HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.boa.19970501AGENDA
ASPEN BOARD -OF ADJUSTMENT COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Thursday, May 1, 1997 at 4:00pm
Council Chambers, City Hall
I. ROLL CALL
II. MINUTES
III. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners Comments
B. Staff Comments
C. Public Comments (not concerning items on the Agenda)
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Case #97-05 (Pearson)
702 West Main Street, Aspen, CO
# z- S
A - if foot (2'/2`) east side yard variance to allow for
construction of a covered porch.
B. Case #97-06 (Kuhn)
A vacant lot at the intersection South Fifth Street & West
Hopkins Street and is described as Parcel A, Aspen, CO
Variance to temporarily relocate and store a historic home of
approx. 1000 sf and a historic shed of approx. 185 sf from 303
East Main to a vacant lot at the intersection of S. Fifth & W.
Hopkins for a 90 day period.
VI. ADJOURN
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CASE #97-05
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
BASEMENT MEETING 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 26, 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: May 1,1997 Council Chambers Meeting Room
Time: 4:00 P.M.
Owner for Variance:
Name: Mark Pearson
Location or description of property:
Applicant for Variance:
Mark Pearson
702 West Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611, and is described as the east 10 feet of Lot R and all of
Lot S Block 18, City of Aspen.
Variances Requested:. A four and one -quarter foot east side yard variance to allow for construction
of a covered porch.
Will applicant be represented by Counsel: YES: NO:X
The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment
130 S..Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Charles Paterson, Chairman
County of Pitkin. }
} SS.
State of Colorado }
AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
TO ASPEN LAND USE.REGUI�TION
SECTION 26.42.060 (E)
% V�(M K I ( I U` being or representing an
Applicant to the City of Aspen. personally certify that I have complied with the public notice
requirements pursuant to Section 26.52.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in the
following manner.
1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first -:lass. postage
prepaid U.S. -Mail to all owners or properry within three hundred (S00) feet
or the subject ect property, as indicated on the attached list, on the day f
J hP P �.
r 199`( (which is days prior ro The public hearing date or s.
?. By posting a sign in a conspicuous piace on the subjecr p roverty (as it could be
seen from the nearest publi way) and hat th said sign. was posted and visible
r
continuousl from the day of E 199� (Must be posted for
y
at least ten (10) full days before the hearing ate). A photograph of the posted
sign is attached hereto
(Attach photograph here)
S ianature
Siane befo e me this day
v 199 v
wIT�+'ESS MY HAND AND OFFICAL SEAL
My commission expires
Notary Public
r, n
Notary Public'sSignature
my commission expires
01 /10/2001
f CONMIE I k
OVEMON
� fP�
? 0 co
N
N
I N
I N
N! NI NI
N
N
N
N
N I
N I
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N i N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
4
W
-I
co
v;
W
v
W
v -1 i
W' W 1 W
-1
W
-1
W
.'
w
-1
W
V I
W
v;
W
v
W
v
W
v
W
v
W
v
W
v
W
v
W
v
W
J
W
v
W
J
W
v
W
v
co
v
W
V
W
-i
W
-1 V
W W
-J
W
V
W
-1
G)
'J
W
-1
W
V
W
V
W
V
W
V
W
-J
CW
cn
cn
cn
Cn
cn (n Icn
I
cn
cn
cr.
cn
cn
cn
cn
u)
cn
cn
(n
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
M
cn
cn
cn
cn Cn
w
cn
c::
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
J
N
�►
N
J
N
J
N
J J! J
NINININ
I J
J
N
J
N
J
N
.i
N
J
N
J
N
J
N
J
N
..�
N
J�
NIN
J
-.i
N
J
N
J
N
J
N
J
N
J
N
J
N
J
N
J
N
J
N
1 J 1 J
N N
I .�
N
j
N
J
N
J
N
J
N
J
N
J
N
J
N
J
N
J
N
I A 1
A I
A
A
W
A
I
I W
O
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
O A
O
CA
A
O
A
W
A
A
Cn
Cn
M
NC,
Cp I (A 10o
M
V
N
A
cn
I g)
Cn
Cb
.A
! O
O
I O
O
Cn
N
0)
A
co
O
Cn
Cn
CA
N M
M
N
M
N
A
-+
O
00
N
A
O
D
O
W
-,1
—
O
N
O
6
0
6
0
1
O
6
O
6
O
6
o
o
O
O
0
O
N
IO
O
O
O
O
�1
O
O
N
O
O
O
JIO...
O
O
cD
O
1 6
"
1I 6
O
V
O
O
N
0o
Cn
&
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
V
O
O
O
n
O
O
J O 1 W
J
O
n
W
W
N
W
N
CO
(D
W
O
J
-1
1 n
V
O
(n
O
O
a)
N A
N
Cn
A
-4
co
pp
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O`` O'
O I O
O
I —4
O
J
O
J
O
J
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
0
O
-+
O
0
I O
0—
O
O
0
O
-+
O
O
I O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
J
O
O
O
J
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
-•
N
Cn
N
A
O
0
m
CD
a)
O IIII W
Cn (n
4
J
O
rn
A
O
N
W
J
W
O
m
-i
O
I
"
N
O
W
N
Cn
J
A
CO
(n
N
Cn
O
Cn
A
O
-+
A
-+
O
M
-!
J
A
W
V
A
O
O
W
A
O
O
N
A
-+
A
O
O
W
A
-+
A
N
W
CD
O
W
c0
O
4
O
J
-►
W
O
M
00
m
Cb
(D
J I v
I Cn ! O
I
O
N
M
O
J
m
Cn
N
W
O
N
W
1 A
O
O
v
O
O'
W
-•
I CD
, J
(n
W
O
N
-1
-I
W
Cc
I �J
W
-1
1 M
CD
Cn
V
v
N
-+
Cn
-•
V
N
W
v
O
W
V
-+
J
M
W
Cn
A
W
Cn
-►
CD
W
CD
Cn
-,J
M
O
CD
r
0
S S' 2
I-1-
S
S
S
S
S
S
-n
r
I �t
rn-0
I m
m
C7
O
I
r
D
D
D
D
S
D
O
m
Z_
O
m
r
Cn ! S 1 Z
D
-<
D
Z
D
1-
D
r'
D
2
D
O
m
r'
zIc
O
z
c10
r
r
O
O
D
r
S
0
O
w
S
S
S
S
S
S<
DIc;S
O
-<
S
D
O
D
m
cn
m
cn
-�
Cn
Z
(n
r
r
ai
07
D
S
a7
D
r-
r
S
Z=
D
D n rm-
+
m
cn
r
rn
r
c
r
Z-
z
0
D
cn
S
I O
D
-�
m
I�
mom
cn
D
Z
D
Z
p
m
n
T.
c�
D
��-H
-i
-_i
m
O
rn
D
Z
O
-<
O
O
m
m
Z
m
Z
rn
Z
p
Z
m
z
0
0
Z
n
S
m
D
-i
O
o
m
ao
S Z
m -n m
r
y
m
D
D
z
rn
r-
O
m
m
Z
z
Z
X
7J
O
z
M
D
Z
M
z
m
M.
m
p
-D
D
D
rn_
-
r1
m
-
v
S
cn
D
O
Cl)
O
mr
S
n
r
m
O.{
O`
Mcn
r C
mcnNZ
m
O
-<
D
D
S
mK<woommAr-=zz�z,Szcnm-�O�nmzDz
D
D
m
D
r
7
m
O
-1
O
T
C
Cn
O
Z
m
D
rn
z
O
m
Ooi
�7 -
-D
m
c
-�'
ozo
w
�_
<
S
m
D
�o
Z
p
m
�o
n
n
x
cn
m
-cn
r
D
r
p
z
zO--i
-�
m
O
S
z
m
�rl z
ml mi
-i
0
c
D�
m=
-OG
cI
D
S
�
C�
D
O���
O
0
z
Z�-
S
D
m
m
DI
K
O)
M
z-<
C-
x
Z
D
M
n
D
Z
n
Z���
(�
m
cn
m
O
S
m
cn
S
O
D
m
M
(Zj
(Zj
—
c<
rl
Z
M
D
r
-i
Q,
S
m
m
D
51
T
z)
O
m
m
z
m
rn
O
m
O
Rcr
r
r
m
H
O
C
n
c
Z DI
C
N
n
Cl)c
-
D
m
o
o
i��z
U
S
-�{
DI pi
Z
�I
rn
DI
rn
rn
Oc
rn
-mi
z
O
o)
m'
O
m
r
i
cn
-<
O
D I I
c
7-
�'
O
m
D(
n
m
co
m33
C
mI
i
J
p
c
D
ZI
SI
D
D
O
OC
c
J
OI
DI
O
O
cn
cn
>
CO>1
O
r
Co
m
I U'
n
Z
r
c
cn
�
D
D
O
n
m
m
m
°��
Iv)
<
�m
m1
Cl)
O
S=
rn
cn
rn
z
Z
Ca
Z
Z
N I
m
Z
D
O
pl
ml
rl
y
D
D
D
11�
Z
pZ
Z
O
�1
cn
0 OI
D
K
S�
�i
r-
-<O
m
O
mzrnz
z
m=
�
O
CAI
it
�-
�_
z
-+
c
�
1-
��
�l
r
N
v
S
K
o
m�'i
CO
ci
Cl)I
I
Z
z
O
D
m
Z
z
z)
I
D
O
!
D
>
Z
>
OI
>i
I
c
Z
ZI
i
O
O
Z-
-iI
N
O
J
M-U
O
O
Cn
A
O
J
M!
Cn
1
M!
10o
-!
