Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19870122 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 22, 1987 City Council Chambers 4:00 P.M. A G E N D A I. NEW BUSINESS Case #87-1 / Houston R. Harte II. ADJOURNMENT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS JANUARY 22, 1987 Meeting was called to order by vice chairman Charlie Paterson with everyone in attendance except Remo Lavagnino who was excused. Case #87-1 / Houston R Harte Charlie read the variance requested as follows : Property is located on the R-6 zoning category. Rear yard setback is 15 feet Sec. 24-3 .4 area & bulk. House currently encroaches into this setback . Applicant appears to be requesting further stair encroachment of 4 feet. Chuck Brandt representative for Houston R. Harte said the property is located on the corner of Pearl and North 3rd Streets. It is a victorian residence which has been situated there in its present configuration since at least 1974. The application is a straightforward one . We are requesting that a fire escape be allowed by variance to protrude into the rear yard setback by 4 ft. The rear yard requirement is 15 ft. The Hartes have 10 ft. and the encroachment would be 4 ft. He said that city code provision indicates that yard projections may include fire escapes up to 4 ft. It is a right allowed by the code but we have a non-conforming situation. He showed pictures to the Board of the house from different angles. He said some of the members might remember an earlier attempt which involved this same house in 1981 which was then owned by Mrs Gray. She made an application at that time to build the deck and to build what was called a stairway. It was not intended necessarily for fire escape purposes. She proposed in 1981 that the deck intrude into the setback. At that time as concluded by the minutes of that meeting there was no basis for the deck to encroach into the rear yard setback. He introduced into the record copies of a portion of chapter 12 in the uniform building code of 1979. This is the code which has been adopted by the City. This particular section is the requirements for Group R occupancy which includes dwellings. Exit facilities indicates that every sleeping room below the 4th story of a structure shall have at least one operable window or exterior door approved for emergency egress and rescue. This application is for a safety feature. The upstairs area for this house is a one room sleeping area. It has access from the interior . The Harte ' s concern is for anyone sleeping in this room, should there be a fire, and the only means down through the house blocked. What the Harte 's propose is to follow the uniform building code, install a window that would meet code and that window would open out onto the deck. They would then like to have a means to exit the deck which would be via the fire escape. If you are concerned about different uses of that fire escape--in all likelihood they would exist--the deck is a feature of that house which we use for other purposes but the primary reason for the fire escape is for the safety consideration and for means of ingress and egress out of the one-room second floor and across the deck and across the deck and down the fire escape. We would be happy to have the variance if you are willing to grant the variance conditioned upon compliance with the require- ments of the uniform building code with respect with that exit opening. The proposed fire escape does meet code requirements for a fire escape. The applicants purchased this house in 1984 and the house was in the same configuration so it is not a situation that they caused, it is a situation they inherited. It is the original victorian structure and the non-conformity which existed for many years. The special situation here is the unique aspect of a relatively small victorian with a single room upstairs. He the presented two letters from neighbors to the board. One letter was from George Macatee who owns the house to the north. The other letter was from Elizabeth Hamilton Finkle who also had no objection to the variance. Josephine Mann said when she looked at the house and questioned where from the deck are you going to get onto the stairway. There was no decision here as to whether the deck or the stairway had been extended. Francis asked if there was an interior access to the upstairs room. Chuck told him yes there is. Anne said she had been in the house and it is not the original victorian and this had been a loft area. At the time the house had been remodeled why was this allowed to be a bedroom if it did not have a legal window. Bill Drueding said the house had been red-tagged in 1980 . The application for the variance then was for the deck and the stairway and it was withdrawn. Then in 9-25-86 it was red-tagged again. A fire escape is not required in this residence. There are many two story houses in this town without a fire escape. Francis asked the building inspector if the room met code requirements for a sleeping room. Chuck said he took for granted that it does but did not know for sure. And that he was assuming they also had a building permit -2— for that purpose. Drueding said there was an affidavit signed by Marsha Gray referring to a loft that would not be used for sleeping. He did not know which loft that was. But that