Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutlanduse case.boa.609wfrancis.017-73 - r""'\ '-' -......, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case No. 73 17 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 Offi~ial Code of Aspen of June 25, 1962, as amend- ed, a public hearing will be held in the Council Room, City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such other place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the Zoning Resolution, Title XI, 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 con- sideration 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: June 28, 1973, City Council Chambers . IfES<l-l~DU.u=/); JUL-Y 12- 3:00 p.m. Name and Address of Applicant for Variance: Name: Alan A. Storey Address: P. O. Box 2837, Aspen, Colorado Location or description of property: Locat~on: 609 W. Francis Descr~pt~on: Lots G & 1/2 of H, Block 22 Variance requested: Requesting to build an additional dwelling unit on a one-family dwelling. The proposed addition is on a lot that has 4,500 sq. ft. of lot area. A two-family dwelling may be constructed on a lot with a minimum lot area of 5,000 sq. ft. in the R-6 residential district on lots tha~ were held in s~rate ownership before passage of the zoning ordl.Ilance.. . - I,. Durat~on or Var~ance: (Please cross out one) }I.'~~>>, Permanent THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT by leg q~ P-/oj"T3 -' APPEAL TO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CITY OF ASPEN ;UN 12-73 26662' ****10.00 Date (;- (;.- 7-:1 ' Appellant AlAN /I, S'/.tl.Hc' ' 1 Tlsp.t~.. Cno;~ (r.;/'~.,!j/C4..J OWner 5; t1 I"}'I ~:, Address Ct 0'1 r Location of Property .LeTS a 0/ 1.;a. 01' H Street & Num er 0 . & Lot No. Building Permit Application and prints or any other pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made a part of CASE NO. 13 -17 The Board will return this application if it does not contain all the facts in question. Description of proposed exception showing justifications: ~~'~ ~~~ \\-\"\..\ Signed, Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance requ~r~ng the Building Inspector to forward this application to the Board of Adjustment and reason for not grant~ng permit: Application is made for a building permit to build an additional dwelling unit on a one-family dwelling. The proposed addition is on a lot that has 4,500 square feet of lot area. A two-family dwelling may be constructed on a lot with a minimumlot area of 5000 square feet in the R-6 res~dential district on lots that were held in seperate ownership before passage of the zoning ordiance. Chief Buildinq Inspector' Status 0~,~ Permit Rejected, date Decision Date Application Filed Date of Hearing Mailed Secre tary "' ~ 'J APPEAL ',fO BOi',P';) OF ZONING ADJUSn;rNT City of Aspen r:ov'19-71 Z 894# ****10.00 Da te _.it -{,t':'.7L.__."..__ Case No. Appellant .l/G-AA/ II, Sr-c.R.E..v AM:ccss Mc..,,< ,<..8~7 ..~ >~.~_._._.~____........._~_.__~~_L__......_"__.__....._.. _,..___._~_,.____,. ~-----~--- . a,mCj: Alan R. Storey Aduress Box 2837 _~~_ _~_"",___'_'_~'~c"'___"__'_~__"'_'_'__"__~_ ---,~~.,."-----~--~-----'- Location or prop2rtY.JgQ<j___t:0~J:jY/;<Jc.!..~._-Ll~TS_C! d ~H ,a..'<J-. ~Lr.~ITl:. (Sti:eet (, NUll.be:c 0:[ Sub~livision Block & Lot No. Builcling Ferreit application an~ prints or any other pertinent ('ath fr,usl: accCit:'pany thi.s appli.cation, anc1 will be n~ac1e a part 0" Cas~ r!o. _~~~._...._~_ ~~~.__._.~.____._ '~4~.._.'__'_""_" Ths Boar! wiJ.]. ~?tU~D this api>lication if it ~oe8 not contain all t:he f8CtS jn question. Dc.sc:(;~pt~ton o:~ pl:0pOSE:C1 ('~{ccption sho'oinS justificCltion:Appellant relied on representation of assistant building inspector that since Lot H was divided prior to zoning Lots G & 1/2,H could be used for multi-family housing per grandfather clause 11-1-9(4). Appellant then purchased lots and expended funds for building plans. Upon permit application, build:j,ng inspepto.r refused per 11-1-9 (4) (a)-5000 ft. minimum. The 4500 ft. area ill' 'i had been related to assistant building I _~!~ ~~ inspector during first discussion. SiSo.1C('..~~I)'::_,.,.:.,_-J::'4~~~ AppeYlan~ _-12 ~ro~j.siO~LS of th~ zoninG o~~in~!nc~ re~uirtnE th~ Buil~in~ Insp~ _Lor '- "1 t' . 1" . t' . E ' '!' . ~ " ' \:0 ~-Oj~\'lCl:.o:.O( -:11:U:j Epp__::"C3CJ_O'iJ -0 che -,oa::~'(J or jCJuSL-rL~CnL c-:no reason fOj: not grant ins P2::E,_"it. I'cL"'1/r ()tE.!-JJtD K<z,='6,eG.^-JCe. Z-')AJH\JG 117LG lC,1 S",,af1<-<=14E.AJ71lR.'-j dc(;s ;/-/-7 / 1- (a), ,.v,.,,,,,, Cc."'/''''~Mn<.;c, L"{,,,' c..-=- !te.cc/HJ IN Il'~ 1\~<cSIO<E^,7/,I/{., /.J1~r-/UC:.T ;2"'7-:..../~c~s. 5000 sl (-"'_<"_ Fc/Q.. /w.Jc r-,a,,Lf,L.7 1),^,~/...<...-/A>Gi. A/I.4LIC-.I1"ul {-lAoS "'I-.6')C .5g/-C.Hc /S ;~.e-<'; /6~C'A-~ r-'~ -/-.-----.. --...-.-..--'--- ..--------.- Si<"nec1 ., . Decision DCJte ___,._,_ - ______________._ _____n_ D~1Le o:~ Ilcc::)_OinS__.o.__.____________ ~t4-(~'.":1._,~--7.__~~'____ Sti~"l-.US V' P~n,i.t TC'jrctcr' c1at~e 1/-/7- 7/ f,pplicilt:;on ,::Ue.:' .;;:-;'-:-7/- r,i:r:i.lc(' -----..--------- -..-----...-.-- --,----.- ,.__._..---~.._._-_. ------------ii-(-C ,~,... ;:-;-:-::-;--------~---... ~ J...~L.L.L) I..--,-..~--- . Iff CO/Ill 01- /'/lOCI IIJlI'..Il.~, ~-- -..-...--.--. .---...-.----....- , ll. l j,' !!....Ir.ln~ Board or Zoning Adjustment I){'C('mll('r t .. " ~~.~ting was called to orde~ by ,kny Hobgood, Remo Lavagn~no, Chairman Eleanor Hubbard at 5:10 P.m. Charles Paterson and John Dukes. \tii.t . t Dukes moved to approve the minutes of October 21st as prepared and t mailed by the Secretary. Seconded by Paterson. All in favor, motion t ~arried. ! f Y.SE NO. 71 - 21 ALAN STOREY Request to build an addition to an existing structure resulting in a duplex on a non-conforming size lot. Lot is 4500 sq.ft., requires 5,000 sq.ft., based on Section 11-1-9 B (4) (a) 0f the zoning code. Ninutes - Dukes moved to approve the minutes of October and mailed by the Secretary. Seconded by Hobgood. All carried. 27th as prep8teJ in favor, motion , Mr. Joe Edwards, Attorney, was present representing the applicant. Mr. Storey submitted picture of the present structure on the lot. Stated he haE and is renting the apartment above (500 sq.ft.) garage exists below. The owner decided to sell the property, applicant purchased the property under the assumption a duplex could be constructed. Went to the building inspect- or and questioned him as to whether a duplex could be constructed. The land is zoned for duplexes so felt could build on and rent the other half of the duplex to off set mortgate payments. The lot size '~as too small and the building inspector stated that if it was in seperate ownership prior to 1956, it would fall under the 'gran~er (,1 a""" of the zoning code and could build. When discussing this with the building inspector he knew there was only 4,500 sq.ft. Survey was submitted for the file and deed showing the property in seperate ownership since 1953. Following the obtaining of this information went to Denver, Ft. Collins, ft. Morgan and Salt Lake City looking at pre cut homes. Purchased one in Salt Lake City and purchased the land. Expenses for traveling amounted to $700 or $800, plans for the house about $100, lot cost $25,000. Other multiple family dwellings in the neighborhood are Linkletter, Turner and Reeds. Pictures of the houses on the block were submitted. The other home that has 4500 sq.ft. is a single family dwelling. At this point in time came back to the building inspector's office for a building permit and was told could not build based on the exception of the grandfather clause which requires 5,000 sq. ft. in a R-6 zone. ASSistant building inspector stated he was unaware of the exception until it was pointed out by the head building ihspect~r. }fro Storey stated he then decided to apply submitted and outlined that there would be for a variance. Plot plan was more than the required setbacks. }[r. Lavagnino pointed aut there is also another variance involved in this case and that is the adding on to an existing non-conforming use since the present'structure sits on the alley. t , , , .1 Mr. Edwards stated notice, notices of that this if everyone is present who were required to receive additional variance ld b ccu e waived and the Board - 1 - I I that; I I j I , ! Jerry Hobgood pointed out there are other buildings on the alley line in ne ighbo rhood. "..,---~._._----_.