Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19880929 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS SEPTEMBER 29, 1988 MAIN FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS A G E N D A I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. MINUTES OF AUGUST 18 AND 25, 1988 IV. CASE #88-9 WILLIAM HEWITT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS ----_SEPTEMBER 29. 1988 Vice Chairman Charlie Paterson called meeting to order at 4 :00pm. Answering roll call were Anne Austin, Rick Head, Josephine Mann, Francis Whitaker , Ron Erickson and Charlie Paterson. Remo Lavagnino was excused. MINUTES AUGUST 18- AND-25, 1988 Anne made a motion to approve minutes of August 18 , 1988 . Ron seconded the motion with all in favor . Ron made a motion to approve minutes of August 25 , 1988 . Anne seconded the motion with all in favor . CASE #88-9 WILLIAK-EEWITT Variance requested as attached in records . Anne read into the record a letter from John T. Nichol who was opposed to the granting of this variance. (Attached in records) Charlie read into the record a letter from Valerie Richter also opposed to the granting of this variance. (Attached in records) Charlie: I believe this is a case of mistaken Lot reading. If they are facing eastward they are looking at the 1010 Ute development. Anne: They are talking about the property that extends from Ute Avenue across the cemetery to the Roaring Fork . That is 1010 Ute. That is not the property we are talking about today. Ron read into the record a letter from Aspen-Chance, Inc . also opposed to the granting of this variance. (Attached in records) Applicant then presented the affidavit of posting and photo of the sign of posting. Sunny Vann: Consulting planner representing the applicant, Mr. Peter Coventry of Sydney, Australia. Sunny made presentation as attached in records. Welton Anderson: Architect. I started working on the design of this and came to the realization that when we took out the 25 ft front yard, the 10 ft rear yard, the 10 ft side yard out of a 97 BAM9 .29.88 ft X 47 ft lot, you didn' t end up with a whole lot in the middle. The property lines are not parallel in any location. It is not square or rectangular . It is impossible to fit the square footage that you are allowed within that setback in a 2 story high envelope because you wouldn't have any right angles in the entire house. Then I got into trying to lay out spaces within what was left of the postage stamp in the middle of the site. Once you put in a 2 car garage which is required because you have to have on-site parking at the rate of 1 parking space per bedroom, you end up with some rooms that are 5 ft wide. Rick: You need off-street parking. You don' t need a garage. Charlie: But if you have a small lot, where are you going to put it? Welton: A carport would be the same as a garage. It would have to be within the setbacks. And you would end up with some odd little hunks of buildable area and what do you do with a 5 ft wide by 22 ft room? Not a whole lot. If you look at these 2 footprints, building this out setback line to setback line covers 1 ,580 sqft of site area. It does not allow us to go what is, by right, buildable on this size of a lot because of the setbacks. What we propose to do is to treat it as if it was an R-6 and only have 97 more square feet of site coverage. You can see that the site coverage is essentially the same within 100 sqft one way or the other without asking for a great deal of additional site coverage. What we are asking for is the ability to orient the house towards Aspen Mountain and to allow for some offsets in the walls of the house so that it doesn' t address the neighborhood as a square box. It also gives us the opportunity to set back further from John Nichols' lot. John came over to my office obviously feeling the pressure . We discussed what I could do to ameliorate his concerns. He was concerned basically with materials, the amount of stone work, the location of stone work. He was quite happy with the fact that the house was set back another 10 ft further from him with the R-6 setback than we would be with the R-15 setback . As regards to Lot 1 of Aspen Chance: The bulk of the square footage within that setback is about the same whether it is R-15 2 BAM9 .29.88 zoning or R-6 zoning. The amount of side yard between the 2 properties is about the same amount of square footage. Charlie: With the garage--where is the garage located now? In the front? Welton: This is all facing Ute Avenue. Sunny: There really is no ability to access the rear of the property because of the width of it. There is no ability to run a driveway all the way around and come back . Charlie: There is already a driveway though. Welton: That belongs to the Chance Subdivision. Charlie: So he can' t really use that. Welton: We originally wanted to access to the garage off of this private road. John Nichols said "No you cannot do that" . Charlie: So you are doing it right off the front of Ute Avenue. Welton: Right. Sunny: Basically you would have a parking apron to accommodate guest parking with some covered parking. Charlie: So you would have approximately 12 to 15 feet depending on where you are on this angle here. Sunny: I think it is interesting to note that the lot which is currently under development--Lot 1 of Chance would allow a house somewhere in the vicinity of 4 ,000 sqft plus with setbacks which are tied to a 15 ,000 sqft lot. We are simply asking that a house of 2 ,800 sqft which is permitted on a 4 ,500 sqft lot not be adversely encumbered by setbacks which bear no relationship to the size of the lot. In fact the amount of encroachment here that one would find objectionable to the adjacent property owner is fairly minor. Josephine : You said that there would be only 96 sqft of additional site coverage. Welton: Yes. With the space you have left over with R-15 after you put the setbacks in is 1 ,580 sqft and what we are proposing is 1 ,677 sqft which is 97 sqft of additional site coverage. Josephine: Can you tell me if there has been a lot of previous variances? 3 BAM9 .29.88 Bill Drueding: There have been 2 previous variances that I am aware of along Ute Avenue in the past 8 years--Gleason and Crumb. Sunny: If we had to characterize this variance I would say it would create a house that is more amenable to the lot and to the neighborhood. It is not to make it larger. If anything it is to keep it from being so narrow, skinny and long. It is to give some articulation to the outer surfaces. Rick : You mentioned the lot ' s allowable floor area is approximately 3 ,320 and then in another area you tell me that the underlying zoning only would permit 2 ,820 . I did some checking and the R-6 zone 2 ,820 is the appropriate underlying floor area that is allowed. Sunny: It is the garage. The garage is 500 something sqft. Rick: Is that being counted in the FAR. Sunny: Garage does not count in floor area. What we were saying is if you take the allowable footprint which was 1 ,580 and you multiply it by 2--a 2 story house so the actual FAR--if you want to compare to adjacent structures it is 2 ,820 . You do get up to 500 sqft for a garage that does not count in FAR. Nor did it count in the Chance. Rick: I have some problem with those comparables using Chance because they have gone through PUD and it was a very extractionary process and they made many concessions. Sunny: The size of their houses is based on the size of their lots. The reference I was making was the size of this particular structure in relation to its lot as compared to the size of their structures in relation to their lots. Ron: How long has Bill Hewitt owned this lot? He bought it with the underlying zone existent? Sunny: Yes. Around 1981 . Anne: The R-15 zone would allow you how many sqft? Bill: They are identical . Anne: So it is just the site coverage. Ron: I understand that there are two basic problems with this 4 BAM9 .29.88 lot. It is a substandard lot even for an R-6 zone. And it is too narrow to meet the minimum requirements under R-6 and R-15. Sunny: No. It is 60 ft minimum in the R-6 zone. Ron: I know under current code if we were to plat this lot it would have 2 major defects to start with. And it had 2 major defects to start with when it was purchased by Hewitt and recognized by you gentlemen before you came before us. So the thing is that by right you have the right to build a single family house on that. Sunny: On about 2 ,820 sqft. Yes. Anne: You are planning to build a 2 ,800 sqft house? Welton: It is 2 ,800 sqft plus the garage. Anne: Plus the garage which is 500 sqft. And it is a 2 story structure plus a full basement and the second floor comes over the garage? Welton: Yes. The master bedroom is over the garage. Charlie then asked for comments from the public. Chuck Brandt: I represent the adjacent property owners of Aspen Chance Lot 1 and Lot 3 . Lot 3 is less impacted because the Aspen Chance Subdivision has the 2 lots on the same level as Lot 5 Ute Addition which is Lot 1 and John Nichols lot whom you have a letter from Lot 2 . Then Lot 3 steps up but it is directly behind the Hewitt lot. So that when you compare Aspen Chance buildings you need to recognize that there is a different characteristic in the lay of the land because Aspen Chance does have basically 3 levels. Lots 1 and 2 on Ute Avenue and then the other lots above it and it still steps up further Lots 6 and 7 . Our concerns are basically site coverage concern. But I have a question first. Bill, since the basement is a usable area and has light and air by virtue of the window wells, does it or does it not count for FAR? Bill: It does not count. It is 100% below grade. They give up to 10% open space--those window wells will be counted to go to more than 10% of excavation. If 50% of the basement stuck up 50% of that area would count . Whatever is below grade does not count. Chuck : Then if the 2 ,850 sqft in the house--is that just the first floor and the second floor or is that all 3 levels? 