Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19860626 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 26,1986 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4:00 P.M. A G E N D A I. CALL TO ORDER II. NEW BUSINESS Case # 86-13 / John Star III. ADJOURNAMENT Regul-aT Meeting Board of Adjustment June 26 , 1986 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4:10 p.m. with members Francis Whitaker, Josephine Mann, Charles Paterson, and Ron Erickson present. CASE 86-13 JOHN STAR Lavagnino read the requested variance, "The property is located in the RMF zoning category. Section 24-3 .4 area and bulk requires 25 foot maximum height. Proposed construction will exceed this height maximum, therefore, this request for a height variance". Gideon Kaufman , representing the applicant, presented the affidavit of posting and photograph of same. Kaufman said the variance request is for 18 inches, and there is an aesthetic problem if this is denied. Kaufman told the Board this is not a non-conforming use, it is a residential use in an RMF zone. The applicant needs to tie into a structural beam in order to enjoy a substantial property right. This will also enable the applicant to prevent creating a community hardship. Kaufman said this is not increasing FAR nor increasing the number of units. This request is to make space that is presently in existence habitable by creating a space one can stand up in. Kaufman told the Boards when this building was built, the height limit in the RMF zone was 28 feet. The applicant is proposing to match the existing roof line and not create an aesthetic unpleasing situation. Kaufman reminded the Board he appeared for a variance in the floodplain, and the Board granted the variance based upon a community hardship feeling it was more appropriate to relocate the building because of community concerns. Lavagnino said the Board does not consider aesthetics; it is not one of the criteria. Kaufman told the Board when the building was built, a structural beam was installed at 28 feet, and they would like to tie into that beam. Kaufman said this is not increasing FAR. Kaufman told the Board he has meetings with neighbors to explain the requested variance. Kaufman showed pictures of views of the building, the existing roof line, the beam they would like to tie into. The board discussed tying under the beam, looked at the condominium map. Paterson pointed out depending the way this is measured, it could be only 15 inch variance. Lavagnino asked if there are side elevations of the existing dormer. Kaufman said the proposed dormer is in a different unit and a different location . Lavagnino said if the applicant is discussing property rights being denied, if the other unit with a dormer has this property right, he would like to see the width of the existing unit. The Board should not approve more than the existing unit. Lavagnino 1 Regular Meeting Board of Adiustment June 26 . 1986 said the Board grants the minimum variances to allow applicants to enjoy a property right someone else has. Erickson asked what is the existing use of this space. Kaufman said it is dead space, a person cannot up stand up in this space. Erickson asked the size of the unit. Kaufman said this is a studio unit. Erickson asked if this dormer space would form another room. Kaufman said it would not create another room. Erickson said he would like to know if the other dormer was constructed when the building was constructed. Kaufman pointed out the recorded condominium plat, showing the dormer. Whitaker asked if this is a non-conforming building because it is over the present height limit. Kaufman said this is a non-conforming building, not a non-conforming use. The Codes does not allow changes to a non-conforming use but does allow changes to a non- conforming building. Whitaker said he feels it would be possible to lower the roof pitch and the applicant would not have to ask for a variance. The applicant could structurally tie down. Kaufman said the structural beam does not affect just this unit; this is not a practical solution because it would effect the whole building. Lavagnino suggested to minimize the variance, the applicant could bring another beam in under the existing beam. Whitaker said the applicant could run straps down to support the ridge of the new addition at a lower level and bring it to a conforming height. Ms. Mann asked what the ceiling height would be if the applicant did receive a variance . Dennis Cyrus , representing the applicant, said the ceiling would be 7-1/2 feet. Whitaker illustrated how the side walls could be left the same, drop the pitch and support the beam. Kaufman said solutions can be created that have aesthetic concerns that are not appealing to the neighborhood. The Board should take into account pedestrians having to look at the solution. Lavagnino opened the public hearing. Lee Pardee, owner of condominium unit in the building, asked if there would be an increase in the FAR of the building by adding this dormer . Pardee said there may be FAR available to the building that this applicant may be taking. Paterson said if they are not adding to the floor plan, there is no increase in FAR. Whitaker asked if the floor runs out to the existing line of the building and how high is it at that point. Kaufman said it is less than 1 foot at the edge of the building. Pardee said if there is no increase in FAR, and the applicant has the option of doing the same height, but through the interpretation of the Code would make a longer roof , he would be in favor of the variance request. Pardee said this can be built, and he would 2 Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment June 26 . 1986 prefer to have it done with the same roof pitch and as attractively as possible. Suzanne Caskey, representing Margaret Pace Wilson, said Ms. Wilson is concerned because of the scale of the neighborhood has gotten too big. Ms. Caskey said these objections are a matter of principle. Ms. Caskey told the Board she has been to the site, and if the applicant can add this space anyway, they would prefer the option of the variance with less apparent bulk . Carol Blomquist, adjacent neighbor, told the Board she was a member of the committee that got the height limit lowered in this neighborhood. Ms. Blomquist said her problem is with the Code adding balconies and dormers. Irma Prodinger, Hearthstone House, said all that can be seen from these neighborhood is bulk. Alan Bush, Park Central West condominiums, told the Board this variance will be a visual impact from some of the units. Bush said he tried to see the plans before the meeting, but was unable to locate any. Bush said he feels the bulk of the neighborhood is too high and the visual impact of any extension will be significant to some property owners. Bush said if they are allowed to do an extension without a variance, he would like to see drawings of the extension and the extension with a variance. Bush said if they can do it anyway, it should be