Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19900705 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS JULY 5, 1990 4.00 P.M. MAIN FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS A G E N D A I. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL II. MINUTES JUNE 14 , 1990 APRIL 12 , 1990 (CONT. FROM MEETING OF 5/3/90) III. CASE #90-7 JOHN ELMORE RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 5, 1990 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called meeting to order at 4 : OOpm. Answering roll call were Bill Martin, Ron Erickson, Charlie Paterson, Rick Head, and Remo Lavagnino. Josephine Mann and Anne Austin were excused. MINUTES APRIL 12 AND JUNE 14, 1990 Ron made a motion to approve minutes of April 12 , 1990. Rick seconded the motion with all in favor. Ron made a motion to approve minutes of June 14, 1990. Rick seconded the motion with all in favor. CASE #90-7 JOHN ELMORE Remo read into record applicant's request for variance. (Attached in record) Ron Erickson: I just want to state for the record that I managed this property for John Elmore this past winter as a rental property. I no longer manage it. I don't think I have a conflict of interest here. I would be able to give an impartial opinion on this request. Stan Mathis, representative for applicant. Using maps pointed out location. This house was listed as one on the historic inventory. Under some past resolution it was determined that we have to come through HPC that review all demolition permits. It was determined at that time that this structure might have some historic value. We ripped into it and discovered that mumble however this little shed back here was kind of reminiscent of little out buildings at the back of alleys and what have you. So in working through this with HPC--we have been at this now for about a year. It has been determined that we will designate this as an historic site and this little outbuilding. And in order for us then to be able to designate this section we are going to need to re-build the house on kind of the existing footprint that is there now. BAM7.5.90 The front yard is called original. We are 7 and 1/2ft from that property line. We would like to maintain that. So that means a 2 and 1/2ft variance on the front yard. The existing building is 3ft from the side yard setback. This is for a corner lot. That means 6. 6ft or 6ft 8 inches. It was determined that this house location is ? to kind of the fabric of the neighborhood. In other words we at one point we had our entry over here but that was opening onto the street too much. So we worked it out so our entry is over here kind of defined this part of the neighborhood and not this kind of commercial area. Rick: Which direction are you considering the front yard? Stan: This is front. Rick: Why did you choose that? Stan: We have no choice because under the code-- Lots of people talking at same time. Stan: And that there is the front. So in addition to that the HPC wanted us to consider putting a porch on the front of the building--a little bit more reminiscent of that part of the neighborhood where many of those structures do have porches. Then will have to get an encroachment permit from City Council. But we have agreed to turn this over into a restricted dwelling for employee of the County. We will revamp this whole structure. So that is where the set back stuff comes from--because we want to maintain a certain distance around these buildings without them being too close. And since I call this then our hardship. The fact that this little building is taking out a pretty good chunk of our property to put in-- Remo: It is also in the setbacks. Right? Stan: It is on City property. And in the setbacks. Remo: And how much of it then is it taking away from you? Stan: Well, actually--this is the other part of the open space variance--but natural barriers, landscape or fence that divides this from this-- Remo: Who said that? Stan: HPC. 2 BAM7 .5.90 Remo: I still am not sure about what you are talking about. Where is your setback here? Stan: Here is the setback line. Right here. Remo: So then you are within the setback here. Stan: Yes. This is 7 and 1/2ft from here to here. Remo: I thought you were asking for a variance--so the setback is there then. It is not there. Stan: Yes. Remo: That is what I wanted to know. So this is in effect is in the setback entirely. Stan: That is correct. Remo: And it is in City property entirely. Stan: Correct. Remo: I had the feeling you were telling us that it was taking away from your building property when in fact it is not even in there. It is in the setback and it is on City property. Stan: However it does count against our open space. When we put up a fence here, anything that is not visible from the street is not counted as open space any longer. That is the way it is interpreted. So not only do we have the footprint of the building that is on our property that cannot be counted as open space but we also have the area that is behind the fence that cannot be seen from the street. Bill Drueding has determined that those kinds of fences take away from the open space. Remo: What is this zoned? Stan: RMF. 35% is required in RMF zone. So there is where our hardship glistens from--this small space. This is our hardship- -to ask to maintain the footprint that is already there. We are not increasing the non-conformity. Ron: What about this covered porch. It looks like part of that is going to be in the setback. Stan: No. Here to here is 7ft. There are 3 things that we are asking for. Front yard, side yard and open space. The porch is not in the setback. It is not affecting open space. However the 3 BAM7. 