Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19940901 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 1, 1994 SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM 4 .00 P.M. CITY HALL A G E N D A I. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL II. CASE #94-10 BETTE S. MACDONALD III. CASE #94-11 LARRY WINNERMAN IV. CASE #94-8 (RE-HEARING) JOHN MILLER V. MINUTES SEPTEMBER 9, 1993 AUGUST 4, 1994 VI. ADJOURN RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 1, 1994 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called meeting to order at 4 : 00 P .M. Answering roll call were David Schott, Jim Iglehart, Howard DeLuca, Ron Erickson, Rick Head, and Remo Lavagnino . Charlie Paterson arrived shortly after roll call . CASE #94-10 - - - BETTE S. MACDONALD Bette MacDonald had never sent notices or posted property so this case was not heard. CASE #94-11 LARRY WINNERMAN Remo read application for variance . (attached in record) Jack Palomino, architect, presented posting affidavits . (attached in record) Palomino: Larry' s lot is one of 4 lots in a private subdivision which is entered via a private access road. Because it is a very steep site the road itself actually has a cut into the hillside which in some cases is 6 to 8 feet high. In order to get Larry' s driveway in off that road there is no way we can accomplish that and comply with the 30 inch maximum cut into existing natural contours because the road itself is already cutting into the hill by 6 to 8 feet . At the driveway it is 8 feet . Remo: In looking at your plans this has not been built yet . It is proposed. Palomino : Correct . Remo: What is preventing you from moving the whole house up the hill to get within the setback for your retaining wall? Palomino: The road itself is presently permitted and is under construction. It went through PUD for this 4-lot subdivision. And one of our problems with moving the house up the hill is that basically we would be out of the building envelope . We have a very restricted building envelope . As part of the process we had to obtain an 8040 Greenline Review from the P&Z for the building, it ' s footprint and it ' s height . One of the conditions of approval in order to comply with 8040 Greenline was that we keep the driveway length to a minimum and keep the grading itself on the site to a minimum. BAM9 . 1 . 94 Remo : Did they give you restrictions on the FAR? Palomino : The PUD document set our maximum allowable FAR at 5, 800 and we are at about 70% of that . Ron: The conditional zone--what is that? Palomino : The conditional zone--it is part of our building envelope . And we can build in that area if we do some mitigation to thwart the avalanche path. Ron: Can you move the house this way? Palomino: We would still have to get a variance . And we are talking about a 30 inch maximum cut . One of the conditions of our Greenline approval was that we relocate the house so it would be outside the conditional zone . So we would have to go back through the Greenline process in order to do that . Kim Johnson, Planning Dept : The private drive that is being constructed right now is right here and the 6 to 8 foot retaining wall span is being constructed. The situation is that the 8040 Greenline Review looked at how to minimize the impact of this structure visually and physically on the hill . So their intention is to try and keep it as low to the hill as possible . And what they have done is design their garage so it meets the maximum slope for the driveway from the actual road into the garage itself . The area behind the retaining wall being built for the road that is subject to that 30 inch rule . So they want to have wing walls that enter into the garage behind the retaining wall . Palomino : Moving it down would cause all sorts of problems . It would still be cutting into the same 6 to 8 feet . Kim: For at least 100 feet . Ron: So moving the house is not going to change the variance you are going to need? Palomino . No . Leslie Lamont, Planning Dept : The City Attorney advised us that this is clearly a variance that the Board of Adjustment should consider because of the slope condition. That you guys were the ones to find a hardship vs the Planning Director' s interpretation. Our concern was that they only be requesting a variance for what they need which is to get into the garage . Discussion followed as to Planning Office waiving of this during PUD process . 2 BAM9 . 1 . 94 Drueding: I would have to reiterate what the Planners have said. Most of the City is relatively flat . Now we are getting new projects in that have these hills with not as much to build on. The code did not anticipate that . We tried to do an interpretation so we wouldn' t have to bring this to you. But the City Attorney said this is your purview. We think this is the way to go . Howard: What is the actual height of the house from bottom floor to the ridge? Palomino : Guessing; it is over 30 feet . The way that the height restriction is written is that we can take our maximum allowable height to the ridge and the mid point of the roof from the existing natural grade . Remo asked for comments from the public . There were none and he then closed the public portion of the hearing. MEMBER COMMENTS Howard: It seems to me like the entire effort was made to try