Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19861016 Board of Adjustment October 16 , 1986 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4: 05 p.m. with members Josephine Mann, Anne Austin, Charles Paterson, Rick Head, Francis Whitaker and Ron Erickson present. CASE NO. 86-17 The Ranch, 601 Hopkins Appellant is in need of additional exterior signage to make the public aware of its location. Property is located in the C-1 zoning district. The building is already over-signed , Section 24-5 .10 (2) "The aggregate sign area permitted along any one street shall not exceed 1 square foot of sign area for each street feet of lot line frontage . Applicant appears to be requesting a 10 square foot sign variance above the limit. Lavagnino opened the public hearing. Steve Peer , co-owner of The Ranch, told the Board this is a second floor location not on the traditional beaten track . Peer told the Board there is confusion arising from customers and from suppliers that this is part of another business directly below them. Peer told the Board the Ranch is not just a retail business , they provide a service to interior designers in the Aspen area. Peer told the Board they are a showroom and repres- ent major artists around the country. Peer said "Smith' s" sign is about 18 square feet. The building has about 30 square feet devoted just to building identification. Bill Drueding, building department, said the building allows 20 square feet and 32 feet on the other side because this building is on a corner lot. Peer said there is a total of 68 feet of signage on the building. Peer said he is requesting to add two words to each awning to make it consistent with the rest of the building. The primary thrust of this request is to get a sign for the wall so that people can identify where the business it. Peer said he wants to add "home outfitters" . Peer said they could put their logo on the signs instead. The Board felt that was better . Erickson asked if the sign "601 Hopkins" is counted in the total signage of the building. Drueding said building identification signs are not mentioned in the code and he generally does not count that. Lavagnino asked what the aggregate amount of signing, taking both street frontages , could be if this store were on the ground floor. Drueding said the applicant would need at least 30 linear feet on the Hunter street side to qualify for a 10 square foot sign. Peer said they have 30 linear feet. Lavagnino said he would like to give them as much prejudice as if this store were located on the first floor. Lavagnino pointed out the code does not address second floor spaces and their signs 1 Board of Adjustment October 16 , 1986 at all. Peer said he feels these signs would be an accommodation to their customers. Erickson read into the record a letter from W. R. Walton stating he would like to see all Aspen businesses exercise every legal and ethical opportunity to improve their businesses as in the long term all residents benefit from a health business community. Walton said , however , with the number of business in the com- munity, he would be reluctant to grant a variance from the sign code unless their are extenuating circumstances. Lavagnino closed the public hearing. Erickson said he feels the variance should be granted. Erickson said the situation has changed a lot since the original sign code was written . Erickson said when there is a new sign code, everyone will have to adhere to it. Ms. Mann said the sign code does not address second floor businesses, and this does not serve Aspen' s sign community well. Until the Council does something about the sign code, the Board is doing the best they can with them. Ms. Mann said the owners of this business have designed a sign that is as close to the requirements of the sign code as they can get. Ms. Mann favors granting the variance. Head said he is in favor of granting the variance. Ms. Austin favors granting the variance and that the "home outfitters" be put underneath "The Ranch" . Whitaker said on a temporary basis until the Council addresses the sign code, he is in favor of the variance. Paterson agreed. Head moved to approve case #86-17 based on the arguments presen- ted by the applicant; seconded by Ms. Mann. Head pointed out the new sign code will supercede granting of any variances. Lavagnino said the Board should add that this request will conform to the new sign code. Head accepted the amendments that this sign will conform to the new sign code and that "home outfitters" be put under The Ranch; seconded by Ms. Mann. Head , yes; Paterson, yes; Whitaker, yes; Ms. Mann, yes; Lavag- nino, yes. Motion carried. CASE #86-19 Charles and Helga Marqusee 520 North Eighth Street Lavagnino read , "The property is located in the R-15 zone , Section 24-3 .4 Area and Bulk requirements, front yard setback 25 2 Board of Adiustment October 16 , 1986 feet, side yard setback 5 feet, dwellings, rear yard setback 10 feet. Applicant is asking for a 15 foot front yard variance on Eighth street, corner lot, see Section 24-3 .7 ( f) (3) ; applicant requesting a 10 foot variance for side yard setback on North street from the required 16 ' 8" . Chuck Brandt , representing the applicant , told the Board the legal description of this property is lots A - I, block 7. These are fractional lots. The address is North avenue between Seventh and Eighth streets. Brandt presented an aerial photograph to illustrate the location of the property. To the east is Seventh street, to the west is Eighth street , to the north is the old race track, to the south is the unopened portion of North avenue. Brandt said this makes a uniquely shaped parcel and one that is isolated. Brandt said if the Marqusees wish to use Eighth street where it is not open as an access , they could. It is more desirable to come off Meadows lane onto North avenue to their property. Brandt introduced into the record the affidavit of posting and eleven pictures of the sign posted on the property. Brandt used a photograph to orient the Board to the property and surrounding property. Brandt told the Board he and staff have looked at the official zoning maps adopted by the city. Brandt presented the official zoning map adopted in 1967 through 1974. This map shows the entire west end as well as block 7 zoned R-6. Either side of Meadows Road is zoned R-15. Brandt told the Board in 1974, the city adopted a new zoning map, changing the Meadows zoning to SPA, the Janss and Snobble subdivision remained R-15 , and the entire west end remained R-6. Brandt showed a solid zoning line including block 7 not shaded R-15 or R-6 . Brandt submitted a letter to the building department asking for an interpretation of the zoning. The map used by the building department to confirm zoning shows block 7 on the R-15 side of the line with no shading. There is a question about the zoning of this block. Brandt told the Board when the applicants were considering an appropriate variance request from the city, they did not want an arbitrary setback request. Brandt said the most reasonable one would be the R-6 designation. There is some zoning history for the R-6 argument. The request is to encroach into the 25 front yard setback by 15 feet, which would leave a 10 foot setback , and to encroach 10 feet into the side yard setback. Brandt presented diagrams showing the building envelope of 1 ,656 square feet. If FAR is applied, the house size could be over 3 ,000 square feet. Brandt said the difficulty is the westerly width of the building envelope, which is 23 feet. To build a 3300 square foot house it would be 23 feet on one end, 138 feet long, coming to a point. 3 Board of Adiustment October 16 , 1986 Brandt presented a diagram of this lot if it is treated as R-6 , granting the variance request . The building envelope is increased to 3800 square feet , which would accommodate the applicants house of 2 , 078 square feet . Brandt said the applicants are not requesting to maximize the FAR but to get a setback configuration to allow a more normal shape house. Brandt pointed out the house is designed to try and be sensitive to the neighbors and to the views in the neighborhood. Brandt said if this property were zoned R-6 , a variance would not be needed . Brandt said the practical difficulties of the R-15 zoning on lot 7 and its shape warrant a variance rather than a rezoning. Lavagnino asked if the could use the point of Seventh and North as the front yard and avoid one variance. Brandt told the Board the location of the house is nearest to the Marqusee ' s existing house. The new house will be for the Marqusee' s grown children. the side yard variance would still be required. Brandt said one of the criteria for a variance is that the special circumstances and conditions do not result from the applicant. In this case the circumstances results from the uncertainty of the zoning and the configuration of the lots. Brandt said another criteria is that the special circumstances apply to the applicant ' s lot but do not apply to other properties in the same vicinity and zone. Brandt noted the R-15 zoning is much more applicable to the larger lots along Meadows road, which lots are all at least 15 , 000 square feet . In terms of the special conditions in the vicinity of this property, the lots in the vicinity are all zoned R-6 , which is why the applicant felt there is a certain logic to apply the R-6 setbacks to this property. Brandt said the third criteria is that the granting of the variance is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but denied the subject property by the circumstance. Brandt said the substantial property right is the right to build a house of usual dimension and is denied the owner by the unusual shape of block 7 and the applicability of- R-15 to the front and side yard setback regulations. The last criteria is that the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the general purposes of the comprehensive general plan . Brandt said given the R-6 zoning on 3 sides of this property, the requested setbacks of 10 feet on the west and 6 .8 feet on the south, the existence of the unopened streets on two sides, the open space of the old race track to the north, this request will not affect the general plan. Brandt reminded the Board in everyone' consideration for the Meadows property, 4 Board of Adjustment October 16 , 1986 there has been a recognized need to buffer the west end from any development impact. The impact of the variance would be quite minimal on the neighborhood. Brandt said there are 10 letters in support of the application and none opposed. Brandt showed the Board where the owners are located that wrote in support of this application. There is a letter from the Aspen Mountain Lodge property, owner of the Meadows, in support of the application. There are letters from the Senior Hallam Joint Venture , Menshers , Jack -Titus , the Erdmans , the Fleishers , the Physics Institute, The Dalys, and Butch Clark . Brandt said there is a precedent in granting a variance to the Rafeals in 1983 , which permitted the construction of a single family dwelling in R-15 and requested a 0 lot line setback. The board granted a 10 foot setback variance all the way around the property, resulting in a 20 yard variance for the front yard, 5 yard variance for the side and rear yards. Lavagnino said this case was not a precedent. It was unique to that property and the decision was based on the evidence presented on that lot. Brandt said due to the peculiar shape and small size of block 7 , the application of the strict R-15 setbacks results in practical difficult and unnecessary hardship that can be avoided without impacting the homes in the neighborhood. Head said there is a 5 foot setback on the north side of the property and asked why there is such a large distance between the street and the south side . Brandt said it is a corner