Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19840719 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTIIET•Imi July 19, 1984 City Council Chambers 4:00 p.m. AGENDA 0 LI RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment July 19, 1984 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4 : 03 p. m. with members Charlie Paterson , Josephine Mann , Francis • hitaker, John Herz, Rick Head, and Anne Austin present. CASE 484-11 , MILL STREET PLAZA Tony Mazza, applicant, reported he was appointed to a committee to draft new language which addresses problems of the sign code. The sign code does not address commercial space at the basement level or at second story levels on buildings in malls. He has spoken to Gaard Moses, the chairman of the committee , who said the committee will get together. Mazza does not know what has happened. Bill Drueding, building department and the representative from the city on the committee, reported nothing has happened. Even if the committee does get together there is some lag time before the revised code becomes law, a minimum of a couple of months. Lavagnino asked if the case should be tabled again. The case came before the Board because of a violation in the signage at the Mill Street Plaza. Should the Board dismiss the violation until the new sign ordinance is resolved? Drueding replied there is a point of reasonableness, a few more months may not be acceptable. Lavagnino asked if the application should be withdrawn rather than tabled until the new sign ordinance is established. Barry Edwards , city attorney, asked Drueding if he wanted to withdraw the application. Edwards recommended tabling indefi- nitely. Lavagnino argued that the application needs to be tabled to a date certain. 11azza wants to comply with the ordinance. Piazza will take down the sign Drueding cited. The code may change and he may be allowed to put the signs up. But he does want to go back and forth. He will do whatever is considered reasonable. Edwards remarked that Drueding can always recite Mazza. (Paterson arrives in the chambers . ) Edwards suggested that Mazza agree that the building department be authorized to withdraw the complaint without prejudice to the building department ' s right to refile at any time in the future. If the city does not get a new sign ordinance then the building department has the right to refile for the violations. Mann commented that if the code changes drag on too long , she wants the Board to hear the case. T,-Ihitaker said the applicant has had a reasonable length of time. The signs were out up without a building permit . The Board should take the proper action to require Piazza to take the signs RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment July 19, 1984 down. If and when a new sign ordinance is adopted to cover these violations then let everyone be directed by the new ordinance how to sign a building. However , the Board should not allow a sign in violation of the present code to stay up for three or six months. Lavagnino replied then the Board will probably receive many variance requests . Mann and Whitaker responded that is all right. Whitaker preferred to see the signs in violation of the code and signs which were not allowed by a building permit come down. Lavagnino said if Drueding wants to withdraw the complaint, then the Board does not have to hear the case. Drueding disagreed. The Board still has to hear the case because Mazza needs a building permit. Lavagnino argued if Drueding withdraws the complaint then the Board does not know if there is a complaint by the city. Edwards asked Drueding if he wants to prosecute the Mazza case. Drueding replied yes, Mazza should take the signs down. Lavagnino said then it is up to Board to determine whether to hear the case on information that is supplied to it today or table the case until the sign committee presents new ordinances. Mann would be willing to table the case to a date certain, perhaps table for sip: weeks with the idea the Board would hear the case at that time regardless of how :such progress the sign committee has made. 'lazza agreed . He asked the Board if it is within its power to force the committee to make a recommendation so the Board and Piazza would know in six week how much he is or is not in compliance with the new code . Paul Taddune, city attorney, advised Mazza to presume that Piazza is in violation of the code. Mazza knMls he is in violation of the present code. The problem is the committee has not presented any suggestions. Therefore, no one }mows what direction the committee is taking. Lavagnino said it would be to P`iazza ' s advantage for Piazza to push the committee. Whitaker noted that amending an ordinance might take six months; Council might accept the committee ' s recommendation, it might not . Since the sign is in violation and since the sign was put up without a building permit , the Board should deny the variance now. When the new sign code is enacted the owner can re-sign the building. This action by the Board might provide incentive to get the amendment worked out. If the committee drags along, Mazza benefits from an illegal sign. Mazza acknowledged he is in violation of the present code. He did not sign the building volitionally. He did not know he was in violation of the sign code at the time he posted the signs on the building. The signs are expensive. Granted the amendment process for the sign code will take time . But if the case is tabled to a definite date six weeks from now, and RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment July 19. 