HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19890316 CITY OF ASPEN
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
MARCH 16, 1989
MAIN FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS
A G E N D A
I. CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
II. CASE #89-3
PETER BUTTER
III. CASE #89-4
MR. & MRS. THOMAS H. DITTMER
IV. CASE #89-7
NOELLE & CECIL HERNANDEZ
(( �r
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 16 1989
Vice Chairman Charlie Paterson called meeting to order at 4 : 00pm.
Answering roll call were Ron Erickson, Anne Austin, Rick Head,
Josephine Mann and Charlie Paterson. Remo Lavagnino was excused.
CASE #89-3
PETER HUTTER
Gideon submitted the affidavit of posting and the sign of
posting.
Charlie read into the record the variance request. (attached in
record)
Anne read into record letter from John C. Dobbs as opposed to
variance. (attached in record)
Ron read into record letter from Ann Hodges in support of the
variance. (attached in record)
Gideon: This is one of the few times that we have a real simple
and non-controversial request for a variance and one of those
that truly fits within the scope and purpose of what the Board of
Adjustment is set for.
In discussing this with Alan Richman it became apparent that what
happened was when we annexed a lot of the new properties into the
City we did not take into account, when the new code was drafted,
lots of this type of configuration. There was an oversight in
terms of the code drafting as to what would happen with a lot
like this.
This is the only lot in the subdivision that is situated as it
is. The problem is that the road goes all the way around it. So
we have a situation that comes up with this particular case--not
only do we have a right-of-way that takes part of the lot out, we
then have a situation with setbacks in which there was no
flexibility for staff. So if you use the right-of-way and you
use the setbacks you end up losing almost 70% of the lot. This
creates a real hardship in terms of being able to build.
A number of the neighbors are here in support of this applicant.
One of the other key elements that we always talk about in terms
of variance is whether or not we are asking for a minimum
variance. And I think that we are definitely asking for a
minimum variance. This particular lot is losing almost 12, 500ft
out of a total of 19, 000ft. That is almost 70% of the lot. The
average lot in Eastwood loses only 30% of the lot to setbacks.
BAM3 . 16. 89
With the variance that we are requesting we still will lose 55%
of the lot. So we are nbt even asking to get to where everybody
else is. We are asking for a minimum variance that will enable
us to build a house that is in character with the neighborhood
and does not block the views of some of the neighbors who are
here in support.
It gives us just a fair opportunity to develop the lot. If you
look at the criteria we clearly have special circumstances which
are unique to the parcel. It doesn't result from the actions of
the applicant and we are not asking for any special privileges.
Peter Hutter: One part is going to be 2 story and one part 1
story. I wanted to move the 2 story part forward to get it out
of Bill Dunaway's view of the Pass.
Bill Drueding: When they annexed this, Glenn Horn was the
principle planner to the annexation. And they never considered
this situation. So we have to live with it at this point and
everybody is going to have to go for a variance.
Charlie: But it is one-of-a-kind situation, don't you think?
Fred: This will come up on a case by case basis. Each case
rises or falls on its own merits. But I don't think we are going
to be seeing a lot of them.
Charlie asked for comments from the public.
Bill Dunaway, neighbor: I hate to see that vacant lot being
built on. But you have to realize that he has only a front yard
and a rear yard which is definitely a hardship as far as I am
concerned. He can build a house in a much smaller envelope but
then it will have to be higher. And that height would impact
most of the neighbors. So I would support a variance for that
reason.
Margaret Lowe: I have a home on the lot next door to theirs.
And I feel that I would be the one that would be impacted most of
all. And I see no reason why they should not have a variance. I
am much in favor of it.
Gary Moore: I am also a neighbor. I also am familiar with the
lot and the request for a variance. I support the variance also
on the same facts that Bill Dunaway stated because of what type
of house they would have to build on that lot if the variance
wasn't approved. I am also a contractor so am familiar with what
they have to do.
2
BAM3 . 16. 89
Penny Evans: When you restrict a building envelope to the degree
that sometimes you do around here we create what I consider
unacceptable. You can allow a little bit more flexibility to the
owners of a lot so that they can site the house in a more
appropriate place and to a more creative area.
Art Groves: My wife and I would much rather see a house on a
scale in accordance with a variance as requested and are in
agreement with the applicant.
Bill Drueding: When they annexed this they just didn't account
for this situation. And they will probably remedy this later on.
But at this point I am in favor of this as the zoning officer.
They are being penalized by the right-of-way and not every
subdivision has that problem that this particular road does. It
is unusual and I am in favor of it and I think the Planning
Department is. They just didn't consider it.
We would have to state the motion as giving them a setback as
being 45ft and then coming from their property line 15 and 10 is
25. It would be a 20ft variance.
Anne: But I would like to spell that it stays within the
footprint of the sketch presented to us.
Charlie closed the public portion of the meeting.
Josephine: I would be willing to grant a variance.
Ron: I would be willing to grant the variance. I think there is
a hardship here. However it concerns me that all I am looking at
is a little pencil drawing on a plat map. I would like to see
something more. It gives the applicant a great deal of leeway.
I feel that the applicant really hasn't supplied a great deal of
information concerning what the structure is going to be on the
lot. I think there are ways of minimizing this variance a little
bit more than they have done with this diagram.
