HomeMy WebLinkAboutlanduse case.boa.401W-Francis.008-96
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CASE #96-08
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
BASEMENT MEETING 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 26, 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
vanance.
Particulars of the hearing and requested variance are as follows:
Date and Time of Meeting:
Date: August 8, 1996, Sister Cities Meeting Room
Time: 4:00 P.M.
Owner for Variance:
Applicant for Variance:
Name: HeinzlKlaus Eppler
Same
Address: 401 West Francis, Aspen Co 81611
Location or description of property:
401 West Francis, Aspen Co 81611
Variance Requested:
Applicant is requesting an FAR variance of 200 s.f. for extension of the sundeck.
Will applicant be represented by Counsel: YES: NO: X
The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Charles Paterson, Chairman
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Board of Adjustment .'
/"'/
Stan Clauson, Community Development Direct6r~
THRU:
FROM:
Sara Thomas, Zoning Officer
RE:
401 W. Francis Street - Klaus Eppler Residence
DATE:
July31,1996
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The applicant requ~tt~ a variance from the floor area dimensional
requirement in order to add a 200' square foot addition, for the purpose of
providing space for rehabilitation therapy equipment. The property is located in
the R-6 zone, on a 6000 square foot lot with a permitted FAR of 3240 square feet.
The existing FAR, as calculated by the City Zoning Officer and the applicant's
architect, is 4249 square feet. A portion of the existing FAR has been affected by
the volume calculation section of Ordinance 30 which states that, "All areas with
an exterior expression of a plate height greater than ten(10) feet, shall be counted
as two (2) square feet for each one (1) square feet of floor area. (Section
26.58.050 (12)). The existing FAR, less the Ordinance 30 volume penalties, would
be calculated at 3694.50 square feet. If the addition is approved as currently
drawn, there would be an additional FAR penalty imposed, based on the half
round window being in an area with a plate height greater than ten (10) feet.
Please refer to the attached drawings and written information provided by the
applicant for a complete presentation of the proposed variance.
APPLICANT:
Klaus Eppler, represented by Sharon Kahn
LOCATION:
401 W. Francis Street
REVIEW STANDARDS AND STAFF EVALUATION: Pursuant to Section
26.108.040 of the Municipal Code, in order to authorize a variance from the
dimensional requirements of Title 26, the board of adjustment shall make a finding
that the following three (3) circumstances exist:
1. Standard: The grant of the variance will be generally consistent with the
purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Comprehensive
Plan and this title.
,,^"~-~~..I .'.~
Response: Floor area ratio (FAR) is a function used to control the size
and bulk of a building and the maximum limits allowed are determined
by the code. This building is currently exceeding its maximum FAR
and is a non-conforming structure in regards to FAR. Staff concludes
that a variance which further increases the FAR of the building would
be inconsistent with the goals of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
2. Standard: The grant of the variance is the minimum variance that will
make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building, or structure.
Response: Staff concludes that given the fact that the allowed floor
area has already been exceeded, and given the existing floor plan and
layout of the building, the requested use can be accommodated
within the structure as it is currently built.
3. Standard: Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and
provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly
enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the
applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining
whether an applicant's right would be deprived, the board shall consider
whether either of the following conditions apply:
a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the
parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels,
structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result
from the actions of the applicant; or
b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special
privilege denied by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan the terms of this
title to other parcels, buildings or structures, in the same zone district.
Response: Since there is adequate existing space to accommodate
the applicants requested use, staff concludes that granting a variance
for the FAR requirement would confer special privileges upon the
applicant.
AL TERNA TIVES: The Board of Adjustment may consider any of the following
alternatives:
· Approve the variance as requested.
· Approve the variance with conditions.
. Table action to request further information be provided by the applicant or
interested parties.
. Deny the variance finding that the review standards are not met.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the request for a FAR variance
be denied.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to deny the request for a FAR variance for
401 W. Francis Street, finding that the three review standards are not met."
,
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AUGUST 8,1996
MOTION: Erickson moved to table action and continue the
public hearing to October 24, 1996. Seconded by DeLuca. All in
favor, motion carries.
96-08, Eppler
Paterson said the applicant is requesting an FAR variance of 200 s.f. for extension
of the sundeck at 401 W. Francis.
Sharon Kahn, representing the Eppler's stated Mrs. Eppler is having major back
surgery in September and they are requesting an extension of the sunroom so sh~
can use that as a rehabilitation room for therapy over the next few years. Kahn
said the addition is on the alley side over an existing bedroom, it is important she
have this room because she is older and needs this separate place to live, she is
going to keep her bed up their and have in-house therapy at the doctor's
suggestion.