and minimize the size of these houses that are going to be built in the side of this hill . This is not going to be the only one . Obviously there is going to be more . When the road was first cut in there somebody must have noticed that they were going to be in violation no matter where they put a driveway. They are going to have to penetrate that wall . Obviously they could have built on top of the ground and 8 feet higher than they are now which would have really ticked off the neighbors I am sure . I think it is probably a good idea what they are doing in trying to sink them into the side of the hill and shouldn' t affect others . We are going to have two more cases coming up real soon when people start buying those lots and do the same thing. I don' t see a problem with the variance . I think it is probably the easiest way to try to get out of the situation where we would have a monster home being built on top of the ground. Ron: I would be in favor of granting the variance . I think this solves the problem. And it is not of the applicant ' s doing. Jim: I am in favor of granting the variance . Rick: Keeping in mind of the two hearings we have just had in the last month I think we ought to grant this variance the same as we granted the City. The same argument exists on this . There is just no other way unless we make a code amendment for any other relief that I can see . 3 BAM9 . 1 . 94 David: I agree with what has been said. Remo : I don' t know how unique it is going to be anymore regarding this kind of topographical situation. Apparently these lots are coming into play. And what we have always thought of Aspen as being rather flat, and this would rarely come into contention, is now with us . So I would hope somehow the powers that be would address this in some way so that these people through slope percentages or something wouldn' t have to come before us . But if it does this is an obvious case where the appellant doesn' t have any recourse to build a house there without granting him a variance . So I would be in favor of it . MOTION Ron: I move that we approve the variance for Case #94-11 . Rick seconded the motion with all in favor. CASE #94-12 JOHN MILLER Remo read request for variance . (attached in record) Tom Schutz, representative for applicant : On June 16th we were in here trying to add a garage on to this existing residence which was going to be significantly into the side yard setback. 100% of the garage was attached as a new addition. We were also asking for a drive-through porte-co-chere to implement and enhance the front and function of the front of the house . What we have essentially done is redesign not just the garage but we have taken that garage envelope and shoved it all the way inside the house until we have complied with that new side yard setback and pushed it back to the front yard setback line so we weren' t asking for a front yard variance either. So we are totally in compliance on the garage . When we left the last meeting we were talking about the porte-co- chere out in front which was a covered drive-through situation. Even though it is significantly bermed and screened at the front of the property it was kind of a long reach for you all to see the hardship and granting a 20 foot setback in a 25 foot front . The front elevation still is pretty much the same . It just doesn' t project out into the front of the existing house as the front facade sets l foot behind the front yard setback. So we have 1 foot to build some structural columns in order to build a front entry element or canopy to cover the front steps . 4 BAM9 . 1 . 94 I might also mention when this was originally built the front yard setbacks here were 10 feet and side yards were 5 feet . Since then the front yards are now 25 feet . In order to cover the front steps we would like that canopy to be able to project out over those front steps 2 and 1/2 feet more than we are allowed now. A canopy can project into the setback a foot and a half . And that is what this is . It is a roof eave . What we are asking for is for it to come out another 2 and 1/2 feet so it covers the front porch. Ron: 2 and 1/2 feet of it is in the setback? But it is going to be 5 feet long. Schutz : Right . Then as you can see up above it we have got a deck that runs across the front of it . Decks are allowed to project up to 4 foot into a setback by code . But you have to have a railing. We could satisfy this equation of shelter by bringing the deck out . But you have got deck and railing and this kind of stuff . Archi- tecturally it just doesn' t fit in an appropriate manner to what they want to do . They don' t want a deck over the front door. They just want a canopy over it . When we left the last meeting they were encouraged only to the point that maybe if we came back to you and were able to satisfy some of these other things and work within the setbacks that you might give us some additional consideration for projecting to a reasonable--just in that front setback to give us some shelter at the front door other than just that 2 foot . Rick: I have 3 questions . (To Bill) Would you clarify the old code with respect to setback. Bill : The old code said 25 feet front yard setback since the inception of this subdivision. I have to disagree with you on that foot and a half . That ' s when we are going with porches--not with porches--but this is like a porch. And those roof-type eaves just like a flat porte-co-chere and anything that is measured from the setback. The roof eave is considered with a floor underneath it . These roof eaves of the building, not porches or other appendages . So you would need an entire 4 foot setback. Remo : So you are saying he is not even qualified to get the 18 inches . Drueding: No. But I would give it to him. Rick: So the variance is actually another foot and a half further than the 2 and 1/2 feet he is asking for. 5 BAM9 . 