Anne: I would be in favor of granting this variance. I think
that the shape and the size of the lot is a definite hardship. I
think that they have been very sensitive to the neighbors as far
as the height and the placement of the footprint and I don't feel
that they are trying to maximize the size of the allowable FAR.
So I would be in favor of granting the variance.
Rick: I, too, share my colleague' s remarks and it is consistent
with and in the spirit of the general master plan. I am in favor
of granting a variance.
3
BAM3 . 16. 89
Charlie: I also agree with that. I think it is a minimum
variance.
Charlie re-opened the meeting for further public comments.
There were none.
MOTION
Josephine: I move that we grant a variance for a 20 foot front
yard variance with the understand that we have seen only a
footprint of the proposed structure and that we would expect
anything dramatically different from that to come before us again
as Bill Drueding sees fit.
Fred: The intent is to` not to grant a variance of the shaded
areas. It is to grant a variance that is in keeping of the
footprint in the relief.
What I propose is that you be granted a variance that gives you
relief from the front yard setback and incorporate by reference
this plat including the footprint so that you get relief--a 20ft
variance relief from the setbacks. And as further modified by
your footprint and that any substantial change comes back to the
Board for further review
Everyone voted in favor of the motion.
CASE #89-4
THOMAS H. DITTMER
Charlie read into record variance requested. (attached in record)
Ted Gardenswartz, attorney for the applicant: Presented posting
and affidavit of posting.
The main posts will be 6 x 6 and there are slats across the top.
We are at the allowable FAR. I believe that this is more akin to
an unenclosed porch than a dwelling area._ The purpose is -to grow -
vines. It is a trellis. It is not to be a living area. It is
not an enclosed area on the sides or the top.
There is about a 12 inch space between each of the slats on the
top.
Michael Lipkin, architect: I was the architect for this house.
I also was the subdivider for the property and established the
building envelopes. This pergola stretches slightly outside. I
am also the architect for the house directly to the east under
construction and represent the landowners of the house directly
4
BAM3 . 16.89
to the west. So I am pretty well acquainted with this situation.
I also represent the Pitkin Reserve Homeowner's Association. The
Homeowner's feel that this pergola trellis is a plus from our
standpoint.
It is really a landscape element. If I were doing a subdivision
of the property now, it is the kind of thing I would be writing
into the covenants of that subdivision. I think it is delightful
and charming and softens the look of the house. It is much more
of a landscape element than it is a hard architectural element.
I am certainly very strongly in favor of it. Usually architects
get pretty up tight when another one suggests anything to our
house. I just happen to like this idea.
Rick:- Bill, are we here to make a determination as to your
ruling that this increases FAR and this is indeed an
encroachment? I personally don't see how this adds anything.
Why does this add to FAR?
Bill Drueding: I consider this a deck. And they are already
over their allowable FAR on decks. So this would be an increase
in FAR.
Rick: What constitutes a deck? It is flagstone underneath. Why
is that a deck?
Bill: This is additional bulk. I consider it a deck. I
consider it as bulk and an increase in FAR. This is adding more
visible bulk and I am calling it a deck.
Ron: So we have 3 choices. 1 is to deny. 2 is say "Bill, thank
you very much but we don't agree with your interpretation of this
as a deck and therefor no variance is needed and they can build
it. " 3 , we would have to grant a variance if we agree with Bill
that this thing does constitute a deck.
Rick: No. I disagree. If we agree with him, it is an increase
in FAR. If we disagree with him then they don't need a variance.
Fred: The applicant could take a written request to the Planning
Director to interpret the code. That interpretation is subject
to appeal to the Council. Then if Council were to agree, Ted is
back here for a variance.
The other way is to come in and say to you all to ask for a
variance. But I don't know that you all are charged with
interpreting the code. So it becomes a kind of a limbo.
Anne: If someone were to come in and ask to build a gazebo,
would that be considered FAR?
5
BAM3 . 16. 89
Bill: Yes.
Charlie: Even if it is not considered living area? Just for
garden tools.
Bill: It is FAR. It is a structure.
Anne: But an open gazebo that has open sides to it--totally open
with no walls--just posts and a roof.
Bill: My interpretation is yes because they still exempt
carports which is the same situation. You have a roof with posts
with no walls around it.
Ron: But that doesn't count towards FAR.
Bill: That is exempt. They address that and say we exempt it.
Anne: So you are saying that a gazebo would be exempted too.
Bill: No.
Fred: I think the way that Bill is saying is if you are exempted
by a specific reference then it is an exemption. Non reference
areas are considered to be FAR. That is the way I understand
Bill 's interpretation.
If you come to the conclusion that Bill 's interpretation is
inappropriate or does not cover this situation, I think your
action in order to give the applicant relief is to give them a
variance for whatever you feel is appropriate.
You are not here to interpret the code. That is the Planning
Director's purpose so that I think that if you choose to disagree
with Bill and not take that action you are really giving
direction to the applicant to go back to the Planning Director
and seek a relief in a different way. You can grant relief but
do it either in a form of a variance or no variance.
