Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19841004 C I T Y OF A S P E N BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Thursday, October 4, 1984 City Council Chambers 4:00 p.m. AGENDA I. Old Business Case #84-18, Barnhart II . New Business Case #84-22, Marthinsson and Nostdahl III. Adjournment RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment October 4, 1984 vice Chairperson Francis T?hl tal er call(,! the l eel—inr, to order at 4 : 06 p. m. ;^Atl ;izc ?nher Charlie Paterson, John ITcrz , P 1C�i I:L id, 'Ind Anne Austin present. CASE # 84-18, BARNHART. continued hearing T-hitaker introduced the case. The request to table was made at the insistence of the applicant. The applicant wanted to gather further information and to provide revised plans. !Telton Anderson, architect and representative for the applicant, said iie was called in to help with this project after the first 1-1earing date with the Board of Adjustment . He tried to meet and t'o combine the conditions defined by the Board and the needs of his clients . Fie tried to achieve a happy medium between the Board' s and his client' s concerns. (Charlie Paterson arrives in the chambers. ) Anderson initially approached the problem by studying the effects of solutions which met the zoning code . iie presented three solutions, two of which met the zoning code. The first solution i.nvolvcs the garage as an accessory building. The building is riot attached to the main house. The solution allows for a five foot rear yard setback . The building is ten feet a,-wa�7 from the ,principal building. The pluses for this solution are : there is more light and ventilation for the existing master bedroom, family room, and kitchen; and the solution meets the code. The r.iinus is the garage does not meet the requirements of a t,:o-car garage with storage space for recreational vehicles , i . e . , snowmiobiles, motorcycles, etc. The garage would only be able to accommodate one car if the garage were to meat the setbaciko . Tii s solution does not provide sufficient off street ;parking. T1le garage is reduced substantially in size to meet the setbacks but there is a question as to the usability of the space. The second solution which meets code attaches the garage to the house. The required rear yard setback, fifteen feet, for the attached garage is not violated. The advantages are the design allows the largest possible garage which the applicant wants and in.eets the code. The disadvantage is that all light and ventilation to the :laster bedroom and the kitchen are eliminated. The third alternative which the architect favors requires a variance from a fifteen foot rear yard setback to an eleven foot rear yard setback, or a variance of four feet. (This solution involves an inner courtyard with the garage sic feet fro- the gall of the master bedroom. ) The advantages- are that light, ventilation, and views are allot,'ed through tier internal courtyard. The garago meets the o:-aners requiremc rats for two cars plus ubgrado storage for rccreational vehicles. The arnh arts live in Houston. This home in Aspen is a, vacation home. TIE G7111 have two vehicles, ilotorcycles, sn0;?..obiles and other recreational -araphernal.ian for sUi.'.':lEr and ;,'inter use. The garage is designed RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment October 4, 1984 with a scissor lilt. The ontire space under t1e garago will be use for tho storage of the grown-u-,) toys. The scissor lift is designed to transport the recreational vehicles to the scubSrade storage level. There is little chance the garage will be filled ,--;,ith toys. The garage is for the storage of cars. it is Very c1if7icult to dig out of the s.,,-.o,,17 a car which has been parlKed in the street for a month during the winter months . For t1?at re-:-- son alone the garage is very important to his client . fl is clicnt wants the cars off the street. L'he courtyard allows for -a stairway that Taill go to tho roof of the garage. The roof of the garage will replace the ba- ckuya..rd that is lost . The roof` terrace will have a Jacuzzi, will have a and will provide more sun than presently e-111ists. The proposal also connects the area between the two building, the garage and the residence, with square footage that is borrowed from m the northwest corner of the house . The existing storage room in the northwest corner is eliminated. This action opens up corner of the house which is very visible from the street. The disadvantages of this solution are that the solution re-Cluires a. variance