Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19890302 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MARCH 2, 1989 MAIN FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS A G E N D A I. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL l9gcl II. MINUTES OF JANUARY 19 AND 26, 1989 III. CASE #89-2 (Cont. ) GREGORY S. BOELENS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MARCH 2 . 1989 Meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Charlie Paterson at 4 :20pm. Answering roll call were Ron Erickson, Anne Austin, Rick Head, Josephine Mann and Charlie Paterson. Remo Lavagnino was excused. CASE #89-2 GREGORY S. BOELENS CONTINUED Charlie read into the record variance request as attached in records. Gregory Boelens presented affidavit of posting. It was determined that the posting was still on the house and would be turned in. My wife, Mary, and I have 2 children ages 3 and 7 months. We have been in real estate and property management in Aspen for the last 14 years for me and 18 years for Mary. We bought this house last May from Jenny Popish. It was originally a miner's cottage that was built in the 18801s. After we purchased the house we did an inspection and found out that it is in really pretty poor condition. It needs to be fixed up. The roof is bad and cracked and needs replacing badly. There is no insulation in the walls. The foundation is crumbling which is causing the plaster to fall off the walls on the inside. I have my electrical license and I have looked at the electrical system and found out it is not grounded. The water meter and system is also not grounded or bonded which is a hazard and the plumbing pipes are the old galvanized steel variety so the house needs extensive repair. We have also found, after purchasing the house, that our chimney actually encroaches onto the neighbor' s property which we do not feel good about and during the remodel we plan on moving the chimney to the interior of the house so it will be on our own property. There are parts of the original structure that are worth saving and we would like to save them. The walls are basically in good shape and the floors are in great shape. The siding is saveable. For the remodel we want to work with the simplicity of the original structure and adapt the addition that we are asking for to the style of the original structure while maintaining the original footprint of the house. We are not asking for a height variance or a FAR variance. We do plan on living in this house. We are not speculating or have any profit motivation behind this request for variance. We want to live in that neighborhood. We have been there for 13 years now. We know our neighborhood. We BAM3 .2 .89 Josephine read into the record a letter from Thomas Iacono who is opposed to this variance. (attached in record) Josephine read into the record a letter from Donald J. Erickson, M.D. in opposition to this variance. (attached in record) Charlie asked for comments and questions from the board members. Rick: Did you retain an architect or a designer to do these renderings? Greg: Yes, I did. Rick: Was this before or after you knew you needed to get a variance to do this type of expansion. Greg: After. Rick: Was it an architect or a designer? Greg: An architect. Rick: Wouldn't an architect be aware of the expanding of a non- conforming use and have raised that issue to you? Greg: Yes. Mr. Drueding asked for sketches of what we plan to do so he would have something to reject. That is where they came from. Rick: It just seems to me that the cart was put before the horse. He did a beautiful job of designing the house but it is all predicated on getting a variance. Greg: I told him I didn't have the money to afford an architect to do full scale drawings if I am going to get refused. So he said we would just do a sketch of something we can work with and look at and then go from there upon approval or denial. So this doesn't represent a great amount of work. I don't have any floor plans or blue prints drawn at this time. Charlie opened the meeting to public comment. Rick Lindner: We own a house at 898 East Hopkins a block to the north of the house owned by Mac and Mary Boelens. I have a lot of respect for the job that the Board here has to try to accomplish. I also think that in these cases you have to consider all of the letters but I think there is maybe a bigger more important issue at stake here. Number one it seems to me and we have just started the process within the last year that we have non-conformities in Aspen because the rules are always 3 BAM3 .2 .89 changing. They may be changing for the better sometimes and they may be changing for the worse. But they are always changing. And change in rules creates non-conforming properties. As Mac mentioned with his property it is an existing structure that he has to improve or it is only going to get worse in the years to come. I have known Mac and Mary Boelens for over 15 years. They are one of the hardest working couples I know in town. They have saved and worked a long time to be able to get an entrance into the housing market in Aspen. And I think with what the housing situation in Aspen is today we are seeing an awful lot of young couples like the Boelens having to seek housing farther away from Aspen. We all know people are buying down valley because not only can they not afford anything here but they can't afford to improve something that in most other cities would be torn down and a whole new structure would be built there. What Mac and Mary are trying to do I think is to work within the regulations that you folks have to consider to try to improve a building that needs improvement. This is a situation where in working with this structure to practically do what he has to do to go up above the existing walls it falls within a non- conformity created by setback rules which weren't in effect when the original house was built. I respect all of you people in