HomeMy WebLinkAboutlanduse case.boa.Spring St.012-84
\~'~~;r~;:k~~~~f~~~!~'l~1:;;~{ig"::1~,~;:J,,:&~~.~'~r;..'~:{i;~~~~~'~r~:Ji~J~S~l~~~~~'~-~~~;JT~~i;~~~~\t~
V:'
~.
,.
NCYrICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Case No. 84-12
BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE
DESCRIBED BELOW:
Pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen of June 25, 1962, as amended, a
public hearing will be held in the Council Room, City Hall, Aspen, Colo-
rado, (or at such other place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to
consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting
authority for variance from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter
24, Official Code of Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance
are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If
you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state.
yo~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.
The particulars of the hearing and of the requested variance are as follows:
Date and Time of Meeting:
Date:
Time:
Thursday~ ;July 19, 1984
4:00 p.m.
Name:
Address:
Name and address of Applicant for Variance:
Appellant:
Brian Weiner and John Wedum
P.O. Box 7609
San Antonio, Texas 78207
Location or description of property:
Owner:
John Wedum
1607 Waterloo
Austin, Texas 78704
.
Location:
Description:
New Wedum Tract - Spring Street
(adjacent to Hillhouse Condominium - Lot 1)
Aspen, Colorado
Variance Requested: Property is ~ocated in the R-30 zoning category. Setbacks
are: front, 25 feet; side, 10 feet; rear, 15 feet. Applicant appears to
be requesting a 22 foot front yard variance, a 5 foot side yard variance, and a
5 foot rear yard variance. Applicant also appears to be requesting a clari-
fication as to a previous approval relating to the location of the building
DU~St~8n'of Variance: (Please cross out one)
tempon~y
Permanent
THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
BY Remo Lavaqnino. Chairman
Barbara Norris., Deputy City Clerk
"l...'...., ~ , 1,..... "'-h., 'J'_' : I ,1.; j :
DATE
May 23, 1984
~ f' ,,' "....... .'
.
;??y!/
7J?-pl ft,/5btl'
lID. JiL/ z....
CITY OF ASPEII
Cf\SE
. I \,
lIPPHLMlT BRIAN wEINER and 'JOHN i:"WEDUM MOnES:> Box' 7609
--
......,..;'.. ,.: San Antonio,
, . .:c' ,
.' __PlIOIIE 512/116-682'0
TX 78207
-
-
OIlNER
, .l.Q.Illi R. WEDUll
ADDRESS 1607 - A Haterloo
AU5tin7 TX ' 78704
.,lC1cIITIOrl OF FRCiPERTY New Hedum Tract - Spring Street
. (Adjacent to tlll..1houSe L.onQom~nlUIn LUL 1)
.
"
.-:
.(Street. & ~jumber of Subdi vi s i on B I k.., & LottiC.)
.
, '.
Building Permit' Application and pr~nts or any other pertinent
,~ data must accompany this, application, arid will be made part of
ChSE /lO.
.
..
" : THE BQA?D ~IILL RETURN THIS ,APPLICATIOt/' IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN
ALL THE FACTS IN QUESTION.
,
DEst:RIPTIOil :CF PROPOSED EXCEPTIOll SHO\-lING' JUSTIFICATIOns: '
'. . '. .... . ~ . . .
i-le:ai:-'e."s'~eki;'g ~larifi'cai:io,,' of 'the buildi~g ~nv~i"Ee :that "as,approved' by,: th~' Boat~of '
'Adjus!:1ii.ents when. they approved ,a variaft.cE!' i'dr building in the flood'1'-lain~, The 'building,
envelope 'was used as an examjJle of where, a house 'should be placed., the 'circle' s,'.-location
, '~as suggested by, the Entineed~g Department and t!>ey'agree.' it 'was not intended ,to' be t.he "
excrusi~e area for const~uction., ~he approval of the building' envelope'required a'se,back
reduction, and the Building Department feels a'clarification is'necessary t~ confirm 'your "
'. , approv'a;L of, the setback reducti-on of the, building' env<<lope. <1ur '-proposed footprint places
the building as far from the river 'as possible while removing only 2 trees from the
. -.~, . ... , . .
woo<!ed "ite. ,The buil~ing will be 30'.j- from Spring Street and 100 + froll) the nearest
house. ,At-tached site plan ShOl'lS:.details: . ,,'i. j (., f\.1J.-l\~\~7~O~<l
. ~ j~'" . 0~ '
'Will you be :represented by coullsel ? Yes_x No . ,,," ,
jJtzZi/c;lY.J wIZJ/V-'7:-e. lL:z'" '
~ ----'I.
SIGNED: Jl?Y/'/.e ,'U/i:P~ h0, --;t'&t*--L
. Appell ant BRAIN \-IEINER/& JOHN R. \-lEDUM
,
PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING OHUINA!.CE REQUIRING THE BUILDI1iG INSPECTOR
TO 'ORWARD TKIS APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTM2NT AND REASON
fOR NOT GRA;ri~NG:~~ v.. -~'~CQ0~~ 'R~?-'P 2.A~ '"' 0~~_~'
~~~~~. F~~<.:s-'{'\-) ~v~,.\.O#--)..QiOJ\' IS'~~ :' .,
,~~, ~~~~ )..~~~~~'Q'>-{?+-
"vul.e':\-'AAJ ~ ~~ (N .? ~+- ~ AAdL :~, ,-~ ... q d;~,
.- f, , ~^~,p,^... _ \' ,\,; - IJ.;"':, o~ "'\.",' ',i:~J.i ,: (-c..'
ru(jUJ ---:-\('f."""V '\-b lUlL --;-~__:-'""') ,G,.. ' " : '",--- ~~--=-'~'
'~"r~~',~'.~~'~'~ ,~'~ _
'd\~~ ~.. .'
, I
.
..t
.-
.....
..
'-
'-,
.1 ~J)
: 'Status . _ .
I'ERBIT REJECTED, OflTE .~\~~
f\prlIC^110N FlLEO ~\a~\ 'z5"{
.
.
.
~
S 1 9 n-c d ' .
"
-
.
.
DECISION
DATE IF HEMING
.. .
...:..-0 ATE_
HAllEn
~. Jl
.
SECRETMY
.
.
/
/
/
/ $;..
IQ
/ ,lJ'
/ l"t
l~cJ
ff~
I !I. f
/ <;\ 1/1
J../k
I :R
i?
I
I
I
I
I
/
/
/
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~--~----I /
--- "'" '
r-- " I'
I I \
I 0 I \
I 00 I 'v ,,0
I 00 I II l-
I 'I-X
o I I W
I I ~
I , ~
' I I ! .\I
0: /j/ ~
I / ~ '<l.
. ;Z
-L )/(,/ i l;~ a
~
\ /~'_ oZo 0'11. /
I ~ /
I I
I I.
: ,'/ /
I, 0
I I /
I ,
it : " , /
~ 1(0 /
C\ $. I ,,1,
'~ iy:' /
\ ./~~ v'
./ ",Zo ,:J/
"jfl' '7
1./' ::1<>" ~
r ~ft1fl 9';0.
-\'$ $ ~
,," 0
<>Iii -' -'Y
I<'~" ./
~",a~<>-~
o !7
o ,-9-
(;<
~1-7
f)Y
'?n ~'7
CT...,~
o ~
o 0 <j/
co <,<0
o ~'Y
o~
~
o~/
~1q7
9'
/
I
/
\II
~'\
<t
III
Il\
~'\
W
~
4:
ll.
~
It
Z
~
Ji
~
~~
/
~
r<
m
o
o~,O
o
,-rO'l!i'l<
:1 :7<,.".11 NO
" 00
o
o
o
('
~
:l
z
~
\'I.
z
~
~
III
-t\
5~
:r: III
~ ~
~Ul
III
~
1'\
-
t:;
..J
o
o~
00
o
I
I
~
~
1II::l
!.!3
:J
I-<fl
::l-
\l~
"'-..-{~
~~
~l'yy'7... aOt:rT=J
o 0 000 0
:lJ./ -It
~
-",
6-
-s
'<r
~
- ora
<\'3. olIO
o
ot:O 0
000
o 0
00
00 00 0
OO'~
M.l"'oll~
ill
o
o
~
II ~
o 0 ~,.
00\ itc
~O
~-
o
/
~
~
\3
III
~
~
:b
r-
'"
\-'
\I.
~
'"
6)
r
o
~
:€
:os
0-
III
3:-
~
~
: f i
.-~,.tZ
'if Ol: IL.~ .01 N
.
I""
'-'
....'<"\
"j
t2rovJ c( ;JcfcA;'/Yl~/t!
c7 c( 4/~
130 sO ~~
4~ (0 ?/C//
Jky IUnA~.s-
J,J'1 II~ /1"19
~
I
~
v..
s cUi4 L-UJ"i j~l c/).,/, ~,r 6-f
lite f1eJ/cb,u1- 0/ cite 11(1 livre !~#1C-
C7U/;tJ~ J#.sO'C, (u~~,4 ;4, /1. ~'C) j:;:ge/I
~y rlhe. c::tj ICyI/o! we ~ ~ ~
00/ oct!" /1--1 / C/r1-c/ aPft/M 5' rh cite Jt/et-v
{ljRc&;f/J /vVCd?
We- ~ tfi/7 )#U"! /~ ~ 0(
Il,e V"7t.e-J tcJ uC/(~ .6erc.ue; ~ ft-~~
~,'~ /:, /1'7c.Ct ~ Ii'?/" ~ /k rrr// otAc/
Ct?vf(~c/ 65' k~s (~~cJ .6 .1'4. cr1j/A-.dJ
~" 2i?f rJf.e o/f?tmA- ~ 6v;iY ~ /h-
;U6.u .,:,& r/f-e7 c-vJ/ ;:;"060 (4 f'evf?/' I ~
P4e. Or/tj/~ 5';~ ~C/ 6vl & C7t.A pile..
n~ b~', ~
/hwe. 'Irov"/ lie. vc'/IC/verz-,~" /
Y;;/2h
~_",~~",c_"__",,,'" ~. -~ ''",-'' ..,_.....-."~~..,~,,-"'-,...;...,'....,.,-,-",.""-+....~'--~',.,""~.
~
".' '
.,----_.-_.--~
. '. ..__....._.,-~'_..-
State of Colorado
)
) 55.
)
AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY POSTING OF
A VARIANCE HEARING BEFORE THE
CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
(Pursuant to Section 2-22(c) of
the Mu~icipal Code)
County cf pitkin
Th,~ :H:r)ers iqned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says as
follows:
, .
I,
5""'A~
(print
SttAF~~A,.J
name)
I !,eifl9 or
representing an Applicant before the City of Aspen Board of
l',djustment, personally certify that the attached photograph
fairly and accurately represents the sign ,posted as Notice of the
variance hearing on this matter in a conspicuous place on the
subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public
way) and that' the said sign was posted and visible continuously
from the 3 day of .J vt... I '9~I to the
- \
l't day of jvl"" , 1Cl"M. (Must be posted for at
least ten (10) full days before the hearing date).
r "
y
/
and sworn to before me
day of -.lu\::1 '
S-rA',J L€;" (l, SflAcFFM~
APPLICANp/
f
Sl.gna
Subscribed
this 1(" ,
'9~, by
(Attach
photograph here)
WITNESS MY llANO AND OFFICIAL
SEAL.
My commission expires: 7-::?d- BS
--;;r. ~ /J~--/" ~. - -
~~ 9 u ~ '
Notary Public -
{p' (p 1ii" M-trYloOf,J I A Spc"'> 61(,11
Address
d- - ;).
/
/
/
/ I..
/ II/"<:/...
-f''''
/ lil"':
~J;
/)...tJ
/ }'l
/ l< ,g
/ 0):-
/ 14:'
,~
/ .
/
/
/
I
I
I
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
C
/ r
/ I
/ I
, ~
en
N
l'
ro
/
/
I
~'-"
o I
00)
00 "
o.
/..
/
c
j ,.'.
I ,
"
0".,"
....... "
" '
..... '
,'"
-,'-
i i
~
<I)
ll\
! ~
i~
I
I ~
f ~
!
!
('
~
:J
Z
~
&
z
I:l
\)
III
<l\
::s
()
:I:
,......
~
tl.
1Il
>-
o
z=<-
-~
~
~~
flfl-
m~
~~
::l
:t
.-l
\!J\IJ
22
~~
~~
o.
