Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.20180201Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment February 1, 2018 1 Staff Comments ............................................................................................................................................. 2 Board Comments........................................................................................................................................... 2 Public Comment not on the Agenda.............................................................................................................. 2 Declaration of Conflicts of Interest ............................................................................................................... 2 701 S. Monarch Street – Caribou Condos ..................................................................................................... 2 Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment February 1, 2018 2 Prior to the start of the regular meeting, Jim True, city attorney, briefed the Board on procedures. Mr. Farrey moved to elect Andrew Sandler as Chair and Ashley Feddersen as Vice Chair; seconded by Mike Hopson. All in favor, motion carried At 4:45 p.m. Andrew Sandler called the regular meeting to order with Board Members Jim Farrey, Ashley Feddersen, Mike Hopson and Collin Frank present. Staff Comments Jennifer Phelan, community development, introduced Hillary Seminick. She explained the comment process for commissioner, staff and public as well as conflict of interest. Board Comments None. Public Comment not on the Agenda Mr. Sandler asked if there is any public comments not on the agenda. There was none. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest None. 701 S. Monarch Street – Caribou Condos Hillary Seminick, community development, told the board the application is for 701 S Monarch Street, Caribou Condos. The property is located at far end of Monarch adjacent to Lift 1A. It is a condo with six units and six parking spaces. There is an existing trash location on the site. The site is sloped headed towards the lift and the mountain. Today’s meeting is about the request for setback variances. Currently there are existing setbacks including the walls on the property line and a portion of trash enclosure. The proposed project is a new subgrade parking garage accessed by a car lift. There will be eight spaces on the site for the six units. They will also need to relocate the existing trash area. There are a few ornamental features including planters at grade and the replacement of the existing retaining walls. For the setback variance the property is located within the lodge zone. Setbacks of five feet are required on all sides. Elements needing variance include a portion of elevator, trash enclosure and a portion of walls along the perimeter. They also need a variance for a portion of the subgrade garage. Mr. Sandler asked if the setback encroaches on the sidewalk. Ms. Seminick replied no. They are not permitted to place any structure in the setback. A dimensional variance review is required for portions of the garage, retaining walls and a portion of the elevator. As it exists today there are six parking spaces. The trash enclosure was added after the condominimization. She showed photos of the existing parking configuration. There is parking for six vehicles. To apply for a variance the applicant is required to demonstrate they meet the criteria. That includes a unique site specific condition that warrants the request or reasonable use of the property is withheld if not granted. There are appropriate circumstances that warrants a variance. In this case there are six condo units with six parking spaces. The code requires a minimum of six with no more than eight. Staff feels since there is adequate parking it is fair to say reasonable use is present. The condo association stated they have issues with snow removal. Snow is not a unique issue in Aspen and expected. Staff did not feel that is a valid reason to grant a variation. There Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment February 1, 2018 3 is adequate parking provide currently. It may be an inconvenience but does not represent a hardship. A hardship must be found to meet the variance criteria. Mr. Farrey asked what is a hardship. Ms. Seminick stated it would be no parking on the site or the inability to build out the site due to lot configuration. Typically, there has to be something very unique with the site. Staff does not recommend approval of the request. We provided two motions for consideration. Typically, there would just be one motion written to approve the request. Motion 1 is if the board were to support the project and grant in favor. Motion 2 is not in favor and to deny the request. Mr. Sandler asked when the building was developed who determines how many spaces are needed. Ms. Seminick replied it is a provision in the code. For this case it is one parking space per unit. There is the ability to go to eight spaces for this property. In order to achieve the eight, they are asking for a variance. The HOA is pursuing the application for the additional parking. Mr. Farrey asked if there is a code against subgrade parking. Ms. Seminick replied no, the code is for the setback variance. To do what they want they need to be in the setback. Mr. Farrey said currently they are in the set back. Ms. Seminick said they are legal non-conformities. They are allowed to maintain and continue to enjoy that. Mr. Frank asked if the proposal makes the existing non-conformity worse. Ms. Seminick said they would remove the current wall and replace it. It would create a non-conforming structure. It would conform if the variance was granted. Ms. Feddersen asked how many parking spots would be below ground and how many above. Ms. Seminick stated the maj ority would be provided subgrade. Mr. Sandler asked currently, if there was someone with more than one car the other is parked on the street. Ms. Seminick replied yes. If there was an excess of eight spaces it would require a shared parking agreement. The applicant is not interested in that. Mr. Farrey asked what is the distance they are looking to encroach. Ms. Seminick stated five feet. Mr. Sandler asked about the snow and why it is not considered a hardship. Ms. Seminick replied a hardship cannot be self created. Applicant Presentation The applicant team is Chris Bryan, Garfield & Hecht, Andrew Gerber, president of the HOA, Kim Raymond, Chris Bendon and Paula Ricceri. Mr. Bryan said you are allowed to adjust things in the code when suitable. The wall is already on the property line and already encroaching on the five feet we are asking for. On a net encroachment we are not asking for anything more. If this request is denied we will keep the wall that is currently there. The property is adjacent to the mountain and located in the lodge zone. It was built in the 70s. T here are six free market condos on three levels. Under the mobility requirements of the City, we are required to have six parking spaces. We are asking to have eight. It is within the code. The surface parking area, we argue there are not six real parking spaces. We don’t have six places where today’s cars can realistically park. All we want to do is have access to our own property and provide parking. We are asking for a Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment February 1, 2018 4 variance to allow us to solve the parking problem on the site. It is a very steep area and a second access point to the mountain. For the setback variances, the purpose is to construct a subgrade garage to provide six spaces beneath and two above with a car elevator. The trash enclosure will be moved back. The stone retaining wall is currently encroaching and there will be no changes. We want five feet to the east. It will bring the setback line to our own property. The north setback would be moved five feet, also to the property line. On the street level we want two cars on the east side. The third car is shown in the elevator. We are reducing the FAR and the car elevator will meet the residential design standards. The reason we need the setback is that it will cut of the cars without it. Mr. Farrey said spaces one thru four on the earlier slide, what will be there. Mr. Bryan said that will be the turning radius for the two cars parked. The back area will provide access to the trash. The subgrade level will have six cars. It meets the parking radius requirements and standards. This will clear up the ground level for service, emergency, visitors and ADA users. There is also bike parking provided in the garage for ten bikes. He showed mock ups of the proposed parking. We disagree with the FAR numbers provided in the staff memo. This proposal is only 70 square feet over the allowed FAR. For current conditions, there are not really six parking spaces. Ms. Raymond said the spaces shown on the photo are not legal size, only eight and a half feet by 18. Mr. Bryan said if we applied for this condition today it would be denied because the spaces are not properly sized. It is a big deal because I don’t want you to think we have six legal spaces. On a good day it is only five. Mr. Farrey said tight parking is the hardship. Mr. Bryan replied yes, and not enough to provide for the one to one ratio. This pushes people who should be parking on our property onto the street. He showed images of the turning radius impact. Currently we have issues with parking the minimum of six, inefficient entry/exit corridor, danger to pedestrians, lack of adequate snow storage and we are not compliant with the minimum parking requirements of the land use code. The application would be denied with the current conditions. He showed images of the area in winter with snow. This is a unique part of Aspen effected by avalanche hazards. On street parking is already difficult. Ms. Raymond said the snow is physically removed from the site periodically. Mr. Bryan said it is difficult for trash pickup and insufficient for everyday life. It creates more congestion on an already congested area. He showed images of the on street parking conditions. Non-variance alternates all show increase to construction time. It is a complex construction and there will be additional construction risks. It will also quadruple the price of this. Variance dimensional requirements would be five foot on the east and north and are generally consistent with the code. We are only asking for encroachments we are currently using. The other properties in the surrounding areas enjoy these benefits. We are not asking for anything everybody already has. This enforces the minimum parking requirement of six spaces. We are asking for eight, the maximum allowed for this type of property. This request aligns with City efforts to alleviate public parking and with the AACP. It aligns with the recent South Aspen Street affordable housing development. It will have a code compliant trash area, meet the engineering standards for snow removal, alleviates congestion and promotes a pedestrian friendly environment. Is this the minimal variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the property, yes. The proposed design uses the minimal dimensions and least intrusive and complex alternative. It has the least time impacts on the surrounding areas. Granting the variance prevents us being denied the rights all other adjoining properties already have. The current parking spaces are undersized by today’s code. There is a lack of adequate turning radius. Snow accumulation compounds the problem we already have. Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment February 1, 2018 5 There is precedent for granting variances. 203 E Hallam – a variance was granted to allow below grade living space. It was not going on anybody else’s property. They just used their own property. The Planning & Zoning commission has also granted variances. The Board of Adjustment is the final review on this. The land use code allows for variances. This variance solves a lot of problems and we are currently using the space. We are asking to use the setbacks in a smarter way. Ms. Raymond stated the proposal will increase access for emergency vehicles. Often, they would not get near any of the parking spaces. It is a life safety issue. Mr. Sandler asked do you look at this and say this was written in the 70s and could come down to ADA and safety. Ms. Phelan stated she is surprised by the ADA comment. There are no elevators in the units. Mr. Bendon replied it is better than the existing conditions. Ms. Phelan said they are vested and built to the code they were constructed to. When they make changes they are supposed to become conforming. The condo plat does show six spaces. It is an existing condition. Our expectation is that improvements meet the code they are constructed under. Mr. Farrey asked if they applied today on the existing footprint would it be approved with the six spaces. Ms. Phelan replied she is not sure about that. Mr. Bendon said it doesn’t have the turning radiuses. Ms. Phelan said the existing wall would not be approved today. Mr. Sandler asked where do most people park. Mr. Gerber replied they park on Monarch Street. We spent five years on this project. There have been 14 different versions of plans. We tried every which way. The code has changed several times during this. This will help us get cars off the street. Mr. True stated the code requires that for this to be grant ed it has to be a vote of at least four members. Mr. Farrey said the walls to the east and north, is that what you are asking. Ms. Phelan stated the walls will be put back. Mr. Farrey asked will the height of the walls be reduced. Ms. Raymond stated they will seem smaller. The stone veneer is removed and replaced with smaller materials. Mr. Frank asked are you using soil nailing. Ms. Phelan replied it is not allowed and they will probably use micro pile. You can’t soil nail in the right of way. Mr. Bendon said we will have agreements with neighbors on the construction. Mr. Sandler asked what is the timeline if approved. Mr. Gerber replied it is at least a year away. Ms. Raymond said we have been working with the engineering department. Ms. Phelan said to clarify, the underground parking at South Aspen is one space for each housing unit. The remainder of the parking is for Ski Co. Mr. Sandler opened the public comment. There was none. Mr. Sandler closed the public comment. Mr. Farrey asked what is going on with the empty space in the middle. Ms. Raymond said the driveway is being moved so the circulation space will move as well including the turning radius. It would also provide room for snow storage. Mr. Bendon said it provides space for garbage trucks and delivery trucks. Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment February 1, 2018 6 Mr. Frank asked if there are options that don’t require a variance. Mr. Bendon said the budget goes completely bonkers with those. It would require going under the existing building. Mr. True said in order to make a determination you are making a finding that there is an unnecessary hardship for the denial. To grant an approval you are finding there is a hardship. Mr. Sandler asked how does staff believe there is not a hardship. Ms. Seminick replied we feel there is not a site specific condition or hardship that would require a variance. The condo plat indicates six spaces. Staff feels like there is adequate parking. Snow is not a unique condition in Aspen and they are expected to remove snow accordingly. Not doing so is not a hardship to this property. Ms. Feddersen said even hearing that the six spots don’t meet the requirements. Ms. Seminick said a non conforming issue is permitted to be maintained even if they are undersized by today’s code. Engineering has not done a full analysis regarding the turning radii. Mr. Bryan said he disagrees. We don’t feel we have six legal spaces. There is community harm by taking away parking spaces the community can use by us. Mr. Farrey said based on today’s code you wouldn’t be able to park six spaces. Mr. Bendon said the practical reality of day to day is far less than six. It is 1974 as well. Even if the dimensions work out on the condo plat they don’t in real life. It looks like four. There is practical difficulty getting in and out of those spaces. The owners recognize the parking crush in the neighborhood and want to do something about it on their own dime. There is a lot of uniqueness to this property. It is a responsible approach. It is five feet that is already encroached on. The final product looks like it does today. Ms. Raymond said you can’t park six cars with today’s standards. Board deliberation Ms. Feddersen said with the lack of spaces and talking about the AACP, she sees the hardship. It is not affecting the neighboring buildings and visitors. She sees this as a hardship and is supportive. Mr. Hopson stated he is supportive for the same reasons. Mr. Sandler said generally he would like to empower the city to enforce rules. After years of dealing with this it seems like a common sense approach when you can’t work within the code. I’m sure the neighbors will appreciate this. Mr. Farrey said they have taken a lot of time to come up with a creative modern solution. It is currently non-conforming and if it were done today it would not get the height on the walls. The five feet is your property. It will meet the code structurally. The hardship is if it were build today you would not be able to park the six. Most of it is below grade. It is replacing and doing a better job of what the community sees. You gain two spots. It is a creative solution and he is in favor of it. Mr. True suggested the motion state a variance is the only reasonable method by which to afford the applicant relief and to deny it would cause unnecessary hardship. Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment February 1, 2018 7 Ms. Feddersen moved to approve Resolution #1, Series of 2018 with the language provided by Mr. True; seconded by Mr. Hopson. Roll call vote. Board Members Farrey, yes; Feddersen, yes; Hopson, yes; Frank, yes; Sandler, yes. Motion carried. At 6:20 p.m. Ms. Feddersen moved to adjourn; seconded by Mr. Frank. All in favor, motion carried. Linda Manning City Clerk