HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.20190905Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment September 5, 2019
1
Staff Comments .......................................................................................................................................... 2
Commission Comments ............................................................................................................................ 2
Minutes ........................................................................................................................................................ 2
Public Comment not on the Agenda ....................................................................................................... 2
Declaration of Conflicts of Interest ........................................................................................................... 2
1040 Matchless Drive and 1050 Matchless Drive – Variance Request ......................................................... 2
Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment September 5, 2019
2
At 4:30 p.m.; Andrew Sandler called the regular meeting to order with Board Members Megan
Bentzin, Jim Farrey and Ashley Feddersen present. Also present from staff Mike Kraemer, Jim
True and Linda Manning.
Staff Comments
None.
Commission Comments
None.
Minutes
Mr. Farrey moved to approve the minutes from June 19. 2019; seconded by Ms. Feddersen. All
in favor, motion carried.
Public Comment not on the Agenda
None.
Declaration of Conflicts of Interest
None.
1040 MATCHLESS DRIVE AND 1050 MATCHLESS DRIVE – Variance Request
Mike Kraemer, community development, stated the applicant is requesting a variance for
minimum setback requirements for 1040 and 1050 Matchless Drive. Racquet Club Condo
Association is the applicant. The request is to vary front, rear and side yard setbacks. The
property is located in the R6 zone district. The minimum setback for a front yard for an
accessory structure is 15 feet. The minimum for side yard is 15 feet with a minimum of 50 feet
for both sides. For rear yard, it is a minimum 5 foot setback. Both lots were developed with
duplexes in the 70’s. There is an existing surface parking area. In 2000 the BOA granted a
variance for a similar request. It was not acted on and expired. Staff recommended denial but
the board found a hardship existed and granted a variance. Tonight is a variance for two 2 car
garages, trash area and retaining walls. On 1040, they are requesting a front yard setback of 5
feet for the garage and 0 feet for the retaining wall. The side yard is requested at 6 inch for the
garage and retaining wall. 1050 is requesting a 0 foot setback for the retaining wall and a 6 inch
setback for the side yard. He showed images of the surface area parking. Guests and
residents park here since they were constructed. The trash area is also here. He showed
images of renderings of what the garages would look like. He also showed a site plan of the
property.
Section 26.314.040 applies to variances.
1 – the grant of a variance will be generally consistent with the goals, objectives, purposes and
policies of the land use code.
2 – the grant of variance is the minimal variance that will make possible the reasonable use of
parcel, building or structure.
3 - Literal interpretation and enforcement of the code would deprive the applicant of rights
commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and would cause the applicant
unnecessary hardship.
Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment September 5, 2019
3
In determining whether an applicant’s rights would be deprived the board shall consider the
following conditions.
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,
B – Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied to other
parcels, buildings or structures in the same zone district.
Staff recommends not supporting the request.
First, there is a difference between unnecessary hardship or mere inconvenience. Development
rights for duplexes are currently being exercised. Garages are accessory structures and do not
carry the status of a fundamental development right. Requiring accessory structure setback
compliance does not deprive the applicant of their rights. Second, special circumstances
cannot result from the actions of the applicant or previous property owner. The existing
development pushes the garage development to the north and within the setbacks. While it is a
valid argument it cannot be considered by the Board.
Alternatively, the Board can find a hardship on the property. Staff has drafted a resolution of
approval with conditions. Staff is concerned that the 0 inch and 6 inch setback are very close to
the property and we are concerned with trespass and construction and maintenance. There are
also drainage issues with snow shed design. If you consider a variance it should be at least 1
foot from the neighboring property lines.
Applicant
Bryan May, representing the HOA. We have been sitting on an expired approval since 2000.
We are trying to keep this simple. We are trying to stick within the confines of the original
approval. It is the minimal size required for a garage. They are simple, minimal sized,
unheated garages. The retaining wall is pretty substantial to this project. We think the wall
belongs to the racquet club to the north. It is also starting to show signs of failure. No matter
whose property it is on it is within the setback. The wall needs to be safely shored up. We are
not tied to the shedding of the roof in one direction or the other. We are open to all possibilities.
The neighboring property has concerns we are happy to talk to them and are flexible.
Mr. Sandler asked how old are the standards. Mr. Kraemer replied in 2000 when the BOA
found a hardship the code language was almost identical to today’s language. Mr. Sandler
asked what was the hardship that was presented back then. Mr. Kraemer said at that time staff
had the same concerns about structures in the setback. The BOA minutes show a discussion
with these criteria showing special circumstances exist. MR. Sandler asked the applicant what
are the hardships. Mr. May replied the existence of the structures and snow removal. There is
no room for snow removal on the property now. It is already tight to get into the spaces that are
there. Mr. Farrey asked are you going in to the setback due to a turning radius. Mr. May said
mostly due to the turning radius. MS. Feddersen asked are you losing any parking spaces. Mr.
Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment September 5, 2019
4
May replied no and it will fit the recycling. Each unit gets 2 inside spaces and 4 outside guest
spaces.
Ms. Bentzin said the request is for a 6 foot side yard setback. The current retaining wall, it
would be six feet. Mr. May said it is 6 inches from the property line. It is mostly on the property
to the north. It would come entirely onto this lot. The retaining wall is behind the proposed
garages. The garages would but up to where the existing wall is now.
Mr. Kraemer said we think a 1 foot setback should be a minimum. Ms. Feddersen asked how
would that effect the design. Mr. May replied it would make the inside tighter. Mr. Kraemer said
the 1 foot is really off the side yard.
Mr. Farrey asked is the existing wall modified. Mr. May said ideally it will be taken out. Mr.
Farrey asked what happens to the grade change. Mr. May said we would replace it on our
property line.
Ms. Bentzin said I think we agree on the side yard. I want to be clear we are in agreement on
the front yard. It is also a reduction of 10 feet for the front. Mr. Kraemer said the resolution
identifies both properties and the setbacks for each side.
Mr. Sandler opened up the public commen.t
1. Claude Salter, representing the property known as the Smuggler Racquet Club. We are
supportive of them having garages. We do not support the configuration. We have issue
with the way they have portrayed the setbacks. The survey delineates a lot line down
the middle but it is one parcel. She suggested it is 4 lot lines instead of 8. We have
issue with the way the setbacks are being portrayed. All of those lots have pulled
permits. You should be able to look at the setbacks. A variance would be potentially
from the rear. Regardless of who owns the tie wall, the club supports a new retaining
wall but cannot support 6 inches. We recommend 2 feet mostly for maintenance and
stormwater shedding. The design is also creating the hardship they are asking for.
Garages do not need to be 15 feet tall. Having a retaining wall part of the garage will
eventually need maintenance and they will have to access the club property. I
understand why the HOA wants this design, but the club does not support it. Mr. Farrey
asked is there a way to drain to the east or west. Ms. Salter replied they could change
the pitch of the roof so it drains certain ways. A steeper pitch roof makes the garage
higher. Mr. Farrey asked what do you support. Ms. Salter said we support them having
garages but would like a design that is best for our property and not such a big variation
request. We think 2 feet is more in line. Mr. Farrey said 6 feet would be the height of a
fence, yet that is a retaining wall. They are proposing another 9 on top of that. Ms.
Salter said visually it affects us. We want it off our shared property line and potentially a
little lower. We would support a continuation for a design copasetic to the club. Mr.
Farrey said are you saying a 2 foot setback and a 12 foot high garage. Ms. Salter said I
think there is a place we could get to where we could support it. You may find that there
are truly only 4 setbacks and it would simplify things. I am requesting a study of the
setbacks, a larger setback variation and potentially a design that is a little shorter in
height.
Ms. Feddersen asked could you do a 2 foot setback. Mr. May replied 2 is hard. If we
could compromise on 1 and get a better roof design. Mr. Farrey asked about a height of
Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment September 5, 2019
5
12. Mr. May said right now the back of the garage is at 8 feet. It is probably 3 feet off
the retaining wall. Ms. Salter said they are visually impacting and a good compromise
could be 12 feet. Mr. May said we would be happy to compromise and go down to 12
feet.
2. Alan Becker, closest neighbor at 950 Matchless. There are mountains of snow that get
built up from the whole area. It gets dumped over the retaining wall onto the club
property and onto my property. In a big snow year there is nowhere to put the snow as it
exists, with 2 garages there won’t be space available to dump it. the design looks bulky
at 15 feet tall. It is pretty tall. Think this should be studied further. He suggested only 1
space per unit in the garage with the remaining outside.
Mr. Sandler closed the public comment.
Ms. Feddersen asked have you considered 4 instead of 8. Mr. May replied we did. We ended
up with 2 spots per unit because we were able to create a new snow storage area. We did not
see the need to reduce the size. Ms. Feddersen asked would you still be able to put snow over
the wall. Mr. May said the wall would be the same height but we are trying to eliminate dumping
snow onto the neighbor’s property.
Mr. Kraemer said the comments made regarding the properties being on 1 lot was something
we researched. We pulled plats from the 60’s and they show lots 2 and 3. We researched if
there were amendments to that plat and did not see any filed. There was a condominium plat
that was filed and it shows a dashed line between the two lots. Condo plats divvy up ownership
not property. I hear the comments made and we can investigate further but feel pretty
confident.
Kathy Benzenger, HOA, said we are trying to clean up the mess in the parking lot. The
retaining wall needs to be repaired. It is an immediate need. Upon fixing it we were thinking we
would put up a structure for parking. We want to work with our neighbors. We will lower the
roof and change the slope. We are also making the snow storage area larger. We though this
project would fix the wall and the snow removal project.
Mr. Sandler said staff said you were ok with a 1 foot set back. Mr. Kraemer said to be clear,
that is a minimum. We do not object to a larger setback.
Mr. Farrey asked are you pitching the roof now because of the sun. Mr. May said we are
starting with the original 2000 approval. Mr. Farrey asked would you change the slope. Mr.
May stated there are solutions and we are not tied to what is shown here.
Mr. Farrey said I’m struggling with the difference between 1 and 2 feet. How many people can
fit in 12 inches. Mr. May said 1 foot would make it a bit better. There would be maintenance
back there. There are easements we can work through. The turning radius would be difficult
with 2 feet.
Ms. Bentzin said regarding the alignment of the property and where front, rear and side are
defined, I’m curious about other lots in the area with an unusual configuration. Is this unique.
Mr. Kraemer said I don’t think it is that unique. The block due west we looked at. Some of
those single family houses have garages.
Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment September 5, 2019
6
Jim True, city attorney, said in order to grant a variance you must make certain findings that
indicate it is complying with the requirements of a variance. I’m happy to outline that and what
you need to find for that resolution 4. The motion would be the BOA finds the following. The
grant of a variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies
of Chapter 26 and other provisions of the Aspen Municipal Code. The grant of a variance is the
minimum variance that would make possible reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure.
Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms of Chapter 26 would deprive the applicant of
rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and would cause the
applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. Determining that the applicant’s rights
would be deprived the board considered certain special conditions and circumstances which are
unique to the parcel, building or structure which are not applicable to other parcels, buildings or
structures in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant.
Consequently the Board of Adjustment approves Resolution 4, Series of 2019 with an
amendment that the garage shall be limited to a height of 12 feet.
Mr. Sandler moved to adopt Resolution #4, Series of 2014 as stated by Mr. True. Seconded by
Ms. Feddersen.
Mr. True said he would note that there was a lot of discussion as to whether the side yard set
back should be 1 foot or 2 feet. The resolution says 1 foot.
Mr. Kraemer said the only clarifying question staff had is the roof form design. I wasn’t clear if it
was going to be a gable roof or a shed roof as proposed. Exhibit A has the design of the
garages and we wanted to hone in on the design and location. Mr. Farrey replied I don’t know
why it is pitched that way. I would slope it east west. It is less visual impact to the racquet club.
Mr. May said we could certainly look at sloping it the other direction. Mr. Kraemer replied if the
applicant is ok with that design feature then I suggest they make the change.
Mr. Becker said with the 1 or 2 foot setback there will be so much snowfall between the garage
and retaining wall it will create frost wedging. There could be tremendous pressures. I think it is
a real engineering question.
Mr. Farrey said the roof pitch should be so that the snow shed’s onto the applicant’s property.
Mr. True said there would be an amendment to Resolution 4, Section 1 that would say the
garage shall be limited to a height of 12 feet with a pitch from east to west or to the south. The
board agreed to the amendment.
Roll call vote. Board Member Feddersen, yes; Bentzin, yes; Farrey, yes; Sandler, yes. Motion
carried.
At 5:40 Mr. Sandler moved to adjourn; seconded by Ms. Feddersen. All in favor, motion carried.
Linda Manning
City Clerk