Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.84.03 e BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT e DATE January 28 19 84 CASE# 8 ,-j ~ L -:0 APPLICANT Grizzly Landscape & Nursery ADDRESS 21905 W. Highway 82 OWNER R. N. Jensen ADDRESS 21905 Vi. Highway 82 Aspen, CO 81611 82 [ / LOCATION OF PROPERTY Highway - Airport Business Center 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' i~ question. Applicant's description of proposed variance showing justification: We would like to construct a trellis for the purpose of shading plants. Approximate size of shade areawould be 25' x 50' and enough height for head clearance. This is very neccessary for proper maintenance of plants in a nursery environment. Applicant Signature f ,M""YI /~ . / Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building Inspector to forward this application to the Board of Adjustment and. reason for not grantin,g a buiding perm,.it: . ~fA_'~;!fr,u, 1 ~'4J:;~Vue::6 ~~~~A/'~/~"~--'. ,-4-." '~ A F - / ~ ~......~ .::d~ ~ J,. . ~ _,<<:, <, ---- j4rz d~~{..uu...~ ,,', , 1 ~ () t!7..---<J-<.- Ii' / _ 1~.. ' ' 130_cS~ Date Permit rejected: Building Inspecto . ( l Board decision #dA.L--a'_/ Application filed Date Mailed "-' Secretary Board of Adjustment l":)!''lo '....'-..1 /I..t\..J0.......1 -. e e LAW OFFICES BROOKE A. PETERSON A PROFESSIONAL ~ORPORATION 611 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN. COLORADO BI611 13031 925-B166 August 18, 1983 Wes Light, Esquire Pitkin County Attorney 506 E. Main Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Grizzly Landscaping and Groundskeeping Inc. '(, ~/ ~ Dear \'J'e s , As you requested in our telephone conversation, please allow this letter to serve as my request for the waiver of my client's obligation to paint the fence around the property purchased from the State Highway Department. The reason for this request is very simple. My client's painting contractor, Glenn Sloop and Patsy Newbury have confirmed that due to the age of the fence, paint will not stick to the metal, making it impossible to paint. My client has compensated for the inability to paint the fence by increasing the number of plants and trees from that originally required in order to further hide the fence. I think that all will agree, that there has been a vast improvement to the property. In fact, Dr. Burkholder has personally complimented Robert Jensen on the appearance of the property. I wish to emphasize that we are in no way attempting to avoid any of our obligations. The inability to paint the fence is a practical problem of which we were not aware at the time of our agreement with the Commissioners. It is my firm opinion that not only have we lived up to our end of the Agreement but that we have exceeded our obligations. C't""""~""',~ ".) ...._~ -_ ........w e e Page Two Wes Light, Esquire August 18, 1983 Re: Grizzly Landscaping and Groundskeeping Inc. I would hope that this letter will serve to fully inform you, the Planning Office and the County Commissioners of the present status of this matter. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments. Yours very truly, ...... . -- BAP:jl cc~ Grizzly Lands~aping and Groundskeeping Inc. Alan Richman Patrick Dobie ,)'l,.,'l'''3 "-.l t i '\_, ....... ....1 e e GRIZZLY. Inc. LAnDSCAPinG robert n. jensen p.o, box 25 woody creek colorado 81656 303.925-5398 1. Paepke, Walter O. Life Insurance Trust 105 W. Adams Chicago, IL 60603 2. Pitkin County 206 E. Main Aspen, CO 81611 3. Boise Cascade Corp. P.O. Box 50 Boise, Idaho 83728 l" l ., (,.. ,..,,~ 1 J \ : \.1 ....,. ,.~ I ) "r,o/v ~S )2 , ~T~. tl,:,'':';:S'.~ir~y'l:it;;;'I';~('ifl~ ,',' s;",' ','?I' .' ',' ~f '~'~f;:l~'~. ',. ~>,' ;\:: ~?~~. - ... - n~. ~ l,~,tl .1 ~*~:l l ~,~: j '" l.f fl ~E hl~ L.. . '. - .:::"'" o ,0 '\7- It) G, o I{, t1- 1l' Q:) ,., ~ ,., 'a' '- ........, ", '-..... ''''~''' -'~ , , ~'" c 0:0 '0' (0 ~o~ <0<0 ~ REO BY ')OC/ATES,. INC. 2840 South Vallejo Sf. ";%rado 80//0 rl.r,//~~J )'4",;,.- U''''''4 (303) 76/-4860 '6B025 C"Il"~/"~""'~-" ~.: \.:1 "-... _..1 J .,.- -- ~n. -- '-_...'.......1 I illll '11'1,1"; ._ e e LAW OFFICES BROOKE A. PETERSON ell WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO SUl11 13031 St2S-81ee February 24, 1984 m~;{-I.JC:.\jt:.,.i\, ;\~f":',' :.:,-;:" '\ , -,I. . ." .1 \ ,', " \ ' 'I " GJl -')." .,. I ' I 7--1:.....,.:.._.0. '-. ',' I , . : I \- 4. J' )" 1"" -, ~ . l fES 2 l:j'Y"...._: ' ._~.. -..-- ..- ASf'f'N ;' (~! 7"KtN co Mr. Curtis Stewart County Manager Pitkin County Courthouse 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 PL ::'.".i;:~ ;~';i,\!~''-.