HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19870528 CITY OF ASPEN
BOARD -OF ADJUSTMENT
MAY 28. 1987
4:00 P.K.
A G E N D A
I. ROLL CALL
II. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
III. NEW BUSINESS
Case #87-6 / Elizabeth Jones
Case #87-7 / Thomas & Harriet Larkin
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MAY 28, 1987
Meeting was called to order by Chairman Remo Lavagnino at 4 : 00
pm. In attendance were Charlie Paterson, Josephine Mann, and
Anne Austin. Francis Whitaker, Rick Head and Ron Erickson were
excused.
CASE 187-7 / THOMAS & HARRIET LARKIN
Remo: Property is located in the R-15 zoning category. Front
yard setback -accessory building 30 ft , side yard setback
accessory buildings 5 ft. Distance between principal and
accessory building is 10 ft. Applicant appears to be requesting
a 15 ft front yard setback requiring a 15 ft front yard variance.
I want to inform the applicant that you need four affirmative
votes in order to get your variance. Since there are only 4
members of the board here you would need a unanimous decision.
We can table this hearing until we have a 5th member present
giving you a better opportunity of having your variance granted.
After your presentation, we can take a straw vote and if you feel
you are not going to get your variance, you may want to defer to
a date certain.
Charlie : I am a neighbor of this property. I have no bias
either one way or the other in this case but I could disqualify
myself if the applicant wished.
Harriet Larkin : From the survey you can see this is a very
unusually shaped lot. No matter what the setbacks are, we were
unable to put a garage on here without a variance. In fact if we
followed the setback requirements, the only place we could build
the garage is right where the house is. It is a very unique lot
in that subdivision. The rest are more rectangular.
We have no basement and we need a place to store all of our tools
and yard equipment. My husband would like a place to put his
jeep in for the winter. This would also give him a place out of
the weather to work on our vehicles. We are going to build it
out of concrete block because we thought that would be more
fireproof. It would also give us a place to store all the
equipment and make our yard look better.
We tried everywhere else on the lot. Our bathroom windows are on
the straight side of the lot so we couldn 't make it an attached
garage there. On the other end we would still have to have a
setback variance and it would go over the windows off the family
room downstairs. Therefore, this is about the only vacant spot
on the lot where we could put it.
Anne Austin: If this was an attached garage, what would the
setbacks be?
Bill Drueding: Accessory building is 30 ft front, side yard is
10 ft and 5 ft rear. Front yard for dwellings it is 25 ft and
accessory buildings it is 30 ft. For side yard for dwelling
units and accessory buildings, 5 ft. for rear yard, dwellings
are 10 ft, accessory buildings are 5 ft. You still have the
minimum distance of 10 ft between the main building and the
accessory building.
Remo: Then this is a non-conforming structure, it is in the
setback already.
Anne: We have had several similar situations come before us and
we have always found that a garage is a convenience and is not a
necessary item. I don ' t feel you have given us enough of a
hardship to warrant a variance.
Remo: What is the minimum requirement for a single garage?
Bill : There are none.
Charlie: Does the jeep have a canvas top?
Harriet : It does and it does deteriorate. It sits out in the
winter under a large pile of snow.
Remo asked for comments from the public.
There were none.
Remo then asked if there were further questions from the Board.
There were none.
Remo asked the applicant if she had any more comment.
Harriet: I felt it would make our property look a lot better
with this rather than all the stuff distributed against the house
and around the yard.
Remo: You have 13 ft between the buildings. You could move that
3 ft closer to your building. That would minimize the variance
that would be required.
Harriet : It would still be the same variance from the street
side.
There was then discussion about other locations for the garage.
Charlie : This is the only practical location. I guarantee you
if you are looking at any other alternative solutions, there
aren't any on that pie-shaped lot.
Remo closed the public portion of the hearing.
2- 1
Josephine Mann : It is very easy to agree that there is a
hardship because of that long expanse of front yard. It is a
three sided lot. I think definitely the shape of the lot is a
hardship. But right now my feeling is that it is too crowded
there and that the granting of this variance would be not in
accord with the spirit of the general plan. If this were in an
area where there were not close neighbors, I could have accepted
that as to getting cars off the road.
