The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutpitkin.boa.92.39 PZTRIN COIINTY BOARD OF ADJIISTMENT DATE ^ ~-I'D '/~qZ CASE # ~~? 2~ 3 I APPLICANT 'JGk IJ l , lC(}i21 S~ T'~ )(~ PHONE % 21- L{~ MAILING ADDRESS #S Lf}~' G LLtiJ S/~Oc~ M 9-$S R ~~~{ OWNER C~v\ L PHONE Sf~M ~= MAILING ADDRESS LOCATIpN OF PROPERTY 1~S LA-~-Y ~ L l=tiJ M n i3 / L_E ~ ~ ~~~ K Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made pert of this Case. The Board may return this application if it does not contain all the facts,~ni/n question. Applicant Signature d V ~~ ~~ (TO be completed by the Zoninq Department) Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Zoning Official to forward this application to the Board of Adjustment, and reasons for not granting a building permit: S Zone District Requesting: Lot Size " Front Yard Setback Variance, where ' is required. '' Rear Yard Setback Variance, where is required. ~~ ' ~VV Side Yard Setback Variance, where ~' is required. " Side Yard Setback Variance, where ' is required. ' Height Variance, where ' is required. Square Feet where a maximum of sq. ft. is allowed. i Other: ~t7. Q,11 F X l to ~ii't~i t A~r~~6n~a n cJaO~ FrM ~ - Zoning Official_ ~~ /~~~-'~Fw~A~ ~ ~> ~ J Application filed ~ /0 ~Z Parcel` D No. 20~b Z_3G(J_OD-Oaa Date of Meeting q ~ l ~ 9?/ Notices Mailed Secretary ~F^-~~C ~ W Refer Resolution to Building Department , _ ; Yes i _ ; No oooool ~ ~ NOTICE OF PIIBLIC HEARING TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS BEFORE THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to Pitkin County Resolution of June 5, 1955, as amended, a Public Hearing will be held in City Council Chambers, City Hall, First Floor, Aspen, Colorado (or at such other place as the meeting may then be adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the County Zoning Resolution. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. THE PARTICULARS OF THE HEARING AND OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE ARE AS FOLLOWS: Date and time of meeting: owner: Name and Address of Applicant: Properly Location or Description: September 1, 1992 at 5:15 p.m. Commissioner's Meeting Room, Pitkin County Courthouse D. Chris Trautner D. Chris Trautner #5 Lazy Glen Snowmass, CO 81654 #5 Lazy Glen Mobile Home Park Requesting approval for a 5 foot NW side yard setback variance, where 10 feet is required in the SR zone district, for construction of an 8' x 16' entry and storage addition. Approval of this variance would allow the proposed addition to be 5 feet from the NW side yard property line. VARIANCES GREATER OR LESS THAN REQUESTED COULD HE GRANTED. Duration of Variance: Temporary Permanent X THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ~~~~~~ zanne L. Wolf Secretary 00000? ~ r~ ti: ~-/o- yz_ ~f!~iT~ru CouurY 3oA~R l~ DF (~AJUSTM ~=tiJT A/IEMi~[~ZS OF T(f~= 13a1R~'. -~- CiIpVL~ LIIt,C "(~ RCQULST ~ VRi2lhi.lcr= 7a .