and the courtyard requires very special drainage and a snow-,,aelting mechanism. There are four criteria for granting a variance listed in Chapter T',,-,7o, Section 2-22 (d) , items one through four, of the municipal code. First , the applicant is a nea owner . The owner only wants to add a garage that best meets his rec1uirements. The limited building capability is not a result of the applicant ' s action . The physical reality of siting an addition to a twenty-five yeatr old house is limited by action of previous owners. Item two addresses t- special circumstances that apply to this propert,,y but not to other property owners in the vicinity. The owner is limited to small area of available land. The architect wants to meet the intent of the zoning codes as best as he can and also do a reasonable job for his clients. The code allows a detached garage to be five feet from the rear yard setback. If the garage werc to be attached then the garage would obstruct the available light and the view. The special circumstance is that the two solutions which rieet the code do not meet his client ' s needs . Finally, grunting a variance for the third solution does not adversely affect the general purpose of the comprehensive general plan. r I '. he uniforf-,, building code states that any courtyard with windoT,.,,s cannot be any less than six feet. The UBC does not alloy%, the garage to be anN,.7 closer than si,,, feot to the house . The-, TJP-C de-termines the pl -1 _1V sical relationshi -) of the garage and the house ,and the courtyal (l . The garage is as close to the house as -,,)ossible. 1-le quoted from section 1205 (c) of the 1311DIC: "any courts in a "r" residential dwelling unit cannot be less than six f-c-t with indoN,7s. He attopto to meet as, much as possible the six foot constraint of the court,>7r.,,rd dictated by the UBC and the physical constraint of a garage, 20 feet by 20 feet outside to RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment October 4. 1984 oultsidie which is on the 'Light side. Eleven feat Of -IL-111C, setback is ',lift r c--..mains after the other constraints re met . 17 hitaker asl7eJ if the courtyard is enclosed on -four sides. Anderson said yes. The -ILIoard reviews the plans of the three solutions. Head ask,-d i" there is a window from the master bedroom to the courtyard . Anderson replied yes. Anderson noted there is only 3 . 5 -feet from the existing master bedroom to the property line. There is no nossible way to exit the bedroom from the window 'Lacing east in the case of fire . That side of the hou-,,,:-, is heavily planted. During the winter there would he substantlal sno,1,7 build up. He indicated on the floor plan the e.,.it possibi- lities of the proposal he favored. 1IIiiIC.a?,,,er noted solution three eliminates all light to the mzastcr bedroom. Anderson disagreed . There will be hanging windows which will provide light. There will also be windows which will function as an emergency exit from the master bedroom to the garage or to the courtyard. From the kitchen sink one will be able to look over the garage and still view half of Red Nountain. 'Ierz said the Board tabled this case previously. Granting a variance is based on practical difficulty ani/or har(ship. T•lere was a garage on the property previously and that garage was converted into a bedroom. 1,,Ihat are the major hardships and practical difficulties? Anderson responded his client wants a garage . The garage cannot be built according to code. Either solution which is not in violation of the code creates a practical difficulty : one solution does not meet the requirement for storing automobiles and other vehicles ; the other solution deprives the kitchen and master bedroom of natural light and views. 7� L Austin asked if the subgrade level which is proposed in the third solution could be incorporated into the detached garage solution. Anderson explained the detached garage would be too small to accommodate two cars. One car would have to be par'ked on the street. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T� Q,Iitaker said the original application presented the need for a two-car 7'rage. The current presentation indicates the request is for =storage beyond the storage of two cars. The request has been expanded for the storage of snowmobiles and motorcycles. The Board has to consider the mini,-.qum, variance . The T)oarLI has to consider a limit. The place previously had a carport andl garage both of which wrere closed in. That is a problem. He asked, if '-,rucding was to dig up any information on the prior history of the house . Dill _'Drueding , planning office , replied no . I - Ihi er T taker revi -acu" the minutes o-l" the first meat ing very care- L� - fully. Iopf and I'lughes bot", adraittc,01 that the conversion of t'.'