The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutlanduse case.boa.124ecooper.snowqueen.004-93 _.~ ~".._____",,>'M..~......I r'. ~ -.. ...' ./ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CASE #93-4 SNOW QUEEN LODGE BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen of June 25, 1962, as amended, a public hearing will be held in the Council Room, city Hall, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such other place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24, Official Code of Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. Particulars of the hearing and requested variance are as follows: Date and Time of Meetinq: Date: MAY 27, 1993 Time: 4:00 p.m. Owner for Variance: Appellant for Variance: Name: NORMA DOLLE & LARRY LEDINGHAM Address: BOX 4901, ASPEN, CO. 81612 LARRY LED INGHAM Location or description of property: 124 E. Cooper - Snow Queen Lodge Variance Requested: PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE (LP) LODGE PRESERVATION ZONING CATEGORY. SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT IS S FEET. SEC.S-216 (D)(S) ASPEN LAND USE CODE. APPLICANT APPEARS TO BE REQUESTING A 3.6 FOOT SIDE YARD VARIANCE FOR A RUN OF 36 FEET TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION. will apPlicant be represented bv counsel: Yes: No: X The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Jan Carney Deputy city Clerk ~~ .- l " -'- ~. " .S- CITY OF ASPEN BO~D OF ADJUSTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION DATE Arv~' I b , /993 f APPLICANT <noLO Que<,-..., l"J~ MAILING ADDRESS /2 4 19_ CASE II q?>-f PHONE 1Z::;-?('(.'\<,- OWNER ()r "'" <<- (:)0 tf'j'H' PHONE Cj 2 :,- - 5"',' S-~- ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Below, describe clearly the proposed variance, including all dimensions and justification for the variance. (Additional paper may be used if necessary.) The building permit application and any other information you feel is pertinent should accompany this application, and will be made part of this case. SQP ft1l~A:Z --------------_:::~~::::::_:~~::::::_--~~-~----- n REASONS FOR DENIAL OF BUIWING PERMIT, BASED ON THE ASPEN CITY CODE, CHAPl'ER 24. AN OPINION CONCERNING THIS VARIANCE WILL BE e~W/~M '0HnG;:;: S:41~2It(OY5 _ Cult. ~ - ~m ~ ~~ ~~.~~~J' ~ # ~ 3~/~~ ~Wv-- ~- DATE PERMIT DENIED y{/t(y_~ DATE OF APPLICATION V (fly') OFFICIAL lli ~ HEARING DATE . f--'''' --"" . CITY OF ASPEN BO$ OF ADJUSTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION DATE -Atrl\ '?O I \t{~'? . APPLICANT~' \\ fD~~.' M^a A Y.7DaAt~c, fr: .~, '!:C'i,,':(C,_i . MAILING ADDRESS . €D'S fi .\o1IIpl"" CASE 1/ 19_ PHONE '. ~'Z9- 1i~:. ~ ....I~f? ...f'~ ,-,n';':~'~;~:;;;.; . --.- .. . .... - ...- ----tpH6NE.-.A1,c;~-z.1.1-z.~ti(,.1;Z . "" . )'H"kj rf;:>;ri'~" ~t..;. ~;b i,;~~~ON OF PROPERTY :~'* I,V. \fAl W\"t>~.+'1.';1lit~ ~ CjN\ (Street, Block Number. and Lot Number) '.. WILL YOU BE REPRESENTED BY COUNCIL? YES____ NO~ "-'-" -T' ,--, OWNER . '(.; MAILING ADDRESS ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Below, describe clearly the proposed variance, including all dimensions and justification for the variance. <Additional paper may be used if necessary.) The building permit application and any other information you feel is pertinent should accompany this application, and will be made part of this case. ~;l t\ttAt~e~ \.e-\tN Applicant's Signature ~ /);.tll ----------------------------------------------------------------- REASONS FOR DENIAL OF BUIWING PERMIT, BASED ON THE ASPEN CITY CODE, CHAPTER 24. AN OPINION CONCERNING THIS VARIANCE WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD BY THE ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF. DATE PERMIT DENIED OFFICIAL DATE OF APPLICATION HEARING DATE /:. .... ~ ~ 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TElEPHONE 303/925-4755 FACSIMILE 3031920-2950 March 19, 1993 Bill Drueding Aspen Pitkin County Planning 130 S. Galena Aspen. CO 81611 RE: 334 WEST HALLAM Dear Bill: This letter is a request for a Site Coverage Variance for the landmark designated residence at 334 West Hallam. As we have previously discussed. this structure would not qualify for a building permit due to the practical difficulty