Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19900823 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 4 . 00 P.M. AUGUST 23 - 1990 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS A G E N D A I. CALL TO ORDER .ROLL CALL II. MINUTES MAY 3, 1990 III. CASE #90-8 HENRY PEDERSON & CAROL SOFFER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 23, 1990 Vice Chairman Charlie Paterson called meeting to order at 4: OOpm. Answering roll call were Ron Erickson, Josephine Mann, Bill Martin and Charlie Paterson. Remo Lavagnino, Anne Austin were excused. Rick Head arrived shortly after roll call. CASE #90-8 HENRY PEDERSON & CAROL SOFFER Charlie read into record request for variance. (Attached in record) David Finholm, architect, representing Gerald Ketcher. David then presented picture and affidavit of posting. (Attached in file) Elizabeth Altemus, 620 North 3rd Street: The sign is not visible. It is stuck on the fence on the interior of the building and whatever is written on the sign faces the building rather than the street. Mrs. Block: You can't read it. David then demonstrated to Board members using drawings of the house where the sign was posted. I placed the sign right on the front part of the house right here. Charlie: Inside the porch facing-- David: No. It is right on the outside facing the street. Mrs. Block: I am a neighbor. I live at 311 West North Street. I have not seen that sign. I also have never been notified. Charlie: Are you within a 300 foot distance? Mrs. Block: I don't think I am. Board members then checked the list of names. Mrs. Block's name was not on the list. Charlie: Mrs. Block, are you within 300 feet of that building? Mrs. Block: I don't know. David: Bill Stirling's secretary got the list and did the notification. BAM8 .23 .90 Mrs. Block: But I wouldn't have seen that sign if Mrs. Altemus hadn't pointed it out to me that it was hanging on the fence as it is right now. Charlie: This is not a fence. Altemus: I called General Martin and I called Remo and asked them to drive by and see where that sign was. Charlie: What about you? Have you seen it? Bill Martin: No. Charlie: Well this certainly shows it as a doorway here could you, David, mind showing me this doorway location? David: Using drawings. The sign was placed right here. Charlie: OK. So this doorway that I see in the picture is right here. David: Correct. Charlie: Well, that is not inside of a fence. That is on a concrete/brick wall. We will go ahead and hear the case. Block: There is a fence all around the house. Ron: Yes. But not a very high one. Block: That is where the sign is hanging now. On the interior of the fence. Bill: The problem is that there is so much shrubbery in the front of the yard that you can't see the sign. It is not as visible as most signs are on most houses. Charlie: Well, the law says they have to have it posted so it is visible from the street and it is visible from the street as it shows in the affidavit. I don't have a problem hearing the case unless someone else does. Ron: The neighbors showed up to voice their opinions. They said that they couldn't see it but they are here. Charlie: We could still hear the case. Altemus: I had another neighbor who telephoned who couldn't be here. 2 BAM8.23 . 90 Jan, Secretary: That note is clipped on the inside of the file. They called at 2 : 30 this afternoon. Charlie: The note is here. We will come to that. If there is no objection we will go ahead and hear this case. Josephine: What do you mean by no objection? Are you saying that we have accepted this as being visible from the street? Charlie: This is an affidavit that is being sworn to and shown. We have 2 people who have shown and sworn that it wasn't there. Ron: What Fred used to say is "What was the material defect to prevent people from knowing that there was a variance asked for and showing up to make their comments known". And I would say given the fact that there is an affidavit and the people who are objecting to it's visibility are in the room. I would say I don't think there was a material defect. David: The Ketchers would like to purchase both of these houses. Duplex. And in so doing they want to keep it as a duplex zone so that they could have the second kitchen and what they would like to do is be able to travel from the A into the B unit. We have the front unit which faces the street with it's garage and then the party wall that separates these 2 buildings. And we have a second garage in Henry Pederson's part of the duplex. What I am asking for is to build a hallway internally from the front unit to the back unit. As I do that I am keeping the garages to the legal size of a garage. I am not adding anything to the exterior of the building. I am not making it taller. I am not making it bigger in any situation. Unfortunately this building is non-conforming based on old zoning and it is larger than you could build today. But to make this work we need to have a hallway that goes through the center and I am taking this space a little out of the garage and a little out of these 2 rooms. Bill: Explain the non-conforming. David: The zoning changed after this building was built and received a Co. Drueding: They are both prior to FAR limitations. It is not a PUD. Ron: Bill, this is a legal duplex on a single family lot? 3 BAM8.23 .90 Drueding: Yes. It is non-conforming. This was built prior to a FAR limit. This was 5 years ago before we had FARs. Martin: I remember when they did this. And the City approved a duplex lot along the lake. Now why, by changing the regulation, do we say it is non-conforming? Drueding: It has nothing to do with being a duplex or a single family house. Either this structure is too large for this lot according to floor area ratio. There wasn't any FAR when it was -built: Martin: OK. But when it was built, it was legal? Drueding: Yes. Now it is non-conforming. David: We went to the Planning Office and met with Bill Drueding and Leslie. And this is the place we have to go to put these 2 buildings together so that we can basically have a single family house with 2 kitchens. We are appealing to you to say that we can have the 150 feet internally and make it that much bigger in terms of square feet. But realistically we really haven't changed it. And that is what I would like you to evaluate and counsel us today, please. Drueding: The point is he is taking an area of the garage--the garage is exempt from FAR. By reducing the garage that area he reduces it by becomes floor area. Ron: So that increases the interior FAR under the code. David, we need to consider practical difficulty or hardship. Please state specifically for us what you consider the hardship or practical difficulty. David: I think that from the studies that I have done on these plans that to put the hallway entirely within the building as it exists now and not touch any of the garage, I make 2 rooms unserviceable. They just don't- work.- - There is no room as a result of that. Secondly the other option would be to take out or basically cut off part of the house commensurate to the change that I would propose inside. And that is an impractical thing to do to just cut off a living room and rebuild. As I studied it with the hallway, gallery on it because it is a long space to go from point A to point B--if I take it completely 4 BAM8 .23 .90 out of this little bedroom--there is just no room. We end up with 2 rooms that are not usable. That would be my hardship. Martin: Interior-wise you are changing rooms usage? David: That is correct. I am keeping the same number of bedrooms but I am doing internal modifications. Making some rooms larger and actually eliminating a room. Charlie: Which one did you eliminate? David: Where we have this den/office and the bedrooms, that becomes the--I am wrong. I did not eliminate that room. so it is still the same number of rooms. These 2 rooms here become the study and the kitchen. Charlie: In other words you are eliminating the bathroom? David: That is actually going to be a powder room. Charlie: That is going to be moved over then? David: Correct. Charlie: What about this stairway? This is the stairway? David: That is the stairway that goes to the non-FAR lower area below. Charlie: That is going to remain? David: Yes. Charlie: All the configuration is being changed. David: Yes. I see us going in here and removing most of the interior walls in this area and again in the bathroom area upstairs in this unit. But nothing to the outside except the addition of some windows that I need for egress and light and air. Ron then asked for elevations. Everyone then went over elevations. Charlie: And you are saying basically you are not changing the exterior of the structure? David: I am not changing the exterior. 5 BAM8.23 .90 Charlie: These are all the elevations that will remain pretty much as they are. David: Pretty much the same except for windows and doors. But there will be no additions. The bulk or the building envelope or the footprint. None of those will increase. Ron: Do we have a floor plan for the second floor? David: Yes. This is a floor plan for the second floor as it exists. Again, we have Henry Pederson's master bedroom. 2 little decks and the bath area, and the stairs going down. We have 2 bedrooms in the front duplex and 2 baths. And their stairs going down. Charlie: Which half are you going to re-configurate? David: I am going to re-configure the entire part of it. I am going to actually have this bedroom, have this bathroom accessing through here and have this bathroom access this bedroom by putting a wall here. And then Henry Pederson's side we are going to remove this bathroom and place it in where Henry now has his hot tub and exercise room. Ron: That is above the garage, isn't it? David: Correct. Ron: Are you going to have any hallway through the house on the second floor? David: No. Ron: Why not? David: It doesn't work. There are 2 stairs. I would have to have a hallway and basically going down through here someplace and I just couldn't do that. Charlie: Are there any further questions? There were none. Then I will say here that according to this note Nancy Lundy called at 3 : 30 today to object to the granting of this variance. I don't have any reason or-- Jan: That is all she said. Charlie: I will open this up to the public for comments. Block: From the conversation, I assume that you are turning this into a duplex. 6 BAM8.23 .90 David: It is a duplex. And no we are not. We are actually-- Block: But it has 2 kitchens. So it will be 2-family occupancy. David: No. It is--what we are trying to do is make it a single family occupancy. It is presently a duplex. Block: Well, why then the 2 kitchens between 2 families that have been using 1 kitchen? David: No. We have the ability to have 2 kitchens with that as an existing duplex. Charlie: It is 2 complete separate units with 2 separate kitchens. Drueding: They have 2 kitchens. Mrs. Altemus: I guess we are faced with terrible enlargements out there on Lake Avenue anyway. You can't drive through there. There are 2 enormous houses. I have lived through 3 people doing Henry's house already. And my gut feeling is there is no end. If you grant a variance with this then it escalates to other houses. And it has already happened to me on Lake and 3rd. I think Mrs. Block and I feel like we are the smallest houses there and that we want this to stop somewhere. I don't think that these people have any hardship. I am terribly sorry. I don't see any hardship at all. I think it has deprived the community of employee housing. I consider Henry Pederson an employee of our community. We are getting a one-family that takes away an employee unit. Mrs. Block: I feel that the sign should have been visible for the legal period of time and my objection is that we were not aware of what was going on. Charlie asked if there was any further public comment. There was none and he closed the public portion of the meeting. Ron: I want to hear what the official position of the Planning Office is. Drueding: The rules are that you cannot increase a non- conformity. Ron: You don't see any social redeeming values in that variance? Drueding: No, I don't. That's why there is a Board of Adjustment. 7 BAM8 .23 .90 It is already too big. It is not going to show to anybody else. They are going to do something internally that-- MEMBER COMMENTS Rick Head: Just for the record I do have a conflict of interest and am not going to vote on this. David: May I have one more minute please. If we don't get to build the hallway through the middle of the house, you can't build it as a single family house. You would have to go outside to go to the children's rooms. We just can't do it. Charlie: Could I read here something that you wrote? It might be enlightening for everybody. At the end of your letter you wrote--"Though the existing non-conforming size is slightly increased, there are many cumulative advantages for the neighborhood. Less parking of autos around triangle park, less traffic now caused by short-term rentals of both halves of the duplex, architectural changes which will enhance the existing neighborhood such as a shingle roof instead of metal and more integral historic features" . Bill Martin: I am sympathetic to the problem of size. There are 2 new houses being -built next to Jackie Wogen. There is congestion on Lake Street. I recognize that. But as far as I can see this was approved at a point in. time as a dwelling as a duplex. I think by confining it into a single family unit it has the advantages as expressed in Finholm's letter. It cuts down on traffic. It cuts down on vehicle movement. The family I don't know whether they plan to--I know the family. I know that they live in Miami. They are probably going to be second home owners. I can't see any reason why we wouldn't approve interior modifications. They are doing everything--they are changing the use of the house and yet we might deny them 3 foot section that they want in order to provide them a single family unit. Now what happens if they sell the house in 2 years and they want to make it a duplex? Drueding: It is a duplex. They have 2 kitchens. They have a hallway and they can still get through but it is still a duplex. It is a condominiumized duplex. They cannot make it a single family house. This is one of the problems because in zoning ordinance #1 because the demolition of a unit you can't do this. They can't make it a single family house. It has 2 kitchens and the configuration still keeps it a duplex. Bill Martin: With one family usage. 8 BAM8. 23 .90 Charlie: In other words they could build a wall across the middle of that hallway and be just the same as they were before. Drueding: It may require a door across that hallway. Josephine: Going down the list here. The first item presented to us was the size of the variance requested. 75 square feet for each unit. That is 150 square feet. This would be an addition to the computed size FAR of the house and that is something that would be very difficult for us to give to you--to give to a house that is already large. The next one--there will be no additional bulk or mass because it is all interior alteration. That is fine. Parking: The garages will still meet requirement. That is fine. The dilemma is the unseen square footage. And we know that that is interiorly. The next item is that it is a single family owner/occupied duplex. That has some advantages as has been pointed out. And I am agreeing with those. I like having less traffic and less cars and so forth. On the other hand one of our participants here today reminded us that in effect this arrangement would eliminate an employee housing unit. The rest of this is dealing with the new roof and so forth. The hang-up obviously that I have is that FAR. We have a policy here that we can only grant a minimum variance. And that we can only do that in a case where there is a hardship and a practical difficulty. So that turns me to what you said about that. It seems to me that if we are going to be strict constructionists we would have to say that is not possible. You could cut off some rooms and make a hallway. We try not to always be a strict constructionist group because then there would be almost no purpose for us to be here. I feel uncomfortable about saying a flat "No" that I would not give a variance for this because I would like to explore more the idea of what the other possibilities are. Ron: I think that the way David has approached the problem I think is an interesting one and is one that minimizes our problems. It would be a lot easier to go outside to do it some other way than having to do this. However, as Josephine stated by granting this variance we are giving the owner of the property, whoever that may be, the benefit of an additional 150sgft over and above what they have now. What they have now is excessive. 9 BAM8.23.90 Now we have heard stories before about people how they--this is what they want to do for their family and everything like that. But we also have a concern for the future. And I think someone mentioned what will happen if this house is sold in the future. It is a duplex that can be split up. If it goes back to being a duplex--2 families--what do they have? They have this plus an additional 75sgft of interior space which increases the non- conforming use even further. The hardships that were presented today I think are inherent in structure in the way that it was remodeled. I don't think the hardship has come about because of the code. If Remo were here I think he would say that this structure has more than taken advantage of any code since it is a non-conforming structure. It is over what you would be allowed to do today. I think there are other alternatives to solve the problem. So I don't see a hardship or a practical difficulty in this case. As for with the changes it is going to make in the neighborhood under the code I think the code determines parking or off street parking by the number of bedrooms. I don't see any changes in the number of bedrooms, the number of people able to occupy it. I don't see any deed restrictions saying half the people will be under 10. They won't be driving. So I don't see any change in parking problems by making this change. I don't think that the parking requirements are going to be decreased because this hallway is put in. I think it is going to decrease the size of the car that is going to be put into the garage but I don't think it is going to be less cars on Lake Street. The house is the same size in terms of bedrooms. I would be against granting this variance. Charlie: I come from another point of view. I feel that it is a good solution to a problem and I think there is a practical difficulty shown. The hardship I would have a little problem with. But a practical difficulty there is in this situation if one family was going to use the house unless you do some sort of link over the roof which doesn't seem practical. I would be in favor of granting the variance. Now, David, since there are only 4 people that are going to be able to vote and we do have a quorum. However, when there are only 4 people voting we give you the right to withdraw for another meeting in case you want a 5th or 6th person voting. 10 BAM8.23 .90 You do need 4 affirmative votes in order for your variance application to be approved. If you don't want this to come to a vote now we can continue the hearing to a date certain when there are other members present. David: What I would like to clear up is Henry Pederson as being an employee. He rents this house for a lot money and is for sale for a lot of money and I don't know if we are really losing an employee housing unit by selling and getting rid of the duplex. So if I could hear how you feel about Henry and I could get you to vote "Yes" then I would ask for the vote. Josephine: That wouldn't work. Ron: You need all of us to vote and I am not on the fence. David: Then we will not call for a vote. MOTION Ron: I make a motion that we continue this hearing to a date certain of September 6, 1990. Bill seconded the motion with all in favor. MINUTES MAY 3, 1990 Rick made a motion to approve these minutes. Bill seconded the motion with all in favor. Bill made a motion to adjourn the business portion of the meeting. Ron seconded the motion with all in favor. Time was 4 : 55pm. Ja ice M. Carn y City Deputy cTArk 11 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CASE #90-8 HENRY PEDERSON & CAROL SOFFER 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: August 23 , 1990 Time: 4 : 00 p.m. Owner for Variance: Appellant for Variance. Name: Henry Pederson, Bx. 144 , Aspen David Finholm, Architect Carol Soffer, 212 , Lake Ave,Aspen Location or description of property: 212 Lake Avenue, Unit A & B, Lot 18 . Block 103 , Aspen, Colorado Variance Requested: Property is located in the R-6 , Zoning category. The structure exceeds, the allowable FAR and this is a non-conforming structure. (Sec 9-103 (C) (1) . Aspen Land Use Code) states "A non-conforming structure shall not be extended by an enlargement or expansion that increases the, non-conformity. Applicant appears to be requesting a 150sgft FAR variance to enlarge a non-conforming structure. 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