~~ ~:': "," \":. t Re: Grizzly Groundskeeping and Landscaping, Inc. ' Dear Curt, It has come to my attention, after our telephone conversa- tion, that my client, Grizzly Groundskeeping and Landscaping, Inc., was once again the topic of conversation at a meeting of the County Commissioners last week. I would like to respond item by item to what I believed was discussed at that time. A. Painting of the Fence While my client anct I believe that the fence would look better if it was not painted, the fence will be painted this spring prior to the beginning of the landscaping season. The reason it was not painted last summer was due to the fact that the closing on the purchase took place approximately forty five to sixty days after the original closing date, after landscaping supplies and materials had already been delivered to the property which made the painting impossible. B. Entrance through Boise Cascade As you may recall, my client obligated itself to utilizing its best efforts to obtain an easeQent through Boise Cascade's property in an attempt to reduce entrances to Highway 82. The terms of the easement which was granted, and which were the only terms to which Boise Cascade would agree, are onerous at best. Grizzly Landscaping, by ( ) .' ~ , '" , ... ~ " ~......, _,.. . f' ".' ....,.;' .......JI . e e Mr. Curtis Stewart February 24, 1984 Page Two the terms of that easement is responsible for virtually anything that happens on that road. As a consequence, Grizzly Landscaping is using that entrance very little, and will continue to do so until the-'existing easement is modified. The access is, however, being used primarily for heavy equipment eliminating any need for backing upon Highway 82 and in that manner improving the safety of that roadway. // / C. Advertisement in Telephone Book, After our conversation, I spoke to Mr. Jensen. lle informed me that Mountain Bell placed this ad in the telephone book without final approval by him. He further stated to me, which I can affirM, that the "retail" aspect of the business generated only five to seven percent of Grizzly Landscaping's gross business receipts for last year. Grizzly Landscaping has been and continues to be a landscaping business, as evidenced by the projects it has undertaken in Snowmass and in Aspen. I think that we have been more than cooperative in limiting the retail operation, as evidenced by the removal of advertisements which were thought improper last summer. I frankly resent the petty efforts of individuals, whom I believe to be my client's neighbors, to continue to stir up this matter. It smacks of sour grapes. In summary, there can be no doubt that my client has dras- tically improved the appearance of the property, and at the same time living up to the spirit of its agreement with the County. I recognize that all parties benefited from this transaction, and I would hope that you and the Commissioners would recognize that our efforts have been to abide by our agreement. C.t .,.,.,. '" ,.....f..,J \ ~ \..1 ._ -I "-~ .. e e Mr. Curtis Stewart February 24, 1984 Page Three Please contact Me if you have any questions, or if you wish me to neet with the Commissioners in person. BAP: jms cc: Grizzly Groundskeeping and Landscaping, Inc. Alan Richmond Thomas Smith, Esquire Yours very . ~ I"".'"....} L, :'\..J'....... ..JJ Aspen~itkin Planning~ffice 130 south galena'street aspen, colorad'o'. 81611 .:" June 20, 1983 Mr. Brooke Petersen 611 West Main Street Aspen. Colorado 81611 Dear Brooke. I am in receipt of your letter dated June 16, 1983 concerning the contractual obligations of Mr. Jensen and the Board of County Commissioners. I have discussed with both Wes Light and the Board your request to postpone the painting of a portion of the fence until fall when Mr. Jensen's nurs~ry stock has been depleted. It was ,the strong feeling of the Board that the August 1 date for completion of the paint- ing is a final date and should not be postponed. Furthermore, the Board indicated its feeling that any violation of the terms of the contract by Mr. Jensen would result in the initiation of enforcement actions by Pitkin County. Brooke, I hope you can understand the Board's feeling on this matter, given the close public scrutiny it has received. If I can clarify the Board's position for you in any way, please let me know. Sincerely, ~ Alan Richman Assistant Planning Director cc: Wes Li ght Board of County Commissioners l)' ~ ,.., r~ l' 0 ~ '. " \"'" OJ .. . . . .' e LAW OFFICES BROOKE A. PETERSON A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION el1 WEST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 e 13031 925'816e , . February 23, 1983 Board of County Commissioners Pitkin County Pitkin County Courthouse 506 East, ~1ain Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Grizzly Landscapins an~ Groundskeeping, Inc. Dear Ladies and.Gentlemen: Please allow this letter to serve as a supplement to my letters of December 15, 1982, and February 2, 1983, and