Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19880331 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MARCH 31. 1988 4: P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS A G E N D A I. ROLL CALL II. MINUTES December 12 , 1987 III. NEW BUSINESS Case #88-1 / Scott & Carolyn McDonald Case #88-2 / Michael W. Morgan & Mariam E. Harthill IV. ADJOURNMENT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MARCH 31, 1988 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Answering roll call were Remo Lavagnino, Josephine Mann, Rick Head, Anne Austin and Ron Erickson. Francis Whitaker was excused and Charlie Paterson arrived at 5:25 pm. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 17, 1987 Rick made a motion to approve minutes of December 17 , 1987 . Anne seconded the motion with all in favor . CASE #88-1 SCOTT & CAROLYN MCDONALD This case was withdrawn from being heard by the Board of Adjustments . It is in the process of being reviewed by the Historic Preservation Committee. Remo: I have expressed my concern to Steve Burstein of shifting the responsibility of hearing this case to HPC. I think there are matters that he didn't think about . One of them is that in this review under HPC , no property owners would be notified within 300 ft of the subject property as we require. And impacts from the decision made from HPC that might effect surrounding properties would not be addressed . Their focus is really myopic and centered on the historical aspects of evaluating the property and structure and of no concern from outside sources. I also think that they would not be as experienced in matters such as parking , blocking viewplains, access for other property owners, their own property, fire hazards, infringing on setbacks and especially not advising property owners as this Board does in dealing with these matters. CASE #88-2 MICHAEL W. MORGAN & MARIAN E. HARTHILL Variance requested: Property is located in the R-15A zoning category . Lot size is 10 ,479 sqft . Sec 24-3 .4 area & bulk requires 15 ,000 sqft for a duplex. Applicant wants to convert the single family residence into a duplex thus requiring a variance . Affidavit of posting was presented. Rick Neiley, Attorney for the applicants : The applicants purchased this property in 1981 . Since then they have BAM3 .31 .88 constructed an addition to it . The variance request is a relatively minor one . They are simply constructing a parting wall, closing off an existing doorway and dividing two wings of the house into 2 units . They would continue to use one as a residence when they come here to visit family. The other one would be rented. The house is actually on 10,479 sqft . The second parcel which comprises the property is an additional 11 , 031 sqft . We are about 3 ,300 sqft short of what is necessary for a duplex on the lot. This deficiency exists because of the 60 ft right-of-way easement for Gibson Avenue . The road is 24 ft in width and it seems quite unlikely that it would ever be substantially expanded over that given the nature of the houses in the area and improvements relatively close to the road not just on this lot but on other properties as well. Had it been anticipated at the time that the easement was granted in 1973 that there might be a non-conformity, it is our view that a lesser easement or right-of-way would have been provided. Had the right-of-way been only 42 ft, there would have been more than 15 ,00 sqft on the lot. Jim Reeser, who did the work on the easements and also surveyed this property, represented The Top of Aspen who owned the property at the time the right-of-way was granted. It is his view that had anyone realized that it would result in non- conformity and a restriction in the use of the property, an easement more in line with what is actually physically in place on Gibson Avenue would have been granted and not the larger 60 ft easement . A 60 ft easement , as you all know, is a fairly standard which is used by the County in obtaining roadways. The surrounding neighborhood is clearly compatible with multi- family use. There are only 2 single family residents of the 13 residences adjacent to this property. To the back yard is a 4- plex. Across the street are the small victorians which used to be duplexes when they were joined by carports. The Planning & Zoning Board in August of last year granted a re-zoning of that area to R-6 to permit lot splits. The other portion of the Alpine Acres Subdivision which is across the street contains a duplex. There is a condominiumized duplex to the east. Virtually the entire area, with the exception of one house that joins the northwest corner of the property and one house directly north of the property on what used to be the County Park , are single residences. The other 11 residences are either on substantially smaller parcels or are actual condominiums or multi-family structures. 2 BAM3 .31 .88 The property in question was actually listed for sale for approximately 3 years at a price significantly less than what the owners had into it. They got no interest in the property. We think that was , at least in part , because of the Centennial housing project which created a lot of additional housing. In any event the party' s desire is to be able to maintain a property in Aspen to stay in when they come to visit family. We think that this is a conversion with no negative impact on the neighborhood. We are not talking about anything other than the separation of the two wings of the house . There will be no changes to the exterior of the property. There is plenty of parking in the area and we request that a variance be granted to permit the conversion of the duplex based on plans submitted to the Building Department. Dr. Whitcomb, Father of Miriam E. Harthill: Initially when they invested in this property, they had the idea that they would have a place to stay and they found that economically it wasn ' t feasible to have a 1-unit place. They have to commute here and felt it was too hard on them economically. So then they tried to sell this place and got no offers. When they analyzed what was happening it made sense to be able to split it so they could keep one segment to come to and then be able to get a fair rental out of the other side . That right-of-way split the property. There is a piece of land right across the road from there that they can never get any use of . It belongs to them but has no use to them because of this remarkable right-of-way that was granted . I did talk to Jim Reeser about it and he said "I remember it very well. I would be happy to testify" . Basically what happened was we gave them the maximum right-of-way thinking that that was the logical thing to do at the time just to be fair . They just gave it to them. There was no exchange of dollars. And that is what created this dilemma. Remo : Parcel B--was that one time in the County? I always thought the other side of Gibson Street was in the County and this side was in the City. Fred: It was at one point in the County. Remo: Is this parcel being treated in your square footage? Rick N. : originally this was 1 parcel of land. It was all in the County. The 2 parcels were brought into the City by the June 19 , 1979 Smuggler on-site annexation. 3 BAM3 .31 .88 Remo: Wasn't the other side of Gibson Street in the County then? Wasn't the dividing line the middle of Gibson Street? Rick N. : It was except that by a copy of the annexation map you can see that the triangular piece was originally part of this as was the main portion of the property. The annexation effected both of these parcels. Remo: Let us assume that it was annexed as 1 parcel . Are you claiming this square footage of parcel B into your figures now that you are presenting to us and still be deficient of the 15 ,000 sqft? Rick N. : That' s correct . Remo : Now is it my understanding that the street separates a parcel so that in effect they have a non-conforming lot of record on the other side of the street and possibly could build on it? Fred: I would have to find out . It is whether or not that street creates a non-conforming parcel which creates in and of itself a building site. I don't know. Rick N. : It is my understanding that it does. Remo: It is my understanding that it does, too. Anne: There are setbacks that you couldn't build anything there. Remo: It is still a parcel that somebody owns privately and maybe has good cause for coming in for a variance and for a consideration by this Board. Fred: If you did that it could never, in fact , be built on. Remo: That is right . Rick N. : We would have no objection to that. Remo: It looks like there is a street there that goes around Matchless Drive . Rick N. : There is and that has been blocked off on several occasions. It gets re-opened. There is no easement through that street and up until recently there was a truck parked over there. Remo: I don't see how you can use it the way it is now with the back of the lots there and retaining wall, how you can possibly utilize that area for parking? With the nature of the triangular 4 BAM3 .31.88 piece it is very difficult to use . And I question the amount of parking. You say there are 5? Rick N. : First of all, we have not had the need for it . There is sufficient parking elsewhere. There is conceivably room for a couple of vehicles there now. It is not our intention to close off Matchless Drive unless there is a requirement to close it off to create parking over there. Each of the plats as re submitted shows the footprint of the building as it was converted. Remo: The footprint is there but the designation of what happens underneath the footprint is different. Rick N. : As it stands now that is where the addition has been extended out to. Remo: It is my understanding that prior to 1973 the parcels were undivided property. Rick N. : That is correct . Remo: And you acquired the property in 1981 . Rick N. : Yes. Remo: And your argument seems to be based on that the applicant should not be penalized because the predecessors gratuitously granted a right-of-way for public access larger than was actually necessary. You bought a property in 1981 . You knew the conditions no matter what your predecessors did. You had the opportunity to either buy the land with that condition or not . So the argument that there is a 60 ft or 42 ft right-of-way has really no bearing as far as a hardship or practical difficulty since you went into this knowing that those conditions existed. Rick N. : That is true except for the fact that the physical characteristics of the roadway are less than half what the legal right-of-way is. And it is extremely doubtful that the full right-of-way would ever be utilized for any purpose over there. So while it is correct that the transfer occurred prior to our taking title even the characteristics of the property as it currently exists extend significantly out into that right-of- way. We think that the practical aspects of this property and the history of the right-of-way creates some hardship. Remo: Down the road from you as you come up Gibson