Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.83.23 Paul Krausch moved that the following be adopted: BE!'ORE TEE BCyARD a~ ADk7USTi!~lNT OF TSE t'.OUNT'!t OF PTTKIN . " . STATE OF COLORADO` ~ ~ •. • ~ ~ . • RESOLUTION NO . 8 3 - 2 3 ~ ; . . • •. ; .. Kevin Cassidy, •x.8007 :Stake" Highway:: 8Z:..: ~~ . • . ' . • ~ M~ERE}lS, ~ ~}e~.••si~'~ect ~p~opei~ty:,s with t2ie.:unincorpi~~rated ~ area. ~of; Pitk~in ~ • County, Coloradan, : ~t1!d i .. ~ ~ ... - ~ .. . ~ , • ~#IEREAS.; the. 8oaxd ' off; Ad justmerit a ;vested ~ with the . powex td . gent or deny : ' such garia~#cmis~ ~ vistua of ,23t1e 'T,I,: &sc~tiori ~ 16 3,: 3; . #~it~cin'::C,ou~itl-. Code; • ' tLeenc9: Use. Code):.;and C'cslorado::Revse~d $tatt~te~t; '19y3, .'3(3-28--~:18(2j :tC)'::.:~n~.~• •. • . ~ ~ . • WHEREAS, based vn the• evideacs presented', ahe Board of Adjusteaer~t makes the~• fcrl,lowinq findings : : . 1. groper notice procedures, including thwe.notifcation o€ all adjorninq ' •"• ,property owners, has been shown. by..the applicant. • 2. ,The required hardship or practical difficulty has bsen established. .3, Granting such relief viii .not cause. substantial detximent to the public welfare and will.rrt~t substantallp impair the intent and ' purpose of the Zoning Resolutions and the zoning maps." I~W,• TH,EREFORE, . BE TT RESOLVED that , the.. applicant `s request for. a ' Ade#itioaal conditions or restriction:. ~ ~ •. WARNING: . ~xg violation• of the terms o~ thin resolution may result iri rehearing: ~ ' • and possible revocat~.on.. •. • . ~ : . B•ob Throm. "sicoMded the adoption of the` foregoing .Regloiutiet~i The ;mill • . having been called, ~ t)ie v~gte ~~as ~ as •t`o].o~ :.; : ".. ~ • . `$ll Mason -yes Aoki Throm : - yes, ~ ~ ~ • ; ; • •Paul .•Krausch -~ yes ' "Karid "Shaf'fran -. yes: - ' ' . Bill: Lukes - yes .. " . . ~:: - ~ •. ' The Resolutioa~.was aelOpted by v^ate of the Board of Adjustment of the"COunty ~af i?itkits, • -State oP Colorado.. •. ~~: August 22, 1983 3'lie Board of Adjustment of Pitkin' ' . ' County, Colorado Attest: ~ ~~/ . e _ ... Ctiairaian ~ec~rcy ~~.~ ~~ 1 , •, _ Any pertinent data must accomgany this application, and~will be made part of this. ease No.~ ~Th,e Board may return this application if ~.t does not contain all the facts ri question. Applicant's description of proposed variance showing justification: -~, ~.oCtir~- ~Giy ~,re~aa~ac~ t3 y r~ . „~ ~_ rr~ ,,~,V~,p tui 'r..af i S ~ ~ ~f~ ~ ~ ~ C~~ ~ ~c.~-~ Qit,~. ~ W i rt. ctra ~ rit-vl~-C. A n ~(n; ~{.~$~.;~,' Art a~ . ~, vuy ~'i ~ ~ cam' M rx~ 1'2-t,Q t..l~; ~I,:or-,l .: c~Cc~ rt~c., j~.c ~.cs-c.e.~ '~,.. ~,~ .fir ~i ;.~ ~ ~,/ l~; ~-e,~~., ~.tc c~ c~ ar•~ ~.~~.... ~ec.c~oa-~. . :AAFIi'cant" :Signature " : .. ~,,,~, ~ . " : ~ ~ C Provisions of the' " zoning r~eeo,lutiari req~Y,;rnc~ . tie ~ai~ld.nt~ Inspector". to forward 'this application : to the 'Boaa~d- of `A-d~u$tment . and ~ reason .for:: note granting a ,boding permit:.; _~j /~-- ~ ~ _ . ~ ~P5 .4 $',~--g3 4~~""~"4~ i,/ Building , Znsgegta . Date Permit rejected: Board dec son ,.~'t~: ,. Ap~SYicatiom filed Date Marled ' ~ Secretary aoa~d. ±wf Ad jugtment i ~._ -- ~ ~~ ~ ~ `_ ~~ ,, .~. - i ~._.~~.~.~ ._.____._._.~.~~.______....__.._ ..~..__.._ .....r~.---------__--._...__.__.._-.- ,~ ~~. ~ 0~`~~~3 • ~l4 ~~o~r ~ F ter ~`.~. ,c .Sr r vs c ~ G. , 8dx 3yy73v j~... //..s , ~,,~,,~ ~. ~ 7s a ~ ~ _-__.. ~oQ/hsy t~• 7aco~,s ll f~ j ~rr h ~,, ~o X70 / or es ~~'g„~, D. cc n S •~ //i h, a O Z D/ S ~i i ~i N qP. O ~ ~e. 1• / • ~r esa a~, ~/o. ~4aa 3 x ,6. ti ~ ~" Goa . e~/6' /~ v /o, rig ~ '.~' a~ ~'~ ~~ ~ ~5~~ ~~~~~ f`~ ~ ~' w ~~ ~~ L- • • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves +v. r r ~~,~r r.KfL n. P, n 1, C.J. SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT August 22, 1983 Members Present: Bill Mason, Chairman Paul Krausch Bill Lukes Alternates: Bob Throm Kandi Shaffran Mason called the special meeting to order. He questioned if there were any comments about the minutes from the last meeting. Lukes stated that in the motion for The Frome variance, the work "variance" is mentioned twice.He suggested that one "variance" be deleted. Throm motioned to approve the minutes. Krausch second the motion. vote was called for and all were in favor. Mason informed the Board that Phil Wier had applied for position as a member of the Board. Mason suggested that some type of action should be taken at the next meeting regarding filling the two positions that are open. Krausch questioned Patsy Newbury, representing the Building Department, about the Ruthie's Restaurant, presently under construction on Aspen Mountain. He questioned if they went through a review. Newbury stated that they went through a special review. Stirling Cooper to contest the Building Permit issued to Bonnie Cockrell, at the entrance of Difficult Campground. Mason bziefly reminded the Board about the case that was just before them for a variance to construct the Cockrell residence. Mr. Stirling Cooper was there to speak with the Board. Cooper gave the history of the property, explaining that he was. born here and very familiour with the property. He explained that hisfather, Theodore Cooper, was one of the trustees of the property, called Aspen Park, and also secretary of the association. He ex;piained how th;e property was sub- divided by his father and associates, and how they donated ground around the river to protect the river. He was referring the Board members to a handout of 10 pages given to the members at the beginning of the meeting. During his rendition, he emphasized the word "betrayed" stating that the Forest Service had betrayed them the most. His mother sold 58 acres to A.R. Smith to construct a Boy's Camp. According to Cooper, A.R. Smith then, during a discussion with one of the members of the association, claimed some land that the members had stated they might sell some additional land to him. There had been no deed involved, according to Cooper. On page 6 of the handout, it explains how the property eventually got into the hands of Ms. Cockrell. Cooper claims that there was no deed, but only a letter from Mr. F.D. Willoughby, which Cooper felt was no substitute for a deed. He explained that there were a total of 5 trustees that should have been involved in the sell. u RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves .q v, ~ ~~.1C.N EL Il. 11. X l CJ. ?a--e 2 Board of Adjustment August 22, 1983 Cooper pointed out the question asked on page 9 and felt that the main reason he was there. This stated that in a court case (No. 81CV129) on May 20, 1983, 3udge T.W. Ossola: "The court concludes.. that it (the deed to A.R. Smith) is not ambiguous, that it is not subject to various interpretations. As both plaintiff and defendent Lewis derive their titles from A.R. Smith, the Court concludes that neither party has established legal title to the property and that legal title remained vested in the grantors to A.R. Smith.' Cooper felt that he and the other heirs of the original owners have titled to Bonnie Cockrell's 'ite. Cooper pointed out to the Board that the property seemed to be measured from the middle of the Difficult Campground road for the variance. He claimed that the middle of the road was never included in that parcel. He complained that the Forest Service has allowed Cockrell to build the house blocking his access to his favorite skating pond. Cooper felt that the Board should not have given a variance to Cockrell because the septic system would dump into the ponds which would dump into the Roaring Fork River,. Mason stated that the septic system was not an issue handled by the Board. Cooper also pointed out that from the footer to the edge of the pavement of the road, according to his measurements, is less than 29 feet. He questioned if the Board had understood that they were allowing a house to be built that close to the highway. Mason stated that all considerations were taken when reviewing the variance request by Cockrell. Cooper recalled another incident when he was requesting a variance on property across the highway and felt that the Board was inconsistent. Cooper questioned the Board if they were convinced that he+owned one- sixth of the property in question. Mason stated that the Board would probably not have issued a. variance if.there was a question of the title during the meeting. Throm questioned if the Board was the body to solve the problem and felt that it was a title action. Wes Light, County Attorney, stated that the issue before the Board was whether Patsy Newbury was correct in issuing the Building Permit. Light stated that the permit can be issued if either attorney gives a title opinion or if the department receives a