The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutlanduse case.boa.991 Ute Ave.007-97 I NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINIJ CASE #97-7 Before the City of Aspen Board of Adjustment TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen of June 25, 1962, as amended, a public hearing will be held in the BASEMENT MEETING ROOM, City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such other place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 26, Official Code of Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for vanance. Particulars of the hearing and requested variance are as follows: Date and Time of Meeting: Date: August 21, 1997 - City Council Meeting Room Time: 4:00 P.M. Owner for Variance: Applicant for Variance: Name: Tom and Cathy Crum Warren Palmer Address: 991 Ute Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 P.O. Box 2684 Aspen, CO 81612 Location or description of property: 991 Ute Avenue, with a legal description of Lot I, Ute Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, except the West 13 feet thereof. Variances Requested: A 6 foot 4 inch east side yard setback variance to allow for construction of a second story bedroom addition. Will applicant be represented by Counsel: YES: NO: X The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Charles Paterson, Chairman RESOLUTION NO.~ Series of 199T A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF ASPEN GRANTING A VARIANCE WITH CONDITIONS IN CASE NUMBER 97-7 RELATING TO PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF ASPEN WITH AN ADDRESS OF 991 UTE AVENUE, ASPEN,COLORADO AND A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LOT 1, UTE ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, EXCEPT THE WEST 13 FEET THEREOF, WHEREAS, Mr.and Mrs. Tom Crum have made application, dated June 10, 1997 to the Board of Adjustment for a variance from the dimensional requirements of Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, this matter came on for hearing before the Board of Adjustment on September 18, 1997 and after full deliberations and consideration of the evidence and testimony presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1. Findings of Fact. The Board of Adjustment makes the following findings of fact: 1. A development application for a variance was initiated by: Mr. and Mrs. Tom Crum on June 10, 1997 for property with a street address of 991 Ute Avenue, Aspen, Colorado. 2. Notice of the proposed variance has been provided to surrounding property owners in accordance with Section 24-6- 205 (E) (4)b) of the Aspen Municipal Code.. Evidence of such notice is on file with the City Clerk. 11111111111111111111111111111111111I1111111111111111111 410286 11/0!/1997 10:39A RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 1 0' 3 R 16.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO 3. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code. 4. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure. 5. The literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms of Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining that the applicant's rights would be deprived absent a variance, the Board considered certain special conditions and circum- stances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result .from the actions of the applicant; to wit: The property is constrained by the irregregular shape and the non-conforming narrow lot width. Section 2. Variance Granted. The Board of Adjustment does hereby grant the applicant the following variance from the terms of Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code: A 4 foot 6 inch east side yard setback variance, to allow for construction of a 235 square foot second story addition and an exterior stairway at 991 Ute Avenue. 1/1111I1111I111111 1111I111111 111111I11111I11111 11111111 410266 11/0!/1997 10:39A RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 2 0' 3 R 16.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO ~ ",,"" 111111I111111111111111I11111111'111I111111 1111111I11111 410266 11/05/1997 10:39A RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 3 0' 3 R 18.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO Section 3. Conditions Upon Which Variance is Granted. The variance granted by Section 2, above, is specifically conditioned upon and subject to the following conditions: 1. Unless vested as part of a development plan pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the variance granted herein shall automatically expire after twelve (12) months from the date of approval unless development has been commenced as evidenced by the issuance of a building permit, or an extension granted by the Board in which case the variance shall expire at the end of the extension. 2. Applicant shall, prior to filing an application for a building permit, cause to be recorded with the Clerk and Recorder's Office of Pitkin County a copy of this resolution. of the INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the Board City of Aspen on the 18th ~r, ~ I. Chairperson of Adjustment 1997 I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting Deputy City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the Board of Adjustment of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated. ~~J:.~ ,~~:;~h; ~~-:rk . 1""-- ..~ ''1 rof'~ !'. ~ '. ,,',' -' f' _.1...' 'c, '\ "1"1 i.t ~ ~ ~ \J .~~.l,: ~J _1,:.. ~.. l-:, ,....., ~- , : ~- t \.' .,.-..to". .3. :--. ,.-"',. .... (') : (.~ ! (, , -. ~' .' , . '; .,' .... .... i-~ :-. ;;. :. '''j ,~, ...'~ ~ '.; .' t",..' . -------- County of Pitkin } } 55. State of Colorado } AFFIDAVIT OF ='iOTICE PURSUANT TO ASPEl'1 UJ.'ID USE REGULATION SEcnON 26..:l'"2.060 (E) L <2~ Q.rU-fY\ . being or representing an Applicant to tba C1ty 0 Aspen. peISonally certify !bat I have complied. with tba public notice requin:ments pursuant to Section 26.52.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use RegulaIions in the following m:mner: 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is =hed hereto. by first-class. posrage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property. as indicated on the =hed list. on the ~day of ~ 1991(which is a.ldays prior to the public hearing date Of~. 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it couid be seen from the ne=st public way) and that me said sign was posted and visible continuously from the I $1"' day of ~~ 1997 (Must be posted for at lellSt ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. ,,,,",,,,hom_-' ~; ", day Notary Public's Signature -- ._.--~_._.~---~----"'-~'~".~"-" AGENDA ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT COMMISSION Special Meeting Thursday, September 18, 1997 at 4:00 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall I. ROLL CALL II. MINUTES III. COMMENTS A. Commissioners Comments B. Staff Comments C. Public Comments (not concerning items on the Agenda) IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case #97-07 (Crum) continued from August 21, 1997 991 Ute Avenue, Aspen, CO A four foot six inch (4'6") east side yard setback variance to allow for construction of a second story bedroom. VI. ADJOURN NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CASE #97-7 Before the City of Aspen Board of Adjustment TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen of June 25, 1962, as amended, a public hearing will be held in the BASEMENT MEETING ROOM, City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such other place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 26, Official Code of Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. Particulars of the hearing and requested variance are as follows: Date and Time of Meeting: Date: September 18, 1997 - City Council Meeting Room (Rescheduled from the original meeting date of August 21, 1997 due to a procedural error.) Time: 4:00 P.M. Owner for Variance: Applicant for Variance: Name: Tom and Cathy Crum Address: 991 Ute Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 Warren Palmer P.O. Box 2684 Aspen, CO 81611 Location or description of property: 991 Ute Avenue, with a legal description of Lot I, Ute Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen except the West 13 feet thereof: Variances Requested: A 4 foot 6 inch east side yard setback variance to allow for construction of a second story bedroom addition. Will applicant be represented by Counsel: YES: NO: X The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Charles Paterson, Chairman E ~ u / . I II I " '\1 \ i , , , I ,... _ I I ~ ;--. I -0 ." '>< I 1 '8' <Xl N (5" I' " <Xl ~I NI I N _ c:) ~ M\ 0-\ co 6 o:!r .