1984 if there is some framework of what the committee is going to suggest , then lie could proceed for a variance or remove the signs which are not in compliance with the recommendation rather than taking everything down now. Some of the signs cannot be cut. IIe is not trying to reap any benefits from an illegal sign. IIe volunteered to be on the committee . He approached Gaard Moses four times, and Mazza still does not know what is happening. 1-lazza is - not - the chairperson of the committee and- therefore- cannot get anything done. Austin asked if Mazza is in violation because of the courtyard spaces or is he oversigned. Drueding explained the building is oversigned and the signs are too large . Also , some of the commercial spaces do not have lot line frontage. Austin suggested the Board be more lenient with courtyards since there is no :provision in the code. Drueding repeated the signs are too big. Lavagnino argued the total square footage of the building needs to be determined. Drueding said no sign is allowed to be bigger than ten square feet, there are signs on the building larger than ten square feet. One square foot of sign is allowed for three lineal feet of lot frontage . Lavagnino said then the Board can determine the maximum signage. Is the issue linear feet and establishments or linear feet without establishments? 14hy cannot the maximum established amount of square footage of signage, which is determined by the linear feet of lot frontage, be divided among all the establishments? This would be the standard for I-sazza to determine how much signage each establishment should receive. Mazza said he has sip: lots. There is discussion on how much lineal feet there is at 11ill Street Plaza, 200 lineal feet. Drueding explained the person who is paying premium rent for frontage space wants the signage. That person comes into the building department with 30 feet of frontage. Drueding gives that person the allowed ten square feet of sign. The person_ who pays for the courtyard space comes in and asks for the same thing. This is the problem and Mazza should dividethe signage out. Mann said the Board cannot get itself involved in this amount, the Board is still in the process of deciding whether it is going to hear the case or not today. Whital ti.f notes-. permit was rejected was I parch 3 , four months ago. The Board needs to take some action. Lavagnino said the Burke sign is :Mill up. Drueding has been trying to call Burke; even though there has been no answer those- signs will come down. RECORD OF PROCEEDING Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment July 19, 1984 The Board agrees to hear case 't84-11 , Mill Street Plaza. ITazza requested 'his case be tabled for six w e ek s. Perhaps in that time period there will be a recommendation from the sign committee . At that time , Mazza will return and tend to the variance on the signs that he presently has and come into compliance with the recommendation by the committee. Lavagnino said -a case for tabling is that the applicant is not prepared today. Ile would table the case to some other day so that the applicant can prepare his case. 11hitaker asked why table the case . Lavagnino replied the applicant thought his case was going to be tabled today possibly is not prepared to submit information. Lavagnino would consider tabling the case on this basis. He would not table the case on Mazzala request. Hazza said a week ' s delay is fine. Ile will get together with Drueding and figure out what signage is allowed on the building and what is not. The code needs to be reviewed. Whitaker asked the applicant what sign footage is up now. Mazza and Drueding did not know. Mazza said he had five signs on the building at the time Drueding cited him : one sign hanging on the railing in the plaza which was removed at the first tabling; two signs which delineate the shops at the entrance of the plaza; one opposite the Wheeler ; and one other . Drueding estimated there was 30 square feet of signage. Mazza argued if he is allowed 90 square feet of signage, then how is he in violation. The other signs Mazza did not put Up. Drueding said it is Vlazza ' s responsibility to measure all the signs without permits. Piazza acknowledged the building is his. Lavagnino asked if Hazza received permits. Drueding answered no, the signs are too big. A sign cannot be greater than ten square feet. Hazza argued he has thirty shops, and therefore, cannot have a directory. Lavagnino suggested two signs. Drueding explained a directory only applies to one square foot of registry identifying an office. The code only allows one square foot for a directory of registry, that is the only directory of registry in the code . Otherwise , the directory is a sign. There is no provision for a directory in malls . A directory is only for an office building. Mlazza argued he cannot get thirty names on the required sign size. Lavagnino remarked that may be the argument for favoring his case. Josephine Hann moved to table case # 84-11 to Thursday, July 25 , 1,084, at 4: 00 P.m. ; seconded by Charlie Paterson. Discussion. 11hitaker requested an addition to the motion : "that the information on which the Board might hear the case be prepared and brought to the Board. " Josephine Mann amended her motion as suggested by Whitaker; seconded by Charlie Paterson. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment July 19, 1984 All in favor ; motion carried. CASE #84-12, WEINER AND WEDUM Lavagnino reads the variance requested : "The property is located in the R-30 zoning category. Setbacks are front twenty-five feet , side ten feet , rear fifteen feet. Applicant appears to be requesting a twenty-- two foot front yard variance, a five foot side yard variance, and five foot rear yard variance. Applicant- also appears to be requesting a clarification as to previous approval relating to the location of the building envelope. " Lavagnino reads into the record the description of the proposed exception showing justification given by the applicant: "bTe are seeking clarification of the building envelope although approved by the Board of Adjustment when they approved a variance for building in a floodplain. The building envelope was used as an example of where a house should be placed. The circle ' s location was suggested by the engineering department and they agreed it was not intended to be an exclusive area for construction. The approval of the building envelope required a setback reduction. And the building department feels that a clarification is necessary to confirm your approval of a setback reduction of the building envelope. Our proposed footprint places the building as far from the river as possible while removing only two trees from the wooded site. The building will be thirty feet plus from Spring Street , and an hundred feet plus from the nearest house. " Gideon Kaufman , representative for the applicant, presents an affidavit on posting the public notice. He also presents two photos. Lavagnino asked if the city has been notified of the public hearing; the city was not listed on the adjacent property owner list . The property is located in the middle of the river , therefore , the city is an adjacent property owner . Kaufman understood all adjacent property owners were listed, including the city. Stan Furr, builder for the owner, said he did not list the city on the adjacent property owner list. Paul Taddune, city attorney, asked Jay Hammond, engineering department, if Hammond had a chance to study this application. Hammond responded that he had. Taddune said if the city engineer is aware of the application, it a,,�)pears then city is aware of the case. Taddune feels comfortable on behalf of the city to waive the notice. Lavagnino said the information on the site plan presented in the packet and the variance requested do not :Hatch. He cannot RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment July 19, 1984 find the twenty-two foot variance. Kaufman presented the history of the case. He -presents a map of the property prior to the lot slit and the new building envelope. He points out the original building block (this will be referred to throughout these minutes as lot a) . His client then had the ability to build on lot 1. At the time the applicant discovered there was some real visual vulnerability associated with lot a the applicant tabled with city engineering and the planning office about this issue. It was decided that it would be more desirable from the visual aspect of the neighborhood to relocate the building envelope of lot a to another area among some trees (this is the present building site and will be referred to throughout these minutes as lot *0) . Lot b is not as visually vulnerable from the river as the lot a site . At that time, the applicant went to the planning office with a proposal , The met with the engineering department, and went before the city planning and zoning commission and the City Council. His client received permission to switch the two particular pieces of pro- perty. The building envelope was moved from lot a to lot b . The two lots are virtually identical in size: lot b is 7 ,449 square feet, lot a is 7 ,332 square feet. It was then incumbent u-oon his client to come before the 131oard. Lot a was not in the floodplain , lot b was . His client came before the Board and -asked for a variance to be able to build in the floodplain. A site inspection was made at that time. The lot was staked. Everyone agreed lot b was a more desirable location to build because of its minimal visual impact. The engineering department drew a building envelope on lot b with the intent to try to show what the bulk of the building should be as far away from the river as possible. That was the approval his client received at that time. It was his understanding that his client would be able to do the same thing on lot b as on lot a. The configuration of lot b was created to minimize the visual vulnerability. The lot is in the r-30 zoning which contemplates much larger size lots. Lot b is a nonconforming lot , it is 23 , 000 square feet less than an allowed lot in the R-30 zone. On lot a his client had a building envelope of 2 ,625 square feet which met the setbacks of the R-30 zone. On lot b, if the integrity of the setbacks of the R-30 is maintained, the building envelope allowed is 400 square feet. That square footage makes it impossible to build a house on the lot. The proposal is that his client be allowed a building envelope of 1 , 820 square feet for lot b. This footage is 800 square feet less than the allowed building envelope on lot a . This footage allows something to be built on lot b . The location complies with the intent of the building department. The proposed building envelope is reduced from what was allowed on lot a. The RECORD OF PROCEEDING Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment July 19. 