Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.81.46RPPEAL TO EiOARD OF ADJUSTIIENT County of Pitkin Date //77~~~~ li; ~~ 19~ / Case ~_ r I- 4 .. Applicant (~C'Ltl~t~~r/2-~,~~"t~Z!*.P,(~'/'~G^~~ddress 111 Pacific Avenue (office) Owner George.Perreault & Gilbert Waters Address Sox ..764 Aspen, CO ~ Sarasota, FL Location of Property 0161 Pacific Avenue(Airport Business Center;? Aspen, CO (Attached) Any pertinen*. data must accompany this application, and will be made a part of this Case No. The 3oard may return, this application if it does not contain all the facts in question. Applicant's description of proposed variance sharing justification: Applicant requests a variance to erect an addition to the existing building greater than permitted by the applicable F.A.R. because of hardship created by "downzoning". P7hen the Storage Center was originally designed (in September of 1972) it was designed to be built in two phases - the second as local demand for storage increased to the point where the first phase could no longer serve the community's needs. After the first phase was built, the .36 F.A.R. was adopted. The first phase is completely "spoken for" and Aspen residents and businesses are now forced to go to Colton's in Glenwood Springs .for storage, creating a hardship on applicant as well as customers, and increasing traffic on Highway 82. ~'~~.N„-r~c.; .~ ~~~<.~ ~~~~~~ G~~<u-Gam.--~ . Applicant SignaturQ•'~~'LLj~-L~`/(-L~i~.E%~~ i Provisions of the zoning resolution requiri~~y the Building Inspector to forward this application to the Board of Adjustment and. reason for not gra ting a building perm}t• Building Insp. Sinnature ^• - - Date permit rejected: Board Decision 4nnlication Filed: Date: courunc .rR~ist O ~ i OCT9 1981 ~ q,'~~ ~ ~ QaO~Ofl fi ~z~ wrKrn counTr a ~~!°a ... Adjacent property owners in re Columbine Application: Mr. John McBride c/o Aspen Airport Business Center 105 Pacific Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 ~~~~~~ i:.:.av.ra.. -r: -r L'4 P F:J~ ~ ~'v_j. 1 ~_ ____ ___ _- 1.-_.__ ~ &__ ~1~.e~ ---._- - _..__ t •. y 1.-.. _._. _. ~ r _._. ~. _L,.~~ I Eaisic.su.e. gq,g1 ~ _ _ SOUTH ELEVATION ~~,._,_- J , vt. ,, -.,-`7. L ~_ ~...a ~ .- _ s. EAST ELEVATION F... _._ . _. __ __ _. _._. _..._. _ . . ._... .l NORTH ELEVATION f.•Ir"n Y~ i-•r•-•- a~a~~~33 .,, Vf11ii:.~~' :11':.1 ~• .Ivq .. 1. r"„. •. ` ~- /; - -! _ ~ ~ ~'--s ~ / ~ - ~ `. ~' ~ ,~ .~ T ' fv_ i +~ • ~ROPOSED ~ EXISTING BUILDING ~W BUILD N ! ~ --1 _.. _ ~_{..~-_~ . -9 (' ~ c -~ L'._. _ ~ - ~ I ~ O' ~• __ ~ , ~ I c~ - ~-~ SITE PLAN I"=4o~.c rN~+r -r9r;Jatl,ril'.%~'y--~v-+•ti' F~,l' IL.~r,e.-m1.~:Lr.1 ar[~111-=Y LIN:: u:CAI(= 2!' -ice c e r~ i ~ ^-t . I.~ J Q~U uS~.~~ . - `~ ) October 28, 1981 Sandy - Would you please advise the Board of Adjustment in some way if they have the ability to change the accesses that an owner may have. Example: An owner has two accesses and one is dangerous. What rights does .t he Board have to request the owner. to c ange an w access. i ~, - c.r Thanks, ,g'~"~ ~ 6 I',, r t ` /' ( i. ` 6 ' ~ ~_ Audrey ~~~d~~ I~ ~= L~ ~l ~. ~ Building Department ~ ~~ l'.i' ~~ ~-' P.S. A variance for Columbine Storage came before the Board as attached. Is this type of variance request in the jurisdiction of the Board or should it go before P & Z. Thanks AR ~: O~~C~S MEi`QORANDUM TO: Members of the Board~of~Adjustment FROM: Sandra M. Stuller ~~~' i~~ DATE: November 4, 1981 RE: Application of Columbine Storage Members of the Board: The application of Columbine Storage for a variance from the F.A.R. require- ments is in my opinion (based on the information 2 have) entirely inappropriate. The ground for the application is that the F.A.R. for the district creates a hardship because there is need by the public for additional commercial storage in the area. Such a rationale does not even begin to qualify as grounds for a variance. Code Provisions The Land Use Code permits you to grant a variance when (Section 16-1. 3) "by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of a piece of property...or by reason of exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary or exceptional physical characteristics or condition of such piece of property... the strict application of any zoning regulation would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner...provided such relief (i.e. a variance) may be granted...without substantially altering or impairing the intent and purpose of the zoning district regulations and the policies and regulations of this Code...." The application has nothing to do with the shape of the lot or topographic conditions; the effects of the F.A.R. limitations are not unique to this applicant; and the grant of the variance would directly defeat the purpose of the F.A.R. regulation adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. General Considerations The applicant is generally asking you to override the power of the Board of County Commissioners to establish allowable densities because the applicant disagrees with the Board's determination of the amount of commercial space to be permitted by the