Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19890817 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AUGUST 17, 1989 COUNCIL CHAMBERS--MAIN FLOOR A G E N D A I. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL II. CASE #89-14 HARLEY BALDWIN/COLLINS BLOCK III. MINUTES MARCH 2, 1989 JULY 6, 1989 JULY 13, 1989 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 17, 1989 Chairman Remo Lavagnino called meeting to order at 4 : OOpm. Answering roll call were Ron Erickson, Anne Austin, Rick Head, Josephine Mann, Charlie Paterson and Remo Lavagnino. Bill Martin was excused. CASE #89-14 HARLEY BALDWIN (COLLINS BLOCK Remo read into the record application for variance. (Attached in record) Andy Hecht, Joe Wells and Richard Arnold were all in attendance representing the applicant. Remo asked proof of posting. Anne: Did anyone see the notice posted? Remo: I did not see it. No one seemed to have seen the posting. Remo: Where was it? Richard Arnold: On the project itself over by the Mill and Hopkins Street corner. Remo: Inside the building? Richard: Yes. Remo: Is it mostly on the Hopkins Street side? Richard: It's right on the very corner. Remo: That is all right if you can swear to it that it was there. Andy: The issue we are dealing with is how much open space we are required to provide. The issue is a complicated one but for the purpose of the variance I think we can simplify it. We would like you to address one issue. That is if we measure the open space we are supposed to be required there are two methods by which you measure. One is you must supply 50% of the frontage of the street on which the open space is going to provide. We cannot do that because we have the existing Collins Block building here. We can provide you some open space. BAM8 . 17 . 89 Do you remember where the fence was where they stored materials? Our argument to the City was that was not ever open space under the definition of the code. But the City said "Maybe it is not open space under definition of the code but it was open to view" . So they want to keep it open space. So for the purpose of going forward with construction we are saying "OK, let's say that that is open space or something called "open to view" . Joe: The definition or the interpretation that was rendered by the Planning Office was the 25% of the undeveloped area in that portion should be preserved in open space and that would be 302ft. Andy: Which we will meet. But we are just talking about the frontage issue and how we get to that open space. We would like to get to it by doing half of the 15ft of frontage and going deeper. There was discussion over the maps. Remo: Why do you start the open space at this point here? Joe: Because there is an archway across that space so that it is not open to the sky. Remo: You are proposing an archway? Joe: Yes. By virtue of the fact that there is an archway it is not open to the sky. It would not qualify under the definition. It is going through HPC. Roxanne: The entire infill construction has received conceptual approval of the HPC but not final. Final is pending your decision. Rick: So I am to believe that what your hardship is that it is an historical building. Andy: We can't move this building or tear it down. If you agree that that shouldn't be removed then the issue is is this a reasonable solution to the open space. We think it is as good as any other solution on this. Remo: What bothers me is that effective open space--I think the reason it came into being is that we had that monolith. The North of Nell Building was the thing that created it. Because we had this monolithic structure we wanted this relief from that. And I think this doesn't address that problem. I would like to see these portions set back and fill in the back space more 2 BAM8 . 17 .89 rather than this opening here. It looks like a corridor rather than the feeling of open space that I think we would like to see. Rick: I tend to agree with Remo. But we didn't hear any remarks in this presentation from HPC. Roxanne: This has just received conceptual approval from HPC. Not all members of HPC are convinced that this is the best option for open space. There is a payment-in-lieu provision involved in the code to handle that if we didn't feel that this was exactly the right solution. Also this is not a referral from HPC to you all. This is from the applicant to you and that is why you have not received anything from HPC. Some of the issues with regard to how this design has come about is that HPC has been concerned for a long time about our guidelines and meeting the street edge criteria in the guidelines in the commercial core. This design meets those in that the facade of the building is very flush to the sidewalk and that you are not providing a lot of setback relief along the street. We have found that this particular block of Hopkins has already got enough of that going on and that we were looking for a compatible project to the Collins Block to help strengthen that victorian street edge. We are not designers. We are reviewers. And this is what they have come up with as the best possible option. Remo: So you in effect like that quality of continuing this facade to the end of the property rather than having that set back relief? You want to keep this a monolithic structure in itself for historical purposes? Roxanne: The design of this infill will be subordinate in many ways to the Collins Block which is what we are interested in. We don't want any competing going on between this and that building. This is also a 1 story building. The Collins Block is a 2 story. So this is not monolithic mass but it continues that street edge along Hopkins. HPC felt it was a better design alternative to what they were originally proposing many, many months ago. That was bringing it way back and having sort of a recessed area which we felt was not appropriate. There are some other people who felt the mall idea was not appropriate either. However, it has received conceptual approval. Remo: This building next to it--flush also? Roxanne: No. 3 BAM8. 