1984 proposed envelope is also in keeping with what the client thought he would be able to build. The building envelope on lot b does not meet any of the R-30 requirements. He wrongfully assumed that the Board understood that the building envelope did not meet the R-30 requirements when they granted the variance . He assumed his client would have comparable development rights in the new site as on the old site. His client tod,,-,v is not even asking for something comparable, the request is 800 square feet less than the original envelope. But, the proposal offers his client the ability to develop something reasonable on lot b and the proposal complies with the concerns of the engineering department. Lavagnino asked what is being used as frontage on lot a. Kaufman demonstrates on the map the location of the front , rear and side yard. (The front yard is facing Spring Street. ) He shows what his client had the right to do on lot a. On lot b the actual allowed buildable footprint is 420 square feet with the setbacks of the lot. Lavagnino commented that is not accurate. Lavagnino clarifies that the setback on lot b is 25 feet not 30 feet. That adds another 135 square feet to the envelope. Drueding e,,plained the setback requirements on lot b are 15 feet for the rear, 25 feet for the front, and 10 feet for the side. There is discussion on the actual size of lot. There is also discussion and clarification of the streets adjacent to the properties. Head noted if the client is compliance with the 25 foot setback from the street in the front yard , then the client would be in compliance with the setbacks . Lavagnino clarified the 415 feet is measured from the lot line, not the street. Head said if the setback line is moved 5 feet closer to the street, the line would be moved 5 feet away from the river , which would comply with the rear vard setback of 10 feet. Drueding corrected the rear setback is 15 feet, not 10 feet (the map which shows a 10 foot rear setback is incorrect) . Kaufman noted the building envelope is actually 30 feet from the road, but the measurement is taken from the property line not the street. Lavagnino applicant suggested the building department allow the L T to choose his -frontage. He suggested another point to measure 30 feet from. This point is the closest to the road , it is near the road curve. Drueding argued the client is taking access at another location. Kaufman said front yards are measured from the access since access determines front yards. Lavagnino argued for the new location with a setback of 25 feet. The result would be for the applicant additional space in front to access. Kaufman argued the intent of the engineering department is to pull the building envelope as far away from the river as possible. Lavagnino said i--i*' the applicant uses the front yard setback RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment July 19, 1984 that Lavagnino proposes, then the client gains more square footage and would not come but 5 feet within the rear setback. With this proposal the applicant receives the maximum square footage allowed for the lot. How the applicant uses the square footage is the basis Lavagnino would consider granting a variance . Lavagnino is willing to modify the variance to give the applicant the maximum square footage. Kaufman said his understanding was when the lot a was traded for lot b , that his client should have the same development capability for lot b as on lot a. This was in the city' s best interest and the client had the right to built, on lot a. What his client is willing to do is to build by less than 800 square feet on lot b, 1, 800 versus 2 ,600 square feet. This is a voluntary reduction from what his client had the right to build on lot 1. Lavagnino said the client could have designed the lot any way he wanted. Also the client has an additional 135 square feet of building envelope. dead said the applicant agreed to keep the FAR the same for both lots. The applicant could build two stories. Furr argued a two story configuration would not look good from across the river . The intent is for the trees to hide the two floors. Lavagnino asked what trees are being saved. The applicant is asking for more than what the lot configuration allows for a building envelope, that is why Lavagnino is making his proposal. His proposal gives the applicant the maximum square footage for a lot in this configuration while staying within the setbacks . I:aufman argued the client voluntarily took a lot with a better configuration. His client should not be penalized for selecting for the community benefit a more aesthetically pleasing site. Lavagnino argued lot a was not all that desirable: it is next to a another neighbor, the exposure of the lot makes it undesirable to site a home there , lot b provides more privacy, lot b is a better site for the applicant . Kaufman disagreed. There is a certain value to a certain size of a house. The present proposal is not a large house, 2 ,300 square feet of house with no garage. The present proposal is a 50° reduction in the FAR from what could have been built on lot a. The other option is for the client to return to lot a which is not in anyone ' s best interest. The client assumed when the Board granted the variance he would not have to meet the stringent setbacks imposed on lot b. Lavagnino said there was nothing in the minutes which mentioned that. Brueding asked how many bedrooms would be built. One paved parking space is required per bedroom if there is not a garage. Furr indicates on tzhe map where the parking will be located. Furr understood that paring can be stacked in residential . Lavagnino said the zoning is R-30 . The 2,625 square -feet is RECORD OF PROCEEDING Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment July 19. 1984 only commensurate with the amount of lot the client has. The lot is not in compliance With the P-30 which would allow the .1 1 applicant to build more. Kaufman asked shat is the FAR for the lot . Furr answered the FAR allows 3 ,�5 0 s,- ua-re feet feet plus an T additional GOO square feet for a garage . Kaufman reiterated the proposal is 2 ,300 square feet versus the allowed 4,000 square feet. (for feet. -i lot ;-, , 3 ,200 square feet plus 600 square feet the garage) is allowed, totalling 3 ,300 square feet. Furr corrected the figures, lot a is allowed 3 ,650 square -feet plus 600 square feet , totalling 4 , 250 square feet . Kau-.'L-',,-,ian argued again the current proposal is 50% of what could have been built on lot a. 11"Ihitaker missed the meeting when the original variance was granted. But, the variance was subject to six conditions. Based on What has been presented today the client has not fulfilled the six conditions. No detailed grading plan has been presented. 