Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19900503 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 3, 1990 4 . 00 P.M. MAIN FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS A G E N D A I. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL II. CASE #90-4 MARJORIE & HOWARD DELUCA III. CASE #90-6 LEONARD GERTLER IV. CASE #90-5 PETER CANTRUP V. MINUTES APRIL 12 , 1990 4 v RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS_ BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 3, 1990 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called meeting to order at 4 : 00pm. Answering roll call were Bill Martin, Ron Erickson, Charlie Paterson, Rick Head, Anne Austin and Remo Lavagnino. Josephine Mann was excused. CASE #90-4 MARJORIE & HOWARD DELUCA Remo read into record request for variance. (Attached in record) Affidavit of posting was presented. (Attached in record) Howard: (using drawings) When Marjorie bought the house she had an agreement with the duplex neighbor that this is our designated area for construction. He has already expanded and we would like to do the same. By cutting back into the setback it would cut down the size of the addition considerably. And we would like to be able to build out to here. Right now coming down Cemetery Lane you would never see the house because of the trees. We also plan on putting in a couple more trees to reduce the visual impact coming up Cemetery Lane. We have also restricted the height of the building to a point where it is as low as we can conceivably go without having to put in large dormers and things like that. It is at 24 feet at the peak of the house. We are trying to keep it as small as possible and still keep in the designated area. We have had no problem with the neighbors on this. Charlie: Where would your front entrance be? Is it going to change? Howard: It would change because of convenience. Using drawings Howard pointed out entrances, patio, location of what applicant considers front yard, living room and side yard. We are squeezed off because of the fact that now we have what is called 2 front yards because of the arterial roadway. When Marj bought it she was ignorant of the fact that there was a 25ft setback in 1977. Not knowing this and not being informed of it we have always assumed that we would be able to build in this. And the neighbor assumed it also and he went ahead and built. Otherwise we might have been able to work something out at the other end of the house. So now this is taken. We can't move forward on the building. This will not be allowed by the neighbor. We have already discussed it. It has always been a BAM5. 3 . 90 condition between the 2 of us that we build in this area of expansion. He built up from this line. If we build up from this line, we block his view of Buttermilk and I wouldn't do it anyway. I wouldn't do that to somebody even if I was allowed to. I wouldn't hassle him in that way. Rick: So your enigma basically is that you can't build where the condo regs said you can build because the front yard from Cemetery you can't--you are stuck. Howard: We are kind of stuck in the middle here. We also considered elongating the house back into the back area but because of that designated area of expansion in the contract that we have with them we can't do that. Anne: Do you have a copy of your condo regs that show the agreement? Howard: As far as what we talked to the neighbors about we have already discussed the fact that we are going to landscape this section so that we show our walkway and it will be a small area in walkway here. And that will separate the 2 so that people will know better where everybody lives. The height of the building will be the same. The mass will be the same. You get into conflicting code situations because in our homeowner's situation your back yard has to be in line with all the other back yards. Remo: Which code is this? Howard: Chapter 24--It states that your front yard has to be Mountain view because that is your subdivision and your back yard has to be back here. Because of that this is our back yard. If you make this our front yard then this is our back yard. That is basically our dilemma. Remo: So if you used Cemetery Lane as your front yard, the rear duplex would not be conforming as far as rear yard setback? Someone answered that was right. Bill Drueding: You basically have 2--we are not calling either one the front yard. This becomes--it is only for front yard setback purposes. This is your front yard for your large one. This is also your front. This doesn't necessarily have to be your back yard here. 2 BAM5. 3 . 90 Many talking at same time. Remo: Bill, when was the corner rule-- Bill D: The corner rule has always been the same since 1975 . They made an additional definition of arterial roadway 2 years ago. Remo: And what were the setbacks on the original corner rule in 1975? Bill D: Thies was built prior to 1975. Remo: They bought it in 1977 . I want to know what they knew when they bought the building in 1977. Bill: The corner rule was not in effect in 1975. Remo: Was there a penalty for the side yard setback on a corner rule at that time? Or was it just the front yard. Bill: No. It was just the front yard. Remo: And you could choose at that time? Bill? You could put your house anywhere you wanted. Remo: No. No. Could you choose which one--were the arterial streets designated at time? Bill : In 1975--I don't know. Remo: I don't think it was. Bill : They put in the definition of arterial street 2 years ago to take care of this situation. Remo: What was the intent of the corner rule? Bill: Site view for traffic safety. Remo: Ironically because of all the trees they have there they have effectively subverted the very intent of that. Bill: I would just say Engineering Dept has asked that those trees be removed. Howard: We took a 25ft tree and we donated it to the Golf 3 BAM5. 3 . 90 Course. We agree that this is a very busy road and we are trying to work this out with Engineering. Rick: But this addition isn't going to reduce the visibility. Howard: Plus the road runs away from our property here. The road increasingly runs away from our property. The road shrinks down there by 12ft. Marjorie: The situation right there where if you were going up Cemetery Lane and you went straight you would be in our side yard. You have to jog in order to get around and that, we don't feel, is our fault. It is the fault of whoever engineered the road. Howard: As a matter of fact I went out there one day when they were painting the lines and I had them re-painting the lines. I actually had Jim Gibbard out there with black paint and a brush to brush out the yellow lines that were encroaching on our property and move to the center of Cemetery Lane at that point and try to make it come around that way. Then the next year I had the road crew out there and I bought them a 6 pac and said "Would you paint me a white line down here with a turn lane so that people might get used to that drive down that street the fact that they should stay towards the yellow line and try to give people of Mountain View a chance to get out without getting killed" . So I have been very responsible as far as that is concerned. Remo: Who are you responsible to regarding that designated area of expansion. It is just the other owner? Howard and Marjorie: Both talking--I couldn't understand. Remo: And so if you could seek relief from them if they were willing you would be allowed to expand in front. Howard: They said no. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Marjorie: We own all of the land jointly. She then read paragraph to Board regarding condo regs regarding designated area of expansion. Remo: Do you plan to build a mirror image of the other one as far as the configuration? Howard: The front will be the mirror image. The back will be different. 4 BAM5. 3 . 90 Howard showed Board plans and elevations. Ron: How many square feet addition is this? Howard: Right now we have 900sgft total. What we will end up with will be around 1,900 to 2, 000. Ron: You are allowed 4 , 500sgft on the lot. I was wondering where you would be in terms of build out. Howard: 3 , 700sgft maybe. Remo then asked for public comment. David Amery: We own the other half of this condominium. And we have seen the plans and I feel that that area of expansion was in the decs when we bought it and also when Marj bought it. It has always been there. We have always had a front yard and we have always had a back yard in terms of our understanding with them. I would like to see these guys build in that area of expansion because that is an area that will work for them. It is already in some ways used space in that it is enclosed space. It is landscaped and it is enclosed. You were talking about some other kind of design or other kind of agreement. That is going to cost us a lot of money in financial fees. We are both working people and that would cost us lawyers and re-establishment of condo declarations. And I have already paid through the kahzoo for all the permits necessary to do what I did on my side. I would just say that one of the considerations there is that I spent a lot of time putting in landscaping time to make the back yard, which was all fill , basically into some kind of back yard for my child to play in. Now we have certain spatial relationships that already exist and we did try and work with those. And to somehow go ahead and say "You should sort of change the package and build over there"--we have always planned to build in these areas and it has helped us very much in terms of planning. So if you consider that, that is very important to us. With the configuration of the property and the way that we have been working with it in the past, it would be very convenient for us that that would help. There were no further public comments and Remo closed the public portion of this hearing. Ron: I think this is an absolutely crystal clear hardship where property owners are not into getting the same rights as their 5 BAM5. 3 . 90 neighbors. They are locked into a legal agreement that I think pre-dates the code or at least the definition of arterial road so therefore I think they have both a hardship and a practical difficulty. I would grant the variance. Rick: I share Ron's feelings. I am completely in favor of granting this variance. I think granting it certainly serves the caveats of the plan. It is, again as Ron says, crystal clear as an example of a hardship that was not created by the applicant. The addition doesn't reduce the visibility with respect to the arterial roadways and getting into changing or amending the condominium decs at this point is putting an additional hardship on the applicant. I would be strongly in favor of granting this variance. Anne: I would be in favor of granting the variance based on all the things that Ron and Rick have said. Bill : I agree. Charlie: In view of the fact that we can change the Cemetery side to side yard and I see practical difficulty in the hardship created by that, I would be in favor of granting the variance. Remo: Except for the personal needs and personal and financial hardships which we can't consider I think the points you have brought up in your presentation are valid and in my mind. You have demonstrated that because of the unique set of circumstances adhering to the strict letter of the code would cause an unnecessary hardship in my view so I am in favor of granting the variance. MOTION Ron: I make a motion that we grant the variance. Rick seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Ron, yes, Charlie, yes, Rick, yes, Anne, yes, Remo, yes. Anne: Your letter was great. It really explained. I wish more people would do that. Other Board members also complimented the applicant on their letter and presentation. 6 BAM5. 3 . 