The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutlanduse case.boa.311W.Main.023-83 . _._ ,. \ .' '., 1 I' . ' _ ....,....-...,.."'.'}~:......, .:. ...'.-.i......:..?.... .,.<.....,.~.:.....'.'7',.:\.,.../....~..,i.::...-',.,..~'-::.."...,'....'..,.. '.'.-.~'..'.-......':-",..... '..;,',,'.' ..:,.......' :,..:,":... :.:,'.";';:.(,,-:,,.'::,..,..~'. "\~',',;':;,~""'""':,:","',,,,,,'.'i~,:.,.".;......,.~.~.....:..~.~,'...:.., ",' ~ . " .'. . '. .' :t', , " . :y.r;.I..,'..~~Tij:..,- ~..... .:l~\.!. _,'-._,:,,:, ..;-:,,-.,,~,~,,~_, .;...' .......,f 'l- .~ 'h:':~, ~~~:i.':"~"'J..~~I,:,;_'~.;.'~..;...J)..;~~~~~~~"\"'i'::-.. ':.~'{~:r..';1'~l'.,1';j.'.t; Dorl-.~:t..~~~:.,y.!~'::..,.,,;:...~..\. ;'. 'i~o!';,~",-"f" NanCE OF PUBLIC nEARING Case No.83-23 :.RECEIVED-OCT 3 1 m83 ..~~) &"~'~0o"~~i' ~'r~(5 .... ',- . 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, Colo- rado, (or at such other place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24, Official Code of Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state.. yo~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. The particulars of the hearing and of the requested variance are as follows: Date and Time of Meeting: Date: Time: THURSDAY., NOVEMBER 3, 1983 4:00 P.M. Name and address of Applicant for Variance: Name: Aspen Accomodations Inc. . Address: 730 E. Durant, Aspen, CO Location or description of property: Location: Applejack Inn aka The Aspen - 311 W. Main St., Aspen, CO Description: East 1/2 of Lot D, all of lots E, F, G, H, I, Block 45 City and Townsite of Aspen Variance Requested: Property is located in L-3 Zone. The planning department on October 13,'82 rejected the applicant's GMP application partly on a Building Dept. interpre- tation of the definition of FAR. The Building Dept. feels that the area beneatt the proposed dwelling units should be counted in FAR. (Continued at. * below) Duration of Variance: (Please cross out one) '#'ftIPP~~!1/ Permanent .. THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTHEl\'T BY Remo Lavaqnino, Chairman Sally. Hanes, Deputy City Clerk ~ The app1~cant is requesting a finding of the FAR interpretation that the are, qoes not count as floor area. If the Board of Adjustment finds in favor of the'Bui1ding Dept., the applicant then is requesting a FAR variance of approximate1~ 1100.sq. ft. floor area. . ;.j;I,~;:;:,;;~j,~};,~,{~i!{t'.:a~:~;L;~;ig;;i:~;'~'0~;:2~:j.~~,;;i~j.~~i&{lJ{Ul~~;~4Z~':;;;j;~7.;j~'~'~~~~;;d~(:"!<E!:~';',;~,,;,,.'.i~>,? , .. '.;:. r . . .' ~~..-: .. '~_J>-'" ~ NonCE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case No.~ 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, Colo- rado, (or at such other place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24, Official Code of Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state. yo~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. The particulars of the hearing and of the requested variance are as follows: Date and Time of Meeting: Date: Time: THURSDAY., NOVEMBER 3, 1983 4:00 P.M. Name and address of Applicant for Variance: Name: Aspen Accomodations Inc. Address: 730 E. Durant, Aspen, CO , Location or description of property: Location: Applejack Inn aka The Aspen - 311 W. Main St., Aspen, CO Description: East 1/2 of Lot D, all of lots E, F, G, H, I, Block 45 City and Townsite of Aspen Variance Requested: Property is located in L-3 Zone. The planning department on October 13,'83 rejected the applicant's GMP application partly on a Building Dept. interpre- tation of the definition of FAR. The Building Dept. feels that the area beneath the proposed dwelling units should be counted in FAR. (Continued at, * below) Duration of Variance: (Please cross out one) 'I-~fDt.W'n8/ Permanent THE, CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BY Remo Lavaqnino, Chairman Sally, Hanes, Deputy City Clerk * The appl~cant is requesting a finding of the FAR interpretation that the are, qoes not count as floor area. If the Board of Adjustment finds in favor of the Building Dept., the applicant then is requesting a FAR variance of approximately 1100 sq. ft. floor area. . . " " . ,Case 83-23, Applejac~ , , Aspen Accommodations, In, . .....