HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19920721
.
.
AGE N D A
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
July 21, 1992, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
city Hall
.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I. COMMENTS
commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
II. MINUTES
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
.
.'
--"
A. Garrish Rezoning to R-15, Kim Johnson
B. Braden Conditional Use Review, Kim Johnson
C. McPherson Conditional Use Review, Leslie Lamont
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A. Old Library Special Review, Leslie Lamont
B. Zaluba 8040 Greenline Non-compliance Hearing,-Leslie
Lamont
V. ADJOURN
...
,-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
RE: Garrish Rezoning from R-30 PUD to R-15 (Moderate
Density Residential)
DATE: July.21,.1992
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of rezoning a
portion of the Applicant's property from R-30 PUD to R-15. This
request is being made to establish R-15 zoning on the entire 27,912
s.f. parcel currently bisected by: the R-30 PUD / R-15 zone
boundary.
APPLICANT: Michael Garrish, represented by Paul Taddune
LOCATION: The 0.64 acre parcel is located at 855 Gibson Ave.
Please see parcel and vicinity in Exhibit "A".
ZONING / USE: Current zoning of R-30 PUD and R-15 divides lot
roughly in half, with the R-30 PUD portion being along the west
side. The current use of the -site is a single family residence
(also bisected by the zone boundary). No change to this use is
proposed relative to the rezoning request..
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Mr. Garrish is requesting the zone change to
make the zoning of the parcel consistent within it own lot lines.
The existing R-15 portion of the lot is less than the required lot
j size of 15,000 s.f., and the entire parcel size (27,912 s.f.) is
not in compliance with the minimum R-30 requirement of 30,000 s.f.
lots.
PROCESS: Rezoning is a two-step review. The Commission will
forward recommendations to City Council for their final
determination.
STAFF COMMENTS: The following are standards from Section 7-1102
which must be addressed when considering a Map .Amendment
(rezoning)
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
.applicable portions of this chapter.
Response: There are no conflicts with the Land Use Code which will
arise as a result of this rezoning. The application states that
the dual zoning on the Garrish property resulted from an apparent
City error. Research has led staff to believe that this occurred
E
during the 1975 city-wide downzoning and rezoning of the Oklahoma
Flats area to R-30 PUD.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements
of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The 1973 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map shows this area
to be single family residential. The proposed zoning would be in
conformance with the 1973 Plan and the current residential use.
C. Whether the proposed zoning amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing
land use and neighborhood characteristics. •
Response: The surrounding zoning is R-3 0 PUD on the west and south
(Oklahoma Flats), R-15 to the east and north (across Gibson Ave.)
and Park to the south which is Herron Park. The proposed R-15 zone
is compatible with these residential zones and uses.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
Response: The change will not affect the level of activity at this
site.
E. Whether the proposal will result in increased demand on public
facilities.
Response: No changes in,public facilities needs will result from
this rezoning. The current residential use is proposed to
continue.
F. Whether the proposed amendment will result in impacts on the
natural environment.
Response: No adverse impacts are anticipated as a result of the
rezoning. The PUD overlay is being deleted as part of this
application because it would serve no useful purpose if it remains.
Single-family dwellings and duplexes, which are the principle
permitted uses in R-15 zones, are exempt from PUD review
requirements.
G. Whether the proposal is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Response: The proposed zone change will not diminish the character
of the community.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning Staff recommends approval of the
rezoning of the western portion of the Garrish parcel from R-30 PUD
2.
FOUND REBAR
\ NO CAP BENT
N -
/ P,
/ DRIVI
� o
M
H
,
/ R-30
P. U. D.
zs s
L 4
S'�J' 2?• QV,E r TITLr
E_
FOUND RES
CAP 2376
GARRI
~a TRAC
Ak� „ BASIS
BEARING
d 27, 9�2 Sq Fr fJEr
^ 10
0
9
SET REBA
W/CAP 16129
OUND 1954
Y
r
C , rr of A s po 1J P.4
1300V- G,vs- ,�.or
FOUND REBAR W/CAP 23T6
PROPER
OF LOT I CF
THE GARRISF
P I T K I N -COUP
F CAP 110RZ CONTROL o
/ GARRISN TRACT ti b
� 2
z Zo tat h)
N P
• � \ , YS Y V
O
v -
�P
v
FOUND REBAR
NO CAP BENT
Z
ti
%-30-91 �ui6i 7i��z
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning
DATE: July 21, 1992
RE: Zaluba 8040 Greenline Approval Noncompliance Hearing
SUMMARY: In January of 1990 the Planning and Zoning Commission
approved a 8040 Greenline approval for the construction of a single
family residence on Lot 3 of the Hoag subdivision.
The previous excavation permit for the new access road along with
several other permits were issued but have expired. A result of
the previous roadway excavation has been the existence of unstable
soil conditions and this has impacted the surrounding properties.
In addition, there are several conditions of approval that have not
been observed with regard to the excavation of the access road.
The specific conditions of approval that have not been adhered to
are the following (please see the attached 1990 Resolution #4): -
3. A vertical tie-in wall and boulder wall shall be
constructed by the applicant and the plans shall be reviewed
and approved by the Planning and Engineering Departments.
4. The applicant shall adhere to the recommendations of Chen -
Northern regarding slope stability during the excavation of
the road and site and those plans and recommendations shall
be reviewed by the Engineering Department.
8. No spoils or fill shall be placed over - the side of the
road cut. All excavated materials shall be removed from the
site if not used in the construction of the residence.
10. The applicant shall revegetate the upper road cut,
beginning at the hairpin turn.
Although the conditions of approval to not specify a date by which
the "vertical tie-in wall" shall be constructed or the "upper road
cut" shall be revegetated, Mr. Zaluba excavated a rough road cut
two years ago without a follow through on recommendations from
Chen -Northern regarding slope stability and revegatation of the
upper road cut.
In addition, Mr. Zaluba has not responded to letters of concern
from adjacent property owners and the City complaining. about
potential erosion problems with the spring thaws.
