Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19860320 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 20, 1986 CITY COUNCIL CHAFERS 4:00 P.M. A G E N D A I. MINUTES February 6 , 1986 II. NEW BUSINESS Case #86-2 / Aspen Club Lodge Case #86-4 / Caps Auto Supply Case #86-6 / HBC Investments III. ADJOURNMENT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 20, 1986 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4 : 05 P.M. with members Anne Austin, Josephine Mann, Ron Erickson, Rick Head, and Charlie Paterson (arrived late) present. MINUTES February 6. 1986: Head moved to approve the minutes of February 6 , 1986; Austin seconded. All in favor; motion carried. NEW BUSINESS CASE #86-2 / ASPEN CLUB LODGE Mann read a letter from the applicant requesting withdrawal of the application as they had decided to not build the facility. Austin said the application states that it was made a contingency of approval that prior to granting a building permit for the new restaurant the applicant must submit an application to the Board of Adjustment for the variance of open space for the branch structure. Austin commented that the restaurant had already been moved and the applicant had not received a variance. Austin questioned what had transpired to allow all of this. Bill Drueding, Building Inspector , responded that rather than holding up the building permit for the lag time to appear before this Board, since it had been actively applied for, they could go ahead with their building. If the ramp were not approved the applicant would have to go back to what they initially said they would do, which was close off the space existing downstairs. The applicant is now requesting not getting the ramp and closing off the space downstairs where the restaurant used to be. CASE #86-4 / CAPS AUTO SUPPLY Lavagnino read the variance request: "Applicant is requesting a variance to permit it to raise a portion of the roof by six (6) feet. Property is located in the "0" Office zoning category. Building contains a non-conforming use and is a non-conforming structure (encro- aches in to set backs) Section 24-13 . 4 (a) No existing structure devoted to a use not permitted by this code in the district in which it is located shall be enlarged, extended, 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 20. 1986 constructed, reconstructed, moved or structurally altered except in changing the use of the structure to a use permitted in the district in which it is located. Section 24-13.3 (a) No such non-conforming structure may be enlarged or altered in a way which increases its non-conformity, but any structure or portion thereof may be altered to decrease its non-confo- rmity. Applicant appears to be requesting a variance to enlarge a non-conforming use by raising the roof approximately 6 feet. Applicant also appears to be requesting a variance to raise the roof which already encroaches in to the front and side yard. " Stoney Davis, applicant, submitted the affidavit of sign posting to the Board. Mr. Davis explained that one section of the building had storage space above the retail area. The ceiling in the building varies in height from 5 to 6 feet. The access going up to the storage area has a structural beam going across it which makes the access portion approximately 4 feet high . The storage area is used heavily during the day by employees and customers. The problem is hitting your head on the joist etc. with the low clearance. Basically, they want to raise the roof and the structural beam by 6 feet. Mr. Davis said they would not be increasing the FAR or changing the use. Austin asked what would prevent the floor space from being increased after the roof was raised. Drueding replied they could not increase their floor space because it would be an increase in FAR which would require additional approvals. Erickson asked what the encroachment was in the front and side yards. Mr. Davis replied they currently encroach 8 feet in to the front yard and 3 feet in to the side yard. Austin asked what had happened to the idea for a Performing Arts Center in the Rio Grande area. Mr. Davis replied that it was voted down. Lavagnino closed the public hearing. Mann read a letter from Gary Wright, neighboring property owner, stating support for the proposed request. 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 20, 1986 Head read a letter from Richard Cassins, neighboring property owner, having no objections to the proposed request. Austin read a letter from Joe Edwards, adjacent property owner, stating no objections to the proposed request. Lavagnino reopened -tire -public- hearing. Austin said one of the letters from a neighboring property owner had referred to remodeling the building, she questioned if the building was going to be remodeled as part of this proposal or was the roof being raised all that was going to be done. Mr. Davis said they were considering some remodeling but had not decided at this point. Lavagnino closed the public hearing. Erickson commented that the Board keeps running in to problems with buildings that existed before the code went in to effect. Those people who own those properties are at somewhat of a disadvantage. However, the purpose of the code is to limit non-conforming uses, allowing those that were there to exist, trying to eliminate or minimize non-conforming uses in the future. Erickson thought this request was to increase a non-conforming use, therefore, he felt it was a density feeling or intent of the code. Lavagnino asked since they were not asking to increase the FAR, there is a safety factor involved, this building is going to remain, and the enlargement will not add anything to the value, shouldn't that be a consideration. Erickson said he did not know any history of the building but thought there were solutions other than the one proposed which would not require a variance. Additionally, if the applicant is allowed to raise the roof 6 feet it is encouraging the owner to add flooring across the entire area, creating a second story. Erickson also felt there would be an increase in volume and the visual impact. Mann said she could not find a hardship or practical difficulty in this case. She did think the low ceiling could be considered a safety factor problem. The building encroaches in both the front and side yards and is a non-conforming use. Mann thought this was a big request. She commented she would be happy to have the building look nice and be more usable but just could not find a hardship for the request. 