Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.boa.20190905
1 AGENDA ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT September 5, 2019 4:30 PM, Sister Cities Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I.SITE VISIT II.ROLL CALL III.COMMENTS IV.MINUTES IV.A.Minutes - June 19-2019 boa.minutes.20190619.docx V.DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI.PUBLIC HEARINGS VI.A.1040 Matchless Drive and 1050 Matchless Drive Variance Request, Board of Adjustment Resolution No. _____, Series 2019 (Public Hearing) 1040_1050 Matchless Drive_Memo.pdf BOA Resolution_1040_1050 Matchless Drive.pdf Exhibit A- 1040_1050_Matchless Drive_Variance Review Criteria.pdf Exhibit B_2000 BOA Variance Approval.pdf Exhibit C_Variance Application.pdf VII.OTHER BUSINESS VIII.BOARD REPORTS IX.ADJOURN Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1)Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 1 2 6) Board questions and clarifications of applicant 7) Public comments 8)Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 9) Close public comment portion of bearing 10) Staff rebuttal/clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment 11) Applicant rebuttal/clarification End of fact finding. Deliberation by the commission commences. No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public 12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners. 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion* *Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met or not met. CODE OF CONDUCT FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS DURING CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETINGS: Planning and Zoning Commission meetings shall be conducted in a fair and impartial manner. Citizen comments shall respect the need for civility for effective public discussion of issues. Citizen comments regarding any matter not on the agenda will be allowed during the designated time on the agenda and may be disallowed at other times during the meeting. Those wishing to address the Commission on any matter not on the agenda will be allowed a three-minute presentation per speaker. This “three minute rule” shall also be applicable to citizens wishing to address the Commission during the public comment portion of public hearings for agenda items. The Chair or presiding officer retains the discretion to allow or disallow public comment on any agenda item that is not designated as a public hearing. All citizen comments should be directed to the Commission, and not to individual members of the public. Defamatory or abusive remarks, shouting, threats of violence or profanity are OUT OF ORDER and will not be tolerated. Persons violating these policies may be asked to terminate their comments. In the event of repeated violations or refusal to abide by these policies or directives, the Chair or presiding officer has authority to request the individual to leave the meeting or direct a peace officer to remove the individual from the Commission meeting. Revised July 8th, 2019 2 Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment June 19, 2019 1 Staff Comments ..........................................................................................................................................2 Commission Comments ............................................................................................................................2 Minutes ........................................................................................................................................................2 Public Comment not on the Agenda .......................................................................................................2 Declaration of Conflicts of Interest...........................................................................................................2 777 Gibson Avenue – Dimensional Variance Request – Minimum Setbacks ..................................2 At 4:30 p.m.; Andrew Sandler called the regular meeting to order with Board Members Jim Farrey, Ashley Feddersen, Collin Frank and Tim Sack present. Also present from staff Jennifer Phelan, Ben Anderson Jim True and Linda Manning. 3 Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment June 19, 2019 2 Staff Comments None. Commission Comments None. Minutes Mr. Farrey moved to approve the minutes from June 9, 2019; seconded by Ms. Feddersen. All in favor, motion carried. Public Comment not on the Agenda None. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest None. 777 Gibson Avenue –Dimensional Variance Request – Minimum Setbacks Jim True, city attorney, said for the record there was a site visit today at noon. All board members present were on the site visit. Ben Anderson, community development, said this meeting has been continued from June 6th. There is a slightly amended proposal from the applicant. They looked at the site further and thought about the neighbor’s comments. We have considered the proposal that has been amended. Staff remains convinced with the original recommendation. R30 requirements for setbacks are 25 feet in the front yard, 15 in the rear and 10 on each side. The request is 10 in the front and 3 on the rear and side yards. He showed visuals of the property. The setbacks overlap and create no development opportunity on the site. There are three standards around variances if granted. They must be consistent with the goals and purpose statement of the land use code and the municipal code. They must be the minimal variance that allows for reasonable use. Literal interpretation would deny the applicant the same use of others in the same zone. Granting a variance would not confer special privileges. The new proposal suggests a setback corresponding with staff along the front and 3 foot on the other sides. From the corner point there is a proposal of a 5 foot radius from that point, closest to the trail. There are two questions, are there conditions that justify the granting of the variance. Is there a hardship that is not created by the applicant. If yes, what is the minimal variance. Staff believes there is a hardship on the lot. If you were to take the setbacks and apply them to this lot, it does create a hinderance to development potential. Staff continues to recommend 10 for the front and rear and 5 feet on the sides. That would leave 1,240 square feet of developable area. It is reduced from what the applicant is proposing. He showed a chart comparing setbacks across zone districts. R6 is more typical of zoning in the west end. There is some in this neighborhood. Required is 15 feet. Staff is recommending 10, consistent with R6 and R15. Side yard are required at 10 we are recommending 5. A 3 foot setback will not do what setbacks are intended to do. They will reduce but not eliminate the concerns of developing on the site. We recognizes the easement with the city for the sidewalk. This will pull the massing away further than the proposal for the trail. Recommended setbacks will allow reasonable use but not to the maximum of the property. Applicant – Chris Bendon and Peter Fornell Chris Bendon, representing the applicant, said he felt confident it is a fully legally created parcel. Parcel 1 will house the development. Parcel 2 is mostly inaccessible and contains the trail and is very steep. The floor area of 2,785 square feet is allowed by zoning. The proposal at the time was 5 feet front and 3 side and rear yard or 53% of property available for development. 4 Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment June 19, 2019 3 The modified proposal is to pull the building 10 feet off of the property line in the front. The sidewalk easement has the sidewalk and additional area. This now relates to 47% eligible for development. This is not a typical lot. We need some help from he BOA to provide reasonable use for the property. Standards of review, we feel pretty strongly you can make a finding for all of them. The minimum variance that will make reasonable use. The proposal is for 10 on the front, 3 on the rear and sides with a 5 foot radius on the point. He showed photos from the site visit. There was a question about the trail after it passes our property and crosses the bridge. It goes along one of the houses. There was a question about what is the setback from the trail at that section. The split rail fence is 2 feet from the edge of the trail, a window well is 6 feet from the edge and the actual house is 10 feet from the trail. I believe it is built to the 25 foot height limit. Our property, where the 2 parcels connect, is roughly 9 feet from the edge of the trail. If we go with a 3 foot setback from the fence along the trail the house would be 12 feet away and 14 from the edge of the trail. If we go with the 5 foot radius from the edge of the trail the house would be 16 feet away from the edge of the trail. We are asking for some relief to make reasonable use of the property. We feel this is the minimum variance necessary to make for reasonable use. Mr. Farrey said a visual is worth a thousand words. The city recommendation is 10, 10, and 5 and you want 10, modified 5 and 3. Mr. Bendon replied correct. Mr. Sandler opened the public comment. 