HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.20180308Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment March 8, 2018
1
Staff Comments ............................................................................................................................................ 2
Commission Comments ................................................................................................................................ 2
Minutes ......................................................................................................................................................... 2
Public Comment not on the Agenda ............................................................................................................. 2
Declaration of Conflicts of Interest ............................................................................................................... 2
Resolution #2, Series of 2018 - Dimensional Variance Request for 910 Gibson Avenue ........................... 2
701 S Monarch St.......................................................................................................................................... 4
Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment March 8, 2018
2
At 4:30 p.m.; Mr. Sandler called the regular meeting to order with Board Members Farrey, Feddersen and
Frank present. Also present from staff Jennifer Phelan, Ben Anderson, Jim True and Linda Manning.
Staff Comments
None.
Commission Comments
None.
Minutes
Mr. Sandler moved to approve the minutes from February 1, 2018; seconded by Mr. Farrey. All in favor,
motion carried.
Public Comment not on the Agenda
None.
Declaration of Conflicts of Interest
None.
Resolution #2, Series of 2018 - Dimensional Variance Request for 910 Gibson Avenue
Ben Anderson, community development, told the Board this is a front yard setback request. It is a
prominent property in town at Gibson and Neale Avenue. The variance request is related to the front yard
setback. The parcel was created off the smuggler mobile home park. It is not part of the park today and
not subject to the HOA. It is located in the R15 zone district. The minimum front yard setback is 25 feet
with 10 feet for the side and rear. There is a roadway easement that was created in the early 1980s with
the parcel that takes 4,000 square feet off the net lot area. There is an existing single family home with a
detached garage with a dwelling unit. The plat shows the easement. It is an easement for potential
improvements to Gibson Avenue. The easement language added to the code in 2010 requires the front
yard setback to be measured from the innermost extent of the easement. The existing structure would be
non-conforming. Add onto that the side and rear setbacks and future redevelopment is very constrained.
Staff agrees with that.
Standards for granting variances include they must be generally consistent with the purposes, goals and
standards of the AACP and land use code, reasonable use of the parcel or structure would be denied
without the variance, it would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed with other property
owners and are there special conditions to the property that are unique to this parcel or granting the
variance would not convey any special privileges.
The applicant has requested a full variance from the front yard setback which would essentially use the
easement boundary to serve as the front yard setback. Staff can’t make the findings for eliminating the
front yard setback entirely. We are proposing a 10 foot front yard setback as an alternative.
Staffs rational is this would provide additional development and design while still respecting the
easement. There is precedent in the immediate neighborhood with a 10 foot setback. The reduced
setback potentially improves future development’s relationship to the street as described in the
Residential Design Standards. Staff also recommends a one year extension of the expiration date of the
approved vesting. The applicant would then have two years from approval to pursue any redevelopment
Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment March 8, 2018
3
of the property that would utilize the variance. To meet the expiration date a building permit would need
to be issued. We are in the process of changing the code to date of submittal.
Mr. Farrey said the 10 foot would take it to where the property line is today. Mr. Anderson replied the
property line extends to the red. Then there is the easement. The 10 feet would extend off the easement.
Applicant
Sara Oats, attorney for applicant Stephen Zoll. The property is located in R15 and subject to the 25 foot
setback requirement. In 2010 the measurement was changed to now being measured from the edge of the
easement. The majority of the front structure and porch is located within the 5 foot setback. It is part of
the smuggler mobile home park. It is difficult to meet the Residential Design Standards. The purpose of
the code change was to avoid having homes overwhelm the front of the street. The Standards discourage
isolation of homes from the surrounding neighborhoods. If the variance is not granted the home could be
pushed back 60 feet. We find the variance is consistent with the code, provides a reasonable use and
would result in an unnecessary hardship unique to the parcel if not granted. The request is consistent with
the code. It will allow compliance with the design standards. We requested the engineering department
grant a variance from the driveway requirements to keep it in the same place. Upon redevelopment,
engineering has denied the request to keep the access and the alternative is to move the driveway to the
east side of the property. We now have to create a parking area and an entrance to the garage on the east.
The 0 setback will allow the parking to not encroach and permit a turn around area. The road easement
doesn’t apply to other parcels in the neighborhood. The request for the variance meets the criteria, is
consistent with code, and is the minimum variance to make reasonable use. The unnecessary hardship is
unique to the parcel.
Ms. Feddersen asked if they would have to move the driveway with the 10 foot easement. Kevin Heath,
architect, said the engineering department is requiring the movement of the driveway. They will not
permit it to be in the same location.
Mr. Sandler opened the public comment.
1. Ellen Craven, stated she lives directly behind this property. The 25 foot easement that is
available, there are no sidewalks on that side of Gibson forcing us to walk in the street. With the potential
development in the area there will be a lot in that area and an increase to traffic. The easement will allow
for a sidewalk on that side of the street if not both. She would be in favor of the compromised 10 feet.
2. Erin Beyer, neighbor, said there is no way to put a side walk in front of our house. The driveway
has to move with this project. If they change the road she would still like to access her parking space at
the end of the road. The owner has some issues that can be handled and the 10 foot is a good
compromise. She supports that.
3. Mike Maple, said his parents own the lot across the street. Generally, he does not really believe
in variances. He is troubled to hear the source of the problem is the 2010 code. What was the code
before then. Is this a variance from that code or the one that was in place in 1980 when the easement was
created. This is the narrowest section of roadway in all of Aspen. It gets a lot of traffic and will get a lot
more. This easement needs to be used to widen the road and a sidewalk on both sides of the street. He is
concerned that engineering has not commented on the easement and future use of it. He does not get why
engineering wants the driveway relocated. He has lots of concerns with the granting of the easement. 10
feet sounds reasonable but without understanding what engineering intends to do we can’t know.
Mr. Farrey asked if sidewalks are a consideration. Ms. Phelan said often we require sidewalks. She is not
sure what engineering will require but typically they are a requirement. Ms. Oats said she is not sure if it
will be required but thinks it might be. There are no plans to widen the road there. We know we will
have to put in curb and gutter. Sidewalks are to be considered.
Mr. Farrey said the bigger question is if you do a curb to the street is there room with the proposed street
to do a sidewalk as well as the curb improvement. Ms. Oats said we are asking for a 25 foot setback
variance to make it consistent with what has been in place since 1983. Staff is supporting a 10 foot
Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment March 8, 2018
4
setback. We are asking for a 0 setback. In regards to sidewalk, curb and gutter, the gutter is 2 feet with a
5 foot buffer and an additional 6 feet. There is plenty of room to do that with the zero.
Ms. Phelan said the code changes are one size fits all. The change was an evolution of the code. There
are a number of properties with private roads that run through them. You could end up with a solution
with it right up to the roadway.
Mr. Sandler said generally the code is 10 feet for sidewalks, is this so there can be sidewalks. Ms. Phelan
said the right of way is a certain width. There is the actual travel lanes, curb and gutter, parkway and a 5
foot sidewalk. The right of way usually can accommodate those improvements.
Mr. Heath said the engineering guidelines state the driveway must be 50 feet minimum from the
intersection. The existing one is not 50 feet away. We looked at several options but they were not
feasible. That is why they wanted the driveway moved.
Mr. Sandler said staff is recommending a 10 foot variance and you are requesting 0. Ms. Oats replied
yes.
Mr. Farrey asked does the 10 foot accommodate the necessary improvements. Ms. Phelan replied it
would encroach into the easement.
4. Wendy Perkins asked is the 25 foot city easement from the middle of the road. Mr. Heath said it
is just an easement. Mr. Anderson replied it gets wider as it moves towards Neale. At the narrowest it is
22 as it gets closer to Neale it is 28.
Mr. Sandler asked how did staff come to the conclusion of 10. Mr. Anderson replied it is a compromise.
We agreed there are constraints to the property. There are other R6 properties in the area that have a 10
foot requirement. It wouldn’t change the nature on this property with the 10. It is a reasonable response
Mr. Sandler closed the public comment.
Mr. Farrey said he does think the 10 feet is a nice compromise that gives the landowner enough room. 0
is a bit of a stretch. He likes the idea the 10 accomplished the potential of widening and sidewalk
potential. Ms. Phelan said if the entire easement is utilized with improvements you probably don’t want a
house sitting at the edge of the improvements.
Ms. Feddersen asked is there a circumstance when you can go to engineering and ask for less than 50 feet.
Ms. Phelan replied they are the say all for the curb cut. There is probably an appeal process. They are
looking at safety.
Mr. Farrey said he thinks staff’s recommendation is mindful and thoughtful.
Mr. Frank agree.
Ms. Feddersen said the neighbors are all fine with the 10 foot.
Mr. Farrey moved to adopt Resolution #2, Series of 2018 with the 10 foot setback and one year extension;
seconded by Ms. Feddersen. Roll call vote. Board Members Feddersen, yes; Frank, yes; Farrey, yes;
Sandler, yes. Motion carried.
701 S Monarch St – Caribou Condos
Mr. True stated legal notice is not required for this.
Ms. Phelan stated on February 1st the board approved setback variance for the Caribou Condos. Per the
land use code the variances expire after 1 year unless a building permit is issued. This is a request for a 1
year extension. They must demonstrate good cause. Based on the construction sets needed and the
timeline it is taking to receive a permit they would like the extra time. Staff is recommending approval
for the 1 year extension.
Chris Bendon, representing the applicant, said they support staff’s recommendation. There is no practical
way to apply for and obtain a building permit in 12 months. We are actively pursuing it.
Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment March 8, 2018
5
Mr. Sandler opened the public comment. There was none. Mr. Sandler closed the public comment.
Mr. Farrey moved to approve the 1 year request to extend the variance; seconded by Mr. Sandler. Roll
call vote. Board Members Farrey, yes; Frank, yes; Feddersen, yes; Sandler, yes. Motion carried.
At 5:37 p.m. Mr. Sandler moved to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Ms. Feddersen. All in favor,
motion carried.
Linda Manning
City Clerk