The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutlanduse case.boa.305sapen.johnstarr.013-86 ---I r~ , I.....,..: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING...) Case I 86-13 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 provision~ 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 such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious cons ide ra t ion to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. The particulars of the hearing and of the requested variance are as follows: Date and Time of Meetina: Date: Time: June 12, 1986 4: 00 P. M. Owner for Variance: ~pDellant for Variance: Name: John Star Same Address: c/o Gideon Kaufman 315 E. Hyman, Suite 305 Aspen, CO Location or description of property: Same Location: Description: 305 South Aspen Unit 4, Good Thunder Condominium Variance Requested: PropeI"ty is located in the RMF zoning category. Section 24-3.4 area and bulk requires 25 foot maximum heighI-. Proposed construction will exceed this height maximum, therefore, this request for a height variance. Duration of Variance: Permanent Will applicant be represented by counsel: Yes: xx No: The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Kim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk ~~q i.J2 LC : "- L; ~,c l~ \.). ; ~ Appellant: ,~~ John Star \..... Addrcs: " phone: .Address: c/o Gideon I. Kaufman, Esquire Owner: John Star (303) 925-8166 c/o Gideon I. Kaufman, Esquire 11~ F;1St l'Ivm::ln Suite 101) Aspen, Colorado 81611 Loc.)tior: cf. p(~P'~~~:': 305 South Aspen, Unit 4, Good Thunder Condominiums (Street and Number of Subdivision Block and Lot No.) Building Permit Application and prints or data must ac~mpan~ this application, and CASE NO.: 'Klo-'~ TilE BOARD WILL RETURN THIS APPLICATION IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ALL THE FACTS IN QUESTION. any other pertinent will be made part of DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EXCtPTION SHOWING JUSTIFICATIONS Applicant attempted to secure a building permit in order to increase the height in a room that was so low as to create problems.for walking. The addition will not increase F.A.R. in any way, but will convert a room that has :limited use to normal usage. Since the time of the construction of the condominium the height rimit has been lowered so as to require the Building Department to deny this application. We feel that the inability to use .a room by a tall person is a hardship. The reason for the prohlem is a cha~ge in zoning subsequent to construction. This' was not a hardship create'" by the'" applicant. The' 'other members of the condominium association, the people most affected by this change, have all supported it. The applicant is not asking for any increase in F.A.R. or size, but for merely making a room that heretofore has been of questionable use, fully usable. will you be represented by counsel? Yes x No fiJ- ~ 2A1rr- ~ ". ...... . (Applicant's Signature) . . a_cE====C_=_==_D___________________~---------------------------~==-----=- Status PERHIT REJECTED,DI\TE ~ ~/'j-{ APPLICl,TION FI7~/: )'/2 Of rrG r.l1\ILf.D '-Y~j_X'y, PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR TO FORW^RD TR:\ ~~PLrCATrON TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND REASON FOR NOT GRANTING: -\'~ -:0 l..t.COA& v:...4 ~IM..~ ~ (~~. <U.c.. 2..'t-?.'[ ~C(~~JU~ a~~~~~c.A-. f~~tAu.4~ wJ.J~~~tJr.~~(-- ~~ ~~~{A~:X-~ \f~- ~ -.- \... .~ . . Signed) DECtSION DATE DATE OF HEARING . ~11d;t:Y, SECRETARY (~r.K- [{)~~r ...~ . . ........,.....-.---.-.. , """' '"-" '" ..,..; Sann;ly of Contract S'l'I'~'VAR'l' 'l'I'l'LE OF ASPEN, INC. 602 E. HYMAN . ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 . (303) 925-3577 May 22,1986 Gideon Kaufman, Esq. Wheeler Square Law Offices Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Gideon, Attached please find a list, compiled from the records of this office and those of the pitkin County Treasurer, of all property owners within a 300 foot radius of Good Thunder Condominiums and the most recent available addresses 01 said owners. Additionally, all individual unit owners of those condominium complexes which lie partially within the 300 foot radius have been listed due to possible interest in the General Common Elements of said complexes. Although our search was thorough and we believe said list to be accurate and complete, said list represents neither an opinion not guaranty of title, and it is undeI"stood and agreed that Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc., neither assumes nor will be charged with any financial obligation or liability whatever on any representation contained herein or thereon. Thank you for your patronage. Sincerely, LcL,-P/tJd Randall Webb Vice President RW/pdm r Lot S, Block 60, Cit~and townsite of Aspen Now Aspen Townhouse Condominiums }I Unit 1: John K. and Nancy T. Tipton 6477 East Manor Drive Englewood, Colorado 80110 ;;l~ Uni t 2: Mary P. pullen Lieutenant River Old Lyme, Connecticut 06371 Unit 3: 3 Robert J. and Susan Ringsby Pietrzak 1796 East Sopris Creek Road Carbondale, Colorado 81623 J Unit 4: Roberta R. Lewis 167 Be llaire Denver, Colorado 80220 s Unit 5: Judy Markle 2161 East Floyd Place Englewood, Colorado 80110 Unit 6: ~ Bruce Edmondson P.O. Box 9032 Aspen, Colorado 81612 { Unit 7: Christianna Seidell 108 West Hyman Ave. #7 Aspen, Colorado 81611 s Unit 8: Kathleen L., George H. and Stephen E. Krieger P.O. Box 4342 Aspen, Colorado 81612 l.t Unit 9: Eileen Lewis 108 West Hyman Ave. #9 Aspen, Colorado 81611 ......... -."i \ Lot S. Block 61, Cit(~ ~nd townsite of Aspen Now ASPEN WEST CONDO~NIUMS Unit 1: 10 Linda Dimit A/k/a Linda Woodcock 1111 Executive Club Building 1776 South Jackson Denver, Colorado 80210 Unit lA: William Wesley Hewitt P.O. Box 5155 Aspen, Colorado 81612 NOTE: Tax assessment roles show ownership i.n: Thomas Curtis I~ c/o Curtis Properties Corporation 845 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 Unit 2: 13 Michael P. Cleary Bedford Lane Lincoln, Mass. Unit 3: ~~ F. Michael Clement P.O. Box 2960 Aspen, Colorado 81612 ~- ..:; Unit 4: Anne S. Cooke 3241 Gough St. San Francisco, 94123 Apt. 2 California k.. Unit 5: Anita L. Colony 0203 Eastwood Drive Aspen, Colorado 81611 '" - :l. II 1'1S ,'1 ';'0 _'" I ~ ~~ J-Lj i_ " , . Lots-.A and.B, B-lock........, City and Townsite of As~.~, Albert J. and Pearl Bishop 202 South Garmisch Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lots C and D, Block 68, City and Townsite of Aspen T. L. Buerge P.O. Box 60824 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73146 Lots E and F, Block 68, City and Townsite of Aspen Mary Hyde Millard 121 East Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lots G, H, and I, Block 68, City and Townsite of Aspen Margaret Bosshardt Pace a/k/a Margaret Pace Wilson 207 Terrell Road San Antonio, Texas 78209 Lots K, L, and M, Block 68, City and Townsite of Aspen Carl Allan Bloomquist and Carol Bloomquist 100 E. Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lots N, 0, P, Block 68, City and Townsite of Aspen now CORKSCREW DUPLEX CONDOMINIUMS Units 1 & 2: Contran Corporation 4835 LBJ Freeway, Suite Heritage Square, Texas 600 75234 Units 3 & 4: George C. Perreault P.O. Box 764 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Lots Q, R, & S, Block 68, City and Townsite of Aspen HEARTHSTONE HOUSE OF ASPEN, INC. 134 E. Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 3 Lots A & B, block 6't"'City and Townsite of Aspe.... now HYMANCONDOMINI~ ' All Units: Janet L. and Terry A. Miller ;:6 21873 West Highway 82 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lots C & D, Block 69, City and Townsite of Aspen Sharon F. Berle, Rodney E. Berle, and Wayne Ariola 534 South West Gate ~~ Los Angeles, California 90052 Lots E & F, block 69, City and Townsite of Aspen JMC CO. ;:ll 3534 S. Lincoln, Suite 10 Englewood, Colorado 80110 .)'6 Lots K, L, M, & N, Block 69, City and Townsite of Aspen Carder Family Insurance Partnership c/o Amy L. Walters 7160 South Jellison Street Littleton, Colorado 80123 ,d'1 Lot 0 and the West 1/2 of Lot P, Block 69, City and Townsite of Aspen Marjorie T. Babcock a/k/a Marjorie Riley c/o The Little Red ski Haus 118 East Cooper Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 ;':)0 East 1/2 of Lot p and all of Lot Q, Block 69, City and Townsite of Aspen Norma L. Dolle and Larry C. Ledingham P.O. Box 4901 Aspen, Colorado 81612 :,1 Lots R & S, Block 69, City and Townsite of Aspen now COOPER STREET LOFTS CONDOMINIUMS Unit 1: Belton M. and elizabeth S. Fleisher 75 Dodridge Street Columbus, Ohio 43202 ,,::>. Unit 2: Nancy F. lawler 80 Tall Pines Court N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 3? Units 3, 4, and 6: Norma Dolle P.O. Box 4901 Aspen, Colorado 81612 ~ '1 Unit 5: Brian and Marge Kelly 144-07 33rd Avenue Flushing, New York 11354 4 .:35 l"", '-" -...-. Lots A, B, & C, Block 70, City and townsite of Aspen Helen R. and Richard E. Sabbatini P.O. Box 2781 Aspen, Colorado 81612 NOTE: Tax assessment rolls show ownership in Hamdi AI-Zahid P.O. Box 738 Aspen, Colorado 81612 31" ~I Lots D, E, & F, Block 70, City and Townsite of Aspen W/J Ranch, Inc. P.O. Box 4765 Aspen, Colorado 81612 3>'6 Lots G, H, & I, Block 70, City and Townsite of Aspen Sarah R. Werner 510 Cemetery Lane Aspen, Colorado 81611 ~'1 Lots A, B, & C, Block 75, City and Townsite of Aspen LongRun Associates 200 South Aspen Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 1../0 Lots D, E, & F, block 75, City and Townsite of Aspen Han'y W. and Mary A. Bass 833 Douglas Avenue, Suite 1400 Dallas, Texas 75225 Lots K, L, M, N, & 0, Block 75, City and Townsite of Aspen now PARK CENTRAL WEST CONDOMINIUMS rll Unit. 1: Thomas B. and Carolyn J. Boguess 8309 East Boulevard Drive Alexandria, Virginia Unit 2: ~~ Paramount Investments, Inc. 100 West Monroe Street, Suite 2204 Chicago, Illinois 60603-2595 ri?J Unit 3: BKS, Ltd. P.O. Box 4405 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Unit 4: YY Harold L. and Zetta F. Feder 318 Woodlawn Avenue St. Paul, Minnisota 55105 s ./ y~ "-' Unit 5: ~ Raymon J. Hanson, Jr., Deborah T. Hanson, Francisco A. Pierce, and Eileen Pierce 210 East Hyman Avenue #5 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Unit 6: ~~ John and Lynn Sargent P.O. Box 419 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Unit 7: ~I Alan Bush 210 East Hyman Avenue #7 Aspen, Colorado 81611 -\-" ? f Units 8 & 9: John Sargent P.O. Box 419 Owensboro, Kentucky 42302 '-1'1 Unit 10: Peter J. Whitehouse and Melanie F. Wall P.O. Box 10241 Aspen, Colorado 81612 .;1! Unit B-1: PARK CENTRAL WEST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION 720 E. Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 .;/ Unit 101: Lynn B. and Graham D.S. Fulton 255 Windover Road Memphis, Tennessee 38111 ,.;;;.. Unit 201: Gooding Investment co., Inc. 3801 Brighton Boulevard Denver, Colorado 80216 S:> Unit 301: David Muckenhirn P.O. Box 8353 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lot P, Block 75, City and Township of Aspen now PARK CENTRAL CONDOMINIUMS -Lj ::> Units GlOl & GI02: Aspen Properties, Inc. P.O. Box 10502 Aspen, Colorado 81612 , - -, to ,... / >":> Unit GI03: "'-" Peter C. and Sandra K. Johnson 215 South Monarch, Unit G-103 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Unit 101: -:;<,. Richard J. and Allison D. Meeker P.O. Box 2329 Aspen, Colorado 816]2 Unit 102: (There is no Unit 102) Unit 103: ;7 Richard J. Meeker P.O. Box 2329 Aspen, Colorado 81612 o Unit 201: Kelly Properties, Inc. P.O. Box 8429 Aspen, Colorado 81612 5'1 Unit 202: now PARK CENTRAL EXECUTIVE SUITE CONDOMINIUMS ALL UNITS: L.P.C. Company, Inc. P.O. Box 362 Aspen, Colorado 81612 190 Unit 203: Dale Potvin, Sally Allen-Potvin, Ronald W. Allen and Carol A. Allen P.O. Box 575 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Units 301 and 302: ~I Robert L. Orr, D.D.S. 500 Patterson Road Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 Unit 303: ,,,,'> Donald W. Davidson 215 South Monarch #303 Aspen, Colorado 81611 I 1- 1,3 Lots A & B, Block 7~ Ci ty and Towns i te 01' Aspe~ Lucille Willoughby Van Deveer Fred T. Willoughby Frank J. Willoughby Frances Herron, formerly Frances Willoughby c/o Frances Willoughby Herron 55 Nelson Avenue Mill Valley, Clifornia 9494] t,'-I Lots C through H inclusive, Block 76, City and Townsite of Aspen Chicago-Snowflake Investment Group, Inc. c/o Ronald Richmond 900 Ridge Road Homewood, Illinois 60430 is'J Lots K, L, M, and N, Block 76, City and Townsite of Aspen now 210 COOPER CONDOMINIUMS UNIT lA: William G. Clark, Jr. and Andrea Clark 29 South LaSalle Street, Suite 830 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Units 2A and 3D: u~ Joseph L. Tita c/o Janice Pennington Stammberger 29 Patti Lane Houston, Texas 77024 19l Uni:. 3A: Kat-en N. Hynds, Henrietta J. Atchison, Jean B. Clausen Vagneur, and the Barbara Jean Vagneur Revocable Trust 203 Briar Lane Morris, Illinois 60450 Uni.t IB: w~ Robert C. Riddell P.O. Box 9093 Fort Worth, Texas 76107 (,'1 Unit 2B: Ed Noble Trust, E.E. Noble Trustee Robert C. Hawley Elyse Van Eaton Jermaine . Dinges Bennie T. Estes Trust #1 and #2 210 West Cooper #2B Aspen, Colorado 8161l % ,..... '-."" Unit 3B: 7D Paul G. and Elinor H. Anderson P.O. Box 2916 Aspen, Colorado 816]2 Unit lC: 11 C.E. and P.A. Aldrich, III 1688 Bay Avenue Tom River, New Jersey Unit 2C: 7;;>' Mi.chael Ohnmacht P . 0 . Box 11 72 Aspen, Colorado 8l6]2 Unit 3C: 7J James E. Scull P.O. Box 2051 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Unit ID: 74 Edwin V. Ladd, Jr. and Wilma C. Ladd 184 Maxine Road Briston, Connecticut 06010 Unit 2D: ~ 7~ Robert A. and Genevieve M. Jacobson 149 Parish Road New Canaan, Connecticut 71., Unit IE: Robert L. Silver.man and J. Allen Dougher.ty 320 Jeffrey Road Malvern, Pennsylvania 19355 II Unit 2E: N. Kathryn Pitner and Robert D. Leatherman 1363 South Columbine Denver, Colorado 80210 7ll Unit 3E: Irma Prodinger 134 East Hyman Aspen, Colorado 81611 7'1 Unit IF: James T. Mart.in P.O. Box 10502 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Unit 2F: ~O John R. Primm 550 East 12th Avenue #110 Denver, Colorado 80202 .", Cj I. ,..", _..