HomeMy WebLinkAboutlanduse case.boa.1425Red-Butte.010-87
r -'- -
I
-0
o
~t
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Case 187-10 / Toddy Wynne
BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
:,..
/
TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE
VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOd:
,-
Pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen of June 25, 1962, as
amended, a public hearing will be held in the Council Room, City
Hall, Aspen, Colorado. (or at such other place as the meeting may
be then adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said
Board of Adj,ustment requesting authority for variance from the
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24, Official Code of
Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited
to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you
cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to
state 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.
The particulars of the hearing and of the requested variance are
as follows:
.-'~~
Date-- and Time of l,leetinq:
Date:
Time:
August 13, 1987
4:00 p.m.
Owner for Variance:
A P pella n--t - for
Variance:
Name: Toddy Wynne
Address: 1425 Red Butte Dr.
Harry Mayer Const.
Location or-description of property~
Location:
1425 Red Butte Dr.
Aspen, Colorado
Variance Requested: Property is located in the R-30 zoning
,category. Side yard setback is 10 ft. Sec. 24-3.7 Area and Bulk
requirements. Applicant appears to be requesting to encroach
with an attached garage 1 & 1/2 to 3 ft into the northerly side
setback.
"'ill appl icant be represented-bv - counsel:
Yes:~ No~~
The City of Aspen Board of -Adjustment
130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611
Remo Lavagnino, Chaiman Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk
'-
.
;
,J
.
i
t
I
-I
I
l
I
I
I
/'
,)
('
(
l
BOARD - OF -ADJlJSTMENTS
RECORD-OF PROCEEDINGS
AUGUST 13-. 1987
Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4:10 pm.
ROLL - -cALL
Answering roll call were Charlie Paterson, Josephine Mann, Rick
Head and Ron Erickson. Francis Whitaker and Anne Austin were
excused.
MINO'l'ES- f>F-JULY-2 -.-- -1987
Ron Erickson made a motion to approve the minutes of July 2,
1987.
Charlie Paterson seconded the motion with all in favor.
MINO'l'ES-OF-JULY 16.---1987
Dale Potvin,
I listened to
There was a question as to whether the applicant,
had said "zoning" in his presentation on page 2.
the tape and he did use the word "zoning".
After 2 corrections Rick Head made a motion to approve the
minutes of July 16, 1987.
Charlie Paterson seconded the motion with all in favor.
CASE-187-10 -'fOIIDY WYftNE
Property is located in the R-30 zoning category. Side yard
setback is 10 ft. Sec. 24-3.7 Area and Bulk requirements.
Applicant appears to be requesting to encroach with an attached
garage 1 & 1/2 to 3 ft into the northerly side setback.
Harry Mayer representing Toddy Wynne: Affidavit and posting were
both presented to the Board.
There is two homes right there that used to be a subdivision
called the Quillen Subdivision. There is an empty lot on the
corner. By the map you can see the neighbor I s house with a
former property line. And now that new property line. It was
done by the previous owner of both homes and lots and was done
over the head of the City. It was taken to Denver to a higher
court and they made them allow. The City did not want to allow
this split.
Remo:
,
This was a lot split?
1
"...
"-'
1"""'\
c
Harry Mayer: No, it was a change of a lot.
Ron: Re-alignment of a lot line.
Rick: A lot line adjustment.
Harry: Lot line adjustment. The reason being it was a non-
conforming house. They needed more space to do their addition
and they wouldn't let them. They sued the City. They sued every
neighbor.
Rick Head: There was also a covenant in the subdivision that
prevented this as well. This was in the early 80s.
Remo: Why did it not come as a matter of procedure to this
Board?
(
Rick: It was a battle with Council I believe and the City
attorney.
Harry: So that is how that line got moved over. As you see the
square footage right now the Lot A which is not the lot we are
dealing with is a larger lot now, 31,776. Wynne's lot is
30,000. It could have been evenly distr ibuted and would have
solved my problem here. I have come up with a few other
al ternatives if this doesn't happen. One is possibly for Wynne
purchasing 2 or 3 feet of the neighbor I s property. We need 10
feet. I have talked with the neighbor who has Lot 12A and he
understands my problem. He didn't mind it at all.
Practical difficulties: I am not sure of the wording whether
that means practical sense or if that is one of the only
solutions, or reasonable.
The way the house is situated, as you face the house and you look
at the left side, there a lot of trees. Presently I understand
there is no driveway but it could be put in. I am not saying
that it is not impossible to put a garage on the other side. I
could be. There is room in the yard to put it with setbacks.
l
Charlie: You are saying you would lose trees on that side.
Harry: You would lose trees, whereas on the other side I would
lose a half-dead Aspen and one other Aspen.
I feel the owners were somewhat misrepresented when they bought
their lot. There is a big burm between the homes where it looks
like that is my yard and that is your yard. I know when I
purchase property I would get that marked and all the corners
marked before. There was supposed to be a certified survey. I
know it was the owner's fault for not doing it but if you would
- look at the property, there is a burm so that the stake east of
2
.
.
the burm is the lot line.
( Then by the code "The applicant must present facts to prove such
difficulties and hardships. The Board rarely finds practical
difficulties or unnecessary hardships where applicants appeal as
a matter of aesthetics or design or economics where a reasonable
legal alternative is available."
It is not reasonable to put it on
into so many problems with trees.
this town, it is another meeting.
the other side. I have run
To get a tree taken down in
Remo: If we grant a permit to build something that has a 7 inch
diameter tree in the middle of it, which takes precedent over it-
our variance or the tree? We will have to get an opinion on
that.
Rick: There doesn't necessarily have to be a garage on either
the east or west side, it could go in the back. You could have a
driveway that goes right around in the back. That is all flat
and buildable. I know it is taking up nice yard space.
Harry: It could.
rest of the way.
I agree there is a lot--It is a huge lot the
(
Josephine:
garage?
Are the owners feeling they really need an attached
Harry: It is attached to the house but it does not enter the
house. They go outside a little bit under an overhang. There is
no direct access to the house from the garage.
Then the code says "The following shall be considered valid
reasons for granting a variance: That the special conditions and
circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant."
That is the lot line.
Then "The granting of the variance is essential to the enjoyment
of a substantial property right enjoyed by other the properties
in the same vicinity and zone." As I drove down the next house
on the left you see a garage on one side and a garage on the
other. I could not find a property line. I don't know if they
are encroaching or not. As I drive through the neighborhood
everyone else is able to enjoy a garage.
Remo: We are not denying you that property right. You could
still get a garage on this property. Perhaps not where you
particularly want it. If this were a lot where it was really
small and there was no other place to put this then you might
have a case, plus the fact that the garage is not a necessity. It
is an amenity according to the code.
,
l
3
o
~
Harry: I know this is not a great argument but this
( misrepresenting--if you look at the way the driveway comes in--
(
l
Ron: But you have other recourse on that.
misrepresentation, or the former owner.
Sue the realtor for
Harry: To put it behind the house, I would have objections from
the neighbor next door. Their living area is located in such a
way that this would be quite an obstruction.
Remo: But you would be allowed to put it there. Maybe that is a
good point for them to give you the extra 3 feet here on the side
as far as the alternative.
Rick: It is an adjustment I doubt you will ever get. It was
litigation to the Supreme Court of Colorado on this whole thing.
Remo: Only because the City objected to it.
Harry: It is only a matter of 500 sq ft to give away. It is not
even the whole lot line. As far as space, I could see a problem
if this were close to a neighbor encroaching into the setback but
there is a lot of room between.
Remo: The lot line change was done under a single ownership, is
that right?
Harry: Yes. There is a third undeveloped lot. This is the only
line that was changed. The original owner no longer owns any of
the three lots. It is not listed as Red Butte Subdivision or
Black Birch. Red Butte is an R-30. 300 feet down the street is
an R-15 where you have 5 ft setback.
Rick: He has created a new subdivision. That is why he was
mired in this battle because he tried to take 2 lots and turn
them into 3 lots. He had the density to do that but the
subdivision had covenants against it and the City took the
posture that it could not be done. He fought it to the Supreme
Court and prevailed. He had enough land on the two lots to turn
it into three lots. But that has no bearing on our
consideration.
Remo: What is the mlnlmum width of the garage, you have a 9 ft
width garage door and you have 13 feet--
Harry: There is a wall there. It is a solid wall going up.
Even if I take that off, I am still in the setbacks.
Remo: You are getting rid of
yard setback. It would just
probably be about 1 foot.
2 feet. You wouldn't have the rear
be the front corner and it would
4
'.'",
--'
(
Harry: At my own house I have a 10 ft wide garage and I have a
Subaru. You can go in and just get out of the doors. It is only
13 feet. I have given him actually 11 ft inside to make it able
to get the car door open against that one wall.
Rick: I hate to get into these kind of things of redesigning his
house but I can see other ways of resolving this problem without
having to grant a variance. They have already given you an
easement, the burm runs along here anyway. Maybe they will give
you another easement to let you drive in.
Harry: You get into big trees there. There are 4 trees at least
to cut out to come in any other way to the garage on this side.
The neighbor was a little upset at first. I said we are going to
match the siding, roof and windows. It is going to look like it
has always been there if I am allowed to do it.
(
Remo asked if there were any other questions. There were none
and he closed the public portion of the meeting.
All Board members complimented Harry on his presentation.
Rick: I do not see a hardship demonstrated here. We have seen
this garage question time and time again. There are a number of
other possibilities for putting a detached garage elsewhere on
the property that would not require us to grant a variance.
There have been numerable problems with respect to the neighbors --
in the Red Butte Subdivision on these properties historically and
I think we are opening up another can of worms if we grant
variance on this. I prefer to wait till the applicant appeals to
Council for relief by way of a lot line adjustment.
Ron: There are other alternatives as I see it to get this done.
We have identified certain areas where you could get help from
the neighbors.
Josephine: This is one of the cases that we run into from time
to time where there is lots of space but not in the right
position or not accessible. But there is not a strong enough
case here for us to grant a variance.
l
Charlie: First of all I consider this a minimal request.
Second, I really consider it a hardship when the lot line is
changed after a house has been built.
Remo: But not after the purchaser bought it.
Charlie: The point being, if that property line was there when
the house was built, the house would have been built down another
15 or 20 feet. And because the house was put there, I consider
this a hardship. It is another case where there seems to be
plenty of land but the location of the garage anywhere else does
5
(
(
l
'"
J""\
........<'
not make a lot of sense. Th is is the only pI ace for thi s
particular house that this location makes any sense. First of
all the driveway location, second the window location on the
other end of the house where the living room is and third, access
to the back of the house would be quite difficult. I would be in
favor of granting this variance.
