HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19910911 CITY OF ASPEN
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SEPTEMBER 19, 1991
COUNCIL CHAMBERS--MAIN FLOOR
A G E N D A
I. CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
II. CASE #91-6
DR. & MRS. EDWARD WATSON (CONTINUED)
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 19, 1991
Vice Chairman Charlie Paterson called meeting to order at 4 : OOpm.
Answering roll call were Ron Erickson, Josephine Mann, Rick Head
and Charlie Paterson. Anne Austin and Remo Lavagnino were excused
and Bill Martin was absent.
CASE #91-6
DR. & MRS. WATSON
(CONTINUED)
Charlie: The variances as requested are for 4ft 6in reductions to
the 5ft setback requirement for the rear yard and lift reduction
from the required total front and rear yard to enable the addition
of an attached garage to the existing house. (attached in record)
Michael: We had asked for variances for both side yard and rear
yard 4ft 6in variances from the required 5ft setbacks in both
instances.
From the discussion in that meeting it became evident that that was
not going to be acceptable to the Board and we generally felt that
a 1-car or smaller garage which would only impact 1 setback might
be more acceptable. Therefore we have come before you at this time
with a request for a garage which does not require a variance for
the side yard setback nor does it require a variance for the
combined side yard dimension per code.
I did speak with Dr. Watson briefly. He was in town for one day
last week. I would add that he shook his head and he said "If I
am to be the back up for those midwives, I can't imagine not having
a car in a heated space" . Even 1-car. I have got to have a place
to keep a car" . So that is basically what we are asking for at
this stage.
Ron: What is the lift reduction?
Michael: The code requires that we have a combined dimension,
actual dimension, a setback from the property line for any
structures on the site of 30ft front to rear total. And what we
are doing--we already are in violation of that with the existing
structure. It is non-conforming. And what we are doing is
continuing that line.
The reason that it is held back 6 inches is in part because if you
look carefully at the drawing, there is about a four tenths of a
foot encroachment approximately a 5 inch encroachment already with
that playhouse. And if I were to continue that line I am going to
continue that encroachment further out into the alley so I am
pulling back from it.
BAM9. 19.91
pulling back from it.
Rick: OK. How deep is it?
Michael: 22 feet. Inside dimensions are 16 by 21.
Ron: My concern here is minimum variances. You have no side yard
setback so you could make it as wide as you want. However you are
asking for square foot easement--width and depth. I am more
concerned about bulk here. Last week you talked about a 1--and now
it shows as a 1 and 1/2 story wood frame playhouse. And you said
you were going to continue that roof line along.
I have been in the playhouse. Upstairs is a bedroom. I don't mind
giving you a variance for a garage but it was a bedroom. I don't
know what it is now since the Watsons have moved in. They have
changed it.
Michael: He has got exercise equipment in there.
Ron: What I am saying--it was a rental unit. It was a bedroom.
Now I don't mind granting a variance for a 1-car garage. I don't
want to grant a variance for an additional 400 or 500sgft of living
space above the garage.
Michael: It would be a 1-story garage. If there is any use of the
upper level of the garage, it will be a roof deck. It won't be a
mass.
Ron: I am concerned of your carrying the roof line from the
playhouse out over the garage. That is why I would want to look
at some elevations. That is too big for me.
Michael: What we will probably do at this stage is we will
probably end up with a dormer facing south on the alley so that we
don't shed snow off of the roof down onto the access into the
garage. split it off to the sides so we won't have the long
continued gable running across there.
Ron: I am willing to grant a variance for a garage this size with
the guarantee that no additional living space is added to it. Can
you handle that?
Michael: Absolutely. I think they would be more than happy to
agree with that.
Bill Drueding, Planning Dept: Is there loft between the garage?
Michael: Yes.
2
BAM9. 19.91
Ron: You think they can move it back?
Drueding: Absolutely. You don't need 10ft between buildings
because it is attached. This whole garage could be moved back
towards the planter.
Rick: Yes but he objected last week because of his view.
Charlie: You need some air space in there.
Rick: I think we can live with this variance based on the
arguments that he is a doctor and needs a car in a heated garage.
Ron: Bill, the fact that this is a non-conforming structure. They
are increasing the non-conforming by building this garage. So
there is a variance right there. So we are actually granting 2
variances. one we are allowing them to build a garage at all. And
two--setback variance.
Drueding: It is non-conforming in that area because it encroaches.
It is a non-conforming structure here and they cannot increase the
non-conformity.
Ron: So my problem is they are asking for 2 variances. They are
asking for a garage variance which I am willing to grant. And they
are asking for a rear yard setback variance. I would like to
minimize that somehow.
Michael: There are 3 variances I think. You are right about the
non-conforming issue. We will be increasing the non-conformity.
The other 2 variances that we are asking for--the 4ft 6in
encroachment into the rear yard setback. We are asking for a
reduction of the 30 yard combined front and rear yard by an lift
dimension. So there are 3 points as I understand it.
Charlie asked for public comment.
There was none and he closed the public portion of the meeting.
Josephine: This is an improvement. This is still a large
request. However I am not willing to ask them to move this garage
up. There is so much bulk there and somehow it just seems better
to me to leave it- there -on the- alley rather than moving it up. So
I guess the only thing I am really open for hearing a discussion
about is whether to detach this garage.
Rick: I hear what Josephine is saying there. But I can't
legitimately see that it is a hardship or practical difficulty.
It is more a convenience to the applicant not to have a garage
right outside his kitchen window. It is clearly nothing that we
really could consider under the strict guidelines of hardship or
3
BAM9. 19.91
practical difficulty that wasn't created by the applicant.
The second problem that I hadn't recognized before is this
increasing the non-conformity. That is beginning to bother me.
He can still accomplish putting a 1-car garage within the setbacks
on this property and accomplish his goal. It means that he may
have this building pushed up against his kitchen window by some 7
or 8 feet closer than it is apart.
He still has the alternative of converting the playhouse, the
downstairs, -into- a garage downstairs -and -putting a livable unit
above it if he chose to.
Michael: Rick, he would have to demolish the playhouse. You don't
convert it. It is gone. It is history. Secondly pushing the
garage up, pushes it up to 5 feet of the kitchen windows. And I
agree with you but I don't think that is a livable circumstance.
Ron: I am looking at the diagrams as presented. And the 10. 0 feet
from the garage to rear of house is the closest point although that
point doesn't correspond directly to the garage. But if you look
at the distance between the wall and the garage is 12ft 6in which
means that Oft 6in movement of this garage this way would allow 8ft
between the house and the garage. That is for a 22ft garage.
I think the fact that this property is owned by a doctor and a
doctor needs a car in the wintertime is a hardship for this
resident only. And I would be willing to grant a variance to build
a garage for this doctor. However I am concerned that this house
goes all over the lot as it is now. I am concerned about the
future increasing of the non-conforming structure with a faulty
garage in it. I would be more willing to see this thing scaled
down a little bit, pushed north a little bit and I would grant a
variance for a non-conforming attached structure to allow a garage.
I can't grant rear yard combined setbacks and allow them to build
a bulky structure on this for a guy who may sell the place tomorrow
and then we are stuck with an enlarged non-conformity.
Rick: You don't have - a - problem,- Ron, with increasing the non-
conformity when he can still accomplish getting a 1-car garage in
there and attache it by--
Ron: He can't though.
Rick: I think he can. He is looking at--
Ron: He is over 16ft wide. You move it over 5ft then you have an
lift wide structure. If you don't want to put him in the side yard
setback.
4
BAM9. 19.91
Rick: That is correct.
Ron: I don't think that is wide enough for a car.
Rick: My suggestion is you just push the garage back to abide by
the 5 yard rear yard setback. Push the whole thing north by 5ft
and keep it attached. I could probably live with that.
Charlie: I admit to your concerns and also Josephine's. I can see
where you are coming from granting minimum variances. However, as
you can expect me to say, I hate to see us going out and messing
around with this thing so that the daylight potential of the house
is ruined or partially ruined. I feel that open space in the back
is very necessary. You have got the small house on a small lot.
I would prefer to see the structure built in line with the
playhouse.
I think it behooves us and to leave it the way it has been
proposed. I would not want to move it. I would rather see us
either grant or not grant this. I am more in favor of granting the
variance because I think there is a definite need. I understand
where you are coming from in relation to the house can be sold and
somebody else can alter it. But if you are looking at it from the
point of view of what is best for the neighborhood and for the City
of Aspen and the general good of what we are trying to do here I
feel it is best to leave it just where it has been proposed. I
think they have come back with a new proposal which is palatable
and I would feel more inclined to grant this variance as presented.
Rick: All they have to do is go in and go through HPC and have
this dedicated a Cottage Infill. They can leave this right where
they are. They could probably get the garage. There is another
process which they can go through and accomplish what they are
trying to do here today.
Charlie: So what you are saying let them go through all that and
get the same results as we can grant them today. And if you are
trying to get an employee unit here on this small lot and with this
small house, that doesn't make any sense either.
Rick: You have to put an employee housing unit in a 3 , 000sgft lot
on a house if you want to make an addition. There is no reason
other than hardship created by the applicant for this thing. There
is no hardship or practical difficulty that cannot be overcome
without a variance.
Michael: In a very impractical way.
Rick: We didn't create the laws that are constraining this.
5
BAM9. 19.91
Michael: I know you didn't. That is why we have a Board of
Adjustment.
Charlie: The point is are we serving the City of Aspen by causing
a mess? Are we serving the City of Aspen as a Board of Adjustment
by forcing somebody into something that is not practical.
Josephine: My first choice would be the way that you feel.
Somehow I don't think it is worth us pressing to save that 5ft on
the alley. You are just trying to stick to those literal words
that are in a book. And my feeling is that we are not here to
always do that.
Drueding: The City has incentives--the HPC now grants setbacks
that allow Cottage Infill to vary setbacks. Now if you can just
vary them without meeting requirements of your Board of Adjustment
that has no incentive. They can just come through that.
Josephine: If we do say you must push that away from the lot line
from the alley, the owner might just decide that is not a good
place and they might change their mind.
Michael: I think we should table in order to answer these
concerns.
MOTION
Rick: I would make a motion to table this Case #91-6 and continue
this hearing to date certain of September 26, 1991.
Ron seconded the motion with all in favor.
Ron: I agree with what Rick has to say about hardship and
practical difficulty. I really do not see one here. I see one
only because the man is a doctor and he needs to have a car. But
I am not going to grant anything more than a minimal variance. I
am concerned about a 1 and 1/2--2 story high structure 24 feet high
structure closer to the main structure. Then it becomes a problem
for view. If it is a 1-story building 8ft high then it doesn't
become as much of a problem.
Michael: When they first came to me they asked for a flat roof
structure. I said think about the character of the existing
structure and the nature of the roof shapes etc. And I convinced
them to at least carry the roof line up to a point to form a
parapet to that. They have perhaps a roof deck that they can go
out on from the loft over the playhouse. But that would mean
perhaps 12ft high with an 8ft wall height.
6
BAM9. 19.91
designated. She was not excited about getting it designated. She
was pretty soft-edged about it.
MOTION
Charlie made a motion to adjourn.
Ron seconded the motion with all in favor.
Janice M. arney, City eputy Cler
7