90 CASE #90-6 LEONARD GERTLER Remo read into record request for variance. (Attached in record) Affidavit of posting was presented. (Attached in record) Glen Rappaport, representing applicant: I guess that this is kind of an unusual request. The house isn't built yet. It is an empty lot and the plans were presented before Ord #1 went into effect so they are not required to build an employee unit. With the employee unit shortage they decided to try to put one in. It is a non-conforming site. It is a 6, OOOsgft lot in a 7 ,500sgft minimum zone. It is in an area without an alley. This is Waters Avenue here and there is a 25ft front setback and loft sides and the rear. So we are trying to preserve the privacy of the owners and the privacy of the tenant. Instead of just having egress through a hole in the ground we thought that if we made a courtyard it would give the tenant a place to be outside. Remo: The egress is below grade there? Glen: Right. There will be a stairway in here and the employee unit is located on this western side. Remo: And the stairway would be allowed? You would be allowed to have that stairway below the grade? Glen: It would be steps. Up to 30 inches the way it is written now. Bill D: Only 3 feet from the wall. Remo: That is how far away the steps would be? Glen: Well, the plan for the steps here. Bill D: A total of 10 feet to the apartment. Glen: What we are trying to do is make a place for the tenant and put the steps here so that would make a courtyard area with some light coming into there. Their windows are only located below on this portion of their unit. By code you could go this entire length if it was only 30 inches down. Bill D: He wants to come down here with his steps. Now that is fine but he can only go 3 feet out. By code he can walk out here 7 BAM5. 3 . 90 or drive out. He wants to walk out here and go up here and have this courtyard area. He can go up 3 feet here and 3 feet from the building with stairs and when he gets to 30 inches-- Glen: The only problem is we are running into egress problems getting out of here with stairway on this wall and also getting light in. Bill D: The reason he is putting this in this way was it was amended in August 14 , 1989 and the Planning Dept clarified that they did not want the moat effect. So they want people coming out with areas below grade and basically having this moat around, having a 2 story building be a 3 story building. So this is the purpose for the code. Glen: So this is the size of the courtyard and this is where the employee unit is. It is 750sgft. Ron: What is the total square footage of the house? Glen: About 38 . Ron: Not including basement. Glen: Right. As architects I feel adamantly against creating that moat type affect. And especially when it is perceived as the front of the building as it relates to the street. We have tried to do it in a place where it is not visible. And also I feel that sloping the ground down is very different from making a cut with a retaining wall. When you cut the grade and make a place down there where you can sit and get light it is very different than trying to sit or do something on a bank. Bill D: Another problem here is if the neighbor decides to do the same thing you would have a hole there that would prohibit the fire trucks from going through that place. Ron: The employee housing unit that is going in here--is that going to be deed restricted? Glen: If that is an issue, then I think it would be. Bill D: They would have to go through a conditional use review process with the Planning and Zoning Commission and they would decide what restrictions would be placed in the unit. We did an informal review at the last P&Z meeting and it was met favorably. They could not rule on it as it was an informal hearing. 8 BAM5. 3 . 90 Rick: This is exactly what Ord #1 is trying to promote. Bill D: Ord #1 is promoting units above grade, not below grade. But they would rather have the unit below grade than no unit at all. They are encouraging all units. Ron: This is a single family lot--a substandard lot. Glen: If the employee unit isn't allowed then the house will stay exactly the same. That would just be turned into basement area. Ron: Then you wouldn't need the variance. Glen: Then there would be no egress on that side. So the question of hardship is a difficult one. What I tried to come up with was--in general the hardship could be that we don't get an employee unit. So that is a hardship on the community. The other hardship is on the person living in the thing. This is a function of liveability and the smaller it gets the less liveable it is and at some point it does become a hardship. I am not in favor of below grade living and I don't think anybody is. But in this case for the owner this was the way that we could make the argument that this was a pretty nice place to rent out. There are a number of these around town and no matter what we do with Ord #1 there are always going to be those units that are going to come up. And below grade is the only place they can go. Remo: I tell you what bothers me is that there is nothing on the property now and you could have designed this in a way--look at the front. The front has recesses on the ground floor to allow light to come in. You could have done the same detail on the side and come into the house a little more. You have other solutions that you could have explored. Rick: Are you right up against the setback in the back there? Glen: Yes, it is loft but we are not now. It is back. Rick: So you could actually do this thing without getting a variance on the south side of the building. Glen: You could do something here. We can route the thing through here. That is not a problem. The problem is that the circulation conflict is not acceptable. Anne: You could still have stairs on the side right up against the building. Go downstairs to a door and then have the whole 9 BAM5. 3 . 90 front open out onto a courtyard and have light and not need a variance. Glen: So where is the courtyard then? Ron: In the back of the building. Glen: So then you have just taken away the privacy of the other house. Charlie: And then you might get into the setback separation back there. Glen: We have done what we could to keep the house this way. This is a 4 bedroom house. Your concern is correct. This came along later in the process. If they had come to us in the very beginning with this possibly we could have done something here. I think that if you just look at the site plan in general this is the best way to separate all the circulation. They are going to be accessed through this side yard for trash and other things and just isolating one part of the house seemed to be the best way to go for this. If we had an alley I think there would have been other ways that we could have dealt with it. Remo: I guess if you are going to leave it in that configuration because if you have circulation problems I still think to allow the light to come in not at the edge of the structure but keep that-- Glen: Push the bottom back. Remo: That's right. Push it back so that would have the same effect getting light in. Glen: Yes. But you don't have any outer space though. Remo: Well, you are creating it by moving back underneath the structure. You are creating more space than just coming straight down. Because it is under the structure I think it would be allowed below grade--under the roofline. Rick: If another building were to be built on the adjoining lot you would be losing all of your light and air in there anyway. Anne: You have a one car garage here and yet you are providing 2 units. Where is your off street parking going to be? Glen: Actually what is happening is that this garage is 2 cars deep. But even if it is a one car deep you have space for 4 cars. It is a 4 bedroom and that is all that is required. 10 BAM5. 3 . 90 Remo asked for comments from the public. Bob Lewis, part owner of the adjoining property: In 1951 we built a total of 3 houses there. And on this particular site we had a house demolished and I am concerned that the whole building is so out of scale with the neighborhood that that whole side of the street are single family dwellings and we just keep seeing bigger and bigger buildings coming in all the time. When does it ever stop? Remo: That is code. That is something you have to take up with Council. He is probably within the legal rights to build exactly what he has there. The only thing he can't do is what he is coming to us to ask us for a variance. And that is that courtyard. Lewis: I am certainly opposed to his intruding into the setback. Glen: I find that really odd that you are saying that because I think that we have done everything that we could possibly do to not only maintain the scale-- Lewis: To build the biggest building that you can get on that lot, yes. Within the rights of the law. But I don't see why you are entitled to any kind of adjustment on the existing setback. Glen: First of all the adjustment is all below grade. Lewis: That doesn't make any difference. You are intruding on the privacy since you are not entering the building from the front. Apparently you are intruding on the privacy of the adjoining neighbors. Glen: There is a fence along here. Remo: He is directly impacted. That is why he is concerned. Those people would be using that egress. And he would be impacted. Are you maxed out on this? Glen: Basically we are pretty maxed out. We made a tremendous effort to make this thing look and have a front porch the length of the street, not wall off the street even though you know what is going on across the street right now. It is not exactly becoming the kind of neighborhood that you want to hang out in with all this stuff that is going on across the street. We have made a real attempt to have a front yard 11 BAM5 . 3 . 90 Elise Rufkowitz: I live on the other side of this house and I think the house looks nice. Ron then read into record letter from Angus-Campbell, Inc. , Mr. & Mrs. Kenneth Campbell, 919 Waters Avenue in opposition to the granting of this variance. Rick read into the record letter from Barbara C. Lewis, Blk 120, Lots F & G, Waters Avenue in opposition to the granting of this variance. (Owner of Lots C, D, and E of Block 120 Waters Ave. ) (letters attached in record) There was no further public comment and Remo closed the public portion of this hearing. Bill M: I feel that I understand the Lewis ' s concern. I think that if we have any feeling for Ord #1 that this does provide employee affordable housing. If we deny the variance the house will be built as is. The people who own this property are not going back and re-design and pay the architect for another 6 or 7 thousand dollars to change it. So I feel that if we can be sure that there is a fence between the properties on both sides and that it is within the proper limits that I would be in favor of granting this variance. Remo: I didn't get any indication they were going to abandon the unit because they didn't get this variance. They just wanted to make it a more livable area. Glen: We would like to retain the option to work with the clients and come up with something. Rick: I think it is admirable that the applicant is trying to provide employee housing. But I have not seen a demonstrated hardship here that isn't created by the applicant. I don't think they have pursued other solutions to provide some light and air. I probably would not be in favor of giving this variance. Charlie: I have difficulty in finding that the applicant has shown us either hardship or practical difficulty in this case. As much as I am in favor of employee housing I feel that there are other options. And that if they really want to build an employee housing unit it could perhaps even be done on the first floor. I would not be in favor of this variance. Remo: Charlie, I forgot to ask you since you were one of the persons who were notified regarding this as an adjacent property owner, I would like to ask you if you can serve on this hearing and give an impartial determination. 12 BAM5. 3 . 