Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ex.LotsF-I,Blk49.Vincenzi.1978 ~---_._",-""...~~~~- CIT MEMORANDUM DATE: September 7, 1978 TO: Richard ~ FROM: Ron St~~ RE: Subdivision Exemption Request - Lots F-I, Block 49, Original Aspen Townsite (Vicenzil I concur in the opinion expressed by Dave Ellis in his memorandum of August 22, 1978. This subdivision must be denied pursuant to Section 20-5(bl of the Municipal Code unless a variance is granted by the Board of Adjustment. RWS:mc '",- "'" \ l o. CITY OF ASPEN .. M~ :O~ R'CHARD GR'ce ~h ) 1 r i ~ .~~I . I '1l-u. f.or J. ~ ~ m-t. i ,).~I l)~ ~;:J. ; ~;u.~. cd'! I \ , I , I I I I I . 0' .. , ,., ,~ 1 ,0 MEMORANDUM TO: RICHARD GRICE PLANNING DAVE ELLIS ENGINEERING~ FROM: DATE: RE: August 22, 1978 Subdivision Exemption Request _ Lots F - I, Block 49, Original Aspen Townsite (Vincenzi) After having reviewed the improvement survey and appli- cation for this exemption, the engineering department finds only one problem. This is the lack of the required setback of the house from the west property line of Lot H. Likewise, if the shed is removed, the remaining brick garage would also lack ade- quate setback from the same lot line. Although the lot split into two 6,000 square feet parcels would create conforming lots for square footage, it would create two new non-conforming struc- tures with respect to the house and garage. Consequently, pur- suant to Section 20-5(b) of the Municipal Code, we would feel the exemption request should be denied unless a variance is granted by the Board of Adjustment. We also recommend that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for closer examination. jk . .- '~'~=:.~ .~ -~,:"{f:.;.:,' - . 3~ '~.';'-"":.... ._~,~. . -_.~ --:"'!::,: ~ =. . - _._-~ . # "~,'. - :..-~-~- ~--"...-:":'.' .,- f:. Ii , ; I, ~ Il -.-;' '---- -.- '---. --,- -",. - _.. '..... I .d ..~,,-,.. .. , - " , ~ .. " './-- , ~ <, c. , . l!""", "- '''I ......,./ , , .' .. "' ~ :1 '.1 J VICENZI & COMPANY July 26, 1978 Mr. Richard Grice City Hall Aspen, Colorado Dear Richard: Pursuant to Ordinance No.3 (Series of 1978) I would like to split lots F and G from lots H and I, Block 49, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. As you can see from the enclosed survey, the house presently sits on lots Hand I and is about 4 (four) feet from the western line of lot H. I would be willing to restrict any building on Lots Fand G to within 10 feet of the westerly line of lot H thus insuring at least 14(fourteen) feet befween the buildings. Unfortunately, the shed is in such bad repair that it will have to be removed when the brick garage is repaired. With the 10 foot deed restriction mentioned above in effect I feel that there will be adequate distance between the present garage and any other buildings erected on said lots F and G. If you have any questions concerning the above request, please do not hesitate to call. Cordially, ~d'~';~, George A. Vicenzi GAV:ch Enclosures. ... P.O. BOX 2236 ASPEN COLORADO 61611 PHONE 303-925-1196 .~ ~ .. . t'^"~ ~,.- '\, ~"",'" CITY O~y ;-\SPEN 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 AGENDA ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTHENT NOVEMBER 30, 1978 - 4:00 PM CITY COUNCIL CHN1BERS - CITY HALL ,~~ . C]/Z<< Pis (t&~{) If ?~~ ~.ULf 1M ~, ~I I. Approve Minutes II. New Business Case No. 78-12, George A. Vicenzi III. Adjourn ',- I' " o ~ . . Ir I- I' '1 I II : I I : I , I i , (-,. , . '''-. "J , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 00 Leaves fOlfll \0 C. r. ~O[C~rl Q_ Q. It l. co. Regular Ileeting As.pen Board of l',djus.tment October 5, 1973 A regular Qeeting of the Board of AdjustMent was. held on october 5, 1978, at 4:00 PH in the City Council Chambers. Acting Chairman Smith asked to table Case No. 78-10, llrs. Fred Iselin to November 19, 1978, due to a lack of quorwn. '- "'S4 #A~ \.1...:...-,. ........,,~ Sheryl S' ,~en, Deputy City Clerk .r ... . . > I t" " RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 00 Leaves J fOIl~'~ C, f. .IO<~~n. U. ~. It I. co. Regular !'lcctlng Aspen Board oIl\djustment October 19, 1978 The Aspen Board of Adjustment held a regular meeting on October 19, 1978, at 4:00 PH in the City Council Chambers. Hembers present were Remo Lavagnino, Charles Paterson, Fred Smith, Josephine Nann, llarilyn Beer and Francis ,vhitaker Also present was Building Inspector, Clayton Meyring. Approval of llinutes Uhitaker moved to approve', the minutes of June 22 and July 6, 1973, as is, Paterson seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Case No. 78-10, Mrs. Fred Iselin Lavagnino read the application. Application is made for a building permit to enclose an existing carpor't and ~?builda +3 foot addition. The proposed addition will extend 6 feet into the required front yard. The re- quired front yard is 10 feet. Lada vrany, representing the applicant, noted that applicant wishes to enclose the existing carport. enclosure will include a storage space on the east He showed drawings of the proposal. the The side. Lavagnino informed him of the guidelines of the Board and asked to see a practical difficulty or hardship. Vrany explained the need for the storage and noted that they will have to extend the roof. He noted that the house is nonconforming presently. Lavagnino asked if the existing carport can contain a vehicle. Vrany said yes. Smith found an error in the plans and Vrany ex- plained the problem. Mrs Iselin noted that the original survey done was incorrect and they lost about three feet in setback. Smith noted that the original survey was incorrect because of an erroneous benchmark. 'l'his affected ,many houses in this area. Lavagnino opened the public portion of the meeting, . Whitaker felt that with 9000 sqft, to build on, the applicant could find another place for this storage. Beer asked if there were any objections from neighbors. Hrs. Iselin said no. There were no written comments in the file or neighbors present to object. Mrs. Iselin noted that the other alternative space for this storage would require moving a lilac bush. Hhitaker noted that he has had success in moving lilac bushes. He could not see a hardship in this case. Smith stated that the erroneous survey was a sufficient hardship. He felt they should include in their motion a condition that she cannot reduce the setback any further after this additior Lavagnino noted that they cannot base this variance on the convenience viewpoint but the erroneous survey is a good basis. Hrs. Iselin stated that this "]Quld also save alot of heat in the building. Lavagnino stated that that could not be a consideration. Lavagnino closed the public portion of the meeting. Paterson felt this is a very minimal request, 11e under- stood the practical difficulties with the erroneous sur- vey. lIe had no objection to granting this request. He also noted that there were no objections from surroundin< property owners. ,i'hi taker agreed with this. !lann agree< with this. Smith noted for the record that he agreed totally with Paterson, Lavagnino agreed with this. " ~,~ Regular Meeting October 19, 1978 t Aspen Board of Adjustment Paterson moved to grant the requested 3 foot setback variance to allow the extension of the existing roof line and building line in the direction of 6th Street to conform with the lines of the existing building for the following reasons: 1) a hardship was developed due to an erroneous survey originally when the building was built, 2) it is a minimal request, 3) there are no ob- jections from surrounding property owners, 4) there will be no adverse affect on the General Comprehensive Plan, Smith seconded. Roll call vote: Whitaker, aye; Mann, aye; Smith, aye; Paterson, aye; Lavagnino, aye; motion approved. Lavagnino instructed the secretary to inquire from the City Attorney the status of a previous request to require the applicant to post a sign on the property that has applied for a variance stating the request and location and time of the meeting. Smith moved to adjourn the meeting, Whitaker seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Meeting adjourned at 4:45 PM. ~~~ Shery in~en, Deputy ) City Clerk , -r , I "...... ',-, ""' '-" RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 00 Leaves fO~""~ C. F. HO[CKn. a. 8. It L co. Regular lieeting I The Aspen Board of Adjustment held a regular meeting on November 2. 