HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19930909 CITY OF ASPEN
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SEPTEMBER 9, 1993
SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM
4:00 P.M.
A G E N D A
I. CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
II. CASE #93-12
STAPE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (RE-HEARING)
III. CASE #93-13
THOMAS AND SUSAN HILB
(CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 2, 1993)
IV. ADJOURN
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 9, 1993
Chairman Remo Lavagnino called meeting to order at 4 : 00 P.M.
Answering roll call were Remo Lavagnino, Rick Head, Howard DeLuca,
Bill Martin and Ron Erickson. Charlie Paterson was excused.
CASE #93-12
STAPE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
REHEARING
Joe Wells, representative for applicant : Presented the affidavit of
posting of the property. (attached in record) What we did was--Joe
Krabacher' s address on the list was incorrect and we changed the
address and re-noticed. I hand delivered the notice to his house just
to be sure that they received notice and mailed out notices to all the
others on the list .
Kaufman: There was a question as to notice last time . I believe the
City Attorney' s position was that sufficient notice had been given.
They appeared here. And so I think there is a feeling that notice
was sufficient . However because we had to come back anyway we chose
to re-notice and to correct the error of the problem with the address .
His address on the tax records is incorrect and so he didn' t get the
notice.
John Worcester, City Attorney: It is my understanding Mr. Krabacher
had actual notice of the hearing as he was present when Mr. Wells was
taking a picture of the posted notice. And I think Mr. Wells will
indicate that for the record so the record will effect that Mr.
Krabacher, although he didn' t receive a mailed notice for the first
meeting, had actual notice of it .
Wells : On the day of the hearing when we appeared before you last I
went over to photograph the sign that had been posted. Joe and I had
a brief conversation at the time. I considered it to be just a joking
conversation about the development proposal . So I was comfortable that
he was aware that the development application was being filed.
Kaufman: A recommendation needs to be forwarded to the Board of
Adjustment from HPC. And that was not written the last time as we have
not yet received our approval or conceptual approval without a
recommendation. Today we are here to rectify that . Kim will present
that to you.
Amy Amidon, City Historical Preservationist : This is a draft . It
was typed rather quickly. It has not been approved.
Remo: It is called a non-contribution structure?
Amy: It is considered a non-contributing structure in the Main Street
Historic District .
BAM9 . 9 . 93
She then read into the record the memo as follows : The Historic
Preservation Committee did approve conceptual development for the
structure at 702 West Main Street . They made 2 additional
recommendations to the Board of Adjustment . That the Board of
Adjustment grant a reversal of the required side yard setback so that
on the easterly side of the yard there be a 5 foot setback and on the
west side of the yard 6 . 66 feet . This is a corner lot and so it would
require your approval . Also they recommended that the variance be
granted for the use in the Office Zone as it is appropriate.
Remo: We have to amend the motion to include the corner lot .
Ron: How much is 6 . 66 . What is the setback?
Remo: What is the variance that you want?
Kaufman: Technically I think we are going to have to come back to
you for that because we did not notice.
MPT
And then we will have to come back another time.
Kim: The reason for that is because this building is adjacent to an
historic landmark which is a particularly small building. We are
trying to grant such relief between the 2 of them as possible .
Remo: That didn' t come before us so we are not hearing that .
Remo then asked for public comment .
There was none and he closed the public portion of the hearing.
MOTION
Ron: I make a motion that we approve a variance for Case #93-12
granting the variance for a minimum lot area and lot width.
Remo: We already have a motion and a second. And we have actually
given them the variance . Do we have to again do this procedurally?
Worcester: It would be the safest course, yes .
Rick seconded the motion.
Everyone voted in favor of the motion.
CASE #93-13
THOMAS AND SUSAN HILB
CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 2, 1993
2
BAM9 . 9 . 93
Remo asked the applicant if they had anything more they wanted to add
to what already had been. heard.
Susan Hilb: For the record that the Building Dept came and stated
that the stairs---
Remo: Yes and I think maybe Bill should take a look at it . It might
be helpful .
Hilb: We appreciated you all coming by to see because it is hard to
describe.
Remo: It is good that the Building inspector came by to see it also.
It was good to have someone down there to verify what you were telling
US .
Sven Alstrom, Architect for the applicant : He confirmed 2 more
dimensions that I didn' t know--the pipe .
Remo asked if the Board had any more questions . There were none .
MEMBER COMMENTS
Ron: I went over to look at it . And I still have trouble granting
the variance because I think that there is another way of doing it .
