Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19930715 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 15, 1993 4:00 P.M. SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM CITY HALL 3 A G E N D A I. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL II. CASE #93-7 WAYNE STRYKER III. CASE #93-8 HOWARD BASS AND MICHELE BODNER IV. CASE #93-9 WILLIAM MANCLARR V. CASE #93-6 ASPEN EAST CONDO ASSOCIATION MOTION RECOLLECTION (SEE LETTER) VI. MINUTES DECEMBER 10, 1992 MARCH 18, 1993 VII. ADJOURN �v RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 15, 1993 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called meeting to order at 4 :00 P.M. Answering roll call were Howard DeLuca, Bill Martin, Ron Erickson, Rick Head, Charlie Paterson and Remo Lavagnino. CASE #93-7 WAYNE STRYKER Remo read into record request for variance. (attached in record) Affidavit of posting was presented. (attached in record) Marty Pickett, Attorney and representative for applicant: The existing house is an historical structure. What we are trying to do is make the addition to the house to allow it to be only a 1- story rather than 2-story. We are trying to maintain the historical character of the site and in particular from the hill above the post office. The reason we feel like this is a reasonable request is that this lot is extraordinarily large for the R-6 zone. And, as you know, in the code the larger the size the less site coverage. So we feel this is a small percentage increase. Remo asked for comments from the public. Amy Amidon, City Preservation Officer: I would like to make a clarification for the record. You have a letter in the packet from me (attached in record) stating approval from HPC. You should be aware that at the time of the approval the applicant submitted a statement that the proposed site coverage was 20%. So the HPC was not aware of this variance at the time of their approval. Remo: Did you think it was less or greater? Amy: We just did not realize that they were exceeding their allowable site coverage. Stryker: What Amy said was correct. When this application became discussed with Bill Drueding, Bill asked Amy to write that letter and because when this went to Bill Drueding he realized that we have a problem. And Bill was that supportive of this. Francis Krizmanich, Zoning Dept: I find it somewhat problematic even though it is a small percentage increase. I am not sure that if it was known by HPC, that they couldn't have designed the building with an addition that would meet the site coverage. If the building was perhaps a bit taller and a bit squeezed in that it wouldn't have such difficulty meeting the site coverage. And BAM7 . 15.93 so I have difficulty finding a hardship for this variance. Pickett: The bit taller is the problem. In order to have any significant addition so that it is not all stairway and is useable space it is really important to keep it all on one level rather than tiers. For that reason we need the site coverage rather than going up. Remo: I would probably be more in favor of granting you this variance if you would go along with having a covenant in the deed restriction on never putting on a second story to that structure. The problem lies that if you get this variance and then the property is sold the new owner has a chance to build on the second story if they want to regardless by right to be allowed to put a second story. Therefore you would have a variance along with your second story. So you would be getting a greater benefit than any- one else would by us granting you this variance. So I would only be in favor of it if there is a deed restriction which went along with the sale of the property. Rick: So you want to limit any second story on any other portion of the house not just specifically this portion that they are in violation? Remo: The argument brought to us is that a second story is going to create bulk and some kind of viewplain from the post office. I am saying if that is the case I would restrict that from that ever happening and we grant them this variance on a low key basis. It would go along with the deed as a restriction. There is a computer system that will eventually trigger those deed restrictions. Francis: That then would be a condition of approval? Remo: That is right. Also when they sell the property someone buying it will have bought this in the deed. Rick: It could be in the deed but they could bring in a set of plans with a second story and the deed is never requested. Ron: They can do a title search when they issue a building permit. Remo: It will kick in eventually. Ron: This is the old Glidden house. The current owners are Roberts. Do they own the house? Did they buy it from the Glidden Estate? or has it passed through a couple of hands since that time? Stryker: I have got all of those records. But my memory--the 2 BAM7 . 