The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutlanduse case.boa.303E-Durant.034-73 ~, J ,APPEAL TO BOARD OF ZONmC ADJllSTt'IENT 1"1 -'1-73 Z8881# ****10.00 CITY OF ASPEN CGSC No. 7)-3<( Date October 31, 1973 Appellant JOSEPH E. KRABACHER Address Box 2435 Aspen, Coler ado 81611 Owner JERRY POWELL Address Box 1177 Dumas, Texas Location of Property Blue Spruce Lodge, 303 E. Durant, Aspen (Street & Number 'of Subdivision Blle. & Lot No.J- Building Permit Application and prints or any other pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made a part of CASE NO. 73 -, }.f The Board will return this application if it does not contain all the facts in question. Description of proposed exception showing justifications: 1. See Separate Statement of 3ustification attached. 2. This Appeal is filed by Applicant for determination by the Board of Zoning Adjustment only if a similar appeal is finally rejected by the Board of Appeals and Examiners on juris~ictional grounds. A setting for hearing will be requested in writing at a later date. 3. Relevant documents are (i) on file with the Builrnng and (ii) included with the Appeal directed to the Board and Examiners. Copies are noc availa to Appellan . ~ S igne, I ;' L-/ Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance requiring the Building Inspector to forward this application to the Board of Adjustment and reason for not granting permit: APPLICATION IS MADE FOR A BUILDING PERMIT TO BUILD TWO MULTILI-FAMILY DWELLINGS. 1) The proposed dwellings have densities in excess of permitted density requirements. Sec. 24-2(f) Defination Dwelling Unit & Sec. 24-6 Min Lot Area. 2) The proposed dwellings do not have the re- quired off-street parking spaces and the spaces provided are not accesable from a street or alley. Sec. 24-9(f) , 3) One of the proposed dwellings appears by the plans presented to be over the required max. height limit of 28 feet. 4) One of the dwellings has a side yard of five feet where 6'-8" is required Sec. 24-9(d-3) Corner lots. CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTO~._..__.., 4 StclLUS ~. fl"" CIa 'On'fi9 Meyring Permit Rejected, date ._~.__:-.___....__._..DeCiSjm'_~b~AJ'Eb _Date_l~JtDI1t AppUcilti on FEed _.._.___......_.___~...m..lktc JIc~'J'i.ng. J#.~1L.._._... _._~.f4ti . . t'(TC c ,y l/;:a iled .0 I"" "-' " " NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case No. 73-34 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.. yorrviews 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: December 13, 1973 3:00 p.m. Name and address of Applicant for Variance: Name: Address: Blue Spruce Box 1177 Location or description of property: Location: 303 East Durant Description: Aspen, Colorado Variance Requested: See attached. Duration of Variance: (Please cross out one) i~reRg~~~y Permanent THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT . SEPARATE STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION Applicant appeals to the Board of Adjustment to reverse the following decisions of the Building Inspector: A. Those contained in his letter of October 2, 1973, "denying" the Application for a Building Permit because: 1. The Plans show densities greater than allowed by the Zoning Code. 2. The plans show insufficient accessible off-street parking. B. Those orally transmitted wherein he refused to consider amended plans filed with his office. C. Those orally transmitted requiring submittal of all amended plans under the provisions of Ordinance 19 (Series of 1973) of the City of Aspen. As justification for such Appeal, Applicant states: 1. The Building Inspector has arbitrarily and unreasonably counted rooms in unlimited residential suites as "limited" residential units, contrary to the clear showing on the plans that such are unlimited units. 2. The Building Inspector has arbitrarily determined insufficiency of off-street parking due to density calcula- tions referred to above. 3. Any requirement for off-street parking is contrary to law under authority of Stroud v. The City of Aspen, District Court for Pitkin County, C1vl1 Act10n No. 4~~~. 4. The Building Department has no 'authority to "deny" a Permit under Section 302 of the Uniform Building Code, and is required thereunder to accept all Amendments thereto for evaluation in accordance with the Building Code. 5. The Application for a Permit and plans were filed prior to the effective date of Ordinance 19. According to Section 2, Paragraph II of said Ordinance, such Application for a Permit does not fall within the scope of the Ordinance. The Building Inspector is not empowered under the Uniform Building Code to consider Amendments to a previous filing as a new filing. The Building Inspector accepted the Application and processed the plans and specifications filed. The applicant paid his application fee of approxi- mately $1,600.00, and is entitled to have the application duly and regularly processed 0 , l,~.'t~,l"] ~"'l. L.U~LD,i";G t~\'1Sr'L<";TtUi'..: r~TPhr'~TLt;ENY _.._,_..._._.j~~L(:!~':LO F"J: ~,i"l~!:_.::-- C(1~i~I_L .(1i~_r' ~~G.~j L~(~:c~r:.:~r29 - :.. ,,- -- ( ".~ :" -' ".......... ,..,.1..... ~r~'~');:_\,-,;"~:\,I,,~cTiml \ 503 EiJ',t DLJ"ant, I\c;pen, Colo,-ado 81611 .' ',.' \ '. ,:"';'\ I \ L~:,?tY!. (J f'/.(.r'~';:. [] \'f'.'-'.~:.C:: J) \ - .----.-...------. -- -_...- - . . . .. .,,,H,J",U~~C' , .~~.,_ _ . . AD,,,,s,:::,:~71,,,,: 79C'9":;:'~;':~J ",,;'\' \1 II'c. --- - tI0~~~S[ A --'Si~}).~?'C4'O'~O'''-- ...- 1~;;;;,~;~~~::'9:"::~: :~"::"'O~,, "~~_-_ _ -~:~;,;~;,):, -. -- .... .1'l;'''~ 1 F?:,'~I;~,JOl-l h!~~t~~E.__,!:~~1 N, John5('n ,- -' y/c'r_~S.~'l'!-u.:L~21 " .' }...i I,l'l,',)~!.":' 11'.[ Vi(jelK Ul'.Chll:,~D l':;l~rS. .:.~'-,; c~:. '.":'U~'!.~:: t'>~~:\'t >Q 1-. ::~~ ;",i; T~~) ,'~ CJ /_?'r~:\l.t.Tf~:,';-~ [] TAL, 1 th ru 5 2 Canna rs Add i t i on fSC:(IPT!ON ".T "n 1\ thru D ''''0''),0 8'+ "'DllIO" Ci t)' of Aspen IJ:Z\Ii:Y------. ,,- --- - --" - -^T"\C'H[;;-~ll'ch-SIG~N -- ' - . ..-- - ----- .-.-- ------),- ~~-B-=-318- y . __ ____.!r i _(;..0 _ ..___ ~"._. , ___,_ " __ BL..-."Jo_.s,CfJh K-&I-abaS:her-J- __,,_ .--- --- - ~'E N.:' 5'.J,Eii.L .-" "'.\ (" I 11256 fl(IGllT 1(1--)6 ,.0 \ TO.Al OCCUPI,NCY ,c.,.", (flU I !!2~28' "oell' 3 ""'lS 18 GicOllP H DIV. --"- -- - --- -- - ...,,' ,," .'- - - ----------- -- .. -,,--_. ----...------" \srf.'cl1f ilo'l 0 Gt r;u GO ;'NC.LE 0 ;,lIl.CliW[] '01/.\ S8E' TY" fiRE , ... \,_ '1 UN IN " \ - 0 ... . 0 V - . - -- -----~-- --- DU',H mle.'.': 101 (,IU,~)[ _ _________ ________\:.~:\--- ______________.______~___-~----II f[.;Y:P,~~G tW!\',"~ii;1 2LlX12 < ,'I,I"G " " r-lO.':i.,;~----------. ------- , --~::,~;~~;\~lZ"--~(;,;;::Kli:..'\'-n.; -,,- n-----.r.--J. .. ......- ~~ Hl1Cl~J~[.~~._____'~.:.~:;~;~OJ~l:\!;..~O,;- __ n _ n -,i.;:::~.~;;;;I- n . ....~ -- --_\ ;l"I'.'~./~ [J - l . ,-"'''.IAt.\< - "','oHI'.ll,L }-'..--......- --------..---- .-..-,,--- '. .,F~,o.;,';:,;-----;,~O:;~---- --~B~~-f....----- ---.;:;;;:,;;:.----- I UIGIN,,,,,,G \ Xn.RICWl_r~"~K':H,,_..__~;T_~L"----.-- 'N,,_ r_L':...------''''' FI:':'~-_--JI-..~-----.---~ --- ~- - --1- .:";;\1 I l"';t) "'f t: A'IO\'[ . ,,;Cwr !,COVI I ':,:.I\,\',;-:/.,,~:(I2X;(\"]61~'.:L" _2Xl,':'i.)1-6-.',,~r.u,~2>.,'i0J~~-----.:Ji"c.rLP::..-~()=-..--.. 1'1 .-,------ ..