HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.20060803
I
ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - MINUTES - AUGUST 03. 2006
Rick Head opened the regular Board of Adjustment meeting at 4:05 pm in the
Council Chambers. Charles Paterson, Mark Hesselschwerdt, Peter McClain, Jag
Pagnucco, Elizabeth Atkins and Rick Head were present. (Liz will serve as an
alternate at this meeting). Staff present were David Hoefer, Assistant City
Attorney; Sara Adams, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City
Clerk.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Case #003-06 Theodore and Isabella Dalenson - 637 West North Street
Rick Head opened the hearing for Case #003-06 Theodore and Isabella Dalenson
for an eighteen inch rear yard setback variance for existing new construction.
Jody Edwards, attorney for the applicant, explained that Scott Lindenau designed a
nice home for this property and the house was built where the surveyor told them
to build it; after it was finished they called the surveyor for a condominium map
who told them that he couldn't get to it for 2 or 3 months. Edwards said that they
called another surveyor who told them that the building was built about 12 or 13
inches into the 5 foot setback on the alley. Edwards stated that he did not know
which surveyor was correct and they were closing on the property; both units have
now been sold; everybody thought this was a minor and non-issue.
Scott Lindenau utilized photos and drawings depicting the neighborhood alley at
25 feet, 15 feet, 18 feet and 21 feet; their alley was substantially larger than others.
Lindenau presented the letter from Amy Margerum, who lived directly behind this
property and supported the variance; the letter was read into the record by Charles
Paterson. Charles Paterson asked the names of the surveyors. Lindenau replied
they were River City Surveys in Glenwood and Sopris Engineers, who did the
condo maps.
Rick Head recalled a case from 20 years ago when the Board required the applicant
to move the project back the 18 inches.
Sara Adams stated that staff found the criteria had not been met; self induced
hardship was not one of the criteria allowed for in a variance and furthermore what
was approved should be built. Adams said the minimum variance was not
requested but 18 inches rather than the 14 or 15 inches they were in violation of.
Head asked how would the need be verified. Adams replied that it would need to
be surveyed.
Lindenau explained that there were 3 other issues with the city engineer that were
changed, which were the utility box in the alley moved 11 inches onto their
1
ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - MINUTES - AUGUST 03. 2006
property; a conifer tree that was in the alley setback was removed; and there was a
concrete wall in the front that was removed. Lindenau said this variance was the
only thing that was not done. Head said that he appreciated what they had done
but was troubled by the fact that they did not know how far in violation they were.
Peter McClain said that one surveyor said the building was fine and the other said
that it was 13 or 14 inches over, it needs a third survey. Head said that there was
clear recourse over the surveyors if the building had to be removed. Head
suggested tabling so the applicant could come back with an absolute where they
were in violation.
Liz Atkins asked the architect ifhe designed both sites. Atkins said they were
practically a mirror image, why weren't they done just the same and the other one
was not in violation. Lindenau said they were similar and the one that was in
violation goes underground. Mark Hesselschwerdt asked how deep the garage
was. Lindenau replied 10 feet by 19 feet 6 inches.
Jag Pagnucco said that he was searching for the truth and asked whose hardship
this was. Pagnucco said that before he can make a decision he needed to know
who was right. Edwards responded that the problem was that a lot of the lines
were based on maps that were produced in the late l800s in the original townsite
maps and with different surveyors over the years used different reference points;
because of those discrepancies it ends up being 12 inches on property lines.
Paterson said that some surveyors used a mark on a big rock and by the time the
lines got to the West End it could be 12 inches off. Paterson said that Amy
Margerum's letter stated the utility pole was out in the alley. Paterson said that the
Board should hear the case and satisfy the applicant one way or the other because
the real problem was the city of Aspen and 1885 survey. Paterson stated that he
was in favor of granting the variance.
McClain agreed with Charlie. Atkins said that the board was making assumptions
about an easement or utility pole. Atkins stated the building looked pretty obvious
and asked if it was built as approved. Adams replied that it was not built as
approved. Lindenau said that they built it in accordance with the surveyed plans
and did not think that they needed a variance. Hesselschwerdt agreed with Charlie
and because it was a setback consideration and not a property line consideration,
which seemed like a legitimate mistake. Head shared the feelings of the board and
a legitimate mistake makes this a practical difficulty. McClain suggested the
variance be granted on what exactly they were over as it sits today. Edwards said
the condominium map has been recorded. Hesselschwerdt said the variance was
only for this specific building. Edwards said that if the building burned down then
it would be replaced back 14 inches.
2
---_.._~
ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - MINUTES - AUGUST 03. 2006
MOTION: Charles Paterson moved to approve Resolution #003-06 series of
2006, approving a rear yard setback variance of approximately 14 inches as set
forth in the recorded Condominium Map in Book 76 Page 71 Reception # 518384
located at 637 West North finding that review criteria have been met and this
variance only applies to this building; shall the building be removed so shall the
variance. Seconded by Mark Hesselschwerdt. All infavor, APPROVED.
Meeting adjourned.
l'l '/-J:~/
/ ackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
(
3