HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.83.11
e
e
Dottie Fox'
moved that the fOllowing be adopted:
BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSnffiNT
OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN
STATE OF COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO.
83-11
Stanley Lauriski, 805 Smuggler Mtn Rd.
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 maps.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the applicant's request for a
0' lot line rearyard setback variance to put a fence up.
Additional conditions or restrictions:
WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing
and possible revocation.
Paul Krausch seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The roll
having been called, the vote was as follows:
Bill Mason - yes
Dottie Fox - yes
Paul Krausch - yes
Bill Lukes - yes
Bob Throm - yes
The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County
of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
DATED:
May 31, 1983
The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin
County, Colorado
i ~1'
, A c('VI. C' c.A m...f2A-
Secre ary
.~;/~d~
Chairman
(~ . ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~: 1
Attest:
l:iVA.tW Vi" AVJ U0'l'~N'l'
e
County of Pitkin
e
Da te \.:.A ~ '-
19~
Case #
( I
,<-~3 - .
Applicant ~ ~ L.~e.\~\
Owner
Sb..~€ .
Address ~)( ~- Ris.. Sl\A\)("i(Lt::P ifn11.le_t
Address
Location of Property -:::;-~?
(Attached)
Any pertinent d~ta 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:
r-Ou~ \\2h\Ll:::::\<.S W~ \---\avcl~ U~x.~ -----C-O ~\...\ ~~\L\
O~ 'N\ U. c~'C~ S \ De:. TT \ S ~ ~\C:: ~---Cj\2.J.:::; '-ro \J\.l.{
?\2Q)V82-~L.{ !)'?LDS VE32-'--\ ~~\-~y s WCDLD ~l: G12_ UCJ\ \ 0
LOQ\( ~T It ~LL. (?L1JS (\--i~=-- e:e:c-u S~G:.\::::~\C\~'lT~\
---\~~ -\~C~~~C p~~\.C PUl \jP A.... \~\(3~ 1=E:.\JCl \U\-\-l~
-r=0\\J\CG') ..--\U\"=.:> \ S ~ ~l:=9\Ub s cC)kG lDlU~P-D~~
'--;\\ c-
\ \-"r -'::>,.
Applicant Si
Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building Inspec or to forwarc
this application to the Board of Adjustment and reason for not granting a
building p. ermit: - /',..1- -/ /. d,- ~ h J //JL.~/-
-f ~ ' I ~r~..-r7~ .~~..AU- ~ L/r--v
. ~71 ~ r;;;J ~~ ;!k k~~S-~ .
~ . Building Insp. Signatur~~~
Date permit rejected: Board decision
~
Application filed:
Mailed:
Date:
Secretary, Board of Adjustment
(" f '1''''' ,I'" f~?
"-_I ,;.,,; '".." '". .....
-=n; /~'f8 I,
u---u u L~=:!).
-+-
cr
r-.1
V'
('J
6'
?
~ 3
~ (~
cJ .-- 6
~g~
g-I"Tlrl
.4 )I .~ :9
\v Q (;J -
-1 ,1) 11 OJ
-3
~
~ 0
':1
'J .v
......
''f 4 ~ 8
- 0
vi 0 ~ 0 tD
..... 0 J,.. 0 ~
.rJ, 0 Q, ~ R D ~
B 4- -
~ .~ ); ~ Irt ~
Cj 9 9 ~
.Jj 9 L..L 9 oJ
. 8~ e1 'E
-l ':J 0
cl - ~ ~ J ~ .9 3 :1'f~
,
i'l - I- v rl - ~~irJ
j) m - -- 8? N :2 0
d ~ -~N ~<tif)
:1 ;< D- =9 ~ -- j x :9 'J x ::9
d ~ ~ ~ (D o v1 ~ 02YJ& .,- x Q ~
-- &1 cD4d.) :J S v1 - ::2 gJ:J
<' (!J i\ 4. cO
~ il~OdJ
. . ,
--- N c-() . . (~~ ~ .~::~: '~ : J
'~ 10
A\n II r !;..l
.. '-~.... /...........".-. ~
,t ';~....'
