Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19850404 Chairperson Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4: 12pm with members Rick Head, Francis Whitaker, Anne Austin (arrived late) , and Charlie Paterson (arrived late) present. CASE #85-5/ MR. & MRS.ROBERT H. ALLEN. Continued Hearing Judy Allen, the applicant, introduced herself to the Board. She questioned the legality when there are only 4 members of the Board present when a 4 out of 5 vote is required. Lavagnino responded that the legality is alright , or we can give you a choice of tabling until there is a fifth member present. This is a continuation of a public hearing so we can hear your case and the public can comment on it. Then when the fifth person is available they can read the minutes and make a determination, or we can table that decision until there is a fifth member. We are still expecting Charlie Paterson, but are unable to reach him at this time. Ms. Allen told the Board that she had an earnest money contract which is dependent upon the resolution of this meeting and that she has come from Houston to attend this meeting. Ms. Allen asked if the vote was 4 to 0 in favor of what her applicat- ion, is that a vote for the variance? Lavagnino answered that would be correct. Ms. Allen decided to proceed with their presentation, to the present Board, and take a straw vote. If it appears that further information is needed she would then come back again. The Board and Barry Edwards,City Attorney' s office, voiced no problem with that and agreed to proceed. Austin asked if there were minutes to the last meeting in which this application was discussed since she was not in attend- ance. The minutes were not yet done. Judy Allen said she was aware that Austin was not in attendance at the last meeting and had prepared her presentation with a quick review of what transpired at the previous meeting. Judy Allen presented her case. In summary, we are looking for something with good sized living space , nice sized bedrooms and baths, a view if possible, convenient location, a garage,a garden for summer enjoyment and an attractive clean line structure. Ms . Allen introduced Dick Fallin, her architect , and Fred Peirce ,her attorney, to the board. She explained that her intention was to remodel the property. The things she hopes to do in remodeling are : create a quiet attractive structure, with minimum impact on its immediate surroundings and neighbors. I 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 4. 1985 hope to preserve as much of the open space as possible, while achieving my spacial needs. Ms. Allen reviewed the plans of her proposal . She explained that her research indicated that the house was built in the late 501s. It was altered again in the late 60 ' s and then again in 1978 . Much of the house was done before the setback requirement. She is now faced with trying to satisfy her spacial needs with something that does not conform to the code. Ms. Allen explained that one of the problems she was addressing were the many angles involved in the house. To improve the house, we propose changing the roof line, in two locations over the one story portion, keeping it one story. Lavagnino asked if the changes in the roof line would be changing the footprint or just the pitch of the roof. Ms. Allen replied changing the pitch of the roof only. Whitaker asked if she had dropped the idea of a second floor. Her reply was no, she planned to discuss further in her presentation. Ms. Allen said the other area she wanted to address, to meet their spacial requirements, is a new master bedroom. She again reviewed the plans, including landscaping, of the property. Francis Street drops off significantly towards 2nd Street making the adjacent house roof line significantly lower than Ms. Allen ' s roof line. In looking at this we decided the best thing would be to put the second story over the existing one story addition. Mr. Whitaker had asked at the last hearing why, with a such a large lot, do you want a variance when there are so many alternatives that could be pursued. Ms. Allen' s response was,their requirements for a master bedroom are 782 feet. If they come into the front yard with that volume they feel it destroys the spirit of the code, which is to preserve as much open space as possible. Also, we don' t think it helps the architecture of the building, in addition to having to remove several trees. Ms. Allen submitted a document on FAR requirements to the Board. The code allows them 4 ,077 feet. Their existing house is 2605 feet. We plan to make a slight alteration to the existing first floor , of 266 feet, and to add the master bedroom, of 782 feet,giving a total of 3652 feet, still leaving an FAR allowance of 424 feet, which we are not planning to use. The thing that attracted Ms. Allen to the house was the large yard space and opportunity for a garden. She does not think that putting their master bedroom addition on the ground floor,taking 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 4. 