Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutlanduse case.boa.822W-Smuggler.011-87 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case 187-11 / John Doremus 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--Meeting-: Date: Time: October 15, 1987 4:00 p.m. Ownerror-Variance: A P pel 1 an t- for Variance: John Doremus Name: John Doremus Address: 822 W. Smuggler St. Location -ord.,,..al,,llun -of property: Location: 822 W. Smuggler St. Variance Re\lu.,s1:-ed-: Zoning is R-6-Residential. Required setback is 15 feet for rear yard. Variance of 10 feet is requested. Will applicant be--reuresented-by -counsel-: Yes:- No:~ The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk CITY OF-ASPEN BOARD OF--ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER -15.--1987 4: 00 -P.M;. A G--E ND A I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 3, 1987 IV. CASE 187-11 John Doremus V. ADJOURNMENT , < -, RECORD- -oF--PROCEEDINGS BOARD-eF~S-------------------___ --SEP'l'EMBER--3-r -1.981 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. ROL-r.--CAL-L Answering roll call were Francis Whitaker, Charli"e Paterson, Josephine Mann, Rick Head, Anne Austin and Ron Erickson. MINUTES OF--MJGUST--I-3.---198-1 Ron Erickson moved to accept minutes as corrected. Charlie Paterson seconded the motion with all in favor. CASE 18T-9--I)}tl,E-- AND --SALLY-POTVIN Applicant appears to be requesting a rehearing of Case 187-9 which was a request for conversion of a carport to a garage that already encroaches into the rear yard setback. Joe Edwards, representative for the Potvins: I just have a few more things to present. Joe first entered into record affidavit of posting, photograph of posting and copy of original sign of posting. Fred Gannett: This is a continuation of a public meeting. We have to give notice to the public that the issue is coming up for reconsideration. Ron: The last meeting on this was complete. Joe: We felt that since the last hearing was closed and it was completed that anybody who might have been paying attention may have felt that there was not further reason for them to ever concern themselves with it and since we were asking to re-open the issues that it would be appropriate to give notice again. Also notifications were sent to all surrounding property owners. Remo: I just want to know if that is the procedure we should follow in the future on re-opening a case like that. Fred: Paul and I have talked on whether or not it is necessary to send out letters to everybody within 300 ft. We have not come to a definite conclusion. In terms of reposting on the premise that would be our minimal requirement. Remo: I appreciate the applicant going through the whole process. 1 , .' , , , Joe: The other thing I would like to introduce and I am pulling it out of Dale's home photo album is the original photo that sort of precipitated our finding out that he did not really do it as I have referred to in the affidavit. It is hard to see that from the zerox but I am going to put the original photo in your file so that everyone can see it. Dale brought his home photo album to the last meeti~g and I saw it but we were really trying to concentrate more on variance than the nonconforming use issue and it didn't dawn on me until the conclusion of the hearing that the fact that the east wall of the carport had always been connected to the house and therefore had always been part of the principal residence. I realized the significance after the hearing. One of the reasons for our denial which Francis pointed out quite strongly was that Dale had done it when he connected the roof. He caused the problem by causing this to become a nonconforming structure at that time. When I went over it with Dale, I said "Dale what is the story on this wall?" He said, "Well I don't know, let's call and see if I can find the prior owner". We were able to do that and we got--let me tender the original affidavit from the owner. He was able to find ~Ir. Fultz whose father had built this house in 1962 who advised us that that is the way it had always been. When he originally buil t it, he built that east side wall continuous with siding from the house to the carport all the way along. Therefore, the carport was always a part of the principal structure. Therefore, Dale had not caused the nonconformity when he came in in 1982 and did the roof connection. I apologize to the Board for my not having found that out in my prior conversations with Dale. I had decided to describe the history. The sidewall didn I t come up until I saw that photograph. Remo: Well the photo itself because there is no date on it. year. Joe: There is none other than Dale's testifying that he took these photos which he can do and should do when he first bought the house and put them in his family album in 1982. would not have been too valid It could have been taken last Dale: I certainly would testify that these are original pictures taken at the time I purchased the house in 1982. Basically our recollection is that the east wall was connected and in order to document this we went back and talked to the prior owner and he verified our recollection that that indeed was the case. 2 , ~ , '. We tracked him through addresses that we had from other agreements that we had when we purchased the house and were able to locate him and he concurred with the fact that the east wall was connected. Joe: So that became significant in my mind that because one of the main reasons that we had been turned down was that we had caused our own hardship. Therefore I called up Erin who was then acting on this matter and was discussing what we ought to do about it. It was her suggestion that we br ing it back to the Board. That this is a good piece of evidence and that the Board should probably have an opportunity to relook at the matter in light of that and therefore I went through the process again. The other thing that we did since we discovered that Dale had not caused the problem and it had been like that for 25 years, we resubmitted our request for the building permit back to the Building Department. In my letter to Jim Wilson which you have a copy attached-- Remo: Did you ever get a reply? Joe: Jim Wilson and I had a phone conversation on Exhibit A under the partition for re-hearing--that is my letter to Jim on the l3th of August--Jim and I had a phone conversation on the 24th August and I asked him what position the Building Department would take with respect to my letter of August l3th. His response to me was that this was the first time anything like this had ever come up and that he felt like he would prefer to have the Board decide it than him unilaterally take a position on it. I asked if it would be all right if we could incorporate an appeal of his decision not to act positively on our request with our desire to rehear the issue of the variance because of our new evidence. He said "Fine, that would be no problem". He would agree to that. I asked Jim to prepare would prepare a letter. letter to that effect. in a letter that fact and was told he As of today, I have not received the Bill Drueding: I talked to Jim about an hour ago and we had talked about it before about the possibility and an hour ago he said he did not write a letter and that any comment to the Board would be that he defers to the Board. He is not going to make a decision, he is going to leave it up to you guys. Remo: That is what he would have told us anyway. Joe: So he did deny our request but he said "I feel case of first impression". That is one of he words. first time he had ever seen anything like this. that is a It is the 3 " : Remo: But he made a determination that he was not going to give you a permit. Joe: That is correct. Remo: So he did make that determination that you were in some violation. Charlie: Otherwise he could not come before us. Joe: He did not determine that we were in violation. He did not go that far, Remo. He just said "I won't issue you your permit-- Remo: Why? Joe: He said nI think this is something I have never seen before and I want to defer this to the Board". Bill: He left it up to you guys. Joe: That is exactly what he said. Anne: It is still a nonconforming structure. Fred: There are some questions of fact that need to be answered. The facts that I see as major to your decision are as to whether or not the east wall existed as represented in 1982. If the question in fact is correct then that takes the issue to the Board. Bill's refusal to make a decision constitutes a rejection of a permit. The Board has the ability to appeal or to reverse that decision by making a determination that the wall did exist and by then taking the subsequent-- Remo: He could have made that determination then. Fred: He could have. Remo: That the wall existed by the same evidence that we are getting. Bill: That is not what he was asked to do. Remo: Well now, wait a minute. talking about. Fred: It appears to me without talking to Jim that Jim, based on the new issue presented to him, did not feel that he could make a positive decision in favor of the applicant because of the newness of this issue. And that essentially what he was deferr- ing to the Board was the opportunity to--the fact of not making a decision, he rejected it. He appealed his decision on that basis or to go to the second issue of looking at the possibility of That is what Fred is just 4 '. " granting a variance. That is not to say that he couldn't have. He just simply chose not to. Now we have not been in a position--Bill and I have talked at length about this--I haven't talked to Jim nor has my office talked to Jim in terms of making a recommendation to him as to either grant or deny the permit. We are prepared to make recommendations to the Board on that basis. We were not asked and did not make recommendations to the Building Depqrtment. Joe: So I guess if everyone's read my memo, I don't want to be redundant and bore anybody but I do want to make a couple of pOints. We are here really sort of reviewing two things. One, we are reviewing Jim Wilson's defacto rejection of our new request for the issuance of a permit on the grounds of the nonconforming use, nonstructural addition. And the second thing we are doing is bringing back for your reconsideration our request for a variance based on the fact that we did not cause the problem which was one of the primary reasons for our rejection in the first place. Ron: Fundamentally, Jim Wilson did not make a decision. The decision was Bill's to make. Bill made a decision. Bill rejected the permit based on his interpretation of the code. So you are, in effect, appealing Bill's decision. Bill's decision was ratified by Jim's decision not to overrule it or not to take any other action to it. So essentially what we are doing is appealing a decision of the zoning office so-- Remo: Well, let me understand then from Bill--why did you reject the permit based on the new evidence that was presented to you as far as-- Bill: Because I still feel that under Section 24.l3-3 Section A that the fact that the wall was there or not, further enlargement of that carport to a garage increases nonconformity. And I go to that Section--no such nonconforming structure may be enlarged or al tered in a way which increases non conformity. My interpre- tation has been basically upheld by other people I work with, the