Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19840823 C I T Y OF A S P E N BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Thursday, August 23, 1984 City Council Chambers 4:00 p.m. AGENDA I. Minutes June 7 , 1984 June 14 , 1984 Julv 19, 1934 II . Case #84-18 , L. Irvin Barnhart III. Adjournment RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment August 23. 1984 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4 : 00 p.m. with members Charlie Paterson , Josephine Mann , Francis t-O taker, John Herz, Rick Head, and Anne Austin present. MINUTES June 7 . 1984 : Josephine Mann moved to approve the minutes of June 7 , 1984, as amended in the meeting; seconded by Rick Head. All in favor ; motion carried. June 14, 1984: Francis Whitaker moved to approve the minutes of June 14 , 1954 , as amended in the meeting; seconded by Charlie Paterson. All in favor; motion carried. July 19, 1984: Rick Head moved to approve the minutes of July 19, 1984, as amended in the meeting; seconded by Francis Whitaker . All in favor ; motion carried. (Charlie Paterson leaves the chambers. ) CASE 184-18, L. IRVIN BARNHART Lavagnino read the requested variance for case #k84-13: "The property is located in the R-6 zoning category. Front yard setback is ten feet, rear yard principal building is fifteen feet . Section 24-3 . 4 : area and bulk. Applicant appears to be asking for a rear yard setback variance of 7- 1/4 feet causing the rear yard setback to be 7-3/4 feet. The applicant also appears to be requesting a six inch front yard setback variance for the foyer. " Bob Hughes, representative for the applicant Carmen and Irvin Barnhart, introduced Carmen Barnhart and Don Kopf. Hughes presented the affidavit on posting the public notice with a photograph. Hughes also introduced into the record a letter from Jay Hammond, city engineer, endorsing the application. Hughes clarified the variance. The intent is to vary seven feet, nine inches on the rear yard setback. The resulting setback if the variance is granted would be seven and a quarter feet rather than the fifteen required. There is a need to vary seven feet, nine inches W -9") . The Barnharts recently purchased the house. They just moved from Houston. They have two small children. The principal motive in building a garage is not only to install off street parking facilities but to provide Mrs. Barnhart a safe place of exit and entry to the house . Mr . Barnhart is away frequently on business trips. Security is the main reason. This proposal will improve the current situation. At the present time there is a very large imposing fence along the property line . That fence is a facade for the structure. T_f the variance RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment August 23, 1984 is granted the fence will come down. The garage will be recessed from that fence. The current situation will be opened up. The proposal will enhance that which currently exists . There have been no objections from the neighbors to the proposal . Iie reported that Sally Glenn, neighbor across tide street , has indicated to Mrs. Barnhart that she would do anything to encourage off strec=t parking. Hughes suggested the reason the neighbors have not objected to the proposal is that is going to physically improve the current situations. Focus on the fact that there is an alley currently there. The bottom line reasons for rear yard setbacks are aesthetics and fire safety . When there is an alley the reasons for the rear yard setbacks disappear because the alley provides a twenty foot buffer . The purposes for rear yard setbacks do not become important with an alley. There are several buildings out on the alley. Most people are building virtually to the property line or just inside the property line . Most of those buildings are characterized as accessory buildings and do not have to be setback as far the principal building. His client is faced with a principal building because of the present physical logistics. This garage will be attached to the main house . By definition the garage will become a principal building and subject to the fifteen foot setback. The homes near the Barnhart ' s residence are pretty massive. Iiany are two stories with large footprints. The second home east of the Barnhart ' s is only ten feet back from the rear yard property line. There is a two car garage there. All of the properties on that side of the alley have two car garages. There may have been a mistake with the house that is only ten feet from the rear yard property line. Hughes presented a book with photographs of the neighborhood. Head observed that house was setback less than fifteen feet. Hugiles reiterated his client should be able to take advantage of the alley. The alley serves the purposes of the zoning code for rear yard setbacks. One cannot create too much congestion because there is a twenty foot buffer. Flames do not leap twenty feet. The alley preserves the objective of a fire buffer . Lavagnino asked why there is a setback of fifteen feet. Hughes responded it is reasonable to apply rear yard setbacks in situations where properties share a common boundary line. Lavagnino again queried why the rear yard setbacks are greater than the front or side yard setbacks. I.opf replied because of the utility easements. The utility easements are needed so that the utility companies or the city can come in and work on utilities without the homeowners' permission. Whitaker eyplained in the old townsite the utility easements are in the alleys. Out in Snowbunny there are no alleys and the easements are along the side lot line. Hughes commented that many lots have dedicated easements around the entire perimeter ; some of the easements arc used and some are RECORD OF PROCEEDING Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment August 23. 