HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19931006 CITY OF ASPEN
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
OCTOBER 6, 1993
4:30 P.M.
SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM
A G E N D A
I. CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
II. CASE #93-18
BRUCE BERGER
(CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 30, 1993)
III. ADJOURN
�v
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 6, 1993
Vice Chairman Charlie Paterson called meeting to order at 4 :30 P.M.
Answering roll call were Jim Iglehart, Bill Martin, Rick Head and
Charlie Paterson. Ron Erickson and Remo Lavagnino were excused.
Howard DeLuca was absent .
CASE #93-18
BRUCE BERGER
CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 30, 1993
Dick Fallin: We hand delivered mailing notices for 5-day delivery
prior to this meeting to those people who did not receive notice for
the meeting of September 30, 1993 .
Charlie : Would that be sufficient, John?
John Worcester, City Attorney: Yes .
Dick Fallin: We had gotten a list of notice on this from the County
Assessor' s Office . They gave us a list of 11 properties which we
mailed 10 days prior to the meeting. And we posted our notice on the
building.
At the last meeting several letters were presented and 2 people were
here saying that they had not been noticed and felt that they were
within the 300 foot radius . So we did not hear this until we cleared
the notice. The following morning I went to the Assessor' s Office and
out of the 5 letters I think that we had, 3 were definitely legitimate
notice people that had not been noticed and 2 were outside of the 300
foot radius . We had time under the 5 day provision prior to the
meeting to hand deliver those notices which we did. From those notices
I have not received any phone calls or inquiries .
(There were no calls or letters received by the Clerk' s Office)
Charlie : John, do you concur that we can continue with this meeting
on that basis?
Worcester: Why were the names left off the list?
Fallin: We don' t know why. We wrote a letter to the Assessor' s Office
to prepare the list of people of notice within a 300 foot radius of
this address . They do a computer print-out and they mailed that to me
and we paid for the list .
Worcester: Asked something here but was sitting in the back of the
room and did not come across on the tape.
Fallin: We think that we know everybody that should have been noticed.
BAM10 . 6 . 93
And with the exception of Ms . Craig everyone has been noticed.
Worcester: Ms . Craig was aware of tonight' s meeting?
Fallin and Charlie : She was here last week.
Worcester: And the property is posted of notice?
Fallin: The property is posted and she showed up and that has been
interpreted in the past that this is sufficient notice.
Worcester: The code doesn' t guarantee everybody within 300 feet gets
actual notice. It guarantees that you went through a process that
first you get the proper list from the Assessor' s Office. You can' t
guarantee that everybody is going to have actual notice .
Fallin: That is why you do 2 forms of noticing.
Worcester: That is why we have 2 different ways of noticing. These
people actually got notice or they wouldn' t be at the hearing. So I
would suggest you can proceed.
Charlie : All right, Dick, you have the floor.
Fallin: This property is on the historic inventory list . It is not
a designated structure but it has been inventoried. Under that
regulation you don' t have to have HAC review unless there is more than
50% demolition. We are not doing 50% demolition in this instance.
I did talk to Amy (City Historic Dept) and showed her what we were
doing and to see if she could support what are doing. I showed her
the drawing that you have before you. We talked about the concerns
that the Historic Preservation Committee might have for this building
and Bill and I talked about the historical aspect of it .
If you look under the historical survey you can see that this area
for alteration to the shed is on the west side within the 5 foot side
yard setback. That little area right there is an outside storage shed
that has 4 exterior doors cut into the siding and has a sloping
shingled roof .
(Using blueprints) The existing condition here--the element right
across here is the storage shed on the side of the building and these
dotted lines indicate 4 doors that allow access into the shed. It is
an unheated space . It is set on a slab and it has this dotted line is
where it' s roof is across that entire area which is down about 2 feet
below this living room that sticks out from the main house.
The space inside was living, dining and kitchen of the existing house.
The existing old kitchen we are going to remove, add a common wall with
the back wall of the shed which is the inside wall of the main house .
