Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19951130RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOVEMBER 30, 1995 Chairman Paterson called the meeting to order at 4:15 p.m. Present were: Charles Paterson, Jim Iglehart, Howard DeLuca, and David Schott. Absent were: Rick Head and Ron Erickson. CASE #95-15 BEN & CASEY HALL Paterson opened the public hearing and asked the applicants for Proof of Notification Affidavit (attached in record). Paterson read the variance requested: Property is located in the R-6 Zoning Category. Fence height maximum is 6 feet above natural grade (Sec. 3-101 Fence) Aspen Land Code. Applicant is requesting a 1 foot variance for a run of 40 feet for added privacy. (A 7 foot high fence for 40 feet). Casey and Ben Hall represented themselves and Casey Hall presented a letter from neighbor Roger Hunt supporting the application (attached in record). Iglehart read the letter from Hunt for the record. Casey Hall stated she and her husband inherited a home which is a historical landmark. Casey Hall stated the house next to her, owned by Mr. and Mrs. Hillman, was built to 1994 code and the architect, Cunniffee, did not respect her views and privacy. Hall stated she was requesting the fence to replace some of the privacy that had been lost as the living and kitchen windows of the neighboring house looked directly into the bath-toilet-shower and living-dining areas of the Hall's house. Hall said it was her understanding they could request a complete 100 foot fence from the beginning of the street of 500 Bleeker, back to the alleyway, but that was not their intent. Hall said they had a rod iron fence of about 40 feet for the charm of the historic property. Paterson asked the height of the rod iron fence. Hall responded the fence was about 3-1/2 to 4 feet. Hall stated the remaining 60 feet, where the Hillman's windows impacted her privacy, she was asking for a 6 foot, dog eared fence to be raised 1 foot for privacy. Hall stated the Hillman house siding is 5 feet from the lot line, their light wells, railings and all mechanicals and huge windows were designed with no respect to the location of her windows. The Halls showed a series of photographs showing both homes and the view planes and Hall said she did not think the Hillman's house BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOVEMBER 30, 1995 could be built in 1996 due to the land use codes. The Hall's stated the Hillman's house created a hardship for them due to lack of privacy. Mr. and Mrs. Hillman opposed the variance for a fence and presented a letter opposing the 7 foot fence as it would darken the window wells for basement rooms and was a definite encroachment. Mr. Hillman read his letter for the record and the letter is on file in the clerk's office. The Hillman's stated they would prefer no fence at all and offered $250.00 towards the expense of two trees the Halls have already planted. The trees alone, given a few years, would provide all the privacy anyone could want the Hillman's said. The Hillmans presented photographs also of both houses. Iglehart asked when standing in Hillman's livingroom, and the fence was 6 feet, would there be eye-to-eye contact? Hillman responded with a 6 foot high fence one would be able to barely look over the top and see next door from his livingroom. Amy Amidon, staff, clarified HPC's position regarding the variance and stated generally HPC does not like to see a fence more than 6 feet, but one of the special conditions involved that the Hall house was moved to the site and put on a concrete block foundation which puts it up at a higher than normal elevation. From the Hall's house there would still be a view to the house next door and that is the reason for the 7 foot height. A memorandum regarding HPC's review of the request for the privacy fence was viewed by the Board and stated HPC had reviewed the request and asked the Board of Adjustment to allow the variance. HPC did a site visit and recommended the maximum height of the fence to be seven feet where necessary (at windows) and the remaining fence to be six feet or less (where there are no windows facing each other). Amidon said HPC saw the variance as a resolution of the situation between the neighbors and said the HPC preference would probably be scrubery, but it would be too expensive. Paterson stated scrubery would look nicer but would take more space and he was concerned about the fire code. Iglehart stated what the Board was dealing with was a privacy issue and what was difficult about the job on the Board was to establish a practical difficulty or hardship in able to grant a variance. Iglehart said he understood privacy was an issue, but sometimes it is difficult to fit such an issue into the guidelines. 2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOVEMBER 30, 1995 Casey Hall responded because the house was historic landmarked she was limited by design and when the new home was designed next to her historic house there was a great oversite by the architect for window planning. She felt it was important that a good planner take into consideration the impact on the neighborhood, and said the situation could have been avoided in a preliminary design. Hall stated she had the right to plant more expensive pine trees which could grow to be 20 feet tall, but preferred to come before the Board with a concern for the desires of HPC and a compromise. Paterson asked if the 40 feet requested was from the front to the back or from the back to the front. Hall responded the 40 feet was from the back to the front. DeLuca felt the Board had been put in a bad position but personally saw a hardship because the City allowed people to build large houses close to the lot lines. DeLuca stated the applicants could plant trees but he owns a lot where someone planted quite a few trees before and he wished they were not there as they are now 40 feet high and he does not have any view. Hillman stated when one party is sitting down they cannot see the other party. DeLuca asked did that mean when both parties are standing up they can see each other? Ben Hall responded he did not know how Hillman determined the statement because there has never been anyone in the house to take those measurements. Casey Hall stated she could not afford to plant 8 foot pine trees. DeLuca stated he did not feel that would be a good idea for the Hillman's because the Hillman's would lose all their sunlight and both parties would suffer because of the situation. DeLuca thought the idea of the fence was the easiest way out for both parties. Ben Hall stated he had to go before HPC to build a fence but the Hillman's did not have to go through HPC to build a huge home, they could build anything they wanted to build within the code, but because the Hall house was designated landmark they could not change any of the exterior to help the situation. Hall stated his hands were tied, but the Hillmans' weren't. Hall said he had gone to the architect when the Hillman's house was under construction and brought the situation to their attention that it was having a dramatic effect on his privacy by putting livingroom windows looking directly at his toilet area. Hall stated he got no where when requesting that the construction on the Hillman's house be altered by adjusting window heights. 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOVEMBER 30, 1995 Casey Hall stated the Hillman's keeping their blinds down day and night and it was not a very good remedy for the situation. DeLuca asked the Hillman's if having their blinds down all the time was a nuisance to them. Mrs. Hillman stated she preferred the blinds down due to protection of fragile fabric from the sun and her habit in the evenings is to put the shades down. Paterson asked Drueding if there were any comments from the staff. Drueding responded staff supported Amidon's HPC letter of recommendations. DeLuca asked if the Hall's house was not landmarked historical would the Hall's be able to build the fence all the way out to the property line. Amidon responded she thought the Hall's could build all the way out to the property line except for the corner of the view planes. DeLuca stated the situation could be worse. Mr. Hillman asked what could be done in terms of internal remedies, window shades, curtains, etc. Schott asked which window had stained glass. Mr. Hillman responded the kitchen window. Schott stated when helping one party it was hurting the other and perhaps a compromise could be made. Casey Hall offered to bring the fence down to 5 feet according to the needs in areas of the window wells, but a height of 7 feet remain across from the bathroom. Paterson closed the public portion of the meeting and informed the applicants they had to have four positive votes for the variance to pass and if the applicants felt the vote might go against them, they could choose to table the meeting to another date certain when two other Board members would be present. Iglehart stated based on the information he heard, with the compromise of the fence heights being adjusted, and with the strength of the HPC's recommendation he would be in favor of granting the variance. DeLuca stated he agreed with Iglehart and the Hall's had tried to come to a compromise by lowering the fence to 5 feet to allow more light in certain areas. He felt there might be more they could do as far as how far the fence had to go; it could be, instead of 40 feet, 35 feet. DeLuca stated he did see a hardship as privacy was a very important thing and because the Halls' house was elevated from the Hillman's house there was a privacy problem. 4 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOVEMBER 30, 1995 DeLuca said he wished the Board was not put in such a position, but he felt he would be in favor of granting the variance. Schott stated he had mixed feelings on the case. He clarified that it would be a 5 foot fence except where needed for extreme privacy. Scott said he would be in favor of granting a variance if the fence was 5 feet except where there was a need for more height and some kind of rounding be added to continue the historical charm. Paterson stated he would be in favor of granting the variance if the fence was built in accordance with the recommendations of HPC. DeLuca said if the Board was going to grant a variance that it be stated that the fence be at 5 feet for the areas where light needs to get into the lightwells. Paterson stated the fence would be no more than 40 feet total, whether it goes up and down in different areas, and the Hall's make that choice. Paterson did not feel the Board was in the position to design the fence for the applicants. DeLuca suggested having Amy Amidon in charge of seeing that the fence was built accordingly. Iglehart suggested the fence be 7 feet in certain areas and for every linear foot of 7 feet there be an equal amount of 5 feet, and the rest of the fence be 6 feet. Paterson stated the Hall's were building the fence and should have free reign as to where they needed the fence the most and the Board should let the Hall's do it their way, but no more than 40 feet and there would be some supervision from HPC on the final plan. Paterson reopened the public portion of the meeting. Drueding asked if Paterson was saying 40 feet, then down to 5 feet or down to 6 feet. Drueding stated it needed to be clear. Paterson responded it could be 5 or 6 feet. Amidon suggested recommendation No. 4 from HPC and deleting the six feet and adding 5 feet and a more subtle transition in the height sets. Paterson stated he did not want to get into that because it was a design feature and he did not want to design the fence for the Hall's. DeLuca asked which side of the fence would the posts be. Casey Hall responded because she was 4-5 inches within property line, the fence could be flush on their side and if the Hillman's do not want 5 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOVEMBER 30, 1995 posts on their side, she would be willing to work out some kind of compromise. DeLuca said as a compromising thought that the Hall's put the cedar on so that the Hillman's do not see the posts and rails. He suggested putting the cedar on both sides so both parties would have the same view. Paterson again reiterated he did not feel the Board should get into the design of the fence. MOTION Schott moved to grant a variance for a fence based on the HPC recommendation: The maximum height of the fence is to be seven feet where necessary (at windows) and the remaining fence to be five feet or less (where there are no windows facing each other). DeLuca seconded. Vote was Paterson, aye; Iglehart, yes; DeLuca, yes; Scott, yes. Unanimous in favor, motion carried. The minutes of November 2, 1995 and the election of Vice-Chairman were deferred to the next meeting. MOTION Paterson moved to adjourn the meeting; Iglehart seconded. Unanimous in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk 6