HomeMy WebLinkAboutlanduse case.boa.320aspengravecemeteryrd.005-88
o
o
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Case 188-5
BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE
VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW:
I
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, then you are urged to
state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to
s~ch 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
fo'r variance.
Th~ particulars of the hearing and of the requested variance are
asl follows:
Date and Time of Meetinq:
I
Date:
Time:
May 5, 1988
4:00 pm
Owner for Variance:
Appellant for
Variance:
Name: Tom & Barbara Stanford
Address: 320 Aspen Grove Cemetery Rd.
Aspen, Colorado
Wayne Ethridge
Location or description of property:
I
Location: 320 Aspen Grove Cemetery Road
I . d
Var1ance Requeste: Property is located in the R-15b zoning
category. Allowable height is 25 ft to mid point. (Ordinance
No I. 25 Series 1987) Applicant appears to be requesting a 5 ft
height variance measured at the mid point between the ridge and
,
eaves.
"I
Will applicant be represented bv counsel: Yes: X
I The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment
130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado81611
Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk
J>eV\ \ eel
NO:
,
Owner:
1/zc;/~'b 0
-1DM ( f'/;,12-PJAf'JI.- -'?TNJfbr:o
(" 'il/&UC:H vVAYiJr €71I!Zim~)
~ . .
property:. ~ ..~m?;/'UIJF. C$,v(Ii"~ I)2d>.O
wT t 8.?oC/C- 1_ raAiAdJ ~~
(Street and Number of Subdivision Block and Lot
CITY OF ASPEN
o
~
,
Date:
Appellant:
Case
No. :
Address:
Phone:
Address:
-~.
q?-O -12f?)Z_
.
.
Location of
No.)
Building Permit Application and prints or any other pertinent
data must accompany.:this application, and will be made part 9f
CASE NO.: .. ". .
I
THE BOARD WILL RETURN THIS APPLICATION IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ALL
THE FACTS IN QUESTION.
.
DESCRIPTION OF-PROPOSED EXCEPTION SHOWING JUSTIFICATIONS
A
or-
~l!Qv\l~",:>-r FOe.. UA'e./-I>-0c'C.. ~ rNc: "H:\C;H r
I
-n-( (. e - I '5 B ZOI--J (... 'P I? rei C-/; TJ-{ ~ l}MLt MJ::::~
I
or:: FlUE
"7ancJ
11M! Ie:.
lZE Q<A \ e t': t<-\ UJT'S
I? roE'"- A vl4AXIMfMVI
F t:t::-i 1M 1!k?U~'D .4T' TH E- F eoDT
ex:: 71-1f: ~-n-tG'e~T Po12:nDD
I '7 }.J1!0'~A:1V-{ TV ~ ~
?OTCTl 010 OF THE.. ~r
or:- T'1E- \'GESID~. nHL
A .sT"Df' umec ~b{2
.
"
Will you be represent~d'bY counsel? 'Yes ~ No
I . . J ~ :tb>r>14nU
..~~~;[::::~~..-=_._________..:::::~:::~:':::::::::J
PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR TO
FORWARD THIS APPLICATION TO T~,~ BOARD OF ADJUST?-IENT lIND REASON FOR NOT
GRAllTING: \?J\I-~t &~QJLd) vC-. \~ Q.-l'$ ~ "2-0~~ C~,
~~t-k%~0 ;'b-:-f'+-fu~M:fI{~ l\Jo,r?~~ (q~7J
~~<-~r~ 40 kft~~ 0- ~-A-J{LtettJ VAAl~ /h~cM<<1l{e
J- ~I fi~ ~}0t~.. .A~clv ~ ~ /
I. "- .., .^ .
I Status .~
PERMI, "",CTED, DATE '/J,~~!k-r
APPLICATION FILED t/,. .
I
/1I\.ILED
..~~-i~
Sig;;J
DECISION
DATE OF HEARING
SECRETAHY
. DATE
- - _~________.______"..__'___ _.. ...._n__'_.
. .
"
I
o
o
STANFORD VARIANCE REQUEST
BACKGROUND
I The Stanford residence located on Lot #1 of The Eastwood
Subdivision, has been the subject of considerable activity by the
app1icants and by the Aspen/Pitkin Building Department.
Construction of the residence commenced in 1986. During the
course of construction, the Aspen/Pitkin Building Department
fou~d that the residence was not in compliance with the height,
setback and F. A. R. requirements of The Pitkin County land use
code. Subsequent to discussions with officials of the building
department, the Stanfords aoreed to lower the height of the roof
by seven feet, since it wa~ initially determined that such an
action would bring the roof into compliance with the county's
height limitations.
