Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19870326 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 26. 1987 City Council Chambers 4:00 P.M. A G E N D A I. MINUTES January 22 , 1987 II. OLD BUSINESS George & Mary Gleason III. DISCUSSION ON POWERS OF THE BOARD IV. ADJOURNMENT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 26 1987 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called meeting to order at 4 : OOpm. Answering roll call were Ron Erickson, Francis Whitaker, Josephine Mann, Charlie Paterson and Remo Lavagnino. Anne Austin wa s excused. MINUTES JANUARY 22, 1987 Francis made a motion to approve minutes of January 22, 1987. Francis seconded the motion with all in favor. CASE #86-18 GEORGE & MARY GLEASON Remo read into record request for variance. (Attached in record) George Gleason: The variance which was granted was granted to allow construction along existing wood deck. At the time that we were here before I had asked for a setback of 10 and 1/2 feet in order that we could add this loft addition. When I hired Harold Johnson to do the survey for me, I had asked him to install monuments on the southwest and the southeast corner of our property. And he did that. And this new drawing which was done by Schmueser and Associates and as agreed that the rear south setback. Remo: So what you have are 2 different surveyors giving you one lot line certification and each one is a different lot line certification. Gleason: I had asked for a setback of 10 and 1/2 feet and I want to show you how I arrived at that. I had asked Johnson to put in monuments on the southeast and the southwest corners and he did that. And as soon as he did it I went out and I strung a string between the 2 monuments and I measured the distance from the deck to this point here on the string and I took those numbers and those are the numbers that I put on this figure "A" because they came out 10 and 1/2ft. So based on that I asked for 10and1/2 feet because I thought that was all I needed. Francis: The new survey shows that the deck and the property line are about parallel . Charlie: If you take the difference between the 2 surveys it comes to 6ft8in from he deck to the edge. Remo: But I thought we gave him a variance not on the setback but on the existing deck. BAM3 . 26. 87 Gleason: Well, you did. But when I saw that there was a discrepancy--I said "We have got a problem. I don't want the Board of Adjustment to think I am trying to pull something here. " And so I went over and talked with Erin and asked what she would recommend. And she said it would be a good idea to come here and explain the problem. As a clarification what I would like to ask for is to allow 5ft rear south setback. That will give me about 6 inches to play with in case the contractor doesn't get everything in perfectly. So instead of saying along the deck because the deck is going to come off-- Remo: But the deck also was in loft by 32ft. And that information apparently was on this plat. Gleason: It was on one of them. Remo: So the information you gave us was erroneous. We assume when you give us that information including the 15ft8inches that our decision is based on that particular paper. And now it is 8ft9inches so I think we are going to have to use that. Since you are coming to us with the explanation that it was the existing deck that was the determinate factor in adding onto the addition I think we are going to have to go by 8ft9inches and the length of the building. As long as you can meet the side yard setbacks you can go beyond that. We don't care. Gleason: The deck has a step that runs a third of the length of the deck. Now whether you consider that to be part of the deck or not, I don't know. If I include the step the width of the deck from the house it is 10ft2 and 1/2 inches. So based upon that thinking it was loft I asked my architect to give us a loft addition. He has drawn those drawings now for 10feet. But if you want us to squeeze it down to 8ft gin we can live with that. Erin Hazen, City Attorney: Since this is really a hearing for a clarification you can't change the variance that you already granted which was along the existing line of the wood deck. You have that in your minutes. Remo: Well, we have information that that was erroneous when we were given that. Hazen: Exactly. But you need to make a decision whether that was material to your decision whether that was what you intended to do was really give a loft 5in setback or did you intend it to be as it was on the deck. There is language in the minutes like Ron 2 BAM3 . 26. 