Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.boa.19961107AGENDA ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT COMMISSION Special Meeting Thursday November 7, 1996 4:OOpm Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall I. ROLL CALL II. MINUTES III. COMMENTS A. Commissioners Comments B. Staff Comments C. Public Comments (not concerning items on the Agenda) IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case #96-11 (continued from October 24, 1996PA�65Ev 1001 East Hyman, Aspen, CO 81611 W2 P4-.SsED Mark & Christin Tache At-13 pl-5s e-b (Al Beyer - Architect) -�J'4 Dom! IF:--7b Al Beyer Design Inc November 5th,1996 Sara Thomas - Zoning Officer Members of the Board of Adjustment City of Aspen 130 S. Mill St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 i RE; Tache Variance hearing November 7th, 1996 Dear Sara,and Board members, I am writing this letter on behalf of Mark and Christin Tache. I represented them at the first meeting and will be there this Thursday as well. The first meeting was both productive and educational. Having received the 2.2 ft. set back variance ("a") has allowed me to move ahead with the design work without going out on such a big limb. In addition, feedback from the Board.has helped shape the design and given me insights to better approach the remaining variance requests "b", "c" and "d". I plan to bring more detailed schematic drawings and a scale model to Thursday's meeting. These should help the Board understand our intentions and the constraints of the project. I also hope that each of the board members will have looked at the actual site in the context of the variance requests prior to the meeting. The following reactions/comments/revisions to requests b,c and d as discussed October 24th are also included for your consideration: b) 6.7 ft. side yard setback for a porch. The Board objected to the high stone wall on Cleveland St. , wanted to define the porch more clearly and wondered if the variance was the minimum necessary to relieve hardship. Although I believe that any concerns about the aesthetics of the stone wall are beyond the Board's domain, I did revise the design to have a lower wall and lighter feeling porch which I think could work well. I could not find any practical way to make the porch footprint appreciably smaller because the porch provides a covered path along the house from the front steps and from the garage. Removing the covering would create an icy and dangerous pathway which would be an unnecessary hardship and impractical. I feel that the size could be limited to 150 sq. ft. within the remaining setback. I reduced the bulk of the original porch scheme by leaving as much of the floor level at 30 in. or less above grade as practicable and by lowering the porch eave height. The variance request for the porch could read: A 4.5 ft. side yard setback variance to allow a one storey covered porch between the house and the property line along Cleveland St.. The covered porch area within the setback shall not exceed 150 sq. ft. . .� Aspen, Colorado 8161 1 303 9,25-8339 'Al, Beyer Design Inc. i c) A 10 ft. front yard setback variance to allow excavation for the entrance to a proposed ADU. The only objection to this request came on the basis that an entrance could be made on the south side of the house between the garage and house. I believe that a site visit and the model will show how constraining the lot is. Hopefully, it can be seen that the scheme we propose very successfully provides two separate entrances in a manner that each residence enjoys a reasonable amount of privacy. Having an entrance facing Hyman Avenue is also more consistent with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan and the intent of Ordinance 30. Although I still believe that the entrance off Hyman is appropriate, I did redesign the earlier scheme to reduce the amount of excavation required from 5 ft. deep to 3 ft.. deep. This will make for a more inviting and street friendly entrance. Please note that this is asking for a variance to dig just 6 in. lower than the currently allowed 30 inches. To reflect this reduction the variance could read: A 6 inch depth variance for excavation within the 10 ft. front yard set back on Hyman Avenue. d) A variance from the parking requirements This variance is the most difficult to get approval for because we are part of a very intense road culture and the space allocated to the automobile too often takes precedent over other uses or alternatives. The request for a building permit is the triggering mechanism for the parking "problem" for this property. If no permit was needed there would be no parking "problem". The parking would remain as it has for the past forty -odd years, no problem. Mark and Christin are not proposing any changes to the existing garage or parking and as such are asking for the existing nonconforming parking situation to remain. If they were requesting a permit for a new garage it would make sense that the garage/parking situation be brought up to current code requirements. Since they are not changing that portion of the existing conditions nor are they changing the use of the property it is an added hardship to require them to provide more parking than currently exists on site. It has been suggested that the existing garage be demolished and a new garage be built with access from the alley. While this may appear to be a good idea, the reality of this solution is that it would displace even more garden space and would not be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. The AACP encourages sustainable design and sustainable lifestyles. Building a new building in place of an existing one that works fine is not a sustainable strategy and should not be promoted by the Board. The AACP also seeks to maintain the existing character and small scale of Aspen neighborhoods. The garage is not a historic structure but it does represent a scale and character which is all too often eliminated from our community. I believe this is part of what the AACP was seeking to address and preserve. The Board should reflect this intent in its decision making process and can not promote the removal of the existing garage. Aspen, Colorado 8.1611 303 925-8339 C Al Beyer Design Inc. Given that the garage is going to remain, the only place to add more parking is in the small garden remaining between the house and garage. This would add more parking than the place has needed for the past forty years but would make the project fit the latest code. It won't really change how the parking looks from the street nor will it remove any cars currently parked curbside. It will just mean paving more of paradise for parking. The hardship of dealing with such a small lot is obvious. Allowing the existing parking of one and one third spaces to serve as adequate for this project is a minimal relief which can be adjusted whenever the existing garage is removed. Please consider the following variance J gg g g request: A parking variance to maintain the current non conformity of the existing parking conditions on site until such time that the existing garage is replaced. If the garage is replaced then the parking shall be brought up to the current code requirements. On behalf of Mark and Christin Tache and myself, thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. I am optimistic that with the full Board present the remaining three variance requests can be approved. Sincerely, Al Beyer A.I. Nov. 7, 1996 Board of Adjustment Dear Sirs: I am very appreciative of the efforts put forth by the Tache family and Al Beyer in trying to maintain a viable new structure on a non -conforming lot. Yet, In response to Al Beyer's letter to the Board of 11/5%96, I honestly just wish that he could be clearer in stating the requests for variances so that all of us could understand exactly what he is asking for. I am confused on several issues. Confusion #I. -- on Page 1 (b) he states "I re- duced bulk of the original porch scheme by leaving the floor level at 30" or less above grade (what is grade?) ---- and 1-1 by lowering the porch eave height." Then on Page 2 (c) Proposed AUD "I did redesign the earlier scheme to reduce the amount of excavation required from 5 foot to 3 foot deep." This is 6"lower than the currently allowed 30". Confusion #2 --how can the porch (pathway) level be reduced, lowered and the ADU level be raised? Maybe we all should know what the grade will be for the new structure and the ADU from the required two sidewalks and curbs. What are the elevations? Confusion #3 --Parking problem. He statesthe park- ing would remain as,it has for -the past 40 odd years. 40 years ago Grandma didn't have three to,four dars, iny�ater years when she was housebound, except for a few visitor6, there were few if any cars. Only since Michael Tache moved in (3- 4 years a.go) have, there been many cars. I never heard a request to'tear down the garage, only to turn it, add on and enter from the alley. The garage should meet the requirements of the new home. Page 2 (d) Al states "they are not changing the use of the property. Confusion #4 Does.n't tearing down an existing house, rebuilding a new larger house and adding an ADU change the property? ? I am anxious to see the model which has of been avail- able,because since some members of the Board objected to the mass on Cleveland - maybe it's because the covered porch extends to cover the summer entrance to the South. 2 Ice and snow in our town is expected as in all snow country towns, but that does not make for a hardship. Perhaps the covered porch is too long. I reserve further comments until I see the model. I wish us all happy compromises, Respectfully, P i Geraldine (GG) Heyman 970-925-1249