1985 up open space, would be in their best interest, the neighbors, or the Citizens of Aspen. Their next approach was to go upstairs with the addition, over the east end,even though it would block the view of the neighbor behind. That idea was rejected due to the impact on the neighbor . Dick Fallin showed drawings of that plan to the Board, outlining the impact on the neighbor. Ms. Allen added, by doing it in this way we are continuing a chaotic plan, blocking the neighbors view, and creating a roof line that is a great big bulk. It would be very unattractive and awkward. It would not improve the architecture of the house, its blocking the view from behind, and its creating a big blob in the roof line. To me, doing it in this way would not improve the situation, and is unacceptable. What we want to do is have as minimal an impact on the neighborhood, on the existing lot, and on the existing structure as possible. We feel the best place for the master bedroom is on the west side, as far back as possible. Because of all of the trees in the area you will hardly be able to see it and right behind it is another 2 story house. It will be fitting right into the roof line of what is already there and will not destroy any neighbors view. Ms. Allen reviewed the plans of this location, stating she feels this is a much more graceful progression of shapes. By doing it in this way it encroaches 3 .2 feet at its furthest point, and is 10 square feet in size. If we put the roof line in another way we feel it will draw attention to a bad architectural bruise. This is one area she would like for the Board to consider. Ms. Allen said the other area for the Boards consideration is placing the second floor in an area that does go into the setback line, above an existing "carport" . In balancing all of the possibilities available to deal with, we have tried to do it with the least impact on all considerations. We have tried to work with what the spirit of the code is, which is to preserve the open space if at all possible. There was a question at the last meeting with regard to what the structure was that the addition in question is to be put on top of. Ms. Allen submitted a picture of the structure in question. Lavagnino said, you have called it a carport, the building inspector has called it a carport and you have come to us for a variance to enclose it. Then it becomes a garage. Whitaker said that it is complicated by the fact that part of it is in the alley. Barry Edwards,City Attorney' s office, said he had talked to the building inspector about this and his comment was, it is OK with the improvements they propose with respect to the encroachment. The encroachment question is not the Board's problem. Whitaker added,the encroachment 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGMM MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 4. 1985 is only a small part, the rest of the project is the Board' s question. Austin asked, do you have to have a variance to make it a garage because it is over the setback. Ms. Allen responded that if it is enclosed on 3 sides it is not a carport, it is a non-conforming garage. All we want to do is put a door on it and bring it to code. Lavagnino asked Patsy Newberry, building department, what determ- ination they had made on the structure. Patsy said it is already a structure, the non-conformity is that it sits within a setback, and the code says you can't extend or change the use within a setback. Patsy, what we are talking about is whether she is using it just to park the car in or for storage. Lavagnino said right now one wall is lattice work , is lattice work considered an enclosure. Patsy replied no. Lavagnino asked, then the building department has determined it is a carport. Patsy replied yes. Charlie Paterson arrived at 4: 48pm. Fall in commented they had found in their research several references to garages and carports. The only area they could find that says what is what was in Section 12 .14 of the Uniform building code. It says a 1 story carport entirely open on 2 or more sides may not have a fire separation between the carport and the dwelling. We have 2 sides that are structure,one wall that is dense lattice work , then the opening to the street. We do not know what we really have. If they have a structure that is used only for parking, to put a door on it is really for security for the owner. We need to find out if you have an objection or need to address this. Ms. Allen added it does not have a window in it, and they are not putting one in. Patsy said it is the window from the house into the carport that is a building code problem. Ms. Allen replied there will be a door from the carport into the house,there will be no windows. Lavagnino added, once the thing is enclosed,with stud walls etc. , there is nothing preventing that space from being relinquished from its garage use and having windows put in, you can do basically anything you want. Isn ' t that a consideration we have to address? Edwards said that should be up to the building authorities and should not be this Board' s consideration. Head asked how many bedrooms there were in the house now, are there additional bedrooms going in that aren't presently there? Fallin responded they will be reducing 1 bedroom. Ms. Allen said there were 2 bedrooms on the east wing, 2 back by the garage,and 1 on the west wing. We will be taking one of those out, on the east 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 4. 1985 wing, and making it part of the living room. Head added, by not allowing them the use of the carport we will be removing an off street parking space. Lavagnino asked Newberry why the code makes a distinction between a carport and a garage. She replied for safety reasons, for example if it were an enclosed garage it would be- required to have a fire resistancy, and no windows could open into that area. Whitaker said he understood there are 5 bedrooms now, 1 will be eliminated but a new one will be added , that still makes 5 bedrooms. Ms. Allen said 2 bedrooms will be eliminated and outlined their locations on the plans. Whitaker said he was unsure, with that much of an alteration, if the requirement of 1 parking space per bedroom would pertain or not. Newberry replied, not when the density is decreased. Lavagnino said he would like to know how we are extending, or amplifying, the non-conformity of changing a carport into a garage. Newberry said there was not really a problem with that as far as the zoning is concerned. Edwards asked if the request to put