17,aufman argued those conditions do not have to be met until his client ai)Plies for a building permit. His client cannot build until tY"-e present variance is granted . His client will comply with all those conditions at the time he applies for a building permit . Whitaker is interested in the building pylons which should be indicated as well as tile minimu-IM elevations of the superstructure . Generally when the Boaci:L` grants a, variance there is some floor plan of the building, some elevations , and some indications of the height. -11aufman argued those details were not required at that particular time. The reason was that the engineering and the building department could have some control. ..ie var-. . _ .,L.i t e d based on the fact that all conditions would be met. When it comes time for tile building L -h each condition and provide permit his client will comply with engineering background to satisfy both the engineering and building department on the pylons being used. The design will meet the engineering and building department ' s requirements. All will be done to insure a safe structure. s,T Jhitaker said invariably when a setback variance comes in the Board has some sort of floor plan and elevation of the building. Kaufman argued the previous variance was approved without that information but with the provisos. Whitaker said the request today is for setback variances . Setback variances were not granted in the original variance. Kaufman said he t1hought there Tdas an understanding that the variance for setback's was part of the original variance. The building envelope clearly varies: the required setbacks of the 1'.),-30 zone. Some kind of variance was granted because the approved building envelope did not =feet any of the requirements. Lavagnino said there were no specifics involved in the location of the building envelope which is repre- sented by the circle. Kaufman argued there is no part of the R-30 zone that that circle is in compliance with . Lavagnino said the DoarC�. at 'Chat time was not even considering that aspect. The discussion was a lot trade and f-floodplain , not houses and RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment July 19, 1984 structures. 17hitaker understood 'based on the minutes that the applicant was granted a variance to build a structure in the floodT--,lain. 'Now the applicant is before the Doard for a setback variance . lie does not have enough information for considering L 11 variance on se -bacl:s. He does not know valat the height of the building is , what the floor plan is, or where the garage is. Kaufman presents 'Floor plans , elevations, and a site plan to the Board. Lavagnino noted the motion for the variance in addition to the sit: conditions as listed in the memo from the Aspen planning and zoning commission dated January 18, 1983 , said: "and subject to the building codes city and township of Aspen. " Although specifics were not approved as part of the envelope , the Board did imply and allude to that the applicant meet all the requirements of the city ordinances . D,aufman remarked the motion alludes to approving that particular lot that showed a building envelope that did not meet the requirements. Lavagnino argued the intent of the circle was only to indicate that the city wants the envelope away from the river . Kaufman understood from the building department that the house had to be built within that building envelope. Drueding replied he never said that. Drueding understood the circle was an indication of where the applicant was going to a-;:)proxLmately build. It did not mean vary the setbacks . T-1hitaker asked how the height of the building is determined. Furr said the average grade level is used. The average grade level is five feet below the street. The bottom of the structure will be a foot above the hundred year flood. The pylon will be four feet. Hammond concurred. The nylons will be from existing grade to the base of the structure . The hundred year flood is less than three feet. Furr said the height of the building will be 125 feet not 30 feet; this is one of the six conditions. T Lavagnino asked Hammond if he has seen the drawings . Hammond replied yes. Hammond has been on the site a number of times with Furr . It is important to note that certain aspects of the conditions of the prior approval for the property trade were to indicate that the bulk of the structure be located in that portion of the lot furthest from the river . There was not an atterli,,Dt to define specifically what the envelope would be or what setback changes might occur . if the bulk, of the structure was to be Placed in that area -then some variance in the setbacks would be necessary. But the specifics were not nailed down at that time. The other concern was that the design avoid the existing trees on the site to as great an extent as possible . Furr ' s design responds to that very well . The net result is the loss of two trees. The house will surround a grove of substantial cottonwoods 9 A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment July 19, 1984 that exist nou. 