Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19930218 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 18, 1993 4:00 P.M. SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM A G E N D A I. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL II. MINUTES OCTOBER 30, 1992 III. CASE #93-1 JERALD BARNETT IV. ADJOURN NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CASE #93-1 JERALD BARNETT BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen of June 25, 1962, as amended, a public hearing will be held in the Council Room, City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such other place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24, Official Code of Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. Particulars of the hearing and requested variance are as follows: Date and Time of Meeting: Date: FEBRUARY 18, 1993 Time: 4: 00 p.m. SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM Owner for Variance: Appellant for Variance: Name: JERALD BARNETT GRETCHEN GREENWOOD & ASSOC. Address: 201 N. MILL #207 Location or description of property: 120 FRANCIS STREET Variance Requested: SECTION 5-201(D.4 & D.5) ASPEN LAND USE CODE. IN THE R-6 ZONING CATEGORY TOTAL FRONT AND REAR SETBACKS MUST BE 30 FEET, MINIMUM OF 10 FEET. SIDE YARD SETBACK MUST BE A TOTAL OF 15 FEET, MINIMUM OF 5 FEET. APPLICANT APPEARS TO BE REQUESTING A 1 FOOT 6 INCH SIDE YARD AND TOTAL OF 13 FEET 6 INCH. ALSO A 1 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO AN EXISTING STRUCTURE FOR AN ENLARGED ROOF LINE. Will applicant be represented by counsel: Yes: No: X The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Jan Carney Deputy City Clerk OlU RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 18, 1993 Vice Chairman Charlie Paterson called meeting to order at 4:40 PM. Answering roll call were Bill Martin, Rick Head, Ron Erickson and Charlie Paterson. Remo Lavagnino was excused. MINUTES OCTOBER 30, 1992 It was decided to defer minutes to next meeting since only 2 members present were at the October 30th meeting. CASE #93-1 JERALD BARNETT Charlie read into record request for variance. Bill Drueding, Zoning: I have 2 numbers you have to change. Setback must be a total of 30 feet instead of 15. No minimum. Total for side yard the 13 should be changed to 17 feet 6 inches. Also the 1 foot rear yard setback should be 8 inches--not 1 foot. Gretchen Greenwood, architect for applicant: I would like to give you some background for the reasons for this minimal variance. (She presented photographs) It is a victorian residence. It is on 9, 092 square foot lot. It currently has 2 buildings on it. One is located on the east side of the property. And the larger building to the west of the property. The front part of this building is a victorian house. It has maintained itself in it's original character and original integrity throughout any work that has been done on the property. It is not landmark designated. But it is registered as all victorians are in the west end. We are not going to the HPC to seek this variance because it is not designated. And the amount of work that we are doing on the property is less than 50% so it wouldn't require HPC approval. When someone does less than 50% demolition to the overall property you don't have to go through HPC. I have had a lot of experience with HPC recently going through 4 very long involved processes in the last year and a half. This part of the house is victorian and it was the owner's interest in mind to keep this as pristine as it always has been. So we have an existing situation here where we don't want to do anything to it. The rear part of the property was a 2-story addition put on it. BOA2 . 18.93 It is about 15 years old. It was built when the setbacks were a lot less. That has changed. That rear structure of the building is now non-conforming because of the setback. So our proposal on this building which is a minimum that could be done to the property without destroying the integrity of this victorian house here would be to increase the roof line of this building. Right now it is a 2-story structure. The upper story is really more like an attic space and not useable. So what we are proposing to do basically is just raise this roof and do a second story only in this area. What we have to work with is an existing situation. We could I suppose if we wanted to, come out here and build on top of this victorian. But the HPC and Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan really wants (very loud rattling of drawings) definite definition between what is old and what is new to the point of having a different roof line, different materials and everything so that the interior of the house is really documented as the transition of the building occurs. And so really with that in mind the only thing we can do on this property--we are only adding FAR to it where it is 350 square feet which is a little area right here--it is an increase to the roof line. And at it's tallest point it goes up 7 feet to the existing new roof line. This is within the allowable building height. The setbacks are all staying the same. As you can see in the photographs there is a picture of the rear of the property. It shows the lines of the building which will remain the same. So really on this side we are only off by 1 foot 6 inches and by this side we are off 8 inches. We have to ask for a total side yard because of the interruption of this building on the property which is another smaller house that is rented out. So with respect to what we can do with this property, we are asking for a minimal amount of variance in order to be able to expand this property. In demonstrating our hardship we are dealing with an pre-existing situation. We don't want to expand on top of the existing victorian house because it would just not be appropriate. The setbacks really remain the same. There is nothing that changes on the property at all. No site coverage changes. In addition back towards the rear of the property there is a huge amount of trees that you can see in the photographs that add enough backdrop to this property. Rick: I understand your problems with respect to the setbacks. I see that the existing FAR 3, 600 square feet plus a guest house of 762 square feet for a total of 4, 362 . It is my understanding 2 BOA2 . 