Ron: Then I am going to need 2 things. 1, what does the
applicant want in terms of variance? How is it going to be
specifically stated? 2 , Then we have to look at hardship or
practical difficulties in order to give variances. And the only
practical difficulty I see is I don't agree that it is a deck.
But that is not a practical difficulty.
Fred: Sure. Anything is a practical difficulty that you call
it. Your decisions have to be capable of standing on it's own.
6
BAM3 . 16. 89
Rick: If we override his interpretation then we in effect have
said that these things do not increase FAR.
Bill: I will still use my same interpretation. Here is the
thing. You are 12 inches apart and you have 12 inch spaces. And
the overhead--what do you have.
Ted: There is 12 inch space, a 6 inch board and then another 12
inches.
Bill: The next guy may have a 3 inch space and a 6 inch board.
It is the same thing. You have got to draw a line somewhere and
I am protecting myself. So if a guy has 1/2 inch space and says
"Hey it is not a deck. It is a pergola" . I am looking at all
the scenarios.
Michael: I would respond by specifically stating that this is
primarily open and not structurally capable of handling anybody
walking on it. It is not a deck. You see it as a landscape
element and I don't know what kind of variance you would use. If
it is one for FAR it should be tagged as specifically for the
purpose of this landscape element.
Bill: I would not be opposed to granting a variance. One of the
reasons I understand they are building this pergola is to hide
from view a fence. It which would be 6ft high. You have 12
inches in between there and then you are putting plants on it so
what you basically have is a roof that you can see through. So
you have the effect of, as far as I am concerned, of adding that
bulk from down below on that lower slope there.
Ted: I think your opinion is solid too. And I think it is where
you draw the line. Is it a gazebo with a roof or isn't it? The
purpose as far as visible bulk, it really is not very visible
even from the Rio Grande which is where anybody is going to see
it from or from the residences on both sides and the one on the
east side is small.
It is not intended to be a living area. We are not going to put
something over the top. It is not structurally designed to be an
area for somebody to sit on top of or walk on top of.
When you went out there today you saw the structural columns by
the porch where you drive through. That is different. That is
more of a structural deal that is to support something. This is
not that way. This is more of a landscaping. It is open.
Rick: Bill, what if they went out and put a canvas canopy out
there of the same dimensions. Would that be considered FAR?
7
BAM3 . 16.89
Bill: If they put it on poles and made it rigid, we would have
the same problem.
Charlie: Even though you can't walk on it?
Anne: But then it is a roof like a gazebo.
Bill: We are dealing with a pergola. Not a canvas covered
structure. Every situation is different.
Ron: If we were to grant a variance, what variance are we
granting?
Bill: You are granting a square footage of this pergola deck.
Fred: What I would recommend the Board do is to move to table
this for a week. Send them back to the Planning Director, see if
his interpretation is consistent with Bill 's. If not you have
the opportunity to make an appeal or to come back to the Board.
But it seems to me that the Board doesn't know now what the
minimum possible variance would be necessary to give you relief
from either practical difficulty or hardship. If you know what
the square footage of this is and you can articulate a reason
then maybe you want to go forward.
Ted: If they call it a landscaping trellis and they decide that
it is not a covered area they can say "Because it is an uncovered
porch, we can give them a variance on that basis" .
Charlie asked if there were further comments from the applicant
or the public. There were none and he closed the public portion
of the meeting.
Ron: I think it is an architectural design element. I don't
think it is a porch or anything else. So I would disagree with
Bill in that it is an additional deck or anything like that.
Rick: I am in favor of acting upon Fred's suggestion that we get
an interpretation from Alan. There are too many open ends here.
I don't feel comfortable without some direction from them as to
what we are doing. This could have implications down the road on
every house. I share Ron's feelings. I would hate to overrule
Bill on this because there are places where they actually build a
deck.
Josephine: I support what Rick and Ron have said. I like their
suggestion that we table this for a week and see what the
Planning Director says.
8
BAM3 . 16. 89
I want to add to that that the only way I could see us coming up
with a hardship would be if we knew that the train was coming up
there every day by the house.
Ron: All I can say is great minds think alike. I did not
discuss this with Josephine. Not being against the railroad
coming into town I had thought of this as being one of the hooks
on which to hang this variance.
I think this is an architectural effect. I don't think we need
to grant a variance in this situation. I would be willing to go
along with the other members of the Board and get a ruling from
the Planning Officer. I don't want to grant a variance because I
don't think we need to grant a variance in this situation. I
have nothing against what they want to do. So I would like to
see them get what they want.
Rick: I like it.
Charlie: There seems to be a consensus that you would rather
continue this until next week and see what the Planning Office
would come up with on this for a guideline for us.
I feel also the same way as Ron does. I don't feel comfortable
with the way it is. I don't feel comfortable with granting a
variance for the same reasons that you have given. I don't
consider this as a deck. But I think it would be better for the
Planning Office to come up with a solution and work it out with
the enforcement officer. '
Anne: I relate this now a little more to this gazebo that is
open and if that includes FAR on a gazebo and this includes FAR
here, we are going to have a lot of people coming to us that want
gazebos and pergolas. We are opening up a whole can of worms. I
would like the Planning Office to make some kind of decision as
to where we should go with these.
