HomeMy WebLinkAboutlanduse case.boa.Douglas Allen.006-92
-.
,r'""
,",..I
~
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CASE #92-6
DOUGLAS P. ALLEN
BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
~
TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE. REQUESTED ZONING OR USE
VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW:
Pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen of June 25, 1962, as
amended, a pUblic hearing will be held in the Council Room, City
Hall, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such other place as the meeting may
be then adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said
Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24, Official Code of
Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited
to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you
cannot appear personally at such meeting, you are urged to state
your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such
variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious
consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and
others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request
for variance.
Particulars of the hearing and requested variance are as follows:
Date and Time of Meetinq:
Date:
Time:
DECEMBER 10, 1992
4:00 p.m.
Owner for Variance:
Appellant for Variance:
Name: DOUGLAS P. ALLEN
Address: BOX L, ASPEN
DOUGLAS P. ALLEN
Location or description of property: PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE
R-30 ZONING CATEGORY. FRONT YARD SETBACK IS 25 FEET (SECT.5-205
(D) (4)-ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 24 OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL
CODE. APPLICANT APPEARS TO BE REQUESTING A 25 FOOT FRONT YARD
SETBACK VARIANCE WHICH WOULD BE A ZERO LOT LINE.
Variance Requested:
will applicant be represented bv counsel:
Yes:
x
No:
The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment
130 South Galena Street, Aspen, COlorado 81611
Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Jan Carney Deputy City Clerk
-
4-<'U
'-
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
DECEMBER 10. 1992
Chairman Remo Lavagnino called meeting to order at 4:10pm.
Answering roll call were Bill Martin, Ron Erickson, Charlie
Paterson, Rick Head and Remo Lavagnino.
CASE #92-6
DOUGLAS P. ALLEN
Remo read into record request for variance.
(attached in record)
Douglas Allen: Presented affidavit of posting and mailing.
(attached in record)
I have built several houses here and have sold them. And I have
finally acquired a lot to build a house for myself. This is a
difficult site. It does have some serious site constraints. I
think you have the elevations that show the severe elevation toward
the bottom of this lot. There are 2 possible accesses to this lot.
One is from the end of Francis street which is a street which has
not been in use for years. There are trees that are probably 15,
20 or 30 inches in diameter on the street itself down there.
)
As I explored the possibility of coming in from down below with the
Engineering Dept they are not too wild about it because of the lack
of a turn-around at the dead end of the street and the fact that
it is only a 15 foot wide street. And it would require the removal
of mature trees down at the bottom of the lot.
I have talked to the 3 neighbors who are the 3 lots that adjoin
this propertY--2 to the east and one generally to the south. And
to the north is Gibson Avenue. I solicited their ideas about what
to do with this property and they are represented here today and
I believe in support of my application.
To come in from Gibson Avenue works but it only works if the house
can come up toward the top of the lot because it is a very steep
site. The 2 houses that exist to the east of me are virtually up
on the street. (showed pictures)
From an engineering point of view I can come in from Gibson, go
into a garage for parking if I have a, and I have modified my
request, 1 foot setback.
And of course you have Bill Drueding's comments regarding that the
Planning Office feels uncomfortable about this variance and he has
6 points. (attached in record) I have addressed these 6 points
in my letter. (attached in record)
)
!
The only alternative building envelope site is down at the bottom
-
BAM12.10.92
and come in through Francis street.
Rick: I don't remember granting a variance to those 2 other houses
along Gibson. ,
Remo: I can tell you about those. The reason they are on the lot
line is because they own to the middle of Gibson street. And they
relinquished that to the City. And in return for relinquishing the
land to the City they were allowed 0 lot line.
(to Allen) You are not giving anything to the City at this point.
Allen: No.
Remo: That is the reason why they are there. It is not because
they are utilizing a property right that wasn't theirs. It is that
they relinquished some land to the city in return--I think they
gave them something like 30 feet which would have been their
original setback.
Allen: That was not reflected in the file for the variance.
Remo: I remember because they came to us for that variance.
Rick: They have much the same constraints that Mr. Allen has.
Remo: As far the limitation of height, yes.
Rick: Height and slope. And they are actually much closer to
Gibson Ave than his proposed development.
Remo: They are closer because they own more property. They own
to the middle of Gibson street.
Rick: It seems like their impact on the street and the massing and
all of that seem to be more significant than this off 50 feet or
so from the road.
Remo: That is true only in terms of that they are coming through
a pedestrian path and the other houses are not.
Ron: This site plan where you are putting the house now which
requires a variance. You can build a house further down on the
lot, access it from Francis and not go for a variance. You can
have a house in Aspen and not have to move down valley. Why are
you going to the trouble of requesting a variance? What does the
granting of a variance give you?
\
)
Allen: It saves all the trees at the bottom. And the Engineering
Dept is not wild about coming through any more on that street
2
-
""
,
BAM12 .10.92
because the Hamilton's house which is the only other house on that
section of Francis street also fronts on another street which I
think is Spring.
,
Remo: He doesn't really front on it..' There is a house already
there actually behind that house.
Allen: I think they own both of those houses.
Remo: No. There is a garage that has a lock on it. But that is
behind the house. They may have some property that touches on
Spring street but it is not buildable. Their main access is on
Francis Street.
Allen: That street just peters out and hasn't been used because
there has not been a house on this particular lot since the 1880s.
