HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.20050609ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING - MINUTES June 09~ 2005
Case #05-02 Request for a thirty-foot (30') front yard setback variance for the
construction of a residence on Lot 1, Block 3, Aspen Grove Subdivision ............... 2
Case #05-03 Request for a twenty-six (26) foot front yard setback variance for 102
Eastwood Drive, Kyle Boyd Residence .................................................................... 2
MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 5
ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING - MINUTES June 09~ 2005
Rick Head opened the Board of Adjustment meeting in Council Chambers with
Charles Paterson, Peter McClain, Howard DeLuca and Jag Pagnucco. Mark
Hesselschwerdt and Elizabeth Atkins were excused. Staff present: Jennifer
Phelan, Community Development; Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer; Jackie Lothian,
Deputy City Clerk.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
Case #05-02 Request for a thirty-foot (30') front yard setback variance for the
construction of a residence on Lot 1~ Block 3~ Aspen Grove Subdivision.
Rick Head opened the continued hearing on Lot 1, Block 3, Aspen Grove
Subdivision for a 30-foot front yard setback variance for a residence and proposed
driveway. Sarah Oates said this hearing has been postponed until July 14th.
Motion: Charles Paterson moved to continue Case #05-02 to July 14th,·
seconded by Peter McClain. All in favor, motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Case #05-03 Request for a twenty-six (26) foot front yard setback variance for
102 Eastwood Drive~ Kyle Boyd Residence.
Rick Head opened the public hearing for a 26 foot front yard setback variance for a
home at 102 Eastwood Drive. Dylan Johns representative for the applicant
provided the notice and mailing.
Jennifer Phelan distributed an email supporting the variance application and an
amended resolution with the corrected date and name. Phelan stated the zoning
was R15b and the applicant requested a variance from the required 30 feet to 26
feet for the front yard setback.
Phelan said there were 3 standards the applicant should meet for a new single
family residence were (1) consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and
policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan and this title; (2) minimum variance
that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building, or structure and
(3) Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this title
would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the
same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical
difficulty for the applicant. Staffrecommended denial because the variance
request met only standard #1 and a garage is considered an amenity and not a
necessity.
2
ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING - MINUTES June 09~ 2005
Dylan Johns provided a brief history of the zone district, which was annexed into
the city in 1987. Johns said the intent was not to create non-conforming structures;
the property line was on the other side of Eastwood Drive. Johns utilized drawings
to illustrate the existing house and carport placement on the site; a good portion of
the house was in the 30 foot setback. Eastwood Drive was only 16 feet wide,
which could cause some safety issues compounded in the winter with snow
removal on a steep slope. Johns said the proposed design places the garage in the
setback with the doors perpendicular to the street. Johns said the proposed
driveway entry would allow the vehicle into the driveway and exiting backing the
vehicle out into a hammerhead mm around then out onto Eastwood Drive. Johns
said if they put the garage back they would create a 30 foot driveway, which would
not be adequate for a mm around.
Johns stated the entire living space was behind the setback, which brought the
mass back away from the street. Johns provided 3 dimensional images from
Eastwood Drive; the floor of the garage was about 2 ½ feet below Eastwood Drive,
which would be lower than the existing carport a built up structure. Johns said
highway 82 was below this lot; he said that they wanted to be respectful to the
corridor of highway 82 to keep the house from overhanging that part of the road.
Johns said they interpret reasonable use as also safe use and believe that the design
proposes the minimum variance, which would create a safe driveway condition.
Johns said that they did not think by granting this variance it would grant any
special privileges.
Rick Head stated this was brand new construction and was different than trying to
squeeze something on an existing house; this was a clean pallet. Head noted the
whole design could move down the hill a little. Johns said if they moved the house
and garage back it would create the 30 foot driveway significantly below traffic to
back out into on Eastwood Drive. Johns said the area is also a nice Aspen Grove.
Howard DeLuca said that he agreed with Rick that there are ways of moving the
house down; the grade goes from 80 to 86. Head noted the new design was not
anymore invasive as the old house was now. DeLuca said the minimum variance
was looked at normally; the garage sits 6 feet lower in elevation than the road and
the survey shows another 4 feet to the dwelling so it was between 10 and 12 feet
lower in elevation. DeLuca said if the entire house was moved 8 to 10 feet down
the hill there would not be any situations created and the variance requested would
be less than what was requested now. DeLuca said that would be a reasonable
reqUest versus the ultimate request of the garage in the setback. Johns said they
wanted to keep the house as far away from the crest of the berm as possible so that
ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING - MINUTES June 09~ 2005
it was not impacting the community at large and reducing the non-conformity on
site.
Public Comments:
Eric Musselman said that he was an attorney for a homeowner across Highway 82.
Musselman asked if the berm was inside of the orange building envelope. Johns
replied that it was. Musselman asked if they would build up to the berm or over
the berm. Bill Pollock, Zone 4 Architects, utilized a photo to show the proximity
of Highway 82 with screening. Johns said that if they moved the house 10 feet
they would be close to the berm.
DeLuca asked the setback from Highway 82. Johns replied that it was a typical
rear yard setback.
Jag Pagnucco said that Eastwood Drive was a non-conforming road, which impacts
the setback. DeLuca explained that buying a non-conforming property was not a
hardship; you can not create your own hardship.
Charlie Paterson said that there was a practical difficulty in trying to design this
house. Paterson said moving the house towards Highway 82 was a disservice to
the view plane and to the building because you are closer to the highway noises.
Paterson said there was a safety issue with the backing into Eastwood Drive.
Paterson suggested a one-car garage rather than a two-car garage then it would not
be as great in the setback.
DeLuca agreed with Charlie about the safety issue and the one-car garage to lower
the impact. DeLuca said this was a brand new house and did not think that the
variance should be as extreme as requested.
Jag Pagnucco stated the variance requests were always case by case and he said
that he would approve this variance.
Peter McClain stated that he liked the design of the house and did not think
because of the safety issue and the narrowness of the street he would vote for this
variance.
Motion: Charles Paterson moved to approve the request for a twenty-six foot
front yard setback variance for the construction of a garage and residence at 102
Eastwood drive finding that the review standards have been met. dag Pagnucco
seconded. ,,Ill in favor, approved.
4
ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING - MINUTES June 09~ 2005
MINUTES
Motion: Charles Paterson moved to approve the minutes from May 19, 2005;
seconded by Peter McClain. .'Ill in favor, approved.
Howard DeLuca resigned from the Board of Adjustment because he is moving to
Basalt.
ackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk