HomeMy WebLinkAboutlanduse case.boa.Lot 1,2,5 of Lot 3 Block 1 Oklahoma Flats
.,.
, \
)
..'1
j
I-
)
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APRIL 27. 1995
Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order. He requested
roll call.
Answering roll call were Charlie Paterson, Rick Head, Ron Erickson,
Howard DeLuca, Jim Iglehart. Absent was David Scott.
CASE #95-2
GARY MOORE
Chairman Lavagnino stated he owned property directly across the
street from the Moore property and under contract for June 16, 1995
closing. He said he had no vested interest in this variance and
the sale of his property is not contingent on the outcome of the
Board's decisions. He said he was confident that he could give a
fair, impartial, and objective consideration to the applicant
according to guidelines, however, to remove any semblance of
impropriety, he excused himself from voting on the case and voiced
hi,> comments from the floor. Vice-chairperson Paterson assumed the
chairmanship.
Paterson requested Notice of Posting (attached in record). He read
the variance requesting a 7-1/2 foot encroachment variancy to the
front-yard setback. The applicant was not represented by counsel.
Gary Moore, applicant, stated that he was requesting a 7-1/2 foot
front-yard setback, parallel to Spring Street. The property line
is about 120 feet long. The building envelope portion of that
property line is approxiamtely 87 feet long. He asked for a 32
foot section of the house into the 7-1/2 setback. The reason is
that on the other edge of the building envelope which borders the
river, there is a large grove of cottonwood tres. The trees are
75 to 100 feet tall, many larger than 12 inches in diameter. He
did not want to cut down the trees, and by saving the trees he
could shield the house from the Rio Grande Trail. Also, by saving
the trees it would keep the ground in tact due to the root system.
Between the property across Spring Street, from setback line to
setback line there is approximately 67 feet. By moving the house
over he would still have 60 feet in between the two homes. He
presented photographs for the Board to view of the site. Stuart
Lousk, the designer, showed the area through drawings.
Paterson asked, what was in the shaded area (shown on drawing)?
Moore answered, the livingroom.
Igleman asked, what maximum square footage could be built as it
sits now? Moore stated 4150, plus the garage (500), a sq. ft.
bonLlS of 250. Moore stated he is not going to the maximum floor
area allowed.
1
~
- 1,---,
1
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APRIL 27. 1995
Paterson read into the record a letter from Denice C. Reich,
property owner directly across the street from the Moore's opposing
any addi tjronal square footage. Also, he read for the record a note
from j3ugene Seymour, M.D., another neighbor, who had "no
objections", and a letter from another owner of property in
Oklahoma Flats, Richard W. Volk, who gave his permission and
authority. (All three letters are attached in record.)
Erickson asked if Moore owned the propety. Moore replied that he
was under contract. Erickson asked what the hardship or practical
difficulty was for Moore. Moore stated, the trees.
Drueding, Planning Office, stated that removing any tree 4-1/2 feet
and 6 inches in diameter needed an approval from the Parks
Department. George Robinson of the Parks Department spoke and
stated he went on site to look at the trees with Moore and spoke
with him regarding his plans. If Moore removes the trees he must
get a permit and must have a mitigation plan to replace the trees
of '''qual value.
')
Leslie Lamont, Planning Office, did not advocate either way on this
variance, but did want to inform the Board of the process that this
parcel has gone through. The project had to go through mandatory
review voluntary compliance with the Overlay Committee, and because
the original stream margin review was done on this parcel over
three years ago and was vested, the vested rights have lapsed and
the code has been amended; he is required to come through the
stream margin review process. Because he is building an accessory
dwelling unit, he is also required to do a conditional use review,
which is a public hearing. Lamont stated Oklahoma Flats, like all
property along the ri ver, has a PUD overlay over the zone
districts, and the PUD review process allows an applicant to
request and usually vary side-yard setbacks, rear-yard, most
dimentional requirements, except FAR. The reason this is on land
along the river and in Oklahoma Flats, is so we can work with
applicants to try and get them to pull homes away from the river
to save vegetation, however, the PUD review process is a full two-
step process; public hearing at P&Z and public hearing at City
Council and then a second meeting of the ordinance. It is a very
arduous process. With this meeting, it will be the Moore's third.
Head asked if the vested rights will be honored that have already
expj red. Lamont answered, they will not. Head asked when the
building envelope was created, was it taken into account the amount
of trees that would be required to be removed. Lamont stated, not
really, and that was the recommendation over three years ago, that
no building occur beyond that line. That typically, for properties
along the river, usually the property boundaries go in the middle
of the river. This building envelope is about 37 feet back from
.a
1-
"\
I
d about a sketch showing a porch a
proch area to the upstairs
APRIL 27. 1995
the bank.
