Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19850822 FILE rTxx --OF—ASPEN DOARD OF TMUSTMENT . r AUGUST 22, 1985 CITY COUNCIL CEMDERS 4: 00 P.M. AGENDA . I. NEW BUSINESS Case #85-19 / Hearst, Allen XI. ADJOURNY11ENT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 22, 1985 Vice Chairman Francis Whitaker called the meeting to order at 4: 03 p.m. with members Anne Austin, Charlie Paterson, Josephine Mann, Ron Erickson, and Rick Head present. NEW BUSINESS CASE #85-19 / HEARST, ALLEN Whitaker read the variance request: "those shown on exhibit "A" consisting of 2 pages attached hereto and incorporated herein. Property is located in the L-2 zoning category. Lot size is 4400 sq.ft. Applicant is asking encroachment with balconies into the side yard by 4 foot 5 1/2 inches. The side yard set back requirement is 6 feet per Section 24-3 .4 area and bulk and Section 24-3 .7 (f) (3) , corner lots. Applicant is asking for an F.A. R. variance of 600 sq.ft. Section 24-3 .4 area and bulk requirements 1: 1 F .A. R. allows 4400 sq . ft. of floor area. Applicant is asking for relief of minimum lot size requirement of 8400 sq. ft. Also a determination as to whether the item marked "fireplace" is merely part of the structural supporting members and thus be allowed limitations allowed for balconies. " Doug Allen, applicant, submitted the affidavit of posting. Doug Allen explained the request and displayed a model of the project for the Board' s review. They are asking for a variance to allow the proposed balconies to encroach into the side set back, a FAR variance of 600 sq.ft. , and a variance from the minimum lot size. The hardship and practical difficulty relates to construction use, it being a 4400 foot wide corner lot with a 6 foot 8 inch side set back. This makes it not feasible to construct a project that is commensurate with what is going on in that particular neighborhood at the present time. The interior spaces don' t work well unless we are allowed more square footage and allowing the balconies to protrude into the set back. This neighborhood is evolving into deluxe accommodations. The property across the street (the Olson property) was granted significant, and more, variances than we are asking at this time. Mr. Allen said Bill Drueding had done a room count on the building and confirmed that there are 9 units in the existing building , one of which is a basement unit which Mr. Drueding felt was unsafe and in violation of code. We are requesting, after recons- truction, to have 4 units with 2 bedrooms each, or a total of 8 bedrooms. We have a situation at the present time where there is 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 22. 1985 no off-street parking with the property. We are proposing underground parking for 8 cars. Mr. Allen said they are not asking for any set back variances on the building itself, merely on the balconies on the side street. We will be reducing the density , the occupancy , and will be vastly improving the parking situation. We believe this upgrades the neighborhood, is an improvement to this property as well as the surrounding properties, and is commensurate with what is going on in the neighborhood. Paterson read a letter from Howard Awery, a neighboring property owner, requesting the building be brought to code and then he would endorse the side set back variance (letter on file) . Whitaker read a letter from the ROR Partnership, owners of 624 S. Monarch, objecting to the variance requested (letter on file) . A previous Board of Adjustment case, #85-4 Armstrong/Olson, was discussed as it also requested an FAR variance. Drueding said he understood the Armstrong/Olson case requested a 600 sq.ft. FAR variance but withdrew that request during their hearing. Paul Taddune, city attorney, said he thought the problem in that ease was that the Board could not grant an FAR variance, therefore, the request was withdrawn. Mr. Allen commented that code allows an FAR variance. Mr . Drueding asked in what section that was stated in the code. Whitaker said he recalled that the Board had said they did not want to set a precedent in granting an FAR variance because FAR was directly related to the size of the lot. Whitaker did not believe the FAR variance was granted, Drueding agreed. Mr. Taddune added that the Board of Adjustment does not act on a matter of precedent, each case is decided on an ad hoc basis, therefore, he did not advise the Board to pay attention to what was done in another case because each case should be decided on its own facts. Whitaker said he felt if a neighboring property owner writes a letter as has been submitted it should be considered. Mr. Taddune said he did not have any problem with that. Erickson asked what kind of units the current units were. Mr. Allen replied that they are free market units. Erickson said because what has been said to this point he presumed the 4 units being proposed are going to be top of the line, because of the area, and they are replacing 9 units of what stature? Mr. Allen replied not top of the line units. Erickson said these have been employee units to this time and thought the Board should be aware 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 22. 