HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19921008 CITY OF ASPEN
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
OCTOBER 8, 1992
4.00 P.M.
SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM
A G E N D A
I. CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
II. MINUTES
JULY 9, 1992 (under separate cover) i7pf
!j J
III. CASE #92-13
ED & PAT PETERSON
IV. ADJOURN
e U
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 8, 1992
Vice Chairman Charlie Paterson called meeting to order at 4 : OOpm.
Answering roll call were Bill Martin, Ron Erickson, Rick Head Anne
Austin-Clapper and Charlie Paterson. Remo Lavagnino was excused.
CASE #92-13
ED & PAT PETERSON
Charlie read request for variance. (attached in record)
Affidavit of posting of property and mailing was presented.
(attached in record)
Dan Liccardi, contractor for applicant: Presented photographs of
project. We would want to be bringing a roof out from the existing
roof over an existing paved area to cover 2 cars. There would be
no side walls. The roof would be in keeping with the existing roof
and type of building.
The Petersons want to build the carport cover over their existing
paved parking area. And their reasons are this: Pat had a hip
replacement a few years ago. Since then her situation has worsened
with the onset of arthritis and the possibility of now the other
hip having to be replaced. The recommendation from her doctor is
to avoid situations that in this case getting in and out of a car
on ice and snow would be threatening to her hips. (He had a letter
from the applicant's doctor but did not turn it in) She says it
is critical that she be parking in a protected area.
This house was built in 1971 and at the time there was no setback
zoning affecting the positioning of the house. Had there been it
could easily have been pushed a little back further on the
property. According to the architects there was no setback zoning
at that time. The point is the house is existing where it is right
now and their only opportunity to cover that car is to come out
over the parking area.
Now when the Petersons bought the house in 1988--there is and you
can see it on the plans of the house--there is a garage existing
there. However when they bought it that garage had already been
converted into 3 things. It was a pantry and food storage, a
laundry room and a work shop.
The Petersons bought it that way. They have a large family. They
needed the room that was in that house to accommodate their large
family and their style of vacationing. And at the time parking a
car in a protected no-ice area wasn't a problem for them.
Since then with Pat' s condition, it is. And what they are
BAM10. 8.92
requesting is to come out in a complimentary design with just an
extension of the roof. No sidewalls, no windows, no lights, no
storage--to cover those cars and make it a little safer for her.
As far as the FAR is concerned I have figures that would allow the
square footage for this coverage. The house has 19, 380 square foot
lot area. That is the property. His allowable floor area is
4, 760sgft. He only has built at the time 3,800sgft of floor area.
Plus 351sgft of the old garage which has been and is the laundry
area and work room.
When you add the 3 , 800 and 351 you have got 4, 151sgft. If you add
432sgft that we would like to do for the carport you only come out
to 4 , 583sgft which is still under the 4 ,760 that he would be
allowed in the FAR.
Charlie: There is a 500sgft exemption for the garage anyway.
Liccardi: So he is well under that. So really the contention is
he is close to the corner of his property. And his argument is
the house he bought all that square footage--he needed that as
living area. Pat has since then had this health problem and we
would like to put something there and do it as tastefully as
possible.
Charlie asked for public comment.
Carol Hall: I live next door to the north. First of all, we all
adore Pat. And I know that she does have problems. But I want to
mention the former owner, Frank Woods, used that only as a garage.
And it was only after Ed and Pat moved in that they turned it into
a store room. It was always used before as a garage.
She then read her letter stating her objections to this variance.
(attached in record)
? : As far as Peterson's affect on your neighborhood, he has done
nothing but increase the value of your own properties. He has done
things in a tasteful way down there.
Carol: We agree. He has done lovely things. We are not talking
about that.
? : He has only increased the value of your own property.
Carol: And raised our taxes. He has done wonderful things to his
home. But this is something different. We are not talking about
beautifying.
2
BAM10. 8.92
Tom Starodoj : I live at 580 Sneaky Lane. Dan said there was no
setback requirements in 1971. I built there in 173 and my plans
were drawn in 172 . There were setback requirements. So unless
something changed between 171 and 172 I don't think your statement
is correct.
On my side lot I was allowed to have a 5ft setback. Obviously that
has been changed to 10 now. The front is from 10 to 25 when the
zoning was changed to R-30.
Starodoj : The point is we all know the Petersons. We are friends
down there and I think we are kind of caught in a dilemma here
including -the -Petersons. And the dilemma- is that the history of
that property reflects continual violations of the building code.
And the Halls who live next to the property have kind of gone along
and stomached it for a long time and finally they have said that
they have had enough.
It appears to me that the variance in question is merely an
extension of the existing location of the structure which is
already in violation of the setbacks. So when do you say "Enough
is enough" . It is an unfortunate situation. But they are the next
door neighbor. They are the property owners whose rights have been
infringed. And here we are. And so we finally decided to say
"That is enough" .
The Petersons are good neighbors that come down. They have
improved the property. It is a wonderful piece of property. It
is probably just too small for them given the level of activity and
number of people. I am supporting the Halls and saying enough is
enough. It sets a bad precedent.
Ron: You made the statement that the garage had already been
converted to a pantry, a laundry room and a work area. Right? Why
is the garage door still there? It gives the impression that there
is a garage. If it had been converted to living space then it
should have been removed and it should have been converted to
living space under the FAR and building permit should have been
granted and everything else. Was that all taken care of?
Liccardi: No. I am sure it wasn't.
Ron: You are thinking of putting a carport up which is going to
have no sides, no front on it. Then you are worried about ice and
snow. What about falling snow and things like that?
Liccardi: There is an existing fence. And the connection is off
the house and with the overhang it is bound to keep the ice and
snow off.
3
BAM10.8 . 92
ice and I think that is probably the entrance to the house isn't
it?
Liccardi: I don't see it as accumulation.
Charlie: Is this a doorway here?
Liccardi: That is the doorway. There is large eaves over that
right now. And the structure is built, it will protect it. It may
not be as adequate as if you completely enclosed it but it is
enough where they are going to be able to maintain it.
Ron: Have you looked at heating the drive?
Liccardi: No. I haven't.
Ron: It seems to me that by heating the drive and putting some
sort of system underneath the driveway you would guarantee there
would not be any snow or ice build up.
Rick: What is Mrs. Peterson going to do when she leaves her home
and goes downtown when there is snow and ice?
Liccardi: When it is bad out she doesn't go out much.
Carol: Every day when it snows they have the gardeners blow it
with the snowblower. He is there every day.
If they were to build this structure the snow and ice would build
up--we are on the north side and it would just be dumped right on
our property and create a lot more shade. All that extension would
just create shade. We don't need more shade. We have all those
trees. And this would be solid shade.
Anne: Since you still have the garage door there and it looks like
what you are using that space for is for pantry and storage, why
can't you just make that a garage again?
Liccardi: Simply they may lose--
Rick: They could still have that 600sgft somewhere else on the
property.
Anne: They can find somewhere else in the property within their
setbacks that is conforming to do it.
Liccardi: The other way to look at it is that the nature of the
building lends itself to this design.
Rick: That is an aesthetic which we can't consider.
4
BAM10.8.92
Rick: That is an aesthetic which we can't consider.
Liccardi: He could conceivably go in and get a building permit to
build something really silly on the back of the house which doesn't
help him or the neighborhood. This is a natural flow for a cover
to come out here.
Charlie: The problem is that our mission is to grant variances for
hardship and practical difficulty. The hardship has to be
something not caused by the applicant. This is all the previous
owner for that matter. This doesn't come under that purview. And
as a Board we would have a problem. That is why we are asking
questions to see if we can find that hardship and practical
difficulty that exits for us to be able to grant a variance.
Rick: Or at least a solution.
Anne: The other thing is we are supposed to grant a minimal
variance and this whole addition basically is in violation. So it
is not what I consider a minimal variance. If it was one corner
of the building sticking out and there was a valid reason, I could
see that. But to let somebody--a garage or carport is not a right
in the City of Aspen. There are lots and lots of people that don't
have them. There are a lot of people that don't have a place to
put them unless they go within the setback. If we let you put a
whole carport in the setback I guaranty I will be the next
applicant for a carport in my setback.
Rick: And I will be second.
Anne: And so we have to look at what we can realistically allow
and what we can't and I honestly don't see any basis on which we
can grant this variance.
Bill: How close is the corner of the carport to the street?
Several answered "It is on the street" .
Liccardi: The structure that holds it is back further.
Rick: The roof is.
Anne: I have always felt that that building is very, very close
to the street anyway whenever I was down there. And this just
makes it even more imposing on the street than it already is.
Rick: Not that the Petersons would ever do this but over the years
that I have been on this Board we have seen carports suddenly turn
into garages or living space. We have had people here with tears
in their eyes. We have granted them these variances for carports
5
BAM10.8.92
and the next minute they either turned around and sold the house
or converted it to habitable space.
Liccardi: Our response to that is that if he sold the house he
would be willing to have something in writing that he would remove
that carport.
Ron: That's fine. The only problem is that that puts the
responsibility for policing what would be a deed restriction on
this man right here (Drueding) and he is overworked as it is
without having him check records for every house that goes through
sale. It has been recommended to the Board by the City Attorney
not to grant variances on those basis.
The Board asked Bill Drueding if he had any comments on the case.
He did not.
There were no further questions and Charlie closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Rick: Danny, with all due respect you have got a tough uphill
battle here and I, for one, can't see a hardship or a practical
difficulty that I could hang my hat on. I think the neighbors
objections being so overwhelming just sealed it for me and I would
not be prepared to grant this variance.
Bill: I concur with the addition that the garage that presently
exists can be used.
Anne: I can't see any reason why I should grant this variance.
Ron: I think that the problem that has been used as a hardship or
practical difficulty can be solved in other ways without granting
the variance. I would not be willing to grant this variance.
Charlie: My opinion concurs with the rest of the Board because I
can see where there is another solution and the hardship is a
physical hardship which can be solved by reconverting that space
into a garage.
MOTION
Ron: I make a motion that we deny the variance.
Rick seconded the motion.
Charlie re-opened the meeting for further comment from the
applicant.
Carol: I have a possible solution. Maybe if they want to use the
6
BAM10.8.92
existing garage for storage now that they can use it for one car
and have Pat park in there because they open that door all the
time. And then use the rest for storage.
I also just want to comment that this is the third carport that is
to be built on this property. The first one was on the original
house. They turned that into front bedrooms. That was originally
a carport. And then the second one was turned illegally into a
garage which is now the garage. And now this is the third one.
And so I would comment "What happens to old carports? They don't
die. They just become part of the residence" .
Liccardi: I respect your decision. And I do have some comments
but I probably ought to just button my lip on it.
Roll call vote:
Bill, yes, Rick, yes, Anne, yes, Ron, yes, Charlie, yes.
Variance denied.
MINUTES
JULY 9, 1991
After corrections:
Rick: I move to approve minutes of Case #92-7.
Anne seconded the motion with all in favor.
Rick: I move to approve minutes of Case #92-8 .
Bill seconded the motion with all in favor.
Bill made a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Anne seconded the motion with all in favor. Time was 4 : 55pm.
Jani C rney, City -de p y Clerk
7
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CASE #92-13
ED AND PAT PETERSON
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 in the Council Room, City
Hail, 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: OCTOBER 8, 1992
Time: 4 : 00 p.m.
Owner for Variance: Appellant for Variance:
Name: ED & PAT PETERSON DAN LICCARDI , CONTRACTOR
Address: 655 SNEAKY LANE
Location or description of property:
655 SNEAKY LANE, BLOCK 3 , LOT #2
Variance Requested: PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE R-30 ZONING
CATEGORY. FRONT YARD SETBACK IS 25 FEET. SIDE YARD SETBACK IS 10
FEET. SEC. 5-205 (DI (4) ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE. APPLICANT APPEARS TO
BE REQUESTING A 24 FOOT FRONT YARD AND A 10 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK
VARIANCE TO BUILD A CARPORT.
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 THE CITY OF
) ss. ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (Pursuant
State of Colorado ) to Section 6-205(E) (b) of the Muni-
cipal Code)
The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says as
follows:
being or
representing an Applicant before the Pitkin County Board of
Adjustment, personally certify that the attached photograph
fairly and accurately represents the sign posted as Notice of the
variance hearing on this matter in a conspicuous place on the
subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public
way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously
from the i day of S'���g✓Y/•l3�!<' 19
?� Tr7�
to the day of � C 2W 19 -
east ten (10) full days before the
Applica is Signature
--- - - Subscribed and swopp to before me
this �_`%'_ day of I ,
UTI(:E OF i\I)I)I.I(, t\TIU\ 19 c' �> by
FUR A VAIZIA�\CE FROA1 '
THE "/_ONI �\(; CUI)E
1\1t\.\1 E & A DI)R E S S OF WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
A1)I)I.ICA\T.'Ea>PST /-ET-,AS N uu /�y� ��ivY �t n y�y�
65P6Y! s uKY LANE lei ( r►•1 '1 } px`-.�rcn Dv-camber 4,
_, . • Y
TYPE OF VA It IAA\ICE �
RE (1UESTED Publi ' s Signature
DATE OF AITHCATION'- 9 •.
DATE OF HEARING
(IUESTIONS OR CUMfi\1ENTS SIKZJ7
OF REFERRED TO THE CITY CI.EIM.
CITY Ht\I_I_, DURING NOIZMAI.
.%HUSINESS HOURS. ��
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
I have complied with the notice requirements of Section 6-
205 (E) (3) (C) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations of the Aspen
Municipal Code by mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached
hereto by first class, postage prepaid, U.S. Mail to all owners of
property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property
on Lei 2 , 4�4
STATE OF COLORADO )
SS
COUNTY OF PITRIN )
The foregoin Affidavit• of mailing was signed before me this
day of --/
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: ' .f'«z°'.•� n.4 "". xy + � , 1'�4l,
U) .
Nota Public
TO: THE ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
IN RE : VARIANCE REQUEST OF PAT AND ED PETERSON # 92-13
DATE : OCTOBER 8, 1992
FROM: PIETRO DANIELI AND CAROL HALL ( ADJACENT NEIGHBORS - NORTH)
To begin with, this carport proposal should not even be
considered as a viable option as it violates the zoning
standards of this area plus it continues to extend on past
violations. The unfortunate Aspen trend of overbuilding
part-time homes on small lots does not enhance the town or
individual neighborhood. We feel that placing us in the
sensitive position of agreeing or disagreeing with this
pr000sed carport variance request is extremely unfair. But
someone needs to speak up in the best interest of the Sneaky
Lane neighborhood. If we should protest this proposal, we
become the "bad guys" and the uncaring neighbors. However,
if we say nothing and hence , help permit the proposed structure
to be built, we allow a notable change to take place on Sneaky
Lane which might become a precedent for others in the future.
Therefore , we have decided to voice our firm objections before
this committee and state our problems and concerns for all to
read and hopefully understand why we reached this decision.
This is NOT a dispute between neighbors. It' s simply a
question of the integrity of the neighborhood.