HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19870702 n
CITY OF ASPEN
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
JULY 2. 1987
4:00 P.M.
A G E N D A
I. ROLL CALL
II. MINUTES OF MAY 28, 1987
III. NEW BUSINESS
Case #87-7 / Thomas & Harriet Larkin
Case #87-9 / Dale & Sally Potvin
IV. ADJOURNMENT
A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS JULY 2. 1987
Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4: 00 pm.
ROLL CALL
Roll call was taken with all members present.
MINUTES OF MAY 28, 1987
Josephine Mann made a motion to approve the minutes of May 28,
1987.
Charlie Paterson seconded the motion with all in favor.
CASE #87-9 / DALE & SALLY POTVIN
After discussion pertaining to improper posting, the Board
decided to table this case to date certain of July 16, 1987.
Charlie made a motion to postpone this case to July 16, 1987.
Anne Austin seconded the motion with all in favor.
CASE #87-7 / -THOMAS & HARRIET LARRIN
Harriet Larkin: I gave you all a new copy of the survey in which
I shaded the setback on our lot. I appeared before this Board on
May 28, 1987 and I feel that my presentation was not clear enough
about the unnecessary hardship of the layout of the lot. I
brought this in to show what a large portion of our lot is in
setback. Our front line is 181 feet long on the street and 100
feet on the side and 140 feet in the back.
The whole lot is 8,082 sq ft. The setbacks take over 5,000 sq ft
of the lot. This is more than 2/3 of the lot. This leaves just
1/3 of the lot to build upon. According to the information the
Board of Adjustments gave me, the decision on whether to grant a
variance is based on Section 2-22 (d) items 1,2,3 & 4 page 156 of
the Aspen Municipal Code which states these valid reasons for
granting a variance.
#1. "The special conditions and circumstances do not result from
action of the applicant. " Clearly the unusual shape of this lot
with 181 ft frontage was done when the subdivision was platted
and is not of our making.
#2 . "Special or extraordinary circumstances apply to the
subject property that do not apply similarly to the other
1
properties in the same vicinity or zone. " The other lots in
Calderwood do not have such large frontages on the street and are
not penalized by such extreme amounts of footage and setbacks.
Some of the lots have 30 ft frontage, some are 40 ft and some are
50 ft frontage. We should be entitled to what other property
owners in this same area have. They lose much less of their lots
due to setbacks and their lots are smaller. The granting of a
variance will not adversely affect the purpose of the
comprehensive plan.
No property owners notified have objected and the ones in the
immediate area who would be affected the most have been very
supportive. I have letters from neighbors on both sides of me
who are supporting this request and more who are here today in
support of this request. The only variance I am asking is 15
feet instead of 30 feet on the street side.
Remo asked for comments from the Board.
Ron Erickson: Are you moving this garage closer to the house so
that it is 10 ft from the house now?
Harriet: It has to be at least 10 feet from the house. If it is
attached the setback is 10 feet. If it is an accessory building,
its setback is 5 feet.
Remo asked for comments from the public.
Susan Resnick: I live about 3 houses down from this property and
I can't imagine why they would not get this variance. They have
more greenery than anybody else in our neighborhood. It is a
fairly congested area but their ' s is certainly the most open. I
think the impact from this would be minimal.
Olaf Hedstrom: The Larkins are very responsible, respectful
people who wouldn ' t think of doing anything to harm the
neighborhood. I, as a resident, am concerned about 2 particular
things in the community ; fairness and the maintenance of the
appearance in our community. Number 1, I don't think this would
be an objectionable structure. Number 2, I think it grossly
unfair to deny the variance because of the unique form of their
property compared to all the others. The failure to provide the
variance would, I think, be grossly unfair to them.
John Hayes of 1112 Waters : I can see no unfavorable impact
whatsoever from this proposed variation. On the contrary the
amount of open space they have around their house and the siting
of the garage as they propose would seem to us to maintain the
allure of that particular part of Waters Avenue.
Pete McClain of 1110 Waters : I am here on behalf of Harriet
Larkin. I think that any improvement like this on the cul de
2
sac, you should not even have to think about . It would be
getting automobiles off the street and it would be a tremendous
improvement to the whole cul do sac and I think that everybody
who lives there feels the same way. I can't imagine why the City
would even think about turning down a variance like this. Those
automobiles being off the street would make it simpler in the
winter to have the street plowed. I think it would be a real
nice improvement to the whole cul do sac and I hope that you find
in favor of this variance and let the Larkins take care of it
right away.
Remo asked for further public comments. There were none and he
closed the public portion of the meeting.
Letters from Richard Lewis and Leslie Holst were then read -into
the record as attached. Both were in support of this variance.
Josephine Mann: I said last time that I thought the shape of the
lot was a real hardship. Now we are told almost 2/3 of the lot
is in setbacks not to be built upon. This re-enforces my feeling
that this is a real hardship. I spent a lot of time looking at
that today because I had said last time that garages are not a
necessity. We have to really think hard about granting such a
variance and so I went back and looked at that to see if I could
agree with what I had said last time about thinking that this
would not fit in with the spirit of the general plan. I decided
I would change that because of the amount of space there. They
have a larger lot than many of the other people do. That would
be one thing that would be an advantage. It is also an advantage
to get another vehicle off the street. I am also very favorably
impressed with how the neighborhood feels about this and so I am
willing to grant this variance.
Rick Head then asked to excuse himself from this application
because of a conflict of interest.
Ron Erickson : I think the shape of the lot does present a
hardship. I would grant a minimal variance which would mean
moving the garage to 10 feet from the building, move it back 3
feet on the lot so that it would not be inside the setback.