1978, at 1',: 00 PH in the City Council ChaIc1bers. Members present "ere Remo Lavagnino, ! Charles Paterson, Gil Colest,ock, Josephine Hann and l.jarilyn Beer. }\lso present I was Building Inspector, Clayton Neyring, and City Attorney; Ronald Stock. I Ca,se No. 78-11, Lavagnino read the case. Application is made for a I Aspen Industrial building permit to remodel an existing commercial building. Bank The proposed remodeling requires flooring over an exis'ting: atrium which will add 256 square feet of additional floor area. The existing building has an FAR of 1.83:1 where the maximum permitted PA~ is 1:1. No such nonconforming structure may be enlarged or altered in a way which in- creases its nonconformity. Aspen Board of Adjustment Novenber 2, 1978 Kent Schuler, president of Aspen Industrial Bank, was present. He stated the reason for closing the atrilw" area is for security. They will create a garden on the second level. The public has access to the building and, as it is presently set up, it is possible to overhear conversations on the second floor. They will have a large amount of currency on location and need better security. The Board of Directors will occupy the space below the ne.. floor. He produced a floor plan. lie showed the proposed floor and the accesses. Colestock asked that they clarify the hardship in this case. Schuler said the security element was the sole reason for the enclosure. The present setup makes it very vulnerable to a robbery. The conversations con- ducted in the building can be heard by others. The building is not easily protected by alarms. Beer asked if there have been any objections. Schuler said the rest of the tenants understand the need for this enclo- sure. Lavagnino felt that this is a self imposed hardship if another use could occupy this space ..ithout a security risk. Schuler stated that any other use would require this security. Lavagnino asked for comments from the public. There were none. Lavagnino asked Stock his opinion of the covenant. Stock said he felt it appropriately restricted their use of the property and was satisfied with the covenant. !.jeyring noted that this will be more safe from a fire standpoint. . Nann asked ho\'l the covenant will be filed for future reference. Heyring noted that this will be recorded but that they are often forgotten. Hann as]ced the secretary to instruct the Building Inspector to show evidence of this covenant in his files. Colestock read a letter from Thomas Hells clarifying the intention of the application. Stock asked that they require an additional covenant against any commer- cial use in this area to aid in exempting this from the GNP. Lavagnino closed the public portion of the meeting. " Paterson felt this is a minimal request with a legitimatE hardship. Hann agreed that there is a practical diffi- culty. She had confidence in the covenant. Beer agreed with this. "-'1- ..\- !' ,,"' -2- "" -' -"" Re'}ular Heeting Aspen Board of l\dj1lstment November 2, 1978 Colestock noted thRt this will increase the FAR to close to 2:1 where the requj,red is 1:1. He warned against opening this to future commercial use. Paterson noted that this is only IS' x 20'. Lavagnino felt the impor- tant point was that the security problem js not exclusive to the bank. Lavagnino opened the public portion of the meeting. Nann moved to grant the variance to increase the FAR because of practical djfficulties demonstrated by the applicant in the design of the atrium of the building which makes security a problem not exclusive to the banking use. There is a covenant to maintain this area as noncommercial use which will be recorded. This will have no adverse affect on the GCP, Paterson seconded. Roll call vote: Beer, aye; Paterson, aye; Colestock, aye; Mann, aye; Lavagnino, aye. All in favor, motion approved. Stock noted that he received their instruction to pursue a requirement that the applicant for a variance post notice on the property. Mann moved to adjourn the meeting, Beer seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Meeting adjourned at 4:45 PM. City Clerk . , , ) : r , , t- ~ , . ,.j I L._I II !,e/-/F-', -;i~ ]..7";-; '. ,DATE November 10, 1978 APPELLMH Geor~eA. Vicenzi CASE NO, 7f\-/?