Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19860327 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 27, 1986 City Council Chambers 4:00 P.M. A G E N D A I. OLD BUSINESS Case #86-6 , HBC Investments/601 Aspen St. II. NEW BUSINESS Case #86-5, Schneider/Mularz III. ADJOURNMENT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 27, 1986 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4: 05 P.M. with members Ron Erickson, Josephine Mann, Francis Whitaker, Charlie Paterson, and Rick Head present. OLD BUSINESS CASE #86-6- / HBC INVESTMENTS (601 ASPEN ST.) The applicant was not present when the meeting was called to order. Notion: Paterson moved to defer discussion on this case to the end of this meeting; Whitaker seconded. All in favor ; motion carried. NEW BUSINESS CASE #86-5 / SCHNEIDER, NULARZ Whitaker read the variance request: "Property is located in the R-6 zoning category. Building contains a non-conforming use and is a non-conforming structure (a duplex on a single family lot and encroaching into set backs) . Section 24-13 .4 (a) No existing structure devoted to a use not permitted by this code in the district in which it is located shall be enlarged, extended, constructed, reconstructed, moved or structurally altered except in changing the use of the structure to a use permitted in the district in which it is located. Section 24-13 .3 (a) No such non-conforming structure may be enlarged or altered in a way which increases its non-conformity, but any structure or portion thereof may be altered to decrease its non-conformity. Applicant appears to be requesting a variance to enlarge a non-conforming use by raising the roof line as well as a variance to increase the existing encroachment 12 .45 feet in to the required 15 foot rear yard set back and 1 .67 feet in to the 6 .67 foot required side yard set back". Ted Mularz , representing applicant, submitted the affidavit of sign posting to the Board. Mr. Mularz said the house exists legally, building permits were issued for the addition to the back part of the structure, and the kitchen was constructed in accordance with the building codes. There is a bedroom on the second floor which does not conform to the building code. By 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD-OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 27. 1986 simply raising the roof it brings it up to code standards . Mr. Mularz said there were other buildings in the neighborhood that have similar amenities . The duplex already exists , it happens to be on a 6000 sq.ft. lot instead of a 9000 sq.ft. lot but existed before the 9000 sq. ft. was required, and they intend to increase the benefits to the public health safety and welfare. Mr. Mularz said he thought this request was not outside the bounds of the spirit of the law and a modest modification with no effect to others in the neighborhood but serves a need and satisfies the hardships that have been outlined. Mr. Mularz urged the Board to approve this request because in so many cases nice little victorian houses like this one have been replaced by buildings that have totally maximized the site and not been nearly as attractive as this house. Erickson asked for clarification as to exactly where the roof line would be raised. Mr. Mularz showed pictures to Mr. Erickson outlining the expansion and explaining it would not effect the main part of the house, only the north side. Erickson then asked how many total square feet the house was now. Mr . Mularz replied 3 ,082 square feet which is well within the FAR. Lavagnino asked for public comments. Don Westerlind, representing applicant, said he had come before the Board with the first submission on this case in January 1986 , the request was for egress windows for safety and raise the roof line to bring the room up to code. Lavagnino said that case had been withdrawn. Lavagnino closed the public hearing. Mann said she thought this was a big request because this is a non-conforming structure and a non-conforming use. The request is to raise the roof on the alley and right across the alley is another structure that is very close. Ms. Mann said she did not feel she could approve doing anything more to enclose the alley. Additionally, asking for 12 feet of encroachment is alot. The granting of this variance would be against the spirit of the code. Paterson said he thought this was a minimal variance. It is already being used as a bedroom and he would like to see that bedroom brought up to code. The fact that it is already being used as a bedroom can not be changed. There are no objections from the neighbors. Paterson said he would rather see the bedroom brought up to code , have air ventilation and proper 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 27. 1986 electrical, than to leave it in its present use. Paterson said he would be in favor of granting the request. Erickson said the conditions the applicant is trying to exacerbate are a result of a 1974 remodel at which time the attic was refinished and turned in to a bedroom. He thought the problems were a result of something the people who owned the house had done, therefore, he saw no hardship. Secondly, the applicant is asking the Board to increase a non-conforming use and a non-conforming structure. Erickson said he felt very strongly that one of the reasons for the code was to stop this. This is already a large structure for the size of the lot. With regard to the conditions relating to health welfare and safety Mr. Erickson said he agreed they exist but thought the conditions were created by the applic- ant. Erickson said he would have to deny the variance because he did not see a hardship and thought it was a very large variance being requested. Head agreed with the previous comments. He said he would be more favorably disposed to grant the variance if the applicant had agreed to remove the duplex use by removing the kitchen. Head said he was not in favor of granting this variance. Whitaker said the intent of the sections in the code that deal with non-conforming uses and structures is that they can be perpetuated as long as they exist but that they should not be increased or enlarged. He would not be in favor of granting this variance on the basic principal. Bill Drueding , Building Inspector, said the applicant would be allowed 3240 sq.ft. plus 600 sq.ft. of garage for the lot size. This is a permitted use as a residence in a residential zone. The difference is that because of lot size it becomes a non-conforming use. Whitaker commented that -the -Board -is faced all of the time with non-conforming uses that changes in the zoning ordinances have created. Whitaker said in his opinion they have been created to protect the development of the City, and prevent overcrowding and high density. Lavagnino said he thought the applicant was enjoying a property right that a lot of other people were not enjoying in that same vicinity and zone who would be required to have the required 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 27. 1986 square footage to build now. Lavagnino said he would be more favorably inclined to grant this variance, on a safety factor, if it were a single family dwelling. The fact that the applicant is enjoying the duplex indicates they are enjoying a property right others in the neighborhood are not . Additionally, the intent of the code is to not encourage or perpetuate something that is not allowed in the zone. Lavagnino said he would not be in favor of granting the variance. Lavagnino reopened the public hearing. Christy Kienast, applicant's daughter and neighboring property owner, said the house had never been rented out and was only used for company's use. Ms. Kienast also commented that the house next to her was much worse. Paterson replied that it must comply to the law or it could not have been built. Mr. Mularz said that all of the property owners within 300 feet were notified of this request. He had several phone calls asking exactly what the addition would be, which he explained. There have been no objections voiced by those neighboring property owners and Mr. Mularz thought that should have some influence on the Board' s approval. Mann said a case had been rejected at a previous meeting which had 3 neighbors voicing they were in favor of the request. Whitaker read from the Board of Adjustment guidelines "the Board may not grant a variance merely because no opponents appear " . Whitaker commented that the Board should not be guided by the neighbors, it has to be judged on the effects of the zoning ordinance and the health and welfare of the entire community. Lavagnino added that it is the content of what neighboring property owners say that is considered by the Board, whether it be in objection to or in favor of. Mr. Mularz told the Board members that he did not feel this applicant was asking for anything that was unfair or a detriment to the community, neighborhood, or Master Plan. Lavagnino closed the public hearing. Motion:. 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 27, 1986 Mann moved to deny the request for variance for the reasons stated herein; Whitaker seconded. Lavagnino asked for a roll call vote: Paterson no Whitaker aye Head aye Mann aye Lavagnino aye Paterson opposed, all others in favor; motion carried. CASE #86-6 / HBC INVESTMENTS Whitaker read a letter from Doug Allen, applicant ' s attorney, asking withdrawal from consideration as the applicant and the Planning Office had resolved the matter in question. Motion: Head moved to adjourn the meeting at 4 : 43 P.M. , Whitaker seconded. All in favor; motion carried. Kim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk 5