W
N
O
J
N
A
-+
0
0
0
-+
J
�!
cD
p
O
N
co
W
O
O
J
CD
W
A
O
N
O
m
N
p
W
W
N
0
O
O
O
Z
CO
03
m
K
o
o
a)
I-cn
o
Ul
o
(D
rn
o
Cn
o
v)
m
07
CO
o
O
_0°)
(D
CO
CO
CO
o
j
M
A
Cn
CO
WO
CD
O
rn
cn
v
A-4
al
o
I CO
A
X
cD
o
m
0
0
CO
o
m
CO
a7
OO
X
X
cn
S
IM
r-��
OOO
X
X
X
D
Z
OOz
X
X
K
O
�
O
X
K
D
m
m
K
K
O
X
S
Om
X
S
m
°-)
>
K
Co
O
X
S
OO
X
X
rr-
N
T
rD-
K
0
(D
-j
m
m
m
S
m
ao
rn
j
D
cn
O
m
rn
�
N
N�
D
m
S
-i
O
>
cn
m
C
D
z
D
z
j
0
-°
(o
rn
O
�°
o
D
z
D
m
m
-00
1Nv
o
-I
-•
co
K
r
D
S
m
I U)
-i
m
x
x
m
cn
-�
Z
J-4
CD
cD
4
Cn
W
S
C�
-I
cn
-4
m
x
m
cn
-I
coo
cD
o
D
o
p
r
D=
(n
cn
cn
rn
v
�'
T.
z
I
Z
�
T.
z
r
O
z^
c/)
m
o
N
cnCl)
T
z
rn
cn
-►
1
Cl)
z
K
cn
m
M
--i
Z
O
<
=
-n
z
O
m
U)
Z
-i
cn
O
Cl)
-�
m
S
u)
ro
D
cn
Z
m
cn
r
m
---10
D
<
O<
<
:1)m
o
O
m
om
m
m
cJn
J
o
<
--�
m
Ul
o
m
Wo
I
N
D
cn
D
cn
cn
D
cn
D'
cn
K
D
cn
D
cn
D
D
D
c
cn
D
cn
D
cn
n
I 0
D
D
D
cn
v
D
cn
D
cn
r
O
r
O
Cl)
D
D
D
D
D
o
o
D
D
D
D
cn
D
cn
m
r
D
cn
D
cn
D
-v
-U
z
p
M
-v
p
MID
-o
rn
-0
cn
v
cn
M
-0
-v
M
S
D
1-
<
m
cn
-v
-v
D
o
v
-V
Cl)
Cn
r
o
p
cn
-v
cn
-0
cn
-a
cn
-u
cn
-
cn
-0
cn
-v
cn
-U
-v
v
C_
-v
-V
cn
-p
m
z
m
z
m
m
z
D
r�—
z
m
z
rn
z
rn
z
m
z
m
z
m
z
D
D
z
�
m
z
m
z
D
o
m
z
m
z
D
Z
D
D
m
z
m
z
m
z
m
z
m
z
m
m
z
m
z
m
z
m
z
m
z
m
m
m
z
m
Z
m
z
DZ
DI
O>
O
m
m0m0
r-
o
cn
cn
r
Cl)
cn
a,
D
<
r-
Cl)
mrD-
m
m
D
r
cmi)
=
D
m
m
m
m
r
c
r
m
Z
c
0
D
r
D
0
n
n
0
n
m
m
n
o
o
o
o
o
o
F
-j
m
n
o
D
o
o
o
0-n
D
0
n
n 1
n
0
C)
0
C�
0
0
0
n
n
O
O
O
O
O
rlr
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
X
r
O
O
N
O
O
D
D
r
N
0
0
0
OIOI
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
00
J
co
J
OOT
�►
N
J
W I
J
W
W
W
W
CO
J
00
J
00
J
00
J
W
J
0o
J
W
J
O
Q
Cn
W
W
CO
J
CO
J
00
(J)
CO
J
00
J
CD
O
CO
4
W
W
00
(j)
-00
J
00
J
CO
J
N
J
CO
J
ca
J
co
J
00
J
00
J
00
J
00
J
00
J
co
J
co
J
J
J
(n
J
J
W
(D
.a
J
J
J
J
J
�►
o
O
J
�►
(n
J
J
O
W
O
N
W
O
N
(M
O
O
t7)
O
O
Cn
O
O
Q)
Cn
CD
N
O
J
O
J
to
J
N
N
N
N
'-+
, o
N
N
W
J
J
4
-.40
J
,_.
J
O
v
i
W
A
A
0
co
Cn
N
N
V
w
N
V
W
NI N
V�VIV
W W
N
W
N
V
w
N
V
W
N
V
W
N
VIV
W
N N
V
W W
N
V
W
N
V
w
N
V
W
N
V
W
N
V
w
N
V
W
N
V
W
N
V
w
N
V
w
N
V
w
N N
-,1 --A
w W
N
�!
w
N
V
w
N
V
w
N N N
V VIV
W. W. W
N
V
W
N
V
W
N
V
Cal
N
V
w
N
V
C.,W
N
V
W
N
V
w
N
V
w
N
V
W
NI N1 N N
V V V �l
W W I W co
Cn
C71
Ut . Ut II
1.
m
Cn
Ut
m
Ut
m ' m
m
m
m
Ui
CTt
Cn
Ut
Ut
Ut
n
Ul i CTl
Ul
Cn
Ut
Ul ' Ul Ul
Ut
Ut
i
(J 1
m
Cn
Cn
Cn
Cn
m
U7 m I cn! Ul
-1
N
A
J
N
A
j i
N N
A AI
N
A
.i
N
A
�►
N
A
N
A
N
A
j 1
N N
A A
N
A
j
N
A
N
A
N
A
N
A
N
A
j
N
A
j
N
A
N
A
N
A
1
N N
A A
-i
N
A
j
N
A
N
A
J 1
N NIN
A .A1 A
N
A
N
A
N
A
N
A
N
A
�►
N
A
N
A
.►
N
A
J
N
A
-1 I I —L j
NI Ni N N
Al Ai A! A
A
m
A
V
m m
N N`
A
m
A
O
m
N
W
O
A
m
m A
N m
A
m
A
m
A
m
A
m
A
m
A
m
A
m
A
O
A
m
A
O
,
m A
N Ut
, ,
A
m
A
V
A
V
A' A A
V I V i m
m
N
A
A
U1
A
m
A
m
A
V i
A
to
A
M
A
m
Ai Al A
I O I V A
O
N
O
O
„
V V
O— i
U1
m
O
O
,
V
O
�
O
O
O
N
V O
——
O
0
O
-+
O
—
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
N
O
-+
O
N
O
O
V O
O i 0
0
-+
6
o
6
O
0 0' O
J 0 1
V
0
w
C-n
O
O
6
N
O I
-+ I
C
O
O
O
O
O
O
,
O O I O i 0
O N O 1 0
A
m
m NIN
W
W
V
NIP
m
W
N
W
1
NIc3',
4�.;-1ICJ'MIC-n
:-IUl
W,v VIA
Cn
N
O
-+
�Im
A
W
m.O1NI-�
O
O
O
O
I O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
-+
O
-A-i
CD
O
CD
O
O
AI
O
CD
O
O
0
A
O
N
Un
wtA10
m
O
Cn
0
CD
0
O-
0
0"
0
0
CD
0
w
0
O
O
j"
N
O
A
O
0
-+
0
W
0
m
0
m
0
m
0(0
m A
A
O
A
N
0
Ut
1
N
0
O
0
O
m
m
O
O
N
0
m
0 0!O
CD
N
m
N
V
m
I
m
N
V
V
W
Cn
V
W
M
CD
CD
O
m
O
1
-+
W
O
m
m I
W
m
N
M
Cn
Cn
N
W
A
W
W
A
CD
m
W
Ui
m
V
W
V
M
-j
Cn
V
m
V
W
V
V
m I m
-+ W
I
-AA
A
N
O
W
O
A
V
CD
V
cn
N
W
O
V
O
W
O
O
i O V A
I m 1 m -+
I I
O
�0MM�
O
m
m
m
<
�
-�
-�
-•�
--�
—I
Z==
w
m�
c
C
I
m
m
-n
-p
m
m
D
O
r
O
r
O I 0! 0
rI rl Z
z
m
K
-�
K
m
K
(�
K
D
K
D
K
D
r-
CMMIMIMly
r-
r- I r, r! 7
C
o
O
r-
-n
w
(/�
D���
O
�
'-
O
z
D<
m
m
D
z
p
p
0
m
D
ao
D
Z=___-,
(n
Cn
(!) m<
Z
z
D
Z
O
m
W
z
W
z_
c<
z
<I Z� 00 C
z i
z
!7
I
m
--1
=
-4
D
Z
m<
-<
-
-<
O
U)
z
()
O
r-
O-
r
cn
o3
cn
cn
m
D
D
D 1 D I r
1.
w
M
m
w
r
m
0=
O
z
w
O,-
i D m
m'
p
_�
Or"
�-
-
m�
-��.
m
C
(nc�0=
-
-i
O
m
'�
c
m
-i0Z,z
0
0
X
Z
Z
Zi Z �-
cn0
r
I
D
Z
D<
rn
0�
Z1
IminlZ
O
M
r
�.
m
y
�_i
r
O
O
D
m
m
Q°
-D
==
N
D<
cn
m
17
p
p
pI pI
C, C—
O
n
�D
y
O
r
r—
K
cn
Z
r, p
r" m
z
m
D
' rn
I
O
p
y
m
D
07
z
O
=
l
Z
m
'<
D
�_
�_
z
m
K
D
D
r
c
M
C
M
M M; z
m
c
m
m
Z
--1
D
z
D
w
i D' _ 77
D
r
Z
D
X
-<
Z
I cn�-0
p
m
Z
m
m
D
z
-<
m
D
n
m
n
_
D
—�
D
�7
m
-i
-�
-1{ -I I
m
(�
D=
D
m
z
! m 1 p
p
r
m
0-i
M
0
�I
r
Cn
—
c
z
X
D
�o
D=
M<
W
T.T`
O
z
O
z
O OID
zI z, oI
m
-i
DIm
m
CIO
D
m
n
z
�
p
D, IM'D
rn; <
v
D
C-
O
p
p
T
o
r
p
p
v p1�
Z
�71>
m
C_
Mi
ml
Z
v0
D
n
Z
m
Z-{
m
m
0
r
C-
Z
<O j D
�
r
m
C
X
x
N
N
N NIN
D
,-
D
m
n
of r
D
+n
Z�
mj
01
cn
z
p
C131 D
O
m
0
ml f
(�
t3
z
r
r i
ZI
Z
D
-1
-1
D
T
2'-u
O
O
01
O l
z
n
K
m
j
K
m
m
cn
M
2
m
n
O
m
O
r>
m
r
r
w
r,
r,
wi
m
<
O
m
Z
C
z
r
<
r0
O
2
z
z
=I
z"
z
-
m
cn
m
cn
I
I
m
r
m
D
D
K
0
c
D
p
Z
z
r-
D
Z
r-
T
D
-i
T.
D
T.
