HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19840614 C I T Y OF A S P E N
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
June 14 , 1984
City Council Chambers
4 : 00 p.m.
AGENDA
I . Case #84-13 , Grosse
II . Case #84-14, Saunders
III . Adjournment
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment June 14, 1984
Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4 : 02
p.m. with members Charlie Paterson, Josephine Mann , Francis
Whitaker, John Herz, Rick Head, and Anne Austin present.
CASE #84-13 . GROSSE
Lavagnino reads the variance requested :
"Property is located in the R-6 zoning category. Side
yard setback is five feet. Applicant appears to be requesting
a one foot , nine inch ( 1 ' -9" ) variance to encroach into
the east side yard setback. "
Warren Palmer , architect representing the owner , presents a
photograph and the affidavit on posting the public notice .
He requests the Board look at the survey, the third sheet in
the Board's packet. The survey indicates the existing structure
on the lot . The request is at the north side of the house,
the applicant is proposing to build a 440 square foot bedroom-
bath addition . The intent is to align the addition with the
existing easterly line of the Victorian house to maintain the
the proportion of the Victorian.
On the lot there is a 6 ' -8" secondary front yard setback and
a five foot side vard setback. There is 18 feet of buildable
area inside the setback lines. The owner would like to build
in the single proportion consistent with the original Victorian
rather than going into a second story format. In 1981 , a two-
story 900 square foot addition was proposed for the house with
a reduction in the secondary front yard and side yard setback.
The owner at that time was granted the reduction in the secondary
front yard and the side yard setback. Today' s request is consi-
derably less. The construction would be 600 of the allowable
FAR. The other requirements would be met on the accessory building
setbacks, front yard setback, and secondary front setback.
Palmer clarified that the owner did not build a second story
although he did receive permission in 1981for a reduction on
the secondary front yard setback of three to six inches. The
addition did align with the existing Victorian. The owner then
was Bruce and Carol Jodar. The current owner is Ed Grosse.
Head asked what the distance is between the garage and the new
proposed addition. Palmer replied ten feet which is the required
accessory building setback separation. Head asked if the house
is historically designated. Palmer answered no.
Bann said for the Board to grant a variance the Board needs
to establish a hardship or practical difficulty which does not
allow the applicant to meet the code requirements . She asked
Palmer to address this issue.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment June 14, 1984
Palmer said the practical difficulty is the setback which was
established for a thirty foot wide lot. In order to maintain
the Victorian structure, which was allowed to fill the whole
lot and which is desirable, the applicant requests less than
a two foot variance in order to align with the existing structure
and be consistent with the original structure . That is the
hardship. The goal is to aesthetically maintain the consistency
of the original Victorian structure while working with a setback
which was applied after the Victorian was built.
Lavagnino asked about the fence. Bill Drueding, building depar-
tment, admitted it was a building department error. The building
department should not have permitted the building of the fence.
The fence will come down; the fence is on city property.
Whitaker asked what is the allowable buildable area on this
lot. Drueding replied 2, 400 square feet. Palmer said the allowed
buildable area is 2 ,400 square feet but the proposed buildable
area will be 1 ,479 square feet which is 620 of the allowed FAR
on the site.
Austin asked about the vacant lot next door. Who does it belong
to? Palmer explained there is a thirty foot property on the
east which has just been fenced in. That house is at its maximum
FAR. There is an empty thirty foot lot between the two lots.
Whitaker asked if the two lots are owned by the same person.
Palmer said yes. fie said that owner reported to him the house
was at its maximum FAR. The open area fenced in is on a thirty
foot lot. The addition which is 1 ' -9" closer to the property
line does not impact the adjacent property because of the vacant
lot between the proposed addition and the neighbor' s structure.
Lavagnino argued ordinarily this would be fine, but the garage
encroaches on city property and the existing one story building
is into both side yard setbacks on the streets. The argument
of the straight alignment on the east side is contradicted by
the irregular new entry way or porch on the west side. That
irregularity is more consistent with Victorian architecture.
Palmer responded that the additions of the east profile of the
house have been consistently aligned with the structure. He
agrees with the jogging of the bay and the steps on the west
side is consistent. The intent is to design consistent with
the west profile and tie that design into the east profile which
is a straight line.
Lavagnino reiterated the existing garage is outside of the lot
lines. Palmer agreed the garage encroaches on the alley. Lavagnino
noted again the encroachment on both side yard setbacks . He
turned around the argument for a hardship: the lot is on a 3 ,000
square feet lot; the applicant is not meeting code requirements
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment June 14, 1984
of a 5 ,000 square foot lot in the area ; even though the lot
is a nonconforming lot-of-record and the applicant is allowed
to build on the lot the amount of setbacks required are still
consistent with the amount of land the applicant has. The applicant
should not be given a bonus because the applicant has a smaller
lot.