1 . 94 Drueding: Yes . Rick: So we have a total of 4 feet for the variance . Drueding: And to answer Ron' s question--we don' t have any problem with this variance . Rick: I take exception to some of the language in your clarification statement here . "At the suggestion of the Board" - - I don' t recall, and Remo brought this to my attention today, any suggestion that we made to you at that hearing which encouraged you to come back for a variance on this porte-co-chere . I read the minutes and I can' t see where you were given or lead to believe that it was our suggestion that you try and come back with something. Schutz : That wasn' t the intention of the language . The intention was just to suggest to the Board which was kind of a we need to make this plan work within the setbacks . I wasn' t alluding to your suggesting that you would give me any kind of-- Rick: My last question is--what is your hardship? Schutz : The severe geographic nature of the site and the way the house was shoved into that hill . We have got a ton of site behind us that is unbuildable . It goes up drastically in the back. It is a narrow house front-to-back and broad sideways . And so the site forced the thing up against that front yard creating a situation that doesn' t allow any kind of sheltered entry or even privacy if you are out any kind of distance--privacy from the street . That is why the berm has been built up there and has grown up now with the trees and the boulders to try to give it that sense of privacy or protection from that street . It is a tougher lot to build than any of the other ones either side of it or further down the street . Rick: Personally I think this would set off the house and make it much more attractive than what presently is there . But I can' t see anything I could hang my hat on and sleep tonight that says it was a practical difficulty or a hardship other than an aesthetic architectural change that will enhance the look of the house which is something that we can' t really consider. Ron: Clarification--I think you made the statement that you are talking about the deck above that was 4 feet wide and everything else and that you could actually use that . Are you removing that deck above it? Schutz : No . That deck is up on the second level . 6 BAM9 . 1 . 94 Ron: So doesn' t that provide you with 4 feet of natural overhang to the front of this? Schutz : That is interior space . Ron: So the house is set back on the second level 4 feet . So the railing and the decks are actually--they just don' t count on the floor area. Schutz : I can bring that deck forward 4 feet into the setback and cover the front porch. By code we can come out there and do that and I wouldn' t be sitting here . The reason I am sitting here is that that is not going to look right . You have got more railing and architecturally it brings the house further to the front and it is not a logical solution for a front entrance architecturally. They don' t need more deck. And we don' t need all that stuff out front . That would be a more pronounced projection into that setback than what we are trying to do. It would give us the shelter that we are asking for at the front porch. I think that this is one of those areas where the code again allows one thing and doesn' t allow another and the roof eave won' t allow us to project there where a deck would. Rick: Now you are getting us something to get our teeth into. If you can accomplish the same goal of protecting the steps from weather by a deck, why can' t we give them relief with a little roof? Remo: You could bring the deck out to where-- Drueding: The deck can go 4 feet into the setback. So from the setback line he can go 4 feet into that . He would have to put a rail around it to comply with code . Remo : It has to be enclosed with a railing to define the deck. And the railing has to be a certain height and stuff like that . So can' t he design something wonderful that would--that the fence to the deck would actually be a front part of the entrance? Howard: Well, the railing has to be 36 inches . So you would have to have something that is 36 inches higher than-- MPT Remo : If he did that he wouldn' t need a variance, right? Drueding: No . But he might not be able to get his pitch there . 7 BAM9 . 1 . 