HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19861211 CITY OF ASPEN
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
DECEMBER 11, 1986
City Council Chambers
4:00 P.M.
A G E N D A
I . MINUTES
November 20 , 1986
II . NEW BUSINESS
Case #86-24 / Hotel Jerome
Case #86-26 / Nitze
III . ELECTION OF OFFICERS
IV. ADJOURNMENT
r
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 11.1986
Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4: 05 p.m.
with everyone in attendance. Rick Head then left because of
illness. Minutes of the meeting of November 20 , 1986 were
approved with corrections.
CASE #86-24 / HOTEL JEROME
Variance requested: Section 24-3 .7 (c) Fences, hedges or walls
shall be permitted providing they shall not exceed six (6) feet
above grade.
Perry Harvey, representative for the Hotel Jerome , oriented
everyone via the map of the situation of the Hotel Jerome as
concerns this variance.
He said this property has two unique and unusual circumstances
about it. The first being the alley which enters from Monarch
and dead ends into the property. The second is the rise and fall
of the land itself within these property lines. What they are
asking to do is to keep the top of the fence level regardless of
variations in the ground.
There are two difficulties they are trying to avoid by asking for
this variance. He said they could step down this fence every
time the ground dropped and keep it at 6 ' . But in discussing
this with the insurance and with the hotel consultants, the pool
is considered an attractive nuisance and the only spot we have a
security problem for the hotel. And if fencing is provided as
designed and the security at other points as we have done it then
we don't have to do any further fencing around the pool.
Then in terms of hotel guests the fence would screen the trash
area, and cut down on the noise from deliveries to Carl 's. It
would also cut down on trash removal noise as well as unsightly
trash in the alley. They have already talked with Bill Dunaway
who has the building next to where the fence would go and he is
amenable to the fence and understands the reasoning for it.
Remo questioned whether there was a need for a 9 ' fence and why
they feel that 9 ' is needed. No one is going to jump the fence
between the Aspen Times Building and the Jerome property.
Perry said the reason they want to start at the height at the
Aspen Times Building is because it is not a very attractive or
well maintained building.
1
Francis Whitaker said that the desire of the hotel to keep an
optically level fence line does not show a hardship argument. It
is possible to build a fence on a slope--not step it down. It is
possible to run it on a slant, maintain the 6 ' level and do it
that way without the stepping down.
Remo said that the applicant stated he had a security problem and
the visual impact of having an alley confronting him which
ordinarily people wouldn't have. They are abutting an alley in a
configuration that allows him a unique situation.
Francis stated the reason you get to 914" is that you start at an
arbitrary point on Main Street and want to come back and maintain
that level.
Perry reminded the board of the fact that the Aspen Times
Building has built right up to his property line and there is not
the normal 5 ' setback is the reason we feel the need to screen
that building. If we had a 5 ' setback , it could be recessed
enough so that we would not have a problem and we could then
bring that fence down. Also there is such a dramatic slope, it
wouldn 't work just to slope the fence, that it would have to be
stepped. If the property were gradually sloped all the way from
the front we would be in an entirely different situation.
Ron Erickson asked if the trash and delivery was for the hotel.
Perry said "no" .
Ron then asked if there were no exits from the hotel grounds onto
the alley at all.
Perry said there is one gate in this fence which is an emergency
exit and corresponds to the emergency stairway and strictly a
fire exit and will be kept locked from the outside.
Ron then asked if there would be lighting in that area.
Perry said he had not seen the lighting plans because they had
not been finalized. For security reasons a light may be put in
that alley. There will be internal lighting. There is very
little activity which goes on in this portion of the hotel.
After discussion regarding the rise and fall of the property,Jos-
ephine Mann then concluded that the distance from Main street
almost back to the alley the fence as proposed would be under 6 ' .
And then suddenly for that last 25 ' or 30 ' coming down and then
going west the fence would get higher and higher until it reached
9'
Remo said that other than the security why could the fence not be
dropped at that point and then have a fence that does not step
down any more. And then still be at a much lower level than the
2
9.4 feet arrived at .
Francis said the situation as he sees it now the fence from Main
Street back to the edge of the pool area is immaterial because it
is not a security problem at all .
Perry said their concern on the alley comes from the security
concern of the insurance and the hotel consultants because we
have an alley that dead ends in here which provides a dark and
attractive access.
Francis asked if they could talk with the city and get some
adequate lighting there.
Perry said they had just taken the poles down in response to
their PUD agreement to underground. Their concern is for the
security of the property and we have this alley that juts in
there that we are trying to secure the property from.