1984 not. The rear yard, setbacks are intended to meet the situation where there is not that built-in buffer . Austin noticed that the Barnharts do not own all the property on the side to the street, the city owns the property. Hughes reported that he checked with Patsy Newbury. Newbury recalled that years ago the front yard setbacks were fifteen feet. That explains why the present house is built back fifteen and one half feet from the current property line. 11-ost people build right to the setback. - This - may - have created the current dilemma. If the building had been built within the current setbacks the variance for the rear yard may not have been re- quested. ilann asked if the rear fence is situated along the lot line . Hughes responded yes. Mann asked if the fence comes down and the garage is built as the plans indicate will there be an extra seven and some inches of yard that is now not visible. Hughes said that is correct. Hughes said the choice for the location of the garage is probably the most logical site. The choice is the least obtrusive . It least impacts the neighborhood concerns. The choice responds favorably to his client ' s responsibility to seek the minimum variance and the board' s responsibility to grant minimum variances. Physically the garage cannot be moved any closer to the existing house. That would eliminate light and ventilation to the kitchen and master bedroom. The design includes a five foot seven inch catwalk, to allow the penetration of light. Wood might be stored there. At the present there is a spa which will be removed. There is also a redwood decking that will be removed. Mrs. Barnhart wants to trade those for the secure, safe entrance to her home and for a safe place to secure her cars. There is no other place on the property to locate the garage. The other homes in the vicinity have two car garages. One existing garage may intrude on the rear yard setback. The proposal is an improvement over the- current - physica situation. There will be a natural recess. Hammond has favored the proposal because it makes the city' s functions easier. Obviously, off street parking is encouraged. The proposal responds to that . In the final analysis, given the alley, the reasons and needs for rear yard setbacks disappear. When the reasons disappear so should the rule . That is the kind of equity the Board can adjust. When there is no harm there should not be a foul. Lavagnino said the "no harm" argument is not a valid argument for granting a variance. He reasoned everyone could come in and argue that there plan is not going to harm anybody. Aesthetic reasons cannot be considered by the Board either. Lavagnino asked why the city engineer �',ras brought into this RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment August 23. 1984 case. Opinions usually come from the planning office. In all the years he has sat on the Board, rarely has a letter been received from city engineering. Hughes replied that Hammond is interested in traffic control . Given the attempt to reduce street parking, Hughes brought Hammond to the property for advice to better the proposal . This proposal is also conducive for locating trash facilities off site and to the back. Kopf explainer: the trash containers would be sited in the open area; currently the containers are located outside of the fence on city property. Lavagnino asked what is the allowed FAR. Bill Drueding, building department, said there is an allowed 3 , 240 square feet for a G,000 square foot lot with the exemption of a 600 square foot garage and 50% above grade decks. Lavagnino asked what is the existing FAR. Kopf answered 3 , 060 square feet . Lavagnino noted the existing garage is 596 square feet. Lavagnino is concerned that the garage not be converted to a residential use in the future. Austin indicated where there was an existing garage before it was converted into residential space on this property. Hughes suggested a condition of the approval that the garage stay a garage. Lavagnino noted there is an enforcement problem. Lavagnino noted that the applicant has a right to the rear property line. The building already ' infringes on side yard setbacks. The applicant is enjoying a property right that others who are in the confines of FAR and setbacks are allowed by right. Hughes said the proposal is not incompatible in terms of mass with what is going on around the area. It is important to keep the same flavor of the neighborhood. Lavagnino said Hugh' s inferred that neighbors were doing something more than the applicant' s low key project. Hughes said he did not mean to imply