HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19890525 CITY OF ASPEN
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MAY 25 1989
SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM
4'00 P.M.
A G E N D A
1. CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
11. MINUTES
MARCH 16, 1989
111. CASE #89-8
GEORGE AND GWYN GORDON
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 25, 1989
Chairman Remo Lavagnino called meeting to order at 4 : 00pm.
Answering roll call were Ron Erickson, Charlie Paterson,
Josephine Mann was excused, Rick Head, Anne Austin and Remo
Lavagnino.
MINUTES
MARCH 16, 1989
Rick made a motion to approve minutes of March 16, 1989 .
Anne seconded the motion with all in favor.
CASE #89-8
GEORGE & GWEN GORDON
Remo read into record request for variance. (attached in record)
Affidavit of posting was presented.
Bill Poss, representative for applicant: Our request is for a
variance to add onto the front of their house for the following
reasons: We feel there are 2 reasons that are existing that are
creating the necessity to add on to the front of the house. The
first is that the house was built in 1972 and at the end of 1972
or 1973 from the records that we could find at the Assessor's
Office which means that it was built before the adoption of the
zoning code. In 1972 and 1973 this area was zoned as R-6 and the
house was built to the R-6 guidelines and setbacks of that time
so the house was built originally to the existing zoning and then
when the new zoning code was started in 1973 and adopted in 1976,
it imposed an R-15 zone on this which increased the setback and
made the house non-conforming.
That, in conjunction with a 60 to 80% slopes that are immediately
adjacent to the back of this house, it is built right up against
the end of---and you can see how the existing slope was built and
we have analyzed the slope showing that immediately it is 50% on
the side--71% in the back and goes up to 80% and 90% slopes in
the back.
The house is existing as you can see--there is a foundation wall
that goes up some 6ft above the existing cut and there is a loin
concrete reinforced wall which does 2 things-one it holds back
the hill at the lower end and the upper end keeps rocks from
sloughing down and coming into the back.
Rick: Does that go clear across to the back of the garage as
well?
BAM5. 25. 89
Bill: Yes. That is cut right across the whole back of the house
here.
And so that with the imposed zoning creating that second hardship
of having that topographic hardship and then the house being
located where it was located. We are increasing the house by
some 200sgft. The house as existing is just under 3 , 000sgft and
there is an allowable 5, 000sgft on the site. We are adding to
the front of the house to create a little more headroom and
utilize the space over the top of the garage so we are creating a
master bedroom and bath over that existing garage.
Using maps--What we have done is we have taken the house out not
to encroach any more than the house already exists on the
encroachment.
We have contacted all of the immediate neighbors and some of them
stopped by because the sign was posted and although they are not
here, they are all in favor of this.
Remo: What are these areas? What are you increasing?
Bill: This is an airlock entry to the stairs up. This is the
overhang of the bedroom above.
Remo: You are going to build another bedroom above the garage?
Is that what you are asking?
Bill: Right.
Rick: Well, there is a room above the garage.
Remo: Well, that is what I am saying. What is wrong with using
the same guidelines as the garage--the same envelope as the
garage and extending the bedroom. Why do you have to come out
more?
Bill: Just because of the size and to get the program to work.
Remo: And this entryway here--why does it have to stick out
beyond this? Why wouldn't you just enclose the stairway and make
it flush with the garage and the existing building?
Bill: Because of the way the stair is existing in there and to
be able to get the rise up to that second level and enclose it
with a door.
Charlie: This would be the landing.
2
BAM5. 25.89
Anne: The stairs comes right to here so they are adding a floor
space you can stand on that is inside and you can take your coat
off inside the door.
Ron: It is a landing for when you walk in and close the door and
have someplace to stand without being on the stairs.
Anne: Are you expanding the garage out here?
Bill: We are about aft so that we can put in a door from the
garage directly into that entry so you don't have to go outside
and come back in.
Ron: So you are going to put a door from the entryway into the
garage.
Bill: Yes.
Ron: Here in Section B--Entry and stairs--does this exist now?
