Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19950706 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 6, 1995 4 : 00 P.M. SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM A G E N D A I . CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL II. CASE #95-7 JOHN MCCORMICK III. REVIEWS A. CASE #95-2 GARY MOORE B . CASES #91-6 & 93-16 DR. EDWARD WATSON IV. MINUTES - APRIL 27, 1995 & MAY 18, 1995 V. ADJOURNMENT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 6, 1995 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4:10 p.m. He requested a roll call. Present were: Remo Lavagnino, Charlie Paterson, Ron Erickson, Jim Iglehart, and David Schott. Excused were: Howard DeLuca and Rick Head. CASE #95-7 JOHN MCCORMICK Affidavit of Posting was turned into the clerk by Mr. McCormick and placed in the McCormick file for the Chairman. Chairman Lavagnino stated, property is located in the AH zoning category. Setback was determined by review that set the building envelope. Section 3-101 Yards A (6), Aspen Land Use Code- excavations greater than 30 inches below grade not permitted. Applicant appears to be requesting a driveway excavation of 6 ft. down to minimum out. John McCormick made a brief presentation stating, basically, what we have is a situation where the natural grade of the land was dropped down to make a road cut. By doing that, my property comes in on a hillside into the road. The only way to access the property is to do a driveway cut, there is no other way to do it. Stuart Lusk, the designer, stated the driveway would be relatively level to the street cut, so the house is well within its setbacks, and basically, to the north side of the driveway would be no cut, and as you get in toward the steps that would go up to the house, that's where it would reach about a 6 foot cut within the setback area. So, the driveway was placed really at the only place it could be to cause the least impact. Erickson stated, I have a question for Bill (Drueding). Since this is a PUD everything was pretty well set, where it got its approvals and everything like that, why didn't the Building Department or Planning Office pick this up at the time, that there could be a problem with the code for driveways? Dreuding replied, I don't have any idea, Ron. Erickson asked, are they going to have additional lots in this subdivision? They are all on a circular drive, a cul-de-sac? So, we can possibly have three or four of those lots in the future? Drueding replied, right. They are coming from building programs from May 16th. Now we have the Design Review Committee, and they will handle whether they want that cut there or not. So, it won't be coming back to you. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 6, 1995 Lavagnino asked if there were any public comments? Helen Klanderud stated, I live at 1380 Riverside Drive, which is adjacent to this development. I wasn't certain just exactly where this lot was, so I thought I should come to see. My only concern was, because there was an earlier issue up there which involved both the setbacks and what was allowed at a ground level, and I can understand this problem, just so it is not made more general and allows some other things that I think might not be desired by other adjacent land owners. Lavagnino closed the public portion of the meeting. Iglehart stated, I think he's entitled to have access to his house and I think that's the only place he can do it. Erickson stated, I agree. Paterson stated, I'm O.K. with it. Schott stated, likewise. MOTION Erickson stated, I move that we approve variance 95-7 for a driveway road cut as per Planning Office memorandum. Schott seconded. Voting commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. There was discussion at random regarding the Board of Adjustment and the Design Review Committee and Board of Appeals. Lavagnino stated, we have some reviews before us, I'm not quite sure why they are before us, but I would imagine it is for clarification of variances that we gave. The first case is Gary Moore, and if it's O.K. with you, since I excused myself last time, I can just moderate here, but I won't comment on it. CASE #95-2 GARY MOORE REVIEW Lavagnino stated, did you bring this up, Ron? Erickson stated, I talked Bill (Drueding), because Bill wasn't at the meeting when we granted the variance. The variance was a conditional variance and I wanted to make sure that Bill knew what 2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 6, 1995 the conditions were all about. So, I called him up and we spoke about it and guess Mr. Moore didn't agree with my interpretation of the conditions that we had set. So, I asked Bill to go back and check and see the P&Z minutes and find out exactly what had happened there. Because at the last meeting, as I remember it, it was a tabled meeting, he came in and asked for a variance based on a recommendation from staff to P&Z that they move the building envelope 5 feet away from the bank. I felt that if, fine, that's the proof he is using, if P&Z makes him move his house 5 feet, then he has a right to a 3 ft. variance. Bill wanted some clarification on what designated the west side of the house, because we determined that if they made him move it 5 feet more, he had enough land behind him that he didn't need a variance on the north side of the house. We were already determining a variance on the east side of the house. So, where does it become westside? That was one of the complications, and two, what was the condition that we set on him before he was granted a 3 foot variance? Drueding stated, Stan Clauson, my supervisor, read this (minutes), went over the building plans, and he didn't feel that this (minutes) was as clear to him as it could have been. What he determined, out of what you said in here (referring to minutes), and our discussion, he felt, generally, they were in compliance with what you required. In a discussion with Leslie, she suggested to them that they do this 5 foot move, but they never really ratified that as part of a directive order. But, all in all, Stan felt that Gary (Moore) was in compliance with this. Erickson stated, when we granted the variance it was based on him moving the house east, 5 feet, although I felt it should be under the direction of P&Z. If he did it, then, the P&Z complied, that's cool, you've done what we asked you, I think that's sufficient justification for the granting of the variance. Drueding stated, I can't go back to P&Z and say, is this exactly what you want, or did you agree with Leslie? Erickson asked, was it moved 5 feet? Drueding stated, why don't you take a look at the drawing? Erickson stated, yes, I would like to. Drueding stated, see if this is what you want. Erickson viewed the map and there was discussion between Drueding and Erickson regarding the 5 feet. 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 6, 1995 Erickson stated, I don't have any problem with that. Gary Moore asked, is this O.K. now? Drueding stated, I have a boss that says it is O.K. Leslie says it's O.K. According to your minutes, he's pretty much in compliance. Erickson stated, maybe, in the future we have to be a little more clear with the motions. Lavagnino stated, sometimes you can find out in the content of the meeting itself, what was discussed to get the intent. A lot of times we talk about approving a motion based on the discussion that took place. It's been our way of doing things, in a sense, that we don't necessarily have to define the motion. Drueding stated, reading the motion out of the minutes, in this particular case, was very difficult. Lavagnino stated, this may have been an unusual case. Erickson stated, I think it is pretty clear to me. John Worcester, City Attorney, stated, the reason we are having difficulty with the motions in the minutes is the reason why I have sometimes suggested that you all adopt resolutions, so the secretary can prepare a resolution and then bring it to the chairman, several days later if necessary, and then you can read through that resolution to make sure that it says exactly what you understood the motion to be based upon your presence here. That makes it a lot clearer, because then, all we have to do, is interprete that resolution. Lavagnino stated, I wasn't Chair at that meeting, I excused myself, but still, when there are times when it is not evident, that motion is not quite precise, then we should do it that way. There are some times when it is real easy. CASE #91-6 & 93-16 DR. EDWARD WATSON REVIEW Lavagnino stated, again, this is something that was brought to your attention, Bill? Drueding responded, yes, it was. 4 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 6, 1995 Lavagnino asked, is there a problem? Drueding replied, I don't know that yet. This is one of these things that Ron keeps bringing up to me; as much as I try to get time to get over there, I have not had a chance. Erickson stated, actually, I mentioned to you six to eight months ago. Drueding stated, so, what's your complaint, Ron? Erickson stated, my complaint is that the applicant came to us for a variance. History shows that she lied to us about the reasons for the variance. She was not granted a roof deck and use of that roof deck. We have told her on two occasions that she is not supposed to have a roof deck, and she still has one. So, why even bother granting variances? I think we should take action against them. Drueding stated, O.K., I will look into it. Erickson stated, that's what you've been saying to me, Bill, for six months, that you'll look into it. Drueding stated, well, Ron, you're not the only person I have to deal with. Erickson stated, I understand that, but I've been very patient on this too. Drueding stated, O.K., I'll need direction from the City Attorney as to the action I should take. Erickson stated, that's why I asked John to be here, because what kind of action can we take? Drueding stated, first I have to look into it. Erickson asked, did you read the minutes from the meetings? Drueding stated, no, I am in the busiest season of the year, right now, and I'm busy. Lavagnino stated, we understand that, Bill. I think what I remember, when they were finally allowed to put up a railing around that, they met all the side yard setback requirements. Drueding stated, Frances came up with a different interpretation of the rear yard, what was allowable and what was not allowable, which overread my interpretation. That's what he did, he was my boss at 5 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 6, 1995 the time. I don't have that in writing to back me up. In the meantime the woman had to put another $15,000 in the window to have any access up there. On this whole project, Frances has gone beyond me, and said that this is different, and I can't keep them from putting that rail on the deck up there. That's what he told me, and I was acting on the authority of my boss at that time. Lavagnino stated, Frances wasn't at the meetings and didn't probably know the way it evolved, to the point where we didn't want them to have a deck. First of all, if we didn't give them a garage, in the first place, whatever setbacks they do, were always contingent on that there wasn't a garage there. There was discussion at random between Lavagnino and Drueding and Lavagnino stated, all I'm trying to do, Bill, is to make it so you can look at it in the perspective of them not meeting setback requirements. If the garage wasn't there, and they couldn't put that fence up there on the deck; it's mute to me, but now it's a point of contention here. Drueding stated, the interpretation was that they could put that fence on that deck up there. Lavagnino stated, yes, but they wouldn't have had a garage there in the first place, had we not given them a variance, and with that variance, told them they could not have a deck up there. I just want you to look at it, that's all I'm saying. Iglehart stated, this variance was granted on the condition that the deck not be built. The Board agreed with this statement. Lavagnino stated, so, Bill, is going to look into that. If you will come back, whenever you get through it, Bill, and let us know the outcome you derived from this discussion. Iglehart stated, how do you get someone to comply with something? Drueding stated, it is very difficult, that's the frustration in my case. Erickson stated, (to Drueding), what would you consider a fair time? Drueding replied, right now, I have more things than I can handle; I would say the end of August. Erickson stated, how about the end of September? Drueding stated, great, I appreciate that. MINUTES 6 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 6, 1995 Lavagnino asked to defer the minutes until the next meeting. The Board agreed. Vote was unanimous, motion carried. ADJOURNMENT Paterson moved to adjourn, Iglehart seconded, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk 7