HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19870212 N,
w
CITY OF ASPEN
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FEBRUARY 12, 1987
City Council Chambers
4:00 P.M.
AC E N-DA
I. MINUTES
January 8 , 1987
January 29 , 1987
II. OLD BUSINESS
CASE #87-1 / Houston R. Harte
III. NEW BUSINESS
Case #87-2 / Wheeler Opera House
Case #87-3 / Westec Security Company
IV. ADJOURNMENT
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 12, 1987
In the absence of the Chairman and Vice Chairman meeting was called
to order by Francis Whitaker at 4 : 00pm.
Answering roll call were Anne Austin, Ron Erickson, Rick Head and
Francis Whitaker. Charlie Paterson arrived immediately after roll
call.
MINUTES
After corrections:
Francis made a motion to approve minutes as corrected.
Josephine seconded the motion with all in favor.
MINUTES
JANUARY 29, 1987
Francis made a motion to approve minutes.
Rick seconded the motion with all in favor.
CASE #87-1
HOUSTON R.HART--CONT.
Withdrawn.
CASE #87-2
WHEELER OPERA HOUSE
Bob Murray presented affidavit of mailing. (Attached in record)
Charlie: Read variance request as attached in record.
Wayne Pleasants and Bob Murray of the Wheeler Opera House:
Bob Murray, Executive Director of the Wheeler: The one criticism
that we have received and perhaps the only one we have had and we
felt beholden to react to it--this came from the Wheeler Board as
well as the City Council--is what can we do about keeping the
theatre more comfortable during the summer months particularly when
it is so busy with the Music Festival in town.
The problem is created by a combination of things. Daylight
savings time, the early hour of opera productions, the capacity
audiences that the Wheeler attracts which generate heat and of
course our own equipment. All of these things compound on a hot
summer's day. so if you are going to see Mozart at 7 : 30--Mozart
lasts until 11: 30 or 12 : 00, it is quite a trial. And if we didn't
want the Wheeler to get the reputation--it has such a good
reputation--that we didn't want people to say "It is lovely and it
is fun to go but I wouldn't be caught--or might be caught dead in
there in the summer" .
So we were given the task to investigate ways in which we could in
the most economical and easiest way to bring some air cooling into
the Wheeler. When the Wheeler was first proposed--the renovation
that is now complete--at one time the City did consider air
conditioning. That was thrown out because everybody said it was
not necessary in Aspen. And ordinarily it is not except for the
conditions I have described.
He then described the most economical and feasible way for the
mechanics for this proposed air cooling system to be installed.
Wayne Pleasants: The main reason for box and everything else is
it actually it is an air washer unit. It has accommodations
basically 3 items. This existing mechanical unit for the
auditorium is in the side wall here. It is up above the staircase.
In order to access it easily this unit on top of the roof is
necessary.
What it does is it basically takes hot air out of the attic. There
will be a hole cut in the roof of the auditorium. It will be able
to take the air out of the attic, mix it through the cooling
chamber and through water and send it back down into the main unit
and out into the auditorium.
In the winter time it will be able to take the hot air out of the
attic, use it as heat, recirculate it and put it right back into
the auditorium again.
According to the engineering studies it should save us about 50%
of our utility bills which right now average about $60, 000 a year.
So hopefully it will pay for itself in a couple of years.
The other nice thing about it is it is a water washer--an air
washer--so it will add humidity to the air in the auditorium which
we are beginning to have problems with dry rot in the seating and
the curtains. So we are trying to alleviate a lot of the small
problems by doing one single unit.
The engineers have estimated this will have an 80% chance of this
succeeding. If it does not succeed the next alternative is to put
a chiller where the original footprint when we did the original
restoration was and that would send cold water to this unit instead
of just normal water from the tap. And then that would guarantee
cooling.
Francis: Do I understand that you will get enough heat from it in
the winter to add to the heat of the building?
Wayne: It will make up about 50% of our heat in the winter time
because the average attic temperature was 110 degrees. So it is
good hot air. With the lighting instruments that are involved--
there are approximately 350 lighting instruments in the opera house
and they all burn at approximately 350 or 400 degrees apiece. Then
you get about 500 bodies breathing 90 degree air out the building
gets warm even in the winter time.