lot. Drueding said a corner lot is 2/3 of the front required setback. One can choose which is going to be the side and which is going to be the front. The front is 25 feet, the side on the other corner setback is 2/3 of 25 feet , which is why the required setback is 1618" . Head said if the applicant was going to use 25 feet on "this" side, the applicant would only need a variance on one side. Lavagnino said if the applicant used the Seventh street, North connection as the front yard, the rear yard would meet requirements, the side yard to the north would meet require- ments and the south side would require a variance. Erickson asked if the applicants are asking for a variance from the required lot width of 50 feet. Drueding said this lot is a pre-existing lot of record. Whitaker said this is a reasonable request for use of property with a 6 '8" setback and a 10 foot variance on North street. Erickson asked if the applicants have talked to the city about the future of North street. Brandt said the applicants approached the city to vacate North street. The city elected not to vacate North street because they do not know what the development plans will be for the Meadows. The city 5 Board of Adiustment October 16 . 1986 wanted to keep the options open because they do not know what the access through the west end will be to the Meadows property. Ms. Mann asked if for the purposes of granting a variance, this Board can say that the front of this lot is on the corner of Seventh and North. Ms. Mann asked if the building plans would remain the same. Lavagnino said the applicants can have their entrance wherever they want to. This allows the board to give a minimum variance. Ms. Austin asked if the roof overhang has to stay within the setback . Drueding said it can protrude 18 inches. Lavagnino opened the public hearing. Jim Pavisha, representing the Aspen Mountain Lodge , told the Board they support this application. Pavisha said in conversa- tions with the applicant, Charles Marqusee indicated a willing- ness to provide a deeded easement across the two easterly lots nearest Seventh street in order for Seventh street to make the normal turns it might make if there is a Seventh street access to the Meadows. Pavisha asked if the intent is still there. Brandt said that intent is still available and Marqusee has indicated to say he will carry out that intention. Pavisha said Marqusee also indicated he was willing to place a cap on the development of this lot. Brandt said the FAR allows over 3 , 000 square feet ; however, they are not planning of building that large. Ted Mularz said an alley setback is 15 feet and how can the setback of 10 feet on the street side count for an alley setback . Lavagnino said the board is counting Seventh street as the front yard. Mularz said the rear yard needs to be 15 feet. Drueding said in the R-15 zone the rear yard is 10 feet. Lavagnino closed the public hearing. The board read the names of letters of support of the application into the record; Aspen Mountain Lodge , Senior Hallam Joint Venture, Mr. and Mrs. Thomas J. Daly, Butch Clark , Cinda and Donnelley Erdman, David and Lelya Menscher, Belton Fleisher, Jack Titus, and L. M. Simmons for the Aspen Center for Physics. Head stated he is in favor of granting the variance, primarily because there is a hardship in the configuration of the lot and the applicants have not used the total allowable FAR. Head said there is some question about the ambiguity of the zoning in this area. Whitaker agreed; the fact that they are under the allow- able FAR and height, and have presented a case for practical difficulties and hardship and have met the Board' s criteria are reasons for a variance. 6 Board of Adiustment October 16 , 1986 Anne Austin said she favor the variance. The applicant ' s have met the Board ' s criteria and have a very unusual situation. The applicants have tried to make this building as unobtrusive as possible. Paterson said he too is in favor of the variance for the reasons stated . Josephine Mann said she is in favor of granting the variance . The hardship and practical difficulty both are the shape of the lot. The owners do have a right to be able to build something and it was impossible because of the shape of the lots to plan anything usual. Ron Erickson said he would not grant this variance; however , the presentation was convincing. Erickson said the lot was purchased in 1976 , it was platted, it was R-15 zoning. The applicants knew the size and shape when they bought it, and it was a sub-standard lot then. Lavagnino said this is the most valid example for the Board' s existence for granting relief from the strict application of the zoning code. Lavagnino said no attempt to circumvent the spirit of the ordinances has been made. Head moved to approve case 86-19 giving 10 feet of relief in the form of a variance against the side yard setback ; for the purposes of this variance Seventh street will be used as the front yard; seconded by Paterson. The board clarified the south yard setback abutting North street is where the 10 foot variance, leaving a 6 ' 8" foot setback. Brandt said this is a change from the requested variance, and he would like to make sure it works that the applicants do not have to come before the Board again. Lavagnino said this lot has actually two corners and the applicants have a choice of the front yards for the setback . Whitaker pointed out if the applicants choose the frontage on lot I, the setback is about 75 feet and a variance is not needed . All that is needed is a variance on the North street side. Whitaker pointed out the rear yard with a setback of 10 feet. Roll call vote; Josephine Mann , yes; Rick Head, yes; Charles Paterson, yes ; Francis Whitaker , yes; Remo Lavagnino , yes . Motion carried. Josephine Mann moved to adjourn at 5 :25 p.m. ; seconded by Charles Paterson. All in favor, motion carried. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 7