~. ,.j Units 3F and 3G: ~I Sandra P. Johnston P.O. Box 233 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Unit IG: 't,a-- Kenneth H. and Lynnet te Gutner 4505 Lindenwood Lane Northbrook, Illinois 60062 Unit 2G: ~, Larr J. Smith P.O. Box 866 Ravinia Station Highland Park, Illinois 60035 ....~ Lots 0 & P, Block 76, City and Townsite of Aspen LIMELITE, INC. c/o Leroy G. Paas 228 East Cooper Aspen, Colorado 81611 -' -r;S Lots A & B, Block 77, City and Townsite of Aspen Augustus Felton Hallum and Margery L. Hallum 410 South Aspen Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 7/ Lots C, D, & E, Block 77, City and Townsite of Aspen Lyman M. Bielefeldt and Lew E. Marshall (No address available) NOTE: Tax assessment roles show ownership in Leroy G. Paas 228 East Cooper Aspen, Colorado 81611 '/,U7 ",1 GOOD THUNDER CONDOMINIUMS BUILDING A Unit 1: Anne M. Kazel 300 East 75th Street, Apt. 27D New York, New York 10021 '6S Unit 2: James Lee Pardee, III P.O. Box 4153 Aspen, Colorado 81612 <<;'1 Unit 3: Vivian V. King 1321 Blue Road Coral Gales, Florida 33146 10 1- , ' ,....... ..... Unit 4: <.j () Zephyr Investments Limited P.O. Box 707 Grand Cayman, British West Indies 'I' BUILDING B Unit 1: ,James D. Nivette P.O. Box 219 Carmel, California 93921 I.p. Unit 2: Allan and Linda Lee Bloomquist 100 East Hyman Aspen, Colorado 81611 Unit 3: '-1-:) William Bralver as Trustee of the Bralver Colorado Property Trust VII September 26, 1985 3696 Meadville Drive Sherman Oaks, California 91403 614 Unit 4: Brixia, Inc. 233 Wilshire Boulevard #450 Santa Monica, California 90401 ~. ~--". ~"""""";l':.'. I \ __~i U2~C: \-"":'':''''C i_V.: ,-- Appellant: John Star '-.... Address: ",.../0 Gid<2on 1. Kaufman, Esquire Owner: John Star phone: .Address: (303) 925-8166 c/o Gideon I. Kaufman, Esquire 11 ~ F:1st Hvm:m Slli tf': lO~ Aspen, Colorado 81611 Loc.)~io~ cf. p[~p~:+:~.: 305 South Aspen, Unit 4, Good Thunder Condominiums (Street and Number of Subdivision Block and Lot No.) Building Permit Application and prints or any othcr pertincnt datu must accompany this application, and will be made part of CASE NO.: TilE BOARD WILL RETURN THIS APPLICATION IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ALL THE F^CTS IN QUESTION. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EXCEPTION SHOWING JUSTIFICATIONS Applicant attempted to secure a building permit in order to increase the height in a room that was so low as to create problems.for walking. The addition will not increase F.A.R. in any way, but will convert a room that has :limited use to normal usage. Since the time of the construction of the condominium the height limit has been lowered so as to require the Building Department to deny this application. We feel that the inability to use .a room by a tall person is a hardship. The reason for the prohlem is a cha~ge in zoning subsequent to construction. This' waS not a hardship create'" by' the' applicant. The' 'other members of the condominium association, the people most affected by this change, have all supported it. The applicant is not asking for any increase in F.A.R. or size, but for merely making a room that heretofore has been of questionable use, fully usable. Will you be represented by counsel? Yes x No fiJ- ~ 2A1rr- ~ '. ...... (Applicant's Signature). . a_ee====ee=sea_________________________________________________~=e__-_==- PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING FORW^RD THIS APPLICATION GRANTING: ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR TO TO THE BOARD OF ADJOSTMENT AND REASON FOR NOT Signcd Status PERI-lIT REJECTED, DATE APPLICATION FILED r.1lI I Lr,;n DECISION DATE OF HEARING SECRETARY DATE ...- ." . ........-.-----.-.. \... <-~ ~,c i" U. ; U.Jt..c: Appellant: John Star ~ -- ',"" - Address: phone: .Address: /0 Gideon I. Kaufman, Esquire Owner: John Star (303) 925-8166 c/o Gideon I. Kaufman, Esquire 11 C) t:1st Hvm:m Sui t"P. 10C) Aspen, Colorado 81611 Loc.) t i 0", ~c '-.. p(::'p~:- ~~.: 305 South Aspen, Unit 4, Good Thunder Condominiums (Street and Number of Subdivision Block and Lot No.) Building Permit Application and prints or any other pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part of CASE NO.: TilE BOARD WILL RETURN THIS APPLICATION IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ALL THE FACTS IN QUESTION. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EXCEPTION SHOWING JUSTIFICATIONS Applicant attempted to secure a building permit in order to increase the height in a room that was so low as to create problems.for walking. The addition will not increase F.A.R. in any way, but will convert a room that has :limited use to normal usage. Since the time of the construction of the condominium the height limit has been lowered so as to require the Building Department to deny this application. We feel that the inability to use .a room by a tall person is a hardship. The reason for the prohlem is a cha~ge in zoning subsequent to construction. This' was not a hardship create'" by the'" applicant. The' 'other members of the condominium association, the people most affected by this change, have all supported it. The applicant is not asking for any increase in F.A.R. or size, but for merely making a room that heretofore has been of questionable use, fully usable. will you be represented by counsel? Yes x No fiJ- ~ 2A1/1- ~ _'. . -. '.. . (Applicant's Signature)'. . c_ec=c=c===a=e-a-------------------~------------------_________~==-a-=~ PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING FORW^RD THIS APPLYCATYON GRANTING: ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR TO TO THE BOARD OP ADJUSTMENT AND REASON FOR NOT Signed Status PERI.IIT REJECTED, DATE APPLICATION FILED HAlLEn DECiSION DATE OF HEARING SECRETARY DATE .. . ....~..,-...--,-.. lJJlC: ...........:.~c hU..: Appellant: John Star ....~ Address:' ,c/o Gideon 1. Kaufman, Esquire Owner: John Star phone: .Address: (303) 925-8166 c/o Gideon I. Kaufman, Esquire 11 t) F:lst 11vmrln Suite: lOt) Aspen, Colorado 81611 Locatio", ~~ ..... Pc~p'~~~~- : 305 South Aspen, Unit 4, Good Thunder Condominiums (Street and Number of Subdivision Block and Lot No.) Building Permit Application and prints or any other pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part of CASE NO.: TilE BOARD WILL RETURN THIS APPLICATION IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ALL THE FACTS IN QUESTION. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EXCtPTION SHOWING JUSTIFICATIONS Applicant attempted to secure a building permit in order to increase the height in a room that was so low as to create problems.for walking. The addition will not increase F.A.R. in any way, but will convert a room that has :limited use to normal usage. Since the time of the construction of the condominium the height limit has been lowered so as to require the Building Department to deny this application. We feel that the inability to use .a room by a tall person is a hardship. The reason for the prohlem is a cha~ge in zoning subsequent to construction. This' waS not a hardship create'" by' the'" applicant. The' 'other members of the condominium association, the people most affected by this change, have all supported it. The applicant is not asking for any increase in F.A.R. or size, but for merely making a room that heretofore has been of questionable use, fully usable. will you be represented by counsel? Yes x No fiJ- ~ 2A1/1- ~ '. .....