Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19870716 TY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 16, 1987 4;'00 P.M. A G E N D A I. ROLL CALL II. MINUTES OF JULY 2, 1987 III. OLD BUSINESS j Case #87-9 / Dale & Sally Potvin r` IV. ADJOURNMENT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS JULY 16, 1987 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4: 00 pm. ROLL CALL Answering roll call were Rick Head, Charlie Paterson, Francis Whitaker and Ron Erickson. Josephine Mann and Anne Austin were both excused. MINUTES OF JULY 2. 1987 After discussion pertaining to corrections on these minutes Francis made a motion to table approval of the minutes until clerk has time to make proper corrections. Ron Erickson seconded the motion with all in favor. CASE #87-9 /-DALE & SALLY POTVIN Property is in the R-6 zoning category. Rear yard setback is 15 ft. Actual carport setback appears to be 714" and therefor encroaching into rear yard setback. Section 24-13 . 3 (a) no such nonconforming structure may be enlarged or attached in a way which increases its nonconformity. Applicant appears to be asking to complete the conversion of the carport to a garage in the rear yard setback. Applicant presented affidavit and sign of posting of notification of application for variance. Joe Edwards, representing Dale & Sally Potvin: Essentially, Dale wants to put a garage door on the back of what has been, for 25 years, a carport . I am going to let him recite for you the history of how this building got to where it is today. That will give you that perspective and then I will make some technical arguments. Dale Potvin: I purchased the house in about 1980 . The house was built in 1962. Originally it was a house and a carport and then some time in 1970 a bedroom was added on. Joe: This is a 1970 improvement survey that shows at that time when they were making this addition on the side that the carport was existing and had been built at the time. Remo: And it is in the same condition that it is now? Joe: Except that we want to close off the back. 1 Remo: I mean everything else was enclosed except for the door? Joe: Right. It is 714" from the back line. Bill Drueding: This survey shows a carport overhang of this thing here and a loop overhang here that does not show any connection. These two are connected now. Joe: That is correct. We are going to address that. There was an overhanging roof and they were not connected. Remo: Are they connected now? Joe: Yes, they are. Remo: When were they connected? Joe: He is going to tell you when that happened. Dale: This was a separate and independent carport and as an accessory building it can be within 5 ' of the rear yard setback in R-6 so this conformed to zoning assuming zoning was the same 25 years ago. Remo: Then it was not connected, is that right? Bill : It conformed in the rear but it was non-conforming in that separation. Joe: Who knows whether that was required 25 years ago. Dale: I bought the house after living here for a couple of years. In 1982 I was able to do some remodeling on it. It was in need of a new roof and in the process of getting a zoning permit to do an extensive remodel, I put a new roof on the house. My building permit to remodel allowed me to enclose kind of a hallway portion that you see on that survey between the carport and the existing house. It made that into a bedroom of sorts from the carport which required an extension of the roof. The 6" gap in the overhang was a natural collection point for blowing and melting snow which would dam up and create ice in that area. I reviewed that with the roofers and we decided to enclose the 6" gap. It seemed an obvious thing to do to stop the problem that we were having as far as ice and snow build up. That is effectively how the house became non-conforming from an accessory building to attached garage. Remo: Did you do this in conformance with your building permit? Dale: Yes. 2 Remo: Your permit allowed you to do this? Dale: Yes. I had a building permit to basically do all this remodeling to enclose this area and-- Remo: To connect the two buildings. Dale: And to add that connection between the hallway and then in the process of doing that I was in need of a new roof and so actually I put a roof on it and that was a disaster. The next summer I had to redo that and in that period made that connection. I initially did it one way and then I re-did it but effectively with that ' 82 permit I connected it. At that point the house was 22 years old. The roof was obviously in need of repair and I had a permit for that hallway and it was all part of the existing roof. It was an obvious safety hazard because of melting and ice build up and so it was enclosed at that point with a tar and gravel roof. Rick Head: If we are talking about a non-conforming structure because of the proximity of the carport to the house, why would the building inspector give approval on the permit to expand the non-conforming use? A variance would be needed. I don't see how the building inspector would have the authority to grant a permit on something that is already non-conforming and further expanding on the non-conforming. Dale: That was a hallway. Remo: I think it was an oversight. Joe: Technically they weren't moving the footer and the thing had been there since '62 and Remo: It is a point that he wanted to make. Rick : Because Bill is sitting here and he was around at the time. Perhaps he could shed some light on what happened. Francis: Could I ask for the chronology--the house was built in 162. The addition was in 1970? Dale: Correct. Francis: And then you went further in 1984? Dale: ' 82. Francis: 182 . In 1982 you closed the roofs in. Is that correct? 