-" --" - -- . . -- -,,-- L. ['J, C,(- _ f-------.. ---.....--..---.--....- _ _ __ (} _-:'::-...::'::':-:'::':-::]\-- _ _ _ __ _ J ) \ _____.u..-- e-------\--....\ ':i'~ '; i':,(~':"I';r:i;,:.',:,~:;:,:~I"IS~,;,;:T ;:,:~;;;",,[ /CCH1S rw r.rS0':"~Y-'-O~'- '~~"~-\I\'-V' ,U 'i. : I yj''','.. '-~.~_-"-I, "\1 C(l."/.:I~.\:lC:L \';iT:-; lHf l!r--:IFO~'J:~ E:\Jil':",:il(; co,);:, TI;~ CCJ'J::r'i :;(1'-';;:(.: :'.~:~()~i_lTl('1-': ():~, en z'._"-:ih'" O;.Dli"J.:~Cl, ,\i'O I\L~ o-;,::::R CO\l;~rY !:t50'_U-i\')::S 0", un m[.:::U',;!("i.S V.'i~I(.t-E\'t.',t 'I,: 0: V:()i{< <,1,750;000..00 .1 ,.-;:':'.. . t. fE,'.,<:TS f.HiSf n U~l/..Ii'~D I"Of; lLLCii::,~r,!, FLU,'/t:!;~G t..! :) Hf-Aj!>,C, SlG:!:J, 1)1/--,:',1 \ . s,",//,.'8(, '001S eft) f"'US,' T 101 ;,1 i: l ""i!'" l ,,":;"', (,'j D,' 'I'; i "....i/, Pi:' r I>';U;O III 'i fe,s ",GeK to. Sll',l"". ,': !,CD P:"'; \ '( ','1', ,: (, - I r\ .'. ;;.',') F',<,.~'<-c;':.;l: ~.::,\~L ,_;~ :~:\?L;'_~.\t'.) c,r::: \,.':.l:\:'_n''::~ t'!-.Y 1;_: i.ti'fl,;:CL L' .1)" rILl " ] C. I , '\ ':_,::~,.'," ;:, -:C~f.:', -', ',,-_1,',' ._:..:,.).,~~,-I'..',..:;"~'.',:~-I!~,.-..I~:~\-~-~.:\.J: (J' {,f.' ,r",< F:"''''-;'' j ,,1i,',1. 10,".',,'.'" c:-! ;;LL IHi',' (; "c.:,;; ,,'co,', OC..:,-",',;:"" '-C"".""' "', ,. .' . ' " 'Pii'; [',UIL['INl. ~.; L\Ll \;',-ff :'~ (',_CU:>j[U Ui.:T It /, CU(ilf I.-::,i r. Dr C'(CUt.,'o)-iCY ;--;....:; bE:~; !: ~)L;::[). [] rC'fci/dT S',~,:FC( 10 l.:::\'ocn:c;;~ 0,: SU_SFit-:~:~}~:.r(Jr{ ViU~/,f'(');. Of Mn tI~V:~ CO\.'[:f..i:it.;G S;-.!.\~.. .. :.~;..c;.~ .\:'_'_ .....,,:. '-_'"._. -, \:-'-; '-..>',,, \.._,-,J"._ , \ ~<-.-l '_,-___" ...~ \ ~:~!, __:...\ l.r'i'i;C''''J..~ l~Y \ C""'-"'I.~.;\----- \ _,'_)fr..~ _1.._~l~t<!T~:(' . -. _I.-~r'~.~-/,'- r,.ri..11'1'-C:1lr: -j/";'0U>lr 'nilS ,C;,i..\ is ;\ Pi'''')'''':i ',.) . --.- .' - . - ... . .. ....."..--.-- \\'!-:U'..j V/\LtD/d-r:.D i L~:.::~ ~-..._-...,,'_,<._,.;o; \ ' " '~'.~-)/'-L:~:~!-~-~-L- .--- --.-------... "..-------.- - ------------------. --------------_.~_._.._---~-------~--_._---- (, J;,L~r);:c;-C<~IS C(y'y , ,~;"'+" . l. " . . C. "'J r "I'''''';J 'l l~ ~:J., .1 . ,."", ' '.'" 1."" l' T ( I"'" ,', -..'~ .J< ~'_. ,.), " k),I):~ ..._4 ~ "i "]1 0 'r): (..':~' r~-.. (' Y', (.4 ~+1 t..' ../ I. ~. ..' '., ~': '..jtl f; l.J.~j;';:r".: v ,.,) October 2, 1973 Mr. Jen:y Pov;ell PO Box 1177 Dumas, Texas 79029 Re: PlclD Check: Add:.:ess: Bldg. No.1 Fire'-'Zone 1~0. 2 Use Zone C-l No. Dwelling units Blue 303 Spruce Lodge J) E. Durant v''I. <:1)0 ~;--. " \\/~ 'I' ,., I " ; i 1 ~. Bldg. No.2 Fire Llone No. 3 Use Zone AR-l No. Dwelling Units-27 limitcec 9 unlimited 16,037 sq.ft. "" Ii Floor Area - 3 Stories H Occupancy Type V 1 hour Occupant Load - 6 limited 8 unlimited 15,159 sq.ft. Construction - 75 pen;ons Floor Area - 3 Stories H & F-l Occupancy Type V 1 hour Construction Occupant Load - 80 persons Dear Mr. Powell: Plans and specifications for the proposed Blue Spruce Lodge have been reviewed for conformance with the City of Aspen Zoning Or- dinance and 1970 Edition of the Uniform Building Code. 'rhe Building Department comments are as follows. Zoning Ordinance Comments: 3.) Your application for a building penlit was for 18 unlimited units in the two proposed buildings, hay/ever: the buildings are designed such that various lodge rooms can be occupied by families or guests independent of other families or guests. Sec. 24-2(f) defines Dwelling Unit as: "Two or more roans, in addition to kitchen or iJath facilities in a buildjng in- tended or designed for occupancy by a family or guests independent of other families or guests. 1 - Limited - one room, indivisible, except for included kitchen or bath facilities. 