Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.20000706ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES JULY 6~ 2000 Charles Paterson opened the City of Aspen Board of Adjustment Meeting at 4:05 p.m. Board members present were Rick Head, Jim Iglehart, Howard DeLuca and Charles Paterson. David Schott and Bill Murphy were excused. City staff in attendance: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Sarah Oates, Community Development Zoning Officer; Kathryn Koch, City Clerk. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None. PUBLIC HEARING CASE #00-06 LOTS 5 & 6~ and PARCEL B WILLIAMS ADDITION~ 516/518 SPRUCE STREET - 10 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK~ 20 FOOT COMBINED SIDE YARD SETBACK~ 5 FOOT FRONT and REAR YARD SETBACK (CASE WITHDRAWN) Charles Paterson opened the public hearing on 515/518 Spruce Street for ~ 10 foot side yard setback variance from both the north and south side yard, © 20 foot combined side yard setback variance and ® 5 foot combined front and rear yard setback variance. The owners of the variance were Art and Alice Vaughn and the applicants were Art and Colleen Burrows. Paterson requested the notice of mailing. David Hoefer stated that normally if the affidavit was not presented with the notice of mailing at the hearing, the hearing would not proceed but Sarah Oates was not aware of that ruling and stated that it would be provided to the City Clerk tomorrow. Hoefer said that if the notice were not provided to the City Clerk by 5:00 p.m. July 7th any decisions made this afternoon would be null and void. Hoefer also provided the board with a criterion sheet and the setback requirements. Rick Head asked if the setbacks changed in the R-6 zone district with lot size. Sarah Oates replied that the changes were on a sliding scale for the size of the lots; setbacks increase with size of lots being larger. Colleen Collins Burrows noted that it also depended upon when the property was annexed into the city. Burrows said that there was a grid that gave lots sizes and setbacks. Colleen Burrows said that she and her husband Art were currently living in Snowmass Village and wanted to move back into town rather than down-valley. She said there were many mental and financial hurdles for them to overcome. The lot was 12,000 square feet (60 feet wide by 200 feet long) with existing non- conformities in terms of setbacks, house and garage. Burrows said that they felt ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEF~TING MINUTES JULY 6, 2000 there were a lot of hardships and unreasonable conditions and that was the reason that they were before the board. Burrows stated the review standards included the AACP, which fit them because of locals utilizing in-fill housing and providing housing for other local people. She said that the FAR for this lot was not very large, roughly 4200 square feet total for both houses. Burrows said that they had hoped to also include an ADU. She said that a 60-foot lot was supposed to have 40 feet in side yard setbacks; she said that they did not feel that was reasonable. Burrows said they felt like they were in compliance with standard #1 (AACP) but sta~Thad some problems with standard #2 because of the existing house and garage there was a reasonable use of the parcel. She stated that the existing house was substandard and not up to code. Burrows commented that they had hoped to replace the existing house with a detached duplex, ½ in the front and ½ in the back. 3.1 Byers, architect, stated that the house was a small one-bedroom, which should '-be ~,toHe said that the lot was long and narrow with separation from the neighboring lots with a screen of trees on one side and a wall on the other. Byers said that before they sign to purchase the lot, they wanted more than a railroad car design ora house and would like to have a reasonable plan. Charles Paterson read 2 letters opposing the variance requests into the record the letters from Ward Ha. uenstein, 535 S. pruce Street (Exhibit 6) and David and Maggie Harris, 533 Spruce Street (Exhibit 7). Paterson explained to the applicants that since there were only 4 members of the board in attendance; all 4 members would have to vote in favor in order for the variances to be passed. A1 Byers asked if they could discuss first to get a sense of the board. David Hoefer responded that they had to decide now prior to discussion. Hoefer noted the hearing could be continued or the application could be withdrawn to request a lesser variance. Paul Taddune, attorney and friend of the family, asked if the matter was continued, would the full board then have an opportunity to act on it. Hoefer responded the position would be ifa 5th member was to read the minutes from this hearing, then that member could participate. Hoefer said that of it were continued, the requests for setback would have to be for something less than was requested at this hearing. Hoefer restated that if it appeared that one member would vote against the request, the hearing could not be continued just to get another member (not present tonight) who may vote for the request; the request would have to be changed to a lesser variance request. Paul Taddune reiterated that if the affidavit of mailing were not submitted, then the heating would be null and void proceeding. Hoefer responded that the applicant 2 ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES JULY 6~ 2000 would have to reapply and re-pay the fees; a variance cannot be reapplied for under the same grounds for a year. Rick Head stated that he did not think there was enough information to pass judgement today; he said that he would request an extension. He stated that he has never granted a variance without seeing a plan. Howard DeLuca commented that there were no set plans and he was not opposed to a discussion with a vote to continue but this plan will not work the way that it was set up. Colleen Burrows said that if she understood this correctly, it was not so much that there was not a 5th member here but this was not a significant amount of plan. She noted these variances hinged on their ability to purchase the property. Paterson noted that whatever plan chosen must show a hardship or practical difficulty. Jim Iglehart said that they have a 20-foot wide building envelope; the question was could they build within those constraints of the property. Burrows said there was also an encroachment that was quite significant with a snow load of 2 or 3 feet. DeLuca stated that the applicant had to understand that the board could only grant minimum variances. Jon Busch, public, stated that he was instrumental in passing the zoning that applies to the Williams Addition; this neighborhood was orientated east/west for the mid-day sun. He noted that everybody else had a 60-foot lot. Busch said that he had no problem with the 10-foot side yard setback, but objected to the 15-foot and 5-foot. He said that was not that much of a hardship and it was contrary to the zoning. He said that his position was that from a neighborhood this went beyond what the rest of the neighborhood had. Hoefer stated that there should be specific plans to go forward with the hearing. He said that you couldn't prove a hardship without knowing what the hardship was. A1 Byers said that they were asking for 1 O-foot, 1 O-foot setbacks with a variance on the existing non-conforming part of the parcel. L.J., public, stated that he was the sales broker and next door neighbor and had concerns because of time constraints. He asked when the next hearing would be held and asked if it had to be re-noticed. L.J. said there were reasonable people in the room. Head reiterated that he would not pass anything tonight. Paterson asked for photos. DeLuca stated that he looked at the site visit, the problem was there were no plans on paper. 3 ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES JULY 6~ 2000 A1 Byers said that if they do not have a decision that the 1 O-foot, 1 O-foot will work with the board and neighbors tonight, then they were still stuck. Hoefer stated that they couldn't do that because of letters from neighbors' objections and without a sketch plan showing a minimum variance, the variance can not be granted tonight. Byers asked how staff felt about the plans. Sarah Oates stated that after review of the plan, she felt that it was complete enough and understandable enough. Tony Rutgers, public, stated he was the south side property owner with the historic part of his house, which encroached on this property. Rutgers provided the history of the property to help explain their situation. He stated that he was not opposed to the 1 O-foot 1 O-foot side yard setback. Rutgers said that the owner acquired this property by eminent domain, by fencing and maintaining it. He said that it did not make sense to penalize the property owner for the addition of this property being subject to the larger setback requirements. Rutgers agreed with Rick on the necessity for a plan. Taddune stated that there was a plan, the box with a proposed side yard setback. He said it sounded like the board required a house designed that couldn't be designed. Head responded that he was not asking for great details but elevations, footprints and to show the hardships and practical difficulties. Byers stated that they have been told that they have enough information and they were asking for a setback variance not on a specific design. Burrows asked for the information needed for the next hearing. Paterson replied that a sketch plan, photos and elevations showing the setbacks were needed. Hoefer noted that this was not a board of equity but this board was only allowed to give variances very strictly pursuant to the criteria; he said it was important for the applicant to come back prepared to argue each criteria. He said the equity arguments were not relevant to this board. Burrows said that they wanted to go to P&Z but P&Z could not hear their case until September. Hoefer stated that that the process took the time it took because it was not to be rushed through or bend the criteria, it was important to follow the dictates that council set. MOTION:Rick Head moved to continue the public hearing for Case #00-06 Lots 5 & 6, and Parcel B Wlliams Addition, 516/518 Spruce Street - 10 foot side yard setback, 20 foot combined side yard setback, 5 foot front and rear yard setback to Monday, July l0th at noon. Howard DeLuca second. APPROVED 4-0. (CASE WITHDRAWN) 4 ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES JULY 6~ 2000 Sarah Oates introduced Fred Jarman, planner, who would be handling the August 3rd meeting. MOTION: Jim Iglehart moved to adjourn. Howard DeLuca second. APPROVED 4-0. Transcribed by Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES JULY 6~ 2000 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .......................................................................................... 1 CASE #00-06 LOTS 5 & 6, AND PARCEL B WILLIAMS ADDITION, 516/518 SPRUCE STREET - 10 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK, 20 FOOT COMBINED SIDE YARD SETBACK, 5 FOOT FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACK. .................................................................................................................................... 1 6