- ...- c0 ~ ...:.. ..q. '" N ci, 0. N"'" ~ N :0' g: =i :0181 :0\ 8 ~ ~ ~ :2 :B ~ -0 -0 55 ~ :0 8 g ~ 0 C'") fa g ~ -0 $ ~ ~ ~~.~I~I~I~~~g~~~~coco~~I~~~N~~~~~8~z~ , ! I' : I II I ,I , : : I I I \' \ i ' I . 1 , 'Ji: '~I, I : : I ~II: I \ ' , Oi ~ 0 010 Zl N <{ <{ 0 0 0 0 0: 01 _ ,::;; <{ , :I: 0 <{ <{ '0 0 0 0 ~~uuuu~~~<{u::;;::;;uuu<{~~~ z~z<{u~z 0 u~~~uu~uu~uu i i :: I I i 'I \ ! \ C:: > U.l -< (fJ I >- 0 , : I I : : \u Q I I :': 0 0 ~ (:; Z u ::l - . ! I : I <{l '<( U' l- 0 c: ;;5 6 =:l Z <( ....j L.LJ 0 U ... ! ~ zl i I ~ 1 . ~ L.LJ j Z ~ 0 f2 ~ ~ tn :t :c <{ Q ~ z <{:; ~ 0 Z :f: ,0> I' Z:OZO l-:J~ ~ou uje::oU)~~l.Uza..oa..ffi?;,u 09Z<(LU <(o~ U Iffi<e: OI-=1ZO::- u: IZZ~6u0....joZ~Z 5Z(!)<(z~ U30 ziZIZgZ~wz~o2~~ozZ~~ZI~O<(~O<(~U:u<(o~~~z o~<(49zz~~z WIl.U>W~W~ <((fJ>UJ WL.LJJ-wl-- UJ- - ~~w ~>l-~_WW~(~L ~13>a..LUa..oz~u>~0!-a..a..~ga..~>ooOZ(fJ~~~uz!-a..~e::ozc::~a..a..>v~ ~O~~~~I~<(Z~Oa..~~0~~g~~~u~oa..uC::Q~~~oou~~a..~~~~0 ~, I -0 1 0 0 Z 1 ~ <{ w N ~i - <Xl i <Xl :11 ,~, ~ w ~ Z "' w 0- ~ I ;::; ~ :;( :;~'l.~ ~ b~ ~ ~ U5~ ::J~ >:?5I jJ 6~ ~~_. _ ~51 < ~ ~~~ ~~ <-u ~ z~ ~..xl x x< u 00 ~~x <x ox~ <2 ~o 0 o~ w w-O 0:0 wO ~ ~z ~tn!OJI OJ ICJ:I....\ 0 N ~~CJ:I u...oo ~roz ;> "'" giol 0100 N 1,0- COo ;Qo ~o~ 0 0-1 ~. o....! a.. '0.... 8 Sj ~ r--. U') a.. ~ a.. N 0... -0 ..0 g: ~Il ~I i i ~ ! 6\ ~l ~ u ~ & ~ ~ ~ 8 & 8 ~ ~ ~ Ou <3 ~::s :: 00'" ~ ~ ~ .... 25 ~) ~ _z'l~o .....I~, ZI~"" (~ z....> ~ ~ow~~ ~w0 -.... o~~",~~<uo ~~~~ ~o 2I~6g:~> ~~g~u... ~3~O~~5~~Q~6~U2~~~~I~W !<00 ~~ ~s~o...co~< zo<oo WOZ02<Z0&~0u...>~<~"'" ~~0 ~~\I~ i~ ~~~~~;~ i~!~m ~!8~i~~;Q8~~~~~~~g~~~~8i ~318 ~o ~8<~oo- ~~~~~ 8~U')OwOroo oU~Z~m~NOO~ r--. uo~ ~U ~~U~~I& UOON~ ""'~ uz0"", ~~<~O-~~ -o~~r--.~~ I~I z01~u-~~~ <u...~~~~Z I~<U >00 <~ ~ro~~ ~~z ~ l~~3~g~~0~~<@Q~~~~~2~~~~uo~ ~<~z~~o~~~~~offi~~~~~ ~ ~_ Lo...l~ >",x_ 2 0~2~ ~OO w W ~~~W~Z- ~OOIWW :~~\Z~~8Z"'~@ffi~~~0~~~3~8~~~~S....~~~~~~~~Z~~~WWU~~ ~~0~~Z~20>I~~OIZ0 0~0~ZZ~~30"'><~W~~<w~ zZ<Wa::l .OO""I~gzou~u~~w~~~<~~Z~<~~~~~~~ffiwoo~~zo~!~ffi~~g2~ 4~~~~~~::;;Oi~0:~~~Z~~~!WOZU!u~O~i03W~~O~~OO~~w ~IZ~~~<{<{~~<{:I:~0:0:w~~~0:~~~~iw~0~~z~03~<{mm~~~uu~ <<<<~roa::lroroUUUUUOOOOOOu...u...u...u...000I~~~~O~~~~~oooooooo'" ~ I , 1 \ i i \ I I ~ : i \ I! I I ;U')i~I~U')~COI~-o~CO~~U')N~O_U')~~N~_COr--.~~~-o~~n~~coco O~\-oCONN ~~~~~~~~~~~~N~~",~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~~~8~0-~~ ~~88~8888888~Cl858588858~8555R8Cl88888Q8888 8~ ,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ I I ~<XlI~NNO~~N ~~~_O_~~~N~~N<Xl~I_~N~CO~o-U')-OCO-oo- ~N~n ~~~_~~N ~r--. ~O~M~ 8Q~~ qB~ 8~~~U')~N~~~ ~~~8co~ e"?9-;- 99 9999-;-'-,''' ,'-,'-;-'-,' 9,9 ,,'-,',9-;-9'-,'9-;-999'-,',,9, j~~~ ~~8~r--.~U')~~U) ~CO~~~CO~~~ co~~~~~~~~~~~~~~co~~ Z"l\'9'9 ,'9q- ,'9"9"9q-'9'9q- ,'9q-'9'9'9q-'9'9'9, 'l""9"9 "9 '9 '9'9 '9 '9 '9 '9 '9 "9 '9'9 'l" '9 '9 _NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN ~rocororororooorocooococococococooorooococorococooocorocooococococorocororoCOCOCOCOCOCO U -;-1'7 -;- , ' ""';'" '7 , , , , t , , , , , , , ,'7 '7 , , , , , , , , , , , 5r--.1~~~~~~r--.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0. ~I("')'~ ("') cryi;? ~ cry ~ ~ ("') ("') ("') ~ ~ ~ ("') ~ ~ (0') ("') ~ C"? C"? ~ ~ ~ ~ C"? C'? C"? ~ ~ C"? ~ ~ C"? ~ ("') C"? C"? ("') ("') ~!~:~ ~ ~18i 8i 8i 8i 8i t::i 8i ~ 8:i 8i ~ 8:l ~ ~ N N ~ N N 8i N N N R; N N N ~ N ~ N N 8:l N N ~ N ~ , ~ I ~ i - g ;i': ::: g dl ~ "I" si; 0 ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1;:S! C"? 0 co ~ ("') ~ ~ ~ co 001 CO C"? 00 co I ~ '0 in '" OJ o ~ / l I E ::J () I .~ 0 N S! " '<r ~~ - ~ - i _N :00 0 -0 -0 N "" -0 ! - ~ - "" [i2 ~ "'~ "''' '" '" m '0 ;:;; h OI 0<( ~O uo uu uu i I i~ z (,! () zO z$ 3 Ot;; z~ Zz t;;:::J w~ :s:~ Ww 0.<D Wo. 00 <n:::J <n<( "'<n <DI <(0 <(~ 0<( I "'w 0 0 O::{ w '" '" Zz o~ Ow ~ 0.<( -z OU ~ <n<( l!! O~ "'", 05 '0 0>- W:::J 30. '0 ~I ~o Ow < 3w '" 8~ - ~ I """' ~:::J I ""- :g;::: 00 """" ~ - .. 0:0 "'<n <n t;; 0 W - ~'" ~'" ~ Z 00. <(I W ~ ~u 3 ~z is W <D 0;0 ~ 0:::J w9o, ~ -~ S o~ w~ 0 'Ow <D -u 38] W '0", z "'z <no W <~ e:w ~ ;;: Wo. oz <n "' ><n ""<( :::J W 0:<( ~> '" - ~ ~ :'l~ ~[i2 "e: ~ 0 ~ '" ujo Oz ~ >- _ <n ~w p >-" ::l0 U)I Uw -z "'a. :::J "'~ 3- :::J::O <n ~0 <(:::J >-9 "'''' I O~ ~Z 050 '"w u '" w ~O <n "'~ ::;;I ZZ '" 0 :::JZ ~ w w <(<( w ~ <(w "'~ 3 <n ~ ~ ~:::J >> Iii .0 E I :j m - '" ~o- - ~ 0'" -0 "0 ~ N -", "" - U1 'O~ O-~ ~ '" 0-", ~8 ~~ 88 813 N g a", "'''' "'''' Ii ~ ~~ -0" ~~ ~ 9'" E~ ~$ ~J; "-0 -00- "1"1 Z'" NN NN N'" N 0;'" "'''' "'''' "'''' '" u- ~,...:.. , , . , ,.:. o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ...;::: """" """" """" "" ........ ~.... ........ .... N'" NN N'" N'" N (]) 0> o a. tii <::1 h~/~=r C~T\{ B oA-- 11: il; ! ~ :1 I: r GAS~ ~ /::.'xH-t ~ITS q =f - () -=1- (1.RUM - q 9-[ L n'l AI, I . ,( JE 1tVe-. p..A!1.:1C _ O~ kJ t ~ Ff ~~ --. n <<:.. I P "tv 1[ ;:,JOFlc{av,+ .".' ~ "rllllq~ w (1'V\ r MY' W\i I'\u*~ I I ~11 C a;.t, o-r"' - I tit cLu d.. i V'1 WU~rl-nt6 ~ tM.1'.IALoQ. L ~.er~ A .~ra.AA G-f';:}. . B. SA.--yld-I+"Arl C . W'4 ~ ~v.. b_ (k(Jttf= F C; ?'J A4.-r- 11, :2... I' , . I 3.' 4, , 8 (; " Ii .,. " ,.; :: i (ij j>, , Hi II. I' Iii II III Iii I' iI ~i III Iii " I" 1... I" f0 II , i;': -. 0'~nJ€S::> I, s;.., 3~,.~ It, hy,..,A c::;. :s II. ~BvvI We1 "b $;() /0/0 lAir D 1'- €.h .'-".._---.~._------'".~~.~..- _.._-;-".__..,--,._.".~~._=..~._'..- tV:A MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Adjustment RE: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Deputy Sara Thomas, Zoning OffiC@ Tom and Cathy Crum, 991 Ute Avenue D;,.ctm ~. THRU: FROM: DATE: August 11, 1997 -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The applicant requests a variance from the side yard setback dimensional requirement in order to construct a second story addition onto an existing single story element. The proposed addition would encroach into the required side yard setback approximately 4 feet 6 inches, requiring a variance to permit a 5 foot 6 inch east side yard setback. The single family residence is located in the R-15 zone district, which has the following setback requirements: Front Yard - 25 feet Rear Yard - 10feet Side Yard - 10 feet The existing structure is currently non-conforming with regards to the east side yard setback. That portion of the structure was built in 1978 when the side yard setback requirements were 5 feet instead of the current 10 feet. The addition of the second story is considered to be an expansion of an existing non-conformity. The permitted floor area for the 4402 square foot parcel is 2792 square feet. The existing structure contains approximately 2420 square feet of floor area and the proposed addition would add approximately 234 square feet. The total floor area, including the addition would be approximately 2654 square feet. Existing and proposed square footage will be reverified at the time of building permit. The residence at 991 Ute Avenue was previously granted a variance in 1981 which allowed for construction of a deck within the front yard setback. Minutes from the meeting are attached. The applicants are also proposing to rebuild and repair the deck, which will not require a variance. Please refer to the attached drawings and written information provided by the applicant for a complete presentation of the proposed variance. - ---~~,~.