HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.19941215 CITY OF ASPEN
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
DECEMBER 15 . 1994
4 . 00 P.M.
SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM
A G E N D A
I. CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
II . CASE #94-16
TOM & NOEL CONGDON
III. MINUTES
NOVEMBER 17, 1994
IV. ADJOURN
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 15 1994
Vice Chairman Charlie Paterson called meeting to order at 4 : 30 P .M.
Answering roll call were David Schott, Howard DeLuca, Jim Iglehart,
Ron Erickson, Rick Head and Charlie Paterson. Remo Lavagnino was
excused.
CASE #94-16
TOM AND NOEL CONGDON
Charlie read request for variance . (attached in record)
Rick brought to the attention of the Board 2 corrections in the
request for variance . Those corrections are R-6 instead of R-60
and the word "maximum" site coverage instead of "minimum" site
coverage .
Bill Drueding: Our secretary was off that day. (that ' s me, Jan,
he was referring to)
(Please find attached in Bill ' s own handwriting a copy of the
request for variance which the secretary (that ' s me, Jan) typed the
variance request from. You will find highlighted the "R-60" and
the word "minimum" . )
The secretary was indeed not off that day. Thank you very much!
Gretchen Greenwood, architect for applicant presented affidavits
of posting and mailing. (attached in record)
We are reducing the site coverage from 56o to 490 so that 50% in
Number 1 should read 49% . The reduction is 7% . It is going to be
90 of what is allowable . 90 increase is what I am asking for.
Drueding: The total site coverage is 49% . 40% is allowed. On
number 4--1 don' t think we need a variation for 1 parking space
because she is not adding any more bedrooms than what are already
there . It is a pre-existing condition which happens in the west
end a good bit . So if she! has 3 bedrooms and no parking space as
existing that is fine . If she adds 1 bedroom she has to have 1
parking space . If she adds 2 bedrooms she has to add 2 parking
spaces . She is not adding bedrooms .
Greenwood: This property is on the historic inventory and it is
considered support structure in the victorian inventory. It has
not been registered as a landmark designated home . Under HPC
guidelines we have to go through the HPC process .
1
Our concept regarding historic preservation of wanting to preserve
this building has everything to do with why we are asking for the
variances that we are . Presently on the site--the corner of
Francis and ist--there is a victorian structure on the property
right now which is in this location and this location and a
victorian stable which is presently a 2 story living space .
There are non-historic additions that were attached to this old
property in the 1960s and in the same location that we are
proposing to remove and rebuild. We are planning to restore this
building as much as possible to it ' s historic roof . That is to
have a very strong delineation between the victorian line of the
cabin and a new addition. We have chosen to take off the non-
historic parts of the building and rebuild back for minimal impact
on the old building and new addition.
Right now what exists is a replica of this wing of the building in
this location. That is one area we decided to take off because it
is non-historic . What we want to do is present to the west of the
City a very miner' s cabin facade which would be on the front .
There has been some historical evidence that this court at one time
wrapped around this wing of the building. So what is historic on
this particular property is this wing, this porch that wraps around
and this long 52 foot miner' s cabin. This particular building
takes up quite a bit of room on the site and was extended.
What is historical was built at the same time as was this old
stable . It is our plan to accentuate and bring out and restore the
building as much as possible and still add an addition onto the
house that would be completely different in architecture so there
is no confusion as to what is old and what is new. And also so
that this building does not get swallowed by contemporary addition
either in height, mass or architectural style .
We are coming to the Board of Adjustment because the main thing
that we need is site coverage variance in order to accomplish our
goals of this preservation and building low--not overmassing a
building next to this small building.
We are also going to Conditional Use Review because in with that
we are putting a 300 net square foot employee unit at the second
level addition right above our carport . It is going to have an
access right off the alley.
Rick: The FAR presently is 3 , 478 . You are going to bring it back
into compliance of 3 , 240?
Greenwood: Yes, I am. Existing square footage that they have on
the property right now is 3 , 478sq. We are going to bring it to
3 , 240 . So we are going to reduce our FAR by 338sf .
2
Rick: Because it is an HPC project and it is historic don' t you
have a bonus of 500sf that they could utilize?
Amy Amidon, Planning: Only for historic landmarks . And they are
not doing that .
