HomeMy WebLinkAboutlanduse case.boa.208 E Hopkins.Nunn.009-84
r, ~
. . -'h ,,~ ~ 't'.:: . ~:;. =.' - ,'.'" ::._.,':';"'~.7'-",:":'f~: - '~" -.: .1':~-:c_ ~ff""';fr-~~ ;_::'.j.r.,.~,'.~~~.-',;.:,:.:,.~:',:-.--,~~.L~r.-~..~;t_:_~L.~:t.~{..~.Z_','.;..-,..'.'~.~,.;"'":iZ;:[~.' z' ~::;:~,__. ~ L.-~..~.(_\:C,~.,)~~.::; ,,:;:,,'f,.,~.;::.,f"'.-k~~:.'.:~~_:...'.~7~
~,~i~.~1':'ik~~,.t~-~bS~~'~;lL~~~:>''-~'::Ji>)~'~~/;; "~\~~\::: .' . ~~~~....~~ < ~~_<~,,;<._-.;; >->", ..... :::_'V'._/ ~_~.,.w- ,~~<~.~~~~~_ ~ -~.. :c- >."~,,.... -",' -
'-"l:
....
N<1l'ICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Case No. 84-9
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, Colo-
rado, (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.
yo~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.
The particulars of the hearing and of the requested variance are as follows:
Date and Time of Meeting:
Date:
Time:
April 19, 1984
4:00 p.m.
Name and address of Applicant for Variance:
Name:
Address:
Ronald and Shirley Nunn
Route 1, Box 200, Brentwood, Califorina
94513
.
Location or description of property:
Location:
Description:
208 East Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado
Lot M, Block 74, City and Townsite of Aspen
Variance Requested: Property is located in 'a' office zone-Section 24-3.4,
area and bulk. Req~ired setbacks sideyard-5', rearyard-15'. Section 24-13.3 (a),
no such nonconforming structure may be enlarged or altered in a way which
increases it's nonconformity. Applicant appears to be asking for (1) an un-
specified rearyard setback variance for a carport; (2) a 3~ sideyard setback
Duration of Variance: (Please cross out one)
~~
Permanent
THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
BY Remo Lavagnino, Chairman
Barbara Norris, Deputy City Clerk
Variance Requested, continued:
variance to enlarge a nonconforming structure 3~ feet in the sideyard setback;
and (3) to build a fence 7 feet in height along the same location of exist-
ing fence encroachment.
or
"01 . _.,.....
,..... f_"V'1I1V Vt ':"'V!~J,I'l....i IU.....;VvJIIL.if.
C! TV Of I\SPErl
J!{ y/7
~<'7-N "'.I!l
~!V
DII TE:
. I - I ,
APP ElLA/IT Ronald 'Nunn &
.' \.,.... '.......
CASE NO.
gJj -1
-
Brentwood, C!A
s'hirle'y' Nunn
.....wr..:.
94513'., '
ADDRESS, Route 1 Box 2(JO
PHONE 415-634-2148
,
OWI/[R
~ald Nunn & Shirley ~unn ADDRESS Route 1 Box 200
Brentwood,' CA 94513
.
-
(OCRTIon OF PlaPERTY
.
.
208 East Hopkins, Aspen Colorado
.-;
.
Lot M Block 74 Cit and Townsite of As en
. Street. & Number of Subdivision Blk.' & lot
Building Permit' Application and prints or any other pertinent
,~ data must accompany this application, and will be made part of
.
eMf: NO.
THE BOA~D WILL RETURN THIS,APPlICATION IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN
All THE FACTS IN QUESTION.
.
.
DESCRIPTIOi,! ,CF PROPOSED EXCEPTION SHOHIHG JUSTIFICATI()~JS:
.2.
r~EQUEST FOll A'REA" YAiW VAHIANCE F,OH'A NEW CAHPOllT TO
HEPLACE AN EXISTIi1G META.L;)HED IN THE SANlb: LOC-AnON~
llE'';"ST FO" ASIDE YAHD VA'RIANCE)'OR A N~W ~go'ix~~~i~~
WEST SID~ TO HEPLApj;'; AN. EXISTI.NG ROO)" OV1C.R
PORTION OF THE HOUSE. ' ,
HEQUEST FOR A VAHI!\NCE F OR A F .2NCE. HIGHEH. THAN THE
6' ALLOWl':D., ...
,
.
L
"
. .
.SEE ATTACHED SHEET .Fo...'i. FUlnimJ'{ ,EXPLANATION
, FOR THE VAll lANCE HEQUE!;TS.
'Will you be represented by couqsel ? Yes
ANn JUSTIFICATION
'..
- .
SIGN
,,"
, , ,
,Property is located 11} '0,1 office zone - section;i4-:/4' Area ~nd 'Btiik."
Re'quired 'se,tbacks' sideyard - 5 ft., r'earyard -, is ft. "
Section 24-i3.3 (a) No such nonconforming structure may,be enlarged or altered in a way,
which increases it l S confOTmity. .. .
Applj.cant appears to be ilsking for (l'....an un'specified r,earyard, s~tb~ck variance 'fQr '
a carport; (2) a ?~ s1deyard setback variance to enlarge a'non-conf~rming structure 3~ ft.
in the sid'leyard, setback;' 'and' (3) to build a fence'? feet in'he'ight along the same
location of eX:is.ting fe'nee encroachment. .
