HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.91.28
PITRIN'COUNTY
BOARD OF A USTMEN~
DATE June 10 1991 CASE # __~~/ ®~~ /' "
APPLICANT .Arthur 0. Pfister PHONE 925-1936
Garfield & Hecht
MAILING ADDRESS c/o Jane Ellen Hamilton 601E Human Aspen CO 81611
OWNER 'Arthur 0. Pfister PHONE
~ Garfield & Hecht
MAILING ADDRESS c/o Jane Ellen Hamilton 501E Human Aspen CO 81611
LOCATION OF PROPERTY West Buttermilk, Pitkin County, Colorado
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.
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:
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.
_d~tn: ' Height Variance, where ~' is required.
Square Feet where a maximum of sq. ft. is allowed.
Other:
Hardship:
Zoning Official~-
Application filed ~P -l~1~ -~~ Date ~
Notices mailed ~~'/ ~~ (~~
Parcel ID #~7J~~'Q..3~ Secretary
Resolution to Building when Completed
~_~ ~es ~_~ No
d a. ~~ k~'qv~" ~.
(To be completed by the Zoning Department)
'".
ARTHUR PFISTER
BOX EE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
(303) 925-3227
May 19, 1991
Amy Margerum
Planning Director
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: West Buttermilk Pfister Tract 1 - Height Variance
Dear Amy,
I own the West Buttermilk Pfister Tract 1. I authorize Davis Horn
Incorporated and Garfield & Hecht to submit a height variance
application to the Pitkin County Board of Adjustment and represent
me in the review process. We are seeking a height variance to
construct a barn on the West Buttermilk Pfister Tract 1. Please
contact me if you have any questions. Thank you.
Sincerely,
r
Arthur Pfis e
Margerum.l2
'a tt ki% ~'I T`.
_ yM,, ,'abet wb^*', r"<
.nflp
..
ADJACENT OWNER'S STATEMENT
Pitkin County Title, Inc „ a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent 1n tl~e State of
Colorado hereby certifies the following list is a current list of adjacent property
owner's of the SUBJECT PROPERTY, as obtained from the most current Pitkin County
Assessors Tax Rolls.
NAMES AND ADRESSES
JAMES V, REDD
ROBERT RITCHIE
LOUIS N. SCI{OLNIK
DAVID S. SWAN
C/0 HODGE, SC}IOLNIK & SWAN
1901 NORTHWEST 62ND. STREET
SUITE 415
FORT LAUD6R'DALE, FLORIDA 33309
REDD MOUNTAIN HOLDINGS, INC.
C/0 BROOKE A. PETERSON
315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 305
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
FOREST SERVICE
80G W, }IALLAM STREET
ASPL'N, COLORADO 81611
NORWEST BANK DES MOINES, N. A.
TRgSTEE OF T{IE FRIEOL PF26FER
REVOCABLE TRUST, DATED 5/20/85
P. O. BUX 837
DES MOINES, IOWA 50309
PATRICK {IENRY, JR.
KRISTEN 1{ENRY
P.D. BOX 3077
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
GERALD D. }LINES
2800 POST OAK BOULEVARD
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77056
ARTIIUR 0. PFISTER
ELI2ABETf{ 11. PFISTER
P.O. BUX EE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOTS 1, 9, 10, EAGLE PINES
LOT 8, EAGLE PINES
WIIITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST
METES AND BOl1NDS
METES AND BOUNDS
METES AND BOUNDS
PFISTER MEADOWS
RONALD GARFIELD*
ANDREW V. HECHT**
ROBERT E. KENDIG
MICHAEL J. HERRON***
7ANE ELLEN HAMILTON
CATHERINE H. McMAHON****
"alm admired io
New York Bar
""also admired ro
Disrim of Columbia Bar
"'also admired ro
Florida Bar
' **also samined co
Illinois Bar
~~1~1F~]E][a~- ~ ~[lE~~[7C, 1~,~,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING
601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 8161 I
June 10, 1991
Pitkin County Board of Adjustment
c/o Joanna Shaffner
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE; Pfister Variattce Application
Dear Joanna:
TELEPHONE
(303) 925-1936
TELECOPIER
(303) 925-3008
Enclosed under cover of this letter is an application for a
variance from the height limitations in the AF-1 zone district for
an accessory building. Our client, Arthur Pfister, has owned a
large ranch, the Lazy Chair Ranch,. since July, 1949. Other than
the part of the Ranch which has contained part of the Buttermilk
Ski Area since 1958, the entire Ranch has historically been used
for ranching purposes. Mr. Pfister employs a full-time ranch
manager,. Mike Armstrong, who raises, brands .and sells the animals,
cultivates the crops and otherwise cares for the land. The
ranching operations have historically been based near the main
homestead along Maroon Creek near the base of Tiehack. Most of
this land is under contract to Maroon Creek Development Corporation
(MCDC) for the project recently approved by the Pitkin County Board
of County Commissioners (BOCC) known as Pfister Ranch/Golf. Once
this property has been purchased by MCDC, Mr. Pfister will transfer
the remainder of his ranching operation to the approximately 227
acres of land which comprise his upper ranch. According to Pete
Larrowe of the Pitkin County Assessor's Office, the valuation of
the upper ranch has been revised to the agricultural classification
to reflect the historic use of the land, effective January 1, 1991.