Francis said they could put lighting right on top of the fence.
From a point of view of mischief or thievery a dead end like that
is most unattractive because they have no way of getting out.
Anne pointed out they could get out at Main Street.
Perry pointed out the reason they were here is based on what they
received from the hotel consultant and the security people from
the insurance company. The project manager said we want to run
this fence at maximum height. So from the front we want to take
it back so that when we get back to where we suffer this change
in topography we can maintain a high security factor.
Annne asked if an 8 ' fence satisfy the need.
Perry said he thought it would. And if he could talk with the
others about doing a notch in the fence before we get to the end
of the Times Building so that it is not accessible, then run an
8 ' maximum height on it, that might work. They asked to run it
clean along the top.
Remo said then start at 2 ' on Main Street and it would be attrac-
tive -and you would stay within code.
Perry agreed but said a 6 ' fence in terms of security in not the
answer.
Remo then pointed out that Perry said 9 ' was excessive so perhaps
an 8 ' would, how about a 7 ' .
Remo then said we have to make a decision based on the
information the applicant is providing.
3
Ron said the applicant was basing his application on a hardship
of security.
Perry said the only thing they could do is to table his
application to the next meeting and give him a chance to talk to
the insurance people and the hotel consultants and see what their
minimum security is.
Francis said if they are talking about security and you are going
to have a fence go from 7 '4" to 914" it seemed to him if you need
the height for security you ought to maintain the same height and
not go from a lower level to a higher level. If 7 ' 4" gives you
security then you don't need 914" .
Anne said their point is that he can't step it down.
Two of the board members said he could.
Perry said he could but the insurance people are against that
because of security reasons.
Remo said if it is an insurance problem that is what we need to
know.
Paul Taddune brought in a report on what HPC had done on this
application to be added to the record and asked the applicant if
he was going to ask for a continuance.
Remo asked if there were any further questions from the board
members. There were none.
Remo then asked if anyone from the audience had any questions or
comments regarding this case. There were none.
Taddune then said the HPC had endorsed this application. He
thought that the board ' s concern over granting the minimum
variance is valid. Perhaps a continuance is in order.
Perry said he would meet with the project manager and go over
this. They_ could _also contact the - insurance people and find out
what they could do.
Remo said he would like to have in writing from the insurance
company if the insurance company has a specific height agreement
as far as insurance goes.
Ron asked if that was legitimate reason to grant the variance.
Remo said we don't know. we can't grant or deny him a variance
right now without giving him a fair opportunity to present his
case to us.
4
Ron commented that the Fir trees on the west side of the property
and how were the affected or impacted by any fencing at all.
Perry said they wouldn 't be. They are next to the Times Building
ad prior to this drop in elevation of the property.
Remo then read into the record a memorandum from Steve Burstein
of the Planning Office as follows : On November 25 , 1986 the
Historic Preservation Committee approved a request to place a
fence along the east end and north side of the alley protruding
into the Hotel Jerome property, the fence was to vary in height
from 6 feet to not more than 10 feet. HPC found that the fence
would have no adverse effect on the historic character of the
Jerome, and would be compatible with the architecture of the
existing hotel and the addition. This memorandum is written at
the request of HPC in support of the -Hotel Jerome- request -for a
variance.
Jim Fields asked if there is a minimum height. He was informed
that 6 ' is the maximum height.
Francis suggested that if there was going to be a continuance
that the applicant come in with what the insurance company
considers the minimum height for security and that they also
consider maintaining that height all along instead of a 2 ' height
increase. If you need 9 ' for security and you have one section
that is 714" then you are defeating your purpose. He would also
suggest that the applicant investigate the possibility of light-
ing.
Remo then asked for comment from the members to give him an idea
of how the board members felt.
Charlie said based on what the applicant had presented, gave him
enough information to make a determination. There is obviously a
problem with the alley. 6 ' can be scaled very easily and that 8
or 9 ' makes a lot of sense. If this was obstructing traffic and
we had a problem with a fence, he would look at this completely
differently but since it is a dead end place and it has
absolutely no public impact from the outside--I am talking about
what the public impact is and that is what we are trying to
supposedly protect by granting or not granting a variance--if
this is a 10 ' fence it doesn't make any difference whether its
10 ' or 7 ' as far as the public is concerned. How often have you
been in that alley since you have lived here for the last 20
years. The only point I want to make is is that this is a unique
area and it is boxed in by garbage cans and everything else.
There is no reason except somebody who wants to gain entrance
into this property to be back here or emptying the garbage .