3 Dale: Yes. Ron: What is closing the roofs in? Joe: They were overhanging and they put a little connecter between them to keep the snow from blowing in under the back door. Dale: I have just kind of put a grade so it kind of slopes from the garage on to the master bedroom rather than have that overhang. At that time I had no knowledge that there was any distinction between an accessory building or an attached garage. In making that connection I just felt like it was an obvious thing. I didn't realize that maybe it was something that would make that carport non-conforming. At that point when I bought the house there was a wall on the total east side of the garage. And its shed already in place. Joe : This is a picture taken right here looking along the sidewall so that you can just barely see the sidewall. This sidewall was in place on the existing carport and the guy had built-in storage cabinets on the inside of it. That was that way when Dale bought it. Remo: He bought in 1962? Joe: No, he bought in '80 . When he bought it, that was already like closed in so it wasn't like a carport with 4 poles. It had this wall, effectively had 3 sides, this side was not closed in, just this side. Dale: When I re-sided the house, I re-sided that portion of it and so it now has vertical siding just at the horizontal side that was on it. In the last 2 years, I have had 2 thefts out of my carport, both of which aggravated me tremendously. In the first theft, I lost approximately $700.00 worth of tools and sports equipment. The other theft was a pair of skis which was just this last winter. After the second theft I was determined to close in the garage because of the irritation that this created for me. At this point I started enclosing a portion of it which would be the westerly portion. Joe will show you where that is . Joe: This little section here about 10 or 12 feet. Dale started adding the wall to there with the intention of putting a door on the back. 4 Remo: This was existing? Dale: Yes. Joe: Well, yea, this is sort of like the side of the addition. Ron: That was in the Fall of ' 82? Joe: No, this was after in 186. Remo: You got a permit for that? Bill : No. Joe: No. That is why we are here. This he started adding in ' 86 and go ahead, Dale. Dale: That was done during the summer. Later in the summer I Joe: Here is a picture of what it looks like today. He added this section. And he added around the corner these sections here and here. This part was already there. Bill : And did you re-do this wall here, Dale? Dale: That was done in ' 82 when I entirely remodeled the house. I actually had done a portion, there was celotex on a portion of it since 182. I didn't realize that it should have required a permit. I did get a permit to move the electrical because the electrical box was in the carport. I also got a permit to move my gas meter out which was also inside the carport . But basically it was a non-structural addition. I probably should have got a permit. I was incorrect in not doing that. I wasn't changing the footprint. The posts that supported the garage are kind of a natural parameter to enclose it and that is basically what I was attempting to do. At that point while I was getting the permit, I was red tagged and stopped construction and have since come forward and applied for this application. Remo: When you got the permit to put in the garage door, you got red tagged? Dale: When I got the permit to change the electrical meter and gas meter. Remo: You got red tagged then? Bill : That ' s what made us aware that something was going on there. Joe: They then went by and checked it because he pulled those permits and they saw that he put on this wall and gone around the 5 corner and was about to put on the garage door. They gave him this red tag asking that he do 3 things. He would need a 1 hour fire wall between the house and the garage. And you need a 1 and 3/8 solid core door here on the back and you need a survey to determine the proximity. So then this spring he filed a building permit to do those things. Under the application is a building permit and he was asking for the 1 hour fire wall, the placement of the glass door, a protective metal post and gas meter and to put in the overhead door from the carport. That was rejected and referred to this board for the reasons of a setback. Dale: That gives you an idea of what I am attempting to do. To enclose within the existing footprint a carport. And I am asking for a variance to do it for reasons of security. I have already had 2 thefts out of there and I feel like it is a very reasonable request. I have talked to all the property owners on the block. There are 6 other property owners. All of the other property owners enjoy the privilege of encroaching either into the rear yard setback or actually into the alley. So it is something that other property owners, over a time, have been able to do. I have talked to them each individually. I have a letter from each of the property owners on the block. They support my request and have all signed the letter. I typed up a form letter just to make it easier. I did review and give each person updated comment on all these points. They understand what I am doing. I have given them a copy of my application and reviewed it with them in detail. They are aware that I am just enclosing an existing garage within my property line but I need a variance. They feel the more security there is in the alley, the safer everybody ' s property will be. They also feel that aesthetically they would rather drive by and see a closed garage door than look at all the things that one collects and stores in a carport or garage. Joe: Here are those letters for the record and here are a series of photographs that the Board members may want to examine that show the condition of the alley and show the other encroachments. You can see that these other buildings are a good deal closer to the alley than Dale ' s. All the ones on the north side are actually in the platted alleyway and this Is a full residence which is within a few feet of the platted alleyway. I don't know how he got that unless he got a variance. And this is a detached structure which is in a few feet of it. Dale ' s is set back 7 & 1/2 ft. So every single property owner on the whole block has more of an encroachment than Dale does and they all have closed doors. Dale: The last point is that this spring the City of Aspen Police Department asked me to close my garage door because they 6 thought it was very much an obvious invitation for someone to steal. We discussed the problem they have had in the alleys in the west end