17 . 89 Anne: My question is if you don't have the one half the length of the street--in other words you can't leave this much open--why can't we leave this much open and how far back would it have to be? Andy: If we did that then you would go back 10 feet. Anne: Is 10 feet the number? Andy: Yes. I think whether it was unanimous - or not HPC wants this here. Roxanne: There are a couple of options. Either bringing it back, as you say, to get your 25%. Or the code provides for payment-in-lieu provision if we find that the open space is not appropriate on this site. The HPC thinks it is not appropriate and therefore they have to come up with payment-in-lieu. Harley's argument to do this whole thing to begin with was the cost. Andy: I think the issue of payment-in-lieu is where you feel open space is not appropriate for a building here. We are not saying it is not appropriate. We are saying here we can't do it. HPC felt that taking this back is not the right solution. Remo: So did you design that with that recommendation in mind? Andy: Yes. We have been back and forth. Harley: (Using a drawing) What we are trying to do is simultaneously provide open space and at the same time try to create an interesting pedestrian experience for someone walking along on the street. These buildings where you get these ups and downs are just not good for a victorian town like this. One of the things you can have is shop fronts on the street. Remo: They could still be on the street and you would still have the same configuration. The only thing is we are talking about is setting back so that the look remains the same but there appears to be more spacial arrangement on the street side so that it allows you to break this corner and have more milling area. Harley: But this is classic. If you look at the Brand Building and the building next to it--that is the kind of massing that you classically see in a victorian town and I think it is appropriate. 4 BAM8. 17 . 89 Remo: Is this going to be a gate out here? The Paragon has it too. They have a gate there, don't they? To keep people out. And that was their open space requirement. Anne: The Roaring Forks Building. That is the one that had the open corridor going through. And what happened was that people were using it sleep in at night, to urinate, whatever. Remo: That is what I am talking about with this. Is this going to get locked in too? Charlie: But you have got store fronts. It is a different situation than the Paragon. Andy: No gate there. Rick: I don't think aesthetically this is going to look very good. Look at this huge wall like the bank' s. Remo: I am talking about this feeling of here you are with a limited sidewalk. I was thinking about being able to mill in here and use this open space. I don't think too many people are going to venture into that and think of it as open space. They are just going to think of it as a corridor for shops. Joe Wells: The requirement was determined by taking the undeveloped area--the portion of the yard without sheds or any other structures--and providing 25% of that because that was what the Planning Office's definition was. That leaves a requirement of 302sgft of open space. Remo: Our consideration is granting you the minimum variance. And by utilizing this 30ft and setting it back, we are satisfying the minimum variance which you can do because there is nothing built here at this point. The other consideration that we have is the HPC's recommendations to that. As far as I am concerned that has validity in our deliberations here. I would like to see this set back myself. And still maintain that classical facade that you have. It just doesn't run in the same line as the exiting building. This is a consideration that we should look at. How strong is the HPC or have they considered a setback of that nature? Or do they really feel that this is the way that it should be? Roxanne: Yes. Anne: Rather than setting it back? 5 BAM8. 17 . 89 Roxanne: Yes. Remo: And they have considered that? Roxanne: Yes. For all of those reasons I stated before and I can restate them. Remo: No. Joe: 302 is required. Rick: And they are offering 500. Remo: I just think the effect of open space--in most cases--is right at the street level. In this case there may be an exception to that. And we have heard that exception from HPC. Roxanne: Remo, this is on a different block and associated with a different building. Remo: And if you weren't before us we would have a whole set of other considerations. We wouldn't have your consideration as part of the total picture to look at. Remo asked if there were any other questions from the Board. There were none. He then asked for questions from the public. There were no comments and he closed the public portion of the meeting. Josephine: My first inclination was to think that the more open space at that spot, the better. I really enjoy the way people use the open space that we have around town and the malls that we have. I would want you to get people in there. I can visualize that being very attractive except on the dark nights. But I really like the points from HPC and the picture that you had of that integrated structure. So I think I will go that way. I think I will say I am in favor of this proposal. Ron: I understand where Josephine is coming from. But based upon a strict interpretation of the code I don't see a hardship or a practical difficulty. This is an all new structure going in there. It can be designed some other way. I don't see that we are depriving them of a property right by not granting a variance in this situation. So I wouldn't grant it. Remo: And you don't think that the consideration of HPC' s recommendation-- 6 BAM8. 17.89 Ron: Yes, that is a consideration but I wasn't at their meetings. I don't know how many alternatives were considered. They deal with aesthetics and we don't. I don't like this ugly brick wall standing out here. I would like to see them utilize it and stuff like that. Maybe if they took this out. But I don't know if that makes sense. I am not going to design it. Anne: The way the code reads right now if we don't grant them the variance at all they would have to come into here-- Ron: No they don't. Anne: We have to give them a minimum----(many people arguing here. ) Remo: You would give them a variance not from the 25% requirement but from the front yard frontage that they need, right? Ron: Right. I would like them to keep the existing building at least where it is. Rick: Well then you are in favor of the variance. Remo: Not the configuration. Charlie: I feel that we have to consider very carefully here what HPC has to say since they have thought about this. Considering what is going on in that block with the next building, the park, fountain and gardens set back and lots of open space in that area, I feel they are on the right track. I would be in favor of this variance. Setting it back or re- designing the building is something that I know has been given very careful consideration by planners and other architects who are involved in this project. I wouldn't attempt to say that in 15 or 20 minutes we could come up with a better plan. I would be in favor of granting this variance because I realize the hardship in their frontage requirement. Remo: I think we are all in agreement on the frontage variance. Charlie: I understand about the setback here. Remo: That is the one I really want you to address and you have. Charlie: I don't feel that would be a solution. Anne: I agree with Ron's comments. I would like to see them set this back. I would give them the minimum variance here. 7 BAM8 . 17. 89 Ron: I would grant them a variance on the existing building. But I would not--not necessarily right here. Anne: I don't want it coming right out to the street. When I look at this, it is a doorway. You are talking about a 7ft doorway for people to go through. Even if it is open it doesn't have the feeling of open space. There is nowhere for people to sit out in front. I would like to see some benches. I would like to see people use this space like they do in front of Paradise and places like that. That is my concept of open space. Charlie's comment about park over here--that person has put a park there but I don't think it is dedicated as a park. I think she can come in and build a building there on down the road which isn't going to necessarily stay open space. And the bank is set back. I don't like the wall there but maybe they will get talked into taking part of that wall down now that the fence is gone. I would just grant the minimum variance so that they don't have to go into the existing structure. Remo. Let me understand now. You are granting them the frontage variance. Anne: Yes. Remo: And the variance here--once you grant them that variance then you want them to meet the requirements of open space. Anne: Yes. Remo: You would not grant them a variance at all no matter what the configuration is here. Because if they go back 10 feet then they have met that requirement of setback of 10ft and then all they would have to require beyond that is the 25% open space no matter how they arrive at it. So if they did that they wouldn't even be before us. Anne: That is right. Rick: I agree with Charlie's remarks. I feel very strongly in favor of this variance. The commercial core is a unique area. I think moving this thing back off the street is going to create a, for me, which is an aesthetic consideration-something we can't consider but it is going to be awful with a brick wall sticking out like a sore thumb. I am deferring heavily on the HPC's recommendations in giving conceptual approval for this and I think that based on the fact 8 BAM8 . 17 . 