~-- .' . ,~ , J~ :~ " , <~ " l j.. .j I I ~ ( 1 t d t e . IlU:OIIU Of' P"OClUJlNO!\ ---- ..__.~ - .-. ---- --- - --.. " HI 12/2/71, continued. ,.! ,I.".. _ , "f) >nsider both variances this date. . . ',t.- Cl \,..- .... " Storey stated the new building would be about 1200 sq.ft. ~r. Edwards pointed out the following reasons as hardship in this CD8~' (1) Have provided more than the required setback so feel the spirit of t he ordinance is not being ignored; (2) Money was expended relying on t h,. ""I"rd of the building inspector and feel substantial justice would be d"",. in allowing this variance; .(3) There are special circumstances in this CBse from a mistake by the assistant building inspector; (4) Submit that they're 30ut of 5 houses in this block that are multiple family dwellings and the applicant should not be denied or deprived of a right enjoyed by others; (5) This construction will not adversely affect the Master Plan. Hr. Edwards referred to similar cases and quoted from same, and stated that to deny this request woul? be in violation of Colorado case law. not Assistant building inspector Ward stated he was/aware of the R-6 exception until it was pointed out by the head buliding inspector. Extension of a non-conforming use was aware of but did not feel this would be a detriment in getting a variance on the other request. Mrs. Esther Maddalone was present and offered no objection to this structure, stated anything that is done to the property would be an improve ment over what exists. Mr. W. V. N. Jones was present representing his wife's parents who own property adjacent. He stated they object on the basis of increased density in this block. Ms. Armstrong stated she goes along with the Jones, but like the house. Would not like to see any problem with parking. family in tha~ structure would compound the problem. the idea of Another Mr. Storey stated he will allow 14' for off street parking which will accommodate not only his parking but other parking as well. Further stated the structure will include 3 bedrooms with one being used as an office. Mr. Lavagnino questioned if the applicant indicated to the building inspect- or he wanted to put a two family dwelling on the property. Assistant building inspector Ward stated he was under the impression that the applicar just wanted to add on to the exiting structure. Discussed the R-6 zoning with the applicant and the possibility of a two family dwelling. - "'/ _ Mr. Storey stated he could not afford to live in the structure as it is, ~ payment s would be about $500 a month. r . fJ ,( ~ " Mr. Lavagnino stated he felt there was a hardship in this case in that the applicant relyed on the word of the assistant building inspector. Do not feel there are others in the neighborhood enjoying a right denied the applicant because the others all are in compliance with the lot size requirement. Mr. Jones be enough stated he to go out did and not think the word of a building purhcase a piece of property. inspector would - 2 - -. -----..--...-.----.---- .-. . ..~. :t J , " f , ~ t. " ft I i " , r/t:COflO OF PllUCtl.lJINI." - _.~--=--- -_. -'---- --. - --------- lId. of Adj.: 12/2/71 continued. .,., . Discussed the second part of the variance for which notice.. . . -/I. ..., . '" 'lr. Lavagnino stated that if the people were ~nterested in th ,. ,. \' At ' . at all, they would have attended this hearing. Mr. Storey Stllt"',l :. .' contacted all of the adjacent property owners with the eXCeption 01 t" Jones who he was unable to reach and explained his plans to them. ' Mr. Edwards explained the applicant had not given consideration to t '.< extension of a non-conforming use since it was not mentioned previousl', and were unaware of this problem. This non-conforming use has been in existence for a period of time Dnd anyone that was advised that there was another building to be put On tb. lot and knowing that the building on the alley was non-conforming Would know that the application woulp be also an application for extension of a non-conforming use. Mr. Jones stated that until this meeting he did not know he would be attaching this building to the one existing. Lavagnino moved to go into executive session. Seconded by Dukes. All in favor, motion carried. Board reconvened into public hearing. Chairman Hubbard stated the Board ha~ decided to go ahead and hear arguments on the addition to the non-conforming use. Mr. Edwards stated he could not see from a procedural standpoint that anyone would object to including the additional request at this time since all persons were'notified with the exception of the Jones and they are present and they are the only people who were not aware that it was an addition to an existing structure. City would not be involved if they were to approve the variances so they would not appeal, Storey would not. Only parties that would appeal would be an adjacent property owner. Further stated the applicant will waive any action on the Board or City that would invdve litigation because of the actions of this Board. Mr; Storey stated he would waive any right to that affect. Mr. Edwards stated the only arugment he had as relates to this second request is that it will be an improvement to the neighborhood. The new structure will obscure the box on the back of the lot which presently exists and they'r. other structures built on the alley line in the block. Mr. Storey stated the construction will cost $23,000 which he stated would not degrade the neighborhood. Board request the plans which were shown to the Board remain in the file. Hubbard moved to grant the variances to construct a duplex on a non-conformin; lot of 4500 sq.ft. by adding to a non-conforming structure presently on the lo~ A hardship would result to the present Owner of this property who relied on assurance of the City Building Inspector's Office that such bUilding could be done on this lot before he purchased the lot. The Board feels this situation is extremely unusual and acts in this fashion to assure i that substantial J'ustice is done. S,oond'd by Hobgood. Roll 0." vo', _ I I ..._---_.._~"--- ~,. -,~ , " , . ""/ 'IICOIlII OF "flOCLl.IJINU!> ___ _.___ ._. '.__'" - u.__ -- - ---'-'--'---~--~'----'-=--- '''1\ .r ,I,ll.. 12/2/71, continued. I,' !,,:,'\1<J aye; Dukes aye; Lavagnino aye; Paterson aye; Hubbard aye. ('/Irricd. . ~.,: t. < " ~' L/lvngnino moved to adjurn at 6:10 p.m., seconded by Paterson. All in fA'" 'f. ~ccting adjourned. ,,~ ~ I .~ If ()/~~~ ;:0 ~r~aine Graves, Secretary I f 1 I 1 ~ t ~ 0 T t d t C N: tl C' \ ~h \ 'II i nc l'h ;e .-.....