current committment of title insurance. The Building Department did receive a copy of a current committment of title insurance disclosing the ownership was in Ms. Cockrell's name, and that does meet the full requirement of the code. Light stated that unless there was some ,basis for the title company to withdraw the committment for title insurance, the county will continue to honor that committment. Light stated that if Cooper feels that the committment is improper, then the claim is not through the Board of Adjustment, but against the owner of the property directly. Light questioned Ashley Anderson, representative of the owner, and Bill Tom, owner of the Aspen Title.,,if they were standing behind the policy. Bill Tom answered that they were. Light stated that under current regulations, it was not the Board or the County's position to judge. Light also stated that if the County Health Department gave a permit for the septic that was all that was necessary for the Building Department to issue a permit, and if it wasn't a proper septic permit, then Cooper would need to go through a state agency for investigation. RECORD.OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves .RM ~' "_ . ~i i)C'_'K EL 0. N. H l CO. Page 3 Board of Adjustment August 22, 1983 Krausch questioned which access road. had been represented during the meeting requesting the variance. Newbury .stated that the Difficult Campground had been represented and she had no proof that the' Highway Department owned that road. Cooper filed an objection with the Board that he was never notified as an adjacent property owner. Lukes questioned if the variance was a dead issue. Light informed the Board that once the variance is granted the only step that can be taken by someone that disagrees with the variance is to appeal the decision to a court of law. It was determined that the name of owner for Mr. Cooper's property is Michael Fitzgerald (5$ owner) and that gentleman was notified. Krausch questioned again about the setback of the structure from Highway 82. Newbury pointed out the turnoff for Difficult Campground Road and where the structure was placed from that point. She stated that due to the zoning, the setback was 100' and a 71' frontyard setback was granted.. Bill Tom stated to the Board that an extensive search was done on the property due to another. reason, and the government agreed with Tom's finding. Cooper disagreed,, feeling that the government never owned the property. Lukes.questioned.what should be done if they acted on improper information. "Light stated that if. the Board had.. definite proof that that was the case, then action could be.ta.ken. Krausch felt that a just decision was made at the time of variance request using the information given to, the Board, but now there seems to be several questions creating doubt. He ,questioned what the role of the Board would be if there were now doubt in the 'validity of the information given at that time. ,Light answered that at this time the Board needed to decide if Patsy Newbury was right in .relying on the title insurance and issuing the building permit.. With regards to the variance granted f.or Cockrell, if they felt the information was improper, then they could ask Light to invesitgate and he could put a conjuction on construction if he found an "intent .to mislead". Cooper felt the Board had granted a.variance without sufficient evidence. He stated that he was going to have the Highway Department come up and post where the right-of-way is and he will watch the septic system carefully. He stated that he was going to document all the mistakes caused by the Board of Adjustment issuing the variance for Cockrell on bad information. Mason replied by stating that the Board acted on information received in good faith and then. requested a motion from the Board regarding the issue. .Cooper wanted it on record that he felt that the Board had set a bad precedent. Krausch moved that the Board uphold the action of the Building Department due to the evidence presented to the Building Department. Throm second the motion. Vote was called for and all were in favor. William Mohrman, 567 Twining Flats Road 83-24 requesting a 4Q' frontyard ,setback, variance for construction of resid.ehce. Bill Mohrman was there to .represent self. ~Mohrman informed. the Board that th.e adjacent