1985 of that. Mr. Allen said they had not been restricted to employee units. Erickson said what the Board will be doing is lowering the density there by eliminating employee units. Erickson said there were balconies outlined on the plans encroaching into the rear yard set back and a piece labeled fireplace at both front and back that appears to encroach. Mr. Allen submitted revised plans for the project in which these areas have been eliminated— Erickson asked if the area on the plans labeled sidewalks were actually going to be sidewalks. Nasser Sadeghi, architect for the project, said they hope to have sidewalks but it depends on the City Engineering department. Mr. Allen added this was in the sidewalk improvement district and they are required to put in a sidewalk if the City doesn't build a street up to there. Drueding said this would be referred to the Engineering department to determine if they want sidewalks there right now. Mann asked the applicant to address what the hardships and practical difficulties that are making them ask for a variance of 600 sq . ft. Mr. Allen replied to allow 2 bedroom units to be built that are of a size that will market in that area, which is now becoming a tourist area. Paterson asked if there were any drawings of a typical unit to look at the size of the bedrooms in relation to the size of the living room. All we can see in the drawings presented are each unit overall. In addition Mr. Paterson asked what the minimum requirement for a 2 bedroom unit was. Erickson replied the minimum requirement was 800 sq.ft. Mr . Allen commented the minimum required was much smaller than requested but for a deluxe 2 bedroom, to market in this area. We want to be able to enjoy the same type of building as our neighbors. Paterson asked if Mr. Allen was saying this was a financial hardship. Mr. Allen replied it is a practical difficulty in terms of marketing. Mr. Allen added the code says : "a variance may be granted where there is enjoyment of a substantial property right that is enjoyed by others in the neighborhood". Mr. Allen also said they do not have floor plans at this time to show the Board. Mr. Sadeghi explained the floor plans as much as possible verbally. In addition, the square footage of neighboring properties was discussed. Mann said she read the plans to say that cars would be parked under the building. Mr. Allen confirmed that. Mann asked 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 22. 1985 if that entrance would be off of Gilbert St. Mr. Allen replied yes. Mr. Whitaker said the arrangement of the parking stalls was not shown on the plans. Mr . Allen and Sadeghi explained the arrangement. Mr. Whitaker then asked what the dimension of the individual car space was. Mr. Sadeghi replied it would be more than was needed. Mr. Whitaker asked if the size of the units was reduced -from- 1250 sq.ft. to 1100 sq. ft. -would there still be the ability to get the cars in underneath the building. Mr. Allen replied the underneath size would not be reduced. Mr. Allen added that the building would remain the same size on the outside with or without the variance requested, the footprint will remain the same. Erickson asked if the revised plans just submitted were current to which the reply was yes. Erickson referred to page 2 in which it is shown a maximum of 28 feet on grade, east elevation and on page 3 which is the same for the north elevation. Both of these are protruding above the 28 foot maximum height allowance for the L-2 zone. Mr. Allen said that was the fireplace and is allowed to be that high. Drueding said that is a fire escape and can not protrude. Mr. Sadeghi said he would either have an access from that fire escape to the roof to justify it or it will be eliminated, we are not asking for a variance on that. It will be solved by means of code or eliminated. Whitaker asked if the items shown as fireplaces were existing. Mr. Sadeghi replied no. Anne Austin asked what variances were being requested at this time. Mr. Allen replied : #1 to allow us to build 4 two bedroom units on a sub size lot; #2 an FAR variance to allow four 1250 sq.ft. units on a 4400 sq.ft. lot; and #3 to allow a 4 foot 5 1/3 inch encroachment into the side set back for the balconies on the Gilbert St. side. Whitaker opened the public hearing. Steve Burstein, planner, said there was a section in the code that the planning office feels is applicable to this - request. That -being -section 24-13.10 referring to Lodge/Residential preservation. The planning office feels that this would indeed be new construction. It states in the code that all new construction shall meet the area and bulk requirements. The planning office would like to further point out that any past actions that were made on other properties should not determine the correct procedures to be followed on this property. In addition, Mr. Burstein said the planning office does not support this application. 