-. . (Applicant's Signature)'. .' a_a~=c==aB=a=e_a______-____-__--_-_~________~___-____-_________~c=c=-=u=a PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING FORW^RD THIS APPLICATION GRANTING: ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR TO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND REASON FOR NOT Signed Status PERMIT REJECTED, DATE APPLIC~TION FILED WIlLED DECtSION DATE OF HEARING SECRETARY DATE . .....~ .-.-.---.--~ , , ""...,,,",- --- MEMORANDUM -. - ~ ...-..~ "\--.'" .. DATE: December 1. 1981 ,TO~...d 1?aul Taddune.-C1t.y At.torner - Kathryn Kocl1.. Ci:t.yoc-.~e$;:C~-"'_:'-~" FROM: Remo Lavagnino. Chairman. Aspen Board of Adjustment , ~~~-: RE: Additional Information on APplications for Variance ~ The followlngis suggested language dIrected to apPlicants and. intended for use on Applications for Variances' to the Board of Adjustment. It introduces the applicant to the reasons for granting variances. directs him to prepare his case within the framework of those guidelines. and allows the applicant to better determine his chances for relief based on those considerations. This will alsO save time for both the .ppli- cant and the Board of Adjustment by directing the applicant to address his presentation to those points and may dissuade others with weak or ~nappropriate cM!3S. rroJn"".~v~n applying. ,............-~I -.- . It .. ''::' -. '"i-,...'" ,-'-- T' ~ :,~:~:' :_.; :.t. 1'..'t '.""'~" :!".... ,'" ...., '- The variance provisions of the code is a form of administrative relief from the impact and stricts:ppl1cation of zoning regulations. A variance is granted to render justice in unique and individual cases of practical difficulties or . upnecessar~'hardshi~ resulting from the Llte~a~~app1lLc)ation \) a z \)~~l.n ora lLanoe . UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP exists only if the problem ie unique to the property'andnbt shared'by"o'ther-landowners in the Same district. The hardship complained of must originate in the ordinanc~"and not stem from the actions of the applicant. ~ PRACTICAL D~ICULTIE8 is a broad standard intended to offer relie! where the literal application of the ordinance causes harsh and unexpected results. WITHOtJ.T :<XCEF.TION. PROOF OF -U!-.~~C~SllRY HARDSHIP OR ~RACTI~:~L D17FICULTU.S k'UST.BF. PR"'5ENT Bp:O~1!: {l.Vl\RI4NCE.;", ILLB~,.,(fftA.}j~~D""'n'.,,., ".' .. .. . . . : , . -""" ..,,..,,'. ,>. ..,..... - - .' ~ {~ .,'; . 1.' .~ "..~:~n: ]".. ~ ! ~ :Jt'" : T J\J' (HotEL LEN~DO) Board of' 4d,justment '::: ,/ (/ C.i t: ~/ (,'.1 t,;. r' {..;' ('itv (:-;of" lis{)(:'o !Ya.l f;"'n c.~ S t Ff?f..:' t Osp~:-?n.. CO ~.:;-i,S.l.l ,lUDf.:' .ii., ./9;:7;'6 Pe: 6oo(ithulJdc)" Condominiums #4 Variance Request Dear kember's of thE Board: !.. ~:.. na(/( t:hr::;. P,..;:'.,,:'t \::hE' h1 f..l;:::t.:" !l{) tli.?l I ".'r.i: tee on beha.lf of f,Ol?QRll1) Rss'ociate~. {)"".Jr!6',r {) l located at 200 SoutfJ PSPPlJ Street in south Of th€' Goodthunder Condominiums. Ps a lJeiqhborinq prot1ey'tv ownc}" with ~:n inter'cs't in preser~/atjoD ai' v.iew pJarJesv [have reviewed the 0'rcfJ,itectllral plans for the propo,~ed dormer add,it.lol) at tfJe (;'{}{id/;"Iundi~:'r' C<.)ndo"jf1in.i:<.lm_~::.v and it .7:'- .1J.i~/ opipior.i tht<;:" ,oro.D()_':~f:--d dormer' will fJBVe no neqative lwpact on our' neiqh/)orhood a27j~r01Jv. nor. .s'pecif_ical,lv. an view p,lanes l'n par't,icular- n(i~~,.:.:'- {.F.id-'~ ;~h~-:.:' (.J.;.-'er-,::;').i h~:,:".i(}h'.~,- z ,..c'.... ". h,iqhf:.,;~.t pt.:.;.inty nl"f:-h(:- bu.i.ld J,1}}.1 / 7jOt be incre~iSeti ~i: all and the olJeralJ bU.l!- of thf" (,ui1d i,:'r"/ l.i t /:1 f:~' In c(lDcluslon. zt appea)~5 to me that the var,lance r-eQue.s'tet! 15 min,im21 and r)2ce.S.S'2r'y to allow the en.ioyment of a s'ubs't:antial proper-tv rjqht_ i,e~~ ~tandjn9 rODm~ an(~ 1 ~ee JJ0 f'eason why the var.ia~ce y'eQuested should ,)ot be Qrant:ed.... ~/o uy.s Trf.f.l {/ ,- CD Dan.i ~:.'-} /)6.:',l '::;:'PCi General Partner. {,onaRtlD Associates ~.. I'a}~ry Teaque Architects 200 SOUTH ASPEN STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 303925-6246 ~..,;, .",...... -,,'..'.... "-"",,," court has stated that no significant property interest has been taken from the applicant. Ms. Mann agreed the Board should discuss this issue and asked if the Board should make the formal motion first. Ms. McLaughlin said the applicant's attorney should be present. Lavagnino asked if the attorney would argue the reconsideration issue or only once the hearing is re-opened. The Board scheduled the discussion for July 10 at 4:-00 p.m. 1 uu,. 1'" ,,",", , Mr. Francis Whitaker 1265 West Bunny Court Aspen. Colorado 81611 303-925-3844 303-920-1265 I find the action of the Board of Adjustments at its meeting on June 26, 1986, most disturbing. First, the Variance Requested appears incomplete. The height variance alone does not permit the enlargement or expansion on the subject property. Sec. 24-1).1. ---It is the intent of this article to permit these nonconformities to continue until they are removed, but not to encourage their survival. It is the further intent of this article that nonconformities shall not be enlarged upon, expanded or extended, ----. I believe that the decision by the Board to grant a height variance was contrary to the Board's guidelines. City of Aspen, Board of Zoning Adjustment, Appeal Information, Section 12. The Board must make two (2) separate findings to grant a varianc'e. a. First, the Board must find that the a:!j1iicant has practical,;;, diificu1ties or unnecessary hardships in his or her case that would ~ake the application of the strict letter of the zoning laws an injustice in the applicants case. ----. The Board rarely finds practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships where the applicants appeal is a matter of aesthetics or design or economics or if a reasonable 1e~1 alternative is available. There is a reasonable legal a1ternat1ve to the applICant's request - lower the ridge or lower the roof pitch. Quote from a memo by the City Attorney Sandra Stuller, December 19. 1974, and still pertinent - "1 think our processes have become distorted for the benefit of applicants, and feel compelled to state some basic premises identified in our code and state common law." The memo goes on to quote Supreme Court concepts and also to reiterate the Aspen Code provisions, with which you should all be familiar. It is my opinion that the Board ignored those code provis ions. Furthermore, in granting the height variance and attaching restrictions to the structure proposed, I believe the Board exceeded its authority. That authority in this case was limited to height restrictions only. The question of allowing expansion on a nonconforming structure was not before the Board. Finally, it was brought out in the discussion that the proposed expansion would indeed result in increased floor area. No such request was made in the application, therefor the Board could not legally act upon it. In conclusion, it was unfortunate that the Board was without legal c~se1, and without its regular administrative counsel as well. I request that The Board reconsider its decision of June 29, 1986. F LlJ 0 ____.