HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19930527 CITY OF ASPEN
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MAY 27, 1993
SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM
A G E N D A
I. CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
II. CASE #93-3
CHAIROVSKA/PETERS
III. CASE #93-4
SNOW QUEEN LODGE
IV. CASE #93-5
LESLIE RUDD
V. CASE #93-6
ASPEN EAST CONDO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 27, 1993
Vice Chairman Charlie Paterson called meeting to order at 4 :00 PM.
Answering roll call were Rick Head, Ron Erickson, Bill Martin and
Charlie Paterson. Remo Lavagnino was excused.
CASE #93-6
ASPEN EAST CONDO ASSOCIATION
Rick Neiley, representative for Aspen East asked for continuance
of this case.
Proof of posting was presented. (attached in record)
There was no one from the public to comment on this application.
MOTION
Ron Erickson:
I make a motion to table and continue case #93-6 to date certain
of June 10, 1993 .
Rick seconded the motion with all in favor.
CASE #93-3
CHAIROVSRA/PETERS
Charlie read request for variance. (attached in record)
Bill Poss, Architect for applicant: Using pictures and drawings:
The variance that we are asking for is a site coverage variance of
172 .4 square feet. Basically that is created by overhangs and
historic porches that are on the house.
The 2 elevations that I am showing you of the house--this one is
the front of the house and the historic portion of the house. Then
on the side of the house on 3rd--this is the historic portion of
the house and this is the historic carriage house which was
remodeled once before.
Basically what happens is there are historic porches that have been
there on the 100 year old house with the historic overhangs that
add up to 414 square feet that is already over what the exemption
of overhang that should be allowed. We have been working with the
HPC on this since 1988 and we did the first part of the remodel.
Now Frank and Marta would like to build the second part.
In working out the site coverage of retaining the primary with the
Historical Preservation Committee they wanted the historic house
to be the most prominent. And they wanted us to keep no connection
between the historic carriage house, which was there for over a
hundred years, and this house.
BAM5.27 .93
The practical difficulty comes from taking that 2,700sgft site
coverage which we are allowed and then you deduct what the amount
is for the garage, you are left with so much of a footprint. Then
when you have your allowable square footage more of it gets pushed
up to the second floor because you cannot--and you cannot build on
top of here and on the other side. They asked us not to go 2
stories on the front of the house. You get more overhang and it
is actually where it shows on the plan here this being the historic
part of the house and the historic carriage house, when you can't
build here and can't build here your square footage based on only
being allowed the 2 ,700 square feet pushed the house out the back.
So I have more overhang than the exemption allows because the
historic overhangs already use that up. So I have no overhang
allowed for me. That is the difficulty--the request by the
Historic Committee of not building either between the 2 houses or
any further than what is here. It pushes us out the back. So it
is really an historic overhang. There is no additional bulk that
is added on. It is really the overhangs of the porches which are
historic. So that is our request.
Rick: Did you go through HPC?
Poss: We went through HPC maybe 8 times where I worked this all
out with them. There is a recommendation letter from them in the
packet.
Ron read the letter of support and recommendation for this variance
from Roxanne Eflin, City Historic Preservation Officer. (attached
in record)
Ron: What changes are you going to make to the house?
Poss: There is an existing portion of the house that is added on
now. We are tearing that down and adding on. We are taking the
back portion off. Then using drawings he explained what changes
were going to be made.
We are going to restore the old portion of the house. We are
taking that new portion off, restoring the old historic integrity
of that and just redoing the roof over the existing portion.
Ron: It seems to me that that is an increase in usable square
footage. Am I correct?
Poss: No. It is not. The floor--because the floor is the same.
That is an office now. There is no increase in floor area ratio.
Drueding: HPC--Roxanne's letter--what it says--I am not going to
2
BAM5. 27 .93
contradict that. They are in favor of it and I am not going to say
anything more.
Ron: So what would we be granting?
Rick: 173 square foot site coverage variance.
Poss: It is overhangs.
MOTION
- Rick: - I make a motion that we approve Case #93-3 for 173 square
foot of site coverage variance based on recommendations from
Historic Preservation Committee.