Therefor I don't have a feeling that we are protecting the public
by saying you can't have a 9 ' fence, it should only be 7 ' .
5
Remo said it could be 12 ' too then. And Charlie agreed. Remo
asked Charlie if he did not think that we have an obligation to
grant a minimal variance to this.
Charlie said not in this case. In this case the applicant has a
very good idea what is necessary. I think they are asking
something minimal for their requirements.
Ron Erickson said he would not be in favor of making a decision
tonight. He would like the applicant to show a clear hardship.
The insurance thing may help because that is something he could
tie it to. For safety purposes he could see granting a variance
if he had some reason for that.
Josephine Mann said the security of the problem is important and
that the height of a 6 ' fence does not suit. She would feel more
comfortable with an 8 ' fence. It ' s not a very long distance back
there. It is back there in the alley. It ' s 50 ' back there going
east and west and I don 't think a 9 ' fence back there would
bother me either. I would like it to be secure and as minimal as
possible, therefore I am glad are going to get more information.
Anne Austin said she felt there was a need for security. She did
not feel that we would be impacting the public by being back in
this alley. She said she would be willing to grant a variance
for 8 ' or whatever is necessary to have it a secure place.
Francis said he felt that if an 8 ' fence is something that is
needed--he would agree that there is grounds for perhaps an
increased height--that it should be maintained at 8 ' all the way
along. If 9 ' 4" is what you need then why place a 7 ' 4" , then you
are not solving the problem.
Remo said he had nothing more to add to what had been said except
that he needed that information before he would make a favorable
determination in granting this variance.
Perry said he was curious with what Ron said that he did not see
a hardship. Your bylaws talk about a practical difficulty or
unnecessary hardship. We have shown a practical difficulty
having this alley intrude into the property where we have this L-
shaped piece of property and also the difficulty of the drop off
in the terrain.
Ron said the practical difficulty has to be something beyond your
control.
Perry said that certainly the topography of the land and the fact
that the alley is there are not within our control.
Remo said that the applicant has a valid and unique situation.
6
Perry said the concern is strictly the security and when you step
• fence it provides an easier way of getting over. Further being
• dead end alley there is a tremendous amount of snow buildup.
It is not plowed out--certainly the Aspen Times does not shovel
it. This could reach an effective height of 3 ' .
Ron said that is a consideration.
Perry requested a continuance to the meeting of January 8, 1987.
Anne Austin made a motion to continue this case 86-24 to the
Meeting of January 8, 1987. This was seconded by Francis with
all in favor.
CASE #86-26 / NITZE
Variance requested : Property is located in the R-6 zoning
category. Sec 24-3 .4 . Height is 25 ft. Rear yard setback is 15
ft. Applicant appears to be requesting a height variance to
increase the rear yard encroachment.
Jim Field, representative for Nitze, showing scale models of the
existing condition as the house is now and a model of the
proposal where the back of the house will be adding a third
floor. He said what they were proposing is less of an impact
than what could happen by following the code.
Remo said then you are actually lowering the height from a
situation that would allow you to go higher if you had a lower
eave.
Field said yes (by following the code) the massing of the house
would be a lot more impacted than what we propose. He said it is
a two story house and they want to add a third floor. They could
add the third floor with approximately the same square footage
and arrive at a higher solution than what we are proposing
but doesn ' t come within the legal height limits with the
splitting the eave at the mid point and reaching the 30 ' height.
The actual square footage is approximately the same either way.
By using this proposal we would be using part of he existing roof
line. We are "popping out the third level bedroom".
Anne asked how the height limit was arrived at.
Ron explained that it has to do with the mid point of the roof
line as compared with the length of the eaves. There is a quirk
in the code by which if you build an A-frame 60 ' wide and it goes
40 ' high, you are not over the code.
Field said there was another portion to this problem which he was
not familiar with and had not been able to contact his client to
7
verify this. There was to have been a trade off of open space in
reference to the lot size they were going to dedicate.
Field said the setback problem in connection of the encroachment
of the garage is going to be taken care of either by a property
exchange and is not to be considered in this application.
Remo asked if this addition on the house does not encroach in
that setback.
Field said no it does not, that the garage right now is not in
the building plan.
Remo said this addition of the top floor does not encroach into
that setback.
Field said no it does not, there is no setback encroachment.
Francis then asked about the roof overhang.
Anne asked if that was in the setback.
Remo asked where was the original encroachment.
Field said there was an encroachment problem with the garage.
But the client is going through a different route by trying to
buy a piece of property from the neighbors or there might be some
kind of emmanent domain or whatever that the fence has been there
for so many years.
Remo asked if this is a new garage they are building.
Field said this would be a new garage.
Francis said he thought consideration should be given the
overhang that it exceeds the amount that is allowed by the code.
Remo said only if the Building Department determined that a
variance is needed for it and we don't have that. We are not
granting him a variance for an overhang.
Ron said the application is for a rear yard setback.
After discussion regarding rear and side yard setback and roof
overhangs Field said they could eliminate the overhang.
Ron said we grant the height variance here and don't grant the
rear yard setback variance.
Remo then opened the public hearing.
8
Harry Uhlfelder, a neighbor, said he felt this is going to impact
us from the viewpoint of the view. In the last ten year the view
problem has been given much less attention than it should have
been. We started out 20 years ago as a rural community. We
treasured the view, we treasured the authenticity, and now
everybody builds to the hilt. I feel that the height limit is
being exceeded I am totally against it. If it impacts our view I
protest it. I don't understand all the technicalities.
Remo said then we should go through it again in more detail so
that they do understand it.
It was explained then that the addition was a half story. It was
then shown to the Uhlfelders on the drawings what the Nitzes were
allowed to build without coming before the board, and they could
build more by staying legal than what they are proposing.
Technically the applicant is asking an excess in the height
limit. But by so doing is adding much less mass than if he were
to legally follow the code.
The Uhlfelders then said they understood what the applicant was
doing and were very happy with it.
Remo asked if the board had any other questions.
Francis asked if the applicant had proof of unnecessary hardship,
practical difficulty and the rest of the criteria.
Remo said we are getting into that same dry area again as to-----
We have to go back to what is the intent of the ordinance. If
getting less of an impact of bulk is the reason for the
historical legislation and if we are minimizing that then I think
we have done our job. It doesn ' t have to go to those four
criteria.
Ron said if the code is forcing us to maximize bulk in a
situation where they don't want bulk then that is an unnecessary
hardship.
Remo said that eventually we have to use reasonable common sense
and come up with whether a person is going to get something more
than he deserves as the code is written. This applicant is
presenting to us a reasonable alternative to some quirk in the
code that does not allow this more minimal solution.
Francis said philosophically he does not favor a person coming in
and saying "I don't want to build this but I can" and use that as
a threat to say give me a variance for less.
Remo and Ron said they did not see this as a threat.
Field said as a matter of fact the Building Department had
pointed this out to them. And that was how they got here in the
9
first place.
Francis said there is a legal alternative.
Remo said the purpose of the ordinance is to minimize bulk. And
if this application is minimizing bulk then why should we be so
rigid and stick to the code and thereby defeat the purpose for
being here.
Charlie made a motion to grant the variance as submitted on page
5 of the elevation plans dated 9/29/86 . This was seconded by
Josephine.
Francis said we normally grant a variance in specific numbers of
square feet and inches.
Remo said the Building Department had not specified this so we do
not have the information to assign this.
Ron said he did not feel it was fair to the applicant to reject
it because of this.
Charlie added to the motion that shows a peak at 3 ' above the 25 '
line.
Remo said we should also put in that we denying any rear yard
setbacks.
Charlie then added to his motion that we are denying rear yard
setback.
Roll call vote was taken with Anne Austin, Josephine Mann,
Charlie Paterson and Remo Lavagnino in favor and Francis Whitaker
against.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Remo informed the board we have to elect a chairman and vice
chairman. And that our bylaws are being looked at by Erin Hazen
to see about updating since they are so antiquated. I am taking
it upon myself to have this election because it was like when our
terms expired nobody said anything and we are in an illegal
situation. So once a year in the first week in December, because
our bylaws don't address it either, we should have an election of
officers.
Ron asked that since he and Anne Austin are alternate members so
they could not run for office , however they can vote for
officers?
Remo then opened for nominations for chairman. Charlie nominated
Remo and Francis seconded this. Ron moved that nominations be
closed with all in favor. All voted in favor of the nomination.
10
Remo thanked all for their vote of confidence.
Ron then nominated Charlie for vice chairman. Remo seconded the
motion. Remo asked if there were any other nominations for vice
chairman. There were none. Francis moved that nominations be
closed. Ron Seconded this. All voted in favor.
Ron said that perhaps in the new bylaws attendance should be
important criteria for membership on the board. And to mention
that Rick Head was here tonight.
There was discussion regarding attendance of meetings on board.
Meeting was then adjourned.
(71 CJ--
Ja e M. Car fey City eputy Clerk
c
11