'No other areas .,7111 be disturbed. It is important to stress the rationale for the tradeoff* from the perspective of the floodplain. One condition of approval was that the lot would be regraded to a configuration somewhat more comoarable to the natural slopes in that area. That existing lot and existing building envelope are on fill that replaced the floodplain. It was his feeling that the net result was better by placing this structure on pylons, which amounts to a flood L ' proof structure in the floodplain, versus building on artif icial fill in the floodplain. The net impact is reduced with removal of the fill . The applicant is clear in his understanding of what that entails. Hammond has discussed with Furr the visible amount of fill on the existing bank and what fill needs to be removed. It appears the applicant will undertake this. Certainly, this is a touchy issue in that neighborhood given the recent concern with flooding. Hammond continues to maintain that he is happy with the result of this tradeoff. Lavagnino asked if there is access to the old lot to remove the excess fill. Hammond responded yes, the fill runs from Spring Street across to where it intrudes into the floodplain. Lavagnino noted there is a tennis court being built which might obstruct the access . Hammond asked if the tennis court is being built now. Pardee responded he has not started building the tennis court. Hammond said if Pardee moves ahead for a building permit and the removal of the -fill is undertaken in conjunction he would say the access still exists. Lee Pardee represents three of the four adjacent property owners , the fourth being the city. Pardee caused part of the problem. Wedum approached Pardee to entertain a lot split which Pardee concurred with . Lot a is on the river and is in everybody' s view. Pardee drew plans that tucked the building away, located the building away from the river , and located the building Llding to diminish the removal of trees. But , Pardee overlooked the setbacks . He intended to restrict Wedum as much as possible to the proposed area. 11 ae could as easily have drawn a square house within the constraints of the setbacks, and therefore, not violate the setbacks. negligent. Pardee presents --'--or the record letters from the adjacent neighbors: Lee T JJ Pardee and Peter .11. Roberts . All request that the 75oard grant the variance . otherwise, the applicant will request- to build on the original lot, lot a, and that is not desirable. , 11- applicant could have built, t<s r'au-c-,-,,ian said, a 1000- larger. The applicant is requesting to build 50% less. Pardee did not know lie would be restricting Wedum as much as he did to 600 square feet. Pardee requested the Board grant the variance. Kaufman said the design is very sensitive to the trees, the neighborhood, and to the river ' s location. 9111he design is minimal, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment July 19, 1984 it does not ask for a maxi-mum FAR or maximum setbacks , it is an aesthetically pleasing reasonably sized house for that particular site and location, and it meets the requirements for a variance under the code . Grant the variance in light of the history, in light of what could have been built and in light o-f the neighbor ' s feelings. Lavagnino asked if the design presented is the design the applicant would adhere to. Kaufman answered yes. Whitaker discussed Section 24-2.6, land under water. Part of this lot is Linder water. -Furr said yes. 1,7hitaker reads "the proposal for development of land partially under water 4 any tii,,ie during the year shall be excluded from the calculation in determining allowable density or required open space. . . those areas of the development tract under water and up to the mean water line . . . " Does this eliminate some of the FAR? Drueding explained a condition of the lot split Was that the FAR not be more than 7 , 970 square feet. Drueding subtracted the land under water from the FAR. Kaufman emphasized even with this amount of land not taken into the FAR calculation his client has a reduced the FAR by 50% . .Z Hann listed the applicant ' s hardships : transferring of the lots, saving the trees, and negligent drawing of the lot lines by Pardee . She listed the practical difficulties : shape of the lot, and the recommendation of the engineering department regarding the flood-plain. Kaufman expanded on the hardships : removing the visual vulnerability in the location of the lot and complying with the engineering request of putting the building as far away from the river as possible. Lavagnino said the 22 foot front yard variance is erroneous and therefore the request is for less than 22 feet , it is for 17 feet. He does not understand why the rear yard setback request is 5 feet. The applicant appears to have 20 41--feet from the rear yard setback. What is the rear Wire.? Is the, rear yard setback is not in the middle of the river? Drueding calculated., the rear yarc,' setback based on what is drawn. The applicant was not clear as to what he wanted. Drueding shows what he is using as the rear setback , 15 feet is required. The applicant has only delineated 10 feet, therefore he needs a 5 foot variance for the rear . He has indicated a five foot side yard, therefore, he needs a 5 foot variance and he has indicated a 8_1 foot front yarC. setback , therefore , needs a 17 foot variance. The front yard setback should be 25 feet. Drueding shows what is the front yar:! which is determined by the parking and the access. Lavagnino closes the public hearing. 