.
. ,
,
.
, ,
~ r
~'-
" ~
.
'LW~
S'i9n~
"
.
'Status to
"
PEI:HIT REjECTED,' D^'TE~OECrSrON
.
Ai'i'LiC,iirOrj FILED DATE IF HEMING
,.
.
~_DATE
HAILEO
.
.
. S[Ci\ETAIlY
.
.
"
"
,-' "'".
qJ/ ~ r
.....-..-..~-_..
County of Pitkin
State of Colorado
)
) ss.
)
AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY POSTING OF
A VARIANCE HEARING BEFORE THE
CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
(pursuunt to Section 2-22(c) of
the Mu~icipal Code)
The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says as
follows:
I, ~ N A L t::,
(print name)
representing an Applicant before the City of Aspen Board of
1.
NUN;!
, !:>eing or
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 fr.om the nearest public
way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously
/"fl... d '/ ' (k /
from the 0 - day of /":,~f /L , ' 19~, to the
/1 t:"day of Aj7/? r L , 19X( (Must be posted for at
least ten (10) full days before the hearing date).
APPLICANT
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 11':; Iv day of (L~
19 H- ' by J: 0 rtI ,q L !J (/1>/ d N ;V
,
(Attach
photograph here)
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL
SEAL. '
My cOlrunission expires: 11- _15-t-'l
~~~ '(7, ~~ '
otar.y 2:1 ic. '
L/.34 .~'4 ~.~
"UULess {'~~~7!f!ztH.~ cY/6//
d- - ;}.
~ " '
c,,"-'.tl ", P~tkin
;<1i't.t:i"".tJl.,."..' ",.f;"i\":;,';,::~~
.' ,...,; \. ~~':: ' " of, C>>~tlldo
'... ~.-.~,,;, ,<:."~-;,, "j.r"it.""',
!t''i'~i~1'b
~ t~I~'-~~r'-"""-;:,"""',
:;j,,i1.f<.. ,'Jr. uncJeraiqned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says as
.:i;_'_:'!~'~':~-':'~:~:f,'~.
,i:iirt~,;.JJ;~ I
.r:~, 'il~';; .f ,
1~~:;!:<t:: '\ %. ~ A I-l I (;J:!h 11:-
'. "~i~: 'r'i<i;,?~" ,y,' r.f - ---- -
,}". "',',..'; ,,'l;. ., pr nt name)
~.~~~,:",'~:"~,::;,~; :~~".> ;;;( ,"
".,~~.~,~.Hfttlll9 an Applicant before the City of Aspen Board of
:.' f,;/:.'. .'. "'.'
,<,t 4.M-j......t, personally certify that the attached photograph
~.~;'~:~1~.;}l~1t':', accurately represents the sign posted as Notice of the
. " ~; {, ~iar'ltl~';'rlng on this matter in a conspicuous place on the
~,,"';i{..~.1-.:>, it, <<~':i~'
.,0',,: 4_~~Jll'C.plkty (as it could be seen from the nearest pUblic
":';'"'5t~~;,;_::>,.': ",,__,;'\'~., -'~;',
~~~;~;'f";..~~iJIt that 'the said sign was posted and
~~ :~\~~\..;~,,6 day of A (Y,;' / C-
.: " (~ay of W,,\ L , 1~~
least ten (10) full days before the hearing date).
_'\t.~,.
~ "'''ii;';;;''''
':"--"\'~" ".'.' ""';-. ,,'.
)
) ss.
)
;:'l ,.,
.
~..~
".J
-
~1~
1
,
'.;)'1
"
~
, i
'~~;.
'.
,
.".'-
,
-.;;:;-'
{. "
9'1- '1
AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY POSTING OF
A VARIANCE BEARING BEFORE THE
CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
(Pursuant to Section 2-22(c) of
'the Mu~icipal Code)
, !:>eing or
visible continuously
, 19~, to the
(Must be posted for at
Slgnature
Subscribed
this (p -r;-I
1 9 <0 '1-, by
and sworn to before JOe
day of /lpYi /
4!T ~h' N/7d'C.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL
SEAL.
My commission expires:' 0/ '7/4 7
Cc~~ 'yVc..-"C..c,.L_<..-c..
Notary Public
, G=:, if-- E H,/ )'7-'0'/7
Address
./!-5p0/".., Co, '6/&/1
d--~
...........-~ ~'"
.~------_.._-,- -. - - --..---
__.0__-. ,_ _~ ____.__
"~.'>
,.....
,""
1
.'
i
.1
~~
.
:1'
,
'S',.
'.'
, '
,
~Jj J}
.::;~ .
.'"
.---_._...............---....c.-__
.. ..-----,-'---~........_---.....,..,--......;.~._-
n__-J _, '_"~~_' ~'_'_ ~ ._': ...:... ~_::'.,_
~..~-......-...