And I think the staircase can be moved back away from the beam that
you hit your head on and brought up to code. The whole staircase can
be moved further west .
Howard: The point is, Ron, after you left we realized that this wall
here is the foundation wall--that is the bearing all of the structure
going this way. So it presents more of a practical difficulty if they
have to move that door as you are saying.
What happens is if you have to go back into here like this as you were
saying, you have extended in through the bearing the wall and now you
are--in this way you have no bearing anymore.
Discussion over plans--
Ron: Based on the plans as presented I would not grant the variance
because I think there is another way of solving the problem.
There was a suggestion to put in a spiral staircase .
Howard: If you put in a spiral staircase you have to be able to get
around it to get to the other rooms . So you need 3 feet plus 3 feet
plus 3 feet plus 3 feet . Now you are talking 12 feet and I don' t see
12 feet in here .
You need to get around it from the garage. You need to get around it
from every different angle and you also need 6 and 1/2 to 7 feet in the
middle. So, yes, it is a great idea but it probably doesn' t work in
3
BAM9 . 9 . 93
this room without encroaching on the bearing wall . I think that is
the main point . This is a very large bearing wall here and by cutting
into it you are creating structural problems .
Granted it could be done. You could jack the house up, etc. etc. I
don' t see it . I look at it--I don' t see it . I see major structural
problems to try to move the door--all you are doing here is you are
leaving this bearing wall in here--removing this doorway that is in
here now. That is what he is doing at this point . He still has to
maintain a 3 foot hallway which is at this point--not at this point .
Rick: Ron, what is your reticence about where the proposed stairway
is?
Ron: I have no reticence about where they want to put the staircase
if I grant them a variance at all .
Rick: Are you saying this is a convenience for the applicant?
Ron: Yes, I do. I think it is an economic sort of thing. It may
even be aesthetic. I think there are a lot of problems in that area
that have to be addressed by the Building Dept . And I don' t think they
have been addressed in this plan. They are going to have to tear all
that out anyway.
I thought they are asking for a variance because it was just easier
for them to add space outside and get additional part in their building
than it is to work within their own structure . So I don' t see a really
practical difficulty or hardship preventing them a property right their
neighbors would enjoy.
Howard: I don' t agree with Ron because of the fact that by trying to
put that staircase where Ron wants to put it--there are a couple of
different rules that you have to go by. One is that you have to have
a 3 foot landing at the top of the stairs which I am not sure if you
can maintain a 3 foot landing plus the rise and run of the stairs and
still miss the beam downstairs . That beam downstairs is there . I
wouldn' t want to be the guy trying to move it .
The structural part of the house here which is the old existing outside
wall of the house--if you try to cut back in like we talked about--
if you make the doorways back in you would still be involving the major
structural change in the house back in here. I don' t even know what
you would run into. We know the bearing on this wall is buried here.
From this point over I can' t tell you if the bearing swings and goes
this way which it very possibly could. At lot of times that is what
they did in those old houses . They would run a bearing this way and
then they would run it this way. If they did that this is a bearing
wall here also. We don' t know that .
So I do see a practical difficulty. I do see a very unique situation
4
BAM9 . 9 . 93
with this property because the whole house is non-conforming. I don' t
think that the neighbors have the same situation that they have here
because they are--they have the utility easement on one side of the
house which restricts them there. They have setback on the other side
of the house. The only place they can build is over by Salvation
Ditch.
What we are looking at is do they have a practical difficulty and,
yes, I do see one.
Remo: We do have to base it on the information that is presented. I
think that should be part of the record. That if we grant this
variance it is on the plans that were submitted to us at this time.
And if they change that possibly we might have to reconsider. If they
take some of those load-bearing walls out and move them or have to move
them, then we have a different situation.
Howard: Then we don' t have a practical difficulty anymore. I do
agree with you. If this changes because the Building Dept changes or
makes them change it then I would like to look at it again before they
go ahead and build it . If they took the beams out then you wouldn' t
have a problem anymore. Then you could make the stairway legal . I
agree with that 100% .
Bill : I would vote to grant the variance . I think bringing the non-
conforming building up to an improved standard is all positive.
Discussion over plans .
Ron: We go through all of this trying to help them out and then they
are not going to do it anyway and we are wasting everybody' s time
because these plans have not been scrutinized by the Building Dept .
I would be willing to table this until after we have the Building Dept
look over those plans and come back to us or come back with some sort
of solution. There are 2 or 3 problems in that area. All of them have
a bearing on what we grant for a variance . I feel very uncomfortable
about granting a variance before that .
Remo: I am going to grant the variance. I don' t agree with Ron that
there are right now solutions to this problem. I would give them the
variance with some cut-back on these stairwells .
Ron: The beam that is the crux of this whole problem could be an
illegal beam regardless of whether there is a staircase there or not .
If they have to remove that beam they are going to raise the opening
of that staircase without moving it .
Discussion over plans .
Howard: If you make this stairway legal by bringing it in here then
you have encroached on this hallway by making it 30 inches wide. And
now this wall has to be removed again. When you move the wall then you
5
BAM9 . 9 . 93
are going to have to remove this wall and then you are removing the
entire side of the house in order to make one stairway fit in. Now you
can tear the house down and start all over again too.
Remo: They are in non-compliance of the code right now. This suggests
to me that there is a safety factor involved. And so we are trying to
alleviate that problem by bringing it up to code . And if we do it in
the house that is terrific. Then if we can' t we still want to make it
a legal stairway. I don' t think it is in the City' s interest to leave
that stairwell the way it is .
Ron: It is going to happen one way or the other. If we don' t grant
a variance they still have to bring it up to code.
Rick: No they don' t .
Remo: It is not a good thing to leave it they way it is .
Howard: They wouldn' t be able to do any construction to the house
till they bring that stairway up to code.
Remo: They would have to bring a lot of things up to code.
Howard: In that house I wouldn' t want to go through the Building
Inspector for one or the other. A lot of times I go through a house
to see if they are electrically sound for a client who is going to
buy. I see how much they are going to put into it and I see things
that scare me sometimes . If you are going to do any building, though,
you had better be aware of it .
The Building Dept should seriously look at these plans and make sure
what they are doing is OK and above board. And if they are going to
remove this entire bearing wall anyway and put a steel beam in then the
point is that the stairway may be able to fit in. I couldn' t tell you
by looking at it . I do know that right now if you make that stairway
wide enough to make it legal it would make the hallway illegal .
Rick: I strikes me that if they are going to remove this whole bearing
wall as shown on these plans why couldn' t they re-configure the
stairway to--
Howard: They are removing walls .
Rick: Just half the wall .
Howard: If you make the stairs 36 inches wide then you don' t have a
3 foot hallway.
Francis Krizmanich came in.
Remo: Francis, we are looking at a plan that has not been approved by
the Building Dept . It was looked at in terms of one consideration
6
BAM9 . 9 . 93
which is something that was going to be built outside of this envelope
to put in a staircase that would infringe on the setbacks .
Now in order for us to look at that we have to have reasons why we
would allow that to happen and the applicant tells us he only has a 30
inch stairwell going up to the second floor. He is not in compliance
and he showed us various reasons why he cannot put that stairwell
inside this house. Because of load bearing walls, because of egress,
ingress to certain bedroom doors that don' t allow a 36 inch hallway.
Those have not been addressed by the Planning Office as far as these
plans go. So we don' t know whether he has to come into compliance now
by removing some load-bearing walls that are too low and may have to
be removed anyway. So we are having difficulty in granting him this
variance because we don' t know whether there is a possible solution
inside the house based on the plans that are presented to us which have
not been approved by the Planning Office.
Howard: Unfortunately you aren' t the right one to be asking about
this . Plan check is who is going to go through these drawings and
make decisions on this application. They may say bring this beam to
code . Then we come to a different situation.
Remo: We don' t look at financial consideration. There comes a point
where through someone having to come up to code and having to go
through a remodel of most of the house that that then becomes a
practical difficulty in my mind. We are not forcing him to come up to
code but we don' t want him to have an illegal situation. There is a
safety factor.
Alstrom: Simply put the purpose of this project is to put a conforming
stair in so, yes, I can say that this stair does meet UBC and I don't
believe the Building Dept will find violations in the proposed work.
More discussion over plans .
Alstrom: The reason we proposed it at this location is we are trying
to make minimum encroachment and get a code-compliance stair. If we
were to explore an alternative like Ron has speculated I don' t think
it will work and I furthermore think what we are proposing is actually
a better stair because it is part of the kitchen and the garage . It
really will work better than tearing up the whole first floor framing.
