Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOA:86-14_Theodore Mularz and James Crowley_1780 Juniper Hill DrCover Sheet Case #: Applicant Name: Address: Parcel #: Case Name: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT .. DATE 5 August 1986 19 CAS E #c:'ke - 1 4 APPLICANT Theodore L. Mularz, FAIA OWNER James P. Crowley 406-H Pacific Ave. ADDRESS Aspen, Colorado 81611 815 Triunfo Canyon Road ADDRESS.Westlake. Village, ! California 91361 LOCATION OF PROPERTY Lot 24, Block 2, Filing No. 2, Brush Creek Village Pitkin .County, Colorado Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part c 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 ATTACHED PAGES n n ENERN = a./63 ' gL€»14Applicant Signature Thecdore L. Mularz 6/ 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:cs AA-ou.2 2,4,bej (14 0-knvecjf i va &25<C)voct-1--c.4E-e.-04 »Al f wt _bioki , 0%-- d..SB tl· ?RE#+ 9af-& uqvGel, ' 01 56(1 Adjpbk '\004<1143<6 64 16 -©-4... Svee_ 914·3 Ggetsfe 1. 44eluk. Gu AE-\ 2 04.3.e - tekle k cxlkocus ll- &4· R-De_ Cl(104 Ssoft-L( S.'EALL@UW-Gl· St«\ 0,3 3 -:1- Crnact 4. bi,lk- ti'yjAA,nuojbd eR- Q co.VAh Bixte . Building Inspecto (114- Date Permit rejected:Board decision Application filed Date Mailed Secretary Board of Adjustment Pan"noU 1 J UUL; C . t ---, - . /11 n 1-02=a 1 54 66 a»69' THEODORE L. MULARZ & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE PLANNING & & & 0 e @ & Page 1. PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION JAMES P. CROWLEY ADDITION Lot 24, Block 2, Filing 2, 5 August 1986 Pitkin County, Colorado This application is submitted for review and approval by the Pitkin County Board of Adjustment. A building permit has not been applied for. James P. Crowley is the second owner of this property which he purchased with the expectation that he would be allowed the right to make improve- ments as currently enjoyed by surrounding property owners. An analysis of the site and topography limit the areas on which improvements can be constructed without excessive destruction of existing landscape and vegetation, and prohibitive cost. The current zoning of this parcel is AF-1 and because of this it is classified as a "Substandard-Size Lot". The lot is 2.13 acres in size and single family dwellings are allowed. However, it should be noted that the imposition of AF-1 setbacks on lots in the entire Brush Creek Vi which are all well under the AF-1 requirement of 10 acres, is a11 age, hardship broadly imposed on all property owners, especially when con- sidering the general area topography. In the interest of energy conservation, Mr. Crowley proposes to con- struct an airlock at the west or main entrance of the house. It is also his desire to construct a two car garage with a small work- shop above the garage. Because the main floor of the house is approxi- mately twelve feet below the driveway elevation, it is not practical or feasable to construct the garage/workshop as a part of the house struc- ture, even though such a relationship of garage to house is a most de- sireable feature. A garage/workshop built adjacent to the house would add to the principal building and allow a 28 foot height rather than the 12 foot height allowed for "accessory" buildings. The proposed garage/ workshop has been designed to be tucked into the hillside above the house in order to create a minimum visual impact and no destruction of important vegetation. The driveway entrance into the property is in the northwest corner. The "Area and Bull< Requirements-All Districts" chart footnotes state: "For purposes of measuring front yard setbacks, the access side of the lot shall be considered the front yard." Continued. Monnri·U. 3/3 UL.14 P.O. BOX 166 ASPEN,COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-3365 James P. Crowley Addition Page 2. Pitkin County Board of Adjustment Application, con't. If the front yard setback must be parallel to the westerly property line, which also parallels Vista Drive, then both the new airlock and garage/workshop fall within the required setback area. However, if the required 100 foot setback is applied to the northerly property edge then both proposed additions require no consideration for adjustment with the exception of a review of the garage/workshop height. If the 100 foot setback is applied to the northerly property line then the amount of dedicated setback "open space" would actually be increased. This set- back "open space" would provide a greater dedicated area between the Crowley house and the neighboring house to the north. The approach to accommodate the proposed additions has intentionally been sensitive to the landscape, environment, and vegetation. It is not only the most attractive but the least destructive and practical. Other approaches could increase the overall mass of the existing house, clear- ly visible from lower road approaches, or seriously mar the landscape in addition to creating unnecessary financial hardships. The visual impact of the garage/workshop to the surrounding neighborhood is minimal. It is well screened from other areas by the existing house and vegetation. Because of the topographic conditions, and other conditions in this special case, it is our request that the Pitkin County Board of Adjustment grant approval of this request considering the facts and approaches outlined. It is clear that such relief would cause no "substantial detiment to the public good" and would not subtantially alter "the intent and purpose of the zoning district regulations" as outlined in the Pitkin County Land Use Code. The names and addresses of adjacent property owners and the homeowner's association is attached. Submitted by, gLE« »aky Theodore L. Mularz, FAIA TLM:t U UU L J £ 2 THEODORE L. MULARZ & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE PLANNING @ 4% ap 0 @ 4% ap 5 August 1986 JAMES P. CROWLEY ADDITION PROJECT NO. 8607.06 Lot 24, Block 2 -Brush Creek Village -Pitkin County, Colorado ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS Lot 6, Block 3 Dr. John T. Sheehan P.O. Box 2281 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Lot 7, Block 3 Marshall W. & Kristin A. Weir 1504 Dorchester Drive Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73116 Lot 12, Block 3 Paul R. Tuerk Apartment C 831 Central Park Drive North Indianapolis, Indiana 46260 Lot 21, Block 2 Lloyd G. Baker 515 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lot 22, Block 2 John M. Kobayashi 445 Forest Street Denver, Colorado 80220 Lot 23, Block 2 Robert L. Shinogle & R. Patrick Cargill P.O. Box 1624 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Lot 25, Block 2 Robert W. Bilstein 5987 Idylild Tr. Boul der, Colorado 80301 HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION Martin Horowitz, President Brush Creek Landowner's Association P.O. Box 4323 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Attn: Janet Dossigny, Treasurer Tel. 923-4773 priner,C P.O. BOX 166 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 TELEPHONE 303/925-3365 d<Juuu... PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 26, 1986 REGULAR MEETING Members Present:Evan Gull, Chairman Bill Lukes Kandi Shaffran Bob Throm Alternates:Bob Miller Peter Dobrovolny Melinda Pearson John Howorth Evan Gull called the regular meeting to order.Peter Dobrovolny approved the minutes pending corrections as marked on a copy of the minutes.Throm second this motion and all were Dn favor. Gull questioned if all applicants had posted the notification of hearing sign and all indicated that they had. The River Road Ranch Company 86-13 1637 River Road, requesting a height variance of 16' from the zoning regulations of AF-1 which require accessory structures to be 12' in height, for the purpose of constructing a hay barn with attached equipment shed.Steve Main, a general partner, was there to represent the Company.The hay barn would have a connecting equipment shed.He presented a topography map with a layout of the property and the placement of the proposed structure.The property has recently been split and requires the duplication of the existing barn.The lot is in the AF-1 zone and has 21 acres.This particular zone does not allow a barn over 12' height, allowing another 5 'to the peak.The metal roof would be dark brown to red clay brown. The members felt it was an appropriate use for the property and would create no negative impact.However there was discussion as to the hardship involved.Throm moved to grant the variance request of 16' height variance, which cannot be over 28' to the midpoint due to the fact that he is denied reasonable use of the property.Dobrovolny second the motion.A vote was called for and all were in favor. James L. Crowley 86-14 Lot 24, Block 2, Filing 2, Brush Creek Village, requesting a 55' frontyard setback variance for an addition to the existing residence and a 16' height variance for the construction of an accessory structure.Ted Mularz, the architect for the proposed addition, was there to present the request to the Board.The site was described as steep and Mularz wanted to establish exactly where the frontyard was as the first issue.He described the addition as an airlock and a two-car garage with a workshop on the second floor.The proposed garage location, which would be tucked into the hillside, would save landscape and have less of an impact,Photos were presented to the members showing stakes placed and also a few had the garage superimposed to show the full impact.There were no remarks from the homeowners association.There were no plans to put plumbing in the workshop. Gull Felt Lhut the or'iginal int.erpretation of the frontyard should be upheld by the Board.The members agreed and felt no problem with the variance setback request.The height variance necessary was determined as Il'.Dobrovolny felt that the workshop could be incorporated into another location around the garage.Mularz pointed out that the roof of the garage/workshop would be compatible t.0 the main structure.It was the general feeling among the members thut a different design could be made to comply with the code and lessen the height impact. Mularz explained that the design as it stands allowed the windows on the second level to pick up the south sun, helping to heat the space. After discussion Lukes moved to grant a 10' frontyard setback var·iance for the airlock and a 55' frontyard setback for the garage/shop, which is not to exceed 1300 sq. ft., due to topographical hardships, and to deny the request for a height variance due to a lack of hardship. Throm second the motion. A vote was taken and all were in ravor. Joseph Zoline 86-16 900 Stage Road, requesting a 7' height variance for the construction of an agricultural building.This property consists of 180 acres and is in the AF-2 zone.Mr. Zoline was there to represent self.This building would be a horse barn with a hay loft.The mini.mum height of the prefabricated barn is 19'2", with dimensions of 30 x 70.He presented to the Board pictures from the catalog showing the barn with wood siding and a dark brown metal roof. Paul Soldner, u neighbor, was there to support the request for the barn.He encouraged that the structure be placed closer to Old Stage Road to preserve the view plain that he now has.This was not an issue for the Board, but Zoline agreed to try to work with Soldner. Shaffran moved to grant the 7'height variance due to the large size of the lot, the reasonability of an agricultural use such as a barn and the lack of visual impact.Throm second the motion. A vote was taken and all were in favor. Clyde W. Stratton 86-[7 Tract 6, Swiss Village Tracts, 0189 Ute Trail, Carbondale, requesting a 40' sideyard setback variance to construct a garage. Clyde Stratton was there to represent self.Stratton stated he reasoning for the placement of the garage was due to a transmission line which ran