Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19950803RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 3, 1995 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. He requested roll call. Present at the meeting were: Remo Lavagnino, Rick Head, Ron Erickson, Jim Iglehart, and Howard DeLuca. Excused were: Charlie Paterson and David Schott. CASE #95-8 STAPE LIMITED LIABILITY CO., DAVID STAPLETON Lavagnino stated, it is requested, the property is located in the "O" Office Zoning Category. Corner lot rule requires that the side yard on the corner be reduced by l/3 of the front yard required. Sec. 3-101 Yard (c) Aspen Land Use Code front yard required setback is 10 ft., therefore, the yard required on the side is 6'8". Applicant appears to be requesting a l'4" setback variance for the side yard bordering a street. Lavagnino stated to the applicant, please identify yourself for the record, and do you have an Affidavit of Posting? (The Affidavit of Posting is attached in record.) Don Stapleton, the applicant, stated, David is not here, but I'm part of the family. Dick Fallin, of Baker Fallin Associates, introduced himself. Lavagnino stated, would you like to expand on why you want this variance? Stapleton stated, when we were going through HPC, after several meetings, it was discussed at one particular meeting, the Krabacher house, next door to us on the west side, is a small miner's cottage, and during the conversations at a couple of those meetings we talked about, maybe, if we could move our house east a little bit it would open the corridor up between our house and Krabacher's cottage. Lavagnino stated, they meet setback requirements between the two of you, as they exist right now? Stapleton answered, that is correct. Lavagnino asked, why do you want to spred it out a little bit further, for what reasons? Stapleton replied, just to make the BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 3, 1995 alleyway between our house and Krabacher's house a little bit more space so that it would give a bigger viewplane through there. Fallin stated, one of the things that happened during the HPC approval process was, that Krabacher's building was historically designated and it is a small cottage with an addition that is put on the rear of it toward the alley. Amy (Amidon) and the Board were very concerned that the Stapleton building would cut the view off to the cottage from the corner, and they were trying to maintain as much distance between, and open up as much of the view, of the corridor as we could. So, we are here, really, at the request of HPC; they are the ones who asked us to go before your Board and see if we could get the encroachment to move it over about 16 inches. Lavagnino asked, do you have a letter from HPC? Fallin replied, we requested a letter several months ago, Amy told me that she had written one, but I never got a copy, and Bill (Drueding) just said he didn't have a copy either. Lavagnino stated, and Amy isn't here, right? Drueding stated, no, it is not historically designated. It is in the historic overlay zone along Main Street. Head stated, but does not HPC have the right to vary variances? Drueding replied, only if it is historically designated. This is not designated. Head asked, if it is not designated, why are they referring it to us? Drueding answered, it is on the historic overlay. All Main Street requires HPC approval, designated or not. Lavagnino stated, and it affects the house that they have this be designated. It affects that house. Drueding stated, we can always get the letter later. Lavagnino stated, yes, I understand, I was going to suggest that. Drueding continued stating, this is from a September 9, 1993 meeting where Amy does say, here, that they would prefer an easterly sideyard corner setback, 5; and then, 6.660 on the westerly side (referring to a document). Drueding passed the document to Lavagnino. It was noted that the document stated 6 ft., 8 on the western side. Lavagnino asked, how does the Planning Office view the aspect of traffic and the usual need for a 6'8" corner lot? Drueding stated, 2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 3, 1995 I feel it is still an important consideration. Lavagnino asked, in this particular area, is that why? Drueding explained the importance of the corner. Fallin stated, the west setback, which is the common property line between Krabacher and Stapleton, is a 5 foot required setback. The easterly side, since it is a corner lot, you can pick which one is front; Main Street is front or he can reduce the side yard which is a 10 foot requirement, 1/3 down to 6'8. So, that's an existing required side yard setback on that street. So, what you may want us to do is move the building over to the east, 1 foot, 4, so the west setback now becomes 6 foot, 4, and the easterly becomes 6 foot, 8, minus 1 foot, 4, that's 5 foot, 4, I guess. That's not for the entire building, as you can see on the plan, the rear half of the building, I think, does not encroach, just the front half of the building does, on that side yard. Drueding asked, what would the westerly setback be, again? It was answered, 6 foot, 4. Lavagnino asked, show me on this plan here what you are talking about. Fallin showed the Board on the plan and