~-~-,-----,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,.,,,.--,,,,'--'-"-~'.~-~"-'-------'----'----""-"'",-.~,'~~~--'"'-'->-'-'" ~~ APPLICANT: Tom and Cathy Crum, represented by Warren Palmer LOCATION: 991 Ute Avenue, Aspen, CO REVIEW STANDARDS AND STAFF EVALUATION: Pursuant to Section 26.108.040 of the Municipal Code, in order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the board of adjustment shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. Standard: The g rant of the variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and this title. Response: Granting the variance will not conflict with the goals of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. 2. Standard: The grant of the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building, or structure. Response: The proposed addition will be of the same dimensions as the existing first floor and will only be slightly wider than the minimum width required by the Uniform Building Code for habitable space (7 feet). The proposed exterior stairway will also be the minimum width required by the UBC. The property is constrained by the irregular shape and the non-conforming narrow lot width. (Required lot width = 75 feet; existing lot width = 31 feet.) 3. Standard: Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's right would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan the terms of this title to other parcels, buildings or structures, in the same zone district. -- Response: Granting the variance will not confer special privileges to this parcel. There are special conditions on this parcel in that it is a non- conforming lot in regards to both lot width and minimum lot size. In addition, the structure is non-conforming due to a code change which increased the minimum required side yard setback. These conditions were not directly caused by any actions of the applicant. ALTERNATIVES: The Board of Adjustment may consider any of the following alternatives: . Approve the variance as requested. . Approve the variance with conditions. . Table action to request further information be provided by the applicant or interested parties. . Deny the variance finding that the review standards are not met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the side yard setback variance request to construct a second story ad.dition with an exterior stairway. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the request for a 4 foot 6 inch east side yard setback variance to allow for a construction of a 235 square foot second story addition, and an exterior stairway, at 991 Ute Avenue, finding that the review standards are met." --- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ReQular Meeting Board of Adjustment July 7. 1983 Hcst t:l.J.t '.'Jill b,~ a:E::::ect.-:.;d. :JY v.3.ri:lnC2i s2cor~d2(~ j'? ~Ic~::.:1. in ~avcr, Dotion carri~d. ., ~ 1 i"_.l.~ CASE 83-10 CRUM ~~vaq!lino ~aid ~his )ro]erty ~3,i~,the R-15 PUD 2r~2~~'~ 3~~:~2C!~ 1.3 r:=ar 5 re2t :cor acc2ssar~r ,:)U~l.ll:1g3. ~ist_~!1ce b'=tt.-n~e'~1 :)rinci~!1,2 building and accessory building is 10 f2et. Shed3 do not ~22~ either setjacl:s. Cru~ read a letter into t~e r2cord r0qu~sti~rJ tie Board allow thc~ ~a r2tai~ a 10 foot by 10 ~oot S~O:~C2 Sl10d Hllic:l :12.5 028!1 i~1 ezi 3t~:lC:~ for nearly 2i'jht ::.r::l.rs, 'r:.~ic:-: c1o~s not a~herc to t:l'-= S2tJ,?'l.C:-~ l2.ws. CrU::1 saic~ t>~is ;::;:~.:; 13 attracti?2; the n8i~jhors s~]0or~ ~~e e::istenc2; it is not -!i='l~l~~ a-::))3.rc::nt fror] Ute Ar},2:1:1e. Cr1.i::1 sa.id t:.1is sheJ Houli not 2.dv;=rs,:~l:, af::2ct ~he je:1,~rJ.J.. '~'L1r-:;o.--:;.::: 0:: the cos9r;~hensi7'2 92::er3.1 '-!l~.n. 'I':1G s~e(l cor:~2.i:l.s :10 =lrlr~;:1,J.i-:,1:2 l:~~S. T~ere is a 10 ioo~ retai~inc ~lall on t~e j~~~: ')ro'Jcrt., ll'~.' e ~o t<"'ll'CO ~'.IO'1't l"'\lOC1~ :~':""'.~.t ~l~ ~n rrl'::' "''::l~_"'! ~-;1~'.( :.....:-~':'!(:) ..,..,,," "''''l~,.:::,,;,'i ......1 (;) _..L;J >. I..I....~ _......; .L_". ..,... :..l..~l .:l.....__ ,~. '-~ .~,,~. - ...... ....."_'..."1......___ lot shap:,;;, ~-lJ.1ici1 causes a.n "a:'r't:C.3.ordi!1ar:r CirCU::l3t']'r1C23n. CrlJ.:-.1 sa.id otl1cr Ute ,-~).'lC!1Ue c1~'l'3112rs 2.r:; livi~g 1:1 nS~1ac;:Sn ~1i::~1 s'::'or.:'.',=i'~:: roorns att~c~ed not within sstjac!:s, and probably violati~g ot~er building codes. To deny t~is structure's e::istence \!oul~ Qc~y t~e Crum's a substantial ?roperty right enjoyed by other prJ1?er~i2S in the S;'U1e :::::011;= a:lG arGa. CrUEl said he feels ti188G a:.) 777i.liJ reasons for granting a variance under the Code. CrUD tal: tjs :saari they had added a seco:1G story bedroor:1, and ~luring ,'1 01.::.1.-::inJ i:1spection, it t,,,as noticed that tl1e shed ...13.5 there .J.r:(~ \7it~,li:1 the s2t0ack. Crurn told the Board these sh~as have been in thes8 Q??r~Zi~2t~ locations for eight years. Lavagnino asked about the sheJ on four c:.noer blocJ-~s. Cru::'. said he '"lould be uilli:10 to t2'1r t:-12.t sjed down. The vari~ncc is for the 10 b'l 10 fo;t 3~3~ D2::t to ~h2 bicycle sped. ~~~~aker said it ls aif~icult wt~2n ~~ apl)llcant comes to tl1e 3oar'j a=~er the fa.ct a:v} ask,':-; .;.:or ,~ V,7:r~~llG(~. ~ihitakcr said he feels t~1-:: s:1ed is 1. terribl,~ :[i::'2 ~1:;lZ.:.:':: "'i.:_1ct i~ very clos2 to tiz house. IIead asl:ed if there were a statute of linitations. ~ru2di~~ saiJ t~er2 ~ave bee~ setba8ks in the city alla count~ Co6es ~o: over 10 years. tlhit31:er sai3 he is much more concerneJ witi the =i:~:: i1azard. :13nn Doint23 out there ar2 t'i'yO 1(~tt2r~::; fron adjac'=n-:: property o~'!n'2r3, both in f3.vor. ~11':~:: Boare: loc~~,~:-1 c1t 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Re9ular Meetin9 Board of Adjustment July 7. 1983 3::2tC~~3 Qn] discu3seJ t~c no?inr~- t:12 sl1c'J a!1d attaching saiG tiera would not ~e rco~ a?91ication. La'l~gnino it 33 ~ room of tllC iouse. between the ste~?s. :J L: ': 'J ,'~ S ': ~:~ ,:.: >':li 1:0.::2::- CrU;'1 tolcl the 30ard thi3 i2 :lot j ~lS-=c. a stor2.g~: ':~'l~"~i _ -~ -~; ,:::J.:30 a =:-J~dit3.tion roo:~ and n-;?2GS to !)e ar.Fl~," :~rC:ia t::-t2 house. ?,::'~::r':Jr: s3id Cru::J could3.cld 3/4 i:1C~1 she2troGl~ inside t~1e 3~led 3.nd .;loL:l(~ give it a one hour fir~ wall. CrUD said he \lould b0 ~lillin0 to GO that. ~:.J.nn s'.JgS:~steJ gra::ti:19 a t2r:lpOrCl.r:~ V3.ri~Ll'.-;~. r:'~12 origi~'1,'),l c(lnJi tio~ of Ute P.:.v.'~nU2 had sO!'1ctl~inq t'J .:to ".l~_':~: :101,,> t~1;= s:lcd \';as built, ~;ll1ic:1 is a. sD2cial consid(?r?:.:i0tl. 1""'"1'__. use of the she~ is v~rv i3Dortant fa t~e a~Dlic~nts n~~ ~Joul~ '.,);~ .~.'l '.;1_..~r(j~'_.11""" ~r, r;.-::'~Ul' ~~-.:+- ~o o~.,.., -::t.'nou,~r~ ':'-',-',,;.;r~'i;~:~,':::.'1i~ _ _ _ _...... ,J _~, ...._~ ...~..l.._ '- t::; .l..<'::.' .,,-u ..l...I.U.L__._..__..~_...-'. L37~gnino said the Soar~ ~ay have dif~iculty w~e~ ~2SC3 CO~2 je~or2 tl12D for a structure built without a pernit or built without c08ing to the Bc~r:..~ D.n(~ t:~en ~sk :Eor 1. V2..ri3~:;:::~. ~J::0~ does this becom8 a hardshi? Paterson sail ti~ Ute ~r?2 iTi~i~ity and zone should be a s)ecial consideration in this ca38. ~fuit~~2r said granti~g this varia~ce may bre~k aov~ the ~n_~orce~2n~ of the building department. Heo..d said i1e agreed T."it:1 nann about a te!l1.DOr3.rV ~lari-'3..nc'2,t::.'