HomeMy WebLinkAboutlanduse case.boa.553 N Mill St.020-76
.
,
,
'.
,
.
APPEAL TO BOARD OF ZarlING ADJUSTt'lErn
CITY OF ASPEN
,DATE November 1, 1976
CASE NO. 1~-~
APPELLANT
ADDRESS
PHONE
OWNER
Edward H. Deming
ADDRESS P.O. Box Q, ,Aspen, Colo.
925-7000
et.al
'.
LOCATION O~ PROPERTY 553 N. Mill Street
Legal Description Attached.
(Street & Number of Subdivislon Blk. & tot 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 R~TURN THIS APPLICATION IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN
ALL THE FACTS IN QUESTION.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EXCEPTION SHO\'lING JUSTIFICATIONS:
Request for variance is attached.
\, -1-"7(1
23376# ****10.00
Will you b~ represented by counsel
? Yes xx NO~ . .
SIGNED:~ Ua/~OH(.e.0.v\.tA'~
, Attorney ~or 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 k BUILDING PERMIT'TO BUILD K
SERVICE, COMMERCIAL,INDUSTRIAL BUILDING.
The proposed building will have 19.48% open space.
The required open space is 25%. Sec. 24-3.4 Area and Bulk
Requirements. SCI Zoning District.
PERMIT REJECTED,
APPLICATION FILED
MAl LED 1i/''o/7G
I 1
DATE .
/VIOV. _=5
)
)(,
Clayt
DECISION
DATE IF HEAR
SECRET^RY~ /7 h/lte;
- d-..- 710 '
U)I~
Chief Buildi~i Inspector
Status
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Case NO.3-to -~
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, Colo-
rado, (or at such other place as the meeting ma;' 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 v~riance
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.
yo~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: December 2, 1976
Time: 4:00 PH
Name and address of Applicant for Variance:
Name:
AddrC's s :
Edward H. Deming
P 0 Bqx Q - Aspen, CO 81611
Loc_~:io12.. or~~~:J:o~_ of )2r,?"p'e';'ty:
Location: 553. N. Hill St.
Description:
YE!:i,;l::~e Reques ted: Application is made for a building permit to build a
service, commercial, industrial building. The proposed building will
have 19.48% open space. The required open space is 25%. Section
24-3.4 Area and Bulk Requirements. SCI Zoning District.
Duration of Variance: (Please cross out one)
"'.ELeulJ.mr.-ary-- Permanent
THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTtrE0I'T
BY J/Y'~~ ;t/ ~~
-Ii!:::. _.~_~_._ __.___..__
v Chairman
;HV\./ ~~<L-- a~c",--/
.,
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE
A variance is requested with respect to the "open space"
requirements of S24-3.4 of the Zoning Code of the City of
Aspen in connection with the proposed construction of a
commercial building.
The factual situation giving rise to this request is as follows:
1. The property involved is located on the westerly
side of North Mill Street and is situated immediately
south of the building commonly referred to as the House
Care Building. The property is within the Service/Com-
mercial/Industrial Zone. The legal description of the
property and a survey thereof are attached hereto.
2. The property is owned by Edward H. Deming, David A.
Baxter, Edward W. Horse,III and Hountain States Communications,
Inc.
3. In about June, 1976 the property owners submitted
to the Building Inspecter proposed plans for the construction
of a commercial building on the property. Attached hereto
is the Plot Plan as originally submitted to the Building
Inspector depicting the location of the building.
4. The property has a net area, exclusive of previously
encumbered easements, of 48,558 square feet and the "open
space" provided for in the original submission to the
Building Inspector consisted of 12,140 square feet, so that
the 25% "open space" requirement of 12,139 feet was thus
complied with. A preliminary site plan reflecting these
requirements is attached.
5. Following such submission, the property owners were
advised by the City Engineer's office that future plans
of the city involved a realignment of North Hill Street
and that the proposed realignment would necessitate the
acquisition of a portion of their property which was
devoted to the "open space".
6. Attached hereto is the revised plot plan of the property
which was submitted to the Building Inspector on October 12,
1976 and upon which has been superimposed the new westerly
right-of-way line of Mill Street resulting from its proposed
realignment. The proposed realignment of Hill Street will
have the effect of reducing the net area of the property to
43,990 square feet and reducing the "open space" to 8,572
square feet. As a result there will be a deficiency of
2,425 square feet in the required 25% "open space".
