Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19850328 C I T Y OF A S P E N BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Thursday, March 28, 1985 City Council Chambers 4:00 p.m. AGENDA I. Minutes II. Old Business Case #F84-23 . Frank 'goods and Ed nodgers III. New Business Case :=85-4, Ted Ari:istrong and John Olson Case 14`85-5, Fallin, Allen, and lilhelm IV. Adjournment Board of Adjustment March 28, 1985 MINUTES Whitaker moved to defer the minutes to the end of the meeting; seconded by Head. CASE #84-23. Frank Woods and Ed Rogers Head said the applicants have come to an agreement with the city to purchase this property. It has not been finalized. Head said this case can be withdrawn. Lavagnino said he would have requested that the public be renotified because this case is six months old. Paterson moved to accept the withdrawal of case 84-23; seconded by Whitaker. All in favor , motion carried. Lavagnino introduced a resolution of appreciation to Barbara Norris, who is leaving, for professional , conscientious service to the Board of Adjustment. Lavagnino said he would like to send a letter to City Council about the Board ' s disappointment in losing a loyal and competent asset to the City. Whitaker moved to approve a resolution and the writing of a letter to City Council ; seconded by Paterson. All in favor, motion carried. CASE #85-4 Ted Armstrong/John Olson Lavagnino said this property is zoned L-2; the structure is non- conforming in exceeding the FAR and encroaching into setbacks. The applicant appears to be requesting to increase the floor area by less than 600 square feet. No such non-conforming structure may be enlarged or altered in a way which increases its noncon- formity. The applicant is also requesting a rear yard setback variance of 4 ' 9" and a sideyard setback variance of 118" . In this zone the rear yard requirement is 10 ' ; the sideyard requirement is 6 '8" . Lavagnino opened the public hearing Gideon Kaufman, representing the applicant, presented the affidavit of posting and a photograph. Kaufman said what the applicant is requesting will improve the existing structure. There is a structure on this lot and it is non-conforming in every setback . The applicant proposes to lessen two of the non-conforming setbacks and to make two setbacks totally conforming. This will improve the situation. This building is very old and sits on a small lot. This building has numerous health and safety viola- tions. The applicants propose to eliminate 3 pages of health and safety violations. The number of units will be reduced from 5 to 3. The number of bedrooms will be reduced. This proposal will make 1 Board of Adjustment March 28, 1985 the building conforming to the intent of the L-2 and will only be one structure rather than two independent structures. Kaufman said the rear non-conforming setback will be reduced from 6" to 5-1/2' ; the front setback will end up 10 feet to conforming. One side will go from 1 foot to 5 feet. The applicant is not asking for an FAR variance nor any height variance. The only requests are for a side and rear yard variances and are reducing what exists there now. Kaufman said he is not certain that a variance is required. The setback requirement in the L-2 zone for side yards is 5 feet. Another section of the code states if you have a lot between two streets, a 618" setback is required. The existing foundation is at 5 feet with overhangs to 1 foot. Following the existing foundation would not increase the non-conformity. Kaufman pointed out in the Code which says "no such non-conforming structure may be enlarged or altered in a way which increases its non-conformity, but any structure may be altered to decrease its non-conformity. " Kaufman said on the side yard setback the building is not increasing and a variance is not needed. Kaufman said presently there is a 1 foot setback, which they plan to make a 5 foot setback. This is a small lot in the L-2 zone and was rezoned L-2 after this was structure built. The lot intersects two streets, making it unique in the L-2 zone, one of the streets is actually an alley. Kaufman said on a small lot having to meet the intersecting street setback requirement is a hardship. In the rear yard there is 6 inches between the building and the property line; they are proposing to have 5-1/2 feet setback reducing the non-conformity by 5 feet. Kaufman said this is reducing the amount of total building in the setbacks and is decreasing the non-conformity. Kaufman reiterated he did not feel a variance is necessary. Kaufman said there have been eight to ten proposals presented to the planning office for this site. This is the first one that has been workable, which goes very strongly to the practical difficult inherent in this situation on a small lot in the L-2 zone with intersecting streets. The front yard setback will meet the requirements. Kaufman presented a site plan showing the existing structure and the proposed new structure. Kaufman said they are not requesting to increase FAR, to increase height, or to increase in the setbacks. Whitaker asked if there is a parking requirement. Kaufman said they will improve the parking situation by decreasing the number of bedrooms. Howard Awrey, owner of Skier 's Chalet, told The Board he is in favor of any improvements upgrading the property providing it does not infringe on the rights of the Dolinseks. Awrey