Fred: The code does address the concept of having things that
protrude beyond the permissible mass of the building. It would
seem to me that Alan has the ability to give the applicant some
relief. If Alan doesn't choose to give him some relief, he can
go to Council for in interpretation.
But if the Planning Office disposes of it, you ought not to hear
this case or similar cases in the future. I don't think that it
is a case that is really right for Board of Adjustment.
Charlie re-opened the public portion of the meeting.
Ted: I would agree to table for a week.
9
BAM3 . 16.89
Rick: I move to table this case #89-4 to a date certain of March
23, 1989.
Ron seconded the motion with all in favor.
CASE #89-7
NOELLE & CECIL HERNANDEZ
Charlie opened the public portion of the meeting.
Charlie read int the record variance request. (attached in
record)
Anne read into record letter from John M. Rahm in favor of the
variance. (attached in record)
Ron read into record letter from Roxanne Eflin, Historic
Preservation Planner of Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office. (attached
in record)
Affidavit and posting was not turned in.
Applicant testified under oath administered by Fred Gannett
giving notice of proper posting in lieu of written notice as
defined by the code with respect to this application.
Richard Klein with Charles Cunniffe and Associates and Joseph
Wells, representatives for the applicant:
Joe: This residence at 432 West Francis is both locally and
nationally designated historical. The redevelopment scheme is to
add 2 bedrooms to the carriage house which requires that we
provide 2 off-street parking spaces. In order to accomplish that
we have proposed to add a 2 car garage to the alley side of the
property.
The FAR and site coverage of the existing structures are being
reduced through this proposal. A lot of architectural design
ideas are being put in place on the renovation scheme to increase
the architectural integrity of the building. That results in a
reduction in site coverage for the existing structure as well as
a reduction in FAR. However, in order to accommodate the 2 off
street parking spaces there is a site coverage increase of
110sgft.
We have received conceptual approval from HPC. We have support
of several of the neighbors who have written in regard to the
proposal.
10
BAM3 . 16.89
Generally speaking the hardship that we are faced with is that as
a result of the historic character of the building the site
coverage is generally greater than a building being designed
today under current regulations. The interest of the building
that results from the fact that it is broken up results in the
fact that we have a fairly spread out building. We think that
interest is a very important feature of the building but
nonetheless it does increase the site coverage. That is what we
are faced with in providing the off street parking.
Richard: Historically with this house there was a horse barn
here until sometime in the late 30 's or early 40 's Mr. and Mrs.
Durance removed it. It always has had a lot of site coverage.
In working closely with the HPC what we have done is we have gone
around the house and we have restored this project back to its
former self.
In the front of the building we have added on a bay window that
fell of in the 701s. Originally this was a 1885 wood cabin.
This house is a product of 13 additions to that little cabin--a
very complicated house. To bring this old house back to the life
that it formally had before it really got added onto and to make
the internal workings of the house work, we have come up with the
only location to really add a garage based on historic
guidelines. That is from the back of the alley.
In doing so we have reduced the FAR square footage but we are
asking for a slight increase in site coverage square footage.
Rick: The setbacks change relative to garages if they are
attache or detached.
Bill: You need a minimum front of 10 and a rear of 10 from the
structure. A total of 30ft in setbacks. If the garage is
attached to the building the minimum you still have is a total of
30. The rear yard setback of 5 and 25 in the front.
The Historic Preservation Committee has the ability to extend
front yard, side yard, rear yard setbacks extend the minimum.
This is between buildings. They can vary that without going
through the Board of Adjustment.
This code was written` for incentives to perpetuate these
historically designated buildings. But they don't have the
ability to vary the site coverage. That is why they had to come
here. They are in favor of this particular thing. The Planning
Department has no problem with it. The Planning Department has
worked very long to try to preserve these kinds of buildings and
a 3% increase or decrease in site coverage is not a problem.
11
BAM3 . 16. 89
2 parking places may be required but not required to be covered
by a garage.
Rick: It interests me that historically the carriage house has
been used as a garage. , There are 2 garage doors. Now that is
being converted from the use as a garage and turned into
habitable space requiring additional off-street parking.
Joe: First of all the carriage house can't meet the code
requirements. We have to provide legal spaces and the carriage
house doesn't meet that requirement. It has been used
historically but I don't believe it has been used recently for
off-street parking. Generally there is a concrete pad that has
been used.
Rick: Did they get a bonus of 500sgft?
Bill: No.
i
Joe: No. We are reducing the FAR from the existing to the
proposed.
Roxanne: We did make a variation of 53ft. They are over their
FAR by 53ft and we have the ability to make a variance up to
500ft.
Bill Poss, HPC: We reduced from the existing FAR. The new
project has less FAR than the existing.
Joe: The existing FAR of the building is 4, 345sgft. The
proposed FAR square footage is 4, 117sgft. Allowable is 4, 080.
Then there is that provision regarding the 500sgft.
Roxanne: We can make a variation up to 500sgft for FAR if we
find that that variation is compatible with the historic
structure. It is not a bonus and it is not an automatic.
Joe: It really didn't come into play because we are reducing the
non-conformity of the building with regard to FAR so that is
permitted on a non-conforming structure.