--- -~----..._'"-, - . - IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO Civil Action No.?,::7 ~,# RICHARD H. LINKLE'l'TER.; DULY C. ) LINKLETTER; ESTHER M. MADDALONE; ) MYRTLE L. THORPE; WESLEY E. THORPE; ) JANE B. THORPE; EUGENE W. ARMSTRONG; ) GERTlWDE E. ELDER; and PmGY E. ) COBLE, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) -va- ) ) TIHOTHY M. CUNNINGlW1, ) ) Defendant. ) COMPLAINT --------- - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - COME NOW the above-named plaintiffs by their attorneys, Grant, Shafroth, Toll (. McHendrie, and for their complaint state and allege as follows: FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 1. That the defendant is the owner of Lot ':;, and the Wi;! of Lot H, Block 22, Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin. 2. That plaintiffs Richard H. Linkletter and Emily C. Lh'lkletter are the owners of Lots C, D, E and F. Block 22, Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin. 3. That plaintiff Esther H. Haddalone is the owner of the E-~ of Lot h and all of Lot I, Block 22, Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin. 4. That plaintiff Hytle L. Thorpe is the owner of the E~ of Lot N and all of Lots 0, P and Q, Block 22, Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin. 5. That plaintiffs Wesley E. Thorpe and Jane B. Thorpe are the owners of the East 7j';i feet of Lot I, all of Lot H, and the WJ;i of Lot N, Block 22, Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin. 6. That plaintiff Eugene W. Armstrong is the owner of Lot P, Block 21, Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin. 7. That plaintiffs Gertrude E. Elder and Peggy E. Coble are the owners of Lots K and L, Block 21, Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin. 8. All of the aforementioned plaintiffs' properties are adjacent to or are in the immediate vicinity of the aforesaid property of the defendant, Timothy H. Cunningham. 9. That on or about the 12th day of November, 1966, the defendant moved on to his aforesaid property a two-storey Victorian dwelling. 10. That prior to November 12. 1966. the defendant had and still has a one-family dwelling on said property. 11. That said property is located within an R-6 residential dist-rict as provided by the ZOning Code of the City of Aspen. Which district permits a one-family dwelling or a two-family dwelling. 12. That by placing the aforesaid Victorian house on the said property, the defendant is violating the said Ordinances of the City of Aspen. 13. That as a result of defendant's acts in moving said building on his property, the plaintiffs I properties a-re irre- parably injured and are especially damaged by the violation of said Ordinance. - 2 - - 3 - WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that the Court order the defendant to remove said Victorian house from Lot G, and the Wl..! of Lot II, Block 22, Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, and be enjoined from further violating the Zoning Code of the City of Aspen, and for attorneys fees. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 1. The plaintiffs herein incorporate paragraphs 1 through 12 of the First Claim for Relief. 2. That as a result of the wilfull violation of the afore- mentioned ZOning Code, plaintiffs Richard H. Linkletter and Emily C. Linkletter have suffered damages in the amount of $10,000. 3. TIlat as a result of the wilr-ull violation of the afore- mentioned Zoning Code, plaintiff Esther M. Maddalone has suffered d4liJa.ges in the amount of $10,000. 4. That as a result of the wilfull violation of the afore- mentioned Zoning Code, plaintiff Hyrtle L. Thorpe has suffered dan'lages in the amount of $7,500. 5. That u a result of the wilfull violation of the afore- mentioned Zoning Code, plaintiffs wedey E. Thorpe and Jenll B. '1'horpe have suffered d~V'. in the aur:mnt of $2,500. 6. That as a result of the wilfull violation of the afore- mentioned Zonixlg COde, plaintiff Eugene W. Armstrong has suffered damages in the amount of $3,500. 7. That as a result of the wilfull violation of the afore- tllIIlntloned Zoning Code, plaintiff. Gertrude E. Elder and Peggy E. Coble have suffered damages in the a:mount of $3,500. - 3 - WHEREFORE. the plaintiffs herein pray for damages in the 8IllOUnt. 88 set forth above, or a total of $37,000.00. plua attorneys fees. GRANT. SHAFR.O'lH. TOLL & MdtENDIUE John F. Shafroth Attol:tl6y11 for the P!ilntlff. 1700 Western Federal Building Denver. Colorado 80202 825-5111 Address of Plaintiffs: Aspen. Colorado - 4 - r " ",. c TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING December 23, 1966 Aspen Board of Adjustment Case No. 66-11 Appeilant: Timothy M. Cunningham / , ... '_'- ...._~~.-A_ ~ Special Meeting ......'''"' Ospen Board of Adiustment, .. December 23. 1966 Meeting was called to order with the following members present: Chairman Irwin Harland Francis Whitaker Donald Swales Steen Gantzel Mrs. Heather Tharp I~-win Harland: The Building Inspector's folder on this is to become a part of the record on this. The building permit is available if you wish to review it and I think that is essentially what was asked for at the last meeting. We asked that Hank Thurston, past Building Inspector, be present and he is. Would like to call on him and hear his words, the sequence of events concerned with issuing the building permit and anyother comments he would like to make. Reason for issuing it and the appeal. Hank Thurston: #1 - I have not read the appeal, and #2 ,- I have not read anything on this. Irwin Harland: There Js a copy of the minutes here. through the sequence of events in issuing the permit ing we will get the information we are interested in. Would you like to go and I think by question- Hank Thurston: Well I am not going to be able to recall any dates particu18t because I don't remember them. Mr. Cunningham came to my office on several occasions, .. questioning me about buying a house and moving it onto a small lot. We discussed the various aspects of it, as to what would be required or what would not be required and what he would have to comply with and I believe on these various occasions we went away and looked into somemore aspects of the thing. I did not sign originally, as I was not aware of what house it was. But anyway the sequence of events, we were pretty thorough . with regards to the zoning and with regards to moving the old house onto the lot. I asked him to submit me a plot plan make application for the permit and make sure the mover got his permit, which he complied with. At the time he gave me the information, he did not actually ask for the permit at that time wanted me to review it and go over it thoroughly again, which I did. Actually measured the house and lot, went out there with Mr. Maddalone once or twice before this and looked it over and discussed it with other people who were interested. I was asked on several occasions by several people if the permit had been issued which at that time had not been. Also asked if there wasn't something illegal about it. I also answered no, cause I didn't know of anything illegal about it. His intentions number 1 seemed to be honorable and number 2 he complied with the zoning code as I would administer it. I subsequently issued a building permit and the house was moved. Irwin Harland: Between the time you issued the building permit and left the City was there any further action on your part. Hank Thurston: No. Attorney Gaylord: Hank, did you go out and talk to Mr. Cunningham one mornil Hank Thurston: You said action. Attorney Gaylord: Did you inform him there was some problem. Hank Thurston: If you will let me relate that, I sure will. Mr. Wurl callel me into his office, Roger Mahnke and Attorney Gaylord were there. They askel me, well Janet was in my office earlier and asked me to find a reason to voi, the permit or find that I had made an error. I told her I did not think I could. We had a