HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.20181213Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment December 13, 2018
1
Staff Comments ............................................................................................................................................ 2
Commission Comments ................................................................................................................................ 2
Minutes ......................................................................................................................................................... 2
Public Comment not on the Agenda ............................................................................................................. 2
Declaration of Conflicts of Interest ............................................................................................................... 2
431 W. Hallam Street – Front Yard Setback Variance Request ................................................................... 2
Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment December 13, 2018
2
At 4:30 p.m.; Mr. Sandler called the regular meeting to order with Board Members Farrey, Feddersen,
Bentzin and Frank present. Also present from staff Jennifer Phelan, Kevin Rayes, Andrea Bryan and
Linda Manning.
Staff Comments
Ms. Phelan thanked the board for their service.
Commission Comments
None.
Minutes
Mr. Farrey moved to approve the minutes from August 8, 2018; seconded by Ms. Feddersen. All in
favor, motion carried.
Public Comment not on the Agenda
None.
Declaration of Conflicts of Interest
None.
431 W. Hallam Street – Front Yard Setback Variance Request
Mr. Sandler opened the public hearing. Kevin Rayes, community development, told the board this is a
front yard set back variance request. The property is located in the R6 zone. It contains a duplex with a
lot that is just over 6,000 square feet. He showed an image of the front of the house. The existing house
complies with the front yard setback of 10 feet. He showed an image of the side of house and one of the
side/rear. The alley is part of the property to the south. This property does not have alley access. It will
be redeveloped with a single family dwelling. The proposed design originally complied with all setbacks,
10 foot front, 10 foot rear and 15 foot combined side yard. There are trees on site, some will be retained
but some must be removed. The applicant has coordinated with the city forester and he has determined
that several large cottonwoods may not be removed. The applicant is requesting a 5 foot front yard
variance for a setback to accomodiate the trees. To grant a variance there is specific criteria that must
exist. First is the grant of the variance the minimium variance that would make possible the reasonable
use of the parcel, building or structure. Staff finds this is not met. The Forster has tried to keep tree
mitigation to the edge of proeprty to maximize the building envelope in the center of the parcel. Staff
believes a modified design of the house could accommodate the trees and comply with all the setback
standards of the R6 zone district. Second is there special conditions and circumstances which are unique
to the parcel, building, or structure which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the
same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant. Staff feels it is common for
lots to accommodate physical features such as trees and steep slopes. This is not a unique circumstance.
Finally is granting of a variance would not confer upon the applicant any special prividgles denied by the
terms of this title and the code to other parcels, buildings or structures in the same zone district. The
applicant claims the lot configuration is abnormal for the R6 zone which creates a unique hardship for the
new design by limitiating the potential building footprint of the parcel. They pointed out 431 has a length
of 86 feet and width of 70 feet. A typical lot is this zone is 30 by 100. In R6 the minimum lot size is
6,000 square feet. For a non historic lot the typical lot would consist of 60 by 100 feet. A lot like this
would have a 10 foot front yard and a 10 foot rear yard setback and a combined 15 foot side yard setback.
Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment December 13, 2018
3
A lot like this would have 80 feet front to rear to build. One of the design standards specifics the
articulation of building mass. There are several ways to meet this criteria. One of the ways to do this is
to make sure the building is no longer than 50 feet. With a lot that has a building envelope of 80 feet, if
they were to comply with the articulation of building mass their lot would be reduced to 50 feet. The
building envelope would consist of 45 by 50 feet. Compared to what 431 W Hallam breaks down to the
lot configuration is 70 feet by 86 feet. Having the same set back standards but it does not have any
residential design standards that have anything to do with buildign envelope from side yard to side yard.
The house could be stretch all the way across and the lot configuration is actually advantageous to the
property. A typical lot would have 2,200 square feet, 431 would have 3,500 square feet. The proposed
design is 71 by 48 feet. We received 3 public comments. The summary is the existing dwelling is
already too close to the street at 10 feet. Because it is a scrape and replace the owners should comply
with the setbacks of the zone districts. Granting the variance creates uncertany and negatively affects
property values.
Applicant
Chris Bendon, representing the applicant, Connery Family trust, Nancy Connery.
Mr. Bendon showed images of the property along Hallam. The building right now is about 30 feet back
from the curb. The proposal is about 25 feet back. He showed the view along 4th with the trees the city
forester does not want to grant a removal permit for. The properties on both sides received tree removal
permits for similar trees. In conversations it became more obvious permits would not be granted. We
started to look at alternative designs to accommodate the trees. The access point has to be in this location.
He showed a map of the parcel. It is a truncated lot. The property does not have alley access. I know of
only one other lot that does not have alley access and is configured this way. He showed a map with the
10 foot set back and trees to be removed and ones to be kept. Sliding the whole project north 5 feet
avoids this whole conversation and is a simple solution. The code allows the Board of Adjustment to
balance vairous community objectives. Scott Kaufman owns a property on the other side of the street.
P&Z has the ability to look at building mass and he reveived a variance from them. The neighbor to the
east has a historic property and went to the HPC for the purpose of balancing community objectives.
Their project received variances to acomodiate the resource including setback variances. We’ve had
conversations with our neighbors. We have some boundary line issues we need to deal with. They have
been productive. We are asking for the 5 foot setback variance. It removes the need to pursue a variance
on the tree removals. The objectives the community has on tree preservation and different zoning
requirements and residential design standards are a set of community objectives you are being asked to
rebalance. We think there are very clear physical limitations with the trees. There is the inability to
access the alley. It is a unique property. We disagree with Kevin’s analysis on the potential footprint.
The property has a legal barier in recceiving a tree removal permit. There is a political barrier in some
respects as well. We do see it as a hardship. The design exercises that we have gone through. Could we
take a 20 to 30 percent hit on our gross size, sure, but that is way beyond a minor inconvience. That is
substantive and pretty severe. The Board of Adjustment is established for this exact purpose. We think
this is the right thing for your board to do.
Nancy Connery, owner, said she is one of five family members. They have been coming to Aspen since
1989. Her dream to do this. She hopes we can figure out a way to make this work.
Jennifer Phelan, community development, said the two other properties cited by Chris, one received a
residential design variation not a variance. The HPC has a number of incentives for historic properties to
redevelope and have different criteria for granting approvals.
Mr. Sandler asked what is the criteria for the forester for not granting the removal. Mr. Bendon said he is
concerned for the overall tree canopy city wide but down to a neighborhood level as well. There have
been other tree removals in the area that make him uncomfortable to allow for tree removals here. If we
took his offering to go to council and debate this in front of them we would say we have equity issues.
You allowed it for neighbors for the same types of trees but not for us. It is a little different than the way
we originally progressed. It may have something to do with a new city forester. The trees are at a point
Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment December 13, 2018
4
where they can’t be moved. The front yard has a cottonwood the forester feels is appropriate to remove.
The ones he does not want removed are evergreen.
Mr. Farrey asked are there fire code issues with trees that close to a structure. Mr. Bendon said we’ve had
that conversation and recently done some pruning. Ms. Phelan said in conversations with the forester and
priority it has to do with species, diameter and maintiaing trees along the perimeter.
Ms. Bentzin asked about the possibility for a design modification that would maintain the 3,000 square
feet that stays within the design envelope. Mr. Bendon said Nancy looked at different design
modifications. The only place to access the parcel is a root structure. There are significant above and
below grade impacts if we are locked into the setbacks.
Mr. Farrey said the access point is landlock. This lot is uniquely shaped. Mr. Bendon said there is one
other lot near the ice garden configured this way without alley access. Ms. Phelan said we do have other
lots that are rectangular but there is a slice in the front. There are lots around town t hat are not perfect
rectangles.
Mr. Sandler opened the public comment.
1. Bubba Engelstone said he lives across the street at 434 Hallam since 2002. We look forward to
not looking at the house that is there now. For us the house will be built to a certain height and
moving it 5 feet forward will impact our view and change what we see. Moving it forward will
be a negative impact on our property. We look forwarad to the project being done but moving it
forward negatively impacts us.
2. Scott Hoffman said he lives to the west of the house on the other corner. They are going to
scrape and replace this house. We are sensitive to the challenges she is facing. I support what
she is trying to do. It is a unique lot. There are oppertunities and options to make adjustments to
design but there are limits to what you can do.
3. Michael Brown said he own property in every direction of this lot within a few blocks. He
supports the setback for the hardship that is being created. It is very challenging to work with the
city forester. There is no incentive to tear down to utilize your development right even though
you are ultimately going to have to pay in to migitate to plant a tree to mitigate for it. Given the
hardship, the set back is insignificant for preserving the tree. If the applicant wanted to make a
legal case for it, as a taxpayer, he does not support the city defending a legal case if the applicant
pursues it for such an insignificant issue.
Mr. Sandler closed the public comment.
Ms. Phelan stated staff does not feel there are special circumstances that would require the variance.
Mr. Bendon replied it is a unique site. We want to be responsive to the tree policy but we want to develop
the property. This is within the jurisdiction of the Board of Adjustment.
In regard to Bubba’s comments, it is a fair comment. If you push it closer it will trim off a portion of the
view. We live in a community where not everyone is a fan of development. He has been pretty fair in his
comments. He could say he does not want any development. Nancy’s interest is to fit into the
community. I get his concern but we feel we have a hardship that we need some variance on to exercise
our development right.
Mr. Sandler said it would be one thing if you were asking for 20 feet but you are asking for 5. There has
to be a fair balance between the government and the people.
Mr. Frank stated it is less than 5 feet over the existing 10 foot setback to the face of the roof eave, even
less to the face of the building. It is about a 4 foot shift to save the trees.
Ms. Feddersen said a lot of people think the property line is from the curb. Where is the 5 feet. Mr.
Bendon said the house to the front façade is roughly 30 feet now.
Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment December 13, 2018
5
Mr. Sandler said the adjacent house is closer to the street. Mr. Bendon said they received variances and
are closer to the street than what we are asking for.
Mr. Sandler moved to approve Resolution #4, Series of 2018; seconded by Mr. Farrey. Roll call vote.
Boardmembers Fedderson, yes; Bentzin, no; Frank, yes; Farrey, yes; Sandler, yes. Motion carried.
At 5:18 p.m.; Mr. Sandler moved to adjourn; seconded by Ms. Feddersen. All in favor, motion carried.
Linda Manning
City Clerk