Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19860410 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 10, 1986 City Council Chambers 4:00 P.M. A G E N D A I. NEW BUSINESS Case #86-7 / Brunkan, Whiting Case #86-9 / Tipple Inn Condominium, Crawford II. ADJOURNMENT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 10, 1986 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4 : 03 P.M. with members Anne Austin, Josephine Mann, Ron Erickson, and Charlie Paterson present. NEW BUSINESS CASE #86-7 / BRUNRAN, WHITING The applicant for this case was not present when the meeting was called to order. Motion Erickson moved to table Case #86-7 to the end of this meeting; Paterson seconded. All in favor; motion carried. CASE #86-9 / TIPPLE INN CONDOMINIUM, CRAWFORD Lavagnino read the variance request: "Property is located in the L-2 zoning category, Section 24-3 .4 area and bulk requirements. Side yard set back is 5 feet; 25% open space required, and FAR is 1: 1. Structure is non-conforming. Applicant appears to be requesting to #1 increase FAR by 580 sq.ft. , #2 reduce open space further by 290 sq.ft. , #3 encroach in to the 5 foot side yard set back with a solar structure. Section 24-3.3 , No non-conforming structure may be enlarged or altered in a way which increases its non-conformity. " Jack Crawford, applicant, submitted the affidavit of sign posting to the Board. Mr. Crawford played a sound recording of noise heard from their ground floor unit at the Tipple Inn between 10: 30 P.M. and 2: 30 A.M. . Paterson asked where the recording was recorded from. Mr . Crawford replied immediately outside their unit. Erickson asked if the noise was coming from inside the Tippler . Mr . Crawford replied no, the noise comes from the people as they are leaving the establishment. Don Crawford, applicant, said this noise had been a problem for over 2 years. The hardship was created when the Tippler Bar moved their front door to right in front of their units. Previously it had been on the ski slope side of the building. Mr. Crawford said if this request was granted it would dramatically help the noise problem, as well as creating a great energy savings. 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR NEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 10. 1986 Ron Krajian , applicant , said he had double pane his bedroom windows and sliding glass door . This has helped the problem but certainly not solved it. Mr. Krajian also commented that in addition to the noise problem there was also considerable foul language . The people have been drinking and partying when the Tippler closes so they come out to the parking lot and stay for 10 to 15 minutes before leaving. Additionally, bottles, cans, and trash are thrown out in the parking lot . Jack Crawford , applicant, also commented that often people are found urinating on the walls of the condominium units. Lavagnino commented that a greenhouse would not stop these kind of problems. Erickson asked how many years the Crawford ' s had owned their units. Mr. Crawford replied since 1971. Austin asked what the applicants planned to have in the greenhouses, and if they would be opening up the existing walls of their units to the greenhouse. Mr . Crawford replied no and reviewed the proposed plans for the greenhouse. Lavagnino asked if the trees were going to be taken out for the greenhouse. Mr. Crawford said they would like to relocate the trees to the west and north side of the building, which would also enhance the appearance of the building. Paterson said there would be a lot more exposure to the views and the sun without the trees, also allowing less privacy. Paterson questioned if that would be a problem for the applicant. Mr. Crawford said they would still have curtains inside their units for privacy. Mr. Crawford added that there were shades available for the greenhouse also if they became necessary. Austin asked if any parking spaces would be lost to allow space for the greenhouse. Mr. Crawford said the trees that are there now overhang several feet in to the parking area. With the greenhouse it would allow more footage for parking. Mr. Crawford showed pictures of the parking area to the Board members. Paterson asked if the applicants intended to open any of the glass within the greenhouse. Mr . Crawford said they would have to have a door. The plans were again reviewed. Mann asked what happened to the snow in the parking lot in the 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 10. 1986 winter, where will it be moved to. Mr. Crawford said there was so much traffic that snow never really accumulates. Austin asked if the units making this request were only 1 story. Mr. Crawford replied_ yes. Austin then asked if any of the unit owners upstairs had expressed any interest in this. Mr. Crawford said this had all been reviewed and passed by their Condominium Association , unanimously. Mr. Crawford added that the noise problem was not as bad on the upper floors. Lavagnino asked what the exact language of the Condominium Association agreement was. Mr. Crawford read from their Association agreement: "to reduce trespassing and noise by late night Tipple patrons and provide solar heat permission is granted to the owners of units 1,2 , and 3 to change the character of the air space and enclose the area adjacent to units 1 ,2, and 3 extending the width of the main Tipple Inn building on the south side for approximately 10 feet southward from the building, to a height of the first balcony provided