D
�i�;
I T� i
D
m
czn
O
Z
r
m
r
m
m
Cl)
O
v
c
m
m
m_
"�
=I=i
z
p
m
m
z
z
<
z
jm
r
n
m
(n
-n
Dcn
D
m
z'
D�
p
m
m
rn
ml
mi
mi
mi
mI
-<
cn
0
z
z
m
D
x
-►
N
m
y
D
`
z
z
z
z;
I
Cl)
D
00
D
Z
r-
�
z
-m1
I _
cn
-0
--1N
N
N
N)
C7
m
i I Cl)
C_
-i
D
77
m
Z
I
I
z
m
�
I
D
cn
-+
W
I
N
�l
O
V
A
N
1
m
-►
M
W
1
-+
W
V
-+
N
O
M
V
-►
T
0
M
0
T
0
M
CO
N
O
V
W
V
O
M
M
A
I M
A
Ut
A
cn 1 -+
I A 1
D
-►
GW
N
""
m
O
U,
m
W
I w
W
Cn
V
m
l W! A
I ' A- O
V
CO
O
7i
CD
O
03
V
W
O
0
A
O
O
m
�
M
co
07
��
O
D
N
N
W
0
m
0
m
0'
00
O; cD
� m 1 CD
m
W
O
cn
O
cn
O
o
O
z
W
m
p]
m
I Q7 ; CD
� 1
O
X
J
-�
m
m
O
x
O
D=
0
X
0
X
0
X
0
X
,D-
r<_
0
x
0
r
0
r
0
r
o l
r'�
O
X
O
0
0<
(�
0>
0
x
x1x;�;0
0' cn
D
N=
m=
z
D
0
tTt
D
rn
-�
m
r
-`
D
w
w
-•
0
p
O
D
s
p
v
p
ply
j
0
M
Z
o
Z,(0IDIC
Z
O
cn
07
Z
X
.N<
Z
W=
C�cn
'0o
r
z
w
coo
4
Z
v
-ice
7
Z
mmmmlN-cnz
N
A
m
m
Z
�
rr-
cn
1
O!
-i
cn I z; _
I
cn
W
1
-i
:i7
cn
Z
T.
z
cn
W
0
>
D
Z
-1
A
cn
O
O
A
W
2
Z
cn
-�
O
m
m
m
I m I N
m
,�
D
D
N
O
A
I w I
-�
U,
D
-1
cn
pr
-�
m
z
-i
O
Z
v
cn
v
co
p
cn
v 1�
cn I �Cl)
-D-�
-<
m
D
Z
m
I * 1 Z
z
cr
O
<
�<
mmm�'m
om
00
v
D
<�
��1=
m
z
m
O
m
v
v
v
v m
m
r
Z
z
v
m1
N
m
I
I
(C
i
I I
D
O
D
m
D
D
D
D
cn
=
cn
D
D
D
D
o
o
D
z
m
D
D
D
I W
p
p
107 I
D
D
D
2
D
D
-r1
-I
D
D
z; D D
cn � cn
p
�
Cn
u
D
r-
cn
m
D
O
w
v
w<
v
O
w
M
Z
O
D
M
z
O
w
T
to
M
w
M
w
T
D
M
D
M
w
M
O
M
O
-U
cn
M
� cn
cn
77
��
77 D
(n
-u
fn
rn
Cn
v
p
c%
cn
cn
m
W
-p
W
m
ml
; my T
�;mim
m
cn
m
z
r
D
m
z
r
-
m
Z
m
z
z
m
Z
r-
`�
m
Z
m
Z
m
Z
m
Z
m
m
rn
m
m
Z
m
m
rn
ZI
m
z
m
z
Z
Z
Z
�1�
Z;
m
Z
rn
Z
m
Z
U)
--A
m
Z
m
Z
0
m
z
m
z-<
Z; ZI
>
D
o
>
_
!7
O
O
Oi
0
z
01
I
0
I-
Cn
cn
m
rn
<
D
D
D
DI
=
m
<
Z
I
r
m
I
I
i
,
X
D
-1
0
0
►`�
D
N
O
-1
O
D
r
D
r
D
r
D
r
m
I r
(�
O
n
0
(�
0
--�
x
(�
O
C�
O
-�
x
f)
0
C�
0
Z
-<
(� I c� I D
0101,
O
O
(
0
0
O
O-
0
0
0
O
O
CO
,
V
Ul
CO
-+
*
j
CD
m
-+
m
_'
O
M
m
"
m
M
W
m
"
m
-+
m
-►
m
"
m
m
Cn
m
M
m
O
m
m
W
m
—
m
m
.�
W
m
W
Cn
W
Ul
W I W
CnI w
m
"
M
-+
m
"
V
m
"
m
"
v
m
m
—
m
-�
-
O I
mm
! - � -+I
I Cn
O
m
co
A
CA
j
»
W
O
m
m
—
O
O
m
.r
m
.a
0
N
m
m
m
_a
m
.a
m
—
m
"
w
�
W
V
m
j
A
V
m
W
m
m
1 V
"
O
m
J
O
V
CD
CA
"
-+
O
m
CD
..a
O
N
m I CAI
-+ —
W
N
-+
N
Cn
CD
�•
-+
N
-+
V
V
N
W
m
-+
-+
N
O
O
O
O( O
N
j
tD
V
-+
N
N
-+
NrQ
-
;I
1
I
I
N
co
i
I
z
w
m
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CASE #97-05
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
BASEMENT MEETING 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 26, 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: May 1,1997 Council Chambers Meeting Room
Time: 4:00 P.M.
Owner for Variance:
Name: Mark Pearson
Location or description of propej:W.
Applicant for Variance:
Mark Pearson
702 West Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611, and is described as the east 10 feet of Lot R and all of
Lot S Block 18, City of Aspen.
Variances Requested: A four and one -quarter foot east side yard variance to allow for construction
of a covered porch.
Will applicant be represented by Counsel: YES: NO:X
The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Charles Paterson, Chairman
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CASE #93-12
STAPE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
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, SECOND FLOOR MEETING
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: AUGUST 19, 1993
Time 4:00 p.m.
Owner for Variance:
Appellant for Variance:
Name: STAPE LIMITED LIABILITY.COMPANY JOE WELLS
Address: 533 E. HOPKINS
Location or description of property:
EAST 10' OF LOT R AND LOT S, BLOCK 18
Variance Requested: SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM SIZE
REQUIREMENTS PER SECTION 2 4-5-213 D. OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE OF 21000 SQUARE FEET FROM
MINIMUM 61000 SQUARE FEET REQUIRED.
Will -applicant be represented by counsel: Yes: X No:
The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment
130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado.81611
Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Jan Carney Deputy City Clerk
CITY OF ASPEN
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AUGUST 19, 1993, 4:00 P.M.
SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM
ASPEN CITY HALL
AG E N D A
I. CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
II. CASE #93-12
STAPE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
III. ADJOURN
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 9 1993
Chairman Remo Lavagnino called meeting to order at 4:00 P.M.
Answering roll call were Remo Lavagnino, Rick Head, Howard DeLuca,
Bill Martin and Ron Erickson. Charlie Paterson was excused.
CASE#93-12
STAPE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
REHEARING
Joe Wells, representative for applicant: Presented the affidavit of
posting of the property. (attached in record) What we did was --Joe
Krabacher's address on the list was incorrect and we changed the
address and re -noticed. I hand delivered the notice to his house just
to be sure that they received notice and mailed out notices to all the
others on the list.
Kaufman: There was a question as to notice last time. I believe the
City Attorney's position was that sufficient notice had been given.
They appeared here. And so I think there is a feeling that notice
was sufficient. However because we had to come back anyway we chose
to re -notice and to correct the error of the problem with the address.
His address on the tax records is incorrect and so he didn't get the
notice.
John Wor.cest-er, City Attorney: It is my understanding Mr. Krabacher
had actual notice of the hearing as he was present when Mr. Wells was
taking a picture of the posted notice. And I think Mr. Wells will
indicate that for the record so the record will effect that Mr.
Krabacher, although he didn't receive a mailed notice for the first
meeting, had actual notice of it.
Wells: On the day of the hearing. when we' appeared before you last I
went over to photograph the sign that had been posted. Joe and I had
a brief conversation at the time. I considered it to be just a joking
conversation about the development proposal. So I was comfortable that
he was aware that the development application was being filed.
Kaufman: A recommendation needs to be forwarded to the Board of
Adjustment from HPC . And that was not written the last time as we have
not yet received our approval or conceptual approval without a
recommendation. Today we are here to rectify that. Kim will present
that to you.
Amy Amidon, City Historical Preservationist: This is a draft. It
was typed rather quickly. It has not been approved.
Remo: It is called a non -contribution structure?
Amy: It is considered a non-contributing structure in the Main Street
Historic District.
BAM9.9.93
She then read into the record the memo as follows: The Historic
Preservation Committee did approve conceptual development for the
structure at 702 West Main Street. They made 2 additional
recommendations to the Board of Adjustment. That the Board of
Adjustment grant a reversal of the required side yard setback so that
on the easterly side of the yard there be a 5 foot setback and on the
west side of the yard 6.66 feet. This is a corner lot and so it would
require your approval. Also they recommended that the variance be
granted for the use in the Office Zone as it is appropriate.
Remo: We have to amend the motion to include the corner lot.
Ron: How much is 6.66. What is the setback?
Remo: What is the variance that you want?
Kaufman: Technically I think we are going to have to come back to
you for that because we did not notice.
MPT
And then we will have to come back another time.
Kim: The reason for that is because this building is adjacent to an
historic landmark which is a particularly small building. We are
trying to grant such relief between the 2 of them as possible.
Remo: That didn't come before us so we are not hearing that.
Remo then asked for public comment.
There was none and he closed the public portion of the hearing.
MOTION
Ron: I make a motion that we approve a variance for Case #93-12
granting the variance for a minimum lot area and lot width.
Remo: We already have a motion and a second. And we have actually
given them the variance. Do we have to again do' this procedurally?
Worcester: It would be the safest course, yes.
Rick seconded the motion.
Everyone voted in favor of the motion.
