The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutlanduse case.boa.Ute Ave.013-77 . APPEAL lu BOARD OF ZON I NG ADJUSTr1EiH CITY OF ASPEN DATE April 27, 1977 CASE NO. '11- /1 APPELLANT David Lawrence Hopkins ADDRESS Box 715, Aspen Architect and Planner PHONE 925 - 2401 OWNER Joe L. Virden, Jr. ADDRESS Box 429 Greenville, Miss. 3B701 LOCATION OF PROPERTY Lot No.2, Hoag Subdivision ute Avenue (Street & Number of SubdiviSion Blk. & Lot No.) Building 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 THIS APPLICATION IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ALL THE FACTS IN QUESTION. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EXCEPTION SHO\~ING JUSTIFICATInnS: We wish to separate the two units of a "duplex" in 'C n T' i'Q?7411 ****10.00 order to preserve trees and retain the character of the site. Will you be represented by counsel 1 Yo; NO~ I ~ . SIGNED: ~ . . --r~L Appellant PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO FORWARD THIS APPLICATION TO THE FOR NOT GRANTING: REQUIRING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND'REASON APPLICATION IS MADE FOR A BUILDING PERMIT TO BUILD A TWO-FAMILY DWELLING. By defination a two family dwelling must share a common wall no less than twenty (20) per cent between both dwelling units or share a common ceiling and floor, in whole or in part, connecting the two (2) dwelling units. The proposed two units in the two-family dwelling . will be completely seperate from each other. Sec. 24-3.l(f-2) Definations. PERMIT REJECTED, DATE APPLICATION FILED MAILED ~~ DECISION ILbCk~DATE DATE IF HEARING Chief Building Inspector Status SECRETARY . V l c.'P e.J. '1).,,, I..\;,X - A.'t>.)A.c"'~ t?aftoC-'T'l 0 '\.1<.C~ , ~A.," C:;ue.""ns\otl', Le-r l . t,~, ~~.Iq .. t.e. L,<<.","\ ~eol( ~o ~~ft;N LOi ~ . ~~u" S'4'" c.e~'foQ,A..\\O~ bx ~c;..'7 .A.. ~Y"'~ Lei A. . ..t..\..A.\~Q L.a. "B1Jt.'To.\ l, G.oCtI)6t\ ;fJO ~. l\.6,.~l'b-\ .1..". C"'\~O, \&..1.. '0\.5:'- Ac. c.o~" LJ,.~ ~.J~\J. Ur& C~~A..cz.,< . c.\\'( .t ~~~~ LOTW....." -lC~~T..~. -t:.!" D~e.~\C"'( ~ -t.e. Lulc....1 ~o')( 40 .1..~c..\ " NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case No, 77-13 BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTI1E~~ 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, Colo- rado, (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 f~om 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. yottviews 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 ovmers 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: Hay 19, 1977 4:00 PM Name and address of Applicant for Variance: Name: Address: David Lawrence Hopkins Box 429, Greenville, Hiss. 38701 Location or description of property: Location: Description: Lot No.2, Hoag Subdivision Ute Avenue Variance Requested: variance requested to separate the two units of a "duplex" in order to preserve trees and retain the character of the site. Duration of Variance: (Please cross out one) ~~ Permanent THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BY !!l.cAa/u.J-A ~J// Jrw Chairman U CJt~ tcJu.A dVl. ". ". t.' ~ Iii ~ ' '.~ ,- t.' ""'- ,~, , '--...-/ I ~ @--J" r:-d i~ ~ lU [::J",=, ~o'~} ~f :~I-b: ; 3 ~. <;( k 0:; _S:' := ~ ::': .$: o ~ .0. ,'" ~ <;:; .~ ~~, 1; >:; .-1 . , , "'. ~ PI r~r9 1 (\ " s:: o '<'1 .jJ l!J ..-l l-I ..-l o \D 0. ..-l l-I <Xl o C) o >< C) ..1<:0\ CJl \D - ... s:: <ll <ll ::s x 0.. ..-lOUl 1!l1!l,:C , ., . ....,./ LAW OFFICES OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH 8. .JORDAN 600 EAST HOPKINS STREET LEONARD M. OATES ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 RONALD D. AUSTIN ..J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, ..JR. WILLIAM R. ..JORDAN m May 19, 1977 AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 925-2600 ROBERT W. HUGHES BARRY D. EDWARDS Mr. Charles Patterson, Chairman The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment City Hall 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Joe L. Virden, Jr., Case No. 77-13 Dear Mr. Patterson: We represent Burton L. and Elaine L. Gordon, who recently acquired Lot 4 of the Hoag Subdivision. Lot 4 is immediately adjacent to Lot 2, concerning which a request for a variance to permit construction of two separate single family dwellings, under the rather novel guise of calling this merely the separation of two units of a duplex, is currently before the Board. The Gordons unqualifiedly oppose the requested variance. Both Lot 2 and terrain (approximately near the Ute Cemetery. uses are, of course, a (duplex) dwelling. Lot 4 lie on rather precipitous a 40% slope), opposite Ute Avenue, The lots are zoned R-1S. Permitted one family dwelling or a two family Quite apart from the very limited circumstances under which a variance appropriately may be granted [see Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, S2.22(d), hereinafter