what you have to do. But also consider the fact that this situation puts a hardship on somebody who wants to live in town here and who is an asset to the community. This is a young family and it is difficult for them to be able to even buy housing in town here. They could buy a condominium but they have lived in an apartment condominium and managed condominiums for over 10 or 12 years and they really would like to have a single family house which they do have now. But they would like to improve it and make it really liveable. So I guess they just ask you all to kind of take that into account. I am sure there are people in condominiums around the block that feel that allowing somebody an exception to a non- conformity is going to create some kind of a precedent. We have seen things be a non-conformity and be changed a year or two later because the rules changed and I think it is just part of the fact that our growth management plan--the whole situation here is extremely difficult for anybody to deal with. The last thing I would say is from my standpoint. Even though the house that the Boelens have might be in front of me as far as the view, I would rather have my view blocked a little bit and 4 BAM3 .2. 89 have them have a better living situation. Even if I didn't know them, I would feel the same way. I think that is important in Aspen today. Julie Lindner, 898 East Hopkins: I would just like to say that for once I am in complete agreement with my husband. I don't think your rules and regulations which were designed to keep these large buildings and speculators out of Aspen really apply to this couple. I would just like that you give them every consideration. I would very much like to see the house improved to their design. - Glen Rappaport, architect and a friend of Mac and Mary: I have known them for about 17 years. Just in seeing what is going on in the community over the past year, I think that we should try and encourage as many instances like this as we can where a couple is trying to grow up in Aspen and work their way in the community and raise a family and be here in their business. As we all know one of the biggest problems is travel time between you home and your work. I see this as an opportunity for them to be close to what they do for a living and I would just like to offer my encouragement and support. There aren't many little residences left in the area and the remodel by someone who will do it themselves. This should be encouraged. Jack Cady: I live a Chateau Blanc, Unit #1. We purchased the unit in 1972 and have probably lived there about a third of the time. I live in Wichita, Kansas. I am familiar with Mary and Mac and the house being presented is probably about 125 feet away from our front door. I have seen the drawings and aesthetically it is a big improvement on what is there now. And it blends in with the other 2 story and 3 story buildings around it. I certainly am in favor of it and would certainly hope for approval. Ron: Mac, you said you want to lift the house and actually put in a new foundation and replace the existing foundation_ by a new one? Mac: Correct. Ron: The existing foundation would not hold 2 stories? Mac: No. It has no footers. Ron: So you are going to bring the whole building up to code? Mac: You bet. 5 BAM3 .2 .89 Rick: This one is directed to Glen. I assume that Glen did these renderings? Glen: Yes. Rick: Fred was on the Board years ago when I had the same problem. I had a non-conforming house and wanted to go up another story. I don't know whether you were actually on the Board in that particular issue but I had to come back 4 years later because I couldn't afford what you guys gave me the variance for. To make a long story short I had the same problem. I wanted to build over the bearing walls that had been in existence. They wouldn't let me because it was expanding a non-conforming use. And what we came up with was a design where we put sauna tubes down--pick the house up, do your footer and whatever concrete or block or slab or something like that. There are ways of making supports with sauna tubes within the foundation that would support the second story that would comply or at least be within the side yard setback requirement. I don't want to get into re-designing your house but it would allow you to build whatever you want on a second story without having to come before us and it would be something wherein you just jog the second story in. All you have to do is be within 5 feet of the side yard setbacks in the second story and you can have supports with these sauna tubes in the basement supporting with beams somehow. Could you architecturally get a second story on using that type of construction? Glen: We talked about that and obviously we are prepared to explore that if we don't get a variance. I think that one of the issues involved for Mac and Mary was the idea that it was a modest house and it was a very straight forward structure. And I think that they kind of felt that in order to be sympathetic with the existing building it would make sense to just add on to it in a way that would be historically sympathetic to that building. Rick: We can't really consider financial hardship or an aesthetic hardship. And unless there are some arguments that are going to sway me I feel terrible about this type of situation because you are just the kind of people we would like to see get started. Josephine: I would like to direct my comments to you, Rick. As long as I have had anything to do with this Board, one of the 6 BAM3 . 