Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.20000810CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 10, 2000 Charles Paterson opened the Board of Adjustment meeting at 4:00 p.m. with Rick Head, Howard DeLuca, David Schott, Bill Murphy and Jim Iglehart present. City Staff in attendance: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Sarah Oates, City Zoning Officer; Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk. PUBLIC HEARING: CASE #00-07 - 955 KING STREET (RESO.#00-06), FOUR FOOT SIDE YARD, ONE AND ONE HALF FOOT COMBINED SIDE YARD & TWO AND ONE HALF COMBINED FRONT YARD SETBACK VARAIANCES Charles Paterson opened the public hearing on 955 King Street. Three variances were proposed : (4’) four foot side yard setback variance for the west side, (1½’) ¬ ­ one and one half foot combined side yard side yard setback for a proposed bedroom and bath addition and (2½’) two and one half foot combined front yard setback ® variances for a proposed dining room addition. Paterson asked for the posting. The posting was accepted by the Bill Lipsey, applicant and architect, stated that he and his wife Linda Gerber were present. Lipsey clarified that the variances were in fact for relief of (3’10”) three feet ten inches, (1’6”) on foot six inches and (2’4”) two feet four inches combined setbacks. Lipsey utilized maps to show the property location and he said that between King Street and Queen Street there were 4 different zone districts (R-15A, R-15, R-6 & Parks) all on that same block. He said that they were in the R-6 and that this was a unique part of the city with no alleys and different shape lots that evolved over the years. Lipsey said that the rules for regular city lots did not apply well in this area and that was the reason that they were before the board. He presented letters for the record from neighbors Tom Issacs, Jeffrey Shoaf and Larry Lawrence in support of the project. He also entered a negative letter from Mr. Ernst Kappeli into the record with signatures from the tenants of his property. Lipsey noted that Mr. Kappeli did not want improvements to the property. Lipsey said that his property had design constraints on a tapered lot with an existing house and an ADU. Fred Jarman responded that the unit was a Category 1 unit rather than an ADU. Sarah Oates stated that it was ½ of a duplex with a category 1 Unit (deed-restricted), not an ADU. Lipsey said that this was a small 2-bedroom duplex and they needed a master bedroom; that was the reason for this expansion. The lot was narrower at the end where the bedroom addition was proposed, which created more constraints. He said because the lot was 8,000 feet in the R-6 zone, it had to have a 10’ side yard setback; if the lot were 7,999 feet, then it would only require a 5’ 1 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 10, 2000 side yard setback. He said he felt that this penalized the property owner and said that the new rules that were being re-written to be on a sliding scale for property square footage. Sarah Oates noted that an 8,000 square foot lot was still the threshold for 10’ setbacks. Lipsey said that Alan Richman would write a recommendation to city council regarding lowering this side yard setback. David Hoefer stated that was irregardless because it was not on the books as current law. Lipsey said that it had not been passed into law but they were asking for smaller setback variances. Fred Jarman gave a short description of this duplex on the size of the lot and stated that a building permit was issued for the portions of the proposed addition that did not require variances. He said that staff felt there were no true hardships for the variances requested. Sarah Oates noted that the FAR allowed was 3,726 square feet, which was calculated from a duplex in the R-6 zone district; the approval that they received for the current proposed building permit was for 3,718 square feet. Lipsey explained that if they did not use the square feet they would loose those square feet, so they made the study bigger. He said that if they received the variance, then they would take the extra square footage back out of the study and put the extra square footage into the master bedroom. Rick Head asked for clarification on some building plans that were approved and submitted prior to these variance requests. Lipsey replied that was correct but the master bedroom was only 10 feet wide and the variance request of 3’10” makes a big difference in a room that size. Lipsey said that they were going through the variance process because the 10’ bedroom was inadequate and he was not sure if it was worth the expense of building it. Hoefer noted that it did not constitute a hardship to go from a 10’ to a 12’ bedroom. Paterson noted that the stairway would be about 3’6”. DeLuca asked the size of the existing master bedroom, the current second bedroom. Lipsey replied that it was 14’x 16’. Jarman entered 2 letters in support of the project into the public record. There were no members of the public present to speak on this matter. Head stated that this was basically a convenience for the applicant and not necessary. Head said that he could not support the variance requests. DeLuca agreed with Rick and said that the submitted plan illustrated convenience versus practical difficulty. DeLuca said