that. Head said presently there is parking at the rear of the existing house , off Fourth Street . Would the applicant be prepared to vacate that parking area if a variance was granted? Lavagnino asked why should the applicant vacate that space. Head wants to encourage parking in the garage and discourage parking in that space . If cars park in that area it is not alleviating the parking problem. Hughes argued that space is off street parking technically. That space would probably not be used very much. There may be an occasion when the garage could not accommodate all visiting cars and that space could accommodate the overflow. Perhaps the space could be relandscaped or relawned, but for what end. Lavagnino reasoned it would be desirable for guests to park the cars off the street. [°?hitaker commented that the two curb cuts and the paving there are not in compliance with the curb cut ordinance. A driveway has to lead off the sidewalk area onto the street from the private property. Those curb cuts indicated to Whitaker that there was a garage there at one time. He remembered when the street e;as paved that curb cuts were only put in at entrances to garages or to parking spaces off the street and sidewalk. The parked cars currently arc blocking the sidewalk. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment August 23, 1984 Both of those curb cuts are illegal or nonconforming . If the structure is changed then the curb cuts should be required to be closed. Hughes said that area could be vacated. Lavagnino asked how will two cars get into the proposed garage . opf proceeded to explain the design. Lavagnino said the design was conducive to other activities and not for parking cars. He preferred to see a sixteen foot stall. He does not want any obstruc- tions to parking in the garage . Hughes said two doors can be designed. His client is sincere in parking two cars in the space. Austin asked when the original garage was converted was it done legally. Drueding did not know anything about this case. Austin said the conversion was done two or three years ago. Kopf said the existing garage was converted already when Kopf remodeled the house . Kopf said he enclosed the carport . The carport was changed however before he did anything with the property. A door had been nailed off . One area was already converted into a storage and living area. There was already a bathroom. Fie indicated what he added on three years ago to accommodate the redwood decking and the spa. 1^1hitaker asked how did Kopf get a building permit . Kopf commented that he never touched the existing walls. Austin said Kopf removed the garage doors and redid the space into living quarters . She did not know how that action was allowed. Drueding explained an existing garage can be converted. A use can be changed. The conversion is allowed as long as off street parking is not eliminated. Lavagnino suggested that a condition controlling the use in perpetuity be added to the motion. ?rs . Barnhart commented that she was not aware of the garage conversion at the time she bought the house. Convenience is not that important of an issue. She is there alone with her children and she wants the garage for security purposes. She wants to be able to enter her home directly rather than parking on the street. She also does not want to contend with the snow. She wants to redo the side of the house under discussion. That side of the house looks terrible. She would like to relandscax)e the asphalted area next summer. Nann asked how far does the house come back . Kopf indicated where the house is on the plans. The fence is right up to the house. La- vagnino said it is difficult to determine where the fence ends and the structure begins. Lavagnino noted the fence is illegal. Hughes submitted photographs to the records . Hughes suggested condition the plans that there are two doors to the garage to vouchsafe that the garage will be used only for a garage. lie would also be willing to agree to eliminate the curb cuts and in due cours=e landscape the area and to provide the off street garbage storage .facilities that Han:pond has opted for. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment August 23. 1984 t°:hitaker mentioned there are certain guidelines which are spelled out in the state law that the Hoard follows. The two important guidelines are practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships. The applicant has not demonstrated either. He views a place that has so many nonconformities and an unsavory history (a converteu garage , no provided off street parking, and a 280 square foot encroachment on the rear yard setback) with some doubt. Hughes responded to unnecessary hardships. It is Patsy Newbury' s recollection that front yard setback was fifteen feet before the current ten foot front yard setback. Had the building been built with the current front yard setbacks, the building would have been moved forward, and his client would not have needed as much of the Board's discretion now as then. That is a practical difficulty his client should not be held to account. Whitaker reasoned that the house is existing. If the setback was changed after the house was built that makes the house