Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19841018 C I T Y OF A S P E N BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Thursday, October 18, 1984 City Council Chambers 4:00 p.m. AGENDA I. rlinutes September 27 , 19£4 October 4 , 1984 II . Old Business Case #84-20 , Robert Klineman, application withdrawn III. I3ew Business Case #84-23 , Frank Moods and Ed Rodgers IV. Adjournment *,.,,Text regular meeting scheduled for October 25, 1984 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment October 18. 1984 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4 : 00 p. . m. with members Charlie Paterson, Josephine Mann, Francis Whitaker, John Herz , and Rick Head present. MINUTES September 27. 1984: Lavagnino corrected the last sentence of paragraph three, on page twelve: "the snow melts adjacent to the door and consequently because of the heat from the house ices the door because of the heat from the house. " Delete "because of the heat from the house" after the word "door. " Francis Whitaker moved to approve the minutes of September 27 , 1984 , as corrected; seconded by Charlie Paterson. All in favor; motion carried. October 4. 1984: Lavagnino corrected the last sentence in paragraph two, on page ten: correct the date "1874" to "1984 . " Francis Whitaker moved to approve the minutes of October 4 , 1984 , as corrected; seconded by Josephine Mann. All in favor; motion carried. CASE #84-20, ROBERT KLINEMAN Lavagnino read into the record a letter addressed to Barbara Norris from Mr. Klineman dated October 3, 1984 : "Per our phone conversation earlier this week , please withdraw my application to enlarge my kitchen and dining room. " CASE #84-23. FRANK WOODS AND ED RODGERS Rick Head stepped down from this case due to a conflict of interest. Gideon Kaufman, counsel for Woods and Rodgers, disclosed that some technical questions have been raised recently. He has had a conversation with Paul Taddune , city attorney, about these questions. Both Taddune and Kaufman did agree it would be better to table the case at this time so not to waste the Board' s time. The case may have no meaning. There are some technical clarifi- cations that both the building department and the city attorney need to make. Lavagnino asked if the applicant should present the affidavit of posting at this time. Paul Taddune, city attorney, advised the chairman to open the hearing and then table the case. Kaufman 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment October 18, 1984 said he did not bring the affidavit here but it would take him five minutes to retrieve the public notice. Lavagnino deferred the applicant' s presentation of the affidavit to the continuation date of the hearing. Taddune also suggested after opening the hearing that the chairman allow for comments on the application by anyone present. Lavagnino opened the hearing. He briefed the audience on the application. The property is located off Hopkins between Fourth and Fifth_ , specifically the south twenty feet of Lots G and H, Block 32, City of Aspen. He read the requested variance : "Property is a nonconforming lot of record located in the R- 15 zoning district. Section 24-23. 4 : area and bulk require- ments. Setbacks are front, 25 feet; side yard, 5 feet; and rear yard, 10 feet. Applicant appears to be requesting a zero lot line front yard setback and zero lot line rear yard setback. " Lavagnino read the description of proposed exception showing justification for the variance written by Gideon Kaufman, dated September 26 , 1984: "The particular lot in question is twenty feet by sixty feet being 1 ,200 square feet. It is a legal lot and therefore entitled to the construction of a single family residence on it. The Board of Adjustment has dealt with the issue of nonconforming lots before and has set the precedent allowing variances so that a house can be constructed on these small lots. It is not possible for this lot to conform with the setbacks in the R-15 zone since setbacks in a zone are twenty-five foot front yard, five foot side yard, and ten foot rear yard. The applicant is therefore asking for a minimal variance since he is willing to comply with and increase the side yard setback to ten feet (101 ) since the lot in that area is sixty feet. However, the front and back yard setbacks cannot be complied with for were he to comply with these setbacks a house could not be constructed. We therefore ask for zero front and rear yard setbacks. Zero front and rear yard setbacks will allow for the construction of a minimal house. Since access to the lot is what determines front yard setbacks we are trapped with the narrow part of the lot being the front yard. Without the variance no reasonable use of the land could be made. I believe it is obvious that we have a hardship and an impracticality that can only be mitigated through the variance procedure. I have enclosed for your review a drawing of a lot and the setbacks on the lot that we requested. " 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment October 18, 1984 Bob Hughes stated he supported the application. But he reported that he spoke with Jeremy Bernstein whose law firm represents Mrs. Paepcke. He believed Mrs. Paepcke had an opposition to the application. Hughes spoke with Bernstein a short while ago. The conversation prompted Bernstein to go discuss the matter with Andy Hecht. In fairness to Bernstein, Hughes suggested the Board keep the issue opened until Bernstein returns. Bernstein might oppose the tabling. Martha Madsen, resident at the apartment building at the corner of Fifth and west Hopkins , opposed the building site in view of its size. She noted that Mrs. Paepcke has been paying taxes on that property not knowing that she did not own the two parcels. Madsen questioned whether the property in fact is owned by applicant. Lavagnino explained the Board makes a determination based on the representations made before the Board. If it were to be proven that Mrs. Paepcke owns the property then the case would not be before the Board. Jeremy Bernstein withdrew the objection to tabling the case. Whitaker commented that the map presented in the packet is very inadequate. The Board cannot make any determination from the maps. Kaufman had new maps with him. He was willing to present the maps to the members now or to present the maps to the members before the next meeting assuming his client comes back before the Board. Kaufman apologized for the poor quality of the maps. For that reason he had a survey drawn up which he brought. He could not get the reduction of the map properly done by the time he submitted the application. Whitaker suggested the applicant present a plot plan which indicates what the structure and the off street parking will be. Kaufman noted he is ready to present that information now. Paterson asked Bill Drueding, building department, if the adjacent property owners within a three hundred foot radius have to be notified of the public hearing. Drueding answered not in this case. This case is not a_ variance from use, this case is a variance for area and bulk requirements. Area and bulk requirements list all the setbacks. A use variance would be appropriate if there were a duplex on a single family lot, that situation translates into a nonconforming use. The application before the Board is a non use variance. Paterson asked if property owners that are contiguous to that land, or adjacent property owners, are required to be noticed. Lavagnino asked for questions from the Board and the audience. 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment October 18, 1984 Kaufman asked if the Board wants anything else besides the plot plan and the survey. The Board reviewed the adequacy of the drawings provided by Kaufman. Kaufman assured the Board he would bring the public notice and the affidavit at the next meeting. Herz queried Martha Madsen. Did she oppose the application because the size of the building was too big for the lot? Madsen answered no. Taddune suggested that the hearing be renoticed if the tabling is for more than one month. Taddune said it may take a month to resolve the questions that have been raised. The issues may involve review by other agencies. If the hearing is renoticed then the public is protected. Motion:. Francis Whitaker moved to table case #84-23 to December 13 , 1984; seconded by Josephine Mann. All in favor; motion carried. Motion: Francis Whitaker moved to adjourn the meeting at 4 : 20 p.m. ; seconded by Charlie Paterson. All in favor; motion carried. Barbara Norris, Deputy City Clerk 4