Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.81.47• Dottie Fox moved that the following be adopted: BEFORE. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTP2ENT OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 81-47 Jimmy Buffett, Old Snowmass Creek WHEREAS, the subject property is within the unincorporated area of Pitkin County, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment is jested with the power to grant or deny such variances by virtue of Title I2, 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. NOt9, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the applicant's request for a 30' frontyard setback variance to construct a studio Additional conditions or restrictions: WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. Bill Lukes seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: Clark Smyth - yes Bill Lukes - yes Dottie Fox - yes Paul Krausch - no Joe Zanin - yes The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: October 27 , 1981 The Board o~~just~ent o~ Pitkin County, C ado/ /~ Attest: ~~ c~ ~~~~~ ~ Chairman ` g Secret~'ry ~ ~ ~ V ~ 1 d'( t~ ~ ~EAL TO CDARD OF ADJUSTt9Eh1T . County of Pitkin Date /0~9' 19 0/ Case # n I - ~-I ~ I Applicant ~0//1 t~ERin/ [YEA Address [jDX :2a~ B A~A~ O+rner 3im.n.y 8~~~=F'~~ rT Address p~/~ s~lec„~„~,~s~ Location of Property (Attached) Any pertinent data must accompany this app?ication, and vrill be made a part of this Case No. _ The~ard may re`urr this ao^lication if it does not contain all the facts in question. Applicant's description of proposed variance shovring justification: ~~ ~.~„~! 4 Applicant Signature _ rrryr, Vrrz ~~- Pro:'isior,s of the zoning resolution requiring the Building Inspector to forward this applic,,at)'on to the Board of Adjustment and reason for not granting a building p rmit: !~/2~- ~~.l~~aJ ~/~'-~ `Ui't'~/ i''[C-~.iu~t,4¢J .cam /P~ I ` -e+-~~ ae~t,e Building Ins{,. Signature Date permit rejected: Application Filed: Mailed Secretary, Board of Adjustment ~~~7~ lo~q $~ far' ~~~U~2 Board Decision Date: .... Q 80 S G qP.i Foc. GRc.E K RD, SnlowrngsS~ Coco, '. r ~IG59 + _.- - - -- f//lI0ER5ont_~ lz~cHARO C. . '.SitJo~JinAsS co<o. • BJcSY .- .. ' 000003 Y~ ti~ arc e~ v F 0 \~ODPOO ~ i ~ ,i.. / ~ I I~ ~/ ~ ~8/ ~ ~ ~~n ~ ~ o =~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -S~ / N ~~ r a ~o ~/ 1raC~ +~ / ~I ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ no I-~i I V O 2 h '~ii Q uFiErT C' _ ., b 8.0 ~ C;AP.IFo~ GR~E k RD, . SY~Gi..i~'+ASS~ Goc~~, ~ ,' A/1/OER~Sont•~ lZ~cHArtO C. . •.Sit10cJ•M~95S Coco. • 0000.05 • R~COfiQ OF PROC~E~INGS 1CC E.eavcs BOARD OF ADJUSTldENT October 27, 1981 A:Iembers Present: Clark Smyth, Acting Chairman Dottie Fox Paul Krausch Joe Zanin Associates: Kandi Shaffran Bill Lukes Robert Throm Evan cull Clark Smyth called the meeting to order. He asked if there was any discussion regarding the last meeting. Kandi Shaffran corrected the spelling of Robin Alolny on the minutes. Paul Krausch motioned to approve the minutes, Bill Lukes second the motion. Clark Smyth asked the Board if they had any questions regarding the resolution on the Grusin property. There were none. Evan Gull was welcomed to the Board as an associate member. William/Gale Burton, 1laroon Creek Rd. 81-41 requesting a 50' frontyard seiback variance for addition of a storage space. Stan ?:Iathis was there to represent the Burtants On September 15, a variance was granted for construction of the house but at that time. the garage was left off. Stan A4athis stated that the location of the accesory building was decided upon due to the bad r,ontour problems, mainly a cliff next to the creek. The shed would be necessary for storage of construction equipment and a recreational vehicle. Along the highway is a 6 to 7 foot berm that blocks all view of the proposed shed. The building size will be 16' wide and 40' long. Robert Throm wanted to know why this wasn't requested at the previous meeting. Stan Mathis explained that it was because the garage was not on the site plan a±. the time due to human error. There is also another garage that stores the cars only, There will be trees planted on the berm, Bill Lukes questioned if this was properly advertised. Stan "~athis stated that the sign was posted and the neighbors had been notified and there were no objections, Dottie Fox stated that it was the only logical area to place the garage. Robert Throm asked about the two accesses on Maroon Creek Rd. Stan 4lathis stated the Burton's would like to pull iii one way and pull out the other way, The second access is considered to be a limited access. Stan Alathi.s corrected the size of the building to be 20' wide, 50' long and 17'_high, This was determined to be under the height limit - measured to the center line of the gable and another five feet is allowed above that. Paul ?