Remo: I think the applicant has the dubious honor of glvlng one
of the best presentations and being shot down in flames by not
being granted the variance. But I don't think all the avenues
have been exhausted. One of them, if he had come to us and said
I spoke to the owner of Lot 12A and he is adamant about not
giving me 1 or 2 feet--that is an avenue that has not been
explored, an avenue we don't have information on. If anything,
the owner might be amenable to giving him a foot or whatever is
required because he doesn't want to see the garage behind the
house. And there are alternatives within the framework of the
lot itself so I would be against granting this variance.
Rick made a motion to deny request for variance on Case 87-10.
Ron seconded the motion.
Roll call vote: Ron Erickson, yes, Rick Head, yes, Josephine
Mann, yes, Charlie Paterson, no, Remo Lavagnino.
Charlie made a motion to adjourn.
Rick seconded the motion with all in favor.
The time was 4:50 pm.
'~ 1 fJ
: - . - f
__L ',-' 1L1m a.!_ 'tt12tJ1tJ:::._____
Jani '. M. c"na~C1ty o.P,% C1,,'
,
6
^,
CITY-DF ASPEN
BOARD OF-ADJUSTMENT
AUGUS'l'-l-3.1987
4: OO--P-.-M.
A G-E-N DA
I. ROLL CALL
II. MINUTES OF JULY 2, 1987
MINUTES OF JULY 16, 1987
III. NEW BUSINESS
Case #87-10 / Toddy Wynne
IV. ADJOURNMENT
,
(
I
"'-
~
-- .
\'" -/
"
,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
JULY 2. 1987
Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm.
ROLL CALL
Roll call was taken with all members present.
MINUTES OF MAY 28. 1987
. .
Josephine Mann made a motion to approve the minutes of May 28,
1987.
Charlie Paterson seconded the motion with all in favor.
CASE 187-9 -/DALE 'SALLY PO'l"VIN
After discussion pertaining to impropei posting, the Board
decided to table this case to date certain of July 16, 1987.
Charlie made a motion to postpone this case to JUly 16, 1987.
Anne Austin seconded the motion with all in favor.
CASE 187-1/~MAS , HARRIET LARKIN
Harriet Larkin: I gave you all a new copy of the survey in which
I shaded the setback on our lot. I appeared before this Board on
May 28, 1987 and I feel that my presentation was not clear enough
about the unnecessary hardship of the layout of the lot. I
brought this in to show what a large portion of our lot is in
setback. Our front line is 181 feet long on the street and 100
feet on the side and 140 feet in the back.
The whole lot is 8,082 sq ft. The setbacks take over 5,000 sq ft
of the lot. This is more than 2/3 of the lot. This leaves just
1/3 of the lot to build upon. According to the information the
Board of Adjustments gave me, the decision on whether to grant a
variance is based on Section 2-22(d) items 1,2,3 & 4 page l56 of
the Aspen Municipal Code which states these valid reasons for
granting a variance.
#1. "The special conditions and circumstances do not result from
action of the applicant." Clearly the unusual shape of this lot
with 181 ft frontage was done when the subdivision was platted
and is not of our making.
#2. "Special or extraordinary circumstances apply to the
subject property that do not apply similarly to the other
1
,
o
J""\
.
properties in the same vicinity or zone." The other lots in
Calderwood do not have such large frontages on the street and are
not penalized by such extreme amounts of footage and setbacks.
Some of the lots have 30 ft frontage, some are 40 ft and some are
50 ft frontage. We should be entitled to what other property
owners in this same area have. They lose much less of their lots
due to setbacks and their lots are smaller. The granting of a
variance will not adversely affect the purpose of the
comprehensive plan.
No property owners notified have objected and the ones in the
immediate area who would be affected the most have been very
supportive. I have letters from neighbors on both sides of me
who are supporting this request and more who are here today in
support of this request. The only variance I am asking is 15
feet instead of 30 feet on the street side.
Remo asked for comments from the Board.
Ron Erickson: Are you moving this garage closer to the house so
that it is 10 ft from the house now?
Harriet: It has to be at least 10 feet from the house. If it is
attached the setback is 10 feet. If it is an accessory building,
its setback is 5 feet.
Remo asked for comments from the public.
Susan Resnick: I live about 3 houses down from this property and
I can't imagine why they would not get this variance. They have
more greenery than anybody else in our neighborhood. It is a
fairly congested area but their's is certainly the most open. I
think the impact from this would be minimal.
Olaf Hedstrom: The Larkins are very responsible, respectful
people who wouldn't think of doing anything to harm the
neighborhood. I, as a resident, am concerned about 2 particular
things in the community; fairness and the maintenance of the
appearance in our community. Number 1, I don't think this would
be an objectionable structure. Number 2, I think it grossly
unfair to deny the variance because of the unique form of their
property compared to all the others. The failure to provide the
variance would, I think, be grossly unfair to them.
John Hayes of 1112 Waters: I can see no unfavorable impact
whatsoever from this proposed variation. On the contrary the
amount of open space they have around their house and the siting
of the garage as they propose would seem to us to maintain the
allure of that particular part of Waters Avenue.
Pete McClain of 1110 Waters: I am here on behalf of Harriet
Larkin., I think that any improvement like this on the cuI de
2
-
sac, you should not even have to think about. It would be
getting automobiles off the street and it would be a tremendous
improvement to the whole cuI do sac and I think that everybody
who lives there feels the same way. I can't imagine why the City
would even think about turning down a variance like this. Those
automobiles being off the street would make it simpler in the
winter to have the street plowed. I think it would be a real
nice improvement to the whole cuI do sac and I hope that you find
in favor of this variance and let the Larkins take care of it
right away.
Remo asked for further public comments. There were none and he
closed the public portion of the meeting.
Letters from Richard Lewis and Leslie Holst were then read into
the record as attached. Both were in support of this variance.
Josephine Mann: I said last time that I thought the shape of the
lot was a real hardship. Now we are told almost 2/3 of the lot
is in setbacks not to be built upon. This re-enforces my feeling
that this is a real hardship. I spent a lot of time looking at
that today because I had said last time that garages are not a
necessity. We have to really think hard about granting such a
variance and so I went back and looked at that to see if I could
agree with what I had said last time about thinking that this
would not fit in with the spirit of the general plan. I decided
I would change that because of the amount of space there. They
have a larger lot than many of the other people do. That would
be one thing that would be an advantage. It is also an advantage
to get another vehicle off the street. I am also very favorably
impressed with how the neighborhood feels about this and so I am
willing to grant this variance.
Rick Head then asked to excuse himself from this application
because of a conflict of interest.
Ron Erickson: I think the shape of the lot does present a
hardship. I would grant a minimal variance which would mean
moving the garage to lO feet from the building, move it back 3
feet on the lot so that it would not be inside the setback.
Remo: You have to remember the reason that they COUldn't move it
to the minimum variance was they couldn't turn the car around to
get into that side.
Anne: At the last meeting, I was opposed to this because I
didn't see a hardship in needing to have a garage. Now that I
have seen this presented a lot more clearly as far as the
setbacks go and how much of the property she is losing due to the
setbacks, I think there is a real hardship because of the shape
of the property. I think it is something that has happened since
they purchased the property as far as the zoning changes. The
3
"....,
'-../
""'"
setbacks changed since the house was built.
in favor of granting the variance now. It
and the applicant has done the best she can
as compact an area as possible.
I would be very much
is a minimal impact
to set the garage in
Francis: I don't find this a hardship in the shape of the lot.
I noticed that it is 8,000 sq ft which is 2,000 sq ft more than
the average building site. The real hardship was created when
the house was built in the location that it is. It is also in
the R-15 zone which requires 15,000 sq ft. I would agree it
would be a minimal variance to put the garage. I really think it
would make better sense to back the back of the garage up to the
rear yard setback and that would be the minimum variance and it
would make it easier access from the street. I would vote for it
if the garage were turned so it is parallel or at right angles to
the rear yard lot line and not parallel to the front yard lot
line.
Charlie: I really don't need to add anything to what I said at
the last meeting. I do feel the shape of the lot does cause a
hardShip. I would be favorably inc1 ined to grant a variance
exactly how it was asked for today. However, I would yield to
the Board members if they were going to vote no and go along with
changing the configuration of how the garage should sit. I would
be more inclined to grant the variance on the basis of the way it
was asked.
Ron: I think substantial justice would be done if we granted the
variance as requested. I changed my mind. I don't want to re-
design anybody's garage.
Remo: I would love to give Harriet her variance but according to
our guidelines, I don't see how we can. She mentioned those 4
valid reasons for granting a variance but they have to be
prefaced by showing a hardship or a practical difficul ty first
before you can apply those. Those are just guidelines for us for
granting a variance. I don't think they are being denied of
property rights. This is not a necessity. This is an amenity.
The arguments of automobiles being off the street don't totally
alleviate the problem as we all know. They get converted into
other uses, storage, cars are always on the street. In this
partiCUlar case, the car could always park on the property from
testimony that was given at the last meeting. So those arguments
don't have validity anyway because the use of what goes on inside
this structure can change. I would not grant this variance.
Josephine: After going through all this and noting that we were
told that a minimum variance means that substantial justice is
done, maybe not just in the minimum amount of square feet but a
bigger concept than that, I would maintain that the difference
between those two square footages is not very big.
4
-<'" '-
"
The members then came up with a figure of 80 sq ft as being the
difference of footage between setting the garage where the
appl icant asked and turning the garage as suggested by some of
the Board members. Some felt this was an insignificant amount in
comparison to the size of the lot.
Ron: The lady is losing 5,000 sq ft of her lot because of an
ordinance that was passed after she built her house.
Remo: I agree with Francis in that that was not the best place
to place the house.
Anne: But that was done before the zoning regulations.
Remo: But you buy a house with that idea that the house is in
place. And those are the ramifications that come from the house
being in that configuration.
Anne: What I am saying is that I believe that the Larkins bought
the house before the regulations went into effect.
Remo: My argument is entirely different. I don't care about the
minimum variance. My argument is it is an amenity and not a
necessity. We don't have to supply them a garage.
Francis: The code says that we must grant the minimum variance
to make reasonable use of the property. I maintain that if one
variance that is proposed is twice as big as the other that we
should grant the minimum variance. To me it makes sense because
it provides better access from the street.