Finally, staff has reason to believe that when the new road was cut
"spoils and fill" were allowed to fall over the side and were then
scraped up by heavy equipment potentially damaging hillside
vegetation.
Please find attached the correspondence between the City, the
adjacent property owners and Mr. Zaluba and his attorney Marty
Pickett.
Marty Pickett has recently indicated to staff that Mr. Zaluba has
begun to rectify the rough road cut situation. Chen -Northern has
been retained to stabilize the road cut and the banks and to design
a vertical tie-in wall to support the upper bank. Mr. Zaluba is
also working with the property owner's of the Newfoundland Lode"to
secure the road for access to both properties.
If Mr. Zaluba's 8040 Greenline approval is revoked no building
permits may be issued for the Hoag Lot 3 prior to a 8040 Greenline
approval for a specific development proposal.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff_ recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Commission consider one of the following alternatives with regard
to Mr. Zaluba's 8040 Greenline approval:
1. Revegetation of the upper road cut and stabilization of the new
road cut shall be accomplished by September 1, 1992. The plans for
the tie-in. and boulder retaining wall shall be reviewed and
approved by the Engineering and Planning Departments before
stabilization work may begin. Recommendations by Chen -Northern
regarding the stabilization shall be reviewed by the Engineering
Department and shall be adhered to during the stabilization and
revegatation process.
Failure to complete the stabilization and revegatation shall cause
the revocation of the 8040 Greenline approval for Hoag Lot 3.
2. Mr. Zaluba shall post a performance bond for $300,000 for the
stabilization of the new road cut and revegetation of the upper
road cut to be completed prior to the issuance of any
foundation/excavation and building permits. The plans for the tie-
in and boulder retaining wall shall be reviewed and approved by the
Engineering and Planning Departments before stabilization work may
begin. Recommendations by Chen -Northern. regarding the
stabilization shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department and
shall be adhered to during the stabilization and revegatation
process.
Failure to complete the road stabilization
one year from this review shall cause the
to perform the work required.
K
and revegetation within
City to utilize the bond
3. Mr. Zaluba shall post a performance bond for $300,000 for the
stabilization of the new road cut and revegetation of the upper
road cut .with work to be completed by September 1, 1992. The plans
for the tie-in and boulder retaining wall shall be reviewed and
approved by the Engineering and Planning Departments before
stabilization work may begin. Recommendations by Chen -Northern
regarding the stabilization shall be reviewed by the Engineering
Department and shall be adhered to during the stabilization and
revegatation process.
Failure to complete the work required by September 1, 1992 shall
cause the City to utilize the bond to perform the work required.
4. Revocation of the 8040 Greenline approval pursuant to Planning
and Zoning Commission Resolution 4, 1990. V
5. The Commission may choose, based upon the facts presented, to
not take action thus allowing the 8040 Greenline approval to remain
valid.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution 4, 1990
2. Correspondence between City Attorney, staff, Mr. Zaluba and
his representative, adjacent property owners and engineers.
3. Certified Notification of Noncompliance Hearing to Mr. Zaluba
3
3
EXHIBIT , APPROVED ,
.I9 BY RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
.' GRANTING 8040 GREENLINE APPROVAL OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME"
ON LOT 3, HOAG SUBDIVISION IN THE CONSERVATION ZONE DISTRICT
Resolution No. 90-
I
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and .Zoning Commission held a
public meeting January 2, 1990; and
WHEREAS, the Commission reviewed an application for a 8040
r
Greenline for Lot 3 in the Hoag Subdivision; and
- .WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed this .application
several times during 1989; and
WHEREAS, the Commission was concerned about the avalanche
hazards on the site, preservation of the Nordic trail and the
visual impact of a large home on the hillside; and
,f WHEREAS, the applicant continued to work with the Commission
to present a proposal that the Commission could approve; and
WHEREAS, the applicant agreed to construct a new .access
drive in order to preserve the Nordic trail; and
WHEREAS, the -applicant -agreed to restrict the floor area of
the house to 2,438.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it
does hereby grant approval of the 8040 Greenline for Lot 3 of the
Hoag Subdivision with the following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the
applicant shall create a barrier between the driveway and the
trail on the Forest Service property to reduce the potential
conflict between trail users and Lot 3 users.
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant
Resolution No. 90-
-Page 2
l
shall have a confirmed tree -relocation plan and/or replacement
program in place to be reviewed and approved by. the Parks
Department.
3. A vertical tie-in wall and boulder wall shall be constructed
by the applicant and the plans shall be reviewed and approved by
the Planning and Engineering Departments. r
4. The applicant shall adhere to the recommendations of Chen -
Northern regarding slope stability during the excavation -of the
road and site and those plans and recommendations shall be
reviewed by the Engineering Department.
5. The applicant shall retain a geotechnical engineer to perform
field monitoring during the excavation and construction of the
site.
G. The applicant shall implement the sprinkler plan as approved
by the Fire Marshall.
7. Prior to the issuance of an excavation permit, the
Engineering Department.shall "review a final drainage plan.
8. No spoils or fill shall be placed over the side of, the road
cut. . All excavated materials shall be removed from the site if
not used in the construction of the residence.
9. The applicant shall post signage on the utility/trail
easement to prevent vehicular access.
10. The applicant shall revegetate the upper road cut, beginning
at the hairpin turn.
11. The access road shall not be expanded beyond access for one
single family home on the Newfoundland parcel.
0
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
1
By
C. Welton Andes'bW, Chairman
Resolution No. 90-
Page 3
12. The new access road shall be constructed• first to
accommodate excavation and development of the building site•so as
not to use the trail.
13. No' additional square footage, shall be added to the house
• r
without a full 8040 Greenline review. This building site shall
• r
not be subject to any exemptions pursuant to the 8040 Greenline
review process for any additions.
14. •The approved revised plans indicate a reduction of - square
footage of 402..75 and -approximately a 20 reduction in the facade
of the structure. The calculable floor area of the home was
approved at 2,438 square feet.
15. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan that shall be
agreed upon between the applicant, Planning and Engineering
Departments. The grade on the west side shall be raised to
approximately window sill level.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on January
2, 1990.
ATTEST:
Jan
I
PLANNING & ONING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT , APPROVED r
19 BY RESOLUTION
MES97M DISPLAY
TO Bill
�m
Postmark:
Drueding.
Leslie Lamont
Aug 20,90 4:27 PM
Subject: Reply to:-JOE ZALUBA'S BUILDING PERMIT
Reply text:
From Leslie Lamont:
Joe must submit plasn to be approved before he may begin to construct
the reatining wall along the new driveway. Until that time NO
permits should be let out PERTAINING to construction of the reatining
wall. However approval of the wall plans is not necessary for
releasing his building permit. I would request that prior to Final
Inspection, Jim Gibbard and myself inspect the site to determine
whether he has complied with all his -conditions as set out in the
Resolution.
Preceding message:
From Bill Drueding:
ZALUBA'S BUILDING PERMIT IS READY TO GO IN THE BUILDING DEPT. SHOULD
I RELEASE THIS PERMIT????? PLEASE ADVISE IN WRITING AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE. THANK YOU!!!
7
EXHIBIT - - - -•
, APPROVED
19
BY RESOLUTION
•
SUSAN H. RAPPAPORT
3940 WALDEN SHORES ROAD
WAYZATA,MINNESOTA 55391
(612)473-3065
FAX (612) 473-5369
September 11, 1990
Jed Caswell
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Jed, -
SR 1 7 1 °90
CITY ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE
My husband, Gary, and I own the home at 1115* Ute Avenue, and
the reason I am writing to you has to do with the road - (ski
trail) that runs above our property.
Joe Zaluba has built a new road to access his building site.
The road is about one foot higher than grade. There is a
big ditch that runs parallel to our property, which would
trap snow, water etc. and the whole road is sloped to run
off directly onto our property. I urge you to go and take a
look at it, because our landscaping, boulder retaining wall
and perhaps even our foundations are in jeopardy, and both
Gary and I and our contractor, are very concerned.
I spoke to Joe about it, and he assured me that the road was
far from complete, but before he finishes it, he wants to
get the foundation in for his home, and then set the grade.
He said he is also -working with a landscape architect to
design the intersection where his road and the ski trail
meet, as well as the area that runs along our property.
As of today, lie still has not received his building permit,
which he said was submitted on March loth, and he is not
going to finish the road until he gets the permit.
The grading, run-off systems and foundation for our home
were designed and engineered to integrate with the original
road, the slope above, and those run-off patterns. If the
new road is not brought into compliance before the rain/snow
season begins, (and on the north slope particularly, it
could be soon!), we could have enormous problems.
I
t
'0
I really would not like to get involved with the city or Joe
Zaluba on a legal basis, and I doubt that you would want
that to happen either, but it is an option if all else
fails. I do not want the road to remain in its existing
condition through the fall and winter.season.
I really hope that you or someone in the city can expedite
the proper regrading of the road within the next thirty days
or so. Please let me know!
Th ks and regards,
v
Susan H. Rappaport
cc: Joe Zaluba
Lenny Oates
PEN
e e t
611
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 18, 1990
TO: Gary Lyman, Building Department
FROM: Jed Caswall, City Attorney
RE: Zaluba Building Permit
Attached -for your information and records is a copy of a
"release" Mr. Zaluba has executed so as to expedite the issuance
of his building permit(s). We talked previously about this
matter and while we agreed we didn't particularly need such a
release, it doesn't hurt to have it. Anyway, you can stick it in
your file if you don't already have a copy.
EMC/mc
Attachment
/D
CITY
September 18, 1990
Ms. Susan'H. Rappaport
3940 Walden Shores Road
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
Dear Ms. Rappaport:
Thank you for your correspondence dated September llth listing
certain concerns relevant to Joseph Zaluba's development
activities.
I have reviewed your letter with the Planning, Engineering and
Zoning Departments and have been advised that the potential
grading and run-off problems as you have identified have been
addressed in.the design and engineering plans for the Zaluba lot.
Final grading and other road improvements can not be undertaken
until after the foundation work for Mr. Zaluba's home is com-
plete. The foundation work permit was issued last week. The
work is subject to inspection to insure compliance with all
conditions of approval.
I hope this information is helpful to you.
Very truly yours,
Edward M. Caswall
City Attorney
EMC/mc
b� recycled paper
CITY
30
September 18, 1990
Ms. Martha C. Pickett
v
McFlynn & Pickett -
P.O. Box I
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Re: Zaluba
Dear Marty:
Enclosed for your information is a copy of a letter I recently
received from a property owner who is concerned about Mr.
Zaluba's development activities. I'm also forwarding a copy of
the letter to the.Zoning and Engineering Departments for their
review. I trust the concerns noted in the letter are being
addressed in Mr. Zaluba's design work and -that he will have any
problems with the road resolved prior to winter.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Edward M. Caswall
City Attorney
EMC/mc
Enc.
cc: Engineering Department
Zoning Department
recycled paper
12
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Jed Caswall CC Bob Gish
CC Chuck Roth
: Jim Gibbard
Pustmark: Sep 21,90 11:37 AM
Subject: Zaluba road
-----------------------------------------------------------
Message:
The agreement Joe Zaluba made with Lez and I was that he would finish
the road when he finished his excavation and foundation. He has
received his excavation and foundation permit but will not get his
building permit until the retainage work on the road is satisfactory«
SUSAN H. RAPPAPORT
3940 WALDEN SHORES ROAD
WAYZATA, M 1NNESOTA 55391
(612) 473-3065
FAX (612) 473-5369
October 11, 1990
Jed Caswall
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Jed,
To continue our discussion about the
Avenue: you told me last Monday that
the road properly was not the concern
is between us and Zaluba.
