Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19860508 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 8, 1986 City Council Chambers 4:00 P.M. A G E N D A I. MINUTES April 10 , 1986 April 17 , 1986 II. OLD BUSINESS Case #86-7 / Brunkan, Whiting III. NEW BUSINESS Case #86-10 / Snowflake, Linden Case #86-11 / Merkel, Hyman, & Reid IV. ADJOURNMENT Remo Lavagnino , Chairman, called the meeting to order at 4 : 04 P.M. with members Josephine Mann, Ron Erickson, Anne Austin, and Rick Head present. MINUTES April 10, 1986: Mann corrected the spelling of the name Dobravolny on page 5 . Head moved to approve the minutes as corrected; Austin seconded . All in favor; motion carried . April 27 , 1986: Head moved to approve the minutes of April 27 , 2986 ; Austin seconded. All in favor; motion carried . Case 1867 / Brunkan. Whiting Lavagnino read the variance request: "Non-conforming structure request for variance to extend existing carport to 0 lot line. The owner of the property would like to upgrade the dwelling by providing an adequate garage , namely an enclosed to car garage . Due to the location of trees on the property and required set backs, a garage of standard size will not fit between the existing structure and the set backs. The logical location location for the garage is to extend the already non-conforming carport , approximately 4 ' 9" , to the property line. The design solution minimizes the additional square footage needed to construct a garage beyond the existing building envelope. Property is located in the R-6 zoning category. Front yard set back is 10 feet. Section 24-3 .4 area and bulk requirements . Applicant appears to be asking for a 0 lot line variance to enlarge an already encroaching garage . The additional front yard encroachment could be for 4 ' 9" . " Robert Brunkan , applicant , submitted the affidavit of sign posting . Mr . Brunkan said the existing carport was totally inadequate and currently being used as a shed . The reason the carport is unusable has to do with the height of the sloping roofline . With the alteration of a 2 car garage the existing carport would be turned into a structure that would have 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR NESTING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 8, 1986 closeable doors , therefore , not exposing all of the equipment currently being stored . Currently cars are being parked on the street and in front of the house as a means of storage because the house has no usable garage. Mr. Brunkan said he felt the owners of the property should be able to enjoy a substantial property right as their neighbors . In this case there is a special situation because in order to add on the 2 car garage to this building envelope it will not fit anywhere within the setbacks . The closest the garage could be approached is in the back yard in front of the master bedroom where there is a large mature pine tree that would have to be removed to accommodate the garage and this would still encroach in the set back . Mr. Brunkan said even a single car garage would extend in to the setback. Because of the extreme limitations of the lot the most reasonable thing to do would be to alter the existing carport structure, extending it only 419" to the 0 lot line. Mr. Brunkan said the applicant purchased the house like it exists thinking at that time there would be no problem in altering the carport. The special condition in this case has to do with the placement of the trees . Additionally, Mr . Brunkan said he thought the owner of this property was entitled to have a 2 car garage . Lavagnino asked if the existing structure was already encroaching in the setback . Mr. Brunkan replied that was true . Lavagnino said he noticed there was an Aspen tree in front of the carport. Mr . Brunkan responded that the tree was off of the owners property and on City property. Additionally, the tree is deseased and it would be requested that it be removed. Lavagnino commented that as it stands it appears to be directly in line with getting into the garage. Erickson asked how many square feet were in the house as it exists. Mr. Brunkan was not sure. Erickson said in adding the figures it appears the applicant is asking for a 16 foot wide by 1613" long garage. If there is enough square footage and the property is not built to maximum then he would have alternate locations for the garage. Erickson suggested a location in the back yard in an area that would not encroach in any setback , without reducing the size of the garage . Mr . Brunkan said a garage in the back yard would completely block the view from the master bedroom suite and change the whole floor plan. Erickson 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 8 . 1986 said that was an esthetic consideration and one that this Board can not consider . Mann ask if there was enough space for a one car garage off of the alley. Mr. Brunkan said it would cause the loss of a number of trees. Mann still questioned if there would be space for a one car garage . Mr. Brunkan replied that he did not think so. Erickson questioned why the setbacks were aligned as shown on the plans, why there was a 15 ' rear yard setback . Bill Drueding , Building Inspector, explained . Austin said it appeared the applicant was also adding space to the house, as well as the garage. Lavagnino asked the applicant what their hardship or practical difficulty was in this case . Mr . Brunkan said the hardship exists in locating the garage between the existing building and the setbacks without removal of trees. Lavagnino commented that the applicant was assuming their right to have a garage which is not necessarily true . Mr . Brunkan said that was why he had commented on subsantial property rights enjoyed by others . Lavagnino said he had another alternative, allowing only a one car garage . This would still require a variance because it is extending a non-conforming use but it would not expand a non-conforming use to the 0 lot line . Lavagnino told Mr. Brunkan that it was the Board' s responsibility to grant only the minimum variance to satisfy the code and not to grant anything in excess of that minimum. Lavagnino opened the public hearing. Mr. Brunkan referred to Case #85-19 stating the amount of footage being asked for in comparison to this case is less and Case #85-19 was granted. Lavagnino told Mr. Brunkan that each case is unique and not precedent setting . Mr. Brunkan said he had taken photographs of other garages in town taken to the 0 lot line . Lavagnino said that would depend on what zone they are in and whether they were in place before the ordinance was created . It is difficult to assertain a judgement from photographs , when other relevent information is not available. Lavagnino closed the public hearing. 