Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19950525RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 25, 1995 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. He requested a roll call. Present were: Remo Lavagnino, Rick Head, Charlie Paterson, Ron Erickson, Jim Iglehart, Howard DeLuca, and David Schott. Lavagnino stated, there are two cases before us; the first case is a tabled case from April 27, 1995, Gary Moore; the second case 95- 6, ALH Holding Company. I am a property owner across the street from Mr. Moore, and for reasons I stated at the meeting of April 27th, mainly, any semblence of impropriety, I will excuse myself and turn the meeting over to Vice-Chairman, Charlie Paterson. I will be back for the second case. CASE #95-2 (TABLED FROM APRIL 27, 1995) GARY MOORE Paterson asked, Gary, do you have any further information that you want to add from the last time? Gary Moore stated, at the last meeting you wanted me to go back and try to re-design and designate the hardships, and since that last meeting I submitted my Tree Removal Permits. The first one, without the original variance that was requested, was denied. I have copies of them. The second one that showed the variance, was accepted. Also, since that last meeting, I went through my Stream Margin Review and Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit and those both passed. One of the recommendations, something that was asked by the Planning and Zoning Commission, was that they were in favor of a 2-1/2 to 3 foot variance, because Planning and Zoning was interested in us staying a little bit further away from the river also. So, there are two hardships there, number one, the Tree Removal Permit being denied, and also, Planning and Zoning, not requesting, but asking us, to move over in certain areas. We have tried to re-design certain areas to help this out; obviously, I can't design everything until I find out what I am doing. Paterson asked, you have re-designed, do you have some new plans to show us or anything that you want to point out that is new? Moore replied, I can show you areas we are going to stay away from because of the trees, and this was just something that was done at the last P&Z meeting. Also, I had a "guy" named Bill Johnson from Earth Resource Investigations come from Carbondale and he had to do some things on the lot for the Army Corp of Engineers. One of the conditions was for him to contact the Army Corp of Engineers regarding the property. In my conversation with him, he said that any trees that can be saved are a benefit to that river bank. So BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 25, 1995 again, what we are trying to do is just keep the integrity of the river bank. Moore stated, also, at the last meeting you read the letter from Denise Reich stating that she objected to the house being moved into the setback. Since then, I have found out that her house encroaches 5 to 7-1/2 feet towards Spring Street. So, I just think that P&Z was asking for us to move further away from the river bank and supported a 2-1/2 to 3 foot variance, and again my first Tree Removal Permit was denied, there are plenty of hardships. Also, if you follow the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan, that's in favor of saving all this vegetation and moving homes away from the river so they are not as noticeable from the Rio Grande Trail. I think that alone would have given you justification to support the variance the last time. Paterson stated, I will open the meeting up for questions from the Board members. Head stated, I'm confused, is there still something else that you are waiting on to bring to us. Moore replied, no, I'm not waiting on anything, but I've adjusted plans because of the Design Committee, I've gone through a series of little adjustments to try and work with every committee that's in this town. We're just trying to work with everyone. The Park Department supports the variance, the Planning & Zoning Department supports the variance, and the Army Corp of Engineers supports the variance, and the Parks Department has denied one Tree Removal Permit, and supported another one. I'm getting confused on what the problem is in granting a small variance on this one section of the house. DeLuca asked, you tell us that you have all this, do you have anything on paper? Moore responded, I have the Tree Removal Permits, right here. One was denied, and one wasn't. Sharon has the minutes from the P&Z Commission recommending that they supported a 2-1/2 to 3 foot variance. I don't know where they came up with that figure, because they were asking me to move 5' further away from the river. I consider that a hardship. Head asked, when did P&Z get involved in this, when they created the building envelope? Moore answered, no, these were conditions for approval for the Stream Margin Review and there are 11 of them. Erickson asked, are those requests or demands? Moore replied, they asked that we do that. On the day of the meeting I got together with Leslie Lamont from Planning and George, from the Parks Department. We discussed it, and we said, this doesn't make sense, because there were areas along there that there aren't any trees impacting. So, we