,..~it_
--''''~'''''--
I
;
i
RONALD NUNN FARMS - GENERAL
RT. 1, BOX 200
BRENTWOOO, CA 94513
('M" d M"'l
M// /l4j//d7>v/JI
147
, ~7~~'Z:
!i ~_ _~~_~
\X~
PLEASANT HILL OFFICE
'1/W%~!l!.?J!> ~l/f
B99 CONTRA COSTA BLVO PLEASANT H"L, CA 94523 =< l ' ,
11'000 l,1, 711' ~I: l, 2 WOO 21,BI:o:l l,:I 0:1:10:1 711'
77f::Adr.J ~
II
/ '" d
,/ 11,24
/.9.8y 1210
/tJ ~_
@'~
.
,~
,
ii;,
_._._----......-._.._~.,'".,~_.~._.". --'--,-~..._..._,...-.. p-- -.-,~-.>." .---
- - - - ;-'--_.-,.-.~
~ .~
.
....
.
.
;
I
.' I
r
"
~1
p-
C
,
,~'/;/ ~ /)
,
,
~';_:~_:~ C l: ? -, i 1. ,?,~ 1.,1_
~i],li~'l L. ~~u_din,
="Jrll.:J[ _L,~f("'i..'cC .;Cl'~t :':1: "__i
Ci.ty of i\.SpC~l
506 East ffiain ~trsct
Aspen, ~olor3d0 31611
~'c::Jr l'-..r. Jr'~:ding,
~nclosod ere the necessary doc~me~ts for the application
of a variance for the following items at 20S East Hopkins
j,'\'venuC" .
1,
~e~~cst f8r a variance for the new carport to replaco
~n existing metal she~. ~e ask s~ccifj_cally f8r 2
~':E.''.~., Y;'L-:..J y/:.~.;I.i;_~lC~.
0('l,."c:+r'r1I' '1 ':ra. rl' O"n'" 0 r,"',.., '.J _"--"".",T l'~(J("\f ","0')" ~',Y\ C.Yl' <:"+1"'V'\'"
J..'-,-,...l...~"...~_.....' ..L.. '-"- v ~A~I..:__ ..l.'--'..L C. '1......, .... _v~_ U. J... <.-_i.. '--~~ '--' v .1b
s~ru8tl;rc which is now i~ tho side setback o~ the west
::~i.-'~c. ,~G ask spefic3.1.1,/ f8r a ,\"::ID~, Y.(3D VAF~II"~TCE.
';(J'l.,,~;:<t -f"oY' ~~ V"'I'l"~''''' ,)-r", ')1 -r{'>"'c0 ..,lO~o- the 110...,-,,,,
.'_:".._,c'-' , ~-- --'- 0'-'- ,-'- ,-,-1~\... ---'- U. I ..L ~~:'.:- '-'-..L 'Ie.- .,'--
01 ~n eXlstl~g fence. ,3 ~sk speCIfIcally for a
1. ~~=":'~E' H~'IGHT Vfl-~~~I/..I.\;C--..J.
2.
~ '
l;l,o~sc ~atify me if addj,tio~21 infor~ntion will tc required
fc~ the a];lj_catio~.
~'l~nk ;Ol_l fn!' your prompt attcntio, to this reql~0st.
5~~ .
Dmna 1\,i tch~ll Narri~
;\:"c}o, it c c t
JJ noosevelt ~VO.
Sun ;~~~~aclJ ~~liforDia 94903
,1[,1) .lJ7,) S,?lj. q
i.<~
i'
"
--........
r
Tha applicQtion fer
blli,lding dCp2rtm~nt
fj,le. I spoke with
s~e wnuld keep it.
tbo c:.d,lding permit
a few weeks 2g~ and
Audrey about it 2nd
Thank Y0:'1.
':J~1~3 .sP11t to 'tno
sho:;Jd be 0:1
she sai:~
:;,~ 'C
l\~2.rch
'0'"
"--t~ J
199}~
A~)P~~L-LP.NT
Lon;::: ;_d Cine: ;~:l-'j.rlcy :\T'x"":,;;
i~0utr- 1 Box 200
Bre~~wood, ~alifornia 9!}51J
rJ,VNI:~-\
~~on<..: d and ~~~irlcy {runn
~~out,.-, 1 Box 200
D~nn+"lood r011"forrl'c qh5''O
-'.J~'v,. f', ~ , ....u. .. _.l _....... ,.. , ~.-I
:',JCATIJN :11 PROP,,":'I'Y
208 ~ast IIopkins Avenlle
Aspc:r;) :olor2.do
. n+ ., B' o"k "4
J_J._ 'J _'1 0..,-
D~SC?IPTIOH OF pr:JPJ.'-~~=] -::~,'-'~(>2eTION SHO':iI;\JG JU2TlrrCATIO:'-JS (cant)
1. ~\.~:>^.~~{ YA;-;",j 'I !...~<.Il\NCE r 'J.\ ;~ H.:~;// :,~A;1POH'T
As illustrated bv the attached photoEraph 1, there is
an unsightly met;l shed/garage ;t th~ r~ar of th8 lot
which we would like to remove and renlace with R new
carnort as per the drawinr"-s _ rrhe residence is l.~cated
in ~ coneGsted commercialUpart of the town and providing
coverGd off street parking will help relieve some part
of the con~estion. By providing covered parking, the
safety and well, beinG of the rp~idents will be enha~cod,
and also. the a~ount of snow to be cleared wiII be r~
duced. The metal shed is very old and in a dilani1atnd
and nDssibly ha?ardous co~dition a~d is in no wa~
co~t~ihuting to tho fun2tion and e~joymcnt of th0 hOt~se.
