Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19910926 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 26, 1991 4:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS--MAIN FLOOR A G E N D A I. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL II. MINUTES SEPTEMBER 12, 1991— 64,_/c SEPTEMBER 19, 1991 III. CASE #91-6 DR. & MRS. EDWARD WATSON (CONTINUED) �40 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 26 1991 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called meeting to order at 4 : OOpm. Answering roll call were Ron Erickson, Anne Austin, Josephine Mann, Rick Head, Charlie Paterson and Remo Lavagnino. Bill Martin was excused. MINUTES SEPTEMBER 19, 1991 Charlie made a motion to approve minutes of September 19, 1991. Josephine seconded the motion with all in favor. CASE #91-6 DR. & MRS. EDWARD WATSON CONTINUED Michael Erneman, representative for applicant: I felt that what we had done was what was recommended or what we had gleaned from the conversation was the recommendation on September the 12th. What we did was delete the request for side yard setback and delete the request for a variance for the combined sideyards. Thereby changing our request to saying that we would only ask for a rear yard setback and be extending the existing playhouse to which we would attach only so far as was necessary to accommodate 1 car and some storage as a narrower building and whatever would accommodate 2 cars. I believe that some valid points were made. Some that I didn't agree with. Nonetheless there was a rather lively discussion and Ron brought up the point of wanting to make sure that we didn't do a 2-story building. His concern was building mass. We have no intention of doing a 2-story building. What we had thought would probably be appropriate would be continue to some degree to the extent that we were able the rooflines of the existing building. The Watsons when they first spoke of putting a car shelter back there actually talked about a flat roof which would be clearly a 1-story affair. I am not so sure it would look so good and I actually encouraged them to think about retaining the character of the adjacent building to which we were attaching. Rick Head brought up the concern about keeping the variance to an absolute minimum. And suggested once again that we look at the Cottage Infill approach to solving these problems. This is new business now. I actually have done so and the Cottage Infill really doesn't work for us. So unfortunately it is--the first purpose of that ordinance was to encourage additional housing for employees and the Watsons don't have a need for that. Another one which they discussed in here is "The maximum height of BAM9.26. 91 the structure shall not exceed 16ft" . And also we would have to tear the whole thing down that exists and start over. It is not deep enough to accommodate cars or a car. so it is not an effective alternative. We are really back where we were presenting the same thing we presented a week ago that is to say the reduced plan to accommodate 1 car and removing the request for side yard setback and combined side yards. Another issue was raised last week which is one that I did not understand that we would have to request variance for. That is that we are asking to extend a non-conforming structure. I was unaware that that was an issue. But it is an issue and that would have to be incorporated in the variance. Remo: I was not here last week. Both the objection to the height of the playhouse to the garage? It was to high? Is this a really high garage then? Josephine: Ron said that there had been a bedroom up there in the playhouse. Ron: on the plans it says "A one and 1/2 story" . I don't know what a half story is. But you can stand upstairs and it is livable space and a garage is a garage is a garage. It is not a garage plus a bedroom. Michael then presented pictures of the site. Michael: There is a dormer across coming out of it. This is a composite from the alley and it is a 1-story with a dormer. Remo: And you are going to extend the same pitch in a roofline this way? Michael: This roof would come across this way. That to me was more a choice from a point of compatibility as opposed to an attempt to accommodate more space or livable space. I think Dr. & Mrs. Watson would be pleased to deed restrict it and to not make a connection through to the upper level of the garage. Just leave that as a void. We do want to extend the volume only from an aesthetic point of view. But we aren't interested in acquiring additional space. If there is a way to--we can hold the roof down so that there is no headroom up there. There are ways to achieve this. Anne: But your garage is deeper than the existing playhouse so that your roofs aren't going to match anyway. 2 BAM9.26.91 Michael: No, we would have a flat portion of the roof. Rick: They would have a nice sun deck up there on the back side of the peaked roof which would look nice. Michael: Or bring up the peak roof to until it reached the ridge of the existing structure and then drop a vertical down and a flat roof behind it which was then-- Anne: But I thought part of the concern here was that we are not blocking off windows on the main house and making a dark garden here and if you extend that clear across it will. Rick: Not as much as if we had forced them to push the whole building back towards the house. Michael: And the point was if we put a 2-story wall back up within loft of the existing structure we created in essence that situation. Anne: How high would that front roof come? Michael: Maybe 10ft. Above the eave. Rick: Would it come straight down from the ridge line? Michael: We could do that. The point is however we solve it we will not do an accessible or useable volume above the garage. Rick: It seems to me overkill to bring this line from this peak ridge line all the way across. Couldn't you come down in here with something a little less and still get your storage requirement. It seems a shame to bring this all across because then you are going to have the shade back there. Michael: From an aesthetic point of view either the ridge or the eave should be continued. Rick: Right. I agree. Michael: And that part of the eave is already encroaching into the alley. And I really can't continue it so I thought project the ridge through would be a softer more continuous affair. Anne: Have you given any thought to making this 1-car garage turned the other way so even if it did come into both setbacks so that it continues this narrow line? Remo: From a safety point of view I don't like anybody coming out of that garage on the corner on a blind curve here. 3 BAM9. 26. 91 Michael: If we do carry it up to the ridge we would be losing this door--no it is a window--a vent fan of some sort. If we brought the ridge to this point that window could remain. Remo: Oh, that was the ridge line. I like that. Also did you maybe think about insetting this so that you could--and it wouldn't show and it would straighten the building out. So it stays on your property. Michael: I didn't think of it but it is a good idea. Remo: Do we have something we can give the Building Dept on what you are going to do? We gave you suggestions on how you are going to treat the upper level and I think that is pertinent to our establishing a variance for you. Michael: We could do verbiage. Anne: I still do not understand why we can't do a flat roof here. Rick: It is not in keeping with the rest of the building. Everything is pitched roofs. Josephine: If he was going to do a real minimum variance we would push this up closer to the house in which case you would want a flat roof. Anne: Couldn't you have a flat roof and a deck and a nice gingerbread railing that would tie it all in. Charlie: We are not redesigning the building. Anne: There is mass encroaching on the setback. We are looking at a 2-story mass on the setback and I am trying to keep that to a minimum. If I am going to allow them to have this structure within the setback, I want it to be a minimal type of variance. Charlie: If you have wall there and you object a roof over the wall, is that point that makes it more mass? Anne: It comes right to the alley. Remo: When we have a pitched roof where you have all the snow on that pitch roof it is going to fall into the alley. Drueding: Leave the dormer over the garage entry. Michael: The height of the existing playhouse is 17ft. Why don't you restrict the garage to something like 15ft or 14ft? 4 BAM9.26.91 Remo asked if there were any comments from the public. There were none and he closed the public portion of the meeting. Josephine: I would be very happy to move this up so that there was no encroachment on the rear yard setback. So then we got around to incentives--if you are going to put it on the alley, that is an incentive for the employee housing infill. Anne: There is already enough density in that area. Josephine: It there weren't a doctor involved in this I don't think that we would consider it at all. A garage is not something that is a necessity according to our code. And here we have fussed over this and fussed over this. I am at the place now where I think that that alley is enough of a mess so go ahead and mess it up! Put it on the line! Drueding: We do have incentives like Cottage Infill. We allow those 2 areas to vary the setbacks as incentives for historic buildings or for employee housing. So the point here is now unless there is a hardship in this criteria we are not in favor of this. Remo: The only thing that comes into play here is the doctor' s use of that garage for emergencies for getting out. I understand that he could sell it next month and someone else can get in here and we are stuck with a garage that has lost it's original purpose. And that is why we don't like to give variances on that point. They are not giving us anything in return like an employee housing unit. But that is up to the Board to decide whether the doctor's needs in this particular case supersede the incentives. Rick: I am prepared to go ahead and grant this variance as proposed with the dormer. Anne: I would be in favor