Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19890119 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case #89-1 KALIE MAU 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: January 19 , 1989 Time: 4: 00 p.m. Owner for Variance: Appellant for Variance: Name: Kalie Mau Stan Mathis Address: 9333 Genesse Ave 119 Spring St. San Diego, CA.92121 Aspen, CO. 81611 Location or description of property: Location: 1105 Waters Avenue Lot 5 Calderwood Subdivision Variance Reguested: Property is located in the R-15 zoning category. Side yard setback is loft. Chapter 24 , Sec 5-202D,5 AMC. The applicant appears to be requesting a 5ft side yard variance to build a garage. On March 25 , 1988 the new code increased the side yard setback from 5 ft to loft in an effort to reduce site coverage. Will applicant be represented by counsel: Yes: No: X The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado816ll Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS JANUARY 19, 1989 Vice Chairman Charlie Paterson called meeting to order at 4: OOpm. Answering roll call were Ron Erickson, Anne Austin, Josephine Mann and Charlie Paterson. Remo Lavagnino and Rick Head were excused. CASE #89-1 RALEI NAU Charlie read into the record the variance request. (attached in records) Stan Mathis, Architect for applicant: This property is located on the cul de sac off of Waters Avenue at the east of Waters Avenue. It is an 8 ,829sgft lot zoned R-15. The lot is already a non-conforming lot. When the zoning change increased the side yard setbacks from 5 to 10 many of the dwellings that are in that area were impacted by this. Mr. Mau presently has about a 1 ,300sgft 1 story house. There is no garage. There is no mud room. It is 3 bedrooms , small living room and small dining room. He has asked us to add a 2 car garage, a master bedroom, and increase the living room and the dining room. In the rear of the garage Mr. Mau is going to provide a 1 bedroom employee unit . Under the new code you can choose to do this if you wish or not do it . The hardship is the shape of the lot going back so it pushes the garage by necessity to the rear of the house. In one way I think that works very well . The Gant is right here and is a 4 story structure. This single family house is Les Holst. We did work with Les . We did not want to abrogate his front yard . By pushing the garage back it does not impact him as much. We can't get 2 cars up to the front of the lot . We have an existing house. We are in the County a little bit . We are starting with a non- conforming lot to begin with. It is zoned R-15 and then we have increased our side yard setbacks throughout the City without even a look at what it is doing to existing structures in various areas. We believe this is truly a hardship in that particular area. It should be looked at on a subdivision by subdivision basis. BAM1 .19 .89 In the Cemetery Lane area of town all those lots are R-15. They are 15 , OOOsgft . They are not non-conforming. These lots are non-conforming already and we are making them still smaller . The degree of our encroachment is pretty minimal . We are adding the second story over the garage and over a portion of the house which is the kitchen. We are revising the roof. We are cleaning the whole thing up. It is a Rob-Roy house. It has got about a 2 at 12 pitch on it . Charlie stated that no letters were received from notifications sent to adjoining property owners. Stan: The total gross area of addition is 3 ,389sgft. 500sgft of that is the garage. FAR is 2 ,889 is what we are adding. The variance we are requesting is 27 .5sgft. Stan then went over the plans with the board members. Ron: When did the current owner buy the property? Stan: May of 1986 . Ron: Are there requirements under the code , since you are adding a master bedroom, for additional parking space? Stan: Yes. We are putting 2 in the garage and 2 outside of the garage stacked behind the garage doors. Ron: So you are increasing your off-street parking from 2 to 4 . Stan: That is correct. There was conversation here which indicated the applicant actually ended up with 6 off-street parking spaces. Francis, Building Dept . : I asked Bill and he told me he had no statement regarding the application. I don ' t really have a strong feeling one way or the other on the application. So I guess we don't really have anything to tell you. Anne: What about Ordinance 47 which has not been passed yet which is dealing with accessory units? Stan: The way it is coming down is that that would be allowed in any of the residential zones if you wish to do it. If you do it you have to restrict it . 