Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmintues.boa.19850214 C I T Y 0 F ,.A , _9 _P _F---N BOARD Of February 14, 1985 City Council Chambers 4:00 p.m. AGENDA I . Nirlutcs Dece2nber 13 . 108A? IT , Old Busines-c Case J.�84-23/Frarik 7-loods -- nd 7d Rodgers III . New C,ase '5-1/Chzateau Snow Condominium Assoc. TV. Adjourrment RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Re ular Meeting Board of Adjustment _ February 14, 1985 Vice Chairperson Francis Whitaker called the meeting to order at 4 : 10 p. m. with members Charlie Paterson, Josephine- Mann , John Herz ( arrived late ) , and Rick Head present . Motion: Josephine Mann moved to table the minutes to the end of the meeting; seconded by Charlie Paterson . All in favor; motion carried. CASE #84-23 FRANK WOODS AND ED RODGERS , continued hearing Paul Taddune, city attorney, and Bob Hughes ,jointly requested this matter be tabled. Bob Hushes , attorney, noted technically he represents the applicant : Gideon Kaufman is the applicant ' s real attorney. Hughes represents the people selling the property to the applicant . The city has potential interest in the property and it is advisable to table the case: for a couple of weeks . Let the city resolve its negotiations . Whitaker commented he has been in contact with the mayor. The mayor did not give him direction on the subject before the hearing. Did Taddune receive instructions from the mayor'? Taddune replied the city requests a continuance . Hughes recalled at. the outset of the submission the city showed interest in acquiring the property for open space . The city is pursuing this slowly . Taddune advised not to communicates the conversations between Council and board members because the city' s view is different from the Board' s function. ComingYling the Communications between Council and the Board is not productive. A disclosure of communications may be necessary . The Board discussed a date for tabling. Motion: Charlie Paterson moved to table case #84--2! to March 7 , 1985 : seconded by Josephine Mann . All in favor ; motion carried . CASE #85-1 CHATFAU_SNOW CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION Whitaker read the variance requested: "Property is located in the RMF zoning, category and exceeds the allowable floor area ratio. Section 24-- 3 . 4 , area and bulk requirements : enclosing decks will I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment February 14 , 1985 increase the floor- area of a nonconforming structure . Section 24-- 13 . 3 (a ) : no such nonconforming structure may be enlarged in a way that increases its nonconformity. Applicant appears to be requesting an undetermined increase in fI.00r area by enclosing the decks . " Attorney, owner, and applicant , Erin Hazen :introduced herself. She presented the affidavit for posting the public notice . She also submitted to the record a letter from Robert Sterling, architect for the building, dated February 9, 1985 : "At your request: in April. of 1984 , I examined the conditions at Chateau Snow on Waters Avenue and calculated the external floor area ratio of the building for the purpose of a future review with the City of Aspen . In my letter to you on April 7 , 1984 , I summarized my Vind:ings as follows : Lower floor 412 . 070 s . f. First floor 3 , 619 . 837 Second floor 3 , 579. 728 Third fluor 3 , 921 . 993 This , with a lot size of 6, 000 s . f. , results in an FAR of 1. . 922 . In this calculation, i included all areas to be enclosed with glass . Subsequent to the calculation I have found that the first floor patio areas not covered by overhangs should have been excluded . The adjustment of this area (.295 . 298 s . f. ) revises the FAR to 1 . 873 . Further discussion ques- tions my inclusion of the deck areas on the second and third floors as partt of the overall area. The Municipal Code,, Section 24 -3 . 7 ( e) , paragraph ( 1 ) , stat:cs : ' The calculation of floor area of a building or a portion thereof shall include above grade decks , stairways , balconies , and any other area under a horizontal projection of a roof or balcony even though those areas are not sur- rounded by exterior walls , when such areas are necessary for the function of the building . ' Since the roof overhang and deck of each unit serves to Form the roof of the unit below, my interpretation is that these elements are functional in terms of the Code and are therefore included . There is of course , the likelihood that the City may have a different, interpretation . In the event they feel those areas should not be included, the calculation changes as follows : RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting____ Board of Adjustment February 14, 1985 Original calculation Net Change Reduced Area Lower floor 412 . 070 . 000 412 . 070 Second floor 3 , 619 . 837 . 000 3 , 629 . 037 ( incl. . patio) Third floor 3 , 579 . 728 344 . 062 3 , 235 . 666 Fourth floor 3 , 921 . 993 209. 810 3 , 712 . 183 Totals 11 , 533 . 628 553 . 872 10 , 979. 756 This calculation results in an FAR of 1 . 83 , a net change of 2 . 3% Neither of these floor area ratios seem relevant to me at this point . Since construction of the building was completed in 1969 and no FAR requirements existed at that time, the building is already nonconforming under present regulations . The manner in which the FAR is interpreted now is meaningless . The relevant points are that some measure must he taken to correct the problems and it is my opinion that the glass enclosures contained in the proposal sub - mitted by JDM Construction Company presents the most permanent solution to the leakage problems at the bal- conies . My only advice to you at this time is for you to assure that the existing structure is capable of supporting the now toads and that no exposure to liability is presented by molting snow and ice falling OD lower structures from above. During your preparation for this review, you may have already done this . For the purpose of the review, I would certainly recommend the approach you have taken in favor of attempts to solve the problem by rebuilding and repairing the decks and railing and caulking against moisture penetration . it appears t ►al - there is too much movement in the building during the freeze-thaw cycle and these measures result in temporary solutions at best . I would further point out that whether or not you are increasing a nonconforming use is not as important an issue as losing the building, which seems to be the case if further deterioration continues . If I can be of further help in this matter, let me know. '' E . Hazen introduced John Dillon , the management company' s repre- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting_ Board of Adjustment February 14, 1985 sentative , who will explain the history of the building and the history of the leakage. She also introduced John Watkins , the contractor from JDM Construction . Watkins has proposed enclosing the spaces . Watkins will guarantee his work . E . Hazen did include, in the submission four letters which illustrate the history of the problems with this building and history of remedies: - - One letter, from a previous owner , articulates the shabby conditions , the decay, and deterioration of the ceilings under the balconies in 1982 . In response to that. deterioration , a letter, dated October 28, 1982 , indicates the remedies and the costs . A membrane was installed on the decks . The deck boards were replaced. Soffits were repaired. Caulking, trim, and flashing were .implemented. These repairs were inade- quate. if the decks are not addressed now, the building will suffer structural damage. A letter from a structural engineer . Robert Patti .11o, indicates structural damage and cracks in walls on the third floor. A photograph documents a crack in a mirror on the second floor . The building may he moving:. The building was constructed in 1969. Brian Hazen , owner , summarized the information presented in the photographs . He referred to a series of photographs that illustrated the damage. The soffits were repaired .less than three years ago . The problems are worse in the last three ,years than in ten years . Repairing the building has been troublesome. The damage is in the soffits . The leakage comes through the edge of the balconies . The flower- boxes provide more places for leakage . The decks are supposedly leak-proof. Unit 203 has severe damage on both balcony soffits . The water on the bal-- conies runs towards the sliding glass doors . The water even-- t.uall.y will penetrate the residence. Linit. 202 , on the eastern side of the building, is decaying. unit 201 is experiencing severe decay on the soffit on the balcony. Also unit 102 , the bottom floor unit on the eastern side of the building, is experiencing severe decay. The most severe damage is to the entryways . Water threaten; electrical boxes . Builders concluded the circular cracks on the mirror hanging on the wall adjacent to the deck of unit 203 resulted both from the shifting building and water-loaded decks . Snow builds up on the decks , melts , and loads up again on the decks . He recommended a site visit . John Dillon noted the balconies , decks , and soffits have been treated every year for eleven years . The deck membranes have been repaired and resurface=d. Thousands of dollars have been spent on trimming, caulking, and waterproofing. The situation is /l RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment February 14, 