I After the roof had been lowered, the Aspen/Pitkin Building
Department found that the roof was still in excess of the
Cou~ty's height limits, and a stop work order was issued. The
Stanfords then applied to the county Board of Adjustment for
var~ance from the height, setback and floor area ratio
requirements of the county code. Following the applicants
presentation and review by the Board of Adjustment, the
Sta~ford's application was denied.
I During the period between the actions of The Pitkin County
Board of Adjustment and the present, the property was annexed by
The City of Aspen, And a new zone category. R-15B, was placed on
the property.
REQUEST
1 The ~ew R-15B Zone category placed on the property by the
city of Aspen as part of the annexation process has eliminated
the I need for a variance request for setback or floor area ratio.
In fact, the Stan fords residence exceeds the city's R-15B zone
District setback requirement in all cases.
I The city's R-15B Zone District places a maximum height of 25
feet on all structures. Since the Stanford's residence was
staited under county codes, all measurements to date have been
based on the County's requirements of 28 feet.
Since all residences in the area were constructed under county
height regulation it appears reasonable that imposition of the
city's height regulations would present an undue hardship on the
applicant, and are in fact totally impractical to obtain.
o
o
.'
According to the latest calculations by the building
department the southern most portion of the Stanford residence
exceeds the county's height standards (measured at the midpoint
of Ithe roof slope) as follows: front edge, 4.5 feet; halfway
po:i:nt, 2.5 feet; rear portion, .5 feet; stepped up portion of
roo'f, 1. 5 feet. (Three feet must be added to each figure to equal
th~ R-15B height requirement.)
I The applicants, Tom and Barbara Stanford, have agreed to
lower the existing roof structure by 2.5 feet. which will result
in la variance request of 2.0 feet for the front portion of the
roof. The roof section will be in compliance at the halfway
point and wi 11 be two feet lower than the county's height
requirement at the rear. No change is planned to the stepped-up
roof section so a variance of 1.5 feet in requested for this
,
area.
JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE
SECTION 2-22 (D) (1)
I "That the special conditions and circumstances do not result
from the actions of the applicant."
I The Stan fords applied for and received a building permit
based on plans that were reviewed by the building department.
Su~sequent reviews by the building department resulted in a
deiermination that the structure was not in compliance with the
codnty's heights requirements. After conversations with
officials of the building department, it was determined that the
Stanford residence could be brought into compliance with height
requirements if the roof structure covering the southernmost
portion of the residence was lowered. The applicants, at
con'siderable expense and hardship, lowered the roof section, only
to be informed by the building department that the roof still did
notl comply with the county code.
I The applicants have attempted to work with the building
department to resolve the height problem, which did not result
from the applicants actions. While there has been considerable
con'fusion and correspondence regarding the measurement of the
roof height, the Stan fords nevertheless believe they have
followed the directives of the building department and that the
problem with the height of the roof is not a result of their
act'ions.
o
o
SECTION 2-22(0) (2)
I "That special or extraordinary circumstances apply to the
subdect property that do not apply similarly to other properties
in the same vicinity and zone."
I The special circumstances relevant to the Stanford Residence
include the considerable confusion regarding height measurement
andl the fact the property has been annexed by the City of Aspen.
As previous ly mentioned, the Stanfords lowered the roof a t the
direction of the building department only to find that the roof
still exceeded the county's height limits. As a gesture of good
faith, the Stanfords are willing to further lower the roof.
Structural considerations limit the amount of lowering to 2.5
feet. The lower roof will limit the degree of non-compliance to
a small portion of the lowered roof and the stepped-up portion of
the roof.
.
Given that the structural support system for the residence
was designed based on county codes and height requirements, it is
not possible to achieve the height limits imposed by the city's
R-15B Zone district. The proposed reduction in roof height of
2.51 feet still allows a reasonable sill height and can be
accommodated with limited restrictions on ceiling height.
I
SECTION 2-22 (D) (3)
1 "That the granting of a variance is essential to the
enjoyment of a substantial property right enjoyed by other
properties in the same vicinity and zone, but denied the subject
pro~erty because of special conditions of extraordinary
circumstances."
I There is perhaps no greater property right than the ability
to live in one's own residence. The current "red-tagged" status
of the residence prevents the Stanfords from endoying their
completed residence. The purpose of the variance request, which
thel applicants believe to be a minimum request based on the
history of the structure, is to allow completion of the home and
to eliminate what is admittedly presently an eyesore in the
neighborhood. The special conditions and extraordinary
circumstances relevant to the property have previously been
discussed. It should be noted that in addition to the Stanford's
commitment to lowering the roof, substantial landscaping will be
added to the site if the variance is granted, and the Stanfords
have agreed to lower the driveway and frost the lower half of the
reai windows to lower the impact of the Doremus' residence (lot
1, block 2, Aspen Grove Subdivision).
I
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
.
I
,
I
I
,"
o
o
Due to the annexation of the property, previous concerns
with front setback and F.A.R. have been eliminated. The only
circumstance preventing the Stanford's enjoyment of their
pr6perty rights is the need for a height variance for a small
portion of the roof structure. The Stanfords have attempted to
work with the neighborhood to provide reasonable mitigation of
concerns. The proposed landscaping and regrading of the
driveway, while expensive, and not required as part of a variance
request, should be considered as evidence of the Stanford's
desire to resolve the problems with the residence.
I
SECTION 2-22 tdl (4)
I "That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect
the general purpose of the comprehensive general plan."
I Wi th the exception of the height of a portion of the roof
structure, the Stanford residence exceeds the minimum
requirements of the land use code of the City of Aspen, which is
the primary tool used to implement the comprehensive general
plan. The granting of a minimum variance to resolve the height
prdblem fits well within the context of the comprehensive plan,
which is a general guide, rather than an absolute performance
standard.
I
SUMMARY
1 The Stanford residence has been in a state of "suspended
animation" for well over 18 months. The granting of a minor
variance from county height standards of 28 feet will allow
completion of the residence during the 1988 construction season.
The current status of the residence creates a "lose-lose"
si tuation for the neighborhood and for the Stanfords. The Board
of !Adjustment, though exercise of its regulatory powers and good
jUdgement, can allow the Stanfords the right of enjoyment of
their property, and by placing reasonable conditions on the
granting of the variance can resolve many of the concerns of the
ne~ghborhood, a "win-win" situation for all concerned parties.
I ~.-
0!J:;:f:~r idge2fJ
Groundwork v
I
WE/bpb
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
1
I
I
!
,
I
1
,
,
j
I
I
I
I
I
I
: uJ i
! U!
, 2'
:D uJ\
iL\Lil!
!a~i
:1P~(
:4 .
IT
VI)
i
1
I
I
I
I
i
;
!
!
i
,
i
I
;
i
\
,
;
i
(
!
I
i
,
,
,
,
,
I
,
I
I
I
i
;\
/ \
i
,
,
i
I
,
1 ~\.
\
I
I
i
I
I
I I
i
!
. I
i
I
I
1
,
!
!
I
,
. i
. I.
;:
o
o
!
2
J
~
P.
rJ J I
~Q~ I
~o
~~
-':1.0
-2
2uJ.:1 I
,O:z~ I
: ~J J l?
I )~cl
I~~e
Iil}.D \
z~~l j
J2j \' .
lL~O !
I 0 4:~ !
I ~~P-I i
,
,
~
~
I
'j
I
o
\
-
,
..\-..-
...
County of Pitkin .
)
) ss.
)
- ,
'"
State of Colorado
AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY POSTING
OF A VARIANCE HEARING BEFORE
THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT (Pursuant to
Section 2-22 (c) of the Municipal
Code)
follows:
The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and say~ as
I,'j
; -. .
. . .I',"
1.
I , -:...W.~ilif~-_~7Ji?(rA:; E:--
"
r..
.
representing an Applicant.. b.efore the City of Aspen Board of
, being or
....
". ..'
Adjustment, personally ce.rt'ify that the attached photograph
", 'I~' .
fairly and accurately represents ~he sign posted as Notice of the
,
variance. hearing on thfs matter in a conspicuous place on the
subject property (as ~t .could be seen from the nearest public
. way) and
from the
.'. . I}!!;-: - -
that the said sign was posted .and
Z C)7JJ.----
day of .. .
".1
day of .. .
M-~..
~fL... .
, 19~.
~
[':1.
visible continuously
, 19~, to the
(Must be posted for
,." ..~.
at least ten (l~) ~ull dats before the:~earing date).
T
~
Subscrib and sworn to fore me
this 5 day of h.,C1;;;.
}~+, by .\,)0:\,1''' '\;tt..,J ~p . _ . .
,
.
WITNESS MY HlIND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
My commission expires: I/? 1./ !~
./;vJo/l Jt u ~ ftv.lr\D .
Notary PUb~:~~ ""J...\\~ II. C"..\j",~
PI) "IN cr ~1. , ~a sa2:J; ~/C .:2. J
Address 8(,1 G>a"'je Licz .
.F
'~
The City of Aspen
'30 S. Galena St.
,spen, CO 81611
~\
~ r ('..
~~ C4:.'.. (.0""10
#.fhj, ,,\ ','"0
~... 'tvc; llI.
"~~~"", ;.
W. Ever tt and EIsnor B. ~.oco~.
n07 ~u nwell Bldg. -~
Knoxv .lle, TN 37902 :,,:;. iF
'fJJI
V
~J
V
tJ
-
-
,
.,
-
J
tit- /
/1 ;. ;:'.
~~'.
~U~. T---- ./J. L. ,.--.- <C ... .. .
_/~~-~ m c/1sp~,../.~!l.;"~_u_ ~iL
~ ' " , ~~~__41 ' ;'
.......~~~ ~t&.!?;~i. If~
L4/ :0~.~i-_ .. ~
~O~~~~.~....~~..
E.m=:ll<<m~' .
J::':J,. .
. . ~lliT
. ,
Ji,~l!d&,47' . . .:..
~' -" ~,_.ug/~ /.:?,
--"-"-'-'-'~-,-~_._- ._,-,._~-- '," .."..:...- - '"- ',-'
W-;3p .jr~~_u__A,6.~~ '.~.
....,:1" ~ X3.L~.. . _..; .'..'____~. .......~...
-, --.-..~ . .cPdj3<fl1!./44~. ____.,,_..
/-"L-d 'ik-..i" .A' . -~::~'- '7~--~~~J'~;C'->
'-<:1 T~ .....u.~..~u~./ ..~. ~""'" F-- k..-.::., .....-e.:~~:.J-...".,', ...!:' . /. .... '//':/.
d'=- ~:~L ~~GZ .. . ..~;~~?~: ,.' . __~
. r/? 1::;, : ... ~....,,-//<1Ic:Jt#:"'?-7dcJ. .
__.n X(~/.~ .. ~
~(' ~ .'~~.~.~f-- 6~v~.
7m~~..~C ~A/p7.. /~~a~~ ~
." ..mc"~ . ~7J;;,... ,,- ..~cJ. .
. ..... ".- 'r.:;u,~~" __b~// .
~'---.~~-~-=~ . Itr- ~AU;;-;;~~.~.~_. '.
.~.~. ,. .~~~~La.J.
r , ,~- " T'
h~,~ ~"'.- _ __..." .
----7--
i.~."
---'--,-----.0::
~4/ ~1LL'.~
ll":'-;'-;~' -/Ju~ . .-
-~r~ .~.. 2A6// .
.,"f-...' _ ~
"
. ~.
__ ..n~:..__._.~.~
-' .
~~ / "
~,.
i/ /8' ~tf:-. ( k~ b;...",,~ ~,.
_C};~'t1'H~ if, ..i/;i,,/c ...~.. ...'. Ik.e
.'. ..... .' , ..~'/'h>-,., .J'~// .
~ (7 . (1-&c.. F- I rb h-4~<...e>
~8~ :::::::;:: :;;~
r:""/ ,.'. /J ~c; (
~ / ._--,'~
-;~..cr- o{.~'...,,~
~ '--.. .~. , " . """"-'
~~t?~"-..."..4~l4'H
/-. '.I,Ld.a ~ . 'CtA~ ~~t4
. r~. ~g/CJ~
" . .
E . ~ S -'7W02J I) ~
. ~ .
-
/;:;!- 3-...
, . (/{
~-,.
.
-~~UJ>;<f,l-,- .
~ -. -, . -- ~.".' '---. .
.
_..om .....0._ _ ~.
~..
~,-,
Vf
~~,~~.M-' .
~ 't>>~~ ~.f!<,
~. '"...'
~o('L.UJpo.zj -:--_..
. (Y. {// &;&.qJ r/3?
~ MJ~/~
f/'5rN_~""V< c:--~ ).,..:~a.. u .
;r ~~--~~ q. /~c.~~,.s . &.;(7 ~~
4r~ ~4~-e..o4, %/~/I
-
jlenN~L", ~
to:, , U' /J,. '/
~.~
cfl~~
t!:<:IfNO ,-,- $'v;".
cl::l<;LY /k1 ~
.~ -,ed'e'~,
. . b~~/~
VI
JA,I-/,
/daM:; ;t, ~
. .
S-~o/ r/u /.3'~,~
-Yd- ~~~~/ ~
.3333 C}
./,-
,'-'" -..
"
,d"'"
~.
""......
~c.. f? ~~s,.4
({e-4~vJ z=.- ~ .~e. ~~~
73~y:. ~('l/ . , .
./7? r-
Z-a~J,7 L/'.!( $,,,,,:j.. I-t(ecl/?/~
5".tl-- ~, Skl'~"'" ,;.;(, ,e.~
~~.
,d/~~~.~.,...E.., /J/4so/V"
'. 73 'f-o f= Y' . .
/f<s I' I'V, ~ 1'0. ?r c t",Z
,-' ~ "W';?';'/:~"~\O".~-
:J/it., .
J:f"". .