The property owner desires to cooperate with the city in facil-
itating the realignment of Hill Street and to that end has offered
to make a gift to the City, by quit claim deed, of all of its
interest in that portion of its property lying easterly of the
proposed westerly right-of-way line of realigned Hill Street.
To enable the property owner to make this donation and still
proceed with its building plans, a variance in the "open space"
requirements of the Zoning Code will be required.
The property which is to be given to the city will be utilized
for public street purposes and will thus maintain the charateristic
of open space.
The foregoing will present a solution satisfactory to both the
property owner and the City and will avoid the acquisition costs
and legal expenses which would be incurred by the City if it
were required to institute condemnation proceedings for the
acquisition of the property under the exercise of its right of
eminent domain.
For the reasons set forth above, it is requested that a variance
be granted to subject property with respect to the "open space"
requirements of 524-3.4 of the Zoning Code and that the property
owner be authorized to construct their building based upon the
"open space" of 8,572 square feet, more or less, as shown
on the revised Plot Plan; said variance to be conditioned upon
the donation by the property owner to the city of that portion
of their property lying easterly of the proposed westerly right-
of-way line of realigned Hill Street.
This variance is requested upon those grounds enumerated in
S2-22(d) of the Aspen Code of Ordinances; to wit:
1. The special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant, but, on the
contrary, from the proposed actions of the City in effecting
a public improvement.
2. The special and extraordinary circumstances which apply
to subject property by reason of the realignment of Hill
Street do not apply to any other properties in the same
vicinity and zone.
3. The grant of the variance is essential to the enjoy-
ment of a substantial property right which the applicant
is entitled to enjoy at this time, but which would be denied
if the applicant made a land donation to the city to
accomodate the city's future plans for street alignment.
4. The grant of the variance will not adversly affect the
general purposes of the comprehensive general plan, but,
to the contrary, will be in furtherance thereof.
Attached hereto is the certificate of Stewart Title of Aspen,
Inc. listing adjacent property owners to whom notice of a
hearing on this matter is required to be served.
The favorable consideration of the Board of Adjustment will
be appreciated.
Respectfully submitted,
/7o~
~ #'" O(/.."" t::::Y (JV~
Peter Van Domelen
Attorney for the Owners
P.O. Box 8009
Aspen, Colorado
925-6415
~
'.
AREA COHPUTATIONS
FROH
SURVEY ENGINEERS
Total area of parcel
Less area of easement
Net area of parcel
Total area of Right of Way to City
Less area subject to easement
Net area of parcel to City
Remaining net area of parcel
Net area of parcel to City
Less access driveways
"Open space" to City
Original "open space"
Less "open space" to City
Remaining "open space"
"Open space" requirement of 25% of
43,990 square feet
"Open space" deficiency
52,303 square feet
3,745 square feet
48,558 square feet
5,694 square feet
1,026 square feet
4,568 square feet
43,990 square feet
4,568 square feet
1,000 square feet
3,568 square feet
12,140 square feet
3,568 square feet
8,572 square feet
10,997 square feet
2,425 square feet
,
Margie-variance for Mill Street Venture
Hotion to grant the requested variance from the open space
requirements of the Aspen Hunicipal Code for the following
reasons:
1. The applicant has had pending, since June of 1976, a
building permit application for the construction of a commercial
structure on its property, final approval of which has been
denied pending resolution of (a) a proper accesss and ingress
alignment to and from Hill Street and (b) accommodation of the
proposed expansion and alignment of Hill Street.
2. A Satisfactory resolution of neither problem can be
reached by the City and the Applicant other than as to result
in the reduction of required open space, either through a voluntary
conveyance of land or condemnation thereof.
3. The postponement of the issuance of a building permit
until the formal resolution of both problems creates practical
difficulties and unnecessary hardship. In addition, to require
the Cit~ to abandon an advantageous resolution of the dilemma
(i.e., a voluntary conveyance of the land) will create a hardship
that can be resolved without, in the end, compromising the
open space objectives of the code in any greater degree
than resulting from the proposed arrangement.
IN ADDITION: The Board is of the opinion that with respect to the
requested variance:
I. The special conditions and circumstances incident
thereto do not result from the actions of the applicant.