15.93 Gliddens to the Pagodas. Rick: Right. Stryker: The Pagodas to Linda Pace and Linda Pace is Linda Roberts. Ron: Now--Pagoda. I seem to remember a great deal of press being written about this house in doing a complete remodel/restoration adding that new wing which is on the back side of the lot. I seem to remember the time that although there was an outcry it was silenced by the promises on their Mother's dying grave that nothing would ever happen with this house again. I seem to remember there was a great deal of problem with that house. HPC went through the roof because all they did was leave one wall up. They tore the whole building down. Remo: Yes, they did. Ron: So I think that that is important to our discussion here because basically you are saying "This is the house that has been here for 100 years" . It hasn't been. None of the house is really historical. Pickett: It is designated historical. Ron: I know it is designated. But what I am saying is I would like to see the historical perspective before asking for a variance in this case. You can do what you want under the law. If it means going up, you go up. It has passed 2 or 3 hands now and I think Remo's point is well taken here. Every new owner wants to do something else to it. And it is completely forgotten what went on before. And it is only our memories that can remind us of it. Stryker: That would be--Roxanne's had--she was tending this house pretty well. This is the first time I have heard anybody say that- -in fact she came-- Ron: Was there a variance on this? Remo: Yes. We did. There was also a tennis court that wanted a larger and higher fence. Is there a tennis court there now? The answer was "No" from several people. Remo: I would still go with a deed restriction and hope that it is caught. Only on that basis would I grant this variance. There is no basis in our guidelines of practical difficulty or unnecessary hardships to grant you this variance. As a matter of fact it is difficult for me to grant it on the basis of the 3 BAM7. 15.93 rational that I don't want to see a second story there. And I base it on bulk and maybe viewplain which is a consideration that the City likes to look at. Howard: Wayne, what is the square footage of this house right now? If for some reason they decided they wanted to go with a second floor how much would he allow you to build? You wouldn't be allowed to go all the way across I am sure. Stryker: I think the owners have no desire for future or even for future owners to be able to build a second story. I think these owners would--I don't think mumble that they would have a thought of saying that they will not build a second story. Pickett: How much addition would be allowed? Stryker: Additional FAR? Howard: If somebody does come along and decides they are going to fill in this space here on the second floor, can they do the entire space and how much are they allowed because if it is only a little piece over here then it is a mute point. They couldn't build any more no matter what because it is not allowed. So we would have to know what the FAR is now and what we are looking at as far as the difference. Stryker: I do have that number and ---- (Amy gave him the figures) Stryker: It is at 4,250. Remo: What is allowed? Charlie: Allowed is 4,247. 6 according to this. (Letter in packet) Howard: So that leaves about 20 feet. Remo: They couldn't build a second story if they wanted to then. Stryker: Allowed is 4, 669. Howard: Your letter in the packet is off then. Stryker: Unless Francis finds something different we are not--we are working within the FAR that is permitted for the property. Francis: If they exceed the FAR when we figure it, they will be back here. 4 BAM7 . 15.93 Remo: Howard's point is well taken in that if they have just 50 feet to build a second story then we are not talking about a real covenant at all. Pickett: But I suppose the other point is if the code ever changes and you are talking about many years perhaps then--it would allow perhaps more FAR. Remo: Oh! It hasn't gone that way historically. Bill: Only the other way. Remo: I think we need some figures. Remo then asked for comment from the public. There was none. Applicant was asked for comment regarding difficulty and hardship. Stryker: The practical difficulty is that it is a 2-story building. A 2-story addition or a 1-story addition. And to make it a 1-story addition which is lower bulk lower visual impacts it means a variance for site coverage. Rick: And that is your hardship? Your practical difficulty is that you don't want to go up another story? Stryker: Yes. We prefer not to go up another story. Remo: But our guidelines don't address that. That is a matter of convenience for you. Our guidelines are you have to show us what is the practical difficulty? There is none. You can build a second story without having to come to us. There is no hardship involved because you can still do that by right and not have to come to us. Why should we allow you to build beyond the site coverage allowable on one floor? And you have to address it in terms of our guidelines--not in a matter of aesthetics. Rick: Unless HPC has some remarks that if they went up a second story that it would be completely objectionable to your committee- Amy: I can't say that that is the case. Remo: You would have no objections then going up to a second story? Amy: I am not saying that either. I can't say that HPC would not approve that if they brought that in at a future date and they were still within their FAR. Pickett: I think the only other hardship really is the fact that 5 BAM7. 