Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.20230706 REGULAR MEETING ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT July 6th, 2023 Chairperson Sandler opened the meeting of the Aspen Board of Adjustment at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Jim Farrey, Collin Frank, Ashley Feddersen, Andrew Sandler Commissioners not in attendance: Rick Head and Tim Sack Staff present: Jeff Barnhill, Planner II Haley Hart, Long Range Planner Bob Narracci, Zoning Administrator Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk Staff Comments: None Commissioner comments: None Declaration of Conflicts of Interest: None Minutes: Mr. Frank motioned to approve the minutes from 2/16/23 & 6/1/23. Mr. Sandler seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Farrey, yes; Mr. Frank, yes; Ms. Feddersen, yes; Mr. Sandler, yes. All in favor, motion passes. PUBLIC HEARING: 807 McSkimming Road – Construction Staging Variance Ms. Johnson asked staff and the applicant to confirm that public notice was posted at the address and was mailed. Ms. Hart said it was noticed per Code for today’s hearing. Staff Presentation – Haley Hart, Long Range Planner Ms. Hart stated the applicant as McLovin Aspen LLC, represented by Sara Upton from Forum Phi and introduced Bob Narracci, Zoning Administrator for the City. She introduced the item and went over some details about the lot. The objective is for 807 McSkimming Road to be a construction staging area for the development of a single-family home on the lot directly to the west, which is 813 McSkimming Rd. She stated that the 813 lot already has an approved building permit and both properties are under the same ownership. The application states that the extreme steep slopes on the 807 property makes for reasonable evidence to have an off-site staging area. She then went over some history of the neighborhood and the creation of the R-15B zone district. Next, she detailed that applicant’s proposal for the development of the staging area including the construction of temporary retaining walls and using the existing road cut. She then stated that staff finds that the application meets the review criteria for a construction staging variance is recommending BOA approve the requested land use review with the conditions included in the resolution. There were no questions from the board members. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None BOARD DISCUSSION: The members all said it was a straightforward application and agreed with staff’s recommendation. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT July 6th, 2023 MOTION: Mr. Farrey moved to approve Resolution #2, Series of 2023 granting approval for the Construction Staging Variance with the conditions in the resolution. Ms. Feddersen seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Farrey, yes; Mr. Frank, yes; Ms. Feddersen, yes; Mr. Sandler, yes. 4-0; All in favor, motion passes. PUBLIC HEARING: 782 McSkimming Road – Request for Setback Variance Ms. Johnson stated that notice was provided for this hearing per the Land Use Code as it was originally set to occur on June 1st but was opened and continued to this meeting due to a lack of a quorum. Mr. Barnhill introduce the item and turned it over to Mr. Chris Bendon representing the applicant. Applicant Presentation – Chris Bendon – Bendon Adams Mr. Bendon started his presentation and introduced the applicant, Daniel Baker, and his wife Jennifer Baker. He then described the property and noted a code amendment from 2010 that changed how setbacks were measured which affects this property. The change moved the point of measurement of the 30-foot setback from the middle of the road to the edge of it. He mentioned that the applicant currently has a demolition permit to demolish the existing structure and redevelop the property. If they use the currently required setback, now measured from the edge of the private road it pushes the house up the hill to where the driveway would be at a 32 percent grade. He showed a few images of the property, pointing out the property line and the required 30-foot setback. He noted that if the house is required to be at the 30-foot setback, it would render it inaccessible and it would end up looming over the rest of the neighborhood. He also noted a 15-foot-wide waterline easement between this property and the neighbor’s, equating to 7.5 feet on each property, that the City wanted to widen to 15 feet on each property. The house was subsequently redesigned to accommodate the wider easement. He noted that they were in talks with the City to allow for a snowmelt system for the driveway, as it is usually not allowed above a waterline. He referenced a similar setback variance request made by a neighbor, Mr. Crockett, that was granted by the County Board of Adjustment in 1987. Mr. Bendon then let Mr. Baker introduce himself and go over why they are here. Staff Presentation – Jeff Barnhill – Planner II Mr. Barnhill started his presentation referencing the information in the agenda packet. He went over some history of the property and the requested front yard setback variance. He showed the existing conditions. Mr. Frank asked if the existing house meets the current required setbacks, to which Mr. Barnhill said he was not exactly sure, but that it would be close. Mr. Barnhill went on to note the existing required front yard setback of 30 feet and that the applicant is requesting a 15-foot setback variance. There were no variance requests for the side or rear yard setbacks. He also noted that the variance would also allow the proposed retaining walls for the driveway to be built a little taller. He then detailed the encumbrances on the property and mentioned that the expanded water easement would be a benefit to the community. Next, he went over the review criteria for this variance request. He said that staff recommends the BOA approve the request with the conditions in the resolution. He noted that staff is usually REGULAR MEETING ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT July 6th, 2023 pretty tough on variances, but the combination of the steep slopes and the expanded waterline easement is why they are recommending approval. Mr. Farrey asked for some more clarity on the proposed driveway. Mr. Bendon provided some context related to the height of the retaining walls for the driveway. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mr. Danny Sullivan stated that he and his client, Rufus Crockett, are objecting to this variance as they believe the hardship is caused by the design of the building and is one of the applicant’s own creation. He said part of the review should be to see if there were adequate alternatives to the design. He described some details of the reasoning for their objection. There was then some discussion of the details of the variance that Mr. Crockett was granted in 1987. Mr. Sullivan said that they felt that there were other ways to design the house to avoid moving the house from where it is, which is currently in compliance with the setbacks, to a more perched location over Mr. Crockett’s house. He went over a few ideas to accomplish this. He mentioned that other owners in the neighborhood had, to the greatest extent possible, designed to meet the setbacks. Mr. Crockett said that the BOA would be setting a precedent for the many other properties in the neighborhood that would potentially be teardowns in the future if they were to grant this variance request. Mr. Sandler closed the public comment portion and allowed the applicant to respond. Mr. Bendon mentioned the amicable relationship between the applicant and surrounding neighbors, including Mr. Crockett. He also mentioned that Poss Architecture is a very skilled firm and had looked over many construction options. He noted that if they were made to comply with the 30- foot setback the resulting driveway would be at a 32 percent grade, which is impractical. He noted some of the issues with the idea of digging down the slope to accommodate the driveway and setbacks. He also noted that the variance granted to Mr. Crockett was a 15-foot variance and included very similar language to this variance request. Mr. Sullivan responded by noting that there is an existing house on the property that complies with the setbacks. He again said he did not think the variance request meets the review criteria. Ms. Feddersen asked if a representative from Poss Architecture could explain if there were any other design options that may require less of a variance. Mr. Mike Hamberg said that they had looked at many alternatives, but the main issue was the steepness of the driveway and how to fit the auto court on the site. He also mentioned that by code they are only allowed to dig down so deep. BOARD DISCUSSION: Mr. Sandler said that it was nice to hear the language from the 1987 variance request. Mr. Frank commented that as an architect himself, your first thought is not to go for a variance and is actually something you try to avoid. He was very confident in the staff at Poss Architecture and that digging a big hole or perching the house way up the hill to comply with the required setback is not good site design. He understood Mr. Crockett’s concerns but did see a hardship on the site and thought this project qualified for a variance. MOTION: Mr. Sandler moved to approve Resolution #3, Series of 2023 granting approval for the Request for Setback Variance with the conditions in the resolution. Mr. Frank seconded. Roll REGULAR MEETING ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT July 6th, 2023 call vote: Mr. Farrey, yes; Mr. Frank, yes; Ms. Feddersen, yes; Mr. Sandler, yes. 4-0; All in favor, motion passes. PUBLIC HEARING: 258 Roaring Fork Drive – Request for Setback Variance MOTION: Mr. Sandler moved to continue this item to August 3rd at 4:30pm at the request of the applicant. Mr. Farrey seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Farrey, yes; Mr. Frank, yes; Ms. Feddersen, yes; Mr. Sandler, yes. 4-0; All in favor, motion passes. ADJOURN: Ms. Feddersen motioned to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Sandler seconded. All in favor, motion passes. _____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy Clerk