nonconforming. Lavagnino said the applicant is already enjoying a variance by having a building in the setback. Whitaker cited that the entire northwest corner encroaches, 280 square feet is a substantial amount of encroachment on the rear yard setback. Hughes said what is there is there. He argued again the proposal will improve the current situation. He does not know what was done, when it was done, and under what provisions it was done. There is simply no other place to put off street parking given the current regulations. That is the present hardship. Off street parking is important. Hughes cannot do anything about that which has already been done. Whitaker said the Board does have to consider that in the past there was a covered off street place to park that is no longer there. The applicant is the victim of what someone else slid. lie suggested tearing the fence down and parking in the area without a garage . Many people do not have covered garages. The car would then be off the street. Hughes said that suggestion does not address the security issue. He argued that there are a number of covered two car garages in the neighborhood. There is a situation dlWn the alley where someone located a garage only ten feet from the rear yard property line. Whitaker agreed a covered garage is desirable. Barnhart assumed when she bought the house that she would be able to put in a garage and another bedroom above that so that they could have a view of both mountains. She discovered through the builder she could not add the bedroom because she would exceed the FAR. FTead said that all could be accomplished if the original garage is reconverted to a garage and the bedroom is built elsewhere. Barnhart asked if there is someway a potential home buyer can be :Wade aware of the problems with a piece of property. Hughes said the buyer was totally unaware of the checkered history of the property. His client however bought thinking RECORD OF PROCEEDING Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment August 23, 1984 T everything was fine. However , his client has come up with a pretty cogent and pretty favorable plan. Because of the alley, the plan does not warrant the strict application of the rear yard setbacks . The checkered history of the house is haunting his client. That is an inequity that the Board can adjust. 1,71hitaker expressed his sympathy with Barnhart ' s problem. But one of the charms of Aspen is the fact that there are gardens, open space, and yards. If the applicant gets the variance there will be no yard. Barnhart disagreed, she would have more yard that the city can enjoy. Whitaker said there would be no privacy at all. One of the responsibilities of the zoning ordinance is to insure adequate air , light, and space . The plan makes the residence less desirable. He also cannot ignore all the things that have occurred there. The fact is what is there should not have been there. Hughes asked the Board not to pass up an opportunity to improve the current situation because of the checkered history. There is no yard there now which someone can enjoy. The plan also benefits the city. The present owner was not part that history, the owner is trying to remedy that which currently exists. Lavagnino commented that in the past the Board has always granted minimum variances to get the job done. He asked why is the open space corridor needed, why not push the garage up to the main house and minimize the impact. Kopf argued against that plan. He explained what is currently existing. Light and ventilation to the kitchen and bedroom would be eliminated. Drueding noted that Lavagnino' s proposal would eliminate a required egress for the bedroom. The Board discussed alternate solutions. Austin has lived in Aspen for sixteen years and lived in the West end. She has been a single parent for eight of those years. She does not have a garage nor off street parking. She parks on her lawn in the winter . The safety argument is not a legitimate hardship. Hughes said Barnhart has just moved from a big city and safety is a personal concern to her. Austin responded then she and her neighbor would like to have a garage. There are many of us who are in the same situation as Barnhart. There is not the space to put in a garage. if the variance is granted many people will come forward to the Board requesting a variance for a garage for the very same reasons. Kopf designed the garage based on a cost factor. If the Board prefers to see a sixteen foot garage door or two eight foot doors that can be designed. Lavagnino asked what happened to the other ten feet. J-7hat is the standard width for a two car garage? Kopf answered 24 feet. fie designed the garage to be 26 feet to adhere to the 'Live foot setback on the side. Hughes also noted there are currently laundry facilities -which are inadequately ventilated and lighted. The new design caccomirto dates the relocation of those -facilities. Kopf was told by Drueding that he could put laundry facilities in the garage as long as facilities were not RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment August 23. 