Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19861120 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOVEMBER 20, 1986 4:00 P.M. A G E N D A I . MINUTES November 13 , 1986 I . NEW BUSINESS CASE #86-22 / COMMUNITY CHURCH CASE #86-23 / VOLK II . ADJOURNMENT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOVEMBER 20, 1986 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4: 05 p.m. with Ron Erickson, Rick Head and Josephine Mann in attendance. CASE #86-21 / PROSPECTOR The representative for the Prospector explained that the bank is now holding a note on the Prospector and are trying to sell it. In the meantime they want to make sure nobody gets hurt. He said Georgeann Waggaman of HPC had inspected the property and had made a rendition for them. The problem they have is the hazardous condition caused by the stairwell entrances being exposed. It rains right down into the stairwells and then freezes. What they would like to do is install a fixed awning which would tilt backwards so that it would drain into a planter which is a natural place for the water to drain into. Remo questioned what would happen if that gets dirt or gravel in it. And then would it not freeze rather than drain. The repres- entative said yes it could but because of its tilt the awning sheds its snowload and is easily shoveled. Ron Erickson then asked what was the awning made of and was told it would be canvas. Buzz Fedorka then explained that the reason this particular design was chosen for these two awnings was that they had elimin- ated their ability to solve the problem with other situations. All of the sidewalks which surround the front of the Prospector and the steps that come down on the northern side of the building are all hydropulsed. Warm water travels under all these which melts off the sidewalks and the steps. But as the snow falls it melts and runs down into the flat areas which are not hydropulsed thereby causing the problem at the north side of the building. Buzz said they had looked at the alternative which would be retrac- table awnings and more desireable in terms of not exceeding FAR rating. But the space that is required makes it such that the eastern and western entrances need to be fixed awnings. The ones designed for the third floor will be retractable and not used in the summer time as much as the tilt awnings would be in the summer time. Buzz also explained that the awning over the western entrance would also cover a wheelchair lift which moves up and down and they can't have water standing there as it then becomes unusable. Remo asked Georgeann how HPC felt about these awnings. She said HPC' s criteria is need and aesthetics. HPC felt that there was a clear need for the project, that the awnings were a good solution, added to the building aesthetically and solved the problems. Georgeann explained that the dome shaped awning on the third floor is not retractable but it was the most minimal solution which could be reached and give the proper headroom. Josephine then brought up about the extended wood on the roof cap above the west stair by 3 to 5 feet. It was explained by Georgeann the reason this was not treated the same way as the other stairwell is that when they came to her, they had it done the other way. This is not a public access stairwell but she felt to try to attract attention with a bright blue spot that far up on the building was not a good solution. Therefore she proposed to them that they try just continuing the wood line as that would be the least noticeable solution. Josephine then asked if the wheelchair is in operation. Buzz informed her it is repaired and operating but that if they don't have some kind of covering to keep the snowmelt off that area it then will again become inoperable. It has been in use this summer and fall. Remo asked if this was in the historic zone district and Georgeann said yes it is but is not an historic building. She said HPC passed the review from their point of view. Rick Head asked if awnings are considered enclosed space . Drueding explained that fixed awnings are considered a roof and counted as FAR. Remo asked if that gives them license to enclose the area. Drueding said no because you have here a nonconforming building over their FAR. Erin Hazen then explained that the Board of Adjustment by the ordinance can impose the appropriate conditions and suggested that if the Board is going to grant the variance that they impose the proper conditions. Remo then asked if there were any comments from the audience . There were none . He then closed the public portion of the meeting and gave the applicant the option of having a vote of the Board since there were only four members present. Barry asked for a straw vote. Remo then asked for comments from the Board. Ron Erickson felt that there is a safety hazard here which needs to be addressed and remedied. He was not sure this was the best way to solve the problem, but if it was the best way, he would grant the variance. Josephine Mann said that the safety factor was so important that that overrides everything. She is glad that they are proposing the awninged roof and felt comfortable with granting this proposal . Rick Head shared the thoughts of the rest of the Board. He said the Board is in a position of having to overcome architect 's neglect in the designing of the building and that this is something which should have been looked at when the building was first proposed. He said that when the architect designs a building they try to get as much FAR as possible knowing full well that later on when they have problems with safety they are going to come back and get relief here. But at the same time he feels that the Board should alleviate the hazard that is created. Remo stated that he feels there is a deficiency in the code and that the code should require that all stairwells be covered, and that all areas regarding safety be addressed in the code. It should be a requirement of the builder and the architect to supply such things. And it becomes part of the FAR, that ' s fine. But -if it -isn't there in the code -we are going to keep on seeing this problem. He said he was glad to