Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19951012RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 12, 1995 Chairman Charles Paterson called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. Present were: Charles Paterson, Rick Head, Ron Erickson, Jim Iglehart, Howard DeLuca, and David Schott. Paterson requested the Board Election be put at the end of the agenda. The Board agreed. CASE #95-11 WINFIELD ARMS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION Paterson opened the public hearing and requested Proof of Posting affidavit. Attached in record. Doug Allen represented the applicant. Head read the variance requesting an FAR variance of 102 square feet to build a bikeshed. Erickson excused himself from the case as he is property manager for the Winfield Arms. Allen stated the proposal was for a small bicycle shed to house 25 bicycles that are now on site. Allen showed on the plot plan of the building the location of where the bicycles are now stored. Allen said the bicycles will be in the same place as proposed, but would be secure. Tenants of the apartment building desire to have their bicycles secure as some have been stolen and bicycle theft is epidemic. The applicant wants to have a place where tenants can put their bicycles, locked in a secure place and out of the weather elements. Allen stated it would remove an "eye sore" as far as the neighbors are concerned because the siding and the finish on the bikeshed would be the same as the building, and would not be as long as the stairwell is now. The proposed bikeshed is tall enough to put bicycles on the floor and hang bicycles from hooks. Paterson asked if there were any letters from the public to be read. There were none. Head asked if only bicycles were to be stored in the shed. Allen replied only bicycles would be stored in the shed, anything else is prohibited. Head asked if there was a full basement in the building, and if so, why couldn't the bicycles be stored in the basement. Allen replied there was a basement but was allocated for a boiler, laundry room, small storage units not big enough for bicycles, and parking of residents' cars. Head asked if the spaces were condominiumized. Allen responded they were condominiumized. Head said it would require a change of condominiumization or change in the plat, if it was desired to provide storage space for the bicycles in the basement. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 12, 1995 Iglehart stated the applicant was requesting variances for FAR, with no setbacks. Allen concurred and said because the building as constructed, exceeds present FAR. Majorie Babcock, member of the public, asked clarification of the location of the proposal. Allen replied the location of the proposed bikeshed is on the south side. Babcock said she did not object to that location. Head said he had no problem with the proposal and was in favor of granting the variance. Iglehart stated he was in favor of granting the variance. DeLuca said he was in favor of granting the variance. Schott was in favor of granting the variance. Bill Drueding, Community Development, stated the Planning Department was not in favor of granting an FAR variance because they did not find any hardships, and the building is oversized. Drueding said condominiumization was something the applicant chose to do and bicycle storage could be in the basement. Head said the bikeshed was not habitable space. Drueding replied the FAR did not deal with habitable space, but dealt with FAR and mass. Paterson stated the Board sometimes grants relief from harsh zoning laws, and it was up to the Board to decide but would take Drueding's comments into consideration. DeLuca added the building exceeds its FAR now, but when it was built it did not. If the proposal was being used for anything other than bicycle storage, DeLuca said he might be opposed to it and felt the language "it will only be used for bicycle storage" should be included in the variance. Allen stated the language was not a problem for the applicant. Head said another argument was the strict underlying zonings in the zone did not require off street parking. They have 20 to 25 parking spaces to keep parking off the street. Drueding requested to see the site drawings and Allen provided the drawings for Drueding to view. Drueding asked if the parking spaces were leased only to tenants. Allen answered the parking spaces were only for tenants. Head stated visually the bikeshed would not impact the off street massing or the density. I do not see this as a problem. 2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 12, 1995 MOTION Head moved to approve Case #95-11 for the reasons stated in the minutes with the condition that only bicycles be stored in the variance granted. DeLuca seconded. Vote was Paterson, aye; Head, aye; Iglehart, aye; DeLuca, aye; Schott, aye. Motion carried. Paterson requested the clerk ask City Attorney Worcester to draft resolutions for the Board. Drueding stated the minutes were sometimes confusing. CASE #95-12 WARNER BROS. RECORDS, INC. Paterson opened the public hearing and read the variance requested. Paterson requested from the applicant's representatives, Herbert Klein and Steve Whipple, the Affidavit of Posting. Klein said he had the affidavit but it was not notarized and asked the Board if he could submit the document to the City Clerk the following day. Paterson stated that