Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19850606 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 6, 1985 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4:00 p.m. AGENDA I. MINUTES II. NEW BUSINESS Case #85-11 / Independence Lodge III. ADJOURNMENT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTNENT JUNE 6. 1985, Chairman Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4 : 07 pm with members Josephine Mann, Rick Head, Anne Austin, and Charlie Paterson present. MINUTES Nay 23, 1985: Mann corrected the spelling of interpret on page 4 , second paragraph. Lavagnino corrected the spelling of interpreted on page 5, third paragraph, third line. Bill Drueding, building department, asked that in the forth paragraph on page two, last sentence be changed to read "Mr. Gibson stated that Bill Drueding said. . . ". Notion: Josephine Mann moved to approve the minutes of May 23 , 1985 , as corrected; Rick Head seconded. All in favor; motion carried. NEW BUSINESS CASE #85-11 / INDEPENDENCE LODGE The applicant was not present. Barry Edwards, city attorney, said the Board should consider the application on its merits, take public comment, and make a decision. Lavagnino read the variance requested: "Request a height limit variance to allow the construction of a 9 foot by 19 foot roof access stairway and roof deck which would exceed the 40 foot height limit by 6 1/2 feet. Proposed addition to the . Independence Building exceeds the 40 foot height limit for that commercial core zone (See Article VIII, Section 24-3 .4 area and bulk requirements, CC (7) Aspen Code) . This building is also in the Wheeler view plane. Proper application has been made to that commission. Application does not add floor area. " Lavagnino said he did not have anything to make a judgement on. Mann asked if the Board could not find out from Bill Drueding, building department, what the stairway and deck are to be used for. Drueding said that the stairway is an official exit and is necessary. They need an exit, whether they need it in that location or not is still to be determined, but another exit on that floor is required. Lavagnino asked if the exit was required because of the work they are doing now , or was it always required. Drueding replied he was uncertain but it is required now. 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 6. 1985 Paterson asked if the exit had to be to the roof to which Drueding replied not necessarily. Head said he had heard some discussion of additional floor area ratio with respect to sky lights and jacuzzis. Drueding asked if the applicant had submitted any plans or information. The reply was no. Edwards said the only information available is information Drueding was able to find in the building department which dealt with a view plane submission. The plans are dated April 29 , 1985 by Stan Mathis Architects and appear to be the bid drawing for the project. Drueding had some concerns about the actual variance that is being requested versus what the drawings show. The best that the Board can do is to consider the drawings and make a determination based on that. Drueding and the Board reviewed the plans dated April 29 , 1985 . The plans showed 2 skylights, a spa, and a railing above the 40 foot height limit. Edwards said the hot tubs and skylights were not part of the noticing and should not be considered. Lavagnino asked if the railing was part of the variance requested to which Edwards replied yes. Drueding added that in the request it states a request for a roof deck for which the railing would be required because the parapet is lower. Lavagnino then asked if any kind of projection like a railing around the building was allowed. Drueding replied nothing with the exception of mechanical equipment, antennas, etc. , was allowed. Edwards stated a concern- since the Board is considering the railing, which is a required part of the deck, it may change the height they are requesting a variance for. Head said he felt it was ludicrous to consider something without the applicant present to even rebut the comments that are being made. Lavagnino said there are questions for the applicant such as alternatives, use, etc. Lavagnino said it had been said by the building department that the applicant needs another egress by ordinance. Drueding said they have an access on to the roof now but it is a ladder and you have to crawl out which is not to code. Where the Wheeler view plane intersects with the Independence Building was discussed among the Board, building department and planning office members. Lavagnino asked if the stairway projection would be in the view plane, the answer was yes. Steve Burstein, planning office told the Board that the view plane had already been approved. Edwards asked if the Board had information that would allow them to make a determination that this is the minimum variance. The 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 6. 