discussion in the office and they insisted that I find some reason to cancel the pe~it and mentioned several things which I did not agree with. Therefore, I refused to cancel the building permit, because as far as I was concerned and all previous contacts had made quite sure in my own mind to determine that this was a valid request and able to be issued. - 1 - , i. Ci.nd that I was unabJ.p\ to change my mind about,.....,. In as much as I (refused to issue an orl/r invalidating the permit L did agree to talk Mr. Cunningham that the City was unhappy that I had issued the permit they were going to take some sort of action, whether I did or not. I talk to him and that is just about what I told him. Irwin Harland: Do any of the members of the Board have any questions to ask Mr. Thurston. to ~ and di~ Steen Gantzel: Hank, could you be specific on the reason for the permit and what the City was trying to find out. So far it has been very general, I would like you to be specific on the things that would relate to this. Hank Thurston: The permit asked to move the house onto the lot. ~.the set backs, heights and the distance between the buildings. ~family dwelling could be moved onto the lot. I observed The single Steen Gantzel: Is this what the plot plan showed. Hank Thurston: Yes Steen Gantzel: Could we see the plot plan. Irwin Harland: It is in the file. (Plot plan submitted to Steen Gantzel to review) Steen Gantzel: What I am trying to get at here, the plot plan does show two s truc tur~s . In other words, he wasn I.t trying to move a house onto a vacant lot, there was already a house there. Hank Thurston: We normally request when you show a plot plan you show what is on the land. Steen Gantzel: This plan does show this. Now the question is what was the City's objection when the permit was issued on this particular case. Hank Thurston: I don't know what there objection really was. I couldn't' substantiate it. I don't recall the specific objections they were just general. I just didn't like them. Somebody raised hell, they just didn't like them. Attorney Gaylord: We gave you specific reasons. Hank Thurston: I just say I don't recall them. ~ you ree8~1 that we asked you We gave you definate reasons to search for a why we felt it was Att orney Gaylord: I think reason to void the permit. void. Hank Thurston: That was asked of me, Attorney Gaylord: We disagreed on the interpretation of zoning. We all felt this is in violation of the zoning. Hank Thurston: I really don't know how you all felt, but at the time you fel that it might be, no word out of Mr. Mahnke. Mr. Wurl told me he wasn't so sure I wasn't right. Steen Gantzel: At the last meeting there was some discussion in this Sectior 11-1-1, accessory building, the fact that there was a building it had a garage and living quarters in the upper part of the building and by having this single family dwelling moved onto the property would make actually two separate buildings. The question was could this secondary building be allow- ed as an accessory use or was this a primary use, therefore with the size of the lot And everything else, someone is violating the code. Did this corne up with the City and yourself. Was there any investigation of this. what 1s your interpretation of this. ..- ........-.. -_._- -- ~-,,-,-,.--_.--------'--~.~---'---'._-- .._...~ "", Hank Thurston: I was ~ t here at your last meetL "', I don't know how you got into this type thi~g at all. Before Markalunas was the building inspecto why I think from the time Aspen was a small town, there has been little houses and sheds out in the rear of the lots allover town. They existed on small lots they existed on, well they existed onlots, they are allover to,vu. They have remodeled dwelling units into studios, apartments living- quarters and all sorts of things, that have passed down through the years before zoning and since zoning. Because one of these happens to exist on the rear of the lot, apparently, I say apparently because I am not making any complete study of it, but after having been building inspector for awhile I think I am pretty well familiar with it. There has been houses built on the front there have been structures added on the rear any number of sequence of combinations that have happened in relation to two detached structures on the land. Two detached not attached. The building code discusses one and two-family dwellings. Markalunas made a fairly detail policy, in fact, in 1960 concerning the fact that an accessory structure could be detached. So it leaves us with living units on a parcel of land that does not exceed two. This has been an established policy down through the years with regard to issuing permits for an accessory detached guest house or living unit. You eat, sleep and cook in it. I made a thorough investigation of that aspect. Most of that is a policy that Markalunas made, discussed it with the former City Attorney, obtained a complete legal opinion and I discussed it with other attorneys also. Attorney Gaylord: Do you have that legal opinion with you. .Hank Thurston: No, it is in the file. In light of the fact that it has actually taken place this way my best judgement was and always was as far as the two units were concerned. The two units by tradition which has grown up around here, does not make too much difference whether the units are attached or detached. So this obviously did not exceed two. This was the legal opinion I obtained and this legal opinion also happens to discuss the fact that it didn't do any violence to the zoning ordinance at all so long as you did it getting to the multiple family unit. So by tradition and custom we have grown to accept the detached unit on the land. It did not bother me at all that this was on the back of the land. Steen Gantzel: Basically that any small lot does not comply with the Code that it is set up by tradition, could build as long as it did not exceed two you could build two. Hank Thurston: That is what the law says. Attorney Gaylord: family dwelling as Now Hank, didn't we discuss a detached building. the definition of a two- Hank Thurston: I just went through a long explanation the last five minutes or so explaining the evolution of this philosophy that I inherited and I was asked to continue on with it. Attorney Gaylord: We disagreed, you felt that a precedent had been establisl Hank Thurston: That is correct. Attorney Gaylord: I felt that the word of the zoning ordinance should be enforced and this is basically where we disagreed. Hank Thurston: That probably is, I am not sure how you worded your disagree. ment, that might be true. Attorney Gaylord: We discussed this business of a detached building the definition. Hank Thurston: has grown, this for so long.. We also discussed the fairness to everybody in town. How it also has affect the law, as long as people have accepted it - 3 - Steen Gantzel: Sincer,u have been the building~,spector can you relate any specific instances~here a piece of property has existed where there is any single type of dwelling was remodeled or added on to and added an accessory building. Hank Thurston: There has been several and I can't think of all the names of them but they could sure be found in the files. There have been several remodeled garages, added an entire accessory building with a garage, remodel- ed an existing structureon the rear of the property and I think there may be one or two that may have done the reverse. Steen Gantzel: Did these properties not comply with the way the code is set up, 6000 sq.ft. Hank Thurston: Some were and some were not. The small lot clause makes everybody usable lot according