Whitaker commented on the dormer and bay windows on the west
elevation. The existing dormer indicates there is occupied
space. Palmer explained the intent is a cathedral ceiling,
the bay window would be carried up into the dormer to the cathedral
ceiling.
Whitaker commented on the possibility of a duplex. The entries
could accommodate a duplex. There could be a completely separate
room with a bedroom and bath, although there is not an additional
kitchen. Drueding explained a duplex is defined with either
a kitchen and/or bath. A bath includes a toilet, shower, bath,
etc. A duplex is one or more rooms designed for the use indepen-
dently of the family members or guests with a kitchen and/or
bath. A kitchen is not needed to define a bandit unit.
Palmer responded that the intent is not to have a duplex. The
owner wants to enter from the existing garage to the house ;
the existing entry comes through the kitchen. The applicant
wants a mud room through the laundry room. Originally, the
applicant wanted the entry to occur through the existing kitchen
where the entry is now, but the setbacks do not permit this.
Whitaker suggested move the east wall to the west 1 ' -9" so there
would be no reason for a variance. The argument of lining up
one wall certainly does not hold true because the west wall
is not lined up. Paterson said the applicant would still have
to have a variance because the lot is nonconforming. Drueding
corrected him, the lot is a nonconforming lot-of-record and
therefore would not need a variance.
Herz asked if the hardship and practical difficulty is the straight
line. Palmer said yes. Herz asked if the Board does not grant
the variance could the architect redesign the plan. The request
is minimal. Palmer replied because the envelope that is determined
by the front yard setback and the garage accessory building
separation is tight , and because of what his client wants to
do, if two feet is lost from the east line the proportionality
of the building would be lost. He would then recommend a two-
story profile in order to gain the square footage . The owner
feels the aesthetics of the one-story proportion is more consistent
with the existing house . The owner wants to retain a smaller
profile on the house. The request is for an incremental amount
to do the addition in a one-story configuration rather than
a two-story. He wants the ability to build within the one-story
profile and to align with the existing structure , that is the
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment June 14, 1984
hardship.
Palmer presents sketches of the original two-story proposal
to show the Board how the two-story profile effects the aesthetics
of the house. Lavagnino interrupted that the Board cannot use
aesthetics as a criteria for granting or denying a variance.
The applicant can do anything by right as long as he meets code. -
When the applicant infringes on the code, then he needs a variance.
Unless a definite hardship or practical difficulty is demonstrated,
then the Board is adverse to granting the variance on grounds
of aesthetics or convenience.
Palmer commented on the term "practical difficulty. " The term
has to lend itself to the fact that there is an existing structure
upon which a setback overlay was put . This overlay effects
building something consistent with the original structure .
Lavagnino argued that is an aesthetic argument. There has been
no discussion of possible structural difficulties which might
affect the integrity of the building and which the Board can
consider. Aesthetics, the lining up of the east side, is not a
consideration for the Board. Also the applicant is enjoying
a property right above and beyond anyone else who has a thirty
foot lot because of the infringement on the rear and both side
yard setbacks by the existing structure. He asks the applicant
stay consistently within the setbacks. It is difficult for the
Board to extend a nonconforming use especially when the applicant
is enjoying it already on all sides of the property except on
the front yard.
Drueding asked if the applicant is adding an additional bedroom.
Palmer replied (presented the existing floor plan) that the
existing south facing bedroom has a makeshift closet. The closet
is a piece of panelling with a curtain. Palmer demonstrated
what the client wants done : one bedroom will be maintained
as a study, and a bedroom suite with a bath will be added.
Drueding said- an additional bedroom would require additional
parking space , there is no room on the lot for this. Palmer
replied the bedrooms are switched to maintain the ratio.
Lavagnino closes the public portion of the hearing.
Whitaker echoed Lavagnino ' s words. He feels to get three bedrooms
on a thirty foot lot is stretching it. The house is in violation
of setback requirements on two sides. The garage is not only
in violation of setback regulations but it also encroaches on
the alley and city property. He is reluctant to extend that.
Paterson would like to see the other bedroom changed to a study.
Unfortunately, he cannot find a real hardship or practical diffi-
culty. He would not vote in favor of the variance.
Head shares Paterson' s thoughts. This addition could be accomplished
A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular fleeting Board of Adjustment June 14, 1984
with the l ' -9" setback , he .could not be adverse to seeing a
second story if that is what is necessary. He would not favor
the variance.
Mann supports the previous comments by the members.
Herz said there is too much in violation already to ask for
a variance.
Austin said the applicant has not shown a hardship. There is
no legal objection to the plan.
Lavagnino commented that nothing was expressed by the applicant
that there is a need for the interior room or for reorganization.
The reason Dresented was to align with the exterior of the
building. There is nothing to justify granting a variance.
Lavagnino opened the public hearing.
Lavagnino entertains a motion. John Herz moved to deny the
variance because the practical difficulty was not shown; seconded
by Francis Whitaker . Lavagnino requested a roll call vote :
Herz, aye; Whitaker, aye; Lavagnino, aye; tlann, aye; and Paterson,
aye. All in favor ; motion carried.
CASE X84-14, SAUNDERS
Lavagnino begins. The owner is Donald Saunders and the property
is located at 215 West Bleeker . The variance requested is:
"Five foot setback for side yard in R-6 zone. Proposed
plans will encroach . 01 inch into side yard setback. Applicant
appears to be requesting a . 01 inch side yard setback
variance. "
Note the original variance is corrected to read .01 foot not
.01 inch. Lavagnino reads the revised variance requested:
"Variance requested is 1/ 8th of an inch , . 01 of a foot
in a five foot side yard setback , that is required , to
line up a new west wall with the existing wall . The existing
wall is 4 feet and 7/vths inches or . 99 feet from the
west property (as per survey) . The applicant believes
jogging the new stud wall inside is an unnecessary hardship
considering the small minimal amount of the request. "
Paul Rasmussen is the general contractor for Mrs. Saunders who
is the owner . Rasmussen is replacing Welton Anderson, the
architect, who could not be here.
Rasmussen presents the affidavit and photograph of the posting
of the public notice.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting Board of Adiustment June 14, 1984
Rasmussen states as per the survey specs the present structure
sits 4 . 99 feet from the property line . He takes the survey
to be correct and the survey instruments to be correct. The
intent of the architect is to line up the addition on the west
side exactly with the existing structure.
Lavagnino noted the member ' s do not have a copy of the survey;
apparently the survey was never submitted. Rasmussen does not
have one either, he has never seen the survey. Drueding noted
there is one in the building department with the plans.
Lavagnino commented on the foundation. Is there a separate
permit for the foundation? Drueding explained the building
department checks plans , as in this case Drueding red lined
the survey which said 4. 99 feet and checked that the extension
be five feet. He assumed the applicant would meet the requirement.
That is the normal procedure. The architect opted to come before
the Board for the small variance after Drueding red lined the
4.99 foot figure. That is why the foundation needed a full
permit . If the Board denies the variance the applicant will
jog the structure by that minimal amount.
Head asked if the applicant can build on the foundation. Palmer
said the foundation is below grade, that is why the foundation
was built without a variance.
West Kettlekamp introduced himself. He is married to the record
title holder of the west property, Grettle Kettlekamp who is
present . The Kettlekamps are opposed to the whole addition by
reason that the extension will cut out their morning sunlight.
They used the same architect as Mrs. Saunders when they remodelled
their place a few years ago. There are windows along the rear
of their home for the purpose of enjoying the morning sun .
There is a deck located at the back also. The Kettlekamps have
not had the opportunity to peruse the plans because they did
not receive the public notice until a few days ago. It is the
Kettlekamp ' s understanding that the proposed second floor will
block the Kettlekamps morning sun. The Kettlekamps are so upset
they came today to file an injunctive proceeding . If there
had been a district judge on the bench today he would have received
the temporary restraining order . The opposition is not to the
mere 1/8th of an inch but to the entire addition. For the sake
of consistency , they came in to oppose even the request for
the 1/8th of an inch.
When the Saunder ' s house was remodelled in 1977 he recalled
the extension on the house and to which the applicant is going
to tie into was new construction then. He believes the area
that the addition is being tied into was not properly varianced
either. The applicant is asking for variance upon a variance.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment June 14. 1984
rirs. Saunders, applicant, responded when she made the addition
she did not request a variance. Rather than request a variance
she planned to have the addition -five feet from the property
line . On the east, the structure is ten feet from the property
line. She thought it was better to be as accurate as possible.
Because of her concern for accuracy she is taking the Board' s
time and asking for a variance on 1/8th of an inch. She wants
to make sure everything is being done the right way. She does
not know why she had two bedrooms with no closet space. The
present addition is a closet which is not that big of a construc-
tion.