18.93 that a duplex in the R-6 zone be permitted at 4, 060. Greenwood: Our total existing FAR is 3, 820. Rick: I am looking here at your proposed variance Greenwood: That is an error. This is what it is right here. The FAR is 3, 820 square feet total between this house and this. I am sorry about the error. It is coming from our calculation, our as- built drawings and from the survey. Rick: But it doesn't describe existing FAR. Greenwood: No. I described that to Bill Drueding when I was submitting the application. And then he is the one that checked it--what the existing is. Rick: I would like to know what the existing is. Greenwood: It is 3 ,820 square feet total between here and here existing. This building right here is going to be turned into a garage--half of it. And the back half is going to be a separate guest house. That is what part of the plan is. So when we take 500 square feet of garage area, we get that off of our existing FAR and you are able to add it in into other square footage. And that is what we are using to expand. Rick: You get 500 square feet of garage free if you access from an alley. Why don't you just donate the alley to the City. They vacated the alley. Drueding: If you can access from the alley into the garage up to 500 square feet. If you can access from the alley or from the street you must access from the alley. If you can access you have to get your exemption. If you can't access you can take it anywhere you want. Bill: There is not enough room in that alley. Greenwood: There is still a 10 foot 6 inch all remaining which the City owns right here. And then Paepcke vacated right here. Charlie: So wouldn't that be access to your garage from there? Greenwood: No. Only from here. Which there is right now just a driveway. So I am kind of moving FAR around but we are not going to our maximum FAR. 3 BOA2 . 18.93 Rick: Do you at some point in time plan to come in for another variance application to the garage structure and modifications that are not included. Greenwood: No. We would come back in if we wanted to modify this building along this side. And that might be something that we might do in the future because if he wants to expand--they want to build a guest house and rent it out for someone to live in the year around. In that case--but we don't know that yet. At this point there is a small caretaker's unit here. The owner would like to make it larger. And we would have FAR left over to do that. They might be back for a setback along this side. But not at this time. Tom Todd, attorney representing Mrs. Paepcke: Didn't you say you would have to convert that structure to the east to a garage in order to get the additional FAR to put the second floor in? Greenwood: Yes. It is just adding a door. We are not changing anything about this building. We are not expanding it. We are not reducing it. We are going to change it right along here but we are fine with our setbacks along this front. This little bay window will come out and a door. But everything else will stay the same. Todd: Well then you are modifying the setback if you are putting a bay window in. Greenwood: No. Nothing is being modified here. We have an existing encroachment. You can't expand an existing non- conformity. That is what we are asking to do here--expand an existing non-conformity. We are not going out. We are just going up. So, yes, I might be back to do that if the owner decides to make the apartment-- Todd: For the record you must convert that structure to the east to a garage before you can build-- Greenwood: Yes. It has to be done. To get another 100 square feet for FAR. They want a garage. Ron: When was the house purchased by the current owner? Greenwood: About a month ago. Ron: So this is a new owner. Have you reviewed the Land Use Code with him at all? Does he understand it at all? Before he purchased the property? There is one statement in your analysis talking about unnecessary hardship and practical difficulty. You said it was not from the actions of the applicant. Well, an applicant is any current owner of the property who buys a property as is. 4 BOA2 . 18.93 Greenwood: What I meant by that was that he didn't build it as a non-conformity. Ron: But he purchased it as a non-conforming. Also I have this thing on easements and everything else. Why do I get that? Greenwood: Those are property descriptions. And if you notice on the improvement survey right along here there is a number of dotted lines and some stray lines in the property description. There is an easement that has been granted for a fence between these 2 properties. And in order to assess what the property line was Bill asked me to go and research what this easement and property description was. And it describes a new location of the property and it describes the easement. That is how we came up with 9, 092 square feet which I don't think is the total area. Ron: So this little rectangle here is really the easement that was granted from the people next door? Greenwood: Yes. Ron: You get credit for that in your setbacks. Greenwood: Yes. STAFF COMMENT Drueding: This is not a big thing to us. If there were to be a change in the footprint I would be more concerned but for the existing footprint I have less concern. Todd: The Land Use Code says that a non-conforming structure should not be extended by an enlargement or expansion that increases the non-conformance. Obviously this would increase the non-conformity. Greenwood: That is why we are asking for a variance. Todd: And in your application it said that it is impossible to extend the structure without expanding into this non-conformity. Greenwood: Right. Because it doesn't match the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan's goals for the City of Aspen. And I consider myself an expert when it comes to historic property having gone through the HPC 4 times and have a clear understanding of what the goals of the community are with respect to properties like this. The situation stands on victorian property. This is the logical, least obtrusive, minimal expansion to increase the roof height by 7 feet. This is the minimal amount that can be done to the 5 BOA2 . 