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 22, 1985 Erickson said they can not build on that lot unless they are given a variance. Drueding said this is a sub-standard lot for what they are asking for , area and bulk requirements. For a 2 bedroom unit you need so many square feet of lot. Therefore, they can build, maybe 5 one bedrooms. Erickson disagreed saying they are not under minimum lot size in terms of area, only in width. Basically they are only asking for a variance in the width of the lot. Burstein said he understood a variance was being requested for FAR for increased square footage. Erickson said in order to build in the L-2 zone at all they have to have a 60 foot wide lot and this is not. Mr. Allen agreed, adding, they felt it only fair that they be allowed property rights enjoyed by other property owners in the zone. Olson was allowed to build on his property and we feel, to enjoy similar property rights, we should be allowed our requests. John Delensy, neighboring property owner to the north, stated he was against the encroachment on to Gilbert St. He added he was also against the Olson project when it came before the Board. By allowing these encroachments Gilbert St. is being narrowed. In the winter it is almost impossible for service trucks or fire trucks to get up the street. There is already snow build up and cars parked along the street. Unless the City intends to make Gilbert St. a no parking anywhere on the street and takes the snow away instead of just plowing then he would be against any encroachment into Gilbert St. Whitaker said according to the plans submitted there is no encroachment on to Gilbert St. Mr. Allen agreed there was no encroachment requested on Gilbert St. and added they will be eliminating areas currently encroaching in to the street, therefore, the street will be wider than it is now. Mann asked how high up the balconies were. Mr. Sadeghi responded the first floor balcony is approximately 7 foot from the street level . Erickson said he saw a wall outlined on the revised plans submitted and questioned if it could be walked around and under the balconies. Mr. Sadeghi replied this was a short stone wall open on the end. Erickson said you could not walk under the balconies from one side to the other without climbing over a wall or walking around a post, they are not free hanging balconies. Mr . Sadeghi responded that it would be on private property. Erickson then questioned if the bottom part of the balcony and the wall didn 't go into the set back. Mr. Sadeghi and Allen said the wall etc. would be considered a fence for their parking area. Mr. Sadeghi said this would be the only way they could provide 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 22. 1985 the parking spaces on their lot size. Mr. Allen added that a low wall can be built in a set back and not be an encroachment. Frank �, neighboring property owner, asked how the proposed parking area would be accessed off of Gilbert St. without a steep ramp. Mr. Allen said there was a steep ramp proposed. Frank then asked where it would come out on to Gilbert St. Mr. Sadeghi answered that the ramp stops on their property line. The area was reviewed on the plans and model. Frank said as long as the set backs and height limits are observed he would agree with the request, if not he would be against it. Mann asked if a particular old tree on the property was going to have to be removed. Mr. Sadeghi said it would have to be removed because of the parking structure, but that they will try to relocate it within the City. Whitaker told the applicants that this Board is required to give the minimum variance that will allow reasonable use of the property and questioned why there were 6 foot balconies on one side of the proposed plan and 3 foot on the other side. Mr. Allen replied that they had tried to go for the smallest variance possible. They would like to have the wider balconies on Monarch St. also but tried to ask for as little a variance as possible. Whitaker asked if there was a hardship in needing the 6 foot wide balconies, could they be narrowed to 4 feet? Mr. Sadeghi answered that would not be practical. Mr. Allen added that the 6 f oot balconies were the only balconies they had for peoples use rather than just to look out. Head asked what the applicant would do if they were not granted the 600 sq.ft. floor area ratio, could the units be made smaller to accommodate the balconies and bring them within the set backs. Mr. Sadeghi said the balconies were what made the building and they would try to cut space from the center part of the building but the balconies would remain. Mann said it should be understood that the Board would also be gaining compliance with the code. Whitaker closed the public hearing. Austin said she would be in favor of the first 2 variances requested but wasn ' t thoroughly convinced. She could not justify giving them the FAR or balcony variances. Erickson said he was in favor of allowing them to build on a sub-standard lot, the width. In the floor area ratio question 6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 22. 