So this will also facilitate cooling the building down quicker in
the winter if we get up to 80 degrees in the balcony for some
reason, it will be computer controlled so that we push one button,
it will open the outside air vent and if it is 20 degrees below 0
outside, we can bring the air in from outside directly and cool the
building down immediately.
Francis: -I -have been -in auditoriums -where you couldn't hear what
was going on when the air system was on. Is this going to be a
quiet one?
Wayne: The way the air conditioning is designed, it is insulated
completely all the way ;around. The only aspect where it connects
to something new that we don't know what it sounds like is in the
roof of the building. That area will be insulated so that it will
not affect the auditorium.
We have been in a catch 22 with the City as far as funding and we
haven't been able to afford the study per'se as far as real facts
according to how much this would affect the acoustics of the
building.
This unit will change all of the air in the building once every 3
minutes.
Charlie then read into the record a letter from Nick Lebby.
(Attached in record)
Discussion followed as to where the unit would be installed as
regard to viewplans to neighboring buildings.
There being no further comments from the public Charlie closed the
public portion of the meeting.
Rick: I am very, very strongly in favor of granting this variance
for selfish reasons. I have had to endure a few shows up there in
the summer time and I think there is a safety and health factor
here somewhere. I think the viewplane interruption is minimal and
then I think it is a minimal request. I am more than happy to
approve something like this.
Josephine: I find this one of the easy cases. It is really
wonderful to have one like this. I too have endured the hot
evenings. And this is one of the gems of Aspen and we all want it
to be just perfect. I am happy to do my part to grant a variance
for this.
Francis: I think I have asked the questions and they have been
answered.
Anne: I am very much in favor of this. The real reason they are
in front of us is that this is a non-conforming building by height.
But that was because it is an historic building that was built way
before zoning codes were installed and I see that as a hardship
that they didn't create. And we want to preserve this building.
And I think we should do everything to make it pleasant.
Charlie: My opinion is that they have areal hardship because of
the way the space would be available in the mechanical room and the
fact that they- have- to have--it outside the building. I- am also in
favor of granting this variance.
Charlie then re-opened the public portion of the hearing.
MOTION
Josephine: I move that we grant a variance for an 8ft height
variance not to exceed the height of the flat portion of the roof
for mechanical equipment as has been described to us today for the
Wheeler Opera House as requested in case #87-2 .
Charlie seconded the motion with all in favor.
Roll call vote:
Francis, yes, Charlie, yes, Josephine, yes, Rick, yes, Anne, yes.
CASE #87-3
WESTEC SECURITY COMPANY
Charlie read into record request for variance. (attached in
record)
Affidavit of posting was presented. (attached in record)
Harry Mayer, applicant: We are more than just an office. We sell
also a retail security and fire system to our clients and also
offer services such as key holding services and all kinds of things
that our -clients and their guests are always looking for. So we
are a retail operation as well.
The part that we were looking for variance is the words "Westec
Security Company" . The Mesa Store Building is allowed by code.
Bill Drueding, Planning Dept: When Westec started there-Mesa Store
before was a pre-existing commercial use. So there was a furniture
store there, there was a bakery there. Even though it is an O zone
it was a pre-existing use that was commercial. A retail sign is
allowed as if they were retail or commercial.
When Westec came in I did talk to Harry and I did realize it wasn't
retail, it was an office and they are going to rent office space.
They are not commercial. If they are commercial they have to go
through a review process. There are certain conditional uses that
are permitted and a security company is not one of them. So now
it is back to an office so we have to deal with it as such.
They are not really retail. They are an office and they are
advertising for office space because they are not going to take all
this space.
What I was trying to say is I was trying to give them a little
reliance to make this sign from previous conversation. It was my
fault without realizing they weren't commercial.
After further discussion Charlie asked for comments from the
public. There were none and he closed the public portion of the
hearing.
Francis: In this new draft that we have and I think it is a valid
point, it says "A relevant question is whether the hardship is
preventing the landowner from enjoying property right enjoyed by
others" . Bill pointed out the fact that the L-3 zone has much
greater latitude in signs than the O. I would think that on the
Main Street where there are many other businesses that do have
signs that are comparable that we might consider this as a
compromise between basing it on the front footage--we could give
them 20sgft and basing it on the Office zone which would give them
lsgft.
