HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19840329 n�
CITY
SPEN
130 - �'
� r e e t
asp 1611
0
A G E N D A
BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT
MARCH 29 , 1984
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
4 : 00 P.M.
I . Minutes
February 23, 1984
March 1 , 1984
March 8, 1984
II. Election of Officers
III. Case #84-3/Anderson-Head, continued
IV. Case #84-5/Lee Pardee
V. Case #84-6/Scott and Patricia Edmondson
VI. Adjourn
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meetin______ Board pf__Adi u5t_mg_nt __L-Lar h 29, 1984
IM-2,11c) Llnra nino call(J thle to or(.(-,r we 11 : 03
T_ 'ose, 1--ine '?nn,0 I.L., -I
n 11-14 1-a!r e r,
C 4 F�; T J, n 7' r
L I I - L
j- TI . :Ci1edan ,% L i, r
MINUTES
Pe7Druary 23 , 1_nC , .Iiriut�es. dill D_ruer�,incl, 'Dulil(',ino rl�.,:-part._ -�nt ,
CG.o r c:c t c-�di o n -a q o i i e rea r ss e t ba c i`., t-0 "15 1 rear `cb_-c11
-7j U r,1-?, 4 it
11ann t 4 on S
_L - j- -- 1-IC; 1 1 11 not-
ra r:a n , 3 o c o i e
Z1 r o o e r t 1)o
L t'C-I T E.vT uno S aid �'hat is correct •
L
Lavaanino instruc-,Ced� t`-_h a �.T o r n ow " 'b e i n c-1 u J1 ec', or, si.,.-teen,
1
Est 1 ir;0 f., "n o t !I,,.n 0�,7 1,7 1'.a-' a t Control_n t r o 1 i s. ' us� in recuested
L L11 L
rl you bc., clkalete,] -from -pago ff2if't-cerl, one , ne dav
vou th�-, cruc:S`Cjic)n. . . " joseph-':_n? 111ann t-o ap:)rovo tle -m_J n u t o s
of F e b r u a ry 23 , 1 2 s c o n J ea cl 'j-v A n n e 1i u s t i n. All ii', ::L7a,,,.7or ;
motion
rila vi n q,1-1,oh S t i o n ed. t s on tonc a on t,:Jhle
a r c i n u t e s
bot-t-(Y,,1 O:F DIFICJJO' 01110 4 "100 scruara foo'C lot ol, acre- L, ,a g-I%--
. n 1 n o
d i r e c`Z_ec,] the secrel I:a r37 to i e t a Dc s J le vcl I I _ e
,7 a lr qll" seconded Ijv jose-)TIino
to approv c t.,,e T.Anu�t_-es ot _, Iarcia I
in a v o r o o n c z-,.r r
Flann.
'
'arch ' , 19(04 , i,-Ii n u tc s. A us t.n correct '"ilurolL
to "Inrol- . II
0 i--I j -T Ll it�7 11 4-0
E rinL
lann correctelf line Effivc.,, Pagr�, .Lour "Cioct
u i t v c correct
C�o C t- r i�n.-e o fl� n c,,, Shr e-, ID o t o�-,l of -0 a q e s i
it 2-
T o u r t 1a I i n e "n t o "n o t -J,JL t h s�C a n-L_]i ng n n e, A u..-,t-i n n,o v e L. o
aoprove the OE T7arcT-.- fl) , 1-1, 241; secon•?Icd b Jose,,inc�
�all 1'I. x.11 11 1 1 :C�v o r B 7 A O+-jo..1
- -
CASE #84-3 AP7DERSON—HEAD, Continued
F "ea-� steps down.
Lvg n i n o ,a_c7 t h e a s ,i a s t a,b I c t0 g e I Zilk o r n,1,1 t 4 L
on, to rpet
SOIIIE. �,,indl O_. an_rl,.J�,7si S o- the ill egal i tv of t-hlo I ot, and,
to s,,2 e i f C o Li n C4 woulul, grant -1-ubdiviSion ajT,_)rov,-.)_l Of lo-.
Daul '__'ad-k]un(', citN7 P_ t t o r n e 17
r000rtel-] an :-).p )11-_ation for
4
e-em'ntic,n fro-,,n t'+E_' d_-f_inj_t-ion of su,Ddivision snoulk;i be .Cori arCled
,it17 ('OUjjCi'1
to for of r."11-le legal Off:ect
0 S, 'n a lot-
' o v a 1 -;7 i 11 e t 0 T.`I� tile lot noncon-orl�,i
vj,
dc', iL r e s%_,r, 1 v i s n o t . Th u s,t-i -LE i c a t i o I-, ZS t In e
G Z-r c o r(A
- L tV ub - vision inws. h c s;
con�vevance was, -1,01�a c i e -prior i-O "-j Q C Is s I.h
1-4-
should be matters o � recorCi ror I`u t u r 1--:, a I'l a I v s i s , and, shouli'z
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting Board of Ad justment March 29 1984
be support-ed by the -proc.:-3ss. Assui-Ang that everything that
L
h a s b e e-11 r e-0 r e s e i-,I--e by t c a,!) tic?i c a n s t.r u e, and rlaciclune' has
no r e a s o 11 to doubt a n-,,7 t h i n-,,f f to r Council 1 o o k.s at this, He a d I s
lot will be a nonconloo -,i L JL -
rT ing o--o`-rcord.
Lavagnino as%,ed if the subdivision laws were enacted in 19-56 .
Taddune said 19715 . 1956 was the year for zoning - .4
- r', a p s .
La,', agnino asiked why this lot is not a lot-of-record since the
la,i,7s were established 'before 1975, why is the lot not a nonconfor-ming
lot-of-record? Taddune said the lot orobablv is but there is
no nor mal indication of that. That is why t lot will be nrocessed
L - * vision. His advice
as a.n e x e-;,.i-c t i o n F r0<1 t h e de`7 i n i t i o n OTC s u b CI 1.
to the city is to have all of these questions run through t1ne
4- h
1- Uj il
subdivision -,-Droco-ss and if here is no irregularil - then the
lot: will be staT,',J-I)ed approved as a natter of record, -since tl.-iere
are subdivision recorC-.c-, on the boot now.
Lavagnino as!,ed if the case S I Ilou-16 not be heard, until that a�-,)roval.
Taddune suggested two ways to solve' t1he issue. First give 'Ch_-
apnlicant az')Proval for the variance in the rear varel setback
in the abstract which the BoarC is inclined, to do anyvolay. Let
the subdivision review proces5 re-medy all the other proble,lils-
wliich the Doard is concerned about . Lavagnino asked if the
api licant returns next wee!: requesting to build in tie front,
will the applicant still have to come boforo the Board? Ifa6durie
said yes. Lavagnino explairiec- t'hIat t-11coretical1v the lot can
be developed to its full ,,)otent-ial and the subdivision process
can the suI,-)verIk- d by granting a variance to build on the rest
of -1--he lot. Taddune Said that is not correct.. If- the lot becomes
a -ronconforming lo'-o- -re-ord , all t',,,c Do-nrd ' s conce- rns will
-1 L_ -
be answured as a ima�L.Iter of 1,u,7. Presently thc-rc is a nonconforming
lot per se-, anC tee -Dosition can be if -there is any change in
the construction L': rom that which is presently t"' Ore, then the
Board has to 9.rant a variance.
T i-' �
T, lit -e r
;. -. C a s e d -f o r clarification. If fort fler construction is
pro-posed which doces not rec-uire a setback variance , will -the,+--
construction 1hav(e- to come bef or(--% the Boar,"I . Taddu.ne said no,
? %7 -T I
-For;.iing lot regulations coi-�i�D into -,,-!a it-I th-, lot
Lhe nonconl-
recorded as a noncon-f o rmi rig lot-ofF-recor,.I.
i7elt-on Anderson, representative for the a,_'),.,licanIk-_, evaluated
HI i all- e r I s suggest ion of an addition on the front. IT!e presented
the plan., frost 1977 and 1900 . rile tal;ke� to the c ont ra cto r .
:,�Iing a 1 , 000 square fleer to a 750 square foot hou.t-ic T,7ill force
2
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS,
Regular Meeting___ Board of Adjustment March 29, 1984
aiDplicaint- 1--o u-)grado the entirz old iiouse to meet t-h(? electrical,
tv codes. - U -
and saf-Le - Lavagnino saif' that Was discus-ed
at the last meeting and DrU;!d4ng said that would not have to
be done. Anderson s_ 7_(a ',e double- chec'j.--c7l ,,,tith Stan S, ,Cevens
4
in the building depart-.-Ient , and, St-evens, renorte6 'Chat is not
the case.
A -,Opl 4 t portion
Anderson said the a, _Lcant wants to leave the -Front
of the b U 4 lding o'- en for future deVC-jo:)T1,cnt . -1. 11- applicant
.L P
only 'I-7ants to do a modest A-00 square -feet on the second -floor,
ani'_' not iDrecludo the po s s i b i 1 i ty of "Future expansion o n the
front. T'-,,is house has a 6) 1-9," coiling because of the irregularities
of' the roof 91"Ine ap.:)1ica.nt wants the o ,,
portunity to
correct the proble-nis inherent -,-17ith the I iousc, .7!_11ic'_1 include
wiring, etc, an(] the ogportunilty to seel: some advantages other
than the 700 sn,,uare feet . There is no reason to upgrade the
house an not at-36: t'le second story adCtition.
I;
Andorso,n noted tha-L- 1"ealdt riientioned that there are a set- of ridinutes,
w I
hich have not been transcribed, which indicate that a setbac'i%
variance was granted some ,ionths aqo to two Victorian houses
on rain Street to Stan 1,11athis. One has a twentv--four sruare
loot addition on the rear setback one 'Loot iron? the -,Droperty
lino; the ot1ior onc, has a two fe'::�t se-t1bac.1k . Ara thare -.!-,iy simi-
a r i I-i es to IT ead. I
k- 11- s case? ljca0l ' s construction 1:5 new but thc�
addition is over an existin( structure.
Lavagnino said he does not recall the case and tile burden is
on the ap-plicant to show the Boarcl what the sirilil-- r3ties are.
T-1 11 i t a!, - il
.-.er recal led that the Victorian character of the �,ousc
was a factor. It :aas a-ol roved !-_)v the historical nroservation
coj.-uilit_tee . La-,-)raonino al s o recalled the applicant was limited
T,71 one his dir r � a ii
in '- ' -- ' ' -_c t i o n o-,"z o x n s i o n t. 11itakc s.- I o, house was
on a side street w'i'lich i,7as not a throug1i thoroughfare and would
not a.1L-.f',-_ct_ the ;:)'d.1joining oroporty owners. T'ic other was burdened
2
Jy its historical chL)ractor.