2 - Unlimited - Two or more rooms.. in addition to kitchen or bath facilities." The Building Dcpartment,l s Dwelling Unit apprasial is E;tated above except Bl:ilding ji 1 could have possibly an additional three limited units. 2Y,For Building No.1 a lot area of 16,500 square feet would be requircd and therc is only 12,062 square feet of actual lot area. (750 sq.ft. per limited dwelling unit and 1500 '_~.1, 1{ l'..qL!-o d J 1..-1 {) fa 1,..-7- H;, ~~ '-"> I r -' . / '\ r.6,.t.:...,:=;.. -' ~ I ,I ,,'J '"'. J,. _. . -. Building Code Nonstructural Co~nents: 1) A 3 hours fire-resistive occupancy separation in conformance I;' 11ith Table No. 5-B and Section 503 is required between the parking garage and apartm~nts and 1 hour between boilder room and apartments. 2) Horizontal occupancy separations should be supported with a IS structural system having equivalent f ire-resistive protection. , 0 L Section 503 (d) . 3) Building paper should be applied to exterior walls as specified )t~p':,LPP in Section 1707(a). , 4) Shower stall walls should be finished with a hard, nonabsorbent'yo~' surface to a height of 6 feet. Section 17ll(b). 5) Doors and panels of shower and bathtub enclosure should comply 'I I,. '5 t. with Section l711(c) to (e). " 'c. 6) Exhaust ventilation at or near floor le~el is required by Section 1105. 7) The following rooms should have window areas as specified in Section l305(a), on-half of which is openable: Bedroom # 2 l'lCstwing 1st. floor Eastwing-' Bedroom # 3 Kitchen westwing 1st. floor 1st. floor Bedrooms 1 and 3 & living w<2stwing 2nd. floor EI'lployee rooms basement vlestv;ing 8) Mechanical vent,ilating system in bathrooms should provide a five-minute air change directly to the outside. Section 1305(a) ," 9) Habitable rooms in cellars are not allowed. See "habitable ',. room" definition in Section 409. 'fhe intent is to probibit such rooms to be formed with retaining walls. Basement Plan Bldg. jll. , ........ '2. ... (", t..r.:.,o \ ,;'(. ~ , ,. C.6:..(:::'" \', I -~ -,,\..,...00 . ) (. I 'x, :. ,,,\\\t'-".,i'\ 'r' _ t ....0'). " i' ',"\ r _ t':. L 1..,"'1\' . "....c' .",,1 .. oJ ,r......-- ~.- ....-.. ".. sq.ft. per Unlimited Unit~. For Building # 2 a lot area of 33,750 square feet would be required and there is cnJ,y 15,000 square feet of actual lot area. 3) The parking garage shows 31 parking spaces provided but for the numbcr and type of dwelling units you would be required to provide 49 off street parking spaces. One parking space is required for each unlimited unit and tv/a spaces are re- quired for three lim! ted 611elling units. The parking garage does not meet the require~ent of Sec. 24-9(f) for accesibility since the entrilnce ramp has approximately a 60% slope, and further accc.sibility is obstructed since the parking layout does not meet City of Aspen I s parJ:ing standard. 4) The required one to one floor area ratio of Building No. 2 has been exceeded by 1037 sq. ft. 5) 'I'he existing ground eleva'cions should be shOl'Tn at corners of tbe building and at changes in natural ground slope. The height of Buildings No. 1 & No. 2 cannot be determined. It would appear that Bldg. No. 2 is over the Maiimum 28 foot height limit as required by Sec. 24-6(a). 6) Side yard of Building No. 2 must have a minimum side yard" I,';;"~:, . of 6'-8" from Lawn street to comply with Sec. 24-9(d-3). Plans show five feet. -2- . 0 ("~. ( ~ c~. ; ! -f ,[ ,"i' i I I t I ',} o ! I ! '. , II)~J n.e ~I A'.:..:. ~ \. t-... 10) ll) 12) 13) "..-..