HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.20010927CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 27, 2001
MINUTES ................................................................................................................................... 2
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ...................................................... 2
CASE #01-04: ROGET AND ANDRE KUHN, 140 PITKIN MESA DRIVE ......... 2
CASE #01-03: Jody Cooper, 810 BONITA DRIVE ........................ ~ .............................. 4
CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 27~ 2001
Charles Paterson opened the special Board of Adjustment meeting at 4:00 p.m.
with Jim Iglehart, Howard DeLuca and Rick Head present. Bill Murphy was
excused; Mark Hesselschwerdt was not present. Staff in attendance were: David
Hoe£er, Assistant City Attorney; James Lindt and Sarah Oates, Community
Development Zoning Officer; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
MINUTES
Rick Head moved to approve the minutes from 6/21/01. Jim Iglehart
seconded. APPROVED 4-0.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
None
Public HEARING:
CASE #01-04: ROGET AND ANDRE KUHN, 140 PITKIN MESA DRIVE
Charles Paterson opened the meeting. Notice provided. Roger Kuhn, his wife and
brother, Andre Kuhn bought the property 2 years ago. Roger Kuhn stated that the
duplex was built in 1971 and had a cracked foundation. Roger Kuhn wanted the
same consideration as his neighbor, Judy Schramm got with a 5-foot variance.
Roger Kuhn said much of the lot was unusable because of the slope and Ordinance
56; they had the plans in befbre April so they didn't lose the FAR. Kuhn provided
the history of the property and had everything redrawn but still needed a 1 O-foot
side yard setback variance. Roger Kuhn stated that the fronts of the duplex were
actually the backs of the homes facing the street. Letters from Judy Schramm and
Art and Helen Phillips were entered into the record in support of the project and
· the 5-foot variances.
Howard DeLuca said that since this was a new building, the foundation could be
moved back, then only the porch and overhang would be in the setback.
Rick Head noted that this was a brand new plan that came in with variance
requests. James Lindt replied that the Residential Design Standards were given to
the applicant. Sarah Oates stated that staff would not guarantee or promise a
variance to have the ability to build in a setback.
Niklaus Kuhn, public, stated that he was the father of these boys. Niklaus Kulm
said that he saw it from a different side and that it was a hardship for the boys who
have struggled to create 2 extra units in their basements instead of them using
subsidized employee housing for themselves.
2
CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 27~ 2001
Jim Iglehart said that he also found it difficult to find a hardship because it could
have been designed to fit into the space. Rick Head said that he was in favor of
the east side but the side yard setback was not a practical difficulty just because
the neighbors wanted it. Howard DeLuca said that the minimum porch would
have a good look but the 6 inches on each side of the house was unnecessary;
unless it were placed on the other side of the house, which woul~d be to the rear.
DeLuca asked if the house could be set back 15 feet then they would not have to
ask for a setback variance. Head asked where the practical difficulty was or the
hardship. DeLuca, Iglehart and Head wanted the projectredesigned so that
variances were not required and so the hardships were not created on neighbors.
Staffrecornmended that they did notgo to the east. DeLuca suggested redesigning
one-way or the other by moving the building over 6 inches.
Andre Kuhn stated that the hardship was on the neighbors and their views. Andre
Kuhn asked the board to please look at what the neighbors have said and what
would happen to the neighbors.
David Hoefer stated that the board was required, if the variance was granted, to
allow the minimum variance. Roger Kuhn stated that if he had to redraw
everything again, then he would move the building. Kuhn said that he had 9½ feet
fi:om the property line.
DeLuca stated that if the house moved 6 inches, then just the porch and roof
overhang would need a setback variance. Head restated that this disturbed him
because this was a new house plan that required variances. Oates responded that
the initial plan would have also required setback variances. Ho&er noted that
from a legal perspective this was the avenue for a variance to be requested; a
minimum variance could be granted. DeLuca stated that the board was looking at
the rear variance and 4-foot side yard setbacks with a redesign.
MOTION: Howard DeLuca moved to approve Case #01-04, Roger and
Andre Kuhn, 140 Pitkin Mesa Drive, Lot 12, Block 1, Pitkin Mesa for a
four-foot (4') side yard setback variance for both side yards for the
porches only as drawn inthe record, and a ten-foot (10') rear yard
setback variance for the construction of a duplex and two Accessory
Dwelling Units. Rick Head seconded. Roll call vote: Jim Iglehart,
yes; Howard DeLuca, yes; Rick Head, yes; Charles Paterson, yes.