He"n d said both vJf r historic dwellings . Both had side var(d
setback oroblomas . Botil were oncroacLing. The Boz'.,rr_! grant-ed.
an e.t:msion of:7 the, encroachr,.ient of soi-,ie 241 So that- aesthet-icc-.111,17
the buildings
could -maintain a straight line. He questioned,
at the time, i.-L-- the design could 'have been hanc-Iledl with. a 'oo
in order to meet- those set1),-ic!,. re-ruire-ments. The bard, in order
to maintain the integrity of the building, allowed, a nonconformity
extension of 24 ' for 1-1olLh buildings. T 1, 1
r o 1 s a a o u s e 7 i tln
3
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting._—_.__ Board of Adjustment March 29. 1984
five - cet o-� I-he builuinos. One building has a setback, in e=rcess
of fivo feet ]Decausc of a t1n�oroughfare. Actually it has a siz-
foot plus reciuirement . The "L)oard grante"! the vlariance, for _n
zero lot line encro--chmel-11t.
L«-.,agnino as!-,ed if there is a build inc! ne,-t to the twenty—four
Loot extension on the other lot. He does not recall any building.
Drue ding said there is not a vacant lot . Lavagnino said the-
building on the other lot did, not extend into the area where
the twenty-four feet was added . He recalled a fire ,.ball along
the extension. Drueding clarified that the buildings were his-
torically overlaid not historically designated. All Main Street
is an !-!PC ov e r 1 EV.
Hoad said his current roble-D is not with tile side vard setbacks
il.� I -
but with t`ie rear. Fie already encroaches on both side and rear
varIcA setbacks but he is not e,,iDanding into the side yard. '_fie
is only building up five or sii,x feet over an e:--isting encroachment.
Anderson presents renderings of the impacts of jogging the rear
wall in JDY two Feet. '-lead saiU-:l jogging renders the planned
addition im-oractical . Welton ezplaine'd the difference in th.-e
plans and what e.-ists there alr2ad�7. All the gables exist .
. . TIC L
The addition 'For encroachment is i-Animal ZI
explained if there
is a ull 15 foot rear yard setbaclk , that the bathroom trill
be {Our ---t inside wall -o
inside wall aster the stairway comes
in. '11he room will be 71 -6 " inside. The stair7aay �,7411 float
between the bearing taaZl to be borne on and the back, wall of
the stairway in order to meet the setbacl-.. A=., l? spaces are
created. The -practical difficulties are perhaps a little more
evident with this nresentation. The e:-tension of the additional
encroachment is not much.
Lavagnino argued that it is im-.0ractical to locate the addition
on the second floor because the space is marginal . An-Jerson
e44:4iCUj-I-y
"_L � L building any new
reiterated that the practical - L oj4:-: 1,
construction over a I-lundired, vear old wall is real and will be
severly co-,nipounded !-)17 devising a structure on the south wall
to float 21 -2-1/2 " inside the e-..i _tino south bearing wall .
That is a practical difficulty.
' no _.L L I- _'. I
a 9 n i a s e d the di icul tv in e_::f.,)and i ng out into the
north portion of the yard , -v7hich is allowed , is financial .
Anderson said tine applicant does not want to put- 'a s---.,iqll addlition
TT
dish h v7 i 11 hav c. t o b e torn di o i,,7 n in v e- Or ten Years. a d
o n w h
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment March 29, 1984
said the basic premise is that lie i,,,ill take a very substandard
house with respect to plumbing, wiring, rafters , joists , etc. ,
and. completely renovate 'E'lle eyisting structure and make it safe:
and habitable. To -make these houses safe and liveable is within
the general plan of the cite . If he does the addition in the
front it will preclude hi-,,.-L from ulograding the substandard nature
of the e.-isting house. Lavagnino disagrees. Saf'Eet • is a factor.
But the house can be brought to code by bringing the 61-9" clearance
up to 8 feet. The applicant does not have to come before the
Board. to �Dut on a nea roof. This will not increase t,-2 usable
FAR.
"ann said the applicant has the rigilt to male use of his property
and make the mouse liveable. In the -future the applicant. -,,iay
add on. T711at if someone proposes to build a separate structure
out front and does not plan to tear down what is nonconformina.
Lavagnino ei:-Dlained tfi-- addition has to be attached to the main
house.
Whitaltfer asked Lavagnino if the lot becomes a nonconforming
lot-of-record, is Lavagnino still concerned with the Board ' s
control over the lot. In effect, the control will be lost .
Lavagnino understood. Drueding said' the applicant cannot expand
into the setbacl�s. Lavagnino said if the lot retains its illegal
status the Board retains its control ; if it is a nonconforming
lot-of-record the control is lost.
Lavagnino closed the public hearing.
Whitarker said the applicant presented a solution to the e2qDansion
of the resit enc-- in 1.980. rphersl--' is a�mnle s-oace within the ot','Ier
setback requirements. There is no justification for granting
a setback variance. The cl
uidelines and rules have to be abided
by.
Mann favored the huiL'.an argument that PatersoN presented at the
last meeting. Real peonle are more im'j?ortant than words in
a code boo!r . r.'he applicant- alas some right to usin(7 that land
and that space. The practical difficulty is the structural
j)earing aalls. 21 -3 " is a iiiinim.um eytension into the Bear yard
s2tbaclf She -favors the variance.
Austin said there is a practical difficultv . The Board needs
to give a little bit for u-perading residences like in the cases
of upgrading lodcros. P--o-,,-)le will not fig up their homes if
5
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting _- Board of Adjustment March 29, 1984
the I3oar,.] does not give allo,,7ances to do tlrill-.-it. Lavagirlino said
the Board is not -PrevonCing a'-)plicmnt_ _ ro-M u,,)qra(-I-'Lnrj is
`10!`.!0. Aust Ii In sa i a j-1 or two feet, the rec;ue st s11-ould, be granted.
T avagnino citod -Riclrie Cohen ' s, case in which a 'buil iing S'7<<s
joggedl .-Lor two incnes.
T,Ej vagnino presanted his com,',ients. He cannot find a reason for
is not granting the variance.
ITC ey-plaino' v hr-
tile variance. 1._. U wh 11 ...
First, the Boar�:, is asked to respond to a specific reomest -for
-o
a variance the a-olicant has CletcrrAned and presents Dresents. to the
Board. Tc'lat requosIC does not preclude 'Cha applicant ' s exercise
of pursuing a property right enjoyed by others in the same vicinity
and zone which allows hi--,-,i to develop his land within the setback
r eq,u i rei�.i en,t s He -I'eels th;% variance reC�rUeSte(j is 7-
m o r e, For the
practical c o nv e n i o n c o for the applicant, whether it is f i na n.c i a 1
or change in pro r 'on al situatLions , an evnect-o6t child. 11 e r.-i a n
E.del Ineede d a rooi,ml for his mother-in-lal., , and the Boar(I (71-id
not grant request. The 'hoard does not ' now when t1he building
will be sold, con6itions change.
Second, the argui-tent of safety can be handtlInd 1`'1 ith a m-w roof
without increasing the usable space and t1fie FAR. The applicant
does not have to co,,,ie 'before the D.oa- rCl LZ the legality is esta-
blished.
Third , the ap-)licant as not e,:Ihlausted all solutions to the
use o" t-1— land and all solutions T;7hich meet code require-
a� L 1- 1 1 - I L_
ments as anyone; can by right even on a legal 'Lot. The applicant
has not dei-,ionstrat-cd a har_-IshJ_-!.D or practical dif.-Eicultv i�!-,ich
does not allow him to e-ze.-cilse that Pursuit. The nursery can
located in tla- north T:)-nrt of the buildivig, it -,,iay be incorporated
into a mast-er plan, but that -portion riiay be built only at this
time to taI,,e care of the current needs and the code require-
m,ents. For thoso reasons he doe.,:, not favor granting the variance.
WhitaI,:er as!:,---U- -for a -clot Plan. There is discussion over the
an.
17-orz jDased on 'J'Iiitak-er ' s and Lavagnino ' s argunmenICS dtoes not
favor the variance.
I,av,
agnino opened the public hearing.
Head said in the year andt a half of sitting on the Board, he
I
doj s not knoT,. of a case that has been re%7lewed that displays
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting - Board of Adjustment__ March 29, 1984
YAorc of a practical difficulty than does this situation. The
Board grant-ed th-_ e:.tension of t-he two Victorians on Main Street
F -he a -
or no other Puroose than as -a convenien to IL P., ca n t
and -f o r a e s t ii e T_-1 C reasons . Th a t ap-0 11 c a n t- could h a v 0 o g g e 0
tiie wall to coi-m.11ly with setb-,-,ick , but the Board agreed to the
extension. 'Tis case has a -practical difficulty . Lavagnino
does not know if the -motion for the Victorians reflects the
aesthetic characteristics. 'Nead said i:Z' he had a co-,:)y of the
minutes he could reiterate ?,,7hl-t happened. The Victorians were
1- - Board ap-proved the� variance.
put up for sale the day after ICIie B
.1
This Board is the last bastion -.,-or relief -,"-or the little guy.
ne1v feel�,�
He genu-L L-Is 1.1 nar--IsInip and -practical difficulty.
Gideon 1:aufman, -Member of the audience, noted that tile Boars
needs to give soi,.io consideration to the fact that t-his lot is
not conforming . it Inas an old, unique structure on it. This
to�,,Tn is losing many of the older structures. He suggested e-zamining
tile hardship inherent in --. small lot which goes back a long
tliniie with a small house t-11Ft is practically difficult. T_.`L-- someone
cannot come to this, oal-C' for relief for a, small aamount., eventual]--,;,
he is afraid the town will lose many of these older houses on
these small lots. ?1a,,7 be in the past the policy has been very
strict, r,,,ay be rce.-aimine that policy in light of ,mall lots
L -
and unique old homes. He does not know where people can go ,
but to the Board, to proscrve the old houses.
Lav-agnino replied it is up to Council to provide a different
guideline under 4-7hich the Board can reconsider requests. This
is an illegal lot to begin -,with. It is not a nonconforming
lot-of-record. The existing building is already encroaching
on side yarC7 and rear yard setbacks . The applicant is asking
to -further encroacii when there is ai-.iple land to e:,_-ercise his
right to develop as a legal lot would be allowed to do . The
applicant should f E ollo, -h- i- direction rather than adding to
a nonconformity.
