HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.boa.19930610CITY OF ASPEN
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
JUNE 10, 1993
4:00 P.M.
SECOND FLOOR MEETING ROOM
A G E N D A
I. CALL TO ORDER
WELCOME NEW MEMBER HOWARD DELUCA
ROLL CALL
II. CASE ##93-6
ASPEN EAST CONDO ASSOCIATION
III. MINUTES 4
MAY 27 j, 1993-- W
f�f�3
IV. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
V. ADJOURN
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CASE #93-6
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: May 27, 1993
Time: 4:00 p.m.
Owner for Variance: Appellant for Variance:
Name: Aspen East Condo Association Richard Neiley, attorney
Address: c/o of Richard Neiley
201 S. Mill ST.
Location or description of property:
Lots P&Q, Block 32, East Aspen Addition, 980 E. Hyman
Variance Requested:
Expansion of a nonconforming structure by adding car ports of 980
square feet of Floor area ratio.
Will applicant be represented by counsel: Yes: X No:
The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment
130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611
Remo Lavagnino, Chairman '3ztn Deputy City Clerk
DATE
CITY OF ASPEN
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
April 22 19 93 CASE #
APPLICANT
Aspen East Condo Association
PHONE 925-9393
MAILING ADDRESS c/o Richard Neiley 201 N. Mill Street #102, Aspen, Co.
OWNER
Various unit owners in Association
PHONE 925-9393
MAILING ADDRESS c/o Neiley & Alder 201 N. Mill Street, ASpen, Co.
LOCATION OF PROPERTY Lots P & Q, Block 32, East Aspen Addition, 980 E. Hyman
(Street, Block Number and Lot Number)
Ave . , Aspen, • CO .
WILL YOU BE REPRESENTED BY COUNCIL? YES X NO
Below, describe clearly the proposed variance, including, all
dimensions and justification for the variance. (Additional paper
may be used if necessary.) The building permit application and
any other information you feel is pertinent should accompany this
application, and will be made part -of this -case.
In August and September of 1991 City Zoning staff issued its interpretation of
the Municipal Code in connection with the applicant's request to construct
covered parking on the alley side of the complex. The request was denied on the
basis that the 500 square foot parking structure exemption is not available to
multi -family structures and' --that because the existing structure exceeds permissible
FAR, the construction of covered parking would increase the non -conformity.
Although the Applicant disagrees with the interpretation, this application is
submitted to obtain a variance for covered parking t t lling approximately 980
square feet for health/safety reasons necessitating a ianc i from
`
down -zoning. See ttache additional information.
App- icanf' s `S ignatlure%- ..
-------------------------------------------------------- r----------
REASONS FOR DENIAL OF BUILDING PERMIT, BASED ON THE ASPEN CITY
CODE, CHAPTER 24. AN OPINION CONCERNING THIS VARIANCE WILL � 1
PRESENTED TO THE BOARD BY THE ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF. ra��
�4 Ar^ -6v^- 41� /C 01 C�4 ��X
0:�( C -6e� a4,0 L ile
AP
67 t 4call 1)n4
DATE PERMIT DENIED OFFICIAL
HEARING DATE
DATE OF APPLICATION
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CASE #93-6
ASPEN EAST CONDO ASSOCIATION
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: JUNE 101 1993
Time: 4:00 p.m.
Owner for Variance: Appellant for Variance:
Name: Aspen East Condo Association Richard Neiley, attorney
Address: c/o of Richard Neiley
201 S. Mill St.
Location or description of property:
Lots P&Q, Block 32, East Aspen Addition, 980 E. Hyman
Variance Requested:
Expansion of a nonconforming structure by adding car ports of 980
square feet of Floor area ratio.
Will applicant be represented by counsel: Yes: X No:
The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment
130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611
Remo Lavagnino, Chairman Jan Carney Deputy City Clerk
ASPEN EAST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
CITY OF ASPEN
VARIANCE REQUESTED:
The Applicant, Aspen East Co�ac�arp�®rt�o
sociati seeks a
variance to allow construction o approximately 980
square feet on the alley side of the complex to cover existing
parking. The Applicant seeks a variance from an interpretation of
the Municipal Code issued by Bill Drueding, City Zoning Officer, on
September 11, 1991. That interpretation precludes Applicant from
constructing the carport because the improvements on the subject
property exceed permissible floor area ratios.
BACKGROUND:
Aspen East Condominiums are a 5-unit complex totaling
approximately 6,000 square feet. Depending on the method of
measurement the complex contains approximately 6,360 square feet,
according to Bill Drueding, or 5,926.9 square feet, according to
architect Arian Ocean.
The complex is located within the RMF zone district on a 6,000
square foot lot. Permissible FAR under applicable regulations is
6,000 square feet. Accepting Bill Drueding's calculation of 6,360
square feet renders the complex 360 square feet in excess of
permissible FAR creating a non -conforming structure under current
Code provisions.
The complex was constructed legally prior to downzoning. The
complex has remained in its present configuration of a garden level
and two upper stories. Because of balconies, stairwells and below -
grade space, the exact calculation of FAR is difficult to estab-
lish. For purposes of this Variance Application, the Applicant
utilizes Bill Drueding's FAR calculation.
By letter of August 15, 1991, Ocean Architec's sought an
interpretation relating the Applicant's ability to construct the
covered parking. On September 11, Bill Drueding rendered his
interpretation stating that (1) because the structure was over
permissible FAR and was non -conforming, construction of the carport
would impermissibly increase the non -conformity, and (2) the
provision of the Municipal Code defining floor area, Chapter 24,
Section 3-101, which provides a 500 square foot per dwelling unit
exemption for parking structures does not apply to multi -family
structures. Bill Drueding's interpretation was confirmed by the
Planning Director on September 13, 1991. Copies of the referenced
documentation is included with the Application.
BASIS FOR VARIANCE:
The Applicant seeks a variance from the interpretation of Code
rendered by the Planning Office as it affects Applicant's property.
The purpose of the variance is to allow construction of covered
parking to the alley side of the property. Presently the project
has no covered parking and the accumulation of snow and ice in the
parking lot and on vehicles creates a dangerous situation.
The Applicant proposes a carport in the configuration
reflected on the drawings included in this Application. The
carport would cover 5 spaces in the existing parking area.
The Municipal Code does not preclude the construction of
covered parking or eliminate the exemption for such parking in
connection with multi -family structures. The definition of "floor
area" provides in pertinent part as follows:
"For the purpose of calculating floor area
ratio and allowable floor area for a lot whose
principal use is residential, garages and
carports shall be excluded up to a maximum
area of five hundred (500) square feet per
dwelling unit;"
Nowhere in the Municipal Code is there any prohibition against
application of the garage/carport exemption to multi -family
structures.
Even accepting the determination that the structure is non-
conforming as to FAR, the appropriate consequence is not to
prohibit utilization of the FAR exemption, but to limit total
development on a property to the maximum FAR plus exemption which
would be permitted but for the non -conformity. By way of example,
the Applicant would be entitled to a 2,500 square foot exemption
for a parking.structure (500 square feet per unit). FAR exceeds
that permitted in the zone'district'by 360 square feet. Thus,
2,140 square feet should still be available for use in constructing
a carport. The fact that a structure is over permissible FAR
should not totally preclude the construction of covered parking.
The Municipal Code permits the granting of a variance in
circumstances under Chapter 24, Section 10-104, where the variance
is (a) generally consistent with the purposes, goals, and objec-
tives of the Municipal Code and the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan,
(b) the granting of a variance will make possible the reasonable
use of the parcel or building, and (c) the literal interpretation
and enforcement of the Code would deprive the Applicant of rights
commonly enjoyed in the same zone district and would cause
2
unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. The Applicant can
satisfy each of these requirements.
The Municipal Code sets out a policy of encouraging covered
parking by providing a 500 square foot exemption per dwelling unit.
Indeed, in the climate regularly experienced in Aspen, covered
parking is more than a mere convenience, it contributes signifi-
cantly.to the health and welfare of -community residents.
The Applicant's property is entirely residential in nature.
The granting of the variance would enhance the reasonable use of
the property by protecting owners' vehicles as well as promoting
health and safety issues.
Many multi -family structures enjoy covered parking. A review
of the immediate neighborhood suggests that a number of newer
structures have maximized their FAR, and yet, have been allowed
covered parking. An example of this is the Hyman Avenue Victorians
located at 990 East Hyman Avenue.
The granting of the variance would not provide any unique or
special privilege to the Applicant. Many structures in the zone
district currently enjoy covered parking. But for the downzoning
of the property, the issue of excessive FAR would never have
existed. The plicant has done nothing to create or exacerbate
the non-confo ity and now seeks only to take advantage of an
exemption available to others in the neighborhood.
CONCLUSION:
The Applicant's request for a variance of the strict interpre-
tation of the Code prohibiting construction of the carport because
Applicant's property has been determined to be 360 square feet in
excess of permissible FAR is a modest request for reasonable use
and enjoyment of the property. Applicant seeks only 980 square
feet of covered parking in an: existing lot as an exemption from the
calculation of FAR.
The request is consistent with the objectives and purposes of
the Code, violates no specific provisions of the Code, and would
enhance and promote the health and safety of the residents of the
complex.
RMS\CondoAss.Miss\AspenEas.Var
3
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 RICHARD Y. NEILEY, JR. , being or
i
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 17th day of May , . 19 93
to the 27th day of May 19--93
_ast tin (10 ) full days before the
licant's Signature
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this day of
19 q0 byJ�-
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
mir can-i-.i.on expires.
NotarY Publi
DATE 2-10-92
19 --- CASE #
APPLICANT Ocean Arc h i t e c ' s PHONE 925-9514
MAILING ADDRESS box.10607 Aspen, Co. 81612
OWNER Aspen East Condominium AssociatioPHONE 925-1285
MAILING ADDRESS c/o Resort Management -box' 7026 Aspe-rT , Co 81 61 2
LOCATION OF PROPERTY 980 E. Hyman St. Aspen
(Street, Block Number and Lot Number)
WILL YOU BE REPRESENTED BY COUNCIL? YES X_ NO
Below, describe clearly the proposed variance, including all
dimensions and justification for the variance. (Additional paper
may be used if necessary.) The biAlding permit application and
any other information you feel is pertinent should accompany this
application, and will be made part of this case.
See attached
This letter describes our request in detail.
A code interpretation provided by the planning
director has denied this request. We are therefore
taking this matter to the Board of adjustment to appeal
this decision.
Applicant's Signature
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BOX
ASPEN, t ': CQ 81612 `303 ' 925 9514 _ �� r: �,
Family zone district is allowed .500 sq . f t of covered parking per
dwelling unit. For five units that would be an additional 2500
sq.ft. increase. The -association is -requesting -an approximate
increase of 920 sq . f t . of exterior -covered space( see exhibit B) .
Because the entire zone district -has been down Zoned this should
not affect - a' .separate aspect .-of, the code which entitles the
individual owners of this -- complex to covered parking. We
understand it is- the objective- of -the Planning Department to
decease bulk and area in certain zone districts. .-Please note,
however, that the association is not requesting an increase in
actual living area nor -are we asking for something -which -the code
does not already provide for.
As evidenced from- my 7 .years of envolvement with zoning
enforcement their approach is' to take the most 'strict
interpretation of the code possible. lie feel strongly that this
is not appropriate to this. situation 'nor is -there legal
justification for denying exemption ' from the F.A.R. for covered
parking. We therefore ask fbr-. your code interpretation in this
matter to allow for covered parking for Aspen East Condominiums.
Sincerely, Ocean Architec's
-Twat`
T FZ4:::X, J-H C-F?,E,:f F -T 1-� c-
N-rl
TO:. Amy Margerum
FROM: Bill Drueding
DATE: September 11, 1991
SUBJECT: CODE INTERPRETATION - OCEAN ARCHITECTS
FAR - NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE
Situation: Property is R/MF Zone District
Allowable FAR: 1:1
6,000 square foot lot = allowable FAR 6,000 square feet
Existing FAR' - unknown, but assumed over FAR per
information given by architect
* The structure is nonconforming as it exceeds allowable FAR.
* Carports are a function of FAR and an expansion would further
increase the nonconformity.
See Chapter 24 (3-101), Definitions, Floor Area (c). Also note
that it is my understanding that this exemption was meant for
single family and duplex structures, not multi -family structures.
Chapter 24, Section 9-101, Purpose, states:
Within the zone districts established by this chapter, there
exist uses of land, buildings and structures that were lawfully
established before this chapter was adopted or amended which would
be in violation'of the terms and requirements of this chapter. The
purpose of this article is to regulate and limit the continued
existence of those uses, buildings, and structures that do not
conform to the provisions of this chapter or any amendments thereto.
It is the intent of this article to permit these
nonconformities to continue, but not allow nonconformities to be
enlarged or expanded. The provisions of this article are designed
to curtail substantial investment in nonconformities in order:to
preserve the integrity of the zone districts and the other
provisions of this chapter but should not be construed as an
abatement provision.
Chapter 24, Section 9-103(C)(1.) states:
General. A nonconforming structure shall not be extended by an
enlargement or expansion that increases the nonconformity. A
nonconforming structure may be extended are altered in a manner that
does not change or that decreases the nonconformity.
An example would be: A building size is three times its allowable
FAR. It was built prior to 1975 when the Code changed. The Code
changed in.order to reduce the size of buildings in that zone. I
do not see that we could now allow this building a 500 square foot
per unit garage or carport exemption.
Amy, I spoke to Francis and Jed who both agreed with me. I then
advised Ocean.
/cic
M
130
Asl
(303)
September 13, 1991
Arian Ocean
Ocean Architects
P.O. Box 10607
Aspen, CO 81612
Re: Code Interpretation: Aspen East Condos
Dear Arian:
I apologize for taking so long to get back to you with a response
to your letter requesting a Code interpretation (received on August
21, 1991) .
Bill Drueding had evidently gotten back to you on this issue last
week. I uphold Bill's interpretation on this issue. Please see
attached memo.
If you wish to appeal my decision, please submit a request and your
arguments to City Council with appropriate application fees and I
will schedule it on the next available Council agenda.
Sincerely,
Amy L. Margerum
Planning Director
P.S. Although this is my interpretation of the existing code, it
doesn't necessarily mean the Code should not be reviewed or
altered. I would be happy to discuss such issues and get your
opinions at any time.
cc: Bill Drueding, Zoning Enforcement Officer
Jed Caswall, City Attorney
Francis Krizmanich, Deputy Director, Zoning
enc: Memo of September 11, 1991
recycled paper
4
• t above fYnl h:ed•grad�
w. • , : atios •,
..
,
dub total,147.:
anus subgrade ,53x2266=1240
2266
1065
` Percentage of Perimeter• wall . be lo��
J '
r•atura.
grade 'bur move f nisfl.d grade
Total lineal-
, feet
;
290
Total" perimeter' su�i.-ade,♦ ,. - : •.
,..-.,-'�__,:
=309
I ,.
.._
' l0m allowed- ;',: ,'• ..
: ' = . : - :
; -2 g_
-'
..
Total perimeter over- allowed- ' '
80
.:
Percentage of opening ;.'
_y
80/290-.27
.
.. -
ditional added= .27x2266• =611TAL:
. FOR CARDEN LEVEI,
ST . LEVEL 'Yt<
Total '
2647.
;t'linus 3 allowed
stairs
add c' ian y ..
• i V 7 _
/ F
'
-Sub total'
-
304.2
..: ' ... -• • '• • • . • .
IT•` {• FOR~OOR .1ST. LEVEL
: - .
21342.
.=--t
-TOTAL- FOR 2hD....L'VU
•' -
t}. �.as it r �..
TOTAL��=7;;�
::.•:.;
' '!OT24 ' I ALL OF PATIO ,AND BALCONY .F .
CQ�� 5Q, o T,'�:S ALLOWED TO-
fPTED P:E ���A�. � S PEDJCED BY- .7 28 ILEAV S;G
A lQTAr• _ ' . • ..
L tt y {
=f
- t yJ,-
DI: ?R THE P.A."
• it
i'
t.,,,c.=+ , •_
: :.. ' '
::.:'
�� �✓i{
On 4
AND TOTAL .UJ'USTED5926.9
.
' •'•'•
••
•
jf
`j Ftt z`�tJ;ti•1
•
�.
• • • • • • ,, •
• , • • •
•
phi p4 t
- •
. _ram, .'t `i