G
_..l
I
/
I
~""
~~
~~
U.z
'--' ~
Cbr<
Till: /i1p/7t7/V'
~FFI(j~L. In/} 11/
fJN'J...-
~----
i
~tvf-i-''-- I
" ~I;;-~----
o 0 0 ~'';;~ aoo:";oj- <:iaLQnrLW
..,...,.,......-......\
....-..r. . } -r'
'-",r."-f'j'
I:~':l
, "I
Iii
III . i I
g 'i I
Ii
III '
r!
m I
"
~
I
6'
~ I
~ I
111 I
lfi I
~ I ./
~ 1/'
<1',
. )"(-(~
-/
,.,.~.
o
0<60
o c ~ 00
,,000 ~ooo 0
,OO'-vL ~;a 0
M,l~.fl S.. ~
___,_.,.J..,_.r
...~?~_:~::.:J'I' / ~~
'-.' .,. 'I
~-=~~:-=~==__--TI-n-7 j' ~
: .~.,-- ,I! " . is
:-0'" 'O-J:"r.=:)jl / jg
I,.J I , II)
000 LJ:' / ~
..", LV I' 1C
__.0-"___". I '~,
-..- / ~
Ili-I~;~:'__ : ",:' 1
I,~"'" I ,
i! ilr, ~=::.:,',,:t/I
Ii; _L... 1
I jl .......1.- .
='~.i""'..'.1
_.....'1 /.'
=t.:=!/
~_.1.n__.t.
,:t- I;
~,-,. I
.=r'
/
, '!/~
~', :;-V,
z ,',
~V:: '~
IIlE I
./ ~~-9-
. ,j\z
,,~g
ll.o~
''''1Il
lUll-ill
U'$~ ~o
~"j '>'
rl...r;\", -~~~ ,J>-)::-'
') i.i ',~~
'-" '''Q\ .P '
\. 0 ()~
,., y
(0 ~
~
00 ,40/
__ 0 ~
l\ooty
00 ~
~ OplY
o'V/
of
\ rfl/
~-f?/
'P
/
/
o
o
o
o
o
I
I
,
I
,
I
,
- ~_._.....I._--,---
,"~. .,.--- .-....--."---
,
,
I
,
.~_.---.-. ..::...:...::;'.1;....~:.;:.;;:
,
I
I
,
,
I
/
/
/
/
/
/ 1 ~
N: ~~ f ~
II! o~'O ~
.to! !i>,o'" <0 *0
III C'-~' '"
-' ~, -;....
Z II
iiI I I I C>.
3: -l III "
~ ~~~ ~ '~
~ ~tr1 W;
u~ ~~ 1
I
I
,
,
I
~
-<l
~
,"I"/:7..
Jil"O€ ,L?:: .0. N
ni >
II
t1 III
I j J
~~
tl?j
! I
o
-~
~<r
'~
~
~
'~-'-""'-''''':7'<IIlil''
~ ....<-:::-','~I'.::!..,-..
~;;~J> ~'~:.;"'_~
...... -,.""..-..~.,
.,..-; ~N",
IU.UI'
",f
--
'1/;" /.
!. j-.,
~~~:
#' "" '-, "-:':':;~",
~"''''i,~".F'''''' 'M,~'~"""~." ,~. :' _",Y,'. _,C,-'" ....._..,_.'"
.'--,,' ';-,~",":~~,~-';;:~
'",~.:IlI.:,_~_;.
.v,_"""''"'''._
","~;,<,.
~'....:"."'-
o
g
(\)
..
~
w
~
l'l
'"
~
~
:>l
:2
.,:l.
~
~
III
'>
t
~
~
~
~\l
81
,:,1
, I
\
~
V"'_'-\t;
"<. ,
'., )'"
"'. -~'$f
'i.-f.
.~
~~~,
'I,': r"
,-,.,,' '0'"
"l
~
Q
d.l
,Ill 0
Q <l) ,
, r- \,\)
~ Cl. ~
~ <:i t-
~ ,
lL '
~
~ 8
t - l!l
IS ~ ~
~ ~ ~
r ~ ::>'
~ ~ ~
IIr
:z
'51
Dl
~
'~
o
(I
~
m
s
'Ii ,I 'l-
''(I '7
~
~
t'-
I-
&
to!
t
IL
c
>-
~
u.l
~
l\.
~
Il\
I.)
~
\i\
~
III
~.
1Il~
:% -
ill ·
>~
to
......
,,-
III
.r> ..
~~
04
~<l
~. ~
:,~
"-
,;~,;~~;:;y ';.
~
~
...,......,.
,..)~,j<"',.~
I
," '" y~I;,~.~~.-,M'rii.
~':i-.~_,:~:~,~.....,.
~..,"'~.<l~,
.""",>", ,
~2
\"-"""\'~C
,,>
" ,
"
"
'-""'"
"_''fO''___
---,.,~'-"
-^
,'l":'"'"
'-<~..:.~._;.....~>.::;.....~~
8
:t:
III
ll..
~
.
III I
~I
iii I
C\l
~
1ll
bl
~:o
~-
-- II
111_
~ill
0.:::--
\Il
\II ..
Gill
a. ...
~~
\S'
1""
~ r,
~~...,.;-~
,i -','-'*'"
"'t '.
~"" ,'"
-'''';.''-''''
-'-'
~
~ ,.,
!-""~c, ....'
J';:j" ,:, It '
',..._-~<
1---"<""
. ,~>>).. <;;:t.-':::;';:--
--'"
'j.j-/z,
~ i
:;."N:}, ' ~;
..""""_.".~,, ~
.{~~~~~~~il
~-'!
...
'\
..~'>-'~ 'I
~
~
y\
\\\ () C) Cl
~ (l\ <{j ,~
1(\ Il'I 1<\
~ <ll Ii) <i)
r- r- l- e-
~ ~
u.
() ~~
Ii. ...
'-.. t~
\!l
::z: ll. il. III
iZ <::I III t>.
~ ll.. ::>- ~
!?- ii \!l
~ >' ~ ~
III
...
Ul III III III
,-",.:~~~
l,..~, "
"....,'._~r
>:..:~:;' --",
. ,,~
.
'.\~0..-j
",-'v~1)'
V' -~,
).'.
{'.' 'f;?
~"..o;
~ '~~:,~;".\;:
/,
i>
:1;3
~T,}1
z
o
~
iU
u1
~
o<t
!l!
~,.r
.r
-"','~'
, ~.,:;... -I '
'"'>:...
';-;,
...;---~:
~~~
.
~~~
T
?;.~""'... . ~-:::
":~2:'..
. ,~.:~,?--"::-,;.:..~,,
:t:
o
~
:>-
~
IU
~
o
Ill,
4./
~
~
~
..
~
... .....0;;
"
r-
...
WI
.
R
ii
7
.... ~<; ~<X'.fW AI '
,
I
~
2
"
'l
~
o
W)
q
,
~
~
~
i
I
-~
9~
~
~
~
;
,
..
/
"""
1INJ'
z II
" 'I '
II ,~
I /" \
~
fo'~
(l.~
'. I
., I
'}
'(!',
"':
'0, _ ,
.'1'. , i~;;l
';\:::'" ~i: ''):2,,i
, ":"'~"":il<'"
' " (~~~il~ij
:,' ~~:, ~r;t, '~I
\~h. 't,
:,.,i:,:~!:J,:t:,_"~::,"' ".
- - ,I"
~~- '~r;
.'
t,.'
~ ',;. ,,' " .
.,1';':,,\ 'I..
;~If).-", '
"."
,;'
,. ,
,
;""t,
"
, I.~,
Ge>~v'~ o\'I\~~i;\ ~e.-'~
I "3 f:) S . G ... ( Qr,fo.)!4 So ~
1\- ~ f h...~ ('e.le::. If"" .\.. ~
Gf..~}C{ ~ ~... ~
~ ~...c. K.* hi,", l"'~ , ~"'''''{''"'1't.r- ~ f- ?() 9
f\....),-c.~d"'.> -+--kt.,.; .~...,v~ot- ?lSl G"~~Q~ .c:\U(,
"Tko,,'" rr.(~ ~ ~....s( "- t-.(-. l.. I (.4.\(( ~"~f.
Cb....~ K:-"" hHl, J A oJ\.. C -.l t..tI" [~O fe-..s ~,. o.t"""'-J, WI. d.U"1
~("&. t..-l, .
?t u.)o ....
l"t.u. ~
\J'-
"" ~ ~-....s L \ '"t-l-i_.'.." :r:.. t6 ~
~.ft c1b r · ~ ~ ~Lc.......l{()~ I~ c:..-L
.H..o r It.-- lu. -~ b. (.~ 1\ """ ~ ~~~.(;~".....
..
U ft..1'-{
.:..~ I.
t .. t~
l......
~~~
(2.rq.~ ~
~ \fo.....",. ~
r t IS t.....
"ft...1( .....
+l4.. <:0 (1.1 .":' -{ .s ~ t
r,-<[ ...... i'1Lr ~\S~ rl''i. to.Sc:.. c..
~ < 4 ...,""
-flu.
S l"~ C-p vCr
\>d: tor ~. .1<.... ~ ~.....t- ~
..rJ'
(-
)l
c:;::
'--.., .,....._'_______'__._ ,.~_ n_....~~,~.
.__.... _...'..___..._,c-.'_ '. '. , .._...,.
-----~--".._,......:.-_-~-
m~_.~___,~_ '. _4, .'
May 29, 1984
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Mr. Lee Pardee
P.O. Box 4153
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Dear Mr. Pardee:
Please be informed that the variance request from the Board
of Adjustment by Brian Weiner and John Wedum, case #84-12, scheduled
for June 7, 1984, has been withdrawn. There will,not be a public
hearing.
Thank you.
Good day,
Barbara Norris
Deputy City Clerk
Encl: Copy of the notice of public hearing sent to you
I
t1 ~ ~lr fl\
\V 1\1\
.
.'-._".._ -."0.___. .
,~'~-".:..,;:..~-<-..._.,....._~.".....".".-,..,~~, ,,--.,'....._.-'. :.. -
.J.,~. "".... ."'_"'~.'.'>_'.'
""..u,^,_~..."_,,,',,~_.. ,.
.' .'"_.....,,~.~'._. ...~-~ ..~
....~..._'_4__._..._,._,_'. &.;1
May 29, 1984
Ci ty of -Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 816ll
Mr. and Mrs. Robert P. Gillman
9751 Brier Lane
Santa Ana, California 92711
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Gillman:
Please be informed that the variance request from the Board
of Adjustment by Brian Weiner and John Wedum, case i84-12, scheduled
for June 7, 1984, has been withdrawn. There will not be a public
pearing.
Thank you.
Good day,
Barbara Norris
Deputy City Clerk
Encl: Copy of the notice of public hearing sent to you
.
~- -, .,~~.~
~
;:# 9'-/.2-
New WJe.t;>uM "'T'1I:Ac:i
At>oJACI!IoiT "'~PE!Kt"( OWNI!~ ~
PA""t--e. J JAM."*" L.e~ jII""
~O, eox.. 4t!5~
A~. co /!)f<O; 12-
UNlr eo, klU- HOU~ CDJ'R'MI""IUM~
~ , 1J.MA/Il , 1'i!:o&1!llI:T" ~
e;. I/..I.MAtoL . 15L-1!!AI-lO\'lt ..L...
~7e.1 e.el":' l-Af-)E.
5A1\JTA ~ , ~ ~'7' t
U\o..\IT' A. ~,u.. -HOU~ ~C>OMINJUNe>
1
'- ,
,
.
.
,
"
,
I ,
r'\
.
I
;
.
I:
t i
I!
I ;
; i
[ ,
1 !
~ I
Ii
II
\ I
, :
",
i
.J
1
Pay to
1 thEiorderof G7]L(
~,
~j~
'--.-
STANLEY OR SUSAN FURR
BOX 421 927-3307
SNOWMASS, COLORADO 81654
583
-=# ii/-It l.9,vdAJ 541
oh_ L 19-if' 82-164/1021
r? ~ .4- s/,J?Z./U
~ Isl jo,oo
<>2
-- ,,~ Dollars
'.
//Lm -r--
....... First National
___ Bank
Aspen, Colorado 81611
For pa)? /Q.P/Uu-a7Tcn... _jL_,~
1:10 2 l.D H,1,51: H2 081, "lll' 051,1
Aoc:kyMountain Sank NoI88
~O:''','~''--'
Rainbow White
..,...~
, "".-:>
~1
,
. --. -.":-~~:' --
. ,
..
