Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.83.15Dottie Fox moved that the following be adopted: BEFORE THE BOARD ~' AD3USTMENT OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO . g 3 -15 Mellis See, Parcels 1 & 2, .Roaring Fork River Property ~I~REAS, the subject property s within the unincorporated area of Pitkin County, Coloradot and, 11HEREAS, the Hoard 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 Colorsdo~Revised Statutes, 1973, 30-28-118(2) (C)= atnd, MBERF,AS, based on the evidence presented, the Board of Adjustment makes the following findings: 1, Proper notice procedures, including the notification of all adjorninq prdperty owners, has been shown by the applicant. 2. Zhe required hardship or practical difficulty has been established. 3. Granting such relief will not cause substantial detriment to the public welfare and will not lsubstantially impair the intent and purpose of the Zoning Resolutions and the zoning maps. ~, 'PAEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the applicant's request for a 80' frontyard setback for construction of a carport. Additional conditions or restrictions: iQ1ttNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing end possible revocation. Joe Zanin seoonded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The roil • having been called, the vote was as follows: Bill Mason - yes Paul Krausch - yes Dottie Fox - yes Joe &anin - yes Bi11 Lukes - yes The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. D~-T~D: June ~8 ~ 1983 The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin Oounty, Colorado Attest : ~ `_ ., ~.. ,~f ~~~ ~ Chairman xY .~ n n i~ ~eQ ~ ll'l~r O.s1./ ' . County of Pitkin • Dsteo 1g~_ Csse ~ 83-15 Ap~~,~Cant~a~,~ Sr,9ssoci atP~ Address_ _ 52Q~poD~,~vp : Ashen Co P.O. Box ?4? Owner Ddellis See Address Bodeaa Bav. CA 94923. Location of Property Parcels 1 and 2 of the Roaring Fork River Section 21, T9S, R85•W of. the 6th PH (Attached) ,..Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and ;will be made a part o1 this Case No. • The- Board may return this application if it does not contain a31 the facts in question. Applicant's description of proposed variance showing justification: At :the time of construction, the property vas zoned AF-1 (100' front yard setback and 20' sideyard setback3.It has since been changed to require 30' side~-setbacks. The new owner-wishes to add a carport and after extensive examination, due to the topography of the land and location of existing 'house, the best area to put the carport has been considered t© be as shown on the attached site plan. We are seeking a variance from the frontyard ~. and sideyard setbacks (still respecting 20' s'ideyard) to allow the carport and the caretaker unit to be above the existing den which now also sits within the 80'.sideyard. Applicant Signature Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building Inspector to forwarc this application to the Board of Adjustment and reason for not granting a huilding permit: AF-1 now required that Access side of property is frontyard, which would require 100°. Sideyard, as previously considered, would require 30' . Zoning ~I ~'~~JI~-~~ Insp . Signatur ~~~rfi~,k-+,~I, Date permit rejected: 5-20-83~~r Board decision _ ~ l ~ ' ... __. Application filed l~dalled Date: Secretary, Board of Ad~ustment_ ~~ . ~r,r~~'*t~~ ~. _ _ ~ • ' PUBLIC N(Yl'ICL NOTICr Oi•' RUIILIC IIT;AttING 13L'F'()!2D .lilt. °1 I ! KXN . COUNTY I30ARD OF ADJUSTbit:NT . ~ TO AT,L PiiOPlsFt'!"Y O~lN81tS AFB ~CT1;i) t3Y TNL Rt;c2UESTL'D zGl~INC Ott .USN VAttIAa~=C~ DESCRIBED I3L• LOt9 Pursuant to Pitkin County Zor!•ing Re olution of .June 5, 1955, as arn~ended , a publ is Hearing will be held ` in the County Con~nissioncrs Room, Ptkin County Court tl~use, Aspen Colora~dt~, (or at such other piece as the meet#.ng may then be ad,~uurned) to eonsidcr an a.prlica.tion filed •~~ith the ;aid Board .,of Adjustment .requc~ting authority for • vsrian:ce fi•o:n the provisions of the County Zoning Resolution . . All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear znd state thou vio~vs, protests, or objections. If you cannot appear psrsonally at such mooting, thin you are urged to state Sour ' views by letter, particularly if yo•.~ have ~~b~ection to .such variance, as the i3oar~3 of Aci~ustment will give serious consideration 'to the opinions of surrounding property onners ana- others ~.ffeeted in deciding ' whether to grant or danq the request fog variance. ,DATE AND TIC OF ASEETIA'G : June 28 , 1983 ~ at 5 :15 0' clock P . bi . Cozy Point Ranch, Ad.rC.~llerndstat, 1?60fl'Highway 82, requesting a 9; height variance for construction of a private riding arena. r •Owner-Mellis,•3ee,.Applicant,Pielstiek ~ Associates, Parcels 1 and • 2 of ahe Roaring Fork•River Property,.requesting an 80' frontyard setback for construction of a carport. • • _~ .~ • ~:~~ ~'~'.3 .. ~'. ,~ • M, Pieta#ick ~ Associates, Axchit®~ts sWa+~~tYGUY~r'f ~} ~, ~a+~u!ta,+Y+t;6,1 ~ ~' ~;+c.~,iu,~ 21 ~'9$,IiB~W of t! 6th ~-.M. ~a 1 ana 2 of the Ac»rtng ~brk ~i.v~r~c proge~tp Ar~ert L. and• A~nel~ls L. Rcipp &' t7o. P. 0. Box 100 Aspsrt, CO .81512 Ray~t~cxx7 Re11y Y Creek, ~ 81555 updce L, :Martin 77i'I ° 3ut+e 2101 Clatyton, MI -63105 1 ~Ellte~' B. Mi118 F,,: p~ 68 ln, C70 81512 Ipu~ise Gl+t~-e~ p. o. Bcnc X40 Aspen. CA 81612 Y cbrpuration % Alk~rt Fbee~& I~ecxsard Miil- .4t198 So. Fark+er Aped Aurora, CO 80434 Mie~aei Aerr~tan3t F. n. Pbx 3039. Aspen,. aCf 8151 James ~Ti:nger F. O. Hit 1530 Armen, d0 81512 Ptlaen acx~ty ~~ ©Z'j~c~~rc. Avg Aspen, Cando 8t6'~1 Tei: 3Q3 - 9~5 -1666 . ~ . ... . ~N ~G ~ - »~. i . RECaRO o~ PROC~EQ~N~s goo c.~-~8~ ~ ,. BOARD OF ADJtfSTMENT PiTKIN COUNTY June 28, 1983 Members :Present: Alternates: Bill Mason, .Chairman Dottie Fox Joe Zann Paul Krausch Bili Lakes Nandi Shaffran Bob Throm Bill Mason called the meeting to order. He questioned if there were . arty corrections or additions to be made to the minutes from the last . meeting.. Fox'stated that on the case of .Cozy Point ranch, she did not abstain, but .did vote no on the issue. With that change, Fo:x moved-to. approve the rnirihtes:. Shaffran ~sec.ond. the' motion. Mason then presented to the Board a.letter of application for membership :. frpm.Peter DQbrovolny, who is a solar architect. fox and E~tan Gull.gave. goad references fo•r the appli~ar~t.: Mason stated that ,th.e Bciard' ~ou~1d ~~ . consider him along with.the'other applicant, Rqb 3~nyder.: ~~ Cozy Point Ranch ~. ~ 83-T 2. was. before the',Ho.ard again with the sarine appl~.cation~ to .appeal the decision, that was made at the previous ieteeting. Brooke Peterson was there to~represent the owner, .Michael Herndstat. The managers of the ranch,, Dick Bobbit.and his wife, were there also. Peterson stated that he wanted to clear up misunderstandings and to deal with the questions about the involvement of the Commercial Growth Management~Plari. Peterson stated that they had met with the Board of County Commissioners, and the BOCC felt that their intent when writing the GMP was not to. restrict agriculture operations and building. The BOCC had also stated that they felt boarding•horses was included in agriculture operations. Peterson stated that in a letter he sent to Patsy Newbury, Building Department, boarding horses would not be a primary use of'the structure, but it would also be for the training and keeping of livestock owned by the Cozy Point Ranch or by the managers of the ranch. Pete.r:son .stated that in trying to meet the desires of the neighbors, the commissioners and the Board, they have set the proposed barn approximately 210' from Juniper Hi11 Road (Brush Creek). Also,, they have lowered the actual. amount of the building above ground by agprox-~ imately l~'. He stated that the building would now. bebuilt approx.- ma.tely 4'. under ground. With regards to siting and landscaping concerns expressed by the Commissioners., Peterson stated that they. would"be bersning. Shaffran asked 'to see-the five-year. plan that was presented to .the:. Board at the'iast meeting. Bobbit described the plans that 'the owner would like to follow, money permitting. Shaffran explained that her . objection at the last meeting was the size of the building. and felt that voting no was the way to keep the building from be.ing•buila. Thro;n felt. that was not for the Board to decide. rv ~'~" • • ~M k c. ~. ~..~a~..... ~. G0.. REC4R0 OF PRt?CEEQ#.NGS 100 Leave. s Page' 2 Hoard of Adjustment June 28, 1983 Herb Klein was there to represent ~lay~ .,Corp,.. who is c?bjecting ~tq~ the .po~si:tioning of .the barn. ~ Klein felt .that .the first decision. of the Board .should be upheld.. ~ He also suppox`teii th±~ r.eaaoning behind ShafEran.''s decision, handing ciut a:.portiori of. the provisions of the Land, Use Code relating to the .Board of Adjustment. This. ~~ was Article I6, Section 1.3. of the Ptki;ri. County Land. Use. Code, speci.fieally, ".....provided such relief may be granted without. • substantial detriment. to'the'public good .....'r Krausch,~questioned Klein .if~he.was familiour with the changes Peterson, had' just described, to the Board. Klein stated that he.w.as. He also stated~that~his client,was not satisfied with the movement of the structure, stating that would not help the situation. Klein stated that his client did .not feel bound by a telephone conversation that he had had with Bobbit. Thrum felt that Klein was taking that portion of the Land Use Code', out of context. Klein did not agree, feeling that the Board had opportunity to control something that would not be reviewed by other board's. Fox questioned the hardship that was involved. Mason felt that the hardship was the height. limitation and the requirement to build the roof to handle the required snow load. Fox felt it was basically an economical hardship because he wouldn't be able to get maximum use.from the structure without the additional height. Mason stated that the height restrictions isn't reasonable for a barn. Klein questioned the possibility o€ having a flat roof and doing more excavation, understanding the hold up would be economical. Krausch questioned if there would be any less of an impact because of the variance if the building was built within the zoning restric~tion$. Klein felt that if the owner couldn't use the structure for what they;intended, there would be less of a traffic problem, also there would .be less: mass involved, creating less impact all around. Klein Stated that his' client obaected to 'the buildings size and th:e building: site., ~Clen pointed out the. 16 'acres ,owned :~ay~ his .client;, st.at~g that they.had.one building :site. Krausch question~ed.,to~what. extent t.lie :E].ay. Carp. would develop. Klein reiterated that: his client. had one. building site. The Board discussed other~cases.when .a variance had~~been-granted • far ba'rns.. Mason .reminded, the Board. that .all eases •were •h~andl:ecl . ; individually. .Peterson stated that ~i~t was. not a commercial~ridirig arena,. Mason questioned Patsy~Newbury if .she 'was satsfied'with the use~of the structure. Newbury stated that she was. Fox still had a question about the hardship involvedt Mason eitplained that the height requirement limited the owner from using the structure for what he wanted, which. was an_agr.iculture use. Krausch wanted to know how they had justified granting variances for barns in the past. Newbury staffed that certain zones allow more height but not in the particular zone that Coxy Point is in. Fox felt that it might not be appropriate to have a structure over the height limit in that zone. Newbury stated that the zone Cozy Point was in was meant far smaller•lots. Thrum felt that it was an equestrian operation and such an operation has a need far a barn, or in this case, a riding arena. Krausch questioned if any of the other neighbors objected. There were no objections, but there was a letter from Pat Hunter, an adjoining property owner, stating that he had no objections. ,~n'1,IT"'~.'v;,o::?""""":'''.'''';:'' ~ .., .,. , " ,.. ,., ,"'" ..","~. '.,' -- "', .. .', '. ."~ ' ~. tIifI" ,"-" e e,' RECORD Of PROCEEDINGS 100 ,Leaves _... C.F.H~tl.."'L':~..c.o. Page ,3 Board of Adjustment J\lne28, . 