to the proposed Agreement acco~panying the letter of February 2, 1983. All of those documents, including this one, are the proposal required by the Public Notice referred to hereafter. I wish to address those criteria contained in the Public Notice published in The Aspen Times on February 10, 1~83, as they may be met by my client's proposal. It is impossible for us to present you with a sealed proposal as it has already been discussed by you, and by the Board of Adjust- ment. Rather, I would just like to comment on how our proposal meets the criteria you have set forth. E~cept as modifications may be necessitated by the terms of this letter, my client is still willing to execute that Agreement previously tendered to you, as we believe that document embodies the terms of our agreement with the Board of County Commissioners and the Colorado Department of Highways. I i ,I ;; ~ I ~ :1 1. The degree of noriconformity existing on this site should be reduced: As outlined in the letters and Agreement referred to above, it is my client's intention to conduct a . nursery operation on this site. As we discussed, this is a permitted use within the AF-l zone, and accordingly the use of the property will be: in conformity with the existing zoning. We also propose, obviously, to eliminate the existing gravel pile. Furthermore, in order to lessen the nonconformity of the existing structure, it will be remodeled so as to meet, inasmuch as possible, the present Pitkin County building code and specifications. The nonconformity caused by the site's location adjacent to Highway 82 will be alleviated by certain of the factors discussed below, including, but not limited to the possible relocation of the entrance to the site from that artery. C~t""!</""1 1 , :' '\,", ....... 4.'\.,.... e e / Board of County Commissioners February 23, 1982 Page 2, , . 2. The proposed use or activity for the site must be permitted under the current zoning regulations for the AF-l zone: As was previously stated the proposed use for the property is as a nursery, a permitted use in the AF-l zone. It should be noted that my client has already had extensive discussions with the Pitkin County Board of ,Adjustment and the Pitkin County Building Department concerning the ~?terior location of growing trees and plants, and neither entity has had any objection to the same under current zoning. 3. The proposals should reflect the highest level of development anticipated for the site, including square footage of the structure, variation of use and a schedule for the timing and sequencing of development. Additional build out beyond the scope of the proposal will be prohibi ted by covenant: As I~hay:~__s:t;ated .publicly_,_my ~lient is will~ng_,to.limi t the siz~ of improvements on the slte--to-a-maxlmum sizee,qual to that of the existing ~t~ucture, which has been calculated to be approximately two thousand, two_hundred (2,200) square feet. It is ~nticipated, as I have stated, that my client may even reduce the size of the existing buildings. As I have previously stated in various' meetings with your Board, ~urt Stewart, Pat Dobie and Patsy Newbury, it is not apticipated that there will be any variation in use by my elient from that of a nursery, except for the housing and ~torage of vehicles and equipment needed for the nursery and landscaping operation, in the inside of the building. furthermore, it is anticipated that any development on the property will be concluded by April of 1984, and hopefully much sooner. E.::-.~: . Cc~_ 4. Proposed uses 'and development will enhance the aesthetic characteristics of the site through structural a~d/or landscape improvements: Again, as has been previously alscussed, it is my client's intention to use cedar siding, and. cedar shakes on the roof in the remodeling of the building. ~he aesthetic improvement which will be caused by this r~modeling is obvious. Furthermore, my client ,is willing ~ t~ ~xtend the existing Airport Business Center'"green belt" ihrough the site, and to dO-landscaping. which will camouflage the existing fence. The benefit of growing shrubbery and trees over the existing gravel pile are also obvious as the actual operation conducted on the property' will in effect be ~l~ndscaping" on the property. As my client intends to be i~~the n~rsery and landscaping business, it is to its advan- tage to make -the site appear as nice as possible, Furthermore, all-vehicular and equipment storage will done as much as possible either in or behind the structure so it will not be ("/~I""'ll" ~., .,J.".: \_j'....... ........~ e e / Board of County Commissioners February 23, 1983 Page 3, visible from Highway 82 or from the adjacent properties. , - 5. The Highway Interface will be improved by physical modifications and/or reduction in traffic volume or realignment if possible: My client and I are in the midst of negotiations at the presnt time with the Boise Cascade Corporation. If these negotiations are successful we will be able to eliminate the present access to the site from Highway 82. As part of these discussions, the parties are also considering a realignment of the turn off from Highway 82 to Boise Cascade, so as to improve the integration of traffic from th~t center with th~~ on highway 82. If, however, those negotiations prove unsuccess- ful, the impact of a nursery operation and its traffic should reduce the volume of traffic now found with the Highway Depart- ment usage. My client is also wiling to cooperate with Pitkin County in future road alignment, and turn out realignment if necessary. 6. The proposal will be of significant public benefit and allow for the reconstruction of the Highway Department facility at no cost to Pitkin Couhty and the Colorado Department of Highways: As outlined in my earlier cO,rrespondence, and as previously discussed, the public benefits of this'project are enormous. The entrance into Aspen will be dramatically improved both in terms of the use of the property, the visual impact of the structure; and the exterior of the property by the acceptance of our proposal. The entire proposal, if accepted, w~ll further the policy stated in Section 2-16 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code: "It is also the policy of the County to minimize any adverse visual effects of roads and facilities by regulating the location and use of future development and the expansion of existing development where new or increased roads and facilities would be required to serve such areas and'where the provision of such roads and facilities would impact the visual quality of areas visible from public roads and trails or from major activity centers. It is also the policy of the County to minimize any adverse visual effects of roads and ,other. facilities by regulating their alignment, design, and construction so as to reduce their impact on the visual quality of any areas in the County and particularly public roads and trails and major activity areas. " Furthermore, if our negotiations with Boise Cascade are successful, there will be one less entrance from Highway 82, and this will create ,significant benefits from the standpoint of safety. This relocation will be in furtherance of the c:'f<,....,..... 3 . '; : "., .....; "~ " , e e / Board of County Commissioners February 23, 1983 Page 4, policy outlined in Section 2~9 of th~ Pitkin County Land Use '. Code: "It is the policy of the County to insure that new and upgraded roadways are designed~ engineered and constructed so as to mimimize future maintenance costs, and to regulate the development of new roads and road- way systems in a manner consistent with other County policies." Another benefit to the public and the County is the relocation of the Highway Department facility away from Highway 82, where its visual impact will be reduced. The County is well aware of the potential benefits to be derived from having its road and bridge operations located in the same facility as maintenance facilities of the state. In addition there may be a significant increase in safety as well, as there will be only one large concentration of fuel where there are now two. This property would also now be utilized for a purpose compatible with the surrounding area, as my client is moving its operations from the Airport Business Center to this property. Also, if appropriate, my client is willing to assist with the trail easements through this property. As reflected in the earlier documentation, my client wishes to involve Pitkin County in order to accomodate the Highway Department's inability to directly sell the property to my client and at the same time have a new facility built for its operations in this valley. Clearly our proposal will . not cost Pitkin County anything as my client is prepared to pay the market price for the property or the cost of the replacement of the Highway Department facility, ~p to a maximum cost to be agreed upon by all parties. If the criteria as set forth in the Public Notice are followed, the County may even earn a snaIl profit in the transaction if the replace- ment cost is less than the fair market value of the property. There will also be no degradation to the ,air quality from this project in furth~rance of the policy of Section 2-17 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. This would also be of a benefit to.the public. It cannot"be stressed enough, however, that the greatest benefit is the aesthetic improvement to the entrance to Aspen by the use of the pr6perty, and the improvements thereto which have been proposed by my client. 