Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOA:86-02_Jay Kuhne_44125 Hwy 82Cover Sheet Case #: Applicant Name: Address: Parcel #: Case Name: ai BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT . DATE January 14,19 86 CASE#34· - c•2_ APPLICANT Aspen Design Group ADDRESS 210 MM Ventnor Av Aspen, CO OWNER Mr. Jay Kuhne ADDRESS Box 4469 Aspen, CO LOCATION OF PROPERTY 27239 State Highway 82, Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made 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: See Attachments D r -AApplicant signature'1**c» A,<u Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building Inspector toforward this application to the Board of Adjustment and reason for not granting a buiding permit:.n . -+PL+t'AF-1-..3-1 34.1 (4.0 (Lk-lu 3%La-U./1 - Jou" 1 8-D '4,-·ne GE OB/ V. 30' ju- d.A-/.}1973 i %2421, 4,6.4 A.t.p.*0 te·05tiUA EL,141#2 26 684 45 . 1,£.-* *43-3-L £44£- ldin Date Permit rejected: 4/ /*f,/7 46 Board decision g Inspector--F,4* 'tL U Application filed Date Mailed - Ra.UL_o_[a=·A'Secretary Board of Adjustment * 1 330 UL,UUWA 1 ·- r.1.-C:Jif7rfig .. A THE ASPEN DESIGNGROUP 0289 VENTNOR AVE. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 303/925-3021 ARCHITECTURE PLANNING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE/ CONSTRUCTION INTERIOR DESIGN PROJECT DEVELOPMENT January 14, 1986 Pitkin County Board of Adjustment Aspen, Colorado RE: Addition and remodel to the Jay Kuhne residence Dear Members; Enclosed are 12 copies of the site plan showing the proposed additions to the residence located at 27239 State Highway 82 along with the applications, the list of adjacent property owners and the twenty five dollar fee. We are re- questing that this application be included on the agenda of your January 28th meeting. The purpose of our request is to gain relief from the existing setback require- ments as indicated on the enclosed site plans.The subject property was orginally built within the parameters of the zoning code existing at the time of construction.Subsequent zoning changes affecting setback requirements have made the residence a non-conforming use. The existing 2,200 sq. ft. residence was built over ten years ago and little thought was given to energy efficiency.It is the owner's intent to upgrade not only space utililization but also energy convervation by the addition of exterior insulation (walls & roof) and by the installation of a more efficient heating system. The proposed 1,560 sq. ft. additional spaces will not only be additions but are part of an almost complete reconstruction of the residence to include new exter- ior walls and roo f. All new foundations shall receive insulation and existing foundations will also be insulated where possible. (000(1 A- Kuhne; page 2 All proposed addtional space, with the exception of a small balcony on the northwest side of the house would be within the previous setback lines.The remodel would indlude the removal of an existing deck which at present pro- trudes into the setback area.We feel that the completion of this project will result in a more efficient home for our client, both in space utililization and energy conservation and in a more efficient use of property by allowing our client to recycle an existing structure rather than building a new residence. Your kind consideration in this matter is greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, Aspen Design Group SJC/kk Encl. C00003 Steven J. Longer Kuhne Adjacent property owners George Bauer Box 3172 Aspen, 00 81612 Thornas A. Gorsuch 503 Barry Street Chicago, IL 60657 Julia Smith 910 Gaylord Denver, [;0 80206 BLM Box 1009 Glenwood Springs, 1;0 81602 tionat 1Uill.,Lb.,1, ;.--: 1*/' & ' /'Mi#*J-me- 1. *=C·*240 A .y«eA , 2,-/11 , / l / *. W-- A 1611+VAV 61 i i, f r\< h \ ./ 1 \ - -4/1 »1,99 FWIK.Ic FLI ve MR.4 -t 1fle,FER.[4¥ la;T|I-k-- 4/ A A --pl rMIU ls[ 46.1-Ir«Four-Ip --9, thu ' 71 41 7746 BATIO'-1 H AF N.+ AMPIT16»4 AH 1 1:KEH«*L 12, -1-146 berSH ·F:2*£5*112€1406 40'P MIA. JAY KUI+HE Ek:44:4> 4:'r Atk| U«rHel-17,AFFI-14&.T014»114 JAH'JAMY ;989 2 / f <37\f <Es-3 \ 6 C .'73·7; ··2*f#*462*i47. -1 .' 65-*P@6*4114. 6-rk.glifillicilisirl C . ,-2. £. 44?J. I.... -.4 1/1392A 3HT 930510 1/131230 3UI/13VA 901/1™13\/ Q8f0 Ird[-8 OOASIOJOD,M392A rfo€·ae-EOE 9101 811,1316 nBiab lolisini 91Uj:)9]ir]I)16 9qiI)2bnbl 8rlinnblq PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 28, 1986 MEMBERS PRESENT:Joe Zanin, Acting Chairman Bill Lukes ALTERNATES:Spero Niarhos Kandi Shaffran Bob Throm Peter Dobrovolny Evan Gull Bill Mason called the meeting to order.He questioned if the members had any questions or comments on the October 15, 1985, and December 17, 1985, minutes received in the mail.Zanin moved to accept the minutes as typed and Shaffran second the motion. A vote was taken and all approved. Mason announced that he gave notice to the Pitkin County Commissioners that he was resigning from the Board due to the problem with the county's public