89 that there is more open space here than what is required, I am strongly in favor of granting this. Remo: I would agree with you, Rick, as far as the considerations of HPC. But what I don't agree--and what I feel strongly with Anne and it is really a matter of preferences I think is the setting back. I would think they would go for it too as a gathering place, as a drawing card, as a funnel in effect to get to those shops. The way that it is now it seems like it is going to be difficult. I have a feeling that there is going to be a lot of signage going in there for those shops. Rick: You might be right. It may be a hardship in denying what HPC considers what is appropriate. We, as a Board, are trying to re-design a plan that has architecturally-- Remo: I am not designing. All I want is what is required by the law--by the ordinance. That is all. My strong consideration is HPC's recommendations. Rick: I feel strongly that the historic nature of the adjoining buildings, the fact that there is a huge open space that Laura has created, opens the block up a little bit. I think to mandate what architecturally should occur next to an historically significant building is not something we should be doing. Anne: But what do you see as a hardship? Rick: The hardship would be historically taking the lines, as Harley mentioned, and breaking them up. It might be a shame and could be years to come. Anne: Except you have broken up this line anyway by coming down. Rick: No I think they are carrying those lines quite nicely along there. I really do. I think the archway blends itself into the period of this architecture. Remo: Well, we are not changing that. We are just setting it back with that same facade to be there. We are just setting it back 10 feet. That is all. Rick: I disagree. This is a very emotional issue and I think that carrying those lines down the street in the commercial core with a similar architectural facade is appropriate. And I find that the hardship is in an historic nature. Remo: I would still probably grant this variance with the plans that are presented to us with the hope that HPC has thoroughly investigated all the options available to them as far as 9 BAM8 . 17 . 89 setbacks. Allowing even this thin portion as the continuing and a definition to the end of the structure and maybe opening up and getting rid of this one corner and opening up at least more than 7 feet. But I understand the argument and hopefully HPC has done its homework and that they have considered all of that and still want this solution as an architectural integrity to both buildings. Roxanne: We have met on this I would say at least 6 meetings. We have spent many, many, many hours in reviewing this project. It has been a difficult project for us to review even to get to a conceptual standpoint and we are still at conceptual. It might not even receive one. Chances are it will. Remo: So those could still change even though we grant a variance for this particular plan? Fred, can we grant a variance based on this plan and have the HPC deny them a certain aspect that we have allowed them? Does HPC have the quasi judicial powers then? Fred: Your decision, in fact, allows this to go forward. If you were to not allow this variance, obviously they take this application back and modify it. Even if you were to grant, the mere fact that they determine to change the design portion of that facade does not mean that they have done anything in degradation of your ruling. It is simply less necessary. Remo: You are talking about it wouldn't increase the amount of variance that was requested. But they can diminish it. Fred: Right. Remo: But they really can't deny them what we have granted. Roxanne: We wouldn't be denying anything that you approved. This design may completely change. Chances are it won't. I haven't seen one yet that was changed dramatically between conceptual and final. Remo: What I am saying is that we will let him go to the street frontage here with the 7 foot opening. If after your fact finding and your continuation of your hearings you find out that it would be nice to open this up now and we want to get rid of this--now we have told them that they can have this right now. And you are telling them that they can't anymore when we have told them that they can. Fred: It goes like this. In order for that application to proceed to final approval, they need a variance from Board of 10 BAM8 . 17 .89 Adjustment that allows essentially the frame for them to proceed. It cannot go to final without that. But if at the point of final they decide that, based on Board of Adjustment's review of this we would like to see that 7 foot opening be 10 feet, they might require that as a basis for approval. Remo then re-opened the public portion of the meeting for comments from the applicant. Andy: I just want to impress upon you that we worked very hard with HPC on this. There was a lot of give and take and we would hope that that would carry an enormous amount of weight only because this is an historic district. This is an historic building. And paramount to any consideration, let's keep it an historic district, pure, and give it integrity. Remo: That is always an interpretative quality and that is why we are asking whether by setting it back we are destroying that quality or not. I would defer to the HPC as having concentrated on that effort rather than us. So I would be in favor of granting the variance as it is presented to us. MOTION Rick: I move to grant this variance. Josephine seconded the motion. Josephine: I would like to say to you people that I hope you plan right now for snow in there and what you are going to do about it. If you would come back to us in a few years needing a roof, I don't think we would be very receptive to that. Andy: We are going to use heated sidewalks. Roll call vote: Anne, no, Rick, yes, Josephine, yes, Charlie, yes, Remo, yes. Variance granted. Francis: To finish up you need to provide us with verification of posting. Remo: Absolutely. That is a condition of approval. Roxanne: Remo, could you make up a resolution of some sort to that when the applicant makes their application for final 11 BAM8. 17 . 89 development review before the HPC that they have attached a piece of paper on it minutes or some kind of a ----(There was so much street noise here I could not understand what was said) Remo: Fred could you draw up some kind of resolution for us with the proper language? Fred: I will tell you how I will do it. I will have Andy do it and I will review it. Then I will send it to you, Remo. Remo: What I would like for the Board to do is appoint someone to sit as an exofficio member-and non-voting member on the HPC cases which are going to affect the Board of Adjustment. Ron: I wouldn't mind sitting on it for a month. It was decided that Ron would sit in on this case until its final solution was reached. Then someone else would sit in on the next case that HPC felt a member from Board of Adustment was needed. Remo then requested written comments from the Zoning Department on cases. We need a recommendation or how the Planning Office feels about a particular request. Whether it is going to be detrimental to the Masterplan or it is not appropriate to this area. Charlie: That comment is not from the enforcement officer. It is from the Planning Department. Remo: Somehow you have got to impress upon whoever is there now that we need these comments at each case. They are required by code. Minutes were deferred to meeting of August 24 , 1989 . Meeting was adjourned. Time was 5: OOpm. Ja ice M. Carne , City Depu Clerk /7 12 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case J39-14 HARLEY BALDWIN 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. Particulars of the hearing and requested variance are as follows: Date and Time of Meeting: Date: August 17 , 1989 Time: 4 : 00 p.m. Owner for Variance: Appellant for Variance: Name: Harley Baldwin Harley Baldwin Address: 205 South Galena Location or description of property: Location: Collins Block, 204 S . Mill , Corner of Mill and Hopkins Variance Requested: Property is located in the CC Zoning category. Definitions as per hand Use Code States Open Space (C) Minimum frontage, The open space shall have a minimum frontage on the street, or if there is no street, on the public right of way, of one half (1/2) of the length of the lot line on the side of the building site, or one hundred (100) feet, whichever is less. The applicant appears to be requesting to use 7. 75 ft to meet this requirement--a 37 .25ft variance. Will applicant be represented by counsel: Yes: X No: The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Remo Lavagnino, Chairman GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. RONALD GARFIELD* ATTORNEYS AT LAW TELEPHONE ANDREW V. HECHT** VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING (303) 925-1936 WILLIAM K. GUEST, P.C.*** 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE TELECOPIER ROBERT E. KENDIG (303) 925-3008 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 JANE ELLEN HAMILTON CATHERINE H. McMAHON**** *also admitted to New York Bar ­also admitted to District of Columbia Bar August 22, 19 8 9 ...also admitted to Nebraska and Texas Bar ••*-also admitted to Blirois Bar HAND DELIVERY Jan Carney City of Aspen Clerk's Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Board of Adjustment Variance for Collins Block Dear Jan: On Thursday, August 17 , 1989, the City of Aspen Board of Adjustment granted a variance to our client, Harley Baldwin, for certain open space requirements in conjunction with his renovation of the Collins Block (Aspen Hardware) . The variance was conditional upon their receiving an Affidavit of Notice of Posting which was not presented at the hearing. Enclosed is the original Affidavit and a copy of exactly what was posted. We understand that this can be submitted to the Board of Adjustment at their next meeting which is scheduled to occur Thursday, August 24 , 1989 . Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely yours, GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. ffjzt,� e Ellen Hamilton JEH/km Enclosure cc: Bill Drueding - via hand delivery Fred Gannett - via hand delivery Harley Baldwin Richard Arnold County of Pitkin ) AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY POSTING ) ss. OF A VARIANCE HEARING BEFORE State of Colorado ) THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS (Pursuant to Section 2-22 (c) of the Municipal Code) The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says as follows: 1. I, Richard Arnold, being or representing an Applicant before the City of Aspen Board of Adjustment, personally certify that the attached copy of the notice 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 from the 7th day of August, 1989, to the 17th day of August, 1989. (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date)-, APPLICANT ignature Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of August, 1989, by Richard Arnold. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. My 'cgommi ion expires: Notary lic4/ Address