are trying to re-design and work around it, but 2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 25, 1995 still being that close, they said they would recommend that you can push back away from these trees to give you some additional room. Head asked, where is that recommendation? Moore replied, in the minutes. Erickson stated, no, that's no good. Where's Leslie Lamont, why isn't she here, if it's important? (It was stated that she was on vacation.) Moore stated, Sharon has the minutes of the P&Z hearing, the whole Board voted on it unanimously. Erickson stated, that's not the point, the point is, that you want us to consider those minutes; those minutes are not a part of our procedures, so they have to be presented here. We're trying to help you out, Gary, and you are giving us four or five different reasons for doing it, but there is nothing here, and there's no one here to support your position, nothing. Moore stated, they are the ones (staff) that are supposed to supply you with the information. I, Sharon, Deputy City Clerk stated, Mr. Chairman, may I say something? At the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, it was stated by Chairman Kerr that the staff should let you all know here at the Board of Adjustment, that they were in favor of granting Mr. Moore, I believe, Chairman Kerr said, 2-1/2 to 3 feet, at least grant that much of a variance. I just want to pass that on. Paterson stated, let that be noted that it is in the record, that's good enough. For the record, I, Sharon, researched the May 2, 1995 meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission and present here for the Board from those minutes. Chairman Kerr upon conclusion of the Moore application for Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit and Stream Margin Review, which was approved, asked if it was still necessary to go before the Board of Adjustment for a variance. Minutes read as follows: "Kerr asked if it was still necessary to go before the Board of Adjustment. Debra Moore answered, it was not necessary, but an adjustment of even 2-1/2 to 3 ft. would help. She stated she would like to go to the Board of Adjustment and reduce footage they were requesting. It would take care of any of the trees that are in question. Chairman Kerr asked if there were any members of the Commission that would be opposed to an incringement of 2-1/2 to 3 ft. There were no objections, and Kerr asked staff to relay that there were no objections from P&Z to the Board of Adjustment". DeLuca asked Moore, are you happy with 3 feet? You were looking at 7-1/2 feet. Moore stated, I would say since they are asking me to move my building over 5 feet, I should be entitled to 5 ft. Moore added, they are asking for a new building envelope that reduces the envelope on the river side by another 5 ft. This is in a staff memorandum. Erickson asked, can we put that into the record, can I see that, could we also see the two Tree Removal Permits, where one 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 25, 1995 was rejected and one was approved? Paterson stated, that should be part of the record. (The clerk made copies at the Board's request, attached in record). Head stated, last time you were here, Gary, George Robinson was here, from the Parks Department, and we were talking about trees and there was a mitigation issue, if you cut down so many trees, you replace them. Does he have a reason for his denial of cutting down these trees? Moore answered, the first one that was denied, was a total of 154 inches of trees and to start spredding around 45 trees on the lot, doesn't really make sense, there is no room, and also, the only thing you can do outsight of the floodway is to go out and hand-dig trees? So, the size of the tree you could put out there is going to a 2-inch cottonwood or 2-inch aspen, or something like that, unless you want to bring equipment out there. Moore continued stating, so, on the second one, we got it down to about 55 to 54 inches of trees. Paterson asked, have you been under construction there for the last week or two, since we had our last meeting? Moore answered, no, I haven't done a thing. Paterson asked, have you done any work on site at all? Moore replied, the only thing I have done down there is prune the underbrush. Paterson asked, you haven't cut down any trees yet? Moore answered, I have cut down some small ones, under 4 inches, and dead ones. George and I discussed this, and I have cut down dead trees and I've cut down trees that are 6 inches and under. Paterson asked if there was anyone in the public that would like to make any comments regarding these trees? There were no further comments. Paterson closed the public portion of the meeting. The Board viewed the conditions of approval submitted by Moore and the Tree Removal Permits and there was discussion at random regarding the documents. Erickson asked, was all this prior to our last meeting? Moore answered, this has all happened since. Erickson asked, all these conditions have been since? Moore answered, a lot of them are required, there's a section in the ADU unit here also. Most of them are required at the time of issuance of a building permit, and a lot of the Engineering items, I have sat