HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19970213 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 13,1997
MINUTES 1
DECLARATION OF CONFILCTS OF INTEREST 1
CASE 93-3: (RESOLUTION 02-93)935 GIBSON 2
CASE 93-02(RESOLUTION 03-93) 1125 UTE AVE 1
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 1 3, 1997
Charlie Paterson opened the regular meeting at 4:09 p.m. Rick Head, Jim Iglehart,
Ron Erickson, and Howard DeLuca were present. David Schott was excused and
Dan Martineau absent. City Staff present were David Hoefer and Sara Thomas.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CASE #97-2 HOAG SUBDIVISION LOT 3, 1125 UTE AVENUE VALERIO
PROPERTY
Charlie Paterson asked for the notice of posting. David Hoefer stated for the record
the notice was sufficient. Roy Parsons, Architect, provided the notice. Brooke
Peterson, Attorney for Applicant, explained this was the second time that this
applicant was before the Board. He said the last variance expired due to the lack of
construction activity by the previous owner. He noted the 8040 Greeline was
approved by P&Z in December of 1996.
Parsons stated the site was very steep and accessed by a shared driveway from the
side with an elevation that hits the middle of the building. He said the site is large
but covered by an avalanche path with concerns for the location of the property and
driveway access. There is a 100’ setback required which would place the building
40’ up the slope and extend the driveway up hill with switch backs. He noted this
was not a viable alternative, especially because the 8040 Greeline would not allow.
Parsons said with the 100’ setback for the avalanche path, the building would be too
small and the site difficult to build on. He commented that because of the lot size
and location, it was given conservation zoning. He said this was the most site
specific location. Peterson explained Sara Thomas’ Memo reflects the requirements
for granting the variance very adequately.
No public comments.
Ron Erickson asked the total square footage. Parsons replied that it was toned
down to about 5,500 sf. Rick Head stated that amount of square footage is less than
what was actually allowed in the conservation zone. Erickson stated that would be
true if were a typical lot, but it is not. He said that a 2,000 sf house would probably
be able to be placed on this lot without the 70’ variance. Head said they would need
a variance whether a 2,000 sf or 10,000 sf house was placed on this lot. Parsons
explained that even a 500 sf cabin would have the same problem with the variance
because of the elevations. Erickson asked where would the building have to be
moved back to for a 60’ variance. He said that it appears the way the house is
1
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 1 3, 1997
designed there are 10’- 20’ of variance not needed. Erickson stated the Board was
required to allow a minimum variance.
Parsons answered that much time was spent on the 8040 Greenline and the garage
location (the front facade). He said there would be more grading required by
moving the house farther up the hill and farther away from the driveway access.
These mature trees may be disturbed moving the house up the hill. Erickson asked
for a copy of the 8040 Greenline. He said that he reviewed the last time this site
came through and he could not see any difference in the building envelope.
Head asked if there was a re-vegetation plan in the 8040 Greenline for the switch
backs behind the house. Peterson said they were required to have retaining walls
and avalanche impact lodes as recommended by Art Mears in his avalanche analysis
dated 1/97 (and was made part of the 8040 Greenline review). He noted the unused
driveway easement through the lot shall be vacated and the upper portion re-
vegetated with the lower retained solely as a trail easement.
Head favored the 70’ setback and was scrutinized about 3 or 4 years ago. He saw
no reason to amend the request and felt it was very clean variance. DeLuca favored
the house lower on the hill, to keep it where it was located. Erickson stated the
variance request could be reduced with design changes. Iglehart was in favor of it.
Paterson said this was looked at before and had concerns about moving it up 10’
which could cause more problems and this was the best solution.
Erickson was surprised there were no neighbors present. Head stated there were
two more houses being constructed adjacent to this one. These houses and lots
were in the county but shared the same driveway.
MOTION: Rick Head moved to approve the variance request for a
seventy foot (70’) front yard setback variance at 1125 Ute Avenue, Hoag
Subdivision Lot#3, finding that the review standards have been met.
Ron Erickson second. MOTION APPROVED 4-1.
(Jim Iglehart, Howard
DeLuca, Charlie Paterson and Rick Head for, Ron Erickson opposed.)
CASE # 93-3, LEWIS RESIDENCE - 935 GIBSON
Charlie Paterson stated the applicant requested an 18’ variance from the front yard
set back requirement to construct a garage.
2
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 1 3, 1997
Rick Head stated there was a variance request on this house before. Ron Erickson
remembered the request for additional FAR and a setback variance because of the
shape of the lot. He recollected the maximum was granted prior. Sara Thomas was
not aware of any prior variances granted. David Hoefer went to look for any prior
variances granted. David Panico, Architect, said the lot was 22,000 sf and the
Gibson Avenue right-of-way took away 12,000 leaving a 10,000 sf lot. He said the
total available FAR is 4,150 and the existing was 3,016. Panico said if this was
granted there would be 825 additional FAR.
Panico noted the owners will be living here permanently and requested a garage.
He said the building envelope was less than a quarter of the entire 22,000 sf lot area
with a very odd shape. He noted there would be room for a single car garage but
then the entire house would have to be redesigned. He proposed a two car garage
with the available space in the attic to be used as a new bedroom.
Panico said the design considered the minimal removal of trees for the driveway (2
or 3). He will re-locate the drive if possible. Erickson asked about the safety of
that driveway placement with the 6’ snow wall. Thomas noted that Engineering
reviewed this site plan and had no concerns.
Jim Mickey, public residing at 931 Gibson, welcomed the Lewis’ to the
neighborhood. He hoped the board would grant the variance.
Erickson wanted a conditional variance based upon no prior variances granted.
Hoefer affirmed. Panico said in ’93 the two structures were combined, dissolving
the duplex. He noted that Ordinance 30 review was next for this project.
MOTION: Rick Head moved t o approve the request for an eighteen foot
(18’) front yard setback variance at 935 Gibson Avenue, to allow for
construction of a two car garage with loft addition, finding the review
standards have been met subject to the condition that there is no
inconsistent prior variances. Ron Erickson second. ALL IN FAVOR,
APPROVED 5-5.
CASE #97-2 HOAG SUBDIVISION LOT 3, 1125 UTE AVENUE VALERIO PROPERTY ....................... 1
3