~ a?plicant should be alloHeCi to use tL1is L1l1til1)ro:J~2rty CO:1.:1itiO!1S change or he C33 resolve the problen. Lavagnino agree this should cone back to the Board for review so thcv can consi;12r circumstances t~at may ha7e arisen. CrUll said he ~elt the speci31 circumstances were the unusual lot size and tha w~lole Ute ar22, whic~ do not apply to other ar2as of town. Lavagnino said applicants h~ve to show the Board of Adjustn8~t that they have a difficulty or hardship which they have no~ created themselves. Cru~ said most lots ar2 Jesi'lneJ SD t~!a~ on,-= ca21 put a stor3.':j8 s~led. O~1 t:18 :?fo:1erty. iTO,(3t ::>eo-?l',:: 11:1\'"2 tj~c rignt. Lavagnino said if that is t~e case, tjeD )~t U9 .1..1 :.....'., :):J , ' :'1.::1 t' ., l. t' 0 -' , L.,;,)E:; ,::>:,1CCi anG. Cton C acu...l ne GlGC,l lons. nt2 c::.n OI1..LY CiO 30 ::nUC.1 on a.. s:nall lo~. Phi t;:k8r asl:'2G '.ll~Gt t~1e 13 :Eaot~:.:(::>~)tio:1 in 1956 to the V2st of their lot was. The Board as:~2j t~e av?licant to resaarch t~is 13 f2et e:,cGption. ~hitaker s~id 11e is concerned about fire, about encroachina into t~1:: setbac::s .3..nCi t:-:at this S:1ecJ T.,]as built ~;lit~lO:.lt 3. :;>uildins 99ruit. 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ReQu1ar Heetinq Board of Adjustment Julv 7. 1983 L3.7J.g:1i:10 cl osec1 t~::.e pujl ic . . ~1earli:1g. " . -'-l ' - , , , . , 1" . t' . ..a.n:1, S3.~u S~l1e r:2e..l.3 t.~2r8 lS3. .1J.r:S:lJ..p In ,ilS C,J.S2 D~C,?Ll.3'2 or t~le suddenness. T~e Cru~s are Involv2d l~ a ne~ a5ditio~ anC: tI':e building inspector diGc07;~rs this Sh8U. :1.:U1:1 ;33.i'~ l:.~-:,:; CrUiJS ha7e not had th2 ti~c to reorganiz8 an~ r2~~I~~2C. ~2nn s~ii it \/ould b~ substantial justice 0!1 t~e Doar~'2 ?~rt to give the Cru~s a chance. Pat2rson s~id he fe~ls t~G CrUDS di.} not know t~is was an illegal shed. Lavagnino said i2 ~Jou:'~ li;c~ to wake t:::i8 3. 0:12 y22.!' 7;J.rj_,?l.r~ce ~d:lic~1 '.!ould giV2 t:l~= ,J,D.,:)licJ.rlt ti~2 to oive ooti0na to t~i~k about. Lavagnino 3aii~ iis ji~ cor:C2rn i-'8 fir2"du.nger. r:nt>~rson saij :12 su'})ort.: :::l.::1n's position. L?~7?~i1ii1o?.';r::::~~'} in cases like t~is, ti2 Saarl C3n be com?a38iQ~~te. ~a~:~0ni~o said t:'1e Board s:lould rev i8;;7 t~1i 3 var iance in one ye21.r. ~J.v~~g:-ii~c salC C~lnq3 ~r~ ~a~~eninc on ute Avenue, anJ i~ one ~l~~r t~~ Boa.rd can use ':;lhat 11a-s bee~ ~1a.:?peni:1g as a guide11:12 in C~",l i2r..li:1:~ t:1is 7aria.l1ce. :Iann said she \'7ants to '~ra!1t a tenporary v'3.r:',J.nce ::or 0~1.2 y'~-:.r because of special circumstances, one of which is 'r2mo~i~g tje sheds has been a sudden occurrence. Hann said the on~; y.,;o.r ~J()ul~l allo~oJ for better planning on r.2noving the sheds. Anoth.:-=r c:.rcun- stanc-2 is t~1at Ute A?enue is a special ?lace and t:1(~ Doarc2 n28'Js tine to see what is developing on ute Avenue. L~vas~ino G3iG t~e a?plicants built this shad eight years ago and haV2 jaen accustomed to using it. The a?plicant needs to adjust to tcnri3g the s~ed down or redefini39 the use. Mann sail t~0 use o~ t~i3 "shed" has not been for stor~g8 but as a place for meditation. Nhita:~er said tbare are t~o structures which have been t~er~ eight years without a ~uiljing pernit. These do not co~~or~ to the building code nor the setbac:cs; the:' were not S~10~~ on the survey given to tlle building depart~Gnt. Assist~nt eit:: F~.ttor!le:;r Gary, Es..a~? sa.i::1 .t~:7t"?orary va7i::t~ccs ar2 :??s:::i:J13. T~er2 ~r2 SOQC n~rc.s~lpS l~ t~lS case. Thl5 s~ruc~ure D~8 D80~ t~ere eight years. Es~rj agreed the neig~bor~ood i3 a s~2ci31 caSG. rlhitaker said he ~oes not f2el t~is Board should protect a building built wit~out a per~it anJ o~e that is a f[r~ tr~~ and does not confor~ ~litj the building code. Lavagnino rec[uest~1 tllat if this varianc2 is granted, that it be r2corded 30 th~t this is reviewed in a year. 7 -'.... RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ReQu1ar lieetinq Board of Adjustment July 7. 1983 ilaa:i1 Daved the Boare oz .g.djust:nent grant a on2 Y::~ilr ~7~ri::.n<.>; to allo~i the 10 ~oot OJ 10 foot structure to sta? ill p13c2; asl~ ior imoediate remo7al of the s~all shed; special circuDst~nces ar~ the idea oE r2no7i~; the shed is a sujJe~ occarr~~n=8; tj~ one year will allo~ for jetter planning for t~2 applicant; ut~ l:.v'.;~:1ue 13 a sp'2cial ?lac'.~; t::le 8o;:.r,j n.2ei3.;3 tL'.l'::S to :>::'J ~,llL:-~t d2vclops on Ute Av(~nue; that the ap?lic,~Dt prese:1t a :::OL.: for recording of this ~T3riance; if the ~pplicant does not cone be~or'~ the Board in one yaar, the s~ed will be torn davn; t~2r~ i~ a:1 ur'jency about ti1is jecaus:? 0::: p0:3sio1:; fir:: C.ang2r T}lC.L:. tl~e structures; secondec ~y P~t2rson. ~hit3;~2r said h~ ~~nts to be ~~solV2t] of any lia~)ility o~ Eir2 at tiis structure. ~';~litak3r ~aij the a??licant ias ~ recorj 0:: not gettin.g buil~in0 )er::lits f:ll1e:1 :1<~ ;-~;1~\:l ~1~:; s:1oul-J C"~-C J":':1:~~-;:. :loll call vot<~: !!ann ayei He.3.d, a~T2i Paterso:1, aY'~i ~'7~1i;:,-::::.~r, nay i ~avag:1i:1o " aye. r10I:i0;1 carri2d. Esary as:{ed the Board the date oi the setback or the FAR variance. minutes of that case. to ?geci~7 ~n t~e ~afacl va~i~nc~ t~~t v~r~anC2 Dea~ns on tuc date O~ t~e aen121 T~1e Board rJequ2stcd t~lis be add-3d to th~ ~avagnino requested the staff preparG ~ for8 a=~idavi~ to b~ included with the packet for applicants. !!ann moved to adjourn at 6:50 !J.D.; seconder] ~'/ Pat'2rson. 1\11 in f~vor, motion carried. jj ~"--' " " RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fOllMl1 c. r. HOfCKEI. II. B. Il l. CO. June 11, 1981 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING 4:00 P.M. Members present: Fred Smith - Acting Chairman Charles Patterson Josephine Mann John Herz Fred Smith -Re-open Continuation Case 81-2 Thomas & Cathryn Crum are the applicants Location is Lot 1 - Ute Ave. Thomas Crum -Our A-frame was built in 1963 (pre-fab plywood quickie A-frame). A couple years ago we had extensive remodeling permit brought it up to more of a living situation for a family. The last remaining eyesore of the property was the front deck. We replaced it with a Redwood decking. There are reasons for granting the variances, as found in the Code. Four reasons apply. The problem in question is this corner of the deck(seei11ustration) it is 30 inches high - We inquired with the neighbors; The Gant, Fitz Benedict and existing neighbors on either side of the street as to the particular situation. Cathryn Crum -You have seen the letter from Fritz Benedict... Charlie Pat erson-(reads letter) I would like to go on record of saying that I approve of the non-conforming deck which they have partially constructed on th'eir residence of 991 Ute. Ave. I encourage you to allow them the varianc~ in order that they may keep the deck. Sincerely Frederick Benedict. eaty-Corner' to that is 'Little Annie', the proposed Ski development. We have a letter here signed by Dave Farney, and in addition Tom Fisher is here. John Herz -(reads letter) I represent 'Little Annies' Ski Area Development built on the lots located diagonally across the street from The Crums I would like to go on record as saying that we do not oppose the extension ... I encourage you to grant them a varianceto let the front deck remain. Sincerely, David Farney. Tom Fisher (Little Annie Ski Corp.) -We have examined and looked at the variance requested and find it not only acceptable but, enhances the appearance of our property . We have no objections to this. It has been tastefully done and there has been no malicious intent there and we encourage you to grant the request. John Herz -(reads letter) I am in favor of the deck Thomas & Cathryn Crum have constructed to remain... 