HomeMy WebLinkAboutlanduse case.boa.1030 Cemetery Ln.004-90
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CASE #90-4
MARJORIE & HOWARD DELUCA
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:
May 3, 1990
4:00 p.m.
Owner for Variance:
ADDellant for Variance:
Name: Marjorie & Howard DeLuca
Address: 1030 Cemetery Lane
Marjorie & Howard DeLuca
Location or descriDtion of DroDertv:
1370 Mountain View Drive, Aspen
Lot 1, Block 1, West Meadow Sub.
Variance Requested: Property is located in the R-15 zoning
category. Front yard setback is 25 feet and the corner lot rule
applies. Chapter 24 Sec 5-202(D) (4) and Sec. 3-101 definitions.
(Aspen Land Use Regulations) Applicant appears to be requesting
a 5 foot 6 inch front yard setback variance
will aDDlicant be reDresented 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
CITY OF ASPEll
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
DATE
4/18/
19 90
CASE 41 ItftJO -I-}
APPLICANT Mariorie & Howard Deluca
PHONE
Q?~-~,17 (H), Q?~-~9~? (W)
MAILING ADDRESS
1030 Cemetery lane. Aspen
OWNER Marjorie & Howard Deluca
PHONE same as above
MAILING ADDRESS same as above
LOCATION OF PROPERTY 1370 Mountain View Drive. Aspen lot 1. Block 1 r West Meadow Sub
(street, Block ,Number and Lot Number)
WILL YOU BE REPRESENTED BY COUNCIL?
YES__
NO----L,
==================================================================
Below, please 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
Applicant's Signature
~~!:-c<c
--------------------------------------------------------------------
REASONS FOR DENIAI. OF BUILDING PERMIT, BASED ON THE ASPEN CITY. CODE,
CHAPTER 24" AN OPINION CONCERNING THIS VARIAN~E WILL BE -?RESEtITFilD '
fi TO .1:...HE BOARD, BY T}iE" _ZONING DE, PARTMENT STAFF ""fJ, Jl@ W-t~ 1))( {J€ clte d iv.-
'tt~ ~-l~ ?~\ ('0J[9.c\~~ , \;~ 0\~ SQ.-'fi bw~cV] ~~ ft-
C~,~ C~1-,V\.tfL ~ 1\M..lQ. c0()~~-o. C~(Lpti/'\ ~L-/ ~ ~;-2c2..(l>Xr
~6 ~\.~~'W'" C~, k(v..-J.~ Wj~, 5-{!~~~~ *~\?C'-~
.~ \a.9- JlutWv.l~ c^-- 5 -H G ~ ~~ vto.,~~ ~\r ~~ V'lrIAAVI/~{
DATE PERMIT DENIED ""S ~ L I 13 [;>
DATE OF APPLICATtON~
OFFICIAL
~A "U2",-i....._."
HEARING DATE
,
CITY OF ASPEN
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
DATE
4/18/
19 gO
CASE 41
APPLICANT t4ariorie & Howard Deluca
PHONE
q?~-~~17 (H). q?~-~9~? (W)
MAILING 'ADDRESS
1030 Cemetery Lane. Aspen
OWNER Marjorie & Howard Deluca
PHONE same as above
MAILING ADDRESS same as above
LOCATION OF PROPERTY 1370 Mountain View Drive. Aspen' Lot 1. Block 1 r West Meado~1 Sub
(street, Block ,Number and. Lot Number)
WILL YOU BE REPRESENTED BY COUNCIL?
YES_
NO----L,
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
Below, please 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
Applicant's Signature
~~"c
--------------------------------------------------------------------
REASONS FOR DENIAI. OF BUILDING PERMIT, BASED ON THE ASPEN CITY. CODE,
CHAPTER 24. AN OPINION CONCERNING THIS VARIANCE WILL BE PRESENTED
TO THE BOARD BY THE ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF.
DATE PERMIT DENIED
OFFICIAL
DATE OF APPLICATION
HEARING DATE
TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
We own half of a condominiumized duplex on the corner of
Mountain View Drive and Cemetery Lane, at 1370 Mountain View
Drive. The structure was builtin 1963, and was the first
structure to be erected in the West Meadow Subdivision. Marjorie
bought the unit in 1977.
The building is on a 15,000-square-foot lot, zoned R-15.
The allowable FAR for this lot is 4,500 square feet. The lot
size is legal for a duplex structure.