created by trying to balance the floor area ratio with the historic property's porches and overhangs. The total allowable site coverage is 3.105 s.t. (34.5%) broken out as follows: Building Porch/Overhang Exemption 2.700.0 s.f. 405.0 s.t. ( 30% of a 9.000 s.t. lot) (4.5% of a 9.000 s.f. lot) ( 15% of 2.700 s.f.) The proposed site coverage on this project is 3.277.4 s.f. (36.4%) broken out as follows: Buildings (footprint) Porches/Overhangs 2.699.0 s.f. 578.4 s.t. (30%) (6.4%) The on-grade porches of the residence contain 414.8 s.f.. As you can see. the residence and on-grade porches conform to the floor area dimensional requirements. 0....... March 19, 1993 Page Two The practical difficulty has been to satisfy the historic preservation guidelines for restoration of this landmark, retaining its historic porches and overhangs and conforming to the site coverage and floor area ratio requirements. I have attached a copy of a memo supporting this variance request from the Historic Preservation Committee. Also enclosed is a roof plan with site coverage calculations and floor plans with floor area ratio calculations to assist with your review. Please call if you have any questions regarding this request. Sincerely. Bill Poss WJP /kc EncL 1. Roof Plan w/Site Coverage Calculations 2. Floor Plans w/Floor Area Calculations 3. HPC Memorandum, OS/29/92 4. Site Plan HPC0322.ltr -,--,-"..,,1 "......,"'" ". " Peter Mocklin 130 W. Cooper Aspen, CO 81611 Priscilla Datel 301 Wentworth Lafayette, LA 70508 Thomas Costello 1732 pst. N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Linda Grabow 125 E. Hyman H3 Aspen, CO 81611 Rochelle Bevers 6353 Harden Dr. Oklahoma City, OK 73118 Ellen Weinstein 5990 Lindenshire Ln. *110 Dallas, TX 75230 William Laman 2301 Calle Los Altos Tucson, AZ 85718 Betty Bralver Box 11571 Aspen, CO 81612 John Watts Starr Inc. Box 11980 Aspen, CO 81612 ~. -. ..- I r ~ -" j Glenn Law Box 2537 Aspen, CO 81612 Michael Pack 5005 Texas st. Suite 305 San Diego, CA 92108 Richard Bralver Box 10605 Aspen, CO 81612 Anne Marie Rosen 100 E. Cooper 112 Aspen, CO 81611 Lawrence Foster 15 Foxglove Irvine, CA 92715 James & Harriet Manning 4193 S. Dahlia st. Englewood, CO 80110 George Beck 2928 Snowmass Creek Rd. Snowmass, CO 81654 Fred Larkin One Cove Ln. Littleton, CO 80123 Robert Kesselring .100 E. Cooper Aspen, CO 81611 David Wilkinson 32 La Veta Pl. Nyack, NY 10960 Joseph & Vicki Falcone 63 ute Carbondale, CO 81623 Sandra Whitaker 104 W. Cooper ilIA Aspen, CO 81611 Robert Durham 950 17th St. Suite 1750 Denver, CO 80202 TBD Assoc. c/o S. Schiffer 215 S. Monarch Suite 201 Aspen, CO 81611 N.H Shannon 3326 E. Southcross San Antonio, TX 78223 Terry Hale 104 W. Cooper Aspen, CO 81611 David & Rita Rasmussen 1017 W. Randol Mill Rd. Arligton, TX 76012 Wendy Frazier & J. Dejoria 104 W. Cooper Aspen, CO 81611 Steve Stunda 515 5th st. Annapolis, MD 21403 Michael Tierney Box 2391 Aspen, CO 81612 ...,.1 .., --,~.'_....'.. ,~...< --. "..... '''"''''''-<'"'",__',,,__,,,,,~_~,,, "_.._......._~___..."_~,~__"_~.~ Charles & Gayle Severy & M. Johnston 30 Dexter st. Denver, CO 80220 C.A. Blackwell Co. Box 3244 Annapolis, MD 21403 Robert Shenk 985 Hwy. 133 Carbondale, CO 81623 James Shenk 0985 Hwy 133 Carbondale, CO 81623 Harry Uhlfelder Box 1165 Aspen, CO 81612 Sunny Redmond 124 E. Durant "10 Aspen, CO 81611 Robert Shaw 4321 Ridge Haven ct. Ft. Worth, TX 76116 Don Davidson 215 S. Monarch Aspen, CO 81611 Al & Carol Bloomquist 100 E. Hyman Aspen, CO 81611 Marge Babcock Riley 2161 Kalia Rd. Honolulu, HI 98615 , Joan Even 101 E. Cooper Suite 203 Aspen, CO 81611 Douglass Goldsmith 12 Buccaneer st. "8 Venice, CA 90292 Lyle Reeder Box 4859 Aspen, CO 81612 Gus Ha llam 410 S. Aspen St. Aspen, CO 81611 Ralph Melville 333 E. Durant Aspen, CO 81611 Leroy Paas 228 E. Cooper Aspen, CO 81611 Hartman Family Partnership 209 W. Felicity St. Angola, IN 46703 Michael Mahaffey 1000 W. Wilshire Suite 400 Oklahoma City, OK 73116 Joshua Saslove 720 E. Durant Aspen, CO 81611 Alan Sirkin 3500 South Bay Homes Dr. Miami, FL 33133 I u ...._..._"".