'I
Austin note(, that the Boar,.' is suggesting the applicant use
up his o-�Den space %,7hich we are trying to Preserve. realistically
Head is not g04
J_ng to sell his house and leave. He has lived
there a long time and he is ooin-T to TIC
i _ a n n o
.1ave a -aimiilN7. cc
:fiord a fancy addition. IT-javagnino said financial need cannot
be considered.
Mann argued against strict inter-oretation of the code. One
o f the I
L -,,,-)urooses of t' e Doard is to look; at what i really 11-a".)OC1111
7
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Megting_ Board of Adjustment March 29, 1984
to people and happening to this town. She lines that little
loC with the iiou ie. That is one Of the fun t liil(Y,s about sc oen.
La,,zz gnino said then the Doart-' has to treat all lots ti!at co to
before the Board in the same i-tanner. What guidelines) does tale
L Oar :; use to determine whether one applicant is Light and the
other applicant of 5imilcar nature is wrong? Austin said e:"?ch
case is unique. Lavagnino said tale Victoria.n case is not a precedent
sitting case.
Tattdune Said there is an ussuraptlon here that Council will grant
the e- 0.h d] t lin t'he Clef i n i t i o n Of the su.)division. t,'a;i
be it will b in the a 7T71iczint ' s best interest t0 post-oone this
for a month and sec ,chat Council does. That imav aff ect the Board' s
analysis. There will theen be a practical difficulty because
Zile clpplieant 1:aill not be able to expand into the -front yard .
Lavagnino said it will give the Boar(I. leverage Oil how Head LtT.1.
proceed in dc''i eloj7ing the t_rout of the yard. The appl i Can t
will have to C0I10- before the Lloard any time lie builds on the
lot because of the illegal status. rIe is ailenable to grant-' in
the variance if there is some leverage. !Thita ,er agreed. Lavagnino
sai(:-. then the applicant has more of a difficulty in develop-inr;
the rest of the lot. "'he Board. )as control Over how he develops
the lot. Put , then the Doan] neods criteria for hope to grant
Or deny those variances.
"7hitai>c?r C1uflted ro !1 the Board' s guidelines: "The Board rarely
finds practical difficulties Or Unnecessary 'lar'dshir) where the
applicant ' s appeal is a matter of aesthetics or designs or eCono.Taics
T. e • s -z . c• -aI v ' � alternative. " n1-1" X7_)0 cant-
OL if t..aerc.- i,� a Lt.a.>0I"1c_�11'- legal c.
i-)resented a reasonable legal alternative.
Lavagnino asked iE the a-p-plicant wishes to table thifa Case .
The original reason for tabling this cave was to let Council
determine the legality of tale lot. That is in the previous
;Minutes : if the applicant does not receive Council approval ,
then his case will be tabled at such time approval or disapproval
is granted . Head agrees to table. IIe requested the minutes
l. rol;i the Stan :.aphis case, !,i' 83-2) and „83-9, July 7 , 19,03 .
j osephine 11111ann moved t0 table case I'84-3 to April 19 , 1984 ,
and hear it Only if file Cit,/ Council has taken action; seconded
by Francis T"7hitar-er. All in favor; I:hotion carried.
CASE #84-5/LEE PARDEE
r,
i.;
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment March 29, 1984
1
,_1 4 c 1i lead ead did not sit on this case.
Lavagnino introduced case T-le read the variance requested.
ty 4
"Proper L S located in the PI-30 zoning category. S e t ba c1l,s
are front Ward, 25 -feet; side yard, 10 feet ; and roar yard,
15 feet . mllie applicant appears to be requesting a zero
lot line variance for the front yar(l setbac!-,. The required
setback is 25 feet. "
Lee Pardee , the applicant, Presented the affidavit- of -oostinq
the notice and. a photograp'n.
Austin co-,,iplained the public notice was not legible. The lettering
i,,7a s lim s1ieJ out. Lavag.,11ino asked if the city as a courtesy provides
the notice information. Drueding said the burden is on the
applicant to mairitain the legibility cual-ity of the public notice.
G L deon 1Laufian, representative for the applicant, said it is
un-f-air that the city provides sorletfling that- does not witlistand
weathering . Whita'rer suggested using clear contract paper .
There should be so,-tie iDrovision that the sign be legible. Drueding
said there is nothing in the code or in the budget that says
the Q Ci','-17 has to provide the signs. The code says tae letters
need to be one inch. It is the burden of the a?-)plicant to -post
the sign. !"Iann said the building department should make suggestions
to the applicant how to protect the notices from inclement- weather.
Kaufr suggested. the city -,
.. a an _,)r o v i d e the a-p 1)r o p r i a to -,.1� to r_J al
and charge t-he applicant for the costs.
Nau'r. L 11 4
I L -ian inroduced the case. TI-le case is un-c-
,ue ; it is unique
to this applicant and no other neigilbor . The hardshi,) is not
the fault- offf the applicant ; but the result of city action .
When the applicant purchased the irregular shaped lot he could
have built ,-7ith no problems. !'*_.ft_er t1flie purchase, the City Council
during a lot split hearing requir�ad, fro.m the applicant a utility
casei.-Ient and a 30 foot de(]iCation for rlght-of-way instead o-f-
the usual right-of-way easenent. At that time no one realized
the major implications of the rer.,fuest. Tiie result- to the Cit17
was tine same. Whether the city got an easement or 7edication,
the city had the ability to ai, en t1le road. The difference
to the applicant was very significant. If the request was an
CaLserlient the setback starteO. f'roT 11 the roa(., an(]' the traditional
25 root setbcacl resulted. If the request was a dedication then
the setbac!cs started from, the ondt of the dedication and a 55
.Loot setback resulted. The reC7UCSL -rro.m t-1.h c ci tv resulted in
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting---- Board of Adjustment March 29,E 1984
a 55 foot not 25 foot diedi cation. The resulting setback is
50 more than what tIe nei ,',-.!
have or what is required. The
applicant asks for a zero lot line, resulting in a 30 foot- setback
not 55 -_Foot.
Kau-�:man present` d a site plan 1.,,7hich -lelineatod the easement
and dedication lines . Thore is a legal diffference betaeen can
easei-iient and d-e(lication. if can easement had been granted, which
is what the City usuall-y rec1uests in this particular situation,
then the right-of-way line would have been 25 feet from the
oldl pro-,-)ertv line on Gibson Street and would have been consistent
L_
with the lines o--i' t'I'le adjacent properties (although one building
J
is 30 feet and the other 25 -Cect from -Chle old property line . )
instead the city asked ffor a dedication. The new property line
starts a-p-proxi�li,,atelV 25 2'Eeet frorm. tic, old property line and
4. -4 .1 LI - _L
the setback is 11ovcd back, an additional 25 feet -_Fro-,.i the new
4:
'property line -. or a total setback of 55 1ec-t- instead o-.f-- 25 feet.
The ad!-4 -U cen- houses have a 30 -Loot sotbaci and a 25 foot setbac ,,
resiDectiveiv. This lot alone is required to guild 55 feet back
f rom the road.
1,7 T,
J . ital:or inquired about the Zlg Zag in the original property
1 i no. Pardee oyplained property to 11he cast was not
required to dedicate any 'Land. The owner built within the regular
-,,-30 25 foot setback. !'Then the city enqinc4_, rs requireC file
dedication , they planned to pull the road back , not jog it.
,, H n cf i n e r i n g d, pt1a e -'- i s s a J;a ' l, c e , ev : k-h a n d i d
ion.
sually require a
the city does no u de d ica -L
Lavagnino asked hold tihe house was 'built- wit!�out the setbacks
and when U-'id the city re-,uire the applicant to dedicate the
`3ardec! sa` ��' the dedication was made a'ter the house
e a s 0 .1 e n t.
Ti, as b u i 1 t.. L a v a n ii n o asked t'I I e a,-,o p 1 i ca n t 1 1 a t Forced h i i-'I to
dedlica-1--e that 1_a nd to til-le city since the house was e,.-.i sting .
7
e.>,plained that action was required in the subdivision
process. Lavag.1-lino asked if the subdivision process tooli: place
b r,
'before the house was built. 11:,aufman said no. Lav4agllino asked
n
o;•� a subdivision ;,Tas affected . Kaufiman explained when the
house was condorminiuliiized, the applicant- had to go through the
subdivision process. Pardee said this lot was originally two
acres. A 30 foot dedication %a;as required for the -front as well
as a utility ease lent during con%'.]oTAniui,.iization in 1978, during
the lot split. The city took. 25% of the property . He cannot
build to the .-jest on the ease:.ient. Tic in-JEormed Council he wished
to buil(I up the slope , not do,,m near the river . He suggested
10
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting Board of Adiustment --March 29, 1984
a lot line which in no way restricted the building envelope.
4
L _ import - uc one
Kaufman noted again that -1 _ _mportant is�� is that no
�j what -ions would be when the dedication
realize ' what the im-plicat
was made. lEacsai,,ient and, --le.'iczation serve the same purpose to
the city. The city could have e-,-.pandled the roaCl with an easement.
The dedication hal,_] an adverse affect on his client ; the city
in effect created a 55 foot setbacllr as o-pposed to the standard
25 foot set-bacl: for L.is client.
Whitaker askel,_] w1here is the ezisting travelled road way. i6.ufnan
said t'-
he road is 22 feet f ror,.i the ,,-)oten t 4
Lal Duildout. Par c-1 eze
said the only building rociuestcd in area is a two car garage
and two car pal-�,,,ing area, and it will not be built in tile dedicated
1 4 f
area. .,7hi ta!,-er asked L there is access to the garage. Pardee
ez,pl ni nedl there will be one curb cut. 1-1 e w ants to increase
the building envelope to the north since the building has been
restricted on t'no west 1?-,,7 the utility easement. Fle is not requesting
to build any closer to the road than the neighbors.
'7au-':�,,uan said there are letters from tho adjacent property owners
A �L %.. L P
sup-porting the application. He said there is a provision of
the code wrlich understands this unir:fue situation. He quoted
Section 2d-3 .7 (f) , no.
11, , Wards in developed areas:
"wee- re an unbuilt lot is bordered by property developed
prior to the effective eC,- 4 ve date of this zoning co-Je, one or
L L_ L L A
both of which are nonconforming as to front yard setback
distances for the district, the required front yard setback
for the unbuilt lot s' all be the average of the setback
distances of the bordering properties ; or , if only one
of 1= h iT
the adjacent properties as been imp'' roved, the setback
of the n construction shall confori-.i to these regulations. "
The code understands this kinOl of situation. His applicant ' s
situation clid. not result prior to the adoption of the code .
It resulted in a 1 .077 act by City Council . JJ35ut the logic is
the same. There is a recognized hardship and unfortunate situation
in trying to address a resolution for it. If the Board, reviews
this application in those terms, clearly the action by Council
has created a setback twice as large as any other setback in
the neighborhood. 'The applicant does not want to go any farther
forward than the other particular properties. The applicant
wants to be treated equally to the neighbors. Currently, the
applicant cannot 6evelop the property as others Pre allowed
11
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting_ Board of Adjustment March 291, 1984
to c�,O . The Board can undo an unintentional wrong and fulfill
-chat the Board is intended to do. The ap-olicant is entitled
Co a variance.
a hitak-er said there= is no in-fformatiorl on the plot plan indicating
where the structure is to by built. Pardee nresenteu a site
elan. The house is small . The building is .vrithin the building
envelope seen. The garage is the only addition. Td7hitaker asked
if the vu.riance is for the resident structure. Kauf,,nan said
no. Pardee saiu" the garage Islay be foot or two over . The
building departl::ent may May the wall is over two =eet. lie dogs
not want to preface the a;oproval On a garage, but he will say
that the majority Of everytoling being as';:ed for trill be a garage
s }ace. He wants to bring the garage to the ne: lot line created
by the dedication. The city ' s action of taking 60 feet during
condominiumization has been very detrimental to his building
envelO _)e.
Lavagnino asked when was the dedication. i'aufm:=1n said 1077 .
La),7agnino asked when was the lot split. Pardee said either
1080 or 1 -?"1 . Herz asked what was the reason for a dedication
rather than an easement. i:aufman said Council thought it would
be better to hav e a dedication which t)rovides oswnershin of the
land rather than the ease.ient rhich ahosws only la vacation .
Pardee said the Council ' s intent was not to injure the applicant
at condominiumization. At that time tsie city did not know :•that
it was going to do with Gibbson Street.
Lavagnino asked if the 707 Gibson lot was ever part of than
whole parcel . Pardee said it was separate. Lavagnino asked when
the lot line aas established separating Pardee ' : lot from the
707 Gibson lot. zTas this the only lot line adjustment? Pardee
said yes. - Ie site Man indicates Patrdee' s property is restricted
by t e property lines oI= 707 Gibson, lot one, and tale dedication.
TJili taker asivcd the Siz o of the building envelope. Pardee answered
25 feet by 30 feet.
Lavagnino said the road dedication was in 11077 . The lot selit
was in 10,'1. The ao clicant knew Sure,-dy what the �robltiiils were.
1...
This was before the fact-_ . The applicant di= -)ave t'r'e right
to bUilu C-11c- house on the lower -P rt Of 10L- two. The applicant
.':as not C:i'.�.'.nie(] 'Iis lanC and his ability t0 iltc ti=e ?OUP` on
the lo-,I, nortion o lot. PelrCaee �^ "`� ' 1' rOTlt'1U!:
said Council st on:- ' conclude"],
CLlring Strealil i:lclrgln revl ee'.' xOr the tennis cour' t }at tiie house
should be IOCs -Od w't its present Site, it h,=s lass of an i-ipact
12
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
RegulAI—Meeting Board of_Adj_jLsULent March 29- 1984
on the neighbors. Tile question was where to locatL, lie th1r(3
site throw kt L-11c lot split. Tlie ans-%,7er is the prese.rit
plan. The lot line s lot -reato the 1"ardship. it has
i I - plit- fi�� .lot - 4
been esta,blished that the proposed building site -Ero-.: '--he
4
r I v e r, cau av iron t.h o laundred
. year flood plain i. the appropriate
C
-i to
Lavaonino as;.,ed if Pardee owned all. t"i1s property. -Pardee saidl
o��meC the, land, a_na' then n y old
.andy, and he originally 12 a d s
half . Lavagnino asked if the 'Land was �.Dlanrled for two houses
on t-1-ie slope, then why • ais t-he unit on lot one not moved i`Ie .t ,
there is ample space. TTas za lot split planned? Pardee said
there -.-,ay not hiave been provision-s in tllo code in 1977 for a
let s-olit. T'e does not lknow if the land uas planned for a lot
siDlit Since 1 -077 , 1le 1::;ne-,-7 t1here ,'jould be land designate-(] for
the site, fle always thought it would be sited here. TJj 4--
did not knua currerit situation was going to develop. Lava gnino
said the land was dedicated in 10,77 , so the applicant knew what
was goinc to ha7ppen in 1977 . Pardee said he 1-Inevi, that this
4 te. T,�
t,.Yas the
e ideal L i T-- did not know the dedication would be
re_(.- wired, and he did not lknow the dedication would result in
ch a small buildable space . Lavagn-ino asKe6l. ,,7hy Pardee did
T 113 L,4-w e e 1
th-3 difference -1 a dec
no know. Thitaker satid it i-:7 lication
a.nd an ease-Ment . Pardee did not 'kno4fy the difference. Whitaker
asked if -L-11c, easerient for t right-of-t,7a was done at the same
tiiue as the street dedication. Pardee said yes. lle had, to give
an easement for Spring Street, give a street dedication for
Gibson, an give the utility eaSem it 25. the lam '
ild.
0 t e-
_je14 _
K a u f fq torically 1-11ne city tak�es easein.ients ant.e hi star~-
, an said his L_
cations, buL the city in this case took, a dedication and not
an case-men`C. and interchanged the two which led to the confusion.
T,Th i-, L
,, �_aker as if tile right-of-,my is the easement for Spring
Street. 'K'LaufT.1an said ves.
John Bush , resident in the neighborhood, expressed concern.
CoT',j-,)z=` this a-D,,,)_1ic,,a1C_ion to the acljoininc
U properties. Ir1
t one unit there is an st 11 ng, garage below Grade. The other
unit has an earthen roof which co.-mes u-j-) Fro-m ground level .
In both cases, there is room to park a car comfortably on the
road shoulder before the house. The effect of both house-) is
nitligated Dy the fact one is buried and tho otlier is below grade.
T L -1
But in fact, both of those houses C.�-.re very close to time road,
and perha,,ps too close to the road. Dy alloC,,ing anotAer house
to be built- as closo to the road as the other 'L- .7o really compounds
-13
L
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting P Board of Adiustment March 29,E 1984
the? problem. here is a neighbor]hood -villicil has been badly abused
by the city and county. 11c, Tv7cints to pro-Cect- what little is
1 e
Pardee said he �juillt all those houses. First tile -r')arIkinq on
this site will not be i-,.iorc than the ot-hers. Second, the house
will be sited at the same level as the o'-hers. Third, rush
is requesting a building be setbacl, 7,11ore than zone reqruirl� s
-for setbacks . The zone is 11-30, the setbacir is 25 feet. Pardee
is asking for 300
1"auf--nian said the issue is treating this property equally like.
tl-Ic other '"properties. Lavagnino said those neighbors originally
i-iiet their setback requirements, -IL-Ile dedication wiped out the
setback. That is the only reason the neighbors look l -i !,,e they
are on the property line. Uhatever the city tares away is something
else. it is not a property right 'those owners were denied ,..,hich
the applicant is asking for , it is something that was met and
taken away 7ro:. tlile-M after the fact.
1711.1itaj,"..er asked if that is the only house that can be built on
the lot. Pardee said it i,ms known at the ti le of' the lot split
that the lot would bo sited there and that would be the lust
house D
built there. There will be three houses on two acres .
1711-witaker asked Bush if the ir..ipact will be worse from the lower
,Dart o� tine pro-r)erty if tine house, is pusiled further back. Push
said the only house that is close to the loiter road is the Hill
house. A ustin said file applies It cannot Coi-iie ova''r -he I ill too
,-.iuch because the property 'Line ends. Pardee said Ile will build
as far north as possible. 11,cau-17i-iian said there is also a rear
,
sc-tback which -orevents builOting bacjkl any furth TT!er . 1 -I i talSer
C R L the applicant will -maintain the pro-per rear yard se'[_-bac]-..
sII:I-ed L� - I
Pardee said yes. Lavagnino said the question is is it better
-Co cyive the al-*%,:)licant a rear vard setback variance or a f ront
1 2� -
varCi setback variance . Par;'ee said the cliff limits the the
ability to build 'Chere ; 1.t i s too st-con. Lavagnino noted the
Hill House has an entrance on S- ring Street and on Gibson.
I
The steepness o-_7 the slope never hinderer! building. This property
is not any steeper than the Hill House. Kaufman said building
in that (1irection interfere witIr the view-plane Of 707 Gibson
Street. Pardee said tie proposed building will not be anymore
visible than the existing buildings.
Parkc7ec% said the addition is a two store structure with a master
bedl,roo-ni oil top. It is below the road. I T-1 I t j
I.: ID L 1,t
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular M eting Board of Adjustment March 29, 1984
requirements of the zone . Lavagnino asked the Board if they
are granting the variance without building specifics. I Th i t a k,e r
said the variance will have to be spelled out carefully, specifying
a garage, and wliat evor portion of the house rlight -encroach.
The plans are not accurate enough to base a. variance on. Pardee
Said 'Ile will cortiriiit to the living portion of the house 1)eiing
no riore than five feet from the the new property line . The
rest will !Dc a garage and -,,parking . It may be only two or three
feet because he is designing the house as s-inall as possible.
th
_)CCifiC 17- L
Uhitaker said the aiD-,, licar ' s'ould be S_� i the measure-
m e n t s. Lavagnino said it is Sufficient to modify the variance
to say five feet. Whitaker asled if the variance For the rear
setback will be only for the garage. Pardee saJ--
d yes. Pardee
is hap=py with the f ive feet and. the garage.
Bush ask_-d if the applicant, is asking for a variance for the
garage plus five -feet of the house. Pardee saki that is -.maximum.
Remember the setback will only be 30 feet, when the zone requires
25 feet. rush noted he paced off thirty feet from the center
of the road and the building is very close to the road.
Lavagnino as',.-.ed if the dedication is thirty feet of the applicant' s
property or thirty -feet from the center of the road. Pardee
said the thirty feet from the property line. Lavagnino said
the property line is almost at the edge of the road. Drueding
said the dedication is thirty feet from the center line of the
road. Lavagnino reasoned if the thirty foot dedication is measureu
from the center of the road, then the applicant has not dedicated
thirty feet of his property, just a. portion off the thirty feet.
The applicant is not giving up thirty feet of his property .
