audience, for your consideration and clarification, the impact on Spring Street, although it is a dead-end street; when the snowplow comes in in the winter time, because it creates a snowburn and it keeps backing up, and that impacts neighbors, like myself, in that particular area. I'm not saying anything about this variance so much as I just want ,you to understand that narrow street at the dead-end of Spring Street does have impact on neighbors. I have enclosed the pictures of the parking problems now created as a result of the granted variance. I understand Mr. Moore is coming back into the board to ask for an additional variance on a tool shed. I am opposing this. There is no hardship on a home with a three -car garage, which is used for storage not parked in, and an ADU Unit of 734 square feet that is being used as a part of complete living area, a duplex, for two families. In my opinion, Mr. Moore has the attitude of "build -it," "then ask for forgiveness." His intention to rebuild the shed is obvious as the disassembled pieces are waiting to be put back. I would hope this board would recall the shed that had to be moved 10 feet from the property line in 1993. It would appear a double standard if this additional variance were to be allowed. Sincerel , Denice C. Reich DR:jb RE/MAX Central 1 873 So. Bellaire St., #700 Denver, CO 80222 (303) 759-6644 direct FAX (303) 691-3387 One of Denver's Top Ten Realtors Since 1980 09/03/96 TUE 15:07 FAX 616 798 4611 JETAWAY & JAIJ IN01 ir ziervice mkvmway aff September 3, 1996 107 Sinclair Drive — Muskegon County Airport Muskegon, Michigan 49441 (616) 798-2149 To Whom it May Concern: I own the property at 285 N. Spying Street in Aspen, Colorado. it is my understanding that Gary Moore who lives directly to the south of me wishes to build an enclosed Shed on the north side of his home . Please let it be known that I have no objection to his building the enclosed shed. SincerolYt -.1 M ,PAO Jam s A. Morse JAM/ns Ed Van Deusen 233 N_Spring Street Aspen, CO. 81611 27 August, 1996 City of Aspen Board of Adjustment The variance we are requesting is for an enclosure for trash & garbage containers and gardening equipment, etc. on the north side of our house. The dimensions are: 4'xl6'. Height, 5'6 rear, & 5' front. The reason for our request for this special variance is our definate need for this particular storage do to the following: Because of our location on the river, which is almost entirely exposed to the public bike path, and the recently dedicated Spring Street Park, we feel obliged to keep these areas free of unsightly items such as those mentioned above. Also, we do not want trash & garbage containers, etc. on the street side of our house for the same reason, plus the fact that bears are prone to scavenge such containers. Since basements are not allowed due to our river location, our garage is used for cars and personal things of full time residents. There is no room left for the items mentioned above. The only appropriate side of the property for such an enclosure is on the north side of the house adjacent to our neighbor, Jim Morse, who is in favor of this variance, as we maintain and I andscape a mutual berm. The proposed enclosure would contain all items now having to be stored out in the open in this area. We feel that the variance would not only solve our storage problem, but maintain the beauty of the areas visable to the public . We appreciate your kind consideration of this variance. Sincerely, Ed Van Deusen September 5, 1996 The City of Aspen The Board of Adjustments RE: CASE #96-09 Variance Request September 12, 1996 Dear Board of Adjustments: I understand Mr. Moore is coming back into the board to ask for an additional variance on a shed. The variance for a shed should not be granted because of the following facts: There is no hardship. In the enclosed letter dated May 25, 1996 from the Board of Adjustmentes: "Erickson stated, I just want to remind everybody that we are charged to give minimum variances, and minimum variance, in this case, with a new house, is zero. So, you can do what you want, but I don't think there's one needed here. That's my point of view." * A new oversized 3-car garage exists which is rarely used for cars. The garage appears to be used for storage and a business? Therefore an additional shed on the north side in the set back does not present a hardship or difficulty for the applicant. (Pictures Enclosed). * Granting a variance would give the applicant a special priviege that has previously been denied to surrounding neighbors. A shed was not allowed in the set back by this same board. That specific home did not have any storage or garage. * The congestion on the North side is an eyesore. There is a large berm that is not on grade with an to attempt to hide the shed. This berm looks awkward, at best. I would question if such a berm meets city code as it is not on grade with the next property. * The home is a duplex of massive proportions, adding a shed just increases the over encumbered lot on the north side. The south side could be more appropriate as trees could easily hide a shed. It would be most appropriate to plant trees as more than 124 caliber inches were cut down after the previous variance was granted. * The parking is intolerable due to the narrow dead-end and the fact that the house was allowed to move forward. Mr. Moore almost always parks in the street to gather items from the shed and garage. This just adds further to the congestion. This is the hardship on the neighborhood. It is astounding that four cars are rarely parked in the garage because it is used for storage/business. This is the worst visual impact to the public and the neighborhood. * There are no special conditions or circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure. All of the beautiful old trees that would have hidden its massive impact along the river are gone. In other words the visual impact has already been created by the City allowing and supporting this duplex. Mr. Moore has the attitude of "build -it," "then ask for forgiveness." Example: Duplex - Allowed to stay. Everyone knows the Moore family of four does not live in an ADU Unit of 700 Sq. Ft. maximum. This is a duplex of approximately 2750 Sq. Ft. on the North side and 2500 Sq. Ft. on the South side. One needs to look at the plans on the North side. The Moore's master bedroom and two childrens bedrooms are upstairs along that entire side. The children's bedrooms are even labeled with their names. The City Officials have already given the applicant special privilege that has been denied to the rest of the neighbors. Example: A variance was granted to move the said property 3 V2 feet forward to save trees. The trees were cut down anyway. It is a fact that the owners cut down approximately 24 caliber inches the first time and more than 100 caliber inches the second time. Example: A patio was built in the stream margin. A portion of the patio was removed in August 1996. Example: A shed was built by the Moores without approval and the City required a variance and disassembly. Mr. Moore's intentions are obvious as the roof and panels are in tact on the North side of the home just waiting to be reassembled. I would hope the board would review the enclosed papers dated May 25, 1995 and to see how easily the City rules appear to be manipulated with no consequences as to the impact on the surrounding area. It would appear a double standard if this additional variance were to be allowed. Sincerely, A0401�_ Denice C. Reich DR: j b L rPA402A__�'W MmMoxarmcrnt TO: Stan Clauson, Community Develop nt Director FROM: George Robinson, Parks Director 0` DATE: July 7, 1995 RE: Gary Moore's Development Proposal; Lots 1, 2 & South 1/2 of Lot 3, Block 1 Oklahoma Flats Subdivision I have been working quite extensively with Mr. Moore on his development proposal for his Oklahoma Flats property. Our original discussions on the lots in question were to request a set back variance on the front lot line to accommodate saving a significant number of trees along the river. The movement of the building forward, closer to the street, was to save approximately 100+ caliper inches of trees. This design would have required an approximate 5 foot set back variance from the Board of Adjustments. The Board of Adjustments approved this variance for 3 1/2 feet. Since that time, Mr. Moore has removed an additional 24 caliper inches of trees, however, the number of trees saved by the set back variance is still significant and acceptable to the Parks Department. CC: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Planning Director Bill Drueding, Zoning Official t TL DENICE REICH, INC. ATTENTION: LESLIE LAMONTE BRUCE KERR April 26, 1995 To Whom It May Concern. - Regarding case #95-2 Gary Moore, Spring Street: As a property owner directly across the street, at 230 N. Spring, I would strongly object to the home being built on that property to encroach seven and a half (7 112 ) feet closer to the street. It is a very large home and would have an impact on that end of the street. I would question also the impact on the entire area of Oklahoma Flats. Within the last year the area has become homes looking as if they are taking steroids, instead of the quaint smaller homes that gave the area such charm. Bigger is certainly not better, as closer to the street with such a large home is certainly not an improvement. Concerning the additional 700 feet being added to the home by an accessory dwelling unit would also negate the charm and have a definite impact. I would object to any additional square footage. Sincerely, Denice C. Reich RE/MAX Central 1400 So. Colorado Blvd., *500 Denver, CO 80222 (303) 759-6644 direct FAX (303) 691-6829 One of Denver's Top Ten Realtors Since 1980 DENICE RETCH, INC. August 23, 1996 Stan Clauson City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611-1975 Dear Mr. Clauson: I am most appreciative of your explanation to me of an ADU Unit. I had no idea an ADU Unit could be used in the manner in which the Moore/Van Duesen residents are using the extra square footage (ADU Unit). From my understanding of your explanation, anyone can use that extra square footage as a part of their home for any use. Your explanation stated that it is all right for an ADU Unit to be used with the rest of the living space in the home. It is interesting that an ADU Unit really means more mass to the house and yet people complain about the monster homes. So the fact is people should just plan on adding 700 square feet extra to a large home. It is completely legal as long as that square footage is called an ADU Unit. It is difficult and confusing to know that the home cannot be Sold as a duplex but that it in fact can be used as a duplex. Thank you for your explanation and your time. Sincerel , Denice C. Reich DR:jb 'E/MAX Central 73 So. Bellaire St., #700 uenver, CO 80222 (303) 759-6644 direct FAX (303) 691-3387 /6� One of Denver's Top Ten Realtors Since 1980 ZO'd 0-LBEET6920ET66BOT-6 oi Id3a !:,alg NIA1Id/N3dSU W08J LE:80 S66T-TZ-Ndd • P.O. Box 1690 ASPEN, COLORADO 8161 Z September 9, 1996 The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Chairman Paterson and board members: I have owned property in Oklahoma Flats for the past twenty-one (21) years and have been a full time resident of the area since 1984. Last week I received notice of a public hearing on a variance request-- case #96-09. It's my opinion that the variance requested by Debra and Gary Moore is reasonable and. I hope that the Board of Adjustment will give unqualified and immediate approval to the request. oward L. Hans n P.O. Box 1690 725 Bay St. Aspen, CO 81612 / , S .j�• i ; is o ; •, A!"f�f. ,y 7 - - •tri - f .A,I' _ `fryAM AL i, f`/a�it'°M �` _� t, -, , 1„ �, •. IL or ,,�_ � � � .r ���MN / 1- � • ,. •. . � ,• . '� ^+. "t'i`• ,tit ., � � �. TT M, .r�'• �. � i*. l.• .R '!�1:•4i1 ' "":l='•� � ' f,'/ WIC \� , jCl '� tl - \ � / 1 7 I ,�' Y, ' (. 1 '.C; �t Lw- ^ � •� - , 7I, • j, r , . .'��' • Y ��� •:`rrar:,;+�.r.+ti .k7.r'► 1 S'•�'� � '•�T1► _ •P t� •�. � , r i _ qr H � "l.h •7 kl .• - � r • f -a J �f tt,[ - I . ^ - ; . - -* �• .�-tF���...� , :••fi - i/ . � `t+ �� �.•' •- yt • i- ,L`,.j 1�� ' t / ` .^ . s 'p • .�4 , � aT �' t �� .; , `�a.t•,.- ' ♦ I r i is , ' • r •• f. 1 -.� ,r (�• . I +yy. -,y . I ' r f �t_ r ,1�^ • . , , it < - ( -{`t � .t°. 'r • ? � .� , t �• 2r `ark •'. 't'f%'^ � •L i f �� 4 y�� � � .•. •. 4. 1 el,. -�� t �, ,a,r i, �� .t . , � ' - 1 77 .+�`;'=�,t17� •���rA •��7 �>� \. `}• '• y�, ' � ��. •%',r,4 A!j•' rl rL{`' �'�y }."h�� cj,•�, 't �y,,•.. • `.; .•.. 1 't is _ - .i �,..% }q�. f vhi_� �1���YCU iht_1hi �"'.r� '� �`r : • -'��'7}P! f�t,, e:tc � t v0�,:,�'1•• ;:kit h � .a' +• � • i`-1, f • _ �: ,. +'t 1, � _ 1� � '� � �1 j t '3' ' ~� 4 � J-.\.t u �, t,� :^r� _ £ •;: y .e '` A _ -;�, .:.R I t{ -` t j� `�� 17t 1 �; - Ji :;.{.. �.:+� t7��;''�Yht 1��. ,'• r r / 1 �v / t �. ;�.!• __ !� w' � \ � t'•' , - ,1�' __t -r� `1 � :•��eR. � � .. .. t ` _ ; • jJi*Q',' l �',• ' •1 1y�i�j -r 4' 4 . R^�14. .� j 't � �,(. � ,•L'�• ♦ i� ,� . ,y.< n -' ,� .r ', + • i "'C' ,rt. �`• _ ,!� - K. fit• _ :7, . -•r l�. _ \ •A.44 i •� i r •,t � ... t t t�jl'� ��'h t• t : AlpIX r i.--. c •Y�`.�.5.�.�'� _ `�{',� �,�y � , • ��j , �i ��' •f' r• � � ' +�t •c f�i, � t '� j n / ,�- �- .,�!�. t• -:_ My � /:~-� '•� •t yl�ysi.Yri`�� j f' :�� � /� • i:+ •� � +inCtY t �•' r��? � �1✓ .77r- � _ 'J. �, .�-t�,r: -� • r,� �, Y ,j., . ♦ , i (� � 'r! �� � ++k :ice y' ^- y - • � + � {TIC � Z�w � 1►-, '�• !/ •`7�1'rt1, g1.•Yi l --a�.`t- t e' ' +��t� �, , L I / r ` �` + r -, yi•r;� �..^, b ,/ , �� � A� � � t.- .a.r�t�i•/ `:r•' hh�^ '� a X., 75� .. •� � .i•- 1 >"1 - rr 1 �� ,/l -�-ll /yf.}��� ;�,y�.��, 1 � � ' wt �j f �r Ki ,;F . I ` . 't • n i v' ' ! ci�rr, �;1 ����ur? i �� .�' t .♦ I• w' t !m K^74 h ` Yt tr!p �, , � ;� • `f M1 � W ;Y� „y„ a. r� ;L a, � _ _ r t i�,,^� is � ` � �.' e � a � � ^ �. ,� ftaft w 1 R ` 1. 5- ' _ CR. e * ' >p!• t,i`. 1 ��l 1•y `'y.:�••y' » -.. _ ` �_ �,r d-v-, r. ' -.�.r "ii -----� t�� ,; r- 1;11'� ^i '.' to -••a: Tr ;`'a ,1 . � ; • ,�. ,., t te's ���� 't' /ti r.>r rtai'' - .i � �t ?. _ `f IPIf j} { ' y v, rf • 4r , ' '"[i:!o,' y'R��.��Sti"� } "'<`.'i��Y� t F-; ' . - 'y'17 �� t4' ,`" j ?7�' t I , . . •r' „��t,t•a ,b� 'r-'c• r. - .� P•"Y `. - r Itg s '4 ' �i - - , � ,Y• - � w a ,.., y..t,• Jp � {' • ; rj. R- ``�i,'y,� •'�,'���'• +�. '. 't'�_ 'r. _ // _• Z � � i�`�r'r�r, �{ �Z��C'r. ,:L•f"s 31t'.S_•-• - t' .� • ,fir` � -- r✓>1` «`� •��...\\..rrti�:� � , t �"' � � � ir , -y�i, r. IJ _ ! _-;��' `; tiR i aw'r- '- - t .. , t` '` � e � -�=-� .S'."' 4 ..�.- y •. �,: .T •'� ..g 'FA.;� iFr ►�j( • / � n•J'-- .1 , - I - - �~ kY_t +l�� .t4 1� � - - _/^ - •}I• ,tr• IJa�� _ r�°y ��� � ' • � � y�¢�: .; `,: `•.fL.,9�i'•' ,� � � ,i tr �t 4 •�: ,�. r ��. �i ,e•se , z� ~y ' d �, t ' r • r K ���' Win, x �,.p`st Noll '., I 1 440 If T * "Rot V. ICTUINIFI "Ai 7j' Mb t" — 1 VA 17,z • �' Vc LAI MOM �� _ F S #} o : ° . ., ♦ .��.: fit, ,a .�+ • y �j j 1 T � I'S '� I r'�• sr .�i'•• A� / .a, 1I.1 �ili�� �. •7��•Ifi rJ•. 1 IF _ �, I , i i i _." •7iiii...1;>.i;rjl 'w.E. R' �. ... '� • V ` + y k 1. S, • , , �. . � - '\ . . /•,s' , rJ�' ,� � �` ra Z. .ate• '`4 t ► •. � , � _ �,r �F `Iy ., { � � - +�� \. • Iy+ � _` y i .. rr oil im wlkyon -- sir � , ._h• / • � ,Y� , Lf. r -. +� I � • t I. � � ...r a' �� rX'�. �-jii��� ` {•' ,, ; Si' "- ° +� . � � i { i' lr ' r,�Li`Jtl�, � 1� �� F � ..•„' rr � t / • � • _ •� to .',:•" _ � jail jf'�{��ff a ' ..�.�^'�� . r � I ' _+'1. [y }� �1F �\, fr•� � .4i c -,�a i i i ' /�f `i1 '�q�� r 1 1 .� P �` { LL�`t; •- .. � .(1- _ , ! } �� I,'}. � �.' � R,-� �, ` ` ,;+ i• ` _ � '®- '-•9 •`. .1 - yr- N �4>�r. sJ � \ �. P,►�� �� l �. v , V '► , � t F•7 • l� f �� \ 1 • v �► %.A In 1 lJ 1 t I Ffz o pO Sr U Fac m t �'