the same can be done lawfully. All costs including but not limited to legal , engineering, architectural, governmental approval, materials, and construction shall be paid solely by the owners of units 1,2 ,and 3. All liability, insurance, and upkeep shall be borne by the owners of units 1 ,2, and 3 as part of their units. This area shall be changed from a common element to be part of the respective or pertinent units and all owners agree to execute a document to that effect and to impose the same condition on any subsequent purchaser of the units as a condition of sale. If all three owners of units 4,5, and 6 elect to enclose the air space pertinent to their respective units the area shall extend in height to the second balcony and all costs shall be paid porportionately by the owners of units 1 through 6. If all six owners of units 4 through 9 elect to enclose the air space pertinent to their respective units the area shall extend in height to the roof and all costs shall be paid porportionately by the owners of units 1 through 9." Lavagnino said that agreement states that owners of the other units can do this same thing. Mr. Crawford said that was incorrect, a poll had already been taken and only those units represented tonight were interested in taking this action. Lavagnino said he saw no indication that the other unit owners had no intention of asking for this same type of relief. Mr. Crawford said if this variance was allowed the owners of the units upstairs would not be 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 10. 1986 able to add on to the structure that is being proposed with this request. Lavagnino asked if the applicant had discussed their problem with the Tippler Bar management. Mr. Crawford replied it had been discussed many times . Lee Miller , Manager of the Tipple Inn Condominiums, said the noise problem had been discussed with the Tippler Bar many times, they are sympathetic that there is noise being generated but not willing to contribute financially to resolving the problem. Mr. Miller added that they have had numerous complaints and as many as 3 separate guests checked out in 1 day as a result of the noise coming from the bar. Mr. Miller said he thought what the Crawford ' s had come up with would certainly help the situation. Lavagnino commented that the Tippler Bar and Copper Kettle Restaurant had always been in this location and that he thought people buying units there should be aware of this problem. Mr. Miller agreed that the bar had always been there, but the main entrance door was relocated approximately 1 year ago and that is what has intensified the problem. Charlie Hopton, manager of North of Nell Condominiums, said they had been in litigation for several years against the Tippler for this very problem. Mr. Hopton said the Tippler had historically been a bar but in the past it was one of the finer places in Aspen, a very class operation. It has since been turned in to a teenage disco and subsequently they serve liquor to minors and there are frequent fights. To say that it has historically been this kind of establishment is not true. Mr. Hopton said he thought the City should be abating the problem because the property owners are entitled to quiet enjoyment of their property and should not have to build a sound proof box to do so. Paterson asked Mr. Hopton if he had a greater problem at his property when the door was in its original location. Mr. Hopton replied the original Tippler was masonry and stone, thereby closing the sound within the building. That has now been turned in to a greenhouse type of area with no insulation. Additionally a very high powered sound system has been installed. Mr. Hopton said there was a fire exit door, clearly marked, that was being used as an exit and entrance and people were being served on the deck. Through pursuit of this problem the management had agreed 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 10. 1986 to maintain that door only as a fire exit. Mr. Hopton said this was not being done. Lavagnino asked how much solar gain would be obtained from the top panels and from the front panels of the proposed greenhouse. Peter Dobravolny, representing applicant, said that would vary monthly as the angle of the sun changes. The lower the sun the more gain will come through the vertical part of the glass. Lavagnino commented that would mean more gain in the winter months. Lavagnino asked if the same effect could not be achieved with a 2 foot wall, questioning why the 10 feet was necessary in this request. Mr. Dobravolny said he was not responsible for the design of this proposal . Lavagnino said he was asking Mr. Dobravolny as an expert in the field. Mr. Dobravolny said the depth inside was inconsequential in terms of the amount of gain coming through. He added, from the owners standpoint, they made a decision to make it deep enough to do a third thing in providing usable space. Lavagnino said that was what bothered him, acoustical problems and heat gain were what had been discussed and now comes the factor of the convenience of using space, which takes this further than the minimal variance. Lavagnino asked if solar gain or acoustical value would be lost , and to what extent, if a 2 foot wall were allowed. Mr. Dobravolny said it should not make a lot of difference as the same amount of glass would be used providing the same benefits of solar gain and sound effect. Mr. Crawford said their overhang was greater than 2 feet and if that was all that was allowed they would not get any solar benefit. Lavagnino said he had asked if any gain was being received from the top of the panels and the reply was no and in the winter the sun would be more effective from the front panels. Mr. Crawford responded that if the glass panels were under the balcony there would be no sun on them. The plans were again discussed. Mr . Crawford said there had been a legal precedent set by this Board. In 1983 the Roaring Fork building and an adjacent alleyway was allowed to be enclosed. In 1985 Chateau Snow was allowed to enclose 3 balconies, similar to this request. Mr. Crawford said in both cases the buildings were over their FAR and had the same situation as this request. Lavagnino said that this Board does not set precedents, that each case is heard on an individual basis. 