property owners were notified. He stated that the variance was needed because .if the structure was set within the 100' setback it would be too close to the hill in the back, creating too much shade in the winter months and .that would deter their solar gain. Mason was familiar with tk~e property they~wanted'to build on and felt it was a, limited buildable lot. There were no objections from the adjacent property owners. Krausch moved to approve the variance request based upon the topgraphy. of the lot. Lukes second the motion. Vote was called for and all were in favor. • • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS X00 Leaves ~R. ~ r r ~~~~EENFL R. U. P L. C~. Page 4 Board of Adjustment August 22, 1983 Red Mountain Homeowners Association 83-21 requesting a height variance to place a gate and sign across road as entrance to subdivision. George'B.ryan was there to represent the Association. Jane Mayer was there :to express ari opinion but. had to leave. Bryan explained that he did take the plans up to her house and answered her questions and she was satisfied.. Bryan stated that another gentleman had r.ecomm~nded a speed bump to slow . people down along Reds Road. Lukes questioned if 'it was a private road or a county road. Newbury stated that it was a private road ~iith public access. Newbury cautioned that the sign had to be high enough to allow access of emergency of emergency vehicles and trash vehicles, moving vans and etc. Bryan stated that his research found that the height should be at least 16'. He personally would prefer to see the height at 20'. Mason questioned about the gate. Bryan stated that the gate would be left open, wanting it mainly to point out that it is private property. Bryan explained that owners were finding campers in their frontyards. Mason questioned Newbury if the sign conformed to the sign code. Newbury stated that depended on the type of sign it was to be,considezed. Bryan stated that the main sign would read Red Mountain Ranch and at the bottom there would be No Parking signs and Private and Street Identification signs. Newbury agreed those signs would be identification signs and would have to be 6'. Lukes did not feel they should be giving a variance for the request because the intent of the code is to limit the height of structures and, signs. ,The Board members could ,not detezmine a hardship for granting the variance. request. Bryan gave a description of the banks on,each side of the road. He .felt that the .hardship was the inconvenience of the homeowners in the area: Krauseh wa.s sympathetic., but felt it should be solved.w.ithin the rules of the county. Robin Ferguson, secretary of the Homeowners Association, explained to the Board that..signs:have been tried and. nothing ,has been helpful. Krausch questioned :if the Assoc~ati.on had gone to the Sheriff's office for enforcement along .the roads in the subdivision. Robin stated that they will not tow on private;roads. Mason .advised Bryan what signs and structures would be alhow.ed, but advised against having a main., sign with little signs hanging underneath. Shaffran.moved to deny the request based on the fact that there was nod a hardship. Lukes second the motion. Vote was called for and all were in .fav,or. Irving & Estelle Tasman, Lot 11 & 12, Block 1, Kistler S/D 83-20. requesting a 10' sideyard setback for construction of an accessory building. Irving Tasman was there to represent self. This is the second application with the Board of Adjustment, since he was tabled at the last meeting. Tasman stated that he was requesting the variance for a garage since they did own several cars. He explained that this needed to go on the south side of his property for egress reasons, and was leaving 10' between the proposed structure and the main residence so emergency vehicles can go around the house. xrausch confirmed that the structure would be on the property line. The Board members tried to replace the structure to keep if from being right on the property line. Bill Brown was there as a neighbor to object to the structure, because it would block his view from a ^. ARM ••~ f ~ ~~~iECKEL 0. 