8incere1y, (Neighbor) Cathryn Crum -Molly Cambell of the Gant gave a verbal agreement to the structure. Dean Billings10ng time resident, I have no objection to the deck... Bill Drueding -As (Bldg. Enf. Off.) so 1. Tom just admitted, he did extensive remodeling a couple years ago he knows about the Building permits. He committed two violations: Expanding a non-conforming use. 2. Building without a permit. Fred Smith -I have some problems with whether this is a structure. In other words he could have built a patio, 6 ft. high fence etc. Bill Drueding -30 inches needs a railing. Fred Smith -I recognize this a1itt1e bit different than someone that goes out and builds an extension on their house. Charles Pat erson-If the party took dirt and piled up against the front of the deck to floor level and built a burm would you then consider it a structure? ~~ .... RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOIl..... C.f'.HOECKELB.B.IlL,CO. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING Page 2 Bill Drueding Fred Smith -It would be a be rm. I am a zoning officer and I only wanted to make my point clear about the violations. -I feel that this is a classic case of a minimal request with absolutely no opposition from neighbors, actually support from neighbors Charles Pat =rson-I am in favor of granting this motion. I have difficulty in refusing a variance of this nature. If this would have come in before I would have granted it. People may not know all the requirements of zoning. Bill Drueding Josephine Mann -I just hope you took my comments in the proper perspective. -I am in favor of this variance, this doesn't mean that I would always be in favor of granting a variance to something that is already built. I think there are lots of other circumstances that make this one the kind I would grant a variance for. It is an enhancement to the property and the whole street, the neighbors are in favor... I am in favor. Charles Pat erson-And another thing, I think there are some practical difficulties of the front Lot-line, the way it comes out for this angle. The house is built parallel to this Lot-line. Fred Smith -I also feel there is some practical diff'icu1ty with the Mine tailings not being able to get anything to grow on. Charles Pat erson-I think these rocks bring up the property level...so I don't consider that thirty inches. John Herz Fred Smith Charles Pat Fred Smith Josephine Mann John Herz Bill Drueding Cathryn Crum Fred Smith Evan Boenning CRep. Mason& Morris) -I make a motion that we grant the variance. Practical difficulty with the Lot-line , minimal variance. -I second the motion. erson-I -I -I -I -Cathryn, You have a permit application at the County don't forget to pick it up. -Thank-you -We have an Informal request from Mason&Mor$8 What we are trying to do is a display board. We are 25 ft. off the sidewalk. We have a design committee to create a sign to display our Real Estate listings. We are trying to leave our glass clean. we have come up with plans whereby we use a map of Aspen; the Running trails, the Bus trails, the Bus routes, the Walking trails, and accesses onto the mountains, camping areas -- Mountain Valley, Red Mountain all you West End, Cemet~ry Lane a little bit of the Highlands. We have come up with this proposal, with pictures 5,x7 8110 and transparencies and we would have it color coded. We would remove present display case. We want to find out if we are allowed to do this. This proposal is called Kiosk..Csp?), a three sided structure, lighted with transparencies it is stationary. Is this considered signage or not? Two points I'd like Tom's Market in the to point out. 1. parking lot would This wall be 25 ft. of the West over to landscaping. on ,,,"'"' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORMIO C.f.HOECKELB.8.1I<l.(;II. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING Page 3~ Cont. Fred Smith Josephine Mann Evan Beings -We be So are probably going to leave our steps. Cheap Shot building will not here next year. This wall for display. were trying to get your ideas of haow you feel about displays. -Are familiar with that section of the code that says no area of a building site designated as requiring open space, under this section shall be used for any commercial activity., including but not by way of I limitation the storage display and merchandising of goods provided however with the prohibition of this sub-section shall not apply in such use as with the conjunction with committed commercial activity., on a right a way. ~y opinl~is that it seems that this is not the appropriate body - It seems to be a planning dept. function. I don't think it is in our ... You must demonstrate hardship or practical difficulty. You are asking us to circumvent the Aspen sign code which is very limited on permited signs. Although a map of Aspen might originate there it is very difficult to control what later turns out to be 48 listings. -What are the measurements of the map? -We don't have those yet. Charles Pat erson-I like the idea of getting people off the sidewalk and getting them up on an open area. Here you have an open space requirement and its not usable. The only thing that bothers me is if it is a Billboard, then I would be against it. Bill Drueding Josephine Mann Evan Sunny Evan Fred Smith Paul Taddune Fred Smith Josephine Mann Fred Smith Josephine Mann -It must identify the business. -It sounds as though you want a glassed in bulletin board. -Yes, and I'm wondering if that falls under..oor if we have to term it something else. -You would have to go through HPC on this also. Major change on exterior side wall. -This is what we are trying to do and we are not sure how to do it. -I feel that this board is not the appropriate body to grant a variance for this. I refer you back to Sunny Vann. I feel in order to do this you will need a Planning Department recommendation to City Council -Looking at it aesthetically, I like the result but unfortunately this doesn't allow it maybe there is something wrong with the Code FDther than your plan. -The Planning Department and the Legal Department can dream up language that will so restrict another applicant that yours might be acceptable. -There is no record of the vote in minutes from last meeting. -Unanimous vote -I move that approve the minutes Charles Pat erson-I second the motion. John Herz -I Fred Smith -I Charles Pat erson-I Josephine Mann -I -"..'", RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fOR1I1O C.f.HOECKElB.B.lltl.CO. Board of Adjustment Commission Meeting May 28, 1981 4:00 P.M. Council Chambers Acting Chairman- Fred Smith Josephine Mann Francis Whitaker John Herz Clayton Meyring Commissions Comments: Josephine Mann requested minutes for each meeting and a Job Description for secretary to Board of Adjustment. First Case - 81-1 Warren Palmer Location is Lot K Block 65 City of Aspen. (100 E. Bleeker) Fred Smith - Variance requested, application is made to remodel and build an addition to a one family dwelling. The addition will have a six in. st. side yard and a 3' 3" interior side yard. The required street side yard is 6' 8"and.the required interior side yard is 5'. SEction 24-3.7 3 corner lot 24-3.4 area and bulk requirements are 6th zoning district. Permanent variance request. _ Existing Victorian structure locating on the lot as such. We are working with a thirty foot wide lot, which gives us set-back problems to begin with just on the existing house. What we would like to do is add on to the existing house...basic remodeling plus do cosmetic things on the outside.o.pull whole structure together. We want to maintain existing walls. Because of large right of way on Bleeker and Garmisch the Elementary school being across the street even though we are 6in. from property line from the actual curve, approx. 