90 Charlie: The adjacent property that I own is owned by Boomerang Limited and it is not my private dwelling. It is employee housing. I don't live there. It is at 1020 Waters and that is the adjacent property across the street from this. It is employee housing strictly. There are 3 apartments there and it doesn't affect me personally. I don't feel that it would affect any determination that I make. Anne: I can't believe that somebody who is starting with a brand new project would come to us for a variance. - There are so many alternatives in design that I would not be in favor of granting this. Remo: I agree. I know it came late as a consideration and probably had you known about this before you might have designed the project differently. But we can't use that as a guide for granting you a variance. That is unfortunate because you probably would have come in with the right solution. I think the Board agrees with your intent. It is just that under our guidelines there is no reason for granting you a variance. You have to demonstrate a unique situation and hardship. If not it is difficult for us to grant a variance so I would be opposed to granting this variance. MOTION Ron: I move that we deny this variance. Rick: I second the motion. Roll call vote: Ron, yes, Charlie, yes, Rick, yes, Anne, yes, Remo, yes. CASE #90-5 PETER CANTRUP Remo read into record request for variance. (attached in record) Affidavit of posting and mailing was presented. (attached in record) Doug Alan, representative for applicant: This building was permitted and started in April, 1987. Some construction was done on it in 1987 and in 1988. On December 19, 1988 in response to some problems that the City perceived with the construction I met with Bill Drueding and Fred Gannet to try to resolve some of those issues. 13 BAM5. 3 . 90 Since that time Bill Drueding and Francis Krizmanich have decided that there are some issues relative to the building that they could not make the decision on. They asked that we bring them to the Board of Adjustment for decision. This is a non-conforming site of approximately 44 X 100ft rectangle. Not all 4 corners are 90 degree so it is not truly rectangle. Because it is a corner lot we have got an imposition of a 6. 8ft side setback instead of 5. 0 side setback on one side. There was discussion as to whether architectural projection could or could not be functional. ISSUE #6 It was decided that issue #6 was not an issue at all. ISSUE #5 After discussion on issue #5 it was decided this was an encroachment on City property and could only be decided by City Council. ISSUE #1 Doug Alan: Item #1 refers to the rear yard setback variance. Again we have an architectural projection. This architectural projection serves a functional purpose in that it supports the balcony and therefore does not encroach when it is allowed. A balcony is allowed to be closer than a wall of a building so it is not truly an encroachment. It is a permitted use. This rock facia sticks out . 1ft too far. Doug then read into the record a letter from Howard B. Awrey in support of this variance. (attached in record) Bill Drueding: There was an original plan signed on 2/9/89 . And then the survey used at that time shows a different property line. There is a property line question. Doug: Today we received from the surveyor the plat that Howard Awrey has agreed will constitute the common property line between the 2 properties. This survey was just done. Howard agreed several months ago to this so we have documented a survey of this property of this 44 X 100ft lot. This hash mark is part of this property. Bill Drueding: This is not certified. 14 BAM5. 3 . 90 Doug: What we would like to do is have approval of this variance subject to this being certified and recorded. Remo: Not only subject to verification of that survey but also the request that you are asking, we don't even know if 8 . 9 is correct at this point. This could change depending on that survey. Doug: I would like to request that this portion of this be continued. I would like to file a boundary line agreement but with a revised plat. Fred Gannet, Attorney: Would that include any deed type documents? Doug: It will include a quit claim from each side to the other. This is not a lot line adjustment. Fred: I am concerned--what I guess is that that has to be I know from the facts that I have gone over so many times is the assignment of deed--well endowed attorney's fees and retirement fund--that there are enough documents that we show conflicting boundary lines. I agree the way to do this is to table to a date certain to give time to receive a certified copy. Doug: In so much as this has been so lucrative, I am going to go on vacation--I need to do this on Thursday June 14 , 1990. MOTION Rick: I move to continue this item #1 to date certain of Thursday June 14 , 1990. Ron seconded the motion with all in favor. ITEM #2 Doug: Item #2 relates to the front yard setback. On this end of the building we have the same situation. We have an architectural projection that also supports a balcony. If you don't consider it as part of the balcony then it is an encroachment of the architectural projection. However, it is also part of the balcony support and if it is part of the support of the balcony it just encroaches by an inch or two. Remo: This is 2 . 8ft? Doug: The encroachment is 1. 8ft. 15 BAM5. 3 . 90 Ron: If we agree that it is an architectural projection then they would need only 1.8ft variance. If it is not an architectural projection and it is a structural member, then it is 2 .8ft. Doug: Unless it is part of the balcony which is OK. I think it is Bill 's position is that it is not part of the balcony. Bill Drueding: That is my position. It is not part of the balcony. If this had come in now with these details, I would have denied it just as I am now. And on 2/9/89 here is a set of approved plans and this does not show as part of these plans--these balconies. This column has been built subsequent to this approval without any other approvals. Here are those approved plans. These are stamped and signed January 15, 1989 and February 9 of 1989 by the Building Dept and shows no projections out here--not even a balcony. So these columns were built without any permission. They would not be permitted now because you can see there is no columns on these drawings. Doug: Bill Drueding is correct about that. These were not approved. Bill: My point here is after they build it and now he says it is necessary to hold it up--that doesn't fly with me. It wouldn't have been approved at the time it was not shown and I am still not going to approve it. Remo: And what would be the reason for your denial? Bill: This is just a thing they stuck up there. It is added bulk and I have never seen anything like it before that encroached on setbacks. Anne: Is this structural column being used for anything else i.e. pipes inside there? Where does the water come pouring out of? Nasser: Oh, that comes from basement. That is a sump pump from the basement. Anne: That pours it out into the street? Nasser: It is just like the roof water. It comes and collects. 16 BAM5. 3 . 90 Doug: It is only temporary. Charlie: Is it a temporary thing? Nasser: No. We don't mean it to be temporary. Anne: You mean water will be gushing out into the streets. Nasser: You are not allowed to put it in the sewer. Anne: But you are saying this is coming from the basement. (Many people talking at same time) Ron: According to what Bill said none of this was on the plans that were approved. They were added afterwards. Nasser: The balcony was but not the support. Rick: How could you have approved the balcony without knowing that structurally it wouldn't be supported by the existing-- Bill: The Building Dept approved their plans structurally. They have changed the structure obviously. Just as they have changed the balcony. These changes have not been approved by the Building Dept. This what you see has not been approved. Fred: It has been approved in a number of forms and it has been built in a number of forms both that comply with the approvals and that don't comply with the approvals. We have reached the end of the ladder. And that is why these issues are here before you because there are really no more reconciliations that are capable of being made through the Zoning Office, the Attorney's office and the applicant. I think we have all worked in good faith. We are just at an impasse on some of these issues and that is why we are here today. Remo: One thing I can't see why we can grant you a variance for a support of a balcony to a balcony that hasn't even been approved yet. Nasser: It is now by the Zoning Office and the plans that show the balcony and it is approved by Zoning Office. It is sitting in the Building Dept. He has approved the balcony. Bill: The balcony as I see a balcony is OK to project in the setback. That change I did say it is OK which I got in the last few months. But this large column--the so-called support I 17 BAM5. 3 . 90 consider that an encroachment into the setback. And I am not going to approve that. I denied that. Remo: I thought I understood that the support of the balcony was for balconies that weren't approved yet because they were not-- Bill: The balconies are not approved by the Building Dept yet. The plans are still waiting for plan check--the change. Remo: So if the balconies are not approved-- Bill: The Building Dept. has not said the balconies are going to stay up yet. Remo: So how can we grant a variance if there is something that are not going to be there in the first place? Nasser: We are talking zoning--as far as zoning is concerned. He has approved--the Zoning Dept has stamped that that balcony is OK. What he has not done--he has not done the encroachment of the support of that balcony. He has said we have to come and get that variance for that support of it. Doug: So that is where we are right now. That balcony is approved but the support is subject to the approval of the Board of Adjustment. Anne: But you built those balconies without having the approval . Remo: Could the support somehow be inside the building? Or cantilevered in some way. Doug: It could have been but it wasn't. Remo asked for public comment on this issue. John Olson: I did the project across the street. As far as this project you are talking about 2 million dollar condo. To open up the ceiling and some sheet rock and cantilever out an I beam or something to carry this thing is nothing at all . It is a joke. Get rid of it--a 5, 000 pound column that inhibits the view of the whole neighborhood--this is absurd. Marjorie Deluca, manager of the Caribou Condominium which is 2 doors uphill: Our Board of Directors has asked me to protest the method that is being used on this and how this is being handled. In other words, you build it and then you get the approval. John Olson: In a previous discussion with Bill Drueding a couple of years ago regarding this project we were never notified of 18 BAM5. 3 . 90 that particular variance meeting at which time during the conversation with Bill Drueding he told me that there are no current variances allowed or attached to this particular structure. This allowed me to believe that any balconies encroaching in the variance on any side are illegal, period. Remo: We are not getting that from the Building Dept. Bill D: And there was an attempt at a variance under side yard variances with balconies in 1984 and they were all denied. Doug: There has been no previous variances granted at all. John: How can there be balconies in the setbacks then? Doug: The balconies are permitted by code to be right where they are. Remo: They are not asking for variance for balconies here. Just the support which they say is part of the balcony. Bill: The balcony can project 1/3 or aft whichever is less. It is this column that I am saying is not permitted. Doug then read into the record letters from Aspen Mountain Townhouse #C, Charles McCartney, Managing Agent for Telemark Condominium Association, John and Frank Dolinsek, Mac Boelen, Managing Agent Aztec Condominiums, Tim Clark, Manager Dolomite Villas of Aspen, and Alan and Steven Bush, 210 East Hyman #7 . These letters were all in favor of granting of this variance. (All attached in record) Remo then read into the record letter from Kenneth R. Chiate objecting to the variance. John Olson: I developed the property right south of this. The only reason I have a problem with any of this is because of ethics. Starting with the acquisition of this property, how Hans Cantrup got ahold of it and let's not kid ourselves--we are talking about Hans Cantrup here. To make a long story short we are over there one day working and excavation starts taking place to a little side yard that is in between an existing employee unit and the Skier' s Chalet. I called Bill and asked if Cantrup had an excavation permit. Bill said "No he doesn't" . And he comes up and he stops him. A few months later and I see some guys over there and there is a door going out. There are some appliances leaving, some cabinets going and every day it is like the building is becoming more and 19 BAM5 . 