2 ~ SID~~ YAI~D Vl~i\I~~\~\iC~ I U.rl !~ XF",V i-.J)i,)l- TO ~-L~-PLACE !~:\T ~:~XI'-~r~I:'JG ::OCF
J'..s i 111~.'::-;tr2"t0d by the attached :?hotograph /12, the (>):isti:l3
roof o~rerhang is nearly on the p=operty line anj j.s very
low in nitch, Ne arc adding only a minimum portion
of the allowable floor area that we are legallv entitlnd
to ndd ( soe drawings) and all that ~rea ~il1ube within
the leral setback. That portion of the existing roof that
would r"~m~in is not at ~ll in keeping wit~ the histori~
c~~r~ctnr 0~ the house 8nd in fa~t e~chro2ches i0tO the
s~:>tly<;~k mn}~C' thr:Ul the r~')pJ~)oc_l nighr:'i~ pi tch-::d ~":::''lf ~,'.'.')~ll c:
h~~2u~r of tho greater ovorhnnz of the ox1sting roof.
T~~ r~jsing of th.) pitIJ~; the ('2VO ~i~c will r0m2i~ t~0
s~m~, ~'il] ~ot hlock Vi0WS or infr5~3e on th~ npirrh~or'~
richts -i':' ~~:'1y V.1:<,: 1 b~tt \","Y:Jld add to the? his.to"V'ic2.1.-
~';~lity of t}!~ hous0.
.,
J.. I 3i'~CI.~ HEIGHT 'IAEIt>-:'l=~~:
As illustrated in photographs J2 and J, thero is an
existing fence that is over the 6' height limit.
That existing fence is in very poor condition and
uresents a safety h3za~d to the ow~ers as well as
the nubIie.
"Ie wish to constrltct a new f(-?nce of the same height
and in the s~me location.' The existing house is
situated o~ the site so that a setback of the required
5' for 2 highsr fenc~ is impractical as far as the
us- and enjoyment of the outdoor space is concerned.
Plcase re~er to the,sit~ p~an showing that the
house as It stands 18 wlthlTI the western setback. As
far as the roar sethack is co~cernedt we wish to also
00nstru"t tho '"0"'1 c~""C-'0 along thp "O'0t" 0l'de of th~ r'p"k
'~ ' '"' . ~ ..' .. .1. _ ~ >- '-'. ........ ,", ~ ~ ~ .L _.'..:J . . ~ '-- ...... ~..... ..
Please note that the eXlstlng fe~ce allgns wlth the rear
of the shed and is also over the hei~ht limit. We
propose to_increase the rear setback, but still find
that the limited aroa at the rear of the house makes
it impractical to keep the higher fence within the
required 15' setback.
l'''~8.rc~
o i: ,'iE.\S or
T ',In
,I, L
" .J .<
, ,.u, -'
.,,_.
n 'T T
'..1, f'" ,L,
'7 T
L,
1',
~\, 0.:), Q
,"
...\, )
Bleck 75
./,
')?
,- ,
19'31-1-
litOP ..~>,1_. ~S IN EL;)Ci-::
?u
, '
,-;.:':"1:':-,li,
~Oi__,'J]<./\.~O
~!',"liN-,~:~
Clallde .'i. ~Onner
Lox ;,h5
t'D, ~()lor2.do
~~therine Th~J~nrrr
,~21. ...:;;st 1/,2-1,; ''"~~G
i'~Sl)0n, ~olor8_do
.T~~ci110S .'i;.oorE:'
~-JC) Jox 707
i-~;:::;pen, ,~o.lor2J=-:J
.Tt::mc;s .:.=. 2Jld ~~~l borta ~. ;',';OOY',:,
.Box 707
~".cp(-n, "';0 lo::::'ac (1
I,latthcw and v3raly~ :. 3ucksbaum
66C '::\9th st.
_)OS l(ojnrs, Iow3 50J12
~'~o:r.. c",nd Shi.rl<::'y l'~'Jn~l
~'_t. 1 Eox 2CC
2r'ent'vood, :alifornia 94513
;:lizabcth K~~ie :ones
-~CI Box
.'~s:;;,cn, vO 10r2c 0
C~l. an ;'.Io""v-c:'-hc.,,-,I f"'he, ':.or~'T"" .TOY'k~"or
_ u _,J. , ... .C"-'.l ];.', ~,.',C-.L bt: H -'-, ''':'.. ~
~~:.:o Joracio G (\Y"!.cr2.J 2':JrtY12'rsh i p
Box ;159
_'':.2,pcn, Colorac0
',~i ty n: !. s-c:cn
];0 Scuth GalJ_ena St.
~\sp('n, Co1orad:J
o
North
.'
'"
"
,
.' i fl
2
West
o
r;/-1
208 E. Hopkins Ave.
1
,'-.. -.
"
" ...../
, .
