HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19950518RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 18, 1995
Chairman Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. and
explained the Board's procedure to the public.
Present were: Remo Lavagnino, Charlie Paterson, Ron Erickson, Jim
Iglehart, Howard DeLuca, and David Schott. Excused was Rick Head.
MINUTES
Ron Erickson moved to approve the minutes of April 13, 1995,
Charlie Paterson seconded, vote commenced, approved unanimously,
motion carried.
Ron Erickson moved to approve the minutes of April 27, 1995,
Charlie Paterson seconded, vote commenced, approved unanimously
with minor corrections, motion carried.
CASE #95-4
JAMES & RAMONA MARKALUNAS
Lavagnino stated, applicant appears to be requesting a variance of
setbacks, front yard from 9 ft. to 19 ft. at various additions.
Side yard, 1.8 ft. and rear yard, 3.5 ft.
Jim Markalunas said, I have resided at 624 North Street since 1957,
I am a long-time Aspen local; been here since 1930. I would like
to introduce my son, who will be presenting on our behalf, Tom
Markalunas, and my wife Ramona. He was born and raised in Aspen
and grew up in the house which we are trying to fix up. He is a
licensed architect and a graduate of the University of Colorado in
New Mexico.
Tom Markalunas introduced himself for the record, and said, my
parents, Jim and Ramona, expressed the desire to me to add on to
their existing residence at 624 North Street. When looking at the
project, I realized very quickly we would probably need a variance
because of the fact that the rear of the house, as it sits now, is
just a little over 2 feet off the alley and the front of the house,
25 feet would be required, if we had 5 feet in the alley. I also
realized that the addition that they desired, which they wanted to
put on the west side of the house, of about 300 square feet,
because of the tapering nature of the lot, would also violate that
25 foot front setback because there are some practical difficulties
in being able to shift that back; there are some basement windows
from bedrooms and if we were to move those additions they would
block those windows. That, I think, is one reason why I can't
really shift the whole lot towards the rear.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 18, 1995
Tom Markalunas stated, additionally, our main argument for the
granting of this variance is that the lot that Jim and Ramona own
is 68 to 77 feet deep. A 30 foot setback on a 100 foot lot leaves
you with 70 feet of buildable depth. A 30 foot setback on this lot
leaves you approximately 40 feet of buildable depth.
Lavagnino asked, is it a 30 foot front yard setback? So, when you
say 30, you really mean 25 and 5 on the back. Markalunas said, it
is a 30 foot total sliding, you put a little more in the backyard,
take a little in the front. Lavagnino asked, are there minimums,
front yard setback? Leslie Lamont, representing staff, stated, I
think the minimum is 10 in the front, 5 in the back. Lamont
checked the guidelines and stated, minimum of 10 feet for front and
rear yard, provided that the rear yard of that portion of the
principle building use is a garage only shall be a minimum of 5
feet. Lamont stated, a minimum of 10, total of 30. Lavagnino
said, so, if the front yard were 10, the rear yard would be 20.
Tom Markalunas stated, to continue along that line, 41 feet
represents 59% of a standard lot's buildable depth, which, I
consider to be a hardship. If you think about that; if you take 30
feet out of our lot, that leaves us 41 feet and that amount of area
doesn't give us very much room to work with, especially since the
amount of the addition that actually violates the setback is only
14% of the total square footage of the project. Additionally,
there is a large portion of right-of-way, that gives the yard a
greater impression when you see it, which makes the house appear to
be further setback from the street. He passed around a drawing he
did, of what the project would look like from the street because I
don't know that things like elevations of site plans always give
you the depth. (Attached in record). He said, this is what it
would look like from North Street, and you'll see it is not a big
house, it's not very massive; there's a lot of things like porches
that I've done and breaking up of the mass to give it a pedestrian
scale and make it fit in with the neighborhood. There is a porch
that is shown that is right in the setback, and a lot of people
have said, why are you going for that porch? That porch is one of
the things that makes the west end a great neighborhood, that's one
of the things that I believe is great about any house, and that is
a public space at the front of the house. It is an open-latticed
porch, it's not an enclosed space, it's just some columns and some
trellis.