-.0 garage to a residential use hal'I been done within the last two or thrc�z, Y,_,ars TTO[17 was that 2,-!closur,-:, and conversion don=s -v7ithout a building pr;r:At? RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS F;egular Meeting Board of Adjustment October 4. 1984 � hital:er roposed fourth solution to the proble:I: Whitaker' s garage is 20 feet by 20 feet; the garage accommodates a full size four poor passenger car and a 'Lull size pick-up truck ; the garage li-as two doors which allow one to e,-zit. out:?oors or enter tl.; ':-:.ouse; the solution allows for a three foot space between the garago anC the master bedroom which solves the probleM OL tsie fire exit; and the design meets the setback limitations of the code. Anderson considered the very same solution after roadling the minutes. :gut the uniform building code , section 1206 (c ) _�tates that any court in a "r" residential dwelling, and a court is defined by the enclosure of three or more sides, has to be a TlinliKluiil of six foot. Me tried to be as Upfront as possible 'about the storage of the recreational vehicles. t any times garages are converted to storage rooms . The client is making prcvisio.:s within the third solution to locate those recreational vehi cl ys in a subgrade space so that the garage ,,7ill be used as a garage. The storage of other items will be 100% below grade. That subgr ale space will be uninhabitable and invisible. Those recreational vehicles will not displace automobiles . The enclosure of the original garage was not the action of the current owner. The first criterion under valid reasons for granting a variance is that the hardship does not result from the actions of the appli- cant. There may have been some shady dealings associated with the property but his client should not be held responsible for the past adverse actions of others. The code agrees with this rationale. ? z!=ad argued that the submission by the applicant creates tile. hardship. The applicant is trying to create something new. Anderson said the circumstances surrounding the property malye it difficult for the applicant to achieve what he wants . Those circumstances are not the result of the applicant ' s actions. Drueding said he does not know if the previous garage was converted illegally or not. He has not checked that. The conversion rkay have been legally allowed with a permit with the ree�uirement t'.l":t_ par;cing be provided in the open space . 1•Ihitakcr noted that parking was not provided. Drueding advised the Hoard not to a :c the as umntion that the conversion was made without a per:lAt. Austin reasoned that a permit was not issued for the conversion. The conversion violates the rear yard setback, therefore, a variance would, have been granted in order to execute the conversion . It foilows that a permit would also have been issued bec"=ause} of tho alley% violation. If the conversion was :ion=e legally, the one %,ho did the conversion would have come fora,,,-)rd. for variance because that ^nace violated the alley setbackzs to begin `"i t i?. n-Jerson believed somoone, could change the use of a : ,)ace witi-out going -t- ..` the e � `' i-- w s L-.t.7 n t.l .� � OiI"ig 1J �Oi i�.: :10:1L' . . t•xC-'_ i1CnCO:iiOr:illt1' o�.:..1 �.-t'". i_i.+'_ ��a71... In th, is c a se t a,7pe,1r s tip ' n'. was- not increased . hi4—a r r,-=s ions:' ed that if at g arag.z ; n�re to be encloo^rip - hen t'no ^oCiC t,iould h a v _: rc iuirc. that off street narl�lnc; be r _'l rncr?;rere RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment October 4. 1984 11.�� 4 J- i m a C V 0-= Austin cducstione,_-7 L_ the two stories of the garage , the ground floor level and the basement level. J-1 c a d e_:nlaincd that space which is located 10000- below grade is not included in the -floor area ratio. The applicant is also allowed 500 scTuarc feet for at garage which is not calculated in the FAR. The a-;.)-)licalnt- is well within the floor area ratio. 1-k-ustin asilod , hat happens if the subgrade space is converted to a family roori. 