{r.ausch ~~ s.t. OOOU06 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ~Ot7 Leaves ruw w c. r. xoEac~ e. w. ~ .. ca. October 27, 1981 Board of Adjustment Page 2 questioned as to whether an out building with no living space is still prohibited from being constructed .over a leach field. Stan PRathis did not believe that a foundation could be built over one due to the fact that service might become necessary. Dottie Fox stated that she did not like the other access due to the fact that the berms created site difficulty. Bill Lukes questioned as to whether the Board had jurisdiction over the accesses of a property. Dottie Fox did not feel that they did but they could make suggestions, Stan Mathis suggested that the Board could grant the variance with the stipulation that the Highway Department be notified and the 'Burton's would comply with whatever objections the Highway Department might have. Dottie Fox motioned that ,t he variance be granted for 50 feet frontyard setback but would like. to flag it for the Buildin,n, Department that the Board does not Like the two accesses and feels that the County engineer should take a ]ook at it, Bill Lukes second the motion. All in favor, motion passed. Red M1lountain Ranch Hom requesting a variance each entrance, No one case was tabled. ssociation i' height and size to erect a si was present for the Association 81-42 gn at and the Sam & Paula Douglas, Lot 4, Block 4, I{nollwood S/D 81-43 requesting a ?5' frontyard setback variance to construct a carport, Pdeter Blaul was there to represent the Douglas's, The setbacks make it impossible to build the carport near the building site. There had been a site originally approved during construction of the house by the previous owner, however` it was never acted upon, The site that the present owner is requesting will allow the roof line to be 1~ inches below the highway and would allow Landscaping along with the natural landscaping already there. Paul I~rausch wanted to know if the original location was approved by the Board. It was agreed that it had been due to topographi- cal hardship, I{andi Shaffran made a site inspection and felt the structure would be unnoticable. Bill Lukes wanted to know if any landscape would be removed to accomplish the proposed turnaround for the garage. 94eter Blaul used nhoto- graphsto show the Board the proposed location and the trees that would be affected, This site would take virtually no undiseased trees from the area, Dottie Fox wanted to know what hardship was involved, It was decided that a topographi- cal hardship was involved due to a ditch on the property. Clark Smyth wanted to know how far the garage would be from the home. It was decided that it was ?.5 feet from the house. Paul Iirausch motioned that the variance previously granted by the Board for construction of garage be chanmed and relocated as requested. I{andi Shaffran second the motion, Clark Smyth asked Paul. if he wanted to include topographical hardship in the motion, Paul said the motion was on the same basis as the original variance granted, Dottie Fox felt that it might be better to grant a new variance altogether Clark Smyth was concerned because the only topographical hardship was the ditch and a determination needed to be made as to why it is being moved closer Lo the highway than originally requested. Paul felt that the reasoning was to lessen the impact on the x~ sz ooo~o~ RECOr~D OF PROCEEi;iNGS l0U Leaves rove w c. r, eatreu e. e. a ~. co. October 27, 1981 Board of Adjustment Page 3 ~ vegetation and to lessen the visual impact from the highway, Paul Krausch restated his motion to grant the variance as requested based on topographical hardship effecting siting of the garage and access to the garage and also to minimize the impact on the vegetation on the property, Kandy Shaffran second the motion. All in favor. Motion passed. Brown Rainwater 1740 Snowmass Creek Rd. 81-44 ' requesting a 72' frontyard setback variance for an addition to present residence. Bob Edmonson, along with Charlie Cummiff, arch. and Steve Orstad, were there to represent PRr, Rainwater. He explained that &Ir. Rainwater wanted to add a mechanical room because at this time all mechanical equipment is under- ground and the only access to this area is through a crawl space, I:andi wanted to know how high the addition would be. Bob answered that it would be 12 feet high and slope to 8 feet. The property was downzoned in 1979 from AF-2 to AF-1. The Board wanted to know if a variance had been granted regarding this property before. Bob replied that there had been no variance for this particular owner, however, the previous owner had been given a variance. The structure could hot