Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutlanduse case.boa.500 W Bleeker St.015-95 .' CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS 520 E. HYMAN, SUITE 301, ASPEN, CO 81611 970/925-5590 970/925-5076 FAX CAS- 16' ~. ~~ MEMORANDUM ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS TO: FROM: DATE: PROJECT: JOB NO.: REGARDING: Charles Paterson, Jim Iglehart, Howard Deluca, David Schott Charles Cunniffe December 13,1995 Hillman Residence 9414 November 30, 1995 Board of Adjustment Meeting concerning a fence between the Hillman's property and the Hall's property. Gentlemen, I want to take this opportunity to express my displeasure with how the meeting on November 30 treated my clients, the Hillman's. I was not present at this meeting and I am relying on your meeting minutes and comments by those present, so forgive me if you perceive this memo as being in error. Had I been present I would have never allowed the meeting to digress the way it did. The Hillman's came to the meeting thinking it would be a simple issue about a fence and that the meeting would be executed in a professional manner. Instead they were blind sided by accusations and side issues not related to the fence. They were actually accused of creating a hardship to the neighbors and of being the wrong kind of people to move to Aspen. I want to state as clear as possible that the Hillman's have done nothing wrong. They simply bought a lot and built a house in a community that they wished to settle in. They followed all the complicated rules and ordinances of this town and they got slapped in the face for it. There are two tangential issues that were raised by the Hall's I want to take this opportunity to address at this time: hardship and design. I also want to address the negative tone the meeting took towards the Hillman's. The first issue I wish to address is the whole issue of the hardship. Was "hardship" created by the Hillmans or CCA? In most cases the City's interpretation of hardship deals with monetary loss. For example, those fighting the Rural and Remote land use code are fighting because they feel that they have lost potential earnings from the sale of their property. In their eyes the County created a hardship for landowners. In this case there is no hardship due to monetary loss. In fact, the Halls benefited financially by the sale of the Hillman's lot. Mr. Hall was the listing agent on a sale well over a half a million dollars. (His mother is the one that subdivided a 9,000 SF lot into the Hillman's lot and the Hall's corner lot) That is not hardship, that is profitl The Hall's are acting as if they own the property where they have say in design issues and window placement. They dOj1'tl The Hillman's can build what they want on their property as long as it meets the City codes. Which it does. The Hillman's were made out to be villains for doing just what anybody else would do on their property. According to the meeting minutes, Howard Deluca said he saw hardship "because the City allowed people to build large houses close to the lot lines". If this were the case all properties in Aspen would show hardship. The West End is a neiohborhood, it is not out in the countryside with wide open spaces. Part of the charm of this neighborhood is the rhythm of houses along the block, street oriented facades, things identified in Ordinance 30. We designed a house that fits into the character of this neighborhood. Most people do not feel its a hardship living in the West End, it is an asset. It also is not a "hardship" owning a historic home in Aspen, as the Halis alluded to during the meeting. In the meeting minutes the Hall's stated that the Hillman's house created a hardship for them due to the lack of privacy. The Hall's house has been unoccupied since the Hillman's have lived in their home. If they do not live there how can their privacy be violated? Throughout the meeting I was criticized for not consulting the Halls about the design of the Hillman's house. Who is paying me, the Halls or the Hillmans? I designed the house on a very restrictive site to a program the Hillman's wished for. I feel that the design is very successful in this regard. Should I have told the Hillman's CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS' 520 EAST HYMAN' SUITE 301 . ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 . 970/925.5590 FAX 970/925.5076 ,- . that they can't have windows in the Living room and Kitchen because of the neighbor? Maybe I should have omitted the Living Room completely so that the neighbor could have the same view they used to have before the property was subdivided. If you study the East elevation of the Hillman's house you will discover the rhythm of the windows and the logic it creates with the floor plan. The major rooms on the inside are oriented to the West to take advantage of Hillyard Park. Yes, in June they did approach my Job Captain for this project to discuss the privacy issue from their toilet area. This was after the house was framed, the windows installed, the exterior siding complete, and interior drywall installed. To change the window heights and sizes at that stage of construction would have been a seve~3l thousand dollar change. If the Hall's can't afford a $250 tree, how can they expect the Hillman's to make $6,000 change. At that time the Hillman's offered to purchase one tree on their property with the Halls purchasing another tree to block the view between the living room and the their bathroom. Nothing ever came form this offer. Like I said earlier, the Hillman's house fits in very nicely with the neighborhood. The design pays homage to Victorian Architecture but doesn't mimic it. It is not "huge". All the rules were followed. I am proud of this house. However negative and manipulative these issues are, they do not bother me as much as the general negative tone the Halls had towards the Hillman's. Like I said before, the Hillman's came to the meeting expecting the meeting to be run in a professional manner. When name calling starts, it is up to the chairman to put a swift end to it. When issues tangent to the main issue are raised the chairman must keep the meeting in focus. The Hall's were allowed to dictate the meeting and got exactly what they came for. If I were running the meeting I would have asked these questions: Would a seven foot high fence detract from the historic character of the Halls house? Is a seven foot high fence the only answer to the