Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19930930 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 30, 1993 SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM 4.00 P.M. A G E N D A I I. CALL TO ORDER WELCOME TO NEW MEMBER, JIM IGLEHART ROLL CALL III. CASE #93-15 GROSSBLATT/GETZ (CONTINUED FROM 9/23/93) IV. CASE #93-17 LUCY DIREOU V. CASE #93-18 BRUCE C. BERGER VI. ADJOURN V RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 30, 1993 Vice Chairman Charlie Paterson called meeting to order at 4 :00 P.M. Answering roll call were Jim Iglehart, Howard DeLuca, Rick Head, Ron Erickson and Charlie Paterson, Bill Martin and Remo Lavagnino were excused. Charlie welcomed new member Jim Iglehart. CASE #93-15 GROSSBLATT/GETZ CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 23, 1993 Notice of mailing and posting was turned in at the September 23rd meeting. Raul Gawrys, Architect for applicant: I do have 6 notices from surrounding neighbors that they approve this application. (attached in record) This variance request encompasses 2 issues. The first is a setback and the second is an enclosure which addresses the FAR issue. The first issue I would like to address is the setback issue. What we are applying for here does not require any additional con- struction foundation whatever. The setback requirement for a variance would basically be bringing a portion of the deck of the building into conformance. This building as it was built evidently was 6 inches over too far so consequently that is why we have to address setback variance to make this conforming, etc. The main issue that we are here is we would like to have some direction or hopefully an approval for an increase in the FAR and that would take place with a greenhouse enclosure. What we are basically asking for is to take a greenhouse enclosure--anything that would be approved preferably an aluminum one with low profile so you really get the transparency. We would be basically enclosing that deck. The deck is practically 40% enclosed now with the solid railing and everything. The deck in the front is a sloping element and that is the type of motif we would continue so the form and the shape would be there as far as what we are trying to achieve. The hardship really doesn't exist with the existing building. But we would like to say the hardship exists on the impacts that the neighborhood is encroaching onto the structure. As you know when you do a project in this town you try to get the most for your BAM9.30.93 money just because of the expenses. The codes have changed in the allowable square footage. And some of the rules on making the unit the size that it is. There is a unit that has just been completed adjacent which is 2, 500 square feet larger than this unit. There is a unit going across the street under construction which is almost the same in size and scale. The reason that those units are able to exceed is because they took advantage of the subterranean clause that anything below grade is not FAR. If you go through the neighborhood some of the garages they have built to accomplish that FAR quota need wenches just to get down to them because they are down in the basement way below ground. Nevertheless this building was not designed that way. If this building was designed this way--or with today's code we probably wouldn't be here. We would have a more liveable unit. The reason for this is mainly to make the unit more liveable. There has been some large impacts and more to come on this structure. One of the impacts would be the large townhouse to the west. They basically block out all the internal light on that unit that had light for so many years. In the rear of this project there is soon to be the new East Hopkins Housing Project which will further reduce any visual continuity with the outside from within this unit. This unit also has an access easement which has allowed 2 victorians to be placed along the river between the river and this structure. Consequently that disallows any chance of having lightwells or window wells to make the lower floors more liveable. So they are basically landlocked in many sense of form. What they are basically asking for is to enclose the solid rail front porch enclosure with a transparent greenhouse to make their space more liveable--to basically use the last part of their property to make it more liveable. The units are basically orientated front to south and with these impacts on the sides and the back the units have--the living room has definitely changed it's atmosphere. That is basically what we are asking for. I would like to get some feedback from the Board. The hardships are basically external on this piece of property. The owners built the project. They are retaining ownership and always will. The Grossblatts are moving here. They consider this their permanent residence. And this is where they plan to spend the rest of their years. Charlie read into the record a note of a phone call from John Jacobi expressing his concern that "If this variance is granted it 2 BAM9. 