P I
arclee noted he gave up thirty feet at one point o-f the property
and may be f if teen at another point. 17'ait�a]-,er said according
to this map the public right-of-way is t1nirty feet, from center
line. Lavagnino explained tile applicant gave thirty feet -ffroytl
the center line of the road but since the property angles al-most
to the edge of the road itself, then his thirty feet dedication
is not thirty feet of actual land the applicant oWied at that
4
time because half of his land was city land. to begin W _Lth.
Pardee said the iTlup act is still, the same. Lavagnino said Pardee
is not giving up 55 tweet. The building may be 55 feet from
the center line but the applicant never owned 'Clile property near
the center line to begin with.
Pardee i:ieasured 25 --Feet froi-,,i the old nropertv line on the --.',1ap.
Lavagnino saic: that is where tlle line should be marred, so the
15
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Reqular ,Meeting Board of Adjustment March 29, 1984
a-,,,--oliciant is not receiving anymore land than he is allowed.
FAT L
Vnitaker sugg-esteCi a Survey that s'hows the pro-perity line .
T,T I
llita,:cr asked if thl' S is only for t-he garage. Lavagnino said
that is up to the Bo-ard. Ile sai�cl tho line 25 feet from the original
dedication line is as far as the applicant can build. Lavagnino
said 30 feet needs to be projected from the new property line. The
suggestion is allow 25 :'Eeot fro-m the old property line to Pardee' s
building envelope; not 25 feet f'--roi,.i the center line to the building
envelope . If t1,4_- later measurement is taken the applicant gets
more property than he 'lad originally.
11
llann suggested building the garage inside the building envelope.
'..'1au-f'man repliecdl the applicant Ilas a hardship and seeks redress
froi.,,i that hardship. liann understood the applicant cannot build
in the easement wl
hich reduces the size of the building
envclo-!_)e.
Kaufman said this suggestion treats the applicant differently
th° n the neighbors. The a- T3,,)licanL- requests to be treated equally
as the other neicilibors.
Lavagnino closed the public hearing. Kaufman reserved the right
to comment.
11hitaker wished to see a specific -plot plan with the definite
measurements of '-the building location. That helps t`-le -oard
phrase the variance. The Board should not grant a blanket variance.
T�j 1,1 j -er - c specific measurements on
Austin agreed � I -tak rejuested sy,
the length and the exact location of the garage . Plans and
elevations will be helpful. The applicant appears to be requesting
a zero lot variance setback, does that mean a variance for entire
length of the lot. Lavagnino said yes but the e asei-,,,ent precludes
a certain amount of buildable area. Also is the Board coming
in 25 feet from the old property boundary before dedication
as its line measurement? The frontage is already determined
by the restrictions. Austin said Lf- the Board uses the line
measured 25 feet from the original lot line, takes out the easement,
and grants a blanket variance, the building envelope is almost
doubled from what the applicant already has. That is too broad.
She cited the Board for being hesitant to give two feet in the
Board give a blanket approval.
previous application, how can the -L)oL
Lavagnino asked how much inforimation does T1,hit.),1:er want �T 7h i ta 1k e r
said the location of the building. Austin argued elevations
J_ .�-Al up the
are necessary to deterne if the building will" f f il
area to the proposed line which the Board may determine
and give to the at,7,,,-,1icant-. 'J`h(_--re ;-,,iaW be a visual impacts. There
lj
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment March 29, 1984
:nay be a secon6 story on Lop of the garage. 11arin said the ED o a r d
-Is i c
neeJ precise �"iqures. Does the applican-L. neoc] one or two feet
beyond the building envelope? Lavagnino said a minimum is created
by the agree cent to 25 Eeet. Dut the Board does not !.,,no.`7 how
the applicant is going to use the building envelope. Whitaker
said it is not clear to -;,ay 25 feet -Eromt the old line. He thins
the present lot line needs to be considered; grant a variance
based on so many feet froi-a the existing lot line . There is
a new lot line resulting from the dedication. Lavagnino explained
the reason for using Uie old lot 'Line is to give the applicant
equity with other buildings E,71lich are built in 'the same area.
That is the only reason. The applicant ,7i11 be at the same
line as his neighbors. Whitalk.er said the Board should have at
least a plot which shows the location of the garage, how many
feet it -,.7.411 be from whatever line is used. He prefers the new
property "Line. Lavagnino said, that can be determined. Austin
asked what the difference is between the new property line
and the line mariked off by the 25 -Feet frorLi the old pro-jertv
line . T,,Thit-a%.er measured on the map where the lot line actually
is. Any diSCLISSi011 or action should be based on the exact location
of the buildings , the nuriber of feet of variance required, and
how wide it is in relation to the street line.
Lavagnino opened the public hearing.
Pardee agreed with the suggestion to tame the 215 foot measurer:-,ent
from the old property line. Modify the variance as such. lie
will commit tout this :point no more than 350 square feet whicIi
will run no Liore than five feet along the house as it is. The
garage will be less .1han 500 square -feet. Only fivic, feet -from
the eNisting envelope 411 residential e �7 be r space
Z L L —
(There is confusion over the location of the thirty (root dedication
line . ) Kaufman argued the applicant did not give thirtV feet
A
-froi-,i the center line, the city asked for a thirty foot dedication.
T
Pardee reads -from the survey plat of the Hill .louse condominium
lot split: "public right of way for Gibson Avenue 30 feet iron
enter 11 n c
Pardee said he is at the design development stage. He does
not want to come back, to the Ejoard again and again if the design
changes. "'Ife asks for the 25 feet to do anything that he wants
ustin sa4d� the
u
hich is file same right the neighbors 'I'iave. A
board does not vJant to grant an arbitrary variance. Pardee said
he is not asking --.':or an arbitrary variance but for the same
17
RECORD OF PROCEEDING
Regular Meeting Board of Adiustment March 29, 1984
right the neighbors have wIllicl-I is to build anything u-P to the
25 feet. The Board indicated it will allow him to only build
a garage , that is too restrictive. He does not mind committing
to a garage, but he wants some lees-.lay on the the -1-- 4Ve feet for
living space. 1,71iitaI47er said bring back a :,?lot plan. Lavagnino
asked if the Board is a- 1,
.L.)proving a sDecific plan. Whitaker said
the Board will consider specifically the -five feet. Pardee
asked if he could draw t1hat on t-I'le ,lat. Lavagnino said yes.
Pardee said he could draw 'chat now, he suggested tabling this
case to after the ne-�,t case. i-le will com.,iit to s-,pocifillfic measure-
-F t7.
measure-
ment in feet on the plat and submit that as part of file record.
11
Bush said when he received -permission to build his house '%--here
was a five foot side setback. After he built his house the countv
changed the zoning to ten felt. His neighbor complained that
he could not build within the Live feet. The ruling was when
this things change too bad. Lavagnino said th-L case is very unique.
The request is for development for a specific house, the request
is to allow the applicant to enjoy a property right enjoyed
by his neighbors. This decision is not for the whole vicinity.
Lavagnino close(] the public hearing.
Francis j1hitaker moved IC--o table this case to the later part
4
of the meeting ; seconded by John Herz. All in favor ; i,,iotion
carried.
CASE #84-6/SCOTT AND PATRICIA EDMONDSON
Lavagnino opened the hearing on case 1041-6 . The owner is Scott
and Patricia Edmondson. He rca,01 the variance requested:
"Property is located in the R-6 zoning category. The 9 ,000
square 'Loot lot could contain a legal duple.: or single
family structure. The property contains three single family
7�IUS
structures, t i these structures are nonconfor-ming uses.
(Section 24-3 .4 , area and bulk. )
iTo existing structure devoted to a use not permitted by
this code in the district in which it is located shall
be enlarged, extended, constructed, reconstructed, moved
or structurally altered e Z.ccpt in changing I ing the use of the
structure to a use per-mitted, in the district in which it
71
is located . ( Section 24-13 . ,! (a) ) . A-p-plicant appcars- to
be requesting to enlarge a nonconfori-iting use by 750 square
18
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment March 29, 1984
Oet.
i.ie reqUired7 set,,Dac!-,s are 10 fee.- in the front and 5 feet
in the side. Tlie :.).n-r)lica.n-I- also rei,uests t-o build within
f
the setbacks . This L oot front s requires a variance of 4
yard and one foot-- side yard setbac%. "
Bill Lulkes is tile architect and representative for the app licant.
i i
Lavagnino asIred for tile afflidavit verifying 'the posting of t.)(-,
public notice. Lukles saiCi he did not have that. Lavagnino said
he needs a notarized affidavit, a requirement before hearing
a case. Drueding suggested the Board hear anCI decide thie case
contingent on a-Iffidavit being presented. Lavagnino as!:ed Taddune
if the Boark2. can use that as a standard procedure if the applicant
does not have IL-1he affidavit : the Board hears the case contingent
upon receiving the affidavit and granting the variance. Taddlune
'C'I'lat. encourages slopiness but because it is late go :,head
4 Will 4 hear the case
and hear t-he case . Lavaqnino sa.Ld Docird,
14 n
but wil-h -'a under _,,_FA.,jC I s t rant- tT at 4-1 e
L C.4.1 I L_ g i.L Uie recTue. is g n
4-
a-p-olicant -,,:)rov-*LC:7t--- the af-'-fidavit-
introduced the Case . He e,.,,plained the -physical nature
of the proposal an(] tt--he history of the pro-pe.-tCy. e nc 1 T',j 0 11
7,0 n s
4
In a v c for several years; they oT n a. condomin-L
- owned the house f U v7
interest in unit two of the pro-,�erty. The existing house is
one story of an indeterminant- origin. He presented photographs.
The condoninium covers three "Lots and is IC 1l -0 , 000
scua.re feet of lot area. The condoiiAnium conversion is relatively
recent. The houses have been there for some time. He provided
square footage infori.,iation on the house in the application.
4 S
Tlie house in question is 500 scTuarc -feet . It is a one
bedroo-mi configuration. The three condoi-i-liniui-.,is total 2 ,200 square
f e e t.
Un(Ior the nresent I-Z-G zoning in that neighborhood the allm,7ed
square footage of -floor Larea is 01,000 for a legal single -farmi
residence or Cuple:7. The three houses total 2,200 square feet. Tile
ap1p,licant rccucsto an additional 7 �65, sc-,71aar�., Z (a_et -for one of
the condominiums.
This condo.-,ilnium is no'liconforr.-iing. Under R-G) zoning, the applicant
is entitleCt to a single family or duple<.- T-7ith 9 ,000 Square re f e e t.