DeLuca ask
far is thi
5 feet.
off a wall. How
Moore answered, 4-
)
Paterson opened t e meeting to public comments. Remo Lavagnino,
neighbor, stated that he guessed this was a P&Z approved building
envelope for vested developmental rights in 1990, for three years.
It was established after flood plan and stream margin review. If
the trees were of concern, he said, he did not feel they would not
have included them in the building envelope. One of the stream
margin review criteria, is considerations of trees and repairing
vegetation. Apparently, they did not consider these threes
indispensable. The applicant stated that he will save 11 trees,
10 of which are 10-12 inches in diameter. Lavagnino stated he
counted one that was 14 inches, and on a plan submitted to the
Board, he counted only 7. He stated that there would still be 28
trees standing, 26 are stream-side, and 16 of the 26 are 10-12
inches in diameter. He stated he had a legal, non-conforming log
of record; it had 12,630 sq. ft., 2660 which are under water,
leaving a net of 9,970 sq. ft. It is a deficiency of over 20,000
sq. ft., in a zone that requires 30,000 sq. ft. The land is
vacant, the building envelope is established, the trees are where
they are for where one wants to put a house on the property. The
applicant can design a house to accommodate those threes, however,
if he wishes to design a house that takes out those trees, it is
not incumbent upon this Board to accommodate that design by
granting him a variance.
Moore stated there was a conflict here. The last 12,630 sq. ft.
and only 20 sq. ft. is under water. The lot line doesn't even go
to the river in some cases here. In the southeast corner of the
lot is a pie-shaped section about 3 ft. by 11 ft. long.
Lavagnino stated his information was taken from Vine Associates for
Volk Stream Margin Review, December 28, 1989. It is old, but this
was the letter to Leslie Lamont in which this parcel shows that
2,660 sq. ft. is under water. If something has changed, that's
fine.
Moore stated the current survey was done by Schmueser, Gordon &
Meyer, who also did the engineering on the stream margin. He
showed on a map the river edge and survey was done just last month.
Lavagnino stated that the bank that Moore speaks about and the
natLTal features at one time that was where the river was. The
bank was not changed by the river, the bank was changed by illegal
dumping of fill on that property. You are dealing with a piece of
property with the way it is.
,,)
J.
\
)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APRIL 27. 1995
Pauline Meyer, property owner at Oklahoma Flats, spoke in respect
to old Aspen and the era's flavor was preserved until last year
when she felt it was scarred by the big homes and undergoing a
change. She walked the property with Moore and she stated there
was a discrepancy in the amount of trees he stated he had to take
out from what is actually there. She felt he should build back in
the original envelope.
George Robinson, Parks Department, stated that when you build
around trees you have to have a certain setback away from the trees
to keep adequate roots. Most of the time the minimum is drip line
of the tree. DeLuca asked, in such a situation as this, an 18 in.
diameter cottonwood tree, how far away from that tree should we
build? Robinson stated on a 12 inch tree, you can be 10 to 15 ft.
from that tree. It depends on the tree and the crown of the tree,
the larger the crown the bigger the drip line. DeLuca stated, he
felt there were a lot more trees involved than we are talking about
here. Robinson stated that if any trees die, Moore is responsible
to replace them.
Debra Moore asked the Board to take into consideration the
Grande Trail, directly across from the Moore property. There
a lot of pedestrians and it affects those looking onto
property. She wishes to preserve the trees so the majority of
pub:.ic will not be impacted.
Rio
are
the
the
)
Lavagnino asked if the Moore's were looking at keeping the Rio
Grande from looking at our house or is it our house looking at the
Rio Grande property. It would seem to me that they would plant
trees if there was a problem; they have an option. Erickson asked
George Robinson of Parks Department if the applicant had come to
the Parks Department and been turned down for permits or permission
to remove any trees on his property. Robinson stated, no, not yet.
Paterson closed the public portion of the meeting.
Head applauded applicant on the design, he felt it was handsome and
very creative in trying to save as many trees as possible, however,
he stated it was a brand new project and plenty of room in the
project not to cut down one tree if designed in the fashion to take
advantage of that amenity. He stated he would love to pass this
proposal, but he had problems in trying to figure out where the
hardship was. There were some practical difficulties that he could
see, but he could also see where the square footage could be placed
elsewhere and still mitigate the tree concern. It is more
aesthetics to the applicant and something the Board should not be
basing its considerations or deliberations on.
I
",./ .i
'\
./
1-
)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APRIL 27. 1995
DeLuca sated he felt the cottonwoods were not a real shelter, he
considered them to be a nuisance because as they get older they
tall over and land on your house, and felt if it was his house he
would want to get rid of them and pl~nt trees along the bank that
were a shorter hedge-type, if considering privacy so it wouldn't
ruin the view. He had trouble figuring out what Moore was gaining,
waf it a cost situation in removing the trees, getting more of a
backyard? He questioned the gain for the applicant by moving the
house 7-1/2 feet. The one thing that he did like was the fact that
thE 7 -1/2 feet is for the orch. The upper level is only 4 ft.
into e se ac a ea. That is the most mass that anyone see
once tr are plante or t vacy. He stated
that if Moo.i::e....moveu LhdL q tL . crT"""'" -::n-.g i..~uL [or a 3-1/2 it. or 4
ft. setback it might be different - Moore won't lose as many trees
if he goes with the original footprint. He stated he had trouble
granting a variance just because of the trees, and did not see a
hardship.