down with Chuck Roth and gone through it all with him. DeLuca asked, Gary, these two tree removal permits, why is there a difference between the number of trees? Moore answered, when these were submitted, that was for the original 7-1/2 ft. variance, and one was without the variance and one was with the variance. DeLuca stated, so, the 15 trees would be without the variance? Moore answered, right. Head stated, you only need to cut down six trees then if we grant 4 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 25, 1995 you the variance of the requested 7 ft? What happens to this number if we only give you 3 ft? Moore answered, if I re-design the house we could stay within that area, even less. The reason they didn't request the whole 5 ft. setback is because in some of those areas there aren't any trees. They look at it more in inches, it was 154 inches down to 54 inches. Paterson stated, I close the public portion of the meeting and let's see if we can come up with a solution for you, Gary. Head stated, I am in favor of granting a 3 ft. variance; it does bring the house back from the river, and he's probably getting a minimum variance. Iglehart stated, I would support Rick with that, for the same reasons, there's nothing more I would like to add. Erickson stated, it is a new house, it can be designed any way he wants to design it to fit within the setbacks. That's number one. It's not an existing structure, it's not a non-conforming structure or anything else, it is a new house. Two, I appreciate the Tree Removal Permit applications; I don't know where these trees are located on the lot and how they are pertinent to a variance or not. The applicant hasn't shown me that a variance would save any trees at all. I don't know what these things mean. This document number, page 8 of whatever it is, I don't know how this relates to anything else. I would like to be able to say, alright, since you are moving 5 ft. off the water, let's grant him a small variance on the other side, but I don't know how this relates to anything. It is a nice piece of paper to show us, but I don't know what it means. I apologize about that, but I don't know what it means, so I can't consider it. Finally, we have a very, very narrow, dead-end street down there and any variance is going to push into the setback on the street side. I want you to consider how narrow Spring street is, so, I would not grant a variance. Paterson stated, you didn't mention anything about the fact that the applicant presented a hardship in this particular case. Erickson answered, I don't see any hardships, Charlie, because this building, you start with whatever you want to do, so any hardship you encounter, is one that you create when you build and design the house. You design the house so it's small enough to fit the building envelope and you have no hardship, and you have no need for a variance. Paterson stated, you have no practical difficulty, in the fact that, the whole lot is wooded by trees along the riverside? Erickson replied, maybe, maybe not. We discussed this last time and I said, if I could be shown that by granting a small variance it would save a lot of trees, and I said, maybe , because 5 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 25, 1995 at that point and time I didn't know what kind of trees they were going to save, I didn't care about saving cottonwoods, and there were a lot of considerations at the time. So, I have not changed my mind. I don't think the information the applicant has brought before us today changes my mind. DeLuca said, I kind of see your point, Ron, I would like to look at the drawings again and see what trees would be impacted by this situation. So, I think before we get to a point of where we vote we should get to a point and re-open and look at this drawing. He does present a kind of hardship here with the Stream Margin Review saying we would like you to move it 5 ft. Erickson stated, that, right there, could be a hardship, however, I don't know whether that was a condition before he came to see us, that was a condition since he came to see us, whether it was a command? I don't have any evidence of that, you know. DeLuca asked for a date of the meeting for the record. DeLuca stated, now we have the question of the trees. What I am looking at here, you are talking about saving 100 inches of trees. If that's true, with a 7-1/2 ft. variance, how many inches of trees are we going to save with a 3 ft. variance? Erickson said, the applicant has stated, that one, with re-design he probably could save as much as with a 7 ft. variance. I'm saying, with a little design, he could save all the trees and not have any variance. DeLuca said, that would go back to the same thing we talked about the first week too. We have to go back to the fact that he can re-design the house to where it looks atrocious when you are driving down the street or look nice with a 3 ft. variance, which is something I am in favor of because, personally, I have been affected by that same situation. Where you build setback line to setback line and you build a box, that's ugly. If we force him into that, I'm not going to feel very good about it. Three feet will give him the ability to re-design his