liability insurance.He then turned the meeting over to Zanin.Mason read a letter to the Board from Paul Krausch, announcing that he, too, was resigning from the Board due to the insurance situation.Throm stated into the record that he felt that Pitkin County and the Commissioners should give Mason the highest vote of thanks for his contributions to this Board and other items throughout the years. Mason stated that he appreciated everyone's dedication and work over the years and he had enjoyed it.He then excused himself from the meeting. Throm suggested that the Board briefly review the discussion with Tom Smith at the last meeting and maybe have a special meeting to go over the situation.He felt this meeting should be with Tom Smith.It was agreed that this would be arranged.Also, the Board could take this time to work toward restructuring the Board in light of the resignations. Joseph E. Edwards, Jr.86-01 Lot 13, Block 1, Aspen Highlands S/D, 0280 Glen Eagles Drive, requesting the Board of Adjustments to hear and decide his appeal, alleging that there is an error in the order, requirement, decision or refusal made by an administrative official creating an inability to obtain a building permit for improvements to his garage.Joe Edwards was there to represent himself.Edwards need an interpretation to the definition of accessory use as stated in the code.He explained that the placement of his garage was based on the placement of his house. One location would have created the need for a U like turn to get the car into the garage.By attaching the garage, it would cut off valuable sun to the house.By placing the garage as he now proposed, it allows the sun to reach the house, and allows the car more accessibility to the garage. As stated in a letter to the Board of County Commissioners dated January 7, 1986, Edwards outlined the sequence of events leading to his meeting at this time with the Board of Adjustment. Previously, Newbury had referred Edwards to Tom Smith, County Attorney for clarification to her interpretation of accessory use.According to Edwards, Smith's interpretation was that any use which you normally find within a single family residence, the principal structure, cannot be in an accessory building.Edwards felt that to substantiate the interpretation, Smith pulled out 1 the words in the definition of accessory that talk about subordinate use and incidental use, and then inflated the meaning of those words.He argued that interpretation because there is a mutual use of buildings.Also, now, he has been advised that a heated corridor would make the habitable space legal, which he felt was misrepresented to him at an earlier time. Edwards wanted to have the Board look at the interpretation of the definition of accessory use along with other interpretations that have been made.He referred to the letter of January 7, 1986, to the Board of County Commissioners and read to the Board the definition of accessory buildings as stated on page 2 of the letter.He felt the question before the Board was what does that definition mean.Edwards argued that Smith's interpretations "tripped" up when going between accessory uses, attached garages and detached garages.Edwards then referred to definitions of "subordinate", "customarily" and "incidental" as stated on Page 3 of the January 7th letter.He cited the Colorado Courts definition as stated on that same page.He quoted several sections from Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning & Planning regarding accessory uses.His readings were as follows:Pages 6, 10, 22 of the Accessory Use Section.He felt that the definition on Page 22 was directly in contradiction with Smith's interpretation.Edwards pointed out to the Board that he was below 50% of the allowable F.A.R. for the lot size that he has. He then referred to four (4) cases in the State of Colorado that have had to interpret what the definition of accessory use is. Holcolm vs City and County of Denver was about 12 dogs on the premises and the City/County was charging that was in violation because it was not an accessory use to the principal structure. The Court held that it was an accessory use and could not be prohibited.They defined accessory or incidental use as a use customarily incident to the principal use and so necessary and commonly to be expected in conjunction therewith and it cannot be supposed the ordinance was intended to prevent it. Sheridan vs Kean, they defined accessory use as customarily incident to the principal use, necessary or commonly to be expected in conjunction therewith.It cannot be supposed that the ordinance was intended to prevent it.Deemed to be permitted by implication where the ordinance is silent on a particular 1SSUe.Concept of accessory use relieves the municipality from attempting to enumerate in this statute every possible approved use.In this case, the use of trailers for a residence in an industrial zone was not accessory to the industrial zone. Board of County Commissioners vs Thompson.They defined accessory use as one subordinate to, clearly incidental to, customarily in connection with, and ordinarily located in the same lot as the principal use.They found that 60 junk cars and other miscellaneous parts was not accessory to a residence. Shumate vs Zimmerman.It held that under zoning ordinance requirement, that accessory use be clearly incidental and customary to and commonly associated with the use by right of the resident, the repair and maintenance of a stock car, maintained by a homeowner as a hobby, was a lawfully accessory use and the use of his property as a single family dwelling. Gull, for the Board's information, read from the Uniform Building Code the definition of Occupant Group M, and Group R-3.If the garage has habitable space, it then becomes a Group R-3, which then puts another dwelling unit on the lot.Edwards argued that a kitchen has to be present to create a dwelling unit and the classification only dictates the type of construction necessary. Lukes agreed that the structure would become a part of a dwelling, not a separate dwelling unit.Lukes was against looking at the use with the assumption that it may become an illegal dwelling unit. 2 Cindy Houben was there to represent the City of Aspen Planning Office and Tom Smith.She referred to a letter dated January 27, 1986, from Tom Smith to the Board members.She read to the Board the second paragraph of that letter and reaffirmed Smith's point was that it has been the practice to interpret accessory use in this way and the precedent that could be set here would be very different from actions in the past.Lukes felt it was irrelevant to worry about what label the rooms had, and did not see a problem with having habitable space in the structure. Throm did not feel there was logic in Smith's interpretation and referred to the last paragraph in the same letter.Houben explained that by connecting the residence with the garage using the corridor, it made the garage a part of the principal residence.Throm did not feel that was logical. There were no letters in file from adjacent homeowners, however, Tom Payne, an adjacent property owner was there to express his opinion.Payne pointed out that the property has three separate buildings, a principal residences employee housing and space being occupied over the garage.His opinion was that the nature of the residence should not be changed, and giving other people the option to change the nature of their property.He felt it would be opening the code to numerous problems by deciding in Edwards favor.And the concentration of people was being increased in a single family area, which he was against. Shaffran stated that each case was judged in an individual basis and they were not setting a precedent nor changing the code. Niarhos stated the definitions of "subordinate" and "incidental" needed to be used in determining whether the studio was an accessory use to the primary residence or not.Niarhos explained that the corridor made the two structures one, where separately, they were two separate structures that people dwelled in. The action necessary for the Board to make was the interpretation of accessory use and whether or not the improvements to the upper floor of the garage are an appropriate accessory use.Shaffran questioned why the request was turned down originally when a corridor was suggested by the applicant.Newbury stated that originally there was not a corridor proposed, and if there had been the structure could have been 28' high and there could have been habitable space.Edwards stated that he had been given a different interpretation at the time of that discussion. Niarhos questioned if the Board's interpretation of accessory use would become the formal interpretation.Shaffran thought that the Planning Office would take the Board's decision under advisement because of the ambiguity of the code.Edwards stated that the Planning Office, as a result of this case, has undertaken a study to redefine, in more particularities, accessory uses and reporting their findings to the Commissioners, and probably during the next 60 to 90 days, be adopting another, more particularized definition of accessory uses.Throm did not feel that the decision of the Board on this case would be interpreted historically, they were deciding on this case and its merits only. Shaffran moved that the definition of accessory use is ambiguous and Edwards presented evidence that backed up his interpretation of accessible use, and his interpretation can stand.Throm second the motion.Shaffran, Throm, Lukes and Zanin voted in favor.Gull opposed.Majority rules and the motion passed. Lazy Glen Greenhoume and Nursery 85-28 c/o Frank LaGioa, 8465 Highway 82, Snowmass, requesting a 120' frontyard setback variance from the 200' highway setback for construction of greenhouse addition.Mr. LaGioa was there to represent himself.In September, 1985, LaGioa came before the Board to request a variance to expand his commercial business by adding to his greenhouse.At that time, he needed the additional 3 room due to over-buying.It was determined that go through GMP approval prior to the Board acting request.He received growth management exemption 1986, and was back before the Board for review of request. he would need to on his variance on January 21, his variance Resolution 86-03 grants approval of the GMP exemption with two conditions: "1) The applicant shall grant a fishing easement along the Roaring Fork River.This easement should run the length of the property and extend five feet from the high water mark; and 2) The applicant shall obtain a variance from the Board of Adjustment for construction in the 200 foot setback and expansion of a non-conforming use before any building permit is issued for this project.By its approval of this GMP exemption, the Commission is making no statement whatsoever in favor of either of these requests. The Commission does wish to state for the record that it finds that the use of the site is over- extended, but given the zoning in the area, a location for this use needs to be maintained." The Board discussed the fact that even though the Planning & Zoning Commission had granted GMP exemption, the Board of Adjustment did not have to grant his request for a variance and acknowledged the fact that P&Z feels that the site is over- extended.LaGioa pointed out to the members that he was, and had been, striving to clean up that area, and the physical site made it difficult to handle the problem. Shaffran was pleased with the proposed placement of the addition, feeling that it would be hardly noticeable from the road. Niarhos questioned if the greenhouse would be made accessible by the public.LaGioa stated that it was not intended for public use.Because of the heating situation, it would have to be tied into the main business.There was no other location on the property that this addition could be placed due to various reasons Shaffran moved to grant the variance request due to the irregular shape of the lot and the Board does not feel that the proposed addition creates a greater impact on the 200' highway setback. Throm second the motion.A vote was taken and all were in favor. The motion passed. Mr. Jay Kuhne 86-02 27239 E. Highway 82, Aspen, requesting a 80' frontyard setback variance and an 10' sideyard setback variance on the north side for an addition to the residence.Steve Conger and Rod Dyer were there to represent the owners.Conger explained that the present structure was old and below building standards and the owner wanted to make improvements.The original setbacks in the AF-1 zone was 75' for the frontyard for residential.The current setback is 100'.Conger was also requesting a variance for a proposed swimming pool that was drawn on the plot plan. Lukes questioned if a variance was necessary for a swimming pool at grade.Newbury stated it was because it went below grade, as a foundation and was required to be within the setbacks. Shaffran thought the proposed location for the pool was safer than locating the pool in the rear of the property under a power line. The proposed addition to the house that encroached would not have encroached under the original setback requirements.Dobrovolny questioned why the addition could not happen somewhere within the current setbacks.Conger explained that the owner needed a bath in that area.He pointed out a deck that was close to the property line to the side that would be removed during the remodel.Newbury advised the Board that the guest house was a pre-existing use and grandfathered in when the zoning was changed in that area, making it an allowable use at this time. 4 .. Lukes moved to grant the variance request for a 25' frontyard variance and the small amount necessary on the sideyard as shown on the site plan introduced into the record for the addition to the house and the two-car garage due to downzoning.Gull second the motion.A vote was taken and all were in favor. Lukes then moved to deny the request for a variance to put in a swimming pool due to the lack of a hardship.Shaffran second that motion.A vote was taken and all were in favor. The meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, /-n 1\ .W. 1f '\ \. r k.c u 3 .0• Secretary irman 5 r EAST'.. ... ...O ' THE ASPENDESIGN GROUP I ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 0289 VENTNOR AVENUE303 · 925 · .3021 arcliltecture interior design1lands[,ipe arclite<.lure i)]drlning 11! A eogr 6®2,0/ ., 1252 1% 12-61.,46a *I L.AH·e>AFE·9 A 10 31\'. ell 2 iJ lu co 0 -1- 1 1.liu j A 4 -1 -INO 2/ 9L V -1- 8 r >-- 1- 9 R ' 0-I 4 * 111 1>1 + 1. 9 ?-1 r-4 1164 DATE:.21-12Ed:k.EG DRAWN BY·12£9tp REVISIONS: CHECKED BY: 2¢k CONTENTS: SIT€ ,&N DRAWING NO. 4*A. 5 1-1-6 FLAH I €6-09+* -0 + 201 SHEET J OF_J 17 113:2-o 60 1--1 . it. 1 1 \ I 47 91 34 - \ 4901\97 ,>. 9/ Al=*F94*,HT AMV'E / 04--47 FZAVEA 2 0 H ..4 ilik*4**%*tfi . 1"Fw- ' 4 Big*aee¢ c