Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19860703 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 3, 1986 City Counsil Chambers 4 : 00 p.m. A G E N D A I. NEW BUSINESS Case # 86-14 / Katherine Lee II. ADJOURNMENT Board-of Adjustment July 3 , 1986 Lavagnino opened the meeting at 4:10 p.m. with members Francis Whitaker, Ron Erickson, Josephine Mann and Rick Head present. CASE #86-14 KATHERINE LEE Whitaker told the Board he had a conflict of interest and stepped down from the table. Lavagnino read the requested variance "Proposed structure exceeds by 5 feet of the maximum mean height between eave and ridge of a pitched roof, and (b) by 3 feet the maximum height to the ridge of a pitched roof, refer to section 24-3 .4 , area and bulk requirements, and 24-3 .79(b) supplementary regulations, height provisions. The property is in the R-6 zoning district, maximum height is 25 feet. Applicant is requesting a height variance for a nursery addition". Bob Hughes , representing the applicant, presented the sign and affidavit of posting. Lavagnino asked if there is a size requirement for the letters on the notice for variance sign as he could not read it from the street. Hughes presented a letter from the architect , Warren Palmer , for the record and architectural sketches of the proposed plan. Hughes showed the Board the 30 feet height line and where it would fall on the structure. Palmer ' s letter in part reads , "My client is proposing to construct a small nursery of 130 square feet on the second floor of their residence located at 124 West Hallam. The placement of the addition has been dictated by two items; first the access to the space available for the addition on the south face of the house is limited to the existing 3 feet wide upstairs corridor. Because of the nature of the existing Victorian structure with its steep pitched roof, only at this one location can we gain legal head height and width to access the proposed addition. If we move easterly along the adjacent stairway both the corridor width (2 feet) and the ceiling height (6 feet 5 inches ) become too small or too low. Also by placing the addition in the corner of the "L" between the south bedroom and the stairwell , we can maintain the Victorian integrity of the house. Because of the placement dictated by legal access width and height and because of a strong desire to maintain the Victorian integrity of the house , we are requesting the additional building height in order to eliminate the following practical difficulties: 1 . By elevating the new roof above the existing main house roofs we eliminate the collision of a third roof in a valley which would complicate water and snow problems. The addition as drawn allows us to split the valley and distribute the water and snow to the south and west. 2. By elevating the new roof above the existing dormer ridge we can gain full legal height access to the addition. 1 Board of Adjustment July 3 , 1986 3. By elevating the new roof above the adjacent main house roofs and adjacent dormer ridge we can provide better solar exposure to melt ice and snow build up at the existing roof valley. The exception requested is for an extremely small conical volume of which 50% is a decorative finial and the remaining is dead air space. The addition is in keeping with the Victorian proportions of the existing house and is designed to enhance the existing house and complement the neighborhood. " Hughes said there are practical difficulties as outlined in the above letter. Hughes told the Board the Code exempts from the height limitations, "Church spires , bell towers , and like architectural features" . Hughes said the applicant is trying to maintain the integrity of the Victorian house. Hughes pointed out this is a single story addition. Katherine Lee pointed out there is an existing dormer which goes out onto a deck, which has to be connected to. Ms . Lee said in a true Victorian , the turrets are tucked into the "L". Lavagnino asked what the height would be inside the addition. Hughes said he does not know that. Ms. Lee said there is an existing stairwell they need to connect this room to. Ms. Lee said she is attempting to join the roof line into the dormer and join to the left to displace the water and snow without adding a third roof line. Ms. Lee showed the Board where the existing dormer is. There is a design problem trying to access the space and the stairwell and to get legal head height. Ms. Lee showed where snow load damage occurs every year, and the proposal to alleviate this problem. Lavagnino asked if this could be done with the present configuration. (Charles Paterson came into the meeting) . Ms. Lee said she has design problems with the dormer, stairwell and dormer location. Ms. Lee said architecturally this is the best design. Ms. Lee told the Board she tried to minimize what is being built. Lavagnino said it is important to him to know the height of the proposed room. Lavagnino said the Board does not consider aesthetics and only gives minimum variances. Hughes argued the extra height they are trying to gain is no less an architectural feature than is an exempt Church spire or bell tower. The