1984 walled in. Lav-agnino said the space should be used primarily for 4 a garage not a utility room. I Head asked the applicant if she could live without a kitchen tchen window. Barnhart answered that she did not know. She leas never lived without one. Head said if the garage could be brought back- to the house and the eastern windows be readjusted then the variance would be reduced. Hughes asked what is the purpose of that. If the alley addresses the reasons for a rear yard setback, then why push the garage to the house. The current safety escape patterns would be affected. He does not want to see light and ventilation lost for the preservation of a sanctified rear yard setback that is not needed. Kopf said the break between the house and the proposed garage is eight feet. Whitaker asked how the side yard setback is determined on a corner lot . Drueding said the side yard setback is two-thirds of the front yard setback. There was a five minute break. There is continued discussion of alternate solutions to the Barnhart problem: flushing the garage with the house and eliminating the eight foot separation; building a second story over this garage configuration; eliminating windows; reconverting the old garage back to a garage, picking up that floor area ratio and adding a second story, while maintaining a yard in the back at a cost less than building a new garage and adding a second story; etc. Lavagnino closed the public hearing. Bann ann said despite the 280 square foot encroachment on the rear yard setback there are hardships and practical difficulties . She overlooked the history of the property and proceeded to outline the hardships and difficulties : 1 . The neighbors have two car garages. That fact coupled with the interest of the city, specifically articulated by the engineering department, to eliminate on street parking is a reason for the variance. 2. There was a representation made that there was no other place to locate the garage. There has been discussion that indicates there are other places to locate the garage. Therefore, that is not a practical difficulty. 3 . This proposal allows space for a covered storage area for trash containers. That is a plus. 4. This proposal allows more space for tie maneuverability of snowplows during t'-,-Ie winter. I 5 . '71'ie Foam cannot consider the personal issue of security. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment August 23, 1984, 5 . She favors eliminating the back fence. Tile alley does not look good with the fences. 1.111itaker remarked he cannot overlook the property' s past, the large 280 square foot encroachment on the back, the violation of the side yard setbacks , and the converted garage which does not meet the requirement of a corner lot (61 -8" not 51 ) . As represen- tatives of the city of Aspen the Board cannot overlook the banditry. The two curb cuts are a problem. No off street parking was provided when Kopf remodelled the building. He is not sure what ordinance was in effect at the time of remodelling. 14hitaker suggested an alternative which would not require a variance and would get two cars off the street. He does not find any real practical difficulty. There is a desire for certain things, but the applicant is not being deprived the reasonable use of the property if the Board denies the variance. The applicant already has the large encroachment in the rear which is usable as part of the house . There are other solutions . lie is very concerned about a place that has so many problems and violations and nonconformities. He is reluctant to extend that. Mead concurred with TIhitaker . There are other alternatives which would achieve the intended goals. He would deny the variance. Herz reminded the Board that the engineering department is encouraging off street parking facilities. If the variance is denied where will the cars park . Lavagnino answered either on the street or in the reconverted old garage. Herz is torn. He would like to see people get a garage. In the winter Hallam becomes one lane with cars on either side. Lavagnino reasoned a previous owner did not find parking a problem because they enclosed the old garage. Herz evaluates each case as its comes before the Board, the applicant now does not have a garage. He would like to see the applicant get a garage . How it can be done he does not know how. If there are other alternatives then the Board has to uphold the zoning laws. Austin supported Whitaker ' s comments. The comment about trash containers is not valid . Trash containers could be located inside the fence with a gate. In the interest of the city for off street parking the entire west end should be addressed. She would like a garage but she would be over her setbacks even though she has the space. Her neighbor tried to get a variance for a garage. The applicant ' s situation is not unique. The granting of a variance sets a precedent. T,-Thitaker addressed the trash containers. He has a fence at the end of his driveway. There are two small doors with a platform inside the fence. Ile puts all his trash in the garbage containers without the containers being visible to the public. TJhen the garbage man COTaes he opens the two doors and takes the trash cans out and puts the cans back in. Lavagnino asked if it is a violation to keep the trash cont�-:Aners in the alley which is public property. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment August 23, 1984 Lavagnino lister: the benefits to the city for tie variance : 1 . Two car off street parking. 2 . Closing off the curb cut . 3 . The eight foot fence comes down. 4. The trash containers would be located on the applicant ' s property. The one argument that negates those desirable traits is that the alternative solutions are not exhausted. The old garage could be re-reconverted to a garage. The applicant is not being denied a two car garage. The Board has not usurped any of the applicant' s property rights. Although he likes the outcome of granting the variance he is inclined toward considering the existing abuses of the property and he is not inclined to expand those abuses. From the applicant' s point of view the practical aspects of doing the proposed design is more logical than reconverting. From the city' s standpoint there could be more creative efforts to stay within the setback requirements. He would not favor granting the variance. Lavagnino opened the public meeting. Hughes said it is distressing for the people who bought the property with what they thought was a valid recreational use to receive a denial for another objective, off street parking and security from a covered garage. Mrs. Barnhart is the unwitting victim of someone' s previous action. That is unfortunate . The current situation might persist, and everyone might lose. I,opf noted he remodelled the recreational room three years ago, but someone left the garage door on the outside when the recrea- tional room was originally built. A fireplace and a sauna are encompassed in the recreational room. The Barnharts were amenable to eliminating the deck and the hot tub for the off street parking in a garage. There is a continual reference to converting that which used to be a garage. When he remodelled this area three years ago the reconversion had already been done. There was never a curb on Fourth Street three years ago. He simply enclosed the carport. This alternative of reconverting the recreational room back to a garage is ridiculous. Herz empathized with the applicant. But would someone before purchasing property in this town not check the history and check whether one could do something with the house with the realtor . This is only common sense. Barnhart responded that she c,ueried many people. She looked at her neighborhood. All adjacent properties have two cur garages or two car carports. Laavagnino explained that :?ll. towns have ordinances RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment August 23, 1984 with setback requirements. Barnhart said it is terribly unfair for Austin or her not to have a garage. Austin said she knew she could not fit the garage within the setbacks. Barnhart said it is also unfair for everyone to tell Barnhart that she has a house with mistakes and too bad. That is terribly unfair. Lavagnino said her situation is not unique, everyone is under the same ordinance. If the ordinance is wrong then one goes to Council and requests the ordinance be changed. If Barnhart' s situation was unique from others then the Board would consider granting the variance. But everyone has the same problem of not being able to build garages. Why should Barnhart be allowed a garage when others suffer ? It would then follow that all should be able to have garages but the law does not read that way. Barnhart said may be everyone cannot afford to build a garage. Lavagnino responded said it is not a matter of affordability but meeting setbacj-,S . Bost places do not have the room for a garage. Hughes interjected it is ironic that the house down the alley, a sizable home, does encroach into the rear yard setback. Lavagnino answered he does not know when that house was built. Lavagnino suggested that if the applicant really wants the garage then the applicant will have to make some kind of sacrifice somewhere else . If the garage is moved back and the windows eliminated from the north side then the Board might be more amenable. The reason is the applicant would have done the most he could have done. But the applicant wants eight feet of open space , not six feet . Hughes asked for a barometer of what the Boarc thinks would be a good faith effort on the applicant' s part. Lavagnino said a good faith effort is to present a minimum variance. The proposal is not the minimum variance. Hughes asked how far back should the garage be for the request to be acceptable. Lavagnino reiterated the alternate solutions which have been discussed in the meeting: flush the garage with the residence. Hughes replied that solution would not require a variance. Mann proposed that the Board not vote on a variance today. Give the applicant some time to address the other alternatives. Table the case to a date certain. Let the applicant come back to the Board if the applicant has a change in plan which requires a variance. If the change in plan does not require a variance the applicant can simply inform the Board. Hughes again asked what the Board would like to see in terms of moving the garage towards the house. The plan should include some light and ventilation and pedestrian access. V,Thitaker commented if the Board took that path other people would be deprived of knowing what variance is being requested. The applicant has requested a certain variance. If the Board plays around with the variance then the Board is not following the proper procedure. The Board should either grant or deny this variance. If the applicant t1len comes up with another solution touch requires less of a variance then the i cant can start RECORD OF PROCEEDING Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment August 23, 1984 the procedure over again. That is the honorable way. There is a proper procedure and a procedure for posting notice and for infor.