this would lead him to believe that this room did not have the proper egress at the time and that it was not going to be used for sleeping. Ron Erickson said we are talking about 4 ft . additional encroachment not a 4 ft. encroachment. This building already encroaches 4 .10" into the rear yard setback and the applicant is asking an additional 4 ft . encroachment making the total encroachment 8'10" . Rick Head said the Board is mandated to give minimal variance and investigate other alternatives. He felt there were other places where a stairway probably would work coming off that roof and not encroach into the rear yard setback. Francis said there is an alternative which would be a metal spiral staircase or a metal ladder which would be great for emergency use. Anne then read from the original permit dated June 20, 1980 . "Whereas the following items have been determined to be potential problems with the application. The loft is not to be occupied as anything except storage. Whereas the owner is willing to make certain assurances and agreements related to these problems and on the basis of such assurances the County is willing to issue a building permit. Now therefor it is agreed the following: The owner agrees to do the following. The loft area will not be used for living or habitable area. That the loft will be used for storage only. In the event the owner fails to perform any of the above the County may revoke any permits which have been granted to the owner. This agreement is binding upon the heirs and any accessors of title. Chuck Brandt said he was not aware of this and asked that this application be tabled. The reason for the tabling is because there is some new evidence. That would give him an opportunity to determine what the legality of that loft area is, what the height consideration is and whether the client wishes to make it legal--pay a park dedication fee. If he can ' t I will send a letter to the Board withdrawing at that time. Charlie closed the public portion of the meeting at this time and asked for comments from the members. Rick Head made a motion that this matter be tabled to a date certain. The date set is January 29, 1987. This was seconded by Ron Erickson with all in favor except Francis Whitaker who was opposed. 3 GLEASON / 86-18 George Gleason said they had come to the Board on August 28, 1986 asking for a variance. One of the problems was that they were too close to the rear setback. They wanted to add on a deck 10 ft. by 32 ft. They were 10 and 1/2 ft. It was 10 ft. when they built the house 25 years ago and the zoning has been changed to 15 ft. The board agreed that that would be ok. He said they were too close according to the survey they had to their west lot line. This was done by Johnson. He said the Board' s advice to them at that meeting was that if the Gleasons could get a survey that showed they were 5 ft. from the west lot line, then they would not have to jog the house. When Mr. Gleason made that remark the Board members agreed they did remember that. With the advise that they might want to get another survey, Gleasons went to Schmueser, Myer and Gordon who were surveying that part of town at the time and asked for a second opinion on the location of the corners of their property. They came back with 5.1 ft. from the west property line which means we would not have to jog. Mr . Gleason then asked the Board if they could recall their advise was to them that night. Did they indeed recall telling the Gleasons that if they could get a survey showing they were 5 ft. from the west lot line, they would not have to jog their house. Ron Erickson asked if they conform to the 5 ft. setback and the Building Department buys your survey then where was the problem. Mrs Gleason said that since this did not appear in the minutes, the Building Department said they want the Gleasons to get Johnson to agree with Schmueser. That is not what this board instructed them to do. This board said if we could get a second survey that showed we were 5 ft. from the lot line we would not have to jog the house. We just want to get that into the minutes if indeed you agree you said that. Ron Erickson stated he remembered saying they should get another survey. Francis said he remembered it very clearly. 4 Charlie Paterson then asked for a motion that we insert this new information into the minutes which would grant the Gleasons the variance without the jog. Erin reminded the Board this is not new evidence showing they are within the setback. You all agreed that if Gleasons had a survey showing they were 5 ft from the setback that they did not have to put a jog in the house. That was part of your ruling, part of your variance. It simply did not get into the minutes. What we could do is have this attached to the minutes. You could say "to amend the minutes of August 28, 1986 to include the provisions concerning the west side setbacks. " Ron Erickson made a motion to amend the minutes of case 86-18 of August 28 , 1986 to reflect the additional comments made concerning a west side 5 ft. yard setback and the possibility of a new survey reflecting they were within those legal setbacks. Rick Head seconded the motion with all in favor. Anne Austin made a motion to adjourn the meeting with all in favor. The time was 4: 55. JaniO M. Carn y, Deput City Clerk 5