HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.20000608ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES JUNE 8, 2000
Charles Paterson opened the City of Aspen Board of Adjustment Meeting at 4:05
p.m. Board members present were David Schott, Rick Head, Howard DeLuca, and
Charles Paterson. City staff in attendance: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney;
Sarah Oates, Community Development Zoning Officer ; Kathryn Koch, City Clerk.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CASE #00-05 EXTENSION OF CASE #99-03 UNIT 7A, CHATEAU
CHAUMONT CONDOMINIUMS, 731 EAST DURANT, VARIANCE TO
ALLOW CONVERSION OF EXISTING OFFICE SPACE INTO
RESIDENTIAL SPACE
Charles Paterson opened the public hearing on Case #00-05 for the extension of
Case #99-03 Unit 7A, Chateau Chaumont Condominiums, 731 East Durant,
variance originally granted on May 13, 1999 to allow conversion of existing office
space into residential space. David Hoefer stated that affidavit of notice was
provided.
Rick Head stated that he was against this variance to begin with last year and his
position has not changed. He said the applicant wanted the ability to convert the
condominium into residential in case the property couldn’t be utilized as it was
currently zoned office in the LTR Zone District. The property was rented as a
commercial ski locker storage business and has not been converted to residential.
David Schott noted that it was not purview to be concerned if a business could
make it in a space or not, but stated that he would probably grant the extension.
Charles Paterson stated that he was of that position as David was because this
variance was granted the first time and there was no hardship. He said that
considering the approval process was held up for 6 months, this was a financial
albatross. Head asked for an example of anything the applicant did to exercise the
variance that was granted a year ago, such as remodeling plans to residential.
Sarah Oates replied that as far as she knew there were no building permits applied
for from this applicant. Howard DeLuca stated that during the time they waited for
the GMQS meeting, the applicant could have prepared a sketch of the residential
design for the unit but that did not occur.
Head stated that the original request for the variance was financially driven and the
new owner was trying to figure out the most viable use. Head noted that the
applicant had put not an effort forward to exercise the variance that was granted.
DeLuca agreed with Rick. DeLuca said that at least a conceptual sketch could
have been done for the residential conversion, which he said that he was in favor of
1
ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES JUNE 8, 2000
the first time. He said that he intended that someone would be living in the unit by
now if the new owners had made an attempt to do anything.
Michael Hoffman, attorney for applicant, stated that this was a matter of fairness
and equity. Hoffman noted that seeking approval from any aspect of Aspen City
Government was not an inexpensive process. He said that a lot of money was
spent to make the presentation to the board on what laws and regulations applied
plus 6 months later an additional amount was spent to go before the Growth
Management Commission. Hoffman stated that the owner received 6 months of an
opportunity to convert to residential; he said that he understood the board’s
position that the board did not want someone to bank a variance. Hoffman stated
that the basic impetuous of the board’s decision was along the lines that every
other owner in this building has the right to use the property residentially. DeLuca
stated that every other person was residential, they do not have the right to do
commercial. DeLuca said the owner has to decide one way or the other. He said
that now what the board said was if the owner can’t make it commercially, then he
can come back to the board and ask for the residential variance at that time.
Paterson suggested that the variance extension not be granted as both but rather
either residential or commercial. Hoffman stated that he did not think that this
board had the authority to do that. David Hoefer agreed with Hoffman because it
was clear in the application that the use was currently for commercial.
Paterson stated that there were only four members present and all four had to vote
in favor of the variance in order for it to be approved.
DeLuca asked if this were denied tonight, did the applicant have to go back to
Growth Management process for an another approval. Oates responded that they
were vested with Growth Management for 3 years. Hoefer stated that was not an
issue.
MOTION: Rick Head moved to approve the extension of a variance
granted to vary the minimum lot area per dwelling unit allow for the
conversion an office space to a residential dwelling unit at 731 East
Durant , Unit &A for a period of (12) twelve months from May 12, 2000,
finding that the review standard have been met. David Schott second.
Roll call vote: Schott, yes; Head, n o; DeLuca, no; Paterson, yes.
DENIED 2-2.
MOTION: Rick Head moved to adjourn at 4:45 p.m. David Schott
second. APPROVED 4-0.
Transcribed by Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
2
ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MINUTES JUNE 8, 2000
CASE #00-05 EXTENSION OF CASE #99-03 UNIT 7A, CHATEAU CHAUMONT CONDOMINIUMS, 731
EAST DURANT, VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONVERSION OF EXISTING OFFICE SPACE INTO
RESIDENTIAL SPACE ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 1
3