HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.min.05.05.2009
MINUTES
Meeting of the
Pitkin County Board of Adjustment
May 5, 2009
NO TAPE DUE TO TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES
Members Present: Michael Cooper and Bob Throm
Co-Chairmen: Patrick McAllister and Jamie Brewster-McLeod
Members Absent: Jim ltiflcirt and Rick Head
Staff: Susan Pearson, Zoning Officer and acting secretary
Brewster-McLeod opened the meeting at 5:35 pm.
CASELOAD:
Case 04-2009 S-G Land Company, LLC
30385 Highway 82
The applicant's representative, Francis X. Krizmanich, was present to request a 40 foot
Arterial Highway setback variance where 100 feet is required and a 40 foot river setback
variance where 100 feet is required to construct a single family residence. This case was
continued from the Boazd of Adjustment meeting on Agri17, 2009 as the public notice
for the April meeting was not posted in the Aspen Times in its entirety. A new public
notice has been posted meeting all time and posting constraints required by the Pitkin
County Land Use Code. Krizmanich presented the Affidavit of Posting for the sign and
the Affidavit of Posting for the mailing to Zoning Officer Susan Peazson. There were no
members of the public present to comment on this application.
Krizmanich presented to the Boazd the details of this case. He explained that the road
and river setbacks were overlapping and explained that there was nowhere else on this lot
to build. He used a full sized scaled map and pictures of the property to demonstrate the
constraints of the property. Cooper asked him if this lot had had a 1041 review and
Ktizmanich said that it had not. Krizmanich explained that the Planning Department had
reviewed the application and were not inclined to approve it; therefore Krizmanich had
chosen to bring the case to the Boazd of Adjustment. Krizmanich also explained that a
scenic review would also have be done by the Planning Department. All Boazd members
were taken aback that the planners had not approved a building envelope or accomplished
a scenic review. Pearson explained that a planning review and a Board of Adjustment
case were two different processes/decisions which were independent of one another.
Thmm asked if any neighbors had commented. Pearson said they had not. McAllister
motioned to approve do to topographic hazdships. Throm seconded that motion. Cooper
requested that the record reflect that he does not like the fact that something is being
brought before the Boazd of Adjustment without prior review and/or recommendations
~3
y
from the County Planners. Krizmanich spoke once again about tt~e properties hazdships.
Cooper didn't see any significant impacts to the public. The Boazd voted all in favor 4 - 0
for the granting of this variance.
05-2009 Montgomery, Richard
Trustee of Richard H. Montgomery HI Revocable Trust
43551 East Highway 82
Glenn Hom, representing Richazd Montgomery, was present to request Major Road and
Side yazd setback variances where 100 feet and 30 feet respectively are required on this
3.5 acre pazcel in the AR-10 zone district for landscaping improvements that will change
the grade more than 30 inches in height. Hom explained the location, layout and the
history of the property as well as the existing cabin on the properly. Hom went on to
explain that the necessity for grading was because of the slopes, the highway setback and
the earth moving that a previous property owner had conducted on this small and
unusually configured lot. Hom explained that the variances asked for were for
landscaping only and they had minimized earth moving as much as possible. Cooper
asked when historically the previous grading was done and Horn said he thought it was
done in the 60's or 70's. McAllister perused the map and asked about grading for
landscaping, about the configurations of the property and wanted to know why they were
even reviewing this case. Cooper reviewed the roles of what could and couldn't be
accomplished in the setbacks. McAllister asked about the movement of the grade during
yeazs past. Horn elaborated about property benches, areas to build and property history.
Throw asked about avalanche history and potential.
Brewster-McLeod asked about if earthmoving or any significant change in grades had
been necessary for the house. Hom answered some grading would be a necessity for the
home, but the amount was not significant and the areas were in the building envelope and
outside of the setback.
Cooper motioned to approve based on topographic conditions and down zoning. Throw
seconded and the motion passed 4 - 0.
06-2009 Ecclestone, Edwin Llwyd Jr. Revocable Living Trust
209 Willoughby Way, Aspen
Krizmanich explained that this request is for a retaining wall exceeding six feet (6') in
height within the south side yazd setback.
Krizmanich explained the previous variance and the retaining wall in relation to the lot
topography and the existing home. He held that the main issue for this retaining wall was
the difficulty in parking vehicles - he said the homeowners had no place for guests to
pazk, that there was only enough room for a suburban and a golf cart. Brewster-McLeod
asked detailed questions about the wall and the stone veneer.
ICrizmanich explained the stone veneer and the wall planter situation.
Brewster-McLeod and McAllister asked many questions about the photos that
ICrizmanich presented. Krizmanich explained the property setbacks and why a variance
was needed. He also talked about fire safety and ground reinforcement at the front of the
property and improvements to the back of the property.
Z
t.
Eban Clazk -attorney or Ecclestone, introduced himself and explained that Ecclestone
had title -not the Pitkin Exchange Holdings of Aspen, LLC. Eban explained that he was
present because there had been a complaint about this property (a sepazate and different
retaining wall in the front of the properly) and he wanted to be available to explain the
details of this matter if necessary.
Krizmanich presented and discussed the existing variance with the Boazd.
Brewster-McLeod wanted more details about the boulder wall and Krizmanich elaborated
about the vegetation that would be affected and the transplanting plans and replacing of
any plants affected. A discussion ensued about soil nails damaging additional vegetation.
Krizmanich explained that anything damaged or destroyed would be replaced.
Krizmanich went on to explain that the County wanted to see a planter along this wall
and the owner planned to install and plant said planter. He also explained the dumpster
enclosure would be relocated.
Eban participated and alleged the hazdship was because the lot was so nazrow and the
slopes so steep.
Brewster-McLeod called for a motion
Throm motioned to approve the request based on topographic difficulties and additional
difficulties in providing safety for fire and emergency vehicles.
McAllister added to the motion about minirnal impacts to neighbors and then seconded
the motion. Brewster-McLeod called for discussion and Cooper added that this variance
doesn't substantially impair the public.
Brewster-McLeod voted against as she does not see extra parking as a hazdship. This
motion passed 3 - 1.
MINUTES:
Brewster-McLeod made a motion to approve the minutes from the Apri17, 2009 meeting.
Head asked that the wording in, 08-200 paragraph 1, be changed azound to make the
paragraph more understandable.
There being no fiuther business the meeting was adjourned.
***s*ss***s**•s*sscsmssrsssrsssrss~sss*s*ssss*xs*s*sas*s*:~sx:s***ss**s**
Respectfully submitted,
Approved as submitted
~nroved with noted,Cl
~~ -~-2ari `I _
Susan C. Pearson, Date Jamie Brew er McLeod, Date
Zoning Officer Co-Chairman