I
, I
I
I
,I
I
'~
';",
'.
r;
,
--.,
l"
"'"
,j
RECORD OF PROCEED'I"GS
1nl1 L;'~\/cs
fOl<"! '" ~_ F, "'" rKll, ". 0, "I ~"
__,__'_____w
._._~----~-,-
Regular Meeting
Planning an~ Zon_ing Com;nission
January 18, ).9~__,
Chairman Perry Harvey called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. with members
Tygre, Anderson, Pardae, Hunt, Bloomquist, Fallin, and White present.
COMMISSIONER'
COMMENTS
Harvey wished to call the attention of the members to a letter
that was sent by Francis Whitaker in reference to a motor
home parked on lot l333 Snowbunny Lane. The motor home is
backed up to the residence and i~ being occupied on private
proferty.
Harvey said that Bill Drueding wrote a memo to Gary Esary,
Assistant City Attorney, regarding regulations restristing
"Mobile Homes". But, nothing in the code that controls the
storage of "Motor Homes". It is one thing to store them and
another thing to live in them.
Esary stated that there are two things being considere<l at the
moment for regulations, satellite dishes and "Hotor Homes".
Anderson presented and explained a map to the Commissioner's.
In reference to the Smugglar area, road, green belt dDd open
space.
Blo~quist added that the county has gone as far as they could
in regards to getting the open space into the Phase 4 project.
The trailor park is in the city. It would seem best that the
P&Z ask the staff to work on the trailor segment of this, so
that the Green system connected from the river into tte Phase
4.
Harvey asked the Commission if they would like to state it they
support of pursuing the Green Belt along with the road align-
ment. He asked who could get a presentation to the County
Cornlissioner's. Someone from the committee should coordi-
nate with Alan Richman before that in order to set it up.
The meeting is the 22 February 1983, at l:OO p.m.
Rich~and frum the Planning Office said that the City has
prepared a p&Z plan for the golf course. They are now going
forward with final plat, they have Engineering Departments
submission. The P&Z condition on the golf course has been
complied with and will have a chance to review the landscaping
plan. He said they do see it coming forward to Council on
final plat.
PARDEE/WE DUM
SUBDIVISION
(PARDEE STEPS
DOWN)
Alice Davis from the Planning Office presents the following
before the P&Z commission.
The Request for Lot Line Adjustment and Stream Margin Review.
The ~pplicants are requesting approval for a lot line adjust-
ment between properties owned by Lee Pardee and Randy Wedum
and are also requesting approval to a Stream Margin Review.
The results of the lot line adjustment will be to incorp-
orate an existing 7,332 square foot lot owned by Wedum into
the southeastern portion of Pardee's property while carving
Wedum a new 7,449 square foot parcel out of the western
portion of Pardee's property. Both the existing lot 0wned
by Wedum and the proposed lot to be owned by Wedum are in
the lOO year floodplain and are therefore subject to S8ction
24-6.3 of the Code, Steam Margin Review.
-l-
,
rJ'hL'
the
are
,-'"""\
1""
cIv.~rld listcc1 fo,r a Lot Lin(~\d:;ustlllcnt u.r(~ ~Jiv.__'n
me'tlo. They meet all of the criteria. 'Hos't of them
straight forward.
1.11
l. Boundary changes must be consenting landowners;
2. The adjustment cannot directly or indirectly aftect
~he ULoVt'lu[JIn0Ilt ri(lhL", or permiLted density on the
affected properties.
3. Parcles affected must continue to conform to, the
under lying area and bulk requirements of the 70ne
district. Existing nonconforming lots shall not in-
crease their nonconfol mi ty as a result of tl1e lot line
adjustment.
4. The applicants must comply with all applicable zoning
and subdivision regulations.
ThE' second review that is b",ing requested is a Stream Line
Margin Review, which is rewuired for all development
within loa feet of high watE,r level of the Roaring Fork
River. Both of the parcels are some what in the lOO year
floOdplain. Due to fill that was accomplished in 1976, it was
adjusted, so a large part of the parcel is no longer in the
floodplain. The review criteria in the code for the lOO year
flcodplain is as follows:
1, No building shall be located so as to be within a
flood hazard area.
The Engineering Department and the Planning Office agrees
that even though the building is not within the 100 year
floodplain in that they are putting it on pylons and taking
it out of the flOOdplain. The pylons themselves are still
in there. If you want to cc.nsider the pylons apart of the
building, then they are in the floodplain. But the Planning
Office thinks that there are definite advantages to the land
switch, that it is an appropriate interpretation to say that
the building is located wit~in the flOOdplain.
2. Vegetation shall not removed nor any slope grade
changes made that will produce erosion of the stream
bank.
3. No acti vi i:y shall be allowed which I-Jill increase stream
sedimentation and suspension loads.
The Engineering Department is dissatisfied that these also
are going to be met and the situation improved because what
the applicant has agreed to do. The Engineering Department
has their comments listed in the memo and are as follows:
l. Submission and approval of detailed grading plan in-
dicating the river's edge and proposed contours com-
plimentary to the existing grades to the southeast and
along the river.
2. Tne applicants should plant the regraded area adjacent
to the river with species in keeping with the Roaring
Fork Greenway Plan as well as existing plants in the
area.
3. The applicant should specify for review and approval
any trees within or adjacent to the new building
envelope which are to be removed.
4. Locations of building pylons should be indicated as well
as the mimimum elevation of the superstructure.
5. The site plan for the proposed parcel should indicate how
on-site parking and access will be handled.
6. The applicant should submit a plat to indicate the
traded parcels and to serve as an amendment to the
Hill House Condominium Plat.
The Attorney's Office has a comment on the major issue which
will be, is that no building shall be located within the
flood housing area. The Planning Office and Engineering
Office felt that because of the different advantages that is
being accomplished, the Planning Office feels that one of the
exchonges will cause less visual impact. Across the river is
the Roaring Fork Greenway. 'l'he site that Randy Wedul", current-
-2-
/)
,....,
v
~,
",,"".
RECORn OF PROCEFDINGS
1 ao Leaves
_~:~;:..,5:- r, H"r\~l_ I', "'~~~:~-====--==___","___~____-=--.::::==.:...-='_=====_",_,=:==-:::==,:==;-;:;_:.:.~_____~~~~,_~=-:-=.-::=,_______
Plannins d~~~_?J~_~_I2L~om:;nission
__~',~,nu~..rY lS--,-_l}_8},
'R.(-"9ular Meeting
ly' has .i. s very visual, there is no trees it is a very vacant
parcel that would be highl y visual from the Greemlay. '['he
other parcel could be developed in a way that you could be
dE'veloped in a way tha't you couldn I t see it from thc" Greemvay
and that would be a definitely positive aspect of the land '
swap in the Stream Margin Review. Also, the lot is a non-
conforming lot in a R-l5 ZOne district. So by increasing
~n hi:s lot area, he is decreasing his nonconformity.
Hunt said that he remembered considerable amount of public
input on th,is subject brought up before. He asked that Ms.
Davis either find the file or the p&Z should get the public
input again because it was very crucial on this piece of
property.
, :
J'ay Hammond from the Engineering Department said that the
discussion he has had and looking at the site. Basically,
any structure that is locat~d in the floodplain, reduces the
area of the floodplain by a footprint of that structure. By
piacing this structure on pylons the actual construction of be
floodplain is minimized. By removing fill from the upstream
area, it then increases the floodplain upstream from that loc-
ation, which then reduces the restriction on the stream. The
net affect is that the floodplain is increased. There as,
by building outside of the floodplain on the existing parcel,
the floodplain remained constricted. The net effect and
reason the Engineering Department supports this is they
see that a net effect on the floodplain in that area being
an increase and that the water in the event of a flood in
that area, would have more area to pool.
Gary Esary, Assistant City Attorney said tht since the new
parcel to be created is entirely within the floodplain. By
the language of the Stream Margin Review, the p&Z commission
does not appear to have any authority to grant a building
pe:r:'J1\it in the floodplain. One of two things has to happen.
Either the Stream Margin Review has to be conditioned on
getting a variance befor~ the Board of Adjustments to build
within the Stream Margin; Or, the P&Z has to construe as a
matter of fact that the pylon structure of the building is
not a building within the floodplain. That they are just py-
lons within the floodplain. Esary also added that if the P&Z
approves the Stream Margin Review that a additional condition
that would read "Before a building permit is issued persuing
to the Stream Margin Review, the applicant obtain a variance
from the Board of Adjustments to build within the floodplain".
Blomquis'~ said that he has no problem with the land swap. Hi"
main concern is the Stream Margin Review. The ordinance says
not to put a building there. That means you don't lay pylons
down. The intent of the ordinance was that you don't build
within the floodplain. He hopes that the ordinance says that
you don't fill in the floodplain either. Blomquist said he
did not know if that was true. Alice Davis replied
that it is indirectly stated by no slope grade changes that
will produce erosion, things like that. Blomquist said that
the only thing he could see that would be done is to approve
the lot split. But, not do a Stream Margin Reviel'l, because
not enough facts are placed before the Board. Blomquist said
that he just does not have enough information.
David Whit,e said that he does not know anything about flood-
-3-
,-
'-'
....'"
-
)
plains. He said that he has lOoked at the places and has read
it and it looks to be a good Lll~ng.
Ms.Tygre said that she agreed with certain things that Blom-
quist presented. In that if the ordinance is clear that a
building cannot be built in a floodplain. She thinks decid-
ing that the building in fact, is not in a floodplain because
of the pylons, is not an adequate justification. If the
P&Z really thinks there is, based on what Engineering tells
the Board, no problem because of the mitigation of the impacts,
Hunt said once again, that without the previous docum~nt-
~tion, he does not feel the P&Z should pass it period.
Harvey asked Mr. Pardee for some assistance in reference
to this problem.
Pardee said the problems that they had were with the entire
neighborhood because Randy Wcaum was once approved for
twelve (12) units there. The units where then down zoned to
six (6) units and finally ended up with three (3) units.
Each of those hearings the neighborhood was present. Pardee
stated he felt the neighborhood would probably be more pleased
with a house they could not see, then one you could spit
into the Roaring Fork River ,.ith no trees around it.
Harvey asked Mr.Pardee if the P&Z acts on this and in facts
approves the lot split, does a Stream Margin Review condition
upon the conditions in the memo, plus, Pardee I s appl~'ing for
and receiving a variance. Harvey asked Pardee if he would
like to table this and then go for a variance first? Pardee
then replied, no. He said that he would ge glad to stipulate
that they would not go to Council with the P&Z recommendation
for approval of a lot split until he proceeds a variance.
Pardee asked the Board if thcy might consider this with the
stipulation of title insurance shO\'ling the original size of
the Hill House property. That it does not included Randy
Wecdum's lot. Pardee said he has this on file with the County,
Hunt said that he would like to table this based upon the
lack of information. lie would like to see a site visit
inspection.
Blomquist said that he just wanted to see if the flow looks
good. He said that the P&Z should have been presented with
the maps and its an important thing.
Harvey said that he agreed with Blomquist, but he also felt
that this is why the Engineering Department reviews those
things ,and gives the P&Z their recommendations. So that the
P&Z does not have to sit and discuss every aspect of past
approvals. That is why there is the staff.
Anderson said that by removing some of the fill, your are
improving the situation from the flood from a stand point.
Effectively you are altering it in a very benificial way.
Anderson said that he would be inclinded to be very favor-
able to the lot and its exhange. Given the information that
the P&Z presented with that he is fairly comfortable with
the exchange of new floodplain area upstream. lie added that
the Board of Zoning Adjustment would be appropriate for the
final review, give the committee input and to give the staff
more time to make sure that ~here are not more problems
created, than solved.
Thc Planning Office rccommcnds that the P&Z rccommcnd the
ap~roval of thc requcsted lot line adjustment and stream
margin revicw subject to the following conditions as listed:
-4-
- ......."
.............. ""-'
HCeOliJ or PROCE;::LdNGS 100 Lcavc(
_Regular Heeting
-::~~l.'.':~~'~_I~._~i~~I.I_~,..!::...~~.:......._~ _===-....:...:::.=~=--:::;:;:-==.;:;=:-:-=_.;::;.-:.::;::-:;.-:=;:..:::....-~=. C.--
Planni!,_g__2~I2.(2._~0--'1irl.q commiss ion
January 18, 19BJ
1983 RESIDENTIAL
GMP APPLICATIONS
(DAVID HHITE HILL
NOT BE SCORING)
- ---~-~._'-------~~~-'..-
---------,_._- -".~-
.---------- - -
.-...---.."---"-------
1. lmy deed restriction on ;:he FAR be subject t.O approval
by the City Attorney's OEfice.
2. A regrading/revegetation plan must be submitted for
review and approval by tile Engineering Department.
plan must include all of the information listed in
six items requested by Engineering vlhich are given
p~ge 1 of this memorandum.