15.93 it is an historic building in the way that it is laid out. In order to add the square footage it would create such an inefficiency of use that it would be mostly stairwell rather than useable space. Remo: But that is convenience and we can't address that. You could actually add more square footage to this addition on a second floor and take care of your stairwell that you are so concerned about using up space. Is that correct? Pickett: No. Stryker: No. It would be the same square footage. Howard: What is your total square footage now on the house? Francis: I figured out the lot size is 4, 665 square feet. So they are right there. Howard: So you are building out to FAR. That is as far as you can go. Pickett: Right. Howard: So by putting a second floor on or making it into a second floor, you couldn't possibly build anything that would be that size. You would have to make it bigger. You wouldn't have a little kitchen downstairs. You would have to put in so many square feet to stay inside your FAR. You couldn't put on 200 square feet more because of- your stairs. So by doing it on the first floor you get all that useable space. But by going to 2 floors you would squeeze it down into-- Stryker: No. It would be the same-- Howard: It couldn't be the same footprint. You have one FAR. By going 2 floors you have twice as much floor. Pickett: By going 2 floors most of it would be going to stairwell. Howard: If you had to put a stairwell in--yes. Charlie: What he is suggesting is that becomes a hardship for you. Would you say? Pickett: Yes. Rick: What is this area going to be used for? 6 BAM7 . 15.93 Stryker: This is a duplex. Rick: A duplex. So is this going to be like an apartment/caretaker unit? Francis, is there not a provision in the code for additional square footage over and above the allowable for caretaker apartment? Historic--it is another 250 square feet? Amy: As a landmark which this building is it has potential to get FAR bonus. Rick: Does that factor in there with those calculations? Would they be allowed some more FAR? Howard: It isn't a duplex now. It is a single family home now. Francis: I assume he is going to deed restrict this as a caretaker unit. Howard: That would make a big difference. Remo: Have you considered to deed restrict that? Stryker: The owner didn't make a decision one way or the other. Remo: The thing is if he is for it he may get a bonus of some 500 extra square feet. If he is not interested then we have to deal with it as we see it before us and we will have to vote on it on that basis. Rick: We are looking for something to hang our hat on here. If we could say "Hey, it is for an additional dwelling unit for an employee of the City or County, " that might sway us. Remo: I don't know if that is the case. But it would add possible extra square feet. Howard: To give them the extra 500 square feet on top of variance for the lower floor then they are allowed to build another 500 square feet beyond that. Remo: We need that information. Ron: I don't think it is pertinent. The thing is that without a hardship or practical difficulty I don't know if there is going to be a variance granted. Rick: If the second story thing comes into play then-- 7 BAM7 . 15.93 Remo: Yes: It has some bearing on my decision for sure. If at this point there is no FAR left to put a second story I would be against this variance request because we are not gaining anything. There is no tradeoff--although that shouldn't be a consideration. I am looking at it from a bulk standpoint and from a viewplain standpoint which might be considered in some way--stretching it a little bit--practical difficulties or hardship. Pickett: In summary: The application before you is based on the fact that this is a large lot. We are still restricted and that there is a difficulty if the code restricts the site coverage as the lot gets larger. At this point she is not considering the bonus square footage for the deed restricting of a caretaker unit. So we would be asking for the variance in order to allow us to be a 1-story only and we will commit on her behalf to deed restrict the property against any addition in the future even by another owner to run with the land not to have a second story. So then if some other owner decides later that they would do a caretaker unit which would allow the bonus square footage allowing a second story that that would not be allowed by the deed restriction. Remo: I still don't understand what your hardship is or your practical difficulty because what you are saying is the code is restrictive. But that is the code. And we have to deal with unique situations that take you out of the code that makes your situation unique. Pickett: And our situation is unique because of the fact that in order to make any addition