Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19871015 CITY OF-ASPEN BOARD OF--ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER -15 -1987 4:80 -P_-M-. A C-E .N D-A I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 3, 1987 IV. CASE #87-11 John Doremus V. ADJOURNMENT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS OCTOBER, 15, 1987 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4: 00 pm. ROLL CALL Answering roll call were Francis Whitaker, Rick Head, Anne Austin Ron Erickson and Charlie Paterson. CASE 87-11 / JOHN DOREMUS Zoning is R-6-Residential. Required setback is 15 feet for rear yard. Variance of 10 feet is requested. John Doremus : The required rear yard is 15 feet and I am requesting a variance of 10 feet to a 5 ft set back in the rear yard. The history of this is that in 1977 I came before you when I wanted to build my duplex. Charlie Paterson and Remo were on the Board at that time. I requested a 5 ft rear yard setback and it was granted. There was a practical difficulty because of the location on the lot of many large trees. I have given you an exhibit in photographs that shows those trees as they still exist along with an irrigation ditch which historically irrigated those trees. In addition the neighbors on either side had little or no side yard setbacks as it turned out. They built much earlier and one was the result of a "busted" survey and the other was just a flagrant abuse of the code. We had no side yard setbacks literally and so the architect designed the house at a 45 degree angle so that we weren ' t eyeball to eyeball at the side yards. So in turning the house that is only 70 ft deep and had no problem with the front and rear yard setback but in turning it to get away from the extreme closeness of the neighbors, the points of the house were then extended into the setback. So the design of the house was to mitigate those difficulties and to preserve the trees and the ditch. At that time, it was clear that a minimal variance considering the 45 degree angle of the structure and the fact that the whole side of the house didn ' t enter the setback, only a tip of it. This proposal that we are presenting to you tonight is simply to add a second floor to that one story element that was approved in 1977 . It is our under- 1 BofA 10 .15.87 standing that that would be an expansion of a nonconforming use, therefor it would require a variance . What we would like to do is to add a bathroom and some closet space and an exercise room on top of the garage and to bring the roof into conformance with the rest of the house which is a hip roof and do away with the one story flat roof . I doubt if the fact that I have a bad back is a genuine hardship for the Board of Adjustment but I need space to do my exercise which my doctor has prescribed and get into the hot tub or the jacuzi all for the sake of my back. Bill: This ordinance 48 will have some effect on this request-- the moratorium. The fact that this ordinance--the proposal for exemptions are to bring the side yard setbacks in from 5 to 10 on this size of lot which would require an additional request for a variance. Remo: But he is in for a rear yard setback. Bill: My understanding is that on a lot Francis: What is the side yard setback? Remo: Under the existing code he does not have a problem. We are only dealing with the rear yard setback. Under the request for this variance and under the provisions of the building inspector to deny this permit, he is only-- Bill: I don't know how we are going to deal with this. Technic- ally, according with this thing the Building Department should not even be dealing with this permit. Remo: This permit was filed before the moratorium? Bill: Yea, the moratorium affects all permits in process that have not been issued on any future permits. We are not supposed to accept them in the R-6 zone. Anne: I am involved in a situation where a demolition permit was issued a month ago when the foundation permit was issued. The intent of the building permit was granted verbally but the comment to me was if it is in process, we are looking at that as being an exemption from the moratorium. Bill: The thing is this would now, with what they are proposing as exhibit A, in order to get an exemption you have to basically fit in these parameters. I think that is what they are saying. So you may give them a 5 ft variance now, and then when they go for their exemption, they are going to say "no you can' t do that 2 BofA 10 .15.87 because you need another variance for 5 ft because we are changing this thing" . They may exempt it, they may not. Rick : Can you tell me what the proposed side yard setbacks are proposed to be? Bill: For 4 ,500 it would be 10 10 . The total of both side yards for 6 ,000--10 10 . This is what we are stuck with right now and there may possibly be some further changes from this . There might be other things because of the ordinance if it does go through like that, there is lot coverage . They may have to come back before you for FAR because apparently this may be lowered. They may have to come back because they have too much lot coverage. This ordinance will make a number of buildings nonconforming. Fred Gannett: If the building has now been applied for with this unit here, it-- Remo: It has been applied for and rejected and it has come to the Board of Adjustment. Fred: It is even going to be more circuitous than that. That is if it is in the R-6 zone it is subject to the administrative delay . There is a mechanism for getting exemptions from that process . That requires making application to the Building Department. If in the Building Department' s estimation after taking into consultation the Planning Department ' s estimation after taking into account the Building Department and the City Attorney' s position, it is not within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, we can then exempt you by resolution. In other words for houses that are adding on-- Francis: Who exempts? The City Council or the Board? Fred: City Council exempts. Remo: On recommendation of the City Attorney? Fred: It is basically--this- is the kind =of= thing that got rushed so quickly, we are not quite sure how the process is going to work except that the exemption process requires that the applica- tion come to the Building Department. And in that application they have got to indicate their reasons why they think this project does not violate the spirit and intent of this ordinance. If they feel they can show that and they can satisfy that criteria to the Planning Department, the City Attorney' s Office drafts a resolution which we take to Council and which exempts them from the process. Council then acts as a reviewing body on the material contained therein to determine whether in their 3 BofA 10 .15.87 estimation there is a violation of the spirit and intent of the administrative delay. Remo: So is there any point in continuing this meeting? Fred: The only point would be whether or not given what you know now about the proposed criteria whether this Board would be willing to consider a variance on that issue. Remo: You are telling me that they have to go through those procedures first before they come back to us. We tell them sure we think it is in the spirit of the ordinance and then it goes to P&Z and their review and-- Fred: It becomes a recommendation I believe . My belief is if the Board were to take affirmative action one way or the other, it is a recommendation to Council as to whether or not they should affirm or deny this action. The questions are going to be whether or not-- Remo: So we don' t come to any resolution ourselves. We come to a recommendation. Fred: Essentially what I think it would be is that if Council were to exempt this party from the administrative delay process a variance would be issued for a building permit granting them whatever the minimum variance is. Remo: Isn ' t this putting the cart before the horse in a way? They would have to come back to us again. You are saying that it wouldn ' t come back to us again for review? Fred: I am telling you that there is an option I think of taking two directions. One is seeing whether or not Council is willing to consider this to be within the spirit and the intent of the guidelines. If they say "no" , then there is no point of their having to come back. If you want to take the action based on the fact that there was a public hearing set that was prior- to the imposition of this moratorium and administrative delay, then I believe you would be within your right to make a recommendation that if it were to pass Council ' s purview would grant the variance . In other words it is a conditional variance . This variance is conditional upon non-ratification by Council upon Council ' s determination that they don' t violate the spirit and intent of the moratorium. Francis : There are other questions--floor area ratio--for instance that we don't know. And I really think that it would be putting the cart before the horse for us to act on this. 4 BofA 10.15.87 Robin Molny: I think what Fred said covered that. If you want to grant a variance, if you decided it would be judicious, it would be subject to the City Council ' s review. It might be putting the cart before the horse. Remo: It is just that we don' t have all the information to know if you are in violation of other aspects besides setbacks like the FAR for one thing. So we can' t address that. We don' t have that information. We can' t even make a recommendation because we don' t have the facts that you are in compliance with FAR or aren' t. Fred: In that regard, you have two distinct issues. One issue is whether or not the applicant is eligible for a minimum variance based on the facts before you . The second issue is whether or not Council will give the second step. It is not ratifying your variance or it is not upholding the variance . It is whether or not Council will permit the issuance of a building permit allowing the applicant to make positive steps based on the variance. There are two issues there. It is that Council is going to ratify your act . It is that Council is going to make a determination whether or not a building permit will be issued anyway. But you do have raised the right issue which is that there are 3 areas that are subject to review right now are site coverage , setbacks and FAR. All we have available to us are proposed guidelines. We won't know until P&Z either approves, denies or amends these proposed guidelines what the real criteria will be in the next 3 or 4 weeks. Remo: Is it going to save the applicant any time by making that- or is it just the recommendation that is being offered to Council and P&Z by us. We are not saving the applicant any time because the determination will still have to be made regarding all those guidelines by P&Z reviewing all that information. Fred: If Council were to approve the application and they send it back to you for a variance, you are getting clear direction from Council that they consider the proposed criteria appropriate to this particular application. If you were to send to Council a variance based on this application, in effect , you may be usurping their prerogative. That would be the thing that would worry me. Ron: The way I see it is that we have before us one single item. That is a rear yard setback. If we grant a rear yard setback and then City Council changes the law and says "well now you need a 10 yard setback, Bill is not going to issue a building permit. 5 BofA 10 .15.87 Remo: No, and then they are going to have to come back before US. So can we proceed on the existing ordinance? Ron: I think we should proceed. The ordinance is nothing. Fred: The ordinance does not prevent the Board of Adjustments from hearing any matter. What it does prevent is the Building Department from issuing any permit. So that you may well issue a variance, but that does not mean that the applicant will get a permit in reliance on the variance . What it may take them is one step closer towards the process they have to go through applying for an exemption. You are in a circle and in terms of a legal point of view, I am not convinced that it matters where you enter the circuit. Francis: I would like to read a paragraph which says "Whereas the City Council deems it to be in the best interest of the City of Aspen , its inhabitants and visitors to delay the acceptance and/or approval of any building permit application for construction, reconstruction or remodeling a structure within the R-6 zone district until the current provisions and proposed amendments in the Municipal Code may be fully studied. " Fred: But it is a first reading . What they passed is a resolution asking for an administrative delay . Robin : I have been attending all these meetings and participating in the proposed changes and so I think I know what is on their mind. As an applicant, I spent considerable time and money putting those together to go through this process before any moratorium had been passed or any changes had been proposed. Since you did not get any direction that you should not process applications in the process before the Board of Adjustment , I would like to process this and then I think I have a choice . I can sit and wait for the moratorium to be up and the new code to be adopted or if I feel like my contractor can build it this fall, which was the whole idea, I can go before the City Council and say I have got a hardship. It is a small addition. My FAR is still this compared to what you propose. My setbacks are this like everybody else ' s setbacks . They are not going to conform to 10 feet. Nobody is going to conform. My height is going to be conforming to what you are proposing. Now if you think I am abusing your new proposal, you won't see me through. If you feel I am not, then you will give me the right to get my permit and I can proceed. With your positive or negative deal on this it will help them along. Remo : I think though we should stay within the parameters of what the request is for and that is the 5 yard rear yard setback request. And not deal with the others at all. When we give you 6 BofA 10 .15.87 this variance, you are going to be denied a building permit by the Building Inspector and you will have to take it from there. If there is a new criteria for you to come back to us regarding side yard, rear yard again or FAR then you might have to come back to us again for an additional variance unless they handle it somehow. We are not granting you that kind of variance . We are just granting you the one that is before us. Robin : I don ' t think that this in any way jeopardizing or influences the Council or takes any action contrary to their intent. Francis: I just want to make a point that there are probably 500 houses that will all be nonconforming whereas previously they have been conforming. Fred: You have two options. One could be that what is in effect right now is an administration delay. It is not a moratorium and it is for 2 weeks . If this particular ordinance does not pass second reading and the whole thing evaporates--if you want to look at it as that being a possibility--you could ask the Board to continue this public hearing until a date certain 2 weeks down the road in which case if the ordinance fails for lack of a second reading then you could come back and make your applicat- ion. You don' t have to re-notice , you don' t have to republish . It is just a continued meeting. That is one option. The second option would be--in preparing that ordinance, there are a host of things that did not crop up in our mind and one of them was Board of Adjustments. But the issue is to whether or not--I don't know if you could go to Council without a variance. Because frankly without the variance , you are not going to get a building permit anyway. So the variance is almost preconditioned on getting yourself to the point of getting an exception assuming that the ordinance goes through. Francis : It mentions the date December 31st in two places in this ordinance. You said 2 weeks. Fred: The ordinance has been passed on first reading. Now if the ordinance passes second reading then it will take effect and there will be a moratorium up until the 31st of December. If it fails at second reading then everything evaporates and we return to the status quo. Francis : My preference would be that you delay this for two weeks. And then we can act on it knowing whether the ordinance has become an ordinance. Remo: I don't see why we can' t act on it now. 7 BofA 10 .15 .87 Anne: The problem that you have is we are coming into the Winter season. If they get this approved, they