Mr. Pfister is currently seeking approval from the BOCC to
relocate his ranch manager's home to the upper ranch, and by way of
this variance application, he seeks to relocate his main barn to
the upper ranch too. The existing barn may be retained as an
historic structure in its current location, or it may be razed.
Due to its age, it cannot be relocated intact. The current barn,
built over 40 years ago, is almost 70 feet in height.
5
~~~~d~ll.~ ~ ~ll~~~Il~f, ~o~o
Pitkin County Board of Adjustment
June 10, 1991
Page 2
The existing limitation on barn heights is completely
unrealistic for real, working agricultural operations. Horses
cannot be kept in barns with 10 foot ceilings and neither can a
hayloft be installed. The limitation encourages the construction
of larger buildings in which to store hay and makes less efficient
use of the land. Hay which is to be fed to livestock cannot be
safely stored outdoors, for eating wet hay can cause horses extreme
discomfort and even death. Mr. Pfister's tractor is more than 9
feet high and needs several feet of clearance for its stacks.
can constrnctta barn twent ariance from this limitation so that he
y-eight (28) feet high. Homes in the AF-
1 zone are allowed to be 28 feet and barns in the RS-20, RS-30 and
RS-160 zone districts are allowed to be 28 feet high, therefore the
intentcof the P tkindCounty Landbstantially alter or impair the
Use Code or the character of the
AF-1 zone district, intended to be a rural/residential area. Other
landowners facing similar barn size restrictions can often take
advantage of their property's topography to build the barns into
the steep hillsides, thus securing a height that works £or
livestock and hay lofts but does not violate the height
restrictions. Mr. Pfister's property is heavily treed and contains
a great deal of wildlife. He does not want to cut down trees to
install his barn and he does not wish to disturb wildlife habitat
to install the barn. The site he has chosen is only a few feet
from an historic homestead and barn and the barn will lie in a
hollow so that it should not be visible from any other home than
the 'home already located on the property. The barn is served by an
old 'ranch road which accessed the old homestead and barn.
Based upon these facts, and given the existing topography and
wildlife and' vegetative constraints on the property, a 16 foot
height variance is requested.
Sincerely,
GAR IELD & HH/OEpC'HT, P. C.
J e Ellen Hamilton
JEH/bc
Enclosures
;(::: AA ~ ?t?o ,
is ~ -;~,
EXHIBIT ~~A~~
Tract 1, West Buttermilk Pfister Tracts, according to the
plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 26 at Page 48,
Reception Number 333064 of the reCOrds of the Clerk and
Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado.
~t ~' Ar a 3; p~~F~j
.... v ,_,. _. .. ~
_ .,r,.. ~,.;. ,.
Z
m
7
Q
9C~.
V
N N
d d
3 ~
N ~'
~ O
C O
•~ 'O
d C
O. N
O L
~ .-.
00L
'~ 'O
Cf
'O C
V1 y
V
d N
C --
O • 7
'~ ~ O
n
c m m
m~ ~
O ~ N
v E
0
N of ~
io`yd
SEa~
E ~ c
o `~
2 c ~ 'o
m a ~ a
E m c °'
~ '~° ~°i c
U ` v
o ...
'3 N O
N
O G
V .]C
d C L
a~a
ltl .-. 'O
~ 0. N
LL ~ ~ ~
o r A
O} ~ 3 ~3
3 =gym
Z o ~r
o ~\m
~n m
m >S o
® ® ~~,
~~ Z =-
_~ ~1 i
0
i . ;~,
0
W
N
d
~J W
_ 3G zN_z
Y O 6
J ~ Q 4
~ ° ¢ V'
< = r
pzo_ F- 3
J ~ J Hxx yq8 =W
C W ~ N 1..1 =
O ~ z H = V
W~ 9 &~~
W ~ m ti N
O O
V
O
M
W =
8 ! CL 8 W
`~ o• QQa~
Q ~ f.i U
~ V- J
000 t=a O o~ a
0 O (~
• e
N ~ W z .N.