1. Tom Todd, representing Tim Hurd, owner of lot 1, creek tree subdivision and Dick and Keith Volk. It is not a typical lot. The Eagles Club was traded to where it is now from the site of the former hard rock café. As part of the subdivision the developers created Newbury park and dedicated the land for the trail. As part of the trade these lots were created. Originally, they wanted 6 lots. The developers wanted 2 lots north of the river, staff pushed back and ended up with 1 large lot. The Buchanan parcel was a much larger parcel. He sold the property where the two creeks subdivision was created. There was dispute over the boundary lines. Eventually they were excluded from the subdivision. The creek tree subdivision is a smaller result of that parcel. In 1991 the parcel was conveyed to Doug Allen. In 1991 the assessor valued the property at $19,000. Late last year the parcels were sold to the applicant. Presumably he knew what they were buying in to with the questionable history. Variances should not be granted to people who engage in self inflected hardships. That is exactly what happened here. Mr. Farrey asked is it your client’s position the land be not developed. Mr. Todd replied it is his position it should not be developed at all. 2. Dick Volk showed slides of footprint of houses in the area. It is misleading to say 57% is standard for the area. The proposal is 75% of parcel 1. When you add the other parcel it is 53%. For height, he showed slides of 23 feet from the ground. If you stay as zoned with 15 and 10 foot setbacks, showed an image. He showed images of the staff recommendation and the current zoning. Why change zoning. He showed images of heights from various spots along the trail. Dick passed out handouts. 3. Tim Hurd said my family has been coming here for 25 years. In 2014 we bought the house at the bottom of the trail. The easement and the house were considered together. The trail resides 80-90 percent on our property, all but the last 20 feet of the trail. When we bought the house I got a survey. This trail was cited as a highly problematic trail because of the 20% grade. Parks, open space and I got together and said we are going to remodel and you have an issue with the trail, let’s work on this together. We cut a deal with parks to contribute $250,000 in hard costs, massive landscaping, creating $40,000 in remp fees, but we said yes. When Matt Kuhn presented to council, they asked why are we talking about this. Everyone agreed, it ran massively over budget. They came back to me and said we have to go back to council and ask for more money. They asked me to increase my budget and agree to a lesser retaining wall so we can get 5 Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment June 19, 2019 4 it done. I said fine. We want to be good contributors to the community. Jeff Woods said we would like to give public recognition and I declined. What has happened here is so far and different from the spirit of which the trail was built. I would have never agreed to any of this had I known we were going to hang a cliff dwelling over the trail. Mr. Sandler asked do you believe it will have an adverse effect on your property. Mr. Hurd replied I do. Public safety, drainage, trail users will all be affected. If you issue the variance that staff recommended the property instantly becomes worth millions of dollars. Why would we instantly create a multi million dollar property for a developer who knew what he was buying. No one thought this site was developable. We think there is serious questions about the development right. This request violates the purpose and spirit of a variance requests. We are considering variances on every dimension of this property in order to make it developable. Every neighbor opposes this. Parks has voiced concerns. This rewards the applicant and ignores everyone else. It will create a bad precedent you will have to deal with in the future. Mr. Farrey said the neighbors don’t want anything built. When it came on line to be purchased why didn’t the neighborhood buy it. Mr. Hurd replied he didn’t know it was for sale. No one involved in the trail realignment process thought it was developable. 4. Keith Volk said his family has lived in Oklahoma Flats since 1935. There was no zoning when we built the cabin. A lot changed when we built the home in 1996. He followed the rules and built our residence accordingly. If current zoning applied to this current lot with R30 there would be 64 square feet where a structure could be built. This is going from 64 to 2,700 square feet. It is a pretty interesting variance. This is setting a precedent if you decide to grant the variance. 5. Summer Richards said it seems like there is special treatment for this parcel. Somehow this lot was deemed buildable by the city. For Peter, the rules are being bent. I’m concerned by this. Consider the precedent. 6. Jody Edwards entered documents to the record. He represents one of the neighbors. Code criteria for granting of a variance must be generally consistent with the goals and purpose statement of the code. The lot is ridiculously steep and sits on top of a very active trail. Numerous problems with the development of the property cited by engineering and parks. Is this the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel. There are a bunch of properties across the street that are on half of the land as these proposed variances. It could certainly be smaller to make it the minimum. This is a self inflicted hardship. These parcels were created from surrounding subdivisions. They were all legal subdivisions. These remnants when created were non conforming. It is ¼ of the minimum lot area. It was self created when the developer created the parcels. It was either self inflicted in 1978 or by Doug first and Peter buying it knowing it was illegal and not a legal site. Self inflicted hardships – deliberately or ignorantly occurred affords no basis for special treatment under zoning regulations. It is clear that the legislature never intended that a land owner could create his own unnecessary hardship then rely on it to secure a variance. You should be considering what CO supreme court says about self inflicted hardships. 7. Bill Stirling said the board of adjustment is on the horns of a dilemma. There is now an opportunity to clear up and clean up what was a mistake. It is a remnant property. It is legal and atypical and clearly substandard. None of it was intentional. Over the course of time and how strictly zoned the town is. If the people living closest to this did not speak out it would be unusual. I think the options are interesting. In order to avoid legal action down the line the opportunity is to see if the City of Aspen would step up and match the purchase price plus expenses of the applicant and maybe a small profit. It would also be great if you denied the request. It would stay as it is and a minimal development there. If you keep the lot as is with the setbacks there would be other actions taken probably. If you give anything on this that would probably involve legal 6 Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment June 19, 2019 5 action. If the city were to step up it would be in the long term best interest of the community. Sterilize the property and make it a park. Mr. Sandler closed the public comment. Mr. Hurd said the opportunity Bill brought up is very wise. No one has approached us as neighbors to discuss that. The city has an issue and the neighbors have an issue. Why isn’t this being pursued. Mr. Farrey said our responsibility is to weigh in on the setbacks. Mr. True said it is not within the province of the BOA to consider that. At this point it is their job to consider the code and request of applicant. Mr. Bendon said your job is to consider if there is a hardship on the property and if so how to make a reasonable use. It is not your job to affect the purchase price if the city were to pursue that. There were comments about what the property was bought for. There should never be bias on what the property was bought for, could have been, how much they volunteer. We treat everyone equally. Keith said there may be other people that come forward wanting similar treatment. You should expect people to come forward and present a unique circumstance. Your job is to treat people fairly under the law. Our development right defined by the city is 2,700 square feet. That takes in to affect the steep slopes of the property. There was some questions if the property is a legal parcel. It is not your job to determine this. There was an email from Jim True to Doug Allen at the time the city was developing the trail. Thank you for the survey, as I indicated previously the city has investigated the circumstance of the creation of the lot that you own and this is reflected in the survey. The city has concluded that the property is a legally created lot with an existing development right. That has meaning. I believe the height depictions were accurate. There was references to the homes at smuggler park. The allowance for development is 2,000 feet on each lot. A typical development can get to 2,500 square feet. This is not a situation we created. There is a long history of the parcel. We are here to ask for the ability to develop the property. We believe the variance is the minimum necessary to create reasonable use. Jennifer Phelan, community development, said the applicant represented the floor area is to provide reasonable use. Maximizing floor area and building to underlying zoning is not always physically feasible. There are constraints on properties that may not permit maximizing development rights. Mr. Farrey said today, I thought the post of the path were 5 feet not 3 feet. Are we looking to approve 10, 5, 3 or 10, 3, 3. Mr. Bendon said the setback off the front yard along Gibson we are requesting 10. On all other sides we are requesting 3 except for the radius closest to the trail. We are suggesting a radius of 5. Mr. Farrey said from the bike path where is the true dimension. Mr. Bendon said if this was a flat lot we would not be recommending 3 foot setbacks. Mr. True said what the city is recommending is on page 21. Mr. Frank asked what year is the current zoning overlay and what was it in 1978. Mr. Bendon said it depends on when this becomes a lot. We are in general agreement but there is some question as to when it becomes a lot. In 1963 there is R15 and R30. Once it comes in to the city it is clearly R30. It has been that way for a while. Mr. Edwards said the memo to city council during the final plat of Creek Tree subdivision says the zoning was R15 and R30. Mr. True said it is the city’s position it is a legally created lot. The applicant still has to go through the process. The neighbors have pointed out the concept of self inflicted hardship. Our code does use the term when there are special conditions or circumstances unique to the parcel which do not result from actions of the applicant. The argument has been is a self inflicted hardship was created by some previous owner is that something that is attributable to this applicant. You have to apply the criteria and weigh that. Under BOA 7 Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment June 19, 2019 6 rules it takes 4 board members to vote in favor of that grant of a variance. You can use your best judgement as to what the best variance is. Mr. Farrey said 26.314A.1 granting a variance because there is a hardship, the remainder of the parcel and history is the definition of hardship. I am in agreement there is a hardship. 26.314A 1 2 and 3. Mr. True said there are other requirements to consider if what is the minimal variance. Mr. Farrey said there is a hardship. Mr. True said you need to determine what is the minimal variance for reasonable use. Mr. Anderson said there is a recommended motion recommending approval of the resolution in the packet, reflecting staff’s recommendation. Or you could agree with the idea of a variance and take the applicants suggestion. A third motion is to deny the variance. Mr. True said there are conditions in the proposed resolution. Mr. Frank said number 1 is answered and the only answer is yes, there is a hardship. Regardless of the ownership and who brought the hardship. The real debate is the variance. Mr. Sack said the city has deemed it a viable buildable lot. Mr. Frank said I support the front yard of 10 feet. I feel like we can do better than 3 feet on the rear and sides. I would suggest a minimum of 5. I don’t feel the city’s recommendation of 10 in the rear denies use in the property. Mr. Sack said the 10 stills gives a buildable lot where they can build a structure. Mr. Bendon said the model is 5 on the front and 3 on the sides. We have looked at the other dimensions. The dimensions the city recommends are unreasonable. Mr. Farrey said what we learned today is there is a setback and net findings. Our expectations are that engineering will be maintained to build a home. I thought I would say today 10, 5 and 5. Based upon today I’m recommending 10, 5 and 5. Peter Fornell, owner, said I am truly looking for reasonable use of the property. The recommendation of staff of 10, 10 and 5 would be a 1,240 square foot building envelope. I don’t think it is reasonable use. I think 10, 5 and 5 may be at the 1,800 square foot range. The difference between 2,000, 1,800 and 1,400 is significant. Mr. Farrey said it depends on what you consider front and rear. Mr. Sack said 10 in front 5 in back and 3 on the sides. Mr. Sandler said I thought that was reasonable. Mr. Farrey said the 5 would have to be maintained along the rear. Mr. True said if we are all comfortable with what front, rear and sides are, I’m ok. Mr. Frank said considering the smaller setbacks and 0 development outside the setbacks. There are certain things that can be built in the setback, I would say nothing can be built in the setbacks given how small they are. There are all kinds of things that can be built legally in the se backs. Mr. Farrey said don’t we want to leave that to code. Mr. Frank replied no. Mr. Bendon said if you want to do that on the trail side we would consider that. Mr. Frank said my concern is the trail side. Mr. Bendon said which is the rear and which is the sides. Mr. Anderson said Gibson is the front. The rear yard goes from point to point and along the pan handle. The sides are the pieces connecting to Gibson on the ends. Parallel to Gibson is rear. The connection from Gibson to the trail would be side. Where the rear and sides are the same it doesn’t make any difference. To change them it becomes a larger issue. Mr. Sandler asked what would go in the building envelope. Ms. Phelan replied it could be a 2 story building. Mr. Bendon said there is a limitation of 30 inches above or below grade. Footers, patios, steps. There may be some small walls to hold back grade. Mr. Farrey said he is inclined to agree with Ashley of 10, 5 and 3. Mr. Bendon said we see everything on the flag as a side. Ms. Phelan said achieving maximum floor area is not an entitlement and not achievable in all situations. You are looking at setbacks that are not in any other zone district. If you feel they are reasonable you can grant them. Mr. Anderson said the 3 feet is difficult. We can’t find any context in the code that supports it. From a practical standpoint, 5 feet is in the code and standard. In terms of creating a reasonable separation between neighbors. Mr. Bendon said from our standpoint we are not likely to develop our full floor area. Jennifer is right it is an allowance that may not be achievable in every circumstance. We are comfortable with a 3 foot setback. The neighbor to the east would be experience a difference. Mr. Sack said I think staffs point of access to the property with 3 feet becomes challenging. 