was satifactory. The Affidavit of Posting is attached in record. Klein thanked the Board for coming to the site visit prior to the meeting and stated the property was owned by two related corporative entities within the Warner Bros. family. Lot 5 is owned by Warner Bros. Records. When these properties were acquired both houses were already built and the applicant wanted to build a swimming pool. Because of site constraints, the only place to put a swimming pool was at the rear yard of Lot 5. Both entities agreed they would jointly build and pay for a swimming pool in the rear yard of Lot 5 and share its use. Due to corporative restructuring, it is now necessary to vest title in the area within which the pool is located with the owner of Lot 6. A lot line adjustment application must be processed. Klein said the applicant had met with Drueding to determine how best to draw the lot line given the fact of the site constraints, and the pool could not be relocated any other place. It appeared under any configurations the applicant would need a variance and concluded with a lot line in the shape the Planning Office prefers and which is presented. Klein stated the basic problem is because the swimming pool is interpreted to be a structure, the applicant will need 10 feet clearance between the swimming pool and the boundary line. The rear wall on the house on Lot 5 would also need a 10 foot setback 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 12, 1995 to comply with zoning, a total of 20 feet. The physical conditions on the property only have a distance of 16-1/2 feet. The question becomes, does the applicant get a variance on Lot 6 and move the line closer to the pool or Lot 5 and move the line closer to the house that is on Lot 5? Klein said Drueding expressed a concern that the applicant shares that the lot line should be moved closer to the house on Lot 5 because of the potential safety issues that would arise if the lot line were inside the 10 feet to the end of the swimming pool. Once the line is moved closer to the house the retaining wall that is there becomes an obvious location for the new lot line. The applicant has asked in the application under the minimum variance concept, a 3 foot setback which would put the line a little off the wall. The applicant would like the Board to consider a 5 foot setback variance so the line could be on the wall and it does not alter the variance criteria. Klein noted that length of the boundary line that would be affected by the variance is 8 feet long. Klein pointed out the setback does not involve any new construction, there are no physical changes on the site, and it is not creating any non-conformities. He added both lots are conforming and under the existing permitted FAR by a couple of hundred feet. Klein said the applicant has the approval from the Callahan Subdivision Homeowners' Association. He received some calls from neighbors in response to the mailings and the callers expressed satisfaction when informed there were no physical changes in construction. Klein concluded the applicant had a practical difficulty as there is nowhere else to put the pool and he felt the solution as proposed, satisfies the criteria for granting a variance. Drueding asked clarification of the footage requested for the variance. Klein responded the applicant asked for a 6-1/2 foot variance in the application but amended the request to 5 feet, to put the property line on the wall, during presentation. Paterson asked if the location was the outside of the wall. Klein answered the location was the outside of the wall. Erickson asked what will happen to the utility building structure for the pool. Whipple answered the structure would disappear and the utilities would be moved. Whipple said in terms of no construction, there is the construction of those utility lines; there would not be any structure, it would just be restructuring and the applicant would agree to add such as a condition. 4 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 12, 1995 DeLuca stated the utility easement went all the way through between the house and the pool and could cause a problem as shown on the mapping. Drueding stated the Planning Department has been working with the applicant to facilitate the lot line adjustment and one cannot do a lot line adjustment that creates a non-conformity; that is the reason the applicant has come before the Board. Drueding stated the Planning Department was in favor of granting this variance. Paterson closed the public portion of the meeting. Erickson said he would grant a minimal 6-1/2 foot variance. Head stated he was in favor of granting a variance as amended, a 5 foot setback, to coincide with the existing wall in the lot line. Iglehart favored granting an amended 5 foot setback. DeLuca said he favored granting a 5 foot setback. Schott stated he favored granting a 5 foot setback. Paterson stated because of the change in level and the massive stone wall, he was in favor of the amended 5 foot proposal. MOTION Head moved to approve the variance for Case #95-12, amended to reflect a 5 foot rear yard setback for reasons expressed in the minutes. Erickson seconded. Vote was: Paterson, aye; Head, aye; Erickson, no; Iglehart, yes; DeLuca, yes. Motion carried. Paterson requested a resolution on this granted variance be drafted. CASE #95-13 LAR RY LEDINGHAM/NORMA DOLLE SNOW QUEEN LODGE Paterson opened the public