Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.81.45 Dottie Fox moved that the following be adopted: BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTf1ENT OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 81-45 Mart~n Horowitz, Block 7, Lot 8, Brush Creek WHEREAS, the subject property is within the unincorporated area of Pitkin County, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment is vested with the power to grant or deny such variances by virtue of Title II, Section 16-1.3, Pitkin County Code (Land Use Code) and 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. NOW, THEREFORE, SE IT RESOLVED that the applicant's request for a 15' setback variance for construction of hot tub Additional conditions or restrictions: WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. Joe Zanin seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: Clark Smyth - yes Joe Zanin = yes Dottie Fox - yes Evan Gull - no Paul Krausch - 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 ofr.,Adjustmept of~ Pitkin County, Co do / f ~ / Attest: (n~ Chairman ~~ i ~.. c~.LC~ `9U eJ. nn. .._ ooooo~ ~~` ~tcret ry APPEAL TO BOARD OF ADJUSTf1EMT County of Pitkin Date /d 19~ Case H_ r,'1 - `\5 L>,~T~~p Applicant /77A~e-tL.v ~5'd~Or~LL7~- Address QazZ~22 ~f'F..,,• O+rner _ ,~'JL~K'Y7N ~/-orEO~/~`~ Address !~C .2/`~1 .4.1:~c6.~ Location of Property L / r ~fI.IWLvr1 ~ 9-rl . f t C~o~„ ~y Lpl~o,~ Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made a ,art 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 shot/;ing justification: (a) an 8' height variance from 12' to 20' to decrease the per foot construction cost by 1/2 the foundation and l/2 the roof costs; - (b) a ?,$' set-back variance from 100''to ~$'' to incorporate the existing pumphouse structure into the new structure, thereby eliminating having to heat the pumphouse seperately; and decreasing constrution costs by not having to move the water and electric stub-ins. ~~~ /NS r+4t r A tl<1- ~ b r~ ~.9-e ~wlT' ~ 1 J ~ #out~ ~ S~~r ~iH sroE . ~0 r`oaT VAt't~rvC~ FKOM i0o.~ y-p ~ ~ ~. Applicant Signa ed) Pro:~isions of the zoning resolution reyuiriny the Building Inspector to~fonaard this application to the Board of Adjustment pnd reason for not gr nting a building permit: ~~ ~ ~. Building InsN. Sinnature Date permit rejected: Board Decision Application Filed: Mailed: ~c~ ,• S a-~ Date: Secretary, Board of Adjustment ~~: ~ -~ ~1~~~ ~~o~l Ocfi f3 f481 l! :~ c- May 17, 198'?. Marty Horowitz P.O. Box 2622 Aspen, CO 81612 Dear Mr. Horowitz: After reviewing the minutes of the October 27, 1981, Board of Adjustment, I find that your request in writing and your verbal request to the Board were not the same. I have enclosed a copy of the minutes and your application that was submitted, As you can see, the Board tabled your application for more information. Therefore, I will need to re-submit an application which states the amount of setback variance request you need and the reason you need it. I have a survey in the office, so there i.s no problem there. Do to the fact that what was advertised in October was not what you are requesting now, I will need to re-advertise in the Aspen Times. Since the advertisement for the May 25, 1982, meeting has been sent in (it was advertised the week of `.Say 13), it is not possible for you to be on this agenda. The Aeat scheduled meeting will be June 29, 1982. The notice will be published' June 17, 1982. I will need this information at that. time. I am very sorry~if this inconveniences you, but the proper procedure must be followed or the County can be held liable. Respectfully, ~ i g Pats ~ Newbury Acting Building Official ~...,-~.::3 G"`•003 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-5973 RE~DRD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leavos rwn m c. c. ra rcna e. e. n ~. cn. BOARD OF ADJUSTrdE?JT October 27, 1981 D:Iembors Present Associates: Clark Smyth, Dottie Fox Paul Krausch Joe Zanin Acting Chairman Kandi Shaffran Bill Lukes Robert Throm Evan Gull 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 ^dolny 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, FVilliam;Gale Burton, 3laroon Creek Rd. 81-41 requesting a 50' frontyard setback variance for addition of a storage space. Stan 'fathis was there to represent the Burtan: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 1lathis 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 "rtathis 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 'Mathis 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 Ilfathis 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 ?irausch x~ sl ~Q~~~~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves .q1Y V f. .. MO[CR[t 8. 9. 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 dyer 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 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 objecii.ons 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 1;ngineer should take a look at it, Bill Lukes second the motion. All in favor, Rlotion passed. Red Mountain Ranch Hom s Association 1 requesting a variance each entrance, No one case was tabled. f height and size to erect a sign at was present for the Association and the Sam & Paula Douglas, Lot 4 Block 4 I{nollwood S/D 81-43 requesting a 75' frontyard setback variance to construct a carport, ideter 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 1D 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. Kandi 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, \ieter 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 Fos 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 25 feet from the house. Paul Rrausch motioned that the variance previously granted by the Board for construction of garage be chans;ed 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 determin a ion 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 lessen the impact on the N° 6? 000005 RECORD Oi= PROCEECiNGS 100 Leaves IOMI Y L. I. M:if CFfL !. 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 blr. Rainwater, He explained that P~lr, 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 I{rausch 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 determination including blocking off the other entrance. Paul was troubled that the determination had not been enforced. Bob restated that hir. Brown cvas 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 corner would be the kitchen and the views would be blocked. Kandi wanted to~know what would tie 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 ~ O s~ ~~0~~6 • i RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves rare v c. r. xxcxa e. e. a ~. co. ' October 27, 1981 Board of Adjustment Page 4 set condition that was never met. Robert Throm felt that i 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 be 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, Afotion 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. IIe 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 ?1r. Horotvizt requested in writing is not what he wants to do, Dottie Fox questioned if the Building Department was aware that alr, Horowitz wanted a caretaker unit above the garage. Paul hrausch 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 request, "Iartin stated Id° G 4 p~n(a~~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves rax w c. r. xn[au n. n. n [. o. 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 familious with the lot and felt that site was the only place that tl~e tub could go, Dottie motioned to approve the variance fo. 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. n4otion carried, The Board suggested to P.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. 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, jVhen 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. 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 i.f 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 consistent with the goals of the Airport Business Center due to the high density, ~n sJ 000008 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS iG0 Leaves .~.., ~...~~«.«. o.,, 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. idarty 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 Krausch 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. i3e 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. 1larty 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, - Pau]. Krausch felt there was bought with plans in plans could hot be acted ~~ 000009 was a hardship imposed because the land mind and downzoning occured and now the upon. N° G6 RECORD OF PROCEEaINGS Board of Adjustment October 27, 1981 It was discovered ' had occured, Paul because the owners was. 1(i0 Leaves Page 7 that the land had been purchased after the downzoning Krausch then stated that there was no hardship knew when the purchase was made what the F,A.R. 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 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 t:he 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 ab 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 buildin;; area on the lot that would not need a variance, OOOOiO ~~ 67 RECGRD OF PROCEEDINGS QUO Leaves rexe .e c. r. xm.x c, e. s. a ~. cw 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. ?,4otion carried. The meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted: Secretary 0~~~11 ~'~ 6~