1985 impossible. Water can penetrate too many areas . $1 , 000 to $1 , 500 are applied yearly to this problem. The results are inadequate. He had recommended to the Board of Directors of the Chateau Snow Condominiums a new approach: cover the decks . This solution discourages rain , ice , and snow build-up on the decks . Covering decks is the only viable alternative. The membranes of the balconies have been replaced and repaired without. success . JDM Construction recommended covering the: decks . The problem occurs and is addressed repeatedly year after year . Management: wants to solve the problem. The problem is unsovlab.le with conventional methods , for example , the repeated replacement of trine, _ siding, caulking, etc . Whitaker inspected the property yesterday. Is there any drainage system from the balconies? Are the balconies catch basins for water and snow? Dillon answered there are drains in each balcony and a system of duct. works . PVC membrane is underneath. The drains have no heat tapes . Whitaker observed during has site visit that snow had not been removed from the balconies . Snow had been allowed to acc:ummulate. Hemoving the snow and instal- ling heat tape in drains will eliminate the problem. Dillon noted the same leakage problem is exhibited during the summer- time. The decks are typically repaired during May and .Tune to accommodate the short - term summer rentals . The property is fresh and new for the summer . By mid-September , the building is a complete mess . The summer rains cause deterioration also. Whitaker requested the location of the drains . Dillon explained the drains run beck toward the building and run down the leer-. imeter° of the walls . The drains do not protrude from the side of the deck. Whitaker asked arc there drywells On the ground. Dillon answered yes . B . Hazen explained leakage through the deck itself is not a problem. The membrane is tine. The membrane is located four inches: up along the side. The problems are the construction of the balconies where the runners meet and the different surfaces on the flower boxes and on th- flocks . `l'he:' water runs under i h2 walls . The drains are not the problem . The water- runs along at i.nast. Len surfaces es on the water may not oven reach the floor of the balcony. Herz asked with the amount of water damage why not shovel the snow. B . Hazen replied the snow is shoveled. bast year snow was shoveled twice completely by December 20th . where is no place to shovel the snow on a daily basis . Perhaps , snow could be shoveled to the entryways and then hauled away. Whitaker argued by not removing the snow, the owners are creating their own problem. He had a problem wills a solar system. Wager and a darn 5:s RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board---of Adjustment February 14, 1985 were problems . He shoveled his roof 54 times one winter to prevent; leakage into the liouse. Then he biter corrected the situation . One photograph shows snow to the parapet on a deck . B . Hazen argued the owner- of the building will not. shovel the edge of the balconies and -the flower boxes every time it snows . More modern ways address snow removal. . Whitaker agreed the balcony is not properly designed for runoff. The building is poorly designed and constructed. John Watkins , engineer- with JDM Construction, commented the design of the bu:iIdin9 is bad. The third story stair---steps . Half of the deck is over a hiving area of the unit below. He proposed the sun spaces t.o keep out. the water. The solution offers a solar heat gain during the winter . E . Hazen asked if heat tapes would solve IL he problem. Wat.kires answered no. B . Hazen asked where would the water, run with the sun spaces on the balcony. Whitaker- questioned natural drainage. Where on the south slope can accumulated water drain? The solution completely encloses the balconies . There is no place for the runoff. He does not see the drainage system. B . Hazen noted the drainage is in t:Ile e<:rst bcIlcor►y floor. That system does not. accommodate all the water . Too many horizontal surfaces are built into the decks . Those varied surfaces increase the water problem. Even the architect of the building admits the proposal is the only permanent solution to save: the building. Whitaker asked where does the melted water travel on the front side of the deck . Where is the existing drain? B . Hazen replied the drain is toward the sliding glass doors . B . Hazen cited the letter from Bob Sterling. That letter states the floor area ratio is not increased. Bill Drueding, building inspector, commented ore the letter. Sterling does not quote the entire FAR regulation . Drueding quoted the regulation that defines this structur~e as