hearing. Erickson read the variance requested from the application stating applicant is requesting a 3 foot, 6 inch side yard variance for a distance of 7 feet, 10-1/2 inches, to expand a second story 5 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 12, 1995 addition. Erickson asked if the variance was located on the west side. Jeff Feen, representing the applicants, stated the requested variance was located on the west side. Feen, a builder, presented stating the Board had granted a variance to the applicants on a similar lot line setback previously. Feen noted the applicants had come before the Board with tentative verbal plans previously, and he was the second builder of the project. Feen said he was straightening out problems and one problem was the previous builder had a second floor deck, off the back alley. The applicants are now enclosing that deck area and it does not effect the roofline, but does effect the exterior wall. Feen stated Ledingham originally requested a variance of 36 feet on the sideline between the Snow Queen Lodge and the Little Red Ski House. The Board previously granted the applicant 33 feet of the 36, and 14 feet of the granted 33 feet was already in existence since 1917. Feen said the applicants are putting a two bedroom apartment on the back of their lodge. Feen said Ledingham is building the apartment, deed restricted, for himself, and wants to build out 25 feet beyond what has been there since 1917, so of the original 33 feet, 14 feet, 2 inches was already there, and the Board approved 17 feet, 2 inches. Feen stated there was a "jog" shown on the application drawings, above the basement egress well, on both first and second floors. By enclosing the second floor deck to increase the living space in the apartment, the applicant would like to have that "jog", 7 feet, 10-1/2 inches long by 3 feet, 7 inches approved for a variance. Feen related there was no hardship in the corner but granting a variance would make it easier. Feen stated 28 square feet relating to FAR had been approved by Planning and Zoning. Drueding stated it had been approved as far as exemption from Growth Management but it has not been approved by Planning & Zoning. Feen stated the applicants desired to enclose the deck to enable them to have a more reasonable use of the kitchen/living area. The applicants now have the kitchen squeezed in between the stairwell and the corner they are asking the Board to increase the square footage on. DeLuca asked for a floor plan to clarify what the applicants were requesting. Paterson stated it would be helpful to view the squeezing of the kitchen area. Feen stated he had a floor plan from the original approved prints and passed to the Board for viewing. Feen stated the interior 90 degree corner that is caused by the jog becomes a practical difficulty for the applicants in terms of reasonable layout for a kitchen and a living area. 6 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 12, 1995 Feen showed a photograph of the alley behind the Snow Queen Lodge and enclosing the rear deck, the exterior wall would be within the setback limits and would not affect the parking. Feen stated there was considerable clutter in the alley and the applicants in terms of matching and coordinating were doing a much better job in cleaning up the area than some of the neighbors. Feen stated the applicants are asking the Board to extend the variance that was partially granted previously. Feen showed the basement level egress window on the drawings and stated from a safety angle he was proposing a roof over the egress by enclosing the second floor and running the roof line. Feen stated in enclosing the corner he would like to match the side wall and exterior rear wall of the enclosed deck making it more architecturally correct and a better product. Feen concluded stating the applicants were trying to make a reasonable place to live. The applicants feel that granting the variance will have little impact above and beyond what is constructed there now, it is approvable by Planning & Zoning as discussed with Drueding and the Planning Department, and granting the variance would make it much easier in terms of floor layout for the applicants. Head asked if this proposal fell under the purview of HPC. Feen answered it did not fall under the purview of HPC; there was no historical designation. Head asked what the original reasons the Board granted the variance previously were. Drueding stated he did not have the minutes but felt it was a second variance. Erickson said a couple of things happened between the time the Board granted the variance previously and what the Board was seeing presently; additional floor area ratio was granted on the second floor to enclose a deck. Erickson said it may be legal from a FAR zoning point of view, but it affected the concept. Drueding agreed with Erickson and stated he read the original minutes and he questioned when the applicant came in for the deck expansion whether it needed to come back to the Board for clarification. He said he discussed it with the City Attorney and read the minutes and felt there was no problem with the request. Head stated before the Board went any further he wished to table the proposal as he did not remember the reasons for granting the original variance. Feen passed out the minutes from the original meeting he had obtained from the City Clerk's Office and the Board viewed the minutes. 