7. The. timing of the closinq must be such as to allow for the construction of a replacement structure before the 83-84 winter season: As is outlined in the proposed tri- part~ Agreemen~ and in our discussions, my client wishes to , }l' 'p, ,...,. /Yo'" 1 ~ .. '". .~ .... j ........ "',,", " e e Board of County Commissioners February 23, 1983 Page 5, '. close this transaction prior to April 15, 1983. This is approxi~ately forty five (45) days from'today's date. At that time, and assuming those conditions contained in whatever final agreement the parties have negotiated ,are met, it will pay the purchase price for the property in cash. From that point, the County and the State should be able to construct the facility contemplated for the Highway Department by November 1, 1983. 8. The terms at closing ~ill be cash reflecting a minimum offer of fair market value or replacement cost, whichever is higher: The draft of the Agreement, previously submitted, contains my client's position with respect to the purchase price for the property. 'That position is unchanged except that it is willing to expend in excess of the sum of twohundrp.d thousand dollars ($200,000.00) contained in that Agr=ement to acquire the property. 9. The proposal must be accepted by both the Colorado Department of- Highways and Pitkin County: . This criterium has always been a part of my client's discussions with the entities involved as outlined in my draft Agreement. In summary, I am of the opinion that the proposal we have put forth in my earlier correspondence, and the draft Agreement, the terms of which are incorporated herein by this reference, and the,modifications thereto as contained herein, constitute a proposal which more than meets all of the criteria as set forth in the Public ~otice. I feel constrained, however, to state that my client's willingness to participate in the process as outlined in the Public Notice may not be construed in any way as a waiver of any rights it may have based upon any past uealings with ei~her the Colorado Departwcnt of Highways or Pitkin County. I include that statement not as any kind of threat, but merely to preserve my clients rights, whatever they may be. Enclosed please also find a cashier!s check in the sum of one thousand dollars ($l,QPO.OO), as required,by the terms of the Public Notice. As you know, both my client and I have expended substantial time and effort on this matter to date. We both honestly feel our proposal for the property will be of benefit to all concerned, (,'P-: ~ (~ ,"a; .. s . " \ , .-<, .;:1.. "-'--'~-"-_._-P"_,~__~_,,__.,,, ~h_ ~_""'__ . .-...-..... .-- -....~....,...,.._~.....--_.._.. - -....-..-.."..-.. , ,;.~ ~ ... , . I Board of County ~issioners February 23, 1983 Page 6, e and we look forward to working with Pitkin County and the Colorado Department of Highways to that end., Thank you for your time and consideration. Yours very truly, BAP : j 0 By:' ~~: Grizzly Landscaping and Groun~~~eeping, Inc. .- -- - - .:- . ~ - ~- :..:: : -- ~ - , - -- - - - - - -- - - - - ~ - - - - - - . -.. ... - - --.- .. - - - : ... . .- - . .- -~ .. - c._ . . . - ." - - _.. -. . - --. . .. - .,- -.. - - . -- -- _.- - - ----.- -. - . - '--- ..p -- . :\'.-:-..~_ -~ :: . . 0_:" _. - . ...-.. . ... ...... - ", .- , ... . - - _. - . - - . ..... -~. .- - - -- - .. - . - -.. - -. : - "- -... - - - - - -....- -- . __ '._n__. c .~::..- C I ~ ~; ~: ~.. b "._-.. ._- ".--...-------.-.-. '~_"'''''_'~ .-..-.-.'.....---.-0----..........,...--........ --------- f J1 I . \. . .. - .~.... .... e ''wi 1'f;~~~~('CC " ,r:,r,." \ "') \ \:/'., .r1:' .. ; 'I' ,'\:, .' ~ ,;. ltH . ll.'T ~~ ,"", 1~ (if.: ...,., ; I" ".. ,I / I" '\ '.. < .~" , . . .' . -<} ~.,', ..:\fi, ,....: ./~~;j~ ~ . ". \."~ 1_;." ""\I_~~ . II!.J . I ;~~ \. " .. ., \ '.; , :~.' :>. ~~,'C. ' . } .jl ;:j: ;;,.:~"; ,} > " CL htl '&4 - 17)O/v ~S '. )~ ,Ii' , \, f: ., ,I \ i'I',! 2 , \ , ...\ ~~" ~~\ \ If V ;\ , ....) , I I ,\ )(,j .. i <1~ -9. SOl I. '<1 ,>1 . ~ IS 060 1'1 " . ci> <1 ~oq 09o,o~' " 0' -" (. 0 o ~S'.....:- 6 10'. .. .~- 'C;f;$;'ff;'" ;:' I ~<2" ~OO' ... ,("~ l'(') rOO0"6S' ................... /;>c;7<9~~ / 0 .. ~~ '--.............. S / I I , ---;r--,; fj 0 0 ""-"0'W, "'-___ '/ h'~ V)'?i"oo, ('i\'('~"('1j> --- ci Ww ~o~ '-... (' -4se-, . <0 .........." 4f~4'l"', . 4t sJ , ~ co .......... IJ~9~9' 6 6 _ '" 00" " 1/ / ~ ~ '(6 . " ZOr 00/ '. RED By,......... .., ~X h7'/ c ,)OC/ArES I /NC. " ':--.fY/'-- 2840 South Vallejo St. " " "i( 7%rado 80110 "",~ "" ~'" 1, l ~ t .... (' " \ \ ~';-~IJ~../ )Ju,/~ 'if U/r't\ ,', 1.303) 76/-4860 -8 " " ./ (.'1"''l7~17 .' '. .~ '-.' '- ..... :t: ,il: ;l.', . " i ;!!!;: l.! . 'i :' " \ :!i'iji!lir!lill !ji ;!~,Ii:jlll~:i'i :1 ;:,1: ,:~ tl ~il!il;:, ii'j ';fi"}, -n~~! ~;L I ;H~I'nlj,lq!! :~)t1Y~ jfmp!ii 11",11 II",!." ,:~: :1~1} ": i~m!~li :;i;i!"