'lead said that would not be possible; space 1001- below grade is space that has no light, air, or ventilation. Anderson interjected that the code sl'Clwtcs that space below grade can go under a setback. Also the use of that subgrade space for a family room would not be very attractive. His client is going to spend $10 ,000 for the scissor lift. One would not want to access a family room which is windowless and lightless by an -electrical industrial lift. Paterson asked if there is a stairway to the space . Anderson said code requires a stairway. The stairway which accesses the garage roof continues downward into the storage area. T.1 v.hitaker closed the public hearing. Head -favored the third solution. 'Tie applauded Anderson for his imagination. The proposal satisfies the applicant ' s needs . He still has a problem however. He did support the solution of the reconversion of the original garage . that action would ,p,ossibly allow moving floor area ratio gained by that reconversion somewhere else . The solution is about as minimum a request that the applicant can ask for given the existing constraints . He would favor the solution. Paterson concurred with Mead. He was inclined to favor this as a, reasonable solution. It will not have an adverse affect on the neighborhood. Austin said approval of the request increases the existing viola- tion. She also liked the solution but preferred a solution that did not require a variance. Herz-Jerz said he cannot see this request. The main thrust for the request at the first meeting was security. The applicant can have a garage. Nrs. Barnhart emphasized the importance of security at the original meeting. But now he is told she is not going to be here, she is a part time resident. There will also be storage for motorcycles and snowmobiles, T,.T h y is there such a hardship and practical difficulty with the other two solutions? The B)oard would not be upholding the zoning laws by granting the variance. Whitaker said the applic- ant has not met the guidelines the !;oard follows. The second solution accomplishes the desired storage for the two cars and the other rcc�crcational space - I vehicles within the code. It is 1),):7 C I S 4 ':din have sVvlic-'- light. I 1 .1 jat for is -,)ossible to have, ---,,it on thc-_' east side of the house. No C' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment October 4, 1984 fact �1' although 111,ust also consider the fact there are .�,,Lany violations alt.1, not the fault of the 'present owners. time,at the sane time, this owner could get the variance and sell the house tomorrow. He has seen that happen. The applicant has not met t'-Ic criteria. Th o applicant' s reoresentativc Ilas presented a solution which -meets the T I'!,,I i talcer reopened the public hearing. . 1 �inderson responded to the Board' s coi.imcnts. There is a genuine 1-1 I r,�: - 1 _1 !ship ­,, the client with the second solution (the garage al—ached to the house ait'110ut a courtyard) . solution eliminates, attached 11 o h t. The solution eliminates a rc-asonzilble means of in the case of a, fire. The cast side of the hous-c is over"_,lanted, it is ca snovi pit in the winter time, and it is very close to the neighbor ' s home. The solution cli,,-,iinates any views to the north from the kitchen. That is a genuine hardship. Head said the hardship is created by the applicant because the applicant wants a two-car garage. Anderson argued the special circumstances are not the result of the client' s actions. The special circum- stance is that the garage cannot meet courtyard requirements and the setback. There is a ten foot separation required by code if the building is detached. The other two solutions will not meet the needs of the applicant. The detached garage which requires a five foot rear yard setback does not accommodate two cars, one car would have to be parked on the street. Austin suggested an open space area on the property where one could park one car. It does not seem appropriate to provide part time owners space for two cars. Anderson argued precisely because the applicant is a Tp rt_ time owner there will be difficulty in parking a car on the stroct. Austin asked why the applicant has to have two cars? Whitaker said in the first solution there is room to parl: one car between the garage and the house . The car then would, be off the street : one car would be covered, one car would not . Paterson asked if the garage were a one-car garage where would the entry be. Whitaker said the entrance is from the alley. Anderson said r]-,,ing the car between the two structures is unreasonably tight. Paterson said again he favored the third solution. That solution makes sense. The solution does not have a great deal of impact. The impact of an attached garage with a courtyard is minimial . The mass of the existing building offsets any impact . ,,lead remembered at the last meeting the Board directed the applicant to come back with the absolute minimum request. The applicant has accomplished that goal. The applicant is asking for a four Loot variance. Is that worth turning down? He is not trying to consider aesthetics although aesthetic considerations do enter this thoughts . TTe recalled !