The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutminutes.boa.19851107 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOVEMBER 7, 1985 City Council Chambers 4:00 p.m. A G E N D A I. MINUTES October 24 , 1985 II. OLD BUSINESS Case #85-20 / Fifth Avenue Condominium III. NEW BUSINESS Case #85-21 / Campbell , Hann (Hibachi) r- Case #85-22 / Debby & Gary Wright IV. ADJOURNMENT V RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOVEMBER 7, 1985 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4: 08 P.M. with members Rick Head, Ron Erickson, Francis Whitaker , Josephine Mann, and Charlie Paterson present. MINUTES October 24 , 1985 Erickson corrected page 1 , last paragraph, Lee Miller should be applicant rather than applicant's architect. Erickson moved to approve the minutes of October 24 , 1985 as amended, Head seconded. All in favor; motion carried. OLD BUSINESS CASE #85-20 / FIFTH AVENUE CONDOMINIUM -- Rqn Garfield, applicant, said they had a new proposal to relocate the requested jacuzzi. New plans were submitted, reviewed and discussed. Paterson asked if there would be a fence around the jacuzzi. Mr. Garfield replied yes, but it would be a lighter fence than exists now. It was questioned if any parking spaces were being lost. The applicant responded that no parking space would be lost, the space indicated as parking on the plans is too narrow to park in. Paterson commented that there were parking stripes indicated but it did appear too narrow to park in. The area was discussed and reviewed on the plans in detail. Lavagnino said he would like to see a plan for the parking area that would be effected by this addition. Mr . Garfield ask if this case could be tabled until the end of this meeting to allow time for him to bring in a more detailed plan. Lavagnino said a letter had been submitted by the Planning Director indicating this request is consistent with the feeling of open space. 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOVEMBER 7. 1985 Motion: Head moved to table Case #85-20 to the end of this meeting, Whitaker seconded. All in favor; motion carried. CASE #85-20 CONTINUED The applicants submitted a detail survey of the area including the proposed location of the jacuzzi. Mr. Garfield said there was a loss of parking and added that it would mean in the summer it is conceivable a parking space may be lost but none would be lost in the winter because of the snow storage and accumulation. Lavagnino asked if the applicant would be required to replace that parking elsewhere. Mr. Miller, applicant, replied no. Bill Drueding, building Inspector , said the applicant could not eliminate any parking. Drueding added if the space that will be Most, does not measure 8 1/2 X 18 feet then it is not considered a parking space. The plans were again reviewed and measured. Whitaker asked for information about the question of open space and the Aspen Mountain Lodge and whether City Council considered swimming pools open space. Mr. Miller replied that it was not a problem for the Aspen Mountain Lodge because they had more open space than was required. Mr. Miller said if this was a PUD the open space could be varied. Erickson reiterated that jacuzzis are becoming no longer an amenity but rather a necessity in the lodging business. This applicant has made an effort to locate the jacuzzi so that its visual impact is minimalized. Additionally, they have not effected any parking. Lavagnino closed the public hearing. Head said he would be in favor of granting this variance because of the recommendations outlined in the Planning Office memorandum. Head felt strongly that the Planning Office had determined that pools and jacuzzis were not a diminishing factor in the open space. Whitaker said he thought the variance should be granted on the basis that the applicant has increased their parking over the original application . Additionally , they have a respected 2 J RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOVEMBER 7. 1985 architect who states they have more than the required open space and the Planning Office has begun the wheels rolling to allow swimming pools and jacuzzis in open space. Paterson said he had been to the property and it looked like the plan submitted would work very well for access , egress, and snow plowing. Paterson added that the new submission was a better situation as far as visual impact. Lavagnino asked if the Board was comfortable with the drawing that had been submitted. Whitaker commented that there were no dimension measurements of the exact location of the jacuzzi. Drueding said when the applicant came for a building permit there would have to be a plan with dimensions noted. Lavagnino reopened the public hearing. Whitaker asked the applicant if they could give exact dimensions n !-he location of the pool in relation to the property lines. Mr. arfield replied given the time they had they were not able to give those dimensions. When applying for the building permit there will be more dimensions on the plan. Whitaker then asked if the applicant could assure the Board that it would be within a foot or so of where it is being shown on the plans before the Board at this time. Garfield suggested wording of the approval such as "substantially in accordance with the illustration shown" . Barry Edwards, City Attorney, said that wording would be appropriate. Mr. Edwards added that a variance from the open space requirement was what was being considered and, therefore, the dimensions were less improtant. Lavagnino said location was very important in the Boards decision. Edwards said that was addressed in the plan submitted, which should be made a part of the record. Lavagnino closed the public hearing. Mann said she would support granting this variance for the reasons given by Head and Whitaker. Erickson said he was in favor of granting the variance based on the reduction of visual impact. Lavagnino said he was in favor of granting the variance . Mr. Lavagnino added that he was disappointed that the applicant 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOVEMBER 7. 1985 had not submitted a more definitive plan as to the exact location of the jacuzzi. Motion: Head moved to grant this variance request so long as the placement of the jacuzzi is substantially in conformance with the map signed by Tim Hagman, offered by the applicant in to the record at this meeting; Paterson seconded. Lavagnino asked for a roll call vote: Paterson aye Mann aye Whitaker aye Head aye Lavagnino aye All in favor; motion carried. Motion: Head moved to adjourn the meeting at 5 : 53 P.M. ; Paterson seconded. All in favor; motion carried. Kim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk 4 nOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case #85-21 BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 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 public hearing will be held in the Council Room, City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, (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 invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views 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: November 7, 1985 Time : 4: 00 pm Owner for Variance: AWellant for Variance: -,ne: Bob Campbell Susan Han Address: 520 E. Cooper 1616 Champa St, #210 Aspen, CO 81611 Denver, CO 80202 Location or description of property- Location: 520 E. Cooper - Aspen, CO Description: Variance Requested: A variance to allow 2 signs. Sec. 24-5. 10 (1) one square foot of sign area for each three (3) feet of lot line frontage. The applicant does not have any lot line frontage and thus requires a variance. Applicant appears to be requesting two signs 18 inches by 29 inches or a total of 7. 26 square feet of signage. Duration of Variance: Permanent Will applicant be represented by counsel : Yes: No: X The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Rim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk CITY OF ASPEN Date : P-:k 1 C- Case No - . : Appellant : Address : S� Phone : CAaS — )wner : Address : Location of Property :- - � � -�^n C� (Street and Number of Subdivision Block and Lot No . ) Building Permit Application and prints or any other pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part of CASE NO. : -R�al THE BOARD WILL RETURN THIS APPLICATION IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ALL THE FACTS IN QUESTION. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EXCEPTION SHOWING JUSTIFICATIONS E- .rl� Nill you be represented by counsel? Yes No (Applicant ' s Signature) PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR TO FORWARD THIS APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND RffON FOR NOT GRANTING: Fib ats�o �-�`�,�,-� C-z,,,• ��V �L� \-2i,�, �'�ti, �;,��2�zc �2-�..� a �(,'1,2t6c..u.� c L �� J ? t �j, e lic u� -c c� ,S 1� �►ti l -�u' l�c 07 �v� �.� fi 1- c. ' lL�X c° c V � •-c G�j c c:- Cry Status SI gned -1FRMIT REJECTED, DATE 6 vy,- - DECISION DATE 1 A—ILICATION FILED G' ! DATE OF HEARING _ RAILED SECRETARY __