Drueding: I know you have had conversations with Chuck Roth of the
City Engineering Dept. and we have too. And as late as a half hour
ago the road that he prefers access off of is Francis, not Gibson.
Allen: That represents a difference from what he told me before.
) Drueding: As more information becomes available things change.
Rick: This says "If the city denies access from Gibson--
Drueding: The City cannot deny--the City is not denying access.
Rick: I think what he is referring to is if we don't grant a
variance--
Ron: Last summer when we originally saw this we went out and took
a look at the site plan and everything like that. And there was
a shed and we didn't hear the case at that time because the County
owned some of this land between you and the land. I am having a
hard time finding where your lot line is and how that represents-
-there are 2 dimensions--I think you mentioned something like 56
feet.
Remo: 52.
Allen: Right. From the south edge of the pavement on Gibson to
my front lot line is 52 feet.
Ron: Which would be where you are asking for the variance.
)
Allen: 1 foot back from that, yes.
3
.-
r'
'''--~/
BAM12.10.92
Ron: So it would be 53 feet to your actual structure. And the
second thing is that how far down the lot does this start?
Because the thing is that there is a section that is fla,t through
the pedestrian walk-way and there is a fence there. That is still
not your land, is it? It goes further down the lot before you get
to the lot line.
Allen: That is correct.
Ron: How far is it from the edge of the bike path to where you
want your building and what is the difference in elevation between
the 2?
Allen: It is about 25 feet from the edge of the bike path and 8
to 10 feet below the bike path.
Remo: We couldn't tell that because there were no markers. Even
the shed was difficult to see.
Ron: This is an extremely difficult project to envision from a non
experienced architectural point of view because there are not
reference points on this lot.
)
I guess you have worked it out with
access for a driveway?
?
Are they giving you
Allen: Yes.
Ron: What kind of square footage are you taking from his yard?
Allen: The county and the Engineering Dept have the position that
you can cross the bike pate--
Ron: No, county land--the land between the bike path and the road
is county land. Right?
Allen: And between the bike path and my lot.
Ron: Right. So it is not--I am not concerned just about the bike
path. I am thinking about how much land you will be using that
belongs to the County--only in so far as how it relates to your
building and everything else. You are not taking a 40 foot strip
of land straight through.
Allen: Oh no.
Ron: Now all of this is county land too, right?
I Allen: Right.
4
.-
r'
" .~,
BAM12.10.92
Ron: So all of this area here is going to be County land. All of
this is county land and the bike path is this here.
Remo: Chuck is talking about driveways over public land. I am
wondering what is the problem with anyone as far as the city is
concerned with putting in this driveway.
Allen: Somebody raised the question of what the City Engineering
Dept would say about the driveway.
Remo: But it is on county property.
Allen: Right. But it has to meet the city's specifications because
it is in the city. When it was still in the county before this was
annexed, they didn't annex the road. It is just one of those
housekeeping things that didn't get done.
Gibson at that section is an abandoned RR
down where the bike path goes through it.
and somehow the county--
ROWand that RR ROW goes
And that was all RR ROW
)
Ron: What is the difference in elevation between the split rail
fence and ground level here at the bottom of your--
Rick: Bill figured it out at 8 feet to 10 feet of elevation. 25
feet from the fence to the property line.
Allen: 25 feet from the bike path to the property line.
Remo: Do they intend to abandon Francis street?
Drueding: No. The city is not abandoning it, no.
Remo: So what is the problem with the trees? They either are
going to have to take the trees down or they are going to have--
is there a problem with the city about these trees that are
apparently in the roadway?
Drueding: This is a road that apparently was never open to the
city. Those trees are there. The city is not inclined to want to
chop down trees. That doesn't mean we wouldn't if we had to.
Remo: This is the problem right now. We are confronted with that
problem right .now.
)
Drueding: It is an argument for not wanting to have access to
that. As I understand it the city Engineer would still prefer to
go that route rather than come in through the top and have all the
problems associated with the traffic--
5
.-
,..-...,
,
,-'
BAM12.10.92
Remo: He would? He would rather come in through Francis street?
Drueding: That. is correct.
Remo: The argument presented to us are these old Cottonwoods.
And unless you take them down the city--it still has the right to
use that as a street but the only access it would help would be the
people who have property along that street on both sides. And Doug
is one of them. If you are not going to give him--if you don't
want to chop the trees down it seems to me you might as well
abandon the roadway because you are not going to service anybody
except the people who own property along that route.
?: It already serves the 3 lots.
sunny Vann: Yolk has 2 lots, one of which has been sold in front
of the Hamiltons--south of the Hamiltons. At the time we did the
Volk lot split, the ROW--I did not feel that the City would be
willing to open it up as a street because of the mature vegetation
that was there. The Hamilton house was not there. So we put an
easement across the back of Lot 1 to get to Lot 2. That way we
would not have to use Bay Street to come to those 2 lots.
After we recorded the plat I guess Ruthie went to the city and said
"This is a platted Rowand I come in the first portion as a
driveway to my home. I don't want you to put curb and gutter
_mumble_ The city said "Plat it as a driveway and, yes, you may
do so". So the driveway now comes in at the point where it
encounters the first of a very large cottonwood which is smack in
the middle of the road and turns into her garage/caretaker unit.
She then walks up to her house. There is not a driveway turnaround
in front of her house. Once that became apparent it didn't seem
to make sense to also put another driveway adjacent to hers
paralleling hers. So we went back to the city and asked permission
to also use that ROW up to a point of that first tree.
So where Lot 1 is it comes up and that turns directly into the back
of the house. The ROW goes up behind Lot 2 then turns to the north
and abuts the rear of ? We did not want to use that ROW to
get to the back of Lot:2 because it requires that we open up the
road and remove the vegetation which would have an adverse effect
on Ruthie' slot. So we co-operated with the neighborhood and
granted partial easement across Lot 1 so the road comes in up to
the tree and then turns onto our property to provide access to lot
2 which leaves all that mature stand of vegetation including the
ROW intact.
Remo: So it just butts Lot 2. It doesn't go beyond that.
)
6
-
-
,/
BAM12.10.92
MPT
Rick: So Sunny you have done, on the behalf of the Yolks, no
further use of Francis Street under this present scenario.
Vann: Right. presently it serves Lot 1 of the Yolk lot split and
up to where the existing tree is and then turns onto Lot 1 to get
to Lot 2.
Rick: So there would be no further property owner other than Doug
to--and that would require removing a number of mature trees to
access.
Remo: Is there any way to wind the road through those trees to his
lot?
Vann: Not and stay within the ROW.
Remo: within 2 ROWs. You have Francis Street and the Row in order
to do this. You have a pretty wide area to--and I don't know what
the configuration of the trees are there. And I am thinking that
maybe a minimal amount of trees would have to be taken out.
)
Vann: Not without encroaching on the adjacent property owners.
Remo: You mean even with Francis street and the ROW you would
still infringe on somebody else?
Vann: Yes.
(and explained this)
Rick: So the enigma as you see it now is whether we cut down trees
to give access or we will have a problem with the driveway coming
off from Gibson Avenue.
MPT
Rick: What is precisely the objection of the Engineers are taking
to pulling off of Gibson and driving into this driveway?
Bud Eyler, county Engineer: Let me make one thing clear up front.
While there may be a right of access to the County property, we
would not grant an encroachment from that driveway access coming
across county property at this time.
\
)
You can't just go straight up the hill. It is too steep for the
amount of distance you have. As a consequence you are going to
have to go up there and switch back. What that does that basically
takes most of the county property and takes out of the bike path.
And I am not sure you can re-establish it in any sort of workable
manner.
7
o
-
BAM12.10.92
My opinion and my response would be if the county were asked to
grant this I would recommend "No" unless Francis street is vacated.
There is an access that the public ROW access his lot.
Rick: Does the county have any future plans for this land?
Eyler: Probably not. It is a bike trail. It is open space.
Rick: Would your position change if the driveway were narrowed by
10 feet? That is if a 2-driveway--2 lane driveway turn into a one-
lane driveway?
Eyler: To some degree the width of the driveway is an effect.
Realistically the grade you get from where you are parking you
propose to get to the street--
Rick: For instance if he is coming up on a snowy day and he is
coming out, is there a potential hazard created from coming up a
steep hill and trying to access?
Eyler: If this were in the county I tell you what--we would
require first off generally speaking we would require he come in
at a 90% angle as opposed to--generally we would require something
basically flat for the first 20 feet so you can stop at that
location. If you are flat there then that is a lot of grade in a
relatively short distance. And you should come out at a relatively
right angle. And this intersection--that thing is squirrely at the
best of times and throwing one more access into it in my opinion
is not the thing you want to do.
Then the problem I have is the 0 setback on the lot line. Not only
are you trying to put the driveway here but you are talking about
using a substantial portion of County property as a turn-around and
parking. So I can tell you what my opinion is--my recommendation
is "No".
Rick: If we grant him a variance what weight would that carry with
the County? You guys could deny him this access and then our
variance is mute.
)
Eyler: If we deny him then, yes, that is correct.
Rick: What if he went before you first?
Eyler: Administratively what he should do is come to the County
Administration and ask for some sort of access across here and I
think we know what that answer is going to be.
Remo asked if there were any public comments. There were none
)
)
8
r'
"-/
-
BAM12.10.92
Remo: Let me ask you this, Rick. If the county grants this
request for a driveway here, will that influence your position?
Rick: Absolutely. I am leaning toward this Gibson Avenue access
because of the demolition of mature trees. If, in fact, they will
not grant him this then that decision does not need to be made.
Remo: In the meantime if we grant him access at Francis, that
makes this back property with a 10 foot setback. That gives him
15 extra feet of--
Rick: Then he would have to go up a hill like this.
requesting a variance to come off of Gibson Avenue.
He is
Bill: I agree with Rick. I would rather have the county decide
whether or not they are going to grant the ROW.
There was general agreement with this.
Remo then asked for comment from the public.
)
Vann: I represent Yolk who owns Lot 2. Our support is based on
the assumption that he will access from Gibson street.
Rick: He may not need a variance at that point.
? : It is a very hairy intersection. But
strongly about the Cottonwoods at the bottom.
there is very, very many.
I feel very, very
They are huge. And
There was no further public comment.
MOTION
Rick: I move to table Case #92-6 to April 8, 1993 which gives Doug
exactly 4 months to get his ducks in a row.
Allen: That is acceptable. Thank you.
Ron seconded the motion with all in favor.
CASE #92-15
COLORADO HIGH COUNTRY CELLULAR LTD.
DBA CELLULAR ONE
Remo read request for variance.
(attached in record)
)
Alan woydziak, representative for applicant:
with me who is the project manager on this.
I have Mat Kennan
9
o
"""
.A
~
Douglas P. Allen
530 East MaiD Street, Aspen. Co. 81611
May 19, 1992
City of Aspen
Board of Adjustment
clo City Clerk
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
.
Dear Members:
This letter is a request for a zero lot line variance for the front yard of a
single family non-conforming lot adjacent to Oklahoma Flats on Gibson Avenue
as shown on the attached survey.
A variance is needed for the following reasons:
I. The attached site plan illustrates the site is generally triangular in shape
due to the adjacent road once being a railroad right-of-way. With a standard 25-
foot front yard setback, it will leave only a small, irregular area in which
attempted development would be extremely difficult and result in a home not
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
2. As the site plan also shows, if the building envelope is back from the
front yard property line, it is a very steep, unbuildable slope which will leave
damaging, visible scaring. Attempted development on this slope would be
extremely difficult and destructive if not practically impossible. Allowing a zero
lot line would minimize scaring and destruction on the hillside and integrate the
home on the lot in a sensitive manner.
3. The front property line is 52 feet from the edge of the Gibson
A venue pavement. A zero lot line setback will thus result in the home still being
located 52 feet from Gibson Avenue.
4. The neighboring propenies on Gibson, The Hill House, 707 Gibson,
and Lot 2, Hill House Condominiums, are all built within the 25-foot setback.
"""
~
,
..
~
The applicant therefore is merely asking for the same relief that the neighboring
properties already have been granted. If not granted, special conditions would
apply to the applicant's property that do not apply to other similar property in the
vicinity and zone.
5. Granting of this variance will not affect the Aspen Area Comprehen-
sive Plan.
6. The conditions and circumstances listed do not result from the actions
of the applicant.
..
This property meets all the requirements of Section 10-104 of the Code
which are the standards upon which you are to make your findings and base your
decisions. These requirements, of course, require a finding that three circum-
stances exist. They are as follows:
A. The granting of this variance is generally consistent with the
purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Comprehen-
sive Plan. Comment: This is presently a residential area and the request
is for a single family residence.
B. The grant of the variance is the minimum variance that will
make possible the reasonable use of the parcel. Comment: See
Paragraphs I through 4 above. The topography is as steep as the
neighboring lots and homes on Gibson for which similar variances already
have been granted.
C. The failure to grant this variance would 'deprive the owner of
rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and
would cause the owner unnecessary hardship Q!: practical difficulty. In
this case, it would: 1. There are special conditions which are unique to
this parcel which are not applicable to other parcels in this zone (other
than the neighbors who have previously been granted a similar variance),
and these conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant; Ql 2.
Granting this variance wi\1 not confer upon this lot any special privilege
denied to other parcels or buildings in the same zone. Comment: This
lot does not merely meet one of these criteria but meets the requirements
of both 1 and 2.
DPA/pjh
Enclosure
LTlI02.l
/
/
/
/
I
/~
/ ()1_
/ 3i
:c
3-
-=;
-
Q~
;=ffi
~
-
~E
-D
~
~~
rO~
~ 'J( ,
~
'0$
B t ~~.; : v~
- -Fli I :
I
o
::0:::
J+
[
.
N ,
/-".,~
-.
v
o
~
B
g
tj
~t\' ~
~Pl -
t
I ~~
(J\
~ -w
I
r"
0 -
l:.
r- ID
.-
,-.......
~,
CL
l'J
~
Ul
~ i~
. ~ ~ ~
----~ ~-
f\l (f\ l
",t iii~
-
-
I.:)
U\
-
I
t
\\
~~
U1 f .
~~ ~
~~ &
~ tf\ ~
~
..-
---
LAW OFFICES OF
JJlX())1lJ(G~ lFo ATULT1l.N
Alpine Professional Building
600 East Hopkins, Suite 302
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Douglas P. Allen
Patricia K. Massender
(303) 925-8800
FAX (303) 925-9398
March 26, 1993
City of Aspen
Board of Adjustment
clo City Clerk
Attention: Ian Carney
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Faxed and Mailed
Re: Allen Case No. 92-6
Our File 91-2l9(a)
To Whom It May Concern
I would like to request that the above hearing presently scheduled for April 8, 1993, be
continued for one more month. The reason for this request is that at the time of the last hearing
on December 10, 1992, the Board of Adjustment desired to have the trees at the bottom of the
lot be shown on the plat at the next meeting. The field work for this was just done last week
and thus there has not been an opportunity to fully explore the possibility of access and
development of the lot without the necessity for a variance.
It is my understanding that Bill Drueding, on behalf of the City of Aspen, was not in
favor of the variance required to enter the lot from above and the City Engineer's office was not
certain they were in favor of it either. I am thus still in the process of exploring with the City
Engineer's office the access from below which will require the removal of some trees from the
right-of-way. Due to the severe winter conditions this past winter, none of these trees have yet
ieafed out. I think it would be beneficial for all parties concerned to determine if any of the
trees that exist presently in the City right-of-way are dead or unhealthy, This will also give me
time to present the owners of the neighboring properties the situation and get their input.
The attorney for two of the neighbors, Marty Pickett, will not be available for the
meeting presently scheduled for April 8, 1992.
DPA/pjh
cc: Marty Pickett
Sunny Vann
LTR2\1l7
'-'.
/'".....