done so that it looks better than worse. There should be comparisons of the two alternatives. Kaufman showed sketches of the two alternatives, one built to Code, one built with a variance. Kaufman said the issue is measurement of the height based on what type of roof there is. The Board looked at drawings of the two alternatives. Lavagnino said what is allowed seems like it defeats the Board's purpose. What is allowed by Code extends the roof line and gives greater bulk. Rob Weien, building department, said the Code states when height is measured you start at the existing ground elevation. On a flat roof you measure the top of the roof. When you have a pitched roof, you measure to the mid point between the peak and the ridge, that is the height of the roof. The exception is if the distance from the mid point to the peak is greater than 5 feet, then the maximum height becomes 30 feet. This is to keep buildings from having a large sloped roof and still measuring the height to the mid point. - Weien pointed- out- in this- application the difference between the eave and the ridge elevation is 6 feet. If you design to the maximum of the Code, you would design for a difference of 10 feet from the eave to the peak, and the mid point would be 5 feet. The distance from the mid point to the ridge wold be 5 feet maximum. Weien told the Boards that is what the "allowable " drawing shows . Lavagnino said the "allowable" drawing appears to be bulkier. 3 Regular Meeting Board of -Adiustment June 26 , 1986 Paul Anderson, 210 Cooper , said there may have been some conditions when this remodel was done. Erickson asked if the applicant needs or has approval from the condominium association for this addition. Kaufman said the condominium association has approved the change. Pardee said he is not sure this was mentioned in the proxys ; however , that is not the Boards ' problem. Pardee asked if the Board granted the variance, would the applicant have to construct what they have presented. Lavagnino said the Board has the plans on file, and the applicant is to build to the evidence presented to the Board. Pardee said if the applicant- receives a variance,- they can build a smaller dormer with a balcony; if they don't get the variance it is the same height with a broader dormer and no balcony. Pardee said in that case, he would be in favor of the variance. Lavagnino closed the public hearing. Whitaker said the argument about the structural problem is something that can be solved. The argument about the pitch of the roof is invalid because the south elevation and east elevation have different pitches anyway. Whitaker said he considers the two presented drawings a form of blackmail . Whitaker said the pitch of the roof can be reduced to that of the other elevations and no variance would be required. Paterson agreed this can be built 18 inches lower; however, he does not feel it is a good solution for the neighbors. Paterson said he would vote in favor of the variance based on these drawings. Whitaker said with this suggestion, you are creating exactly the same conditions at either end of the roof line that you are trying to get away from. Paterson pointed out the variance solution creates more ventilation and a healthier environment. Paterson said there are enough circumstances that make this case a practical difficulty. Erickson said he feels the applicant has illustrated that following the Code does not always produce the best solution. Erickson said he feels the drawings give the Board a strong reason for granting a variance. Ms. Mann agreed with Paterson' s arguments. Ms. Mann said the 18 inches asked to be granted may in effect by 15 inches if measured precisely. Ms. Mann said this seems a small request. Ms. Mann said she does not want to be in a situation to create more bulk , but this request seems practical. Lavagnino said he would like to put a covenant on this request so that the structure is built the way it is proposed to the Board. Whitaker asked if there is a 7-1/2 foot requirement on the ceiling, and could this be avoided by running the roof down to 2 feet . Weien told the Boards the plans presented were not complete enough to determine what the build out of the building 4 Rye-gul-ar_ Meeting __ -- Board of Adjustment June •26 . 1986 is. Weien said he cannot tell the Board how much of the parcel has been used up. Lavagnino asked if the Board should be concerned in a condominium building about the division of FAR between units in a complex. Kaufman said there is a question of whether the deck area will count in the FAR. Weien said generally going from non-habitable to habitable space adds area to be counted in the FAR calculation. Whitaker said the Board should know what the FAR ratio is and what has been used up on this parcel. Whitaker said if there is a possibility that this would put the building over the limit, he would like to know that. Lavagnino said the variance could be conditioned upon this addition not go over the FAR requirements. Lavagnino said this application does not address FAR. Cyrus said if the variance is granted and they apply for a building permit, and it is over FAR, the permit will be rejected. Alan Bush agreed some covenant should be put on this restricting any future changes to extend the bulk. Lavagnino said the Board is assuming the application meets all other requirements. Erickson read a letter from Hotel Lenado supporting the request, that it has no negative impact on the neighborhood generally. The letter states that the highest point of the building will not be increased, and the variance request is minimal. Paterson read a letter into the record from Kathleen Daily, resident of the Aspen Townhouses West, expressing opposition to any further expansion of the Good Thunder building, particularly a height variance. Lavagnino moved that based on the evidenced presented at this meeting the Board grants this variance with the stipulation that no extensions of the pitch of the proposed new dormer be extended at any future date Whitaker said he does not feel the criteria to grant a variance has been met. The City Attorney has told the Board this does not have to be stated in the motion but it must be brought up in the discussion. Lavagnino amended his motion to add that practical difficulties have been established; seconded by Erickson. Roll call vote; Ms. Mann, yes; Paterson, yes; Whitaker, no; Erickson, yes; Lavagnino, yes. Motion carried. Lavagnino asked that the problems caused by this measurement of the roof be conveyed to staff. Kaufman said this case points out a hypocrisy in the Code, and the reason they appealed to the Board is that they were caught in an unfortunate situation. Erickson said the Board is sorry Kim Wilhoit left and that she 5 Reuular Meeting Board of Adjustment June- 26 , 1986 did a very good job. The Board requested a commendation resolution be drawn up. Erickson moved to adjourn at 5:35 p.m. ; seconded by Paterson. All in favor, motion carried. Kathryn S. , och, City Clerk 6