Rick : I applaud you for this design.
Greenwood: The setback variances--we have an existing front yard
setback and we have the garage going right behind that building.
And we want to put an employee unit above it so that area of the
employee unit is requiring a setback variance . And I think that
that is preferable to putting stairs down below underground. I
could keep the garage in that setback. I could make it meet . But
the employee unit would have to go below grade . And it doesn' t
serve anybody' s purpose to do that .
Amy: Reading from HPC minutes of the previous night . Roger Moyer
made the motion that HPC grant partial demolition approval with the
following conditions : That the applicant understands design review
and the HPC request that Board of Adjustment look closely at this
project . We find that variances as requested are encouraged and
encourage the Board of Adjustment to grant these variances for the
following reasons . 1 . In the opinion of the Board this is an
excellent project for the preservation of an historic structure in
the blending of the structural and the design. 2 . The FAR is in
fact being reduced. 3 . An employee housing unit is on the upper
level which is certainly unusual in this community. 4 . We find
no problem with the fact that the parking space is being withdrawn
and this is a strong project with the goals we are trying to
achieve at the HPC.
The vote on this was unanimous .
Les Holst : I am a member of the HPC but at this time am not
speaking for the HPC. When I came on the Board about 4 or 5 years
ago the big problem was with the demolitions . Our goal was to stop
demolitions of historic buildings . And I think we have only lost
1 in the last 5 years .
What we did was create a bag of worms for ourselves because as you
see some of the buildings, you have been seeing where we have got
these big ones behind. So it has been an education process . We
have made some serious mistakes .
What happened last night is they brought this thing in and I almost
cried. This is the end result of everything we have been trying
to achieve . We have been trying to get employees out of the
basement . We have been trying to get some exciting architecture .
We have been trying to save the old buildings . And part of what
drove this project was the fact that this really long miner' s shaft
building here--moving this would be almost impossible . Most
3
everything would be moved but this is an exceptionally long,
wonderful building. And so they knew that they had to leave this
on site where it was . And they are going to burrow under it and
do a by-hand foundation almost . It was just a magic project .
And that is about all I can say.
I know Boards are difficult because we will make decisions and you
say "What are those people doing here? What is driving this
decision? " . And last night was a great night because we saved
those cabins on _?_ Street . And this project came . All of us
felt unanimously that we are getting through to somebody and that
the system is working. And I think we are all going the same
direction. We really like what is going on here . We want to ask
you to give it the best consideration you can.
Ron: Is the employee unit going to be deed restricted?
Greenwood: Yes, they are deed restricted.
Ron: Does it go on the rental rolls? What is their intention with
thisunit?
Mrs . Congdon: Our intention is to use it as an employee unit at
least part of each year. We may use it as a music student unit
during the summer. I am associated with the MAA.
Ron: The existing stable--are you doing anything to that at all?
Greenwood: It is staying in it ' s exact location. This facade is
the only thing that is historic--this little window. The other
facades are going to be changed. They have been modernized. We
are going to work with HPC on the windows . We have to go through
the design review.
Re : Hardship or practical difficulty: For the site coverage
variance . Because we are choosing not to build onto this victorian
building and over-scale it--it is only 13 feet above grade . And
we don ' t want to overmass this . Then we are forced to cover the
site more and use more of the site in order to build. We want to
preserve this . So our hardship is the fact that we have a
victorian building and we are meeting the Aspen Area Community Plan
and Design Guidelines and that is the reason for that .
In addition to that because of this not only do we not want to
build on top of it but we cannot overwhelm this structure with
additions next to it which is also a hardship. That has been
spelled out in the AACP that these miner' s buildings are becoming
swallowed up in the scale and massing needs to be dropped. And so
we are keeping 18 to 20 feet above grade to our maximum height .
And that is the hardship reason for why we are doing what we are
doing.
4
Charlie : Also the fact that the buildings already exist that are
within the setback like the stable .
Greenwood: We have 1, 400sf of preservation that we have to deal
with already with the site coverage . And that is a hardship unto
itself . It is a very large building for an old miner' s cabin.
Most people wouldn' t think this is worth saving.
Charlie : So the alternative is they knock it down and they have
a right to build a pretty monstrous building in there?