This
the
on
3. The applicant should indicate the locations of building
pylons as well as the minimum elevation of the superstruc-
ture.
4. The site plan Must show how on-site parking and access to
the parcel and structure will be handled.
5. The applicant must submit a plat to indicate the traded
parcels and to serve as an amendment to the Hill House
Condominium Plat.
6. If any of the conditions, of are of the Stream Hargin
Review, are altered, th'it the applicant come back be-
fore the P&Z for reconsideration of the Stream Margin
Review.
Welton Anderson moved the motion with the above conditions
listed.
Seconded by Pat Fallin.
Tygre - Aye
Anderson - Aye
Hunt - Nay
Blomquist - Nay
Fallin - Aye
White - Aye
Harvey - Aye
Motion Carried.
Colette Penne from the Planning Office presents the following,
The following are GMP residential ap~lications; III H. Hyman-
Snare/Baker Duplex, Snow Ridge - Riverside Addition, Whale of
a Wash - 415 E. Main Street. The quota available as of
01(01(83 is 104 units. The total request for allocation is
as follows:
1.
2.,
3.
1 free market unit, 1 employee
5 free market units, 5 employees
_ 1 free market unit, 2 Silver King -
Employee Units
111 IV. Hyman
Snow Ridge -
W:hale of a Hash
Total
7 free market units, 6 employee
All of the projects, should they receive a development allot-
ment, will require additional review procedures. Specifical]_~
the additional reviews required for each project are as
follows:
1 Ll H. Hyman:
Subdivision Exception
Parking Exemption
GMF Exemption for Employee Unit
Rezoning to RBO
-5-
co
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
~ ~~:' r,,_f". "n'~,~_~~~~~":_~.. C":.-~_~=_==_~--:.::.=,,,-~~...;:-...:::-_...::,::_::....:::...-,-==,,,-=-..,,..--=:;-.::..:==--=,---::-__:__~==--:::, _______----:;:"
---'------.....----....--, -------
., '-"-.-.-------,--....
Regular Meeting
RO/IRD OF ZONI Ne ,\DJllCiTI.IJ:NTS
~1;jrch ',[, 19i;:)
Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. with members
Charles Paterson, Josephine Mann, John Harz GIld Richard Head present.
~lINUTES
Paterson moved to approve the minutes of March 24, 1983
at the next regular schedul~d meeting.
Seconded by Herz.
All in favor; motion carried.
CASE 1183-3
J.R. WEDUM!
HILL HOUSE
CONDO
Gideon Kaufman, Attorney for Lee Pardee asked the follow-
ing items be entered into the record.
At the last Board of Adjustments meeting Kaufman and Pardee
requested that the sign be moved to a more visable locat-
ion, which they have done. Secondly, questions were raised
concerning the adjacent property owners. Kaufman stated
that as he was requested, he did get a letter from Tracy
Title asserting that the ownership was in fact the parties
that were mentioned before. Kaufman added that people come
before the Board with a need for a variance so that they may
build. This is not the CbS~ this particular time. Pardee
has the ability to build, but realizes that it is better
not to build where he can. So he has come before the Board
to seek to be able to put the building site in a beeter loc-
ation. It is a better location for the neighbor's and the
community. The City's Planning and Zoning Commission, Engin
cering and Planning Staff has reviewed this particular app~
lication and supports it. Pardee is not getting any benifit
by this. He is not getting any equal FAR. Pardee is agree-
ing to keep the same FAR as to the original site. Kaufman
wanted to also point out that Pardee is giving up a chance
to prevent a hardship for the community and is giving them
a benifi t.
Kaufman asked that the following letters be entered into
the record.
Mark Lowenstern stated that it was his opinion that no new
homes should be clearly visible by the open space allotment
of the Rio Grand Trail.
Robert P. Gillman said that he supports the proposed lot
spli t.
Kaufman said that the variance that is being sought, is the
ability to build in the floodplain.
Head asked where the fill will be taken once it is removed.
Pardee said they will pull it from the river banks. Pull
the river banks back, but not down the river level. In-
crease the floodplain so that when the 100 year flood
occures, to increase the channel so that the water spreads
out so it benifits both all downstream properties, The
floodplain will drastically change once the Mill Street
Bridge is put in. Alot of things that are now in the flood-
plain, won't be once the Mill Street Bridge goes in. Pardee
said that one of the stipulations that he has agreed to is
that he would pull back to Engineering's specifications
and they would have a hydraulic engineer working with them,
The house will be on pylons, it will be above the floodplain,
The only impact that would te made is the pylons, which is
not very substanial. Pardee said that he would do whatever
they asked him to do to pull it back and they will do that
before they start building.
-1-
r,
"-"
Lavagnino asked P;lrcko "hen excavation started. Par,loe
stated July 7, 1~J77. La v.'! g:l ino then asked I'ard,'e if at
that time the final ;l1'prc1\fal lvas dOhn to t"o. Pardee said
yes. Pardee also told Lav;lgnino th,h he bought the prop-
erty in 1977. Wedum did not buy it at that time. Wl"ltllll
and Pardee wcrc 1'a rtners. :vcdum had ti tIe insurance, '1])1'-
rovals and etc. P;lrclee said that he and Wednm owned it
together as Wedum/Pardee. When they finished building it
they condominiumized it into the lIill House Condominiums.
Wedum sold his unit in 1978.
c
Lavagnino asked Pardee holY high the pylons would be. If
the height restrictions on the structure itself would be
determined from the top of the pylon or to the natural gradc
of the earth, He also added that this "as very important
because if Pardee has a 10-12 foot pylon and he starts get-
ting the 28 foot height it is unacceptable. Parde~ said he
could assure Lavagnino that he would not go any higher than
2 stories. Lavagrtino then asked Bill Drueding if the height
restrictions would be based on the natural grade of the land
or at the top of the pylons? Drueding said the existing
grade, that Pardee is very definitely a existing grade. lie
can only build 28 feet. Pardee said he then has no choice.
Lavagnino said it is less impact and a lower profile. Kauf-
man said at this point the natural grade is very clear.
The Board discussed lot and blocks in Oklahoma Flats sub-
division.
Lavagnino closed the public hearing,
Richard Head said that he was basically in favor based on the
recommendation that the Planning Office and Engineers have
made. In lieu of some of the restrictions, which they abide
by the criterion that they are presenting. He said that he
is in favor of approving this with the subject resolving the
legal description that Lavagnino has raised. Head said
that he would be in favor of approving this now, suhject to
something else that might come up. Also that the Beard
is taking this at face value.
Ms. Mann said that she was reluctant. She feels that she
can go along with a variance which would put into effect
all of the restrictions and request. The 6 items ttat
the Engineering Department request and the Planning Office
list 5 items ahat the applicant must do. She feels that
this puts alot of responsibility on the Building Inspector
because he has an awful lot ot things to check before he
can grant a building permit. She said that she feels
confident that he would do all of that. She stated that
reluctantly she would approve a varlance.
John llerz said that he agreed with Richard Head. He said
he did not think that the lot entered into this. The Board
was agreeing to a legal size lot. Herz and Lavagnino said
that it was a nonconforming lot and they are allowed to
build on it. The variance has nothing to do with the flood-
plain. Lavagnino asked Herz about the legal question that
en;ters into the picture. llerz replied that he did not think
that this entered into the picture at all, He said that the
Board is looking at something that they already think is
legal. Herz if it was illegal how did they ever get a
building permit. Lavagnino said that he did not know if it
was legal or illegal. He also added that it does not mean
that things do not happen.
Paterson said that he would go along with agreeing to this
variance, fIe said the "hole legality as far as the lots
are concerned, that will have to be handled. He does not
feel that it enters into what the Board has been asked,
P~terson added that they s:.Juld not be granted a caste before
the Board that can not be done. He said that the Board can
concern themselves and it is fine with him. fIe said he
-2-
( )
c :>
RECORD OF PHOCEEP'NGS 100 Lc~vcs
=~~;1 (, r,~:~('.~'1 I~~~,_~_ I, C", ~--=..:;:::::,:::::-=._==c-===---:--=-=-===-..=::.;:;.-:=.--,:;.::~ ~_~.,-,:=~~--::-,::,,_: .,:::'::__
_,~__._._..n.'_____~____'____'_'
-------~~---~--
- -' ~- ---~
_U.'.,''', n__
Regular ~Ieeting
BO^Rn OF ZONJ1,C !If).J1,SDIENTS
~1arch 3~,
1 ~) R:;
would grant a variance on what has been asked here, before
the Board,
Lavagnino told Gary Esary that 6 months seems like an aw-
fully long tir,c, It appc'ars that the Board is ready to gr:11'
a variance based on some acknowledgment on Esary's P:Ht that
the lot split of what app~ars to be lot #7 that everything
is legal. The Board is granting a variance on that bases,
he thinks,
Esary said that Pardee put powerful proofs up. All that
the Board has is a old map that does not seem to conform.
On the other hand because it is a copy of the City Zoning
map, Esary said that he is very uncomfortable.
Gideon Kaufman said what troubles his is that he and Pardee
have put forward documented proof from title companies,
Based on speculation as to what might of happened, they are
being put at a disadvantage, Kaufman said what they are
being asked to do is to be put on the back burner involved
in re~,earch based all speculation, lIe thinks that this is a
dangerous presidence that is being set before the Board.
Kaufman said that they went to two title companies and
received their legal opin~ons and the plat. Based on the
fact that something might exist wrong there, it seems that
the burden is placed on the wrong person. Kaufman said that
Pardee should have the variance. If someone can prove that
it was wrong, they should come in a different form. To
t~e up Pardee because somcone is asserting something to
check that out. He docs not think that is right. Kaufman
added that if someone has an objection or content, they
can stop Pardee tomorrow, come back into the process, or
go to court. He thinks that it is unfair on the applicant
to put this kind of requirement based on the facts that
exist.
Esary said it is true that the applicant is being put in
an unfavorable position. He has bought and developed thru
a number of review process a fairly goo fey piece of property
lIe has the simple misfortune to be involved in a portion of
the City zoning map that mey be in error. Esary could not
say as a matter of law that the applicants proofs are
sufficient but he can't say that they are not. Esary said
that he is not recommending that this be sent down. He
added that the applicants proofs are powerful.
Lavagnino asked Esary if they could grant the applicant a
variance without stipultation to the legal aspect. Could
the Board recommend to the City Attorney that he inquire
as to the legality to this and if there is something wrong
h0 could make a stop on whatever they are doing at that
peint. Lavagnino asked Esary if that was a reasonable
request. Esary replied that if the map was correct and the]
title polices are wrong, someone has created an illegal
subdivision. The City would have an obligation to move on
it. Esary said he has been given that information on the
record and the City is charged with it. Lavagnino asked
Esary if the Board could do it that way with the recommen-
dation that the City Attorney pursues looking into this
question. Esary said yes and that he is on the record.
- 3-
Relll(J J.Clglli"", saill th:lt he :
nei,',! arc:] and lie is al"' ror it
solution from the sUII\ll l'ojn1
il,(_,:-;Oltt-ji\.~; tile h{)t1~c in (l
lIe think" it is a hetter
of just trying to hi,1e it.
IUcllard Head moved to approve the variancc su11l1lission S Ib-
jcet to the T'ngillcCrin); and Buillling Dcpartmcnt require-
mcnls. Plus the (1 steps :15 Listed pcr memo from the Aspcn
Pla-ming and Zoning COllllni:cslcn, January 18, 198:, and sub-
jcct to thc Building Codes (:',ty and TO\mship of Aspeil.
1. Submission and approval of a det~iled grading
plan indicationg the river's edgc and proposed
contours complimcntary to the existing gradcs to
the southeast and alond the river.
2. The applicants should plant the regraded area
adjacent to the river with species in keeping
with the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan as well as
existing plants in the area.
3. The applicant should suecify for reVlew and
approval any trees within or adjacent to the
new building envelope which are to be remove.
4. Locations of building pylons should be indic-
ated as well as the minimum elevation of the
superstructure.
5. The site plan for the proposed parcel should
indicate how on-site parking and access will
he handled.
6. The applicant should submit a plat to indicate
the traded parcels and to serve as an amendme~t
to the Hill House Condominium Plat.
Also that this is a variance of Section 24-6.3(c)(1) of
the Aspen Municipal Code th;;t states that "no building
shall be located so as to be within a flood hazard area
designated by the U.S. Corp~ of Engineers Flood Plain
Report for the Roaring Pork River."
The variance would have 2 conditions:
'I
1. All of the approvals en the Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission Stream Margin Review of January
18, 1983.