code is trying to address ornamental areas that don't serve a function. Hughes said the applicant is requesting a height variance to maintain the structure's integrity. Lavagnino said that is very subjective. Ms. Lee said the code exempts "like architectural features" , and a turret is like a bell tower. This will be dead air space . Hughes said the "like architectural features" would not hold up 2 Board of Adjustment July 3 , 1-986 if they were trying to get more usable square footage or a second story. Karen McLaughlin, city attorney' s office, read from the height provisions in the code. Lavagnino asked if this turret fell into the category of "like architectural features" , are there any criteria how much the Board can grant above the height limit. Ms . McLaughlin asked if this has been reviewed by the HPC. Hughes said it is not designated locally or nationally. Lavagnino said he wants the information on the interior height of the room before making a decision. Hughes told the Board the architect believes this height is critical to avoiding ice damming. Ms. Lee said she is trying to join into the dormer because she cannot tear back into the house because of the staircase location. Building another roof line would cause more problems. Ms. Lee told the Board the reason she cannot go straight is because it is not legal head height. The proposed room is tucking into the "L" and has legal head room. Lavagnino asked why it could not be lowered. Ms. Lee said because of the dormer. Lavagnino said the board cannot tell where the existing dormer is. Paterson said it appears that the head room will remain the same. Hughes said he would like an interpretation of whether this is a "like architectural feature " . Hughes said the building department would refer this to the Board. Ms. McLaughlin read from Section 507 of the Uniform Building Code , which has exceptions for maximum height for towers, spires and steeples which are erected as part of a building and not used for habitation or storage . Ms. McLaughlin said the Board could consider whether this addition fits as a towers , spire or steeple. Lavagnino pointed out this will be used for habitation. Head pointed out this request is less than the 10 feet extra allowed for a chimney; they are only asking for 3.5 feet. Ms. McLaughlin said as a result of not having specific guidelines, the Board does have discretion. Hughes said the Board should focus on the excess height and that is not serving a function other than the same kind of function of a steeple. The extra height does not serve a function for habitation. Erickson asked how many square feet are in the existing structure. Ms. Lee told the Board the house is under the FAR, it sits on 4 lots. Erickson asked how many bedrooms there are. Ms. Lee said there are 4 bedrooms. Lavagnino said the Board has to stay within certain guidelines for variances. Ms. Lee described the adjacent houses. Lavagnino opened the public hearing. Paterson read into the record a letter in support of the applicant from Tony Greenberg. Lavagnino said one of the guidelines is that the Board may not grant a variance because there was no opposition. 3 Board- of Adjustment July 3 , 1986 Dave Zaagman said he feels if the HPC reviewed this project, they would approve the design. Erickson said he is not an expert on Victorian design and does not know if the addition is in keeping with historical buildings . Ms . Lee presented some books of Victorian architecture illustrating turrets. Lavagnino said there are no standards to Victorian architecture. Hughes said the applicant did a lot of research, and when the turret is not a bulky broad one, the tendency is to raise it above the roof line. Lavagnino said he likes the design and the balance; however that is not the purpose of- the -Board. Lavagnino said he would like to see the height of the interior more definitively to get a sense of what may be granted, or that the Board make a determination that this is a turret and a variance is not needed. Lavagnino said he would prefer not to grant a variance. Head asked if the attorney' s office could make a determination that this is a "like architectural feature" . Ms. McLaughlin said she could say there is nothing in the code which prevents the Board from coming to that conclusion. Ms. McLaughlin said the Board, under their general powers clause, can consider other areas of the code. The Board could consider this under the historic designation section, which addresses distinguishing characteristics of unique architecture. Ms. McLaughlin said if the applicant could demonstrate this structure is eligible for designation, the Board could take that with the height exemption for spires and towers. Lavagnino suggested the applicant could go to the HPC as far as the authenticity of this design. This would be another piece of evidence for a decision. Ms. Lee said she considered going to the HPC but her house is not designated and felt it would be a waste of time. Lavagnino said the Board should have some criteria in order to decide whether this is a spire or tower. Lavagnino said there should be control over this so it does not set a precedent. Hughes said the building