Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19930225 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 25, 1993 4:00 P.M. SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM A G E N D A I. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL II. MINUTES OCTOBER 30, 1992 FEBRUARY 18, 1993 III. CASE #93-1 JERALD BARNETT (CONT) IV. ELECTION OF OFFICERS V. ADJOURN A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 25, 1993 Vice Chairman Charlie Paterson called meeting to order at 4: 10 PM. Answering roll call were Rick Head, Ron Erickson, Bill Martin and Charlie Paterson. Remo Lavagnino was excused. MINUTES FEBRUARY 18, 1993 OCTOBER 30, 1992 After corrections: Rick made a motion to approve minutes of February 18, 1993 . Bill seconded the motion with all in favor. Minutes of October 30, 1992 were again tabled to next business meeting as only 2 members present had been at that meeting. CASE #93-1 JERALD BARNETT CONTINUED Gretchen Greenwood, Architect for the applicant: I just want to reiterate the zoning situation and then I would like to go into the changes in response to the Board's comments that we have made in the last week and also revisions to our variance requests because of the public comments we received from Mrs. Paepcke's representative. I would begin with the allowable FAR and what our proposed FAR is. The allowable site coverage. Our allowable FAR on this site is 4, 080. We are going to be taking the entire project to our allowable FAR. We are going to our allowable FAR. We are going for our maximum build-out on this site. It is our desire that this property never will have to come back in for any kind of variance. The allowable site coverage is 2,762 . We are not increasing. We are decreasing this because we are using existing foot prints of the building. That is the same as I presented to you last week. As I stated in the application we are going for a setback variance along the north and south and along the east and west. Because of the comments last week we have changed that and we are going for even more of a minimal variance. In analyzing it we felt that there are more solutions. We are going to be moving the building forward and over in order that we have the required setback along the north side and along the south. So we are now in conformance with our required front and rear yard setbacks. And it is required to have a minimum of BAM2. 25.93 10 feet with a total of 30. And we have a total of 32 . 4 on the front and rear and the minimum of 10 along the back. So that is no longer a request at this meeting. The other change that we are proposing to further ask for even more minimal variance would be the side yard. We are going to be moving the building over so that we meet our side yard minimum requirement of 10 feet. And what is required is exactly the same as the front and back. It is 10 minimum on the side and a 30 overall. And as you can see on this drawing we meet the 10 foot requirement now along the west side. We meet a partial total combined setback along the east side just to the rear of the property. So the minimal amount of variance that we are asking for is for a side yard variance at this point right in here which this building interrupts our ability to have a side yard setback and we also want to request--because we would like to raise the roof of this building here--we would like a setback variance along this east side in the same manner as we are going to be increasing that non- conformity along that side. our existing roof height of this building is 10. 1 feet. We are going to, for the proposed main house, a roof height of 25.8. We are staying within the same footprint. We are just moving the building over and getting in conformance with this building. This new roof height is 25.8. So we are only going 5.8 feet above what the existing roof height is. We had a surveyor do a survey of the roof heights in the neighbor- hood so that we can see how most of the heights exceed the allowable height limitations. (print-out attached in record) Mrs. Paepcke's roof is 36. 3 feet. She is probably going to have to have a variance some day. The west neighbor has a roof height of 33.2 feet. This is a victorian. These are all not in conformance because they are victorians. This east neighbor has a roof height of 31.5. And George Vicenzi, which is the red brick one, with a roof height of 33 . 5 feet. So we are really proposing to be the lowest roof height in the neighborhood. And the allowable roof height requirement is 25 feet to the mid point of your roof. And then you can go 5 feet above that to your peak. So we are within 5 feet of our allowable and will be the lowest in the neighborhood. The other roofs on either side are much higher. So it is not going to have a dramatic effect on the neighborhood--in fact not one at all. To further mitigate the neighbor's viewplain and things like that we have gone through a pretty extensive surveying procedure around the neighborhood. We had all these trees surveyed back here for what the heights are and the location. And they range in size from 2 BAM2 .25.93 50 feet to 91 feet high. They are in the vacated portion of the alley. They are not in the alley ROW. We are investigating with the City that there is a possibility that the alley will be opened up and be accessible to our house to access. The City is very much in favor of this. But in one week they couldn't give us any kind of indication about what the process for that procedure would be. The one thing that we really discovered I think through the whole process in the last week was that the viewplain for Mrs. Paepcke's property really is right through this corridor where the trees are located. She presented pictures of the trees taken from the roof of what could be see from this point all around. (attached in record) - You can't see Mrs. Paepcke's house through the trees_ . You can't even see the property line. That is something that is really important because one of the members said that maybe there were some other alternatives to this plan that didn't require a variance. And the truth is that, yes, there is another alternative. But we have determined and we have had some discussion with Tom Todd, Mrs. Paepcke's attorney, that that potential solution is probably more detrimental. And that solution would not involve a variance but it would be more detrimental to the neighbor because we would cut off those views right through this corridor. And that is not one of our first choices. Plus we have to do some remodeling for the victorian which is important to Mr. & Mrs. Barnett to not have to remodel that victorian but try to keep it in pristine form. Right now the property does have 3 kitchens. Legally we are allowed to have 2 legal residences on this 9, OOOsgft lot. So we are reducing the impact in going from 3 residences or 3 apartments to 2. This would be one main house and this will be expanded to be a guest/employee house. Charlie: So you are taking one of these kitchens out of this? Greenwood: Yes. Exactly. We are taking this one out back here. So we are bringing this into conformance. We are trying to be sensitive to the neighbors behind us by keeping this open even though the land slopes quite a difference away and probably their views of the lake is not hindered. They would have to access this property if they develop this property right through here and enter right in through this open area to this property because of the amount of trees on her property. So this becomes not only to be maintained open for their development but I would say that is the only access in there. Drueding asked the City Attorney to come in since this was a change in the variance request. 3 BAM2 .25.93 John Worcester, Assistant City Attorney: Since this is a continuation from a prior hearing, technically you don't need to re-notice. I would strongly advise that if you are impacting a whole different neighborhood than the original request-- Charlie: Last time this was still in the same place. This hadn't moved. Considering that there was only one person at the meeting last time which was the lawyer from Mrs. Paepcke and he is present at this meeting, I would defer to him. Tom Todd, Attorney for Mrs. Paepcke: My point is if a person made a call to find out what the variance is about and found it was only on the west side and said "Well, that doesn't affect me. " And now all of a sudden there is a new building that is involved and it may involve them very much. Charlie: Did you talk to the neighbors? Greenwood: Yes we did. We tried to get this neighbor to come but he is just flying into town. We talked to the person--they know about it that we are not doing anything to this victorian building up front and they said "Whatever we do on the property is fine" . Barnett: I talked to the neighbor to the east. He lives in Rochester, New York and told him we are probably going to go up 4 or 5 feet and put a guest house up there or employee house. And he was--it was fine with him. His name is David Levy. Greenwood: We asked him to write a letter and he said "I am too busy" . It was decided by the members to proceed with this hearing. Rick: So the variance that you are requesting is only on this building? It appears to me that you are in compliance now over on the rear and side yard with this building. Greenwood: That is correct. But according to Bill because this building interrupts our setback here even though this building sits about 32 feet from our property line, a building setback is required variance for this portion right here only. This part of the building makes it. It is only this part right here. Ron: With the little jag out from it? Greenwood: Yes. There was then discussion between Greenwood, Bill Drueding and Board members regarding exactly what variance was being requested. 4 BAM2 .25.93 Drueding: To go up at all she is going to require--we have got a 10 foot minimum side yard setback. We need a total of 30. So we have 10 here. We have 5 here. So we need a total of 15. Ron: Not for the whole length of the building though. Drueding: No. But a total is still required. You need a total of 30 to here. Todd: Mr. Barnett was very nice to come over to our office this morning and discuss with me the other option possibilities for this property. I think the long and short of it is, as I understand it, the applicant would like to change their request for setback variance on the north side of the main residence and west side of the main residence. And instead request a variance to put a second floor on the old stable building. I discussed that with Mrs. Paepcke this afternoon and she indicated to me that it is the lesser of two evils and she certainly can't stop them from doing anything that is legal. Her preference would be to see single story development of this property. Again that is possible. But it seems to me that you prefer to go up with the second floor. It is also encouraging to see that the applicant has been sensitive to these viewplains in between the two buildings. Even though it is only 5 feet it is nice to know that at least it is not being blocked by a 2-story building. Greenwood: It is wide. You see the roof angles back. Your view is opened up where you want it. Charlie: It also reduces the mass of that roof line in that area. Todd: Mr. Barnett explained to me what the alternatives are which would be to basically develop from lot line to lot line which would have a more detrimental effect than what is being proposed. So I guess given the options as we understand them I don't think Mrs. Paepcke would object to what is presently proposed. I wasn't aware of the procedural thing with the notice requirement. So I offer no comment on that. If somebody else wants to come in and challenge it on procedure,-- Charlie: I understand. I am glad you are here today because you heard both meetings. Charlie asked if there were any other public comments. The Board then asked Greenwood to demonstrate what the alternative would be to this plan. She then did an explanation and drawing of 5 BAM2 .25.93 the alternate plan. Greenwood: It is not a bad option. We like it. It is a viable option for us. It is not a good solution for this property here. Barnett: This is the reason I wanted to talk to Tom Todd before we came over here today. Basically what happens--this is the viewplain that they have from that property with the existing trees and it comes--this hole in the trees right here comes directly between the house and the current garage. The only way we could develop the property and get into compliance here and do the FAR and make it happen would be to close this up and it just eliminates their view. Greenwood: And then we would also probably build out a little bit on top of the victorian which would be something that I think would be offensive. Comments expressed to us shows they are happier with what we have applied for here. Charlie then closed the public portion of the meeting. BOARD COMMENTS Drueding: If you are going to do this--for the record you have 5 foot side yard variance on the easterly boundary. On one portion for a total side yard setback we need 15 feet total variance. Then when we go further as the house is jogged we need a 23 . 6 total variance on the easterly side. Rick: I would really like to see this go. And I applaud the applicant and compliment her for coming back with the things that we asked. I have a real problem now suddenly with the notice situation. We have gone from a variance on the west side of the property that has been completely changed to something that is on the east side of the property. Notwithstanding any complaints from the neighbors I just don't know what legal grounds we would have when completely looking at basically an entirely new variance. Unless someone on this Board can demonstrate to me a hardship or practical difficulty which is what we are charged with administering here I don't see the grounds for a variance. And the threats for developing the whole thing don't move me much. Ron: Last week I would have voted against this variance. I think that the revisions that were presented today go a long way. I am frankly amazed with the fact that they were able, in one week, to discover this viewplain corridor and dispell any fears the neighbors might have had about it. I think that is a real plus on their behalf. 6 BAM2 .25.93 I also think it creates a hardship. Because by being as sensitive as they are to the neighbors they are eliminating the only legal way of enlarging this property and still provide a viewplain. And this is this one. The alternative eliminates that viewplain. The hardship lies in trying to be a good neighbor and trying to take into account the comments of the neighbors specifically Mrs. Paepcke and her attorney to the rear of this lot. They are asking for a maximum buildout on a rather large lot. It is a 9, OOOsgft lot. We are not talking 4 ,500sgft or 6, 000 here. It is a big lot. They are over coverage--lot coverage--so they can only go up. They can't go out anymore. So the only they could go out is by covering up that viewplain and removing that building--transferring that site coverage from an accessory or second dwelling to original dwelling. Then the hardship would be maybe they are converting 3 residences into 1 residence on a duplex lot. I don't think we should require them to do that. Rick: Or 2 . That is an allowable duplex lot. Ron: It is still only one structure and we don't know what is in it. I think that their hardship--let's just call it a practical difficulty. Their practical difficulty is because of the nature of the lot and the existing victorian structure on the lot. The only way that they can legally increase the size of the building is by denying the neighbor a viewplain. I think that is their hardship--by being good neighbors and allowing them to--giving them a variance on the secondary structure here, I think what we are doing is is that we are keeping to the spirit of the code. Rick: All right. So then the minimum variance we would be granting would be 5 feet on the east, 15 total. And 22 total. Charlie: 22 . 6. Bill: I think the character of the neighborhood is something that is very important in Aspen. And this will leave the character of the neighborhood the same, relatively speaking, except for the addition. That is the reason I would vote for this. Charlie: I also think that this new plan is so much better than the last one. It shows a great deal of sensitiveness to the buildings and to the fact that they are victorians. I am in favor of this variance because the alternative-the bulk is much greater. And this keeps the spirit of the victorian look to the property. Bill: So the record will convey that I did say something--I think the character of the neighborhood is something that is very important in Aspen. And this will leave the character of the neighborhood the same relatively speaking except for the addition. 7 BAM2 .25.93 So that is the reason I would--adding to what Ron has said that would be my vote. Rick: I am probably going to go for this variance. You are right. Ron: I had a hard time finding a hardship. I can't find a hardship. But a practical difficulty--that is a practical difficulty. Charlie: It definitely is. Rick: Well, then I can hang my hat on it. Charlie then re-opened the public portion of the hearing. MOTION Ron: I would propose that we grant the following variance: 5 foot east side setback for the 34 feet that encompasses the length of the current single story building. A 15 foot total side yard setback for the first 23 feet of the building going north to south and the 23 . 6 total side yard setback for the remaining 10 feet that the building is in the setback. (Plans for reference are attached in file) Bill seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Bill Martin, yes, Rick Head, yes, Ron Erickson, yes, Charlie Paterson, yes. Variance granted. Charlie: For the record notice of posting and mailing was presented. (attached in record) I close the public hearing. Members decided not to have election of officers until Chairman, Remo Lavagnino, returns. There being no further business, meeting was adjourned. Time was 4 : 55 PM. G Janice M. arney, City e ty Clerk 8