Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19871112 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOVEMBER 12, 1987 4:00 P.M. A G E N D A I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. MINUTES OF OCTOBER, 15, 1987 IV. CASE X87-12 Aspen Ski Lodge Condo Association V. Revisions to Aspen's Land Use Regulations VI. ADJOURNMENT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS NOVEMBER 12, 1987 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 15, 1987 Charlie Paterson made a motion to approve the minutes of October 15, 1987 with corrections. Anne Austin seconded the motion with all in favor. ROLL CALL Answering roll call were Remo Lavagnino, Charlie Paterson , Josephine Mann, Rick Head, Anne Austin. Ron Erickson and Francis Whitaker were excused. CASE #87-12 ASPEN SRI LODGE CONDO ASSOCIATION Property is located in the L-3 zone category. Front yard setback is 10 feet . Canopy encroaches 10 feet into the front yard setback. Sec 24-13 .3 (a) prohibits the enlarging of a noncon- forming structure. The Affidavit of posting was presented. Sunny Vann: The applicant is David F. Jones and the Aspen Ski Lodge . The Aspen Ski Lodge has been proposing to undertake a variety of physical improvements for their property this Fall in order to basically address some public safety issues to the area. And to enhance the operation of the Lodge itself . They are proposing to reconstruct the existing fence that screens the pool area and to make improvements to the public sidewalk in the area and the parking area and to install additional landscaping. And to partially enclose the existing entranceway. If you are familiar with the Aspen Ski Lodge the little area right next to the staircase is currently open. There is a canopy that covers the area of the sidewalk and steps out about 2 steps under a covered canopy and then enter the ski lodge itself . Because of the proximity of that entrance to the sidewalk and the fact that guests are required to unload and depart from the sidewalk itself at the level of traffic that exists on the Main Street we have had some safety problems in the past . Particularly when the snowplow pile the snow directly up on the sidewalk. David has to maintain that all the time to keep it clear. There are problems of not being able to get the van up to the curb itself to be able to unload passengers . The Police Department has a problem with the location of the van blocking the school crossing and the inability of the officers to see the flashing lights themselves. And the little portal also creates a sound problem as well as the lower fence which currently exists. The street grade on Main Street has been elevated over time as each new surface has been put in. As a result this level from the entry areas are all below street grade . The noise itself is funnelled through the opening . It reverberates around the inside . It is particularly troublesome in the summer and when there is no air conditioning in the lounge facilities and the reception are all open. In order to address the problems the applicant is reconstructing this fence, installing new sidewalk , correcting the grade problems which exist with the sidewalk there now. There are some ponding problems that occur . And partially enclosing this entrance with an extension on the fence itself. The HPC has approved the exterior modifications of the building . The Engineering Department has approved the streetscape and sidewalk improvements. In fact has issued a permit for that. The other remaining issue is the so-called nonconformity which results from enclosing the front of this structure. The canopy itself is in the setback. It is currently included in FAR. I originally did not construe this to be an increase in the nonconformity as there was no increase in FAR. Remo: It is included in the FAR? Sunny: Yes. Bill has taken that position. We had a recent FAR takeoff and it is his position that it is necessary for the access to the building and therefore the area is included in FAR. My feeling was that since we were back from the edge of the canopy itself , we were not protruding any further into the setback and therefore we were not increasing the degree of the nonconformity. Bill' s position is that by simply constructing something in that area, we are in fact increasing it. I spoke to Alan Richman about it and the code is not clear without debating the specifics of it, he suggested that I come to the Board of Adjustment. The hardship or problem arises out of the history of this lodge . David Jones has been here before. It was the original Smuggler Inn which was constructed by Hans Cantrup prior to the adoption of zoning and it was rezoned in 1974 . The largest nonconforming structure and the nonconforming use in the district when the new relations were adopted in 1974 . Dave acquired the property. He and his partners approached the City with a desire to rebuild it. They were told that total