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 10, 1986 Paterson said if this request were approved a condition could be added that the applicant not remove the interior walls. Erickson asked how that would be policed. Bill Drueding, Building Inspector, said the applicant would need a building permit to remove those walls. Mr. Crawford said they would be happy to agree to that condition. Austin said she was concerned about the glass overhead becoming too hot. Mr. Crawford said there would be sections of glass capable of being opened. Mr. Crawford added that their sound problem was at night, therefore, it would not be a problem to open the windows during the day. Mr. Hopton said a number of owners at his property had called and ask him to express their concerns. One concern was that this solution would not solve the problem. The prime concerns that the owners had was that while this is on the south side of the building there is nothing to preclude that the greenhouses will not go further up the building and that owners on the other side of the building will want to do the same thing. Mr. Hopton said his owners ask if this variance is granted that it be made absolutely clear that it does not set a precedent for future similar requests. Lavagnino replied that anyone with a request for variance can come before the Board and will be heard based on arguments based on their own particular situation and problem. Mr. Hopton added if this request were for the north side of the building they would be in opposition to the request because it would create more mass on the building. Mr. Crawford disagreed with Mr. Hopton in the matter that this request would not solve their problem. Mr . Crawford said they had an architect do a study which says this proposal will cut down 50% of the noise and would add 50% solar gain. Mr. Hopton said the North of Nell had spent $75,000 in the last six months installing triple glazed doors to help alleviate this same sound problem. This was pursued with engineers before the doors were installed and there is a very definite noise suppression factor. Single pane glass will not solve the noise problem. Lavagnino asked what type of glass was used in the units currently, single or double pane. Mr. Crawford replied the sliding doors were double pane glass and single pane in the bedroom windows. Lavagnino asked if the walls were insulated. Mr. Dobravolny replied that the lower floor of the building was 8 X 8 wood posts 6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 10. 1986 spaced far enough apart to put brick in between. The upper floors of the building appear to be framed. Mann read a letter from John D. LaSalle, representing the Kettle Corp. , stating no objection to the request so long as the enlarg- ement of the building did not hinder access currently provided for service and emergency vehicles . However , the Kettle Corp. doubts that the noise created by its patrons is as serious as the applicants contend. Lavagnino closed the public hearing. Paterson said he had empathy for this request because the noise factor was something that is a hardship. The noise is not something that was caused by the applicant. Paterson said he thought the location of the door to the Tippler had a lot to do with the noise generated. He had reservations, however, that this proposal was the only way to solve the problem, asking for a 10 foot variance in to the yard. Paterson said he would like to concede the applicant had a hardship and concede to the fact that there is another solution which is not as much of an impact on the building or the neighborhood. Paterson suggested that a straight glass wall could be placed down from the balcony upstairs. This would solve the problem and address itself to their main hardship and it would also enable the trees to remain in place. Erickson agreed with Paterson. He felt there was a hardship in terms of the noise. However, he did not like the 10 foot encroa- chment stating he did not think it would solve the problem but cause more problems. The design that has been presented is all glass fronted and someone will run in to it with a car or beer bottle, etc. Erickson added that he would not be against granting a limited variance. Erickson commented that FAR was also being increased by this request. Mann agreed with Paterson that there is a hardship. This request for variance is a big one, with reduction of open space as well as increasing the FAR and encroaching in to the side yard. Mann said she felt the Board had been put in the position of trying to remedy something that could possibly have been helped by the owners of the bar and the process of applying for a liquor license renewal . Obviously that process has fallen down, creating this problem that this Board is being asked to solve. Mann said she did not like solving this kind of problem by adding to the 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 10. 1986 bulk of a building that is already non-conforming and reducing open space in the area. Ms. Mann said she realized, however, that the owners had a problem and she would be willing to grant a minimal variance. Mr. Drueding remarked if only the balcony area was enclosed there would be no open space requirement because what is underneath the balcony is not open space. Lavagnino commented that the only variance now was the FAR, which had been cut in half. Austin agreed that the noise was a hardship. She also agreed with the comments made regarding the FAR, feeling too much variance was being requested. Austin said she felt there was a compromise which she would be willing to go along with. Lavagnino said he was originally against the variance but now the requests have been reduced. He thought the problem was with enforcement and a situation that existed which has been exacerbated by the type of establishment that it has now been changed to. However, all of the elements were there for the owners to foresee that this situation could happen at any time. Lavagnino said this minimal variance could be given because he did realize the problem of noise. Lavagnino said he would be in favor of the minimal variance if the approval were conditioned that the inner wall not be removed. Lavagnino remarked that access and egress for cars had not been discussed. Lavagnino reopened the public hearing. Jack Crawford said they did not feel only going out 5 feet was worth the expense etc. as there was no solar gain and not enough footage from people/noise in the parking area. Mr. Crawford asked the Board to allow them to extend the greenhouse to 8 feet. The bottom of the greenhouse would be built up with wood or something that could not be broken by a car. That would allow the greenhouse to be out from under the balcony and they would be able to achieve their solar gain, additionally giving them 8 feet from the people/noise. Lavagnino said, based on comments made by Mr. Dobravolny, 5 feet should be enough space to accomplish both reasons expressed for this request. Lavagnino reiterated that it was encumbent on the Board to grant only the minimum variance required. 8 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 10, 1986 Mr. Miller said by using the 8 foot compromise they would be able to extend the glass and achieve more solar gain. Additionally, aesthetically a vertical pane of glass dropping straight down below the existing balcony would be less pleasing than perhaps a greenhouse effect with a tapered roof. Lavagnino remarked that the Board could not consider aesthetics in determining a case. Erickson added as soon as the 5 foot level was exceeded then the request becomes for 3 variances again. Austin asked if the applicant were only granted the minimal 5 foot variance would they be allowed to thin or remove the trees to allow them some solar gain. Lavagnino said there would not be a problem with that. Mr . Krajian said there was a problem in that the balconies upstairs do not have a solid, sealed flooring. If only enclosure of our balcony area is allowed it will not be worth the expense of insulating the area. Paterson said cost should be less than half of the original request no matter how it was done. Austin commented that financial matters also could not be considered by this Board. Mr. Crawford said they did not feel the 5 foot variance was practical in solving their problem. Mr. Crawford proposed putting a fence at the 10 foot line, 8 feet in height allowing the top portion to be built of glass. Lavagnino asked if that would not cut in to the solar gain. Mr. Crawford replied it would not be a building but rather a fence. Nothing would be enclosed. Lavagnino said the request for a fence could not be granted at this meeting because that is a different request than the public was noticed for this meeting. Lavagnino added that the applicant could reapply for that variance. Lavagnino closed the public hearing. Mann said she was confused as to whether even the minimum variance should be granted if it was not useful to the applicant. She questioned why the request should not be denied. Lavagnino said the Board could grant a variance if they feel it is necessary to alleviate the problem. The applicant does not have to build their requested addition if they do not want to. Lavagnino said he thought the Board was considering the applicant's problem and to 9 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 10 -1986 the best of their ability found ways to alleviate that problem, granting the minimum variance by law. Motion: Erickson moved to grant a minimal variance of 290 sq. ft. to enclose that area that is currently under the second floor balcony with glass to gain solar and acoustical insulation reinforcement conditioned that the inside walls not be removed; Paterson seconded. Lavagnino asked for a roll call vote : Austin aye Paterson aye Mann aye Erickson aye Lavagnino aye All in favor; motion carried. CASE #86-7 / BRUNKAN. WHITING The applicant was not present. Notion: Erickson moved to table Case #86-7 to April 17 , 1986; Paterson seconded. All in favor; motion carried. Motion: Paterson moved to adjourn the meeting at 5 : 30 P. M. ; Austin seconded. All in favor; motion carried. K m Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk 10