Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19880818 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AUGUST 18 , 1988 MAIN FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS A G E N D A I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. MINUTES OF JUNE 9 , 1988 IV. CASE #88-8 LEONARD M. & CHERIE G. OATES u RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AUGUST 18, 1988 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called meeting to order at 4:00pm. Answering roll call were Charlie Paterson, Josephine Mann, Rick Head , Anne Austin, Ron Erickson, Francis Whitaker and Remo Lavagnino. MINUTES JUNE 9, 1988 Rick : I move to table the minutes of June 9 , 1988 to next meeting. Josephine seconded the motion with all in favor . CASE #88-8 LEONARD M. & CHERIE G. OATES Remo read variance requested. (attached in records) Leonard Oates: Presented affidavit of posting. Essentially what we want to do is enclose an existing building footprint on the property in order to create more room for some additional bathrooms in the house. The lot is not a square lot. The shape of it makes it pretty difficult to work with. The house was built in 1955 and was approved by the Architectural Control Committee at the time that it was built. We believe that when the house was built that the frontage that was used to calculate the set back was not on the cul de sac but rather on a road that goes off of the park that was called Park Avenue . In 1955--the plat was signed of f on by Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners. The house was built in 1955 in the Spring right after the subdivision was approved. This lot accesses through the private driveway easement which is a written easement between Mr. Penning and myself. Mr. Penning laid claim to the portion of the property that was in front of his house. We laid claim to ours. Fritz Benedict gave us each deeds to these portions of the property. We improved ours with a garage. That has been many years ago. Our belief is that this is a 25 ft strip of land. If you measure this area to this area, it is within inches of 25 ft . The original access to our house is documented to have been right on this corner here. And we believe that the frontage that was utilized at that time was Park Avenue as opposed to Riverside Drive. And that these were treated as side yards at the time. BAM18 .88 Now with the disappearance of Park Avenue-- it doesn ' t go anywhere other than to service this and Mr. Penning ' s property. There just is no more frontage left so what you are dealing with then is only Riverside Drive which makes it extremely difficult to work with. It is a 2 ft request for a variance into the side yard. The development was further encumbered by the existence of the driveway which Mr. Penning shared with us. There is a lot of mature and very dense vegetation in the form of Aspens and Service Berries that we would have to tear down to try and go anywhere else not to mention the location of the access to utilities. The road is paved and traveled and is actually much further away than the r-o-w as shown on the survey. It appears to us like it is about 25 ft to the paved portion of the roadway from the nearest portion of the deck to it and the furthest distance about 35 ft. There is no potential for any further development that would increase demands on this road that services only our subdivision. Although the property is zoned R-15 I think you are aware from other variances on setbacks that have been solicited and granted that the lots are very small in the subdivision and our lot is only 10 ,700 sqft and that makes it difficult to work with the lot as well. I would also point out that the 2 immediate adjacent property owners are here and we believe that they are in support of the request. This would be carrying the shed roof line out. Perhaps a slight change on the angle on that. Remo: I notice that the house comes down at a slope and then it has got this configuration at the bottom there is a little flair out . Is that considered square footage to this house? This is about 1 ft high. This portion is 1 ft from here to here and this is about a foot and a half flared out at the bottom onto the deck. Lennie: It is included with the variance request because we are coming up with this wall area and bringing it out. The increase is only the deck area. Remo: But you are enclosing this portion of the area. Lennie: But I have already got that. It is there. It is part 2 BAM18.88 of my house. Anne : This deck has 3 different depths to it. What are you intending to enclose? Lennie: Only to take a straight line across the longest portion. Rick: I don' t think the square footage issue is a concern here. Even if he was asking for 200 sqft it still is within the FAR. Ron: When did you buy your house? Lennie: 15 years ago. Ron: So actually you bought it after the original downzoning and the big code went into effect in 1973-1974 but prior to the changes to the side yard and front yard setbacks. Dorothy Telleher: We have been neighbors there for 15 years. I was the second one who built there. Where they are going to put this actually is well screened by trees and it is below the level of the road. But as a neighbor who would be most likely to be impacted by this, I have no objection whatsoever . Russell Penning: I own the lot down below them and share the driveway. I have got absolutely no problem with this. It is so close to the driveway where the trees are so thick there that you can' t see. The grade is below the street level. It virtually can' t be seen from the road or from the driveway and there is no impact as far as I am concerned. Josephine: We are interested in hardships . If there is no hardship there can't be a variance. You stated that the house was OK as far as the situation in 1955 when it was built. But things have happened since then in our zoning. The shape of the lot being concave in front is difficult to work with. Then you talked about Park Avenue and that being vacated. We got into the idea that that was the original front yard and that now you can' t use that because it is not public access to the street . Another difficulty is that you share a driveway with your neighbor. There is a lot of mature vegetation especially around the front and the east side which, on the front, is what hides part of what you would propose be built. Lennie: The lots are small in the subdivision. Even though it is R-15 all the lots are down around 10 to 11 ,000 sqft. Remo: I doesn' t matter. You bought it knowing it was a small 3 BAM18 .88 lot. I find it very difficult when somebody has in an R-6 zone comes in with just 1 lot of 3 ,000 sqft and then uses that as a basis for a hardship. You can only build with what you have got to begin with and if you buy a half of a lot, you can' t claim it as a hardship. Lennie: It just makes it more difficult to work with because it is- a-15 ,000 minimum square foot zoning category and in fact they are putting you in a 15 ,000 square foot category when you are less than that. And they are applying rules to you which apply to 15,000 square foot lots. Fred: A better argument in that respect is that when the house was built and was zoned R-15 it was placed in such a position as to make less use of the space you have. So that you had the zoning superimposed on it, it superimposes setback which makes it non-conforming. And the house is all centered so that basically you are denied some of the use of your areas. And that would be a practical difficulty with respect to the lot. Dorothy Tellerher: As a neighbor for many years, I know that was a do-it-yourself house. It was done by a bachelor and didn' t need many bathrooms or anything like that and I think that he didn' t build it with an eye to anything that a family might need to add to it. So it is a difficult house to work with. Remo: I think the Board has to consider what we have done in the past. This is a fine line between adding a convenience for the property' s owner and then having to treat this in general with every other request for a variance that we get in the same manner. I don' t see how we can take it out of that realm. Fred: In respect to that, every case has to be looked at the same. And then put that into the general parameter of what you have got with the code. That is how you decide. So you are not worried about setting precedence. Remo: But still the argument of convenience is here. That is prevalent in all these other cases that we have turned down before. Fred: There are 2 sets of conditions in the new code. It says "Special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel , building or structure" . That is one. The second is that "Granting a variance will not give the applicant any special privilege" . Is there something special about this lot, parcel , building or 4 BAM18 .88 structure which is not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone. Those are basically the areas and you are looking under 2 criteria. One is unnecessary hardship, the other practical difficulty. Francis: One thing that bothers me--they are making a request to enclose a space to add some bathrooms. We have no floor plan to indicate whether there are any other options. I don' t feel we have complete information. Lennie: Drueding told me that each of the members would make an inspection. Ron: Give us reasons to believe that there isn' t any other place you can add--that you do have a hardship. Charlie: You see, the Board is traveling blind. If we had a sketch of what is going on inside the house--for instance where the bathroom is located. Russell: Right now there is one bathroom and it actually forms the hallway to the master bedroom. There is no access to the master bedroom or the other kid' s room. You have to go right through the bathroom. Anne: So what you have right now is 1 bathroom and 3 bedrooms because there is an attic bedroom served by 1 bathroom which you have to walk through in order to get to the bedrooms. Charlie: This boils down to practical difficulty. Now I can see where the man has a practical difficulty . This becomes a hardship in my opinion. Ron: I agree. But I want to see plans of some kind. I would be willing to table this application until the proper drawings can be submitted . Charlie: We need to know what we are getting a variance for . That is what it really amounts to. Not just the roof, but what is inside. Anne: I would have no problem with granting this if I saw some plans to this effect. Ron: I can see where there is a practical hardship based on the layout of the building plus the fact that there is 1 bath. I may look at that as a hardship. 5 BAM18 .8 8 Francis. How long have you lived in the house? Lennie: 14 years. Francis: You have lived with this hardship for a long time. Discussion then was whether to make an on-site inspection or to table to a date certain to give the applicant time to present more detailed plans. MOTION Francis: I make a motion that we table this to a date certain of August 25 , 1988 in order to provide time for the applicant to bring to the Board information on the floor plan and to see if there are any other options. Charlie seconded the motion. Roll call vote : Rick , yes , Josephine, yes , Charlie , yes, Francis, yes, Remo, yes. MOTION Remo: I make a motion to meet at 4: 00pm on August 25, 1988 at the Oates home and that we have an on-site inspection before the meeting here at City Hall. Rick seconded the motion with all in favor. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 5 : 15pm. -------- --- --- -�-Janice 4. Carney, i y Deputy C rk 6 __, __ - - ICE OF PUBLIC HEARING -- _--!' - ---- -- CASE #88-8 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: August 18 , 1988 Time: 4: 00 pm Owner for Variance: Appellant f o r Variance: _ Name: Leonard M. & Cherie G. Oates Address: 1205 Riverside Drive Leonard & Cherie Oates Location or description of Property Location: 1205 Riverside Drive, Aspen , Colorado Variance Requested : Property is located in the R-15 zoning category. Front yard setback is 25 ft . Chapter 24 , Sec 5- 202 (D) (4) . Building already encroaches into front yard setback and thus this area is non-conforming structure. Chapter 24 , Sec 9-103B. No non-conforming structure shall be enlarged that increases its non-conformities. Applicant appears to be asking to enlarge a non-conforming structure requesting approximately 5 ft to 20 ft encroachment variance front yard. Will applicant be represented by counsel: Yes: No: X The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Janice Carney, Deputy City Clerk