30.93 will put them approximately in my door" . (Note attached in record) Gawrys: In response to that gentleman's letter, we do not want to do anything different than what is here. This existing deck with the solid rail would have a vertical piece of glass and then a sloped piece of glass going back to this header plate right here. Whatever exists we are already there. Charlie: Is that only on the east side of that partition? Gawrys: No. It would be on both sides. If this was granted approval with a condition I would give drawings of what the actual greenhouse or visual affect it would have on this building. Rick: Why does this call for a side yard setback? Gawrys: On the west side of the building is like 6 inches over too far from when it was originally built. So what we are asking for is to make that setback conforming because the building already exists that way. Drueding: The setback would still be non-conforming. You would just have a variance. Gawrys: There is no construction on the ground floor. This is strictly on the second floor. And everything is there. Just by visual enhancement they are allowed to put a glass screen along here to block wind and stuff. What we are asking is to put a glass screen with a roof over it. Jim then read a letter from Charles Hood expressing his opposition to this variance. (attached in record) Gawrys: Some of the comments that he made in that letter I think he is interpreting we are doing a brand new structure. That is not at all what we are doing. There is not even a concrete truck to be pulled up on this site. We are using existing stuff. Ron: Is there basement space in this building? Gawrys: There is 1 bedroom downstairs. What we have as you walk in the front door and you go upstairs to the living room. There is a bedroom here with the garage on the same level in the back coming off the alley. Then there is this lightwell is one bedroom which is only half--and that is the only way they can get light in the downstairs at all. The alley literally goes up to the side of the building. This driveway has allowed to increase density and put additional houses. As a matter of fact one of the commenters there--it allows access 3 BAM9.30.93 onto their property--an easement to get to their house. So we don't have any possibility to open anything up on that side either. Ron: Specifically this easement: On the east side of the building, how did that come about? It is the only place that I can see it exists in town. I am looking for a hardship. The only unique possibility you have of a hardship is losing any ground that you might have had on the east side of that building. So was it granted by the owner to the new homebuilders so that they could build? And did they pay for that? If so then these owners gave up their--or sold their right and therefore it is not a hardship. Gawrys: I totally agree. I do not know the exact history of the easement or type of terms or conditions. All I know is that that easement was granted to allow the relocation of 2 historical victorians in that area. So, the sacrifice in some way was on this property to allow-- Charlie: It was owned by the same people. That property here, Robin Molny was involved in that and so was the--that was all one piece of property. He designed this and then he brought those victorians. That was the only way they could get that building in there. That is correct. Gawrys: And then Getz 's took it over. So in other words the previous owner, when they bought this building, did those conditions to increase his value by putting those victorians in there. These people had nothing to do with that. Ron: That is true. But they purchased this with this in place. Gawrys: We would be building up on this wall. There is a flat rail and we would be coming up in there. The reason I point out this is that shows the form the greenhouse would take. Ron: So the enclosed deck will be within the setback on both sides. Gawrys: That is correct. The part that overhangs is the overhang of this portion which is the mirrored image on this side. Ron: So the new addition is not going to be in any setbacks at all but it will increase your floor area ratio above what you are allowed. Gawrys: It will increase each unit by approximately 48 feet. Drueding: This exceeds it's FAR now. The greenhouse is not a solid wall but it does increase the bulk. FAR is to keep the bulk down and it is up to the Board to use their ability to decide 4 BAM9. 30.93 whether there is a hardship or practical difficulty and to go by the rules in the code. Gawrys: I have had additional comments from Kim Johnson because of the Stream Margin Review. I discussed it briefly with her and her own personal viewpoint was that she would back this. She mentioned "Well if it isn't in black and white maybe it is something that the Planning Dept should look at because these conditions and applications have been requested before and there will be more coming on board" . Maybe some direction should be given that we have to lighten things up or do an ordinance to revise that. Drueding: Kim I believe was referring to whether he has a Stream Margin Review. Gawrys: That is correct. I asked her about that. Drueding: She was not discussing FAR. Rick: Stream Margin kicks in when you are within 100 feet of the river. Drueding: Something like this on the second story and this far away with buildings in between this and the river she is saying she would not go through a Stream Margin Review. She would go through an administrative sign-off which is in the code and she can do. Rick asked for a summarization