there was discussion at random. Head asked, Dick, has this plan changed at all from the last time we granted the variance? Fallin stated, I think there was a conceptual on that in 1993; there have been some minor changes through the design process. Drueding stated, on the paper I gave Remo that says there is a continuation of that hearing because Krabacher had not been properly noticed. The minutes from that original meeting are not available. It states in the paper that they know that they have to come back for the side yard setback. Lavagnino asked, were the minor changes on the exterior, or did you expand the envelope? Fallin stated, it was mainly windows, the roof lines, gables, that type of thing. Iglehart asked, this whole thing was written by HPC to move it 16", for the purpose of being able to get a better view? Fallin replied, they want to maximize the impact to Krabacher's building which is an historic structure. 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 3, 1995 Iglehart stated, you "guys" don't necessarily need this to happen or want this to happen. Fallin stated, we'd like for it to happen. Iglehart stated, you would? Fallin replied, it is a new structure and there is no real benefit to us one way or the other. A little more room they were very interested in achieving because of the smallness of that little cottage, and that's the issue before us. Head stated, what interests me, is that, if they think it is tight now, wait until whoever gets Krabacher's house builds out to their setbacks. It's going to come over another 5 feet. There was discussion at random and Lavagnino stated, they are getting other considerations in some areas, maybe they can because it is historically designated. You see, they can manipulate whatever they want and they can have covenants to say, on this side you can't come to whatever it is. Drueding stated, Krabacher has been talking to the Planning Department about expansion of his existing house. Lavagnino asked, towards the west? Drueding replied, I don't know that. There is a possibility that they may be expanded to the 5 foot setback. Lavagnino stated, but it is under HPC control. Drueding stated, but HPC would have difficulty telling them they couldn't do it to their setback. Lavagnino stated, they would? Drueding replied, I believe so. I think with this particular building they are concerned more with the front, I believe most of the construction is going to be more in the rear, they want to preserve more of this front area. On the rear they would be going out to the setbacks, on the rear portion of that easterly lot. Fallin stated, I think you are right, I think the reason that they are talking about the two issues, is that Krabacher seems on having intentions on moving his building a little bit closer to the front and closer to the Hickory House in order to feature it more from a longer distance on Main Street. So, they felt then, that Stapleton's Building was shifted over as much as they comfortably felt it could be, the 16 inches, and then, in the future, if he does, in fact, develop that property and move that building away from Stapleton, then they were getting the kind of the niceness of all that little cottage construction. 4 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 3, 1995 Lavagnino stated, so, in affect, you're saying they wouldn't benefit then if they went to the west, they wouldn't want to use that 5 foot setback. Fallin stated, it is the cottage structure itself, they want to get away from the Stapleton building as far as they can, I think, that is probably their intent. So, we're trying to help the process, we don't have a real problem by moving over the 16 inches to really maximize all that. We do not object to the HPCs request. Erickson asked, it was a request? Fallin stated, yes. Erickson stated, a wish, a hope, a desire? Erickson asked, do you have a picture of the building? Fallin showed Erickson the drawing and there was discussion at random between the Board regarding the porch and where it could encroach and where it could not encroach. Lavagnino stated, my concern is, that we just don't know what is going to happen to the Krabacher property. Erickson stated, I don't think it is our concern. Lavagnino stated, it would be if they moved it, for instance, 5 feet off to the setback. The reason we are giving it to them, is that they wanted that open space. DeLuca stated, our concern has to be whether this is going to obstruct the vision at the corner of people looking up the street. Lavagnino stated, I don't have any problem with this from a safety standpoint, which is why it is written in the ordinance that it should be 6 feet, 8 inches for a corner lot. I don't see a problem there. What I have difficulty with is why are we granting this variance? Head stated, in the past we have weighed heavily on the recommendations of HPC. Lavagnino stated, that's right, and the recommendation is that they want this space. How far away is the side yard from within the Krabacher property? It was answered, 10 feet. Lavagnino stated, my concern is the size. Lavagnino stated, we are giving them a side yard, we're pushing the side yard away, not the front. So, my concern is that the existing structure or any addition would go to that 5 foot setback, and I 5 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 3, 1995 would think that HPC would have enough control to say, no, we don't want you to go there. Can they do that? Drueding stated, they can do that, but they are not inclined. I don't think they've ever restricted someone's setback. Lavagnino stated, well, I guess I want to know the intent of why we are granting the variance, here. That's the problem that we are having. Maybe, if we grant this variance, put in the form of a resolution. Lavagnino closed the public portion of the meeting. Iglehart stated, usually we follow HPCs recommendation and try to accommodate what they have in mind. I don't want to second guess Amy and HPC on this, I sometimes don't understand how they work, but they seem to do an O.K. job. So, I would be in favor of granting it, based on the fact that HPC has recommended this for some reason. Lavagnino stated, would you add to that it would not jeopardize the viewplane of the traffic patterns from a safety standpoint by granting this variance. I want to tie it into a practical difficulty or some excuse that we might have, not just rely on HPCs recommendation since we don't have it and since we don't know the intent. We are talking about opening the space here so he can get a better view. But, you know, who cares. Iglehart stated, I don't know how I can call it a hardship based on them, but on the other hand, I'm going with HPC. Erickson stated, I think the HPC state is a wish. I wish HPC would say, I wish you would make your house 1,000 feet smaller, then we wouldn't have any problems. I don't hear any of those things from HPC, all I hear is grant variances for this and that. This is a brand new building, they can build it anyway they want. I like what they have done here in terms of porch and everything like that, but they could do all that without a variance. I would probably not grant a variance because I can't find a hardship here, and I don't think HPCs request is based on a hardship. I heard what you were trying to say to tie it in. I don't know how to make that work. If we could come up with a hardship or a practical difficulty here, I would grant the variance, it is a minimum variance, I don't have a problem with it, but I just can't find one. Lavagnino stated, In affect, what we have been told was the reason for moving it, is to get a better view of the historic building. 6 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 3, 1995 Erickson stated, I think that's the same thing as, I'll respect you in the morning; who knows what's going to happen tomorrow from that structure. I don't know. We've had cases in the past where people have come to us and sworn on their mother's grave that they were going to do such and such, and the next thing is they are doing something else. Lavagnino stated, but HPC has control over that. Erickson stated, but we don't know what kind of control. I think their objective in their criteria is different from ours. Their's is to promote and highlight historically significant buildings and they have a lot of powers to do that. They can grant a variance to move that house to a 5 foot front yard setback if they want, I'm not saying they will, but they have the power to do that with an historically significant building. We can't, can we? So, they have the power to do with whatever they want with an historical structure, I just want to let them deal with it, and if they need our help they can come back in front of us. Erickson continued stating, I am really opposed to any type of conditional variance, after what happened two weeks ago, a month ago, the Gary Moore thing. I thought it was a conditional variance and nobody understood it, we had to have another meeting on it. Lavagnino stated, understanding is one thing, but being specific about something that we know, is another. Drueding stated, resolutions will solve that. Head stated, I am prepared to grant this variance subject to two things. They don't get to build on the west side up to the setback and two, provide us with a letter from HPC confirming those discussions and what they're recommending. DeLuca stated, I just wish HPC wouldn't do this to us all the time. I have to agree with Ron, there's no practical difficulty, there's no hardship, however, looking at the situation like this, even if the next door neighbor or whoever it may be in the future, decides to build to the setback; if we move that building over that much, it is going to give us that much more space in between, even if they do build over the setback. If we don't allow them to move the building over, then, all of a sudden it going to look like this, and the problem with setbacks on this street is that 10 feet between two buildings is ridiculous. The thing of HPC wanting a better view of the historic structure is probably true, I don't think 16 inches is going to give them a whole lot. I'm not afraid 7 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 3, 1995 of them building up to the front setback line because that's not going to make a difference in anybody's view from the street turning the corner, the rear isn't going to make a difference, the side is going to make a difference as to how much distance we have in between the two buildings. We don't have any control as to what they are going to do with the next door neighbor's house, unfortunately. If we did, we could say, O.K., you keep your structure 1 foot 4 on this side, and you keep your 1 foot 4 that side, then, we have the lesser of two evils. DeLuca stated, another thing that concerns me, we're talking about a section that's probably 25 or 30 feet long of actual office space or living space or whatever you want to call it. The problem is if we don't move the building over they are obviously going to build right on the setback line, because they have no other alternative. Drueding stated, the hardship is HPC. Lavagnino stated, it isn't fair to them (referring to applicants). They have built this thing according to code and put in into the place where they were allowed to put it. Lavagnino stated, I'm going to open up the public hearing just to ask you one question? How imminent is this in your building plans? The reason I'm asking the question is, from my particular purpose I would like to table this for either a week, or for as long as we can get a more definitive letter or recommendation, or Amy being here, so we can actually hear or record what her reasoning is, and that we can question her and be satisfied. There is just this nebulous area that arbitrarily granting you a variance because of something that they might or might not do, is doesn't stand well with me, particularly. I can make a decision, but when I don't have enough information on the facts of what might happen, I would probably vote against it, right now, but if I had some sufficient reasons for granting it, through a letter or a recommendation and where we could question Amy, I think I would be more in favor of, at least, looking at it. So, I'm asking you, is this an imminent building problem for you, can you wait a week? Fallin stated, waiting a week wouldn't hurt, but I would like to point out to you that the real issue here is the historic resource that we are losing in the town. That's the real issue, it's not Stapleton's Building and what it is going to do, it is the visual loss of part of the historic aspects of Aspen that HPC is really concerned about. This little cottage is one of the last cottages 8 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 3, 1995 in town that is really well-defined and is one of the original structures. They really want to showcase that piece. I've heard arguments with HPC about 6 inches, you and I have had arguments over 9 inch setbacks. This is big-time "stuff" in the historical "stuff"; it is not an insignificant request. So, I think that's a good basis for a hardship. Lavagnino stated, we don't want them to negate what you are talking about by using their right to meet the setback. I want to make sure that Amy knows, out of our considerations, that we don't want them to move it. If we are going to give you space between the buildings we want to keep it there. DeLuca asked, how far back does the cottage go back on this footprint? There was much discussion at random and Fallin showed on the blueprint where the cottage was. MOTION Head stated, I move that we table this applicant until Monday, August 7, 1995 at 4:00 p.m. Motion was seconded, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. CASE #95-9 DOUG ALLEN Lavagnino stated, the property is located in the AH Zoning Category. Front yard setback was set by Planning & Zoning Commission. Section 301 Yard (A) (5) does not permit slabs greater than 30 inches below natural grade (Aspen Land Use Code). Applicant appears to be requesting a 4 foot 6 inch excavation into the front yard for a driveway. Doug Allen, owner of the property, introduced himself and made the presentation. He stated, as you can tell from this lot it is a pretty small lot, and you can look at the "topo" and see how steep it is. It is an employee lot and it is not large enough to accommodate a garage other than underneath the house. So, the "topo" is such, and the lot when I purchased it, already had the foundation dug for the access to the garage, and it is the only place you can put a garage. This is a private street, and they don't allow parking on the street. 9 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 3, 1995 Drueding stated, this is the last under the old code. He came in under the old code. Anything future will be handled at first by the Review Design Board. It is part of the new code, it is a new Board and they will be able to give variances. DRAB will be able to give these variations, they will not be brought before you. You may still get one, but I'll explain that after this meeting. Allen stated, incidentially, they have already approved this? Lavagnino asked, who has? Drueding clarified and stated Allen had gone through the 85% Overlay Committee. Lavagnino asked, does anyone on the Board have any questions? There were none. MOTION Head stated, I move we approve Case #95-9, under the same basic reasons we've granted the same variance here. Iglehart seconded. Voting commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. Drueding stated Leslie Lamont wished to come before the Board to explain the new Design Review Board, and that a time and date would be forthcoming. Meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk 10