Planning Department, former City attorneys and this Board of Adjustment that the addition of this bulk on this sort of foot- print that this bulk from a carport to a garage increases the nonconformity. That, in essence, is still my interpretation and that is what basically I think you have to have a rule. Remo: Bulk being enclosure--that is bulk. Bill: Absolutely. Remo: And that by definition is in the code? Bill: The word bulk is not. 5 , Remo: It isn't. Bill: OK. It may not be enlarged. I feel it is an enlargement. We are not dealing with an enlargement as necessarily FAR, not necessarily footprint. I feel that added addition of those walls is an enlargement in those setbacks and it increases the noncon- formity. Francis: When that house was built in 1962 there was 5 ft rear yard setback? Remo: That's right. Joe: Our argument really is based on Section l3-5A which you can also refer to the highlight of l3-3. Both of those sections are quoted in my memo to you on pages 2 and 3. What it essentially says what the nonconformity we have here is not a bulk nonconformity, it is not a use nonconformity. Our nonconformity is a setback of 7 ft 8 in. Remo: But he has made a distinction now by what his definition of bulk is. And I don't know whether you have addressed that. I read your memo and everything and I--and now he is bringing in an issue that enclosing a carport increases it. Not the argument that you gave-nit increases its bulk by addition of the enclosure. Joe: Its bulk is not nonconforming. If we had some kind of volumetric nonconformity, then I would agree. Remo: So that has to be FAR you are saying. Joe: That's right. If we had an FAR problem such that we are now enclosing an additional space and violating the FAR then I would agree that that enclosure would be an expansion of a non- conforming FAR. The only thing that we were turned down for was that fact that we were in the setback. The rear yard setback. That is the nonconformity. That pad has been poured for 25 years. Remo: You have made yourself quite clear. I am trying to get this subtle distinction that he is making that the enclosure of 4 walls creates bulk. You have not addressed bulk in your memo. Joe: I did because what it says is Section 24-l3.5A says that on any nonconforming structure work may be done on ordinary repair, repair or replacement of nonbearing walls provided, and this is the bulk thing, provided that the cubic content existing shall not be increased. We already had a floor, a ceiling. We had walls and we had partial walls on the north and the west side. What we have done is replace those partial walls on the north and 6 ~ #," \ the west side with full walls but the cubic volume is defined by the parameters and we did not increase that. Remo: Let me find that out. If this were part of the main building and it did not have any walls--if this were a structure and it was part of the main bUilding--a room let's say--didn't have any walls--had a ceiling--would you enter that into the FAR? Bill: If this were part of the main structure and-- Remo: It didn't have any walls. Ron: Like a porch. Bill: And a porch and it went into and it's already-- Remo: It is not enclosed--it's open. Bill: The thing is the carport is exempt from that-- Remo: No, this is the main bUilding. It has nothing to do with a carport--a room in a main premise that does not have any walls. Bill: My interpretation there is--we don't have the clearest codes here--sometimes you can't talk to each other--will you repeat that? Remo: We are trying to find out what constitutes bulk. If the carport were part of the enlargement-- Bill: Here is what I am saying. This is where we get onto those three words--this enlargement thing. What he is doing with these walls is enlarging the in the setback he is enlarging this thing. It's adding bulk. He is continuing construction within that setback whether it be up or down. He is continuing construct- ion--addi tional bulk--addi tional construction in the setbac k to make this more so it will stand longer. And the intent is not to encourage survival. So basically we are stuck with--if you read this enlargement--not FAR, it doesn't say may be enlarged. That is just my interpretation. That is my basis of it. It you don't agree with that-- Fred: I think when the Building Department has been in situat- ions like this it has to interpret the section as narrowly as possible and to use the term "enlargement" is a very broad platform for saying that any action that increases the appearance of the nonconforming structure is prohibited. We have hit on this case here something that challenges that premise head on. And the question is is whether or not the terminal argument includes the concept of adding density interiorly--not exteriorly into that encroachment. I think that is why I look at it as a 7 " factual issue. If the factual issue is such that the enlargement does not, by the activity of the applicant, increase the noncon- forming which in this case here means moving into the setbacks, it may not be an enlargement. It may not constitute an addit- ional encroachment. Francis: According to my geometry which I studied a long time ago, cubic content means 3 dimensions. The roof and the east wall and part of the other walls were in existence in 1962. Is that correct? Joe: Correct. Francis: Then it seems to me that by putting a garage door, the cubic content is not being increased. Joe: On this issue exhibit B to this memo that I gave everybody is a case in which the Supreme Court in New Hampshire where exactly this same issue came before the court and they say that where a storage room, and instead of using it as a garage, there was an open carport which encroached into a rear yard setback and they enclosed it and made a storage room out of it. The question was is that an expansion of a nonconforming use. And the court held no. It said "Where storage room which owners of a noncon- forming property constructed by enclosing a previously open carport and pouring a cement floor and which did not constitute living quarters for another family and did not effect the proximity of the dwelling to adjoining lot lines and where the added room did not enlarge the square footage of the dwelling so as to render the lot size proportionately more inadequate, the construction of the storage room did not constitute an expansion of a nonconforming use". So this very identical issue-nit isn't Colorado lawn-but that very issue happened in New Hampshire under the very same facts and they felt that that is not an expansion of the nonconforming use. And I said the nonconforming use was in the setback and we did not expand that. We also in sort of desperation--we offered to under Section 3, what it says here in nonconforming uses that you cannot enlarge them but it says you can retract them. It does not say what happens when you don't do anything. I think that is what para- graph 5 refers to and says that you can make changes to non- structural as long as you don't expand the content. But in desperation because it was specific and says because we can do things to decrease the nonconformity, we have even suggested to Mr. Wilson that we would move it back 6 inches. And therefore decrease the nonconformity. We would, however, want to enclose it. That would cost Dale $4,000.00 because it is a huge beam that supports that end of the carport, a huge post and it is a monumental job to move it back even 6 inches. That would include 8 , \ moving electric meters and gas lines but it is cheaper than taking this thing to District Court and being in Court for another year about it. As a last ditch alternative we would definitely prefer something else. And there is a case there which I cited that is a Colorado case which is found under C which is the Purlmuder case where this deals not necessarily with an area variance. It deals with use variance which is more strict. But in that case tl}e guy had a brick yard and they zoned him residential and he then proposed to change it to a shopping center and the Court said that a commercial use is more restrictive than an industrial use and therefore since you are going down in intensity use scale you absolutely have a right to do it and the Board of Adjustment or Building Department can't deny you that right. And that is a use variance and we are dealing with an area variance, that would be analogous of our request of an absolute right to reduce the nonconforming. Going on to the second request which is the issue of the re- hearing of the variance. I cited in the memorandum some quotes from American Jurisprudence to try to clarify this distinction between use and area variances because the first time we were here I was not that clear in that distinction and I thick there was some confusion in everybody's mind. There were statements of this as an illegal use and it is not either a garage or a carport. This is an allowed use by right in this zone. And the only variance that is involved is strictly a setback variance. And the court cases have held that when you are dealing with an area variance which does not really change the character of the use of the neighborhood. It is not like plopping a commercial use in the middle of residences. Then a lesser standard of burden of proof is allowable. You don't have to find the unnecessary hardship. All you have to find is the lesser standard there. Ron: The lesser standard being practical difficulty. Joe: And Dale has some additional presentations on that. We went in and measured his automobile and I would like to tender another exhibit where hen-this is Dale's writing but I will explain it to everybody. We have 24 ft 6 in. It is actually about 24 ft lO inches from the back of the house all the way to the front of the existing carport/garage. Now that is actually about 10 inches. But along that side wall are gas lines and some utilities. There is electrical-- Remo: That are in the carport area-- Joe: That are in the carport area and you really don't have the use of that last 4 inches. You just couldn't drive a car all the way up-- 9 Remo: These utilities come out a lot more than 4 inches. They come out about 4 feet. Joe: Well they may but they are running up along the back of the wall, they come out about 4 inches. Now they may-- Remo: Well, the utilities themselves--I don't know whether it is a washer/dryer or whatever and it is defined by t.he concrete coming up off of the carport. Joe: As it existed-- Remo: storage use the are. And it also-nit doesn't show on here--there on the left hand side and the right hand side. footprint of the garage, it would be just where is also If you the lips Dale: We are discounting that. If I took all that out, I would still be limited to a loss of 4 inches at a minimal for the existing gas lines and electrical lines along that back wall. Joe: We were trying to see if it was possible if we moved it all the way back to the setback, would his car fit in there. And the answer is no. Remo: Right. Joe: By 3 inches with no space-- Remo: Right. variance too. But then we are here to allow you the minimum That is part of our-- Joe: We were trying to figure out what would fit in there. And these dimensions of the car being l6 ft long and that door frame that holds the garage door is 9 inches back and the track mounting for the door that would have to go behind that we came