8 Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment June 19, 2019 7 Mr. True said I do want everyone to be on the same page with what is front, rear and side. I know that Ben has stated what the com dev’s position is. That is fine if that is what you wish to accept. If you want to discuss different rear and sides. Mr. Hurd said the rule is minimum setback required. Mr. Sandler said you need to consider how does the house come out without looking like an eyesore. I take that into consideration too. The 3 versus 5 where the path is, needs to be considered. James Morris said bigger isn’t always better. Ms. Phelan said it may not achieve the maximum floor area. We also need to consider that someone can maximize it to the setbacks you grant. Someone could build to the setbacks. Mr. Bendon said part of the rational for the setbacks was to keep it to one story at Gibson. Squeezing the setbacks will make the home higher. Mr. Farrey said I think the 10, 5 and 3 is the most thoughtful. Mr. True said 10, 5 and 3 as the sides defined by the city. Mr. Sack said it all comes down to a reasonable structure. Mr. Bendon said we can live with 5 on the rear but we want 3 feet on the bowling alley. Mr. Frank said it sounds like the board wants to make the legs of the bowling alley side, parallel to Gibson is the rear. Ms. Feddersen replied yes. Mr. True said you are suggesting the rear is across and parallel to Gibson and everything else is sides. Mr. Farrey said 26.314 A 1 hardship has been met. The variance granted of 10, 5, and 3 with the bowling alley defined as side yard. Mr. Farrey moved to approve resolution #3 with conditions. The minimal variance is the 10, 5, and 3 and will make possible for reasonable use and all conditions of the resolution. Seconded by Mr. Sandler. Roll call vote. Boardmembers Feddersen, yes; Frank, no; Sack, no; Farrey, yes; Sandler, yes. 3 to 2 vote is a failed action. Mr. True said I think what you could do at this point is to treat it as a failed action. We move on and the applicant would have a right to proceed. You could discuss this further. Mr. Sack said I think 3 is too close to the property line. Staff’s suggestion allows for a reasonable structure to be built. I could get by with 10, 5 and 5. I feel you could build a reasonable structure there. Mr. Frank said I’m with Tim here. I feel like 5 is a minimum. I lean towards 3 is not in the code anywhere. Mr. Sandler said I want to respect the code as much as possible but this is such a unique situation. Mr. Bendon said do the heights make a difference. Mr. Sandler said they do to me. Mr. Frank said with the 3 in conjunction with the 5 foot rear, I’m having trouble with that. Ms. Feddersen said what if it was 5 on the other sides and keep the bowling alley as 3. Mr. Frank said the biggest point of contention is the rear. I’m leaning towards the rear being 10. 10, 10 and 3. Mr. Sack said I can agree with that. Mr. Farrey said they pulled 5 feet off the front already. Mr. Sandler said I do like the idea of it is only one story up top. Mr. Sack said the bowling alley doesn’t get the home though. I have no concern over it. Mr. Frank replied me either. It is hard for us to take the 3 feet. I’m ok with the house being a little higher. Mr. Farrey said it is going to be a 2 story building. Mr. Frank said I’m fine with the side being 3. I’m suggesting 10 in the rear. I think going below 5 is strange. But I would give 3 for 10. Mr. True said you could make a motion. Mr. Sack said the rear is not the issue. The 3 puts it too close to the property line. I could vote yes on 10, 5, 5. They still have to work within the height restrictions. Mr. Frank made a motion to approve reso #3 with conditions. Mr. Farrey interrupted and said I don’t understand the 2 feet on the side yard. Ms. Feddersen said what if we did 10 on the top part of the bowling alley and 3 on the other sides. Mr. True said what you are suggesting is 10 along Gibson, 5 on the western side yard, 5 on the rear yard and 3 on the panhandle. Ms. Feddersen replied correct. Ms. Feddersen made a motion to approve resolution #3 with setbacks identified by Ben, 10 along Gibson, rear 5, west side 5 and remaining side yards 3 and all other conditions set forth in the resolution; seconded by Mr. Sandler. Roll call vote. Boardmembers Farrey, yes; Feddersen, yes; Sack, yes; Frank, no; Sandler, yes. Motion carried 4-1. 9 Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment June 19, 2019 8 At 7:00 p.m.; Mr. Sandler moved to adjourn; seconded by Ms. Feddersen. All in favor, motion carried. Linda Manning City Clerk 10 Page 1 of 6 MEMORANDUM TO: City of Aspen Board of Adjustment FROM: Mike Kraemer, Senior Planner THRU: Bob Narracci, Zoning Director RE: 1040 Matchless Drive and 1050 Matchless Drive, Dimensional Variance Review Resolution No. ____ , Series of 2019 MEETING DATE: September 5th, 2019 APPLICANT: Racquet Club Condominium Association REPRESENTATIVE: Bryan May, Bryan May Architecture LOCATION: 1040 Matchless Drive and 1050 Matchless Drive, Racquet Club Condominiums. Block 1, Lots 2 and 3 of the Alpine Acres Subdivision. CURRENT ZONING AND USE: Located within the R-6 zone district and currently developed with two (2) separate duplexes, totaling 4 units. Onsite surface parking for the four (4) units is provided along the northern property boundary and within multiple minimum required setbacks. Guest parking and a trash/recycling structure also exists within this area. Lot Size: 31,717 square feet (0.73 acres) SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The Applicant requests front yard, side yard, and rear yard dimensional setback variances from the minimum required in the R-6 zone district to allow for construction of two (2) separate garage structures, a trash/recycling structure, and associated retaining walls on both Lots 2 and 3. The 2 proposed garage structures would contain a total of 8 vehicles and the trash/recycling structures would service both duplexes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the BOA make a finding that a hardship does not exist on the subject properties and deny the variance requests. FIGURE 1: EXISTING CONDITION OF PARKING AREA, LOOKING NORTHEAST 11 Page 2 of 6 REQUEST OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: The Applicant is requesting the following approval from the Board of Adjustment: • Variance (Chapter 26.314) to grant a dimensional variance for this site, reducing the minimum setback requirements in the R-6 zone district (The Board of Adjustment is the final review authority). BACKGROUND AND EXISTING CONDITIONS: 1040 Matchless Drive and 1050 Matchless Drive were subdivided in 1966 and are identified as Lots 2 and 3 of the Alpine Acres Subdivision, with the plat recorded at BK3 PG2. The Lots are adjacent with the western lot described as Lot 3 (1050 Matchless Drive) and the eastern lot described as Lot 2 (1040 Matchless Drive). Both Lots contain a duplex constructed in the early 1970’s, totaling 4 dwelling units. The Lots are bound to the north by the Smuggler Racquet Club property, to the west by Matchless Drive, and residential development to the south and to the east. Access to both properties is provided by Matchless Drive. Currently, onsite surface parking for the duplexes is provided along the northern property boundaries which includes guest parking. A small trash enclosure also exists in this area and services both duplexes. Figure 2: 2018 aerial depicting the subject Lots: A wood retaining wall exists on the Smuggler Racquet Club property along the northern property boundaries of both Lots. The Applicant has stated that the ownership of this retaining wall is unknown. This retaining wall does not meet the maximum height exemption requirement for location within a setback and documentation has not been provided to show that it was permitted. Both existing duplexes reside within the minimum 10’ front yard setback for principal buildings and, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.312.030, are considered legal non- conforming structures. In 2000, both Lots received Board of Adjustment variance approval for dimensional variances to reduce the minimum required side and rear yard setbacks for construction of 4 detached garages along the northern property 12 Page 3 of 6 boundaries. This approval was memorialized in BOA Resolution 00-01, Series 2000 (Reception No. 446817) and contained conditions of the variance (see Exhibit B). Specifically, a condition was included that stated the variance automatically expires 12 months from the date of approval unless development has been commenced. The garages were not constructed and this variance has since expired. R-6 ZONE DISTRICT: The R-6 zone district requires the following minimum setbacks for a 31,717 square foot lot: • Front Yard: Principal buildings 10’ and Accessory buildings 15’. • Side Yard: Minimum 15’ with a total of 50’ on both sides. • Rear Yard: Principal buildings: 10’. For the portion of a principal building used solely as a garage: 5’. Accessory buildings: 5’. For the purposes of determining the required setbacks for the subject properties, the following map (Figure 3) identifies the front, side, and rear property boundaries for both lots: • Front Yard: Blue • Side Yard: Yellow • Read Yard: Red Figure 3 REQUEST: The Applicant requests approval for dimensional setback variances for both Lots 2 and 3 for construction of two (2) detached garages, a trash/recycling enclosure, and retaining wall along the northern property boundaries. The existing offsite retaining wall residing on the Racquet Club property would be removed and reconstructed on the subject lots. Specifically, the following variances are requested: 13 Page 4 of 6 1040 Matchless Drive: • Front Yard Setback Variance: 5’ setback for construction of a 2 car garage and 0’ setback for a retaining wall. • Side Yard Setback Variance: 6” setback for construction of a 2 car garage and retaining wall. 1050 Matchless Drive: • Front Yard Setback Variance: 0’ setback for a retaining wall. • Side Yard Setback Variance: 6” setback for construction of a 2 car garage, trash/recycling area, and retaining wall. • Rear Yard Setback Variance: 0’ setback for construction of a retaining wall. Figure 3: rendering of the proposed garages; Figure 4: Proposed site plan, location highlighted in yellow. The Applicant has illustrated that the proposed garages are approximately 15’ in height and the retaining wall is approximately 4’ in height. REVIEWS SETBACK VARIANCE: The criteria for receiving a variance (Exhibit A) are strict. A property owner must demonstrate that reasonable use of the property has been withheld by the City and can only be achieved by the City providing a variance. In situations where all, or practically all, reasonable use of a property is made impossible by development regulations, the City is able to grant a variance to avoid a “regulatory taking”. The property owner must demonstrate that their rights, as compared with owners of similar properties, have been deprived. In considering these criteria, the Board of Adjustment must consider unique conditions inherent to the property which are not the result of the Applicant’s actions and are not applicable to other parcels, buildings or structures. STAFF COMMENTS Staff responses to the Variance review criteria can be found in Exhibit A. In review of the application, Staff is concerned that the application does not show compliance with the applicable variance review criteria, specifically criterion 3. Land Use Code Section 26.314.040.A.3 highlights a distinct difference between causing an Applicant “unnecessary hardship” in contrast to the creation of a “mere inconvenience”. In consideration of this Code language, it should be noted that the properties’ development rights are currently being exercised in the form of legally constructed duplex dwelling units developed in the mid-1970’s. Garages, while identified as permitted uses 14 Page 5 of 6 within the R-6 zone district and which commonly exist in the vicinity of the subject properties, are accessory to a principal use of land and do not carry the same development right quality as a dwelling unit. As such, a distinction exists between the grant of a variance that would otherwise inhibit the properties’ development rights for a principal use of land in contrast to a variance for non-setback compliant accessory structures. Denial of the requested front, side, and rear setback variances for accessory garages, retaining walls, and trash/recycling structures will not deny the properties’ fundamental development rights or cause an unnecessary hardship, though denial may result in an inconvenience to the Applicant. Additionally, Staff is concerned that Land Use Code Section 26.314.040.A.3.a is not satisfied and that a special circumstance or condition does not exist on the property to warrant the finding of a hardship. The Applicant has argued that a hardship has resulted from the siting of the existing duplex development at the center of the Lots which, in turn, has constrained the properties. The Applicant argues that the placement of these duplexes dictates that the proposed garages be sited 6” from the northern property boundaries to accomplish satisfactory turning radiuses and vehicle movements. The Land Use Code stipulates that actions of the Applicant, which includes previous development, is not justification for the grant of a variance and cannot be used to make a finding of a hardship. Lastly, should the BOA consider the finding of a hardship on the properties and the granting of a variance for the garages, retaining walls, and trash/recycling structure, consideration should be given to the proposed 6” setback dimension from the northern (side yard) property boundary. The proposed garages incorporate a shed roof design and Staff is concerned that shedding snow and water discharge may adversely affect the Racquet Club property to the north. Additionally, access for initial construction of the structures and future maintenance to the garages will be needed. Adequate setback provision should be considered so that trespass on the neighboring properties does not occur as a result of a variance approval. If a variance is considered, a minimum one-foot (1’) setback from all property boundaries may be appropriate to address these concerns. REFERRAL AGENCIES Staff referred this request to the Environmental Health Department (EH) for a cursory review of the proposed trash and recycling area. EH states that the trash and recycling structure will need to be constructed such that it is wildlife proof. Staff also referred the application to the City Parks Department who provided comments on the request. If constructed, a portion of the retaining wall on the eastern portion of 1040 Matchless Drive would necessitate the removal of a number of mature trees. The Applicant has represented that the proposed trees removal will be mitigated on the subject properties to the full extent required by the Code. City Parks is continuing to review the request and will provide additional comments for the public hearing. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that this application reflects a request of inconvenience rather than a hardship, and that there may be alternative design and/or siting solutions to achieve compliance with setbacks. Staff recommends that the BOA make a finding that a hardship does not exist on the properties and pass a motion to deny the draft BOA Resolution. ALTERNATIVE: The BOA may want to make a finding that a hardship exists on the properties and pass a motion to approve the request. Should the BOA make a finding that a hardship exists on the properties, certain conditions are placed within the BOA Resolution to mitigate possible impacts to neighboring properties. 15 Page 6 of 6 PROPOSED MOTION (All motions are proposed in the affirmative): 1) “I move to approve the denial of BOA Resolution No. _____, Series 2019.” (this reflects Staff’s recommendation) Or, in the alternative: 2) “I move to approve BOA Resolution No. ______, Series 2019 and find that a hardship exists on the property.” ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Variance Review Criteria, Staff Findings Exhibit B - BOA Resolution No. 00-01, Series 2019 Exhibit C – Application 16 Board of Adjustment Resolution No. ______ , Series 2019 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. _____ (SERIES OF 2019) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPROVING DIMENSIONAL VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE RACQUET CLUB SUBDIVISION, ALSO DESCRIBED AS LOT 2 AND LOT 3, BLOCK 1, OF THE ALPINE ACRES SUBDIVISION, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1040 MATCHLESS DRIVE AND 1050 MATCHLESS DRIVE Parcel ID No: 273707411800 (common area parcel) WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application for 1040 Matchless Drive (Lot 2) and 1050 Matchless Drive (Lot 3), (the Application) from the Racquet Club Condominium Home Owners Association (Applicant), represented by Bryan May of Bryan May Architects, for the following land use review: Variance: pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.314, WHEREAS, the subject property is within the R-6 zone district, is 31,717 square feet in size, and requires compliance with the following minimum setback dimensions: • Front Yard: Principal buildings 10’ and Accessory buildings 15’ • Side Yard: minimum 15’ for a total of 50’ on both sides • Rear Yard: Principal buildings: 10’. For the portion of a principal building used solely as a garage: 5’ Accessory buildings: 5’ WHEREAS, all code citation references are to the City of Aspen Land Use Code in effect on the day the application was deemed complete – June 17th, 2019, as applicable to this Project; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment reviewed the Application at a duly noticed public hearing on September 5th, 2019; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on September 5th, 2019, the Board of Adjustment approved Resolution ______, Series of 2019, by a _____ to _____ vote, granting approval for Dimensional Variance Review, as identified herein. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Board of Adjustment hereby grants the following dimensional variances, as displayed in Exhibit A, approved site plan and renderings: 1040 Matchless Drive: • Front Yard Setback Variance: 5’ setback for construction of a 2 car garage and 0’ setback for a retaining wall, • Side Yard Setback Variance: 1’ setback for construction of a 2 car garage, trash/recycling area, and retaining wall. 1050 Matchless Drive: • Front Yard Setback Variance: 1’ setback for a retaining wall. • Side Yard Setback Variance: 1’ setback for construction of a 2 car garage, trash/recycling area, and retaining wall. 17 Board of Adjustment Resolution No. ______ , Series 2019 Page 2 of 3 • Rear Yard Setback Variance: 0’ setback for construction of a retaining wall. No other development shall be permitted within established R-6 setbacks other than those projections defined within Land Use Code Subsection 26.575.020.E.5, Allowed Projections into Setbacks. Section 2: Prior to construction of the garages, trash/recycling enclosure, and retaining walls, the Applicant shall apply for the appropriate building permits. The trash/recycling structure shall comply with all rules and regulations as deemed necessary by the Environmental Health Department. Section 3: Prior to removal of any trees on the properties, the Applicant shall apply for and receive appropriate permits from the Parks Department, which may include submittal and review of a detailed landscape plan. All tree removal shall comply with rules and regulations as deemed necessary by the Parks Department. Section 4: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department and the Board of Adjustment Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. Section 5: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 6: Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.314.070, the subject variance shall expire 12 months from the date of the approval unless development has commenced as illustrated by the submission of a building permit or an extension is granted. The subject variance is not a Site-Specific Development Plan (SSDP), is not vested, and will not receive a Development Order. Section 7: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. 18 Board of Adjustment Resolution No. ______ , Series 2019 Page 3 of 3 FINALLY, approved this 5th day of September, 2019. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: __________________________ ______________________________ Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Andrew Sandler, Chair Attest: _______________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk Attachments: Exhibit A: Approved site plan and elevations 19 20 BASEMENT LEVEL 97'-0" TO FOOTING LEVEL 1 100'-0" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 108'-0" T.O. PLATE HP ROOF 115'-0" B.O. FOOTING 96'-0" 2 A5.01 12 4 A5.01 BASEMENT LEVEL 97'-0" TO FOOTING LEVEL 1 100'-0" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 108'-0" T.O. PLATE HP ROOF 115'-0" B.O. FOOTING 96'-0" AB 3 A5.01 1 A5.01 BASEMENT LEVEL 97'-0" TO FOOTING LEVEL 1 100'-0" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 108'-0" T.O. PLATE HP ROOF 115'-0" B.O. FOOTING 96'-0" 2 A5.0112 4 A5.01 BASEMENT LEVEL 97'-0" TO FOOTING LEVEL 1 100'-0" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 108'-0" T.O. PLATE HP ROOF 115'-0" B.O. FOOTING 96'-0" A B 3 A5.01 1 A5.01 Contractor must verify all dimensions on site before commencing work or preparing shop drawings. Do not scale drawings. Date generated Sheet number Sheet title Scale Project number 1" Sheet size 24"X36" Size check Project Address Notes & Legend Recent revision history Stamp # DescriptionDate © Bryan May Architecture LLC TMbryanmayarchitecture © Bryan May Architecture LLC (BMA) The information and design intent contained within this document is the property of BMA. No part of this information may be used without the prior written permission of BMA. BMA shall retain all common law statutory and other reserved rights, including copyright thereto. www.bryanmayarchitecture.com 970.300.2068 C:\Users\BryanMay\Dropbox\BMA\Projects\2018\1804_RCCA Garages\06_Documentation\06_Revit\1804_RCCA_Garages.rvt6/6/2019 9:42:12 AM 1/4" = 1'-0" A4.01 1804 1050 MATCHLESS DR ASPEN, CO 81611 RCCA GARAGES EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE:A4.01 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 NORTH ELEVATION SCALE:A4.01 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 EAST ELEVATION SCALE:A4.01 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE:A4.01 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 WEST ELEVATION EAST BUILDING EAST ELEVATION -SIM/OPP 2019.06.06 TEAM KICKOFF 21 BASEMENT LEVEL 97'-0" TO FOOTING LEVEL 1 100'-0" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 108'-0" T.O. PLATE HP ROOF 115'-0" B.O. FOOTING 96'-0" A B3 A5.01 1 A5.01 2'-0" BASEMENT LEVEL 97'-0" TO FOOTING LEVEL 1 100'-0" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 108'-0" T.O. PLATE HP ROOF 115'-0" B.O. FOOTING 96'-0" AB 3 A5.01 1 A5.01 BASEMENT LEVEL 97'-0" TO FOOTING LEVEL 1 100'-0" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 108'-0" T.O. PLATE B.O. FOOTING 96'-0" 2 A5.01124 A5.01 BASEMENT LEVEL 97'-0" TO FOOTING LEVEL 1 100'-0" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 108'-0" T.O. PLATE HP ROOF 115'-0" B.O. FOOTING 96'-0" 2 A5.0112 4 A5.01 Contractor must verify all dimensions on site before commencing work or preparing shop drawings. Do not scale drawings. Date generated Sheet number Sheet title Scale Project number 1" Sheet size 24"X36" Size check Project Address Notes & Legend Recent revision history Stamp # DescriptionDate © Bryan May Architecture LLC TMbryanmayarchitecture © Bryan May Architecture LLC (BMA) The information and design intent contained within this document is the property of BMA. No part of this information may be used without the prior written permission of BMA. BMA shall retain all common law statutory and other reserved rights, including copyright thereto. www.bryanmayarchitecture.com 970.300.2068 C:\Users\BryanMay\Dropbox\BMA\Projects\2018\1804_RCCA Garages\06_Documentation\06_Revit\1804_RCCA_Garages.rvt6/6/2019 9:42:13 AM 1/4" = 1'-0" A5.01 1804 1050 MATCHLESS DR ASPEN, CO 81611 RCCA GARAGES BUILDING SECTIONS SCALE:A5.01 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 SECTION 2 SCALE:A5.01 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 SECTION 1 SCALE:A5.01 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 SECTION A SCALE:A5.01 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 SECTION B 2019.06.06 TEAM KICKOFF 22 LEVEL 1 100'-0" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 108'-0" T.O. PLATE HP ROOF 115'-0" 2 A5.0112 4 A5.01 3 4 50'-0"28'-0"50'-0" Contractor must verify all dimensions on site before commencing work or preparing shop drawings. Do not scale drawings. Date generated Sheet number Sheet title Scale Project number 1" Sheet size 24"X36" Size check Project Address Notes & Legend Recent revision history Stamp #DescriptionDate © Bryan May Architecture LLC TMbryanmayarchitecture © Bryan May Architecture LLC (BMA) The information and design intent contained within this document is the property of BMA. No part of this information may be used without the prior written permission of BMA. BMA shall retain all common law statutory and other reserved rights, including copyright thereto. www.bryanmayarchitecture.com 970.300.2068 C:\Users\bmay2\Dropbox\BMA\Projects\2018\1804_RCCA Garages\06_Documentation\06_Revit\1804_RCCA_Garages.rvt8/21/2019 10:01:28 PM 3/16" = 1'-0" A4.00 1804 1050 MATCHLESS DR ASPEN, CO 81611 RCCA GARAGES OVERALL SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE:A4.00 3/16" = 1'-0" 1 OVERALL SOUTH ELEVATION 23 A4.01 2 A4.01 3 A4.01 4 2 A5.01 2 A5.011 1 2 2 A A B B 3 A5.01 3 A5.01 1 A5.01 1 A5.01 4 A5.01 4 A5.01 3 3 4 4 128'-0" 50'-0"28'-0"50'-0"22'-0"CL25'-0"25'-0" CL25'-0"25'-0"11'-6"4'-6"12'-0"A4.01 2 A4.01 3 A4.01 4 2 A5.01 2 A5.011 1 2 2 A A B B 3 A5.01 3 A5.01 1 A5.01 1 A5.01 4 A5.01 4 A5.01 3 3 4 4 50'-0"28'-0"50'-0" 128'-0"22'-0"3" / 1'-0"3" / 1'-0"Contractor must verify all dimensions on site before commencing work or preparing shop drawings. Do not scale drawings. Date generated Sheet number Sheet title Scale Project number 1" Sheet size 24"X36" Size check Project Address Notes & Legend Recent revision history Stamp #DescriptionDate © Bryan May Architecture LLC TMbryanmayarchitecture © Bryan May Architecture LLC (BMA) The information and design intent contained within this document is the property of BMA. No part of this information may be used without the prior written permission of BMA. BMA shall retain all common law statutory and other reserved rights, including copyright thereto. www.bryanmayarchitecture.com 970.300.2068 C:\Users\bmay2\Dropbox\BMA\Projects\2018\1804_RCCA Garages\06_Documentation\06_Revit\1804_RCCA_Garages.rvt8/20/2019 2:49:07 PM 3/16" = 1'-0" A2.11 1804 1050 MATCHLESS DR ASPEN, CO 81611 RCCA GARAGES OVERALL - KEY PLAN SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH A2.11 3/16" = 1'-0" 2 LEVEL ONE KEY PLAN SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH A2.11 3/16" = 1'-0" 1 ROOF LEVEL KEY PLAN 24 Exhibit A –Variance Review Criteria Chapter 26.314, Variance A. In order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the appropriate decision-making body shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of this Title and the Municipal Code; and Staff Findings: The purpose of the City’s land use code not only protects the public’s health, safety, and welfare, but also identifies a property’s rights which includes reasonable expectations for property owners. Staff believes a reasonable expectation is that zoning limitations are observed and enforced as uniformly as practicable. Staff finds this criterion not met. 2. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure; and Staff Findings: Though the variance request to establish between 6” and 0’ setbacks on the property is the minimum necessary to construct the proposed garages and accomplish turning movements, the Lots have been in reasonably use since originally developed with duplexes in the 1970’s . Staff finds this criterion not met. 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship, as distinguished from mere inconvenience. In determining whether an applicant's rights would be deprived, the Board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a. There are 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; or Staff Findings: This section highlights a distinct difference between causing an Applicant “unnecessary hardship” in contrast to the creation of a “mere inconvenience”. In consideration of this Code language, it should be noted that the properties’ development rights are currently being exercised in the form of legally constructed duplex dwelling units developed in the mid- 1970’s. Garages, while identified as permitted uses within the R-6 zone district and which commonly exist in the vicinity of the subject properties, are accessory to a principal use of land and do not carry the same development right quality as a dwelling unit. As such, a distinction exists between the grant of a variance that would otherwise inhibit the properties’ development rights for a principal use of land in contrast to a variance for non-setback compliant accessory structures. Denial of the requested front, side, and rear setback variances for accessory garages, retaining walls, and trash/recycling structures will not deny the properties’ fundamental 25 development rights or cause an unnecessary hardship, though denial may result in an inconvenience to the Applicant. Additionally, Staff is concerned that a special circumstance or condition does not exist on the property to warrant the finding of a hardship. The Applicant has argued that a hardship has resulted from the siting of the existing duplex development at the center of the Lots which, in turn, has constrained the properties. The Applicant argues that the placement of these duplexes dictates that the proposed garages be sited 6” from the northern property boundaries to accomplish satisfactory turning radiuses and vehicle movements. The Land Use Code stipulates that actions of the Applicant, which includes previous development, is not justification for the grant of a variance and cannot be used to make a finding of a hardship. Staff finds this criterion not met. b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied the terms of this Title and the Municipal Code to other parcels, buildings or structures, in the same zone district. Staff Findings: Staff finds that should the BOA make a finding that a hardship exists on the property and that a variance is warranted, the Applicant will not attain any special privilege that would otherwise be denied by this Code, when compared to other parcels within this zone district. A finding of a hardship was identified for the properties in 2000. Staff finds this criterion conditionally met. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 • • • • 47 48 49 50 51 52 SITE BENCH MARKFOUND REBAR & 1-1/4"RED PLASTIC CAP LS9018ELEVATION:7957.13A.K.A. HERRON DRIVE GG G G 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152535455565758596061626364656667686970717273FOUND REBAR & 1-1/4"RED PLASTIC CAP LS16129FOUND REBAR & 1-1/4"RED PLASTIC CAP LS90187475FOUND NO. 5 REBARGRAVEL ROADWAY PAVEDPARKING LOTTRASH BINPLAT=S48°50'17"E 172.00'S48°51'56"E 171.87'S 3 7 ° 5 6 ' 3 1 " W 1 8 4 . 8 0 ' P L A T = S 3 7 ° 4 8 ' 1 5 " W 1 8 5 . 1 8 'N48°50'17"W 172.00'(BASIS OF BEARINGS)PLAT=N37°48'15"E 185.18'N37°58'55"E 184.71'11.3'5 7 . 4 '7612.0'6 7 . 8 'W.W.W.W.W.W.W.W.W . W . W . W .WOODDECKWOODDECKWOODDECKWOODDECKWOODDECKWOODDECKSIDEWA L K SI D E W A L K11.6'9.2'1 0 . 0 ' 6. 0 '12.5'13.5'2.2'8.0'2.2'4.5'33.0'10.2' 1 0 . 0 '11.0'1 0 . 0 '9.2'6 . 0 '12.5'1 3 . 5 '2.2'8 . 0 '2.2'4 . 5 '33.0'11.6'9.2'1 0 . 0 ' 6. 0 '12.5'1 3 . 5 '2.2'8. 0 '2.2'4 . 5 '33.0'1 0 . 2 ' 1 0 . 0 '11.0'1 0 . 0 '9.2'6. 0 '12.2'1 3 . 5 '2.2'8. 0 '2.2'4 . 5 '33.0'WOODDECKSTEPSPLANTERP L A N T E R SPAP L A N T E R PLANTER WOODDECK79507955795979597955795279507953 7955 7957795079537955795879477953 795 4 7 9 5 5 79 5 6 7960 79607 9 5 679557 9 6 0 7 9 6 2 7 9 6 2 7 9 6 0 7 9 5 6 7 9 5 4 796079597960795579527953 7954F F E 7 9 5 3 . 7 7 7 9 5 3 . 7 4 F F E FFE7954.35FFE7954.46FFE7956.527 9 5 5 . 8 9 F F E F F E 7 9 5 5 . 8 9 FFE7956.51STEPSSTEPSSTEPSMAILBOXMAILBOXBOULDER RETAINING(TYPICAL)R.R. TIE CRIB RETAINING WALLMATCHLESS DRIVELOT 1GIBSON & MATCHLESSSUBDIVISIONLOT 2GIBSON & MATCHLESSSUBDIVISIONJACOBIECONDOMINIUMS165 PARK CIRCLECONDOMINIUMSPARK CIRCLECONDOMINIUMSSMUGGLER RACQUET CLUBTWO - STORYSTONE & FRAMEBUILDINGW/BASEMENT LEVEL1050 MATCHLESSDRIVEUNIT 1UNIT 2TWO - STORYSTONE & FRAMEBUILDINGW/BASEMENT LEVEL1040 MATCHLESS DRIVEUNIT 3UNIT 410' WIDE UTILITY EASEMENTPLAT BOOK 6 PAGE 50G U E S T G U E S T U N I T 1 U N I T 1 U N I T 2 U N I T 2 G U E S T G U E S T U N I T 3 U N I T 3 U N I T 4 U N I T 4 STORAGE & TRASHASSIGNED PARKINGPER RECORDEDCONDOMINIUM MAPE X I S T I N G C R E E KCITY OF ASPENGPS CONTROLMONUMENT NO. 4FOUND 3-1/4"ALUMINUM CAPELEVATION: 7925.42CITY OF ASPENGPS CONTROLMONUMENT NO. 18FOUND 3-1/4"ALUMINUM CAPN17°01'39"W2107.73'(TIE)S53°24'07"W 1067.82'(TIE)AREA0.728± ACRES31,717± SQ.FT.WOODFENCEELECTRIC PEDESTALCATV PEDESTALELECTRIC MANHOLEVICINITY MAPWATER LINESEWER LINETELEPHONE LINEGAS LINECATV LINEWATER VALVETELEPHONE PEDESTALFIRE HYDRANTSANITARY SEWER MANHOLEELECTRICAL TRANSFORMERGAS METERELECTRICAL METERGLEGENDESURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATIONSURVEY NOTES:5. THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO RESERVATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, COVENANTS AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD OR INPLACE.6. THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE COMMITMENT, THEREFORE, ANY EXCEPTIONS TOTITLE THAT MAY AFFECT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAVE NOT BEEN REVIEWED BY TRUE NORTH COLORADO, LLC.7. ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD 88)REFERENCED FROM NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY (NGS) BENCHMARK STATION Q 159 HAVING AN ELEVATION OF7911.98.8. CONTOUR INTERVAL EQUALS 1 FOOT.9. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON (GAS, ELECTRIC, CATV, TELEPHONE & WATER) WERE LOCATED BYROARING FORK UTILITY LOCATORS LLC. SEWER LINE LOCATIONS WERE PROVIDED BY ASPEN SANITATION METRODISTRICT. UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON ARE FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. PLEASE CALL 811 PRIOR TO ANYDIGGING OR EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION FOR UTILITY VERIFICATION.10. THE SUBJECT PARCEL OF LAND LIES SOLELY WITHIN FLOOD ZONE X, AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE THE500-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN, ACCORDING TO FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP NO. 0801430204C FOR THE CITYOF ASPEN.THE RACQUET CLUB CONDOMINIUMSSECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6TH PMCITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADOIMPROVEMENT & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY TRUE NORTH COLORADO LLC.A LAND SURVEYING AND MAPPING COMPANYPO BOX 614 - 529 S. WILD HORSE DRIVENEW CASTLE, COLORADO 81647(970) 984-0474www.truenorthcolorado.comPROJECT NO: 2018-307DATE: December 5, 2018DRAWNRPKSURVEYEDLDVSHEET1 OF 1TRUENORTHA LAND SURVEYING AND MAPPING COMPANY15'7.5'30'SCALE: 1" = 15'NPROPERTY DESCRIPTION:0TREE TYPE SIZE DRIPTREE CHART128" 16'34567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041428" 16'16'13" 16'DECIDUOUS6" 12'4"10'6" 12'DECIDUOUS436" 8'12" 24'14" 28'20" 30'12" 24'16" 16'8" 16'6" 12'7"14'8" 16'DECIDUOUS7"14'DECIDUOUSDECIDUOUSDECIDUOUS444546474849505152535455565758596061626364656667686970717273DECIDUOUS16" 32'8" 16'20" 30'ASPEN7"14'9" 20'14" 16'12" 24'DECIDUOUS6"DECIDUOUS16" 20'8" 16'DECIDUOUS6" 12'DECIDUOUS9" 18'DECIDUOUS7"12'8" 12'8" 16'CONIFEROUS7"14'DECIDUOUS8" 16'DECIDUOUS8" 16'DECIDUOUSDECIDUOUS10" 20'10" 12'8" 12'6" 12'5"10'9" 18'DECIDUOUS7"10'6" 10'5"10'4"8'12" 16'DECIDUOUS8" 16'DECIDUOUS18" 30'18" 36'12" 16'DECIDUOUS10" 12'CONIFEROUS8" 12'8" 16'10" 12'CONIFEROUS12" 16'8" 12'ASPEN20" 30'7"14'DECIDUOUS9" 18'DECIDUOUS24" 30'7"14'DECIDUOUS8" 16'DECIDUOUS8" 16'DECIDUOUS8" 16'DECIDUOUSCONIFEROUS8" 16'8" 16'8" 16'CONIFEROUS8" 16'ASPENASPENASPENASPENASPENASPENCONIFEROUSCONIFEROUSCONIFEROUSCONIFEROUSCONIFEROUSCONIFEROUSDECIDUOUSDECIDUOUSDECIDUOUSDECIDUOUSDECIDUOUSDECIDUOUSDECIDUOUSCONIFEROUSDECIDUOUSDECIDUOUS8" 16'8" 16'8" 16'CONIFEROUSCONIFEROUSCONIFEROUSCONIFEROUSCONIFEROUSCONIFEROUSCONIFEROUSCONIFEROUSCONIFEROUSCONIFEROUSCONIFEROUSCONIFEROUSDECIDUOUSCONIFEROUS10" 12'CONIFEROUS10" 12'CONIFEROUSCONIFEROUSCONIFEROUSSCALE: 1" = 500'748" 16'DECIDUOUS758" 16'DECIDUOUS768" 16'DECIDUOUSP A R K CI R C L E GIBSONAVENE A L E AVEE.HOPKINSAVEE.HYMANAVEE.COOPER AVE S.ORIGI N A L S T R E E T S.SPRIN G S T R E E T MI D L A N D AVE SMUGGLERMOBILEHOME PARKSITENSLOPE LEGEND30% TO 40%40% & GREATERNOTE: IT IS THIS PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S OPINIONTHAT THE SLOPES SHOWN HEREON ARE THE RESULT OFMAN-MADE FEATURES AND NOT NATURAL GRADE.53 54 A4.01 2 A4.01 3 A4.01 4 A4.01 1 2 A5.01 2 A5.011 1 2 2 A A B B 3 A5.01 3 A5.01 50'-0" WP 1 A5.01 1 A5.01 4 A5.01 4 A5.01 CL25'-0"25'-0"22'-0"50'-0"11'-6"4'-6"12'-0"UNITS 2/4 102/104 UNITS 1/3 101/103 TRASH 105 TRASH ADDITION ON WEST GARAGE ONLY Contractor must verify all dimensions on site before commencing work or preparing shop drawings. Do not scale drawings. Date generated Sheet number Sheet title Scale Project number 1" Sheet size 24"X36" Size check Project Address Notes & Legend Recent revision history Stamp # DescriptionDate © Bryan May Architecture LLC TMbryanmayarchitecture © Bryan May Architecture LLC (BMA) The information and design intent contained within this document is the property of BMA. No part of this information may be used without the prior written permission of BMA. BMA shall retain all common law statutory and other reserved rights, including copyright thereto. www.bryanmayarchitecture.com 970.300.2068 C:\Users\BryanMay\Dropbox\BMA\Projects\2018\1804_RCCA Garages\06_Documentation\06_Revit\1804_RCCA_Garages.rvt6/6/2019 9:42:11 AM 1/4" = 1'-0" A2.21 1804 1050 MATCHLESS DR ASPEN, CO 81611 RCCA GARAGES LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN SCALE: PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH A2.21 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN 2019.06.06 TEAM KICKOFF 55 BASEMENT LEVEL 97'-0" TO FOOTING LEVEL 1 100'-0" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 108'-0" T.O. PLATE HP ROOF 115'-0" B.O. FOOTING 96'-0" 2 A5.01 12 4 A5.01 BASEMENT LEVEL 97'-0" TO FOOTING LEVEL 1 100'-0" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 108'-0" T.O. PLATE HP ROOF 115'-0" B.O. FOOTING 96'-0" AB 3 A5.01 1 A5.01 BASEMENT LEVEL 97'-0" TO FOOTING LEVEL 1 100'-0" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 108'-0" T.O. PLATE HP ROOF 115'-0" B.O. FOOTING 96'-0" 2 A5.0112 4 A5.01 BASEMENT LEVEL 97'-0" TO FOOTING LEVEL 1 100'-0" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 108'-0" T.O. PLATE HP ROOF 115'-0" B.O. FOOTING 96'-0" A B 3 A5.01 1 A5.01 Contractor must verify all dimensions on site before commencing work or preparing shop drawings. Do not scale drawings. Date generated Sheet number Sheet title Scale Project number 1" Sheet size 24"X36" Size check Project Address Notes & Legend Recent revision history Stamp # DescriptionDate © Bryan May Architecture LLC TMbryanmayarchitecture © Bryan May Architecture LLC (BMA) The information and design intent contained within this document is the property of BMA. No part of this information may be used without the prior written permission of BMA. BMA shall retain all common law statutory and other reserved rights, including copyright thereto. www.bryanmayarchitecture.com 970.300.2068 C:\Users\BryanMay\Dropbox\BMA\Projects\2018\1804_RCCA Garages\06_Documentation\06_Revit\1804_RCCA_Garages.rvt6/6/2019 9:42:12 AM 1/4" = 1'-0" A4.01 1804 1050 MATCHLESS DR ASPEN, CO 81611 RCCA GARAGES EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE:A4.01 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 NORTH ELEVATION SCALE:A4.01 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 EAST ELEVATION SCALE:A4.01 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE:A4.01 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 WEST ELEVATION EAST BUILDING EAST ELEVATION -SIM/OPP 2019.06.06 TEAM KICKOFF 56 BASEMENT LEVEL 97'-0" TO FOOTING LEVEL 1 100'-0" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 108'-0" T.O. PLATE HP ROOF 115'-0" B.O. FOOTING 96'-0" A B3 A5.01 1 A5.01 2'-0" BASEMENT LEVEL 97'-0" TO FOOTING LEVEL 1 100'-0" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 108'-0" T.O. PLATE HP ROOF 115'-0" B.O. FOOTING 96'-0" AB 3 A5.01 1 A5.01 BASEMENT LEVEL 97'-0" TO FOOTING LEVEL 1 100'-0" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 108'-0" T.O. PLATE B.O. FOOTING 96'-0" 2 A5.01124 A5.01 BASEMENT LEVEL 97'-0" TO FOOTING LEVEL 1 100'-0" T.O. PLY ROOF LEVEL 108'-0" T.O. PLATE HP ROOF 115'-0" B.O. FOOTING 96'-0" 2 A5.0112 4 A5.01 Contractor must verify all dimensions on site before commencing work or preparing shop drawings. Do not scale drawings. Date generated Sheet number Sheet title Scale Project number 1" Sheet size 24"X36" Size check Project Address Notes & Legend Recent revision history Stamp # DescriptionDate © Bryan May Architecture LLC TMbryanmayarchitecture © Bryan May Architecture LLC (BMA) The information and design intent contained within this document is the property of BMA. No part of this information may be used without the prior written permission of BMA. BMA shall retain all common law statutory and other reserved rights, including copyright thereto. www.bryanmayarchitecture.com 970.300.2068 C:\Users\BryanMay\Dropbox\BMA\Projects\2018\1804_RCCA Garages\06_Documentation\06_Revit\1804_RCCA_Garages.rvt6/6/2019 9:42:13 AM 1/4" = 1'-0" A5.01 1804 1050 MATCHLESS DR ASPEN, CO 81611 RCCA GARAGES BUILDING SECTIONS SCALE:A5.01 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 SECTION 2 SCALE:A5.01 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 SECTION 1 SCALE:A5.01 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 SECTION A SCALE:A5.01 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 SECTION B 2019.06.06 TEAM KICKOFF 57