18.93 property. So if we don't get this and we are forced to do something dramatic to it which is a non-solution. Todd: So it is not impossible to go other places on the site. Greenwood: No. We think it is impossible to get it approved. Todd: Could you tell me what the other options are for development on the site other than putting a second floor on the back of the building? Greenwood: I would say that the other options would be much more extensive to the property. It would involve reconstruction to the victorian property and I say it is impossible because it is not flexible with Aspen. I can't say anything more than that. We looked at the property and said "What is the simplest thing? What is going to make everybody happy?" I discussed this design with Roxanne Eflin and this follows right down her goals. It is just to expand this roof. It is very simple. It doesn't encroach. It doesn't affect anyone's views. I have a photograph here which shows it doesn't affect Mrs. Paepcke whatsoever. She is located quite far away and she couldn't even see this property. Plus next door there is a second story addition to the property to the west. So on that street there is precedent for some little victorians in front. Todd: Could we get back to my question? There are other possibilities for building on this site. Greenwood: I would say "No" . As a professional I would say it would be very difficult. Todd: So there are other possibilities. Greenwood: I say "No" . Todd: It is a subjective opinion. Greenwood: My professional opinion is "No" . Todd: One other question I have for you? Is there a way that this second floor could be constructed within the setback? Greenwood: No. That would be a hardship on the construction with costs involved with the structure and that kind of detail really wouldn't combine with the victorian design. It just wouldn't work with the overall design. Charlie: Are you talking about bearing walls and things like that? 6 BOA2. 18.93 Greenwood: Yes. There are the existing bearing walls, our existing foundation. And it would look like that is exactly what you did. And I think it would be the wrong thing to do. Todd: So in other words it is cheaper to stay within-- Greenwood: No. It is the aesthetic consideration. Todd: But it is cheaper to do it this way. Greenwood: Possibly. Charlie: The point I think is being made that if you don't go over existing structural walls for the second story, you have to put in all types of steel beams and what have you. The end result is it looks like an addition. It doesn't look correct. I think that is the answer other than saying cheaper or expensive. I don't think that is really the point--whether it is cheaper or more expensive. The point is is it going to be in keeping with the victorian look that they are trying to accomplish. Todd: For the record--Mrs. Paepcke is opposed to this second floor addition because it blocks the light and views onto her property. Mrs. Paepcke probably cannot see this house from her home but it is quite possible that Mrs. Paepcke is not going to be around forever and her estate may wish to subdivide at which point her family may wish to construct something on the adjoining property. One other point I would like to make is that setbacks are there for the next door neighbor. I think that the next door neighbors have certain expectations that neighbors on the other side are not going to build within those setbacks. And Mrs. Paepcke would like to see that any additions or modifications stay within the setbacks. Charlie: Do you think that if the setback is followed that that would give them any better view or better light or make any difference? Todd: I don't know. I think Mrs. Paepcke's desire here would be to see a more lower scale developed on this property rather than adding on. In the west end people have added on to the floor rather than building up and out to the rear of the property. I am sorry I disagree with you that this is not the only possibility. Greenwood: We don't have any more site coverage left on the property. There is no more property left. We can only go up. And it would be much more of an impact--this is a minimal impact. Bill: If you built in the setback how high could you go? 7 BOA2 . 18.93 Someone answered 1125 feet" . Bill: 25 feet. How tall is this building here? Greenwood: What we are proposing would be 23 feet high. Bill: So you could add 2 more feet. Greenwood: We could go higher if we wanted to. Bill: I only asked in regards to the sunlight. That if there was another addition it could be 2 feet higher. Greenwood: Let me just say too that this addition could never affect anything of the Paepcke property. There are huge mature Evergreens that are right behind this house. And you can't rip these trees out. They are on Mrs. Paepcke's property. Those trees are what is going to block the sun. This is not a big addition that is going to affect that property there whatsoever. Charlie asked if there was any further public comment. There was none and he closed the public portion of the hearing. BOARD COMMENTS Rick: I am not real thrilled with this thing. I certainly would be a lot happier had this process gone through HPC. I would feel much more comfortable. I think that as an expert there is a lot of room for subjectivity there and with the hardships that have been discussed it is very subjective that this is the only area that you can expand. I don't think that all other avenues have been considered that would not require relief from this Board. I am sensitive to Mrs. Paepcke's objections. I have a problem with people buying homes knowing full well that their first intention is to come to the Board for relief as opposed to investigating all the other possibilities that would not require relief from this Board. I don't hear anywhere where there is other than a financial benefit to the applicant. I don't see any hardship that I can hang my hat on be it practical difficulty or anything. I don't see it. Bill: I am familiar with the house. I have been in the house. I would like to see the historical part of the dwelling remain. I am not sure that by denying this that the property owner, since it is not on the historical register, can't destroy it. Can't come in and just build a 9, 000 square foot house-a house that would dwarf the house next door--the little house on the corner. So I am inclined to think that this is--I have been in the back end of this house and that area and it is very poorly done. To make the property livable I think they do have a hardship. And I am in favor of granting the variance. 