~ '.,e
?.....;.o Y, \D~/-\
1:.'0.. ~J'~_) , <_(~~) \:.:> !-::/:1
:~~Io\\
""') \/ r'o. 'cE:R--r
-....,... 'C..-LJ
l V,J ,')II'"
-- .
r..,. r,y
....." - . , ",
\ (:.:x")
t:~.::=:SB~ . '2-D C_;~-"" J.:....... l., ,~')
~
('~\I 1-'
, ",I\O',~_
:;.) ,= I \"~ '-:'-',):/ \4_\ 1:~-~ '_~~
-" C l._ '...J,.:.~. __ ,J .
-'. ,0\'
\:: C:) )<. \ .L. ~
)' ,'~'")
. ~".rt.. '~'."_
f.,...' . -'".L I
"....-.,-~ -.-
c- a LO :(:J::-. \.) D
8 \ \::;,\ .~~
d.
~=:".A 0(:1.(~:t
\., , JI\J;,.) \YT~,_\ i~.) 'Y I- ~.< ~:_
'- .
'e..O X be) \w
k.<S Pt3J I '-.J.:'J LO \~2~ L. U (J
b\ telL
k \.:S-\~"'::) \,) 'J. 'C' Y\(-,(.:.y:::
\~-()>'- 404-
OLl '.:: \,_X'y ':' 'j \V\ l~':-~'-:' ,.n..r.y<,;....:'--.,::)
olbS4
!~
Co. l.J.e!.::...Tw~ ~t":"\'\'\~!\:::E:l_L_
'tli::; '<. 1 (') '.~~ '.
L-\--i.:::.J) J c:. 0'-0 (<:'-J...:.o
B t Ior'L
'"'\ 2:C-... - e~ -\,...
.
e
e
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
c. r HllECKfl B. B. a L. co.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Ma y 3 1, 1 9 8 3
Members Present:
Bill Mason, Chairman
Paul Krausch
Dottie Fox
Bill Lukes
Alternates:
Kandi Shaffran
Bob Throm
Bill Mason, Chairman, called the meeting to order. He questioned if
there were any comments about the minutes from the last meeting.
Krausch moved to accept the minutes as read. Shaffran second the motion.
All approved.
83-10, Bonnie Cockwell, adjacent and south of the entrance of Difficult
Campground
requesting a 15' sideyard and rearyard setback variance for construction
of a single family residence. Bill Poss was there to represent the
owner. The request was based on the nature of the layout of the lot
and the topographic hardship. Poss used a map showing the nature of
the required setback giving a footprint of the allowable area to build.
He pointed out the road which is the forest service road to the
campground. He explained that a variance had been previously received
on the front yard setback of 25' because of where the road is located.
Poss stated that the owner wanted to move the house even further away
from that road. Mason questioned where the beaver ponds'were located.
Poss explained that they were further down the lot. Poss pointed out
the existing gate and the parking area for winter use. Krausch questioned
if the owner was going to continue to allow the winter parking, which
was on her property. Poss felt she would. Mason pointed out that did
not concern the Board. The applicant's driveway would come off the forest
service access road because the topography was too steep at the parking
area.
Krausch stated that he was bothered with the parking area during the
winter months. He wondered if there was anyway they could pursuade the
forest service to provide parking off the highway. Greg Thompson
from the Forest Service was there and he explained that the forest
service would work with the Board, but the great majority of the property
was within the Highway Department's jurisdiction. He explained that
discussions had been held with the previous owner about replacing the
existing access road with one straighter. The new road would eliminate
some of the winter parking. The curve would also be eliminated. But
he reiterated that a majority of the road is on private land the
Forest Service has little to say about it. Mason recommended that Mr.
Thompson and Mr. Poss work together to satisfy this issue.
Lukes pointed out that a sideyard variance has been requested, but the
drawings do not show a need for such. Poss explained that was for
future expansion. Mason recommended to the Board that action be taken
for what is shown, which is the rearyard setback variance. Krausch
questioned if a hardship would be imposed on the owner not to know in
advance if such a variance would be allowed. Poss stated it would.
Krausch questioned if the building could be moved over. Poss stated that
the house might have to be moved due to the topography. Mason pointed
out it was an irregular shape lot. He told the Board it was their
decision regarding the sideyard request. Throm pointed out that the
. ,
e
e
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
'RM '0 c. F HOECKEL 8. B. "" L. CO.