referred to as the "Code"], none of which in this case appear meaningfully to exist, the increased building density contemplated by the variance request will necessarily and inimically affect the seclusion, serenity and scenic views of the neighborhood lots upon which the Gordons relied when they purchased their lot, continue to rely in their plans for building, and which form perhaps the principal virtues of the entire subdivision. These objectives, together with other of the purposes of zoning in general, as set forth in 524-1.2 of the Code, such as preservation of soil stability and securing against mud and snow slide hazards, are more adequately preserved by restricting construction of dwellings to a single rather than two separate sites. It stands to certain reason that construction on two separate sites is twice as likely to undermine the stability and integrity of the affected slope. ~''''' ....~ OATES, AUSTIN So MCGRATH May 19, 1977 Mr. Charles Patterson, Chairman The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment Page Two Moreover, permitting the construction of two separate and detached dwellings is much more likely to accommodate a greater population density on the property than might, as a practical matter, otherwise ordinarily result were con- struction properly limited to a single building. While perhaps in a highly technical sense the requested variance does not necessarily lend itself to a more intense use of the property than is legally permissible, it clearly en- hances and facilitates the most intense use permitted, and there simply is nothing that would require the Board to so torture the meaning of "duplex" in order to accommodate this end. There certainly does not here appear to be any of the special or extraordinary circumstances, practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships obtaining with respect to Lot 2, in relation to the surrounding property, that legally would per- mit the granting of the requested variance. Cf., Code ~2.22(d). To the contrary, virtually the entire subdivision is, as yet, unimproved. Thus, there simply is no basis in fact for supposing that by denying the requested variance Mr. Virden would thereby be deprived of a substantial property right enjoyed or potentially enjoyable by other properties in the vicinity. Indeed, in relation to other lots in the vicinity (e.g., Lots 4 and 5) Lot 2 is quite similarly situ- ated in terms of configuration and terrain, is subject to no special or extraordinary circumstances and, hence, by granting the requested variance an inappropriate precedent would be set for the remaining lots in the subdivision resulting in the virtual spectre of twice the number of individual dwellings on the slope as envisioned or permitted under existing zoning. Apart from these implications, we submit that the precedent reasonably likely to be created by the granting of this variance is certain to carry beyond the mere confines of, for example, the Hoag Subdivision. If events hold to their current course, the next logical step would be to seek to condominiumize this and hereafter constructed detached "du- plexes." If so, can the condominiumization of existing "du- plexes" in this sense constitutionally be treated differently than the condominiumization of existing duplexes in the traditional sense, so far as the subdivision exemption pro- cess is concerned? It is unlikely. And yet, it is plainly evident that this would effectively result in far more than the mere creation of separate paper estates in land but in, for all practical intents and purposes, physically divided and ,"' ...... OATES, AUSTIN So MCGRATH May 19, 1977 Mr. Charles Patterson, Chairman The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment Page Three separate mini-parcels, each with their own structural im- provements. The implications on the subdivision process in general are obvious. The definition of a duplex is precise and specific. See Code ~24-3.1(f) (2). It simply will not accommodate two separate and detached dwellings; nor will the R-1S zoning classification. Mr. Virden, of course, knew or is charged with knowledge of the zoning restrictions that were in effect with respect to the property he purchased and the fact that these do not accommodate his building plans is a hardship that quite simply has been self-created. No special or extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant otherwise, or justify the variance, and we would respectfully request that the variance sought be denied. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, OATES, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN Attor2YS for Burton L. and E~a ne (frdon By , 4,J N obert W. Hughes RWH/nk cc: Remo Lavagnino Fred Smith Gil Colestock Josephine Mann