with people stealing from those areas. I have since had them do a security report on my house. I have a written report from them with their minimum recommendation being that a garage door be installed and properly equipped with a security device. I have been victimized by burglary. It is an obvious target and is deficient and should be corrected. I certainly have the support of the Police Department in recommending that it be enclosed for security reasons. Joe : With respect to the code compliance part of the presentation I note that for some reason that defies logic, buildings on lots which are 2 and 1/2 times the size of this one, can have the principal dwelling only 10 feet from the back property line. Yet principal buildings in smaller R-6 zone are supposed to be 15 ft. It doesn't make a lot of sense but that is the way it is. Bill : The R-6 zone has streets and alleys. The subdivisions they have allowed don't have alleys. That is the reason for that. Joe : Also for accessory buildings, which in this case would include detached garages, can be 5 ft and I am not sure there is a lot of logical reason why you can say that it is more impractical to have a detached garage at 5 ft and yet an attached garage has to be 15 ft. What is the difference on the impact of the neighborhood? Bill : It is a safety factor. They want a 10 ft separation so they can get fire equipment in there. When you attach the garage to the house, they don't require the 10 ft but they require a 1 hour separation. That is a safety more than a visual effect. Joe : At any rate we are here requesting under either of two theories. We could either just request a variance--just a flat out setback variance instead of 15 ft that we be given a 718" variance for the carport in place and allowed to go ahead and put the garage door on which is essentially all we want to do. The thing is there. It is not going away. It is not going to be torn down. And it is not going to be removed or anything so it isn't going anywhere. It seems like it is almost zero impact on anybody to put a garage door on it which will meet code. We will put in the fire wall. We will put in the solid core door. We will do everything that we are required to do as if it had been attached. We would just request that variance and I point out that compared to all the other properties on the block, we have more setback by substantial amount than anybody else. The second way this thing could be approved is by approval of an overhead door as being a non-structural addition to an existing 7 non-conforming structure. This thing was made non-conforming when the overhanging roofs were connected to prevent the snow from blowing in. I don't think anybody realized that that had the effect of switching this from a detached structure accessory building to part of the principal residence making it technically non-conforming. It has been that way since 1982 and we could approve it as a non-structural addition which doesn 't increase the non-conformity of that existing non-conforming structure. You could, I suppose, take the position that it was Dale 's fault that it became nonconforming . But it certainly wasn ' t intentional and I think that no one noticed it. I think that provision allowing for existing non-conforming uses to be cleaned up, repaired, as long as they are not expanded is certainly within the intent of this thing. I think the standards of exceptional circumstances , the unnecessary hardship arises out of the fact that this is the most conforming of any on the block. It is an unnecessary hardship to say that he can't prevent thefts in this area by closing it off. All the neighbors think is a great idea . So we would respectfully request your consideration to, under either of those theories or both, grant Dale permission to complete this project and put his garage door on. Remo: First I want some clarification from Bill. That 1986 addition--that last one that he put the west wall and got red tagged--does that mean he would have to take that down? Bill : That was done without a permit and it could be required that that be removed. So any application for variance would have to include that those walls were done without a permit. Joe: Again, that is a non-structural wall. Remo: It doesn't matter. It was done without a permit and it is an illegal use. Actually it is not a carport now is it? It is a garage as it stands now. Just clear this point up. The structure, as it stands now, would you consider that a garage? Bill : In that it is surrounded by 4 walls, yea. Remo: It is a garage now. Bill : Yea. Francis: 4 walls? It is 3 walls closed off. Bill : The only one that is not closed off is the one where the garage door is to go. The wall has been extended but the door is not in there yet. 8 Remo: My next question is what constitutes a door? Is 8 ft a door?, 4 ft?, 10 ft?. So if they detach the main house from the garage and brought it back to its original status, they would not need a variance. If they just do separate roofs because that was a non-conforming use is between the 2 houses. That was existing. Bill : I have no proof that the connection between the roofs or the connection from the carport where the snow was blowing through--that connection I can find no proof that that was done. Remo: No, I am talking about between the house--not the east wall--just the house and the garage. Charlie: You need 10 feet. Remo: Well, but OK, so that is a non-conforming use. It is a separate building now, it is not attached to the main house. We agreed that Bill : It was attached by wall also. Remo: Well, it wasn' t. At one time it wasn't. Bill : But it is now. Remo: I know, I am trying to establish that if he had not connected these two walls together, and they were separated, what would that carport be considered? An accessory building? or an attached, I mean it is not attached Bill: It would have still been an accessory building Remo: Right, requiring what? Bill : Requiring what to do with it. Remo: These setbacks--the rear yard setbacks. Bill : The rear yard setback would have been non-conforming as far as Remo: Between the buildings but that was existing so we can't do anything