__ -- .r "", '\ ) Thomas & Sandra Warwick 2664 4th Ave. San Diego, CA 92103 J.W. Du Molin 546 Phillip Dr. Bartlett, IL 60103 Jaleh White 300 S. Spring Aspen, CO 81611 Sallyanne Johnson Box 5050 Aspen, CO 81612 Joan Evan 300 Puppy Smith Apt. 205 Aspen, CO 81611 Wu Han Finckel 210 W. 78th St. #6B New York, NY 10024 Fred & Marcia Schoenfeld 657 Densmore Rd. Aurora, IL 60506 Sarah Werner 510 Cemetery Ln. Aspen, CO 81611 Inverness Lodge A Colorado Corp. Box 13024 Pensacola, FL 32591 Isaiah Coleman Box 11239 Aspen, CO 81612 Hayan Al Zahid Box 738 Aspen, CO 81612 Hazel Hough One Beach Rd. Apt. 1002 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 William Heim 301 Severn Ave. Annapolis, MD 21403 Heinz Zauner Box 11947 Aspen, CO 81612 Richard Verne 300 E. 56th st. New York, NY 10022 Jamie Schubert 101 E. Cooper #103 Aspen, CO 81611 Jon Rose 303 Magnolia Lake Dr. Longwood, FL 32779 Elise Owen 101 E. Cooper #201 Aspen, CO 81611 Harvey Taylor W. 301 N. 9430 Hwy. E. Hartland, WI 53029 Marilyn Carruthers 101 E. Cooper Aspen, CO 81611 I.,--~-. J ~- r \, Property Owners Within 300 Feet of Snow Queen Lodge Norma Dolle Box 4901 Aspen, CO 81612 Arthur Hohmann Box 10143 Aspen, CO 81611 Doug & Marcia Raines 1491 Altamont Rd. Greenvi1le, SC 29609 Patricia Callahan 0184 Mountain Laurel Dr. Aspen, CO 81611 Tim & Nancy Lawler 80 Tall Pines ct., N.W. Atlanta, GA 30327 Leonard Weinglass Box 11509 Aspen, CO 81612 Brian & Marge Kealy 741 Rockrimmon Rd. Stamford, CT 06903 Douglass Allen 600 E. Hopkins; Suite 302 Aspen, CO 81611 Jack Humes & A. Bach #6 Ginger Lake Dr. West Edwardsville, IL 62025 Fergus & Dianne Davidson c/o Sandy Herron Box GG Aspen, CO 81612 Kenneth Titow 17219 Village Lane Dallas, TX 75248 Michael Ryan Box 2244 Kihei, HI 96753 Richard Waller Queens Tower #1207 810 Matson Pl. Cincinnati, OH 45204 Thomas Vetri & H. Spitz 119 E. Cooper Aspen, CO 81611 Hearthstone House of Aspen Inc. 134 E. Hyman Aspen, CO 81611 Katherine Georgieff #11 Topping Ln. St. Louis, MO 63131 Arlene Nelson 119 E. Cooper #6 Aspen, CO 81611 Joan Sparling 300 Puppy Smith #205-220 Aspen, CO 81611 . ).... '<....... c ') BAM5.27.93 contradict that. They are in favor of it and I am not going to say anything more. Ron: So what would we be granting? Rick: 173 square foot site coverage variance. poss: It is overhangs. MOTION Rick: I foot of Historic make a motion that we approve Case #93-3 for 173 square site coverage variance based on recommendations from Preservation Committee. Bill seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Rick Head, yes, Bill Martin, yes, Ron Erickson, yes and Charlie paterson, yes. Motion carried. CASE 193-4 SNOW OOEEN LODGE Charlie read the request for variance. (attached in record) Proof of posting was presented. (attached in record) Larry Ledingham, applicant: Basically the variance we are looking for is a 2 part project that we are doing at the Snow Queen Lodge which is a small victorian on cooper. They are going to be going on at the same time. We want to do some improvements to the lodge itself to a couple of the rooms. And at the same time develop an employee unit on the back which would be deed restricted. j The Snow Queen was built back in the 1880s so it sits in the 5 feot setback so we are looking at a 3.6 foot variance. What we first wanted to do as far as imporvements--we have got a room upstairs in the lodge that has a kitchen in the room. That room and an adjacent room share a bathroom. And our guests over the last few years have changed quite a bit. The majority of our calls nowadays request a private bath. And so we get a lot of times during the winter when we can't rent those rooms out because they are sharing a bath. So we decided we could put a private bath into one of these rooms and essentially make the other bathroom private with the other room. And the way we figured on doing this there is in the exh,ting kitchen area where it says "stove" we would remove that stove and move it to the other side of the kitchen and 3 ~ / I c ~ BAM5.27.93 therefor we would have a doorway there which would access the bathroom. Unless we tore the whole kitchen apart that is pretty much the only way we can keep our kitchen and add a bathroom on in that area. And the outer wall there to the left which is on the west side of thE! building would encroach upon the setback. Along with this in back at that bathroom area, we want to put in an employee unit which would go straight back 2 stories high. Using elevations he explained plans. Rick: Does this building have any historic significance? Ledingham: We are not historically designated. It was built in the 1880's. Rick: Would what you are planning to do reduce the historic significance? Ledingham: I don't believe so. That whole area is on the back of the building which is in an alley. So if you are looking at the lodge from cooper Avenue you wouldn't even see that at all. And we are going to keep it along the same lines as the lodge. It has got wood siding along the side. Charlie: Please explain your practical difficulty. Ledingham: Onr of the problems we run into is that bathroom situation. We get a lot of people requesting a private bath. So we really want to put a bathroom in. That is the only place for us that really works doing it which is going to be sitting against that outside wall which encroaches on the setback. The second part which would involve the employee unit--for one thing we would like to build along the edge of the building because as far as supporting a second floor from what the architect tells me it would be a lot easier to make that strong enough instead of having to come in--I mean 3.6 feet which is over a kitchen and having to shore all of that up to make it strong enough to support a second floor. Another problem we would run into is the amount of space that we have for this employee unit. When you go in 3.6 feet and then go over to the next wall it just doesn't leave a lot of room. 'j Charlie: How much room do you have now between the west wall and your proposed new wall? 4 j c ~ / J BAM5.27.93 Ledingham: I believe if we close to 16 feet. From the part of the building inside. b,t, left with about 12 feet. went into 3.6 feet-- it is probably outer wall to the edge of the other So if we come in 3.6 feet we would Charlie: So what you are saying is that you need the extra footage to make this work? Ledingham: It just doesn't seem very viable to come in 3.6 feet and then go back to fit in an upstairs without a living room and a kitchen and a little dining room and then there would be a bedroom downstairs. It just doesn't make a lot of sense. Charlie: How about your FAR? Ledingham: Our FAR is fine. The lot is 4,500 square feet. And the lodge itself as it stands is 2,500 square feet. And I think it is a 1 to 1. Charlie: with the new part how many square feet? Ledingham: We are looking at around-- Drueding: He would have to go through review process with the Planning Dept to increase in the LP zone. So the FAR and everything else would be checked. Charlie: How much square footage are you adding on? Ledingham: We would be looking at around 700 square feet. Ron: will you be having any additional rentals? Ledingham: No additional rental units. We don't have it down here but. we also wanted to expand a couple of rooms that are not within the setback area. We have had complaints from our guests also that these rooms are too small. So we wouldn't be adding any pillows but: we would make a couple of the rooms a little bigger so that we could put a queen size bed instead of a double. We only have 5 rooms that we rent out. It is a very, very small place. We just want to make some improvements so that we can at least can keep our rooms filled up most of the time in the winter and have our guests be happy and can keep a small place like this going in town. Ron: This existing rear wall--is that going to correspond to this one here? '\ / Ledingham: Right. Ron: So this section here you are actually adding 2 stories. 5 ~ ) c ~ ) BAM5.27.93 Ledingham: Right. Ron: And }IOU are actually making a whole second story over here. __--..--""'"'n--~.-<-~'""". _. __. _ _~_.~.__~..........-.- Ledingham: Right. Ron: So in effect the net additional square feet is this section in here. ,\,.. .-".'--'- ......----.... ~------ Ledingham: Right. Ron: And this is where the bathroom is going to go here? Ledingham: Yes. Ron: Up on the second floor? Ledingham: Yes. Ron: And this back in here is the employee unit? Ledingham: Right. Ron: And you will continue the deck that you have in the back on the existing--you will continue that across--is that going to be living space? Ledingham: We are not really--I think what we are going to do is where that deck goes to now, we would actually come out with the employee unit right to where that ends. That part back there where that deck shows, that is where we are hopilig---E'o""-expa-nd those 2 " ---.---, . rooms. Ron: So you are going to bring the existing building back as well? Ledingham: Just the footprint where the--there is 2 rooms there that we wanted to expand big enough to put a little larger bed. It is actually going to have a little jog in it because we are not going to expand part of those. But basically that is it. Bill: Your west wall is now 3.6 feet from your property line? Ledingham: Actually it is 1.4 from the property line. asking for 3.6 setback. We are Charlie: Can you elaborate on what is happening in the winter time with regard to snow. I have seen what is going on. ) Ledingham: As far as snow accumulation--well this winter which was a really big winter I had to go up twice and shovel that roof area off. So what I would be looking essentially is probably having to do the same thing to shovel it back into our parking area and having it taken away. Charlie: But this you can handle with a machine. In here you are 6 , c ') BAM5.27.93 inside of a yard and it is difficult to handle it there. I saw it last winter and it is rough back there the way it is set up right now. I consider that a practical difficulty. I Ledingham: We also.'thought if we are going to redo this we might be able to put up a better system of heat tapes up there so that we can run some rain gutters and run some heat cable down there and melt it off. Norma Dolle: We have had this lodge for over 22 years and as you know the victorians are fast disappearing. And we love our place. Those 2 rooms he is talking about we are hoping to make them a little larger. People now are saying they won't stay in a room unless it has got a queen bed. Charlie: Those rooms are small and you do need some help on that. Ron: Bill, what does the Planning Office have to say on this one? Drueding: Well, we have a Lodge Preservation Zone which we spot these older smaller lodges that we want to preserve. We don't envision to vary setbacks. That is why we come to you guys. If they do get the variance, everything else will be looked at as far as expansion and the employee thing. Ron: But Lodge Preservation doesn't significance or in keeping with the structure do they? the historical nature of the look at historic Drueding: If it is not in the purview of the HPC we don't look at it. Rick: I don't think they are disturbing anything that is of a historical nature. Ron: But they are adding on. But I think that he is adding on in the spirlL ..':'L..l;tJ..~.J:nulding. I want to 9.lCi:m.t._thJ.s,i:~iimce. t think that th~s is a terrific additYon. I want to see these old lodges preserved. I especially l,).ke this one. 'rn1s" is pr9Pably the crown jewel in town. I do not want to see an addieion added on that is something out of the 21st century. How do I feel comfortable abqut_that? 'j Rick: I don't think that we are here to make a subjective opinion as to whether we think it is in keeping. They are asking us for a simple variance. I agree with you. I think this is more a convenience to the applicant in many respects. I don't see a hardship or a practical difficulty. But I am in complete agreement with you that it is in keeping with the overall Comprehensive Plan and we want to keep these types of building in tact. I think they 7 ----I c ') BAM5.27.93 are a terrific addition to this town. Ron: I don't want to force you to go through HPC. That is not what I want you to do. I Drueding: If he is not a landmark and he doesn't do more than 50% demolition, they don't have any purview. Ledingham: We have had this place for over 22 years and we don't want to put something on that doesn't fit in. So we want to just go along with our basic lines of the lodge and make it look like it was always a part of the lodge. We have already put one addition on the other side and I think a lot of people when they walk by on the street don't even realize that that was built on in 1986. And so I think we did a really good job there with keeping with the old style. And I certainly don't want to put on anything that is going to look different. There is just no point. Charlie: I do consider this as a practical difficulty because if you don't carry this line from the old building, you have got a very strange jog here and you make some rooms that don't look very well on the inside. '~) MOTION Rick: I move that we approve Case #93-4 consisting of 3.6 foot side yard variance running 36 feet--the length of the west wall. Bill seconded the motion. Ron: Minimum variance. We are required a minimum variance. I cannot see justification for this section of the building at all out beyond the existing structure. If they want to add on to it and they want to jog it back and put a deck like they have on the other side and enclose it, that would be legal I think. And it wouldn't come under our scrutiny at all. But this would reduce the variance to where it would make it a minimal variance. Charlie: going up to bring In other words you are perfectly happy with the roof this far but the actual usable floor area you would like back. Ron: Well, they want a variance from here to here. I can understand this section here. I don't see any justification for this section at all. That is just additional FAR. \ Charlie: I go along with that. 8 ~ i j .' c ') " , I BAM5.27.93 Rick: I amend my motion. Bill: Let's ask the question if that impacts on the size of the room that he is-- , Ron: I think that what they are doing is blocking this building out so that measurements are the same on both sides at front and back. And to make that section identical, they could actually put a deck out,,,,:t:here. I don't know about the roof overhang. I would carry LIFe-roof line straight across then let them put a deck out there that is a legal deck. That is fine with me. But I would not approve ~varianc.e beyond the exi.s.ting footp~int of the other ~ J~ side '~oT..tfiE;! 'building.' --r- I have somewhat of a concern regarding the historical nature of this building. I think it is a very significant building. My concern is mitigated by the applicants. And I know they have had it for a long time and they have done a terrific job. I don't want them to think I question their integrity at all. I don't. But any variance we grant is granted in perpetuity. Ledingham: It is my understanding that the Lodge Preservation Zone is if we were to sell it and someone came in and bought it basically that is it. They have to keep it--you couldn't even turn it into a home again. It has to be a bed and breakfast. That is the way I have read the Lodge Preservations. So I felt that was pretty stiff as it is without having to get historically designated or anything like that. Ron: I want your assurances that you are going to continue to do as good a job as you have done in the past. Ledingham: That is why we are doing this. thing so I have got a little bigger place manager and I am the one who lives there. We wanted to make this to live in. I am the Rick: I would amend my motion to reflect a reduction in the length of the variance to 33 feet--it is reduced by approximately 3 feet to coincide with the original building footprint. Bill: I amend my second. Roll call vote: Bill Martin, yes, Ron Erickson, yes, Rick Head, yes, Charlie Paterson, yes. Variance granted. \ Charlie had not seen a letter to the Board from David L. Rasmussen, M.D. stating his objections to a variance for this applicant. He then read the entire letter for the record and members of the Board 9 iim~ ) c :) BAM5.27.93 and asked if this changed anyone's vote. All stated it did not change their vote. (letter attached in record) variance stands. CASE #93-S LESLIE RUDD Charlie read into record request for variance. record) (attached in Leslie Rudd presented,proof of posting. (attached in record) Scott ?, architect: What we are asking for is fairly simple. It is the original pool that was approved was 8 feet by 16 feet. We built a 7 foot by 16. The photographs illustrate that from the street of the neighborhood the visual impact is minimal--it isn't there at all. Charlie: I understand the only problem is the depth on that one end. Scott: That is correct. We brought the terrace level up 30 inches so that we could get that depth. So there is only about 2 foot by the 7 feet that is is non-compliance. And the pool is 7 feet wide but it is only 6 feet of the width that is non-compliance. There was a point where the foundation was being worked on that all the utilities--sewer, septic, electrical, water came out of that part of the house. Charlie: What about those lines. Did you re-route them? Scott: No. They were actually there when we built the pool there. Rick: Bill, we have a 15 foot rear yard setback. Part of this pool is encroaching on the rear yard setback with respect to the fact that it is more than 30 inches below what would be allowed. What is the rational for that provision in the code? Drueding: Well we don't want firemen jumping over a fence, falling down into a 6 foot pool and hurting themselves. Rick: Would a fireman hurt himself more falling into a 6 foot than a 3 foot pool? Bill: It would depend on whether it was filled with water. } Drueding: That is one of the reasons. For instance if you fall 6 feet you climb out. If you fall 3 feet you jump out. There is 10 SNOW QUEEN LODGE Lodge Improvements & Proposed Employee Addition �;Ea Feet Request for set-back variance re- 1 ^ _- - --0�12tm line for 36 feet in length on West side of lot . The Snow Queen Lodge is a Victorian Bed & Breakfast built circa 1886 . It has been operating as a B & B since the early 1970 's and is located in the Lodge Preservation zone . It is our understanding that this zone was created to insure that small lodges could upgrade their facilities with greater ease; The purpose is to keep these small, quaint places in business rather than losing them to condominiums or single family residences . In keeping with this idea, we wish to make several improvements to keep our small lodge running as an integral part of the Aspen community. We are dealing with a situation where we have 10 feet between our lodge and the property line on one side and 1 . 4 feet on the other side . (See enclosed drawings ) . The problem we are running into is that the area of the lodge where we want to make these improvements encroaches on the 5 foot set-back between properties . The following is a list of the proposed improvements : * First, we want to add a private bathroom on to an existing room and the only viable entrance is against the outer wall which encroaches on the property line . If we put the entrance to the bath anywhere else, we will have to remove an existing kitchen. You may ask, what 's the importance of a private bath? It seems that the type of guest that comes to Aspen these days has changed . The majority of our guests request a private bath and if they can 't get it they try somewhere else . * Our other improvement in the set-back area is a deed restricted employee unit which would start behind the proposed bathroom and continue to the North . The existing wall on the West side of the property is 1 . 4 feet inside the property line . Therefore, to conform to current code, we would have to build the addition 3 . 6 feet inside the existing wall . This creates several problems : * (1 ) Building a second story 3 . 6 feet inside the existing wall means we would have to put much more time and money into supporting the wall from below. * ( 2 ) If we start 3 . 6 feet inside the existing wall, we are left with 12 feet of interior width for an apartment area to be used as a living room, dining room, and kitchen . We are not saying that this can 't be done, but we want to make this a comfortable unit and it makes more sense physically and economically to have the extra 3 . 6 feet . * ( 3 ) We want to make this project look good and fit in with the existing structure . Aesthetically, it makes sense to follow the existing lines of the lodge . If we proceed with the present codes it will break up the continuity of the structure and draw attention in a negative manner . This property doesn ' t generate much income, but we still need to improve our lodge to keep up with the changing times . We also have to justify these upgrades monetarily, so we want to get the most improvement for our money. Being a small place, we have a limited area in which to make these improvements and that area happens to encroach on a set-back . We hope that you can appreciate our situation and approve this variance . Respectfully Yours, Owners; Snow Queen Lodge 9 E CAP 16129 smool Y / N 'S o9 t/ W .00. YPC 16129 i ,I,S GRAVEL PARK INO i l� N ' o k'. 10• ..J' �!• r / ^ 2nd FLR 109.0' e! J i rn UTIL.S 2 STORM WO FRAME LODGE t? ' FIRST FLOOR a THE STATie T.B.M. - I00.0' \ v o PAF 1 3 / Q•� t Li AREA - 4.500 SOFT. ./- h EDG, / t MPED ON AN 12 (pT q e,t • h � h / J / / p3� o qs 9 .00. -X' NC. CONCRF�E I!k K 1 - t C 0 �. S �T hNi -s,k3 Lw ,by. rr7.,4dW of e-v I f— 7 QdL V 01 - -- - - -i - ,t- J - '.4• ,er i b I +" t'. It 1 i; we;t r i Kftc.t�e,,:t l i Vi 0 GO r an Steve VM 05-27-=1993 01:06PM FROM ARLINGTON PLASTIC SURGERY TO 13039205197 P.02 0 t DAVID L. RASMUSSEN, M.D., P.A. DIPLOMATE AMERICAN BOARD MEMBER,AMERICAN SOCIETY OF of PLASTIC SURGERY PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGEONS, INC. May 27, 1993 Bill Drueding City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Case #93-4 Snow Queen Lodge Request Date of Meeting: May 27, 1993 My wife and I appreciate the attached identification received regarding Case #93-4, Snow Queen Lodge. We own a town home at 109 East Hyman and Teside in that residence ten months of any given calendar year. We 'rongly object to granting a 3. 6 foot side yard variance for a run of feet to the owners of Snow Queen Lodge. The basis for our objections are as follows: 1 . The reasons for the five foot set back requirement have not changed since their inception (ie. public safety/aesthetics) . 2. The block that Snow Queen Lodge resides in is a satisfactory mix of residential and LP zoning. If the LP presence is allowed to gradually exceed it 's alloted space, over time the character of the block will change. This will adversely affect the ambiance and aesthetics of the neighborhood and residences like ours. Bascially, we do not need more crowding. 3. If the LP - residential balance is allowed to tilt in favor of LP the property values of the residences in the block will most cer- tainly depreciate. 4. Another addition to Snow Queen will bring more demand for, on the street parking which is already very limited and continues to be a problem for the city and property owners. 5 . We certainly understand the desire for any entrepreneur to improve his business by capital investment and expansion. However, this should not be allowed to happen at the expense of one's neighbors or at the expense of the character of Aspen. ARLINGTON PLASTIC SURGERY ASSOCIATION 1017 W. RANDOL MILL, ROAD ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76012 469-1163 • 469-9388 • 277-1861 05-27-x-1993 01:06PM FROM ARLINGTON PLASTIC SURGERY TO 13039205197 P.03 May 27, 1993 Page 2 Lastly, we both appreciate the difficult task the City of Aspen Board of Adjustment has in determining patterns of change and growth in our city. The decisions must be difficult but necessary in order to keep Aspen the best place to live in our country. We love our home in Aspen and enjoy being in the city very much. Thank you for giving our objection con- sideration. Sincerely Yours, David L. Rasmussen Rita M. Rasmussen �� , T v •� MATI t� `� Nil :. i s � �� °' ! !.� �� t `� I� � is 't •� �� ! stN A �I t �i D> AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY POSTING OF A Countyiof Pitkin } VARIANCE HEARING BEFORE THE CITY OF } ss. ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (Pursuant State of Colorado } to Section 6-205(E) (b) of the Muni- cipal Code) The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says as follows: I, Lccry- tr1 being or representing an Applicant before the Board of Adjustment, personally certify that the attached photograph fairly and accurately represents the sign posted as Notice of the variance hearing on this matter in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the ! f day of k , 19 _, to the L'7 t day of a 19 3. (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date) . r�;eAl� 2e,4� App a ,s Si ature Subscribed and sworn to before me this a?7 day of lWaV , t 1991, by 'Z' eN7 f'(1 v .EN - WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. I MY COMMISSION EXPIRES ., M Commission expires: 4/7/97 ? I Notar Public s Signature tiR..A..., � .w..,.,. _ ...:,. .....�. w Say f� � Address p