a garage there had been denied by the building department. Newberry replied, only because it is non-conforming in the setback. Lavagnino asked if this would change its use, primarily? Newberry replied there will be a change in the structure itself by the change in the roof. Whitaker asked if a building permit could be issued to alter or improve a structure that is within a setback limitation. Newberry replied, if the use is not changed, or expanding the non-conformity. Barry Edwards agreed. Ms. Allen addressed the pitched roof area over the two, one story bedrooms. Lavagnino asked, if giving them a pitched roof would be interpreted as increasing the non-conformity , even though the space is not relevant to being usable. Edwards replied, the planning and building department interpret that, "when you enlarge or increase the bulk of a structure which is non-conforming and that enlargement is within the setback then it is enlarging or increasing the non-conformity. " Ms. Allen asked for clarification, in all of the research she had done it indicated that it was the use that could not change. In other words, "I shouldn' t ask for more square feet in a setback, if my building is there, but to change a roof line, as long as it does not come beyond 18 inches (which is the building code ) was alright. Lavagnino replied, if you have a flat roof and want to change it to a pitched roof,you are changing the volume and the bulk. Therefore, you are adding to its non-conformity. 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 4. 1985 Edwards said if you look at the intent of the zoning code, this was intended to be preserved as a residential area. Here is a person buying a residence that needs some work. In the practical consideration, the residence is going to go away and something worse is going to be there, if you don' t grant the variance, conceivably. You have the authority to grant the variance, if you believe that there is that practical problem, or if you think the intent of the zone in that area is to preserve the residential character . Its zoned duplex. The zoning contemplates , as a conforming use, a duplex. Ms. Allen said she would like to express that there is the absolute technicality of the law and then there is the spirit in which someone tries to execute their responsibi- lity. The way the house is now, is just a "flat shack" and we are trying to make it into an architectural, quiet statement, that will also reflect what is being built on the corner of Francis and Second St. , along with the rest of the neighborhood. Ms. Allen questioned that all of the previous variances that had been granted reflect a different standard than applies to her . Barry asked what standards had been applied in the past. Lavagnino replied that the Board had gone on the premise that by putting in a pitched roof we did not add to the square footage, or increase the FAR. We have not used usable space. We addressed areas such as snow removal , drainage, and things of that sort. Edwards asked if they had granted variances on pitched roof cases that had come before them previously.We argued that point with the building inspector and it was determined, by him, that they would not come bef ore us. Edwards asked, then why is this issue here tonight. Ms. Allen responded that the Building Department told her in order for them to issue a building permit she had to come before the Board on the small portion (she indicated on the building plans) even if we would like to change the roof line. Lavagnino stated that had never been done before. You are allowed to change a roof line , it has never come before this Board before. We are confronted with this bulk and volume which is a consideration we were never told to consider before. Edwards asked Newberry if the pitched roof within the set back was going to result in any appreciable change in the bulk of the building. Ms. Allen reviewed the plans and measurements. She said that the building department had said she would have to come before the Board of Adjustment on the encroachment problem. Lavagnino said we are dealing with the building department ' s statement, "Applicant is requesting to build over existing encroaches by adding a second story, raising the roof line and enclosing the 6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 4. 1985 carport" . He asked Newberry if there was anything that has been presented today that is different from the statement of the building inspector . She replied that the raising of the roof line pertains to the second story. Lavagnino replied, then we don' t want to deal with the roof line over any portion of the one story building, and we don't want to deal with the carport being a garage. Now we are focusing on the second story, and the roof over the second story, as considerations for this Board. Ms. Allen addressed the second floor and reviewed the plans. She explained the area in discussion is 10 square feet on the west side, which is the most public view. Fallin explained the archit- ectural reasons for the requested additions. Whitaker asked for clarification, all of the addition, within the set back limitation, is still adding to the non-conforming structure. Unfortunately your structure is non-conforming because it encroaches in the setback , nothing else applies. The Board is concerned with everything that increases the floor area and the bulk. Ms. Allen said what Mr. Fallin was referring to was that in their research it seemed that the interpretations that the Board was giving to the code was, that you are very concerned about additions that non-conform, but if improvements or additions were made within the FAR, within the conforming part of the structure, those would be granted. Lavagnino replied that those are not even considered by the Board. We are however, looking at the total picture, and we are looking at this as an extension of what begins with, or ends with a non-conforming use. Lavagnino referred to the plans and asked if another area had been considered, and why it hadn't been utilized in the second story.