Bill: No. We are going to build a closet at the top of the
stairs.
Ron: So you are bringing this out beyond this retaining wall
into the back yard overlooking the deck. Is this going to run
the full length of the house?
Bill: No. That is just where the stair is because where the
garage is the wall is already up that high.
George: From the back of the house there is 8 to 10ft of
relatively flat ground which looks like fill before the slope
goes up. However the level of that is at least 2/3rds of the
height of the garage--where the floor of the garage is so to
build--
Ron: I am not thinking about taking the bottom floor back, I am
thinking--how much from the existing front line of the garage to
the new addition out?
Bill: It is about 6ft. What- we are asking for is 1ft6in there
and 4ft where the airlock is. We want to go 4ft6in--We are
asking for a variance not to exceed 4ft6 because the overhang can
extend into that lft6.
Drueding: You are asking for this variance here and you are
asking for this variance here. You are asking to bring the
garage out into the setback. You are asking to--you know this
thing has a setback too. That is why the 2 variances. And you
3
BAM5. 25.89
also have this overhanging roof which is another variance. This
roof should only be allowed to come out 18in beyond this existing
setback. So that is 2 more feet here.
Ron: So the total is 6ft then.
Bill Poss: But you would only need 6in of that 2 feet.
Drueding: If this was conforming.
Anne: They are allowed 5, 000sgft. They only have 3 , 000sgft of
structure. So they are substantially under their allowable FAR.
Ron: I think that they by having an existing room there that is
quite a nice size that really isn't usable because of the way the
roof slopes and everything like that. They can't use it for
living space.
Remo asked for comments from the public. There were none.
Bill: I might add that we are conforming to the standards that
you are ruling under in that the granting of a variance--it is a
minimum variance. We are asking for 200sgft of floor area that
is 6ft total of maximum variance into the setback. And the
literal interpretation as to the terms and provisions of this
chapter to deprive the applicant the right common to other
parcels and it would cause an unnecessary hardship and a
practical difficulty if we had to add to a different area.
Remo: You have not shown to me that you have a particularly
unique case. All of the property owners on that side have the
same problems that you have. So I find it difficult to grant you
a variance on those 2 points. The other one is that your bedroom
expansion is really a convenience for you--for your program as
you called it.
From our standpoint we are not concerned about that. If you want
to put another bedroom--you are allowed to put another bedroom.
But it should conform to the setbacks. If you want a bigger
room, I don't think it is under our purview to give you that
extra room unless you meet the setback requirements. That is a
convenience. That is not a hardship. That is not a practical
difficulty. The airlock I still think there might be other
solutions to that and again it is not something that I think we
have to grant you. It is not a property right that you are being
denied. You just have to find another solution for it.
Bill: What makes our site unique is that the house was existing.
We don't have the ability to move the house around. These people
4
BAM5. 25.89
have to work with their driveway and they can't conform to the
new setbacks. Our house was built to the setbacks that were
imposed. So that is in fact the hardship. We want to add onto
the house. We are asking for a minimum, about 200sgft when most
people could have up to S, OOOsgft. So the existing house where
it is located and the imposed zoning that was imposed on us
creates our hardship. Not that it is a hardship to add on to the
house. We are not asking that. I am saying we want to add on to
our house but because of where the house is and because of the
zoning and because of the hill, we have hardships that other
people would not normally have. And so it is unique to our site.
Remo: What you haven't shown me is how many houses were there in
1972 on that street. And if- they were- all- built- at that time
then they all encumber the same kind of problem. They were all
under the existing old code and now they all have to conform to
the new one.
Bill: Well, I can't answer that because I don't know if they did
and I don't know if that is a burden of truth I have to provide.
Anne: But see, Remo, we don't know that all of those other
houses on that street are non-conforming now. They might well
have been built just back far enough that they are conforming to
the new zone code. We don't know that. So you can't say that
they are not enjoying the same right as everyone else.
Drueding: As far as I know that subdivision was annexed into the
City as R-15. It has always been R-15. It has always been 25ft
setback requirement.
Bill: As of 1973 when it was annexed. This was built in 1972 .
It was part of the County. The County zoning was R-6.
Drueding: Was there anything in the subdivision plat saying 25ft
setbacks?
Bill: No. I looked that up. It was R-6 and we looked in the
old zoning codes.
Drueding: That is Cemetery Lane. Anything there has never been
anything else than 25ft.
Remo then closed the public portion of the meeting.
Charlie: I feel that this is a minimum request and I don't see
it as unreasonable at all. I do see a hardship by the zoning
having been imposed through annexation and I would be in favor
of granting this variance.
5
BAM5. 25.89
Rick: I have to side with Charlie on this one. Remo, I don't
think you took a long enough vacation. I agree with Charlie.
This is certainly a minimal variance here--the retaining wall, I
don't like the pushing it up against the back of the house any
further because of the rocks sliding down. And I do think there
is a practical difficulty here. And I am in favor of granting
them a variance.
Charlie: I think this is minimal and if you listen carefully to
the presentation it tells us that they need an entrance for a
cold-break when you come into the house. I don't see how they
can put that entrance in unless they have that amount of room.
Remo: I was questioning on just the second floor expansion. Why
do you need 1. 6ft for an extension to a bedroom you know nothing
about except that it is part of their program.
Anne: We know that the garage extension in part is so that they
have a door entrance into the deadlock area.
Remo: But that is not a necessity. That is not something that
we have to grant them. We never have granted things like that
before. I know it is nice. It is a great feature. I would
agree with that.
Anne: The thing the way I look at it is they could expand
another 2 , 000sgft up the hill if they wanted to. They could do a
massive structure there. They are being very sensitive. I just
think that realistically this is a minimal variance.
Charlie: I still think that when somebody says they are going to
put in an airlock--we are all energy conscious. We are talking
about all kind of things which refer to energy savings. We talk
about what is good for the City of Aspen. I don't see why the
quibble over lft6in when the plans show a very sensible approach
to a remodel. It is not something that will hurt the City of
Aspen or the neighborhood.
Remo: We are talking about using the same standards for
everyone.
Charlie: You can't use the same standards for everyone. Every
single plan that is presented to us has to be judged on its own
merits. You cannot possibly apply a standard that will whitewash
over everything. I think everyone has to be judged that way.
And I think this is a sensible solution to this particular
situation.
6
BAM5. 25.89
Rick: It is certainly within the spirit of the code. I am
aghast at the restrictions that are being placed every week on
homeowners now. They are not getting a fair shake anymore. And
I would like to see this one go.
Ron: I think a landing is required by code.
Remo: A landing is required by code to break up a stairway that--
(Many people talking at the same time)
Ron: I agree with everything you have said on its merits.
However, if in fact there was a 20ft setback requirement in the
County when the house was built and because it was annexed into
the City and became a non-conforming structure I consider that a
hardship and I would be willing to grant them any variance that
gives them back their own 20sgft setback on the front yard. So I
would grant this variance if that is the case.
Remo: I am trying to direct my comments to your assumption of
the 20ft setback and that everyone on that street also has 20ft
setback to work with which makes this case not unique. Everyone-
Ron: Well, sure it is.
Remo : Everyone on that street has the same problem.
Potentially.
Ron: So what! That doesn't make any difference. If their
neighbors want to come tomorrow and say "Listen I have a problem
because I have a house and when they annexed they changed and
they made my house non-conforming" . I will give them a variance
too.
Drueding: The house is not non-conforming. Only one portion of
the house is non-conforming. They are not asking to increase the
non-conformity. Only the one portion is non-conforming. They
are asking to encroach into the setback. They are asking for an
encroachment, not an increase in non-conformity
Remo: Doesn't an encroachment into the setback affect non-
conformity?
Drueding: Yes, it does. You are making it more non-conforming.
Ron: Is this house 25ft back from the setback?
7
BAM5.25.89
Drueding: No. The whole house doesn't become non-conforming.