1985 it sounds as though we are giving them double the floor area ratio for the lot size, therefore, he was unsure of his vote on that request. He was against the other variances requested. He added he was having a hard time finding a hardship. Head said he was in favor of granting the applicant their substa- ntial property rights that are enjoyed by other adjoining property owners. He added that he had briefly reviewed the Olson case and it appears they were given 600 sq.ft. increase in FAR. He felt that alot of things that were applicable then could be applied to this project as well. The applicant is reducing the density, and they are providing off street parking spaces which do not exist presently. These are real plusses for this application. Head said it was hard for him to justify the balconies other than for esthetics. Mann said she felt about the same as Head. She could go for relief from the 60 foot width, and would be willing for them to build the 4 two bedroom units. She could not grant the 600 sq.ft. FAR or the balcony encroachment. Paterson said he also agreed with Head that substantial property rights enjoyed by others should be considered. He had some trepidation about the size of the lot in relation to the size of the building. He would be in favor of granting them the right to build 4 units but would like to see the 600 sq. ft. FAR request cut down or removed. The balcony he felt was esthetic and did not think it was a hardship in this case, he could allow some variance but not as much as is requested. Whitaker said it was curious that you can build more on the lot within the set back than the FAR allows. He questioned if that was because there is a higher percentage allowed on the smaller lot. Head answered that was correct. Erickson and Drueding disagreed saying it should be a 1 to 1 relationship. Whitaker felt the applicant had a right to build 4 two bedroom units in that location but could not see any justification for an increase in the FAR nor a variance for balconies as wide as those proposed. He would be in favor of a variance of some degree on the balconies but not the 6 foot 8 inches requested. Head asked if the Board should review the minutes of the Olson case with respect to why they were granted an additional 600 sq. ft. FAR. He felt in fairness to the applicant they should be given the opportunity to table this until that case can be reviewed. Paterson suggested the minutes be reviewed now, which 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 22. 1985 they were. Whitaker read the decision of that case to the members of the Board "to grant a variance for a side yard set back encroachment of 1 foot 8 inches and a rear yard set back of 4 foot 9 inches because of the hardship and practical difficulties enumerated and that this Board considers this a minimum request", which was passed 4 to 1. Head said in the beginning there is a request to increase the FAR by 600 sq. ft and questioned why this was not discussed. The Board said it may have been discussed and not voted upon, or the request may have been withdrawn, however, it was not granted. It was pointed out on page 2 of those minutes it states "the applicant is not requesting an FAR variance, the only requests are for side and rear yard variances". Paterson asked for clarification on the balcony set back, they ask for a set back totaling 4 feet 5 1/3 inches making it 6 feet 8 inches they need for the balconies. If they do not get the variance on the balcony set back they will have a 2 foot 2 2/3 inch balcony. He felt the Board should consider granting something there to make a sensible size balcony. Whitaker asked what size balconies would be allowed on the Gilbert St. side of the building. Drueding replied the projection is allowed to project 1/3 the distance from the exterior wall to the property line, approximately 2 foot 3 inches. Whitaker asked the applicant if they would consider a 5 foot balcony to which they replied yes. Erickson said the point has been made that if we eliminate the 600 sq.f t. FAR it is possible for the applicant to restructure this building so that the balconies do not encroach and he wanted the members of the Board to consider that fact. Drueding said the applicants can build smaller units or one bedrooms, or a combination and still not have to have any varian- ces. They have a right to build 8 units, as that is what exists now. These could be done without requiring any variances. Mann asked if the Board would still need to grant relief from the width requirement. Drueding said he needed some clarification but did not think they needed a grant from the width. The code says clearly on a non-conforming lot and multi-family structure they do not want any deviation from what the size of the lot is, they are not worried about the width. If you have a 500 sq.ft. lot and it allows 5 one bedrooms they do not want 6 one bedrooms. Drueding read the pertinent section of the code. Mann said what they are proposing is for 8 bedrooms and they currently have 8 bedrooms, therefore, there is no change. Burstein added that the floor area per unit should remain as stated in the area and bulk requirements. Drueding said it is the lot area requirement that they are above. Whitaker asked if this was strictly related to 8 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 22, 1985 non-conforming lots of record. Drueding replied no, if the structure is torn down then you have to meet the area and bulk requirements of the zone, except for lot width. Paterson confirmed that they could build back 4400 sq.ft. Drueding replied yes but not 4 two bedroom units , they would have to do a mix of unit sizes. Erickson said in this case we would be doubling the bulk on this size lot with a new structure. Burstein said the planning office still has regulations on the book, with the ability to interpret them, and we do not feel that any precedent should be set, with regard to the Olson/Armstrong case, for anything that should happen in the future. Mann asked if this meant in every case when something is going to be torn down and built anew the Board must consider it as new construction. Drueding said the section of the code applies to all single-family, duplex, multi-family, lodge, and hotel uses. Head asked what the dwelling unit size was supposed to be, or what is the formula. Drueding replied for a studio you need 1000 sq. ft. of lot area, for a one bedroom you need 1250 sq. ft. Drueding said what the applicant is asking for here is a variance of this code regulation. Whitaker reopened the public hearing. Mr. Allen commented, going on the premise just stated, they would have to have 9000 sq. ft. for what exists on the lot now. We are asking for what would take an 8400 sq.ft. lot. The Olson applic- ation, to build what they were allowed to build, requires a 10,890 sq.ft. lot and they were allowed to build that on a 3000 sq . ft. lot. We are reducing the non-conformity on this lot by going down from the 9000 sq.ft. to 8400 sq.ft. on a 4400 sq.ft. lot. Mr . Allen also commented that the section of the code read by Bill Drueding applies to the residential zone and we are in the L-2 zone. Drueding responded without the non-conforming lot clause then they will need relief from being a non-conforming lot also . The minimum lot size is 6000 sq . ft. and this is only 4400. Mr. Allen agreed stating it is not minimum lot size of 6000 sq. ft. but rather minimum lot width of 60 feet. Erickson said he thought there was no minimum lot size but minimum lot area and minimum lot width. Mr. Sadeghi said the variance from the lot width is their first variance request in this application. Whitaker commented that he was not aware of the requirement of 2100 sq.ft lot area for a two bedroom unit at the time the Olson case 9 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 22. 1985 was heard. Mr. Allen said if that case is totally disregarded then they are being denied a substantial property right that the adjoining property owner has. Mr. Sadeghi said the fact that they now have 9 studios, requiring 9000 sq. ft. and they are reducing that to 4 two bedrooms requiring 8400 sq. ft. they are reducing the non-conformity. Mr. Allen said in dealing with the situation the Board should also look at what they are giving, off-street parking for 8 to 10 cars, and other good things for that area and they are doing it in a less dense situation than the property across the street. Mann said the area where the proposed development is to take place is already crowded and impacted because of a mistake that was made. The Board can say they would be granting the same thing and impacting the area more. She was not willing to say that was granting a property right, but thought the Board might want to grant relief from what the code requires. Ms. Mann said she would have to consider , in granting relief , whether we are getting enough benefits such as the parking. Mr. Allen added the building would also be moved back from the street as it sits now. Whitaker said he was unwilling to justify one mistake by making another and at the same time he felt with the benefits derived from the applicant some relief should be granted . Paterson commented he would like to see some relief from the code given. How relief from the code could be given was discussed. Motion: Head moved to grant the variance for 20 feet of lot width; Paterson seconded. Whitaker asked for a roll call vote : Austin aye Paterson aye Mann aye Head aye Whitaker aye All in favor ; motion carried. Notions Paterson moved to grant relief from the minimum lot size per unit, to allow 4 two bedroom units, not to exceed 4400 sq.ft. of total useable space; Head seconded. Whitaker called for a roll call vote : Austin aye Paterson aye Mann aye Head aye 10 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 22, 1985 Whitaker no Four in favor, one opposed; motion carried. Motion- Mann moved to deny the Floor Area Ratio request for 600 sq.f t. , above the allowed 4400 sq.ft. , for the reasons discussed; Paterson seconded. Whitaker asked for a roll call vote: Austin aye Paterson aye Mann aye Head no Whitaker aye Four in favor, one opposed; motion carried. Motion: Mann moved to deny variance for the balcony set back allowing the balcony to project 4 foot 5 1/2 inches beyond the building line; Austin seconded. Whitaker asked for a roll call vote : Austin aye Paterson no Mann aye Head no Whitaker aye Three in favor, two opposed; motion carried. Motion: Paterson moved to adjourn the meeting at 5 : 53 p.m. ; Head seconded. All in favor motion carried. d .. Rim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk 11