2 BAM1 .19 .89 Ron: Regardless of how anyone feels about Ordinance 47 it does really change how we look at the code. Since it is in limbo right now and the key word here is "optional or not" , the way I look at it is we are creating a duplex. A legal duplex. True it will be a deed restricted employee unit. Charlie: There is no kitchen. Anne: It is going to affect my decision what is happening with the rest of the space. Stan: This is making it hard on us as well as you know. If we don't get this then we are going to eliminate most of the space back there in that room. Then we could get the cars in there that you want to park. We would like to have the option if Ordinance 47 does get down the pike of doing this. Our hardship is based on the fact that these lots over here should not have had their setbacks changed to loft. I don't think that was appropriate in that particular subdivision. That is my rational as the hardship plus the shape of the shape of this lot. Charlie then closed the public portion of the meeting. Ron: I don't see a hardship here . I see a house on a non- conforming lot . It has not stopped the owner from almost tripling the size of his home on that lot . I think that in looking at the plans I could see some changes being made so that there doesn't have to be a setback variance. I think that the build-out on this lot is almost to its maximum. It is a small house now. It is going to end up with a big house regardless of what happens. I can't stop that from happening. I think part of the variances and the changes in the zoning were to prevent that . All we can do is force people to stay within the limits of the code and not grant variances. It is a small variance but it is 27sgft variance on a 2,040sgft addition. I would like to see the house made smaller in size so that we wouldn't have to give a variance. Anne: One of the things that we have always believed in is that a garage is not a necessity. So my biggest problem here is saying that we are going to give a variance for a garage which we deny a lot of other people. The biggest problem I have is this Ordinance 47 . If we allow these accessory units then we have to allow more off-street parking. They have already demonstrated to us that they have got to provide 5 off-street parking spaces. And that makes the problem even more complex. 3 BAM1 .19 .89 I cannot honestly grant them a variance for a garage. I think that they have other options with that space. I think that they can move it over, reduce the size and I would like to see them work with that . Josephine: I agree that the shape of the lot could be a part of the hardship. The new zoning of course really changes the situation. I think the most important thing to me is that it is a minimal bit of space. And I would be willing to grant this variance because they are not building out to their maximum FAR. It is a neighborhood of small lots. It would be nice if they were all 50 ,000sgft but they are just not. But it doesn't seem to me that it is too impacted and so I would be in favor of granting this variance. Charlie: I feel that Calderwood Subdivision has a real problem in that the lots are very irregularly shaped . They are very difficult to work with. An R-15 zoning applied to these small lots , I believe , is a hardship . I will also agree with Josephine that it is a minimum variance. I think that it is a disservice to the City to take away a garage because that means there is an extra car on the street more likely than not. That turn-around is very narrow. It doesn't get plowed more than a 1 lane. It is not a 2 lane. If there is a car parked in there, you cannot get by. In fact I was parked there to look at the house today and if somebody had come up behind me, they could not have gone by because there was another car parked next to the other building there. I think there is nothing to be gained by not granting this variance. It is a fact of life that people are fixing up these old houses that were built about 20 years ago and they are not up to standard. I would rather see a house brought up to standard in that area than a situation which is not compatible with what is going on over there. If you look at 1010 Ute you see what is happening. That is only a stone' s throw_ away from this house and they have a right to build out huge houses: This is in the same - vicinity and zone. This house is nothing compared to what is going on at 1010 Ute. So I would be in favor of this variance. Ron stated that by moving the garage closer to the house and eliminating part of the deck , there would not have to be a variance. Josephine: I think we need to keep in mind that this is a single family dwelling. And I think that is in favor of it. Another thing I would like to keep in mind is that it does have the Gant on the side of the variance. That is quite high. It blocks off 4 BAM1 .19 .89 all views from that side. I just think that the house needs to be enlarged and improved and that that little 28sgft I don't think we can justify denying that. Anne: But the whole reason that they have changed the zoning is because everybody was going to the extreme and they wanted to bring it down. Charlie: If you deny that all you are denying is a good plan--a good workable plan. And people have a right to have a view and not jam up things against the building. People have rights to their property. That is why they go out and hire an architect. He goes out and he tries to work it out so that it is the best advantage for the house and the neighborhood-, - - Anne: I would like to have heard