to this historic structure whatsoever- -in order to make it any efficient use we would have to go 2-story on the site coverage. Remo: Efficient use sounds like convenience and we can't act on that. Stryker: Any way the owner can reach her goals would be 2 stories. Remo: But it is his goal. We are not denying him the right to do whatever he is allowed to do within the framework of his FAR and the site coverage. So you are telling us that he wants to do more than that but you are not showing us why we should grant that variance on the basis of a hardship or practical difficulty that is unique to your situation that doesn't apply to other areas in the same zone or vicinity that you are in. Pickett: I think it does because it is an historic landmark. It is more difficult to add to that to keep it a preservation of the character. And in this case the small amount that we are adding- -if we had to go 2-story it just would not be practical or 8 BAM7. 15.93 efficient. You can term that convenience if you wish but I really do think it is more of a hardship on the owners. Howard: If you were going to go to 2 stories let's say were compelled to go with 2 stories because we were not going to give you the variance, would you try to increase the size by increasing your FAR and going for the 500 square foot historical bonus? Would you do that and make the building bigger? Pickett: It is probably the only way it would make any sense. Howard: Would you have to do that? Would you get to a point where it is like you either build it this way or we can't build unless we go another 500 square feet. Then it becomes very unsightly. Remo: It also becomes deed restricted. There being no further comments Remo closed the public portion of the meeting. Rick: To be honest with you I am not so concerned with the second story on this particular property in that it is on the edge of the slope going down toward Clark's and I don't really think it impacts any neighbor. I have not heard anything that would sway me to grant this variance by way of a practical difficulty or hardship other than a convenience to the applicant. I was hoping that perhaps the HPC might say "Hey we just wouldn't give them that if that is their proposal" . But I didn't hear that either. So at this point I am not I favor of granting the variance. Bill: I don't see any hardship. But it seems to me that from a community standpoint I would rather see it at a lower structure than a 2-story structure. Remo: How can we justify granting them a variance when they have gone over their allowable site coverage? That is, I think, the question being asked when you say that. Bill: But they can still build the second story. I think by denying them to go to the lower structure they will go to the second story and I think that is objectionable to the community from a site viewpoint. Ron: I would agree with Rick. I haven't seen the applicant show a clear practical difficulty or hardship in this case. I wouldn't grant the variance. I point out to Bill that we are dealing with a 2-story structure right now. The main house is 2 stories. 9 BAM7. 15.93 Bill: That is the historical portion of it. Charlie: I feel -there is a practical difficulty because if they have to build the second story and put in the stairway they would be forced to build a larger building. Then I don't think the City is well served. The community is not well served by us forcing them to put a higher building there which I agree with Bill is objectionable. This would fit better with the landscape and we are serving our constituents better by allowing a variance of this sort. The other thing is I think there is some hardship because the site coverage on a larger lot is less than on a smaller lot. And so some of their rights are taken away by not granting them a chance to build out on that larger lot. Remo: We give relief to applicants when they have a hardship or practical difficulty from the strict adherence to the code. And so far in this particular case I haven't been shown that. Howard: I really feel sorry for them for not being able to do it. But I don't think I could grant a variance. They haven't shown any hardship that I can see. They are talking about visual impact. And there is nobody in there and there are no letters that state that a neighbor or a bunch of neighbors are going to be affected by a second story structure that they would have to build. That would have probably helped quite a bit in your case. Pickett: That is why they are not here. Howard: You are proposing that a second story is why you should get a variance because you don't want to do a second story. But there is nobody at the post office saying if you put a second story up there what would happen. I have looked at the building and from the front you can't even see that section of the building. You will probably not see anything but the top of the second floor. So the only people that are going to see are down around the corner or down at the post office. So I really don't see a hardship. There are ways for you to get the square footage that you want. You have to go back and re-design etc.