LAW OFFICES OF
1flX{))TIJI[j}~ ll', ATUUEN
Alpine Professional Building
600 East Hopkins, Suite 302
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Douglas P. Allen
Patricia K. Massender
(303) 925-8800
FAX (303) 925-9398
November 18, 1992
Ian Carney, Secretary
Board of Adjustment
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Application for Setback Variance--Doug Allen
Allen Case 92-6
Our File 91-219(a)
Dear Jan:
I am agreeable to continuing the above variance request to December 10, 1992, due to
the fact that a quorum is not able to be present on November 19, 1992.
DPAlpjh
cc: Marty Pickett (faxed 925-2442)
Jim Wilson (faxed 927-4069)
Sunny Vann (faxed 920-9310)
LTRI055
,.,
,-""""-.
"- ,/
CITY OF ASPEN
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
DATE
May 21
Douglas P. Allen
19..21...
CASE 11 9;2..-0
APPLICANT
MAILING ADDRESS Post Office Box L, Aspen, Colorado 81612
PHONE 925-8800
OWNER
Douglas P. Allen
PHONE 925-8800
MAILING ADDRESS Same
LOCATION OF PROPERTY Gibson Avenue, metes and bounds
(street, Block Number and Lot Number)-
115 Gis ,'JJ 4"', . .
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.
See attached.
_______________~::~~::::~:-::~:::::~~~~s::f"~
REASONS FOR DENIAL OF BUIWING pERMIT, BASED ON THE ASPEN CITY
CODE, CHAPrER 24. AN OPINION CONCERNING THIS VARIANCE WILL BE
0. '^,,'t. . PRESENTED TO THE BOARD BY THE ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF.,..., .'
rJWiFV-jJG 6G\t~~~ V> Mca::4L~ --\k lL- '>0 ')~ C~/d"J . l/2-~
"CM:! ~b~ Co AS~CGd S--2.otrLD)C.tt)_~~~LUz
~ -c4f-~t{ a;,+.--~~. ~~~(j-o ~
~~ ~ ?-S-,,\- ~'1""""- ~ b""*- ~ - ~~.
h-e. ~ ~~~-,-/ I. ,i'. (
DATE PERMIT DENIED !iJ).../ ( q?- OFFICIAL t~
DATE OF APPLICATION.~ HEARING DATE
e1
~
.-
t
~~
-$
i. t\'
~m
I
-
(J\
~
o
r-
.(
... \~
~ - ~
- + Q
. m
R ~
. 5 t!\ E
- - - - -ti ~-
fl\ ~
t ~t
l')
- -
. - ..-
~
\J\
-
I
t
t)
~~
m r- .
~~ ~
~1 &
~ \J\ ~
f'l
,
.
,.
l
\)
Q'"
;=ffi
t!
~
~
8
~~
~(\
.t>- ~ I
- ~
QlU
- -"F~ .
,
o
:EO
H-
--
/
/
/
/
/
/~
/ (}1_
:!i
/ i
~ ~
/ i~
E:(}
I . ~
/
J
v........,
,. c
1
I. CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
II. CASE #92-6
DOUGLAS P. ALLEN
III. CASE #92-15
CELLULAR ONE
IV. ADJOURN
CITY OF ASPEN
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
DECEMBER 10. 1992
4:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGE N D A
-
--
?
,/
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CASE #92-6
DOUGLAS P. ALLEN
BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE
VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW:
Pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen of June 25, 1962, as
amended, a public hearing will be held in the Council Room, City
Hall, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such other place as the meeting may
be then adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said
Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the
provisions of the zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24, Official Code of
Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited
to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you
cannot appear personally at such meeting, you are urged to state
your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such
variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious
consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and
others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request
for variance.
Particulars of the hearing and requested variance are as follows:
Date and Time of Meetinq:
Date:
Time:
June 25, 1992
4:00 p.m.
Owner for variance:
APpellant for Variance:
Name: Douglas P. Allen
Address: Box L, Aspen
Douglas P. Allen
Location or description of property:
715 Gibson Avenue--vacant lot.
variance Reauested: property of applicant is located in the R-30
zoning category. Front yard setback is 25 feet (Sect.5-205(D) (4)-
Aspen Land Use Regulations, Chapter 24 of Aspen Municipal Code.
Applicant appears to be requesting a 25 foot front yard setback
variance which would be a zero lot line.
will applicant be represented bv counsel:
Yes:
No: X
The city of Aspen Board of Adjustment
130 South Galena street, Aspen, Colorado 81611
Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Jan Carney Deputy city Clerk
Douglas P. Allen
530 East Maln Street, Aspen. Co. 81611
May 19, 1992
City of Aspen
Board of Adjustment
clo City Clerk
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Members:
This letter is a request for a zero lot line variance for the front yard of a
single family non-conforming lot adjacent to Oklahoma Flats on Gibson Avenue
as shown on the attached survey.
A variance is needed for the following reasons:
1. The attached site plan illustrates the site is generally triangular in shape
due to the adjacent road once being a railroad right-of-way. With a standard 25-
foot front yard setback, it will leave only a small, irregular area in which
attempted development would be extremely difficult and result in a home not
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
2. As the site plan also shows, if the building envelope is back from the
front yard property line, it is a very steep, unbuildable slope which will leave
damaging, visible scaring. Attempted development on this slope would be
extremely difficult and destructive if not practically impossible. Allowing a zero
lot line would minimize scaring and destruction on the hillside and integrate the
home on the lot in a sensitive manner.
