HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.20110616 Board of Adjustment minutes of June 16, 2011
Rich Head called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance
were Charlie Paterson, Mark Heselschwerdt, Peter McClain and Jag Pagnucco.
Staff present: John Worcester, City Attorney
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
Motion: Jag moved to approve the minutes of Sept. 2, 2010; second by Peter. All
in favor, motion carried.
Rick said we are here to discuss the case #001 -11 Joel Shannon — 592
McSkimming road for a front yard setback variance.
Notice of posting — Exhibit I
Stan Mathis, architect represented the owner. We have an unsafe access onto
McSkimming road. We are neck down to about ten feet and the slope of our
driveway is probably about 18% slope and it slopes to the car port. The driveway
comes in at an angle on a slope. The condition only exists on this house. The
Engineering Dept. would not allow us to widen the narrowest point where we get
out to access on the street. Right now we back up the driveway because there is no
good way to turn around. In the winter time this is especially difficult. You need
full power in your car to get up hill and going down there are steep slopes and we
have to back up the driveway. The retaining wall was built in 1971 and is a two
tier and ready to fall down. We could replace the wall but we want the wall as
exists which would widen the driveway by two feet. We want two additional feet.
We are asking for two additional feet and we need to keep the narrowest part as is
per the Engineering Department. There is an area at the end of the driveway that
we would like to expand to make a 2.2 turn around. You would go down face in
and come up. In addressing the two points that staff disagrees on I think this is the
minimum variance to make it a safe access onto the street. This would give us the
opportunity to enter McSkimming road face on to the traffic. There are special
conditions unique to the parcel such as the steep driveway at an angle to a slope.
There are other roads that do enter at an angle but they are not at a slope and are
relatively flat. All other parcels enter at a 90% angle or at a flat level. Stan said
the aspen code strives for health and safety issues and we are trying to meet those
codes. We are not asking for an overall setback variance for anything other than
the wall.
Joel Shannon, owner said they just remodeled their house and it is smaller.
1
Board of Adjustment minutes of June 16, 2011
Mark said the applicant is just trying to give himself a little more room to turn
around.
Rick said the photograph explains how dangerous the situation is.
Charlie and Peter said they also did a site visit.
Joel said he talked to his neighbors around and he is not aware of any objections.
Rick stated that there were no public comments and the public hearing portion of
the agenda item was closed.
Jag said he doesn't see anything wrong with the proposal. Safety is certainly an
issue. The variance doesn't impair anyone's view or encroachment.
Peter said he agreed and this should be approved.
Charlie said he doesn't agree with a few of the staff findings. To grant this
variance is a minimum variance. It would cause a hardship not to grant it. The
bank is quite steep on the other side. The big issue in my mind is the safety issue.
Mark said if you got rid of the car port you wouldn't have a safety problem. The
wall needs redone and it makes sense to get more space in there.
Drew Alexander, planner — This subdivision was platted in the 1950's. It was
annexed into the city in 1987 and the home that we are reviewing was built in
1971. The building permit files go back 40 years and the way the retaining wall
sits now it encroaches into the 30 yard front setback. Many of the homes that were
built were legally built at that time. There is a note in the file that said it meets all
building codes and that was in 1971. You are looking at the expansion of the
railroad tie retaining wall. The resolution was drafted so that it only addresses the
issue tonight and no other structures.
Drew addressed the three criteria, Aspen Area Community Plan. There was
nothing specific in the plan persuaded staff to say that the criterian was not met.
The two that were not met in staff's opinion were two and three.
2. The issue with the site dealt primarily with the design and layout of the lot and
the minimal reasonable use of the site has been established and has been in use
2
Board of Adjustment minutes of June 16, 2011
several years now; therefore, it is not necessarily a hardship but more of an
inconvenience.
3. This neighborhood has similar conditions throughout. One of staff's concerns is
establishing a precedence in the neighborhood for people to do development
further into their front yard setbacks. Building homes close to McSkimming seems
to have been the trend at the time of the subdivision development. The reso is
drafted so that if approved it would only address those improvements represented
on exhibit A & B. Exhibit B is a detail of the boulder retaining wall that will be
going in as well.
Jag pointed out regarding precedent setting that the Board of Adjustment operates
case by case and there is no precedent set from one case to another.
John Worcester said almost by definition you are dealing case by case.
Rick said he is in agreement with everyone. Backing out is a very dangerous
situation and is exacerbated in the winter.
MOTION: Mark moved to approve Resolution #1, 2011 with the request to vary
the required front -yard setback, in order to construct an expanded driveway and
boulder retaining wall for 592 McSkimming Road including Exhibit A & B second
by Peter. All in favor, motion carried.
Meeting adjourned att 5 / p.m.
�tA �fit thLJ
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
3