.7
~ ^y S 6 eJ~
b N d Oip
OO O
CL
3
J O
o~
a
O d
rOy
J
O
N
Z
J O
i f-
o -.
oa
' J
J
'- J
~~ a
~
w ~ • ~ .LLB'.
d ~ W ~ t7 C ~ ~ ,
~-
TL' ~
~
¢ x
ti
a'
~
~
~
y S
F- 'a ~
co of
_
~ = z
~~~ ~ ~s~ a
_
9~
o~a
~ ~
> N3 ~'¢
~
~ m
0
m~
M~E ¢Q
~ N
¢
F
~.7 rI
E
O O O O O O
a
6 W N
oO tJ, 0 c¢
J
ry 4 ~ q O 6
. O
iJ rJ ~ 0 8 L
~ Y
Y fn v'
0 O
~ H a ~ 4
N o
N C H
Z 4.1 •
4 d 8 O.
q V ~
W O H 0 ry OO
O
O
~ L^
~ S )t J
Z
~ N X • O a0' % 6
? o
~ a
z
~ o
y
mo o=
h~
z ~ ~ O 1- z 3 ~ 3 4
O
~
~ H 00 Q x H C H W O S Z
,
,
N v0 C] Z N W n N N S N O
o 0 00 0 0 0
;.~~~~
PAGE 1 _
y_86
SR97 JAA16 TRIM W/OFFSET
TRIM W/OFFSET
Si99~rEADER DRIP TRIM
II II I ~ *4tHITE OR TAP! FLAT
STEEL (BOTH SIDES)
#25 DOOR LATCH ON
~r~ EACH PANEL
BROWN ALUMItlUl4 EDGE*
CENTER T-CAP MOUNTED
ON OUTSIDE
26P LATCH RECEIVER FOR
EACH PANEL
HI-RIB
*WNITE OR TAN FLAT
STEEL (60TH SIDES)
BROWN ALUMINUM EDGING & CROSSBUCKS*
*NOTE: DOOR COLORS
CANNOT
4'x7'2" METAL-CLAD DUTCH DOOR BE CHAttGED.
SPECIFICATIONS
NOTE: 6" GATE HOOK ON
INSIDE OF BOTTOM
PANEL ONLY.
~...
DOOR- Complete door consists of two identical 4'0-3/B" wide x 3'7" high panels.
.Each panel is factory made of 3/4" exterior grade plywood with MORTON flat
steel bonded to both sides. Brown aluminum edging and crossbucks are
fastened to the panels with brown screws. The brown aluminum center cap
(T-shape) is ,~obsite applied fora weather stop. Bottom corners of the
cap are "rounded over" for safety. (To make the door a "solid" panel the
cap would simply be fastened to the bottom panel also.)
LATCHING- Each panel has a latch to provide additional security and allow easy
opening and closing of door. Agate hook placed on the bottom panel only
allows access in or out of the building from either side of the door.
Door hold-open feature uses latch receivers on the building wall to hold
the handle of each 'door latch.
OPENItJG- The basic principle of an "offset" in the framing and flashing of the
door opening allows each panel to close against a metal covered stop.
The flashing at the top also has a drip lip to reduce chances for rain
to blow in.
NOTE- Dutch door requires 7'9-I/2" of clearance from grade to bottom of gutter
br_o.yerhang/porch so it. ~.
m
v~ W
~ ..
0
0
W
W
O
Y
v
a
Q
U
a
Y
~~ ~~
,~ ,.
~ ,.3
~~~+~
LS
'~
_~ ~~.
a
N
l H
C
b ~u t4
NM ~ i
• ~~
<N
i
~~ .~~`
~~ ~~
~~~~
~{~+=~i N~9p~
ZJ~ L ~..
J
~'ya~~..
$$~
~=~s`
~~~o~
~.4 n ~
~-~~~
J~ Ngg
l9~<~8
~~~~
a_~
fs~~ ~
~~ _
~~ ~
J N N ~C
yyC ~ W
F H ~ r 0
PAGE 6
4-86
.., ,.~ ~ , .,_. .. ~a~.,,.. +m . :a. ,~ m ., oUU w,._w...w~ gv 6.,....d.ra ww •.ieru
i ~~ G y F f~t
g~$
~ ~9
~$
~a'~"~ .~
:~1.../
cr w ro
c n n
r• n o
Toro
rt N N
N H
N rt
N P ~
rr m ~.
h w n
w
p° h m
~ ~ a
b w ~
`C N rt
ro -
cr r• N
~pr•
z m m
n G rOn
M C m
r• r• rt
VI w
rt r• bi
H p rt
rt
fD
w r•
rt r
a ~
S ~
r• o
N w
r a
~~
m w
ro
o n
ws°~
m 5
aw Z
rt
~ N
ro
o ~
r
o ~
~ r•
w r~
rt N
N
x
O M
N H
ro
E ~
a
o'
o' £
m p
~ rr
~ o
a ~ .C7
~ a ~.
°5 ro ~,
m ~
~. ~
1
/ I I~
vim ~ ~~
I ~ /~
~~
J II ~i
(~tl•
L._.,
~~ ~.' ~~r~`~
~~ 1 ~^~.,
~ ~ 1 14':::::::1 w ~^
I ~
I /,
~ ~
_. ~. ... r _-,-~_T"'_ ... ::a.. ~,q« ,, _. ._ s,.b .u c sx< 3... e.;,. ..... zr. am k: ,u$
f ~!
r,:;
~~11
~~~~
,~1
~~!
~~d
5~
i~
d~
A
EXHIBIT "B"
A
Z
xg
B;~_~
9
N
m ZO
A
z
0
Z
3
m
Z
D
2
s
N
A
v
m
m
-~On
H
D
y
~~~
FI
7- csa,'.~ .vc.
~ 7. PLF
~° _
_~-
SUBTOTAL _-~ /
.i . { . , ..
"SPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFIC[
130 Souih Gafena Street
Aspen;'Coloiado81611'
'(303)920-5090
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES
cty ..
00113 -63250-134 GMP/CO,NQEPTUAL, _ -.
63270-73fi GMP/FINAL
-63280-137 SUB/CONCEPTUAC
-
63304-739 SUB/FIt~P~- .. ,- ,., a, _
63315-140 ALL 2 S~TE"P APPL1CdT10NS" ~ ~ '"
~. -
-63320-141 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/
' CONS~EN7 AGENDd ITEMS'
REFERRAL FEES:
00125 -63340-205
00723 ~ -63340-190
00115 ~.: -63340-163
County ~"
00113
'r
00725
A0123
N - 00113
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
HOUSING
~CNGINEERING ~
SUBTOTAL
-63160-126 GMP/GENERAL
-63170-i2T GMP/DETAILED
-63180-128
-63190-129
-63200-130
-fi3210-131
-63220-132
-63230-133
-63450-146
REFERRAL FEES:
-63340205 ~ENVIRCSNMENTALHEAL7H
-63340-190 HOUSING
-63360-143 ~ ENGINEERING,
PLANNING OffICE SALES,
00113 -63080 122
-63050-123
-63140-124
-69000-145
CITY/COUNTY CODE ` ' _
COMP. PLAN ~'
COPYFEES
OTHER _, a ..
SUBTOTAL ~ e'~-
TOTAL t"?` J
Name: 1 L` 1' l1Ar! u .~ P 15~ Phone:
Address-. Protect: -~~- j .~3 r-
.._. ~ ~ ~ f, ~ r
- i,1 ~l
Check#.. -~ J ~~ Date: C.'.
_--;
Additional billing: #olHours:
' w n~ "P7 army ,~.
r
#334437 b7/itj/5°i D9 1~ Rec'#: 00 'SY 650 F'G 987
Silvia Davis, Pit4cn Cnty C1erF:, C)oc ~.G~~'
RESOLIITION OF `THE PIT'YC'$1' ~COD'NT~; ` CQLOO'~""~ ",:'.~'"". "' .. _..
BOARD OF ADJOSTMENT
GRAI~ITIN'G ~H°IG~IT., IYSi;Y~~'` F'~12 AY~~12,Np~F'$T'~2" _ • " ,~ s. ~~„ , . , .
RESOLOTION NO. 91-28
B ~~EA~S"; Arthur Pfister, owner of a tract of land situated at West
ilk, is requesting a 16 foot height variance, where 12 feet
is required in the AF-1 zone district per the Pitkin County Land
Use Code, for construction of a barn; and
WHEREAS; the subject property is within the unincorporated area of
Pitkin County, Colorado, (as described in ExhiSt~"A", attached);
and, `
WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment is vested with the power to grant
or deny- such variances by virtue of Title ZI, Section 16-13,
19'I31n30~28t18(2) (C);~dand`e Code)' and Colorado, Revised Statutes,
WHEREAS, based on the evidence presented, the Board of Adjustment
make's 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 ZT RESOLVED by`the Board of Adjustment, that a
16 foot height variance by granted to allo( for constru,tion of a
barn as shown on the lans submitted Exhibit B due to
downzonin
WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may
result in rehearing and possible revocation.
,_-, ~-.,
#3443 r t_r7, t/91 G9: 15 Rec ffi. GG BK. 65C „a 988
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc ~.Gi_r
~,
~,
Resolution 91-~
Page 2
The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of
the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
DATED: July 2, 1991
The Board of Adjustment
of Pitkin County, Colorado
ATTEST:
Ci L. Christensen,
Secretary
~~ ~
Kandi Sha f.an,
Chairman
I
X I .. ...
,.. . .
~, ro v
#334437 Gr/10/91 G9: 15 Rec $, 04 RY.. b50 FG 989
`Silvia Davis, Fitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc ~.GO
EB8IB2'T ®rp~u
Tract i, West Buttermilk Pfister Tracts, according to the
,~.
plat thereof recorded in pla"t ""Book Z6"' a~ Page 48,
Reception Number 333064 of the records of"£he'~lerk and
Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado.
. ~., .~. - u -, t ~ , " e~va: -~ a-w~ . ~vxi'~&"' ~ ^ .ate' ~~. t,~yg°1~sr
#3~~~"~ n7/iCl/91 U9: 7.5 Fec ~.U~1"": 650 FG 990
Silva Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.~li_I
EXHIBIT "B"
i1!; ~.y
ill; ~ ~ v~rx
j~li m j~( b
i!i, m
1 `~ ~
1'~~ \ ~..//~
~~! ~ ~ it
~~~
~pP s
q~
~'~ ..
1
A
• I x$
5
r
o
8 G
@:
~_
8
7 F
N
m p ~
~ A
D C
Z A
Z
O
Z N
m
Z
p
D
y2 y
N -'
D
A
v
m
m
S
yr i
..
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD Off' 2iDJT75TMENT'"
TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AF`FECTED'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 Distr
yg y ' 7 p ' ) Pp ict Courtroom, Pitkin
meetin ma r then be ad ourned otorcorisider ants suldh other place as the
' cation 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
ersonall
letter articularl if ou have ob'ection to such variance e
Board of Adjustme t y ill give serious onsideraton tot the op'Vlassthy
anions of
surroundin
rant•or 5 property owners ahd others affected in deciding whether to
g deny the request for variance A VARIANCE GREATER'THAN ~F~,.
LESS THAN"THAT ~RE~UE9TB°13' "G~O"t7LD" "BE `G~~1~i2~1T'E`D~: . " , ",," ~. , •"""~` `""~ ` ~ ~ , .. _
DATE AND TIME OF MEETING: July 2, 1991 at 5:15 p.m.
Council Chambers, City Hall
Ziff, William: requesting a 45 foot front yard setback variance, where
100 feet is required in the RS-20 zone district, for construction of A
barn. Property Location: Lot R-53-A, Starwood Seven Exemption.
Mayer, Chuck: .requesting a 20 foot west side yard'setback variance,
where 30 feet is re wired in the AF-i zone district for construction
of a residential garage. Property Location: Lot'1; Block 1,' Filing 1,
Brushcreek Village Subdivision.
Pojman, Raymond: requesting a 30 foot front yard setback variance,
where 100''feef is required in the RS-30 zone district, for construction
of a single-family residence. Property Location: 170 Crystal Country
Circle, Crystal River Country Estates, Carbondale.
Pfister, Arthur: requesting a 16 foot height variance, where 12 feet
is required per the Ptkn County Land Use Code, for construction of a
barn. Property Location: West Buttermilk.
Alcitore, Gaston: requesting a 10 foot front yard setback variance,
where 3D feet is required in the R-30 zone district, for construction
of a proposed addition. Property Location: Lot 10, Block 4, Red
Mountain Ranch.
Miller, Gordon: requesting a 9o foot front yard setback variance, where
100 feet is required, for construction of a single-family residence.
Property Location: Newfoundland Lode, Mnnq Claim, U.S.M.S. 5190.
Donze, Donald: requesting three separate variances -- 1) 3o foot front
yard setback variance for an existing storage shed; 2) 25 foot front
yard setback variance, 10 foot east side yard setback variance `and a 10
,.,... : , ...~, .. .~,w_,...,„, ~. , ~~
~~ .. ~. ,
. ,_
_. .,.,.,~, .~.~ _~,.~ ;r. •..m `".':,:v a~, a "G;~.~, r x :...,
~~^^\
f~i:.'.A
foot rear yard setback variance for construction of a proposed shed; 3)
7 foot west side yard setback variance and a 10 foot rear yard setback
variance for construction of a mobile home addition. Property Location:
Lazy Glen #44.
