Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutlanduse case.boa.204 W Hyman Ave.008-82 CITY OF A~EN . MEMO FROM VIRGINIA BEALL TO: BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT RE: Case # 82-2 Dale Potvin Gary Esary, Assistant City Attorney, requested that this caes be added to the August 26th agenda. Mr. Potvin does not feel the minutes are clear and would like clarification from the Board. I am enclosing the minutes of that meeting for your review. Thank you. c . I, ~~.... Y OF~-'ASPEN ........ "'" I""'< .v t " 13 south galena street aspen, colorado .8>1611 '. '." ~ 303-925-2020 \ AGE N D A ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT August .26, 1982 4:00 PM City Council Chambers I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES II. OLD BUSINESS Case n 82-2 Dale Potvin III. NEW BUSINESS Case n 82-8 William C. Kurimay IV. COMMITTEE COMMENTS V. ADJOURN " r, -. ;<~ 'J NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case No. 82-8 BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT . TO tALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen of June 25, 1962, as amended, a p~b1ic hearing will be held in the Council. Room, City Hall, Aspen, Colo- rado, (or at such other place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24, Official Code of Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance are irivited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state.. yottviews by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. The particulars of the hearing and of the requested variance are as follows: ., M Date and Time of Meeting: Date: Time: .-----'. Name and address of Anp1icant August 26, 1982 4:00 P.M. for Variance: Name: William C. Kurimay Address:. 830 Cemetery Lane, Aspen Location or description of property: I Location: Unit 5, Koch Condominiums 204 ~est Hyman St. Description: Aspen, Co. Variance Requested: s _ ____ tructure is non-conforming due to F.A.R. & as a multi- family structure in an R-6 zone. Sec. 24-l3.3(a) No such non-conformingstruc- ture,may be enlarged or altered.in a way which increases its non-conformities. App11cant appears to be requesting addition of 34 sq. ft. 'variance to enclose stairwell. Duration of Variance: (Please cross out one) '1''''''f''''''>-''1'"y Permanent The applicant will not be represented by Counsel. THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BY Rerno T,:lv.qp-ninn rh:1iT"m~"'''l Virg~nia M. Beall, Deputy City Clerk .1. . .., APPEA/rJ"O BOARD OF ZotH NG ADJUSTI)'''iIT CITY OF AS PErl -... DATE 'l-2~':'P2 ~ASE NO. , , APPELLANT h')/'';'/J'-JI7f C k;.'~lmrl;/ ADDRESS ,q'<; 0 c-=nn~'..,..=~.,/ I ,.:l ""~ 4P!::Ar k'::-~~~l) c;:.Mo;"T1i'<'o-r~I',r;:~HONE "7.2<<:'--2~~ . OWNER 'Rc"P.F~T L ("')"/i::1<: ADDRESS "";-C':'n PaTF~S<'^, . .....G,rI9~. -:r; 'NC'"T"H"/.J cC') r"'/S-~ I t LOCATION OF PP.OPERTY (1,v/r ~ krC"H r--~Nr:r."'"N"''''~' I ~. of Subdivision .. . . ~ ~ Building Permit'Application'and prints or any other pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part of CASE NO. THE BOARD WILL RETURN THIS,APPLICATION IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ALL THE FACTS IN QUESTION. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EXCEPTION SHOHING JUSTIFICATIntlS: /r joj rr-cr"'~~c!. I TO en~/cS"C" an..l .-6......r- n,.. ~"" ~s-l{"'i c-,,,.'.,...,.;..JE' "';1<'1~r .~.. J( On d Id"J,'nC" i/Vh;c-"- . .. :;, 5e,...,€5 oS en+r--../ ~ C::jr<'5S- fc.,... Lt~n'; s"';' kC~H c;.N.L>P~//V/I....'m5, E~i5+;"'.j' i:"..-"I~:,.,~s t.. ' r,' r,re ",~l<'~M"t.( , 'I' /" '+. + ~jr ;--; ( $I+-~ CH-f' not'\.. <G'I"f'+c1r-".,i" 1 I~ .. hOt+ T r <G71'1 t')<c~("'( j'l1e 3;l'9C s1-' 'T+' 1~1I S(I by +t.e c..r-r-f>"..-R-6zcni",... /'1" ;s-{eh. -rl?"'r 'I.ht!r''''('<''SF.,J "....,;, <",C"f,,'!;,'r<~ . . (' r y " ,[. { -I ~. c", I,. . IS. I ;.~s"';'''i(''e\ b~("Ct~JS:~ (, .r '_. . _ -0 ~S~t t,.,(",:'J6- ? c"'I./iA'j. clic #; 0;:0 r-..... v - .. t, C'''',)rs*.nc~> '" .7 . . ( I r I. . f' I. )., 'J1 ncr C'<"""",'~<,ly ~M "_'of.' e:"'t~-I:'C";1S. c.-+ i-ten e"l.rr11c.-ClrJT-) (, ,;'..~"'- er1c" ~s\"'r~ ,....;, ~ ~. / ",If:..cf- .,..t..e n~r''7t..~,<;I,':'c.(/(~) "~'t:t... ,Hel"".,.,..., .d""r!'5 ""+- c<l4C'r v..s-<' c ~h.'<. r~/ry f.. \ S' I . r . c-. ( . tV '" /1'1 1-€' t'U E:' V se ("'"$ .\""'/ - 'I...c".... ~nc.:!'~~~ (j~,..+lt .r-~cf......c('S' p,..,-~,...,;,... . y,'~~C:f'"1:':_ 'f l"~t?n _ - c-t- L'N".-.S-py f:'1i"",;,,..n~J S"''''v r.nOC</br- :<<' c<<":.L-'rnu/",-~",~ "'" C"'.....rr€+.. ,:>+f'J>Sr ./~Qd;fie d"k.:..... ~r (~"'Nrr -co;-; (S~ $...("(..- if'tl~lt:"~,"'r.c;_ rEprf-.>r,'1s t:'.n t~.Ii.-'o.Je"s',C"_ ~....- W111 yot! be represented by counsel ? Yes_No )(' .' I -eX.15~;I'\J '501'-'-\,.'t: i\..'re ('-i' re-+C-i~" ,.,.., ,",...'c-~/l) ~tl~ft:"s"r"f oj &, ~ 5""'t-c-; .,- io-.,.;tf- (/. .. J/ n . SIGNED: --_ /V<:;"l'-'~r l"') ""b",v-F1r "'i>H'se~+<, P<nc+.",l ditl'c_/i;~~ Appellant t (..'n,,€ct"';,SYCa"/' nC~~(~I"-!.?-' PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR . TO FORWARD THIS APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND REASON FOR NOT GRANTING: <; ~<.c't~1.C ~ MO'Y\.. cH~m4 d(,tc.. -i-u F A I t? t{ ~? a.. /Vhu..-ft(rl. "lM-t) 5-~act--~ C,... ~ 'i<--&2.0N~. ~e-e.;)Lj- (3. ?(aJ JJo ~-w.I---AJ;1J\ -C~I-~ ~~~ t1It'41l. ~ .2.1rJa.1'rJlry,tl~~ ,;;. a !Jvri, l{/Iud, U1r~~ l~~ ~q\ACI1ll-tcrh~ / CL~~6c~.J ~V-~ +0 b. fieiJ~," aeRl;:!;:;.... ~ s~1 .s.;.{;h -k ~-1N"4J. s1~ vu--d'-f " , r ~1 .' Cq"'q . . Ill'? Lud..- S i gn.ed ~ \ , fV-.~(~ . , . Status . PERMIT REJECTED, DATE rv:h-z DECISION DATE IF HEARING DATE . APPLICATION FILED HAILED . . - SECRETA~Y CITY OF ASPEN 0 MEMO FROM VIRGINIA BEALL TO: BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT RE: Case # 82-2 Dale Potvin i Gary Esary, Assistant City Attorney, requested that this caes be added to the August 26th agenda. Mr. Potvin does not feel the minutes are clear and would like clarification from the Board. I am enclosing the minutes of that meeting for your review. Thank you. RECORD Of PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ,0IIlll II C. r. Hll(CKE~ e. .. III t. ell, Regular Meeting Aspen Board of Zoning Adjustment May 6, 1982 t The Aspen Board of Zoning Adjustment held a regular meeting on May 6, 1982 at 4:00pm in the City Council Chambers. Members present were Remo Lavagnino, Josephine Mann and John Herz. . , ; , Remo tables the minutes of February 11, 1982 until all of the members of the Board of Adjustment are present or at least until there is a quorum of members. Josephine so moves. John seconds. All in favor motion carried. Case 082-2 Dale Potvin. The variance requested is in an area zoned R-6. Sideyard set- back requires five feet lots are conforming in size, balcony extends into the required set-back(See section 24-8.13) Dale Potvin asked if the board had seen the improvement survey which shows the location of the house. Potvin shows the survey and some photographs of the house. Josephine asked when the house was built. Potvin said that it was built in 1962. Dale mentioned that he has complied with all of the posting requirements. Dale has the application posting and an affidavit that the sign was posted. Dale Potvin continues to present the case to the Board. He said that the deck presents no problem to the adjacent property owners, which is John Doremus. Potvin feels that the deck will not create increased density and has been in existence for a long time. Potvin said that there are presently only three houses on that side of the street. John Doremus is the adjacent property owner on the East side but has no problem with the existence of the deck. The Potvins feel that the deck is important to them and that it provides a substantial property right in terms of enjoyment of the outside. Dale said that to remove the deck would cause a total redesigning of the house in that there are doors that access on to it and the flow of traffice to it is logical now but to take it down would be a problem. It would still be ten feet between houses if John were to build on the East side. The ex~sting house is within the set back requirement, not the deck but the houDe. Remo Lava~nino said that the deck is not in compliance so it wouldn't be ten feet away and still be conforming with the ordinance set back requirements. Remo said that we are dealingwith the deck being an infringement. John Herz asked what would happen if John Doremus sold and that the next property owner objects. Remo Lavagnino said that was a very good point and that obviously John Doremus built his own house with the intent of staying for a considerable amount of time, so whatever you do in a lot split you are bound at one time in the future to sell it again and whatever condition prevail will prevail against the new owner. Remo's feeling about this whole thing is that he would allo:this variance if a covenant were put on the new lot to allow ten feet between the deck and any construction between the new building The reason for the 10 foot set back has to do with safety; fire, air and light etc, Remo said he thought the applicant could still maintain that 10 feet and allow you your variance but the new building would have to be ten feet from the existing deck. John Doremus said that "off-hand" he would be a little reluctant to agree to that and he thinks a deck problem is in the spirit of the agreement or the spir~t of the set-back John looks at their balcony as a slightly raiDed patio. Remo Lavagnino said that if the City Fathers felt this way they would have directed the ordinance to speak to that question. Josephine Mann said that she would be willing to grant this variance, she feels that there are special conuitions here in that the building has been in existence for a num- ber of years, the deck is an integral part of the house and she feels that everything else is in conformance. John Herz is in favor of granti~g the variance. Remo