Lavagnino explained the applicant does not have to ask for a
variance if the applicant meets side yard setbacks. T%Then the
applicant is in violation, then the building department will
not allow the applicant to build unless there is a variance.
Lavagnino asked if there was a certified survey in 1977 . Drueding
explained there is a recent survey. There are very few records
on file from 1977 . Lavagnino reasoned if the applicant is lining
up with the wall that exists now the applicant was probably
in violation in 1977 . Drueding noted the building department
Would have a required a five foot setback then. The applicant
tried to meet the setback, the . 01 figure is close. The surveyor
opted to put the figure 4.99 feet.
Saunders said she has a survey from 1976 in her records at home.
Herz asked if the house in question is the house Bill Mencimer
remodelled. Saunders replied yes. Herz asked if the 1976 survey
shows 4 .99 feet? Saunders explained there was no question then.
Drueding explained that survey would have shown the existing
house. The present discussion is about the addition.
Head asked what is the existing FAR. Palmer reported, based
on a discussion between Anderson and the building department,
the applicant is 100 square feet under. Lavagnino argued the
question is not germaine , the applicant is not asking for a
variance for the FAR. Drueding, however , noted the applicant
is within the FAR.
Herz asked how much is 1/8th of an inch. Palmer answered a
coat of paint.
Lavagnino reminded Kettlekamp that even if the applicant comes
in for the 1/8th of an inch, the applicant is still allowed
to build the second new addition by right. The Board cannot
arbitrate zoning codes . Kettlekamp understood that . But he
wanted the Board to know the reason he was here was not to haggle
over an 1/8th of an inch, but because they oppose the the entire
addition . The only hardship he can determine is financial for
the applicant.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment June 14, 1984
Whitaker requested a copy of the 1976-77 survey. Very often
surveyor ' s do not agree on the measurements, an 1/8th of inch
may be a survevor ' s error. Palmer interjected that the structure
was within the five foot setback seven years ago. The sun and
weathering has affected the siding. The foundation is buried.
He does not know where the surveyor set up his transit and to
what point on the structure the surveyor shot . The existing
siding of 1977 is cupped and bowed, that may be the 1/8th of
an inch in question, not the fact that the structure was built
an 1/8th of an inch over the setback.
Grettle Kettlekamp, owner of the west property, asked about
the discrepancy between 4 . 99 feet and 4 ' -11-7/8" . Lavagnino
clarified this, the figures are the same measurement. Palmer
corrected that there is . 08 of an inch difference between the
two figures, 1/8 inch and .01 feet. Metric and inches do not
convert easily. Whitaker argued an 1/ 8 inch is as close as
one can get to .01 feet.
Lavagnino closed the public hearing.
Diann expressed no problems to agreeing to this miniscule variance.
This is not a practical difficulty, except the swelling of the
paint may be considered a practical difficulty. Whatever happened,
the request is so slight she favors granting the variance.
Whitaker supported Mann' s comments. The discrepancy could have
been a surveyor ' s error .
Head supported Diann and Whitaker. He sympathized with the neighbor ' s
problems. He would favor the variance.
Paterson did not see any practical difficulty or hardship.
He would not favor granting the variance.
Austin concurred with Head.
Herz agreed with Paterson. The Board does not grant variances
based on bigness or smallness. The surveyor put down 4.99 feet.
The Board should uphold what the Board is sworn to do. Fie feels
for the neighbors to the west but the Board does not have the
jurisdiction over those problems . But he would vote for the
variance out of fairness.
Lavagnino would not grant the variance. The reason is precisely
because it is so miniscule. There is no hardship. If the request
is that small , he would rather side on not granting the variance
because the applicant has not demonstrated any practical difficul-
ties . He does not want to set any precedent in granting the
variance. Because the dimension will not make a difference ,
he would not grant a variance.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment June 14, 1984
Lavagnino opens the public hearing.
Austin and Head do not vote.
Josephine Hann moved that the Board grant the miniscule variance
(to the Saunders, case #84-14) because it is so small and because
the practical difficulty is that this tiny bit of space could
have come about through weathering of the building or a slight
surveying error . The motion is seconded by John Herz .
Lavagnino requested a roll call vote : Herz, aye ; Whitaker ,
nay ; Lavagnino , nav; Mann, aye; Paterson, nay. Motion is not
carried. Motion is denied.
Francis Whitaker moved to adjourn: the meeting at 4 : 55 p.m. ;
seconded by Charlie Paterson_. All in favor; motion carried.
%4�/O'V-w
Barbara Norris, Deputy City Clerk