be placed around the corner of the building due to an existing sewage system. Also power and sewer system lines enter the house at that corner, Bob stated that what the owner wanted was to upgrade the property and move all ttYe mechanical equipment out for easy service. The structure is designed so that all equipment will fit in. Paul Krausch questioned the previous variance and whether it had any stipulations involved, The Board thought the previous owner was requested to cut off the entrance of the driveway i that is closest to the intersect. Bob Edmonson stated that hlr. Brown would have no objections if the Board's determination including blocking off the other entrance. Paul was troubled that the determination had not been enforced. Bob restated b that !IIr. Brown was willing to comply with cutting off that access. Robert Throm questioned as to why it could not be placed on the other side of the house. Bob replied that cornex• would be the kitchen and the views would be blocked. Kandi wanted to know what would be done with the crawl space after everything was removed. Bob replied that nothing would be put there but it would be insulated. IIe also stated that the ground was wet there. Robert Throm wanted to know if it was feasible to store the equipment in the attic space. Bob Edmundson stated that it was not. Robert then wanted to know what the hardship was. Charlie stated that it was hard to get service people to come work on the equipment due to the present location of the equip- ment. Clark Smyth stated that that area appears to be the most logical. However, the Board is concerned with the previously x~ s3 00000 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ranv • c. r. ~nran e. n. n i. co. October 27, 1981 Board of Adjustment Page 4 set condition that was never met. Robert Throm felt that had no bearing on this case at all, It was the Board's inability to enforce the Board's ruling, Clark stated that even though it was not the same owner, it was the same piece of property, Robert Throm suggested that approval of this variance could be made subject to closing off the other access. Paul Krausch was still worriQd about the enforcement of such a condition, Paul requested that research be done on the situation to see if a condition had been set and have someone follow up on it, Robert Throm moved that the variance tie granted, subject to the Building Department enforcing the previous variance, on the ground that the property has been downzoned and that there are topographical considerations in terms of narrowness of the lot which preclude to building the proposed structure any- where else. Dottie Fox second the motion. All in favor, Motion passed. Martin Horowitz, Block 7 Lot 8' Brush Creek S/D 81-45 requesting a 25' frontyard setback variance and a 8' height variance for construction of a garage. Martin Horowitz was there to represent himself. He explained, by using an updated map showing the topography where the present house sits. The first issue is the construction of a hot tub. IIe wants to place the hot tub on the back side of the house. It would not be visible from the road. Further over it gets very steep. For this construction he needs a 15•' setback. The second request was regarding the height on the construction of the garage, He showed the Board where he would like the site to be, There will be no request for a pump house since he has an alternate plan for that. The property has been zoned AF-1, He needs a 25 foot setback variance for the garage and an 8 foot height variance. The height variance is necessary for a caretaker unit on top of the garage, The height on the garage will not restrict any of the neighbors views. Clark Smyth questioned if caretakers units had to be attached to the house, Robert Throm stated that what ?Ir, Horowizt requested in writing is not what he wants to do, Dottie Fox questioned if the Building Department was aware that P:Ir, Horowitz wanted a caretaker unit above the garage. Paul Krausch stated that for the applicants best interest he should spend more time with Patsy Newbury of the Building Department to clarify what is needed, He felt at this time the Board could not grant the requested variances. Mr. Horowitz stated that he needed these variances so that he could proceed with his plans as to location and height, Dottie stated that the caretaker unit in a detached unit was a situation that the Board could not deal with. The Board decided that the hot tub could be dealt with. Dottie Fox questioned the hardship regarding this rQquesl:. *Iartin stated N~ 000009 RECURD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ran+ o e. r. n~meec e. e. ~ ~. ca. October 27, 1981 Board of Adjustment Page 5 that it was the exceptional topographical conditions, Dottie