Lavagnino asked, is that considered part of the FAR? Lamont
stated, porches? Lavagnino stated, it's enclosed, it looks like
it's enclosed. Tom Markalunas stated, it has a trellis, it's open,
and I call it an arcade and the roof is open.
Lamont stated, after today, and if Council adopts our Residential
2
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 18, 1995
Design Standards, porches will no longer count. Also, in the R-6,
they will not count as site coverage, if they are open. They can
have a top on it, but as long as they are not enclosed. However,
it does not give an applicant the ability to put the porch in the
setback. Lavagnino said, I understand that.
Tom Markalunas stated, the project is under 85% of the FAR. I
think that if we were not allowed a variance on this project, to
put any second level addition or any addition, even remotely, close
to the front of the house, would be impossible. It would force
additions, basically, at the center of the house. In terms of the
existing plans of the house, it's not feasible, and I have a
feeling, from what Jim and Ramona have said, that it's not really
worth it to them. They want this to be their final house, and if
they can't do it the way they want it, they just may as well forget
about it.
Tom Markalunas continued, getting back to lot concern, as I was
pointing out before, and what I feel is the non-conforming size of
the lot; I would like to pass around a few more drawings that show
a standard Aspen block as compared to the block at 624 North
Street, and a standard city lot as compared to these city lots. I
would like to point out that three city lots are 9,000 square feet,
90 by 100. These three lots are each, 25 by 75, for about 5,640
square feet. That's 75 by 75 square. And it also tapers, as you
can see on the site plan. Then I realized that setbacks are
designed, in therory, for the good of the City, for the standard
size lot in the City. I think it is pretty obvious that this is
not a standard sized lot, and these setbacks encroach, not only
into the buildable area, but into the house itself, making it
virtually impossible to do any additions. They want to do a garage
off the rear, off the alley, and an ADU. Where we have the ADU
now, the upper level of that ADU, composed lower level, those would
be in the setback. Anything we do at the front of the house is in
the setback. Lavagnino asked, even on the second story? Is it
within the setbacks? Markalunas answered, as you look at the
plans, just by going up on an existing wall, you're in the setback,
so that requires a variance.
Lamont suggested, this might be a good time to walk you through the
diagram. We actually need to amend the variance request. So, if
we start on the left-hand side of your drawing, we drew lines
through the property going from the alley to North Street. On the
left-hand side of the property, he has shaded in where the house
encroaches into the side yard setback, by l.8 feet. That's part of
the proposed living condition; then, between those two vertical
lines, they go from the alley to the street, there are no other
variance requests, there are no problems, with that section of the
home. Basically, what Bill Drueding did, was he divided the house
3
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 18, 1995
into thirds, and when you get to the center of the home, you will
notice (let's start in the back), he has underneath the tree,
shaded in a little wedge, and the proposed garage encroaches beyond
the rear minimum 5 feet side yard setback. As you go through to
the front of the house, you will notice where he shaded in the two
areas there, and there is a line paralleling the front yard
property line. Between the front yard property line and that line,
that represents your 10 foot minimum. So, except for that little
corner there of the porch, they comply with the 10 foot minimum
front-yard setback. What they do not comply with, is the total of
the rear and front. So, except for this corner of porch, Bill
feels it is unnecessary for the Markalunas' to request a front yard
setback, what they are requesting is, a rear-yard setback of 20
feet in that center section of the home. Actually, it is
approximatley 19 feet, and then the total.
Lavagnino asked, can you go in increments? It seems that the 10
feet; they still have a foot or so to get to the main house.
Lamont stated, but that's where the porch encroaches. Lamont
stated, then, if you move to the last third, they meet their total,
because they have their 10 feet and you have your 20 feet in back,
they don't encroach in the front or the rear, and it appears that
this existing shed is to be removed, and they don't need a side-
yard setback variance on that side. So, basically, they need to
request a front for the porch, a rear, and a total, and then the
side, on the left-hand side.