. . '. ...... ~
3
Northwest
i":
.'~
,
~ /.u....---l'
t -;;-~ -iJ> -' .
" /J. ,\ ;
, '>-".; ,
/,,' ............
'- ,I
--:-J
JIiln - ~
c.i ~i..'!;~l. r ~~ i{
JA~'5.~' ~'~ ~~~Mi'$~r:~:,!:.
tr'f';'"'lf1''!C''' ' ,,<'~ " ,<<!"
~ ~;J..~a rl';".J, J I
~ ""~~/Cl'>'~: .. ~ l! -
~~"... .,N'" !,,'\
_" '" ," r'
1'/ /
".
"
,
,-..!'
"
Y -1-9
I
1-
'i?7' _I,
/
..1-
'~l:
r$>",
9_--
'~
r
Rev/) '1-ftf~?L/
-"-1 I
CITY OF ASPEN ..
MEMO FROM COLETTE PENNE
\0 :I~ ~oos,d ~ ~dy,~
. Ik- +1fJ~ t'~'- ~V\cJ<
d ~S;(f- I WI o.--k~ cJ)s ~ <:'..010'- sck VKZ
; Qppro~cJ) ~.-~ f1~t"'ud
re- VYlOciLQ ~ NUVtv\ &s id ttA ~
Q..,{ 2-08 -6. k;V\~ ~+ ~'v-- . /
~ (U- v;wJ-; 11 erJ ~ I /O/I7d''!,
cJso e>fPN~d "l--k ~~ul
(l-:;(O~o ~,
j,5P '17
.;, 'I. Btj
/)tJnn4 ftlarNn1 h-F7 c,,/kAJ
fkre/lre#nD if tk. AlPI1/1 $
{!/Iefrf /7 nd h~I'I'Y IV /
ihe 4c4-r~11 /p ;ftn/114/'7 ~n
ear/ft-f' /YU lur, I1Itfhlf'" ?-
M h fh,l1 tllJ
{ld?,~f /5 d/j7i'(J)f- I"" i1p.ey
1l1ey 111;1/ MtrU ;, ,{ImeNU~
!1Jphu I? IT {My ('11(/1 ,6.v
qrl.h fld b/ll/c/J, jJUmf I, WlIA,U I
/fA/hili! I/n hi !he IfpT//' 19 'It,
mint! It- 6 Iff'L Ufrtlyt:,(,'t Wh/LRt
Wdl//t:( Iqdll/?/t.& fhCl //-t:. ~~)
al11( rJll /herd fb fM- /YlP h II h {J (,#1f117
f1rm/d 0/1'Juff7 ~
~n-t to. A!1f/,,?n ..;. /J/arNfl1 ~n .
. '.\ ..
4'/'i-~J// .?-~'i',/
i'/~7
, ,
Hay 7. 1984
Ci ty of JI.spen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado
Street
81611
Hr. and Mrs. Ronald Nunn
Route 1, Box 200
Brentwood, California 94513
Dear Hr. and Mrs. Nunn:
Please be notified that the Board of Adjustment on May 3, 1984,
moved to amend the motion which they originally approved on
April 19th on the property at 208 East Hopkins. The reason for
the amendment is the original motion does not conform with the
Board's intent or with the discussion of April 19th. The May
3rd motion reads as follows:
"moved to amend the motion for case 184-9 to include the
intent which the Board discussed at the last meeting but
did not state in the motion. The intent is that the variance
for the carport on the rear yard setback is to extend only
as far back as the adjoining carports and not beyond even
if the seven foot figure extends beyond that line. Lavagnino
noted that the seven feet might well be in, but the Doard
was never shown where the seven feet ends. The Boara's
intent was not to grant the seven feet but to grant the
footage which takes the applicant up to the point the neighbors
enjoyed.. "
Please be notified that this case is scheduled on the June 7th
agenda for the purpose of allowing you the opportunity to discuss
the amendment. The Board of Adjustment meets at 4:00 p.m. in
the council chambers.
If there are any questions or problems please contact me, Barbara,
at the city clerk's office at 303-925 3959. For your information,
Barry Edwards, the city attorney, can be reached at 303-925-
2020, extension 330; and Bill Drueding, the building inspector
can be reached at 303-925-5973.
Good day,
Barbara L. Norris
Deputy City Clerk
Encls: Copies of the minutes from April 19 and May 3, 1984
cc: Donna Warrington
Darry Edwards, city attorney
D~I1-;=T
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Reaul a r Meeting_,_________ ~..QlU.lLQ.f..Mjm;.tJ!!ent____ May-_3...,_l9!!.4
Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4:30
p.m. with members Anne Austin, John Uerz, Charlie Paterson,
,Tosephine r1ann, and Rick Head present.
Lavagnino commented on case IB~-9, the Nunn property. At the
last meeting, April 19th, the Board discussed 208 East Hopkins.
The discussion went that since all the adjacent property owners
along the alley way in the back had garages, and all \'Iere infringing
on the rear yard setback, the Board thought it would be equitable
to allow the Nunns, who are the only O\~ners not to have a carport
U? to that line, that privilege that other property owners are
enjoying in the same vicinity and zone. However, in dra\'ling
UP the motion, the Board did not use that as the criteria.