APPROVED 4-0.
CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 27, 2001
Public HEARING:
CASE #01-03: Jod¥ Cooper, 810 BONITA DRIVE
Charles opened the public hearing for 810 Bonita Drive. Bill Lukes stated that he
was the architect for Jody Cooper. Notice was provided.
A letter from Sue Griffith was placed into the record, which opposed the project;
a letter from the owner of the other side of duplex was in favor of addition placed
into the record. Jody Cooper stated that her record reflected the # of square feet
available for the addition and felt that she now had a hardship because she was
misinformed 5 different times by staff. David Hoefer responded that the board has
to act in the best interest of the law with the criteria provided for this land use
variance.
Howard DeLuca asked Mr. Lukes if as the architect had he gone through the same
calculations. Lukes replied no that his calculations were visual and he set up a
meeting with community development knowing that there was a mistake in the
calculations. Sarah Oates responded that staff doesn't provide calculations of
floor area; the owner must figure the FAR.
DeLuca asked how this garage situation affected the FAR. Sarah Oates replied
that the garage was 528 square feet of that amount, 375 square feet was exempt.
Oates said if this was converted to living space the applicant had to come up with
that additional amount of 375 square feet because it then counted in full towards
the FAR. There could be a one car garage created with the current garage being
converted to living space and not require a variance.
Lukes said that they could build no garage and do the conversion to residential;
they currently do have enough to simply convert the garage to living space. Lukes
said that it was preferable to put cars away, but were was no way to convert part of
the garage and replace the 2 car garage because of the yard configuration they
could just convert the garage and put in a one car garage. Lukes asked for a
minimal square footage addition so that Ms. Cooper could build the 2-car garage.
Rick Head noted that there were 3 standards and staff shot down all three. Head
asked what the legitimate hardship was? Head stated that it sounds like what they
want could be obtained without a 2-car garage but could have a 1-car garage and
not have any variance request.
Lukes stated that he felt there was merit in granting the variance because of what a
staff member said and being held accountable to serve as the hardship for granting
this variance. David Hoefer stated that variances only go to the land itself and a
4
CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 27, 2001
personal hardship couldn't be considered because the board can only consider a
land use hardship.
Rick Head stated that a not having a garage was not a necessarily a hardship but
rather an attribute.
No public comments
Howard DeLuca stated that a garage was a convenience not a necessity. DeLuca
said that the FAR of 300 square £eet £or the garage was legal. There wasn't a
hardship to build out to the FAR.
Rick Head stated that he couldn't consider the variance without a hardship. Head
said that it was inconsistent with expanding Far and granting this variance would
convey hardship on other neighbors.
The Board felt sympathetic to personal problem but cannot grant a variance based
on personal hardships only land use hardships.
Jody Cooper stated that she was angry about the way the community development
department ran business incorrectly. Cooper said that she would have hired an
architect sooner; she said the impacts were more that a 2-car garage thought that
she was doing the right thing and disappointed that the system failed her. Cooper
stated that she hoped that staff educated the layman. Cooper said that a 1-car
garage would look bad and wouldn't help her situation.
MOTION: Rick Itead moved to deny Case #01-03, Jody Cooper, 810
Bonita Drive, for a variance floor area requirements of the R-15 zone
district to increase the allowable floor area by 211 square feet finding
the review standards have not been met. Howard DeLuca seconded.
Iglehart, yes; DeLuca, yes; Rick Head, yes; Paterson, no. DENIED 3-1.
MOTION: Rick Itead moved to approve Case #01-03, Jody Cooper,
810 Bonita Drive, Lot 20 West Aspen Subdivision, BOA Resolution #01-
05 for a variance from the duplex floor area requirements to increase
the allowable floor area by 211 square feet for the conversion of the
garage at 810 Bonita to living space and the construction of a new
garage. DeLuca seconded. Iglehart, no; DeLuca, no; Head, no;
Paterson, no. DENIED 4-0.
Adjourned at 5:40 p.m.
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
5