2 .89 firm parts of the zoning code has been that non-conforming structures are not to be allowed to expand the non-conformity. So what we are dealing with here today has nothing to do with any new growth management plans or anything like that. This is a really solid part of zoning codes probably all over and it makes it very difficult for us to think about granting a variance for this request. It is a big request and I am so glad that Rick is here because I think serious consideration needs to be given to plans of that sort. Anne: Didn't there used to exist a situation where if you stayed within the footprint of your non-conforming property you could put the second story on? Josephine: That is what Rick is talking about. Rick: There was a period where you could get away with adding a changing roof line but now it is a volume thing--enlargement. And even changing a roof line is enlarging by volume and is considered an expansion. Anne: If this a non-conforming structure and they wanted to increase it within those setbacks, wouldn't they still have to get a variance? Bill: No. Because they are not increasing the non-conforming. If they increase within those setbacks, they go up and jog it in, then they don't need a variance. As long as they don't increase the non-conformity. Rick LIndner: Bill, what you are saying then is that the second floor becomes conforming and the first floor is non-conforming. Bill: That is right. Anne: There seems to me a problem with the large tree in front. If you go up the second story, you can't cut that tree down. So what happens? Mac: That tree is not on my property. The Parks Association told me we have tree trimming rights. Anne: OK so that is not on your property but the fence line-- then the fence is not on your property either. Mac: The fence is on the other side of the house. There is no fence between the new condominium-- Anne: And the one on the other side is not on your property? 7 BAM3 .2 .89 Mac: That is correct. Anne: Which side has the largest non-conformity? You are asking for 4 feet on one side and 2 on the other. Mac: Towards town is 4 feet. Anne: You made a comment--something about the FAR is half of what is allowed. You are talking about the existing FAR? Mac: The existing house compared to today's FAR. Anne: But you can add with the addition that you are proposing, you would still be within the FAR. Mac: It is approximately 2, 300. 2 ,400 is the max. Charlie: So we are basically talking about 2 feet and 4 feet. How about the front and side. We are OK on the front and back. Fred Smith: I hope that nobody loses sight of the fact that although he is required to have 5 feet next to the new town- houses, the new townhouses set back 10 feet from their line. Therefore he has 11 or 12 feet actual setback or space between those 2 buildings. As I understand the purpose for the setback requirement is to provide access for fire equipment to make sure that there is no spread of fire between the 2 buildings. So I think you could ease your decision on making that one because the setbacks that the code wants to have are actually there. On the other side where Bernie is--he is on a 60 foot lot and he plans to have that house for a long time and i doubt being on a corner lot if they build a new one they would necessarily build it 50 feet wide and jam it right up against Mary and Mac's house. So I think there is a very good chance, certainly on one side, that he will always have at least 12 feet in between the 2 buildings. And I think there is an excellent chance that there will 10 or 12 feet between whatever new building is constructed on Bernie's if it is torn down. If it is not he has 14 feet between the buildings on that side. So practically this is not like they are building it right next to a house which was often the case in previous requests here. Members said this was a good point. Anne: Bill, on a 3, OOOsgft lot the new reduction in side yard setbacks are increased. This one wasn't affected was it? Bill: Under 3 , OOOsgft 8 BAM3 .2 .89 There was discussion here where people were all talking at once. Fred Rappaport: I know that it was said that throughout history the annexes have always had a certain way in which they were dealt with. I think that part of the problems that we are having in the whole community is that we are trying to blanket solutions to carry specific and idiosyncratic problems that are occurring in our town. I think that the nice thing about Aspen is that it is small enough to take each one of these as individual items and to look at it closely and actually taking into account the people who are going to be living there and the kind of thing and job that they do in the area. All I request is that those things are looked at and that the letter of the zoning law is looked at in that light. That it be looked at in the spirit of the law. Rick Lindner: I think Glen just hit the nail on the head and I know that Bill has to deal with this all the time. This has got to be a problem. We are dealing with basically a subdivided, a platted area in downtown where the area around downtown Aspen that was created almost 100 years ago. If we were designing a town today--you don't see towns designed today with 30ft wide lots because they don't fit today's housing. I know everybody here is familiar with that because you all are in the property business. What I am saying is when you take a 30ft wide lot and you take 5ft off each side you have a 20ft width with which to work with a house. And people don't build houses 20ft wide today. So here is Mac and Mary having to deal with that and trying to conform as best that they can with what you folks have to deal with. To my way of thinking that is why you have a Board of Adjustments--to be able to grant a variance when we are talking about 1, 2, 3 or 4 feet so that somebody can work with something that was designed basically in the 18901s. Anne: The house directly across the alley to my knowledge is on a 3, 000sgft lot and they built that within their setbacks. Rick L. : But they definitely had to do a lot of design work to get that house to work. They tore down an old house and completely built the new one. Mary and Mac can't really do that. Mary: Because of finance. Rick L. : That was a complete destruction and construction of a whole new house. And it is a corner lot and I don't think Wayne 