of what the hardship or practical difficulty is for this application. Gawrys: It is the environmental impact that she never had any envision she was getting into. Since they have purchased this-- they have been owners for 3 years, it is only him and her. It is a non-rental. Also they are getting these big--Mecklinberg built a huge monster next to them that is cutting the light off for the Getz 's. There is a big one going across the street--the East Hopkins project. What they feel really is that they are almost getting claustrophobic. And the only place that they could find security was in their unit on the south side in the front which overlooks the cul-de-sac. They don't have any options on the west because that is Getz's unit. The east is the victorians with the easement. In the rear right outside their bedroom window 20 feet away on the other side of the alley is the employee housing project. They just want to have an environment that they can enjoy themselves and this is the last place that they could do it. The site doesn't lend and obviously other conditions do not lend 5 BAM9.30.93 for any other flexibility. The impact of this is minimal. If you look at this building they even have flat roofs adjacent to the neighbors. If this guy built with a flat roof like these guys it would be less amount of impact that they are complaining about now. If you look at a reality we could put a glass wall up there and that is all within the code. Basically what we are asking for is literally some slope lathing to enclose that deck. Ron: How wide is the deck? Gawrys: This is a 6 foot deck--3 more additional feet and width of FAR plus the length of the deck. That is what we are asking. We are asking 48 feet which is less than a bathroom. Charlie: But the width is about 3 feet from the present building. Gawrys: Yes. From the face of the building and the railing is 6 feet. So you could at least put a lawn chair out there. Charlie: Is the living room fairly small? Gawrys: Yes. It is a long, narrow unit. Ron: How many total square feet in the whole complex? Gawrys: 3 ,927 in both sides combined and if we give them a variance it will go to 4, 000. 3 . Gawrys: There are monsters next to us that are bigger than that. Drueding: Let me make one comment that the easement there is subtracted from your lot size. So we have got a 14 by 100 foot easement. Charlie: Ordinarily you would have 5 by 100. Side yard setback is 5. Gawrys: The previous owner sold it, not the present owners of the building. Drueding: The amount of FAR for this site deducting the easement is going to be 3, 180. Rick: How did they get an 800 square foot building here? Drueding: It was built in 1976. Then there is also deduction for surface easement which was in 1988 so-- 6 BAM9. 30.93 Gawrys: If this was a naked site and there was 6, 000 square feet, you know darned well that we could build over 4,500 square feet and make the code work on that site. Just by using some of the tricks that have been worked in the neighborhood. Rick: That is below grade. The point is if today you were to develop that site you would only be allowed 3, 100 or so square feet above grade of FAR. You are enjoying now almost 7 or 800 square feet more than what someone today would be allowed. And you are asking for more. Gawrys: What I am asking is--the 3,000 square feet would be 2 stories above grade. Through some creativity which everyone knows exists I could increase that unit by putting that stuff below grade. Then also the unit could be designed such that stuff is back in the front to make those spaces down below more useable. What I am saying is if we were able to start from scratch we would probably be able to build a bigger building that is a more liveable situation. The hardship is the external pressures. It is not the internal pressures. The issue is they are slowly being blocked off and this is really their last viewplain from their apartment. The issue about their easement--obviously that was from the original developer that divided that up and he took well advantage of the situation. Enclosing an area and increasing the square footage less than the size of a bathroom--of course I am sitting on this side of the table and I can say those things. Charlie then asked for public comment. There was none and he closed the public portion of the hearing. BOARD COMMENTS Rick: I want to' applaud the applicant's architect on fighting an uphill battle. I just cannot see where there is a hardship on this. In the 12 years on this Board I have never given a variance based on claustrophobia. I think that these people are enjoying the benefits of building back before they changed the laws with respect to FARs. I just don't see where a hardship exists that I could hang my hat on is. I am prepared to deny this variance. Ron: I think that although the applicant is asking for what might be considered a minimal variance I also cannot find a hardship or practical difficulty. And so I don't think I could grant this variance. I wish there was some way I could give the applicant some direction on how to improve it but I really can't. Howard: I have to agree with these 2 guys. I don't see a 7 BAM9.30.93 hardship. I feel sorry for them with not having enough light but there is always the possibility of skylights and there are other