HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19860410 CITY OF ASPEN
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APRIL 10, 1986
City Council Chambers
4:00 P.M.
A G E N D A
I. NEW BUSINESS
Case #86-7 / Brunkan, Whiting
Case #86-9 / Tipple Inn Condominium, Crawford
II. ADJOURNMENT
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 10, 1986
Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4 : 03
P.M. with members Anne Austin, Josephine Mann, Ron Erickson, and
Charlie Paterson present.
NEW BUSINESS
CASE #86-7 / BRUNRAN, WHITING
The applicant for this case was not present when the meeting was
called to order.
Motion
Erickson moved to table Case #86-7 to the end of this meeting;
Paterson seconded. All in favor; motion carried.
CASE #86-9 / TIPPLE INN CONDOMINIUM, CRAWFORD
Lavagnino read the variance request:
"Property is located in the L-2 zoning category, Section
24-3 .4 area and bulk requirements. Side yard set back is 5
feet; 25% open space required, and FAR is 1: 1. Structure is
non-conforming. Applicant appears to be requesting to #1
increase FAR by 580 sq.ft. , #2 reduce open space further by
290 sq.ft. , #3 encroach in to the 5 foot side yard set back
with a solar structure. Section 24-3.3 , No non-conforming
structure may be enlarged or altered in a way which increases
its non-conformity. "
Jack Crawford, applicant, submitted the affidavit of sign posting
to the Board. Mr. Crawford played a sound recording of noise
heard from their ground floor unit at the Tipple Inn between
10: 30 P.M. and 2: 30 A.M. . Paterson asked where the recording was
recorded from. Mr . Crawford replied immediately outside their
unit. Erickson asked if the noise was coming from inside the
Tippler . Mr . Crawford replied no, the noise comes from the
people as they are leaving the establishment.
Don Crawford, applicant, said this noise had been a problem for
over 2 years. The hardship was created when the Tippler Bar moved
their front door to right in front of their units. Previously
it had been on the ski slope side of the building. Mr. Crawford
said if this request was granted it would dramatically help the
noise problem, as well as creating a great energy savings.
1
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
REGULAR NEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 10. 1986
Ron Krajian , applicant , said he had double pane his bedroom
windows and sliding glass door . This has helped the problem
but certainly not solved it. Mr. Krajian also commented that in
addition to the noise problem there was also considerable foul
language . The people have been drinking and partying when the
Tippler closes so they come out to the parking lot and stay for
10 to 15 minutes before leaving. Additionally, bottles, cans,
and trash are thrown out in the parking lot . Jack Crawford ,
applicant, also commented that often people are found urinating
on the walls of the condominium units. Lavagnino commented that
a greenhouse would not stop these kind of problems.
Erickson asked how many years the Crawford ' s had owned their
units. Mr. Crawford replied since 1971.
Austin asked what the applicants planned to have in the greenhouses,
and if they would be opening up the existing walls of their units
to the greenhouse. Mr . Crawford replied no and reviewed the
proposed plans for the greenhouse.
Lavagnino asked if the trees were going to be taken out for the
greenhouse. Mr. Crawford said they would like to relocate the
trees to the west and north side of the building, which would
also enhance the appearance of the building. Paterson said there
would be a lot more exposure to the views and the sun without the
trees, also allowing less privacy. Paterson questioned if that
would be a problem for the applicant. Mr. Crawford said they would
still have curtains inside their units for privacy. Mr. Crawford
added that there were shades available for the greenhouse also if
they became necessary.
Austin asked if any parking spaces would be lost to allow space
for the greenhouse. Mr. Crawford said the trees that are there
now overhang several feet in to the parking area. With the
greenhouse it would allow more footage for parking. Mr. Crawford
showed pictures of the parking area to the Board members.
Paterson asked if the applicants intended to open any of the
glass within the greenhouse. Mr . Crawford said they would have
to have a door. The plans were again reviewed.
Mann asked what happened to the snow in the parking lot in the
2
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 10. 1986
winter, where will it be moved to. Mr. Crawford said there was
so much traffic that snow never really accumulates.
Austin asked if the units making this request were only 1 story.
Mr. Crawford replied_ yes. Austin then asked if any of the unit
owners upstairs had expressed any interest in this. Mr. Crawford
said this had all been reviewed and passed by their Condominium
Association , unanimously. Mr. Crawford added that the noise
problem was not as bad on the upper floors. Lavagnino asked what
the exact language of the Condominium Association agreement was.
