Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19850801 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 1, 1985 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4: 00 P.N. AGENDA I. MINUTES II. OLD BUSINESS Case #85-14 / Wienerstube Restaurant III. ADJOURNMENT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 1. 1985 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4: 03 p. m. with members Ron Erickson, Anne Austin, Charlie Paterson, and Josephine Mann present. OLD BUSINESS CASE #85-14 / NIENERSTUBE RESTAURANT Lavagnino asked members Austin and Mann if they had read the minutes of the previous meeting on this case to enable them to participate in the decision. Ms. Austin and Ms. Mann replied yes. Lavagnino asked for comments. Bill Drueding, building department, asked if just the 114 sq. ft. floor area expansion was being considered at this time. Lavagnino replied yes. Drueding then commented that the Board should also consider the overhang, over the coolers, consisting of an additional 48 sq. f t. Lavagnino asked if the additional area was enclosed by walls. Drueding replied no, the plans show it as an open area. Mr. Cunniffee, applicant, added that it would not be usable space and is to cover the electric meters. Austin asked what the purpose for the roof was. Mr. Mayritch, applicant, replied to keep snow and water away from the coolers and to protect the electric meters. Mr. Cunniffee distributed pictures of the delivery area for the Boards review. Mann reviewed her understanding of the previous meetings minutes. Barry Edwards, city attorney, said at the previous meeting Alan Richman, planning director, was opposed to the request for an additional 500 sq. ft. , his position being that it was not in harmony with the GMP and an excessive request. Edwards added that Richman thought their original request was for the 114 sq. ft. of additional floor area and when he saw the 500 sq. ft. , including the storage area, request he was against the proposal. Edwards said he has since had discussions with Mr. Richman and Drueding about provisions of the GMP and Richman took the position that in this particular context the request is not the kind of request that might be taken advantage of by other GMP applicants. In addition because the request is now only for the 114 sq. f t Richman feels it is not out of harmony with the intent of the GMP. Edwards said, based on Richman ' s statement, this is now within the Board' s jurisdiction. Lavagnino asked what the unique situation in this case was. Edwards replied that Richman was referring to the fact that it is a little used space, in an area of the building that is not something other people will be able to say they are being denied. In addition Richman did not feel this is something that would cause a rush of applications to the Board of Adjustment to expand the FAR allowable under the 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST It 1985 commercial GMP regulations. Lavagnino then asked what was meant by "in harmony with the GMP"? Edwards replied it is not something that is disruptive to Richman ' s concept of what the GMP is designed to do, which is prevent excessive commercial square footage growth in the Aspen area. Mann asked about the snow management on the roof of the structure. Mr. Cunniffee outlined where the snow would go. Mann asked if a roof over the dock area would cause snow to slide onto the coolers. Mr. Cunniffee replied no, adding that it would actually protect the entry way at the door to the delivery area. Drueding said a condition of the Planning and Zoning Commission approval was that the applicant not build more than 500 sq. ft. Drueding added that Cunniffee was supposed to research if this request materially changed that approval. Mr. Cunniffee said because they have been granted approval by P&Z the only alternative they have, which is on Richman ' s recommendation, is to come before the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Cunniffee added that the Wienerstube asked for 500 sq.ft. to use on their behalf, in the process the owners of the building took 168 sq. ft. of the total for their own purposes, leaving only 332 sq . ft. for the Wienerstube. Mr. Paterson asked what the owner of the building used the 168 sq.ft. for to which Mr. Cunniffee replied for an arcade to enter several shops through. Austin asked if the 332 sq. ft. granted by P&Z was used for the coolers. Mr. Cunniffee replied that some of the footage was used for the coolers and some was used for an employee toilet and dressing area on the second level. Austin was confused as to why the applicant had to allocate some of their granted square footage to the coolers when they were pre-existing. Drueding responded that the original coolers were removed, therefore, these coolers were not pre-existing. Erickson asked how the Board should deal with the 48 sq. ft. requ- ested to cover the electric meters, are we granting a variance to allow the roof to remain the way it is. Drueding confirmed that the variance would be needed. Mann said she would like to hear some of the other members comments on the case. Lavagnino said the members comments on this case were made at the last meeting with the exception of the 48 sq. ft. now being requested. Lavagnino added that he had no problem with granting a variance for the 48 sq. ft because 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 1, 1985 there is a practical difficulty with snow and the space can' t be used for anything other than what is there now, being utilities. Lavagnino said he was against the 114 sq. ft. requested. The situation the applicant has created could have been taken care of in designing the interior of the existing building. Mann said since this particular project did not get the direct use of- the- entire 500 sq. ft. granted that might be considered a practical difficulty. Erickson was in favor of granting the 48 sq. ft. variance thinking it was a practical difficulty and hardship to remove it. Erickson added that he did not want to be put in the position of policing the project. Erickson agreed with Lavagnino on the 114 sq. ft. variance, believing there were other alternative methods without requiring a variance. Paterson said he felt even more strongly than at the last meeting that the applicant has a practical difficulty and hardship in health welfare and safety in the kitchen, the fact that there is only one exit out of the kitchen, boxes could be blocking the entrance being a fire hazard, it is a minimum request, the loading dock pad is already there. Therefore, he was in favor of granting the variance for the additional 114 sq. ft. of floor area. Paterson was also in favor of the variance for the 48 sq. ft. meter cover. Austin said she had no problems with the 48 sq. ft. over the meters the practical difficulty being the build up of snow and ease of reading. Austin agreed with Paterson regarding the 114 sq. ft. of floor area. She thought the building had not come close to using its FAR and did not feel there was a density problem or that it would affect the neighbors. Austin added that the loading dock already exists and thought it was more of an eyesore as it exists than this would be. She also thought there would be ice build-up on the dock in the winter that would be a safety hazard. Because- the restaurant operates all day, for breakfast lunch and dinner, there is no practical time to accept deliveries except during the 9 to 5 work day. Austin added that there is a loss of energy through opening the door directly from the kitchen to the outside all day which she saw as a hardship. Austin also felt if the coolers had not been taken out before the Wienerstube came in they would have automatically had their request, therefore, being another hardship. 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 1. 1985 Paterson commented that the restrooms are larger than necessary and a public asset. Those could have been removed to allow more footage but the applicant chose not to do that. Drueding asked if it had been established that the applicant put more stalls in the bathrooms than the health department requires. Lavagnino asked since the applicant has gone under the GMP with the existing building and has gotten a bonus of 500 sq. ft. can they now come back before Planning and Zoning and go for their maximum 1800 sq. ft. , and what would happen to the 500 sq. ft. already allowed. Edwards replied that they can compete like any other in a commercial GMP process. Edwards added that the landlord would have to go before P&Z since it would be for development approval for the entire building which they do not control. Mann said she was in favor of both variances requested. She agreed with Paterson that this is a minimal variance. She thought it was necessary for health, safety, and welfare reasons. Mann said since Alan Richman of the planning office said this was in harmony with the GMP she would be in favor of the variance. Lavagnino opened the public meeting for comment. Mr. Cunniffee, applicant, said in taking the restaurant space the Wienerstube chose to try to work with the existing kitchen layout, and existing structure of the building, making what changes were necessary. They were faced with working with 2/3 of the space the previous restaurant worked with and were faced with a kitchen line that was already in place at the delivery door. The practical hardship or difficulty was to work with the existing conditions and building to create a loading area that makes sense. Lavagnino commented that these problems were present when the applicant took the space and could have been included in the P&Z process already taken. Cunniffee said they did not know the situation would be as bad as it has become. They are faced with a situation they are trying to remedy by adding a delivery area. Mr. Cunniffee said he felt this was a reasonable request based on the circumstance that exists in their operation in working with an existing building. Erickson said his feeling was that there were 2 prior businesses here plus 2 or 3 steps where additional square footage was asked for and this was not taken in to account when other things were. Now the applicant is asking this Board to exceed the floor area granted by solving a problem that has existed for a long time. The practical hardship is one of the applicants own making because it could have been solved earlier. Mr. Cunniffee said he was not asking the Board to solve the problem but to accept the 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 1, 1985 solution to the problem that makes the most sense to the applicant. Paterson asked the Board members to consider that the applicant was considerate in removing their request for the other storage space over the restaurant area. He thought the Board should consider that the applicant has given something up immediately to try to solve the most critical problem they have. Austin thought Rick Head' s opinion should be considered since he was unable to be here tonight but was able to hear the first meeting. Motion- Anne Austin moved to table this decision until August 15, 1985; Paterson seconded. Lavagnino asked for a roll call vote : Austin aye Paterson aye Mann aye Erickson no Lavagnino no Three in favor, two opposed; motion carried. Motion- Charlie Paterson moved to table the minutes of July 11, 1985 and July 18 , 1985 to the August 15, 1985 meeting; Austin seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Motion: Ron Erickson moved to adjourn the meeting at 5 : 00 p. m. ; Mann seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Rim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk 5