Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19900222 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS FEBRUARY 22, 1990 4 .00 PM. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS A G E N D A I . Roll Call II. Minutes May 25 , 1989 September 7, 1989 III. Case #90-1 Ellen Randall RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS FEBRUARY 22, 1990 Vice Chairman Charlie Paterson called meeting to order at 4 : OOpm. Answering roll call were Josephine Mann, Ron Erickson, Rick Head, Anne Austin and Charlie Paterson. Bill Martin was late. Remo Lavagnino was excused. CASE #90-1 ELLEN RANDALL PUBLIC HEARING Notification of posting and affidavit were presented. (attached in record) Charlie read into the record request for variance. (attached in record) Bruce Sutherland, architect for applicant: Basically why we are here is that we have a residence designed and the floor area ratio in an attic portion of a building. We met with Bill Drueding and we discussed this and his interpretation was that this space counts as floor area and our interpretation of it was that it doesn't. So he suggested that we go to staff and staff sent us a letter stating that they would support Bill 's recommendation and that the floor area of the attic space would be counted in the floor area. We don't see anywhere in the Land Use Code (much rattling of maps) that we request a variance. It is our opinion--there is 2 major issues which Bill pointed out the same ones in his report. Basically the 2 issues are that the floor area there should be excluded that area with non-exterior walls. It is our position that we do not have an exterior wall in the attic. It is a roof. So in the attic it is a triangular space and does not have exterior wall so we don't see why that is considered floor area. It is our opinion that we met the intent of the code. We don't know what section we might have violated. That is our position. Charlie asked Bill Drueding to give his interpretation. Drueding: Read definition of floor area: Is the area the development area that shall include the floor area within the surrounding exterior of the walls and measured from the exterior surface. In this case we have a situation where the roof becomes the exterior wall. This is my interpretation. This is an A frame BAM2 . 22 .90 ' where there are 2 walls and the roof then becomes the wall on the other 2 sides. The idea here is you have all this bulk. Charlie: There is a point which is not 5ft. Would you consider that as part of the FAR? Drueding: No. I consider all of this as FAR. Charlie: Even though this is unusable space? Drueding: That is what I am saying. Sutherland: Our position is that the code doesn't make any relationship to the 5ft6 so that is why we brought it up saying that was a non issue. I think we all agree is the 5ft6 issue does not exist as a building code item. So now the 5ft6 thing is where (impossible to understand) Drueding: It is not written anywhere and I decided I didn't want to give you 5ft6. If they removed this floor then the volume section of this code would come into affect. This is an atrium type of thing? No floor there. Then they would be penalized for (many people talking at the same time) The intent of the code is to keep the volume down. So if they took this floor out they would be much less--would count much less as your FAR. Sutherland: Our point is when we put in a ceiling across up here this attic up here does not count. There was more discussion over maps as to what was attic, usable space, what should or should not be counted as FAR and when is a wall a wall and a roof considered a wall. Sutherland: Our problem is we don't see anywhere in the code a regulation that allows this interpretation because---- Drueding: I consider this exterior walls. That is my interpretation. Sutherland: In conclusion we feel that we have the design of the project that we have designed along the land use code and if it is going to say that the roof is considered as a wall--it does not say that and it doesn't even specifically--it does not say anywhere along the line that it is a wall. We feel we have the right to rely on the letter of the code. There is nothing in the land use ordinances that supports the position other than opinions and interpretations. That is where we are coming from. 2 BAM2 . 22 . 90 Charlie asked if there were any comments from the public. Donnelley Erdman, a neighbor: I am an architect and in building houses in the area. I have had the same problem and the same discussion with Bill Drueding. It is really not a question of interpretation. I agree with the City. Otherwise we could all build A frames and A frames aren't really appropriate at this stage of our development in the City. I am also on HPC and we come up against this problem from time to time because people wish to add to or remodel existing historic structures in the City and those structures generally have roof pitches of 12 and 12, or greater which tend to produce this problem. All I want to say is everybody is right and you have to figure out exactly where you draw the line. I would rather not have this come up before the Board of Adjustment again. I would rather not have HPC bothered with it. I would rather not have Bill Drueding bothered