from this neighbor here. Stan said he had worked with him but if he had given us--did he see where this point was on an elevation. Was something put out there to give him an idea of how close this was. Charlie: He was notified and so he had every right to come in here and make objections. He chose not to make any statements. Ron: We currently have a 1 ,343sgft house on an 8 ,800sgft lot. You tell me that that is the only way you can improve the size of the house , give them what they need and have that required variance. That is the only plan that works on that lot? Charlie and Josephine both said that was not what they were saying at all. Ron: I want to see these architects work out their problems--not design what they want to design and then come before us. I want to see architects design buildings within the code. I don't want them to design what they want to design and then come in front of us to get a variance. Charlie: Keep in mind that the zoning was changed after the house was built and there was originally a loft side setback. If the house had been renovated 3 years ago they could have done this very easily. Charlie: Re-opened the public portion of the meeting. You need to have 4 positive votes. We usually have 5 people on the Board. You have a right to table this hearing to a date certain if you feel that this would not be fair to you. Stan: Ron is making some erroneous mathematics. We don' t count garage floor area. 5 BAM1 .19 .89 Ron: But Stan, you said you were putting a second floor on top if it. Stan: We are allowed 3 , 240sgft total FAR. We are making a total addition exclusive of the garage of 3 , 014 sgft . The existing house is 1 ,342sgft. That means we are adding 1 ,672sgft. The increase in percentage is not triple but 55% . I would like to have our application tabled. We need to have the neighbors come in because I did talk to Les about this. He has no problem with it. The neighbor on the other side--Maurice--no problem. I would like to research the code because a loft side yard increase was not made totally for site coverage. It was a combination of FAR and site coverage. The addition over the garage has a lot to do with response to the Gant and its overpowering presence in that whole place . I would like to present that to you. We did not come prepared to do that. Ron: I want you to deal with the density and bulk. That is my concern. 1 ,342sgft is the agreed square footage of the existing house . Total square foot coverage including garage per plan is 3 ,389sgft footprint , second floor and everything, less the 500sgft in the garage is 2 ,889sgft. Stan: Correct. Ron: When you are building a garage it does not count in the FAR. But when you stack a bedroom on top of that, you are giving me a 2 story massive structure that I can't see through because the garage is the foundation. It is not just a plain slab. It has got height as well as depth and width. That is my concern. NOTION Ron: I make a motion that we table Case 89-1 until Thursday January 26 , 1989 . Anne seconded the motion with all in favor . MINUTES DECEMBER 8 AND 9. 1988 Anne made a motion to approve the minutes of December 8 and 9 , 1988 Case #88-11 . Ron seconded the motion with all in favor . 6 BAM1 .19 .89 Ron: Regarding the meeting we attended with the City Council on ethics and conflict of interest: We had a case in which the head of HPC presented a request for a variance and he was supported by the former City Planner, Sunny Vann. It was for a variance on a small lot on Ute Avenue and as I remember we rejected that variance at that point in time. Subsequently 2 or 3 weeks later they came back and a modified variance was granted. I talked to the person who at the time was the applicant--the original applicant and what he told me was that he hired these 2 gentlemen because they assured him that, since they were on the Boards, they would have no problem getting a variance. And he paid them a substantial amount of money to do so up front and then he was shocked when he found out that they did not get approval . Which says that the Board of Adjustments can't be bought. It also shows that maybe there is some meat to the accusations as to what is going on. Charlie: I would like to make a comment about that . I think that the problem is in the eyes of the public. The public thinks that if they hire someone who is a public official in some kind of capacity in the private sector that things will grease the wheels and go smoother. And it is not the fault necessarily of those people. Those people still are working as architects and engineers and perhaps they take advantage of it. I can see that. But I don't think it is intentional. Ron: The impression I got from the applicant was-- Charlie: The applicant was under the impression but he was wrong. Ron and Anne: No, he was told that there would be no problem. Ron: They designed this house for him and they told him "Listen, since I am on the Board, I will have no problem getting this variance." That is what I was told. He subsequently did not buy that lot. He felt that he was taken advantage of. He was given assurances of certain things that he would not have spent money on and then it did not happen. Anne: That meeting did not come about because of him. It came about because of some other complaints but it gives substance to some of those complaints. I think the City Attorney should send out a memo to all Board members that they should not represent themselves that way. Do some kind of awareness thing that says we have been told that this happens. 