5 BAM9 .29.88 Welton: That is the first floor and the second floor and a portion of the 2 story high entree for space because as we re- write the code in R-6 you count 2 story high spaces more than once. You wouldn' t for R-15 . Chuck: So you actually have a house which has 3 levels. And when you include this square footage and a basement, what is the total square footage? Welton: I don' t have those numbers. Chuck: But it is something larger than 2 ,800 . Welton: Yea. But that does not count. Chuck: It does not count for FAR purposes and it really doesn' t count for scale purposes but I want a verification of that to understand it for my purposes. A specific is the encroachment by 5 ft towards Lot 1 . Sunny: Your are right. There is 20ft utility easement right here too. Chuck: The other specific siting concern is the structure would be set 10 ft back from Ute Avenue rather than 25 . So it puts that house further towards Ute Avenue than a house that will be on our client' s lot. We have the same concern that you had which is it seemed to us Mr. Hewitt knew the size of the lot--knew the zoning when he bought it and the lot can accommodate a house . Hopefully it would accommodate a house that wouldn ' t be a rectangular box that people would have an incentive to do something which is creative even though they don' t have quite the flexibility that they would have with a variance. Those are our concerns as representing the adjacent property owners . Francis: Chuck , I think one figure is wrong . It must be an average of 12 and 1/2 ft setback from Ute Avenue instead of 10 according to this site plan. Here is a 10 ft setback here and it is set back from that I would say an average of 5 ft so it would average a 15 ft setback. Sunny: In fact Chuck has made a very good point. What we have been trying to do is balance the siting of the house with the adjacent neighbors. If we go back 25 ft from the front then we are pushed back to the structure which is Mr. Nichol to the rear. There is 20 ft utility easement across Lot 1 which can' t be built in. So therefore pulling it this someway, we still got at the worst condition 25 ft at the nearest corner here to the closest that Lot 1 could build and in most cases it is 6 BAM9 .29.88 considerably more. So what we are trying to do instead of having just a straight wall here is cant the thing and try to balance its impact on the neighbors plus provide the owner of the property with some flexibility in the design of his house. Chuck: If we were to design it, we would rather see the house set back to the rear of the lot because the house on Lot 1 , in all likelihood, will be set back towards the rear of the lot. Ron: Would that be a consideration that you would acquiesce to? Welton: We could never get it back so that it fits 25 ft from the front property line. Ron: Since our obligation is to grant minimum variances, is there any way that your current design could be moved back to the back of the lot and still conform to the front yard setback. Then we wouldn' t have to give you a front yard setback variance or a small one which we would be much more likely to do . Welton: This block of the house is designed to accommodate the smallest possible automobiles that would fit into a garage. Charlie: It would eat up too much of the house if you had to set that back 25 ft. Then you wouldn' t have much house left . Rick: I keep maintaining that I don' t find a garage a necessity. I don' t find that knowing that this is a small lot, why it can' t be a 1 car garage. Ron: I would rather have them build it today rather than have them come back and ask for a variance so they could close the carport in 5 years. Charlie: They have to have off street parking. Rick: You don' t have to have a garage for off street parking. Sunny: You don' t have to have a garage. But we would have to provide 1 per bedroom so the cars are either going to be sitting on a flat parking apron in front of the structure or underneath the house. Ron: Getting rid of the garage also gets rid of the master bedroom, right? Welton: Yes. To provide uncovered off-street parking you basically would turn back the entire front 20 feet so you could fit in 3 or 4 cars along the front. I don' t think that' s great. The house has 4 bedrooms. 7 BAM9 .29.88 Welton then went over the plan elevations with the Board members. Welton: We would be more than happy to make this part of the record for approval that this is the house that variance is being applied for and that we are not playing any games trying to get additional setbacks. Charlie asked if there were any further questions. There were none. Francis: It seems to me they have made an effort to accommodate people. They are way back from the R-15 setback on the back side and the encroachments on the side are not full width. They are on an angle. From the point of view of the neighbors I would think they would prefer a house like this rather than a square box . I think the idea of using the R-6 setbacks is quite appropriate. I would be in favor of the variance. Rick: I disagree with my astute colleague. I am not in favor of granting this variance and I have a number of reasons. I have not seen a hardship that cannot be overcome some other way. I think Chuck' s remarks were well taken and I still have a craw in my throat about this garage situation. I know it is a great thing for the City to get cars off the streets but as we all know, we have certain constraints that we have to live within and a garage I don' t find as a necessity. I think this planning could be accomplished without that. I think a lot of this is aesthetics. I think we can design something within the confines of the setbacks in R-15 and I don' t like the fact that it sticks out . All of the other homes on that street are in line. This one is going to stick out as you look down the road. Anne: I am a little concerned about the garage but I think it is more important to get the cars off the street. If we can reduce that garage size with a projection out in front , I have no problem with the size because I think they have minimized it by having the angles there. I am leaning towards granting them the variance. Josephine: I have seen no effort to acknowledge that this is a small lot. It doesn' t have to be a 4 bedroom house or even a 3 bedroom house, etc. The grant of a variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure. Reasonable use. I think that it is a small lot and it would be unreasonable for us to add even a larger footprint. I know we are not adding FAR. But even to add a larger footprint. 8 BAM9 .29.88 Denying this variance would not deprive you of a right and would not , in my view, deprive you of the right enjoyed by other people. So I am not in favor of this variance. Ron: I can' t vote on the variance but if you want my comments I would say that this is too massive a structure for the lot size and I would not grant it as designed. I think it is a wonderful design. I think it is a beautiful house. But it is too big for the lot. Charlie: The way I feel about it I would like to say that I agree with Josephine very much on a lot of your points. However? I don' t see whether that is a solution because they have a right to build just as massive a house on the other zoning and the house can be exactly the same size. I think that the applicant has made a real effort to make that lot work architecturally so that the neighborhood would be enhanced rather than if they had to use the other setback--the 25 ft setback which is really the whole crux of the variance. So I would be in favor of granting the variance even though I agree with you, Josephine . I feel that they do have a hardship because of the lot size. Charlie then re-opened the meeting for further rebuttal or suggestions before voting. Sunny: First I will address Josephine' s remarks then I think I would like to ask if we can table this to give us a chance to look at the design in terms of how we could further improve, within the confines of the R-6 , with the idea of perhaps being able to secure an additional vote. I agree in part with what you said. However, it is like saying you bought a lot and it has been there since the 1890s and you are entitled under the regulations to build X amount of square footage. Your neighbors bought larger lots and they built out to the allowing FAR and because you have a small lot you are saying you should sacrifice and only build half of what you are allowed to do so it won' t affect anybody else. It seems to go against the fundamental idea of regulating the size of houses in the various zone districts. The code says it is a sliding scale that if you have X amount of lot, you should be allowed to build X amount of square footage. Because it is a sliding scale it treats everyone, regardless of the size of his lot, equitably. So to say that because his lot is smaller than the standard he should voluntarily build less really is inconsistent with the way our Land Use Code treats property owners in the community. 9 BAM9 .29.88 The lot was created 5 years ago. It can be developed . The applicant has attempted to mitigate the impacts on his adjacent property owners. The miner increase in lot coverage, we believe, is more than offset in trying to work with the architecture of the building itself . As far as its consistency with the comprehensive plan, the goals of the code , the comprehensive plan perse allows single family residences in this location . Therefore, it is consistent with that as we are proposing a single family. Whether it is consistent with the area and bulk requirements, I would argue that it is not constant with the letter it is certainly constant with the spirit and that is to try and regulate placement of structures on the lots to ensure their comparability with adjacent development. In this case the applicant is trying to locate the structure to minimize its impact on adjacent buildings . He can comply with the strict letter of the law and build a house but he loses considerable degree of design flexibility and arguably the ability to