with it any more. I sent Amy Margerum a sketch which illustrates the problem very clearly. I am showing what I interpret as the limit of this thing and where you have dead space which perhaps should not be called space that is included in FAR and where you don't. If you have a house with a steep roof and in many instances an upper story can be buried within that roof. There are 3 areas-- the attic--usually cross ties and then there also areas which are of little or no use because one cannot stand in them. They are under 5 feet. What we are going to have to resolve as a City and not bother people with anymore is where you draw the line. You have areas that are attic space are not counted in the FAR calculations. However the City wishes to discourage the construction of massive or bulky buildings and therefore under the present interpretation this space here which can be interpreted as attic space is currently under certain circumstances included in the FAR calculations. What I want to point out to the Board of ADjustment is there is a certain dimension here--what is that dimension below which it is unusable space and it falls into the really bad category as an attic. And if the City can make a determination as to what that height is below which it definitely not usable space then we won't be having to take anybody's time in constantly going over these things. My argument to Bill Drueding is if I were standing here and looking up at this building, and I said "Gosh I could make a 3 BAM2 .22 .90 balcony out of that. I could make a deck and I would put a railing there--a solid railing--and had a way that now I could stand up here, that is no longer counted because it is exterior space. However if that is a solid rail I would increase the apparent bulk of the building" . Therefore the arguments are complex and they are not easily resolved by saying "This makes a more bulky building and this does not" . Therefore it really has to be dealt with in terms of where do we end up saying these little areas are no longer habitable, useful spaces. - - - - - - - - Amy Margerum suggested making a definition over the next year. I suggest making a definition over the next couple of weeks and save us all a lot of time. Josephine: I would like to as you--we are being asked whether we will support the ruling of the Building Dept. If we would say "No, we don't support that, " then what, in effect, are we saying about this situation? Fred Gannett, City Attorney: I am really confused about why the applicant is here. Because under the old code the variance process, the Board of Adjustment heard appeals from the Zoning Office Officials and requests from variances from the strict interpretation of the code. So you were an appellant court for the Zoning Officials. And you were also a body that could grant variances from the literal strict interpretation of the code. We changed in 1988 to the new code. Your functions were somewhat strict because you are now permitted to give variances from dimensional requirements of the code. You have the ability in my mind after reading the code to grant appeals from decisions made by the Zoning Officials. And the way that goes the process goes from the Zoning Official when the applicant disagrees with the opinion that is given and make a written request for a written reply from the Chief of the Planning Office and then if the applicant disagrees with the Chief of the Planning Office his appeal goes directly to City Council which has the ability to make policy decisions that Mr. Sutherland is- talking -about -right here. I don't know what the variance in this application is. Are you being asked to grant a variance from dimensional requirements in FAR totally? Many people talking. Fred: It is the next section from the section called variances. It is appeals. So I guess in this decision here you do have the 4 BAM2 .22 . 90 decision to do that. But the problem I have with this is the Board of Adjustment decisions are typically facts specific and not policy specific. In other words you give decisions on facts and grant variances from facts and grant appeals from a specific set of facts so that you don't have the ability to set policy with respect to what future facts would be. In this case here in my mind is clearly a policy issue. Mr. Sutherland is right. The code does not say anywhere whether there is a requirement 5ft6 and above. Drueding: This is a letter from Amy that says that we will address this after this case. (attached in record) Josephine: What would happen if we were to grant this today? Would Bill after that be free to continue making the same kind of decisions or would he feel that he had to change? Fred: I think the impact of your decision would be a message to the Planning Dept that we think you are wrong and that there should be a reconsideration of your policy. And we would hope that that takes care of it. But it does not mandate your decision--does not mandate that result. I think the message to Amy is that in this case it should not be counted for FAR purposes which includes dimensional bulk as well as floor space. Bea Block, neighbor: I look directly on this. I am here because I want you to know whether this usable space with a simple insertion of a sky light can