~}~cc7w cc~NSTRvc7'iO.v of /+ covL~r/~ ~N7RV[~l~Fy ,9-s Srrowa o,~ i rl-~ i~.le-nos ic~c~ud~~ ~~r,~ TMs ,~~-Q~~~sT. !f~S %FO-os`~ G,urTZy alov~b ~C 8 ~ X l ~ ~ f}-N D S ~ / Ro.vt ,~,t y I~Ro /~~',~TY L / ~UCC. ~~ ~-=-~ M ~/ ,Q-'~ J ~9-C~ n~7-' ~~zo P~~e rS' Bw~uc~S ARE'. Ct~R~srY ~A-UrS 'bok 2~3 KrSf LTn) C~ ~(6l( ry N U KIM. I~csxRt' ~'~/ L,9-~ Y G ~N S~owMq-ss ~ Co ~IeSy ' D~O~~Q~ • Lazy Glen Homeowners Association 101 Lazy Glen Snowmass, CO 81654 303/927-3632 August 27, 1992 Pitkin County Board of Adjustment '.Pitkin County Courthouse 506 E Main Aspen, CO 81611 To Whom It May Concern: ~fhe Board of Directors of Lazy Glen Homeowners Association has no objections to the approval of a variance that would allow the proposed addition to #5 Lazy Glen Mobile Home Park to be 5 feet from the NW side yard property line. a~`~~5 v.-v ~-.z Guy Gervais president Lazy Glen Homeowners Association cc: file #5 ' x r '' ~, "~:~ ' yS ];:W2 ,V(IYNPY l,~Jt 'tJ i,r.+~,.,.•I, r J,[ •' ~,.( ` t 1 4. w -fj 1 ` Q~ m ,4/I r e 1, ~ ,'~ 1 V {[1 \ t + t S:f ~ ' 't'` Nt 't t ' !1'j;+3r >~ rr ; u o ;r;ry. S04 30rN, ~I+ . 'N ~ ~n t ..` [ ) .Lp,\!/j'"~ ' Mta. ~, t t -. trf,Q W )j. 211'~1't r r 1. x r ~ FO't r to W l .~ ,t~ ~,,.ti ~.~ 1 r .,y 11 N Y ~+.tt I L~ t y 'F 'S r , r `• t( .! br/ ,,tt I..htN~""r~Jr t;."o:.• , /r, {}i. ... •1 ~iu] Y]'4 d0 ~ "~t y. tiG y (' h '{~.,+rxl,fv {'t i.•" + ~h )/1' f ,m :ir, ti y ~ t l ',t 9 a(r'fk W. {A c '£ ~ 1 "v O r? `vF V r I) 1{ f\ t ..; ~ ~ fA .. ~. ~ r ~ra. Kill+~4^'~ tt ~~](i ~ ~ ~ f~i :°{ M r' Ir4 IF .. 7 b ~ Ix w tai^. /Yi. G! r,a." r°~ Ir " Wt~. 'f.`.a •" V 'r, 1 Ir~~ 7 rry ,~ t'r~ ) '.~ 11 7 • rr 7 I r ,`f'j~ of } 'a t1 S >\ r N~ t kf~r#* vy ja]. •Y":< O `1{e~~r~b 1 ) 1 lit.` , sl •~p ,v ~ .'f~ 4` '.~. ~,.V fi r W. }fin rr.r r.`t l"u ,1 t . J v Z~ ,r ~J O V v dr r^. tYx, 2~rj a f: rYi 11 wt ~t7',M ~f " ttla`!,7ht 1 ~rY* `JY J+~ b 5 l '} J:)' r ;. ~ ... :. YX a '!,, J r' ,,,),: 1 p4~S .Z I`'Y 3/?~) ~ '~~,p,~',h; v.dr ~.p. N al ,,; ,, N ~i ' 'nlf •'J, ~IeY fAr rYl,'~K. r~ ~~r€v ~~1' :,b t<•.~u'!r a yam, ,Y:f~iY ~l fir' '\'~1 r ~ ~ rn~ - ~. R ~ aN ~{ , ~ A ] P i~ {l':_ ~,r Fi a IJ rt 'IA . Rkl;.r,^,.`r Nt. ~~\~: ~~~~•. r''j?A J t~ ~'i r,l i~Ri f VJ{±t.:l~j tli_S~~' 1 '~ t( ~ I ~ ~. 01 tp 0 tZ 1,!-t' °r)¢.. b .ejr WO ,\I?~•~ N: S },, t ~- r 74 ,,4 .. ] W N r''tte f a1~ \, It .>.~7~ U o- .A O~ 7 r 4>' b f` ~ ,I b i t , ,' i> ' , , . ,+ •o ~~ .r; ,^, ,ir l u .`,.,•p„Ir,clpsos :r .]7~ '1'/ - 7 I,.~ l~ ,S kltN~ N r r ~ G.~irf`j / ..~ N , .i~, NFyo ,° 3S ? J.n cr.i n r7~i L ; Z."at,: t r < I, A ,?t2r~; r l 8 E t' 1 ~ •^S tl Y. v7 + m,Ytr R 8 1, r rl t W W r. ) :rv E:Yr.• {. j~tce;; , ' ` r0. 3 r~r .~' i \ , r7r}}~ + o ,~';yi ~a ' 'j;' 7 ~W i]~'! 5'~~!' ~) » q W r' ~ ' } ~'~,LR } I'al ] I xj,yFfY e e,~ ~;~ Jv ~. W ri. ~tlO ~e r. .~` ueM1 ':off r •,f r ~r' YlZ trr .,t I" r~ t :, I ' !~~ e, J`. r Y 'y~'',l rYy, t I'O O tY A\l. ~j{r f r.~l , ,f .''!y 1 ~,i.;,trv h! L .': ,. ~tj 141 ~! n J t ~.r.~' 1 I1', i ti v 7 •17 m 'tt'~ j 0 ' i ) rr r; >'. f/i. ;,; r r.yJ'r I, J - I r. / J nt / w N J ~'[~.(11} It. Y c I)1 x', r ~S~y l,r T/J ~~ ;Jr,.1rv~~~i~f.'~j, ~' p's`L•tL r','xY+s•1 \~+' ~y', yWM li 1} I' I~.`1!. I' 11r=O '~~+Oµ .~: A S,':"~, .v`,'~`\r~`' .~ trhJ,rA~ ~J:•.s~}.l}.-r'' g7~'~~'Qy E11 ,'{ r > Y"r '' .~; SY 9 rt~D t l i ~ r •e l.n 'F eil J 1 ~ ! 4r ~y; e t y., ~ld rr ?' Y XTIh1 i r Y~)F• t S} Y .rX' P. t +~ ( Vin! r~ t ;,t .7 , 1 '"' 410,•$ r~,S~~, ~' r'.na*~ro l'ji+1 };'laSy~~r *~~d''+ ~.Nl''Y t r ,Dial l\i"~r'7.,: ~~1 '' ~ t rl,t ~t~llyr s}~r ' Ci rd M )1~.rjr£~11, I ':~~ J^ri'I of ~ t r • ~(~ T?rr~'n~Yd " y~X~N~7r~~~' ~•u.r ~t,~~,~ )Pr~ } j ••ri R e ~ v.~. ,t ~ a }'r ') 0 ry milt 1 r~].< t,~ rAS r b I ,.r ) ,. 'rp r(Yr r`, J 7i~S1.1•t J ~ Jy 7 t tw )"t~1P.~ 5{ ~• ~t „rr :l• r~-F :.(~!'y ~• ~C''r +!?~C ~ •f4 S.Vr,/ ~ :t.•+n a y 7. :'e ; ]. t 7 J + i rt } . tl r ...F•' ww~^' 4l P y~rj ~ e~ at •~;K 4' ~f°~, NT rk 1`1' a ~t¢~ (' 1 ii s~ r~,:rj,1 ~`, r o~yyd3~~~'~,r kf.tr yr Y,l )!t rf i,y q, C r ~'~ rs i.}y '' .p'+.•/rc~ !lrZ~{t,+~y~«.~ 'S 1 lr ~ ,~~t4~' ±W y;11 L{.~ fi7rF1;''r Y'I.~ ~l Jr11 t w} 11 I'~ .4'.r. ,` ~ ,J tl r xt ! JY r !' alt t r~ a! sl~d' # ~ I d G. ah • rle .r yk .- `C.~)w l ~ f r ..l. ~" 1 rL ]t~,! ~ ~}~ >.y~ ~. ~ / ytl r 'N' /` .>' I ri, ': > v ti. `,~ / r ,d i r1"Y"~',.,rTr y+,lt a t~ l~Ti e.! 1' rr > .3!f r ;' - 1" r:. s I`P~r tl r.t r.. 1 F;y r` .~Y{~,'r'j,1.rn t~l r]`~a r r Y~~~.t'~ ^I ~ x PY f•,l.'•r. R ~S+•t t ,~1 ~•rh •M~ •j ~h,;}7 r, ~,W . (, 41.Y~1;-•r1 t r. ~ i~,'d>_ ;wt`)t4' .7"t r Za'r`~Ir ~~.'Xn'G'~ "•t ' 11.Y4~1 x,f-. ~ ~ Q~ 7i4 n' , 4 K. 1 .r " 1 'e kf'" A i~ + 5 l rtit"F cf/pwi yi rkj\ Ta+?~j h Y" ..n7 ~kn~ } 1„~• • .l 4 ,,,,, .~~~ r ~ stJ{ }~ Y,('3'f W ~, b V ~ 1 r•4•G. `T 1 ~ .•~ ~ r 7'..c~ r I ~}~4jt~a..it r r,~r S,:~/t7~.{`~•<~r ]t~},~OD Siq Y~ ~y ~ r r.. }t1}4.`~.I..rl'1).. <'" j~'.rr j:Y"ty'N t'^"~-1 t:~ w .. ,~ .. .,. 1 I f `: +' rt ~, , v ,: ~ .' .r ~,, fh4 31+c~/. f rr lr. `i1 S ~ ii t, . _ h ' YI r t '' It~, f„ ! l~,~J• 7 , 1xJ{ r 11 u, + 1 +I t a r ti~ + . 1 '~ ~. Y ..! s • J1 S " 1 , , t , 4 :t ~'. I c y •••r S + k -1 r.. .:a . 1. er +:`.... n~..' ~ t-''.. y r n t t o <t, ~ r ] ~ t •]r 1 r , i r ,_ t' ' J :Ixi 4 ., ~ a ' M.fi', ,~ y. ~40 ~ 6 ! ' J I"1 J c I' , l ~ f, 1 y ,rl r , a~ 5 ~ rs' n!. f k r ( Sf * Yi r ~ 1 "F" Y S.'t ~' rCl .fin '~ ~ ` ~ j ,~ .`.,~` r tlJ y'IJ -r ] w JJ ~ Yr rJ ' " l' y ry Y~,/ /Y ~,S r i 4 'Y. •Y ! n x.'11' r , ) ] l • , , 11 f r_. .,.. L<,L ( zT v .' ,4! ' . !]. l y +a'ir * m o'Z C1, 4±L i,•~Y O s ;.,,1 + ] C!1 v' ( r/: t71 O ) i ' N r' . ,Y~,k ~ J , r.- ~ ,' :y if"~,.! ~ ,.{y Nxal'`hY'ri~t. !~ ~. •' .. r. r T. , ''10 ^r rtt., ~,.f'~ ~ ~ R 41`s a• O a ° 01' 06 "W - , ,, .'!7 !' v: C +:*j. T ~`a7 i' ir~~rr t +{y ty„ late, I la d 8 i:. '1~, ` 0 ~ 1 y .Jr~.Y/:l to^k ~~;N }`~1'i~1 i't)4r,-1 r!I ''1 ~ 1,., a n ryG .~ , l ~ 47 ~ T , hl~.'~? ':. Z •r br ~• ! ~ r.5' r t 't'~ I ~ +, ] ~S r ~Ir .. ,0 s u r`M.'~"7ri UI Wri JAG 11 '(ilu ~'+`a]1+t,~e r' }I.1,4'~fk ~. f/1 i`;~ ~.:', r~.'y< ~ it ~ r.'~~i ~/•YO " ~C iJi7 F~ *..Ii ;.•/ ~ ~'.,~.; it:1!~'Su C ' x~i ~ ~ rr ~,9/ " ~r Ire, 3' J! W'~1 4r7 Jy t r 11 , r l,t., ,1 +' 1 bJ) .r J 1; 1'~t. ynJ~'r. ~ N kv'J rr ~rO't Yip r f~ , r, ~ri ~.O ~\ rp •\ t + k+,i t 'l.Or ^[lil. ~ '~. \. J.~ 1'a Pf7J4t) ~•.51 W-., t y..` /. r JH1~"Ji{~. r tt~iR 5~.~(}\~~'J' ~~'r ~~S i~>•;i~~ 'r'r cN r~ '~~ p ~ t ~ 11 ~ b IT.7a /r. .f. .l 1 !r i ' ~~,,, 1 , l i,1 R J^.•,, 1~ ~5 r" ~;~~t sot arr Qo'w `~" '114 ~` ' t:J' ,I r. ~t:7' oi'~°t y~,~.t{r .,tr ~' rT• ,. 4e ~{, ;~ i. M ,.V ~ t 1 ~./ h,.r, rl t t r.l r IS' i ry, j. :z ir'!'~"C>/", , U 1 I J r,S r "ii<rrM 2 ~`~` "r. 't\ )2.ry: O `. iy~ 7. b 11 '~ r i Ir,Y~jY~;', ~ 'i,b 'r, r E~S ~ `1 ~ ~ O ~'ti ~~. Yt' G np. :x y ~ r v to q W ' o .. a r ~p ~ a ,J r L.J. . 'Q . ~ t 1 ~.~, w r, Ir llYfu,r +i r~ •,',1i '~I v.'•1 (~'.~• .. Li, '.. :i.,N ~ ~ r.' l v. ..>4 -soo°ao'o2"w ~IIp.69tr .m >,. r ', ., ~, xJ.. o F°,t v3i1; Zf,r+iJ .i?~A sL C r r•: ,'„ (n •: 'r{ . W f,; ti ai. A y /. a' j. ~; OW r s• `..'~' .p W .i. s'` ) ~. .. i r ~Gr $,~rr. .