Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.20001207ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes - December 7~ 2000 CASE #00-11:935 GIBSON ................................................................................... 2 Case #00-13:616 WEST SMUGGLER .................................................................... 4 Case #00-I0:701 WEST FRANCIS ....................................................................... 6 MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 7 ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes - December 7, 2000 Charles Paterson, Chairman, opened the special Board of Adjustment with Board members Howard DeLuca. Rick Head, Jim Iglehart and Mark Hesselschwerdt presem. Staff in attendance were Sarah Oates, Community Developmem; David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. PUBLIC HEARING: CASE #00ql: 935 GIBSON Charles Paterson opened the public hearing for Lora Lewis, 935 Gibson Avenue. Charles Cunniffe, architect for the applicant, stated that the variance would allow the house to move forward towards the street so there would be a yard with access to sunlight. The second setback was to allow a light well for the bottom levels (the ADU) and felt that the road impacted the house severely. Cunniffe said that by moving the house towards the berm did not impact anyone negatively and allowed a little more light for the house. The request was for an eighteen-foot front yard setback and a four-foot side yard setback to reconstruct a single family home. No public comments. Paterson noted that there had to he a hardship and or a practical difficulty in order for a variance to be granted. Cunniffe stated that what the road has done to this property was an obvious hardship, going through the property. Cunniffe said that by brining the house back it allowed the neighbors house and this house to enjoy the views. Howard DeLuca asked the FAR and the allowed FAR on this house. Cunniffe replied that the FAR was 4200; the allowed was about the same. Cunniffe said that the house was broken up and not a solid mass to conform to Ordinance 30. Rick Head asked why the new house couldn't be accommodated within the building envelope. Cunniffe replied that it would take away square footage from the house. Oates noted that the existing house encroached now in a different place. Cunniffe said that this property had the hardship of the possibility of the houses on either Side being two story and not having a backyard; that seems to justify the reason for the house to be set back. Jim Iglehart stated that he agreed with what they were trying to do but the board had a mandate to deal with and this was a new building, which could fit into that building envelope without asking for any variances. Mark Hesselschwerdt stated that this was his neighborhood and that he had a hard time with this because of the negative impacts on the neighborhood; just because there was a barrier of trees didn't necessitate a huge home. Cunniffe said that the 2 ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes - December 7, 2000 trees were a hardship because they limited the amount of square footage and the placement of the house on the lot. Howard DeLuca said that it would have been helpful to have the old variance request. Rick Head asked for clarification on the variance requests and how many were requested in 1997. DeLuca said that the reason that the last variance was granted was that this was a unique parcel with the street running through the property. DeLuca stated that a minimum variance would be to move the house to the soutl~ set back line. Head noted that the yard and views were not stated in the criteria for a variance. Jim Iglehart stated that the minimum variance could be granted. Mark Hesselschwerd~ stated that when a piece of property was purchased, the parameters were a given; to come back with some thing that they did nor like about the lot, was not a hardship. Hesselschwerdt said that this huge house was out of place for this neighborhood and that the north facade would be very visible being 7 feet from the street. Head noted that the Aspen Area Community Plan never addressed this type of parcel; he said that they could not control the size. DeLuca said that the house would be about 20 feet from the road. DeLuca said that the trees were large but if they moved the house 5 feet closer to the setback, which would lower the roof a foot and might make it look better. Paterson said that the faCade was not all in a straight line was done thoughtfully and skillfully. Paterson said that since there was no comment from the neighbors, he felt comfortable granting this variance MOTION: Rick Head moved to approve BOA Resolution #00-12, the request for an eighteen (18) front yard setback variance and a four (4) foot west side yard setback variance at 935 Gibson Avenue to allow for the construction of a single-family residence and Accessory Dwelling Unit finding that the review standards have been met subject to the following conditions: 1. The existing duplex will be demolished and replace by a single-family residence. 2. Any future development on this property will comply with current standards for single-family residences under codes existing at the time of development application. 3. Unless vested as part of a development plan pursuant to Section 26.308.010 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the variance granted herein shall automatically expire after twelve (12) mouths from the date of approval unless development has been commenced as evidenced by the issuance of a building permit, or an extension granted by the Board in which case the variance shall expire at the end of the extension. 4. Applicant shall~ prior to filing an application for a building permit, cause to be recorded with the Clerk and Recorder's Office of Pitkin County a copy of this BOA Resolution #00-12. Jim Iglehart seconded. Roll call vote: DeLuca, yes; Iglehart, yes; Head, yes; Hesselschwerdt, yes; Paterson, yes. APPROVED 5-0. ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes - December 7, 2000 PUBLIC HEARING: Case #00,13:616 WEST SMUGGLER Charles Paterson opened the public hearing for Case 00-13:616 West Smuggler, request for an eight and one-half (8 ½) foot height variance to increase the height to twenty and one-half (20 ½) feet, a 3% site coverage increase, a five (5) foot side yard setback variance for the east side yard and a one foot ten inch 1' 10" decrease in the distance between buildings (related to the ADU square footage exemption) for the construction of a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit, deed restricted to mandatory occupancy. Sarah Oates distributed a letter and Chairman Paterson read the letter from Robert Langenkamp into the record against the variance requests. Oates said that the ADU would be deed-restricted and detached from the main house. In the R-6 zone district the maximum height for accessory buildings on the back third ora lot was 12 feet; they proposed 20½ foot high building. The footprint of the building already exceeded the maximum site coverage in this zone district; they requested an increase for site coverage. To obtain the ADU exemption, the detached ADU must be 10 feet from the main dwelling and they are 8 feet 2 inches. Staffrecommended approval; the ADU was deed-restricted with mandatory occupancy. Scott Lindenau, architect, introduced Raife Bass and Michelle Bass, the applicants. Lindenau stated that the livability of the ADU was important and the reason for it being placed above the garage. Raife Bass stated that he felt formate to own a house in Aspen and expressed the need for employee housing in Aspen; he stated that the ADU could support the community by adding to the employee housing in Aspen. Bass said the goal of this ADU was to make this unit available and livable. Michelle Bass Said that these were minimum variances requested for this unit. Mark Hesselschwerdt asked if 350 additiOnal square feet was given for an ADU. Oates responded that if it were a detached ADU then it was 50% of the ADU floor area; if it was a mandatory deed-restricted ADU, it was 100% additional FAR. Rick Head stated that he works with Raife Bass at Mason and Morse but had no personal or financial interest in this project. Howard DeLuca said that the median of the roof was 25 feet. Jim Iglehart asked what the staircase on the one side of the house was for. Raife Bass replied that it went from the living area to an outside deck. 4 ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes - December 7~ 2000 Marcia Corbin, public, read her letter objecting to the requests into the record. Corbin stated that the ADU would take away her privacy in her back yard, her sunlight and view of sunsets with a boxed in feeling. Corbin stated that extra soil was brought into the yard to bring it up above her yard. Corbin asked who would occupy the mandatory housing. Oates replied that the Aspen/Pitking County Housing Authority would monitor it; the occupant had to meet the guidelines. Corbin provided photos with notes for the public record. David Hoefer stated that the height limitation had to be considered under the current law. Ramona Markalunas, public, asked the number of bedrooms. Lindenau replied that there was one bedroom and a study. Markalunas said that she was concerned about parking for the building site. Markalunas stated that this greatly impacted the neighbors' views and asked for the board to deny the application to protect the quality of Aspen. Margie Musgrave, public, stated that she lived across from this property and was concerned about parking and the height of the building impacting her back yard. Musgrave voiced her opinion against the height variance. Jim Iglehart asked how the city made it mandatory occupancy for an ADU. David Hoefer answered that in this situation it would be a contractual agreement; he said that there was no guarantee on the rent but was enforceable for occupancy. Howard DeLuca asked Scott if they would consider moving the ADU into the separation. Lindenau responded that they would lose a parking space. DeLuca suggested a parking space on the other side. Lindenau said that might be a fire issue and the roofs would shed away from the current parking plan; he suggested a flat roof that would bring the height down 3-4 feet but the fire marshall probably wouldn't approve that flat roof. DeLuca expressed concern for the extra parking added by this 2 bedroom ADU, He said that the height restriction was a problem; maybe a one-bedroom could reduce the height. Head said that he shared Howard's concerns and the public concerns for the density but he felt it was outweighed by the public benefit for the deed-restricted ADU. Iglehart concurred with Rick and Howard. Hesselschwerdt stated that the neighbors in favor of it were not impacted; he said that the ADU placement could be attached to the house, placed in the basement, without impacting the neighbors. Paterson said the neighbors concerns were important and be preferred it closer to the garage; he concurred that the building was too high. 5 ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes - December 7, 2000 Head said that he applauded this ADU because it was a habitable ADU being above ground rather than subterranean. Oates stated that the minimum distance between buildings in the R-6 zone d/strict was 5 feet not 10 feet. The building could be moved over. Head asked if the applicant would be amicable to re- designing: Hesselschwerdt noted that if the applicant wasn't on a deadline they could work out the separation so the building wouldn't be against the alley; this could be the perfect opportunity to design a better ADU. DeLuca asked if it would be okay for the applicant to re-design and come back at another date. The board and applicant presented many different scenarios and agreed to come back on January 4, 2001. Raife Bass asked for direction on the re-design. The Board stated that the height was the biggest issue; site coverage was not an issue but the 5-foot side yard setback was att issue unless the fire department signed-off on it. Paterson read Anne Ibbotson's letter into the record opposing the project. MOTION: Rick Head moved to continue Case #00-13, 616 West Smuggler for variances requests in order for the applicant to redesign to January 4, 2001. Howard DeLuca seconded2 APPROVE 5-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (11)2/00): Case #00-10:701 WEST FRANCIS Charles Paterson noted this was a continued public hearing for Case #00-10:701 West Francis, from November 2, 2001. He stated that the request was for a nine (9) foot combined side yard setback variance and a five (5) foot front yard setback variance to modify the existing roof David Hoefer noted that it was a continued public hearing but the applicant did re-notice; notice was placed into the record. Letters from Arthur S. Kafrissen and Ann Miller were placed into the record in favor of the variances. Julie Johnson, representative for the applicant, stated that the setback changes were put into effect in 1967 for the R-6 zone district. Sarah Oates said that the R-6 zone district was placed in 1956 with some changes in 1967. Johnson stated that Bob Ritchie brought the property in i986; he did not realize that the house was non- conforming since it was built prior to the code. Oates stated the combined setback requirements were enacted in 1988. Ted Guy, applicant representative, stated that when the house was constructed it complied with the rules that were in effect at the time. Head said that when the house was originally built it came in for a variance that was denied and the house had to be moved over a foot. 6 ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ' Minutes - December 7, 2000 Guy said that the hardship was that the house was built to code at the time and the code has changed since plus adding residential design guidelines. Guy said they were trying to create a twelve-twelve roof pitch over the second stow and remove the mansard portion of that roof. Robert Ritchie, applicant, said that there wasn't a straight roof and nothing would impact the interior of the house as a long-term functionality. Ritchie stated that there was onlY neighborhood support; there were no negative comments. Ritchie said it was a serious hardship that the city changed the setbacks after the house was built and he wasn't adding onto the house, he merely wanted to change the roof. Ritchie said that the snow sometimes got to be 6 to 8 feet deep on the roof that had to be shoVeled from it. Howard DeLuca stated that he liked the roof aesthetically but granting a twelve- twelve pitch Was not a minimum variance; he said a six-twelve pitch he could grant. Rick Head stated that he always denied historic non-conforming expansions but he said that he would consider the variance. Head said that it matched the rest of the neighborhood. Jim Iglehart stated that he was in favor of it. Mark Hesselschwerdt said that he said that it made sense to him. Charles Paterson agreed. No public comments. MOTION: Rick Head moved to approve the request for a nine (9) foot combined side yard setback variance and a five (5) foot front yard setback variance to modify the existing roof for the residence located at 701 West Francis. Mark Hesselschwerdt seconded. Roll call vote: Iglehart, yes; DeLuea, no; Head, yes; Itesselschwerdt, yes; Paterson, yes. APPROVED 4-1. MINUTES, MOTION: Rick Head moved to approve the minutes from November 2; 2000. Jim Iglehart seconded. APPROVED Meeting Adjourned. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 7