problem of privacy? Are the blinds and beveled glass the Hillman's have installed an adequate solution? I may have even walked to the site and looked out the windows. Issues of hardship and design really have nothing to do with this case. If the meeting had been run in this matter the final decision would have been more palatable for the Hillmans. Instead the meeting digressed to petty arguments, name calling and a tirade on monster homes, Aspen, and the type of people that Aspen should welcome. I want to tell you, Aspen should welcome the Hillmans. They are exactly the residents we need. They moved here to become full time residents, they have registered to vote, they want to become a part of this community. Unfortunately, from their perception, the community does not want them. They feel like they have been stepped on by the very town they wished to commit to. There have only been a few times where I have been embarrassed for Aspen, this is one of them. Sincerely, Charles Cunniffe Principal COPIES TO: Tat and Bobbie Hillman Bill Drueding, Amy Amidon --it-'" CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOVEMBER 30, 1995 4:00 P.M. FIRESTATION MEETING ROOM AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL II. CASE '95-15 BEN , CASEY HALL III. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 2, 1995 IV. ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIRMAN V. ADJOURNMENT NOTICE OF PUBLIC BEARING CASE '95-15 BEN , CASEY HALL BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen of June 25, 1962, as amended, a public hearing will be held in the SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM, City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such other place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24, Official Code of Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. Particulars of the hearing and requested variance are as follows: Date and Time of Meetina: Date: Nov. 30, 1995 Time: 4:00 P.M. Firestation Meeting Room Owner for variance: ADDellant for Variance: Name: Ben , casey Hall Address: 500 W. Bleeker, Block 29, Lots R'S, Aspen, Co. 81611 Location or descriDtion of DroDertv: 500 W. Bleeker, Block 29, Lots R'S, Aspen, Co. 81611 variance Requested: property is located in the R-6 zoning Category. Fence height maximum is 6 ft. above natural grade (Sec.3-101 Fence) Aspen Land Code. Applicant is requesting a 1 foot variance for a run of 40 ft. for added privacy. (A 7 ft. high fence for 40 ft.). Will aDDlicant be reDresented bv Councel: YES: NO: X The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Charles Paterson, Chairman Sharon Carrillo, Deputy city Clerk , ' . , .....;.., CI'rY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION DATE November 8, 19~ CASE # q~-l.t:) APPLICANT Casey Hall PHONE 925-8280 MAILING ADDRESS Box 4063 Aspen, CO 81612 OWNER Casey & Ben Hall PHONE same MAILING ADDRESS same LOCATION OF PROPERTY 500 W. Bleeker Block 29 Lots R&S (Street, Block Number and Lot Number) WILL YOU BE REPRESENTED 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.) The building permit application and any other information you feel is pertinent should accompany this application, and will be made part of this case. Please see attached sheet Applicant's Signatur~pJ,- .~ REASONS FOR DENIAL OF BUILDING PERMIT, BASED ON THE ASPEN CITY CODE, CHAPTER 24. AN OPINION CONCERNING THIS VARIANCE WILL BE .1:,RE~~~D '::0 THE BOARD !Y THE ZONING DEP~TMENT STAFF. O. I cf- ~~\.I.) ~~ '---~ Q-c" ~~0W1,f=~~ ~ C; (,,~--\-"--~N~.cp~ c.k 3-\0\ ~J W~~~Ll.a.c(A~. ~~L/J JU.~ =-. \~- ~ ~ CL~ ~ ~-Ft-. ~ C-LcU2iJ;L ~.( ~ 1 &=t--- :~l. ~.G-- LWst*d _______ ~ DATE PERMIT DENIED I l ( '1, \ OFFICIAL t , ,/ DATE OF APPLICATION \ \l I't L ~ ~ HEARING DATE I J - g() -Cf.C=:; - REASONS FOR PROPOSED VARIANCE We are requesting a one foot (1') variance on a HPC pre-approved six foot (6') dog eared cedar picket fence to create privacy from a new monster home built to a '94 code, not available today~ The windows of their living & kitchen space look directly into our bath-toilet-shower, and living-dining rooms. We have a historical landmark and have lost privacy and all views. Not only is their house siding five feet (5') or less from the lot line, their light wells, railings, all mechanicals and huge windows were designed with no respect to the location of our windows. Their architect was Cunniffe and shoUld have known we had the legal right to build a fence. There was no site planning with respect to us as neighbors. I approached the Hillman's via telephone last year during their construction period to discuss this issue. I asked for suggestions, proposed trees and inquired of their participation. Mrs. Hillman offered two hundred ($200.00) dOllars,p.eriod. Their home is forty- four hundred square feet (440a) and custom built. This fall I again asked them, told them I was going to apply for a fence with'variance and trees for privacy. They have not offered any advice as to how to create more privacy for both homes. This is the first negative encounter with neighbors I've had in the twenty- five years I've lived here. In digging the fence post holes for the six foot (6') fence we've been approved for, we found their sprinkler lines were encroaching well over our property line. Thank you for your time. -jI p~1--..J(f I Q~{J~~ ~ It ~I;"^ e' .-/ 'J-Q. :JP " u....._~_._._,,. /) ~ a...~ -rtvt-, ~>n I~<a V' '7'-/ :;>" /-./,~ /3-t..e.e/'C4. ;;>) ~ ~ /~. .~'" /)~M.e.f SOl No /3f...u..k.e.~ 3) 7 u . a.-.-~ ~" C);,-lL.~,u 60 rr ~ /Y:u-Ib,,~ ~ U. ~-J . tL-....,e ~-- X()y~ ;)..4..-,J' ;J'O/ W. )h~~,,<_~ ";) T)J..:.L /*rfOlt S CJ<( .H". J.hU....~ 1#) J.tr,.~ /Jc,-<~ -;/7> J-y": 7) /u.e.e....k..c.L ~ ~ off ~~~ - Jkllr.fJ. /3 G /J, )-J~uVLaC ?) 7ru... 61/ q! J-.-(cJ!..JIi/L. ~L<-~ ...1..t.-<.<.~.1- h~ :J.fa,k..1! (L-,."J "3z.Lt 5' rfu" . )-f'.,...,-<.. ~.., vI- c.~_f-'.J,.I"" r: D d2"'~f) / /5" /3[c;..~..... RJI. ~p-w.t'7j,*/ (Ii). YC //0 Ii" f;>.;x. l3eL,,<--...e <PJ,,-~ Ra-/L.->4-^>., (70- r f} C >17 -< ~/'Y /7Zj /3 a,c 3'1 <f<f ~ 70 ~~. {i "-F"7'.../ /00 2-,:.L~ N.(!'''''"'-'.L 5'02. () ~ c?~ /-:)'935 V""~,-",',,,'I~ 2:'7<-C-<. :""c Cj r Y 3 (, "- I- \J1 o Q. ()fC3,~') r j - \"'\ J ~ "2 o ~ "'Jl.N '" - \-- <:u ~ 1 2 ri Q ,~ , ..J - -i>o <t i)<> :( 2 :T", ~~~ i ~ r~~f~ ~ /ij ~! 00 0. T x C/? Q ~ \Ii '- ct rl ~ '7 ~ .1/> ~ <;( .;) ~ - <t <::..J \j N , t<) .....-.---.--- - ~ . ,- , ^ c ].cu o \~ ~ c; ~ ,,) \- t ~ \, Q vJ '~ ~ ~ - \~ .~ \..l. e ( .~ ~ {) :"pL ~ <) '>. ..; . 