Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19890706 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 6. 1989 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4:00 P.M. A G E N D A I. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL 11. MINUTES JUNE 15, 1989 III. CASE #89-12 GEORGE W. MURPHY RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 6 1989 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called meeting to order at 4 : 00pm. Answering roll call were Ron Erickson, Rick Head, Josephine Mann, Charlie Paterson, and Remo Lavagnino, Anne Austin was excused. Rick call in earlier in the day that he would be late. CASE #89-12 GEORGE W. MURPHY Remo read into the record variance request. (attached in record) The applicant presented the affidavit of posting. George Murphy: What I am trying to do because of the unique condition of my lot and the hole--basically the grade was altered when they originally built the building. Francis of the Zoning Department went out and looked at it and he agreed with me and told me to go ahead and do this. I have pictures showing where there are retaining walls all around me and it looks like when they built the building before the Concept 600 that they dug and retained back. Jim Wilson: The condition of excavation that he is talking about in his letter occurs on someone else's property. If you look down the alley it is not a gradual slope either. It comes down and it is not a gradual slope and the one part is steeper than the other. There was discussion at this point among the members of the Board regarding the hole and retaining walls. Rick arrived. Time was 4 : 08pm. George then showed photos taken from the 3rd floor, 2nd floor and 1st floor of the Concept Building demonstrating where roof is now and where it would be with variance requested. Charlie: I think people have been hauling the mine tailings out of there to put them in for fill in the old days and that is why it goes down in there. Charlie also asked about the trailer. George: It is temporary. That is where I am living until this is done. You get rid of the trailer and you will get a building that looks a lot nicer. Charlie: This is a good concept--the way you put that together. Rick: It is going to make the place look better. BAM7 . 6.89 There was then discussion as to whether a flat roof could be used. George: The problem is I need a higher working space in the shop. That is the reason for this request. After discussion with the engineer regarding going with a flat roof it was proven there would be no advantage in doing a flat roof. Charlie: I would rather grant the variance on the basis of what he is presenting us. I would just go ahead and grant it from wherever it is and be done with it. Ron: I guess this is considered a studio accessory dwelling unit. Is that what it is called, Bill? Bill: That is what it is called, Ron. Ron: Which makes it legal under the code. But the thing is have you taken some plans to the Building Department yet? I see here there is no minimum side yard setbacks. George: They have been approved. The only thing I am asking a variance for is the height. They have approved everything. I could start building today. Remo: I think what we have to do is what is before us--address what is before us at this point. Remo then asked for public comments. Blair Skiles: This is my wife, Martha Foster. We own a unit in the Concept 600 and I am President of the Association. I want to know what this is going to look like. George: (using pictures and sketches) This is what I am authorized to do. This is what I am asking for. We are talking basically 2 inches over 88 feet. There were people all talking at the same time here. I could not decipher it all. Remo: He is actually asking for 2 feet variance. Josephine: Is there going to be an antenna--a big dish or something like that? George: No. It is cable. 2 BAM7. 6.89 Rick: Right now for dishes, you have to go through the Building Department. Blair: That is very attractive. Remo asked if there were any more public comments. There were none and he closed the public portion of the meeting. Ron: I think I see a hardship with this building. I think the applicant has raised a probable cause backed up by Charlie as to removing dirt or tailings from that lot. It may have been higher at one time so the existing grade or normal grade would have been higher. Therefore, no variance would have been needed if the grade had stayed the same. Even if that weren't the case I would still give this variance because I think there is a hardship within the building itself. The applicant's business is a unique business in terms of dealing with large pieces of wood and metal. I think we ought to allow him to keep that business which he has been doing for 17 years. I think the structure of the building is such that if we are going to allow him to put a structure on top of that roof then I think we should grant him the 2 foot variance. I don't think it is going to affect the surrounding area one iota. Remo: We do know businesses change their uses. Buildings change their usages. And that shouldn't really be a criteria. Ron: That is right, Remo but I can't base today's decision on what is going to happen 20 years from now. Rick: I agree with Remo in his remarks to Ron's second argument. But I do agree with Ron's justification for the variance based on the property of the land and I think I would be in favor of granting this variance. Charlie: I am in favor of the variance. I think it is a minimal request and I do think that considering the land next door being on a higher elevation I feel that some of those mine tailings were removed when that building was built. It might have been a lot higher originally than even the first floor because mine tailings were dumped everywhere in this town in the old days. I just feel that it is a practical difficulty and I think the applicant is trying very hard to make a workable solution and I am in favor of granting the variance. Josephine: I agree that there is a practical difficulty because of the uncertainty about the grade there. I think there is a practical difficulty because of the block construction that limits just how flexible the re-working of the building can be. 3 BAM7. 6.89 I think that the Masterplan would be very happy to have more people living above or beside their spaces so that we would have less need for cars and parking places in this town. So all in all I am in favor of this variance. Remo: My feeling is that the evidence that has been presented is dubious at best as to whether what was natural grade or what was not at any given time. None of us have addressed the fact that maybe the dwelling unit could have been put inside the existing space. There- is - no -reason - for - us to -grant - additional - space necessarily for a particular need or convenience that he wants to expand--that he doesn't want to go into the space that he is now using for his business. I don't think it is up to us to determine that. Nobody on the Board expressed any concern about why he had to expand above the building and not utilize space already existing in the building. I will take it upon myself to believe the applicant in that some excavation took place and I would be willing to grant the variance MOTION Ron: I move that we grant the 24 inch variance requested by the applicant. Rick seconded the motion. Ron: I want to amend that motion. I want to make it 24 inches to the mid point of the roof line. Rick: I second the amendment. Roll call vote: Ron, yes, Rick, yes, Josephine, yes, Charlie, yes, Remo, yes. MINUTES JUNE 15, 1989 Ron: I make a motion we approve the minutes as corrected. Charlie seconded the motion with all in favor. Josephine made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Ron seconded the motion with all in favor. Time was 4:45pm. Ja, a M. Carney, ity Deputy C Vk ,i 4 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case #39-12 GEORGE W. MURPHY 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, 19,7112 , 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 coi:si.der an application filed with the said Board of �,.djustment 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 heetingl Date: July 6, 1989 Time: 4 : 00 p.m. Owner for Variance: Appellant for Variance: Name: George W. Murphy George W. Murphy Addre:.s: 615 E. Bleeker Location or description of property: Location: 615 East Bleeker Lot 2 Gignoux-Lynch Subdivision Variance Requested: Property is located in the S/C/I zoning category. Max-'-mum height is 32 feet to top of a flat roof or 32 feet to the midpoint .of a pitched roof. Applicant appears to be requesting a 24 inch height variance. 'Will applicant be represented by counsel: Yes: No: X The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, C lorado81611 Remo Lavagnino, Chairman - Jan Carney, Dep-ty City Clerk