Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19850530 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 30, 1985 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4:00 p.m. AGENDA I. MINUTES II. OLD BUSINESS Case #85-8 / Gronner, Hull III. NEW BUSINESS Case #85-10 / Woods,Greenwood IV. ADJOURNMENT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTNENT MAY 30, 1985 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4 : 06 pm with members Francis Whitaker, Rick Head, Josephine Mann, and Charlie Paterson present. MINUTES May 16 , 1985: Whitaker moved to approve the minutes of May 16 , 1985; Paterson seconded. All in favor ; motion carried. OLD BUSINESS CASE #85-8 / GHMERM, HE=, GRONNER/HULL Lavagnino read the variance requested: "To install electrically operated garage door measuring 8 feet by 7 feet and 27 square feet of cedar siding at front of existing carport so it may be a garage. Property , is located in the R-6 zoning category. Rear yard set back is 15 feet (Area + Bulk Section 24-3.2) Carport currently encroac- hes in to rear yard set back. Carport is considered a non- conforming structure. Applicant appears to be requesting to increase this non-conforming structure by converting to a garage. Section 24-13 .3 (a) , no non-conforming structure may be enlarged or altered in a way which increases its non-conformity. There was no one present to represent the client. Lavagnino asked Barry Edwards, city attorney, what the procedure should be since the applicant was not present. Edwards replied that the public meeting could be opened for comments. Lavagnino opened the public hearing. There was no public comment so Lavagnino closed the public hearing. Whitaker said he had gone and looked at the property and it looked like another case that has come to the Board after it has been done. Lavagnino questioned if the Board was going to hear the case at this time with no applicant present. Edwards asked if the applicant had been notified of this meeting. Kim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk, responded that the applicant had requested this date but written notification had not been sent. Edwards said because the applicant had not been notified he didn't think the Board could discuss the case . Lavagnino said, in fairness to the applicant, we did not recognize the May 30th date to him. It would be a 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 30, 1985 courtesy to postpone this case to a date certain and send written notification to Mr. Hull that the Board has set a new date. If he does not show up at that time the Board can take more appropriate action. Motion: Head moved to table Case #85-8 to June 20 , 1985 and that the applicant be notified in writing of this change of hearing date; Paterson seconded. All in favor ; motion carried. NEW BUSINESS CASE #85-10 / WOODS, GREENWOOD Lavagnino read the variance requested: "A variance on their building set back for the reconstruction of a carport into an enclosed garage. A portion of the existing house and carport presently encroach into the building set back line along the northern side of the building. The building wall and roof overhang intrude into this set back by four to five feet. Property is located in the R-30 zoning category. Side yard set back is 10 feet. Area and Bulk Section 24-3.4 . Garage currently encroaches into set back and therefore is a non-conforming structure, Section 24-13 .3 (a) no such non-conforming structure may be enlarged or attached in a way which increases its non-conformity. Applicant appears to be requesting to enlarge the non-conformity by further encroaching into set- back by five more feet. " There was no applicant present. Head said the applicant explained to him, the previous day, that he wished to table or cancel his case. They were supposed to have submitted written notification of their desire, which has not been received at this time. Lavagnino said, as far as the Board is concerned, this is a case and we can hear comments from the public. Edwards said , there are two members of the Board who say that the applicant is going to do something other that that requested in this hearing. Edwards recommended tabling this case until the next meeting. Lavagnino asked what if the applicant was not heard from prior to or at the new hearing date. Edwards replied to then deny the application. Lavagnino asked the Deputy City Clerk to call the applicant and 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 30, 1985 ask their intentions in this case. A neighboring property owner stated his objections to the request. The Deputy Clerk returned and stated that the applicant wished to withdraw the request and would submit a written document for that withdrawl. Whitaker stated that applicants have not shown up for their hearing several - times in the past and questioned if the Board could deny cases on that basis.Lavagnino asked Edwards if the Board had the right to deny a case when the applicant did not show up for the hearing rather than on specifics of the case itself. Edwards said the Board had the right if the applicant has been properly notified. He added that there are also specific rules, in courts, of procedure that allow a person who has had that kind of action taken against them to come back at a later time and show good cause or some extenuating circumstance for their not having appeared and reopen the case. The Board must look at this from an appropriate and fair point of view, some people just can' t be present on their hearing dates and it is not something that the Board should deny their application based upon. Edwards said he would like to sit down with Whitaker and go through some of the rules of procedure and see if the Board wants to put together its own ideas on the procedure you would like to follow when applicants don't show up for their hearing. Motion: Head moved to adjourn the meeting at 4: 30 p.m. ; Whitaker seconded. All in favor; motion carried. Kim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk 3