2~ The grant of the variance is essential to the enjoyment
of a substantial property right which the applicant is entitled
to enjoy at this time, but which would be denied if the applicant
failed to make a land donation to the city to accommodate the
City's future plans for street alignment.
3. The grant of the variance will not adversely affect
the general purposes of the comprehensive land use plan.
For all the above reasons, the requested variance shall be
granted, conditioned on the conveyance of the right of way
to the City by the applicant., all as specificed in its
application.
-,
-
'-..-.'"
RECORD OF PROCEED!NGS
lOD Lcaves
=~2'.:':::~~_:...!'. fl('r.f:~..r...:~~;)'.~::::.:"=~:".::::--=-=---=--_-=::,-,:=,---:-..:.:::.=-::=-
_ _________.- __'~ _om. _ ..__~__._._._____.._____________~..~~_.___._.m.~__ _ _.__, .____.______
- ------..----.-- --.--_._-' ----,--_.._~---,-----~.._- ----------... -----
Reg~ll a r.l~ce_t:,~r:'.'L....____~l).0!:.c~...2L_A(1j..':''' .~InC n t s
Dccemb(-~y
? ,-__1Jl.L0___
Chairman Charles Paterson called the meeting to order with
Colestock, Smith, and alternate mcr"Ler John Dukes present.
were City Attorney Stuller and City Engineer Dave Ellis.
mcmbc~.rs j\jaI}n,
Also pre:f3ent
Old Business
Harguerite Scheid
A letter addressed to the Board of Adjustrcents WilS re-
ceived November 18, 1976 from the attorney of Marguer-
ite Scheid, 327 W. Hallam. She stated that she was
not in favor of the granting of a variance to Tom Prior
who is her next door neighbor. Scheid claimed in her
letter to the Board that she was not notified of the
hearing, as is required by the Code.
City Attorney Stuller clarified that the Code does not
direct who should notify the adjacent property owners,
but it is traditionally done by the secretary to the
Board. The secretary presented a letter dated August 30,
1976 notifying Scheid that Case No. 74-39 would be re-
viewed by theBoard at the next regular meeting. A copy
of the letter is in the filffiof the Board of Adjustments.
Smith moved to notify Scheid of the letter,and the posi-
tion of the Board being that notification was given.
Colestock seconded the motion. All in favor but Mann,
who voted no.
Colestock moved to reconsider the motion. Lavagnino see
onded. Mann suggested that the Board's secretary draft ~
letter to Scheid indicating that the variance was granted
with no input from her, and the Board regrets that she
was not present at the hearing. All in favor, motion
carried.
New Business
~~~.c _ No~1-0-.:.=-.?_2_. E~~t~~~.~ Demin<;L
Peter Van D~::1C~l;}_n represented Deming. Paterson read the npplic3tion
The re<1u(~st is to huild ~1 service. commercial industrial building
witll ]9.48% open space. TIle required open space is 25%. Paterson
subm:LttC'd a letter for the record.
Van Domc16~11 S<l_ic.l the property is on north Nill SLrt'et on the west
side. lle presented plans to the Board. In June, the plan:--:; \\'o.re
gi.ven to Heyring for a cOlT1!:1ercial building on lhJ oS site. He sl1h-
mitten th(~st:~ plans, also. The opell ~c~p;ice reqt1:irement for Ll1Js \\1('Iul,i
bl' 12,139' n.nJ the open space on the original [~ubmi~;s:inll \\'<::18 12,]/1(1-
After tbe submi:-:siol1 th(~ ovmer 1",';1;:; ,i(lvjscd by the City !-:n~~,ilH'('r t11,:11
the City \vas cOl1siclcril.lg tilC rC;11j~',nmcnt of l'lill Street <ll:d 111il)1 \.;';)\11
p,1rt: of" this property. Von nC:llcJ(;\\'[ then prnduct.'J t11e rl'vi~;l'd .site
plan with curb el1t~:~ tl13l- ;:lgr(~ed ,,'ith tlw City. Thc' prol1l'rLy O\~'l1er
is pr(lp.:1reU to gIve lJ gift of the Innd to tlli..-' City at t ld:.~ tiLlC'.