3 . 90 more bare. I called Bill again and asked if Cantrup had a demolition permit. Bill goes up there and he red-tagged him again. About that time I think Hans applied for his first set of variances at which time he didn't notify us or a couple of the other adjacent property owners. This was during the design phase and I talked to Howard Awrey about it who was adamantly against it at the time. My partners and I were adamantly against it at the time as we are now and because we weren't notified properly the variance was nullified. And he requested a whole skew of stuff most of which was denied but he did get a couple of them approved. Time went by again and I see him up there cutting down some rather large Spruce trees. So I called Bill again and asked him if he had a permit to cut down the Spruce trees. Bill said he had a permit to cut down a couple of them. I said one he was cutting down was 16 inch diameter and 80 feet tall . And Bill said "He does not have a permit for that one" . I never pushed the issue any further. The Spruce trees were gone anyway and I couldn't do anything about it. A couple weeks after that Hans walked over and said "You know, John, I really want to be friends. I am a changed man. I have gone through this bankruptcy and I am going to be different. I am going to be a good neighbor. I really want to make this thing work" . As if I just fell off the Turnip Truck or something. The guy has just broken 10 laws in a row and he wants me to buy this. The next- thing -that_ happens is they start construction- They-are - doing the foundation and so on and I go up there and they have got their hoses hooked onto our spigots. And they are cleaning up all of their construction tools and concrete truck with all of our utilities. They have also got a GFI breaker on the rear. They have extension cords around and the guy had never talked to me before about any of this. The construction starts to come up. The first thing he does is he starts going down. What does he start going down with? Illegal dwelling units. We have got no idea what the rooms are for. The way that I could best see them when I was surveying the project from afar was they were supposed to be some illegal bandit units that were going to go in and hopefully he was going to get them by the Building Dept because he tried pouring concrete over the top of them. Where the stairwell was he had concrete forms anyway. I think he planned on cutting them out 20 BAM5 . 3 . 90 later so he could come back and access them after he got his CO because nobody was going to see them. Following this they come up too high the very first time. I believe that they have adjusted that problem. But I went up there also with the surveyor--it is amazing all that I had to go through with this guy. I went up there with the surveyor and we shot it and it was too high. And Bill addressed that problem and there was some demolition work done to the unit after that. Whether or not it conforms at this point I don't know. It is not an issue apparently even though the elevators are what they call -a -mechanical- necessity as much of a luxury as -they are-, they are the most obtrusive thing and the most obnoxious element of what we are all talking about in terms of the skyline and what it does to us when we look at it. They are hideous and they stick up significantly more than any other part of the building. How that constitutes a mechanical need vs a luxury, I don't know. That brings us up to the current variances. I am against them all. When I start reading down through these things I think the way that they have been worded is very manipulative. And I think it is wrong. The word "column" . To me when you see a nice little porch and you see a decorative column out there that is dowelled and lathed wood, that is a column. You are talking about a 5, 000 pound concrete structure that sticks out and blocks view and shade and whatever else is going on up there. That is not a column to me. In terms of architectural projection: Architectural projections are not functional in any way. Nasser said earlier that these interior roof drains that are inside of these architectural projections were an afterthought. They are not an afterthought. It is an impossibility to be an afterthought. They had to be on before any of this concrete went up. In fact they were because I saw it being built. The first thing they do is they illegally put roof drain stuffers coming down off the edge of the building into these roof drains which is what these are inside of these front architectural projections. And they are running the water from the roof out into the street instead of into a drywell which is what we did on the project across the street. By code this is the way it is supposed to be done everywhere. And then they put the rock over the front of them. So it wasn't an afterthought that was done later. It was pre- thought. This was premeditated. That is something you work into the design of your building in the design phase. 21 BAM5. 3 . 90 In terms of the structural aspects of the balconies--being a contractor I can tell you right now these columns don't have to be there. They can fix them so easily it is pathetic. I have done it before. That is what contractors do is fix these problems. It seems like all of these numbers and all of these requests are being changed constantly. It is becoming very confusing. These 1. 2 and 2 .8 and whatever are all of a sudden becoming . 5 and . 6 . The ones that going to be tabled even seem to be vague. The columns can be altered very easily. That is not an issue here . Most of them are built without permits--these architectural projections. Let' s not forget about that. Hardships or practical difficulties--there are none. This is the same as the last project you just reviewed. This is a new project. Nobody's lived there yet. There is no reason why it can't conform. If you would look at 2 projects that best this scenario that will show you that a 20 foot wide building can be done without any variances and be very functional and be very artistic--I think first of all look at my design across the street. It has had its fair share of compliments. It is on a 30ft wide lot. That is a 20 foot wide building. It is very functional and works great. It needed no variances. I take that back. It did need a 6 inch variance for 20 feet. The project we just finished next door to Gracy' s on Main Street. That is on a 30ft lot. That victorian office building is very functional and works great. You don't need a variance to accommodate a small lot size. So that is not a hardship or practical difficulty. Employee housing. That was employee housing that was there before. The way that they got around that I don't know. How they got 2 free market units there, I don't know. That was employee housing, period. This is the nature of what we are dealing with. I think we need to put these particular variances in perspective here. In terms of the letters that were read. Howard in particular. I have talked to Howard many times about this. He is a beaten man. He is bummed out. He just wants to see the thing finished. The same thing for the guy who just bought unit C from us. This thing has been up there--you guys have been jerking everybody around for so long it is like--let's finish the thing up and get out of there. But I just don't see it that way and neither do 22 BAM5 . 3 . 90 some other people. Neither does Bill Drueding who shouldn't have to be subjected to this. That is not a reason to grant a variance. Just because people are beaten down and are writing letters because they are tired of seeing the construction project going on and on. It is relative to the point that we are dealing with somebody who has no respect for the building codes or the people who enforce them. I think that the best way to reiterate this point with this individual as well as conforming with my request as a concerned citizen and as an adjacent property that he be denied and that he be forced to conform in all aspects of the code from here on out and that you back up Bill Drueding in his request to do this. It is the difference between right and wrong. It is a matter of ethics. Bill: This was not part of the original permit and would not be permitted at that time either. I do not look at this as an architectural projection. This was only discovered due to so many changes and stop-work orders that this was even discovered. Remo then closed the public portion of the meeting. Anne: I have a big, big problem with people doing things from scratch and needing a variance. I have an even bigger problem with people building something without the permit and then expecting to get a variance. I don't see any hardship in this situation. I am actually angry that it has cost neighbors their money to go and research this project at their expense. There is a reason for zoning code and if people can't conform to them I am not going to give them a variance after the fact. Charlie: When we look at this column as being part of the balcony, I don't agree that it is part of the balcony and I don't think it should be looked at in that light. I feel somewhat the same way Anne does although I would like to stick with the practical difficulty that exists here. It turns out that the practical difficulty is a self-imposed practical difficulty and hardship. And because it is self imposed I feel it is not worthy of consideration to grant a variance. Rick: There has been a lot of adjacent property owners support this. But as Mr. Olson has pointed out it has probably been because of There are lengthy histories of abuse of the process on this during the process of this building going up. I don't consider this architectural projection because it is clearly a support for these balconies and the request for variance I think for the support of these balconies should be denied. 23 BAM5. 3 . 90 There are other ways to mitigate the support of this balcony and I think these should be pursued. I can't find a hardship or practical difficulty that was not self imposed. Bill Martin: I agree with Rick on this. I don't understand what can be considered an architectural projection in measurement. Bill D: It can project 12 inches as an architectural projection. If you will recall--remember Stan Mathis who put a fireplace out into the setback and tried to call it an architectural projection. At that time we found that that was functional and was not an architectural projection. Ron: Charlie has said it all. I agree with Charlie. I would not grant a variance on this. Remo: Everything else has been said. I just want you to know that it is strictly based on the information that we have heard here. I didn't pay any attention--I don't care who has done this project. I have no cause to like or dislike the owner. We are just looking at the facts that were presented before us. And it seems to me that it is something if it is going to cost a lot of money that is too bad because if they had gone through the code and maybe that is a lesson to be learned here. You either would have gotten a more receptive or at lease--both the Building Dept and the client could have come to some kind of agreement as to how to resolve the structural problem. But having put it up and then come in for a variance. I just can't see that. So I would be in favor of denying this portion of the variance. MOTION I make a motion that we deny item #2 . That is a 2 .8ft front yard setback variance for a column encroachment on the east side of the building. Charlie seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Ron, yes, Charlie, yes, Rick, yes, Anne, yes, Remo, yes. ITEM #3 Doug: Item #3 is shown on plans that were approved. And it was built as approved on the plans. This is a concrete wall between the 2 units and provides a fire stop. It extends out both directions about a foot on both sides of the building and it 24 BAM5. 3 . 