HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.92.43~~
PITRZN COUNTY
BOARD OF ADJIIBTMENT
DATE I CASE i~` n 7~ - Y 3
APPLICANT TOLuyI p~_Sj~01~rnpSf ~~~'rIDnT_ PHONE 7~3 ~S ~~
MAILING ADDRESS
OWNER
MAILING ADDRESS
LOCATION OF PROPERTY
.. ,. ,. _..,, n _ _ L n l / ~ ~
Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be
made part of this Case. The Board may return this application if
it does not contain all the facts in question.
Applicant Signature
(To be completed by the Zoning Department)
Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Zoning Official
to forward this application to the Board of Adjustment, and reasons
for not granting a building permit:
R f-/ Zone District
Requesting: Lot Size
' Front Yard Setback Variance, where ' is required.
' Rear Yard Setback Variance, where is required.
' Side Yard Setback Variance, where ' is required.
' Side Yard Setback Variance, where ' is required.
' Height Variance, where ' is required.
Square Feet where a maximum of sq. ft. is allowed.
Other: ~P N ~('PC~I tm ~"SEQ. 2~C~ ~ ~~,
e~m~'~~.eC~ ~or Q~1fQC~O1'ZQ/U S%~G~S, ~ _
Zoning Official
Application filed ~'(y'9z Parc ID No. -
Date of Meeting 10--(~ - 9~-
Notices Mailed Secretary ~iQ-f~F`~'~ ~~~~
Refer Resolution to Building Department ; _ ; Yes ; _~ No
000001 ~~
+~
PITRIN COIINTY
BOARD OF ADJIISTMENT
DATE ~~.. [~-[ [~iq~.- CASE ~ ~a-y3
APPLICANT ~~.Na do ~m,,~,.~s L~LS PHONE
MAILING ADDRESS ~ $6\'~ ~j\yd„a4,e,F,S \~w ~ Q~(a(~
OWNER
PHONE
MAILING ADDRESS
LOCATION OF PROPERTY
Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be
made part of this Case. The Board may return this application if
it does not contain all the facts iA quest~.4N.
Applicant Signature
(TO be completed by the Zoninq Department)
Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Zoning Official
to forward this application to the Board of Adjustment, and reasons
for not granting a building permit:
Requesting:
Zone District
Lot Size
Front Yard Setback Variance, where is required.
Rear Yard Setback Variance, where ' is required.
' Side Yard Setback Variance, where ' is required.
Side Yard Setback Variance, where ' is required.
' Height Variance, where ~ is required.
Square Feet where a maximum of sq. ft. is allowed.
Other:
Zoning Official
Application filed / 9 Z Parcel ID No. - -
Date of Meeting b (~ Z ,
~- I
Notices Mailed Secretary 'lj`1- /~'
Refer Resolution to Building Department ; _; Yes ; _; o
OU~00?
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERB
BEFORE THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE
VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW:
Pursuant to Pitkin County Resolution of June 5, 1955, as
amended, a Public Hearing will be held in City Council Chambers,
City Hall, First Floor, Aspen, Colorado (or at such other place as
the meeting may then be adjourned) to consider an application filed
with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance
from the provisions of the County Zoning Resolution.
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 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.
THE PARTICULARS OF THE HEARING AND OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE ARE
AS FOLLOWS:
Date and time of meeting:
Owner:
Name and Address of
Applicant:
Property Location or
Description:
December 1, 1992 at 5:15 p.m.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
City Hall
Pitkin County
Town of Snowmass Village
P.O. Box 5010
Snowmass Village, CO 81615
Approximately one-quarter mile below
the intersection of Brush Creek Road
and Highline Road
Requesting approval to construct an approximately 72 square foot
directional sign in the Brush Creek Road right-of-way.
VARIANCES GREATER OR LESS THAN REQUESTED COULD BE GRANTED.
Duration of Variance: Temporary Permanent X
THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
~~t~-~/~A ~~.~~Y~Tr / 1
Suzanne L. o ff, Secretary
OOOOQ3
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO ADJACENT FROPERTY OWNERS
BEFORE THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TO ALL P'_20PERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE
VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW:
Pursuant to Pitkin County Resolution of June 5, 1955, as
amended, a Public Hearing will be held in City Council Chambers,
City Hall, First Floor, Aspen, Colorado (or at such other place as
the meeting may then be adjourned) to consider an application filed
with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance
from the provisions of the County Zoning Resolution.
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 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.
THE PARTICULARS OF THE HEARING AND OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE ARE
AS FOLLOWS:
Date and time of meeting:
owner:
Name and Address of
Applicant:
Property Location or
Description:
November 10, 1992 at 5:15 p.m.
Commissioner's Meeting Room,
Pitkin County Courthouse
Pitkin County
Town of Snowmass Village
P.O. Box 5010
Snowmass Village, CO 81615
Approximately one-quarter mile from
the intersection of Brush Creek Road
and Highline Road
Requesting approval to construct an approximately 85 square foot
directional sign in the Brush Creek Road right-of-way.
VARIANCES GREATER OR LE88 THAN REQUESTED COULD BE GRANTED.
Duration of Variance: Temporary Permanent X
THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Suzanne L. Wolf, Secretary
0000~?4
SEP 15 '92 17 23 TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE P.2i12
r t
r
T wr L ~. Si ro u ~~Il I ~G ti lyG, : Cvlcra ~o
September 14, 1992
Tom Newland -
Deputy Public Works Director
Pitkin County
530 East Main Street
Aspen, CO 81612
Dear Tom:
Please find attached an application fora revocable permit to
construct objects in the Pitkin County rights-of-way. The Town
would like permission to construct a welcome sign and photo turn-
out in the County rights-of-way.