'.I'll do so \,!(wld reduce tltl'ir ;1vnLLlblc open SP;lC'l', lil' :l~,d,c'd 1:11;]t tll<'
variancc' lle gLlntcd ,....jt:11 thc' condition th;]t thit~ 1,'i1ld \v()\lJd be g'iVl.'ll
to the City. 1\ subdil,Tisioll exemptjoll vwu:It! ill~;u bL' nl'l'('~~~~<lry \.Jhil'l1
kif) bl'Cll gr,nlLcd [r()Tll l)t(~i', and C:ity l\.ullcil.
Colc..-:.tock asked City FI).l~jlH'/.'r, DilVC E]li~.~, \,:11)' nlld ",'ltl'll ~lil1 St-(l'l'l
\,lilJ 1)(' rL';ll.i)~l1l'd. Ell i~~ ~jiljd pr(\b;lbly in ;ilHlill five \,1,';11,; ,wi! till'
J"t'(l:--iL)11 is Ll1 1l1,1la' it bi'ul'r il1igI1111!'llt for tht' bJ'id)',i~, l:nll,:~t(H'k
ilHl;:l'd if il \~'l'rl' plls~;il)II' tll:l!. Llli~; h'llllld !lot !J,IPjlt'll. \.:lli..: ~;nid
c"..'''....,
r---""-
"e"'/
: ('!,~~_I} .~y,._~!.~' l '.~ i.l_~!l_________________.__._!~~l-,l.r.\l_ ~_t..__;_\.\.lJ l_J~~_t.~I:(~~l~~___~_ _ ._... ____~~~._________________!)_l~~~II~)_l~!:__?, .._l'.?JS~
ise No. 76-21
: ames E. Noore
Qritage Painting
~~ Decorating, Inc.
it \v',]:~ p\1~;S Lbl(, but: Llll_'Y !l;lV(' bQ:~iln the .initial pLlillling ~..tagcs.
Smith ~l~;](('d hu;..r tlw lLHlSi." Care blllldinR h;ls no open sp;lee. Van lk:.iJ1l~lt~'1l
f~;lid tlil...'Y 11;IVl' the lll'.ii')ll;).L p;ll."kLJlg. He 'l;\';\S not sure ;lboilt the open
~;p;]ce. Sl~t:it:h asked ~lt'yrillf';.;!eyrlllg said it \\.'<1S built before there
\\'('rc: any ::;ucll rl..~qujrt"m"nt.s. Sttd.lC'r cJ;lJ~jfLect till' qu\:stion. Smi.th
,lskcd \..rhy th~ cJly r('qlli.re:~ open ~~p;]ce ;In<l then ncgotLlt:CS it ;H\I~lY.
Ellis s;_dd t!Jerl~ i:; no money to buy opt.~n space. 'L'h/:-'y have tried to
\v'ot"k on a cOl~pE'r::ltive ll;ISis ~.;ij'h devclol1liwnt t.0 <:lCCOlll111odatl' tht~ futtll"e
grade of ~Ii'll Strcpt. Srnith askecf Stul_J_er if tltey were all_ot.;ing tIle
;lppJic':lnt: to buyout on his open spac.e r\~quir('mL'Ilt by paying Jand in-
ste<1J of I';Olh~Y. Stuller said t"ho. hard~3bip i.s that t.he p.L:.lns w('re
submitted, a[ ter which the op,';; space re_qu irements ~.Jere imposed.
is a procedural hardship. La nino asked it it is leg.:11 for the
to plan all a concept tll~t is fur away in time. Stuller explained
procedure through \-]Il1e this is ljossible.
It
City
the
Paterson closed the necti,ng to tIle public.
LavCignino said tht:~ onJ.y point of Van Df'lTIcl.?_n that he c1isd8ret-;d 1;:,Jith
'i-V"as thClt these specl;}l circumstances do not apply to any other p-r:op-
crties in the S3me zone. Colestock concurred \11th Lavdgnioo. lie
qucestioned if this is tbe hme to do this. It the building can be
built 'i-vithout the variance, do so, and condemn it lllter. Paterson
asked ~'lhy not save time and etfDrt now. Smith concurred. If the
road is not expanded, they \.Jill just have mt.)re open space. He asked
that the City Attorney prepare a resolution or motion to grant this
variance. Mann said she feels comfortable with the first and tlltrd
reasons of Van Dcmekln for thia variance. She doE'S not feel it will
effect the GCP. Paterson concurred that 1, 3, and 4 are good reasons
and that this is the best solution. There is nothing to lose for the
City.