__.___.--1 ,.... "';..... DRAFT Reqular Meetinq Board of Adiustment June 26. 1986 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4:10 p.m. with members Francis Whitaker, Josephine Mann, Charles Paterson, and Ron Erickson present. CASE 86--13 JOHN STAR Lavagnino read the requested variance, "The property is located in the RMF zoning category. Section 24-3.4 area and bulk requires 25 foot maximum height. Proposed construction will exceed this height maximum, therefore, this request for a height variance". Gideon Kaufman, representing the applicant, presented the affidavit of posting and photograph of same. Kaufman said the variance request is for 18 inches, and there is an aesthetic problem if this is denied. Kaufman told the Board this is not a non-conforming use, it is a residential use in an RMF zone. The applicant needs to tie into a structural beam in order to enjoy a substantial property right. This will also enable the applicant to prevent creating a community hardship. Kaufman said this is not increasing FAR nor increasing the number of units. This request is to make space that is presently in existence habitable by creating a space one can stand up in. Kaufman told the Boards when this building was built, the height limit in the RMF zone was 28 feet. 1 ,. . ,.-.. ',->;--.'" DRAFT Reqular Meetino Board of Adiustment June 26. 1986 The applicant is proposing to match the existing roof line and not create an aesthetic unpleasing situation. Kaufman reminded the Board he appeared for a variance in the floodplain, and the Board granted the variance based upon a community hardship feeling it was more appropriate to relocate the building because of community concerns. Lavagnino said the Board does not consider aesthetics; it is not one of the criteria. Kaufman told the Board when the building was built, a structural beam was installed at 28 feet, and they would like to tie into that beam. Kaufman said this is not increasing FAR. Kaufman told the Board he has meetings with neighbors to explain the requested variance. Kaufman showed pictures of views of the building, the existing roof line, the beam they would like to tie into. The board discussed tying under the beam, looked at the condominium map. Paterson pointed out depending the way this is measured, it could be only 15 inch variance. Lavagnino asked if there are side elevations of the existing dormer. Kaufman said the proposed dormer is in a different unit and a different location. Lavagnino said if the applicant is discussing property rights being denied, if the other unit with a dormer has this property right, he would like to see the width of the existing unit. The Board should not approve more than the existing unit. Lavagnino 2 , DRAFT ReqularMeetinq Board of Ad;ustment June 26. 1986 said the Board grants the minimum variances to allow applicants to enjoy a property right someone else has. Erickson asked what the existing use of this space. Kaufman said it is dead space, a person cannot up stand up in this space. Erickson asked the size of the unit. Kaufman said this is a studio unit. Erickson asked if this dormer space would form another room. Kaufman said it would not create another room. Erickson said he would like to know if the other dormer was constructed when the building was constructed. Kaufman pointed out the recorded condominium plat, showing the dormer. Whitaker asked if this is a non-conforming building because it is over the present height limit. Kaufman said this is a non-conforming building, not a non-conforming use. The Codes does not allow changes to a non-conforming use but does allow changes to a non- conforming building. Whitaker said he feels it would be possible to lower the roof pitch and the applicant would not have to ask for a variance. The applicant could structurally tie down. Kaufman said the structural beam does not affect just this uni t; thi s is not a practical solution because it would effect the whole building. Lavagnino suggested to minimize the variance, the applicant could bring another beam in under the existing beam. Whitaker said the applicant could run straps down to support the ridge of the new 3 u_o_1 .'" ", ;"'../ DRAFT ReqularMeetinq Board of-Adiustment June 26. 1986 addition at a lower level and bring it to a conforming height. Ms. Mann asked what the ceiling height would be if the applicant did receive a variance. Dennis Cyrus, representing the applicant, said the ceiling would be 7-1/2 feet. Whitaker illustrated how the side walls could be left the same, drop the pitch and support the beam. Kaufman said solutions can be created that have aesthetic concerns that are not appeal ing to the neighborhood. The Board should take into account pedestrians having to look at the solution. Lavagnino opened the public hearing. Lee Pardee, owner of condomini um unit in the building, asked if there would be no increase in the FAR of the building by adding this dormer. Pardee said there may be FAR available to the building that this applicant may be taking. Paterson said if they are not adding to the floor plan, there is no increase in FAR. Whitaker asked if the floor runs out to the existing line of the building and how high is it at that point. Kaufman said it is less than 1 foot at the edge of the building. Pardee said if there is no increase in FAR, and the applicant has the option of doing the same height, but through the interpretation of the Code would make a longer roof, he would be in favor of the variance request. Pardee said this can be built, and he would 4 ..,..-1. DRAfT Reqular Meetinq Board of Adjustment prefer to have it done with the same attractively as possible. June 26. 1986 roof pitch and as Suzanne Caskey, representing Margaret Pace Wilson, said Ms. Wilson is concerned because of the scale of the neighborhood has gotten too big. Ms. Caskey said these objections are a matter of principle. Ms. Caskey told the Board she has been to the site, and if the applicant can add this space anyway, they would prefer the option of the variance with less apparent bulk. Carol Blomquist, adjacent neighbor, told the Board she was a member of the committee that got the height limit lowered in this neighborhood. Ms. Blomquist said her problem is with the Code adding balconies and dormers. Irma Prodinger, Hearthstone House, said all that can be seen from these neighborhood is bulk. Alan Bush, Park Central West condominiums, told the Board this variance will be a visual impact from some of the units. Bush said he tried to see the plans before the meeting, but was unable to locate any. Bush said he feels the bulk of the neighborhood is too high and the visual impact of any extension will be significant to some property owners. Bush said if they are allowed to do an extension without a variance, he would like to see drawings of the extension and the extension with a variance. Bush said if they can do it anyway, it should be done so that it looks better than worse. There should be comparisons of the two 5 .1___"_ . ',",,'" ,.... '1::j" V~;t..r+"Sl '~ Reqular Meetinq Board of Adiustment June 26. 