--maybe sink it into the ground a little bit if you don't like the second story. But I have to say I couldn't give a variance from what I see here. Remo: According to that I don't feel that necessarily that people would have objected to it unless they had a basis that was pertinent to all decision making would have made a difference. Just the fact that somebody didn't like it gets us back to an aesthetic point of view unless they presented some case as far as 10 BAM7. 15.93 bulk or something we couldn't even think of right here. I would have liked the tradeoff of not putting a second story on. But since that is a mute question now since they don't have enough FAR to put that I am against this variance. Francis: I notice you have a 28 foot height limit. I assume that is a flat roof? In the City it is 25 feet. So that is a little bit high. So it slightly overstates the visual impact. Pickett: I guess the only impact on the neighbors--I think the only reason there aren't neighbors here is that the proposal is not to add the second story. At this point I suppose what we would prefer to do is ask that you table this so that we can talk to the HPC rather than making an assumption that they would oppose a second story so that we are not running back and forth between boards. And also maybe get some opinions from the neighbors if that would be acceptable. Remo: We would always look at letters. I think maybe you might go back to your owners and find out if they are going to look at deed restriction as an alternative to bring before the Board so that we can consider that. Pickett: Do you mean a deed restriction not to ever have a second story or a deed restriction on the caretaker unit? Remo: The caretaker unit. That might be pertinent to our discussion. Howard: The other thing I would like to see is better numbers. We are looking at numbers coming off this piece of paper and it would be nice to know what the actual square footage of the house is. And with the 500 square feet as an option and put it into a package so you could also look at what your options are. Ron: I would like to know what the ramifications are of a single family property going into a duplex property on a lot this size. Remo: I don't think we should look at the idea that they are going to make money on it by extra square footage. Whatever they are allowed to do they are allowed to do. And that is their right. If they are allowed to put that on the upper level and get 600 square feet by putting it on the second story they should be allowed to get that. MOTION Bill: I make a motion that we table and continue this case #93- 7 to date certain of August 5, 1993 . 11 BAM7 . 15.93 Rick seconded the motion with all in favor. CASE #93-8 HOWARD BASS & MICHELE BODNER Remo read request for variance. (attached in record) Affidavit of posting was presented. (attached in record) Remo: I have 2 plans before us. Are they the same footprint? Bass: Yes. Remo: Where is the extra 360 plus square feet coming from? Krizmanich: They took it out of floor area on the second story and made a big atrium space. They ran into structural problems and didn't want to stick that floor back in there. Howard Bass: We have lived in town for about 7 years and we would like to move into this and use it as our home and as an office. This is now one unit in the Mittendorf. Somewhere around 1985 someone took and combined 2 units into 1--up and down and put a staircase in and removed an area that was 15. 6 by 23 . We don't know whether it was done with or without a building permit because there is no record of it in the Building Dept. It was done without consideration of engineering. We had an engineering report which we submitted to you (attached in record) which basically said that the floor shouldn't have been taken out. There are cracks, leaks in the ceiling, water damage and they recommend that the floor system be replaced supporting the mid- point of the wall columns and contributing to the floor diaphragm for the whole building. We are not asking to add anything that wasn't there. It was built that way. Someone took it out in 1985. It is a unique situation. The hardship is that this specific thing probably doesn't exist anywhere else in town or in the zone. It is totally inside. There probably is no other way to structurally make that space sound. It shouldn't have been done what was done. We are asking for relief from an FAR requirement that wasn't in effect when the building was built. We are replacing a very large wood fireplace with a gas-fired appliance. Remo: Francis, is this now over it's FAR as it exists today? Krizmanich: This removed some floor area therefore and it happened 12 BAM7. 