87 Erickson voted and he said it is the actual footprint of the deck which is what your variance says. Now the problem with the Building Dept was they said that is fine but that deck isn't the measurement that the Board had in front of them. Remo: Well, there is 2 different erroneous measurements. One is the deck itself and one is the setback. The original case was a variance to enclose a 10 by 32 foot patio deck. According to the survey it is 8ft 9in by 35ft without steps. We are using measurements that are on this survey. There is no indication of a step. So we have - 2 - different fact that were given to us that were erroneous that we based our decision on. Are you telling us now that we need 2 clarifications now? That is one for the size of the deck and one for the setback? Hazen: I assume that the Building Dept would want to know exactly where we can go. If you feel that the applicant has given you erroneous information that is material to your decision on the hardship issue then you can say come back and they will do the whole thing over. My advice to the Gleasons and to the Board is to try to figure out what it is what they are enclosing exactly. Did you want your variance to be the perimeters--a basic footprint of the deck as it exists today and instead of tying it to the deck tie it to specific measurements so the Building Dept can do it. Remo: There is another possible problem here is that Donna Fischer who was here at the time. Clerk: She was notified. There was then discussion as to what was the front and back lotline and whether the house was on a street or a private road. Bill Drueding, Zoning: I would consider this a street. It does say street. This is a well traveled street. I would try to protect that corner for a viewplain. I would consider that a corner lot. Remo: What are the setbacks now? Mrs. Gleason: When we built there that was Lot #10. And then the rest of the property was bought and some time after that there were a couple of tracks where that was an old mining road. And then they just took that and made that into their own private road. There is no parking allowed on it. That is how it came to be. It wasn't there when we bought. 3 BAM3 . 26. 87 Drueding: Even if this were a corner lot or assume it is a street. You have different setbacks. But you can't go changing each time. There is not doubt this was originally the front yard setback. So once it was established as a front yard I am not going to change and then call this the front yard. Remo: When we granted them the variance we told them that the west side had to be 5ft and the east side had to be 5ft. Well, the east side does not have to be 5ft. Well, the east side does not have to be 5ft. - Hazen: You cannot grant them anything over the existing line beyond the deck. Francis: I have a question as to whether we can change the variance without going through the whole process again on the basis of the new information. If we can change it to a 5ft setback instead along the line of the existing deck and also change it from a 5ft side yard setback to Eft 8in. Can we do that now without going through the whole process of notification and rehearing? Hazen: Yes. I believe so if you are of the opinion as Board Members that the information that you had before and the information you have now do not effect the variance that you granted which was "Along the existing line of the wood deck and no more than 5ft into the side yard" . In other words you are giving them less than you did initially. Then I believe it is OK because you are explaining what you intended to do when you had basic--it is a corner lot and you thought it was not. If you want to leave the east all by itself and leave it out of there because you don't need a variance for that, that might be the best solution. I don't know why we need to even to mention the east side. If they have a right to 6ft. Remo: Well, we gave them a variance for that. Remo then asked for public comments. There were none and he closed the public portion of the meeting. Josephine: I would be very happy if we could clear this up on the basis of our new information. Drueding: Basically in order not to re-hear this thing you have to stay with the line of the deck and just clarify how far away that deck is. 4 BAM3 . 26.87 Hazen: If you thought it was 10 feet and that was material to the granting of the variance then I would recommend you to deny it. It is erroneous information and start over with good information. If that wasn't the determining factor-- But if it is still not the real reason why you granted it which in reading the minutes I know that wasn't the reason Ron granted it. I don't know about the rest of you. I have drafted a resolution as to the wording I would use for this. Now how about "The Board of Adjustment grants the variance of the setback requirement from the rear lot line of 15 feet to allow the applicant to enclose the rear deck or patio which addition shall be 8 feet 9 inches parallel to the rear existing wall of the house as shown on the survey maps- attached hereto as Exhibit "A" . The setback variance inadvertently granted on the east side is withdrawn. " Francis: I so move. Josephine seconded the motion with all in favor. The business session of the meeting was then adjourned. Time was 5: 05pm. Members then continued discussion regarding powers of the Board with Erin Hazen. (Tape is available for review) . Jan i e M. Carney, City Deputy lerk 5