9 BAM3 .2 .89 would have done that if he had not had the corner lot with the property adjacent that the City controls. Mary: We are trying to preserve our yard a little bit too so we are not using our entire yard for a house. And I think that is important. I would rather see some green grass around the whole house. With Wayne and Judy Harris, they have a mammoth house on that lot. Fred R. : I think that is the alternative rather than cantilever in the second story is if you are going to have to go to that kind of structural expense--then they might as well tear it down and build or sell it and let some speculator build a house like the house you are referring to that will fill the entire footprint that is allowed. It will be much larger than this house would appear. Rick H. : Fred, you sat on this Board for years. You can see the enigma we are faced with here. Fred: Maybe my memory is clouded as I get older but I really thought that we let people go up on their existing walls to a second story. Rick H. That was in the past before we had new interpretations of those laws and attorneys have been very clear in their instructions to us relative to that. But did you ever grant variances base don a financial hardship? Fred: This is a very definite practical difficulty. You are talking about cantilevering in a second story. That is not a practical solution to the problem. That is saying that if you have unlimited funds, you could probably solve this. Where we always said we could not deal with financial hardships is where someone really just said I would like to build it this way because this is a cheaper way. Rick H. But there are other alternatives that they could pursue other than going up over the bearing walls. They can go back. They can go forward irrespective of the yards and things like that. We are being put in a very tough position here. I would like nothing more than to grant this variance but I have not heard anything here that in good conscience I could grant this variance on. Because I don't think other avenues have been pursued. Fred: I thought I gave you that out. The practical difficulty is that he hasn't the side yards in the code. 10 BAM3. 2. 89 Rick H. : But he was aware of those practical difficulties before he even purchased the house. Fred: You are missing my point. He has the side yards the code is trying to preserve. He has 12 feet-- Rick: On somebody else's property. Not on his land. Fred: I don't think the code is worried about where the fire access is or where the truck is going down or whether the fire is going to spread on whose property. The purpose of side yards is to allow emergency vehicle access to allow fire equipment in to make sure the spread of the fire from one building to another does not happen. Rick: There is one problem with that scenario. When Bernie's house goes on the market for sale and the big developer comes in and he presses it right up to the 5ft setback, now we don't have that nice vehicular avenue there. It is now a 7ft wide on the ease side. Fred: That is definitely a possibility. Rick: That is the purpose of this whole law. Anne: Bernie's is a 6, OOOsgft lot. So isn't there a 15ft--a 10 and a 5? Rick: He can flop them any way he wants. But the worst case scenario is he loses that fire way. Fred: There is a possibility. But I think you would realize the practicality that he probably he would not jam a 50ft wide building up next to an existing old victorian. When it is on the corner he has all kinds of room on the other side so he doesn't need to maximize that setback any more than the townhouse on the other side needed to maximize theirs. On a 30ft lot it is very difficult. I really think if you deny this, you are forcing them to tear this building down and build a new one like the house you are referring to. Rick: No. I am suggesting that perhaps maybe we could table this and you could come back with a revised plan. You are asking for the max here basically and it is not a minimal request. You are asking for variances on both sides of the house. If you went in and asked us to leave one side alone and you will redo the other side--you know, you have got to give us something. 11 BAM3 . 2 .89 This is an extractionary process in a way. And I don't see where you guys are giving us anything here. Charlie: I would like to interject here. Usually we grant variances on the basis of hardship and practical difficulty when you did your floor plan where you have difficulty in the layout of the roofs and the spaces in the event that you would not have this variance on the second floor. Rappaport: I did this first plan with restraints and it is quite a bit more difficult to work a stairway of the appropriate width to the structure and still have enough room at the top of the stair with appropriate space for bedrooms and bathrooms. I am not saying it can't be done but the circulation is a problem. And so even our earlier plan we still try to ask if the stairway itself could align with the exterior downstairs wall. The spaces were a problem. I understand what you are saying, Rick, about the easements and access for fire trucks. But the existing walls are already there and they will stay there. So if Popishes' sell their house and another house is built 5ft away, you are still going to have a wheel base problem in that event no matter what you do about that. I think there are a number of ways that this problem could be looked at. The neighbors all seem to be willing to work a little bit with the ideas that were put forward by the Board--put in the 5 or the 10ft setbacks. Rick: Have you guys researched the cost benefit of trying to salvage a few stud walls in this old existing house as opposed to tearing the whole thing down and starting anew? I guarantee you you are going to wind up spending more money trying to salvage a few walls in this house than you will if you just tear the whole thing down and start anew. Picking the house up, putting a foundation down, re-enforcing all the existing walls. It is not an historical structure. Why save the house? If you have got to completely gut the thing, rewire, re-plumb, put new foundations-- what are you trying to save here? Rappaport: I think that there is no way to answer exactly the comparison. It depends on when you get in there. It may be some savings only because Mac is planning on doing a lot work himself. I may not be. I just think that it is unfortunate that most people just wipe the slate clean and start over. I think it is nice if something is preserved from the past and added onto. It tells a kind of intelligent story about the way things evolved here. Maybe it is a sentimental point of view but I kind of think if the trade offs are equal like you are implying then I 12 BAM3 . 