Kenney, Mary: requesting a 7 foot side yard setback variance, where 10
feet is required, in the SR zone district, for construction of a
proposed addition to a mobile home. Property Location: Lazy Glen #15.
Submitted to the Aspen
To Be Published in the
County PO #51706
Times on June 18, 1991.
Aspen Times on June 20, 1991.
. Minutes _'
Pitkin County
Board of ABjustment
July 2~ 199Z°,
Members, Present: Kandi Shaffran, Chairman Rick Neley
Stan Mathis ''- John Ostwald
Ted Guy
Members Absent: Egan Gull.
Joanna,schaffner, of the. Pitkin County Zoning Office, was present
with staff recommendations and commehts.
~, n o ... ,.. , -;
Shaffran opened the meeting at 5:20 p.m. a-d introduced the Board
to those present,__
Case #91-15 Grenko, Vance & Elleri 0032 Avalanche Crk ~Rd,
Shaffran made'°°a motion to take this case off the table, ~izy'
seconded the motion ,and' alb weYe in favor fiance Grenko was
present to request a 7 foot.height~variance'fbr construction of an
accessory structure,_.
Grenko; advised the Board that since the May 7°meeting, he engaged
,._~ .~
several professional people"to prove that the,'only buildable area
for this accessory"sti-ucture is the one being proposed. Grenko „
also submitted a letter from Jerome, Gamba & Associates, Inc.
. ,.. ,w.._ .,... , ti~w ~ .~. ~ gym.
Michael`Gamba.is a water„engineer and prepare~'a map t~ha£" Grenko
submitted into the record verifying that the only location this
structure can'be built is the one.. being requested. ~"` "
.Shaffran reiterated that the location is not the. problem, but the
height. is the problem.
Grenko'again,stated that„the floor area that is needed can only be
proposed structure 'and `hat alb of'the neighbors
utilized with his
in the vicinity support his request.
asked for_ public comment. c
and Pat ~gllinger, neighbors
Zol~inger suppdY~t "this reque
tH~t the nature of„.this„lob.
very prominent ,toy
steep slopes:` Kauf
11 neigfihbrs"faith E
aon Kaufman, representing
the Grenko's, stated that
ICatifman "stated that he
y p and has
er site s ecific
s` -- river, floodplain,
spoken with 9 out. of the„_,
is request.
a
Nicki Lee, a neighbor across the river from the Grenko's, supports
this request stating that this would be nicely done, and be
consistent with the look of the area.
Ostwald stated that he passes the property everyday and you would
not be able to see this structure from the highway during the
summer months.
After further discussion, Neiley moved to grant a 7 foot height
variance, due to topographic hardships, per the plans submitted,
as recommended in the Letter from Jerome Gamba and Associates.
Shaffran seconded the motion and all were in favor.
Case. #91-30, Miller, Gordon, Newfoundland Lode Mining Claim,
U.S.M.S. 5190
Shaffran stated Ehat she has a conflict with this case, so will not
be voting. Neiley was acting chairman. Randy Wedum was present,
representing Gordon Miller, to request a 90 foot front yard setback
variance, for construction of a single-family residence. Wedum
briefed the Board as to the location of the property and the
proposed location of the barn. Wedum stated that Miller wants to
use the existing road that is already cut and services two
properties. Wedum stated that the proposed site is the only
buildable site, therefore, the request for the setback.
Wedum showed the Board the actual site plan, with the building
envelope and the proposed location of the house. This site has
received a 1041 approval for the building envelope.
Neiley asked if there was any public comment and there was none.
After further discussion, Mathis moved to grant a 90 foot front
yard setback variance, for construction of a single-family
residence, due to topographical hardship, as on the plans
submitted. Guy seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Case #91-24. Ziff, William, Lot R-53-A, Starwood Seven Subdivision
Joe Wells was present, representing Mr. Ziff, to request a 45 foot
front yard setback variance, in the RS-20 zone district, for
construction of a barn, on a 73.6-acre tract, adjacent to the
Starwood Subdivision.