7 BAM1.19 .89 Charlie: Sometimes a perfectly innocent person gets into trouble on something like this and they have absolutely nothing to do with it. Ron: My concern is that a gentleman who is on another Board gives assurances to somebody, collects money on that basis and then brings it before us and we are the bad guys that we didn't grant him a variance. Charlie: But he collected money for work done. So it is a little different story. Anne: He was willing to take the gamble to come and get a variance and design it the way he wanted to rather than doing it according to the code. So he is getting paid more because he did it one way first and then he is going to have to go back to the drawing board. I have one other thing that I want to bring up that has really bothered me. I would like to see the City Attorney' s office follow up on this. We were originally approached for a variance on Francis Street, at 735 I believe, across from the Baptist Church . It was a 9 , 000sgft lot with 3 non-conforming single family houses on it . They came to us for a variance and they were in violation of every side yard setback. It was 3 dwelling units on a duplex lot . We turned them down. Some time later they went to City Council and they requested to reduce the non-conformity by making the 3 structures into 2 single family dwellings or a duplex and eliminating the 3rd one. They got approved by the City Council even though they violated all the side yard setbacks. They built from one side of the property clear to the other across 3 lots and guess what. They still have 3 residences there. I have gone by and checked it. The little house was never torn down. It was incorporated into the big house to look like 1 house but there is a separate entrance. There is no one living in the main house because it is not finished yet but there is someone living in the little house and the other house on the alley is occupied by a 3rd party. So not only did they misrepresent what their intention was. City Council approved something that should have come to us and circumvented us which I disapprove of. And they are in violation. I want to say that when they first started building this project I went and got all the minutes of the City Council meeting. I highlighted all the important facts. I brought it to the City Attorney' s attention. I brought it to Bill Drueding' s attention and I got nowhere. I got no support. Nobody was going to do 8 BAM1 .19 .89 anything. So I think we need to follow up on that. That is a blatant violation. NOTION Anne made a motion that this be followed up on. Ron seconded the motion with all in favor. Ron: I think Drueding is required to go as a zoning enforcement officer to go out there and red tag that structure. Anne: I asked him to red tag it and he wouldn' t because he said City Council approved it. Ron: Not 3 units. Anne: No. He said it was going to be 2 units. I said "OK, we will wait and see when it is finished" . Ron: Then it is too late. Charlie: He is still supposed to inspect the project. Let' s follow up on it. If we don't get any action on it I think first of all we ought to bring it to the City Attorney' s attention. Anne: Maybe copies of the minutes here be taken. Charlie: The motion has been made, seconded and approved that this information go to the City Attorney and that we want to see a reply within a week. Francis: Did you get no response, Anne? Anne: They said they would check into it. I called at least 5 times. Francis: I remember seeing something on this. Charlie: Could I request a copy to the Building Department? And a copy to Bill Drueding. Anne : I think City Council should get a copy because they approved it. Francis: I remember seeing plans on Bill' s desk because it was a strange situation. I don't know the details right now but I can find out. 9 BAM1 .19 .89 Ron: The Board of Adjustments is the one that is supposed to be the arbiter of variations of the code and by subverting that Board both with the HPC and the City Council, all they are doing is increasing the problem. Anne : The log house on Main Street was approved by HPC and never came before us. This project was approved by City Council and never came before us. Josephine: I think this can be a warning to us. If we aren't strictly fair then we are going to get bypassed. That is one of my reasons for saying 28ft is nothing I am going to get hung up on. Francis: I will come back to you next Thursday with a report on this. This was agreeable with the Board members. Anne made a motion to adjourn meeting. Josephine seconded the motion with all in favor . Time was 5: 20pm. Janice M. Carney, C ty Deputy erk 10