HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19920709 CITY OF ASPEN
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
JULY 9, 1992
4:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
A G E N D A
I. CALL TO ORDER
MINUTES
June 8, June 25 and July 1, 1992
II. CASE #92-9
SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
III. CASE #92-8
ROBERT FINK
(Continued from July 1, 1992),
IV. CASE #92-7
WALT HARRIS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 9, 1992
Chairman Remo Lavagnino called meeting to order at 4 : OOpm.
Answering roll call were Ron Erickson, Bill Martin, Charlie
Paterson, Rick Head, and Remo Lavagnino. Anne Austin was excused.
CASE #92-9
SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
Perry Harvey, representative for applicant: We are requesting a
temporary use approval under Ord #69 Series of 1990.
He presented the affidavit of posting and of mailing. (attached
in record)
There was discussion among the Board members as to proper posting
of the property. Remo asked for comment from the public. Mrs.
Barbee said she had seen and read the posting sign and had kept
putting it back up. Dave Myler stated he felt proper posting had
been done. Decision was made by the Board to accept the posting
as having been adequate in view of the number of neighbors who were
in attendance and get on with solving the parking problem.
Perry Harvey, representative for the applicant: What we are
experiencing with the Ritz Carlton is a certain overflow of day
workers parking in the area around the hotel. There are a lot of
small lodges in the area and no posted timed parking. These
workers come to work at 6: 30 in the morning and they are taking the
spaces for parking. It is perfectly legal for them to be there but
they are there throughout the day and it is creating an incon-
venience, at the very least, for many of the small lodges in that
area now that their summer guests are arriving and they are looking
for places to park.
We own the property on Aspen Street and there are 2 parcels that
we are requesting a temporary use for in order to park construction
worker's vehicles. The first of those is actually a parking lot
on Aspen Street which is used under a lease agreement by the Ski
Co. all winter for parking. And the City Administration said "Well
it is a parking lot in the winter but it is not in the summer so
you need a temporary use to do that" . That would be the primary
parcel that we would use.
If we need it during certain times I would also like a temporary
use approval to use the block of land on Aspen which is to the
north of that parking lot which is just to the south of the Lift
One Condominiums.
In examining this problem or issue we looked at what could we use
that for in order to free up perhaps some of the other areas for
parking. We could use it for temporary storage of construction
materials. But then throughout the day you are going to have front
end loaders going over there to pick up whatever--taking it back.
And it requires fencing to secure the area. Then if we did that
we could move that over there and use what is now what is supposed
to be the ice rink site for parking. We are using that for
staging. It is much more convenient and much less impacting. It
only impacts our property.
We looked at the Buttermilk lot and a shuttle bus. We looked at
the parking garage and a pass that would require workers to get a
pass and there is no way we could really police that. They are
allowed to park on the streets and a great many of these people
have tools and lunch box in their car. By having this parking as
convenient as it can be we feel we can encourage the use of that
property to free up the parking in the neighborhood and to
accommodate the cars and the community. We would like this through
a date certain of October 15.
Rick asked for clarification regarding the use of the lots.
Harvey: The smaller portion of the first one is a parking lot and
will accommodate 35 cars. Actually it is a tennis court but it is
used as a parking lot. Then the area down below that would be an
overflow area as needed. We have different trades coming in and
for a ten day period I may have another 20 cars or 15 cars and then
may need that. I think I need them both. The tennis lot is the
one we would use most intensely. It is buffered from almost
everything around it.
Drueding: Reading from memo. Staff supports this variance as it
is a means of eliminating on-street parking problem needed for the
construction of the Ritz Carlton Hotel. The staff notes that
specific Section 10-104 (2) specifically addresses issues such as
a need for construction staging and construction automobiles.
Some of the concerns of the staff that the applicant should address
are dust control, tracking mud onto the public street, hours of
use, noise, number of vehicles and to keep in mind that this is a
temporary situation.
Harvey: We have the Grand Aspen Hotel built for construction
workers and there is a lot that accommodates 57 cars on the west
side of the hotel. What I would like to do would be to move some
of those vehicles that belong to people who are in the hotel so
that there wouldn't be a lot of activity going in and out. They
might store their car there for 4 days and then take it to Denver
for a week end. Then I could use the lot next to the Grand for
daily parking which is a more intensive use. That is the way I
would like to set it up if I can get PCL to control their people
to that extent. Otherwise it would probably the workers come to
work at 7 : 00 and they are working till 6: 30.
Remo: The Zoning Dept is interested in lighting, access location
signs. Are you prepared to address those.
Harvey: I don't have a complete plan for the use of this.
Obviously the one parking area has an access off of Aspen Street.
The rest of it is a tennis court with fencing so the access I
hadn't planned on doing any lighting. I don't know that that would
be required. I would recommend I work with either Bill or City
staff at the time that we go in to put some cars in that lower
portion in terms of access and signage and control on the rest of
those items.
Ron: I remember you coming before us a couple of years ago and
getting permission to stage construction equipment and stuff like
that on those lots didn't you?
Harvey: We came and asked for construction staging but we never
really used it for that.
Ron: But you got permission to do so.
Harvey: On that lower portion.
Ron: I think you did too. I remember that you had permission to
store construction materials over there because it was one block
from the Ritz site and would be coming up and down Dean Street.
It has gotten overgrown and everything like that. It is not flat
like the other parking lot. I don't know what you are going to
have to do specifically to this block to make a parking area--how
far you are going to have to take it.
Harvey: We are not going to take it and do that. We don't intend
to use near the entire portion of it. Savanah owns all the way up
to the mine dump.
Ron: Your motives are exemplary. How do you guarantee though that
all of those workers who are parking on Aspen Street and Monarch
Street and on Durant are going to really give up those parking
spaces? Or that you are not going to add another 50 to your work
force.
Harvey: What it means is that I can work with the Lodge owners.
When Bruce Kerr calls up and says I have these vehicles that have
been parking in front of my lodge every morning for the last 4
days, we can get someone from PCL construction to go over there and
make sure that those people move those vehicles. And they are
willing to do that. Prior to this I have had no place for them to
go. The memo and the control of the parking would definitely go
out and these guys would be required to do that. I think I can
control this if I am giving them that alternative.
Remo asked for public comment.
Fred Smith: I live at 601 South Monarch. They put Jersey barriers
all around this site 2 winters ago when they started piling
construction material on that. I went to the City and I said "They
don't have a building permit. Do they have permission to do this"?
After about 2 weeks the City told them to get all that stuff out
of there. They got it out of there. They removed the Jersey
barriers and it has taken 2 years to restore it back to its
pristine condition. But they never had permission to store stuff
there. It is not part of their staging. Their whole PUD is that
they are going to stage everything. They don't have a building
permit. They can't store stuff there.
Remo: That doesn't address the thing that is before us today.
Barbara Cassidy: I am a tenant of Lift One. I have been there=
since 1971 and skiing here since 154 . You have no idea what this
does to my place, my view and to my comfort. As a matter of fact
I would not even think of staying here with a parking lot right in
front of my door with cars coming morning, noon and night. They
would have to rip out all the trees and bushes. I know people like
progress but it is very sad for those of us that live here.
Remo: Would you be ripping out trees?
Cassidy: There are big bushes there. I don't know how they can
avoid it.
Remo: And the cars on the street don't bother you?
Cassidy: No. Up until now I have had a beautiful view of the
mountain. That is why I bought that condo.
Remo: Do you have your own parking place?
Cassidy: Yes.
Rick: Do you visit here in the winter time as well?
Cassidy: No. I just come in the summer.
Rick: That lower parking lot adjacent to Lift One is occupied by
cars all winter long.
Cassidy: It would be 20 feet from my-living room. -
Dave Myler: I am here on behalf of the Lift One Condominium
Association. Barbara Cassidy is here. Bob O'Conner is here, owner
of Unit 301 and Jerry Engman who is renting unit 208 which also
would be only 20 feet away from the lower parking lot. I would
also like to introduce Mac Bowland who is the manager of Lift One
Condominiums.
We are here to object to the so-called north parcel. We are not
objecting to the use of the tennis lot parcel which seems to be the
primary location for parking. As a technical matter I would like
to first of all argue that you do not have the authority under Ord
#69 to approve a parking lot in a residential zone district.
A parking lot is a very specific type of use that is
distinguishable for storage of building materials, construction
equipment or structures. In Ord #69 it is very clear in that it
allows you to grant a variance for the temporary off-site location
for storage of materials, structures or equipment for construction
staging.
Remo: So you are saying it is not under our purview to review this
as a parking area to grant a variance?
Myler: That's right. I want to finish telling you all the reasons
why. I think that a parking lot is a very specific type of use,
has a very specific characteristics about it and it is different
than the storage of construction materials and equipment.
I think anyone would argue the storage of equipment and materials
may be worse than cars. We would agree that it is worse than cars
and probably shouldn't be allowed for that reason in this
particular location. So to say that we are being treated more
fairly by coming in and requesting parking of cars which is not
contemplated on a lot under Ord #69 at all in exchange for giving
up the opportunity to place building materials on the site I think
is a rather shallow gesture.
Remo: We are not suggesting that.
Myler: I am somewhat pre-empting--
Remo: You are playing your own devil 's advocate.
Myler: I think that in our Land Use Code we make all sorts of
distinctions between uses which might have similar characteristics.
Restaurants and clothes stores are both commercial uses. They both
have customers coming and going and so on. But we distinguish
between the specific characteristics that make them different and
we allow some in some zones and not others.
I think the same is true in this case. A parking lot is different
and why is it allowed under Ord #69? If the City had wanted to
allow parking lots for construction worker vehicles they could have
very easily have put that in the ordinance. But they didn't. They
wrote it very specifically, very clearly to allow certain types of
uses. So I don't think under this ordinance you have the right to
allow a parking lot.
If you want to address that issue first and resolve it that would
be fine with me. If you choose to read the ordinance more broadly,
and want to proceed I would like to make some arguments as to why
even under the ordinance it would be inappropriate to use this
vacant lot which is now the equivalent of an in-town meadow as
parking for a period of 4 or 5 weeks. Why trash it?
Remo: This has come to us because the Building Dept has decided
that the use that piece of property is to be put to is not allowed
under Ordinance. I am assuming that relief can only be obtained
by going before the Board of Adjustment. That is the only reason
we get the case. That part of it is already solved.
Drueding: The Planning Director advised me that she feels this was
part of the staging. The Planning Dept felt it is appropriate for
you to hear this case.
Remo: And we can under our guidelines. They make the
interpretation of the code. It used to be in our hands but it no
longer is. So we have no jurisdiction as to why we can't hear it
on the interpretation of the code. And the Planning Director
interprets the code as allowing us to review this case, then we
have to go on that basis.
Myler: I talked with the Planning Director and the City Attorney
and I know what their opinions are. They are different from mine.
I wanted to make this statement for the record because I do believe
you are exceeding your authority.
On the substance of the application there are several standards
that need to be addressed and to be met by the applicant in order
for you to grant the variance. And the two that are the most
important in this case have to do with Sections 10-104 (2) C&D. (2) D
infers that only minimal impacts on the surrounding neighborhood
are tolerated in order to allow these sort of temporary uses. In
this case the impacts will be devastating on the livability of the
units at Lift One.
I would like to show you some pictures so you can familiarize
yourself. This picture right here is the retaining wall which
separates the Lift One property from the large north parcel which
is this area here shown as vacant land. This entire area except
for the far west end is, in essence. a meadow. Ironically not too
long ago the City required Savanah to go in and clean the site up-
-remove the jersey barriers, to remove the building materials that
were stored on the site. It has had a chance to revegetate and
come back. I am not arguing that we have got the right to require
Savanah to maintain this as a meadow. I am just showing you that
in terms of the units on our property it is going to be pretty
devastating if this lower area is allowed for parking.
Ron: This whole thing? Or this part here?
Myler: I am not here on behalf of Timberridge. But I think they
would take the same position.
Ron: What I am asking is is this a sufficient barrier?
Myler: I don't believe so because of the topography. When you are
looking directly out the windows at the whole thing.
Rick: What if they decide to go ahead and put a 3 story building
on that lot? That would be a worse impact than this.
Myler: That would be worse but I don't think that is at issue
here. We will cross that bridge when we come to it. The issue
here is whether you should take this meadow and trash it for a
little overflow parking for 4 months. It doesn't make any sense.
We are going to have to put up with noise. These construction
workers are arriving at 6: 30 in the morning and they are not the
most quiet, courteous people on the face of the earth. We know
that. That is their nature. There is all sorts of complaints that
I am hearing.
We have got to be concerned with dust. This is not a paved lot.
Once you drive on it all the weeds and the wild flowers are going
to be tracked down and it is going to start being dusty. We have
to be concerned about the kids, about safety, about trash and most
importantly the visual aspects of a parking lot 20 feet from the
front doors, not the back yards, but the front doors of all these
units that face out onto that property. This is the front of those
apartments.
Ron: Timberridge does. Timberridge accesses--every unit in the
building from the south side of the building. That is not true of
Lift One.
Myler: I didn't mean the front door. I just meant access to the
units.
One of the more important elements of this variance procedure is
the language which this is a finding that you are required to make
that the variance is the only reasonable method by which to afford
the applicant relief and to deny the variance would cause the
applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty.
We think we have a community problem here. We recognize that. A
lot of cars that are being-trying to park around the Ritz and
causing problems for everybody. But there are alternatives. And
I don't think those alternatives have been explored to any great
extent. Perry has acknowledged that the lower parking lot--the one
we are objecting to is an overflow lot. They would only use it
once in a while. But we think that the affects of using that are
pretty dramatic. We think that they should be avoided because
there are other alternatives.
I went down to the parking garage today. There were 180 spaces
available at 10: 00 in the morning. There were 116 spaces available
at 2 : 00. On the average there is over 120 spaces available every
day in that parking garage. That ought to be enough to accommodate
the overflow. The_ City could . use the money or they could cut a
deal with PCL to allow parking in that lot. And the workers can
get on the shuttle bus and be delivered to the front door and the
job. You don't need to trash this meadow.
Also I have some other pictures that show Juan Street which is
immediately to the south of the lot and a portion of Aspen Street
which is immediately to the east of the lot. Those are all "No
Parking" areas. Wouldn't it be simpler for the City to lift the
restrictions for 2 and 1/2 months and allow parking on the street.
You can get 40 cars there.
Barbee: No. Juan has a 40 foot fire lane.
Myler: On one side.
Barbee: No. On both sides.
Myler: I am just talking parking along one side or perhaps onto
the grass. But don't go out into the middle of this meadow. You
can accommodate it by 40 cars in there for 2 months to solve a
community problem. I am also advised that there is a parking
structure--a parking facility under the Grande Aspen Hotel which
is controlled by Savanah that is not used for parking. It is used
to store a bunch of things and maybe that stuff can be re-organized
and consolidated and you can create 30 or 40 parking spaces there.
Savanah has indicated that they don't want to use the Ritz parking
structure itself for security reasons because they don't have a CO.
The City does grant conditional COs for certain purposes. And if
the security problems can be resolved, there is another location
to park cars even closer and more convenient. Certainly it would
be more convenient to park on this vacant lot. It is closer for
the workmen than the City Parking Garage.