mitigate its impact . It is constant with the comprehensive plan for single family structures as well as the intent of what setbacks are really designed to do. If this were in the R-6 zone district it would automatically be entitled to a setback commensurate with this lot size. In this case it doesn' t even meet 6 ,000 and we are applying a 15,000 sqft lot setback to this property. I would say that that is a hardship. It doesn' t affect other properties who have been able to aggregate their lots into larger parcels and unduly affects one property owner unlike his neighbors. The special conditions are the fact that it occurred in the 1890s well before anyone concluded what type of development would occur in this area. It was subsequently zoned R-15 and from that day on it has been subject to this as problem. There is no other reasonable way to resolve the setback issue. The site plan that he has come up with has tried to balance its impact on the adjacent property owners. The only other thing this gentleman could do is voluntarily build less than what he is entitled to do. And I don' t see anybody step up, given current Aspen real estate prices, build something less. Rick: I don' t agree with that. Why could he not build out to the maximum floor ratio within the confines of the setbacks? Sunny: Well, he probably could. What Josephine was asking him 10 BAM9 .29.88 to do was voluntarily reduce the size of the house because it is a small lot. Welton: The point that it is sticking out further than Ute Avenue houses is not an accurate assessment. On this side there is a tennis court . On this side there is a vacant lot. And there is nothing except another tennis court down here. Sunny: There is a duplex that sits almost in the street. There is a small cabin that has setback and a larger A frame that is also in close proximity to the street. Rick: The vacant lot is also going to have a 25 ft setback and they are all going to be built within 25 ft of the roadway. Sunny: There are no other vacant lots. There are 3 structures right beyond that Aspen Chance 1 lot that are in front of the 25 ft setbacks. Welton: Ute Avenue has every kind of zoning on it and every kind of setback imaginable. It has large residential zoning at this end. It has multi-family here. It has R-6 here. It has R-15 here and everything you could imagine. So to say that there is a fine line of facades that are set back 25 ft is erroneous because there are all kinds of setbacks on Ute Avenue. Rick: But none of them are less restrictive than 25 ft . Sunny: They are all less restrictive than R-15 . The R-6 is less restrictive. Welton: And then there is the LCR Lodge, tourist residential and that has an even smaller setback. I can try to move the house further back which would impact these people if the setback on Ute Avenue is a concern. Charlie: I think to read the Board seems to be reading that the house is very massive for the lot size. If there was some way that you can mitigate that mass or maybe reduce the square footage, you may satisfy that extra vote or 2 for the variance. Setting it back is not the point. The minimum variance that we can grant. If you can reduce your square footage or some massing in that square footage. Welton: I can reduce the square footage but my client is not going to want to reduce the square footage because he has got X square footage by right. He has purchased the property knowing that that is what he can go by. Property rights that we would use is the property right that everybody else in Aspen Chance Subdivision has which is the right to have a 2 car garage. 11 BAM9 .29.88 Rick: No. I don't believe that is a right . Francis: Let' s vote to approve, disapprove, or to table. Sunny: We withdraw with a_ request to table because of the absence of members who would be beneficial to the request. Since you characterize it as a question of bulk , the applicant believes that he is entitled to it . He ought to be able to achieve it on the site in a reasonable manner . MOTION Rick: I make a motion we deny the variance. Josephine seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Anne, no, Josephine, yes, Francis, no, Charlie, no, Rick, yes. Motion defeated. MOTION Francis: I move that we approve the variance with the existing footprint and the plans as submitted as part of the record. Charlie seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Anne , yes, Rick, no, Josephine, no, Francis, yes, Charlie, yes. Motion defeated. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 5 : 52pm. Jani a M. Carney, City Deputy lerk 12 LOCATION CORRECTION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CASE #88-9 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: September 29 , 1988 Time: 4: 00 pm. Owner for Variance: Appellant f o r Variance _ Name: William Hewitt Address: 90 Hemlock Dr. , Farmingdale, NY. Peter Coventry Location or description of property: Location: Lot 5 , Ute Addition, City of Aspen Variance Requested: Property is located in the R-15 zoning category. The pre-existing , non-conforming lot is 4500 sqft. The applicant is requesting to apply the R-6 zoning category setbacks, Chapter 24 , Section 5-201 D, instead of the R-15 zoning category setbacks, Chapter 24 , Section 5-202 D. Setbacks: R-6 Zone R-15 Zone Front/Rear Yard (ft) Total of 30 25 Front Minimum of 10 10 Rear Side Yards (ft) Total of 10 10 Minimum of 05 Will applicant be represented by counsel: Yes: X No: _ The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado816ll Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk VANN ASSC3CiAI ') September 7, 1988 HAND DELIVERED -Mr. -Bill Drueding Zoning Enforcement Officer Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Lot 5, Ute Addition/Variance Request Dear Bill: Please consider this letter an application for a variance from the dimensional requirements of Section 5-202.D. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. The application is submitted pursuant to Article 10 of the Regulations by Peter Coventry, the prospective purchaser of the property (see Contract attached hereto as Exhibit A) . Permission for Vann Associates to represent the Applicant is attached hereto as Exhibit B. A list of property owners within three hundred ( 300) feet of the subject property is attached as Exhibit C. Project Site The project site consists of Lot 5, Ute Addition, City of Aspen, Colorado. The lot is located on the south side of Ute Avenue immediately adjacent to the entrance to the Aspen Chance Subdivision. The lot contains approximately forty-five hundred ( 4,500) square feet and is zoned R-15, mandatory PUD. The lot is bordered on the south and east by the Aspen Chance Subdivision. The Gant Condominiums are located across Ute Avenue to the north. The Aspen Alps tennis courts are located immediately west of the lot. The lot is presently undeveloped. Lot 5 was created in approximately 1890 in conjunction with the platting of the so-called Ute Addition to the original Aspen townsite. The Ute Addition plat includes approximately forty-two ( 42 ) lots, the majority of which abut Ute Avenue. With the exception of several larger Mr. Bill Drueding September 7, 1988 Page 2 tracts, the lots measure approximately forty-five ( 45) to fifty ( 50 ) feet wide by ninety ( 90 ) to one hundred and fifty ( 150) feet deep. A number of the lots and tracts were subsequently replated to accommodate the Clarendon, Black Swan and Gant Con- dominiums and the Chance Subdivision. The Ute Addition was zoned R-6, R-15 and L-1 in conjunction with the city- wide rezoning which occurred in the early 1970 ' s. As a result, Lot 5 , like many of the remaining lots, became non-conforming with respect to minimum lot width and size. However, as non-conforming lots of record, the lots are allowed a single-family structure which is exempt from growth management. Proposed Improvements The Applicant wishes to construct a three ( 3 ) bedroom, single-family residence on the property. The FAR of the residence will be approximately twenty-eight hundred and twenty ( 2,820) square feet, the maximum allowed within the underlying zone district. Variance Request The Applicant requests a variance from the minimum yard requirements of the R-15 zone district. As the accompany- ing property survey illustrates, the application of the required setbacks to Lot 5 results, we believe, in a building envelope which unduly restricts the use of the property. To alleviate this problem, the Applicant wishes to utilize the less restrictive yard requirements of the R-6 zone district. These setbacks are designed for small lots such as Lot 5, and more closely approximate those of neighbor- ing single-family development. The proposed residence will comply with all other dimensional requirements of the R-15 zone district. The applicable dimensional require- ments of the R-6 and R-15 zone districts are as follows: R-6 R-15 Minimum Lot Area (Sq. Ft. ) 6 , 000 15,000 Mr. Bill Drueding September 7, 1988 Page 3 Front/Rear Yards (Ft. ) Total of 30 25 Front Minimum of 10 10 Rear Side Yards (Ft. ) Total of 10 10 Minimum of 5 Note: All other dimensional requirements are essentially the same for both zone districts. Review Requirements The review standards of Section 10-104 of the Land Use Regulations and the requested variance' s compliance therewith are summarized below. 1 . "The grant of variance will be generally consis- tent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and this chapter. " Lot 5 and the immediate site area is designated as "Mixed Residential" on the Land Use Element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Approval of the requested variance, and the subsequent construction of a single-family residence, will have no adverse effect upon the City' s Comprehensive Plan. With respect to the Land Use Regulations, the basic purpose of the dimensional requirements of the various zone districts is to relate the density and size of development to the size of the underlying lot. The dimensional requirements are designed to ensure that development does not exceed the carrying capacity of the lot, and that lots of similar size are developed in a consistent manner. Given the fact that the area of Lot 5 more closely approximates the minimum requirement of the R-6 zone than the R-15 zone, the Board' s approval of the requested variance would appear to be consistent with the intent of the regulations. 