Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19850307 C I T Y O F A S P E N BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Thursday, March 7, 1985 City Council Chambers 4:00 p.m. AGENDA I. Minutes December 13, 1984 February 14, 1985 February 21, 1985 II. Case #84-23, Frank Woods and Ed Rodgers, continued hearing III. Case #85-2, The Chart House IV. Adjournment The next meeting is scheduled for March 14, 1985 . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment March 7, 1985 Vice Chairman Francis Whitaker called the meeting to order at 4 : 03 p.m. with members Anne Austin, Rick Head. Josephine 1141ann. and Charlie Paterson present. MINUTES Motion; Anne Austin moved to defer the minutes to the end of the meeting; seconder Oy Rick Head. All in favor; motion carried. CASE #84-23/FRANK WOODS AND ED RODGER Rick Head, representing the applicant , requested the case be postponed for another three weeks because of the city ' s inaction. Motion: Charlie Paterson moved to table case #34-23 to i"arch 28, 1985; seconded by Josephine Mann. All in favor ; :;lotion carried. CASE #85-2/THE CHART HOUSE Pat Trott, architect for the applicant , presented a, notarized affidavit and photograph of the public notice. Whitaker read the requested variance: "Applicant is requesting relief from a requirement of the Planning and Zoning Commission' s approval for expansion of two additional on-site parking spaces. Section 24-4 . 5 : the L-1 zone requires four (4) additional par',;ing spaces per 1, 000 square feet of commercial use. " Trott explained the Chart House is expanding by 500 square feet. The code requires the Chart House provides two extra parking spaces with the expansion. She indicated the location of the two parallel parking spaces on the site plan (dotted lines) . The Planning and Zoning Commission did not support the two sites . The law prevents the Commission from waiving the parking spaces. The applicant needs the Board of Adjustment to approve a variance from the regulation. The Chart House does not want the parking spaces. But_ if the parking spaces have to be installed, they will be located as indicated on the site plan (two adjacent parallel parking spaces on Dean Street) . Tann asked does street side parking exist now. Trott replied an existing retaining wall interferes with the parking. The owner will have to ,move the retaining wall and to provide fill for street level parking. Paterson asked who will use the parking spaces. Trott replied guests or employees. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment___ March 7, 1985 Austin askod why did the owner situate the parking spaces at the proposed angle (parallel ) . Can the parking be perpendicular? Trott answered the cars would be located off the property, T"Thitaker visited the site this afternoon . He suggested locating the spaces head-on to accommodate two cars. There is room to park cars 90 degrees to the street. Only one on-street parking space would be lost . The snow made it difficult- to evaluate the situation. Bill Drueding, building department, distinguished the property line and the curb line. Trott repeated the best way to accommodate the parking is to remove the retaining wall and then to fill. That action -orovides the ten feet necessary for the parking. The present space cannot accommodate 11hitaker Is proposal . The Board discussec, the pros and cons of various parking alter- natives and the retaining wall : parallel parking was not accepted. Austin asked who owns the parking lot (known as Willoughby Park) referred to by the Commission. If a private owner were to develop the property there could be a problem. If the city were to own the property there would be no problem. Austin presented a solution involving city property. Drueding explained the code requires off-street parking or on-street parking. Austin' s proposal does involve an encroachment which the City Council grants. Drueding emphasized the Commission cannot waive the parking requirement because of the code; only the Board can provide relief. Whitaker suggested a solution involving platform parking in lieu of removing and filling the retaining wall. Posts, beams, and planks can be used. This solution removes the cars from the streets. Drueding noted the proble:,.i with this solution : cars will park alongside the proposed area and will obstruct the cars parked in the driveway. Whitaker said post no-parking signs along the driveway. Paterson reasoned this solution eliminates existing parking and defeats the purpose. Cars cannot park in front of a driveway, therefore , one parking space is lost . argued one space is lost but two spaces are gained. Paterson corrected only one space is gained. Whitaker commented exemptions granted to the provisions of the code only compound the problem that the code was implemented to prevent. He applied this reasoning to the present request. Paterson asked what is the Chart House ' s hardship. The Board makes determinations based on the seriousness of hardships . Trott responded the restaurant already exists with no parking. The additional square footage enhances the restaurant does not increase the capacity. and, therefore, does not increase the number of cars. The retaining walls are steep and moving a retaining wall is hard. Whitaker ' s proposal disturbs a very nice landscaped backyard. No parking exists in the backyard. Paterson asked do the windows face the backyard. Trott answered yes. That backyard view is the main view. Paterson asked does the addition consist of windows. Trott answered ves . The new addition increases the size of the existing lounge. The bathrooms will be RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment March 7, 1985 enlarged and remodeled. Paterson asked does the deck exist . Trott replies:, yes and the deck is used during the summer . Austin noted the proposed parking spaces on Dean Street are a few feet from a parking lot . Suing two parking spaces close to a city parking lot is unreasonable. Paterson questioned the value of the two parking spaces . Ilost people park in front of the restaurant not at the rear. May be the parking_ spaces are for employees. Bead said- the- Board- must give weight to the Planning and- Zoning Commission' s opinion. The Commission has reviewer' this case in detail . Head quoted from the minutes of the P&Z dated February 5. 