Land Use Code. This is a totally inappropriate use of the Board and its powers to grant variances. SMS:cjs N ©l3-~~~ Sandy - October 28, 1981 Would you please advise the Board of Adjustment in some way if they have the ability to change the accesses that an owner may have. Example: An owner has two accesses and one is dangerous. What rights does the Board have to request the owner to change an access. ~% Thanks, ~ `~ ~ I. '~ Audrey Building Department P.S. A variance for Columbine Storage came before the Board as attached. Is this type of variance request in the jurisdiction of the Board or should it go before P & Z, Thanks QQQQQ~ AR APPEAL TO BOARD OF ADJUSTf-0ENT County of Pitkin Date lu I~ p~,,19b/ Appl i cant ~~iCY1 t~K~2-~;A~LC~~a~> ~-/Z~~~„dlddress X111 Owner George.Perreault & Gilbert Waters Address box 764 Aspen, CU zx Sarasota, E'L Location of Property 0161 Pacific Avenue(Airport Business Center;} Aspen, CO Attached) Any pertinen*. data must accompany this application, and will be made a part of this Case No. The 3oard may return, this application if it does not contain all the facts in question. Applicant's description of proposed variance shcvring justification: Applicant requests a variance to erect an addition to the existing building greater than permitted by the applicable F.A.R. because of hardship created by "downzoning". When the Storage Center was originally designed (in September of 1972) it was designed to be built in two phases - the second as local demand for storage increased to the point where the first phase could no longer serve the community's needs. After the first phase was built, the .36 F.A.R. was adopted. The first phase is completely ".spoken for" and Aspen residents and businesses are now forced to go to Colton's in Glenwood Springs .for storage, cresting a hardship on applicant as well as customers, and increasing traffic on Highway 82. /~/~~c.~-,,-rte ~~/ - '~~~ ' Applicant Signatu Provisions of the zoning resolution reyuiriuy the Building Inspector to forward this application to the Board of Adjustment and reason for not gra ting a building perm t ' _ Building Insp. Sinnature Date permit rejected: Annlication Filed: ocrs ~s~~ PJTKIN COUryIY '=S~'CN, COLORADO E1fri~. ~~~~~ ~'~~'~' Board Decision Date: ooooo~ Case ~ ~~- y~,, Pacific Avenue (office) P~^^RD OF PPOC~wl;dG~ ~3~ Leaves BOARD OF ADJUST^rtE1VT October 27, 1981 T.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 '14olny on the minutes. Paul I{rausch 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. 1Yilliam!Gale Burton, ;viaroon Creek Rd. 81-41 requesting a 50' frontyard setback variance for addition of a storage space, Stan 'r:fathis was there to represent the Burton~•s On September 15, a variance was granted for construction of the house but at that time the garage was left off, Stan Mathis stated that the location of the accesory building was decided upon due to the bad contour 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 Slathis explained that it was because the garage was not on the site plan at 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 ".Iathis 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 Aiaroon Creek Rd, Stan *-Iathis stated the Burton's would like to pull in one way and pull out the other way, The second access is considered to be a limited access. Stan Rlathis 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 lirausch N° 61 000009 .. REC ;IiD OF PROCEEDINGS it~t~ Leaves ron~ +, c. r, xnrcnn n. n. n October 27, 1981 Board of Adjustment Page 2 questioned as to whether an out building with no living space i is still prohibited from being constructed over a leach field. Stan P~athis 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 Lakes 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 Building Department that the Board does not like the two accesses and feels that the County engineer should take a look at it, Bill Lukes second the motion. All in favor. motion passed. Red :Mountain Ranch Homeowners Association 81-42 requesting a variance of height and size to erect a sign at each entrance. No one was present for the Association and the case was tabled. Sam & Paula Douglas, Lot 4, Block 4, I{nollwood S/D 81-43 requesting a 75' frontyard setback variance to construct a carport. Meter 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 10 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- y 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. Meter Blaul used photo- 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 cvas decided that it was 25 feet from the house. Paul Krausch motioned that the variance previously granted by the Board for. construction of garage be changed 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 to the highway than originally requested. Paul felt that the reasoning was to lessrn the impact on the Nn ~y /~. ry n . ~~u:.t~ rSECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves 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 requestinl; a 72' frontyard setback variance for an addition to present residence. Bob Edmonson, along with Charlie Cuc*mmiff, a~.rch. and Steve Orstad, were there to represent Mr. Rainwater. He explained that P~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, Kandi 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 not 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 the 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 that is closest to the intersect. Bob Edmonson stated that Mr. Brown would have no objections if the Board's deterrminati.on including blocking off the other entrance. Paul was troubled that the determination had not been enforced. Bob restated that Mr. 