1986 alternatives. Kaufman showed sketches of the two alternatives, one built to Code, one built with a variance. Kaufman said the issue is measurement of the height based on what type of roof there is. The Board looked at drawings of the two alternatives. Lavagnino said what is allowed seems like it defeats the Board's purpose. What is allowed by Code extends the roof line and gives greater bulk. Rob Weien, building department, said the Code states when height is measured you start at the existing ground elevation. On a flat roof you measure the top of the roof. When you have a pitched roof, you measure to the mid point between the peak and the ridge, that is the height of the roof. The exception is if the distance from the mid point to the peak is greater than 5 feet, then the maximum height becomes 30 feet. This is to keep buildings from having a large sloped roof and still measuring the height to the mid point. Weinen pointed out in this application the difference between the eave and the ridge elevation is 6 feet. If you design to the maximum of the Code, you would design for a difference of 10 feet from the eave to the peak, and the mid point would be 5 feet. The distance from the mid point to the ridge wold be 5 feet maximum. Weien told the Boards that is what the RallowableR drawing shows. Lavagnino said the RallowableR drawing appears to be bulkier. 6 "'- DRAFT Reqular Meetinq --Board of Adiustment June 26. 1986 Paul Anderson, 210 Cooper, said there may have been some conditions when this remodel was done. Erickson asked if the applicant needs or has approval from the condominium association for this addition. Kaufman said the condominium association has approved the change. Pardee said he is not sure this was mentioned in the proxys; however, that is not the Boards' problem. Pardee asked if the Board granted the variance, would the applicant have to construct what they have presented. Lavagnino said the Board has the plans on file, and the applicant is to build to the evidence presented to the Board. Pardee said if the applicant receives a variance, they can build a smaller dormer with a balcony; if they don't get the variance it is the same height with a broader dormer and no balcony. Pardee said in that case, he would be in favor of the variance. Lavagnino closed the public hearing. Whi taker said the argument about the structural problem is something that can be solved. The argument' about the pitch of the roof is inval id because the south elevation and east elevation have different pitches anyway. Whitaker said he considers the two presented drawings a form of blackmail. Whitaker said the pitch of the roof can be reduced to that of the other elevations and no variance would be required. Paterson agreed this can be buil t 18 inches lower; however, he does not 7 ..._~._--..--I , ,~. ... DRAfT Re~ular Meetino Board of Adiustment June 26. 1986 feel it is a good solution for the neighbors. Paterson said he would vote in favor of the var iance based on these drawings. Whitaker said with this suggestion, you are creating exactly the same conditions at either end of the roof line that you are trying to get away from. Paterson pointed out the variance solution creates more ventilation and a healthier environment. Paterson said there are enough circumstances that make this case a practical difficulty. Erickson said he feels the applicant has ill ustrated that following the Code does not always produce the best solution. Erickson said he feels the drawings give the Board a strong reason for granting a variance. Ms. Mann agreed with Paterson's arguments. Ms. Mann said the 18 inches asked to be granted may in effect by 15 inches if measured precisely. Ms. Mann said this seems a small request. Ms. Mann said she does not want to be in a situation to create more bulk, but this request seems practical. Lavagnino said he would like to put a covenant on this request so that the structure is built the way it is proposed to the Board. Whitaker asked if there is a 7-1/2 foot requirement on the ceiling, and could this be avoided by running the roof down to 2 feet. Weien told the Boards the plans presented were not complete enough to determine what the build out of the building 8 ------- ---'-- -----1 . ----- . ,-' DRAfT Requl-ar Meetinq Board of Ad; ustment - June 26. 1986 is. Weien said he cannot tell the Board how much of the parc_el has been used up. Lavagnino asked if the Board should be concerned in a condominium building if they should be concerned about the division of FAR between units in a complex. Kaufman said there is a question of whether the deck area will count in the FAR. Weien said generally going from non-habitable to habitable space adds area to be counted in the FAR calculation. Whitaker said the Board should know what the FAR ratio is and what has been used up on this parcel. Whitaker said if there is a possibility that this would put the building over the limit, he would like to know that. Lavagnino said the variance could be conditioned upon this addition not go over the FAR requirements. Lavagnino said this application does not address FAR. Cyrus said if the variance is granted and they apply for a building permit, and it is over FAR, the permit will be rejected. Alan Bush agreed some covenant should be put on this restricting any future changes to extend the bulk. Lavagnino said the Board is assuming the application meets all other requirements. Erickson read a letter from Hotel Lenado supporting the request, that it has no negative impact on the neighborhood generally. The letter states that the highest point of the building will not be increased, and the variance request is minimal. Paterson read a letter into the record from Kathleen Daily, resident of the Aspen Townhouses West, expressing opposition to any further 9 1-"- ".__ , - ...., DRAfT '. RemJlar- Meeti-na . Board of Adjustment .rune 26. "1986 expansion of the Good Thunder building, particularly a height variance. Lavagnino moved that based on the evidenced presented at this meeting the Board grants this variance with the stipulation that no extensions of the pitch of the proposed new dormer be extended at any future date Whitaker said he does not feel the criteria to grant a variance has been met. The City Attorney has told the Board this does not have to be stated in the motion but it must be brought up in the discussion. Lavagnino amended his motion to add that practical difficulties have been established; seconded by Erickson. Roll call vote; Ms. Mann, yes; Paterson, yes; Whitaker, no; Erickson, yes; Lavagnino, yes. Motion carried. Lavagnino asked that the problems caused by 'this measurement of the roof be conveyed to staff. Erickson said the Board is sorry Kim Wilhoit left and that she did a very good job. 10 ---,1.