said he 2 Board of Adjustment March 28, 1985 would like the site fixed. Kaufman said right now the structure is 6 inches from the Dolinseks; the proposed building will be 5- 1/2 feet from the Dolinseks. Margie Kleiner, representing the Telemark condominiums, entered into the record objection to any height increase. Colette Penne, planning office, told the Board this is the first viable project for this site the planning office has seen. The property is too small to be a lodge project. There are currently five units, which is too many. Ms. Penne said this is currently a non-conforming use of land with a multi-family and single family use on one lot. The applicant is willing to take out the single family house and have one use, which is more conforming. Ms . Penne said she feels the net result is better. Ms. Mann requested assurance that this building will conform to the height requirement. Kaufman said they are not requesting a variance from the height requirement and it will be 28 feet. John Olson said the final height will be according to Code. Lavagnino asked if they are remodelling this building, why not come into conformance with the Code. Kaufman said they are trying to ask for the minimum variance to make this project work. Kaufman said they had several options, one at keeping the front yard a 5 feet. They preferred to conform in the front yard setback and not meet the rear yard setback. Whitaker asked if the proposed building will be any higher than the existing building. Olson said he does not know but will comply with the Code. Lavagnino said there is a visual impact that the neighbors are concerned with, and the Board is trying to address this concern. Lavagnino asked why the applicant cannot tell the Board how tall this building will be. Olson said he has not yet used an architect because he is waiting for this variance. Whitaker again asked if the new building would be higher than the existing structure. Kaufman said they have not gotten that far in the process. Paterson pointed out on the plat, the building is 31 feet 8 inches but 40 inches is below grade. Ms. Mann read a letter into the record from Emory Hodges, Alexan- dria, Virginia, stating this variance request is preliminary to building a multi-story building on this lot, blocking the view of Aspen mountain. Hodges urged the board to reject this request. Whitaker read a letter from Mrs. Eugene Dubose Hill, Denver , Colorado , co-owner of Telemark condominium, registering her protest to the requested variance at 623 South Monarch. Mrs. Hill said the proposed variance would be detrimental to neighboring properties and specifically objected to any increase in height. Mrs. Hill said the Board should not grant any variances which would increase the non-conformity of any structure on this property. Ms. Mann asked what kind of a roof the building will have. Olson said this will be decided in the next few weeks with the architect. 3 Board of Adjustment March 28, 1985 Lavagnino closed the public hearing. Whitaker agreed there is a hardship on the 6 foot 8 inch requirement with the narrow alley. This is not the purpose f or which the setback is required because it is not a full two-way street and there is very little traffic on it. The narrow lot of 30 feet is also a hardship. Whitaker said he does not agree with the rear yard setback. Whitaker said if the applicant is doing such a major structural remodelling job, they can conform to the rear yard setback. Whitaker said he is concerned about the height, and if the variance is granted, he would like a condition that the new building not be any higher than the existing structure and to meet the Code. Barry Edwards , assistant city attorney, said a height variance is not being asked for so the building cannot be higher than the Code. Kaufman said, for the record, they are willing to comply with the Code requirement. Whitaker said he would like the applicant to comply with the rear yard setback. Head agreed this is a difficult property to do anything with, and appreciates reducing the density and the non-conformity. Head agreed the applicant should build to the rear yard setback and make the project a viable one. Head said he is in favor of granting the side yard variance but would like to see them comply with the rear yard setback. Ms. Mann said a big item in favor of this variance is the health, safety and welfare aspect of getting the building up to Code. Ms. Mann favors the reduction in units and in number of bedrooms. Ms. Mann agreed with the hardships outlined by Whitaker. There is a practical difficulty of having an existing foundation. Ms. Mann said she is generally in favor of this variance. Paterson said he is in favor of the variance, the applicant has tried to reduce the massing of the building and pull it back from the property lines. Paterson said he feels this variance is minimal to make this a viable project. Paterson said he would not argue with the setback difference between 4 foot 6 inches and 5 feet 6 inches. Paterson said he is in favor of the variance as applied for . Lavagnino said he generally would agree with Whitaker about the rear yard setback but is convinced the front yard setback is important. The applicant could have left the building intact on a non-conforming basis which is greater than the proposed building. The applicant is giving up space . It is important from the street side of Monarch to have this building setback more. Lavagnino said the applicant has justifiably shown reasons for granting the variance and allowing the rear yard request. 4 Board of Adjustment March 28, 1985 Lavagnino reopened the public hearing. Kaufman said the number of units and number of bedrooms are being reduced. Whitaker said if the rear yard setback is complied with, the length of each unit would be reduced only 19 inches. Ms. Penne said reducing the number of bedrooms reduces the impact of parking. Lavagnino closed the public hearing. Ms. Mann moved that a variance be granted for case 85-4 for a side yard setback encroachment for 1 feet 8 inches and a rear yard setback of 4 feet 9 inches because of the hardship and practical difficulties, which have been enumerated and that this Board considers this a minimum request; seconded by Paterson. Roll call vote; Whitaker , nay; Head, aye; Lavagnino, aye; Ms. Mann, aye; Paterson, aye. Motion carried. Whitaker said he does not feel the rear yard setback was justified and is not a hardship. CASE 85-5 Mr and Mrs Robert Allen Lavagnino said this property is zoned R-6; the building currently encroaches into side and rear yard setbacks. Side yard setback is 6.6 feet, rear yard setback is 15 feet, Section 24-13 .3 (a) "no such non-conforming structure may be enlarged or altered in a way which increases its non-conformity. " Applicant appears to be requesting to build over existing encroachments by adding a second story, raising the roof line, and enclosing the carport. Dick Fallin presented the affidavit of posting. Lavagnino opened the public hearing. Dick Fallin, employed by Mr. and Mrs. Allen who have a purchase contract for this property, told the Boards the contract is contingent on what can be done with the encroachment problem. Fallin said this is a one story house which has had several additions. This is on the corner of Third and Francis. Fallin showed plans for the proposed additions. Fallin said the only house that would be impacted is the Moss residence behind the alley. The reason for the second floor addition is for a master bedroom for the new owners and will follow the existing first floor. This would create the minimum location impact to any surrounding neighbors. Fallin said he designed this trying to keep the impact tucked into the alley. In addition to the second floor variance request on the rear alley setback, the owner would like to put a pitched roof on the 5 Board of Adjustment March 28, 1985 house. This would not be increasing the overhang and there would be no useable space under the roof. The pitched roof would be 7 feet above existing. Fred Peirce, attorney for the applicants, told the Board the encroachment license for the existing encroach- ments was granted by the City Council in the last two weeks. The applicant has to provide indemnity and insurance to the city for this encroachment. Lavagnino asked if the approved encroachment can be expanded upon, and does the Board have the authority to allow changes to existing encroachments. Barry Edwards, assistant city attorney, told the Board they do have jurisdiction. Peirce said the license allows the licensee to do whatever necessary to maintain the encroachments. Edwards asked if the applicant added enclosing the carport in the encroach- ment request. Peirce said it was not. Edwards said this has to be done. Lavagnino said the Board cannot address this request until that is done. Peirce said he does not believe that has to go back to Council, but only to the staff. Edwards asked if a representation was made to Council about this proposed work. Peirce said no. Peirce said the carport is basically enclosed now with cross lattice work and panelling on it would really not change it. Peirce said part of the carport is already an enclosed shed as the utility room for the house. Lavagnino said the Board cannot consider enclosing the carport until City Council has been notified unless the Board feels the carport is already enclosed and this is "maintaining" . Patsy Newbury, building department, said if they are adding a wall, this is not maintaining. Peirce said if his clients buy this property and want to put up a wall, he would take this to the city engineering department to see if the proposal is already included in the license. Lavagnino said the application states they want to "enclose existing carport to a one car garage" . Edwards said if the Board grants this variance, the applicant still has to check with Council or the city staff . Ms . Mann said she got the impression from walking around that this is a duplex. Fallin said this is a single family house . Fallin said it has two wings built at separate times. Fallin said there are nice mature apple trees in the back yard and they want to avoid cutting them down. Head said he doesn' t have a problem with the roof, which will not substantially impact the property. Head said ,he doesn' t have any problem with the small sideyard setback. Head said he is basically in favor of this variance as proposed. Whitaker said the burden of proof of showing practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships is on the applicant. Whitaker said the applicant has not proved any practical difficulties nor any hardships . This is a requirement the Board has in considering the variance. 6 Board of Adjustment March 28, 1985 Whitaker said there are three lots and there is room to add within the setback limitations. Whitaker agreed with Head,that the side yard variance is possibly a good reason for the variance. Whitaker said this is a convenience request. Whitaker quoted, "no hardship is established where the evidence proves only that the variance will be harmless or that the applicant will have difficulty in locating a site for his use if relief is denied" . Whitaker said if the applicant wants more floor space, there is room for it on those three lots. Peirce said they could build into those lots but it would destroy the yard, would create an additional sprawl in an already sprawling structure . This design would make the structure tighter and cleaner for the neighborhood. Peirce said they are trying to make this structure look appealing from the street. Peirce said if the existing walls and foundation are not followed, there are substantial increases in costs and practicalities of building. Peirce said he knows increased costs are not a hardship. Lavagnino said neither are aesthetics . Peirce said they are trying to make a structure that is reasonable for the neighborhood. Lavagnino asked about the FAR. Peirce said they will be under the FAR. Fallin said they will use up all the FAR. The FAR allows 4 ,057 square feet on the property. Head asked if there were any letters received on this case . Lavagnino said there were no letters. Fallin said presently the roof is a flat roof and the applicant wants a ridge-type roof within the roof lines already existing. There is an existing mechanical room in the shed. Regardless of how much lot there is, it seems imperative to the sensitivity of the neighborhood to build the building as designed. Fallin said he knows aesthetics are not a consideration but feel in this case , perhaps aesthetics should be a consideration. Fallin said there will not be the possibility of any additions to the house once the second floor is put on. Ms. Newbury said in the R-6 zone with a 9 ,000 square foot lot and a duplex would be allowed and 4 ,500 square feet would be allowed. However, since this is non-conforming, it would have to have the Board' s permission. Peirce said the Board can put conditions on a variance, and they would agree this is the maximum FAR allowed. Edwards said the Board can impose conditions if the condition being imposed is within the intent of the zoning laws, and FAR is clearly a zoning requirement. Imposing conditions outside the zoning laws is not as clear. Peirce said they would agree to make this a covenant and would remain with the property. Lavagnino closed the public hearing. Head favors this variance for a number of reasons; keeping the trees, the view plane from the property in the back as their 7 Board of Adjustment March 28, 1985 living room is on the second story. Whitaker said the applicant has to prove a hardship or practical difficulty. Whitaker said there is ample room for expansion. With the non-conformity and encroachments, Whitaker is reluctant to grant any variance with the existing conditions. Ms. Mann supported Whitaker 's position. Ms. Mann said she is in favor of keeping trees but does not see how the Board can approve this request. Paterson said the applicant can build a second story over the existing house without coming to the Board for approval, the welfare of the neighborhood is not served as much as if they build it where proposed. Paterson said he has not seen a hardship presented not created by the applicant. Lavagnino said he is troubled by the infringement into the setbacks and into the alley. Lavagnino said the applicant has not exhausted all solutions allowing him to use the property in a reasonable way and meet all the requirements of the Code. The applicant has not been denied a reasonable use of the land. Lavagnino said there are solutions that have not been looked at, and it is not up to the Board to recommend these . Fallin said this application is more than one issue. Fallin said the reason they are in front of the Board about the roof is that the building department told them no matter what they did with the structure they would have to come to the Board. Fallin said they want to elevate the roof in certain areas. Whitaker suggested tabling this in order for the architect to present elevations of the roof. Ms. Mann moved to table this case to April 4 , 1985; seconded by Whitaker. All in favor, motion carried . (Head left the meeting) Paterson moved to approve the minutes of March 7 , 1985; seconded by Whitaker. All in favor, motion carried. The Board made several corrections to the minutes of March 14 , 1985. Lavagnino quoted from the minutes that P & Z Chairman , Perry Harvey told the Board that one goal of the P & Z is to eliminate non-conforming uses wherever possible. Lavagnino said the Board should consider taking that statement into account in granting variances. Lavagnino said the Board ' s role is not to perpetuate non-conforming uses but to try to phase them out. Whitaker moved to approve the minutes of March 14 , 1985; seconded by Paterson. All in favor , motion carried. Whitaker moved to adopt Resolution #85-1, commending John Herz for his service as a Board of Adjustment member; seconded by Ms. Mann. All in favor, motion carried. 8 Board of Adjustment March 28, 1985 Paterson moved to adjourn at 6: 00 p.m. ; seconded by Whitaker . All in favor , motion carried. Kathryn SJ Koch - City Clerk 9