)
Erickson had the same argument. Since he did not know what the
situation would be with the trees once the applicant gets around
tel filing all his plans, he was not sure if he would be prohibited
from tearing down the trees or not. If a variance was granted and
he ':roes in with a landscape plan which calls for tree removal, then
the variance would be granted for nothing. He felt if the
applicant had come and said he had tried to build the house and
stated three different city departments have come down on us and
we cannot build the house because of destroying all the trees, then
Erickson said he felt there would be a hardship. He agreed with
DeL'~ca regarding the cottonwood trees. He stated he would not
gra~t a variance.
Iglehart said he concurred with the above Board members. Most of
this thoughts during the introduction had been along the above
stated lines. He felt that it was difficult for him to see the
hardships, especially when starting from scratch and being able to
build around. He felt the possibility was still there to build the
house, although some of the trees would have to go, however,
through the procedure that Parks has, one could put some more trees
back. He found it difficult to see a hardship or practical
difficulty in this case.
Paterson felt it was a real practical solution to a problem and
felt the 7-1/2 ft. really didn't make a difference. He stated he
would be the only one in favor of the variance, but would be
outvoted. He stated he would be in favor of trying to save as many
,- n'e:s as IJ0ssible for various reasons. He did agree with most of
the Board that , conclusively, it has not been proven a real
hardship or practical difficulty because the house can be built
without moving it to the back. If the Board was more inclined he
stated he would vote the application as a yes.
.2.
1
~
1-
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APRIL 27. 1995
A discussion between Board members commenced, and fOllowing,
Paterson again opened the meeting for public comment. Paterson
explained to Moore the procedures and askeq him if he wanted the
application tabled and the need for 4 affirmative votes. Stuart,
the designer, asked for tabling of the application. Debra Moore
also asked for tabling.
MOTION
Head moved to table Case #95-2 to Thursday, May 25, 1995.
seconded, voting commenced, and was unanimous in favor;
carried.
DeLuca
motion
CASE #95-3
STAN MATHIS FOR JOHN ELMORE
)
Remo Lavagnino took chairmanship, and opened the case. Owner seeks
variance from the required open space in the RMF zone. Affidavit
of Posting was presented (attached in record). Stan Mathis
presented and introduced John Elmore. He carried through on a
little history to demonstrate hardship and/or practical difficulty,
and he showed a site plan of the property prior to development.
August of 1989, when the project was started; they were the first
prcject to go through the enventory of the HPC at the time where
they graded you from 0 to 5. The parcel was graded a 1. They did
not have to go through the process, but since they were the first,
they rather got "sucked into it". They went through the process
for one year and a half and finally developed a site plan that the
HPC liked. The owner agreed to many of the recommendations of the
HPC as long as he could build a 6 ft. 0 in. high privacy wall along
a portion of the site bordering Original Street and an alley in
order to create a private yard and as an accoustical barrier. The
yard area on the Original Street Side was a result of HPC
requirements. They are left with a yard that is next to one of the
busiest streets in town and there is a parking garage directly
across the street. In the give-and-take with the HPC, the one
thing important to Elmore was to be able to have a privacy fence
to shield the yard. At the time the property went through City
Council it was one piece; Elmore took it through a lot split and
even though in the RMF District, City Council approved, but it
could not be RMF anymore, it had to be a single family residence _
both parcels. In the RMF District it is required to have 35% open
space, in the R-6 zone, which the lots meet requirements, there is
no open space rule.
.Q.
)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
JULY 6. 1995
Lavagnino asked if there were any public comments? Helen Klanderud
stated, I live at 1380 Riverside Drive, which is adjacent to this
development. I wasn't certain just exactly where this lot was, so
I thought I should come to see. My only concern was, because there.
was an earlier issue up there which involved both the setbacks and
what was allowed at a ground level, and I can understand this
problem, just so it is not made more general and allows some other
things that I think might not be desired by other adjacent land
owners.
Lavagnino closed the public portion of the meeting.
Iglehart stated, I think he's entitled to have access to his house
and I think that's the only place he can do it.
Erickson stated, I agree.
Paterson stated, I'm O.K. with it.
Schott stated, likewise.
MOTION
Erickson
driveway
seconded.
carried.
stated, I move that we approve variance 95-7
road cut as per Planning Office memorandum.
Voting commenced, vote was unanimous in favor,
for a
Schott
motion
There was discussion at random regarding the Board of Adjustment
and the Design Review Committee and Board of Appeals.