2 . "The grant of the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building, or structure. " Inasmuch as the size of Lot 5 is less than the minimum required for the R-6 zone district, and there are no Mr. Bill Drueding September 7 , 1988 Page 4 specific dimensional requirements for lots smaller than six thousand ( 6 , 000 ) square feet, the use of the R-6 zone' s setbacks would appear to be appropriate in this case. Given the size of Lot 5, the imposition of setbacks which exceed those required for the R-6 zone district would be unduly restrictive, and serve, we believe, no reasonable public purpose. 3 . "Literal interpretations and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In deter- mining whether an applicant' s rights would be deprived, the Board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply. " a) "There are special conditions and cir- cumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant. " There are special circumstances which are unique to Lot 5 which are not applicable to other lots located within the R-15 zone district. These circumstances are not the fault of the Applicant. As noted previously, Lot 5 was created before the adoption of zoning in general, and the R-15 zone district in particular. The lot' s limited width (ap- proximately 48 feet) is less than the minimum required in both the R-6 and R-15 districts. The imposition of the R- 15 zone' s setback requirements on a lot which does not even meet the requirements of the R-6 zone creates a hardship which is not applicable to conforming lots in the R-15 district. Specifically, the building envelope which results from the imposition of R-15 setbacks precludes the Applicant from achieving the lot' s allowable floor area. Based on an allowable ground coverage of approximately fifteen hundred and eighty ( 1, 580) square feet, and assuming a two ( 2) story structure, a total of thirty-one hundred and sixty ( 3 ,160) square feet theoretically could be constructed. The lot' s allowable floor area, however, is approximately thirty-three hundred and twenty ( 3 , 320 ) square feet. The inability to achieve allowable floor area represents a Mr. Bill Drueding September 7, 1988 Page 5 hardship and deprives the Applicant of a benefit commonly enjoyed by conforming lots within the R-15 zone district. In addition, the project' s architect has indicated that the resulting twenty-eight ( 28 ) foot building envelope width unduly limits the design of the structure. It adversely effects the ability to maximize the site ' s limited solar potential, and results in the creation of functionally unusable space (a 28 foot wide structure minus a 22 foot garage equals a 6 foot room) . b) "Granting of the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and the terms of this chapter to other parcels, buildings or structures in the same zone district. " To the best of our knowledge, the remaining lots in the Ute Addition zoned R-15 are either already developed, have merged to form conforming parcels, or have been replated in compliance with the R-15 zone' s dimensional require- ments. The imposition of the R-15 requirements on these lots does not result in hardship, hence no variances are required. As single-family structures are permitted by the Comprehensive Plan in this area of the City, no special privileges will be conferred upon the Applicant as a result of the requested variance. For example, Lot 1 of the Chance subdivision is located immediately east of the site. Lot 1 measures approxi- mately fifteen thousand six hundred and seventy-four ( 15,674 ) square feet. No variance will be required to develop the lot consistent with the dimensional require- ments of the R-15 zone district. Similarly, the Aspen Alps tennis courts are located on approximately three and one-half ( 3-1/2) lots immediately west of the site. These lots have merged as a result of their common ownership, and no variance for their development as a single parcel would appear to be required. It should be noted that if the requested variance is approved, the resulting rear yard setback as proposed will be greater than that which would be required in the R-15 zone district. As a result, the proposed residence will be located further to the north, thereby reducing visual impacts upon the Chance Subdivision. It should be further noted that, while the R-6 zone' s setbacks permit con- Mr. Bill Drueding September 7, 1988 Page 6 siderably greater ground coverage, the ground coverage of the proposed residence more closely approximates that of the R-15 zone than the R-6 zone. Summary In summary, we believe that the granting of the requested variance is appropriate based on the comments outlined above. Lot 5 ' s substandard size constitutes a hardship which does not result from the actions of the Applicant. In addition, practical difficulties exist which cannot reasonably be resolved without receipt of the variance in question. Finally, we believe that the requested variance represents the minimal variance necessary to address the Applicant' s difficulties and is essential to the enjoyment of property rights shared by similarly zoned lots in the immediate site area. The Applicant, therefore, respectfully requests a variance from the strict application of the Land Use Regulations so as to allow the use of the R-6 zone district' s minimum yard requirements for purposes of determining the proposed residence ' s building setbacks. Should you have any ques- tions, or require additional information, please give me a call. Very truly you s VANN ASSOCIATES, AICP Sunny Va , AICP SV:cwv Attachments ASPEN - CHANCE INC . September 29,1988 The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attention: Remo Lavagnino, Chairman This is in response to the variance request regarding the set back lines of Lot 5 UTE Addition, Clty of Aspen which is adjacent to Lot # I in the Aspen Chance Subdivision. Based on my review of the application for the variance and the architectural plans of the proposed house, I oppose the variance request for the following reasons: I• The size of the house when placed on the lot is out of scale as compared to the other houses in the area, (i.e. too much house, too little lot). 2. The variance allows the house to be built five feet closer to Lot # 1 of the Aspen Chance Subdivision thereby reducing the green space between the houses. 3• The front of the house on the Hewitt lot would extend fifteen feet in front of any house constructed on Lot # I of the Aspen Chance Subdivision. All the houses on UTE Ave. now have the same front set backs and this would be an eye sore if it did not conform. 4. The application Is misleading with respect to the true house size In that they state the FAR to be only 2820 square feet when in fact there is also a fully built out 1100 square foot basement. 5. The variance request In no way ties to the architectural plans and if their variance was granted they have no obligation to build the house as drawn. 6• In my opinion, the contention that the Hewitt house would be five feet further from the back of the lot is of no real significance as it applles to the Chance Subdivision. Most important, the applicant is not being deprived of any enjoyment of his Property rights if the varlance Is not granted, he simply has to build a smaller house that conforms to the existing zoning, Sincerely, H•O. Myers President HDM/sg 1201 L005i0r,o Suite 0150• HOUSton, Texas 77002. 713/055-1800 _........ ...................... ........ ........ .......... ............. ........ ....... Valerie Richter 6214 N 34th Street Paradise Valley AZ 85253 September 28, 1988 RE: Public Hearing Case #88-0 Before the City of AspenBoard of Adjustment meeting: September 29, 1988 , 4:00 PM Dear Sirs : I am the owner of Gant Condominium K-301 , which faces the Ute Avenue Development from the West side, looking eastward . I strongly disapprove of the request by Lot 5, Ute Addition for a Variance. The Ute Avenue development has become an ungainly and massive blot on the landscape and views of Aspen. This recent cluster of over-scale homes give; the appearance of one, ungainly two-story fortress which extends from Ute Avenue, across the full width of the Ute Cemetary to the Roaring Fork River . I believe the time has come to cease granting variances after a development has been approved. The buyer ' s should have been aware of the limitation of the lot . The developer worked hard to get as much out of that development as possible, and. having once approved it, the City should consider how much was conceded to the developer in the original hearings . The amount of time and effort the City put into those hearings are wasted in this case when variances are granted so easily. Previous variances that have been granted in that development , to my thinking, were a mistake, and should not be considered a precedent nor compoounded by further granting of variances. N b � 0 ,� Q � � � � � � � � ? � � N 1 � � �� V � 0 � l �' � � � � � � �� � - � �� � � � � , � � � � � � 3 �� � � � � � `� � � � � � � � � � Q � � � � � � � o � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � o � � � �� � � � k � � , � o � � � � �, �- � �� � � � � ti � � � °1 � � ,� � � � �, � � � � � o � �, � o� � � .� � � � � � y � � � �� � '� �� � o h � � o .� � � ��� � � � � � 1� � � � � � � 0 0 � � � � � � [ � � � � � � � � l� � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � w � � v � � � � � �� � _� � a o � � � o � 0 0 � � v � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ti �� �► � v � � � � � � � � -� � � � N � v � � � � � � Jv � o � � � � o � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � © � � � �� � � � V � � o �� o � _�� ©____�1-_� �.__w_ _-___-- ..