1985 Board replied no. Mann said she would like to see the Board reject this application in such a way that the applicant can come back with a more complete proposal if they are going to need the other variances discussed. Head said he felt very strongly that the Board should have some input from the architect or the developer because we are not looking at the total request here. The Board asked that the architect_ s be contac_ted_ to_ se_ e_ i_f a representative could come to clarify the request. A lady was present for Heinz Wolf who stated that Mr. Wolf, owner of the Cooper Street Building, had sent a letter in opposition to this request. As of this date the letter had not been received. The applicant was contacted and given time to come to the meeting. The meeting was recessed at 4 : 24 pm to await his arrival . The public meeting was reopened at 4 : 35 pm. Curtis Odom was present for the applicant. Mr. Odom stated that the applicant ' s basis for applying for the variance was for roof access. The access would reduce the insurance premium for the lodge. In addition, it would provide fire egress to the roof and down the side of the building on the east side via the existing fire escape. Since the building is built to the extent of the setbacks there is no open space and we are hoping to gain some common open space on the roof. Mr. Odom said in the drawings presented as part of the application we are proposing to set the stairway structure inside the parapet of the building. The view of the new stair structure will be shielded by the existing parapets throughout the core of town. You would not be able to see this from the Mall or any of the central area of town other than on the ski lift. Edwards asked Mr. Odom what the applicant was asking for. Mr. Odom replied a stair structure on top of the roof of the Independence Building, a deck which would cover the south end- of -the roof, and a walkway to the fire escape. Edwards asked if the applicant was still planning on installing a jacuzzi tub and skylights on the roof. Mr. Odom replied that it was possible and added the skylights are not visible from anywhere. The jacuzzi is still a question but the skylights will be included. Edwards told Mr. Odom that the application for variance does not include any reference to either the skylights, or the Jacuzzi, or the access to the Jacuzzi, or the deck surrounding the Jacuzzi, therefore, those are not being considered by the Board at this meeting. Mr. Odom 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 6. 1985 said the deck they have requested in their variance is the deck around the jacuzzi. Edwards responded the deck that the Board sees on the bid plans dated 4/29/85 show a 9 foot by 19 foot deck immediately adjacent to the stairwell. Mr. Odom said that there is an existing skylight and the new skylights are shorter in profile than the existing one. It was his understanding that it was not necessary to apply for the new skylights since they were below the profile of the existing skylight. With regard to the deck Mr. Odom outlined the area requested on the plans. He said that there is a jacuzzi drawn in on the plans so that when the applicant got bids it would be included as part of the package. Whether we put it there or not is still in question. Edwards clarified that the jacuzzi would be put on the 9 foot by 19 foot deck to which Mr. Odom agreed. Austin asked what the walkway on the plans lead to. Mr. Odom replied that it was to the fire escape. The deck and walkway will give us fire egress for people coming from the second and third floor. Lavagnino asked if there was no other fire egress to the existing fire escape from the roof . Mr. Odom replied that there was egress from the second floor, not from the third floor. Mr. Odom added that the building had the required egress inside the building, with 2 fire corridors. Lavagnino then asked why the requested stairway was a required egress. Mr. Odom replied that the building was 4 stories and a building of this type has to have access to the roof. Lavagnino asked what access to the roof was in existance now. Odom replied a hatchway. Lavagnino questioned if the hatchway was up to code to which Mr. Odom replied that it was not at this time. Lavagnino asked why they needed the extra height. Odom said the stairway would be giving public access to the roof and this is a minimum stair enclosure size for a public access. Lavagnino questioned what_ would happen if the applicant was not granted a variance, what would his recourse be. Drueding replied that the roof could be accessed without going over the height limit with another hatchway type exit. Lavagnino asked why the existing hatchway was not to code. Mr. Odom replied it was not code worthy for public access. We are trying to get public access to the roof and what we have now is a maintenance access. Edwards commented that the applicant is adding an amenity to the building to which Mr. Odom agreed. Odom added that it would be an amenity and a safety aspect of the building. Lavagnino asked why the safety would be greater in this kind of construction than a hatchway that would meet code. Odom replied that hatchways to 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 6. 1985 roofs are not intended to be fire egress, they are intended for access for maintenance. Edwards said his feelings were that the applicant does not need this access unless they have public access to the roof. Once they have public access to the roof they will have to have a way to get people off of that roof in case of fire. Odom said they have a four story building and the code says you have to have access to the roof in a four story building. A hatchway is not considered proper access for a four story building, that can be used by the public. Lavagnino asked what the hardship was in this case. Odom said he was not sure what position the building department was going to take. Since the applicant is using the basement and not using the first floor, except for entry, I am not sure what they are going to call this. We will have a hardship in getting our building permit because of code violation. Lavagnino said if the Board denies this variance we are denying a requirement of code. Drueding said no, because there are alterna- tives to this particular situation. Lavagnio said we need to find out what those alternatives are. Drueding said Stan Stevens was coming to the meeting to interpret what the requirements are and alternatives. Drueding said with a deck on the roof it will add a story to the building which may change other requirements. Head questioned what the hardship was with respect to the deck and jacuzzi. Odom answered that they are trying to make their hardship into an amenity as well. Head stated the Board ' s job is to grant the minimum variance necessary. I don 't think any of us have a problem with getting access to the roof, for fire and safety, but a deck and jacuzzi, how can we grant a variance on those. Obviously you would like to have a nice stairway going to the roof to access these amenities but it is the Board' s rules that prevent us from granting a variance for a jacuzzi and a deck . Odom asked if the jacuzzi was eliminated would the Board still have a problem. Lavagnino said if there is a need to get to the roof , as a requirement, our position is that we would grant you the minimum variance to allow you to meet code requirements. Lavagnino asked Stan Stevens, plans' checker for the building department, for clarification as to what is required by code as far as egress to the roof and what the minimum requirement is to get there to serve the purpose of the code. In addition, has it been determined that this is a four story building. Mr. Stevens replied to his knowledge this is a 3 story building, code defines 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 6. 1985 a story as requiring more than 50% of the perimeter to be 6 feet from the floor above to grade or 12 feet at any one point around the perimeter. This would mean in order to be a 4 story building the basement area would have to be, at least in 50% of the area, 6 feet above grade as measured from grade to the top of the floor of the first floor. You are allowed to use basements for several uses and it still is a basement but code gets sensitive when it talks about the floors. Mr. Stevens said for a 3 story building there is no requirement for access to the roof, for a 4 story building there is a requir- ement that you have access to the roof. Lavagnino asked, now that it has been determined this is a 3 story building, is the applicant still requesting an access to the roof. Odom replied yes. Lavagnino then asked on what basis they wanted access to the roof now that the access is no longer a requirement. Odom said as a building amenity and as a fire egress off of the roof. This will still benefit my client to have access not only for the deck on the roof but also to get off of the roof from the third floor in case of fire. Drueding asked Stevens if the building were considered four stories what would be the minimum access they would be required to have. Stevens answered a required stairway which must be stairs no more than 7 1/2 inches high, no less than 10 inches deep, and must have handrails as required by code. A ladder is not acceptable as a required stairway except for the simple adjustment of mechanical equipment. Lavagnino said nothing has been said with regard to why the applicant wants to go up 6 feet with a covered stairway. Would a hatch cover on top of the stairs be sufficient? Stevens said there may be problems in terms of handrails and other requirements. A required stairway can not suddenly start without a handrail . Odom said he had another possibility, instead of building the enclosure over the stair, to allow the stairway to be exposed to the weather. By doing it in this way we would not need the enclosure, only the handrail and the deck for access to the fire escape. Lavagnino asked if the deck was required to get to the fire escape. Odom replied that the deck was not required but the handrail that would surround a walkway is required. Lavagnino then asked if a walkway was required to the fire escape. Odom said they are building a walkway above the roof membrane so that it will not be damaged. Stevens said if you have a deck up there you will be required to have a handrail around it. There is no requirement that requires a fire exit across the roof of a 3 story building. With a 4 story building you must have stair access to the roof but not a fire exit from the roof. 6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 6. 1985 It was questioned if there was a practical difficulty, in talking about a hatchway, with snow on top of it. Odom said they also have a practical difficulty with building an open stairwell for that same reason. That is why it wasn 't done that way in the beginning. Edwards asked if the building department was treating the Indepe- ndence Building as a 3 or 4 story building. Odom said he had not been able to get a ruling on it. Mann asked how the people on the top 2 floors get out now in case of fire. Odom replied there are 2 existing fire exits now and outlined them on the plans. The people on the third floor now have to get down to the second floor to use the fire escape. Stevens said the building is required to have 2 exits from the third floor and they presently have only one , being the stair corridor. Odom said the problem is that the third floor access to the fire escape is through a private room. What we are trying to do is get from the third floor through the roof and down the fire escape. Edwards commented that the applicant is trying to avoid losing a rentable space for the fire egress. Odom said they had already gotten through their required exit phase, what we are trying to do here is get access to the roof so they can get down the fire escape from the roof. Lavagnino asked what the approved exit