Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.20080417CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT -SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 17, 2008 CASE #001-08 SMUGGLER LLC, STAN JOHNSON, 322 WEST SMUGGLER- 2 SETBACK VARIANCES ...................................................................................... 2 MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 6 1 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT -SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 17.2008 Rick Head opened the special meeting of the City of Aspen Board of Adjustment in Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:00 pm. Members present were Jag Pagnucco, Mark Hesselschwerdt, Charles Paterson and Rick Head. Peter McClain was excused. Staff in attendance: Jim True, Special Counsel; Errin Evans, Jennifer Phelan, Community Development; Brian Flynn, Chris Forman, Parks; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Jim True stated that the Board of Adjustment required 4 affirmative votes for an approval. PUBLIC HEARING: CASE #001-08 SMUGGLER LLC. STAN JOHNSON. 322 WEST SMUGGLER - 2 SETBACK VARIANCES Rick Head opened Case #001-08. Chris Lacroix, Garfield and Hecht, representing the applicant stated that he was filling in for Michael Hoffman. Notice was provided. Lacroix said that the property that Smuggler Investments owns is located at 322 West Smuggler in the R-6 zone district on a 9,000 square foot lot with a 3,000 square foot single family home. Lacroix stated they were seeking 2 variances. One variance from the 10 foot minimum side yard setback requirement between two detached buildings fora 4 foot variance; the second variance was a 5 foot variance from the 10 foot minimum 'rear yard setback to accommodate below grade space on the site. Stan Johnson, owner of the property, provided the history of the property since his purchase in May 2006; he had a survey showing the 26 trees that encumber the property. Johnson met with community development, building and parks many times to review the plans and change plans. Johnson said the circulation for the property had to come from the alley so to fit the two detached buildings on the site they may have to remove some trees off the back alley and they would plant some new trees across the front of the property. Johnson said that it was made clear to them that nothing was definitive until they submitted for building permit. There was a foot taken off of both houses to accommodate the 12 foot setback on the West side. Parks asked that certain trees be retained after numerous discussions and the owner hired an arborist for this property. Johnson said that there were 4 different sets of plans submitted over the last 18 months. Johnson said that to be able to build the 2free-standing houses and get the garages onto the site the garages had to be moved together 4 feet apart. They have asked fora 5 foot variance underneath the garages for the sub-grade space. 2 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT -SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 17, 2008 Chris Lacroix asked to continue the discussion and depending on where things go they may ask for a vote or a continuance. Rick Head said that was fine. Head asked if there was on site affordable housing or a deed restricted unit. Johnson replied that there was not and they were doing the cash-in-lieu for the difference between the existing house square footage and the new house at 4,000 square feet of FAR. Lacroix reiterated the variances requested: a 4 foot variance between the garages on the north end of the property and a 5 foot variance from the rear yard setback for the sub-grade space. Lacroix noted the standards that apply to grant variances (1) whether or not the request is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan; (2) whether or not this is the minimum variance to make reasonable use of the parcel and (3) whether or not the enforcement of the land use code would deprive the owner of rights that other parcel commonly enjoy in the same zone district. Lacroix said that they have demonstrated hardship for this parcel of 9,000 feet; the no build zones were constraining. There were letters from the public submitted one in support from John Collett, and one against the variances from Martin Block. Public Comments: 1. Jody Edwards represents the neighbor to the East (Katherine Conover); the process that the property owner went through was difficult but not to the level of a hardship. Edwards stated that a hardship must be unique to the particular piece of property to justify a variance and not shared by all property in a particular zone; the one applying or seeking the variance has the burden of showing the hardship. The hardship is not mere inconvenience or interference with economic advantage, disappointment, financial hardship or disadvantage, loss of perspective profits, prevention of an increase in profits or prohibition. Edwards said the hardship was created by the trees; a front yard setback variance could be granted and the garage was already in the front. Edwards requested denial of the application. Jag Pagnucco remarked that the Board of Adjustment does not follow case law; each case was reviewed case by case. 2. Georgia Hanson stated that she was here at the request of Bea and Tony Welters who were neighbors to the West and asked if all of the trees on the West side of the lot were staying. Rick Head replied that they were staying. Brian Flynn and Chris Forman from the parks department were present to answer any questions. 3 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT -SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 17, 2008 3. Annie Rector works for Katherine Conover and was familiar with the neighborhood. Rector said that Ms. Conover pays to have the city trees maintained by a private company; they were compassionate about the trees. Mark Hesselschwerdt asked if any of the trees were historical and said that the tree ordinance was egregious; he empathized with the applicant. Hesselschwerdt said that it was curious to jam two individual houses on this lot just because you could instead of adding a roof between the two, which would eliminate the ordinance then a 10 foot walkway would not be required between the two. Errin Evans stated that the applicant has done a thorough job. Evans said that granting the variance must be consistent with the AACP; the variance was the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure and that literal interpretation enforcement of the provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district. The community development staff do not believe that the number of trees creates a unique condition and it is only a hardship if the applicant tries to maximize the floor area of the property; it is possible to build a single family dwelling or an attached duplex. Jennifer Phelan stated the typical historic pattern was the alley access used for service so that was where garages should be placed as re-development occurs. Chris Forman said there were many mature trees on this property and the applicant's efforts were not to cut down trees within the parameters set by the Parks Department (cross-hatched areas). Forman said they have worked to cut the least amount of trees and that was why it was constricted or limited in the rear with the garage structures. Rick Head asked if the whole project moved forward on the lot then the trees in the back wouldn't be the problem. Stan Johnson said that there would be a setback of 10 feet for the front yard, which would still put the project in the thick of those trees. Chris Lacroix said that it was a minimal setback request for the sub-grade space below the garages, which doesn't affect anybody. Stan Johnson stated that he was prepared to take out more trees than what was now required and as far as the economic consideration he wanted to build to the rights he had with one of the options being two free-standing houses with the garages in the back. Rick Head asked if the garages could be combined into one building. Jennifer Phelan responded that there could be firewall issues with the condominiumized 4 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT -SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 17, 2008 units and on an aesthetic level you might want to consider massing and scale in the alley. Annie Rector said the people that she spoke of earlier moved here because of the mountain views. Jag Pagnucco replied that there was an alley and an alley was an alley not a park. Charles Paterson said that there was absolutely no mountain view because of the height of those trees so the view has been removed completely. Paterson said there were so many trees on this property that it doesn't give the property owner the use of the property properly. Mark Hesselschwerdt said the variance between the two garages can be handled by connecting the two with a lower roof. Hesselschwerdt said that he did not see a hardship. Head asked Hesselschwerdt if there was anything that he might ask the applicant to change to persuade the approval of a variance. Hesselschwerdt said the garages would sit where they were and it was just the subterranean space that doesn't get to go into that space but has to be setback 10 feet. Charles Paterson said that the 6 foot variance was minimal the way it was being designed; he said that the applicant has done a good job in trying to utilize the property for his property rights and still keep the trees on the edges of the property. Paterson said the impact was nothing and he would approve the variances. Jag Pagnucco agreed with Charlie. Mark Hesselschwerdt noted that the applicant was taking one house and making it into two with separate ownership. Rick Head said that he was in favor of granting this variance because it was the best solution for a difficult property. Head told the applicant that they had a decision to make to continue to a date certain. Paterson said that you could come back another time. Hesselschwerdt said that down the road a fence could be placed between the two separate properties. Hesselschwerdt said the rules for basements off of alleys was 10 feet. Hesselschwerdt asked if that was a light well between the 2 buildings. Johnson replied yes. Hesselschwerdt said there was a door opposite that that swings out 3 feet. Paterson asked what kind of roof was over the garages. Johnson said there was a pitch to each of the roofs, gabled roofs. Paterson said there would be snowfall over the door area. Chris Lacroix asked if they could separate the two variances. Rick Head suggested tabling. Charles Paterson thanked the applicant and staff for the clear presentation. Jennifer Phelan stated that the date certain to be continued to would be May 15`, 8cn 15tH. Jag Pagnucco said that he would be out of town for the 15`n. Until June 1 S`. 5 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT -SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 17, 2008 Hesselschwerdt said he would like to think that the architect could come up with something with out requiring any variances. Stan Johnson stated that he would be out of the country on May 15` to May 13`n MOTION: Charles Paterson moved to continue the public hearing to May 1 S`; seconded by Jag Pagnucco. All in favor, Approved 4-0. MINUTES MOTION: Charles Paterson moved to approve the minutes from March 1, 2007 and May 3, 2007 with corrections to the May 3'd minutes on page 5 (spelling of Claude Salter); seconded by Mark Hesselschwerdt. All in favor, approved. Meeting adjourned at 5:20 pm. ckie Lothian, De ty City Clerk 6