Fox asked if there were any other location the tub could be located, The other location to-place it would be behind the house, but due to the steep grade during the winter there would be no access to it. Another possible location would need a variance and would be in front a solar heat collector wall. If place on north side of house it would be in the shade. ' Kandi Shaffran abstained due to friendship of the applicant. However, she is famili.our with the lot and felt that site was the only place that the tub could'go, Dottie moticned to approve the variance for the hot tub due to topographical hardship, She stated that the other two requests should be tabled for more information. Joe Zanin second the motion, Clark Smyth called for a vote. Five were in favor, one opposed. Motion carried. The Board suggested to ^4r, Horowitz that after he discusses the caretakers unit with Patsy Newbury, the Board would consider a special meeting to act upon the matter. Columbine Storage Center, Inc.' 0161 Pacific~Ave 81-46 requesting a variance for 3484 square feet over the allowed floor area ratio Clark Smyth abstained due to the fact that he is part of the managing company of the Airport Business Center, Robert Throm abstained also due to the fact he is partial owner of Columbine Storage. bSarty Kahn was there to represent the Columbine Storage Center. Bill Ortman and John Gates were there also to answer any questions the Board might have Basically the applicant is requesting a variance from the F,A.R, regulations, When the building was originally conceived in 1972 it was designed to be built in two phases. The first phase is existing. The theory was because it was a storage area and should be built when the additional area is necessary, At this time the additional area is necessary, However the area has been down- zoned. This has created the hardship, 14arty Kahn produced a drawing for the Board to see what the additional space would look like. The amount of additional F,A,R. allowed is roughly 1200 sq ft and Columbine wants to build an additional 4500 sq ft. Columbine felt that 1200 sq ft would not help the business needs. Bill Lukes questioned if the additional square footage would effect required parking spaces. Clark informed the Board that an amendment had been passed due to Obermeyer that under special review of the County Commissioners they will allow warehouses to have one per 1000 sq ft. Bill Ortman stated that Columbine would then qualify with enough parking. Dottie Fox wanted to know if John "ScBride had any comments regarding this expansion. Clark Stated that the management's feeling was that there would be no objection if the present landscaping was kept and additional landscaping created, Paul Krausch was troubled because only the property owners were notified and not the adjoining tenants, Bill Lukes was concerned about the development not being consistant with the goals of the Airport Business Center due to the high density. N`: 65 000010 RECORD OF PROCEEDItJGS i00 Leaves c. n e~rcnn n. n. n i, ca October 27, 1981 Board of Adjustment Page 6 Dwight Schellmun was there to represent Cooley Investment, which is a general partner in Aspen Self Storage. They would like i some sort of statement from the Board upon denial stating their feeling about additional storage space in the Aspen area, Also, if the Board grants the variance, Aspen Storage would be very interested in the reasons for _arantin~; it. Marty Kahn argued that the hardship was that the building was designed before the Commissioners set the ,36 F.A.R. and this legislation makes it impossible to continue with the next phase of expanstion. warty pointed out to the Board the need in the community for the addition to self storage, Paul Krausch questioned if the sign had been posted. 'arty replied that it had, Paul I{rausch then wanted to know if any of the tenants had objected, Marty replied that they had not, Bill Lukes agreed with the need for self storage, however, he feels the application basically states the applicant wants the variance because he needs the variance. He could see no real hardship. Evan Gull did not feel that downzoning had created a hardship. He stated that the County Commissioners chose to legislate the F.A,R, for this property for this type of usage and he felt that the commissioners should make this decision, not the Board. He stated that the Roard had no grounds to approae this variance, Robert Throm felt that there was a hardship since the property had been downzoned since the original design for the coMpany had been conceived. Marty Kahn pointed out to the Board that this addition had positive impacts on the community, Paul Krausch felt that the Board was not qualified to make the judgement as to the need for storage in this