ways of bringing light into a room. The room is probably not very big but I have seen a lot smaller than that. And they are already 700 square feet over the allowable FAR or better. So I have a lot of trouble giving this variance under these conditions. Jim: I concur with the rest of the board members so far. I just can't find a hardship by the true definition of a hardship. Charlie: I feel pretty much in a similar situation here. Although I am usually more lenient on these cases I can't really find a hardship. I understand the problem. The only thing that I can come up with which might be in their favor is the fact that they had to make the building smaller because of the easement. But as you said earlier on they gave it up of their own free will. I would be hard put to grant the variance. So I am afraid we would all be on a negative situation here. MOTION Ron: I make a motion that we deny the variance on Case #93-15. Rick seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Howard, yes, Rick, yes, Jim, yes, Ron, yes, Charlie, yes. variance denied. CASE #93-17 LUCY DIREOU Charlie read into the record request for variance. (attached in record) Dick Fallin, Architect for applicant: Presented proof of posting and mailing. Passed pictures to members depicting the house and pointed out different areas of reference to the application. The first issue I would like to go through would be the side yard setback variance request. Along the west side you will see that the northwest corner starts to come off the property into the adjacent yard. The house is not square with the property and it comes back onto the property after maybe 15 feet or 20 feet or so. So the rear half of the property essentially appears from this drawing to be entirely within the owner's property line. The 50.4 dimension that is shown on the improvement survey we are starting 8 BAM9.30.93 from the north end of that line. The owner wants to redo the front gable facade of the building at the entry side of the building. There is a window right here in the middle on the first floor. We want to remove that window, add a bay window and a little cornice roof and replace the existing siding and on the upper gable surface where the other window is above in the attic they want to shingle that. In order to do that 5 feet of the end of this building is in the setback. There will be no structural changes other than the window and no foundation work in that part. To do the work we have to ask for--because we are encroaching in the side yard setback. Rick: Just changing siding? Fallin: No. Part of the window structure is in that setback area. Drueding: He is adding a window. That is the encroachment. As far as the siding--no. Fallin: I am going to alter part of the area on the front of the house that extends into the side yard setback. Drueding: Setbacks go from the ground to the sky. If you change the roof, that increases the non-conformity. You need a variance for that. Fallin: Then as we turn the corner and go south toward the alley there is a window right around the corner that is in the wall that she wants to remove and to close up the opening and put siding in to match. Then as we go down to the end of that 50 foot wall from the end of it back more--12 feet or so approximately that area is an alcove in the existing living room. The living room is on the alley end of this property. It's the bay that sticks out the farthest there right above where it says Lot D. Charlie: That used to be a garage. Fallin: I have no idea. I don't think so because it doesn't appear to be deep enough at that area. It looks like there had been 2 or 3 or 4 additions put onto this house through the years. As an aside the only inquiries I have had on the public notice were from Mr. Stapleton's Son, David. David was born in this house and he knew the condition of it and said that there had been a lot of additions and alterations through the years to it. He had no problem with what we intended to do with it on his Mother's behalf for what it was going to impact her property. 9 BAM9. 30.93 There is a very shallow pitch that extends all the way down connecting all these additions together apparently. If you come back about 12 feet up that corner that little square in there we want to remove that existing sloping roof that starts at an 8 foot ceiling height in the living at that wall. It is a flat roof inside that extends about 2 feet up by the time you get to the back of the living room wall. That area is what we are proposing to remove and raise that to a flat roof with a roof drain and make a 9 foot ceiling. So we are going to raise the interior plate 1 foot and a foot of structure on top of that. Drueding: That is what makes a need for the variance because they are raising their roof in that setback. Fallin: Then as you turn that little corner and you go on down to the next wall that is circled it says 13. 