reconstruction of the project would exceed the requirements of the nonconforming section of the code at the time and it looked like the project was going to be denied. However a decision was made that it could be "repaired" . Although for all practical purposes, it was completely demolished and reconstructed. Approval was granted by the Board of Adjust- ment to grant a variance from the monetary limitation under the 2 nonconforming section of code . The property was reconstructed. The problem was it had to be reconstructed essentially in the exact footprint of the previous building which was nonconforming . So the brand new Aspen Ski Lodge, although it did get an approval from the Board of Adjustment became both nonconforming structure and a nonconforming use as well. Subsequent to that after the reconstruction took place the City reassessed its position toward nonconforming lodges and the Planning Office adopted the L-3 legislation and this property as well as most of the other lodges which were scattered outside of the Lodge District were rezoned. This permitted the old facilities to be torn down and recon- structed and in some cases slightly expanded. Had that legislat- ion been in place at the time this lodge was reconstructed he would have been required to conform to the setbacks and the requirements and so forth that were in place as of 1974 . In fact this particular reconstruction served as sort of a roll model to the City on what could be done toward preserving our lodge inventory. The hardship that we noted in our memorandum to you is that he was pursuing public policy. He reconstructed his lodge pursuant to the regulations that were in place at that time which required him to build within the setback. The legislation subsequently changed and other properties were not burdened by similar constraints. As a result he has certain practical difficulties which he cannot reasonably resolve in any other manner unless he is granted this variance. He would like to relocate the entrance at the corner which would enable people to load and unload off of Garmisch Street which would remove the necessity for the vann and the limo service along here which would resolve the police department's problem regarding the school crossing . We would have better landscaping and sidewalk here for the people to use. And the enclosure itself would help to eliminate what is an increasing problem--the noise itself. It is the minimum variance that could be granted in order to resolve this problem and we believe that given the circumstances surrounding the history of the lodge that it is a necessary for the enjoyment of the property right as evidenced by the expenditure that has been made to upgrade this facility in the past. Remo: I understand that the footprint was to remain the same. Cindy Houben: I am here from the Planning Office and Alan Richman . He is in support of these changes because of the history and because the applicants, at the time, were forced to work within the footprint of the building and now that the L-3 zone district is in place they feel like this lodge is actually put into a position where it has to work around the regulations that have happened since the time that it was built. Remo: I understand that the footprint was to remain the same and 3 I assume that the same amount of units would be allowed and with no increases . Sunny: That is correct . Remo: Did you have any leeway? Could you put the units wherever you wanted within the framework of the footprint? Sunny: I did not bring the construction drawings but the site plan shows the old footprint of the building and the new footprint. Remo: I understand the footprint. I am talking about inside the footprint. Sunny: Moving the units around? Remo: Yea. Sunny: I don ' t think there was a condition placed on it. I think it was a practical problem of that is the only way you could get that number of units in that footprint. Remo : I think I am for this variance but I have a lot of problems with your presentation. And I feel that it is a little flawed and I think if you use your--I mean here is a thing that was demolished in 1979. The footprint remains the same. The footprint isn't changing now if we grant you the variance . So all of these problems that you have that were in place before you demolished the existing building could have been solved at the same time. Now you are telling me a required access to the lodge from Main Street--unquestionably the most heavily travelled street in the City . That should have been a consideration in 1979 . The applicant' s ability to maintain a dry entryway is severely hampered. Those could have been addressed in 1979 . The entry opening is quite narrow. These things--if they were narrow--they should have been addressed at the time. We are not changing the footprint now. We are changing things internally that could have been addressed. Noise is a particularly troublesome problem. That