Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19960426BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 26, 1996 Chairman Charlie Paterson called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. with members Howard DeLuca, Ron Erickson, Rick Head, Jim Iglehart, and (new member) Dan Martineau present. Member David Schott was excused. Case #96-03, 614 W. North, James Ferrara Paterson read the variance requested, a 2’6” set back encroachment for the rear and a 1’ variance for the side. Gary Lyman, representing the applicant said that the City encourages parking and garages off the alley, this particular drive will fulfill that however, that area is difficult because the houses on the block sit at an angle on the lots. Paterson verified that the applicants hardship is that the house is set at an angle and to build the garage square on the angle of the house would cause the encroachment. James Ferrara, applicant said that he did not have the picture or proof of mailing with him, but they were done. Jim Markalunas, neighbor of applicant stated that the sign was posted but due to inclement weather it was moved. Ferrara stated that there were a number of things that were not done to the house in keeping with the neighborhood, this request is only because we have to. Michaelson said that the project was approved through ordinance 30, Staff said they preferred the applicant request a variance to add the garage off the alley. Erickson asked the sq.ft. of the lot. Michaelson responded it is 4065 sq.ft. DeLuca asked the measurement of the face of the garage. Lyman said it is 12’6” X 20. Paterson asked for public comments. Markalunas stated that he is the neighbor to the West of the Ferrara’s, and his only concern is the close proximity to the fence line that the excavation for the basement will encroach. Markalunas also said it will encroach into the dripline of his Spruce, apple, and aspen trees, and undermine his flower beds. Markalunas said that he would suggest shifting the basement to the East. 1 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 26, 1996 Erickson asked if the applicant planned on adding a second floor over the garage. Ferrara responded that it is not allowed because we would need to have a 10’ set back. Erickson said in response to Markalunas, that by moving the garage to the east, it would increase the variance. Erickson also said he did not feel it is in the boards purview to not grant a variance because it may destroy a tree on a neighbors property. Markalunas stated that he would object on the grounds that his light and view will be blocked. Head commented that there are ways to underpin whatever destruction Markalunas may experience on his fence, trees or flower beds. Markalunas responded that trees do not know property lines. DeLuca asked if the applicant could shrink the garage 1’. Lyman responded that a lot of standards will not recognize it as a garage. Lyman also said that he believes the current proposal will not affect the tree. Head asked what is the hardship that is not being created by the applicant. Erickson said that because the depth of this lot is less than 100 ft. deep, (less than normal lot size), a 30ft. setback on a 100ft. lot leaves 70 ft., this lot is 75-84ft. and loses between 16 - 23ft. of building depth. MOTION: Erickson moved to continue case #96-03 to the end of the agenda so the applicant can provide proof of notice. Seconded by Head. All in favor, motion carries. Case #96-04, 101 Park Avenue, Tom Reagan Proof of notification provided. Roy Parsons, with Gibson Reno Architects, representing the applicant, said there was a question of what the natural grade on the existing site was, the site had been disturbed with some site grading therefore the City had to establish what the natural grade was. Parsons stated that the site had been bermed for quite some time and Stephen Kanipe, Building Official, established the natural grade for this site, in 2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 26, 1996 March of this year. Parsons said the alley has been a consistent elevation, and the garage is located on the alley, so we used that to determine and where the garage should be the berm located along Highway 82, the berm allowed them to set the upper level of the house at grade level so that it is a walk out terrace and from Highway 82 it will be viewed as a one-story building, so the garage level had to be lowered slightly from the street and from the alley. Parson stated that for them to comply with the grade being at 103 ft. they would have to raise the driveway from the alley, going from 98ft. up to 101.5ft., which would be within the 30” allowed from the natural grade, the design as it stands is in compliance as required zoning, FAR, and design guidelines, with the exception of the driveway. Parsons said they are asking to have the variance in the set back so that with the lower driveway they can keep the height of the building down to have less of an impact on the neighborhood. Parson stated that the two hardships are 1) compliance with the 30” rule will require negative impact on the neighborhood because it would raise the building 5’, 2) is that this project has gone through full permit process and are only waiting on this variance. Head read a letter from Mr. Adair into the record. Karin Speck, public is concerned that when cars enter the alley, because of the berm and because the garage is so low, it will create a blind spot for accidents. Parsons responded that the City would like them to pull the berm back slightly so there will be a line of sight. Parsons said the driveway will not be very steep and when the car pulls out of the driveway they will be able to see. Martineau said that we should encourage keeping houses low and out of sight, and by granting this variance it sounds like it would accomplish some very nice things for the neighborhood. DeLuca asked what the original intention of the 30” code. Michaelson said it is more of an urban design concept of not wanting to see recessed driveways. MOTION: Head moved to grant the variance to place a driveway slab in the rear set back, which exceeds the 30”, in case #96-04. Seconded by Iglehart. All in favor, motion carries. Case #96-05, Cooper Street, John Davis 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 26, 1996 John Davis, applicant, said he is requesting temporary storage of two historic structures. Davis said it isn’t really an off-site move, it will be moved on to the site it will actually be going on. Davis stated that he would like to move them off of lot M, N and on to lot O, so he can start building the duplex on lots M and N. Michaelson asked how long the buildings would be stored. Erickson asked for a date certain. MOTION: Head moved to approve the temporary storage of two historic structures on Lot O, Block 117, Cooper Street until September 15, 1996, case #96-05. Seconded by Erickson. All in favor, motion carries. Case #96-06, 121 W. Bleeker, Watson Peterson opened the public hearing. Andy Hecht, representing applicant stated that the Watsons came in and were approved for a one car garage but were denied for a roof on top of the garage that would match the existing house, the Watsons proceeded to build a flat roof over the garage. Hecht said the applicant would like to move a barrier 8’ forward instead of 8’ back, in reading the code it says a “setback shall be unoccupied and unobstructed from the ground upward”, “in measuring a setback the horizontal distance between the lot line and the closest projection of the principal or accessory building shall be used”, under the building code there has to be a barrier somewhere and we feel it isn’t a principal or accessory building, it’s just a barrier to prevent someone from falling off. Hecht stated that if the board makes a literal interpretation, they need a relief by the Board of Adjustment, he feels that allowing people to live in the neighborhood is not contrary to the comprehensive plan. Hecht said they are not negatively affecting the neighborhood, the neighborhood already has decks with barriers and railings. Hecht also said that having the barrier behind the window did not make sense, if the window was used, as it would in an emergency, to have no barrier is dangerous. Paterson closed the public hearing. DeLuca said the problem here is from day one, a variance was granted for a garage because the doctor was “on-call” in Aspen. The applicant then built a deck without 4 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 26, 1996 a permit and were red tagged, the building department has now signed off on what is considered a convenience or maybe they overlooked it, but the board would be granting a convenience, we are not granting a variance because of an egress window, it is on the other side of the house. Head stated that since the beginning this board insisted that the applicant put a flat roof on the garage and to him, it made no sense not to permit them to create a deck- like space on top of a flat roof, it is there why not utilize it. Head said that he is in favor of granting them having the fence and to make them install another fence to comply with the setback is ludicrous. Head agreed that if the applicant had to use that window to get out, in an emergency, they will be falling off into the alley over one side, or climbing over another fence to go down the stairway to exit the building. DeLuca said the problem is, it is a nonconforming structure that we gave a variance to and the deck will make it more nonconforming. Michaelson stated that it was not approved as a deck, and it would increase a nonconformity under ord. 30 if counting that deck on top of the roof is more 15% of the total FAR of the property. DeLuca said there was a reason this was not granted and the last time they went to the building department they were given permission to put in a stairway. DeLuca asked if the building department gave the applicant the stairway, is the board obligated to grant them this variance. Michaelson stated that they are separate issues, the issue here is the setback. Iglehart asked if an above grade deck could encroach in the setback. Michaelson said the only encroachment for a deck is at grade. Erickson stated that the board never granted a variance for a deck and he feels the board was very specific in granting a single car garage for a very specific purpose, for a doctor who would be operating in town, and who needed to have a heated car when he left at 4 a.m. Erickson said the board granted a flat roof so the applicant would not increase their living space over the garage. Head stated that he did not recall placing a prohibition of putting a deck on the flat roof. DeLuca responded that he studied the prior minutes and nothing was said at the original meeting, but at the second meeting it was brought up that the space 5 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 26, 1996 would never be used. Head asked why the board would prevent them from using a space that begs to be a deck. DeLuca said that would be granting a convenience. Head said that if the board has given the applicant a variance to build a garage, why not let them use the space as a deck because the board made the applicant