Lavagnino reminds the C01llf!lission members that this is just open talk because there is not a quorum of members so there for they cannot vote at this meeting. Remo Lavagnino said that Vivian Jones phoned and said that she was in favor of the variance.. John Doremus said that this i.s becoming a real hardship to the applicant in that appli- cation was made March 8, 1982. Remo Lavagnino tried to explain that the Board is one member short in that they lost an alternate m.,mber whom has never been replaceoi. The secretary told the Board members that she was instructed to schedule another meeting for May 20, 1982. '[ 2 - Remo Lavagnino said that he will be out of town at that time, along with two other Board members and that we will not have a quorum on that date either. Remo said that we will have to table these cases until May 20, 1982 in hopes that there will be a quorum and if not it will be scheduled for the following week May 27, 1982. John Herz asked about the plan to prepare some sort of a phamlet to instruct the applicant what is needed by the Commission to grant a variance in regard to a practical difficulty or hardship. Remo Lavagnino said that it is held up in the City Attorneys office but that it is being worked on in a legal form and will be put together for the applicant. Josephine Mann would like to remind the applicant that it is not the Board of Adjustments responsibility to hunt for the applicants hardship or practical difficulty. Remo Lavagnino thanks the applicant for their time and said that he really regrets that there is not a quorum. t . Case 082-3 Jeffrey S. Yusem Remo Lavagnino said that the applicant is requesting the corner of deck to protrude into the side yard set-back, 2 feet no inches. Article 8 Sec. 24-8.13. Zoning is ~~ setback required minimum front yard, principal building 10 feet. Accessory Building 15 feet. Minimum side yard is 5 feet. Minimum rear yard Principal Building is 10 feet, Accessory Building is five feet. Jeffrey S. Yusem said that he has the notice, the affadavit and the pictures. Yusem points out what was an existing building that was rennovated which the owner, James Mollica bought out of a forclosure. The building was constructed originally on an angle on the property; because of the design changes and change from the stairway from the front of the building to the change to the side of the building and being on an angle, the stairway gets to the second floor and meets with the second floor deck if that were constructed it would protrude into the sideyard two feet. The members look at the blueprints ann the original approved plans. Josephine Mann commented that the building is very attractive. Remo asked if he is required to have two exits? Jeffrey Ysem said no you are not but that would be the hardship necessary. There are four units and for fire hazard reasons another exit is desireable. Remo Lavagnino's feelingon this is that even though tt is not required, he feels that it is a safety factor in case of fire. Remo thinks it would be beneficial to the town from a safety standpoint to allow this variance. Remo Lavagnino said that he would like a message relayed to the building department that th ere are alot of public complaints about filingapplications and that someone sould get them on the ball about processing these applications sooner. Remo Lavagninb entertains a motion to table Case # 82-3 to Thurs. May 20, 1982 Josephine Mann so moves. John Herz seconds. All in favor. Motion carried. John Herz makes a motion to adjour. Josephine Mann seconds. All in favor. Motion carried. .'4l~b , , , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves '0IlIl,. c.'.Horcull....l.Co. SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTIlENT MAY 27, 1982 t The B~ard of Adjustment held a Special Meeting on ~~y 27, 1982 at 4:00 pm in the Council Chambers of City Hall. Members present were Remo Lavagnino, Francis Whitaker, Josephine Mann, Charles Paterson and John Herz. Minutes Remo Lavagnino asked for a motion for the approval of the minutes of Feb. 11, '8: Francis Whitaker so moves. Josephine Mann seconds. All in favor. Motion carried. Lavagnino asked for a motion on the minutes of M~y 6, '82. J~sephine Mann so moves. Francis Whitakpr seconds. All in favor. Motion carried. Old Business Case # 82-2 Dale Potvin Remo Lavar-nino stated that this case had been heard at the May 6, 1982 meeting; however asked the applicant if he would like to add anything to the public record. Dale Potvin said that he wanted to state the hardships of this case and to bring out again that their intention 5.s to preserve what they have and not to alter. The applicant feels that the location and construction is a hardship that wasn't created by the applicant. Potvin said that the reduction in the size of the deck will be a hardship in that it will deny his family the need for outdoor living space. Potvin said that house is oriented towards this deck; the door on the East side of the house becomes useless upon removing that deck. Lavap,nino said that the applicant did create the problem by Potvin responded to Lavagnino's point in that he knows that a non-conforming to remain under sec. 24-13.3. Potvin said tant to the functional design of the house. John Doremus, neighbor of the Potvin's said that he would like to support Dale and Sally Potvin in this endeavor. Doremus said that if the lot split is successful he would end up with vacant two lots and he has no objections at all to this deck. Remo Lavagnino said he has a problem with this in that any building on the new proposed lot came within ten feet of that deck. Lavagnino said that it is a requirement to separate houses and decks by ten feet. Lavagnino said that he wanted the Board to be aware of that there is a safety problem involved. Lavagnino asked the Board for comments or questions that they may want to ask the applicant. Francis Whitaker asked how high the deck is from the ground to the top of the rail? Dale Potvin said tbat it is approximately 7 1/2 feet. Whitaker said that as he sees the map and the applicati~n it would require agreement with a restrictive covenant to a seven foot set-back instead of a five foot set-back on the two remaining vacant lots. Whitaker said that it seems to be a simple solution and cer- tainly no hardship to the applicant. Potvin said that he is not comfortable with those numbers; of' the house to the lot line is 9' 2" and the deck is 8' 6". Whitaker said that the application is not correct. Whitaker asked how far the deck projects into the side-yard? Potvin said that 4' 4" would have to be removed to comply with the side-yard set-back requirements. Charles Paterson looks at the deck more like a fence. Paterson does not feel that it encroaches upon the air and the light. He feels that the safety is not encroached upon because if there was a fire it could be approached from the back alley. Paterson said that the Board should consider this unique piece of property as it is seen. Remo Lavagnino closes the public portion of the meeting. Charles Paterson said that in light of the fact that they are not increasing their floor area and they are not putting in a new room etc. Paterson said that it creates a hardship on the next property owner by making a conditional variance. Francis ~~itaker said that in view of the new FAR in the residential district fact that there would be about 100 sq. ft. out of 6,000 sq. ft. that would be \fhitaker said that the best solution to this is that. the applicant would have that no structure will be within ten feet of the deck on the other property. Gary Esary, assistant attorney, said that a fairly complete record has been made on this matter today but that the Board may want to incorporate by reference that the tesimony that was taken at the May 6, 1982 meeting. !~'!.cis h'hitaker said that if the noard makes a motion it should be conditional on the' preparation of the legal document that satisfys the City Attorney. Bill Dreuding, of the Building Dept, said that individual balconies not utilized as passage way provide that they do not project more than 1/3 of the distance from the "lot the that splitting". code does allow for the deck is very impor- he said that from the edge and that restricted. to agree . ~ \..' - 2 - --. t from the exterior wall to the property line. Francis Whitaker moves that the variance be granted conditional on the preparation o~ the proper documents which would limit the distance between the deck and the structure on those two lots which should be spelled out by name and Lot # to 100 inches or the length of the balcony plus five feet more on either end. Whitaker said that the set back on that lot P be established as 7' 8" for the length of the deck. Charles Paterson asked Whitaker if he meant from the deck or the property line? Whitaker said it would be from the property line on Lot P. Gary Esary requests a time limit of sixty days on this condition. Francis Whitaker said that it requires the preparation of the proper document with a time limitation of sixty days and also to include that the minutes of May 6, 1982 referring to case 82-2. Francis Whitaker said that this will be a 92" set back from the property on Lot P for the length of the deck. Remo Lavagnino asked if there was any more discussion and to call the members for the motion. Charles Paterson Josephine Mann Remo Lavagnino Francis Whitaker John Herz All in favor motion Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye carried. Case 0 82-3 Yusem Corp. Remo Lavagnino said that the Board has heard this case and the applicant is not present at todays meeting. The applicant presented his case publicly and it was not acted on because there was not a quorum. Josephine Mann feels it is necessary that the Board make a decision on this case because it concerns safety. The Board reviews the