~llfl'i' : "Jl.f[ J",!,~,!",:~,,ir': .5: d,lWij~ : i""U' hit : >ilj! f',t lll;jli '" , II' li!l,1 '1?;~; jl,!f,! ;\):,f; L:,:; :( _ 1'1 111'llll;i:!~ I,: !Ii~!i:!~i;~ t :1: , t; ~q!f, ~;~:.~11; ;f: "lkrt'!1 ,Ii :~!fB~iLit!i: ' ,I~l:qi;:l[!i i il~[ir;iiii: ilr!lH,: fir ~:: "iill!, ~, r: tF "L ' ' ii i I [=-----".. , , ------~,_._._.- -~.__.- -. --. _._....._-_._._._._~~ I i i L~-..."... I ! I ! ! i '--1 \ ] -.-'------1 -, I ~ ,< t \ I I \ I ~ ~.: '~~' :~S ~ I " ~ ~ n _I (a.) e e '~ ~ I ~ ~ ( ~ ~, ~ ~ (b.) { .. r , ," .. I., ~ (} \..'>:: ....J "_ ~....~_~____ , your Jood ,riented a lot deter- ,ation it I can regulate 3, A well, ide the the seasons the day, make do 3.fford, ..;aping and however, that nature, eglected lion o general oed to 'n climates ';, how- eful Indi- mple, tes _ .."c:r: To make it breezier: Io"""Pruning of low branches of trees, Io"""Minimum lov, ,nt growth, Io"""Creation of breezeways (structural and planted), Io"""Shade trees and vines, Io"""Overh8~ -:;, awnings, canopies (cooler in time, warmer at night), 10""" Planted ground covers, Outdoor living areas are semi-enclosed to control wind and temperature, CJd, Shade cloth can be added over lath beams in summer, 33 (~~; :_~ '~~ 20 ~ ~ - e RECORD. OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves H ~I rCI( f I [1 1\ " l. C ,J. BOARD dF AD.JlJSTMENT FEBRUARY 28, 1984 PITKIN COUNTY MEt-lEERS PRESENT: Bill Mason, Chairman Paul Krausch Joe Zanin Bill Lukes Alternates: Evan Gull BiJ 1 t-~Olson called the meeting to order. He questioned' if there. were any, que;;otions or additions to. be made'ta the minutes of the last meeting. He wa\,~ed c1arification of the minutes ,with regards to the "grey area of the code thaL the Board could not handle . .,.". Newbury explained the situation to i'lason as it occurred at the meeting. There were no. other comments. Lukes moved to accept the minutes. Krausch second the motion.. Alan Fox, 84-02 Lot 7, Block 3, Aspen Grove SiD, requesting a 6 'sideyard se'tback variance for construction of garage. Mr. Fox ,was there to represent self. Joe Zanin disqualified himself because he is associated with Mr. Fox closely. Mason questioned exactly whe:re the driveway wau1d be. ,Fox praduced a copy of the survey with the existing driveway, which he claimed to be a hazard. He stated that his plans included making a new drive. Mason. stated that he did a site inspection and explained to the Board members that the lot was very steep. Mason felt it was the only reasonable place to put the gari1ge due to the terrain. Krausch questioned if the residence was nm,' exist ing and how far from the right-of-way the house was. Fox answered that it \vas 7.4' away. It was determined that the house was nan-conforming. HaSlln stated that there were no objections in the file and a sign was posTed. Gull moved to grant the variance due to. topographical hardships. Krausch second the motion. A vote was called for and all were in favor. Grizzley Landscaping & Nursery 84-03 21905 W. Highway 82, Aspen, requesting a setback variance from the Highway 82 corridor for constructian of a trellis. The owner, Bob Jensen, was there along with his representative, Brooke Peterson. Jensen e~plained that the structure would not have a roof, but a device to provide shade for the plants. Mason itated that a sign was posted and there were no objections in the file. He stated that he did receive, a call from Clark Smyth, an adjacent property owner, and Smyth was against anything happening on the site. Gull stated that he recalled from the original variance that it would not be looked upon favorably foradditioria1 structures being added in this location., Glen Horn was there to represent'the PLmning , Department and had some objections. He ,stated that his office objected to any construction at all with:in the 200', corridor., Also, they felt that anv additional construction with that corridor ,would b~'inconsistent with the original proposal made by this applicant. He presented a letter to thL Board from the applicant in response to the County's request regarding thE original proposal. This proposal was suppose to reflect the highest lcv,~l of development anticipated an the site. It also stated that additional build oul beyond the scope of the proposal would be prohibited. The applicant did respond at that time that he would be willing to limit the' e e RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves. J~'" ," : !