Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19850711 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 11, 1985 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4:00 P.N. AGENDA I. NEW BUSINESS Case #85-13 / Jeffrey Shoaf II. ADJOURNMENT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 11, 1985 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4 : 00 p.m. with members Josephine Mann, Francis Whitaker, Anne Austin, Rick Head and Ron Erickson present. NEW BUSINESS CASE 185-13 / Jeffrey Shoaf Lavagnino read the variance requested: #1 Additional height for roofline above what the building department feels is allowable due to a 7 foot grade reduction, #2 would like to be able to install full bathrooms with a tub upstairs and a shower downstairs . Presently the building department feels I am entitled to only powder rooms. #1 Property is located in the R-15 zoning category, Section 24-3 ..4 area and bulk. Maximum height is 25 feet. Applicant appears to be requesting additional height variance. #2 Section 24-3 .1 (g ) dwelling unit definition. Applicant appears to be requesting the over ruling of the building department that his plan configuration of the building results in additional units. Jeff Shoaf, the applicant , submitted the affidavit of sign posting. Mr . Shoaf said he would like to handle the 2 issues separately, dealing with the height variance first. He explained that on the Neale St. side of the property when the original house was built it was not backfilled to the original grade. This resulted in an approximate 7 1/2 foot lowering of the grade on the property in that location. By following the building depart- ments guidelines of measuring grade, from the lowest point, it precludes being able to build something as high as I could have before they failed to backf it 1 on the west side of the house. Mr. Shoaf said he did not intend to raise the soffit line or the eave line of the house any higher than it is presently. He would like to take the present roof which is a 5 '/12" pitch and increase that to a 12'/12" pitch. He has approval and is allowed to raise his roof pitch to 91/12" with the present interpretation as far as the grade is concerned. Lavagnino asked for what purpose he wanted to do this. Mr. Shoaf replied for esthetics in that he is trying to do a Victorian type house and a 12 '/12" pitch is more typically Victorian and also to shed snow in the winter. Lavagnino then asked if he would be using the space created by the higher pitch in the roof. Mr. Shoaf replied it would be a cathedral ceiling. The Board reviewed pictures of the house as it exists. 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 11, 1985 Head asked what the height limit was in the R-15 zone. Bill Drueding, building inspector, answered 25 feet. Head asked if that was measured from median grade. Drueding replied that it is measured from natural grade and asked when the grade on this property was changed. Mr. Shoaf replied it was changed in 1961. Drueding responded that was 24 years ago, and the way it exists now would be considered the natural grade. Mr. Drueding read the definition of the applicable code from the municipal code book : "the height of the building shall be the maximum distance possible measured at right angles to the natural undisturbed ground slope to the top of the flat or mansard roof or the mean height between the eaves and the ridge of the gable if a pitched roof " . The measurements on the plans were discussed. Austin asked what the applicants hardship was between what is allowed by the building department and what is being requested. Mr. Shoaf replied that when the addition was done the original grade was higher and would have allowed the 121/12" pitch in the roof. The grade was dropped 7 1/2 feet when the property was not backfilled in 1961. Erickson asked Mr. Shoaf when he purchased the property to which he replied 1979. The proposed plans were reviewed. Lavagnino asked Mr. Shoaf if his request was that he is being denied a property right that others are enjoying because of the grade. Mr. Shoaf replied that his argument was because the grade was changed, back in 1961 when they did not backf ill the property to the original grade. He is being precluded from being able to put the roof on that he would like to have, and feels he is entitled to. Whitaker said he thought is was also important to consider that the view from the park would be affected. Head commented there was another house between the park and the applicants. Austin commented that it looked like the property had not been backfilled because windows were put in on the lower level of the house . They were in fact lowering the grade for a purpose. Mr. Shoaf said if the grade had not been changed he would have been able to go up higher, with better views, etc. ; by digging a hole and not filling it back in they restricted my use of the lot that was originally inherent with the lot. Lavagnino commented that features are being utilized that would not have been utilized if the lot had been backfilled. Austin added that Mr. Shoaf purchased the lot after the fact and should have known that what existed was considered grade. 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 11, 1985 Whitaker asked Drueding what his interpretation of the establishment of the average grade on a piece of property, the footprint of the building or the entire lot. Drueding replied that we are talking about the height of the building and where it sits on the lot and the average of the footprint and where it sits on the lot. Whitaker asked where that was defined in the code. Drueding replied 24-3.7 (g) on page 1466. Lavagnino asked if the Board wanted to ask for clarification from the City .Attorney as to the time expanse involved and whether what the Building department says is a sufficient amount of time to be considered natural grade. Head commented that the statute of limitations is 18 years on most real estate transactions. Lavagnino opened the public hearing. Darlene Varre, adjacent property owner , asked how high above her fence the proposed addition would be, and would there be any windows facing her house . Mr. Shoaf outlined the area and height on the plans stating the garage would be on the end toward her property and would not have windows. Ms. Varre also submitted a letter to the Board from Ann Marshall, adjacent property owner, opposing the variance as it would obstruct her view. Lavagnino said it appeared that Mr. Shoaf was asking the Board to make a determination as to whether the grade of 1961 will be upheld by this Board as being the legitimate grade of reference for the proposed height request. All of the other arguments presented are a matter of convenience and not considerations for the Board. Head suggested, with that in mind, that the City Attorney be contacted for direction in posture. All Board members agreed to contact. Barry Edwards, city attorney, by phone . Motion- Head moved to table this decision until the City Attorney can be reached by phone; Whitaker seconded. All in favor; motion carried. Mr. Shoaf addressed the second variance requested, full bathrooms with a tub upstairs and a shower downstairs. Drueding explained the definition of a dwelling unit is 1 or more rooms, in addition to a kitchen and or bath facilities, intended or designed for occupancy by a family or guest independent of other families or guests. The building department has held firmly that on a set of plans if there is a room with its affective use separate, its own independent entrance, a full kitchen or full bath is considered a 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 11. 1985 bandit unit or another dwelling unit. The configuration of these plans have basically 1 house and it is connected to another unit which can be entered separately. If we allow a full bath it would be considered another unit. Head asked if a full bath would be permitted if the egress were omitted to which Drueding replied yes. Austin asked -what would- be going in the proposed addition. --The-- plans were reviewed and discussed along with what is being proposed for each area within the structure. A recreation room is proposed for the addition. Mann commented that it would be very convenient to have 2 bathrooms but she failed to see any hardship. Mr. Shoaf responded his hardship was 90% of the 2 bedroom plus condominiums or houses in town under this definition could be considered 2 dwelling units. He thought. that was a very restrictive, narrow, interpretation of a dwelling unit. Austin and Head commented that Mr. Shoaf had a point , there are new houses in town that have doors leading outside with bathrooms in the same room. Drueding commented that the building department had been very consistent over the past 2 1/2 years on stopping something like this and felt this was a more flagrant attempt to have 2 units. Lavagnino told the Board that it is the opinion of Barry Edwards, the city attorney, that 24 years is a sufficient amount of time to now consider what exists as the natural grade in reference to the first variance request for additional height. Motion: Head moved to reopen the first variance question and make a determination; Whitaker seconded. All in favor ; motion carried. Lavagnino closed the public hearing and opened the floor for the Boards comments. Austin commented that she agreed with the attorney that -what exists now is -natural grade and did not see a hardship. Erickson agreed. Head agreed stating he would like to see the project but saw no hardship demonstrated. Mann said she would deny the variance because of no hardship or practical difficulty. Whitaker said in the variance requested the 2 matters are so interrelated that he thought it was hard to separate them but agreed that 24 years was long enough to now be considered natural grade. 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 11, 1985 Motion- Mann moved to deny the additional height of 3 feet asked for in the variance because the hardship stated the Board does not agree with; Austin seconded. Lavagnino asked for a roll call vote. Austin aye Whitaker aye Mann aye Head aye Lavac�nino aye All in favor; motion carried. Lavagnino had to leave and turned the meeting over to the Vice-Chairman Francis Whitaker at 5: 03 p.m. Whitaker said there was a question on the floor as to whether the Board should overrule the Building Inspector and allow the applicant to install full bathrooms with a tub upstairs and a shower downstairs. Whitaker asked for further comments on the issue. Mann commented that the building department has been consistent about this; regulation and even though there are units that do not comply a code has to start sometime. This code is in place and is being enforced and I feel we would be doing a disservice to the general plan of the city if we overrule it. Austin disagreed because (a) there are so many residences that do have bedrooms, bathrooms and exterior doors; and (b) she didn 't think it was the intent of the code to say you can't put an exterior door on a bedroom. I don ' t think the code is clear enough and feel we are denying Mr. Shoaf a right that other people are enjoying. Erickson said he did not think the Board was denying Mr. Shoaf the right to put in a bathroom. I think another way of building that addition could be figured so that code is not broken. The applicant is adding 3 separate lockable entrances to a 2 Recreation room unit. Head agreed, there are too many other alternatives that could be pursued and accomplished. Whitaker said he was concerned with 2 things; one being overruling the Building Inspector without more proof of hardship, the other point being it is easy to call something a Recreation Room or Family Room when it is so easy to convert them into a bedroom. I think if the Board can head off something that is a potential 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 11, 1985 problem for the community, and against the zoning ordinances, it is the Boards obligation to do so. Motion- Head moved to deny the variance on the second issue, being the bathrooms; Erickson seconded. Whitaker asked for a roll call vote. Austin no Whitaker aye Mann aye Head aye Erickson aye Four in favor, one opposed ; motion carried. Austin said that she had noticed that the house referred to as Case #85-5 to which the Board had granted an encroachment variance had been basically torn down. She said she did not think that it was the Board' s intent that the house be torn down when granting the set back variance. Head said he did not feel the Board had any purview as to how the applicant is going to reconstruct the house . Whitaker said he felt as long as it conformed to the plans that were approved with the set backs it is appropriate. Drueding said as long as the set backs are conformed to it can be done. It is up to the Board to make conditions if they are desired. Head said he strongly objected to being police in these matters. Motion- Head moved to adjourn the meeting at 5: 40 p.m. ; Mann seconded. All in favor; motion carried. Kim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk 6