2. Any construction of the pylons must be certified
by the Engineering and Building Departments to
guarantee minimum stream flow disruption consis-
tent with sound engineering and construction prac-
tices. Any construction that does take place
within the floodplain be subject to approval of
the City Engineering's and the City Building Depart-
ment and be the minimum possible disruption consis-
tent with sound engineering and construction prac-
tices.
Paterson - Seconded.
Roll call vote requested by Chairman Lavagnino.
Herz - Aye
Paterson - Aye
Mann - Aye
Heae! - Aye
Lavagnino - Aye
All in favor; motion carried.
-4-
')
c
:)
Rt::COi1D OF PROGEEU!:\!GS
i 00 U:aves
..---
------
Regular Meeting
f"nf.1" (, f. 1!"rTv,r,_ fl, n. ~ ! _ 1;;).
,::::=-..:;:-==-...:::::.:..-,-.::-...::::::~.;.==--=_-:::.=-~~~=,c=.,:::::.==~..::-=="_:--,,.::-"::::c-~:-.;;,=-.~.;.-:.-=-=~----=::::---' ~~-::--~~--_._._-'---
BOARD OF ZONING ADJ1;Snlf'NTS
1-larch ,~1, lClR'
,
i
I
Paterson moved to approve the minutes of March 24, J983
a~ the next scheduled meeting to be held on April ld, 1983.
Seconded by lIerz.
All in favor; motion carried.
Paterson noved to ajourn at 5:16 p.m.
Seconded by llerz.
All in favor; motion carried.
-iJflLQ 0.., 5rmKS
Joy A. Brooks Deputy City Clerk
- 5-
c
.....''"'
-'
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Case No.#fl3-3
BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTHEl.'T
TO ALL PROFERTY OHNEP.s AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE
DESCRIBED BELOW:
Pursuant to the Offi(:~al Code of Aspen of Jun':! 25, 1962, as amended, a
public hearing willLe held in the Council Ro,lm, City Hall, Aspen, Colo-
rado, (or at such other place as the meeting ,nay be then adjourned) to
consider an aPr>licatinn filed ,,,ith the said }j'Jard of Adjustment requesc:ing
authority for variance fit:om the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter
24, Official Code of Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance
are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If
you cannot appear personally at such meeting, ,then you are urged to state..
yoU'views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance,
as the Board of AdjuJtment will give serious consideration to the opinions
of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to
grant or deny the re'l'lest for variance.
The particulars of the hearing and of the requested variance are as follows:
Date and Time of Heeting:
Date: THURSDAY, MARCH 24, 1983
Time: 4
: 00 P.H.
Name and Eddress of Auplicant for Variance:
Name: J.R. WEDUH / HILL HOUSE CONDO
Address: BOX 4153 ASPEN, CO., ,fl16l2
Location or descriptjon of property:
Location: Parcel 1 - lot 7 Block Okalahoma Flats
Description: Parcel 2 - Metes & Bounds
Variance Requested:
APPLICANT APPEARS TO BE ASKING TO BUILD IN A FLOOD PLAIN AREA
Duration of Variance: (Please cross out one)
tl~F~X~X~X Permanent
THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
BY
Rpmn T.ri"\'rrign; D()
Chairman
By Joy Brook:
-', '
t - f
rU
ilil:; U;
;.1 :/;;(-
L)U, ;i.ilf
-
-
'"'
'>;.N''''
tHY Of rN'[[J
01\ IE 1I)7( i; '~
,.-) I
APPElLMlT () r!
;,,' ...'- CASE NO. 4H3;~),~)
'--
(a-eL" I /11/ ;!r"~,CCtCXODn[SS___,,e7'f'yf.tS i4/J,,--,.c,
I ,,1. .. _
.' .', ~':
PH 0 N E C;',;; 1~' C(,7-3?-- ,
OUf/ER
t~:;r:A.t//./1,~
MDnESS
:5 <.-/V-"C-
, lC1CATION OF PROPERTY fl:.vrel 1== /.".( 7 ,jJ,jcl: /ct-!c^~t2.<::' 7!c,1:r
ILc~ ,/. ~ l14",/.s ~ ;;fC<A-0::
.": ,(Street. & Number of SUbdivision Blk. & Lot 1\0:1-
~,
.
Building Permit' Application and prints or any other pertinent
data must accompany this application, and will be made part of
"
CASE NO.
THE BOARD WILL RETURN THIS,APPLICATION IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN
ALL THE FACTS IN QUESTION.
.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EXCEPTIOfl SHO\'lING JUSTIFICI~TI()US:
92A:.- 0' 6& ~a7 &J:b; I /tv:'-"iJ 0/{u. j/;...~'C:./,'^4 c;' C4 ? L--l' <Z>'t0'/ ,#bM,
'Will you be represented by counsel
? Yes)( No -/7;/ .I /J
SIG~ED: LJlW/tI!-~
Appellant
PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR
'to FORWARD THIS APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND REASON
FOR NOT GRANTING: \
~:;'?vI":(-3Cc)C,l) XJ61~~S~~~~
~ OV?~ ~ CL-,_~d -?-o)CijLL ~ ~
fo'i~VlS. ~~"& ~~:P~~("--. ~
~OG~ta~~~. '.. . .
~~{Ola.c (!M~~WJ~~
. ~\~~tc~ , tI\" ,
- , " . .uJ--{)~~
, 'Status " ,
PEr.~lIT REJECTED,' DATE ~i6
I
. Signed
, DECISION aj2prnwd" ~DATi3..s) ,?0 61
DATE IF HEARING no tLJ\ Ji:L IQ?J.3
- SECRETARY . \' ~(r (l . e)Vr2\(/)
. (] I ' I
.
APPLICATION FILED
MA IL E 0
~
I'
,
I
t
(,
l'jl,',,....,S'!.I!' 1'1 ',', ,",[',',1,'\,',',' [J I " 'I' l "'"
,.,'\1"'..........\,,, 'J .. ,I' . ,. I",.......J
1\11'01\1
Onh' liclc(CilCeN,,:_I/)
ITE: ~;',(),(Jll
THE COI'1PANY Ileret)y eel-tifies tllClt ["Ii: 1 :ei1illl of tie COii1i!C1f1Y'S
proPcl'tv account (compiicc! from !"E'enli" (UII,ilIH~cl ill tlw Pitf,il'
County clen: omi [(,se':,'! ': ,)f!iee) tllCJt t1~c
reciT-pj'cJ"perfYclescril)ccl 1)(:10\'1 it; v,'I,ie:! c)j :ccorcJ us or LlIl::
cJate of thL; rcport in tlk 1101:iC uf:
<- HECORD VEST 1 NG: James L"" Pardec III "",j ,k:l1l R, \,',,<lUI1I ,,,hosc ilddrc's" it"
BOX" !-dYJ 3nd Box 35]1, Aspen, Co 81(112; ;)j",Hl 'jjw H:i,.ll tloust: Homem;.mer's A:.soc.
ADDHESS: 655 Gibson and 606 N, Spring Stnll'l,', A""l'n, co 81611
r
I
"
,
I,
1',
,
,
r
,
I
,
r
l
t
,
I'
t
t
~
I,
I'
!
I
f:
!
:j
!
DESCRIPTION OF REI~L PROPERTY: That p,,,'ti,,"'oj I.ol 2, Hill Hou,;c C:onclominiuffiS
described as [;-)110\o.'s: Beginning at the l\orlh"....l':;LcI.]\' corner of said Lot 2, thence
S 10027'30" h' along the westerly line of s;]i\l L,1/: 2 ;1 dist<J.nce of 22.1() [e ~t;
thence S ~)9046'l6"E a distance of 163.30 rel'!. td :1 point; thence N 110/-il'E.:1 dis-
tance of 7,~ .00 feet to the northerly li.ne of saLd Lel 2 to a point on said line
bearing S 78016'56" E 155.29 feel from the pdll:L df h,:gl.nning; thence N 78c16'56" \~
a distance of 155.29 feet to the point of b!:~:jn!lJng.
THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED REAL PROPERlliS APP'AR TO BE ADJACENT
TO THE REAL PROPERTY ABOVE DESCRIBED, ^~n ARE VESTED OF RECORD
IN THE Nf\f1E\SJ SET FORTH If~iJiEDIA,T[T( ~ClU\dliHi EACH DESCfiWIIJN:
DESCR I PT I ON OF ADJACENT REAL PROf'U\fI: That. portion of real property
lying across the river from subject propert'i <llu1 morl.~ commonly knm';l1 as the
Rio Grande Ball Park.
RECORD VEST I NG: ' County of Pitkin
ADDRESS:
506 E, Nain, Aspen, Colorado R I () 11
DESCHIPTION OF ADJACENT REAL PROPERTY:
Lot I and Lot 2 of Amended Plat, Hill HO\I~e C:""c!(11111niuHlS
,/'-- / ~- -,
RE~ORD VESTING';The Hill HOLlse Homeowner's Association
__m_.... ,____,m___
ADDRESS: 655 Gibson and 606 N, Spring SLreets
THIS REPORT IS NOT A TITLE POLICY, NOR AN OPINION OF TITLE, NOR
A GUAHANTY OF TillE, NOR AN ABSTRf\CT OF TITLL AND IS ISSUED
WITH THE UNDERSTAND I NG THAT ALTHDlJGH II[ BELl EVE THE I NFORMATI ON
SET FORTH HEREIN TO BE ACCURATE, THE COMPANY ASSUMES NOR WILL IT
BE CHARGED WITH ANY FINANCIAL OBLIGAfION OR LIABILITY WHATSOfVER
ON ACCOUNT 0F ANY INCOMPLETENESS OR [RROR IN THE INFORMATION CON-
TAINED HEREIN, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT OF THE FEE PAID HEREUNDER.
SHOULD LIABILITY FOR THE INFOHMATJON BE DESIRED, THEN PLEASE MAKE
APPLICATION FOR THE APPHOPRIATE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY OH GUAR-
ANTY. '
:~#:llza&f-
UNDERWR IliLN Bi SAFECO TITLE I NSUI(fIr'l(l COMPANY
-c; ~, -'"
~l>-"'l'!l.{'Jy
_,_'~'c..(,L )',>~
HIl[ ~I,",I H;..H([
1,
f\fAt (':liA1[ C:C,)<,1:-K,
TMCi' TI1U, LTD, U W1 1/011 iON,:J "I' i'\ : ,;';Yi IJ COLOrJJX"l b 16111~J (:J[JJ) '1/0,1113
..,- ,". ->:: ,';~, -,- " ',-
~ .
"':'-',-,.. ","
'",",
....."...........
-- .~
........ 'j'
" ~~~~.:z.~ ~:.'J
"". !"~.......,'
. ' "i ~,..",,(
..............
,)-24'
,-,
, ..JJ10'1Y
, I
"\ ,"I
". <",
In ,\l'
~ ('<'1
"I-i>:,
I,
<
I
I
1
I
I
,
,
..;~
".1
."f 'v
rfJj :."
.'1'1 '"
~;. .:-'1
"
,
"
1'/",;1" "
,.:-:,.,'..---....
i ,,-~~c ''1-/1 S
,-4\1-' .'
,
i
I
"
/'
I
,
-;-~-)~-Y', I
-.,,,,,_' f
A,.......""
" ;i
r"
......,
!
l
j'
i ~ :.' .
J.
;',\1)
j
.,
I
,
,
!
,
I
j
,r
.....,...
I
I
(/
,
,
,;
,
,
,
,
,
,
"'"
'....,
)',
'.1 I','
" \'
"';'
h \",
(; \, I
..~- (3 I'~:
'~.........~~ I
\d .._'''--<.,{~
t..,r q '.',
'~ ()
)--, C
("I J
"- _.J.
.,.J :>:
~--_<~:;~;,~,~,_,';: :(, J,
~:J "",J' - i - -
/
../"~-,{
/ -\\
/'" ~ (/
/' ,,'.....
../ 11-;'~
,,"102 .,r
//P-
/rJ
""",:",-;
",.-:. (I'
/<__0
-,.,~>-Ij
~, ! \'~~'~
'.
_ ,.1
.' ~'
\<;'
,
"
,\,..- j
\,,:, '
/
1/
,/
"
,....
.----~.:7~
';':~>,
~I
.'
,,/ ,.,-,
/
/-":\~-'4'
/;)-
f~/
~~='/"
,\'J v
{->-
A~() ,;;'
.j'......I- ,N
L?).i ;7J,. \ .
-'/,
/0\
/, lj
/" \\
//
, ,/
,;:~ ~.~\
1') ,'/:(,\ .j
r, .. v"\
'/,.'
./.1)') \
'" ...\.