5.90 way the code is written, this area would be counted as floor area and we are asking for a 200sgft FAR bonus to do this porch. Remo: That is where we have a big conflict here because our guidelines really doesn't address that. We had this once before and got really sort of verbally whipped by Sandy Stuller because it is really not under our purview to look at things on that basis. And yet you are asking us to because we have to look at more practical issues of hardship and practical difficulty. But not in the context as an incentive for a portion of this that this isn't under. So I am trying to establish the guidelines between HPC and the BOA. You gave us this memorandum about your approval of it and that is what I am directing my comments to you because it is difficult for us to give these incentives that HPC would have given you had this whole property been under their purview. And we have a different set of guidelines and we are torn between, at least I am and I know the City Attorney at that time was. They said we can't look at it that way. Stan: Be that as it may. Let's not consider that portion. Ron: I have a problem with the open space. The reason is that HPC has requested you put a fence up there. That has cut down on the open space according to the Planning Office. Now my easy resolution to that would be "The hell with the fence" . And you take credit for all of that open space. Stan: Well, we still have that choked out of us anyway. Remo: How much of that is infringing on your open space. Stan: All of this infringes on our open space. Remo: On that portion that is--the accessory building that is on your property that would be considered-- Stan: Approximately 275sgft. Then we will have to physically break out- o€ the site. When we break this out we have a piece of property. Not just the structure. So all of a sudden this part of the site is designated. We can't count this as open space. Remo: So this is the total area that you are considering which is 400sgft. Stan: This whole area right here. 4 BAM7.5.90 Roxanne: I think what is important for you to know is that the fence--the applicant really wants this fence. The HPC understands that. The HPC does not care if there was a shrubbery screen or a small picket fence that was see-through that didn't offend the open space issue and those kinds of things. And the HPC didn't say "We want a 6ft fence constructed" . That was not from HPC. Stan: Well, I understood this a little bit differently because it was my understanding that we wanted to create a little bit of privacy. Remo: So it is not a fence that we are dealing with per'se. We are dealing with this open space. Whether there is a fence or not is irrelevant to the 400sgft that you are asking. Stan: That is correct. Because the area that is hidden behind this fence is approximately equal to this. Remo: I want to make it clear that this delineation would be there without the fence. Stan: That is correct. Remo: OK. And the fence is irrelevant to our granting you a variance. The fence has nothing--we are not giving you a fence variance. Stan: That is correct. Remo: And what about this? This fence is to the property line. Right? Stan: Yes. Remo: And it is all 6ft high or under. Stan: We haven't decided that. Remo: Well, you can't go over it. Stan: Bill Drueding has determined that any physical or visual barrier more than 18 inches starts to eat into the open space. Remo: That I didn't know. Ron: I didn't either. And I don't think that is in the code. Remo: Is that in the code? Ron: I don't think so. 5 BAM7.5. 90 Roxanne: It is a flaw. Remo: There we go again. A different interpretation of the code that probably isn't in there. But can you tell us exactly what the wording is? What section of the code he is taking to-- Stan: Well, it is an interpretation. Remo: What is he referring to? Stan: There are many fences that have been built around the City that affect open space. They really do. They are Eft tall. Now personally I don't see (many people talking) fence that is open space. It is still open. Bill has determined that, and I think this goes back to the days of Alan Richman, that it doesn't matter if you have got open space in the interior of the building, if you can't see it from the street, it is not open space. Remo: That is right. Stan: OK. Further that at a certain point when a fence comes up, you can't see behind the establishment and that is not open space. And I disagree with that because I think that is pretty silly. But he goes so far as to distances between pickets as what does that affect. Remo: Even at 18 inches? Stan: No. At the Eft and going down. So at this