Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19940616 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 16, 1994 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called meeting to order at 4 : 00 P.M. Answering roll call were Jim Iglehart, Howard Deluca, Ron Erickson, Rick Head and Remo Lavagnino. Charlie Paterson arrived shortly after roll call . David Schoti, was excused. CASE #94-6 ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY Remo read request for variance. (attached in record) David Tolen, representative for applicant . What we are requesting is a variance for construction within the setbacks for construction more than 30 inches below grade. And in one case more than 30 inches above grade . Using drawings he showed members of the board the specific areas . All of the buildings meet the height requirements and other setback requirements for the Affordable Housing zone district . They are all within the allowable height . Although it doesn' t show on the model this driveway actually drops a little bit down into the garage in order to keep this building as low as possible . Remo: That model structure on the right--is that the old White house? Tolen: This is the old White house which is going to be re- habilitated. Remo: Is the stairway up to the gazebo--that is in the setback? Tolen: In the setback but at grade. Jim: What portion of the staircase on the left hand building is in the setback? The whole thing going to the front door? Or just the section that is parallel to the street? Tolen: (using drawings) The setback actually is here. Rick: So you didn' t take into account these steps encroaching into the setback creating this need for a variance at the time you were designing this? Tolen: We didn' t . We actually caught some of the issues on the setbacks and adjusted them. This is one that I think wasn' t apparent to us because of the level of detail we were at during the conceptual submissions and approvals . It wasn' t real clear exactly what the elevations would be. Rick: So your request for variance is based on hardship in that you have gotten to this point in the construction and you find that you need this . BAM6 . 16 . 94 Tolen: I think the real hardship is brought on by the topography of the site and the fact that what we are constructing on this site is similar to what could be constructed on a flat site. On a flat site you would have access from street level to the entry of this unit . Because of the topography of the site we require stairs to get access to this unit similar to the access to the garage from street level . Ordinarily you would have a 2-story building, meeting the height limits and have a small back yard which is what we have back here. But in this case the small back yard and the decks in the back yards and the retaining wall doesn' t meet the strict requirements of the code. Leslie Lamont, Planning: In the AH zone district an applicant has the ability to request a height variance up to 30 feet . This project does not need a height variance. It is at 25 feet and that was partially in working with HPC, HPC requested the applicant push the homes back down into the ground more so they wouldn' t dominate the historic structure as much. Ron: The staircase that comes down in the front--why can' t it just go straight out and down within the current setback? Just take 180 degree and push it back towards the fence. Tolen: I think we need this much space to get to that level . There is a required landing with certain dimensions . Discussion followed regarding the stairway conclusion of which was : Ron: If you look at the way the model is and the way the stair is built, right now they go out and they have a platform. And then they bring it this way and then this way. If they bring it straight out as far as the setback with steps going down and then come down. This way the bottom steps are much lower. It minimizes any variance they might need in the front yard setback. All the stairs above are still within the setbacks . Tolen: As I am looking at the elevation at the end of the stairs we still need a variance for 30 inches below grade . Howard: So the only thing you would have left is this little square at the bottom would be below grade . You might even be able to put out that piece at the side yard. It is possible and still get your landing. You are going to have to work that out as far as elevation. Remo then asked for public comment . There was none . Leslie : The rear yard setback variance is requested because it was not something that we could tell on these plans that they were below grade. And the problem with the driveway--we encourage this type of solution with the problem with parking that is going on. Remo: But this was an oversight in overlooking the plans that it was 2 BAM6 . 16 . 94 just missed? Or did you know it when they were presenting the plans to you? Drueding: I didn' t catch that . Charlie: You couldn' t see it . There is no way you could see it . Leslie: We also rely a certain amount on the architect early on. This could have easily been resolved during the PUD review in my opinion. And as the project planner on this project it doesn' t change the appearance. They have got setback variances for the actual building. Remo: So AH has a different set of criteria. They have a 30 foot height limit? Leslie : The minimum height limit is 25 feet . But through Special Review you can increase it to 30 . Remo: So could the special review also take into consideration these aberrations in underground? Leslie : No. The PUD process . Remo: But it still could have taken it into account and if they had gotten it they wouldn' t have to come before us . Leslie : If we had known, it would have been part of the PUD. Remo: And they would never have come before us . You would have either granted them or had them change it to whatever specifications you wanted. Remo then closed the public portion of the meeting. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Ron: As I understand it they are looking for 3 variances . One is below grade rear yard setback variances . One is for a garage below 30 inch grade. The 3rd is the staircase. The only problem I see at all is with the staircase. I would like to minimize it a little bit . I have no problem with the garage. I have no problem with the back yard. In fact the back yard, I see it as a benefit rather than anything else. So I would grant the variances with the proviso that they look at minimizing the variance needed on the staircase . Remo: We could put that under the proviso of the Planning Dept . Charlie : I don' t see a problem except that I don' t think we ought to re-design the stairway because there is a door down here that comes up from the stairway and to put it way over on the left side then you have got to go up all around the yard and come up--it is not very practical . 3 BAM6 . 16 . 94 I don' t think it is minimizing it enough to make any difference to me so I would be in favor or granting it the way it is . Howard: I have to agree with Ron about the stairway because if you look at this--there is a sidewalk that is being built in here and all they are going to have to do is go 5 feet out of their way to get down this sidewalk and up the stairs . Actually that may make them shovel the sidewalk which you are required to do in this City. But nobody does . So I would be willing to give them the variance in that case and see if they can do that--just to minimize the amount of variance if they can. Jim: I concur with Ron and Howard. Rick: There is a practical difficulty here that I can hang my hat on. In light of the zoning process they have gone through--they asked them to lower the profile--I think has caused the hardship. I am ambivalent as to the change in the staircase. MOTION Ron: I move that we grant the variance requested asking the Planning Office to try to minimize the staircase variance but granting the variance for below grade back yard setback, rear yard setback, the garage and staircase. Rick seconded the motion with all in favor. CASE #94-7 ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY Remo read request for variance. (attached in record) Leslie: The code says that to be able to move this historic structure and store it somewhere else they need a Board of Adjustment review. It is not that they were denied. This is how we set up the process . Tolen: The request is to store the historic structure on another site temporarily while foundations are constructed on the site. Remo then read a letter from Robert M. Ross stating his concerns regarding this application. (attached in record) Remo: Now that is a sloping site as I saw it . And I am wondering- do you plan to level it in some way to make the structure look like it sort of belongs there? Tolen: There is an area back here next to the existing building that is relatively flat and it is the site identified to actually move the house. It is very small . It is as important for us as well to locate it on relatively flat site because this really can' t be stored on a 4 BAM6 . 16 . 94 slope. It is going to have to be blocked up level and neat . The requirements from the owner here is that after we have moved the building back that we restore the site. Remo: So you have contacted the owner? Tolen: Yes . We had to get his permission. The adjacent property owners were notified. Affidavits of posting and mailing were presented. (attached in record) Remo asked for public comment . There was none and he closed the public portion of the hearing. MOTION Rick: I move to approve Case #94-7 for reasons outlined in the memo with a contingency for removal of November 15, 1994 . Howard seconded the motion with all in favor. CASE #94-8 JOHN & KAY MILLER Remo read request for variance . (attached in record) Affidavits for posting and mailing were presented. (attached in record) Tom Schutz, representative for applicants : The request basically is to create an enclosed garage which doesn' t exist on site presently. And a front entry--porte-cochere. The house presently has a bad need of a sense of identity front door and some shelter at the front door. Review of the site has lead us to try to propose a solution that will accommodate the Miller' s needs . John Miller: We have been coming to Aspen for 30 years and have looked at this property for a long time . We have had friends that lived in the area and we have become very fond of it . We have watched this house for 6 or 7 years on and off the market . And the house is really in pretty bad need of repair and renovation because the previous owner didn' t use it that much and certainly didn' t maintain it . After we signed a purchase agreement our next door neighbor, Bill Emdy, had made it known that he was quite concerned about the flat area. All the flat area on this premises is not owned by our lot #39 and we wanted to have a friendly discussion about _?_ possession of that . I don' t believe in laws like that . And this property encroaches on the lot that Bill Emdy' s house was built on to facilitate an old garage that had been in the house. The house was built in 1973 and the garage was eliminated in 1981 . 5 BAM6 . 16 . 