up with l7.l and then our encroachment setback of 7 ft 8 inches comes to 24 ft 9 inches and if we took our washer and dryer and all the utilities and all the cabinets and he work bench and everything that is along the back wall of the house out we would only have 24 ft 6 inches. So we come up 3 inches short being able to even stuff the car in there at all and I think this is evidence of a practical difficulty. It would be extremely difficult tOn-in fact it is impossible to fit the car in a garage if we have to conform to the setback. Ron: I don't know if that would be a practical difficulty. But I think you have defined what the minimal variance would be. I don't think we could cut that variance down at all because he can't fit the car in. 10 , '. Joe: The practical result is that you have to have room to walk around the car. Ron: What I am say ing is we really can't cut back the request for 7 ft 8 inches. Remo: I think we can. I don't understand--if you took the utilities out you could still have it 4 feet that we could get rid of here. We are allowing a foot so you don't hit some obstructions so you don't hit those utilities. But there is definitely 4 feet between the back wall and that curb part at the end so that your car has to go within the framework of that curb cut, right? That is what we should be measuring in length and width. And that is what we need. That would be the minimal of anything. Joe: 7ft 8 inches is just a basic reasonable number to have room to get around the car at both ends. Remo: But you can get around the front. You could cut the utilities there now. But you have got those things so you are negating your own thing by having the util i ties. I don't think we are going-- Joe: I don't want to get hung up on that. I just want to show you that it was physically impossible to conform to have a garage and conform to the setbacks. And if we are dealing with a variance as opposed to an appeal of a denial of a permit under our first request that we think we are entitled to by right, then we have to go into-nand you guys are all familiar with this- -and I pointed out in here that the clearest case of practical difficul ty and this is quoting from page 6 of my memorandum-- first off they say that practical difficulty is generally agreed that it is a less stringent requirement than unnecessary hard- ship. So it is some lesser burden and what constitutes practical difficulties. Those are 2 very generic words. What the heck does that mean? The Court essentially says there is no pertinent definition, that you guys have to decide that on a case by case basis. But one of the criteria "it has been held that practical difficulty is shown by circumstances which demonstrate that a literal enforcement of the zoning restrictions would have the adverse effect of pre- cluding full enjoyment of the committed use, or would render conformity with the zoning restrictions unnecessarily burdensome. And so that really is our argument that it would be unnecessarily burdensome to try to drive that all the way back and to require him to cut off his garage. And that to no allow him to have an enclosed garage where everybody else on the block has one is denying him and precluding him the full enj oyment of the pe r- mitted use which is a garage enclosed. I have pointed the real bazaar inconsistency in the code whereby Butch Clark on the 11 corner was allowed to access his house from 2nd street and put his garage 5 feet from the alley. Yet everybody else has to be l5 feet from the alley. So the 4 corner lots-- Remo: But he is also l5 feet from the adjoining property owner in the rear. Anne: No. Joe: Actually he isn't. Remo: Well, he should be. That would ben-that is the reason why he gets 5 feet on the alley is because he loses lO feet in the rear. Whether he has got that or not that doesn't make any-nand also isn't there a 6 and 2/3 foot requirement on a corner lot? Bill: Yes. Remo: So that he would lose because he has a corner lot and it has to do with vehicular traffic being able to look around the corner so the setbacks are set back a little bit more on a corner lot. So he loses something by having a corner lot. He isn I t necessarily gaining and that is a quirk in the code. Joe: It isn't just a quirk that I find out that on one hand we say might have all of this space down the alley and then our own code allows a way that causes a constriction at either end which, if anything, it ought to be wider at the ends for sight visibil- ity. Remo: It is. It is required. the alley side. But it is on the corner, not on Joe: Perhaps the Board may want to recommend the Council to consider taking a look at that some day. It does seem to be a quirk that we ran across. Beyond what is in our memorandum I don't have anything else to add. We would ask theBoard to either grant the variance or in the alternative to find that we are entitled to replace the nonstructural walls and we are not expanding the cubic content and either one of those would be satisfactory. Remo: You use the word replacement about an 18 inch overhang or something? I don't believe that came out in the first meeting. What is this l8 inch--a partial wall? Joe: No. Down from the roof there is a post a beam with a flat board roof. Remo: Sort of a valance? Joe: Yes. It came down from the roof on the posts. There was a 12 ~ \ wall. A sort of skirt or valance or whatever you call it. But it was above the height of people walking and then it filled in from there on up to the roof. And what we are proposing to do is fill it in from there to the floor and put a garage door in there that you can open and shut. Remo: That wasn't brought out. Joe: That is true, it wasn't. Remo: And I did not know what you were talking about replacing a wall. You are extending that replacement which in essence is the same thing as expanding. The issue is still before us. It doesn't change the issue much. But you still want to completely enclose. Joe: Correct. Ron: I am confused as to when the various walls were construct- ed. We know now that the original east wall was in existence in 1962. What about this wall here? When was that constructed? Dale: That was completed then also. Ron: That was a compl ete wall. Joe: That was built-- Ron: That was a full wall--enclosed wall. Joe and Dale: Yes. Ron: So this part of the house, when was that part of the house built? Joe: In 1970. Ron: '70? We didn't even hear of an addition in '70, did we? Bill: Sure. Ron: I thought it was '8l. '80 and '81. We talked '72. Joe: That was an addition that was added in 1970. Ron: OK. This was done in 1970 here. Joe: Correct. Ron: OK. When was this part built? Joe: There was a partial wall up high right here. The valance 13 , .. ran all the way across like this. And Dale extended these down to the ground all the way along here. Ron: What about that one? Joe: I don't know. already here? Or was piece right here? Dale, this little section here. was this that extended when you extended this little Dale: I think that that was probably added. Ron: So this was all added later. Joe: About 2 years ago. No, a year ago. Ron: me to posts south And the thing is--I am not an architect so it is hard for understand, I can conceive of a carport very simply being 4 with a roof on it. You are talking about north, west and nonbearing walls. Joe: We are talking about north and west nonbearing walls. Ron: But the thing is up until 1981 or '82 when you connected the garage or the carport to the house, prior to that there was an opening this far, right? Joe: There was an overhang in the roof. Ron: An overhang between the main--that' s right--but sometime anyway you connected this which is the roof line to the house. Joe: Right. Ron: where guess here? OK. So this point here or the roof was bearing, right? these, this is what held the say this corner here--that is The posts, you had 2 posts, I thing up, right? These posts Joe: There are posts there, I don't-- Ron: The thing is that there is a post there. post, right? You take that out of there, the fall down. What I want to know in 19 81, what roof up? That is a bearing roof is going to was holding that Joe: The posts. Ron: Posts. Where? Dale: The same spot they have always been. Ron: Here. Well no, you are saying this is the roof. I mean 14 . , " there is a wall here holding it up, right? Joe: No, nobody said that wall is holding it up. Ron: So where is the post? Joe: They are not shown on this drawing. But they are in here. There is about 6 or 8 of them. Ron: So in other words, this carport was not connected to this addi tion at all. Joe: It has always been connected by this east wall. Remo: By the east wall. It would have been an enclosure but it had no bearing load on the carport. Ron: OK. What I am saying is that the main house was not holding up the roof or doing any of the bearing-- Remo: I don't know about the main house. the main house? The same thing with Ron: No. It had nothing to do with the carport. The carport is holding up the roof of the main house and the main house is helping support the roof of the carport. Joe: If you took away the posts, I doubt that little piece of siding that was flanged in there is going to hold anything. Ron: I was just trying to understand what a nonbearing wall was. Remo: More pertinent is the east wall. attached to the posts? Dale: The posts sit about 3 and l/2 feet in from the east wall. The posts are in the interior. Was the east wall Remo: What supports the east wall? It stands by itself? Dale: It is a framed wall. Remo: 2 X 4s and attached to the house. And it is free standing all the way back? Or it is attached to the roof I guess. Ron: Pulled up to the house. Is it attached to the house too? So in other words that keeps it from blowing in at that corner there. We were talking about your argument--something about--you were talking about reducing the nonconformity. That you are allowed to reduce the nonconformity of the structure. The ordinance says that. But I think there is one thing to be considered here and that is that the secured space is a different 15 " ,. " . , structure than nonsecured space? I think that we will all agree with that. Right? Joe: Either of those is allowed by right in this zone. Remo: That is right. Joe: Either a secured space or nonsecured space--absolutely allowed by right. The only nonconformity here is the intrusion into that setback. Remo: Right. Ron: I don't understand that. Joe: Well, they are two different things. The one is a use-- Ron: Oh, I understand that-- Joe: One is the setback. Ron: I under stand that. But the thing is that I don't think that they are the same. I don't perceive them as being-- Remo: Well, what distinction do you make? Ron: What I am saying is that a secured space, and basically that is what you are doing here, up until right now it has been an unsecured space. He wants to make that a secured space. Remo: Bill's argument is bulk. Bill's argument is that any wall that-- Ron: I am not talking about security in terms of freedom from theft. What I am saying is--maybe it is to keep the birds out, I don't known-the winds from blowing through, the rain from coming in. I mean a structure that is unsecured and is open allows the el ement s to come in. When you close that off, you allow the elements not to come inn-that is a separate structure completely. Remo: Oh, I don't know about that. You can keep a window open-- Ron: I think it is a difference between a leanto and a cabin. Joe: Both are allowed, Ron. Ron: I am trying to understand this, that is all. Charl ie: We are going too far here. long here already. These minutes are a book Francis: I wish we would move on here. 16 . , r " Charlie: We have nitpicked this to death. Remo: Board, them. If we still have questions to be asked by members of the they should be heard and the appl icant should address Anne: My question is on the first page of Joe's letter. It says "In this case whether you use the encroachment area ~s a carport or garage, a storage space or a bedroom is irrelevant". My concern is "or a bedroom". I think we have to define here--a carport or a garage is the same thing. A bedroom isn't. Remo: The definition is accessory building. We have to put in any kind of motion that we make that this is an accessory building where no bedrooms are allowed and no addition like a second story. You could use the same argument that if you put a second story on this, the footprint doesn't change. Anne: That is my concern. My concern that this cannot be converted into a bedroom down the road. Remo: Unless we say that this is an accessory building, I think we preclude them from-- Joe: We would be glad to commit that this be used for nothing but a garage ever. And that it would not be a bedroom. I should have left that out because that does lead one to believe that maybe we are expanding the residential thing and it clearly is not our intention. Absolutely we would agree to a covenant not to do that. I was just making a point to Jim Wilson that the allowed uses are not what we are talking about here. The nonconformity we are talking about is 7 ft 8 inches. Remo: Are there any other questions from the Board? There were none and Remo closed the public portion of the meeting. Charlie: This case has become so long winded and is being such an overkill, I wish to make my statement very short. I am in favor of this variance on the basis of the new evidence. Josephine: I am glad that Jim Wilson brought this to us. I want to acknowledge what Bill has said about his interpretation of this and I agree with Bill that there is a question here about-- it isn't clear that this is not an enlargement. That some of those walls were extended outward and so on. I am very happy that we are the ones who are deciding it. I am in favor of this variance now that we got that east wall decided upon. That really helps matters. There is a practical difficUlty here because the structure was built a long time ago. There is a l7 < practical difficulty here because you can't make a car fit in without extending into the rear yard setback. I think it ~lOuld be unnecessarily burdensome to say that this lot just can't have a garage door on it because it is too far back into the setback. I agree, it is encroaching into the setback but we know that that neighborhood has a lot of encroachments so I would say that I would be willing to grant this variance the way it is. Rick: I agree with Charlie: I think this is quite a bit of overkill on this. I too share both Charlie's and Josephine's opinions. I would agree to grant this variance. I might begin by saying that I commend the council for the applicant. I think he has done a tremendously thorough expansive job on this and the points he has raised are well taken. I particularly am interest- ed in his way of circumventing all of this by moving the wall back 6 inches and reducing the nonconforming. That is certainly an avenue of getting around, circumventing this whole thing. But I agree and think that there is a practical difficulty. I think the findings by the Court in Massachusetts wherein they say that we do not agree that the defendant's enclosure of the carport constitutes an expansion of the nonconforming use. I think that lends some credence to this whole matter. I further agree that it does promote and secures the public community's safety. I think thefts and all the things that are going on in that neighborhood probably could constitute an avenue for which we could grant a variance. And I further agree that it is within the spirit of this code. I think this is certainly a case where we should grant a variance. Francis: My main argument in the first hearing was that the applicant had created his own hardship. Now that new evidence has been put before us that objection is no longer valid. I agree again with what the Massachusetts Supreme Court said and I also feel that the cubic content will not be increased. That is very important. I am in favor of the variance. Anne: I don't feel that we are changing the use by changing it from a carport to a garage. We are not increasing the bulk in my opinion. And as long as we limit the use as an accessory building, I have no problem with granting this variance. Ron: I have nothing to add. Remo: I don't think the Board has really addressed the issues here. The first one beina that--I think there are two issues here. One of them is--his first--he has 2 requests and no one has addressed the 2 requests that he has asked for. The first one is to replace a non-structural wall on a nonconforming use in which he is really addressing the Building Department's assess- ment of what they believe to be an increase to bulk of a noncon- forming use. I would deny them. I think what we are doing here is opening up Pandora's box. Anyone who has a carport now based l8 , . , . , on what all these people that sat here will now be able to enclose it without adding, as Francis said the cubic content would not be increased. So that anyone who has a carport now can enclose it. That is, in fact, what you are say by granting this variance. And I would be against granting him the variance. Well not granting him a variance but granting him the interpre- tation opposed to the Building Department's interpretation that we are not adding bulk or cubic content to it. Rather I would grant him the variance based on the fact that we have now grandfathered his request for a variance by the establishment of an east wall that existed since 1962 giving us the basis for actually 2 and l/2 enclosures of a structure--the one wall being a nonbearing west wall. All he added was a portion of that wall and a portion of the rear wall since the valance existed. And on that basis it seems to me that if we orant him a variance from-- through the practical difficulties and through the spirit of the ordinance in allowing him these few extra feet to enjoy the property right that others are enjoying in the same vicinity and zone. We satisfy the applicant and we also satisfy the integrity of this Board and we don't disrupt a principal involved here that might allow everyone else who has a carport to come before us and give us the same arguments--not as a precedent but as a principal involved here about enclosing their carport and not adding any- thing to the footprint or any square footage or whatever other arguments that were faced here. So if you are letting him have a variance, I would be in favor of it but I would definitely define it as a variance and not a contradiction to the Building Inspector's interpretation of the code. In effect, I think what it does is negate everything he has done before on that basis and anything in the future that might come before us. And it has not really been determined yet how to define that particular area. Fred: From the City attorney's viewpoint in terms of Erin's research, they have also asked us to recommend to the Board that the Building Inspector's interpretation not be overruled and that preserves for us the opportunity to explore the interpretation of the code and bring it to Council for elaboration if necessary. It doesn't set a precedent until we find out in that respect as to whether there are other applicants with similar situations. If the Board chooses to grant a variance--as the Board well knows it doesn't create a precedent. Each situation is considered on its own merits and is not to be relied on other than principals. I recommend that the Board not overrule the other office's decision. Francis: In some cases where the Board has granted a variance with certain restrictions, there has been a document prepared to record it in the County Clerk's Office. Fred: We do recommend 2 things. One is that the variance be the minimum variance only so that it is an accessory building not to include a second story. And secondly that a covenant be prepared 19 /' , ...., , . . and recorded in the real records in this county. Remo: I suggest to the Board that the City Attorney's Office prepare a resolution to that fact and a motion to that fact regarding this case affirmatively if the Board grants this variance. Fred: We would be happy to review the form. We will have Joe do this thing for us. Remo: We still have to come to vote as far as the determination of that. Joe: We have no problem with the restriction of no second floor and that it is to remain for use as a garage. Charlie: I move that we grant this variance on the basis of the motion prepared by Mr. Edwards and checked by the City Attorney. Ron seconded the motion. Ron: Was that the way you want to do it? Shouldn't we take first things first and that is that we uphold the Building Department's ruling and that second that we grant a variance-- Remo: I think that is inherent in the minutes as part of the record. Joe: You have disposed entirely of the case by granting the variance and the other issue not to ever be confronted. Remo: But it is still part of the record anyway because we talked about it. Joe: And you have considered it and no decision was reached and that allows total flexibility to the Building Department and the City Attorney to do something at Council if they so desire. Fred: I would prefer that your motion stated the variance be granted to allow the applicant to obtain a building permit to enclose the structure and create a garage. And that the restrictions that were made be included in that document, that there be no further encroachment that it be as an accessory building. Charlie: I so move that we change to that wording. Francis seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Rick Head, yes, Josephine, yes, Charlie, yes, Francis, yes, Remo, yes. 20 . . , '. Variance was granted. Charlie made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Josephine seconded the motion with all in favor. The time was 5:l2 pm. /\ . }11 /' - - -blttt'/-) fliT -(;!{u1lttf-- - Jqnlce M. carney, City Deputy Clerk IJ 21 . NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case 187-11 / John Doremus 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--Tim~of'Meeting-: Date: Time: October 15, 1987 4:00 p.m. Ownerror-Yariance: A P pel 1 an t- for Variance: John Doremus Name: John Doremus Address: 822 W. Smuggler St. Location-ord.,,.cxl.,lloll of'prooertv: Location: 822 W. Smuggler St. Variance Re\lu.,s1:-ed-: Zoning is R-6-Residential. Required setback is 15 feet for rear yard. Variance of lO feet is requested. Will applicant be--re-p-resented-by -counsel: Yes:' NO:~ The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment l30 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 8l6ll Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk . '1 . 'I ~, Date: Appellant: John Owner: John CITY OF ASPEN Doremus Case No.: 822 W, Smuggler St. 925-6866 822 W. Smuggler' St. Aspen, Co. 81611 822 W. Smu~~1er St. (Tree House Condominiums, unit A) 'Lot!