Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19880721 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS JULY 21-x 1988 4:00 P.M SECOND FLOOR CHAMBERS A G E N D A I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. MINUTES OF MAY 5, 1988 IV. CASE #88-7 ELSA MITCHELL V. ADJOURNMENT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 21 1988 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called meeting to order at 4 : 00pm. Answering roll call were Francis Whitaker, Charlie Paterson, Josephine Mann, Rick Head Ron Erickson and Remo Lavagnino. Anne Austin was excused. MINUTES MAY 5, 1988 Ron made a motion to approve these minutes. Rick seconded the motion with all in favor. CASE #88-7 ELSA MITCHELL Remo opened the public hearing. Remo read into record request for variance. (attached in record) Applicant presented affidavit of posting and picture of posting. (attached in file) Elsa Mitchell: There is an existing garage that sits on the property line. It is 2ft in. And it actually couldn't be used as a garage because it is falling down. It is pretty ugly and in bad shape. And so I would like to replace it with a usable garage to be attached to the existing house. We came in and talked to the Building Dept on the preliminary plans and we thought we had done everything properly and so we drew everything according to that. Then somehow I was caught in between a change from 5ft setback to a loft setback. And once we went in and went to the Bldg Dept with our final plans that is when we found out that the Bldg Dept informed us of the change at the time of the preliminary. It changed during that time. So we were all caught in the middle of this. So I would like to request a variance because to change back to a loft setback now means revising all of the plans and the way that we drew it up originally looks better. We would have to change all of the roof lines. Remo: You have removed the garage already. Right? Elsa: Yes. It was pretty much falling down. Remo: Bill, is that true that you did not advise them or that you didn't know that this change was imminent? BAM7 . 21. 88 Drueding: No. I didn't know that. What happened, Randy Bingham (Architect for applicant) and I talked about this in February. Anybody that I talked with at that time I advised there would be a lot of changes in the R-6 Zone. So either get in before the new code is adopted or be willing to accept any changes that go on. It was my understanding at that time that there was going to be no changes in the R-15 zone. Or they thought about it and they got so much opposition they were going to do an FAR or some sort of reduction. They didn't do it. So on March 25th now this new code is adopted and the only change in the R-15 Zone was the side yard setback. So I didn't call people up or anything like that. But this is the only change in the R-15 Zone. Remo: It was adopted in May. Drueding: May 25th. Remo: What is their FAR? The reason I ask you that is that one of the reasons for the change in the setback is to reduce that bulk. And it seems to me now they needing all the setback requirements on side yard to their maximizing their lot area. And that is what I am concerned about. That was one of the purposes for creating that was to reduce people from maximizing. Therefore creating that area and bulk that people objected to in the R-6 Zone and probably thought that in the R-15 Zone it would apply also. Rick: They are 100sgft under what they are allowed. Drueding checked the code book and confirmed there was no reduction in the FAR. Rick: I see a 5ft setback line back here. It looks like the house gets closer to the lot line on this side. Randy: The closest point is 5ft. It is wider back here. The house is not quite square to the property line. Ron: Bill, so there were plans submitted prior to the passage of this law. Drueding: No. Ron: But when you originally talked to them-- Drueding: In February or March whenever it was-- Ron: They had no idea of the R-15-- 2 BAM7.21.88 Drueding: No. Ron: And if we were under the old code would this conform in all the aspects? Drueding: Yes. As far as the side yard setback they would conform, yes. Remo: Well, I don't know if it is valid to go-- . Francis: On page 1, item 2 under mitigating factors you say "My designer was aware of zoning changes to-the- R-6 but not to -the R-- 15 side setback change. " It seems to me that the burden of the designer is to--when there was such a drastic change in the entire zoning ordinance to be aware of any proposed changes in the R-15. Randy: I would like to mention that when we came in he said there was changes pending in R-6 but nobody was aware there was any changes in R-15. If there had been I would have followed up because I am used to having problems like this come up. Things like this happen all the time but since there was a major emphasis on R-6 and there was no knowledge of changes in R-15. Francis: This is a problem that we will undoubtedly be faced with lots of times with the change in the side yard setback. I don't know how many of the existing houses will be made non- conforming by this change but my guess is there will be a lot of them. Remo: That leads me into their conclusions of why we should grant them a variance and I would like to go through them because they are not applicable I think to our decision here. At least 3 of them aren't. A. "Granting of a variance will be consistent with the objectives of the Aspen area plan" . I don't believe that that is so. And that is the reason why this change to 10ft has occurred is because they have changed that objective to create less bulk within a lot. And they feel that R-15 -also comes under that purview. B. "The granting of a side yard setback for 5ft is the minimum that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel and building". I don't think that is applicable because 10ft side yard setback still allows the reasonable use of the land. You just have to have a different configuration. You still have 200ft. You can come forward within your front yard setback to 3 BAM7. 21. 88 meet any other kinds of requirements. So we are not denying you the reasonable use of the land. C. "The literal interpretation and enforcement of new 10ft side yard setbacks would deprive me of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and would cause me unnecessary hardship and practical difficulty". I think Francis was referring that specifically because no one now in the R-15 zone enjoys that 10ft side yard setback. Everyone would then have the same argument that came before us and we would be - deluged with that argument. D. "There are special conditions and circumstances that are unique to this parcel and building which are not applicable to other parcels, structures, buildings in the same zone district which do not result from the actions by me. " Now this may be true. This I think is your strongest point as far as I am, concerned. And if we can explore this further and you can convince me that you come under this sort of in-between change then maybe you have a unique situation. Randy: Our main case is that we tried to follow with the intent of the law checking into the zone before we proceeded with the plans, verified the zoning and setback at that point in time and proceeded with drawings. And due to it being in the process of code changing and people not being aware exactly it was changing, we were proceeding with things but not having it finalized with the concept of future changes. Since only 1 or 2 other people might be affected by the cross- over period I felt it would be a reasonable variance since we are caught in the crossover. We were just in the transition period where we were caught in-between and it wouldn't affect more than 1 or 2 other persons in this cross-over period. That is basically our case. That is our hardship. Francis: The key to me in evaluating the problem is this sentence early on. "My design consultant, John Randall_ Weiben, met with Mr. Bill Drueding of the Bldg Dept on Feb 1988 for a design review of codes and regulations presenting site plans, floor plans and elevations. " Now here is the key sentence. "Neither Mr. Drueding or my designer was aware of the pending setback change. " Is that correct? Drueding: I didn't know there was going to be a change. I was not privy to the code changes. 4 BAM7. 21. 88 Francis: So neither of you had any way of knowing that this setback change was coming up. Drueding and applicant both answered "hope" . Drueding: I didn't know until I read it that it was adopted. Ron: Bill, if the variance is granted--does this become a non- conforming structure? And any time you want to do anything else it has to come back before us? Drueding: Only if they are doing a setback. Only in that setback. Remo asked if there was any public comment. There was none. He then read into the record a letter from F. M. Metcalf, a next door neighbor, stating his approval of this variance request. Remo then closed the public portion of the meeting. Rick: I wish all of our hearings were this cut and dried. I think this is a perfect example of a hardship. I think when an applicant comes in and makes the effort to meet with the Building Inspector's Office and makes the attempt to do right by the code and both the City Official and the architect are not aware of pending change and begin the lengthy and costly process of developing plans and move forward to submittal stage, I think clearly there was a hardship created here and I would be in favor of granting this variance. Ron: I would agree with Rick. Plus I think we are getting rid of a worse non-conforming structure in the garage that was torn down. I think that was within 2ft of the property line. So you might say that they are decreasing the non-conformity by getting this variance. I would grant it. Francis: I disagree with your conclusions. Although I was prepared to vote against it, I think as the facts have been presented I would be in favor. I feel that you, in good faith, applied and tried to meet the code. And in the interim period the code was changed without either of you knowing about it. And I really think that is a hardship. Josephine: I agree with the statements that have been made about this being a hardship. And I would like to add that the fact that the FAR is under also adds to the strength of our variance because the structure is more in accordance with the spirit of the plan than it would have been if they had gone 200 more feet. 5 BAM7. 21. 88 Charlie: I am in agreement with granting this variance. I also feel that it is important to take into consideration what the neighbors have to say about this. And since there were no objections and we see a huge list of names that notifications were sent out to within the 300ft, I would be in favor of granting this variance. They have a definite hardship. Remo: I am looking at it a little differently than all of you. The question to myself is--does this undermine the intent of the code the way it has been re-written which to my way of thinking is to minimize the area and bulk of the structure on the site. I think that is what instigated this whole change in setbacks in the R-6 zone because of everyone maximizing their legal rights to a lot and then having these massive buildings, structures being built on properties in the R-6 zone I think they also applied it- -or felt that they should apply the same thing to the R-15 zone. With all the arguments that were given here I would agree with it and would also add that it's isolation and the configuration of the lot in it's relationship to other lots in the area make it a good candidate for granting this variance. So I would also be in favor of granting this variance. MOTION Rick: I move to approve the variance request Case #88-7 for all of the above mentioned reasons and on the basis of the evidence presented. Francis seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Francis, yes, Charlie, yes, Josephine, yes, Rick, yes, Ron, yes, Remo, yes. Charlie: Anne Austin wanted me to bring something to your attention. There is a building going up on the west side near the Baptist Church where she told me that we had not granted the variance about 2 years ago because it was non-conforming. They had asked for some type of setback situation and right now there is construction going on over there and maybe Bill Drueding can bring some light on this. Drueding: I have no idea. Is there present construction going on? Charlie: Yes. And they are joining 3 buildings together. Josephine: That is Marguerite Sheid's lot and I remember when we considered that before she died. 6 BAM7. 21.88 Charlie: The point is these are non-conforming because they are into the setback and if that is so they should come before the Board of Adjustment if they are building onto them. Drueding: All of the new construction is conforming to setback requirements under the old code. Just prior to changing the code the Ordinance #54 there were about 8 projects that were exempted because they had done some work and then it was in the middle. So they were one of those exempted by City Council to be looked at under the old code not requiring as big a setbacks and site coverage. So the new building there is proper. They are taking 3 single family houses and connecting them with a proper connection making a conforming duplex. Now you have 2 single family houses instead of 3 single family houses on 9, OOOsgft. Rick made a motion to adjourn meeting. Charlie seconded the motion with all in favor. 1 is Jan'Ea M. Carney City Deput� lerk 7 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case t88-7 BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen of June 25, 1962, as amended, a public hearing will be held in the Council Room, City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such other place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24, Official Code of Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. The particulars of the hearing and of the requested variance are as follows: Date and Time of Meeting: Date: July 21 , 1988 Time: 4: 00 p.m. Owner for Variance: A p p e l l a n t f o r Variance-_ Name: Elsa Mitchell Elsa Mitchell Address: 1169 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colo. 81611 Location or description of property: Location: Lot 3 Independence subdivision being part of riverside addition. Variance Requested : Property is located in the R-15 zoning category. Side yard setback is 10 ft. Sec. 5-202 Aspen Mun. Code. Applicant is requesting a variance of 5 foot sidse yard setbacks. Will applicant be represented by counsel: Yes: x No: The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case #88-7 BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen of June 25 , 1962 , as amended, a public hearing will be held in the Council Room, City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such other place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24, Official Code of Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance , as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. The particulars of the hearing and of the requested variance are as follows: Date and Time of Meeting: Date: July 21 , 1988 Time: 4: 00 p.m. Owner for Variance: A p p e l l a n t f o r Variance:_ Name: Elsa Mitchell Elsa Mitchell Address: 1169 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colo. 81611 Location or description of property• Location: Lot 3 Independence subdivision being part of riverside addition. Variance Requested : Property is located in the R-15 zoning category. Side yard setback is 10 ft. Sec. 5-202 Aspen Mun. Code. Applicant is requesting a variance of 5 foot sidse yard setbacks. k'c? r C., t. z' CCU / C 1-Z. f Will applicant be represented by counsel: Yes: x No: The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk F.M. METCALF 2116 McLain Flats Road Aspen, Colorado 81611 i June 30, 1988 Board of Adjustment City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street i Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Board: I am the owner of the parcel adjacent to 1169 East Hopkins and have reviewed the plans my neighbor, Elsa Mitchell , has had prepared for an addition to her home. I recommend that you grant her an easement for a five foot side setback. Her addition as planned is a great improvement to our neighborhood and to Aspen. The addition as planned also lessens the encroachment of the existing garage into the setback. For years, we in the R-15 district have enjoyed the right to build to within five feet of our side property line. I hope you are able to grant her a variance. Sincerely, .M. Metcalf .