-Ierzls statement : demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty that is not created by siting a two-car garage on a lot with constraints. The t, ird p1,an is a good solution . "ut thc ")o--7%rd cannot rule on a c- stf1C11_- 1, CS . Whitaker agreed the Doard should not judge a re(,uc_,st on its arcl'.it,2ctural ,Ic�rits. Th;' rc­uest should be Judged on the basis RECORD OF PROCEEDING Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment October 4. 1984 of the guidelines for granting variances. V711itaker closed the public hearing. Motion: John Herz moved to deny the application for this variance because the applicant has not shown a practical difficulty or hardship; seconded by Anne Austin. Whitaker called for a roll call vote: Austin aye Herz aye T !I- , hitaker aye Paterson nay Head nay The motion is carried. The variance is denied. CASE #84-22, MARTHINSSON AND NOSTDAHL T-V .1ijiIE-aker read the variance requested : "Property is located in the R-6 zoning category. Th , building is a multi family use; a pre-existing nonconforming use . Applicant appears to be asking for 195 square feet. Section 2Q-13 . 2 (a) : no such nonconforming use shall be enlarged or increased, nor extended to occupy greater area and land than was occupied at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this code. " Tiagne Nost- dahl , applicant, presented a notarized affidavit and photograph of posting the notice. Nostl:dahl made his presentation . The building was built in different stages during the 1960 ' s. The area at that time was zoned for multiple family dwellings. The zone allowed one unit per 1 , 500 square feet. In 1981 the building was converted to low cost housing condominiums. The units were deed restricted. This year he fixed the roof as per code; he installed insulation. He borrowed enough money to construct a small office on the side of the existing house. He proceeded to get a buildinc permit . The building inspector informed him at that time that his building t,7as nonconforming. The area in 1975 was rezoned 1-1-5 , t',-ia+- rezoning created the nonconforming use building. Consider a variance on the grounds of the rezoning, that is the hardship. Paterson noted the floor plan indicates :.,, 16 foot by 12 foot door foundation. ..Al u s IC i n asked if the office will be added to the residence. Nlostdahl e.-plained the unit is the rianager ' s and/or caretaker 's unit. Thc-r(,- is a.,.i0le Deople traffic through the residence . Es�p-_cially this tlilmCl of year, riany-people have rental inquiries. -Paterson questioneCl the new bathroom in thc office. Is the office joined to the living quarter--? 1,11ostdahl answerco. Yes. T; 11-)a, t 7- r o o im i 1, hc,rc is current on.��, ezi ., ,Cing t:ir2 living RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment October 4. 1984 quarters . T f i-- living quarters consist o--F' two bedrooms , one livin- room, a ',zit-chcn, anJi one bathroom. There is a re--son for t1ho request of a secon.,"-Al bathroom. nany times people who come forward with rental inquiries need to use the bathroom. it would be convenient to have another bathroom which would accommodate the public. Paterson said usually the Board' s concern with a request for a bathroom addition to a space is that space could become an c.,tra rentable bedroom. I.-ustin asked if the addition is off the living room. 11 o s t d a h 1 replied yes. There is no wall dividing the living room and the office . Austin asked if the addition eliminates the light from the window into the living room. Nos-ICdahl said one reason for this design is that the additional windows allow more light to penetrate the presently dark living room. The office and living room are opened to one another . There is no proposed design for a second exterior entrance directly to the office. People still will have to come through the living room to enter the office. .I - z�r� a s,-'ed about a deck. Nostdahl explained a decl-: was built in T 1965 . The deck rotted out and was removed . He was going to I replace the deck but never did. Bill Drueding, planning office, said the owner was never rcd-tagged. The deck was demolished. Drueding explained when Mostdahl requested a building permit Drueding questioned the bathroom. The story which was presented to him was there is a young girl, the daughter of the managers, who is living there. The request for an extra bathroom is to provide the young lady some privacy. The design eliminates the public access to the bathroom nett to the young lady' s room. Head asked if there are plans for future additions . r7ostdahl said no . There is not much room for additions. The current proposal roposal is well within the setbacks of the property; the setbacks arc twenty feet away. He cannot build much more. Herz asked if the applicant could build over the deck without a variance. Paterson replied if the applicant were to build a roof more than six feet over the deck then the construction would becoi->ie a structure. The applicant would have to receive a permit. T T ,.,hita'ker remarked that the ree�uirements for granting a variance are based on practical difficulty and hardship. The applicant -i a s -e -1, c to ;-)rove to the Board that the applicant did not create 4L 11 4- - there is a practical difficulty, that there condition, that L is some unnecessary hardship, anti that the applicant is being 4 (:(-- :)r-Lv,--d of t1l-ie reasonable use of the land. Whital—r ;,,,a- s col-f u,-i c d, as to hoi, the addition r,�!la- tes to the rest of the building and the int-crior livinci spaces. TI.-)--r;-1 is a plan ofr th aclklition , but ,.--he plan doe--- not relate the au--7(lition to the interior living, space. a r ra n 9 n t c-,d. c 1 a r i f*i e c! the acIdtition will be open to the living room, th,--, �--,ntry Hay will sta,,,Y aF anO the bathroom will abut the entry wall . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment October 4. 1984 1Th -ker �?si:edi if t l `r is _ ': the w -h s sit e n �, bata roor,� in. 7� inter rzi� i easily accessible iro,. . r ,h, `.,p ne n as accessible 'i the of-rice. ;'?Ostd l :L,l dl c�•.� 02^i._ �'1� t0 walk through the entire living room to reach the existing bathroomn. In the present design one only walks through a portion of t.:e living room. Head reasoned there are grounds for granting a variance. The a--Z leant lla , volu!�tar.ily deed restricted the entire project to er.-rployee housing . That is a community benefit . It is well rounded to make life easier for someone in this position . ?e ti:Tould favor the variance. Jeremy Flug, representative for Nartin Flug who is osTner of an apartment at 1155 Park Circle, questioned how this addition relates to his apartment structurally. noes the addition inter-Ecre With his viewplane? Nostdahl assured Flug and the Board that tho alditior. will not affect the vie.>>plane. The addition is hi(],A n prom the Part; Circle townhouse complex. Edith Dunn, an adjacent property owner , asked if thore ;.gill b � more cars added to the already existing number parked at tiZe l.>ui1ding . The Centennial project will increase the vehicular traffic in the area. The property in question is ;already very crowded, there are many units already located on one small -o1ace . There are many cars there and in the neighborhood. iiastda'hl said the code requires 1-1/2 parking spaces per unit. There are sixteen parking spaces. Head noted that this type of use will not increase the density. .Thita :er questioned the hardship. Does the applicant rc,a.11y need a bathroom? Why is there not an outside entrance directly to the office? If there were a second entrance directly to the office then the renters would not have to enter the residence . 13ostdahl responded he considered a separate entrance. But there is too much heat loss through doors during, the winter time. Joan. ' arthinsson, resident of the unit , commented there are three people living in the apartment: her husband, her nine year old daughter , and herself. The renters or prospective renters who have problems come right into the living room. She cannot even coo}; dinner . There is too much disruption of the family routine . The other night there was an apartment change, the change involveJ. four renters who entered the house . Her family life cannot function at all with this interruption. If there were the office space then the renters could be dealt with away fro=m the normal routine of the family life. Currently an inquiring renter who needs to use the bathroom has to wallr by her daughter ' s bedroom which is adjacent to thc bathroom. Her daughter has no privacy. T, landlorc' in this town runs into many problems with t} c rcnterr . 'enters co=ne into the house crying about their inability to pay k rj a g }fin i s n<.,-� th S c. .;2 tn�` ren.� . _cr d-aa��� �.r � � :_� i ose.� to x11 a� ,..:._is. ��:Ze wants tr:.. e-:tra s :acac for an office. Patcrsori Mterjecte: there is a lot of pa )er�°,Ork no,.-days involv :% in managing rentals. Paper'tilor1: c.:sn 2nd 'up all over ti-le living, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment October 4, 1984 room, th-- work can interfere with the domestic routines. it is a. har,_Is I,-, r, uhitat:er aoorcciated th,,:, hardship but he wished the circulation pattern be indicated on the floor plan. He again quo- stioned the need for a bathroom. Tj e questioned the advisibility of not having an outside entrance. I'larthinsson said the sccond entry would provide some window space in that area. M'. Ine Doard discusseo- the possibility of two entrances . Austin even�-n L ouggosted replacing the present door with a ain6ow and creating a 11LIV7 critrance which directly accesses the offfico. The solution provides more penetration of light into the living room and a direct access into the office. 1,11r. Narthinsson, applicant, noted there is a roof over the existing door, therefore, converting the door to a window would not provide any more light. rat-erson discouraged the Hoard from redesigning the proposal. The a c-e, is minimum. If there were not to be a bathroom as indicated there would simply be ce;ftra open space for the office . n off-Ice for this type of operation does not need that much space. T !Dathr OOM 4 3 probably much more helpful than the 0­:tra �i­pty .L J .1 - I �kl � space. The applicant lives with the situation and lkno�,7s better wha-1- their requirements are . A bathroom will also cost the L� L t- ore money. He encouraged the "Board not to quarrel licant m, over a bathroom. If the Board is inclined to grant the vZ.,riancc, rLmc�mber the addition does not violate the setbacks and does not hur,[_- anyone ' s viewplane . He sympathized with people who are trying to operate a group of apartments with constant interrup- tions . The paperwork for such an operation has increased ono hundred red fold over the last ten years. Head noted there- will be no additional income generated from the additional space. Austin said the nonconformity was created by the rezoning. TJhitaker submitted to the record three letters which favored the variance : from David Huie, dated September 11 , 1984; from Maureen Ilulqueeny, dated September 6 , 1984; and from Marnie T-,Tayte dated September 12 , 1984. I-Thitaker closed the public hearing. He asked for comments from the members. Herz favored this variance very much. These people have filled a void in the town for a long time with employee housing and deed restricted housing. That means a lot. He did a site visit. The addition would add to their happiness. The applicant deserves, thie, variance as compared to an applicant who needs 0. ti,,To-Car drags) for snowmobiles and cxtra Iiiolorcycles and >..% o does no' ever, live here lialf the tifae. On those grounds the present applicant has a -oractical difficulty and I-L_j-dship. He would, be very much in favor of the variance. Austin also favored the variance. The nonconformity was created s"}. - -Po s `nal- is the hardshiOtInerwise the ,Dro -FAl a �,r the -`ac`-. I.. J -lot -e -ICK L 11_ L_ - Io C S 1 v i ol a L_ s c�b S The' ap2licant `.could bcl abio to add the scrucrc I-octagc if it were not for the rezoning. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment October 4. 1984 C' T.Iead colicurred with 11orz an6 Austin. Ile strongly favored the variance . Paterson pointed out the rc3ucst_ is absolute Lllinimeal reaucst, 1"4. I feet by 16 feet including a bathroom. T e 1 , 5,Ilould very i-, 71i iuch favor granting this variance . taker saki there. is a, hardship in that there is not a separate of-fic-e. I'le realizes now i--r' there were a second entry then that would decrease the usefulness of the space . If there were traffic through both entrances, that would not be as efficient as traffic circulating fro,,a the existing door through the living room to the office. Motion: 'iC,1' Tread moved to approve the variance for case 411�84-22, "Nlostd'ahl 'L and T'arthinsson; seconded by Charlie Paterson. 1-Thitaker called for a roll call vote. Austin aye Ilerz aye TT �Nhitaker aye Paterson aye dead aye All in favor ; motion carried. The variance is era nted. Dick dead moved to adjourn the meeting at 5: 00 p.m. ; seconded by Charlie Paterson. All in favor ; motion carried. &,A&x �w� I I Barbara Norris, Deputy City Clerr,