=< M.N.O.Block 8, City of Aspen (street and Number of Subdivision Block and.Lot No.> Doremus Address: Phone: Address: Location of Property: Building Permit Appl,ication and prints or any other Pertinent data must accompany..this 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. DESCRIPTIONOP-PROPOSED EXCEPTION SHOWING JUSTIFICATIONS , . This appeal is for a variance to the rear yard setback requirements. Pl43ase see .attachment #1 describing . justifications., See, also, site plan map and arch1tectural plans. Will y_ou be represented~ by, counsel? ( Yes No x (Applicant's Signature) .. ===========c=c====ac===~.=aa=s...a==a=================aaa==\ PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQDIRING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR T( FORWARD THIS APPLICATIO!f TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND REASON FOR Noo GRAIlTING:. - R-~-~ ~~~ 9;:~, ?/~'1/0F':-~ 49<~~ ~ DECISION ~_' , DATE, DATE OF HEARING SECRETAHY ~s~f/ PERHIT REJECTED, DATE /?-;l~ f(7 APPLICATION FILED 9'-2-2--'li? MAILED , _ 1J8e" MIIIn S"r_ A,~~ ~. Colorado 81811 303IBR!5-!5973 t BUilDING PERMIT APPLICATION ABPEN.PITKIN REGIONAL BUILDING DE_RTMENT General Construction Permit 1 Jurisdiction of No.11320 Applicant to complete numbered spaces only. 1. 2, J) 3. 4. MAIL ADDRESS iff. 5, DRESS 6. 7, 6. Class of work: o NEW o ALTERATION o REPAIR o MOVE o WRECK 9. Change of use from Chlnge of use to PLAN CHECK FEE PERMIT FEE TOTAL FEE 10.Valuation of work; $ TyJ)4l ofConUruclion O<;cup.ncy Group Lot A,.. 1,. REMARKS: SlUolBuildin9 (TotaISQuar. Ft.) No, 01 SIO,'.' Mal<, Dec. Lo.d NO. OF BEDROOMS EXISTING ADDEO I.Jse Zone (, Fl.. SO,lnlel." ReQuired o V'I 0 No NO. of Owellin<j Unit I o FSTAEET PARKING SPACES, Coyere.:l Uneov"ed Speci.' Appro..ls AEOUI'RED AUTHORIZED BY DATE ZONING FIRE MARSHALL .Q,PPLICATION ACCEPTEO PLANS CHECKED APPROVED FOR ISSUANCE HEALTH DEPT. SOIL REPORT BV BV BV DATE DATE DATE PARK DeDICATION WATER TAP , NOTICE SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQ~ FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 120 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUC. TlON OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 120 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMEN.CED. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION ANO KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT'DOES NOT PRESUME :TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTH R STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PER. FORMAN OF CONSTRUCTION. ENG. DEPT. OTHER (SPECIFY) TH IS FO IS A PERMIT ONLY WHEN VALlOATED WORK STARTEO WITHOUTPERMITWILL BE DOUBLE FEE SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTOR , NAT RE F OWNER IF WNE~_eUI_LDERI PERMIT VALIOATION CK.D M.O.D VALIDATION CASH 0 PLAN CHECK VALIDATION CK.D M.O.D CASH 0 WHITE - INSPECTOR'S COpy YELLOW - ASSESSOR'S copy PINK - BUILDING DEPARTMENT FILE GOLD - CUSTOMER'S COpy t ATTACHMENT #1 TO APPEAL TO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CITY OF ASPEN Re: John Doremus appeal for rear yard setback variance on lots M,N, & 0, Block 8, City. Justifications for Variance In March, 1977 a minimal variance for a 5', rear yard setback was granted to this building project to preserve a grove of cottonwood trees, an existing ditch providing their water supply, and to compensate for the adjacent properties not conforming to their own required setbacks. o The latter also created a need to turn the duplex 45 from the street frontage, as well as a set back to provide air, light, and privacy. Please see attached copies of the 1977 variance request. With the approval of the previous variance in 1977, permission was granted to build within 5' of the rear property line, allowing the building a 10' encroachment. The actual encroachment was only 6.25', resulting in an actual setback of 8.75' rather than 5', This application requests a variance to add a small additional room to the second floor level of unit A of the Treehouse Condominiums which is an enlargement of the master bath and workout room. The only available area to add this additional room is over the garage, which was the subject of the original variance request. The justifications for this variance are the same as the original variance request; ie: the practical difficulties of the adjacent neighbors having built within their side yard setbacks; ~ . the preservation of the large mature cottonwood trees in the center portion of the lots, (Incidentally, these trees, and a great many more have been preserved as the accompanying photos disclose.) and the practical difficulties of preserving and relocating the existing ditch through the property. Finally, it should be noted that, because the entire structure o has been turned 45 from the street frontage, the encroachment into the setback area of the rear yard is minimal. (see site plan attached here to) In conclusion, it is respectfully submitted that: all the same special conditions which existed at the time of the original variance continue to exist today, the special circumstances which applied to this' property previously have not changed, and the granting of this variance, as previous, will not adversely effect the general purpose of the comprehensive general plan. .. 5' RPtj-l"ck variance grante 1977 standard 15' variance TREE HOUSE CONDOMINIUM Located on Lots M,N,& O. Block 8 City of Aspen , ;:'0 o o ~ SITE PLAfJ '" ~ 2..0' .-- o o , # APPEAL TO BOARD OF ZON I NG ADJU~ fr1ENT CITY OF ASPEN 'DATE MA-RCH8.1977 CASE NO. APPELLANT John Do remus ADDRESS Box 224, Aspen PHONE 925-6866 925-5106 OWNER , John Doremus ADDRESS Box 224, Aspen LOCATION OF PROPERTY Lots M, N, & 0, Block 8, City Between 7th and 8th on Smuggler Street. (Street & Number of Subdivision Blk. & Lot No.) Building Permit Application and prints or any other pertinent datfr must accompany this application, and will be made part of CASE NO. TilE BOARD WILL RETURN TillS APPLICATION Ir IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ALL THE FACTS IN QUESTION. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EXCEPTION SHOWING JUSTIFICATIn"S: This appeal is for a variance to the rear yard setback requirements. Please see attachment #1 describing justifications. See also site plan maps. ,/ ./ , -- Will you be represented by counsel ? Yes No X SIGrjED~ GL IJZ~ ~t PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRING TilE BUILDING INSPECTOR TO FORWARD THIS APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND REASON FOR NOT GRANTING: ~ , ~ ATTACHMENT #1 TO APPEAL TO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CITY OF ASPEN Re: John Doremus appeal for rear yard setback variance on lots M, N, & 0, Block B, City. Justifications for Variance 1. Because the adjacent dwellings on either side of the subject lots have built substantially to the property line, rather than observing the normal 5' side yard, it has been most difficult to properly design even a modest sized duplex which would give reasonable light and air, yard and a modicum of privacy. In an attempt to not be totally overwhelmed BY these 2 and 3 story neighbors, the proposed duplex was turned almost 45 which orients to the street and yet provides side yards where some privacy and light and air can be achieved. The result of this approach has caused small trian- gular portions of the 1 story garages to encroach into the rear yard set- back. 2. There are, located in the center portion of the subject lots, six mature cottonwood trees. It has always been the earnest desire of the proponent to preserve as many of these trees as possible and the architect has literally designed the units around this grove of trees. Half or more of the larger trees in this grove will be lost (as can be observed on the accompanying maps) by strictly observing the rear yard setback, Although the largest tree (2' diameter) clears the building, without a variance to the setback, we have been advised that in the process of digging of the basement roots may be damaged, and with a 2 story wall, all the large branches on one side would be removed. With the setback variance, this large native tree would remain virtually untouched. 3. Finally, we respectfully submit that another natural feature gives cause for consideration of this variance, As can be seen on the map ex- hibits, there is an existing ditch crossing the lot. This ditch has naturally provided water to the aforementioned cottonwood trees for many years. We have shown relocation plans both with and without the variance being granted, and as can be seen, it becomes impossible to retain the ditch within the heart of this grove without the variance as proposed. There is significantly less ditch to relocate if the variance is granted. 4. In conclusion, it should be mentioned that with the subject duplex set further back to the rear as proposed, the streetscape from Smuggler Street is much more attractive and desirable. The conforming plan does not relate to the neighbors setback and tends to block their east and west views. ~ r~ . J ~ ATTACHMENT #2 TO APPEAL TO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CITY OF ASPEN Re: John Doremus appeal for rear yard setback variance on lots M, N, & 0, Block 8, City. Names and Addresses of Owners Adjacent to the Property in Question Lots A & B, Block 8 Charles B. & Helga Marqusee P.O. Box 10610,' Aspen, CO 81611 Lots C & D, Block 8 Robert W. & Anne W. Pullen c/o Bank of the Southwest Building Suite 1905 Houston, Texas 77002 Lots K & L, Block 8 Jack A, Titus 2817 Maple Avenue Dallas, Texas 75201 Fredrik & Nancy W. Zachariasen 2235 Villa Heights Road Pasadena, California 91107 Lots E & F, Block 8 Lots P & Q, Block 8 Barbara K. McLaughlin P.O. Box 1263, Aspen, CO 81611 Lots D, E & F, Block 9 U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service 806 West Hallam, Aspen, CO 81611 TREEHOUSE CONDOMINIUM Located on Lots M,N, & 0, Block 8 City of Aspen ditch & trees preserved as result of variance Courtyard entrance showing the trees preserved TREEHOUSE CONDOMINIUM Located on Lots M,N, & 0, Block 8 City of Aspen view from street showing trees preserved by setback variance . one of the larger trees in side yard fed by ditch , .. ,,' ------~-.~---,' '~'O' I) r, , "', ^r~rl~f, '~~~w,".'_~ ----)J IT ~ . ~:'-u'0iii\J) \J{ t..UI11IHJ I\U.JU011IlJ " " CITY OF ASrErI DATE MA.RCH 8 \977 . John Do remus CASE'NO. ADDRESS Box 224, Aspen PHON E 925-6866 77- :J APPElLANT OWNER John Doremus 925-5106 ,) ADDRESS Box 224, Aspr~l LOCATION OF PROPERTY Lots /1, N, & 0, Block 8, City .. ,/ Behleen 7th and 8th on Smuggler Street. (Street & Number of Subdivision Blk. & Lot No.) Building Pe~mit APPlication and prints or any other pertinent data must aCcompany this application, and will be made part of CASE NO, 77-5" THE BOARD I'JILL RETURN TillS APPLICATION IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ALL TilE FACTS IN QUESTION. DESCRIPTI ON OF PROPOSED EXCEPTION SHOHI NG JUSTI fI CATInnS: This appeal is for a variance to the rear yard setback requirement.s., ,-.Plea$eSr.01 *"\~'~lO.()~ see attachment #1 describing justifications. See also site plan maps: ~,j", ,/ ./ " " " Wll1 you be represented by counsel ? Yes No X SIG~ ~ / J!