- Fallin responded, they were trying to be sensitive to the house behind them. That is also in the solar angle for the area. Lavagnino said that reinforced the argument to build in that direction. You have an essential property right that you can exercise , all of a sudden there is alot of consideration for another neighbor who hasn ' t shown interest. Fallin said he thought it was a valid issue to consider who is being impacted by heights,roof lines,etc. It is also a valid point to understand the esthetic considerations on how we got to this point. Whitaker said, it is my understanding that the applicant has to prove that they have practical difficulties, or unnecessary hardships,and that they have no other legal alternative. I submit that you have based most of your arguments on esthetics and your own personal desire and convenience. You have not proved that you have unnecessary hardships. You have even shown that you have another legal alternative. Pierce said he understood practical 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 4. 1985 difficulties and unnecessary hardship was part of the test, but not the only test. If you continue to read that part of the code you will find that any variance is to be considered with respect to the intent of the code and with respect to the public welfare and well being. What Ms. Allen is trying to point out, with respect to public welfare and with respect to the intent of the code, is that this proposal is the most harmonious. This proposal makes an effort to preserve view planes for neighbors and makes an effort to have minimal impact on the neighborhood, which includes the public welfare. All of that is part of the test, you can't just get hung up on one portion and say, "you have the legal right to build here, within your area". Whitaker read a letter from the former City Attorney quoting "without exception the courts have held that proof of unnecessary hardship or practical difficulties must be present before a variance may be granted" . Edwards added , they also have to show that they have no other legal alternative. Lavagnino said when there are other solutions available we are allowing the owner to exercise his full property right in what he is allowed to do on that property. My feeling is there are other solutions, we are not denying a property right. The considerations being given us in order to not allow the addition on the ground level are esthetic, or other considerations that I don' t think this Board has addressed itself to in the past. Ms. Allen suggested an alternative. She asked the Board to focus on a particular area, which she outlined on her plans. If you live within the exact letter of the law, I will have to take the roof back, on the first floor. It will look like a slice cut out of the side of the exterior . I would like to ask for that particular variance, for practical hardship, as one variance. If the other area being considered is too much, and you feel that the hardship is not adequate for a variance, would there be a possibility that we could continue in this area (outlined on plans) . Austin asked if that would be the existing footprint of the house. The reply was it is the existing footprint but still non-conforming. Paterson said that the small triangle referenced is a minimum request, they have a practical difficulty. Lavagnino said there are other solutions, still conforming to the code. If all of those other solutions had been exhausted then this would be a very strong consideration. Pierce addressed the Board stating in todays land use planning it is very clear that the desire is to try to cluster, preserve open space, and preserve view planes for every clustered development. If you put your self in the neighbors position, what ever the Allen' s do legally is going to impact the neighbor or the neighborhood. If this 8 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 4. 1985 were a PUD application the Board would require a minimum impact. I think it needs to be considered that this is the plan that has the minimum impact, on everybody involved. Lavagnino said, we don't have a statement from the adjoining owner saying, in fact, that this is a minimum impact. Paterson said the neighboring house in question is in receivership, the Bank owns it. Ms. Allen again stated that she wanted to address the particular "triangle" in question because that area would make or break her deal. For various other people you have granted minor variances. I am asking f or the same thing that you have set a precedent for and I am asking for less feet. She read a statement from Paul Taddune, the City Attorney, from minutes of a March 9 , 1984 meeting, "the criteria for granting a variance are in the code. The code is not specific, each situation is factually different. Practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship in carrying out the strict letter of the zoning laws need to be considered, but the Board is empowered to vary or modify the application of the regulation. The Board should look at the result, what is going to be accomplished. " Ms. Allen said what would be accomplished, if the Board denies this variance of 10 square feet, is an eyesore . Lavagnino asked what value only that one "triangle" was. Ms. Allen replied if she is unable to get that space she would have to go back to the drawing board. Paterson said his theory was, "when people come before this Board they usually are reasonable in their request, it is something that can ' t get through the code. We