Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19920416 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 16, 1992 4:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS NOTE: PLEASE REMEMBER TO MEET AT THE MERRIAM SITE AT 3:30. I. CASE #92-4 James & Gail Merriam and Joan Merriam Crete (Continued from April 9, 1992) II. CASE #92-3 Aspen East Condominium Association (Continued from April 9, 1992) RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 16, 1992 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called meeting to order at 4 : 12pm. Answering roll call were Bill Martin, Ron Erickson, Anne Austin, Rick Head, Josephine Mann, Charlie Paterson and Remo Lavagnino. CASE #92-3 ASPEN EAST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION The applicant was not in attendance. But had called earlier in the week and asked for continuance. Rick: I move to continue this case to date certain of April 23 , 1992 . I would also like direction from the City Attorney as to how many continuances an applicant can be allowed before they must start the process from the beginning. Ron seconded the motion with all in favor. CASE #92-4 JAMES AND GAIL MERRIAM AND JOAN MERRIAM CRETE Members had all met on site prior to meeting. Paul Taddune, Attorney for applicant: I just want to say for the record that the Board and myself having met on the site. We discussed what is being proposed by the Merriams which is an additional 1-bedroom and a 2-stall garage. The house is a very old house which was built in about 1948. The solution in expanding the house that the Merriams have chosen is one that they feel is the most simple, most reasonable and most sensitive to the environment and the whole area. This is a unique case in my estimation because we have clients who are trying to do everything within their power to come up with a solution that is very sensitive to the people around them, to the City, to the zoning and the Hallam Lake sensitive area. Tom Cardomone said this would not be much impact. When you look at the house you can see that every effort has been made to preserve trees. There are trees growing through the trellises so the Merriams are very concerned that they maintain the understated nature of the house. And they consider the fact that because the house was built in 1948 prior to the West Aspen Addition to the City that they did not have zoning and no setbacks. The house was built in the lower corner of the lot. We feel that this creates a practical difficulty. And that there are special circumstances in this particular case because of those very large BAM4 . 16. 92 Spruce trees in the front. They feel this is the most minimal solution for everyone considered. This house is adjacent to the Hallam Lake area so it has special restrictions on it. It is not the kind of house that is typical of the area. The other houses are very built out. The Merriams have come here with a very humble kind of modest request saying "Let us do something that is consistent to the development and very sensitive to the surroundings. And the options available to them in light of what they are proposing are unreasonable and not as sensitive. Remo: It still doesn't preclude the fact that they can't go up with a second story anytime they want to their full FAR. The argument sounds wonderful right now but who knows what would happen in the future? We have to look at it as a piece of property too. Not only the owners who have been good stewards of the land but what the future of that property is. What is going to happen. Somebody can bulldoze it down and build much bigger. Taddune: The house has been there since 1948. Of all the houses I have seen this is the most understated. Remo: If you go to the second story, the trees wouldn't be harmed at all. They would stay exactly as they are with the same root system. The second thing is that it would also increase your viewplain by putting a second story on. So everything leads to putting a second story on to that second bedroom rather than leaving it on the first floor. Taddune: At the last meeting there was some concern that the trees would be damaged. But if you look at it the way that the house is configured and the way they treated the existing vegetation you will see they have been very concerned and gone overboard to preserve the trees. That is the reason I mentioned the trees. And the fact that they are environmentally sensitive. At the last meeting there was some discussion that the trees could die. Remo: Because the house was built around those trees at the time it was built. Nothing has ever been--except for the addition but that is behind--in back of the trees. Taddune: I don't know that--you didn't see--I point out to some of the Board members but those trees that have been added are not as big as the ones in front. There was some concern about the trees and the fact that these large Spruce trees are there. Remo: If you put a second story on, you wouldn't have that problem. Those trees would remain. I don't understand--a second 2 BAM4 . 16. 