Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.20050519ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING - MINUTES - May 19~ 2005 Case #05-02 Request for a thirty-foot (30') from yard setback variance for the construction of a residence on Lot 1, Block 3, Aspen Grove Subdivision ............... 2 MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 6 ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING - MINUTES - May 19~ 2005 Rick Head opened the Board of Adjustment meeting in Council Chambers with Charles Paterson, Mark Hesselschwerdt and Peter McClain present. Howard DeLuca, Jag Pagnucco and Elizabeth Atkins were excused. Staff present: Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer; John Worcester, City Attorney; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Case #05-02 Request for a thirty-foot (30') front yard setback variance for the construction of a residence on Lot Iv Block 3~ Aspen Grove Subdivision. Rick Head opened the Board of Adjustment Meeting on Lot 1, Block 3, Aspen Grove Subdivision for a 30-foot front yard setback variance for a residence and proposed driveway. Mitch Haas and Christian Peterson represented the applicant. The notice of posting and mailing was provided. Sarah Oates said the site plans that were submitted, which showed the 20 foot wide developable area without a variance. Staffrecommended approval for the 30 front yard setback variance to allow for the construction of a driveway and single family residence. Mitch Haas said it was their feeling that this kind of lot was exactly why there was a variance procedure in the city; the lot was long and narrow and encumbered with easements and utility mains that were not capable of being moved. Haas said they were left with a 50 foot wide strip of land on which to build; this subdivision was legally created and annexed into the city so it was a developable lot to begin with. Haas stated with the setback requirements it does not leave a reasonable developable piece of property to build a house on; the proposed design was very reasonable with a 30 foot wide structure at the widest portion and doesn't use all of the available FAR. The rear yard setback was complied with and both side yard setback as well as all dimensional requirements. Haas said it was the only way to get a reasonable use of the property and there was a 20 foot gap between McSkimming Road and the property line so there would be 30 feet between the house and McSkimming Road, which addresses the spirit of the set back requirement. There were a lot of trees on the property and they worked with the topography. Haas spoke to some of the neighbors about the proximity to the switchback portion of the property. Haas said to grant the variance they were willing to say they will not place the building near the switchback area. Christian Peterson said they have had a discussion with some of the neighbors and the idea was to preserve as many of the trees and propose a structure that complies with everything they were entitled to. Peterson said they have studied the safety aspects of the lot for fire access and plowing. 2 ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING - MINUTES - May 1% 2005 Public Comments: 1. Catie Garland, public, said the developers and builders had an excellent reputation however this was a very special neighborhood with a country feeling and this lot was so narrow that it wasn't suitable for a building. Garland said by granting this variance it changes the whole feeling of this very special neighborhood and they want to protect the integrity of what is there. The neighbors in the audience agreed. Garland said they wondered why this lot was okayed for a building permit. Rick Head responded that with all due respect it was the original owner, John Doremus, that laid out the subdivision. Head explained that the Board of Adjustment was here to take this case on the merits as it was seen. 2. Ricki McHugh, public, asked why the city thinks this variance should be approved; what were the reasons. Sarah Oates replied that they should have come in and read the application. Head asked if the neighborhood would want a house that was 10 feet wide by 100 feet or something that was appropriate for the neighborhood. Head stated the notice was in the newspaper and the homeowners within 300 feet should have received the notice. 3. Rufus Crockett, public, stated objection to the variance and building. 4. Peter Kelly, public, said they were asking for a 30 foot set back with the length of the house and what was the square footage of the house. Haas replied the house was 3407 square feet. Kelly voiced concern for snow removal and pedestrian safety. 5. Clark Greenland, public, objected to going forward with a vote for the obvious reasons that none of the neighbors had a map of the proposed design so there could not be written comments without the map. Head noted that not granting the variance would cause unnecessary hardship and difficulty; a 10 foot wide house was not consistent with the other houses in the neighborhood in his mind. 6. Roger Davis, public, asked why there were regulations in the first place. 7. Margaret Shannon, public, brought in a map that illustrated the road, this lot and her 2 lots across the road. Shannon said that they would waive their objections if they agreed to limit the building so the variance did not extend all the way to the end; she suggested a condition that ran with the land that no building be permitted in that area. Haas stated their intent was not to build in the end of the "finger" portion of the lot. 3 ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING - MINUTES - May 19~ 200E 8. John McEwen, public, stated objection to the mass of a house that close to the road on 2 sides; he asked if there was any way to have the height reduced. Rick Head noted there was discussion about the city buying this land; most of the people in the audience would like to see no development occur on this lot and it was said that the city would have to condemn the property to allow for no development to occur. John Worcester stated that in his 15 years with the city they have never condemned a piece of property. Worcester said that he did not know why it would be a takings if the application was denied; they were entitled to file an application for a variance with the standards in the code and if they meet those standards the board has the discretion to grant a variance. Sarah Oates asked what would happen if the board denied the variance. Worcester replied the applicant would have the right to go to court and argue there was an abuse of discretion or the law was not followed but he doubted there would be a claim for a takings. Mitch Haas stated it was a developable lot and the city annexed the subdivision in 1987; most lots in the subdivision would have no problem with the setback requirements. Haas said that zoning was written for this R15B Zone District. Haas said that if no one else wanted the lot to be developed they could have bought the property; there were rights to develop this property. Haas said the property values were not part of these review criteria. Haas said at first he could not believe that anyone would want to build on this property but once the plans were drawn by Poss and Associates he was pleasantly surprised at the nice design that fit and met all the dimensional requirements with the exception of the front yard setback. The variance request was for a driveway and retaining wall that would be required regardless of the building width. Head asked what the notice entailed that people received. Oates replied it was a notice of the hearing and there was a sign posted on the property. Haas said it was the same noticing requirement for every application in the city. Mark Hesselschwerdt asked if the setback changed when it was annexed into the city. Haas responded that when it was annexed into the city the city had to zone the property and created the R15B Zone District for those annexed lands. 9. Susan Cappiel Collin, public, stated concern for the trees on this lot. Haas explained the tree removal was not an issue 10. Susan Blumberg, public, said when this many people in the neighborhood felt strongly they should be listened to; she said that she felt like things had already been decided on this variance. 4 ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING - MINUTES - May 19~ 2005 11. Cathryn Garland, public, said that houses were being built too big these days; she raised a family of 4 in under 1300 square feet. Garland encouraged much smaller square footage. 12. Ricki McHugh, public, stated the houses were smaller scale on a curvy road and the houses were not seen in this area. McHugh said this would be the first house other than one other that would be seen; mostly you see trees driving up the roads in the neighborhood. 13. Rufus Crockett, public, asked what the city used for criteria because the neighbors were not consulted. Head responded there were basically 3 criteria that the board considered and all three standards were met. Head stated the board does not come in with a predisposed feeling of how they will rule; all they have is the recommendation from the planning office. Haas stated they in no way take this for granted that an approval would be forth- coming; 14. Valerie Alexander, public, requested the letter that Mitch provided on the application. 15. Sheryl Shelby, public, asked if someone from the planning office went to the site or do they only use the plans provided by the applicant. Sarah Oates replied that she visited the site. 16. Vincent Pardia, public, stated the set back variances were out of character for the neighborhood. 17. Blake, public, stated she lived on the culd de sac and thought that a string could be put out where the house would be located. Head asked the applicant to stake the heights of the building on the site. Haas responded that he would be happy to show the heights for the proposed one-story residence and the elevations. Motion: Peter McClain moved to continue the pubHc hearing for the front yard setback variance on Lot 1, Block 3, Aspen Grove Subdivision to dune 9, 2005; seconded by Charles Paterson. All in favor, APPROVED 4-0. 18. Mr. Greenway, public, stated that they were in favor of development of the lots but they thought that this lot was un-developable. 5 ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING - MINUTES - May 19, 2005 John Worcester stated that many conditions could be placed into the resolution but you cannot place conditions by an outside attorney. Ms. Shannon stated that was not what she was asking for. The commission clarified that notice was given for the next meeting on June 9th. Rick Head thanked everyone for attending and stated the comments would be taken under advisement. MINUTES Mark Hesselschwerdt moved to approve the minutes from the February 3, 2005 meeting; seconded by Charles Paterson. All in favor, APPROVED 4-0. Adjourned at 4:55 p.m. 6