90 is concrete as shown in these pictures. There is concrete under that metal and it was on the approved plans. Remo: So why is this before us? Bill D: Because the Building Dept--if we make mistakes, does not relieve the applicant of correcting those mistakes. Just because we don't catch everything and we make an error does not give that person the right to do that. Remo: Except I think when they have vested enough expenses-- Ron: They still have to go through the process of getting a variance. Doug: But I think the reason for giving the variance is that it truly has created a hardship and it is truly not the applicant ' s doing that that hardship was created. Nasser: And at the same time it is an architectural projection. Bill Drueding: I talked to Steve Kanipe of the Building Dept. He says that is not a requirement that that wall could stop right at the edge of the building. A certain separation is require but that is not required to stick out there. Doug: But it has created a hardship in that we were allowed to build it. Bill D: But it has created a hardship because when we had your plans it really don't show this thing very well. It is something we missed. The correct elevation would have shown that. It is not given in these plans. Many people talking at the same time here. Bill D: The Building Dept--we don't feel that it is necessary to give them this variance because it is not necessary to stick out beyond the structure. Remo: What was the purpose--was there structural purpose for extending it beyond that structure? It had nothing to do with anything? Doug: It is not a column. It is an entire poured concrete wall . Ron: How is it supported or re-enforced--the design. Again a lot of people talking at the same time. 25 BAM5. 3 . 90 Ron: I think you can cut it off. I know we ran into a situation with the Mountain Queen where we made them cut off the corner of our tennis court. It can be done and it won't affect the structural integrity of the building at all by moving that 1 foot. Doug: It is just a question of we have got to take the roof off to get the saw up there to start cutting down. Then we have got to break the concrete out of the ground to go to the ground with it. It was not a problem that was created by us. This truly is not a hardship that was created by us. Charlie: It is correct that the structural problem is part of the party wall--then it says it supports the glass sky lights. How does it support the sky lights? Nasser: The glass comes to it. This was in the structural drawings and was approved. Bill D: If you look at page 4--this doesn't have dimensions. So therefore we have to scale this. This shows a dimension to be 1 foot according to scale. One foot. Charlie: It is shown--right through here. Bill D: A site plan is supposed to show any encroachment into the setbacks. This site plan doesn't necessarily show that. This is the wall. These are supposed to be walls. Doug: We are not trying to malign Bill about this. With all of the thousands of pages of stuff he has to look at I am surprised more than this doesn't get missed. But it did get missed. It was a mistake. We didn't create the mistake and that is why we are asking for the variance. Remo: Well, you created the mistake. It just got approved, that is all. John Olson: Once again this does project directly towards my project. And it is not structural. This is a new project. Once again there is no reason why it can't conform to code. I, as a contractor, am liable %n - every -one -of my projecte to -make sure the entire project conforms to code. I don't care what has been approved, period. Remo: I am sure it comes under scrutiny when your client comes before the Building Dept. If something got through then you would be in the same fix as possibly the applicant would be here. 26 BAM5. 3 . 90 John: My job is to be knowledgeable of the code, to have a UBC on the job site at all times, to make sure my superintendents are knowledgeable of the code and to make sure the code is followed. And we do that. Doug: Part of what he says is correct. It does violate code. That is why we need a variance for it. It was allowed to violate code by something The Building Dept allowed. Bill D: The plans don't show it as being 2 feet wide. This is the basis of a lot of this encroachment. Everything that encroaches here have added bulk to this building. All of this bulk and encroaching. But these plans don't show 2 feet. Remo: What is that--metal facia? Bill D: Your survey shows 2 feet. It says 2 feet. Nasser: That is furred out. The concrete is 8 inches and it is furred out. The furring can be taken out. It is 2 X 4 probably on the side. The concrete itself is only 8 inches. Bill D: It is actually 2 feet wide. And we did not approve 2 feet. We approved 1 foot and they went ahead and built 2 feet. Remo: The concrete is 8 inches wide and they went ahead and built 2 feet? Remo then closed the public portion of this part of the meeting. Rick: I am kind of leaning towards approving this variance. I am a little confused as to what the Building Dept approved. I think there is a demonstrated hardship in that they got the go ahead from the Building Dept--notwithstanding that they are culpably responsible for what they do. I think it would be a hardship to remove this. Charlie: I don't feel quite the same way as Rick on this. The plans show very clearly as 1 foot. And if it turns out to be 2 feet I wouldn't allow that. I would allow the 8 inches of concrete. They built something that wasn't on the drawing. So what I am saying is since it can be torn down to 8 inches I would allow the 8 inches. The only other point I have on this would be that it could be looked at as an architectural projection of 1 foot. But that is all I would allow. I wouldn't allow the . 2 of what is on there. There is .2 extra of what shouldn't be there. Remo: And also that they are not to put anything else on there? 27 BAM5. 3 . 90 Charlie: That is correct. They put an eighth inch metal over it which would be nothing to hide the concrete. That would be OK because now the concrete is only going to be 8 inches. My point is they built something that was not on the drawing and therefore I wouldn't allow this the way it shows here. It shows here as 12 inches and they only have 8 inches of concrete. I would allow them the one foot projection as an architectural projection. That is OK with me but not the .2 . Remo: Their argument is not so much that it is an architectural projection but that the Building Dept OK'd the plan. And I think we should stick to that. Charlie: I would then say that the massing is to be taken down to the 8 inches of concrete. Anne: I agree with what Charlie said. Bill M: I also agree with what Charlie said. Ron: I think you can't have it both ways. On the plans--the Building Dept made an error in approving something by missing something there that was 1 foot wide and they build something that is 2 feet wide. So you can't have 2 feet and complain about the Building Dept missing this. What I consider to be a really minor defect. I don't think it is structurally significant. I think it may be a little inconvenient for them. But considering the amount of time and effort the Building Dept has put into this project--the amount of time Bill has had to go up there and all the plans I see there. Plus the fact that this is the first one that I have seen all of us not understanding what is going on and having to go up there and get it pointed out to us. This is a very, very complicated project. The only people who really knew what was going on were the people who were building it. I don't think the hardship is really the Building Department's. I think it is the architect. I would deny the variance. I think the intent of the code is to use that as your guidelines. And if you don't use that as your guidelines then you can do whatever you want. And if you did something that is in question on one set of sheets it shows a stone column. I couldn't tell what was going on. I think they can remove that and come into compliance without it being really too expensive. I don't think they needed it in the first place and they don't need it now. I don't see a hardship. 28 BAM5. 3 . 90 Remo: I am torn in that arena. I have to evaluate very strongly when somebody vests a certain amount of money into a project and on the basis of information given to them by the Building Dept. Bill M: What was the intent of their extending that fire wall? On both sides they added it to the 2 feet. But basically I guess they were trying to have the architectural projection and live with both of them. But I don't see anything wrong with the mistake that was made if we can restrict it to the 8 inches. Ron: My problem is that in looking at the project as a whole there are so many changes on this thing--major changes. Bill said it was red tagged 5 times. It has been 3 years in the building. I keep seeing it and keep waiting for it to get finished. Everybody wants it to get finished. I think it slipped through and in the aggregate it is small enough we should not overturn the essence of the code because of something as small as this. Remo: (to Fred) The Building Dept OK'd these plans. Is there now enough vested expenses in this to take that into consideration? Fred In my mind, no. There is reliance on the plan approved. The plans that have been approved are not the plans that are being constructed. Throughout the history of this project, there has been reliance on an approved set of plans. And if it was constructed as approved I would say that this applicant would have a strong argument. But because of the number of changes, because so many of these changes were without approval or got approvals after the fact, I don't think that there is a strong reliance from a legal point of view. Remo: Is there a proportion to the amount of cost of the building that--what if this were an enormous expenditure? Is that a consideration for the Board? Fred: Financial considerations alone are not enough. In this case here there is no question there has been a lot of money expended on the project. There is no question that the approvals--that there have been some properly granted and some building that has been done in violation of the codes. I don't think the doctrine of vested rights applies here. I do think that the issue of financial consideration becomes appropriate only in the constraints of all the other elements that have been provided. It is accumulative constraints, not the isolated financial consideration that causes it to fail or to succeed. Remo then re-opened the hearing to the public. 29 BAM5. 3 . 90 Doug: I would comment that perhaps there is a compromise and allowing what was approved and tear off the wood that covers this up at the present time. And I think even if you find that there have been violations to the approved plans then my client shouldn't be punished for things that were built in accordance with the approved plans. Bill D: Getting back to taking the wood off. We are going from 2 feet to 8 inches. Charlie: Whatever the concrete is. It might be 8 inches. Doug: It was 1 foot wide as approved. Then we could do something with it to cover up the unsightliness of raw concrete. Bill D: The width is 2 feet. What was approved was 8 inches. It was 1 foot out from the wall and 8 inches width. John Olson: The concrete wall is not an architectural projection. I am curious as to what is underneath the wood that they are afraid to tear off other than-- Remo: I saw it. It is concrete at the bottom. Anne: And on the back. We are talking about the front and the back. Bill D: Three levels there. Remo closed the public portion of this section of the meeting. In this particular case I would grant the minimum variance of just raw concrete as it is shown in the plans. I just think that there comes a time that even though I know the Building Dept was burdened with a lot of irregularities as such that I don't think it serves any purpose at this point because of the way this whole thing evolved to have to tear it down or to cut it down with a saw. I don't see any purpose to that. So I would be in favor of granting the variance. Anne: Do you feel that it is up to the applicant to conform to the zoning codes or it is up to the Building Dept to catch people's errors? Remo: In the matter where both applicant and the Building Dept are in error then I think it is incumbent upon the Building Dept to find the error, not the applicant. If they do it in good faith. I am trying to look at this as objectively as I can. 30 BAM5. 3 . 