But if PCL can be basically ordered or instructed to have their
people park there, they can be ordered to have them park in the
City parking garage or even out at Buttermilk and bus them in if
that is what it takes to come up with a community solution to a
community problem instead of asking Lift One Condominiums to bear
the disproportionate burden.
I also have a problem with the fact that if you build it, they will
come. This area I think Perry may be trying to downplay the
intensity of the use of this lot by saying it is just going to be
used once in a while for a little overflow. Once it becomes known
you can park there I have a feeling that everybody and their
brother is going to want to go there. And the use is going to be
a lot more intense. As we all know parking lots are a magnate for
cars. So the intensity of traffic on the roads will increase once
it becomes known that these parking lots can be used. So instead
of alleviating the traffic problem I think we are making the
traffic problem worse by providing additional parking in this
location.
Focusing only on this vacant lot the solution to the community
problem I think is worse than the problem itself. And I think
there are alternatives that we should be looking at in order to
help alleviate the problems the lodges are having with the
construction workers taking up the parking places. And that we
again shouldn't be required to bear a disproportionate burden.
The conclusion is that first of all I don't think you have the
right to allow parking on this lot. But if you do the impacts are
far from minimal. There are alternatives. So you cannot make the
findings that are required to grant the variance for that
particular lot and I again would ask you through the interest of
time to direct staff to approach the City Manager and the City
Council with some of the options that I have suggested and see if
something can be worked out to accommodate parking in other
locations.
If you are inclined to grant this variance we would like you to
discuss a variety of conditions. But I don't think that you
should. In all seriousness I believe that would be an abuse of
your discussion at this point in time. You should allow the
variance for the tennis court parking lot and deny the request for
the other parcel.
Remo: Perry, do you now use that parking lot--the so called tennis
parking lot?
Harvey: The City Manager told me that as soon as I made
application to the Board of Adjustment that I could use it for PCL
parking.
Remo: You can't use it now?
Harvey: No. It is being used now because she said prior to that
I could not use it. The interpretation was it is in the Ski
Company Masterplan. But it is not a summer time parking lot.
Remo: Is it full?
Harvey: It is--I haven't been up there today. It was last week
it probably had 20 cars in it.
Remo: How many cars does it hold?
Harvey: I think it would hold 35 to 40.
Remo: How many potential cars would there be if you used the
vacant lot?
Harvey: - I don't know. I varies in consideration to what the
construction loading is.
Remo: Any inventory as to how many cars or workers on the Ritz
utilize that come into town to work?
Harvey: We are accommodating about 150 cars right now.
Remo: That have to do with work on the Ritz?
Harvey: Yes. Those are worker's cars not counting the subs that
drive in.
Remo: Those are out on the street?
Harvey: No. That is what we are accommodating on our property
right now on various parcels of property. Legally. The lot in
front of the Grand Aspen and the lot next to the Grand Aspen.
Remo: And you don't know how many more there are?
Harvey: I feel that there are--when I checked which was last week
with PCL they told me they thought that there were 60 to 70 cars
that were parking on the street that they wanted to get off.
Remo: What is the proximity to these 150 cars that you are
accommodating? Where are they being accommodated?
Harvey: They are on the west side of the Grand Aspen and on the
east side of the Grand Aspen. They are up at what is called Summit
Place up Mill Street.
Remo: What is going to happen if they decide that this is a more
convenient lot and then come down and use this vacant land--the
lower one rather than the one that they have been assigned already?
If we are just going to move cars around from existing uses that
we have for them to fill up a piece of vacant land and then have
empty spaces in those others--what is the purpose of granting this
variance to relieve off-street parking?
Harvey: I understand that. The purpose of wanting to do this is
to get the cars off the street.
Remo: How can you control that? Their moving from these other
assigned places?
Harvey: This is the most outlying spot. Right now that volleyball
parking lot the City has on Dean Street is filled with PCL worker
cars. I don't think that should be the case. Those people are the
only vehicles that I would try and get that are currently not on
the street. But they are in public parking. Everything else is
closer to the site. All the parking lots that we have now are
closer to the site and these guys have their truck, their cars,
their tools.
Remo: There wouldn't be any reason to go to a more outlying area.
Harvey: No. They will keep trying to get closer.
Ron: Which brings up the question--what is currently happening to
the Grand Aspen Hotel parking garage?
Harvey: The parking garage is used for maintenance vehicles and
hotel worker parking as well as storage and maintenance shops.
Ron: How many parking spaces are in there?
Harvey: There are probably 25 to 30.
Mary Barbee: It does make sense to put it down in the City. That
is advantageous for everybody and those people would not suffer the
lack of ability to get to their cars for tools etc because they
wouldn't be doing that anyway. I think that makes good sense and
that would accommodate them all. I don't see how you can do Block
6 because of the grade.
Harvey: We may have to grade the entry to it. Put some gravel
down to prevent dust.
Barbee: The other thing too is Juan being a 40 foot street. I
would urge that the entrance not occur from Juan but occur where
the alley is if it has to occur at all .
If you get the variance for Block 6 that you might mitigate the
impact is if you were to allow the periphery bushes that exist on
the block and the trees to remain. Then you would have given
protection to everybody around there. I would like to see you
limit anything in Block 6 to Lot 6 through 11 on Dean Street. And
finally if you could tell us what your plan is to provide adequate
provision being made for to restore the subject parcel to it's
original condition upon expiration of the variance.
Harvey: We wouldn't have any problem agreeing to go in there in
the Spring and seed what vegetation has come off of it. I don't
have a problem protecting the bushes around the perimeter of it and
using the center of it. I had planned initially that the proposed
entrance would be on Aspen Street.
Mac Bowland, Manager of Lift One: This is the sign as it is today
on the tennis court lot. That says PCL parking lot. And I have
been monitoring that lot ever since I got my notice about this and
that lot has never been filled during the daylight hours when their
workers are supposedly using that lot. That lot is the furthest
away so I don't know how he expects to police the situation where
everybody is going to park up there first and when that is full we
get to park closer to the building. It is not going to happen.
He has mentioned himself it is a policing problem. That is why
they can't use the City garage and they can't use Buttermilk.
So I don't think trashing this meadow is the solution that we are
all looking for.
He then read a letter from Mary Mason who had moved out of the
Aztec because of construction and construction worker's noise
objecting to this variance. (letter attached in record)
He then continued--To do this to all of these people that are
staying at Lift One on their vacation is, to me, indescribably
horrible.
I got a letter addressed to the Aspen Condominiums from Savanah
(attached in record) as an update as to what is happening at the
job site. They said "We are planning on working from 7: 00 AM until
10: 00 PM every day until this job is done" . Can you imagine all
of these people getting out of work at 10: 00 PM, going over to that
lot, firing up the old pickup truck. Let's admit it. They are
rather boisterous after work. It is not going to be pretty and I
don't think it is fair. You are going to be ruining a lot of
people's vacations if you let them have that lower lot.
Now the upper lot they have been using all along--I thought it was
totally legal. I just found out today it is not. We are all in
favor of finding solutions but let's be fair.
Remo: Something that everyone should know is that we are all under
a lot of impact due to building in this town in the summer time.
I am too. And it is only when something is in your own back yard
that everyone starts screaming from that particular area. I don't
see how we can avoid that aspect of having to put up with some
inconvenience throughout the building season.
I have been here a long time and I don't remember too many times
when the summer has been quiet without screaming workers at 6: 30
in the morning and late at night. I think this is part of the
Aspen experience too. Although you do have a point as to how much
impact a lot of people are going to incur with this and is it
necessary? Can we alleviate that somehow? Is there a better
consideration or other alternatives?