92 story is not going to have that much impact. First of all the trees are large enough to hide it from the street. The only advantage would be their own in getting a view of the mountain. It is an unobstructed view. Taddune: I think you have to agree that their proposal is very, very understated and that the house is located in a very unique position and the Paepcke lot to the left of the house looking at the front may be impacted. The house across the street may or may not be impacted. This house was built a very long time ago before this area was even part of the City, before there was any zoning. _ You have _ people that have a record since 1948 of maintaining an understated residence. They are proposing to do it again. It might not be what everybody in Aspen is doing. I think it is unique in the sense that here I am representing somebody who is trying to do something that is a little less obtrusive than what everybody in the whole neighborhood and the City has been doing. Remo: I would like to hear arguments for or against my proposition that we put a deed restriction if we grant this variance that no further extensions on the house--I don't know if we can do that. Many people talking at the same time. Ron: Unless they take this 2-car garage out of the setback. Remo: I don't want to take their rights away. Drueding: In the variance--say an 8ft variance within the setback, they cannot come back later and build over the top of the garage? Remo: No. I mean any addition. Charlie: It becomes a non-conforming building as a result of that addition. They would have to come before us anyway. It becomes non-conforming if we grant this garage in the setback. Remo: That's right. -Josephine: I can't recall that- we have ever come into a variance that we would allow this only as long as the present size and configuration of the property-- Remo: We have. Ron: Charla Brown's property. We put a deed restriction in there that they haven't added--because that was a small house--in the setbacks and they wanted to fix the second floor--that if they ever 3 BAM4 . 16.92 did anything more they would have to remove the non-conforming. Remo: We have had some even before that. Anyway it wouldn't be a precedent. Ron: But then we have to start playing cops. I would like to have the issue settled once and for all and not have to go back and worry about it. The way the City government works is in order for Bill to enforce any code violation you have to get a complaint. -He doesn't go cruising around. Remo: They have to get a building permit in order to build onto that house. Ron: But, Remo, if they are not building over the setback-- Remo: No, no. I am talking about within the framework of the setback. If they build within the framework of the setback-- Ron: Without a building permit. Remo: If they max out on their FAR then they have-- Ron: So you are saying at that point, fine, the Building Dept will pick up the fact that they have a non-conforming-- Remo: (To Bill) Is it on the computer that it sends out a red light or something? Drueding: No. Remo: Is this a difficult thing for enforcement? We give them a variance. Their argument is this is low impact. They are not going to do anything and it is going to stay that way. And I am saying to them, they can build--once you give them the variance they can build out 2 stories to the maximum FAR. Drueding: Not in the setback. Remo: Not in the setback. Then they come before us? Drueding: If they are going to build out to maximum FAR they would be caught. Ron: A 1,500sgft addition to the back side completely within the setback, they pull a building permit. People talking at the same time. 4 BAM4 . 16.92 Remo: Well, if we put a deed restriction that they can't unless they take down-- Drueding: A deed restriction only shows up in a title search. People talking at the same time. Taddune: I don't know whether the Merriams are even willing to do that. But if you grant the variance conditioned upon that and they go ahead a do it then the variance would be--you can grant a variance subject to conditions. So anybody who would do that would be taking a big chance that they would have to tear it down because they would not longer have right to the variance. Remo: Only if it were picked up. Taddune: No. It would be self executed. Remo: Let me give you a scenario and then let me know how it would happen. If we give you a variance. You build a 2-car garage and next year they sell the property. Two years down the line and they ask for a building permit to put a second story on that. What happens? What triggers the fact that they have to remove that garage? Taddune: What would happen is if they went ahead and put the second story then they lose their right to the garage. Remo: I understand that. Rick: What mechanism would set that off? Who would know unless they did a title search. Most often the people who are building it they don't do a title search. Drueding: When a building permit comes in, I survey things-- Taddune: You check a prior file. Drueding: No, I don't. That is not available. You look for current survey to show you any easements, setbacks, current FAR. That's what I do. I don't check for prior deed restrictions unless something triggers it. Bill: Don't you show the lot lines? Drueding: They will be there. They will be normal. Bill: They won't be normal. The garage will be encroaching. People talking. 5 BAM4 . 