The three structures -,,.iaI:e the lot nonconforlllnG. A variance
must !De granted :For any enla_rglment.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment March 29, 1984
As a -Dracticzal -Matter fitting the additional floor area onto
an e.-Illisting Structure, the is not asking to _hake the
-.--)resent situation worst than it alrea(o., is. He rec ue_sts the
ability to use the e_,isting structure ,.,,The_re it silEs, on the pro-perty
to build the add'it-icnal 1.7loor area. The e::-isting structure
-lroo.- I- L U
dy sits on "ne front ynrcl and. side yard. setbac-s. He requests
X
additional 1-Floor area on existing liouse. The ootprint e -
w il IL 5e c1nangedl but the sev e ri ty of the s cback violations ar e
not increased.
T .7ood frae building. The
The e .isting building is a one story mi
% I
ap-plic-ant plans to build a second story o TV e r t41 e e;'i s t i n g f i r st-
L
story. Lavagnino noted the applicant is C'.-.-pariding a. nonconjforr,Ang,
to
us.'�. Li-,,I:es said the -'Eoot-orint is enlarged in t,.,7o areas : U
create a s.-iiall one bodroo:-,i vestibule and to e"pand the living
area.. The _ iv nc; adu-i 'Lion is w i t',lin the setback slinj1)tl -,-7
addition is acceptable to the condominium association.
--�ed lo'-ters of a-p-,,Dro%�al fro-.,,, tie t-wo other condo.-Aniurti
'Ie s u 1)i'l i IL k- -i L
ow ri a r ss
The applicant needs as variance to increase tile -floor area or
if:. 4 S 7- et' od to accorni-lish
the nonconformity. Ti? L the only legal ft 11
that. The variance requested will only affect this unit. I-F
the variance is granteCi 'L-11e total floor area o.f t1ia three con(loiminiurii
units ba 1 , 000 square feet below the PAR required. T h-2
overall bulk ands de.risit�, is 1-_ss with; the three condo-.,.AniU1'11S
on three lots than with one single far',illy dwelling. The rel-uesl-
X_f
s
i riot or an open onde(I variance.
.ie neighbors have been notified, and there is no negative response.
As a by product off the irti-prover.,ients, the unit is an old substandard
dwelling. It is riot in good repair. By adding the second story
it provides an impetus to comply with the building codes in
terr(is Of sa-fetv and energy conservation, etc. It is a benefit
to the neighborhood.
L,-_v,,agnir10 asked if this does not preclude others, From coming
before tie Board and asking for the same variance. Lukes answered
7
Lil add square �ootage . 1 k.s
it does give ollers the authloritV to L
a nonconforming use and noncon-forming st-ruc-Cur ,:: , each owner
Still has to submit an application to the Boarr! for a variance.
saiC.' that the structures app ear noncon-f-or-ling but all.
o ' olation o-f: tfle setback,. Lul es said Ves. Whitaker
thlem are in vi
20
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting Board of Adiustment March 29, 1984
c zi the side yard, and the
e d i f the e one foot variances is for ii
four feet is For the front -,,7ard. Lu,ifes saiC. then are apy)roxirmiate
va, riances w1iic7i is measured off the site -clan. This iDlat does
not show soeciflics. Whit-al:er sai(] the plat- does not show set
b a c, i nc s Lul-res said _a,rp-)1 i c a n t I s r o q u e s t is quite sp e c i is
9hic1h, is not to cfo closer t'n--n the existina, house. Austin as!sed
if -the addition W411
extend four more feet or is the variance
for building uoward for a s=cone story. Is the noncon-icor,_ 4ty
being increases] by four feet in building Ll-,)ward? Lul;,_--s said
the nonconformity is being increased. technically with any addition.
Ti-le reason why the applicanIC.- is asking for the varianCe in torms
of the set-IDacks is because -he (_ isting 'ilouse is located in
the setbacks.
Lavagnino said t1f1e app-licant has not shown reason why lie cannot
come back from. the setback . The varizance can be sl-1 own to be
47
J- or the use only rather than infringing on code requirements
and sel--bacil-s . Lu!res said as -an architect the s-occific reason
for d.0 4 nq lit t1nis wa17 is that it -niakes sense in �--r-.as o-7 con-
struction. if' the board feels strongly t-hat continuing the
e::isting lines of the building are detrimental , a variance
it
should not be alloweflA. Thoro arc- alterriatil,7(2S. He Leek
is in the best interest of the applicant as as the neighbor-
hoodl to sim-oly e-,tend th(,;, lines o-`� tie building-1.
the Doar(l disagrees, he will wor!'- %-7ithin that constraint.
T U!_:
Ji , _S S said -.nay bo the Board cF--tn concur with the reasonableness
of the apr-)lication, and can agree the applicant is not making
the violations for se than t1ley already a-re. Lf* the Doarcl is
concerned that there are negative impacts ,,,!ith `C-1ne setbac!,,sr
then '.-je [.,7 4 ].1 discuss that. Lav-a n i n o ---a- ]
the zone discourages
t -
uses like that. The zone district encourages U earing do ni buildings
rather than u-,pqrading the unit and replacing with a duplex .
The zoning discourages bringing illegal units up, to st-anC,.arul.
tn re
- e units
'-he use status is illegal ; not the Eact t' t t -i
arc there . L he a-,-),,-)'Licant has to start scratch, the
appi-icant could not do that. Luk-es said that is an iiiiPort--nt
ra' i st- inction . rIliie units went- through condof.-iiniumization for
- era is nothing illegal . This is
the curre-Int structuiro-s. Th
a ver17 reasonable approach in terms of- con'Crolling the density
and bulk of developlRent in tlhlat zone. mli r are 0--oarate struc-
t L,r e s. The nufftber of: C acili�-ies
0 O,.D 1 JiUing. there and usins t*fie fc k-
L
4-
is no, being incrcas�odl . comi-�i nt L_111- aDot. ntial is
being increased by adding a s,,2cond s'LorT,,,. L ull%e s said the total
sc,uare. footam of In.11 three buil(iiyiqs including the ii:iprove7-,-,,Cnt
21
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment March 29, 1984
is 3 , 000 sq-uar,:� feet_ The zone allows 336- more than that, 4 ,000
sc,,uare [.eet. Th,- applicant is not asking to increase tlic allowed
Z)
floor area ratio. Within the contex.t of a, nonconforming use
4
is a reasonabl°L nu-".1.1ber -'-*or the floor area
U 10.
Dru,-_-ding_ said he as1.ed Sunny Vann, planning office, ,.,'jLlv this
WaS condominiuiAzed. The-se, units a, 4 r ownec]. 'L)v er-.1-olovoos .
Tiley were condo-miniumized to allow employe-es to own space and
oreserve the e.-I:isting buildings. The property right allows
one to tear the buildings down and 'build a Ouple-.. It was done
about three years ago. ilann as} ed if the area is under control
b-,7 the .OUS4
i g authority. Lures e,ml ained the only city rex l
uirement
for condominiumization is that the units not be used for short
term rental . Alt'I'lough he never locate k' a specific doctrine ,
all the m-mers have reporter they sicTried. an a-ree-,ent With the
city not to short ternii the units. Drueding said the units are
I
deer] restrict-ed.
Austin uesl- ione(] unit one 1,,71hicn was totally redone. TTC-IS that
added onto? How did 11-1-icy got a variance? Drueding said -the
unit- burned to the ground and the owner had the right to build
over the sai'ie footprint. Luires did not- know anyt`,'.ing about
that. Drueding explained a unit which has burned cp.n be replaced
a I— L
by the same footrrir�t as long as the noncom�ori,-iity is riot increased.
Austin as1ked if unit three is 3it.hin t1no sotback . LL11feS said
all of the units are TAIC_�Ain the setback ever since t,.le rezoninr, .
He noted that the unit he is addressing -"-,,-is so-me real concerns
about life, safety, pro--i-l-".1ity of walls in regards to fire spreading.
'I".rle building on the adjacent property is L-,-jL-_)pro,:i JT�,ately seven
to ten feet aT,,7&'��7 f r o r,,,. t i-1 11 this property. lle wal"14C-s to bring,
this propert-,7 up to construction codes.
Lustin asied for elevations Of the proposed project . Line ~
said the applicant- Boos not want to invest aany more money thin
is necessary to C oTal- unicate to tnlc 'Doard until the variance
is granted. The height of the building has been e,tended to
thio -the height o-.f-- 'Che adjacent unit one.
T U .S clarified L_the location of the second story . The second
I
story will be located on to;) of the e,dstino structure. Druciing
J: -1 - ne second s'- ory requires the four foot setback .
olaine�_ L
lus,-i as`-d, whore is the one- -foot needed. s Said a survey
L 1.- ii -
Can b c t a'P,e n to de-i n i t e 1 y :p i n thy; f_J g u r e d,o,.,i n The 1 L
mitation
ting lines of the 1-iouse. Aust-in askodl i` thp in-en'
B the P�Yi_, J_ L_ L_
is to have a si1,.ilar architectural style. TU!.-,C!S relied tljFl4-
22
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meetia_q-- Board of Adiustment March 29, 1984
is a not- at-tractiv�e. Fe is suggesting wood siding v7ithi s11ing1ed
roof's. Tuukes i:)lans to show a lot less wall.
lja ,,agnino noted lett,-:!r_ were received froi-.i Nichael and Anne
Flynn, o-V,,ner o-:-: ltlne other conclo7.-iiniu,�L,1,s, favoring the application.
71. letter also was received from Brooke Peterson, representing
Dennis Ratner, favoring the application. T Thitallker read into
the record the letter receive from Harcia Si1erman T I i 1_1 i aiii s
addressed to the Aspen Board off: Adjust,-,ients :
"Your notice of public hearing of Case No. 8A--G has been
received. To reply, -:, s the owner and tax payer of -a 117est
Francis Street home in -v1hiCh T gre,;., up, I object very strong
to having a conk`loi-Anium built in west Aspen w1iicli was always
the preferred and c1ioicest residence area of the town. I
;T10;'7 _:I L -4 _L
that there are other old-ti-riers, and undoubted' ,y, new
,people who heartily agree vjith me. 1'eep the condominiums
and such in their own area. I have _--lad. several calls fro'..-.1
residents there, askinq if I had received notice of no. 8 -
u , and a6,,,,ionishing rile to be sure to voice ( in this case
Ito) my objections . I should ver-y uch to attend
w ri L_ I
the meeting on 11,11arch 21,'th, but as usual can ' t be there
until sumi.,.er. However, I am very grateful to you for Sending
the notice.
