The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutminutes.boa.20020627CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUne 27, 2002 Charles Paterson opened the City Of Aspen Board Of Adjustment special meeting at 4:00 p.m. with Mark Hesselschwerdt, Bill Murphy, Jim Iglehart and Rick Head present. Howard DeLuca and was excused and recused. Staff in attendance: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Sarah Oates, City of Aspen Zoning Officer and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (06/i3/02): ' CASE #02-02:725 WEST SNI~GLER- GARy ~ ~THLEEN ALBERT - SITE CO~RAGE Charles Paterson opened the continued public heating for Case #02-02, 725 West Smuggler. David Hoefer stated that public notice was provided at the June 13th hearing; the board had jurisdiction to proceed. Paterson stated that the applicant, Gary and Kathleen Albert, requested a variance to increase the allowable lot site coverage five and nine-tenths percent (5.9%) from forty percent (40%) to forty-five and nine-tenths percent (45.9%) for the construction of a garage. Sarah Oates stated that the R-6 zone district had a site coverage requirement, which means the actual footprint of the structures themselves could only cover a certain percentage of the lot. The current house at 725 West Smuggler was at the 40% mark for site coverage, which was what was allowed for a 6,000 square foot lot according to the code. Staff was unable to find the hardship. Hoefer said that specifically the hardship would have to be shown for the 40% site coverage, which was the right that was enjoyed by all others in that zone district. Brooke Peterson, attorney for the applicant, stated that Mr. and Mrs. Albert's home was built in the character of the other homes on that particular block, most of which were historic and most of which have received some kind ora variance from the Historic Preservation Commissiom David Hoefer noted that HPC had different criteria than this board had. Peterson said that he was bringing that up because the Albert's home was designed in such a manner to blend into the neighborhood as a quasi-Victorian home. Peterson said that it was set back a great deal from the street with a lot of open space on the front side of the property and at the time the house was built there was no site coverage in the code, they could have built a garage at that time. Peterson said that the site coverage was a recent change to the R-6 zone district. Peterson said that by allowing the Albert's to build the garage would allow them the rights that were enjoyed by their neighbors; he submitted photos of the neighborhood. Peterson said that they were asking for the site CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT June 27, 2002 coverage variance in the back of the house on the alley without any other variances on the property. Letters of support were submitted from 5 neighbors; they were placed into the record. Brooke Peterson stated that they were trying to get one of the Albert's cars off of the street, thereby reducing the impacts of traffic on the street and improving the appearance of the neighborhood. Peterson said that they felt the hardship was that the Albert's were being denied by virtue of the 40% site coverage restriction, a right enjoyed by other people in the neighborhood and in the city. Peterson said the design of the garage was to fit in with their home and would not result in the demolition of any existing structures; the area where the garage would be placed Was already a patio, so it wasn't actual green space. Rick Head asked the existing FAR on the total developed property. Brooke Peterson replied that they were allowed 288 square feet for the garage, which was exempt from the FAR calculations. Kathleen Albert responded that the house was around 4500 square feet. Sarah Oates commented that the allowable FAR for a 6,000 square foot lot was 3,240 square feet. Oates said based upon the lasf building permit from 1994 the Albert's had 19 square feet remaining in FAR with a 250 square foot garage exemption and the second 250 square feet counting as half. Head asked if there were any letters objecting to this variance. There were none. David Hoefer stated that the board did not object to a garage per se but rather complying with the 40% restriction from the code. Hoefer said that a garage theoretically could have been built. Head asked why this was a hardship now and was not a hardship back in 1998. Peterson replied that they did not realize or know about the change in the law; they didn't consider building a garage until this spring. Peterson said that was when Dave Gibson found this problem after Brooke and Sarah spoke and thought all of the issues were worked through. Paterson asked when the 40% law went into effect. Bill Murphy asked if the property was currently listed for sale. Brooke Peterson said that it was on the market. Paterson asked how long was it on the market. Kathleen Albert answered 13 to 14 months. Kathleen Albert provided the history of the property when they bought it in 1979; the houses around them were pretty much run-down historical houses. Albert said that the neighborhood has really changed since then; they assumed the drawings that Bill Poss had done originally would still be valid. Albert said that they were one of the few houses that did not have a garage and parked on the street. Charles Paterson asked if this was a carport rather than a garage, would the same rules 2 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT June 27, 2002 apply. Oates answered that the site coverage calculation was based upon the footprint of the actual structure; a carport open on 2 sides would not count towards site coverage Mark Friedberg, realtor, stated that older properties were prejudiced by the coverage regulation; he said that was to prevent lot line to lot line construction especially in the West End. Friedberg said that there needed to be flexibility to improve the quality of the town by reducing the amount of impacts on the streets. Jim Iglehart stated that he was in favor of granting the variance: Iglehart said that cars were parked on both sides of Smuggler Street during the rush hour traffic, which added to the congestion. Iglehart said that getting cars off the street into garages was his interpretation of the AACP; he did not feel the 6% site coverage was a problem especially since the neighbors did not have a problem. Rick Head stated that the board was to grant a minimum variance; he said that the mudroom should be taken off if the issue and hardship was the garage. Head said that the hardship was created because the house hasn't sold because it didn't have a garage. Head noted that the lack of garage does not constitute a hardship. He said that he would approve the garage without the mudroom. Head asked about the back fence being 8 to 10 feet high and if it were allowed at that height. Mark Hesselschwerdt stated that he agreed with Rick on the mudroom scenario and keeping any variances to a minimum if this were a hardship scenario. Hesselschwerdt said that the positive was that the neighbors agreed with this variance. Bill Murphy stated that he agreed in some ways because the neighbors did not object however they can put a carport in to get the car offthe street without a variance and eliminates the hardship. Murphy said that he could not go along with the variance. Charles Paterson stated that he felt the same way Bill did; he said that he could not see a hardship in this application. Paterson said that the property was already very dense and understood the 40% coverage rule with the coverage of the house on the 2 lots; there was no yard eXcept for the front. Paterson said that he could not support the variance because there was no hardship. Paterson said that they could have a carport to get the car off the street. 3 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT June 27, 2002 MOTION: Rick Head moved to approve the request to increase the allowable lot site coverage five and nine-tenths percent (5.9%) from forty percent (40%) to forty-five and nine-tenths percent (45.9%) for the construction of a garage finding the review standards have been met. Jim Iglehart seconded. Roll call vote: Iglehart, yes; Murphy, no; Hesselschwerdt, no; Head, yes; Paterson, no. DENIED 3-2. MINUTES MOTION: Rick Head moved to approve the minutes from January 3, 2002 for Case #01-05, William and Dana Powell. Charles Paterson seconded. APPROVED 5-0. MOTION: Rick Head moved to approve the minutes from January 3, 2002 for Case #02-01, Robert Ritchie. Jim Iglehart seconded. APPROVED 5-0. MOTION: Rick Head moved to approve the minutes from June 13, 2002. Jim Iglehart seconded. APPROVED 5-0. MOTION: Rick Head moved to adjourn at 4:30; seconded by Jim Iglehart. APPROVED 5-0. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 4