8 BOA2 . 18.93 Charlie: Since you have been in the house you say it is not very livable. How many bedrooms--I haven't got a feeling for the size. Bill: There are 2 small bedrooms in the old part here. There is a bedroom here. There may be 3 small bedrooms. The living room is this way and it is the parlor and this is the dining room. Then there is the kitchen in the back. Rick: There is a kitchen in here and there is another kitchen in this plex. Actually it is a tri-plex. It is 3 uses. So actually it is not even in compliance in that regard. There is a bedroom up in this old portion of the roof. Bill: It is all cut up. Ron: Like a victorian! At first I thought "Well, I don't see much merit to this variance" . Then I started having second thoughts about it. Not because I think there is a great deal of merit to the variance. But it is minimal impact it would have on the comprehensive plan in the community as such. However, I have a couple of major problems. And it is something that really hasn't been addressed by anyone here. And that is the bulk. We are not talking a lot in terms of added square footage. We are talking about really a large increase in bulk. I am not an architect but that second floor looks massive to me. Now I wasn't going to give it too much credence because there is nothing behind it but that vacated alley and some big trees. However the neighbor who holds the land behind there has said that they may, at some future time, subdivide that property which is their right. And if they do that bulk is going to be in their viewplain. I have to take that into affect. I think the bulk is very important in this case. And it has not been mitigated. I do not see any indication of height. It looks higher than 23 feet to me. I say it is 40 feet. I don't think I am right but no one has told me anything different. So I think that I will not grant the variance based on the information that was given to me today. What I would like to see if we are going to table this to some future date, I would like to see the effect of the bulk and the exact height. Give those numbers to me. How many cubic feet are we adding to that second story so I know what kind of a block-out effect we are going to have from the sun on the property behind it, how it is going to affect the property behind this before I would even give any further consideration to this variance. Right now I could not grant it. 9 BOA2. 18.93 Charlie: As much as I agree with Ron I can see where Bill Martin's point has a lot of favor with me because if the property owner is not able to use that property the way it is I could see a lot worse situation if that is torn down. Mrs. Paepcke may lose much more light and view. Rick: They can't take more than 50% of it down. They are not allowed to. It is historical. They would never allow it to be torn down completely. Charlie: To applicant: We have to have 4 positive votes. So I will re-open the public portion of the meeting and ask the applicant if they would like to table to a date certain when there could be more members of the Board present and re-apply. Greenwood: I do. I would like to comment about your comment regarding the sun. This addition will never affect the sun on Paepcke's property because of the mature Evergreens to the north of our property. No matter what height the variance that will always shade the property. Ron: That may be true. What I said was based on what you have provided us I cannot make that determination and I have an attorney representing the adjacent property owner who said you are wrong. And I don't have any evidence to the contrary. All I am saying is if you can provide some evidence then, of course, that would throw the whole point out. I wouldn't have any concern about it anymore. Charlie: When you come back I suggest a plat plan showing where those trees are located in relation to the buildings and in relation to Mrs. Paepcke's property. This would give us a much better idea of what we are looking at. Ron: I would like to get measurements on elevations. When you provide an elevation I want to know how wide and how high it is. Greenwood: Rick, I have been through HPC. I have gone for variances with them which is very expensive. We can get variances on FAR. We could get it on everything and what happens through a project really with HPC because you are granted so many variances a house can be practically torn down to nothing. I think you have seen that in the west end where you can have a facade newly painted and you no longer can see what the victorian is any more. And we have that option to do that but that isn't necessary in these circumstances. And I would like to know what information I could provide for you that would assure you of that. This is the least of 2 evils. Ron: What is to stop you from doing that after we grant this variance? You could still tear it down. 10 BOA2 . 18.93 Charlie: That is a mute point. It has nothing to do with us. The point is are we willing to give them a variance to preserve the property as it is. Rick: I move we table this to a date certain of February 25, 1993. Bill seconded the motion with all in favor. Greenwood asked for further comment from Rick: I share comments made by Mr. Todd that there are other avenues that don't require a variance. Bill made a motion to adjourn meeting. Ron seconded the motion with all in favor. Time was 4:55 PM. Janice arney, Ci V Deputy Clerk 11 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CASE #93-1 J A BEFORE THE CITY OFASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen amended, a public hearing will be held in Of June 25, Hall, Aspen, Colorado he Council R om62� as (or at such other place as the meetingCmay be then adjourned) to consider an application requesting filed with the said provisions of the Zonin Ordinance, Chapter 24 authority for variance from the Aspen. All persons affected b � p , Official Code of to appear and state their views, proposed variance are invited cannot appear personally , protests or objections. Your views by letter, y at such meeting, you are urged If You variance, as the , particularly if you have objection to state .consideration to the opinions fof Asurroundin others affected in deciding