Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19910815 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 15, 1991 4:00 P.M. A G E N D A I. MINUTES July 5, 1990 II. CASE #91-5 VICTOR CONFORTI & BUDDY ORTEGA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 15, 1991 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called meeting to order at 4: 00pm. Answering roll call were Anne Austin, Rick Head, Ron Erickson, Charlie Paterson, Remo Lavagnino and Bill Martin. Josephine Mann was excused. MINUTES JULY 5, 1990 AND JUNE 6, 1991 After correction: MOTION Ron: I move to approve minutes of June 6, 1991. Charlie seconded the motion with all in favor except Remo who was not at that meeting. MOTION Ron: I move to approve minutes of July 5, 1990. Bill seconded the motion with all in favor. CASE #91-5 VICTOR CONFORTI AND BUDDY ORTEGA Remo read into record request for variance. (attached in record) Bill Drueding, Planning Dept: Can I verify something that has been brought to my attention? On your survey here--where is the middle of the road? Buddy Ortega: The middle of the road is if you take the top right corner, come down to the first dotted line, and you will see a 15ft--where those 2 lines meet, that is the center of the road. Using drawings Ortega explained this point. Remo then asked for affidavit of posting which Ortega presented. (attached in record) The property notification poster was also presented. (in file) The question of property posting being blown away was brought up. It was decided that there had been sufficient property posting. Ortega: What happened is it blew off 3 times and it was not off any longer than an hour. BAM8. 15. 91 Bill Drueding, Planning Dept: I talked to the City Attorney and he said as long as Ortega discloses that it was up generally and that he discloses that he felt it was OK. Ortega: The nature of Eastwood Rd is somewhat difficult. I am sure the City is well aware of that. They are going through a paving process right now as far as easements are concerned. Obviously it wasn't done properly through the years when it was platted. Some of them are grossly close to the road. My situation is that the additional 15ft that was taken away when we were annexed into the City is causing this application for a variance. Had we not lost that 15ft I wouldn't be here. Also the nature of the topography of our lot--it really puts the only location for the garage in this place. Not only topography-wise but also for structurally beautification goes along with the type of structure that--I want to maintain the character of the area. Our house is tall and narrow and small. It is a box essentially and it sits real high. It is just an odd looking building. And the type of structure I want to put on there will kind of lend itself into little more pleasing actually. Robin Molny, Architect: I went out to the site and looked at it from the standpoint of trying to find a different location for the garage and I will attest to the fact that the topography dictates that the garage has to go on at the location that we showed it because of the side yard setbacks and the steepness of the lot. Remo: What do you mean the side yard setback? You are infringing on the setback now. The front yard setback. Right? Molny: There is no room in the side yards for the garage. Ortega: It would be grossly over on the side. Ron: I have a hard problem following with this piece of paper. Do you have another plat or another footprint of the property that we can look at? Molny: This is it. There was then group study of drawing out of which it was determined that setbacks are determined from the center of the road when property is on a private road. Drueding: Where there is no public dedication and the lot line extends to the center line of the ROW the required setback shall equal the distance specified under the zone regulations which are 30ft plus an additional distance equal to 1/2 of the ROW. So we are going 30ft from the edge of the road and we have got another 2 BAM8 . 15. 91 15ft. Ron: Has the City taken over the responsibility for this road? Drueding: Not yet. Ron: You said the City is paving it. Drueding: I think they have. They are going through a process of trying to take over this road. They want to give the road to the City--the home owners do. Therefore the City will maintain the road. Ron: And I know they are putting in the sewers. Drueding: So it won't change anything. This becomes now a dedicated road to the City. So all the required setbacks in this zone district are based on this--this is measured from the ROW line. That would be the edge of the road. That is public ROW so you still have 30ft from the road either way whether dedicated or public road. Ron: I am trying to see if there is any hardship attached to the fact that they annexed or that they are giving away the road. Drueding: This doesn't change it one bit. Ron: So is there any hardship attached to the fact that they were annexed? Drueding: No. Ortega: The 30ft originally came from center of road. When we were annexed it then came from the side of the road. That is where the 15ft of which the property is there. I own it and I pay taxes on it. I would not be here had we have not lost that 15ft. Anne: Access easement: Does that affect anything as far as the setback? Drueding: No. It affects FAR, not a setback. Anne: So going to FAR--where do we stand on FAR? Drueding: That is a question I had too. Anne: I want to know what the FAR is. How much structure there is now and how much will there actually be increased. Drueding: They did not provide that to me. Remo: I don't think that is pertinent. We are not here for that. 3 BAM8. 15.91 Anne: Well, if it is going to be living space above-- Ortega: No, there isn't. It is not living space. Remo: I thought there was a structure above the garage. Ron: They are also enlarging the kitchen. Drueding: There is an issue that has to be raised that you are alluding to right now. If the building exceeds it's FAR right now then you don't have a 500sgft exemption on a garage. That is only if you don't exceed your FAR. Ron: I think you are over 15, OOOsgft. Ortega: 15, 742 . Drueding: OK. That uses up all the easement. Ortega: That easement is abandoned. Drueding: That is the access easement and the road. Ortega: If the access easement has been abandoned, doesn't that- Drueding: You have not proven that. It says access easement, April 3 , 1991 survey. I am just going by the survey. So we have a certain amount of FAR that could be built on this lot and then there are 3 stories there. That basement level will be an FAR because that is exposed. My point is if this house is already over it's FAR then we cannot give this exemption. So any variance that you would give is contingent upon later proof that they have the authority to add this thing. Remo: It is a backward way of doing that. He should have gotten that in the first place. And you didn't have enough information. Molny: Buddy called the Planning Dept a couple of months ago and established his FAR with them. And I did the calculations and it all falls within these parameters. I didn't know that we would be required to prove FAR at this meeting. In my determination we do meet the FAR requirements. Drueding: I am not saying you are required proving it at this meeting. I am just saying it has come to my attention that it may be a problem and if you can't prove to me at the time of building permit then--if there is a variance it would be contingent upon 4 BAM8. 15.91 proving the FAR. Ron: Is this a non-conforming lot of record? Drueding: No. It is annexed as is. Ron: So although the land use records call for 75ft minimum and this doesn't meet that-- Drueding: It is a pre-existing lot of record. Remo: A non-conforming lot of record means that everything is allowed to happen on that lot as it exists, whatever the City's new setback requirements are. Ron: Another thing--(showing sketch) this box here is the new addition, right? Molny: Yes it is. Ron: What are the measurements on it? Molny: 22 X 30. Ron: I went up there and looked at it and this is a nice big driveway--why can't you make it 30 X 22? Molny: It covers up windows and once again because of the topography. This is steeply downhill. Ron: I saw that underneath you did have basement exposed but it looked to me like you are going to expose it anyway here. My question is that by law we are required to grant a minimum variance or no variance if there is another way it can be done. Now the dimensions are 30ft and 22ft. The house is 31ft wide here. You have enough room to swing in and do exact type of a driveway and a garage entrance from what I saw when I went up there. So why couldn't you make it 30ft this way and 22ft this way. That would save you 8ft. You wouldn't need a variance. Molny: The reason being is I have 2 sets of windows. Ron: I noticed there is a window here. Ortega: You can't get in the house. You have to go through the garage to get into the house. Bill: Another thing is his concrete is here. 5 BAM8. 15.91 Remo: Your primary thing here is for a garage which is a convenience anyway which we don't have to grant you. It is not yours by right to have a garage. And what we are required is to give you a minimum variance for the garage which you want. And the City has acknowledged 500sgft is an adequate amount to grant for a garage. And that is the basis for our granting you a minimum variance. If you are telling me that you are going to use something other than space for garage then it is a convenience for you for whatever use you want to put it to and we don't have to grant you a variance for that. It is not a right. It is just a convenience. Molny: All the application states is for a 2 car garage. Ron: What I was stating is that by rotating it 90 degrees this distance is only 22 feet. This wonderful tree in here--I can't tell from his photos if any of this foliage is going to be lost to this 30ft structure but if it is the 22ft wide structure is not going to lose it. And no variances are needed. In fact you could probably go beyond that. Actually by rotating that you would have another 6 inches that you can still play around with and you don't even need a variance. I can grant variance if I can do what you still want to do-- everything you want to do but I have a real problem with granting this type of variance. I can see there is another way of doing that that causes less damage to the landscaping and will not require a variance and can still work for you and give you everything you want. And I am not an architect. You haven't given me anything to prove I am wrong. Molny: One thing the box will be more of a box. Ron: And I don't buy that either. In order for me to grant a variance on this as it is proposed is elevations and a better look at the site and what it is going to look like. What are you going to lose on the existing site, how it fits into the existing house, how it fits into the floor plan. Where is the kitchen? Remo: That is really a good point. Molny showed on sketch regarding kitchen and dining area etc. Remo: We don't have enough information to know what your plan is and where this thing is going. Ron: You are going to have a 2 car garage and beyond that--you are going to be stripping out all of this here. You will be rebuilding 6 BAM8. 15. 91 this part of your house. Molny: The kitchen is only 100ft. Remo: If you don't enlarge the kitchen you can also reduce the size of the garage and bring it into the setback. We want to get you out of the setback. There was more discussion of the plan. Anne: I think part of this discussion is mute. We are not in favor of granting variances for garages. So I don't know why we are so worried about that. I think they have got a better plan that they can come back with of put the garage elsewhere. Right now it sounds like everybody is opposed to the way it is planned. Remo: I like the idea of having a garage. I would like to give them a garage. Except that I don't like the idea of having an enlarged kitchen and intruding into what ordinarily would have been garage space. That is my problem. Bill: You are going to have to adjust to the elevation anyway. That elevation is steep but it is steep where you are putting the garage. If we are interested in giving him a garage--solely a garage and not improving the living space in the house we can provide him a garage and grant a setback. Right now he wants a garage that is attached to the house. We are not in a position to give setbacks just to accommodate the structure of the house. But as possiblity would be for the garage, and detached. Give them a bigger setback. Leave the entrance the way it is. Ron: Is it 5ft between buildings? Anne: It is 10 feet. Ron: So we are talking on the front and it would be right on the road. Remo: There are easements all around the whole place? The whole lot? Drueding: That is the subdivision plat. Yes. Remo: So you are telling me they have 5ft setback now? Drueding: They are easements. But they are grade easements. We don't bother with that. Remo: So you can shift this whole thing over this way. I know it is steep but just the way it is--just the configuration you have- 7 BAM8 . 15.91 -just slide it into here, you will probably clear your entryway. Ron: (reading code) It says "Minimum distance between principle and accessory buildings--no requirement" . And then it says "Rear yard setback is 10ft, accessory buildings 5ft for rear yard" . Molny: We can't build within an easement. Remo: Yes. Drueding: I didn't even look at that. I can't say for sure. Ron: You can move the whole structure this way to that easement line and you are buying 8ft there and 4 to 5ft there. Molny: The thing is we still get into the width of being 22ft with regards to-- Ron: Well, no. The width is not going to be 22ft. The width may be-- Remo: I don't have trouble with the 22ft. I have trouble with the 30ft. Ron: That's what I do. Why is it 30 feet? Remo: Because of the kitchen intruding into the garage. Molny: It is more the entry. Drueding: I thought this was a garage only. They are adding another 160sgft of FAR plus the upper story of FAR and that FAR will come out into the setback too. This is the only place to put the garage and if a variance is required for 500sgft garage the Planning Dept would support that. But there are other places to put the floor area on that--the rear of the building--on the side of the building or back here you can put your floor area. This is the only place to put the garage. You can put a 500sgft garage there. We have no problem. The other stuff, we have a problem on FAR. Ron: (To applicant) Do you understand now? Molny: I hear what he is saying, yes. Remo: We are not architects. I am not telling you you can have a 500sgft garage, no expansion in the kitchen into areas that we are not looking at. We are looking at giving you a garage. And then all of a sudden we have got a kitchen in there. We have got 8 BAM8. 15.91 other things to consider and what we are amenable to giving is what the Planning Office is talking about. Remo: We would deny your application under those circumstances. Ortega: Let me ask you another question just to continue--what if the second floor mumble and we have a small extension of the kitchen. Remo: We haven't even talked about the second floor. Our objections have been really focused on the first floor. We would have gotten to the second floor all right. We are trying to determine now a footprint for the garage and keep it out of the- Molny: 22 x 22 is a 2 car garage. In order to get in the house we need a little entry. And that is about an 8ft space which we all agree is not extravagant to get into the house. Anne: But if you take the 22 and 22 over this way then it opens up the entry way. Charlie: I don't think we are moving ahead without some kind of elevations and floor plan. I would propose that we table this until we do have that information with instructions to the architect that we are willing to look at a 500sgft garage and perhaps something over it but we need to look at something. We need more than this. And a floor plan. Ron: We need a determination of floor area ratio. I frankly feel that if any of this is going to exceed your FAR allowance--if it does--I would have a problem with that. So don't even bother even doing anything if it is going to increase your FAR beyond what you are allowed to have. If it doesn't and if there is some way that the additional square footage of living space--kitchen, upstairs, work area something like that do not go into setbacks then I have no problem with granting a setback for a garage. Remo: You can set back the upper story. Ron: You can also get rid of your boxy look on your house by off setting it back. What I am saying is I would look very dimly on additional floor area that went into the setback. Remo: I think we all would. Ron: And I agree with Charlie. I think we need elevations, floor plans--an idea of what you want to do with this space. 9 BAM8 . 15. 91 DRUEDING: I have also discussed this with the City Attorney. This is a note given to me. I want it on the record from Francis Rrizmanich of the Planning Dept. This is an anonymous reaction from a neighbor who made these comments to Francis. It is a comment about a possible bandit unit. That is not your problem. That is my problem. The neighbor objects to the second story. And take it for what it is worth as an anonymous complaint from a neighbor. This is from Francis written to me. (attached in record) MOTION Charlie: I make a motion that we table this hearing and continue it to date certain of September 5, 1991. Ron seconded the motion with all in favor. MOTION Anne: I move that we adjourn the meeting. Charlie seconded the motion with all in favor. Time was 4 :55pm. Janic7/14. Carney, City Depu y Clerk 10 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CASE #91-5 VICTOR CONFORTI AND BUDDY ORTEGA 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 15, 1991 Time: 4 : 00 p.m. Owner for Variance: Appellant for Variance: Name: Victor Conforti & Buddy Ortega Buddy Ortega Address: Eastwood Drive, Lot #8 Location or description of property: Eastwood Drive, Lot #8 Variance Requested: Property is located in R-15-B zoning category. Front yard setback is 30 feet. Sec 5-204 (D)- (4) Aspen Land Use Regs. Applicant appears to be requesting a 7.3 foot front yard setback variance in order to add an attached garage. 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 AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY POSTING OF A County of Pitkin } VARIANCE HEARING BEFORE TME CITY OF } ss. ASPLN BOARD OF ADTUSTMENT (Pursuant State of Colorado } to Section 6-205(E) (b) of the Muni- cipal Cade) The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and Ys as follows: 6A� I, . �Ang or representing are Applicant etore the Pitkin county soard of Adjustment, jersonally certify that the attached photograph fairly and accurately represents the sign posteu as Notice of the variance hearing are this ma,.,,-er in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as .t c= be seen from the ne.::;'est public way) and that the said , .-gn was posted and visible nuou--1 y the day of , the / J -- day of - (Must be posted for at least ten (1(3) full c3:.y- hearinq date) . } ubsar gibed and swo ,., Ae this 31 as s//r �.y J U L U if or a WITNESS MY ? AND AN..` : .s' ": SEAL. ..�... . My f !o�A.:�s ion r WW re jr Addre., �i a-4- - 1-3/11 our G/1 �STGVOOC� �dG{ T r dacl y � u/i� � �y,G��-, li;�q" �G`s� Uri i'i`a✓t ce �ccoi'�l�j'7 w �•Gh�S� Sic__ ,-,�t� �—