Remo: What our problem is--can we have a solution that is reasonable
in the area where the- stairs already exist to put it int-erior. We
can' t determine that right now because none of these plans have been
OK' d by the Planning Office . No planner has looked at it and said
"Take this bearing wall out . You got to take this out . You want to
bring it up to code" . Then we may be looking at something that says
"Hey, he can put it in there now" .
7
BAM9 . 9 . 93
When we went down to look at the property and according to these plans
I concur with the applicant that there is just no place to put it that
is reasonable unless you start going back and tearing this wall down
and tearing that wall down and everything gets pushed back. Then I
think practical difficulty as far as I am concerned. To keep it inside
the house comes into play and gives us a reason for granting the
variance on the outside. But we don' t know whether these plans are
correct the way they are.
MPT
Remo: It looks like the Board is not ready to grant you the variance
on the basis of the information that you have presented to us . And if
we had more solid evidence that this is what you have to comply with-
Alstrom: It goes back to what some of you--I don' t come into this
Board very often but it is very similar to the comments that my finding
of the stair was illegal . Just as my telling you the stair was illegal
I am telling you that 20 years of experience--I had the structural
engineer on site--that these are the plans I have prepared and that
they do in fact meet UBC. I don' t see another reasonable alternative.
So you say that I have to go to the Building Dept again. It seems a
little redundant .
Remo: Do we have a written report from the engineer?
Alstrom: No. But he was on site. That is how these plans were
developed.
Howard: The big point, Sven, is that one beam. Ron' s point is this
beam is being removed and what is going to be put back in it' s place.
Will it make this stairway headroom-wise legal?
Alstrom: Yes . But only the headroom will be legal . It doesn' t
affect--the bearing wall location--not just a portion of it that--
not just in that one room but that would force us to go in both rooms
and relocate the bearing wall of the house . And I think that is pretty
extreme .
Howard: The biggest deal that I see is if we don' t grant you the
variance to do the stairs then you are not going to do another set of
stairs . You are not going to try to make this legal . You will remain
with an illegal staircase that if some day in the future somebody comes
down the stairs and whacks their heads and sues you then it will become
a safety thing and we basically--
MPT
MOTION
Bill : I make a motion that we approve Case #93-13 .
8
BAM9 . 9 . 93
Rick seconded the motion.
Ron: I am going to have to vote against the variance . I feel there
are architectural problems in this area that haven' t been addressed as
yet . This is a non-conforming structure in almost every way possible .
They put that in the code for a reason. We have to be very careful
before we allow them to expand a non-conforming use. Not only that but
what happens if there are illegalities or non-code-specific problems
someplace in the house? Are we allowing them to increase a non-
conformity that is going to be a bigger problem in the future?
Remo: When he goes for this, don' t they check all the other aspects
of the house and make them up to code?
Howard: The way the Building Code has been in the last year they will
make them go through hoops . And it is very possible that once they get
done it will cost them more money than she can imagine to bring it up
to code. I don' t know. I do know that electrically they will walk
through this house and if it has aluminum wire in it for any reason
they will all have to be taken care of . If it has a non-conforming
situation as far as outlets next to bathrooms etc--It will be brought
up to code.
In a situation like this there is a very good possibility that they
will go through the house and say "OK, this is illegal . This is
illegal, This is illegal--fix it" .
Ron: So we can grant them the variance and then they can go in there
and find out that to bring it up to code is too much. And the reason
for granting the variance is moot .
Rick: The hearing is only good for a year. It is not in perpetuity.
Remo: I would like to propose something that wasn' t brought up.
It is up to us to grant a minimal variance. And we can get a foot
less extension out into here by bringing this whole stairway back to
where this door closes rather than a foot away from it before the stair
steps start .
There was some point brought to my attention that code likes to have
a banister or rail before you hit the stairwell . That may be a
consideration. I don' t know if it is a requirement or not .
Howard: It is a requirement . It has to extend the bottom stair by 5
inches .
Alstrom: I think a foot would work.
Howard: Yes . You might get a foot out of it and still maintain the
5 inch banister.
9
BAM9 . 9 . 93
Remo: I would like to add that onto the motion so that the minimum
variance is--
Bill : I would add to the motion "To be reduced to the minimum that
meets specifications" .
Rick agreed to this for the second.
Roll call vote :
Rick, Yes, Ron, no, Howard, yes, Remo, yes, Bill, yes .
Variance granted.
Meeting was adjourned. Time was 5 : 55 P.M.
"'V � ( J�
Janic M. Carney, City TyLputy Clerk
10