The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.boa.19930805Y CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 5, 1993 4:00 P.M. SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM CITY HALL A G E N D A I. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL 11. CASE #93-7 WAYNE STRYKER (CONTINUED FROM JULY 15, 1993 III. ADJOURN MEMORANDUM To: Board of Adjustments From: Any Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 232 E. Hallam Street Date: August 4, 1993 Regarding the application before you for a site coverage variance at 232 E. Hallam Street, the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee passed a motion at their meeting of July 28, stating: HPC requests that the Board of Adjustments grant the variance of 189 sq. ft. The Committee would not approve a second story on the proposed addition as it would be incompatible with the existing historic structure. By not allowing the owner to build a second floor, and therefore not allowing him to reach his FAR limit, there is essentially a hardship for the property owner. ASPEN OFFICE: i HE SMITH-ELISHA HOUSE 320 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 61611 TELEPHONE (303) 925-2211 TELECOPIER (303) 925-2442 McFLYNN & PICKETT LAWYERS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION MARTHA C. PICKETT TIMOTHY MCFLYNN' ALSO ADMITTED IN CAUFORNIA August 5, 1993 SNOWMASS VILLAOE OFFICE: ANDERSON RANCH 5131 OWL CREEK ROAD SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO (Please Use Aspen Mailing Address) TELEPHONE (303) 923-2211 TELECOPIER (303) 923-3129 TO: Aspen Board of Adjustment FROM: Marty Pickett RE: Roberts Property 230 East Hallam, Aspen, CO Subsequent to the July 15 hearing there has been additional information which will be helpful in clarifying this application for a variance to increase the site coverage on this property by 1.48 0. 1. HPC Recommendation for Approval of Grant of Variance. Wayne Stryker represented the owners before the HPC Board on July 28, 1993. The HPC had provided a written recommendation, a copy of which is attached, to approve the variance. The Board voted unanimously that in the event the Applicant sought a two-story addition in lieu of the increased site coverage in order to allow construction of the permitted FAR for this lot, the application would be denied. Therefore, it is our position that the Applicant clearly has a hardship because their residence is designated as the highest classification for protection on the HPC's inventory list of historic sites. This is a special condition and circumstance which is unique to the Roberts' building, which did not result from the action of the Applicant. It is because of this historic designation on the City's inventory that the proposed addition would not be allowed as a second story, in an effort by the City to preserve the historic character of the designated structure. 2. Neighborhood Compatibility Compliance with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. The next door neighbor, Joseph Amato, has provided a letter requesting granting of the variance, a copy of which is attached. Mr. Amato has reviewed the request for a variance and concurs with the Applicant's position that not only is there a hardship due to the fact that a second story would not be permitted by HPC, but that the historic character of the building and the compatibility of the building with the neighborhood is best preserved by a grant of this variance. We believe that these circumstances comply with the Aspen Municipal Code, § 10-104 (1) (a) , Memo to Board of Adjustment August 5, 1993 Page 2 which states that a grant of variance must be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Certainly, maintaining the character, ambiance and low profile nature of the neighborhood is consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan not only for the adjacent owners but the viewplane for the public from the Post office complex below. 3. Deed -Restriction of unit. The representatives of the Applicants acknowledge that a condition of the grant of variance may be a requirement that the addition allowed by the variance, an addition to a small duplex unit, be deed restricted as a resident occupied unit pursuant to the City of Aspen Ordinance No. 60-90, and a waiver of any potential bonus for FAR or from HPC. Although we have been unable to clarify with the owners directly, we understand that any variance grant would be subject to these conditions and we anticipate that such conditions will be acceptable. 4. Literal enforcement of the sliding scale for the R-6 site coverage. Jed Caswall, City Attorney, has indicated that the Planning Staff is reviewing the validity of the existing code section which placesa sliding scale on site coverage for lots in this R-6 zone.. This sliding scale has appeared to be somewhat unfair and created ironic results in other parts of the City, most recently at Pioneer Park, which was determined by the City to actually be a nonconforming structure for the neighborhood although it sits on an extremely large lot and the surrounding houses are very close together covering a greater percentage of the lot than the Pioneer Park Building. For that reason, the staff is apparently reviewing this sliding scale provision to allow larger lots to have a greater site coverage. In this case, the literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of the Code with regard to this sliding scale would deprive the Applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, i.e., other smaller lots would be able to cover a greater percentage of the site than the subject property and actually be allowed a larger structure than on this lot. In summary, we respectfully request approval of the grant of variance requested for the additional 420 sq. ft. site coverage, which increases the site coverage on this property by 1.48%. o The size of the property and the fact that the residence has been designated on the historic inventory by the City, which will prohibit a second story addition, creates a hardship and/or practical difficulty for the appli- cants' reasonable use of their property to construct the available FAR in the amount of 420 sq. ft. Memo to Board of Adjustment August 5, 1993 Page 3 o This variance is consistent with the Aspen Area comprehensive Plan and will definitely not be contrary to the public interest as required under § 10-103. In fact, this variance will promote the public interest by preserving the historical character of the building and its low profile, decreasing bulk and mass in a location very visible to the community. Stryker\adjustment.mem board of Adjustment City of Aspen 130 South. Galena Aspen, CI, 81611 2 22 9. i'XA.I`jI+M STREET ASPEN, CO 81.611 Au<Ncc t 41 1993 RE: Roberts' property Variance Request Dear Gentlemen: am the owner of the pirope r ty known as 222 E. Hallam Street, the next dzpor nE.ighbor to the Robert's home in Aspen and the only property directly Impacted by this request. . X received the schematic- designs prepared by 'Stryker - nrown. I am aware of the hardship affecting their plans for an addition to the hoase. Please be advise! that I an, svtpportive of their request for a site coverage variance that permits a single -story alternative. (see attached srhematic) 1 a hopeful that you wi1.1 grant this variance in, exchange for thei..r agreement not to build the two-story addition in the futAax�. The single -story add:i.t:Lon has a minimal impact for light., air, view and ;Hass ver!�us the two-story addi.ticn, Thank you for ,your consideration, Vo truly yoars' Jo eph A. - Amato JAA!m1