1 that encroaches into the side yard setback about an inch and a half. And typically I think Bill has allowed everybody to calculate site coverage and FAR coverage to face of stud. That is usually the dimension point that we use unless we have stone veneer or some thick veneer that we have to add in addition to that exterior wall. So what we are doing on this one these dimensions on this drawing are to the outside trim. They are the most extreme surfaces on the face of the existing house. So where it says 4.85 that is from property line to that inside corner. The face of that wall we also want to raise the roof on. But I have got an inch and a half encroachment in that area. The remodeling that they want to do is occurring essentially in the living room and another little kind of an open room that they use for a pool table or a dining room or something in there. She just bought the house. Only a portion of the new roofed surfaces are in the setback. There is a sloping roof that comes all the way down from this high ridge. Then this becomes a flat roof in this area and the sloping roof ties into it. They have continual leaking problems along this surface. So rather than trying to continuously patch this there is something in the structure that is causing this thing to leak all the time. So we are going to put a whole new roof on this area. And reconfigure the roof to put a ridge down the middle and get rid of this iced condition and put a roof drain in the flat roof area. Ron: So you are adding a 2 story addition to the building. Fallin: A 1 story addition 2 feet above where it is now. It is just a roof structure change. This is the face of the inch and a half encroachment here. That 10 BAM9.30.93 is basically the thickness of siding on the building. We are just asking relief on that to raise that roof in addition to the other. Rick: We can consider hardship or practical difficulty. Fallin: I think our practical difficulty--the key issue here we are having a structure and roof problem that we would like to solve. In solving that she has decided to also look at the rest of that back area to see if there is a way to make it better than what it is now. In that particular area if it was not in the setback we wouldn't have a problem. So it is an existing condition we are having to deal with. The practical difficulty is continuing roof problems with the structure. So we would like to base it on that fact. Ron: What is the current square footage of the house and what the new square footage of the house is going to be not including the garage. Fallin: The total first floor FAR space is 2 , 171 square feet. And there is another probably about 2 and 1/2 feet to that determined on the bay window we have had to count as FAR. There is an existing attic along that same side of the house that is being used right now for a play room and that is 686 square feet. So I have got 2,860 square feet. The allowable FAR is 3,240 square feet. So we about 380 square feet to use. Ron: How much are you going to add to the square footage? Fallin: On that part of the variance there will be no addition other than the bay window. That is about 5 square feet total and the encroachment area on that is about 2 feet of that--of length. Rick: On this western wall the variance that we would be giving you is 50 feet times 5 feet? Fallin: It is only about 12 feet. Drueding: It is not going the whole width of that wall. Fallin: It is only about 12 feet. Drueding: This roof is remaining the same. Then it comes down from here. (Talking over plans) Ron: Now that 13 . 1 feet at the back of the building--that looks like a substantially new structure. 11 BAM9.30.93 Fallin: That is all new. Ron: Why can't you move that wall back 1 and 1/2 inches so you are in conformity? Fallin: Yes. We could. Ron: You are going to rebuild the whole thing anyway. Fallin: That's right. We don't know what kind of foundation there is obviously. To be able to re-use the foundation and to have everything line up the way it is was our intent if we can do that. A foundation is usually 8 inches. But there is usually a slab that overlaps the top half of it so if you move it over you are setting a structural wall on a joint that might move. That is why we would like to avoid that if we could. So we have a structural hardship. Howard: So you haven't been underneath the building to see what- Fallin: There is no "underneath" to that. Jim: Is this historically designated? Fallin: It is not. It is on the list but not designated. Howard: Where you are redoing the roof in the non-conforming area, you're telling us that the idea is to try to get rid of the problem with leaking in the area. Fallin: That is right. There were no further questions and Charlie closed the public portion of the hearing. MEMBER COMMENTS Howard: Obviously he is asking for a very minimum on the majority of this. And the basic problem is that one roof area. If the fact is that the structure dictates the leakage problem that can't be fixed without major overall that little bit of a change probably visually you wouldn't notice it. The building is still going to be there no matter what. If that is true then I don't see a problem. With the 13. 1 feet--that is an inch and a half. That is split hairs. But if they dig alongside here and find out that has got to be moved in an inch and a half then they should do that. If it can't be without restructuring the entire area then they may have a problem. 