Specifically, the Town would like to construct a "welcome"
sign in the Brush Creek Road rights-of-way, approximately one-half
mile before the Brush Creek 12oad-Highline Ro.'ad intersection. The
sign will be constructed away from the road to avoid any utilities
that are located in the ditch. (Utilities will be located in the
field before any construction commences.) We also would like the
County's permission to construct a photo turn-out along Brush Creek
Road. The sign location is staked in the field.
The photo turn-out is slightly further down Brush Creek Road
toward Highway 82. A copy of a map showing tT~e sign location, site
plan, and sign design are included with this;xequest. I have also
included a map showing the nature of the photo turn-out. The
location of the photo turn-out also is staked in the field.
The Town of Snowmass Village will do' all site work and
construct the sign. The area will be landscaped, including grading
and seeding. The will be no trees placed near the roadway. If
there are any trees, they will be placed behind the sign. They
will be continuation of the existing scrub oak that now exists on
the Hill side above the sign. With regard to the photo turn-out,
we will pave the turn-out as an extension of the Brush Creek Road
surface. We propose to place a simple road`sign several hundred
feet before the turn-out to notify motorists. We would be happy to
identify the specific location for this sign with you in the field.
Tom, if it is acceptable to the County, we would prefer to
defer the legal description until the work is in progress. We
fully expect to complete all construction work before the opening
of the ski area, although final revegetation will occur next
Spring. In this manner we can provide the County with an as-built
legal of the welcome sign, related landscape improvements and photo
0 o Q ~ ~ ~ Post Office Box 5010 • Snowmass Village, Colorado $1615 • 303/923.3777
~_
~k:
....~. ,~ i. a D a v i. ~_:..; F',. t 4: i n i~ r. t i
3:. ~.~ir • 699 F'G 964
Cl er l< , Uoc ~, pp
EXHIBIT "A"
l
G
SNo~~`~5 S
V I ~~lkG-~
~~~~11
OCT 29 '92 10 25 TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLRGE
L~
P.lii
Poet-k"' brand fax tran I memt'°"' ~~
Ts ~ iNn
Ca ~O Ca
Papt. ~ on
FayY r~ ~ KY
TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE
SIGN VARIANCE APPLICATION
AU70TNING OWNERS LIST,
The subject sign will be placed within the Brush Creek Road right'
of-way adjacent to the Severn Star Ranch property which includes the
land on both sides of. the road near the sign. Title is held by
Seven Star Ranch, a Colorado general partnership, and by a group of
individuals including Castillon Ltd., Edward G. Hrittinghatn, Casso
Ltd., Neiman Ltd., Lubetzky Ltd., and Hoine, Ltd., all in care of
Carlos Castillon. Notification should be sent to:
Seven Star Ranch
c/o Carlos Castillon
P.O. Box 2689
Laredo, Tx. 78041
0~~~~ 7
6611. ~ /10N
TO: Board of Adjustment
Joanna Schaffner
FROM: John M. Ely, Assistant County Attorney ~ C"~
DATE: November 11, 1992
RE: Snowmass Village Request for Size Variance for Village
Sign
It is my understanding that there may have been some degree of
confusion on the part of the Board on how to proceed with the
request of the Village for a size variance for a propose sign
welcoming visitors to the Village. I have been informed that the
Board has requested direction from the B.O.C.C. on how to deal with
this request.
Unfortunately, the B.O.C.C. has no jurisdiction to deal with this
request. The County Code establishes a size limitation on signs
erected within the County and only allows the B.O.C.C. to vary that
limit when the request is made in connection with signs necessary
to implement a public transportation system, Sec. 5-500.2(c)(1).
The type of sign here is not such a sign.
Some types of signs are exempt from the County regulation,
including, as was discussed in your last meeting, signs that
control or direct traffic, Sec. 5-500.1(e)(7). The proposed sign
does not control or direct traffic, i.e. a yield sign or speed
limit sign. Therefore the sign is NOT exempt from the code.
The sign is a directional sign providing information for poeple
traveling on the road. The only way for the Village to be able to
erect the size sign they want is for the B.O.A. to grant a variance
under Sec 5-500.2(c)(2). It is the B.O.A.'s sole discretion as to
whether or not the requested variance is appropriate.
jme.
00003
Pitkin Coun
October 22, 1992
Doug Dotson
Director of Planning
Town of Snowmass Village
P.O. Box 5010
Snowmass Village, CO 81615
Dear Doug;
This is to discuss with you the status of the application you submitted to Pitkin County
requesting the placement of informational signage within the Brush Creek Road right-of--way.
Enclosed for your review and file please find a copy of the Application for Revocable Permit
to Erect or Maintain a Structure Within the Right-of--way which has been approved with
conditions. The conditions aze attached to the permit in the form of a memorandum to you.
The most important condition of approval deals with the size of the proposed sign. It has been
determined by County staff that you must apply for a variance under the County Code through
the Boazd of Adjustment. The sign will not be allowed to be placed until this variance is
granted. Other improvements, such as placement of the "photo pull-off lane", and other site
improvements may be placed prior to granting of the variance provided you recognize and
agree to the following:
1) Applicant realizes that the sign as proposed may not be allowed under County Code.
