Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19841213 C IT Y OF A S P E N 10ARD OF ADJUSTMENT Thursday, December 13, 1984 City Council Chambers 4:00 p.m. AORM I. Minutes November 29, 1984 II. Case #84-23 Frank Woods and Ed Rodgers, continued hearing III. Case #84-24 Joel and Kathleen Woods, application withdrawn IV. Adjournment RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment December 13. 1984 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4 : 02 p . m . with members Charlie Paterson (arrived at 4 : 10 p.m. ) , Francis Whitaker, John Herz, and Rick Head (arrived at 4 :10 p.m. ) present . MINUTES Motion- Francis Whitaker moved to defer the approval of the minutes to the end of the agenda; seconded by John Herz. All in favor ; motion carried. CASE#84-23/FRANK WOODS AND ED RODGERS Lavagnino opened up the continued hearing. Gideon Kaufman, counsel for the purchaser Ed Rodgers, explained the city of Aspen has approached the owners of the property with a proposal to purchase the property. The city is interested in purchasing this and one other piece in this particular location. The parties have entered into negotiations. He hoped something would have come of that proposal sooner. It now appears another appraisal is necessary. Because of this requirement nothing has been finalized. At this time he does not know if the city is going to purchase the property. The best action today is to table the case. He advised the Board to give the city and the owner more time to work on the sale. If something can be worked there is no need for a variance. Kaufman clarified that Rodgers is a prospective purchaser, Woods is the current owner. If the city does not purchase the property then Rodgers will pursue the purchase from Moods. He suggested tabling the case for at least six weeks. (Rick Head and Charlie Paterson arrive at 4 :10 p.m. ) Jeremy Bernstein, representative for Mrs. Paepcke , opposed the granting of the variance. Lavagnino explained the applicant has made a request to table because of the negotiations with the city and the owner about purchasing the property. There is a delay in the negotiations because of the need for another appraisal. If the city were not to purchase the property Rodgers would pursue purchasing negotiations with Woods. A request for a variance would then follow. The suggestion is to table until January 31, 1985. Motion: Francis Whitaker moved to table case #84-23 to January 31, 1985 ; seconded by John Herz. Discussion. Bernstein requested more information on the proposed purchase. For what purpose is the city pursuing this purchase? Whitaker reported when this case first came before the Board RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adiustment December 13, 1984 Whitaker approached the mayor and reported the problem. Whitaker suggested to the mayor that theh city buy the property for open space. The use of the land is intended for open space and for a park. Bernstein repeated that those negotiations are continuing and pending, and that the motion is to continue this hearing until January 31, 1984. He has no objection to this tabling. Head argued that the city will never buy that property by January 31, 1985 . The city has not even ordered the appraisal . The city was to order that appraisal eight weeks ago. An appraisal usually takes three weeks. A more appropriate date for the tabling is middle February. Francis Whitaker amended his motion to table case #84-23 to February 14, 1985; seconded by John Herz. All in favor ; motion carried. Whitaker asked if the city ever received a notarized affidavit of posting a public notice from Frank Johnson, owner of the Ski Rentor . The recording clerk replied no. Lavagnino noted that Johnson will not receive a variance until the affidavit is presented. Whitaker asked if the building department has issued a permit for the sign. Bill Drueding, building department, did not know. The clerk agreed to call and to remind Johnson of the affidavit. Drueding said he does not know if the sign is up. Johnson apparently has not applied for a permit for the sign. CASE 184-24/JOEL AND KATHLEEN SMITH Lavagnino submitted a letter of withdrawal from Herb Klein, counsel for the applicant, to Paul Taddune, city attorney, dated November 29, 1984. The letter includes an apology. The letter requests a formal withdrawal of the petition without any prejudice to the Smiths " ability to petition again in the future for similar relief. Case #84-24 is officially withdrawn. Drueding requested some clarification. The request involved stream margin review. Subsequent to the withdrawal, the applicant went through stream margin with the city, through the Planning and Zoning Commission. Lavagnino explained the applicant withdrew that portion that was in the floodplain, the portion that would have come before the Board. Drueding asked why the applicant came before the Board. Lavagnino replied that the applicant cannot build in a floodplain. The applicant was seeking relief. Drueding said not building in the floodplain is part of the review criteria for the Commission. If the Commission were to accept building in the floodplain then the applicant could build in the floodplain. Lavagnino argued the applicant removed that portion of the construction extending into the floodplain before the Commission acted on stream margin review. The applicant only asked for stream margin review approval of construction one foot from the river . Drueding disagreed. People have been approaching the Board first for a variance on this particular criteria. When an applicant receives the variance the applicant RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment December 13. 