through his property and a garden which took up space on the other side of the principle st.ructure, There would be a workshop (for furniture making and storage) in the rear of the garage, which explains the size needed, and a root cellar.His principle building is small and Stratton felt his need for additional space and placement of his vehicles was reasonable. The zoning of the property is RS-30 and is approximately 1/2 acre. The original subdivision covenants required 10' setbacks. Lukes uncomfortable with the idea of granting a setback variance for what was essentially a commercial use of the property, since the owner planned on making furniture in the workshop. Dobrovolny questioned the hardship and if a garage could be built within the setback.Lukes felt the size was an issue since granting variances increases the impacts involved.There was discussion among the members regarding the sizes of the proposed structure and the principle building. Shaffran moved to grant the setback request as specified on the plans submitted, 40' on the sideyard and 36' on the rearvard, due to downzoning.Throm second the motion.A note was taken and three were for and two opposed.The motion did not pass. Pearson discussed the option of moving the building and various design changes.Her concern was the i.inpact on the ad,jacent property owner.She restatcrl the motion as 25' sidevard setback var·lance and a 36' rearvard setback variance due to down:zoning. shaffran second the motion.A vote was taken and three were for and two <loposed. The motion did not pass. Throm felt t.he Board was farr:ing tile twplicanL to go against the contour of the land to enter the garage, creating an additional burden on the applicant.There was more discussion regarding options in designing the structure,Pearson's motion was reconsidered.pearson once again made that motion and Shaffran second.A vote was taken and four were fors one (Lukes) opposed. Stephen Prudden 86-18 2496 River Road, Woody Creek, requesting a 30' sideyard setback variance to construct an agricultural building.Steve Prudden was there to represent self.He gave a brief history of the property.Also, he described to the Board how he had upgraded the land and was involved in agriculture, even though the property was small (1.245 acre).The proposed barn is modeled after a carriage shed.The adjacent property owners have not opposed, but have approved of the improvements that he made to the property. After discussion, the members felt the request a reasonable use creating a low impact to the area.However, there was a question of what the hardship is.Dobrovolny expressed concern with the closeness of the structure to the property line, but was in favor of the clustering of structures and the low impact of the proposed structure.He moved to grant a 29' sideyard setback variance due to limitation of use created by the existing septic field.Lukes second the motion and encouraged the maximizing of agricuLtural use of the property.A vote was taken and all were in favor. Lani White .86-19 Lot 1, Randall Park S/D, 909 Spruce Street, requesting a 13' height variance to construct a barn.Lani White was there to represent self.The property involved contains 2 acres and White desires to keep horses for pleasure and finds the need to include an area for hay storage within the barn.The size would be approximately 1500 sq.ft., allowing room for the animals to jump. She then figured the amount of hay necessary to feed the horses through the winters using that to determine the cubic feet necessary for storage.She gave a brief description of the property features and the neighboring properties. Raymond Auger and Cecil Lewitz were there as neighbors to discuss the proposed structure.White explained how the height of the barn would relate to the height of the existing principle structure, falling 8' below.They had no objections to the proposal. This property was given to the White's in a trade the County