whether to will give serious g property owners and for variance. grant or deny the request Particulars of the hearing and requested variance are Date and Time of Meetin : as follows: Date: FEBRUARY 18, 1993 Time: 4 :00 p.m, SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM Owner for Variance: ? ' Name: Appellant for Variance: JERALD BARNETT Address: 201 N. MILL #207 GRETCHEN GREENWOOD & ASSOC. Location or descri tion of ro ert • 120 FRANCIS STREET Variance Re ested.. _ IN THE R-6 ZONING CATEGORY TOTAL 1 (D-4 & D.5 30 FEET. MINIMUM OF 10 FEET SIDE YARD SETBACK, ASPEN LAND USE CODE. I 3� _E AND REAR SETBACKS MUST BE 1 FOOT 6 INCH SIDE YARD AND TOTAL OF MUST BE A TOTAL OF APPLIC PPEARS TO BE REQUESTING A REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO 1 EET 6 INCH. ROOF LINE. AN EXIS I STRUCTURE FOR A 1 FOOT \� AN ENLARGED Will a licant be re resented b counsel: Yes: No: The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment Remo LavagSouth Galena aStreet, Aspen Colorado 81611 Jan Carney Deputy City Clerk GRETCHEN GREENWOOD& ASSOCIATES, INC. ARCHITECTURE • INTERIOR DESIGN • PLANNING January 28, 1993 Mr. Bill Dreuding Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Bill: Enclosed please find nine copies of the Board of Adjustment Application for 120 West Francis Street. Also included is a list of the property owners within a 300 foot radius of the property. Enclosed is a check for $50.00 payable to the Aspen City Clerk. An affidavit of the Notice of Hearing and the mailing will be presented to you at the hearing. We would like to be scheduled for the earliest Board of Adjustment Meeting that is available for this application. Thank you. Sincerely, G chen Greenwood A chitect GGA:kb 201 N. MILL, STE. 207•ASPEN, CO 81611 • TEL: 303'925-4502• FAX: 303,,925-7490 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION DATE January 28 19 93 CASE # 1<< > Gretchen Greenwood & Assoc . For 925-4502 APPLICANT c r d Barnett PHONE MAILING ADDRESS 201 North Mill Street , #207 Aspen , CO 81611 OWNER Jerald Barnett PHONE 925-4545 MAILING ADDRESS 513 W. Bleeker Street Aspen , CO 81611 LOCATION OF PROPERTY 120 Francis Street ( See Attached Property (Street, Block Numbe and Lot JNumber) r Boundary e.scription ) WILL YOU BE REPRESENTED BY COUNCIL? YES NO X Below, describe clearly the proposed variance, including all dimensions and justification for the variance. (Additional paper may be used if necessary. ) The building permit application and any other information you feel is pertinent should accompany this application, and will be made part of this case. See Attached Description and Drawings . Applicant's Signature ------------------------------------------------e -------------- REASONS FOR DENIAL OF BUILDING PERMIT, BASED ON THE ASPEN CITY CODE, CHAPTER 24. AN OPINION CONCERNING THIS VARIANCE WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD BY THE ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF. DATE PERMIT DENIED OFFICIAL DATE OF APPLICATION HEARING DATE PROPOSED VARIANCE DESCRIPTION FOR 120 FRANCIS STREET The property at 120 Francis Street includes a one story residence of 3 , 600 square feet and a smaller guest house of 762 square feet on a lot size of 9, 092 square feet. The larger residence is a Victorian house that has had a new addition built on the north side of the building. This addition, that was not built by the current owner, does not meet the minimum or total side yard setbacks and the minimum requirements of the rear yard setback. The existing encroachment is as follows: The west side of the existing building addition presently sits 8 ' -6" from the west property line (ten (10) feet is required) and five (5) feet from the east side. This five (5) foot dimension is measured from the guest house (as shown on the drawings) . The total combined for the side yard is 13 . 5 feet (thirty (30) feet is required) . The north side of the existing addition was built 9 '- 4" from the north property line (ten (10) feet is required) . The combined total of the existing front and rear yard setback is in compliance with the zoning requirements (thirty (30) feet is required) . It is the applicants proposal to expand the roof line of this rear addition only in order to add a second floor to the existing building. The roof line would be expanded seven (7) feet above the existing roof line (this is indicated on the enclosed drawings) . Due to this proposed roof expansion it would expand the setback encroachment in height only. Therefore a setback height variance along the west and north side of the existing building is requested. The variance requested would be as follows: The west side of the addition would have a minimum setback variance of 1 '-6" and a total combined of 13 '-61' . The north side of the addition would have a minimum variance of 1 ' -0" . C � 0U L) �6� aid& > Page 1 The Standards applicable to this variance request are stated below: A. The granting of this variance is consistent with the purposes of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Response: By allowing the expansion of the roof line to occur along the existing addition, the preservation of the old Victorian part of the building is kept in its most pristine condition. The preservation of Victorian buildings in Aspen is a goal and objective of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. By not allowing the roof to be expanded, the only addition could occur on the existing Victorian part of the building, thus destroying the integrity of the Victorian house. Therefore, this setback variance will meet the objectives of the City of Aspen. B. The granting of this variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the use of the building. Response: The roof expansion at the rear of the building is the minimum variance required. The variance is only for increasing the height of the building within the existing setback encroachment. No new setback encroachments are created, and no other variances are necessary for this roof expansion. C. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this chapter would cause the applicant unnecessary hardships and practical difficulty. Response: The west and north setback encroachment is a pre- existing condition and did not result from the actions of the applicant. Due to the existing footprint and structure of the building, it is an unnecessary hardship and of practical difficulty for normal construction practices to not be able to expand the roof seven (7) feet within the existing structure and function of the existing building. The setback encroachment is required for height only, no new setback encroachments are created, we are only expanding the existing setback encroachment. Because this encroachment exists, it is impossible to expand the structure without expanding the setback encroachment. Page 2 � 1 #331A63 08/20/91 10140 Roc $35.00 SK 634 P8 M Silvis Davis. Pitkin Cnty Clark+ Doc $.00 i PROPERTY BOUNDARY AGREEMENT 'SID EASEMENT THIS PROPERTY BOUNDARY AGREEMEN; AND EASEMENT is made and entered into thin J day of , 1991, by and between Polly Holyoke, as persona representatide of the ESTATE OF EDITH hOLYORE (*Holyoke") and Reinhard P. Mueller ("Mueller"). WITNESSETHE WHEREAS, Holyol.e is the owner of Lots N, 0 and P, Block 55, City and Townsite of Aspen, together with two additional parcels located on the western boundary of said Lot N, Block 55, as fully described in Decree recorded in Book 450 at Page 301 of the Pitkin County real property records (the "Holyoke Property'); and 1 WHEREAS, Mueller in the owner of Lot M, Block 55, City and t� Townsite of Aspen, less the two parcels located on the eastern I boundary of Lot M and described in the referenced Decree (the 1' "Mueller Property")s and {� WHEREAS, the property boundary between the Mueller Property + and the Holyoke Property is irregular as a result of the two parcels described in the referenced Decrees and WHEREAS, Mueller's predecessor in interest constructed a fence between the Mueller Property and the Holy'lre Property in a straight line from Francis Street, which is on the southern boundary of both the Mueller Property and the Holyoke Property and the alley on Block 55, City and Townsite of Aspen, which is the north boundary of bo'.h the Holyoke Property and the Mueller Property; and 4 WHEREAS, Mueller and Holyoke desire to define one common l boundary between the Mueller Property and the Holyoke Property 7 along said fence in a straight line and further des-_Q to grant the A necessary easements, each to the other, as required for the ! 1 continuing existence of said fence, all in accordance with the f terms and conditions not forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, and in further consideration o;: the mutual promises, conditions and ! � covenants contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows; 1, GRANT OF EASEMENT, Holyoke, for itself, its successors and assigns, hereby grants to Mueller, its successors and assigns, a nonexclusive easement over and across the front parcel and the rear � • parcel, as described in the referenced Decree recorded in Book 450 at Page 301 of the Pitkin County real property records, for i purposes of installing and maintaining a fence between the Mueller ; r Property and the Holyoke Property in a straight line exactly one , foot west of the original lot line between Lot N and Lot M, Block 55, City and Townsite of Aspen. The legal description of the fence i IF E r•� r' �w'y .,1 w tit z 7. 1333663 08/20/91 10,40 Rec 035.00 SK &M P8 4W Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Do. 0.00 y line easement is not forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto and by this reference incorporateu herein. This Grant of Easement shall �... be for the construction and maintenance of such fence to be placed between Lot M and lot N, of Block 55, City and Townslte of Aspen, + which fence shall run parallel to and exactly one foot west of the ' original lot line between Lot M and Lot N, Block 55, City and k . Townsite of Aspen, as described on Exhibit A. In addition, Holyoke, for itself, its successors and assigns, grants exclusive easements over and across the Holyoke Propercy located west of said fence line. The legal descriptions of theme easements are not forth on Exhibit B, attached hereto and by this reference ► ~ ' incorporated herein. 2. sorIPROCAL GRhgT Of EASEMENT. Mueller, for itself, its successors and assigns, hereby grants to Holyoke, its successors and assigns, an exclusive easement over and across those portions } of the Mueller Property located east of the above described fence line, the legal description of which is set forth on Exhibit C i attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. 3. ACTUAL BOUNDARY NOT CHANGED. Notwithstanding the reciprocal easements granted above and the placement of the referenced lanes on the Mueller Property and the Holyoke Property, the actual boundary between the Mueller Property and the Holyoke Property shall be as set forth on the recorded Plato, Deeds and the referenced Decree recorded in Book 450 at Page 301 of the Pitkin 1; County reel property records. The recording of this document and t the installation of the referenced fence shall in no way affect the actual area of the Holyoke Property or the Mueller Property with respect hereto. 4. QVERHANG ENCROACHMENT, It is hereby recognised that a portion of the house located on the Holyoke Property currently encroaches onto the Mueller property. It is the Holyoke's position that such encroachment has existed for so long that Holyoke has acquired a prescriptive easement therefor, although no such legal determination has been made as of the date of this Agreement. The execution of this Agreement by the parties hereto shall in no way alter the legal status of such encroachment nor shall it be deemed to be an admission by Mueller of Holyoke's claim to a prescriptive f easement. 5. MAINTENANCE. Mueller or Mueller's successors and assigns shall be solely responsible for maintaining the subject fence and keeping it in good repair. If said fence is not maintained by Mueller and falls into a state of disrepair, Holyoke, its successors or assigns, may request that Mueller repair the fence end, if Mueller fails to properly repair the fence within ten days t of such request, Holyoke, its successors or assigns may repair the fence or tear it down at its discretion and at Mueller's expense. 2 1 � wr r• y!v '3• ♦ r;Y 0333663 08/20/91 10140 Rec $33.00 RK 454 PG 454 Silvia Davis, Pit4ln Cnty Clerk• Doc 6.00 (,. TR°utINATION OF EASEMENTS• The easeslelts granted hereunder may be terminated by mutual written agrser..ent of the parties, executed by the parties hereto and recorded in the Pitkin County real property records. In addition, in the evwrt the fence referred to above is removed tor a period of thirty days after it has been constructed and is not replaced within that thirty day period, either party hereto may record an affidavit in the real , property records of Pitkin County, Colorado, stating that the fence has been removed and has not been reconstructed within thirty days `wr and that the easement(s) granted by the person signing the affidavit is terminated and that the right to the easement granted by person he affidevitningUpon re�ordinn of waived document,pethis easement agreement shall become a nullity and shall be of no further force or effect. 7, dpDITIONAL D(�1M The parties hereto agree to execute i any and all additional documents reasonably necessary to effectuate the terms hereof. If any party fails to execute any agreement reasonably requested hereunder, this provision may be enforced by an action for specific performance and the prevailing party in any such action shall be entitled to an award of attorney fees incurred as a result of such action. f 8. HINDI NO EFFECT. The purpose of this agreement is to I provide the necessary easements for the placement and installation ' of a fence as described herein for as long as said fence remains between the Mueller and 11olyoke Property in accordance with the terms and provisions of this agreement. Hence, this agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties, their heirs, successors, assigns and personal representatives, f unless and until it is terminated in accordance with the terms contained herein. 9, HZADINGB. The paragraph headings of this agreement are for convenience l scope, content ora intent n define, augment c of this agreement or any part orpartstof thin agreement. 10. GOVERNING LAN. This agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Colorado. 10. MODIFICATION. This agreement shall not be modified or amended except by a agreement and written of the parties specifically to this 12, mTQgffM FEES. It is mutually agreed between the parties that in the event the interpretation or enforcement of any of the term.. , provisions, rights or obligations contained in this agreement the becomes ling party in suchi litigation shall be entitledhtoe recover 3 �. 1• 1 , y 1, .t T 9+.•-+ew gip............ •y. opt 0333663 08/20/91 10140 Rec 033.00 BK,&34 P8 4W Silvia Davis, pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc 0,00 its reasonable costs and attorney fees incurred in connection with such litigation an a part of the judgment entered therein. , t IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Property Boundary Agremsent and Easement the day and year first abuve written. THE ESTAATTZ OF /EDITH H-OLYOKE By 'c . Po Ho/yo�e, Po —n/a/ RepresentatTvi r C��� � L Re n ar P. Mue er :;y STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF'tX=iR ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before we this day of , 1991, by Polly Holyoke, Personal Representative the Estate Edith Holyoke. .--oT WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expirest J=• ry �►Ay�Y STATE OF FLORIDA ) on. COUNT? OF BOCA RAYON ) f regoing instrument was acknowledged before me this r day o , 1991, by Reinhard P. Mueller. ( r WITNESS my hand and official seal. Gila •,' My commission expirest ;� Or. V /NRMY McUI',ttAT@ A►ilAfatal I` Y ' MT fUMf11�a,M t.t►1447:r:•..!t,INI. `/ , 4 r Y S MMat�te74 NUTAtI roex LY.pi11717[y, Notikry PuBlic { • wry "S,,,r� 1 4 " r• �4 ;r �1 r �rl lY • 1+� ' t *335663 08/20�Pitkin4CntYCClorksDoc �D ,% Silvi• Dsvi+, E7tHIBIT A I ' 11 I DESCRIPTION i (; A FENCELINS EKACTLT 1.00 FOOT NEST OF THE EASTERLY LOT LINE OF I.OT M, BLOCK 55, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO AND BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS1 iF BEGINNING AT A POINT WHENCE THE SOUTHEASTERLY S 6 775'09''11i" EF1L00 M, BLOCK 55, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, FOOTS THENCE N .14'50'49' E 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION (r WITH THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT M. i; it t , i a t t_ M- 0335663 08/20/91 ,10140 Rac 135.00 BK &M P8 4,J`1 Silvis Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clark, Doc 6.00 �]jHIBIT—B DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND BEING PART PARCEL LOT M, BLOCK 55, CITY ND i PARCEL" ASFDESCRIBED N BOOK 450 ATAGE 30 OFOTt B P TR NECOU.M RECORDS AND BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS' BEGINNING AT A POINT WHENCE THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT M BEARS N 77'40'23' E 1.92 FEET; ' THENCE S 75"57'28' E 0.71 FEET; s THENCE 8 14'50'49' W 37.01 FEET; THENCE N 76 52'43" W 0.84 FEET; _ d THENCE N 15'18'19' E 18.53 FEET; r� •i„ THENCE N 14'47157• E 18.50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING hi CONTAINING 27 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. A PARCEL OP LAND BEING PART OF LOT M, BLOCK 55, CITY AND '1ONNSITE OF ASPEN, COI.ORhW. SAID PARCEL IS ALSO PART OP THE "FRONT PARCEL" AS DESCRIBED IN BOOR 450 AT PAGE 302 OP THE PITRIN L COUNTY RECORDS AND BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS' B*GINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT M WHENCE THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT M BEARS 8 75'09'11" E 1.00 FEET; THENCE N 75'09'11' W 0.32 FEET; THENCE N 16'23'05' E 11.92 FEET; THENCE S 1450'49'. E MORE OR 11.92 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 1 90 1c t i jowl? r. W .fir ..s• Mr 0333663 08/20/91 10e40 Rec 433.00 SK 6'M P8 439 Silvis Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc 1.00 Sj.;HISI. CHIBI^ C ., i DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND BEING rAR BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED ADD TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO, FOLLOWSt ' n BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT I M. SAID POINT BEING THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF THE "FRONT PARCEL' AS DESCRIBED IN BOOR 450 AT PAGE 302 OF THE PITRIN COUNTY RECOR D S #` WHENCE THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT M BEARS 8 11"50149" W y 28.63 FEET; THENCE N 75'09'11" W 0.55 FEET ALONG THE NORTHERLY • ''. BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID "FRONT PARCEL"; THENCE S 16"23105" W 16.12 FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID "FRONT PAAC6L 11 sr THENCE DEPARTING SAID WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE N 14"50'49" B 50.21 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE t�;+c OF THE "REAR PARCEL" AS DESCRIBED IN BOOB 450 AT PAGE 301 OF THE + +` PITRIN COUNTY RECORDS= THENCE 8 76'52143" E 1.00 FEPT ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE TO THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OP SAID LOT wt .. Mj THENCE S 14'50149" W 33.52 FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE t OF SAID LOT M TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 37 SQUARE lBEI, +� MORE OR LESS. i I , tii I 1: t1• 4 �:M 4 AAA M �ja 5 Z V lc 4� ,i.+Y�`�`[�'ibi�i+u:��. �.i�, � � •dry, �• I,l��ta' ,� ., i l�., i : '• `'• "" IN THE DISTRICT COURT I-. rj ADD FOR THE COUNTY OF PITKI14 AND STATE OP COLORADO ,; • CIVIL ACTION N0. 60 CV 110 EDZZ'H L. vOLYOKE, va. i DECREK 1 DANI$L W. WAROWOLL and CHYIRE 9AVIOGS, BUILDING AND LOAN AWCUTiON Dependanes. � �' 3 � , (j Y THIS M►TTER nom• on for sriel commencing on December 23, t LL i 1980. Having examined the record and h4ving heard the evidencQ and the Stat0m6hts of Counsel, a ! , THE COURT FINOS: that each QefanGant herein has beer {•. . , ., e V properly aerved as required by law and rule of Courtf ,tbat this is l rt that the Court $ an action in ram affecting 1plCific real property: ;,g,• .,: x a has juriadiation of 411 W ties to this aotion and of the 4ubjeet r4 c" matter thereof;' that %he aliepationa of the Complaint are teue; ; that every claim evade by Said defendants is uniawfili and wi.chout right; that no defendant herein hso.any title or interest in or to the property described herein or. anY Part thereof; therefore. THE COURT AOJUDGE5 AND 0tCREE5 that Edith L. Holyoke, �• .,,' ':;q=' !; Plaintiff, at the time of the comeneement of this proee6d1ng, . .5 vas, and' She now i6, the owner in Eea Simple, with right to possession, of the fallowing real property .in Pitkin CountY, Colorado: ia) •.Rear Parcel" A parcel of land being part of Lot M, 81oek-56, City Gino wownaite of Aspen► Caiorado. Said a wre esribed LOt1M, Whence Q inq at the ?' I )'d 1 H Y H 117 TJHHc% i,i.d'�t=1 ------ --- ---- - - - - - ------- -- ---- - - --------------------------------------------- - I•'l lKli'1 UUUI— V lilt � l RoaK' 450 w302 ' tte>;thoast corner of said Lot M bears N 14'50149" E, 0.96 � id feet, thence S 14°50'49" W, 36.99 feet along $A East ' line of Lot M; thence N 76653143" W, 1.94 feet along at board gone*; thence W 15'19'19" E, 18.53 feet, along said beard fencer thence M 14'47157" E, 18.50 feet along ' said board fence; thence S 75'57'28" E, 1.71 feet along said board fence to the point of beginning. said parcel , contains 64 square feet more or less. (b) "Front Parcel" A pereel of land being part of Lot s.. �a No D oe , City and Tornsite of Aspen, Colorado. Said � ' •�. parcel as more fully describtd 46 follv++zsz Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Lot M, thence along the y souttl line of $aid Lot M, N 75'09111" W, 1.32 feet to a the point of Lntersettion with a board f1?n00r thence N 16'23105" 8 26.64 feet along &aid board fence; thence, leaving saiei bgd'ed fence, 0 75'09'11" E, 0.55 treat to t; the point of intersoeal,cn with the east line of said 14% f ' ci, M; thence along Said feat line Of Qaid Lot M, 5 s( 14450149" W, 18.63 feet to the point of beginning, sold parcel contains 26.75 square feet more e= less. J b That fee simple title in and to :.aid real property be and she same hereby is quieted in the plaintiff, And that each of the defendant6 has no right, title, or interest in or to the said t'I real 1 property or any part thereoft that they are forever enjoin¢d t.) 1 from asserting any claim, right, title or interest in or to the l Said real property or •nY,part thcscvt7 that plaintiff shall have judgment for coots against defendant Daniel W. wdrdwe13 for all co Sts and expert foes 48$**Able in favor of.the prevailing party + Defendant Empire Savings and Loan ; ,1 in civil actioflOr And against I s toi all such costs and lees incurred by plaintiff: prior to the date of filing of Di6olaimer herein, with interest at the legal Dated J4,0dj4= fig' . 196„0. E� BY 'lift COURT: s istriet Y d Carmel" �p'st 11'sod 06mplae copy or4ho"111 on fib in i hiosm•r � Cotlrko�>r;ittcrn coilal:�,+[:t�ozada ' Clerk 4 C4':t s: :.:•:» c Copy o1' r, 4�� .131- .;. BARNETT PUBLIC NOTICE ADDRESSES 120 Francis Street Parcel #2735-124-18-003 William R. & Darleen J. Manclark Walter P. Paepcke 313 E. Bay Front c/o Holland & Hart Balboa Island, CA 92662 600 East Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 Elizabeth H. Paepcke David M. Levy c/o Holland & Hart Time Square Building 600 East Main Street 45 Exchange Street Aspen, CO 81611 Rochester NY 14614 Julie Wyckoff John J. Nicholson 134 W. Hopkins Ave. Lou Adler Aspen, CO 81611 P.O. Box 67006 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Robert M. Price, Jr. Maurice N. Nessen Mary W. Price c/o 919 3rd Avenue Box O New York, NY 10022 Minneapolis, MN 55440 Karl & Joan C. Zeislep Maurice Tobin 990 Lake Shore Drive #303 Dorette Fleischmann Chicago, IL 60611 212 W. Francis Street Aspen, CO 81611 Joan F. Tobin Thomas E. Congdon 212 West Francis Street Noel R. Congdon Aspen, CO 81611 1010 Denver Center Bldg. Denver, CO 80203 James P. Griffith George Vicenzi 3417 Milan Avenue, Su. A P.O. Box 2238 Houston, TX 77002 Aspen, CO 81612 George F. Robinson Andrew J. Frishman Box 5243 Belinda B. Frishman Denver, CO 80217 P.O. Box 465 Aspen, CO 81612 Paul A. Fabry Clarence O. Quam, Trustee 1127 Bourbon Street Hildur Anderson, New Orleans, LA 70116 Successor Trustee P.O. Box 554 Aspen, CO 81612 James V. Redd Anthony L. Greenburg Louis N. Scholnik As Trustee of the 1983 1901 N.W. 62nd St. #415 1313 Innes Place Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 Venice, CA 90291 KLL Company Aspen School District P.O. Box 3129 c/o City of Aspen Aspen, CO 81612 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Steven E. & Patricia K. Tisch Aspen Center for 14454 Sunset Blvd. Enviromental Studies Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 P.O. Box 8777 Aspen, CO 81612