2 't- -I' \~ - tt ~I \)f.l ~9 <J~ 'j . ~\ll "l~ .( () " \:l e -l - ~ ~ -....J -....J ~ -,- - ~ Lr..J CCJ ~ o C:r.... >- w > cr::.: :::> en t- Z l:U ~ W "7 o 0:: 0- 7. ..- o o <: n:: o ....J o l) ~ o W E- <:: E- Ul z w Cl.... Ul <: ~ o >- E- l) Ul ~ n:: Ul E- O ....J '" . ..-.. ..:.. l' !! fl ~j ,~ '" .""'~ - ~;;;i~--------- :< -- .,"~~~-~ ;!;!~J~ '~~i,r~ ~~ ~-" ~n~~~~"~ - Oi,imll!, ;~, ~ E~ H~~~~i ~-: ~~;~ ~~;~~~; - _~ 0 _ _ q_ ___ ~-~~---.."'-.~ 'l... .J} 11 ,. ~_, iJeL..,) " , .~<-~'"~~> H1I:JiOd "} ,- ---;------." --------J.--~ ii ~'" ,.., - ----- ", VI .. -! " , H~~ ft': f!:; '5 ~ VI " -1:0 ; l"- V {"'Ii Ii Q ".~. "'>-~-~"---~ ;~ -""~.- .~ c,~. :", - ~ ._'.:.~ , ,_ o. J; :~Ic;,,-= ~:. ~;j!f. Jf} --~ - -~~~ ----~"---X.20' B:;:, :;u fj.f Q "-t- .. , " "..s: .. :\ o ..s: J <2 + <> + <> - 'Ii :. ~ . . . -""':---~~-.i ~ - ~ . . . ! "",';,' =---",====-~ ~~", 'i.;.,,:~ ~(/ ~"; 'f &i t J f ~ ...:.. < ~ .- ~ J) ~ ....., .'"'- -::: ...:.. ~ ~ ~ ~ \-, .. ;!: ,,; ~j @ ::~~ ~~ .. ~n, ~f~ :;i! ~~ti ..... MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer DATE: November 30, 1995 RE: 500 W. Bleeker -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- This property is a historic landmark, therefore HPC has reviewed the applicant's request for a privacy fence. HPC approved the fence with several conditions, which are: 1. The south end of the new fence can not be any closer to the street than the front wall of the house. 2. The recommendation to the Board of Adjustment is to please allow the privacy fence to be installed as outlined by HPC for the following reasons: The historic house years ago was raised, therefore the need for the extra foot on the fence is that it is higher than the newer house next door and that there is a true privacy problem from window to window. We find by allowing this it is not taking away any view plane by the neighbor or disrupting any solar gain. 3. A blue spruce tree is to be planted a the junction between the existing wrought iron fence and the new wooden fence on the south end and that the tree is to be at least six feet in height. 4. The maximum height of the fence is to be seven feet where necessary (at windows) and the remaining fence to be six feet or less (where there are no windows facing each other). ~- ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25. 1995 language of a residential structure and that is approximately 50 words. Amy: As far as publications I have them all in my office. The city subscribes to numerous magazines. Roger: I find the blend of mass and scale at Seaside is extremely interesting but what is more fascinating is that when the hurricane came through two communities were leveled because of total disregard of any real type construction that would resist natural disasters. 500 WEST BLEEKER Donnelley: We site visited this today. Amy: Casey Clark is representing a 7 foot high wood fence and then it will drop in areas down to 6 feet and then pick up again. We would need a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment to allow them to go to seven feet. The historic house has been raised to have a higher floor level and the exact opposite is happening to the building next door. Roger: One of the issues we deal with is not to look at a long wall when we walk up. The new house to the left was not reviewed. The fence does not have to be continuous and could be split so you are not creating a solid barrier between the two. Donnelley: Side yard fences are very typical in the west end and they do not stagger back and forth. I would rather see a fence that has some use as they might have an animal to keep in there. All fences in the west end are continuous. Amy: And that is what she tried to do by stepping it down. Les: What about coming down at an angle. DonnelleYi You could do an average of six feet but no greater than seven feet so that the fence would have to average out to six feet. Martha: We do not have seven foot fences. Amy: That is why they have to go to Board of Adjustment. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the privacy fence at 500 W. Bleeker on the west side between the existing historic property and the new structure to the west with the following conditions: I) The south end of the fence will be no further to the street 3 ,,", ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25. 1995 than the wall of the front porch of the existing victorian. 2) That the north end of the fence will be no longer than the rear corner board of the new house to the west and that no portion of the fence can exceed seven feet and that the average height will be six feet. Roger: The reason is so that the fence will step down in the center where there is no need for the full seven foot height. 3) The recommendation to the Board of Adjustment is to please allow the privacy fence to be installed as outlined by HPC for the following reasons: The historic house years ago was raised therefore the need for the extra foot on the fence is that it is higher than the newer house next door and that there is a true privacy problem from window to window. We find by allowing this it is not taking away any view plane by the neighbor or disrupting any solar loss or gain. Motion second by Susan. DISCUSSION Susan: What about the spruce tree that was to be added. AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended his motion to add: 4) That a new blue spruce tree be planted at the junction between the existing wrought iron fence and the new wooden fence on the south end and that the tree to be at least six feet in height. Second by Susan. DISCUSSION Donnelley: I believe we should not define the limit of the fence to the north because that has a lot to do with the ultimate plan and development of the back rear of the alley. AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended his motion that the north end of the fence can be extended further toward the alley at the discretion of the applicant. This amends #2. Second by Susan. Amy: They are dropping it to six feet at some points and I feel we might be making this too complicated. Donnelley: It may help with the Board of Adjustment that the average height of the fence is six feet and parts are seven. Martha: I feel this is too complicated for the applicant. It 4 -- ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25. 