community. Dottie Fox was concerned about the amount that the applicant was requesting, She questioned Clark Smyth about whether this request was within the covenance of the Airport Business Center. Clark stated that the Airport Business Center would not allow a continual road cut. The main concern with the ABC management was the land- scaping. Dottie wanted to know if 16 parking spaces would allow enough landscaping, Clark was not sure, but the plat did not show enough. Steve Schubert was there as a general partner of Aspen Self Storage. He stated that he was interested in the logic used in granting this variance because they will need more square footage in the future. Evan Gullrestated that the law has defined the F,A.R, as a reasonable use for the subject property and the issue was not within the scope of the Board's decision, - Paul Krausch felt there was a hardship imposed because the land was bought with plans in mind and downzoning occured and now the plans could hot be acted upon, N° 66 000011 RECvRD OF PROCEEDINGS jug Leaves .~,.. ~.,..~«.a....,..~o. October 27, 1981 Board of Adjustment Page 7 It was discovered that the land had been purchased after the downzoning ' had occured. Paul Krausch then stated that there was no hardship because the owners knew when the purchase was made what the F,A.R, was. Clark Smyth stated to Marty Kahn that Columbine might not need the full amount they were asking for because part of'the building is built into a hillside and could be considered basement area. Basement areas are excluded from F,A,R. Bill Lukes suggested that the applicant consider tabling; this issue until they have the floor area re-calculated by the Building; Department, A survey was taken of the members to see if having less of a request vrould make a difference to them, Dottie Fox stated that it would Evan Gull stated that it would not. Bill Lukes stated that it wuuld not, Kandi Shaffran stated that it would not. Bill Lukes stated that if it was tabled he would be interested in hearing some comments from John McBride regarding the impacts on the development of the Airport Business Center, Evan Gull motioned to deny the variance request, Dottie Fox second the motion. All in favor - Dottie Fox, Paul I{rausch, Evan Gull. All opposed - Bill Lukes Joe Zanin, .Clark stated that 4 positive votes were needed, therefore the motion did not pass. Dottie Fox motioned that the issue be tabled until the next meeting. so that further information could be brought to the Board. Bill Lukes second the motion. All in favor - Dottie Fox, Joe Zanin, Bil]. Lukes, Kandi Shaffran, Opposed - Evan Gull, Paul Krausch, Motion passed, Jimmy Buffett, Old Snowmass Creek 81-47 requesting a 30' frontyard setback variance to construct a studio. Tom Vermilyea was there to represent Jimmy Buffet, He explained that Buffet wanted to build a summer studio away from the house. He pointed out to the members the existing house and garage on the property. He discovered when applying for the building permit that there was a 100 foot setback so he needs a variance of 30 feet for this proposed building, Tom pointed out to the members where theroad ran and where the main access was to the house. This access is on an easement and has a footbridge that goes to the house. The other access goes directly to the house, This is the access that the Building Department uses to define the frontyard line. Tom stated that the structure would not be visible in the summer and in the winter it would be barely visible, This was the only real buildable spot on the property in Tom's opinion. There is a 45 degree steepness that goes into a hillside at one point and on another side there is a sewage system. Bill Lukes stated that he was not satisfied with the designated front yard line. Dottie Fox motioned to approve the variance for a 30' setback based upon topographical hardship. Paul Krausch disagreed stating there was building area on the lot that would not need a variance. ~~ 6~ ~~Q~~~ RECORD OF PROCEEuINGS i00 Leaves rox~ x e. r. eoerxa e. a. ~ ~. c October 27, 1981 Board of Adjustment Page 8 i Bill Lukes disagreed with the description of a frontyard when it faced another piece of property and not the road, Clark Smyth did not feel there was a real hardship but the Board could disagree with the Building Department's decision as to what the frontyard is. Dottie Fox withdrew her motion and motioned that the Board determine that the Building Department's designation of the frontyard is incorrect and the access off of Snowmass Creek Road is the frontyard and therefore a variance is not necessary. Bill Lukes second the motion. Majori±y in favor, one opposed. ?,4otion carried, The-meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted: Secretary N° 6~ OD^Dt3