HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19840223 CITY a SPEN
reet
asp
A G E N D A
BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT
FEBRUARY 23 , 1084
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
4 : 00 P.M.
I . Minutes
II . Case #84-3, Anderson/Head
III . Adjourn
' ITes" T 5UTPITnq aps UO !DUO Spm 0010 an! Palm ap
sq, UO SOUTd snonDOSUOD 0
"FTC D AM FUTIFOd PWI hQ WATO Pq Mus WTMOU DTTQnd , vaDUWJ
Tpdo aul en CoTqDas n nalonb aw -anwDuTpao aq! UT s%unwanwhm.
5UT" WOK at ? a5umn on TTwwD !on naung eqa pelsabEns aamuyp''v.
-unTgonyllou nyT • nd Paqsod
jo qdU"5wjoqd nun quampan"S YwTanjvu D 101 Palsy OUTUEDAD
fdUUTpaOnWqXY ja SUOTITTVOn IUTIadl eyl ICI
mWonmal Rijadmid Ana7qns aqj waTuap qnq I . . . Sam= fjjadow�
10100 R, pa%pua OUBTj Aqvedoid 10Tgunisqrs U , laspou sq-�
afinTue •yr 117now o; RITungioddc w2 jamo7ju aq u1nows pwo
UOTIUPATT ST Q! aW MW 1D qOU ST qun7rAdO e= !UQI. . .svw"j-
nano, aul . . . in TT 100,101W)" 01T jD w6w �mow pul !no q a 7
juwDTTddu Evq on pTOS ROjVdOjn . . . 5UTWjOj
7:! i-iO Runoy D UO ROnT 0" namm7in ma 0 11
OlOnbea U aprTIOT 01 UOTjVDTjddv onunyinA an; puawn "
nuosiapuv U01jam wo,'!.
4jUawqSv"pv t narog ayl o" 6V86T 1E Nundq0I paqDD IUaqjeT n
�O lacy ami WT pamanna som wnDwvpDu auq wqi pionan aw joj:
pa%ajmau�nu OUTUM^D7 - Va6T Q Rannauag rejup aDUUTJOR syl o---,,.
Onnumqn "D GT enaqq pairna 41mamAnDdan 5uTqTTnq Quinaniq
mn ii'jas nano amis
' W10S jDaw 97 "im5aIDD UTW7 7-a OVI U7 wainnOT ST
FqOadoid -Invulas jual syl UT E- T Q quawynnodma 5UTISTw--.--'
1HAO pundxa On AUDM 0" naDaddo jUDITAdu
1 D naBan Tue ao npf.t!
TnT sesDaaDUT UDTQM nUM ... UT lala& j�
Ovin"Onals I 1 Ou ( a ) TT-9Z "Alvas v n C. I A
ndom anaa OVUT svwmonma TT%UajanD eapinnilz ski Qjw--�:
DUPDas a fUTn7Tnw "Twaad on j-Zj ; Impmn au ST jo �Ovqja-.�:
pjqR jrBi aun jDqj FuTi7ankii ea mn siraddv quuDTjddv aqj,
mpalsantew aDunlim puw OuruonAn
-juasaad laipuiallu lujimv vuuH VUU duOsjaTv,::!
van- 1 OUY! IOUDW amudamor i lam OITYM STOma" saaqwaw Y 11 m "m"
rn"s &D'' aaDjo Oa Eulaaaw aun VaTTUD OUTWOUAU7 owam UvWaTvw:-I
RECORD Q
60-70 feet. It was vzsible out not legio1e or readable froa
the street, the public right of way. Heuu u'guec short of putting
u stake in the ground, or moving it to the street, he did ooi
Know where else to post the sign. uvuynzno commented thut
the public would have to trespass on the applicant ' s property
to view the sign. Furtnermore, the public does not Anow w=�
the format is for posting . The sign might oe u personal sign.
Paterson noted that the signs are flimsey, and if they are located
under an ove"hung or u roof, at least they are protected . here
have been problems with signs posted on Me rouu with the ruin
and the snow so people cannot read the signs ungwuy. He suggested
that another form of posting is needed . Luvugnino noted buc§et
constraints . Druedzng informed tne Board ther'e is nothing thut
states the building Nepurtment mus to provide the sign; it is
simply u courtesy , people can make their own signs . Luvugnino
questioneu what the oruinooce requires the uppl �cunt to do .
Whitaker again quoted the ordinance: " pablic notice shall be
given by the posting cf u sign in u conspicuous place on 1hy
premises. . . u sign of surtuble material not less than 22 " wide
and 26 " ligh composes of letters not less than l " ir height
stating the type of variance. . . " Whitaker said one inch letters
whic: ure not verg briMunt viewed from the Council chuabery
to Little Clzff's ure very hard to read. He suggested the ordinance
use language such as " viewable from no less than ' x ' feet. " Luvugnzno
instructed the secretary to szrect Burry Edwuras, city attorney,
to estublzsn some proper legal language.
Welton Anderson, representative for tne upplicunt' presented
u notarized statement swearing ne had posted u public notice
( the statement was on u pzece of canary legal paper, not the
standard affidavit form. ) Anderson expluineu Drueuing suggesteo
the language . Luvugnzno asked if the upplicuot is required
to use tne standard form which is Proviled b6 the building wepurt
ment . Drueding said no . The form is again provided as another
courtesy .
Welton Anderson explained this is an application to vu,y the
rear yurd setback for the uGcitzcn of u codest second story
addition to the existing house at 517 W. Bleaker. He did not
reulize when he dM the preliminary druwzoys thut the reur yur�
setbuw was fifteen feet iosteuo of ten feet. It seemed logical
to locate u new second floor on top of an exist�ny structure
2
RECORD_OF_PROCEEDINGS
and over existing nearing walls. The sbe& roof extends M:
fset . He proposes adding u second floor oven the first floor
Of the original Vzctoriu,' structure ; leuving the cId shed /xuMf
addition, whicn eacruuches about three uod u mail feet from
the alley wag , us is; and building up the west roof with it�
existing pitch. There will be no change within the five foot
site 9urd setback .
Luvugnino uskeU if the proposed second story wall is to be built
on top of the ground floor structure. Anderson answered it
extends some ( unindicuted ) distance from the alley . Lavugnloo
suid he is asking about the west wall . Anderson said the wuW,
extends u foot and half, goes up to euve height and pitches
at u 45 degree angle ( demonstrutes with his hands u symmetricV.
roof line ) . There will be no changes in the structure. ( There
was some confusion in reading the elevations . ) Luvugnino sui�
then there is nothing being added to the west side in deference
to the west setbuc�.
Anderson said wnen Bill Druedzng was shown the prelzmiourg sketcres ,
the building inspector pulled u red flog . Anderson nubmitted
Q survey which was done three years ago . Then the sled addition
TM the buck remained unchungeu . The new seconq story, i:dic�te�
on the plans by the totted line, still encroaches two feet two
and half inches into the rear yury setback.
Anderson said the nezgnbors are for the intent of the code un�
support the e:crouchnent of 2' -2-1/2" in the rear yard setbuci. .
They believe to flout the south wall of the second floor 2' -
2-1/2" inside of no existing structural bearing wall is un
unnecessary hurdsmip und practical difQcultg.
Anderson said he submitted the application with the minutes
from 1977 and 198O. DrueoIog ufterwu Cs wished the minutes
huu not been included. He suiu the minutes complicute the the
issue. 3rueaing believed the Marc should go through the exercise
which they did zn 1977 und MO . Akderson sui? 1�.ut is when
he wrote the addendum.
Luvugnzno quoted from the Board ' s guidelines : " that no hardship
is established wnere the evimnce proves onl, that the variance
will be harmless . " we encouruyed comments from adjacent property
3
RECORD_OF_PROCEEDINGS
owners . But it is more or less the content of what _ they huve
to sag znNerms of thelourd ' s guidelinesthut !he Bourn shou�d
consider and react to.
Luvugnzno said the 1977 and 1930 requests for variance were
bu`eo on toe property qot Wing u nonconforming lot-of-recoru.
Then the applicant had intended to expand to the northeast of
the building . The applicant was not orig1nully building u secon�
story . Luvugnino asked why the applicant does not pursue the
strategy which would not require u variance now. Rick Head,
the applicant, answered he presented u set of plans that were
upproveu in 1978 . The addition he hat plunnew then be is incupub!e
of finunciellg doing now . There wus u new roof and u new udditzon
going on the existing structure ut tnut time . The upprovul
was given to change the roof at thut time as well . Luvugnino
asked if the applicant zntecded to put on u new roof but not
to add any space . Head said he was not intending to increuse
the floor area ratio . He was adding u new roof and u new flu�
roof. Those rooPs also encroached on the rear yurd setback.
Luvugnino asked if u new roof aoull encroach. Head sui, the
the plan would nave returned the rooV line to tbe original 1890's
roof line.
Lavugnino uskeu Drueding if repairs on roofs, pitches , etc ,
ure allowed on nonconforming structures. Druedisg suid th�
structure can be repaired, Dot the nonconformity cannot be An-
creased. Luvugnino asked if chungzng u pitch on u roof increoses
nonconformity . Anderson said ges . Drueding explained if the
change is only in the pitch and the spuce remains uninhabitable, '
t�en no; ` if the space becomes habitable, then the noncon�ornit�` `
is increased . Head said sometime in t4e 1950 ' s u sned style
roof was added to the criginol 1890 's roof Iine. He hud inten�e�
in l978 to restore the original roof line and utd u flat roof .
We change in the rcof line was within the setback area . Luvugnznu
suit the applicant Aus not answersd whg he is adding u second
stop, when the applicant could Wpand into the front area en�
still conform with the setbuc� Keud seil sin�ly
he cunnot ufford the later alternative now .
Paterson suin the applicant nos to come beTIre the Board unywu�
because there are many nonconformities uttuc�ed to the lot.
Luvugnino asked if Paterson is addressing the nonconfor�i ��
�
RECORD_OF_PROCEEDINGS
of the structure Cr we illegal lot. Luvugnino said the Bou/`d
nos been in the past in accord about the illegal status of the
property of the past twenty gears. Tte Ecury was advised bj
Ron Stock at one time that the Board could not contest the illegulit�
of the sale or the lot. In ef7ect , even though it is not u
lot-Of-recard , it still is u legitimate lot the applicant can
build on.
Munn asked if the Board is considering today the 000conformit�
of the present structure which does not hove on uuequute reur
yurd setback. Lovugnino explained the new addition does noi
meet the criteria. The applicant cunnot extend the nonconforming
use. The applicant infringes upon the rear and side yard setbuck
as the structure exists . The applicant �.s nct extending toe
side yard nonconformity to the second story.
The notes from the plans in6icute u hundred dollars u squure
Vot for construction, Luvugnino said that is not cheap. Anderson
said the notes on cost on the preliminary plan are for the clieot
not for the Board . That is the worst scenurio.
Luvugnino quoted from Anderson ' s letter: " in terms of pructicul
difficulty meeting the full 15' reap setback would render the
new room being built upstairs unusable ( it is uncomfortably
narrow us is even for its intended use as u nursery ). " This
indicates that the new space is marginal in its use. If that
is the case why not extend new construction to the north, zostem
of adding u second story. Anderson informed Heud several months
ago that it would be simpler to leave the old house as is, und
add u new wing to the front in the future. Luvugnino interjecte�
since the applicant Nos not met his FAR with the proposed addition
he could extend to the northeast in the future. Anderson said
the front addition is definitelg u future project . But to meet
the present situation for his growing fumilg, the second story
addition seems to be the simplest and most practical way of
upgrading the house st/ucturuliy and providing u liveub] e situation
for the owners .
Whitaker suggested moving the second storg back from the first
story' s bearing wull . It can be done witm u glued luminute�
beam or with u truss pipe second story wall which is onlg supported
on the ends. Anderson respondea structurally it can be done
5
RECORD_OF_PROCEEDINGS
FObEUm_20_1984
if one does not want u bathroom on the second floor for the
family or u stairway. Austin' s understanding is that locutiny
the second story wall over the first storg loud bearing wu' l
is because of the plumbing. Moving the second story over two
feet seems pretty ridiculous. Whztuxer noted there is umple
space in the front yard and the applicant is well below the
FAR even with Wzs ucdition. Consequently Whitaker thinks the
applicant has another solution: build out into the front gard.
Anderson said building u pruct�cul addition in the front gurc,
might preclude the possibzlUy of building u more liveable space
in the future . It is not logical to add u beoroom, nurse,y ,
und bathroom that in u few gears will be torn down. It is logical
to use the existing founoutions and "ails, which appear to be
very sound , uni replace u roof which is not ,erg sound.
Luvugnino sympathized with the upplicunt. He woulC not destrn.�
the forwuro property without Ynowzng exactly what he wanted
to do with the expansion. The applicant knows now he only nee.^s
Q small space for u nursery . It is hard to plan for an ureu
that is pre-empted Q u present need , the nursery . Luvuyn�no
asked how the Bcurd addresses this.
Whitaker said this is the fourth time this property has oeen
before this Board . He suggested to plan for the future now,
inform the Board of the future plan, and pion to avoid u variance
reque�t.
Anderson questioned the city uttoroey whether or not the pre-
existing nonconforming lot not-of-record would require unotmer
vuriunce . He reported the attorney said if u aeur elapses the
applicant will have to usk for the some vu'iunce over ugu�n .
`
Luvugnino asked what is nonconforming . Whitaker said the building
is nonconforming . No mutter where the epplicur.t adds , he nos
to ask fop u vuriance . Anderson said Burry Edwards called.,
Edwards said the opplicunt i)us to come tuck again and ugazn
before the Board whenever he wants w Co unyohing with the house.
Whztuker usked Druedzng if tout "as his understanding . lruediog
Oid not know. Austin asked if tne applicant expunns into the
front yard without setback proVems , does he still have to usk
for a variance. Anderson said yes , eveo zf the expansion wes
6
RECORD-OF-PROCEEDINGS
Fpbrmy_20_1984
not increuse the no:conformzty . L'zvagnino asked why does the
upplicuni need to continue to gei u variance for something thut
the Boom NUS ulreudy opproved for u variance. He suggested
the variance be on record in perpetuity once the Mart nus estu'
blished the condition exists . Anderson said he cam not urgue
the point.
Drueding suid the Board can allow for u variance out the Bour�
cannot legitimize u nonconforming lot . i' uvugnzno said ther.
'uny expansion has to come oefore the Bourd for u vuriunce.
Paterson suit the issue is the nonconformity of the building
not the lot. Luv`zgni.'/o reiterated u,thing added to the lot
now has to come before the Bourd because the lot is illeg'z| .
The applicant is also infringing on city ordinances and infringing
upon setbucx requirements of 15' . Anderson said the buildiny
is ulreudy nonconforming; it encroaches three feet on setbuck
on the alley. The applicant usks the second floor be setback
from the first floor . Paterson asked if the applicant is adding
to the nonconformity. Anderson said the applicant requests
adding to the nonconformity. Luvugnino said whatever the upplicun :.
does the action is nonconforming; even if the applicant stays
within the setback requirements. The applicant still has to
COME before the Board because he is adding to u nonconformin�
illegal lot. Whitaker Usugreed. Q there is not u setbuck
probIem; the upplzcunt does not huve to come before the Bouro .
He understands the structure is nonconforming because of the
violation of the setback requirements . Keud said it is nonconform^ng
because it was subdivided without approval . Whitaker said the
city attorney advised tie Board it co�ld not do ungthing obout
that because that was done in long ago. Luvugoioo said the
Board cunnot legalize the lot. Druedi:g said there is notMng
which makes the lot now u legal or u conforming lot. Anderson
said there is nothing the Board cun do ubout z^..
'
Luvugnino reiterated that Decuuse of the
whutever tKe applicant does , even if he meets the setback require-
ments, the applicant has to come More the Board for u vurzunce.
Whitaker explained that nonconforming lots ure those thut were
in single ownership Defore the code was changed in 056 . Drueding
exoluzned one can do ungthing to u nonconforming AM pre-existiog
before 1956, as long as it is within the setbacks . But Heud 's
lot is nonconforming . It needs 6 , 00 square feet . It was never
7
RECORD_OF_PROCEEDINGS
Wrd_gf_AMAment......Fobw9ru_20_l984
legitimately subdivided . An? the city will not reinstate its
legal swtus .
Anderson usked the Board to reconfirm its decision of 1977 and
1930 .
Luvugnino asked for audience comment .
Elizabeth Fergus, member of the uudience, suid she approve-.:.,
the plans. Munn asked if the uaded height will interfere with
other residences in the neighborn000 . Fergus answered her property
is closest to Head 's. If the uddition had un impuct on any
one in the neighborhoon it wou�u be herself . She does not object .
It adds very little height and improves the building u yreuL
deul .
Munn read into the record the letter dated Februurg 20, l984,
uddressea to the Chairman of the Board of Adjustment, from Suru
and Edward Petrequin of 513 W. Bleeker Street, Aspen:
"Muy we request that Pick Read whn owns toe property ot
517 West Dleeke' Street , be granted u variance on this
piece of property so that he may add. u second story .
Rick nus been u neighbor and u tenant in our studio house
for sixteen years uod U u very reliuble and trustworth�
individual . In no way would this uaditioo be objectionable
to us-in fact it would increase the value of the proper"g
on both sides of his property to have u more uttructive
st/`ucture . The neeu for this request is ulso uue to the
fact that an infant is expected in Juoe.
Please give this request u favorable consideration . "
Munn said the practical difficulty is the need to use the present
structural wells . Ara t�ut the upplicunt because it is u smaZ,
addition, is not affecting the style of the neighborhood.
AnGerson suiu it zs such u minor ezcrouchmeot us to render �t
insignificant . Munn usKed if there is any other practical diffn-
cu�ty. Antersor paid the secont story could be pusned buck
2 '-2-1/2" but at consideruol, greuter expense no complexity .
It would mane We upstairs spuce pructzcellg unusuble for u
J
RECORD_OF_PROCE2DINGS
stairway, bathroom, ant nurserg' u/ eu, plus u muster bewroo* ..
It would be impructicul .
Luvugnino said he is Dothered by We procedure for bu �lding
up the seccnd fluor: repairing the east and west foundations,
inserting stud columns, central three MO secon, floor support
beams between the win attic Plcor , 2A4' s, ana croppen ceiliny ,
building up the short Will o: top the existing east wull so
it equals the height of the west ull ; inserting part of thp
roof with 200 floor joists after the entire cld roof is removed.-,,
installing stud "loors , stud columns , riaga teams , roof framing,
and sheathing. This is restructuring u whole foundution for
the second floor which does not exist now at all . The upplicunt
is beefing "p the structure so much he might as well start from
skrotch ant pusn the second stnr ; wull Mck two or three feet .
Luvugnino said the reason the applicant wants Me Board to grunt
the vurtunce is bused on an existing foundutior wall ; unc ypt
this indicates the upplicu^t is creating his own foundution.
Anderson reiterated that is the worse scenario. He does no�
know if the walls are adequate or not . It is the roof that
needs to be repluced; the old roof is u truss system wztn man-'..j
sticks of wooc.
|-uvugnino closed the public portion of the hearing .
Austin suid shc went through u very �imilur remooelling crdeu�.
with the aadition of u second story . After the roof was removec
there was no ridge beam. It was bullt by actually bui16ing
boards within boards to create one. She was prepared for the
downside. She needed the space. Grunted one always spenK,,
more than one plans to, but it is good to be aware of all these
things . It is u financial hardship to have to start all over
with u new foundation and new footprint unless one is reuQ...j
doing something fancy. It is not worth zt for one little udditzun.
Austin said it is more practical to expand straight up thun
into tie front yard. It is not up to the Board to judge the
economic feasibility of the project. Two feet is the difference.
It is more logical to add up over that square Dox rutner thur'
build something fancy horizontally. Luvugnzno uskea wAut guidelines
she would offer in granting t"e vuriunce. Austin said it is
expensive to move the upstairs wall in two Peet. The hardship
is financial . Luvugoino argued the Ward cannot consider finuncin �.
v
RECORD_OF_PROCEEDINGS
hardships. It is an acceptable practical difficulty if the
applicant has to move the wall to meet the 15' rear yard setback.
It might be in'pructicul to locute the addition where it should
be. Therefore , it is u difficulty since the foundation huppens
to rest at Q. V .
WhituKer exprewsed problems With this request . The upplicunt
hus u huge front lard . It might be better for the upplicunt
to start with new foundation, to expand the building out 1,,4o
the front gurd' and not to come to the Board for u setback vuriunce .
If the applicant did not have an4 room to expand, either to
the north or to the west' that would Le u hardship . If the
applicant was pressed for floor ureu ratio, needed the setbuck
variance to build up , ant exceede, the floor area ratio becuuse
of the existing building, those would be hardships. There is
enough space to solve the problems without the setback variance..
Munn felt the two parts of the presentation were well balanced ;;
the need to use the present structure and the neighborhood support
v.s. the availability of developable land, as Whitaker mentions
there is an alternative here. In the post the Dourd has grunled
variances because un existing structure did not nave the alternative
of using more lard. That eliminates the practical uifficulty .
And Just because u variance is harmless, that is not u reuscn
to grunt it. The Board is being asked to increase u ponconformity ,
and that is serious . Munn 1s not comfortable grunting t:e vurionce .
Paterson felt 2 '-2-1/2 " is u minimum variance request for this
building. It is not the Board' s Jeb or perogutzve to redesign
the building. On the basis of what in being presentet, it seems
that the applicant does have u practical difficulty in building
u sensible small addition to the existing structure. he ugrees
with Austin. If the Board was addressing u big , expensive type
of structure which was affordable then this could be looked
at quite differently. But the Bourd is only looking at u temporary
addition of u nurserg and stairway. The intent is to make u
more liveable space. He reiterated it is not the Board ' s job
to direct the applicant to redesign u big structurul addition
to the rest of the property.
Luvugnino argued it is the Board ' s job to have the upplicunt
1 0
RECORD_OF_PROCEEDINGS
exhaust all solutions whico meet the coue requi/ ementz. I``
the applicant cannot do that, thet presents in exceptional hurdshzp
or pructicul "ifficulty, tnen it wculd behoove the Fount n&'
to address uod grant the applicant the variance. Bit this
applicant nos tozs lee^u6 . The Board hus ulwuys poinlec 00t
M upplzcunis when were ure otner ulternut!ves which s01ve
their problems and °wch uo not require coming before tne Bouro .
If the applicants exhaust Me ulternutives/ and they absolutely
cannot do anything, the Fo.^ru nus been very umenubie to yruntzng
Mem vuriuoces .
Paterson udmzttea this point . But Paterson urgued the small
addition requested in this particular cuse in u practical Vff�-
culty. it is u real hardship for the applicant to build u structure
on the buck of that property because of the mug the house is
laid out . It would require redesigning the entire building
and all the traffic Patterns z� the house, moving the livioy
room, the nurserg, the plumbing , und the Kitchen. This is ^
p~ucticul dlfficultg. It is u / eul ourdsnzp to expect someuoe
with a small house to build such u big addition . The upp �icunt
Q not asking for u greut deal . The upplicunt is asking for
2 ' -2-1/2 " over existing walls. Paterson considers that u reul
hardship ant p,uctzcul eifficultg . Puterncn votes ges for the
variance .
Whitaker quoted : "that the grunting of u variance is essentiai.
to the enjogment of u suostuntiul property right enjoyed wy
other properties in the same vicinity and zone but oenied the
subject proper. " He argue? the Board is not uer.ying the upplicun �
the substantial use of his property. Tne applicant has ample
property to build on . Whituxer appreciates the request is not
much of u variance. The Board has to be more careful in grunting
variances to ncnconforming structures on u ncncoofo/ ming lot,
thun to conforming structures , on u conforming lot.
Luvugnino said the Board will have trouble with this lot zo
the Puture . What criteria will the Board use to grunt the upplicu:t
extensions within the framework of side jurd set5ucks, front
yard setbucKs, and FAR. Does the Board decide not to grant the
applicant u vuriunce for building which is u propertg rig/�t
enjoyed by others who have u nonconforming lot-of-record . Ordinuril',f
someone could build there and not cone Defore the BourS . The
1l
RECORD_OF_PROCEEDIAGS
applicant has an illegul lot, therefore he has to come befo/`e
the Board on whatever he builds . What is the Board ' s crite/`zu
for grunting the applicant u variance. T/.e citg attorney neevs
to address this before uny case of this nature comes Defore
the Board uguin. Lavugoino suzd he owes not know. If the E00rd
has to abide by the zoning ordinances, then why are tnese upplicu/.t`,
coming before the Board.
Paterson questioned the impact oF the project . Luvugnino suid
that is subjective . Puterscn said no. Whet is the 2 '-2-1/7'
impacting.
Luvugnino said the Board has to be consistent; the integrity
of the Board depends an uecisions bused on guidelines that uppQ
to everyone equally . Luvugnzno would love to grunt Head the
two feet. But what is to say the Bout, can grunt four feet
when someone else comes in . Tne some principles have to apply
equally to each case. In this case, it is the uppincunt ' s choice
to present this solution; the Board din not tell the upplicunt
what to do. The BouW reacts to the wag u solution is presented
to it . In this case, the Board knows there ure other wags the
applicant couM solve his problem. Why should the upplzcu/,t
not exhaust the solutions; why should the Board not consider
them . The Bouro has to consMer if this is the upplicunt ' s
lust recourse. Luvugnioo feels it is not the applicant' s lus �
recourse for the enJogmer't of u propertg / ight that he is not
even allowed to have. The applicant has olner alternatives..
Luvugnino is against the variance .
|-uvugnino opened the public the hsuring.
Anderson addressed We otner remedies . I: the drawznys uute�
some eight gears ago, he used the old structure, end added within
the confines of the setbacks u:d the cu- rent existz7g zor,i'�U
codes. This is still u possibility in the future . Now he
proposed to restructure th* roof. The ceiling height is 6 ' -
9" , it toes oct meet uny current codes.
Luvugnino usked Drueding again if the epp� ^cunt changes the
roof W meet code , is he simply remodelling. is |'.e not expanding
the nonconformity of the use. Whitaker quoted Irom the Bour& ' s
guidelines : " The Board rurelg finds pr«ctzcul difficulties
i2
RECORD_OF_PROCEEDINGS
or unnecessurg hardships where the upplzcur.t ' s appeal is u mutter
of aesthetics or design or economics, or if there is u reusonuble
legal alternative . " Whztuker feels that the uppl �cunt has u
reasonable legal alternative as znlicuted in the dru*inJs .
Anderson said that ultornutive is not reuscnubIe or pructicul
for Head. The applicant is looking for u practical wag of
accommodating u wife and child without pre-emptzrg ang optioo�
in the future. At tne same tzme, he would strip off the bud
roof , build u new roof without gaining some uuvuntuge by doio�
that , which he would otherwise not nave the opportunity to do.
If he is forced into udding onto the front northeast portion
of the house, the old part will stag substandard as fur as health,
life , and safety because it is rot pructicul to dc. Puterson
said this is where the Board is loing u oisservice to the czty
by forcing someone not to attend to e bud shed .
Munn oozed if the applicant plans for future additions to t�e
nouse will the roof of the present structure be redesigned .
Andersan said allowing the uddition on top of the roof rather
than to the side of the building allows two problems to be solvec ..
Locating the addition to the side makes it easy to ignore the
old structure which is not to code .
Paterson note, it is difficult to live in this town, let alone
own u house . One tries hard to tetter his property. it z`,�
u practical difficulty to have u decent hoose , especially when
one has u fumily. It is heurtbreukzng to see the Board tulk
about legal mutters . There is u human element here . And the
Board is here to handle the human element. Tne numunism of this
Board is the only good thing. The applicant has enough troublo
with the building department , the zoning codes una tne setnucks .
He empathizes with ohis person. The Board is nis lust recourse.
Luvugnino said tMut Puterson 's uppeul for humanism is busec
on the economic cost of upgrading his property . Paterson suzd
no. It is diffzcult for somsane in Aspen tc make Kim anode liveuble .
Luvugnino said the upplicunt can bring the substandard ro&'
of 6-9" up to the G ' code uo& he wool, nut huve to come before
the Board . Drueding said the applicant cculd change the ruof
if the nonconformity is not ir.creused. Luvuynzro sczt the Doun'�
is not dengirJ the safety aspects. Putersoo seAd the upplicunt
will put the roof buck as it in now.
13
RECORD
Luvugn !no said in the pust KeuC come before the Bourd onlg to
muke his lot legal . Ae did come to the Board for u vurzunce
of this nature.
Paterson said the Board has tc listen to what the neighbcrs
suy. Luvugnino said Puterso'. 11 talking about personulitzy� .
Paterson questioned the purposes of the letters. Luvugnino
explained the content of the 7etters is zmportunt but not because
10 states Head is u wcoderful person. Paterson suid the neighbors
strongly fuvor this . Austin sold the neighbors feel the udwition
,ill enhance the neighborhood . Luvugnino said in this particular
case even the Perequins mentiocee they Nave u vestm interest
in the udditzon, in that, it increases their property vulues�
the Woition makes the neighrors Property look e4e'' betler .
Luvugnz�o is trying not to discuss that issue. The Bourd considers
the contents of wnut UP neighbors nave to sag as it upp!ie�
to the Board ' s guidelines . 4eud said he aid not solicit unb
of the letters. Luvugnzno said 7.e is not inferring thut .
Head stro:gly faels there is u practical difficulty . 7he two
feet is u mzPimum request. There is e practical difficult�j
in moving the second story Dearing wall over two feet . Luvugnino
agreed if there were no other alternatives. Puterscn said the
applicant is not able to do the alternative . The Board is
forcing the applicant to restructure t:e hcuse 1n sucn u wuJ
thun is not good for the city. Anderson argues the applicunt
has been trying to execute that other option for the lust seven
or eight gears. The applicant was grunted u building permit
for that option. But that option is not practical for the upplicunt .
There is u second option. Luvugnino said the Board cannot ru1e
on that. The Boeru's ruling is whether the upplzcunt can buila ,
not whetter the applicant can financially afford tn buill.
Paterson argued the applicant has to redo the old rooi, he hus
to improve the ceiling height, he has to have u nursery, und
he has to have uIl this within the zoning parameters. The Bourd
is forcing the applicant to do something which is not good struc-
turullg or good for the city . Even the neighbors believe Keu'l
should be grunted the vuriurce for the two und half feet. Paterson
cannot change his opinion. Luvugnino finds fuult in the ureu
in which Paterson wants to grunt the variance. If Paterson
14
RECORD_OF_PROCEEDINGS
can convince him within the BourS ' s guidelines, then he WoOKd
be happy to grunt the variance . The applicant has not exhuusted
all the resources of using that lur/? . He is not looking just
ot Rick Head, he is locking at the application. That is his
onlg basis. Paterson said thut busz � is Act good enough , he
thinks he has u stronger basis . Luvagnino said the Board has
to apply this decision to ever, future case, the Bound has to
be consistent. Oze day the question will be is three or four
feet too much. Paterson said it depends on tie case . Luvugnino
understood that, but the principle remains Ve same . Puterso'�
saw sometimes he would not �Irunt the variance . Luvugnzno cited
the came of Richie Cohen, the Board did not grunt Conen the
two inches , the Board directel the upplicunt to jog the buildiog .
Whitaker suggested Paterson looX at the plot plan, there is
ample land uvuiluble . Whitaker said the applicant is not being
denied u reasonable use of his property. Austin commented the
applicant will nave to redo the substunduru roof, plus buil�
another new roof over here. Why is the Board making the upplicunt
do double the work . Whitaker said the Board is not making the
upplicunt do anything . Austin said the Board is making the
applicant build more than what he wants . Whitaker said the
applicant has not exhausted all Me ,possibilzties for u reasonable
use of Mis property. This is the Bourd ' s cnly case ever involving
u nonconforming structure on u nonconforminJ Mt . Austin observed
everyone wants open space, and yet the Boars is tus^cully uirect�ny
the applicant use more oF his open space . nuvugoino said he
will do that anyway. He has that legal r1ght . Austin suid
for now he is asking to build upward in such u minimul way,;
he is adding onto an existing roof . Luvugnino said that does
not preclude him from using up his FAR. Austin said it is not
practical . Whitaker said this is nou u practical dif;icultq .
If the solution is Financially impractical , that is one thing .
Paterson said Practical uzfficulty 1s the way the house is
out. Whitaker said the applicurt offers another solution io
the 1977 plan.
Anderson asked Drueding if Lhe applicant cume in Our u variance
to cover the entire front of the building wilm u one story setbuc^
to setback according to code, leaving no yard, would that A.-
Q proper alternative to what he is requestin§ now. Druelin�
15
RECORD
......Bgqrd_gf_Ad 'gQMent------Februeru_23._l984
ogreed the current proposal appears more reasonable than Ws
Proposed bigger structure . Luvugnino soid whetever the upplicent
does in the future the applicant will have to come before thc
Bourd . In this case , the Bourd can control the type oS building
on the property . He does not know what the legal puruneters
are in that kind oT motificution . He wants to find out from
the city attorney . Paterson asked wnut 1s tg forcin,�
the applicant to destroj this nouse and build lot line to lot
line . Luvugnino said tre Board �s not forcing the upplicont
to do unything. Luvugnznc asked what is lost to the City of
Aspen. Austin said thut house needs to be upgruded , it is sun '
standard, he will not do that. Luvuynino argued if the applicant
is concerned with the health und welfare of his family, the
applicant will upgrade thut house. At some time the upplicunt
will repair the deteriorating roof to meet code without having
to come before the Board . Head said he will have to come nefore
the Board for approval of anything he does to the house. Luvugnino
said if the applicant just remwels the roof to bring it up
to code or replaces u leaving, sagging roof , then no. Drueding
said the applicant can do maintenance repairs. Austin suid
if the applicant has to change the roof line to bring the ceil�n�
to code by moving the wall in two Peet he will have to come
buck to tne Board . Luvugnino said he is not extending the norcon '
formity of that space unjerneuth. Ae is just bringing the roof
line up to code. Druedzng suid if changing the rooS line 1ncreeses
the upplicunt's ability to use space, if it increases floor
ureu ratio, then the applicant is MO ullowed to do it and he
must come before the Board . If he changes the roof line un�
at the sume time rulses the floor , so storage or usable spuce
is not increase!, then it is Just maintenance repuzrs .
Anderson suid the upplicont cannot create u practical or uesthetzc
roof without using the same snaps of the existing roof. Austin
asked if the applicant move, in the secant stor6 wull two feet ,
would he still have to come to the Board Pop upprovul of u Dedroom
up there. Someone said gas. Luvugnzno suM he does not know. He
does not know what the Board ' s criterzu 10 fur reviewing this . If
one infringes upon zoning setbacks , he comes under the Bourd " ...
pervue and Ms criteria for considering those. He would be
delighted to §rur.n the vuriunce ' if proper language can be se�
to motion which would allow him to give u culpujle response.
He suggested some sort of control of the future expenszon of
�6
RECORD_OF_PROCEEDINGS
this property , but he aces not know wnut thut control is . Puterson
said that he has to come Duck to the Board . Luvugnino soz�
that is the control , but whg uoes the Bou/ d suy yes or no. Cun
the Board be arbitrary and capricious . `uvugnino said then '
in eifect he can do anything he wants if he meets all the other
criteria even if it zs an illegal lot. He wants to Vnow frum
the czty attorney whut is tie Bon-d ' s basic guideline .
Anderson said tie Bourl smould have no concerns or worries for
future expansion as long as the FAR, hejgiq setbucks are /oet .
Luvugnino agreed but why does the applicant even come before
us then to meet all those requirements . Unless the city uttorne�
provides the Board with u new set of criteria what kind of lutitude
does the Board have to ullc`w or deny the applicant to buil�
something that is being enjoged by someone who has u legal lot.
Paterson said the roof needs to be replaced and the ceilin�
heightened . If that is the case, then there is u pructicul
difficultg, in as much us, this action will creute o new room .
Luvugnino usked if the applicant puts u new roof on and creutes
Q space, then will he have to come bsfore the Bcurd. Druediny
said yes since he is increasing the floor area ratio. However ,
if he puts u new roof on and dces not create uny new space then
MO . Luvugnino thought the applicant could do that. Head said
he cannot put u new roof on in the some configuration and meet
the normal code height. Paterson said the minute he creutes
Q center pitch with the new ceiling he creutes MEW spuce .
Luvugnino suid he does not have to create new space. Austi'!
said yes, if he is using the center pitch. Paterson said On-
applicant has stated it does make sense to build u funny snupe�
roof , and if he centers the roof line he is creut�ng new space .
This space Secomes Iiveuble because of tAe height. Druediny
argued te can do it without creating new space. These purtzculur
plans suggest creating new space. Anderson suggested using
gang nail trussets to create practical and uninhabitable spuce .
But the question is is it 'eascnuble or pructzcol . Austin sGi�
it is not reasonable .
Munn said the comment tmot the Board not grunt variances Jast
Necuuse the variance is not harmless does not apply in this
case anymore. If the structure is brought up to code, then she
favors the vurzunce . Luvugnino said the cpplicuct can do thut
l7
without creating new space, und he would for Me prutectzon
of his own family. Nunn conside'ea We addition will up§rude
the neighborhood . Luvugnino uskm according to whoa. Tne neighburs
have u vested interest, they want to see property upgraded,
it enhances the looks o, the property. kbituker asked munn
U the Board denies this particular application, has the Dourd
closed the door to the cpplicunt if be comes up with another
solution. Munn said no . Whituker said the applicant hus nnt
exhausted ull the To toe Tourd denies the wurluoce ,
U is not denying the applicant u reusonuule right to the Kse
of the propertyi
Druedin§ said since Jzm Wilson has been chief building ofriciul ,
one does not have to brn :g an ant= structure to code with
any addition . The 197F aniform building code is more lux uboM
lot bringing other portions of the building to code .
Luvugnino suggested the Board table u decision an this cuse
until the city uttormey provides some direction to the Board
on what the criteria is to allow or deny the applicant to build .
Anderson requested the Bourd explain to the citg attorney there
does not seem to be u:y productive purpose being served,
the applicant meets all ccde requirements, to reTeut this proce.p.
everg few yea/"s . If the lot is not legal , at least treat it
an if it were .
Luvugnino closed the puolic hearing .
Churles Paterson moved to tubIe toe meeticg to Merch G, 1984 ,
at 4: 00 p. m . ; seconded by Fruoczs Whitaker . All in favor ; motion
curried.
Whitaker quoted jr-Cm the posting requirements of Crdinance
#12: " . . .the sign in u conspicuous place . . . "hut is considered
u conspicuous place for the purpose of the ordinance is deternine::�
Q the Bound of Ad,ustment. . . hDwever , since every iot within
the czty abuts on u street or highway , I recommend that t�e
posting be done in Tuch u manner as to u" low tLe sign to be
reuduble from such u street or DzyhWug ( this is somet0zng Written
by the czty attorney ). " Keud 's sign wus nut reuduble from the
street . Drueding suia the copy of the uttorney ' s statement
18
RECORD
is in the packet provided for the upplico:t. DruedioJ said
the attorneys decide what is conspicuous . Whitaker wanted to
ciullenge the location of the public notification. Acy citizen
could complain thut he could not read the notice from the public
street . Luvugnino asked how does the Board deal with this .
Drueding suggested reposting with the dote oQ the next meeting .
Luvugnino said the applicant is not required to do that. Everyone
said this case is not to be challenged . Luvagozno said in the
future it should be challenged. Munn suggested the minute the
Board knows the sign is not in u conspicuous place, telephone
the applicant right uwug. Druedirg said he would tell the upplicunm
when they pick up their packets,,
Francis Whitaker moved to adjourn the meeting at 5: 45
seconded by Jospehine Munn. All in favor ; motion cur' io" .
-
----__-___-�--_-------------------- -
Borburu Norris, Deputy City Clerk
�9