Arthur Younger, representing applicant corrected the s.f. to 170 not 200.
Paterson asked for the proof of notice and posting.
Kahn said she posted the property and did not realize the posting affidavit had to
be notarized.
Paterson asked the Attorney his opinion.
Hoefer stated that we can not proceed without proof of notice because it is
jurisdictional.
Kahn asked what she had to have notarized.
Paterson said she needed a picture of the posting and have it notarized that it has
been in place for ten (10) days. Pater,son stated there is a form in the packet.
Kahn said she did not see that illl her packet, she notified the neighbors and asked
if the Board could proceed.
2
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AUGUST 8.1996
Hoefer responded that they have been recommending that the Boards not proceed,
with Planning & Zoning we have made applicants continue until the proof of
notification is complete.
Kahn said they can not get approval without that.
Paterson stated they would not approve or decline the application without the
papers.
Hoefer noted the problem is, if it was denied the applicant could say we proceeded
without jurisdiction or a neighbor could contest it and say we proceeded without
jurisdiction, consequently whatever they decided could be thrown out.
MOTION: Head moved to table action to August 15, 1996.
Seconded by Erickson. All in favor, motion carries.
Kahn asked where to get the affidavit. Paterson said to see the Zoning Officer.
DeLuca also asked for a copy ofthe list of neighbors within 300 ft.
NOTE: The applicant withdrew this application on August 12, 1996.
Vote for Chair and Vice Chairperson
MOTION: Erickson moved to approve the of selection of the
officers Charlie Paterson, Chairperson and Rick Head, Vice
Chairperson. Seconded by DeLuca. All in favor, motion carries.
MOTION: Head moved to adjourn at 4:40 p.m. Seconded by
Erickson. All in favor, motion carries.
Amy G. Schmid, Deputy City Clerk
3
o~
1O:;l
..8
...;r ~
...;r l;l
~
(\j
~
'"
~
,-"
!',i'" --'",'-',;~~,""','
,'~'~
, ." ',: _ ,:",; _ -,,:t""~/:':'~~-
'"
..
W
'"
::>0
a:~~
lI.ll-~
-,z
...W-,
Q. a... u.
Ulci:i
lLI~o
:Cal~
I-Z'"
::;)0(::;
a:w-,
uo(
OD.-
Z
o
'"
~
h\
III
t6
~
'"
'v]
~
lH
'"
<<
0(
-'
-'
o
Cl
i
I
iJ
iJ
\:::
i
~I.
, I =
-.>''''''
I.....
r.D
r.D
1I1
J
r.D
o
<ll
o
<ll
r.D
...
1
Q:l
: ~!
.s
!~~
~,~I 'iH
~ Zz~
1i\=>~
u.J \\ \ .:= ~ e
~o ~ ~~~
~~ G:l (D.
g:(j \JJ'
~
~
i
1
\
!
0::
M-I
.....
J
r.D
0
0
C'-
r.D
<< 0 i
0 .. i
~ I
.
0= ~
~o II!
==
~ ;:'0 ~
~o
~ = III /', f
..
= G:I \
.-!
C\l ~ ]1
'"
<(
~
~
~ 0
0
e'
~
.....;J ~
r1"I I
.. r1"I
'" <D !
.. <D
W 1 U'1
(/}
"'0 ~
a:~~ <D
IU"'"' 0
....z"'
Q,W-' ~~ <tI
a. ~ u. 0
I.Uc:i:i
lU>o <tI
%ffiUS '<.! z <D
.Sol
I-z'" '" -
::)<(::;: 1~.g ':.."
a:W-' ~
g~ =0:::.- n.J
:i ~'" { ~~] r1"I
z"' ~
0 0""
:" -0 <D
z.
I"- \\J ~~~ 0
~~~ 0
...o~ ~'" <'-I
0'" () <D
~ 0 G::J
~B '" 0 J
0 ':.." Ii
"- jl
g:
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CASE #96-08
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
BASEMENT MEETING 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 26, 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
vanance.
Particulars of the hearing and requested variance are as follows:
Date and Time of Meeting:
Date: August 8, 1996, Sister Cities Meeting Room
Time: 4:00 P.M.
Owner for Variance:
Applicant for Variance:
Name: HeinzlKlaus Eppler
Same
Address: 401 West Francis, Aspen Co 81611
Location or description of property:
401 West Francis, Aspen Co 81611
Variance Requested:
Applicant is requesting an FAR variance of200 sJ. for extension of the sundeck.
Will applicant be represented by Counsel: YES: NO: X
The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Charles Paterson, Chairman