see that HPC overviewed this so that there was another body which had gone over the areas of safety as well as the aesthetic approach which we cannot consider. And that he is in favor of granting this variance. Drueding then reminded the Board that in granting this variance condition it upon those areas now covered are not enclosed. Remo then called for motion. Ron Erickson then made the motion to grant a variance for 237 and 3/4 sq. ft . of additional FAR awnings which are to be made of canvas and of a permanent nature. The fourth of wood structure 3x5 feet with 3 ' out and 5 ' long cap over the door which is not public access and conditioned that none of these be enclosed. Rick Head seconded the motion with all in favor . A two minute break in order to see if some source of light could be located. CASE #86-22 / COMMUNITY CHURCH Graeme Means stated that a fire safety problem exists in that in the basement of the building there is an assembly area for approximately 70 people and at the moment there is only one exit. Therefore the basement area does not meet the fire exit performa- nce. In order to add a new entryway, it needs to be on the opposite side of the room from the present one which means that it has to be either in the alley or on Aspen Street. Either one would require a variance. He pointed out that they are not asking for any change in floor area, occupancy load or change in use. This proposal is only improving the present use. The building was built long before any building codes came into being and therefore the building and zoning codes have made the building illegal. The building has already received preliminary approval from HPC and Planning Department subject to final approval from the HPC. 3 There is a precedent for a door already since there is an existing doorway there now which is very small and not big enough to satisfy the fire code. It is basically not used because it is so small and also because of a very bad situation of ice falling off the roof. There is a relatively large distance of 19 feet between the curb and the property line with two large Aspen trees and grass area in between the property line and the curb. This helps buffer the proposed addition helps to reduce the scale of that facade and helps to increase the attractiveness of the building. The building is important historically and architecturally as a community building and the congregation is putting a lot of effort into raising over a third of a million dollars to fix the building up both aesthetically and structurally. If this building is to become a valuable and economically viable part of the community then updating the building and adding on this entryway is essential to that. Drueding explained that what we have here is a variance for outside setback. This will be counted FAR but for a church it is conditional use review. They are not varying the conditional uses. Remo asked that since safety was what they were looking for that perhaps an awning over the entry would solve the problem. Graeme explained that even now with most of the snow melted off there still is snow there and that it is a pretty dangerous situation. Drueding then brought up the point that the applicant is going to encroach upon City property. The City owns the 19 feet previously mentioned. The Church is asking for a variance only to go up to the property line. Then they will go to the City Council for encroachment license to go an extra 3 feet. Remo asked if they would be repeating the stonework on the bottom part of the addition. Graeme said yes and probably use wood shingles on the roof part. Right now there is some metal roofing on the church with is not a good quality and they don' t want to have to- match - that. They might look at a metal roof -because of the snowfall. Graeme stated that according to Jim Wilson if we are going to get a building permit to improve internally we need first to get the fire requirements met. Remo asked if there were any other questions. There were none and he closed the public portion of the meeting. Remo asked if there were other comments from the Board. 4 Rick Head said he was strongly in favor of granting this variance based solely on the safety factor. Josephine Man said this was one of the easy cases. It is a special building and special circumstance. She supported the safety aspect. We are lucky that there is all that space on the west side which in her opinion makes it possible for us to grant this variance knowing that we are not crowding the area. So she is all in favor of this. Ron Erickson was in favor of the variance for all the aforementi- oned reasons. Remo said his concern was that if we grant the minimal variance to this project. Our jurisdiction is only up to the property line and they want some extra footage which has to do with the city and if they get it, that ' s fine. And he would be willing to grant the variance. He reminded the applicant there were only four members. This was okayed by the applicant. Remo then asked for a motion. Josephine Mann moved that we grant a variance to the lot line on the west side with two conditions--one that there is final approval from HPC and that there be no enclosure of this area. This was seconded by Ron Erickson with all in favor. Graeme then asked the Board to extend the one year limit to two years. The reason being even though the church definitely intended doing this later this winter, it is conditional on the Church being able to raise the money. After discussion on this it was decided to leave that option open and renew it in a year 's time. PREVIOUS MINUTES Ron Erickson made a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of November 13 , 1986 with the correction. This was seconded by Rick Head with all in favor. Remo then reminded Board members to let the secretary know when they are going to be gone. He also brought up the problem of members being notified when their terms are going to expire in order to avoid the situation we have just experienced with having no quorum. Rick Head then made a motion to adjourn the meeting. This was seconded by Josephine with all in favo . Janice q. twrney,_ Deputy ity Clerk 5