11ann noted the request is not small . She asked Lavagnino, a resident of the area, what he feels about the density. Lavagnino RECORD OF PROCEEDING Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment July 19, 1984 responded. The street is a dead end, it is geographically enclosed by a high bluff, and it is the only entrance into Oklahoma Flats. The property is on Spring Street. The area was originally zoned R-6 and duple:3es were allowed on each 6 ,000 square foot lot. 11"N-Ile residents requested downzoning -from R-6 . The residents had to iDrovide the city sufficient reason for downzoning at a time the city was downzoning the town. Sandy - Stuller , city attorney at the time, came do%yn to observe the area and concluded here was sufficient cause to do�,7nzone. She considered the geology of the -place, the one narrow access , and the allowed density which was horrendous from a health standpoint. it was discovered R-15 was still not sufficient to protect the property down there. the area downzoned to The residents petitioned again to have R-30 , losing property values in the process . The neighbors are very concerned about the density in Oklahoma Flats . It is a place which looks great from the city owned land across the river frOT2 the Rio Grande property. Drueding noted the new plot plan shows a 5 foot instead of 8 foot setback. Lavagnino said the applicant will have to co.,11ply with whatever envelope the Board determines. However , the Board is approving the variance on the basis of this plan. Somehow the variance will have to be modified to take that into consider- ation. The variance will have to be modified to take into lerat consi- A --ion the 17 -;:eet on the one side. T Head appreciate(a the fact tha t V,7hitaker asked for the plans . The plans provide a better idea of what is being proposed. He supports 11ann' s comments on practical difficulties and hardships, especially the points on saving the trees and that the setbacks were not considered in the design. The configuration of the property is difficult and the reduction in the FAR is good. There is a strong case for granting the variance. Whitaker said a very bad precedent was set when the building was allowed in the floodplain. This opens the door to similair construction in many other floodplain areas. Lavagnino reminded the Board that the original lot was not in the floodplain and it was at the recommendation of the city engineering department to relocate to lot b. Whitaker said if the Board approves the variance, then the variance should be approved under a definite plan, and not Linder a blanket ten foot setback from the river side . He favors approval of what is shown on the site plan that has been orovided. The approval should not be a ten -foot setback, along the entire length of the property line . Jogs in the building envelope footprint are more t1ian ten feet . The approved setbacks would be as shown on the site plan drawing. The other justification -for t'he approval is the o-,,)(z,.n space on the west com-oensates for the setback variance. "larin supports U7111itaker ' s co meat of not using a blaniket ten feet. I'Thitaker clarified that his comment ai)olies to the setbacks RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment July 19. 1984 on the three sides, the building jogs on all sides and he Would not grant a blanket setback on any side. (Rick Head leaves the chai-abers. ) Herz supports Nann and solicited Lavagnino ' s coents. He solicit E n-il Lavagnino said the applicant ' s right to build on the lot cannot be denied. The case against allowing the variance is that this lot is a specific configuration and the applicant should be ,allowed to build whatever he can build according to setback requirements . It is unfair that the chosen access determines the frontage and: therefore determines the front yard setback . Lavagnino Preferred the setback to the east as the front yard setback . That would nave applicant ave Z-111O the ap I more square footage for the building envelope but less than what the applicant is asking for and which would have been sufficient for this particular lot . The applicant should have no more than what anyone else has who has a lot of this size and this configuration. The Board, did not select this configuration the applicant did. The burden was on the applicant to do whatever he wanted to. The applicant did not have to request the lot split. He does not agree with the argument that the applicant is accommodating the city and the neighbors. The current proposal from Lavagnino ' s vantage point impacts more than the original design. The original site was situated among a group of houses that already had two dupleE:es on it. The new building would have been grouped with the existing structures in a clustering affect. Now the design is separated from the cluster. But , these arguments do not warrant not granting the variance. The footprint of the actual structure proposed is less than the envelope that was indicated . If there had been a larger structure resulting froi-,i variance request to variance request he would not have approved the variance. He is more amenable to looking at this because the design is sensitive to the vegeta- tion. He Would condition the approval witI., that no expansion beyond the provided footprint be allowed in the future. lie foresees additions , for example , the :-Iecljk might be covered . He would -favor the variance with some restrictions. Herz ask.ed I'low can the restrictions be attache:: to the approval. Taddune said the Board can put constraints on the applicant not to go beyond the envelope which the applicant suggested as an inducement to grant the variance if t_11-ze applicant agrees to abide by those conditions. Tle feels that the applicant would agree to that condition as an inducement to the Board to grant ,the variance. Kaufman responder: that his client would be willing to have these plans as drawn approved to tak­a -care of 17 hitaker ' s concerns. Ile would agree to the setbacks as shown on the site plan , to the footprint as � ndicated on the site plan, and to his is client coming back be-fore the "oard prior to anti additional RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment July 19, 1984 building . Ille does not .,,ant to -preclu.,fe future building ; for e .ample , L L� a s-.,-,Llall roof D.- tn,.,.1 no one %A,,ould find o J f-e I a s i ve an f.. that is couln-ted in tie FAY-Z. It ,'would be uy) to the BoarC to approve or disapprove additional building , but lie does not agree to a blanket aporoval to his client not being able build in the future. In the future the building department may make other interpretations. T avagnino asked if the Board can deprive an applicant the right for relief in the -future through a motion the 13,oard ma?,::es now. if the "oars -mandates this footprint as final , does this deny the applicant the right to cone before the Board in the future. 71addune replied that would be the subject of a separate variance. Kaufman is G,7illing to say his client has no right to build anymore FAY" but 'Co say the client does have the ability to come before the Board and ask for additional building. Taddune advised t-lle Board against precluding anyone from coning before the Board. Austin asked if these Plans have been approved by the building department . Is the Board Just approving the footprint? She does not .a ant to approve the foot print and, for example , give the applicant the right to build t�,7o fireplaces. 111.aufman said his client is only being granted from the Froard the variance for setback's . Paterson said there is sufficient hardship and practical difficult'k,7 v7ith the lot t1h a t he woulC:i favor granting the variance. C would like to stay ,pith the footprint presented. Lavagnino openeC the public hearing. Josephine 1,11ann moved to grant a variance which allows the footprint- of this structure to be built with the plans submitted. The reasons for granting the variance are because of the hardships and practical difficulties which include : the discussion the Boars] had about the transference of lots ; the discussion of saving the trees; the discussion over the statement by 11r. Pardee of his negligence about how the lot lines were drawn; the discussion of the shape of the lot which r.-Lakes the lot difficult; and the recommendation of the engineering depardepartment regar regarding the 'Llood- pl ai n. Seconded by Charlie Paterson. D-Lscussion . ',Ihitaker asked if the motion clearly indicates that the setbacks confor.,Ii to the footprint as shown on the ,--)lot plan and are not a blanket approval as drawn on the plot Man. Mann intended the motion read that the setbacl:s Conform to the {Mans shown on the plot plan which includes the deck. Llavagnino asked if the notion is required to state that any addition to this -Footprint require a, variance . Paterson argued that the building is nonconforTing, if the a-.­r�licant -.,-Lakes any changes he has to come before the boarc.. -anyway. Lavagnino was addressing the confines of the deck area. That portion of the building is not nonconforin-ing and the applicant- normally would be allowed RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment July 19, 1984 by right to do anything he wanted. Lavagnino wants to mat:e sure the ao-Dlicant cannot do that. The approval is contingent upon the footprint presented. If the applicant wants to make changes, the applicant Inas to come before the Board. Uhitaker suggested the language "the enclosed roof area. " P,auf-man said any changes in increasing the FAR would be a reason to come before the Board, he does not want his client to come back if he changes the interior spaces . Lavagnino is not concerned about interior spaces , he is concerned about changes to the outside of the footprint. He is concerned about the applicant doing that which he is allowed by right to do to the outside structure. Lavagnino recommended language that the applicant be reqruired to ask for a variance on any additions to the foot pr- int . The applicant does not have the right to add. V7hitaker agreed he does not want to see the deck covered. Uhitaker suggested language "no more enclosed area be permitted than what is shown on this plan. " Taddune suggested the language : "the variance is limited expressly to the footprint in the plat submitted in connection with the al Cpl ication and that anv deviations from, that footprint should L be the subject of a new application for a variance so that the elect, portion should remain uncovered. " Lavagnino argued there are other portions to the west of the house that should be limited also . Kaufman suggested language : "that the applicant cannot enclose anv area other than that shown on the plans. " Jk osephine Mann amended her motion to read: ". . . to 10 grant a variance which allows the footprint of this structure to be built with the plans submitted. But the aL?I�licant cannot enclose any area other than that shown on the plot plan submitted with the aDplication. The reasons for or - granting the variance are because of the hardsli-lips and practical difficulties wilich include: the discussion the Board had about the transference of lots; the discussion of saving the trees ; the discussion over the statement by ."r. Pardee of his negligence about how the lot lines were drawn; the discussion of the shape of the lot which makes the lot difficult ; and the recommendation of the engineering department regarding the floodplain. " Seconded by Charlie Paterson. All in -favor ; motion carried. Charlie Paterson moved to adjourn the meeting at 5 : 45 p.m. ; seconded by Francis Whitaker. All in favor ; motion carried. - "M 4iln*j v Darbara ::orris, T)Ieputy City Clerk