Loading...
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