--..----,. r "",, " -J June 12, 1986 Remo Lavagnino, Chairman City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Case No. 86-13: Variance Request by John Star Dear Mr. Lavagnino: My name is Kathleen Krieger Daily, and I am the owner of Unit 8 of the Aspen Townhouses West Condominiums which are situated at 108 West Hyman, Aspen. I am also the President of the Condomin- ium Association which manages that building, and I am writing this letter both personally and in my capacity as Association President. I wish to support the opposition being expressed by the Hearthstone Lodge to any further expansion of the Good Thunder Con- dominium building, particularly one which requires a height vari- ance. The building is already badly out of proportion with other structures in the neighborhood, in terms of both height and mass. The proposed new construction can only make this situation worse. Thank you for your attention to this objection. S~7erelY , K&~~D.ilY . Mr. Francis Whitaker 1265 West Bunny Court Aspen. Colorado 81611 303-925-3844 303-920-1265 Some further thoughts on the John Star Case. First, a quote from a memo from Remo Lavagnino to Paul Taddune, December 7, 1981. "WITHOUT EXCEPTION, PROOF OF UNECESSARY HARDSHIP OR PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES MUST BE PRESENT BEFORE A VARIANCE WILL BE GRANTED': Capitals and underilining by Lavagnino. In my opinion, no proof of either Hardship or difficulty was presented. The connecting of a new ridge to the existing ridge is not a real difficulty, and certainly not an unneccesary hard- ship. The lowering of the ridge to the allowed height would still leave a twelve foot ceiling at the ridge. The request to maintain the same roof pitch was based purely on aesthetics. Now, lets go on to the guidelines. 1. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. I think the applicant is responsible for attempting to construct an addition that is above height. 2. That special or extraordinary circumstances apply to the subject property that do not apply similarly to other properties in the same vicinity and Zone. No proof of special or extraordinary circumstances was presented. J. 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 zon~, but denied the suject property because of the special conditions or extraordinary circumstances. On-the contrary, the subject property, due to its non-conforming height, is enjoying property rights denied to others in the same vicinity and zone. 4. That the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the general purpose of the comprehensive general plan. The majority of the Board seemed to ignore the specific regulations regarding non-conforming structures, Sec 24-1Jy1. Intent. Previously quoted, and Sec. 24-1J.J. (a). "No such nonconforming structure may be enlarged or altered in a way which increases its nonconformity ---. In allowing the Board to be swayed by a theoretical structure, the Board failed to take into consideration this important fact, 2. The Board also failed to consider the increase in FAR, which was brought to light during the deliberations. In my opinion, this case would require not only a height variance, but another variance to allow enlargement of a nonconforming use, plus another variance for increase in FAR. The granting of any or all of these variances would adversely affect the general purpose of the comprehensive general plan. ----- .-' <:' .-. -- - ~ --. - ---- .-..-. -_.. o .~~ -.'-1 ;.---- ;---_...- - -.-..-.--- -- . -...-..-...... ...... -.... .... .~.....-....- 4l.1tol NI~ .-., e . -.1---- . J r .~:;;:.::.. .:r.n r-]ir, UI:I , iIL:;l I . , . !'I:j t I i ! ' f - '-F 1r=i..L" .!'Ii'!' -.- , ..1 ' : lu': I . . it ,i . ......:-.;.:.'1.;..,..._.....;.; , {it. ;" ~ T L.. e V,- ! 11I-1' pi '- 0" - --j--... ..- -r i , . _, I t'l , : 1 1- \N\\\\o.y,et C\S CO\l'\ e . rto.0. I'>\l""~ \\,6\\ \~6'O aa\).'C\ \\1.1' '^\,,,, .t""~;;,,^ 5' . ","' '':..''1:" .< i'spe"S44 Ca. -to . co ~,,'! 'Ill:... 9~':..3 S-ta.~ .nO C:f.S" ~C:f. 3{)3' J o'[\:!l 'fa.g;l\~ Ut<:f. 'J ~R1}\ '{\e 1.Ja. I" 0 '" ~ on -t \l.e1l\O 1',,00 1"0">> '{\tS i"!"ot;;10t\" t<T 1'>:f. i..no. -t'{\o\).g. e11\O C:f.l'l. "b"S:f. 'fa.g.n a. 11\ :f.1. ;E. l' 1.Ja. e f::?<<~T't\OU~\lS'J; 1'> oj . 'lia.S . \).1 tj . ag.e fi}.c "!"}. a~ 0< .'. .""" ",,< . J ., '. '. " " i Mr. Francis Whitaker 1265 West Bunny Court Aspen, Colorado 81611 303-925-3844 303-920-1265 I find the action of the Board of Adjustments at its meeting on June 26, 1986, most disturbing. First, the Variance Requested appears incomplete. The height variance alone does not permit the enlargement or expansion on the subject property. Sec. 24-13.1. ---It is the intent of this article to permit these nonconformities to continue until they are removed, but not to encourage their survival. It is the further intent of this article that nonconformities shall not be enlarged upon, expanded or extended, ----. I believe that the decision by the Board to grant a height variance was contrary to the Board's guidelines. City of Aspen, Board of Zoning Adjustment, Appeal Information, Section 12. The Board must make two (2) separate findings to grant a varianc'e. a. First, the Board must find that the alfiicant has practical., j diificulties or unnecessary hardships in his or her case that would ~ke the application of the strict letter of the zoning laws an injustice in the applicants case. ----, The Board rarely finds practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships where the applicants appeal is a matter of aesthetics or design or economics or if ~ reasonable ~ alternative is available. There is a reasonable legal alternatIVe to the applICant's request - lower the ridge or lower the roof pitch. Quote from a memo by the City Attorney Sandra Stuller, December 19. 