15.93 more than 12 months ago so they couldn't turn around and just restore it as of right. I assume that if the structure deteriorated enough due to this structural problem that has been created is they end up being allowed to replace the floor blank back in anyhow because the building official would say to do so. Remo: Has the Engineering Dept looked at this? Krizmanich: No. We don't have this type of structural engineer in the City. So I would depend on a certified engineer. One question I have is whether the person they used was actually a real engineer. It was ascertained there was a legal certification on the engineer used by the applicant. Remo: Is there another way of re-enforcing a building without putting a second story on it? Howard: Physically, it would be a nightmare. Charlie: I agree. Remo: So you are saying it would be a practical difficulty. Howard: I looked at it. Normally when you build a building like that you run your members across one way or another. And they have cut them completely off which means that they are bearing now on probably a 2 X 4 wall knowing the way they built that thing. Eventually--it isn't showing up enough now to cause them a major hardship but eventually it probably would. Krizmanich: I don't have a problem granting this variance in this case because it appears to be a real engineering problem. Rick: If there ever was an example of a hardship or practical difficulty I think this case is a prime example. Remo asked for comment from the public. ?: I am the building manager and am well acquainted with this unit. And as manager of this building I can tell you no one has any objection to this variance. We are thrilled to have anyone come in and restore it as it should have been left to begin with. There being no further comment Remo closed the public portion of the hearing. Ron: This applicant has not created the problem. There is a safety situation here that I think has to be addressed. And from 13 BAM7 . 15.93 the outside of the building you don't see anything and the way people build around this town they could probably do it anyway without people knowing about it. So I would grant the variance. Howard: This is a unique situation because of a person going in there and bastardizing the floor that was in there and creating a structural problem. As far as the FAR is concerned the external part of the building is there. We are not going to see what they do. It is just going to put it back to where it was. I would have to grant this variance under these circumstances. Remo: Francis, you are telling me that if they had restored this within 12 months they would have been allowed to do this? Krizmanich: Yes. Remo: And this has gone on for 3 years now? Bass: 8 years. Krizmanich: If it is willful destruction you have 12 months to return it to it's original form. If it is nature you have 24 months. Bill: Approve it. Charlie: I definitely feel they have a hardship. Rick: I am in favor of this as well. Remo: This has a safety factor. I think that triggers the practical difficulty in restoring this. Based on that would be in favor of this variance. MOTION Rick: I move to approve Case #93-8. Charlie seconded the motion with all in favor. CASE #93-9 WILLIAM MANCLARK Remo read request for variance into record. (attached in record) Remo: - In taking -a look at that I am assuming that the roof already- there is the enlargement which has taken place. William Manclark: That's right. In having purchased this I am picking up somebody else's problem. He then presented his 14 BAM7. 15.93 affidavit of posting. (attached in record) I see you all got the letter I wrote. Since that letter I did find the misfiled variance in the Building Dept files which I have copies for each of you and that was granting the variance to allow the structure that is there. (attached in record) When I bought this place it was Artis Roy's mess which had hung around for a couple of years. It was very difficult to get a handle on. At first if I came to the Building Dept or the City Attorney or Sandy Stuller--nobody would talk to me because of the impending lawsuit. So I had a list of things that were required of me to bring the house into conformity. That is the only thing I had to go on when I took on and made an offer to straighten out this mess that another person had created. I did buy the house based on those requirements. It was a pig-in the-poke--not knowing what was going to happen. I did go to a meeting of the Building Dept. We went through all the things that were required of me. I have more than done--what it came to is I did the whole house. I didn't just do half the house that was required. And that was in every phase--the plumbing whatever was required of me I did everything that was required to bring the house to code and more. I did come to a problem as I was doing it. In this one area where over the dining room--there is a roof there that is old. It is totally weak. It won't really support--it is structurally unsafe. And if I take a sloping roof that was allowed and I am certain engineered and calculated to help to support the second floor--if I take that slope off I am going to add a real problem to that roof. To fix it I am sure I would have to support the second floor--tear the whole roof off and restructure the whole thing because the beams and the members there are not adequate. Aesthetically it does look more victorian if we leave it. It certainly blends the second floor into the first floor which is an important thing because it is an important and very pretty corner I think. I am really not asking to do anything more to the area. I am not increasing the square footage at all. There was a variance there. There was a roof put on there. A very important roof to that area of the house and to have to change that would be a real problem and create a real safety problem. Ron: Basically you are asking us to just approve what has been done with the building to date. Just that one section of roof right now that covers the part of the building that goes into the setback for a variance. Rick: What a nightmare this house has been. I think when they 15 BAM7 . 