Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19950807RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 7, 1995 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 2:30 p.m. Present at the meeting were: Remo Lavagnino, Rick Head, Charlie Paterson, Ron Erickson, Jim Iglehart, and Howard DeLuca. Excused was David Schott. CASE #95-8 STAPE LIMITED LIABILITY CO. (TABLED FROM AUGUST 3, 1995) Lavagnino stated, this is a tabled case, #95-8, Stape Limited Liability Company, David Stapleton. We reviewed this on Thursday (August 3, 1995) and we had some questions as to the meaning for granting you the variance based on something that HPC said they wanted you to do, but we were unaware of the specifics of the nature of that request. So, we have got Amy (Amidon) here now, and I think the Board would like to ask her some questions. Lavagnino continued stating, right off the bat, as I looked at the plans last Thursday, in the existing house itself, on the Krabacher property, they were 10 ft. away from their side yard setback. Since we are moving the Stapleton house into the setbacks on the corner street 1 ft. 4 in., and the need for that that was discussed, was to open up the area between the two parcels so that people coming down Main Street might have a better view of the historical house. Our concern was, since we are not dealing with the Krabacher house, can we be assured that at some time that that house isn't going to move over to their setbacks, their legal setbacks. Why should we give 1 ft. 4 in. if they are going to move a house closer than what it is now, or what exists now, which is 10 ft. and they can go another 5 ft? Amy Amidon, representing staff stated, well, I don't know if this was discussed at your last meeting, but this project came to HPC in 1993, I guess, and they reviewed it, and this building next door, the Krabacher house, is an historic landmark. The Preservation Commission, as one of their conditions of approval, asked the applicants to come to the Board of Adjustment and be able to move this house a little bit further, feeling that this area can handle it; it is a corner, and there's a larger right-of-way (showing on drawings). The reasoning was because this is a much smaller structure and this one is going to block most of the light and visual access to this. So, that was their condition of approval BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 7, 1995 and that is why they are here. Subsequent to this approval, Joe Krabacher decided to redevelop his property because he felt this had negatively impacted the use of his site. So, they do have approval to move the historic structure, which is only this portion (showing on the drawing), forward to this corner, and a new building will be built here. I believe it is near the 5 ft. setback. When the Stapleton's got their final review, the Preservation Commission still wanted them to try to win this variance to make this portion of the historic landmark as visible as possible. So, this is going to be redeveloped and the plans are already in, and it's within its setbacks, it's up here. Lavagnino asked, so, at what point, where is the old structure, is that that little jog that's shown there? Amidon replied, I think the only part of the Krabacher house that we are keeping an historic part, is pretty much straight across. Lavagnino stated, where that jog is. So, anything that is south below that would go to the 5 ft. setback. DeLuca stated, if they move that cabin out, that means that they are going to be able to build to the 5 ft. setback and all away around to the front of that house. Amidon stated, well, but they are not doing it. They are moving the cabin forward to the front corners here. They are moving this building to the setback (showing on drawing), with a big open space here, before you get to the new building, which probably starts about here. DeLuca asked, are they going to be required to maintain that open space, because if they come around later and decide to build all the way to the setback? Amidon stated, I will be going on the assumption that they won't have any FAR left, they really won't have the ability to expand, and it would sort of defeat the idea of their design, right now. Lavagnino stated, and do they have to come to HPC again for approval if they do something like that? Amidon stated, yes. Lavagnino asked, and do they have to abide by HPC rules? Amidon answered, yes. One of the things that continues to be important, even though this is being redeveloped, is having as much space as possible between there. They thought maybe this could be a benefit to the two buildings. 2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 7, 1995 Lavagnino stated, well, the applicant has felt that, you know, if he had done a little bit more side yard variance, not that much. Dick Fallin, representing the applicant, stated, well, it is a safety factor in between. Lavagnino stated, well, the safety factor has always been taken into account because of the setbacks; there should always be a minimum of 10 ft. The other safety factor is making sure that when people drive their cars up to Main Street that they can look around the corner. Now, you are moving a little closer to their view, and the only "saving grace" was your design of an open collage, as I remember, there, being a porch so that people can sort of look that way, and also, it is a right hand turn, so the traffic would actually be coming from the other way. If they cross the street they would be so far up ahead to the stop point. Stapleton stated, the visual affect would be more through the building, in between the two buildings, probably not any more than there is right now, but if he brings his thing right over to this, I would clearly like to be over a little bit further, and he would have the right to do that. I would just like to be a little bit further away from him from a construction standpoint, as well. He is in excess of egress, because we have all kinds of people living in the basement in employee housing. Head asked, Amy, are we to assume that you are officially giving a recommendation from HPC to us that this what your pleasure would be? Amidon answered, yes, that was their condition of approval. Head stated, well, that's pretty much what we wanted to hear. Erickson asked, what happens if we turn down the variance, what happens, do they still get approval? Amidon answered, yes. Lavagnino asked, what is the basis that you can apply to us according to our guidelines, and it is really hard to talk about practical difficulties and hardships, when we are really talking about some historic benefit to the City, and showcasing a piece of their historic property that might benefit us all. But, we have such limited guidelines in this affect, it is going to be tough to grant the variance on the basis that it is going to increase somebody else's viewplane. Can you give us an excuse? 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 7, 1995 Amidon stated, well, let me think about it. I mean, the crux of the issue really is that we are trying to allow one story, a very small, historic structure to be as visible as possible. That's really the reason. Lavagnino stated, we understand, but if someone outside the City came to us and said that, we wouldn't have any problem not granting that variance, because it would be to their own benefit. The only thing I can think of is then, this is for the benefit of the citizenry, rather than individual, and somehow the public is served. That's the closest thing I can think of. DeLuca asked, what about the fact that there is employee housing in the basement and there's egress type of situation, etc., etc. Lavagnino stated, it sounds good to me. Is there egress from that side yard? Stapleton stated, yes. Lavagnino asked, on that side? Stapleton replied, there is. Erickson stated, he built window wells in the setback? Bill Drueding of staff stated, you can put window wells in setbacks greater than 30 inches in depth if they are required by the chief building official for window egress, yes. Can't put stairs in. There was discussion at random between Drueding and Erickson regarding egress, safety factors, and setback measurement. Lavagnino stated, part of the setbacks is not only light in there, but for trucks to also get through there, originally it was meant for firetrucks to get through there. MOTION Head stated, I move that we approve Case 95-8, based not only on the arguments that have been herefore described in our last meeting, but with strong recommendation from HPC to grant approval. Paterson seconded. Roll call vote was requested; vote commenced, Remo, yes; Head, yes; Paterson, yes; Erickson, no, DeLuca, yes. Vote was four in favor, one opposed, motion carried. Discussion of Motion 4 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 7, 1995 Erickson stated, I would just like to go on record as dissenting because I think the purpose of HPC's original request has been pretty well fabricated by the new plans for an historic structure. By moving that structure up there, improving the visibility of that structure from Main Street, what we are giving up is a possible safety aspect on North 6th Street. So, when I think HPC originally requested this and made it a condition, it was an existing structure that they didn't have any idea it was going to be moved. Now, in their plans, they are going to move it about 10 ft. further, closer to Main Street, thereby, making it much more visible, which is what the purpose of the request was in the first place. Second of all, we don't know exactly how that is going to impact the side yard setback, and I don't want to grant a variance based on supposition. Lavagnino stated, the only other thing I would question is, I think we are mitigating any safety factor on the street side because of the porch in front. Have you taken that into consideration? Erickson stated, however, it is like people who can only build 6 ft. fences can have 12 ft. hedges. I don't know in the future, we don't have any condition on that, to prevent the closing off of that porch in the future. Lavagnino stated, Bill, what if they put a big Blue Spruce in front? Drueding stated, the code was re-written a few months ago that says, 42 inches on the corner, that includes foliage. DeLuca stated, plus the fact, the deck of the porch is undoubtedly less than 42 inches. So, the theory is that you put a fence there, 42 inches around this corner, and it really wouldn't matter how high that was, as long as it wasn't above it. Fallin stated, it would be against the reason we built that deck on there in the first place, for a visual thing, I mean, it would be ridiculous to plant 6 ft. trees around there and block the whole building off. Lavagnino stated, we will dispense with the minutes until the next meeting. Meeting was adjourned at 2:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 5 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 7, 1995 Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk 6