Aust4n said ifs . T7illiams a p pea rs L'- -M
0 iSUnderstand the intent
L
appl4ca" on. T ,at residence does Williams o4,7n? Someone
Ly
Sal L_
Is She owns lot 15 . Austin asked how many proper' owners
rived to be notified. Drueding explained. a usr vCariaince requires
a 300 -foot radius . Lavagnino said it varies according to the
' d` acent Incaris adjoinirig Lukes- said Drueding
apilication. kid
J J
determined that the application was a change in nonconforming
- -o than
use, therefore, t1ie notif-i-cat '1011 01. property owners riiore L.1
doubled. Drueding eXplained prior to the building permit, if
this application is accosted, the applicant will :lave to go
bef'ore P&Z and Council. and get an amen6fient to 11_--he condominium
plat.
Brooke Peterson, represent ative for Dennis Ratner, said Council
-, aced a. cliolice of two evils when the property wl'-�Ls -=ndoT-tiniumized.
T.lie Council could have granted subuflivision o:?eiiiption --For all
three lots . Dut all t-i,,,ree lot- lines would have to have been
adjusted. 11"I)e Council was recognizing the preservation of three
-
,
relatively un 4 r-Ue st-ructures one un ortunatoly J',,ich burne"]
-c- -o have It.he prop rty
Clo�,�;711. In t.'Ioir Of t1lin!�_Jng it was both � t e
?3)
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular beating Board of Adjustment March 29, 1984
under one ovanershin, with the three nonconforming structures,
and not increase the nonconformity of tree lots.
Lutes commented that it is important to consider that the building
fetal 1S there I706`i 7S pretty rleCilOCre. it is Small . It does
not sleet the codes in ter-°its Of thermal per-7ormance and energy
perforilance. Lavagnino sai(''. t lose can be remedied ,Jit-hout altering
anything to the existing building . All that can Jbe brougkht
up to code. Lui;es said the addition is the incentive to upgrade
the building.
Lavagnino closed the public hearing.
:Vann is glad to have tsle condominiumization clarified . SIe
did not understand at first why that happened. The use is for
employee housing. These units have a long history of providing
adequate housing for ei1ployees Of Aspen. If the Board f inCAS
in favor of one of these units , then it r1akes it less usable
to -many employees. The rent will be higher . The price will
be higher. If this applicant adds a seconC1 story may be Others
111. ad . That defeats the idea of employee housing . This
is not com :)ati1Dlc with the general plan. She does not favor
the variance.
Lavagnino asked if employee Dousing is a consideration before
Council or planning office. tustin said it is not the intent
of employee housing, the intent is to accommodate local people.
A 500 s-cauare foot 'loins° is substandard size for more 1--han one
�_�erson. It will not Ouse a family. �1i1C0 It 1S deed restricted,
as far as the si<�th month rental restriction, it will not be
used by a tourist . The unit 1S protected for employees in that
sense. Lavagnino asked if the units are deed restricted in
any other clay. Druoding Said they are six 1ilOntil deed restricted.
Lavagnino asked i� the restriction h as anyt�IinC t0 do with price
or employees . Austin said no. Lavagnino said Hann is then
conjecturing on its usage.
Mery asked why the applicant is not able to upgrade for the
benefit of local people. It is only 500 square feet. Is it
not increasing the FP.P1?
Austin said the applicant is �:laUing a more liveable space on
a year round basis. She con')areCf. this case to Pick TlCZd ' s case .
She can agree to the one -foot variance on the siCke because of
the plc: shape angle of 'Che bulidiil ', but , if ti:!(_' -oa rj Cannot
c1
RECORD OF PROCEEDING
Regular Meeting of Adjustment March 29, 1984
grant IL-h e two -[ e e t for Tread, the D)oardl, I-las to denv a variance
r_
or this I n e
, t
J_ is cas . The Board has to be consistent in granL ing or
C.envinci second story additions.
I I
Las, agnino Commented that it is curious the applicant does not
show the need to bring the second story in -four Fee-t. He just
said he wishes to follow the same configuration_Lguration of" the e-Z-1isting
.Looti-)rint. He does not argue t"hat structurally that cannot
be done. T'ven to 1-meet the setback requireMent-s, the applicant
Should have provided reasons l,,717 Ile could not meet the setback
requirements rather than an aesthetic argument of r..ipeting line.-
from an architectural viewpoint. That argument is not usable
as a Board guideline.
Whi ta 11-1 e r said the intent of the zoning code is clear. He quoted:
"it: is the intent of this article to ner-mit these nonconforiAI:ies
until they are removed, but not to encourage their survival .
_Tt is the further intent of t1lis, article that noncon-f--ormai ties
shall not be enlarged upon, r_I-panded or e:-,tendedt. " Drueding
I �_ 'I L U_' zoning is designed to allo,.,i lodges in nonconf or.-,.iing
coi-men'-et,:I tha-- T I
areas to be upgraded. Lavaignino said that their intent is e;Tactly.
.Z
that. This applicant ' s intent is entirely different . r-PI,I a t
is an intent to preserve.
Whitaker said the Board needs to consider first that the special
conditions and circumstances do not result from the action of
the applicant. Clearly this Taas built a long tii,fte ago. T.71loever
built the units createu-' the conditions. Second, the Board n e e d s
to evaluate i-c this is a, special. a.-Ind, --,ztraor(2i nary circumstance,
applicable to the subject proper only. Does the circumstance
apply similarly to the other !-_)roperties in the same vicinity
and zone? He thinks the -eve rse is true. The applicant has
conditions no one else has with three nonconforming 'houses on
once pieca, of: property. The granting of a variance is essential
to
the enjoy-ment of a substantial property right enjoyed by
other Properties in the same vicinity and zone but d.enic-,di the
subj ect proper. The granting of the variance will not adversely
affect the (.Tencral purpose or C0771pr e 7 1 1 onsive general plan -111hicil
a
,,,oes back to the intent of L el article on nonconforiAng uses.
But, iie does not -feel the applicant has presented any practical
difficulties or any hal:C.ship or proof that the :-mpi icant is
.L - - -
being denied., the reasonable use Of the -,)roT)erII-_Y.
Lavagnino noted the applicant does not even offer to come wi-IL-I'll' I'l
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeti.n Board of Adjustment March 29, 1984
to JUbl is he; rlavagninG O ei , inC.
Lin es sai(: the applicatioa I. '.or both the additional loor
area and the setback variances. It is not the intention that
the s,•_i-bac,, variance- C<z..a6 iT7 COncret _. t is net_ i%1�0 r31b1
to :�O addi tional Construction in t 7e way the Doarit is talking
about. That is :acco"TDta`ale to the a--)�)licant . in evalu stina
the design, tle visual i pa cts on the ; o lg7bor:,00c , his plan
is th e mot r- sonable zind .post aesthetic. If there is disagreer.ent
on that there is Sim-ply c? diszgreernent . In terr'Lis o-f Ed'T?at is
b?T70 icial and if there is adequate cause.. �. or the v ri Lncee ,
it is his hope that :saving a Si7ailar s'a-ped Structure 5,lit: alignad
,7alls is the best SOlUti.on. i"7ere is no ��roblem if the ` r01it
yard variance is denied. There is only one corner of the existing
building ahere the second story is being added , one -foot by
amour feet, that Creates an o.zceptionally difficult area to joo
ti e %lous '. I- t%:° Doa)rd c h o o s c s not to grant t7e -Z roi?t y,� rd
Set'oaC;; variance, the a �i .1 J cDn1. t ill live with that. It will
)G cIT?:�,al r4 not to b� granted the side yard setbac Variance
Eor ti?e eHtended livino rooIa. .7o,.1 ver, i-f t1e DOard disagrees,
there is only One portion O:` the house which can lbo c practical
C'i.ff iculty loccau se the second Story Cannot be borne on the house
• 7 ,LT 'fir wi T ) ) C "7
I lei... C=�rtain�y , t . e i tle.;ibilit Consider the ts:,0 Juri .nce
roc LIOJ4...o'J separately.
In ter Is of the employee, Housing consiaeration, t'o Ednondsons
have continuously owriecl the prop erty. It is restricted as e Iployec
housing. The rC:auest for additional -floor area i S net inconsistent
With the general em?:loy-°e housing plan. ii �. UI71t SeYVeS ti'?2
employee TIariket now , regarelie=ss, if it i s restricted or whe-ther
the _ ree rear,.. t l intains that status , the in{_.ei,t is to )
that :status rather than Si.x lodge units. This responds the
c tinge in population.
In terms o1 the a )pl ication encouraging or allowing additional
r eCuests, t Sis re uest is For a ` ery specific .^- etbi�Ci :'clr1d27C2
and additional door ar,va. "Ilh ' ot-l-l'_r Condominium (Yan-ers understand
that t171S jiVt?S� T70 OI10 el SO ti-st- Yid It to nlc rge 'vlithoui= the
T.oELrd' S specific i c rfevioi`l and approval. This is c? S- eci%7_c E)roYJS✓Li.
I'le reason L O r .:.i?c request i. s t;:s t t• E., house is a o u t)s%a n i:"i a r i.
500 r_ a c e t 1_ t It is era:Ct Cc ? ST e.
U L" -fOG� .C)L1St I iny. i �l_y unusable.
It i o li f ted utility. it is not an a ss o t to t se co nl'Runity.
The People in t17e ,rest rind are very concerned islith the pr 04
25
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of Adiustment March 29 1984
of 'their 7,)rog(--r 'Ly v.-lues . it is in the best i i i t-e_e s t o-2' t
neichborhood to uiogr,,adc, going a lbev,�onC_ "o desiity
- 1 t L LI n -
U4 remcnts o--- th_t_ Zone. Th,e annroach is reasona�Dle.
D u_L; r eq _L !, .
Obviously p r,?c t i c a I c!i f:EE i c u 1 `-_,�7 is 4 r )r e It_n t iv e. He will not
Uliat the second story, o' I-Ine house canrot
represent to the Board `L
1
.3e setbacl, four ffeelt. Si it Will result- in -a 'better ai-)�earancc-
f it i s no:.. If thp -oar�] disagrees, Iie wil"I pull those F, L )ac;
variance out an,' consider t-111 se-,oarately.
LuIfas sai (_j 4 1, ter=ms ol: com,,,.-liance with the code there is no
.1 1
alt-ernalti-,;o il-i�a_nS by t"h e applicant can get r -Cllie-f- for
P
additional
-7ithout a va Al - L_
nonconforming building . 1 ria nce no addil
construction is all olaed. p r o v om e s to t'll c o-i s t i n g s i z c
I
of the building are allowed.
Lavagnino said the ap-plicant by right is allowed to build a.
du )lez there. T'he lLmd use as it exist s has never been denied.