plans and photographs. Remo Lavagnino closes the public portion of the meeting and asks for a motion on the Yusem Corp. case. Josephine Mann moves that a variance be granted for the corner of the deck to protrude intothe side-yard set-back because of the safety factor of providing additional access to enter the building. Francis Whitaker seconds. Charles Paterson Josephine !.!ann Francis Whitaker Remo Lavagnino John Herz All in favor motion Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye carried. Case # 82-4 Mary Ann Hyde Remo Lavagnino stated that this proposed addition is for a residential building which is a non-conforming pre-existing use in the L-l zone, no additions are allowed. Jim Moran, attorney representing Mrs. Hyde, told the Board that her case- . is rather unique but will make the presentation as short as possible but still do it full justice. Moran shows the Board the zone district of Mrs. Hyde's residence. The zone district is L-l and it includes basicly the Aspen Alps, High Tops, The Old Glory Hole property and the front part of Durant is one of the Chateaux, the Chamont and Dumont. Moran said that the closest residential ZOne is sort of diagonally across from Dean Billing's house is on that side of Ute Ave. which is R-6 then goes into R-lS and of course Glory Hole Park is right across the way. L-l is a zone which has as its permitted uses Lodges, Hotels, Boarding Houses, and for an accessory special review use , Restaurants. Moran said the purpose, as stated in the zoning code, is to encourage the construction of new lodges close to the base of Aspen Mountain; and to discourage the conversion of existing lodges into permanant residences. The L-2 zone does allow single family duplexes and multi-family residences. That zoning came about in the City wide rezoning of 1975. Prior.to that rezoning this land was in accomodations and recreation 1. Single family dwellings was a use permitted of right. Moran said that thishouse has been there since the late sixties(1967). Jim Moran said that Mrs. Hyde is in theunique positionof having lived there for about twelve years, they bought the house from Mr. andMrs, Mitchell; the deed from whichthey acquired the house containsa restriction which restricts the use of the propertyto a single family abode only, which was a perfectly understandable and legitimate restriction at thetime since it was a permitted use in that zone. The zoning Ordinance of 1975 said that you can't have a single family residence non-conforming but instead you could have a hotel, lodge or boarding house in that area, in the 1 for 1 FAR and presently the28' height limitation. So the applicant has the unique opportunity to come before the board and ask to expand a singe family residence which by our Code is a higher or more preferred use than accomodations by an amount of density and height which corresponds more to the R-15 zone than tothe lodge zone; and therefore, the applicant is really asking for less density, less intensity of use, than is permitted in that zone, but the applicant is a single family residence instead of a hotel, lodge, boarding house or a restaurant. ') ,~..."", ~ ."'" '-' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOIPII '.I e. F. ~OrCK[l B. II. .. l. C.J. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING JULY 22 1982 The Board of Zoning Adjustment held a regular meeting on July 22, 1982 at t . 4:00 PM in the Council Chambers of City H~ll. Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order with membersFrancis Whitaker, Charles Paterson, Fred Smith, Josephine Mann and John Herz. Minutes - The Board reviews the minutes of June 24, 1982. Remo Lavagnino said t.hat in case 1182-5, first paragraph, there is a redundancy in the wording regarding twelve feet. Lavagnino asked that the first twelve feet be deleted from the sentence. Francis Whitaker moves to approve the minutes of June 24, 1982. Charles Paterson seconds. All in favor. Motion carried. i Case 0 82-6 Red Roof Inns, Inc. Remo Lavagnino reads the application. Applicants request a variance to permit a lar~er ground sign at reduced height and a set of non-illuminated wall letters to aid travelling public in finding and reaching the site safely from the highway. Lavagnino reads the Buildin3 Inspectors comments; Sec. 24-5.10 2 20 sq. ft. of sign area is maximal allowed on anyone frontage. Applicant appears to be asking for approximately 65 sq. ft. of sign requiring a 45 sq. ft. sign area variance. Sec. 24-5.10 3 A, a free-standing sign cannot exceed ten square feet. The applicant appears to be requesting a thirty square foot free standing sign requiring a twenty sq. ft. variance. Sec. 24-5.10 3 C, wall sign cannot exceed ten square feet. Applicant appears to be asking for a thirty-five foot wall sign requiring a variance of 25sq.ft. of sign. Sec. 24-5.3, letter size limitations are 18 inches, first letter and twelve inches all other letters. Applicant appears to be requesting letters on wall sign of thirty inches and forty inches requiring a variance of twelve inches and twenty eight inches maximum anu letter size. The free-standing sign appears to be slightly over the maximum size. Lavagnino said tllat there is a change in what the applicant is proposing and ihat it appears to be less than what they asked for in the original application. Lavagnino asked Paul Taddune, City Attorney, if that changes the application and its legality. Paul Taddune said that all that is required is to give notice of the purpose of the variance~ not necessarily all of the details. Taddune said that there is not a problem in this particular case. Bob Edmondson, an attorney representing Red Roof of Aspen, along with hob Nelson and Charles Podolak. Edmondson said that the Red Roof of Aspen is a lodge, bar and restaurant. The lodge is a natural wood lodge, the roof is a cedar and natural and the lodge is surrounded by trees. This creates a visibility problem because the lodge sits back two-hundred and thirty one feet from the road. Edmondson said that the applicant is requesting a varaiance in order to have a larger sign two signs; 1) the free-standing sign which will be 3'4" x 5ft., this creates a sq. footage of approximately a little over forty feet. John Herz asked if the applicant has met the posting requirements. The applicant has complied with all posting requirements. Bob Edmondson said that the lodge itself harmonizes very well with the sur- rounding terrain, for this reason the Red Roof has a problem with visibilty and identification, which is very important to a lodge oi this kind. Edmondson said that the sign code today deals with more of a street graphics, that is lodges that are built along the street. Edmondson said that Red Roof Inn is in a unique situation because they are the only lodge along Rt. 82 within the City. Edmondson said that vehicles traveling on highway 82 are going fifty miles an hour. At fifty miles per hour a car is traveling 74 ft. per sec. and by the time they see aS~~l sign, two ft by five, they are passed. To stop, you must be able to see a sign, read it and then stop. Stopping according to the Colorado drivers manuel, says that at twenty miles per hour it takes a car 46 ft. to stop, at fifty miles per hour it takes two hundred and one feet to stop. The applicant believes that the proposed sign is the minimum size it can be to read it, know what it isand then stop safely. According to uniform traffic control devices, the faster the speed the larger the sign you need, also increased sign area is needed if there is heavy traffic and according to the most recent study is l3,OOOa day. Edmondson said that hea~y traffic makes for a larger sign. " 1 .1 i ~ 2 - I"" I"" ~ ~ Ed~ondson said that there is no street illumination at all, so the illumina- tion will come from ground lights shining up at the sign, they believe that is the most asthetically pleasing. The color; is black on natural wood. The graphic writing is in .Old Bavarian" which is the sy mbol of Red Roof's. Edmondson said all of this is to show the Board that Red Roofs needs a larger sign. Edmondson said that on page 156 of the Code,valid reasons for granting a variance appear. On this sign, the "special conditions and circumstances" do not result in the actions of the applicant. Edmondson said the applicant bought it as is and feels the applicant passes this one. "that special ,or extraordinary circumstances apply to the subject property that do not apply similarly to other properties in the same vicinity and zone", in the vicinity they are the only hotel and all the other hotels are in the city right on the street and do not need a sign any larger than 2 feet by 5 feet. "that the granting of a variance is essential to the enjoyment of a sub- stantial property right enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone..." Edmondson feels the applicant meets this requirement also. "that the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the general purpose of the comprehensive general plan". The applicant thinks that their sign meets all those criteria. Next,Bob Edmondson describes the wall sign on the building itself. Again, Edmondson said that the building is 230 feet from the road and can only be seen straight on from the public highway. The letters are larger than the code allows because the applicant thinks that the proposed letters are the right size considering the distance from the highway. The letters will be black aluminum and will be washed gently with light from the ground going up. Mr. Bob Nelson, manager of Red Roof Inn, said that the wall graphics are very similar to the other seventy-five Inns. They are regarded as part of the architecture. Nelson feels that if they are made smaller to conform with the code that they will be totally lost. Francis Whitaker asked what the position of the free-standing