of granting the variance as it is proposed now but I am not in favor of the extra height. The flat roof with proper drainage. I have no problem with it coming right to the alley. I would like to see that height be a minimal amount just because you are putting all the amounts right in front where the encroachment is. Charlie: I don't agree with Anne. I am in favor of this variance as it is proposed. I would like to see the roofline dropped by about 12 inches--8 to 12 inches. And he is setting back the building anyway and by putting a dormer on that he is breaking up the mass. So I am really in favor of that if he drops the roof down and keeps the window. I mean setting it back because he is already back 6 inches from this line here and so this will be probably 15ft. 5 BAM9 . 26. 91 Remo: I think he should clear the window at least. We have to have better criteria than guessing like this because we really don't know. Rick: We can use the pictures until he gets some elevations drawn. Charlie: I am in favor of this variance. Remo: What basis do you not want to give what Anne is asking which is a minimal variance. And that is what we are here for. We are not here to give them all this extra mass for whatever reason. Charlie: I feel it is a good solution. Rick: It is in keeping architecturally with the rest of the building. Anne: That is why the code was changed. Because of the mass and bulk that was being created with all these new houses. We could even make this a carport. We don't have to give them a garage or carport. Remo: They can keep the garage. They do need it. I think that is important. Charlie: This is not a big deal. It is less than 16ft. That is all we are talking here. Remo: If there wasn't a doctor involved here I don't think we would be considering much of this either. The primary purpose of granting a variance is to get a garage in there so the doctor can get out. That is the primary purpose of this. And then once we give them the garage we shouldn't start thinking about these amenities or aesthetics. We are giving him the garage in the setback and that is what we are here for. I think after that we don't have to add all of these dormers and sloping roofs. If anything it is going to add a visual mass to it. It is going to detract from whatever viewplains even from the alley. Charlie: Even from their own house actually. Anne: It can be a pitch roof if it is kept low. I don't like it being as high as what is on there. Rick: The allowable FAR for this property is less than 3/4 's of it is being used up now even with this garage. So the mass could certainly be a lot greater if they chose to. I don't think that giving them a pitched roof on this is really increasing the mass that otherwise could be allowed on here. They could go with a huge 2-car garage, slam it right up next to the house and the massing 6 BAM9.26.91 could be considerably larger. Remo: Bill, can they do anything they want in the area that isn't in the encroachment? Drueding: Right. Remo: Then I have less of an objection now. Because if they wanted to start at this 5ft and then went up on a slanted roof, they could still get their mass-- Ron: Except that is increasing a non-conforming structure. Remo: No. If it is outside the encroachment, can they do anything they want. Drueding. Yes. Once they are out of the setbacks, no. Anne: But that is increasing a non-conforming structure. Drueding: No. Not in that section. Remo: So in effect they could do what we are talking about, go up on an angle and still have the same bulk and still have their deck behind. Ron: But I think it would still require--would it require a combined rear and side setback. Drueding: They would have to come back more than 5. Ron: So they would still need a variance in that case. Drueding: They would have to come back 12ft. Remo: So we would still have the same problem. Josephine: I will repeat what I said before. If it were not for it being a doctor we wouldn't be considering this. So the hardship for me is that this is a doctor. I like having it moved over toward the west as it is proposed here. It is a big improvement over the first one. I would go along with this idea of leaving it back here on the lot line with a lower roof. Either a roofline- -a height of only 15ft. Remo: That is close to where they want to put it. What Anne is talking about is a flat roof that would eliminate this mass here and it would be flat. Josephine: I would be delighted with a flat roof. 7 BAM9.26.91 Remo: With 15ft it sounds like you are headed towards--and if it is a flat roof, it is a flat roof and maybe we could give a height limit to that too. Anne: That seems reasonable. I would rather give a height limit. Rick: The present building is 17ft. If we made him come up with a pitch roof that was not higher than this that would be about 15ft. Ron: I don't see a hardship or a practical difficulty beyond the fact that the applicant is a doctor. And the hardship will leave when the doctor leaves and therefore whatever we do today we will have to live with for the duration of the existence of this building. I do not want to do anything based on aesthetics. I don't care if it is attractive or not. I will try and solve the practical problem that the applicant has brought to us. Are you willing to grant a rear yard setback variance--it is a combined rear and front yard setback variance for a minimal garage that is 1 story. That is loft or lift, that is it. Not 15ft. I think this garage as proposed is a little wide for what they really need for a 1-car garage. But I would be willing to give them that. I don't mind giving them a garage. I don't want to give them living space. I don't want to give them a dormer. A dormer just increases the livability of an attic space. Remo: Not the way it is proposed here. Ron: I haven't seen anything to tell me otherwise than what I believe. I believe that unless I restrict this structure now we are going to have no control over what it is going to be. And I want to restrict it to a single car, 1-story garage. Josephine: I like Ron's wording. A 1-story garage. Anne: I have to agree. We wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the fact that it is a doctor. Josephine: We have considered more aesthetics in this meeting than we ever have that I can remember. Ron: We are obligated to grant only a minimum variance. Remo: I think the request for the width of the garage with both doors open is--I am sure you can get it so you only open 1 door and forget about the other door. I don't begrudge them that. Also it is only that portion of the front and the combined. And you are talking about 2ft really cutting it down from 16. We are talking 8 BAM9 . 26. 91 about someone who is running to the car and getting out of there and taking into consideration the emergency aspect of getting into a car and not having to fiddle around with the door hitting the side of the building. And consider that the minimal variance. I think it is part of the necessity for the doctor. I have tried to get that pitched roof beyond the setback and I realize that the combined rear and front yard setbacks will still push it back 12 feet and it defeats the purpose. We are here to grant only a minimal variance to a specific situation. I can't justify any other kind of roof. It is just an amenity. It is a visual aesthetic consideration and we just don't look at things like that. I would grant the variance into the front and rear setback combined and a rear yard setback with a flat roof no higher than loft. Remo then re-opened the public portion of the meeting. Michael: What we intend to do is carry the roof line a minimal height to extend the existing--a link with the existing structure. We can do it with a flat roof. This garage is facing south so we have Mother Nature helping us maintain it. Any snow buildup out of the garage door, each time a car goes over that hump of snow into the garage you have a need for increased headroom. Rick: Roxanne would do back flips if she heard we made them do a flat roof. She would fight tooth and nail to get us to agree to do a roof line that is compatible with the rest of the house and the neighborhood. Charlie: You keep talking about a great big deal about bulk. There isn't a big deal about bulk when Michael just showed us 3ft. 3ft is not a big deal of bulk. You have to have railing around a flat roof anyway whether you can look through the railing or whether it is open. It still makes no difference. You still have a line up there. It doesn't make much difference. If you are going to be up on that roof, you have to have safety and Bill won't allow that without a railing. Drueding: If it is a deck it needs a railing. Josephine: Let's get down to some precise wording. You said loft. We have a response from that which would indicate that we would need to change that to 11 plus. Remo: Why can't you get the same effect that you want--now if we are up that high, why can't you continue this line from here to 9 BAM9.26.91 here the way you want it. You could still come down and slant the roof all the way around. It is not much but it would still give kind of an aesthetic-- Michael: If lift is the number we will do the best we can with that. Remo then closed the public portion of the meeting. MOTION Rick: I move to grant this variance #91-6 for a 1-car garage with the dimensions specified on the footprint provided with a maximum height of no more than 14ft. Charlie seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Charlie, yes, Josephine, no, Rick, yes, Anne, no, Remo, no. Motion defeated. MOTION Anne: I make a motion that we grant this variance on Case #91-6 requesting a 1-car garage as proposed in the new plan submitted to encroach on the rear yard setback and a combined front/rear yard setback and the structure with a maximum height of lift. Josephine seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Charlie, yes, Josephine, yes, Rick, yes, Anne, yes, Remo, yes. Motion passed. MOTION Charlie made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Rick seconded the motion with all in favor. Jani a M. Carney, City Deputy erk 10