Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19910411 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 11, 1991 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4.00 P.M. A G E N D A I. CASE #91-2 JEFFREY SWARTZ II. CASE #91-3 - =- RONNIE MARSHALL-Cam, l NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CASE #91-2 JEFFREY SWARTZ 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, 1962, 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 consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment 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, 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 Meeting: Date: April 11, 1991 Time: 4: 00 p.m. Owner for Variance: Appellant for Variance: Name: Jeffrey Swartz Ken Moore Address: c/o Duncan St. Investments. c/o Barbara Long & Assoc. 298 Erskine Ave. , Toronto Aspen, Co. Location or description of property: 824 E. Cooper, Lot Q, Blk 111, Aspen Variance Requested: Property is located in the R/MF zoning category. Building permit plans dated 2/26/91 indicate an approximate 27% driveway slope. Ordinance No. 76 (Series 1990) , passed by City Council 1/14/91 states: "No driveway shall exceed a maximum slope of twelve (12) percent within twenty (20) feet of the property line bordering a public or private right-of-way. " (Section 19-101(h) ) As well as Chapter 24, Section 5-302 (A) of the Aspen Municipal Code. Applicant appears to be requesting a 27% slope which would be a 15% slope variance. Will applicant be represented by counsel: Yes: No: X The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 JUam C6-wra9gnJthq4ufigharClerk P / RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 11, 1991 Meeting was called to order by Chairman Remo Lavagnino at 4 : OOpm. Answering roll call were Ron Erickson, Charlie Paterson, Rick Head, Ann Austin and Remo Lavagnino. Josephine Mann and Bill Martin were excused. Remo: I was told that case #91-3 is requesting to be tabled. Katie McMahon: On behalf of the applicant, Ronnie Marshall, we are asking to be continued. MOTION Remo opened the public hearing and asked for comment from the public. There were no comments. Rick made a motion to table and continue this hearing #91-3 to date certain of May 23 , 1991 at 4 : OOpm. Charlie seconded the motion with all in favor. CASE #91-2 JEFFREY SWARTZ Remo read into the record request for variance. (attached in record) Barbara Long, representative for applicant: Presented affidavit of posting. (attached in record) Remo: I noticed that there was a "Party Postponement" notice right across the posting. That is not very good because it doesn't allow people to see the variance posting. Long: I did not go by. Remo: Is this being rented at the time? Long: It is being rented. Remo: So it might be the tenants. Does anyone here have any objection to improper posting? After discussion regarding posting the members decided to hear this case. Long: What we are asking for--we have gone through a lengthy process with HPC in order to get approval for the design of this building. And in the process of doing so we had all of these current codes and were trying to comply with every single code. Then when we finally finished the construction document the ordinance was passed. We had heard that at the time that I asked about the code that I knew about the City Code where we had to stay 36 inch slope within the first loft. But they would recommend that you don't have a driveway _? subject to passing the code-- having a steeper driveway after the first loft. And so that is what we proceded to design the building by. Rick: Issues that are about to become law--when they bring in a set of plans wouldn't this be something that you might tell them that it may be an issue in the future and that you can't guarantee it but that it is something they ought to consider. Drueding: We discussed it. Yes I discussed it with them. Remo: You were informed of that then. Rick: - So-had -they heeded your warning it would have changed? - Long: Well, we probably could have. I mean, earlier in the process we could have gotten approval from them. Or talked with them and informed them this is how far along in the process we are and will you allow this--the plans to come in a month later. We did not know that in any time limit that an ordinance was going to be in affect. Remo: What would you have to do in order to come into compliance? Long: Basically we eliminate the garage-- Remo: I mean with the garage. Long: For that we would have to-- Rick: I don't think it is possible. Long: I don't think so. No not with the same design that we have. Chuck Roth, City Engineer: That is because of the height restrictions. Roxanne suggested to have a basement and not a garage but you could park the cars in back would be the other option. Ron: On your plans here that building that is on here now is that historically designated or is it just-- Long: No, it is not historically designated. Ron: Or is it just one of Roxanne's significant structures? Long: Significant. Anne: But your are having to preserve part of the structure. Long: Yes. We are preserving the original cottage in the front. Ron: And you are adding to the back of that- building. - - Long: Right. Ron: Because it looks--where the rear of the house was--the rear of the house to where the alley was and it looked like there is plenty of room for you to drop a driveway