,.,' ..,a...r \
/, ~~)~./~,,-
"i'.'~ '
"J;."....... 'jr1"{'(
"."....'~~ ,';'-' ',......
,.....
i
.. I~.
,:
. )1:
,~., :r..
/
"
,
~" )
~ \ :;,
",
"
"
/., -"-
?~J
:::.u
'.,
>
C:'o,.
"
/.:,t~
,nl-
(,""
\
'_0
1,lt...'
~.'- \
h'
(~'
f, .J
"
,",.',,",~'- .....~' ~ "'..""".."....~,.""........,,.~..' ,',-".-..- "--.'...~_... ;~'..-',.~ .-,--..-,' ". '
-.
'-
,.......
-
MC:WRANDU11
TO; Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
rR0I1: Alice Davis, Planning Oft.ice
RE: Pardee/Viedum Lot Line Adjustment unci Stream ~1argin Review
DATL Januar-y 18, 1983
Location: 707 Gibson Avenue (Lots 1 and 2 Hill House Condominiums and
the adjacent Viedum Tract).
Zoning: R-30 (PUD)
Applicant's
Request:
Referra 1
COfmlents:
Planning
Review:
--~'_:::--'~~':--"
,~/-;~~-"l [)--~:.-~~
f~' ~~ ~~
l,e., ,,'i':;:>'~
",......., '\-...... ,\
!!':c ' 0 I
I' I l,.J,
'I: <. \,' /'" _""_ .~,: 1/
", ,)", (....... ,.,.;,... i'-':/i.
1,:,\ ".-- -.<,',~"", 0....,(/
\" <",,' --(;;", /"
,~, " \., ".. ,:,
"~:..._ /I,<...'! '\~ -~: _ _ -
...~:. -
The applicants are requesting approval for a lot line adjustment
between properties owned by Lee Pardee and Randy Viedum and are
also requesting approval to a stream margin review, The res~lts
of the 1 at 1 i ne adj us tment wi 11 be to i ncorpora te an ex is t i ng
7,332 square foot lot owned by Wedum into the southeastem p-JI'tion
of Pardee's property while carving Wedum a new 7,449 square foot
parcel out of the western portion of Pardee's property, Both
th2 existing lot owned by Wedum and the proposed lot to be owned
by Wedum are in the "100 year floodplain and are therefore sl!b:;ect
to Section 24-6,3 of the Code, Stream Margin Revie\'/,
TI:e Attorney's Office had no comment on the application. The
Engineering Department commented that there are several advantages
to the new building site and the proposed removal of fill which
will increase the upstream floodplain. Even though the Code
indicates that structures are not allowed in the floodplain, ',he
Engineering Department supports the request subject to the
following:
1) Submission and approval of a detailed grading plan indicating
the river's edge and proposed contours complimentary to the
existing grades to the southeast and along the river,
2) The applicants should plant the regraded area adjacent tn
th~ river with species in keeping with the Roaring Fork
Greenway Plan as well as existing plants in the area.
3) The applicant should specify for review and approval any
trees within or adjacent to the new building envelope WhlCh
are to be removed.
4) Locations of building pylons should be indicated as well
as the minimum elevation of the superstructure.
5) The site plan for the proposed parcel should indicate bow'
on-site parking and access will be handled.
6), The applicant should submit a plat to indicate the traded
parcels and to serve as an amendment to the Hill House
Condominium Plat.
Offi ce
Section 20-19(a)(4) allows a lot line adjustment between adjacent
properties to be excepted from subdivision review procedures
provided the adjustment meets the following criteria:
1) Boundary changes must be between consenting landowners;
2) The adjustment cannot directly or indir~ctly affect the
dc,eloprnent rights or perm. Lted density on the affected
properties;
1"",
'-'
,..,""
-
Memo; Pardce/Hedu,,: Lot Line Adjustmeflt/Streai:1 t'iargin Review
January 18, 1983
Page Two
'II}:
~". qf.'~' .. \, . :"," . :-,'- :" ....'- . ,'. .....-
~ .... ',~ .. ,
-'--3) Parcels affectf'd must continue to conform to the under-
lying arei! and bulk r'c''JIFin::n2nts of the zonc district.
Existing nonconforming lot" shall not incl'case their non-
conformity as a result of the lot 1 ine adjustment.
4) The applicants must comply with all applicable zoning and
subdivisiun regulations,
The requested lot line adjustment, as proposed, meets all of
the~e criteria. Since the development rights on the subject
parcels cannot be affected, the applicants have agreed to deed
restrict the allowed floor area on the new and larger Hedum
parcel to the floor area allowed on the original ~edum parcel
which is 117 square feet smaller, The original Wedum parcel is
7,332 square feet, a nonconforming lot in the R-30 zone distl'ict.
ThL newly created parcel will not increase this nonconformity
but will reduce it by 117 square feet.
Section 24-G.3(c) of the Code, Stream Margln Review, lists six
review criteria for guiding deveiopment within 100 feet of the .
RORring Fork River and its tributaries. The pertinant criteria
related to this application are as follows:
1) No L~ilding shall be located 50 as to be within a flood
hazard area.
, 2) Vegetation shall not be removed nor any slope grade changes
made that will produce eros';on of the stream bank.
3) No activity shall be allowed which will increase stream
sedimentation and suspension loads.
Since part of the existing Wedum parcel and all of the proposed
Wedum parcel fall within the 100 year floodplain, the applicant
would have to develop eithel' parcel in a manner \'Ihich would
mitigate any erosion or sedimentation problems or any other flood
hazard area impacts. The Engineering Department feels that the
requested land trade could be accomplished if development impacts
on the new parcel are mitigated by putting any structure developed
on pylons, removing them from the floodplain. Also, the applicant
should provide information through a revegetation/regrading plan
which shows that there will be no increased sedimentation or
erosion resulting from any grading or vegetation removal necessary
in developing the parcel. This regrading/revegetation plan should
give all the information requested by the Engineering Department.
The Planning Office believes that the newly created Hedum parcel
will create less visual impacts than the original parcel, an
important consideration since both sites are across the river from
the designated Roaring Fork Greenway. The original parcel is
devoid of vegetation and tree cover and any development would be
highly visable and more subject to erosion and sedimentation
proolems, The new site is heavily vegetated and well screened
from the Greenway. Special care will need to be taken to protect
the natural vegetation and revegetate any disrupted areas.
Planning Office
Recommendation:
The Planning Office recommends that P&Z recommend the approval of
the requested lot line adjustment and stream margin review subject
to the following conditions:
F'''>..
,"'"'
~
......,j
Memo: Pal'dce/Wedum Lot Line AdjustmC!nt/Stream 1'10I"'ln Review
Janua ry lfJ, 19B3
Page Three
-----' ---
.
~
'i) The FAR on the new 7,449 sqllan' foot I-Jedum trilct Il'US t be
deed restricted to the FAR allowed on the original 7,332
square foot tract.
Z) A regradirig/revegetation 'plan ~wst be submitted for r2vic\'
and approval by the Engineering Department. This pl~n mu~t
include all of the informaticn listed in the six items
requested by Engineel'ing which are given on page 1 of
this memorandum.
3) The applicant should indicate the locations of building
pylons as well as the minimum elevation of the SUpGt'structUI'C,
4) The site plan must show how cn.site pat:king and access to
the parcel and structure will be handled.
5) The applicant must submit a p13t to indicate the traded
parcels and to serve as an dlieildment to the Hi 11 House
Condominium Plat.
..
-,
t']'
..
.'
-'-....~.
.. ~ -"'--- _."~"-'-.
.
~
.,- .
I"""-
"""
:)
! AW on-ICES OF
GIDI or-; I. KAUFMAN
^ "R," r:',!>I,"N.o.l COflP01lArlON
GIDEON l. KAUFMAN
BOX WOOl
611 \"'EST MAIN Sn~I:ET
ASF'E.!-l, COLORADO 81&11
TELF.PHONE
.....HCA CUUE 30::1
925-8166
DAVID G EISENSTEIN
January 27, ]983
Aspen Beard of Adjust~cnt
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Pardee/Wedum Variance
Dear Board of Adjustment,
I write this letter on behalf of my clients, Lee Pardee
and Randy Wedum, \>lho seek a variance from the prohibition of
building in the 100 year floodplain.
My clients have received Planning and Zoning Commission
approval for a lot line adjustment and stream margin review.
During this process, support for our variance was expressed
by the l'lanning and Zoning Commission, Planning Office Clrd
Engineering Depar l:men c. 7;le Planning Office and Engineering
Department as well as the Planning and Zoning Commission
feel that it would be benE,ficial t:o the property owners, the
neighborhood and the community in general to allow a
variance so as to permit construction in the floodplain.
The Engineering Department feels that there are several
advantages to the floodplain site and the proposed removal
of fill which will increase the upstream floodplain. Even
though the Code indicates that structures are not allowed in
the floodplain, the Engineering Department supported the
request because of the new locations I lack of visual
vulnerabili ty and the improvement of the floodplain
situation.
While from a technical point of view we would be
building in the floodplain, from a practical point of view
the new building site is less likely to flood and is much
more desirable from a community standpoint.
The floodplain is determined on a very large scale
county wide and is not always very specific or extremely
accurate. In our case, the applicant is trying to rectify
an unfortunate sitation in which one building site, which
does not appear to be in the floodplain, is potentially a
more hazardous building site than the building site that is
in the floodplain.
-_.."':~,~".--
/"",
"-'
"""
...,;
^spcn Donr0 of ^djustmcnt
January 27, ]983
Page .rwo
The ha~:d"llip to the: appl iccmt, in trying tu do the Li':ht
thing for th(-~ nf'!ighbc)):hood an(1_. for t.he: river I. b(~lieve is
apparent. The hardship is nut limited to the applicants.
Your failure to grant il variance would be a hardship to the
neighborhood und commur-lit~y in Cjcncr<:.t:L. 'Ilie p:cef:;cnt. building
sit:e "here the appliccl'lts hilve the a;,ility to build is much
more visually vuln<:rable both to to'm dnd the neighbors. It
also crCQtcs po~entj.al problclDS to the I{()aring Farle River.
The ne,v site will be less visuall" vulnerable and will
enable the applicants to decrease the flood potential in the
area.
We feel that with the support of the Planning Office,
Engineering Department" Planning arod Zoning Commission and
the community in ge' ",ral that a vari'),nce is most appropriate
in this particular situation. He feel we meet all the
requirements for a variance set forth for you in your
regulations.
I look forward to discussing ttis matter with you at
your nE,xt meeting.
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN,
a Professional Corporation
(\Ig}g' r
J4 ) '~J;-----
By _,':'l.c:::. ,/
, Gideon"J\aLfrran
Attorn~y for Lee Pardee
and Randy Wedum
GK hi
-~Y
o
"
......,..,,1
~1arch 7, 1983
City of Aspen
Board of Aejdsters
Aspen, Colorado 8'1611
Att: City Clerk
Gentlemen:
I am the Ol<'lkr of Unit "A", Hillhouse Condo's (655 Gibson) as an adjoin-
ing propc,rty o'l11('r, tax payer, a contributor of open space funds and
also, I might add, a supporter in principle of open space concept,
I support th", proposed lot split to accomplish this and to put the build-
ing site in such a position that it woulc never be possible to block any
views from other buildings or other properties since to the rear \lOuld
be the existing mountain that supports Gibson Street and which is un-
buildable for any homes,
Hhen we pm'chased two years ago it was Ot'T understanding, at that time,
that there would never be a horne between 'JS and the -.:-iver.
If you approve the lot split then we can be assured that this will never
happen,
'I?l'b~
~
~~~ \
C~~1\)
~~C;...
--_'-~~7-
v-----
,
c
't
,1/, ".
1 ',it"
lir;' 'f,;' -/r
I,
Z 'it II' b '.::,:)
), )
.....'- - ..~ ~"
.
;f/~lZk J.av':1f/:51[/"'IU
170,j{J S/./t?/V&, ".:S/~
,/J/;JP/fP Wl---D, '6/6/(
"
~):6;)
~, r~ ~
,; \.1\.\\\'
"~l\:-\)
,# ex.:
<'he
,',....
jJlIU' &/'rtW or- ;<J().JI/STJtI/.cC,,/r J
5/12- -:; J .;r: T (lj-/9-<';;' Lc>/?/iC 70 "o/V r.l--lr;<:;vTIO/~ ,of It, cv r /it
U M~--If..cvc...f- 0)0
IZ./\1-UOV Cd N-fG-l/Nllv's {J/U>;JE/(Ty " A. h"> {,/,i_;"lotJ
/J 'Eftl <.
