Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19850725 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 25, 1985 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4: 00 P.M. AGENDA I. MINUTES II. OLD BUSINESS Case #85-14 / Wienerstube Restaurant III. NEW BUSINESS Case #85-17 / Sardy House Case #85-18 / Holden, Guy IV. ADJOURNMENT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 25, 1985 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4 : 05 p. m. with members Rick Head, Anne Austin, Josephine Mann, Ron Erickson, Francis Whitaker, and Charlie Paterson present. MINUTES June 27, 1985- Austin corrected the spelling of "their" on page 3 , second paragraph, fourth line. Whitaker corrected the variance wording on page 1 to read: "35 1/2 X 23 3/4 inches". Head moved to approve the minutes of June 27 , 1985 as corrected ; Whitaker seconded. All in favor ; motion carried. OLD BUSINESS CASE #85-14 / WIENERSTUBE RESTAURANT There was not an applicant present. Head moved to table this case until after Case #85-18 is heard; Mann seconded. All in favor; motion carried. NEW BUSINESS CASE #85-17 / SARDY HOUSE Lavagnino read the variance request : "the granting of variances necessary to development of the Sardy House according to plans approved by the Historic Preservation Committee. Property is located in the " 0" office zoning category. Maximum height is 25 feet. Rear yard set back is 15 feet. Section 24-3. 4 area and bulk requirements: Applicant appears to be requesting a 7 foot 6 inch height variance and a 10 foot rear yard variance for placement of a swimming pool. " Daniel Delano was present for the applicant and submitted the affidavit of posting. Mr. Delano addressed the issue of practical difficulties. The house was designed as a residence in another day and age. The corner is now one of the busiest intersections in Aspen and luxury residential use is no longer appropriate for the site. Forty years ago additions were made to the house to adapt it for use as a mortuary and that use is no longer commercially viable. 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 25, 1985 We propose to adapt the Sardy House to a bed and breakfast use. He felt their unanimous approval for the project by the Historic Preservation Committee, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council served as proof the development they propose is most appropriate for the site. To make that use viable it would be necessary to replace the mortuary and garage additions with a structure designed to suit the requirements of public occupancy, meeting the building code requirement for a second legal exit stairway. Because the Sardy House is a historic structure it is necessary to design the addition to compliment the original architecture in a manner that is satisfactory to the City ' s Historic Preservation Committee. In summary to take a beautiful old brick house , add one part commercial use requirement, one part building code requirement, two parts zoning code requir- ements, stir in the requirements of history and you have what amounts to real practical difficulties. Mr. Delano said several facts of Victorian architecture and historical significance conditioned their approach to the solution of these difficulties. The house at its highest point (the south turret) measures over 40 feet, exceeding the Office zone height limit by over 10 feet. The pitch of the roof and all of it gables is uniform at 45 degrees. The eave line of the house is approxi- mately 25 feet above grade, which is the legal limit for the average height of a pitched roof in the Office zone. Finally, the spruce trees and landscaping of the property, together with the historic architecture significance of the house, precluded any construction to the south, east , and west of the house. In effect we are presented with the additional practical difficulty of a 50% open space requirement. Legally there is no open space requirement in the office zone and the most stringent requirement in the city is 35%. Mr. Delano said they believe Harry Teague ' s design represents the best solution to all of the particular difficulties they have listed. Perhaps alternatives exist that may better satisfy the letter of the law, but, there are none that also satisfy the spirit as well. He believed the HPC commendation was proof of where the spirit lies. He added he did not believe that any other reasonable alternatives exist. It would be unreasonable and unjust that they be required to build something less than the plan submitted which represents the floor area they are allowed by right. Such a requirement would amount to the denial of a very substantial property right. It would be unreasonable and anti-historical that we be required to attach a flat roof to the 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 25. 1985 house. It would also be unthinkable to install the swimming pool on the front lawn of the house. Mr. Delano said the types of variances they are requesting could have negative impacts in certain cases. With regard to the height variance , most important would be the possibility of a negative impact on view planes. The height variance requested is 7 foot 6- inches which would bring that part of the building (to the north of the original building) up to something below the height of the original building. Because the addition , the area of the volume where we are increasing the height, is directly behind the building there is no impact at all to the view plane from the north or south. There is a possibility of impacts from the east or west. Because the area is almost at the center of the property a 25 foot legal building built at the set back line would have the same affect as the building we are proposing at the center of the property. Mr. Delano presented and reviewed a sketch of the area. Whitaker asked if the properties frontage was going to be on Aspen St. Mr. Delano replied yes. Lavagnino asked if there was a specific distance required between the carriage house and the pool. Mr. Delano replied the requirement was 5 