build a flat roof. Erickson stated that the applicant accepted the variance as granted that variance was a one car, flat roof garage, no deck, no use. Michaelson stated that technically when the applicant requested a variance for the garage, they would have had to request a variance for the deck, as well. Michaelson read from the code; “Yards will unobstructed from the ground to the sky except for the following allowed projections, uncovered porches, slabs, patios, walks and steps, which do not exceed 30” above or below natural grade shall be permitted in the projected yard”. Michaelson said the deck has to meet the same standards of hardship as any other variance. Hecht stated that he respectfully disagrees with Michaelson, he is talking about a variance from a nonconformity in a structure, not a use, and now the question is if we want to use it as a deck that use is not prohibited in that district, nothing says we can not use it for that. Hecht said they did not come to the board for the window alone, the applicant would like to use this as a deck and we think that a literal interpretation of that code section that says “if a principal building or an accessory building, measured horizontally from the property line, includes a barrier that would prevent you from falling over”, we are showing in this neighborhood this is not a use that would give the applicant a special privilege not conferred on others, we came in very candidly, and very honestly, we want you to review this in the same spirit. DeLuca said that the hardship presented is the applicant needs a safety rail for neighborhood children gaining access through the window. Hecht stated that is one of the hardships, the other is literal interpretation creates a hardship because it does not allow the applicant similar benefits conferred on others in the area. Head stated that there are places all over the West end that have the same situation, including his old house. DeLuca said it would be different if one of the neighbors was experiencing something that you couldn’t inside a setback that this board gave a variance to. DeLuca stated that there have been no variances in that neighborhood, for anything the applicant is asking for. 6 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 26, 1996 Hecht responded that the code does not state that we have to be the second one in. Paterson proposed a comprise, he would like to come up with something that makes sense. MOTION: Erickson moved to approve an 8’ variance into the rear yard for railing and deck above the garage, case #96-06. Seconded by Head. Discussion: Head asked if the board denied the variance, would the applicant have to tear out the existing deck. Erickson responded that the current deck is legal. Michaelson said in his opinion, if the original variance granted for the garage did not specifically allow the current deck, he would argue the deck is nonconforming. Mrs. Watson said she is withdrawing her application. Paterson stated that he did not think the applicant could withdraw the application with a motion and a second on the floor. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney said the applicant can withdraw at any time prior to the vote. Hecht thanked the board for their consideration. Paterson stated that the board needs to come to grips and not get in these arguments, we need to state our position and discuss among ourselves in the closed section of the public hearing, we can not discuss among ourselves once we have an open hearing. Case #96-03, Ferrara re-opened Head stated that in the past, the board has tabled applications for variance for notices that are in bad shape, but because of Markalunas statement the board will continue. 7 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 26, 1996 MOTION: Erickson moved to approve a variance for a 2’6” set back encroachment for the rear and a 1’0” for the side, case #96- 03. Seconded by Head. Discussion: DeLuca asked if the applicant would make amends if there was damage to Markalunas tree. Ferrara responded that he would. All in favor, motion carries. Nomination for the “Greg Mace Award” Paterson read a letter from the Center for Information and Voluntary Action, “Greg Mace Award”. MOTION: Paterson moved to nominate Remo Lavagnino for the “Greg Mace Award”, for 1994 or 1995. Seconded by Erickson. All in favor, motion carries. Minutes Head had a correction pg. 2, April 3, 1996. Corrected spelling error. MOTION: Head moved to approve the minutes of April 3, 1996. Seconded by Erickson. All in favor, motion carries. Erickson corrected the term “rod” iron fencing to “wrought” iron. MOTION: Erickson moved to approve the minutes of April 5, 1996. Seconded by Head. All in favor, motion carries. MOTION: Head moved to adjourn at 6:05 p.m. Seconded by DeLuca. All in favor, motion carries. 8 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 26, 1996 Amy G. Schmid, Deputy Clerk Case #96-03, 614 W. North, James Ferrara ................................ ............................ 1 Case #96-04, 101 Park Avenue, Tom Reagan ................................ .......................... 2 Case #96-05, Cooper Street, John Davis ................................ ................................ . 3 Case #96-06, 121 W. Bleeker, Watson ................................ ................................ ..... 4 Case #96-03, Ferrara re-opened ................................ ................................ ............. 7 Nomination for the “Greg Mace Award” ................................ ................................ 8 Minutes ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 8 9