Lavagnino stated, we have some reviews before us, I'm not quite
sure why they are before us, but I would imagine it is for
clarification of variances that we gave. The first case is Gary
Moore, and if it's O.K. with you, since I excused myself last time,
I can just moderate here, but I won't comment on it.
CASE #95-2
GARY MOORE REVIEW
Lavagnino stated, did you bring this up, Ron?
)
Erickson stated, I talked Bill (Drueding), because Bill wasn't at
the meeting when we granted the variance. The variance was a
conditional variance and I wanted to make sure that Bill knew what
the conditions were all about. So, I called him up and we spoke
about it and guess Mr. Moore didn't agree with my interpretation
.a
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
JULY 6. 1995
of the conditions that we had set. So, I asked Bill to go back and
check and see the P&Z minutes and find out exactly what had
happened there. Because at the last meeting. as I remember it, it
was a tabled meeting, he came in and asked for a variance based on
a recommendation from staff to P&Z that they move the building
envelope 5 feet away from the bank. I felt that if, fine, that's
the proof he is using, if P&Z makes him move his house 5 feet, then
he has a right to a 3 ft. variance. Bill wanted some clarification
on what designated the west side of the house, because we
determined that if they made him move it 5 feet more, he had enough
land behind him that he didn't need a variance on the north side
of the house. We were already determining a variance on the east
'sIde of the house. So, where does it become westside? That was
one of the complications, and two, what was the condition that we
set on him before he was granted a 3 foot variance?
J
Drueding stated, Stan Clauson, my supervisor, read this (minutes),
went over the building plans, and he didn't feel that this
(minutes) was as clear to him as it could have been. What he
determined, out of what you said in here (referring to minutes),
and our discussion, he felt, generally, they were in compliance
with what you required. In a discussion with Leslie, she suggested
to them that they do this 5 foot move, but they never really
ratified that as part of a directive order. But, all in all, Stan
felt that Gary (Moore) was in compliance with this.
Erickson stated, when we granted the variance it was based on him
moving the house east, 5 feet, although I felt it should be under
th" direction of P&Z. If he did it, then, the P&Z complied, that's
cool, you've done what we asked you, I think that's sufficient
justification for the granting of the variance.
DrLleding stated, I can't go back to P&Z and say, is this exactly
what you want, or did you agree with Leslie?
Erickson asked, was it moved 5 feet?
Drueding stated, why don't you take a look at the drawing?
Erickson stated, yes, I would like to.
Drueding stated, see if this is what you want.
Erickson viewed the map and there was discussion between Drueding
and Erickson regarding the 5 feet.
Er'ckson stated, I don't have any problem with that.
Gary Moore asked, is this O.K. now?
J
J.
.
~)
)
,
1-
.
)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
JULY 6. 1995
Drueding stated, I have a boss that says it is O.K. Leslie says
it's O.K. According to your minutes, he's pretty much in
compliance. Erickson stated, maybe, in the future we have to be
a little more clear with the motions.
Lavagnino stated, sometimes you can find out in the content of the
meeting itself, what was discussed to get the intent. A lot of
times we talk about approving a motion based on the discussion that
took place. It's been our way of doing things, in a sense, that
we don't necessarily have to define the motion.
Drueding stated,
particular case,
reading the motion out of the minutes,
was very difficult.
in this
Lavagnino stated, this may have been an unusual case.
Erickson stated, I think it is pretty clear to me.
John Worcester, City Attorney, stated, the reason we are having
difficulty with the motions in the minutes is the reason why I have
sometimes suggested that you all adopt resolutions, so the
secretary can prepare a resolution and then bring it to the
chairman, several days later if necessary, and then you can read
through that resolution to make sure that it says exactly what you
understood the motion to be based upon your presence here. That
makes it a lot clearer, because then, all we have to do, is
interprete that resolution.
Lavagnino stated, I wasn't Chair at that meeting, I excused myself,
but still, when there are times when it is not evident, that motion
is not quite precise, then we should do it that way. There are
some times when it is real easy.
CASE #91-6 & 93-16
DR. EDWARD WATSON REVIEW
Lavagnino stated, again, this is something that was brought to your
attention, Bill?
Drueding responded, yes, it was.
Lavagnino asked, is there a problem?
Drueding replied, I don't know that yet. This is one of these
things that Ron keeps bringing up to me; as much as I try to get
time to get over there, I have not had a chance.
.i
Ull""I'.I'('......"=>n<>."~'''',..,, "
1-
-
/ ~
CITY OF ASPEN
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MAY 25. 1995
4:00 P.M.
SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM
AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
II. A. CASE #95-2 GARY MOORE (TABLED FROM APRIL 27, 1995)
B. CASE #95-6 ALH HOLDING COMPANY
III. MINUTES
IV. ADJOURNMENT
1-
'-.'--'0
_..___,__'..o.-."""-^O"-""--_.",_,,_,," >( _ .._._~,' __. '''~''''''';~_'_;''~ _~,_~._...
