Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19840927 C I T Y OF A S P E N BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Thursday, September 27 , 1984 City Council Chambers 4: 00 p.m. AGENDA Minutes July 26, 1984 August 2 , 1984 August 23 , 1984 September 6, 1984 II. Case #84-19 , Ann Hanessian/Nonny' s Furs III. Case #84-20, Robert I:lineman IV. Case #84-21 , John Stanford V. Adjournment RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment September 27, 1984 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4 : 04 p I 11 i J .m. with members Charlie Paterson, Francis taker , Rica Head, and Anne Austin present. MINUTES The Board deferred the approval of the minutes to the end of the meeting. Lavagnino notified the applicants that today there are only four members sitting on the Board; that is a quorum. Each applicant will have the option to table their requests. Four af.Eirmative votes are required to grant a variance. CASE #84-19, ANN HANESSIAN/NONNY' S FURS Lavagnino read the variance requested : "Section 24-5.1 (2) . The aggregate sign area permitted along any one street shall not exceed one square foot of sign for each three ( 3) -feet of lot line frontage occupied by or projected from the building within which the principal use is conducteC. Applicant has interior space and no lot line frontage. Applicant is asking for a free standing sign measuring 21x33 inches for a variance of 4 .81 square foot. " Lavagnino requested the affidavit of posting the public notice. Ann 11an(assian, applicant, did not present the affidavit. (Anne Austin arrived in the chambers . ) Lavagnino said the Board will listen to the case but if the approval were granted the applicant would have to present to the 'Board a notarized affidavit and a photograph of the posting and/or the actual notice before tit., variance Would take effect. .9:-lnessian remarked she sent a letter to the Board. It is imperative that she get a sandwich sign up in the alley. That sign was made last spring . She thought such signs were going to be perTiAtted by this fall. The entrance to her business, Nonny' s Furs, is behind Takah Sushi ' s door. 11hen Takah Sush., opens, their door her entrance is totally closed. She needs to settle that issue with the landlord of Tak-ah Sushi . Consequently, people ,,ialking down the alley do not see her entrance. Her business depends on Ilizaving a sign on the alley. Business in Aspen is not marvelous for many shopowners. She is not a shopowner who will have a shop in Aspen just to have a shop in Aspen. Aspen needs her quality shop. It is a good quality shop. It is a nice looking shop. 13he has a good clientele and she supports the town. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adiustment September 27, 1984 The business 1-1,a;,D Z-112 linear ".--et of windo,,,7 s-oa-ce- aloe; t-11(;.- court- 7,',r(I . r3'he courtvcar" is not city proper-%7 . Sh- cleans the L courtyard; something she does not have to do. 7--lonny' s Furs is a credit to Aspen. She does not carry endangorc-(] specices. Aspen 11 d i ic need -1--1-c needs her shop and. shle needs the support of As-pen. S A,- �-ii sign , a sign Which is nice looking. She knows of other signs located in alleys. She does not know if those signs were per- mitte6l'. If those signs were illegal she should be given the same consideration. She referred to photographs which were subr,,itted with Tier application. Lavagnino asked if the applicant is referring to the existing hanging sign. ilanessian clarified her request is for a standing sign. Lavagnino asked if the existing hanging sign does identify T her business flanessian argued the entrance to her business is not visible to the public when they look down the alley. T 11 e public does not look at the sign because they do not see the door . If there were a sign with an arrow and the word- "open" opposite the door in the alley then people would know there is a fur silop. There is an existing hanging sign. Originally she had a sign on the street, that sign came down. Again Takah Sushi ' s open door obstructs the visibility of her entrance . T al',,ra 11 Sushi ' s door does not cover the existing hanging sign. Hanessian noted that the existing sign and the proposed sandwich sign are under the allowed square footage for her window space. Lavagnino asked if that hanging sign is allowed in the alley. Is he alley counted in the square footage? Bill Drueding, building L explained that outdoor area is not an alley. It is private property. I-Ale granted a permit for the existing sign bac!-, wAien he was under the instructions from the city manager to use discretion to allow people to do certain things. As the sign problem grew, he stopped permitting illegal signs. Now there is a request for an additional sign, the sandwich board sign. Lavagnino asked if there were no existing sign, would someone be allowed now to put a sign there in the alley. Drueding answered no. She was not allowed in the past to have the hanging sign. Only through Drueding ' s discretion did Hanessian receive permission to hang the existing sign. Hanessian said her signage is under the square footage. Lavagnino argued no square footage is allowed because a sign is not allowed according to the code i--7hich is unreasonable. The Board understands the municipal code does not address the problem of courtyards and alley ways. Austin asked if Nonny' s Fur were located on street frontage then the signage would not be over the allowed amount of signage. Drueding said if her business fronted the street she would be allowed 1, square I of sign. The existing sign is about six square feet. Tile proposecl sign is about 4 .10 square feet. 