Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOA:86-26_Aspen Skiing Co_37800 Hwy 82Cover Sheet Case #: Applicant Name: Address: Parcel #: Case Name: Evan Gull moved that the following be adopted: BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO.86-26 Aspen Skiing Company, Buttermilk Mtn Ski Area 21588 W. Highway 82, Aspen WHEREAS, the subject property is within the unincorporated area of Pitkin County, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment is vested with the power to grant or deny such variances by virtue of Title II, Section 16-1.3, Pitkin County code (Land Use Code) and Colorado Revised Statutes, 1973, 30-28-118(2) (C); and, WHEREAS, based on the evidence presented, the Board of Adjustment makes the following findings: 1. Proper notice procedures, including the notification of all adjoining property owners, has been shown by the applicant. 2. The required hardship or practical difficulty has been established. 3. Granting such relief will not cause substan- tial detriment to the public welfare and will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Zoning Resolutions and the zoning maps. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the applicant's request for a Sign Additional conditions or restrictions:See attached minutes for lists of restrictions. WARNING:Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. Bob Throm second the adoption of the foregoing Resolution.The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: Evan Gull - yes Bob Throm - yes Peter Dobrovolny - yes Melinda Pearson - yes Spero Niarhos - no The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED:November 18, 1986 The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado Attest: Secretary Chairman 1 /,/1 0 'ri„ 1LOU L ••j A 1 .. ./1/ BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT .. DATE October 31, 1986 19 CASE# . 111. il c - cvt ach Jons Milnor .12, AC.ADDRESS Box 1248 AspenAPPLICANT1.+ OWNER Aspen Skiing CompanY ADDRESS Box 1248 Aspen LOCATION OF PROPERTY 21588 West Highway 87 Aspen Colorado Any pertinent data must adcompany this application, and will be made par this Case No. The Board may return this· application if it does not contain' all the fac in question.Applicant's description of proposed variance showing Justification: For a description of the proposed variance please see the attached materials. We are asking for a variance because we strongly feel that a sign that meets code poses a hardship in that skiers planning to ski at Buttermilk will not be able to see the turn, signal and turn all withiIl safe anticipation and braking distance. We are replacing an existing sign with one of similar size. We understand that internal lighting is not permitted and are willing to eliminate that. Applicant Signature Ve/2/ / Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building Inspector to forward this application to the Board of Adjustment and reason for not granting a buiding permit: 5-€-6-2 0 JAJ 5- soo.0. 0.) 01(ou) s U i)-* *ir·.. Ator. 52<12(- CA WA Ck #Ck 7·..1 YYK U VK O 3 #=.i w 4-·Extjkt...T Ki, 4901,2(142 it. 0.,s\2 Wt 54-0.£ Q. .3·el UQQ-t. L)(1%-uqwle-£O->,0 A Q S.j-Zi La.·iu.-G./.A + cx \64** l.)Cuu.Litu-1-0-1 al ·525* REECL .JA,4 2-toll'Etrtj:1,Fih Ait@_L . T ot «\ 32 9-xe.kuu- cLR,ouk,cl klesbor 79,9 el) B aff,467.,tvBuilaing· Inspecto*-7.(Lit?cxt tiobTO-Ul \Kiwjkt SU.fu·e<ja.A .t:* t'O -D yu 1 I Date Permit rejected:Board decision Application filed Date Mailed Secretary Board of Adjustment a),an·n,),1U,/ u U %, u . 