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. Sob replied that corner 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. He 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 N° 63 000011 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves row a c. r. «nECeu n. a. n ., 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 worried 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, D.Iotion passed, i i v i Martin Horowitz, Block 7, Lot 8' Brush Creek S/D S1-45 requesting a 25' frontyard setback variance and a 8' height variance for construction of a garage. Martin i~orowitz was there to represent himself, FIe 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 Tor. 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. bir. 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 request. "4artin stated Id° 69 000012 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves runn ,a c. r. xoccn r~ e. e October 27, 1981 Board of Adjustment Page 5 ~. that it was the exceptional topographical conditions, i 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 familiour with the lot and felt ti~at site was the only place that the tub could'go, Dottie motioned to approve the variance for the hot tub due to topo~raphical 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 .Tar. 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. Marty 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. F~hen 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. 1larty Kahn produced a drawing for the Board to see what the additional space would look like. 3 9 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 footas~e would effect required parking spaces. Clark informed the Board that an amendment ha.d 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. nottie Fox wanted to know if John ":1cFiride 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 kent 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 sJ 000013 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves roan ,e c.r an rie e.n c. ce. 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 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 granting; 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 :;elf storage, Paul Krausch questioned if the sign had been posted. ".,Tarty 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 Board had no grounds to approve 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. Harty 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 abottt 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 Gallrestated 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 Bgard's decision. Paul I{rausch felt there was a was bought with plans in mind plans could hot be acted upon. hardship imposed because the land and downzoning occured and now the N° 66 000014 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves IOrtM w C. I. Mnt~R LL l1. B.n L 1 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 sungested 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 would make a difference to them, Dottie Fox stated that it would Evan Gull stated that it would not. Bill Lukes stated that it would 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 Krausch, 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, Bill 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. 000015 ~O ~~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ,~.,. ~.....«F~. ..~~. October 27, 1981 Board of Adjustment Page 8 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. Majority in favor, one opposed b4otion carried, The-meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted: Secretary ~i~~c1~ ~~ x~ ss oooo~s . ~ ! i Board of Adjustment Meeting - 10/27/81 Regarding Columbine Storage Request for Variance Clark Smyth This is Columbine Storage Center, Airport Business Center. I will have to abstain from any voting on this, I manage the Airport Business Center. Maybe since we have been around, Bill and Candy can both vote. Bob Throm I have to abstain from this also since I own the or am the partial owner of the existing warehouse ... Smyth OK, and Marty are you here. Marty Kahn Yea, I'm here for the applicant. ...architectual reflections here. I think that I gave one or two copies of this map to your secretary, I've got a couple of extras. Basically what they are asking for is a variance from the FAR reg- ulations. As I pointed out on the application the building was originally conceived I think it was 1972. It was designed, these are the original plans, it was