1974, and still pertinent - "I think our processes have become distorted for the benefit of applicants, and feel compelled to state some basic premises identified in our code and state common law." The memo goes on to quote Supreme Court concepts and also to reiterate the Aspen Code provisions, with which you should all be familiar. It is my opinion that the Board ignored those code prov is ions. Furthermore, in granting the height variance and attaching restrictions to the structure proposed, I believe the Board exceeded its authority, That authority in this case was limited to height restrictions only. The question of allowing expansion on a nonconforming structure was not before the Board, Finally, it was brought out in the discussion that the proposed expansion would indeed result in increased floor area. No such request was made in the application, therefor the Board could not legally act upon it. In conclusion, it was unfortunate that the Board was without legal c~se1, and without its regular administrative counsel as well. I request that The Board reconsider its decision of June 29, 1986. "F LJ9 ~ c /'".... ,-~ Mr. Francis Whitaker 1265 West Bunny CQurt Aspen, Colorado 81611 303-925-3844 303920.1265 Some further thoughts on the John Star Case. First, a quote from a memo from Remo Lavagnino to Paul Taddune, December 7, 1981. "WITHOUT EXCEPTION, PROOF OF UNECESSARY HARDSHIP OR PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES MUST BE PRESENT BEFORE A VARIANCE WILL BE GRANTED~ Capitals and underlining by Lavagnino. In my opinion, no proof of either Hardship or difficulty was presented. The connecting of a new rj.dge to the existing ridge is not a real difficulty, and certainly not an unneccesary hard- ship. The lowering of the ridge to the allowed height would still leave a twelve foot ceiling at the ridge. The request to maintain the same roof pitch was based purely on aesthetics. Now, lets go on to the guidelines. 1. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. I think the applicant is responsible for attempting to construct an addition that is above height. 2. That special or extraordinary circumstances apply to the subject property that do not apply similarly to other properties in the same vicinity and Zone. No proof of special or extraordinary circumstances was presented. 3. 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 zon~, but denied the suject property because of the special conditions or extraordinary circumstances. On-Gthe contrary, the subject property, due to its non-conforming height, is enjoying property rights denied to others in the same vicinity and zone. 4. That the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the general purpose of the comprehensive general plan. The majority of the Board seemed to ignore the specific regulations regarding non-conforming structuresl Sec 24-13~1. Intent. Previously quoted, and Sec. 24-13.). (a). "No such nonconforming structure may be enlarged or altered in a way which increases its nonconformity ---. In allowing the Board to be swayed by a theoretical structure, the Board failed to take into consideration this important fact, _. - ,...,. '<....... 2. The Board also failed to consider the increase in FAR, which was brought to light during the deliberations. In my opinion, this case would require not only a height variance, but another variance to allow enlargement of a nonconforming use, plus another variance for increase in FAR. The granting of any or all of these variances would adversely affect the general purpose of the comprehensive general plan. -.., --- .. .---- ___m.__.'_____.__.~"::;_.~ .h.. _..___.....__ ._..____.__.__.._ . ,. n. r_' . . -' ~---'.. . . -- .. -"._,'~..--._"'''' -,... _..- ,~"""".,,--_.,"~-'-"'."-'- - "Viol NI~ .'. ~\'!I~'- :'LiJr==, I !G. ,I "!I I' I I 1.: '.. e " e e v' ,.. T I.. ~<-. , . .... -'.- .- .+ --J '__ J 1 1- . ,~..' '." <0 1 _;..' ~_.'-.. , , ~I' _1'- 0" -. - -- --~."" c c ( ';m' c .1. o!l ,,, it rT' ~'"... ,,'T II i: i ,; I :i \ II I \1 .:..:;.:.I....:,~:......__..-~ I I IT-'- 1.1. :.-:=:7 "", .'..... "" " "..... .... '" ". '.,', ~ .. '..., " " " ", "- . , ", " '. " '-, ". u___ I l'i: :,\\'\' I' , ., li:\,\i; , \.1 \:\[', I II :;\\1\\ "\1' ' \ ',I ;' I ,I \ " \ ,,' "I' I ;! II L I i I ,,111"\il II :l Iii; ! I \ \:" \ I! i "\: ,i i :i I! i\'\ I ill I I\i ::\1\ \ I ,i , \ ' ~ . \ i , 1.,11\ ili . 'I',' " I .1 "I J Iii" i~\'\!i;rf;i . :!.,'i::1~~!f'i; ii,",,,,..,!;' .' I ',~:~,~,;~r~:~.;:~:':1/' ....", ,....J;;-,.,'~.~-., i.' . 'l~'~~~~2'~:;.;~;:1'-:: . ":z .d .'-. r.--:' ',";' I , i I I ! - o I - .... - ':.t :::0 , ,".1,. . ., . , ',,'-' .,r5~f !:.' .. :,.. y :'}< , ., . ~ ; ~ . - '\ . j.'.- ~.;~\ ." \. on ,<, :t . , , t3- ~_ . ~~._._...- .- , II 'I! [I :'\ II ': I iL,IJ~- .~ i . , (" ."..... " . , " " I . , , ' / 7 /~ - - " ~--:.- .--_.... - o I , ''"'' ""',,~"", ~ ::- ,#'""-' '- ,'i'. . -I , , :-=. -- ,. }; '~ .. '." . ! ! "".-, ..." !t i , ~:'"...'. -', " '.~ ',' ',\",. . \ ., '~.., . ..'-.:~:","J. J " .. '::~\-,\'j. .. " " .,. ";:\.- ,.: .' · ,";'.."~;'!~t "".~i;1 ~:',:\\.'\rf~, it!.~-.:~" ~ . I' -'1,. ~"\ .~ "'.~ '\ ,.:. ,.-. r',; , t" .... " .. _ .-NO _~~-- . . ~.n_.'. 0 COLHiLy of Pil;;in ) ) S3. ) AfFID/\\:J'l' OF NO'i'lCS BY :.~'::~,~I.l'l(;G OF 1\ VI'.HIAN::E !lSTIRING flf::t="ORE J.'!:::: CITY OF ASPEN 80ANO OF ADJUSTMENT (Pursuant to Section 2-22(c) of the Mu~icipal Codc) State of ColoJ:ildo 'l'he unders:.gncd, being first duly S\iOCn, deposes and :;ays as fo 1 :1.0\15 : 1. I, GIDEON KAUFMAN (print n:lme) , ~ein9 01: rcplCt'scnting un Applicant before the City of Aspen Board of Adj~strnent, personally certify that the attached photograph fa5.rly and accurately represents the si9nposted as Notice of the variance hearing on this matter in a conspicuous place on the subject propclCty (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and th9tthe said sign was posted and visible c6ntinuously fro!') the 13th day of .1nne , 19 86 , to ::he ~_6..1;;~._ day of June , 19 86. (~Iust be posted for ct least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). APPf,ICANT Subscribed this 26th '9~, by and sworn to before day of June . GIDEON KAUFMAN me t (Attach photograph here) WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. My commission expires: 7/13/88 ~l~);~~ NotalCY Public 31S.E. Hvman. Suite 305. Aspen. CO 81611 Addrcss d- - ;.)-, , ,\. ~ '0,\ ,~\\ ~ c CITY CLERK 130"5. GALENA ASPEN, CO 81611 ~ ~~., ~~~~ 4rr . <lot ....fli..... .., -~. -l ..... . "-<.., ....:::......1 At ~'".. " . ',. '- ........w1 ::t. "". CITY CLERK 130 S. GALENA ASPEN. CO 81611 c --:--~. ",,:"~a~r ,.,.... ; U.S. I .- /,. MAY 23"86" ~~ 11 _ "a..nIR 1403481 ~~~A ~~ Ed Noble Trust, E.E. Noble Trust ~~ Robert C. Hawley, Elyse Van Eato ~.. L: .:,.... rmaine Dinges, Bennie T. Estes I,,~J ....../L Trust U and #2 \\'W, ,., 2"1.0 W. Cooper, #2B <v V"1<t..:'-Aspen, CO 81611 ..... ~r-{---\ -t " :etA ~-' V,^ 1'11-,.-'::. ''(.'; '.\ ~~~~ &~~:7L 1--0 I(( D",~,..,.,.,.-...... "T :t..It.r'_.l r-.r-...-, -:-~~~ ~ '\~ ., u.s. .- I$. nAY ZJ'SS ;.:~'I , I" A"..n.It 1403481 T. n,....l--,r-,........,~ IT ( CITY CLERK 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, CO 8161' C'<"J':'" ;_,:1,') r:'" : . 1385 B/c.\\ ( .X Sargent P if 419 ~ 81612 : ( John P.o. en, CO '- ~' "'''... ",'.--...... -.- -. TIn8 /' ~:';'--. vVJ,. . . ~ZZ.O~"~fJ . I: ~"' : tt--:-. : l~~A~Q.d .s.D_l......~ " 'h :/---. ~. ~{ (.''''''--. !/9LlJ OJ 'Nil VN3WD .S )/~3l) AJ ... ... .., ~ CITY OF ASPEN 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 .'l Mr. Charlie Paterson 500 w. Paterson Aspen, CO 81611 +0.._ :.]TY CLERK '10 S. GALENA " CO 81611 - CITY CLERK 1,V) S. GALENA r081611 ...-' REUrilf;TER 140348 I Ed Noble Trust, E.E. Noble Truste, Robert C. Hawley, Elyse Van Eaton Jermaine Dinges, Bennie T. Estes Trust #l and 112 210 w. Cooper, 112B Aspen, CO 81611 ('"'r'i,'." ",._' it> ri'i 19E\5 . 8;';; \\ . c~~ ADDReSSEE UNKNOWN :~~i'Z' .-".1;, ~iI.' , ~t... John.~ud-LYUQSargent C_;~~n~o~o 41~161~__~Cn~ ------1\'\ - ly'~ ~6Cl~ .~ c