OCT 1 5 199
CITY An.CR1VEy#
OFFICE S
Zaluba road above Ute
the problem of grading
of the city, that it
We disagree. The City issued the permit. It has the
authority to extract a bond from the contractor and force
timely conformance with all existing regulations and
approved engineering plans.
You also told me that the City would not issue a building
permit until it approved the final road grade. The
practical problem with this is winter. Mr. Zaluba began
rough road construction to his property during the summer.
For whatever reasons, he did not move along with his
project, and the cuts did not get replanted, and the road
did not get regraded. There has already been a dirt/snow
slough from the first snowfall on October 7th. It looks
like there will be more problems in the coming months.
If, as a result of improper grading, which is not cured
throughout the winter, our property is damaged from run-off,
we think the City bears some, if not all, of the
responsibility. You have the leverage with the contractor,
we don't! Please be on notice.
Si r lye
Gary and Susan Rappaport
cc: Lenny Oates
/4
CITY
October 30, 1990
Ms. Martha C. Pickett
McFlynn &-Pickett
P.O. Box I
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Re: Zaluba Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision --
Dear Marty:
As you may recall from my earlier, correspondence to you dated
September 19th, there appears to be some continuing concerns and
problems regarding the access "road" Mr. Zaluba recently
installed to access the property as described above. Those
concerns center upon Mr. Zaluba's apparent failure to adequately
grade and stabilize the road to the detriment of those properties
downslope from the road.
-A review of Mr. Zaluba's 8040 Greenline-approval indicates that
he was to "adhere to the recommendations of Chen -Northern regard-
ing slope stability during the excavation of the road and site
and those plans and recommendations shall be reviewed by the
Engineering Department". Additionally, Mr. Zaluba was to "retain
-a geotechnical engineer to perform --field monitoring during the
excavation and construction of the site". Lastly, no spoils or
fill were to be placed over the side of the road cut.
In that the.City had not heard from Mr. Zaluba or Chen -Northern
regarding these matters, I had the Planning Department follow-up
in regard to the road. Chen -Northern has advised us that they
have had no contact with Mr. Zaluba concerning the points set out
in the 8040 Greenline approval. Furthermore, Mr. Zaluba has evi-
dently ceased work on the project leaving the road in a condition
not contemplated nor approved by the Planning and.Zoning commis-
sion.
I would appreciate your review of these matters with your -client.
The road needs attention before winter sets -in so as to avoid
drainage and erosion problems in the spring. While it would
appear that violations have occurred and are -occurring regarding
the existing land use approval and/or permit(s), the City is
willing to remain patient with Mr. Zaluba for a short time
recycled paper % /
Letter to Ms. Martha C. Pickett
October 30, 1990
Page 2
further so that he can remedy the situation. Absent his timely
response, I am afraid the City will be forced to explore avail-
able legal remedies as necessary to correct the situation.
Please let me know what Mr. Zaluba's intentions are. Time is
short.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Edward M. Caswall
City Attorney
EMC/mc
cc: Building Department
Engineering Department
Planning Department
Leonard M. Oates, Esq.
16
WRY% & PICKETT
LAWYERS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
THE SMITH-ELISHA HOUSE
320 WEST MAIN STREET. SUITE 1
P.O. BOX I
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
TIMOTHY MCFLYNN*
MARTHA C. PICKETT
ALSO ADMITTED IN CALIFORNIA
Jed Caswall
City Attorney
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
November 9, 1990
RE: Zaluba Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision
Dear Jed:
q'925-2442
925-2211
TELECOPI
NOV 1990
CITY ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE
This letter is in response to your letter dated October 30,
19901 regarding your concern related to the incompletion of the
access "road" to Mr. Zaluba's property. I have spoken with Joe
regarding the work being done on the road and he assures me that
he is working carefully and quickly to come up with solutions to
prepare the road for winter weather. He has met with his engineer,
and the Rappaport's engineer from JDM Engineering, Duane Stewart,
on site and they have all agreed upon a plan to ready the road in
the event it cannot be completely finalized prior to inclement
weather. Joe agrees that in the event the road cannot be "up to
par" by winter, he and his engineers will work closely with the
City Engineer to determine what, if any, temporary measures need
to be taken.
Furthermore, Joe has retained Steve Pollack, of Chen
Associates, to oversee the work and confirm that all of the
necessary measures are being taken to provide stabilization.
Please know that Joe had no intent of violating any of the
requirements set forth in the 8040 Approval regarding the -access
driveway. He has been frustrated in his efforts to begin work on
the property, by virtue of his building permit which was submitted
to the Citv on. March 12. 1990, not having been available to him to
begin excavation until some time in September. Obviously, this has
set his schedule back significantly for work which we had, in good
faith, planned to have completed by now. I hope that you will
understand Joe's position and that you and the other staff members
will be able to work with him on this matter.
MCP/lj n
cc: Joe Zaluba
Leonard Oates, Esq.
zaluba\caswalll.109
Sincerely,
McFLYNN & PICKETT, P.C.
1
By _ lkt
Mar a Pickett
I
17
! -1
� 3
Chen@Northern, Inc
Consulinng Engineers and Scientists
November 12, 1990
Western Heritage Log Homes
Attn: Joe Zaluba
8899 William Cody Drive
Evergreen 00 80439
JUN p � /1991
G"Ty
5080 Road 154
Glenwood Springs. Colorado 81601
303 945-7458
303 945.2363 Facsimile
r
subject: observation of Teniporary Driveway Grading, I of 3, Hoag Subdivision,
Aspen, Colorado. -
Job No. 4 275 89
Gentlemen: .
As requested, we observed the current driveway grading on November 8, 1990 to
evaluate the existing cut and fill slopes with respect to their stability. Chen -
Northern, Inc. previously provided comments and recommendations regarding the
driveway grading in a letter dated July 31, 1989, Job No. 4 275 89. Design
details for the roadway construction are presented in Sheets 1 and 2 dated
October 12, 1989 by High Country Engineering, Inc.
At the time of our site visit, the driveway rough -cut had been made for quite
some time. The grading consisted mainly of cut into the hillside to maximum
depths typically between 3 to 4 feet. There was a small amount of fill along
the outer edge of the driveway. The uphill cut was very steeply graded and
almost near vertical. The soils exposed in the excavation consisted of rocky
colluvium, similar to that described in our previous engineering report. There
was no seepage and no indications of massive slope instability associated with
this cut. There was about 6 to 8 inches of snow cover at the time of our site.
visit, however, approximately one month earlier, we had observed the site when
clear of snow and it uas in sou lar condition to the present condition.
The driveway excavation is mostly all a cut bench and there appears to be little
risk of massive slope instability or erosion that could impact structures below
the site. The driveway cut will tend to collect surface water runoff and
appropriate measures should be taken to ensure that the runoff is contained on
the uphill edge of the road and conveyed down to Ute Avenue. The near vertical
excavation face will probably ravel somewhat but there is little risk that it
will destabilize the uphill natural slope. We understand that the driveway
excavation is temporary, mainly for construction access, and the road will be
final graded during or after the residence construction. The recommendations
presented in our previous reports which are applicable should be observed in the
completed driveway grading.
5
Western Heritage -Log Homes
November 12, 1990
Page 2
If you have any questions regarding the information provided or if we can be of
further assistance, please let us know.
Sincerely, ,
Fq �L
MEN -NORTHERN INC. . �G; s T
15222 �.
Steven L. Pawlak, P. E. ON At ;•per
SIP/ec
cc: High Country Engineering, Inc. - Attn: Tim Beck
City of Aspen - Attn: Jim Gibbard
r
I%
t
4
CITY
30
November 15, 1990
SPEN
eet
k-ney
Ms. Martha C. Pickett v
McFlynn & Pickett
P.O. Box I
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Re: Zaluba Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision
Dear Marty:
Thank you for your correspondence of November 9th responding to.
mine of October 30th on the same subject. I am furnishing copies
of your letter to both the Engineering and Planning Departments.
Mr. Zaluba's cooperation is very much appreciated.
Very truly yours,
Edward M. Caswall
City Attorney
EMC/mc
recycled paper
9"0
.. ChenNorthern, Inc.
Consulting Engineers and Scientists
July 31, 1991
Gary and Susan Rappaport
3940 Waldon Shores Road
Wayzata MN 55391
5080 Road 154
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
303 945-745£i
303 945-2363 Facsimile
Subject: Observation of Grading Conditions, Existing Residences, Lot 5, Hoag
Subdivision, 1115 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado.
Job No. 4 438 87
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Rappaport:
As requested by Duane Stewart of JDM Construction, we observed the site on
July 26, 1991. ' The purpose of our site visit was to evaluate the coupleted
grading on the property with ccupliance to the reccmw2- dations presented in our
engineering report for the site development, Job No. 4 438 87, dated November 30,
1987.
he resider has been constructed by cutting into the steeply sloping hillside.
paved driveway accesses the property from Ute Avenue on the downhill side and
the Ute Ski Trail (and driveway) borders the uphill side of the property. The
cuts made into the hillside have been retained by the building foundation on the
south and west sides and a stacked boulder retaining wall on the east side. A
drainage swale directs surface runoff around the uphill side of'the structure.
The slope of the graded areas generally ranges between about 30% to 60%, similar
to the natural or original slope of the property. The stacked boulder wall has
a slight batter into the hillside. The grading plans for the building
construction were reviewed with respect to the as -constructed grading. In
general, the as -constructed grading is consistent with that shown on the grading
plan except that the stacked boulder wall has been added. The graded slopes are
all revegetated and no signs of erosion or general slope instability were
observed.
The building development and as -constructed grading appear to be consistent with
the reccmTendations presented in our previous report. Recent grading has been
performed along Ute Trail for uphill residential construction. Additional
grading of the outside edge of Ute Trail may be needed so that surface water
runoff is not directed onto the subject site.
The conclusions presented in this report are based on our visual observations
and subsurface conditions presented in our previous report with respect to the
design grading. Any variations in the slope grading should be reviewed and/or
designed by a qualified engineer.
ai
A member of the HIH group of companies
SUSAN H. RAPPAPORT
1115 UTE AVENUE
ASPEN COLORADO 81611
(303) 925-4155
FAX (303) 920-1950
August 8, 1991
Jim Gibbard
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Jim,
AUG i 5 1991
CITY 7-NG' I EER
I am enclosing the written ,report from Steve Pawlak's on -
site visit to our home, confirming that the recommendations
outlined in the Chen report have been followed.
I assume that the Certificate of Occupancy can now be
issued!
I would also like to call your attention to the highlighted
portion of the letter which recommends that additional
grading be done on the ski trail above our home. Since this
is not part of our property, but certainly can and will
affect it, I would like some advice from you on how to make
sure that this is accomplished in a timely manner. Please
let me know.
Agai-n.,-,sorry that there was confusion on my part about doing
everything we needed to do for our C.O. Thanks for your --
patience and thanks in advance for your help on the Ski
Trail grading problem.
Susan H. Rappaport
r
t
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jed Caswall, City Attorney
FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department (�2" 3 0
DATE: August 29, 1991
RE: Zaluba road
Attached is a letter from Susan Rappaport in which she expresses
concern about the need for grading of the above road and the
potential impact to her property from the runoff from that road.
Also attached is a letter from Chen Northern which points out the
need for grading of that road.
Could you contact Zaluba's representative and 'find out when this
work will be done? Please let me know what you find out so I can
respond to -Ms- Rappaport.
j g/road
cc: Chuck Roth
Leslie Lamont
��3
CI`]
September 3, 1991
Ms. Martha C. Pickett.