designed in two phases, basically the existing phase which is this and then this addition. And the theory behind it was because it's a storage center it's complete pointless to build a space until you have a need for it because it's dead space. Now they are at a point when this is full virtually all the time they are sending people down to Glenwood all the time and in the interim after these plans were drawn down zoning came in - the .36 FAR came in. So what this total space was originally conceived to be when it was necessary, a total of some 13,200 sq. feet I think ~n area they would now like to extend to I think it's something like 11,100 feet and to do that adding unto the exsting, roughly 6,400 sq. ft. building they would need about variances of about 3,400 sq. feet. This is a drawing of well you've seen the drawing of what this conception of what they want to do. And this is a rendering of what it would basically look like. And I guess the feeling is or our feeling is that hardship is that or was created by the down zoning and I know that one could say that you should have built the building out before you were affected by it, as soon as you knew what was going to happen. But to ask somebody to build a storage space for which there is no need just doesn't make any sense. I think that some of the considerations which I think bear upon this issue at least we're in asituation where they're sending people down to Coltons in Glenwood for storage and moving. There are some other substorage spaces in Aspen but I think they are basically full and they are different in'that they don't have a PUC license in moving. But this is basically the only Pitkin County storage and moving operation. I would be happy to answer any questions, I'll try to with Bill and John. Paul Kraush Can you explain one more time your size requested as opposed to the size permitted? Kahn OK, I think that permitted as of, right John if I'm right about this, they would have an additional roughly 1200 sq. ft. And they want to build an additional, roughly, 4500. But the 0 O Q O ~ ~ 1200 sq. ft., given the size of the containers, doesn't do Page 2 much goo I mean it's not as if its a retail store and another 1200 sq. ft. would let them get a lot of merchandise in. The 1200 sq. ft is just not economical. They can't build it. Bill Lukes Does it have any impact on required parking spaces or other uses of the site. Kahn I think that with this drawing or proposed use I think they would have enough parking. Is that correct? Bill Orton Ah, actually no, the required parking would be 25. We can get 16. Kahn ...I mean, I was not under, I had understood that we didn't need more parking. Smyth 25 spaces based on... Orton 450 sq. feet. Smyth There is, there was an amendment because of Obermyer to the LUC that under special review by the County Commissioner they will allow warehouse to have one per thousand sq. feet because the idea is that they do not need as much parking. Orton? If we qualified without that we would be Smyth or You've got 16 spaces and we're looking at a total of 11,400 Kahn ft. or something like that. Fox Any comment from John McBride? McBride I think our only feeling would be if it required the normal amount of parking we would be against it because it would leave the building and parking would be all, there would be no landscaping. We would not object if there was the existing landscaping which may not be still preserved or and also over here additional landscaping would be created so you just don't have building and parking and nothing else. I guess that shows that some here and on the other end Fox That's way at the back. unidentified .... unidentified little things that troubled me about the procedure in a case ,~'! like this is that the only adjoining property owner that ~`>`t`~ ~ needs to be notified is John McBride and yet there are adjoining tenants who4wi11 be impacted both from the construction of this thing and from the impact of it and that troubles me a little bit. Their lives and their businesses are going to be affected by it and yet they don't have a voice. And I just express it as a concern. Kahn You know I appreciate that. I think that unidentified .... ,~ I ; r ~ ; t i 00001° Page 3 Bill Lukes One thing that concerns me about it is that I see in the development plan, and this is related to what Clark was pointing out, is that certain aspects of the development that I know would be not consistent with the goals of the Airport Business Center and the reason that I'm concerned about it is specifically because it is going to result in such a high density, high density and use of the site that basically what we are going to have is 124 ft. long curve cut with solid parking in front. And I know that to be if not literally against the covenants, questionabily as to whether it is .... the covenants. Dwight Shellman I'm Dwight Shellman.Cooleyasked me to appear and review the file.... the relationship is that Cooley Investment Company is a general partner in Aspen Self Storage... Their relationship with Columbine ... and not cooperative I just want to... the observation that I made after reviewing the file is .... Aspen Self storage is very interested in... storage space some Kahn Well I could say with friends like you Shellman I didn't really expect to be heard but I did want to solicit some standing from the Board... the variance to the effect that there is great need for this kind of a facility in the community and being directed specifically to this application the Board grants the variance... Kahn Well I think that there are grants, I mean that the hardship is that the building was constructed, that the initial phase of the building was constructed before the .36 FAR. The 36 FAR makes it such that it's really impossible 1200 sq. ft. in the context of this building that would be allowed is essentially non-useful 1200 sq. ft. It's not like a retail business or a restaurant where you know if you can't get in 20 more tables you can get in 10 more tables and get a return on your investment. The 1200 sq. ft. as I understand from ... is they 3~s~ can't do anything more in their kinds of storage. It's not that the self storage its the kind some of you, out there they have the big containers with the fork lift trucks and so that is the basis. And I think the hardship is evident by the fact that they are unable to expand the building given the FAR that the supply exceeds, the supply just cannot meet the demand. They are constantly sending people down to Glenwood. To me you know in terms of the County's policy and the Airport Business Center Policy it makes more sense to have Aspen people if they got to use storage not to have to go to Coltons to do it. I mean it increase cost and traffic and I would think that I appreciate your concern about the fact that John was the only that ought to be O O O O Z 9 notified, was the only one that had to be notified. I think something that perhaps the Board could consider in the future in terms of making regulations to either request that the owner give notice to his tenants or required to be given to the tenants. Sometimes it's difficult to determine who a tenant is. The owner is easy because you just have to go to the records and determine who the owner of the property is. Kraush Has there been a posting out there. Kahn There has been a posting. Kraush And to your knowledge has there been any tenants express their concern about this. Kahn Certainly not to me. Bill... Lukes I have it just the other way.... Gull I have a real problem with this because I concur completely with the need for storage and the appropriateness of the use and the location and everything else. I am totally behind it. But what I see is an application that basically says they would like a variance to the floor area ratio because we need it. An in essence not only does that open up the entire airport business center but it essentially anything could get a variance because they need it. Lukes I think we are all being far too kind because everybody knows everyone here too well. I've been gone from town a long time. Maybe i can afford to say something. I don't think that down zoning has created a hardship that is not imposed on anyone else, no particular special hardship that is unique to this piece of property and the County Commissioners have chosen to legislate ...FAR for this type of use and it's a clear case of trying to change for this for a more subjective need reason. And I think that is what the Commissioners are for and not what we are for. I see no grounds upon which to approve this, otherwise I might like to take my piece of land and build a boarding house on it. There is no justification according to the charter of our board and/or within the intent of the zoning which is to restrict size and bulk in the community. unidentified I have a feeling that as some of you have some experience of dealing and working out in the area that it maybe quite possible that as time goes on the demands on the airport business center what it is and hat relationship it has to the community may certainly c~angrom what it was envisioned when it was down zoned. If I just .... hardship that I don't know how I could turn down any subsequent variance, request for variance. Throm Well I shouldn't say anything, I will. I see a real definite hardship since that these entrepreneurs bought a piece of property from Mr. McBride some years ago with a decent plan in mind and now they can't do that business plan simply because of a down zone. ...we grant from this Board consistently a variance because of a down zoning so Q Q Q Q ~ Q that there seems to be two issues here. One whether or Page ~ > not the request is so much above the existing floor area ratio requirement or whether or not the actual down zoning in fact is a hardship because now these people are sitting with one structure which at the time of their inception was planned for additional space so there is absolutely, in my mind, a down, a variance potential because of down zoning. Now whether the issue is that they are pushing and asking for too much in terms of FAR is another issue and my mind. Lukes I guess haven't reacted - I know in