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 8, 1986 Mann said the hardships mentioned, that is the current carport being inadequate, was not a very strong argument for the Board to use as a hardship. Additionally, the applicant says it is a property right to have cars in the garage. Mann said that would be nice , but as far as it always being a property right was not correct . In regard to the applicants statement that there was no other location without removal of trees she felt was a hardship to the applicant but did not fit the Board' s guidelines . This Board looks at the entire property, defining any special circums- tances, determining if it is a minimal request, and if it fits in with the general plan. Mann felt the hardships described were not enough to warrant granting this, this is more than a minimal request. Mann said she might be able to allow a one car garage . Austin said she did not consider a garage a property right , there are a lot of houses in Aspen that do not have garages. She did not see a hardship and did not like the idea of the removal of trees. Austin added that she was not in favor of expanding the non-conforming use. Austin she she would be willing to let the existing carport roof be raised to allow for a one car garage , thinking that would be a minimum variance. Head agreed with Mann and Austin , that a garage is not an essential part of enjoying your property rights. Head said the fact that the owner purchased the house thinking it could be expanded could not be considered . Further, Head did not think the applicant had presented a practical difficulty nor a hardship, particularly since there are other alternatives that could be pursued. Head said he was not in favor of granting the variance. Erickson agreed with Head on all points. Lavagnino said he would be in favor of making the shed in to a garage , thinking nothing would be lost by raising the roof and making room for a single car. The impact would be minimal and the foot print would not change and it would get a car off of the street. Lavagnino said he would be in favor of granting that the roof line be raised the minimum amount to get a car in the carport . Drueding said that would be enlarging a non-conforming structure. Lavagnino said that was realized , but the square footage would remain the same , only allowing extra headroom in 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 8, 1986 the same space . Lavagnino thought it should be specified that the roof be at the same slope as the existing roof. Erickson said he thought there had been an incorrect setback off of the alley, therefore, there is an additional 10 feet for space to locate the garage within the lot that has not been considered by the Board or the applicant. There are many more alternatives that have not even been looked at._ Erickson said the applicant purchased this house in its existing design and he did not think the Board should go back and change designs of buildings to correct a design flaw. Lavagnino said he was suggesting that a parking problem be eleviated by getting a car off of the street, without an impact. Lavagnino said all he was suggesting was control of the height so that it would be minimal . Erickson said he did not know how that could be accomplished. Head suggested tabling the case , allowing the applicant to come back with another set of plans . Austin said she was concerned if the garage was allowed that it may be converted in to a room later. Lavagnino said that could not be controled , once it is an enclosed structure anything can be done with it . Drueding said that was not correct, if it is a garage then converted to a bedroom a permit would be required , park dedication fees would have to be paid , a parking space would have to be added , etc . Austin thought Erickson' s solution of putting another structure on the property just adds more bulk to the space and the existing carport will remain . Head said it could not be done anyway because a certain distance is required between a detached garage and the main dwelling and there is not enough room on the lot. Erickson asked why it would have to be detached . Head asked that the meeting be opened to the applicant to ask if they would be in favor of tabling , coming back with another design. Lavagnino opened the public meeting. Mr. Brunkan said he would prefer to come to a decision tonight. He agreed to go along with the suggestion that the existing carport be modified, raising the roof to allow a 1 car garage. Mr. Brunkan asked if the height could be established at this time . Lavagnino asked what the height minimum was . Drueding replied the maximum height was 12 feet, on the rear of the lot. Head suggested a maximum height of 10 feet. Lavagnino closed the public hearing. 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 8, 1986 Motion: Head moved to table Case # 86-7 to May 15 , 1986 ; Erickson seconded. Lavagnino asked for a roll call vote: Head aye Austin aye Mann aye Erickson aye Lavagnino no Lavagnino opposed, all others in favor; motion carried . NEW BUSINESS CASE #86-10 / SNOWFLAKE, LINDEN 7