32ft. from school side, 28 ft. on Bleeker side. This front yard set-back being adequate here as is. Photographs show nice trees etc... The Victorian integity of the house remains. _ Ther is one question that comes to mind: The code requires 6000 sq. ft. This is obviously not conforming. I don't know if that requires any other approval by any other city body? _ No, if it's a non-conforming lot of record you have the right to tell that it a one single family dwelling only. _ I think you can see we are not doing anything that could be construed a DuPlex Are there any questions? This is a classic example of a variance request which would seem to benefit everybody and hurt none, however; this board has a very diffucult set of guidelines for granting variances. It requires applicant to demonstrate hardship or practical diffucu1ties. I recognize it because of the large right of way from Garmisch St. this is a somewhat unusual case. Clayton, is there arequirement for sidewalks? -I can't answer that. The City Engineer can answer that. - As far as I recall, ts in the commercial zones and the office zones. - I am wondering about the rest of Garmisch Street...are all of the houses that far, located that far back? Fred Smith - The streets are paved the same width... John Herz - Mr. Chairman, I feel as you do, they are retaining the Victorian flavor which we all like instead of tearing down houses... not trying to circumvent the law by making it two family unit. Do you know if any of the neighbors are that close to the property line? I wish we had more time . I have not had a chance to look at the property One reason for granting a variance is that a certain property right is enjoyed by other property owners in the area. It is hard to distinguish between a Hardship and a Convinience. This falls close to that line. - I would think that the houses come right up to the property line. / I Owner Warren Palmer (representing) Francis Whitaker Clayton Meyring Warren Palmer Fred Smith that Clayton Francis Josephine Francis Clayton fllftM ~ C. f.HOECKEL B. B. a L. co. -, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Francis Whitaker - I move that the variance be granted on the grounds that practical instruction difficulties have been demonstrated and that other property owners in the vicenity enjoy the same property right regarding the set-back. - I second the motion - Your request is granted. John Herz Fred Smith Second Case Fred Smith CAthryn Fred Smith Francis Josephine Cathryn Josephine Smith- Cathryn Smith Clayton Francis Cathryn Francis Josephine Francis Fred Smith Josephine- Fred Smith Francis 81-2 Thomas & Cathryn Crum 991 Ute Ave. _ Application is made for a building permit to permit a four foot addition on a non-conforming deck. The four foot addition on an existing SIX foot non-conforming deck extend within fourteen feet of the front property line. The required front yard is twenty-five ft. See area 24-3.4 area and bulk requirement minimum front yard R-15 zone district. This is lot one Ute addition City of Aspen, except the Westernly thirteen feet thereof, subject to any mineral reservations and exceptions of records and subject to all existing easements and licenses right of ways, pipelines, poles, water lines, etc... Fred reads letter from Cathryn(enclosed in last Bd. of Adj,uS~IUl'!~;t. -It is not quite completed...here are some photographs. \, _~_ -We need a demonstration by the applicant of hardship or practica difficulty. Any thing hard to do is practically difficult. -I would like to read that letter. -Your original Bldg. permit...you did some of the work then -Work done a year ago in the fall. -This is very nice looking- you did you are surrounded by high density -The B1dg Dept. thought we were R-6 great for us. - How far can an uncovered deck go? - An uncovered deck can go four feet into required yard. -The question I have to ask myself. If you came in for a variance for this and had not built it yet. I wonder if we would grant the variance? Is there anyone of the criteria that you could have thought of if you had brought this in for Practical difficulty, Hardship affect on the general plan and whether other property owners are enjoying the right which you would be denied. It puts us in a difficult position regardless how much money you have spent and how nice it looks. We made one person one year take off part of a structure that was built and to grant you approval for something you built which is not legal... Are there any ground that you can think of that you are coming to us now with out having built this that you think would make us grant you a variance? -I want to point out the existing pad...and all we did was bring the deck out to the end of the pad. - The pad isn't a structure. Convince us that there are sufficient reasons why we should grant you a variance. The main point is that you have made a mistake by not finding out about the requirements -I would like to say that I amin favor of granting this variance. This adds to the beauty of Ute aVenue. The set back requirement for that side of the street presents a difficulty. I think it is in your favor that you did have a building permit for your initial remodeling. -This is a differnet zone than across the street. There are different set-back requirements. - Actually Francis, there is an interesting part of Code that says: Where the line dividing two zones then the restrictions along that line should be no greater on one side than the other. he set-backs apply on both sides of the' line. If this were a structure in the fact that it stuck out further than other peoples houses., since it is only a deck, or a raised platform I call it aminimal request. - Definitly. - I'll state frankly that one remove stairs because -s "'<i~ ~ a very nice job. housing with afive foot set-back. at first which would have been because of the fact that last year it was built without a permit... we made some fORM II C. f. ~O~CK~l B. B. It l. CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Francis Whitaker John Herz Francis Whitaker Fred Smith and this was built without a permit. To be consistant I can't vote for it. I appreciate the difficulty and I like the looks of it but one of the things this board has to do is be consistantly fair I don't think it would be fair to grant this to you and for the record having had someone else remove something. I think the fact that you state that you built it without a permit. You would not have gotten a permit if you would have applied for one. If you want to wait until there are five members here maybe the 5th member will vote in favo of it. YOu can ask for a continuance with the hope there will be five here . _ I have strong feeling to grant the variance with this applicant than I did with the applicant we did not grant a variance to. Discussion of previous case... I think if Francis went to see this He has a tremendous point there but if he could see what a mess the other homes are one Ute Ave. .. you might be a little swayed. _ If the Crums came and asked for variance before they built it would you grant it? And on what grounds? _ I can't make this lady tear down 2400 Dollars worth of beautiful,.. that isn't offending anything. Fritz Benedit agrees to this and he is one of the most prominent architects here in town. The applicant is requesting we table this to a date the next meeting will be two weeks from today. JAMES M. DEFRANCIA 17 Ute Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 RECEIVED '\!lf~ (I .1/91.)/ COMMAS~E.NI PitKIN UflJl , Y fJE"V~' 0 - ~L PMENT August 1, 1997 Members, Board of Adjustment ATT: Sarah Thomas, Secretary City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen CO 81611 RE: Crum Residence 991 Ute Avenue Members of the Board: As an adjoining property owner, please be advised that I support the request for a set-back variance for the referenced prpoperty which variance is requested for the purpose of a 228 sq. ft. addition. -~.~,,~-'-' """-~---'~ EDWARD STANLEY SANDITEN P. O. BOX 11566 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 August 12, 1997 Board of Adjustment City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81612 Re: Mr. & Mrs. Crum Ute Avenue addition I am a neighbor of the Crum family and I support the variance for the addition to the home located on Ute Avenue. The city has previously approved the improvement and I feel the family should not be penalized because of the delay in financial ability to make the addition. Since the foot print of the house will remain the same I do not see any harm. Certainly the over all size will not be out of character in relation to the surrounding buildings which the city finds acceptable. Respectfully, /Stli0~ ,~ EDWARD STANLEY SANDI TEN SUSAN FLEET WELSCH 10 UTE PLACE ASPEN, CO 81611-2162 (970) 920-2003; FAX (970) 920-2066 E-mail: welsch@rof.net RECEIVED ,1111 2 1 1997 ASPEN I PITKIN COMMUNITY PitVJ;kGPMENT July 18, 1997 Ms. Sarah Thomas Board of Adjustments 130 So. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Ms. Thomas, I am a neighbor of Tom and Cathy Cnnn and see their home every day since my husband and I are full time residents of Aspen. We drive or ride bikes by their home anytime we are going to or from Aspen. We see no problem in the least for the City of Aspen to grant a variance to the Crums so that they would be able to add an extra room onto their home. They have the smallest home in the neighborhood at this time and by adding this extra room they would gain very little additional square footage. In addition, they would be improving their home, and they would also enjoy the benefit of having an extra room for their new grandchild. Please consider their request for a variance, and if you need the OK from other neighbors here at 1010 Ute Avenue Subdivision, I would be happy to help in any way that I can. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration as to this matter. Sincerely yours, ,~ J &a tJd.-d. Su~aJl fleet W dsch BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 18, 1997 CASE # 97.07. CRUM RESIDENCE. 991 UTE AVENUE ...................................................................................1 4 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 18, t 997 Charlie Paterson opened the regular meeting at 4:05 p.m. Jim Iglehart, Ron Erickson, Rick Head and David Schott were present. Howard DeLuca was excused and Dan Martineau was absent. City Staff present were David Hoefer and Sara Thomas. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CASE # 97-07, CRUM RESIDENCE, 991 UTE A VENUE Charlie Paterson opened the continued public hearing and asked the applicant for proof of notice. David Hoefer, assistant city attorney, stated for the record the affidavit of notice was legal and the board could proceed. He commented that there were 5 letters in support of the variance. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk, read the following letters into the record: James DeFrancia, Edward Stanley Sanditen, Susan Fleet Welsch, Jill Choyka and Molly Campbell (the Gant). All the letters were in support of the variance being granted. Warren Palmer, architect, said Tom and Cathy Crum, applicants, hired him. On the site plan, he pointed out the irregular configuration of the lot. There was prior approval, in 1983, for the construction of the second floor, but the bedroom was not added at that time. Palmer noted the change in zoning from 1979 and 1983 to the present (from a 5' set back to a 10' set back). He said the north elevation indicated the second floor addition and size. Paterson asked about the outside staircase. Palmer replied that staircase was necessary because the interior spiral staircase did not meet the UBC requirements. Rick Head questioned the 13' exception on drawing A2. Cathy Crum answered that when they bought the property it was in place and never found out anything about it. Ron Erickson asked the applicant for the practical difficulty or hardship. Palmer answered that from the magnitude of mature landscaping on the east side and with the change in zoning, adding the shape ofthe lot and configuration left only a 20' buildable area. He noted the topography also gains almost a full story of elevation along Ute Avenue, therefore that part ofthe site would require extensive 1 .-,.- BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 18,1997 excavation, which would destroy that area. Erickson questioned the outside staircase as FAR. Thomas eXplained that the required egress would be allowed in the set back. PUBLIC COMMENT: Susan Welsch, 10 Ute Place, stated that she supported the project and was very involved in the neighborhood. She placed a letter into the record. Cynthia DeFrancia, 17 Ute Place, said there would be no or very little impact on the neighborhood. She noted that her husband wrote a letter of support for the record. Cathy Crum, applicant, stated that from the list of surrounding property owners, she was surprised that only 5 people had local addresses. She said that she was pleased that those neighbors were supportive. BOARD COMMENT: Jim Iglehart commented that the variance request seemed fair. Rick Head said philosophically he was in favor of granting this variance. He had made notes earlier on practical difficulty but the standards were not in the staff memo. He said there was encroachment on a set back now, which posed no problems for the neighborhood. David Schott noted the lot was odd and reiterated what the other board members had said. Ron Erickson stated the lot was odd and therefore any future owner should take this into account. He did not think that the change in code was a hardship. He said there was a practical difficulty in tree removal for trees over 6" in diameter, so then landscaping would become a practical difficulty. He did not agree that people should build bigger houses on small lots, but he would reluctantly grant the vanance. 2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 18. t 997 Charlie Paterson read the granting of this variance will not confer special privileges to this parcel in that it is a non-conforming lot in regards to both lot width and minimum lot size. In addition, the structure is non-conforming due to a code change which increased the minimum required side yard setback. These conditions were not directly caused by any actions of the applicant. MOTION: Rick Head moved to approve the request for a 4 foot 6 inch east side yard setback variance to allow for construction of a 235 square foot second story addition, and an exterior stairway, at 991 Ute Avenue, finding that the review standards are met. Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 5-0. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to adjourn at 4:40 p.m. Jim Iglehart second. ALL IN FAVOR. t, ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 3 THE GANT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. 610 W. END ST. P.O. BOX K-3 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-5000 August 18, 1997 Charles Patterson, Chairman THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Chairman and Adjustment Board Members: The Gant Condominium Association and Management have reviewed the proposed construction plans for an addition at the Crum residence at 991 Ute Avenue. We find the addition to be unobtrusive, very subtle and in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. The addition is on the side of the house adjacent to the access walkway to The Gant's tennis courts, and the Crum's have landscaped this area very nicely so that the house and the walkway each have a maximum amount of privacy. We do not believe that the addition which is just a second level onto the existing kitchen area will in any way impact The Gant, The Gant's tennis courts, or any other area of the neighborhood. The Gant would support approval of the application. sjncerf)( / #~1i1 t1i?