2 .89 would vote for trying to do something that is maybe a little more sympathetic to the existing structure whether it is zoned historic or not. Maybe they just like the house. Gregory: It is an historic structure. And that was our thought. Mary: If we tear the whole thing down then we have to go to 20ft width. That is not practical for a family of 4. We bought the house based on that size. Maybe we wouldn't want to build then. Maybe we would put it back up for sale if we couldn't do this. Gregory: But we would like to stay in the neighborhood because it is close to our job. Charlie askedfor further public comment. There was none and he closed the public portion of the hearing. Ron: It is an agonizing situation. I don't like doing this. I have to agree with Rick. If every building that has been built in the last 2 years came before the Board of Adjustments I think a lot of the skyline in Aspen would be different. I think we are a lot stricter than City Council is or in some cases HPC. I have nothing to do with those. I don't like them but I have nothing to do about it. My single responsibility is to enforce the code and to interpret the code as we decide at this Board when we grant minimum variances. I would not grant a variance in this case for the following reasons. One is that I don't see a hardship. I don't see that because by renovating the existing structure you have, you are getting more than if you tore it down and put up a new structure. You get a bigger, wider building--one that is more liveable by allowing to keep the first floor as it is. And if you added a second floor that was conforming, you would still be able to add by 800-900sgft to the structure to enlarge it so that it would be big enough for a family of 4 without having to keep your existing side wall lines 2 stories high. I think since you are going to change the foundation anyway, it can be re-enforced to support a second story that is offset. I would love to be able to see this house--it is a beautiful little house--I would like to see it renovated. I would like to see it lived in and loved. I think it is that type of a structure. But I also see it being almost doubled in size and I don't necessarily feel that the code says that everybody has a right to build out to a maximum size on any lot in town. I just don't agree with that. This is a beautiful small building. I feel it should stay a beautiful small building. It is on a small lot. 13 BAM3 .2 .89 Josephine: As you know we struggle to find what are the practical difficulties which allow us to give a variance. In this case this is a very small lot. I think that is the practical difficulty. And the fact that there is an existing structure on it, that can be part of the practical difficulty. All the other lots are larger. But as far as I can see the practical difficulty, they are there and the rest of this is sort of a quandary because here we are faced with a situation that doesn't fit our guidelines. We are here to grant relief from the strict interpretation of the zoning code if it is possible to do that with a minimum variance. We have before us a case where a local family would like to live in that neighborhood and have a comfortable practical house and it would be really wonderful to facilitate that. But the way things are now I feel that I cannot favor a variance. Anne: I think the size of the lot definitely presents a hardship and a practical difficulty. I would like to see houses like this preserved in town. Unfortunately there are a couple of things that do bother me. The argument that it is not for resale and going to be lived in by these people. In this case I do believe it but we hav had many cases brought to us where a year later we found out that wasn't the situation. It has been put back on the market. The fact that this house is in such poor condition and needs so much work done on it--in driving by and looking at the house the whole rear side of the house--the ceiling is too low or at least the roof line appears to be too low. The back part is like one of those addons that they did back in the 20s and they were poorly done. So I see that whole part needing to be redone. The foundation has to be put in. Everything presents a problem. I see a lot of this house being redone and not preserved even with the second story added on. I would be in favor of giving a minimal variance in keeping one side as is on the second story. The side that is next to the townhouses which encroaches the most. But it seems to be the most authentic part of the house to be saved. The east side, the roof lines--none of that is going to be saved at all. You talk about 2 feet and I don't see it being a hardship to come in 2 feet on that side with the second story. I do see as a hardship coming in Oft on the other side because of the first floor conformity there. But I don't see it necessarily clear on the back part of the house. I would like to see them come back to us with a new design where they keep the west side as is going up the second story and bring in the east side and maybe bring in the rear part of the house which to my impression not being a 14 BAM3 . 