nonconforming; and that concludes enclosing the balconies will increase the FAR : "For the purpose of calculating allowed floor area ratio above grade decks and balconies shall be considered neces- sary to the function of the building if' use for required access into the principal use of the building is nonresidential . . . Above grade decks acid balconies constructed in conjunction with the building or t-)ortion thereof whose principal use is residential ( the present application) shall not be considered necessary to the function of the building provided that. the area of such fent.ures is less than or equal to 15%' . " Drueding understood 15 0 of the allowed FAR for above grades decics 6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting_ Board of Adjustment _ February 14 ,_ 1985 is exempted. The regulation assumes above grade decks do not increase the bulk of residential buildings . Once the decks are enclosed, the decks are no longer considered above grade decks . Consequently, t.e decks are part, of FAR. The enclosed decks will increase the bulk of the building. B . Hazen challenged the interpretation or the 15%. Drued_ing clarified 15% of allowable FAR is exempted. If the allowable square footage were 6, 000 , 15% of 6 , 000 square feet , or 900 square feet , would be exempted from the FAR calculations . B . Hazen argued the letter states if the calculation is less than 900 square feet: that square footage.' is exempt . Drueding argued once the decks are enclosed the decks are no longer considered above grade decks . An exterior wall is included in the enclosing process . Enclosed decks are no longer considered above grade decks . An exterior wall is included in the enclosing process . Enclosed decks are counted in FAR. The windows become the vertical walls . Enclos- ing decks make the decks part of the building, enclosing makes the space liveable B . Hazen disagreed. He noted if Drueding' s interpretation is correct , the increase is only 2 . 3%. This percentage increase in the size, of the building can serve the building . Increasing the allowed FAR by 2 . 3% is a minor amount to save the building. Paterson asked why is glass designed for the lowest -floor . The first floor is not experiencing leakage and does not have balconies . B . Hazen replied the design is not absolute. Sun space windows are not the only solution . The goal is to enclose or cover the deck . Given the proposed solution the first. :floor should not experience any damage, even if the first were not enclosed. Paterson explained the Board grants the minimum to solve the problem. The proposal for the three floors is not the minimum. The minimum is two floors . Addressing only two floors , can the applicant solve the problem? Dillon replied in theory the "top--two-floors" proposal could work . He cannot guarantee the association that the lower level will be immune from damage. If the solution were to stop the penetration o l- water at the second and third levels , the first level should remain dry. B . Hazen noted around level is cement. . Dillon noted a garden level exists . The bottom of the door is approximately 2 1/2 to 3 feet below ground level . There is a well . water could accum-- mulate in the well . Paterson said snow will melt off the south- exposed window; the melted know will work its way to the lower level . Freezing could also be a problem. Dillon said a good drain system it necessary. The still that the door sliders sit on is no more than 1/2 inch . Whitaker commented in all the years he has served on the Board he does not recall granting a variance because of faulty constru-- 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting—_ Board of Adjustmen-t v FebrRqj_y_j_4, 1985. ct i or] He quoted from a letter- submitt(--�d by Robert M. Pattil lo , c Atan , dated October 4 , 1984 :onstructural CODSU t "The cause of the infiltration problem (_-:an be traced back to the o r ip- i n a I design, which al I owed for the relatively extensive weather- exposure without a comparable increase in protection measures . The deign d e t ai I s were p r o b a 1)1 y considered state.