90 Nasser: I can paint the concrete. I can sand blast it and make it very attractive looking. I can do anything on the concrete if you are not willing to give me the opportunity of 3/4 inch furring. Remo then closed the public portion of this section of the hearing. MOTION Rick: I move that we approve item #3 , south side yard and north side yard setback variance and with the caveat that it does not extend any further than the 8 X 12 that was indicated on the approved plans. Fred: If you move to approve the applicant' s request as reflected in the plans dated 2/9/89 as constructed in place with the provision that the applicant shall in no way expand the exterior of the concrete wall. Rick: I amend my motion. I couldn't have said it any better. Anne seconded the motion. Roll call vote. Ron, no, Charlie, yes, Rick, yes, Anne, yes, Remo, yes. ITEM #4 (FENCE) Doug: The reasons for granting this variance are #1 take a look at what is there. It does vary. It is higher than 6 feet in some places and lower than 6 feet in some other places. And on the east side of the building it is largely covered by landscaping. On the east side of the building there is that huge green box on the wall there. And to run the thing straight down hill creates a very unattractive appearance and so architecturally it was stepped. On the side that is against Howard Awrey's building, Howard is very much in favor of leaving it just like it is. Remo: Did you get a permit on this? Doug: Yes. Remo: Why did you exceed the permit? Nasser: What they assumed was that the fact that was OK at some points it was OK therefore to step them down it can still 31 BAM5. 3 . 90 vary from this. So at some points it varies and protects the transformer etc that is behind the walk. That is the way it came about. Bill D: The code says fence shall not exceed 6 feet. That is what we approved and they have not built it that way. John Olson: Once again this is a new structure. There is no reason they should not abide by the code. This particular item I think most critical is that safety comes into play. I think Ron is very familiar with the problem on Monarch Street. It is a very steep hill. That is a blind curve. You cannot stop. I remember with the construction of our project, trucks could not get up that hill. It becomes solid ice and you are basically putting a blind corner on an icy hill guaranteed 6 months of the year. Ron: It used to be one way too. And they changed that. It is a real problem. Doug: One thing regarding this visibility situation. The trees are all higher than 6 feet already. The wall is lower than these trees are at the present time. Remo: Another question--why is there no sidewalk there? Many people talking at the same time. Ron: has it. The Caribous have it. Remo: What I am suggesting is that the property next door to you allowed for sidewalk and didn't come to maximize their property. Nasser: They have allowed to be there only for landscape and where the trees are. Bill D: Trees are not allowed to be there either. Those trees will have to be removed also. Ron: We have 2 considerations. We have both sides of the building. Are we going to treat them the same way? One is a safety problem. The other isn't necessarily a safety problem. Charlie: I think we ought to allow this variance. I think that they present certain practical difficulty in the fact that the sidewalk going down Monarch Street is at such a slant. The grade is at such a slant that if you take one step down you are already at another situation. So that some of it will come at much less than 6 feet than others. And it makes a lot of sense to step it down rather than angle to follow the line of the slant. 32 BAM5. 3 . 90 Anne: Again I have to go back to the fact that it is a new building and they haven't conformed with what the code requests. I don't see a hardship in putting in something that they didn't get approved. Rick: I would be in favor of letting them have the wall that is on the west side of the building at its present configuration. I have reservations about the east side especially when it comes to that corner. As Nasser has pointed out there is snow coming off of Howard' s building on the west side. And he is basically in favor of it. So I would be in favor of granting that part of the variance. But I really have a problem with the east side. I would like to see that brought back to comply with the code. Bill M: I would require them to conform for safety reasons on Monarch Street. On the other side I am not sure we are clear of which is the best solution on the west side. If we require them to reduce it, does that create a problem that is not satisfactory to either of the property owners? Remo: I think solutions can be found without our having to design it to take care of that problem. From my point of view I don't think they presented anything to support any kind of fence over 6 feet. And I think the trees instead of covering the fence have really exacerbated the condition of visibility to that strategic corner. So I can't see anything of any consequence that would make me vote for this variance. I think they are going to have to do whatever design they want on that fence. They are just going to have to conform. I don't buy the argument of taking part of a fence and sort of shifting it over and allowing them to go over the 6 foot just to- -I mean they can use that same configuration at a lower--if they like that design they can do it starting at the apex would be 6 feet and then they would have to come down and do their I am opposed to that. Ron: I agree with you. MOTION Anne: I move that we deny this item #4 variance for the east and west side fence/height variance. Motion died for lack of a second. 33 BAM5 . 3 . 90 MOTION Ron: I make a motion that we grant this variance as stated. Charlie seconded the motion. Remo: The motion is to grant the variance as shown or as existing on the property. Roll call vote: Ron, no, Charlie, yes, Rick, no, Anne, no, Remo, no. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 8 : 05 m. !� l Jani-41M. Carney, ty eputy C er 34 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CASE #90-4 MARJORIE & HOWARD DELUCA 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, 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. Particulars of the hearing and requested variance are as follows: I ate and Time of Meeting: Date: May 3 , 1990 Time: 4 : 00 p.m. Owner for Variance: Appellant for Variance: Name: Marjorie & Howard DeLuca Marjorie & Howard DeLuca Address: 1030 Cemetery Lane Location or description of property: 1370 Mountain View Drive, Aspen Lot 1, Block 1, West Meadow Sub. Variance Requested: Property is located in the R-15 zoning category. Front yard setback is 25 feet and the corner lot rule applies. Chapter 24 Sec 5-202 (D) (4) and Sec. 3-101 definitions. (Aspen Land Use Regulations) Applicant appears to be requesting a 5 foot 6 inch front yard setback variance Will applicant be represented by counsel: Yes: No: X The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Jan Carney Deputy City Clerk NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CASE W90-6 LEONARD GERTLER BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN. BOARD OF ADJUSTY=T 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, you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to, such variance , as the Board of Adjustment will give sericus consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. Particulars of the hearing and requested variance are as follows: Date and Time of Meeting: Date: May 3 , 1990 Time: 4 : 00 p.m. Owner for Variance: Appellant for variance: Name: Leonard Gertler Glenn Rappaport Address: 14623 Hilltree Rd. , Santa Monica, CA 90402 Location or description of property: Block 120, Lots F & G, Waters Ave. Variance Requested: Property is located in the R-15 zoning category. Side yard setback is 10 feet. Sec 5-202 (D) (5) Aspen Land Use Regulations . Article 3 Definitions-Yard A(5) Projections into required yard (Aspen Land Use Code) Projection may exceed 30 inch below grade if determined to be required by the Chief Bldg. Official for window egress. Building code would require 3 foot into setback. Applicant appears to be requesting a 7 foot variance to all a greater than 30 inch below grade courtyard in the side yard setback. Will applicant be represented by counsel: Yes: No: X The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, . Colorado 81611 Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Jan Carney Deputy City Clerk �TFi1J CENTER F 4= 1 1 �� � r� ti.: l'�1 ,.... P k 7t irw k # xw # kw'*# kkkwf # x wk *tt ♦ kkktRklrtf F A T A A N 8 M i T T A L M E M O TO:* NO.OF DE PAGES RV FAX#• `�' _ FROM # _,ltRra PHONE72L)7 1�� CO: -- — -- FAX# Post-lc"Wand fax 1fAnSrMTt81 Morro 7671 Barbara C. Lewls 7575 Bately Ct,, *6 (707) 823-5316 Sebastopol, Ca, 95972 May 3, 1990 Case #90-b Request for Variance from the provisions of Zoning 0rdinace, Chapt 24, Official Code of Aspen. Waters Ave. zoned R 15 L,��iti,orl: Blk 120, Lots F & G, Q ner Leonard Gertler, 14623 Hilltree Rd, Sant2t Monica CA 90802 Board of Ad,justMont 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Members of the .Board of Ad,justrnent, I own Lots C, D, lr -- Blk 120, V1fate�r��'st variance M thewest side ofelo`s directly affected by this request 1~' and G, Blk 120. A tt,4cbC-d ):9 a$ Cnpy orrzh�+r�cl� I �akc� r�ler�ncc>s. .pro I object to these variances fOr the following reasons. The below grade courtyard would intrude nearly the entire 1.0 ft of the specified set buck, to be walled right up against MY property. A-�established 10 ft setback space is a buffer betw the properties. This intrusion would lessen the visual appeal value of my property. 1 believe it unfair to impose in this way. 2. The requested variance would change allaw�d fardwlndok.ctirn from a °Iepth of 30 inches below egr�s= . } Est blest �d a�n 02 e. of�tC'1 1 code, Cl?a t 24 to a depth of lea _f t 12th inches) in order to allow for an additional cour yar u, not , USt fora w1ndow below grade.. 3. This walkway, planned to run r�gth of 21 ft along rnY lot Hine and it is a ft wide, plus a retaining wall, to project into the set-back area. - The heavy equipment needed to dig this deep trench along the lot line would disturb my established lawn, trees and bushes. This would be an unnecessary Llisruption and irxlpose on my rights. - Waters Avenue is shaded by early after-noon in winter, n80d to Waters A Von Ile in f ASS) l?d 1 know it well.. This deep Pi t 16 cr��lc feat blow�g?'�d would be ire shade nearly all the time. The build-up of ice and snow ioauld c auSe would al Pro to be across Case there were need for service, the set back on ray property as there is no space on owner's land. troni1.y_.QP1 Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely yours, 4 Barbara C. Lewis I A. to a.N "04#% Ii,,h ad Z — Sl0 7 H 1 2 e=1 EF4 T E P �, • G�s ` -.. w—� ,.— .- �-----•• --- . .. ..- e ,. .�.:+.��r.` ....dam. ./✓ mow,. . — w - OG?Y+t- i ��f bC:�- i ,, ,i,,.ar,r�,�i.. � dal" t'�.3r�•,a¢ +"icNG� i i"$` D9�K =! ;�'•2" ;viz' 4141 q" G ec65 iAllrcRe D Acs A .�v� ,•a, i_�., ';is . 1 '' •T:: I !Y r"f'QTY NF} Lott 0 �1..ti_ e,l� � '� s' J:r u•r..w in ' t.;:r.E,;. s�:ri" G � rr. yY (♦ AN6US - CAMPBELL, INC. INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS f TECHNICAL ELECTRICAL MATERIAL 4417 S. SOTO STREET, VERNON (LOS ANGELES), CA 90058 • ;213) 587-1236 FAX: (213) 58$•7816 MAY 3, 1990 JAN CARNEY-CITY CLERK CITY OF ASPEN ASPEN, COLORADO RE : ZONING VARIANCE, CASE 490-6 DEAR MS . CARNEY, WITH REGARDS TO , THE ABOVE REFERENCED CASE, WE AS OWNERS OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 919 WATERS AVENUE IN ASPEN, OB- JECT TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE . SUCH A VARIANCE WILL CREATE A PUBLIC HAZARD AND POSE AN AESTHETIC NUISANCE . WE APPLAUD THE PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH EMPLOYEE HOUSING IN THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE; HOWEVER, VIE BELIEVE . THIS CAN SE ACCOMPLISHED WITH- OUT THE GRANTING OF THE PROPOSED VARIANCE IN A MORE AESTHETIC AND SAFE MANNER THAN TRTS- PROPOSAL . . RESPECTFULLY, MR . & MRS . KENNETH CAMPBELL 919 WATERS AVENUE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CASE #90-5 PETER CANTRUP 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, Chaptbr 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, 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. Particulars of the hearing and requested variance are as follows: Date and Time of Meeting: Date: May 3 , 1990 Time: 4 : 00 p.m. Owner for Variance: Appellant for Variance: Name: Peter Cantrup Doug Allen Address: PO Bx 38 Espanole, New Mexico Location or description of property: 647 Monarch Variance Requested: Property is located in the L/TR zoning category. Required setbacks are Front loft, Side 5ft, Rear, loft. Chapter 24 Sec 5-215(D) (3) (4) & (5) . Corner lot rule applies, Article 3 also. (Aspen Land Use Regulations) Applicant appears to b,, requesting: #1. 