house so it still looks pleasing to the neighbors and I would be in favor of that kind of a variance, but I would like to see the drawing to see how many trees are impacted by doing that. Schott stated, I wasn't here at the first meeting. Paterson said, you can't vote anyway, can you? Head stated, with regards to the setback encroaching on the street, what we are talking about there is a street that goes into the river. Erickson stated, it is really, really narrow. Paterson asked, where is it going? DeLuca stated, it is the end of a dead- end street, and should really not cause anybody any hardship. I don't think that should be taken into that much consideration. Head stated, what I don't understand, why if they wanted to move 6 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 25, 1995 the thing back 5 ft., why didn't they adjust the footprint that was granted ten years ago, back 5 ft. They can change administratively that they agreed to do ten years ago. Just take the whole building envelope and move it 5 ft; that way he's not impacted by the constraints of setbacks. Erickson stated, I just want to remind everybody that we are charged to give minimum variances, and minimum variance, in this case, with a new house, is zero. So, you can do what you want, but I don't think there's one needed here. That's my point of view. Head stated, you are overlooking the fact that he does have some paperwork, he was denied the Tree Removal Permit, and therefore, puts it into a hardship situation. Paterson reopened the public portion of the meeting. Paterson asked, do you know which trees you are going to remove under both of these Tree Removal Permits, you can show us that? Moore replied, I could show you that now, but if we have a small variance, along with an adjustment of the house, we can still keep it down to a smaller number. Paterson said, O.K. Erickson asked, do you intend on moving the house back 5 ft? Moore replied, no, I can move it back whatever is granted. Erickson stated, no, no that's not what I am saying. Your hardship is that you are "revised building envelope, moving the house back 5 ft. from the river". Are you going to do that? Moore replied, yes, we are re-designing to move it back 5 ft. Remo Lavagnino stated from the audience, for your consideration and clarification, the impact on Spring Street, although it is a dead- end street; when the snowplow comes in in the winter time, because it can't feather the snow because of some trees that were planted, it creates a snowburn and it keeps backing up, and that impacts neighbors, like myself, in that particular area. I'm not saying anything about this variance so much as I just want you to understand that narrow street at the dead-end of Spring Street does have impact on neighbors. Moore replied, they can't move the snow that far anyway, there's a lot of telephone poles there. Lavagnino stated, they feather it towards the river. Moore stated, that has no affect on what I'm doing, and also if they feather it toward the river, that's been blocked off by some other people. Paterson stated, any further questions? I would like to put this to a vote, would anybody like to make a motion? He closed the public portion of the meeting. 7 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 25, 1995 MOTION Erickson stated, I move that we approve this variance for 7-1/2 ft. There was no second. Motion died. MOTION Head stated, I move that we approve the 3 foot variance as requested. Erickson seconded. Discussion of Motion Erickson said, I think that the hardship we've been given is one based on Stream Margin Review and moving the building envelope back 5 ft., therefore, I would like to make any variance contingent on that revised envelope. I think the applicant is asking us to give him something that he would not normally need, based on a hardship that we don't know exists, as yet. So, if we want to grant the variance, and I'm willing to grant a 3 foot variance, but it has to be only on a condition that the house has to be re-designed and moved back 5 feet from the river bank. Moore stated, that's not what is asked for in there, they didn't ask for a complete 5 foot move-back. It doesn't move it 5 ft. completely all around there. Paterson said, you could reduce the building envelope by the river's side by a couple of feet. Moore replied, Leslie Lamont also made a statement in the meeting, that she did not request it be moved in the whole area if there weren't any trees there. That is also in the minutes. The main concern is from the center of the radius towards the downstream end of the lot. DeLuca said, I see what you mean, Gary, the major impact is between here and here (referring to drawing). Over here there is no impact. Moore said, by us re-designing along there and moving to the east, 3 feet, there would be plenty of room. There was discussion at random between Board members regarding the building envelope and lack of information presented. The drawing of the site was discussed and viewed. Head stated, I would like to amend my motion to reflect that the 5 feet that the P&Z is requesting that he move the envelope, be moved from westerly to easterly direction. Erickson asked, so, what kind of variance are you granting? Head replied, a three foot variance. 8 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 25, 1995 MOTION Erickson stated, maybe we can state it as, granting him a 3 ft. variance on the east side of the house contingent on a 5 ft. movement of the building envelope away from the river on the west side by P&Z. Erickson added, so, basically, the language is, the 5 foot movement on the west side by P&Z generates a 3 ft. variance. Head seconded the motion. Roll call vote was requested: Rick Head, aye; Charlie Paterson, aye; Jim Iglehart, yes; Howard DeLuca, aye; Ron Erickson, yes. Vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. CASE #95-6 ALH HOLDING COMPANY Remo Lavagnino took Chairmanship again and reopened the meeting. John Worcester, City Attorney, attended. Lavagnino stated, applicant is requesting front yard variances of 8 ft. and 5 ft., rear-yard variances of 13 ft. and minimum distance between buildings variances of 7 ft. Gideon Kaufman represented applicant, and introduced Dave Gibson, architect, also representing the applicant. Kaufman submitted, for the record, Affidavit of Posting (attached in record). Kaufman stated, I would like to give you a little background in terms of the project and why we are here in front of you. Also, Amy is here, representing the Planning Commission and also as the liaison of the HPC. I guess this is your day of administrative issues because we are also here to go over some variance requests that have come about after a long and, I think, a very successful process of trying to work on an addition to a very unique property in Aspen. As most of you are aware, this property is the L'Auberge property, which currently has on it, 9 existing cabins. A very unique design concept has come forward, especially for Aspen today, and that is, rather than tearing something down and maximizing the FAR, what they have done, is followed the development procedure of an outline of 9 small cabins. The FAR from this project could be up to 1 to 1; this FAR is like point 4 to 1. We worked very hard with the HPC on this design, it has been supported by the Planning and Zoning Commission, as well as the City Council. We went in the beginning to the HPC, we received both conceptual, as well as final, in terms with coming up with a design that meets a number of 9 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 25, 1995 criteria and objectives. As you can see, the pattern of development has been continued. In your packet, we have a map here for you, that shows you the specific variances that are being requested. One of the things that we wanted to do was to preserve the scape of the existing structures with close proximity to the street, which is the historic pattern, we also, in the rear, are trying to do the same thing, and that is why we are here requesting these variances, both in the rear and the front. In addition, the O Office Zone did not contemplate buildings of that scale and size, so there is a requirement there for there to be 30 feet between the buildings. Obviously, you would not be able to do this kind of small cabin if you were to comply with that kind of variance. So, we are here, after long reviews with the HPC, P&Z, and conceptual approval from the City Council, to seek these variances so that this plan, that has been strongly supported and worked on by the HPC, P&Z and City Council, can go forward. Dave is here, we've got the model, we would be happy to answer any questions, I don't want to take too much time, but I'm here to answer any questions that you might have. Head asked, Gideon, I was under the impression that HPC could make variances administratively. Amy Amidon, representing staff, answered, yes, they can, but only with historic landmarks, and this property is not designated historic. Head stated, in other words, HPC is not empowered to make changes, if something is not historically designated. Head asked, why is HPC involved, then? Amidon answered, because it is in the Main Street Historic District. Lavagnino asked, what are their powers under that? Amidon answered, they have complete Design Review over all aspects of the project. Erickson asked, it looks like we have 12 to 14 variances here, right? Kaufman answered, you have variances for the different cabins. Erickson stated, some cabins need 8 ft. front yard setbacks, some need 2 ft.; some need 5 ft. rear yard setbacks. What about the setback over here on the side, on 4th Street, is there one requested for that one too? Kaufman stated, no. Erickson asked, the existing cabins, cabins 1 through 6, what size are they now? Are they all the same size? Kaufman answered, no. 250 to 280 square feet, somewhere in that neighborhood. Erickson asked, and what about the new ones, are they all the same size? Kaufman answered, no, they vary, 320 square feet, and a few of them have a below grade space. Erickson said, no, I don't care about that, let me take a step back. For example, you have these things set different ways, that's part of the design, but like, 19-17, 15 and 12, they require a larger variance, say than, 18 or 11. Are they all the same size? If they are different sizes, why are you 10 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 25, 1995 making them different sizes? Kaufman answered, the footprints are all the same. Erickson asked, what's the footprint size on each one of those? Kaufman answered, 14 by 22. Lavagnino asked, then, the old ones are what, what's the footprint of the old ones? Kaufman answered, 12 by 24. The existing cabins are not all the same size, 1 and 2 of those are different in size than 3, 4, 5, and 6. 12 by 18 is the smallest, and they go 14 X 23. Erickson asked, which one is 14 X 23? Kaufman answered, 1 and 2. Kaufman stated, I'm sorry, 14 X 26 is number 8 and 9, and the biggest new one is 14 X 22. Lavagnino asked, the variance in the rear is just for the new buildings only? Kaufman stated, that is correct. Lavagnino asked, I guess my point is, why weren't these reduced to the point where you wouldn't need this kind of variance. I get the impression when I look at this that there's not much left of the historic aspect of this property once you get all these buildings. You are never going to see what's happening in the rear and it's going to lose that quality of any history that it has. Kaufman answered, I think the HPC felt very different. They were very excited about it. Lavagnino stated, I understand the concept; I'm not talking about the concept so much as losing the historic aspects of the existing buildings. Kaufman answered, the historic aspects are the size and the scale, it's not just the buildings. We kept the historic size and scale by having these little cabins. Lavagnino asked, what's the FAR? Kaufman answered, 1 to 1, 27,000 square feet. Lavagnino asked, what is it here? Kaufman answered, it is one fourth. There was discussion at random between Kaufman and Board members regarding the FAR. DeLuca asked, have you talked to the fire marshall about this situation? Dave Gibson answered, yes, we talked with him. Lavagnino asked, what did he say about this 7 feet? Dave Gibson answered, you can access it from all four sides with fire fighting equipment. There is a hydrant within 100 feet on two sides, so he's not worried about it. Lavagnino stated, the minimum variance is always predicated on safety factor, the fire equipment getting to those buildings. Amidon stated, first of all, I want to remind you that this property is not designated historic. These cabins are 40 years old, I think, but HPC very much appreciates the character and nature of them, but they are not designated historic. So, that is part of the reason that they were allowed to in-fill that area that previously has been grass and dirt. HPC has reviewed this at length and on April 26th they approved final review and approved recommendations to the Board of Adjustment for these variances and the motion listed four reasons. Some of these things really are 11 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 25, 1995 more design justifications than the traditional hardship that you look for. So, I will try to explain it to you that way, First of all, they appreciated the applicant's effort to develope a village within a village. What they have tried to do here is create an interior courtyard and an interior circulation area for cars. They have eliminated one of the curve cuts, a driveway that was coming in off the street. They really changed the character of the plan, so they needed some extra space to create that courtyard and that pushed the buildings forward. Secondly, and probably most importantly, I've been to all of these meetings at Council, P&Z, HPC, and everyone has really appreciated the effort to develop small masses as opposed to the large single building or several single, large buildings that could be developed on here. These small masses require more space, you have to have space between buildings. So, again, it pushes development to the edges of the property. Thirdly, they felt that a setback pattern had already been established by the manager's residence, which is pushed up to the lot line. Cabin 9, down in the end; this is just contining a pattern that already existed. Fourth, and Gideon will have to expand on this, but I understand the Board of Adjustment granted these similar variances in 1959, so a precedent was established there as well. Lavagnino stated, it says it was enclosed, but we don't have that, never got a copy of that. Kaufman stated, it was in 1959, a variance was granted for the Perkins Subdivision for granting a setback. Kaufman said, I will make a phone call and get some copies to you. All that is there, from the minutes of the records of 1959, is just a note on it that says, "a variance granted by the Board of Adjustment, for lot width and lot area, front yard setback, rear yard setback, 1959". That's all that we have on that. Lavagnino asked, Amy, since they haven't built out to the FAR, if they wanted to put more buildings or more structures, or second stories, could they do that? Amidon answered, they would have to go back through the same process they have just been through. Lavagnino asked, what is your power to deny something for that, since they haven't fulfilled their FAR? Amidon answered, we have some pretty strong standards that look for compatiability in masses, scale to the surrounding buildings. They have historic landmarks and historic structure pretty much on every side of them and that is one of the reasons that this was found to be such an excellent project. Kaufman added, in addition, we had to compete in the growth management plan, and we got allotments based on that. Head stated, Amy, I'm sure, during your discussions, parking was a consideration. I see three, off street parking spaces. Where are those parking spaces? There was discussion again at random regarding the parking. Kaufman added, they all had to meet the 12 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 25, 1995 minimum requirements on parking which is 9 X 18. Erickson stated, so, there is at least 9 feet between those two buildings. Kaufman stated, at one time we talked about variations, but we did not feel it was appropriate, so those were dropped. Lavagnino opened the meeting up to the public. Bob Throm stated, I was there in 1959. They often ask me why I have white hair, and the reason is, I was on the Board of Appeals and on the Board of Adjustment for all those years. My father said to me, when I was a very young man, the difference between success and failure is not of ability, but of action. Success is merely doing what you don't want to do when you don't want to do it. And what I represent in this project is not success for the applicant or success for this Board or anybody else, but success for Aspen. This, my friends, is exactly what we desperately need in this town. Charlie Paterson couldn't have built one "iota" of what he's got now if there had been any setbacks in 1959, when he built the place, so this is an example of what an applicant can do, and should do, to bring to this town something that is desperately needed. I, wholeheartedly, ask that you pass these variances. Lisa York stated, I had the pleasurable experience, when I first moved here, to stay at L'Auberge, and I think it's a great project, and I've also been to the meetings of the Plannning & Zoning, and HPC, and with their support, and looking at the model and what they have presented, I just hope they are successful in being able to get these variances. Gary Feldman said, my family owns the blue victorian on 3rd and Main, kitty-corned to the office building there, and given what can be built on this location, I came here, specifically today, to see what was being proposed and I'm wholeheartedly behind it. Bernie Ryerson stated, I have lived here for 15 years and my family has been here for quite a bit longer. I'm very, very fond of the new ownership at L'Auberge and I think they have done a wonderful job making it something that we can all be proud of, and I think their plans sound very exciting, and I hope you all will think very seriously about approving it. John Harrison stated, I echo Bernie's viewpoint. Erickson stated, looking at the model now. It looks like the front cabins are going to be quite a bit higher than the back cabins. Is that true? Gibson was affirmative. Erickson stated, the soon-to- be historically designated original cabins are not going to be able to be seen by anybody driving by on main street, because they are going to be blocked by the cabins in the front? Amidon answered, I 13 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 25, 1995 don't think that's true. Dave can answer, but I think we are probably talking about 15 feet, or something, for those front cabins and 12 feet for the back. Lavagnino closed the public portion of the meeting. Head stated, I am in favor of granting this variance in its entirety. Schott said, it looks like a good project, I go along with it. DeLuca stated, I like it, and I would be in favor of all the variances. Paterson stated, Mr. Chairman, I am a neighbor over there on 4th Street with my lodge and I will be glad to vote on this, but I need to ask the Board whether they feel this may be a conflict. Lavagnino asked, do you feel you can be objective? Paterson answered, I feel I can be objective. Erickson stated, express your comments as a neighbor first. Paterson stated, that's not pertinent whether this is good for Aspen or whether it's not good for Aspen, that's really what the point is. So, if there's no objection from the lawyer, I am in favor of the variance. Erickson stated, when I first saw this project, I said, oh, my god, look at all those buildings, but after listening to Amy and the process they have gone through and all the approvals they have received, I think it would be counter-productive for us to get involved in this at all. I think we should approve this variance, as is. Iglehart said, I am in favor of it, too. Lavagnino said, I don't have much to add, except they have gone through the approval process with so many different people and groups, and I think it's to the point that it would only be disruptive of this Board to deny them the variances. So, I am in favor of this variance. MOTION Erickson stated, I would like to make a motion that we grant variances as requested on Case 95-6. Head seconded, vote commenced, unanimous in favor, motion carried. MOTION Head said, I move to adjourn. Paterson seconded, vote commenced, unanimous in favor, motion carried. 14 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 25, 1995 Meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk 15