Mr. Ziff owns both sites that this variance would affect. Wells
also mentioned that an approval was just received from the Planning
and Zoning Commission for a lot line adjustment. Wells further
showed the Board what type of topography surrounds the proposed
barn location. This area is surrounded by 30% or greater slopes
and they are trying to minimize the impact on these slopes. Wells
stated that Mr. Ziff raises native plants, which he uses on his own
property. These plants are grown in the area of the proposed barn
2
1. i ~.. 1
location, therefore, the proposed barn would be located near the
work activity to"be used by`tT~is proposed barn.`
Guy further clarified that_Sectiort 16-1.3 states, "Whereby Yea5en '°
, ..
of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape'of a specific piece
p perty 'at the time of enactment of zoning regulation, or by
of ro '
reason of exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary
or exceptional physYCal characteristics or condition of such piece
of property not created by the applicant subsequent to'"the adoption
of these regulations, the strict application of any 2dring
regulation would result in peculiar and"exceptional practical
difficulties to, or exceptional and undue hardship upon, tfie owner
of such property, then the Board shall have authority 'upon 'an '
appeal relating to said property, to autfiorze a variance from such
strict application so as to relieve such„difficulties."or hardship,
toothee ublic o d end wlthoutr substantiall alterintaoT d"~ invent
p 8 Y 9 pairing
the intent and purpose of the zoning district regulations and '
policies and. regulations of this Code ."; and this is certainly
an exceptional topographical condition with 30$ slopes.
Shaffran asked for public comment and ther's wa"s none;::
Shaffran asked Wells if the Stanwood Homeowner's Association had
approved these"plans. Rocky Chappat, Stanwood Prb~erty Manager,
.~, ~.
present and stated that the Homeowners
,. ,„ ~., , u~ ~,. , _.._
reviewed the laps and h~'ve 'a roomed ~the~ loc°ssociation have
p pp anon of the barn
pending the approval of the Boar"d `of Adjustment.
After further discussion, Guy made a motion to grant a 45 foot
front yard setback variance for construction of a barn, frorii the '
adjusted lot lines as shown in the plans'sulimitted, due to extreriie "
topographical hardship and unique conditions to the property not
caused by the applicant, specifically, the existence of a- road.
Mathis seconded the motion and all were in favor. ~ "'' "`
ase X91-26, Maven, Chuck, Lot 1, Block i, Filing 1, Brush
C _ Creek
Village Subdivision "~' `
Kevin McCloud "with Charles `Cuhniffe & Associates, was pre's~ht
representing Chuck Mayer, to request a X20 foot west sideyard
variance, where 36 feet ' is required in the ~A~1~` zone
district, for construction of a residential" garage McCloud
mentioned that there`are`topograpfic constraints. McCloud briefed
the Board on this property. The proposed two-car garage is to be
a 22' by 22'. ..
A scenic overlay and °ridgeline` review was 'approved for this
proposed garage by the Planning and honing Commission. Ostwald '
commented that a garage cannot kie placed anywhere 'else qi this
property because it-is a very steep piece of property.
3
~\ ~.-^~
e 1
Guy mentioned that the drawings are not true to scale and that a
21 foot west sideyard setback would be needed. Guy also asked if
Mayer's had an easement through the adjoining property for the
driveway and McCloud stated that they did.
Shaffran asked if there was any public comment and there was none.
After further discussion, Guy made a motion to grant a 21 foot west
sideyard setback variance, where 30 feet is required, for
construction of a garage, due to a nonconforming lot and a
topographic hardship.. Ostwald seconded the motion and all were in
favor.
Raymond Pojman was present to request a 30 foot front yard setback
variance, where. 100 feet is required in the R$-30 zone district,
for construction of a single-family residence.
Pojman stated that the lot is only 165 square feet, therefore,
believes this to be a nonconforming lot. Pojman also stated the
Architectural Review Committee at the Crystal River Country Estates
has signed off on his proposed plans. There is a hole already dug
on this property which Pojman wants to utilize for the foundation
of his proposed house.
Shaffran stated that the proposed house would be centered on the
lot. Shaffran asked for public comment and there was none.
Shaffran moved to grant a 30 foot front yard setback variance,
where 100 feet is required, for construction of a single-family
residence, due to nonconforming lot size. Ostwald seconded the
motion and all were in favor.
Case #91-28, Pfister, Arthur, West Buttermilk
Art Pfister was present to request a 16 foot height variance, where
12 feet is required in the AF-1 zone district, per the Pitkin
County Land Use Code, for construction of a barn.
Pfister mentioned that he has to relocate his,ranchng operations
due to the Pfister Ranch/Golf Course development. This is an
ongoing agricultural venture.
Shaffran asked for public comment and there was none.
Schaffner mentioned that in.the Board _of County Commissioners
meeting on Monday, July 1, the Board discussed changing the height
limitations for barns on conforming size lots in the AF-1 and RS
zone districts to 28 feet. This may be incorporated in the new
Pitkin County Land Use Code.
Shaffran moved. to grant a"16 foot height variance for~constructlon
of a barn as --~"~~{
per the plans"submitted, due to~downzonng. ostwald
seconded the motion 'and all were in favor.
the Alctore's to-request '~a X10 f
where `30 feet is required in
construction of an addition to a
Brandt explained that t]
around `the house. Add`
Brandt 'stated 'tkiat the4
feet; the finished hom
feet, well under" the "5"`
were
3ingle-idmlly"YESldE
pie-shaped lot with
trict~, "for
Ce.
steep slopes
:o the file.