Lavagnino asked, in the first quadrant, that portion that is in the
setback, that little, tiny wedge, what is that? Markalunas
replied, a bay window. I suppose it would be possible to treat
that a little bit, it's only a 2 foot bay. The existing house is
1,400 to 1,500 square feet, the addition that we are doing outside
the existing footprint is only about 300 square feet, that's the
hatched portion on the west side, and the hatched portion at the
rear of the proposed garage. The rest of the addition is within
the footprint of the existing house; it is an upper level addition.
Tom Markalunas stated, I don't have anything to add to that.
Jim Markalunas said, while we feel we have a unique situation here,
first of all, we acquired the property in 1955 from Phil Crosby, so
it's a non-conforming lot of record, in other words, it was
purchased and plated prior to any zoning being imposed on the
property. In 1956, and I'm sure that Charlie would recognize this,
this was our zoning ordinance (shown on drawing), you can see, that
was the subtotal of it. And when we built, and obtained our
building permit, in 1957, a little less than a year after it was
adopted, we met the setback provisions of the then existing
planning and zoning regulations. We complied with that; there was
an exception, the minimum allowable area was 6,000 square feet, but
4
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 18, 1995
there is a section in that ordinance that stated that anything that
existed prior to the adoption of that zoning, would be allowed to
be built upon. In other words, it was considered a minimum lot or
non-conforming lot. At that time it complied with all regulations,
so we built in good faith on that. Over the years, we stayed put,
but the neighborhood and also the City regulations evolved and
changed, and because of that, after about 40 years and our roof
beginning to leak and part of the planning area starting to fall
apart, and the house being 38 years old, it is in desperate need of
renovation. We just can't continue to go on, and we have thought
about how we could make our home more suitable, not only for
ourselves, but for our children. When we went to apply to do our
improvements we discovered we weren't in compliance and we couldn't
do what we wanted to do.
Jim Markalunas continued saying, if you will notice, by the
setbacks, and I don't report this to be accurate, but it gives an
approximate representation of the from the City's mapping, their
GIS, I actually took measurements in the field. (Shown on map),
This is, basically, the 25 foot setback, to give an idea of how the
existing houses in the neighborhood, on the block and on both sides
of us, line up with the property line. The shaded area is what
would be a hypothetical 25 foot setback, just to get an idea, that
not a single structure complies. Many of the structures, even with
a 10 foot setback, are within 5 to 6 feet of the street. So, if
you will notice, our home pretty much lines up with the other homes
along that street. We do have a very unusual lot; from the Hallam
addition, you will notice here, at the time we built, this was the
only place that we could build in the City that had water other
than the original town site Hallam. On the zoning district map
(shown), we purchased our property in that location. Because of
the town site line and the angle, if you notice, you will see that
the lots in Hallam Addition, which are normally 25 feet wide,
becoming increasingly more narrow as you go west. You will see
that, along this street (shown), they are 108 feet long, but on
this end, they are only 68 feet. We got the short end of the
block, and that's worked against us now because of this total
setback of 30 feet. Basically, what has been imposed upon the
property, over the years, we now find ourselves on the west side of
only having 38 feet to work in, and then on up to about 40 feet.
So we have, as Tom has explained, a very small piece of property to
make our improvements in. The property itself, sets well back from
the street and it's screened by all the trees, which Ramona and I
dug up ourselves. We brought the trees in ourselves and planted
those trees; everyone of those trees on my property we planted and
nurtured. So, I think we've done a good job for the City and for
the neighborhood and, in fact, I would like to present for the
record, letters from my immediate neighbors stating that they do
not have objections to what we are trying to do (attached in
5
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 18, 1995
record). I want to assure the Board that we notified everyone
within 300 feet of our property; we were only required to send out
26 notices, but we sent out 32. The thing I want to stress, we
feel that we have a hardship, not only because of practical
difficulty, but also by unusual shape and size of the lot. This
situation that we are in today was not of our doing or our making,
even though we purchased the lot. At the time we purchased the lot
there was no zoning, I want to stress that, and there were no
setbacks. When we built our home there were zoning regulations and
we complied with those zoning regulations, so that the hardship
that we experienced today was not of our making, it was due to the
plating of the lots by H. P. Gillespie when he filed the Hallam
Subdivision. On our small income, when I was only making $1.45 an
hour in 1955, we purchased those lots from Phil Crosby in order to
build ourselves a home and raise a family. So, we feel we have a
hardship.
Lavagnino asked, Ramona, did you want to say something, also?
Ramona Markalunas replied, the only statement that I have is, that
it wouldn't be very practical for us to put on half a second story.
The stairway would go to nowhere. Also, the variations and
setbacks over the years in the City of Aspen have virtually made
75% of the houses in the City non-conforming, and it would be very
difficult for us to comply with the present setbacks and put a
second story up, which is the reason we are doing this.
Lavagnino stated, I don't have any objection, personally, to a
second story, one of my problems is with your new livingroom; it
doesn't have to be that size, it can be brought in, from this
sketch, by just getting rid of that wedge. To me, it seems like
you are talking about a foot or a foot and a half. I don't
understand.
You arrived at this livingroom area for your own particular needs,
whatever they were, or are, but it doesn't preclude your moving it
in to comply with that particular area. That bothers me a lot, and
maybe you didn't have that information, thinking that maybe there
was more than that in the setback, but according to Drueding's re-
calculation of this, it just speaks of that bay window, basically.
You can either shallow-up the bay window or move the house in a
foot or a foot and a half or whatever it is, and you wouldn't have
to come to us for that particular variance.
Jim Markalunas stated, I might want to mention to you, why that is
at an angle. I explained to you also, that part of that is due to
the fact that the City did not have a recognized survey of the
monuments in the west end. Until 1958 there were no monuments and
we had a slight shift there, probably due to the fact that we were
trying to orient, but also due to the fact that there was an
uncertainty as to the monuments, so that's why it has worked
6
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 18, 1995
against us a little bit because in most of the neighboring houses
they are subjected the same way, they are shifted a little bit at
an angle, and that was due to the fact that the City did not have
monuments set on the corners for anyone to go by.
Lavagnino stated, the next problem that we have is, even though
this 10 foot front yard setback would allow you to have everything
in the center section here conform, except now we have a problem
with the rear yard setback, and that would have to come 20 feet in.
Is there an upper story in that area? From my personal standpoint,
I wouldn't give you that setback on the ground level for the
proposed garage. I went back in that alley and it looks like the
existing storage is right on the alley line or maybe a foot away
from it. Tom Markalunas stated, no, it is not. The alley is only
16 feet. Lavagnino stated, you don't show all this. So, beyond
your fence, you still own some property out there? Jim Markalunas
said, there's a concrete platform out there, I didn't put the fence
out there because that was a place to set my trashcans for pickup
in the alley. When that was built you were allowed to project the
overhang ends into the alley; the setbacks that were essentially
used at the time, were only 5 feet. Lavagnino stated, it looks
like it goes well beyond your existing storage area and it's on the
ground level, and from my standpoint, you could even make the
existing storage a one-car garage, if you want. I would be
absolutely opposed to granting you the variance for the extension
for a garage, but then, the only variance you would need would be
in the upper story, if, in fact, you had to come 20 feet in from
the rear-yard setback. The only thing that would be affected would
be a corner of the outline of that upper level addition. It is the
eastern corner; I made a calculation, if this is 5 feet from the
existing, I just moved it back by 5 feet, so that all that you
would be asking for is an upper level addition variance. Do you
follow me on that or do you want to come up here and take a look at
what I'm talking about? I would be more amenable to giving you the
second story on an existing encroachment.
There was discussion between Tom Markalunas and the Board regarding
the variance for the upper level, and the front porch variance.
Lavagnino asked if there was an Affidavit of Posting (attached in
record), and if he could hear a comment from the Planning Office
regarding this variance.
There was much discussion at random between the Markalunas' and the
Board on the variance. Discussed were trees on the property,
basement, windows, uniqueness in relationship to be neighboring
houses and garage.
Lavagnino stated, what is more pertinent, you show where all the
7
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 18, 1995
houses on that block have the same problem, and therefore, they are
not unique to your property. What we have to find out is, how your
property differs from the rest of the properties. Unless you need
relief from the strict adherence of the code because of some unique
problem on your particular site, that is the argument that we want
to hear, and in some cases you have given it to us. The fact that
it is a corner lot and its configuration is such that it has made
it difficult for you.
Jim Markalunas stated, I want to make it absolutely clear, that
when we purchased the property, it was not non-comforming. The
zoning was imposed upon the property after we purchased it, and
then, by virtue of the City's regulations, it became non-
conforming.
Tom Markalunas stated, every lot on that block does not have the
same conditions. The lots on one end of that block are 108 feet
deep; you take 30 feet out of 108 feet, you still have 78 feet.
You take 30 feet out of 60 feet, you have 30 feet. Lavagnino
stated, that's what we want to hear. That's what is different.
So, all of a sudden, you do have a unique situation that the others
don't have.
Erickson asked, how large is the garage? Tom Markalunas replied,
it is a one-car garage, it was going to be 189 square feet.
Jim Markalunas stated, our house is set back behind trees and
screened from the street and we do not intrude upon the
neighborhood.
Lavagnino read, Leslie (Lamont), and I'll read this to you. An
opinion, concerning this variance will be presented to the Board by
the Zoning Department staff. Lamont answered, what Bill (Drueding)
and I talked about was he wanted to make sure I understood so I
could tell you, clearly, what the variances were that the
Markalunas' were requesting. It is not our opinion either way, we
are trying to encourage smaller garages, and we have been trying to
encourage porches on the front of homes. My only other point, in
looking at this, is that the variances that are being requested
appear to be in areas of the home that are either on the alley, or
the public right-of-way; they are not next to another piece of
property, another home or residence. Lavagnino asked, what about
the storage portion in the back, by the alley, do you have any
comment on that? Lamont said, the only comments I hear from the
Streets Department and the Engineering Department on these kinds of
things is like when we adopted our Accessory Dwelling Unit Program,
and we wanted to allow ADUs under an alley to go to the zero
outline, they had a real big concern about snow removal.
8
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 18, 1995
Lavagnino asked, does the Board have any other questions? Anyone
in the audience that would like to comment? I am going to close
the public portion of the meeting and see if we can come up with
something here.
Iglehart stated, I have been doing a lot of thinking, I'd like to
hear what other people have to say. One thing I do have a question
about is now I'm trying to recap the exact request. Lavagnino
stated, we'll come to that, I'm sure when we get to the final
motion and as we discuss it here.
DeLuca stated, that corner's got to go. That's an easy fix, that's
not a big design thing. What we are looking at right now is, we
move everything around and state that in the back we're going for a
second story 10 foot setback variance. The front porch thing...I
really like front porches, I do, and I would like to see somebody
write in today that that can't be enclosed and it's very possible
they could someday enclose that front porch. The open porch idea
is a really nice thing. The only other thing I've got to say is
that looking at that proposed garage, it would take out one window
in the master bedroom, but it is conceivable that garage could be
moved off the alley, back into the lineup with this wall here
(shown on sketching).
Paterson said, I think it is a very nice plan. I like the offsets
in the building. What I would like to say is, we are charged with
giving a minimum variance and that is where we are running into a
problem. As Remo mentioned, the bay window in the livingroom could
be reduced, and that is one thing I would agree with. Under the
condition that we allow everything else, I will go along with
sliding the garage back, I would like to see some kind of an offset
there, at least two or three feet, if we could allow it, so the
garage doesn't line up with the back wall, which may give us a
slight corner to give you a variance on. It still would be a
minimum variance. The rest; I would like to see if we can leave it
intact and allow the rest of it. It is a very sensitive point to
the design and what they really need. So, I would be in favor of
that, with a few changes in it.
Erickson stated, I had a hard time with this house because I didn't
see how it was going to work at all. I think you gave me a handle
on how we can do it, by your handling of the center section of the
house and by moving the garage over, I think that takes care of it.
I would grant every variance that Howard mentioned, and deny those
that he mentioned. So, I would go along with the Board on that.
Iglehart said, I wasn't very much opposed to very much of any of
this, because I think he has a practical difficulty from the re-
zoning from the day that he built the house. He has been a
9
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 18, 1995
longtime citizen, and has put a lot of "blood, sweat, and tears"
into this City, and I'm not as concerned about the garage being as
close to the alley as you "guys" are, especially as HPC, as
recently as two years ago, allowed garages to be built right on the
property line if you get a variance through an HPC approval. So,
if the City's concerned about it, part of the City's not concerned
about it. So, I'm not opposed to that garage being where it is,
although if it could be moved slightly forward, I guess I would be
a little bit happier with it, if it doesn't offend the design
quality and what they are trying to accomplish, in that respect. As
far as the porch being enclosed or not enclosed, Leslie, you say
that eventually it could have a roof over it, like this new thing
you are talking about? Lamont answered, only a roof.
Lavagnino stated, I think this a terrific design, I really like the
house, and I don't think we're going to change much, except for my
point of view, I don't like the extension into the alley for
safety, but all the other variances, I concur with, and if we can
word it right, I would grant this variance, with the exception of
the proposed garage.
Jim Markalunas said, that's the window we use for ventilation and
there is so much traffic in the summertime, the only window that is
quiet, for us to sleep by, is that north window. With this
variance, we have to block our ventilation.
Lavagnino asked for a trial vote, saying, is anyone for granting a
variance in the alley as it stands? Vote was two in favor, four
opposed. Lavagnino stated, you wouldn't get it. There was more
discussion at random among the Board members regarding the garage
and the alley and the window for ventilation.
Lavagnino closed the public portion of the meeting and asked for a
motion.
MOTION
Erickson stated, I would like to make a motion based on the
assumption of a 10 foot front-yard setback on this case, and a 20
foot rear-yard setback. I make a motion that we approve the
variance for the porch into the front-yard setback. DeLuca
seconded. Lavagnino called for a roll call vote to the clerk. Rick
Head, excused; Charlie Paterson, aye; Ron Erickson, yes; Jim
Iglehart, yes; Howard, yes; Remo Lavagnino, yes. Vote was
unanimous in favor, motion carried.
MOTION
Erickson stated, my second motion is to approve a variance for the
10
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 18, 1995
bay window on the west side of the building. Paterson seconded.
Lavagnino called for another roll call vote. Charlie Paterson,
yes; Ron Erickson, no; Jim Iglehart, yes; Howard DeLuca, no; Remo
Lavagnino, no. Vote was two in favor, three opposed, motion was
denied.
MOTION
Erickson stated, I propose we grant a variance to the 20 foot rear
setback for a second story on the building, as per drawings.
Paterson seconded. Lavagnino called for another roll call vote.
Charlie Paterson, yes; Ron Erickson, yes; Jim Iglehart, yes; Howard
Deluca, yes; Remo Lavagnino, yes. Vote was unanimous in favor,
motion carried.
MOTION
Erickson stated, the last proposal is granting a variance from the
20 foot rear-setback for a proposed garage per plans. Paterson
seconded. Lavagnino called for another roll call vote. Charlie
Paterson, yes; Ron Erickson, no; Jim Iglehart, yes; Howard DeLuca,
no; Remo Lavagnino, no. Vote was two in favor, three opposed,
motion was denied.
CASE # 95-5
GEORGE DETKO
George Detko introduced himself and Chairman Lavagnino asked for
the Affidavit of Posting. Detko had the photograph but did not
have the Affidavit of Posting with notorization. Lavagnino stated
if the variance was granted it would be contingent on getting the
Affidavit of Posting (Affidavit of Posting is attached in record).
Detko stated, I moved to Aspen in August and purchased in
September a double lot at 205 Cottonwood Lane in Smugglers.
Detko said, as the application shows, the code from which I am
seeking a variance is Section 24-3-101, and the part in the middle
(the bold type) has been added since I purchased the lot. It
states, "on corner lots, no fence, retaining wall, or similar
object shall be erected or maintained which obstructs the traffic
vision, nor on corner lots shall any fence, retaining wall, or
similar obstruction be erected or maintained which exceeds a height
of forty-two (42) inches, measured from street grade, within 30
11
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 18, 1995
feet from the lot corner". Basically, looking at the sections that
must be satisfied for this Board to grant a variance, the first
that is applicable, is 10-104-1, Section C. It states, " literal
interpretation and enforcement would deprive the applicant of
rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district,
and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical
difficulty".
Detko stated, the other section authorizing variances is Section
10-104-l-C-l which states, "there are special conditions and
circumstances which are unique to the parcels, structures or
buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from
the actions of the applicant". Mr. Chairman, this is just,
basically, stating what you said you think you ought to know.
He said, answering the first of these is the top of the second
page. "Smuggler Mobile Home Park is a high density mobile home
park. It has very small, irregularly shaped lots". In my case,
this is a trapezoidal lot that is 80' X 40' X 64'X 52', with zero
lot line proximity on one long side to our neighbors, and most
residents in Smuggler have the advantage/privilege of fencing in,
at least, a small part of their lot so they can have some small
degree of privacy and a place for pets and gardening, and whatnot.
These are not standard residential lots; in this case, a 30 foot
setback from the corner of my property line would, in fact, be in
the middle of the bedroom in the northwest corner of my place. A
fence of the height which is allowed, because of the way the
grading is, would go from the corner of approximately 3' height
down to approximately a 1' to 1-1/2' height in the middle, and then
come back up to approximately a 3' height, which wouldn't allow
privacy or noise abatement.
He said, the first point is that most of the other 85 people with
lots at Smuggler do have fences and do have an area of privacy, and
the second point is, the unique aspects of my particular lot. I
have made a diagram, which is the last page of the application, and
it is a diagram of the area. The highlighted yellow area is my
lot. The single bedroom of my trailer is located in this northwest
corner, and the windows open out of my bedroom onto that
intersection which is called the "mailbox stop" on RFTA, and I
don't know whether it is RFTA's busiest stops, but it probably is.
It is very busy and runs between 6:30 a.m. and 2:30 a.m. This
whole area where I am in is a high density of young, seasonal
employees, and thoughout the winter period when I was here, my
sleep was one time after another interruped. It also happens to be
a location, and it is marked on this chart, where there are
dumpsters for 80 residents and mailboxes for 80 residents. At
least one person, between 5:00 and 5:30 a.m., for the last three
12
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 18, 1995
days, has open pickup trucks dates and made major unloadings there,
waking me up. I don't think it is possible to try and change the
habits of the neighbors, and I think this is one of those cases
where good fences might make good neighbors, and I really need a
fence that will, not so much block the sight, but block the sound
of everything going on.
Detko continued saying, the fence I designed is shown here. I got
the idea from the one on the corner of Highway 82, just before the
Castle Creek Bridge, and that fence is 1'X6', overlapping cedar,
two-sided, with a sound-deadening chamber in the middle. It works
extremely affectively blocking Highway 82 sounds, and I think it
will work the same way in my particular situation.
Other considerations here are, this is a very unusual intersection.
The nearest City street, which is north-south, is a full 60' away
from my corner, because there is a "neck", as the diagram shows,
leading out into the street, which is twice the distance required
by the code for safety. Those confluence of two private streets
are open, and at this intersection (shown on the diagram), these
streets have 10 mph speed limits. One has a stop sign and the
Smuggler's Board has now approved, and is in the process of
purchasing a stop sign for the Cottonwood Intersection. They
huddle together into a long "neck" and there is considerably more
visibility than the standard intersection. In addition, I have
granted 5' of my property as an additional easement to Smuggler's
Homeowners' Association, so that I pull the fence back from my
corner, reducing my lot size, my yard size, from about 20 feet to
approximately 15 feet, giving more visibility there and giving an
area for an entranceway into Smuggler that will be attractive. The
Board (Smuggler) is happy with that. This was endorsed by both the
Smuggler Homeowners' Association Architectural Board unanimously,
and then by the Smuggler Homeowners' Board itself, unanimously.
Mr. Chairman, there is a stack of letters there from the Secretary
of the Homeowners' Association. The Board met again, and one
letter is a product of that meeting about a week ago. Because of
my unique situation and my particular lot, this would create a
hardship if this were interpreted literally, and I would really
like to have the advantage of having a fence and a small private
area, like others there.
Lavagnino stated, I need some clarification here. It says, the
applicant is requesting a 6' high fence above natural grade which
is higher than street grade. Am I reading this incorrectly, where
it states something about exceeding the height of 42 inches, and
that's supposed to be a fence? Detko answered, yes. Lavagnino
said, that's incredible.
13
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 18, 1995
Leslie Lamont, staff, stated, I think there are two things going on
here. The language that is in bold is new language that we put
back into the code; it was somehow taken out of either our land use
code or UBC code. I think it was the UBC, because the Building
Department didn't want to enforce this, but the Engineering
Department and the Streets Departments felt very strongly that we
needed to put it back in, sorely for safety reasons. We allow
people to build fences right on their property line, and you could
build a 6' fence; we needed site visibility protected. The other
thing is, what Bill told me, and I did a site visit today, your
property is higher at one end and then it steps down. Lavagnino
stated, it's not natural grade, it is still street grade? Detko
added, street grade. My property slopes down the street, but then
there is a fairly steep upgrade up to the bus stop, so an
individual at the bus stop is at least as high, or even higher than
my regular lot grade.
There was discussion at random between the applicant, staff and the
Board regarding the fence and grade. Lamont stated, Bill and I
talked about this, and during my site visit, it became pretty clear
that this corner right at Oak Lane, where the fence is...if you did
a site visit you would notice that it pretty severely cuts off your
distance for Cottonwood. I noticed there is only a stop sign on
Oak Lane, but you say they are installing one there.
Erickson stated, you put a corner, why can't you chop that corner
off. You don't lose much of your yard, but if you could cut that
corner off, that would improve the visibility tremendously. Make
it an angle. The only problem I have with the whole fence is that
one point, right there. It is the highest point on the lot, it's
the one that blocks off Cottonwood and I'm concerned about people
coming up Cottonwood. Sure, it's a private street, but you don't
have a private Police Department, and if there is an accident, the
City of Aspen still has to respond to it; you still get City of
Aspen services, Fire Department and so on. If you can cut this
corner off (shown on diagram), I have no problem with this variance
at all. There was discussion at random between Board members and
Erickson showed on the drawing what he was speaking about, and
members discussed granting a variance based on a stop sign being
put up.
Mike Christopher, President of Smuggler's Homeowners' Board, spoke
and stated they were committed to a stop sign, and the only reason
it was not up is that they were in the process of purchasing it.
Lavagnino stated, we can just make the variance contingent on the
stop sign being in place. The Board discussed at random the
location of the stop sign and Lavagnino concluded, we will put this
photograph as part of the record, as to where the stop sign should
be (attached in record).
14
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 18, 1995
Lavagnino asked if there were any more questions and if there were
any more comments from the audience. He closed the public portion
of the meeting. He said, it was a terrific presentation, the kind
we like to see. It impresses us in the manner in which we can
grant variances, and I really like it a lot.
MOTION
Erickson stated, I would like to make a motion that we grant a
variance for a 6' high fence above natural grade, Lot 205, Smuggler
Mobile Home Park Subdivision, contingent on a stop sign being
erected on the corner of Cottonwood and Oak allowing traffic to
observe cars going on both streets. Paterson seconded, vote
commenced and was unanimous in favor, motion carried.
There was discussion between staff and the Board regarding the
upcoming agenda on May 25, Gary Moore and ALH Holding Company.
It was discussed by the members of the Board regarding a previous
granted variance which stipulated the variance would be granted
based on the fact that what was granted would never be used as a
deck. DeLuca stated he talked to Bill Drueding last year about it
and Drueding said he would pull the file. DeLuca stated he felt
the applicants abused the Board and wanted it in the record for
followup.
MOTION
Paterson stated, I move to adjourn meeting, Erickson seconded, vote
was unanimous in favor, motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk
15