'Y"es, she would be- under 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDING Regular Meeting Board of Adiustment September 27. 1984 the [Dorr,,iitted signage. Paterson as'h- cd where is the ovorhead sign in the photographs. Lavagnino indicated on a photograph the location of the existing sign and indicated how far the sign extends out into the alley. Hanessian reasoned that a sandwich sign would help people relate the hanging sign to an existing fur shop. The sign is elegant looking. Lavagnino explained the Board cannot determine the aesthetics of the sign. Hanessian asked if the sandwich signs near -the Tom Thumb Building are legal.- Drueding explained those- - - - - signs are coming before the Board for the same reasons. The one diff-erence is that the Tom Thumb sandwich sign is a directory sign. Ile noted that the city had a sandwich board sign outside of the Wheeler Opera [louse. That city-sponsored sign has been removed. That sign did not have a permit. Tom Thumb ' s sign will be allowed to remain until the applicant goes through the Board of Adjustment. Lavagnino closed the public hearing. Head asked for clarification. Is the variance for the existing sign or for the sandwich sign? Lavagnino explained the variance is for the sandwich sign. Head asked if lionny' s Furs fronted the street would the existing sign and the proposed sign total an ajnount under or over the allowed signage for a business Eronting, the street. Lavagnino repeated the signage would be under . Drueding asked where would the sandwich sign be located. Hanessian explained the sign would be located in the courtyard across from her entrance. The sign would be brought in at the end of tnE! (lay. Whitaker commented the Board is up against a small case of til-le Pill Street Plaza. The problem is with shops that do not have street frontage ; those shops are at a real disadvantage. T11 e Board alight consider doing what it did f or the llill Street Plaza . Perhaps allow the sign until the city revises the sign coda. Drueding said it may be at least a year before there -is- a new sign code.- He talked to -Paul- Taddune, city attorney, about the sign code. There currently is the Hanessian case , and another sign case is coming forward soon. These cases arc- not going to stop. In effect, the Board is revising the sign code for the next year . As these cases continue precedents are being set. ;ill Street Station requested a variance for a directory; each shop there that did not have a right to a sign is now allowed one square foot. T7hitaker asked if there is a directory for 'lionnye!ding eqplained Lor the courtyard wi-icre ' s Furs is located. Dru 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment September 27, 1984 there are oniv two shops in the Courtyard : Takah, Sushi an.,-I '11onriv' s, Furs. Suggestec! nose silops collectively have a dir,.-:;ctOry or ICOQ street. Lavagnino said that solution T,,,ould also re uire a variance. Lavagnino e-,:plored whither the applicant has a reasonable request. Can people identilEy her shop where it is? Is the existing sign sufficient enough to identify her shop? The issue of finding the., entrance to the shop is an incidenta 1 issue. The key issue is w1iether the sign identifies Nonny ' s Furs . is there enough display space on the existing sign for people to identify the shop from the street? The existing sign is visible from t4.e street. lie thought the existing hanging sign was the sign that the variance Was being asked for. There is a proliferation of �,itziJl signs incidental to the purpose of the sign. The purpose of a sign is to identify and to inform people of the existence of a shot) with sufficient size to be seen from a public right-of-way. . nitaker thought also that the Board was being asked to rule on the c;:?sting hanging sign. Lavagnino determined that it was a reasonable request to leave the existing sign up. I.-TOW lie is confronted with another sign, the sandwich sign, and he hesitates to approve the second sign. Paterson commented the sign issue is becoming a larger proib."Lcm every year in Aspen. He does not like the Board making e;:ceptions, until the sign code has been revised by a coiiwiiittee as it is -planned to be done . Then people can follow the new rules . The Board should not spot zone situation.