in there if it was the existing structure. But I didn't know how much bigger you are making it. Long: We have even cantilevered the second level over the garage and the first level in order to push the garage as far in as we could and the 27% I got that from another driveway that is down the road. Theirs is heated and they can get out of there. Roth: The first one of these steep driveways came to our attention about 2 years ago during a landuse review for a condominiumization and it was over towards Paepcke Park. Just walking out on the site and seeing it I was really disturbed and concerned about public safety in the context of somebody being down at the bottom of this steep slope, having to pop his clutch to scream up the hill into the alley and somebody walking or in a vehicle going by endangering that person. There has been reports that-with these steep driveways people-have had to replace their garage doors because they accidentally slide into the garage door before they get going up the hill. Most of them now have snowmelt systems in them because if there was ice on it it would be totally unmanageable. We surveyed about 15 other locations in town that have underground parking. Most of the old ones like Concept 600, the Durant Mall by City Market and the Prospector Lodge--most of those old ones would fall very close to the 12% slope. But many of the new ones go to 25 and 30%. Ron: What is Pitkin Row at the corner of Hopkins and Spring? Rick: Some of those are 8 or 9%. And one is much steeper than that. One is 13 I think. ?: 28. Ron: So this would be almost the same. ?: There is one right at the other end of that towards Original that is 28 also and they have steps going down the side. Roth: One other consideration was that we had a request from somebody who ended up with one of these to raise the alley because his vehicle is bottoming out when he came up over the edge of the alley. Ron: I park in the alley across from the garages and the driveways on Pitkin Row so I know what that is and how that works. I find that to be very steep. Rick: I can see where people roar up there to get out and you never know if there is somebody in the alley. I can see the call for the safety. But then we are just butting heads with trying to get cars off the streets again. Remo: They would still need to have 2 or 3 parking spaces on site. Rick: I am trying to hear the hardship other than the fact that he wants to have a garage. _3 Ron: The hardship is in the pipeline. They changed the rules under which they had to work. Rick: But what I hear is that they were forewarned that it may come up. Anne: I don't feel that strongly about that. I think it was already in there but I think 27 degrees, from what I am hearing now by asking about these other driveways, is too steep. There was discussion about trying to angle the drive. Remo asked for the comments from the Planning Office. Drueding: It is a new law from the Engineering Dept. We agree with it. Remo: You agree with the law and you don't think there are any considerations to a plan being in the pipeline. Drueding: I don't. Remo: The point here is that we want safety and welfare both for the people in the house and the people in the alley. My only concerns were that often to the Board is whether we can come up with if this granted were there any mitigating circumstances here where we might have mirrors or heated underground. Long: We want it to be heated. Remo: Would you be backing out of this driveway? Long: We would be backing out. Remo: Boy, that is really bad news. Ron: This would require a front wheel drive or 4 wheel drive vehicle too because once you lose your driveway, you are coming onto a snow and ice-packed alley and you are going to lose your traction as soon as you get over your driveway ridge. Anne: Could they put a carport in back of the kitchen because there is already an overhang from the guest suite up above and could this roofline be extended here so that it becomes a carport. Remo: I offered that and they want a garage. Rick: They could get a carport with the overhang to the setback. Anne: I would rather give them a variance for the roof of the carport if it is a minimal amount even if they needed to come out a little bit more there. Rick: That way you would at least have 3 cars covered as opposed to one in the garage and 2 that would be stuck out. Anne: This is only a 1 car garage. Remo: You are required possibly 3 spaces. Where are you going to put the other car? Rick: Next to the driveway. He is going down on the west side and then he has got 2 parking spaces on the east side. Long: We were going to have the other parking spot in the drive. Anne: On that steep driveway? Remo: No way. That doesn't sound good at all. I don't think we have a solution here. Remo asked for public comment. There was none and he closed the public portion of the meeting. Rick: Initially when I walked in here I kind of was leaning towards granting this but now I am finding that there are situations that I hadn't thought about. I think the health and safety factor is most critical. I wish there was a way we could get a garage on the street level. I don't see how putting a garage or carport back there would impact the design of the house. I don't think they have to go back and re-design the entire house to get street level parking. And then add all that basement space to the rest of the house that would have been garage. I would have to say no on this unless someone could say something that would sway me. Charlie: I think that obviously they designed this ordinance because of a problem that has developed in town. I would almost be tempted in this circumstance to let this one go through as probably the last one that will ever go through because of the circumstance of the fact that the code was changed after the design was started. There are a number of solutions--making a split level which is not too practical but can be done. I would not say right now one way or the other until I hear some more opinions here. Ron: I have a solution. Because I am impacted by driveways that are in a similar circumstance I have experience with seeing what has happened over the last 6 months with that steep a driveway. I think they are unsafe. So I do have a major problem with that. I wish there were some way you could work it out. I don't see any way of doing it. I think the ordinance is a good one based on what Bill has said that the applicant had some information that it was coming on. We have had cases in the past where the applicant did not know and got caught in the pipeline and I was willing to grant a variance because of that but I am not willing to do that in this case. Anne: I came in here wanting to make this work out. I wanted to see them get their garage in there. But after reviewing all this information I don't think I could grant the variance at this time. Remo: I don't have much more to add except that I don't think we should perpetuate something that is a problem that the City has defined by allowing this to continue. I think for the safety and welfare of the citizens this should be denied. I would like to see it go through too. I like the idea of somebody wanting to put a garage in in a space that they could utilize for more commercial reasons. I would be against this. Ron: Can this be an accessory dwelling unit or a caretaker unit under ordinance #1? Drueding: No. It is below grade. MOTION Rick: I move to deny this case #91-2. Anne seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Ron, yes, Charlie, yes, Rick, yes, Anne, yes, Remo, yes. Variance denied. Anne made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Rick seconded the motion with all in favor. Time was 4 :50pm. Janice Carney, city epu y Clerk NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CASE #91-2 JEFFREY SWARTZ 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, 1962 , 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 consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment 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, 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 Meeting: Date: April 11, 1991 Time: 4 : 00 p.m. Owner for Variance: Appellant for Variance: Name: Jeffrey Swartz Ken Moore Address: c/o Duncan St. Investments. c/o Barbara Long & Assoc. 298 Erskine Ave. , Toronto Aspen, Co. Location or description of property: 824 E. Cooper, Lot Q, Blk 111, Aspen Variance Requested: Property is located in the R/MF zoning category. Building permit plans dated 2/26/91 indicate an approximate 27% driveway slope. Ordinance No. 76 (Series 1990) , passed by City Council 1/14/91 states: "No driveway shall exceed a maximum slope of twelve (12) percent within twenty (20) feet of the property line bordering a public or private right-of-way. " (Section 19-101 (h) ) As well as Chapter 24 , Section 5-302 (A) of the Aspen Municipal Code. Applicant appears to be requesting a 27% slope which would be a 15% slope variance. Will applicant be represented by counsel: Yes: No: X The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Jan Carney Deputy City Clerk MEMORANDUM To: Bill Drueding, Zoning Officer cc: Board of Adjustment From: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer R� Re: 824 E. Cooper: Final HPC review decision of project (driveway slope) Date: April 11, 1991 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- At the Final Development review meeting of the HPC last evening (April 10) , the project at 824 E. Cooper was approved subject to specific conditions to be met prior to the issuance of a building permit. A second motion was made and passed regarding the driveway slope as a referral comment to the Board of Adjustment per Section 7- 605 of the Land Use Regulations. It should be noted that the parcel has not been landmark designated (the applicant did not pursue this action) , however, the project requires HPC review and approval due to the amount of partial demolition occurring to the historic cottage. The original front portion of the cottage is being retained, and relocated slightly forward on the parcel (to the front setback line) . The HPC was unable to make an actual findincr as to the "historic compatibility" of the steep drive slope, however, due to their requirements of: 1) retaining the original portion of the cottage on site, as opposed to outright demolition of a historic resource, and 2) requiring that the new addition be both lower and pushed to the rear of the parcel to lessen the impact to the small scale cottage, it was apparent that a short, steeply sloped drive off the alley was necessary to access the below grade garage. The HPC was not opposed to the drive slope as presented. They deferred the final decision to the Board of Adjustment. memo.bofa.824ec