Rick: I think one of the strongest arguments you have got going
for you is getting the cars accessing from the alley. I think
that is something we would like to have happen. Again I am
struggling with the hardship and the practical difficulties. I
think with all the input from HPC and I think this is a minimal
request--110sgft on-site increase, I am leaning that way.
Charlie asked if there were any further public comment. There
was none and he closed the public portion of the hearing.
12
BAM3 . 16. 89
Anne: Historically the Board of Adjustment has not felt that a
garage or the necessity for a garage was a hardship. I have a
very hard time justifying why this house would need a garage any
more than another one. I also have a problem in being convinced
that the carriage house could not be made to accommodate cars
even though it says it is too short. I can see that there is
enough room in back of that carriage house to make that a 2 car
garage. Unless I am shown a real reason why there is a hardship
and a need for this I would have to deny the variance.
Ron: I go with Anne.
Rick: Exactly.
Josephine: I came wondering how in the world you justify turning
that carriage house into bedrooms and then having to add a garage
because of that. That is not what we do. I am quite interested
in what we have heard about the historic feature of this site and
what has happened historically to that location. I guess I could
go along with this variation because of the work that the
historic group has done on it. For a hardship--what would a
hardship be? The only thing I can think is that it is an old,
old site with a long history of much coverage.
Rick: You might also want to add that the mature trees can't be
taken down to accommodate it in any other area.
Anne: Except that they are over the FAR in the site coverage.
They would have to incorporate that into that footprint of the
house if they wanted a garage unless they wanted to use the
carriage house.
Rick: I too was tormented with that thing of why don't they just
use the existing carriage house--add the other 3 feet that you
need to accommodate cars.
Anne: They are getting another house on the site. And we have
complained about the bulk and the massive new houses that are
being built. I just see this as another example. They are going
to put in a full basement so they have got room down there.
Charlie: My feeling on this is that I really take note of what
the Historic Preservation has come up with in their
recommendations. When I look at those 2 models you can really
see how historic nature of the buildings will be preserved and
enhanced. They are taking out all these little things that were
added on in the back and opening up that area. I am really in
favor of that.
13
BAM3 . 16.89
I also thought at first that the carriage house could be added to
and made into a garage. But 15 feet is not enough. And even if
you added to it you would still not come up with a situation
which would work for them. I am more inclined to favor this
because of historic preservation of the building and getting the
cars off the street and giving them a chance to really enhance
the building by taking out all the stuff.
Fred: There is a problem in that the structure does encroach on
the alley.
Anne: But they are going to remodel it anyway and not change
that encroachment. So whether they make it a garage or a living
space it is still staying there.
Charlie: I don't have a strong enough argument to sway the Board
so I would be outnumbered but I still would vote in favor.
Rick: Give me a hardship and a practical difficulty.
Charlie: The only hardship that comes up is that he has no off-
street parking.
Rick: He doesn't need a garage. And although Joe makes some
great arguments as to getting cars off the street, a garage is
not a necessity.
Ron: They have one. And they want to change it and turn it into
living space. They want to take away their garages, create the
need for additional parking and then ask us to give them a
variance to accommodate that additional parking.
Rick: That is the enigma I am faced with right there.
Charlie: If this variance is not granted will the applicant
remove some of the extra square footage or some of the extra FAR
that they are proposing to remove?
Rick: If they convert this into a full blown garage they get
500sgft of that garage free and they can add that somewhere else
to the main building. They can go up another story and add a
second unit and there is no reason they can't go up another
story.
Charlie: The problem then is whether the integrity of the
building remains.
Rick: I am leaning towards the decision that the HPC made. That
is keeping this as much in tact as possible and appropriate and I
want to encourage it. To add another big second story to this
14
BAM3 . 16.89
thing may just really ruin the whole purpose of having the HPC
review these things.
Ron: If we were to deny the variance and they have to go back
and say "Well we will get the square footage someplace. We can
add it on to the second story" . I think they have to go back to
HPC for approvals all over again and I am not so sure that they
would get those approvals. I personally would not grant the
variance because I think that there are other remedies. I can't
see a hardship.
Charlie reopened the public hearing.
Joe: All I can add is it really gets to the issue of the
architectural integrity of the carriage house. Everything you
said about being able to add to the carriage house is correct.
There is nothing preventing that. We are just trying to restore
the architectural integrity of the carriage house to what it was
originally and if that is the case then it doesn't meet the off
street parking requirement.
Anne: But it wasn't living space originally.
Joe: It wasn't car parking space originally either.
Anne: Well, it was a carriage house and carriages were cars.
Rick: What I am noticing is the rule as I understand it--you
can't expand a nonconforming structure. Right now they have
moved this shed and so for them to turn this back into a garage
and add 3 more feet you are going to be in the 15ft rear yard
setback and you couldn't add that.
Bill: That could be varied by HPC.
Joe: That is an existing non conformity and that could be done.
Fred: What you are looking for is compliance with the competing
philosophies of the various codes. You have one philosophy that
calls for preservation and another philosophy that says that
there has got to be a demonstration of a practical difficulty or
a hardship to the Board. What you have is competing philosophies
here. And you have one philosophy that tries to encourage a
retention of existing structures and you have another philosophy
that says that given the change in the nature of Aspen over the
last 100 years that we want to reduce mass on the property.