16.92 Remo: The variance will be granted. But it won't show the conditions on which-- Drueding: The survey will show an existing encroachment. But I won't bother to find out how it got there. Remo: Which is what we would have to add. Drueding: There is no mechanism for me to do that. Anne: I see another alternative here which no one has really discussed. It is where the existing 1-car garage is. The adjacent room is very dark--that could be another garage and you could add another whole new wing with bedrooms out there where it doesn't need a variance. They can come clear out here into the yard area. They have other options that I don't see why we have to give them a variance for a garage--for a 2-car garage. Taddune: You might think that is a possibility. But that might be loss of trees and so forth. Remo: Well, you have to show us that. People talking at same time. Remo: If there are other options it is one of the reasons why we wouldn't grant you a variance. Because you have other relief in another architectural design. I have found 2 other alternatives I thought were at least worthy of exploration. Rick: The whole purpose of us postponing this meeting till today was for you to come back with some new thought, new ideas. Taddune: I thought is was to go to the site. Ron: Quite frankly I looked at those 2 bedrooms and those 2 bedrooms are real dark. And really the part where I would feel uncomfortable losing would be the dining room and the living room which are full glass windows which might give some views. Now the views out of the bedrooms are nice but-- Charlie: You could very easily make those windows twice the size. Josephine: In the driveway, it is necessary, I believe, for a car to be parked in the driveway. Is that right? Ron: The code has 1 parking space for every bedroom. They have 3 bedrooms. 6 BAM4 . 16. 92 Anne: No. They have 4. Josephine: So you need space in that driveway to park 1 car. Ron: 2 cars. Josephine: I was looking at it this morning. I just couldn't see how that would be practical. I figured that there would be--even 1 car parked in that driveway it would make those 2 garages inaccessible. Remo: The proposed 2 new garages? Charlie: The point is they have to show that there is room for parking. It doesn't have to show it to be practical. Remo: That's right. It bothers me a little bit that they are taking a garage out of existence that is there now. And making it into a bedroom. Bill: I think I am probably the only one who is the advocate of approving this. The reason that I am led that way is because the Merriam family has lived here since 1946 and I knew them. The children were born and raised here. They have divided the lot and sold one lot. So the thought of their selling the property next month or a year from now to me is difficult for me to realize. It could happen. It seems to me that the solution of providing the variance and providing the garage is the most workable from their standpoint. I don't know how wealthy they are. I don't know how much money they want to spend or whether they want to go a 2-story or not. Remo: But everybody wants something like that, Bill. Bill: But if it had not been for the FAR changes over the period of time, they could have done this. So aren't we in a position of trying to maintain the laws but also help the customer? Remo: Under what guidelines would you grant the variance? Is it a hardship? Is it a practical difficulty? This is the basis of our granting or denying variances. We are not some legislative body. We have specific guidelines on which we base our decisions. Bill: Can't it be on the best solution? Remo: No. The other thing--I have been here for 36 years. If I had to build a house on my property, I have to build it on stilts 18 inches off the ground right now because I am in a flood plain. I think it is an ordinance that came into effect a couple of years ago. And that is very detrimental. Everyone else who built before 7 BAM4 . 16. 92 and took advantage of it and displaced water, I am paying for now because if I put it on the ground my house will then displace more water in a floodplain. So I have to put it on stilts only because I was a good steward of the land and didn't build on it until too late. Ordinances changed. It is too bad because it effects all of us down there, not just me. Anne: Also when they do the zoning law, the zoning law comes into effect to prevent some of these things from happening. Ron: It is going into effect because people have abused what has been going on. Taddune: The code says that in determining practical difficulty- one of the criteria is there are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or other structure which are not applicable to other parcels in the same zone district and which do not result from actions of the applicant. Everybody who is coming here is coming for some kind of relief. And in this particular situation we have one of the oldest houses in that neighborhood. It was built in 1948 even before it was part of the City. And it is a single story structure and it is built in the northwest corner of the lot prior to zoning and prior to annexation. It was built in a certain configuration and that is what is presenting the practical difficulty for the Merriams. Rick: What is creating the problem for them? They are enjoying it right now. Taddune: For example, the Sturgis' s when they came in for a variance right down the street. That is a gigantic house. They didn't have to come. They could have left the house the way it is. They have all kinds of buildout. When Thomas and Harriet Larkin came in--the same. Almost everybody that comes in to you could not do anything. What we are asking for is a little bit of relief because of where the house was built before zoning. And there are some other considerations. One is if you look at that where it is located, it is almost like a cul-de-sac. It is not in a very active area. It is almost at the end of the road. Anne: On so many of those situations where we have given variances it has been a small lot. There is nowhere else on the lot to go. This is not a small lot. There is a lot of room to go. You can go right out from those 2 bedrooms next to the garage and add all you want and you are not going to impact the view from the living room, from the dining room or anything. I can see on a very small lot where there was no alternative that that would be a hardship. 8 BAM4 . 16. 