3. The front property line is 52 feet from the edge of the Gibson
Avenue pavement. A zero lot line setback will thus result in the home still being
located 52 feet from Gibson Avenue.
4. The neighboring properties on Gibson, The Hill House, 707 Gibson,
and Lot 2, Hill House Condominiums, are all built within the 25-foot setback.
'">'''
...
The applicant therefore is merely asking for the same relief that the neighboring
properties already have been granted. If not granted, special conditions would
apply to the applicant's property that do not apply to other similar property in the
vicinity and zone.
5. Granting of this variance will not affect the Aspen Area Comprehen-
sive Plan.
6. The conditions and circumstances listed do not result from the actions
of the applicant.
This property meets all the requirements of Section 10-104 of the Code
which are the standards upon which you are to make your fIndings and base your
decisions. These requirements, of course, require a fInding that three circum-
stances exist. They are as follows:
A. The granting of this variance is generally consistent with the
purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Comprehen-
sive Plan. Comment: This is presently a residential area and the request
is for a single family residence.
B. The grant of the variance is the minimum variance that will
make possible the reasonable use of the parcel. Comment: See
Paragraphs 1 through 4 above. The topography is as steep as the
neighboring lots and homes on Gibson for which similar variances already
have been granted.
C. The failure to grant this variance would deprive the owner of
rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same wne district and
would cause the owner unnecessary hardship m: practical diffIculty. In
this case, it would: 1. There are special conditions which are unique to
this parcel which are not applicable to other parcels in this wne (other
than the neighbors who have previously been granted a similar variance),
and these conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant; m: 2.
Granting this variance will not confer upon this lot any special privilege
denied to other parcels or buildings in the same wne. Comment: This
lot does not merely meet one of these criteria but meets the requirements
of both 1 and 2.
DPA/pjh
Enclosure
LTRI025
"-_.<."'~~....",. ....., ..,._.-. --~'-""'~~--''''''''''''----'"_'-.
30
September 23, 1991
Douglas P. Allen, Esq.
530 East Main street, First Floor
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Oklahoma Flats Parcel
Dear Doug:
Pursuant to your letter dated September 6, 1991, and as a follow-
up to our meeting of September 20, 1991, this is to advise you
that yoUr inquiry as to the status of the parcel of land located
in the Gibson Avenue - Spring Street area has been reviewed by
the Planning Director and this office. Based upon our conversa-
tions,examinations of various surveys and documents, and review
of the applicable provisions of Municipal Code, I can notify you
that the city agrees with your assertion that the "Isolated
Parcel" as identified on the Property Investigation Survey Plat
dated September 9, 1991, and certified by Aspen Survey Engineers,
constitutes a nonconforming lot of record as described in Section
24-9-106 (A) of the Code for purposes of development.
I want to thank you for your willingness to discuss this matter
fully and for producing the documentation necessary to facilitate
a determination of the issues involved. Additionally, the City
appreciates your consent to foreclose development on the "remain-
ing parcels" and noting same on the plat.
Very truly yours,
.----~~~
Edward M. Caswall
City Attorney
EMC/jdk
jC923.1
CO: A. Margerum
A. SchWartz
@,eCYCfp.dlJiJPer
'.
130
Asp
April 8, 1992
Mr. Douglas P. Allen
Attorney at Law
530 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Driveways Crossing Public Trails
Dear Doug:
I am writing in response to your request for information. It is my understanding that you
have a lender who is concerned about your ability to construct a driveway across a trail
segment.
Constructing a driveway in a public right-of-way in order to access a public street is a use-
by-right. The actual construction and design details require an excavation permit.
Driveways are permitted as the use-by-right to cross trails or sidewalks that are located
in the right-of-way. Trails that are located in the public right-of.way are not based on
easements but on the general principle of public use of the right-of-way. Therefore your
driveway would not be in conflict with an easement because there is no easement for the
trail.
If your lender has any questions, please have them call me at 920-5088.
Sincerely,
~ !i1L.
Chuck Roth, P.E.
City Engineer
L9l56
@ recycled paper
."
Pitkin County
April 2, 1992
Douglas P. Allen, Esquire
Courthouse Plaza Building
530 East Main Street, First Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Oklahoma Flats Parcel
Dear Doug:
This letter IS In response to your inquiry and letter dated September 12, 1991,
regarding the Oklahoma Flats Parcel consisting of approximately 10,352 square feet and
which is more fully described in your letter.
"
l.j
'!
i
.ft
j
I have reviewed your survey prepared by Aspen Survey Engineers, Inc., dated July
16, 1991, and can represent to you that legal access is avilable from Gibson Avenue across
the County owned bike path subject to obtaining a building permit from the City of
Aspen. I am not sure the topography in this location and any such access and curb cut
would have to be approved by the County Engineer.
,
j
.,
This letter is not meant to comment on the developability of this parcel, located
within the City of Aspen, but may be relied upon by you as an expression the legal
opinion of this office that there are no issues of access to the parcel from Gibson Avenue.