11./<.,/
ItoiME,
:rr (:, 0 r jtt'f OPliv'/O/U rH/fJ-/ ;...JO vlSw /-jO//1L'S
7 fo,JU) Of. U,EA12'-V VIS/BJ-J:._ 8'-1 TfJA.. OPE./v -<;'P,4~
,4J..Loil111UT 0 F ili-f RID C;A,!J/1J[)E f;';>,J\--JJ-.. ,
X Rut) 00 Iii I";) 'r1211/}, f;:U-E-/<v DIl-Y flU rilE 15{lItIM.E;.;,
::rT I-l"..,,:> A-h.....WJ;tV? '?J~r-rV ~- P/..ti+"S'/I'U- TO HIJOE /JO
'S ( ot-
D I S17J./U-TJ 01;/ S
~CP:171 Fo,.e 14- c... fJl,(:,/J//(.,/(,. all-00
,
jl-/fr.J/C
VOcl,
'5 /IV er9z ~/-,I:;: '/
~~?--
/1( .4'<y<:. .h,f)l<./pV-:; TE/2-tU
~;Oo"O.
'-_:~
c
c'
F""
-'0' '~~,-}-' '..'._
1 ilLl i:'F,l!l\P.NC~
RFAL F_,~<I~ ClO',:NCi
-,,~.,-...-- ~~r r, ~~-
eN>-- t: ."'''_ '""', ''''5t"~~
~ ~"A lij;',:.Y
LID
<"
~.1
TRACY TITlE, ~l'), 0 601 EAST HYI/AN, #10J [, "SPEN, COLUVDO 51611 LJ (303) 920'1123
March 28, 19,U
Board of Adj~strnents
City of Aspen
re: Hedurn!Hillhouse Application
This letter 1.s merely to further explain our O,mership and Adjacent
O,mership report ",hich is intended to be dated as of February 11,
1983,
He found only one other ownership other than the ownership of
James Lee Pal.'dee III and John R. \-Iedum, and that is the County
of Pitkin for the property lying across the river knm,m as the
Rio Grande 3,,11 Park,
Very truly yours,
A94l-tJk,;ul
Donald D. Veitch
Vice President
~~'}
,,;:
"
'&">
-<.~
<:)
<f,
~<<J
~~
~
"'""_ ,,~J<J
,....
'-'
"
.~.)
~.
CASELOAD
,\\ ':>)": ). .)
, (' 'C" . " )
\ i' \,J. 1,'0 l.~,,'. :,j.
j' I i
{,
SUlli,\ilPY SHEET
N(l._,5L~LJ.-_
C1 ty of Aspl~n
1. DATE CERTIFIED COMPLTE:____
2. APPLlCI\IH:_(~U !?l.!1.tiu ---
ST M' F : ,1lJ!Li:./J _l1t:L ,If' ;y'
(7:i'~ --,;?'7 ') 7
~.f_l ,~J .. \ "'/
, .
3. REPRESENTATIVE:
-,
4. PROJECT NfIr'lE:J}z/)dfL //d(d/!/Y71/ cY;{j:>I(/!d~:f:{Lc/'W(!;nUd~~---
f'1/; fa /
5. LOCATION:~~[ 'c?;tIJv 1/1/(/((.(.(./ ---
"
6. TYPE OF APPLICJ\TIOi1:
--)
--)
4 Step:
GMP (
PUD (
,
J t1 Ii - (!' -r-' ~~
2 Step: Subdivision Exception (.xj)[ dncJ _:JS1l~;}('i'''L/C/
G~lP Exception ( J
Subdivision
)
Rezoning (
)
SPA
1 Step:
Use Determination
Conditional Use
~Special Review (
~ ri~ fYlM< (7'-./
tJ
)
HPC
No. of Steps: '
Other:
7. REFERRALS fu-IU//1_tiL /I-If!' SJ.-..
~ Attorney , Sanitation District
,;I Engineering Dept, Mountain Bell
~1011sing _Parks
Water Holy Cross Electric
City Electric ~Fire Marshal/Building' Dept.
8, DISPOSlT~O/ /
P & Z Approved V .
_School District
_Rocky 14tn. 11at. Gas
'_State Highway Oept,
------Tire Chief
Other
Denied
Date
~.:e(ymry1(?n{{ ~d o.r- P,cJua.1 -.:m to [Q:t:.JinL (tdj Li71m(~
.:. ~.J\~,JV\ I'Vinfljil'l___S('\ Ji{'c{) 5IJhJ('(L tr-) ~
"~ ~,]b:e_-EAi''--Li1 -Ih" tn,) -;~1-JL.J.!JLdUlYL-:ic.c1(.1:--DJil::L- be rice:{
rtc,([JL---lLL-.i0-.:1!of F(\r eli~-cI(C' -lfI(' TIgl'..'W1--::z;>):)") ttJ\QL:{--,
~"J 0)....A..___rfLjJ&{lIiCt/r!JJl-4J2i.d, OL_fLm-:-_111JJ:L~-;:;Lb.!l1,JJl[!L_V------I('() iY'LC/' - -
_1\Wc.'0-'.lLl\j __::itL-i:1.!CI-_Oc oL__lh4_ _flt1L_I!lU --;/ __.1Yl Qu1e._ _a1ul.-J!::f_~.dn(([(d cct'--.
__Jt~J{tt.__iJJ.._:i!~e_k.. __....i.i:DiJl5.~4L'l".)b:U~'-'iL, _lL;Ll(CU1:L..~(jc.-L!i._1f,:E'_J{c(flI1(nL\rf
/'I.J:'IJ-
) /") _ ~-) , l U '
o
",
>-'"
\<'-
\
\
\
\
\
\
Off-he iIYlffi1D c1Qf<<{
I ( IS h(~,
'.-,'
. _ f ',,~'
3) lhe..-
0l~
,th~
0-f0 ((on\- slvc{o(
f~iO( ) tt5 well 00
Jl.^per5-tx("lc+~ ,
\(Y:{i(d(-e"- ,-H't
lccq{--{Gr] s 4-
et'<2 ucct1cJ Vi. c(-
-1h" , '
\ C rn l ,,\ rY\ V,,'-
~: - f:~~
4) 1NL
,
5;ct--e.
({Dr\. m. u::+- s 1"Cl0
-Eo ~ rVl'cQ +-
htXu 01- site
6--truckJi'2 0t1l
(oqr(:rilj q-
f~ h;>,'\d.{e(,
o.J_ce :/j <.;
,~ .....,
,
"",,~ t;") lr-.'C. 0', ffl i Cd nt- (/'{Lu~k-
I V\GA.l ( o:{e. -{,~ -t rexMC{
lY-lly\[wJw~Ict- -to ~
SulrY1i+ C{ plat-- -('6
FO(jJ(Qb ,,~-io 5("rue 0.::' <4:,,,
-H,lll +*cocbt'.. CcnYo peot!,
o Il-1Y,,~Q_\d '-.;. Cl,~''''__j
:10- ~/I- "~' \' -{t)'---'~--
./" I 1.9) -!hE a..~l \ eClICt- m I.Yo-t Dmall\. 0...
~~~ -trwv\. ~ ~orci of A~j uS-l:m'evli
,", ' ' <s~u'--\-\on r;;-(p,) U>lS'cf ~l2.. (a/!'€
- --1J --the.
prd'\\l?lfJ ~u l \ol incj -'l8 ~1 \ V'-llf\
htl'2Jxd CU"~
G(1L10,'CQ.. ()LC 0 I-:-e\o/' L...) 10"
U o.r-I a,y,- c.e
--{(Of't!\
WVI/Cl--...
-(teed
~~)'-'~ :~,-
:t;, I
Applic;mt Dbtr;l.in.td l\. uC\.rlci.r\a:.. {rDM ~+ion ;L4-(,.3LL'Y-1J
6h fY\ar-m ;)1, Iq,?) , -rhe... LUr(D-flce UXl5 qr-~ \::4.:,e::l d--
#.e.- 1efrt.W1--k-\-iol1~ -\-N-+- -1-he1t- c.re..: nD +Hl~ ftLltDldn? of\. +.(
fro ~ .jo 01\ ff tJ14 3 ' Q:p-t ' rv li I1.q, 01\. iIIl'.. .25 -A: , m<lX,
l\e-iq* -F'r~ "'-ocraqe. ~\ade,,( {'frouttl I? 5V bje.cl- -jo:
\ i;:;"'f:;;, M.t\.)(\MUrY\ \-\ciql\+ lit- ~e.. #odurt. CMl'Iot- J>(
_,./ '3*~r -l-ho." ;)S" f-eel- from -t~e. ~QCV~1 L.JI'd.istv~ 1rrd~,
, &-\ ~ tonstrlJc+10f\ D-? -It-c.. fyltJfl~ mOb+ k_ c.erl-j-{t~ ~I
I-'~ :C:__"jIV\(~J~^_q-._5~lct.~_,..D:'..r+~, -b -- gOftrt\.V\l-t>e m,'",i"'lJ'"
j-re9M +tol{}_ cli S f'upi'iOh ~n;l:5{erd- -- wHh .5Ourd
~lr.e~ril'j -+ Cbllstr-Uct-izr-. (>M.diLe5,
r. \,
i "
,
,
fJ
[)
o
" ,
I
I>
o
(),
Counci l~_ Approved__ ~ Denied Datc.._ ,1 rCil,-<1;5-<J:11r'\,
4e01-!Lcd._l(:L~"'0:JLJ'.itt(ltL__.~(lfjC.+_+c,-: _______
{11..Jr.L:_rtlf.._p;.L._::IL1=, n (0(Lm.:1L L{~~L1._JJ.X!.d.i:'-'-'(L,.1( '( {;'t
mo ~L_h:~__deed__--1f ',,([L(h,L.._~'f:~~he.._~fj_ ct!b V~t(Q~.ll~, 2. if
__. ,-------(ffi..!L,~-y;~..0- '(he. _._.Qt:[i!J.:1L_-I~!:[{f..L) _. -_____
10(-
-f;;\- 1hr --Ll4"4:i.irdrtt' .1ll:;,xL_s.'Li1:' i__<2,--f-t;).!- -h
--fh" -.:=Ln.lt/pd r~",-r('h ---.-L..:b. <,e.l"(I' 0') an
-~....Jbe.._....i:lJ1J_.tk~)X' __(QCdD_ Pi-:;f-,
iL:.:-/Jt..-J. ir:.
/1n-r1Jd i1l11i-
'_;_'C,"':--_l...:..:.
9. PREUlmlARY PLAT REFERRALS:
_....1\ t torney
____Engineering Dept.
..,,_Housing
I~atcr
__City Electric
Sanitation District
r'1ountidn [lell
Pal"ks
__Holy Cross Electric
-Yire ['1itl-shal/tluilding ~J::pt.
Schoo 1 Di s rl"i ct
_RGcky Mtn, I'lat. Gas
__State Highv:ay Dept.
Other
10, PREUHINJIRY PLAT -- PUBLIC HEARING
P & Z Approved Den ied
Date
,
-<
11. FINAL PLAT
Counci 1
Approved
Denied
Date
12. ROUTING:
I Attorney
_LBuilcling
~[ngincerillg
./ Other
--
U('.c b Of(i ((:.. ,
JD'I - {or, ffl rr1 41j,
ml"lTlY1~
,..,'_,___._,______,__M'-~~"'- -((r ~{
(l-wd'ir,l\!> ~
(Vl,,' Ii 1:\
"tfrn tJfl I ,
r\
:) -"j
I'.
l""'-
V
,
-..,
J'-r
l'lUl0RANDl;'l
.
":::-:/c:_ _ ""
OJ'
()\l"(! '" cq::t;2..cO
TO:
Aspen City Souncil
FRO!'l:
Alice Davis, Planning Office
pardee/\,e:lum Lot Lir18 Adjustn:entand Str',:'am nal;jJ Review ;1
/?/ I 11// /
APP!lOVC" AS TO IOm.l, a1"" /T'",~'L~.-
---~ --{;---, -
707 Gi bson Avenue (Lots 1 and 2, Hi 1 1 HO(5 Condomi ni ums, and
the adjacent Wedum Tract),
RE:
DATE:
April 25, 1983
Location:
Zoning:
R-30 (PUD).
Applicant's
Request:
The applicants are l"equesting apPI'cval for a lot line adjustl;\ent
between properties owned by Lee f';:rdce and Randy \'!rdum and are
also requesting approval to d stream margin review, The results
of'the lot line adjustmcntwill b~ to incorporate an existing
7,332 squal"e foot lot owned by v!eLI,m into the :outheasten, pOl'tion
of Pal"dee' s preperty while carvinli v:edwn a new 7,4'19 SqUal'C foct
parcel out of the western portion cf Pardee's property, GJth
the existing lot owned by Wedum a~d the proposed lut to be owned
by Hedurn are in the 100 year flocqldin and are therefore subject
to Section 24-6,3 of the Code, Stream I'Lrgin ReviEI'I,
Referral
Comments:
The Engineering Department commented that there are several advan-
tages to the neW building site and the proposed removal of fill
which will increase the upstream floodplain, Even though the
Code indicates that structures are not allowed in the floodplain,
the Engineering Department support' the request subject to the
fonoVling:
P' J. ,\ \-."
,~
.;--~-- ~-"'--
~~
'"
3.
The applicant should specify for review and approval any
trees within or adjacent to the new building envelope which
are to be removed,
'J
4.
Locations of building pylons should be indicated as well
,'as the minimum elevation of the superstructure,
~.
5,
The site plan for the proposed parcel should indicate how
on-site parking and access will be handled.
"--.; 6. The applicant should submit a plat to indicate the traded
.,~ parcels and to serv~ as an amendment to the Hill House
Condominium Plat,
Planning
Review:
Offi ce
Section 20-19(a)(4) alloVls a lot line adjustment betVleen adjacent
properties to be exccpte'd from subdi vi s ion review procedures
provided the adjustment Il~eets the follovling criteria:
1, Boundary changes must be betwpen consenting landoVlners,
2. The adjustment cannot directly or indirectly affect the
development rights or permittf'J density on the affected
properties,
.
o
,.,
,...I '
Memo: Pardee/I 'edulII
Rage Two
Apri 1 25, 1983
,
<
.
3. Parcels affected must continue to 'conform to the under-
lying area and bulk requil'p'li'2nts of the zone d'istrict.
Existing nonconforminrJ lots shali not increase their
'nonconformity as a result of the lot 1 ine adjustili','nt.
4. The applicants must con~ly with all applicable zoning and
subdivision regulations,
The requested lot line adjustlllent, as proposed, meets all of
these criteria, Since the development rights on the subject
parcels cannot be affected, the applicants have ilgl'eed to deed
restrict the aliO\';ed floor area on the new and larger' I'ir"dum
parcel to the floor area allowed on the original Wedum parcel
which is 117 square feet slllalier', The original 11edul1l pal'cel
is 7,332 square feet, a nonconforming lot in the R-30 zone district,
The newly cl'eated parcel \-,ili not increase this nonconformity
but. \-li11 reduce it by 117 square feet.
Section 24-6,3(C~'~f the Code, Stream Margin Peview, lists six
review criteria for guiding developl!1ent within 100 feet of the
Roaring Fork River and its triblJtat'ies, The pertinant criter'j"
related to this application are as follows:
1. No building shall be located so as to be within a flood
hazard area,
2. Vegetation shall not be removed nor any slope grade chang~s
made that \-Jill produce erosion of the stream bank,
3. No activity shall be allowed which will increase stream
sedimentati on and suspens ion loads.
Since part of the existing Wedum parcel and all of the proposed
Wedum parcel fall within the 100 year floodplain, the applicant
would have to develop either parcel in a manner which \-iOuld
'mitigate any erosion or sedimentation problems or any other flood
hazard area impacts, The Engineering Department feels that the
requested land trade could be accomplished if development impacts
on the new parcel are mitigated by putting any structure developed
on pylons, removing them from the floodplain, Also, the applicant
should provide infol'mation through a revegetation/regrading plan
which shovls that there will be no increased sedimentation or
erosion resul ting from any grading or vegetation removal necessary
in developing the parcel. This regrading/reveget~tion plan should
give all the information requested by the Engineering Department.
The Planning Office believes that the newly created Wedum parcel
will create less visual impacts than the original parcel, an'
important consideration since both sites are across the river from
th~ designated Roaring Fork GreenwilY, The original parcel is
devoid of vegetation and tree cover and any development would be
highly visable and more subject to erosion and sedimentation
problems, The new site is heavily revegetated and well screened
from the Greenway, Special care will need to be taken to protect
the natural vegetation and to revegetate any disrupted areas,
The major issue in evaluating the applicants' stream margin request
is determining whether or not building a structure on pylons
actually removes the structure from the floodplain, The Code
specifically states that no building shall be allowed in the
flo()dplain, 1I0\'lever, if the structure is on pylons and all
dCl'iJop;::nt impacts are mitigatc0, it may be desirable to allc'.1
the structure (on pylons) to hl' built in the floodplain so that
the new Wedum parcl'l can be used, since the new parcel would
create less visual in~acts and be less suhject to erosion and
sedimentation problrcllis,
Planning Office
and P&Z
Recornrnendil ti on:
Due to the difficcl ty pgZ Ii d lliilk:1I5J the interprc" etion that a
structure built Oil pylor,s is a st'ucture no loncjc;J" l0catedin
the fioodplain, the Cun!ini',sion ,adr<cda condition to tlil,ir approval
reql:il"ing the ap!Jl~cilnt to obtcin a ',i(i\~liinC'e'--fl'om the bOdl~d of
Adil';Lrncnt prior to Council's revlC'\,1. (The condition stated that
th(; Board of Adjustment must granc the"applicant a vilriance flom
Sectiun 24-6,3(c)(J) at a public i,earing" Section 24-6,3(l} ""
st~te:, thilt "no building shall be locat~d so as to D', \,'ithin !, \
a flo;Jd halan! area designdteci r,y the U,S, Corps of Engineers, ~)
Flocd Plain Report for the l;oJring Fori: River,";---'-
The arJpliciJnts \'Icre granted such a variance from thG Boal'd of
I\djt:stmGnt on Harch 31, 19113, ThG val'i,lnce \'laS grunted based
on th2 rGprrsentations that there were no title problems on the
proi:erty and on thG Building O'2pi'l'tment ruling on the 25 foot
maximum height fl'om average gl'aele Approl'al IviJS subject to
the follo\-ling conditions: --
The maximum hci~ht of the stlucfure cannot be grciJter thai;
25 fret from the avcr2ge, undisturbed gnde, '\
'The construction of the pylons must be certified by the ^
Engineering and Building Oep~rtments to gUiJranteG minimum .
stream flo'lv'disruption consistent with sound engineering '~)/) i
and construction practices,
I,ll ilia: Pi' n!ee/I'!edu"
Page Thni-'
April 25, 1983
. ,
\ .
(' 1"\
\",:..J
1
I
~:'1 .J,\ I'
t, ."~
~',< \ 1
"'~ .
/I
4'-
i',
"",
\ ---<~",,) 2. j
/
,-,-/{
I
\"
"
.......
-'"'
V
,
The Planning Office and the Planning and Zoning COiT,m'ission
reco~;,n2nd the approv21 of tLe req','es tr,d lot 1 i ne adj us tm0nt
and stream miJrgin reviGW subjGct to the followin9 conditions:
..... " , I ), I
I,,-O\.',~ ~.,\ i '..;-i:
I \. t.""'"' ," ~
.....,
, "'." 1.
q
't .It
\o;'\'-'i
...
<-
,~ 2.
The FAR on the new 7,449 square foot Wedum tract must be
deed restricted to the FAR allowed on the original 7,332
square foot tract,'with the deed restriction documents
subject to the Attorney's Office review and approval.
1\ regrading/revegetation plan muSe be submitted for review
and approval by the Engineering Department. This plan must
include all of the information requested by Engineering,
including the following:
'" a. Submission and approval of a detailed grading plan
indicating the river's edge and proposed contours
complimentary to the existing grades to the southeast
and along the river,
The applicants should plant the regraded area adjacent
to the river with species in keeping with the Roaring
Fork Greenway Plan as well as existing plants in the
area,
~ b.
~
c.
r:,~ ;.: 1'\
, ,
..-> ~"
.",,~
,",,"
r'\
~, ~ .'
"...1'-.,\ d. ,
- . ".:
" 'Ii
i ~
"",A
,
~,:.....
eo 'i J
"';""<~ e.j
! I
~ ~.'" ""'01"
0"
, '
"I,. 'll.
,:>--.1 r,
.
The app 1 i cant shoul d speci fy for revi el'l and approval
any trees within or adjacGnt to the nGW building
envelope which are to be removed.
Locations of building ~ylons should be indicated as
well as the minimum elevation of the superstructure,
The site plan for the pr'oposed parcel should indicate
how on-site parking and access will be handled.
The applicant should submit a plat to indicate the
traded pal'cel s iJnd to serve as an amCndllii'nt to the
Hill lIouse ConcloliliniullI Plat.
, ~
o
J
tt,emo: Pi! rdce/Hedum
Page Four
Apr i 1 25, 1983
.
3. The applicants must meet the cJnditions of the variance
from Section 24,,6,3(1) of the ::ode granted Ly the BOdrd
of Adjustment 1'll1ic:1 includr.:
a. The maximum height of l:-e structun! cannot be
greater than 25 feet frem the average, undistur~cd
gra.de.
b. The construction of the pylons must be certified
by the Engi neeri n9 and Bui 1 di ng D~pJrtments to guarantee
minimum stream flow disruption.
Council
Action:
If you agree with the l)lanning Office and P&Z l'ecol1lnendation,
the appropriate motion is as follows:
"I move to approve the requested lot 1 ine adjustment ilnd
stream margin review subject to the 3 conditions stated
in the Planning Office memorandum dated April 25, 1983,"
.
.
^
v
~
-...I
.
._-'-,---,......_--,. -,'. ".,.~._.~. ,., -,-_.-.".-- _........,-'--'.........~ ,,'..,--....'- .......,~ ...... -" --_.._..~ ),~_. "" ._.- ._-,.~_._------- -_.......--...---~--.....'_.__.,.-.~. --- ,--- -~.."
/
~- ~ ,.:
...'.,,, ~ --
r~. ~-';:'
,... .'-
....,,~ _ ., _ _ ,,_ - r
Ms, Alice Davis"c ,
City & County Planning
130 SO, Galena St, H
Aspen, L:O 816~2 _, ~ : ,:,
. - - -
No'vember 2,' 1982
Office
Dear Alice,
T""., ...", :-', ,-' C -,
:
-. r'~ . - . .
This is an applJcation forbolh a stream margin
revie~ anela lot line adjustment, Both the citizens
of Aspe~and theaPDlicants will benefit by approval
of th5,s,application, _A brief history of the land in
qucst/"onis=a~proI2riat~::-=:~:~ .;' _ __u'u ___
""= :,2:1.Y' Ii1Cjul'!'1977>tlu?Aspen 1'&2 gave
approval in a strcnm margin revie" to allov7 the place-
ment of excavated earth on the subject nroperty, A
condition was that after completion of construction
the earth be leveled and the area cleaned up,
2) In October 1979 the Aspen 1'&2 in
another stream margin review approved the construction
of a tennis court on the property in question,
Randy Wedum, one of tlH" applicants owns a 7332
sq, ft, parcel of land that boarders the Roaring Fork
River, The expected building envelope is on the bank
of the river where there are no trees or bushes to
hide a structure from view frOln the public area across
the river, The building envelope also ha~pens to
interrupt the view of the Hill House Condominiums across
Spring St" Therefore the apnlicants propose to trade
equal sized Darcels of land so that a new building
envelope w08ld be created, This site would be surrounded
by large trees and bushes and would be almost invisible
from the public area across the river, Although the
new lot has 7449 sq, ft, Mr, Wedum would agree to deed
restrict the FAR of any structure to what it would have
been on the original parcel. Additionally, Mr. Wedum
would agree to place the building envelope at the far
end of the parcel away from the river,
TI1e question of flood plain must be addressed, Jay
Hammond of the Engineering Dept, believes that this trade
could be accomplished IF the applicants agree to put any
structure on pylons so that it won't be in the flood
plain and IF the applicants compensate for the small
intursion into the flood plain (the pylons) by agreeing
to increase the flood plain upriver (on the 7332 sq, ft,
parcel) by excavating and removing earth near the river,
Jay agrees that the new building site would be very
much in the public's interest in that a visually obtrusive
site would be replaced by a sheltered site much further
,
.
',,-
"
,
,
!
,;'
i
I
I
,
I
I
.
.
r--,
\....r
"......
.
from the river.
Othp~ than the above all Code requirements for
the Stream Margin Revie\-J and the Lot Line Adjustment
have been ]llCt and the applicants request approval. '
John R[iDUili.1 I-iedum -
s~~;e; e7i:~,
j!J~~~
J~,_,_.___,___~______
J 1"12:'; Lee Parllee III
Prcsid(~nt
Hi~l House Homeo'dners Assn,
.
,