-Ang the residents of what the applicant wants. Lavagnino responded that the public was already notified of this meeting. They are not at this meeting. The Board has gone through public discussion. Now the Board is considering modifying the variance. It is perfectly legitimate for the applicant to come before the Board and ask for tabling. The public has had the opportunity to comment on this particular request. The Board can table the case to a date certain to hear other modifications of the request. Hughes said the Board is encouraged to do that. Statutorily the Board is here to condition and modify things. The intent is to make the situation better . Whitaker asked if it is being suggested that the variance might be less than what is being requested. Hughes and Lavagnino answered yes. Hughes asked if the Board can sympathize with the need for light and ventilation. Lavagnino asked what is the maximum depth of a garage. Why did Kopf pick 25 feet? Kopf answered there is a natural break . He explained how he derived the 23 feet by 26 feet. The total square footage is 590 which is exempt. The average car is 16-17 feet. There is usually a 20 foot leeway. Lavagnino noted there is three feet picked up there that the applicant does not have to come to the Board for . Also consider a three foot walkway. (Hughes encouraged a vote from the Board today. ) Lavagnino said the applicant may not need an eight foot deck, how about a six foot deck, that saves another two feet . Hughes said a compromise is important. That is a compromise. Lavagnino reiterated the Board is required to give the minimal variance. Austin argued that there is a solution which does not even require a variation : flush the garage with the existing 1building . Hughes responded it is important to have some light and ventilation. Lavagnino said that is reasonable. The question to consider is has the applicant done the most he can reasonably do to get light in the bedroom, which should not be denied, and have a walkway . Is six feet too much for the Board? Herz interjected the Board would not even give an eighth of an inch on the property on Bleeker . Lavagnino said in that decision no one suffered the loss of the reasonable use of the land. Whitaker said the applicant has not proved that there are hardships and practical difficulties. The applicant has not demonstrated that she meets the criteria for granting a variance. He does not like to see the Board haggle. The garage is sited for the appli- cant ' s convenience. That is not the minimum size one needs for a garage. The applicant should go back and modify the plan without the need nor a variance, that is the best solution. The applicant has already admitted that the garage is bigger than is needed. Remember the applicant is already encroaching 2180 square feet. The applicant should be asking for a minii..ium. RECORD OF PROCEEDING Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment August 23, 1984 Hann said it is very difficult on the spur o-.L:: the moment to juggle t,*,.e plan around. She favored tabling tiae case to a date certain. if the applicant comes up with a design that does not require a variance then the applicant can inform the deputy city clerk. The applicant may otherwise 'Lind that lie may need something. It would be convenient to table to a date certain instead of starting the process all over again. Lavagnino said he does not know what the applicant will -present in the future. The applicant wanted to know how much the Board would give the applicant, but there is no guarantee that whatever is proposed will be acceptable to the Board. Lavagnino is more amenable to the applicant coming back in with the i'.1iniq. ui-.i am,ount. lie would not look favorably on the variance if the applicant came forward with a twenty foot plan and Lavagnino discovered that a nineteen foot plan would serve the applicant just as well . If the applicant utilizes as much of the property as he can to get what he wants, which includes reasonable use of liglit and ventilation into the kitchen and the master bedroom, then I'le would be amenable to granting a variance. Josephine Hann moved to table case 4r84-18, L. Irvin Barnhart, to September 6 , 1984; seconded by John Herz. All in favor ; motion carried. Francis Whitaker opposed the tabling. 17hitaker asked for clarification on the variance requested for the foyer . Hughes clarified the request is G. inches. Rick Head moved to adjourn the meeting at 6: 00 p.m. ; seconded by Francis Whitaker. All in favor ; motion carried. Barbara Norris, Deputy City Clerk,