So we want to bring that storage shed square footage which we are
already counting as existing FAR--we want to include that into the
living room.
There is a beam that runs inside that holds this roof and this living
room alcove as it exists . That beam is at a certain height and then
this shed where it comes in at about 2 feet lower than that so we have
2 different ceiling heights in that area and we want to blend those to
2
BAM10 . 6 . 93
the existing room.
We did an analysis of the structure to see if there was another way
to increase--it is about 25 square feet of floor area--the living room
size by adding on the additional square footage and just because of
this being more the public side of the house our practical difficulty
is that the owner, Mr. Berger, doesn' t want to add any other appendages
onto the existing house .
If you have been by there it has the classic composition of cross gable
roof . Then each of these gables has some other architectural element
that presents a balance and charm of this size of the structure. So
we went to other spots to maybe move a bay out into the yard or
something like that and we just didn' t find anything that was
satisfactory to Berger to maintain the integrity of the structure .
We feel that our practical difficulty is that we have additional FAR
that we could tack onto the house but we don' t want to introduce
another element on the outside of the structure . So we reviewed this
with Amy and I said "If you can show me another spot that would be less
imposing or if you wouldn' t mind if we move this bay window out or some
way to add that same square footage onto the house to achieve what we
need to achieve I will be glad to do it" .
We both agree that the location of the shed rather to the street as you
come up Lake and come onto Gillespie your view eye never really sees
this element of the roof until you are over here looking back. And as
you come down Gillespie you do see the end of the house but Amy' s point
was that what she likes is that the living room element that is here
is more or less viewed as part of the historic cottage area that was
on the original building. And that this is set back from that line and
that gives the additional relief and the elevation that she really felt
was important that that helps with the overall screening.
Her only comment was that if there was a way to keep this roof of the
living room still independent of this roof rather than raising it up
to blend it she felt that that would then maintain a little more
integrity to what she feels is probably part of the original structure .
And we would be willing to do that .
I don' t have to bring the new roof up to the old one . I can raise it
only about a foot from what we have asked for if that would satisfy
concerns for the historical nature of it all .
Charlie : So specifically you are asking for 5 foot side yard.
Fallin: It extends into the 5 foot setback approximately 2 . 1 feet .
Charlie : And your hardship is that you have no other place.
Fallin: In view of the historic nature of the structure--yes .
3
BAM10 . 6 . 93
Charlie asked for comment from Bill Drueding.
Drueding: Zoning has not problem. It is an existing structure and
he just wants to raise the roof . It doesn' t impact FAR to further
the setback.
Jim: You are leaving the existing foundation where it exists and the
existing wall is there?
Fallin: What we would like to do--there are blind doors with siding
that runs continuous across all 4 doors and all you see really are the
hinges and door knobs . We would like to take the doors out, fill them
in and have the siding run continuous across those existing openings .
That wall doesn' t move.
There being no further questions Charlie closed the public portion of
the hearing.
BOARD COMMENTS
Rick: I am sorry--I cannot see this as a hardship for anyone other
than the applicant . It is a convenience for him to add a little more
interior space. There is an increase in the non-conforming that
already exists that he is presently enjoying. And I am sorry that Mr.
Berger feels he needs this room and can' t find it anywhere else to
satisfy his needs for this expansion. But I could not support this
variance.
Bill : The wall is going to stay the same.
Rick: We are to base our judgement on hardship and practical
difficulty. You tell me that in a house this size that there is a
hardship that his kitchen is not big enough. Is this really a
hardship? Is it really a practical difficulty that he cannot live
with? Does he have roof damage problems? Does he have something that
we could hang our hat on?
Bill : I think the -orac-ical difficulty is that he has that space and
we are not permitting him to use it .
Rick: How are we not permitting him to use it? He is using it now.
It is already encroaching into the side yard setback. He is enjoying
something that the neighbors don' t have already.
Bill : So we are going to change it to accommodate taking it and
putting it inside the house and rasing the roof .
Rick: That is correct . That is increasing the non-conforming. I defy
you to explain the hardship here. It is clearly not a hardship.
Bill : I agree that the non-conformity is being increased. I see it
as a practical difficulty in that he is entitled to the space because
4
BAM10 . 6 . 93
the wall is there. And we are saying you can' t use that space.
Rick: He is using it . He is using it now.
Bill : He wants to include it in the inside of the house. Right now
it is on the outside of the house .
Rick: That is correct . If he wants to board up those doors and
include it into the house in it' s present configuration I have no
problem with that . But to raise the roof is clearly a convenience
and an expansion of the already non-conforming situation.
Bill : I am in favor of this variance .
Jim: I tend to agree with Rick. If left in it' s present condition
and not raising the roof and not doing anything with the walls as Dick
has stated I think I would be in favor of . But I am having difficulty
understanding the hardship if there is a hardship to raise the roof .
I guess the practical difficulty is that if the ceiling heights don' t
work in the kitchen and he needs to raise the roof to do it, that may
be a practical difficulty. But that is created by the applicant .
Based on those 2 things I guess I wouldn' t be able to be in favor of
the variance .
Charlie : I can see all the points that you have made . I think they
are well taken. I still feel it is such a minimal variance request .
And we have not granted some variances for the sake of 2 inches .
However I feel that this is not anything that affects the neighborhood
and is not an objection to -che neighbors . We don' t have any neighbors
here that are objecting to this . The only thing we have is the
original noticing. If there was a problem they would have been here
today.
Under that circumstance I would be more in favor of granting this
variance .
The applicant does have the right to table till we have more votes .
Rick: That is fine with me .
Charlie re-opened the public portion of the hearing.
Fallin: I am sure you hear major cases and the problem that we have
in the City of increasing these huge massed areas and something that
is pretty major. I think the practical difficulty of the historic
nature of this thing really precludes the standard approach to the
impact . We have to count that storage area as living space whether it
is storage or living, we have to count it . We still have some square
footage that we could add to the house. That is our option. The owner
doesn' t want to do that for obvious reasons . We have got a classic
example of an exceptionally well-maintained house here. We have got
5
BAM10 . 6 . 93
a situation where this encroachment to increase 1 foot is well
concealed. The public interest I think is well served by granting a
variance of this nature . I know you have to go by practical difficulty
and hardship. Our practical difficulty is really linked to the
historic nature of the structure. We feel that is really important .
Rick: If you could produce Amy Amidon when we have a full compliment
I would consider listening to her explanation as to why we should
consider granting this variance .
Fallin: In the normal process of this thing, the public interest here
of a 1 foot raising on the roof, this is--
Rick: I couldn' t agree with you more .
Fallin: So why are we considering this in such a hard fashion? I
don' t understand that .
Jim: Let me re-consider something here because I have heard more
things since my comment . You are talking about historical integrity.
I would hate to think that if this was going to still happen and
happened on a different section of the house and had to go through the
HAC to get that to happen that--
Drueding: It doesn' t have to go through HAC.
Jim: At any rate it still has something to do with the present
integrity and condition of the house.
Bill :_ This structure should be on the HAC.
Jim: I may reconsider based on what I have heard.
Fallin: Many of these old structures with few exceptions comply with
every rule that we have . Every time you come in and try and change
something to improve modern day interior living facilities we get this
hard line . Not only from you guys but everybody is afraid we are going
to mess up or we are making a mistake .
Rick: We have heard arguments before from applicants who have come
in and ask for a minimal variance with allowable floor area ratio
still remaining. And they claim that they don' t want to use that FAR
that they are never going to change the house. We give them a variance
and then 3 months later in the Building Dept is a plan for a major
addition so that they not only get to use and build out their home FAR
but they are enjoying now FARs that are encroaching the setbacks that
other people in the same zone and vicinity are not enjoying. We have
been burned a few times .
Fallin: What we are forcing people to do--and we see it every day-
-we have got this wonderful yard, let' s fill the yard up. In reality
6
BAM10 . 6 . 93
the point of the zoning has been bulk and mass--is open space . Every
time we have encroaching into really meaningful open space-not just
side yard setbacks--that is a nothing deal in reality in most of these
houses . So you add another appendage where you go into a public viewed
area that is one thing to really consider in my opinion and we looked
at this pretty carefully.
Bruce just said "I don' t want to put anything else on the outside of
that building" . The additions that we have made to this house are at
the back of the lot . The public is not going to see it . This one is
well screened by surrounding structures . Some day there is going to
be a new house here that is going to fill that lot up. We feel that
historical things are not just that little narrow view on that
particular element . There is a much broader consideration base here
that we ought to be looking at .
Rick: I think we take that into consideration. Charles, over the
years, has always been in favor of the applicant when it came to making
suggestive decisions which is pretty much what this Board is about .
What is a hardship? It is a very ambiguous subjective opinion or
decision. In my opinion the house the way it is does not cause a
hardship to Bruce Berger right now.
Fallin: But there is a practical difficulty.
Rick: I know. His practical difficulty is that he could build
somewhere else but doesn' t want to. That subjectively is not a
hardship or demonstrating a practical difficulty.
Bill : If he wanted to take the 25 feet he could then change the
structure of the historically designated house . It is on the list .
And that is subjective too. I went before the HAC and said I didn' t
want my house designated. They designated it anyway.
In 1960 I bought my house and this house sat empty with a piano--the
front door was open and there was a piano in the living room.
Jim: I think the practical thing is, Rick, that there has got to be-
-yes you have hardships and you have practical difficulty. The other
thing is that the thing is so minor. We are talking about an inch and
half where a surveyor can only survey to a plus or minus 6 inches and
somebody comes in and asks for that permission to do something in a
non-conforming way. There is no surveyor in the world that is going
to be able to tell you that that is where it is . And we are talking
about raising the roof a foot and a half . There has got to be a time
when this Board and all of the Boards say "Listen, we have got to have
a little relaxation here" . Because_ these _guys are not going to come
to us anymore and they are going to bandit it . And I can guarantee you
that .
Charlie : My problem is that the alternate thing--the applicant can
build out somewhere else . But it doesn' t serve the City well . It
doesn' t serve the appearance well . It doesn' t serve the neighborhood
7
BAM10 . 6 . 93
well .
Rick: I agree with you. You miss my point . We are going to give
him something that the other neighbors are not enjoying. We are going
to give him additional square footage in the setback and then he still
has the right in a month to go into the Building Dept and add another
wing and use up all his FAR. I do not in any fashion find this to be
a consideration of a hardship or practical difficulty.
Fallin: We just received a building permit for the addition on this
house that we could have used all of our FAR--every ounce of it and we
could have still come in for a variance on this . That storage could
have had a roof up where we want it and it wouldn' t have made any
difference.
Charlie : The point is how much trust can we have? It doesn' t seem
to be very practical to be coming in. He has made a statement that
the owner does not want to put it somewhere else. It is in the record.
Rick: Have we not heard that before?
Charlie : I have been on the Board 20 years and maybe 2 or 3 times .
Rick: I am not trying to insult Mr. Berger and don' t know what his
motives may be in the future. I might be swayed if Amy comes in and
tells me "Please, you are going to screw up this house if you don' t
give him this variance" .
Fallin: Let' s table .
MOTION
Rick: I move to table and continue the hearing on Case #93-18 to date
certain of October 14 , 1993 .
Bill seconded the motion with all in favor.
MINUTES
Rick made a motion to approve minutes of Case #93-7 .
Bill seconded the motion with all in favor.
Rick made a motion to approve minutes of Case #93-8 .
Bill seconded the motion with all in favor.
Rick made a motion to approve minutes of Case #93-9
Bill seconded the motion with all in favor.
Rick made a motion to adjourn.
Bill seconded the motion with all in favor. Time was 5 :20 P.M.
Al I'Ai
i e r4. C r ey, ity e V ty Clerk
8