Street, Lee Pardee had the same problem. There is a lot of 60 ft right-of- way that has been deeded to the City in anticipation probably of 5 BAM3 .31.88 some future building that is going to go on. That has to take care of those extra vehicles that are going to happen in that area so parking becomes a consideration for us. I think that the financial hardship that you are telling us is really not a concern for this Board. I think in your favor is that no additional square footage and no modifications of the building footprint would be changed . The adverse effects on the neighborhood are i question because you now have a possibility of bringing more people in, more parking, more congestion in an area that is already congested. If the Board agreed to grant you this variance I want you to know that we are not going to reverse the decision of the Building Department . We would grant you relief from the strict application of the building code by granting you a variance . Anne: You state this would involve no additional square footage . Do we know that? Is this property built to its maximum? Or could it be added to if we granted the variance or even if we didn't? Bill Drueding: I don't know. Anne: Do we have a guarantee of that. They are saying that they want to use 1/2-- Fred: If you thought that was an issue then you simply have the applicant deed restrict the property. Remo: Do we usurp their f we were to do that? Fred: It is a contractural right. Rick N. : We don't have a problem in doing that. There is no intention to increase the square footage of the property. I think it is possible it could be slightly increased. The total square footage is approximately 2 ,700 sqft Anne: If a duplex was granted then they could condominiumize it and sell one condo off. This would be giving them a financial benefit which we are not supposed to do . Also I do have a concern that 1/2 of it has been leased ever since they have owned it. It has been operated as a duplex. Rick N. : That is not really correct . The entire building is leased to some teachers and when Dede and Michael and the children come to town they stay in part of the house but the lease covers the entire structure. 6 BAM3 .31 .88 Remo: It doesn't have a separate kitchen or those qualities that separate into a duplex. Rick: There is one kitchen and a wet bar in the family room. Bill D: In one end there is a kitchen and/or a bath. It has to be an independent unit--a separate unit to qualify as a duplex. There has to be independent access . Fred: I think in terms whether or not it is a duplex the issue is not so much as whether or not it has all the characteristics of a duplex which it seems to have but whether or not the matter which is being reviewed places it in the duplex category. By leasing the entire thing out what they have done is created something like a housing position. Someone rents it and takes care of it and they have the option to come back in a make use of a part of it . In terms of it strictly meeting the terms of a duplex classification, I think the applicant covers that by attempting to put the lease in in such a way as to take issue further away from the duplex. Rick N. : The characteristics of the lot required that construction be along a strip which facilitates a conversion . Because of the setbacks there was virtually no other way to build on the lot . Remo: If we grant this variance you then have a viable duplex which you can condominiumize and sell half of it . Fred: It makes it easier to sell. Remo: Whether we do or don't deprive them of financial windfall or whatever, still is that a consideration for us? What are the bad parts or the good parts? Rick N. : One of the bad parts is that if we wanted to go through condominiumization, we would be deed restricting 1/2 to employee housing which is essentially what happens because of the zoning. I am not sure there is a real economy in doing that. In fact, I would suggest there is no real economy in doing that. Fred: The new code proposes 2 major changes. One is that there is going to be cash in lieu opportunity. That is if somebody wants to condominiumize a unit , they can put cash in lieu via the Housing Department rather than deed restrict the unit . They would have to go through lot split to get a duplex. Bill: Subdivision exemption. 7 BAM3 .31 .88 Fred: They would have to petition for subdivision exemption . Bill: They would have to go before P&Z to duplex? Fred: They go to somebody else beside you. What they do is get a piece of property that is capable of being subdivided. They just have to go through the process . Remo: Is a record of this meeting presented to a review board like that? Fred: I am sure the attorney or whoever would prepare it would want to the extent it if benefits the application . If he doesn't, then no. Remo : I am talking from the City ' s point of view, not the applicant. That something has been effected on that by a Board of the City that should be taken into consideration. Fred: There are legal documents . That , as a matter of the application process, would probably go before the Board. To the extent that now with the P&Z and Board of Adjustment there is a duplication of some of the representation so that might carry over. But, no, not just by itself. Anne : At what point was the R-15 zone enacted? Prior to the purchasing in 1981? Rick N. : In 1978 or 1979 . Bill: R-15A is recent. That is only 4 years old . Fred: The area was zoned R-15 in the County. And then when the area was annexed into the City, it was zoned R-15 but it was given on the zoning map the wrong designation. And I think these fellows in Alpine Acres when they went through the re-zoning process have had the area restored to what it should have been on the records. Back to R-15A. Remo : But as far as your history is concerned, it was always zoned R-15 since you acquired this property. Rick N. : That is right. Anne : When they purchased this property, they knew it was a single residence and that there was an R-15 zone and that it had to remain. Remo: They had all the information available to them. 8 BAM3 .31 .88 Ron: I would like to know what the true square footage of the house is. Rick N. : When the addition was put on in 1981 the same map was used with the same footprint including the concrete pad. I don' t know the precise square footage. Although my recollection is approximately 2 ,700 sqft. Anne : And it is different for a single than for a duplex. A duplex has more. Rick N: I am reasonably certain we are below the allowable FAR. Bill: In the R-6 zone you would be allowed 3 ,240 sqft. In the R-15 you would be allowed a lot more. In the R-15 you would be OK and in the R-6 , you would be OK. R-6 is the most restrictive and on a 6 ,000 sqft lot you could have 3 ,240 sqft . You are at 2 ,700 sqft. R-15 you have another 4 ,000 sqft . Remo asked for any further comments from the Board. There were none. Remo then asked for public comment. Chip Bishop, from across the street from this residence. Joe Dunn , I share the property across the street from this residence. Our biggest concern is the parking situation--the way it is situated on Matchless Drive--that little circle. The truck that is parked there. So if there is another unit there which is also rented out it is going to increase the usage of the neighborhood. Remo: That is why in his presentation he utilizes that parcel as effectively putting 5-- Rick N: There would be room for 5 . Joe: But that would also close off existing access . Rick N: There is no legal access. Joe: Well, but it has been used for years . Remo: Well, if you want off-street parking, and if you do, you are effecting your own property. And if you don't want it, your concern seems to be a contradiction. You are concerned about the parking situation--how congested it is and once they start utilizing their right to make parking spaces then it becomes a 9 BAM3 .31 .88 concern of yours because they are using an area that you are utilizing. Dr. Whitcomb: I think the density won' t change any more than it is now. I don't know about the truck. We already have the same amount of parking as they have . And the people who are renting it now are community school people. And it doesn 't matter that they have cars . They have their same scenarios that they would have in the future. So what is happening now would be happening in the future as I see it . Remo: Was this addition put in while it was in the City? And all building permits were in order? Rick N. : Yes. Remo: So when they asked for a permit and they had these extra bedrooms, was additional parking required and did you provide for it? Bill: This was done when the Building Department was in turmoil so some records are missing in 1980 and 1981 so it may not be of record. If you add a bedroom from now on I would say there would have to be another parking space provided. Rick N: There are at least 4 existing parking places right now between the 2 parcels. The one across the street has been used all along. That is where the truck is. And you can actually put 2 cars in without blocking the road. Dr . Whitcomb: I wouldn ' t want to see that green tree area destroyed. There is parking there and they still have access . My Daughter' s intention I know is not to wipe out that driveway. Joe: This summer they put boulders in there and blocked it off. We approached them as asked why and they said it was their right to do that. So we said could we not work this out and they agreed to let us move 2 boulders to get a car there. Remo: So you have been using it for years. If you use it for enough years , you are going to claim it as adverse use. And they are trying to protect their rights by putting boulders there. Rick N. : We still have 4 parking spaces and still only 4 bedrooms. On Parcel A there are 3 roomy parking spaces. If you line them up one behind the other you can get 4 cars on the east end. This is not very practical so we park across the street. There are as many parking spaces available as there are bedrooms right now. 10 BAM3.31 .88 Remo asked if there were any further comments from the public . There were none and he then closed the public portion of the meeting. Comments from the Board members. Josephine: I find that there is a hardship here. It is because of this sort of casual granting of an easement for a 60 foot roadway that divided the property and took a lot of space. I say casual because they thought it wouldn' t have any impact. But now we find that it does. That is a hardship right now. This is a neighborhood of many duplexes and I would feel that I was depriving the owners of a property right if I do not grant this variance. Anne: I don't see a hardship. They purchased the house after the roadway easement was granted. This is an addition to it which indicates that their intention was to use it as a duplex all along. They did lease 1/2 of it out . Remo: Well, we don't know that. I think what came out was that the building was leased in its entirety and that within that lease the lessee let someone stay in half of the building. I think that is what came out as part of the record. I don't want something to come out here that is speculation or conjecture. We can't have something come out now that is not part of the public record. Anne said she did have additional information not previously brought out . Remo re-opened the public portion of the meeting. Anne: This property was listed in my office. And it said that 1/2 of that house was subject to a lease . Josephine: As a casual property owner and not a real estate person, I don't see why that is relevant. If I wanted to rent out a part of my house and-- Anne: Well, you could rent a room out or something like that. But this was subject to a lease on half. Rick H. : Dede was going to retain a lease on her portion and sell off--actually was selling off the whole property but retaining a lease specifically to the portion that she would stay in. 11 BAM3 .31 .88 Dr. Whitcomb: Basically when these people rented the house it was practical for them to stay in one part of their house so that Dede would be able to come in when she wanted to come in. That was the whole object . Nobody else rented the other side of that little section that they added onto. It was the concept that she could come in and out of this town with her family and keep the other place leased so that they could afford to make the payments. That was the whole object . Then it got so bad with the rentals that they decided it wasn't worth that , they would rather rent it cheap to somebody they could count on like teachers or whatever and not have the house devastated which happened a couple of times. Anne: But it still was run as a duplex. 1/2 for her to use and the other 1/2 was for them. That is why I am saying I would be opposed to granting the variance . It is a single family residence. It was listed "Subject to a lease on 1/2 . Dr . Whitcomb: There are a million places in this town that occupy the same position. It is the only you can afford to stay in this town. You know that is the issue . And this was the issue in the beginning. What I am trying to tell you was they bought the house . They realized they were in over head and couldn't sell it. The only way they could practically survive in the house was to rent out the house but she still wanted the privilege to come here with her family and visit. I don 't know any other family that doesn' t do it the same way. I can give you thousands of examples. Anne : This is my concern because we are going to set a precedent even though we try not to set precedents and we don' t look at previous cases. Remo: Except they have conditions on this piece of property that I doubt whether a 60 ft right-of-way would come into play. Anne: I appreciate the fact that they bought this in 1981 . That was the peak of the market. They are stuck with a property that they paid too much for . So are a lot of other people . I can't grant them a variance to ease their financial burdens. They did purchase this knowing that it was a single family residence. And to now make it a duplex, I don't see the hardship there. Rick N. : The principle hardship exists because of the nature of the lot . The fact of the matter is that Gibson Avenue right-of- way is substantially larger than it will ever need to be and realistically there is enough square footage surrounding that house to justify a duplex but for the fact that when the easement was granted it never occurred to anyone that it might create a non-conforming lot. 12 BAM3 .31 .88 Anne: But when you purchased you should have known. And I think it is very congested . That does not justify continuing a problem. Rick N. : The real thrust of our concern is that the easement is substantially wider than it ought to be and if we had 18 ft of that back we would have enough square footage. Remo: Were there any restrictions at all on that land given to the party? I know that when Lee Pardee gave his 60 ft right-of- way he was allowed to do a little bit more than maybe he could have by granting them that 60 foot right-of-way. I can ' t imagine someone gratuitously giving away all that property--for what purpose? Rick N. : I did a total research on it and went to Jim Reeser who represented the owners of the property at the time with respect to the creation of the right-of-way. That was in 1973. All Reeser could tell me is that they gave it to them to accommodate the County. They received no compensation for it . Nobody ever anticipated that it would create any sort of non-conformity with respect to the property. Anne: Did they not receive some kind of compensation to do the tennis courts or something? There is a lot of land out there. Rick N. : According to Reeser the 60 ft easement was what the County was using. It was standard. They just said "Fine" . It apparently was not an issue . Remo asked if there were any more comments on this issue. There were none. He again closed the public hearing. Rick H. : I have to agree with Anne on this. I cannot find a hardship here other than what is financial of nature. I think that what you have going in your favor is there are neighbors enjoying multi-use uses in the area that are adjacent. But we still have a major parking problem. And I think adding another duplex to this area is just going to increase the problem that already exists. I don't quite understand the problem with the situation as it exists now with Dede ' s use of the property when she occasionally comes to town. What is preventing her to continue that kind of lease arrangement with the present owners? Remo: You mentioned your concern about parking. They could put in more parking than we could require of them as a modification to our granting a variance. 13 BAM3 .31 .88 Since Charlie had come quite late into the meeting he declined comment. Ron : I agree with Rick and Anne. I am just trying to figure out a way that this could be done. If I could be assured that the generous people who own the property would own it into perpetuity, it would be a lot easier for me to grant this. That way they keep it in employee housing. Remo: We can restrict it . If you feel those are the things that are bothering you why don' t we put it into the motion. Ron: I am more inclined to grant the variance because of the current owners but I can't be concerned about that because the next people who come in here could do whatever they want once they have a legal duplex. And you are substantially under square footage . I think there are other avenues that could be investigated whereby a duplex could be granted. I wouldn't grant the variance on the basis of what I see presented here as a hardship. Remo: What I am hearing from you is that you are penalizing them because of their good stewardship. I think that what we have to look at is something that will last regardless of who the owners are. The vehicle of control is in the language of the motion. We can grant them the variance with conditions. They don't have to accept it but we can create a motion with modifications. Ron: Then I would be interested in granting a variance that would restrict Parcel B to parking only and would allow a duplex here but not to increase the FAR. But that would have to be recorded and deed restricted. Rick: Would that also impact the owner of the other side of the duplex? Remo: Both of them, that is right. Fred: It is not a duplex at this point. What you would do is deed restrict as is so that it cannot be increased beyond its present square footage and then duplex. Ron: I would be willing to accept additional conditions but those 2 major concerns everybody in the neighborhood has--parking and density. I think if we deed rest the size and make them put parcel B in parking we are restricting density and we are taking care of parking in the neighborhood and we have handled all of the public concerns. 14 BAM3 .31 .88 Rick H. What is the purpose of the applicant getting the duplex? Is it to add another kitchen or an oven? What is going to change between duplexing this property and that way it is now. Anne: To sell one half off and keep one to rent it . Bill: You just can't sell a duplex off. You have to go through the correct procedure on it. Anne: No. Then you have to condominiumize. Bill: The terms of the agreement now are that he won't do that. Anne: Then that is not going to serve him any purpose. Rick H. : So you are granting a variance because of a financial consideration. Remo: No. I 'm not. Ron: Based on conditions and their track record and everything else I am willing to grant a variance with some very strict conditions. I don' t know if that will be accepted by the rest of the Board. And I don 't know if the applicant will accept that because it may not suit his purposes. Fred : The only difference between a duplex and a condominiumization is the ability to sell it . So if you are going to grant them the ability to have a duplex, then you try to restrict it so that they couldn't condominiumize, you are slam- dunking them. Anne: If we allow them to do a duplex we have to allow them to condominiumize. Remo: We should direct it so that the motion wouldn't take into consideration who the owners are . That would control the property and structures rather than the people who occupy it . I have looked at this and thrown out the financial consideration. Then I have to look at what is left . What have they told us that would offer us some consideration for a practical difficulty or some kind of hardship. I think that even though they were aware when they purchased this that there was this 60 ft right-of-way they bought it knowing what they could do on that property. I still think that because of the lack of a little wall there they are being deprived of a property right that is being enjoyed by most of the people in the same vicinity. It is being denied them because of their unique separation of a parcel and the use of the 60 ft right-of-way by the City. 15 BAM3 .31 .88 The variance is extremely minimal. I think that what Ron said was more important to me that no additional square footage would be involved and no modification of the building footprint would be granted to them. I would like to deed restrict parcel B making it part of parcel A to become, in effect , one contiguous parcel eliminating the possibility of it becoming a separate building site. I think we clear up something by granting them that variance . It is so minimal . We are talking about a wall that is 3 ft long and 4 inches thick . The Board might want to consider the parking situation. Whether they really feel that they want to disturb the land across in parcel B to provide for additional parking by some method and maybe not disturb the access of their neighbors and plantings that are there. Ron : I think this thing about parcel B being re-attached to parcel A and eliminating it from all the plat maps as a possible building site is extremely important. I don't think it changes the situation by giving them the legal right to do what they are already doing. Josephine : I can ' t understand why we are so concerned about parking. I find it not very difficult to find 4 easy parking places for 4 bedrooms . That is what we have--4 bedrooms. It is easy to find more than 4 spaces. If you have 3 on Parcel A and only 2 on Parcel B you have got 5 parking spaces already. Remo: The question is whether we want to use Parcel B for any parking and disturb the access of the residents across the way. Josephine: You can have both. You can have 2 parking spaces. Remo : Well there are trees there now that might have to come down if you want to put parking there. That is the only place that you could put the parking is where those trees are unless you take away the driveway and that impacts the neighbors. MOTION Ron: I would like to make a motion that we grant a variance based on the following conditions: The first being that Parcel B be included as part of Parcel A in determining total square footage of the building lot not to be subdivided or built on in the future . Second , that the footprint and square footage of the house remains the same. No additional square footage can be added to this duplex structure. 16 BAM3 .31.88 Josephine seconded the motion. Remo asked for further discussion. There was none. Roll call vote: Ron Erickson, aye, Anne Austin, no, Rick Head , aye, Josephine Mann, aye, Remo Lavagnino, aye. Variance granted. Remo: I would like the City Attorney to draw this up. Ron: I would like to include--subject to the approval of the City Attorney's Office . Anne: We need to discuss something. I have a problem with the Scott & Caroline McDonald case . If it goes to HPC and gets their approval , my biggest contention is they are going to add a garage within the setback and we have never granted a variance for a garage. Rick: But whatever they grant has to come before us. Fred: What happened is that they went through a very torturous process with each side not hearing the other . At the last meeting I said "You really only have one option and that is to bring back a new set of plans the Board approves" . They said "Yes, but we can 't do this forever" . The Board had changed members during the 3 meetings . Then at the last minute it came up that the process was contemplating a change with the new code. It is going to expand on HPC's ability to give variances on issues that relate to HPC designation. So what I think the McDonalds must have done is throw their lot with the hope that the Council would go along with the new changes and have withdrawn their application so they would not have a chance to hear it and neither approve or deny it. Remo : They will never review that because it isn't in their process to inform anybody. Fred: It is not that they wouldn't review by good intentions. Remo: The other thing is all of the things that they would review, I don't think that they would have the experience or the expertise that we have in how we look at things. I don't think they would be that thorough. Fred: They would look at things with a different bias . The bias is going to be to preserve the historic images or historic 17 BAM3 .31.88 structures and not to take into consideration the impact on surrounding neighborhood. Remo: The reversal of that is that HPC has always recommended to us that we approve. They have input into our decision making and we have always looked at their recommendations just as we do when the Planning Office comes to us with some recommendation. That way all factors are covered . In this particular case the way it is reversed there is a lot of void in there that is not being covered that should be covered. Whether they do it or we do it doesn't really matter. It is a matter of whether those areas are covered or not. I don't think they are being addressed by just allowing them to review that on such a superficial basis. Fred: My suggestion is that you draft statements and make it as forceful as you want to make them aware as to what your position is . There was then discussion regarding unexcused absences. Remo: My interpretation is that when someone calls in or says they will attend a meeting and then don't show up, that is an unexcused absence. If someone calls and says they won't be able to attend, that is an excused absence . MOTION Rick: I make a motion that when a member says they will be at a meeting and then do not show up, that is an unexcused absence . If a member calls in a says they won' t be able to attend, that is an excused absence. Josephine seconded the motion with all in favor . Remo: The other thing is that we don ' t have a process or procedure to get information to us. So I have talked to Kathryn that when a new ordinance is adopted and it effects our Board that we all get copies of it so that we know what we are referring to. The other thing is election of officers . We need a set of by- laws. We don't operate on anything that is written anywhere. We need a time schedule or some mechanism that allows us to remind ourselves or some procedure that an election of officers should occur in March or whenever it is. Erin: You don ' t want to set everything in concrete. Every decision you make today won't be good tomorrow. 18 BAM3 .31 .88 Remo: Whatever we need, we want a copy of it. Hopefully we will get those into a set of by-laws or whatever it is so that it becomes of record so that when new members come in they know that is the way the Board operates. Fred: By-laws in and of themselves won' t hurt you. It is just whether or not you need them. Rick Made a motion to adjourn. Anne seconded the motion with all in favor. Time was 6:10 pm. Janic M. Carney, Ci y Deputy C k 19