Fred Gannett: In terms of the minimum letter of the law, that
has been interpreted not to mean an absolute one way or the
other, but as to what is substantially fair. Those are the terms
that are used in all the cases related to the Board of
Adjustment. Substantial justice is the guideline.
Francis: I am suggesting that minimum var iance that I see as
possible plus providing better access.
Anne: Do you know for a fact that that will work?
Remo: We weren't presented with any evidence as to exactly where
those trees are so we are going on the assumption that this is
feasible because basically we are talking about a connection of a
little portion of the driveway.
Fred: If the Board felt that it would be helpfUl in
decision, they could take what is called a jury view.
could meet at some at some time and place so as to see
would help them in making a decision.
reaching a
The board
whether it
5
c
~
Remo: I think that is an excellent idea. Even though I am not
going to vote for it I still think it a good idea in fairness to
the applicant and to the Board's true understanding of what the
problem is. If they are going to grant this variance it would be
behoove us to go on the site and take a look at it.
Josephine: I move that we all go the site and continue our
meeting at the site.
Ron seconded this motion with all in favor.
The time was 5:20 pm.
The meeting was continued on the Larkin Property at 5:35 pm. This
on-site study resulted in a motion made by Francis Whitaker which
would grant a variance to allow a garage 20 ft by 16 ft to be set
against the rear yard setback, parallel to the rear yard line and
to conform with the 10 ft space requirement between the main
building and the accessory building.
Charlie Paterson seconded the motion.
Roll Call: Charlie Paterson, yes, Anne Austin, yes, Francis
Whitaker, yes, Josephine Mann, yes, Remo Lavagnino, no.
Clerk
6
. .
",
#
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
JULY 16. 1987
Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm.
ROLL CALL
Answering roll call were Rick Head, Charlie Paterson, Francis
Whitaker and Ron Erickson. Josephine Mann and Anne Austin were
both excused.
MINUTES OF JULY 2. 1987
After discussion pertaining to corrections on these minutes
Francis made a motion to table approval of the minutes until
clerk has time to make proper corrections.
Ron Erickson seconded the motion with all in favor.
CASE 187-9 I-DALE & SALLY PO'l'VIN
Property is in the R-6 zoning category. Rear yard setback is 15
ft. Actual carport setback appears to be 7 '4" and therefor
encroaching into rear yard setback. Section 24-13.3 (a) no such
nonconforming structure may be enlarged or attached in a way
which increases its nonconformity. Applicant appears to be
asking to complete the conversion of the carport to a garage in
the rear yard setback.
Applicant presented affidavit and sign of posting of notification
of application for variance.
Joe Edwards, representing Dale & Sally Potvin: Essentially, Dale
wants to put a garage door on the back of what has been, for 25
years, a carport. I am going to let him recite for you the
history of how this building got to where it is today. That will
give you that perspective and then I will make some technical
arguments.
Dale Potvin: I purchased the house in about 1980. The house was
built in 1962. Originally it was a house and a carport and then
some time in 1970 a bedroom was added on.
Joe: This is a 1970 improvement survey that shows at that time
when they were making this addition on the side that the carport
was existing and had been built at the time.
Remo: And it is in the same condition that it is now?
Joe: Except that we want to close off the back.
1
~
o
. .
,
Remo: I mean everything else was enclosed except for the door?
Joe: Right. It is 7'4" from the back line.
Bill Drueding: This survey shows a carport overhang of this
thing here and a loop overhang here that does not show any
connection. These two are connected now.
Joe: That is correct. We are going to address that. There was
an overhanging roof and they were not connected.
Remo: Are they connected now?
Joe: Yes, they are.
Remo: When were they connected?
Joe: He is going to tell you when that happened.
Dale: This was a separate and independent carport and as an
accessory building it can be within 5' of the rear yard setback
in R-6 so this conformed to zoning assuming zoning was the same
25 years ago.
Remo: Then it was not connected, is that right?
Bill: It conformed in the rear but it was non-conforming in that
separation.
Joe: Who knows whether that was required 25 years ago.
Dale: I bought the house after living here for a couple of
years. In 1982 I was able to do some remodeling on it. It was
in need of a new roof and in the process of getting a zoning
permit to do an extensive remodel, I put a new roof on the house.
My building permit to remodel allowed me to enclose kind of a
hallway portion that you see on that survey between the carport
and the existing house. It made that into a bedroom of sorts
from the carport which required an extension of the roof.
The 6" gap in the overhang was a natural collection point for
blowing and melting snow which would dam up and create ice in
that area. I reviewed that with the roofers and we decided to
enclose the 6" gap. It seemed an obvious thing to do to stop the
problem that we were having as far as ice and snow build up.
That is effectively how the house became non-conforming from an
accessory building to attached garage.
Remo: Did you do this in conformance with your building permit?
Dale: Yes.
2
'\
,
Remo: Your permit allowed you to do this?
Dale: Yes. I had a building permit to basically do all this
remodeling to enclose this area and--
Remo: To connect the two buildings.
Dale: And to add that connection between the hallway and then in
the process of doing that I was in need of a new roof and so
actually I put a roof on it and that was a disaster. The next
summer I had to redo that and in that period made that
connection. I initially did it one way and then I re-did it but
effectively with that '82 permit I connected it. At that point
the house was 22 years old. The roof was obviously in need of
repair and I had a permit for that hallway and it was all part of
the existing roof. It was an obvious safety hazard because of
melting and ice build up and so it was enclosed at that point
with a tar and gravel roof.
Rick Head: If we are talking about a non-conforming structure
because of the proximity of the carport to the house, why would
the building inspector give approval on the permit to expand the
non-conforming use? A variance would be needed. I don't see how
the building inspector would have the authority to grant a permit
on something that is already non-conforming and further expanding
on the non-conforming.
Dale: That was a hallway,
Remo: I think it was an oversight.
Joe: Technically they weren't moving the footer and the thing
had been there since '62 and
Remo:
It is a point that he wanted to make.
Rick:
time.
Because Bill is sitting here and he was around at the
Perhaps he could shed some light on what happened.
Francis: Could I ask for the chronology--the house was built in
'62. The addition was in 1970?
Dale: Correct.
Francis: And then you went further in 1984?
Dale: '82.
Francis:
correct?
'82.
In 1982 you closed the roofs in.
Is that
3
o
""'"
,
Dale: Yes.
Ron: What is closing the roofs in?
Joe: They were overhanging and they put a little connecter
between them to keep the snow from blowing in under the back
door.
Dale: I have just kind of put a grade so it kind of slopes from
the garage on to the master bedroom rather than have that
overhang.
At that time I had no knowledge that there was any
between an accessory building or an attached garage.
that connection I just felt like it was an obvious
didn't realize that maybe it was something that would
carport non-conforming.
distinction
In making
thing. I
make that
At that point when I bought the house there was a wall on the
total east side of the garage. And its shed already in place.
Joe: This is a picture taken right here looking along the
sidewall so that you can just barely see the sidewall. This
sidewall was in place on the existing carport and the guy had
built-in storage cabinets on the inside of it. That was that way
when Dale bought it.
Remo:
He bought in 1962?
Joe:
like
this
just
No, he bought in '80. When he bought it, that was already
closed in so it wasn't like a carport with 4 poles. It had
wall, effectively had 3 sides, this side was not closed in.
this side.
Dale: When I re-sided the house, I re-sided that portion of it
and so it now has vertical siding just at the horizontal side
that was on it.
In the last 2 years, I have had 2 thefts out of my carport, both
of which aggravated me tremendously. In the first theft, I lost
approximately $700.00 worth of tools and sports equipment. The
other theft was a pair of skis which was just this last winter.
After the second theft I was determined to close in the garage
because of the irritation that this created for me. At this
point I started enclosing a portion of it which would be the
westerly portion. Joe will show you where that is .
Joe: This little section here about 10 or 12 feet. Dale started
adding the wall to there with the intention of putting a door on
the back.
4
"
,
~:=o: This was existing?
:a1e: Yes.
::e: Well, yea, this is sort of like the side of the addition.
~:n: That was in the Fall of '821
~:e: No, this was after in '86.
~:=o: You got a permit for that?
=:'11: No.
_:e: No. That is why we are here. This he started adding in
':5 and go ahead, Dale.
:~le: That was done during the summer. Later i~ the summer I
_:e: Here is a picture of what it looks like today. He added
~=:.s section. And he added around the corner t~ese sections here
a== here. This part was already there.
=:11: And did you re-do this wall here, Dale?
:a1e: That was done in '82 when I entirely renodeled the house.
: ~ctua11y had done a portion, there was celotex on a portion of
: ~ since '82. I didn I t real ize that it should have required a
::-:::::lit. I did get a permit to move the electr:cal because the
:lectrical box was in the carport. I also got a permit to move
=:, gas meter out which was also inside the carport. But
::asica11y it was a non-structural addition. I probably should
:_~7e got a permit. I was incorrect in not doinS that. I wasn't
::.enging the footprint. The posts that supported the garage are
~:::d of a natural parameter to enclose it and that is basically
'.-::at I was attempting to do. At that point while I was getting
~::e permit, I was red tagged and stopped construction and have
s:::ce come forward and applied for this application.
~:=o: When you got the permit to put in the garage door, you got
:::0 tagged?
_~~e: When I got the permit to change the electrical meter and
=~s meter.
:.==0:
You got red tagged then?
--'I
=:.i. :
~::ere.
That's what made us aware that something was going on
::e: They then went by and checked it because he pulled those
:::::mits and they saw that he put on this wall and gone around the
5
I""'
........
,
corner and was about to put on the garage door. They gave him
this red tag asking that he do 3 things. He would need a I hour
fire wall between the house and the garage. And you need a 1 and
3/8 solid core door here on the back and you need a survey to
determine the proximity. So then this spring he filed a building
permit to do those things. Under the application is a building
permit and he was asking for the 1 hour fire wall, the placement
of the glass door, a protective metal post and gas meter and to
put in the overhead door from the carport. That was rejected and
referred to this board for the reasons of a setback.
Dale: That gives you an idea of what I am attempting to do. To
enclose within the existing footprint a carport. And I am asking
for a variance to do it for reasons of security. I have already
had 2 thefts out of there and I feel like it is a very reasonable
request.
I have talked to all the property owners on the block. There are
6 other property owners. All of the other property owners enjoy
the privilege of encroaching either into the rear yard setback or
actually into the alley. So it is something that other property
owners, over a time, have been able to do. I have talked to them
each individually.
I have a letter from each of the property owners on the block.
