Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19990513CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 13, 1999 Charles Paterson, chairman, opened the City of Aspen Board of Adjustment meeting at 4:00 p.m. with members Rick Head, Jim Iglehart, Howard DeLuca and David Schott present. City staff in attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Sara Thomas, Community Development Zoning Officer; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. MINUTES MOTION: Rick Head moved to approve minutes from Case #99-02, April 8, 1999. Jim Iglehart second. APPROVED 5-0. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None COMMENTS Jackie Lothian noted that the City Council would probably be interviewing the applicants for the city boards within the next month. PUBLIC HEARING: CASE #99- 03 CHATEAU CHAUMONT CONDOMINIUMS, UNIT #7A Charles Paterson, chair, opened the public hearing. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, stated that notice was provided but the list was not attached. (The list was provided to the city clerk’s office on May 18, 1999.) Sara Thomas stated that this building was built in 1968, when this type of construction and zoning were allowed, but now, it was non-conforming. She noted that this office space was part of a unit, which was connected with a residential unit. To convert back to residential was a two-step process to comply with density; the next review would be with P&Z for a change in use request. Thomas said that staff found no hardship to meet the criteria. The non-conformity could be maintained as an office, but not changed to residential. The applicant, Dale Eubanks represented by Michael Hoffman, requested a variance from the density requirements of the LT-R zone district to allow for the conversion of this existing office space into residential space. Hoffman asked for staff interpretation. He noted this had always been a separate condominium and the current space was not allowed under current zoning law. He 1 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 13, 1999 said there were 2 other units that had been converted to residential from office; Mr. Eubanks will limit the # of people if so desired by deed restriction. Hoffman distributed his review criteria for variance setting (exhibit #40); he felt there was a hardship. Thomas stated that the other building permits all represented residential remodels; these permits were for residential and not commercial. Peter Wolford, Chateau Chaumont manager, stated that #23 was the office for the Chateau Chaumont and was converted to residential. Hoefer explained to the board that this was not a board of equity but must be consistent with criteria presented and rule from that criterion. Rick Head asked if the # of bedrooms had gone up or was it always the same. Wolford stated there was a bedroom with an illegal use that was converted; there were now 48 bedrooms. Eubanks said that unit #23 was used as an office. He said he made the mistake and stated his unit #7A was an office; he was penalized because he was honest and now could not make the unit residential. David Schott asked when purchased if it was an office. Eubanks replied that is was an office. Wolford said the condo association didn’t care if it was residential or commercial but the parking was critical with only 11 spaces; there were no designated parking places, but on a first come first serve basis. Hoffman said that Dale placed a deed restriction, which puts his unit in full compliance with all of the homeowner’s requests. He said the parking was for only the owner with the exception that one renter would be allowed. Hoffman further stated that the deed restriction would include one adult per bedroom, if the variance was granted. There would be 3 bedrooms depending upon the proper egress for those bedrooms. Eubanks stated there was a plan to change the egress from access through the garage to the back stairwell, although there was no legal or code problem with the existing. He stated that he has owned the unit since 1978 and never had a clue about these problems. Eubanks said that if he abandoned the commercial use then he was left with 1500 square feet of unusable space. He noted this was brought about by applying to put in window well in this unit. He asked where the equity was from the city for someone who has lived here and owned a business here for all these years. Paterson asked if there was a change in the town over the years in this area. Eubanks replied there was a change and he moved his office down-valley about 5 years ago. He said the type of business to go into this space wasn’t a viable option for the homeowners and maybe there would be a takings scenario. Hoffman stated that the condominium declarations state that certain units can be used for commercial, but the underlying assumption was that all can be used for residential. He said that Mr. Eubanks just wanted to exercise his right for residential 2 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 13, 1999 when he bought it in 1978. Head said Eubanks bought it knowing it was an office. Eubanks responded that he bought it knowing it was office but it was also clear to use residentially. He said that he had to show consistent historic office usage. Hoefer noted the condominium declarations were not binding on the city; the city ordinance was the binding document which the finding was based upon. Hoffman stated that the board had to consider the equities forming a hardship. Head stated that this board could not consider financial hardship. Hoffman did not agree. Paterson stated the board of adjustment was a board of fairness for all sides. Eubanks stated that the space has not been rented or sold in two years. The board agreed that could be a function of price. Head asked if this unit could be converted to parking spaces and if those spaces could be sold. Thomas said the review process with P&Z might still be for a change in use. Head said there was a viable use as office space now. Jim Iglehart asked if there was a kitchen in the unit. Eubanks replied there was an office kitchen, not a full residential kitchen. Howard DeLuca asked if this was the only commercial use in the building. Eubanks answered that was correct. Iglehart, DeLuca and Schott concurred that office space was a bigger impact on the neighborhood than residential. Schott stated concern for 3 additional bedrooms without a parking provision. Head stated the variance was financially driven and parking was a problem. He said even though the economy has changed the board could not consider financial equity as a hardship. Head noted he would not vote in favor of this variance. Paterson said this was consistent with the AACP and felt there was a hardship because of the change in zoning and density requirements at the time this was built. DeLuca noted parking was a problem with only room for 11 cars and 48 bedrooms, 25 units, but asked to look to the future – public transportation can then service Aspen when cars won’t be needed. Paterson noted that not too long ago parking wasn’t considered for any commercial or residential units and now it was unfair to apply the present or future situation without considering the change a hardship. Iglehart asked staff what review was necessary to go through to get 3 bedrooms approved. Thomas noted that P&Z would review the change in use to allow residential conversion and a parking variance. Iglehart said P&Z may grant only one bedroom, and this was in town, so parking shouldn’t be a problem. DeLuca said that if things go as planned , to remove traffic out of the commercial core, then a hardship is created for businesses because of the change in impact. 3 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 13, 1999 Hoffman stated the fairness issue was not the same as a takings analysis of all value but rather fairness was the issue here. Hoefer stated the focus was compliance with AACP and the hardship with the minimum variance was not discussed. He said that he followed Rick’s statement about the request as economically driven without a minimum variance request. Hoefer stated the city position was that this unit could be rented commercially. Paterson asked what a minimum variance request would be without granting what they were asking for. Thomas responded that it would be a reasonable use of the parcel without variances. She said the code still allowed that use. Eubanks asked what if he was no longer able to use it for the purpose. Hoefer responded that they were able to use it for that purpose. Hoffman said the code stated if he did nothing with it for one year, he would not be allowed to use it. Hoefer stated that Eubanks purchased and used the unit commercially. Head stated that Eubanks was not denied reasonable use of the property. Paterson reviewed the criteria sheet and felt there were special conditions and circumstances. He said that granting this variance would not confer upon the applicant any special privileges because other people had the opportunity to have residential. Wolford said there could be both good and bad residential and commercial uses; if Eubanks could provide the egress and windows or whatever was necessary to be in compliance, then it was fine. Head asked why this couldn’t be done with the office. MOTION: Charles Paterson moved to approve the request to vary the minimum lot area per dwelling unit to allow for the conversion of an office space to a residential dwelling unit at 731 East Durant , Unit 7A, finding that the review standards have mostly been met, and that such conversion shall be subject to Change in Use approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. David Schott second. Roll call vote : Iglehart, yes; DeLuca, yes; Schott, yes; Head, no; Paterson, yes. APPROVED 4-1. The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 4