McFlynn & Pickett
P.O. Box S
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Re: Zaluba Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision
Dear Marty:
/^ems
fr i'
E'EN
t
r
You may recall that we had some correspondence last Fall concern-
ing drainage/run-off-problems associated with Mr. Zaluba's access
road. While Mr. Zaluba did undertake some temporary measures
regarding the road last year, it now appears we are headed right
back to the same situation that caused us concern in the first
place. Apparently, Mr. Zaluba has not followed through*on the
engineering and grading recommendations provided him by Chen
Northern.
Will you please review this matter with your client. He must put
the access road in an acceptable and safe condition, particularly
in regard to the drainage problems.
Should you have particularized questions concerning the matter,
please feel free to contact Jim Gibbard in the Engineering
Department.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Edward M. Caswall
City Attorney
EMC/mc
jc93.5
cc: Jim Gibbard
recycled paper
r
September 23, 1991
Joseph S. Zaluba
P. O. Box 9640
Aspen, CO 81612
Re: Building Permit ##1058
Dated 3/7/90
Dear Mr. Zaluba:
This letter is to inform you that the above -referenced building
permit application has expired. The plan check for a permit
application has an expiration date of 180 days. after submission.
The expiration date for. this permit was 9/7/90. The extension
granted by Gary Lyman, -Chief Building Official, expired 4/18/91.
The permit has been voided and the plans will be destroyed if we
do not hear from you by 10/ 10/91. Thank you for your attention in
this matter.
Sincerely,
Vicki Monge
Aspen/Pitkin Regional.Building Department
as
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Jed Caswall
en : Rob Thomson
Postmark: Feb 03,92 1:30 PM
Status: Previously read
Subject: Zaluba..lot 3 Hoag Subdivision
-------------------------------------------------
Message:
Referencing your Oct. 30, 1990 to Martha Pickett and her reply letter
of Nov. 9, 1990....It appears that Zaluba has not instituted
temporary measures for controlling run-off. I have received a call
from the property owner of lot 5, Rappaport. At this time it is not -
a serious condition but she is worried about the landscaping they
did. What do we do, write a stricter letter?
�G
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO, Jed
jm :
Postmark:
Caswall
Leslie Lamont -
Mar 05,92 9:08 AM
CC Rob Thomson
Subject: Reply to a reply: Hoag Lot 3 - Zaluba
Reply text:
From Leslie Lamont:
let's review the file (rob and I) inspect the site and let jed know
what we've found how about friday afternoon or next monday?
r
Preceding message:
From Jed Caswall:
I believe my original suggestion on this was to revoke whatever land
use approvals he has on the grounds that he has not complied with
conditions of approval, i.e., grading the driveway. I'don't care so
much about his bldg permits because they were issued on basis of land
use approvals --that's why I suggested the land use approvals be
reviewed for his compliance with same and if he breached them, we
commence revocation of his land use approval(s).
From Leslie Lamont:
a buidling permit was never approved for issuance and is now void a
letter was sent to Joe Sept. 23, 1991 telling him is permit was
void. An excavation permit was issued Sept'. 12, 1990 but no
pections have occurred to tell if any work has been done that
ald warrant keeeping the permit. If he hasn't continued work under
his permit then that permit becomes void. We should have the site
inspected to see if his excavation/foundation permit is still
active. Jed if his building permit is void are his 8040 greenline
approvals still ok. I guess they are until a new buidling design
�7
MESSAGE DISPLAY
V` Jed Caswall CC Gary Lyman
r Rob Thomson
From: Leslie Lamont
Postmark: Mar 09.92 2:42 PM
Status: Previously read
Subject: Hoag lot 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message:
Rob and I did a site inspection on friday. no work has appeared to
have been done under the auspices of the excavation/foundation permit
that was issued the end of 1990. Jed it also appears that no work r
have been done on the road however everything is covered in snow. I
have a question about the 8040 Greenline approval whether the
approval expires due to issuance of permits without following the
conditions of the approval.
,� V
CITY
30
March 18, 1992
Mr. Joseph Zaluba
8899 William Cody Drive
Evergreen, Colorado 80439
Dear Mr. Zaluba:
PEN
I am providing this response to your correspondence dated March
10th addressing certain questions you have concerning the street
improvements to be undertaken on Ute Avenue. First, if I may, I
would like to correct several factual errors as contained in your
letter.
There is no governmental entity known as the "Aspen.Water Dis-
trict". Municipal water service in and around the Aspen metro
area is provided by the City -of Aspen through its Water Depart-
ment. Ms. McKenzie (as identified in Ms. Pickett's letter) is an
employee of the Water Department. Additionally, there has been
no authorized policy directive or mandate issued by the City re-
quiring property owners who wish to tap onto the municipal water
system along Ute Avenue to do so this Spring. Rather, in view.of
the upcoming street overlay for Ute Avenue, persons are being
notified and encouraged to have their water tap stubs installed
prior to the street work in order to avoid having to excavate the
new roadway once it is in place. From a design and engineering
standpoint, the new street surface will hold up better if no'
excavations are done for five years. Furthermore, excavations to
be performed after the overlay is complete will require a sepa-
rate permit. Hence, it is advantageous for everyone to have new
waterline connections completed at or before the time the overlay
work is to be performed.
In regard to your plans to go forward with the construction of
your residence, and as you are aware from previous correspondence
from this office, you have repeatedly failed to comply with
certain conditions of the 8040 greenline approval issued for the
project by the Planning and Zoning Commission in January, 1990.
(See attached) Specifically, you have not met the requirement to
maintain the slope stability for your access road which has
resulted in undue runoff and adversely impacted properties,
situated below yours. Previous efforts to secure your coopera-
tion on this issue have proved futile. It is my understanding
recycled paper
Mr. Joseph Zaluba
March 18, 1992
Page 2
that the Planning staff is in the process of instituting proceed-
ings to revoke the 8040 approval due to your non-compliance. You
will be receiving official written notice of this proposed action
at a later date.
Finally, and as specified in a letter sent to you on September.