94 Remo : He could have the deck and have a facia. Jim: Can anything be underneath of that deck? Or does it have to stay clear to the ground? MPT over plans . Howard: Before we get too far along. This drawing is a little vague . Where is the front door in comparison to the stairs? What is the enclosed area? Drueding: There is nothing enclosed. Howard: There is a door there . I want to know where the door is . Schutz showed on plans . All we are trying to do is just cover that with something other than just coming across here . Howard: Bill, what I don' t understand is--you said you can' t build a roof out over the stairs but you can build a deck out over the stairs . OK. I can understand if that was enclosed space underneath there that you couldn' t build an enclosed porch coming out into the setback. But it doesn' t make sense to me that you can' t build an eyebrow out . Drueding: It differentiates between building eaves 18 inches and decks 1/3 or 4 feet--it differentiates . Ron: It is just a matter of definition. Howard: This is inside a setback so he is not getting any FAR out of it . All he is trying to do is protect those stairs from snow and ice and things like that which. is a safety thing as far as I can tell . And that is no problem. Ron: But there is a way of doing it under the code . If I am not mistaken I see the same revised plan has a garage that is within the setbacks now as in the code--one that we denied at the last meeting. Let me put it that way. So these meetings are never a waste of time . Remo : By the two definitions that are available to us if they didn' t exist then we wouldn' t have a problem here . But he has two definitions of what a deck intrusion is and what a-- Drueding: Let ' s forget the deck intrusion vs that roof overhang. The same thing is there . Ron: If he has got a deck he has got his 4 feet . He doesn' t need a variance . He can' t put a solid pitched roof . He can have an 8 BAM9 . 1 . 94 architectural facade of a pitched roof just like 2 wrought iron that gives an appearance of that type of entrance . Howard: He does have a deck that is alongside of here that has waterproofing. If you designed a 1 foot wide facade in front of that--your railing would be your big problem. Schutz : The next thing I can see happening, I come back and we have got 42 inches of railing around that because you have got the dropoff at the balcony and we try to put a facade to where we meet the safety code by putting the equivalent of a solid rail out at the front which has a pitch on it or something like that that comes up, where does a deck stop being a deck and start becoming an architectural element that you can walk out to with this thing going up in front? The point here is, yes, you can come out with a deck and can have a rail around it but it is a much more dense, intrusive architectural projection into the setback besides being not what I think is appropriate for the house to look like in front . It does what setbacks are designed to prevent . And that is the projection of more building mass closer to the street . Rick: That is a good point . Schutz : And that is what you guys are trying to protect . Ron: I think a deck over this thing does not increase bulk as much as a roof on it . The roof is solid. It is going to be so all that space under that arch is roof . And that is bulk. This thing has got railing coming up . It is basically open. If you want to put an architectural effect on top which is also open--lattice work or something like that, it is open. It is not bulk. The air gets through there . our responsibility here is to grant the minimal variance . A minimal variance is no variance because there is another way of doing it . Rick: This is a minimal variance because in effect he can do this same thing by putting a deck out there which will actually be as big if not bigger than what he is asking for. Schutz : There is one other thing though as far as railings go. They used to be transparent, more open and solid. And now we have adopted the 4 inch rule down from the 6 inch rules . And so railings are becoming much more solid masses than they are transparent masses . 9 BAM9 . 1 . 94 Ron: I don' t buy it . I just saw that redo Chateau Aspen and they put in all new railings and all of those new railings are to code and they look a lot more open than the old railings were . So I think it ' s the architectural industry' s responsibility to take care of this, not mine . Howard: If he was to extend that deck out over there would he have to--do you think the Building Dept would require them to change the railing on the entire deck that is there because he is joining on to it? Drueding: I don' t know that . Rick: They are doing that anyway. They are changing all the rails on this deck anyway. Schutz : That is a good point . We don' t have to change the rest of the rails but we are going to. We are going to do it anyway. Howard: You are going to change this anyway. And you are going to be maintaining your 4 inch wall . How many steps are we going to be looking at coming from grade up to floor elevation? Schutz : Two 6-inch rises . And the reason we are doing that they are dropping the grade now at the front drive to decrease the amount of rise coming up off the street . Howard: Which way does that door swing? Schutz : It swings in. Howard: So the first thing is you don' t need the 36 inch landing if your door swung out . So you don' t need that . It looks to me like if you put two 6-inch steps in there and you want to just cover those two steps up to the doorway--I don' t know the rules- -as far as the front door, can you have put a step right directly in front of the front door even if it opens in? So theoretically you could build this within the 1 foot 6 and you have got a nice detail of a rounded stair there that looks nice . But you are asking for an architecturally nice-looking thing where theoretically you could build this one foot from the front of the house, put 2 stairs in and get down to grade . And then your projection to cover those would only be a maximum of 1 foot 6 . It seems to me you are asking for probably more than you need. Remo : So even if he had the minimal variance would you still be granting this variance? Drueding: I don' t want that 1 . 