Remo: The garage itself is a convenience.
Anne: I don't think the need for a garage is really a hardship.
Charlie: I definitely feel the lot does have a hardship. In the
same vicinity and zone, there are an awful lot of garages. The
neighbors on both sides next door have garages. If you want to
say she has a right to similar things as are in the vicinity and
zone, I would consider that there is a definite hardship with the
configuration of the lot . I understand the garage is a
convenience and we are not very much in that situation where we
grant convenience variances. However, I think when people are
towards retirement age, which the Larkins are, a garage is really
more a necessity than just a convenience. Putting that together
with the shape of the lot, I would be in favor of granting the
variance.
Remo: Lots do not stay in the same ownership. We cannot provide
a variance for that reason. Their neighbors have provided for
their conveniences through setback requirements.
Charlie: I am basing my contention on the fact that the lot does
cause a hardship. I am not saying the Larkins have a personal
hardship because they do have more right to it than somebody who
would be younger and would not need that type of situation. The
shape of the lot does cause a hardship. That is quite a large
lot. It is well shielded from the road. If the neighbors had a
problem with it then they would be here at this hearing and they
would object. There are no letters in the file against the
garage.
Remo: My feeling is that when they bought the lot they bought it
with that configuration knowing its limitations. They should
have known that they can't get a garage on the property.
Charlie: I think the zoning has changed and the setbacks have
changed since that house was built. The house was built in about
1968.
Remo asked Harriet if she had further comments.
Harriet : Both lots on each side of us actually have less square
footage than we do. They are rectangular and easier to build on.
Those lots are 7 ,000 sq ft and ours is 8 , 000 . The house was
3
built for us in 1967 or 1968. It was an unusual deal in that the
fellow wanted our house at the end of the street and we were
trading our house and lot for a house and lot he built. I had a
survey of the lot taken when we bought it but before the house
was put on it. I did not realize how difficult it would be to
put anything on it--how much of it was wasted space just space
around the outside--that actually the only place the architect
could put that house was right there. We had some say, but not
much.
Remo: The setbacks must have been different because obviously
they could not have built that house . It does not meet
requirements now. The front yard setback is not correct so they
must have been changed.
Anne: If there were another alternative that would not require
as much of a variance we might consider it.
Remo: We are required to give you a minimum variance and even
though, to our way of looking at it, without telling us where the
windows are etc. , it is incumbent on us to say you can move that
garage physically right up against that building and that would
be the minimum variance that we could give you. We would
probably be more amenable to giving you that kind of variance
than we are 13 ft away.
Harriet asked for her application be postponed to July 2, 1987.
Anne made a motion to table case #87-7 to July 2, 1987.
Josephine seconded the motion with all in favor.
CASE #87-6
ELIZABETH JONES
Property is located in the "0" office zoning category. The book
store is a non-conforming use . Applicant appears to want to
enlarge a non-conforming use. Section 24-13. 2 (a) _ No such non-
conforming use shall be enlarged or increased, nor extended to
occupy greater area of land.
Ivan Abrams : Fourteen years ago when the building was built
where the book store is, the two lots were zoned business.
Through no fault of my own, zoning was changed and it is now
Office. The only addition to the building would be dormers for
light and headroom plus a flight of stairs to make the space
accessible. The space is already there. I believe it is a unique
situation in central Aspen. It is a 900 sq ft building on a
6 ,000 ft piece of land. It is unlikely that any other place in
town could cite this as a reason for making a similar plea. So
it wouldn't create a precedent. We are a small book store with
mostly walk-in traffic.
In the past two years, it has been very much busier than in the
preceding 28. Two rooms was adequate but now we need added
space. We have been at this same location for 14 years.
Remo: It is not the square footage of the building that is
concerning us. It is the use inside the building that you are
requesting the variance for. It is the idea that it is a book
store in an "0" Office zone. It is not your expansion of the
building that concerns us. It is the use that you are putting
inside the building that is not allowed.
