Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19890615 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 15, 1989 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4'00 P.M. A G E N D A I. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL II. MINUTES MARCH 23, 1989 MARCH 301 1989 III. CASE #89-9 GEORGE SHAW IV. CASE #89-11 TERRI SCHIFF RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 15, 1989 Vice Chairman Charles Paterson called meeting to order at 4: 00pm. Answering roll call were Ron Erickson, Anne Austin, Rick Head, Josephine Mann and Charlie Paterson. Remo Lavagnino arrived in time to answer roll call. MINUTES MARCH 23, 1989 MARCH 30, 1989 Rick made a motion to approve minutes of March 23 and 30, 1989. Anne seconded the motion with all in favor. CASE #89-9 GEORGE SHAW Remo read the variance request. (attached in record) George Shaw: Presented affidavit of posting and pictures. (attached in record) What I am trying to do is build back to the roof overhang. I am trying to do this for several reasons. I have a growing family. I don't have a lot of money. If I have to go any other way, I would have to gut the interior and do the whole thing over. Our master bedroom is 100sgft and is really tight. If I did have this 1ft6in encroachment this would allow me to do my master bedroom in a different area of the house. There is a letter from the only person who would see the construction, the Johnsons. (attached in record) In the letter they are very much in favor of it because it will clean that area up back there a lot and make it look a lot more presentable. They are literally the only ones that will have a view of what I am doing. Basically it is a question of not having enough money to do it in a more extensive way and try to accommodate my growing family. The last thing I could say to you is that I think it makes a lot of common sense to do it . this way--and not spend 3 or 4 times more money in doing it any other way. I don't have the money in the first place and I really need this help from you folks. Remo: The growing family and not having any money are not considerations for this board as a reason for granting you a variance. We have specific guidelines that address practical difficulty or a hardship.- BAM6. 15.89 George: No money is a practical difficulty. Remo: Unfortunately those are not our criteria for granting you a variance. George: For my neighbor's purposes, there is a real ugly looking large brown storage shed in this end of the property. If I can go ahead and build over this overhang, I can put in a wonderful outdoor storage shed here that would make his view out of his back a lot more palatable for him. At this point I don't have the money to do the whole interior in order to make the children's bedrooms bigger--they are really tiny. I would like to come out that extra space. The calculation of the exact amount of footage in the variance is 15 square feet. Remo then asked for comments from the public. There were none. Remo then asked for comment from the staff on this case. Bill Drueding: There is no problem with the zoning. This area a year ago was a 5ft side yard setback. Now it is 10. That was changed May a year ago. Remo then closed the public portion of the meeting. Josephine: This is really a very small request. We have to establish a hardship or a practical difficulty. This is such a little request in an area that is definitely not crowded. There is lots of space around there. So it seems to me that we can figure out some legitimate way of granting this. Rick: This is so minuscule that if we could come up with some kind of legitimate practical difficulty or hardship, I don't see a problem with it especially in light of the change in the zoning in regard to the side yard setback. Anne: I agree with especially that last comment that Rick just made regarding the change in the zoning. I think that this is so minimal. It definitely takes into consideration the neighbors and the impact. I would be in favor of granting it. Charlie: I have trouble in finding a hardship. Technically with what was presented there is no hardship other than that the zone 2 BAM6. 15.89 was changed a year ago. I would consider that. Otherwise I wouldn't. Ron: It is a small variance. But I would not grant the variance because I think the zone change results from something that really exists for everyone. If we throw out the economic issues I think there are plenty of opportunities here to expand the house without going into a setback. I don't see a hardship. Remo: I am inclined to agree. The terrible thing about this is it really has no adverse effect on anyone or anything. The whole thing is that it really doesn't meet our criteria. There are other solutions to it. There are indentations that you can make - - - and according to his plans it comes out right at the bedroom. All he has to do is indent that house 1. 6in and he doesn't need a variance. These are all new walls anyway. All he would be losing is a foot and a half in the master bedroom. I am opposed to granting the variance. Josephine: I could agree with you if this were for a larger area. But for this small an area it seems to me that this does no go against the spirit of the general plan. And that it is really picayune for us to deny that small a space. I do not agree with basing the special circumstances in this case upon the change in side yard setback. Anne: I think there is a practical difficulty in doing that indentation just for 1ft6in. It is really picayune like Joe says. I think this thing is so close to conforming that it is a practical difficulty. Rick: He could just leave that wall alone right there and not have to have the expense of moving it or putting a footer down and just put that effort right over into this side. Remo reopened the public portion of the meeting. Discussion followed regarding placement of bathroom, plumbing etc. George: This is just the most cost-effective way for me to house my growing family. Remo asked for further public comments. There were none and he closed the public portion of the meeting MOTION 3 BAM6. 15.89 Josephine made a motion to grant this variance. Anne seconded the motion. Anne, yes , Rick, no, Josephine, yes, Charlie, yes, Remo Lavagnino, no. Variance denied. CASE #89-11 TERRY SCHIFF Remo read into variance request. (attached in record) Affidavit of posting was turned in. (attached in record) Discussion followed regarding condition and placement of posted sign. It was determined to hear the case. Joe Krabacher presented a letter regarding a disputed parcel between this applicant and adjacent property owners, Martha and Paul Aspergren. (attached in record) Fred advised the Board that in his opinion that this variance request would have no bearing on the disputed parcel. Marti Picket, Attorney for the applicant: Since our last meeting with you we have had meetings with Fred and the Planning Office and our biggest solution has been to go forward with a lot line adjustment. As you can see the planners are prepared to grant the lot line adjustment if we get the variance from the Board of Adjustment. They will do that by consent and agreed that that is a good solution. The house is a really strange architectural design and configuration. The most obvious architectural element is the roof overhang which is now non-conforming into the setback by 2ft. We are requesting a 3ft variance to allow it then to go into the setback for 5ft which will then legalize the structure. Before we were asking for 10ft. By getting the lot line adjustment we are now minimizing that to only 5ft. This house is unique in that it is not currently acceptable or liveable for a handicapped or elderly person and the applicant needs to immediately house her Mother. The strange spiral staircase that is there now and that is being changed structurally. The only other possible location for the Mother is in that back bedroom and we need some additional room for her to live and just to be able to be mobile in a wheel chair. 4 BAM6. 15.89 The biggest practical difficulties with the property itself are problems that were created by previous owners prior to Terry's purchase of the property. The strange configuration of a lot itself. The previous owner did things like convey various pieces of property to neighbors. In fact Terry has done that with her immediate neighbor to the south to help them out with some FAR and setback problems. That created a shorter setback on that side for her so it was difficult for her to expand in that direction. As you heard you can see the difficulty we have in expanding toward the side where the quiet title action is at issue. It may well be that if that quiet title action is successful for the adjacent owners that will have to be brought back in at least 5 or loft. We can't expand very practically on the side of the street because of the garage. It would take a total remodel of the roof in order to expand in any other direction. One of the reasons Ms. Schiff bought this adjacent property in the first place was because it was a real eyesore. She wanted to have control of the adjacent property just for this very reason. She could then design this in such a fashion as to leave the desired amount between the structures as would be required under the code. The covenants that we have prepared would restrict both of these property owners now and in the future to ever remodel or come back for a variance or whatever to ever make these closest points any closer. Currently they would be at lease 25 feet from the closest point apart. The only other thing I would point out to you is in Joe Krabacher's letter he states that he thinks this is improper because what we are trying to do is build to the maximum FAR without waiting to see what happens in the quiet title. I would point out that we will still be well within the permitted FAR even if the quiet title property is deleted from this property. So that certainly is not our intent. Remo: You are under the square footage by how much? Roger: 466sgft. Remo: And you are saying that if you lose that you would still be under by 300ft. You talk about her buying this property so that she would have control of the adjacent property. That implies that she could have resolved the setback problem at the same time having had 5 BAM6. 15.89 that control. She could have accommodated setbacks that would have revolved around resolving the setbacks between the 2 pieces of property. Marti: The setbacks for this property are fine. She, in remodeling this, has kept the 20ft setback as required. Remo: I understand that but since she bought that property she could have designed that house to push it away a little bit more to accommodate her remodel for this property. Marti: That is exactly what she did but she could not do anything about this setback over here. This property line exists. Now what we are trying to do is to get the lot line adjustment. Remo: But you are still asking for a variance. My point is that she could have resolved it without getting a variance. She could have designed the house in such a way that she would not have been required to come before us for a variance. She didn't do that. She had that opportunity and I don't think she took advantage of it. The elderly Mother and live-in nurse--we cannot use that as a rational for granting you a variance. It is just not applicable. Then in your written presentation you state "This chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels of the same zone district" . What rights are being denied the applicant that are enjoyed by others in the same zone district? Marti: The basic one is the accessibility to an elderly handicapped person because of the design of this particular house and the architecture. Remo: That is not applicable to this Board. Marti: It is a criteria in the code for a variance--the fact that it is uniquely different from the other houses. Remo: But the housing of an elderly person is not. Then the other not valid consideration is anything that is aesthetically pleasing for the neighborhood. That is a subjective point of view and we don't know that for a fact. We don't take that into consideration. 6 BAM6. 15.89 The other issues relating to the property which were created by a previous owner seems to infer that you knew the problems or should have known the problems when the property was purchased. Marti: Certainly the quiet title action wasn't existing when she purchased the property. Remo: The installation of much needed insulation in the walls seems to me that you can install insulation in existing walls. I did get a call from your neighbor to the north. Her name is Carina Wang who owns property at 205 Midland. She misinterpreted what the variance was for and thought it was affecting her property. I indicated to her that it wasn't so she withdrew. Bill: We have setback rules. This has been taken to the other staff for a lot line adjustment. The applicant has been told to get a variance from the Board of Adjustment before we deal with it because they thought that is where that should be coming from. There are no unique problems with this. Rick: If a variance were granted, I noticed that the height would be 32 . 6. Somewhere I recall that 30ft is the height limit. Bill: We would amend this to include a variance for height which would increase the non-conforming by 2 and 1/2 feet. There followed discussion regarding increasing of a height non- conformity. Anne: On page one you discuss the remodeling the existing duplex. I don't see that as remodeling. I would say that is building a new duplex. You are saying you are remodeling it for long term resident housing. Is that to be deed restricted? Roger: No. Anne: So we don't know that that is to be long term resident. Remo asked for comments from the public. There were none. Remo closed the public hearing. Anne: I just don't see a hardship. I have a hard time granting this variance. Charlie: Right now the way it looks to me is the stairway could be accommodated whether we grant the variance or not. Originally 7 BAM6. 15.89 that was not the case. What concerns me is that they are not going to consider the lot line adjustment until we grant the variance. If we turn the variance down, they won't grant the lot line adjustment. So the stairway then becomes a problem again. Remo: No. The stairway works now. If they would use this now as a truncated portion, they don't need a variance. Charlie: And they don't have to do a lot line adjustment? Remo: No. Ron: I think there are other alternatives. Since the owner controls both these properties she can do anything she wants. MOTION Rick: I make a motion to deny this variance. Anne seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Anne, yes, Rick, yes, Josephine, yes, Charlie, yes, Remo, yes. Variance denied. Rick made a motion to adjourn meeting. Anne seconded the motion with all in favor. Time was 5: 45pm. 4�"V/,44— Jan' e . Carn , y Dep Clerk • (r 8 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case #39-9 George Shaw 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 dcny the request for variance. Particulars of the hearing and requested variance are as follows: Date and Time of Meeting: Date: June 15, 1989 Time: 4 : 00 p.m. Owner for Variance: Appellant for Variance: Nane: George Shaw George Shaw Address: 1210 Mountain View Drive Location or description of property: Location: 1210 Mountain View Drive Block 1, Lot 8 Variance Requested: Property is located in the R-15 Zone. Side Yard setback is 10ft .(Sec. 5-202 D5 Aspen Land Use Code) Applicant appears to be requesting a side yard encroachment of 1ft 6in with a house wall . Will appl - ,ant be represented by counsel: Yes: No., X The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk 215 south Monarch Aspen,Colorado 81611 Phone 303/925-3431 D O n ® O D e °� ti O June 13 , 1989 Asepn Board of Adjustments 130 S . Galena St . Aspen,Co 81611 Dear Sirs: Our house , 0051 Overlook Drive , is directly to the East of Mr . Shaw' s house . Mr . Shaw is seeking a variance to extend his sidewall 1 . 6 feet . As a neighbor who will be directly effected- I wanted to pass on to you that I do not have any objections to this zoning reauest . However , I would like to note that if the variz ance `could permit the Shaw' s to create a second level , without a well developed set of plans and architectural renderings , I would take exception to this variance . respectfully yours , rtz� jzr� NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case 439-11 Terri Schiff 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. Particulars of the hearing and requested variance are as follows: Date and Time of Meeting: Date: June 15, 1989 Time: 4: 00 p.m. Owner for Variance: Appellant for Variance: Name: Terri Schiff Martha C. Pickett Address: 295 S. Midland Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 Location or description of property: Location: 295 S. Midland Avenue Lot 7, Block 1, Promontory Subdivision Variance Requested: Property is located in the R-6 Zone. Minimum side yard setback for the lot area 5-10ft. (Sec 5-103 (D) (5) . Applicant appears to be requesting to add walls under a current roof encroachment for a variance needed of 7ft 11in. Will applicant be represented by counsel: Yes: X No: City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena, Aspen Colorado 81611 Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Jan Carney, City Deputy Clerk STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING OF NOTICE COUNTY OF PITKIN ) I, ROGER KERR, being duly sworn, state that, on June 5, 1989, I posted the property located at 295 South Midland Avenue, Aspen, Colorado, also described as Lot 7, Block 1, Promontory Subdivision, with a Notice of the Public Hearings to be held June 15, 1989, before the City of Aspen Board of Adjustment. i OGE KERR STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) he foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of June, 1989, by ROGER KERR. Witness my hand and officia seal. My commission expires: ���— Notary Public