can go ahead and start building in 2 weeks if it goes back to the status quo. Whereas if they wait for the 2 weeks , then they have got to reschedule with us, then you are talking about another 2 weeks and a month down the road. We might as well find out if we are going to give it to them now as it is. Fred: There are two possibilities. One that the ordinance fails in which case we will know in 2 weeks one way or the other The second thing is if the ordinance passes, then we have the exception process . For exceptions we intend to process on bond in a mass form. And that is all that are approved will be put under one mass resolution and we intend to do this approximately every 2 weeks or as is necessary. So if you work on the presup- position that a variance might be granted and then you want to then get to the next step that you will have to go through in order to get your permit so as to construct this season--there is a staggered delay process in there that may argue more persuas- ively for having some sort of action sooner rather than later . Remo: Can we leave that option up to the applicant? Or is it up to the Board? Fred: I would say that if you offer the applicant the option to continue the meeting to a date certain that it is their option. Remo: No, I meant to hold it now. Is it their option to say "We came here for a meeting and we want it heard now" . Fred: Certainly. You could ask for a poll of the Board as to what the Board' s intent is and if it is clear is their intent is to deny-- Remo: Do you want to expand any more on your application? Robin: I was not the architect on the original project. I think that those of who visited the site would agree that the basis for the original variance was well founded and that the building sits very comfortably on the lot and honors the trees and the water circumstance. The proposed addition is on the alley side of the house and my feeling is that it will not affect any of those other considerations because it is within the confines of the existing house. The variance was for a rear yard setback of 5 feet. The building is actually constructed 8 . 45 ft from the property line. It is only a 3 .55 ft nonconforming. Remo: It is 6 .25 isn' t it? 8 BofA 10 .15.87 Robin: I am sorry, 6 .25 . Anyway whatever it is therein lies my saying my piece . Ron : Bill , if they were to add half the size of this to the second floor, they would still need a variance, is that correct? Bill: No. If they don 't go into the setback-- Ron: Well, it is a nonconforming use. Bill: No. This is not a nonconforming use. Ron: A nonconforming structure. Bill: Right. Where it encroaches into the setback. Ron: So in other words, if they were to build 2/3rds of this addition so it wouldn ' t be in the setback, they wouldn ' t need a variance. Bill: That is correct . Letters were read into the record at this time from Belton Fleisher, 820 W. -Smuggler and from Helga and Charlie Marqusee , 520 North 8th. Street. Both letters were in favor of the Board granting this variance. Anne: You don' t show on the elevation as your intent to continue a similar type of roofline to what you have there. Either Robin or John acknowledged that they did intend to. Are you within the FAR? Robin: Yes, 1 ,200 feet below the current FAR. Francis: (to Bill) In the future it would be helpful to the Board if you would put that on the application. Anne: The minutes from 1977, don't go all the way through to the end . And on the first page of the minutes it says "We are limiting the garage to a 1 story flat roof" . Since the minutes don' t go on to a conclusion, I just want to be sure that there wasn't something in the motion that restricted that at that time to remain a 1 story garage. John: This is all that was on the record as far as the Clerk could produce. Remo: Do you remember that there was any kind of covenant on that? 9 BofA 10 .15 .87 John: No, there was not . Rick : We did not have FAR then so it probably would not have been-- John: We would have remembered it. We always felt if we wanted to add--it was kind of designed that if we needed more space, we would always look to the second floor garage. Being a condomin- ium, the covenants read that way and if it had been totally out of consideration by your resolution, I would not have even come in. Robin: I can attest to that. In a review of the plans, the roof structure in the garage area was beefed up in the area that a future hot tub could be installed. The joists are twice as close together. Francis: We have certain criteria that you have to meet. I have not heard any one of them mentioned. Not one. Rick: Francis, I think that their intent was to rely on the same arguments that he based his first variance request on. He felt that those would suffice today. Francis: (to applicant) I wanted the question answered from one of you. John: I have a slightly more formal reference to the code with respect to that. In conclusion we respectfully submitted that all the same special conditions which existed at the time of the original variance continue to exist today. The special circum- stances which applied to this property previously have not changed and granting this variance as previous will not adversely affect the general purpose of the comprehensive plan. All of those are the conditions that need to be met in considering the variance . Anne: There was a hardship because of the trees and the ditch . That is all in the packet. Francis: This is a nonconforming structure already. I am trying to forget this new ordinance. It seems to me you have to have more reasons than that. Are other people enjoying the rights that you are denied. Remo : He mentioned about the two neighbors who built to the property line. Francis: That is not our fault. 10 BofA 10 .15.87 Remo: Well, they are enjoying the property rights that is being denied him. That was your question. Francis: Which way did they build to the property line? John: To our sides on both sides. Right to the property line on one side and the surveyor did not survey the lot correctly so the corner of the house ended up 18 inches from our lot line. Remo asked for public comment . There was none and he closed the public portion of the meeting. Rick : I am in favor of granting this variance for the same reasons that it was once granted before. The applicant has the right to tear these trees down to build this addition where the trees were and I think that fact alone should stand on its own and I am in favor of granting the variance. Francis: Now I am going to remember the ordinance that is in the mill and I am very reluctant to approve a variance which is in such conflict on 3 sides, both side yards and the rear yard. Ron: It is not a law. Remo: It isn' t in effect right now. Francis: I know. We have been through all of that. But at the same time-- Remo: If it disappears then what are your going to do? What is your argument then? What are you basing your argument on if the second reading they don' t act on and it evaporates as Fred says. Then what is the basis for your argument? Francis : The basis of my argument is the intent to permit-- Anne: But it is not going to happen if they pass that ordinance . Francis : I made my point . I wish you would postpone the decision for two weeks . Ron: If I had a vote, I would probably deny the variance . I have a hard time seeing a hardship for this . I think the hardship that was shown in 1977 when the original variance was granted for the building of this building was one thing. To add an additional room onto the second story is, I don' t think that those are the same criteria. Not only that I think it could be it could be built without encroaching on the rear yard setback by reducing its size. It can be done without getting a variance . 11 BofA 10 .15.87 Since I can see it being done without a variance, I would not grant it. Remo: You don' t think there is strength in staying within the footprint and neighbors who are not complaining about their viewplane be obstructed or bulk being if anything saying also that the-- Ron: I don' t want to enlarge a nonconforming structure. Remo: Well, of course, but we always get those requests for variance and we have granted them. Ron: I don't see a hardship for 2 closets. And that is what they lose if they cut that building back inside the setbacks. Charlie: I feel similar reasons for granting this variance as we saw in 1977 . One of which is that there is a real practical difficulty here in this structure because of the design of the structure. The structure is so designed on the lot to take care of a problem on each side with the neighbors and to take care of making that building work. And I feel because of that they have a practical difficulty and they really do have a hardship. You can't all of a sudden say "Well just cut off that corner and you wouldn't even need a variance" . Well, great--the building footprint showed a hardship to begin with in 1977 . The reason we granted the variance was because of the trees in the neighborhood and because it was a finely tuned building for that particular area. And I feel that because of that it is a minimal request and I would be in favor of granting the variance . Anne: I agree with everything that Rick and Charlie have said. And I would be in favor of granting the variance. Francis: My concern is for the entire west end, not just your personal problems. Remo: So are you saying that if we didn ' t consider all of these other new things that are coming into it that you would still deny this variance . Francis: Yes. I don' t think there is really any hardship. Remo: You don't think that the trees and the ditch and the way of the configuration-- Anne: Don' t you feel that this is such a minimal impact compared to everything in that neighborhood-- 12 BofA 10 .15.87 Francis: The intent of the Council is not to enlarge nonconform- ing structures. Anne: But this was allowed and the intent of this one was not to let it deteriorate to the point that it would disappear some day hopefully in the code. Remo: I think that the uniqueness of this particular lot was determined by the trees, the ditch, the neighbors infringing on their own setbacks , the configuration of the building at the time-these things are all set and these were what we had to deal with at the time the structure was built. I agree with Charlie completely and I don't see why we should punish in some way the applicant by truncating a room upstairs when the initial intent of putting the building this way was to relieve that congested feeling of infringing on neighbors on both sides and getting some amount of privacy within the building. So I again think this is a minimal request and I would be in favor of granting this. So with that I would entertain a motion. MOTION: Rick: I move that we grant this variance of a rear yard setback variance of 6 .25 over the existing footprint as per survey done by Harold Johnson dated September 30 , 1987 and with normal overhang. Charlie seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Francis, no, Charlie, yes, Rick, yes, Anne, yes, Remo, yes. Request granted. There was discussion at this point regarding the length of the minutes. Fred: I think that in terms of approving minutes, essentially you are approving just the general points. And so I don ' t think you need to go through every detail of typos, etc. only when it changes the intent of what was being said. You could save yourself 15 minutes. Remo: Only when it changes the meaning. Charlie made a motion to approve the minutes. Anne seconded the motion with all in favor . 13 BofA 10 .15.87 Ron: I have a question. We do not consider precedent. However we just had a case in point where a variance was granted to build a structure. Now the conditions existing when that structure was built were taken into consideration when the variance was granted . And that man built that house as a nonconforming structure into the setbacks . Does that mean that every time that building comes back for a variance because he wants to add to that house he can use the same arguments? Board members answered no Anne: But he had a flat garage that was-- Ron: I don't want to hear anything about flat garage. All I am saying is that--do you understand what I am saying? Remo: Yea, of course. I think that whatever the conditions-- Ron: So what I want to--well but I didn 't hear that. Charlie says "I agreed the same thing that happened--(he talked so fast here I could not understand) is happening today. Well, it is not. The structure was built. Charlie: No, it is happening today because of the conformance or because of the footprint--the way the building was turned. Remo: See he had to do that at that time--he was already locked into-- Ron: OK. I understand about that. My problem is that when does a man--when does--what I am saying is that you know, this is a huge structure. He turned it . That was the conditions to build it in the first place. Remo: Yea. Because of the conditions that were surrounding him that made him build it in that configuration. Ron: No. I want to make a point. The point is that no one told him to design that building that way. He decided to design that building that way. It was his decision or whoever built it. It was the decision of the builder . AND--as justification for meeting a variance he came back about the trees and streams and that is why we orientated the building that way. He could have orientated it 45 in the other direction. He could have made it smaller. He could have done a lot of things. Do you see what I am saying? He chose that. You bought his argument at the time that it was justifying a variance. Remo: Right. 14 BofA 10.15 .87 Ron: OK, fine. I have no problem with that. But every time someone wants to add a room and increase a nonconforming structure-- Remo: Why should you deny him something-- Anne: No. Each one will be different . Remo : Yea . They are all different . There is no precedent setting. In this particular case-- Anne: In this particular case we all felt that-- Ron: What happens (people were talking on top of each other here) apartment B? Same thing. Remo: Maybe. We will deal with it then. Charlie: It is not in the setback . Ron: It will be. Several talking Ron: It is in the setback . Sure it is . Anne: Yea. Remo: A little bit. Yea. Ron: Well, just a little bit. Remo: Yea, it is. It is in the setback. Ron: I always felt that we had--in keeping with--I don' t agree with Francis that this moratorium or anything else should affect any of our decisions . Nothing has been passed . There are a bunch of politicians talking about something that may or may not pass. Hopefully we will get enough public input on it in the next meeting to really show that they are making a mistake. Remo: I agree with you, Ron, and-- Ron: Nonconforming structures are important. Remo: I agree with you. I just think that these conditions on this lot were so unique that they were forced in order to retain all the good qualities of that lot that we allowed him to do it tat way. (people talking on top of each other here) and I don't see why he should be denied expanding it because of the 15 BofA 10 .15.87 configuration that we allowed him to utilize the lot to the best advantage of the citizenry as well as preserving the trees and the ditch consideration-- Ron: I will remind you of that statement the next time it comes up. (People talking on top of each other) Remo: The ditch, the trees and people on both--it ' s going to have a whole set of criteria. Ron: I personally didn ' t think it was a big deal but the thing is-- Remo: I agree with you-- Ron: But the point is we have always had to judge this on the basis of certain criteria--hardship and is there another way of handling it? (People talking on top of each other) Ron: I just remember us going out to Western Avenue and actually re-aligning a garage so that we could give a lady a variance because there was another way of handling it, wasn' t there? Remo: Right. Ron: To minimize the-- Remo: I didn ' t even vote for that one either . Ron: No, I know but no one talked about minimal variance--this was the minimal variance. Charlie: I think it was . Anne: It was . You talked about one little corner. Ron: No, I am not talking about a little corner . I wasn ' t talking about little corners . Robin: I want to address this to Ron. _ The applicant has the use by right under current regulations to a certain amount of FAR. He also wants to build an addition to his building which funct- ions in a certain way or it has to be an adjunct, in this case a bathroom. He is building an exercise room which is tacked onto the current bathroom--has to be there. So in effect, the addition had to be in this case on top of the garage . 16 BofA 10 .15.87 Ron: No one is denying that . Robin : And basically the reason that the garage is in the location that it is in is because of the inhibiting factors of the site. Therefore, it is almost like an algebraic formula, we based our argument on the fact that what was a hardship then is a hardship now. Ron: I understand. All I am saying is that I look at what you are planning on doing and I am saying that by you telling me that you would swear that this is the only size addition you could build and still serve the purpose. Robin: I won ' t swear to it but we examined doing a design observing the setback requirements and found it unfeasible . Otherwise we wouldn ' t have screwed around with this. Remo: Well, what did you do? Robin: I made a planning study with the corner knocked off. Remo: And you had--you actually--I mean that is stuff we could use as evidentiary that you did look into other sources of application of design that would have mitigated this problem. Charlie: He took for granted that we understood that. When a man comes in here with an architect, it is obvious the architect has done some other studies. Ron: When a man comes in here and asks for a variance to build a closet--that ' s all. Cut the thing off there and you don't need a variance . And it 's a closet. That' s what he' s got, a closet. No. You cut it off there and he doesn't need a variance. Anne: Why is he not entitled to more storage? Ron : Does the importance of a closet mitigate against the increased bulk, granting a variance in an overcrowded neighbor- hood anyway? Those are things I was thinking about . Your complaint is about bulk and size and everything and they are all doing it leagally. We don ' t like it but they are doing it legally. Now here is someone saying "Well I can' t build this legally because it is in the setbacks but give me a variance so I can build a closet" . And you let him do it and then you are complaining about people who are building 6 ,000 sq ft houses legally on those lots. How can you do that? Anne: I am not complaining about the 6 ,000 square feet. I am complaining about the bulk that is in them. 17 BofA 10 .15.87 Ron: That is what I am saying. How do you complain about that . It is all legal . This is an illegality. We don' t know what it is. You got a caliper? Charlie: You know it is a quarter of an inch to the foot. Ron: OK. Is that 2 inches? Charlie: That is 8 feet. At least 8 feet. Fred : You do run into the issue. Was it a self-created hardship. By choosing to build what he built in 1977 . Ron: That is right. And I think it was . Remo: No. Come on. Anne: No. Remo: It wasn' t at all a self-created hardship to build the way he built in 1977? Ron: Well, I don' t know. I wasn' t here so I can' t say. Remo: Well, that is what you are basing it on. That was his argument. (People talking on top of each other) Fred: ---refute that. You say that the only way he could build on that lot given the conditions was the manner in which he built. Not to play the devil' s advocate but you know one other argument that you come back with 12 years later is-- Ron: He built that. He built it himself. Sure. Fred: Well you know he did do knowingly. He didn ' t do it under duress and so if there is a hardship there he participated in the creation of it. Remo: No he didn ' t because it was the uniqueness of that lot. Fred: That is how you refute it. That is how you refute the argument. But to refute it, you have to get to the point. You have to make the argument first. And I am not say that one way or the other . But I am just saying to see how your argument comes. The only way you get beyond where you are , Ron is by saying given the structure of this lot, there is nothing else he could have done. 18 BofA 10 .15 .87 Ron: Yea, you point is every new addition that they want to add to it. I don' t see that. Anne: It is a unique situation. Ron : I don ' t see as a unique situation . I think of at a situation of adding another room. Remo : But this is the kicker, see. When he gets the minutes back and you three guys are talking about minutia--there is two feet, you have got a caliper--is that 8 feet or is it 4 . I want those verbatim minutes after this decision here just to see how many pages it takes. Remo made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Anne seconded the motion with all in favor . Time was 5:15 pm. J ice M. Carn y, City Depu Clerk 19 Charles B. Mrq=e P. O. BOX 10610 • ASPEN • COLORADO 81611 October 7th, 1987 The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 To the Board of Adjustments We live diagonally accross the alley from 822 West Smuggler. Our main view is to the south, in direct line with the above- mentioned residence. We have studied the effect that granting the proposed variance will have on our view. If anything, the room above the garage will be a lot nicer to look at than the top of the garageq as it is now. Our conclusion is that it will be an addition that will not block our views and that should make the house even more attractive. Very sincerely yours, Helga and Charlie Marqusee 520 North 8th Street (614) 268-3652 BELTON M. FLEISHER 75 E.Dodridge St. Columbus,Ohio 43202 October 5, 1987 City of Aspen Board of Adjsutment: RE: Case #87-11 /1/;, Public Hearing 10/15/87 WE are in favor of granting the requested variance in this case (variance of 10 feet in yard setback for John Doremus 822 W. Smuggler) . Sincerely youp, Bel f o C'kis F le 820 W. Smuggler St. Aspen