Government established with them.There would be a trail easement, as required by the County, running through the lower part of the property.At the time of the trade, she advised the County of the improvements she would be making.There was an ordinance involved with the trade, but no mention was made of the improvements except in a verbal fashion.Lukes felt the land use code intent was to keep the bulk down to lessen the impact on areas in the AF-1 zone, and the Smuggler area was a prime area to enforce this code, particularly on a 2 acre lot. Dobrovolny pointed out that, if denied, White has the right to make the proposed structure bigger, since it can't go higher, or put another structure on the property, increasing the bulk of development on the property.This proposal was a more reasonable solution for the property. Throm moved to grant. the height variance of 13' for construction of a barn/hay loft (not to exceed 25' to the peak) due to the deal made with the Whites by the County.Lukes second the motion.A vote was taken and all were in Tavor. Sharon Kahn 86-20 Tract of Land in Lot 13, Section 12, Township lOS, R85 West, South 7th Street, requesting a 10' sideyard setback and 10' rearyard setback variance to construct a retaining wall.Sharon Kahn was there to represent herself along with her architect, Art Yuenger.The retaining wall is required by conditions set forth in a 1041 review recently done on the property.At the time the of application, it was thought the wall would be 10's but now it is determined to be 6'.However, they are before the Board because it is a permanent structure, on the property line, and there is a concerned adjacent property owner there to state their opinion.John Seip,-le was there to represent Chris Tolk, questioning the interpretation of the frontyard.There was a question of the access and Peggy Seegers, Zoning Official, gave the technical definition of access. The Board was not going to question the interpretation of the frontyard by Seegers since it was not the issue before the Board, and since the wall in question was six feet, and therefore, not a structure, action was not necessary regarding the setbacks. Duane Piffer 86-21 Lots 72 & 72A, Redstone S/D, 0622 Redstone Blvd, requesting a 10' sideyard setback variance for construction of storage building/garage.Duane Piffer was there to represent himself. There presently is a shed on the property line which was at one point an outhouse.He proposes to tear this down and. build a garage.His reasons for building the structure on the property line was the placement of his driveway and he wanted to provide wood and gardening tool storage for Lot 70 and he would have gardening tool storage for his side.Throm questioned the legality of the request since it involved encroachment. The structure would be kept small.Lukes was concerned with the fire protection involved putting it on the property line and the possible misuse of the structure by the neighbors.Throm questioned Lf the garage could be moved 10'. Piffer stated that his house would be in the way and it would create difficulties with the driveway.It was determined that the property was downzoned at some point.There would be no water or electricity in the structure. Gull was willing to deal with a 5' setback variance.The Board did not approve of the storage shed being across the property line.Also there was the question of the legality of such a proposition. Throm moved to grant a 5' sideyard setback variance based on the historic application of previous building officials who granted the applicant five feet on the north side and also due to downzoning.Lukes second the motion.A vote was taken and four were for, one (Shaffran) opposed. Aspen Skiing Company 86-15 Lots 3C & 3D, Block 3, Filing 1, of Aspen Airport Business Center, 117 Atlantic Avenue, requesting a 18' height variance for the installation of a single flagpole adjacent to existing building.Bill Lukes was there to represent the Ski Company. The flag pole would be as tall as the building, approximately 29' feet high. Dobrovolny moved to grant an 18' height variance for the purpose of installing a flagpole.Throm second the motion. A vote was taken and all were in favor. Shaffran moved tio adjourn the meeting.Dobrovolny second the motion.All were in favor. Respectfully subm-it.ted, 1 - Let--1 Secretary Chairman REVISIONS f·Vel--a< €22:¥ kiNCEWe 1 -- --Ill - VELU 9 KayF NING©we r L 1 f \ JTH Xl,15/*rION 4 . E-ze - -EZE* rJ -Ii./w-----------*-,------I - - „-22- 1-:F:- BUTT ..4:41.A* «ah --_.*GN*54 -- ,AJ-1 1 / 1---- _----- -_-----*--- _--)-<---- --- _---- €EC,le 332&£ 3 --L_-------... --_-_........_ ----*----__---- -*........-4 ............... '-- --•• -- --I-- - ,P IR-, . - .- 1, ./.lili 0:1:1111'1: 1 'fl ,li !1 '1 [ i 1 \91 1 1 0 1- C-£*0441*L l..ikr' dit;libl419¢ASH *1\1 en /- to -----3 -4 - F 1 -- - - - -i-- -- 1 0 -11 1 9 i I 'L j ; - 1 /1./. I 11 11.. 111 11 1 1. 1 1// . 0 & f fil 1 0 I / 1 j' I h 1 1/:i :%, »OfoI-4%%1 1 Af«%0><, h'Wrda,AL INAL.-l- Ly" ·1 : 1 4.0/ 1 , , 1 :1 4 .apr ilb! , IhFICT ft Vi,EVATION ,. 1--- -----4 7 p-1 11 / Ill 1 4\ 4 I ============ 11 p- 1 1- -711 1 1 1 1 44/-Trr . -+ L-1 L ·I ..4 --1 1 4 I I_ - _ 44 / 1.1 0 r- ---.31€j» t- 1 -r- 11 1 1 1 -1---4& 4 |4*1®< le« bqI¢lt::wAI* -4---»| f 11 i -1-- -- 4 -1---4 -1-· --· 4 -1- - 1 ' H -Fl=,le·$2»thl 1- . 1 '- _ -__fix-MART -_1 J/?t 831,6»0./6 Fize?E_._- -, ,_-[_ tot F L.4221<-" 1 ./ 9:. 1 4 ' It KAL-L 1 1 0 \ 1- ./.i-"All-- 5464 ELAA-Flai | laid'A+VH kjALL- - -42\ *<UEA-· 14146•PEL (2 24 -2--::---.- __ ___ 101)1Lta f 16141- *CON 7 FL. 09% FLAN -, 1/411 211-011 4--.LZ,[114><7-(29'H mAK,5,45 1225;es/j£/1 \ :===============m=======:=== 1 --------_leal 1,# . 60-+De€:06 #41/La,4 i{ FLAN Ngll-I Ite. 01<67 16001€ MLAN ' 602 ·542, FT 7411 - i Loll 679 «2 m DRAWN MI ULAIKZ CHECKED OATE M#uL F Ele D 2%(* u€>T \':76*:p 1,]Al,-1, 941= 1 9/1 SCALE JOB NO. /447-1,/1/-- SHEET P 1.2 OF SHEETS . 1 i 2 kZ 111 *1 11 11 9 0 . CO 20 00 r-i- 786 - rOUND MONOMENT5 X.5 5440%4·j /*SUME ELEV>ATICN EQO/43, loG.CO AT MAIN LEVEL HOUDE /6 SHOWN. i 1741(51.- tr MKENZIE. MEKEBY CE.KTIrr Tft€r TT-11'5 E·'bAF ACCUIKATELY NE.rICTO A et/IKVET' FER-FORMED ONDEK Mr >PrEI<VIOLON ON JULT' 21, 786 OF L-(77- 2-4 , 2561-.K. 2. )*KLEM C-REErt VILLABE €UNDIV(5(ON, r-(Likle NUMSER 2, 1211)«4 -4 - 7YF )42 4 FM: [394[EL FI MENENZ IE L.9 201#51 6 73° 5408" W < FDONP REBAR 4 CAP, 1- 6.2576 »0F<314 !,1100, MaC)FEEMEP »PLPI<167'KE>, 91*TIK[44 2110 01454¢:ble 4 1.00r aft*F* fERPTAAE X13>WD TO TOFE=¢REAA'14' MAF B 1:L,M,J[-AK.Z *RELI- -AD-7-d:,Sl·r LIC>. 15>->41 -e AN:4(>€ 1169 41%-r KIUME>@12<· 63«KI{rf »*4 5/ht?1<Kettor ' IE512.et C€EEK VIL.LAHE P 1.1 ., 1 Alpine Surveys, Inc.Surveyed 7 26.29 ©9 0 K Revisions Title -TDFOGfUr« 0,Ar Job No 86 -1 3 r r le'*E' I. r·C f.ver,! '1147 1, ya€tior Daen,rrin,u,yri•·fi·,1 prt..-,ive.Drafted 6 4 66 OK 34-/*Client CROWLE,4' LOT 24. BLK. 2 Aspen, Colorado 81612 13. C. M FILING, AP. 2 ,„cominenced mor •· 'ran 'pr, 5 91/8 IrrifT) hp lai i i,1 1 .i , •'0,1 14/1.rgi .h, 1. m Post Office Box 1730".Pie,in 3039252688. 7/T<IN CO-+47-<r . =- - -I - -L J 11' 015" E 30 'fl -7 T 1 4 LOT 24. ELI<. 2 .8.9 2 1 3 ALKE:5 1 13q0('1'21, 690 &tq'FT, £00 80 i \ j ·5€FTLE \. , TAWK D >1 01 0 4· U V F W 1:Z / 11 40 rE,G-@71 4.1 1 030 1 €\rAb u*GE*%0Gc ego< 7 1 l/ l lili N 110 0 lO 2.0 \60 12.0 10 ¢CAL_E ' j" . 20 ' 301 30' IDAOM Of- tbEAR.li DATUM FLAME DURVEl'0!Kb C 3 .Ul FITKIN COUNT-I COLOMA ./17 40 ALF(NE JURVE « INS. Al©057 4, 11©50 1(71.85' 1. 0 imveet>%#82+42%-*9-1-I E>030 Ajol fl,¢N- _.f·2-2.-2. 140« ELE« i Ob.4*·>Al.., 411 * 2-£' _. . -1 C 2 1-----t - - u r.1//// 1 -19<011Nld:i 091EK 1 4»e:*er , 11-1.---- - -- / DRAWN [ M U L»lez.37- 9-9 CHECKED «Lapte- m..AN- 0<lerIN-4 Hol»E/REEN 9%0-0 83U1,E ft»4 142«8 -DATE 44-11==luc:,11 600 €91 el . e> At*JeT FIA' K-4 ¤11 ..-.- - JOB NO. 6203, 6* SHEET 94-/f | | P 1.3 1 OF SHEETS DRAPHIX INC 10 .. REVISIONS BY 1 15 28 _3 7 tr