- ADDRESS Box 223"g, Aspen, Colorado I I I I SAME PHONE 925-1196 ADDRESS OriN E R LOCATION OF PROPERTY 201 ',"est Francis, Aspen, CO. (Lots F. G, H. I, BL, 49, City of Aspen, CO, ) (Street & Number of Subdivision' Blk. & Lot No. r-- Building Permit Application and prints or any other pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part of CASE NOo IY~/:2- , ' TilE BOARD HILL RETURN THIS APPLICATION IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ALL THE FACTS IN QUESTION. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EXCEPTION SHO\olING JUSTIFICATImIS: Please See attached LETTER. Will you be represented by counsel? Yes No X . -- - ,'.'/ -" h /. . , , SIGNED: ,\,);--d!.V/c7 -;;:f4,-uy Appell all,t ." PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR TO FORWARD THIS APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND REASON fOR NOT GRANTING: APPLICATION IS MADE FOR A VARIANCE TO DIVIDE FOUR EXISTING LOTS INTO TWO TWO-LOT BUILDING SITES, The proposed division would leave an existing one family dwelling with approximately a three foot side yard and an existing accessory building with no side yard. The required side yard for a principal building and accessory building is five feet. Section 24-3.4 Area and Bulk Require- ments R-6 Zoning District Chief Building Jnsp~ctor Status - Signed Clayton 110 Meyring PERMIT REJECTED, DATE APPLICATION FILED ~lAlIED DECISION DATE 111;_ / DA TE I FilE A In N G __~~_:zB _____ SECRETAR\'.~~_~~__ , , . ~- ,...... '-' /'", -.../ November la, 1978 To: Board of Zoning Adjusbnent City Hall Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Members of the Board: I am requesting a variance from the setback requirements of the zoning code, specifically the side setback requirements for the house and garage on Lot H, Block ~9, Aspen, Colorado. The variance is needed in order to subdivide Lots H and I and Lots F and G. The existing garage, located on Lot H, is a valid non- conforming exception to rear setback requirements; it was constructed in 1889, well before any such requirements. The problem arises because the Code appears to prohibit the creation of a new non-conforming structure, and the proposed subdivision would result in the house and garage extending into the side setback on the westerly side of Lot H. I feel that the variance should be granted because it meets the criteria set therefore. In addition, I am willing to extend the setback line on the easterly portion of Lot G from the required five feet to ten feet, in order that the total distance between the westerly end of the existing house on Lot H and what would be the easterly end of any new house on Lot G would be at least equal to and greater than the distance between them with the code required side setbacks. I It is clear that the special conditions and circumstances were not a result of my actions. The house was constructed well before any setback requirements. Obviously, had there been such requirements at the time of construction, the owners would merely have had to place the house and garage five feet to the east, a simple matter before construction, but a difficult, if not impossible, task now. "Other properties in the same vicinity and zone" are not generally so adversely affected. Some buildings have been built since the adoption of setback requirements, and thus their owners have had the opportunity of avoiding the problem. Others are on one, two or three lots, and are unable to create two conforming parcels of property (i.e. each containing at least 6,000 square feet). The granting of the variance is "essential to the enj oyment of a substantial property right enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone" because, but for the minor setback problem, others would be able to have two single family residential dwelling sites on four lots. " .', .;~'- 11 il 'I !I 'I \1 .. r^, 2 ~... " .......... ,J Finally, and perhaps most impOl.'tantly, granting the variance "will not adversely affect the gencral purposc of the comprehensive genel'al plan." Indeed, granting .the variance will enhance the comprehensive general plan 0 Although there are several reasons for this, two are particularly important. The firs't is 'that potential density will not be increased if the variance is gran'ted. This is so because under existing zoning I could build a duplex (i.c. add a unit to the existing residence), thus having a density of two dwellings. I I i l , The second is that if the variance is not granted, the aesthetic integrity of a historic building, one of the grandest examples of Victorian architccture, could be jeopardized. If the variance is granted, it would remain a single family dwelling, and, given its size and historic and impressive architecture, not likely to be materially changed on the exterior. If the variance is not granted, only as a last choice, I will have to consider changing the present house into a duplex, and perhaps condominiumize the duplex, in order to afford to keep the propertyo This would clearly more "adversely affect the general purpose of the comprehensive general plan" that would be granting of a variance by virtue of a minor deviation from side setback requirements. Critical elements of the general plan are to "preserve our areas of historical importance" and '~o maintain the natural scenic beauty of... the Roaring Fork Valley" as well as '~reservation of our viability as a tourist area." It must be generally recognized that one of Aspen's unique attractions to tourists is the Victorian architecture, which is so well cxemplified by the '~owland house." That house, and the other classic examples, is what distinguishes Aspen from other ski areas such as Vail, Keystone, Copper Mountain, etc. The Victorian houses show that Aspen was a "town" with significance and character well before skiing was thought of. Surely we should take reasonable steps to insure the preservation of these historic structures. t I am prepared to minimuze the, effect of the granting of the requested variance. I will, if the Board requests, restrict building on Lot G to a line ten feet to the west of the easterly boundary of Lot G, which would, if effect, create a distance ben~een the existing '~owland house" on Lot H and any struc.ture on Lot G more than equal to that setback which would be in effect if the Rowland house were situated in conformity with current side setback requirements. Obviously the primary purposes of side setback requirements are to establish a mimimum distance ben~een adj acent structures (particularly residential) and to preserve a measure of "open space." I can meet these objectives by establishing a 'new" setback line on Lot G~ In doing so, and by granting the requested variance the Board can preserve, perhaps forever, an integral part of our past. Cordially, ~' ~t/:~ George A. Vicenzi , ' I"~ - ~' ';1 ill , .. i , it I I I ! ,I I ! ~/ ...-.,.-.--.....,-- -- ~ Ci f- ill ill U 7 ~ u_ :\ ,j ;,\ 'i " u " j ~ ~ " Ii " " " f\ :.', :j .) :-! --;J - Ii , , "t-- - ~" r~- .; 1- rj 8' p' ", ~ <.---.. J I, ~i 'J 1- o I n., d' ,.:J" '-0; !~ : ,I .- II 1> c , . ~ . C".>' J.:3::1:U (~ .L<z:,{:J 1::1 ,::.c: Cy- N (.; ,.._-0,"" .....,; ,-.,?,::'-{) " -t'- " j f -I "'I r -=:;- _-t~__L ,J . " , ' _ _ _ _0< , " 1. a.'. , ~ o ,.I '(l ,,~ t"\ ;.,1,{j ':',>" u1 1 ,;-,9 "t (f' ,I' ,", ,7; S' .lJ --;:A 1--- " -- f' , ~, " ., " r:' ['t ;i') 11 ~i :n, ~;' , ~. ~-,: R o , .. <:" 1 ~ " 'I' " ! c, j .., ~~ ,~ t1 ~ f\ 3 'j u 2 ? - " ~i " <lI ;:, " 1 (" 1 ',.1 1 '. f 1 I j j f . 1 , ! . (, ':' 0, 'I :(; :i . b AL l)~' "Ii_ H'S POLIC', 1\!11CrC.' lO,/lIj!f) ,,' ~, , ,,", ",/ SCHEC'ULE A Order No,: 7929-C3 Policy ~Jo,: 0 234046 Date of Pol icy: July 19, 1978 at 8:00 Ao~. Arn(..Jl'l'; ""ranee: S 285,000000 1. Name of I nsu red: GEORGE A. VICENZI 2, The estate or interest in the land described herein and which is coveted by this policy is: in fee simple 0 3, The estate or interest referred to herein is at Date of Policy vested in: GEORGE Ao VICENZI 4, The land referred to in th is policy is described as follows: Lots F, G, H, and I Block 49 CITY AND TO,mSITE OF ASPEN County of Pitkin, State of Colorado 0 Paqe 2 ~ 'll l'~ '\T J. '\ l~ '1" 'l~ I'r I ~ I.~ btlAIlA:>;TY C(I~PASY ----'-.,---~....$._."_._- r'.' ~'~'_._--"'-"~'-""""~--""" ~ -,,,,-,-- _...._,.__oJ,...........__...........----.c.~~..........____.____'__'__~....~_"'~L......"....., -", /' '" AL TA OWNER'S POLICY MOdil,""-...fO, 13 , SCHEDULE B Policy No.: 0 234046 This policy does not insure against loss or damage by reason of the following: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Eclsements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any fhacts W1hiChl a correct survey and inspection of tile premises would disclose and which are not sown )y t 1e public records. 4. i'\ny lien, or ri,Jht to it lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law alld Imt SI1O\\111 by the pulJlic records. 5.Taxes for the year 1978 and thereafter, and any special assessment or charges not yet certified to the office of the County Treasurer, 6.All gold, silver, cinnabar or copper, or any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws, as reserved in instrument recorded October 13, 1887 in Book 59 at page 340 7.Any tax, assessment, fees or charges by reason of the inclusion of subject property in Aspen Fire Protection District, Aspen Sanitation District, Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation District, Aspen Street Improvement District, The City of Aspen and Aspen Valley Hospital District 0 8.Deed of Trust from George A. Vicenzi to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County for the use of Harold TI.owland and Peggy Jo Rowland to secure $203,000.00, dated June 29, 1978 and recorded June 30, 1978 in Book 350 at page 806. H '1" 14: '\" ..\.I{ '1" '1' I '1' J ..I~ VICENZI & COMPANY July 26, 1978 Mr. Richard Grice City Hall Aspen, Colorado Dear Richard: Pursuant to Ordinance No. 3 (Series of 1978) I would like to split lots F and G from lots H and I, Block 49, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. As you can see from the enclosed survey, the house presently sits on lots Hand I and is about 4 (four) feet from the western line of lot H. I would be willing to restrict any building on Lots Fand G to within 10 feet of the westerly line of lot H thus insuring at least 14(fourteen) feet between the buildings. Unfortunately, the shed is in such bad repair that it will have to be removed when the brick garage is repaired. With the 10 foot deed restriction mentioned above in effect I feel that there will be adequate distance between the present garage and any other buildings erected on said lots F and G. If you have any questions concerning the above request, please do not hesitate to call. Cordially, ~d'~';~, George A. Vicenzi GAV:ch Enclosures. P.O. BOX: 2238 ASPEN COLORADO 81611 PHONE 303-925-1196 " M E M 0 RAN DUM TO: RICHARD GRICE PLANNING FROM: DAVE ELLIS ENGINEERING~ August 22, 1978 DATE: RE: Subdivision Exemption Request - Lots F - I, Block 49, Original Aspen Townsite (Vincenzi) After having reviewed the improvement survey and appli- cation for this exemption, the engineering department finds only one problemo This is the lack of the required setback of the house from the west property line of Lot Ho Likewise, if the shed is removed, the remaining brick garage would also lack ade- quate setback from the same lot line. Although the lot split into two 6,000 square feet parcels would create conforming lots for square footage, it would create two new non-conforming struc- tures with respect to the house and garageo Consequently, pur- suant to Section 20-5(b) of the Municipal Code, we would feel the exemption request should be denied unless a variance is granted by the Board of Adjustment 0 We also recommend that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for closer examination. jk ~ , M E M 0 RAN DUM TO: Dave Ellis, City Engineer Mark Danielsen, Housing Director FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office RE: Vincenzi Subdivision Exemption DATE: August 2, 1978 Please find enclosed a copy of the V~ncenzi Subdivision Exemption request, which is made in accordance with Ordinance #3 of the Series 1978. This matter is exempt from Growth Management Reviews because of Ordinance #3 which exempts a subdivision which results in the creation of one additional single family building site when there is a house already on the property. I have tentatively scheduled the matter for public hearing on September 6, 1978. May I please have your comments by August 30. Thank you.