2 .89 builder but having seen a lot of these buildings is going to have to be totally redone anyway and maybe bring that in to conformity there. Charlie: How much real side yard setback is there right now on that house? Anne: I am talking about the back part of the house has a shed roof that goes down like this. That back part of the house looks like a lot of those old houses they added on like cold rooms or pantries or whatever. And they -are not really part of the original structure and I see that part needing to be changed anyway. So that could be brought into conformity but still bring this side up to 2 stories and then just work this side in 2ft which would be a minimal variance. Rick: I have great reservation. I am not in favor of granting this variance. But I would further suggest that the applicant, if he chooses, table this and come back with another design that might move us to grant a variance. Charlie: To recap here. I am more inclined to grant the variance as is usually the case. I think of the other approach which is that our Board is charged with circumstances which someone can't handle with the present code. I do see a hardship of practical difficulty. And I see the strong support of the neighbors. So I am hanging my hat a little bit more on the humane approach which I understand is probably not as legal an approach as what the rest of the Board is saying. I would like to, since there is no way that we are going to have a consensus here that this will pass--I would like to examine Anne's suggestion whereby how the other members of the Board might feel if we grant a variance for one side and then let the applicant come up straight on the other side. You were referring to the west side as following the line because that is the side where the condominium is and we already have a structure there. And then allowing that variance but not allowing the other side. Rick: With all due respect I am not in favor of granting any variance unless I have seen before me something that I can make a legitimate judgement on. Ron: I want to grant the variance now. I know the people involved. I think they are wonderful people and I hate to see something like this happen. I really do. But I might change my mind. I wouldn't grant the variance any other way. I hate to say spend a lot of money so you can come back with the hopes that 15 BAM3 .2 .89 maybe I will change my mind because I don't think I am going to. But it is possible. I have in the past. Josephine: I think this idea is worth exploring. I think it might prove to be OK. Charlie: So should we ask the applicant to come back with another drawing along that line and would this Board be willing to table to a date certain. Otherwise the applicant will have an unfavorable response from us. Anne: One of the things that I would like to see is what happens to this back part of the house because there they might be able to come in the 4ft. I don't know if it makes sense. I want them to explore or tell us why they should have the variance the full length of the west side or just part of the length. Ron: I agree with that. I would like to see minimal variances and justification for them. Anne: And the right side, I don't see any reason to grant the variance on the right side. Charlie: So now we are really talking about the length of the building here is 47. 6ft--almost 50ft. So we should instruct the applicant with the guidelines to come back to us. Anne: On the east side it looks more like a teardown and so how far back that comes I don't know. But I would like to see a reason why we should grant a full length. Charlie: So they probably need a floor plan so that they see how this will work in relationship to the rest of the structure. Josephine: In the mean time they might be investigating the solution that Rick used in his house in which case they would not need a variance. Charlie: Well, they would have to do it for one side anyway. Anne: My feeling was that the Oft is a substantial enough area to have to come in that they are losing a lot of living space on the inside. And it is creating this 20ft wide house on the second story and instead the other way they still have that extra Oft upstairs. Charlie: That is correct. That would make a big difference actually. 16 BAM3 .2 . 89 Anne: It would make a huge difference. Whereas the 2ft on the other side I don't feel would make as much of a difference. Ron: I would be much more willing to grant a variance if the essential structure was maintained, the look of the house, and everything else. I don't like that 20ft wide building on the corner either. I think it is an abortion. I would like to see the house preserved. I would like to see the character of the house preserved as much as possible. I don't think size is important here. I don't think the extra 200sgft is worth it. Charlie: We have to be very careful here because we are going to aesthetics. And we do not grant variances on aesthetics. Anne: But if they tear down the structure, they are going to build from their front yard setback to their rear yard setback. They are going to make that building--well like the one across the alley. Bill: It won't be any larger in square footage than this house. Anne: Well, no but because it would be narrower, it would be longer. And it would have more of an impact because it would be the same height. I think that length would create more of an impact than that additional 4ft width. Charlie re-opened the public portion of the meeting. You know what we spoke about and we are trying to resolve the issue to a satisfactory conclusion. Rick L. : With the west side of the property that close to the new townhouses staying vertical, upper walls over lower walls and on the east side if there would be a modification, does the setback include--in other words we have seen some victorians that house a covered porch along the upper side-- Ron: They can go within 3ft up to setbacks, can't they? Rick L. : That is what I was going to ask Bill to tell us. If they were to move the interior walls in enough to satisfy you but be able to have the roof overhang so they have a covered porch-- Charlie: To balance out the building. Rick L. I am not saying that some day it is going to be all glassed in to allow more house but--I am just suggesting this because it is what I think of as a victorian house. 