The lot is a wedge shape. Across the Mountain View Drive
side of the lot, toward which the structure faces, it is
approximately 100'. Across the back of the lot, stretching from
Lot 2 to the east and Cemetery Lane to the west, the lot is some
62'. The side lot lines are 179' and 174'. Cemetery Lane runs
at an angle along our lot, reducing the lot width as the road
bears toward the river, or north.
The duplex is a mirror-image structure facing Mountain View
Drive, which both we and our next-door neighbors consider to be
the front of our house, and the front yard.
When Marjorie bought the unit in 1977, she was presented at
closing with condominium declarations and a condominium map
(filed in plat book 6, page 8). The map included a Designated
Area of Expansion for both sides of the duplex toward the north
of the lot in the rear of the struture.
Until we filed: for our building permit some two weeks ago,
Marjorie had been under the impression that this DAE was our
~
rightful area to expand our side of the duplex. To her
recollection, she was never informed that such DAE w~s non-
conforming, much'less that the existing building extended a
couple of ,feet into the setback.
.....,>
No one at the closing meeting
suggested the DAE for unit 1 was' in non-conformance--not the
",-,:-.
selling party, the real estate agents, the title company
representative, her lawyer, or anyone at the lending institution.
In fact, in 1987 the new owners of unit 2 built an addition to
their property exactly in the DAE for their side of the duplex.
The problem as \~e underst'and it is as'foll~ws:
1) Our lot is a corner lot bordered by Mountain View Drive
and Cemetery Lane. Section C of the Aspen Land Use Regulations
-,
states that "on a lot bordered on two sides by intersecting
streets, the owner shall have a choice as to which yard shall be
considered as the front yard, such yard to meet minimum setbacks
for a front yard in that Zone District. The remaining yard
bordering a street may be reduced by one third of the required
front yard setback distance.. .The rear yard must coincide with
the rear alignment of neighboring lots regardless of which is
considered the front yard by the owner." Minimum setbacks
otherwise for our lot are 25' for the front yard. 10' for the
side yard, or 16.67' under the corner lot rule.
2) Because one of the streets bordering our lot is an
arterial roadway (Cemetery Lane), then Section F of the Land Use
Regulations comes, into play: "Yards Adjacent to Arterial
~
Streets. On a lot bordered by a designated arterial street, the
minimum front yard setback distance for the district shall be
.
applied to the portion of the lot adjacent to the arterial
street....Where a lot is bordered on two sides by intersection
arterial streets, the provisions listed under the corner lot
situation shall apply."In other Nords, if neither street or
both streets were arterial streets, there would be no ,problem.
But because one street is arterial and the other is not, we do
not fall under the corner lot provisions. As a result, there is
a question as to which yard is the front yard and which yard is
the side yard. both having different setback requirements. It
does not seem to matter how the house is sited, where the front
yard for unit 2 is located, even though it is a mirror image of
unit 1, that our rear yard coincides with the rear alignment of
neighboring lots, or that the property address is on 140untain
View Drive.
When the duplex structure was built in 1963, there was no
question as to which yard was the front yard. The property
address is 1370 Mountain View Drive. If the yard bordering
Cemetery Lane were considered to be the front yard, then unit 2
would obviously be in the "rear yard" of unit 1, and would have
no front yard of its own, which certainly is not the case. On a
mirror-image duplex, it doesn't seem logical to designate the
same yard as front yard for one side of the structure, and side
yard for the other side.
Our bUilding plans include going out the back into the DAE
and going up from there and across part of the existing structure
for a second story.~ The height has been minimalized to accept
two stories with 8' ceilings. The highest point of the roof
"
(3-3/4 - 12 pitch) will be 24', lower than many buildings in the
neighborhood, and lower than all of the buildings on the west
side of Cemetery Lane in our neighborhood.
The lot is heavily landscaped, with many old, mature spruce
trees. There is also an abundance of aspens. At one time, a
tree-spraying firm charged for spraying 120 trees on the 15,000
square foot lot. Three lL'+ trees will need to be relocated for
the new addition, and our plans are to move them out to the
Cemetery Lane edge of the lot, creating additional vegetative
borders to lessen the visual impact. Traveling north on Cemetery
Lane, only the very top of the house will be visible. The visual
impact heading south would not change. The total square ~eet of
both sides of the duplex following the building of our addition
would be approximately 3,900 square feet (4,500 is allowed on the
lot) .
Our feeling is that if Cemetery Lane is ever widened at our
corner, the widening would necessarily have to take place on the
west side of the road, not on the east, because te edge of the
road is only 5' from our lot line, but approximately 15' from the
lot lines on the west side of the road.