198,3 , , Za,nin que:stioned if. ,the, heiqQt variance 'would 'be, less' con_iderinq tJiat: they were dropping th~ buildi119 down ~ 'Bobbtt . went.:thro~gh the height, dimensions of, the . structure. ' It. w()uld 'be set .inthe,' ground' 3 ' ~. " That would leave the buildi1l9'21' abOv~ grade. 'l'he'am()unt' ,allowed 'i,s 1'" , . abovl! grade.' . Luke.s 'questioned abou~ the C91or, of the .roof,. and' ~e~,' ma'iningstructure. : BObbitstated that the roof 'would, pe,off'":"wh,ite,,', ; non-glare, sides will be the ;samecoior :a's the red'barrialreadyon 'the site, tri,mrtled' in white.; , Krausch felt tha't' the ,intent of the str\ict'ure , would be', the' best, use of the :lartd to ,the ~xten.t of keepin9' the' area . as rur,al . 'as' 'possible. Krausch felt, the applicant ha,s t~e right of . the variance and the use in mind. 'Fox questioned iftheywere,'aski~g 7' variance beca,use of existing grades. When the structure is f.i,.nished:it would be 4' above the height limit. LUk,es :st,ated that the Board appreciated the effort the applicant was making. He felt that the structure was ,located very appropriately. . A neighbor was there for another reason, but informed the Board that he felt the use was appropriate and felt the owners should be allowed to use the building for the riding and training. His property is located dir.ectly above the Cozy Point Ranch. Fox was concerned that the berm$ and 'landscaping wouldn't be carried out as presented to the Board. Newbury suggested that the landscaping plan be incorporated into a.Jt'iotioti. The 'Board as,sured.Klein that they do not set precedents an,d the decision, by the Board regarding this case does not set a precedent for future height variances. .' Zanin moved to" grant 'the request for' a. .7' height v~riance on .the grounds' ,that 'th~struC'ture would not'be function.al wi:thou~' the, additional height~al$'o stating that: .t,he landscaping, plan 'shou,ld' be~' fOliowed".~ and the ,str\olcture will be s:et: 2io ~ ' frOJl\ 'juniperHillRd'~' . A time iim;i. t of:18 months 'was "set.for :the 'compl~tion 'of 'the . land$capinq,~' Kiein sta.tedthat he, unde:rstQod fr'om' .t.heC9u'nty Commis~ioners ,tha't ' ::,. land'sc~ping ShOlllcf be'c'omple,t~q be.fore ',issuanceo.f C.O. ' Krauschsecorid, the mo,tion as.. stated by , Zan~n. Vote 'was c~11ed,for.: from regular memb~rs. Zanin" Krausch, : Lukes, 'and: Mason vG.tedfor ~ F-qx voted a.ga.i,.nst.Motion was pas,se~~ Melli. See .83-15 Parcels:1 & 2 of the Roaring Fork River Property, requesting an 80' front yard setba,ck for construction of a carport. Rus, P~elstick was, thereof Pie,lstiC:k and Assoc. to represen.t the owner. . Pielstick . pointed out the location of the property to the member's '. He stated that wh~noriginally built, there was a 20' sideyard setback. At the present, the setback line goes through the existing house. He' requested that they be allowed to build under the 20' setback that' e~isted originally. Lukes was confused about calling it a sideyard when the access was taken from that side. Pielstick stated that ' under the original zoning it was the sideyard.. Lukes determined that an 80'frontyardsetback was what was necessary. Pielstick di,scus~,edwi th the Board the area and the alyout of the present' structur~. Newbury told the Board that the lot did have a topography •.. ' RECORD of PROC~~ufiHOS goo Leaves Mmt m C. i, wOEClfil ~, .. 1 t. CN ' Page 4 Board of Adjustment June 28, 1983 problem. Fox motioned to grant the 8D' frontyard setback due to the topographical ha=dship and the downzonng. 2anin second the motion. Vote w~s.called for and.al3 was .in faeor. Mason'informed~the Board that four applicants had requested a special me.etng.to expedite the process. He questioned the Board'$ opina~on. ~~ zt was determined that there 'were no real urgent'ones. The Board d.d nc-t f.ee~i a special. meeting was ~ necessary at this ~ 'time . Mee~ing~'was adjourned. Respect~fu~lly submitted, ~. ~ ~ ~ ' : ~.. ,. A+ ~j ~ yva,,. t~~ A Y:1...1 R..~ f ~.. M Cr ~. ~ f ~• ~'/(~//J/f ~. ,.. ~~~~~I l~~i~y Secretary' ~ ~ a an