15.93 came in for this original variance to expand into the side yard setback for that children's playhouse--wasn't there a children's care center there at one point? Manclark: That's right. That was Patsy Forbes. She came to Mrs. Paepcke and asked if she could enlarge that in preparation for the center. Rick: And she did not object then. Remo asked for public comment. ?: I am Elizabeth's Granddaughter. I am representing her. She mentioned to me that she had had tea with you all. But there are a couple of things that she wanted me to say that for the record she said that on page 3 (much rattling of paper) She is not happy with ? She said she would not sign any legal document and she said that if it could be a temporary variance that that would be OK. And I have subsequently found out that a temporary variance you don't have. Remo: We do have temporary variances but that wouldn't be applicable. Granddaughter: I would have to discuss it further with her. She doesn't want it to be--I think she agreed with you all that it is fine the way it is. But she wants to go on record saying that she won't sign anything saying that she agrees with this variance. But she did take down the fence because she wanted to be a good neighbor. Howard: Does she have a problem with the runnoff of the rain off the roof: Granddaughter: And the snow. That is her concern. Howard: It would be possible to put a gutter system on there. Manclark: I suggested that. I would be glad to do that. Howard: If you put in the proper heat tapes there wouldn't be a problem. Gary Lyman: At the time that I was unemployed by the City I worked for Dr. Manclark and another issue that I think you need to look at when you compare the flat roof vs. the pitch roof is that to satisfy building code Dr. Manclark would have to do a devastating- -tear this whole thing apart and start over because of the structural inadequacy of allowing the snow to sit directly on the existing flat roof. 16 BAM7. 15.93 In the course of doing that re-construction the standards today for slope to what we call a flat roof--there is no such thing as a flat roof. We have minimum slope requirements. They are not allowed to be built flat. So as a result it is my opinion that if the snow issue is not a problem Dr Manclark addresses it to where the tape is there and the house was pre-wired to take care of the heat tape- -that is already done, that there is no difference to Mrs. Paepcke's property. Remo: What is the Planning Office's comment on this case? Krizmanich: I don't see the hardship particularly unless I believe Gary. And I don't know enough about Gary's expertise in structure. Lyman: I am employed by the City of Aspen to analyze ? s products. I am a certified building official with Council of American Building Officials. It is recognized by all 3 major code groups as certified in code which structure requirements of the building code are (much noise) I am also certified in the legal angles of administering the code. Remo then read into the record a letter dated July 13 , 1993 from Stacy Standly as representative of Mrs. Paepcke. The letter asked for denial of this variance. (attached in record) Granddaughter: When I spoke to her this morning she didn't say that she wanted to have the variance denied. She seemed as though that Mr. Manclark and Mrs. Manclark had come to an agreement that the way that it was it was OK if they put the heat tape up and I think the addition of a gutter would be good. I don't think she really wants this variance to be denied. Ron: Read into the record a letter in support of this variance from Ami Amidon, City of Aspen Historic Preservationist. (attached in record) There being no further public comment Remo closed the public portion of the hearing. MEMBER COMMENTS Charlie: I feel it is a minimum request. I am in favor of this variance. I don't see any objection to it under the circumstances well explained and well documented. I would like to see more people document their request as Dr. Manclark has done. Under the circumstances I feel that we should grant this variance. Rick: I concur with Charles's remarks. It is a great job and terrific preparation. I too think more people should do it that 17 BAM7. 15.93 way. I am in favor of this variance with one covenant that they keep heat tape in there and drain it away from Mrs. PaepckeIs garden. Howard: I have to agree with Rick. Even if Mrs. Paepcke doesn't understand--gutters are a little bit better now than they used to be. And if you put in the proper heat tapes it will drain it away from her property. And I don't see any problem. I agree that the Board of Adjustment is to give a variance because of a hardship, not to create a hardship and this is what we will be doing if we try to take it off. I agree with Gary that structurally that would create a problem and drainwise it would create a problem so I would be willing to give them a variance. Bill: I agree with Howard and Rick's comments. Ron: I think since this is a roof over an existing variance it is a minimal variance, I would grant the variance given the proviso as stated by the Gary Lyman. Remo: My basis for granting the variance is the practical difficulty--the problems that would be created if we take the roof off. And that is the basis of our guidelines and they fit them perfectly as far as I am concerned. MOTION Ron: I move that we approve variance for Case #93-9. Howard seconded the motion with all in favor. ASPEN EAST CONDO MINUTES RECOLLECTION EVERYONE VOTED IN FAVOR OF THIS VARIANCE EXCEPT REMO. HOWARD--THE POINT THAT I MADE THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR WAS BUILT SO FAR OUT INTO THE ALLEY. THEY DID NOT SHOW US ON THE DRAWING WHETHER THIS CARPORT OVERHANG WAS GOING TO EXCEED THAT OR NOT AND MY REQUEST WAS THAT IT DIDN'T EXCEED THAT BECAUSE THEN YOU ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE SITUATION. AND THEY AGREED THAT IT WOULD NOT EXCEED THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR. I AM NOT SURE IF THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR IS SET AT THE SETBACK LINE OR NOT. RON: NO. IT IS IN THE SETBACK. HOWARD: YES. SO THAT WAS WHAT THE POINT WAS. YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO NOTICE THE PIECE THAT THEY PUT OUT THERE. THERE IS NOT A LOT OF TRAFFIC THROUGH THERE--NOT EVEN FOOT TRAFFIC. OTHER THAN THAT I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANYTHING ELSE WE REALLY TALKED ABOUT AS FAR 18 BAM7. 15.93 AS STIPULATIONS OR CONDITIONS. REMO: I WOULD LIKE TO PUT ON THE RECORD WHY I DID NOT VOTE FOR IT. AND THE ARGUMENT FOR GRANTING THE VARIANCE WAS BASED ON A SAFETY CONSIDERATION THAT SNOW AND ICE WAS A DANGEROUS SITUATION. AND MY QUESTION TO THEM IS THAT WHY WASN'T THE ACCUMULATION OF SNOW AND ICE A DANGEROUS SITUATION IN 1972 SINCE THAT WAS WHEN THAT CONDITION EXISTED UP UNTIL 1993 . THAT IS OVER 20 YEARS AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THIS IS A DANGEROUS SITUATION. WHY WASN'T SAFETY AND WELFARE ADDRESSED EARLIER? THEN I ASKED THEM IF THEY HAD ANY ACCIDENTS IN THAT TIME PERIOD AND THE RESPONSE WAS "NO". SO I DIDN'T THINK THAT THAT WAS A VALID REASON FOR GRANTING THEM A VARIANCE. SO I DENIED. HOWARD: I THINK THE BASIC ARGUMENT ON THAT SITUATION WAS THE FACT THAT LAST YEAR WAS NOT ONLY EXTREMELY LARGE SNOW YEAR ALSO LIMITED WARMTH AND SUN. IN MY OWN YARD AND MY OWN HOUSE I HAD TO REMOVE SNOW FROM MY ROOF--A METAL ROOF--IT JUST WOULDN IT GET OFF OF THERE- -QUITE A FEW TIMES BECAUSE OF THAT SITUATION WHEREAS NORMALLY THE SUN BEATS ON THE ROOF AND IT MELTS ON ITS OWN AND IT IS GONE. AND WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT. I THINK THEY PROBABLY HAD A LITTLE BIT MORE BUILDUP OF ICE THAN THEY NORMALLY WOULD HAVE HAD AND MAYBE ONLY TWICE IN THE LAST 20 YEARS--183 AND 184 . REMO: I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT. HOWARD: BUT THAT YEAR WE HAD A LOT MORE SUN. I REMEMBER THAT WAS THE YEAR I MOVED HERE AND I COULDN'T BELIEVE THE WAY THEY GOT RID OF THE SNOW IN THIS TOWN. IT JUST AMAZED ME BECAUSE WHERE I CAME FROM IN THE NORTHEAST AND WHEN IT WAS THERE, IT WAS THERE AND IT STAYED THERE UNTIL SPRING. AND THE RUTS WERE THERE ETC. THIS YEAR I NOTICED WE HAD A SIMILAR PROBLEM WITH A LOT OF THE STREETS AND SIDE STREETS UNTIL THEY GOT TO THEM. AND THE ALLEYS ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THE ALLEYS BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS HERE ARE EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. I WORK IN THEM A LOT. AND YOU GET IN THERE AND YOU LOOK AT THE THICKNESS OF THE ICE FROM THE TRUCKS GOING OVER THEM. BILL: IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION OF WHAT HAS HAPPENED OVER TWENTY YEARS. THE PREVIOUS OWNERS PROBABLY DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY COLLECTIVELY TO DO ANYTHING. SO NOW THE PEOPLE IN THERE HAVE THE MONEY AND NOW THEY ARE APPLYING. MINUTES DECEMBER 10, 1992 Jan: For the record these minutes have been present at 2 previous meetings and there were not enough people present who had been at 19 BAM7. 15.93 the December 10th meeting to approve them. Rick: I move to accept the minutes of December 10, 1992 . Bill seconded the motion with all in favor. MINUTES MARCH 18, 1993 Ron: I move to accept the minutes of March 10, 1993 . Rick seconded the motion with all in favor. Rick made a motion to adjourn this meeting. Bill seconded the motion with all in favor. Time was 5:45 P.M. J e M. Carney, 7 ty Deputy Clerk 20