phase was. Odom replied that it had already been reviewed by Jim Wilson and Rob Wayne at the building department and they have been satisfied. Lavagnino said the Board would like to know how the building department was satisfied so that we can make a determination on why you want this roof access. Odom said, again, what they are trying to get is simply a walkway to the fire escape. Lavagnino asked if that was the way they had satisfied the building department, by going through the roof. Odom replied not for third floor fire egress. Lavagnino asked again what the third floor second fire egress, that has been given to the building department to satisfy their requirements, was. Mr.Odom could not remember. Lavagnino said the Board can not make a determination on allowing something for safety when that aspect has already been satisfied. Odom said he was not necessarily asking for something that is a building code requirement for safety, but something that will be an amenity to the building because it provides another egress off of the roof. Head commented that the Board has a hard time approving a variance where in your hardship is to service an amenity to the top of the building. If you can demons- 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 6. 1985 trate to us that there is a need for this access to the roof we would be happy to grant the variance. So far we have not heard any hardship or practical difficulty. These requirements could be attained in another way. Paterson asked if there were any maintenance reasons that would require access to the roof. Odom replied there was alot of maintenance going on there, air moving equipment will cover a large section of the roof area. Paterson asked if the skylights had to washed. Odom replied yes and added that they will need access and ability to walk around on the roof. Mann said if she were on the roof in the event of a fire having to walk around all of the maintenance equipment could be confusing in finding the fire escape. Paterson said he was concerned about accessing the deck with an uncovered stairway because of snow in the winter, it could be frozen closed. Odom agreed that was a problem. Drueding commented that it has already been established that the only access that is required on to the roof would be for maintenance, not fire egress. Odom said they don' t need a stairway for maintenance on the roof, and would be willing to give up the enclosure and make it an open stairway if the Board could allow the handrails. We are using it as an amenity to the building but it also will be a safety feature of the building that wasn ' t there before. You will not be able to see the handrail from town. Lavagnino asked if they were giving up the deck request. Odom replied no. Odom said the critical issue was the height and what you will be able to see from around town. If the applicant can come up with dimensions where from 400 feet away from the building you can not see the handrail why would it effect the Board whether the applicant was able to jumble the equipment around so that there was a deck up there. Lavagnino replied because you have given the Board the argument that you need a safety access to the fire escape. That is the only valid reason for even considering this request. We are trying to justify granting a variance based on a safety factor rather than an amenity factor. If granted I would confine the area and be very definitive about where the handrail is put and for what purpose the handrail would be used. Jim Wilson and Rob Wayne, chief building officials, arrived to clarify some of the questions raised. Drueding questioned if putting people on a deck on the roof would increase this from a 3 story to a 4 story building, which would constitute a need for access. By putting a deck up there you are creating a need f or 8 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 6. 1985 the access. The officials said for exiting reasons, getting people off of the roof, the deck would be considered another story. Lavagnino asked if the maintenance hatchway the building has now would be considered a fourth floor. Mr. Wilson answered no, it would be considered roof access, it is not public. Austin commented the only reason for the requested access to the roof is for the amenities. There are other alternatives. Head said he had not heard any argument explaining this as a hardship or a real need. Lavagnino asked for clarification on the comment the applicant made regarding the fact that the building department had been satisfied with 2 fire egresses from the third floor. One has already been indicated but Mr. Odom was unclear as to what the second egress was. The building officials indicated that the existing fire escape was sufficient. Lavagnino asked for any further comments or questions. There were none.Mann asked the applicant if he was aware that an adjacent property owner voiced an objection to this request. Mr. Odom replied he was not aware. Lavagnino closed the public hearing. Head commented that he could not find a hardship or practical difficulty in granting this variance as submitted. Although in my heart I would like to see a deck and jacuzzi there, under the guidelines that the Board has to go by I can not justify granting the variance. All members of the Board agreed with Mr. Head. Motion- Rick Head moved to deny the variance requested as no practical hardship or difficulty was shown; Austin seconded. All in favor ; motion carried. Notion-, Ms. Mann moved to adjourn the meeting at 5 : 23 pm; Austin seconded. All in favor motion carried. Rim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk 9