Ron: Being one block removed from the construction site really
insulates you from what is going on. I think that if this room
were full of people who are living at the Fasching House,
Alpenblick, Mountain Chalet--they would say "let's move those cars
over there so we get them out of our parking space. We have had
tenants move out because of the noise. Let's get something done
as soon as possible so that we can get it over with and we can all
go on living" .
There are a lot of people in this town that are living under severe
disadvantages right now. I just want you to know that because you
don't experience now. But there are people who are doing it. The
thing is if there is some way to help them out a little bit we take
from you and give to them. It is the democratic way. I see Mill
Street as bumper to bumper cars, trucks and everything else at 6: 30
in the morning. I empathize with this lady. I have had 5 or 6
clients move out already. So I know it's going on. But there is
nothing I can do about that. I don't like it. I am losing money.
People are getting upset.
Bowland: I went down to the Grand Aspen's underground parking to
check it out and it is the biggest pile of junk down there and not
one car. And there must be at least 30 places, probably more like
50. There is old toilets, plywood, heaps of old carpeting--no
parking going on.
Now you know as well as I do lodges have to provide parking for
their tenants. These people are staying at the Grand Aspen. It
is up to the Grand Aspen to clean up that underground parking and
provide parking for their tenants. They don't have to be in the
1-A Lot. I happen to know because I see it every day that those
cars are indeed sitting there 4 days at a time.
Remo: Do you want to address any of this, Perry?
Harvey: I mean--you know--I--we--we have done everything in our
power including taking a profitable short-term lodging property and
turning it into construction worker housing, providing hundreds of
parking spaces on our other properties in order to accommodate this
and do our best for the community. And I sympathize with what
Ron's clients are going through. There are over 400 people working
on that site every day. And it is a mammoth job right in the
center of this town to keep it under control, moving back and forth
and out of everyone's hair as much as possible. That is what we
are trying to do. To tell a workman that as a condition of
employment he has to park in the parking garage, I don't think it
is going to work. I am trying to come up with a solution that is
practical and that is going to work.
As you said, Ron, there is no one here except the people that are
from the immediate surrounding area.
Remo: What is the vacant lot zoned?
Harvey: It is Lodge/Tourist/Residential.
Remo: What can you build there? What are your plans for this?
Harvey: We haven't done our masterplanning yet. Our preliminary
plan would be residential units.
Remo: And you would have to go through a PUD?
Harvey: A portion of the property is PUD so in all probability a
PUD process would have to be how we would go.
Fred Smith, 601 South Monarch: I am 40 feet from the main
construction area. It would appear that this would be a great
solution for me because it would get rid of all of the cars that
park everywhere on Monarch Street and in the Lift 1-A parking lot.
It has been alluded to most of the cars at the Lift 1-A parking lot
are all construction workers. They don't go home every night. The
vehicles are there until Friday at noon and then they go home and
come back on Monday. So we have it for week end use.
Remo: And these are parked where?
Smith: This is the 1-A parking lot. This is a public parking lot.
It is posted "No Parking At Night" but the Police Dept will not
enforce any parking restrictions. I have tried repeatedly. If I
were to park downtown within 30 feet of a corner I would get a $25
ticket before I can turn around.
Remo: Are you telling me you would like to get them off the street
and get them in this lot?
Smith: I would love to. But absolutely these people could all
park in the PLC lot up above which we saw the pictures of. They
don't park there-. --They park right there- at- the-job -site as close ,
as they can.
So allowing this isn't going to solve the problem at all. It is
just going to mean a few more cars are going to go in there and
trash the meadow.
As a tax payer what really bugs me is that we spent 6 million
dollars to build a parking structure for workers who are coming up
valley every day. We are spending $30, 000 this summer to run a
free shuttle every 15 minutes between that parking structure and
this construction site. And if we are not going to use this, if
we are going to trash a meadow and let these people park in there
so they can be a little closer, that is just ridiculous.
Finally, they absolutely have no hardship. All they are doing is
asking for a more convenient place to park so they don't have to
pay $3 . 00 a day to park.
Gerald Engman, a tenant at Lift One and have been a very pleased
tenant for several years. One of the reasons that we rent there
is because of the very pleasant view out our living room window
onto this little meadow. And even with the weeds it seems to be
pretty nice because it does attract birds, wild flowers etc. Last
summer we had the problem of construction materials which was very
sloppily placed on this vacant lot. And finally through the
efforts of Mac and others the construction company did indeed
remove the materials.
This summer we are threatened with the possibility of that meadow
being replaced by a parking lot. And my question is maybe, even
though this is a temporary thing, if the stage isn't being set for
next summer for it to be a parking lot for the Ritz Carlton valet
service when the Ritz Carlton is indeed in operation. We would
like you to not grant this temporary permit because we want to see
the meadow as long as possible.
There was no further public comment. Remo closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Charlie: I am against granting this variance. There are too many
other alternatives that have been presented and shown to us which
negates the fact that it is a hardship. I would be in favor of
granting the variance for the upper parking lot. I would not be
in favor of any further parking on that meadow at all. If there
was a way to alleviate the situation slightly by angle parking.
But I understand there are some bushes over there. Angle parking
on that upper end. That is the only thing that I would consider.
But I would not want to see the bushes being destroyed.
It will not solve any problem. What will happen--this will get
trashed. This will still be very little used and the public will
end up on it as well. I don't see anything that that solves. And
besides Aspen is very well known for having quiet lodges and having
the Aspen ambiance. I think that a lot of people know from
previous years, they can come here safely, they make reservations
and all of a sudden this is dropped on them. They have no idea
this is what is going to happen. If I had made a booking and there
was no other place for me to go in August, I would be pretty
furious. At the City--not at the management of Lift One
necessarily but Lift One would be blamed for not doing more. So
I would be against this.
Ron: I think it is a case of personal right. The people own the
land. But on the other hand I don't think the applicant has shown
that this is the solution to the problem as it exists of getting
the cars of the street. I don't think this will get them off the
street if we turn this into a parking lot. So I would be in favor
of granting the upper tennis lot variance until October 1, 1992 but
I would not be in favor of granting the variance on Lot #6.
Rick: I am leaning towards my colleague' s remarks. Realistically
I don't think these workers are going to park in the garage and
shuttle over. They have tools and lunch boxes. I feel that giving
them 24 vehicles in that upper parking lot solves some of the
problem. I would be in favor of granting a variance for the upper
parking lot--the tennis court lot.
Bill: It looks as though the vote is going to go to the tennis
court. But I really think that we have to think about what our
mission here in Aspen is when we commit ourselves to build a hotel.
And that is to get the damned job done and get it done as quickly
as possible. I think it is a "management problem" . He can manage
this parking lot so that he doesn't have to use that lower parking
lot. But if he can't do that I think in order to get the job done
he ought to be able to use it. It is his land.
We don't think about the people who have to park way out on 4th
Street to visit our community. We ought to be working to create
parking so that our visitors can enjoy the downtown part of the
City. And so for that reason it seems to me that we can make him
manage this I think he won't have to use it. But if he has to use
it he should have the right to use it. And I question how many
of the guests that live in Lift One--how often do they sit there
and look at that field? In my opinion the more important thing for
the community is to solve the problem.
Ron: You are 100% right. The only problem I have with that is
there is no evidence that giving Perry this parking lot is going
to make the Ritz get finished one day sooner. There is no evidence
that this is going to remove one PCL worker from parking in the
streets. Not one. That is something else that should be done.
Maybe they should initiate timed parking on those street until
October 1st to get rid of those cars. They are legally parking on
the street. There is not way of getting them off the street.
Bill: But if he establishes a system which says "Permanent
Parking" and here is a sticker that goes into the parking lot on
the tennis court so that the transients can move in closer to their
working area. If he can manage those things I think that he will
solve his problem.
