HomeMy WebLinkAbout1040_1050 Matchless Drive_Memo
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
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
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:
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
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.
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