They support my request and have all signed the letter. I typed
up a form letter just to make it easier. I did review and give
each person updated comment on all these points. They understand
what I am doing. I have given them a copy of my application and
reviewed it with them in detail. They are aware that I am just
enclosing an existing garage within my property line but I need a
variance. They feel the ~ore security there is in the alley, the
safer everybody's property will be. They also feel that
aesthetically they would rather drive by and see a closed garage
door than look at all the things that one collects and stores in
a carport or garage.
Joe: Here are those letters for the record and here are a series
of photographs that the Board members may want to examine that
show the condition of the alley and show the other encroachments.
You can see that these other buildings are a good deal closer to
the alley than Dal e 's. All the ones on the north side are
actually in the platted alleyway and this is a full residence
which is within a few feet of the platted alleyway. I don't know
how he got that unless he got a variance. And this is a detached
structure which is in a few feet of it. Dale's is set back 7 &
1/2 ft. So every single property owner on the whole block has
more of an encroachment than Dale does and they all have closed
doors.
Dale: The last point is that this spring the City of Aspen
Police Department asked =e to close my garage door becau3e they
6
thought it was very much an obvious invitation for someone to
steal. We discussed the problem they have had in the alleys in
the west end with people stealing from those areas. I have since
had them do a security report on my house. I have a written
report from them with their minimum recommendation being that a
garage door be installed and properly equipped with a security
device. I have been victimized by burglary. It is an obvious
target and is deficient and should be corrected. I certainly
have the support of the Police Department in recommending that it
be enclosed for security reasons.
Joe: With respect to the code compliance part of the
presentation I note that for some reason that defies logic,
buildings on lots which are 2 and 1/2 times the size of this one,
can have the principal dwelling only 10 feet from the back
property line. Yet principal buildings in smaller R-6 zone are
supposed to be 15 ft. It doesn't make a lot of sense but that is
the way it is.
Bill: The R-6 zone has streets and
they have allowed don't have alleys.
that.
alleys. The subdivisions
That is the reason for
Joe: Also for accessory buildings, which in this case would
include detached garages, can be 5 ft and I am not sure there is
a lot of logical reason why you can say that it is more
impractical to have a detached garage at 5 ft and yet an attached
garage has to be 15 ft. What is the difference on the impact of
the neighborhood?
Bill: It is a safety factor. They want a 10 ft separation so
they can get fire equipment in there. When you attach the garage
to the house, they don't require the 10 ft but they require a 1
hour separation. That is a safety more than a visual effect.
Joe: At any rate we are here requesting under either of two
theories. We could either just request a variance--just a flat
out setback variance instead of 15 ft that we be given a 7 '8"
variance for the carport in place and allowed to go ahead and put
the garage door on which is essentially all we want to do. The
thing is there. It is not going away. It is not going to be
torn down. And it is not going to be removed or anything so it
isn't going anywhere. It seems 1 ike it is almost zero impact on
anybody to put a garage door on it which will meet code. We will
put in the fire wall. We will put in the solid core door. We
will do everything that we are required to do as if it had been
attached. We would just request that variance and I point out
that compared to all the other properties on the block, we have
more setback by substantial amount than anybody else.
The second way this thing could be approved is by approval of an
overhead door as being a non-structural addition to an existing
7
""-
"""
,
non-conforming structure. This thing was made non-conforming
when the overhan~ing roofs were connected to prevent the snow
from blOldng in. I don't think anybody realized that that had
the effect of switching this from a detached structure accessory
building to part of the principal residence making it technically
non-conforming. It has been that way since 1982 and we could
approve it as a non-structural addition which doesn't increase
the non-conformity of that existing non-conforming structure.
You could, I suppose, take the position that it was Dale's fault
that it became nonconforming. But it certainly wasn't
intentional and I think that no one noticed it. I think that
provision allowing for existing non-conforming uses to be cleaned
up, repaired, as long as they are not expanded is certainly
within the intent of this thing.
I think the standards of exceptional circumstances, the
unnecessary hardship arises out of the fact that this is the most
conforming of any on the block. It is an unnecessary hardship to
say that he can't prevent thefts in this area by closing it off.
All the neighbors think is a great idea. So we would
respectfully request your consideration to, under either of those
theories or both, grant Dale permission to complete this project
and put his garage door on.
Remo: First I want some clarification from Bill. That 1986
addition--that last one that he put the west wall and got red
tagged--does that ~ean he would have to take that down?
Bill: That was done
that that be re~oved.
to include that these
without a permit and it could be required
So any application for variance would have
walls were done without a permit.
Joe: Again, that is a non-structural wall.
Remo: It doesn't ~atter. It was done without a permit and it is
an illegal use. Actually it is not a carport now is it? It is a
garage as it stands now. Just clear this point up. The
structure, as it stands now, would you consider that a garage?
Bill: In that it is surrounded by 4 walls, yea.
Remo: It is a garage now.
Bill: Yea.
Francis: 4 walls? It is 3 walls closed off.
Bill :
garage
not in
The only one that is not closed off is the one where the
door is to go. The wall has been extended but the door is
there yet.
8
,
Remo: My next question is what constitutes a door? Is 8 ft a
door?, 4 ft?, 10 ft? So if they detach the main house from the
garage and brought it back to its original status, they would not
need a variance. If they just do separate roofs because that was
a non-conforming use is between the 2 houses. That was existing.
Bill: I have no proof that the connection between the roofs or
the connection from the carport where the snow was blowing
through--that connection I can find no proof that that was done.
Remo: No, I am tal king about between the house--not the east
wall--just the house and the garage.
Charlie: You need 10 feet.
Remo: Well, but OK, so that is a non-conforming use. It is a
separate building now, it is not attached to the main house. We
agreed that
Bill: It was attached by wall also.
Remo: Well, it wasn't. At one time it wasn't.
Bill: But it is now.
Remo: I know, I am trying to establish that if he had not
connected these two walls together, and they were separated, what
would that carport be considered? An accessory building? or an
attached, I mean it is not attached
Bill: It would have still been an accessory building
Remo: Right, requiring what?
Bill: Requiring what to do with it.
Remo: These setbacks--the rear yard setbacks.
Bill: The rear yard setback would have been non-conforming as
far as
Remo: Between the buildings but that was existing so we can't do
anything about that. But they would have been allowed to put
this structure in.
Bill: No, I didn't say that.
Remo: I mean a carport would have been a legal use.
Bill: The carport was a legal use.
Remo: Right. So it is the enclosure that you are--the conversion
9
c
""'
,
of increasing--but wait a minute ~:., the carport would have been
a conforming use, it would have =e: setback requirements.
Bill: It would have met the rea:: c'ard setback requirement.
Remo: Isn't that the one that t~ec- are asking for?
Bill: Yea.
Remo: So that they could have cu:l: a garage.
Bill: No. They couldn't have e~closed the area between the
carport and the house because ~:~ need a 10 ft separation and
they didn't have that.
Remo: By adding the wall, they ~ould have increased the non-
conforming.
Bill: Yea, you took your carpc::: like this and then, you know,
your wall here
Remo: So that the fact that it ~:=~'t have a wall back there
Bill: Right.
Rick Head: You can't expand a nc~-:onforming.
Bill: Right. It was a carpor: =-~d so there was no existing
wall. There was a separati:~ ::etween there. In '82 the
connection that was made. I ca~': ?rove that it was done either
way. When you come to '86 wha: ~=-~pened was the electrical and
gas meter had to be taken outside. Permits are pulled separately
without getting a building pe::=it. They were asked to be
inspected. The Building Inspec::::: ;,rent out there and said well
that is fine but how did this c:~a:: stuff happen? That is the
time that he red tagged it in '86. 5e knew that we wouldn't have
allowed that to become a garage ~e:ause then it would require a 1
hour separation. He had a door .~:ch was not a proper door. He
had been here long enough he ~~a~ it wasn't inspected. These
walls, by Joe's admission and 0= c:urs, this wall here and these
walls across there, were done wi:~:~t a permit. This one you can
clearly see was done on purpose.
Ron: Dale, how long have you bee~ :n real estate?
Dale: I have been a broker for a=:~~ 5 years.
Ron: And in real estate in this ::wn? Were you in real estate
when you bought this house?
Dale:
years.
No. Actually I was. I ~a7e been in real estate about 7
I would note that I did ~~ll 2 permits that were needed
-- r
_',i
"
in compliance with City codes. My intention was to do this by
code. I could have easily put up a garage door and I admit I did
enclose that without a permit which was incorrect. But I could
easily put a garage door on and without a permit.
Remo: Then you would not have been able to move those utilities
outside.
Dale: What I am saying is that I felt that it was a very minor
issue. I felt like as long as utilities were outside, both gas
and electrical, I was effectively complying with
Joe: And he was wrong and he admits that.
Rick Head: Wouldn't you say there were other issues like fire
wall and glass door that justify permits?
Dale: I will rectify all those issues as shown by my building
permi t.
Bill: When did you apply for the garage door? After being red
tagged?
Dale: Yea, not until a month ago, 6 weeks ago.
Joe: You were red tagged in the Fall. And he waited till this
spring to get back into the construction business.
Dale: There is a certain amount of frustration that a homeowner
feels when things are stolen from you. A certain amount of
feeling of invasion that I guess motivated me just to go ahead
and get this done. Every time something is stolen I feel very
frustrated and probably that frustration is what made me go ahead
without first coming in to get a variance but
Joe: Well, you didn't know a var iance was necessary until you
got red tagged, actually till you got the building permit. That
is the first time the setback issue came up.
Bill: There wasn't anything else to corne in for.
Dale: In retrospect I was incorrect in the procedure I followed
but it is my intention to do it by code and I think that the
security issue is a very strong one here.
Remo: I would like to address that since that is a strong
argument. There is plenty of opportunity to secure whatever your
possessions are. It is not incumbent on us to have that space
provided for you especially in a non-conforming use. As I
remember looking into that garage you have some utilities in the
back. You have a kind of step up that sets back of where some
type of bench or laundry or some other area. The cars don't go
11
,......
""""
,
to the wall. That portion could be secured. You could put some
kind of locks or whatever it takes to secure it. If that is an
insecu re ar ea then don't put you r possessions out there. We
can't really look at arguments of that nature in order to look at
granting a variance.
On another point, you talk about other people enjoying or
infringing on the setback. Because others have more than you,
does not give us cause to expand your non-conforming use. You
also are enjoying something in the setback. Whether somebody is
in the alley or not, I don't think it is a matter of degree to
how much more you can ask for in a non-conforming way than other
people are enjoying.