about that. But they would have been allowed to put this structure in. Bill : No, I didn't say that. Remo: I mean a carport would have been a legal use. Bill : The carport was a legal use. Remo: Might. So it is the enclosure that you are--the conversion 9 of increasing--but wait a minute now, the carport would have been a conforming use, it would have met setback requirements. Bill : It would have met the rear yard setback requirement. Remo: Isn't that the one that they are asking for? Bill : Yea. Remo: So that they could have built a garage. Bill : No. They couldn't have enclosed the area between the carport and the house because you need a 10 ft separation and they didn't have that. Remo: By adding the wall, they would have increased the non- conforming. Bill : Yea, you took your carport like this and then, you know, your wall here Remo: So that the fact that it didn 't have a wall back there Bill : Right. Rick Head: You can't expand a non-conforming. Bill : Right. It was a carport and so there was no existing wall . There was a separation between there. In 182 the connection that was made. I can't prove that it was done either way. When you come to '86 what happened was the electrical and gas meter had to be taken outside. Permits are pulled separately without getting a building permit. They were asked to be inspected. The Building Inspector went out there and said well that is fine but how did this other stuff happen? That is the time that he red tagged it in 186. He knew that we wouldn't have allowed that to become a garage because then it would require a 1 hour separation. He had a door which was not a proper door. He had been here long enough he knew it wasn't inspected. These walls, by Joe's admission and of yours, this wall here and these walls across there, were done without a permit. This one you can clearly see was done on purpose. Ron: Dale, how long have you been in real estate? Dale: I have been a broker for about 5 years. Ron: And in real estate in this town? Were you in real estate when you bought this house? Dale: No. Actually I was. I have been in real estate about 7 years. I would note that I did pull 2 permits that were needed 10 in compliance with City codes. My intention was to do this by code. I could have easily put up a garage door and I admit I did enclose that without a permit which was incorrect. But I could easily put a garage door on and without a permit. Remo: Then you would not have been able to move those utilities outside. Dale: What I am saying is that I felt that it was a very minor issue. I felt like as long as utilities were outside, both gas and electrical , I was effectively complying with Joe: And he was wrong and he admits that. Rick Head: Wouldn 't you say there were other issues like fire wall and glass door that justify permits? Dale: I will rectify all those issues as shown by my building permit. Bill : When did you apply for the garage door? After being red tagged? Dale: Yea, not until a month ago, 6 weeks ago. Joe: You were red tagged in the Fall. And he waited till this spring to get back into the construction business. Dale: There is a certain amount of frustration that a homeowner feels when things are stolen from you. A certain amount of feeling of invasion that I guess motivated me just to go ahead and get this done. Every time something is stolen I feel very frustrated and probably that frustration is what made me go ahead without first coming in to get a variance but Joe: Well, you didn't know a variance was necessary until you got red tagged, actually till you got the building permit. That is the first time the setback issue came up. Bill : There wasn't anything else to come in for. Dale: In retrospect I was incorrect in the procedure I followed but it is my intention to do it by code and I think that the security issue is a very strong one here. Remo: I would like to address that since that is a strong argument. There is plenty of opportunity to secure whatever your possessions are. It is not incumbent on us to have that space provided for you especially in a non-conforming use. As I remember looking into that garage you have some utilities in the back. You have a kind of step up that sets back of where some type of bench or laundry or some other area. The cars don't go 11 to the wall. That portion could be secured. You could put some kind of locks or whatever it takes to secure it. If that is an insecure area then don' t put your possessions out there. We can't really look at arguments of that nature in order to look at granting a variance. On another point, you talk about other people enjoying or infringing on the setback. Because others have more than you, does not give us cause to expand your non-conforming use. You also are enjoying something in the setback. Whether somebody is in the alley or not, I don't think it is a matter of degree to how much more you can ask for in a non-conforming way than other people are enjoying. Joe : In response to that I stuck that in there because I was reading out of section 2-22 paragraph D which says the following: Shall be considered a valid reason for granting a variance. (3) That the granting of a variance is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but denied to this property because of special conditions or extraordinary circumstances. Remo: But you are enjoying those. You are in the setback. Joe: The others all have their doors on and we don't. Remo: I don't think it was meant to expand those non-conforming uses. You are enjoying it--not to the degree that they are. That doesn't give us cause to grant you a variance. Joe: But expanding would be to enlarge. Remo: Expanding the use. It could be expanding the use too. Joe : We are not expanding it. It is within exactly the same footprint. Remo: You know, when I first saw this I said I can't believe that you are being denied a permit. I can't believe that you wouldn't be allowed an overhead door to be put in here. I almost had prejudice coming in here. I couldn't understand why we couldn't give him this variance. But now I realize that there is cause. When you are doing things illegally in the first place in order to get to the