Sincerely,
~~~
John M. Ely F
Assistant Pitkin County Attorney
JME/hfs
J<'j<9.2IJ
Administration
530 E. Main. 3<<1 Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 920-5200
FAX 920-5198
@printedonrecYcledpaper
County Commissioners
SulteB
506 E. Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 920-5150
County Attorney
sunel
530 E. Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 920-5190
Personnel and Finance
SuIte F
530 E. Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 920-5220
Transportation
Facilities
76 Service Center Road
Aspen.C0816l1
(303)920-5390
Lots 300 Feet from Oklahoma Flats
Lots 2. 3. and 4. Block 2. Oklahoma Flats
Remo Lavagnino
Post Office Box 532
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Lots 5 and 6. Block 2. Oklahoma Flats
Remo Lavagnino
Post Office box 532
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Lots 7. 8. and 9. Block 2. Oklahoma Flats
Howard and Eileen Hanson
725 Bay Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Lots 10-12. Block 2. Oklahoma Flats
Gail M. Gross
2700 Post Oak Boulevard
Houston, Texas 77056
Lots 9 and 10. Block 3. Oklahoma Flats
Gerald and Christine Goldstein
208 King William
San Antonio, Texas 78204
Lots 1. 3. 4. 5. 6. and 7 and Metes and Bounds.
Block 4. Oklahoma Flats
Paul and Ruth Hamilton
Post Office Box 9906
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Lot 2. Block 4. Oklahoma Flats
Dennis and Andrea Young
Post Office Box 133
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Lots 1-6. Block 5. Oklahoma Flats
Howard and Pauline Mayer
Post Office Box 333
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Lots 8-11. Block 10. Oklahoma Flats
Denise Reich
325 Ash
Denver, Colorado 80220
Lot 1. Creektree Subdivision
Nick Coates
720 East Hyman
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Part of Lots 15 and 16. Williams Addition
William N. and Alice L. Griffith
and William R. Russell
1700 Broadway, Suite 720
Denver, Colorado 80290
Lots 11. 12. and 13. Block 2. Williams Addition
Clurie W. Bennis
Post Office Box 4618
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Metes and Bounds and S 1/2 of Lots
9. 10. 11. and 12. Williams Addition
Stanley A. Kopp
and Robert L. Zupancis
Post Office Box 100
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Unit A. Hill House Condominiums
Roger L. and Sally F. O'Neill
clo Trustees of the Gillman Trust
clo Acme/Wiley Corporation
2480 Greenleaf Avenue
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
Unit B. Hill House Condominiums
Jesse B. Heath, Jr., and Hetta S. Heath
606 North Spring Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Metes and Bounds
Douglas and Barbara Sheffer
Post Office Box 250
Aspen, Colorado 81612
:
r
Metes and Bounds
Stanley E. and Rose Lauriski
Post Office Box 803
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Metes and Bounds
Michael J. Garrish
Post Office Box 621
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Metes and Bounds
Peter and Monica M. Mocklin
Post Office Box 807
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Metes and Bounds
Anne Peterson
clo Anne Peterson Richards Byard
35 Locust
Mill Valley, California 94941
Space 101. Smue:i:ler Mobile Home Park
David Crouch
1517 Chesapeake, Suite 48
Naples, FL 33962
Space 105. Smue:i:ler Mobile Home Park
Steve and Carlos Gonzales
105 Maple Lane
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Space 106. Smul!l!ler Mobile Home Park
Harry L. Davis, Jr.
106 Maple Lane
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Space 107. Smui:i:1er Mobile Home Park
Nick and Sarah Lebby
La Cocina, Inc.
Post Office Box 4010
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Space 108. Smul!l!ler Mobile Home Park
Edward R. Carroll
Post Office Box 653
Aspen, Colorado 81612
,
Space 109. Smue~ler Mobile Home Park
Dennis Paul Jung
Post Office Box 8351
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Space 110. Smue~ler Mobile Home Park
Mario J. Strobl
Post Office Box 9774
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Space 111. Smueeler Mobile Home Park
David N. Danforth
Post Office Box 1863
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Space 112. Smue~ler Mobile Home Park
Laurie J. Brooks
Robert M. Cox
112 Maple Lane
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Space 113. Smueeler Mobile Home Park
Phillip G. LeBoutillier
Watts, Langhorne Kent
Post Office Box 4571
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Space 114. Smul!l!ler Mobile Home Park
Constance Ann Rapp
Post Office Box 2270
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Space 116. Smue~ler Mobile Home Park
Patricia Ann Sheridan
116 Maple Lane
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Space 200. Smueeler Mobile Home Park
Douglas Driskell
Post Office Box 4973
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Space 202. Smuel!ler Mobile Home Park
Mary Beth Meserole
202 Cottonwood Lane
Aspen, Colorado 81611
,
Space 204. Smu~~ler Mobile Home Park
Kenneth D. and Judy C. Oakes
204 Cottonwood Lane
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Space 205. Smu~~ler Mobile Home Park
Richard J. and Patricia J. Szewzuk
205 Cottonwood Lane
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Space 206. Smue:~ler Mobile Home Park
Lee Miller
Post Office Box 1483
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Space 208. Smul!l!ler Mobile Home Park
Charles M. Kelly
Debora Dykes
00208 Cottonwood Lane
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Space 210. Smul!l!ler Mobile Home Park
Marie Candace Forde
210 Cottonwood Lane
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RB\289.05202
'r
~
I.
3"uJt=;: 2-4. ,- l C\ ~ L
G..c..~V~ ~I) OC ~S~eJ.-r:
~"( N~ ~ \ Ul::. 'K-OT ~ 0\= LC'lX\lA.S
p. b,.\..l.&1 ~ LJD \\-.lE 12~G;\.ffi\ \=C~A -ZEQO Sc.\
~ ~ Oe.. 4:::P() LOT L\N~ ~ l\j~ i,J,tJs We ec:.u.aD\J<q
~~~:
\ . '\~ VtO-c- ~ S\-U1J:) ~. l \1t=.. lCCAITor--l.