/Un~ Atffe 1 ant I PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO FORWARD THIS APPLICATION TO THE FOR NOT GRANTING: REQUIRING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND REASON l i 'J APPLICATION IS MADS FOR A BUILDING PERMIT TO BUILD 'A TWO-FAMILY DWELLr~G. The proposed two-family dwelling would have a rear yard of 5 feet. The required rear yard is l5 feet. Sec. 24-3.4 Area and bulk requirements R-6 Zoning District. (\.l\~' ' , Chief Buildin~ Inspector ~ -' -,~ Status igllcd Clay tOll ll. PE RM IT RE J ECHO, DATE DEC I S I ON -1/l it ,:torP DA H APe LJ CA TI ON FIlED J'!1IL,<;/,- 10,7? Om If ""'" NG ar~N n MAILED_ ~.:2<I;1911 SECR[Tft.Ry.111ctJ.f}u,~ VJ~__ ~ , 0 ) . ,\ 0 '-' , -< ~ ,. '. III'tAOl"OAD runUBHING CO.. DENVII':A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS f.: v Regular Meeting Board of I\djustments I\pril 7, 1977 '. r Old business ,The meeting was called to order at 4:l5 PM. Members pr.esent were Charles Paterson, Gil Colestock, Re, 0 Lavignino, Fred Smith and Josephine Mann. Others present were the City Attorney Dorothy Nuttall. ' :t Colestock moved to approve the minutes fLom the March 22 meeting. Paterson seconded. Motion passed. Lavignino stated that a member had been approached about what was going to happen to his case. Nuttall said that the person should go through the proper channels. Everything should be discussed in a public hearing. 1\11 procedure questions can be discussed, but the merits of a case should be public. " Paterson was nominated as Ex Officio member to the Board of I\ppeals. Mann seconded. Motion passed. I' Case 77-5. John Doremus Lavignino opened case 77-5: John Doremus. A variance to a rear yard setback requirement was requested. The justifi- cation for variance is l) In order to provide privacy and light and air the proposed duplex has been set at a 45 degree angle. ' This causes small portions of the garage to encroach on the rear yard setback. 2) If rear yard setback is observed we will have to lose several large trees. 3) If rear yard setback is observed the ditch will have to be moved which supplied most of the trees with water. 4) Also set back the house would be much more attractive in the neigh- borhood'. ,'. I '/ Doremus said that front yard is on Smuggler's Creek. Encroachment into set back is five feet. Balcony infringes on set back. The wall of the house is in violation of the set back. Tried to move garages so everyone could get more light and air. If has to move ditch will lose two 6-8" cottonwood trees. This is the original house plan moved back. The garage access is lO-l2' from the alley. It is realistic to get ditch to large group of trees and swing it around. We are limiting garage to one story flat roof. The house has a pitched two story roof. I Letters were read by Lavignino into the record. 1 , I I J 1) Mrs. Pullen is adjacent to property 15-5 feet."' She. , will be against if his building is closer to the property line. She will lose her view to the south. To grant the request would defeat the purpose of the code. 2) Barbara McLoughlin Moore strongly objects to the variance. It would make it a more dense and crowded area. If we allow variances it will make the zoning code meaningless. It is only a request to benefit one individual: 3) F. Zachariasen felt that granting this variance would be a mistake. This is a quiet residential area. Five feet of greenery between house and stroet is not much more than condos provide. If it becomes a pattern in the area for houses to cover all available ground area, the character will be destroyed. It is important to maintain the single family appearance. 4) Jack Titus asked to deny a request for the variance. Any rcquost would do violence to the existing neighborhood. It would make structures too close together. Lavignino opened the meetinCf to the audience. " ~egular Meeting corOnueu .' Board of ^d;U~ents l\pril 7, 1977 ". John Schumacher appeared for Mr. Pullen. He wanted me to object to this variance. He is opposed to it because it would inhibit his view. The alley could be opened so that some of the traffic could be diverted. 1 John Stanford said that he would going to request that it be opened. It would allow access from seventh street. Lavignino asked if a variance was reques_ed to build it as originally built. Did set back requirements exist when it was built since the case is based on hardship of set back not being met. ..' ./ Schumacher said that the request is based on preserving those trees. Lavinino closed the public portion of the hearing. Colestock said that he was concerned over the cars parked behind the garage and that they would jut into the alley. Could happen. That was his only reservation. Otherwise he would be in favor of the plan. Mann said it was a practical difficulty because of the trees and water. Would like to grant the variance which would allow those to be saved. Smith said he would have no problem with the variance if it wasn't opposed to by all the neighbors. The neighbors are not opposing it for the right grounds. Advice is to ask for tabling and go explain it to neighbors. If objections were removed, Smith would not object. It looks like an improvement. If neighbors not think so, we should not be making up their minds for them. Paterson said that it was a minimal request. There are the practical difficulties as Mann mentioned. Other than the trees and stream the neighbors on either side are a practical difficulty in this matter. House he is designing is ' designed around their infringement upon light and air. Personally discount neighbors on either side and what their objections are. They don't know what they are saying. The only neighbor I am concerned about is the one directly to the north. Most of these letters are only written with only half the knO\~ledge they should have. Sometimes applicants fault and sometimes don't live in town. I would be in favor. i f , Lavignino agreed with Charlie. Practical difficulties do L exist. Trees are worthy of that consideration of saving thl~. It is a minimal variance. It does not adversely affect anyone in the area except perhaps the neighbor to the north, In favor of granting this proposal. Suggest to neighbors anyway and let them see the situation. Doremus said that there will be a garage. He already has a parking space which handles his car. Paterson offered Doremus the chance to table it. Paterson made a motion to grant on the basis of presentation that it is a minimal impact and that practical difficulties exist in so much as the trees, the stream and the neighbors on each side. It is a minimal request and will not adversely affect the general purpose of the general comprehen- sive plan. I I I It should be noted that the board reacted to general plans. These are not construction drawings. 'I (' o 0 Cll-1Y. OF ASIJEN ***~,*******+****j+ , .. I I 1 I I . I ,., :t*************** ~ ~ ~ .. .. .. .. .. .. ~ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. " " .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. -I< .. -I< -I< .. .. '. .. .. .. -I< .. .. -I< " .. .. .. -I< .. .. -I< -I< .. -I< -I< -I< -I< -I< -I< -I< -I< -I< -I< -I< .. .. -I< .. .. .. .. .. .. '. .. . ., .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ v Y v If ~ If V If r \ ~ VI( , Y- If Y- Y If -r Y If r ,. ... .. .- \ ;' (. I I .\' Y ~. .~ If Y "f >( " v ~ , V I \' \' .. .1{ .. , ). .. \ .. :" .. ,~ I :~ () sou l h g a I c 11 a asp ell, co I 0 .. a d () s l .' eel 81 (d 1 CCHTIFICIITE 01' OCClIPNICY ~City of Asp~n, Colorado l,crr 1.1, II, I, 0 DATE: November lB, 1977 JlLOCY, 5 City ADDITIon This is to Certify that a certain structure located 520/522 VI, Smueg1er <:t and miNED by John Doremus el:ecLec1 under BUILDING PERIUT IW. 9h-77 ,1971-' cr.:,r"pli.es I wi th the requiremcn ts of the UNII'Ol'J.l I3UILDING COlli" 19 _L3______ I I Edition. Occupancy Group H I Type ConstrucLion V-N 3 Fire Zone COHMENTS AND RESTHIC'rIONS: ~;i<1IlP,,:_~Q(\,.v~-b~ t51~\\.~\\,' }-t ~. I I \' I .' I I!. ~.l,'", l' I ; j ~ I ell i c- r }\ i 1-.1 in,:, 111:'1,,0,.[, ,,' \: " , , , , , , * * , . , , " , " * , " , , " " * * , , * " * " * " . , , , . * * " , ~ * ><- * ; , >: * .' , , ; , " * * , " " , , . , , , * * , , , , , , . , , , " .\ " II I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL o o CITY OF-ASPEN BOARD OF-ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER -15.--1987 4: 00 -P;'M-. A G-'E N-D A III. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 3, 1987 IV. CASE '87-11 John Doremus V. ADJOURNMENT , I I I o o NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case '87-11 / John Doremus BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: I I I I 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 foll ows: Date and--Time-of-'Meetincr: Date: Time: October 15, 1987 4:00 p.m. Owner-ror--Variance: A P pel 1 a'n t- for Variance: John Doremus Name: John Doremus Address: 822 W. Smuggler St. Location-or'descri:ption--of'prouerty: Location: 822 W. Smuggler St. Varrance-Request-ed': Zoning is R-6-Residential. Required setback is 15 feet for rear yard. Variance of 10 feet is requested. Will' auulicant be-revresented'bv- counsel': Yes:- , - No:...:..X The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment l30 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 8l6ll Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk . c ,~ " '.. I : Date: ,"-. '\ppellant: John Doremus' Owner: John Doremus CITY OF ASPEN o Case No.: Address: 822 W, Smuggler St. Phone: 925-6866 Address: 822 W, Smuggler'St, Aspen, Co. 81611 ' Location of Property: 822 W. Smuggler St. (Tree House Condominiums, unit A) -T,ot!': M.N.O. Block 8, City of Aspen <Street and Number of Subdivision Block and.Lot No.) Building Permit App~ication 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. DESCRIPTIONOP-PROPOSED EXCEPTION SHOWING JUSTIFICATIOnS , , This appeal is for a variance to the rear yard setback requirements. Please see attachment #l describing . justifications., See, also, site plan map and arch1tectural plans. Will ~ou be represented>bY,counscl? ( ) Yes No x (Applicant's Signature) , ==================ac==acBc==coaaaaa====================ceca PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR TC PORWl'.RD THIS APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OP ADJUST?1ENT AND REASON FOR ROO GRAlITING:. ~ R-t,-,~ ~~~ ?:;1-r~' r~'110p-~~ a:eL .~fL' J Sfatus / - PER HIT REJECTED, DATE '?-;1):- t7 APPLICATION FILED f'-2-2--ri7 MAILED , ~y~~ ~ DECISION __' , DATE, DATE OF HEARING SECRETARY .' C1UILDING PERMIT APPLICATION ,0 ABPEN.PITKIN REGIONAL BUILOING OEPARTMENT General Construction Permit 1 I I . eoe Eant Main Street a_r. ", Colorado 81811 30~2!5-!5973 Jurisdiction of NO,l1320 Applicant to complete numbered spaces only. I I I. 2, J) 3. "MONE 4. LICENSE NO. MAIL ADDRESS &. 5, [NO'....EER DRESS 6. 7. 8. Class of work: oNEW o REPAIR o MOVE o WRECK I 9. Chlnoe of use from Change of un to PLAN CHECK FEE p[R"",r FEE TOT AI.. FEE I I I 1 O.Vlluition at work: $ Tv.:..ofCanUtuCI,on OCCUI,.ncyC..ouo LOlA'.. II. REMARKS: Sl~. 01 BUIld,", (Tot.llISQu.'. Fl.) NO, 01 SIO..., M... Dec. Loed t. FI'.Sp,Inlo'... Rite",,,,..., o v.. 0 No No. 01 O....II'n'lUn'u. Co~.t'" UncO....M SPlei.1 Appronh AEQUIRED AUTNORIZED BY OA.n ZONING FIRE MARSHALL APPLICATION ACCEPTED PLANS CHECKED ","PPROVED ""OR ISSUANCE HEALTH OEPT. IV BY SOIL REPORT. BY PARK DEDICATION DATE CATE DATE WATER TAP . NOTICE SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 120 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUC. TlON OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 120 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMEN.CEO. I HEREBV CERTIFV THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS ".ND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFtED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT.DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OA CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF ANV OTH R STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OA THE PEA. FORMAN OF CONSTRUCTION. ENG DEPT. OTHER (SPECIFY) THIS FO IS A PERMIT ONLY WHEN VALIDATED WORK STARTED WITHDUTPERMITWILL BE DDUBLE FEE // I ~"T RE f W~ R IF WN[_R.~!J'LOE.R' PERMIT VALIDATION CK.O M.O.O VALIDATION CASH 0 PLAN CHECK VALIDATION CK.O M.O.O CASH 0 WHITE - INSPECTOR'$ COPY YELLOW - ASSESSOR'S copy PINK - BUILDING DEPARTMEr.n FILE GOLD - CUSTOMER'S COpy o o .' ATTACHMENT #l TO APPEAL TO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSnlENT CITY OF ASPEN Re: John Doremus appeal for rear yard setback variance on lots M,N, & 0, Block 8, City. Justifications for Variance In March, 1977 a minimal variance for a 5', rear yard setback was granted to this building project to preserve' a grove of cottonwood trees, an existing ditch providing their water supply, and to compensate for the adjacent properties not conforming to their own required setbacks, o The latter also created a need to turn the duplex 45 from the street frontage, as well as a set back to provide air, light, and privacy. Please see attached copies of the 1977 variance request, With the approval of the previous variance in 1977, permission was granted to build within 5' of the rear property line, allowing the building a 10' encroachment. The actual encroachment was only 6,25', resulting in an actual setback of 8,75' rather than 5', This application requests a variance to add a small additional room to the second floor level of unit A of the Treehouse Condominiums which is an enlargement of the master bath and workout room. The only available area to add this additional room is over the garage, which was the subject of the original variance request. The justifications for this variance are the same as the original variance request; ie: the practical difficulties of the adjacent neighbors having built within their side yard setbacks; I I I I c o r the preservation of the large mature cottonwood trees in the center portion of the lots, (Incidentally, these trees, and a great many more have been preserved as the accompanying photos disclose.) and the practical difficulties of preserving and relocating the existing ditch through the property. Finally, it should be noted that, because the eutire structure has been turned 450 from the street frontage, the .encroachment into the setback area of the rear yard is minimal. (see site plan attached here to) In conclusion, it is respectfully submitted that: all the same special conditions which existed at the time of the original variauce continue to exist today, the special circumstances which applied to this' property previously have not changed, and the granting of this variance, as previous, will not adversely effect the general purpose of the comprehensive general plan. 5' sot.}-\~ck variance grante l'277 standard 15' variance c 0 TREE HOUSE CONDOMINIUM Located on Lots M,N,& 0, Block 8 City of Aspen ;:." o o o o 5" +' "1,,' SITE PLAfJ ''', 1..0' o . " o TREEIIOUSE CONDOMINIUM Located on Lots M,N, & 0, Block 8 City of Aspen ditch & trees preserved as result of variance Courtyard entrance showing the trees preserved . .' ,,- ..,,;.1 ......r -.. . ..., ' ... ../ . "I.- ~ ... "... ,. r.......____ /I'.'!-. " o o TREEHOUSE CONDOMIN 10M Located on Lots M,N, & 0, Block 8 City of Aspen view from street showing trees preserved by setback variance one of the larger trees in side yard fed by ditch I I I I . " APPEAPTO BOf1RD OF ZON I NG ADJUSQENT CITY Of ASPEN , DA TE MARCH 8. 1917 CASE NO. APPELLANT John Do remus ADDRESS Box 224, Aspen PHONE 925-6866 925-5106 OWNER . John Doremus ADDRESS Box 224, Aspen LOCATION OF PROPERTY Lots ~1, N, & 0, Block 8, City Between 7th and 8th on Smuggler Street. (Street & Number of Subdivision Blk. & Lot No.) Buildin~ Permit Application and prints or any other pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part of CASE NO. THE BOARD WILL RETURN TillS APPLICATION Jr IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ALL THE FACTS IN QUESTION. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EXCEPTION SIlOI'IWG JUSTIFICATIOnS: This appeal is for a variance to the rear yard setback requirements. Please see attachment #1 describing justifications. See also site plan maps. / , . " Will you be represented by counsel 7 :;:"w,"96 14~ ~l ant PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO FORWARD THIS APPLICATION TO TilE FOR NOT GRANTING: REQUIRlfJG TilE BUILDlflG INSPECTOR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND REASON o o . " ATTACHI1ENT #1 TO APPEAL TO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CITY OF ASPEN Re: John Doremus appeal for rear yard setback variance on lots 11, N, & 0, Block 8, City. Justifications for Variance 1. Because the adjacent dwellings on either side of the subject lots have built substantially to the property line, rather than observing the normal 5' side yard, it has been most difficult to properly design even a modest sized duplex which would give reasonable light and air, yard and a modicum of privacy. In an attempt to not be totally overwhelmed BY tllese 2 and 3 story neighbors, the proposed duplex was turned almost 45 which orients to the street and yet provides side yards where some privacy and light and air can be achieved. The result of this approach has caused small trian- gular portions of the 1 story garages to encroach into the rear yard set- back. 2. Tllere are, located in the center portion of tile subject lots. six mature cottonwood trees. It has always been tile earnest desire of tile proponent to preserve as many of these trees as possible and the architect has literally designed the units around this grove of trees. Half or more of the larger trees in this grove will be lost (as can be observed on the accompanying maps) by strictly observing the rear yard setback. Although the largest tree (2' diameter) clears the building, without a variance to the setback, we have been advised that in the process of digging of the basement roots may be damaged, and with a 2 story wall, all the large branches on one side would be removed. With the setback variance, this large native tree would remain virtually untouched. 3. Finally, we respectfully submit that anotller natural feature gives cause for consideration of this variance. As can be seen on the map ex- hibits, there is an existing ditch crossing the lot. This ditch has naturally provided water to the aforementioned cottonwood trees for many years. We have shown relocation plans both with and without the variance being granted, and as can be seen, it becomes impossible to retain the ditch within the heart of this grove without the variance as proposed. There is significantly less ditch to relocate if the variance is granted. 4. In conclusion, it should be mentioned that with the subject duplex set further back to the rear as proposed, the streetscape from Smuggler Street is much more attractive and desirable. Tile confonning plan does not relate to the neighbors setback and tends to block their east and west views. c o . " I ATTACHMENT #2 TO APPEAL TO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CITY OF ASPEN Re: John Doremus appeal for rear yard setback variance on lots M, N, & 0, Block 8, City. Names and Addresses of Owners Adjacent to the Property in Question lots A & B, Block 8 Charles B. & Helga Marqusee P.O. Box 10510,' Aspen, CO 81511 lots C & D, Block 8 Robert W. & Anne W, Pullen c/o Bank of the Southwest Building Suite 1905 Houston, Texas 77002 lots E & F, Block 8 Jack A. Titus 2817 Maple Avenue Dallas, Texas 75201 lots K & L, Block 8 Fredrik & Nancy W. Zachariasen 2235 Villa Heights Road Pasadena, California 91107 Lots P & Q, Block 8 Barbara K. McLaughlin P.O. Box 1253, Aspen, CO 81511 lots D, E & F, Block 9 U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service 806 West Hallam, Aspen, CO 81511 /''' he' APf~ ---'>_.'~-,-- , .-. > ";1'), -.-......- . _.'- - i ' , 1 ' . - , ---~-~....'.,~~ .. -- --" fiT . .;-Z;'C'II-\J} \!j LUH IIHJ I\U.JU.'JIIIL CITY OF ASPErI DATE ~~RC:H 8 1"77 John Doremus CASE'NO. ADDRESS Box 224, Aspen PilON E 925-6866 77-~ APPELLANT OWNER John Do remus 925-5106 ; ADDRESS Box 224, Aspr'] LOCATION OF PROPERTY .-,," Betvleen 7th and 8th on Smuggler Street. (Street & Number of Subdivision Blk. & lot No.) Building Pe~mit Application and prints or any other pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part of CASE NO. 77-0 lots M, N. & 0, Block 8, City THE BOARD HIll RETURN THIS APPLICATION IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ALL THE FACTS IN QUESTION. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EXCEPTION SHO\-lING JUSTIFICATInrIS: This appeal is for a variance to the rear yard setback requirements,. -'-lleasesr.or. **'~'~10.0~ see attachment #1 describing justifications. See also site plan maps. L~", I -// ../ " ," Will you be represented by counsel ? Yes No X SIG~ ~ /t!rLL-n~ Ape 1 ant I PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR TO FORHARD THIS APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND REASON FOR NOT GRANTING: l APPLICATION IS MADS FOR A BUILDING PERMIT TO BUILD 'A TWO-FA~rrLY DWELL:::IG. The proposed two-family dwelling would have a rear \-ard of 5 feet. The required rear yard is 15 feet. Sec. 2q-3.4 Area and bulk requirements R-6 Zoning District. (\l\~' ' Chief Buildinro Inspector ,~ , - -,~ Status igned Clayton H. PERMIT REJECTED, DATE DECISION -C}/ul,.107P DATE ApPLICATION FllfDJ!\IL~-,O,7? OAT[ IF N'^,"NG~, ? 'LiJ. 1, /q17. MAL LED_ ~~/917 sECRETARy-111aYJLtJJ/t~__ IIRAOP'ORO PUOLlSHING CO., OENVr:R '-, '"""\ ,--" ....,,,/ , ,-< RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustments April 7, 1977 Old business Case 77-5. John Doremus ,The meeting was called to order at 4:l5 PM. Members present were Charles Paterson, Gil Colestock, Re, 0 Lavignino, Fred Smith and Josephine Mann. Others present were the City Attorney Dorothy Nuttall. ,-( Colestock moved to approve the minutes f~om the March 22 meeting. Paterson seconded. Motion passed. Lavignino stated that a member had been approached about what was going to happen to his case. Nuttall said that the person should go through the proper channels. Everything should be discussed in a public hearing. All procedure questions can be discussed, but the merits of a case should be public. Paterson was nominated as Ex Officio member to the Board of Appeals. Mann seconded. Motion passed. Lavignino opened case 77-5: John Doremus. A variance to a rear yard setback requirement was requested. The justifi- cation for variance is l) In order to provide privacy and light and air the proposed duplex has been set at a 45 degree angle. ' This causes small portions of the. garage to encroach on the rear yard setback. 2) If rear yard setback is observed we will have to lose several large trees. 3) If rear yard setback is observed the ditch will have to be moved which supplied most of the trees with water. 4) Also set back the house would be much more attractive in the neigh- borhood'. 'd f d . 1 " " kl Doremus sa~ that ront yar ~s on Smugg er sCree . Encroachment into set back is five feet. Balcony infringes on set back. The wall of the house is in violation of the set back. Tried to move garages so everyone could get more light and air. If has to move ditch will lose two 6-8" cottonwood trees. This is the original house plan moved back. The garage access is 10-l2' from the alley. It is realistic to get ditch to large group of trees and swing it around. We are limiting garage to one story flat roof. The house has a pitched two story roof. Letters were read by Lavignino into the record. I , I ! , l) Mrs. Pullen is adjacent to property 15-5 feet." She will be against if his building is closer to the property line. She will lose her view to the south. To grant the request would defeat the purpose of the code. 2) Barbara ~lcLoughlin Moore strongly objects to the variance. It would make it a more dense and crowded area. If we allow variances it will make the zoning code meaningless. It is only a request to benefit one individual. 3) F. Zachariasen felt that granting this variance would be a mistake. This is a quiet residential area. Five feet of greenery betl'leen house and street is not much more than condos provide. If it becomes a pattern in the area for houses to cover all available ground area, the character wil be destroyed. It is important to maintain the single family appearance. 4) Jack Titus asked to deny a request for the variance. Any request I'lould do violence to the existing neighborhood. It would make structures too close together. Lavignino opened the meetincr to the audience. "'"" '-" '" ......, Board of Adjustments I\pril 7, 1977 Regular Me~ting Continue~ John Schumacher appeared for Mr. Pullen. He wanted me to object to this variance. He is opposed to it because it would,inhibit his view. The alley could be opened so that some of the traffic could be diverted. John Stanford said that he would going to request that it be opened. It would allow access from seventh street. Lavignino asked if a variance was reques~ed to build it as originally built. Did set back requirements exist when it was built since the case is based on ~ardship of set back not being met. . -' Schumacher said that the request is based on preserving those trees. Lavinino closed the public portion of the hearing. Colestock said that he was concerned over the cars parked behind the garage and that they would jut into the alley. Could happen. That was his only reservation. Otherwise he would be in favor of the plan. Mann said it was a practical difficulty because of the trees and water. Would like to grant the variance which would allow those to be saved. Smith said he would have no problem with the variance if it wasn't opposed to by all the neighbors. The neighbors are not opposing it for the right grounds, Advice is to ask for tabling and go explain it to neighbors. If objections were removed, Smith would not object. It looks like an improvement. If neighbors not think so, we should not be making up their minds for them. Paterson said that it was a minimal request. There are the practical difficulties as Mann mentioned. Other than the trees and stream the neighbors on either side are a practical difficulty in this matter. House he is designing is ' designed around their infringement upon light and air. Personally discount neighbors on either side and what their objections are. They don't know what they are saying. The only neighbor I am concerned about is the one directly to the north. 1.lost of these letters are only written with only half the knO'.vledge they should have. Sometimes applicants fault and sometimes don't live in town. I would be in favor. I f Lavignino agreed with Charlie. Practical difficulties do exist. Trees are worthy of that consideration of saving th, TI It is a minimal variance. It does not adversely affect anyone in the area except perhaps the neighbor to the north_ In favor of granting this proposal. Suggest to neighbors anyway and let them see the situation. Doremus said that there will be a garage. He already hqs a parking space which handles his car. Paterson offered Doremus the chance to table it. Paterson made a motion to grant on the basis of presentation that it is a minimal impact and that practical difficulties exist in so much as the trees, the stream and the neighbors on each side. It is a minimal request and will not adversely affect the general purpose of the general comprehen sive plan. It should be noted that the board reacted to general plans. These are not construction drawings. ~.., '".... 'j ~'" .....~ // / , CITY. OF ASIJEN ****'************'1 " :*************** -l< -l< .. -l< -l< -l< .. .. .. .. .. .. -l< -t -l< -l< .. .. .. .. .. -l< .. -l< .. -l< -l< " ;' .. .. .. .. .. .. -l< -l< -l< .. .. .. -l< -l< .. .. .. ,t .. -l< .. .. .. .. .. .., -l< .. .. .. -l< .. -l< .. .. .. -l< .. .. .. .. .. -l< -l< .. .. -l< -l< -l< .. .. .. .. ~ .. .. .. '. .. .. ~.~~~~~~~~~~YVYVVV~~~ I ;; () sou t h g a I e 11 a aspcn, colorado street a I (d I , . . ... .' ... ... ... .' ... . .' .' .' .' ... . ... ... . .' .' .. .. .' .' .. .. .. .' ... .. . . . .' ... ... .. .' , "- ... >- >- . , CEHTJ!'"JClI'J'C Of' OCCUP1"rcy ~City of Aspen, Colorado 01,TE: November lo, 19ii 1,0'1' [,I, I! , t, 0 [3 BLOCY, City ADDI'l'IOrl 'I'his to Certify that a certain structure located J 5 <:t [320/822 H. Smuggler and OI'INEO by John Doremus 911-n ,197 L/ c";,'p1ie5 erected under BUILDING PERInT tJO. v;i th the requirements of the UNlf'OPJ-l BUILDING COlJi':, 19 _TL____ Edition. , , .. .. ... . .' .' .. .. ... .' .' ... . . . . . . .. ... .' , , . , , . , , , , , Occupancy Group H : Type Construction V-N 3 Fire Zone CONMENTS AND HESTIUCTIONS: ~; i 'II"''': _~QA-v~-t~\ -~~~7VW'\)~~n-t ~'I 1 \' I '1 I!. ~.!,. '.. }" i ; I'; I . Ch;v[ n ildill\:l 111:""'\~l\"'\ , ., v .y " 'It Y ,. y .y .y Y Y r \" " ,"' ~ r ;" f '~ ,/ -r y " '( 'f Y "( )( ,y .., It " J( t ;v ,. \C )( " )' \- ~ \. .. .y ~ ,'i County of Pitkin ) l SSe l -' ", 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 says. as 't ',. . , ., i _ ~ . ....,., . , '" 1. I ' _~f!i,v ~~;-ruf 1_______________________________ , being or representing an Applicant' b.efore the City of Aspen B;ard of ~. ~ Adjustment, personally ce'rt'ify that the a.ttached photograph ,........ 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 '60uld be seen from the nearest public that the said sign was posted' and visible continuously ~ & Z7\_ day of .'sZ:J::YT:-e7P/Lf(5<!-",:"" 19EL, to the day of .. . (;c'rc'6M , 19n. (Must be posted for .~ ~ C'-'. way) and from the ,', ) >;'-- " ..". at least ten (1~) full days before the:;hearing date). A_ ,PPL, ~I T, '4'..A J /7 .... YVr\... ,}LV c:,.1"1-'14:'~ Signat re S'~ribed and sworn to before me t~:c "5'<4 day of tr-UJhR~ _, 19~, by 'it/-' n ' '/) fi) F i1'1l~ ~~~ WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. My commission expires: i -:J-j-7'D {i2 f. f,,-dk~ , 4r ~p--,- ~ f'/(j:J-, " fJ ~ flu(lL..tl NC tary PUbl:i,c ~ ~~:2~- Address o .0 , The following are names and addresses within 300 ft, of the subject property of this application as obtained from the current Pitkin County Assessors tax roll. Subject Property Tree House Condominiums, unit A Lots M,N,O, Block 8 John Doremus 822 W. Smuggler St, Aspen, Co, 8l61l Tree House Condominiums, unit B Lots U,N,O, Block 8 Belton Fleisher Elizabeth Fleisher 820 W, Smuggler St, Aspen, Co, 81611 Aspen 1.leadows Metes and Bounds Hadid Aspen Properties 515 S, Galena St. Aspen, Co. 8161l Lots A,B,C,D,E,F, Block 1 Arnold Gachman Harriette Gachman 480l Butler Rd. Fort Worth, Tx. 76109 905 W, North Aspen, Co, Lorenzo Semple, Jr. Joyce M. Semple c/o Robert Ross 2200 North Central Rd. Fort Lee, N.J. 07024 Tract 3, West Solar Sub, Lots O,P, Block 2 H.H. Vandemoer Marion hI. Vandemoer Nancy E. II ill (formly Vandemo( P.O, Box 668 Sterling, Co. 80751 Lots Q,R,S, Block 2 John Schuhmacher, Jr. Marianne H. Schuhmacher P.O. Box 3528 Aspen, Co. 8l6ll Lots E,F,G,H,I, Block 3 H.H. Vandemoer Marion U, Vandemoer Nancy E, Hill(formly Vandemol P.O.Box 668 Sterling, Co. 80751 Tract 2, West Solar Sub. Donnelly Erdman Cinda Erdman P.O. Box 10640 Aspen, Co. 81612 I I I I I I I o ,0 Lots K,L, Block 8 Fredrik Zachariasen Nancy Zachariasen 2235 Villa Heights Rd. Pasadena, Co. 91107 Lots Q,R,S, Block 3 Heinz Coordes Karen Coordes 233 W. Main St. Aspen, Co. 8l61l Lots A,B, Block 8 Charles Marqusee Helga Marqusee P.O, Box 10610 Aspen, Co. 8l6l2 Lots C,D, Block 8 Robert W, Pullen Anne W. Pullen Suite No. 620 2200 South Post Oak Blvd. Houston, Tx. 77056 Lots E,F, Block 8 Jack A. Titus 2817 Maple Ave, Dallas, Tx. 7520l Lots G,H,I, Block 8 LBH Condominium Association units A and B LBH Association Condos, Lucy Reed Hibberd 1937 East Alameda Ave. Denver, Co. 80209 Lots A,B,C,D, Block 14 Tom Daly 200 W, Bleeker St. Aspen, Co. 8lGll Lots J,K,L Barry L. Lefkowitz Box 364 Aspen, Co. 816ll Lots J,K,L, Block Herb Klein 743 W, Smuggler St. Aspen, Co. 8l6ll Lots N,O, Block 14 David Fleisher Gina Berko 730 W. Smuggler St, Aspen, Co. 81611 I I I I I I I Lots A,B, Block l5 Sharon L. Ochsman 735 W. Smuggler ST. Aspen, Co. 81611 I I o o . Lot C, Block 15 Gary Albert l3 Silver Hell Lane West Berlin, N.J. 08091 Lot K, Block l5 The Baptist Church 726 W, Frances St, Aspen, Co. 81611 Lots P,Q, Block 8 Vincent Galluccio The Tent Condominium Assoc, P.O. Box 8065 Aspen, Co. 81611 Lots R,S, Block 8 Charles Knight Anne Knight c/o The Rachael Collection 201 S. Galena St. Aspen, Co. 81611 All of Block 9 U.S. Department of Agricultur The Forest Service 806 W. Hallam St. Aspen, Co. 81611 I I I I I I ---. - ---- / NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case 187-11 / John Doremus 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 Boar d of Adj ustment requesting author ity for var iance 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 anir-TiEe-ofMe-etina: Date: Time: October l5, 1987 4:00 p.m. Owner -fir-Variance: Appellant for Variance: John Doremus Name: John Doremus Address: 822 W. Smuggler St. Location -or de",.al",tion--of property: Location: 822 W. Smuggler St. Variance----Re\lu.,st-ed-: Zoning is R-6-Residential. Required setback is l5 feet for rear yard. Variance of lO feet is requested. Will' aDDl'icant be-represented-by counsel: Yes:' NO:~ The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment l30 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorad08l6ll Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk /,,/ / /-" NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case 187-11 / John Doremus 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--ofuMeeting-: Date: Time: October l5, 1987 4:00 p.m. Owner-fir-Variance: A P pel 1 an t- for Variance: John Doremus Name: John Doremus Address: 822 W. Smuggler St. Location or de",ctiJ;>tion-'of prQperty: Location: 822 W. Smuggler St. Variance Re\lu.,st-ed-: Zoning is R-6-Residential. Required setback is 15 feet for rear yard. Variance of 10 feet is requested. will applicant be--'representedi>y counsel: Yes:' NO:~ The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment l30 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 8l6ll Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk