Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.80.46PLANNINGCASESOMl O ER(S),ADDRESS(S), PARCEL ID(S),& LEGAL(S) FORM O ne O rer Last First ProlerAMdrees(es) Project Paicai(s) Project Legal Description(s) Name1LLC Name Intemnuntain LumberCe, 411A a 2W33ddOS92 MCBnde Lot 9A Lot 9A-2 Commercial Inc Intemnuntain Lumber Co., 4119A Llnih1N 2613iC619002 MCBritla Lot9ALot9A-2Cormnercial LAPPLICANT: Inlemountain Lumber Cm, Inc OWNER'S Inmmwunt,in Lumber Co., Inc REPRESENTATNE: Lase Name b0ermou Lain Lumber Compan, be NaigM Vadalce Plan Case Number Date Received Plan Cade Planner BOA80-06 11R/1960 ParcelSme Acres Zone District Flaodplain Background Description of Project or Development NaigNVarimce N,n-Pub%.N.N R..... N ar Pa...an. Nw..-.. 1,,..1A=.n 80A 11,2511980 _ Ves 11/13/1980 — APPraved Planning Appfimfmn Plan Casa SdWs APpmvad Incomplete Letter Sent Date CompYfeness Deadline Dam Addi9onal Material Subm9led Date Complet,nus Revieve Date WeNisted Letter Date Rudy for Reterram Data AcceptanceLater Oat, Final Decision Approval Dam 11R511980 Reterrad By Data Relarred Referral Dam Due Public Corncerd Due Date RerrarFs N.mM YacureMTYP. Omnwad Rx^Pmd —dad BOA Resolution H0i6 NR 11/2S/1980 REFERRALS: NIA APPEAL BOARD.OF ADJUSTMENT County of Pitkin DateNovember 6 19 80g10-+;Case # Applicant Intermountain Lumber Co. , Inc. Address 0202 Pacicic Avenue Owner Intermountain Lumber Co. , Inc. Address _ 0202 Pacific Avenue Location of Property Lots 9A & 9B Block 5 Airport Business Center Attached) Any pertinent data must accompany this application,- and will be made a part of this Case No. The Board may return this application if it does not contain all the facts in question. Applicant's description of proposed variance showing justification: Applicant wishes to construct lumber storage shed at its yard in qie Business Center. The structure's height is it' feet or feet in excess of the 12 foot limit set for necessary buildings. The applicant is a permitted use in the Business Center and like other lumber yards can and does stockpile lumber in excess of 12 feet which also II typically is covered in storage sheds in excess of .12 feet ( an inordinately low and efficient storage for such building material) . The height of the shed will be substantially lower than that of sourround- ing buildings in the area. 1 rit 3-7,41 S 7J5-v / LeiS-0 Applicant Signature Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building Inspector o forward this application to the Board of Adjustment and reason for not granting a building permit: _ Section 3-2 area bulk requirements a c, Section 20-1 definition of accessory building eGc g 't y, Building Insp. Signatur Date permit rejected: Board Decision Application Filed: rl1wa746I-1-, 7 , /se Date: - Mailed: 1() yPinI 3, /545--c) Secretary, Board of Adjustment li VRER0.1NTY- t ZEI\ o 1-:iiov 71980 PITKIN COUNT( APE, COLORAD 81 60 Sit._ NI.... a. I Vn Dottie Fox moved that the following be adopted: BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 80-46 Intermountain Lumber/Height Variance - Airport Business Center 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 adjorninq 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 substantial detriment to the public welfare and will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Zoning Resolutions and the zoning mans. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the applicant's request for a 8 foot height variance to build an accessory building is granted. Additional conditions or restrictions: WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocaticn. Paul Krausch seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution.. The roll having been called, she vote was =s follows: Bill Mason yes Dottie Fox yes Joe Zanin yes Paul Krausbh yes The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: November 25, 1980 The Board of P.djustmEnt of Pitkin County, Colorado 1/ Chairman Secretary ICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE. __TKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMEI... 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 the County Commissioners Room, 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 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 other 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: November 25 , 1980 , at 5 : 15 o'clock pm Name and Address of Applicant for Variance: Intermountain Lumber Co. 0202 Pacific Avenue , Aspen Location of Property or Description: 0202 Pacific Avenue , Airport Buiness Center Variance Requested: a height variance of 8 feet to build storage shed for lumber . Duration of Variance: PermanentXXXXX Temporary Condition: THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Bill Mason, Chairman c' " -3 III III RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves IN'... RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT November 25, 1980 Page 2 PITFIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT as far as possible. Mr. Poss stated that the lot has an easement to Johnson Drive. 1. November 25, 1980 Bill Mason stated that there were no objections from the adjacent property owners. Dottie Fox asked if the Starwood Subdivision had setbacks in their covenants. And y Bill Mason replied that they did not, but that each lot has a stake and that houses j ers present: Bill Mason, Chairman have to be within 100 feet of the stake. Dottie Fox Clark Smyth Patsy Newbury'stated that when those lots were laid out, the setback requirements in the County were 30 feet. Azcxiates: Joe Zanin Paul Krausch Paul Krausch asked what the hardship would be, and Bill Mason stated that it would be topographical because the lot does drop off steeply. r, Ti re,e.f,-; was callydto order at 5:15 p.m. by Chairman, Hill Mason. Dottie Fox Joe Zanin moved to grant the 70 foot frontyard setback variance due to topographical r.:^,:d to t:a.'e the minutes of the last meeting approved as written. Paul Krausch hardship. Clark Smyth seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried. eecr."I d the motion. All in favor. Motion carried. Ella Scufka/F.A.R. Variance - Lots 15 & 16, Block 3, Williams Addition 80-45 Ilia ..!..-fin 9i2i nor/Setback Variance - Lot 42, Elk Mountain Subdivision 80-43 i Attorney Brooke Peterson was present to represent Ms. Scufka in requesting a 1,200 etener was present to represent his wife in her request for a 35 foot frontyard square foot Floor Area Ratio (FAR) variance. Mr. Peterson stated that most of theJ iafee. si•:yare, a 6 foot siloyard and a 15 feit rearyard setback variance. structures on the surrounding properties have basements. He also stated that the aesthetics of having a 1,200 square foot house on top of a 1,200 square foot base- ment';as-o seated that the reason that the Weidner's are requesting the variance are not going to upset what is presently in the Williams Addition. I e 1•.t wa' dowezoned and that they could not meet the current County y Mr. Peterson stated that although he was not involved in the original lot split, 3 the existing zoning at that time allowed 2,400 square feet. He also stated that 1lr. t. .. - ;tared that access is taken from subdivision road, Elk Mountain Drive. he felt the circumstances surrounding the nature of the property are important to F. 1 the Board a plot plan showing tka requested setbacks. Mn Weidner consider because the property has been in Ms. Scufka's family for many years. Cie had originally requested 15 :eet in the rear, but had since.learned r' vents Call for 20. He stated that he would be willing to decrease the Bill Mason read into the record a letter from Don DeLise stating that he owns Lots 1.:• • - .:-,,use in the rear by 5 feet, thereby meeting the covenants. 17 & 18 in Williams Addition and he is conditionally in favor of the variance'if the isame variance would be granted for his lots. Don DeLise was present and Bill Mason I r•... .., stated that there were no objections from the surrounding property owners. asked him if he had a lot split on his lots. Mr. DeLise said that the lots had not been split, that they were owned together as one site. Bill Mason then asked Patsy i. 1' E.;s asked if the main reason for desiring this orientation was to save the Newbury if Don DeLise would be allowed 2,400 square feet on his two lots, and i rr- :.-I to be in the clearing. Mr. Weidner replied that this was correct; to move she stated no because the FAR in R-15 zoning is only .16 of the total lot area. Mr. to the front of the lot would require taking out many Aspen trees. Clark DeLise stated that basements did not used to be included in the FAR, and that they ed that Mr. Weidner needed variances all the way around the lot anyway, due are included now. r z ,nine. Bill Mason asked Patsy Newbury for the definition of a basement and she stated that Bill !la::-_r stated that the Board usually does not have problems granting variances a basement is anything five feet below grade, whether used for storage or living whrn e.eree•.•,ing is involved if the requests stay within the covenants. space. Clark Smyth asked why the County had included basements in FAR, and she Istated that there had previously been a problem in Mountain Valley and Aspen Grove 1;'. Clark .',syth moved to grant the variance requests stated above with the rear setback where basements that were not included in the FAR were actually becoming totally Ia--:r.-:e-i to 20 feet making the rearyard variance 10 feet. Dottie Fox seconded the visible and adding a second story onto these houses. cation. All in favor. Motion carried. Clark Smyth then asked Patsy Newbury if the lot were not substandard how large a 1 rh•lai'1 Hayes/Setback Variance - Lot R-40, Starwood Subdivision 80-44 house could be built. She stated that if the lot were R-6 they would be allowed twice the FAR. Clark then made the point that the situation is almost like down- zoning.e:ll , 'e. architect, was present to represent Mr. Hayes in his request for a 70fe_ Patsy Newbury agreed with him. t_ fr-ra;ard setback variance. Mr. Poss stated that the lot sits on the ridge Brook Peterson stated that he had no problem agreeing to having Ms. Scufka's t of Stare-eee in I:nit *4. The area is AF-1 zoning and requires a 100 foot setback. The I'.'. feet would put the house right on the ridge; and even the survey did not basement meet the definition outlined by Patsy Newbury as a condition of the variance. inci:;de the steep dropoff to White Horse Springs. He then stated that he had He then stated that the visual density will not be changed, that the lot is flat. ehtei•;e9 ar._crcval from the Starwood Homeowners and the house is within the 100 Don DeLise asked if the variance for Ms. Scufka was grantedranted if it would set afeetradiusfromthestakeasrequired. He stated that the house is setback 30 precedent. Bill Mason stated that it would not haveto, but it could. He statedfeetfrc7thepropertyline. that every case must be decided on its own merits, but that if all factors were Mr. Foss stated that he and the Hayes' have attempted to work with the Homeowners to reduce the impact of the house and have kept it low and tucked it into the hill N° 12 N° 13 A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves row.. clF01unLL'L'a RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves t B'.ABD tF ADJUSTMi21T November 25, 1980 Page 3 4 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT November 25, 1980 Page y similar in two cases, chances are that the decisions would be the same. i V 3x asked if the fact that the lot, because of being downzaned, provided Roy Carl Vance/Setback Variance 15484 Highway 133 80-40 a,.e living space, if that would constitute the hardship. Bill Mason stated t a • felt it was indeed a case of downzoning. Roy Vance was not present. Pual Krausch moved to table the request until the next meeting. Joe Zanin seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried. tie i x moved to grant the variance to allow a 2,400 square foot house, 1,200 sq. f•-_.. r' -i.et being basement 5 feet below grade,due to downzoning,because it doesn't l(..•,,1•, living sr•ace. Pas) Frausch seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion James Wingers/Setback Variance Woody Creek 80-41 arrie3.James Wingers was present to request from the Board a 15 foot sideyard variance for a fence and a 40 foot sideyard setback variance for a storage barn. Ir,terr..o:atath Lumber/Height Variance - Airport Business Center 80-46 f It was stated that there were comments in the last minutes by Bob Kopp stating his srli- C^le was present to represent Rick Gates in his request for a 8 foot height objections to the two variances. Bill Mason then read into the record a letter i earirr o r,nstrvct en aenn" cry building. Mr. Cole stated that zoning requires written by Erlene and C. Dole Alcorn, adjoining property owners, stating their ti:at ar=:=<_or/ buildings can not be more than 12 feet tall, and that what they desire objection to the two variance requests. j tr. t::ill is called an accessory building because the building will not involve any r.,:r,i.,l :n:tivi.ty. Mr. Wingers stated that Mr. Kopp overlooks his property from across the river approximately one-half a mile away. He then stated that the shed would cover any r: c:cl-_ said r:ractically that lumber yards have to store as much of the fine use of the property that would infiltrate his view. Mr. Wingers then went on to say J 1 ni'.•-r material: under cower, for the simple reason that it deteriorates in the that Mr. Alcorn is his neighbor and he himself has a great amount of junk on his weath=.r. Ha stated that Intermountain has lumber stacked higher than 12 feet now, property. Mr. Wingers stated that the Kopp's are objecting because they regret and all ti.at they are asking i•; to be able to put some cover over the existing stacks. selling the property that is in their view plane. He felt that the Kopp's and the Hn tnen seated that a 12 foot height limit is impractical for a lumber yard. And Alcorn's objected to the size of the shed rather than the setback variance. Mr. that this building would not Le as high as the surrounding buildings in the area. Wingers stated that Mrs. Kopp complains about any use of his property, and ultimately . doesnotwant Mr. Wingers on the property. He stated that they also think that this would be an improvement to the area, and w- i,lr1 .1 l.w than to take •l•,wn the existing frame and black visquene. Paul Krausch asked if there was a residence on'the property. Mr. Wingers stated that there is not at this time, but that he has plans to build in the future. i Bill Hawn said that he considered this request in the same category as barns, in that the height limit itself is a hardship in terms of the use of the structure. Joe Zanin asked if there was not also a variance for a 12 foot fence. Patsy Newbury 1 asked if he wanted to build a 12 foot fence on top of the berm or a six foot fence S Clark l'yth, who works for John McBride at the Airport Business Center, stated that on top of the berm. Mr. Wingers replied that he was looking for a six foot fence there is a technical problem because the lot line runs through the proposed structure. on top of the berm to block the junk from the Alcorn's view, but that he thought t'ortie !cx asked if the structure had to be in that specific location. Mr. Cole perhaps a 12 foot fence would block the junk from the view off Woody Creek Road. 0;.4-.1 that that location would be most efficient. And Patsy Newbury stated that _ 1 the l:r-+:os_-d leeation is within the setbacks. Bill Mason asked if he would have problems with FAR if he builds a single family residence with the 2,000 square foot shed on the property. She stated that there Mr. Cole stated that the structure will be permanent and will have a foundation was no FAR requirements in either of the zones on Mr. Wingers property (RS-20 and 1 with fosters for posts, have three sides and a shed roof. AF-1). 1 1, . 7,yth stated that there is an easement and Holy Cross could need the land. Bill Mason reminded the Board that what Mr. Kopp calls junk cars are actually r ,r1 seated that they bad no say as to the future prospects of someone needing registered as antiques. t, and could only consider the variance request. Mr. Cole stated that if of have to meet the setbacks and could place the shed on the property line Dottie Fox asked why the shed had to be in the setbacks. Mr. Wingers replied that r,..'y night consider moving the structure.what he wants to do is push the shed into the bank where it would be less visible, and move the driveway easement over by the bank to improve the view problem. He then I Yt•:r !•:x moved to grant the 8 foot height variance due to the innate use hardship. stated that he would put the antique cars in the shed and alleviate the problem with Clare -,th disqualified himself, and stated as an adjacent property owner and part Mr. Kopp. f ;:., arrhite•:htural review board at the Airport Business Center, that they would know where the structure would be placed but they did not have any problem Clark Smyth asked if Mr. Wingers really wanted the fence there. he replied no, r..•e height variance. Paul Krausch seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion that Bill Drueding suggested it and he was doing it for the County only. Dottie Fox ar r_9- asked why he would need the fence if everything was to go into the shed. Mr. Wingers 1 replied that he needed the fence until the shed could be built. The fence would Mary and Clay Boland/Setback Variance Stark Mesa Tract 80-47 be an immediate abatement, that would keep people quiet. Mary 2ciand was not present. Paul Krausch moved to table the request until the next Clark Smyth stated that the Board had not been shown hardship that would allow them meeting. Clark Smyth seconded the motion. A11 in favor. Motion carried. to grant the setback variance. Mr. Wingers stated that he did not mind puting the shed on the middle of the property, but that he was trying to do Mr. Alcorn a favor by making it as inconspicuous as possible. Bill Mason pointed out that Mr. Alcorn had not objected to the placement of the shed but rather that he did not feel that N? 14 N? 15 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves• BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT November 25, 1980 Page 5 there was enough room on the property for a house and the shed. Dottie Fox stated that she did not see any reason to grant the variance. Dottie Fox moved to deny both the setback variance for the shed and the height variance for the fence due to lack of hardship. Clark Smyth seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned by Bill Mason, Chairman, at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: 1 fi6-1/4,<1V -e-- 1 C2 N? 16 11.= 1/ 1 1111111M1=1 A• f 6• Z g(c6 Nk:., 1 z L 0-c; g foNg c‘41 SI D 1.) i1,0 0 0 iiIMII•IIII11111.==1 11i i c LI, o T rioe3 o 1* 6--:. t.,7 y R ,c, c----1 C- R s )..._ -TY `i'. 0 k\, C.. 7 IA V) (00 1- \ri —1,, S C SA t.1 2_ P,--"' y .-4; i ,/--1 t iL) Qii„,-, kr.,:;(,7 )I - J 1 4 4e. I Ii 1. L >< IS - r (,-- e, 3::- L Ni , c_1 . i 1, 1 iii 1 N 1 i Il i----\\'--\ ii i 1 1 ,i; I 7 1 1 I I i i. 1 1 I I 1 I'111 t'/' I F4 11 I 1_ 1 i i I 1 S( 4 e UUh 1 E l m. it0I 4 w f I I r C1- i f 1. I 1 i 1 i j i 1 I i j 1 i f f 1 i ! j j i I j i f 11 I I Iel i I 1 t ! I I 1 i I 1 I 1 i I j j i 1 i I !1 I I i 1 f I f r I.II I 11 I I i 1 i I • ! i I I I ii L I 1 1 _L 1_ y irl 1 , I__-- t..._..._i._._.___.__._•.._---±---- 1. _-._.__-..._-. --- - ..._.... .._ I... i i f I I R Od5 P i. A lit '. i S A V c,4%) 1Iiii‘Elf 1ti /4,1• kik r 4.01 e crt. A b.itiAt A Luk.,G , Robt 3 y STRutTtAROL irfil 2X ,--I 5 T cA 10 i t _... . . x>g 4 tN7 1 i A r i G \ tcz C-C— Jk4)-17 V 2 fN I t if'it, ZX \?- S , %/_ G C 4),?( T< 1Z V toe r Q r Y H `c_mac. ^T 4- —.` p 1 XZO J a IF-Dt-kOttz. i\T\ kis" r iit O QFed,R/GW 80 N 3°28,38„ 82 89 \ 8e 7:;.9E OE eg TtOPE 90 OPo P BaN„--_,,-- O.OO rho 7..2E15.6.1,l CAP 99 l 9,,, No r //-, T " 1y Ii 1- AY ppRo 56F>IS` N ll' iAI4Z8 IF, O r l =e LOU° 90 G) I,NAROLDW JO-ANSON.(JONNBON-l1ONGFELLO.Ng,ASSOrIATGS,INC),A REGISTGREO SU CZYQYOR IN THE STATE OF C.OLOR.P.M,CO 1--IERGg*-(GLI TIFY r0 TI-AAT GN TNG 221--10 DAY OF MAY,1979,A SURVEY WAS MADE,UNDER MY SU- PG.0./I3I01-4 CF A E.UILDI NC.LCCA-TION STAJALO ON 11TE GROUND AND 714E: TtT1900E IiI AB_SUUEO ELE V. 100.00 E otrr—oE vrn. _ E-- - '- BY: - .-.. 1 '.'./ -..__,_ N it A°i;,A 1-I LD W JQV4N"506 L.S.901 a 4--W. sq4 .,, 0 9JY k': ti 0 Jr4rf.0.c:r ,. S 3)(` TOPOG[2APHY 6 BUILDING Lc -/\TION , LOTS 9-4,9-e BLOCK 5 ASPEN A1RRDRT BD51t-16$5 CENTER r4N l(SO -LONGFELLDW A ASSCCILITE.S,INC. '.X.7ONP.DX5547 SNOWMASS VI LI AGL.COLOR000 81C 15 JOB NO5'-3O-119,SO-120 -r-ALL.1"20. MAY 4,1979 I !J.-4l W.J.