it was easy to make the design livable with a minimum variance request but that was not what was before the board. DeLuca stated that he could not support the variance requests. David Schott stated that the requests undermined the intent of 2 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 10, 2000 the AACP and could not support the requests. Schott stated that the board had to go by what the rules were now. Jim Iglehart stated that he could not find a hardship or practical difficulty in the requests either. Bill Murphy stated that he made it unanimous ; he said that he did not see a hardship. Paterson asked if the board would consider a minimum variance request. DeLuca stated the setback was already non-conforming with the corner of the ADU. Oates agreed that it was just slightly, but yes it was non-conforming. Head asked where the hardship or practical difficulty was for the variance request; he stated that was what this board had to justify. Head stated that there was no criterion for the basis of the requests. Lipsey stated there was an alternative, which would be to deed 400 square feet of the easement to his neighbor. He said that then he could legally have a 5’ setback variance on that side of the building; he said that would cost him at least $10,000.00 in legal and survey fees, which would then be a practical difficulty to him. Hoefer responded that a practical difficulty went with the land; he said that this board could not consider monetary matters. David Hoefer noted for clarification that the motions were made in the affirmative. MOTION: Rick Head moved to approve Resolution #00-06 granting approval for (4’) four foot side yard setback variance for the west side, (1½’) one and one half foot combined side yard side yard setback for a proposed bedroom and bath addition and (2½’) two and one half foot combined front yard setback variances for a proposed dining room addition variance at 955 King Street, Lot 1, Astor Subdivision, City of Aspen, finding that all the Review Criteria have been met. Howard DeLuca second. Roll call vote : Head, no; DeLuca, no; Schott, no; Iglehart, no; Paterson, no. DENIED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING: CASE #00-08 - 517 WEST BLEEKER STREET (RESO.#00-07), ONE FOOT SIDE YARD, FOUR FOOT COMBINED SIDE YARD & THREE FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCES Howard DeLuca recused himself because Tim Bailey was a client, but wished to participate in the discussion. David Hoefer stated that Howard could not be part of the discussion. 3 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 10, 2000 Charles Paterson opened the public hearing for 517 West Bleeker Street. He said that the applicant requested three variances one-foot side yard, four-foot combined ¬ ­ side yard and three-foot rear yard setback variances. Chairman Paterson requested ® the proof of notice. Tom Bailey provided the notice of posting. Jill Kamas introduced herself and Brad Randall, architects from Harry Teague and Associates. Kamas said that she wasn’t sure if having a cover over your car in this climate was determined as a hardship. She said that the points addressed in the letter to Sarah Oates were (1) adequate light in open space, (2) less congestion in the streets of Aspen for movement, (3) maintain natural scenic views, (4) encourage innovations in Residential Designs in open space, (5) prevent a more effective use of land in a higher quality of site planning and (6) establish land use patterns that are compatible with surrounding zone districts. Kamas said that the house sat back on the lot about 60 feet from the front property line and the carport would be setback 81 feet from that lot line. She said that maintained a lot of open space to the street and the back of the alley was adjacent to a 2-story hotel. Kamas said the carport would access off the alley, which would provide more street parking for the city and the carport was a low structure (10’-15’) below the views of the surrounding neighbors. Kamas stated that the carport was a space structure and the same person owned the lot next to it. Rick Head asked if the lot merger wouldn’t have already combined these lots; he noted the lot next door was only really of a lot. Sarah Oates replied that the assumption was ½ that at the time of the lot merger provision, the lots were not owned by the same owner or they would have become one. The lots could be held in corporation names. There was a lot line adjustment, but density could not be added. Rick Head noted that he lived in that house for 17 years and asked why they couldn’t build the carport into the back patio, then it abides by the rear yard setback. Brad Randall replied that there was a screen of trees that sheltered the master bedroom from the Uhlr views. Head stated that he had the same problem years ago and was turned down. Head noted that because of the zero lot line setbacks, they were already encroaching on the neighbors’ property, which was a pre-existing and non- conforming situation. Head noted that the board could not increase the non- conformity. Head stated that a carport or a garage was not considered a necessity, but rather convenience; this board cannot use that as a basis for granting a variance. Kamas stated that they could alleviate the rear yard set back by a foot by moving the carport next to where the porch was located. Oates responded that the side yard setback requirement was 10 feet and they were 1.3 on one side and on the other side the lot was 15 feet. Oates said they were having a hard time meeting the combined ½ requirement the way that the house was configured and the size of the lot. Head asked why the carport couldn’t be placed closer to the house. Brad Randall replied 4 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 10, 2000 because of the cost of demolition of the sidewalk and Jill Kamas said because of the fenced in area. Paterson asked what was behind that fence. Randall replied the flagstone snowmelt installation. Head asked if this could be accomplished by working within the existing physical setbacks. Randall answered that it could not; Kamas said that the sidewalk needed four feet. No public comments. Head said that the applicant created the hardship by wanting a carport. He reiterated that a carport was an amenity and not a necessity. Jim Iglehart stated that he agreed with Rick on the conditions of the application. David Scott stated that he liked the application and stated that he was in favor of the variances. Bill Murphy stated that he liked the idea but had to agree with Rick because they had a usable existing parking space, which could be covered. Murphy said that he could not see how the board could grant the variances. Randall said that’s why they were before the board. Murphy responded that the code was in place for that reason. Paterson replied that if the applicant could not show practical difficulty or a hardship, as Rick pointed out, it was created by the applicant. Kamas asked if they were to relieve that rear yard setback within one foot of that side yard variance, would it be worth looking into. David Hoefer responded that the board could not speculate on that. Oates stated that the applicant could request a continuance for re-design and come back to the board. The board was willing to th continue the hearing to September 7 . MOTION: Rick Head moved to continue Case #00-08, 517 West Bleeker Street (Resolution #00-07), one-foot side yard, four-foot combined side yard and three-foot rear yard setback variances to September 7, 2000. Jim Iglehart second. APPROVED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING: CASE #00-09 - 935 EAST HOPKINS (RESO.#00-08), ONE FOOT HEIGHT VARIANCE Chairman Paterson opened the public hearing on 935 East Hopkins (Resolution #00- 08), a one-foot height variance. Sarah Oates distributed a letter (Exhibit 6) and (Exhibit 5) explaining the way that the city measures height. Oates stated that the code reads the measurement at the exterior perimeter of the building, if the building jogs back, that portion is not measured for height (it could become considerably higher at those parts). Oates noted that the Gavilon was about 31 feet to the midpoint because of the way that the code currently reads; this was currently being rectified in 5 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 10, 2000 the code. Oates said that the Gavilon was a non-conforming building and that non- conformity must be rectified prior to amending any height now because they were already over the height limit. She said the dormer proposal was a jog back, very similar to what was shown on Exhibit 5. Rick Boyd, applicant, stated that he represented the Gavilon Condo Association for this dormer variance request. He said that there were a lot of trees surrounding the building, many evergreens, which almost hid the building. Boyd stated that several other buildings in the area were quite a bit higher than the Gavilon. He said that the Fellman residence to the west across Cleveland Street had ridges that were much higher because the existing grade was about 8 feet higher. Boyd stated that the Pioneer Building added 6 dormers to their roof about 7 years ago, which makes that building, look good. Boyd explained that the top 4 units of the Gavilon were studio condominiums with lofts for sleeping quarters with head clearance of 4 foot 6 inches accessible by stepladder. He said that this was an awkward situation; they would like to raise the height to an average of 7 foot 6 inches. Boyd said that the loft expansion was allowed within the FAR and the request was for the minimum height. Boyd stated that they also wanted to put in a legal set of stairs in each of the four units. Oates noted the measurements were taken from the mean point, which was between the eve and the top of the ridge and the measurements were from the finished grade (where the basement levels existed) to the mean point. Oates stated that all sides of the building were non-conforming. Boyd stated that he understood the legal interpretation of the hardship and they do not meet it but stated that it was a personal hardship for him living in Unit #12 going up and down a stepladder. Boyd said that they wanted to bring the building up to current codes. Randall stated that they were building it as small as possible. Head asked if the dormer was higher than the original ridge beam. Boyd replied that it went up 13 inches higher, which was acceptable by code because the dormers could go up another 25 feet within the current code. Oates reiterated that was being revised in the code. Howard DeLuca asked how this affected the dormer. Oates responded that the height was measured at 25 feet 8 inches, which was non-conforming and she explained to them that they could not add any height. The code does not allow expansion of any non-conformity. Head asked what was the purpose of the mid point measurement. Oates answered to maintain consistency and the mid point measurement was to encourage peak roofs rather than just flat boxes. Jim Iglehart asked if all sides of the building were measured the same. Oates replied that the code reads the measurement was taken 6 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 10, 2000 from finished grade on the South side because of the location; if it were within 18 inches of the first finished floor the measurement would be taken from that floor. The applicant stated the intent was to grandfather in the existing building through a height variance, so they could add the dormers and bring the lofts up to code. DeLuca stated concern that there could be something in the future that could come back at the board. Oates said that this application was asking for the 4 dormers. Hoefer stated that the approval depended on this application. Mike Shumate, public, stated that he lived at 970 East Hopkins where Cleveland ran into Hopkins. He said that he was also the president of the homeowners association, but was not here to represent the homeowners association. He said that Bob Blatt who resided at 990 East Hopkins did not have a problem with the variance request. Shumate stated that he did have a problem because contrary to what was represented, there were no trees in their view of Ajax Mountain. He said that the trees that were there were Aspens which lost their leaves in the winter, which was from the fartherest eastern part of the building. Schumate stated that this was an existing non- conformity use, already a foot above the maximum height restriction under the code. Shumate said that by granting or grandfathering this additional foot would place the building two feet above code. George McGrath, public, stated that he was a neighbor to the right and said that they raised their building about 7 years ago and did not have a problem with Gavilon raising their building. McGrath said that every building across the alley took away his view; he said that he had lived there for 32 years and had no problem with this proposal. Brad Keller, public, stated that he also lived at 970 East Hopkins and said that any improvements to the neighborhood were welcomed. Paterson stated that the building was not going to be re-designed at this time. Howard DeLuca said that if it were physically possible to come down a foot on the building height, but the step-back loophole just increased non-conformity. Jim Iglehart said that he had no problem with the extra foot. Iglehart said that he was concerned for the neighbors with the view problems, but he said that he wasn’t sure how much of that view was lost by not approving the one-foot variance request. David Schott said that he was okay with the request. Rick Head said that he would like to see this happen. Head noted that he was chagrinned that if the ridge beam of the new dormers were at one-foot to coincide with the existing ridge beam of the building, then the lofts would not be permitted because there would not be the 7 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 10, 2000 necessary headroom. Boyd said that was correct. DeLuca asked for clarification if the height was 7 feet or 7 feet 6 inches, which was a big difference. Head stated that if the roofline would be flat, it may not look as good, but it may lower the building enough for the 7 foot 6 inches. Charles Paterson said that a flat roof would ruin the design and since the whole building was going through re-habilitation, he said that he would go along with it. David Hoefer stated for the record that the vote had to be 4-1 or 5-0 to be approved. MOTION: Rick Head moved to recommend approval of the one-foot height variance to allow for construction of four dormers at 935 East Hopkins finding that the review standards have been met. David Schott second. Roll call vote : Head, yes; DeLuca, no; Paterson, yes; Iglehart, yes; Schott, yes. APPROVED 4-1. PUBLIC HEARING: CASE #00-10 - 710 WEST FRANCIS – TO BE CONTINUED TO th SEPTEMBER (continued to October 5 ) MOTION: Rick Head moved to continue Case #00-10, 710 West Francis to September 7, 2000. Jim Iglehart second. APPROVED 5-0. MOTION: Bill Murphy moved to adjourn. Jim Iglehart second. APPROVED 5-0. Transcribed by: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 8 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 10, 2000 CASE #00-07 - 955 KING STREET (RESO.#00-06), FOUR FOOT SIDE YARD, ONE AND ONE HALF FOOT COMBINED SIDE YARD & TWO AND ONE HALF COMBINED FRONT YARD SETBACK VARAIANCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ ... 1 CASE #00-08 - 517 WEST BLEEKER STREET (RESO.#00-07), ONE FOOT SIDE YARD, FOUR FOOT COMBINED SIDE YARD & THREE FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCES ................................ ........ 3 CASE #00-09 - 935 EAST HOPKINS (RESO.#00-08), ONE FOOT HEIGHT VARIANCE ................................ .. 5 CASE #00-10 - 710 WEST FRANCIS – TO BE CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER ................................ ................ 8 9