-- lli',ETK(L R. fl. f! l. CJ. February 28, 1984 Board of Adjustment Page 2 size of the improvements on the lot .... The planning office felt that based upon these representations any further construction on ,the site would be j.nconsistent with the orlgin.:>l SI}l mission, Horn al~o discusst::d tIle i'=iSlle of the fe"lce pla.:.ed on the applicant' ~ prUpeL ty. The fe,lce ~;as to be painted by August 1, 1983. He gave a brief history of the correspondence between the Planning Dept; and the applicant. He produced copi~s of this correspondence. He requested that if the Board should approve this reqllest that a condition be placed on the approval regarding the painting of the fence. ' Newhury questioned the applicant about the access to the property from Highway 82. Peterson stated for the record that Grizzley Landscapes prior agreements are irrelevent to the Board, both legally and from a practical standpoint. But he did address the issues. He stated that he had been in contact with Curt Stewart, County Manager, and both felt that the issues had been dealt with. He explained that the fence was not painted right away because of stock brought in. Also they were informed that the fence could not be painted. But they have found a contractor since then that can paint the fence and will be painted prior to any stock arrival this spring. ' Peterson explained that an agreement had been reached with the County Commissioners to attempt to limit the access from that property because of the danger of Highway 82. He explained to do that an agreement had to be reached with Boise Cascade for an easement and were working on such. Peterson also mentioned the comments being made about the issue of a retail operation on the site. Peterson stated that at no time did the, applicant agree to not have retail operations on that property,' but agreed to' limit the retail opera t ions. The applicant is basically a landscaping business. Peterson' poin led all t that the ad in the telephone book was run without permission from the appUcant. He pointed out to the Board that at this time they were not adding to the' SQU:l ce footage of the property, but werE~ trying to limit the amount of direct sunl ight that the plants were getting The structure would not be usable for any other use. Bill Lukes stated that he agreed that the trellis fell into a grey area of the codc;, and was relatively low impact. But was concerned that it was within the 200' setback. And felt that the applicant went into the situation knowing what the restrictions would be on the property. Peterson agreerl, but pointed out that the applicant was not aware that a trellis would be necessary during the original application. Jenson pointed out that the trellis would be behind the existing fence and vines would be growing on the fence. He felt that visually it would have no impact. Horn stated to the Board that Peterson has represented the facts honestly to the Board and suggested a compromise of removing the trellis during the winter months. Jensen stated that he wanted pl~nts to be growing on and around the trellis and the post would beset in concrete. Lukes questioned if any other location was possible on the site. Jensen stated that .he was thinking of placing it in the back, but that was where his hardw~ar was 'stored so shi~ldad ~-' from Highway 82. ~ - e e RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves C. F, Hl)fCl([L B. u. It L. (,;J. February 28, 1984 Board of Adjustment Page 3 Mason questioned the applicant what the hardship was in this case. Peterson pointed out that the hardship was because the entire property was within the 200' setback. He also pointed out that it was nota hardship create~ by the applicant. Mason stated that the variance was originally granted beC:lllse there were existing structures and the applicant did improve the proi'erty. Peterson stated to the Board that the structures removed by the app! icant were more in square footage than the proposed trellis. Mason pointed out that the applicant could not produce a hardship that the Board could grant a variance on. Lukes stated that.he could not vote to :lpprovc the request, but was open to a motion to table the request and review the minutes from the previous variance for any guidance. Mason questioned the other Board members. Peterson questioned if the denial wouid be because of the previous agreements or because the Board does not want a structure such as this to be built. Mason did not have a problem with the structure, but was hard pressed for a hardship. Mason suggested that it be built lower than 6' to comply with codes. Gull felt that the restrictions on the property were clear when the applicant bought the property. Lukes stressed the fact that it was within the 200' setback corridor which was an important fact. Zanin moved to deny the variance request based on the fact that there was not a hardship. Krausch second the motion. A vote was called for and all were in favor. Alberto Hodari, MD 84-04 Lot 17, Block, Red MountainS/D, requesting a 16' front yard setback variance for construction of an addition. Bob McGraw and Bill Posswerethete 'to represent the owner. Mason pointed outtb the,Board that a sign had been posted and that a letter was on fl.le from Felix Boie as adjacent property owner, not agreeing to a variance until' he had viewed the pl";ms.. Krau sch stated that he waS confused with the request. Foss s'tated that it ~'2S an existing residence th~t encroa~hed upon the 30' setback. As part of the upgrading, they are proposing a new roof structure that would help with snow load. Poss stated that their hardship was due to the top()~raphv of the area where the existing residence was located. Mason questioned if there would be any more excavation. Poss stated that the area was over-excavated and they would be putting in a reta~ning wall and stepping the grade. Mason questioned where the parking would be Poss stated that therewotild be two within a carport and two out in front. McGraw pointed out on the drawings that the shaded area exists now and the cross-section would be the additional overhang. He explained that the interior area being added was 42 square feet of entry-way. Hason questioned if the Homeowners Association had been notified. Poss stated that they were on the agenda in three weeks. He stated that informally the Association had liked the upgrading of the structure. It was determined that a height variance was not necessary. Lukes moved to grant the variance as shown on the submitted site plan for the carport, enclosed entry and roof overhang subject to the approval of the Red Hountain Homeowners Association due to topography. Gull second the motion. A vote was called for and all were in favor. e e RECORD OF PROCE~DINGS 100 ,Leaves )RM ' q<lrCKEl. A. ,I. " l t:J. February 28, 1984 Board of Adjustment Page 4 3-J's, Lot 104, Mountain Valley 84-05 requesting a 20' front yard setback variance for construction of a garage. Alan Lauer was there to represent the owners. He explained that there was no other location for the garage on the lot. He presented a topography map to the Board so they could see the grade. He explained that the present driveway was very steep. It was determined that the garage was mostly underground. Lukes questioned if the old driveway would be re-vegetated. Lauer stated that the owners would want to use in the summer. Mason stated that he would prefer to see it re-vegetated. Krausch moved to grant the variance based on topographical hardship. Lukes suggested an amendment adding the description of 22 x 20 garage just for clarification. Krausch did not object.' Joe Zanin second the motion. A vote was called for and all wer~ in favor. Ted Koutsoubos, 0032 Mule Deer Run 84-06 requesting an 89' front yard setback variance and a 15' sideyard setback var Lance for construction of residence. ,Jerome Wood was there to represent the owner. Wood informed the Board that there was not a sign posted for this property. Mason stated that they would have to table the item until the sign has been posted for nine days. Shane/Bette Ortell, 0040 Elk Range Drive 84-07 requesting a 76' front yard setback, 8' west sideyard setback and .a 54' rearyard setback variances for construction of residence. Wood was also representing this owner and a sign had not been posted on this property. Hason stated that this item would have to be tabled also. 'Krausc.h questioned if they could act on these iteIlls with the condition that no objections come from the posting of the sign. Rob Heien was there to object to this request. He is the owner of Lot 9~ which is directly south of the lot in question. He stated that he would like to see the house located closer to the center of the lot to allow him more privacy when he places his residence on his lot. Wood explained that there was no location on the lot that was not within the setbacks. Lukes stated that the Board would try to work with Weien, but the applicant would need a variance one way or another. Wood stated that there wasn't a lot he could do because of the slope of the property. Luke suggested that a special meeting be set up after the signs had been properly posted. A meeting was set up for March, 13, 1984, at 5:15. John H. Stewart, Lot 43, Elk Mountain SiD 84-08 requesting a 53' front yard setback variance and a 5' sideyard setback varii1nce for construction of residence. Mr. Stewart was there to represent self. There were no objections in the file at the time of the meeting. A sign was posted. Newbury stated that the property was not zoned when subdivided. Gull questioned if the request conformed with the covenance of the subdivision. Newbury stated that they were. Hason stated that in pas t cases they tried to keep the structure within the ,covenance setbacks. Cu1] moved to grant the variance due to' downzoning,. Paul Krau8ch second the mot ion. A vote was called 'for and all were in favor. Meeting was adjourned.