Page 2
Board of Adjustment
May 31, 1983
hardship would be the same for future variance requests. Lukes
was uncomfortable with granting a variance for unpresented designs.
Krausch suggested that something could be mentioned in the motion.
Krausch moved to grant the variance for the 15' sideyard and
rearyard setback variances based on topographical hardship and
lot configuration. Throm second the motion. Vote was called for
and all in favor.
83-11 Stanley Lauriski, 805 Smuggler Mtn Rd.
requesting a 0' lot line rearyard setback variance to put a fence up
between his home and Smuggler Trailer Park. Stan Lauriski was there
to represent himself. Lauriski pointed out where he wanted to place the
fence and pointed out a portion of the property on the
southernly side that is under a dispute, and explained that when that
is settled he would continue the fence along the property line to
Gibson Ave. He verified that he was part of the dispute. He presented
photos to the Board members to help describe how it would look.
Michael Garrish was there as a neighbor to express his opinion and
he had no objections, encouraging the Board to grant the variance.
Mason gave the Board some background material on the development of
the trailer park. Brook Peterson was there for another applicant, but
as a representative of Smuggler he pointed out that there wasn't a
problem, but as Lauriski had stated, there was a portion under dispute
and he wanted to encourage the Board to encourage Lauriski to work with
the mobile home park. Peterson also stated that the mobile homes had
been put up against Lauriski's property line to create open space within
the park. Fox motioned to grant the variance due to the change of
zoning by the City. Krausch second the motion. Vote was called for and
all were in favor.
83-12 Cozy Point Ranch - 17600 Highway 82, Aspen
requesting a 9' height variance for construction of a riding arena.
Brook Peterson was there to represent the owner. He explained that
the owner wanted to build an indoor riding arena. He presented to
the Board a five-year plan for the lay-out of the ranch, focusing
on the arena. Dick Bobbit, manager of the ranch, was there also.
Peterson stated that the height was needed for clear span to jump
horses and also to accomodate the Building Code requirements for
snow load. Peterson stated that due to redesigning, only 7' height
variance would be necessary. Fox wanted to know how high the present
red barn was on the property. Bobbit stated that that was built 23
years ago and higher than the proposed riding arena. He pointed out
that the arena was being built on a low spot of the property.
Mr. Martin, a neighbor, was there to see what the ultimate plan
was of the riding arena. Fox questioned if this would be a commercial
operation. Bobbit stated that they would board horses and the boarders
would use the arena for riding. It would also be for the ranch's
use. Herb Klein, representing the Elay Corp., questioned if it had
been through the Commercial Growth Management Plan since it is a
commercial structure. Bill Drueding, from the Building Department,
stated that would be dealt with before thepermit was issued. Klein
stated that the Elay Corp. was concerned about the visual impact created
by the arena. He pointed out the property owned by his client that
would later be developed as residential lots. Peterson explained the
reasons for siting the arena, pointing out the lay of the land, where
the irrigated pasture land was and potential recreation area for softball.
Also they needed to place the arena in an area close enough to the
other buildings for security reasons.
..
e
e
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
lRM ~D C. t. HOECKEL B. B. a L. co.
Page 3
Board of Adjustment
May 31, 1983
Klein stated that the visual impact is the main concern of the Elay
Corporation. He pointed out areas that the arena could be moved to.
He claimed that if the arena was moved, it would not be in anyone's
line of vision.
The subject of the arena being a commerical building was brought
up again and Mason stated that the only area that the Board ~ould
act upon was the height variance. Fox was concerned about following
the proper sequence in getting all the necessary items taken care of
for the construction of this arena. Peterson felt there was a
dispute as to whether it needed to go through any other steps. Lukes
wanted to know if there were any setback problems. Peterson agreed
that the plan didn't show the exact footage from the property line,
but felt that would be confirmed at the time the permit was issued.
Mason stated that through the action of P & Z along with the Board,
accessory uses, such as hay barns, were excluded from the height
requirement. Lukes felt that the height requirement was problamatic
in most cases for accessory uses.
Klein requested that the Board should look at the impact of the structure
on the neighborhood. Klein pointed out that the structure would block
the view of the Highway 82 and the pasture. The Bobbit's felt that
moving the structure would create a problem with the plumbing and
electrical.