Bill seconded the motion.
Roll call vote: Rick Head, yes, Bill Martin, yes, Ron Erickson,
yes and Charlie paterson, yes.
Motion carried.
CASE #93-4
SNOW QUEEN LODGE
Charlie read the request for variance. (attached in record)
Proof of posting was presented. (attached in record)
Larry Ledingham, applicant: Basically the variance we are looking
for is a 2 part project that we are doing at the Snow Queen Lodge
which is a small victorian on Cooper. They are going to be going
on at the same time. We want to do some improvements to the lodge
itself to a couple of the rooms. And at the same time develop an
employee unit on the back which would be deed restricted.
The Snow Queen was built back in the 1880s so it sits in the 5 foot
setback so we are looking at a 3 . 6 foot variance. What we first
wanted to do as far as imporvements--we have got a room upstairs
in the lodge that has a kitchen in the room. That room and an
adjacent room share a bathroom. And our guests over the last few
years have changed quite a bit. The majority of our calls nowadays
request a private bath. And so we get a lot of times during the
winter when we can't rent those rooms out because they are sharing
a bath. So we decided we could put a private bath into one of
these rooms and essentially make the other bathroom private with
the other room. And the way we figured on doing this there is in
the existing kitchen area where it says "stove" we would remove
that stove and move it to the other side of the kitchen and
3
BAM5. 27.93
therefor we would have a doorway there which would access the
bathroom.
Unless we tore the whole kitchen apart that is pretty much the only
way we can keep our kitchen and add a bathroom on in that area.
And the outer wall there to the left which is on the west side of
the building would encroach upon the setback.
Along with this in back at that bathroom area, we want to put in
an employee unit which would go straight back 2 stories high.
Using elevations he explained plans.
Rick: Does this building have any historic significance?
Ledingham: We are not historically designated. It was built in
the 18801s.
Rick: Would what you are planning to do reduce the historic
significance?
Ledingham: I don't believe so. That whole area is on the back of
the building which is in an alley. So if you are looking at the
lodge from Cooper Avenue you wouldn't even see that at all. And
we are going to keep it along the same lines as the lodge. It has
got wood siding along the side.
Charlie: Please explain your practical difficulty.
Ledingham: Onr of the problems we run into is that bathroom
situation. We get a lot of people requesting a private bath. So
we really want to put a bathroom in. That is the only place for
us that really works doing it which is going to be sitting against
that outside wall which encroaches on the setback.
The second part which would involve the employee unit--for one
thing we would like to build along the edge of the building because
as far as supporting a second floor from what the architect tells
me it would be a lot easier to make that strong enough instead of
having to come - in-=I mean 3. 6 feet which is over a kitchen and
having to shore all of that up to make it strong enough to support
a second floor.
Another problem we would run into is the amount of space that we
have for this employee unit. When you go in 3 . 6 feet and then go
over to the next wall it just doesn't leave a lot of room.
Charlie: How much room do you have now between the west wall and
your proposed new wall?
4
BAM5.27 .93
Ledingham: I believe if we went into 3 . 6 feet-- it is probably
close to 16 feet. From the outer wall to the edge of the other
part of the building inside. So if we come in 3 . 6 feet we would
be left with about 12 feet.
Charlie: So what you are saying is that you need the extra footage
to make this work?
Ledingham: It just doesn't seem very viable to come in 3 . 6 feet
and then go back to fit in an upstairs without a living room and
a kitchen and a little dining room and then there would be a
bedroom downstairs. It just doesn't make a lot of sense.
Charlie: How about your FAR?
Ledingham: Our FAR is fine. The lot is 4 , 500 square feet. And
the lodge itself as it stands is 2 , 500 square feet. And I think
it is a 1 to 1.
Charlie: With the new part how many square feet?
Ledingham: We are looking at around--
Drueding: He would have to go through review process with the
Planning Dept to increase in the LP zone. So the FAR and
everything else would be checked.
Charlie: How much square footage are you adding on?
Ledingham: We would be looking at around 700 square feet.
Ron: Will you be having any additional rentals?
Ledingham: No additional rental units. We don't have it down here
but we also wanted to expand a couple of rooms that are not within
the setback area. We have had complaints from our guests also that
these rooms are too small. So we wouldn't be adding any pillows
but we would make a couple of the rooms a little bigger so that we
could put a queen size bed instead of a double. We only have 5
rooms that we rent out. It is a very, very small place. We just
want to make some improvements so that we can at least can keep our
rooms filled up most of the time in the winter and have our guests
be happy and can keep a small place like this going in town.
Ron: This existing rear wall--is that going to correspond to this
one here?
Ledingham: Right.
Ron: So this section here you are actually adding 2 stories.
5
BAM5.27.93
Ledingham: Right.
Ron: And you are actually making a whole second story over here.
Ledingham: Right.
Ron: So in effect the net additional square feet is this section
in here.
Ledingham: Right.
Roan: And this is where the bathroom is going to go here?
Ledingham: Yes.
Roan: Up on the second floor?
Ledingham: Yes.
Ron: And this back in here is the employee unit?
Ledingham: Right.
Ron: And you will continue the deck that you have in the back on
the existing--you will continue that across--is that going to be
living space?
Ledingham: We are not really--I think what we are going to do is
where that deck goes to now, we would actually come out with the
em- loyee unit right to where that ends. That part back there where
that deck shows, that is where we are hoping to expand those 2
rooms.
Ron: So you are going to bring the existing building back as well?
Ledingham: Just the footprint where the--there is 2 rooms there
that we wanted to expand big enough to put a little larger bed.
It is actually going to have a little jog in it because we are not
going to expand part of those. But basically that is it.
Bill: Your west wall is now 3 . 6 feet from your property line?
Ledingham: Actually it is 1.4 from the property line. We are
asking for 3 . 6 setback.
Charlie: Can you elaborate on what is happening in the winter time
with regard to snow. I have seen what is going on.
Ledingham: As far as snow accumulation--well this winter which was
a really big winter I had to go up twice and shovel that roof area
off. So what I would be looking essentially is probably having to
do the same thing to shovel it back into our parking area and
having it taken away.
Charlie: But this you can handle with a machine. In here you are
6
BAM5. 27.93
inside of a yard and it is difficult to handle it there. , I saw it
last winter and it is rough back there the way it is set up right
now. I consider that a practical difficulty.
Ledingham: We also thought if we are going to redo this we might
be able to put up a better system of heat tapes up there so that
we can run some rain gutters and run some heat cable down there and
melt it off.
Norma Dolle: We have had this lodge for over 22 years and as you
know the victorians are fast disappearing. And we love our place.
Those 2 rooms he is talking about we are hoping to make them a
little larger. People now are saying they won't stay in a room
unless it has got a queen bed.
Charlie: Those rooms are small and you do need some help on that.
Ron: Bill, what does the Planning Office have to say on this one?
D:rueding: Well, we have a Lodge Preservation Zone which we spot
these older smaller lodges that we want to preserve. We don't
envision to vary setbacks. That is why we come to you guys. If
they do get the variance, everything else will be looked at as far
as expansion and the employee thing.
Ron: But Lodge Preservation doesn't look at the historical
significance or in keeping with the historic nature of the
structure do they?
D:rueding: If it is not in the purview of the HPC we don't look at
it.
Rick: I don't think they are disturbing anything that is of a
historical nature.
Ron: But they are adding on. But I think that he is adding on in
the spirit of the building. I want to grant this variance. I
thank that this is a terrific addition. I want to see these old
lodges preserved. I especially like this one. This is probably
the crown jewel in town. I do not want to see an addition added
on that is something out of the 21st century. How do I feel
comfortable about that?
R:ick: I don't think that we are here to make a subjective opinion
as to whether we think it is in keeping. They are asking us for
a simple variance. I agree with you. I think this is more a
convenience to the applicant in many respects. I don't see a
hardship or a practical difficulty. But I am in complete agreement
with you that it is in keeping with the overall Comprehensive Plan
and we want to keep these types of building in tact. I think they
7
BAM5. 27 .93
are a terrific addition to this town.
Ron: I don't want to force you to go through HPC. That is not
what I want you to do.
Drueding: If he is not a landmark and he doesn't do more than 50%
demolition, they don't have any purview.
Ledingham: We have had this place for over 22 years and we don't
want to put something on that doesn't fit in. So we want to just
go along with our basic lines of the lodge and make it look like
it was always a part of the lodge. We have already put one
addition on the other side and I think a lot of people when they
walk by on the street don't even realize that that was built on in
1986. And so I think we did a really good job there with keeping
with the old style. And I certainly don't want to put on anything
that is going to look different. There is just no point.
Charlie: I do consider this as a practical difficulty because if
you don't carry this line from the old building, you have got a
very strange jog here and you make some rooms that don't look very
well on the inside.
MOTION
Rick: I move that we approve Case #93-4 consisting of 3 . 6 foot
side yard variance running 36 feet--the length of the west wall.
Bill seconded the motion.
Ron: Minimum variance. We are required a minimum variance. I
cannot see justification for this section of the building at all
out beyond the existing structure.
If they want to add on to it and they want to jog it back and put
a deck like they have on the other side and enclose it, that would
be legal I think. And it wouldn't come under our scrutiny at all.
But this would reduce the variance to where it would make it a
minimal variance.
Charlie: In other words you are perfectly happy with the roof
going up this far but the actual usable floor area you would like
to bring back.
Ron: Well, they want a variance from here to here. I can
understand this section here. I don't see any justification for
this section at all. That is just additional FAR.
Charlie: I go along with that.
8
BAM5.27 .93
Rick: I amend my motion.
Bill: Let's ask the question if that impacts on the size of the
room that he is--
Ron: I think that what they are doing is blocking this building
out so that measurements are the same on both sides at front and
back. And to make that section identical, they could actually put
a deck out there. I don't know about the roof overhang. I would
carry the roof line straight across then let them put a deck out
there that is a legal deck. That is fine with me. But I would
not approve a variance beyond the existing footprint of the other
side of the building.
I have somewhat of a concern regarding the historical nature of
this building. I think it is a very significant building. My
concern is mitigated by the applicants. And I know they have had
it for a long time and they have done a terrific job. I don't want
them to think I question their integrity at all. I don't. But any
variance we grant is granted in perpetuity.
Ledingham: It is my understanding that the Lodge Preservation Zone
is if we were to sell it and someone came in and bought it
basically that is it. They have to keep it--you couldn't even turn
it into a home again. It has to be a bed and breakfast. That is
the way I have read the Lodge Preservations. So I felt that was
pretty stiff as it is without having to get historically designated
or anything like that.
Ron: I want your assurances that you are going to continue to do
as good a job as you have done in the past.
Ledingham: That is why we are doing this. We wanted to make this
thing so I have got a little bigger place to live in. I am the
manager and I am the one who lives there.
Rick: I would amend my motion to reflect a reduction in the length
of the variance to 33 feet--it is reduced by approximately 3 feet
to coincide with the original building footprint.
Bill: I amend my second.
Roll call vote: Bill Martin, yes, Ron Erickson, yes, Rick Head,
yes, Charlie Paterson, yes.
Variance granted.
Charlie had not seen a letter to the Board from David L. Rasmussen,
M.D. stating his objections to a variance for this applicant. He
then read the entire letter for the record and members of the Board
9
BAM5. 27 .93
and asked if this changed anyone's vote. All stated it did not
change their vote. (letter attached in record)
Variance stands.
CASE #93-5
LESLIE RUDD
Charlie read into record request for variance. (attached in
record)
Leslie Rudd presented proof of posting. (attached in record)
Scott ?, architect: What we are asking for is fairly simple. It
is the original pool that was approved was 8 feet by 16 feet. We
built a 7 foot by 16. The photographs illustrate that from the
street of the neighborhood the visual impact is minimal--it isn't
there at all.
Charlie: I understand the only problem is the depth on that one
end.
Scott: That is correct. We brought the terrace level up 30 inches
so that we could get that depth. So there is only about 2 foot by
the 7 feet that is is non-compliance. And the pool is 7 feet wide
but it is only 6 feet of the width that is non-compliance.
There was a point where the foundation was being worked on that all
the utilities--sewer, septic, electrical, water came out of that
part of the house.
Charlie: What about those lines. Did you re-route them?
Scott: No. They were actually there when we built the pool there.
Rick: Bill, we have a 15 foot rear yard setback. Part of this
pool is encroaching on the rear yard setback with respect to the
fact that it is more than 30 inches below what would be allowed.
What is the rational for that provision in the code?
Drueding: Well we don't want firemen jumping over a fence, falling
down into a 6 foot pool and hurting themselves.
Rick: Would a fireman hurt himself more falling into a 6 foot than
a 3 foot pool?
Bill: It would depend on whether it was filled with water.
Drueding: That is one of the reasons. For instance if you fall
6 feet you climb out. If you fall 3 feet you jump out. There is
10
BAM5.27.93
a difference there. The other thing is the moat effect. Zoning
wise--it was written so you didn't look down and see this.
Rick: In going and looking at the site I had a problem wondering-
-they have a 6 foot high stone wall.
Drueding: Right. And if a fireman jumped over that he would
expect to land on the ground. That is all. This the reason why
it is there and if you don't feel it fits there then that is up to
you guys.
Rick: I feel that if we did not grant this variance that--I don't
feel that we would be justifiable.
Ron: The Building Dept. permit shows a 8 X 16 foot exercise pool.
Was that approved?
Rudd: No.
Ron: Why was it not approved?
Drueding: They had a site plan that said they were building a
pool. There is the red line that said "The pool cannot be granted
30 inches below grade" . We didn't need diagrams of the pool. We
don't care so long as it is not more that 30 inches below grade.
You can put it anywhere you want in that setback. That's what is
required.
Ron: What they have done is they have actually lifted the grade
3 feet.
Drueding: That is not true.
Rick: I saw the grade. The actual grade was about 3 feet lower
than the actual entry to the lot.
Drueding: I don't know that. As long as they don't keep it below
that 30 inches they are OK.
Rick: They took advantage of the 30 inches above grade and the 30
inches below grade and there is about 2 feet--
Ron: I know that last year when we discussed this variance I think
diagram #1 is the pool we looked at.
Rick: They have since moved that. They have moved it to the west.
Ron: I think we left it as they were going to look at relocating
the pool so that it wasn't in the setbacks. And then there
wouldn't be any problem with it. I think what they have done here
11
BAM5.27 .93
on the diagram #2 is they have moved the whole pool west it looks
like about 7 feet. And they reduced it's width by 1 foot thereby
reducing the encroachment into the rear yard setback and
eliminating the side yard setback request.
Charlie then closed the public portion of the hearing.
Ron: While I support the code I think in this situation, the code
would be arbitrary if compliance were required. I think that the
reasons that the code has been set up are meaningful but not in
this case. So therefor by granting this variance we would not be
undermining the code or not keeping to the spirit of the code.
I think that the 2 feet extra depth at one end of the pool is for
therapeutic reasons. I can't see how anyone other than the current
applicant can benefit from it. I can't see it being a change that
would result in the house being worth thousands of dollars more and
for that reason being a very valuable asset to the property. So
I would grant the variance in this case.
Rick: As usual Ron has stolen my thunder. I concur with his
arguments and I am in favor of granting this variance.
Bill: I am too.
Charlie: I see no problems here. Ron said it all.
MOTION
Rick: I make a motion that we approve Case #93-5, Leslie Rudd, as
built.
Ron seconded the motion.
Ron: I am admonishing the applicant that although the variance
will be granted it is granted as built. That is not the way we are
supposed to do things in this town. It is supposed to be approved
before they are built. This is being approved after the fact.
Roll call vote: Bill Martin, yes, Rick Head, yes, Ron Erickson,
yes, Charlie Paterson, yes.
Variance granted.
Rick moved to adjourn.
Ron seconded the motion with all in„ vor.
Time was 4 : 55 P.M. f
Jan' a M. Carney, City De y Clerk
2