1995 needs worded so that it is simplistic. Amy: The applicant originally wanted to ask for an eight foot fence the whole way across. We can suggest adding inflection. Donnelley: How about stating maximum height of seven feet where necessary and the rest six feet or less. AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended his motion stating that the maximum height of the fence seven feet where necessary and the remaining fence to be six feet or less; second by Susan. All in favor of motion and amended motions. 706 W. MAIN - FINAL APPROVAL Amy: There was one extension given to conceptual recently and at that hearing the committee members made comments for restudy and what it mostly focused on was the flat roof section of the new addition and a change has been made and there is now a gabled roof in that area. Jake brought up the point that he would like to see more character at the alley. I am recommending approval as submitted. We will need more indications of material but that could be worked out with staff and monitor. Donnelley; It is nice to have the 1/4 scale drawings. Joe Krabacher, owner: I myself liked the flat roof. David Panico: The intent of the original was to have the building understated. We dressed up the rear and created a pitched roof that runs the length of the flat roof area. There was an issue at the last meeting about the location of the windows on the upper floor and that is a function of the interior floor plan. There were some statements that indicated that you wanted some more play in that and I have always thought that especially on the rear in the back of this building the more understated the better you are. The materials will be an asphalt roof in keeping what is presently on the cottage and the dimension of the clapboard size on the lower level banding will be in keeping as to what is happening on the cottage. Roger: Why would you keep the same size siding on the new as on the historic building. David Panico: To carry portions of the element through and tieing the two together. Roger: What is the fence going to be made out of? David: Metal. 5 Ail. ~,./)< county of Pitkin } } ss. } state of Colorado Muni- AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY POSTING OF A VARIANCE HEARING BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (Pursuant to section 6-205(E) (h) of the cipal Code) The undersigned, being first dull,., sW';l)1' fOllO:~: 'f/lt1 p~i W;7 /'Vq y ,.- deposes and says as representing an Applicant before the Aspen Board of Adjustment, , being or 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 ~ C) day of Mev () l)fJ r) , 199~ to the ~L) day of for at least ten , 1995:::: Subscribed and sworn to before me this 30 day of '--Jtrzu..?r~ , 199 Q5", by Jt9 H IJ Pf=1.J/1JfT( 1-11+ LJ-- WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. My Commission eXPires:v~~o~91' t- '7L. ./ ~ ~.t, Notary Public's 1; //1 S ~~"d Address WuiV ;/-. f/0 ( I - 1 ~/{..-?' I " " , ROGER H.HUNT Box 3944 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612-3944 U.S.A. 29 November 1995 OFFICE AND FAX: 970.925.4414 HOME: 970-925.1725 Board of Adjustment City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Via: Ben Hall For submission at the Board of Adjustment meeting Subject: Variance of fence height at the designated historic residence at 500 W. Bleeker Dear Board Members: I am a neighbor (at 501 W. Hallam) to the north of the subject property. I am aware of the severe loss of privacy at the Hall house created by the redevelopment of the house immediately to the west. I support the Halls' request for variance of fence height up to 7 feet as reviewed by the Historic Preservation Committee in order to restore privacy. The location of the variance would have very little, if any, impact on any views from public ways. Hopefully the laws that the City has since passed to protect historic structures will reduce this type of impact and the need for such variances in the future. Sincerely, JOSHUA & Co. BIEEIfEII SfllEEf ESfl1fE , .. - ::;~~~~c- -.. .-.. . l:f.~E~?; ~ _.~:~, ~~~ ,'wWlt,Q'.0.",.,," ...:.:...:,:,.:.:.:.:.".:.:,:.:.:.:.:~{.:.,.:.:.:,:,:.:.:.'.:.:. :..,:::.,,:::::::::,,:::<~;::::::;::;:::~:;::::;.:;:;:.'.:" :':.,:.;.:.:':.:::.::.~.:::::':.:.: .-~.-.-~..,.,.,.-.::::::: ..,...._.....w...',_....... ~'1~ ~ at i& lituU fiom rIti4 !t~ 1ti6lo!t~ "jwinfuf lady" and /un ~ ~ k:aluI in IIw 11/idi?~ 0)()e4t 8m1 0/ A6fwn. 9'~ tIwy watcIt (Wet #~denro ~aM and ~ ~ ullmow fti1w and ~ tteeJi ~ a .wn<>e 0/ tinu!, tIud malr.e ~ jkeI at /wnw. fYltm ~ frAofwiI!! ~. diwdIy a~ W ":JtiIiyaul ~aik, " toItidt offCM t~ ~ Mj<<<<M leet 0/ kau<<#1y Ia#~ often ~ 9'udden/:p a ~ eM'ok m tlte O)()e.>t 8n4 fXU'l kamlc !1m/It !t~ VICfORI11N.............11,! $ 0,000 CIRRlle/EODS!...1 8!1,$00 1J$!//fG /lCEK!' BEK JIJIn '\ . HEAL ESTATE. JOSHUA & CO. OF ASPEN, 1\<:. :\00 SOl "1'11 HlI~T1':H' ASI'E"', COLllHADO 81<." l)':LEPIIO~E: :~O;I.9:l5.HB 10' F'ACSIt\llL1':: JO:\.lJ:!;-l....;\-tIJ ~....-,,~,~_.,-- '--"- ,,~"'------'- BlEEKER 8fREEf E8f/1fE CUlIJlGl HOWE, rll1JB r4ZJ3, lors all!. S 8l0CE ;$ WES! EHD Of lSl'!H JOOO sa Fl. EI/C8.... !O!I/l $000 sa Fl. lIG ;OOG sa Fl. $ 8EDlIOOM J 81/!H WI/C! JOO sa Fl., Cl/lIPOIl! J;O sa Fl. 7G0 sa Fl. J 8EDlIOOM 1 81/!H ClSE 011 rEIlMSIJCCEP!1/8lE !O SEllER . VlC!OIlII!Jl IJ,011 IU$J! CUIIIlGEEOWE 11,10$ 11$$J! lEC/!l, lor SIZE, ZONING, '11Cf01l1lM , MI!!IY EfIllDINC OPtIONS EI18'!, HEilE /JlIE /J mv fO PONDElI; It ",t1ItIrl.".lLDts 6 . $1 m., bll duplllXlld ptlndln, HlstDrlc I',."..",lItIon CommlttlllllHI'Cl .pplTI"lIl . Condltlonlll USII 611"'IIW, ..c. 7-801. "",,.,, Is II 26 It. hIIl,ht limit. It duplllx Is dllnlllllllls II minimum 0'20% 0'2 t/ommon Willis must bilslIIIl'fIII, ..e. 8- 1. 101. It .n Act/II"'''' I1wIIlllng Unit /ADU], Is posslblllln IIddltlon tD thII duplllx on II 6000 sq. It. lot. hllnell, 8 housln, units mil' bll built on lots 6. $. It tlDor .,.,,11 rlltlolFARl for. slnglll '.ml" dWIIlllng on . 6000 s". It. lot I. 8240 sq. It. .bo"lI ,r.dll. ItIFA61 for. duplllx on. 6000 sq. It. lot Is 8600 sq. It. ."""" ,rlld". Sub}llct tD lHI'Cl """'lIw IInd .pPITI"." 600 IIIIdltlon.' sq. It. m., bll ."lIlIlIblll. It m., optlrlltll .. . /IIId. .",.Id.sf with .pplTI".' frDm thll "'.nnlng.ntI Zoning Commission It CIIwI.." 1IollSll-lLDt 111 up tD 24011 .". It. IFARl1s .1I0Wlld, In IIIIdltllln tD . 61111.". It. ,.",,,,, .boflll ,r.dll. "",,.,, Is · 26 It. _1tIhI11m1t. '. . , ;' .__' (I , r It m.,1IIII1II IlllIA/III1 :: ('( C'.D( l.( rJ I , ..' v\.. L,v.c. c. '. It_III-'H1t1t1J1 0' thII ,." hDlISII. m., bll posslblll " plilt Is .....-- .",. .-- .."