Greenwood: We have a right to 28 feet .
Rick: You are telling me that because it has not historical
significance or designation they could just level everything that
is on there and build new?
Amy: No. It is listed historic . It is not a landmark. But they
did come to HPC for demolition review and if they wanted to tear
the whole thing down, they would have a pretty tough time .
Charlie : But they could build over the top of it?
Greenwood: As an architect and having a little leeway on the site
coverage allows some better solutions . Also for the record the
variances that we are requesting for the setbacks are also due to
the historic location of these buildings on the site .
Also we choose to put this employee unit here--not on top of the
old building and not below grade . I could probably make this work.
But this employee unit would have to go somewhere else . And there
is no place else it could go on the site .
Our requirement is 40% which is 2 , 400 feet on a 6 , 000sf lot . The
existing victorian building is 1, 400sf . The overall house the way
it is now is 56% . We want to reduce that by 7o to 491 .
The first variance I am asking for is an 8 foot 6 inch variation
on the total requirement . The front yard minimum requirement is
10 feet . The rear yard minimum requirement is 10 feet . The total
requirement together is 30 feet . For a distance starting at this
corner at this employee unit and a distance of 10 feet which is the
employee unit we need a variance on the total requirement of 8 feet
6 inches . The total we have on this project right now is 21 feet
6 inches .
The stable building sits on the property line for a distance of 7
feet at this point because of this area . This side meets . I don' t
meet the total because of the stable .
Ron: Because of the new building you are building on the west side
of the building, right?
5
Greenwood: Yes . And that is the employee unit here . I could meet
it but the justification is the stable building for a hardship.
Charlie : This is 10 feet for a distance of 7 along the east
property line at the stable .
Greenwood: And this we are not asking for because we are not doing
anything with it . It is in the setback. It ' s been in the setback
for 100 years .
Charlie then closed the public portion of the hearing.
Howard: That side yard setback--we are talking about a tiny piece
of the building right here . This little tiny piece over here in
the corner comes in a line that runs across from the edge of the
stable out like this . How many square feet is that?
? : Approximately 70sf .
Ron: I was wondering if it can' t be moved back a little bit .
Greenwood: There is no place on the property to move that building.
Ron: Move it back 7 feet--
Charlie : You can' t .
Greenwood. No . This can' t move back 7 feet .
Charlie : If you move it back you don' t have a master bedroom. You
don ' t have a bathroom for the master bedroom.
Greenwood: And it is small . We are talking about very small
square footage . First of all it is to preserve this building.
Ron: I am not talking about preserving the building at all . I am
talking about moving the building right now in the setback.
Greenwood: But this isn' t in the setback. This meets it ' s 5 foot
requirement . This is in the setback--the stable .
Ron: And you can' t move the stable . You only have one place to
move anything if you are going to move anything and that is that
corner.
Congdon: That is the only choice that they would have . To do that
would take 70sf out of the employee housing unit .
Ron: That is an alternative you have . Whether you like it or not,
that is the alternative .
6
Greenwood: That is a nice corner to get nice light and air in it .
Architecturally it completes that corner. We could eliminate it
altogether and they could pay cash-in-lieu but that doesn' t solve
the kind of--once again the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan that is
to provide diversity in a neighborhood.
Jim: We have tight rules and regulations about how we deal with
these variances . I love the project and I would love to see this
happen. I am trying to figure out how to get it to happen if we
can ' t get it to happen here .
Greenwood: I understand it is a different kind of board and
unfortunately we have to come to you with a different and bigger
picture . And everything that we are trying to do is not something
you are equipped to deal with. It is very difficult for us as
applicants to go to one board here and one board there . But we
would rather be dealing with the HPC because they are equipped to
deal with this .
Jim: (To Amy) If they went to designation which I am not
suggesting you do--that is your choice--you could give them side
and rear yard setback variances . You can' t give them site coverage
variances?
Amy: Right . Although I will tell you that as part of our
discussion with the temporary overlay monster home thing that site
coverage is something that may be altered. A lot of people have
this issue that after suggesting a possibility the site coverage
people have recognized by loosening it up a little might get a
better architecture than what we are getting now. People won' t be
quite as much forced into the box.
Greenwood: I have designed a lot of victorian projects where I
have been able to make it work because they were small houses . And
they are usually stacked. This is an odd situation that it is so
drawn out and so long and it has this porch on it . So it is an
unusual situation. And this is the first time in my 15 years that
I have ever had a problem in not being able to make site coverage
work out .
Charlie : We are charged with the responsibility of giving relief
for unique and unusual circumstances . You have shown a practical
difficulty and hardship. And we don' t need to sidestep that . That
is our responsibility. We don' t need to go passing the buck. I
am in favor of us discussing this and getting it off the ground.
He then closed the public portion of the hearing.
Rick: I think historically this Board has always deferred heavily
to recommendations from HPC. Concerning the remarks that Les has
made I think that this is an example of where we ought to be
leaning heavily towards their recommendations . I have no problem
7
with any of the variances requested here . I think it is a terrific
project and something I would be happy to grant a variance for.
Ron: I agree that this is a wonderful project . I think it is
fabulous . I like what they have done and everything like that .
I have a hard time justifying practical difficulty or hardship.
However I think that there are mitigating circumstances here that
would probably allow me to grant a variance on at least on 3 of the
4 issues . I have no problem with the site coverage . I have
problem with the side r-ard or rear yard setbacks . I do have some
sort of a problem with the side yard setback because basically
although I like the idea of having the employee housing unit above
ground. I like it to be light and airy. But our objective is to
grant a minimal variance and I think that that could probably be
covered some way else than what they are doing now.
Jim: I am in favor of this project .
Howard: I am in favor of the project . I kind of agree with Ron
in a way as far as the side yard situation. But I think if we go
against it what will happen is the employee unit will suffer--
maybe even totally eliminated as an ADU which I think is wrong.
And we are talking about 70sf total which isn' t a lot . We are not
talking about a major variance there . It is not the whole
building. It is only a little corner of it . And according to what
I am looking at as far as the floor plan architecturally it would
be kind of difficult to make that master bedroom smaller because
of the--the old barn is in there . I can see that there is a
practical difficulty in that situation. So I probably would be
willing to give the entire variance .
Charlie : I think it is a very admirable project . I would like to
just mention that I feel that the applicant has shown to me
adequate hardship and practical difficulty in this project . I do
know the house . I have been inside the house . And I know the
site . And my feeling is that they are really giving us much more
than could have been done . And I think that for us to follow our
rules of trying to give relief to a difficult situation that shows
practical difficulty and hardship is our charge . And I would be
in favor of this variance .
Ron asked Bill Drueding his opinion.
Drueding: I think Amy Amidon represents the Planning Dept also.
And I have to go along with Amy Amidon on this on the historic
preservation of this .
Charlie : That is something I should have mentioned too. That is
a very strong point that we would take notice of .
Drueding: Even though it is not historically designated it has the
support of the historic preservation people and the City Planning
8
staff .
Charlie : And I might add I came to the historic meeting last night
and I saw how much affirmative support they had for this building.
And I think it is a step in the right direction and if this goes
through we will show other builders and other architects that this
can be done we will help preserve our City from a lot of the things
that are happening to us now.
Les : In the past HPC has made mistakes every once in a while on
granting some side yard setback where we learned later were
inappropriate to the neighborhood. And we have been really
spending a lot of time looking at that . Last night we discussed
that and the neighbors have all been here for 20 to 25 years and
there are no objections . So we felt very comfortable in
recommending that this be no infringement on the neighbors and it
being on a corner we are only dealing with this small corner here .
Charlie then opened the public hearing and asked for public
comments . There were none and he closed the public portion of the
hearing. There is also nothing in our file of any objections from
any of the neighbors .
MOTION
Rick: I move to approve the variance on Case #94-16 numbers 1
through 3 in the request for variance .
Howard: Can we change #1 to a variance of 90 .
Rick : I amend my motion to reflect 90 plus or minus 2 inches .
Howard seconded the motion.
Roll call vote :
Howard, yes, Jim, yes, Ron, yes, Rick, yes, Charlie, yes .
Meeting was adjourned. Time was 5 : 50 P.M.
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 17, 1994
I left in order not to have to wait another hour to catch a bus .
Let me know if these minutes were approved and I will fill this in
properly.
r
JANI . CARNEY, C Y DEPUTY RK
9