could have been addressed. Lack of air conditioning . Why didn't you put one in? All of these things since it was totally demolished and reconstruction was limited to the footprint. It seems to me that it is relevant to the problems of improvements that could have been made to alleviate the deficiencies at that time. Sunny: There are several--with respect to the problems of Main Street and the traffic and so forth--I think Dave will be the first to tell you that that problem is substantially greater today than it was in 1979 . In terms of the street grade being 4 higher , in terms of the traffic problems associated with the operation of the lodge. But with respect to some of your other points, I would have to agree. Remo: And even beyond that--it says reconstruction of the Smuggler served as a roll model. If it was a roll model, I am sure you are talking in terms other than the deficiencies that we are talking about here. Sunny: In terms of the concept of allowing nonconforming lodges. Remo : I don ' t understand the reasoning that says "Had the regulations been in place in 1979 the applicant' s problems would not exist" . Sunny: That' s correct . Anne: They wouldn ' t have had to build within the footprint. Remo: But that is not the problem. You are still not expanding from that footprint. That is not the problem. The problem is you are still within the framework of the footprint. And you are trying to alleviate problems that could have been alleviated at the time that you had the same footprint in 1979 . Sunny: Since I didn ' t process the approval for the recon- struction, I can' t tell you whether they could have been allev- iated at that time or not. Obviously air conditioning could have been a choice they could have made at that time. But as far as whether or not they could have moved the entrance in 1979 or whether or not that was desireable, I really don't know. Remo: Well, it says "These difficulties include the inability to provide convenient and safe access to the lodge and the inability to realistically address the ever worsening problem of traffic- generated noise" . Again , you didn 't have to put it on Main Street. Main Street obviously even in 1979 was a major thoroughfare and if you wanted to project what was going to happen to Main Street, it wasn' t going to decrease in traffic. Sunny: I guess all I can say, not having been there, was that the decision was an attempt to reconstruct the facility. It had the original footprint , units and so forth and the kinds of problems which have come up since then were not anticipated at that time. And it was an uphill battle-- Remo: OK, but your argument is not in that sense . Sunny: It was an uphill battle to obtain the ability at that 5 time simply to reconstruct it . It was not only a nonconforming structure but a nonconforming use. Remo: But that is not your argument in this. That is not what you said in this. What you said is that the inability of the applicant to address the Aspen Lodge problem of safety and noise because of the status as a nonconforming structure would deprive the applicant of enjoying--I am suggesting to you that you are alleviating those problems with the same status , the same footprint and everything else that goes with it. You are not changing anything of the status of what it was or what you are encumbered with. You are just--it is the practical difficulties that exist are really because of the applicant not addressing these problems at the time of total reconstruction. Is that a fair statement? Sunny: As I said I wasn' t there. Dave: That may be a fair statement in one sense but grossly unfair in another sense to just brush off the zoning questions that existed when I tore down the Smuggler and had to rebuild in 4 and 1/2 months the new structure on the same footprint to the point where--and I don't know if it is important here but we have some very small rooms that Mr. Cantrup built--205, 210, 212 sq ft. So this goes back to an early question of yours--we essen- tially rebuilt the same rooms, the same place with the same size and same footprint within the wall. But we did put in conforming 8 ft ceilings and that kind of thing. The entryway--now I have to go on recollection--it was pretty hectic at that time in 1979 . The office was here. That was where it had to be. I was so controlled as to what I could do. Remo: The office will still remain there? Dave: The office still remains there but I have to tell you that the traffic load, if you remember since 1974 when I moved here-- Main Street was Main Street but it really wasn 't all that bad . Main Street right now destroys the life style of anybody who works on Main Street, who lives on Main Street. It' s awful. The traffic is the worst I have ever seen. And the noise is awful . This isn' t the Aspen that we all want. And what we are trying to do is address that problem. Further when it rains or when it snows, the people that are working around here or my guests coming in and out get splattered and splashed and as we all know we have dust that comes up. So that is really not a good life style. That is not what we are all here for . And that is not what we are coming to visit for . To me this is a serious problem. If someone lives 4 blocks away from Main Street, it is not a problem. When we built this in 1979 we literally had such constrictions. They were just unbelievable, catch 22s, 3s and 4s. And all that 6 we are trying to do by enclosing this and being able to relocate the fence and relocate the entryway, to deal with that safety problem--see what the problem with guests and my workers and me not having to be splattered by Main Street traffic and assaulted by the noise pollution. Sunny: I guess, Remo, had they anticipated this level of problem and given the fact that this setback existed in 1979 , they could have requested in addition to the right to rebuild. You have to remember that the variance that was granted was not for encroach- ments or setbacks . It was a variance from a limitation on the dollar amount of money. They could have asked at that time to do this right here. This was not anticipated at that time. Remo: I will address that later. You are going to reconstruct the existing wood fence and you are also going to do something to the sidewalk and additional landscaping. You are not here for that. Can I ask you why you are reconstructing the fence? Is there a sound consideration? Is it a 6 ft fence? Dave: No it is not. It is a 4 and 1/2 feet. Remo: Which fence is this now? Dave: This is the Garmisch and-- Remo: I walked up to the Garmisch fence and it is above my head. And not only that it is on a grade coming up from the sidewalk to the bottom of the fence and then goes up 6 ft. Sunny: The reconstruction of the fence is dictated in part by HPC concerns. We want to move the entrance to the Garmisch side. Originally we were going to leave the fence and enclose this portion and have it come along here. HPC, in order to keep from having the straight wall, asked us to-- Remo: Jog the fence-- Sunny: CCLC and the Engineering Department now want to have a straight sidewalk . Remo: Are they getting rid of trees then? Sunny: No. They are relocating some trees . There are some diseased ones that they are replacing and there is a big dip in the sidewalk that goes down here as well. This is not safe. So we are putting in a new sidewalk--we had to raise the grade over here to eliminate this whole drainage and so forth so there is a new sidewalk type put in here. We are adding to the landscaping as well and do the fence at the same time. It is slightly higher which will help to some extent to reduce the noise. 7 Remo: Well, whatever--I mean you are not here before us for a variance on fences so it was just more out of curiosity. The canopy which is in the setback is also on City property. It extends onto City property. Sunny: There is an encroachment license I believe which exists. There is a survey right here. There is a slight encroachment here and I believe there is a reference on that that an encroachment license has been granted. Remo: That is all right. Rick Head: Is there going to be wheelchair access? Sunny: This is a City approved standard specification ramp that exists at this time. So yes, you can come in here and there is no change in grade . The entrance area is at grade here. Rick : I would like you to explain to me again how moving this entrance is going to substantially change the dropoff area for your guests coming into the airport. Dave: Parking currently exists on the side and the intention is to reserve the first 2 spaces for loading and unloading for the ski lodge . Right now the entrance , as Sunny has pointed out, this dash line here, this is all paved and there are some steps coming down into that area. That is the main entry and we want to change that so that there is no opening--that is the whole idea of this whole fence . There is no way to get in here . People are brought here. They are brought about 12 feet further away from the street than they are now. So this is almost a straight shot into the main entryway. This will be snowmelted all the way down through here. It will make a substantial difference because it is very unsafe at the moment because people are opening car doors out into Main Street. This area has a sign now that there is parking to the corner and it also has an area that is reserved for limousines for the lodge itself so that would be removed and appropriate City signs would be placed there. Anne: This whole walkway is open? Sunny: Yes to the glass doors. Wayne: This is the existing overhang here. So there is little opportunity to put your bags down and open the door under a cover. Sunny: The building was basically built exactly to th;, same size of the old building. It is slightly over FAR so there is no 8 additional square footage that can be used to cover the ramp itself although that would be desireable. Wayne: One circumstance that I could add. It has changed since 1979 is that the curb and gutter along that portion of Main Street has settled unevenly. And there is no consistent flow line so you tend to get pockets of water standing all the time. This is along the Main Street section . I am working with the Engineering Department to try to rectify that situation but because of the changes in the grade on Main Street, it appears there is always going to be at least the opportunity for some standing water. We don' t have that problem on Garmisch. Josephine: I think all my questions have been answered. Wayne: There is a net gain of quite a few shrubs and boulders-- about 5 large Aspen Trees as a result of this. That is not part of your consideration but I did want to bring it up. Josephine: I am really glad to see you get that entrance off Main Street. I sometimes drive an old car that has this huge door for me to open out and get out on Main Street. I don' t like to do it and I really think it is important to get those vans etc. unloading and cars unloading onto Garmisch Street. Charlie: Is this a new glass door set out from the office area? Wayne: Yes. Charlie: Under the canopy. Wayne: Yes. Charlie: And what is the reason for that? Wayne: To create an airlock situation. Charlie: But it is open to-- Wayne: It is a separate enclosure. It has to be closed from the pool because of state regulations. Remo: But it is not now. Wayne: There is a fence that goes across there that separates it. Sunny: This entry creates a formal entryway . It creates a partially enclosed are underneath this canopy. I believe in subsequent improvements they made them go back to the Building Department to further enclose this area. That is basically all they can do because of additional FAR. And since that area is 9 enclosed he may be able to do it if he is able to get a building permit. That is a separate issue. Wayne: There is a gate that runs from the edge of the staircase back to here. It separates that area from the pool. Charlie: Is there anything that separates the footpath from the pool area? Wayne: There will be also a physical separation from the pool area because of state regulations . Charlie: So that people can' t fall in. Sunny: There are other improvements which he is undertaking on the property . There are improvements around the pool itself which he wants to do in the future. Charlie: They don't concern us at this time. Dave: They may not concern you but one of the things we have addressed because we are on Main Street , we have a lot of indigents, and I don' t mean young workers but we have some real street people and they cruise up and down here and they just feel free to walk right in and this will not let them feel very free to walk in so our guests and our work staff are going to have a greater measure of security by virtue of relocating to here . Unfortunately that is becoming a concern that most of us don' t want to see but it is real. Charlie: There will be no physical gate at that entrance . That will be just an open area. Remo: I would like to know what happens to the steps that now lead down to-- Dave : They are to be taken out . I am glad to get them out because frankly our summer guests tends to be a more mature person and some of them have a hard time navigating those steps. Remo: one of the problems you alluded to is--although I know it is a problem but it is not unique to your particular situation is the snow pileup. If you want to go down Main Street, it happens to every other lodge on Main Street. So this is not a unique problem to your particular site. The only defense is that the school crossing might have some bearing as far as safety and welfare. Dave: It is a little bit more acute here because we are on the wrong side of the street. 10 Remo: Well but there are lodges on your side of the street also. But you are also in the setback . Dave: Because of circumstances beyond my control . I would not have built that building right there. That is right but they are not built on the setback so this never sees the sunshine. Remo: It is incumbent upon us to give you the minimum variance allowed. That is what we have to do. I am not an architect and I don't know, but in order for you to alleviate the problems that you are talking about, one is noise and one is--I would relocate that wall in a different area which serves the same purpose. I just did it now and it is putting that wall back 10 feet which you don't even have to come to us actually. And lined up with the staircase and going across before you get into the entryway. Dave: That doesn't serve as an incentive for people pulling up an parking here to unload. Remo: Sure--you can still put a fence there. Anne: But then how are you going to get in? Remo: You get in the same way you are getting in. I am just saying you have other alternatives. And I don' t know whether you have explored them or not but again because we do have to give a minimum variance and I can see that possibly this might work. If you can do what you successfully want to achieve by granting you a lesser variance than you want and achieve the same purpose. Sunny: What you define by putting a wall here is a more minimum variance than putting it here? Remo: Actually, putting it where I told you doesn' t require a variance. It meets code. You are 10 feet back. You would get a 1 foot variance . I haven ' t measured it but where I drew the line-- Sunny: We are also asking you to consider the decision which Bill Drueding has made and that is by placing the wall there it is increasing the degree of nonconformity. I have a real problem understanding if the canopy is already encroaching-- Remo: I know, we have already gone through this. Sunny: How are we increasing our degree of nonconformity? Wayne: There is also a structural problem with the canopy which we have not mentioned to date . Because again that is not something that we typically deal with but the canopy itself was not designed properly and it currently sags about 4 to 5 inches at this end. It' s self supporting theoretically but because of 11 the way it was built, you can actually see it ark from the point where it is attached to the building here. Here there is an ark so in order for us to solve the problem we need to have--there are three 4 inch columns in here to have strengthened the roof and if we get back into here we can' t do that. There is no way we can getat it to solve the problem. So that is the other reason for putting the wall out into this location is to solve that physical problem with the canopy. Sunny: The other aspect is too--this fence needs to be here. Once we got to this point you are saying we can just put a fence across it. Remo: Right. Sunny: Well to be a fence the Building Department would probably say you can't go all the way up to the top. Remo: No. 6 feet. Sunny: With 6 feet we would have this crack-- Remo: Right Sunny: that we would get in the canopy-- Remo: Right. That is allowed. Sunny: Which is allowed under the regulations. I am not sure we could get HPC approval. Remo: Well, we don' t know that yet. Dave: I can guarantee it. We are very concerned about this. Charlie: But you are saying the parking would still be here? Remo: Yea. They are using this now to get to the same point here. The only difference is that this area here is enclosed. This is all open. So why wouldn' t this be open? That is all I am saying. The only thing I find really-- Dave : The only thing certain here is I am going to get sued. Not the Board, not the City, I am going to get sued if there is a problem. That is a safety ingress/egress. You wouldn ' t design like this . Remo: No. Dave: It just is not logical . You have a down stairwell right here-- 12 Remo: You are getting rid of it you said. Dave: No, the stairwell has to stay. Remo : I don't know if we are looking at the same thing . The steps going down-- Sunny: The stairwell itself here, the staircase exits right-- here is the upstairs-- Remo: I know, I saw-- Sunny: So what it does it dumps everybody right in front of the stair itself. You have got doors here. Remo: We are talking about noise as one of the factors that we were talking about before, right? Sunny: Yes. Dave : Your solution takes care of noise but then creates a problem far greater for me in that it creates a safety hazard . If I am in a fire and I have got to run out through this little maze, I am very uncomfortable with that door there as opposed to the door here-- Remo: Well you would have a little extra space but still have the same problem. Sunny: The other aspect too, Remo, is that I think that the long range plans are since this canopy comes back here--in other words this is all underneath--you can' t do anything FAR wise because of this nonconformity problem but he can't enclose this . I think it is his intention at some point to come back as he makes further improvements to enclose this area to create a more functional lobby . And to create a way to get into this building to take this door which is sitting right in front of the stairwell-- Remo: Well, that allows an even greater area-- Sunny: And moving it here. So if you put a wall there then you have no ability to use this space . It is a covered space . Remo: Well you can come this way as a covered space which you-- Sunny: You can only come back through here--this area right here which is right in front of the stairwell. What he needs to be able to use is this area here. Right here is his checkin desk at the moment. And he can enclose the space-- Remo : OK , I understand. I am going to have to defer to the Board and have them decide how they feel about this. 13 Charlie: This is all one level now, is that correct? Sunny: Yes, the canopy itself is one level. Charlie: Under the canopy is all one level and there are no more steps here at all. Sunny: It is the pool level . It just goes right out by the pool. Charlie: And this is the staircase going-- Sunny: Up to the second floor. Charlie: This one going here. Sunny: Yes . Remo: What I understand about the canopy the way it was designed where the snowmelt will come right down on the steps. It is just incredible. I couldn ' t believe that myself. Dave: And what we are trying to do is correct a couple of areas that didn ' t get considered in the short time of processing this whole thing and building it back in 1979 . And I would urge you to consider approving the glass door. Sunny: By allowing this wall to go to the ceiling, effectively you seal off this area now which is completely exposed to the elements. Remo: I understand. So you are asking not only for the wall on the outside but you are also asking for the doors, right? Sunny: If you concur with Bill' s-- Remo: We are not viewing that decision . Sunny: Well, we did ask you, in the event that you concur . You said that you concurred in the past. Then we are requesting a variance based on the hardship. Remo: Here is what we looked at, Sunny. Property is located in the L-3 zone category. Front yard setback is 10 feet. Canopy encroaches 10 feet into front yard setback . Sec 24-13 .3 (a) prohibits the enlarging of a nonconforming structure. Sunny: This is a summary of my-- Remo: OK. That' s what our variance consideration is. We didn' t know as far as our reading this that's what-- 14 Sunny: It says "See attached application. " Remo: We don't even have a lawyer or the Building Inspector here. Sunny: My instructions were, given the complexity of it, in this space , I said , " See attached application" . I wrote the application. I appealed his order. He said that-- Remo: So we have to make 2 decisions here. Is that what you are telling me? Sunny: You could make 2 decisions. Remo: Well, we have to if that is your appeal. But that' s not what we are-- Sunny: He said that since the issue had come up before that I ought to state a case for the variance itself. That is what I did. Remo: So then you are not appealing his decision. Sunny: We request that-- Remo: I know. It is a misunderstanding . Sunny: We requested that you review his decision. And then I said "In the event that the decision stands, the rational for the variance is as follows : " That is what is outlined on the application. So, yes, you could take a two-step action if you wanted to. Wayne: One final comment which is a takeoff on something that David said and that is that the Fire Marshal, Wayne Vandemark had requested an 8 foot clearance--we were pinched down because of a concern of the HPC. This angle specifically creates a problem where this is about 6 feet here. The more secure we make this and the more conflicts with people coming out of the steps , people coming out of the door, milling around, if you will, in an emergency situation, the less comfortable he is going to be. He did agree that this was acceptable . He wanted more of a clearance here because the HPC concerns . We tried to balance that. This becomes more of a problem with a gurney with traffic and that sort of thing. Remo: We haven' t taken any of those things out. We have just relocated the door and put--the effort is to tell you that we relocate the door and you put up-- Rick: Who is "we?" 15 Remo: Well, me. I have. Wayne: What it has done of course as Sunny has pointed out is to eliminate this area and it forces everyone to make movements in a very constricted area. Remo closed the public portion of the meeting . Anne. I would be in favor of granting the variance as it is requested . I think the severity of the problem could not be foreseen. I agree that the traffic on Main Street was not as heavy back then. I don' t like the idea of people unloading on Main Street and with the snow in the winter--I know from observing cars that are parked along the street for more than 2 days during a snow storm that you can't even get into the car to drive it because the mud is so thick on the windshield. So I would like to see this off of Main Street and I think that the professionals can come up with the best solution and I hate to try and re-design a wall to try and get the minimum variance in this situation. Remo : Well , we are not asking them to change their site location. It would still be on-- Anne: But you are talking about moving a wall. Remo: Moving what wall? Anne: This wall here. Remo: No. Just putting up a fence . They are allowed to put a fence there which would keep people from coming in on Main Street . They are allowed to construct a 6 foot fence . Now whether they got HPC approval or not is another thing. Anne : But I think you are creating a wind tunnel by having a fence and all this-- Remo: But then we have an enclosure--or I have indicated that-- Anne: The enclosure here. Yea, but I think then you are really restricting this area in here and I don ' t like that kind of restriction. Remo: Well, the restriction is only Anne: For the flow-- Remo: The thing about the restriction has only been put on us because of the canopy. That is all. Because the canopy exists. If the canopy didn ' t exist, they would have a free flowing ramp 16 like they had before you reach the canopy. It ' s OK. I am just pointing those things out. Charlie: I think the issue here is undoubtedly the safety and welfare of the public and I have never been in favor of re- designing a designer 's application and I think when I look at this I feel it is the answer to their problem in the manner which least affects us in any way . And if you are looking for a minimum variance I think this is a minimum variance. By moving a wall around and creating other problems that we haven' t studied and we haven't been able to foresee such as that staircase and people coming and going from another floor for instance , I wouldn't be in favor of saying a minimum variance would best serve by moving a wall to another location. I would be in favor of granting the variance as it has been requested by the applicant. Rick : I agree with Charlie in principle. In my years on the Board I am starting to notice that we are in the business of re- designing lousy architecture. And here is another example of that. But I am in favor of granting this variance and I am basing my opinions on a couple of things not the least of which is all the problems inherent with the rezoning. I think the HPC approval and the Planning Office recommendation for approval weighs heavily. The fact that they are not increasing FAR I think weighs heavily as well. I share Charlie' s feeling that it is a minimum variance. I don't like the idea--I am sorry but--I think quite often Bill in the Building Office really takes a narrow interpretation . I take the safety factors into consideration. I go with this variance . Josephine: I think the hardship in this case is that they did their reconstructing before the L-3 zoning. So they had a number of limitations to work around . I do not see the granting of this--the constructing of this partial enclosure as an increase of a nonconformity. Remo: So you are saying we are breaking this down into two--we are going to consider that? Josephine: Well, I would think that we could each just state our opinion on that so I am just stating my opinion. Remo : Would you be in favor then of looking into that. My problem with that is that we are getting into a precedence setting situation here with the Building Inspector and the Building Department in a sense that if we say that this is not infringing on FAR or not enlarging the nonconformity--that is the issue, right? Rick: I don' t think we are overruling his interpretation. 17 Remo: I am asking Joe if that is what she means. Josephine: Are you saying that you think that is increasing the nonconformity? Remo: No. I am just asking what you are telling me. I thought you said that this is not increasing it. Josephine: In my way of looking at it, this is not increasing the nonconformity. It is there. I don't see this as an increase of it . I am not terribly concerned about that nonconformity. I figure it is sort of a fluke that it is there and so I would just like to get rid of this . Remo : I guess what I am saying is if we determine that by putting that--we are not enlarging a nonconforming structure. We have made a determination that the Building Inspector was wrong in his interpretation. Josephine: So you would like us to ignore it . Remo: No. I want to know whether we want to discuss that or not. Rick : I think we should strike all the language referring to expansion of the nonconforming-- Remo: And grant the variance. Charlie: This was just something that was mentioned and we don' t have to act on it. Josephine: Let' s just leave it out . The hardship I addressed. I would want to grant this variance because I feel that it is a real asset to the health, welfare comfort of Aspen residents and visitors. I just think it is a good safety measure for a number of reasons. Remo : It was not my intention to design this project . But I thought it was incumbent upon me and us as a Board to insure that minimum variance was granted and that is why I offered it to the Board. I would be in favor of granting this variance just on my gut feeling but not at the expense of diminishing the integrity of the Board. So I probably will be the token no vote in this because that is the way I feel . MOTION Rick Head: I move that we approve Case #87-12 for the enclosure of the northern wall and the addition of the new glass doors. Charlie Paterson seconded the motion. 18 Roll call vote: Anne Austin , aye, Rick Read, aye, Josephine Mann, aye, Charlie Paterson, aye, Remo Lavagnino, no. Variance granted. Charlie made a motion to adjourn the meeting . Josephine seconded the motion with all in favor. The time was 5: 45 pm. Ja ce M. Carney, eputy City k 19