feet on all sides of the pool. Lavagnino then questioned how many feet were going to be between the carriage house and the pool now. Mr. Delano replied approximately 9 feet. Erickson said the proposed pool is 16 feet wide and questioned why it couldn't be 14 feet or smaller. Mr. Delano said one of the concerns in the set backs is the safety and access to the building in the event of fire etc. The access we need in that event would be through the alley and around the building. To keep the pool away from the building from the standpoint of safety access would seem better than moving it up close to the building. Lavagnino told Mr. Delano that the Board is only required to give a minimum variance and that is one of the strictest guidelines. If 5 feet is the minimum footage required then that is what the Board would allow. Lavagnino asked how the 16 feet for the pool was - established. Mr. Delano answered the shape was actually preliminary because of the spruce trees in the area and they are not yet sure of the root locations and how close they can get to them. Lavagnino said that information was important to determine if it is in fact a practical difficulty to be taken into consideration. The way we are determining the plans now we could take 4 feet off of the pool variance requested if the minimum required is only 5 feet, unless there are problems we are not aware of such as roots of trees, etc. Mr. Delano said the reason there are set backs in 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 25. 1985 the first place is so that access can be allowed to buildings in emergency situations. Whitaker said if Main St. were chosen as the frontage for the building it appears that would solve alot of the problems. Mr. Delano_ disagreed because of the other buildings in the area requiring 5 feet also. Whitaker asked why the pool couldn' t be moved back to the vacated alley line. Frank Peters, architect, replied because of utilities. Lavagnino said he was not against the swimming pool but felt it was incumbent upon the Board to grant as minimal a variance as possible and yet have the applicant able to utilize the pool. Mr. Delano said he was not sure if a variance was really required for a swimming pool in a set back. In the City code the requirement in a yard is that the area of the yard be unobstructed from the ground up and as far as he could see a swimming pool met that definition. Mr. Delano said he had conversations with the building department and the City Attorney' s office who indicated in the past it has been interpreted that swimming pools are not allowed in set backs. Mr. Delano had done some research and found a swimming pool had been built at Park Central Condominiums in the set back. Bill Drueding, building department, said if the applicant is before the Board to have them overturn his ruling, that a pool is not allowed, then a different variance would be needed which would have to be renoticed. Austin said she would hate to see the pool any closer to the carriage house for safety reasons. Lavagnino commented that access would be through the set backs, therefore, the pool should be put closer to the carriage house in order to make way for the set back access. Austin said she would rather see more room between the pool and the carriage house to allow a better access for emergency vehicles. Head asked the applicant if there was another place to put a pool on the property. Mr. Delano replied, no, with the exception of the front yard which would be unexcept- abl e. Erickson asked what non-conformities were going to be removed from the east and west side of the property. Mr. Delano replied the existing garage on the east side, and on the west side a canopy that covered a barbecue area. Erickson asked what the hardship or practical difficulty was directly attributable to the height variance requested. Mr. Delano replied the difficulty was historic in nature, the need to 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 25. 1985 compliment the existing victorian architecture which has a pitch of 45 degrees uniformly on the building. In addition, the present eave line is 25 feet and to build without changing the existing eave line you arrive at the height we are requesting. Drueding said when the height limit was reduced from 28 feet to 25 feet it was not for view plane purposes but for massing and bulk. Lavagnino commented this particular sketch might pre-empt that quality in that if they were allowed to put their 25 foot height limit at their normal set backs it would have more impact on the bulk. Drueding said again we are talking about height, not about how big the structure looks. Paterson read a letter from an adjoining property owner stating if the variance were granted it would block some of their view. Mr. Delano said the north south view plane will not be effected by the granting of this variance and he had talked to the neighb- oring owner about this. Mr. Delano submitted another letter from the same property owner, written after the letter previously submitted, supporting the proposed development for the site. Lav agnino closed the public hearing. Austin commented she would be in favor of granting the variance in both cases. In relation to the height variance the proposed addition is lower than what exists. In addition she had no objections to the bulk. In regard to the swimming pool for safety reasons she would rather grant the variance and have the pool closer to the set back than the building. Paterson concluded with Austin. Mann said she was in favor of the variance and felt the practical difficulties were well spelled out. She felt this was a variance that would uphold the spirit of the zoning laws. Head said he would defer heavily to the comments and recommendations made by the Historic Preservation Committee. He too was in favor of granting the variances. Erickson said he was not in favor of granting either variance. In regard to the swimming pool he did not feel that bed and breakfast lodges in Aspen have swimming pools. He felt it was a luxury, that it could be changed, or the variance could be minimalized. They have chosen to use the western lot line as their back yard, yet they are still using a Main St. address for publicity purposes. They are using a loophole in the code to maximize the building 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 25. 