Okf1~
~
~vll
~'"".
5. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy the
Planning Department shall inspect the unit to determine compliance
~~~~,the"~onditions of approval.
I
Staff recommends approval of the ";~str'eam".Margi'ff~;'f..E!v:re'IM with the
following conditions: .'c- . .~.. l,
\"':.r-.':'~~~ ._.""."'"...~:._,...-:,.,.,"_.,:.i.'t;~,?i,':.;:~. ,)"''--':''~;;''1'l:or<'<:;n",.1 .... .
1. Pr10r to the 1ssuance of any bU1ld1ng perm1ts, bU1ld1ng plans,
certified by a registered engineer shall be submitted to the
Engineering Department and shall depict the elevation of the lowest
floor, including basement, which shall be elevated at least two
feet clear between the base flood elevation and the bottom of the
first floor and to include other floodplain development design
details such as resistance to flotation and movement of foundation,
flood proofing of utilities, as provided for in the FEMA Ordinances
No. 62 (Series of 1985) and 32 (Series of 1987).
Ol>,",~ 2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant
shall record a dedicated fisherman's easement from center line to
five feet above the high water line, a copy shall be provided to
the Engineering Department.
\pi:;?"" 3. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant
? shall submit a revised site plan for review by the Planning,
~ Engineering and Parks staff. The revised site plap shall include:
., . ,(b?ISc.q I
-.-~a. a new building envelope that red1es the env~lope on the Qtvt
river I s side by another 5 feet; . P6 oNA<tl'rkO \i\ \YLQeitfA 011 \ .dl/.
b. tree removal mitigation plan and he~{parian zone; I' 51
c. a more defined landscape plan; and
r
~
~ (l"G l)
V t::J\,lC;S
Cl'l'-'\ .
4. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a tree removal
and mitigation plan shall be submitted for review and approval by
the Parks Department. Tree removal permits shall be required for
lP'2 the removal or relocation of any tree greater than 6" in caliper.
n\~~II'~ 5. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant
v ~shall submit to the Engineering Department an erosion mitigation
plan and the Zoning Enforcement Officer shall monitor the erosion
controls and their effect during the time of excavation and-
construction.
f..-
Oot!
6. No excavation and construction activity or human made
structures may be built or placed outside of this building envelope
without further stream margin review.
,~~ 7. No site drainage shall enter the river and vegetation outside
~/~ of the building envelope shall be undisturbed to prevent erosion.
~(8. Excavation shall be done using small scale equipment to keep
~,\\ all the work within the building envelope. caution tape shall be
8
l ~ ( \
I.
~~~-'~
~~~/
.'
. .
, .
-0. ....:
RECEIVED
MAY - 1 1995
THE CITY OF ASPEN
Parks Department
Parks Office
920-5120
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPUCA nON
The following is an outline to assist in the preparation of a tree removal pennit.
1) Outline/Sketch/Drawing of property to include: (please attach 2 copies)
a) Property address.
b) Property boundaries.
c) Locations of buildings on the property.
d) Location, diameter, and species of trees on property and designate
with arrows or circles which trees are to be removed.
2) Site address L"., /~ 2 or s -t i L...t- 3 [3t... (Jeff / ~ ~
3) List trees to be removed, species and diameter at 4.5' above grade. / I.f .. _ "3
~t..c. C"'T"~ lV(J~r.>5 I':J I
{O 7""41.. l~aA<.o ~ Iu.. ~ := /5"lf 1/ :: '}
10
4) Reason for Removal . -I-J. ~'~....I '1 _ ~
T~ tru..eo fdL ~ ~ ~/ y _ .,.
'*~ Cf"\..... ~ bIu ~~t_ II
-t'~~
5) Mitigation Plan (relocation of trees or replacement of comparable worth trees as
referenced in Aspen Municipal Code Sec. 13-76, (e)). Add to Property Drawing.
a) Location of replacement/relocation trees.
b) Size and species of trees to be replaced.
6) Completion Date of Project D E"<:""" I cr .<tS-
7) Person responsible for project (applicant):
O-A-a.y No~ 12.1"Z-
Property dwner
5A/P~
Name of Architect or Construction Representative
i30K 91ft R-
A:ddress & Phone Number
I~C-o/~
ASfGI..J Co
PII/1-
Company name
Phone Number
f"-/-?r
Date
Date
Signature
.~.;
1
I
I~r~~~..
~ ~ t/~~ f
~
"
.: .
, .
.. .
. .-.