department did not feel confident to make the decision as to whether this qualified as a "like architectural feature". The building department based the rejection of the building permit on an actual ruler. Lavagnino asked if Hughes requested a determination from the building department. Lavagnino said he feels this request is for convenience , and should not get a variance. Erickson said he would also like the information asked for as well as where the present dormer is. Hughes said the applicant should have some credibility saying this turret is something a 150 foot tower would not be. This would be tied to something historical. Head said they are only requesting 3.5 feet variance. Ms McLaughlin told the Board that the building department has not yet made a ruling about whether the turret was an exception to the height provisions . Ms. 4 Board of Adjustment July 3 , 1986 McLaughlin suggested the building department be asked to make that determination. Ms. Mann said the practical difficulty is that the building department has not made a determination, and she feels the board can make that determination. Paterson said it is unfair of the building department to cause an applicant expense just because they did not make a determination. Head moved to table this case to July 31, and ask the building department to make a determination; seconded by Erickson. All in favor, motion carried. The Board requested the clerk' s office to have the city attorney draft a resolution regarding the decision on case 86-12, signs at the Aspen Grove building. Lavagnino presented a letter from Francis Whitaker about case 86- 13, John Star, granted at the June 26 Board meeting. Board members read the letter. Whitaker said the applicant could not have done what he showed the Boards he could do legally without applying to the Board for a variance for enlarging a non- conforming structure. Lavagnino said he does not agree. Karen McLaughlin , city attorney ' s office , told the Board the applicant 's attorney can not be present. Ms. McLaughlin told the Boards she has examined the issue of whether the Board can reopen the hearing. Ms. McLaughlin said the by-laws contain a motion to reconsider, which can only be made by one of the Board members who voted on the prevailing side. Ms. McLaughlin said it is not clear what the time frame it. Ms . Mclaughlin brought up a 1977 case that says the Board does have authority to re-hear its own decision within the time period it takes to perfect an appeal, which is 60 days. Whitaker stated he is requesting the board reconsider its decision . Ms . McLaughlin presented state statute 31-23-307 , saying once 4 members of the Board of Adjustment have come to any decision , that decision can only be appealed to the district court. This decision can be appealed by any person aggrieved by the decision or by any officers , department , board or bureau of the municipality. Ms. Mclaughlin said if the Board wants to address any of the issues, the attorney's applicant should be present. Ms. McLaughlin said the Board should only discuss if Whitaker has standing to reconsider the decision. Ms. McLaughlin said it is clear any concurring member would have the right to reconsider. Lavagnino said he would like to discuss the letter from Whitaker to clarify some of the points in the letter. Whitaker quoted from the code "non-conformities shall not be enlarged upon, expanded or extended" "no such non-conforming structure may be enlarged or altered in a way which increases its non-conformity, but it may be altered to decrease its non-conformity" Whitaker 5 Board of Adjustment - July 3 . 1986 said the question of allowing an increase to a non-conforming structure was not before the Board. The request was for a height variance. Whitaker contended the Board did not have the authority to grant a variance because they did not know how much the non-conformity would be increased, or how much the floor area would be increased. Ms. McLaughlin said Whitaker is asking for reconsideration based on the fact that the Board did not have authority to make that decision. Ms. McLaughlin said the legal issues are does Whitaker have standing to assert grounds and are those valid grounds for the Board to re-open the hearing. Ms. McLaughlin suggested the Board have an executive session to discuss those legal issues only. Ms. McLaughlin said it is apparent the Board does have the right to re-open the hearing. Lavagnino said he would like to re-open the hearing just for clarification. Ms. McLaughlin said the applicant tried to prevent the re-opening of the hearing because they have received a variance, and they claim they have a property interest in not having the decision reconsidered. The court has stated that no significant property interest has been taken from the applicant. Ms. Mann agreed the Board should discuss this issue and asked if the Board should make the formal motion first. Ms. McLaughlin said the applicant ' s attorney should be present. Lavagnino asked if the attorney would argue the reconsideration issue or only once the hearing is re-opened. The Board scheduled the discussion for July 10 at 4: 00 p.m. Kathryn SV Koch, City Clerk 6