When you want to build onto it, only the portion that is in the
setback--if you want to increase a non-conformity--If you want to
build past the setback where it is right now you wouldn't need
any variance at all. It is when they want to encroach into the
setback--not increase a non-conformity.
Ron: If this house were built in 1972 and the existing setbacks
were 25ft, part of this building would have needed a variance,
wouldn't it?
Drueding: That's correct.
Ron: Does it get one?
Drueding: No. It could have been set out wrong which when you
go back 18 years a lot of things were done a little sloppier
then. So the encroachment is 2 and 1/2 feet. So it is easy to
see where someone would have set the house incorrectly. So I
don't know what happened then.
Ron: I think that we have a right to know what the setbacks
were.
Remo: It is on record. We are making a determination based on
the applicant telling us that what the zoning was in 1972 and
what the setback was in 1972 .
Ron: Then I will tell you what. I will amend my approval saying
that if the setbacks were 20ft in 1972 when this house was built,
then I would grant this variance. If it were 25ft in 1972 when
this house was built then this house was built incorrectly to
start with and we are increasing the encroachment or non-
conformity and I would not grant the variance.
MOTION
Remo: Based on the evidence Bill has presented to us that it was
zoned R-6 in the County and that it had a 20ft front yard
setback.
Rick: How long will it take you to determine that? These people
are waiting on a decision.
Ron: I will make a motion that we grant a variance pending proof
to the Building Department that the front yard setback at date of
construction was 20ft.
Anne seconded the motion.
8
BAM5.25. 89
Roll call vote:
Rick, yes, Anne, yes, Ron, yes, Charlie, yes, Remo, no.
Motion carried.
Bill Poss: It might help you in your deliberations in that the
applicant really doesn't have to prove that because he wants to
add on that that is a hardship. It says in the code that he is
allowed to request a variance-not because of what the setbacks
are. We are allowed to ask for it and then by going out there or
expanding, you don't have to prove that the expanding is a
hardship or that a bedroom or an airlock is a hardship. That in
order to expand, there might be some other reasons that are
hardships--why do you have to encroach into the setback.
Remo: It still basically comes down to a hardship or practical
difficulty. Those are our guidelines.
Bill: Yes, but not whether he wants to add--
Remo: No matter what he wants to do.
Bill: You were saying that the airlock-if he wants the airlock
he doesn't have to have an airlock. That is not a hardship.
That is not what you have to rule on. You have to rule on if an
applicant wants an airlock or wants to expand his house which
everybody else is allowed to have or do--and that when he expands
there are hardships that require him to go into the setback.
Ron: What we say is we see other ways you can do it so "No" .
That is our determination. We say we see other ways of solving
the problem and we reject. You ask for a variance. You want to
do it your way. We say "No. You don't get a variance" .
Meeting was adjourned. Time was 5:20pm.
Jani M. Carney City Dep- f Clerk
9
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CASE #89-8
BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE
VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW:
Pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen of June 25, 1962 , as
amended, a public hearing will be held in the Council Room, City
Hall, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such other place as the meeting may
be then adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said
Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24, Official Code of
Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited
to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you
cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to
state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to
such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious
consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and
others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request
for variance.
Particulars of the hearing and requested variance are as follows:
Date and Time of Meeting:
Date: May 25, 1989
Time: 4 : 00 p.m.
Owner for Variance: Appellant for Variance:
Name: George and Gwen Gordon Bill Poss and Associates
Address: 1540 Silver King Drive
Location or description of property:
Location: 1540 Silver King Drive
Lot 36, Filing 2 , West Aspen Subdivision
Variance Requested: Property is located in the R-15 Zoning
category. Front yard setback is 25 feet. Chapter 24 Sec 5-202
(D) (4) (Land Use Code) . Applicant appears to be requesting a
total front yard setback variance of 7ft. 6in. as follows:
Garage wall 1ft. 6in. , airlock entry and second story 4ft Oin. ,
eave overhang 2ft. Oin. .
Will applicant be represented by counsel: Yes: No: X
The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment
130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611
Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk