Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19930805 Y CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 5, 1993 4:00 P.M. SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM CITY HALL A G E N D A I. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL 11. CASE #93-7 WAYNE STRYKER (CONTINUED FROM JULY 15, 1993 III. ADJOURN �V RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 5, 1993 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called meeting to order at 4: 00 P.M. Answering roll call were Howard DeLuca, Ron Erickson, Rick Head, Charlie Paterson and Remo Lavagnino. Bill Martin was excused. CASE #93-7 - - - - STRYKER - - - - - - - - (Continued from July 15, 1993) Marti Pickett, Attorney for applicant handed memo to each member. (attached in record) After discussion: MEMBER COMMENTS: Ron: I have some problems granting this variance. However, I think that the applicant, although I might not personally like an addition to the historically significant building, I think HPC has handed them a hardship in telling them they would deny the use of FAR that they are allowed. So I think by eliminating that square footage they are creating a hardship and I, in all good conscience would have to grant a variance in this case. Howard: I have to agree with Ron that to restrict them down to 131 square feet there is no possible way for them to build anything. If we decide they don't get a variance they are really--they have no options. And if they don't get to use their FAR under the circumstances, yes, I think they have been put into a hardship situation. So I would give them the variance based on that. Charlie: Yes, I feel there is a hardship there. Also the fact that the lot is larger and that there is not that much impact on the neighborhood. I think it is a minimum variance. Rick: I am in favor of granting this variance. Remo: It is my feeling that HPC has really taken away their leverage of their potential FAR to use as a tradeoff for working with us. And I really do believe HPC has not allowed them to use their legitimate FAR. And by taking that away from them I think they have created a hardship and I don't find any problems with granting this variance. At this point Ron read into the record a letter from Joseph A. Amato at 222 East Hallam stating his support of this application for a variance. (attached in record) BAM8.5.93 MOTION Ron: I make a motion that we grant a variance in this case #93- 7 of 1.48% in site coverage or 289. 3 square feet of site coverage with the proviso that the accessory dwelling unit or duplex unit being created will be deed restricted under provision of City Ordinance #90-60 as a resident occupied unit. Rick seconded the motion. DISCUSSION Remo: I would like to have in the motion that no second story ever be built on this property as a condition modifying this motion. Ron: I amend my motion to include that no second story will be permitted on this building in the future. Rick accepted this condition to his second of the motion. Roll call vote: Howard, yes, Rick, yes, Ron, yes, Charlie, yes, Remo, yes. Variance granted. Drueding: Do they have to record any of this other than the deed restriction? Or is this part of the record and is no going to be a part of the title search? ?: If you want it to run with the land, you better record it. Drueding: (to Marti Pickett) Will you record this that--write it up for the City Attorney to sign. Pickett: Sure. The only clarification I would make on the second floor; you said "on this property" . You said "on this building" . I am assuming it is on the building. Should it ever be razed for some reason, I just want to make sure. Remo: The motion is "on the building" . There being no further business-- Charlie made a motion to adjourn. Ron seconded the motion with all in favor. Time was 4:40 P.M. Ja &-M. -Car ey, City ep y Clerk 2 MEMORANDUM To: Board of Adjustments From: Any Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 232 E. Hallam Street Date: August 4, 1993 Regarding the application before you for a site coverage variance at 232 E. Hallam Street, the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee passed a motion at their meeting of July 28 , stating: HPC requests that the Board of Adjustments grant the variance of 189 sq. ft. The Committee would not approve a second story on the proposed addition as it would be incompatible with the existing historic structure. By not allowing the owner to build a second floor, and therefore not allowing him to reach his FAR limit, there is essentially a hardship for the property owner. McFLYNN & PICKETT LAWYERS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ASPEN OFFICE: SNOWMA33 VILLAGE OFFICE: HE SMITH-ELISHA HOUSE MARTHA C.PICKETT ANDERSON RANCH 320 WEST MAIN STREET TIMOTHY MCFLYNN- 5131 OWL CREEK ROAD ASPEN,COLORADO 61611 SNOWMASS VILLAGE,COLORADO 'ALSO ADMnTED IN CAUFORNIA (Please Use Aspen Melling Address) TELEPHONE(303)925-2211 TELECOPIER(303)925-2442 TELEPHONE(303)923.2211 TELECOPIER(303)923-3129 August 5, 1993 TO: Aspen Board of Adjustment FROM: Marty Pickett RE: Roberts Property 230 East Hallam, Aspen, CO Subsequent to the July 15 hearing there has been additional information which will be helpful in clarifying this application for a variance to increase the site coverage on this property by 1.48%. 1. HPC Recommendation for Approval of Grant of Variance. Wayne Stryker represented the owners before the HPC Board on July 28, 1993 . The HPC had provided a written recommendation, a copy of which is attached, to approve the variance. The Board voted unanimously that in the event the Applicant sought a two-story addition in lieu of the increased site coverage in order to allow construction of the permitted FAR for this lot, the application would be denied. Therefore, it is our position that the Applicant clearly has a hardship because their residence is designated as the highest classification for protection on the HPC's inventory list of historic sites. This is a special condition and circumstance which is unique to the Roberts' building, which did not result from the action of the Applicant. It is because of this historic designation on the City's inventory that the proposed addition would not be allowed as a second story, in an effort by the City to preserve the historic character of the designated structure. 2 . Neighborhood Compatibility Compliance with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. The next door neighbor, Joseph Amato, has provided a letter requesting granting of the variance, a copy of which is attached. Mr. Amato has reviewed the request for a variance and concurs with the Applicant's position that not only is there a hardship due to the fact that a second story would not be permitted by HPC, but that the historic character of the building and the compatibility of the building with the neighborhood is best preserved by a grant of this variance. We believe that these circumstances comply with the Aspen Municipal Code, § 10-104 (1) (a) , e Memo to Board of Adjustment August 5, 1993 Page 2 which states that a grant of variance must be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Certainly, maintaining the character, ambiance and low profile nature of the neighborhood is consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan not only for the adjacent owners but the viewplane for the public from the Post Office complex below. 3 . Deed-Restriction of Unit. The representatives of the Applicants acknowledge that a condition of the grant of variance may be a requirement that the addition allowed by the variance, an addition to a small duplex unit, be deed restricted as a resident occupied unit pursuant to the City of Aspen Ordinance No. 60-90, and a waiver of any potential bonus for FAR or from HPC. Although we have been unable to clarify with the owners directly, we understand that any variance grant would be subject to these conditions and we anticipate that such conditions will be acceptable. 4. Literal enforcement of the sliding scale for the R-6 site coverage. Jed Caswall, City Attorney, has indicated that the Planning Staff is reviewing the validity of the existing code section which places a sliding scale on site coverage for lots in this R-6 zone. This sliding scale has appeared to be somewhat unfair and created ironic results in other parts of the City, most recently at Pioneer Park, which was determined by the City to actually be a nonconforming structure for the neighborhood although it sits on an extremely large lot and the surrounding houses are very close together covering a greater percentage of the lot than the Pioneer Park Building. For that reason, the staff is apparently reviewing this sliding scale provision to allow larger lots to have a greater site coverage. In this case, the literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of the Code with regard to this sliding scale would deprive the Applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, i.e. , other smaller lots would be able to cover a greater percentage of the site than the subject property and actually be allowed a larger structure than on this lot. In summary, we respectfully request approval of the grant of variance requested for the additional 420 sq. ft. site coverage, which increases the site coverage on this property by 1.48%. o The size of the property and the fact that the residence has been designated on the historic inventory by the City, which will prohibit a second story addition, creates a hardship and/or practical difficulty for the appli- cants, reasonable use of their property to construct the available FAR in the amount of 420 sq. ft. Memo to Board of Adjustment August 5, 1993 Page 3 o This variance is consistent with the Aspen Area comprehensive Plan and will definitely not be contrary to the public interest as required under § 10-103. In fact, this variance will promote the public interest by preserving the historical character of the building and its low profile, decreasing bulk and mass in a location very visible to the community. Stryker\adjustment.mem / . JOSEPH A. AMATO 222 E. ItA]'jL M STREET ASPEN, co 81.611 Augv st 41 1993 Board of Adjustment City of Aspen 130 South. Galena Aspen, Cr, 81611 RS: Roberts' Property Variance Request Dear Gentlemen: Ir am the owner of they property known as 222 E. Hallam Street, the next daor neighbor to the Robert' s home in Aspen ar.d the only property directly irrpacted by this request . I received the schematic; designs prepared by Stryker - nrown. I am aware of the hardship affecting their plans for an addition to the hoase . Please be advise: that I am st!pportive of their request for a site coverage variance that permits a single-story alternative . (see attached schematic) I em hopeful that you will grant this variance in exchange for their agreement not to build the two-story addition in the fut^air°. The single-story udd:it:lon has a minimal impact for light , air, view and mass versus the two-st-try addition . Thank you for your consideration. Vo truly yoars,XP 6 Jo eph A. Amato JAA:ml