RECEIVED
MAY - 1 1995
Parks Department
THE CITY OF ASPEN
Parks Office
920-5120
lREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPUCA TION
The following is an outline to assist in the preparation of a tree removal permit
1) Outline/Sketch/Drawing of property to include: (please attach 2 copies)
a) Property address.
b) Property boundaries.
c) Locations of buildings on the property.
d) Location, diameter, and species of trees on property and designate
with arrows or circles which trees are to be removed.
2) Site address LeT /1-1- '1-5. -t D~t...o-r3
BL 0 elT I (J !rt-4--#M1-4- FLA-73
3) List trees to be removed, species and diameter at 4.5' above grade.
"'7-t...t. eo T7"dlY""ooe>f
"
TI!J-r-.4L. ~ -t3 b.e- ~ :::. S;Y.
4) Reason for Removal ~ ~ ~ ./ ..-*A':'J.
~ W:u, -I' l-f ~ ~ -y----v- r-~'
d"t.- ~ ~ t7ct ~ -40~ !
/'1" - /
12." - I
r -:z..
, - 1-
,
5) Mitigation Plan (relocation of trees or replacement of comparable worth trees as
referenced in Aspen Municipal Code Sec. 13-76, (e)). Add to Property Drawing.
a) Location of replacement/relocation trees.
b) Size and species of trees to be replaced.
6) Completion Date of Project O~ ./ I 995
7) Person responsible for project (applicant):
GA-t2-IJ /10 6~
Property OwJfer .
,<)Am t:=:-
Name of Architect or Construction Representative
ReA" 9'1tK" At.ff'FAJ
Address & Phone Number .
-~~ ~~
Signature
Co
9'/11'2-
,-/-'15
Dale
Company name
Phone Number
Dale
Signature
. . .-G.r.~~.
1
--I
,
CITY OF ASPEN
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APRIL 27. 1995
4:00 P.M.
SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM
RE'TISED
AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
II. A. CASE #95-2 GARY MOORE
B. CASE #95-3 STAN MATHIS FOR JOHN ELMORE
I II . MINUTES
APRIL 13, 1995
IV. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
V. ADJOURN
-I
, ~
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CASE #95-2
GARY MOORE
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: April 27, 1995
Time: 4:00 p.m.
Owner for Variance:
Appellant for Variance:
Name: Gary Moore
Address: Box 9468, Aspen, CO 81612
Location or description of property:
N. Spring St. Lots 1&2 & South 1/2 of Lot 3, Block 1, Oklahoma
Flats
Variance Requested:
Requesting a 7-1/2 ft. encoachmanet variance into the front yard
setback.
Will applicant be represented bv counsel:
Yes:
No: X
The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment
130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611
Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Sharon Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk
____..~.-N.~_~.'.."--.-.-
....1
CITY OF ASPEN
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
MA-Qc..u-
APPLICANT G-AR_Y
MAILING ADDRESS j3~>:
DATE
'30
N () f) (2}:=:
ql.f6 i' hS/J~1V
19 9(J
CASE #
PHONE 92.., 5()7~
Co '?I U 2...-
OWNER
~.*~1'L!!. SEt: ATfA<:!../fF-n LG-rre1.....- PHONE
MAILING ADDRESS
LOCATION OF PROPERTY tJ. 3 fRIIJ6- S"I.
(street, Block
L o..,-s /.,.. L ~ S DW110
Be.. oetr I c) IT /.A 1+ IJ ",-#
Number and Lot Number)
Y2 oF- Lor3
Ft..-1-?3
WILL YOU BE REPRESENTED BY COUNCIL?
YES_ NO---X.
=================================================================
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.
RSFIE/l.. To A-n-,,1f2IfED L.c /T Y7- <1- .HAfJ.
Applicant's Signature A ~ ~ ~ 9JI~
REASONS FOR DENIAL OF BUILDING PERMIT, BASED ON THE ASPEN CITY
CODE, CHAPTER 24. AN OPINION CONCERNING THIS VARIANCE WILL BE
PRE BE ED ~O THE B9AR. ~ BY THE ZONING DEP~TMEN.T ST.AFF. . d~
rJw ifl .~~1/ ~ ~ (2-0 fUll J~ ciitiC;eu-r ' fR~'1cv?~.:iU
bee . ~~r t.a ;1<;,4. k 5-:J.tJs(D)(4) 1kf0-~f ~04
o.rp~&1 ctfxaft? fo ~ JUF~ C2 7i {{-,tU{;/ua-c,l~~
~ ytr~~MJWtc<ch,
IAMci "30J11J(;FFICIAL /)/J,{)..t~o
,
DATE OF APPLICATION lil4...4(t, ?u-/c;~('- HEARING DATE
DATE PERMIT DENIED
SETBACK VARIANCE
The East lot line of this parcel is parallel to
100 feet of North Spring Street which dead ends at
This is the front yard which has a 25 foot setback.
requesting to Move a 32 foot long wall section of the
structure ir~o the setback 7 1/2 feet. This will Move
away frOM the river on the West boundary, creating
sp~ce in that area.
the last
the ri ve~'.