Therefore, any improvements placed prior to granting of the required variance shall be
done at the Town of Snowmass Village's risk;
2) By beginning improvements to the site, the Town of Snowmass Village understands that
it will remove any improvements placed if it is determined that the sign is not allowed
under County code. If the Town of Snowmass refuses to remove said improvements if
requested by the County, the County has the right to remove them and bill the Town for
the costs of said removal.
A hearing in front of the Board of Adjustment has been scheduled for November 10, 1992.
Please contact the Zoning Department for further details regarding the hearing.
Sincerely, /,
PITKIN COUNTY ADMINISTRATinnY.PlFFrrFc
Public Works
Suzanne Wolf
Administration
530 E. Main, 3rd Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 920-5200
FAX 920-5198
printed on rec yc/ed~paper
County Commissioners
Suite B
506 E. Main Street
Aspen, CO 61611
(303) 920-5150
County Attorney
Suite I
530 E. Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 920-5190
Personnel and Finance
Suite F
530 E. Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 920-5220
~~~01~C;
Transportation
Facilities
76 Service Center Road
Aspen, CO 81611
(303)920-5390
MEMORANDUM
TO: Doug Dotson, Town of Snowmass Village
FROM: Tom Newland, Deputy Director of Public Works
RE: Permit Conditions
DATE: October 22, 1992
The following are conditions of approval for the Permit to Erect or Maintain a Structure within
the Right-of--way:
1) The sign, as proposed, must obtain a variance from the Boazd of Adjustment before it
will be allowed to be placed.
2) The applicant shall meet with the County Engineer prior to initiating construction of
improvements on the site. The County Engineer shall approve construction methods,
signage and flagging, and constriuucdon schedule prior to the applicant beginning
construction on the project.
3) The applicant will be responsible for insuring proper maintenance to the site. This
includes any winter maintenance (i.e. snow plowing) that may be required for [he photo
pull-off lane.
4) Any work undated by the applca'nt~that is related to placement of the sign before the
sign is approved by the Board of Adjustment shall be done so at the applicant's risk.
If the sign is not approved, the applicant may be responsible for removing any
improvement placed to that date.
5) Applicant shall .submit to the Deputy Director of Public Works a revised site location
map reflecting the applicat's desire to relocate the sign closer to the town limits.
00~0~5
MEMORANDUM
~__ T0: Francis Krizmanich, Zoning Official
~~ Bud Eylar, County Engineer
Stan Berryman, Public Works Director
~'
FROM• Tom Newland
RE: Permit to Construct Structures within the Right-of-way:
Town of Snowmass Village
DATE: September 16, 1992
Attached for your review and comment please find a copy of an
on a ruoiic xiaht-oT-wy, recently applied for by the Town of
Snowmass Village. This is the first application for this newly
adopted permitting process. The Town is requesting to place a sign
and a "photo turn-out" in the right-of-way approximately 1/2 mile
below Highline Road on along Brush Creek Road.
The permit approval process requires signatures from all three of
you. Please review this application and return your comments to
me no later than September 30, 1992, so I may circulate the permit,
with conditions, for signature.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
cc: Reid Haughey (selected attachments)
Doug Dotson, TOSV (no attachments)
0~~~~~
y ~ f
~~oooo • •
o ~ ~ 1 r ~U~ ~ 2:
..1 ~ '' y
` ~? ! .
\~?- ) ~ J a
.rr_ .S~)I ~~' P 't r. tt
fH Y.1i. J ..~' 1 ~•
r^,
r
..
` ~•; ~~i
~~ -' ~~
~'~; .'
v ~ ~l
.I
,'
a
i
i
i
~\ A
s
L
"' .... i
,•
~.
.. !, 1 ~ A
C ',.~ .,~
y .;rp
,1 .~
„ . :t
~; s ~.
~_ ~~ ~~~
a~~t ~,J
~.~
' ~~ti
1
.1~:~~ ~
'`.~~
~'.~{~
' ~~
• ti,.
t
~, ~ .
~~ ;y' , A
~~~'
1
~ ~
~ tZ
ns
~~~I:: -~ ;i
~
.i.J ~
~.
Y S '~ 1 '1
~. , -
. ~ ~~
.~
~.~,,;;c ..~ ,
8TQ000
a~,
~~~~~
~ ~ ~.
.,
~ .Q.
z ~~
o>
~~ s
~~
~~
`~ ~1
~~
~~
''1
n~l
pMq
~J~3~
~1 O
o.
~~:~..:
r
SEP 15 '92 17 26 TOWN OF SNOWMRSS VILLRGE
•
N
~~
-`~.~
P.7~1z
• ~
~,~:.\
• _, +
• r•..I
i, ~~ ~
~ ~.
~ . ~
r • ~ ~
'
. --'' 'r
_
. , ., ~ •;
•
~ - :..~
=
~ ..., :
T~~'
~}
..
i~•,
..
.±
~'
. ,•. ~
I'w ~` , r
~W ~~~ ~~
~~ '- .~
~ 4 N P-
:. ~ ~.
o ~ ~~
~, ~ .~
v~ ~ Q ~ ~°
~ ,..~.~ W - d ~
U ~.
~ 3
~ ~ o ~
a
•u
H
i L~ ~ ~
;: ~ ~ a
` ~
:..
• ::
,, ,
'' ~ i '
''1'~ t 000(~~ 9
..