point where it looks like a garage, then we have a different set of criteria on which to base granting you a variance or not. And that has to be addressed. If that was an existing built structure the way it is now, I can hardly understand why you wouldn ' t be granted a variance. But I can see that a lot of things have happened that were not under the review of accountability to the Building Department. Joe: Dale has apologized for that. Are we going to penalize him 12 and not give him a variance the way you give everybody else because he did not realize he needed a building permit? Rick: First we gave him a variance for the garage door and the Building Department said you got to pull out those two walls that were added illegally. Bill : If you give him the variance for the door, you are giving him the variance for the walls. Then the Building Department, with your variance, can have him do the construction correctly. Rick : What position would the Building Dept take if we deny the garage door ? Would- you let - him leave the walls that- are presently there? Bill : I would have to talk to the City attorney. Joe: They would never act on a mandatory injunction to try to force somebody to remove that. That ' s silly. Remo: We had a whole roof removed. A roof that was up already on the Continental Inn. Charlie : But that was a very extreme situation. Remo: Well, it was something that we did that should be done. Joe: He was doing it intentionally, right? He knew exactly what he was doing. He was deliberately violating it. He only got the permits that he knew he needed to get and he just didn't think a garage door required one. He was wrong. He was dead wrong. He should have had more consciousness about it. Do we want to continue to flail him because he made a mistake? Remo: I think what Ron might have been referring to, is that he is in the business of knowing things about it. Ron: I consider him an expert in this field. Remo: And all of a sudden to lose his memory about failing to realize that he needs a permit to put up any kind of structure-- anything you do around here. Joe : I deal with brokers every single day. Maybe they should know more than they do but they don't know beans about setbacks. I am always dealing with the problem of a lack of realtor 's knowledge of the technical compliance with the codes. That' s why we have lawyers. Remo: But Dale has been before us on a lot split and we were talking about things of that nature. I can't believe that he is not familiar with that section of the code. However, given the 13 benefit of the doubt on that Francis: I think it is pertinent to introduce something in this draft that has been prepared by the City Attorney about our duties and reasons. On page 5 paragraph 3: Self infliction or self created. Whether a hardship is a result of the applicant' s own actions is a highly significant fact which is of material element bearing on the determination of the necessary hardship or practical difficulty and weighs heavily against an owner seeking variance. This is a self-created hardship. Some of it with a permit and some of it without a permit. Joe: I think what they are referring to there would be something like if he had built the thing within the setback and then came in for the variance. But he was just merely trying to put a door on the back of something that has been there for 25 years. Francis: By connecting the garage to the house is what created the non-conformity. Joe: That ' s right. Not to anybody' s intention or knowledge. Francis: Didn't you do that? Dale: Yea. 6 years ago. Francis: You created the non-conformity by your own actions. This is the point I am trying to make. Dale : I had a building permit to remodel my house. I had a permit to enclose the hallway. That required a new roof. I was operating under the assumption that it was an allowable thing for me to do. The house was inspected and signed off on and no one mentioned that by enclosing that overlap I was creating a non- conformity. I didn't realize it was. I don't think any of us actually did until we delved into this particular issue. I don't think that it was an intentional violation of any codes on my part . It was done as a safety issue . I am sure you can appreciate that. I have to admit that your point is well taken that there are other things you can do for security but when things are stolen from you, there is a bit of emotion that does come into play and if you have ever been through that, I am sure you can appreciate it. Remo asked if there were any other public comments. Joe: I would ask that the Board look back at this thing in the way in which you looked at it when you first heard about it. You guys aren't to be a criminal law jury to sit here and decide that Dale was a bad guy because he overlooked the fact that he needed 14 a permit to put the west wall on. Therefor, we are going to punish him by not giving a variance that if he hadn't done that we would otherwise give. That isn't really the role of this Commission. Look at it from the standpoint of what have we got here. What is this going to harm? What is the best thing to do under the situation for the community, for the land use codes , for the building, for the health, safety and welfare of its occupants and its people? What is reasonable under the circumstance? Your initial reaction was very accurate. It is totally silly to say that he can't put a door on the back of the garage. All of his neighbors support it. Nobody complained. Everybody thinks it is a great idea. The thing has been there for 25 years. It ain't gonna get any bigger. Its gonna get better if we put the door on it . The police want him to put the door on it. He wants to put the door on it. The neighbors want him to put the door on it. So why don't we do the thing that is right and let him have the door on it? It just seem incredulous that we would get hung up in some other logic to turn down what everyone thinks is the most reasonable thing to be done here under the circumstances. It is a plea for logic and reason and humanness. We have come back. We are asking for a building permit. We want to put on the fire wall. We want to put on the core door. We want to do it legally. We will do everything Bill wants us to do. We will do it twice. We are trying to be lawful, law abiding citizens here for an oversight. It ain't gonna hurt a person in the world and it' s gonna help Dale and it 's gonna help the police. The only people its gonna help by you guys denying it is some burglars. And everybody is gonna be harmed. Francis : I am unclear as to how much of the walls of the existing part were added without a permit. Joe: This section here and here and this section here and this section here. And the top was already there. This wall was already here and the top across here was already here. Ron: And this one was added under the permit in ' 82? Joe: This was already always on the carport. This drop down was always on the carport. What Dale added was this section. And this little section around the corner. Francis: Was this 7 ft or so? Joe: Yes. Ron: You mean this used to be open here? Joe: No, no, this was part of the house. That was started in 15 '70 before he bought it. Bill : So this roof is now connected. Francis: There is no wall along there? Joe: No. Remo: So there is no wall there? Joe: No. Bill : You have to keep a 10 ft separation between a carport, the carport roof and--it doesn't need to have a wall. Just needs a roof. Just a carport. You can ' t put the carport right up against your main building. You can attach it. You don't need a separation there. Remo: Well , if the carport is here, then it becomes a non- conforming use. Joe : For 25 years its been like that , which is now nonconf orming. Remo: Now, there was no line here. Joe: Well there is a pole. Bill: There was a separation there. I can find no proof that this connection was made with a legal permit. That doesn' t mean that it was not done legally. Remo: But he had a permit. Bill : No he didn 't. Remo: To connect this roof? Bill : No. Remo: He didn ' t. See, I guess my point was before that when I asked you whether they could put a wall between that, you said no, they can't because it is not 10 feet. Bill : Right. Remo: But I am saying to you that there was no wall. They don't have to put a wall, but once you connect it by the roof that changes it and you did connect it with a wall there. He connected with a sidewall and a roof. Dale: The connection was done in '70 and so because of blowing 16 snow and buildup, I just had a little roof about 6 inches, you know, its just sloping so there is a natural grade. Actually they just sloped everything from this end. Bill : Did you have a building permit to do that? Dale: Yes. Bill : Do you have copy of it? Dale: In 182 I got a permit to put a door right here. I want to stress that when I enclosed this it was an outside hallway. Ron: There was no roof there before? Dale: Right. In 182 the house needed a new roof and it was a decision made with the roofer, you know, where do you want the water to run? Bill : Did you get a roofing permit? Dale: I used a licensed contractor. Bill : You got a licensed contractor. You got a roofing permit and that is a different thing. You got a permit to re-roof a roof which you don't go and inspect and you don't look Joe: You don't expect anything to be added, any construction to be added Bill : So this connection was not made, this is an additional thing you should have had a permit for instead of just a roofing permit. Dale: I used their license for roofing contractors Bill : The roofing contractor? That's why I don't have any plans for this and no record. A roofing contractor is a different thing. Dale: I assumed he got one. Bill : Well , I don't think you can assume, I thought he would have but he didn't that I can see. Charlie: I can see that was a very honest mistake. Remo: Yea, I don' t find any fault in that. Francis: As I understand it, part of the walls at the back were added without a permit and the roof was connected without a permit. Is that correct? 17 Dale: The roof was done with a roofing contractor. Francis : Connecting and adding more to connect the building. Joe: Well Francis, nobody knows. We don't have a permit copy. That was 6 years ago. They don' t have a copy so we can't say whether it was done lawfully or not. Remo: But a licensed roofing contractor did the work. Dale: Yes. They are a licensed contractor. They work in this valley every day. I assumed that they were legitimate and honest. I paid them fees and put that roof on and they handled the whole thing for me. Bill : The thing is it was still a carport and we have two more walls and what do we do about that? Remo: We have several letters. They are form letters and Ron will read one and I will enter the names for all of those for the record. Ron: Dated July 9 , 1987, City of Aspen, Board of Adjustments, Dear Board of Adjustments: I support the request by the Potvins to enclose their existing carport into a garage. I understand their carport has been in existence since 1970 and that the enclosure represents no further expansion into the rear yard setback. I feel it is in everyone's best interest because it will provide more security for all of us who use the alley by making the Potvin's personal items less visible for potential thefts. Aesthetically, it will give the alley a nicer look. Please grant the potvins the variances needed to accomplish this enclosure. Signatures to this letter are as follows: Jack Barker, Lots K, L, & M, Block 43 John Lizzo, Lots R & S, Block 43 Marguerite M. Scheid, Estate, Lot At B, C, Block 43 Sharon M. Prior, Lots D & E. Block 43 Vivienne E. Jones, Lots F, G, H, & I, Block 43 C.M. Clark, Lot R & S, Block 43 Dale: I sat down with each person and reviewed exactly what was done. I disclosed that I had built a wall illegally. I showed them the maps . That is a form letter just out of convenience because I did not feel I wanted to infringe upon my neighbors to write something out. You are welcome to call anyone. There are some people from in town and some from out of town. I have their total support for this action. 18 Remo asked if there was any further public comment. There being none he closed the public portion of the meeting and asked for comments from the Board. Charlie: I had the same reaction that you did, Remo, when I went by there. I looked at all the other houses and saw the nice closed-in area, especially the one down at the end of the block. I said I can't possibly believe that he does not have a garage door on this. I did not know at the time that he did add a section of a wall to make it look the way it looks. But when I look at the whole picture and all the things you have said, which I agree with you, there is definitely a wrong when something is added without a building permit. There are some doubtful gray areas. But when I look at the whole thing, I can see an honest error taking place between a roofing contractor and an owner in solving the problem. You put a new roof on a building and say, look, I have ice dams here and snow in between the building, all these problems--how am I going to solve them? The roofing contractor goes down, he gets a permit to re-roof. They do a little addition of 3 feet on the sloping roof. They solve the problem. I can see where that is an honest error. It isn't something that is planned by the owner to bypass a building inspector. I also think it is a minimal variance . It is a reasonable request, a logical consequence of all these circumstances. I see a property right of this owner which is enjoyed by others in the same vicinity and zone. I see there is a health and hazard problem where if it is not granted, there is a half-finished situation. I know the City is not going to go into a legal situation. I feel strongly that they won't make him tear off that roof and cause an unsafe house which is going to cause problems again. He is going to have a sloping roof which drops then into a hole if you make him take down those connections that we have been told have been added, illegally, yes but they have been added. I have had problems with thefts and you feel like you are invaded by something you can't handle. There is no way you can solve the problem. If I had a boat, I can't put it in my child' s bedroom. I have a motorcycle. I can't stick it in my bedroom. You know, its very impractical to ask people and say well you can get other storage places. I feel that the only solution we can really humanly do in this case is to grant the variance and be done with it. And give the police a little peace of mind and the owner peace of mind because that is a real problem anywhere where you have nice houses and you have a lot of belongings. I would grant the variance. Remo: Charlie, you addressed the roofing contract and I think we might agree with you on that. But you really sluffed over that 19 other little wall that they put up illegally. Would you care to state your rationale in allowing that to happen before you grant him a variance? Charlie: I can see where the evidence presented shows that the owner was planning to put the garage door on. The only way to put the garage door on is to build those walls. You can't build a garage door against an open post and have a hole there. Again I don ' t feel we are looking at somebody with criminal intent because I don't feel that ' s what this is all about. I think that somebody was trying to solve a problem and it may have been not quite legal and then a lot of people don't know that a small roof or a small wall has got consequences in the zoning code. I don't feel the neighborhood is served by us not granting the variance . I understand your points. I agree with them but I want to go beyond that. I feel that we have a problem to solve not only for the City but for the owner. I think it is a real serious problem. The Building Department can't solve it. We are his last resort . We are here to try to bring justice and humanism to a pretty harsh zoning code. When you look at this in context, the zoning code doesn't make sense for this particular situation. I can' t solve it by adhering to the zoning code. Remo: I agree with you but he had recourse and that was to come to this Board in order to get that variance to do that and present those arguments that you are presenting to me now, to the chair. They could present it to the Board at the same time and we would have looked at it in that manner. Right? Charlie: I think it is an honest oversight. Rick : I think the fact that the applicant has or should have had superior knowledge to the lay person as to building permits. I have a problem with -that. I can empathize with the applicant ' s loss to thefts. I, too , in the same vicinity, have had a number of thefts this year from my home. I don' t have the luxury of a garage or a carport. There is nowhere on my property I could put one and abide by all the setbacks . I have to make other arrangements. I usually do that by taking a storage shed down valley and that is a pain in the neck as we all know. But that ' s life in the west end in the R-6 zone. I don ' t know if we have ever granted a variance based on recurring thefts as being a hardship. Although I feel empathy for the applicant, I don't know if that is a consideration I can justify giving a variance for. I think Remo' s comments are well taken as to possibly building another secure area within the confines of that carport, perhaps another partition wall between the house and where the car would naturally stop. I don't know if granting this variance would actually be in keeping with the spirit or the letter of the comprehensive plan. I think we are, 20 in fact , granting a variance to increase a non-conforming situation. It was a carport. Now all of a sudden it is close to a garage . It is this creeping situation that we are faced with constantly. Again it may not have been the cause of the applicant but I think it is a consideration. I personally, I am torn. This is a tough one. I don't think I would be prepared to grant a variance. Ron: I have to agree with Rick. It is tough. Some of the walls have been there longer than others and so on and so forth. But I don' t see a hardship. I think that special condition results from the actions of the applicant, maybe inadvertent, honest mistakes but they were his actions. Nobody else put up the walls or anything else. I think that the simplest thing to do would be to add a garage for him and be done with it like Charlie suggests. However, I think that would be going against the code. It would be condoning this creeping disregard for the code that I feel in this situation. It is real easy to say oh it is just a garage now but there was 6 years when a lot of things were going on to get it to this point. It is 95% finished so it is not worth going back and tearing it down. I would like to see something done. But I think that the non-conformity should be reduced back to the 1982 level, the last time that a building permit was issued. I would not grant this variance. Joe: Well, that' s it because you have to have 4 votes. Remo: I thought maybe you would like to hear the comments. For the record, we want to put them down. Francis: I feel that the special conditions and circumstances resulted from the action of the applicant. And I don't think we can excuse something by holding it as an honest mistake. That is not the way the Board has handled things in the past and I don't think it should handle it that way now. I also feel that an applicant has two strikes against him when he comes in and admits that he added a part of the structure without a permit with the intention of putting the door in and probably would have put the door in except for the stop order. I am very sympathetic in your problem. I have had thefts with people coming right into my yard and stealing things out in the Snowbunny area. I feel the Board has to go by certain principles and guidelines and I don't feel that you have met them enough to justify a variance. I am very sorry. Remo: Basically I feel the same way. I have stated my position. The only thing that I could add is that I really don't subscribe to the idea that because something done honestly but illegally should be allowed to continue in its non-conformity. So I would be against granting this variance. Ron: I move to deny this variance. 21 Francis seconded the motion. Roll call vote : Ron Erickson, yes, Francis Whitaker , yes, Charlie Paterson, no, Rick Head, yes, Remo Lavagnino, yes. Variance denied. Ron made a motion to adjourn. Rick seconded the motion with all in favor. The time was 5:15 pm. Jan ce M. Carn y, City De ty Clerk 22 July 9, 1987 City of Aspen Board of Adjustments Dear Board of Adjustments: I support the request by the Potvins to enclose their existing carport into a garage. I understand their carport has been in existence since 1970 and that the enclosure represents no further expansion into the rear yard setback. I feel it is in everyone's best interest because it will provide more security for all of us who use the alley by making the Potvin's personal items less visible for potential thefts. Aesthetically, it will give the alley a nicer look. Please grant the Potvins their variances needed to accomplish this enclosure. Date: "Jack Barker - Lots K, L, M Block 43 July 9, 1987 City of Aspen Board of Adjustments Dear Board of Adjustments: I support the request by the Potvins to enclose their existing carport into a garage. I understand their carport has been in existence since 1970 and that the enclosure represents no further expansion into the rear yard setback. I feel it is in everyone's best interest because it will provide more security for all of us who use the alley by making the Potvi:i's personal items less visible for potential thefts. Aesthetically, it will give the alley a nicer look. Please grant the Potvins their variances needed to accomplish- this-enclosure. Date: By: Jo L i z z oi�� Lots R & S, Block 43 July 9, 1987 City of Aspen Board of Adjustments Dear Board of Adjustments: I support the request by the Potvins to enclose their existing carport into a garage. I understand their carport has been in existence since 1970 and that the enclosure represents no further expansion into the rear yard setback. I feel it is in everyone's best interest because it will provide more security for all of us who use the alley by making the Potvin's personal items less visible for potential thefts. Aesthetically, it will give the alley a nicer look. Please grant the Potvins their variances needed to accomplish this enclosure. Date: 7 �? BY: Ma uerite M. Scheid, B-'t.ate of A, B, C, Block 43 July 9, 1987 City of Aspen Board of Adjustments Dear Board of Adjustments: I support the request by the Potvins to enclose their existing carport into a garage. I understand their carport has been in existence since 1970 and that the enclosure represents no further expansion into the rear yard setback. I feel it is in everyone's best interest because it will provide more security for all of us who use the alley by making the Potvin's personal items less visible for potential thefts. Aesthetically, it will give the alley a nicer look. Please grant the Potvins their variances needed to accomplish this enclosure. Date: BY: July 9, 1987 City of Aspen Board of Adjustments Dear Board of Adjustments: I support the request by the Potvins to enclose their existing carport into a garage. I understand their carport has been in existence since 1970 and that the enclosure represents no further expansion into the rear yard setback. I feel it is in everyone's best interest because it will provide more security for all of us who use the alley by making the Potvin's personal items less visible for potential thefts. Aesthetically, it will give the alley a nicer look. Please grant the Potvins their variances needed to accomplish this enclosure. Date: h Li BY: 'J 10�V� Q CJIr-� Lots F, G, H, I Block 43 July 9, 1987 City of Aspen Board of Adjustments Dear Board of Adjustments: I support the request by the Potvins to enclose their existing carport into a garage. I understand their carport has been in existence since 1970 and that the enclosure represents no further expansion into the rear yard setback. I feel it is in everyone's best interest because it will provide more security for all of us who use the alley by making the Potvin's personal items less visible for potential thefts. Aesthetically, it will give the alley a nicer look. Please grant the Potvins their variances needed to accomplish this enclosure. t ' � Date: sX i BY: C. M. Clark, Owner Lot R & S, Block 43, Aspen, CO