Joe: In response to that I stuck that in there because I was
reading out of section 2-22 paragraph D which says the following:
Shall be considered a valid reason for granting a variance. (3)
That the granting of a variance is essential to the enjoyment of
a substantial property right enjoyed by other properties in the
same vicinity and zone but denied to this property because of
special conditions or extraordinary circumstances.
Remo: But you are enjoying those. You are in the setback.
Joe: The others all have their doors on and we don't.
Remo: I don't think it was meant: to expand those non-conforming
uses. You are enjoying it--not to the degree that they are.
That doesn't give us cause to grant you a variance.
Joe: But expanding would be to enlarge.
Remo: Expanding the use. It could be expanding the use too.
Joe: We are not expanding it.
footprint.
It is within exactly the same
Remo: You know, when I first saw this I said I can't believe
that you are being denied a permit. I can't believe that you
wouldn't be allowed an overhead door to be put in here. I almost
had prejudice coming in here. I couldn't understand why we
couldn't give him this variance. But now I realize that there is
cause. When you are doing things illegally in the first place in
order to get to the point where it looks like a garage, then we
have a different set of criteria on which to base granting you a
var iance or not. And that has to be addressed. If that was an
existing built structure the way it is now, I can hardly
understand why you wouldn't be granted a variance. But I can see
that a lot of things have happened that were not under the review
of accountability to the Building Department.
Joe: Dale has apologized for that:. Are we gOing to penalize him
12
,
and not give him a variance the way you give everybody else
because he did not realize he needed a building permit?
Rick: First we gave him a variance for the garage door and the
Building Department said you got to pullout those two walls that
were added illegally.
Bill: If you give him the variance for the door, you are giving
him the variance for the walls. Then the Building Department,
with your variance, can have him do the construction correctly.
Rick: What position would the Building Dept take if we deny the
garage door? Would you let him leave the walls that are
presently there?
Bill: I would have to talk to the City attorney.
Joe: They would never act on a mandatory injunction to try to
force somebody to remove that. That's silly.
Remo: We had a whole roof removed. A roof that was up already
on the Continental Inn.
Charlie: But that was a very extreme situation.
Remo: Well, it was something that we did that should be done.
Joe: He was doing it intentionally, right? He knew exactly what
he was doing. He was deliberately violating it. He only got the
permits that he knew he needed to get and he just didn't think a
garage door required one. He was wrong. He was dead wrong. He
should have had more consciousness about it. Do we want to
continue to flail him because he made a mistake?
Remo: I think what Ron might have been referring to, is that he
is in the business of knowing things about it.
Ron: I consider him an expert in this field.
Remo: And all of a sudden to lose his memory about failing to
realize that he needs a permit to put up any kind of structure--
anything you do around here.
Joe: I deal with brokers every single day. Maybe they should
know more than they do but they don't know beans about setbacks.
I am always dealing with the problem of a lack of realtor's
knowledge of the technical compliance with the codes. That's why
we have lawyers.
Remo: But Dale has been before us on a lot split and we were
talking about things of that nature. I can't believe that he is
not f amil iar with that section of the code. However, given the
13
e
--"""
benefit of the doubt on that
Francis: I think it is pertinen~ to introduce something in this
draft that has been prepared by the City Attorney about our
duties and reasons. On page 5 ~aragraph 3: Self infliction or
self created. Whether a hardship is a result of the applicant's
own actions is a highly significant fact which is of material
element bearing on the determination of the necessary hardship or
practical difficulty and weighs heavily against an owner seeking
variance.
This is a self-created hardship.
some of it without a permit.
Joe: I think what they are referring to there would be something
like if he had built the thing ~ithin the setback and then came
in for the variance. But he was just merely trying to put a door
on the back of something that has been there for 25 years.
Some of it with a permit and
Francis: By connecting the garase to the house is what created
the non-conformity.
Joe: That's right. Not to anybody's intention or knowledge.
Francis: Didn't you do that?
Dale: Yea. 6 years ago.
Francis: You created the non-conformity by your own actions.
This is the point I am trying to ~ake.
Dale: I had a building permit to remodel my house. I had a
permit to enclose the hallway. T~at required a new roof. I was
operating under the assumption that it was an allowable thing for
me to do. The house was inspected and signed off on and no one
mentioned that by enclosing that overlap I was creating a non-
conformity. I didn't realize it was. I don't think any of us
actually did until we delved into this particular issue. I don't
think that it was an intentional violation of any codes on my
part. It was done as a safet:y issue. I am sure you can
appreciate that. I have to admit that your point is well taken
that there are other things you can do for security but when
things are stolen from you, there is a bit of emotion that does
come into play and if you have ever been through that, I am sure
you can appreciate it.
Remo asked if there were any other public comments.
Joe: I would ask that the Board look back at this thing in the
way in which you looked at it whe~ you first heard about it. You
guys aren't to be a criminal law jury to sit here and decide that
Dale was a bad guy because he overlooked the fact that he needed
14
,
.
a permit to put the west wall on. Therefor, we are going to
punish him by not giving a variance that if he hadn't done that
we would otherwise give. That isn't really the roll of this
Commission. Look at it from the standpoint of what have we got
here. What is this going to harm? What is the best thing to do
under the situation for the community, for the land use codes,
for the building, for the health, safety and Ivelfare of its
occupants and its people? What is reasonable under the
circumstance?
Your initial reaction was very accurate. It is totally silly to
say that he can't put a door on the back of the garage. All of
his neighbors support it. Nobody complained. Everybody thinks it
is a great idea. The thing has been there for 25 years. It
ain't gonna get any bigger. Its gonna get better if we put the
door on it. The police want him to put the door on it. He wants
to put the door on it. The neighbors want him to put the door on
it. So why don't we do the thing that is right and let him have
the door on it? It just seem incredulous that we would get hung
up in some other logic to turn down what everyone thinks is the
most reasonable thing to be done here under the circumstances.
It is a plea for logic and reason and humanness. We have come
back. We are asking for a building permit. We want to put on
the fire wall. We want to put on the core door. We want to do
it legally. We will do everything Bill wants us to do. We will
do it twice. We are trying to be lawful, law abiding citizens
here for an oversight. It ain't gonna hurt a person in the world
and it's gonna help Dale and it's gonna help the pOlice. The
only people its gonna help by you guys denying it is some
burglars. And everybody is gonna be harmed.
Francis: I am unclear as to how much of the walls of the
existing part were added without a permit.
Joe: This section here and here and this section here and this
section here. And the top was already there. This wall was
already here and the top across here was already here.
Ron: And this one was added under the permit in '82?
Joe: This was already always on the carport. This drop down was
always on the carport. What Dale added was this section. And
this little section around the corner.
Francis: Was this 7 ft or so?
Joe: Yes.
Ron: You mean this used to be open here?
Joe: No, no, this was part of the house.
That was started in
15
i""'\
'-../
J""\
'70 before he bought it.
Bill: So this roof is now connected.
Francis: There is no wall along there?
Joe: No.
Remo: So there is no wall there?
Joe: No.
Bill: You have to keep a 10 ft separation between a carport, the
carport roof and--it doesn't need to have a wall. Just needs a
roof. Just a carport. You can't put the carport right up
against your main building. You can attach it. You don't need a
separation there.
Remo: Well, if the ca rpo r tis he re, then it becomes a non-
conforming use.
Joe: For 25 years its been like that, which is now
nonconforming.
Remo: Now, there was no line here.
Joe: Well there is a pole.
Bill: There was a separation there. I can find no proof that
this connection was made with a legal permico That doesn't mean
that it was not done legally.
Remo: But he had a permit.
Bill: No he didn't.
Remo: To connect this roof?
Bill: No.
Remo: He didn't. See, I guess my point was before that when I
asked you whether they could put a wall between that, you said
no, they can't because it is not 10 feet.
Bill: Right.
Remo: But I am saying to you that there was no wall. They don't
have to put a wall, but once you connect it by the roof that
changes it and you did connect it with a wall there. He
connected with a sidewall and a roof.
Dale: The connection was done in '70 and so because of blO\~ing
16
.
snow and buildup, I just had a little roof about 6 inches, you
know, its just sloping so there is a natural grade. Actually
they just sloped everything from this end.
Bill: Did you have a building permit to do that?
Dale: Yes.
Bill: Do you have copy of it?
Dale: In '82 I got a permit to put a door right here. I want to
stress that when I enclosed this it was an outside hallway.
Ron: There was no roof there before?
Dale: Right. In '82 the house needed a new roof and it was a
decision made with the roofer, you know, where do you want the
water to run?
Bill: Did you get a roofing permit?
Dale: I used a licensed contractor.
Bill: You got a licensed contractor. You got a roofing permit
and that is a different thing. You got a permit to re-roof a
roof which you don't go and inspect and you don't look
Joe: You don't expect anything to be added, any construction to
be added
Bill: So this connection was not made, this is an additional
thing you should have had a permit for instead of just a roofing
permit.
Dale: I used their license for roofing contractors
Bill: The roofing contractor? That's why I don't have any plans
for th i s and no reco rd. A roof ing contractor is a different
thing.
Dale: I assumed he got one.
Bill: Well, I don't think you can assume, I thought he would
have but he didn't that I can see.
Charlie: I can see that was a very honest mistake.
Remo: Yea, I don't find any fault in that.
Francis: As I understand it, part of the walls at the back were
added without a permit and the roof was connected without a
permit. Is that correct?
17
"...,
""
"'"
,
Dale: The roof was done with a roofing contractor.
Francis: Connecting and adding more to connect the building.
Joe: Well Francis, nobody knows. We don't have a permit copy.
That was 6 years ago. They don't have a copy so we can't say
whether it was done lawfully or not.
Remo: But a licensed roofing contractor did the work.
Dale: Yes. They are a licensed contractor. They work in this
valley every day. I assumed that they were legitimate and
honest. I paid them fees and put that roof on and they handled
the whole thing for me.
Bill:
walls
The thing is it was still a carport and we have two more
and what do we do about that?
Remo: We have several letters. They are form letters and Ron
will read one and I will enter the names for all of those for the
record.
Ron: Dated July 9, 1987, City of Aspen. Board of Adjustments,
Dear Board of Adjustments: I support the request by the Potvins
to enclose their existing carport into a garage. I understand
their carport has been in existence since 1970 and that the
enclosure represents no further expansion into the rear yard
setback. I feel it is in everyone's best interest because it
will provide more security for all of us who use the alley by
making the Potvin's personal items less visible for potential
thefts. Aesthetically, it will give the alley a nicer look.
Please grant the potvins the variances needed to accomplish this
enclosure.
Signatures to this letter are as follows:
Jack Barker, Lots K, L, & M, Block 43
John Lizzo, Lots R & S, Block 43
Marguerite M. SCheid, Estate, Lot A, B, C, Block 43
Sharon M. Prior, Lots D & E, Block 43
Vivienne E. Jones, Lots F, G, H, & I, Block 43
C.M. Clark, Lot R & S, Block 43
Dale: I sat down with each person and reviewed exactly what was
done. I disclosed that I had built a wall illegally. I showed
them the maDS. That is a form letter j~st out of convenience
because I did not feel I wanted to infringe upon my neighbors to
write something out. You are welcome to call anyone. There are
some people from in town and some from out of town. I have their
total support for this action.
18
.
Remo asked if there was any further public comment. There bei~g
none he closed t~e public portion of the meeting and asked for
comments from the Soard.
Charlie: I had t~e same reaction that you did, Remo, when I wer.~
by there. I loci<ed at all the other houses and saw the nice
closed-in area, es;ecially the one down at the end of the blcci<.
I said I can I t possibly believe that he does not have a garaqe
door on this. I did not know at the time that he did add a
section of a wall to make it look the way it looks.
But when I look at the whole picture and all the things you have
said, which I agrEe with you, there is definitely a wrong whEn
something is addE': without a building permit. There are so::e
doubtful gray areas. But when I look at the whole thing, I can
see an honest error taking place between a roofing contractor and
an owner in sol ving the probl em. You put a new roof on a
building and say, look, I have ice dams here and snow in between
the building, all t~ese problems--how am I going to solve the::?
The roofing contractor goes down, he gets a permit to re-roof.
They do a little addition of 3 feet on the sloping roof. T~ey
solve the proble::. r can see where that is an honest error. -
isn't something t~at is planned by the owner to bypass a building
inspector.
I also think it is a minimal variance. It is a reasonable
request, a logical consequence of all these circumstances. I see
a property right 0: this OIvner which is enjoyed by others in t~e
same vicinity and zone. I see there is a health and hazard
problem where if :.':: is not granted, there is a half-finis~Ed
situation. I kn010 the City is not going to go into a lEqal
situation. I feel strongly that they won't make him tear off
that roof and ca~se an unsafe house which is going to cause
problems again. :::e is going to have a sloping roof which drops
then into a holE i: vou make him take down those connections t~a1:
we have been told ~ave been added, illegally, yes but they ~ave
been added.
I have had protle::s with thefts and you feel like you are invaded
by something you can't handle. There is no way you can solve '::~e
problem. If I had a boat, I can't put it in my child's bedrcc::!.
I have a motorcycle. I can't stick it in my bedroom. You know.
its very imprac~ica: to ask people and say well you can get ot~e:
storage places. : feel that the only solution we can really
humanly do in this case is to grant the variance and be done wieh
it. And give t:-.e police a little peace of mind and the owner
peace of mind beca::se that is a real problem anywhere where ~.ou
have nice houses an: you have a lot of belongings. I would gran:
the variance.
Remo: Charlie. yc:: addressed the roofing contract and I think we
might agree with you on that. But you really sluffed over 1:~at
19
"...
'"".....
""
,
other little wall that they put up illegally. Would you care to
state your rationale in allowing that to happen before you grant
him a variance?
Charlie: I can see where the evidence presented shows that the
owner was planning to put the garage door on. The only way to
put the garage door on is to build those walls. You can't build
a garage door against an open post and have a hole there. Again
I don't feel we are looking at somebody with criminal intent
because I don't feel that's what this is all about. I think that
somebody was trying to solve a problem and it may have been not
quite legal and then a lot of people don't know that a small roof
or a small wall has got consequences in the zoning code.
I don I t feel the neighborhood is served by us not granting the
variance. I understand your points. I agree with them but I
want to go beyond that. I feel that we have a problem to solve
not only for the City but for the owner. I think it is a real
serious Frob1em. The Building Department can't solve it. We are
his last resort. We are here to try to bring justice and
humanism to a pretty harsh zoning code. When you look at this in
context, the zoning code doesn't make sense for this Farticular
situation. I can't solve it by adhering to the zoning code.
Remo: r agree with you but he had recourse and that was to come
to this Board in order to get that variance to do that and
present those arguments that you are presenting to me now, to the
chair. They could present it to the Board at the s~"e time and
we would have looked at it in that manor. Right?
Charlie: I think it is an honest oversight.
Rick: I think the fact that the applicant has or should have had
superior knowledge to the lay person as to building permits. I
have a problem with that. I can empathize with the applicant's
loss to -thefts. I, too, in the same'vicinity, have haa-a number
of thefts this year from my home. I don't have the luxury of a
garage or a carport. There is nowhere on my property r could put
one and abide by all the setbacks. I have to make other
arrangements. I usually do that by taking a storage shed down
valley and that is a pain in the neck as we all know. But that's
life in the west end in the R-6 zone.
I don't know if we have ever granted a variance based on
recurring thefts as being a hardship. Hthough I feel empathy
for the aFPlicant, I don't know if that is a consideration I can
justify giving a variance for. I think Rerno's comments are well
taken as to possibly building another secure area within the
confines of that carport, perhaps another partition wall between
the house and where the car would naturally stop. I don't know
if gram::.::g this variance would actually be in keepinS with the
spirit or the letter of the comprehensive plan. I think we are,
20
Jf',,\
/
.
in fact, granting a variance to increase a non-conforming
situation. It was a carport. Now all of a sudden it is close
to a garage. It is this creeping situation that we are faced
with constantly. Again it may not have been the cause of the
applicant but I think it is a consideration. I personally, I am
torn. This is a tough one. I don't think I would be prepared to
grant a variance.
Ron: I have to agree with Rick. It is tough. Some of the walls
have been there longer than others and so on and so forth. But I
don't see a hardship. I think that special condition results
from the actions of the applicant, maybe inadvertent, honest
mistakes but they were his actions. Nobody else put up the walls
or anything else. I think that the simplest thing to do would be
to add a garage for him and be done with it like Charlie
suggests. However, I think that would be going against the code.
It would be condoning this creeping disregard for the code that I
feel in this situation. It is real easy to say oh it is just a
garage now but there was 6 years when a lot of things were going
on to get it to this point. It is 95% finished so it is not
worth going back and tearing it down. I would like to see
something done. But I think that the non-conformity should be
reduced back to the 1982 level, the last time that a building
permit was issued. I would not grant this variance.
Joe: Well, that's it because you have to have 4 votes.
Remo: I thought maybe you would like to hear the comments. For
the record, we want to put them down.
Francis: I feel that the special conditions and circumstances
resulted from the action of the applicant. And I don't thinK we
can excuse something by holding it as an honest mistake. That is
not the way the Board has handled things in the past and I don't
think it should handle it that way now. I also feel that an
applicant has two strikes against him when he comes in and aQ"its
that he added a part of the structure without a permit with the
intention of putting the door in and probably would have put the
door in except for the stop order. I am very sympathetic in your
problem. I have had thefts with people coming right into my yard
and stealing things out in the Snowbunny area. I feel the Beard
has to go by certain principles and guidelines and I don't feel
that you have met them enough to justify a variance. I am very
sorry.
Remo: Basically I feel the same way. I have stated my position.
The only thing that I could add is that I really don't subscribe
to the idea that because something done honestly but ill egally
should be allowed to continue in its non-conformity. So I would
be against granting this variance.
Ron: I move to deny this variance.
21
o
"""'"
..
Francis seconded the motion.
Roll call vote: Ron Erickson, yes, Francis Whitaker, yes,
Charlie Paterson, no, Rick Head, yes, Remo Lavagnino, yes.
Variance denied.
Ron made a motion to adjourn.
Rick seconded the motion with all in favor.
The time was 5:15 pm.
Clerk
22
"..~.,___~__".._R~'__..__.~___~_'._"___'''__~__''-'''''_''___
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Case 187-10 1 Toddy Wynne
BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE
VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW:
Pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen of June 25, 1962, as
amended, a public hearing will be held in the Council Room, City
Hall, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such other place as the meeting may
be then adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said
Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24, Official Code of
Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited
to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you
cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to
state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to
such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious
consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and
others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request
for variance.
The particulars of the hearing and of the requested variance are
as follows:
Date and Time of Meettrra:
Date:
Time:
August 13, 1987
4:00 p.m.
OWner for Variance:
Appellant for
Variance:
Name: Toddy Wynne
Address: 1425 Red Butte Dr.
Harry Mayer Const.
Location or description of prQpert~
Location:
1425 Red Butte Dr.
Aspen, Colorado
Variance Reauested: Property is located in the R-30 zoning
category. Side yard setback is 10 ft. Sec. 24-3.7 Area and Bulk
requirements. Applicant appears to be requesting to encroach
with an attached garage 1 & 1/2 to 3 ft into the northerly side
setback.
Will applicant be representect--b.y counsel:
Yes:~ No--X-_
The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment
130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611
Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk
.
\
\
\
\
\
\
f2" \
, PJPC(~IOOCJ)
.- ~
(10:08'5) \
\
, .
'" ..
'" '"
"'"\
~/"
Cl.. \
" \
\
\
\
\
\ ~
\ .;,
\ ~
\
\
\ €>
\ <);..0
\ ~_(O'\ ",0
,,\ U \'> I \ \ -!l 3'2,7
. " -!l
.,"., ~,,",~
I . ~ ., ~ 0 .--.rl)
.J ....~.J ,,~ '" ',;<.G"-
;__,-- ._'_..-~ ---,------DiU--.. -- . .,
r ISO' LfT1LlTl' [.J'bE\--1EN1 [r<-J<DN'e.~;61' .", ~
,~---~-~~~~~-----
r-,-. I . v FOf?:ME-R f',",Op_r" (~.t.E. VI
I ~- - l___ -- L---- ----- ~ ---------' ---- - ,-
8
Ie>
IN
Q
,
i ---\
;
\
,
\
\ ---\
,
,
i~
\
\ [1\
--'
......
N
~
li.
C'
~
a::.
lei
~~,"~'
Ol'-l(. t>~ ~J.
wcPO.
l1!.-_-"1
,-- "
\\~/,..,.o\ dl
~,~UZZ\ \ ~
. \ \
\\-_---1
\ ?J
,)'.
I<l:
)e'
~:,
o
LOT 12 ^
3177& SQFT ~
........-
..,t. .."
-.
dl
'"
~t
, ..ll
N.
Ol ~
. 1)'_
------.------------
,.F1:JU
o V
.
.,
1\~
'II F(;)...1~i.~"'r
~~T'
. ~~/PU...OIP
(r. 1000)
~ .'
1'"
I--~
{
O~T'
~-4...y,.V\
.__.__.,:U'~OBD)
c.v
" .
'~ -
_________2&1' -:t,. t <.
:- ~ ~
.ll' ,.
N, '&. -;
~~ r\\
1'\
~\
c-ol(
1"\
IJ'
- ..----
I' . l-A.,~
- . ~ .- \
~,n -C,i~~~
-.,J<PO t>_~O"
Qv:.l'- .,,:.\
~2 \~
.:J- lJf>
3,>-
DR./I/~ ~
~
~
~ N
J>..;
/0-:
tl ~
~
~
?
.......
".
-- :-:
r ~
C
u-O>
~.
o
c]1""',
l ),
S_,,/
LOT 11 A
30",.;:, 'X:;>
'- . FT ~
1'--
,0')
N
N
'-
",
"-.
.
-0
?
?::.
I
I
,
i
,
I
I
I
!
I
i
i
,
i
I
'I i
I !
I I
'....L-+
i
,
I, ______"
-r----
I
I
I
I
I
.~
v.
,
'-l
i~
I ~~
~ C:'-.
l~
'JJ
Il.,._
r-r')
"
-'
--
:f
..,s
-::r
o
c
.,'
-,-.
I
<:-,'f! ,.
.>( \-{....
, ':;;:, I
'-~ -, '\.,
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
, I I
I I i
~,..".t--
t '..
-....----
5-;
,~
"....
It
II
I
II
I
i
5'"
c
~
~
.,
3
,
>;..,
~'
"
,
.....-;,
'7-'
~[~_--u.
;;; "'-
q,
...........o~/
0.,
/d""'.......
~;::
....
I
I'
)--0.
..r:
"I-
"
.--l_ -...\,
, <:
~. - 0
~ V\
~ --,-
"
- ,
, I
.. ---
"
"
r
~------!
..-
---,-
---..--...-------.-.-.
~.~--
"_._~---
I-::-~--
t
..D
I
I
:>
~::;",
'--"
'L, "';."" ~ -> )j
1>..," ~. _
~~?" '- ----------n
. "\ ---'1-1, II" ,
~..-.-"-- ., i, 1- _
-, I, '. .,
,co'"~ I" , Ji " ,
,... r i~:l
r "
I
'"
'",
~..
..
"-:.
p
~
(.-.-_:.
~.'
I
..D
Ie' ..
i:i.i r
.. I~
'-F
l~
,0
~
r'
.:/;:=-~ ~
~...9.J
o~~~
o "
..." 4- ~...,".~.',.~..
--.- ,g::. ..,,--.
--.""--' '.
-~,~,--
K --
l ---
rn
<
-~
"
.-
"
,', ..,-
.--
"r'
';....
,
;;.
,
~
"
"
"
'....-
-'-~-"-'''''f
---J
"
,,~-_...,
,.. '--:~ ~ if
,:>~ :;;r~ ~
"i: r-+1
G'
::r ?
--u- -.,
, ~
~....>>
f> ...
l~.
g
,
+-
3
"-- ~'.,
"
,r
-!.
'C
("
o~
,
If'
IP
V>
~
"-
u,-....
p
c:r-
<, '3€
::;...~. ..
:!-....;
~ "--
,,-f. -_0
..,-- f.
"
.3 -';r
.J............".
-_"'::W-~
}"--
o
~
"",'
~
-,~
(
'. ?
"' ;:;
~ ..
,. ,
'; ?-
3
-;oJ ''''~_
"," --t-
"
.J~
"C..
o
"
\Y'
'"
-t-
O
~
r'
9
>'
'---'['
:r,
o
(
,-.:......
, II
I;
/ /
If
I
f !
/ f
/ I
, I
I;
I
'..
,.
~
9-"
,-
'-'" -
',0
,
i I :?
I (I,
I
I ---. _','
......' '.
'~I..z-':~ 23
'J>
>1
\ I \
,
I
i
I
t
I..
I
..l.. i
':"'---1
.- l
11.,.., ,
, 1
,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, I
I'
, II
""r
l'
... -
-=-'>\~
~,,,.~ "0
:-....-...
.~':)'V
, ,
'-..' !"
,
~
-[.
~
I
[ I
I
~I
II
1
! ,
!
i
1
I
I
I ,
I I
i~.1
I -1
! ""',
\.'
o
=-;.
C.
f/'i
.-----...
-r,
C1
--<--
I"..:.
...
'-
cr--~
..-.
Appellant:
1..'//,"" Address:
, I
'c' i /" /?/('/ Phone: '1). 5 )t:J{,8
-7/'~---ff' II/./ /V/'/~- Address: 1L/2Sk'_,'; //4 -Or
'. . I ,..,. hy\:' / ;;!?/.{'/7 71 f-fi/t{
,- I . ,J ~ /I
Location of Property: 1'-/ ,/I-'k>,. //",t-I/ ,:"h'IY /ole?!'-, f:,., ,0//(,/2 -
I"~,l (;,..;/.: .s:';'rhl-""'" "'/"0/-71 JIll 11/&_'"/
(Street and Number of Subdivision Block and Lot No.)
CITY OF ASPEN
Date:
Case No.:
Owner:
Building Permit Application and prints or any other pertinent
data must accompany,tbis application, and will be made part of
CASE NO. :" ,
THE BOARD WILL RETURN THIS APPLICATION IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ALL
THE FACTS IN QUESTION.
.
DESCRIPTION OF-PROPOSED EXCEPTION SHOWING JUSTIFICATIONS
-;
/ /''<,
Ii"'.."'"
~ !'~-_:Jp-O,s,~~,: ,-::../, <. c~t' 1 /r..."," ,,. ,,.f.:-- c;~
JI' /" r Ii ,I /'
.Ie Jl"._~-'r: '7'::!." j~(~_,:jL_
./ -i 1*.,> ',)
; -' I '
l'.,"'.-"?'-~' hyy:-c.;'T /.-,16
/~~
r:'
1/"')
,;
~F- I
/" h~, /'CJ,'<.' J i.>.,-'!.... <<::: 'f:-., I' ) ( , I ,
/ '_: ,:::. ~/- ~-,., (_1...../,/".' '\ ;r /~.r__ ;~ ; ; / . (
, <-.... - -'''l'';' c:';...." 'r" ..y ',/'
...~.'7'~Y //'<'~ (.::L._ /--",' c;~/c-,-",-r' I"Y;' _ _':_ if / / ./' +, <-/ I r../'....,
. / / / ,~,,' ":;C.'. -->J..' /" /- ,.. 7/; /"> '
CL..:,.x;'~"-\/ "-"~.:j-..-.._6 c>4"').-,_,';::/"-,.,::-4 /::" .' J /" ."-- '- -"J ..-'-
. I" ?,~ /~J /' --, (7. ,/.. /,-,y' ~/... '.
1./ ~~. ~/.,,_ <. I _ _ ,/,: , ,. -. "~- /'=-c/.-1./ i..)~, f~
. / ~.' ,,( '; {h ''',' 'f;' 7/(' -'_1 d- C I /
u / ,. .,......_ {'~/.-:;>IC/___ {,"" ,'_ _, ",,~"i._,,:. -' C /<c-. /; '; ~. /'r'. ('-! ~,J,~ ,-'
, / ' r.....~"'. r,.'~- c:',--,-rf;,:')
~ t .
.':':1
~
rYes
No
/
.!:--
Will you be represented~by counsel?
J
.",.,..
.;,.0
(Applicant's Signature)
=================-============================
PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR TO
FORWARD T~IffS APPLICAT~ON TO .THE BOARD OF ADJUSTJo".ENT, lIND REA, SON FOR NOT
. GRAllTING: YJ Co J.L<J~ ~ ~ llZ- So ~ ~ ,I
~~ ~~ c:a lb4,"~J-Y-).7 ~~
~v~ ~~k ~~
rJ I. '.,
" ' ned
.*. .
Status
DECISION
DATE OF HEARING
SECRETARY
DATE ~
PERMIT REJECTED, DATE .
APPLICATION FILED I (d.~/&Jl
MAILED -;
County of Pitkin, )
) ss.
State of Colorado )
~
AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY POSTING
OF A VARIANCE HEARING BEFORE
THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT (Pursuant to
Section 2-22 (c) of the Municipal
Code)
follows:
The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and say~ as
. .
i . ~
.bl',
. ,
"
....
1.
I , 12BJJ..~d._k..L~~~~Ler
, being or
.
representing an Applicant' h.efore the City of Aspen Board of
.. ....
Adjustment, personally cert'ify that the attached photograph
<0, .,~. .
fairly and accurately represents ~he sign posted as Notice of the
,
variance, hearing on thfs matter in a conspicuous place on the
subject property (as it 'could be seen from the nearest public
way) and
from the
" n,J_~_
that the said sign was posted
).,nc/
and visible continuously
day of ., ,
of .. -d.&j . , ' (Must be posted for
<l'O')::"~U1{ days before the::headng date).
4u) . -- ,
, , 19l3..2.
..
[':1.
, 19J1.l.., to the
day
at least ten
--
APPLICANT
. %L/'J~ s:v
Signatjre /
SUbscrib~ and sworn to before
this /3 day of f}tJ"-tJST'
19~, by ,HAAIt.V 5, mAY~"- r:a;
me
,
.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
My commi ssion expi res: tfl&,- 'It>
NO~:(~b~~
.. M Cjz.-2& ~ C1J .ft i/I L
,
Address
", \,: ::
o
i ., ,1
,"/ '\.t. .: Ii f l I: ."\.
\~ > l( ;,i]: J" l'! \,C :j :1'
~...~~. J ,..._.y ..
9"j1
: i I:~ --. \ :1
d \~(.J 1
I
I
I
;4.
.. .,
- .'1
'. . .'
f.' .
'.;
~1 '~. ~,',,_,,-- "...ta~{~s,.will~d~pe.ila', ----'--.
1 ! ,,:'~,:. :',:: '::,;':::~ ;'0'" :'miltlevie's',:""':'(',:/, ',: ',~:.-
1.: "plu;~n~\ri.'a~sess'm(~h'i~ :),'.' ,:,''-,~'';.
.' ;;" '. :'. :.",'.;," '.:':' ;'. ',.::.. :,: "';".,":',:-',.,:" ',:: :', .',,~ ,",'.-". . ";' '.','.::':
.,' ,.,' ._', . .', ~. __ " As our Colorado readers now know from the,:: ,-:~) :': '.! :'" ~ :',..',;, ''','. ':::--',
.: ,,: '~"" :;', ,', ~ews media', assessed'values of alrproperty.in'~.~':::, ',:,,:-: '; ;':::.:'.::.-,',"':<,-:';: -- ::':,:':>:,-~:; .-
. . I .. . ..... .. . ..J' ..- '., ... .~I' -I ." .
, :", . the 'state 'were recently increased to reflect. ;;. ,,", ",. '. :. ';,~ '.. 'T',' ',. ?;'" ,.:--::.:.
.. f. ., - ..... . . .' '. . . . . -.",. . . · ~ #. .
,:,__./ ",' "valuesinelTeclduringthene~vbaseyear, 1985, ",:;:.,'. '::'., ;','-"":~'~:';,:":<:-"::::::'.:; '/'::
:\' ,". " instead.of ,the pr~yio,us base year ofl9~7.,;',::, ~ :'-:':';':',' ::: .;..i;~:;:__[.:';~'l>:j~'-..:~;)i
, :" .,' ,.' Readers who own property in Colorado have .:; , ,", ;-' '~; . "~~'iffii'" :_':"J:,ii:'::~::"~-
:1:' , :-- :__already had:?r.s!loi! ~yiP.h;~v~, .tl~e.unpleas'ant :":':~' ". II~\M- 'l,t c 'J~'" ':":::}i'/
. . . :'., ',: ,~?O~k,~f.~efe.lVlng ~sses~men~n~tlces .r~0~ct-,:'. ':. "" :",.'u1 0, "'.
. ." :( "'-'- '. mg these ney; property values.. . ..,,: ,," ~ ',"'-; :,.' --:,~,' .' .,..', ' . '.,' , '. . 'ii"
, ",' \,:",:" ': ','.' Because' property,valties were far higher in ::::: ".:.'", " . - .' ',., "
I '.':,., ':, -- 1985 than in 1977. probably !lv:!n higher than '. :. ,':,:' ;, ~1;~'f,~, ;.:
., __". ." " ":, ,~, .)h'ey'are'n?w,theavera~e in~rea,se ina'ssessed --:-':! . ;: ...'b..{fg:'~" . 1. -:'JJP;,: ,:;:,--:
I,'.: '.;,;:..:.< ,';, ,:~',: ;!,: '. v~lu:s across the sla~ IS ~ald to be .1,85%. In.' . ! if;Il,;;.uJ,l~.f! .i'f&-:'~':o 'I ':~ :.~:,
. ',' ;" ' ' ",' ':;' '.- :__"., -Pltkm 99ui.ty" th~, ass~ssor says mC,rea;;es ' ':. '. ~ 1J~.r-!. . ;.'/i:Y:~/ ,-- ',!/J,:'::__':,:
'i " ." , range from lOO'}& to well over 200% dependmg'::, I ~\ '.;' -"1;,':;' __ .-',::' -- L, ;''-
I l~:' ~ ~', ': on the location of thr--property.:'::;-,,:;, .::<' ':, " :'-~'''''' " ;,/};.~ d~~i" ,,/"/ ,.',--":.:';,;-
" :,,' " , . \>__", ;;::', rhe assqssm(,mt 'p:0cess,was,',ma'nd,!-ted by a';<, I/i i,''',1Ii.-;;--.:. '1.-.'1 ,;:'~}~::.
:j ,~', '" constit~ti.onal a~e'm!m!lnt adopte~ ~y_ColC!r3,~<"~:'~ ': :;;fI.' , ' 5Jf " ;',:,'/.;':;>".-',~
, " \1 '.:. ,;'. .d?:.:oters,J..Ill~~?m3!1!llfort~oequ~}lzeth~laX-;:"::;,:.':<;: t~> , :;,:,~~..i,~,:~'~/:]"\'::
l.: . :',. " \" .', ' base throughout the stale, wher~ m the past '::;,,: ...<',....-,;::. -;:,,:': .', ~;.,,;:i',: :,,'::-:.~' Co;":
. .... .:.__ . . . ..... * ......". h dk t- ' ts' di._~...~,.:.....~.:.::..}....-.:.~..,~......:.:..."":-;4""
.':, '.: "." ",-. ' :.' '.'-', -q.' some assessors a ep assessmen mor .' ",,; . '. I.', '" "', ",,",-:'<",: ",""c'''''----
. ,'. . .~-:;., .. :'., , . ..... .. ...... "'f'" . '." ~~~. ;:r ...._.., ....-.. --;.~,., ,.1..............._
." __'. ".. ",,' \' ~""; ", natdylow. Residential real eslate is assessed ' "',' ': ::"''-~':'>~:::'!'' '-'.7.:~r-:~---__'~',
. ;'-' ';'..". ::: at !8%,of it?'aclu'al ~ase-ye~:';'aliie.;-. '-':,:.~\::,; ;~::,-':'~' ,:,:,;-";,<~.:~:),:::(:"66',i'n{y'''',;' I
~'<_"':' ,'., J?l!t, unp~~}~santaslt,maybe, the shock ofthe" ,'.,,". ";,':::-:,.____.'/:~:.' ;'-','J' '.":. ,'.:-,
:\ " ~..increase in property values is meaningless'un~' ,;,':' ':'~, --.', ~,5J:'; >", :':" '"'' t"--
I: '__ ' ,';, tillocal governme~tsestabli~h the :nilllevy for) S:'i"': ~ ,"; ::"::>"':'>';'~'~'-~~":}~
I', " ;;nex~year, somethmg all ~,ust domthe fall. ,.....'.- Hunter Creek a(
I,.' Smce the slate controls the total amount of. ,'-- ,., .. '.-' .-,.--","" ". '.-' , '.
;" " :' increase,for ~'ach entity'; tO~vris, cities, counties~'.- ~,'" A thorny pr<?b)em ha~aris~n'c~i';l
l .,', :, school districts and all the various special dis-, public's access to the Hunter Creek
,," ~' tricts thateach arca'has, the tax bite hike' caiio ':'~ ar'ea',--and w8 fcellocal omdals'inus
" . 'b.' ...,. -..' ",."-.. ~ ..".. "I ' 'd'd '. Ie. . .~. . . -.
: "not e eX,ces~lve<:- :;,:::"'i:':':::':':: -,',~c,-: " ,,' yan ecis,ively to solve thcprol
I, ~'However; ,since all gover.nm~nts' are con-' . 'public's best interest..,,:::"' :::',,~.-,::,
\'. :,stantly searching for, nC\~ funds"mos~.~vill ~n~'~:~--' ,~'private lahdo~\1-ie'~, Tom ~fCc'
'i;~doubtedly-al,Tange to adopt !-l-nu1LleYy. w~lch' ,: ,c!~sed what,for y~ars hasb~en a h.
;,; "will give them, ifnot 'lllthe.additiorial, funds': : 'access route to HunterCreek,up th,
'_ .,' ' , "the stat? will al!ow, at least mo~e income .than ", of the c~e,ck drainage froll). the top
they enjoyed thIS year. "",":,', --'__,::, "::,~,, Jlfountam Ranch area.:,', ,0 --.', ,;
: r.", ;,!('n!s ;'.1;0 are worried ayout possible tax''-~~'~'' WhiJe'we respeclthe rights ~fpI
;,'"1.,:,,,,:5. ;1",J without doubl there will be oWllcrstodowhaltheywantwilht'
. """,:.', ,'",c'd bi-.e 11:',:<,' ",tcntioll tball c';.;r to . Il1U~t bc ~\'ithin re'a~oll'alld \~'ith ~r.
'l'c) .,'. l .. ' -- t ' "r' 'I" t 'lc ",ony' 'l,n 11\1\ I;c's \",,]r--r'n C"\(C'I--11
i' ... '0': I' \"'.l':-':-' oJ .::- _~ l.: ...: . j I.... \....J . ...: ll~"', :'1" .:. y \\
l.nti::.;s '...~1:(~1 U~I: thvir ::I:}n.')' ;l'.!llrc t~jC mill l:-Il~us 2,l'C: illyoh'cd.
.1 , "1"("\0:; It !s inte!"('::ting to note that dH
.' tJi,5 f3.tS/. '
ON e:. F<Xrr I
SIDE. .b}.}D
: (;VCR. iJ.J13
'-- ." - .
~. . .'. ~
"
<
,
.'
(
I
i
,:
t1J.-,
~'
IF)O C C<GlvJ ~c/~ 2;.1
A ;?;'>mJ ~,/Jcvc{" ~)o~ '
;If t7 .tJ9<7 ./ ) 0 0
#V"7C't f ~ 7f^oz, u
/,,"",
"""'....
IA )7 ;f/Bw M ~ k;:J ~ ;!
---) I,. r(fJ", /.j!
~, ," /.__ II.., C [..-'\.c
~ 0. '/ C' I' :..A.. ,.'
. ,/? , ~
? /" <'/ ,j ,,'? -/
' ../
,
4y', . /i// rz
11 -3 j( o/o.~.;- G C/lrvj~ HJ&'ju--
/UJ'J) /J!,/I~M/~ ~hO//JjJr
,LC/lL~d( Co Bo ZIt"
#1
q ev-J)"; /1)
e./a 6rJ/h-o h~
{'Ie E /7~0",A~
M/M Cd g/6/;l
/'i"?V h"l ~/h,u . /
/J ago ~ ~~ 11c;~ f t/(
c:;M'} Ca 8016)
j).f'
lit / -= )
,L. ee~ ,)-P"7 oil [-S"Ik)
'%./11, A"7~'/~ ~~'JZr/ jJ
29 J:471 s--/
60JICVJ //% ff 0 Z /o?
# 7 :;;;/~/. ~6Jr/< /LJ
c~ C"lJc -{/S'4
z.. (' 00 LJo'j 1J ,ed s;,,J. 9tJi
Go V?..! [c.1L No-.
3-:7)J1)
:116' d4/;{/lJ ~/J;J~ u/cr;<
4~ 9J ()
#~ Co ,g/t/Z
-# 9 ;ghYl,? eV4"1J
/,0/11... '-/77 y'
;('/ J~"? G.. 6' /6' / L