MDS.ILE(~~)~Wt=- .
?2DR:B=D eD\LD\ ~C4.
'2 .T\ll=. ROT ~ SDLL'LD swcu) \ \.lE:::.
l.DCKDoJ 0 \=. \ \.1\:::. 'C)\2\ ~ u.J.&.{ .AJ b <De.
a1~CE "TO ~O W\W\J<q.
-3. '1-\ \---COtB:) L\'~ \\1! l~;:, b.. QJi:\-
~(N r-=Ac:t.\}-.\alT \ lTIE 25 1J:t)T
St-= l t?:6C\(; \ \-l\S SUCiJj) B,E LCo~ED
b:... T..
LlE wrWt=.- Jo ~~\ WtlU we.i\.LLB-1
W\U)\~Ei \.-US ~~t::O~ l\-'t-~\B,ffi ~Ttl~
~eJESi~ w::.. 'SEE Jo ~w~'SW.\? \J.m\S
CKE:. \ \~'t::.. \ oeco UL5 ~ Ci::D\ 8CJ\w\ J.Et
S\\E~S~'LD B\=:: b...~Ub;.\t:::. -r;:..oeL C=SLJ\l.D(~E:t
\l)\\P.CiJT Wb..Jl~Li b... ZFV() Lc:5\ L\~t:: .
~ JG:::'ld3-l{ G\ aue:;
--Jf'v~~.7~~~~ ~~~
y{)Y' C\~--l 'Bt~J
11. 4 \5' ;;:. ~ '-'.ll ~t
e \ 't\Klc4..cD 6}.1 ~ Lt rz. ~
..- ----- ..... .--.. ....-..~----- . .-l---.------__________.__.______._____________________________.-~____.___.__________.____n_________
l.l' 4"t.. (- ,4 L.{ 7 \,.~..; \ \!\.:c1 1'..,(", .
--------,-,. __._'_.__m__.._...___ ,_._'.'m...____ .m__..___________.__._____.._._~~._.__~_.._____.._.~____---"'.-.----------t--'---.----~-.-~---.-----~------.----__,___, _ _____.'n__...____...___
.
_,_.u__ _ __ _~_____. ._._._._ __~_______..__ ,__.,_,_". _ ___.._____.,_____________~_____.____.________..___.____.._..__.__~._._______.__ ___.....'_.______._...__.______.______...._.._
---.n...~-:.. L~__4_-A.t~~3~~~Lt~'!-l....t---=-..------------~----.-----.---
--------/}..L:...,.,e~--~-~2~'--~---":--j)JL..-~--A{LcL~ - J ..I '" c...2S__~
,
_.._._~-- .,',' --------.;~ ......----------.-------.------------------.-------------."--------.--.-..-.--~-.,--.-.~--.---____._~.____._.._______m
------------,; .:k-~-~--~t~--J~----.w\..t.It.c-J.L.Lk.:1u~-.:..i~-..I....f--~-t---
---------li..i.i (""'-r~ ~.-t.v.-L----hL-_~_b.;~~-...J~~ t-..J;--~-!..r-~~.ld_-
il: ). J
.n_______".i~_ t_~~.l. ~ti~Ld1r:.___.___________~______')---------n------
__nn_~__.... ... .--L-n-n------1--~...l':C.----ut\o I\. ~1l9..d,.!___~__~_._~r~~--....---------
----n------+.-~)_L~-~~--...h.-- "ch-~ '11A ~L---k.O~~__A-------
----____.____.J). ------_______.__l't......~]_______________________________.._.______________n._____~_
. - - -0- - - ~___.:r..s. __Il~\d: q--~---~~~~----Q~_k~__~~__.L.....
- -- n Ti-------- -- --___h~~___tL_ ~ __~_~. __ ~ _ ____~__n___
-----..-~---------.-__+__t-~----~__~_______
-----~----~--J_L (uvVIo(_ ~ ~v- '.'^ ~V'cN" -i ~ V\.J'v...-a.'Mt.~(f1.0..&4
------~----~_4-~ d\J~ll~ ~"... ~~_~ctvl-e. ~
---------i~.----1J~\~c. \-"""-\" tJ~"'" 'i HIoI~___ 1.1 ~ ~l..~~--~---
n-----------_J+_._.~'iL 'o-t.,.k~. ~--~~---~--wJL~----~--4Ji~=---
! I!' -\1) 1~ ~
---------~---;fj---~ d '^" ---~~.l . "-_ .L...J:_~/'(.rt- .__~_____________
.,
:;1
.----m-.---------..-------
ii'
;I!
iii
Ii
:1:
'II
II
;'1
.
~ ~ lh... I .p"., '7""" "'1rt-.~ ~ -/ ~
~ I <.1-1 :cJ~~~ .
+H . -----~- ..
i\. /' Il ~.
-1jL----------------________~_~ 'C_ u."':'..r _
i!i W .f~ r '
\i _________-S.I S a.J u.vt ,. - ~r(l,-"" "1-~--
I"
Iii {..;'\'lh. .
-------------ttt-----..---.---~-------~--..--.- ------~.-~----.-~~.~-~-------.-...------...--.---.-.-.---~-~--
ill
_~~~~_~~~~=~~~_=~-=_:=~:=~~=~~._~===:==_~~:=~_--n-----