I think that is the struggle that you have here. I think it is a
tough one because you are really head on with another board that
has some of your abilities and who have taken steps in one
15
BAM3 . 16.89
direction and are asking you to complete the process. And that
is really a tough call.
Charlie: I don't think 110sgft is a lot to ask for because they
are taking so much other junky type of square footage out.
Roxanne: I went through this whole process and worked with them
before they came before the HPC. One thing that we are trying to
encourage is an adaptive use of carriage houses. We are trying
to get carriage houses back into the main stream of the west end
to be used instead of just for storage. Whether it be for
dwelling units or actually car parking which would be quite neat.
Whatever it is, we are trying to utilize it. And their option
was to utilize it as a dwelling unit.
So we were trying to look at a way to get to the legal parking
spaces on site. Their idea is that they really did want a
garage. We addressed all those issues that you are working on
right now. It doesn't necessarily have to be covered. It could
be a slab. But I am looking at the overall integrity of the
entire site. Aesthetically, to make it work functionally now, to
look at the dilemmas that your are all faced with right now. I
have talked with the architect for a long time about this site
coverage issue and they are going to have to demonstrate
hardship. And that is why we supported them with that because we
thought that in all of the changes that we asked them to do which
there were numerous changes.
They have not gone to the HPC for final yet. They are still in
the conceptual stage. That is why they hadn't come before now
before they came to us for final. So if there are some changes
or approval or disapproval that you all make that is going to
force some changes from them. We are just trying to strike a
balance and to negotiate on the preservation of this site. So we
have been on this too for a long time and I appreciate what you
are saying.
Richard: Right now the stair in this house is not to code. It
travels too rapidly upward. In remodeling this house the stair
has got to be rebuilt to code. So the stair lands upstairs at a
landing where the bedroom wall is. There is a minimum distance
to that landing. The stair has got to be a minimum length which
is longer than presently exists. And then we have a landing at
the bottom of the stair. The stair doesn't work in the interior
of the house. When we put the house back down on a new
foundation we will cut -the house, relocating the existing old
form in a location to accommodate that landing in the inside.
That is the reason for this whole thing jogging like that.
16
BAM3 . 16. 89
Bill Poss: What Richard says and what Roxanne has said becomes a
dilemma in our group also. Where preservation sometimes becomes
a hardship when we ask the applicants to retain the integrity of
the small structures because they are small you can't put in
stairs or we ask them not to go up because of the area and bulk
requirements that we are trying to retain the integrity of the
small miner's cabins which, in fact, this was.
So that is what happens in this particular case where the
preservation becomes a hardship in that they have to go over site
coverage because we don't let them go up or we don't want them to
go up because it destroys the integrity. We force the hardship
because we are asking them to do preservation and that is where
they have their problems.
Rick: There are a number of alternatives available for accessing
people from one floor to another. I notice that you have used a
circular spiral stair elsewhere in the house. Why couldn't you
use that same type of approach here and not necessitate that
additional square footage?
Richard: A spiral stair can provide access for certain amount of
people or certain amount of square footage. But it comes to a
point where you can't use a spiral staircase on the main floor.
Also getting furniture up spiral stairs is quite difficult.
As it happens on the carriage house the back door is the old
hayloft door. If we have some big furniture we can't get up that
spiral staircase we can still put it through that door.
Based on the program with the client and working with the HPC it
is the client's desire to re-establish the old relationship of
the house to the carriage house creating this nice yard space
between. We don't feel it is really a possible option to park in
this carriage house. It won't work with the program. And it
seems to me the only thing that we can do is probably remove that
110sgft from the garage that we have to have an outside parking
spot adjacent to it. And the client would like to have a 2 car
garage.
Again we are going to be using more site coverage--we are going
to lose the lawn. We will be using more site coverage actually
to park the 2 cars than in a 2 car garage. This is as small 2-
car garage as you can make.
Anne: You keep mentioning site coverage. What is the FAR here?
What is the allowable and what do you have?
Joe: The allowable FAR is 4, 080sgft. The existing structure is
17
BAM3 . 16.89
at 4, 346. Under the proposed renovations that is reduced
downward to 4, 117sgft of FAR square footage.
Rick: I am looking at the carriage house. Are these going to be
2 separate and distinct little places?
Richard: One is a studio apartment for possibly a maid or a
nanny. That is on the bottom floor. The upstairs is guest
bedrooms with a sitting area. It is an extra guest bedroom for
the house.
Rick: In other words you have one complete apartment on the
ground floor to the west. Then you have a separate entrance and
spiral stair leading to the second story and a study. Is there
going to be another kitchen facility in there?
Richard: There is only one kitchen and that is in the studio.
Rick: And these are just bedroom spaces.
Richard: It is just essentially guest bedrooms for the
grandparents.
Rick: And is there a bathroom that they will have?
Richard: There is a bathroom upstairs.
Rick: It seems to me like this is a triplex.
Richard: It is really not.
Rick: Well, for the lack of a kitchen.
Joe: Well, the lack of a kitchen is what makes it a legal use.
Anne: What is going in the basement?
Richard: There will be an activity room for the children and the
rest of the space is storage. The reason for such an extensive
basement is that the only way to totally replace the--there is
really no foundation under either structure. There is some stone
and deteriorating support with wood on grade. The only way to
properly restore this house is to put a new foundation under it.