have to humanize this Board. The Board has to humanize the code. That is why we are here. If we are going to keep talking about strict interpretation of the code then this Board shouldn ' t even exist. There is no need f or me to sit here and try to make an impact so that the City can have decent buildings. For us to encourage abominations is strictly against what we are here for. I want to make this one of the strongest points as to why I sit on this Board. I am not swayed by somebodys hard luck story, but I am swayed by something that is a benefit to the City of Aspen. " This small corner that we are discussing, I feel is a benefit. Not so much to the client, it is a benefit for the City. For us to say,this is the code and therefore we are going to encourage an abomination, is completely wrong, it goes against the grain of why this Board exists. Anne Austin seconded that statement. Lavagnino said he thought we were here to give relief from the strict interpretation. We don't give interpretation of the code. We are here as a body to give relief. However, when we do grant relief, we don' t just grant it to everyone so we need a criteria. The criteria is, that 9 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 4. 1985 a unique situation has developed that would penalize. Paterson asked Lavagnino if he didn't feel this case was a unique situation? Lavagnino replied no, because I think they have other alternatives. We are not denying them the right to use the land the way they are allowed by code , where does the unique character of this particular case come in. I can enumerate the quotes that have been said; "improving architecture" , "master bedroom that we need with closet", "fit our needs" , "esthetics", "graceful progression of space" , "indentation" , "bad architecture" , "architectural bruise" , these are not considerations that I think this Board can look at, and determine are unique to this property and should allow us to grant them the variance. Ms. Allen said she would withdraw her request for a variance on the "back triangle", but would not withdraw the other area being considered. She asked for the Board' s ruling. Lavagnino asked how she would be using that triangle still being requested. Ms. Allen replied she would be using the space so that her neighbors would have a clean line over the bearing wall. Ms. Allen had asked her architect to tell her what the absolute minimum requir- ements would be. Granted it would be for her, but she will not buy the house if it doesn ' t work for her. Therefore she is only asking for her absolute minimum space requirement. She said she would rephrase her request for variance to go along with that. The fact that it has been done for others indicates a view point . That is why I spent hours in the City Clerk ' s office, to determine where the Board was coming from. It appeared you were coming from trying to improve the City. There have been many comments, in many meetings, about open space. Ms. Allen expressed concern with why this is so illogical. Lavagnino said from his view point it is because she is stuck on that premise, if you take a different axiom you can come up with different solutions that resolve that corner. I am sure a good architect would be able to find other solutions. Whitaker asked to see the plan and elevation with the second floor on the east wing of the house. The plan was reviewed .- Austin said she thought the second solution was impacting the structure much more than the first solution. I think we still have to take into consideration a neighbor that might not have been able to come. I would be livid if I owned the house behind and this second story went up right in front of me. I also think we have to take into consideration the fact that this applicant is being considerate of those aspects. Whitaker said there are two problems involved, Austin added but we are only considering one at this time. Whitaker said then there will be no bearing wall. 10 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 4. 1985 If the back wall is on the setback line there is no bearing wall to support it, therefore the "little triangle" is tied to the other one. Austin said she still thought the impact was minimal. Fred Pierce pointed out that the practical difficulties and the hardships involved have to do with building the structure in this way. I don't think that the only situation of a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship is that there is no alternative. To say that you don't have a practical difficulty unless you can ' t do anything on that lot without coming to the Board is not appropriate. Edwards agreed with that statement. He added that the Board has to determine, is there a practical difficulty in this situation. What is a practical difficulty is vague. It is for you to determine, based on your experience on this board, and your understanding of what it is you are trying to accomplish here. You still have to make a finding, as a Board, as to whether there j_a a practical difficulty in this case . Lavagnino asked for clarification from Edwards, my feeling is the applicant presents their solution to the problem, that doesn' t mean their solution is valid. That is why we go to finding out if there are alternative solutions. Edwards agreed, that was correct. Lavagnino asked why then do you agree with Pierce. In effect you are saying that if there are other solutions we shouldn ' t consider them. Edwards replied that was not what he was saying. You decide whether the alternatives given to you by the applicant have practical difficulties or substantial hardships. The fact that there are other workable alternatives does not mean that the situation the applicant is asking the Board to deal with is not a case of practical difficulty or