.CASE #93-13
THOMAS AND SUSAN HILB
CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 2, 1993
2
36793 B-744
SILVIA DAVIS
F-624 03/16/94 11:06A PG 1 • OF 5 REC DOC
P I TF:' I N COUNTY CLERio. g( RECORDER 25. oo
ORDINANCE 3
(SERIES OF 1994)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
GRANTING A GMQS EXEMPTION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
AND VESTED RIGHTS STATUS FOR THE STAPLETON OFFICE BUILDING, 702
WEST MAIN STREET, EAST 10 FEET OF LOTS R AND ALL OF LOT S, BLOCK
18 ASPEN TOWNSITE, ASPEN COLORADO. �aZ
WHEREAS, the applicant, Stape Limited Liability Company, has
proposed to develop an office building located at 702 West Main
Street; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a Growth Management
allocation for the 1993 commerical/off ice quota; and
WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to develop two on -site
affordable dwelling units to mitigate employee generation impacts;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 24-8-104.C.1.c. and 24-8-109.J.
of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council shall approve the method
by which an applicant proposes to provide affordable housing upon
recommendation by the Planning and' Zoning Commission (herein
"Commission"); and
WHEREAS, on December 21, 1993, the Commission reviewed the
affordable housing proposal and recommended that the applicant
increase the size of the three -bedroom unit; and
WHEREAS, the applicant committed to increase the size of the
three -bedroom unit to 1,200 square feet of net liveable space to
meet the Housing Office guidelines for a three -bedroom, category
3 dwelling unit; and
WHEREAS, the Commission recommends to Council approval of the
on -site affordable housing with conditions; and
WHEREAS, the applicant also requests vested rights status for
367932 B-744 P-625 ()3/16/94 11:06A PG 2 OF 5
a site specific development plan as represented in the GMQS
application; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having considered the Planning
Office's recommendation for the GMQS Exemption does wish to grant
the exemption.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1:
Pursuant to Sections 24-8-104.C.1.c. and 24-8-109.J. of the
Municipal Code, City Council does hereby grant a GMQS Exemption for
the development of two on -site affordable dwelling units located
in the proposed Stapleton office building at 702 West Main Street
with the following conditions:
1. The three -bedroom dwelling unit shall be deed restricted to
category 2 with the provision that it may be rented to a qualified
category 3 household, if a member of that household is employed by
the owner of the building. If the unit is made available to the
general public rather than an employee of the owner of the
building, it would be rented under the category 2 guidelines for
household income and rent. .The owner of the building has the
ability to select a qualified occupant to rent both of the deed
restricted units.
2. The three -bedroom dwelling unit shall be increased to a total
of 1,200 square feet of net liveable space to meet the Housing
minimum size guidelines.
3. The one -bedroom 615 square foot net liveable dwelling unit
shall be deed restricted to category 2 Housing guidelines.
4. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant
shall record the deed restrictions, with a copy to the Housing
Office, restricting the 2 dwelling units to the Housing Office
guidelines.
5. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and at the public hearings shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, unless amended by other
conditions.
367932 B-744 F-626 03/16/94 11:06A PG 3 OF S
Section 2:
Pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code, City Council
does hereby grant the applicant vested rights for 702 West Main,
East 10 feet of Lot Rand all of Lot S, Block 18, Aspen Townsite
as follows :
1. The rights granted by the site specific development plan
approved by'this Ordinance shall remain vested for three (3)
years from the -date of final adoption specified below.
However, any failure to abide by the terms and conditions
attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said
vested property rights. Failure to timely and properly record
all plats and agreements as specified herein and or in the
Municipal Code shall also result in the forfeiture of said
vested rights.
2. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of
referendum and judicial review.
3. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall
exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent
reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or the
general rules, regulations or ordinances or the City provided
that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the
approvals granted and vested herein.
4. The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not
preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which
are general in nature and are applicable to all property
subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including,
but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and
mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site
development approval, the developer shall abide by any and
all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical
codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing.
Section 3:
The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to be published
in a'newspaper of general circulations within the City of Aspen no
later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption hereof..
Such notice shall be given in the following form:.
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval
of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a
vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68,
367932 B-744 P-627 03/16/94 11:06A PG 4 OF 5
Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following -
described property:
The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said
notice shall be the ordinance granting such approval.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of
this ordinance is for any reason.held invalid or unconstitutional
by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision and such
holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
thereof.
Section 5:
This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall
not operate as an
abatement of any action or proceeding now pending
under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein
provided, and the
same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 6:
A public hearing
on the Ordinance shall be held on the
day of 016 1994
at 5:00 P.M. *in the City Council Chambers,
Aspen City Ha 1,
Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which
hearing a public
notice of the same shall. be published one in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ
AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the
City Council of the City of Aspen on the Olt day of
1994.
Joe
G\ �=
John Bennett, Mayor
A' `
�
r
:zK ithryn S'.;' h,
C ty Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and appro ed this _day of
1994.
Johrl Bennett, Mayor
"M•,
K�tbky och, City cl
SEAL:
367932 S-744 P-628 03/16/94 1l:(.)6*A F'S 5 OF 5
5
RECORD OF*PROCEEDINGS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 7, 1995
Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 2:30 p.m.
Present at the meeting were: Remo Lavagnino, Rick Head, Charlie
Paterson, Ron Erickson, Jim Iglehart, and Howard DeLuca. Excused
was David Schott.
CASE #95-8
STAPE LIMITED LIABILITY CO.
(TABLED FROM AUGUST 3, 1995)
Lavagnino stated, this is a tabled case, #95-8, Stape Limited
Liability Company, David Stapleton. We reviewed this on Thursday
(August 3, 1995) and we had some questions as to the. meaning for
granting you the variance based on something that HPC said they
wanted you to do, but we were unaware of the specifics of the
nature of that request. So, we have go.t Amy (Amidon) here now, and
I think the Board would like to ask her some questions.
Lavagnino continued stating, right off the bat, as I looked at the
plans last Thursday, in the existing house itself, on.the Krabacher
property, they were 10 ft. away from their side yard setback.
Since we are moving the Stapleton house into the setbacks on the
corner street 1 ft. 4 in., and the need for that that was
discussed, was to open up the area between the two parcels so that -
people coming down Main Street might have a better view of the
historical house. Our concern was, since we are not dealing with
the Krabacher house, can we be assured that at some time that that
house isn't going to move.over to their setbacks, their legal
setbacks. Why should we give 1 f t . 4 in. if they are going to move
a house closer than what it is now, or what exists now, which is
10 ft. and they can go another 5 ft?
Amy Amidon, representing staff stated, well, I don't know if this
was discussed at your last meeting, but this project came to HPC
in 1993, I guess, and they reviewed it, and this building next
door, the Krabacher house, is an historic landmark. The
Preservation Commission, as one of their conditions of approval,
asked the applicants to come to the Board of Adjustment and be able
to move this house a little bit further, feeling that this area can
handle it; it is a corner, and there's a larger right-of-way
(showing on drawings). The reasoning was because this is a much
smaller structure and this one is going to block most of the light
and visual access to this. So, that was their condition of
approval and that is why they are here. Subsequent to this
approval, Joe Krabacher decided to redevelop his property because
he felt this had negatively impacted the use of his site. So,. they
do have approval to move the historic structure, which is only this
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AUGUST 7, 1995
portion (showing on the drawing) , forward to this corner, and a new
building will be built here. I believe it is near the 5 ft.
setback. When the Stapleton's got their final review, the
Preservation Commission still wanted them to try to win this
variance to make this portion of the historic landmark as visible
as possible. So, this is going to be redeveloped and the plans are
already in, and it's within its setbacks, it's up here.
Lavagnino asked, so, at what point, where is the old structure, is
that that little jog that's shown there?
Amidon replied, I think the only part of the Krabacher house that
we are keeping an historic part, is pretty much straight across.
Lavagnino stated, where that jog is. So, anything that is south
below that would go to the 5 ft. setback.
DeLuca stated, if they move that cabin out, that means that they
are going to be able to build to the 5 ft. setback and all away
around to the front of that house.
Amidon stated, well, but they are not doing it. They are moving
the cabin forward to the front corners here. They are moving this
building to the setback (showing on drawing) , with a big open space
here, before you get to the new building, which probably starts
about here.
DeLuca asked, are they going to be required to maintain that open
space, because if they come around later and decide to build all
the way to the setback?
Amidon stated, I will be going on the assumption that they won't
have any FAR left, they really won't have the ability to expand,
and it would sort of defeat the idea of their design, right now.
Lavagnino stated, and do they have to come to HPC again for
approval if they do something like that? Amidon stated, yes.
Lavagnino asked, and do they have to abide by HPC rules? Amidon
answered, yes. One of the things that continues to be important,
even though this is being redeveloped, is having as much space as
possible between there. They thought maybe this could be a benefit
to the two buildings.
Lavagnino stated, well, the applicant has felt that, you know, if
he had done a little bit more side yard variance, not that much.
Dick Falling representing the applicant, stated, well, it is a
safety factor in between.
9
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 7, 1995
Lavagnino stated, well, the safety factor has always been taken
into account because of the setbacks; there should always be a
minimum of 10 f t . The other safety factor is making sure that when
people drive their cars up to Main Street that they can look around
the corner. Now, you are moving a little closer to'their view, and
the only "saving grace" was your design of an open collage, as I
remember,, there, being a porch so that people can sort of look that
way, and also, it is a right hand turn, so the traffic would
actually be coming from the other way. If they cross the street
they would be so far up ahead to the stop point.
Stapleton stated, the visual affect would be more through the
building, in between the two buildings, probably not any more than
there is right now, but if he brings his thing right over to this,
I would clearly like to, be over a little bit further, and he would
have the right to do that. I would just like to be a little bit
further away from him from a construction standpoint, as well.
He is in excess of egress, because we have all kinds of people
living in the basement in employee housing.
Head asked, Amy, are we to assume that you are officially giving
a recommendation from HPC tows that this what your pleasure would
be? Amidon answered, yes, that was their condition of approval.
Head stated, well, that's pretty much what we wanted to hear..
Erickson asked, what happens if we turn down the variance, what
happens, do they still get approval?
Amidon answered, yes.
Lavagnino asked, what is the basis that you can apply to us
according to our guidelines, and it is really hard to talk about
practical difficulties and hardships, when we are really talking
about some historic benefit to the City, and showcasing a piece of
their historic property that might benefit us all. But, we have
such limited guidelines in this affect, it is going to be tough to
grant the variance on the basis that it is going to increase
somebody else's viewplane. Can you give us an excuse?
Amidon stated,. well, let me think about it. I mean, the crux of
the issue really is that we are trying to allow one story, a very
small, historic structure to be as visible as possible. That's
really the reason.