94 Kay and I have gone around in person and the ones we couldn' t contact personally we wrote them letters . Every one of them has encouraged us on the entire project . Not only the garage but the porte cochere. And I have these for your review. (attached in record) There is one property there that I did not contact . I just didn' t know who owned that property because it is in the name of a foundation. I haven' t been able to find him at home after I learned that he was the in fact owner of the property. So we have contacted everybody but them and then Burt Fingerhut said that he was well acquainted with the property and didn' t need to sign a paper. The Corey' s live in New York and their friends the _? out there and Mrs . Corey said she had no problem with it . It didn' t impact her at all . She just didn' t sign the paper. She had no objection. Mr. Emdy who is our next door neighbor came over this morning and was wishing me luck and said that he had his architect come out and study the area and he thought it would do nothing but improve things . Schutz : The house is already set fairly far up on the site . You can see the property goes aril the way up Red Butte which is unbuildable, unaccessible land way up there. Where we come into a hardship which we feel is a justified one is in the original placement of this house which was logical only because of the topography is extremely severe. All of these houses that have been tucked into the foot of Red Butte as it drops down as it was originally plotted and laid out and surveyed, the one house that is encumbered more than any other one along the entire drive is the Miller' s house. Way up above this hill there is a knob as that ridge goes up which creates a larger mass and that mass is the one that comes right down. Before this house was here probably at grade before they ever touched this soil, this had a steeper grade in their front yard than anything else--even the neighbors next to it . And so chopping into this site originally to place this house forced the house to be shallower in it' s depth for logical reasons and thus spread lengthwise . The original parking area back here is the logical place for a garage to go right here with access off this side. This whole slope here is about 60% going up and it is all this scree that is continually dribbling down. Trying to maintain that hillside slope, I believe that that is the reason the idea of this garage off this side was abandoned originally. It was just inaccessible and it is also why this kind of turn-around flat area kind of ended up encroaching further and further over into this lot . So we tried to put in a garage with a front access so we have the ability to pull out of it and drive back around the entrance and out on this side. The original setback from the original surveys were 5 feet on the side 6 BAM6 . 16 . 94 yard and 10 feet on the front yard. So that gave the original proposed homestead reasonable positioning on the site . With the new ordinances in place over the last few years the setbacks have encroached into it . We have pushed the garage as far back to utilize parking of a smaller vehicle on the right and a larger one on the left in order to maintain the presence of an additional room--a bedroom. There are 2 bedrooms here one of which we are giving up for access into the garage. The one in the middle the proper egress, light and ventilation to this bedroom here has to be maintained. So we are going to shove this window as far back to the corner--we are going to move it over and also raise it up to get it above this scree that is spilling down into this . The window in this bedroom presently has boards across it to keep this- -it is half full . If this was a window here you can' t see past grade out here because of all this sluff that has been falling down off the hill . So the stabilization--the idea of shoving this garage further back here nearly getting more elaborate or acrobatic in retaining that hillside. It is not something solid you can retain. The idea is to come around that bedroom window with egress space here and then you have your larger car be able to park here . It is not a large garage that we are proposing but it is in width stepping into the side yard setback. Though it is still within the original setback. That is the one thing we are trying to maintain. As far as the porte cochere I understand that asking for a 20 foot variance into a 25 foot setback is perhaps a long reach. It was only substantiated with us logically because of this enormous rock and landscaped berm that is out here in the front yard. And in looking at trying to build a porte cochere out here to cover the entrance, give some identity to the front of the house and the elevations before and are proposed--we want to maintain the drive through there. We already have a strong physical element out here . We thought perhaps we can pull out of that with a couple more tree-like columns and just use that for structure to bridge across that and create a drive through that provides shelter, safety from snow, drop off etc . That, to some degree, is the logic behind these 2 appendages that we are asking for some assistance and help the Millers receive . This idea of the site situation and the way this was originally platted I think is in itself an original hardship that the builder had in placing this rather than going like Mr. Emde next door was able to pull up the hill and put it back in there further because his grade drops off much more gradually here. It is not on this kind of mound that comes down here . This house didn' t have the benefit of that . The Millers would just like to accommodate this house with the amenities and the features that everybody else has . Remo: The others--are their garages in their setbacks? You already had a garage there. So they have had their use of that land and that 7 BAM6 . 16 . 