Smith moved to table the variaIIce until the end of the meeting, Mann
seconded. All in favor, motion approved.
Paterson read the application.
Moore said they are not asking for a variance or to do anything that
they are not already entitled to do under zoning. They are ilsking
to correct a mistake by Meyring in ruling tinder the zoning ~o(le.
Lavagnino noted that the last stnteme.nt is opinion. Hoare said they
are concerned with the \'Iorld Savings Building. In 1975, that area
was zOlled 0-2 Office wllich does not include a financial institution.
This made. the l.lorld Savings Building a non<-(;onfonnin?, use !lotil 1976.
H~ritagc has Ilcgotlaled a lease for tllis space nnd npplted for a
license from the City. TIle license was denied on the basis tl12t tllis
operation was not a permitted 11se under tllis zorling. The Zoning
Code does make provisions for ;) continunnce of a nonconforming Ilse
and the change of a nonconformj(lg use to ilnother nonconforrnin~ use.
He then quoted the Cede. It ie il question of 1:1\; as to whethpr a
change from a financial institur.ion to d paint and 'i..JC111paper store
is a ch,inge in <1 nonconforming use. He showed the priority of uses
from aericulture to llcavy indllstrial (highest to lowest). He a.Lsp
produced xeroxed provisions of tIle zoning codp. lie noted that the
two zones that i.111lhorize both a paint and ~.J{lllpaper ~;torc and a
financial inst:itut1.on are th(~ c:oLHllcrci,al corp ;1.one <lud tb(~ C-l zone.
The hig~lCGt zanein wh_ich botll can be tlsed is the commercial zone.
TIley arc a~king to cl1nnge a 11on-.~onformLng IJSC to nnotllpr nOnC()llfor]ni[l~
use.
Paterson :Jskecl for public comment. Therf:.~ war; none.
,-..
....,..;'
"
RECORD OF PROCEl.:lJINGS
100 l.eaves
r'~"~ ". r r. "',I'nl " B." l. C),
=fZ~J}~lI?~~CL-~g~~~:_C_C=:-='---=-~"==~C==-~BO_'~lj_(l_'__OJ~.~!\dIii~~~!:1 (;'-1.J~~-~::~~:.~~_~~~~~=~=--='~~=~~~=.~=~1) ~~(' f ')!~L~ ~~~__L __.(!J
LuvC'lgnino asked Stull~r if she concurred \.JJtl1 this preS(~nldti()n.
.s~le said no, tl1;lt thE~ concept presented that there is a hierarchy
of zones is incorrect. 'There can he any mix of uses in <lilY one dis-
trict. She felt that jf Clayton is <luthori7.ed to make. sucb de t:erl1l.1 n(j--
tions, it is thi s that should be revie",ed. 'flU' fact that <l ",allpapcT
storE-> and a fina.ncial in~;litution are pe.rmitted uses in on(~ district
does not mean that they dre to be. identified .as identical in attrHJtl1.L
Her personal feeling is that a financial institution is a office opcr,l
tion. The office district is a good buffer betv.'cen residt-:lltial ano
commercial zones. She supported Heyring's determination in this
case. She suegested if thf.:Y ""ere not sure of his determ.ination, to
support him GIS he is the enforcement official.
Lava.guino asked Stuller ho'C'] they can. consider similar uses a differell,
nonconforming use. Stuller questioned if a financial institution is
a commercial or an office use~
I-{c~.re
Van DClIlcl;_n noted that he did not mean to say the classes ore mutual! '.
exclusive. City Council made a defiIlD.te distinction between pro~
fessional and business offices and financial institutions. In the
C-C zone, it speaks of them separately.
Paterson read a letter from Francis Hhitaker in favor of gr<Jnting
this use. Du:-mc and Hargaret Johnson were also in favor.
Paterson closed the public portion of the meeting and opencd the
executive session.
Mann felt the use of this building 'C>Jas not commercial, that it tendcc1
toward office. She felt thcy ,"ould be violati,ng the intent of the
code if they agreed to this use. Smitl1 felt the Buildinl~ Il1spector
made a justifJcd determination. He feels this is an ohvious rl?UliJ
commercial use and the previous use \,:28 not. Colestock aL?o support."