9. N L. [J. • RECORD OF PROC~~DINGS 100 Leaves Page 5 Board of Adjustment August 22,.1983 hot tub he plans to install. He thought a solution had been worked out between he and Mr. Tasman, but then received the notice that Tasman was still needing a variance. Lukes stated that he understood the need, but wanted to reiterate that the goals of the zoning. laws was to restrict density and location of construction on sites. He did .not see any reason to allow a structure to be built on the property line. Tasman stated that the lot was small. Shirley Thompson was there as a residence of Redstone. She felt that the lot was being crowded and she presented some photos to the Board of the lot and the construction going on. She objected to 'any further building on the lot. She also stated to the Board that a letter had been signed by Mr. Tasman regarding landscaping trees and if that was done there would be no access to the .proposed structure. Tasman stated that the trees would be arriving within the next week. The Board members continued to try to locate the structure away from the lot line. Lukew questioned about the riparian setback that was also requested by the applicant. Newbury explained that would be necessary if there were swamp along the river, but in this case, the bank area is dry and nothing is. growing there. Tasman questioned Newbury as to how far he must be from his main stx~u:cture. .Newbury answered that.he could.b~il.d within ,the 10' necessary setback if he used a 1-hour firewall.. Shaffram moved to deny the variance request due to the fact that the Board, is against paacing;a stricture on the lot. line. Krausch second,the motion. Vpte was called for and all were in favor. Kevin Cassidy, 2800.7 State Hghway.82. 83-23 requesting a 22' sideyard setback for proposed addition to house., Rod Bartlet was there to represent owner, He explained the c.on- figeration of the property, pointing out the unusual shape. He explained that Cassidy 'owned lots 0,1 and 2. When he a`ttemptred to attain title insurance he found .that he was right on the property line. Cassidy then made a deal to trade land with the property owner of lots 3 & 4 in order to give him room for his title insurance. The owner would like this addition for a formal dining room and a breakfast nook. At this time the kitchen-dining area is approximately 6' square. Shaffran questioned what the hardship was. Bartlet answered that the extra room was necessary for the family. The original setback was 20', which. was changed in 1974. The present owners have had the house for 13 years.. Newbury stated that the present house was built prior to all zoning. Bartlett presented some photos of the house to the Board members. Bartlett stated that the house was. approximately 1500 square feet. Krausch moved to grant the variance request due to downzoning. Throm second the motion. A vote was called for and all were in favor: Snowmass Cottages, John Ham, 9461 Highway 82, Snowmass 83-22 requesting a renewal of their sign permit. No one was there to represent the applicant.. Mason~poirited out that Ham is one of.the first to comply with the,code and to come back for a sign renewal.: Mason met with Ham prior to the meeting and visited the site. He also met with the County ,Attorney. He was informed that all the ^. - •arn •c ,.. unECd c~ e. a. n i. co. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS . 1;00 Leaves. Page 6 Board of Adjusment August 22, 1983 Board could act on was three things: 1) Whether there is a need for the. variance; 2) All conditions when the variance was granted have been complied with; and 3) Has not changed any of the conditions. Krausch was troubled by two items. He felt he was mislead about the colors o.f the sign and the lighting. Also, he felt, with the representations made about safety, that they must have know about the turning lane that was dust put in. Throm stated that the representing attorney and the owner should be questioned about that issue. Newbury pointed out to the Board that the berm was represented as being behind the sign, but the sign was placed on top of the berm. Throm moved to table the issue until such time that Mr. Ham could be there to discuss the matter with the Board. Luker second the motion. Vote was called for and all were in. favor. Meeting adjourned. Respectfully submitted, <11~v c7r~a.~~ ~~C1~mClir~-- Chairman ` Scanned 8/7/07 File Finders Box #10 LARGE PLAT(S) AVAILABLE TO VIEW AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AVAILABLE TO BUY AT CLERK & RECORDER