1. 1 foot reaa: yard setback variance for a column encroachment on west side. #2 . 2 .8 foot side yard setback variance for a column encroachment on east side. #3 . 1.2 foot side yard setback variance for a column encroachment on south side #4. Appeals to two administrative decisions #5. A wall height variance varying between .5 feet and 3 feet. Maximum wall height is 6 foot. (Article 3, Aspen Land Use Regulations) Will applicant be represented by counsel: Yes: X No: The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Jan Carney Deputy City Clerk COUNTY OF PITKIN ) AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY POSTING ss. OF A VARIANCE HEARING BEFORE STATE OF COLORADO ) THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (Pursuant to Section 6-205 (E) (b) of the Municipal Code The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says as follows: I, Douglas P. Allen, being or representing an Applicant before the City of Aspen Board of Adjustment, personally certify that the attached photograph fairly and accurately represents the sign posted as Notice of the variance hearing on this matter in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the 23rd day of April, 1990, to the 3rd day of May, 1990. (Must be posted for at least ten (10) ful days before the hearing date) . App is 's Signature Subscribed and sworn to before me this �3a day of , 1990, by Douglas P. Allen Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 9/24/92 Notary Public 530 East Main Street 5 "l Aspen, Colorado 81611 t v.1 a j I 'i COUNTY OF PITKIN ) AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING FOR A ss. VARIANCE HEARING BEFORE THE STATE OF COLORADO ) CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (Pursuant to Section 6-205 (E) (b) of the Municipal Code The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says as follows: I, Douglas P. Allen, being or representing an Applicant before the City of Aspen Board of Adjustment, personally certify that the attached adjacent owners list consisting of 117 letters prepared by Pitkin County Title Co. was deposited in the United States Mail on the 23rd day of April, 1990 (at least ten (10) full days b fore the hearing date) . Ap li is Si natu e Subscrib d and sworn to before me this" day of April, 1990, by Douglas P. Allen. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 9/24/92 Notary Public 530 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 MI\064 4/24/90 A N6US - AMPBELL, INC. INDUST81AL PLASTICS TECHNICAL ELECTRICAL. MATERIAL 4417 S. SOTO STREET, VERNON (LOS ANGELES), CA 90058 (213) 587-12SS FAX: (213) 58$•7$16 MAY 3, 1990 JAN CARNEY-CITY CLERK CITY OF ASPEN ASPEN, COLORADO RE : ZONING VARIANCE, CASE #90-6 DEAR MS . CARNEY, WITH REGARDS TO THE ABOVE REFERENCED CASE, WE AS OWNERS OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 919 WATERS AVENUE IN ASPEN, OB- JECT TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE . SUCH A VARIANCE WILL CREATE w` A PUBLIC HAZARD AND POSE AN AESTHETIC NUISANCE . WE APPLAUD THE PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH EMPLOYEE HOUSING IN THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE; HOWEVER, WE BELIEVE THIS CAN BE ACCOHPLISHED WITH - OUT THE GRANTING OF THE PROPOSED VARIANCE IN A MORE AESTHETIC AND SAFE MANNER THAN THIS,, PROPOSAL.. , RESPECTFULLY, MR. & MRS . KENNETH CAMPBELL 919 WATERS AVENUE April 29, 1990 Aspen Board of Adjustment Aspen City Hall 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Members of the Board of Adjustment: I am joining the Applicant in the Height Variance Request for the Fence Wall on the West of Applicant's Property, being the Easter- ly Property Line of my Property and state as follows: 1. Fence Wall Issue a. The Subject Fence Wall Height affects only the Ap- plicant and myself. b. Views from Gilbert Street into the Property are not effected by a Height Variance as the Fence Wall portion on Gilbert Street is in compliance. C. The height of the Fence Wall is the minimum height required to keep snow and ice from falling onto Applicant's Property from my three story high roof. d. Last Winter's (1988-89) buildup was clear to the top of the Fence Wall as now constructed. e. Any lower Fence Wall will require me to mitigate this condition by the construction of a Roof Top Fence retaining the ice from falling down and onto Applicant's Property. f. Applicant and myself have reached an agreement that the present Wall height as constructed is acceptable to all parties. 2 . Balconw Support Column: 0. 1 Foot into 10 ' Setback. I am in favor of a Variance allowing said Balcony Support Column to protrude into the required 10 ' Setback on the Westerly side of Applicant's Property. 3. In general terms, I am in favor of all of the variances sought by Applicant, and urge the Board to allow Applicant to complete the building without any further delay. Th k you, Howard B. Awrey MAY 03 '90 12:42 - P.2i2 ;•N asru. <<�u. ... April 29, 1990 City of Aspen Board of AiIjustmant 130 S. Color& Street Aspen, CO $1611 RR: Cancrup Fence ':?tall Variance R�.�uuct Gant lamer.; T sm the new aazi?r of A3peh nourtain Varlance Re uaQr. To,m�oe ' art fully s upporr Jur unit is across Gilbert srraar from: a?�licsnC thn subjecr and as such primarily affected. Regpactfully submitted, Jsff 9aikhon 4 Pasao Dal ocaso Ln J011a, CA 92037 1 VARM May 2 , 1990 P R O P E R T Y - MANAGE %IENT City Board of Adjustments City of Aspen BUILDING 421,SUITE G City Hal l ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER 130 S . Galena St . ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE:303.925-8717 Aspen, CO 81611 FAx:303.920.4770 RE: Case # 90-5 To Whom It May Concern: Today I had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Peter Cantrup at the property in question, #647 S. Monarch. Of the three issues we discussed, 1 ) rock wall height , 2) stone column balcony support setback issue, 3) other minor 1 to 2 inch intrusions into setbacks, I support the granting of a variance for these issues. By my inspection, I believe that the building, as is, is an asset to the neighborhood and these minor technical infractions of the code have no negative impact on our property. Sincerely, Charles McCartney Managing Agent Telemark Condominium Association 611 S. Monarch Aspen, CO 81611 CM/jp John and Frank Dolinsek P.G . Box 275 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Board of Adjustment R.E. Case# 90-5 City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81612 Gentlemen: This letter is to formally state our full support for the variance application being sought by Cantrup. We live directly North of the project in question and have strong feelings that it should remain as built currently. It is a well designed building and to require the owner to remove large sections we feel would -ruin the outside look. The balcony columns are very pleasing aesthetically and are needed for support . The fence wall in question looks perfectly fine to us, and cutting down the wall at the set up points will serve no practical value. Thank you for the opportunity to express our concerns as we are located immediately adjacent and are strongly impacted by this new project: 'Sincerely yours, / John Dolinsek �" r Frank Dolinsek �J�S- 332 AZTEC CONDOMINIUMS P.O. BOX 827 ASPEN,COLORADO 81612 (303)925-1441 May 1, u CA-S t-- (FO-5 Board of Adjustments City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Sirs: This wall should not need a variance at all! We feel the wall in question meets the intent of the Code, namely allowing the property owner to have a 6' minimum high fence around his property and allowing such a wall to be stepped up on a steep grade in keeping with the horizontal lines of design of the project itself and that of the neighboring properties. No expense has been spared on this well designed project that is a welcome addition to this neighborhood. Sincerely, cL 4-L 7 / s s Ir i i i� n a k , n w Mr . Alan Bush. For Alan and Steven. Rush 210 Last Hyman # 7 Aspen , CO 81.611-391.2 303-925-4213 May 2 , 1990 City of Aspen Commissioners Board of Adjustment 1.30 South Galena Street Aspen, CQ 81611 RE: (°asc # 90 - 5 Dear. Commissioners and Board Members : 1 hereby support, the applicant , Mr . Peter Cantrup, in his applicat .ion for variances and - administrative actions . As the closest neighbor , Co-owner of Silver Shadow Condo # 104 , 651 Soutli `Monarch, and as a 10 year resident of Aspen , I believe that my support of the applicant warrants serious evaluation by you . Mr_ . Cantrup has been extra.-ordiinarily`cooperative and sensitive to every concern I or our Condo Association have expressed. fie has designed rtrid built a balanced, beautiful structure that I believes complies with every INTENT of the zoning and code ordinances I am aware of . He h.as spent hours going over the details of every impact to our property. Today, he discussed his variance request to you, with me . As I have been out. of town, we could not meet #� earlier. I believe that in every instance , a variance is ! warranted. ' In particular , the Monarch Street "stepped wall " is very much in keeping with the Architecture and Character of the Street . 1 It is also in proper scale . Most importantly, lowering it would expose the unsightly electrical transformer and allow passer-bys to glance directly into the ground level rooms . By steeping the wall , he has keep the proper street level look. Lowering it , or requiring a continuous slope would be VERY ' ' disruptive- to the _ architecture of the building and the character 'of; the street . The other variances are so minor and open to alternative ' interpretat-ions that they also should be granted. Forcing ' these small. changes would create no real DISCERNIBLE BENEFIT to the City of ,Aspen and the neighboring properties and would costs a great deal . Such No-win:Lose situations should be avoided. Let. me; conclude by adding that I hope that you consider the RESUL'T'S and the BENEFITS of any actions you do take , and NOT JUST the LETTER of the codes and ordinances . If the INTENT of suet, lttws is to create equality and prevent abuses , then I believe that it. is clear that INSIGNIFICANT and benefit- less, but costly revisions simply acid to the divisiveness this community is trying to put behind us . Your charter could be said to be to "Protect and Serve" the public . I believe that this is one instance where you can do both by granting these appropriate variances and continuing to refine' the ambiguities that may have lead to this situation in the first place . Sincerely, A/-� Alan Bush For Alan an4 Steven Bush AB:ad 3 DOLOMITE VILLAS OF ASPEN Your townhouse on Ajax Mountain. April 28, 1990 The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Commission Members: We are in receipt of a Board of Adjustment Notice for the 647 Monarch Townhouses. 1. Fence Height on Monarch Street The Dolomite Units are located directly across the street from the subject. We would like to take the opportunity to',loin the Applicant and request a minimal fence wall height adjustment for the following re ons: It appears that the intermittent step-up of the wall when a steep graed is involved (a condition not addressed in the Code)would justify an adjustment in maximum height based on a practical difficulty encountered at the step-up points (high point s) in order to maintain a 6' minimum height at the low points, so pedestrians on the sidewalk cannot look into the bedroom windows. The step-up design is in our opinion far more aesthetically pleasing and fits well with similar walls approved on adjacent properties, than trying to meet the 6' maximum by a wall following the grade in a parallel line. A portion of the wall on the upper Monarch St.side of the Property,where a height adjustment would be very beneficial is where a large utility transformer is situated on grade and hidden behind said wall screening it from public view. Finally, it should be noted that the front 12' of said wall along Monarch St. and 9' along Gilbert St. are only 5' high, allowing pedestrian view into the open/green space, especially on the narrow Gilbert St. side. 2. The rock column supporting, dividing and screening the third floor balcony should be considered as part of the allowed balcony projection of 3'4" into the 10' setback, therefore requiring no variance. 