And the only way to dig that foundation is to literally lift the
house up, drive a tractor down there and when you get a tractor
down there to build this new foundation, you end up with a full
basement. There is no other way to do it.
Anne: What is going upstairs in the main house?
18
BAM3 . 16. 89
Richard: There is a new master bedroom and on the second level
is the 2 children's bedrooms. Then there is the living room,
dining and kitchen. The main house has 3 bedrooms.
Joe: There are 3 bedrooms in the main house. The studio counts
as 1 bedroom and guest bedroom on the second floor.
Fred: This may be a case where you might want to meet with the
other Board and in a work session environment. I can see that
you have serious issues in relation to your decision.
Charlie: I do have some serious thoughts about this.
Rick: I think that is a great suggestion. The left hand has to
know what the right hand is doing. And if we can come to a
consensus with HPC, I think justice will be better served. I
appreciate your remarks that you enumerated quite nicely that on
one hand we are trying to hold back and on the other we are tying
to preserve. And they both are at odds.
Fred: This is going to be coming up more in the future because
there are going to be incentives to convert carriage houses into
accessory units. There' are going to be incentives set by new
policies to do this.
Ron: But if we send the message that maximization of living
spaces in carriage houses is going to be frowned upon, there is
no reason why this structure can't serve 2 purposes. One as a
garage and also an auxiliary or a living unit. There is no
reason why 3 bedrooms have to be added to the carriage house.
Why can 't we just add 1 bedroom or 2 bedrooms or 1
bedroom/sitting room and still keep the main floor as a garage
and still satisfy HPC's needs.
I don't think we are at odds here at all. I see them as having
very clear direction here preserving historical structure. So I
have no problem with this at all. I would turn it down.
Joe: Would the Board be willing to table? I don't know if there
is an interest on the Board as a whole to have such a work
session.
Roxanne: That is why we are both here to address those issues.
A work session with the HPC on this particular case is not going
to get you any further than where you are right now.
MOTION
Ron: I make a motion that we approve the variance as stated.
19
BAM3 . 16.89
Rick seconded the motion.
Roll call vote: Ron, no, Anne, no, Rick, yes, Josephine, yes,
Charlie, yes.
Variance denied.
Meeting was adjourned. Time was 6: 00pm.
-) -I 1
Janice." . Carney, Ci y I5e'piyVy Clerk
20
♦ N
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PETER HOTTER
CASE #89-3
BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTNENT
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 t
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 Neetin
Date : March 16 , 1989
Time : 4: 00 p.m. _
Owner for Variance: Appellant for Variance:
Name : Peter Hutter Peter Hutter
Address : Box 157 , Aspen, CO. 81612
Location or description of Property:
Location: Lot 30 , Block 1 , Eastwood Subdivision
297 Eastwood Dr . , Aspen, CO.
Variance Requested: See attached
Will applicant be represented by counsel Yes: No:
The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment
130 South Galena Street , Aspen, Colorado 81611
Remo Lavagnino , Chairman Janice Carney, Deputy City Clerk
Variance Request
Property is located in the R-15B zoning category. Chapter 24 Sec
5-204 (D) (4) and (6) Front yard setback is 30 ft and rear yard
setback is loft. Chapter 24 , Article 3 . Definitions, Sec 3-101.
Required yards adjacent to private roads All required yard
setbacks under Zone District regulations are based on distance
measured from the right-of-way line of a dedicated public way.
Where there is no public dedication and the lot line extends to
the centerline of the right-of-way, the required yard setback
shall equal the distance specified under Zone District
regulations, plus an additional' distance equal to one-half (1/2)
of the right-of-way width as if such private way were dedicated
for public use.
Since this property line goes to the middle of a private road
the total front yard setback would be 45 ft. The applicant
appears to be requesting a 20 ft front yard variance leaving the
front yard at 25 ft.
(Hutted
Since this property line goes to the middle of a private road the
total front yard setback would be 45ft. The applicant appears to
be requesting a 20ft front yard variance leaving the front yard
at 25ft.
Planning Staff Comments: Eastwood was annexed within the last
year. During that process the configuration of the yards verses
our definitions and the private road definition were not
considered.
Definition:
YARD, FRONT means the yard extending the full width of a parcel ,
the depth of which is measured by the least horizontal distance
between the front lot line and the nearest surface of the
principal building, such distance being referred to as the front
yard setback.
YARD, REAR means a yard extending the full width of the parcel ,
the depth of which is measured by the least horizontal distance
between the rear lot line and the nearest surface of the
principal building, such distance being referred to as the rear
yard setback.
This lot configuration was not considered and the Planning
Director has told me he will address this situation in the future
so as not to cause a situation of this type.
HUTTER
Dobbs Brothers Management
5170 Sanderlin-Suite 102 Memphis,Tenn. 38117
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 241750 Memphis,Tenn. 38124-1750
901/685-8881
JOHN C. DOBBS
PARTNER
March 6, 1989
The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Gentlemen:
I am unable to attend the March 16th meeting in Aspen
since I live in Memphis. My wife and I own the property
at 0032 McSkimming Road in _ As en. We are opposed to the
requested variance that IPeter Hutted has requested for Lot
30, Block 1, Eastwood Subdivision.