to the permitted uses one and two-family dwellings. So there has been consistency on this down through the years. Attorney Gaylord: Hank, weren't these applications where the buildings were in existance before the zoning ordinance went into effect. Hank Thurston: No. Attorney Gaylord: a new building to on it. Can you think of any other instance where you allowed be built on a lot where there was already a dwelling Hank Thurston: I am sure that I have issued permits for them. If you want me to be specific I guess I can go and search for them. Attorney Gaylord: before the zoning use. Another thing, we disagreed anything that was in existencl ordinance went into effect, as a guest house or accessory Hank Thurston: Many of these have happened during Markalunas's time and mine. I can't call them by name. It has happened in almost routine fashion down through the years that people have added to or converted an existing structure added on or added another, which makes 2 units detached rather than the traditional duplex. Right up on the corner is one that is sort of a detached attached, there are two boards holding it together right on the same lot. Mrs. Maddalone: But she was not issued a permit to make a detached building she had to join her's together. Mr. Maddalone: She tore that one down, don't you remember. Hank Thurston: I am not going to argue, I didn't issue that one. Mr. Maddalone: She was right herelast week and said this, Coble did the same thing. Hank Thurston: I was not here last week, I was disabled. Irwin Harland: Do you have a question Mr. Maddalone. Mr. Maddalone: I was going to ask you how come~ how long have you been building inspector. Hank Thurston: Since May 1964. Mr. Maddalone: All right the fellow that was figuring on buying this piece of property, who happens to be Keith Ford who will be in here within the next 4 days, he went out to buy ~his property and you refused to do this for him and then you turn around and switched your mind and let someone elAQ b~il~ On it. - 4 - ~ - ~._~ .- -- .. Hank Thurston: Jess, I told you many times befor~ I don't really think t know Keith Ford, may( '"" I know him by his face 1 .on' t honestly recall talking to the man and ~onlt recall this various situation presented to me at all. Mr. Maddalone: He came over to you and talked to you to explain why he did not buy the property. Hank Thurston: You have told me this on several occasions and I am very sorry I don't remember. Mr. Maddalone: If I have to I will jog your memory when he gets here. Steen Gantzel: Was this a building permit that was established on the building that was torn down. Mr. Maddalone: He went to ask whether he could build on there or not. Hank turned him down on it and said he could not build on it. Steen Gantzel: This was not a formal application. Mr. Maddalone: No it was not. Irwin Harland: I think we can discontinue this line Mrs. Maddalone Mrs. Maddalone: I just want to ask Hank if he issued the permit when Mr3. Turner built or if that was before his time. Hank Thurston: That was before me. Mr s. Madda lone: another detached line. But at any rate she was denied an application to build unit on her lot. She was required to join them at the roof Hank Thurston: That may be a matter of fact, I have no knowledge of it at all. Mrs. Maddalone: Well Mrs. Turner so stated. Don Swales: I am not interested in what was done in the past, I should look at this case, what is legal and what is in the book. permissable to put two one-story detached dwellings on one lot. or isn't it. think we Is it Now is it Attorney Gaylord: I think that is absolutly the Boards function, I don't think the Board can change the wording of the ordinance. Don Swales: Is that what the ordinance says. Attorney Gaylord: The ordinance defines a two-family dwelling is a detached building designed exclusively for occupancy for two families that is the definition of a two-family dwelling. Now under R-6 zone you have permitted uses includes a two-family dwelling. Don Swales: Does this come under the small lot clause. Attorney Gaylord: If it stays in the same ownership as before the zoning ordinance went into effect. So it is allowed any uses allowed in the R-6 zoning district which is a two-family dwelling, fine that means a two-family detached dwelling but they do not have that. Don Swales: Right now there is a single one-family dwelling on the property Mr. Maddalone: They have two. Don Swales: They started out with one dwelling on it. Now was it legal to put another one on the same lot. Is this the crux of the situation. Attorney Gaylord: Yes I think so. Thurston had a legal opinion from Mr. Balcomb, I think it says something about guest houses and accessory uses. .1 .' ......... .- t,-,3ctually the very last 11..__ of his letter he says dwellings via the accessory use route would not be You are getting down intent to create new allowed. Hank Thurston: That would not be this case though Janet, so don't twist that all up. Steen Gantzel: This small lot does fall under the R-6 Residential District right. This plot plan you canput a two-family dwelling on the premises. He has one single family dwelling and another single family dwelling. If he diddles around and attachs the two buildings he then complies with the code, right. Irwin Harland: To make any alterations he would have to apply for a building permit. Attorney Gaylord: I don't think we have to consider what Mr. Cunningham could do to get around this thing. I am sure we all know the situation. Hank Thurston: I think you ought to know, as long as I am going to sit here, down through the years its been City policy, it has been condoned by the various administrations to do this. What I did actually consistantly administrater the policy of the office in regard to this type of thing. Whether it was legal or illegal I am not so sure. It is entirely important because every town is different. You have different situations and the philosophy of Balcomb's letter if I had disagreed with that I would have investiaged further. In my own mind what a town does and the way they establish helps to enforce and re~nforce the zoning policy of the City. Whether it happened to be the written law of the City, I don't disagree with what Janet says as far as the strict word of the law is concerned. We have accepted it. It has come about by the peculiar situations in town where people have wanted guest houses and they have wanted them out in the County and they are allowed, however, the law does not necessarily say this. This is all I am saying. Mr. Maddalone: Hank did you know that when he first came up, the fact that h was going to move that house out there that I came to you and told you to be sure that everything was on the up and up because I was going to fight it. Hank Thurston: No that is not true. . Irwin Harland: I do not think this is pertinent why Mr. Thurston took this action. I do not want any personalities. I know why Mr. Maddalone opposes this and I am sure all of us do. If there is any question we will take it up further. I don't think it is necessary to indulge in what I said and what you said, sort of thing. I think we inquired from Mr. Thurston what information we needed. Now if there are no further questions of Mr. Thurston, he may stay or leave whichever he prefers to do. Steen Gantzel: I would personally like to see some specific building permits that were issued while Hank was Building Inspector. The reason he might know where they are better than someone else. Also would like to see the letter from the lawyer. To the Board members some of the information seems to be lacking. I would like to see these physically. Attorney Gaylord: There may be such things and there may not, but actually the Council was empowered to enact building ordinances and you are to figure out and put them into effect. I just can't see even if there were policy if the City wanted that policy to be put into law it should be in an ordinance. I don't think the Board has any powers to even take the policy that is not set forth in the zoning ordinance. Steen Gantzel: All I was saying if if there were building permits issued there might be something that would affect our judgement or our vote. Attorney Gaylord: I don't think it should affect your judgement. Just because things have been done wrong in the past does not mean you keep on doing it wrong. - 6 - . _.._..