If: 4.-_!.,,e apy)licant chooses to worI-, :!ithin the frc)iiework of condo-i-ndiniuT,.ii-
zation, then the a,,,)T)lic-nt has to sul`�cr the cone-ecuences o%
coming to this 'roaici or Council to get a request Jr.-or its noncon-
forillng Us to u-(-iradc or do whatever. '.To aCIU:ress the additional
_17'.(-uare 2--ootago , Lavagnino se.-es no difference bet%,,,een this case
and Headlls- case. 1100 s1Uc1r^ fc�at is n.dequpto for ono porson ' s
`amilv.
use . r-71ne znpplicant wants to increase the siz2 Or: the L I
T:,T-1 -to justify tine increase in size .
hy noC have a larr!e, -fa-I.,tilv L
That arguaii-2nt. does not prevail in enlarging the size ol' the
Unit.
Lukes assumed that the Board is not concerned with thy: owners
11-.E e But the donsity, use of the site, -Ind impacts on =,,imunity
services, is the Board ' s concern. If" there wa.s a 17,1.1 dur)Ie,-,.-
on the site, it could be 33% l)-igger than what is currently there,
but ,.iore bedrooy-,iss , significantly
it could Lave signi.IL
more oo-oulation living on ti-le saj-_ie pied of property. The current
scale is very small . It is riot anywhere near what would be
_Li2gally V7_iI_-I-. a co-.Ipl-,,,incj duple-,� or single familv dwellino.
TIlat is an in-por I- - point.
Drueding cited the Bill Hartin case. He had the right to build
but the ',oar electeC]. to grant a 540 s(ua-re -��oo4 ----pan-
a du, - L_ - -
sion . Lavagnino said he was under an historical overlay .
wc�re ot-Iiur circu,,iStances surrounding ' artipls case teat
arc, beino ta.!Ien out o_7 tae realm of this Particular case. DrueCiini-
said each case is unicue but tile si-H.tilarity is there : two single
gamily s'ructur`:�- on a cluple:-. lot, thre-o- in this case. '117iie a-pplicant
j- L L
27
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment March 29. 1984
can connect- tl-ie units or crQate a clu, i e,- bul- 7ie cannot e-oan'
without :,,. i.-;_--riance.
Austin said tl,- Ed.mondsons have no control over -'-he ot,-i,,:,r two
LI
houses. mlie cannot sii-ilplv tear clo,;L.,n rid build � dupllo:l.
d 4--a
L prove
The a,,-,)plic,-).nt is trying do dcal wi-th his -.:-,ronertv an
1t. 500 _-r_,-ua._- _F-ec;t is .lily?1.
U Z Z 1 4
j'ann said the condo:,,ij n-I ui,.iiiz a Lion is �p J.ngf . A-i--ter the two
0,1 f',OeS 01-1,�% C 0
its are con,,_:Io-,A_1niu! ized n :, _)o S 4 tion
un L L_ t ID L k-1.1
o27 following the coL-Ias and tear the tree, units down 14-1(:1 build
I ' in h -s just tint there
C71 'Aupl c! Austin :maid by t-1110 code the unit
and rot. The appl icant then loses his right Lis- tI,e Dropertv.
L
L a%:,a q n i"lo sai(:, tlnio applicant 114new T11.1at he GI7 s gettling into during'
the con(IOT-,.Illllu-,..I ,-Zatioil. Lu',es said, there is nothing in the
purchase agreeTi.ient or ,--o-.-iCio.-,,iiniuLii-za.tion agreer..ient wherc
the city says the applicant will not be given any additional
construction rig L ':1
;ht-. Thie city doe-s not requir t,,at �s a condition
- 0 .1 e I
of con-!o-u-,JniUT' 4
U MJz'ation. Lava.-Inino said t1le applicant is e.xercisin�;,
that- rigil-It I)y col-'l'ing before IL--',.e Doard'. .Lt inl- er,::�stinq tha.t
II e owner s, c o n d o.-,,i i n i u TJ,i-_ e d the tl s--1 v e s into t_h e s e s m a 11. area,S r
t' e_ aroumnint `ias been baseCl on the total area o" all
ul
units, Lhe relationship be_t,.;eon -tlile applicant ' s Unit an the
o t1-ic.r two, and 'L '.-,o total Square 'footage ow 'I.-he 9 , 000 sc::uar --_-1
e 'n t . iii= e n t i r e Ji s eing 'iscussed. Austin said
e lot area L D U
that I-Ins to be -_`Ion�e in col-ic'io�.-riinlui,tizaLion.
7'7hita';_-.er said he is no-'C_ -familiar ,,iith condominiumizing a -,piece
of 1_',rope�rty lil:e 'this. TIut oaca unit hiras 3 , 000 square feet.
Of Space. Drucdina said in the conCo,-,iini-u%i-Lz.:-,.ti-on process the
g s and limited common elements arc cletermined.
,eneral cor.imon cle--ient
hi T al- is presented to P&7 and Council . They? aCCelDt the -,)Ja'
z - 11 - .4 L L
as the aoplicants ,ant it defined. T'Thitaker said if these structures
are all the setback limitations, would they not be allowed
to a certain a;..ount of floor aroa ratio . Druedin(7 said no .
M 1. 'i 1 .1-
Inere are still three single family homes on a 9 , 000 square
foot lot. There are a _number of :-Aaces in ttown which have been
Z
4
condominiur,dized liko tI, is, in the last Eev,7 years v�hich are
nil
pro _L -1 11
in( -he sai;io jN- e only recourse or h e sr- D o p 1 e i s
L
ti c T71oard.
Lcavagnino clos&! '-the public hoaring.
Jose,ol.-Iine liann TiioveL' Lhat '.As rc:cjuest for two varia.vices 'o--
de.rticd because there has be-Li no harc3s:�111'p or practical difficultv
20
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment March 29, 1984
demonstrated , because the ap-plicaion of thre worCiing of th--
4 ty
co da S 0'a-KIS t-0 :=1t t. ii s ca s e , an,,, the cor]2 de ni e-- the . -.1.
to aC.IC] to a noncon-)'--oriait-y ; seconded bV Francis ?-71-n1ta!Ser. col).
Call Vot--- rec Ue Stec iT.. 1T1, 7 T 1)
.-hi:taker, 1".Ye ; Ilerz, ay--; Austin,
nil's aye. 9,1'ie roc:uest is denied.
al: ; LavagnJ no, aye.
#84-5/LEE PARDEE, continued
Lavagnino openeC14 tk.e public ho- ar` jjg.
:�
said he has language in conjunction i A��`L - - 7raw in g
'To read the
ich will -L-,al- c t'-',e variance request- s-,,)ocif ic.
variance request in to IC-hie rc--cord :
"The residential structure, will not e-tend --_?ore tI-i, n twen t 1 7
feet fro-la the -,oreson property line which viill
building envelope five feet. The gararle ?7iil be no -more
4
than 25- feot from IC.Iie original propal-ty The garage
4 11 -L
V71 0 more than 25 -�- -Iet 1:)W '�5 feet. "
1. � j -
7h i t a I,-,c r asked if the building envelope will encroach on IC-Ine
ut-ili-LH., ease-alant-. Parde--e no. Austin questioned the wording
of " no more than 25 '[-ec`C from the -pro perty line . " SIloull(I it
not it read no less . suggested specific 'Language of
25 f 'et. Par,-lee asked if he builds "Less than 25 --Feet tie 73oarGf
T
does not care. kjavagnino said include ",Prcded, icated 7D r o art''
1 1ne" to identify the original Property line . Whitaker said
�L, I L J-. �C
e e e -a s b 11 sl'c F, t h e s i z n r(,la,t i o n t.h e.
t-7-ie 25 --`eet :)
' -,7
.4
length of the property . TT e e z1I)l a i ne d only two corners of
r -L -- L
neighbor' s building touch the new -oro-r)erty line, tne remaining
�--)uildinq id's set back . -t.h e a p 11 c a n t is receiving the sa-ale
treatillent as t'lzat -pro-p�---rti! MMI-r.
I,auf7man rea-I-Is 'Cho ,).ojusted vat riance request :
"The residential structure will not e2lrtend nore than twenty
-C
C m e — -v ;dill e t 0 n-,'� t171 e
eet fro. present propert, line Which
b u 4.-1 d i n 9 envelope -five The garage will lb` 25 feet
from the original property line being the prodeO.icat-ed
pro? arty line . A
..nd the garage will be no more than 25
t
bN7 25 feet. "
-7
4-
`7Tian P,1.,:,o in-!-o the re .ors: --i -..-)lat wit-11 t1le requ CT'
rfl.rat-7n in t.-)encll.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment March 29, 1984
Francis 77hitalker -.iomed "ial tha variance as -,,7ritt-en b- the attorne,,.7
or a i c a, t s r c ical
. e r�r..:nnted on grounds t'hat there s 'LD a t
C'i *7f - culty . Via,":`_' concli-ions are not created by tl- e a-,,:),-L)lic,,.nt .
� E I i- L11
This -;lotion grants the a-pplican_- .-irivileges arc onjov0d
by adjacent -property o:.,Tncrs on either si Io. S,e c o n di e d bW
Z.,.nnc
1.1u.stin. Ley'agnino • s]-,ecl li77'iat- is the original variancc rccTuested.
Aujt.in said a zero lot linc . TTIlitaker rot-ed the Boar6L is modi-le:7ying
j 4 1.- Li_I I, S�7.j i 4 t
I -� 'i rig1it to Clo .
the variance ch it _h is LI e _L
7
not so different, taere is no oroblen -with the notice. IT,!Iital.er
said it is less t1nan what was ass e CA for.
A roll call vote is requested: flann, a-,Ie; -,7 1,,i ta!,,e T r, aye; erz ,
I ,jo d i 4 r n
ayle; Lavagnil-,o, aye. VazriZlrice wit_ , Jcation is c,
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
- or
ohn I'`r-_ i,.i o v e d t o e 1 eL c t e- 4 4 -, -
�jo T a v a 9 n n o ac cla a m ca n one
LJ- _L
Wear; secoincled by Josephine "cann. All in favor; motion ca r r i
Josep hi "ann oveG to elect F'rancis Whital:er as vice-c lair man
or one year ; econ-clod t17 Anne Lus`Cin. iIll in -favor ; :notion
c(r r i
17114
JtaI-er moved to adjourn the 1_.1,2eting ; seconded by jose-ohino
o,
a n n n -f-,71 v o- ; -,i o t i -a c a.r r i e 0
_Iarb,ar,.� TTorris, Deput-, City Cler!
D,_
30