substantial hardship. Ms. Allen again said the reason she is asking for the 10 square foot "triangle" is because a former City Attorney, Paul Taddune, has said, on the record, that the Board has the ability to modify the application, and I feel you should look at the result. The result may be esthetic, but it is logical. I am baffled that, in the spirit of the code, you would not help the neighbors or the public as they drive down that street. I am trying to be a good citizen. Paterson said he saw problems with the building itself, with a flat roof there will be drainage and leakage problems. Whitaker said he really had no problem with the "small triangle" if that would solve the applicants problems. His concern was how they would manage the bearing wall in the setback. Whitaker had done some research on granting variances and read a Supreme Court decision in a Pennsylvania case : "a variance is designed as an escape hatch from the literal terms of an ordinance which, if strictly applied would deny a property owner all 11 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTNENT APRIL 4. 1985 beneficial use of his land and thus amount to confiscation" , we are certainly not doing that. Lavagnino told the applicant that this hearing was nothing personal. It is based strictly on the principle of what I feel has to do with the integrity of the Board. Nothing to do with the applicant personally. Edwards ask Lavagnino to ask for for any further public comment,which he did. Pierce asked if just the "small triangle" was being considered at this point. Lavagnino replied yes, we can define it as the "northwestern triangle". Newberry commented that at the time the original building was built, the side yard setback was 5 feet with no requirement for a corner lot having the 6.8 feet that is required now. Lavagnino asked when the new law came in to effect, Newberry replied in the mid 1970 ' s. Lavagnino said that was a valid argument. This is important because, if that is the case, we are talking about intent and spirit here . The request is towards the back of the lot and would really have no bearing on the intent of making it 6 .8 feet. That would allow that portion to be well within the intent or the spirit of the law. Lavagnino closed the public hearing. Motion: Charlie Paterson made a motion to grant this variance on the basis of practical difficulties and hardship and the fact that it is a minimal request. There is already an approximately 5 foot setback on the old one story section and it is not a result of the applicants actions that this corner existed. Anne Austin seconded. Discussion. Lavagnino thought which variance was being granted should be clarified. Paterson said it was the 10 square foot triangle at the northwest corner of the existing dwelling for a second story. Whitaker asked, if the variance is granted, will the applicant not have to come back with their revised plan for the rest of the second story, which is enlarging the non-conforming structure. In my opinion the applicant will have to come back with the plans for the second story within the setback limitation. Austin added, or with the minimal variance request. At this point we are only talking about the "northwest triangle. " Whitaker asked if in order to enlarge a non-conforming structure the applicant would still have to get a variance for all of the rest of the proposed second floor. The overall reply was no, because that 12 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 4. 1985 portion conforms. Edwards said they are asking for a variance for the non-conforming portion, and you are granting a variance for that triangle. Lavagnino called for a vote : Austin aye Whitaker aye Lavagnino aye Head aye Paterson aye All in favor ; motion carried. Lavagnino called for a 5 minute recess at 6: 05, to reconvene at 6: 10. Lavagnino reopened the public hearing at 6: 10. Ms. Allen said what she would like to propose, as a result of todays meeting, was that her second variance request be significantly reduced. She outlined the area in question on the plans. Her reason for proposing the reduction was to try to live within the Board's guidelines and spirit. She also pointed out that the variance now requested is on the back side of the house and, if I stick to the setback line I am inheriting, I will again have an angled back structure. Ms. Allen suggestes it might be better for the community if she squared the area up and put it on the load bearing wall. To go straight up, over the existing first floor. That would be the "North triangle" of the back of the house. Lavagnino asked if there were any questions or comments. There were none. Lavagnino closed the public hearing. Notion: Lavagnino entertained a motion regarding the disposition of this variance request. Head made a motion that the variance be approved, that portion on the north wall, to conform to the existing bearing wall, for practical difficulties and hardships that have already been discussed. Paterson seconded. Discussion. Whitaker asked what that would make the rear yard setback, from the corner. The reply was, about 10 feet. Whitaker then asked what the total square footage would be. Pierce 13 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 4. 1985 replied 45 to 50 square feet. Austin asked what the setback would then be. Pierce replied 8 feet. Head stated, then it would be going into the setback about 5 feet. Lavagnino called for a vote : Austin aye Whitaker aye Lavagnino nay Paterson aye Head aye 4 in favor ,l opposed; motion carried. Lavagnino asked if there was any other business or cases. There were none. Rick Head moved to adjourn the meeting at 6: 17pm; seconded by Charlie Paterson. All in favor ; motion carried. G�Y1�.J Kim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk 14