~ -.,.=-c--~...-."..,-._ ~._._.--- .. - . - i~\vin Harland: Would~u like to go into this a. find whether a building permit has been issuea-'or not. Steen Gantzel: Would just like to read this letter from Delaney and Balcomb first. I~~in Harland: Mr. Thurston you can stay or leave whichever you prefer. At this point I would like to have read into the record four letters that have been received since the last meeting. Mrs. Tharp would you read these please. City of Aspen Boardof Adjustment Dear Sirs, I will be absent from Aspen on Friday December 22nd so will be unable to attend the hearing concerning Case No. 66-11 Timothy Cunningham. Refer to hearing on December 16th and note my objection. My position remain unchanged I strongly reiterate my objection to any variance being permitted. Respectfully yours, /s/ Myrtle Thorpe City of Aspen Board of Adjustment Dear Sirs: , Mr. Linkletter nor I will be able to attend the meeting of December 23rd. We would again like to voice our protest to granting the variance requested by Mr. Cunningham. . Since our position regarding this matter remains the same as when this hearing began on December 16, 1966, I refer you to the minutes of that meeting. Yours sincerely, /s/ Emily C. Linkletter /s/ Richard Linkletter Telephone message received from Eugenia Armstrong. ~ Against the Board granting a variance. Feel we should follow the laws that are made. Live across the street. Irwin Harland, Chairman Aspen Board of Adjustment Re: Cunningham Appeal Case No. 66-11 Dear Mr. Chairman: As I will be out of town and unable to attend the Friday hearing on the above matter, I wanted to make a few summary observations which I hope you will consider during your final deliberations: 1. Zoning Question: Regarding the question of a possible zoning violation Cunningham's position respecting the density requirements prescribed under Section 11-1-4 of the Aspen Ordinance appears to be in accord with that of the various remonstrators and the Board. Quite simply, our explanation is that the existing structure (garage-apartment) is and always has been con- templated as an accessory - type building. As such, under Section 11-1-1 of the Aspen ordinance, our view of the situation is that the larger Victor- ian house is to be seen as the principal structure together with the garage structure as its accessory building. - 7 - ---'''-'--'-'''-''-=-~-'~--'-'_: -,---'- ~- - .-. -- "--.,-- -- ---~ .~-- ---, - /"'0, . v ~ /'''" With this in mind, we '~ld merely additionally r~1uest that you also con- sider the evidence with respect to the history of the physical lay-out of the subject property and Hank Thurston's and Tim Cunningham's discussions regarding permissible use of the two structures as being one-family dwelling places each. 2. Zoning, Building Permits and the Law of Estoppel in Colorado. Contrary to the opinion of some of the remonstrators, we feel that the established law in the State of Colorado with respect to invalid building permits and municipalities' belated attempts at revocation of same has a direct bearing on this case, and we respectfully request that you also consider this aspect of the case before making your final ruling on the appeal. Assuming, without admitting, that the various initial permits in question were issued by Hank Thurston erroneously, and in conflict with the applic- able Aspen zoning requirements, we urge you to consider the injustice that would result to Mr. Cunningham should your ruling be to the effect that the City of Aspen be allowed to change its position and revoke these permits at this late date on the grounds that there is going to be a zoning violation The recent and leading case of Denver v. Stackhouse, 135 Colo 289 (1957) stands for the proposition that a city is estopped or prevented from revoking a person's building permit when a zoning violation resulted from the building inspector's error after the person had negotiated for and pur- chased property and commenced construction of his building in reliance on his fair and full disclosure and discussions with the building department about his contemplated plans for the property and where in every other respect there was a complete showing of good faith and cooperation on the part of the property owner. The doctrine of estoppel is the well-established law in Colorado in this type of zoning-building permit case, much more so than in many other states, and should be given your serious consideration in this matter. The only cases where the Colorado Supreme Court has showed reluctance in applying this doctrine in favor of an injured property owner is where the circumstance show bad faith or pure carelessness on the property owner's part respecting his dealings with the building department, where there is an obvious error in the face of the permit which the property owners knew or should have known, or where the contemplated use not only constitutes a zoning violation but also consists of a nuisance situation. We feel that none of the above kind of circumstances are present in this matter. We urge you to consider the rule of the Stackhouse case and reverse the City of Aspen stop-orders to prevent an obvious miscarriage of justice to Mr. Cunningham. Respectfully yours, Isl Fitzhugh Scott III Irwin Harland: I would like these four letters placed in the file. Mr. Cunningham have you anything further to say. Mr. Cunningham: Only if the Board has a question, I gave all my information last week. Irwin Harland: Does the City Attorney think this case sited here is applicab Attorney Gaylord: I would say all cases have different facts. In that case the Building Inspector had a map which he showed to the applicant and he pointed out on this map where the applicant's property was located and the map was drawn incorrectly. In other words, he was shown that he could build a four family dwelling on his property, but the City's map was in error actually the applicant's property was in another zone. The City actually mislead this man with these maps. There are situations where a City is, this depends on the circumstances. The minority rule that this kind of Colorado case is not in accord with the general rule of the Citys not estopped by the actions of the employees. I don't think a court would find the facts here were similar. I don't think we ought to get into it. - 8 - . .. ',... I1.'"Win Harland: 1""'. l......- I just wanted .......... to hear comment on this. Attorney Gaylord: There are situations but I don't think that one is comparable to this one. Irwin Harland: Is there any other comments or questions to either Mr. Thurston or Mr. Cunningham. If there are none I would like to call for an executive session at this time, would like to retain the Secretary. (Board went into executive session) (Meeting reconvened) Francis Whitaker: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that the Board of Adjustment sustain the decision of the Building Inspector and that in our opinion or the opinion of the Board that reversal of the Building Inspecto: orders would result in violation of the zoning ordinance. Seconded by Don Swales. Roll call vote - Gantzel aye; Swales aye; Tharp aye; Whitaker aye Harland aye. If there is no other business I would like to call this meeting adjourned. Meeting was adjourned with all members in favor. ~~~..-.,/d-, _.J orraine Graves, Secretary LIST OF ADJACENT LOT OWNERS FOR ALAN STOREY APPEAL 1. William C. Stapleton Post Office Box 676 2. Eugenie W. Armstrong Post Office Box 613 3. Maxwell Joyner Charles and Maude Viviene Estelle Jones Post Office Box 317 4. Rocky Mountain Mennonite Conference c/o Paul Martin Post Office Box 1183 5. Myrtle Thorpe Post Office Box 243 6. Esther M. Maddalone Post Office Box 506 7. Rrchard~H., and~Em-ily .c'r Linkll:!'tte'r P-os1:0fficeBUX"'255 ( ",i- F ,i;1/ , . ,;-~, /<'}: 7/......, ')' ;o~7 ...'!' :.:'? " J, /1 ;f~ ,:' ,~'7' ;f}r :t;'o, i {' , ,./' "l ;)'j u .... c.....- {4/65l2 , E'. - ~DRESS GENERAL I F JOB 609 H. Francis CONSTRUCTION PERMIT WHEN SIGNED AND VALIDATED BY BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES THE WORK DESCRIBED BELOW. CLASS OF WORK: NEW 0 ADDITION 0 ALTERATION 0 REPAIR 0 MOVE 0 WRECK 0 OWNER NAME Allen A. Storey ADDRESS Box ('837 PHONE ... LICENSE LICENSE 0 NAME (AS LICENSED) Self CLASS NUMBER I- u INSURANCE 0( ... ADDRESS 0 I- PHONE Z 0 SUPERVI SOR U FOR THIS JOB NAME DATE CERTIFIED LEGAL &\H DESCRIPTION LOT NO. G BLOCK NO. n ADDITION SURVEY ATTACHED 0 DESIGN A LIC. BY BY PE NO AREA (S.f.) I HEIGHT NO. TOTAL OCCUPANCY AT GRADE (fEET) STORIES UNITS GROUP DIY. BASEMENT FIN 81 GARAGE SINGLE 0 ATTACHED 0 TOTAL TYPE I fiRE UNFIN. DOUBLE 0 DETACHED 0 ROOMS CONSTR. ZONE DEPTH FIRST SIZE SPACING SPAN AUTHORIZED BElOW AGENCY BY DATE Z GRADE FLOOR 0 '" BUILDING I- REVIEW i= EXTERIOR '" FOOTING 0 CEILING 0( SIZE ZONING C ... Z EXTERIOR CONe. 0 ~ FDN. WAll ROOF PARKING 0 THICKNESS MAS'Y 0 ... Ir~ijK 0 CAISSONS 0 ROOFING PUBLlC HEALTH & GR. BEAMS MATERIAL MASONRY ABOVE ABOVE ABOVE ENGINEERING EXTERIO' THICKNESS 1ST FLR 2ND FLR JRD FLR. WALL STUD SIZE ABOVE ABOVE ABOVE & SPACE 1ST FLR. 2ND FLR 3RD FLR. REMARKS - /N / - " 2...., " " , ,- ' i -l,...~ ;....' .-~.::_~ ..1 (-} , ,- ., "" C.: ....,,1 ; ,,,,""/ I ~ / '; 4<(3) ~ i '- -- , '- , ;/,,,,,, !/~\ <"--";:: -~j ,,,, .~'" '.j c, '-- " r~-' ":>i<:::' ' -" ,; - -' };>.<-......; . ',~ ~ " ' " , ,:;6' - r'-'" '~. . /; /4,. t..J< " ,,~,:" E , , - ~ ,-::> ~ ) r:~.-'''( "tV!') NOTES TO APPLICANT: i_/.!~~,!.:;. ''i ..:./vJC "'J] (,i FOR INSPECTIONS OR INFORMATION CALL 925-7336 / FOR ALL WORK CONE UNDER THIS PERMIT THE PERMITTEE ACCEPTS FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR VALUATION COMPLIANCE WIrH THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, THE COUNTY ZONING RESOLUTION OR CITY OF WORK $23,000.00 ZONING ORDINANCE, AND ALL OTHER COUNTY RESOLUTIONS OR CITY ORDINANCES WHICHEVER APPLIES. SEPARATE PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING AND HEATING, SIGNS, PLAN TOTAL FEE SWIMMING POOLS AND FENCES. FILED T P 0 PERMIT EXPIRES 60 DAYS FROM DATE ISSUED UNLESS WORK IS STARTED. REQUIRED INSPECTIONS SHALL BE REQUESTED ONE WORKING DAY IN ADVANCE. DOUBLE CHECK 0 $ ALL fiNAL INSPECTIONS SHALL BE MADE ON ALL ITEMS Of WORK BEfORE OCCUPANCY IS PERMITTED. FEE 0 CASH 0 THIS BUILDING SHAll NOT BE OC~UPIED UNTIL A CERTIFICA~-E OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN ISSUED. 0 ffiILDI~G DEPARTMENT PERMIT SUBJECT ro REVOCATION' OR SUSPENSIONF.oR.:Vk)(ATION OF ANY LAWS GOVERNING SAME. -t'j,(LPcf) SIGNATURE /],":,.C_4'_---.-'--m-"" - '6iH aJ~fr j II -It -7/ OF ," ,', APPLICANT:! /<&~. // ,~~:f~~'(;(.:-~~(. A.rrlll "BY DATE '-' . , LICENSE t:I THIS FORM IS A PERMIT ONLY f DATE PERMIT NO. RECEIPTS CLASS AMOUNT WHEN VALIDATED HERE ) 11/19 04 DCITY BUll l)INC INSPECTION DEPART~~ENT ?EN - COUNTY OF PITKIND, Y ~ADO ....,I.-........l',..l"U~ ,.._nv I '.. ~..,_,~,"_~'~ ..~. ) June 27, 197' Oity of Aspen Board of Adjustment ReI Variance request by Alan A. Storey Location of propertyl 609 Ii. Francis Lots G & 1/2 of H, Block 22 As the owner of Lot P diagonally across the street from Mr. Storey I strongly oppose his request for a variance for the following reasons I (1) The area on West Francis Street between 5th and 6th streets is already too dense. For example, I believe, there are 5 single dwellings and 4 dup1e.es in this one block. (2) If the new Land Use Proposaf, Ordinance /1'19, now before the Oity Oouncil, is approved the building of duplexes in the West end will be discontinued, any- way. (,) Finally, from past experience with Mr. Storey's actions, I don't believe he will use the proposed addition to his single-family dwelling as another single-family dwelling. It is quite apparant that he has for several months used his present single-family dwelling to .. house numarous employees of his excavating company which further adds to the density of the area. The men leave the company dump trucks and flat-bed trailer parked in front of the homes in the neighborhood all night and somet... during the day not to mention the deisel fumes emitted as they are started up and then oftenn allowed to idle as long as an hour. Also their p'ersona1 cars are left parked in the alley behind Storey's house':blocking any ac"ess to the alley. ~~ is my opinion that Mr. Storey's plans for his property are not in the best ~'t. ~re'.~,~ ~f :~~ neig~bo~..tOd., / ( ."::10 /" j '-'-' ,/.\" ....., (' '..; ugenjLe VI; Armstrong ~. . 612 West Francis street ' Aspe n, Oolorado eel The Sanitation Board The Oity Planning Office ~ ,,/n_ - ~~......, 601 West Franois Aspen, Colorado June 28, 1973 To: City of Aspen Board of Adjustments I own the oorner lots I and ~ of H adjaoent to Mr. storey's property I feel that I must register an objeotion to permitting a varianoe or ereot a duplex on this property beoause of the vehiole parking problem. With the existing one family dwelling on the one and a half lots there are often as many as half a dozen oars parked on the street and in the alley. The addition of two more dwell- ing units would oertainly oompound thls problem. Sinoerely Yours, ? ~: rJ~nttd~~ Esther Maddalone "/----., '/' r. t, ;~-~ h' t. iJ n H'\ f: JUNE 27, 1973 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY OF ASPEN ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 GENTLEMEN: My FATI:lER ANO MOTHER (DR, & MRS, CHARLES MAXWELL- JOYNER) AND 1 OWN PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET FROM LoT Q. R S MR. AL STOREY, AND WE ARE OPPOSED TO GRANTING HIS REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD ALREADY HAS A HIGH DENSITY AND ADDITIONAL PEOPLE WILL BRING ADDED PARKING PROBLEMS. ~~~. S:N)~~ (MRS, WHIPPLE VAN NESS JONES) ( MORRISON SHAFROTH HENRY W. TOLL WILLIAM GRANT DOUGLAS Mo;HE:NDRIE CHARLES H. HAINES, JR. fRANK H.SHAFROTH JOHN F. SHAFROTH PETER J. CROUSE JOHN N. DAHLE J. ALBERT SEBALD GRANT, SHAFROTH, TOLL AND McHENDRIE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 1700 WESTERN FEDERAL BUILDING DENVER,COLORADO 80202 TELEPHONE (303) 625-5111 DONALD M. BURKHARDT GAIL E.OPPENNEER DONALD B. GENTRY JAM ES R. WADE RONALD C. BUlZ June 25, 1973 JEFfREY H. KATZ JOHN E. BURRUS HERBERT A. DELAP OF COUNSEL ERL H. ELLIS City of Aspen Board of Adjustment Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Case *73-l7--Alan A. Storey, Applicant for Variance at 609 West Francis Gentlemen: As owner of Lots K, Land M, Lot 28, Townsite of Aspen, I object to the requested variance by Mr. Storey requesting the right to build an additional one family dwelling