Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19950907RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 7, 1995 Vice Chairman, Charlie Paterson, called for a moment of silence in remembrance of former Chairman Remo Lavagnino who passed away, before official meeting. Paterson officially called the meeting to order at 4:10 P.M. and requested roll call. Present were: Charlie Paterson, Rick Head, Ron Erickson, Jim Iglehart, Howard DeLuca, and David Schott. CASE #95-10 ORIGINAL STREET CONDOMINIUM Paterson stated, variance requested is Section 24-3-101 (a) Definition of Fence, Aspen Land Use Code. On corner lots no fence may be constructed or maintained which exceeds a height of forty- two (42) inches, measured from street grade, within 30 feet from the lot corner. Applicant appears to be requesting a six (6) foot high fence variance on the lot corner. Affidavit of Posting was presented (attached in record). Miki, owner of one of the units, and Lynn Mayhan, second owner, represented themselves before the Board. Miki passed some photographs, stating, these photographs clearly stated our case for wanting to do this. This is probably the busiest corner in Aspen where this four-way stop sign is. It is kitty-cornered from City Market. The street traffic is 20 feet from the entrance to the house. On the photographs you can see the existing building and the cottonwood trees, and fir trees that have been planted; I'm not sure when they were planted, it was before I became owner. They are on City property and we do maintain them. Apparently, when they put up the four-way stop sign, they were aware of this and put the stop on a street light so that when you pull up to the corner coming from the east, you go past the fir trees to see the stop sign. The same holds true when you are coming north, turning east. The fence remains in the inside, in a pattern where it forks. What we would like to do is raise that for the noise level, the fumes, the privacy. Paterson asked, at the same location as your present fence, is that correct? Miki answered, correct. I have a picture with me of the fence that we would like to put up, and where it will be located. Paterson asked, is that fence, right now, 42 inches? Mayhan answered, some of it is even lower, it is not a consistent level. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 7, 1995 Head asked, have we ever granted a variance on this? Mayhan and Bill Drueding of staff answered, yes. Mayhan stated, they have changed that corner around a few times. It used to be you didn't have to stop, now it is a four-way stop. Mayhan stated, I don't think you had to stop going west on the highway. Head asked, what would the consequences be of us granting the variance and they go back to something like that? Drueding answered, that would be up to the Engineering, but I'm sure they want a four-way stop there for safety reasons, that's why they did it. Head stated, the four-way stop seems to take away the argument, this 6 foot, 42 inch rule, not to mention, the City's never done anything about those evergreens growing up past 42 inches. Drueding stated, those evergreens are on City property. Head stated, those trees were planted by Marilyn (public) years ago. Drueding replied, the City, if they want to take them down, can take them down. There was discussion at random regarding the legality of removing trees depending upon size. DeLuca stated, on my property, on the corner of Cemetery Lane and Longview, they took a 21 foot spruce tree off my property, at the corner, and they had a legal right to do it. At the time it happened, the City Attorney, he wrote a letter to me threatening me, that if I didn't remove it, they would remove it. Paterson asked, was it City property. DeLuca stated, it was on my property. Drueding stated, the 42 inch rule has been out of the code for awhile, and then, last year it went back into the code; just a code amendment to put the 42 inch rule back on corner lots. At the first meeting, Kim Johnson told me, Planning & Zoning didn't want to put this back in because it included trees. They didn't want to go around and cut down trees. So, they grandfathered the trees that are there, unless somebody decides it is really a hazard. Head stated, if they grandfathered the trees, I don't see where the harm would be in letting them have a 6 foot fence behind these trees; the trees are clearly taller than the 6 foot fence. Drueding stated, if the City did decide that they wanted to cut the trees down, then we would have the fence there. Head stated, if we granted a variance on this, could we make it such that at some point if it was hard on the trees and the 2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 7, 1995 visibility, they would bring it back down to compliance? Erickson stated, I don't want to grant a conditional variance, because if those trees come down, they will need the fence. I don't think that's right. Head stated, if for some reason they said we had to bring the trees down to the 42 inch level, the fence would have to come down to that level as well. Paterson stated, I go around that corner three times a day and I don't have any problem with visibility. Erickson stated, I am looking at this diagram, right here, and I'm looking at the little red circles. Why do you need the fence back here. Miki stated, there is an existing fence there now. Erickson asked, how high is it? Miki answered, it is about 6 feet. There was random discussion clarifying what was being requested by the applicant. Erickson stated, I think that the appicant's concern is that noise, pollution, traffic and everything else is mitigated by the trees now. If the trees go, the problem gets exasperated and becomes worse, so I would grant the variance. DeLuca stated, I would grant the variance because of the trees. Head stated, can somebody enunciate a hardship or a practical difficulty here? There was discussion at random regarding the visibility because of the trees. Paterson closed the public portion of the meeting. DeLuca stated, obviously you are doing this because it is the rule. Drueding stated, that's the rule, you "guys" make the decision. MOTION Head stated, I move that we approve Case #95-10 for the reasons enunciated and for the health and safety of the occupants in the building. Erickson seconded. Vote commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 7, 1995 REVIEW DR. EDWARD WATSON There was discussion between Drueding and the Board at random regarding the Dr. Edward Watson variance previously granted. In this review the Board questioned the massive 25 foot fence which was not granted in the variance given. The Board felt taken advantage of and stated there were conditions placed on the variance which had not been adhered to. Drueding stated he had signed a Building Permit as written and questioned the legality of it. He explained that he would confer with City Attorney, John Worcester, and report the conclusions to the Board at the next meeting. The issue at hand was a fence built when placing a window in the house resulting in a roofdeck. The Board as adamantly opposed to the roofdeck. Drueding stated he would research and consult to see if it should be taken down. UPDATE OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DISCUSSION There was an untaped discussion to explain the new Board, the Design Review Appeal Board, the result of Ordinance 30. Leslie Lamont, Amy Amidon, and Dave Michaelson of Community Development explained the new Board and its function and the new review standards which would involve the Board of Adjustment and its functionings. The checklist review list was passed to the Board and a member of Community Development staff will sit in on meetings in the future to help guide and assist the with new standards checklist for the Board. MINUTES The minutes of April 27, 1995, May 18, 1995, May 25, 1995, July 6, 1995, August 3, 1995, and August 7, 1995 were deferred for approval for the next meeting as the Board felt it needed time to review them properly and make the necessary corrections, if needed. 4 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 7, 1995 MOTION Erickson moved to defer minutes until the next meeting, DeLuca seconded, vote commenced, vote was unanimous in favor. Erickson requested at the next meeting that the Board election be put on the agenda. The clerk so noted. Meeting was adjourned at 5:05 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk 5