23, 1991, your building permits have been voided by reason of
your failure to submit your plans for the necessary plan checks
by the Building Department. (See attached)
I think its unfortunate for everyone that we find ourselves in
the situation that presently exists. Please be advised that
while the City is willing to assist you in seeing your project
through to a successful completion, such a result can only be
achieved by a good faith effort on your part to cooperate and
comply with the conditions of your land use and building approv-
als.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Edward M. Caswall
City Attorney
EMC/mc
jw318 . 1
cc: Building Department
Engineering Department
Water Department
Planning Department
John Bennett
Martha C. Pickett, Esq.
30
f
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT , APPROVED
19 BY RESOLUTION
BEFORE THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
IN RE THE MATTER.OF LOT 3, HOAG SUBDIVISION, A/K/A 1125 UTE
AVENUE, JOSEPH S. ZALUBA, APPLICANT
NOTICE TO SHOW CAUSE
TO: Joseph S. Zaluba
8899 William Cody Drive
Evergreen, Colorado 80439
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE AND BE ADVISED -that on June 16, 1992, the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission voted to issue a Notice to
Show Cause why the following land use development approval as
previously granted on January 2, 1990, should not be revoked
and/or modified:
8040 Greenline Approval for a Single -Family House on Lot 3,
Hoag Subdivision, City of Aspen, Colorado.
Based upon information made available to the Planning and
Zoning Commission, reasonable grounds exist to believe that the
applicant, Joseph -S. Zaluba, - has violated and/or failed -to comply
with -the following terms 'and/or conditions 'af the* 8040 Greenl*ine
Approval:
Condition 3. A vertical tie-in wall and boulder wall shall
be constructed by the applicant and the plans shall be reviewed
and approved by the Planning-and•.Engineering Departments.
Condition 4. The applicant shall adhere to the recommenda-
tions of Chen -Northern regarding slope stability during the
excavation of the road and site and those plans and recommenda-
tions shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department.
Condition 8 No.spoils or fill shall be -placed over the
side of the .road cut.. All excavated materials shall be removed.. -
from the'site if not used in the construction of the residence.
Condition 10. The applicant shall revegetate the upper road
cut, beginning at the hairpin turn.
WHEREFORE, you are directed to appear before the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission on July 21, 1992, at 4:30 o'clock
p.m., at the Second Floor Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 South
Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, and show cause why the land use.
development approval as set forth above should not be revoked or
31
modified. The hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission
will be conducted in accordance with the procedures established
in Section 24-6-205B of the Municipal Code.
Dated this da =-1992.
� Y of June,
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION
By:
City O erk
cc. Marty Pickett
2
3�
P 697 794 969
Certified Mail Receipt
No Insurance Coverage Provided
Do not use for International Mail
UNITED STATES
POSTALS TES (See Reverse)
`
c
a
a
a
c
O
O
co
M
E
U
U)
fl
Sent to
St Vt & No.%�j.�
�/ � .(.tom-� � •
late & ZIP Codee
r
Certified Fee
Special Delivery Fee
Restricted Delivery Fee
Return Receipt Showing
to Whom & Date Delivered
Return Receipt. Showing to Whom,
Date, & Address of Delivery
TOTAL Postage
& Fees
Postmark or Date
r
®SENDER: Complete items 1 and 2 when additional services are desired, and complete items
3 and 4.
Put'your address in the "RETURN TO" Space on the reverse side. Failure to do this will prevent this card
from being returned to you. The return receipt fee will provide you the name of the person delivered to and
the date of delivery.For additional fees the following services are available. Consult postmaster for fees
and check boxes) for additional service(s) requested.
1. �eck
Show to whom delivered, date, and addressee's address. 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery
(Extra charge) (Extra charge)
3. Article Addressed to: 4. Article Number
Type of Service:
_ J
El Registered El Insured
/ 4 , Certified ❑ COD
Q Express Mail El Return Receipt
!� Q for Merchandise
Always obtain signature of addressee
�^ +' or agent and DATE DELIVERED.
5. I n r — Addressee 8., Addressee's Address (ONLY if
X `` requested and fee paid)
6. ign re Agent
X `
7. e of Deliver
• • �•• VV 1 I, t%PI. tyoy *U.S-G-PO. 1989-238-815 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPI
33
- - � dJ7- F73 - —�A4 tea _
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Zoning Commission
Kim Johnson, Planner
Braden Conditional Use for an Attached Accessory Dwelling
Unit - Public Hearing
July 21, 1992
------------------
------------------
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the Braden
Conditional Use for a 420 s.f. above -grade attached accessory
dwelling unit with.conditions.
APPLICANT: Ralph Braden, represented by David Muckenhirn
LOCATION: 973 Queen Street (Parcel 7 of the Boundary Agreement
Plat) The lot is 13,380 s.f., bordered on the south by the Roaring
Fork River.
ZONING: R-15 A
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests Conditional Use for
the construction of an accessory dwelling unit in order to satisfy
Ordinance 1 affordable housing requirements. The site is currently
vacant. The studio accessory dwelling unit located above the
attached garage will be approximately 420 s.f. Because the ADU is
100% above grade the applicant is eligible -for an FAR bonus of 210
s.f. for the principal structure. The total FAR for the proposed
building will be approximately 4,276.s.f. The applicant has
submitted plan and elevation drawings. See Attachment "A".
PROCESS: The Planning Commission shall make a determination on the
Conditional Use for the accessory dwelling unit.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Complete referral memos are attached as Exhibit
"B"
Housing: The proposed unit must meet the requirements of Section
24-5-510 of the Aspen Municipal Code. It shall be between 300 and
700 square feet of net livable area, deed restricted to resident
occupancy, and have minimum lease periods of 6 months. The deed
restriction shall be approved by the Housing Off ice, recorded with
the County Clerk, and proof of recordation forwarded to the Housing
Office prior to issuance of any building permits for the site.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The Braden parcel is encroached on the east side by the neighbor's
garage. This encroachment is approximately 650 s.f. and must
included in the FAR of the Braden lot. The Applicant has been in
compliance with U.B.C. Chapter 35 for sound attenuation. No other
significant impacts are anticipated.
D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the
conditional use including but not limited.to roads, potable
water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection,
emergency medical services, hospital and medical services,
drainage systems, and schools.
RESPONSE: All public facilities are all ready in place for the
duplex home and neighborhood.
r
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the
incremental need for increased employees generated by the
conditional use.
RESPONSE: The proposed deed restricted unit will satisfy the
Ordinance 1 requirements for new single family residential
development. The applicant must file appropriate deed restrictions
for resident occupancy, including 6 month minimum leases. Proof
of recordation must be forwarded to the Planning office and Housing
office prior to issuance of any building permits.
F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional
standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter.
RESPONSE: This use complies with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
and any other applicable conditional use standards.
Please Note: As this accessory dwelling.unit is 100% above grade,
the main structure is eligible for floor area bonus not to exceed
one half of the floor area of the ADU as allowed by Ordinance 1.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning recommends -approval of the Braden
Conditional Use for an above -grade 420 s.f. accessory dwelling unit
with the following conditions:
1. The owner shall submit the appropriate deed restriction to the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office for approval. The
accessory dwelling unit shall be deed restricted to resident
occupancy with minimum 6 month leases. Upon approval by the
Housing Office, the Owner shall record the deed restriction
with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office.
2. Prior to issuance of any building permits, a copy of the
recorded deed restriction for the accessory dwelling unit must
be forwarded to the Planning Office.
3
0
3. The ADU shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling
unit on Building Permit plans and shall comply with U.B.C.
Chapter 35 sound attenuation requirements.
4. All development on the lot shall comply with P&Z Resolution
91-6.
5. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and
Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other
conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move approve a Conditional Use for a 420
s.f. above -grade accessory dwelling unit for the Braden Residence
at 973 Queen Street with the conditions recommended in the Planning
Office memo dated 7/21/92.
Exhibits:
"A" - Proposed Site Plan, Floorplans, and Elevations ,
"B". - Housing Referral Memo
"C" - P&Z Resolution 91-6
In,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning
RE: McPherson Conditional Use Review for a Detached Accessory
Dwelling Unit
DATE: July 21, 1992
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to replace a dilapidated shed
located on the rear of the property providing an approximately 306
square foot (net liveable), accessory dwelling unit. Staff
recommends approval of conditional use for a detached accessory
dwelling unit.
APPLICANT: Doug and Susan McPherson
LOCATION: 700 West Francis, Aspen
ZONING: R-6
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: To provide a detached studio accessory
dwelling unit.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
Housing - Having reviewed the application the, Housing Authority
has the following comments:
1. Prior to the issuance of any building permit a signed and
recorded Deed Restriction must be completed. The Housing Office
must have the recorded book and page number.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Condi.tional Use Review - Pursuant to Section 7-304 the criteria
for a conditional use review are as follows:
A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals,
objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan,
and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is
proposed to be located; and
RESPONSE: The proposed accessory .dwelling unit will be
approximately 306 square feet. The. dwelling unit is proposed to
replace a shed that will be torn- down.. The demolition and
replacement of the shed have been reviewed and approved by the
Historic Preservation Committee. The applicant will comply with
the Housing Guidelines and deed restrict the unit as a resident
occupied unit for residents of Pitkin County. Replacement of the
shed as an a detached accessory dwelling unit is consistent with
before.the issuance of any building permits.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use
for the 306 square foot net liveable detached accessory dwelling
unit with the following conditions prior to the issuance of any
building permits:
1. The applicant shall.submit the appropriate deed restriction
to the Housing Authority for approval. The deed restriction shall
state that the accessory unit meets the housing guidelines for such
units, meets the definition of Resident Occupied Unit, and if
rented, shall be rented for periods of six months or longer. Upon
approval by the Housing Authority, the applicant shall record the
deed restrictions with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's
office.
2. The recorded book and page number shall be filed with the
Housing Authority prior.issuance of any building permits.
3. A copy of the recorded deed restriction for the accessory
dwelling unit must be forwarded to the Planning Office.
4. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement
districts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing
improvements in the public right-of-way.
5. The Zoning Officer shall confirm net liveable calculations.
6. The Historic Preservation Committee shall review and approve
the detached accessory dwelling unit. The unit shall exceed 300
square feet.net liveable.
7. All representations that are made in the application and those
reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission shall
be complied with.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to approve the conditional use for a
306 square foot, net liveable, detached accessory dwelling unit at
700 West Francis with conditions 1-7 finding that the proposal is
consistent with the 'goals of the City of Aspen to integrate
affordable housing within the neighborhoods.
ATTACHMENTS: Site Plan
3
$ 6124735369 SUSAN RAPPAPORT 07/17/92 18:08 P01
SU SAN 11. RAPPAPORT
3940 WALDEN SHORES ROAD
WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391
(612) 473-3065 ]UL 17
FAX (612) 473-5369
July 17, 1992
Leslie Lamont
City of Aspen
Pax 303 920--5197
Dear Leslie,
Thanks for sending me the,7/21/92 memo about the Zaluba
noncompliance hearing.
In reviewing my files on the subject, I
see that sent som
ntsome
pictures to Mary Lackner on April. 1,3, maybesstill
has them somewhere in her files. Anyway, it is rather
difficult to "read" them, especially if you haven't actually
seen the site. The depth of field and angle of water flow
is hard to see.
I would also like to recommend that a performance bond be
posted, no matter which option the Commission votes to
accept. If they opt for recommendation #1, he can delay
again, then it will be winter etc. etc., and there will be
no recourse or funds to fix that goad and drainage, even if
he does lose the 8040 approval. This has already been
dragging on for at least two years!
In the unlikely (I hope) event that they opt for
recommendation #5, the Commission risks having legal
problems with the property owners like us, if there anything
does happen during rain, run-off, flood etc.
Again, thanks for keeping me
we will probably have either
represent us at the hearing
Best regards,
u
up to date on the developments.
John Kelly or Lenny Oates
on Tuesday.