1984 approaches the Commission. The applicant can argue that the Board granted construction within the floodplain therefore the Commission should. The Board' s variance is added ammunition for the applicant. In this particular case, the applicant decided not to pursue the variance from the Board, and tried his case before the Commission without that extra ammunition. Drueding cited the stream margin review criteria in the code. Review the criteria. The floodplain issue is number one. The Commission reviews this. Lavagnino remarked that the code only says that no building shall be located within the floodplain- as a review criteria. The code does not say someone can build in the floodplain. There is also a section in the code which states that someone can come before the Board for a variance to build in the floodplain. Whitaker read section c on page 1479 of the code: "in reviewing the development plan the zoning commission shall consider the following guidelines and standards and impose the following conditions for permit approval—no building shall be located so as to be within a flood hazard area designated by the U. S. Corp of Engineers. " Lavagnino said someone can seek relief from the requirement not to build in the floodplain. Weiner received that relief from the Board. The Commission can review stream margin review with the stream margin review criteria but the Commission cannot grant someone the right to build within the floodplain. The Commission can grant approval within the one hundred foot stream margin but not in the floodplain. MINUTES motion: Rick Head moved to approve the minutes of November 29, 1984 ; seconded by Francis Whitaker. MEMBERS' COMMENTS Whitaker remarked every time the Board grants a variance conditioned on something there are always problems or delays. He felt that way about granting the variance conditioned upon Johnson bringing in the affidavit. The next time the applicant does not meet the conditions he will argue against granting anything until those conditions have been met first . Johnson probably feels the variance has been granted. The Board should stick to protocol. Act on a variance request only when an applicant brings in the notarized affidavit and photograph. Lavagnino replied the Board will have to hold additional meetings. Whitaker replied fine. Paterson did not want to see the Board be inflexible. There are some cases where meeting the conditions is not that important, other cases it is important. Whitaker distinguished between cases which involve an attorney and a document that is recorded at the courthouse and between someone who fails to comply with the regulations (to bring in a sign and a affidavit) . Drueding suggested the Board give him a specific time and a specific person to accept this responsibility to follow up conditions. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment December 13, 1984 Lavagnino asked if there is an index system. Requests sometimes involve covenants, modifications, etc. Drueding mentioned he is including the minutes with the building permit. In a situation where a CO is issued a year later at least the minutes are available and attached for reference. The building department is trying to computerize histories of properties, identified by lot and block number. The result is that a piece of property can be called on the computer and its -hi-story reviewed. This system will take time to develop. Whitaker cited a case where the Board granted a setback variance close to the property with the condition that the setback be increased on the adjoining lot . The attorney in that case prepared a document that was recorded. That document goes against the property. But what happens in the case of NonnyIs Furs? The owner proceeded to put up a sign after she was denied the ability to do that. If Johnson were to approach the building department, the building department would not be in the position to say that the applicant did not bring in the affidavit therefore no permit. The clerk assured the Board that Johnson would be contacted about the affidavit. Drueding assured the Board he would check to see if the sign is up. If the is sign is up he will send a letter to Johnson stating that Johnson did not complete the permit procedure and did not comply with the Board ' s conditions. Motion: Francis iihitaker moved to adjourn the meeting at 4 : 24 p.m. ; seconded by Rick Head. All in favor ; motion carried. Barbara Norris Deputy City Clerk BOARD QE A -5-T-MT 1985 TABLE OF CONTENTS Case #84-23 , Frank Woods and Ed Rodgers tabled February 14 Case #85-1, Chateau Snow Condominiums approved Case #85-1, Chateau Snow Condominiums re-confirmed February 21 tabled Case #84-23, Frank Woods and Ed Rodgers tabled March 7 Case #85-2, Chart House approved Case #85-2, Chart House conditions March 14 approved Case #85-3, Gracey' s, Terese David withdrawn March 28 Case #84-23 , Woods and anda0lson approved Case #85-4, Armstrong continued Case #85-5 , Mr. &Mrs. Robt. Allen March 28 approved Case #85-5, Mr. &Mrs. Robt. Allen April 4 tabled Case #85-6, Independence Lodge LAC. tabled Case #85-7, Aspen Mountain Lodge May 2 Null/Void Case #85-6 Independence Lodge May 16 withdrawn Case #85-7 Aspen Mountain Lodge May 16 tabled Case #85-8, Hull, Gronner May 16 approved Case #85-9, playhouse Theater May 23 tabled Case #85-8 , Hull, Gronner May 30 withdrawn Case #85-10, Woods, Greenwood May 30 denied June 6 Case #85-11, Independence Lodge denied Case #85-8 , Hull, Gronner June 20 approved June 27 Case #85-12, Aspen Resort Assoc. Case #85-13, Jeffrey S. Shoaf denied July 11 tabled -- July 18. Case #85-14 , Wienerstube Restaurant � amended & Jul} 18 Case #85-15, Christopher approved J-411°' Case #85-16, Independence Lodge withdrawn July 25 Case #85-14, Wienerstube Restaurant tabled July 25 Case #85-17 , North & South Aspen Assoc. approved July 25 Case #85-18, Holden/Guy amended & approved August 1 Case #85-14, Wienerstube Restaurant tabled August 15 Case #85-14, Wienerstube Restaurant approved August 22 Case #85-19, Hearst/Allen 2 approved 2 denied Oct. 3 Case #85-20, Fifth Ave. Condominium tabled Oct. 24 Case #85-20, Fifth Ave. Condominium tabled Nov. 7 Case #85-21, Campbell/Han approved Nov. 7 Case #85-22, Wright approved Nov. 7 Case #85-20, Fifth Avenue Condominium approved