1985 rights on the lot. In regard to the height variance he agreed with the HPC that the integrity of the building be maintained but that doesn ' t mean there is not another roof line that could be built that would still maintain that integrity. Whitaker said he was not concerned with the swimming pool because it is at grade. He said he felt the most important thing was to preserve the historic character of the piece of property which will in essence be completely preserved. He would be in favor of the variance. Lavagnino said he was swayed by the historic aspects of the building as a consideration for granting the variance. It does make this unique and takes it out of the category of cases heard outside of that realm, therefore, the recommendation of the HPC does have bearing on this case. Motion- Mann moved to grant the variances requested for the reasons heard and stated; Head seconded. Lavagnino asked for a roll call vote : Whitaker aye Head aye Mann aye Paterson aye Lavagnino aye All in favor; motion carried. CASE #85-18 / HOLDEN. GUY Lavagnino read the variance request : "a variance to permit encroachment of a garage into a 10 foot front set back. The garage will be constructed under the existing residence and will provide 2 full size off street parking spaces. Currently no full size off street parking spaces can be provided. Property is located in the R-6 zoning category. Front yard set back is 10 feet, Section 24-3. 4 area and bulk requirements. Applicant wants to build a garage which would appear to encroach in to front yard set back 1 1/2 feet at the south west corner and 6 feet at the north west corner requiring a variance. " John Wheeler, architect for the applicant, submitted the affidavit of posting. Mr. Wheeler explained the request which would be to provide 2 off-street parking spaces not provided for by code. Mr. Wheeler 6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 25. 1985 explained the hardship they are encountering is there is no place to put a garage or provide any off-street parking on the site because of the terracing effect in the front. The simplest way to provide the garage is to go under the existing house, which should produce the least impact on the site. After presenting this proposal Bill Drueding went over the plans and commented that we are also looking to have some steps going up to the entry, just off the side of the garage, which is on city property and will need approval by the Engineering Department. The plans were reviewed. Lavagnino asked what square footage was needed for a 2 car garage. Mr. Wheeler replied 20 to 25 feet. Lavagnino then asked what the additional 14 feet requested was for. Mr. Wheeler replied for an entry associated with the garage. He added that code permits up to 600 sq. ft. and the extra 14 feet will make this 600 sq. ft. Head asked to see the elevation plans. Mr. Wheeler explained the plans were rough because they did not want to go too far into it until they determined how the Board would feel about the proposal. The plans were reviewed. Head suggested that the Board is required to give the minimum variance necessary and this request, for the additional 14 feet, is not really the minimum necessary. Whitaker suggested moving it back to the set back line. Lavagnino commented he liked the idea of the getting the cars off of the street but not allowing the extra space for non-parking purposes. Lavagnino closed the public hearing. Erickson said he was in favor of granting a minimal variance. He could not go along with the extra 14 foot extension. Whitaker agreed with Erickson, stating there was no reason to grant a variance for the storage space. The practical difficulty of not undermining the back foundation is sufficient reason to grant the variance for the 2 cars but not for the storage area. Mann said she would support what had been said by the other members. Paterson said he was in favor of granting the variance for the garage. 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 25, 1985 Head agreed with what had been said. He thought there were ways for them to get their entire 600 sq.ft. FAR for storage but not in the proposed front location. He would be in favor of a variance for a 20 foot garage. Austin agreed with Whitaker and would be in favor of the variance for the garage. Lavagnino said he was in favor of the garage with no variance for the storage area. Motion- Whitaker moved to grant a variance for a 20 foot wide garage with the set back of 1 1/2 f eet on the south west corner and 4 1/2 feet on the north west corner, as shown on the applicants plans, ; Head seconded. Lavagnino asked for a roll call vote : Whitaker aye Head aye Mann aye Paterson aye Lavagnino aye All in favor ; motion carried. OLD BUSINESS CASE #85-14 / WIENERSTUBE RESTAURANT Lavagnino said this case was tabled from an earlier date because there were only 4 members present. There are now 5 members present, however , 2 of the voting members now present can not properly vote because they have not been able to read the minutes and familiarize themselves with the case. Therefore, this case will have to be tabled again to allow time for those members to read the minutes before an informed decision can be made. Mr. Cunniffee, applicants attorney, said they would like to amend their request to include only item #1, an expansion of 114 sq. ft. of around floor area for an enclosed delivery area. Motion: Head moved to table Case #85-14 until August 1, 1985 at 4: 00 p. m. ; Mann seconded. All in favor; motion carried. 8 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 25, 1985 Notion Head moved to adjourn the meeting at 5 : 12 p. m. ; Paterson seconded. All in favor; motion carried. Kim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk 9