,468 square
,095"'square `
Brandt submitted to the record two letters: one letter from Pat
Rymer, "a nsighbor, app'r`oving this`"proposal; and a letter'fr'orn~the
Rlansof;ntain Ranch $omeownsrs Association a roving the proposed
p or the addition. PP,
Neiley mentioned that the original house is already in the
setbacks. Schaffner' state3 that she researched as to why tke
original 'house was "placed in the setbacks'~a'n2~ Ycoul'd'Pind' nogrecords
of this nonconformity. After a, brief ,discussion, it was decided
a r f this re est is " a `~ "'°
hat i qu pproved, thie Boa"rc~ ' will also 'grant
pp oval for the existing nonconformity.
Shaffrah asked for public comment and there was. none.
Guy questioned other' options on this lot, but after further
discussion, it was'~shown that there"is no other place to put the
addition.
Brandt also mentioned that' a Minor Scenic Overlay Development
w~~~M ,..
review was granted to the Aloltores from~the Planning Office.
After further discussion, Neiley moved to grant a 20 foo£ front
yard setback variance, where 30 feet is required, for construction
of an addition to_ asingle-family"residence,"and to gra'ht'approval
for the existing nonconforming single family residence; based upon
the plans submitted, due to ,topographical hardships. Mathis
seconded the "motion and al`1 were in favor." ` "~ ~~
Case #91-31. Donze Donald Lazv Glen Mobile Home Park #44' "`
Donald 'Bonze was pres'dnt to request a 30 foot front yard setback
variance for an existing storage shed; and 'a"7`foot"west side yard
setback` variance and a l0 Poot rear yard setback variance for
construction of an addition, in the SR zone district. "the request
5
~~
for a 25 foot front yard setback variance, a 10 foot east side yard
setback variance, and a 10 foot rear yard setback variance for
construction of a proposed shed has been withdrawn per the
applicant.
The residents have just purchased the mobile home park. Guy asked
what the future plans were for the park. Guy Gervae, president of
the Homeowners Association, stated that they plan to go for a PUB
approval and change the zoning so that more permanent changes can
be made to the park. Gervae mentioned that the__Homeowner's
Association reviewed D.onze's plans and had no problem with what he
is requesting.
Schaffner mentioned that the zoning for that area is for lots of
15,000 square feet or greater.' None of the lots located at Lazy
Glen fall within these guidelines, therefore, everything being
added not meeting the setbacks will have to be reviewed.
Shaffran stated that she would have no problem with the shed as it
is a better alternative to haying equipment and items spread over
the property.
Shaffran asked for public comment and there was none.
For the first variance request, Guy moved to grant a 30 foot front
yard setback variance for an existing storage shed, where 30 feet
is required, due to nonconforming lot size. Shaffran seconded the
motion and four were in favor with Neiley abstaining.
The second request was discussed. Neiley stated that he had a
problem with this request since it would cause a zero lot line
along open space which should. be available to the residents of the
park. Neiley believes that a homeowner should be able to access
the perimeter of their building on their property, "not in open
space.
Donze mentioned that along the back lot line is an elevated berm
and is a totally unusable area. After further discussion it was
realized that there would be approximately four feet from the
addition to the lot line.
After further discussion, Guy made a motion to grant a 7 foot west
side yard setback variance .and a 7 foot rear yard setback variance,
due to nonconforming lot size, for construction of an addition, as
per the plans submitted. Shaffran seconded the motion with four
approvals and Neiley denying the request.
Mary Kenney was prese"r"t to' request a 7 foot side yard se ac
variance in the SR zone district, for construction of a proposed
addition to a mobile home.
6
.. K
.,;
y tted letters into the record from adjacent property
ownersg approving this request. Also submitted were pictures '
showin the need for the addition.
After "a brief discussion, Guy moved to grant a 7 foot side yard
setback variance, on the condition that at least 15 feet remain
between the addition and the adjoining trailer, due to
nonconforming lot size. Mathis seconded the motion and all were
in favor.
The minutes of the June 4, 1991 meeting were approved as written.
John Ostwald tendered his resignation at the conclusion of this
meeting. His letter is on file in the Zoning Department.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:30
Respectfully submitted,
Cindy 'L Christensen, Secretary
p.m.
Kandi Shaffr , Chairman
7
...~ ~. .. ,:e. as . ... ~ .mfr
~: