The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutlanduse case.boa.980 E Hyman Ave.006-93 i)- ". CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION DATE April 22 19.2.. CASE # APPLICANT Aspen East Condo Association PHONE 925-9393 MAILING ADDRESS c/o Richard Neiley 201 N. Mill Street #102, Aspen, Co. O~ER Various unit owners in Association PHONE 925-9393 MAILING ADDRESS c/o Neiley & Alder 201 N. Mill Street, ASpen, Co. Ave., Aspen, -co. Lots P & Q, Block 32, East Aspen Addition, 980 E. Hyman (Street, Block Number and Lot Number) LOCATION OF PROPERTY WILL YOU BE REPRESENTED BY COUNCIL? YES~ 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 interpretat' n, 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 ~ttachedladditional information. Appi~cant s s~gnature -------------------------------------------------------- -------- REASONS FOR DENIAL OF BUILDING PERMIT, BASED ON THE ASPEN CITY CODE, CHAPTER 24. AN OPINION CONCERNING THIS VARIAN~~ W1LL B~ ~ PRESENTED TO THE BOARD BY THE ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF."~.;;, ~('~ ~ "' f1-!/lltf-~C~~.~,,+-~~~-(-t...dtrw~ FIIjf~~ Co ~~{~}- If~~~ 5~ C~~ ~r- ~ d\ -o/~Ck1f 2r Su-6I-ro::{C)(I), _ ~ uf;f~';~v~>1f~ ~ L iLL~7;:; ~ +-lkA_~~ 1 'L ~~>~ bl ~dWjCMp~(18jfi'II;rFAf, DATE PERMIT DENIED ~ '\.. '\.. l,,~ OFFICIAL ~ )vJ.-~ DATE OF APPLICATION '-\.\'2..:2...\ ~ :? HEARING DATE " ~ '1--...-. , .- f~ ~<:/f .. '," '" .' ,\ II' 1"';',\ I,,~ " "",',' '.~;:'., ,i'":: ~ ;:(" - ~ , . ',. ,.;',: I ,', , '. \, J I III ~ :9"- " r / NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CASE #93-6 ~Cd~~ 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 opinio~s 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 Meetinq: Date: Time: May 27, 1993 4:00 p.m. Owner for Variance: Appellant for Variance: Name: Aspen East Condo Association Address: c/o of Richard Neiley 201 S. Mill ST. Richard Neiley, attorney 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 bv counsel: Yes: X No: Remo The City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lavagnino, Chairman l~ 'il!1t;:2eputy City Clerk ') c ""', "-' ) BAM7.l5.93 way. I am in favor of this variance with one covenant that they keep heat tape in there and drain it away from Mrs. Paepcke' s garden. Howard: I have to agree with Rick. Even if Mrs. Paepcke doesn't understand--gutters are a little bit better now than they used to be. And if you put in the proper heat tapes it will drain it away from her property. And I don't see any problem. I agree that the Board of Adjustment is to give a variance because of a hardship, not to create a hardship and this is what we will be doing if we try to take it off. I agree with Gary that structurally that would create a problem and drainwise it would create a problem so I would be willing to give them a variance. Bill: I agree with Howard and Rick's comments. Ron: I think since this is a roof over an existing variance it is a minimal variance, I would grant the variance given the proviso as stated by the Gary Lyman. Remo: My basis for granting the variance is the practical difficulty--the problems that would be created if we take the roof off. And that is the basis of our guidelines and they fit them perfectly as far as I am concerned. MOTION Ron: I move that we approve variance for Case #93-9. Howard seconded the motion with all in favor. ASPEN EAST CONDO MINUTES RECOLLECTION EVERYONE VOTED IN FAVOR OF THIS VARIANCE EXCEPT REMO. HOWARD--THE POINT THAT I MADE THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR WAS BUILT SO FAR OUT INTO THE ALLEY. THEY DID NOT SHOW US ON THE DRAWING WHETHER THIS CARPORT OVERHANG WAS GOING TO EXCEED THAT OR NOT AND MY REQUEST WAS THAT IT DIDN'T EXCEED THAT BECAUSE THEN YOU ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE SITUATION. AND THEY AGREED THAT IT WOULD NOT EXCEED THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR. I AM NOT SURE IF THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR IS SET AT THE SETBACK LINE OR NOT. RON: NO. ~T IS IN THE SETBACK. ) HOWARD: YES. SO THAT WAS WHAT THE POINT WAS. YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO NOTICE THE PIECE THAT THEY PUT OUT THERE. THERE IS NOT A LOT OF TRAFFIC THROUGH THERE--NOT EVEN FOOT TRAFFIC. OTHER THAN THAT I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANYTHING ELSE WE REALLY TALKED ABOUT AS FAR 18 c - '",,;' BAM7.15.93 AS STIPULATIONS OR CONDITIONS. REMO: I WOULD LIKE TO PUT ON THE RECORD WHY I DID NOT VOTE FOR IT. AND THE ARGUMENT FOR GRANTING THE VARIANCE WAS BASED ON A SAFETY CONSIDERATION THAT SNOW AND ICE WAS A DANGEROUS SITUATION. AND MY QUESTION TO THEM IS THAT WHY WASN'T THE ACCUMULATION OF SNOW AND ICE A DANGEROUS SITUATION IN 1972 SINCE THAT WAS WHEN THAT CONDITION EXISTED UP UNTIL 1993. THAT IS OVER 20 YEARS AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THIS IS A DANGEROUS SITUATION. WHY WASN'T SAFETY AND WELFARE ADDRESSED EARLIER? THEN I ASKED THEM IF THEY HAD ANY ACCIDENTS IN THAT TIME PERIOD AND THE RESPONSE WAS "NO". SO I DIDN'T THINK THAT THAT WAS A VALID REASON FOR GRANTING THEM A VARIANCE. SO I DENIED. HOWARD: I THINK THE BASIC ARGUMENT ON THAT SITUATION WAS THE FACT THAT LAST YEAR WAS NOT ONLY EXTREMELY LARGE SNOW YEAR ALSO LIMITED WARMTH AND SUN. IN MY OWN YARD AND MY OWN HOUSE I HAD TO REMOVE SNOW FROM MY ROOF--A METAL ROOF--IT JUST WOULDN'T GET OFF OF THERE- -QUITE A FEW TIMES BECAUSE OF THAT SITUATION WHEREAS NORMALLY THE SUN BEATS ON THE ROOF AND IT MELTS ON ITS OWN AND IT IS GONE. AND WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT. """) " I THINK THEY PROBABLY HAD A LITTLE BIT MORE BUILDUP OF ICE THAN THEY NORMALLY WOULD HAVE HAD AND MAYBE ONLY TWICE IN THE LAST 20 YEARS--'83 AND '84. REMO: I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT. HOWARD: BUT THAT YEAR WE HAD A LOT MORE SUN. I REMEMBER THAT WAS THE YEAR I MOVED HERE AND I COULDN'T BELIEVE THE WAY THEY GOT RID OF THE SNOW IN THIS TOWN. IT JUST AMAZED ME BECAUSE WHERE I CAME FROM IN THE NORTHEAST AND WHEN IT WAS THERE, IT WAS THERE AND IT STAYED THERE UNTIL SPRING. AND THE RUTS WERE THERE ETC. THIS YEAR I NOTICED WE HAD A SIMILAR PROBLEM WITH A LOT OF THE STREETS AND SIDE STREETS UNTIL THEY GOT TO THEM. AND THE ALLEYS ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THE ALLEYS BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS HERE ARE EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. I WORK IN THEM A LOT. AND YOU GET IN THERE AND YOU LOOK AT THE THICKNESS OF THE ICE FROM THE TRUCKS GOING OVER THEM. BILL: IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION OF WHAT HAS HAPPENED OVER TWENTY YEARS. THE PREVIOUS OWNERS PROBABLY DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY COLLECTIVELY TO DO ANYTHING. SO NOW THE PEOPLE IN THERE HAVE THE MONEY AND NOW THEY ARE APPLYING. MINUTES DECEMBER 10. 1992 ) Jan: For the record these minutes have been present at 2 previous meetings and there were not enough people present who had been at 19 ASPEN EAST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE CITY OF ASPEN VARIANCE REQUESTED: The Applicant, Aspen East Condominium Association, seeks a variance to allow construction of a carport of 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 approximately 6,000 square feet. Depending measurement the complex contains approximately according to Bill Drueding, or 5,926.9 square architect Arian Ocean. complex totaling on the method of 6,360 square feet, feet, according to 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 application structures. in the Municipal Code is there any prohibition against of the garage/carport exemption to multi-family 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 Applicant has done nothing to create or exacerbate the non-conformity 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\CondoAaa.M!ss\AspenEaB.var 3 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION DATE 2-10-92 19-=-=-_ CASE # PHONE 925-9514 APPLICANT Ocean Architec's MAILING ADDRESS box 10607 Aspen, Co. 81612 OWNER Asp e n E a s t Con d 0 m i'n i u mAs s 0 cia t i 0 PHONE 925 -1 285 MArtING ADDRESS c/o Resort ~anagement box 7026 Aspen, Co. 81612 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 building 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 80ard of adjustment to appeal this decision. " J Applicant's Signature ~~/~~ ----------------------------------------------------------------- REASONS FOR DENIAL OF BUILDING PERMIT, BASED ON THE ASPEN CITY CODE, CHAPTER 24. AN OPINION CONCERNING THIS VARIANCE WILL BE_ _ ~~ ,PRESENTED TO THE BOARD BY THE ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF. ~~~ 1.0 ,~ 0v-~ (l-{U<\.f '~O'W]. ~+~ ~ ~ ~~ \(jL~~ Lo~- ~~. LL~~~~ ~~/rf<<.- t~ ~ ).'1. ~q-ICl"3(C.,)(I)A:J . ~ .."" 1r.l::\~~~l7\- 0,0,_ .. ~","~.i",;,...( a.)\?~~{...~~ ~~ "'~~~1~.~rT DENUO ~~. I ~ ---c- OFFIem \~~ i;-t,." ,~jPf}'~~~LICATION . \? ~ 2- HEARING DATE qJ3)}~'li~,~ ~ 9~a.v--, BO,X' . ':'1q6q(;'i'~?-f)'\:'(:}>/:,' ASPEN, ~c6:',:',~1,61g::;30~ '. .";_ .""';. ,c, '.' .,,~__,-..' ,~. -, .'. . ,:-'::,~, "Y_' _.'_ _r' " , , 'Amy M<l.rg~rum, ---:, " ' . Planning Director' ; ," c' ,,' . ,Apen-Pitkin County Planning' '130 S. Galena ,St. .' Aspen ,Co.' . - -- , :'8~15-9i Dept. ." ',',. . -~ ;' -' . . >: . ..,. Re': ,Code Interpretation "Diar Ms. Marge~u~, ., .-. As the . owners re~reseni~~ivein this matter wciare~e~~esting a code int~rpretationforAsp~ri East Condominiums~ '"locatedat 980 . E. . Hyman . St. ',Aspen,. Co.'. 'The associat ion is . in terestedin obtainingapprovalf6i covered' parking for the ~xisting ~arking areas Jocated on the alley side of their'complex {see e~hibitA). In teimsof the F.A.R., the complex i~ considet~d non-conforming because the .zone district has been down zoned and .for this reason exceeds the F.A:R. The ~osition taken by Bill Dr~~dingi the ,city zoning enforcement official is that because the complex is non-conforming, that additional covered square footage should not be allowed. According to the Aspen City Code each dwelling unit in the Multi~ Family zone district is allowed 500 sq,ft. 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 820 sq,ft. of exterior covered space(s~e 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, We 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 for your code interpretation in this matter to allow for covered parking for Aspen East Condominiums. Sincerely, Ocean Architec's , '" "_.I ALL.ey .. , - , I ~. , , : {"' ~ '1 ~ . I-! . 2 ~ . ~ -, v' 'Z i----t -1------ ,- I I z: L -() STAJRS I I '5TAIRS ~ I I I Cl (, I ~ - ---+ +----- t - ~ ,-------, - 1~le5 ! , I I I .1 .~-------+ l?'" _ .4-92g':' __ _ _ ,_ '. I '1 , ----- , - , I I fl'.. GCJ,o' 7S"c>'I , II' W N - -,. --, _. , -.-- =.0' '579"0"'1' ,,'e. -I. I ,-: I B"<RKI NG I . I tbre.,1 I I ~tk;. ~.N<.E-~E.N~LI ~,E.~ . T~~ ~~JT<b ^':5 ,'TIClN, I I i I r I , ~ ! r .. , ) l'- HYMAN STREeT fJ-.MIj?f( A t:::-.' ..--:--:::::-:-; - t~_...~ ' ~--, . " ~ ~ _\ ~ i I Ii = ~ - \ /11.--~-'r~"'f' i-' /~,;J-/",-r:; C/I t J-# i"" "f1;i/{:~ ~ , r~ 'I! -.... \.\ ! -- I L:"" ~n \ :', j ~\ ,~: ~ I \\ ? y- ", ~~~-r~ /L-- r' '" r" 13 r (" ",.L- CrJC' ," <. -'t. _. e.~ .J;~/'J.'-?;'''';' ~:~ ....-/ c (-.., MEMORANDUM 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 = allowab~e FAR 6,000 square Existing FAR unknown, but assumed over FAR information given by architect feet per * 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 nonconfarmities 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. advised Ocean. I then jclc 2 ~ r ~',,--,-;r.. ,'. ,.-.. I '\,,' .~', . Aspen/Pit~~~ 7~~ing Office 130 ~1.:1~~~~treet A ~,.~~",,~,'I","~a.'>.?..1611 . slten",~o or.a mlS (303)- 91b~~~ml'"t.t:~03) 920-5197 !!~l':''fha-~ 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 week. I uphold Bill's interpretation on this issue. attached memo. issue last Please see 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, U:;v Amy L. Margerum Planning Director P.S. Although this is my interpretation of the existing code, it doesn I 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 " ',)., rc'cyclcdptlper " , ,.'Mlnus, natural ,: '. '. Stairs ,,: ;., 'i~,hed .grade 'grade' abo" .. .. >: ; :-':Patio~ . ~." "'.) . " . " Subtotal.. ",. Minus subg~ade %~ .53x2266~1200 2266 -1200; , Percentage of perimete:r wall, below g:rade,'but above finished grade Total lineal feet , -"" .'--,-.~. , '.';.' ,! ..,' .. . : . '. :- -", '-"~-:--::-:.::::-:'::::~;: ".- ';-:. ':,,:, Total"pe:dm~ter' sub-g'iade: ;:':::','.":.,,;' " .... .' ..\~( '. , . ,.' . , " .. ;....: .. " " . ':' 10% .aliowed= .,', : TotaI' perimeter over allowed; " " Percentage of opening 'Additional added; .2ix2266 ~61 L8/2 = . TOTAL FOR GARDEN LEVEL ' ST. LEVEL. 'Tot,!l' . .ffinu5 3' allowed Stairs balcony . add chimney -Sub total , , '. '. TOr,u, fOR 1ST. LEVEL TOTAL paR 2),']). LEVEL GRJJID TOTAL natural " ..... :';' ....... .' ,~ . . " ,:' ' ',:,::~:647 . 0 .' ., , , .... . .'. .. ~. ...:' ': ':', 234 . . ".. :~,":" ~47 '2266.0 1065. 290 . ... ,.' ,. ',' :' -,,, .:>':':""~:',':',i09:,": .. ......... '", ...'. ,.' ::OTE.: :IF ALL OF PATIO,AND BALCOllY SQ.FT;IS ALLOliED TO EE EXEHPTED THE TOTAL 'IS REDUCED BY 128 ',LEAVING A TOTAL USDER,THE:F.A.R.=" '.... CiAND TOTAL ADjUSTED .:' . ..... .. ..... .::., .,.'., ...... ,. ., ."'., '.. .-" :,.,> ;,,29, ..' ,80 ' '.. ;'80/290;.27 '. ~. ... <. .. .,' ,305.9 ':1370.91 .:':,:':2647 "210 .,:.,:'107, ,",--.12:8. ,304.2 ': 2342 ':2342 6051,.9 ,.. ',5926.9 W'" J r~iXJ .... !il';~~l Ig~~i ;.~t,i* '~<~?;~,~ \'NA,. "';;:-},A':~,l '11I~Yf 1'1] { ~}~ ,'!"['" .1i~;}l";i' tir,1,"i{fl :~~~ .I~ll {;'~, . f~~j i~ff ~1t 1:<'1 ..,;: 1" ,;!;~ ;,t~:'\ i~/( f':~~~;:.'i; }$&;'J:~;' f:,~,\~!,E,k~ j<),.~'''''''~i 'l'.),'~";l1 '~jf::;~,~' I""""J,. tir~( t,~~.,:l: f~~~..~__. If;;;!,'",:, ),1;..'1,). l'f"*f' ,.\!If"~ 1";."-,, ".j . t'IR'" Li'1' '.1 . ~;~~fPt/~ ~t;5.i1 '1~)l;'i';\ i 'is.,~; j . r':,';:~\\;;.. ,.1 , +,F': , ~j~~5 ~.,- , " :~c l' . ., ;' :,1' , .p. t, 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 10, 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, As en East Condominium Associat' seeks a variance to allow construction o a carport 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 Applicant has done nothing to create or exacerbate the non-conformity 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 j 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 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 st /Ir (10) full days before the A p11 cant Is Signature Subscribed and sworn to before me N TT IC..E OF APP I.I CAT MN 2 r•OR A VARIANCE FROM this � �T day of 6� THE ZONING CODE ` NAM[ A ADDRESS M 19 93 , by ChC'C/'cY.V. AJl Ile t/, Jt-. APPLICANT .._. , TYPE, OF VARIANCE WITNESS MY BAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. RE OUi.STED My i•pn a ires� DATF(M AIMN ICATM OATF Ot Off AR INI. (101 tiTIMS OR COMMENTS SHIRR.D NE REF FR 811) I(1 T II CITY CI FRII, — CITY HAI.I.. DIORING NQRMAI Notary Publl ' Signature RUSINFSS 110011%