12 BAM9.30.93 Rick: It seems absurd but we have denied variances in the past for as little as 1 inch. They had to dig up the whole foundation, the footers and everything for that 1 inch. It sounds so small. I don't really see too much of a problem. The house is old. It has been added on and bastardized 15 times. I believe the Farney's owned that for a while. And raised their families in there. I think this part of the application is probably something I could go with. There is some kind of hardship based on successive repair jobs to the roof. Structurally there is something that is not working. I think these are minimal requests. Jim: I think they are minimal requests. I commend you to come in and ask permission they are so minimal. Ron: I guess I am the only one who looks at that addition and I see a massive addition being put on this old victorian house that is going to be higher than the original structure. There is no additional floor area ratio because the applicant is putting in cathedral ceilings here. The whole back section of the house is going to be very massive in bulk. I don't really have a major problem on the side piece correcting roof lines in here. But where the new structure of the house is being added .I don't want to increase the non-conformity of the structure and increase the bulk on the same lot. So I would not be in favor of granting a variance anywhere. I have a hard time granting this variance at all. But everyone seems to be ignoring what they are doing. And it is way beyond just fixing the roof. This is a major addition to this house. And I think it requires a hardship or a practical difficulty. They have so much available floor area ratio. I am not denying that. If they want to put up 28. 6 foot high structure--cathedral ceiling structure at the back of this, that is fine. They are allowed to. I might not agree with it but it is allowable. However when they say part of that is going to be in the setbacks then I start having problems with bulk. If it is just this 13 . 1 feet then all we are talking about is an inch and a half, I don't have a problem with that. But if it goes beyond that--in other words this is the part that I really have a major problem with. That that is going to be a part of the new addition. Why can't you move it back an inch and a half in this section here since they are going to tear down that whole part of the house anyway? Howard: Because of the footings. Ron: I am not so sure that an inch and a half is significant--I would go along with whatever the 2 building experts would have to say about that. But this is the problem I have right here. This 13 BAM9. 30.93 whole section of the house is new. And it is 28 feet high or there about. I have a problem with the bulk so I am not going to grant the variance. Charlie: I feel it is a minimal variance and I wouldn't quarrel about an inch and a half. I see there is a practical difficulty trying to fix this house up. This is a case of 12 feet here. The roof is less bulky than it is now. I don't feel in this section that there is a problem. Charlie then re-opened the public portion of the hearing. Fallin: Using plans Fallin explained further the details of this application. Ron: My concern--now--if the house were to come like this--this piece were eliminated that would still be in the setback 1 and 1/2 inches. I have no problem with that. Although I think they should bring it into conformity because 1 and 1/2 inches is not that big a deal. But they are tearing this all down anyway so why not make it conforming? But they are not. What they are doing is they are still using this area that is in the setback and they are adding bulk to this side. Rick: What is the function of that? What is it going to be? Fallin: Part of the room. That is the way it was. That is the way we are going to leave it. Howard: And according to what you are telling us that is where your leakage problem is. Fallin: We are getting some kind of movement through here. Howard: And so if you make it a flat roof you think that that would, with a drain-- Rick: If you lost that little piece that little piece in here and we gave you the variance for the whole length--and inch and a half for the whole 13 feet it is, could you live with that? Fallin: I don't think so. I think she wants to keep it the way it is. Rick: What is her hardship? We are trying to negotiate something here. Fallin: We can probably move this whole thing in an inch and a half. We have already determined that we can probably do that. What we don't know is what that wall is sitting on. All you do is 14 BAM9.30.93 stem wall with a notch in the center it comes over and then the stud just sits on the thickness of that stud wall. If that is the case then we move the stem wall over that bearing on the slab that has movement. So that may cause future problems. Howard: You have to redo that foundation to be safe. Fallin: We just don't know what is there. We are just assuming that it is old--probably not much. Ron: This is what I am talking about. Look at this. Howard: But that is not in this section of the house. This is only an inch and a half over right now. If he moves it an inch and a half--this is your roof line that you are looking at from this way. That is your big mass right there. And that is an inch and a half inside. This is 9 feet off the ground and a slab. Ron: But this is enlarged over what it was. Although I guess that is a tradeoff. More talk over plans. Ron: When an applicant comes in here and wants something from me, I look at that whole building and what it's effect is going to be on