become usable space. What is happening in the west end has horrified me. And space is getting more and more used. There is less and less open space. I am one of the few houses--in fact I am the smallest house on the street. I am surrounded by bulk and I am here to address that question. Do we continue to have more and more bulk? Or is there going to be some sort of limit. Rick: How much FAR is in dispute? Is it substantial? Sutherland: Several hundred feet--250 to 300sgft. Drueding: Which would put them over. Rick: And am I to understand that the hardship that you are asking us--is the hardship that there is an ambiguity in the code and that you were mislead and that is why you are coming before us? Ellen Randall: I bought the lot 4 years ago and have spent time with Bruce Sutherland having the house designed relying on what I 5 BAM2 . 22 . 90 believed were the rules. I really feel like we have stayed within the rules and I don't even feel like I am asking for an exception. I don't think it is fair. I don't feel like I have done anything wrong and I don't want to have to change. Rick: I ask that only because we have a certain criteria by which we can approve a variance. And certainly if you feel that there is a hardship created by the ambiguities and the discussions that are ongoing we could certainly consider airing this request. I think that this is something if we do and their request prevails we should certainly bring this to the attention of the Planning Office and perhaps get a change in the code. Anne: I agree with Rick to an extent that it is a hardship in the ambiguity of the code. That does need to be clarified. I am concerned that the neighbors were not adequately notified. It was determined after studying the mailing list that except for Ms. Block sufficient notification of surrounding neighbors was done. Fred: I was right before. We did change the code and the code does allow--you may hear administrative appeals for standards and procedures including the zoning codes except for interpretations to the text of the chapter which are subject to that. That means that the Planning Director makes an opinion and goes to Council and that it is not intended to come to you. Whether you chose to hear it or not is up to you but the intent was not that you appeal decisions made by the Zoning Officer as your interpretations to the code. And it was clear at the time that we drafted that that we were trying to remove from the Board of Adjustment interpretation decisions because of policy concerns. You could affirm or deny a particular decision but they had no ability to insure that what your decision was was then implemented in terms of the next Planning Director or the next applicant who came before you. This applicant has presented a hardship case arguing that the code is the hardship in that it provides no guidance to an applicant in the context on their application. Charlie: The hardship is not in writing. All we have-- Fred: I think the applicant always has the ability to supplement the record and to tell what their hardship is. It is not necessarily a hardship. It is practical difficulty and hardship 6 BAM2 .22 .90 so you have 2 areas under which you can consider the application. I think the Board is here and composed to look at that and if they chose to do so they can do so. Drueding: I am not concerned whether it is usable space or not. I am concerned with the bulk. Rick: Bill, is it not your understanding that a few years ago before they amended the code, that space if it was filled with heating and ducting anything mechanical would not be counted in the FAR? Drueding: Before this code was amended mechanical spaces were not included. Now that space is included. Sutherland: Being aware of what has gone on in the west end regarding huge structures there was great effort made in the Land Use Plan to take care of that situation. So we felt at that time when this Land Use FAR calculations, bulk calculations was prepared it had taken into account. So all that work was done and was put into this format and we believe we have the right to rely on that format because of the study that was put into the bulk regulations and the height regulations. So if that is not working--we couldn't agree more than it ought to be changed. But we, by the same token, we don't feel that in our particular situation that we have the right to rely on what the ordinance is. We don't feel a bulk increase witnessed by what we put on the front elevation is an increase. Rick: Well, my calculations here and with Donnelley's help was somewhere around 500sgft. That is a substantial increase over what is allowable. Donnelley: The 500sgft is what is under 5 and 1/2 feet. There is another 120ft plus or 150 that is over 5 and 1/2 that is being asked for. So it is around 750 and something. Ron: Usually we see buildings that are already built so I have some basic questions I need to know the answer to. First of all what is the size of the lot? Sutherland: I believe it is less than 6, 000sgft. Ron: What is the zoning on that piece of land? Drueding: There was a lot split. It is at least 6, 000sgft. Sutherland: Site area is 6, 530sgft. 7 BAM2 .22 .90 Ron: What is the total FAR that you want for this house? Sutherland: Allowable floor area is 3, 314. 