7 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 12, 1995 Erickson stated his problem was the Board granted a variance based on a building that existed two years ago and now the building has been changed, and the applicants have added additional square footage upstairs. Erickson said when the variance was originally granted the apartment was 50 feet smaller than what was being requested presently, and additionally, the applicants are asking for another 56 square foot variance. Erickson said he did not feel it was right for the Board to consider the application in light of what was done previously because the building has been enlarged and changed. Drueding stated the applicants' building permit had not been approved. Erickson stated he granted the variance originally because it was an unliveable situation, but he was opposed to creeping growth and that is how he viewed the proposed variance request. Erickson stated the Board went on the applicant's word that whatever the applicant was doing was going to be sufficient and proper and now the applicant has returned a year and a half later requesting another 50 square feet from the Planning Department and yet another 55 square feet from the Board. Erickson stated that is where he had a problem; the hardship in the first place was liveability and he felt the applicant no longer had that hardship. Feen stated they were not stating it was a hardship, but that it was a practical difficulty. Erickson said he did not see the proposal as a practical difficulty. Feen stated in terms of FAR, the applicants have 875 feet of unused FAR, and the applicants are enclosing the deck which is 50 square feet; the applicants are asking for another 28 square feet. Feen stated adding the 50 and 28 square feet together, the applicants still have 875 FAR available to go to the one to one in their zone and 78 square feet, in terms of an FAR argument, is not that substantial. DeLuca stated the original variance was granted with a deck, not an enclosed deck. Ledingham stated he had not gotten everything that he wanted, but DeLuca stated he had gotten something and the Board did not have to give any variance. DeLuca stated the applicants' design created their own hardship and the applicants could have originally gone further back and stayed within the setback line, increased the size of the apartment, and arranged the kitchen better and it would have worked. DeLuca said he did not see a practical difficulty. Dolle asked regarding the jog, why it mattered so much, as it was facing the alley. Erickson replied the applicants could build as many square feet as the law allows, but when one goes into the setbacks, one is asking for something that belongs to everyone, so 8 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 12, 1995 permission must be requested. Erickson said the Board was required by law to grant a minimum variance and that was why the jog was there. Erickson stated the variance was originally granted based on the applicants' plan and, therefore, was the applicants' responsibility. DeLuca stated he felt the applicants did not need the 7 feet, 10- 1/2 inches variance request and suggested for the kitchen a possible minimum variance request of 3 feet. DeLuca asked if the applicants had a plan to show such. Feen stated he did not have a second floor plan for the kitchen but did have a tentative plan in mind. DeLuca said he would be more inclined to grant a minimum 3 feet variance with smaller appliances and sink. Iglehart asked where the kitchen would be before enclosing the deck. Feen showed the Board where the kitchen would be on the site plan drawings. Erickson asked if there was any safety hardship in not covering the mechanical room egress. DeLuca stated if anyone was living there it might be a problem but it was the mechanical room egress and snow could be dug out and it was not a health/safety situation. Marjorie Babcock, public, and neighbor next door to the applicants, stated she was opposed to the applicants' proposal because it obstructed her view and light. Drueding commented the Board needed to decide regarding the permit for the enclosure of the deck. Erickson stated he felt the request for additional square footage or additional enclosures did not affect the last variance granted, but it did affect the present variance. Erickson said if they want to jog it back and put a deck and enclose it they would be legal to do so, and Drueding says it is legal, so they can do it. Paterson stated it would not come under the Board's scrutiny and agreed with Erickson. DeLuca asked the distance from the edge of the stairway to the jog. Feen answered about 12 feet. Paterson closed the public portion of the meeting. DeLuca stated he was willing to grant a 2 foot variance for reasonable kitchen space, but would not grant a 7 feet, 10-1/2 inch variance because he felt it an extreme variance. DeLuca said he felt the applicant caused his own practical difficulty. Iglehart said it was hard to find a practical difficulty. Head stated he felt there was plenty of room to move the kitchen away from the stairway and felt it unfortunate that Babcock opposed 9 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 12, 1995 the variance. Head said he was not in favor of the jog. Erickson stated he felt the hardship was of the applicants' making and there was additional square footage that the Building Department is willing to grant by enclosure of the deck, and would not grant the variance. Iglehart said he felt things could be rearranged to make the apartment work and with the deck enclosed the applicant had more room to work with than before, and what was there before must have been workable. Iglehart said it was difficult for him to establish a hardship or practical difficulty. Iglehart said he would like to grant the variance, but there were guidelines the Board had to follow. Schott stated he agreed with Iglehart. Paterson stated he agreed with his colleagues and by pushing the deck out and enclosing it, it caused another situation to exacerbate the problem. Paterson said the Board has not granted variances for 3 inches sometimes when it was obvious that there was not a hardship or practical difficulty; he was not in favor of granting the variance. Feen asked if the Board would be willing to let the roof line stay the same along the side and let Feen match the roof line to square off the roof. Feen said it would protect the egress well below, and the roof line would look more consistent. Erickson stated he did not know how that related to anything, it was something new. DeLuca said it related to the comment from the public that it would block off light. DeLuca stated if the Board allowed a roof it would be the same as allowing a building and encroaching on the neighbor. Paterson asked Drueding if the applicant could go out from the building in the roof line 18 inches. Drueding responded the applicant could go 18 inches into the setback. Erickson said he felt the Board should consider what they should grant people over and above what they are entitled to, and the Board should be strict in its interpretation of the code. Dolle stated if the Board was not going to grant what the applicants were asking for she felt more protected having the roof coming over more as she was concerned about the snow dump going into the basement; she requested that the Board compromise. Feen 10 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 12, 1995 stated there was a safety problem. Iglehart asked if the basement had always been a mechanical or maintenance room. Feen stated it was the mechanical room for the addition. Erickson said he felt it was a code situation. Drueding said the code situation was that 90 percent of the houses around town have required window wells that are not covered. Drueding said the houses are built to the setback, the window wells go out, the roof overhang can be 18 inches and this is normal in Aspen. If this meets code, then, the Building Department feels this is sufficient and it doesn't have to be covered. Paterson said the applicants have the right to cover 18 inches out from the building so that will give some protection. Paterson stated to let it be; it would not give a complete roof, but it would give half a roof. MOTION Erickson moved to grant variance 95-13. Head seconded. Vote was Paterson, no; Head, no; Erickson, no; Iglehart, no; DeLuca, no. Motion denied. Discussion Drueding stated he had made a site visit with previous applicant, Gary Moore. Drueding said Moore is agreeable to coming in to talk to the Board regarding differences on the Moore site. DeLuca referred to previous minutes regarding the Moore case. Drueding stated he wanted to proceed by having Moore come before the Board and take it from that point. Drueding commented to the Board on the previous Dr. & Mrs. Edward Watson cases. Drueding stated he had talked with the City Attorney and had been advised that Drueding would have to prove the Watson's had fooled Drueding on purpose regarding their variance. Erickson stated previous minutes would support the Board's intentions in granting the variance. Erickson requested all previous minutes of the Board regarding the Watson case be copied for the Board. Erickson said he was not willing to grant a compromise with the Watson's and felt everytime the Board did compromise, it was taken advantage of by the Watson's. Erickson recommended tabling the discussion. MINUTES 11 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 12, 1995 Rick Head moved to approve minutes of April 27, 1995, May 18, 1995, May 25, 1995, July 6, 1995, August 3, 1995, August 7, 1995, and September 7, 1995 with the exception of portions of the minutes dealing with Case #95-2, Gary Moore. Erickson seconded, unanimous in favor, motion carried. Minutes of April 27, 1995, May 25, 1995, and July 6, 1995 all have minutes referencing Case #95-2, Gary Moore pending approval. ELECTION Vote was taken by secret paper ballot. The clerk totaled the ballots, Paterson had 6 votes for Chairman, Head had three votes for Vice-Chairman, Erickson had three votes for Vice-Chairman. Paterson was voted Chairman; another election at the next meeting will be on the agenda to break the tie between Head and Erickson for Vice-Chairman. Discussion Erickson proposed a private meeting to discuss possible litigation regarding the Gary Moore and Dr. and Mrs. Edward Watson cases on Thursday, October 19, 1995 at 4:00 with Board members, secretary, Drueding, and City Attorney John Worcester. Erickson requested all previous minutes of both cases be sent to Board members. MOTION Erickson moved to adjourn meeting. Motion was seconded, unanimous in favor, motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk 12 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 12, 1995 13