Meyring's determination. L8vS-,gnino did not agree \,lith tho Board.
He felt according to code a fillancial institution would fn11 under
the commercial zone. lIe docs not see hO\<,J they put a ~-;~vings and JO:1:
in this zone either but he has the right to put ;:mothC'l' nl-'llc()n[orr~dn~
use in this zone. He does not uphold the> Buj Iding Ill:-:,~C'{" j nr' S def er-
mination. Pate.Yson had mixed f eel.iDgs. lIe 8m.;,' Lavcgnillo I s }lednt
but lle does feel thnt a financial institution is an officv llse. lie
felt the code is 31:1biguOllS.
Paterson opened the ses~--;ioll.
ht.'l're
"V:~:J2..;':::!:}~~:.n quoted tlw AliH:'ri.can Juris Pruclf:-nc:e. Stulll'r ~;;dd the
amb.Lguity Grises in the classificat"ior: of usesi-n lhC:' noncnn[(lnlling
ll.',e section of the codp. It comes from the gC't1f'rJc (:la~~,';ifit';ltjan
uot in t11C lnck of specifj(>1tion of the conditional USPS :ill the eoch-..
Colestock {lskC'd if a sp('cifi.e use is not Lb;lcd if it is to be PXClll,l
Stuller said ~VL's. If;l u~>C' is not :lsr;iglled, j l is tJH~1l III go tl1ru
.1. liSP (lct:e.rmination by J\\~~. Hann l"l~:id from thc' code a S('ctiilll tl1;ll
states that they ;lre to permit" lhes~--' nOL1C0!1r(}t~lilit:i('s to c(Jlltinllt' uul
they are rCl1:ovcd but l1':lt to CI.1C()Ur;]t~e their Slll'viva1. L:\\'?igll-intl
said they ~--lrl' pt.'_'rmitt.('J In conti111li..~ (1nl~ Y(,~lr hl'fnre rej,]{)va1. Ncyrin:',
S21d that 'hn'LI S.:nrjng:-, W;IS in tlLi,', locution fo,- <'1pproxim:il_t'ly 5 )'e;\i
Smith moved to !-->upport the Ihdld.Ln/', Inspcct"u:;"t; interpret :It idll ill
denyi.ng the p:lillt .store 10 11';{-' tlds bll.ildillg, J'i,ll1l1 SPCOlld\'d. Hol]
cnll vote: N,lllIl, <IYL'; L1V(~i',1l11lo, 11,1.1'; CO]('~;;l()('k, ~lY{-'; Slllicli, ,1Yl';
Paten,on, ,]y(~. i\l~)tloll :!pprovl'd.
,"""
'-...i
........
~
: ~ II_l~,--r~J~l',l~:~r_i Il g._.
!in,lre[
(\I' :\d,iu:;U!"'llt
}}_\'.l' t 'lI~h ~:~t__~~~,~_l._l~U~__,_.___._
.I:;l~ No. i6-?O
j.,'I;ll'd nelll I ng
This Cn~3(' \\,;\;':: l:;]b.l,-'\! from t.llc' b':'ginning nf the meeting. Stuller
I.-cael Ull:~ nlnti.oll, S:";lLLl1 [;0 nh_n'l~d_, L\vigl1ino seconded. Rol.l call
Vt)tc: L<lvdgnJrw, ny.'; ~L1nn, ;tYt:~ Smith, aye'; Colestock, aye;
P:lterson, ;lYl'. .-\11 in ravln', l!hli:Jon <lpproved. V.:.n'.Ll!1ee granted.
Coles toc k moved to iJtlJ CHI rn, ~blln sl'condcd. A 11 In f :IVOr., TIlee ting
':h,ljourncd.
'"\'/
k__;;./ 1_,J~
___'--'~_._L",.'_'._....~_ _
Sheryl SJmmt'.ll, Depl1ty
for HargLe t"llson
.. ~,'; )
".{;;:~-~~
City Clerk
/"'" ,,-.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
rCPM'l C,r.f!OHKrlA.a,/l, L.C'J.