92 Remo: We take each case individually as it comes to us. And whatever mitigating circumstances the property owner can tell us that are unique to that property is a basis for consideration for granting a variance. I don't know if it has been expressed in this particular case but there are other options available to them. Taddune: I have somebody who is very unique. They don't want to build big. They want to build little in an understated way. And they want some relief because of the way the house is configured on the lot. It is a very unique situation here. They are very unique people here. They want to do something very unique which is little. Another thing that is unique about the lot is those large Spruce trees. Those are very large Spruce trees. Remo: They also act as a barrier and protective thing from other people viewing a second story. The arguments can go both ways, Paul. I would be for it if we could do deed restriction and it were easier to pick up on that piece of property. And it doesn't sound like it is. I would really be in favor of that because then we do keep it in it's mold that you are suggesting. And it gives the City the benefit of keeping bulk out of the picture. Taddune: I could talk to them and maybe come up with something. Remo: It sounds like the Board isn't in favor of it. I am the only one that sounds like I would go for it. It sounds like the difficulty of a deed restriction that picking it up in the years from now are remote. If it would set off a red light somewhere- Taddune: I think there is a way to do that. But I don't know whether the Merriams would be in favor of doing that. Anne: If you look back on the record, Shane McClain was one person who came to us. She had lived here all her life, raised her kids here. She had a small garage. She wants to build a garage and we didn't give her a variance. She just wanted a 1-car. And she is on a street with a lot more traffic and a lot more parking problems. Ron: She was on a subdivision where all the lots are really strange shapes. Anne: They are strange shapes and there is definitely a parking problem there and we did not grant her variance. This one doesn't even come close to hers. I would give her one ten times over before I would give this one. Taddune: I thought this was not too dissimilar. There are always cases that take precedent. You know that and I know that. I am not arguing precedent. In the case of Ronnie Marshall, Josephine 9 BAM4 . 16. 92 in the minutes said "If they had only come to us before hand we could have worked something out" . So if you take a 1-story garage that is consistent with the nature of the house-- Anne: That wasn't a garage? Taddune: No. That wasn't a garage. That was a deck of all things. And down the road the Sturgis house which is a gigantic house-they were granted a variance to build in the setback. They had some of the same circumstances as you have now. Rick: They couldn't live with a 1-car garage? Or an oversize garage? You still have 13 feet from the edge of the house to the setback. That would make a nice oversize 1-car garage. Anne: Why can't they take the adjacent bedroom and add another one on here? There is plenty of room there and have windows all along the front here. Rick: I don't want to get into designing this. Remo: Let me read to you for a minute from past City Attorney who gave us some guidelines. Sandy Stuller. What is applicable to you what was just said was that no hardship was established where the evidence proves only that the variance will be harmless. And that is what you are telling us. Taddune: No. No, I am not. What I am saying is that the practical difficulty is that the zoning was imposed on this house which is a unique house in terms of architecture and where it is sited. And they want to do something that is consistent with that. That is what we feel is the practical difficulty. Rick: That is not a hardship. Taddune: It is not always a hardship. It is a hardship or a practical difficulty. So we are arguing practical difficulty here. Now we will go one step further and try to argue that it could be a hardship to the people around it--to the people in the neighborhood to Mr. Johnston who is here. And when I look at some other cases that there are instances where you have taken into account everything that the Merriams are trying to accomplish but haven't been ostentatious about it. In the Sturgis case I think we all have to agree that is ostentatious. In the Ronnie Marshall--I think you need a garage before you need a deck. And you have got somebody here who has been here since 1948 who is coming to you and saying "Let us do something that is in keeping with the history of the neighborhood, the house and everybody around us. The have got all the 44 years of history of 10 BAM4 . 16.92 being good neighbors, good citizens. They went out of their way with ACES and worked with ACES. I think based on practical difficulty you do have the ability to grant relief here. Remo: Well, only if the premise is that they keep the house the way it is. And I would even offer a motion to that effect that we put a deed restriction that anything that is added to that house in FAR within the setbacks that the variance granted here would have to revert back to setback. Taddune: You do have the authority to grant conditional variances. You sit here and say you don't have confidence in the system. Remo: We had an applicant that came to us and told us this big hardship about his Mother-In-Law and who was infirm and they wanted to put some kind of whirlpool bath and they said "We were here. We have position in this town. We will keep this house forever. " We denied them the variance. This house was sold within 6 months. So there is no guarantee that what you are telling me. They have been good stewards of the land and now maybe it is their turn. I don't know. Taddune: The point that I was making is that you do have the ability to grant a conditional variance. Remo: I would be in favor of that. Taddune: I think that there is a way that if you do that you could be protected. I was one of the longest City staff so I heard this all the time. They are not exactly sleeping at the wheel. I don't think that is fair for people who are asking for a variance. Remo: That is true. Taddune: I think you have to presume that people are going to abide by the law and your staff is going to pick it up if they don't. Rick: My presumption is that they usually go against the law and it has been our experience time and time again that that seems to be the case. The other argument I have against your proposition is that damage to those trees will already have occurred. You will have to trim those back. There may be root damage when they put foundations down. So damage will already have been done to those trees and that is a concern. Taddune: Then I say to you on that is that you give the benefit of the doubt. I mean, look at the house. Rick: The 3rd situation is that we have no way of policing this. 11 BAM4 . 16. 92 Taddune: I don't remember the specifics but I think when you had your child you came in front of this Board and asked for a variance. Rick: And I was denied. Taddune: Oh, you were. Rick: Wrong argument! I was denied. I never got a variance. That is why the stairway is on the front of my house. But that' s not germane to this anyway. I was denied--twice. Remo then asked for comments from the public. Johnston: I am a neighbor of the Merriams. Mine is the new lot- -Lot #2 of the Merriam subdivision. In the first meeting I expressed support of this as I do now in this meeting. I was concerned that trees would be removed. I wasn't really in favor of going two stories because it impacts the northeast side of my residence. It has limited window access. It does have substantial access in the fact that every morning I would walk out my extra bedroom and look through a window right at the second story. And that would have been a problem for me. That is just a personal thing. So that's one of the reasons I was in favor of staying with the 8ft encroachment. Ron: How big is your house going to be? Johnston: 4,500 feet. It is the maximum of what we can build. It will be 2 stories. Remo: Did you know that even with this variance that they eventually could go 2 stories anyway? Johnston: Absolutely. If you were to condition I would be your best policeman because I wouldn't want to look into a 2 story home over there. Because I will see it every morning when I walk out my bedroom. There were no other comments from the public. Remo: Can we deny a property owner the right to build modifying our variance? Drueding: This is Section 10-106--The Planning agency staff may recommend, and the Board of Adjustment may impose, such conditions on variances as are necessary to accomplish the goals, objectives and policies of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and the terms of 12 BAM4 . 16. 92 this chapter. Remo: Would we have to get the Planning Office's recommendation? Taddune: No. It says the Board may impose. So it seems to me the condition is viable because it is granted conditionally. Remo: That is what I want to do. Drueding: ? - - - - - - - - - - - - Remo: That's right. Before they get a permit to build something- Drueding: ? Remo: Because it is a condition and they agreed to it. There being no further public comment Remo closed the public portion of the meeting. Charlie: I am an advocate of this variance for the very simple reason that I do see a practical difficulty. My main concern is that there isn't a second story put on this building. I am afraid that if we don't grant the variance then these people who have been good stewards of this property all these years that they don't have any other alternative but to put a second story on. I would not like to see that on the property and obviously they would not like to see that on the property. And so therefore I am in favor of granting the variance. I take the same position that Bill has taken. But I do see a practical difficulty in this case. Remo: Would you condition it? Charlie: I would ,like to condition it if possible. I am not in favor or deed restricting. Conditioning. Just like what Bill just read to us. I am in favor of that. I would like to see this low profile property preserved in it's entirety and I would hate for the Board to take the position which forces the property owner to do something that goes against the grain of what the intention has been all along which is to keep a low profile, simple straight- forward, one story building. I would like to see an oversize one-car garage rather than to jam in a 2-car garage. And perhaps we can make the variance smaller in that case. Remo: They can do an oversize garage within the setbacks. There was discussion regarding all residences in this neighborhood 13 BAM4 . 16. 92 being maximum FAR. Anne: They don't need a variance at all for that. I don't see that not having a garage is a hardship. You can take this parcel of land that is plenty adequate in size to provide other options. We have no future control over the use of this land. I wouldn't be in favor of your idea of putting restriction of condition on it because we can't control it. Remo: Because you think the enforcement officer- wouldn't be -able to pick it up with the Planning Office? Anne: In part because we can't control it and for that. I wouldn't be in favor of granting the variance anyway. Bill: I would like to say that I think the Board should have trust in human nature. I would support very much your proposal to put condition on it. Ron: This is a small variance that the applicant is asking for. They have been good stewards of the land. There are a lot of good reasons why we could do it. So it makes it difficult to say no. The letter of the law does not support a variance. I agree with Anne on her points there. So I would not grant a variance. But it does not make me happy to deny. I would like to see this house stay the way it is for the next 50 or 60 years. I cannot control that. So I would not grant the variance. Also my recollection is that we deed restricted or put some restrictions on variances in the past and have gone through the same argument about whether we can do it, how we were supposed to do it, etc. And it came back to haunt us 2 or 3 years later. So I would not be in favor of doing any type of condition on this. Rick: I, too, have trouble buying this. My position hasn't changed since 2 weeks ago. Josephine: I would not be in favor of granting this variance. Remo: If you couldn't build the second story, if he couldn't go anywhere else then I would consider that a practical. It might be a practical difficulty. So in effect that is what we are doing by restricting what he can do and can't do. We are putting a condition on so that if he does build out to his maximum FAR within the setbacks--I am treating this that he can't do anything else on that property--on that house if granted a variance. Rick: And it is policed. 14 BAM4 . 16. 92 Remo: That is true. But I wouldn't deny the applicant something that is deficient in our own government. I wouldn't deny the applicant the right to have that opportunity just because the structure of the government is such that it doesn't pick those up. Rick: When have we ever granted a variance for a garage? And that is basically what we are talking about here. Remo: We have where we have granted a variance for a garage where we have restricted some things. Rick: Where have we considered it a hardship not having a garage? All talking at the same time. Rick: If the purpose of this applicant is to add another bedroom or 2 bedrooms, don't they have room to do that somewhere on that property? Either a second story or another wing and still have their garage? Remo: That's true. Right. Rick: It's been there for 30 years. Remo: That is absolutely right. And take into account the argument that was presented to us. If the applicant is willing to concede so much--much more than what he can do legitimately--he is giving up that right of building out to his maximum FAR, second story, bulk--all of those things that we are looking to. Rick: If there is a restriction against the deed, it goes right on the deed. It is printed right in there. When the building permit is presented, you don't present your deed. There is no way for them to pick up on this. Remo: If he had the time--if he had the personnel. And they are willing to accept this. Taddune: I don't know. Remo: But if that was the basis of our granting you the variance, you have that option. You don't have to exercise it. But that seems to be the only way you are going to get anything--this Board to--and then it would only require you to get rid of that portion of the garage. Taddune: I would say to you if the rest of the Board came down to your proposal it would be a greater burden for their keeping the simple architectural house that is there. Whereas to deny it it goes in the opposite direction. It may even be pertinent to tear 15 BAM4 . 16.92 the house down and build the biggest house that they are allowed to do. Anne: If they wanted to do that, they could come back to us to put a condition on the property. I am still not going to give a variance for a garage. Remo then reopened the hearing for the public. Taddune: I think the merriams would live with whatever the decision is that you come up with. I would add that at what point do you say in terms of reputation what you have done in the past that that is something that we are going to consider. Ron: They subdivided their land. They took a spare lot--vacant piece of land and sold it to Mr. Johnston. He is going to build a 4,500sgft house on that. Now as stewards of the land I could take the position--What have they done with that extra lot? But I am not going to do that because he is perfectly right to do what he has done. And I live with that every day. Taddune: They did that with a tremendous amount of sensitivity. Ron: What sensitivity? They don't have any prior right to what he builds. Taddune: No. There was an awful lot of discussion. ACES was supportive of it. Merriams were involved with ACES long before. Ron: That brings up another point. You are saying that the Merriams are deeding all this land to ACES so it can't be built on or anything. I seem to recall somewhere that by doing that they are reducing their property taxes, guaranteeing open space in perpetuity. It serves their best interest. They are not being altruistic. Taddune: Let's have a very frank discussion here. Ron: I thought I was being very frank. Taddune: We are being very frank because there is a lot of cynicism. If you look at the members of the Board that are supporting the application, you have most of the people who have been here for awhile and know what the community used to be like. Tremendous cynicism. Government hasn't been enforcing the regulations. These people are going to go ahead and build as big as they can build even though they have a record since 1948 of not doing that. At some point I say to myself--where do you stop and say "These people have been here and they have an established reputation" . You don't give them any credit for that. 16 BAM4 . 16. 92 Ron: I am. I am. And that is the reason it is hard. If it was just them then that would be fine. But Remo is making such a strong point about condition of approval. And you are not going to guarantee me that tomorrow they will not sell the property. You can't foretell the future. Taddune: And then I go to Rick. Rick made some of these other statements. You said "Oh, Remo would roll over in his grave if he knew we were going to do this" . He is very concerned about the authority of the Board of Adjustment. But here he has somebody who is coming up with a proposal that is relatively reasonable. I don't know whether or not the Merriams would accept it but it is this. Based on what you represent we are going to allow you to maintain the integrity of the building. If you don't do what you say you are going to do then we are not going to grant you the variance. Because the impact that they are proposing is the most minimal impact in light of all the circumstances. And they had that house built there long before the City of Aspen came along and told them what to do about it or even before it was in the City of Aspen for that matter. Charlie: I think for that we should give them the benefit of the doubt. Taddune: Ron and I got to going back and forth here. This is healthy. Ron: The thing is I am not trying to be cynical. I am really not. It may appear that way. But history has proven a little cynicism is good. And when you used to sit on the other side of the desk, Paul, you saw it all the time. I mean look at all those houses. When I moved here Roaring Fork Road had nothing but the 2 houses down there and one across the street. Taddune: You know what has happened to this town? This town started to change--I was the inside--and the west end and everybody wanted to impose so many rules and regulations, everybody started grabbing for as much as they possibly could get. And nobody cared about anybody else. Everybody said we are going to go out and build as much as we can because rules and regulations are coming into effect. Ron: There was a reason that was even able to happen. It was because a lot of the people who lived here in the 50s and early 60s saw a type of people they didn't want to associate with so they sold out. They sold their properties and made a big profit, went down valley and then in order to justify the high cost of real estate they built big houses maximizing their economic value of a piece of property. You can't blame the people for doing that. 17 BAM4 . 16. 92 Taddune: What happened was that when the City Council in not doing anything in terms of regulation--it was the City Council that I represented--everybody was afraid that if they didn't build out they were going to lose in terms of value. In this application that I am bringing before you it is just contrary to that. It is so unique. It is a special circumstance. Ron: Unfortunately the criteria for granting a variance is not that the variance is reasonable. Taddune: No. It is practical difficulty. If it wasn't for the fact that this house was built many years before the City of Aspen even had zoning, and built in the location that it was, we wouldn't be here. We might be in the middle of the lot with a 3-car garage and a 2-story house etc. They didn't do that. This is a 1-story house with a certain amount of historic appeal that doesn't have historic significance and people who for almost as many years as I have lived, have shown that they are good neighbors. And to tell you the truth I can't think of anybody that I can say that about. I am sure I can think of some others. Some of the people on this Board, of course. MOTION Remo: I think the practical difficulty of this only applies if the integrity of the house stays the way it is. Therefore I make a motion to grant the variance for a 2-car garage in the setback and that no additional FAR may be added without removing that portion which lies within the setback. Charlie seconded the motion. Drueding: And subject to the approval of the City Attorney. Remo: I amend my motion to include "subject to the approval of the City Attorney" . Charlie: I amend my second to include that amendment. Roll call vote: Anne, no, Rick, yes, Josephine, yes, Charlie, yes Remo, yes. Remo: (To Paul Taddune) You do know that this is conditioned on Jed Caswall approving what we are doing today as being legal . Taddune: Yes. 18 BAM4 . 16. 92 Let me say the one thing I enjoyed about this is other than the fear that the variance wouldn't be granted, the ability -to have dialogue is very open where we can really debate an issue. I have represented you in different capacities but it is a pleasure to sit and be very open. Remo: Haven't we done this in the past with everyone though? Taddune: I know when I talk to you I can be as open and honest as I want to be and have an open dialogue. And I know the way you all feel and I respect all of your opinions. So it is nice and the way the system should work. And we all understand each other's point of view. MINUTES MARCH 26, 1992 Bill made a motion to approve minutes of March 26, 1992 . Charlie seconded the motion with all in favor. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Rick: I nominate Remo Lavagnino as Chairman and Charlie Paterson as Vice Chairman. Anne seconded the motion with all in favor. Rick: I move to adjourn. Bill seconded the motion with all in favor. Time was 5:25pm. Jan'ce M. Carney City Deputy erk 19