--of--the-art in the l a t e 1960 ' s , but have since (I e m o rits t ra t e(I shortcomings . No positive slope was provided for deck drains : the drain risers are not heated ; no flashing was installed at rail caps , corners , or planter walls ; there is an excessive number of exposed wall corners , overhangs , and niches which are difficult to seal . " The analysis demonstrates the construction is at fault . No applicant has ever asked for a variance to increase the size of a building because of faulty v construction . Paterson argued the Board considers and evaluates h'ardship, whether the hardship is the fault of construction , earthquakes etc . Whitaker added the Board also considers it' the solution is the only possible one. He. is not convinced t It e r e is not another s ol u t i(-)11 . Other deck drains , heating the risers , solutions invo] ve slop-ins to the-ng he treating th e flashing, etc . The solutions are suggested in Pattillo ' s letter. B . Hazen said the packet contains many letters . Hansen , Haberman Construction provided a bid to install new runners , flashing, caulk , etc. 11,u t, , t 1-1 e firm will not g u a r a ri t(_-e the permanent elimination of leakage . Paterson noted a freeze-thaw cycle exists in addition to the s t r o n q southerly exposure . Those planter's are a definite problem. He has a deck clean of any items a ri(-I 11e liras a i in J 1 a r problem. 11 i s deck leaks . He shovels his deck constantly . There is a hardship . The applicant is also burdened with the fact the property is rented. The owner is not physically present after every snowfall . Whitaker agreed a problem ex4sts . But , he w It nts to x P-1 o re the other solutions . B . Hazen repeated Dillon had stated those solutions had been tried over the -last, I en years without success . Whitaker asked if' the drains have been heated . Dillon answered yes . Also , the management had removed snow regularly from the balconies throughout the years until this winter- . The management-, did not make the customary repairs this past summer because it decided to investigate the present process . Management is not removing snow this winter . Whitaker asked when snow was removed regularly y were there 'Leaks D i l l o n answered y(--s . During the first spring Di 1 [on worked for Coates , Reid, and Waldron , eleven years a,,TO , the company (-!on t rr:ic t ed someone to seal the balconies and to repair the soffit. areas . Dealing with the leaks and soffits has Fi RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Re ular Meeting_____.___ Board of Adjustment _____ February 14, 1985 been an annual. ordeal . Hundred of tubes of caulking have been applied. Noth=ing has worked to shore the building. The general contractors quote bids for flashing and for trimming the caps , but no one guarantees their work . Robert Phillips , structural consultant for the applicant , said there are other options to solve the problem. But: , those solutions involve extensive rebuilding. The balcony for one unit is the ceiling of the lower unit. . If all the ra.i l sings and planters were eliminated , if the floor system were rebuilt , such action could solves they problem. Eliminating the water seepage points may solve the problem. During that tri►2c: the units would be uninhabitable and exposed to the elements . Completely reconstructing the balconies is impractical . Intercepting water melting off the glass at each story is important . Heated leader pipes and gutter systems are necessary. Herz asked is the deck , once enclosed, considered a liveable area. Drueding answered yes . The proposal also increases floor area, the proposal does not add units . B . Hazen stated the enclosed space is not liveable . He reasoned adding bedrooms increases values . But the units are rented. The additional hundred square feet will not increase the gain of a two-bedroom unit: renting for $200 per night: . Paterson asked for the actual square footage of the balcony. Drueding asked is the applicant, creating more deck space. B . Hazen replied no . The design incorporates one continuous deck separated by moveable panels . The board and applicant discuss and clarify the deck design . B . Hazen repeated the design is not the only solution. The design is only a concept for discussion for the variance . He understood design is not a Board considera- tion . Sterling' s letter concluded FAR did not matter. Saving the building is the goal . The proposed solution saves the building. Drueding argued the bu=ilding will have twice the allowed FAR. FAR regulations discourage increasing bulk of buildings . Enclosing the decks will increase the visual. bulk . B . Hazen reasoned the passive solar gain and the prevention of deterioration offset: the minor increase in FAR. Drueding repeated FAR regulations were applied to residential zones two years ago to monitor the bulk . The Green Duplex located in the same area as Chateau Snow precipitated the residential FAR requirement: . Drueding' s concern is that owner will challenge increased FAR for the Chateau Snow Condominiums . Herz asked what will the applicant, do to save the building if the variance is denied . B . Hazen had no answer except the building could collapse . PaLtillo answered abandon the balconies , re- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board_ of_Ad,iustment February 14, 1985 roof, :install sliders , and build half-height windows . The aesthetics would not be compatible with the original design . The building may be as bulky as it appears now. The other options are impractical . B . Hazen repeated the balcony is the ceiling for the lower unit . Removing the balcony is questionable . E . Hazen argued balconies are an existing property right . She questioned taking away that property right . Mann queried Watkins . Could Watkins guarantee no leakage with the proposed remedy? Watkins answered he would guarantee the workmanship. Minor leaks around the windows will persist. . But , enclosing space will reduce the present damage . He will guaran - tee that. . Mann asked where will water flow. Watkins replied down the edge of the glass into a gutter system. B . Hazen said at the bottom of each floor a gutter would run at an angle and to the side . Apply heat tape to the gutters to prevent freezing. pattil. lo suggested extending and tieing the present deck drains to the proposed gutter system. Harz asked if the Board can grant a variance with a condition that the enclosed space must be uninhabitable . Whitaker replied the problem is enforcement . Whitaker asked if the proposed glass is fixed. Dillon preferred fixed glass . The bottom units only have one sill between the unit and the catch basin . That situation worries him. Also , the proposed design provides architectural unit { b . Iiaxert noted other !complexes in the neighborhood look similar . He cited the Winterhaven . Dillon remarked the windows and skylights cannot guarantee complete eradication of the penet:rat.ion of water into the interior . But , the solution is far better than the present: situation . Herz noted the solution provides a thermal benefit . B . Hazen explained the Man is to the the area and to create a passive solar gain . Whitaker remarked fixed windows w:i l i create an intolerable situation during the summer. B . Hazen clarified open windows are situated at the bottom. Some owners want a sliding glass door to the outdoors . Owners do not necessarily want to abandon the decks . Mann read to the record a letter from ,_Jack 0. O' Neill , dated January 27 , 1985 : "The subject, case scheduled to appear before the Board of Adjustment on February 14 , 1985 , requests a variance to permit the chateau Snow Condominium Association to :increase the floor area of an already nonconforming structure. 1() RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Ad.ustment February 14, 1985 Apparently the increase in floor space will be achieved by enclosing the now open decks on the Waters street side of the building. I aim the owner of a condominium unit in the adjacent. ( 940 East Waters ) Silverglo Condominiums . Specifically i own unit 301 , a third floor unit on the southwest corner of the Silverglo property and directly adjacent to the Chateau Snow. In addition to my objection to any nonconforming use of property in the City of Aspen , I find the proposed variance particularly objectionable since enclosure of the decks at Chateau Snow will obscure the view of Aspen Mountain which now exists from the two bedrooms of my property . Granting of such a variance by the Board of Adjustment would result in a decrease in the value of my property. I am confident that the Board of Adjustment will not permit a further variance of an already nonconforming structure when the requested variance would do economic: harm to adjacent property owners . " Head questioned how the solution will impact the viewplane . B . Hazen expressed surprise more owners did not. respond. Paterson replied only one person lives in the corner unit on the third floor. B . Hazen noted the third story of the Silverglo may be higher than the third floor of the Chateau Snow . Whitaker closed the public hearing for the Board' s comments . Herz remarked the Board upholds the zoning laws . The request does :impact FAR. No other alternative exists except to eliminate the decks which will ruin the building. He does not want responsibility for not preventing the collapse of a building. The applicant has a strong hardship . He would grant the variance. Head concurred with Herz . Bawd on the lengthy correspondence in the packet the proposed solution is the only approach to resolve a very complex problem. Removing balconies is questionable since the balconies area the ceilings of the lower units . He would favor the variance. Paterson apologized for the solution to remove the balconies . That suggestion is highly impractical because of the living areas below. There is a hardship. The applicant is not requesting a r 1l RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting __ Board of Adjustment February 14, 1985 tremendous increase in square footage. He hesitated calling the square footage FAR. There is no other sensible way to solve the problem. As a designer, he would consider this solution the only workable one. The app l i cant has a d(-finite hardship and pract,i- cal . He. would grant: the variance . Mann agreed the applicant has demonstrated an hardship . She i-s uncomfortable with the proposed solution . Remember the Board must. grant 11 m i n imum v a r 1 ance. May be orily consider the two upI>er decks . That is the minimum. The Board must consider- that III illim it III. Based on Pat.erson , s reasoning she is more favorably disposed. Whitaker <Ir7ued that the app-l :icarrt has not exhausted a_11 possi - bilities . Pattillo ' s letter stated the structural. defects . Those structural defects probably can be eorrect.c.'d for toss money than the greenhouse solution . Slope the decks . Regularly remove: the snow. tltiI ize ht�­at. tapes . Plan for the escape of the water . No elan handles that . There is no reason to grant the variance unless all the possibi -1 ities are exhausted. The hoard of Adjustment will be subject to severe criticism upon approval. Of this huge glass: structure. Hurd asked would t.hF� city be I 1 ab le for fa.i:Lure to grant a variance if a baiconv rotted , collapsed, and killed someone . Whitaker argued the balcony will not collapse , the balcony is the structural roof for the lower apartment . Paterson agreed there are ot:her• solutions : streamlining the balcony, sloping, C�tc . But , the freeze-thaw cycle will persist . Water may melt in drains close to the building. Some areas, tre not exposed to the sun . Those are the locations for the sloping outside drains . As water tnf-Its from the glass: and moves down ward, ice builds up. The system will deteriorate in three or four Years . The present: problems w i i l pens i.st . Wh i taker conceded the closed walls complicate the problem. He. encouraged .,toning the deck back toward the wall and the drains ; and heat.;in ; the drains . Whi taker re 0 p e 11ud the public hearing. H . Hazen s Lat,ed the drains are not causing the problem. Whitaker argued the water is not. properly channeled to the drain . B . Hazen said Whitaker ' s problem is really the design , an argument that is not acceptable: to the Board. Whitaker repeated the Board does riot. grant vari.anr'-es unless a possible solutions are exhausted. The- appl ca 1-1 has not. exhausted al I solut,ions . Herz requested Peter - son ' s comments on the design . Paterson emphasized the perspec- t ive drawing makes Lhe structure -appear huge. `1`he structure is 1'.' RECORD OF_PROCEEDINGS Regular Meetinng_,____ Board _of___Adjustment_ February 14, 1985 really small . The lot is a sixty foot lot. . The proposal will not impact. . The Chaten" Snow will not impact any more than the Winterhaven . Head noted the enclosure will not extend beyond the existing balcony. Paterson commented the Board has always favored solar gain . Saving fuel supports the variance. He is considering primarily the practical difficulty. The applicant has triad to solve the problem over the past five years . Spending vast amounts of money for major reconstruction yields little success or gain. The present building: is a beautiful design . Many times beautiful designs are not practical . The owners are trying to save the building . The problem is real . He strongly favored granting they variance. Many alternate solutions may not work either . Whitaker argued that poor design without addressing the water Flow and the freeze-thaw cycle is not a reason for granting; a variance . Paterson reasoned the step design complicates the problem. The Board will be remiss if it does not grant: this variance . There is a hardship . There is a practical diffi- cul t.y. The solution will not impact, the neighborhood. The building is nicely setback . The building is quiet . He suggested -imposing a provision to the approval : the applicant: should add curb and gutter . Barry Edwards , city attorney, commented the Board cannot: impose that condition. Whitaker closed the public hearing . Motion: Charlie Paterson moved to grant the variance for case #85- 1 ; seconded by Rick Head. Whitaker requested a roll call vote: Charlie Paterson aye Jo Mann aye Francis Whitaker nay Rick Head aye John Herz aye Motion carried with Whitaker opposed . Motion: Charlie Paterson moved to table the minutes of December 13 , 1984 , to March 7 , 1985 : seconded by Rick Head . All in favor; motion carried. Motion: 13 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment February 14, 1985 Charlie Paterson moved to adjouru tbe meetiug at 5 : 20 p. m. ; seconded by Wick Bead, All in [ovor: motion carried . -Barbara 0nrr: s , Deputy Ciiy Clcrk I4