~.1.^w ~ .r~L.'OA r ? t'', t' '~ , ."V . \sF• , Szl. 33 17 W 119 411,t„., ? ,u' rrt(`FVS ,Y `r. ! Z ~1.1~~p '.,GS w'f4 a N t;.. J+ r s r r + r 7 W 1hY ,~• '~a1 ~` ~ ~ ~,.tty,+> t~~ p) J1S )Ids . 4 r •J 5 ~~x. r , r/ r !:{ It W 0)t}/y'.~,~n '2!?~TiO !t 7 f .i 7 r , ti.}.i ~ ~t = W +. 1( °• i" y1 M1 b'A .f y~~ tiY S}.x •y!~'Yr 1. 'r 1~ ryS'i. /. q:P ~, r, S Y Vi ~ W I `t r ':a "~ 53, ' O r ( A i .' ~ / ] 1 y O i - '' ~' ( ~ , ~ W ..~ 1`l~l~lyS•• )' (r q~ wK 1 ~ ; :' 1 I , 1~;O +I ...`•w •'J .', t~ `•'wi~1 qr ~ 11 . r t.. ,'P 5!' r ~ .,,.•~ ~ v. b I ~ !~ err a~~16 1 Ii !1. 'I x,!W b O {1u; a. ,_ ; aF ~ W ' ~ i ~~;' r trs.,T ,r. D ! ' t x • N +Ph ' .r p + t ~ ' I Y9 r .1..3~ ;.N t ~. ,,~ ' 'A '~' ~ 1 1 ~ <1 1 1 m ] ', W b 1 r J' 1 , u r 1 L I I: h F i '] 1 r. O 'j! i'.1 `, ^I . ~. ~ . r Or ,j. .,.1 c a A 3 6jr r' ~ • r.r N ~ L. '°~ 01 r~ ~-, C~ U~ O; r~ r,~ ~~ 0 nnnr~nC I ~. ~~ t ~; X '~ r„ 0 n SO17L~ I b ~ e,, _, __._..~.._-- ~~ ~ ~ ---- 04 -- _(n_ 1-- y_ h~ ~ ' lrt ,.. r' ~ ~~ I ~ c~ =• v~ ~;i ~ Cf I is 1 ~ ~ ~1 + -~ ~ ~.-~ ' ,t ~ ~ F _. ..... ` ~.... ~{ ~ II' ak .~ .. I} ._ ~~ ~~ .iL. \u lll cg ;1 1!, ~ ,~ ~r N~~~~ ~~- C bPrt` C.LOSL--'f' _~ ~7 ~~ ~' ~-' ~~~~~7 2 Y . 2 ~ ~ ~ ~~ n v~ 7 )~ ~ W LAND USE APPLICATION FEES CITY: -63250-134 GMP/Conceptual -63270-136 GMP/Final -63280-137 SUB/Conceptual -63300-139 SUB/Final -63310.140 All-2 Step Applications -63320-141 All 1 Step Applications -63330-150 Staff Approval -63432-157 Zoning Plan Check -63432-157 Sign Permd -00100-00000-31070 Use Tax for Sign Permits HISTORIC PRESERVATION: -63335-151 Exemption -63336-152 Minor -63337-153 Major Devel. -63336-154 Signrf. Devel. -63339-155 Demolition COUNTY: -63160.126 GMP/General -63170-127 GMP/Detailed -63180-128 GMP/Final -63190-129 SUB/General _ -63200-130 SUB/Detailed -63210.131 SUB/Final -63220-132 All 2 Step Applications -63230-133 All 1 Step Applications -63240-149 Staff Approval _ -63450-146 Board of Adjustment < < `~ -63235-148 Zoning Plan Check REFERRAL FEES: -63360-143 Engineering-County 00115 -63340-163 Engineering-City 00123 -63340-190 Housing 00125 -63340-205 Environmental Health PLANNING OFFICE SALES: -63080-122 County Code -69000-145 Other (Copy Fees) TOTAL 5 C L G //\ T ~ C I ~ ~.~ 1 I /l C~ ~t ~-inc 1 l ~ c /~ J~ ( Name: L . r Phone: L l - J ~ Address: _1 ~ C t" ~ C I Project C ~z 3 1 ~ ~r1 C I 1 Check #: ~' - ~ ~ ~ Dam: ` / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ No of Copies: (}{~ ~ f}t?sj County of Pitkin State of Colorado The undersigned, follows: I, being or representing an Applicant before the Pitkin County Board of Adjustment, personally certify that the attached photograph fairly and accurately represents the sign posted as Notice of the variance hearing on this matter in a conspicuous place on the subject properly (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the day of Sal TCMT3 ~ 192, to the ,~ r~ day o~ ('kt7f~°~~~ 19~2~ (Must be posted for least nine ore a ring da e) ~~// A ll~ ~i~ant ~ s'(,sig~re eEEd// and sworn to b fo e~me J day of ~ ~ ~ by ODJUSirwr ITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIA SEAL. ,~ y Comm'ssion expires: ~ ° / ry P blic' Signature S" ~ ~~fl A ess / ~~ n/~ j/ } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY } ss. P03TING OF A VARIANCE HEARING } BEFORE THE PITRIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJIISTMENT being first duly sworn, deposes and says as ~D~n~~ FOR ~c '~' 'ti, ~" A.M. ~ --- - __UATE= -TIME ~7Cllf;. PHONE ~ - ~ ~ ' ~ -- ~~ - AREA Gl]OF ~ ~~-~~ LW M[3FF MESSAGE ~.