Mr. Crawford read from their Association agreement:
"to reduce trespassing and noise by late night Tipple
patrons and provide solar heat permission is granted to the
owners of units 1,2 , and 3 to change the character of the
air space and enclose the area adjacent to units 1 ,2, and 3
extending the width of the main Tipple Inn building on the
south side for approximately 10 feet southward from the
building, to a height of the first balcony provided the
same can be done lawfully. All costs including but not
limited to legal , engineering, architectural, governmental
approval, materials, and construction shall be paid solely
by the owners of units 1,2 ,and 3. All liability, insurance,
and upkeep shall be borne by the owners of units 1 ,2, and 3
as part of their units. This area shall be changed from a
common element to be part of the respective or pertinent
units and all owners agree to execute a document to that
effect and to impose the same condition on any subsequent
purchaser of the units as a condition of sale. If all three
owners of units 4,5, and 6 elect to enclose the air space
pertinent to their respective units the area shall extend in
height to the second balcony and all costs shall be paid
porportionately by the owners of units 1 through 6. If all
six owners of units 4 through 9 elect to enclose the air
space pertinent to their respective units the area shall
extend in height to the roof and all costs shall be paid
porportionately by the owners of units 1 through 9."
Lavagnino said that agreement states that owners of the other units
can do this same thing. Mr. Crawford said that was incorrect, a
poll had already been taken and only those units represented
tonight were interested in taking this action. Lavagnino said he
saw no indication that the other unit owners had no intention of
asking for this same type of relief. Mr. Crawford said if this
variance was allowed the owners of the units upstairs would not be
3
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 10. 1986
able to add on to the structure that is being proposed with this
request.
Lavagnino asked if the applicant had discussed their problem with
the Tippler Bar management. Mr. Crawford replied it had been
discussed many times . Lee Miller , Manager of the Tipple Inn
Condominiums, said the noise problem had been discussed with the
Tippler Bar many times, they are sympathetic that there is noise
being generated but not willing to contribute financially to
resolving the problem. Mr. Miller added that they have had
numerous complaints and as many as 3 separate guests checked out
in 1 day as a result of the noise coming from the bar. Mr. Miller
said he thought what the Crawford ' s had come up with would
certainly help the situation.
Lavagnino commented that the Tippler Bar and Copper Kettle
Restaurant had always been in this location and that he thought
people buying units there should be aware of this problem.
Mr. Miller agreed that the bar had always been there, but the main
entrance door was relocated approximately 1 year ago and that is
what has intensified the problem.
Charlie Hopton, manager of North of Nell Condominiums, said they
had been in litigation for several years against the Tippler for
this very problem. Mr. Hopton said the Tippler had historically
been a bar but in the past it was one of the finer places in
Aspen, a very class operation. It has since been turned in to a
teenage disco and subsequently they serve liquor to minors and there
are frequent fights. To say that it has historically been this
kind of establishment is not true. Mr. Hopton said he thought
the City should be abating the problem because the property
owners are entitled to quiet enjoyment of their property and
should not have to build a sound proof box to do so.
Paterson asked Mr. Hopton if he had a greater problem at his
property when the door was in its original location. Mr. Hopton
replied the original Tippler was masonry and stone, thereby
closing the sound within the building. That has now been turned
in to a greenhouse type of area with no insulation. Additionally
a very high powered sound system has been installed. Mr. Hopton
said there was a fire exit door, clearly marked, that was being
used as an exit and entrance and people were being served on the
deck. Through pursuit of this problem the management had agreed
4
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 10. 1986
to maintain that door only as a fire exit. Mr. Hopton said this
was not being done.
Lavagnino asked how much solar gain would be obtained from the
top panels and from the front panels of the proposed greenhouse.
Peter Dobravolny, representing applicant, said that would vary
monthly as the angle of the sun changes. The lower the sun the
more gain will come through the vertical part of the glass.
Lavagnino commented that would mean more gain in the winter
months. Lavagnino asked if the same effect could not be achieved
with a 2 foot wall, questioning why the 10 feet was necessary in
this request. Mr. Dobravolny said he was not responsible for the
design of this proposal . Lavagnino said he was asking
Mr. Dobravolny as an expert in the field. Mr. Dobravolny said
the depth inside was inconsequential in terms of the amount of
gain coming through. He added, from the owners standpoint, they
made a decision to make it deep enough to do a third thing in
providing usable space. Lavagnino said that was what bothered
him, acoustical problems and heat gain were what had been discussed
and now comes the factor of the convenience of using space, which
takes this further than the minimal variance. Lavagnino asked if
solar gain or acoustical value would be lost , and to what extent,
if a 2 foot wall were allowed. Mr. Dobravolny said it should not
make a lot of difference as the same amount of glass would be
used providing the same benefits of solar gain and sound effect.