10'85 : "Two-off street spaces are not that desirable. . . " The Commission cannot vary the parking requirements of the law. He quoted Roger Hunt, page six of the minutes: "The proposed parking solution is poor especially given the excess parking adjacent to the property during the restau- rant ' s hours of operation. . . " Paterson noted in summary the Commission had no problem with the use of the parking lot. Head quoted the motion on page seven: "This variance is recommended by the Commission. " Whitaker understood the Commission had taken the position that two off-street spaces would eliminate two on-street spaces. The proposal of the two parallel parking spaces eliminates three on- street spaces . The access and egress to the parallel parking spaces have not been considered. Elhitaker asked for public comment . There were no comments. Whitaker closed the public hearing. Austin would favor granting the variance based on the Commission ' s recommendation and the excess city-owned parking in the area. 1zz<'itional off-street parking is unnecessary. 11hitaker asked has the applicant proved a practical difficulty or hardship. Head replied no, the applicant has not justified the variance within the Board ' s parameters of considerations. The Board must weigh the Comriission' s recommendation. He understood the Commission had concluded the request was not in conflict with the overall general plan. No hardship or practical difficulty has been presented. Mann reM asked this case is an accumulation of little practical difficulties and hardships. The lay of the land and the contours influence the parking location and the location is not good. She questioned the usability of the parking space. The inability to RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment March 7, 1985 use the space is a practical difficulty. The applicant is proposing minor upgrades and changes to the restaurant. The applicant is not increasing seating capacity. And yet, the law requires two parking spaces for the minor change and addition. That is a practical difficulty. The parking solution does not work well . She repeated city-owned parking is near-by. Paterson challenged the solution of head-on parking. ,Backing in or out of the driveway onto the narrow Dean Street would be dangerous and impractical . Clearly, the parallel parking solution represented on the site plan makes no sense. The head-on solution would not be used. The downhill grade is another problem. Granting the variance would benefit the city. He would favor the variance. He concurred with Iliann that there are many small accumulating problems. Siting unsightly and unusable parking in order to comply with the laW is impractical. t°'hitaker asked is the situation any more dangerous than any other off-street parking. Paterson answered backing out on Dean Street may be dangerous . Dean Street is very narrow. 1-•7hitaker argued the spaces could be leveled. Whitaker disagreed with the other members . The restaurant occupies a great deal of property. There are no sidewalks . There is no street parkins. Any exemption must be justified. Every exemption adds another burden to the city. The applicant has not demonstrated a practical difficulty that cannot be solved. The applicant has not demonstrated an unnecessary hardship. The four criteria for granting a variance do not apply in this case. Head asked why did P&Z not require the applicant to install sidewalks in exchange for an exemption from the parking require- aent . Drueding explained the code required the two parking spaces based on the amount of the expansion . The Commission is not authorized to trade parking spaces for a sidewalk. This Board is the only board empowered to change the parking require- ment . Paterson recalled tile_ city attorney at the last meeting had told the ':)lard that it could not make deals in exchange for a variance . Drueding introduced ;dark Uhlfelder, assistant city attorney. Drueding questioned whether or not the Commission can waive an exemption from a code requirement in exchange for a sidewalk. This Board, not the Commission, grant- the relief. This Board can waive the code requirement. But, he understood the Board cannot waive a requirement in exchange, for e.:ad ple, a sidewalk . The Board only can condition approvals. Uhlfelder :explained the Board cannot rake deals, making deals overreaches the Board ' s authority . Whitaker asked at what point in con- struction would the Chart House be required to install sidewalks for a certificate of occupancy. Drueding did not know if the code required certain zones to install sidewalks for a CJ. He referred Whitaker to the engineering department. Paterson repeated and summarized Colette Penne ' s recommendation that requiring two additional spaces is inappropriate. Whitaker RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment March 7. 1985 argued the P&Z based its decision on the parallel _ ar;.i..g solution, not on the head-on proposal. Paterson cited from the Commission ' s minutes John Gilmore and the Hotel Jerome. Gilmore had obligated himself to sixty stalls in a "some-day" parking garage. He quoted: "Consider a letter of agreement stating if and when the city ;rants the two stalls, the Chart House shall provide ttie stalls. " T`7hitaker recalled the city had attempted to establish off-site parking at Rubey Park for new construction. The city had required stores to participate in this parking project in exchange for a building permit . People proceeded to receive building permits and to build. Those people subsequently sued the city, the city returned the money for the parking fund, and the applicants built without providing -parking.- This -suggestion is dangerous Whitaker asked is off-street parking not required of commercial buildings in the commercial core. Drueding answered yes. Also residential units in the commercial core are usually ex.empted from the requirement. Paterson noted the Chart House is located in the L-1 zone district . If the Chart House were located downtown in the commercial core, there would be no parking requirement. Whitaker argued the Board should not make its decision based on the fact teat the parking spaces will not be used or backing out of the driveway will be difficult. The applicant has to prove hardship. The Board must uphold the zoning ordinance unless a hardship is demonstrated. Head asked can the city make an arrangement with the applicant for the later to buy spaces in a future parking lot. Uhlfelder replied the Board of Adjustment either grants or denies a variance. The Board is limited in its ability to attach conditions on the variance . The limitation is prescribed in Section 2-22 (c) (8) , page 156 of the t,Iunicipal Code : "The Board of Adjustment, in granting a variance, may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with the zoning laws of the city violation of which shall be deemed a violation of this section. " Head interpreted the Board could condition the variance. Uhlfelder remarked the condition being considered would not be construed as in conformity with the zoning laws of the city. The section is very vague. Austin reasoned if the Board denies the variance, the city loses one on-street parking space, and consequently only gains one additional parking space. The intent of the law is to gain -wo spaces. !Ihitaker asked what are the practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships, the special conditions , the special extraordinary circumstances , that granting a variance is essential to tle enjoyment of a substantial property right and does not affect the RECORD OF PROCEEDING Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment March 7, 1985 general purpose of the comprehensive plan. Nann referred to the P&Z minutes. In addition to saying the proposed parking solution was poor, 111r. Hunt had talked about Dean Street, the area ' s )otential development, and the hotel ' s develop- ment. Uhlfelder interjected he just discussed the situation with Paul Taddune, city attorney. Taddune had said it may be possible to f..iake a deal. The best solution now is for Uhlfelder to research the basis for such action. The possibility exists to make some sort of trade-off : install sidewalks in exchange for the parking spaces, or to provide parking spaces elsewhere, etc. Head encouraged the city and the applicant to pursue this approach. Does the applicant have the time to pursue this? Trott answered the Chart House wants to begin construction as soon as the skiing season ends, around April 15th. The Chart House needs to sub it drawings for a building permit. Can the applicant proceed while the attorney researches the issue? If so, the applicant might be agreeable to a parking arrangement . She added Crested Butte instituted an ordinance allowing someone who cannot provide a specific parking space to contribute a playing field or other land for parking. Head asked is a decision by March 28th acceptable to the applicant. Drueding said he can issue a building permit �_' but has to hold the CO until the parking issue is resolved. Trott accepted Drueding ' s proposal . Paterson emphasized again excess parking is available adjacent to the restaurant during its hours of operation. The proposed parking solution is poor. The property is sloped and not conducive to level parking. Constructing a retaining wall is not practical especially with the adjacent empty city parking. This is not sensible. Austin suggested the Chart House advertise the parking lot in the rear. The proposed solution is not sensible. T.°7hy construct a retaining wall and obstruct the windows and decks? r Head a s,,-.e d is V17hitaker aMenable to a parking arrangement between the applicant and thle city. TJ'hitaker answered he will consider any thing that is reasonable. Currently, it is difficult to see the site because of the snow. Head asked can Uhlfelder respond to this issue within a week. Uhlfelder replied yes. Motion: —iO-D-.- Ric'': Knead moved to table this case until fe'arch 14, 1985 ; seconded by Charlie Paterson. Discussion. Austin asked should the Board move to approve the variance first. Paterson argued that action might preclude the city and the applicant from making some arrangement. Head argued the Board should have as much input on the parking arrangement before it makes a decision. Let the city attorney and the applicant e-plore the alternatives. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment March 7. 1985 Whitaker requested a roll call vote : Austin aye Head aye Whitaker aye : ann aye Paterson aye All in favor ; motion carried. MINUTE$ December 13,E 1984 : Whitaker corrected page two, second line, transpose city and the : "that the city buys. . . " On page two, third line from the bottom, change "feet" to "foot. " Criterion is spelled criteria. Charlie Paterson moved to approve the minutes of December 13 , 1984 , as corrected; secondeee by Pick .-lead. All in favor ; motion carried. February 14, 1985: T�;hitaker corrected tie s_Delling of liable on page 12 , the fourth paragraph. Josephine Nann moved. to approve the minutes of February 14, 1 85, as corrected; seconded by Charlie Paterson. All in favor ; motion carried. February 21, 1985: Anne Austin moved to approve t .e minutes of February 21 . 1985 ; seconded by Josephine IIann. All in favor; ,notion carried. Iann requested the assistant city attorney draft a model resolu- tion for future approvals. Motion: Charlie Paterson moved to direct the deputy city clerk, to draft a letter of appreciation to John Herz for his service on the uoard; seconded by Josephine 14ann. All in -favor ; motion carried. Motion: Rick Bead moved to adjourn the meeting at 5 : 00 p.m. ; seconded by Anne Austin. All in favor ; motion carried. Barbara Morris, Deputy City Clerk