Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.20020815CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ,, August 15~ 2002 CASE #02-03:73 SMUGGLER GROVE, LOT 5, EAST MEADOW SUBDIVISION- MIKE SEGUINi ..... i ....... i ............................................................. 2 MINUTES ........................................................ 6 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT August 15, 2002 Charles Paterson opened the City Of Aspen Board Of Adjustment special meeting at 4:00 p.m. with Mark Hesselschwerdt, Howard DeLuca, Jim Iglehart, Rick Head, and Greg Hughes present. Bill Murphy was excused. Staff in attendance: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Joyce Ohlson and Scott Woodford, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Lothian introduced the new alternate member, Greg Hughes. Joyce Ohlson introduced herself, the deputy director and Scott Woodford the new city planner. PUBLIC HEARING: CASE #02-03:73 SMUGGLER GROVE, LOT 5, EAST MEADOW SUBDIVISION - MIKE SEGUIN Charles Paterson opened the public hearing for Case #02-03, 73 Smuggler Grove. David Hoefer stated that public notice was provided; the board had jurisdiction to proceed. Paterson said that the applicant requested a 15-foot front yard setback variance for a principal building, 20-foot front yard setback variance for an accessory building, a 5-foot setback variance for the south side yard and a 5-foot rear yard setback variance for the principal building for the construction of a single family dwelling unit and a detached accessory dwelling unit and garage. Scott Woodford stated that the staffrecommendation was for denial because it did not meet review standards 2 and 3. Woodford said if the board moved for approval then a condition on the sewer line should be added outlined in the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District letter from Tom Bracewell dated August 14, 2002. The re-location of the sewer line or a cured in place liner in the sewer where it exists could be solutions to address the sewer line easement issue. Rally Dupps, Consortium Architects, explained this property was at the end of Smuggler Grove Road with a legal non-conforming duplex. There were a number of utility easements on the property, power poles and lines overhead and the 16- foot wide sewer easement, the trunk line for the neighborhood. The city/county line was the back of the lot. Part of the residence and a deck was built on the sewer easement. Dupps proposed a re-development of the property keeping the sewer easement in place; the easement would be difficult to move and incumbent on his client to pay for it plus the impact on the neighbors. Dupps said the proposed residence was a footprint of 1215 square foot to fit in the triangle with some variances. They requested a 10-foot front yard setback, a 5-foot rear yard setback and 5-foot side yard setback. Also proposed was a separate detached garage with an ADU above it. Dupps provided elevations and drawings of the proposed re-development. Dupps said the zoning was R-15, medium density; the FAR for a single-family residence was 329 square feet less than what was allowed for a duplex. Mike Seguin stated that he spoke to many of the neighbors and they 2 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT August 15, 2002 were in favor of getting cars off the street since the street was a dead end with a bottleneck of cars. Charles Paterson asked how the proposed garage was accessed. Dupps replied that that there was access from Smuggler Grove Road across the sewer easement. Dupps said that the first review standard was met but standards 2 and 3 were not; he distributed the written rebuttal describing how the re- deve~,opment would not be built on the sewer easement as was the existing duplex. Dupps said that the existing was a legally non-conforming duplex but the re- development would bring the property into further compliance with parking on site. Dupps said that he disagreed with the staf£report that said that they had reasonable use of' the parcel because the allowable building envelope was 794 square feet for the south portion and 237 square feet for the north. Dupps utilized maps and drawings to illustrate the bisection of the property by the sewer easement and the property line easements; this lot was 6200 square feet. Dupps said that the third standard would cause hardship and the lot was unique; DUpps referred to Tom Bracewell's letter from ACSD, which entailed moving the sewer line. Howard DeLuca asked for something in writing about the sewer line. Seguin answered that he spoke to Chuck Roth when he first bought the'property and he was told that the sewer line could not be moved. David Hoefer asked if Mr. Seguin bought the property with full knowledge that there was a sewereasement across the middle of the property. Seguin replied that yes, he bought with full knowledge that eaSement ran across the property; he said that he thought that something like this could be done across the pipe. Seguin said that was available but with a 700 square foot pad on one side and two hundred square feet on the other side, that was basically unbuildable. Hoefer noted for the record that currently the property was usable without any variances. Joyce Ohlson clarified if the variance were approved then the sanitation district would like to see the line put in place, which would be at the applicants expense. Dupps said that the neighbors homes had parking in front, which this property did not and was handicapped because the lot was surrounded by private roads and private property therefore the city Setback requirements caused unreasonable and unintended results for this property.' PhOtos were used for illustrative ptkrposes. Steve Hock, public, stated that he lived at 23 Smuggler Grove; he said that he was not against anything would get Cars off the street. Hock said that he wasn't opposed to a re-development and the front yard was really a side yard. Hock asked for clarification if the unit above the garage was an ADU, office or an artist studio. Dupps said that they wanted a usable space and had not defined it yet. DeLuca asked if it was called an ADU to gain square footage. Ohlson stated that if an ADU would be required on site then this would be restricted as such, but this 3 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT August 15, 2002 needed to go a step further at the staff level after setbacks were established at the Board of Adjustment. Dupps stated that they were not going through any exemption for the space above the garage but taking square footage from the lower building and placing it above the garage. A1 Beyer, public, stated that he lived at 024 Ardmore Drive and this was a challenging site. Beyer said that he was going to be critical with his comments and submitted a letter stating these concerns. Beyer said that the very minimum necessary to give you reasonable use was what should be stated and this re- development was the very maximum of what could be requested today. Beyer said that there were no hardships and a 10-foot setback should remain at Ardmore Drive because of the elevation of 4 feet above this property; he voiced concern for the structural ability of Ardmore Drive with the light wells 5 feet from Ardmore with a depth of 8 feet; he questioned enough room for Holy Cross to bury the utility lines in that 5 foot easement. Beyer said there were two small existing apartments to an upgrade of one big house and potentially one small apartment. Beyer said that the lot was purchased at a discounted price relative to the market because of the existing conditions and now was for sale with a request for variances under the guise of a hardship. Dan Sadowsky, public, 43 Smuggler Grove, stated that the issues were a substandard street or a glorified driveway, very problematic parking and a safety problem, rental properties having more cars. Sadowsky said the design was ok and have 'heard various price'tags on moving the sewer and how it would affect the neighborhood. Sadowsky said taking the vehicles off the street would be a relief for the neighborhood. Evan Gull, public, said that he lived at 25 Ardmore Court. Gull said that in trying to determine what reasonable use was that the maximum FARwas not reasonable without pushing the setbacks in every direction. DeLuca stated that there was difficulty in the lot with the front yard setback being imposed on the side yard and there was a hardship with the way the lots were laid out on that block but the sewer easement was a gray area. DeLuca said they were asking for a setback on every side of the lot and within 5-feet of Ardmore, which should be maintained at 10-feet. DeLuca said the FAR was 3200 square feet and with the basement there was actually 4200 square feet, the mass and height encroaching on the street was a problem and he said this was not a minimum variance. 4 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUgust 15~ 2002 Jim Iglehart asked i£each lot was looked at for setbacks when it was annexed into the city. Joyce Ohlson responded that it was probably annexed as is. Mark HesselschweMt said that Rally did well putting the maximum FAR on this site, it was quite a work o£architecture. Hesselschwerdt said they were going from 2 bedrooms and a studio to 4 bedrooms and an ADU; he said this was appropriate on some variances but by going for the maximum variances was missing the mark for a salable item that they bought at a discount because o£the inherent problems. Rick Head said that he joined Mark in that the density will not be reduced by this development; he said that if all the setbacks were backed out and the easements there was only a postage stamp size for development left. Head stated this l°t was tough to develop and saw no point in moving the sewer line; he said that he was in favor o£ granting the variance. Jim Iglehart echoed Rick. Iglehart said that the utility line problem would be addressed between Holy Cross and the owner. Iglehart asked what the minimum setback was that this board would approve. David Hoefer stated that for a legal point °£clarification, if the board felt that they were requesting too much, then the applicant could have the opportunity to re-design and come back with something else and ask £or less. Hoe£er noted that the board was voting on what was proposed. DeLuca restated that the front yard setback was ridiculous but the getting rid o£the other setbacks was not granting a minimal variance. DeLuca suggested reducing the size of the house by 500 square feet, changing the front yard setback to a side yard setback, which would be a minimum variance instead of the proposed maximum FAR, mass and size encroaching onto the street (Ardmore); he said that just gives a slightly smaller building envelope. DeLuca stated there were still encroachments but instead of 4200 square feet; it Could be 3500 square feet. DeLuca stated that he was not willing to grant the proposed variances. Greg Hughes said that the redevelopment would be a nice addition to improve the neighborhood. DeLuca stated that the Board of Adjustment was supposed to grant the minimum variance and not just because something looks nice should the ~:, ~ variance be granted. DeLuca said that right now he would be able t° build 1200 square feet and he was asking for 4200 square feet, somewhere in between would be better. Iglehart said that he respected what Howard said but the applicant would have to come back and take his chances again~ DeLuca provided several scenarios for re-design with variances. Iglehart said that he did not want them to have to keep coming back. Hesselschwerdt stated that the criteria denoted the minimum 5 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT August 15, 2002 not the maximum variance; the applicant ignored that. DeLuca stressed that the house had to be shrunk down in size to fit into the minimum variances. Iglehart asked if this board was the only way to get a building envelope changed. Ohlson replied that the underlying zone district dictated the setbacks; she said that the real question was the one that Howard brought up of the minimum setback to reasonably develop and use the property. Paterson said that the board was split and 4 positive votes were needed to grant the approval. Paterson stated that Howard's point was valid with the difficulty on Ardmore Court with the 5-foot setback and road stability unless a concrete wall was built. Paterson suggested tabling and continuing for a smaller redesign; he said that he felt that the re-development was necessary with practical difficulty without moving the sewer. Paterson said that Mark and Howard's concerns were very legitimate and would like to see a change. The front yard could be treated like a side yard and the house should be designed in a smaller scale with more setbacks on the Ardmore side. Paterson stated that A1 Beyer's comments were also very good. MOTION: Rick Itead moved to continue Case #02-03 to September 5, 2002 so the applicant, Mike Seguin can revise the plan with the stated revisions from this meeting. Mark Hesselschwerdt seconded. All in favor, APPROVED 5-0. Dupps said that there would be changes to the side yard setbacks on the Ardmore side to 10 feet and to minimize the all around setback variance requests. MINUTES MOTION: Rick Head moved to approve the minutes from June 13 and 27, 2002 for Case #02-02, Gary and Kathleen Albert, 725 West Smuggler. Mark Hesselschwerdt seconded. APPROVED 5-0. MOTION: Rick Head moved to adjourn at 5:25; seconded by Jim Iglehart. APPROVED 5-0. ian, Deputy City Clerk 6