-, whicil are illegal at this ti:ne. Lavagnino asked if the existing sign is unreasonable since everyone else is enjoying that right. -Paterson agreed witL', r-LIU uu.,_L.Iing inspector ' s position that there is some gray area within which he can make some decision for this interim period. One sign is acceptable, but two signs are in violation. It is riot reasonable to have two signs both in violation. One, sign in violation is bad criough. He did not request that the exiSt-ing :ranging sign 5 taken down. An identification of the shop is I necessary. -'Ie is concerned with - signing t'llrougilout the town in c n e r e.JL Drueding said he did issue a permit for the existing sign. Tibet sign is legal. There is a reliance factor. The existing sig.n can stay. Lavagnino questioned Drueding' s discretionary power . Can tile: building inspector supersede the Board of Adjustment ' s 4t - tl-ii- _ City decisions? Drueding re-ported that meeting he had a eeting W.L it attorney ancl, the city manager. Drueding was instructed, to do the b- st. he can. There are many signs. Enforcement of tn(� code is very difficult. lie does not feel comfortable using his discre- tionary power even though directed so. T11at is why the 1-Doard is 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular meeting Board of Adjustment September 27, 1984 receivin9 tins ? cases. allow4 t, 4S Out 7� Lng some-tChing li%e ill Austin advised caution in in the street right now as a temporary approval. Everyone will want to I have solliething similar . She would be opposed to the variance. 1-1-1, "ead mioved to d2� tl� Ric}:, 1� the variance for case nu-_-iber 3 19; seconded by Anne Austin. Lavagnino called for a roll call vote : Austin: aye Whitaker aye Lavagnino: aye Paterson: aye Head : aye All in savor ; ri-iotion carried. The request for a variance is Cienied. Hanessian commented that anyone who has any kind of a directory sign and who has window space should not get any kind of a sign anywhere. Her case is different because the two shops in front oJ.'! her on Ily-.an Street both have windows. She is not allowed to have a sign identifying her shop on the courtyard. People do not look down her courtyard . She cannot drop her sign further because that violates the code. The shops at the Tom ThUML) Building have their own signs in the windows. '11-11 e namos of those shops are incorporated on a sandwich board. She did not put- her sandk,oich board out all summer because she did not have a permit . Paterson suggested that Hanessian make some kind of arrangement with her landlord. Hanessian said her sign is not on the street like the Tom Thumb sign. Lavagnino reminded her the Tom Thumb is coming before the Board. Drueding said the corner where the Tom Thumb sign is located is private property and required open space . Neither sign is on the mall . Lavagnino counselled I.Janessian to attend a city council meeting and voice her complaints over the sign code. CASE #84-20, ROBERT KLINEMAN Lavagnino read the variance requested by Robert Klineriian: "Proporty is located in the R-6 zoning category. Property has two single family houses on a 6 ,000 square foot lot, or single family lot; this property is a nonconforming use : Section 24-3 . 4. No such nonconforming use shall be enlarged or increased nor eXtended to occupy greater area of land than was occupied at the off--ective U-1ate of adoption or a..-iondment of this code, 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment September 27, 1984 Section 24-13 . 2 (a) . The applicant appears to be requesting to czpand a noncon- forming use IDU 11A square feet. Anne Austin who is a duly notified adjacent property owner stepped down. from this case due to a conflict of interest . Lavagnino advised the applicant that there are only four members on the Board today, and the applicant needs a unanimous decision for approval of the variance. The applicant can request L- tabling until such time that a fifth member is present if the applicant perceives one dissenting vote will deny his variance. David 1"luckenhirn, representative for the applicant and building contractor , presented the affidavit of the public notice and a photograph of the public notice. The affidavit still needs to be notarized. Lavagnino commented that before the variance tali:es effect the affidavit will have to be notarized. 7 -lucikenhirn explained the purpose of the variance is to e=xpand the diningr=-ii and the kitchen which are presently relatively smaLl compared to the scale of the house . The request is for an additional five feet to the west. At the time a building permit was applied for, Drueding advised the applicant that he needed to appear before the Board. If the lot were not a nonconforming use, then the applicant would be allowed 3,240 square feet of building envelope. Presently the main residence and the carriage house total just over 2 ,044 square feet. He rec;uests the variance based on Ordinance 11 , Series 1982 , Sect-ion 9-a. That ordinance is referred to as the General Martin amendment. IVilliam Martin had a similar case . Nartin applied for two variances; one on this basis and the other on the basis of the size of his lot. Muckenhirn cited case #82-11. In that case martin applied for two variances. The first variance Was A' b,:ased on the General Flartin amendment. The second variance revolved around the subdivision of his 11,500 square foot lot; !1,'-,rtin needed 12 ,000 square to subdivide. His client has applied for historical designation. The present I request is contingent upon that designation being granted. HPC is reviewing the property. Colette Penne, city staff adviser to 1- C, is here today to testify to that action. Penne e.xplained the HP L situation on designating the structure historical. Presently, the designation has not been done . However , the action is a pro f6rma designation . ,-TPC has set certain policies that any structure that is identified in one of the three categories (notable, eHcellent, and exceptional) as one of those historic 6 RECORD OF PROCEEDING Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment September 27, 1984 resources is historically designated if the owner complies . In the upper t,WTo categories the owner does not have the choice but to comj�ly with 'Cho designation. _:lineman' s house falls in the third category, the notable category which is of lesser importance. If Klineman complies his house will be historically designated. At the time that 150 houses were designated Klinelman chose not to be designated. Since then Klineman has decided to expand his kitchen and has asked for an historical designation. HPC will do that. There is no question as to whether or not the house qualifies for historical designation; this house certainly does qualify. HPC will review this house at their October 9th meeting. It is an imminent consideration. HPC did not hold their meeting September 25th, otherwise the house would have alread,-2 7 been designated. Lavagnino asked if HPC could turn the designation down. Penne replied HPC cannot turn this application down. And once the house is designated HPC will review the plans for expansion in terms of its historical integrity. The designation is really pro forma If HPC PC were to deny the designation then HPC would be opposing policies that were established at the time of designation. Head asked if someone who falls within one of those designated categories automatically gets an additional 500 square feet to T the floor area ratio. Penne explained the General V.artin amend- .n! nt. Martin has a main house and carriage house, both of which are rather large, on a 11 ,500 square foot parcel. TkThen the FA1-11 ordinance was written the Martins were very vocal about the :['act that they were not able to add onto their house because of the nonconforming use status of their property. There are certain incentives incorporated in the code, for example GRIP exemption for expansion or change in use in historic structures . The Nartins were at FAR and were a nonconforming use because of the two single family houses on a 11 , 500 square foot lot. Nartin' s property was not a duplex . The additional 500 square, feet brought the house above the allowable FAR. The difference bat,.,7een the two properties is that Klineman' s is a less severe application. Martin' s house was at its maximum FAR and Tiartin received an additional 500 square feet on top of the maximum F. R. Klincman' s house is substantially under FAR, although, he wants to add square footage. The nonconforming uses for both properties are the two single family units rather than duplex units on the parcels. The historic designation and Ordinance 11 allow that. Drueding recalled that when Ordinance 11 was adopted, that some houses became nonconforming with regards to their FAR. Historically designated houses however were not penalized. Those .douses were allowed to increase their FAD, nonconformity by the 500 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDING Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment September 27, 1984 s-,uare -feet. That is not the same situation with t h e .'lineman A-)roperty. Nlinemian is riot over his F1',R. 17 hitaker noted the application indicates the house is historically designated. llluckenhi-rn sai.-I that is incorrect; the house: Js in the process of being historically designated. Penne s,-.i-"7 that error is not the applicant ' s fault. The applicant assumed that TIPC would have designated the house by this meeting. T,7 h i t a k e r said the Doarc] gets itself into difficulties 1,vith the assumption that something will be done. Lavagnino said the Board has to assume t'liat the house is going to be designated and that the house cannot be taken out of the notable category again. Penne aareeJ. IJPC has been through the process over a hundred times and has set certain policies. She does not anticipate that HPC will deviate from the established policies. Lavagnino remarIked the Board can condition the variance so that the house must have 11PC approval. Drueding said the Board cannot make any decisions on this case until HPC approves the designation in writing. This case should be tabled until the house is designated. He cited section 24-9 . 15 , "role of the Doard of Adjustment" from the municipal code. Lavagnino read the section: "The Board of Adjustment shall not act on any variance or except-ion pertaining to property within an H, Historic Overlay District, without first consulting and obtaining the written report of the historic preservation committee. r10 appeal shall lie to the Board of Adjustment from any of the decisions of the historic preservation committee (Ordinance 11 , 1975) . " Lavagnino asked if the property falls under an historic overlay district. Penne explained this property is individually historically designated. it is not in an historic overlay district. Whitaker guessed if this house were granted an historic designation ti-len the ,property would become part of the overlay district. An overla- district can apply anywhere the use is changed or the designation is made. Penne said there are districts, such as 1-lain Street and the commercial core. T,JThen a structure is individually designated there is an "11" put on the zoning map with lines around tho '"i" indicating that the designation has been done. Tlhitafker said that is an overlay. D.Cueding advised the Board to hear the case but table the decision until the HPC has officially designated the property. Drueding said if HPC had approved the historical designation for the property by today then I-1,PC would have reviewed and signed off the --3 L � l an, for expansion. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular meeting Board of Adjustment September 27, 1984 17.uc!1:cn'1lira subii,,itted a letter -f,rom 11,obert 1 linellan to Colette Penne dated Sel,?teiiiber 5 , 1901 . The letter requests that 1711ineman ' s property be designated as one of Aspen' s historical resources. He assui-,iec,- the property was to be designated- by this hearing date. Nuckenhirn presented some additional comments. The expansion extends five feet from the building . The expansion will be reasonably hidden by large fir trees located in the front and by cottonwoods located in the back. The expansion is not ob- trusive. The expansion is single storied. The ridge of tile expansion is less high than the ridge of main residence. Lavagnino expressed concern over the destruction of the evergreen. J.,Iuckenlhirn said the tree is close. There is no intent to remove any trees. The expansion is on the west side. The fir tree is located north of the west expansion. He noted the length of the expansion is revised to meet code , originally the expansion was to be 6 .5 feet, but code only allows 5 .2 feet. The distance between the lot line and the new addition is 5 ' -811. The addition does not obstruct anyone' s viewplane. J-1 T L�avagnino reminded the applicant that the Board needs practical - difficulties or unnecessary hardships in order to grant a variance. ­.That is the applicant presenting to the Board in terms of those guidelines? Nuckenhirn said the practical difficulty and hardship is Ordinance 11 , Series 1982 . That ordinance grants Fline.man an additional 500 square feet of which only 115 square feet is being asked for . The practical difficulty is that the lot is limited now. The lot cannot be expanded because of the constraints of fire protection and the floor area ratio. The present kitchen and the diningroom are extremely small for the size of the building . Code prevents his client from bringing the rooms to scale. Head asked if M.r . 171ineman is being denied something that 1r . Martin is enjoYing under Ordinance 11 . If so, does that constitute hardship? 1-7hitaker requested a clarification of interpretation. TT r_ qUote, 1"i the ordinance : "no such nonconforming structure may be enlarged . . . notwithstanding single family units which have been individually historically designated and which are nonconforming 1 V ' th respect to allowable floor area. " How does this apply to 7 this application? Drueding explained that if an historically (_,esignated 6,000 square foot were already over its FAR, the lot would become nonconforming in terms of the FAR with the application of Ordinance 11 . 500 feet of e.-:pansion was allowed for those historical buildings over their FAR in order not to penalize th-c l 11 Nartin not only fell istorically designated buildings. General into this category but his property was also a nonconforming r. RECORD OF PROCEEDING Regular meeting Board of Adjustment September 27, 1984 use. The ordinance did not au"(fress nonconforming use . Conse- quently, 11artin had to come before the Board for a variance. Nartin had 500 s-quare feet by right according to Ordinance 11 , but he also had a problem of nonconforming use. Nartin had a nonconforming structure in terms of FAR and a nonconforming use, because two single family units were located on the property. 11',1ine:-,,.an is not experiencing a nonconforming structure , the residence is under the allowed FAR; but he is experiencing a nonconforr,Ang use because there are two single family dwellings on the property. iluclkenliirn argued if iHiartin who was at the maximum FAR were an additional 500 square feet , then it seems reasonable that 7,lineman should be allowed to expand up to 500 square feet even though he is not pushing the floor area. Whitaker said there is a. major difference between a nonconforming structure arid a nonconforming use. If Klineman' s house were a nonconforming structure, then ".lineman would be allowed by right the additional 500 square feet. TE',ut the properly is a nonconforming use; there are two single family units on 6, 000 square foot lot on which only one unit is permitted. He is less tolerant of variances for properties with nonconforming uses. The chairicicail :asked the applicant to elaborate on the hardships and practical iff - iculties and the deprivation of a reasonable property right d enjoyed by other property owners. The applicant has not answered those c1uestions. T' U :.oa ' r e-Iiie-mbe red that the Board granted Martin his variance be-cause the alternative was to -connect the two buildings Wid perpetuate even more mass to an already large structure. The Board reasoned if the variance were granted Bien Martin ,could maintain the existing scale. Nartin could have enjoyed a duplex by right . I-.L'- Klineman were to connect the two homes , then Y'line.man could 6o the expansion without coning before tl-le_ Board. If the nonconforming use were eliminatC(A Lllt-i• iuineman could by right ci:pand. Huckenhirn reasoned that Klineman cannot enjoy the e,.pansion .Docause he is limited by code. And yet, 17r. Martin -arid others are =enjoying larger structures . Head said the applicant has to J :;0 1 convince the Board that a hardshio eXists and that the 'Llarl-2shi-o 4 is 1-not created by the applicant. The applicant is creating Che request for the variance. Some outside situation has not been created that requires the applicant to request a variance . A� n.i - has not ileard any reason or justification for granting a variance based, on hardship or practical -lifficulty. Lavagnino the applicant liau presented an e:?pansion for the appli cant:I s 10 RECORD OF PROCEEDING Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment September 27, 1984 convenience. The Board cannot consider a variance based on the applicant ' s convenience. The Board cannot make a determination based on enlarging a room, improving the traffic flow, etc. The guidelines direct the applicant to convince the Board that there is a unique situation whiCh prevents the applicant from.1 accomplish- ing what he wants and that the applicant needs some relief from the strict adherence to the code. Eucl:enhirn requested the case be tabled. Drue6ing c oriii,.ie-rite d. that if Ilartin' s property had been duple.-ed he i'AgIlt Have lost his historical designation. Klineman ' s main house and carriage house constitute an historical designation . I I e a If; said !.lineman never really cared about the historical IAesignation. T' 1,lineman cared about t1le designation as a vehicle to acquire 500 T additional square feet. Head said the applicant could accomplish his cjoal by connecting the main house and the carriage house under present zoning. Historical designation does not appear to be a crucial issue to Klineman. Klineman' s action to jump of) the historical bandwagon now is to accomplish the expansion. Iiucl en'hi rn agreed. Head advised Muckenhirn to go back to Klineman, to regroup with Klineman, and to reevaluate what is the best way to attacl- the problem. T-�hitaker advised the applicant not to rely on the General i'artin case. Charlie Paterson moved to table case 1,,84-20 to October 10, 1"'104; seconded by Francis 'Vlhitaker. All in favor; motion carrier2. The Board recessed for two minutes. CASE #84-21, JOHN STANFORD Anne Austin returned to her seat on the Board. Lavagnino stated the property is at 612 West Francis. Lavagnino read the variance requested : "Property is located in the R-6 zoning category. Side yard. setback is five feet. Section 24-3 . 4: area and bulk require- ment . Applicant appears to be requesting a zero lot line variance into side yard setback for a covered entry way. " Bohn Stanford , applicant , presented a notarized affidavit and U 2. 'hotoqra-ph of the posting of the public notice. His application is based on the a- safety problem; that is the hardship. ice builds up one of the entry doors. The ice buildup last year was so critical that he was unable to use the second entrance to the house. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS E:eqular Meeting Board of Adjustment September 27, 1984 -tanford p resented a -clan of the lot. The lot is 3 ,000 square .Leet. He oriented the 151oard to the location of the property. The c!n IL---ra)n c e to tha house is off a deck that is at ground level. .I.erc- is also a door at the west side of the house which also goes onto a deck. He proposed a roof structure over that deck area . There is a fence along the property line. There is a letter enclosed attached to the application from his neighbor, Bridget Starri . The letter states S-tarri has no objection to the proposal. The proposal is for a hip roof that comes off the hip roof of the main house which runs in the opposite direction. The neighboring fence acts similarly as a snow fence . The fence catches and dumps the snow along that side of the house. The snow accumulation melts and creates ice. StanforC., presented photographs of the west side of the house. The ice buildup was visible. Stanford was directed by Drue6ing to keep the proposal six feet from the adjacent house . T11 proposal actually is eight feet away from the corner of the proposed roof to the corner of the adjacent neighbor. !-Toad asked if the area is to remain open. Stanford replieC there will 'be no walls in the area, there will only be roofed structure. 1.1i,hitaker asked if the problem is snow sliding off the roof. Stanford explained the area is open to the elements . 13 n o T,-7 rn si-.-.iply falls or blows there. The fence acts as a snow fcncia. Me snow will be removed from in front of the door and on the entire wa.L':w,,,y. The problem is that the snow melts adjacent to the door and consequently because of the heat from the house ices the, door because of the heat from the house. Lavagnino asked why the roof needs to be so large . S t a n f o r alesigned the roof to cover the deck. Paterson sail: the proposed hi.) roof design is compatible with the existing scale of the roof. Austin said if the roof were not to cover the deck then there would be snow accumulation on the deck. Lavagnino asked if there will be access to the doorway from the north andl the south. Stanford explained the area will be completely opened on both sides. He will construct only a roof. Lavagnino ezpressed concern over the possibility of using the area as covereo- airlock space. Stanford said t1l"iat is not his idea. Drueding explained i.'L" Stanford were to -enclose the entire space he woul!-'l not further incrcvse the FAR nonconformity. IV4'hitaker said he has struggle(] aaiti. snow and ice proble-ms on his LIOUse. Each time he thinks he has � solution the solution is not 1 ? RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment September 27. 1984 sati.sfa)ctory. Nis concern is that Stanford will just be transferring the snow orobloitis from one spot to another. If the roof were a South roof there ii-,ight not be any problems . There will be " I W4 He has fought snow removal for nine �..,r o ID 1 e-,iL s Lth a north roof. i years and he still has not found a solution. Paterson commented this design includes a cold roof. Stanford explained during last winter the ice buildup was so severe that he could not use that access. He had to park in the front on the street consequently. Drueding commented there are many safety codes. One concern is exiting people from a house because of a fire. If there were a two foot drop of snOV7 one evening then the exit as a fire exit might be blocked with snow. This roof protects the door from snow accumulating and allows for a second exit from the house in case of a fire. Even if t,'e snow is transferred the snow is transferred so that the door is not obstructed by snow. Lavagnino asked for the square footage of the house. Stanford replied 635 square feet. Paterson said it is reasonable -for someone to have two entrances, back and -front. Whitaker asked if the design were to be approved then it would allow for access by fire fighters. Lavagnino asked if the this is a minimum request. T1 1e D o a r agreed the request is minimal. Lavagnino closed the public hearing. Head remarked this request is minimal . The safety and health reasons as stated by Drueding are strong reasons for favoring the variance. Austin agreed with Head. The size of the roof is not unreasonable. The entire deck area needs to be covered to �)rotect the door. (Stanford explained the overhang will cover the steps and the deck . ) Lavagnino asked if the deck did not e.:ist woul(: the variance be reasonable . Paterson agree(! the request is reasonable. The variance is small . Stanford has visually proved to Paterson that there is a real problem. lie strongly favored two doors. lie would grant the variance . '•!'Z'Iitaker commented that he is not convinced the solution will ,cork . Dut, the request is an attempt to alleviate the safety and - (Stanford said the greatest ice problem is welf are concerns. (ILI confined to the door. ) Lavagnino ap-preciated the applicant ' s dilemma.. He has a small homes with only one exit. If taut access were to be blocked by an ice buildup then he would be in trouble. 'He would nrefor to have alaother acc-ess too, that would be very beneficial . rIe W o u 1 Cl� 13 RECORD OF PROCEEDING Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment September 27. 1984 favor ;ranting the variance. PiCl> head RIOVedi lt--O a-O'Drove, the variance for case 84-21; secondet-3 by Charlie Paterson. Lavagnino requested a roll call vote : Austin aye Whitaker aye Lavagnino aye Paterson ave He a d aye :,Nll in favor ; motion carried. MINUTES July 26, 1984: Charlie Paterson moved to approve the minutes of July 26 , 1984, as corrected in the meeting: seconded by Francis ,,hitaker. All in favor ; motion carried. August 2 . 1984: Rick Head moved to approve the minutes of August If , 1984 , as corrected in the meeting; seconded by Anne " Ustin. All in favor; motion carried. August 23 , 1984: Rick Head moved to approve the rainutes oJ7 August 23 , 1984 , with "Hugh" corrected to "Hughes " and "c o" corrected to "due; " seconded by Francis J.,T hitaker. All in favor; motion carried. September 6. 1984: Francis Whitaker moved to approve the --.ninutr--,s of September G , 1984 ; seconded by Anne Austin. All in 'favor ; motion carried. R I ck i . Head moved to adjourn the meeting at 5: 45 p.m. ; seconded by Charlie Paterson. All in favor ; motion carried. Barbara Norrls, Deputy City Clerk 14