-.. County of pitkin State of Colorado ) ) ss. ) AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY POSTING OF A VARIANCE HEARING BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (Pursuant to Section 2-22{c) of the Mu~icipal Code) ~ . . , The undersigned, being 'first duly sworn, deposes and says as '. follows: '. 1. , !>eing or 'I, Randy Gold (print name) 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 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 24th day of Octobe;r , 19 83 , to the . third day of November , 19&. (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). APPLICANT . , -, , . (; /J^ ' \~01u ~ signafure Subscribed and th~l~fb.-- 19 , by " '\ me , . (Attach photograph here) WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL : SEAL. ' , , . M;"CO~~~si~n e~pires: Jp~h1 '~~iC(!' (J~ /:Ja L IJ~ (l . (lAl~/j Adores\; iJ- 1M &) '{". . . 8- - d-- -- If" r "-IlL IV tl'.)/!IIJ.) \l! L\)li!J.~U :\JJJ0..;Jlll..JII CITY Of J\SPEtI DATE October 20, 1983 .' i',' ....., I \ APPElLANT Aspen 'Accomod<lt'iomV[nc. ..........;'.. .';, . .~. . CASE /lO. :6o~~3....;. ADDnESS 7~0 East Duraht PHONE 925-1250' I i I I , , I , OWlllER Tor Corporation ADDRESS 730 East Durant, Aspen - Applejack Inn a/k/a The Aspe~ 311 West Main Street, Aspen, Colorado. (OenTION OF prOPERTY . East"1/2 of Lot D, All of Lots E,F,G,H,I, Block 45* ~ lStree~ & Number of Stibdivision Blk.' & Lot No.) , *City and Townsite of Aspen " Bufldin~ Permit'Application and prints or any other pertinent ~ data must aicompany this application, and will be made part of CASE NO. ~b -~. . . THE BOARD WILL RETURN THIS.APPLICATION IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ALL THE FACTS IN QUESTION. . DESCRIPTION 'Cf PROPOSED EXCEPTION SHOHING' JUSTIFICATlnflS: , 'SEE ATTACHED . " , . '. . . . , . . " ? Yes ~ SIGNE~:A~~,cJlr ~ ,'" 'Will you be represented by couqsel PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINA!~CE REQUIRING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR TO ~ORWARD THIS APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND REASON FOR NOT GRANT! NG: Property is located in 1-3 ~one. . The planning department on October l"3. 19~ rej ected the applicants ,GMP application partly on a,Bu}1<i:i.ng Dept.' interpretation of the defi~:it:ion of F.A.R, The Building Dept.' feels the area beneat'h, ,the 'proposed dwelling 'units' should be cQunted \, .. . .. in F,A,R,Se'c;24-3.7(e}(l)(2)(3). "". ", ' , " . The applicant is, requesting a finding of t~ 'P,A,R., interpretation that the ar,ea' does not c,~unt as floor .area. _"_ .' '. . If the Board' o~ 1\.dj~stment' f;inc;ls in fa-Jor of the Build.ing Dept;, the app'licqntthen' is reques"ting a F.A,R; variance of, approximately 'llOO sq,ft. fl<<or area, Se'c, 24-3:4 Area ,& Bulk ='F,A,R. in L-3 zone not to exceed 1:1. . , , .. r . , . , "- ,~ ':,. (/2-.'(.~J ' l 0 \ \::, \::s- 3 'Status \ , , . .... . , PERMIT REJECTED, DATE . WJtl~~'~~~~ .. - Signed' . DECISIONl~\~ ~ \\~1_~3 DATE 1l -3 - '63 DATE IF llEARING 1l-6."63 , . S[CRETIIRY -:$,'lc-0.t f d'\.0~ ~t0G~./~ ' II_L' . ,,~~ . . APPLICATION FILED HAILED r~-:..:t\ -'60' " .# \ ~lrlQ \( (VeSl;' ^ II < -7~" APPEAL The basis of our appeal is a disagreement with the Building Department's interpretation of a zoning law. The Building Department says FAR regulations require that any area under the horizontal projection of a roof which is necessary for the function of the building be counted in FAR calculations. Based on this interpretation they include covered parking for our lodge development within FAR calculations. Because of this interpretation our Growth Management Plan application for expansion in the L3 zone is being denied. The City Attorney feels this conflict in interpretation should be resolved by you. We feel the Building Department's interpretation ~s incorrect. The Code says that any area under a horizontal projection of a roof which is necessary for the function of a building be counted in the FAR calculations. In our case we do not feel that the covered parking we are providing is necessary for the function of the building. Rather, this is an amenity that is being offered to our guests. An amenity which is not necessary to the function of the building. The lodge clearly functions without covered parking and therefore the Building Department's interpretation that it is necessary to the function to the building is incorrect. When the FAR was adopted the reason the language "necessary to the function of the building" was included was to prevent people from putting stairways and hallways outside of the building in order to get extra FAR. Amenities not necessary to the function of the building were never intended to be counted in the FAR. The Building Department is also relying upon other Code language to count our covered parking in FAR. The Code specifically exempts carports and garages of 600 square feet or less from FAR calculations in residential structures. Since we are a lodge the Building Department is taking the position that carports count in the FAR. We feel that this interpretation is also incorrect. We believe that if FAR regulations intended carports to count in lodge areas they would have been specifically addressed in the Code and specific language would have been used to count them in FAR just as they were specifically included in residential FAR. In addition counting carports in FAR discourages parking and clearly conflicts with zoning requirements intended to encourage parking in lodging areas. Lastly, since neither the Code nor U.B.C. defines carports I believe our covered parking does not constitute a carport and therefore should not be counted in the FAR. In the event you choose to accept the Building Department's interpretation, we then would ask for a variance for our parking from FAR calculations. The purpose of the L-3 zone was to encourage the upgrading and renovation of small lodges. To frustrate our expansion which offers many additional amenities and a first rate upgrading because of a questionable interpretation seems to fly in the face of the intention of the Code and the General plan. Therefore we feel a variance would be appropriate and hope that you would agree. - 2 - ./ , Asp~/Pitkin Plannini Office 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 October 13, 1983 Mr, Wilson Good Tor Corporation 730 East Durant Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr, Good, I regret to inform you that the Planning Office does hereby reject your applica- tion for a development allocation for the lodge known as The Aspen (aka, the Applejack Inn), Your application is being rejected pursuant to Section 24- 11.3(c) of the Aspen Municipal Code which reads as follows: "The Planning Office shall reject any application for develop- ment allotment which fails to comply with the requirements of Chapter 24, Zoning, of the Code, or any other applicable land use or building regulations of the City of Aspen." The Planning Office is rejecting your application based on two areas of non- compliance with the zoning regulations of the City of Aspen. First, the Aspen/ Pitkin County Building Department has determined that your proposal to build a new free-standing structure on the site will result in a total FAR for the site which exceeds that allowed in the L-3 district. Your site survey documents that you have approximately 1,082 square feet of remaining FAR for expansion purposes. Your application requests the construction of three new rooms in a building comprising 1,072 square feet. However, since you have placed this building on stilts, with parking below, the Building Department must also count the covered area underneath the units. This area amounts to an additional 1,000 to 1,100 square feet, thereby exceeding the allowed FAR for the site. The rationale for the Building Department's determination is as follows. The City's FAR regulations require that covered parking for lodge development which is above grade be counted in FAR calculations and provides no exclusion for same. The FAR regulations also require that any area under a horizontal projec- tion of a roof which is necessary for the function of the building be counted in FAR calculations. The Building Department also finds this space to qualify as floor area under this criterion, The second basis for rejection emerges from Section 24-11,3(d) of the Code which requires that conceptual approval of the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) be obtained by an applicant prior to submitting a development allotment application. You have not complied with this requirement. I am aware that Gideon Kaufman, representing your application, reached an understanding with Alan Richman, of this office, that conceptual approval for this project could i Mr. Wilson Good October 13, 1983 Page Two be obtained in October, prior to the public review of the application. How- ever, this understanding was based on Mr. Richman's comment that the Applejack Inn had recently received HPC approval for its exterior modification and upgrade and that the development allotment request would be no more than a minor change to that approval, This office does not view the construction of a new, free-standing structure along Main Street as a minor modification to your HPC approval and must find your proposal to be inconsistent with the under- standing reached with Mr, Kaufman. The rationale behind the Planning Office's determination is as follows. The Code requires you to obtain conceptual HPC approval prior to the submission deadline to insure that subsequent major architectural modifications are not necessary. Were you merely making minor changes to an approved structure, we would expect no such modifications to be required. In the case at hand, it is entirely possible that HPC will ask for major changes. Permitting you to make such changes would be unfair to other competitors and is not allowed. As you can see, our rejection of your application is based on interpretation of the Code by the Planning Office and Building Department. Of course, decisions of the Building Department and interpretations of the zoning code can be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. r I must point out to you that Section 2411.6(a} of the Municipal-Code encourages applicants to engage in a pre-application conference with the Planning Office for the purpose of clarifying the lodge development application procedures. ~~long the four lodge development applications we received this year, yours was the only one for which no pre-application was held, I believe that ~e might have avoided the necessity of rejecting your application had we been given an opportunity to discuss these matters with you prior to October 1. In the future, I strongly recommend that you consider holding a pre-application con- ference with the Planning Office before submitting such an important applica- tion, ' I have notified the Fi nance Department to begin processing a refund of your check for $1,840. I will send this check to you as soon as it becomes avail- ab 1 e. Once again, my regrets to you for a'ny i nconl'eni ence thi s requi red rejection of your application may cause, Office SV:klm cc: /Gideon Kaufman Russ Pielstick Randy Gold Paul Taddune Gary Essary Ji m Wil son 'f Vi / "-- Block Lot: N o P Q R S r' ' .~~ c-...., ',.,."" #44 F. Svea' 320 W. Main St. Estate of Elisha same as N same as N Leroy L Fink; James & Beverly Gorman same as Q same as Q POAG Rd. Block #45 D (15') Aspen Medical Center Condo. N Shadow View Condos--see below o same as N P Q R S Aspen CO 81611 Edwardsville IL 60205 all units: Sterling J. Baxter; Box C; Aspen CO 8161 Aspen A I s--see be low same as P C.M. Clark same as R PO Box 566 Block #51 Louis I. & Frances Lynette Wi lie 200 W. Main Block #52 A Heinz E.& Karen V. Coordes 233 W. Main I Hugh A. & Edith Chisholm 205 W. Main Shadow VI ew Condos: A B C D Aspen A's 1A 2A Sue Mitchell Crowley Barbara G. Seidel Priscilla C. Harper Riverview Development Co., a Partnership 409 S. Greenwood Ave. 31094 W. Thompson Lane Box 10906 2300 Territorial Rd. Vicki L. Bagley Martin H. Kahn 3015 M St. NW PO Box 3386 I Aspen CO 81612 Aspen CO 81611 Aspen CO Aspen CO 81611 81611 Columbia MO 65201 Hartland WI 53209 Aspen CO 81612 St. Paul MN 55114 Washington DC 20007 Aspen CO 81612