sign will be to the center line of the highway. Charles Podolak said that it will be 55'. Fred Smith asked what happened to the existing Plum Tree sign. Charles Podolak said that it was taken down and thrown away. Remo Lavagnino asked for comments from citizens in the audience. Wayne Chapman, City Manager, said that when the City of Aspen entered into the lease arrangement with the Red Roof Inns, a good deal of the lease ar- rangement had to do with design and asthetics and Mr. Chapman just wanted to assure the Board that the Council had reviewed the sign from that point of view. Speaking to the asthetics of the sign, the Council feels that it it in keeping with the original representations and original intent, inrdgards to the lease. . , , Remo Lavagnino'said that unfortunately this Board is blind to asthetics, and that it is always in the eye of the beholder. Lavagnino said that the Council's consideration regarding the sign itself has no bearing. i Neal Ross, private citizen, (d~~s that Bob Nelson's com*ents about visibiliti b'efng ',;"pr6blem,'Ros's' tlfirtks 't'hatfs "{he only structure out there so he I do'es'n"t kno"; if that' has an';' "w'e'ight".' Mr. Ross feels that the applicant ! should reduce the height of the sign and the overall size df the free-standini sign. , I Alan Richman, of the Planning O~~ice, is here to introduce 'a Resolution that I was adopted by the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission at their I last meeting. Richman comments that the free standing sign is an area of major concern. When the Planning Office received the variance application I' it did indicate a thirty square foot sign, and now the applicant is talking I about a forty-six sq. ft. sign and the Code is 10 sq. ft. Richman said that ' increase is in the free-standing sign and there 5,sn I't s'uch concern on the visual part as to what is on the build~ng itself. Richman said the the Pitkiri County Land Use Code states that the free-standing sign requirement in i Pitkin County along Highway 82 is 10 sq. ft. the same as the City of Aspen, so there is no special circumstance here relative to this lodge. I Richman said that the Planning Office has a adopted Master Plan for the Highwa 82 area because it is a scenic corridor. Alan Richman reads the Resolution, (see attached). Bob Edmondson said that he has measured all of the other signs on Highway 82 and judging from their size he wonders if they have gotten variances in the past. Bob Nelson said that they have tried to put together what they think is in keeping with the area and in keeping with the improvements they are making with the property. The applicant believes that the sign is unobtrusive and that it is the minimum size for adequate readability and the safety of the motorists appr oaching the project in either direction. ) . /,", ,",j ....'" - .... RECORD OF 'PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves '0JlN~ t:. '.Il()rt:ICEL I. I.a L. c[). BOARD OF ZO~ING ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING JULY 2"2, 1982 - 3 :-' Remo Lavagnino said that as fa~a's . eeping with' Aspen, the" c.od'e allows you to put up plastic internally Ii gn, if it allows you to do that, and it would be to your benefit,' Y could still' sta'y within Co'de. Wayne Chapman said that , that kind of sign would not be in keeping with intent of the lease agreement . ' ' Remo Lavagnino asked if the Council pre-empted his ri~ht to have that'kind of sign. Chapman said, absolutely. . ~epp Kessler, private.citizen,asked the Board why' anyone should have a variance outside of the law? Remo Lavagnino said that sometimes there is an unusua~ situatiori and uni~ue enough that sets them apart from everyone else in the community and therefore they get special considerstion. Peter:Guy, Chairman of the Coun:y Planning and Zoning, s~id that he appre- c'1.a:te.... t"he" 'a:p'plicants efforts in making an asthetically pleasing but he also. appreciates the Boards attitude that they are blind to astheti~s. Guy said that the real hardship is going to be on the County and all of its reside~ts and guests, if the Board of Adjustment throws away the Sign Code. Mary M.~ard, citizen of Aspen, says "Please sti~k to the Code, Keep our scenic 'cbr"ridot'~'"- ~ . Paul Taddune said that the Board of Adjustments sole function is to accord .p'io.p"le....rel.ii'f fto"i1i v'ar'i'ou'Ef' zoning restrictions. If strict conformance with the code was to be required in all instances we would not have this Board. Remo Lavagnino asked the Board members to read the letters from the public regarding the granting of this variance. Fred Smith reads letter from Richard A. and Pat Fallin in opposition to granting of the variance. . Charles Paterson reads letter from Kenneth and Wendy Larson in opposition to granting of the variance. Francis Whitaker reads letter from Dotie Fox in opposition to granting of the variance. Remo Lavagnino asked the Board members for comments. Francis Whitaker said that he likes the applicants approach and use of materials but; he would like to point out that there are no Billboards on Highway 82 and Mr. Whitaker thinks that letters of 21 and 30 inches it will be like a Billboard. He sees no reason for granting a variance for increasing the sign because it would be in the approximate location where the other sign was for the previous user. Whitaker could see some justi- fication for some variance on the wall sign, being 231 feet from the Highway but not to go 45 in. high letters. He doesn't think that there are any letter of that size anywhere in the County. Charles Paterson said that he has not been able to establish a real hardship. He would like to talk about the sign on the street, the free-standing sign is only 50 feet from the center line of the Highway and he does not feel the applicant has given a practical difficulty or hardship for the sign to be of that size. Fred Smith said that first of all he would like to compliment the applicant on the excellent job the applicant has done on restoring this building. Smith recognizes the desire to have the larger sign and the safety connected with it however; he thinks that possibly it is overstated. Smith feels that the County Resolution really says it all, The City should maintain the corridor. The other example of a lodge on Highway 82 that has done it very tastefully is the Aspen Club. Josephine Mann said that the applicant has addressed the visibility and identification and the unique nesS of being the only lodge in the City on Highway 82. Josephine comments that if the Hoard says there is a practical difficulty or hardship then there are other determinations to be gade; 1) That the special conditions and circumstances do ...e result in the action, of the a Ii 2) That special and extraordinary circumstances apply to t e subject propertJ w~ere they do not apply similarly to other properties in the same vicinity and zone. Josephine comments that the County has the same si n size so that you will not be discriminated against. '1 I """" 4 - """ ......" '-' 3) Thllt the granting of a variance is essential to the enjoYl'lent of substantial property right enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but denied the subject property because of the special conditions or extraordinary circumstances. Josephine does not feel that the applicant is being deprived of a right. 4) That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the genereal purpose of the comprehensive plan. Josephine comments that there are many citizens commenting that any violation of our sign ordinance is adversely affecting our general plan. John Herz asked if the signs for the Holiday Inn, Pomegrante, etc.areviolating the City Code. ,Remo Lavagnino said no, that they are in the County. John Herz feels that the applicant should comply with the sign code. Remo Lavagnino said that from his perspective he sees it as a unique situation Lavagnino said that the building stands alone and that is an advantage and not a disadvantage (as far as identification~ etc.) Bob Nelson reinterates what was stated earlier by his attorney. Remo Lavagnino asked if there were any more comments from the public. Lavagnino closes the public portion of the meeting. Francis Whitaker moves that the free standing sign, the variance be denied because no hardship has been proven and the size of the letters would be contrary to the intent of the general plan and that there is no hardship involved. Josephine Mann seconds. Francis Whitaker Aye Charles Paterson Aye Fred Smith Aye Josephine Mann Aye John Herz Aye (alternate member) Remo Lavagnino Aye All in favor motion carried. Josephine Mann moves that the variance for the wall sign be denied because the practical difficulties or hardships have not been demonstrated. Francis Whitaker seconds. Charles Paterson Aye Fred Smith Aye Francis Whitaker Aye Josephine Mann Aye Remo Lavagnino Aye All in favor motion carried. Case #82-7 HBC Investments Lots F,G,H,I, Block 119 City of Aspen 925 East Durant Street. Remo Lavagnino stated that this appeal is made under section 2-21 (3) of the Aspen Municipal Code for a three foot height variance on the R.B.O. por- tion of the project, (R.B.O. being residential bonus overlay.) Moritorium Dec. 22, 1981 reducing height in R/MF zone from 28' to 25', Ordinance 82-11, passed May 24, 1982 reduced height maximum from 28' to 25'. Spence Schiffer, attorney representing HBC, stated that he has complied with all of the posting requirements. Schiffer said that he is before the Board for a three foot height variance inwlving one of two buildings under construction at 925 East Durant. It is an employee housing prject consisting of twenty four units. Twelve units were awarded as a GMP allotment in 1978, the twelve at subject have a residential bonus overlay application which is now pending. At the time of the 1978 GMP application the twelve unit building was located in the center of the property. Schiffer shows the Board the original site plan for the 1978 GMP application which shows that the twelve unit building is located in the center of the property. Schiffer said that in the anticipation of the R.B.O. Ordinance which was pending at the time of that 1978 GMP application, the applicant redesigned the project so as to move that building and accomodate another twelve unit RBO building. The applicant was encouraged to do this by the City and the redesigned plans were approved by the City Council in a meeting held on March 10,1}980. The Residential Bonus Overlay was finally adopted in May of 1980~uring this entire period the applicant was processing a subdivision application and throughout the conceptual and preliminary stages of that application there was in effect a requirement for a five year deed restriction fer employee housing. In November of '80 at the time of the hearing of the final plat approval it was then pending a change in the Ordinance requiring 50 year deed restricions. The applicant at that hearing wasn't willing to accept the 50 year deed restriction and because of a lending institution couldn't, and then the matter was tabled and effectivly the project was stopped until Aug. of 1981 when the applicant was able to finally accept that 50 year deed restriction. ,-... ""....... ' /""\ '-" RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 00 Leaves FlllIM'.1 C.F.MOECKElB.ll.' LC<l. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING JULY 22, 1982 t 5 Remo Lavagnino asked who it was tabled by. Spence Schiffer said it was tabled by City Council. Schiffer said that the final plat was finally approved in Aug. of '81, coincidently in August of '81 there was a moritorium proposed on all construction in the RMF zone pending the adoption of new zoning legislation dealing with the bulk and height of buildings. Remo Lavagnino asked if that was before or after. Spence Schiffer said that it happened after the final plat approval. In any event the twelve unit building which hadn't received the GMP approval was specifically exempted from the moritorium with two other buildings. Fred Smith asked Schiffer if he had received final plat approval for twelve units, and asked if he had submitted all the requiremnts for the RBO applica- tion. Spence Schiffer said that is correct. Fred Smith asked if they had a date scheduled for that. , Mark Danielson said that they must proceed with the variance before they are allowed to proceed with the RBO application. Alice Davis said that the applicant submitted an application for the RBO a few months ago and the Planning Office said that it was an improper application and that it did not meet the 25' height requirment. Davis said that Schiffer's comment that the city encouraged the change to the property but Davis wants to make SGre that the Board knows that the RBO has not been approved an also that the changes were made by them and the city did not necessarily encourage them. John Cottle. Architect for the project, said that the basis for establishing height of the parking lot is that you have a given elevation of the side- walk coming off the street. Cottle said that the raffip is a s steep as it it can be by recommended Code, that gives y ou your elevation of parking. Fred Smith asked if Cottle is saying that that raffip is exactly the same grade as Mr. Cantrups new building at the Prospector. Cottle said that he doesm't know what that ramp is but this ramp is 1:8, which is as steep as recommended. Fred Smith asked why he couldn't go down three more feet. John Cottle said that with out a plan he cannot describe how that burdens the building. Spence Schiffer said that getting back to the hardship and practical difficulties, if the variance is not granted it probably wouldn't be feasible to build the project because the entire project is predicated on the 23 units. Schiffer said that as you can see from an engineering and archi- tectural point of view both buildings need to be the same height. Sin ce then money has been spent on the processing of this application. With respect to 2-22D Sec. of the Code, special circumstances did not result in the actions of the applicant. ,The applicant is not responsible for the changes in the zoning code, the delays were the result of changing legislation First the Residential Bonus Overlay Ordinance, second, the fifty year deed re~triction and the now the change in the zoning code. Schiffer said that special or extraordinary circumstances do apply to subject property but do not apply similar to other property in the same vicinity and zone. This is a unique situation being that the project was delayed for several years due to change in legislation. The grnating of the variance is essential to the enjoyment of the substantial property right enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but denied the subject property because of special conditions or extraordinary circumstances. All other properties enjoy the advantage of knowing what the zoning is before the owner spends substantial sums of money. Schiffer adds that this project is a split site project involving a 16 unit free market project at 700 Galena street which cannot be built by the requirements of the city until this employee housing project. Remo Lavagnino asked if the Board has any questions to ask the applicant. Fred Smith said that it seems to him that this was the first growth management quota and "at the same time the applicant also received entire quota for two years. """ Smith said that one ot~r thing that he is curiou~about is the excavation permit in Oct. of 19S1 and nothing has been done since then. Spence Schiffer said that there have been many ~elays that have taken place over the four year period. Schiffer does not feel that this ia an appro- priate matter for discussion here at this meeting. Francis Whitaker asks the Architect, that doesn't seem to Whitaker to be a particularly steep ramp and wouldn't it be possible to change the angle of that ramp since you already have a snow melt provided and you will not have any traction problems. Couldn't the ramp be modified to gain the extra depth there? John Cottle said that the ramp as it stands is a one to eight, if they went I down a full three feet it would be an lS.2 percent and again the applicant does not feel comfortable recommending that anything might scrape at the top. Charles Paterson sees a practical difficulty in splitting the building into two different heights, no matter what the ramp does, Paterson said that if the building could be dropped a foot and a half and the Board could grant a foot and a half and that way it would be an even situation and there wouldn~ be a difference in height at all. Paterson said that he can see the difficul~ in having two different heights. J Spence Schiffer said that we all know that economic hardship alone is not sufficient grounds for granting a variance but he would like to POllltout again that could be extremely expensive and the additional expense is some- thing he is not sure could be withstood. Francis Whitaker siad that everyone gets hurt when there are more restrictive change in the Ordinance. Whitaker is inclined to trying to work out a compromise in lowering the level, reducing the request for variance. Whitaker asks the Planning office the reasoning behind reducing the height from 28' to 25'. Alice Davis said that this has been pretty widely discussed, mainly in that the Council didn't feel it was needed in the whole bulk issue that arose, that the FAR just came out of. he bulk of the building on the lot, the 28' wasn't necessarily needed because the applicant could go under ground and reduce the bulk and therefore have a more desireable building. Remo Lavagnino asked if this was really directed toward new construction. Davis said, new construction in a way this could fall under if that hadn't been reviewed. Len Olin, from the Brass Bed Inn which is directly across the street, said that they are a small lodge and the first floor main lobby area is the focal point to lodge guests. l~ the view they have had of the mountain is a point of their major concern. They don't want to see anything go up so the less impact the better for the lodge. 2) Four of the front units are rented with a view and he can charge more for those. The lodge would much rather see the applicant go down three feet than to go up three feet. Jane Kessler lives on Durant Street and she is appalled with the idea of 24 apartments of any height and most suredly the additional height is very sad. Mimp S~hamberger said that anything the neighbors can do to get 24 units stopped in that area, they will. Jane Kessler said that they are sitting on four lots minus eleven feet and eight apartments, so you can see that it is a little hard to swallow 24 apartments on the same amount of space. Zepp Kessler feels that the Board of Zoning Adjustment would be discriminating if they grant this variance. Phil James, from Holland and Hart and he represents Nathan Landeau who has a building in the project vicinity. James brings up a procedural problem in that he visited the site yesterday and there was not a notice of public hearing posted. James said that one requirement is that there is a hardship, Schiffer is saying that the hardship is that the law says we can't do this. James said that the law is the same for everybod~ .If Mr. Landeau tears down one of his buildings and built it back he has to go 25', just because he happened to get in and happen to have a faster project doesn't mean that he has an advantage. The law was changed and it seems to James that the applicant ought to obey the law. The CitY,didn't give them a moratorium so now they are coming to this Board to say, you give us a break from the law. The City gave a moratorium on those first twelve units because they had a project ongoing. The first requirement under the Code is that they be in a position that they didn't put themselves into. James said that because they asked for bran new twelve units under the RBO, now they ha to get a special exception. The third thing he would like to point out is that there has not been a sufficient explanation of why that ramp can't be extended and cut around the corner, or what if the plans were change to chop two units off one end so that the ramp could curl down. These thin~ can be done without destro ying the whole project. - 6 - ".,., , 'I ....,'.... .."