Mr. Crawford said their overhang was greater than 2 feet and if
that was all that was allowed they would not get any solar
benefit. Lavagnino said he had asked if any gain was being
received from the top of the panels and the reply was no and in
the winter the sun would be more effective from the front panels.
Mr. Crawford responded that if the glass panels were under the
balcony there would be no sun on them.
The plans were again discussed.
Mr . Crawford said there had been a legal precedent set by this
Board. In 1983 the Roaring Fork building and an adjacent alleyway
was allowed to be enclosed. In 1985 Chateau Snow was allowed to
enclose 3 balconies, similar to this request. Mr. Crawford said
in both cases the buildings were over their FAR and had the same
situation as this request. Lavagnino said that this Board does
not set precedents, that each case is heard on an individual basis.
5
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 10, 1986
Paterson said if this request were approved a condition could be
added that the applicant not remove the interior walls. Erickson
asked how that would be policed. Bill Drueding, Building Inspector,
said the applicant would need a building permit to remove those
walls. Mr. Crawford said they would be happy to agree to that
condition.
Austin said she was concerned about the glass overhead becoming
too hot. Mr. Crawford said there would be sections of glass
capable of being opened. Mr. Crawford added that their sound
problem was at night, therefore, it would not be a problem to
open the windows during the day.
Mr. Hopton said a number of owners at his property had called and
ask him to express their concerns. One concern was that this
solution would not solve the problem. The prime concerns that the
owners had was that while this is on the south side of the
building there is nothing to preclude that the greenhouses will not
go further up the building and that owners on the other side of
the building will want to do the same thing. Mr. Hopton said his
owners ask if this variance is granted that it be made absolutely
clear that it does not set a precedent for future similar requests.
Lavagnino replied that anyone with a request for variance can
come before the Board and will be heard based on arguments based
on their own particular situation and problem. Mr. Hopton added
if this request were for the north side of the building they
would be in opposition to the request because it would create
more mass on the building. Mr. Crawford disagreed with Mr. Hopton
in the matter that this request would not solve their problem.
Mr . Crawford said they had an architect do a study which says
this proposal will cut down 50% of the noise and would add 50%
solar gain.
Mr. Hopton said the North of Nell had spent $75,000 in the last
six months installing triple glazed doors to help alleviate this
same sound problem. This was pursued with engineers before the
doors were installed and there is a very definite noise suppression
factor. Single pane glass will not solve the noise problem.
Lavagnino asked what type of glass was used in the units currently,
single or double pane. Mr. Crawford replied the sliding doors
were double pane glass and single pane in the bedroom windows.
Lavagnino asked if the walls were insulated. Mr. Dobravolny
replied that the lower floor of the building was 8 X 8 wood posts
6
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 10. 1986
spaced far enough apart to put brick in between. The upper
floors of the building appear to be framed.
Mann read a letter from John D. LaSalle, representing the Kettle
Corp. , stating no objection to the request so long as the enlarg-
ement of the building did not hinder access currently provided
for service and emergency vehicles . However , the Kettle
Corp. doubts that the noise created by its patrons is as serious
as the applicants contend.
Lavagnino closed the public hearing.
Paterson said he had empathy for this request because the noise
factor was something that is a hardship. The noise is not something
that was caused by the applicant. Paterson said he thought the
location of the door to the Tippler had a lot to do with the
noise generated. He had reservations, however, that this proposal
was the only way to solve the problem, asking for a 10 foot
variance in to the yard. Paterson said he would like to concede
the applicant had a hardship and concede to the fact that there
is another solution which is not as much of an impact on the
building or the neighborhood. Paterson suggested that a straight
glass wall could be placed down from the balcony upstairs.
This would solve the problem and address itself to their main
hardship and it would also enable the trees to remain in place.
Erickson agreed with Paterson. He felt there was a hardship in
terms of the noise. However, he did not like the 10 foot encroa-
chment stating he did not think it would solve the problem but
cause more problems. The design that has been presented is all
glass fronted and someone will run in to it with a car or beer
bottle, etc. Erickson added that he would not be against granting
a limited variance. Erickson commented that FAR was also being
increased by this request.
Mann agreed with Paterson that there is a hardship. This request
for variance is a big one, with reduction of open space as well as
increasing the FAR and encroaching in to the side yard. Mann
said she felt the Board had been put in the position of trying to
remedy something that could possibly have been helped by the
owners of the bar and the process of applying for a liquor license
renewal . Obviously that process has fallen down, creating
this problem that this Board is being asked to solve. Mann said
she did not like solving this kind of problem by adding to the
7
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
REGULAR MEETING - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 10. 1986
bulk of a building that is already non-conforming and reducing
open space in the area. Ms. Mann said she realized, however,
that the owners had a problem and she would be willing to grant
a minimal variance.
Mr. Drueding remarked if only the balcony area was enclosed there
would be no open space requirement because what is underneath
the balcony is not open space. Lavagnino commented that the only
variance now was the FAR, which had been cut in half.
Austin agreed that the noise was a hardship. She also agreed
with the comments made regarding the FAR, feeling too much
variance was being requested. Austin said she felt there was a
compromise which she would be willing to go along with.
Lavagnino said he was originally against the variance but now the
requests have been reduced. He thought the problem was with
enforcement and a situation that existed which has been exacerbated
by the type of establishment that it has now been changed to.
However, all of the elements were there for the owners to foresee
that this situation could happen at any time. Lavagnino said
this minimal variance could be given because he did realize the
problem of noise. Lavagnino said he would be in favor of the
minimal variance if the approval were conditioned that the inner
wall not be removed.
Lavagnino remarked that access and egress for cars had not
been discussed.
Lavagnino reopened the public hearing.
Jack Crawford said they did not feel only going out 5 feet was
worth the expense etc. as there was no solar gain and not enough
footage from people/noise in the parking area. Mr. Crawford
asked the Board to allow them to extend the greenhouse to 8
feet. The bottom of the greenhouse would be built up with wood
or something that could not be broken by a car. That would allow
the greenhouse to be out from under the balcony and they would be
able to achieve their solar gain, additionally giving them 8 feet
from the people/noise. Lavagnino said, based on comments made by
Mr. Dobravolny, 5 feet should be enough space to accomplish both
reasons expressed for this request. Lavagnino reiterated that it
was encumbent on the Board to grant only the minimum variance
required.
8
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 10, 1986
Mr. Miller said by using the 8 foot compromise they would be able
to extend the glass and achieve more solar gain. Additionally,
aesthetically a vertical pane of glass dropping straight down
below the existing balcony would be less pleasing than perhaps a
greenhouse effect with a tapered roof. Lavagnino remarked that
the Board could not consider aesthetics in determining a case.
Erickson added as soon as the 5 foot level was exceeded then the
request becomes for 3 variances again.
Austin asked if the applicant were only granted the minimal 5
foot variance would they be allowed to thin or remove the trees
to allow them some solar gain. Lavagnino said there would not be
a problem with that.
Mr . Krajian said there was a problem in that the balconies
upstairs do not have a solid, sealed flooring. If only enclosure
of our balcony area is allowed it will not be worth the expense
of insulating the area. Paterson said cost should be less than
half of the original request no matter how it was done. Austin
commented that financial matters also could not be considered by
this Board.
Mr. Crawford said they did not feel the 5 foot variance was
practical in solving their problem. Mr. Crawford proposed
putting a fence at the 10 foot line, 8 feet in height allowing
the top portion to be built of glass. Lavagnino asked if that
would not cut in to the solar gain. Mr. Crawford replied it
would not be a building but rather a fence. Nothing would be
enclosed. Lavagnino said the request for a fence could not be
granted at this meeting because that is a different request than
the public was noticed for this meeting. Lavagnino added that
the applicant could reapply for that variance.
Lavagnino closed the public hearing.
Mann said she was confused as to whether even the minimum variance
should be granted if it was not useful to the applicant. She
questioned why the request should not be denied. Lavagnino said
the Board could grant a variance if they feel it is necessary to
alleviate the problem. The applicant does not have to build their
requested addition if they do not want to. Lavagnino said he
thought the Board was considering the applicant's problem and to
9
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 10 -1986
the best of their ability found ways to alleviate that problem,
granting the minimum variance by law.
Motion:
Erickson moved to grant a minimal variance of 290 sq. ft. to
enclose that area that is currently under the second floor
balcony with glass to gain solar and acoustical insulation
reinforcement conditioned that the inside walls not be removed;
Paterson seconded. Lavagnino asked for a roll call vote :
Austin aye
Paterson aye
Mann aye
Erickson aye
Lavagnino aye
All in favor; motion carried.
CASE #86-7 / BRUNKAN. WHITING
The applicant was not present.
Notion:
Erickson moved to table Case #86-7 to April 17 , 1986; Paterson
seconded. All in favor; motion carried.
Motion:
Paterson moved to adjourn the meeting at 5 : 30 P. M. ; Austin
seconded. All in favor; motion carried.
K m Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk
10