Lavagnino stated, we understand, but if someone outside the City
came to us and said that, we wouldn't have any problem not granting
that variance, because it would be to their own benefit. The only
thing I can think of is then, this is for the benefit of the
citizenry, rather than individual, and somehow the public is
served. That's the closest thing I can think of.
ILI
AUGUST 7, 1995
DeLuca asked, what about the fact that there is employee housing
in the basement and there's egress type of situation, etc., etc.
Lavagnino stated, it sounds good to me. Is there egress from that
side yard?
Stapleton stated, yes. Lavagnino asked, on that side? Stapleton
replied, there is.
Erickson stated, he built window wells in the setback?
Bill Drueding of staff stated, you can put window wells in setbacks
greater than 30 inches in depth if they are required by the chief
building official for window egress, yes. Can't put stairs in.
There was discussion at random between Drueding and Erickson
regarding egress, safety factors, and setback measurement.
Lavagnino stated, part of the setbacks is not only light in there,
but for trucks to also get through there, originally it was meant
for firetrucks to get through there.
MOTION
Head stated, I move that we approve Case 95-8, based not only on
the arguments that have been herefore described in our last
meeting, but with strong recommendation from HPC to grant
approval. Paterson seconded. Roll call vote was requested; vote
commenced, Remo, yes; Head, yes; Paterson, yes; Erickson, no,
DeLuca, yes. Vote was four in favor, one opposed, motion carried.
Discussion of Motion
Erickson stated, I would just like to go on record as dissenting
because I think the purpose of HPC's original request has been
pretty well fabricated by the new plans for an historic structure.
By moving that structure up there, improving the visibility 'of that
structure from Main Street, what we are giving up is a possible
safety aspect on North 6th Street. So, when I think HPC originally
requested this and made it a condition, it was an existing
structure that they didn't have any idea it was going to be moved.
Now, in their plans, they are going to move it about 10 ft.
further, closer to Main Street, thereby, making it much more
visible, which is what the purpose of the request was in the first
place. Second of all, we don't know exactly how that is going to
impact the side yard setback, and I don't want to grant a variance
based on supposition.
Lavagnino stated, the only other thing I would question 'is, I think
4
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 7, 1995
we are mitigating any safety factor on the street side because of
the porch in front. Have you taken that into consideration?
Erickson stated, however, it is like people who can only build 6
ft. fences can have 12 ft. hedges. I don't know in the future,
we don't have any condition on that, to prevent the closing off of
that porch in the future.
Lavagnino stated, Bill, what if they put a big Blue Spruce in
front?
Drueding stated, the code was re -written a few months ago that
says, 42 inches on the corner, that includes foliage.
DeLuca stated, plus the fact, the deck of the porch is undoubtedly
less than 42 inches. So, the theory is that you put a fence there,
42 inches around this corner, and it really wouldn't matter how
high that was, as long as it wasn't above it.
Fallin stated, it would be against the reason we built that deck
on there in the first place, for a visual thing, I mean, it would
be ridiculous to plant 6 f t . trees around there and block the whole
building off.
Lavagnino stated, we will dispense with the minutes until the next
meeting.
Meeting was adjourned at 2:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk
5
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 3, 1995
Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
He requested roll call.
Present at the meeting were: Remo Lavagnino, Rick Head, on
Erickson, Jim Iglehart, and Howard DeLuca. Excused were: Chalie
Paterson and David Schott.
CASE #95-8
STAPE LIMITED LIABILITY CO., DAVID STAPLETON
Lavagnino stated, it is requested, the property is located in the
"O" Office Zoning Category. Corner lot rule requires that the side
yard on the corner be reduced by 1/3 of the front yard required.
Sec. 3 -101 Yard ( c ) Aspen Land Use Code front yard required setback
is 10 ft., therefore, the yard required on the side is 61811.
Applicant appears to be requesting a 114" setback variance for the
side yard bordering a street.
Lavagnino stated to the applicant, please identify yourself for the
record, and do you have an Affidavit of Posting? (The Affidavit
of Posting is attached in record.)
Don Stapleton, the applicant, stated, David is not here, but I'm
part of the family. Dick Fallin, of Baker Fallin Associates,
introduced himself.
Lavagnino stated, would you like to expand on why you want this
variance?
Stapleton stated, when we were going through HPC, after several
meetings, it was discussed at one particular meeting, the Krabacher
house, next door to us on the west side, is a small miner's
cottage, and during the conversations at a couple of those meetings
we talked about, maybe, if we could move our house east a little
bit it would open the corridor up between our house and Krabacher' s
cottage.
Lavagnino stated, they meet setback requirements between the two
of you, as they exist right now? Stapleton answered, that is
correct.
Lavagnino asked, why do you want to spred it out a little bit
further, for what *reasons? Stapleton replied, just to make the
alleyway between our house and Krabacher's house a little bit more
space so that it would give a bigger viewplane through there.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 3, 1995
Fallin stated, one of the things that happened during the HPC
approval process was, that Krabacher's building was historically
designated and it is a small cottage with an addition that is put
on the rear of it toward the alley. Amy (Amidon) and the Board
were very concerned that the Stapleton building would cut the view
off to the cottage from the corner, and they were trying to
maintain as much distance between, and open up as much of the view,
of the corridor as we could. So, we are here, really, at the
request of HPC; they are the ones who asked us to go before your
Board and see if we could get the encroachment to move it over
about 16 inches.
Lavagnino asked, do you have a letter from HPC? Fallin replied,
we requested a letter several months ago, Amy told me that she had
written one, but I never got a copy, and Bill (Drueding) just said
he didn't have a copy either. Lavagnino stated, and Amy isn't
here, right?
Drueding stated, no, it is not historically designated. It is in
the historic overlay zone along Main Street.
Head stated, but does not HPC have the right to vary variances?
Drueding replied, only if it is historically designated. This is
not designated. Head asked, if it is not designated, why are they
referring it to us? Drueding answered, it is on the historic
overlay. All Main Street requires HPC approval, designated or not.
Lavagnino stated, and it affects the house that they have this be
designated. It affects that house.
Drueding stated, we can always g,et the letter later. Lavagnino
stated, yes, I understand, I was going to suggest that.
Drueding continued stating, this is from a September 9, 1993
meeting where Amy does say, here, that they would prefer an
easterly sideyard corner setback, 5; and then, 6.660 on the
westerly side (referring to a document). Drueding passed the
document to Lavagnino. It was noted that the document stated 6
ft., 8 on the western side.
Lavagnino asked, how does the Planning Office view the aspect of
traffic and the usual need for a 61811 corner lot? Drueding stated,
I feel it is still an important consideration. Lavagnino asked,
in this particular area, is that why? Drueding explained the
importance of the corner.
2
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 3, 1995
Fallin, stated, the west setback, which is the common property line
between Krabacher and Stapleton, is a 5 foot required setback. The
easterly side, since it is a corner lot, you can pick which one is
front; Main Street is front or he can reduce the side yard which
is a 10 foot requirement, 1/3 down to 618. So, that's an existing
required side yard setback on that street. So, what you may want
us to do is move the building over to the east, 1 foot, 4, so the
west setback now becomes 6 foot, 4, and the easterly becomes 6
foot, 8, minus 1 foot, 4, that's 5 foot, 4, I guess. That's not
for the entire building, as you can see on the plan, the rear half
of the building, I think, does not encroach, just the front half
of the building does, on that side yard.
Drueding asked, what would the westerly setback be, again? It was
answered, 6 foot, 4.
Lavagnino asked, show me on this plan here what you are talking
about. Fallin showed the Board on the plan and there was
discussion at random.
Head asked, Dick, has this plan changed at all from the last time
we granted the variance? Fallin stated, I think there was a
conceptual on that in 1993; there have been some minor changes
through the design process.
Drueding stated, on the paper I gave Remo that says there is a
continuation of that hearing because Krabacher had not been
properly noticed. The minutes from that original meeting are not
available. It states in the paper that they know that they have to
come back for the side yard setback.
Lavagnino asked, were the minor changes on the exterior, or did you
expand the envelope?
Fallin stated, it was mainly windows, the roof lines, gables, that
type of thing.
Iglehart asked, this whole thing was written by HPC to move it 16111
for the purpose of being able to get a better view?
Fallin replied, they want to maximize the impact to Krabacher's
building which is an historic structure.
Iglehart stated, you "guys" don't necessarily need this to happen
or want this to happen.
3
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AUGUST 3, 1995
Fallin stated, we'd like for it to happen. Iglehart stated, you
would? Fallin replied, it is a new structure and there is no real
benefit to us one way or the other. A little more room they were
very interested in achieving because of the smallness of that
little cottage, and that's the issue before us.
Head stated, what interests me, is that, if they think it is tight
now, wait until whoever gets Krabacher's house builds out to their
setbacks. It's going to come over another 5 feet.
There was discussion at random and Lavagnino stated, they are
getting other considerations in some areas, maybe they can because
it is historically designated. You see, they can manipulate
whatever they want and they can have covenants to say, on this side
you can't come to whatever it is.
Drueding stated, Krabacher has been talking to the Planning
Department about expansion of his existing house. Lavagnino asked,
towards the west? Drueding replied, I don't know that. There is
a possibility that they may be expanded to the 5 foot setback.
Lavagnino stated, but it is under HPC control. Drueding stated,
but HPC would have difficulty telling them they couldn't do it to
their setback. Lavagnino stated, they would? Drueding replied,
I believe so. I think with this particular building they are
concerned more with the front, I believe most of the construction
is going to be more in the rear, they want to preserve more of this
front area. On the rear they would be going out to the setbacks,
on the rear portion of that easterly lot.
Fallin stated, I think you are right, I think the reason that they
are talking about the two issues, is that Krabacher seems on having
intentions on moving his building a little bit closer to the front
and closer to the Hickory*House in order to feature it more from
a longer distance on Main Street. So, they felt then, that
Stapleton's Building was shifted over_ as much as they comfortably
felt it could be, the 16 inches, and then, in the future, if he
does, in fact, develop that property and move that building away
from Stapleton, then they were getting the kind of the niceness of
all that little cottage construction.
Lavagnino stated, so, in affect, you're saying they wouldn't
benefit then if they went to the west, they wouldn't want to use
that 5 foot setback.
Fallin stated, it is the cottage structure itself, they want to get
away from the Stapleton building as far as they can, I think, that
is probably their in So, we're trying to help the process,
we don't have a real problem by moving over the 16 inches to really
maximize all that. We do not object to the HPCs request.
4
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 3, 1995
Erickson asked, it was a request? Fallin stated, yes. Erickson
stated, a wish, a hope, a desire?
Erickson asked, do you have a picture of the building? Fallin
showed Erickson the drawing and there was discussion at random
between the Board regarding the porch and where it could encroach
and where it could not encroach.
Lavagnino stated, my concern is, that we just don't know what is
going to happen to the Krabacher property.
Erickson stated, I don't think it is our concern.
Lavagnino stated, it would be if they moved it, for instance, 5
feet off to the setback. The reason we are giving it to them, is.
that they wanted that open space.
DeLuca stated, our concern has to be whether this is going to
obstruct the vision at the corner of people looking up the street.
Lavagnino stated, I don't have any problem with this from a safety
standpoint, which is why it is written in the ordinance that it
should be 6 f eet , 8 inches f or a corner lot. I don' t see a problem
there. What I have difficulty with is why are we granting this
variance?
Head stated, in the past we have weighed heavily on the
recommendations of HPC. Lavagnino stat.ed, that's right, and the
recommendation is that they want this space. How far away*is the
side yard from within the Krabacher property? It was answered, 10
feet. Lavagnino stated, my concern -is the size.
Lavagnino stated, we are giving them a side yard, we' re pushing the
side yard away, not the front . So, my concern is that the existing
structure or any addition would go to that 5 foot setback, and I
would think that HPC would have enough control to say, no, we don't
want you to go there. Can they do that?
Drueding stated, they can do that, but they are not inclined. I
don't think they've ever restricted someone's setback.
Lavagnino stated, well, I guess I want to know the intent of why
we are granting the variance, here. That's the problem that we are
having. Maybe, if we grant this variance, put in the form of a
resolution. Lavagnino closed the public portion of the meeting.
5
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 3, 1995
Iglehart stated, usually we follow HPCs recommendation and try to
accommodate what they have in mind. I don't want to second guess
Amy and HPC on this, I sometimes don't understand how they work,
but they seem to do an O.K. job. So, I would be in favor of
granting it, based on the fact that HPC has recommended this for
some reason.
Lavagnino stated, would you add to that it would not jeopardize the
viewplane of the traffic patterns from a safety standpoint by
granting this variance. I want to tie it into a practical
difficulty or some excuse that .we might have, not just rely on HPCs
recommendation since we don't have it and since we don't know the
intent. We are talking about opening the space here so he can get
a better view. But, you know, who cares.
Iglehart stated, I don't know how I can call it a hardship based
on them, but on the other hand,. I'm going with HPC.
Erickson stated, I think the HPC state is a wish. I wish HPC would
say, I wish you would make your house 1,000 feet smaller, then we
wouldn't have any problems. I don't hear any of those things from
HPC, all I hear is grant variances for this and that. This is a
brand new building, they can build it anyway they want. I like
what they have done here in terms of porch and everything like
that, but they could do all that without a variance. I would
probably not grant a variance because I can't find a hardship here,
and I don't think HPCs request is based on a hardship. I heard
what you were trying to say to tie it in. I don't know how to make
that work. If we could come up with a hardship or, a practical
difficulty here, I would grant the variance, it is a minimum
variance, I don't have a problem with it, but I just can't find
one.
Lavagnino stated, In affect, what we have been told was the reason
for moving it, is to get a better view of the historic building.
Erickson stated, I think that's the same thing as, I' 11 respect you
in the morning; who knows what' s going to happen tomorrow from that
structure. I don't know. We've had cases in the past where people
have come to us and sworn on their mother's grave that they were
going to do such and such, and the next thing is they are doing
something else.
Lavagnino stated, but HPC has control over that. Erickson stated,
but we don't know what kind of control. I think their objective
in their criteria is different from ours. Their's is to promote
and highlight historically significant buildings and they have a
lot of powers to do that. They can grant a variance to move that
house to a 5 foot front yard setback if they want, I'm not saying
they will, but they have the power to do that with an historically
n.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 3, 1995
significant building. We can't, can we? So, they have the power
to do with whatever they want with an historical structure, I just
want to let them deal with it, and if they need our help they can
come back in front of us.
Erickson continued stating, I am really opposed to any type of
conditional variance, after.what happened two weeks ago, a month
ago, the Gary Moore thing. I thought it was a conditional variance
and nobody understood it, we had to have another meeting on it.
Lavagnino stated, understanding is one thing, but being specific
about something that we know, is another.
Drueding stated, resolutions will solve that.
Head stated, I.am prepared to grant this variance subject to two
things. They don't get to build on the west side up to the setback
and two, provide us with a letter from HPC confirming those
- discussions and what they're recommending.
DeLuca stated, I just wish HPC wouldn't do this to us all the time.
I have to agree with Ron, there's no practical difficulty, there's
no hardship, however, looking at the situation like this, even if
the next door neighbor or whoever it may be in the future, decides
to build to the setback; if we move that building over that much,
it is going to give us that much more space in between, even if
they do build over the setback. If we don't allow them to move the
building over, then, all of a sudden it going to look like this,
and the problem with setbacks on this street is that 10 feet
between two buildings is ridiculous. The thing of HPC.wanting a
better view of the historic structure is probably true, I don't
think 16 inches is going to give them a whole lot. I'm not afraid
of them building up to the front setback line because that's not
going to make a difference in anybody's view from the street
turning the corner, the rear isn't going to make a difference, the
side is going to make a difference as to how much distance we have
in between the two buildings. We don't have any control as to what
they are going to do with the next door neighbor's house,
unfortunately. If we did, we could say, O.K., you keep your
structure 1 foot 4 on this side, and you keep your l foot 4 that
side, then, we have the lesser of two evils.
DeLuca stated, another thing that concerns me, we're talking about
a section that's probably 25 or 30 feet long of actual office space
or living space or whatever you want to call it. The problem is
if we don't move the building over they are obviously going to
build right on the setback line, because they .have no other
alternative.
Drueding stated, the hardship is HPC.*
7
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Lavagnino stated, it isn't fair to them
They have built this thing according to
place where they were allowed to put it.
AUGUST 3, 1995
(referring to applicants).
code and put in into the
Lavagnino stated, I'm going to open up the public hearing just to
ask you one question? How imminent is this in your building plans?
The reason I'm asking the question is, from my particular purpose
I would like to table this for either a week, or for as long as we
can get a more definitive letter or recommendation, or Amy being
here, so we can actually hear or record what her reasoning is, and
that we can question her and be satisfied. There is just this
nebulous area that arbitrarily granting you a variance because of
something that they might or might not do, is doesn't stand well
with me, particularly. I can make a decision, but when I don't
have enough information on the facts of what might happen, I would
probably vote against it, right now, but if I had some sufficient
reasons for granting it, through a letter or a recommendation and
where we could question Amy, I think I would be more in favor of,
at least, looking at it. So, I'm asking you, is this an imminent
building problem for you, can you wait a week?
Fallin stated, waiting a week wouldn't hurt, but I would like to
point out to you that the real issue here is the historic resource
that we are losing in the town. That's the real issue, it's not
Stapleton's Building and what it is going to do, it is the visual
loss of part of the historic aspects of Aspen that HPC is really
concerned about. This little cottage is one of the last cottages
in town that is really well-defined and is one of the original
structures. They really want to showcase that piece. I've heard
arguments with HPC about 6 inches, you and I have had -arguments
over 9 inch setbacks. This is big-time "stuff" in the historical
"Stuff"; it is not an insignificant request. So, I think that's
a good basis for a hardship.
Lavagnino stated, we don't want them to negate what you are talking
about by using their right to meet the setback. I want to make
sure that Amy knows, out of our considerations, that we don't want
them to move it. If we are going to give you space between the
buildings we want to keep it there.
DeLuca asked, how far back does the cottage go back on this
footprint? There was much discussion at random and Fallin showed
on the blueprint where the cottage was.
MOTION
Head stated, I move that we table this applicant until Monday,
August 7, 1995 at 4:00 p.m. Motion was seconded, vote was
unanimous in favor, motion carried.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 3, 1995
Meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk
10
EXHIBITS*
�- Z w E�5-
AGENDA ITEM:
EXHIBIT
NO. DESC PTION IN DEMO
u
* "In" means the exhibit is introduced into the record.
"Demo" means the exhibit is used only for demonstration or illustrative purposes.
WITNESS LIST
AGENDA ITEM:
C&H*
NAME OF WITNESS:
1• Staff Person
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
S.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
* Includes staff persons, but excludes staff attorney and board members.
,-,,.,MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Adjustment
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Deputy Director
FROM: Sara Thomas Zoning Officer bj
RE: 702 West Main Street, Aspen, Colorado
DATE: April 22, 1997
SUMMARY: The applicant requests a variance from the side yard set back
dimensional requirement in order to construct a covered front porch on an
existing residence. The property is located in the Office Zone District which has
the following dimensional requirements:
Minimum Lot Size - 6000 square feet
Minimum Lot Width - 60 feet
Front Yard - 10 feet
Rear Yard - 15 feet
Side Yard - 5 feet
The 4000 square foot lot (40' x 100') is non -conforming in both minimum lot size
and minimum lot width. The structure is currently non -conforming as well with
regards to side and rear yard setbacks. The applicant is proposing to construct a
covered front porch along the east side and front portions of the house. The
proposed construction would require a 2.5 foot side yard variance.
Please refer to the attached drawings and written information provided by the
applicant for a complete presentation of the proposed variance.
APPLICANT: Mr. Mark Pearson
LOCATION: 702 West Main Street, Aspen, Colorado, with a legal
description of the east 10 feet of Lot R and all of Lot S Block 18, City of
Aspen.
REVIEW STANDARDS AND STAFF EVALUATION: Pursuant to Section
26.108.040 of the Municipal Code, in order to authorize a variance from the
dimensional requirements of Title 26, the board of adjustment shall make a
finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist:
1. Standard: The grant of the variance will be generally consistent with the
purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan and this title.
RESPONSE: The Residential Design Standards in Section 26.58.040
of the Aspen Municipal Land Use Code require new construction to
provide covered front porches of a minimum of 50 square feet. The
standards were adopted in order to encourage front porches, in an
attempt to bring vitality, to both the streetscape and to
neighborhoods. The applicants request is consistent with this
objective.