0 €01 f<j #61 j 16 -9<% ful{1: 11 de.1 2-31 -n-Je 1 F i 3 0 0 10 A 3 G y 2 4, 0 Q € 0 4 0 J 8 - 31 -1 d I. if ta-JLI-2 2. ta J n -1131 + P e1 - 3 Ii€ 1 id 1 M 6 1111 43 . Co 4110 .f Ja 3 3 & iiMf'1 0 A.3 13.34 34J pavo 4 V FI Louuu J TFAAa.4-k- 4 Ob/VCuL Yn,h-*.601 <40 \ LO'kl-W-h -b/ud Lu c.=h a...» -\Un* Co. 'balu-, L..._ 1 -IL L lote,D m 0,11 Mt 899 Sic.ekL 15\08 U A-A9\024·k\=»a.,L, IL. 60(06 1. . C.,rnd., 1 #2)\A A 3 4 4 T 2 4 .1 3 D 0 3 0 b -5 j 1 E-»4-kGA. u QUA- -12-CZA.4 2512>-59 :=Lot'-s U=".%24 uxnea b-.\6 -4. e 0-->1.0 6.4 glot 83 LDA.& S tfz 4 31-5.91 i #tl 36 1- 3 -1 t Ze - - 43 1 0 3456 jfi j P 3 0 C, M OneilJi, U U %1 I CX.»\ 0.1.-6 7/Ace,uwa C.Lu- XY-\,ant.te*c- 0-Lobb-An C...o'2*-2>a LOCKE>6 6 a.5-- AU J FLhane-Q RE:Al» 6.0 CU, »A -ru e.-po / 8 r«\ Ant z,G-4 654 3 2 /2- \ 00 L. kic..1.D Ck,w-Abfan CO 5\Upli Jon 9 4 Pokwaill=k rn Uad ruk.1--Rnapett \nc»-Bon-*-4 6-obL -ILL U 0067_ + \3 P U \9--e-- . 9.1=4*64 t N- I 0i-1 6 4 4 0 D A G 'U,-"u.,t u-- 1 C.-or ·cuu:zi- 4 ASPEN SKIING CO/ANY 2 SIGN MANUAL V·> . - 4.f -- -····A - Prepared by Gardner Signs, Inc. -1/ 1 1 1 -L hi 1 Ci 2 3 < 4 -* ffe 12 5,2 . ter,u :0 Se-' 23E : 1 81 3 2 :96 1 2 1 4 9» 2 '11 g.' C ,h 34:5 d r- k= 9.333 3 i -43 01, e. u N I f - 11 2 4<2 6 HM '4 k 02Nt1 - g 29 4 #St 'kl 1 I. \6 I / 1 1 1, 1, 4 /1 - tcp (110)Aft"aflrUt J i., 1-9 1,7 J ANCyLE 1/10/V F /9*A r 84 OEEP ¥7/ 9/9"* I'4" nissrK·VOLE #CLE Ah (54.3,/7 AG Mt i M /J . 9.* 0 ASPEN/PITKIN REGIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT 506 E. MAIN ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-5973 00136 -61210 BLDG. PERMIT -61212 PLBG. PERMIT -61215 ELECT. PERMIT - 61214 MECH. PERMIT -63311 BLDG, P.ERMIT REVIEW -61220 REINSPECTION - 63004 CODE BOOKS -63313 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - 61002 CONTRACTORS LICENSE -61120 MOBILE HOME -63316 PLAN CHECK NAME: ; · 1 - PERMIT: 7.-·--CHECK# PROJECT: 1 '· · 'C. - DATE:-2·-· INITIAL: An,1.n,U,U '. 2 l , U J t.1 2 1 5 S S LL) · 1-4-: -1 27-2 Lu c.-ah<x-ur Ric=* Co7 · 899 Suxul 15/ud U 61* 0024-k\-coL, -Il_ Lebul Cuvd--0 / Bid &* A FOi<940-0 4. T,NO, Co . Rouhkk yILL. Uoti.1 O *U \ ib 'tja A -belk. PAoe 5=15• 0?31..0- S.uu L.3 6»--.D·\£.cn. -ILL, Goof b UrU 4 fb\4 « CE>tmig F. 'AC6644,9 4 Ca. JIL 44 WY·•4046uA1 1...6-u D...ga·k /,1.14 -ILL &6093 or,a 3 1, 4 (3'tae>c:U) C»LA lo Tod --t::>**4-6+o ' 6631 C.c„-0 41 L 4-228-, 1 -1-7 75 -2.-LS i \ bj«Aa 6 --6 - 2,63 (-311 0.1<bea D-- \1 0.4. e 0-Jw --3/---d 463 8'5 LDA.& 6 'iAte.222 Ckle·noy Y·q,Af £401 40 1 L.3/'«4 --bud 'baloi L..._ , -IL l. 6 cc> S CU,1 '=* \JOrn k 0,67)·Jn rn,r#hu™ 2.Ly 3£41 2 4.4 As a L#.3 -,fi a*\00.0 , 11 u U 026 1 LD,«1 9 1/A. A- CAL.l LAD <Al,kpMil 45»1* \Cial \LUC> S • ANUAe-, CA%0.0 tr tlm,a -0.- ta 2/720 23 56<11, Ch, Fuu.00.-1£---- Ck,LU-5 0 -ILL. 6 06 0-1-trio Sa,» f<od e. Pc.4824 iu _- Co lest f hal bjl... -21 «ca-4-k 9-11# - 2,1-kku,LU-1- V/QU.KA.5 \339 Al. A'le#-,C.- -keuu-Al co, 2*.30 LOCD€b dCJ--L. RhL,-a 4-nnvucupo /th rn/nathe,4 63428 Jon 9 1, In.,u culk r» Uad,«CA TNt*LaoLpe·At. AY'.., \Locu 6,09_ -ILL U 0061 4*= CS,Le. rEW- 4 ™\4>1 73AF-4-\Diou, 49-1 €\-64-C- lat 92) cu\\.0.-1 I -1-7 -:RS:DOZE> *\LA &tA=- I *4<6 e . '32. 41 V\Qlin'; A -TA-3 1.-2-10 ¢DU.k·,6 \-0.- E. 0-1 =Wan- i TY,lon %=3644. S:333/ S X\»42_0 A \4 AQ-,\ta_ 256-1-1 trAd l»(2. h'946 C.Gob»"cal 04 4:3 14 5 * \U c.!rudci 54-C e\-4-.U, €ADS#.40- A=soc / 9,O. 76(1 S-*L 6 A.g,vv„Uot u- , C.Or,r, 0Clu,F;36 czx»/ CAAU- -2.-Acc,a C.Lu-- i\0 7642 VE,An» 5-9-0 JU \00 L Wkiu am- IA=:le A C-0 S\Lo\) 704 EE rhoe.,1- ,- 60 --- G+-1- t, 710<- 1 Ac.11 46 91 0*512.$ 79cvw. k 4uu• Cm 1731=- 7,<.#kid- 0.._: '-bua b==L C.1..7 .54 1+11 li· - - UAl L- LO 12 10- ./Vbt C _£1-2-c: C hus> ED #v 9-3 0 0 CO 29 U \'A<71.00 9 17 PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to Pitkin County Zoning Resolution of June 5, 1955, as amended, a Public Hearing will be held in the County Commissioners Room, Pilkin County Court Houses Aspen, Colorado, (or at such other place as the meeting may then be adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the County Zoning Resolution. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests, or objections.If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. DATE AND TIME OF MEETING:November 18, 1986, at 5:15 p.m. Aspen Skiing Company, 21588 W. Highway 82, Aspen, requesting a sign variance for Buttermilk Ski Mountain. Dan & Rose Shank, 332 Horseshoe Drive, Emma, Colorado, requesting a 50' frontyard setback variance for addition to residence. b BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PITKIN COUNTY SPECIAL MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 1986 Members Present:Evan Gull, Chairman Bob Throm Alternates:Melinda Pearson Bob Miller Spero Niarhos Peter Dobrovolny Peggy Seeger, Zoning Official, and Francis Krizmanich from the Planning Office were there with staff recommendations. Gull called the meeting to order.There were no minutes to review at this time. Aspen Skiing Company 86-26 21588 W. Highway 82, Aspen, requesting a sign variance for Buttermilk Ski Mountain.John Hansen, with the Aspen Skiing Company, was there as the representative.Presently a sign exists at the entrance which is 36.8 sq.ft. with brown and white coloring. During the approval by BOCC of the Master Plan, it was agreed that Aspen Ski Corp would be allowed a sign.After submitting the sign drawing and application, it was determined by planning, due to the size of the proposed sign, that the Board of Adjustment should act on the submission.Throm went on the record requesting that the BOCC approve a sign code for submissions having a set standard so that reviews and yearly reviews by the Board would not be necessary.However, in this case, the size is way over the allowed amount, which would require the Board's review.Throm felt that the BOCC should have reviewed the sign request at the time of approval of Master Plan. Hansen stated the sign would be placed on the side of the mountain, towards the road.The colors are basically charcoal with white letters, with the Aspen Ski Co. logo on top in red/blue/green colors.The letters would be internally illuminated.There would be a light grey border around the sign and the logo, using the same colors as the new signs on Aspen Mountain. The sign area, the lettering, the structural height, and the lighting does not conform to the sign ordinance.Gull felt that there was significant justification to have a larger than normal sign on this site, due to the fact that it is not a normal commercial site.Dobrovolny felt that size of sign could be advantageous as safety features, however not absolutely necessary.Niarhos suggested that signs could be placed along the highway that indicated a ski area was pending if traffic safety was the issue.The members discussed the distance usually involved when reacting to directional signage.He felt Aign as proposed was too large. Pearson questioned if this was a variance request for the illumination of the sign.Hansen could do exterior lighting, which would comply with the code.The design, however, was for internal illumination for several reasons:felt more with the intent of code since it created less accessory items next to the sign, and the internal lighting would be more subtle.Niarhos did not feel internal illumination was necessary.The sign would be placed at the foot of a berm requested by BOCC during their review.Throm suggested a mock sign to help determine the actual impact of the size of the sign along Highway 82. Krizmanich gave a brief description of the BOCC review and their support of the berm and sign, however, specifics were not discussed. The proposed sign is considered nice but does not meet the size standards.He did not feel there was a hardship situation, and felt if safety was the issue, they should discuss with the Highway Department and possibly use their "ski area" signs.He expressed concerned with what happens to the scenic view along the corridor and how people along the valley would feel about such an oversized sign.Due to those reasons, the Planning Office could not support the proposed sign. Throm suggested that they allow the sign internal illumination for reasons of logic and better appearances.Then after reviewing a mock up of the sign, they could decide on sizes. Hardship, Throm felt, was not absolutely necessary if there was justification, and the justification was that the sign made good logical sense.Seeger felt the Board should not make a decision granting a variance without a hardship specified and requested a postponement until such time the County Attorney could attend to make a ruling on the legality of such a decision.Pearson was uncomfortable making a decision without a hardship, and opposed the illumination and size of the proposed slgn.Dobrovolny also agreed that, in the past decisions, had been made without hardship, but with discomfort on the Board's part. Fred Smith, with the Ski Corps suggested they could put the illumination internally and if Pitkin County did not like the effects they could disconnect it-There was some discomfort on the Board's part with that suggestion. There was a discussion as to the issues that needed to be handled in the review process of this sign request.Se,·ger requested again that the application be tabled until the County Attorney could be present to advise the Board on the matter.Gull felt the variance was within the jurisdiction of the Board and that the Board had the right to determine the hardship and grant the variance if they chose to do so. The Board determined that the lettering size was not a problem, however the sign area needed modification.There was discussion whether an additional problem existed since the structure" supporting the sign was within the required setback.Fred Smith felt that the special zone of AF-SKI took care of that problem. A discussion was held on how to compromise and bring the size to some conformance.The Ski Corp agreed to conform to the height requirements.Gull moved to approve a sign with the following conditions: -lettered Buttermilk portion of the sign conform to the proposal presented with the exception that they remove the words "Division of Aspen Skiing Company"... -a logo be allowed of 2 feet squared on each side to be attached ... -any portion of the signage to conform to the 8' height limit and any portion of the supporting structure conform to the 6' height limit... -not to be internally illuminated, but to be externally illuminated... -height limit on "Buttermilk" lettering to conform ... -existing sign to be removed. This allows the sign to be 22 1/2' x 12.2', approximately 20' on each side.· Throm second the motion.He suggested an amendment stating the reason on the Buttermilk portion of the sign, excluding the "Division of Aspen Skiing Company" was for the benefit of the public and safety on Highway 82 and nonconformity was being reduced by removal of existing sign.The motion and all amendments were accepted.A vote was taken and four were in favors one against (Spero Niarhos).The motion passed. Dan & Rose Shank 86-27 332 Horseshoe Drive, Emma, Colorado, requesting a 50' frontvard setback variance for addition to residence.Dobrovolny was there to represent the owners.He explained that the addition was approximately 660 sq.ft. on the west side of structure.The noncon formity that currently exists with not be increased in terms of infringement in the setback. .. When the house was originally built the setbacks were not existing.There is no FAR requirements in the AF-1 zone.Throm moved to grant the variance request due to downzoning.Niarhos second the motion.A vote was taken and all were in favor. The meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, 24 Secretary 7 MTIN® Chairman 9165 ASPEN/PITKIN REGIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT 506 E. MAIN ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-5973 00136 -61210 BLDG. PERMIT -61212 PLBG. PERMIT -61215 ELECT. PERMIT -61214 MECH. PERMIT -63311 BLDG. PERMIT REVIEW - 61220 REINSPECTION - 63004 CODE BOOKS -63313 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT -61002 CONTRACTORS LICENSE -61120 MOBILE HOME -63316 PLAN CHECK NAME: \A b'-3 9 .. r-,2.1- .,r-w <0 PERMIT:. 94.r- AL CHECK# 49931 PROJECT: DATE: \\ ' \-03 ·2&·INITIAL: (f= Maintenance Building l / iCI - I /7.4 J. A612'EN 71245*5 1-«195 10%0, 9»11201305 Flcoms£43> te:KMI G - D' HILAH MI 1 1 + , / 1 ---dIA 1-6 i 0 /. 1 011/r..Agilizi09Ii -if/LJ'/BJ:*m:··*ifiON:i ( flANT I«TENIAI-0 4 13128'VI€:2i£4€BE#'4 H Al %97. »12EA 4 Jn / MANE£\94*62 ...:....:.:.:424*ir \'PPOPAED ISSm··16 6-4' WIGH4.4.* 9 *%99. .·<:%. ..%..+:. f. 7 + 1 92·.13(€€·A<>144·-:%4*'*%3433W*;i·*'€1 L.+205 0861122>06 tHSUE»/639*9--n\\9/IAL.A. -Tl€65. /lai*ya····i ·,·1/ \ /\ PJ' . 1L-tk 0 , app *SAbot *Hlowo»-r AMI 10 •SK-1 , Office ,C) H ' -1 09&*A-7-i»le EQUIi°HIENT *Ae#,1961 \ 1 f 2 7 \.1 46 6 \\Ski Rental-0*0=0-i -7 1 04 *HALL--COTTON«20017 6*OVE,4 1 --rt 7 school ii 1 .' - .1 P HEA« CoN Il=Emoue FLAktrl IN<31 - -125 4:061£55,19 4:12.1 *A-\Col-· - 0. 00 P'BOM[ 12:06 -DI+1»OUHIP Ah. - / \ E- . 10. \11 -EL)€. -r012:H --...'. h©39<3 - - \11 111 23 -41-- -A-0--1 - -7- L1 1- --1 i -1 - The Inn at Aspen - I - - -ur 2 b---il-----P - -25 1 +Ggill ./-L -**+ / -. 1 19<107'11·4 0 0#615 THE- INH Ar PerE+4 3- - -- 1 7-- •• .. 1 - 11 11 FOM- 54-5 4,6424AWAIL»13.1-6, ·N<KIH:,1 17; 1 L»42.66.1956.112.ks/Lhe' th-Ilf/,2//1 0*- eNIA'-1- -r-*se,1 .00-T-rOHWCD© 6,eVE- ove*H leHIT 1900.4 PA+A H 64 . 99-0'PO"80 218*M »-U H\6&4 4 , 4261€.Shle 1942*INA .Pi=-091 x: i:·:2%>t.f::1 C.:E:i:.El ..Le 14·w/« 62-0 200' Setback I -----Ill-----I--Il.-...Ill :"i t 4\ tIFSH T,HEE"r--%109.1 f 7%3 1 - t. 1 ) /1..._ : O%*1- 10321 .7----------------== -- 112.121'-Acc-essor L Us-eSetback - buttermilk proposed parking lot and screening Scale: 1"-50'0"4 /91/exp Revised: 6/9/86 North Views From Highway 82 %--I - . -0**'-..+-*."- J 4-- ----Highway 82 +NPE,H \ 1 \ 01*4HP·65, THIS i KIM Ar Att=Sht h ¢%11:5nHA-*--- --li ---7 6,41%¥150% Ell-F12>f 1*1<-1 H 61 E,INTTE --0 1 i *79 1,1644 -r - --. - --/7 9€417 ,e 1.44"f 84 e .0 ,