~'" 1t10lly Campbe., General Mana e0 cc.: Kathy & Tom Crum 991 Ute Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 WARREN L. PALMER Lettt:r of Transmittal TO Architect P.O Box 767 BASALT, COLORADO 81621 PHONE (970) 927-9442 (Basalt) FAX (970) 927-9442 + 11 PHONE (970) 925-2776 (Aspen) the following ~ems: o Spec~ications 0 Shop drawings 0 0 Copy of letter COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION <9 ? \ 0'\'\ L.: q ;1ffi'\L.tfl "'I m1~1 'f ?~ Cf\i\1..tfl ?dJ11tJ"tl ~ CT\"It.JVl THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: o FOR BIDS DUE 19_ o Resubmit _ copies for approval o Subm~ _ copies for distribution o Return _ corrected prints ~'UZ...gr o PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US o For approval o For your use o As requested ~ For review and comment o Approved as submitted o Approved as noted o Returned for corrections '-.IAIZI~~ \gvo~ ~f- -A-N'1~~ ts> ~1 OIJ f2f.[JJ6- 7JC..' . COpy TO SIGNED:~ ... It enclosures .re not .. noted. If.indly notify us at once. CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADruSTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION DATE ,,110 19q~ CASE # APPLICANT 10m ~ r..tl~ CruM PHONE MAILING ADDRESS -3Q..\ U +t' A..w. As p.J1 I) (~~) q ;). ~ - 1.\:99:J. . OWNER PHONE ~t I) u;w.. ~ ,,",0' ,~ +-eu ei..t:.t <11<..4 TO<,IX\!.I4eOF- A~ )eJ,(1.A.pt ~ LOCATION OF PROPERTY .3q I LUe Ave.. LJ~i'"?I1 ~. (StreeT. Block Number and Lot ~umOer) MAn.lNG ADDRESS wn..:. YOU BE REPRES:E:'ITED BY COUNCIL? YES_ NO!" Below, describe clearly the proposed variance. including all dimensions and justification for the variance. (Additional paper may be used if necessary.) ine building permit application and any other information you feel is pertinent should accompany this application. and will be made part of this case. C ~ ~~ l.-~ ") REASONS FOR DENIAL OF BUILDING PER1VUT, BASED ON THE ASPEN CITY CODE, CHAPTER 24. AJ.'l' OPINION CONCElt."IING THIS VARIANCE WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD BY THE ZONING DEPARThIEi'otr STAFF. DATE PER.'Vfi1' DE.'l'IED OFFICIAL DATE OF APPLICATION HEARING DATE WARREN L. PALMER, ARCHITECT 31 July 1997 City of Aspen Board of Adjustment c/o City Zoning Department 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 BOX 767 BASALT, CO. 81621 RE: Side Yard Setback Variance Request for an addition to the Tom and Cathy Crum Residence, located at 991 Ute Ave., Lot I, except the West 13 ft. Ute Addition to the City of Aspen. Dear Board of Adjustment: My clients, Tom and Cathy Crum would like to add a second floor bedroom addition, containing 234 sf, to the east side of their house. The addition would be placed over the existing kitchen area on the fIrst floor. The fIrst floor addition was completed in 1978 when zoning for RI5 required ouly a 5 ft. setback at that time. (the current code requires 10 ft. side yard setbacks) At the time of the original addition, we projected the kitchen addition 4 ft. away from the main house, which placed it I ft. from the required 5 ft. setback. The intention at that time was to add an additional bedroom above at a later date. A one story family room that was also added in 1978 to the west side, received a second floor master bedroom in 1983. The addition of the bedroom to the east, over the existing kitchen, requires the following variance: I. The bedroom addition would encroach into the 10 ft. side yard setback 4.2 ft. at the northeast and 4.6 ft. at the southeast comer of the addition. (see sheet A2 and A4 for illustration of the encroachment) 2 . We would like to add an 18 in. roof overhang on the new addition, on the east elevation, to provide protection for the windows and to match existing overhangs. (see sheet A4) 3. We would like to enclose the existing metal chimney flue in a 3 ft. X 5 ft. chimney stack with wood siding. This would encroach approximately 6 in. into the east side yard setback. (see sheet A4 and sheet A5) 4. We would like to add a 3 ft. wide exterior stair from the second floor addition to provide legal access and egress from the bedroom. The existing spiral stair in the house does not meet current UBC access and egress codes. This stair would encroach approximately 4.6 ft. into the east 10 ft. side yard setback. We will turn the stair into the rearyard as soon as possible, to minimize the encroachment. (see sheet A4 and sheet A5) 5. The existing wood deck on the north, which had a variance granted for a front yard setback encroachment in 1983, is deteriorating and my clients would like to rebuild the deck in the existing location. The new deck would be I ft. less in depth and would have radiused comers to lessen the existing encroachment. (see sheet A2) The variance is required because: A. The original zoning dimensional requirements for sideyard setbacks was changed from 5 ft. to 10 ft, which makes the addition over the existing footprint require a variance. B. The lot is of irregular confIguration and in combination with the side yard setback being increased to 10 ft. from the original 5 ft., it has reduced the allowable building envelope to 20 ft. on the front of the site. C. The narrowness of the site and the topography of the property to the east precludes accessing the rear of the site for the addition. . ,~ '^, . The Crum Residence Variance Reauest 7/31/97 Page Two The granting of the variance and allowing the second floor bedroom addition to be placed on the existing kitchen would allow the following: D. We can use the existing foundation which will lessen the impact on the existing landscape on the small site and the disturbance of the adjacent property to the east. E. The second floor addition to the east will visually balance the second floor addition to the west, which was added in 1983 and was our original concept for the house. (see sheet A5 and attached photo) F. The addition and continued use of the property as a single family residence is consistent with the zoning and the goals of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. G. The addition is the minimum variance possible for the bedroom use. If the width of the bedroom is reduced, it will not satisfy the UBC requirement for minimum width of habitable space. H. The mass and height of the project, with the proposed addition, is still considerably less than that of any of the adjacent parcels. S incerel y, Warren Palmer To The Members of the Board of Adjustments From Tom and Cathy Crum June, 1997 =------------------------------------------------------------- We have been plagued by an ODD-SHAPED LOT! For the 22 years which we have owned our home it has required exceptions: 1. As the original survey shows, a large corner of our original cement pad driveway (exhibit A) fell on our neighbor's property. It served as our driveway for 21 years, until last year when a monster house was built next door. We signed off on our right of adverse possession (exhibit B) at that time, in 1996. 2. We applied for and were granted a Variance to build an extension on our front deck in July, 1983. This was granted because the Board of Adjustments agreed that our odd-shaped lot was in fact a hardship. It is just really hard to squeeze our house onto our irregularly shaped lot. Here is how we have done so far: 1975 - We bought our A-Frame (exhibition E) for $45,000. 1978 - We were given approval for a two story addition which included the second story east side addition presently under consideration. Due to finances, we were only able to complete the first story addition. 1983 - We added part of the west side second story addition. 1984 - We added the other part of the west side addition. 19? - Zoning regulations changed. 1997 - We are ready to complete the 1978 conception by adding the 228 square foot addition to the east side, but need to be able to have the walls match the first story walls, or else it will be too small, and look very funny. This is why we respectfully request a Variance. ~verY Tr~[ Yours, ',~ Cathy C ru / ~ Tom Crum