Our plans would bring the addition to within 19'6" of the
edge of our lot along Cemetery Lane. Were it not for the
suggestion that our side yard must have the minimum front yard
setback distance since it is along an arterial street, there
would be no problem. If both Cemetery Lane and Mountain View
Drive were arterial~streets, our setback for the Cemetery Lane
side would need to be 16'6" under Section C (Corner Lots). If
neither street were an arterial street, the setback would also
need to be 16'6". If we were not on a corner at all, our yard
"
along Cemetery Lane would be our side yard, since all logic would
point that direction, and the setback would be 10'.
Our request of the Board of Adjustments is to designate the
yard bordering Cemetery Lane as a side yard, rather than a front
yard. We are well within the side yard setback, and it seems
reasonable to us to have the front yard of both units of the
duplex in the same location. It also seems reasonable to us that
our yard bordering Mountain View Drive be designated front yard,
since that is the property address. It seems equally logical to
declare the yard to the north of the structure as rear yard,
since that yard "coincides with the rear alignment of neighboring
lots" (Land Use Regulations, Section C). The rear yard is the
"yard extending the full width of the lot or parcel, the depth of
which is measured by the least horizontal distance between the
rear lot line' and the nearest wall of the principal building,
such depth being referred to as te rear yard setback" (Section
24-3.1). Ai,d the rear lot line is "the property line opposite
the front lot line" (Section 24-3.1). That would obviously make
the Mountain View Drive lot line the front lot line, and
therefore would make that the front yard.
We feel that in fairness, we should be allowed to build in
our DAB, just as our next door neighbors did three years ago. In
fact, 2~r condominium declarations require that we build only in
the DAB.
We also note that several structures along Cemetery
Lane to the south of us appear to be much closer to the road than
our proposed addition would be. And since our addition is not on
the corner, the visual impact would not be felt on the corner.
The proposed site of our addition is 60' to 80' north of the
corner on Cemetery Lane.
If the Board feels that the Cemetery Lane side of our lot
must be declared a front yard, then we request a setback variance
to build to 19'6" from the road.
We are long-time locals in Aspen, Marjorie having moved here
in 1974 and Howard in 1983. Since 1977, when Marjorie bought her
side of the duplex, she has been living in 768 square feet of
space. Now that there are two of us, we obviously need more
space. Without some decision in our favor, we would be building
an addition with minimal square feet, which would cost.
approximately the same as building to our existing plans. That
could affect our decision to build at all, and our alternative
may be to eventually join the ranks of commuters to Aspen in
order to own a dwelling that would be large enough for our needs.
We are not anxious to add to the traffic problem and pollution
along the highway. Marjorie has owned and operated two
businesses her for 15 years <Aspen Typesetting) and 10 years
(property management) respectively, and it would create an
enormous hardship for us to move out of the city and continue to
operate these businesses. Howard, an electrician, works on
private homes in the immediate Aspen area ranging in size from
6,000 to 16,000 square feet, and we do not feel that our request
for a 2,000 square ~oot home is immodest.
This is a project which we have been planning for several
~
years, working on our drawings for many evenings, and it would be
a great disappointment if we were to find that the Designated
Area of Expansion is not what it was presented to be. It would
be an enormous hardship to begin again redesigning our home, as
the building season has begun and is short, and to build a
smaller addition would create a financial hardship as well. We
hope that you will rule in our favor.
4/18/90
HOWARD & MARGIE DE LUCA
A,' ~i
{' , ,
/ / t&I, ( "t...L( c:<---
?JYd~
,-'
( ,
.
u
c:
/
",'
),. ~;
Q GJ \D .
\'.l Q) Cij<' ~-
.'."_ ')0 .=~.:,::~..'.:- UI W
~>,_.... .... OJ .........O...~._, \:),
',1\-'0 -. U)"I"O." --,';0 T""
.~~y..-. .:. C.' -;',j".c(i-tP-c......-,,_ r
!L~3~;-:~;~;'g", 31;2~.'~::~;~~
"'''~ ct. Q) _ O.V'),..,( d','
;:-~~'_ '.:,o..',.i>_',~:~ O-N "(~'.-'_~;./
~"'" L1J,.":I..oc.-,,O' ..Ql.~' "--',~,
~-4."~-."--~ ~ j--;;,m,,~...;..\:,,:~,::;r: .
It\_<1f\ en L a..~ro')!_._\.\
V".. ~ 2 0 ~.o~,.>.., ;~~
c: NO':..... f") ..
\1) ........ ~
0. W"
1I'l. ...'"
<( ~,-;,
. J~:
'to
, \
Q
c
>- ':1.- , ,
, 1\1 '-"~"
1.1, ~h'. ,"~::,:,_.-
IoL.I L 0( <c.
>:"i~Y;~fi:\:~C\
O::"L-rl "i}c/r,
=>4t ~ .:\-"-
en r~"-
", '~1
t- ~I~
_\~ ~
-.:::::" \l ~ -
or:::;; :\ll~ II
I- ~ l\
o::~~ ~_
wah(
a.. ':iR 'i
'fc H
".\J1r~
""" ~ Q ~
~ t?~i
" of5,
~ 11I"1-')
....J \-i:-~
- -l> ,/
- '1->."'2
=> ') ~..\~
CD ll."1h
Q<(lll
,I
,)..
~
~
tJ
4J
~,
<;t,
-./-
,1<1
.J
/
r
~~
til.r
IU
,/b H
.J ~-':I!'
,.}i
./;
~.
t
t
!
/
I
........ ," '~'
........J "'
, h $;
r~r ~
; ~ ~". ~,
U "'r' -l"
~ ~ r.. j,
Ii i ~ 0\ ~
j ~ :S_:~J'~ ~
"l 90. ~
~! l I ~ ~
~~,~~ ~
~.;~\I. ?
~ t> ~ ~::;
I-o:~~ [)~~
\) - . I'
1LI,[1_ ." '" "
U ~ ~
\-\ ~
"
I
~
~
f
-
J
~
"
J
1
(L
c
-'-'
I'
J.
J
"
~
',j)
I j t
I ~ ;
,~
I'ul
- ...
" (\
J
~
<f
-:z
~
(\
I
~1
'-'
.!
~'
5
/
, :~-.~:
........-";,:(
";,:;:':~~
, J,
~
'. ~.
.!.. \)
, :;'~
:.T_ "'
:> '
I
I
I~
I
N '
al
1-4
'it>
')
-:V
~
Q
Iii
,..
.;:,
N
..J
~
g.
..I-
a~
n
li~
f>
'4 ~
') ,,',
"'11\
1
I'
" r
f'
r
1-
o
.J
" II
~,~.,J
'cr't1l1~
<C;.l~_
J :tiJ
J~'
~ ~~ ~ ~
;;Ji
~h'
r~,,'<L,
" . ".. "-'
.,., a", "
':..._~,4_,>"""~__,,
~-'."'1>
~ -,7.- .-7"
f ..
"') ..::; '>--,
C) ,. -<< 4"
.>- ~~ ~
"> '
~ ~ \- ~
j ., < d
fI ~ 0
~ .j\ III !
~ - .
jF~1
3"2 ~
3 , ~
1)r.~",W"'"
I-~ '] f.
C> ',j' .'If-o
S ~,.....~ '
'2-,... , '':'''.'
'," "'.'t. '.,
() ..s""'"., ,,'
~'1 $~4":
j ') ~ ~ ~ .
,,"-
'j~iH
:<; ~ -" ~
-zd1Cl-\.I
'..
;..
l'-a~.,
:;;:-O-\>-
:'.;.
~
va
C/) '] ~
1LI -!"
b"~~
Z ~3'
)
---..---:-"
o
,,' :.~.:t~_f~:;:.'\',~~,:;;Z: ' "2
~{~'t1"~j~1:tl
''l:l '~~ Il.
~ ' Q
]
} III uJ -2 5
I;" ~ ] .I .I ~ ~ :t
~ J '7 "'2 :> 2 <l
o~3i~~:jj~~~
~ 1I~ -,.S\lJF
Z ~.. ~ ~ J1 ~ j ~
.. '~JiMii~ti:i~~~~~,~~. r.~JJ
'.,W,'O"~'5i'~c"~~~,,' ~ "'--' .,1>>
.. I \1;" ~""II.. ..,.~..." t.' "J ," ~
,.. ,-I.;V -..---~~ -,' """~,r.i:':s"" '\-"'1~';
, . .!~~;3rl~rPfi ~
r
",~V'< j!;'_~',l':;-',_:- _ .- ~, _ - .
::4~~,-~~,,'1;"~~~:':;~:-~"~- . 900'S-".",-..; 1
..,.d~f~(idf~fi:~~t~:'~~('~l:~I. ~"2 ~.;.~...-~.
'_"".i-=.t:;':''''''i;J.''\'''i-.--''';'''~l~,.1 -...':J.-~,_..-t-'~ - ...,-.-- '-'-' "ir ir
i~;bf~;y::,;~;'; - ~;",':~'.;~'~1~~~.:-.':-C'''1;~
..
~
J
----- "
- --I
o
( """L...)~
._~
~.;'~~_;;,;..J'~~?" ~tc<,jt~:~."-.~?,'-:- ~...,;~ c.',:'..:,, :2iTt}-.~,_ ,;",':~'-;:":l"":-i""'i:' _ -,_,_- -:'",':'.,;'.":, ":;-'~~'1\~; .'
J~"" tJiii.' 1"""1' , "O"e,:~",," ,,''O'!;!:''':', ":',';~".~"'-i;::.':.." ''":.';-!!'''''';"'''~';';;'r;:'t'' '
... .....:r-- " ..."""'.....~'_._.'""-.._, ,-.-"'7" -;,7-....-...-...'-..1( '1;..._.-..,.. -.......~
n ..~ "'. ,'~".~'-~;' _' . f>-t, ,,' 'V~~:J:I'~r";.;...,;, .,'<.. - "',~-'i~;... ',:,~" '," - ,:,y~.~,_~;.': /.,- ~-'~~\I-- "t:'::-'i" -;:':: ,-;-~ -/;
._-'\".-.-l\.....-.>;~-tf-, 't.::+.- I!t--._-....'I.'.""'..,A_...,_,~~_._ ....~.,~-....."- '..',--~.--,~_:-.--,"~ l'."d~--..,-.:."., "1'-"-','-'- ,
,':~,~~, C',,:~.;j~:;;'~I//ii)::;:'~ c;'~;4X . ",' (. a:::i:~~\7 '., ".. ,....,
,
..i
-i
~
I
J h'("
III
l1"LNFlOW-
"-.~..,<_>"o_ .."-,--...,.,.,,,,_._,..
County of pitkin
}
}ss.
}
state of Colorado
The undersigned,
follows:
being
AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY POSTING
OF A VARIANCE HEARING BEFORE
THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT (Pursuant to section
6-205(E) (b) of the Municipal Code
first duly
sworn, deposes and says as
I,
IlMf!.:r cK tE
Ikluclt
, being or representing
an Applicant before the City of Aspen Board of Adjustment,
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
c2?J ))J
:3 rei
day of
day of
be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing
date).
-APRIL
17 lit y
'10
, 19 ,
, 19 1'7'70.
to the
(Must
{'<A-
Signature
Subscrib~ and sworn to before me
this ~ daM of ~7a<.ft '
19..2:Q.., ~y a r Jfl 'e (fi. Ie. /.,(1('''''
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
;U~ Z7:t:~9Q
Notary Public's Signature
&{)/ C.7 ~ ~, {~
Address
/,'-"'"
-
Property Owners within a 300-Foot Radius of 1030 Cemetery Lane
Jeffrey W. & Diana I. Lizotte
Box 1348
Aspen, CO 81612
Mel Seid
1104 Dale Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Anna Rosa Knirlberger
801 West Bleeker Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Elizabeth A. Cipriano
1025 Cemetery Lane
Aspen, CO 81611
W. Bruce & Sherril D. Kerr
411 South Monarch Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Ronald W. & Carrol A. Allen
1330 Mountain View Drive
Aspen, CO 81611
Edward D. Irwin
Post Office Box 4673
Aspen, CO 81612
Sigrid J. Stapleton
1350 Mountain View Drive
Aspen, CO 81611
William J. Ferry, Jr. & Sheila S. Draper
Post Office Box 37
Cruz Bay
St. John, US Virgin Islands 00830
Frank M. & Hazel M. Crismon
350 Jasmine
Denver, CO 80220
Roy & Sally Jean Vroom
Post Office Box TT
Aspen, CO 81612
Richard L. & Sharon Miller
1345 West Mountain View Drive
Aspen, CO 81611
r
\-/
George Sells
c/o Omnibus Gallery
533 E. Cooper Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
John W. & Beverly Reese
Post Office Box 3254
Aspen, CO 81612
Alice & Larry Leeper and William B. Holman
1390 Snowbunny Lane
Aspen, CO 81611
Valerie J. & Donald L. Edgington
Post Office Box 2664
Aspen, CO 81612
August C. & Kimberly A. Reno
1045 Cemetery Lane
Aspen, CO 81611
Adrian Van't Hoff
Post Office Box 10247
Aspen, CO 81612
Nils-Bertil Dahlander
Post Office Box 1881
Aspen, CO 81612
David S. & Margaret McCarthy Amory
1370 Mountain View Drive
Aspen, CO 81611
.......,
,"".../'