point in time Bill determines if you have got an open space problem or not. Remo: I want to know where he is taking it from. You say he is interpreting. He has to have something to interpret from. Ron: I seem to remember us having a question of open space on the Collins Block. HPC was involved in that. And the entranceway was like 8ft wide, opened into a larger cul-de-sac and they got credit for all of that as open space although it was not visible from the street. Roxanne: Now what you were doing was the dimension--the street scape dimension of the open space. They have their 25% open to the sky on the parcel. What you all were dealing with was how that functioned on the site because the site required a certain 50% or something to meet that. So that was what you were dealing with. Remo: We were dealing with a certain frontage that had the setback into. 6 BAM7. 5.90 I don't think we should have to worry about the fence anyway because if Bill Drueding determines that you got to put an 18 inch fence and you don't want to, you can come back to us for a variance or whatever. Stan: We will deal with that. (he mumbled something more here) Remo: I understand. Bill: Would open space be a problem if the porch was not built? I don't understand who designates that there must be a porch on the house. Stan: HPC has suggested that this be done. Bill: I know but that's-- Remo: If this were a landmarked thing entirely we wouldn't have any--it wouldn't even come before us. It would be all HPC. Stan: We want the porch and we have got that-- Bill: Yes, but you also want the open space. Stan: Well, except that when this portion of the property comes out, that's no--we can't count that as open space any longer. Rick: So the alternative would be to make the main house smaller to-- Bill: If you take the porch off you have adequate open space. Stan: Let me put it a little differently. If we don't get our approval today, we get a demolition permit. And we clean the site and not even provide this. So--that's the deal. Roxanne: Let me explain another reason really the motivation behind keeping the little out building and turning it into a deed restricted accessory dwelling unit. When they lot split out that 12 , OOOsgft parcel, that was the ordinance that had been passed by Council that required accessory dwelling units to be constructed within both of those new structures. They are required to do a deed restricted accessory dwelling unit. Right now where that is going to go and where you are going to see them all go is 100% below grade. Our decider is to bring them up from subterranean level, put them above grade and try to accommodate some other goals for the City which is historic preservation. Obviously what we would also like to do is have them meet all of their building envelope and dimensional FAR requirements without having to come 7 BAM7.5. 90 to you all. The HPC was saying there are some other design considerations for you in this new replacement building we want you to look at. They are saying wait a minute, that takes out some other FAR stuff that we are interested in for your design considerations. We want to work with you but yet these are still our requirements. Rick: Is there a bonus for them somehow for providing this? Roxanne: Yes. Only for the historic parcel the HPC can grant some variations and some incentives. One of those is FAR. Rick: And what would that be in this case? Roxanne: We can grant up to 500sgft. And I think all of their- Stan: With the shed we are going to add back on, we would be right at 500sgft. Roxanne: We will generally only grant FAR variations that we can in this kind of situation. We have a detached structure that is getting deed restricted. Remo: Are you saying also that code--it is upon these people that it has to be underground? Roxanne: No. It has to be provided somewhere and below grade doesn't count in FAR. So guess where they are going. Remo: So why doesn't if that is a way of subverting code or that incentive why don't they just legislate something that would require them to put it above ground? Roxanne: It has been discussed. With the way that we are doing it is looking at the cottage infill program of providing some incentives with other things that are going on right now. We are looking at how we can get these things up from the basement. Stan: You see, Bill, when this piece of property comes out of this site, that is open space that we can't count anymore. Remo: And if you had that open space, you could have your porch. Stan: We can have our porch as it is now if you grant the variance. Remo: No. Without the variance. Stan: Without the variance we can do the porch. Yes sir. 8 BAM7 . 5.90 Remo: That is what I think he should know. Bill: If you tear this down--tear them both down--what will be the size of the structure that you will build there? Stan: The FAR is 3,240sgft within setbacks. Bill: What is the square footage that you will have under this proposal? Stan: 3,240 plus almost 500sgft. Remo: And that is maxed out on your FAR. Plus the bonus of the dwelling. Stan: It will be 3,740. Rick: My concern is if you level these buildings-- Stan: Let me point out one thing. In the RMF Zone we are allowed 1 to 1 FAR. Rick: If you are tearing this building down why didn't you re- build it in such a way that you accommodated the setbacks? Stan: Actually what we are going to be trying to move this building down to the Sanitation Dept site for employee housing. So we are going to leave the foundation. Rick: You would like to just build up-- Stan: Yes. ?: We worked through with HPC the scale and massing of the house and the reason that they wanted it out on the corner where the other house is is that they wanted that same shape that we have in the house that we are proposing to put there. The HPC has worked with us in the design. That was what they requested that we do- - try to keep some of the same characteristics in our design. Remo: Your reason for the house location to maintain that neighborhood ambience. That wouldn't affect us at all under our guidelines. Stan: The thing with HPC is that here we have this designation and so we would like to push the house as far forward on the site as possible so this is a legitimate hardship I believe. And allowing us to stay within the existing envelope and not increasing the amount of non-conforming. 9 BAM7 . 5.90 Bill: Remo, where I come from is I am concerned that we have got to do too many things on one piece of property. We are trying to save the historical. I think we ought to try to save historical. But at the same time we are violating all of the other rules that are being imposed on ourselves. Remo: That is the conflict between the guidelines of Board of Adjustment and HPC. And when they come together--I have said that Sandy Stuller gave me a verbal whiplashing when we gave a variance based on HPC standards and not on our own guidelines. And she told us we can't do that. But there is a problem here when things like this come up using our guidelines is very difficult to apply them when we have these other considerations of hardships that we would not consider hardships. So I don't know what to say to the Board. I can see some hardships independent of HPC in this particular case. The foundation being where it is. The fact that they could probably build it there anyway, remodel it, tear it down. We had one structure that we tore down and we gave a variance to and they built it--they just tore everything out and built it from the ground up. And we were appalled at that. So we didn't think it was going to happen. We gave a little variance and suddenly the house was gone. Stan: Actually I think you are correct. We could remodel the structure where it sits. Remo: That is what I am saying. So that variance is reasonable and there is a practical difficulty. You do have a foundation that we could consider. The open space is a little bit tougher because we are dealing now with a historical structure that you are telling us is taking away from your 35% had it not been there. And therefore we should grant you--what we would say is get rid of the structure and start from scratch. But the consideration is it is the HPC and the Planning office's recommendation. Rick: Well, in this zone they could build 1 to 1. They could match it right up wall to wall. I think this is a wonderful compromise. Give up a little bit of the open space in lieu of having a full grown-- Remo: They are maxed out anyway. Rick: No, no, no. They could build 4 units over there if they went through GMP and do a full blown-- Remo: They have to go through GMP 10 BAM7 .5.90 Rick: That's true but I am saying would you rather have--I personally I think we are going to have to consider some of aesthetics here. I would prefer to see this. Would you rather see a massing of 4 units built lot line to lot line there as opposed to something that is historic? Remo: My feeling is that if they are allowed to do that--if that code says they are allowed to do it, that is their right to do that. Rick: I know. But we are being asked in some sense from HPC to give consideration for this. Charlie: This Board represents the City of Aspen. That is why we are here. What is best for the client. Remo: We have specific guidelines by which we legislate. Charlie: But that is why HPC and P&Z are involved in this. They say "Look, this is good for the City. Let's try to make it work" . Remo: I am saying it is a conflict from--many talking at the same time--decision on the basis of our own guidelines. That is what I am saying. Ron: Question to HPC, I am lead to believe that the land area around that-- Remo: Between the fence and-- Ron: And the dwelling that you have said they have to have this land surrounding the historical structure and that land cannot count towards their open space. Roxanne: We don't have anything to say about what counts towards open space. What we are saying is that the land that is associated with the out building becomes the designated parcel. A new legal description-- Ron: It is separate deeded? Roxanne: It is a historical overlay. Ron: OK. Fine. Stan: It is going to track with the deed of the property. Ron: No. I understand that. But ownership of this property goes with ownership of this property. 11 BAM7 . 5.90 Roxanne: Oh, yes. There is no difference in ownership. Ron: They are deed restricted by rent they can charge. Right? Roxanne: Accessory dwelling unit is restricted to-- Ron: Right. Can they sell this unit separately to someone on the open market at whatever the guidelines happen to be on the house? Roxanne: Accessory dwelling unit cannot be condominiumized. Ron: Then it goes with this parcel. Stan: Right. Ron: So I don't understand why this space here which is broken out as part of this parcel cannot be considered as open space for what you are doing-- ?: It can be except it has the building on it. That is the problem. Ron: No, no. We are not talking about the building. We are talking about the land around it which Stan led me to believe does not count for open space. Stan: Let me first of all (there were conversations in at least 3 different places here) Remo: But if you stand here-- Stan: Alleys don't count. Remo: So this one would count. Stan: That's correct. Now I have a shadow--a visual shadow here that you are not allowed to cast. And there is another visual shadow here that continue to add up to that square footage. Remo: That you are requesting. So it is not all this area that you told us? Stan: It is part of that as well. I believe that Bill Drueding is going to say this cannot be counted as open space. Ron: But now this area is considered open space? Stan: Yes. 12 BAM7 . 5.90 Ron: Well, you can't see it from there. So how can it be counted? Stan: You can see it from here. Ron: What about all this area in here? That is not open space? Stan: That is not open space. Ron: None of this on the alley here, the driveway--none of that gets considered open space? - - - - - - - - Stan: That is correct. Ron: Why? Because it can't be seen from the street because of this structure here? Stan: No. Just in general. Remo: This whole building. Ron: Well, if this structure wasn't here you could see it from the street--the whole back yard would be open space. Right? Rick: That's correct. Their alternative is to move the building back. Ron: No, no, no. No they don't. In order to get their 35% they get rid of this building here and the whole thing is up in smoke. Rick: Are we accomplishing anything then? Ron: Are we right in assuming that all of this space here that is blocked off by this building was not being considered open space by the Planning and Building Departments? Several answered in the affirmative. Ron: I think that is absolutely ridiculous! What we are doing now is getting into a hardship case because of the code. That is what I am trying to find. The hardship is that HPC wants to preserve that structure. That structure by it's very existence prevents them from taking advantage--looses half of their back yard and that is where their hardship is. The thing is you need 35%. I am willing to give a variance based on the hardship I just described because I don't agree with the way they do site lines and things like that and if this prevents you from taking advantage of what is clearly your land--your back 13 BAM7.5.90 yard--and it is open space. It is just how you look at it under the code that I can see that as a hardship and I can grant the variance based on that. But if that area isn't enough and you still need a variance-- Stan: No, that is enough. Ron: OK. Francis Krizmanich, Zoning Dept: I would be glad to read the code section regarding the open space. What the City was concerned about was the public open space, not your private open space. Remo: I would like to know. Tell me the interpretation of the code that an 18 inch--would you phrase it the way Bill Drueding- Stan: Bill has been interpreting the code as it relates to barriers at the perimeter of property when we get to fences. That as soon as we come up out of the grade then that then starts to wear away at our open space because you can't--it's putting a shadow effect behind the fence. In other words if you were to come up 3ft with a solid fence or even 6ft all of the open space goes away. You are not allowed to calculate any of that. And in some cases we have done rail or picket or log rail fence and depending on how far that is spaced apart we have mumble it takes away from the open space. And a case in point would be the little duplex we did over on Cooper where West End Street is. We remodeled that. We were going to put a log rail fence out at the property line. But Bill felt that there was not enough space between the rails themselves and so that took away from our open space. Remo: Now where is that written in the code? I want to look at it. And apparently it is not in the code. Amy, Planning Dept: The code talks about basically being able to see through. Not in the situation we have with Buz Dopkin. Remo: And it is a defined-- Amy: And he had to change his fence to some other kind of material. I don't know if it is defined in terms of inches. It is defined in terms of being able to actually visually see through. Remo: Well, isn't that rather subjective? Amy: Sure. Remo: And so-- 14 BAM7 . 5.90 Bill: Is vegetation the same? Suppose you have lilac bushes and things like that. Is that affected too? Amy: Yes. Remo: So you start them at 18 inches and let them grow. Stan: Let me read this to you. This is out of the definition of open space. "Open to view. Open space area shall be open to view from the street at pedestrian level which view need not mumble fences or walls shall only be permitted around the perimeter of open space if such structure shall permit views from the street in and throughout the open space. " Remo: But how high. Stan: Well, I don't know. Ron: Pedestrian level. I thought pedestrian level was the 6ft. That is the maximum level you need to preserve privacy against pedestrian. Stan: At some point Bill has determined that it is around 18 inches that now is becoming part of that barrier. Charlie: I think we need to clarify that. Bill: If open space is so critical, then it should be specified that the developer create and maintain that open space. This house here is right on the alley. When I say on the alley, it is alley material. Remo: Actually it is encroaching on City property. Many talking at same time. Bill: This is the property line then this must be--the condition between here and here is the same. It is the same surface. There is no grass. And therefore this area should be specified--it should be clear that they must put lawn. Remo: We can't do that. Rick: All it is is a driveway to the garage. Charlie: That is off street parking. Bill: I think that in order to--if this is going to be historical then this area should be maintained as property. 15 BAM7 .5.90 Rick: Well, it is. They are going to have pavement here accessing a garage. Stan: The entry to the structure will be along here so this--you can't landscape it because it will go away. Snow removal along the alley--it will be impossible. ?: Right now throughout that whole alley the gravel and all is all up against the side of the building and every other building along the alley. Remo: It isn't really our concern to designate grass or whatever. What I want to know is how did you determine how far away from this structure you would build this fence. Who determined this area here? Stan: See this little structure? And it was felt by everyone that--HPC, the client and myself--that this is a bedroom area. This is a living park area that they want. And instead of putting up some sort of privacy that is right at the structure and look out at a fence, let's give these folks something of a yard. Remo then asked for comments from the public. There were none and he closed the public portion of the hearing. Ron then read into the record a message received by phone from Edward Sullivan who is opposed to any variance. (attached in record) Rick: I am in favor of granting this variance for both the front and side and the 400sgft open space. Bill: I find this not acceptable in my standards. We are trying to do too many things to create affordable housing to live in. We are bastardizing our entire scope--FAR setbacks, everything else. Remo: Do you mean scope within our guidelines? Or our scope as a Board of Adjustment? Bill: Not within the scope of the Board of Adjustment. But in our scope of which in my mind we still have to think in terms of the overall piece of ground and what we are going to put on it. Rick: I have a retort to that. RMF as I understand it is a buffer zone between the commercial core - and -the -residential erection of town. What they are doing is taking, at their option, a residential character as opposed to a multi-family situation which pleases me from an aesthetic point of view. I prefer to see this type of development to occur than a more dense form of development. 16 BAM7 .5.90 And I think it is encouraging historic buildings to be maintained and to create an environment for employees that is certainly better then subterranean one which they could, under code, otherwise do. Bill: But they could have moved this building. Many talking at same time. Bill: But this building could have been moved to provide a proper location on the site. Remo: But we don't care. We are not supposed to care-- Again many people talking. Rick: Under the code I think you can build right on the lot lines in the back now or 5ft from the lot lines in the back for an accessory dwelling unit. So I think by code it is allowed. Remo: They are still allowed to come before us for relief as the Board of Adjustment. And that is what I am not clear as to whether since you say it is within our guidelines to look at this I am not really clear on what you are--I thought maybe you thought there was a conflict between our guidelines and HPC guidelines. But you are really not concerned about that. Bill: No. Remo: So you don't think they have a hardship in what area? In the FAR? Bill: They have a hardship. Remo: No. I mean according to what we consider a hardship. Bill: Well, I just feel that this building should not be on City property. And therefore we should not sacrifice--it's the question of being historical. Sure it is historical. I think that is wrong to permit the building to remain in that location on City property. Rick: That decision is not being made by us. They still have to go before City Council to get relief as to the encroachment. They are the ones to say no we don't want that. That is not our decision. Remo: The City encroachment, we have nothing to do with that. But I didn't think the City encroachment was a problem but just the location per'se. In other words if they moved it closer or they moved it back towards that way, all of a sudden they would increase 17 BAM7 .5.90 their open space from Original St. Then everything in front of it is going to be open space. But I think before they would do that they would probably demolish the building and do what they can do which is to put as much as they are allowed by code to do. Which would probably have a bigger impact on that property both in the neighborhood and really from a bulk standpoint and may be not as desirable as we would like to see. Here there is a flow of air and light and I think that is a consideration for our Board. Charlie: I agree with Rick. I think it accomplishes what they are trying to do in the City of Aspen. I think they show a hardship with the FAR. It is very clear because of the open space requirement. And I would grant the variance in this case. Ron: I think the hardship here is HPC's involvement in this piece of property and the designation of the garage. I think that it is a shame that HPC is getting involved in positioning the affordable housing on lots. I don't think it is any of their concern. They want to save this old garage. I think that is wonderful. In order for us to do that we have to grant a variance because it provides hardship in 2 areas. #1 it eliminates what would otherwise be fairly open space and allowable open space. #2 it causes them to create a large structure or larger FAR on a lot that we would not normally grant. But they have already granted this extra allowance on FAR so we have nothing to say about it. If we want to preserve the structure which HPC feels is significant and I would go along with them, then we have to grant a variance. And I would grant this. Remo: My biggest problem was with the open space. And I think your explanation of--it is almost ludicrous not to be able to count that alley open space just because that historical structure is where it is. And I have no problem with the foundation or the rebuilding. We have problems dealing with HPC and the Board of Adjustment. These problems lie in our separate guidelines. HPC is very subjective to the historical aspects and we have to look at a larger picture and our guidelines we are a lot stricter and you had better show some hardship of your own--not created by HPC. This has happened before and I think there has got to be some kind of delineation of powers or something so that we are not confronted with this conflict because we are making decisions that are not based on hardships. Hardships are created by HPC and not by the applicant but we have to deal with it on a certain basis. 18 BAM7. 5. 90 Ron: But under our guidelines on what we consider hardships it can't be created by the applicant. Anything that is created by the code or something other than the applicant is under our purview. This is unique because it is created by HPC's interpretation of the code. Therefore the applicant is being deprived of his property right unfairly. John Elmore: I can appreciate where everyone is coming from because as the applicant and having gone through this process we have had some of the same problems that you are facing and basically HPC said "Well, we don't probably have a lot of control over the property but we would like to save the out-building. We would like to do an employee housing unit. We would like to get a good start with the cottage infill and will you work with us" . So we have had to go and re-design the project around trying to save all of this and trying to work with them through the process which we have been in it for almost a year and I have spent thousands of dollars trying to do this and co-operate. MOTION Rick: I move that we approve Case #90-7, John Elmore, as outlined in the application. (attached in record) Roll call vote: Bill Martin, yes, Ron Erickson, yes, Charlie Paterson, yes, Rick Head, yes, Remo Lavagnino, yes. Variance granted unanimously. Discussion was then held with Amy Margerum of the Planning Dept regarding working relationship and guidelines between HPC and Board of Adjustment. Rick made a motion to adjourn. Bill seconded the motion with all in favor. Time was 5: 30pm. Janice M. Carney, ty eputy C er 19 AL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CASE #90-7 JOHN ELMORE 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 2.4 ,_ 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: July 5, 1990 Time: 4 : 00 p.m. Owner for Variance: Appellant for Variance: Name: John Elmore Stan Mathis Address: Box 1088 , Aspen, CO. 81612 Location or description of property: 801 East Hyman Lot A & B, Block 111 Variance Requested: Property is located in the RMF Zone. Setbacks are Front--10 Feet. Side yard (corner lot) 6. 66 feet. Rear yard--10 feet. Open Space--35%. Aspen Land Use Code Section 5-206 (D) Dimensional requirements. Applicant appears to be requesting a 318" side yard setback; a 216" front yard setback; a 4 ' rear yard setback and a 400sgft open space variance. 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