2. Standard: The grant of the variance is the minimum variance that will
make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building, or structure.
RESPONSE: The applicant's request appears to be the minimum
variance possible in that the front porch will align with the existing
non -conforming structure. The addition will expand but not make
worse the existing non -conformity.
3. Standard: Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and
provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly
enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the
applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining
whether an applicant's right would be deprived, the board. shall consider
whether either of the following conditions apply:
a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to
the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels,
structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result
from the actions of the applicant; or
b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special
privilege denied by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and the terms of
this title to other parcels, buildings or structures, in the same zone district.
RESPONSE: The parcel and structure are unique in that they are
both non -conforming. Any additions or alterations on the property
are severely limited by the narrow width of the parcel, combined with
the non -conforming location of the existing structure. Therefore,
granting the side yard setback variance will not confer any special
privileges upon the applicant.
ALTERNATIVES: The Board of Adjustment may consider any of the following
alternatives:
• Approve the variance as requested.
• 'Approve the variance with conditions.
• Table action to request further information be provided by the applicant or
interested parties.
• Deny the variance finding that the review standards are not met.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the 2: oot side yard
setback variance request to allow for construction of a covered porch.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the request for a . "foot
east side yard setback variance at 702 West Main Street, to allow for
construction of a covered front porch, finding that the review standards
have been met."
CI'Y OF ASPEN
BOARD OF ADJUS Tly
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
DATE 7 19_
APPLICANT aqj leP
MAIIING ADDRESS
OWVER
MAM NG ADDRESS
CASE
NE
9asa a9.
r
PHONE
CO �✓� /
�
li l l�
c
LOCATION OF PROPERTY ' UC K (ZG,
(Streer, Blocs dumber and Lot Number)
WILL YOU BE REPRESE.Nt'ir.D BY COU C..? YES
Below, describe clearly the proposed variance, including all dimensions and iustif cation for the
variance. (Additional paper may be used if aecessary.) The building pe.� t application and anv
other information you reel is pertinent should accompany this arudcation. and will be made oars of
this case.
UNCC, j
14 1 d e;c 04-tj f
Applicant's Signature __ Iz/ /" I /A
REASONS FOR DENUL OF BUILDING PEMNUT, BASED ON THE ASPEN CITY
CODE, CHAPTER 24. .IV OPINION CONCERNING THIS V.kRLA.NCE WILL BE
PRESENTED TO THE BOARD BY THE ZONING DERARTNIENT STAFF.
DATE PERMIT DENIED
OFFICIAL
DATE OF APPLICATION HEARING DATE
Mark and Lees Pearson
702 West Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-2727
City of Aspen Board of Adjustments
April 17, 1997
Dear Board,
We are requesting a minor side yard setback variance for our property at 702
West Main Street for a front porch. This variance is 2.5 feet of the East
property line set back on the 6th Street side. Although the drawings show
additional improvements, we are only requesting a review for the front porch
at this time.
The lot is a non conforming lot with a 50 plus year old house, carriage house
and garage already situated on it. We are trying to make this property our
home and are constrained by the existing structures. We do love the historic
flair that this property has and hope to do some minor improvements that
will complement the historical district and main corridor of Aspen. We are in
complete agreement with the city and ordinance 30 encouraging front porch
additions to enhance the streetscape of Main Street. We additionally plan to
add a white picket fence for the safety of our 2 year old daughter.
We may one day, if needed, come back to you guys and look into adding a
family room and another bedroom and bath.
Th y ,
Pi=yam..-
Mark Pearson
3
(A)- 6, x�
/OSTS
_ SOCJT H ELE�/AT/flN //4=r-o
WEST EG I;VA T ro -4
evs E/J /3/247 / r/ 0.1/
E i} S T EG E %1 A ri o1v �/¢ . r•o
EL Evh TioNS
4
I I
s- co f j I
n
1 k
o j ! �tJ_! /90 AV1,11 (2�
2r I Rs — -j
I
VM M!=
Z/tIG.GG:T
IZI
1
l j
L //►/ E Of-aEO�-��
."op
-.firJNE 'foovE! +
vP �
GJY,N6 0) 4i9a E./4AAE,E
I I LIDA TJ! _ NSKI
New WALL
W;
k/JN,?OW 0 TO IfE �EInOVEp e
� 1 v>'
Ii Ta ME
�"CLEPLf9G.E ST/�11 WU-41
I _ . OWING1. .7 E
2 I
i oos TS
DEG/L
-1— —
O
T SET APAC t
EX/sT. K,TGA'LiJ 7+
q"
re 6E xr;imATE,0, C- FX/sr,Nv
Aw
AAW &F,t.TY LINE
_ ENTCy LEVEL FGo02 PL19n/ //4,�/_0 '
ch .�
co
ohm
a
a
r s�U
0 Z"
F"Ole J�LIf N
Al
-
CASE #97-05
702 WEST MAIN
Proposed Motion for Approval:
I move to approve the request for a 2:3"foot east side yard setback
variance at 702 West Main Street to allow for construction of a covered
front porch, finding that the review standards have been met, In
that:
1. The grant of the variance will be generally consistent with the
purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan and the Aspen Land Use Regulations for
Variances. Specifically, the Residential Design Standards in
Section 26.58.040 of the Aspen Municipal Land Use Code require
new construction to provide covered front porches of a minimum
of 50 square feet. The standards were adopted in order to encourage
front porches in an attempt to bring vitality to both the streetscape
and to neighborhoods. The applicant's request is consistent with this
objective.
2. The grant of the variance is the minimum variance that will make
possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure.
Specifically, the applicant's request appears to be the minimum
variance possible so that the front porch will align with the existing
non -conforming structure. The addition will expand but not make
worse the existing non -conformity.
3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions
of this title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed
by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the
applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty.
a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique
to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to
other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and
which do not result from the actions of the applicant, or
20tf6t I—
S
b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any
special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
and the terms of this title to other parcels, buildings, or structures
in the same zone district. Specifically, the parcel and structure
are unique in that they are both non -conforming. Any additions
or alterations on the property are severely limited by the narrow
width of the parcel, combined with the non -conforming location
location of the existing structure. Therefore, granting the side
yard setback variance will not confer any special privileges upon
the applicant.
ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR DENIAL:
4.��
I move to deny the request for,a�oot east side yard setback variance
at 702 West Main Street to not allow for construction of a covered porch
finding that the following review standards have not been met:
Cite the specific standards listed above that have not been met giving
specific reasons therefor:
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CASE #97-06
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
BASEMENT MEETING 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 26, 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: May 1,1997 Council Chambers Meeting Room
Time: 4:00 P.M.
Owner for Variance:
Name: Mr. Niklaus Kuhn
Location or description of property:
Applicant for Variance:
Mr. Niklaus Kuhn
A vacant lot located at the intersection of S. Fifth Street and West Hopkins Street and is described as
Parcel A: A tract of land situated in the Southeast Quarter of Section 12, Township 10 South, Range
85 West of the 6th P.M. being a part of the City and Townsite of Aspen, the M.W. Lode Mining
Claim U.S.M.S. No. 5793 and the Mary B. No.2 Lode Mining Claim U.S.M.S. No.19640.
Variances Requested: To temporarily relocate and store a historic home of approximately 1000
square feet and a historic shed of approximately 185 square feet from 303 E. Main to a vacant lot at
the intersection of S. Fifth Street and West Hopkins Avenue for a 90 day period commencing on
May 2,1997.
Will applicant be represented by Counsel: YES: NO:X
The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Charles Paterson, Chairman
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Adjustment
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Deputy Director
FROM: Sara Thomas, Zoning Officq(�:)
RE: Temporary storage of two structures on a vacant lot located at the
intersection of S. Fifth Street and West Hopkins
DATE: April 22, 1997
SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing to relocate and temporarily store two historic
structures on a vacant lot located at the intersection of S. Fifth Street and West Hopkins.
The structures are currently located at 303 East Main Street. The structures need to be
relocated for a period of approximately 90 days to allow for excavation and foundation
work for a commercial/residential project that is occurring at the Main Street location.
The Historic Preservation Commission has approved the temporary relocation of the
structures and has collected a security bond from the applicant to insure the structures
during the moving and storage process.
The vacant lot that. the structures will be relocated to is owned by Lyle Reeder. (See
attached letter of agreement from Mr. Reeder.) The property is located in the R-15 zone
district. The adjoining property to the rear is also owned by Mr. Reeder, and is located
in Pitkin County. The adjoining property to the east is a vacant lot as well. The
structures will be within the required 25 foot front yard setback, but will not conform to
the 10 foot rear and side yard setback requirements, due to the triangular narrow shape of
the lot. Mr. Reeder has no objections to the setback encroachments on the rear property
line and staff does not anticipate any objections from the property owner to the east as
that lot is currently vacant.
The applicant is requesting that the structures be allowed to remain on the vacant lot for a.
period not to exceed 90 days.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval for the temporary relocation of
two historic structures for a period not to exceed 90 days.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the request to temporarily
relocate two historic structures to a vacant lot located at the southern intersection of
S. Fifth Street and W. Hopkins, for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days."
DATE '/- / 7 -
CITY OF ASPEN
BOARD OF ADJUS 1 :IT
DEVELOPNIENT APPLICATION
l9 ,?7
APPLICANT tl*All
IMAMuNGADDRESS � �i• ���k ��/6 f4-
CASE Ir
PxorrE 5'.� S - 3/ Li Z
W, Cc, - FIC1-)12-
OWNER 114,4-v� Z c Pxc E 5- ?1-112
MAILING ADDRESS � � • � � � ��� � ��� C � - ���� �
LOCA I ION OF PROPERTY 0 3 l y g L O T -)I- W 11W Ir Uf
(Street, Block Number and Lot Number)
WILL YOU BE REPRESEI\= BY COUNCIL? YES_ NO � .
Below, describe cieariy the proposed variance, including all dimensions and'ustuicadon ror the
variance. (Additional caper :nay be used if necessary.' i ne ouilding, pe.11 t snpiication and any
oche: inrormazion you Teel is pertinent should accompany this aaplication. and will be made part of
this case. C_M A-rIV 7i 06S<D3 So) C Nl U V c %` ) �j`� / 0
Z�/�-� _
A410 t�f �o)C i m47-E-c7Y c� O
i�lCS
Applicant's Signature
REASONS FOR DENLkL OF BUILDING PERT IIT, BASED ON THE ASPEN CITY
CODE, CHAPTER '4. AN OPINION CONCERT III iG THIS VARL- <INCE WILL BE
PRESENTED TO THE BOARD BY TBE ZONING DEPARTN ENT STAFF.
DATE PERMIT DE:�D
OFFICIAL
DATE OF APPLICATION HEARING DATE
LOST D 1 AMONO, LTD.
P. 0. BOH 4859
Aspen, Colorado 81612
April 22, 1997
City of Aspen
Board of Adjustments
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Case #97-06, Niklaus Kuhn's Request For Variance fo r
Temporary storage of home and shed at Fifth & Hopkins.
Dear Members:
This Company owns the vacant property (identified as Parcel "C" on
the combined Plat) lying adjacent to and south of the proposed property
(Parcel "A") upon which Mr. Kuhn wishes to temporarly store his home and
shed.
This company supports Mr. Kuhn's restoration efforts and have no
objections to granting a waiver of the set -back requirements for the
temporary relocation and storage of a historic home of approximately
1,000. square feet and a historic shed of approximately 185 square feet
from 303 E. Main Street to the southside of Hopkins Avenue at the end of
Fifth Street, commencing of May 2, 1997 for a period of 90 days.
In addition, Mr. Kuhn has our permission to enchroach upon our
property in order to accommodate the temporary storage of his two
building.
Yours truly,
yle D. Reeder,
President
Idr se
LEGAL DESCRIP'►ION
f '
PARCEL A.
A tract of land situated in the Southeast Quarter of Sectic7 12,
Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M. being a pa:-: of the
City and Townsite of Aspen, -The M.W. (aka Marth Washington'' erode
Mining Claim U.S.M.S. No. 5793 and The Mary B. No. 2 Lode Mining
Claim, U.S.M.S. No. 19640, described as -follows:
Beginning at corner No. 1 of "the said M.W. Lode whence Corner No. 8 of
said Townsite o- Aspen bears S 60.58'301 E 3,268.56 feet;
thence N 76038, E 63.70 feet along line 1-5 of said M.W. Lode, to the
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
thence N-021126' E 342.40 feet to the South line'of Hopkins Street
whence the point of intersection of the said South line of Hopkins
Street' with line 1-6 of the Mary B. Lode. Mining Claim U.S.M.S. No.
5792 (Unpatented). bears N 750091110 W 62.75 feet;
thence S 750091211k £ 150.05 feet along said South line of Hopkins
'Street and its extension to the Northwesterly Corner of Lot A, Block
-32` of said City and Townsite of Aspen;
thence. Southerly along the Westerly line of said Lot *A, 66.77 feet to
.iine"3-4> of said H.W. Lode;
thence 855'..Sr $ 66.69 feet along said line 3-4 to Corner 4 of said
1'N.w. ''Lode;.- ; .. . .
.thence -3. 02*26*4 W 155 9 feet to Ccrner 5 of said M.W. Lode; _
<thence S 76038' a 196.05 feet along line 5-1 of said M.W. Lode to the
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL B:
THZ SOUTHERLY 20 FEET OF LOTS A,B, C, BLOCK 32, CITY AND TOWNSI-E CF
ASPEN.
.EXCEPT those tracts of land lying withir, the above Parcels A
conveyed by Stanford H. Johnson to Lost Diamond, Inc., by Deed
recorded November 17, 1986 is Book 522 at Page 836 and May 25, 1988
in Book.564 -att Page 863. ,
PARCEL C
.A tract of land situated in the Southeast Quarter of Section 12,
.Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., Pitkin County,
'Colorado, the M.W. (aka Martha Washington) Lode Mining Claim•U.S..M.S.
No. 5793 described as follows:
Beginning at Corner No__.2 of said M.W. Lode Miring Claim whence Corner
No. 8 of Townsite of Aspen, Colorado bears S 60'S8'30- E 3268.56 feet;
thence N 76.38, 63.70 feet along line 1-5 of said M.W. Lode Mining
Claim to the TRJr POINT OF BEGINNING;
thence N 02026' E 321.47 feet to Line 7-8 of the Townsite of Aspen;
thence S 55016, East along said line 7-8 to the Townsite of Aspen
223.15 feet; -
thence S 02026, W 155.90 feet;
thence S 76058' W 196.05 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL D :
A parcel of land being part of Lot 17, situated in Section 12,
.Township 10 South, Range 85 Nest of the fth P.M., lying Southerly of
'the Aspen City Southerly boundary, and Northwesterly of Line 2-3 of
.MW Survey No. 5793, which is further described as:
VA P
Beginning at the intersection of said Aspen boundary and ,Line 2-3,
alos being the Northeast Corner of said Lot 17;
thence S 76.38'000 W 14.8S feet along said Line 2-3 to the Southeast
Corner of Lot 17;
thence N S54201240-W 4.74 feet along said Lot 17 Southerly boundary;
thence N 02*261000 E-13.08 feet to a point on said Aspen boundary;
thence S 55.17'06- E 21.64 feet along said Aspen boundary to the
Northeast corner of said Lot 17, the point of beginning.
PARCEL E:
LOT 18 AND M.S. ?329, SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF
THE 6TH P.M.
COUNTY OF PITKIN, STA-t" OF COLORADO
rya
YI't' DIIIA
(Irtll
1
I
I
/
/
r I nt:
IIYOf!n!I
I�j /l l 'Irr�
I!IlEB I'2' nrr.l'5(:
S t.nI,IENI ! Y q?r,'q
! Ilk 527 rl 11, 5II AAIII I A(I NI
IU ENI A?r:! Itrl! Arrl.�� ��A /
\EASCAIiNt rlr.•,r,r't!'
RFCEI'JIiI" 40
VALVI
r
23�6 ti tll'kllArltl I' rl r:r i _ ��
QSf I I'�•.' i
10/
—•�CoPFj;
roN ;� • 2r Minlirl►UM.'
T)?oPf/P:m
i I' If1AI1 -5
4..E 1 �t.
� icy;.... r r•,
\\• _ , _ . ��!! CCU'. ,�.
303 EAST MAIN
SITE PLAN- — TEMPORARY RELOCATION
JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 4/17/97
`�' �` ti i. •i
r
97 FIRE
i... v HYDRANT
Z THM
2 ACCESS EASEMENT j
JK 522-836 SEE AGREEMENT (,7S
4 5 OQ . l 7,920,4
TO ENLARGE THIS ACCESS . 92 .
\Rr-�S -
EMENT RECORDED AS DGE OF E4S�RED
CEPTION NO . ( P
r 4v
NT
WATER LINES
UN -NUMBERED BLOC I
2376 K
BOOK 59 PAGE 461
o.
F � o
J P .
AREA 8 213 SO. FT. o 01
WNT'HIN THE CITY LIMITS P ,4
� ss.
1
� - YPC r 4 /
184
\ \ T -CO N/ �� .0
CASE #97-06
VACANT LOT AT SOUTH FIFTH AND WEST HOPKINS STREET
PROPOSED MOTION FOR APPROVAL:
I move to approve the request to temporarily relocate two historic
structures to a vacant lot located.at the southern intersection of
South Fifth Street and West Hopkins for a period not to exceed ninety
(90) days finding that all of the following circumstances exist:
1. A building permit has been (or will be) issued for the construction
activity necessitating the application .for a variance.
2. Notice of the proposed variance has been provided to surrounding
property owners in accordance with Section 26.52.060(E)(4)(b) of
the Aspen Land Use Regulations.
3. A variance is the only reasonable method by which to afford the
applicant relief and to deny a variance would cause the applicant
unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty.
4. The temporary off -site storage or construction staging can be
undertaken in such a manner so as to minimize disruption, if any,
of normal neighborhood activities surrounding the subject parcel.
5. The owner of the off -site parcel, subject to the proposed variance,
has provided written authorization for the off -site relocation.
6. Adequate provision has been made to restore the subject parcel to
its original condition upon expiration of the variance.
ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR DENIAL:
I move to deny the request to temporarily relocate two historic structures
to a vacant lot located at the sourthern intersection of South Fifth Street and
West Hopkins for a period not to exceed ninty days for for the reason that
the following review criteria have not been met:
Cite the criteria listed above that have not been met giving specific
reasons therefor:
County" Ain }
}
of Colorado }
.UTMAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION
SECTION 26. 2.060 (E)
I, , being or representing an
Applicant to the City of Aspen. personally certify that I have complied with the public notice
requirements pursuant to Section 26.52.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in the
following manner.
1. By mailing of notice. a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class. postage .
prepaid U.S. -Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (3-00) feet
of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the %day of
r +
_A& L, 199Twhich is ,a days prior to the public hearing date of
By posting a sign in a consaicuous plac, on the subiec: property ( as it could be
seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visibie
continuously from the �' _day of " C " 1997 (Must be posted for
at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the oostec
sign is attached hereto.
(Attach photograph here)
l
i,CD
i_yI4
C.UN711vO740r/1'S7 l�1 T/11:
fit//1
IA1-1' vo��
7# �IA, 5 T ON
05— W� /7,Ai/✓ s7 �- OOA
1
i
a
f�� ter✓ �� � . 1177 %!%%
'7C:HNS01t/ 57Ai✓/--OdZl7
/3 0 k S</C /
g14�12
Zef--Al -�/O�-- -
Z. VIA15-CAl- ��+A/
BOG. IOLc'�Ki�Os302
LZ V/N3�OIV L
P12
Z-70.- F/O/-/Z
���1��✓�iA�
GILL
FO 0 O.V A Z�A/
�U570it0_ _ TX__7_7v7y
--- __ ,�,�'cLC�t�f1ZT ✓ii7__--- —
- ------ ---- .... ..
_ Sc0i
ci7y _oF
a c3c
_ ic.�cl�G �c�N/{Z� �
6 0 17A-I�v :5 7W
0 13, E12 IZ; �4
o 41f 2F
617,
57 4
,e ZAI
/Ai 73U1
WITNESS LIST*
AGENDA ITEM:
-T-
NAME OF WITNESS:
Staff
S f Person
2.Al cK S L{
3. 7P&A�A;�s-,,�5T4
4. �.
.5.
6.
7. A(2� LLL�(I'-Vov- tk,41
9.
10.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
* Includes staff persons, but excludes staff attorney and board members.