Remo: But he has thrown up his hands at that. He hasn't shown
that he can manage that.
Bill: He said he didn't come with a plan.
Remo: We can't grant a variance if we don't see that plan. There
are not enough controls that were demonstrated to us here that can
assure us that those people will park in their designated spot.
We don't even have a designated. No plan was presented to us that
shows that they would be designated spots for certain workers there
or license plates go in certain areas or things of that nature.
Bill: Well, ask him to come back with that.
Remo: Well, but we have to make a decision based on the evidence
that was presented to us at this meeting. And based on that it
would be very difficult for me to grant that variance. If the
controls that you mention were in place that would be another
consideration. But we don't have that plan and we give him a
blanket variance here on the basis of just what he has presented
to us I would have problems with that.
Is this a winter parking lot?
Harvey: It is shown in the Ski Company masterplan.
Remo: Why is it a winter parking lot and not a summer parking lot?
Is it a parking lot or isn't it a parking lot?
Harvey: The zone district does not allow a parking lot absent your
action. John Roberts in 1984 leased it for 99 years to the Ski
- Company to use for Ski Season parking. That is all -I know. And
the Ski Co has it in the masterplan as part of their base area
parking.
Fred Smith: I think it is a grandfathered parking lot. It has
been a parking lot for the 30 years I have been on the staff.
Ron: All I can say is that anything that is in the Ski Co
masterplan doesn't necessarily have any approvals at all.
Remo: I would be in favor of granting or legalizing the upper
parking lot and I have a lot of problems with granting a variance
for the lower one. And mostly it is a matter of control. It is
difficult to not grant them a variance based on some noise, some
disruption, some view being disturbed in some way. We all come
under that. I don't think that is a unique situation to cause to
not grant the variance. But because what he has presented to us
is not comprehensive enough and it is too open to abuse I feel.
I really feel that they would use the lower parking lot as being
more convenient to the site and then just dismiss this upper
parking lot. So I would not be in favor of granting the variance
for the lower but I would be for the tennis parking lot.
MOTION
Ron: I move that we grant a variance for that area called the
tennis parking lot to be used for PCL parking until October 1st,
1992 .
Charlie seconded the motion.
Roll call vote: Bill, yes, Charlie, yes, Rick, yes, Ron, yes,
Remo, yes.
CASE #92-7
WALT HARRIS
Jim Colombo, representative for Harris owner of Syzygy Restaurant.
We are here today to ask for a variance to have the relocation of
an existing walk-in freezer which is 6ft by 8ft by 7ft high,
48sgft, externalized to the wall along the north wall adjacent to
the kitchen so that it can be accessed from the kitchen but would
be externalized in this corner.
Using photos Colombo demonstrated where the cooler would go on the
building. We are requesting this on a temporary basis so that this
should not be a restaurant in that space in the future this would
have to come out. We are now in the last year of a 5 year lease
and are going for another 5 year lease.
Ron: Isn't that already included in the FAR, Bill?
Drueding: No. Absolutely not. No matter what kind of overhang
you have when you move an exterior wall out it adds FAR.
Everything within your exterior wall is FAR. Then you have
exceptions. Above grade decks up to 15% is exempt. Carports and
garages up to 500sgft are exempt. You take a carport it is exempt
up to 500sgft.
Colombo: Why we are requesting it is that it would be in the alley
side. You would have a tough time seeing it from the street. We
have not had any opposition from the neighbors. In fact just the
opposite. The neighbors have said it is just fine with them.
We got in the situation when the restaurant was first built. At
that time Jim Martin had represented to Walt that the area adjacent
would be office space and that he would be able to utilize that
office space for his walk-in refrigerator. That was the premise
on which the restaurant was built. That was the premise under
which Walt operated. When he came down to the point of opening the
restaurant the problem occurred because it was introduced to Walt
as it had become employee housing. When it became employee housing
I think Walt still was under the impression that he had the use of
that area as a walk in cooler area which he did put his walk in
cooler there as it exists now. Now we have come under the review
of the Housing Dept and they have said "You have got to get the
thing out of there. It is employee housing" .
Harris: There is still an employee living there. There is the
walk-in and there is a separate residence built so he has his own
space.
Colombo: But even though that seems to work for both the employee
and Walt the Housing Dept says we need to get that out of there.
So we are stuck with the situation that we have an unworkable
kitchen and Walt desperately needs this walk-in.
One of the oppositions from the staff was that this represented a
problem generated by ourselves because we did an expansion and
didn't use that expanded area. That expanded area is way over here
across from the dining room. We didn't create this space. It
already existed. We just expanded into it. We took a wall down
and used it for additional seating.
With just a little common sense your practicality is that there is
no way even though this area is utilized now by using this space
to put a walk-in freezer in. It is just impossible to put it way
over there.
Also this existing situation which was misrepresented to Walt
existed from day one when the Syzygy was it's original size. And
this has not been perpetuated just because of the expansion area.
In addition to that this could have been corrected easily if the
situation of FAR had not changed in the code. It was calculated
at the time of Walt's construction they had about 220sgft left in
which they could have had his walk-in cooler at which point that
would have been a GMQS exemption. We were going through that
process until the point at which we arrived at when the new code
and 1, 100sgft had been added to this building without any
enlargement going. So we would definitely be over the FAR because
of the way things are calculated at this point.
So Walt is between a rock and a hard place here. He needs a walk-
in cooler and he has actually no way other than this to put it.
What we are asking for is granting of the variance as a temporary
structure underneath the existing balcony on the alley side and
that would blend in with the existing facia. That is a total of
28 square feet.
Remo: Where is the kitchen now?
Harris: Where you see the windows. Here.
Remo: Where is this employee unit?
Colombo showed him.
Remo: Why is the Housing Authority objecting to that?
Colombo: They said this is the area for employee housing and can't
be used for anything else.
Rick: But it is not presently encroaching into that unit.
Remo: What is wrong with where it now is?
Colombo: It was originally there when the restaurant was built.
It was moved into this location right here.
Remo: Oh, that's where it is now? If I didn't ask you this
question, how would we know that?
Charlie: He intimated it but it didn't show in the drawing.
Remo: And why didn't you leave it where it was? Why did you put
it there?
Colombo: Because they needed the counter space.
Harris: We initially envisioned the kitchen where it is now and
we were going to have shelf top coolers which are good for
preparation and also for refrigeration as well.
When we found out we weren't able to use--the housing end when
everything changed when we put it there and then we moved it when
we could not function.
Remo: Is there a wall around this cooler in the employee unit?
Harris: Yes.
Remo: And the Housing people found out that this was an
encroachment into employee housing and for you to remove it?
Harris: Yes.
Remo: My problem with this is that it is really a matter of
convenience. It is really difficult to describe a hardship or
practical difficulty.
Colombo: It was a misrepresentation to Walt at the time. The
hardship we find here is that from day one Walt had the leave that
he could have this unit where we now have it. It was represented
to him by the owner of the building that this was going to be
office space there--not employee housing. The landlord opened his
doors, he immediately moved it into the area he thought was going
to be office space where it now sits which is right here.
The misrepresentation to Walt by the owner of the building was the
it was OK where it is at. Now we find that this was dedicated to
employee housing and he cannot put it in that space.
Remo: But he has recourse to the owner. We can't adjudicate what
happens between you and the owner. If the owner misrepresented
something we can't remediate that problem by allowing you to go out
into FARs because the owner misrepresented something he said you
could do. The practical hardship is between you and the owner.
Ron: What is the paper wrap?
Harris: It is the dumbwaiter.
Ron: Is that FAR?
Colombo: That was required by the City for us to put in.