2 . Ron: Under the interpretation as Bill sees it, what is the total floor area ratio of the house? Sutherland: We didn't do that. Ron: Now that does not include the garage. And it doesn't include the basement. Sutherland: Right. Ron: Is that whole basement below grade? Sutherland: Yes. Ron: So that none of it counts. Sutherland: No. Ron: What is the square footage of the footprint of the building? Sutherland: Coverage is 38% of the lot area--2,497 . 07 is our site coverage. Bill Martin: Bruce, you implied that you were not aware of Bill 's opinion on this. At what point in your planning did you discover that you were not in compliance? Sutherland: We submitted the plans for building permit and then when Bill did his calculations he notified us that he was not agreeing with the FAR because he wanted to count the attic space. So we asked Amy and staff to see if they agreed with Bill 's interpretation and they did. Then they said we needed to go the Building Dept and be rejected so we could come to you. Martin: You had already planned the building and gone to drawings? Sutherland: Right. Martin: He should have discussed with the Building Dept earlier than the construction of the plans. Sutherland: My response to that would be that there is nothing in the FAR calculations there is no reference to attic space. 8 BAM2 .22 . 90 Drueding: Typically an attic is above the floor. This is a floor that there are--it is a story. And then there is space. And then they have an attic above that. An attic is normally, typically above a story. We have a story here and then that space. So it is not an attic. Donnelley: I build the buildings that we go through this on. Bulk space to me by definition of her lot would be what scenery it blocks in my view. Is that not what you would consider bulk? What we are talking about here is if you take the roof out of there and design the building differently, you create no difference whatsoever in the view that it blocked. What you do then is that you define the design by definition and by law by what it says. Because what he suggested earlier--if you go back and you define the law that that space can only be 6 high then we wouldn't be here today wasting our time. But the law does not specifically state that you have to design that building so that these things will not occur. You can't imply that we shouldn't design it that way. You have to state what that height limit is. Most people who are moving to Aspen are building to the max. We come up against it in HPC. People do not respect the tradition of pitched roofs. It is a 2 edge sword and we have talked about this. If you say we outright deny this because you are not able to interpret then that encourages the applicant to design a house with slab sides. Drueding: If my interpretation is upheld you can always take some place else in the building and cut that down and still have your maximum. So I am not stopping you from building the maximum with this. Charlie asked if there were any more comments from the public. There were none and he closed the public portion of the meeting. Anne: First of all as far as deed restricting this space like Fred recommended--I totally disagree with that. I don't think that we can police what goes on inside of a house and we don't want to have to end up with that situation. This is a new house and I have a very hard time granting a variance to a new house that can be designed differently. I think that what Mr. Erdmann pointed out that there is a deficiency in the code is very accurate and I would in a lot of situations grant a variance for a small space that was not usable whether it is 3ft high or 5ft high I am not sure. And I think that needs to go to City Council for their decision but when I 9 BAM2 .22 .90 look at these plans I see a lot more than 3ft high. I see a huge closet. I see an exercise room. I see skylights going in there. I see a lot of possibilities. Much rattling of maps here. I see a huge impact with this area and I would have a difficult time with granting something like this which really should go to City Council for their decision first. But I would deny this variance as it is requested. Josephine: We could call it a hardship because the code isn't specific about this. But that is nothing new. I don't like being in a position of us deciding things like that. I am not in favor of granting a variance because I feel that that would be doing something that is against the purpose of the plan--the Zoning Regs. One of the major purposes of FAR is to control bulk and therefore I can't see my way to grant this variance. Rick: Well, I am kind of swayed the other way. I don't like the fact that we are talking about close to 700sgft. But at the same time I am so tired of people having trouble with the City trying to interpret the myriad of laws that we have to try to get a house built that even an architect has trouble getting it through. I think I am in favor of granting this variance with the recommendation that we take it back to the Planning Office for a re-evaluation of or a clarification as to the language. Ron: #1. To my knowledge we have never made policy on this Board. I don't think we are doing it. Any action we take today does not make policy. We have always interpreted the code when someone came before us in a disagreement situation with the Building Dept or the zoning enforcement officer. I was feeling uncomfortable not knowing really the size of the additional FAR we were being asked to look at and to grant. It is like Josephine has said, "Anything is possible but never exceed FAR" . It is the most difficult thing that you could ask Board of Adjustment to grant. This building was designed to the maximum. I mean it is right there. I think 2 or 3 years ago all the things that were happening in the west end community have really caused the change in code because people were building to the maximum under the old code. I think a clear message came out of that part of the community that this should stop. We don't want that anymore. I agree with the Building Dept interpretation of the code. I would not grant this variance. I think it could be designed some 10 BAM2 .22 .90 way else so that they don't have to ask for additional floor area ratio above the maximum that is granted under the code. Bill: I agree with Anne. This is a new house. I do not think that 750 or 500 additional square feet should be permitted in space that can be usable. It can be used by the occupant. So I would not approve of this. Charlie: I agree pretty much with the majority of my colleagues because I don't' feel that they have a real hardship in this case. I would like to see this go back to the Planning Office for clarification. I feel like Rick does in that respect. But on the other hand I don't see a good reason for us to grant this variance especially when it is as pointed out before the extra FAR that can result in this building could be taken up in some other area and the roof could stay the way it is right now. I have some problems with any height that is under 5ft6in in this little area that is unused as space. But it isn't separated from the rest of the space. So we have very little choice to do anything and I would refuse granting this variance also. Charlie re-opened the public portion of the meeting for further comments. Sutherland: I don't think there is a variance involved here at all here because we think we are not going against the law. So I don't know what part of the code we are varying against. Secondly, as far as the additional floor area, we keep referring to space that is as little as tin tall or 2 in tall. I don't believe that that is the intention of the code. So I think the situation as it exists is that there is some point where an attic as a height certainly should be defined by code and not by interpretation because there is no basis whatsoever to come back and say a space is a usable attic or it is not a usable attic. We can't have an interpretation based on what somebody could do illegally. I don't think that is a correct approach to this. So those things taken into account we feel that the situation being this not a variance. What it is is this is a question of interpretation of what is called floor area. We say that we are within the law as written in the Land Use Plan on what is floor area. The question is how that is interpreted by what is attic space and what is not attic space and how it is dealt with in the code. So by what standards are we coming up with now all of a sudden saying what attic space should or should not become. 11 BAM2 . 22 .90 Erdmann: I tend to disagree with the applicant. On a common sense issue I agree with General Martin that historically in Aspen I think the issue has been dealt with in that way. That space that is below what we consider any kind of normal head room might be the subject of interpretation. However I think it is very important because the applicant has spent a lot of time on this project and certain other aspects of the town have all done likewise that the issue be resolved rather quickly in terms of the interpretation. I think it would be a great help if the Board of Adjustment would use whatever influence it could to further the speed of resolving this issue. Charlie: I think with that idea, we should turn this over to the Planning Office. Fred: If this had been appealed directly to Council the Council would have been able to further deny the applicant and then set policy. What it really is going to require is a code change which defines attic space in a way that gives an architect and an applicant a chance to build within the law and direction. I think what your direction should be is to the Planning Dept to sponsor a code change ASAP that addresses this issue. Whereas the Board is going to move to deny means that they have no authority. One of the things that I would say is that even though the code is fairly specific on the time in which appeals are filed, I would certainly from the City Attorney's Office not challenge their ability to take this back before the Council . My sense is that is where it should have gone. I would recommend that they do that if they chose to do that. I don't know what relief they will find up there on this issue. But I do think they will get a policy set that may help other people. Charlie: I agree with that. I think we should put that as part of our motion. Drueding: We are going to address this. If you recommend that we do this we will do it. MOTION Anne: I make a motion on case #90-1 that we deny the applicant's request to overturn the Planning Dept interpretation of FAR and that we make the recommendation that this matter goes back to the Planning Office and to the City Council for further clarification of the code. Ron seconded the motion. 12 BAM2 .22 .90 Roll call vote. Anne, yes, Rick, yes, Ron, yes, Josephine, yes, Charlie, yes. Request denied. Anne: I would request that I be notified when this is going to Council. I think it would be beneficial for us to be there to express what our feelings are on this. Bill: Continuing this discussion here it seems to me that we should make the motion- among ourselves -back to the City Council saying that the Board of Adjustments has been denied the right to consider this kind of case. I think we should consider it. Ron: Absolutely. We have always considered interpretations of the Building Dept. and we should continue to do it. That is our purpose to do this. Charlie: I agree. Bill: We should make a motion back to the Council that they have overlooked the fact they have taken the Board of Adjustment as I understand it and reduced it's responsibility. So who is guarding the store? Ron: The City Council. Charlie: I am perfectly willing to listen to a motion on this. Bill: It pushes everyone to the City Council and that is what is the problem with our City. Ron: Once again that requires a code change. We talked with Remo about this last year or 2 years ago and we went to HPC meetings because of it because HPC has assumed some of the responsibilities we have had in the past. I think it is going to require a code change and I think that what we can do is we can make a motion officially from the Board to City Council that we would like to see the code changed back to where it was in the past and that we, the Board of Adjustment, continues to have the authority to hear cases involving the interpretation of the code by the Zoning Enforcement Office and the Building Dept. Now Fred read me a paragraph that I had absolutely no idea what he was talking about. And as far as I am concerned I don't particularly like to have a code that I have to enforce that I don't know what it means. 13 BAM2 .22 .90 Fred: I think if you had read it, you would understand it. The affect of is the Council wanted to have a direct avenue for code interpretations to get to them so that they could set substantive policy as opposed to case by case determinations. And when they did that this Board was denied the strict powers that it had. This is a classic example where there was no relief for this Board and particularly for other members of the public who were facing similar issues because the BofA by its very nature is non- precedential. You may amongst yourselves create certain sort of standards and precedence that you use as benchmarks but they are not expressly on subsequent applicants. The way the code structure is you can hear appeals to standards and procedures to what I would call procedural standards of the code. You have a major responsibility for the purposes of granting variances to the literal interpretation of the code. The collateral duty that you have is also to hear appeals from interpretations made by staff. And that is what has been taken away on this issue. It seems unclear to me and to you as to what the difference between procedural standards are as opposed to interpretations of the text which is essentially standards. Ron: The code is not carved in stone. It doesn't solve every problem. This is why we have the Board of Adjustments. But in effect what you are saying is that every time the Building Dept interprets the code and people come to us and say "Overturn what they said, " we can't hear it. Right? What I am saying is if they ask for a variance relief from the code because Bill says they are asking for additional FAR they are going to come to us and ask for additional 600 FAR because they don't feel that it is usable and the code is so vague that it is not usable space anyway so give us the variance and we could have done that for them. Fred: I have gone to the Council time and time again and say "We have adopted a code for the purposes of clarifying it" . It is so complex that what we have done is create a special industry. And even the special industry is not going to solve the issues. I think the issue here is people are building everything to the inch of every limit and that is going to push Aspen to a position of where we are going to have to defend positions. And we have never attacked but for the fact that we are now at the very edge. I don't know that there is any relief that is going to be granted because I don't know how you can make a code and spend 2 years and $50, 000 trying to make easier which is in many ways not that easy. 14 BAM2 . 22 .90 MOTION Ron: I would move that the Board strongly urge City Council to restore the responsibility of the Board of Adjustment to interpret the text of the code or appeals of the text to deal with the appeals of the text of the code. Fred: What I recommend you do is to make a motion to direct the Chairperson of the Board to appear before the City Council for the purposes of making the Board's position clear as they feel it has been hamstrung--you have to make that point yourselves. Staff going tot he Council is not going to accomplish your goal. Ron: I don't think we need a motion because we already passed this motion 6 months ago and Remo just happened to take off. Charlie: Let's go as a group so we can all have a voice. If there is no second to this--let the motion die and let's-- Anne: We can still make the motion and as soon as Remo gets back we do as a group. Ron: I withdraw the motion because we had this discussion 6 to 8 months ago when Remo was here and we passed the motion at that time that Remo as chairman of the Board would make City Council cognizant of the fact that we feel very unhappy about what i going on and why we should change it back. MOTION Ron: I make a motion that Remo go to City Council with our concerns involved with the interpretation of the text of the code. Charlie: Are you willing to be there at that same meeting also? Ron: Yes. Anne seconded the motion with all in favor. Rick: I agree with you, Bill. I just think that the City Council is acquiring so much power now and is so convoluted that they can't conscientiously address all the things that are coming before them. They should delegate back down to these kinds of Boards again and make policy decisions. Ron: May I suggest that we all think about reasons why this kind of procedure doesn't really work and why it should change and 15 BAM2 .22 .90 write those things down so that we can discuss it and help Remo out with these kinds of things. Fred: May I apologize on Staff's behalf. This should not have come this direction. I think what happened is Amy looked at this and said "Send it this way" . Or "If you want to go this way here is an avenue for relief and if the Board happens to agree with you then we will change the way we think" . I think in the past you would have had the ability to do something. Bill: I think Amy needs this Board to test what her interpretation of what the code says. Ron: I don't think there is any problem at all. All we are asking for is the right to go back and interpret or overturn the interpretation of the code by the Building Dept. We are not trying to change the code or set policy. That is the City Council and I think they should continue to do so. MINUTES MARCH 16, 1989 Anne made a motion to approve the minutes of March 16, 1989 . Josephine seconded the motion with all in favor. MINUTES SEPTEMBER 7. 1989 Josephine made a motion to approve the minutes of September 7, 1989. Anne seconded the motion with all in favor. Anne made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Ron seconded the motion with all in favor. Time was 5: 45pm. (" Janic M. Carne City be' i5iify Clerk - - - - - - - -- - - - Y - - - - - - 16 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CASE #90-1 ELLEN RANDALL 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, 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: February 22, 1990 Time: 4 : 00 p.m. Owner for Variance: Appellant for Variance: Name: Ellen Randall Bruce Sutherland Address: 5005 Green Tree Rd. Architect Houston, TX. , 77056 Location or description of property: Location: 300 Lake Ave. , Marshall Lot Split, Part of Lots 11 & 12 , Block 103 Hallam Addition to Aspen Pitkin County Variance Requested: Applicant appears to be requesting to overturn the Planning Department's interpretation of Floor Area Ratio definition as it pertains to the attic space per their building plans. Aspen Land Use Regulations-Definition-F.A.R. 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 VA41*4_W.4,� �,.Z& AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY MAILING OF A VARIANCE HEARING BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says as follows: I, Jennifer Schiller , being or representing an Applicant before the City of Aspen Board of Adjustment, personally certify that the notice of Public Hearing of Variance (case #904, Ellen Randall) was mailed to all property owners (list attached) within a 300 foot radius of subject property. The notices were sent to the Post Office on the 7 t h day of February , 19 90 A pp Iic ' is S' atu Subscribed and sworn before me this —7 day of J -b r , 19 'J D, by ��Vt;t L-7�Le, j . S c�LU WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. � My commission expires: �L l_ 1.-7,1'f':--:�1 3 Notar Public's Signature �+v Address County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY POSTING )ss. OF A VARIANCE HEARING BEFORE State of Colorado } THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (Pursuant to Section 6-205 (E) (b) of the Municipal Code The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says as follows: I, Bill Bowen , being or representing an Applicant before the City of Aspen Board of Adjustment, personally certify that the attached photograph fairly and accurately represents the sign posted as Notice of the variance hearing on this matter in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the 7th - day of February , 1990 , to the 22nd day of February 19 90 (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date) . L Applicant's Signature Subscribed and K7_ to before me this 2 day -o , ,Z f 19 i0 by Y=i Y WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFIC L EAL. My Commission expires: 4 V No ry Public's Signature Address