Yours truly,
ohAnC Dobbs
JCD:bc
QQC QOQgeC 302CQ
CO
Q
City of Aspen Board of Adjustments `
130 So. Galena -
Aspen, CO 81611
3/13/89
Re: Case #89-3
Peter Hutter C�
a `
I have recently met with the Hutters and they have explained to me their predicament
regarding their requested variance. Since I will be unable to attend the Thursday, March
16th Board of Adjustments meeting, I wanted to let you know in writing that I fully Q
support and hope the board will grant this request.
J S' erely,
nn Hodges
211 C
LID
�n
,�J
gloA7
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Case #89-4
Mr. & Mrs. Thomas H. Dittmer
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.
Particulars of the hearing and requested variance are as follows:
Date and Time of Meeting:
Date: March 16 , 1989
Time: 4: 00 p.m.
Q�ner for Variance: Appellant for Variance-
Name: Mr. & Mrs. Thomas H. Dittmer
and the D. I.T. Trust Ted. D. Gardenswartz
Address: c/O �Austin, Jordan, Young & Peirce
600 East Hopkins Ave. , Suite 205 , Aspen, CO. 81611
Location or description of property
Location: Lot 2 , Pitkin Reserve Subdivision
0064 Pitkin Way, Aspen, CO. 81611
Variance Requested: Property is located in the R-30 PUD zoning
category and falls under the previous definition of FAR. Sec
24-3 .7 (E) (I) . The house is purported to be at its allowable
maximum FAR and at its maximum allowable 15% of decks. I
consider this pergola as an increase in FAR. The applicant
appears to be asking for relief of this decision by an
undetermined amount.
Will applicant be represented by counsel Yes: X
No: _
The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment
130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611
Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Case #89-7
NOELLE & CECIL HERNANDEZ
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.
Particulars of the hearing and requested variance are as follows:
Date and Time of Meeting:
Date: March 16 , 1989
Time: 4: 00 p.m.
Owner for Variance: Appellant for Variance:
Name: Noelle & Cecil Hernandez Charles Cunniffe & Assoc.
Address: c/o Charles Cunniffe & Assoc.
520 E. Hyman, Aspen, CO.
s
Location or description of property:
Location: 432 W. Francis St. , Aspen, CO.
Lots K,L & M, Block 34 , Aspen Townsite
Variance Reguested: Property is located in the R-6 zone.
Chapter 24 Sec 5-201 (D) (6) Site Coverage. Maximum site coverage
on a 9 ,000sgft lot is 2 ,70asgft . (Aspen Code) . Site already
exceeds site coverage. Applicant appears to be asking for a
variance to further increase site coverage by 110sgft requiring a
variance.
Will applicant be represented by counsel: Yes: X No:
The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment
130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado81611
Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk
John M. Rahm
P.O. Box 1376
Aspen, CO. 81612
425 West Francis 3t.
10 ?,arch 10^,o
The City of As^en Board of �d.lustment
1IC South Galena Street,
Aspen, Colorado 81611
:{y's Cased—?
ernandez Residence
Variance
Dear Chr.Lavagnirc & 'cards
oe acknowlei7Fe receipt of 'otice of ''ublic Ifearin,7,
Case 'A 8Q—?, "'oo1le P: Cecil Fernandez Before The City of
Aspen Bcard of Ad justment`r.
it apnears that the ?a ,^' s will be out of town on
the date set for the hearin`. ''e would li'.,ce to express
our views — as across the street nei-rtabors — of the
Hernandez family.
Several weeks a-o, we had the or,nortunity to review
the r,roposed plans for the remode' in~ of the Hernandez
residence. 'roe both felt that the r1ans were well
done, and in keening with the character of our crest end
Community.
The Boards ^`otice did not state the extent of the
present site coverage excess. . Considerin- the structural complexity
of the prorosed remodel plans for this Victorian residence ,
a very nominal 110 sa_.ft. variance sae -;s most reasonable.
a`rs. R--hm and Myself would like to sup^ est that The Board
look favorably on the 110 se_.ft. variance recuested,
and that it be allowed.
�i.ncerely, l
o hn
Harriet B. ?ahm
CC:
(303) 925-5493
Aspen/Pitk ' nning Office
130 s street
asp e 81611
February 28, 1989
City of Aspen Board of Adjustment
Att: Chairman
c/o City Clerk's Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81612
Re: 432 West Francis, Aspen (a/k/a the Hallet House)
Site coverage variance; B of A review March 16
Dear Chairman:
Per Section 10-104 of the Aspen Land Use Code, this letter has
been prepared on behalf of the Historic Preservation Committee
who has reviewed and approved conceptually the development plans
for 432 West Francis. The plans indicate that the maximum
allowable site coverage percentage will be exceeded by a small
amount (less than three (3) per cent has been proposed) . In
reviewing Standards A through C, the committee finds that the
applicant ' s request for variance is reasonable due to
preservation activity and compatible addition proposed.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Roxanne Eflin
Historic Preservation Planner
cc: Richard Klein, project architect
Bill Drueding, Zoning Enforcement Officer