Remo: You have to remember the reason that they couldn't move it
to the minimum variance was they couldn't turn the car around to
get into that side.
Anne : At the last meeting, I was opposed to this because I
didn't see a hardship in needing to have a garage. Now that I
have seen this presented a lot more clearly as far as the
setbacks go and how much of the property she is losing due to the
setbacks, I think there is a real hardship because of the shape
of the property. I think it is something that has happened since
they purchased the property as far as the zoning changes. The
3
setbacks changed since the house was built. I would be very much
in favor of granting the variance now. It is a minimal impact
and the applicant has done the best she can to set the garage in
as compact an area as possible.
Francis: I don't find this a hardship in the shape of the lot.
I noticed that it is 8,000 sq ft which is 2,000 sq ft more than
the average building site. The real hardship was created when
the house was built in the location that it is. It is also in
the R-15 zone which requires 15,000 sq ft. I would agree it
would be a minimal variance to put the garage. I really think it
would make better sense to back the back of the garage up to the
rear yard setback and that would be the minimum variance and it
would make it easier access from the street. I would vote for it
if the garage were turned so it is parallel or at right angles to
the rear yard lot line and not parallel to the front yard lot
line.
Charlie: I really don't need to add anything to what I said at
the last meeting. I do feel the shape of the lot does cause a
hardship. I would be favorably inclined to grant a variance
exactly how it was asked for today. However, I would yield to
the Board members if they were going to vote no and go along with
changing the configuration of how the garage should sit. I would
be more inclined to grant the variance on the basis of the way it
was asked.
Ron: I think substantial justice would be done if we granted the
variance as requested. I changed my mind. I don't want to re-
design anybody' s garage.
Remo: I would love to give Harriet her variance but according to
our guidelines, I don't see how we can. She mentioned those 4
valid reasons for granting a variance but they have to be
prefaced by showing a hardship or a practical difficulty first
before you can apply those. Those are just guidelines for us for
granting a variance. I don ' t think they are being denied of
property rights. This is not a necessity. This is an amenity.
The arguments of automobiles being off the street don't totally
alleviate the problem as we all know. They get converted into
other uses, storage, cars are always on the street. In this
particular case, the car could always park on the property from
testimony that was given at the last meeting. So those arguments
don't have validity anyway because the use of what goes on inside
this structure can change. I would not grant this variance.
Josephine: After going through all this and noting that we were
told that a minimum variance means that substantial justice is
done, maybe not just in the minimum amount of square feet but a
bigger concept than that, I would maintain that the difference
between those two square footages is not very big.
4
The members then came up with a figure of 80 sq ft as being the
difference of footage between setting the garage where the
applicant asked and turning the garage as suggested by some of
the Board members. Some felt this was an insignificant amount in
comparison to the size of the lot.
Ron: The lady is losing 5 ,000 sq ft of her lot because of an
ordinance that was passed after she built her house.
Remo: I agree with Francis in that that was not the best place
to place the house.
Anne: But that was done before the zoning regulations.
Remo: But you buy a house with that idea that the house is in
place. And those are the ramifications that come from the house
being in that configuration.
Anne: What I am saying is that I believe that the Larkins bought
the house before the regulations went into effect.
Remo: My argument is entirely different. I don't care about the
minimum variance. My argument is it is an amenity and not a
necessity. We don't have to supply them a garage.
Francis: The code says that we must grant the minimum variance
to make reasonable use of the property. I maintain that if one
variance that is proposed is twice as big as the other that we
should grant the minimum variance. To me it makes sense because
it provides better access from the street.
Fred Gannett: In terms of the minimum letter of the law, that
has been interpreted not to mean an absolute one way or the
other, but as to what is substantially fair. Those are the terms
that are used in all the cases related to the Board of
Adjustment. Substantial justice is the guideline.
Francis: I am suggesting that minimum variance that I see as
possible plus providing better access.
Anne: Do you know for a fact that that will work?
Remo: We weren't presented with any evidence as to exactly where
those trees are so we are going on the assumption that this is
feasible because basically we are talking about a connection of a
little portion of the driveway.
Fred: If the Board felt that it would be helpful in reaching a
decision, they could take what is called a jury view. The board
could meet at some at some time and place so as to see whether it
would help them in making a decision.
5
Remo: I think that is an excellent idea. Even though I am not
going to vote for it I still think it a good idea in fairness to
the applicant and to the Board' s true understanding of what the
problem is. If they are going to grant this variance it would be
behoove us to go on the site and take a look at it.
Josephine: I move that we all go the site and continue our
meeting at the site.
Ron seconded this motion with all in favor.
The time was 5: 20 pm.
The meeting was continued on the Larkin Property at 5: 35 pm. This
on-site study resulted in a motion made by Francis Whitaker which
would grant a variance to allow a garage 20 ft by 16 ft to be set
against the rear yard setback, parallel to the rear yard line and
to conform with the 10 ft space requirement between the main
building and the accessory building.
Charlie Paterson seconded the motion.
Roll Call : Charlie Paterson, yes, Anne Austin, yes, Francis
Whitaker, yes, Josephine Mann, yes, Remo Lavagnino, no.
Ja ce M. Carn y, City D 9uty Clerk
6
ATM
TELWOMAM/NMAT)JWCS
SPONSOR 1984 OLYMPICS
C of
ASPA
C� to2s wwa-s Cup. .
r�RkWf�M LEW C�,
162,Z Lt �
KP", cm , , $yell
qZ -2216
f �
ctz- 1 0
A
� 1`