6 eave to enter into your variance . 10 BAM9 . 1 . 94 Rick: We would have to grant the variance 2 . 6 . Howard: My point is that the porch that he is building there is 4 feet out . It is not a minimal . It could be 1 foot out . It could be 2 steps up into the entry because the door opens in, so you are not required to have a landing outside the front door. Although that is something to check on. If that is illegal then I could see where you would have to have a certain amount of distance from the door to the first step and that would have to incorporated in the variance . Remo : Considering it was all legal would you still be granting the variance on a minimal basis? Howard: I would be granting the variance if those 2 stairs went straight across like this . In that situation to keep the stairs from icing up, the small overhang to try to keep the snow off the stairs . In a safety situation I would say OK we are looking at a possibility of a problem when you walk out the door, the first thing you hit is an icy step. In most cases you have a landing area outside your front door so you walk out, you stabilize yourself . It would be a safety consideration more than anything else for me . But they would have to minimize the stairs up into the entry in order for me to do that . Remo: What I was concerned about was it looks like a concrete pad that is an entryway or door swing or what is that? We don' t have a floor plan. We don' t know what is going on here . It looks to me like an inside vestibule or some open-- Schutz : That ' s the front entrance foyer that you walk right into because those doors are out there flush with the building. Flush with the building is still 1 foot back of the setback. We have a foot outside of the front doors . Remo: And he is willing to grant you another foot and 1/2? Is that what he said he was willing to grant? MPT Howard: The 1 foot is inside the setback. It is going to give them 2 and 1/2 feet . How big is that entry? Schutz : The stairs are in the back of the house and this hallway goes through up to the--because of pushing the garage into the side of the house we have reconfigured those other bedrooms , the mud room and a corridor that hits that front hallway right up close to the front porch. So if we were to push the front entrance back into the house which is what I think you are talking about to 11 BAM9 . 1 . 94 create more of a step or landing, there is very little room to push that thing into there . Howard: Can you draw for us what this front door attaches to? Schutz gave description of area. Howard: So if you take 1 foot off of that it would not interfere with any code because you still would have 4 feet of hallway there . Move it back 1 foot . Schutz : The safety problem is keeping it covered so you don' t hit it when it is ice . And there is a certain distance where it becomes comfortable and when it is squeezed it therefore becomes precarious . And the older you get the more precarious the dimensions can be . This is a retirement house to some degree for this family. And squeezing the landing down to 2 and 1/2 feet, yes, you can get by with that but it is just like that uncomfort- able first step when you open a door and go into a garage . Howard: I don' t necessarily agree with that . If you get 2 feet out of this--2 and 1 . 2 feet the door opens in--you have got like 5 feet to stabilize yourself between here and the first step. It is not as if you are stepping off into--I would like to see 2 feet out in front of that door just to give somebody who is standing there something to stand on. But I still think that you could do that by setting that door 1 foot back in and you would be looking for a minimum of--if any variance--you squared your step so that instead of having a rounded step you would be pushing that back almost a foot . Remo : We could give them a minimal variance if you could figure out how much of that you were willing--or would satisfy that requirement that he have enough room there . Schutz : We can extend this deck thing out there . Maybe what we are up against here--Bill hit on it briefly that perhaps this is one of those places where by definition and by the written code you can' t cover every circumstance and every variable . Human interpretation in a logical direction has to come into play. And that ' s why groups like you are assembled. And, sure, we can come out and build that deck. It is railing and all that and, Ron, I appreciate your view too as far as the railings and everything else . That would cover those things without us jacking around with the inside any more and cover that porch and so on. But in all logical scrutiny, is this deck with the railings and everything else which we can build to code--is it any different in what we are asking for than just a very simple facia? That is all that is coming into that setback is a 12 foot facia line that goes in a V that sets up on a couple columns that are back within the setback 12 BAM9 . 