17 BAM3 .2.89 Charlie: That would be a good solution because you need to balance the house out. Otherwise it might get very lopsided with that situation. But I think that would be something the Board would consider. Rappaport: I think that there are lots of workable alternatives. I also want to remind the Board that really they are going to try to achieve a liveable amount of square footage which seems to be around 23 to 24 hundred as a buildable amount anyway. And so really what we are talking about is filling up the back yard or not. I think that house around the corner is the perfect example of what we really don't want. That is a couple of little strips of grass that are really not any good either for the people who live there or for the neighbors. I think that as Zoning Board Adjusters you guys should really be interested in do we have an opportunity to make a place here or just some buffer strips for a fire truck to drive on. Charlie: I would like to remind you that we are still looking at the minimum variance. If the plan comes in and the house is too large at the back, the Board may feel negative about the entire variance because we already feel that we are going to give something on one side. So the applicant has to be very careful to balance this against what he hears here in the room about how the Board feels about granting or not granting a variance. Ron: Bill, if they put a basement in and they get it on the foot print is there any possible non-conforming? Bill: 100% below grade is completely free. Ron: So there is a way of getting additional living space without counting towards FAR. Bill: You could put a basement into that setback. Rick: That is expanding the non-conformity. Anne: So they can put a foundation into the setback to put under this house but they can't put a basement under it. Charlie: To replace the old foundation. Anne: To fix it. But if they put a basement in under it they are going to have to bring that basement in 4ft and 2ft. Bill: Right. 18 BAM3 . 2 .89 Charlie: So it is a completely new situation. Ron: Or 2ft on the east side at least. Maybe nothing on the west side. Anne: That is true because it is going to need to be supported on 2 stories. Ron: I think that the Housing Office has square footage recommendations for size of families. I think the minimum size house for 3, 4, 5 or 6 people, I don't think 2 , 400sgft is anywhere near the minimum. I think that is substantially larger. So I don't think the 2,400sgft--you could build 2,400sgft by code. I don't think that it is required for a family of 4. And I would not buy the argument for granting a variance. Charlie: What you are saying is it is not a hardship. MOTION Rick: I move that we table Case #89-2 to a date certain of March 9, 1989. Anne seconded the motion with all in favor. MINUTES DECEMBER 8 AND 9. 1988 JANUARY 19 AND 26, 1989 Rick made a motion to approve minutes of January 19, 1989. Ron seconded the motion with all in favor. Anne made a motion to approve minutes of December 8 and 9, 1988. Josephine seconded the motion with all in favor. Rick made a motion to approve minutes of January 26, 1989 . Anne seconded the motion with all in favor. Rick made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Anne seconded the motion with all in favor. Time was 5:40pm. l J ice M. Ca Ci y 15ep- I YClerk 19 U t7 J� , FEB. 25 1989 TO: BOARD OF A NUSTMENTS In regard to the request by Mac and Mary Boelens, for a variance, we definitely approve and hope you will give positive consideintio n to their request to add on to their home. ae h ve known the Boelens for quite few years an6 feel they will definitely improve the propeit,y nd neighborhood. II I Sincerely, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Minnesota 55905 Telephone 507 284-2511 Emeritus Starr February 20, 1989 Re: Case #89-2 The City of Aspen Board of Adjustments 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Gentlemen: My wife and I own a unit in the Hy West condominiums at 835 East Hyman, Aspen . The purpose of this letter is to record opposition to the proposed re- quest for a variance by Gregory S. Boelens of 901 East Hyman. Granting this variance will create a pattern of requests for more undesir- able changes in the buildings of Aspen . I note that the applicant is requesting a variance on a nonconforming build- ing, which seems to be untenable to me. Sincerely yours, Donald J. Erickson, M.D. DJE:kg . . 1 Thomas Iacono 800 E. Hopkins A-3 Aspen, Co. 81611 `303) 925-3780 Citv of �spen Board of adjustment 13C S. 6alena St . Aspen, Co. 81611 RE: Case # 89-2 ( 80elens-824 E. Hyman ) February 27, 1989 To Whom it may concern [ own unit # A-3 at the Larkspur condominiums at 800 E. Hopkins Ave. , and am definitely opposed to any increase in non-conformitv of an already non-conforming structure. The property in question already looks too oversized for its lot and a second floor would only add to its mass. Sincerely. 