Anne: The use was there prior to the change.
Ron Kansan, contractor : There is existing floor space upstairs
already. We are not expanding the floor space. We are just
making it usable by putting in dormers in order to get a little
more headroom. We are actually cutting some of the floor space
out by putting in the stairway and walls. The floor space will
be less than before.
Anne: What is the intent of the use of this space?
Ivan: Office space for the book store.
Ron Kansan: We came in here not prepared in the usage category.
We were told it was because of expanding the building. We have
not looked at the other options.
Ivan: In other words the hardship is going from business zoning
to office zoning. It was changed in 1975.
Remo: You are in office zoning.
Anne : If this were an office , would there be any problem in
increasing the space by putting the dormers in?
Bill : As long as he didn 't increase his floor area. He is not
violating any setbacks.
Remo: Twelve years ago they made your business a non-conforming
use there. When they did that, they said you are allowed to stay
there but you cannot expand that to any greater degree than what
it is at the time the change took place. That is what we are
confronted with.
Ivan: Isn't that what we want the variance for? In other words,
we are not doing anything except dormers.
Bill : The intent of the code is to render these non-conformities
to continue until they are removed and not to encourage their
survival.
Ron Kansan: If you look at Ivan's situation, he has got such a
small building on such a large lot and the possibilities of what
else could go in there should Ivan choose not to stay there.
What he is doing is making an investment which is a minor change
on the neighborhood. There are a lot larger things that you
could be dealing with on that lot. The neighbors would rather
have Ivan comfortable in staying there than a larger proportioned
building on that lot. This blends very well with the victorian
structure and the dormers will add to the victorian facade.
Remo: I agree. But we have to justify on a principle that is
applicable to everyone so that when someone comes in to us with
the same argument, what is going to make us say no to him and yes
to you? We need something from you that will tell us that we
want to give it to you because you have a unique situation.
Ivan: The size of the lot is one point. The zoning change was
no fault of ours.
Remo: Everyone comes under the zoning change. Wherever that
zoning takes place, they are all impacted. Our job is to allow
some relief when it is justly used for certain property owners
that have a unique situation--that it would be intolerable if we
used the same principles of the zoning umbrella to them as we do
to everyone else.
Ron: As far as we know we are unique.
Anne: Have you owned that business ever since it has been in
existence?
Ivan: Twenty nine years and ten months.
Anne: I have no problem with that space remaining a business of
that size and not an office. I also have no problem with their
putting some dormers in.
Josephine : I would consider that a minimal expansion. It is
hardly worth the name expansion. So for my way of thinking about
this application I would put the two things together. One is
that this is a minimal change and the other is that the location
of this is so much on the edge of the office zone that it is
perfectly all right with me to have a business there. I am
willing to grant the variance.
Anne: The other thing that I think is important is that this was
a pre-existing use. It was there when it was legally zoned for a
business use and the zoning changed after that. I see that as a
hardship.
Remo: I am for this variance but I really want to make sure that
we justify it in terms of our own guidelines. It is in the
office zone.
Josephine: Zoning is made by people and people are not perfect .
I am not willing to always live by the exact dotted line of where
6
a zoning code comes from.
Charlie: That is the reason why we are here. The other thing we
should look at and keep uppermost in our mind is what is good for
the City. Is it good for the City to have a big office building
there or is it good for the City to have a minimal use business
like this. It is out of the way and very quiet.
Remo: Suppose someone else comes to us and says the same thing?
I feel we should nail it down to something more specific.
Charlie: That depends on what it is.
Remo asked if there were further comments or questions from the
public.
Elizabeth: This is just windows that we are talking about .
Scott Hankinson representing the ownership and management of the
Hotel Lenado located on South Aspen and East Hopkins: This is a
statement prepared by the management ; We at the Hotel Lenado
support the application of the Quadrant Book Store for a variance
to allow the construction of the dormers and other alterations
which would make the attic space in the building usable. We feel
that the Quadrant Book Store is something of the best of what one
might find in Aspen . It is a completely unique and
individualistic enterprise, a calm in the middle of a commercial
storm. We buy the books for our small hotel library from Ivan
and many of our guests enjoy browsing through his store.
The character of the store is not that of a store at all. It is
more like the home of a friend you might visit to share some
books. When one thinks of the potential for development of this
site, it becomes clear that the present use, although ostensibly
commercial, is a minuscule impact compared to a true commercial
use or even the allowed office use intensity.
We can see no negative impact from the proposed alterations to
the book store and enthusiastically support the granting of this
variance.
Remo asked if there were further comments.
There were none.
Remo closed the public portion of the meeting.
Remo: I want to give you an opportunity before we vote that you
also have the right to table this in case one of us does not vote
in favor of your application. A fifth member present could
change the outcome and allow you your variance as you need four
positive votes.
Charlie : I would grant the variance because it is a minimal
7
impact . It is not an increase in floor area. It is not
something that will harm the vicinity and zone. We have support
from the neighbors for this variance. I am a little hesitant in
trying to affirm a hardship. I feel that it is so minimal and it
would make such a big difference to them and it isn 't something
that would be a detriment to the City of Aspen.
Remo : I am trying to get from you some indication that of
practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships.
Charlie: If you want to make an office and there isn't enough
space in the store, it is an unnecessary hardship because a desk
is obviously not enough to run a business from. He has told us
that his business has increased and we have been told the Lenado
uses it for their guests.
Anne: Is safety a hardship?
Remo: I would think so.
Anne: I think that if someone is going to use that for an office
space, they need an egress other than the stairs. The window
would be an egress and there is no window up there. Ventilation
is also another safety reason for having a window up there.
I still think that the pre-existing use is a hardship. The
impact is minimal. I feel that we are making an existing space
safer to use. It is an existing space. Why not let them have
some headroom in it and use it in a safer manner.
Josephine : One of our obligations is to see that substantial
justice is done. I feel that there is no very good reason that I
have heard yet for us to deny this. It is such easy justice to
say yes to this.
Remo: I want some language in our motion that would satisfy me
that we treat other people in the same manner without prejudice.
Charlie : We never use a precedent and we never use something
that was done before or that is going to be done in the future.
We have to evaluate what is bef ore us at the moment. We are in
effect working for the City and for the citizens of Aspen.
Therefore, our judgment call can be changed. Our judgement call
has to be based upon what we see at this time. Number one, is it
good for the City of Aspen. Is it good for the citizens and is
substantial justice done to this particular project. Every
application that is made to us can be so different that we don't
have to go back and say now we have to be sure that when we grant
this today that we have to be looking at the future and looking
at the past.
Remo: The City, if we are representatives of the City, has
determined that this zone be office.
9
Anne: I don't think that we need to worry so much about what is
going to happen as far as a business there in the future. That
is not considered a prime retail space. People don't want to be
that far from the core. I don't think we can control what is
going to happen 20 years from now. Maybe the building will be
changed again. But we shouldn ' t make these people give up a
right that every other person has.
Charlie: If we were going to agree with what the zoning is on
the edges or wherever, there is no need for this Board.
Remo: If you can show me the uniqueness of this property--maybe
it has to do with the relationship of the square footage of the
building to the size of the lot--what could be there, the impact,
all those things in the motion, maybe I will support it.
Charlie: I make a motion that we grant the variance for Case
#87-6 on the basis that it is a unique business, the location is
on the border of the office zone, the building is undersized for
the lot, the type of business that is there was pre-existing, in
use for 14 years. There are no zoning violations other than the
use and there is minimal impact in this request. There is no
increase in square footage. Substantial justice would be done by
granting this variance and we see no reason to deny the variance.
Anne seconded the motion.
Roll call vote: Charlie Paterson, aye, Josephine N[ann, aye, Anne
Austin, aye, Remo Lavagnino, aye.
Meeting was adjourned at 5: 45.
--- -LAG— J--.Xld/� reputy---------
Jan ce M. Car ey, City Clerk