..; -, ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves 'OII'M'.I C.F.Il11rCKrLH.B.lIll.Cn. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING JULY 22, 1982 - 7 - Phil James said that the third criteria under the exception is that there be a substantial property interest. James said is that what you are being told today is that this project is not going to go forward if they don't get that three feet. The City of Aspen will not have 24 units of employee housing if the Board doesn't give them three feet. If the applicant thinks about this for awhile they could cut down the number of units, cut down number of parking places and stay within the Code. Fourth, he would like to point out the undercurrent here of a threat, Employee housing does notdeserv~special consideration or to be thought that it is a better project and that the law should be bent because it is employee housing. Spence Schiffer said that he doesn't think that Phil James does not under- stand the RBO or the portion of the zoning code that the applicant is referring to or more importantly, he doesn't understand the history of this project. The hardship results from a set of circumstances resulting not from the applicant but from the legislation that has been changed over a period of time. Remo Lavagnino said that he thinks the criteria that the applicant is ref- ering to is whether the City was responsible in delaying the project and it certainly appears from the history of the project that it wasn't the fault of the applicant, that he was part of the circumstance; however, the circumstance~r,e lust zoning changes that they are caught up in. It is difficult to 1l ""<:~~hether it is just a zoning change that doesn't specifically pick out this applicant as a loser in what happens but in gen- eral just a going change that the applicant falls into. It is a fine line Lavagnino said that he is feeling sympathetic to the applicants problems of delay through moratorium, through changing legislation. However it doesn't seem to be directed to this project in any way. Lavagnino said there is a fine linE as to who encumbers the hardship. Spence Schiffer said that the only distinction he would make is that typically when you have a zoning change it doesn't involve the magnitude that is involved here. We are talking about 16 units on another site, twelve units that are lGcated here(Shiffer points out on set of plans}., that have been planned and designed for over four years and additional twelve units and the applicant just happened to miss it by a th~ee month period. The applicant was caught up in this process of subdivision delay subdivision aggreements that had to worked out the City requirements for performance bonds etc. every possible conc~;vable restraint was imposed upon this project because of the developer that was involved. Francis Whitaker said that he agrees with Mr James point, that the applicant had already gotten the bonus of another twelve units and that with that bonus they ought to be able to redesign the building to meet the Code. Mark Danielson said that the applicant did not apply for a moratorium for the RBO because it was just that a moratorium, th~t was expected to last three months and during that time no one could have forseen what new requirements were going to be placed with the 25' height restriction being imposed. Fred Smith asked' about the RBO being passed in 1980 and the applicant applied for it in May 1902, again Mr. Smith asked for the reason in this delay. Spence Schiffer said that it was the subdivision process, the subdivision process had been startec simultaneously with that the GNP and the RBO proces' but all of the sudden in the middle of the subdivision process in November 1 of 1980 the Council decided to impose a fifty year deed restriction and at that point in time there was no way to go forward, the project was literalJ"y dead. h. Remo L~vagnino said that-would like to know the sequence of events and dates. Spence Schiffer has a chronology of events: January '78, GMP application submitted. May '78 GMP allotment for twelve units to employee units. Dec. '79 RBO ordinance read the first time. Feb. '79 Five year deed restrictions changed to fifty year deCd~restriction. r - 8 - ,,"" -- o '80 Building Permit application submitted. '80 Memo from Building Dept. Council requesting review of plans which had been revised to accomodate RBO. March '80 Council approved the revised plans. May '80 the RBO Ordinance was finally adopted. Sept. '80 subdivision allocation submitted. Oct. '80 P&Z granted subdivisinnexception, conceptual plat 'approval Nov. '80 Public Hearing on Final Plat Approval, at which time Council requested applicant accept a fifty year deed restriction as a con- dition to final plat approval. tRemo Lava~nino asked when the 25' height limit... Spence Schiffer said that it was May 24, 1982. Mark Danielson said that the moratorium started in Sept. 1981 and the applicad was exempted from that moratorium. On Dec. 22, 1981 the P&Z passed a resolution which bring a new set of guidelines, those guidelines, one of which was the 28' to 25'. The P&Z enacted that clausein the Code which said from this moment on no building permits shall be issued which would otherwise be non-conforming. Remo Lavagnino said that there are a few letters that need to be entered into the public record. Charles Paterson reads letter from Bates Lumber Co. opposed to the granting of the variance. Remo Lavagnino reads two letters of opposition from Penny Colburn and Don D. Crawford. Josephine Mann reads a letter from Matthew Oblock who is in favor of granting of the variance. Remo Lavagnino closes the public portion of the meeting and will entertain a motion from the Board regarding the disposition of this case. Fred Smith said that it seems to him that this case has been around for a long time and it seems that most of the delays have been because the applicants attorneys' could not arrange this or that when asked for by Council. Smith said that it seems to him that the project could have origin- ally have been built and it has been delayed repeatedly in an effort to build even more units on the other location. Smith does not feel that the applicant has any hardship beyond the hardship that the applicant has created by his repeated delays and attempt to build a larger and larger unit. Smith also does not feel that the applicant has exhausted the architectural remedies to solve this problem. Charles Paterson thinks that the applicant has a very definite hardship, if the building is to be built at two different levels, he considers this a practical difficulty; however, Paterson wishes the applicant had proposed to cutting the building down 1 and 1/2 ' from what he was able to from the 28' and asking for a 1 and a half foot variance instead of three feet. Paterson would have been in favor of that. Francis Whitaker said that he has the feeling that when he realizes that the applicant is asking for 24 units on 12,000 sq. ft... he thinks that the project should be redesigned to meet the code. Josephine Mann said that she would like to support what Fred and Francis said, John Herz said that he is not sure where these delays, or whose fault they are, certainly they could be in the buerocracy of the government. Herz would be in favor of granting a variance. Remo Lava~nino said that the Chronology of events, the way it was presented to the Board, is in fact a burden on the applicant, not due to his... it seems to Lavagnino that he followed all that was presented to him at the time and the only decision he made that would have affected the outcome was due to some financial arrangement which he couldn't meet at that time and was delayed for one year. Spence Schiffer said that rather than see the motion go down and not obtain any variance at all he is hoping there can be a compromise. Charles Paterson moves that the Board of Adjustment would grant the variance for one and one half feet to accomodate the request that the building is leve: throughout meaning that the other building, the GMP building will also be cut for the same height so the building will be twenty six and one half feet. Remo Lavagnino said that the motion dies for lack of a second. Fred Smith moves to deny the request of the variance based on the applicant has failed to demonstrate satisfaction to this board for hardship and pratica difficulty. Francis Whitaker Fred Smith Charles Paterson Jan. Feb. seconds. Aye Naye Francis Whitaker Josephine Mann Remo Lavagnin'o Aye Aye Aye Variance is denied. , 'I I I -- ..-, '-" v '0lI1II'" C.F.HOECKrtB.D.4l.l,;O. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING JULY 22, 1982 - 9 - t Remo Lavagnino called for the election of officers and tenures. Fred Smith nominates Remo Lavagnino as Chairman for the Board of Zoning Adjustment. Josephine Mann seconds. All in favor. Unanimous vote. Fred Emith nominates Rrancis Whitaker for Vice-Chairman. Josephine Mann seconds. All in favor. ~emo Lavagnino nominates Virginia Beall as recording secretary. Francis Whitaker seconds. All in favor. Remo Lavagnino entertains a motion to adjourn. Fred Smith so moves. All in favor. Meeting adjourned 7:06PM. ~~~ Vi ginia . Beall Deputy City Clerk ............ - - - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOlI.1O C.F.HOrCKELI.I.aL.l;J1. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 26, 1982 The Board of Zoning Adjustment held a regular meeting on August 26, 1982 at 4:00 PM in the Council Chambers pf City Hall. Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order with members Josephine Mann, Francis Whitaker, John Herz and Charles Paterson present. , Remo Lavagnino skips the approval of the minutes until after the OLD BUSINESS - Case 82-2 Dale Potvin. Lavagnino reads a note from the secretary stating that the applicant would like clarification from the'Board of Adjustment regarding the minutes of Case 0 82-2. Gary Esary,Assistant City Attorney, said that at the variance hearing for Mr. Potvin, the Board granted a variance and then directed the applicant to prepare protective covenant documents to be submitted to the City Attorney for approval within sixty days. The docu~ents were prepared and done on time and when Mr. Esary reviewed them it turned out that Mr. Potvin had a different idea of what the Board meant. The applicant went back to the minutes and found evidence for both positions so Mr. Esary is requesting that the Board clarify it's ruling through the minutes. Esary said that as the Board probably recalls Mr. Potvins house pas a deck that sticks out between property lines P&O. The Board essentially granted a variance indi- cating that if the adjoining property owner filed restrictive covenants indicating that a five foot set-back maintain around thc deck for fire pro- tection, auu the filed restrictive covenants so that nothing could be built on that property. When Mr. Potvin filed the restrictive covenants he provided for the 92 inch set back which appears to be fairly clear from the minutes although there may be sotte question on that, but it wasn't clear whether the 92 inch block of the other lot that had to be preserved was for the length of the deck or for length of the deck and five feet either side. Francis Whitaker said that is what the motion says. Remo Lavagnino said length of the deck plus five feet on both sides. Gary Esary said that what Mr. Whitakers motion said is 100 inches or the length of the balcony plus five feet or more on either end. Esary said that the second sentence in the minutes says that Whitaker said the set- back on the Lot P be established for the length of the deck. Esary thinks that the last two sentences are inconsis~ant, and the applicant is simply here today for clarification. Francis Whitaker said that it was his intent in the motion that the set- back be the length of the deck plus five feet on either end. Whitaker said that he probably failed to add that in those second few remarks. Dale Potvin said that he would like to ttention that he was very clear to repeat what he thought was the understanding, which was that the 92 inches was just for the length of the deck. Potvin said that there was discussion that the deck wasn't going to be obstacle in terms of fire protection and that the air and light and bulk and density was not really being encroached upon or made a problem by the deck. The Board and applicant discuss the plans. Remo Lavagnino said that the reason the Board wants the set-back the way it is, is so that th e applicant actually cottes into compliance; by not going five foot there, you are not in compliance because you are not clearing this point to this pOint(Lavagnino points this out on the plans) Tha~ was the intent of the Boards variance was to make the applicant come into total compliance. Gary Esary said that the area that is restricted on the other lot is 92 inches from property line to the new set-back and the deck, which is 29.45 feet in width, the restricted area is now 39.45 feet in width, with the same center line. Dale Potvin said that he does not feel comfortable with that because he was so clear to make sure that that is what they were talking about and you will notice in the minutes twice, the phrase the length of the deck is stated. Francis Whitaker said let's go back to the minutes. He reads what the motion says and the discussion afterwards is not the motion. The motion was made that it be the length of the deck plus five feet on either end. ~ I , - 2 '""' ......... -- 'owl Charles Paterson said that there are two statements in the motion. Whitaker said that he failed to add in, on either end, in the second state- ment. Gary Esary said that with all respect, Mr. Potvin is confusing contract law with administrative law; what he thought, the meeting of the minds is not important here, what he thought or what he attempted to make clear is not important. The Board grants a variance, it does not contract a variance, so whatever the Board decides has been done, has been done. We are here simply on the clarification on are-argument. Esary said that in purely practical terms he already has a 20 inch break and although in most instances what two parties believe is important in this case it isn't. Remo Lavagnino told the applicant he is sorry that he misunderstood what the Boards intent was and that there is not any point in going any further with discussion. Gary Esary said that if the minutes have been approved then a motion, now to resolve the conflict between the two statements in the minutes to show the Boards clear intent. Francis Whitaker moves, for the purpose of clarification, that the variance was granted conditional upon the preparation of the proper documents and that the restrictive portion of the property on Lot P be 7 foot 8 inches from the present property line plus five feet on either end after the length of the deck. Josephine Mann seconds. Remo Lavagnio Aye Josephine Mann Aye Francis Whitaker Aye John Herz Aye Charles Paterson Aye . All in favor. Motion carried. NEW BUSINESS Case 0 82-8 William C. Kurimay Remo Lavagnino said that the variance requested structure is non-conforming j due to the FAR and as a Multi family structure in the R-6 zone. Sec. 24-13.3 (al. No such non-conforming structure may be enlarged or altere ,in a way which increases its non-conformities. Applicant appears to be re- questing addition of 34 sq. ft. variance to enclose stairwell. Lavagnino asked the applicant to expand on their request. William Kurimay, here at the request of Dr. Robert Orr who owns a unit and has contracted Kurimay to build in the proposed addition. Kurimay said that basicly what this is, is a stairwell that leads down to the unit. It is a structure that goes in the ground about four feet, he would like to put an enclosure around it to protect it from the elements primarily in the Winter; to reduce the ice hazard on the stairway and to keep the area from filling up with snow. lie would like to do this for both, convienience and safety. He does not think that this is an unreasonable request in that it is already an existing structure, the stairwell itself and the portion of the stairwell that would be counted as additional square footage would only be 34 sq. ft. Part of the stairwell is already covered by the roof, which is part of the existing structure. Kurimay stated on the application that the proposed stair enclosure is justified I , because 1) circumstances of subsequent zoning did not result from the action~ of the applicant, 2)such enclosure will not adversely affect the neighbor- i hood, 3) such enclosure does not alter use of the property, 4) such enclosure greatly reduces potential hazard and inconvenience to users of Unit #5, 5) such enclosure represents an extention of existing existing structure (4' retaining wall) enclosing the stairwell. Kurimay said that Dr~ Orr feels thai the visual impact to the condominium project is minimal I in that it is between two buildings and barely visable from the street, due to some shrub and the building next door. Kurimay said that the applicand I has 100% approval from the owners of all the condominiums in the project. Mr. Kurimay describes the plans to the'Board. ' ReDlo Lavagnino feels. that the safety and the hazard as.pects of what Kurimay is pertinent and that the Board may be able to act on that basis. Lavagnino said that the Board is not concerned with asthetics of the project. Francis Whitaker asked the applicant what the height would be? Kurimay said that the applicant is required to have at least a 6 1/2 ft minimum head clearance anyway and that it would be 7 to 8 feet high in that front part and would be about 4jeet high in the back. Lavagnino closes the public portion of the meeting. , The applicant presents the sign that was posted, the affLdavit, and the photograph of the notice of public hearing sign. I .I - "'"'" "-' --.I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOII_!' C.F...OECUL8....L.to.. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 26, 1982 - 3 - . John Herz said that it seems the Board can judge this variance on safety because of the snow going down in there and Herz feels that it is a minimal request. Charles Paterson feels that this is a reasonable request and it doesn't affect the neighborhood in any adverse way. Josephine Mann said that she would be in favor of granting this because it specifically says in the Boards powers and duties; 03, where there are practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships... so the spirit of the Ordinance will be observed, public safety and welfare secured and substan- tial justice done. Josephine thinks that the public welfare and safety is the part that concerns her. Francis Whitaker feels that the points in the application are sufficiently well done and since the wall is already there and not increasing the size of the building and that its average is six feet high, on safety reasons alone it is justifiable. Josephine Mann would like to make sure that the secretary note that the stairwell is on the- North side because this is the main reason the Board is concerned about the health and safety. Francis Whitaker asked the applicant if they would be putting a handrail on both sides. Kurimay said yes and that it was required by Code to do so. Remo Lavagnino asked when the FAR come into ... Bill Drueding said that is the new Ordinance 11. Josephine Mann moves that the Board of Zoning Adjustment grant a variance to enclose a stairwell, which is an addition of 34 sq. ft. because the stair- well is on the North side of the building is not covered and because it ac- cumulates ice and snow in the Winter time, public safety and welfare are involved. The Board of Zoning Adjustment feels that this is a minimal addition which is in the spirit of our comprehensive plan and in the spirit oj that neighborhood. Francis Whitaker asked if Josephine would like to add that the stars and the concrete walls are already existing. Josephine adds that to her motion. Francis Whitaker seconds. Remo Lavagnino Aye Josephine Mann Aye Francis Whitaker Aye John Herz Aye Charles Paterson Aye All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. The Board of Zoning Adjustment reviews the minutes of July 22, 1982. Francis Whitaker said that two names were mispelled. Zepp Kessler should be Sepp Kessler and ~ary Mallard should be spelled Millard. Whitaker said that on page 7 were it says "it is difficult to access whether it was just a zoninl change..." It should read to determine rather than access. Josephine Mann said that on page 7 it does not say why she was reading an excerpt from the Code. Josephine said that if the Board says there is a practical difficulty or hardship then there are other determinations to be made. She was siting this portion of the code because the actions were the result of the applicant. To clarify this statement the secretary is instruc- ted to take out the word not. Josephine felt there were some unclear parts at the end of page four. "The residents of bonus overlay was finally adopted in May 1980,Josephine thinks that the word and should be put in after 1980. Francis Whitaker moves that the minutes be approved as corrected. Charles Paterson seconds. All in favor. Motion carried. Remo Lavagnino said that the Board of Adjustment was given an information packet for those applying for a variance. Lavagnino said that there are alot of things in there he feels need attention before they make a finaL draft. He asked this be put on the agena for the next meeting. ] I - - - 4 - """ -- Remo Lavagnino asked the Board members to put their comments on the draft copy for the next meeting. Francis Whitaker moves that they adjourn. Josephine Mann seconds. All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned 5:00pm. M. Beall Clerk , . . I , APPEC TO BOARD CITY OF OF ZorH NG ADJUS~:lilT AS PErl DATE '7-;2 7,.c 82. , ~ASE NO. APPEllANT h'')/'~/~m C KUf;!,mrl;l ADDRESS~'<; <::) cr;=_~r=-~;/' ~LRt=1l) c-;.,N5'T1eL,c..,.,~",'Cc;~HONE -2.2S-- 2. 6tV; , Rc"B I2RT L C)R R L ,.:l Me;,. 4p!::/'-r OWNER ADDRESS ~~o Pan=Rs<:'^, ..;...&~A/VD' 7J;..JNC'-r-Ie"IV cC) 815-'" I LOCATION OF PROPERTY ( ) ,J./rr ,~ J<~c:-14 ~"-Nr:r"'YffIA//('n'f~' ..: Building Permit' Application'and prints or any other pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part of CME NO. THE BOARD WILL RETURN THIS,APPLICATION IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ALl THE FACTS IN QUESTION. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EXCEPTION SHOHING JUSTIFICATImlS: /r ;., r=p"'''~~ ( TC' en.J(..~.c=- ~fJtc( CC:-i/Cr- Chl (~~'S1it\J4":. c:::~~'-''t5;(;.Jf S~'ic-t~r L.....,e /{ c:':{,.i d /crncf,'nc. vvA;cl... . :; ~ .;e,...v€,s CiS e,1+r--./ ~ C;;:J~$s. br Llf.ur- s- kC~'-f CCN.D~Jn//'/Ic-'m5_ E>t.i'S+if\.J 'bu,IM;I""l\jS I, '\, , ' f'r~ ""~I+:~~;jy.{ /, 'r "" ,,+ en t-k( :51'1--e clre no1"\.. <"c'nk.t""ffl;"l 1""- o.f hc-<+ -rl--tv'71l ~.xc~cf -r .e 3;?iC5<j' -t-+. 1""'.+ S by tl,€ cL.N-en.... R-6zcn;",<, Ii" ;s'[ell' -rk",/~ ij,,, ?''''?~f<''<.{ 5"t<"'" <,,'clo"""~"'- 's ,r, ( L (y V -1- , I' { ,,<-+ r""'-" It 'J J'-""5t.~lrc: D~:"(,"Cll.~>," , c'-- . _ CO-....5t="~t._'t"'H'jI5--"2c.:.',n'}<Jc (I . r- - . I, C'-'t)t5*,'nc~> ,"') ~'----- . () I '11 nc.J- ac:f\/~,-~(?ly j1--ZO,Tl f","i.e C<:C-/-i.:';l, ""1 i-tlt::'. cLorlu:-nrlT) (2. ; ,--.c {..... It-'-"0(' C"'5c..'rE' t.....l r' __ / J( I ' ii' I . ., + 'l-k. '" '"V"''''- cltt~cf- 'T-ke i1~!"7Jol~..~h<""'C'd.J(~ S"1....ch.. {:-nclc-s....."*- .dC'~5 tic+- c~ .JfPr L...s-(; " ; In\ S' I ( , (' r, nvt'n'''',,<''-' '-.'5<,,-$ .t:J -'....y,"'- (t'-'r:t:'~<<.Jr-E. {J~,-+-It r-c=cf......cC5 pc./'f-E':F'-J;c.-~ . Yi,\'Z..c:.n:::-_ l' 11rl.~C? - Cl.\- L"J:.Itr ,S- by f?li"'-,ine.t-J;....~ 5rl-~,,-,' c:nc:l~<r- ;cE"" C"t-c~__L..rnu/o...."c......... C'/'l c-~Hrr€+E' :5'+eps( I~ad:n~ do(~:~... ~ C:"Nn- 1.-::;-; (:5;) s;.'(:(.,~. ~~;I~-{t:'5...,.("-+-=- ~prr>F,'J.c$ C,1'l ~.)i'le,\.s/c_ <,-f~ Will you be represented by counsel ? Yes____No~ ' ;?X'ls>t;"'j .'$-,.-,-,-'(' 1-L'ff'- ((.1' r-e+-c-;;,...,",.."", ,-",~c-'.Il) ,(?t'JC{C05,"'2j ; t,~ 5'''''-nl'r~ L.-..:t:- t/. )J 'I r,) b 1,( I SIGNEu-: ~ "", , ' L' ;nt r ,--Y c... c\l~_ rtpr--rst',~-t." , ~':c+-, c .r_,( d 1+I.e.. of:.!'-s Ap ell an t y c...t1"fC~SS-'lr-/ hCI~'s1nt"'~. P PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR TO FORWARD THIS APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND REASON FOR NOT GRANTING: <; ~~~tii1.C ~ M-u'Y' C111~4 ckLt --tv FA It( 4 tz? ct. /VI/L1A.-ft{cr, n<<~ ~c~ c.- ~ f-G- LoNe, r:::e-c-2Lr-t'3. ~(a) AJo '-~~~ AJ~ -(*~/o~ ' S~~ !l;1141 be J2.1,1/~'1t'Jl'7\tletrtMJ ~""- a I/vri, wlud, U1/tAt~ rdS" ~q~'-Cfv.-t01}~~ ~' ClV~6caVLI- ~~~1--0 ~ b ~lr-'-&Jt.~.' aJIA.:(;;V\ ct s</"1'5tr, --k ~~~. s1aM tAJd} , k?( ~"<q I . ~7_ I..A...td2 ..' S i gn.ed ~ \ , ""--~('~ , , Status PERMIT REJECTED. DATE lAv,/Pz DECISION DATE APPLICATION FILED HAILED ... DATE IF HEARING . SECRETA~Y SPEN 130 asp ree t 611 AGE N D A ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT August 26, 1982 4:00 PM City Council Chambers I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES II. OLD BUSINESS Case # 82-2 Dale Potvin III. NEW BUSINESS Case # 82-8 William C. Kurimay IV. COMMITTEE COMMENTS V. ADJOURN ,--'\,' '""..,,, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case No. 82-8 BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT , TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen of June 25, 1962, as amended, a p~b1ic hearing will be held in the Council,Room, City Hall, Aspen, Colo- rado, (or at such other place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24, Official Code of Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance are irivited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state,. yottviews by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. The particulars of the hearing and of the requested variance are as follows: Date and Time of Meeting: Date: Time: August 26, 1982 4:00 P.M. , 1 Name and address of Anp1ieant for Variance: Name: William C. Kurimay Address: 830 Cemetery Lane, Aspen Location or description of property: 1 Location: Unit 5, Koch Condominiums 204 ~est Hyman St. Description: Aspen, Co. Variance Reques ted: s ' , ____ tructure 1S non-conform1ng due to F.A.R. & as a multi- family structure in an R-6 zone. Sec. 24-l3.3(a) No such non-conformingstruc- ture,may be enlarged or altered in a way which increases its non-conformities. ApP~1cant appears to be requesting addition of 34 sq. ft. 'variance to enclose sta1rwell. Duration of Variance: (Please cross out one) '1'....'1.. ,,.rAY}" Permanent The applicant will not be represented by Counsel. THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BY Rp-mo T.RVRO"ninn rh~;Y'Tn!l-n Virg~nia M. Beall, Deputy City Clerk ~ I, . 830 CEMETERY LANE KELRAD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. ASPEN, COLORAOO 81611 /303/ 925-2666 August 26, 1982 To Whom It May Concern: This is to certify that I, John Phillips, placed a Notice of Hearing sign (concerning stairwell enclosure) in a conspicuous location facing the street at Koch Townhouse Gondominiurns, 204 West Hyman Street, Aspen, Colorado, on August 15, 1982, Since then I have made periodic inspections and the sign has been continually so posted, Yours truly, 0~~' John Phillips ,Ie, tilt' nL'i:eowners, of the Koch Townhouse Condominium in Aspen, Colorado, approve the placement of a roof and cover over the stoic well leading to Koch Townhouse Condo unit No.5 by Robert L. GrY", The follOl'/ing signatures represent IQ~ per cent of the OWIlHSllip of tne Koch To~mhouse Condominium Association. - III1 ... To W~Oi', it I'iay Concern: o June 25, 1982 > , . Barbara Hoff , ~ '1 j 1 ~ ?J '~ j ~ ~ " ~ " :1 / " f " j i~L<- I . ,I ':: , ~~ '; j " . i O?~/jvL:&v... Robert L. Or.. ri /7 '''''''''''-1:. .....' , 'John A. Orazek / ?-_/ 7YA><I<':. A /.'~q, ,,I Ad! , , ,~ 1 /r-'- 7;(,_/,~,.o/ ~- " ~ ~ (,~ " , t ,< ;;J.. C'S""' ~_~ ~_H c.--r'IC 'N) ,; -,- , /IYIJ/.:Y E}/IIJ?/f 1- )"::-14"" f, '-{<, '0(=)lfC.~~ <;I-~ \)(=/o-'vee, ""'0 gC-?-2 C' /" ""''' -- ;;!.N S'r ' I I I " IC)D~ACe/'lT " PR6PE-~Tf (1..), !-(YIJ?I'tN '" C/Vv,A/ER5 FOR Vo T? 1(')/'1 C le,'" - , {L', "Y1-lfJPEf?j "C-:::> f1 IV T>c.'f< ~C'C ~ C;llZrlRu !1\/{E::" 'I' T fl cA y;u:'?57 (..., '-I CL' / FC'~ L,.' I'IIT c- '.:> , f(C-c'N C"'/vDC''''U,MIC.JIJI~ ,;) 64 / VJ"E.> T )-/Y/lJdr'o/ 5TRc=cEY A5?<=/'/, C'I7Y or- PrsPcf'/ c<<r: <'re A Do PS?EN I (' ~ Gpft"De,J 1;2 '-( Lv, Hymi'f'Y r- Cd" ;-;-C'N VV-C'r.o>l>5 C:::I'-/'[::JC'/;//NIc.JIj,/S ~l~ 1:;, JI 6,"~,.("<""5L, > 'p~("-<;c(('"J'-/CC'TTc,v....,ec~' (""'1>."I4S$<"c' r -;;:;;> I C I-IYIH,;ft( 5/ f!$ P""-, <0 t'i ) 6 I( 123 ... (/{,). f /YI11f1,..( 11 C {LA'1jV<' CON'C>C"#1INI'-'I"Jf; ~ (/"',L;I'rS I /7," F.; '-'" ' J )C?nn~ 'i.: , 7") €'c. ~ A I b.c"(" n ~ 1 S:.., <,,,('leL Las,", kCl" <' N<1f-+.L(:e(L-() ..r ";nei;;. ~~.~cCI3 681/ ~~I