1 . 94 instead of having the thing with a railing on it that is out of character. The logic is not there . Howard: Let ' s say this thing is just a facade out in front of the building. So from the front this looks like an eyebrow you put on the house . The railing dies into the eyebrow so when you stand up to it you have got this thing that sits like this and goes down like that and a railing coming in this side and goes out and comes back and theoretically it is feasible and you could do that . And you could get your 4 feet out of it . I don' t know whether that is going to look really peculiar from the front . From the front I don' t think you would notice it as much as from the side . But you don' t have a real side view of this house anyway. I have seen stuff like this done to where it actually is something that just sticks out there that is all by itself . It is an architectural statement by some guy. So you have got 2 choices here that are both--this is a minimal variance or this is to come out 4 feet . Ron: I think it is real simple . I think it is a way of accomplishing the problem under the code without granting a variance . If we grant a variance, that doesn' t prevent the applicant from moving that whole deck 4 feet out if he wants to. It is not an either/or situation. By granting a variance we are giving the applicant something extra beyond what the code allows . Something that only he will have . So whether it be 6 inches, a foot, 5 feet--I think our mandate is to minimize it . I still have a problem finding a hardship even granting a minimal variance . However I don' t have as much problem with that as granting the other thing. Frankly I think the applicant won' t use it because he can have 4 feet putting on a deck. But he can do that anyway. So why waste our time giving a variance when the variance we give is less than what he can get by doing something else and handle it architecturally which is all this is anyway. It is all aesthetics . It has nothing to do with anything else . Remo: Howard seems to think that icy steps has something-- Ron: Putting the deck 4 feet out solves the problem of safety. Rick: No. Not necessarily because water drips down, ice comes through. Howard: It can be a solid deck. Rick: I disagree, Ron, only with regard to the what you say is massing--you use that term bulk and massing--I think a deck would be more intrusive than this simple eave coming over. 13 BAM9 . 1 . 94 Ron: That ' s not my point . Rick: My point is he can accomplish the same thing with this simple eave . Ron: What is to prevent him from doing both? Rick: There is nothing. But why would he? Why put in this beautiful architectural statement and then put a deck around it to block it? It is obviously there for the purpose of shielding the weather and elements coming down on the steps . Remo : No, it isn' t . Because he can do that with a deck. What you are saying is that architecturally it would look better. Rick: That is true . Remo : But that is not our purview. Rick: What I am saying is if we don' t grant him the variance, the deck that he could create is more obtrusive into the setbacks than the eave would be . Ron: But he can do it anyway. Rick: With the variance we would be granting him something he would not otherwise be able to have . The deck will be larger than what we are granting him on the variance . Ron: But it is not an either/or situation. By granting the variance we don' t say to the applicant "We will grant you a 1 foot variance but you have to, for all perpetuity, refuse to build a deck" . That is not our option. He has a perfect right to do the deck. It solves the problem and we don' t have to grant him the variance . So why grant a variance if there is another way of doing it and he can do it legally? I don' t understand why. Rick: I think the net to the community is something that is less obtrusive than what he is asking for. Ron: You are assuming that by granting the variance he is not going to do this other thing. Rick: The roofline will come into half of the deck if he tried to build a deck there . Howard: The point is if he builds something that looks like this, the difference between this and what he is going to build is a matter of that railing being back here instead of up here . That 14 BAM9 . 1 . 94 is the only real visual from the front . Schutz : That can' t be done . Bill says that the railing has to be out to the extent of the deck. Remo: That defines the deck, that railing. Howard: This is what you would have from the side . You would have your facade roof kind of thing. You would have your railing running this way and then coming back this way off of it and you would be able to walk right up to this right here . That railing would be right there . You would have your railing built whatever way and it would die into that . You have a flat roof here . You have a facade here that when you looked at it it would look basically the same . The pitch would be a little different maybe but the other way your railing is back here and your roofline runs back in like that . Ron: Actually I see more bulk here than with a deck with a