in the R-6 residential district. Such a variance would be a contradiction of Section 11-1-4 of the Ordinance of the City of Aspen, and would be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. A brief history of the subject property might be of help to the Board in coming to a determination of the requested variance. On December 23, 1966, this Board in case *66-11, after a lengthy hearing, denied the application of Mr. Timothy M. Cunning- ham to build an additional dwelling house on the subject property. jThis matter was then appealed to the Pitkin County District Court I which reversed the Board of Adjustment, basing their decision on the fact that the existing dwelling could no longer be used as such and on the further ground that the City was estopped from revoking a permit heretofore issued by the Building Department. This opinion was appealed by Ester M. Maddalone to the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado. Simultaneously, the adjoining property owners filed suits against Mr. Cunningham individually seeking an injunction and substantial damages by reason of his placing a victorian house on the subject property in violation of the Zoning laws. The matter was at issue in the Supreme Court, the matter was then transferred to the Court of Appeals and there- after Mr. Cunningham removed the victorian home and Mrs. Maddalone therefore dismissed her appeal since the question before the Court was now moot. In the other action for injunction and damages, the question before the Court was also moot and therefore dismissed by agreement. The applicant, when purchasing the property, was on notice of the above suits and clearly was aware of the prohibition for building of an additional dwelling on 1 1/2 lots. An Assistant Building Inspector obviously has no authority to make representations concerning variances that this Board might or might not grant and therefore the Appellant had no right to rely on same. City of Aspen Board of Adjustment Page 2 June 25, 1973 It is respectfully submitted that this Board should deny the requested variance once and for all to avoid further litigation and to retain the residential area of the West end as it presently exists. JFS/cjt Enclosures: Transcript of Hearing, December 23, 1966 Copy of Complaint of Adjoining Landowners, Filed December 15, 1967 AIR MAIL--SPECIAL DELIVERY ~ June 27, 1973 To The City o. Aspen Board of Ac1justment: I would like to state my opposition to the Variance Request (No. 73-17) at 609 W. Francis (Lots G & 1/2 of D, Block 22), which is directly across the alley from my home. ~y OJ. osition iE based on: 1. ',',hen the applicant applied for the original varilmce l.re .i 've;nbej' 1971, he and hi s fal'ily were resid inE' in the existing dwelling. uOwever, slnce that time, the ai' Hcant and single renters are living in the house. Any ad(jitional dwellinss rented in this Ilcanner ,,,ould be objectionable. 2. Porking: The nu be:,' of cars and trucks currently operating out of the preSEnt dwel J.inr:~_ are :nore t,bar: can be accomodeted even if they used their front off-street parkinE'. The rEsult is that the alley is frequently blocked with t~eir vehicles. An ad0itional family dwelling on this property would only compound the pa~:ing pl"oblem. In closlne, I hope the 300rd of Adjustment C es not Grant tbib veriE,nce request. Thank you. Sin~e~elY, 0 J~ id7f/~ d,,-, r-- o _ ., ~lr' ~,i~ljl >/ ~_.. '\TIC 23, 1973 ~r:.0. v1 t..; o~ . S~)C'J1 ", ~Y':"(~ OJ <J1u::,t.:':;cr..ts '~'- d o11n ,~<" .~~ ,c~: ,~'rn, rs or ;...ots ",,:'_,C, ~, ~ioc~ 22 - GIS . cst Fra~cls ;~:v.sc r'lo. \T[",l"'1,"r,c' 13-:L 7 .0C: (~t -':./"/ ,~~, n ,Ie' . ' at '~. 1 r;01: ?2. ()~)9 f. Frn.ncis C' ~~"C t."t ~)t:,',l{'" [', Cl"!" L;')c r,'\' ~_t~~'..~" ~/rG "crt~~~ to 't}-:c "7C~t of t~'r~t '-~_n ':l.'C~8t2.Ji1. '-e:l the ,.... llc~-~tt -"toyte. , 01"'J.. :inalLy Bi)oke '._j,",- :,;-1 ' ,~....l~_q,~./', r(-"".-~'''''..:I~ ......., o'iq ..~..,-.~~ """'C~ rc'"' ~0.st ''''"IT huc<^'''''-,d's ~ _ ,'.J .l.'u . . . '",,,,,V_...l"-..., .... V(_,','__'.,_~ v 1..-... _' . u.~ '_.'.'. i. fl.:'ct, rC[l,ctlcn 'FJ~-n t:.....t CL b!tl~(;i_:1." ,.;oulc1 .'OD J..1.~ly be ')rei'erc:t,le t ~".r; '-rr.; .,~:t':.C~i ~:~'8 'bC(,~l O~ the ")~~))ert~;'. ;-)'~,'c-\;C'r, '::Ll'I.,C'r :::.' ";- or tl~ .:",'~~t ;"',,'1{J (~tsc,~~':'\l():1, 'lore ~'e0J t!"'~t, r secc::icl Ch.,c,_f.in:' O~1 t'- i~, r'.c ~~tll'~ll(}: It)t 1s 'lOt. t.he beot ,'ne of' t,he ,'ir --;02.~t:~. 0 ~:r'E-:' t., ere-fore 0 ' "')' E'(! ~..) thc' ('1"':'" t:i..l'" of tl:e V'c__P';,c ....,c -'~,)r 1-. fO:]_~~C:~'.<.n .C'f.....St...':1G: 1. .c:c1t'.; ,c i'(<L tx't [1 ;::)-fO),..ll:; dliell.Ln' on 4500 sq. ft. (1;- 1ot,~) J..~' c: c0snl\-c bJJ' ~IJl_~,:1~ .:_!bc: Y".'Sltlt would be an .'1"' "('t. ~;1 1':-':'! ,::1""" r....(. 1 ~~~".~ ,-,l'Ln.v (\I'~r.,.-~ t"e e"1"'t111-' ,_ _... ......... !__' ....____, .;.... .!...~ -"" ,-' .~, ("~" ....-... 0;:- v J.~ ..~ oJ t:_ 8tr:__,ct~!re CX:U3tn l..,-it:'), '10 ;"et l:cck) to :':""€' rant ~1ct cae. on C3t .j", ..,.;lu. ,(} L er',.!'ore foc} t..(1t t',c.;:"GGe,1t 2 bedroom ch-:C:'..I~.t,!1;~~ 3..f-~ [', f lcient 1';',)1'" t~"( :Jl...e of the )ropcrty. ~.? .. r'_::~':~.n:':l ere ~l;'e (:"01.- ,_.or'e ypL.it':lse o:')C"'atin[', fr<.':;t the Cl.:r: ent c!\.:cl:L 11, t' C', could to (1Cco"lodntcd .; I" the )resent off-street ,;er~,i:'l s ('C('O 0., t!~(' 1,; lots - if it ~ler~ '. t ";, 7('0, ,,1')_(')-0 it 1,' ''!c:'t. T:~c result is t.!lct the veNiCloa ':-1.;:"8 ')['::"I~C'\1 ~"'Gl1:/ often in t~}('"ll~~C;;l, bl~')c 'in;. nceesC'j - or C.._GC C';: ~',: 'c r'c;(' rJ ~":r1(' "1--'('~~'0rt' ce.: t of t.. ("', - or else on t,t,.( s+l'cc.ts .i,,~ front ai" ot,:'erv ,eojle'f', lv', es. ,\">,~r r"d.clitlonal d\;c1,.:1:1:- f] C(~. t"'if, .,.ct C 1/":' voul~" ('C)':':~~,o :(1(1 tLls 'H1--'I:in.:= "::1"(::')le. [":.' t,!',e cf -Dt.rcct ~o.:~:~.n[ 8~;rces cl~c\':a on tt.o "Ion 1','<; :;.,: r:c.:(c~ J-:,('c-te O~.:: "ner"" ese in tl~c :-Ju~~lbel~ 01,' vehicles. 'l'o c r:,; _'"'~,n\ t;;.c ,)["1'" i11' )l'"'Llc , "",iC !'-'",'VC '-,('(1 ~ 0 C()~lt-,c-nd '-Ii t. \' ~f ~~c(:"\'o.t..l.[l:. i...let'\el True -8 bel11 ),:;,r:e(1 t.ber:Jn tlle lot ,lcxt to our l:ausc or eJ.re 0:1 t~10 strl tl:D rcsult~n~ [:,i11 _,,01 ,_,_.In fl' .~l L: l leu:;]. f' :1C'f~. In nc:. Cl,')Gi,n" .C f'col ',bnr:" ,'.)(1 ;...; c t::c lc,t- 1[:;. c c~ t!....,-'., i"., '.1oule' "::r in t:f best :~.~1te!.-'a8t of the c' 2c1 (I()('fJ. '~,Gt r..';-1.t tl'~e v....rin,-~ce !'equC'st ('(1 'l't n,l' J..r-~(.In('.c ~10d ['I: ~:,l'l~"et"_vely. C:h Tl:'" )U ~<-.,~"I _'~ ~..~ ''''. ,"'," THE 1:IEST SIDE ~?ROVEf1Et!T ASSOC. BOX U47 ASPEt,!, COLORADO 81611 ' June 26, 1973 Board of Adjust~ent City of Aspen Box V Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Case 73-17 Al Storey 609 T'J. Francis , Lot s G -L of Ii Block 22 Gentlemen: The West Side Improve~ent Association is opposed to the granting of the above variance for the following reasons: 1. The Planning and Zoning Co~mission has recommended that f'lultiple family d"lellings be subject to revieH in the R-6 Zone. 2. The existing dHelling is presently being used by tHO families. 3. The existing dwelling is presently located on a sub-stan- dard lot (3,000 square feet per d'delling is nOli required). Lf. The premise is nOH being used for a non-conforming use, i. e. (excavating business). core recuest that the ordinance regarding business operations in R-6 zone be enforced. 5. The present block Hhich said structure is located on is one of the most densley populated in the R-6 zone. This variance Hould only aggravate the situation and impair the life style of the neighborhood. Very 0:: # ~() Revie'l Board JC:r