Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19890126 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 26, 1989 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4.00 P.M. A G E N D A 1. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL 11. CASE #89-1 (CONTINUED) KALIE MAU RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 26, 1989 Vice Chairman Charlie Paterson called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Ron Erickson, Anne Austin, Rick Head, Josephine Mann and Charlie Paterson. CASE #89-1 RALEI MAU CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Ron Erickson read into the record a letter from Kalei Mau . (attached in record) Stan Mathis , architect for Kalei Mau: We chose to build the second story of the addition. We set the house back as far as we can get it because the Gant is running back here. They are also at a higher elevation than we are and by getting the higher mass back against the Gant property it effects the whole neighborhood less in terms of the mass of the building. We have the continuing item of this employee unit . Council has continued the moratorium for another month. If they don ' t resolve that they are going to continue it more and we can't proceed with our project without this caretaker unit. So now we are between a rock and a hard spot . We have to provide it if we want to start the job as planned. Our hardship lies first of all in when they down zoned the place. We went from a 5ft to a loft setback which makes just about every structure in the subdivision non-conforming . We have the moratorium to contend with. It is the shape of the lot. It is wider in the back . That seems where our addition ought to be and therefore we need to encroach 5ft. Rick: If the Ordinance doesn't go through and you can't put in the extra accessory unit would you be coming before us for a variance for the garage? Stan: It is kind of unclear now as to whether or not it is going to be an either or an or thing. Rick: I have a sense that probably is the way they are going to go. Stan: OK . I think it will be either/or . So right now our problem lies in the fact that in order to proceed with the project we are going to have to do it . BAM1 .26 .89 Rick: Let ' s say that you don't have to provide that. Could you re-design this in such a fashion that you would not need this variance? Stan: Yes. Anne: That is what I was going to bring up. I don't understand why you are saying you have to provide the employee unit right now. Stan: If we want to continue our drawings, Anne, and get the project into the Building Department and under way we need to have that . Anne: But the portion that requires an accessory dwelling unit on a single family residence, I thought was removed. And that it is only going to apply to multi-family residences. Stan: We would like to use it and we really don't have enough room to go back out the back end. They way this would be re- designed we would have to shove back into this area here where it is a little wider . We have committed to you that we would take a look at that--yea we can do it. It means the face of this needs to move back about 8ft to loft in order to get the width in there that we don ' t have now but this needs to move back here to provide the unit. Charlie : But if you push that garage back won ' t you be encroaching the 5ft setback? Charlie: I am not talking about that unit at all. Supposing you didn' t have to build it. If you push the garage back-- Stan: If I push the garage back and made it narrower and we eliminate the--or seriously constrict the mud room entry, we can do it. Charlie: Is that a 2 car garage? Stan: It is a 2 car garage. It is going to be 20ft by 20ft. I sit on the Board of Adjustments for the County. In areas of the County where they have been down zoned and their setbacks have increased and we have situations like this where the setback have been increased on lots that were already substandard to begin with even before the down zoning occurs, this is a hardship. If this lot were an R-6 which it is not the size of an R-6 lot we would have 5ft side yard setbacks . Anne: When the owner bought this, the zoning was such that it was still 5ft. 2 BAM1 .26 .89 Stan: This lot never met the requirements for R-15 zone to begin with . Now we have been down zoned again and here we are with this difficult problem. The maximum FAR is 3 ,340sgft. Ron: You said the garage is 20ft by 20ft so it is 400sgft for the garage. Right? Stan: That is right . But I am saying the parking area within the garage is 20ft by 20ft. Anne: The $74sgft includes the caretaker unit. Charlie asked for comments from the public. Bill Engleman, owner of house on north side: I support this variance for the garage and the set back . Les Holstein, neighbor on the other side: This has been a catch 22 for us because we would like nothing to happen and of course it is not going to be that way. It is on the north side of our house. We figure we can re-align most everything. My feeling is if there is a unit put in there it probably would help the community because it provides a place for another body to live. I talked to the owner extensively and he has agreed to do some extensive landscaping between both our units to minimize the effect on us. And then we figure the trade off would probably be we would be better off having the extra unit in town and with the trees shielding us it wouldn ' t be that much of a loss . We support what is going on as long as we get an agreement in writing about the landscaping. Anne: We are not here to approve or disapprove the extra unit. We are just talking about set backs. Vonda Paterson: Will the extra units be put in regardless? At this point isn' t it not allowed? Stan: That ' s up for question . It was written such that you would have the choice--either/or. And, of course, if it is not allowed-- Vonda: Then you would pull the plans? Stan: I haven't spoken with the applicant about what the plan is in that area. It does mean another bedroom. Vonda: I have no objections to the variance. 3 BAM1 .26 .89 Rick: My calculations show that approximately 350sgft could still be added to the house. In the future if you decided to go ahead and expand--put another bedroom in, where would you put the additional parking if that were a requirement? Stan: I don't know that we could add another bedroom because right now we could provide all the parking off street for every bedroom that we are suggesting. If the caretaker unit goes through there 5 parking spaces--2 in the front, 2 on the apron and 2 in -the garage. Ron: So if they don't get the employee housing unit then they only need 4 . Anne: If you don't do this employee housing unit and you could put in a 2 car garage within the set back--let ' s say you re- design this whole downstairs part , isn 't the real reason you don' t want to do that is because it is going to impact the upstairs master bedroom . I mean that is going to change everything. Stan: No because believe me we have a fall-back plan that works just as well for us upstairs. It is just that it seems to make so much sense to do it this way. I don't think it was right to hammer this in--the town with loft set backs . It was inappropriate. Bill Drueding: I think in a single family and duplexes are going to be exempt. Rick: As far as I am concerned there is really no hardship here. What I would like to see is another employee unit created. You are getting some cars off the street but if that is not a likelihood--putting that unit in I am of a position now to deny. Stan: Is it going to be an either/or choice though? He wants to do it. -Anne: - They are not going to make it a requirement. But whether they are going to allow it or not is the question. Ron: Up to a couple of years ago to add an employee housing unit or caretaker unit was very likely to get your project shot down in flames . Now all of a sudden they have flipped 180 degrees and say "Now it is going to be required" . Charlie closed the public portion of the meeting. Ron: I think that although I like the design, I can't support the variance. The code was changed to reduce bulk on a lot. I 4 BAM1 .26 .89 see that building out to what looks like about 90% of FAR on an 8 , OOOsgft lot, I don't see that as a hardship. I don't see a hardship in this case and I would not grant a variance. Anne: This was down zoned after he bought it . This makes me feel that he has a hardship in that the setbacks were changed . But I don ' t like the idea of planning for an employee housing unit that we don't know can be allowed. I think that without the employee housing unit in there, there is plenty of room for the garage. So there is a catch 22 and I guess I would have to vote against it because I am not convinced that I should approve this. Josephine: I feel there is a hardship here. There are several, in fact . Not only did the down zoning reduce the side yard setbacks but the this is an odd shaped lot. It is a small lot and it is R-15 instead of R-6 which would be more reasonable. Then I think that it is a minimal request. It is over there by the Gant which I think is really tough to live there so I am in favor of this variance. With the Gant all along one side that would be tough to live with. It is large and high. Rick: I share Josephine' s comments. I do want to applaud Stan for another great design. I agree that it is a minimal request . I would like the fact that there is going to be an employee unit there. It is under the allowable FAR and we are getting cars off the street. But as Annie mentioned I really am not very sure that this employee unit is--I have a sense that the code is going to not encourage this to happen in this zone. And then you are going to have a variance to build something that you really don't need. I also don ' t think that a 2 car garage is a necessity. I don't think that having a 2 car garage is an absolute hardship. I am leaning towards denial. Charlie: My feeling on this is that it is a minimal request. It is a very small area that they are asking for. I have similar problems as Rick has pointed out that if the caretaker unit doesn't have to be there the garage can be moved back and that one doesn ' t have to have that corner sticking out into the setback . One more thing that Rick had mentioned and I think is a very valid point is the fact that that size of a house does not necessarily need a 2 car garage. I don ' t feel that it is a hardship to anyone not to have a 2 car garage. And because of that and the circumstances , I am leaning towards denying the variance request also. 5 BAM1 .26 .89 Stan: I appreciate it. I think you all gave logical decisions. A lot of times these boards don't make decisions based on any kind of logic. But I want to remind you that every time we do something over in this neighborhood, we are going to be dealing with non-conforming stuff because of this. And I think that it is not right when you automatically make someone' s property non- conforming. There are at least 5 houses over there that with the stroke of the pen they are non-conforming. Rick: The argument against that is that a non-conforming lot is not inactive at all. There is nothing that you can't do on a non-conforming lot that you couldn't do on one that is not . Ron: For the shape of the lots and the way they are laid out , you are going to have problems with all the side setbacks . I agree but I think that there is a way of petitioning City Council. That is the proper avenue to approach to get them to change that. Charlie: But their last avenue is the Board of Adjustments and that is where the hardship should be considered. Each one has to be judged on its own merits. NOTION Anne: I move that we deny the request for variance on Case #89- 1 , Kalei Mau. Ron seconded the motion. Ron, yes, Anne, yes, Rick, yes, Josephine, yes, Charlie, yes. Motion carried, variance denied. Bill Drueding: My name was mentioned in the minutes of the last meeting. Somebody questioned about 735 West Francis. I want to make a comment on that . You had 3 single-family houses on that lot. They tried to get variances. They could not do it. The R-6 zone allows a single family house or a duplex on a 9 ,000sgft lot. In a non-conforming situation like that you can't do a thing unless you make it more conforming. What they did, they constructed that thing to make a duplex. So they are making 3 single family houses into one duplex--two units. They are not sealed yet on one unit so if they still have 3 kitchens that is OK until they are through with construction. When they are through with construction, it will only be 2 units there. When they go for CO that is it. They have to condominiumize this. They have to do a plat amendment 6 BAM1 .26 .89 before P&Z. So everyone is going to look at this thing. It is going to be 2 units and that ' s it. Anne: I know for a fact that right now it is 3 units. Bill: But it is not done yet. And when it is done when they come for the CO--it is not CO'd yet and they must make condo plat prior to CO. They come for CO when they need their bank financing to finish it up and when they go for CO I will go out there personally and make sure there is only 2 units there. Charlie: That would be good. If you would follow that up and then bring it to the Board. Anne: The reason we denied them in the first place was that they had violated their setbacks and then we didn' t want to increase any non-conformity. So when they went to City Council to get approval to build this duplex, that is my question--how can City Council give them an exemption? Bill: No. They didn' t get approval to build a duplex at City Council. They got exemption from--the FAR ratio was going into effect at that time. They got exempted from something like that. They did not increase the non-conformity in the setbacks. All the new building--everything that went up from there was with outside--was conforming. Anne: So as long as everything within the setbacks is conforming they don't have to get a variance. Bill: That ' s correct. They left the little house on the west side. They kept it right there. It was in the setback right up against there. We didn't like it but it was within the code. We looked at it real hard. There was nothing we could do. Anne: I know that that one little house is a 3rd dwelling unit . Bill: Well it will not be when they get a CO. That means it will not be a kitchen there. I promise you that. I will go out there tomorrow or next week and see what is going on. It is OK for them to be living in there right now because they are still under construction. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 4. 5pm. � J Janice` M. Carney, ity Deput Clerk 7 January 1 1 , 1989 P. Kalei Mau 1105 Waters Avenue ' Aspen, CO 81611 ` M City of Aspen Board of Adjustment " r `>06 E. Main Street '1spen, CO 81611 Re: Variance request, 1105 Waters Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Gentlemen, Previous to purchasing the above property, it was my intention to extensively expand and remode- the existing structure I contacted the law firm of Gideon I. Kaufman to investigate and report any situation which might impact on my property present and future. Only two items were brought to my attention. The first was the projected subdivision at 1010 Ute, and the second being the exister:ce of a pedestrian trail easement along the , boundary between my property and the Gant property. I also spent much time at the Building Department, then located on Hopkins Avenue, upstairs from Impressions. The information I received included the maximum square footage of floor space, window to square foot ratios, building height, and building setbacks. All the above was important, especially the then existing five foot building setback. With an irregular lot shape, a greater set- back would provide a hardship on improving the existing structure. Since that time, I understai-id the code has been changed to a ten foot building setback. With the project architect, Stan Mathis, we have tried to conform to the existing code. However, there is a small corner of the structure (27 square feet) that is within the ten foot setback. We have tried in many ways to conform, but, that corner is integral to the function and design of my home. I have contacted many of my neighbors of my intent, including those who border my property line. All of those neighbors have approved of the structure and the variance. Therefore, I would like you to consider in a positve manner my request for variance. Sincerely, P. Kalei Mau