....7
t:-_T•'S26r9 O7./V7/9.-? 14.43 Rec q.iai~ fah. 49 PG 965
~Silvi.~+.•vi~, F'itl::in Cnty Cle•r~k, ~9,,~~ii
EXHIBIT "B"
^'~~
''S11II
4--~~
41
r
Zo
I~-1~1f
1'
_- ~~>~-iS._.
i
G
- ~:
z
d
s o
vi
_ m
=:8`~
'~ ova
N
~~~t~
Z ~ ~Wo
.x'31-~~
~,s,~ 3~
N~ 3c~W
oooU2~~'
//
NOV 17 2 99 44 TOWN OF SNOWMRSS VILLRGE P.lil
•
~~
~ __=
I c
=
~.
~,-
13.SS'; .~*.
4. ~~} t~.~r.
OOOU~1
,ti~_.
,~~n
_--,~.
yl.5a-.~r.
SEP 1S '92 17 29 TOWN OF SNOWMRSS VILLRGE P.19i12
• •
~.
S
. ,
• ~.
~'
'. -
~~
i
~ ~t
~ ~I j i ,
~'
j `'
I~
~ I ~
I•
_.- ~--.- _...._._~- .,~..V
~-
OOOU2?
SEP SS '92 17 29 TOWN OF SNOWMRSS VILLRGE P.ili12
+ i ~•
u
000^3
~i
n
~~ a
~7
•
~a
1.....
- ca
,~
(`8
('~l
M
•
a~
~~
_~p
7
M
TnU
~ V 1
K
G
~:
h
2
K o
`. a
.' ~m
~ O~
~ °~ W ,Q
yr{.~ N 1g~
i~ WZQ
C.i <
.N~~qo
3..32
~s~43~
V1 ~ 3 cl to
®~U~4
i e~ N
~~
COMPARAllLE SIGNS
nsrErt - ---..---_..._.._ _---------- _.
nlnPnar
6US1NE55
CBrI'CEIL
--
LUO Sq. PC. _......-... _..__.. ..
Ilel~ht nbvve -
Curb: IZ'- 6"
t 11 I t !..
t
1 ---• ~ _
ISU'L"f IiItN I L,IC
Sll;n: ri'x (7'
LU2 Sq. Lt.
^elPltr. Above
:;rlOWlln S!;
V)LLACIi
WIiLG(Illli
Slrn: 5'x 1.21
GU 5q, PC.
llelght Above
E.P.: 3'- G" F
I,^
000025
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
13o sa,n, Galena street
Aspen, Cobrado 81611
(303)920-5090
) LAND USE APPLICATION FEES
cITY:
-63250-134 GMP/Conceptual
~. -63270-136 GMP/Final
~ -63280-137 SUB/Conceptual
f -63300-139 SUB/Final
-63310-140 All-2 Step Applications
~ -63320-141 All 1 Step Applications
-63330-150 Staff Approval
-63432-157 Zoning Plan Check
-63432-157 Sign Permit
-00100-00000-31070 Use Tax tc Sign Permits
HISTORIC PRESERVATION:
G -63335-151 Exemption
-63336-152 Minor
S -63337-153 Major Devel.
( -63338-154 Sign'rf. Devel.
i
-63339-155
Demolftion
COUNTY:
t -63160-126 GMP/General
-63170-127 GMP/Detailed
-63180-128 GMP/Final
I -63190-129 SUB/General
-63200-130 SUB/Detailed
-63210-131 SUB/Rnal
{{{ -63220-132 All 2 Step Applications
{ -63230-133 All 1 Step Applications
-63240-149 Stall Approval
I -63450-146 Board of Adjustment -
i -63235-148 Zoning Plan Check
t REFERRAL FEES:
-63360-143 Engineering -County
i 00115 -63340-163 Engineering -City
00123 -63340-190 Housing
00125 -63340-205 Environmental HeaRh
PLANNING OFFICE SALES:
-63080-122 County Code
-69000.145 Other (Copy Fees)
_
TOTAL ~ ~ ~ `-
Name: I L t ~ ~~' ~ F _`,p, t w; ~ -~ N ~ . ~ ~~ u - Phone: ~~ ~ ~ -7 ~
Address: ~ G C ~ " Project: ~ Z~ ~'3
~, i 1 i 6 C ~ I C~ i
Check #: ~ ~ ~ ~> > Date: -i l' ~i ' -~ No of Copies: /
oooo~s
#1352679~/Oi /9.3 14: 4"~ Rec ~. VO Bk: ~9 F'G 962
Silvia Davis, F'itk:in Cnty Cler4::, Dnc g.0i~
RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
GRANTING PERMISSION FOR THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE
TO ERECT A SIGN IN THE BRUSH CREEK ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
RESOLUTION NO. 92-43
WHEREAS, the Town of Snowmass Village is requesting approval to
construct a sign in the Brush Creek Road right-of-way,
approximately one-quarter of a mile below the intersection of Brush
Creek Road and Highline Road (Exhibit "A"); and
WHEREAS, the subject property is within the unincorporated area of
Pitkin County, Colorado; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment is vested with the power to grant
or deny such variances by virtue of Title II, Section 16-1.3,
Pitkin County Code (Land Use Code) and Colorado Revised Statutes,
1973, 30-28-118(2) (C); and,
WHEREAS, based on the evidence presented, the Board of Adjustment
makes the following findings:
1. Proper notice procedures, including the
notification of all adjoining property owners,
has been shown by the applicant.
2. The required hardship or practical difficulty
has been established.
3. Granting such relief will not cause substan-
tial detriment to the public welfare and will
not substantially impair the intent and
purpose of the Zoning Resolutions and the
zoning maps.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment, that the
proposed sign is exempt under Sections 5-500.1(e)(2), (3), and (7)
of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, and that a variance be granted
to allow construction of the sign, pursuant to Section 5-
500.2(c)(2), as the sign is considered to be convenient to the
traveling public, as per the plans submitted (Exhibit "A").
WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may
result in rehearing and possible revocation.
0~~p2~
kk:;.`=i~`6~'~ ~?? /9 `; ].4:43 h[n_~ %. ~..n_~ Bk.;
~'~~ 963
f3ilvi.a Iii. s, I~':it..kin C:.nt. C7
Y cr 1. , Doc n _,
Resolution No. 92- 1/~
Page 2
The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of
the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
DATED: December 1, 1992
ATTEST:
~-~, zw~~
Suzan e L. Wolff, Se tary
000028
The Board of Adjustment of
Pitkin County, Colorado
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PITHIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING VARIANCE
DESCRIBED BELOW:
Pursuant to Pitkin County Zoning Resolution of June 5, 1955, as amended, a Public Hearing will be
held in the District Courtroom, Pitkin County Court House, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such other place as the
meeting may then be adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting
authority for variance from the provisions of the County zoning Resolution.
All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests, or
objections. If you cannot appeaz personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by letter,
particulazly 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. A VARIANCE GREATER THAN OR LESS THAN THAT REQUESTED COULD
BE GRANTED.
DATE AND TIME OF MEETING: Tuesday, December 1, 1992; 5:15 P.M.
2nd Floor.Meeting Room, City Hall
Town of Snowmass Village: requesting approval to construct an approximately 72 square foot directional sign
in the Brush Creek Road right-of--way, approximately one-quarter of a mile below the intersection of Brush
Creek Road and Highline Road.
Aspen Highlands Skiing Corporation: requesting approval fora 75 foot front yard setback variance, where
75 feet is required in the AR-1 zone district, a 45 foot major road setback variance, where a 50 foot setback
is required, and a 14 square foot variance, where 10 square feet is permitted, for construction of an
identification sign to replace an existing non-conforming sign.
Submitted to the Aspen Times on November 17, 1992.
To Be Published in the Aspen Times November 20, 1992.
County PO 1154336
000029
L
G
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING VARIANCE
DESCRIBED BELOW:
Pursuant to Pitkin County Zoning Resolution of June 5, 1955, as amended, a Public Hearing will be
held in the District Courtroom, Pitkin County Court House, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such other place as the
meeting may then be adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting
authonty for variance from the provisions of the County zoning Resolution.
All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests, or
objections. If you cannot appeaz personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by letter,
particulazly if you have objection to such variance, as the Boazd 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. A VARIANCE GREATER THAN OR LESS THAN THAT REQUESTED COULD
BE GRANTED.
DATE AND TIME OF MEETING: Tuesday, November 10, 1992; 5:15 P.M.
Commissioners Meeting Room, Courthouse
Town of Snowmass Village: requesting approval to construct an approximately 85 squaze foot directional sign
in the Brush Creek Road right-of--way, approximately one-quarter of a mile from the intersection of Brush
Creek Road and Highline Road.
Submitted to the Aspen Times on October 27, 1992.
To Be Published in the Aspen Times October 30, 1992.
County PO #54332
~oflQ3~
Minutes
Pitkin County
Board of Adjustment
Regular Meeting
December 1, 1992
Members Present: Evan Gull, Acting Chairman Ted Guy
John Wheeler Rod Dyer
Michael Cooper Stan Mathis
Members Absent: Rick Neiley
Staff: Joanna Schaffner, Zoning Enforcement
Gull opened the meeting at 5:15 p.m. and introduced the Board to
those present.
Case 92-35 Justine Kirk Lot 14 Block 2, Pitkin Green Subdivision
This case was tabled at the meetings on September 1, October 6, and
November 3, 1992.
Justine Kirk, Sunny Vann and Sandy Stuller were present to request
a 5 foot SE side yard setback variance, where 15 feet is required
in the R-30 zone district, and a 7G0 square foot increase in floor
area, where a maximum of 3,372 square feet is allowed for this lot,
for an addition to an existing single-family residence.
Vann submitted a survey of the property, which illustrated the
extent to which the property is encumbered by the easement on
Herron Hollow Road. The easement encompasses 7,934 square feet,
but only approximately 1000 square feet of the road is actually
located on her lot. Vann also noted that lots in the Pitkin Green
Subdivision are similar in size to the Kirk lot and have much
larger allowable floor areas. With this variance, Kirk's allowable
floor area would be 4,170 square feet, an amount commensurate with
that of the smallest lot in Block 2.
Vann stated that the easement does not need to be retained for
future expansion of the road because the topography would prevent
an expansion (steep dropoffs on both sides of road after Kirk's
driveway). The road functions as a driveway for 6 lots, and meets
the County standards for a driveway.
Kirk presented photographs of the houses on the surrounding lots.
Stuller explained that the purpose of presenting the photographs
was to indicate that the allowance of the variance will not have
a substantial impact on the development, use, or enjoyment of
adjacent properties, or adversely affect the neighborhood. Kirk
noted that the addition would not increase the size of the
1
ODUU31
structure, and pointed out that smaller lots have larger floor
areas.
Stuller stated that this case is unique because of the
extraordinary width of the right-of-way as it is imposed on this
property. The 20 foot right-of-way affects 3 of the 5 sides of the
lot, and 25$ of the lot is impacted. Stuller noted that the
hardship was not created by applicant; the FAR regulations were
imposed after the lot was platted and the house was constructed,
so the hardship was created as a result of the zoning changes.
The variance would allow Kirk to enjoy the basic property right to
build a reasonable size home in a neighborhood where homes are as
large or larger than her home.
Stuller also addressed the question of whether Kirk should be
granted the requested variance, or whether the variance should be
calculated arithmetically based on the comparison of Kirk's
easement with current requirements for the width of a right-of-
way. She argued that if Kirk met the requirements for a variance,
then she was entitled to the variance as a matter of right, and
that a variance should be given which would result in a reasonable
increase in floor area.
Mathis stated that when the FAR regulations were written, the
intent of the deduction of easements was: 1) to limit the size of
structures, and 2) to improve the environment by forcing developers
to provide larger lots. When the Pitkin Green subdivision was
developed, no one imagined that easements would someday be deducted
from the lot area.
Schaffner made several statements. 1) The original request for an
800 square foot increase in floor area was changed to a 760 square
foot increase because the survey confirmed that the easement was
smaller than previously calculated. Kirk has 145 square feet of
floor area remaining. 2) The calculations of floor area for the
adjacent lots were not verified by the Zoning office. 3) other
lots are encumbered with the easement, and they will also be able
to request floor area variances and their houses will still be
larger. 4) The houses in the pictures were built much more
recently, and design can have a noticeable impact on the appearance
of the size of a building. 5) The County is becoming more liberal
in the calculation of floor area in the proposed new Code. 6) The
FAR legislation was in place when the property was conveyed.
Vann replied that the floor area calculations for the other
properties were meant to be illustrative, and were sufficient to
show that an increase in floor area for this lot will not affect
the type of residential development in this neighborhood, as
evidenced by the large scale homes. Stuller added that anyone who
comes in to request a variance has to establish a unique hardship,
and the uniqueness in this case is the extent to which the easement
encumbers this lot.
2
OU003?
Wheeler asked how the Board could determine a limit to the relief
they granted, if they did not use an arithmetic adjustment.
Stuller replied that the limit would be what is a reasonable use
of the property. Wheeler stated that he would consider the limit
to be a reasonable use of the property to the lot line from the
center of the road, based on a 30 foot easement, which is the
standard today, as opposed to the 40 foot existing easement.
Guy stated that the imposition of ever more restrictive standards
results in a cumulative taking by County. He agreed that having
250 of the area of the lot impacted by the easement is a unique
hardship, but that he was concerned about similar subdivisions
presenting similar arguments to the Board. Stuller responded that
they were avoiding the argument that the right-of-way would be
platted at 30 feet today to prevent others from coming to the
Board. By granting a variance based on a reasonable use of the
property, the Board could avoid setting up a sliding scale, based
on changes in design guidelines for roads.
There was no public comment.
Schaffner asked if Kirk had considered an easement vacation?
Stuller replied that the process was difficult, and even if it did
reduce the easement, it would not resolve the problem that the lot
was not intended to be affected by the easement, resulting in a
smaller home than those surrounding. Guy stated that if the Board
denied the variance, the applicant would have the right to replat
and would spend thousands of dollars in the process. He questioned
how the public good would be served if Kirk gets the variance, and
possibly get additional square footage, in spite of the Board's
denial. He stated that the Board should prevent such wasted effort
and should grant the variance.
Gull stated that the intent of the Code was being served by
applying the FAR regulations. However, he noted that the lot was
substandard because the lot size is 26,000 square feet in the R-
30 zone district, which has an FAR of 130. The closest conforming
zone district for the lot size is the R-15 zone district, which has
an FAR of 160.
Guy moved to grant a 760 square foot increase in floor area,
subject to the condition that the total square footage not exceed
4,170 square feet, and a 5 foot SE side yard setback variance, due
to downzoning and the hardship of the encumbrance of 25% of the lot
by the access easement. Mathis seconded the motion, and all were
in favor. Gull did not vote on this case.
Case 92-43, Town of Snowmass Villaae
Doug Dotson, Town Planner, and Jim Hooker, Mayor, were present,
representing the Town of Snowmass Village, to request approval to
construct an approximately 72 square foot sign in the Brush Creek
3
000033
Road right-of-way, approximately one-quarter of a mile from the
intersection of Brush Creek Road and Highline Road.
Gull read the letter from John Ely, Assistant County Attorney into
the record.
Dotson stated that he questions the Attorney's interpretation that
the sign does not direct or control traffic, and that the Code does
not specifically state that a sign that directs or controls traffic
is a yield sign or stop sign. According to Dotson, this sign is
directional, and should therefore be an exempt sign under Section
5-500.1(e)(7). Dotson reiterated from the previous meeting that
the purpose of the series of signs on Brush Creek Road is to
provide information and direction to the traveling public. They
want the public to look for these signs as landmarks that will help
to guide them into the Village. Dotson also noted that the signs
were designed to reflect the landscape: wider when the valley is
wide, narrower when the valley is narrow.
In reference to Section 5-500.2(c)(2) of the Code, wheeler
questioned how large a sign needed to be to be considered
"convenient to the traveling public"?
Mathis asked about the approval of the sign at Buttermilk. Gull
responded that the size of the Buttermilk sign was approved due to
the necessity of visibility for traffic safety.
Jack Hatfield, Snowmass Village resident, stated that he approves
of the purpose of the sign, but that he feels the sign is too
large. He also did not want the sign to set a precedent on Brush
Creek Road, which could change its rural character.
Wheeler and Gull agreed that if the sign is exempt, then the Board
cannot control its size. Wheeler added that the Board could only
assess the size of the sign if they agreed that it was a non-
exempt directional sign. Wheeler noted that he does not think the
location is appropriate.
Guy moved that the proposed sign is exempt under Section 5-500.1
(e)(2), which refers to official governmental notices; (e)(3),
which refers to works of fine art; and (e) (7) , which refers to
signs erected in public rights-of-way by local governmental
agencies controlling or directing traffic. Further, at the
direction of the County Attorney, Guy moved that a variance be
granted to allow construction of the sign, pursuant to Section 5-
500.2(c)(2), by which the sign is considered to be convenient to
the traveling public. Mathis seconded the motion, and al]. were in
favor. Cooper did not vote on this case.
Case 92-46. Aspen Highlands Skiina Corporation 1600 Maroon Creek
Road
Andrew Doremus was present, representing the Aspen Highlands Skiing
4
0000?4
Corporation, to request a 75 foot front yard setback variance,
where 75 feet is required in the AR-1 zone district, a 45 foot
major road setback variance, where 50 feet is required, and a 14
square foot size variance, where 10 square feet is permitted, for
a sign to replace a sign of non-conforming size.
Doremus stated that the new sign will be 12 square feet smaller
than the existing one, which is worn out, hard to read and dated.
The Forest Service has no problem with the replacement of the sign,
as long as the lower part of the sign that reads "Wh.ite River
National Forest" remains. The new sign will be placed on top of
that sign in the same location as the old sign.
Schaffner noted that the sign is an identification sign and that
it will be located on the lot line. she also stated that the major
road setback is measured from the right-of-way. Tom Newland,
Deputy Director of Public Works for the County, informed Schaffner
that the sign might be in the right-of-way, so a permit for
development in the right-of-way is already in the process, if
necessary.
Wheeler moved to grant a 75 foot front yard setback variance, a 45
foot major road setback variance, and that an existing sign of non-
conforming size be replaced with a smaller sign, as per the plans
submitted. Cooper seconded the motion, and all were in favor.
The November 3 and November 10, 1992 minutes were approved as
written.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~'r ~ '"l_ ~ V "w v
Suza ne L. Wolff, e etary
5
OOt~03
Minutes
Pitkin County
Board of Adjustment
Special Meetinq
November 30, 1992
Members Present:
Rick Neiley, Chairman
John Wheeler
Michael Cooper
Evan Gull
Rod Dyer
Members Absent
Staff:
Stan Mathis
Ted Guy
Joanna Schaffner, Zoning Enforcement
Neiley opened the meeting at 5:25 p.m. and introduced the Board to
those present.
Case 92-43, Town of Snowmass Village
Doug Dotson, Town Planner, and Jim Hooker, Mayor-elect, were
present, representing the Town of Snowmass Village, to request
approval to construct an approximately 72 square foot sign in the
Brush Creek Road right-of-way, approximately one-quarter of a mile
from the intersection of Brush Creek Road and Highline Road.
Dotson stated that a team of consultants recommended that the Town
try to "make Snowmass look better from Brush Creek Road" and to
improve the Town's identifiability. The construction of a series
of signs along Brush Creek Road from Highway 82 up to the Village
is one element of this plan. The Town originally applied this fall
to construct a sign at the intersection of Highway 82 and Brush
Creek Road to make the entry to Snowmass more identifiable.
However, the property on which the sign was to be constructed was
sold, so the Town has delayed pursuing that location until spring.
Dotson stated that the location for the sign proposed in this
application was chosen to give an indication to people as they near
Highline Road that they are approaching Snowmass Village. The
location provides a "sense of anticipation" because the sign
appears just before the valley opens up. The size of the sign was
based on readability from the first view of the sign, which is from
a rise in the road.
In response to a question from Neiley, Dotson responded that this
sign was not part of a separately proposed photo pullout. Dotson
added that the Town does not feel this is an identification sign
or a directional sign, as described in the Code. They feel it is
an exempt sign as described in Section 5-500.1(e)(7): "signs
erected in public rights-of-way by a local, State or Federal
governmental agency controlling or directing traffic". The sign
~~~~~~
states that the town center is 3 miles away. The Town feels that
this signage is needed to guide people up Brush Creek Road.
Neiley stated that this sign is not an official governmental
notice, and that it is not controlling or directing traffic. He
felt that the location of the sign at the Highway 82 intersection
or within the Snowmass town limits after the Highline Road
intersection would be more appropriate because the stretch of Brush
Creek Road between those two intersections is pristine.
Dotson replied that the sign would not be as effective if it was
placed after Highline Road. The area before that intersection
includes a significant riparian area that the Town does not want
to disturb. The proposed location of the sign would minimize its
impact by placing it up against the hillside with the scrub oak and
meadow grasses coming right up to the sign. Hooker added that the
sign needs to come before the intersection to minimize confusion
at the intersection.
Wheeler questioned how this sign would prevent that confusion
because it does not tell you where to go, only how far you have to
go. Dotson replied that the sign is a part of a more comprehensive
plan to reconfigure the intersection and create a separated
parkway.
There was no public comment.
Gull stated that first the Board needed to decide if the sign was
exempt under the County Code. If the sign was exempt, then the
Board would have no jurisdiction to determine the location of the
sign. However, if the Board determined that the sign is not
exempt, then they could decide whether to grant a variance. Gull
stated that he felt the sign falls most closely under the exempt
category.
Schaffner stated that the staff does not consider this an exempt
sign, because it does not control or direct traffic. She noted
that the County Planning Director met with the County Attorney, and
they determined that the sign falls most closely under the
"directional signs" category, leaving the Board of Adjustment to
consider the size of the sign. Directional signs cannot exceed 6
inches by 30 inches. The largest size sign permitted is 10 square
feet.
Gull stated that he may not agree with the staff or the attorney,
and that he sees in the Code a clear intent to exempt governmental
signs.
Neiley agreed that if this is a directional sign, then it is exempt
because it directs traffic. However, in his opinion, the sign was
more of a welcome sign, not a directional sign, and he noted that
the word "Welcome" is the largest feature on the sign. Gull added
2
oooo3a
that the case for a directional sign at the Highway 82 intersection
is much stronger, and that it is less clear that direction is being
provided in this proposed location.
Dotson explained that the Town hopes to use the series of signs
along Brush Creek Road like "bread crumbs" to guide people into the
Village. only two signs are proposed to be located outside of the
town limits. All of the signs are similar in construction, and
have been designed to fit into their environment.
Schaffner stated that the Town came to the Board of Adjustment
seeking a size variance, and not a determination of whether the
sign is exempt. She added that the Town could have appealed the
County's determination of the sign as "directional." Gull
responded that he felt the Board had the right to determine how to
categorize the sign because the Board's charter is to interpret the
Code when it is not clear.
Wheeler asked if the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) reviewed,
or will review, the application. Schaffner replied that the BOCC
has not and will not review it because the Board of Adjustment was
deemed to be the appropriate review board.
Wheeler stated that at 9 feet by 16 feet, the sign is larger than
it needs to be to catch attention. Neiley agreed, and added that
the Board may not have the ability to permit it under the County
Code, since it does not seem to fit into any of the categories in
the Code.
Gull moved that the proposed sign is a directional sign, which is
exempt from the County Code, and is therefore not subject to the
review of the Board of Adjustment. Dyer seconded the motion, with
Neiley, Cooper and Wheeler voting against. Motion denied.
Wheeler stated that according to the Code, "directional
signs...shall show name and mileage only" (Section 5-500.2(c)).
He noted that the intent of the Code is to minimize all but
necessary signage.
Neiley stated that the sign is a "significant structure", that is
too large and interferes with a pristine valley.
Dotson stated that the Town would be happy to try to scale down the
sign, and that it could be constructed 62 feet above grade, with
the rest of the sign being proportionally scaled down. He cited
Section 5-500.2(c)(2): "No directional sign shall be permitted
within a public right-of-way...until the Board of Adjustment shall
have determined that the same are necessary or convenient to the
traveling public...." He then stated that he still feels the
welcome sign should be considered under Section 5-500.1(e)(7).
Wheeler stated that the sign has characteristics in common with
3
00003
National Park signs, and that it is sympathetic to the environment
with its wood and stone construction. He recommended that the Town
come up with a more definitive, smaller scale for the sign.
Gull noted that directional signs are permitted to be 6 inches by
30 inches, which leaves this sign requiring a large variance. He
stated that he was uncomfortable with the range of the variance
required for this sign.
Neiley suggested denying the application on the grounds that it is
not in the Board's purview. Cooper asked if the Town would be able
to appeal the Board's decision to the BOCC, and Schaffner replied
that it would not. Gull stated that the Board would have to refuse
to act.
Dyer questioned what hardship was involved in this case. Neiley
responded that he saw the need to advise the traveling public as
to the proximity to Snowmass Village as a hardship.
Gull moved to table the application and communicate back to the
staff and the BOCC that the Board of Adjustment does not feel this
case falls under any of the applicable sections of County sign
code. Dyer seconded the motion, and all were in favor.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
~ ~
Suzanne L. Wolff, !.Secretary
4
~~~~~JJ
^"~"v''rrnm PLANNING OFFICE
130 SouM Galena Sveet
Aspen, Cobrado 81611
(303) 920-5090
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES
clrY:
-63250-134
-63270-136
-63280.137
-63300-139
-63310.140
-63320-141
-63330.150
-63432-157
-63432-157
-00100-00000-31070
HISTORIC PRESERVATION:
-63335-151
-63336-152
-63337-153
-63338-154
-63339-155
COUNTY:
-63160-126
-63170-127
-63180-128
-63190-129
-63200-130
-63210-131
-63220.132
-63230-133
-63240-149
-63450-146
-63235-148
REFERRAL FEES:
-63360-143
00115 -63340-163
00123 -63340-190
00125 -63340-205
PLANNING OFFICE SALES:
-63080-122
-69000-145
000040
Name: % c t ~ ~~- ~ F ~/~ t q.~~ iA <-
- S (~ ~' Phone:
Address: _ '`" ~~ ' - G / C'
GMP/Conceptual
GMP/Final
SUB/Conceptual
SUB/Final
All-2 Step Applications
All 1 Step Applications
Staff Approval
Zoning Plan Check
Sign Permit
Use Tax for Sign Permits
Exemption
Minor
Major Devel.
Signif. Devel.
Demolition
GMP/General
GMP/Detailed
GMP/Final
SUB/General
SUB/Detailed
SUB/Final
All 2 Step Applications
All 1 Step applications
Staff Approval
Board of Adjustment
Zoning Plan Check
Engineering -County
Engineering -City
Housing
Environmental HeaRh
County Code
Other (Copy Fees)
~C~_
TOTAL ' ~`_
- / -] `7
~ ~ i ( i. i n ! l~ / - Project: _ __rl 7=~
Check#: - /_ ~_i~~Date: -/ ~~~ ~'/Z-
No of Copies: ~~