3. In summary, we feel the project to be a very pleasing addition to the neighborhood on a non- conforming, difficult site. We strongly recommend the minor variances be granted as submitted by the applicant. 4. ?' i_ mite;r iS =;_te:a tz> o on record in fzvor of a variance as requested because I am out of town t4-..; ci�t!r. t. s;.�,a s�;uld �t~ r,i se appear in Person. Thank you, 7 i 1� 650 South Monarch Street • Aspen, Colorado 81611 • (303) 925-7624 1'1H;Y 01 `90 14:4E, LIL 4<: !1k y]";� LH 1 I i I{ PP PLHLH F. 1 LILLICK & MCW05E IqA S. LIL♦.iCM Ilrlb-19671 A iARTNF.RS-0 INt LVJP-Q PRGFLSSIdNAL CORPORAT,OwS IOr WLST iRG4GVYAV, SVETC 1600 GAbLGS "LLL14°R�+C I+GSL" SAN DIEGO, CAL1FQRN1A 6111^101 /."ORNEVS AT LAW TELEP.QNC 16igj tiw-iOGG /viTLA/d ATiONrL 1tLCx-w!20wG Ytt•ECGDIER rsl„ 649-!033 7$S SOUTH FIGUERC)A STREET SUITE 1200 LOS AINGELESI CALIFORNIA 90017.2.i.1.B L• yi WRITkR'g 6 Azr;T ;P-6 NS .Q&R TELF-PriONr- E21,3) a�9$j°7lpb i`i'SiU 1 ' DATE: MAY-1-1- 1990 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL TO: "Y H" CITY OF A.SP-EN B0PjRD O.F. ADJUSTMENT FROM: KENNETH R CHIATE T FAX NUMBER: 303 910-5197 — MAIN r JMBER: (1-03) 920-5199 CLIENT/MINTER NUMBER: ?A C M 9 9 - 9 9 9 USER I .D. NUMBER: 6 8- 17 Number of pages, including cover sheet 3 our facsimile number is: (21.3) 629--1033 li' YOU HAW- NOT PROPERLY RECEIVED THIS FACSIMILE, P'LE'ASE CALL US AT (213) 488-7577 . Thank you. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS; Please deliver as s, .►` c sslk l hear n an M` 3 1990 Operator: .__�._ _. ..._ T_ Time Sent,: :fax 1-14' 01 ''30 14.46 LILLIC:r: "IC Hl--),2-,E LH r_ITI-OOP FLHZH P. M ; LILLICK & MCHQSE .04 S. ­6,6.4A 11675`Ign71 A Pi PY'TN"NgRI/ IN``4U O!NO?` '�gIQNAL COFPO/FATION9 101 WEST SkOAOWAI, SVYTC IOOQ Ows,.G' "c.+LrbGn:wcwoSE•• ATTORNEYS AT LfAW $A C6.CP-CNi 4. 104-500* 40*wATIQt4AL TeLEA-471040[ *969001104 4 iv3) Cs5!•1035 J+y 2S SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET SUITE 1200 X 75 ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2513 wA,TCA s G,RCCT DJA4 ,,..MGCR TIL4EPmONle 12131 46$-7100 (213 ) 488-7111 May 1, 1990 The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 S. Galena Street Aspen , Colorado 81611 Attention: Chairman , Remo Lavagnino Re : Public dear ing Case No . 90. 5 Peter Cantrup Bearing Date : May 3, 1990 , 4 p.m. Gentlemen: I only recently received a notice of the above pub- lic hearing . 1 request that the hearing be Continued so that my views can be presented in person and/or additional time allowed for ate to resolve matters in dispute with this project. On behalf of myself, and on behalf of one of my neighbors, Robert Green ( owners of two of the four units in the adjacent building , 651 Monarch) , we oppose the requested variances. During planning , before construction, during con- struction, and after the building was almost completed , we attempted to contact the developer , Bans Cantrup. No one responded to our many efforts to find out exactly what was planned and why the project was going up in a fashion that appeared to us to be in violation of zoning requirements. specifically, it appeared the building was too high and too close . We hired a civil engineer who investigated the mat- ter ,, and he reported that individuals in the building depart- ment would not discuss the matter , except to say there were various zoning and use regulation violations. We were also informed that by choosing the particular design shown on the permit applications, this project was able to be built to a height in excess of our building , despite the fact this building sits at a lower elevation. Flans Cantrup also built our building , and h:milt our building as tall as he could. Therefore, it' s inconceivable that he could lawfully build the subject building hi her than our building , despite the fact it sits at a lower elevation. Nf1 'r' 01 '90 14:46 L.ILLI1=K INCHOSE LA CITICOPP PLAZA P.3 The City of Aspen May 10 1990 Page Two This pant December , 1989, 1 observed construction work doing on and .finally reached someone with knowledge ab-it the project. It was Peter Cantrup, the son of Mans Cantrup. Peter told me that there were numerous problems with the project, and various violations, and that he knew nothing_ about them. He said it was his father' s project. He simply came down frrrm (I believe) New Mex1_C to help out with construction over the holidays . I 'm therefore surprised to see that the public hearing lifts Peter Cantrup, rather than Hans Cantrup, as the builder . Part of the subject building has actually been con- nected to our buildi e T i= R i►. ;+:>k>k;K k�:'>K;i�>ti�{:?k*:W?I;::{�:�♦`:k.+::k: ASPEN:•`PITK::IN ADMIN. i MAY 01 '90 14:40 i tk:#>k3ksk�>K���Mh:�?k�.4s?k3K�K%k'SK?k::kzk:♦;:+:�:�:k:�;�:�1;*:}::?1X•�k��Mt;4:�k:+:::}::F:h::%+.:liik�.yk?};?K'+::+::k:h:�Y,:k::�+;%1".4~�::}:�:;+cK�::k:*::{h:i4::+:hi:+::k:ik:4::}��+::k:;♦`?+:h:sk::}:::}; DATE START RE1,10TE TERMINAL IIODE TIME RESULTS TOTAL DEPT. FILE k: TIME IDENTIFICATION PAGES CODE NO. t< APR 27 08:49 1 30:3 447 1977 G3ST 01': 7" OK: 02 0015 08:53 303 670 1410 G3ST 00'57" OK; 02 0015 + 08:56 619 275 2962 G3SR ON42" OK; 05 k: 10:51 GJT DISTRIcr 3 G3ST 00"47" OK:: 01 0009 +: 10:53 3039259802 G3ST ON 08" OK 0:3 0009 W +: 10:57 :303292779 G3ST OW 00" OK 06 0009 4' 11: 11 212 4139 71345 G3S 0.3'30 OK 05 0012 +: 14:36 DRAr.:,Ef l MCC,' RMIi--:K 17,3ESR 01"13" Cif; 0' +: .� 4 14:31 G:3 R 01 ,32" 7K; 0:3 15,07 3034hE:8488 G3SP 01'45' 01,:; 51:3 }: 15' 12 30341—,08488 1 3P 0143" OK: 03_3 +: APR 30 07:40 St-,1:1_I ST PAUL G3SR 01'04" OK: 132 +: 018::35 HOTEL JEROME i._ESR L1V 39" OK 03 09:38 HSF'Erd TIMES G3E .r 0&35" OK 0.` 0218 + 09:55 HOTEL JERcillE G:3ESP 01"31" i K; 0 +: k 12:45 9-9205580 G3ST 03"29" OK 05 537:3 }; 14:31 HOTEL JEROME G3EST 01':34" OK: 03 0012 + AK 14:30 B03 445: 6144 G:3=�P 0.3 35" OK 05 +: >rz I +: 14:46 3 03 W ,8 435:3 i;3ST 15'47. �O�K 14 0225 15: 11 :30:3920425'.9 i33ESR 00,515" 0K 02 k 1.0 16 3038325556 G30, 02'01" iJK. 0 D 16:41 30929 r 0491 .S9 P. 02'52" &.:II".. MAY 01 06:54 31-'13:3 16150 E3R 00135" r_i1<:; 01 + 07:36 3039202864 G—:--:ST 01'4=1" 110 02 0012 07:51 G3SR 00'45" OK 01 >k h: 3k 09:02 "311:s14GG1C-1841 G3SR 01 ,28" OK; 02 *: 10:04 G:_-W R 01'44'' (-)l:::: 03 +: 10: 16 303925:3805 ",33T 02'01" f::1K 0: 131='11` + 10:41 G3ST 01' OK. 03 0015 10:43 31-132970491 1: 3R 01'=7" OK 03 Sk I +: 10:55 GJT DISTRICT :3 G3ST 03'27" OK 04 0225 13:00 3039254387 G3E=T 0241" OK: 04 0022 +: 14: 11 ELK RUH 3'=R 05"17" X 09 {; �r 14'Lb 3039204259 WEST 02"49" O{.:. 1:76, 0012 ?4: 14:38 LILLIi_K. MCHOSE. L.A CA °cjR 01' Ci: 03 +: t TX:0 =.4><-5 R :00634`_; 4: '��%�>k.`k3K%k::M:�;�ykk'F'*�+:�3k.+.k"?1::�K*•+ t;k:;+::t 4 t,4:}:::�:t +:A���+::�.:+:{.}:.}::1:}.{.4:k:4� +..+,h�::�t.1.4:*;};}.4.} }:::+:t f f#+::V 4.4 + +:+':}.+:::}: ; t 4 f.}:}::::}: LILLICK & MCHOSE 7A S. LILLICK (1875-1967) A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 101 WEST BROADWAY, SUITE 1800 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 ,BLES "LILLICKMCHOSE" ATTORNEYS AT LAW TELEPHONE (619) 234-5000 I-ERNATIONAL TELEX-4720401 TELECOPIER (213) 629-1033 725 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET SUITE 1200 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2513 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER TELEPHONE (213) 488-7100 (213 ) 488-7111 May 1, 1990 The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 S. Galena Street Aspen , Colorado 81611 Attention: Chairman , Remo Lavagnino Re : Public Hearing Case No . 90-5 Peter Cantrup Hearing Date : May 3, 1990 , 4 p .m. Gentlemen: I only recently received a notice of the above pub- lic hearing . I request that the hearing be continued so that my views can be presented in person and/or additional time allowed for me to resolve matters in dispute with this project. On behalf of myself, and on behalf of one of my neighbors, Robert Green ( owners of two of the four units in the adjacent building , 651 Monarch) , we oppose the requested variances. During planning , before construction, during con- struction, and after the building was almost completed , we attempted to contact the developer , Hans Cantrup. No one responded to our many efforts to find out exactly what was planned and why the project was going up in a fashion that appeared to us to be in violation of zoning requirements. Specifically, it appeared the building was too high and too close . We hired a civil engineer who investigated the mat- ter , and he reported that individuals in the building depart- ment would not discuss the matter , except to say there were various zoning and use regulation violations. We were also informed that by choosing the particular design shown on the permit applications, this project was able to be built to a height in excess of our building , despite the fact this building sits at a lower elevation. Hans Cantrup also built our building , and he built our building as tall as he could . Therefore, it' s inconceivable that he could lawfully build the subject building higher than our building , despite the fact it sits at a lower elevation. The City of Aspen May 1, 1990 Page Two This past December , 1989, I observed construction work going on and finally reached someone with knowledge about the project. It was Peter Cantrup, the son of Hans Cantrup. Peter told me that there were numerous problems with the project, and various violations, and that he knew nothing about them. He said it was his father ' s project. He simply came down from (I believe) New Mexico_to help out with construction over the holidays . I 'm therefore surprised to see that the public hearing lists Peter Cantrup, rather than Hans Cantrup, as the builder . Part of the subject building has actually been con- nected to our building , without our permission or approval .A sheltered walkway to the building' s utility panel requires access across our property to gain access to the utility panel . Without our approval they have been utilizing various utility outlets inside our underground garage , and there have been various cables connected from our garage to this project during construction. Our efforts to inquire as to the status of what has been going on were unsuccessful . In summary, the building is too close to our build- ing and , we believe , actually encroaches on our property lines. Both sides of the building stick out too far and because of this we have obstructed views of Red Mountain as well as the City. The violations should be enforced and the building reduced to lawful size and setbacks . For the fore- going reasons, we oppose the variances requested and suggest that Mr . Cantrup, or someone representing the developer , com- municate with us to try and resolve our various disputes with him over this project. If you wish to discuss any of the matters set forth above, please call me at my office (213 ) 488-7111 and I will be happy to respond . If there is inadequate time for you to evaluate this matter for the scheduled hearing on May 3, we request a continuance so that we may discuss the matter fur- ther with your staff and possibly with Mr . Cantrup. Thank you for your attention in this matter . Sincerely, Kenneth R. Chiate cc: Robert Green 017:LTR0274D90 043090A DOW IN 11;x, ,mac u2R ►rn�- yr ex t__Ae,� rti., J_. 6_(_� Q/v , 4q, q 2. . phone:503 925-6366-eight hundred monarch-post office box 8880 aspen,colorado MAY - 21,090 City of Aspen Board of A43ustments The front yard set-back does not bother me, but if it is allowed then they should be required to meet the city code requirements as far as removing their trees on the corner so that cars can be seen coming up the hill on cemetry lane. They have created a very unsafe corner for me and my family, A very concerned neighbor.