railing. Howard: You have got a couple of options here that you can work with. I am still willing to grant a minimal variance for this setup if you want to put that door back into the front . MPT over plans . Remo asked for public comment . Josephine Mann: I wanted to see how you were doing these days . Specifically. Because our neighborhood is getting so many of these redesigns--these rebuildings . Every time a house gets sold it gets redone . And so I wanted to be sure you were doing your duty carefully--minutely. And you are . That house has always given me the impression of being closer to the road than 25 feet . I was surprised to find that it was 26 feet from the road. I believe it is the closest one on that loop to the road. So you don' t have much space to work with. Remo: Do you have any objections? Josephine : No. I think you have discussed it carefully and that you will go with the code, minimal variance and all of that sort of good stuff . Everyone thanked Josephine for coming. There being no further public comment Remo closed the public portion of the hearing. 15 BAM9 . 1 . 94 MOTION Rick: I want to make a motion to approve this variance . Charlie seconded the motion. David: My gut says that it should get done . But we are here to protect the code . It should be able to get done without granting a variance . But if it is going to look ugly or not be practical to do it, I would be leaning towards it . Remo : We can' t base anything on aesthetics . Charlie : But if it is a disservice to the neighborhood and the community then it is a disservice to the neighborhood and the community if we let it be ugly because we can' t make our mind up to take the bull by the horns . Ron: My comments are pretty clear. Howard: I see 2 different ways to approach this and neither one of them is what is on that blueprint so I would not grant a variance . Remo: We can modify the variance . And I would hope that in the motion we would state what we are granting specifically as a minimal variance and what specifically it is . Rick: I am in favor of granting the variance . I feel the hardship in this request is safety coming out onto those steps . I am in favor of granting this variance because there is another way of accomplishing the same thing which I don' t think we, the community or the Overall Comprehensive Plan would agree with. Remo : I will state for the record that although we are not here to redesign somebody' s project we are here to try to , find out if there is a way of doing it at a minimal . So in that respect we have to look to see if it could be done . Jim: Architecturally I like it . I think he has done a good job at trying to get to that point . Hardship-wise, practical difficulty I am not able to get anything going in that direction. It can be done through the present day code a different way. Maybe I don' t like it architecturally but I am not here to review architectural design right now. So I am not able to grant a variance for this . Charlie : I take Rick' s position that I feel that we don' t accomplish anything by saying you can' t have this variance . It is 16 BAM9 . 1 . 94 a minimal variance to begin with. And we are supposed to grant a minimal variance . I consider this absolutely a minimal variance . And I think that safety is a very strong consideration in this case . I know we can' t say it looks good. But we have to consider the neighborhood and what they consider might be something in keeping with what is going on over there . I feel that we should grant this variance for very simple reasons--safety and practical difficulty. I don' t think you can show a hardship particularly. But on that basis I think we can. Remo : The applicant brings up a good point . It is unique in that here is two code requirements that seem to be in contradiction. One is saying he can come out 4 feet to almost do the same thing that an overhang he wouldn' t be allowed to do. But in my view I think he has the best of 2 alternatives . One is to use the deck and build it to code out to do the same thing that he wants to achieve which is protection for the steps . Or he can accept the minimal variance that would take care of the safety factor. I would be in favor of granting him the variance--the minimal variance if proposed in such a way that it is a minimal variance . Rick: But you are not in favor of the motion that is on the table right now? Remo: There is no motion. (Remo was corrected on this) ROLL CALL VOTE Howard, no, Ron, no, Rick, yes, Charlie, yes, Remo, no . Motion fails . MOTION Howard: I make a motion that we grant the applicant a 1 foot front yard setback variance to incorporate whatever he wants into that 1 foot . He can do it any way he wants . Rick seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE : Howard, yes, Rick, yes, Charlie, yes, Remo, yes, Ron, yes . Motion carried. 17 BAM9 . 1 . 94 Remo : You have the variance for whatever use you want to put it to. MINUTES MOTION Rick: I move to approve minutes of September 9, 1993 Case #93-12 . Charlie seconded the motion with all in favor. MOTION Rick: I move to approve minutes of August 4 , 1994 , Case #94-9 . Ron seconded the motion with all in favor. Rick: I move to adjourn. Charlie seconded the motion with all in favor. Time was 5 : 55 P.M. Janice Carney, City puty Clerk 18