The Board got very specific because the client said he needed
seven feet, thus a seven foot variance was granted. The Board
granted the seven foot variance assuming that it would be up
to that line established by the rest of the carports. now,
the Board does not know if the seven feet is at that same line.
The building department even indicated that the rear yard setback
was unspecified. Neither does the Board know where the markers
are out in that alley way. But the Board's intent in granting
that variance was not to exceed that which other property owners
were enjoying.
Lavagnino asked if the Board needs to modify the motion to reflect
that intent. Barry Edwards, city attorney, said yes. ITe s,"\id
the resolution should be amended to conform with the minutes.
Lavagnino asked Edwards if it is all right to do that. Edwards
said the applicant should be notified and have the opportunity
to discuss the modification. If the Board's written notion
does not conform to the motion that was made in the minutes,
then the Board can amend the motion. Just notify the applicant,
and they have an opportunity to be heard. Head suggested agencment
of the motion when the minutes are approved. Lavagnino said
the minutes are needed before construction. Edwards suggested
the Board today go ahead and modify the motion, and have notice
sent to the applicant that the motion does not conform with
the Board's intent and with the discussion. By the time the
minutes get to the Board, the applicant will have been on notice
for a substantial period of time.
,Tosephine llann moved to amend the motion for case #84-9 to include
the intent which the Board discussed at the last meeting but
did not state in the motion. The intent is that the variance
for the carport on the rear yard setback is to extend only as
far back as the adjoining carports and not beyond even if the
1
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting,
Board of Adjustm1mt___...M~L-1984
seven foot figure extends beyond that line. Lavagnino noted
that the seven feet might be well in. but the Board was never
shown where the seven feet ends. The Board's intent was not
to grant the seven feet but to grant the footage which takes
the applicant up to the point the neighbors enjoyed. Drueding
said the plans I~ill come to him first, he Idll be al~are of the
issue. The motion is seconded by Anne Austin. All in favor;
motion carried.
Rick Head moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:30 p.m.; seconded
by Charlie Paterson. All in favor; motion carried.
Barbara Norris, Deputy City Clerk
2
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting
Board of Adjustment
April 19. 1984
CASE t84-9/RONALD AND SHIRLEY NUNN
Lavagnino openec the public hearing. !le rena the var iance requested:
"The property is located in the "0", office, zone: Section
24-3.4, area and bulk. The required setbacks are side
yard 5 feet, rear yard 15 feet. Section 24-13.3 (a), :10
such nonconforming structure Ray be enlarged or altered
in a way which increases its nonconformity.
The applicant appears to be asking for one, an unspecified
rear yard setback variance for a carport; second, a three
and a half foot side yard setback variance to enlarge a
nonconforming structure three and a half feet in the side
yard setback; and third, to build a fence 7 feet in height
along the same location of the existing fence encroachr.\ent."
Ronald Nunn, applicant, presents an affidavit and photograph
of the posting sign.
Donna Warrington, architect for the applicant, introduces the
case. She stated the house at 208 East !lopkins Avenue has been
designated by the historical preservation committee as an excellent
example of Victorian architecture. The HPC approves the proposed
work. She presented earlier to the deputy city clerk a letter
confirming the HPC position.
There is a very unsightly and unsafe metal shed behind the house
on the alley. The applicant wants to replace that shed-garage
with an appropriate carport to be in character with the Victorian
house, as well as to provide much needed off-street parking.
The request for covered parking is for the safety of the residents
during the winter. The covered carport decreases the amount
of snow needed to be carried away. It also makes a safer access
into the house. The carport \Vill be located in the saLle location
as the existing garage as far as the rear yard setback is concernec1.
She submits a survey of the lot. The east side of the existing
metal garage is within the five foot side yard setback. The
existing metal shed encroaches into the side yard setback by
one foot. The proposal is to move the shed over one foot to
be within the side yard setback on the north side. The requect
is an 8 foot rear yard setback. Mann asked if the carport will
13
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Re9u1ar MeetinQ
Board of Adjustment
April 19. 1984
be 20 feet
Austin asked
said yes.
to the house
in depth. Warrington said yes, just like the shed.
if the carport will be attached to the house. "Tarrington
The submitted floor plans show the carport attached
with an exterior acceis to a storage are~ for trash.
Harrington continued. The main part of the house was built in
the late nineteenth century. In the early 1%0 I s, a very uncharac-
teristic addition was put on the house. That new addition makes
it impossible to place a carport within the required setbacks
without tremendous costs of removing the existing foundation
and structures.
The second request is a side yard variance. The request is
three more additional feet in a roof height for the existing
roof height on the 1960's addition. The new second floor is
within all required setbacks. Less square footage is being added
than \~ha tis allowed. The remaining part of the 196 0 's acldi tion
has a very flat pitched roof. The request is to raise the pitch
of the roof to be in character with the rest of the house.
Lavagnino asked Newbury why is a variance required to replace
an existing roof. The FAR is not being increased. The change
is only in the pitch. There is no second story being added
in this section. There is no change in the location of the
roof. The space underneath the roof will remain open. llewbury
said there is no prOblem in changing the pitch of the roof.
Warrington reported that Drueding's reason was changing the
pitch increased the nonconformity of the building. Lavagnino
clarified the nonconformity is only increased by creating usable
space. Newbury said this action is simply a roof repair. ":'he
Board decided it was not necessary to rule on this request.
Warrington said the final request is to replace an existing
fence which is 7'-4" in height with a new seven foot fence in
the same location. Lavagnino asked if the argument for repair
and replacement of the roof cannot be applied to the repair
and replacement of a fence. Newbury said that the 30ard has
to address the fence because of the problem with the setback.
Lavagnino asked for an explanation of repair. Newbury said
the fence is higher than what the code which requires, a six
foot fence is the requirement. Lavagnino noted there is open
space on the plan I-Ihich does not have a fence. \'7arrington explained
the existing fence on the north end lines up with the north
end of the metal shed. There is a portion of the property the
applicant wants to enclose. Austi~ said a variance is required
then for a 7 foot fence construction. Lavagnino asked again
14
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
ReQu1ar Meetin9
Board of Adjustment
April 19. 1984
if the applicant can legally replace the existing 7'-4" fence
with a new 7 foot fence. Paterson said it appears it cannot
be determined if the fence was put up illegally. He suggested
acting on this. Lavagnino asked if the Board is acting on the
portion of the fence which is not up or on the total fence.
Paterson relied on the total fence because Newbury does not
know if the fence was put up illegally. Austin asked if the
applicant wants to put a six foot fence, would the applicant
have to get a variance. Ilann said yes because the fence encroaches
on the rear yard setback. Lavagnino clarified that there is
no setback for a six foot fence. The fence becomes a structure
if it is higher than six feet, and then there is a setback encroach-
ment, therefore, no.
Harrington presented reasons for a ne~1 seven foot fence. T:1e
new fence is to replace an existing dilapidated fence. Also,
the houses in the area are extremely close to one another.
The rear deck of this house overlooks the neighbor's carport.
It is desirable to her client I s to have a fence at eye level. Austin
noted the house cannot be seen from the alley.
In response to a questions from Herz, Warrington said the "PC
approved the aesthetics of the proposed addition. The total
p~ckage is their concern and how it affects the character of
the house. The lot size is 3,000 square feet. She directed
tie Board to view the plan; the lot size, the floor area, etc.,
are all spelled out. The request for the carport is an 8 foot
rear yard setback instead of 15 foot rear yard setback. The
request is for 7 foot variance which leaves 8 feet from the
property line.
Mann asked if the shed has been used as a garage recently.
Nunn said he has no knowledge that. The shed is the right size
and shape for a garage. Warrington noted there is no off-street
parking now. Mann asked if the applicant made any attenpt to
use the shed as a garage this winter. Nunn said no, but he did
not have the occupancy privileges this winter which he will
have in the future because there was a rental contract \vhich
needed to be honored. Mann said there appears to be adequate
turning space. Lavagnino said the Explorer Bookstore provides
the parking.
Austin asked if the variance is granted for the carport, does
that prevent the applicant in the future from enclosing the
space. Newbury said the space can be enclosed for a garage
but not for living space. Lavagnino argued the applicant could
15
,~,...._._---,--
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
ReQu1ar Meeting
Board of Adjustment
April 19. 1984
use the space for other than it was intended for. Austin asked
if the use can be specified. Lavagnino said yes but the issue
is enforcement. Dunn agreed to stipulate that the space not
be enclosed and the intent is for a tvlO car carport. He agreed
to that use in perpetuity.
Lavagnino said the request for storage is a convenience for
the applicant. The carport can be moved in by not putting in
the storage area. The Board grants the most minimal variance
allowed. Extra convenience space cannot be allowed. Harrington
answered the space between the metal shed and the house exists
under a roof, it is not enclosed completely. In the alley there
are garbage cans and other objects piled up. The solution is
practical for the owner. It is good for the public at large
to have a place for the owners of the house to put paraphernalia
that is related closely to the house and not placed closer to
the setback line. The location of the trash storage at the back
of the house is a convenience. A structure can be located on
the 15 foot setback line for the same use where the spa is.
The choice near the house is to keep the back of the lot very
clean with just the carport and fencing. Lavagnino suggestcd
reducing the spa, and locating the storage in the spa area.
Warrington said the spa is very close to the house already.
Lavagnino suggested moving the storage to the left, if it is
that critical, then move the carport, and still maintain the
carports contiguity to the house.
Bunn said he considered using the storage area for garbage beciluse
the experience with the house is the current garbage systeD
is inaccessible during the winter with the pile of sn~r obstructing
the access to the garbage. The proposed solution is a good
yearly arrangement from the standpoint of the occupant and the
collection agency. Lavagnino disagreed. A trash collecting
agent will not collect trash in a carport, especially if there
is a car in there. If the cans are brought out to the edge
of the carport, the same problem of storage in the alley exists.
Warrington argued the proposal increases the FAR much less than
vlhat is allowed. The storage space proposed for the e::isting
space is small. Lavagnino said the applicant can do that within
the legal confines of the building envelope. That privilege
has not been denied. Warrington said aesthetics and inconvenience
is not a criteria for the Board, but this house is a 30 foot
lot. It is a nano\'! house. There is an optimum placement for
all the desirable, wanted elements within the lot package, this
solution is it.