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD- OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 20, 1986 Head thought perhaps the right way to approach this problem would be to apply for rezoning. He could not see any hardship or practical difficulty as it was being requested. The building is non-conforming as to use and set backs which are 2 big problems. Head also thought it would increase density and parking needs because more business would be generated. Head said he thought the hardship had been created by the applicant, in making the roof the height it is, when it was built. Additionally, Head thought this did effect adversely the general purpose of the comprehensive plan. Head was against granting the request. Drueding commented that a request for rezoning was a very difficult and expensive process. Additionally, they are only done once or twice per year. Drueding also said he had discussed this request with Alan Richman, Planning Director, and he voiced no objections to the request. Austin said she felt the same about the request as the others had stated. She thought this request was stretching the life of the building when it shouldn ' t really be there. Austin was not in favor of granting the variance. Lavagnino asked when the property was zoned "0" and where the zone boundary was in relation to this building. Drueding reviewed and explained the zoning maps. Paterson said this problem was not a fault of the applicant, a good business grows causing a need for more space. This building had limited space, therefore, they are using area not originally planned for. Paterson thought there was a practical difficulty in that the applicant had substantial property rights to run a business that has been in this location for a long time. Paterson said he would be in favor of granting the variance. Lavagnino commented that if any business in town out grew their location this opinion would give everyone rights to expand. Lavagnino said his greatest problem was that this is a non-conforming use. Because of this he said he could not even consider granting a variance. He did not want to extend a use by allowing an extension of the physical building thereby encouraging the continued use. Additionally, it was the intent of these ordinances to decrease that kind of use. Lavagnino said he would not be in favor of granting the variance. 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 20, 1986 Lavagnino reopened the public hearing. Michael Gassman, applicant' s architect, said he did not agree that this hardship was created by the applicant. This is a business the community indicates they need and want. The City has not been able to come up with a plan for the Rio Grande area as of yet. Mr. Gassman also questioned what this property was non-conforming to, a vague idea the City has that some day they will be able to plan something for the area. Mr. Gassman said he thought the community was saying 2 things to Caps: #1 they want an auto parts store in this location, and #2 the practical difficulty that the business can not be operated efficiently as the community says they want it. Erickson said the business had outgrown its location. He asked the applicants why they could not move the business to another location. Mr. Gassman replied there was no where else to move. Erickson and Lavagnino disagreed. Erickson said the code indicates the City does not want that type of business in that location and this Board does not want to expand that business allowing it to remain in its location any longer than it has to . Erickson suggested the possibility of a storage facility somewhere else. Mr . Davis said economically there was not another location for them, or for their storage. Austin said this Board could not consider economics when deciding a case. Lavagnino explained the Boards powers to the applicant. Lavagnino said if the business is popular the public will find it wherever it is. There are other solutions to the problem. Lavagnino said he would have allowed the expansion to the roof line if the use were permitted but this application involves 2 entities and the City has determined they do not want to increase those non-conformities. Lavagnino said the Board could not go against the principal the City laid down. Mann said she appreciated Paterson's comments regarding listening to the neighbors who were in favor of the request. She also thought it would be nice to have the building upgraded. However, there were too many things involved for this Board to grant the variance. There are 2 non-conf ormi ties and encroachments. This Board is required to grant only minimal variances. Paterson said he also had reservations about granting only the minimum variance. Lavagnino closed the public hearing. 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 20, 1986 Motion: Head moved to deny the requests for Case #86-4 for reasons stated herein; Mann seconded. Lavagnino asked for a roll call vote: Paterson no Austin aye Head aye Mann aye Lavagnino aye Paterson opposed, all others in favor; motion carried. CASE #86-6 / HBC INVESTNENTS Lavagnino read a letter from Doug Allen, applicant ' s attorney, requesting this case be tabled to March 27 , 1986 pending settlement with the Planning Office. Motion: Erickson moved to table Case #86-6 to March 27 , 1986 as requested by the applicant; Head seconded. All in favor; motion carried. Motion: Head moved to adjourn the meeting at 5: 15 P.M. ; Austin seconded. All in favor; motion carried. Kim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk 6