Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19971120BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOVEMBER 20, 1997 Charles Paterson, chairman, opened the public hearing at 4:20 with Howard DeLuca, Rick Head and Jim Iglehart seated. David Schott was excused. Dan Martineau and Ron Erickson were absent. Other staff present were David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, and Sara Thomas, Community Development Department. CASE #97-11 CHART HOUSE, 219 EAST DURANT David Hoefer stated the affidavit of notice indicated mailing and posting meeting legal requirements. He noted two additional letters opposing the variance from Helen Zoller and Arthur Cohen. Wayne Poulson, representative for the Chart House, explained the variance request from a dimensional requirement in a set back. He said the Chart House wanted to improve its architectural presentation to the community. Poulson said the building was built in the 1960’s originally as a residence. He commented that only the south end of the restaurant would be changed but the rooftop equipment would be enclosed. Poulson utilized drawings to illustrate the various proposed height changes. Rick Head asked the board if a prior variance was ever granted to the Chart House. Jim Iglehart asked which corner encroached on city property. Poulson said that was not the issue but rather to make the restaurant more attractive in the context of the neighborhood. He said the surrounding buildings were at least 3 stories (from 30’ - 40’) in height. Poulson stated the change would gain some storage and light with a small amount of height raising the roof on the dining room. Howard DeLuca asked what the hardship entailed. Poulson replied the unsightly nature of the exposure of the restaurant to attract clients from the neighboring hotels. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mac Bowlens, Aztec condominium manager, said 20-30 of the Lift One owners were not notified, only 10 were and 5 Aztec owners were notified but 1 (the one that would be impacted the most) was not notified. He commented that the Chart House should be commended on this project and asked if during construction a pedestrian walkway or barrier could be placed on Dean. Poulson did not know why some of the owners were notified and others not and construction fencing would be no problem. 1 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOVEMBER 20, 1997 Hoefer noted that if an owner was not noticed and the variance was granted, the unnoticed owner could contest the work being done on lack of jurisdiction. He continued that if any work was done at that point, the work would cease and have to be restored to the original (prior to construction) form. Karen Mitchell, Aztec tenant, asked the possible dates of construction. Poulson replied April 13 - June 1, 1998. Hoefer stated Community Development recommended denial based upon not constituting a legal hardship. He said that a hardship does not include if something was good or bad for the business but that the property could not be utilized and obviously the property was already being utilized with the encroachment that exists. Hoefer said that it was unsure if a hardship was established. Thomas stated that an aesthetic or economic hardship cannot be considered for the granting of a variance. DeLuca reminded the applicant there were only 4 members present, and all members had to vote positively in order for the variance to be granted. Head stated the guidelines did not allow the board to grant a hardship based upon the applicants proposal. Paterson noted the change would benefit the city. Hoefer illustrated the problems with a continued hearing and did not recommend continuing the public hearing. He said the applicant should be given the option at the beginning of the meeting for a continuance, but not after the board has deliberated the case. Head said the enhancements would be good but a variance cannot be granted strictly on an aesthetic hardship. He commented unless the applicant had a considerable re- design, there would be no reason to continue this hearing. Iglehart concurred with Head about the enhancement of the quality of the neighborhood, and that it was not possible to grant the variance based upon the guidelines. DeLuca stated that non-conforming uses were not supposed to be increased and this property was as non-conforming as any property this board has seen in a long time (over the property line). He said the applicant should plant the trees, if they wanted the property to look better. 2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOVEMBER 20, 1997 Paterson agreed with the board but thought a re-design could be accomplished. Iglehart asked if changes were made in the conforming portion of the building, would the applicant have to come back before this board. Thomas answered that they would not be required to come before the board again, as long as the changes were on the conforming portions of the property or building (not needing a variance). The definition of hardship from the City of Aspen Municipal Code 26.108 page 704: B3. A variance is the only reasonable method by which to afford the applicant relief and to deny a variance would cause the applicant unnecessary Hoefer noted that the property was already non- hardship or practical difficulty. conforming and case law provided no expansion in non-conforming areas. Poulsen stated disappointment with the decision of the board because he felt these improvements would benefit the city. The board reiterated the fact that the guidelines were very specific for granting variances. MOTION: Rick Head moved to deny the request, Case #97-11, for a six (6) foot eight (8) inch east side yard set back variance to allow for an increase in height of a non-conforming structure at 219 East Durant Avenue, finding that the review standards have not been met. Jim Iglehart second. DENIAL APPROVED 3-1. (Paterson no) MINUTES MOTION: Rick Head moved to approve the minutes for Case #97-07, #97-08, #97-09 and #97-10. Jim Iglehart second. APPROVED 4- 0. Meeting adjourned 5:10 p.m. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk CASE #97-11 CHART HOUSE, 219 EAST DURANT ................................ ................................ ....................... 1 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOVEMBER 20, 1997 MINUTES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 3 4