the neighborhood. And I am saying if he wanted to do that that is his right. But he can't come to me and say "I want to do this but you have to give me a variance to do it" . Howard: Will you accept it if he moves it an inch and a half? Ron: No. Because you still got this here. Howard: If he leaves this roof line exactly the way it is--the non-conforming situation doesn't touch it--and builds this next to it, you will accept that big mass? Ron: No. I won't. But I can't do anything about it. Howard: you are basing your decision on the fact that you don't like the size of it. Ron: That is correct. I do. I have no right to stand in the way of an applicant who is doing something that he is legally allowable to do under the code. Now--can he build that structure legally under the code? Howard: Yes. 15 BAM9.30.93 Ron: No he can't. Howard: Everything but that little piece. Ron: We are talking about he can't build this section here. Jim: That is already built. Ron: No it is not. Jim: It is there. Ron: But it is 7 feet. It is not 8 feet. Jim: It is there but the roof is--he wants to slope it up. Ron: I know that. But he wants to bring it across 8 feet. It increases bulk and increases the non-conformity in the setback. Also this part here is in the setback. Jim: An inch and a half. Howard: (over plans) If he takes this and drops it down to here instead of here--he doesn't even have this anymore. It is actually smaller than it was before, would you be willing to accept that just to alleviate the problem that he has with drainage? Ron: If he were to do that and put his flat roof like this would I go for it? I would go one step further. I would like to say that if this section can be moved back 1 and 1/2 inches and I don't know how we determine that. If so I would want him to bring that into conformity and bring that down here and I would say yes. And there was some way we could stipulate that. Howard: It has to be based on a structural engineer saying to Dick "You can't build what you have in on the existing" . Then it comes down to is your hardship going to be that you have to-- MPT Ron: I would be willing to vote for dropping this--taking this additional non-conformity out--minimum variance with no other hardship other than repairing a roof. And request the applicant to move it back an inch and a half if at all possible. Charlie: I think we have got 2 situations. Rick: To give them a variance for an inch and a half it he is not 16 BAM9.30.93 going to move the wall back an inch and a half--why would you? Fallin: I have got to go through the Building Dept for the permit. Drueding: He has got to provide all those plans to move one inch and a half. Charlie called for a motion. Fallin: I would like to encourage you to go away from this gentleman's position and look at our proposal that is a balanced situation. MOTION Rick: I move that we approve the variance as requested. Ron seconded the motion. Ron: I just feel that we ought to just once again remember hardship, practical difficulty and what a minimum variance is all about. Rick: In regard to that I think there is a minimal variance request. And I think there is a practical difficulty. Roll call vote: Howard, yes, Rick, yes, Jim, yes, Ron, no, Charlie, yes. This portion of the variance was granted. Charlie: Now let's move on to the garage. Fallin: This portion of the application regards to site coverage. That is shown on the site plan as a cross-hatch area. It is adjacent to the house indicates the approximate area of the site coverage number that we have left that we haven't used. The portion then that is between that and the alley--104 square feet indicates the area that pushes it to the 5 foot setback line off the alley. We have a 10 foot setback off the side so we are within the boundaries of the setbacks. Charlie: Are you saying that you are encroaching the setback by 5 feet? Fallin: We are not. Rick: Site coverage. What is the hardship on this one? 17 BAM9. 30.93 Fallin: What we have is a single owner who owns this property. Right now there is no parking on the site. There is no garage on the site. We don't think there has ever been any parking that we can determine. And in the R-6 zone if you have an alley and do a garage they do encourage you to come off the alley. Here we do have an alley. Right now she parks in front. There are 2 huge Fir trees in the front yard that really screen the entrance from view from the street. She is feeling very uncomfortable from a security aspect on this house. She has to walk in the dark to her front door, through a gate into a courtyard that is really surrounded by trees. She lives in Denver and is used to that kind of security caution situation and she thinks that if she can get her car back off the alley into a garage that is automatic and can get into the house, that is her real reason for putting the garage on. In support of that we are asking for the 104 square feet because of the dimensional problem. That seems to be the spot for that without tearing the house down to do it. This backs up right now onto a mud room, back door and a laundry room and then there is a bedroom adjacent to that. So it does have a big storeroom that we could encroach into. We don't have any room in the house to put the laundry room with that type of entrance. The dimension worked out almost right for the depth that we need from the existing end of the house to the 5 foot setback off the alley for a one car garage. And the little alcove effect is formed by the existing house seemed to be a good location for width. It would allow one car to get in comfortably and have room to get out of the car and get into the house. Dimensionally that is where we are and the security aspect is really her reason for wanting the garage. Fallin and members of the board then discussed plans for the garage. Rick: If you lost this laundry room and mud room that would basically take exactly what you need to not be within the site coverage problem area. And re-locate the laundry and mud room somewhere else--lose this bedroom or something. You know you could accomplish your goal-- Charlie: But he is not in the setback here. Rick: No, it is not a setback problem. It is a site coverage problem. And I just don't see a hardship or anything other than security. A lot of people don't even have garages in the west end. And I have never been able to justify security as a reason for granting a variance for a garage. He can accomplish his goal by 18 BAM9. 30.93 losing this here. Charlie: Would you agree if he lost half of this he would still have a laundry room and still have a mud room and an entryway here? Rick: No. Charlie, if he loses this bedroom--he is just adding a 28 foot vaulted-ceiling room that could have provided another bedroom. This one I don't think I could fly with. Ron: Behind that you have a laundry and a mud room and if you took out the bedroom and put it someplace else you could reduce the site coverage. Fallin: That aspect of it would cause us additional hardship in having to re-locate the electric services and utilities. Ron: You are tearing this whole part down anyway, aren't you? Fallin: Not back there. Charlie: Is this on a slab too? Fallin: Yes, that whole side back there is on a slab. Charlie: That makes it an additional problem. Fallin: We would have to jack the slab for the plumbing and waste- lines. Would we be able to compromise the length in some fashion? The overall here--I have got 7 feet on existing and this came out about 8 to get to the existing site coverage area so that is 15 to get a Cherokee or any of the 4 wheel drive things I think you need 18 feet. You need 3 feet on the end of there which would be 5 foot less. That would give me a garage dimension that we could probably live with in there. Charlie: In other words you would move this wall? Fallin: We would be reducing the request. We would leave the wall. I have to keep a laundry room in the house. Charlie: But can you re-locate this wall over further and still . keep a laundry room. This is plenty of room for a laundry room. Fallin: I could do that. Charlie: Rick, would you be agreeable to a 5 foot--if you pulled it in 5 feet? Rick: No. I don't see any hardship. I don't see practical 19 BAM9.30.93 difficulty. She bought the house knowing she had to walk in that driveway or that walkway every night. I just don't see it. Fallin: Something else--people are not generally aware, unless they are in the business, they don't really understand issues such as this. Jim: What is the width of this deck? 15 feet? Fallin: It is about 14.9. Rick: It says right here 15.3. Jim: The minimal size garage you have to do away with to get your 105 square feet-- MPT Charlie: If you pull this in about 3 or 4 feet you would still have all your plumbing along this wall and you wouldn't have to destroy that. Howard: He couldn't get 4 feet but he may be able to get 2 feet out of it. Charlie: And then he can reduce more off the end here by about 3. So you have got 5 or 6 feet. There being no further discussion: MOTION Ron: I make a motion in Case #93-17 we grant a 47. 6 square foot lot coverage variance. Charlie: You don't want to talk about the difference here? Ron: The difference is from 104 square fee that he is asking we reduce it to 47 .6. Rick seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Ron, no, Rick, no, Jim, yes, Charlie, yes, Howard, no. This portion of the variance request denied. 20 BAM9.30.93 CASE #93-18 BRUCE BERGER There was discussion as to noticing on this case. Ron: We have 5 letters in the file from adjacent homeowners stating they are within the 300 foot radius but had not been properly notified. Charlie: The letters are from Anne Altemus, Carol Craig, Peter and Eva Kraus, Mrs. Lundy and Bertha and Martin Block. (attached in record) Charlie: Mrs. Lundy isn't anywhere near. Fallin: We went to the Assessor's Office. They provide a printout of the 300 foot radius and that is who we sent the notices to. There are only 11 homeowners on the list. Charlie: I think the applicant has to bring in, in this case, a map which shows the 300 foot radius so that we can determine whether these people have a case or not. Rick: I make a motion to table and continue this hearing to date certain of October 6, 1993 . After discussion-- Rick: I make a motion to table and continue this hearing to date certain of Wednesday October 6, at 4 : 30 P.M. Ron seconded the motion with all in favor. Rick: I move to table minutes to next regular meeting. Ron seconded the motion with all in favor. Ron: I move to adjourn. Howard seconded the motion with all in favor. Jan Carney, City eputy Clerk 21