Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.20020103CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 3, 2002 Case #01-05: William and Dana Powell, 820 West Smuggler Street Condominium Unit B, Tree House Condominiums .................................................. 2 Case ~02-01: Request for a twelve (12) month extension of Case# 00-10 for a variance granted December 7, 2000 - Robert Ritchie, 701 West Francis ................. 3 Minutes ..................................................................................................................... 5 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARy 3, 2.002 Charles Paterson opened the City Of Aspen Board Of Adjustment meeting at 4:00 p.m. with Bill Murphy, Jim Iglehart, Rick Head and Howard DeLuca present. Staff in attendance: Sarah Oates, City of Aspen Zoning Officer and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Case #01-05: William and' Dana powell, 820 west S...muggler Street Condominium Unit B~ Tree HOUse CondOminiUms (Lots M, N, O in Block 8, City of Aspen). Charles Paterson opened the public hearing for 820 West Smuggler, William and Dana Powell. The applicant requested a five-foot (5') side yard setback variance for the east side yard and a twenty-foot (20') combined side yard setback variance to enclose a second story deck. Notice and mailing list was provided. Alan Richman introduced Gene and Dana Powell the owners and Dick Fallin, the Architect. The deck was located 5 feet from the property line; it Was the applicant's wish to enclose the deck~ The deck was built in conformance. Gene Powell said that the deck was enclosed with a parapet deck Which fills with snow and water builds up and goes into their dining room; the second problem was that the deck next door was 5 feet from their deck. There was a sofa on the next- door deck, which was used for parties; they cannOt use their bedroom because of the use on the neighbor's deck. They have requested to wall in the deck to be fair. Alan Richman said that they met the necessary requirements for the variance. It was not in conflict with the AACP; the entire enclosure was less than 200 sq feet, which was clearly minimal but because it was a duplex staff found that the standard had not been met. Richman said that this was the minimum variance given the water problem, noise and the best way to work with the neighbors. There was a unique aspect for this duplex, which was to preserve the large trees and that was the reason for the diamond shaped building. Howard DeLuca asked what the existing FAR was and the allowable FAR. Richman replied that this ½ °f duplex was about 1488 square feet. Dick Fallin responded that the deck was 7 feet by 12 feet with 207 square feet of FAR left on the premises. Richman stated that they would relinquish the remaining FAR as a condition and not build on the other side. Rick Head thanked the applicant for the presentation. Head asked why wouldn't they build on the other side. Richman replied that it infringed on the Doremus views. Head asked how after 25 years did this deck all ofa sudden becomes a problem. Gene Powell answered that the water problem always existed and the 2 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 3, 2002 next-door deck has always been a party problem with being awakened at 1 or 2 am. This party problem keeps the Powells' from using the bedroom, especially in the summer. Gene Powell said that the solution was only 18 square feet into that 5- foot setback. Head said that the lack of privacy was never considered a hardship before. Gene Powell said that it was a hardship of not being able to utilize the bedroom. Jim Iglehart asked if the neighbors deck was on property line. Sarah Oates replied that it was and said that the deck was probably non-conforming. Head stated that he was struggling with the lack of privacy as a hardship. Iglehart said that non-conforming houses and the city changes in the code causes more non-conformity, which will result in more board of adjustment hearings. Iglehart said that the party house has been in existence for 20 years. DeLuca said that the variance was based upon tenants who may not be living there next year. DeLuca said that the board could not ask for the other addition not to be built. Richman said that the applicant volunteered not to build the other addition. The Board discussed minimizing the impacts and the applicant stated that they would forego the additional square footage left (99 square feet). Dick Fallin stated that this deck enclosure wOuld be 108 square feet. MOTION: Rick Head moved to approve the variance a five-foot (5') side yard setback variance for the east side yard and a twenty-foot (20') combined side yard setback variance to enclose a second story deck finding that the criteria have been met and the deck shall not to exceed 110 square feet, which was voluntary by the owner and to relinquish the remaining 99 square feet of FAR. Jim Iglehart seconded. Roll call vote: Bill Murphy, yes; }loward DeLuca, yes; Jim Iglehart, yes; Rick }lead, yes; Charles Paterson, yes. APPROVED 5-0. Case #02-01: Request for a twelve (12) month extension of Case# 00-10 for a variance ~ranted December 7, 2000 - Robert Ritchie, 701 West Francis Charles Paterson opened the public hearing for the request for a twelve month extension for a six (6) foot side yard setback variance for the east side yard, a nine (9) foot combined side yard setback variance and a five (5) foot front yard setback variance to modify the existing roof. Proof of notice and mailing was provided. CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 3, 2002 Sarah Oates provided the criteria for the extension. Rick Head asked ifa financial reason was acceptable. Head asked if anything has changed by the way of zoning. Oates responded that nothing changed in the zoning and the same standards applied. Julie Johnson and Ted Guy represented Bob Ritchie. Guy said that Bob Ritchie broke his shoulder and was being operated on as we speak. Guy said that after the interior remodel, Bob decided to postpone the roof project until this past fall. Guy said that everything that happened with September 1 Ith Bob wished to postpone until 2002 and applied within the 12-month period: Guy said that the same reasons apply for the variance being appropriate. Howard DeLuca asked if any neighbor to the north objected. Guy replied that they had not. Guy said that Dennis Ratner supported the project. Bill Murphy asked if the argument was basically financial. Ted Guy replied that it was but it was not an appropriate time to finish the project because of Sept 11t~. DeLuca stated that he would still vote against the project because the roofline should not be as extreme as was; it could be a 6/12 instead of 12/12. Murphy said that he wasn't here for the first appr0val and asked to abstain. Paterson and DeLuca stated that his vote mattered. Rick Head stated that he was reluctant the first time and was persuaded. Head said that a variance request for financial reasons "due to severe economic downturn" was not a reason for the extension and because no good faith was shown. Guy said that this wasn't just financial. Head noted that there were not any plans into the building department by Sept 11th and said that he could not support the extension. Paterson asked the reason for the 12-month window. Oates replied that variances were granted for a 12-month period and with the possibility of a one time 12- month extension. DeLuca stated that they were not supposed to grant financial hardships; the applicant could always come back for another variance request. Paterson said that he felt that the house needed an uplift. Head stated that there has been no movement on the remodel of the roof. Guy stated that it was unfortunate that Bob Ritchie was not present and asked now for a continuance because many of the comments may not have been made if Bob had been present. Guy said that he didn't say it was financial but he said that it was because of the turmoil °f Sept 11th. Guy said that Bob started the remodel and 4 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 3; 2002 did not want to live in a construction site for another 12 months; he said this was a separate distinct issue from the first hearing and asked to continue until Bob could attend. Paterson said that he felt that a continuance was reasonable. Head stated that he did not want a continuance because he felt that he wasted enough time on the project. DeLuca stated that he would say the same thing if Bob were present. The board could not continue the hearing after all of the discussion; it could have been continued if the case had not already been heard. The continuance must have been requested prior to the case being heard. DeLuca stated that the applicant could not create his own hardship; because he was doing a remodel it became uncomfortable and did not want to continue. Guy said that was not a claim to why he needed an extension. Jim Iglehart read from the applicant's letter dated December 6, 2001 requesting the variance extension "due to severe economic downturn". MOTION: Rick Head moved to approve a twelve month extension for a six (6) foot side yard setback variance for the east side yard, a nine (9) foot combined side yard setback variance and a five (5) foot front yard setback variance to modify the existing roof at 701 West Francis finding that the review standards have been met. Jim Iglehart seconded. Roll call vote: Howard DeLuca, no; Jim Iglehart, no; Bill Murphy, no; Rick Head, no; Charles Paterson, yes. DENIED 4-1. MINUTES MOTION: Rick Head moved to approve the minutes from November 15, 2001; September 27, 2001 and December 7, 2000 with corrections on 9/27/01. Jim Iglehart seconded. APPROVED 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m. (.Y'Jgck~e Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 5