Drueding: That frankly slipped by me on plans that were shown on
one spot and they moved it outside and I didn't catch it. So under
the reliance factor, I missed it--I am leaving it there. The
reason I am leaving it there is because they had a problem. I
would not give them a CO because they were required to have a
dumbwaiter. I pushed to get the dumbwaiter and they were good
enough to do it and it was my problem.
Ron: It is temporary?
Harris: No, it is not temporary.
Rick: Have you moved into the what is now described as the future
expansion? For some reason I feel like I have sat in that room.
Harris: That has been built.
Rick: And it would be impractical to put refrigeration in that
room.
Colombo: We go to the minimal request. 48 square feet. We are
asking for a temporary situation and we feel we do have a hardship
here. There was misrepresentation which he planned his kitchen-
-he planned for it to be in that area. The kitchen does not
function with it in any other area. So now we are in a situation
where it is already in a spot and we are told by the Housing
Authority that we have to move it. If we were allowed to leave it
there, we would not have to be here.
We have been operating with it there. We have been using it there.
There is a history of use where it now is. We are being told now
at this late date by the Housing Dept that we now have to move it.
Rick: Would this effectively shut you down without that.
Colombo: He has frozen foods up there.
Harris: It is only 48 square feet but that walk in is vital.
Bill: The walk-in is bigger than 48 square feet. The addition is
48 square feet. The walk-in is larger than 48 square feet. Right?
The entire walk-in is 6x8.
Remo: You don't know who built that encroachment into the employee
housing? Who built it into the employee housing area. Who built
that little section?
Harris: We moved the walk-in and just a small framing structure
was built.
Remo: You did it into the employee unit?
Harris: Yes.
Remo: Did you get a permit to do that?
Harris: No.
Remo: You see, you are using the argument that it was there all
the time and you wouldn't have to come to us. But yet you are the
ones who created the problem in the first place by building that
structure into the employee unit. So it is difficult for me to
grant you a variance on something that you initiated yourself and
without a permit. And now you are using that to justify because
they are telling you to put it back.
Harris: It was moved with the thought of it being a short term
move to be able to punch out as far as to get the expansion over
the alley. It was not moved for it to be a long term situation
there. It was only for it to be a short term situation.
Colombo: The kitchen was designed to be used with walk-in. Now
we can't put it in that spot. So we have to have some relief.
The kitchen will not function. You are talking about practical
shut down of the restaurant.
Remo: But you designed it when you first went in there and it
didn't work. You built that little extra area. You didn't take
care of the problem at the time.
Ron: It wasn't relied as employee housing.
Rick: I can see where this is going and it is not looking good for
you guys. What if you lost a table up in the corner? Lost one of
those walls up in here and put it up in here. Because you are now
taking over more space over in here than you initially had. I know
how much it hurts to lose a table but what if you just cut this
wall off and put it right in this corner?
Harris: The space you are talking about is about 2ft by 4ft.
Bill: Let's not let the Board begin to re-design. These people
went into business in space that was approved. According to what
I hear they had 220sgft excess but the FAR changed. Now I think
the mission is, regardless of what the regulation says, to help
people in business. Help them survive. Help them make more money.
Let' s stop putting restrictions on them.
I park right here 365 days out of the year to take money from
Clark's Market to the bank. I saw them put this thing here. There
is absolutely no reason in my opinion why we should not allow them
to add 48 square feet that is not obstructing anybody's view, not
interfering with anyone at all. It is absolutely ridiculous for
us to even, in my opinion, question it. We can't afford to
continue to hurt businesses. We are about to say re-design and put
it someplace in it' s existing space. This is great for him. He
can make more money. More visitors can go there.
Remo: If it were bigger he would make more money. If he took out
the second floor, he would probably make more money.
Bill: This is only 8 square feet in an alley that has nothing to
do with the aesthetics or anything. It is only because the
regulation says you can't exceed the FAR.
Remo: That is right. Everyone is equal. If you are going to do
that to this you are going to have to consider everyone who comes
before us that wants a little bit of convenience, a little extra
space--
Bill: I do not agree.
Remo: The Wienerstube came to us for the same reasons. They
wanted to use some storage space. You have got to treat people the
same way.
MPT
Remo: You can't
Charlie: They had a hardship.
Remo: I deemed that as a different kind of hardship.
Charlie: This is not a convenience.
Remo: I may not have voted for that in the first place.
MPT
Charlie: It has nothing to do with making money. It has something
to do with practical difficulty.
MPT
Remo: We are here to
MPT
Bill: This is a practical difficulty. And because it is a
practical difficulty we are about to say "Put it .back into your own
facility" . This is wrong.
Remo: I am trying to say that we are not here to make sure that
everybody is successful in business. Your argument was that we
have to make these people make money. Those are your words.
Bill: You are misrepresenting what I said. Look, we ought to
think in terms of if this 48 feet makes that facility operate
better for the customer and for the owner, we ought to consider it.
Remo then asked for comment from the public.
(Mephisto) : I am not sure this is the right place for this but I
want to know how many here know exactly where the restaurant is?
How many of you have seen the sign?
Several said "What sign?"
Mephisto: Exactly. That is my point. I work for Mephisto. I am
all in favor of Walt's variance--provided that you put an exception
in there that he puts a sign up. I work at Mephisto Shoes. My
office is in the basement. It is a hardship for me when somebody
walks into our store that I have to get up to come upstairs for
them to say "Where is Syzygy's?"
Bill: It also adds pedestrian traffic into your business.
Mephisto: But they are not there to buy shoes. They are there
looking for the restaurant. I don't mind coming up when they are
there looking at our shoes. He has absolutely no signage at all.
Bill: I don't think that that is in our department but I think he
has got a good idea.
? : Maybe I am in the wrong place but when I am listening is that
he is asking for hardship--he is asking for a hardship here. He
is asking for something above and beyond what is already allowed.
I am expressing my views. I am going to say I am against it unless
you make him put up a sign. Why should his business be easier to
deal with than our business when we are playing doorman for his
restaurant. If he puts a sign up, I am all in favor of it.
Remo: That is not a requirement for granting him a variance. It
is up to his good word to you. It is outside the purview of this
Board to consider something like that.
There was no further public comment and Remo closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Rick: I think Bill 's remarks were very strong and very persuasive.
And in light of the fact that if they were to remove this once this
ceases to be a restaurant I think it is strong enough to push me
over the edge. I do think that this is a practical difficulty and
in denying him the variance might even cause him to have to shut
down the whole thing and I don't think that is the purpose of this
Board. I would be in favor of granting this minimal variance.
Remo: Did I hear you right that this is not the purpose of the
Board to shut them down?
Rick: I feel that if we deny him this we are adding an additional
burden to them. That is not our doing but I think we are adding
to the practical difficulty and hardship that presently exists with
respect to them losing that space in the employee housing no matter
how it happened. Whether it was misrepresented or whether they
were lied to or whatever. I think in denying them this minimal
variance it will create more of a hardship and practical
difficulty.
Ron: I see a practical difficulty here in that when they
constructed the restaurant there was additional FAR that they could
have used for an exterior cooler. They placed it someplace else
maybe with the intention of expanding it to that FAR which they
lost. Then they lost the spot that they put it in because the
Housing Authority came in and said it is employee housing space and
not office space and therefore they lost that space as well.
So I think that is the practical difficulty. I see this as an
existing successful restaurant. I think that we ought to give them
relief from the code in this circumstance because I think the
damages to an ongoing business would be overwhelming. And I think
it would cause them incalculable distress and problems. And I
think by granting them a minimal variance of 48sgft we can
eliminate all of those problems.
Remo: But you are assuming a lot.
Ron: I am assuming a lot. But I know the restaurant. I know how
it functions and everything else and I think this is a minimal
variance. It is in the alley. If it was anyplace other than the
alley I might have a problem with it. I don't have any problems
with it here.
Remo: Minimal variance historically here is only dealt with--the
minimum variance that will do the job effectively. It is not a
minimum variance for anything in particular. We denied Ritchie
Cohen 1 inch. It is a minimal variance only to satisfy the code
that will successfully allow the applicant to utilize given relief
and utilize his property.
Ron: The way I see it is that it is not going outside the existing
wall. It is underneath the balcony so that if he says it is 6 x
8 freezer is what he needs he is not building an additional store
room.
Remo: Am I to understand that every time someone comes to us and
says "We can hide where the FAR is going to be that you will vote
for it?"
Ron and Bill: No.
Remo: Isn't that what you are suggesting?
MPT
Remo: But he is using the argument that if it is out of site, it
is in the alley, it is not visually. The problem here is he is
exceeding FAR.
Ron: I understand that.
Remo: On what you are going to have to consider other--
Ron: I think there is a practical difficulty. I think that that
indentation in the building which is partially obstructed by the
dumbwaiter--that whole area is probably 200 and some square feet
which would have been what he would have had under° the old FAR.
And for practical purposes they got it. No one is going to notice
the impact on that building from 3 sides.
Rick: You didn't see the City condemn themselves when they saw
they screwed up and made them put the dumbwaiter on. They just
waived their hands and said "I screwed up" .
Remo: Everyone comes under the code that is changed in that zone
in that vicinity. And there is going to be a lot of people who are
affected by that who relied on extra FAR which they no longer have.
And if that is going to be the argument that we are going to hear
from anybody else who comes to us I don't see that as basis for
granting a variance.
Ron: I think you are absolutely right. However, we met two weeks
ago as Jim will clearly tell you I was on your side, wasn't I?
Although you granted the variance that I would not have granted
because of 3 walls were already up.
Rick: Each case is different.
MPT
Ron: They were 3 feet over their limit. All I am saying that this
variance be a temporary variance for the existence of Syzygy. As
long as Syzygy is there. Not a restaurant per' se. Then I would
restrict it to that limit.
Drueding: If a variance is going to be granted I would rather not
see any condition like that.
He then presented a letter from HPC giving their approval of this
variance. (attached in record)
Bill: Why would HPC be involved with this?
Drueding: Because of the historic overlay on the entire downtown.
MOTION
Rick: I move to approve this variance of 48 square feet with no
other conditions.
Charlie seconded the motion.
Remo: So that it remains in perpetuity even if the use changes.
Rick: That's right.
Ron: The thing is that it is a walk-in cooler. That is what it
is intended to be. And that is all it is intended to be.
Charlie: As long as it is a walk-in cooler then keep it.
Ron: That is a restriction. Is there any way you feel we can
handle it with restricting it?
Rick: They would have to go through HPC to take it out.
Drueding: My idea was it is more of a problem to police it and
tear it out. If they remove it as a walk-in cooler and try and
make it seating space they would need a building permit for that.
At that point there are other mitigations for employee housing etc.
Ron: So can we moderate or make a motion to read additional 48
square feet FAR for use as a walk-in cooler?
Rick: It doesn't matter. They are going to have to go through HPC
to have it taken out.
Ron: What if HPC doesn't care? What if they pull it out and they
want to use it for anything else, they have to go back to you,
right?
Drueding: Right, and what am I supposed to do with it?
Ron: Well, what did you do with the deck on top of the garage down
in Watson' s house?
Drueding: But what am I supposed to do with this? If they change
it am I supposed to have them tear it back down again?
Bill: Let' s don't create additional regulation workload on the
part of the individuals.
May I add in the record that granting this variance solves the
problem of the Housing Authority too.
Remo: It would be solved anyway because he has got to get it out
of there.
Bill: I know that.
Roll call vote: Bill, yes, Ron, yes, Rick, yes, Charlie, yes,
Remo, no.
Variance granted.
Bill to Harris: Don't forget that sign now.
Harris: I won't forget the sign. I will put the sign up.
CASE #92-8
Rick: I move to continue case #92-8 to date certain of July 23,
1992 .
Charlie seconded the motion with all in favor.
MINUTES
Charlie made a motion to approve minutes of June 25 and July 1,
1992 .
Rick seconded the motion with all in favor.
Remo: We will defer the minutes of June 8, 1992 .
Rick made a motion to adjourn.
Charlie seconded the motion with all in favor.
Time was 6: 20pm.
Janice= M. Carney, City D'"puty Clerk
i'
l � w GUS;- A T C-c)nj`t� 0
� o� `��; I�(►�'r�yS �S� �v Cc�eVJT�uC_�v� � ( Jl{_E. �\('� .
Cv lam' A ►'rl . �1 S (` 'vim ( I
'�r2-(�?5 -�P_R I V�`1� S��T� � Iry� Jt^A m✓`n►� �
v�2�.� . /�C C TJ L�c►'z CSC '-( 2U�is S A r j 7
S K-� Y\'> •)Cass 1 l�iZ�
ui
:�i�CU�^n►�z�� �Gh°��.fit,ry �'j V w S n<Q(n .
rIl C- ry
• `I- Co v�r1 C �� � ��� car=-�=��} ,�a-vtr� y-�:�arc 1•�
ap
'1 �( FYI+moo N
-Ict .
��a ' `��
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
I have complied with the notice requirements of Section 6-
205 (E) (3) (C) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations of the Aspen
Municipal Code by mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached
hereto by first class, postage prepaid, U.S. Mail to all owners of
property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property
on
STATE OF COLORADO )
SS
COUNTY OF PITRIN )
f
he foregoing fidavit o mailing was signed before me* this
day of
WITNESS my h ' d and official seal.
My commission expires: -
ar Publ
AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY POSTING OF A
County of Pitkin } VARIANCE HEARING BEFORE THE CITY OF
} ss. ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (Pursuant
State of Colorado } to Section 6-205(E) (b) of the Muni-
cipal Code)
The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says as
follows:
I, /'� y 7 � �� T , being or
representing an Applicant before the Pitkin County 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
from the 2 day of 197 -e ,
to the day of 1922—.
ast ten (10) full days before the
App/ cant's Sign ure
+ Subscribed and sworn bef a me
thi/s� �id�of
19 ,' by
WITNESS M HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
My ommission expires.
l
r
Jary' P blip s Sign ture
Addt, s
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CASE #92-7
WALT HARRIS
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, 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: JULY 9, 1992
Time: 4 : 00 p.m.
Owner for Variance: Appellant for Variance:
Name: JIM VALARIO WALT HARRIS
Address: 520 EAST HYMAN
Location or description of property:
520 EAST HYMAN--LOTS 2 & 3 PITKIN CENTER SUBDIVISION
Variance Requested: PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE "CC" ZONING
CATEGORY. PURSUANT TO REVIEWS; THE STRUCTURE CURRENTLY IS AT THE
MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO (CHAPTER 24, ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE SEC.5-
209 (11) . APPLICANT APPEARS TO BE REQUESTING A FLOOR AREA VARIANCE
OF 48 SQUARE FEET IN ORDER TO EXTERNALIZE THEIR WALK-IN FREEZER
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
RYAN: ® , INC .
715 WEST MAIN STREET
ASPEN,COLORADO 81611
WARREN F.RYAN TELEPHONE 303-925-5889
PRESIDENT FACSIMILE 303-925-2408
PATRICIA L.SMITH
CONl'ROLLE.R
ROLAND PARKER
PROPERTY MANAGER
juL -- 2
June 30, 1992
City of Aspen
Board of Adjustment
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Attention: Remo Lavagnino, Chairman
Re: Notice of Public Hearing
Case Number 92-7-Walt Harris
Dear Mr. Lavagnino:
I received your notice, because I own various pieces of commercial
property in the vicinity of the applicant's proposed request for
zoning or variance change.
I have reviewed this matter with the restaurant owner, Mr. Walt
Harris, and I think that his request is reasonable and one that
should be granted. I think it is important that the City of Aspen
support its local businessmen and property owners in any and all
cases when it is at all feasible and does not in any way infringe
upon the aesthetics of our community. This request certainly does
not.
I will be unable to attend the meeting, but I strongly urge that
the Board of Adjustment approve the applicant's request.
Should you need to discuss this matter with me prior to July 9 ,
1992, please do not hes ' ate to contact me.
Thank you for your tention to the above.
,1
Sin erely,
t
rre F. Ryan
President
WFR/nb
cc: Mr. Walt Harris
COLOMBO
623 E. Hopkins Street,Aspen,Colorado 81611
Tel.: (303)925-7806 FAX(303)925-8712
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS JUNE 4, 1992•
reyi Sed J1JNE J1,1492
CITY OF ASPEN
130 SOUTH GALENA
ASPEN, CO 81611
RE:AP.PLICATION FOR VARIANCE
520 E. HYMAN- WALT HARRIS, OWNER
On April 29, 1992, The fining Enforcement Officer rejected an application for a
building permit to etprnaliz.e walk-in refrigerator at Sy2ygy Restaurant owned by
Walt Harris. The reAlaurant is located at 520 E. Hopkins St. A copy of the building , .
permit application, the plans for refrigerators new location, and Mr. Dreudings
letter are attached.
For the purposes of this application we accept Mr. Dreuding's calculations regarding
relevent floor area, which is as follows;
In 1987 when Pitkin Center Building was approved, the Building
F.A.R. allowed was 12,000 square feet.
Given the methodology of F.A.R. calculation at-that time, the_ -.,
building F.A.R. was 11,778.47 square feet- leaving 221.53 square feet
for future exspansion.
Given the present methodology of F.A.R. calculation- many previously
exempt areas must now be calculated into building F.A.R. - which effectively
puts the building square footage over the unchanged F.A.R. limit.
It should be pointed out that the modest 48 sq. ft. of the proposed relocated '
walk-in refrigerator would fall under section 8-104 Exemptions to the Municipal
code allowing for Planning Director sign-off, if the application of the new methodology
for F.A.R. calcilations did not create a non-conformance from a previously
conforming building. As, a result , we are.forced to take our appeal for variance
to this Board.
The walk-in refrigerator is 6'x 8' or 48 square feet and is 710" in height.
The exiting refrigerator would be relocated to the north of the Acisting north kitchen
exterior wall,& would be along the alley fascia, and be under an existing Balcony which
projects from the third level.
f
BOARD OF ADJUST,'4ENTS
CITY OF ASPEN
JUNE ! . 199: Revised 6/21/92
PAGE TWO
The proposed location of the walf-in refrigerator would not encroach
into the alley and would be within the envelope of the alley buildings.
The walk-in would also be with in the perimeter structures of the loading
and trash areas of the building which occur on the first level.
This external relocation of the walk-in would represent no increase
in net leasable space nor would it generate additional employees or parking
requirements. It would generate no impact upon public facilities, and could
reduce delivery requirements. The attached elevations will depictthe subtle
fascia incorporation with the existinc structure. The proposed new location
and building change would be difficult to see from anywhere but the alley.
In addition the applicant request this external relocation to be only
temporary structure, to be removed at the time the space is not occupied
by a restaurant. At such time, the external walk-in would be removed, and the
fascia returned to. its current condition.
This request is based upon a practical necessity for a workable kitchen
condition to adequately serve the needs of the restaurant. We believe the
external location and dimensions are cuite unobtusive and will blend in with
the existing alley fascia. We feel that we are seeking the minimum variance
practical. We feel we are consistent with the variance guidelines of minimal
request, minimal public impact, and there is no oppossition from either
Historic Preservation or surrounding neighbors.
We feel that there are unique circumstances for requesting this variance,
in that, there is a commercial use of the space with a hardship of kitchen function,
this minimal 48 sq, ft. expansion would have fallen under Planning Director
ign-off, had a non-co-=ormina struct'-: e been created by nee.: F.A.R. methodology.
We are uniquely asking for a te-1-orary struclLure, to be removed at a time when I
a restaurant no longer occupies the area. The proposed external relocation of the
walk-in represents no increasein building net leasable. We ask you to give this
application favorable consideration and to approve the requested variance.
Very truly yours,
COLOMBO INTERNATIONAL, INC.
BV-:
James Colombo
JPC:djw
Enclosures
6/21
AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY POSTING
OF A VARIANCE HEARING
BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD .OF ADJUSTMENT
The undersigned being first duly sworn, deposes and says as
follows :
Pursuant to Section 2-22 (c) of the Aspen Municipal Code, I,
r-z;�'--o , being or representing
an Applicant before the City of Aspen Board of Adjustment ,
Personally certify that the attached photograph fairly and
accurately represents the sign posted as the Notice of the
variance hearing on this matter in a conspicuous place on the
subject project (as it could be seen from the nearest public way)
and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from
the _ _ day of 12N E-- 1W-, to the L
day of ��-,f , 1972, (Must be posted for
at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date) .
APPLICANT
4 t re
Cou of Pitkin
State of Colorado
Subscribed an$ sworn to of ore
me this '. day of
—� 19 4by
Attach Photograph
i
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My Commission expires
-- My COMML"kon expires 24m
X82
ary Public
R
010 Add ss
AUti1M•', v,
1
I
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
I have complied with the notice requirements of Section 6-
205 (E) (3) (C) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations of the Aspen
Municipal Code by mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached
hereto by first class, postage prepaid, U.S. Mail to all owners of
property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property
i
STATE OF COLORADO j
SS
COUNTY OF PITRIN )
The foregoin ffidavit of mailing was signed before me this
day of f 2n
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: NyC0 aftsion expires 0/27/92,
rl. ,, 'C' 4 ) U - L
Nota ub iC
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CASE #92-7
WALT HARRIS
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, 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: JULY 9, 1992
Time: 4 : 00 p.m.
Owner for Variance: Appellant for Variance:
Name: JIM VALARIO WALT HARRIS
Address: 520 EAST HYMAN
Location or description of property:
520 EAST HYMAN--LOTS 2 & 3 PITKIN CENTER SUBDIVISION
Variance Requested: PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE 11CC11 ZONING
CATEGORY. PURSUANT TO REVIEWS; THE STRUCTURE CURRENTLY IS AT THE
MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO (CHAPTER 24, ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE SEC.5-
209 (11) . APPLICANT APPEARS TO BE REQUESTING A FLOOR AREA VARIANCE
OF 48 SQUARE FEET IN ORDER TO EXTERNALIZE THEIR WALK-IN FREEZER
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
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CASE #92-9
SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
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, 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: JULY 9, 1992
Time: 4 : 00 p.m.
Owner for Variance: Appellant for Variance:
Name: SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP PERRY HARVEY
Address: 600 E. COOPER, #200
Location or description of property:
EAMES ADDITION, BLOCK 6, BLOCK 11, LOTS 7-12
Variance Requested: PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE L/TR ZONING
CATEGORY. APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TEMPORARY USE OF TWO PARCELS OF
LAND FOR STORAGE OF CONSTRUCTION WORKER AUTOMOBILES. ORDINANCE 69
SERIES 1990 ASPEN LAND USE CODE ALLOWS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AUTHORITY IN THIS REGARD. CHAPTER 24 10-103 (2) AUTHORIZED
VARIANCES.
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