We are
prc'posed
the house
mc.re open
By grcmtirlg this va~'iaY"lce, we will alsc. save ten 10" tc' 12"
Cottonwood Trees that are apprOXiMately 100 feet tall which
currentely stand within or on the edge of the proposed
structure's footprint. Leaving these trees will Maintain the
natural setting of the lot and sheild the hbuse frOM the river
land the Rio Grande Trail which is across the river). Saving
these trees benefits the ground structure by Maintaining their
natural root systeMs which lie on the edge of the flood plain.
Because we have followed the SMuggler Neighborhood Design
Guidelines, and inforMation set forth in the flood plain review
of this area, the footprint of the house ends up intruding on a
Majority of trees that CQuld be saved by this variance. We have
discussed this matter with a representative of the Parks and
Recreation DepartMent and we will have a letter of support at the
scheduled meeting fc~ this variance.
The 7 1/2 foot diMension requested was arrived at simply
because five feet was not quite enough and ten feet did not save
any rno~'e trees.
CITY CLERK
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, co 81611
PROPERTY OWNERS MAILING LIST
(WITHIN A 300 FOOT RADIUS OF APPLICANT'S PROPERTY)
Howard Mayet'
Box 333
Aspen, CO 81612
Dennis & Andrea Young
P.O. Box 88559
Atlanta, GA 30356
Denice Reich
325 Ash St.
Denver, CO 80220
Briarl Weirlet'
PMG - C/O
504 Mi lar, Bldg.
San Antonio, TX 98205
AM/PM INC.
A Terlr,essee COt'pe't'at ior,
1700 Hayes St. #304
Nashville, TN 37203
Fraternal Order of Eagles
700 E. Blee~er Ave.
Asperl, CO 81611
Richat'd W. Vc<lk,
23~~7 M i rnosa Dt".
Huston, TX 77019
Neligh C. Coates Jr.
720 E. Hyman Rve.
Aspen, CO 81511
Gail M. Gross
2700 Post Oak Blvd. #1570
Huston, TX 77055
He.wat'd Hanson
7,'"5 Bay St.
RspeYl, CO 81611
Rerno l~avagni )"1(,:1
Bc)x 53i.~
Rsperl, CO 81612:
Gerald H. Goldstein
2138 King William
San Rntonio, TX 78204
El.Iuene & J'itdith SeyrllC1ut'"
14E,5 MOl"idC() Dr""
Pacific Palisades, CR 90272
Rllth Hami I ton Bt'owr.
420 N. Spring St.
I~spen CO 81611
r _ ....1.:'... rl'_"_"
E'l'nibi~ ..i-
. '.
RICHARD W. YOLK
2807 HAMMEL LANE
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77098
T~l: (713)522 1945
Fax: (713) 522 2601
March 14, 1995
Re: Lot 1 & 2 and South 1/2 of Lot 3 Block 1
Oklahoma Flats Addition, Aspen, CO.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
,
I am the record owner of the above mentioned property and by this letter I give
permission and authority to Gary and Debra Moore of 1006 E. Hyman Ave., Aspen, CO.
to provide Information and apply for such approvals from the various City of Aspen
authorities deemed necessary to construct a single family residence with an accessory
dwelling unit on said property.
f#P w tf!2,
Richard W. Volk
Personally and as Trustee
tJ'-f-c:.d,- .L::J-::'..) I!}l.. ~ 1'.""1
il'<:UI'1
IU
~~V~~~~J~~J r.~~
DENICE REICH. INC.
A'ITENTIOll'
LESLIE LAl<<)RTE
BIlIlCl; ICEIlll
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, [ would
strongly object to the hOle being built on that property tn encroach seven and
a half (7 1/2) 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 illlpact on the entire area of Oklahollll Flats. Within the
last year the area has becORle hOllIeS looking as if they are taking steroids,
instead of the quaint sma Her h01lll!s that gave the area such charlll. Bigger is
certainly not better, as closer to the street with such a large hOlle is ce'l'tainly
not an illlp\"OVement.
Concerning the additional 700 feet being added to the hOIle by an accessory
dwelling unit would also negate the charm and have a definite impact. I would
object to any additional square footage.
Sincerely,
~, r:!K~
Denice C. Reich
RE,lNAX Central
140050. Colorado IlIvd. #500
D.n..r, CO 80U2
(303) 759-6644 direct
FAX (303) 691-{;829
Om: of DefTVer'$ Top Ten R.ealtors Since 1980
TOTRL P.1Zl2
.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CASE #95-2
GARY MOORE
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 reques~ing authority for variance
from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 21, 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 vi3.riance.
Particulars of the hearing and
Date and Time of Meetinq:
re~e:dbI:::'~ -r:f ;:';0110'"'
(Q
Date: April 27, 1995
Time: 4:00 p.m.
Owner for Variance:
ellant for Variance:
rn r"5'(\ ;c- .s;: E't VI^ 0 J rL. '
-e::: '-/ VC .~~ ("~
~' '610 IV. s.~ ~
~ 8:/~(\
Name: Gary Moore
Address: Box 9468, Aspen, CO 81612
Location or description of property:
N. Spring St. Lots 1&2 & South 1/2 of Lot 3, Block I, Oklahoma
Flats
Variance Requested:
Requesting a 7-1/2 ft. encoachmanet variance into the front yard
setback.
Will applicant be represented bv counsel:
Yes: No: X
The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment
130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611
Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Sharon Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk
-~_':""'..':''''''-
. ';"J\
; .,
, .,
,---=-
, :.. :~""f.~;~~~
~ t",.~~;:,g
.\. \~<~~:~
',~(.~; "'--..::-
','" If' ~).
&. ---\
. _ ..J\
'_, D:o 0:;:-1
r,',~
r.:i N
~u.J~
.?: 0'>
~a:;:~
:::low
000
~uu.J
.._ c::( 0
:--z..:t:
u.Jo~
c.n~;;i
...,.n~
z:l.D~
u.J'"
~"""G
~ ti::
...,
~
---t?
~
J;
U1
G
r-f1
-
-
.J)
-
~
-
.-
-
-
County of Pitkin
}
} ss.
}
I,
state of Colorado
Muni-
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
cipa1 Code)
The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says as
follows:
I,
0-4-(l'f
~ H oon.E...-
being or
representing an Applicant before the Aspen 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 ~t could be seen from the nearest public way) and that
the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the I~
day of A!R./{,.- , 199~, to the fl day of 4!2;(jv ,199~
(Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing
date) .
~~n~'s1(~e
I
I
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this ~ day of ~I I
- \ _:._-~~
199~, by t-~~~
~ ~ G. Ka:xe..
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
My Commission expires:
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: MaJ '. 199'"
BODded 1bru NOTARY PUBLIC AGENCY
Notary Public's Signature
/9CV ~ LL..n ~S ~ (" I' ~ 110 II
Address .--t'
.J. r/ ~ .., .L. ~ <'Y).c. a t>'
OSl ~.d<>vd
Ol<C.)
a ~);,;uJo \JJ
" ,j:. ~
?;,
" .\<",
'" d'
":"',
,;:
'.
',\,-
"i',
,j;
,""- ,\.
.,
. ,~<~?\: ,~:
,;
,'0.
\ ': ;,~,'
':~~',
,
" ,
"
:, ~
',,'
r',:~~;i., .
\; "
,
':, ~,
I.
~'i .~'
. > ) ~,
.:'~' \
.,-
!,'
(~ .
"
"
,.. '\'.. ;',
10" ':)r'
.r..; i~
"
'.'
...=..
.'
.' <,:'i,
,.t.:
"
,.
,( ,
,,~.-
.,',"1'
;:
;
';.
?,
"
.'''' ~.
.'
. \,:
j'l'
. "1'~
';'.>;
..!
'r
I,' "
,1
"
'; t' t"
~:
"i,
','.
"
"f.l
. t~
", "
, ,
('
;1. ," " ~ ~ " I..
l.~ .. ',i.'~ "
~'~ .
11 .:'
.. . Ii ~ .
l" ,tl~,;' ',;" . .
'\ ~ "'.P ,: ~,.
. ~ <".'~ ", ...... '
'..' >
':i ..'.
"
"
..
"
:...-..
,"
"
", ~ .
,',
.
~; '\
. ~.
,\.,'
: ~
.\;
"',:1"
.,..., ,\~'
,~ ~_~"~~~.~ f',
l'" :<.;
",;..-','''1,
,"1 ".,
'p
. )...
,~
'.
'\.
it:",:
- ~\
"
'.)f....,:
'~$
""
~'" .1
L' <:1'",;~.....::.~
, '
I';
~":1'
',~ i
';.~."':,"-'f'
"''!1.~;
,.... . "l":"1:
'('" ~-
j ~ .~~
,',
't"
"
. 'If"
.".
';,!
" '~.!~~",
.~ . -,
, ,',
~>
!,
, '~': ,.
"
"
;......,...
.'l"'t:'f
. 'I ~,.' ".
,
'~:'~::^ ,
:'1
.I
...,' O~.
ad,~~r~~;
';;II? 7'''" . .
- J__....;-;.:...__~~~..
, ,~ . ---.
,
"
:~ '. ' " . ' '
." ~ '~.'\
'~': 7'
~..
.~. ~
"''"X':
~'~!
,'~ .
c;,
'~ ~~:t::~'
;,;'
I
~~
I,'.'
<.'
. <,
, .' '
, .'
.~~->*--; .,-.~~'-:-'
.n-j
...:.....>;;.
t,! '
----..--