94 particular item which is not really required by ordinance . Schutz : By ordinance it is not . But the subdivision covenants requires all residences in the subdivision to have garages . Remo: The garage was eliminated in 1981? Schutz : Correct . Remo: And what was it converted to? Schutz : Two bedrooms . Remo: So you see they turned a garage into two bedrooms . You see we have no control over what happens after we grant variances for a garage . I just want you to know that is one of our problems and that originally you did have what everyone else had in that area which was a garage. Drueding: It was done legally. Clayton Meiring signed it in 1981 . So the garage was converted legally. But there was a garage. Remo: So when anybody has a garage they can convert it legally into a bedroom? Drueding: Garage parking is not required as long as they have the required parking on site . As long as they have required parking on site, they don' t need a garage. As long as the parking will accommodate all the bedrooms they can have all the bedrooms they want . Rick: Basically once the homeowners allowed them to convert that use that is gone. That basically negates the covenant because they didn' t object within a year or two. Clarification from Bill--is there an adjustment in the floor area of a site for slope? Drueding: No. Rick: There is no adjustment for floor area ratio because of slope? Druedintg: Only in PUD--not a single family or a duplex. There is no slope reduction in single family or duplex. Rick: After factoring out the 50% below grade and 100% below grade as far as you are concerned the existing floor area of the house purposes of those exemption is 1, 731 square feet? Drueding: I have no idea. Rick: Well it says "Accountable floor area existing is 0 of the lower level because it is completely below grade and the only for purposes 8 BAM6 . 16 . 94 of calculating FAR-- Drueding: I have not calculated that . They did not give me any information to do so. Rick: Can we rely on these numbers? Remo: For what purpose? Rick: I am trying to find out if they have another 5, 000 square feet of FAR left . Drueding: I don' t know what they have left . And I wouldn' t take that as part of the argument . Remo: One of the things in here on your list of people that have reviewed the plans and have signed these--it says a dining room extension. What is that? Where is that going? It says here "We have reviewed the plans illustrated and a proposed garage, porte cochere and dining room extension addition to the existing building" . Schutz : It' s on a porc'a and it- ' s not--it' s covered and it' s interior and not requiring a variance. Remo: We appreciate what the neighbors have to say. Unless they are pertinent to our criteria of granting variances we can' t just grant variance on the basis of someone not objecting to a particular variance. And ours is really based on two premises which are hardship and practical difficulty. That' s the argument that you have to present to us . Those are the arguments alone. And they can be verified by your neighbors that here are hardships or practical difficulties in those areas but those are the criteria by which we judge whether we grant or deny you a variance. So I just want to keep it within that context . Ron: I want to ask Bill about this porte cochere. How was that handled? :Ls that more than a porch? Is that a deck or a porch? Drueding: It is considered a carport . A single family house you get one 500 square foot exemption for either a garage or a carport . A porte cochere will count in FAR. ? : When does a porch shelter or porch start becoming a carport? Ron: Anything over 36 inches counts . Drueding: Three feet out is what I am going to count . A carport and a garage is exempt up to 500 square feet . Remo: The other criteria we have is to give you a minimal variance to do the job that is requested. I see in the plans that there is a whole mechanical area back there where it is beyond a garage now. 9 BAM6 . 16 . 94 Now we are storing something that goes beyond what we would ordinarily grant you which would be a minimal variance. Why is that area in there? Schutz : It is only enough room back there to put in an additional large hot water heater and storage tank for a snowmelt system on the front drive . We want to snowmelt the drive. Howard: You don' t have any measurements on this garage except for square footage . Can you tell me how far it is from the back of the garage to the front of the garage? Schutz : I believe that is 26 feet . Rick: I was looking at this earlier. It says 26 . 7 . Remo: That' s to the property line. Take 5 feet off of that . That would leave 21 . 7 . Rick: Could you live with that? It would accommodate 2 cars . It is tight but it would not require you getting a variance. Miller: It wouldn' t on the original setback. Remo: It is not 5 feet . It is 10 feet . What I propose, if anything, would be a 1-car garage. Remo asked if there were any other questions from the applicant . Kay Miller: We intend to live in and move here and be participants in the community. We have a large family and we look forward to having them here with us part of the time too. Schutz : This may not be a necessary hardship or encumbrance but the Millers have 6 married children and grandchildren come in. Two of the families have moved to Colorado and they are up here a lot which is one of the reasons they bought this house is because of the bedroom situation. And we have given up one of those to try to accommodate the garage. Miller: We are actually giving up two. One of the bedrooms upstairs is quite small and it is sort of a nursery room and they are incorporating that into another room to get better space to the bedrooms and giving up one for a mud room and access from the garage . We have a very fine, very close family and we need the space. Remo: We have heard these throughout the years and had various consequences from them. Ron: I venture to say though that this is the only time you are going to see a mud room with a full bath. 10 BAM6 . 16 . 94 Miller: Yes, you are right and we are debating whether to take that out . You hate to just rip out things that are already in there but I agree it doesn' t need a full bath. And I don' t know what to do on that one. We are doing the interior and that is going to be the carpenter' s room until the project is over. Howard: Bill, as far as egress from a bedroom--can you egress through a garage? Drueding: No. Howard: Just a point because all your egress from the inside of the building --much rattling of papers-- And the requirement is for a second egress to go-- Drueding: It has to have direct access to outside. MPT Miller: We are going to raise that window 18 inches and push it back 18 inches and take it from a 3-light to a 2-light just to be able to accommodate the garage. So we are pushing it back as far as we can. The entrance is in that room too. Remo asked if there further questions . There were none and he closed the public portion of the hearing. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Jim: This is the toughest part of the job that we have is trying to establish hardship or practical difficulty. And I am still grappling with that aspect of this . I know there was a garage before but I understand you bought the house with the bedrooms that are in it and that fit your needs . The porte cochere in my opinion probably doesn' t need to be that big to accommodate what you are trying to do. It could be set back. I am having trouble trying to establish this hardship and practical difficulty. Howard: Unfortunately this seems to be more of a convenience than anything else . The problem I have is the 2-stall garage with the mechanical area in the back. Being in the business that is plenty big to put a boiler and a storage tank. If you cut that to 1/3rd you could still fit it in there. I would still be willing in this situation to give them this 5 foot front yard setback if it was a 1-car garage in this position the way it is . But definitely not with a 2-car garage. As far as the porte cochere I really don' t see any reason for them. I know they are very nice to have and it is a convenience--a major convenience for people and it is totally inside the setback--not just partially inside the 11 BAM6 . 16 . 94 setback, so I would have to be against that one. Ron: I like the porte cochere. But I can' t justify it . I couldn' t grant a variance for it . But I like what they have tried to do here. I think it is superb. It is architecturally pleasing but that is not our criteria. So I would agree with Howard on the porte cochere. I also agree with him on the garage. It is probably a convenience. I understand the family being large and everything like that, but I don' t think I could grant the variance on a garage. Remo: No variance at all? No modification? Ron: At this point in time, no. Remo: Because they could, without a variance, put in a 1-car garage . Ron: Or they could convert back to what they had. This is a 5, 100 square foot house . They have plenty of FAR available. If they want to go back further into the hill, they could build another 3 , 000 square feet all below grade and we couldn' t do anything about it . And so this seems to me the easiest way to get a problem solved for the applicant but it doesn' t necessarily mean it is the only way. Howard: I was at the site. And there is a problem with the rocks falling off . This section here if you were to build a retaining wall back in here you could actually easily consider all this room inside the setback to do whatever you want . I don' t think it is as drastic a grade as it is being let on to be here. It is not as bad as some of them that I have seen dealt with before . They did it next door. They dug back so far, put up a retaining wall 25 feet . I do think it is a convenience because of all of this . Charlie : I would like to see us granting a 1-car garage . I don' t agree with pushing it back any further because they have got some window problems . I like the porte cochere too but I don' t see how we can justify a hardship on that . I would like to see them put a better entrance in there but they can accomplish that without having to have a driveway through. I def initely feel that a 1-car garage at the very least we should grant . Remo: They can just put one in without a variance. Rick: I think aesthetically it is going to be great . I have a long history with this house. And this is exactly what it needs . Unfortunately it is a convenience to the applicant and it is aesthetic purely. The justificaLion or hardship, practical difficulty for a porte cochere is nil . With respect to the garage we have argued for years over garages being a right or a necessity and they are clearly not a necessity. The applicant could put a garage in without requiring a variance. With regret I am going to have to vote "no" on this one. Jim: I haven' t established a hardship or practical difficulty yet . 12 BAM6 . 16 . 94 So I am going to have to agree with the rest of the comments that I have heard so far. Remo: There is hardly anything for me to say except that the porte cochere really is--you can' t see it from the road because of all the vegetation. It works both ways and it could be granted because you can' t see it from the road. Yet, by the same token, it doesn' t enhance the entrance until you take it into their own private driveway. It is a dichotomy here . If we treat this as someone infringing on a front yard hardship we are going to have to treat everybody the same way. And because they hide it in some way or they start planting a lot of trees and use the same argument, we are in trouble . I think we have to be consistent in why we grant variances . And I think it has to be based not on a convenience necessarily or not at all . But on the guidelines that we have to work by. So it works both ways and so it is really mute. I just don' t see a reason, according to our guidelines, for granting a variance . So I would deny also. And the garage, I think they will have it without a variance. MOTION Ron: I make a motion that we grant variance on Case #94-8 . Howard seconded the motion. Roll call vote : Howard, no, Ron, no, Rick, no, Charlie, no, Remo, no. MINUTES MARCH 24, 1994 Charlie : I make a motion to approve minutes of March 24, 1994 . Rick seconded the motion with all in favor. Rick made a motion to adjourn meeting. Howard seconded the mci_ion with all in favor. Time was 5 : 30 P.M. Janice M Carney, City Deput Clerk 13