16
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting
Board of Adjustment
April 19. 1984
Newbury asked whut the existing square foot area of the house
is and how it relates to 3,000 square feet. Darrinston said
the existing square footage of the house is 1,805 square feet.
2,900 square feet is allowed. The FAR is 2,~00, but because
it is a designated historical house there is an additional 500
square feet.
Paterson said the storage space is only six feet. Nunn said
the width of the space is actually three feet.
Lavagnino presented the argument for the variance. The people
on the right of the applicant, the corner house to the west,
have a carport and garage. The people to the east have three
garages. They are all aligned in the same position of the metal
shed. Everyone enjoys a property right denied this applicant.
Why should this applicant be penalized when everyone around
him is enjoying the right of a carport. The fair thing is to
allow this applicant the same rights as his neighbors. The
Board can use the criteria of the neighbors as the guideline.
The shed is equal to the garages. Paterson said the other thing
in the applicant's favor is the carport will be open.
Hann agrees to a seven foot fence. The hardship is the close
proximity of the neighbors and the size of the lot, thirty feet.
The land contour suggests a hardship also. Lavagnino argued
the drop off on the land helps the applicant. Paterson asked
what is the elevation of the deck. Warrington said the deck
is 12 inches from the ground. Lavagnino suggested excavating
to meet the the fence code requirement.
Herz said the fence is legal. It looks like it is twenty or
thirty years old. The applicant can improve the fence. Newbury
said the she does not believe the applicant can improve the
fence. Lavagnino said the fence is nonconforming but it can
be a nonconforming fence-of-record. Austin argued the applicant
cannot increase the nonconformity of a nonconforming fence.
Lavagnino said the nonconformity is not being increased. Austin
noted the areas which are not presently enclosed which will
be enlcosed. Warrington said reducing the height of the fence
to six feet where there is currently no fence is an aesthetics
issue, privacy is the entire issue associated with an enclosed
fence. Lavagnino suggested if the applicant maintains the 7'-
4" fence and then builds the fence extensions at six feet, the
applicant retains his privacy.
17
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting
Board of Adjustment
At>ril 19. 1984
Austin argued in favor of the code requirement of six foot fences.
This applicant does not have a hardship.
Warrington suggested the applicant be allowed to re91ace the
existing 7'-4" fence with a 7 foot fence, and reduce the height
of the fence where there is no fence to 6 feet. Lavagnino said
if that is the case the applicant does not have to come before
the Board. Warrington wants her request assured.
Herz argued the fence is legal based on theory of latches, the
use of the fence over a certain amount of time leaitimizes the
fence. Therefore, the applicant can improve the" fence. He
does not think the Board has to rule on the request by Harrington.
Lavagnino said the legality of the fence is not before the Board.
The fence issue is before the Board because the building departnent
has determined that the fence is nonconforming, and the applicant
cannot tear the nonconforming fence and replace it with a seven
foot fence. The fence is a structure. The applicant can repair
that structure. It does not matter how it is repaired because
it is still a fence. Unless there is a clear indication from
the building department that the building department wants to
allow the Board to determine whether the fence is a fencc-of-
record, how can the Board determine the status of the fence.
Who is the burden of proof on to determine the legality of the
fence?
Lavagnino asked the Board if they thought the applicant has
to come before the Board for a variance on the fence. Can the
Board determine the fence to be legal? Be suggested a motion
on the reduction of the fence height from 7'-4" to 7 feet.
He suggested the language of the motion indicate that it is
the Bonrdls understanding that the fence is a nonconforning
fence-of-record. Austin said she still does not like the idea
that the applicant can replace the entire illegal fence. Lavagnino
said a precedent is not being set with this application because
it has not been determined that replacing the fence is illegal.
The assumption is the fence is legal. If the building department
determines this cannot be done, then the applicant has to corne
back to the Board for a variance.
Lavagnino closed the public hearing.
Charlie Paterson moved to grant a seven foot variance from the
fifteen foot rear yard setback for a carport on the basis that
the applicant should be able to enjoy a substantial property
right enjoyed by the adjacent property owners. The carport
18
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Reqular Meeting
-Board of Adjustment
April 19. 1984
will ali0n up as shown on the Alpine Survey submitted by the
2?plicant. The use of the space will be for a carport and will
be used for this purpose only in perpetuity. Seconded by Anne
Austin. Lavagnino asked for a roll call vote: Austin, aye;
Herz, aye; L2vagnino, aye; Mann, aye; Paterson, aye. Motion
carried.
Ilann moved to grant the building of a fence seven feet in height
along the same location of the the existing fence. Any additional
new fencing must meet code requirements. The height of the
replacement of the old fence is specified at seven feet. The
Board's understanding is the old existing fence is a noncon-
forming fence-of-record. Seconded by Charlie Paterson. Lavagnino
asked for a roll call vote: Austin, nay; Herz, aye; Lavagnino,
aye; lIann, aye; Paterson, aye. llotion carried.
Mann moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:15 p.m.; seconded by
Paterson. All in favor; motion carried.
narbara 1I0rris, Deputy City Clerk
19