Drueding: You are advertising office space. Your clients are
going to want a sign. They are stuck now with lsqft whether they
are upstairs or wherever they are.
Rick: We can make this approval contingent upon only 1 additional
square foot for any other use that goes in there.
Drueding: A registry.
Josephine agreed with this.
Rick agreed.
Francis agreed.
Anne: No. I am not in favor of it. I hate to say it. They have
already made the sign. But I don't feel that we should feel that
because they made it that that is a hardship. If I had a choice
at this point I would rather go with a sign the same size that the
Mesa Store Building sign. The same size lettering. Or I would see
just putting just the Westec up. I am a little concerned. I think
it is advertising on Main Street for a commercial--not a commercial
but a business and may get the additional benefit of advertising
in larger letters just because a mistake was made.
I am really not in favor of granting the variance.
Rick: Historically the use has been a retail use ever since way
back it was a general store when it first opened. And they would
have been 20sgft and so they are asking for 6sgft.
Anne: It was 10sgft for a retail.
Rick: So they are only asking for 6. So they are under what they
would have otherwise been allowed.
Charlie: They do have a hardship on the basis of the fact that the
lodges across the street can have a much larger sign. I do feel
that they do have property right on this particular situation and
I would be in favor of granting the variance if we make it
conditioned that any other office sign will be no more than the
allowable--the lsqft sign.
Charlie then re-opened the public portion of the hearing.
After further discussion:
MOTION
Rick: I make a motion we approve Case #87-3 for the aforementioned
hardships and practical difficulties and contingent upon them only
expanding the sign another square foot for additional office use
in the building.
Charlie: Did you want to limit any of this?
Rick: No. I don't think it is our job to get in there and re-
design their sign. They are asking for 6. 8ft and that is what I
am prepared to give them.
Josephine seconded the motion.
Roll call vote:
Francis, no, Charlie, yes, Josephine, yes, Rick, yes, Anne, no.
motion failed.
Charlie then closed the public portion of the hearing in order to
hear further discussion.
Francis: Rick, what we have done when we have granted variances
for signs is that we grant the variance and if the variance granted
conforms to the new sign ordinance, then that is fine. But if the
variance granted does not conform to the new sign ordinance then
the variance is cancelled. It has been pretty much that way.
Rick was talking about if the new sign code had an amendment then
that would be different. But if the sign code stays exactly the
same as far as Office Zone goes then we would allow a much larger
sign than the new code would allow. They do have the sign already
made. But I don't think we should consider that as a hardship.
They have not, in my opinion, presented any hardship case or
practical difficulty. The fact that they are in one zone on Main
Street and there are other zones that allow other signs on Main
Street, I don't think we can consider that. I think they should
be treated the same way as the other office buildings. There are
other office buildings down the street. The old victorian that has
a lot of offices. And they are all as far as I know down to lsqft
per use. They have not presented any hardship enough to convince
me that they should be allowed a bigger sign.
Charlie: In other words there is no change in our motion that
would change your vote.
Francis: If they present something that meets our criteria, that
is one thing.
Charlie: What you are saying though it doesn't meet our criteria
unless what happens. The sign is smaller or less or--
Francis: No. That is not--that is not my point or Anne's point
either.
Charlie: You just want to deny that.
Anne: I am opposed to changing something that works right now on
Main Street and give them an exception when there really hasn't
been shown to us a real reason why it should be given.
Charlie re-opened the hearing.
Mayer: You are changing the sign code and you are having a meeting
with 4 or 5 people--
Anne: City Council will vote on it. We have made a recommendation
to have a new sign code because retail businesses in town on second
floors or in courtyards aren't dealt with in the sign code. So we
are trying to get it re-worked.
Drueding: It will be a public hearing when they change the sign
code and it finally comes down to the first reading. There are 2
readings. They will have a public hearing at that time to give all
the public an opportunity to object or anything they want. And
then 2 weeks later they have a second hearing and you have a chance
again. So you will have all the input you want.
Francis: The things that have come before the Board of Adjustment
have been cases that were not covered by the sign code. That is
buildings inside second story buildings, basement buildings and we
have granted variances on occasion to last as long as the new sign
code.
Anne: Basically the variances that we have granted for situations
that aren't covered--we have granted them the same amount that is
allowed--a retail business that is on street level that does have
street frontage.
In other words we haven't gone and amplified the amount of square
footage that they could have over another retail business. We have
just given them an equal right to have a sign that they are not
allowed to have at all right now.
Mayer: The signs that have been there have been the entire length
of the building. We have a lot of pictures showing that. And now
because we happen to be the wrong business when the new zoning was
put out, we are hurt because we can't put a sign out. Now it has
had a sign there before we were meeting here.
Drueding: Let me read what is permitted in uses in the Office
zone. "It is the intent to provide to offices and associated
commercial uses in such a way as to preserve the visual scale and
character of formerly residential areas that now are adjacent to
commercial and business areas and along Main Street and other
highly traveled thoroughfares" .
So that is the intent. So now the permitted uses are single
family, duplex, multi-family residents. Professional and business
offices, accessory dwelling units, recognizes moderate income and
that type of housing. So permitted is nothing but business
offices-professional businesses and dwellings.
And then you have the conditional uses which require review process
through Planning & Zoning Commission--fraternal lodges, boarding
houses, shop directly on the street, restaurants, antique store,
furniture store, music store, day care, dance, music studios,
mortuary, broadcasting station. Mesa Store is historical.
Basically what I am saying is it is not a commercial area. It is
not a grocery store type area. It is a low volume area.
Rick: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we adjourn.
Anne seconded the motion with all in favor. Time was 5: 45pm.
c
Ja ce M. Carne C y Deputy Jerk
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Case #87-2 / WHEELER
BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TO 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: February 12, 1987
Time: 4: 00 p.m.
Owner for Variance: Appellant f g r
Variance:_
Name: City of Aspen
Address: Aspen, Colorado Wayne Pleasants
Location or description of property:
Location: 320 E. Hyman Ave.
Aspen, Colorado
Variance Requested: Property is located in the "CC" zoning
category. Maximum height is 40 ft. (Sec.24-3 .4) plus 5 ft for
mechanical equipment (Sec 24-3 . 7 (g) ) Building currently exceeds
the maximum height. No non-conforming structure may be enlarged
in a way that increases its non-conformity ( Sec 24-13 . 3) .
Applicant appears to be requesting an 8 ft height variance for
mechanical equipment.
Duration of Variances 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 Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk
County of Pitkin ) AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY POSTING
ss. OF A VARIANCE HEARING BEFORE
State of Colorado ) THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT (Pursuant to
Section 2-22 (c) of the Municipal
Code)
The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says as
follows:
1. 1 ,.0/, 1,?,7 /YI_v29/',
______-________ being or
t
representing an Applica b for the City of Aspen Board of
Adjustment, personally certify that the attached photograph
fairly and accurately represents the sign posted as Notice of the
variance hearing on this matter in a conspicuous place on the
subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public
way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously
f rom the So T - day of 1937, to the
C, 11-t day of P-V 19 E? (Must be posted for
at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date) .
-A L I AN
Si nature
Subscribed and sworn bef re me
this _ day of
19 , by
(Attach photograph here)
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
Cc-
My commission expires:
d
No ary Pu is
Address
1 ,2a oll-p C17//2 /
�21
Date Case No'. :
Appellant : / Address•: 500 7z'
Phone:
Owner J """'i Address:
Location cLl Prop-zrty -.
(Street and Number of Subdivision Block and Lot No. )
Building Permit Application and prints or any other* pertinent
data must accompany this applidation, and will be made part of
CASE NO. :
THE BOARD WILL RETURN THIS' APPLICATION'. IP IT DOES- NOT CONTAIN ALL
THE FACTS IN QUESTION.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EX.CZPTION SHMIT ?I CATIONS
r
-4.
TIM you be represented by counsel? Yes No
(A'pplicant' s Signature)
_S06,8
PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR TO
FORWARD THIS APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND REASON FOR NOT
GRANTING-
It
y- a
n,
6-T
Status S.igned
PERHIT REJECTED, DATE DECISION DATE
APPLICATIO"I FILED
DATE OF HEARING
RA I L E r, SECRETARY