Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.HP.945 E Cooper St.HPC014-00 CASE NUMBER PARCEL ID # CASE NAME PROJECT ADDRESS PLANNER CASE TYPE OWNER/APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF FINAL ACTION CITY COUNCIL ACTION PZ ACTION ADMIN ACTION BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED BY r-. ~ Cl HPC014-00 2737-182-52004 945 E. Cooper Appeal of Decision 945 E. Cooper Court Amy Guthrie Appeal of Decision East Cooper Court Homeowners Accosiation 7/10/00 Reso. 94-2000 HPC Decision Upheld 6/17/02 J. Lindt t""'; f"l , 1 ;b;O~ t{~J r'1 ~ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING THE DECISION MADE BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING A VARIANCE AT 945 E. COOPER AVENUE, ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO.1t. SERIES OF 2000 WHEREAS, the property located at 945 E. Cooper Avenue is a designated historic landmark; and WHEREAS, the owners ofthe subject property, Robert and Darnell Langley and Angleo DeCaro, represented by Krabacher Law Offices, requested a variance of 6" on the width of a required on-site parking space; and WHEREAS, the application was reviewed at a public hearing at a regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission on May 24, 2000, met all of the noticing requirements pursuant to Section 26.314.050 of the Aspen Municipal Code and was approved without conditions by a vote of 5-0; pursuant to the reasons set forth in Historic Preservation Commission Resolution No. 26, Series of2000; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that no abuse of discretion nor denial of due process occurred during the above mentioned hearing; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council affirrhs that the proper procedures were followed and does wish to uphold the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission as rendered in Resolution No. 26, Series of2000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: City Council affirms the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission approving an application for a variance at 945 E. Cooper Avenue, Aspen, CO, finding that there was not an abuse of discretion or a denial of due process by the Commission. APPROVED by the City Council at its regular meeting on this 10th day of July, 2000. ATTEST: MAYOR: ~c( el E. Richards .~ . ~~. e;,- r-. ~ ,~ .. ...r MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Rachel Richards THRU: John Worcester, City Attorney FROM: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director RE: Appeal to HPC decision regarding 945 E. Cooper Avenue DATE: June 15,2000 On May 24, 2000, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed and approved a request submitted by Bob and Darnell Langely, and Angelo DeCaro, o\,;TIers of 945 E. Cooper Avenue, to grant a 6" variance on the size of a required parking space for a residential building. The subject property is one of five units being constructed as part of the East Cooper Court Condominiums development, a project which involved preserving two historic landmark structures and creating deed restricted affordable housing units. Recently, there have been numerous enforcement issues that have arisen as part of this development. In order to accommodate the five structures proposed for the parcel, distances between buildings were relatively tight, and the HPC and Council granted numerous variances to make the project work. Unfortunately errors in the placement of all of the structures were made, the most significant of which involved the Langley home, which proceeded construction approximately four feet forward of the approved location. Work was stopped by the Building Department on October 28, 1999. After several months of negotiation amongst the Condominium Association and the City, the attorney for the Langley's and Mr. DeCaro identified language in the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act which granted an easement for the misplaced house because it was through no fault of the owner (the owner has held the surveyor responsible for the mistake.) With that decision, the only obstacle in the way of work beginning again at 945 E. Cooper A venue was that the incorrect placement of the building made a required on-site parking space too narrow for City regulations by 6". This variance was granted by HPC and on June 1,2000, the long standing stop work order was removed. On June 6, 2000, the Community Development Department received an appeal from other residents of East Cooper Court Homeowner's Association, citing numerous concerns with the HPC's decision. According to Section 26.3l6.030.B., the appeal, which shall be heard by City Council, has the effect of staying any proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed. In other words, the Building Department should reissue the stop work order based on the appeal. This result can be avoided if the Community Development Director certifies in writing to the chairperson of the decision- making body authorized to hear the appeal (the Mayor) that a stay poses an imminent peril to life or property, in which case the appeal shall not stay further proceedings. The ......~...... t""'; o ~ chairperson of the decision making body with authority to hear the appeal may review such certification and grant or deny a stay of the proceedings. The Community Development Director recommends that there beno further stay at 945 E. Cooper Avenue. After being under a stop work order for seven and a half months (when legislation existed to address some of the issues with the project), the owners of 945 E. Cooper Avenue have been subjected to a financial hardship that should not be furthered by another month of suspension of work. At this point the owners would assume the risk of any additional work between now and the scheduled appeal. In a worse case scenario, the house would need to be relocated. on the property. It would not matter if the house was 25% completed or more fully completed. However, further delays could pose an imminent peril to the property as the inability to complete significant portions of work during the summer season could lead to weather related construction problems later in the year. The construction delays could hamper the ability to complete the project in a meaningful time frame. Unattended construction sites also pose a risk to the safety and lives of neighborhood children and residents. The appeal IS scheduled for the July lO, 2000, Council agenda as a noticed public hearing. If you are in agreement with this position, that there shall be no stop work order issued for 945 E. Cooper Avenue as a result of the appeal, please sign below. -- .1__/1. ~~ !;~(~( 1 <-- ~~--.-c. Rachel E. Richards, Mayor -- ~ I