1, E8 15-10� 130th Strieet �oc�t, 7Z Zl. 11356 February 21, 1989 The City of Aspen Board of Adjustments 130 ,South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attn: Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk Re: Case 89 - 2 Gentlemen: In reference to the variance requested by Mr. Gregory S. Boehlens of 901 E.Hyman Street, I wish to make it clear that I have no objection to granting the request. I am the owner of Conodminium #2, Chateau Blanc, 901 E. Hyman and welcome the idea that the manager is living nearby in comfortable housing. Very truly yours, ;t- -- ,V Emil J. Stenger /ejs REAL ESTATE SALES•RENTALS•PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 600 FAST MAIN•ASPEN,COLORADO 81611•W/925.5757/0UfSIDE COLORADO 800/642A210 O, 0 0 °q u►c. March 1 , 1989 The Aspen Board of Adjustments 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Co. 81611 Re: Zoning Variance Dear Sir: In regards to case #89-2 , at location Lot Q, Block 31 , East Aspen Addition, 824 E. Hyman. Stirling Homes is the managing agent for the East Hopkins Condominium Association located at 825 E. Hopkins . As a representative of the Board of Directors , who are also homeowners , Richiutti , Knode and Shiekman, the decision is to object to the variance application by Gregory S . Boelens . Some of the objections are, blocking a view from the East Hopkins Homeowners and also the design of the structure would need to be submitted for review. Any questions , please feel free to contact me . Sincerely, Jim Brooksher Manager JB/pn LAMI O/MCti COHEN. SHAPIRO, POUSHER. SMIEKMAN ANO COHEN tbMY111O M.MWrp f+tww.1.Congo �►�NIIwDIl+O ►rtvl M.Owloto.." t�►Ktl COlAp sq.nex ti,A4AONA , tnurle lt*n trltlT L!U/R.6 wt#O• e+OwAM a *et j»ptA Qltl t0e•��ta �YtM/•�,1IL Au"t• MApMR�.MYtOt /i trw.a a auswae Mang R AA�rnot MiVeQ[L PlM1A,OOPOSYLVANIA 10101, KIM M'rRM'tp� MGM A tall• �tatwd�.wM:nMAn rNn�r.Ieykt. muff i NIJMnTw trw10luhn• t;Is!l01aS00 MMr*1 a.oui.aCM rlCnAt�A le,Mr •e"qp �,•1/f IN •eyOy►.�.ALCn• Hew rtw#tY OM" t,•!Or t � town W mum w4rW\ •!• etMO d.OU'RM awt�s0 fto" "" "&OtLh w t� Itn t=O/pAtR CW*p etA Us""6 r•�eMt •�•tItI1,0�71Cn• .JnOwnOa iOywto. fir ll'►jQlt t1�t•Wlt.olne TwO� MMtM r.rrC1ltlO *AMA*.e,tiwl/tll Us""t.lOtR60 Yaw It.wAmmaA p ..,,' .JW1( cry NeA J 11661011 40~ taLlo"" •�tt OMU/OAUw AQW 4 M.41W."At.A •In a."fttA fra..tw V.+.*rd& ott.tt+MAlhtn L tCW"4 oqp VAIA A L MMIMn �� t�-R�".O►1LRt tad t!tIR♦•�3�!♦ Met a wMnts• IPWO4.tMbMN• erevelk a mot!• '"awo wi-t►y"Rp &4Aft"M.Cpwq MILAW ranee M.vtl�p �ona"A o .• ttt•wt ttnu r VNew brw a O^kW*tt A01116nAta 6 11••At0 MOM OJAI.. 0ta1M L We ON" �lt1.Mf 6ON A Mt♦nt• �i-r. tLW tAMOn..MIIO,y11. 40na•.1Y8846 +deL r •tlMt frOr• ft mlT+e!.NUMn•A• /OOfJR L 41RUM06"A.44.6 r"nyy w.46WK. •iMnt'rw ihtOt6 MAr�t1MAL :r1p0%w. t• syrvl+Hwb'e r *V4111186 r ap ff N Afltwf#lOOtO• OMn M &&dpw r4c"RYi t•$-O Mt a• •Ira r,spy• 004'"0 a 4�OlwaA►wsryHr atwt M no". .t Mrlut IwW A.4ftim" •MttYA M.AIMdMrA1tA MAAIe A Wrty n!• 7 •mof": DATE OF TRANSMISSION: TIME OF TMISMISSION: ELECOPIER COVER LETTER VANE COMPANY/F&; CITY/STATE: TELECOPIER# _ © Z tf c. 3"72 CONFIRMATION# - - - - FROM: f• OF C N, SK PIRO, POLISHER, SAIEXMAN AND COHEN PSF'S BUILDING, 12 S . 12TH STREET PRILADELPHIA, PA 19107 TELECOPIER: (215) $92-4329 AR.E TRANSMITTING PAGES, IyCLUnING THIS COVER LETTER, 'FROM PANAFAX P9 TUT."- IF TRANSMISSION IS 'NOT COMPLETE, CALL OFFICES SERVICES AT (215) 922-1300 X 3903 . NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Cosa #89-2 GREGORY 8. BORLENS BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen of June 25, 1962, as amended, a public hearing will be held in the Council Room, City Hall , Aspen, Colorado, (or at such other place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the 2oninq Ordinance, Chapter 24 , Official .Code of Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. if you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance , as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. The particulars of the hearing and of the requested variance are as follows: QAte and Tima of KHI1 Date: March 2 , 1989 Times 4100 pm. Owner for Varian Aaae1 t fog VarAancv: Name: Gregory S. Boeiens Gregory S. Boelens Address: 901 E. Hyman Wcatiop Or delg'Uu D RtttX' Lot Q, alock •31 , East Aspen Addition Location: 824 E. Hyman. Varlatiae_ Raa_Uestad: Property is located in the RMF zone category. Chapter 241 Section 5-206"sideyard setback for a 3 ,000sgft detached lot is minimum of 5ft each side . The structure currently encroaches into both setbacks. Applicant appears to be asking to further this non-conforming structure by building a second story that will increase the non-conformity by 4ft on the west side and 2ft on the east side of the structure. Chapter 24 Section 9"10.3 (c) (1) -A non-conforming structure shall not be extended by an enlargement or expansion that increases non-conformity. Tdill alxglicant a st&� Yes s _ Ito: ,, J m1.s r1 �-v hf Amnon %^ArA of AA411aFmontA NAME CORRECTION and CONTINUATION NOTIFICATION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case #89-2 GREGORY S. BOELENS BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen of June 25 , 1962, as amended, a public hearing will be held in the Council Room, City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such other place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24 , Official Code of Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. The particulars of the hearing and of the requested variance are as follows: Date and Time of NeetincV. Date: February 23 , 1989-------To be continued. Time : 4 :00 pm. Owner for Variance: Appellant for Variance: Name: Gregory S. Boelens Gregory S. Boelens Address: 901 E. Hyman Location or description of property: Lot Q, Block 31 , East Aspen Addition Location: 824 E. Hyman. Variance Requested : Property is located in the RMF zone category. Chapter 24 , Section 5-206-sideyard setback for a 3 ,000sgft detached lot is minimum of 5ft each side . The structure currently encroaches into both setbacks. Applicant appears to be asking to further this non-conforming structure by building a second story that will increase the non-conformity by 4ft on the west side and 2ft on the east side of the structure. Chapter 24 Section 9-103 (c) (1) -A non-conforming structure shall not be extended by an enlargement or expansion that increases non-conformity. Will applicant be represented by counsel: Yes No: X The City of Aspen Board of Adjustments 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado81611 Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk