Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19961024BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 24,1996 Ron Erickson called the meeting to order at 4:15 p.m. with Jim Iglehart, Howard DeLuca, and Dan Martineau present. Rick Head, Charles Paterson and David Schott were excused. Erickson noted that since there were only four members present, all four had to agree for any variance to be granted. He said that what they will do is close the public portion of the meeting, have commissioners comments and then open it up to the public. The Board will leave it up to the applicant to proceed or have it tabled to another time. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, said that procedure was fine. PUBLIC HEARING: CASE #90-10 714 SOUTH GALENA Ron Erickson said the applicant requested a variance for a covered entryway and enclosed storage for trash cans which extended to the wall on the lot line. Erickson asked for the affidavit of posting. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, stated for the record the affidavit for posting was in compliance with the law and the Board had jurisdiction to proceed. Erickson asked Robert Fritsch, Builder for Applicant, Michael Johns, why the Board should grant these variances. Fritsch provided photographs and plans showing the area where the variances were requested. He said that the retaining wall was 7 - 8 feet in height which boxes in the front entrance. Fritsch said his understanding was that the roof framework was installed by a contractor in 1991-92. He noted that the Building Dept. “red tagged” it (which was as it should be) because it was not in compliance. He was not the Contractor at that time. Fritsch stated that Michael Johns called him to fix the problem. He applied for a building permit and was rejected (as it should have been). Fritsch stated the problem (which was unique with this front entrance) was the height of the walls surrounding the entrance. He further noted the area was shaded and with snow an ice rink was created. Fritsch said the only place to put the trash cans was right in the front and there was a bear in the area. He commented if the bear was at the trash cans and a person walked out the front door, the bear would run him right over. He said it was logical to cover the roof and enclose the trash cans. Erickson asked how big the enclosure needed to be to enclose the trash cans. Fritsch replied 6’ long and 30” deep and was shown on the drawing. Erickson said 1 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 24,1996 there were two closets now and asked what they were used for at this time. Fritsch said they were for skis. Erickson commented that the applicant wanted to put a roof on the beams to enclose the roof to where it ends on the top of the retaining wall. Fritsch said the tails would be cut off so the roof would be directly over the wall. Howard DeLuca said the grade seemed to be subterranean. Fritsch replied that the retaining wall right across from the entrance was about 5’ and then it stepped up to almost 8’ high in the back. Jim Iglehart said that they were supposed to grant the minimal variance to accomplish the goal (if the board saw fit to do that). He asked if the two trash cans were to have an enclosure built over the top of the cans which lifted up a lid and drop the cans into the enclosure would accomplish the goal of keeping the trash cans out of the bears way. Fritsch said he had seen that done in a lot of areas and it doesn’t slow the bears down. He noted that behind closed doors would be a better enclosure. Dan Martineau asked if there would be something done on the other side because the Baker Fallin drawings show another new closet. Fritsch said that the closet already exists. No public comments. DeLuca said that his main consideration was the severe difference in grade which was about 5 feet. Martineau said he always had the same question: what kind of hardship was this. Is there really a hardship? DeLuca stated there probably was an ice build up that would be a danger and possibly create a hardship. Iglehart said that it seemed that the request was for more than was needed and if they gave up the ski locker for the trash cans, that would probably work. Erickson commented the roof covering may be considered a safety issue therefore causing a hardship and maybe give up one ski locker. Erickson opened the public hearing. Erickson asked the applicant if he wanted to go ahead with the motion. Fritsch said that he was willing to go ahead. Erickson said that he needed clarification for the roof . There are 3 or 4 major stone pedestals that the roof would rest on and they would be left open. He said that would be part of any variance that was granted, just the shed roof and nothing more. 2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 24,1996 MOTION: Erickson moved to deny the request for a side yard setback for the construction of a trash storage enclosure at 714 South Galena. Martineau seconded. ALL IN FAVOR, 4 - 0. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION: Erick son moved to grant a five (5’) foot side yard setback variance to allow a covered entryway at 714 South Galena as per drawings. This is to be a shed roof and not a complete enclosure. Martineau seconded. ALL IN FAVOR, 4 - 0. MOTION PASSED. PUBLIC HEARING: CASE #96-02 616 SOUTH GALENA David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, said the applicant could not be here again and he informed Patricia Kirianoff this was the last time for continuance. They could reapply with a new application. PUBLIC HEARING: CASE #96-11 1001 EAST HYMAN Ron Erickson stated that the applicant, Mark and Christin Tache, requested a 1.) 2’2” side yard setback variance for a new structure on Cleveland Street which would continue an existing non-conformance 2.) 6’7” setback on Cleveland for a variance to add a covered front porch 3.) 10’ variance for excavation on the Hyman Avenue side to provide courtyard entrance to a garden level ADU which may be up to 5’ below grade 4.) a parking requirement variance to allow the second of the required 2 off-site parking spaces be filled by existing gravel parking space in front of the garage off Cleveland. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, had received an affidavit of notice which was properly posted and the board had jurisdiction to proceed. Al Beyer, representative for applicant, Mark and Christin Tache, showed picture of the parcel as it looks now. He stated that Grandma Tache owned the house since 1962 and Mark and Christin want to build their own home and employee housing 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 24,1996 for Mark’s brother Mike. The lot is 3,000 non-conforming square feet. He noted they were allowed to build 2,400 sf house and the garage on the back was free if accessed from the alley, but they want to keep the garage on the back. Beyer said the neighbors who are here tonight, live in the apartment building next door and they probably feel today as Grandma Tache did when their building went up. Beyer demonstrated the size of the house and lot with the existing apartment building next door going 27’ straight up and about 40’ long. Beyer said the size of the new house is 4.5 feet to the property line on the Cleveland side had been there since about 1955. Beyer said the hardship was a non-conforming lot of record, that had been down zoned. Mark & Christin’s goal was to build 1600 sf for themselves and 500 sf for Mike. Erickson asked Beyer to come up and explain what they wanted to do on the site plan. Beyer said that they want to leave the garage where it was and then access the house from this side. He stated the ADU would be accessed from the Hyman side and the ADU would drop down 5 feet. Howard DeLuca asked the height of the peak. Beyer said the top peak was 30 - 31 feet from grade and that Ordinance 30 wanted higher peaks on roofs. Beyer said the neighboring structure created more of a solar shadow than the peak of this roof. Beyer stated they asked for the current footprint of the existing structure which is in a setback. The second thing they asked for was a covered porch and Ordinance 30 asked for covered porches. Erickson replied but not in setbacks. Beyer stated again the hardship was an extra narrow lot. He said this drawing illustrated along the set back they were allowed without variance to build a 6’ high stone wall as a fence. He also noted they were allowed, without variance, to build a 30” high deck to any amount within the setback. Beyer commented that they would like the floor level at 4’ so they asked for the deck 18” higher than it would be legally allowed. Beyer said that the character of the neighbor hood benefits from this new house and meets the goals of the Aspen Area Plan. If they were to place the structure farther back on the lot the building would be seen by the apartment next door. Beyer stated the 10’ setback variance for excavation was needed because it was more than the 30” currently allowed by code. He cited other instances of this variance with neighboring properties. Beyer said the last variance was about parking and not pushing the development onto the street. He stated that from the site plan you can see where the cars park now and straddle the property line. He noted the existing wide driveway allowed an 4 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 24,1996 18’ curb cut with gravel all the way up to the garage. He said nothing in the code prohibited parking on the access and all the cars would still park in the driveway (as they always have). He further commented that they were taking the car out of the garden. Erickson asked for public comments and noted that Geraldine Heyman’s letter will become part of the record. Geraldine Heyman, Public, said the houses across the street have a 10’ setback. She stated the ADU entrance could be from the garden instead of Hyman and could not see the hardship. She said the alley was not that congested and the Tache’s currently park on city property. Heyman stated that she appreciated Beyer’s concern with the viewplane from her building but did not see any change in viewplane if the parking was changed. Beyer asked if the neighborhood would benefit if the garage was made larger. He felt the current garage was part of the old Aspen tradition and the parking space had been there for 30 years of tradition on city property. Beyer stated that there were 54 homeowners contacted and the area was very dense but felt this project would not add density. Beyer and Heyman argued the parking issues of this off season time of the year. Dan Martineau asked what the objection was of making it a two car garage. Beyer responded to preserve the garage as an old Aspen historic scale. He said the exemption requested was to reduce the required parking spaces. Beyer said that the cost of a new garage or larger garage would be hard on Mark and Christin. Erickson stated that cost and aesthetics were not considered by this board. Beyer said the entire process of energy lost would be hard to justify: how many trees would it take was just not practical. He stated the alley entrance for the garage would create a larger impact on the already crowded alley. Jim Iglehart asked how the garage was currently being used. Beyer said there was a workbench on the side and currently there was not a car parked in it but the garage door worked. DeLuca asked if the stone wall could less impacting if it went up to floor level then it would be less massive. He stated that it would cut down on the mass and bulk (volume standard). Erickson noted that the length of the fence and the width of the deck dimensions were not on the plans. Stan Stevens, Public, said the 6’7” variance was very confusing. He thought they were asking for a porch in the 4’5” present setback 5 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 24,1996 from the property line to the present dwelling. Sara Thomas, Planner, said that however the board grants the variances, design will be effected. She noted on the entrance to the ADU they were required in the setback to have the minimum egress allowed and a light well was allowed in the setback. Beyer entered into the record the response to G.G. Heyman’s letter from Mark and Christin Tache with no hard feelings. Erickson closed the public portion of the hearing for comments from the Board. DeLuca asked if a multi-family, built to the lot lines, could be built and how many people could live there. Thomas answered that they could not change the use because it was a non-conforming lot, so they could not build a multi-family. DeLuca addressed the Board with the fact that an ADU was not always a choice, but either compelled to put in an ADU or pay CASH IN LIEU. DeLuca noted the 4 1/2 foot porch on the side of the house could be minimized. He said the ADU entrance seemed fine where it was indicated and parking was a problem in that neighborhood. Iglehart agreed with DeLuca. Martineau stated that he was in favor of . He said the City was right to a, b & c encourage building the porch. He said he saw no hardship for the parking was a d., problem and cannot see the hardship for eliminating one parking space. Erickson stated that he was comfortable with the 2.2 foot setback because the lot was small. He said that he would like to reduce mass and the 6.7 feet side yard setback. He noted the application showed a Hyman Avenue address. Erickson commented the ADU could be accessed on the South side of the building with the light well which would eliminate the variance. Erickson agreed that Martineau had a very good point about setting a precedent for parking on public property. DeLuca said that there was no requirement for a garage but off street parking must be provided. Erickson complimented Beyer on his design for a small residence on a small lot. He asked Beyer if he wanted to table his requests for the variances at this time. Beyer 6 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 24,1996 said he would like to “take what he could get” and proceed. He said that he understood that the board did not want to set a precedent with the parking. He asked what the minimum amount of porch would be acceptable. DeLuca stated that the stone wall was still a problem. Beyer asked if he could have a 4’ setback variance for a covered roof instead of a covered porch. DeLuca noted agreement on what it should look like now but after the project is built, it does not look like what was agreed upon. He said that he would rather see the design on paper. Hoefer responded that a week delay would be the advisable approach and would give the neighbors an opportunity to respond. Erickson asked if they could grant the 2.2’ setback variance today and reject or table the rest of the requested variances. He stated the next special meeting would be set for Thursday, November 7, 1996. Erickson closed the public meeting. MOTION: Martineau moved that a 2.2 foot setback variance on the Cleveland Street side for a new structure that would continue to maintain the proposed nonconformance. DeLuca seconded. ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION PASSED. MOTION: Erickson moved to table variance requests 2, 3, and 4 until November 7, 1996. Martineau seconded. ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSED. MINUTES MOTION: Dan Martineau moved to approve the minutes of September 12, 1996. Seconded by Jim Iglehart. ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION PASSED. The next regular meeting is scheduled for Thursday, December 12, 1996 at 4pm. Meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. 7 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 24,1996 Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 8 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 24,1996 CASE #90-10 714 SOUTH GALENA ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 1 CASE #96-02 616 SOUTH GALENA ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 3 CASE # 96-11 1001 EAST HYMAN ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 3 MINUTES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 7 9