The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutminutes.boa.20191114Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment November 14, 2019 1 Staff Comments .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Commission Comments ............................................................................................................................ 2 Minutes ........................................................................................................................................................ 2 Public Comment not on the Agenda ....................................................................................................... 2 Declaration of Conflicts of Interest ........................................................................................................... 2 333 PARK AVENUE – Variance Request .............................................................................................. 2 Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment November 14, 2019 2 At 4:30 p.m.; Andrew Sandler called the regular meeting to order with Board Members Megan Bentzin, Jim Farrey, Collin Frank and Tim Sack present. Also present from staff Jeff Barnhill, Bob Narracci, Jim True and Linda Manning. Staff Comments None. Commission Comments None. Minutes Ms. Bentzin moved to approve the minutes from September 5, 2019; seconded by Mr. Farrey. All in favor, motion carried. Public Comment not on the Agenda None. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest None. 333 PARK AVENUE – Variance Request Jeff Barnhill, community development, stated this property is located in lot 1 of the Sunnypark subdivision on the east side of town. The Roaring Fork river is just below the property. He showed photos of the existing conditions. There are two historic structures that are designated located on the lot. The designations along with the properties will be moved to 931 Gibson. It will then be a vacant lot. The applicant is requesting a variance to the minimum setback requirements. This property is in the R6 zone and requires a10 foot front yard setback. The minimum side yard setback is 15 feet with a combined setback of 35 feet. There is a10 foot rear yard setback. The applicant is requesting 6 inches for the front yard where 10 feet is required. There is an easement on the front lot line. Setbacks are measured from the easement not the front lot line. For the south east side yard, they are requesting 5 feet. For the north west side yard they are requesting a 10 foot setback. The combined side yard request is 15 feet. There are 2 access easements to the front. There are also very steep slopes on the property. The requirement for top of slope is 15 feet in the rear. There is a stream margin in the rear as well. He showed images along the access easement. He showed the developable area of the surrounding properties with today’s code and what would be out of code. 329 Park to the east received variances. 341 and 345 both have access easement that end at 333 Park. Staff does not support the request. There is a difference between unnecessary hardship and mere inconvenience. There is 2,017 square feet of buildable area that would satisfy all setback requirements. There is a commonality of the encumbrances of this property and others in Aspen. Engineering has raised questions about drainage due to top of slope. We received 4 comments in support of approval from neighboring homeowners. If this is approved Staff has recommended conditions of a minimum of 12 feet for the north west and 14 from the south east with a combined of 26. Staff did not recommend a front yard setback variance. Sara Adams, representing the applicant, showed images of the existing site. She showed the building envelope and how far outside it the existing condition is. The current development does not comply with setbacks, stream margin, height, floor area and number of dwelling units. We are proposing a 10,418 square foot gross lot size. There is an access easement, emergency easement and steep slopes that are not part of the building envelope. It is really a 6,000 square foot lot. There is a 15 foot setback from top of slope and a 45 degree height limit. Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment November 14, 2019 3 The proposal is fully compliant with the stream margin. This property is located in the R6 zone and 20% of the site is buildable. Typically, for this zone it is 56%. We think that is a hardship that is not self created. We are complying with the setback requirements for the buildable lot size of 6,000 square feet. The front setback is 12.3 feet, the pavement and easement don’t line up. The sides are 10 and 5. One exceeds the R6 requirement for setback. Combined is 15 and meets the requirements for a 6,000 square foot lot. She showed a map of the neighborhood context to see how other properties have dealt with these constraints. The application complies with the purposes, goals and objectives of the code. It complies with the intent of the R6 zone. It encourages long term residential uses. The property is zoned for single family and the expectation is to develop a single family home. Less than half of the lot is buildable. The variance is the minimum needed. The application complies with the net lot area of R6. This is not self created. The lot is unique. The required setbacks are more than an inconvenience. What we are proposing improves the property and mitigates the non conforming that is there today. We are working with engineering to address the drainage concerns. We are confident we can meet the requirements on site. Brian reached out to the immediate neighbors and you have received letters of support. Mr. Sack asked about the drainage and potential issues. Flynn Stewart Severy, architect, replied we would not be able to meet the current URMP and historic flows. Because the road is not a right of way we would be able to install a dry well in the north east corner of the lot. We would have to install linear drains in front of the garage. Those would be piped to the rear of the house. Ms. Adams said we are also looking at permeable pavers and a green roof. Mr. Farrey said the 10,000 square foot lot becomes a 6,000 lot when you take out the slopes and constraints. Ms. Adams replied the code says take out all the spaces you can’t build and calculate floor area off of that. Mr. Farrey asked if this is not considered R6. Ms. Adams said it is R6 but the code differentiates between gross lot and net lot. Mr. Barnhill said once you take out the slopes and easements out of the gross you end up with 6,000 net. Mr. Sandler asked is there anything given back to the property owner for the easement. Jim True, city attorney, said it is a private easement. Mr. Sandler opened the public comment. 1. Jill Shore said she’s lived in the neighborhood for 40 years. I understand the hardships and why the variances are requested. I feel the project is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. The setbacks are necessary and will not present any hardship to any of the neighbors. It will improve the neighborhood. It has a clean line. They are conforming with the most important things. If it was treated as a lot with 6,000 feet it would comply. I believe in the project. They took care of the parking. Mr. Sandler closed the public comment. Ms. Bentzin said you didn’t suggest any particular distance from the front. Mr. Barnhill replied we ask that you consider the setback. Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment November 14, 2019 4 Mr. Frank said it is a private easement and the homeowners are in support. The major issues are off the back. I’m not seeing major issues. Ms. Bentzin said regarding the criteria, is it consistent with purposes goas and objectives of the code and title. I think it is in accordance with that. All board members agreed. Ms. Bentzin said the second criteria is the grant of the variance would make reasonable use. I think it does. This partial does not have a high percent of usable land. The neighboring properties don’t comply either. All board members agreed. Ms. Bentzin said on hardship, I think we agree there is unnecessary hardship posed by the constraints on this property. The board agreed. Mr. True said for the reasons stated by Ms. Bentzin someone could move to approve Resolution 5. Mr. Farrey said for reasons stated by Ms. Bentzin, I motion to approve Resolution 5, Series of 2019 and the requested variances as set forth tonight. Seconded by Mr. Frank. Roll call vote. Board members Sack, yes; Bentzin, yes; Farrey, yes; Frank, yes; Sandler, yes. Motion carried. At 5:00 p.m. Mr. Sandler moved to adjourn; seconded by Mr. Frank. All in favor, motion carried. Linda Manning City Clerk