Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19921210 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 10, 1992 4:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS A G E N D A I. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL II. CASE #92-6 DOUGLAS P. ALLEN III. CASE #92-15 CELLULAR ONE IV. ADJOURN RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 10, 1992 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called meeting to order at 4 : 10pm. Answering roll call were Bill Martin, Ron Erickson, Charlie Paterson, Rick Head and Remo Lavagnino. CASE #92-6 DOUGLAS P. ALLEN Remo read into record request for variance. (attached in record) Douglas Allen: Presented affidavit of posting and mailing. (attached in record) I have built several houses here and have sold them. And I have finally acquired a lot to build a house for myself. This is a difficult site. It does have some serious site constraints. I think you have the elevations that show the severe elevation toward the bottom of this lot. There are 2 possible accesses to this lot. One is from the end of Francis Street which is a street which has not been in use for years. There are trees that are probably 15, 20 or 30 inches in diameter on the street itself down there. As I explored the possibility of coming in from down below with the Engineering Dept they are not too wild about it because of the lack of a turn-around at the dead end of the street and the fact that it is only a 15 foot wide street. And it would require the removal of mature trees down at the bottom of the lot. I have talked to the 3 neighbors who are the 3 lots that adjoin this property--2 to the east and one generally to the south. And to the north is Gibson Avenue. I solicited their ideas about what to do with this property and they are represented here today and I believe in support of my application. To come in from Gibson Avenue works but it only works if the house can come up toward the top of the lot because it is a very steep site. The 2 houses that exist to the east of me are virtually up on the street. (showed pictures) From an engineering point of view I can come in from Gibson, go into a garage for parking if I have a, and I have modified my request, 1 foot setback. And of course you have Bill Drueding's comments regarding that the Planning Office feels uncomfortable about this variance and he has 6 points. (attached in record) I have addressed these 6 points in my letter. (attached in record) The only alternative building envelope site is down at the bottom BAM12 . 10.92 and come in through Francis Street. Rick: I don't remember granting a variance to those 2 other houses along Gibson. Remo: I can tell you about those. The reason they are on the lot line is because they own to the middle of Gibson Street. And they relinquished that to the City. And in return for relinquishing the land to the City they were allowed 0 lot line. (to Allen) You are not giving anything to the City at this point. Allen: No. Remo: That is the reason why they are there. It is not because they are utilizing a property right that wasn't theirs. It is that they relinquished some land to the City in return--I think they gave them something like 30 feet which would have been their original setback. Allen: That was not reflected in the file for the variance. Remo: I remember because they came to us for that variance. Rick: They have much the same constraints that Mr. Allen has. Remo: As far the limitation of height, yes. Rick: Height and slope. And they are actually much closer to Gibson Ave than his proposed development. Remo: They are closer because they own more property. They own to the middle of Gibson Street. Rick: It seems like their impact on the street and the massing and all of that seem to be more significant than this off 50 feet or so from the road. Remo: That is true only in terms of that they are coming through a pedestrian path and the other houses are not. Ron: This site plan where you are putting the house now which requires a variance. You can build a house further down on the lot, access it from Francis and not go for a variance. You can have a house in Aspen and not have to move down valley. Why are you going to the trouble of requesting a variance? What does the granting of a variance give you? Allen: It saves all the trees at the bottom. And the Engineering Dept is not wild about coming through any more on that street 2 BAM12 . 10.92 because the Hamilton's house which is the only other house on that section of Francis Street also fronts on another street which I think is Spring. Remo: He doesn't really front on it. There is a house already there actually behind that house. Allen: I think they own both of those houses. Remo: No. There is a garage that has a lock on it. But that is behind the house. They may have some property that touches on Spring Street but it is not buildable. Their main access is on Francis Street. Allen: That street just peters out and hasn't been used because there has not been a house on this particular lot since the 1880s. Drueding: I know you have had conversations with Chuck Roth of the City Engineering Dept. and we have too. And as late as a half hour ago the road that he prefers access off of is Francis, not Gibson. Allen: That represents a difference from what he told me before. Drueding: As more information becomes available things change. Rick: This says "If the City denies access from Gibson-- Drueding: The City cannot deny--the City is not denying access. Rick: I think what he is referring to is if we don't grant a variance-- Ron: Last summer when we originally saw this we went out and took a look at the site plan and everything like that. And there was a shed and we didn't hear the case at that time because the County owned some of this land between you and the land. I am having a hard time finding where your lot line is and how that represents- -there are 2 dimensions--I think you mentioned something like 56 feet. Remo: 52 . Allen: Right. From the south edge of the pavement on Gibson to my front lot line is 52 feet. Ron: Which would be where you are asking for the variance. Allen: 1 foot back from that, yes. 3 BAM12 . 10.92 Ron: So it would be 53 feet to your actual structure. And the second thing is that how far down the lot does this start? Because the thing is that there is a section that is flat through the pedestrian walk-way and there is a fence there. That is still not your land, is it? It goes further down the lot before you get to the lot line. Allen: That is correct. Ron: How far is -it from the -edge of the bike -path to- where--you-- want your building and what is the difference in elevation between the 2? Allen: It is about 25 feet from the edge of the bike path and 8 to 10 feet below the bike path. Remo: We couldn't tell that because there were no markers. Even the shed was difficult to see. Ron: This is an extremely difficult project to envision from a non experienced architectural point of view because there are not reference points on this lot. I guess you have worked it out with _?_ Are they giving you access for a driveway? Allen: Yes. Ron: What kind of square footage are you taking from his yard? Allen: The County and the Engineering Dept have the position that you can cross the bike pate-- Ron: No, County land--the land between the bike path and the road is County land. Right? Allen: And between the bike path and my lot. Ron: - Right. So- it is not--I- am not concerned just about the bike path. I am thinking about how much land you will be using that belongs to the County--only in so far as how it relates to your building and everything else. You are not taking a 40 foot strip of land straight through. Allen: Oh no. Ron: Now all of this is County land too, right? Allen: Right. 4 BAM12 . 10.92 Ron: So all of this area here is going to be County land. All of this is County land and the bike path is this here. Remo: Chuck is talking about driveways over public land. I am wondering what is the problem with anyone as far as the City is concerned with putting in this driveway. Allen: Somebody raised the question of what the City Engineering Dept would say about the driveway. Remo: But it is on County property. Allen: Right. But it has to meet the City's specifications because it is in the City. When it was still in the County before this was annexed, they didn't annex the road. It is just one of those housekeeping things that didn't get done. Gibson at that section is an abandoned RR ROW and that RR ROW goes down where the bike path goes through it. And that was all RR ROW and somehow the County-- Ron: What is the difference in elevation between the split rail fence and ground level here at the bottom of your-- Rick: Bill figured it out at 8 feet to 10 feet of elevation. 25 feet from the fence to the property line. Allen: 25 feet from the bike path to the property line. Remo: Do they intend to abandon Francis Street? Drueding: No. The City is not abandoning it, no. Remo: So what is the problem with the trees? They either are going to have to take the trees down or they are going to have-- is there a problem with the City about these trees that are apparently in the roadway? Drueding: This is a road that apparently was never open to the City. Those trees are there. The City is not inclined to want to chop down trees. That doesn't mean we wouldn't if we had to. Remo: This is the problem right now. We are confronted with that problem right now. Drueding: It is an argument for not wanting to have access to that. As I understand it the City Engineer would still prefer to go that route rather than come in through the top and have all the problems associated with the traffic-- 5 BAM12 . 10.92 Remo: He would? He would rather come in through Francis Street? Drueding: That is correct. Remo: The argument presented to us are these old Cottonwoods. And unless you take them down the City--it still has the right to use that as a street but the only access it would help would be the people who have property along that street on both sides. And Doug is one of them. If you are not going to give him--if you don't want to chop the trees down it seems to me you might as well abandon the roadway because you are not going to service anybody except the people who own property along that route. ?: It already serves the 3 lots. Sunny Vann: Volk has 2 lots, one of which has been sold in front of the Hamiltons--south of the Hamiltons. At the time we did the Volk lot split, the ROW--I did not feel that the City would be willing to open it up as a street because of the mature vegetation that was there. The Hamilton house was not there. So we put an easement across the back of Lot 1 to get to Lot 2 . That way we would not have to use Bay Street to come to those 2 lots. After we recorded the plat I guess Ruthie went to the City and said "This is a platted ROW and I come in the first portion as a driveway to my home. I don't want you to put curb and gutter mumble_ The City said "Plat it as a driveway and, yes, you may do_ so" . So the driveway now comes in at the point where it encounters the first of a very large Cottonwood which is smack in the middle of the road and turns into her garage/caretaker unit. She then walks up to her house. There is not a driveway turnaround in front of her house. Once that became apparent it didn't seem to make sense to also put another driveway adjacent to hers paralleling hers. So we went back to the City and asked permission to also use that ROW up to a point of that first tree. So where Lot 1 is it comes up and that turns directly into the back of the house. The ROW goes up behind Lot 2 then turns to the north and abuts the rear of ? We did not want to use that ROW to get to the back of Lot 2 because it requires that we open up the road and remove the vegetation which would have an adverse effect on Ruthie's lot. So we co-operated with the neighborhood and granted partial easement across Lot 1 so the road comes in up to the tree and then turns onto our property to provide access to lot 2 which leaves all that mature stand of vegetation including the ROW intact. Remo: So it just butts Lot 2 . It doesn't go beyond that. 6 BAM12 . 10.92 MPT Rick: So Sunny you have done, on the behalf of the Volks, no further use of Francis Street under this present scenario. Vann: Right. Presently it serves Lot 1 of the Volk lot split and up to where the existing tree is and then turns onto Lot l to get to Lot 2 . Rick: So there would be no further property owner other than Doug to--and that would require removing a number of mature trees to access. Remo: Is there any way to wind the road through those trees to his lot? Vann: Not and stay within the ROW. Remo: Within 2 ROWS. You have Francis Street and the Row in order to do this. You have a pretty wide area to--and I don't know what the configuration of the trees are there. And I am thinking that maybe a minimal amount of trees would have to be taken out. Vann: Not without encroaching on the adjacent property owners. Remo: You mean even with Francis Street and the ROW you would still infringe on somebody else? Vann: Yes. (and explained this) Rick: So the enigma as you see it now is whether we cut down trees to give access or we will have a problem with the driveway coming off from Gibson Avenue. MPT Rick: What is precisely the objection of the Engineers are taking to pulling off of Gibson and driving into this driveway? Bud Eyler, County Engineer: Let me make one thing clear up front. While there may be a right of access to the County property, we would not grant an encroachment from that driveway access coming across County property at this time. You can't just go straight up the hill. It is too steep for the amount of distance you have. As a consequence you are going to have to go up there and switch back. What that does that basically takes most of the County property and takes out of the bike path. And I am not sure you can re-establish it in any sort of workable manner. 7 BAM12 . 10.92 My opinion and my response would be if the County were asked to grant this I would recommend "No" unless Francis Street is vacated. There is an access that the public ROW access his lot. Rick: Does the County have any future plans for this land? Eyler: Probably not. It is a bike trail. It is open space. Rick: Would your position change if the driveway were narrowed by 10 feet? That is if a 2-driveway--2 lane driveway turn into a one- lane driveway? Eyler: To some degree the width of the driveway is an effect. Realistically the grade you get from where you are parking you propose to get to the street-- Rick: For instance if he is coming up on a snowy day and he is coming out, is there a potential hazard created from coming up a steep hill and trying to access? Eyler: If this were in the County I tell you what--we would require first off generally speaking we would require he come in at a 90% angle as opposed to--generally we would require something basically flat for the first 20 feet so you can stop at that location. If you are flat there then that is a lot of grade in a relatively short distance. And you should come out at a relatively right angle. And this intersection--that thing is squirrely at the best of times and throwing one more access into it in my opinion is not the thing you want to do. Then the problem I have is the 0 setback on the lot line. Not only are you trying to put the driveway here but you are talking about using a substantial portion of County property as a turn-around and parking. So I can tell you what my opinion is--my recommendation is "No" . Rick: If we grant him a variance what weight would that carry with the County? You guys could deny him this access and then our variance is mute. Eyler: If we deny him then, yes, that is correct. Rick: What if he went before you first? Eyler: Administratively what he should do is come to the County Administration and ask for some sort of access across here and I think we know what that answer is going to be. Remo asked if there were any public comments. There were none 8 BAM12 . 10.92 Remo: Let me ask you this, Rick. If the County grants this request for a driveway here, will that influence your position? Rick: Absolutely. I am leaning toward this Gibson Avenue access because of the demolition of mature trees. If, in fact, they will not grant him this then that decision does not need to be made. Remo: In the meantime if we grant him access at Francis, that makes this back property with a 10 foot setback. That gives him 15 extra feet of-- Rick: Then he would have to go up a hill like this. He is requesting a variance to come off of Gibson Avenue. Bill: I agree with Rick. I would rather have the County decide whether or not they are going to grant the ROW. There was general agreement with this. Remo then asked for comment from the public. Vann: I represent Volk who owns Lot 2 . Our support is based on the assumption that he will access from Gibson Street. Rick: He may not need a variance at that point. ?: It is a very hairy intersection. But I feel very, very strongly about the Cottonwoods at the bottom. They are huge. And there is very, very many. There was no further public comment. MOTION Rick: I move to table Case #92-6 to April 8, 1993 which gives Doug exactly 4 months to get his ducks in a row. Allen: That is acceptable. Thank you. Ron seconded the motion with all in favor. CASE #92-15 COLORADO HIGH COUNTRY CELLULAR LTD. DBA CELLULAR ONE Remo read request for variance. (attached in record) Alan Woydziak, representative for applicant: I have Mat Kennan with me who is the project manager on this. 9 BAM12 . 10.92 He then presented the affidavit of mailing and affidavit of posting of property. (attached in record) In working with your staff and with your authority, Ord. #69, we are submitting a development application for a variance for a staging area to June 1, 1993 . This is a temporary storage of operating radio equipment on vacant land described as 1624 East Hopkins Ave. What we are doing is--Cellular wants to build a permanent facility in the basement of Stewart Title building. While we are doing that we need temporary storage next to it on the vacant land. And that is the 15 X 15 area. We need this for a couple of reasons. What we would normally do is maybe place this equipment on top of the roof to get it out of the road. But because of zoning height restrictions we have we will put it in a permanent space by the permanent telephone switching equipment that is being built based on this being in the basement, we can't do it. That is why we are going on the vacant lot. Ron: I don't understand. Why do you need this equipment if you don't have an office? Rick: They don't need an office. Ron: Is this equipment to be in the basement to allow them to operate 6 months sooner? Mat: Yes. Ron: In other words we grant this variance so you can open a business 6 months sooner than you would normally be able to. Woydziak: That, plus the calibration of the equipment and the antennas on the roof. That can be done when the permanent facility is all installed and running. Then it can automatically be hooked up to the antennas on the roof and the whole thing. It is a service we are providing for the community. Right now there is only one service provided up here. There is no competitive rates whatsoever. Ron: Don't we need a side yard setback variance? Drueding, Zoning Officer: No. This is not a permanent structure. You go back to Ord. #69 which--this is the only variance you need. 10 BAM12 . 10.92 Ron: Although this structure is cutting off access--side yard access to this building. Drueding: Those are all things you can consider. But they don't need any other variance as long as they are meeting this criteria. We have no problem with this. It is temporary. It is small. Bill: Do you have an affidavit from the owner that shows permission for this? Woydziak: I have a signed lease right here. It is a temporary lease. Remo requested a copy for the record. (attached in record) Woydziak: They have the authority to tell us to leave on 30 days notice. Ron: Do you have the option to renew that lease? Woydziak: No. Ron: My only concern with this whole thing is 6 months down the road we don't have to run around trying to police this thing and see that you have removed your equipment. And that we don't have to have you forcibly removed at that point in time. I don't want to play cop 6 months down the road. Is there any way that we could tie this in to the lease--make it an addendum to the lease. Therefore in order for the lease to be renewed at some point in time we get notified. Drueding: Sometimes with this Board when they do things like this we may have to have a project monitor if we give these variances. The project monitor could advise me and then we can do something. Rick: Listen, no one--neither these guys or the guys who own the property want to have this thing on here any longer than the necessary. They want to sell the property to someone else. MOTION Rick: I move to approve this variance. Ron seconded the motion with all in favor. Rick made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Bill: We approved the installation for the Syzygy Restaurant. It has now been done. But one of the promises the owner made was that 11 BAM12 . 10.92 he would put a sign up as to where the restaurant is. There is no sign. It was one of the conditions of approval. Drueding: I will take care of that. I recall him saying he would do that. Ron then seconded the motion to adjourn with all in favor. Time was 5:20pm. Janice M. j arney, City D uty Clerk 12