Regular ;.jeeting
Board of Adjustment
Decert-:ber 21 -197C
Sandra Stuller, City Attorney, prepareu this motion on the
Case No. 76- 20, EU\\7ard Der~-ling.
ilotion is made to grant the requested variance from the open
space requirements of the Aspen I>:'iunicipal Coue for the folloTding
reasons: the applicilnt has pending since June of 197(; a buildins
permi t application for the construc,tion of a commercial structure
on his property, final approval of which has been der::ied pencing
resolution of 1) proper access and ingress alignment off Mill
Street and 2) accomodation of the proposed expansion <ll1c1 re-
alig'nment of the Hill Stree'c Right-Of-\~ay.. A satisfactory
resolution of neither problem ean be reached by the City and
the applicant other than as to result in the reduction of require
open space either through a voluntary conveyance of land or con-
demnation thereof. 1'he postponement or the issuance of a builc1ir.
permit until the formal resolution of the acquisition of the
Right-Of-Way creates practical difficulties and hardships to the
applicant. In addition, to require the City to abandon an ad-
vantageous resolution of the dilemna, namely by voluntary grant _
of land, will create hardships to, that can be resolved with,
in the end, compromising the open space requiremen'ts any more
than as proposed in the resolution tendered today. In addition,
the Board has found that special conditions and circumstances
exist which do not result from the actions of the applicant but,
on the contrary, froI;l the proposed actions of the City in effec-
tuating a public improvement. Secondly, the granting of the
variance is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property
right which the applicant is entitled to enjoy at this time but
would be denied if the applicant made a land donation to the City
to accomodate the City's plans for street alignmen't. 7hird,
the granting or the variance will not adversely effect the generG
purposes of the Comprehensive General Plan.
Smith moved this motion, Lavagnino seconded. All in favor,
motion approved.
~
,--'~
STEWART TITLE OF ASPEN, INC.
HEREBY CERTIFIES from a search of the books in this office that the owners
of property adjacent to the following described property;
SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A
Situated in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, appear to be vested in
the names of:
~...
Aspen Sanitation District _ (?ox ~ ::) OJ, ~
The County of Pitkin - 600 e. M~i\') St
James R. Trueman _ r
Edward W. Morse, III - i~~ <'/';/('4" ,"'I:.J/)e~1
- ~oY}
~ 'S"'""k'~
I~"',
Although we believe the facts stated are true, this Certificate is not
to be construed as an abstract of title, nor an opinion of title, nor
a guaranty of title, and it is understood and agreed that Stewart Title of Aspen,
Inc. neither assumes, nor will be charged with any financial obligation or
liability whatever on account of any statement contained herein.
Dated at Aspen, Colorado, this 25th
1976, at 8:00 A.M.
day of
October
A.D.
\
STEWART TITLE OF ASPEN, INC.
<'~~
BY
.J
,-
~
. .
"""""
" .
EXHIBrT A
A tract of land situated in the Northwest one-quarter of the
Southwest one-quarter of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84
West of the 6th P. H., described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point from whence the West one-quarter corner
of said Section 7, bears North 390 58' 22" West 1124.96 feet,
said point being the Southwesterly corner of tract of land
described in Book 177 at Page 618;
thence on a curve to the left with a radius of 668.00 feet a
distance of 222.1 feet the chord of \vhich bears South 250 40' 02"
East 221.1 feet, along the Northeasterly line of a tract of land
described in Hook 276 at Page 604;
thence South 660 48' 31" East 151 feet along the Northeasterly line
of said tract of land described in Book 276 at Page 604 to a point
on the Northwesterly line of tract of land described in Book 180
,... at Page 345;
thence North 190 05' 07" East 240.00 feet along said Northwesterly
line t~ the most Northerly corner of said tract of land described
in Book 180 at Page 345;
thence :-Jorth 100 32' 30" East 63.00 feet, to the SoutheClsterly
corner of said tract of land described in Hook 177 at Page 618;
thence South 840 19' West 5.00 feet along the Southerly line of
said tract of land described in Book 177 at Page 618;
thence South 050 41' East 66.33 feet along the Easterly line of a
tract of land described in Book 293 at Page 873;
thence South 840 19' Ivest 95.00 feet along the Southerly line of
said tract of land described in Book 293 at Page 873;
thence North 050 41' West 66.33 feet along the Westerly line of
said tract of land described in Book 293 at Page 873 to a point on
the Southerly line of said tract of land described in Book 117 at
Page 618;
thence South 840 19' West 203.00 feet along said Southerly line
to The Place of Beginning.
Pitkin County, Colorado.
. .