-;., ro.. ~~ 14) A one-hour fire-resistive occupancy separation is required \ between a boiler room o~ central hOi ting plant and the rest I of the building. section 13120 Every dwelling unit and guc~;t room should have comfort ing facilities as specified in Section 1311. Every sleeping room be) Oil t,hc fourtJl floor should have openable window or exterior dcor conforming to Section for emergency exit or rescue. Exits should have a minimum scpilraLion of one-fifth the perimeter of the room or area served. Section 3302 (c). t,hat "perimeter" is along the outer boundary of the room area served. Bldg. #2. Exit doors should be openable from the inside without the use \ 7 of a key, ~pecial knowledge, or effort. Section 3303(e). Note also that flush bolts are prohibited. I, Corridors should have a minimum wid"ch of 44 inches. Section ;" 't 3304 (b). Bldg. #2 Entry Bridge. 'c~4 Stairways in Bldg. if 2 should have a minimum vlidth of 44 inches. } u/:--- ~ Trim and handrails should not project more than 3~ inches into ! the required width. Section 3305(b). 'i Risers on stairways should not exceed 7~ inches and runs should not be less than 10 inches. Section 3305 (c). No Stair Details"'~;,,,' (', Landings on stairways should have a dimension in the direction l of travel equal to the width of the stairway but need not ex- ceed 4 feet. Section 3305(f). Basement portion of stairways should have an approved barrier whm continooo, to uppc. floo., in on c,it enclocu.c. Scc. I 3305 (g) . t Guardrails for stairs, balconies, and landings should conform ) I, .' t wi th Section 1714. Note that maximum clearance between inter- :' mediate rails is 9 inches. : Six-foot 6-inch mininmm headroom clearance for stairways should I' be indicated on plans. Section 3305(0). Note that this is from Ii., a plane tangent to the stairway tread nosings. No stair details, - , Stairways should be enclosed as specified in Section 3308. a) One hour fire-resistive walls are required. bl Doors should be labeled one hour fire assemblies. c) An approved barr'ier is required at the ground floor, to prevent people from accidently continuing to the lower level. d) Usable space is not a:Llowed under the stairs. Exit illumination and signs should be provided in conformance with Section 33ll(a). Fireplaces should comply vlith Section 3704. Building #1, No Details submitted. The interior wall and ceiling finishes should be specified and comply with Table No. 42-B and Section 4203. Glass and glazing in hazardous locations should comply with Section 5406. I":, c., heat-) , one \ 1304 iL., l ,~ \ < Note' or 15) 16) 17) 18) 19) 20) 21) 22) 23) 24) 25) 26) ~ I ~ I ~ ,~ .:....- -3- . ' 0' ."" /"',,", ..... Since, Lhe plans show thaL you D.re ccnsidcl'ably over the c1ensi'l:y requirements of the City then in effect, that you have not pro- vided sufficent accessible off sLreel parking plus the plans Rre not clear inordcr to detcrlninc llCigllt of the B\lildings plus other discrepencies of the building code which may result in redesign of the buildings, your applic2lt,ion for a bui lding permit is denied. Very truly yours, , , I . (\0 -1:;: 1-., k~,,,,, ^ C /I \J.W1i \;VV'- ~ (J y v-<'\/j"'l~V' d Clayt&11 H. Heyring ~ I Chief Building Inspector ;.",.. ,'T- cc: Joe Krabacher Johnson & Payne Inc. Sandra Stuller Herb Bartel -4- . 0 .:1 .'2." ( \. I. l=~ ____un.... -..-\( --,- ,- ;;>,\..- .~ _"__Q,n;;r , ..., , ; (:> --'- 6" .---- 14 I. HANS CANTRUP, Box 388 .cmYF I D GIlA 8E,---13ox-'-'t<t'46 KYCB-MQORE, I3ox.._6.9~ LEY INS , --H:AR'fE''f'-&--8HELIX}N;-ltax W /4: '2.. DAVID ELMORE, 823 Commerce Drive, Oakbrooko Illinois 60521 :3 0 RALPH & MARION MELVILLE, Box 686 4, ANTHONY ADAMS, Box 310 bYL-I\l;~N bl1<,L.t.;11.t;JJV'!'-, Be-Ji---G.2.S..- G'.b'fo'N."PMS," BlJK "Tl'ltl~ i TEDDY ARMSTRONG, Box 692 6 WOOD R. FOSTER, W. 1781 First National Bank Building, Sto Paul, Minno, 55101 .:s CHARTlIOUSE, Box 129 6&tf'l'tt'"'POINrCUJ:IlIJmH111 Ul\1, Box r..~.'> Continental & Aspen Inns HOUGO ~ding'''- HrlTs'iae LOdge< Interest in Aspen Inn Mt. Chalet Aspen Manor Si(;i View Lodge Limelite Res. Res. S3?EiFA!'l ;:::U::;NON~H, 13dK 2G7s;.t- JirhI,sWOR-TH-6€A:hl:\'S,-~ The Pines 0""'" o A V lOG. ELM 0 R E ATTORNEY AT LAW 823 COMMERCE DRIVE OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS 60521 Telephone: 887-1300 December 13, 1973 City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado Re: Case No. 73-34 Gentlemen: Please be advised that I object to the zoning variations requested in the above captioned case, particularly with respect to the excess density, the required off street parking and the required maximum height. I do not particularly object to the side yard variance requested. Please be advised that I did not receive your notice of this variation until December 12, 1973. Very truly yours, '<M~'U1~ David G. Elmore DGE/jh .-., ....." PUBLICATION DATES Aspen Today - July 18, Aspen Times - July 19, Aspen Today - July 25, ORIGINAL ORDINANCE ORDINANCE #19 1973 ,/ 1973 1973 Public Hearing - May 14, 1973 1st Reading - May 14, 1973 Public Hearing - June 11, 1973 Public Hearing - June 25, 1973 AMENDED ORDINANCE 1st Reading - July 2, 1973 Public Hearing - July 9, 1973 2nd Reading - July 16, 1973 - ADOPTED "'" .... "- - - v December 28, 1973 MEMORANDU!ol TO: ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, JOHN DUKES, CHAIRMAN FROM: SANDY STULLER SUBJECT: REQUESTED RESOLUTION ON BLUE SPRUCE APPEAL Attached is a Resolution which, I hope, accurately reflects your deliberation on the appeal. However, since I was unable to stay to hear your discussions I cannot be sure that it does. Please feel free to make any modifications and amendments. SMS:mw RESOLUTION OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ON APPEAL NO. 73-74 BLUE SPRUCE WHEREAS, the applicant, The Blue Spruce Lodge, has appealed a decision of the Aspen Building Inspector denying a building permit for reasons specifically stated, orally and in writing all of which reasons have been examined by the board during the hearing on this matter, and WHEREAS, the applicant has contested the denial for the following reasons stated in its "Statement of Justification" on appeal: 1. That the permit was improperly denied on the ground that the application showed densities greater than allowed by the zoning code. 2. That the permit was improperly denied on the ground ..... that the application ~h~,,'oi1 less than the required off street parking spaces. 3. That the building inspector erred in (a) refusing to examine amended plans and (b) requiring submittal of the appli- cation to the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission under the provisions of Ordinance 19, Series of 1973. WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment, at its public hearing on this appeal has determined the following: 1. The building inspector need not rely only on the technical definitions of living units in calculating density but may interpret all relevant code provisions to determine probably density and deny a permit if the structural plans, as submitted, show density greater than allowed. Further, that the building inspector may anticipate density violations prior to actual occupancy and deny a permit on this ground. 2. The building inspector acted correctly in refusing to review amended plans prior to submission of the application to the Asepn Planning and Zoning Commission as the latter is the appropriate body to review the application at this time. 3. That, although the applicant began consideration of the development of the site in January of 1973, it is the belief of the board that the pending adoption of Ordinance 19, 1973, caused the submission of incomplete plans which, in addition, were not in conformance with the provisions of the Municipal Code, all in an attempt to avoid the consequences of Ordinance 19 on the pending development. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the action of the building inspector in denying the building permit be sustained and the appeal of The Blue Spruce, No. 73-74, be denied. Date John Dukes, Chairman I, Casey Armstrong, duly appointed and acting deputy City Clerk of the City of Aspen, Colorado, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Resolution adopted by the Aspen Board of Adjustment at its meeting held ~~ , 1974. RESOLUTION OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ON APPEAL NO. 73-74 BLUE SPRUCE WHEREAS, the applicant, the Blue Spruce Lodge, has appealed a decision of the Aspen Building Inspector denying a building permit for reasons specifically stated, orally and in writing all of which reasons have been examined by the Board during the hearing on this matter, and WHEREAS, the applicant has contested the denial for the following reasons stated in its "Statement of Justification" on appeal: 1. That the permit was improperly denied on the ground that the application showed densities greater than allowed by the zoning code. 2. That the permit was improperly denied on the ground that the application showed less than the required off street parking spaces. 3. That the Building Inspector erred in (a) refusing to examine amended plans and (b) requiring submit- tal of the application to the Aspen Planning and zoning Commission under the provisions of Ordinance #19, Series of 1973. WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment, at its public hearing on this appeal has determined the following: 1. The Building Inspector need not rely only on the tech- nical definitions of living units in calculating density but may interpret all relevant code provisions to de- termine probable density and deny a permit if the structural plans, as submitted, show density greater than allowed. Further, that the Building Inspector may anticipate density violations prior to actual oc- cupancy and deny a j;'errrit on this ground. 2. The Building Inspector acted correctly in refusing to review amended plans prior to submission of the appli- -" / cation to the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission as the latter is the appropriate body to review the ap- plication at this time. 3. That, although the applicant began consideration of the development of the site in January of 1973, it is the belief of the Board that the pending adoption of Or- dinance #19, Series of 1973, caused the submission of incomplete plans, which, in addition, were not in con- formance with the provisions of the Municipal Code, all in an attempt to avoid the consequences of Ordi- nance #19 on the pending development. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the action of the Building Inspector in denying the building permit be sustained Date and the appeal of the Blue Spruce, No. 73-74, be ) I, Casey Armstrong, duly appointed and acting Deputy City Clerk of the City of Aspen, Colorado, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Resolution adopted by the Aspen Board of Adjustment at its meeting held ~f , 1974. ~~