Klein argued that the intent of th~ process is to protect the other
property owners in the area. Krausch wanted to know how"close the
proposed lots would be. Klein answered 250 feet. Lukes wanted to know
what the hardship was. Mason stated that it was an architectual
hardship. Lukes was concerned with the legality of such a hardship.
Klein discussed other ways the barn could be built to comply with
code. Peterson stated that they had to structure the roof a certain
way to attain the 75 pound snowload. Shaffran wanted to know if they
could build the building without the height variance. Peterson
replied that they could but the cost would be a great deal more.
Mason read from the Pitkin County Land Use Code the definition
of a barn. Fox wanted clarification as to the use of the structure.
Bobbit stated that it was a barn to be used for riding and jumping.
Fox was concerned if large groups would be gathering there. Bobbit
stated that anywhere from 10 to 15 horses were now stabled there and
the owners would have use of the arena. tox felt that when the
code was rewritten on the accessory uses, it was for accessory us~
to the farm and not for commercial use.
Lukes still felt that there was not a hardship the Board could base
a decision on. Krausch felt that the code was trying to maintain as
much of the rural feeling as possible and this type of operation
accomplishes that. Mr. Martin comments were that if such a use is
allowed in the zone, this structure should be allowed. Fox
questioned what agriculture use was gained from the land. Peterson
listed off such items as hay, irrigation and range for horses and
cattle. Fox was concerned about th~ traffic created by this
proposed arena. Mason felt that the matter of commercial or not would be
the responsibility of the Building Department to determine and to
then chanel the applicant properly through the system. Krausch
questioned the applicant as to what the proposed structure's roof
would look like. It was stated to be a non-glaring, off-white,
plexiglass roof. Peterson stated that the color is restricted by
Airport restrictions. Lukes wanted to see the structure clustered
e
e
IRM ~o C. F. HOECKE"l, B. B. a l. co.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
Page 4
Board of Adjustment
May 31, 1983
with the other buildings on the ranch. Shaffran stated that she
managed some of the homes in the adjacent property area (Brush Creek
S/O) but had heard no objections. Klein pointed out that the Board
had taken into consideration proposed building sites in the past when
making a variance decision.
Bobbit informed the Board that the Elay Corporation had requested that
the structure be moved 250' from the road and that he had agreed.
Klein suggested that that be made a condition of the approval.
Krausch questioned if that would be a reasonable compromise to the
Elay Corp. Klein stated that he would recommend it as a fair compromise.
1t was determined that the structure would be set back 250' from the
~hip and seal of Brush Creek Rd. There was a discussion as to the
1ardship. Lukes moved to grant the height variance of 7' based on
)ractical difficulties created by the Building Code, and the setback
would be 250' from the chip and seal of the Brush Creek Access.
Mason called for a vote. Shaffran asked to abstain. Since Fox
was abstaining, Shaffran was requested to vote. Fox stated that
she was uncomfortable because the code amendment made at P & Z was
not for this type of operation. Shaffran was concerned because
she managed properties for some of the adjacent property owners and,
even though they had not contacted her, she felt they wouldn't like
looking down on the proposed structure taking into consideration
the proposed size. Shaffran stated that she did not feel a conflict
of interest. Mason felt she should vote of she did not have a
conflict of interest. Shaffran's objection,was to the size of the
building, not the height. Bobbit gave the size of the building as
16800 square foot. Mason called for a vote. The vote of three for
and one against, with Fox abstaining. The request was d~nied.
Peterson questioned if they could come before the Board at the next
meeting for reconsideration. Mason agreed.
83-13 Frank Goldsmith, owner Richard Morton, Lot 10, Block 1, Red
Mountain Rd.
requesting a front and sideyard setback for an addition of a garage.
Frank Goldsmith was there to represent himself. Mason had a letter
from Evan Benning, to the ,Board, representing Riata Land & Livestock
Company, stating that the owner of such gave full approval for the
proposal of Mr. Goldsmith. Fox wanted to know if the Red Mountain
Ranch Association had been notified. Goldsmith stated that the
meeting would be the second week of June and they would handle the
issue at that time. Goldsmith stated that there was very limited
parking for the five bedroom house that now exists. He explained that
he wanted to add the garage in the back of the house. He showed
some photos of the property and the house. Shaffran questioned the amount
of variance requested. It was determined as an 18' front yard setback
variance. Goldsmith pointed out a steep embankment on the property
where the driveway should be and pointed out how steep the drive
was anyway. Goldsmith stated that the association had complained because
people were parking on the road during the winter. Fox motioned to
grant the variance for the proposed garage of 18' front yard setback
variance due to the topography conti gent upon the approval of the
homeowners association. Shaffran second the motion. Vote was
called for. All in favor.
.
e
e
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
IRM ~O C. F HOECKEL B. B. It l. co.
Page 5
Board of Adjustment
May 31, 1983
83-14 Bruce McIntyre 0437 Thomas Rd., Carbondale
requesting a 3' east sideyard setback variance for construction ofi
deck with hot tub. Jim Condent was thereto represent the applicant.
He pointed out the original house and the barn on a plat for the Board.
He pointed out where the redwood deck would be placed. The Board members
reviewed the variance that was issued prior to this one for the
barn. Mason questioned Bill Drueding why the deck needed to come
before the Board. Drueding explained that there would be a hot tub
on the deck along with a mechanical room, making it a structure.
Lukes questioned why it was placed where it was. Condent stated
that on the otherside of the house there was already a deck
and also they wanted to access the hot tub from the house. Condent
explained that the excavation was already there and the view was better.
Shaffran pointed out another area where the view would be good.
Condent stated that the landscaping in that area would have to be
destroyed. Fox stated that the County Attorney advised the Board
that they could use their discretion regarding such matters. Lukes
could not see a hardship for the particular placement of the proposed
deck. Lukes questioned how high the deck would be. Drueding stated
that even at grade, a variance would be needed because of the
mechanical room and hot tub. Fox questioned about the deck height
as the ground sloped off. Condent stated that the owner would
probably fill in with dirt. Fox felt it was unreasonable to deny
a hot tub on a deck that might be built anyway. Drueding pointed
out the size of the mechanical room involved.
The Board, after discussion, did not feel that there was a hardship
involved. Condent questione~ what the applicant needed to do to prove
a hardship. The listed hardship requirements were given to Condent,
but Krausch stated that in such cases as his the Board w'buld be less
inclined to acknowledge these hardships. Lukes felt that the
applicant needed to show that there was no other place on the site
the deck/hot tub could go. Lukes moved to reject the application
on the basis of lack of hardship. Krausch second the motion.
Vote was called for. All in favor.
83-15 Richard Blanchard, Lot 51, Holland Hills
requesting a 3' east sideyard setback variance for construction of
a house. This would tie in with a variance granted in 1979. The minutes
were read from that particular meeting. The original 20' setback variance
was on the east side. Blanchard stated that when he put the
foundation in last year, he nor the Building Department had forseen
a problem with the leach field. He had to reverse the location to be
compatable with the neighboring buildable lots. He also explained that
he had had to move his water line to another area because of the leach
field. He explained that the size of the leach field had to be increased
because of a change of policy with the Environmental Health Department
since 1979. The width of the house was not increased. Shaffran questioned]
if the Board could take away from a variance once it had been issued.
Mason felt that it could not. Mason pointed out that there were no
objections from the adjacent property owners. Kandy moved to approve
due to the lot configuration. Fox moved to second. Vote was called for.
All in favor.
.
e
e
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
,Rill ~c C. f. HOECKEl B. B. Ii l. co.
Page 6
Board rif Adjustment
May 31, 1983
Lukes told the Board that he and Fox had worked on the sign code and
had given it to the Planning Office to be put on the agenda on
P & Z. Lukes asked Mason if he could pursuade the Planning
Office to go forward with it and get it placed on the agenda. Mason
stated that he would.
Also, Mason informed the Board that he had contacted Jim Moran
regarding the Snowmass Cottage Sign and that Mr. Moran was out
of town. He had been contacted by the owner, Mr. Jim Ham, and
he appeared to be helpful in the matter. Mr. Moran would
contact Mason upon return to town.
More discussion was held about filling the two open positions
on the Board.
Meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
, ~..-v<1 A t.-<..A ,r//J cl1iYX10h'1-c.
Secretary I
&a ~f ?!~/
Cha rman
',-
Scanned 8/7/07
File Finders Box
#10