...,_ "...,11/I",.. .'" "'b~'" III H''''''''" I'",..,..,.II"n C""",,""" """,."nI All In""",."" tllHIIIIN ,.".bI. bUt 11III,,,.,..""'" .j. , , From: TL Hillman To: File Subject: Hal1-Hillman Fence Variance 1. Ben Hal1, who inherited the properties on W Bleeker St (lots Q,R,and S) sold us lot Q (3Oxloo ft) in September 1994 for $691,000 (his asking price). Lot Q had a 768 sq ft, 2 bedroom, I bath ranch house ("carriage House") built on it, set well back from the street. There was no basement or second floor in the carriage house. Due to the smal1 size of the carriage house, there was an apparent side yard for lots Rand S (the front yard of lot Q) which the Hal1s could enjoy visually, but which no longer belonged to them after selling us 10tQ. 1113011995 2. We bul1dozed the carriage house and built a 2 story Victorian with a ful1 basement on the site, built exactly to the architect's plans. All constnJction was halted for 2 days when the Hal1s objected to the height. Our house, because it has a ful1 second floor, appears much larger than the carriage house. Our building was measured and found to be built precisely according to plans which had been approved by the city. The comers were surveyed in place by Aspen Survey Engineers exactly 5 feet from the lot side lines. This was necessary to maximize the living space. Our house is 15 feet back from the city right of way, and extends to 10 feet from the rear property line. Lot survey markers are in place and have not been disturbed during construction or by us. 3. Ben and KC Hall expressed dismay during construction that our living room window gave onto their first floor lavatory window and they felt a loss of privacy. Our project supervisor, John Galambos, discussed the situation with them and kept us appraised of developments. We agreed to pay for one of two Io-ft evt:lj;.<blS that they would choose and plant, estimated cost $250 each. Current trees planted are about 6 feet high. 4. We arrived in Aspen, seeing the actual building for the first time, on October 15,1995. We met KC almost at once, who told us they were going to put in a fence. They need no variance to instal1 a 6 ft high fence. However, because they are bothered by loss of privacy (they do not want to experience eye-to-eye contact from their dining room to our kitchen window, a distance of approximately 174 inches); as wel1 as the lights from our living room (a greater distance, since their dining room is built into a bay window, while our house wal1 is flat from front to back) (we have since been able to instal1 blinds in our windows and a cut- glass design piece in our kitchen window - and interior curtains will be added to the living room windows in the near future), they want to install a fence 7 ft high vice 6 ft high. 5. Even a 6 foot fence will darken the window wells for our basement rooms, as well as reduce the visual horizon from our eastern first floor windows to 5 feet plus a few inches. A 6 foot fence will be blatantly obvious from our kitchen and living room windows, but it will prevent eye-to-eye contact when at least one party in either house is seated. The only gain to the Hal1s in having a 7 ft high fence is that then there will be eye-to-eye contact only if one party or the other is standing on a chair. Since the Halls are renting out lots R and S, they will not be personal1y involved in eye-to-eye contact unless they are visiting the property. 6. Aspen (lot Q/504 W Bleeker St) is now our permanent residence, while the Halls rent out lots Rand S. We would prefer no fence at all, and object strenuously to a 7 ft fence. However, we still offer $250.00 towards the expense of the two trees that the Halls have already planted. These trees alone, given a few years, will provide all the privacy anyone could want. .- '" MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer DATE: November 30, 1995 RE: 500 W. Bleeker -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- This property is a historic landmark, therefore HPC has reviewed the applicant's request for a privacy fence. HPC approved the fence with several conditions, which are: 1. The south end of the new fence can not be any closer to the street than the front wall of the house. 2. The recommendation to the Board of Adjustment is to please allow the privacy fence to be installed as outlined by HPC for the following reasons: The historic house years ago was raised, therefore the need for the extra foot on the fence is that it is higher than the newer house next door and that there is a true privacy problem from window to window. We find by allowing this it is not taking away any view plane by the neighbor or disrupting any solar gain. 3. A blue spruce tree is to be planted a the junction between the existing wrought iron fence and the new wooden fence on the south end and that the tree is to be at least six feet in height. 4. The maximum height of the fence is to be seven feet where necessary (at windows) and the remaining fence to be six feet or less (where there are no windows facing each other). ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25. 1995 language of a residential structure and that is approximately 50 words. Amy: As far as publications I have them all in my office. The city subscribes to numerous magazines. Roger: I find the blend of mass and scale at Seaside is extremely interesting but what is more fascinating is that when the hurricane came through two communities were leveled because of total disregard of any real type construction that would resist natural disasters. 500 WEST BLEEKER Donnelley: We site visited this today. Amy: Casey Clark is representing a 7 foot high wood fence and then it will drop in areas down to 6 feet and then pick up again. We would need a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment to allow them to go to seven feet. The historic house has been raised to have a higher floor level and the exact opposite is happening to the building next door. Roger: One of the issues we deal with is not to look at a long wall when we walk up. The new house to the left was not reviewed. The fence does not have to be continuous and could be split so you are not creating a solid barrier between the two. j Donnelley: Side yard fences are very typical in the west end and they do not stagger back and forth. I would rather see a fence that has some use as they might have an animal to keep in there. All fences in the west end are continuous. Amy: And that is what she tried to do by stepping it down. Les: What about coming down at an angle. Donnelley; You could do an average of six feet but no greater than seven feet so that the fence would have to average out to six feet. Martha: We do not have seven foot fences. Amy: That is why they have to go to Board of Adjustment. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the privacy fence at 500 W. Bleeker on the west side between the existing historic property and the new structure to the west with the following conditions: I) The south end of the fence will be no further to the street 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25. 1995 than the wall of the front porch of the existing victorian. 2) That the north end of the fence will be no longer than the rear corner board of the new house to the west and that no portion of the fence can exceed seven feet and that the average height will be six feet. Roger: The reason is so that the fence will step down in the center where there is no need for the full seven foot height. 3) The recommendation to the Board of Adjustment is to please allow the privacy fence to be installed as outlined by HPC for the following reasons: The historic house years ago was raised therefore the need for the extra foot on the fence is that it is higher than the newer house next door and that there is a true privacy problem from window to window. We find by allowing this it is not taking away any view plane by the neighbor or disrupting any solar loss or gain. Motion second by Susan. DISCUSSION Susan: What about the spruce tree that was to be added. AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended his motion to add: 4) That a new blue spruce tree be planted at the junction between the existing wrought iron fence and the new wooden fence on the south end and that the tree to be at least six feet in height. Second by Susan. DISCUSSION Donnelley: I believe we should not define the limit of the fence to the north because that has a lot to do with the ultimate plan and development of the back rear of the alley. AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended his motion that the north end of the fence can be extended further toward the alley at the discretion of the applicant. This amends #2. Second by Susan. Amy: They are dropping it to six feet at some points and I feel we might be making this too complicated. Donnelley: It may help with the Board of Adjustment that the average height of the fence is six feet and parts are seven. Martha: I feel this is too complicated for the applicant. It 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25. 1995 needs worded so that it is simplistic. Amy: The applicant originally wanted to ask for an eight foot fence the whole way across. We can suggest adding inflection. Donnelley: How about stating maximum height of seven feet where necessary and the rest six feet or less. AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended his motion stating that the maximum height of the fence seven feet where necessary and the remaining fence to be six feet or lessi second by Susan. All in favor of motion and amended motions. 706 W. MAIN - FINAL APPROVAL Amy: There was one extension given to conceptual recently and at that hearing the committee members made comments for restudy and what it mostly focused on was the flat roof section of the new addition and a change has been made and there is now a gabled roof in that area. Jake brought up the point that he would like to see more character at the alley. I am recommending approval as submitted. We will need more indications of material but that could be worked out with staff and monitor. DonnelleYi It is nice to have the 1/4 scale drawings. Joe Krabacher, owner: I myself liked the flat roof. David Panico: The intent of the original was to have the building understated. We dressed up the rear and created a pitched roof that runs the length of the flat roof area. There was an issue at the last meeting about the location of the windows on the upper floor and that is a function of the interior floor plan. There were some statements that indicated that you wanted some more play in that and I have always thought that especially on the rear in the back of this building the more understated the better you are. The materials will be an asphalt roof in keeping what is presently on the cottage and the dimension of the clapboard size on the lower level banding will be in keeping as to what is happening on the cottage. Roger: Why would you keep the same size siding on the new as on the historic building. David Panico: To carry portions of the element through and tieing the two together. Roger: What is the fence going to be ~ade out of? David: Metal. 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer DATE: November 30, 1995 RE: 500 W. Bleeker -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- This property is a historic landmark, therefore HPC has reviewed the applicant's request for a privacy fence. HPC approved the fence with several conditions, which are: 1 . The south end of the new fence can not be any closer to the street than the front wall of the house. 2. The recommendation to the Board of Adjustment is to please allow the privacy fence to be installed as outlined by HPC for the following reasons: The historic house years ago was raised, therefore the need for the extra foot on the fence is that it is higherthan the newer house next door and that there is a true privacy problem from window to window. We find by allowing this it is not taking away any view plane by the neighbor or disrupting any solar gain. 3. A blue spruce tree is to be planted a the junction between the existing wrought iron fence and the new wooden fence on the south end and that the tree is to be at least six feet in height. 4. The maximum height of the fence is to be seven feet where necessary (at windows) and the remaining fence to be six feet or less (where there are no windows facing each other). ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25. 1995 language of a residential structure and that is approximately 50 words. Amy: As far as publications I have them all in my office. The city subscribes to numerous magazines. Roger: I find the blend of mass and scale at Seaside is extremely interesting but what is more fascinating is that when the hurricane came through two communities were leveled because of total disregard of any real type construction that would resist natural disasters. 500 WEST BLEEKER Donnelley: We site visited this today. Amy: Casey Clark is representing a 7 foot high wood fence and then it will drop in areas down to 6 feet and then pick up again. We would need a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment to allow them to go to seven feet. The historic house has been raised to have a higher floor level and the exact opposite is happening to the building next door. Roger: One of the issues we deal with is not to look at a long wall when we walk up. The new house to the left was not reviewed. The fence does not have to be continuous and could be split so you are not creating a solid barrier between the two. Donnelley: Side yard fences are very typical in the west end and they do not stagger back and forth. I would rather see a fence that has some use as they might have an animal to keep in there. All fences in the west end are continuous. Amy: And that is what she tried to do by stepping it down. Les: What about coming down at an angle. Donnelley; You could do an average of six feet but no greater than seven feet so that the fence would have to average out to six feet. Martha: We do not have seven foot fences. Amy: That is why they have to go to Board of Adjustment. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the privacy fence at 500 W. Bleeker on the west side between the existing hist0ric property and the new structure to the west with the followi~g conditions: I) The south end of the fence will be no further to the street 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25. 1995 than the wall of the front porch of the existing victorian. 2) That the north end of the fence will be no longer than the rear corner board of the new house to the west and that no portion of the fence can exceed seven feet and that the average height will be six feet. Roger: The reason is so that the fence will step down in the center where there is no need for the full seven foot height. 3) The recommendation to the Board of Adjustment is to please allow the privacy fence to be installed as outlined by HPC for the following reasons: The historic house years ago was raised therefore the need for the extra foot on the fence is that it is higher than the newer house next door and that there is a true privacy problem from window to window. We find by allowing this it is not taking away any view plane by the neighbor or disrupting any solar loss or gain. Motion second by Susan. DISCUSSION Susan: What about the spruce tree that was to be added. AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended his motion to add: 4) That a new blue spruce tree be planted at the junction between the existing wrought iron fence and the new wooden fence on the south end and that the tree to be at least six feet in height. Second by Susan. DISCUSSION Donnelley: I believe we should not define the limit of the fence to the north because that has a lot to do with the ultimate plan and development of the back rear of the alley. AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended his motion that the north end of the fence can be extended further toward the alley at the discretion of the applicant. This amends #2. Second by Susan. Amy: They are dropping it to six feet at some points and I feel we might be making this too complicated. Donnelley: It may help with the Board of Adjustment that the average height of the fence is six feet and parts are seven. Martha: I feel this is too complicated for the applicant. It 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 25. 1995 needs worded so that it is simplistic. Amy: The applicant originally wanted to ask for an eight foot fence the whole way across. We can suggest adding inflection. Donnelley: How about stating maximum height of seven feet where necessary and the rest six feet or less. AMENDED MOTION: Roger amended his motion stating that the maximum height of the fence seven feet where necessary and the remaining fence to be six feet or lessi second by Susan. All in favor of motion and amended motions. 706 W. MAIN - FINAL APPROVAL Amy: There was one extension given to conceptual recently and at that hearing the committee members made comments for restudy and what it mostly focused on was the flat roof section of the new addition and a change has been made and there is now a gabled roof in that area. Jake brought up the point that he would like to see more character at the alley. I am recommending approval as submitted. We will need more indications of material but that could be worked out with Staff and monitor. DonnelleYi It is nice to have the 1/4 scale drawings. Joe Krabacher, owner: I myself liked the flat roof. David Panico: The intent of the original was to have the building understated. We dressed up the rear and created a pitched roof that runs the length of the flat roof area. There was an issue at the last meeting about the location of the windows on the upper floor and that is a function of the interior floor plan. There were some statements that indicated that you wanted some more play in that and I have always thought that especially on the rear in the back of this building the more understated the better you are. The materials will be an asphalt roof in keeping what is presently on the cottage and the dimension of the clapboard size on the lower level banding will be in keeping as to what is happening on the cottage. Roger: Why would you keep the same size siding on the new as on the historic building. David Panico: To carry portions of the element through and tieing the two together. Roger: What is the fence going to be made out of? David: Metal. 5 ~ MEMORANDUM ~. ~~ CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS 520 E. HYMAN, SUITE 301, ASPEN, CO 81611 970/925-5590 970/925-5076 FAX ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS TO: FROM: DATE: PROJECT: JOB NO.: REGARDING: Charles Paterson, Jim Iglehart, Howard DeLuca, David Schott Charles Cunniffe December 13, 1995 Hillman Residence 9414 November 30, 1995 Board of Adjustment Meeting concerning a fence between the Hillman's property and the Hall's property. Gentlemen, I want to take this opportunity to express my displeasure with how the meeting on November 30 treated my clients, the Hillman's. I was not present at this meeting and I am relying on your meeting minutes and comments by those present, so forgive me if you perceive this memo as being in error. Had I been present I would have never allowed the meeting to digress the way it did. The Hillman's came to the meeting thinking it would be a simple issue about a fence and that the meeting would be executed in a professional manner. Instead they were blind sided by accusations and side issues not related to the fence. They were actually accused of creating a hardship to the neighbors and of being the wrong kind of people to move to Aspen. I want to state as clear as possible that the Hillman's have done nothing wrong. They simply bought a lot and built a house in a community that they wished to settle in. They followed all the complicated rules and ordinances of this town and they got slapped in the face for it. There are two tangential issues that were raised by the Hall's I want to take this opportunity to address at this time: hardship and design. I also want to address the negative tone the meeting took towards the Hillman's. The first issue I wish to address is the whole issue of the hardship. Was "hardship" created by the Hillmans or CCA? In most cases the City's interpretation of hardship deals with monetary loss. For example, those fighting the Rural and Remote land use code are fighting because they feel that they have lost potential earnings from the sale of their property. In their eyes the County created a hardship for landowners. In this case there is no hardship due to monetary loss. In fact, the Halls benefited financially by the sale of the Hillman's lot. Mr. Hall was the listing agent on a sale well over a half a million dollars. (His mother is the one that subdivided a 9,000 SF lot into the Hillman's lot and the Hall's corner lot) That is not hardship, that is profitl The Hall's are acting as if they own the property where they have say in design issues and window placement. They don't! The Hillman's can build what they want on their property as long as it meets the City codes. Which it does. The Hillman's were made out to be villains for doing just what anybody else would do on their property. According to the meeting minutes, Howard DeLuca said he saw hardship "because the City allowed people to build large houses close to the lot lines". If this were the case all properties in Aspen would show hardship. The West End is a neighborhood, it is not out in the countryside with wide open spaces. Part of the charm of this neighborhood is the rhythm of houses along the block, street oriented facades, things identified in Ordinance 30. We designed a house that fits into the character of this neighborhood. Most people do not feel its a hardship living in the West End, it is an asset. It also is not a "hardship" owning a historic home in Aspen, as the Halls alluded to during the meeting. In the meeting minutes the Hall's stated that the Hillman's house created a hardship for them due to the iack of privacy. The Hall's house has been unoccupied since the Hillman's have lived in their home. If they do not live there how can their privacy be violated? Throughout the meeting I was criticized for not consulting the Halls about the design of the Hillman's house. Who is paying me, the Halls or the Hillmans? I designed the house on a very restrictive site to a program the Hillman's wished for. I feel that the design is very successful in this regard. Should I have told the Hillman's CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS' 520 EAST HYMAN' SUITE 301 . ASPEN. COlORADO 81611 . 970/925.5590 FAX 970/925.5076 -- that they can't have windows in the Living room and Kitchen because of the neighbor? Maybe I should have omitted the Living Room completely so that the neighbor could have the same view they used to have before the property was subdivided. If you study the East elevation of the Hillman's house you will discover the rhythm of the windows and the logic it creates with the floor plan. The major rooms on the inside are oriented to the West to take advantage of Hillyard Park. Yes, in June they did approach my Job Captain for this project to discuss the privacy issue from their toilet area. This was after the house was framed, the windows installed, the exterior siding complete, and interior drywall installed. To change the window heights and sizes at that stage of construction would have been a several thousand dollar change. If the Hall's can't afford a $250 tree, how can they expect the Hillman's to make $6,000 change. At that time the Hillman's offered to purchase one tree on their property with the Halls purchasing another tree to block the view between the living room and the their bathroom. Nothing ever came form this offer. Like I said earlier, the Hillman's house fits in very nicely with the neighborhood. The design pays homage to Victorian Architecture but doesn't mimic it. It is not "huge". All the rules were followed. I am proud of this house However negative and manipulative these issues are, they do not bother me as much as the general negative tone the Halls had towards the Hillman's. Like I said before, the Hillman's came to the meeting expecting the meeting to be run in a professional manner. When name calling starts, it is up to the chairman to put a swift end to it. When issues tangent to the main issue are raised the chairman must keep the meeting in focus. The Hall's were allowed to dictate the meeting and got exactly what they came for. If I were running the meeting I would have asked these questions: Would a seven foot high fence detract from the historic character of the Halls house? Is a seven foot high fence the only answer to the problem of privacy? Are the blinds and beveled glass the Hillman's have installed an adequate solution? I may have even walked to the site and looked out the windows. Issues of hardship and design really have nothing to do with this case If the meeting had been run in this matter the final decision would have been more palatable for the Hillmans. Instead the meeting digressed to petty arguments, name calling and a tirade on monster homes, Aspen, and the type of people that Aspen should welcome. I want to tell you, Aspen should welcome the Hillmans. They are exactly the residents we need. They moved here to become full time residents, they have registered to vote, they want to become a part of this community. Unfortunately, from their perception, the community does not want them. They feel like they have been stepped on by the very town they wished to commit to. There have only been a few times where I have been embarrassed for Aspen, this is one of them. Sincerely, cc Charles Cunniffe Principal COPIES TO: Tat and Bobbie Hillman Bill Drueding, Amy Amidon