a short time... due to down zoning but it has not been a case where the correctness of down zoning or the FAR as a result ... questionsed but rather the impacts of changing the zoning on a piece of land of a certain size or configuration that couldn't have been anticipated as a result of... Kraush I don't agree with you. I can remember specific cases where the ... brought the request... to this Board... living in a small home unable to add on to it because of the down zoning on the property. We have provided ah variances to them based on the hardship that would encourage the result of that... to pemit them to make their home more liveable from the standpoint of size. Now this isn't a residence. If it was a residence, I'm satisfied in my mind that it ... house is too small, I'd like to add on to it, the property was down zoned and therefore I can't add because of the building restrictions and my suspicion is that we would grant a variance seriously consider it. This happens to be a business that someone will probably profit from it but I'm not certain that that should affect our decision... Kahn Well I think, if I could just point out one more thing again, if you look at the impacts of this I mean it seems to me that it is fair to conclude that the impacts are substantially in the benefit side ... It does not increase the density, it does not bring in new people, what it is doing is letting people utilize storage fY~cef~t~~~n~~ Pitkin County rather than have them go to..ayou rav miles down the road to do it. I don't think there is any question, it increases traffic, it increases costs, etc. And by having storage space in Aspen, Pitkin County, it seems to me you also giving businesses in town and elsewhere the opportunity to say look we don't need to our space, we can keep our space reasonable because a lot of businesses just get to the point where they need more storage room. And this gives them that So I mean, it seems to me from an impact standpoint there aren't really any detriments. Other than as you allude to the potential of, if its landscaping, ...or what ever. It could be fairly settled. Unidentified ...I just dont see that this Board is qualified to make any kind of judgment about the need or lack of need for storage in the community. Fox What concerns me is the amount that they are asking for. You say that there.... covenants of the airport business 0000`~~ center. Page ~6 Unidentified The extra space? Fox Well the fact, that it seems to me that filling this whole thing up, I mean we are leaving very little area... open space. Unidentified Oh I'm saying that the covenants of the business center would have a problem in that by looking at this plat there is only parking here and there is just a little landscaping on either side, we would not allow a continuous road cut, the covenants would not. Unidentified .... Unidentifed I'm saying, with this, you know, the extra square footage, I don't think we necessarily have a problem with. We would be affective with appearance, the landscaping, you know having all pavement and stuff like that, we'd have some problems with that Fox So if you are gonna allow just 16 parking spaces, that would allow enough landscaping, and it would be acceptable. Unidentified It doesn't look like it from the plat there. The covenants (could be of the business center.... would not allow a continuous McBride) road cut like this says. So we would have a couple problems with it. Steve Schubert Steve Schubert I'm Steve Schubert. I am a general partner also. I have problems of a couple of things that should be brought out. Number 1, discussion about need for the community I think perhaps is not relevant. We are able, at our structure now to build an additional 8,000 sq. feet under ... zoning. We believe that the market of another 20,000 sq. ft. which comes back to the question that Dwight addressed... granting this area... ... Evan Gull I'd have to agree with Steve. The law has defined that this FAR is a reasonable use of the property and most down zoning variances are based on denial of reasonable use of the property. And they have established this level of use and the people with the property are entirely free to conform with that level of use. And just because this legislation increases the cost of providing additional storage ... a purchase of land is not really within the scope of our decision. I mean I Just, you know, I see absolutely no grounds at all, period. It's just a ... Kahn How does it differ from a person who wants to build a bigger house because he has four kids instead of two. Evan Gull I have not voted on that proposal but at least in my past field in the city government I felt that there are essentially no justifications for variance based on FAR. There are none that I could think of... Lukes I guess I'm curious as to your thinking that there would be some 7 n hardship... involved in doing this. I had a hard time thinking ahead fl ~ ~ a. and I know that this project has to be considered solely on its orrn Page 7 • • merits.... wondering haw if this property qualified for an FAR variance, what would differ it from any other parcel in the airport business center or ca~lete and contiguous package that has already been a similar use in the valley as to why they shouldn't be allowed a higher floor area ratio. First of all, ... taro points, one in my judgment there is justification for action, it does not necessarily mean I support the request for variano~~,,~BUt I think there is based upon the FAR restriction. There has "think a hardship inposed on upon the r. He bought the land with the understanding that if he purchas~ he could build a structure of decent size. He didn't choose to exercise that option at the time and built a smaller structtre for reasons that we didn't hadn't... Then dawn zoning took place after he purchased the property and after he built the structure he found out he could not longer build the building that was originally permitted. That is a hardship I think is fairly clearly defined as a hardship that is within our ... to grant. The subject of whether or not it is justified, that's somewhat a separate subject. But I think... Fhi}F1ex~€~ Would it have made a difference in your point of view on this if the Lukes property say had been sold since it was dawn zoned Mikes- Kraush Yes. Rakes- If he had bought it after dorm zoning was in effect that would no Unic~ntified longer in my judgment enable him to request a variance based upon... Kahn That did happen. He was not the original owner of this. But the original plan was this plan in '72. Kraush This present owner bought it after... Kahn This present ormer bought it when there was a .36 or yea .36 Unidentified Then I withdraw my comment, because if this is a new owner who bought it after .... Unidentified I don't think... because it's not exceptional to this property. This zoning is of general application and nothing unique about this has left this guy on the limb. But if it's been changed hands that makes it irrelevant then I don't think we should pursue it any more. Fox Did you make a motion Unidentified I should have Fox Are you voting. Smyth You may not need to...a variance, part of that building because it's built into a hillside it's considered basement area and bacam~nt area is excluded fran the FAR. Kahn I asstmie the architects met with Patsy and determined that a variance was needed. Unidentified Or its, there is a variance needed for this thing. Smyth But you may not,; maybe you can reduce part of this ... there might be a line here where it's underground. It's excluded 000023 Page 8 Lakes Gates Did you calculate the floor area for purposes of the variance or did Patsy. We did for the floor area... Lakes well, having experience in this area, I can suggest to you gave you may seriously want to consider tabling this until you can more or less official floor area determined by Patsy. It may as Clark says be different free what you calculated. Gates Oh, no I see what you are saying, Patsy did do sane figues... Symth But did she take into consideration that some of it may be regarded as basement. Gates No. Unidentified Typically, the building code definition would say that if more than half of the perimeter is more than six feet belay grade Unidentified The whole thing would be Unidentified I haven't looked at it and I wouldn't pretend to make a quick analysis of it but I would suggest to them that it appears that at this point their only hope might be that area Kahn Well I that certainly we ought to be absolutely rertain that we in fact need this much. If there is any question about the configuration of the property, giving rise to part of it being basement... that is sarething w~ better be sure of. If it turns out that we need less it may influence sane people's decision ... Fox ... Symth We could table it and you could wait for that, I don't knva. Or you could just see what, I'm not sure, speaking as Chairman, I'm not sure that the teener of the Board would change if was... I don't knee. Kahn Although some of your concerns or some of John's concerns, if they didn't need as much space ... that were a factor given the vmer of the adjacent property with anybody we ought to determine that. Change tape Unidentified ...support from the here varers association in the sense that it is not only, John McBride is not only an adjacent property caner but has covenants to .. and insure oariformance with, so it's on two levels with input and interest that are important. Lakes But if you like we could table to the next meeting pending a research into what part may be basement and the result of change in square footage. Kahn Well I think that is probably worth pursuing as long as everybody in the Board felt if we wanted three feet more than the FAR that would not be something that they could vote for. I don't think we O O O O 2 ~ are gonna be rri a situation where we can totally eliminate the Page 9 • • need for a variance. And I know that your position, and I presume it would certainly be if we need three fee more it would not be something you'd want to consider. I don't knaa whether that is the sense of the rest of the members. If the size of the variance is a factor that people are going to base their decisions, at least in part on, I think we ought to go back... Fox Yes, it is definitely with me. Kahn OK Unidentified The size of the variance is not really a factor... Unidentified Your interpretation, correct me ... Shaffran It's not a factor to me. I think that he bought it knowing what the zoning was at the time he bought it is very relevant. It's not like it was dawn zoned on him. He bought it knowing, so it... Fox Well I agree with that too. But I'm rrostly concerned about what we are doing out at the airport business center. It is just absolutely... open space and that is why I basically don't ...I agree with... I don't... Gull If we were to table this and consider it at a future date in terms of reanalysis of the floor area, of the actual floor area as Patsy would detzrmine it I would also be very interested in having at the time of reconsideration the airport business center anyl John McBride's oommants regarding especially the impact that would have on development of the remaining open space. Hrrt~ex~€3ed Lakes If you would like to table it, otherwise I will make a motion to deny the variance. Well I think we've reached sort of a stalemate. (jumbled conversation) Kahn All I am saying is if there's wrong sane people a desire to have more information with respect to the square footage, if that were a factor, then it seems to me to make sense tt~ table it and just not to have to republish and do the whole thing and just go down and have the architect meet with Patsy and maybe, you I don't knaa may be I am not that familiar with the site itself, and get the actual square footage. If we're with the same numbers, if we come back with the same numbers, I can read the handwriting on the wall as well as anybody. But if size is a factor and there are people who would be influenced by it, then I would like to table it rather than to have to go through the republication procedures, etc. Unidentified My only point was that, based on Clark's initial oat[nent, is that there occur quite often cases where somebody outside the building department would incorrectly calculate the floor area in terms of the floor area ratio calculations and I think that may have occurred. You may want to table it. Kahn nn CC Yea, I don't knaa oO~~G,J Page 10 • • ~~der~#~€}ed Kraush I don't think it will affect the decision on the part of this group. It will enable you to build a structure to solve the problem, help aleviate the problem without a variance.... Kahn If you don't have any objections to us tabling it an having in essence being a five minute agenda item next time. In other words, either this is right or this is not right. If this is what we are asking for, I foresee what is going to happen. If it turns out that we need a variance of 300 sq. ft or 400 sq. ft. then I would like to think that this situation is open enough that that is not a significant variance althoughlit is a variance but it does not impact or you know if you can get the airport business center to indicate that they don't have a problem, etc. People are open to that, you knarr, I think that at least two people have said, I think, that if it is five feet more they're not going to vote for it under any circimistances. ff Smyth Why don't I just askr~ie Board a, a ...has a motion either to deny the variance or to Fox Evan made a Smyth Evan all right Evan I' 11 move to deny Smyth He has already n»ved to deny and you second it. Fox Yea Smyth So there is a motion on the floor. Unless there is any discussion on that specific motion Shaffran Unless you what to table it. Kahn No I don't want to waste your time. I mean you are here till, its nva 7;00. I don't want to waste your time. Your feeling is, I'm not criticizing, you know, that's your job, you're doing your job. At least in sane people's mind, a factor is the size of the variance, and I think it would make more sense from everybody's standpoint to table it. Smyth Iet's see. All right let's see. By voting on it if people don't want to deny it, the motion is to deny the variance, as I say the motian is to deny the variance, not to approve it. If the motion doesn't pass, then we can have a motion to table it. OK. All >n favor of the motion to deny the variance, signify by raising your hand. All opposed. So we didn't get four positive votes, the motion does not pass. Need four votes to pass. Kahn Then I would like to naa ask you to if you could table it till the next meeting. Smyth Would anyone like to make a motion to table this until the next meeting. So that further information can be. Fox I so move. O O 2 6 Second (Bill Lukes seconded) Page 11 • • Smyth Second. Any discussion of that motion. All in favor, please raise your hand. Opposed. The motion is that the request has been tabled until the next meeting. Kahn ...is that Thanksgiving? Smyth The last Tuesday in November. Fox I don't think that is Thanksgiving. Smyth In fact, the Tuesday before Thanksgiving. 000027 LARGE PLAT(S) AVAILABLE TO VIEW AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AVAILABLE TO BUY AT CLERK & RECORDER