~Ol~_ tl~t ~, t;c~N TOPS ~ FORM 4006 ~-/o - ~'z 3o~6fZ1, ~F r~'AJUSTM~°NT EM i~LsK S O F TfK= (3oAR ~ '. S c~v~t~ c.t1tC T~ 2CQ~~-sT A- V~i,tN« -TD .~L_cf~ c~ Cp,u 57-~ c~cTr 0.~ of f~- C o U c-TZ~~ ~N7"~ N cJ~ y .9-s S rtoW~ o,v i rte ~~~ s ~,~c ~ u r~~ ~ w rT,~e T~~s r~~-Qvc--~T. I FMS ~~~~c~s~~ ~iurYz~l ~,~ov~b ~ S ~ X l ~ r ~}"N ~ ~ ~ / RoM Nt Y }~Ro ~~~ c._/~C. M ~ ,Q-~ J.9-Cc~.~rr' ~ ~oi~~-~erY arvc~c~S ARE'. CcdKr~TY ~~UIS ~dx 2~3 ,g- /-~~~, ca B(~~l rp N K ~,~,~ 71 rSR R'/ r #350832 li/ir/9~ 1~~:58 Fec s.0~~ 8.694 PG 649 Silvia Davis, F•itkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.0~~ RESOLIITZON OF THE PITRIN COIINTY~ COLORADO BOARD OF ADJIISTMENT GRANTING SETBACK RELIEF FOR D. CHRIS TRAIITNER RESOLUTION NO. 92-39 WHEREAS, D. Chris Trautner, owner of #5 Lazy Glen Mobile Home Park, requests a 5 foot NW side yard setback variance for construction of an entry and storage addition to an existing trailer; and WHEREAS, a 10 foot side yard setback variance is required in the SR zone district; and WHEREAS, the subject property is within the unincorporated area of Pitkin County, Colorado, (as described in Exhibit "A", attached); 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 adjoining 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 substan- tial detriment to the public welfare and will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Zoning Resolutions and the zoning maps. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment, that a 6 foot NW side yard setback variance be granted for construction of an 8 foot by 16 foot entry and storage addition, as depicted on the plans (Exhibit B). WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. ~~n~~~ • #35063 /1r/9<^ 10;58 Fec a. 00 BF; b`r4 FG 6S0 Silvia Davis, FitNin Cnty Cler4:, Doc x.00 Resolution No. 92-~ Page 2 The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: October 6, 1992 The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado ATTEST: ~~CU~h.~o~ ~1/e-~~ Suza ne L. Wolff, ecretary I ~~QU1~ #35082 il/17/9~ 10:58 Rec x•00 BDoc9~.00 651 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description for property owned by D. CHRIS TRAIITNER #5 Lazy Glen Mobile Home Park Pitkin County, Colorado r; r D~E~~~.~ y^ D R! I2 O 507 i ~xI-b~l3~7- ~, . ~ ~ ~' .. `. ~ . } _ __.. ._. 4 ~~i , "% y. y~ ,, "~ x _ . q~ S !fi "~.": try' 1 ~+,{~ 0o ~ 0 ~'~' c . 2 VJ !yf~: W : < .i. ~. Y E.y ('/:i. ~' 6 N Ok ~' N < G W [U ~W ~`~ v v .- <.. W \ N " -.~ T ~0 ~" f+J rt ,- ,. '.. r. ~ .. Lei nm M~ ~ n ~~ m• z ~, ,r. p m ~y r 0 n 0~ ,o WA P N r NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PITIZIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to Pitkin County Zoning Resolution of June 5, ? 955, as amended, a Public Hearing will be held in the District Courtroom, Pitkin County Court House, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such other place as the meeting may then be adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Boazd of Adjustment requesting authonty for variance from the provisions of the County zoning Resolution. All persons affected by the proposed variance aze invited to appear and state their views, protests, or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Boazd of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. A VARIANCE GREATER THAN OR LESS THAN THAT REQUESTID COULD BE GRANTED. DATE AND TI114E OF MEETING: Tuesday, September 1, 1992; 5:15 P.M. Commissioners Meeting Room, Courthouse Raymond Woodrow: requesting approval fora 65' front yazd setback variance where 100' is required in the RS-30 wne district, for construction of a ranch gate. Property Location: 5980 Snowmass Creek Road. Mark and Linda Bedell: requesting approval fora 50' front yard setback variance where 100' is required in the RS-20 zone district, for construction of asingle-family residence. Property Location: Lot 4, Wolfson Subdivision. Mark Dodds: requesting approval for a 60' front yazd setback variance where 100' is required in the RS- 30 wne district, for construction of asingle-family residence. Property Location: 8880 Highway 133. Justine Kirk: requesting approval fora 5' SE side yard setback variance, where 15 feet is required in the R-30 wne district, and an 800 squaze foot increase in floor azea, where a maximum of 3,372 square feet is allowed, for an addition to an existing single-family residence. Property Location: Lot 14, Block 2, Pitkin Green Subdivision. D. Chris Trautner: requesting approval fora 5' NW side yard setback variance, where 10' is required in the SR wne district, for an 8' x 16' entry and storage addition. Property Location: #5 Lazy Glen Mobile Home Park. Bernard Rogers: requesting approval fora 25' front yazd setback variance where 100' is required in the AF-1 wne district, for construction of an accessory structure. Property Location: 118 Woods Road. Submitted to the Aspen Times on August 18, 1992. To Be Published in the Aspen Times August 21, 1992. County PO #54322 OOOU16 .- - . • Minutes Pitkin County Board of Adjustment October 6, 1992 Members Present: Rick Neiley, Chairman Ted Guy John Wheeler Michael Cooper Evan Gull Rod Dyer Stan Mathis Staff: Joanna Schaffner, Zoning Enforcement Neiley opened the meeting at 5:20 p.m. and introduced the Board to those present. - _ Stan Mathis submitted his resignation to the Board, effective immediately, in light of the discussion of the conflict of interest policy with the Board of County Commissioners at a worksession earlier today. Schaffher asked if the Board would like to reschedule the meeting on November 3 because that is election day. The Board decided to keep the regularly scheduled meeting date. Case #92-35. Justine Kirk. L14 B2 Pitkin Green Subdivision This case was tabled at the last meeting. Joanna Schaffner addressed the Board, stating that Justine Kirk has requested that this case be tabled to November 3, 1992. Gull moved to table Case #92-35 at the applicant's request. Guy seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case #92-38. Mark and Linda Bedell L4 Wolfson Subdivision This case was tabled at the last meeting. Mark Bedell was present to request a 50 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the RS-20 zone district, for construction of a single-family residence. Bedell summarized his comments from the October 6 meeting. Minutes of this meeting are on file in the Zoning Office. Glenn Horn was present to discuss the proposed changes to the Land Use Code that Bedell brought up at the previous meeting. Horn worked under contract with the County to develop new setbacks in response to the increased caseload for the Board and the staff that was created by downzoning. The idea for the new setbacks was to come up with a sliding scale for substandard size lots. A chart was developed in which lots of less than 3 acres would require a 1 ~~~~~~ 30 foot front yard setback, and lots of 3 to 10 acres would require a 50 foot front yard setback. Horn noted that the staff was not directed to make any changes in the chart after the first reading and public hearings, but that the staff does not yet know when the new code will be adopted. Horn stated that he had discussed the proposed changes with Bedell, and was therefore an influence in Bedell's request for the 50 foot front yard setback. Neiley stated that the problem at the last meeting was with the size of the setback requested. He noted that in considering substandard size lots, the Board traditionally tries to use the setbacks from the closest conforming zone district. Guy noted at the last meeting that the AF-2 zone, which requires a 75 foot front yard setback, is the closest conforming zone. Bedell stated that Francis Krizmanich, the Zoning Department staff member responsible for the revision of the-County Code, feels that the sliding scale works better than using setbacks from a zone with a similar lot size. Wheeler stated that the case was tabled at the last meeting in hopes that the new Code would be closer to adoption, but this does not seem to be the case. Gull agreed, noting that the new Code has been in the works for years, and that he was not comfortable finding a hardship based on intended legislation. Wheeler also noted that the topography allows the house to be sited in other areas. Neiley noted that he was having a problem finding the hardship necessary to grant a 50 foot variance, without deviating from the purposes and intents of the Code. There was no public comment. Neiley moved to grant a 50 foot front yard setback variance due to downzoning and existence of prior house and building area relatively close to the area in which the applicant wishes to build a new home. The motion was not seconded. Cooper asked if this case is unique based on the proposal to move the existing accessory building farther from the property line, while constructing the new principal structure closer to the property line. Guy did not feel that reason made the case unique. Guy moved to grant a 25 foot front yard setback variance due to downzoning and the presence of an existing building area. Wheeler seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Gull did not vote on this case. s case was tabled at the last meeting. 2 000018 Chris Trautner was present to request a 5 foot NW side yard setback variance, where l0 feet is required in the SR zone district, for construction of an 8 foot by 16 foot entry and storage addition. A deck previously existed in the space where he is proposing to construct the new addition. The deck was removed when its condition deteriorated. Wheeler asked Schaffner to clarify the requirement for distance between trailers, and she replied that a'10 foot separation is required. The Board discussed minor changes in the placement of the addition, based pn their concern to maintain 10 feet between trailers. Gull stated that the required separation is related to safety. There was no public comment. Guy moved to grant a 6 foot NW side yard setback variance to permit an 8 foot by 16 foot addition to an existing trailer, with the condition that the addition be at least l0 feet from the neighbor's existing addition. Gull seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Dyer did not vote on this case. Richard Neal was present to request a 54 foot front yard setback variance and a 12 foot east side yard setback variance, where 75 feet and 20 feet, respectively, are required in the AF-2 zone district, for construction of a single family residence. Neal noted that his lot is only 1/4 acre, and that the previous residence on the lot was destroyed by a propane explosion. Schaffner stated that the property has gone through a 1041 hazard review for steep slopes and has an approved building envelope. She also noted that the Neals owned the lot when it was downzoned, and that there are severe topographical restrictions on the site. There was no public comment. Guy moved to grant a 54 foot front yard setback variance and a 12 foot east side yard setback variance, for construction of a single family residence, due to topographical hardship, downzoning, and non-conforming lot size, as per the plans submitted. Neiley seconddd the motion and all were in favor. Wheeler did not vote on this case. Case #92-42 Robert Magoon Lot R-73 Starwood Subdivision Stan Mathis was present, representing Robert Magoon to request a 25 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the AF-1 zone district for construction of a patio. 3 ~~~~~9 Mathis stated that a 20 foot front yard setback variance was granted by the Board on May 5, 1992 for construction of a patio. This new request would increase that variance by 5 feet. Due to the slope down to an irrigation ditch, the portion of the patio that was originally designed to be on-grade will have to be constructed above-grade. There was no public comment. Gull moved to grant a 25 foot front yard setback variance for the encroachment of the deck as shown on the plans submitted, due to downzoning. Wheeler seconded the motion and all were in favor. Guy did not vote on this case. ****************~*********************************~****,t,t******** - The September 1, 1992 minutes were approved as written. - - The meeting was adjourned at 6:10 PM. Respectfully submitted, ~,.~,w'ncti.c. ~ l~ Suza ne L. Wolff, retary 4 000~~2~ Minutes i Pitkin County Hoard of Adjustment September 1, 1992 Members Present: Rick Neiley, Chairman John Wheeler Ted Guy Michael Cooper Members Absent: Staff: Evan Gull Rod Dyer Stan Mathis Joanna Schaffner, Zoning Enforcement Neiley opened the meeting at 5:20 p.m. and introduced the Board to those present. Sunny Vann was present, representing Justine Kirk, to request a 5 foot SE side yard setback variance, where 15 feet is required in the.R-30 zone district, and an 800 square foot increase in floor area, where a maximum of 3,372 square feet is allowed for this lot, for an addition to an existing residence. Vann stated that a 40 foot easement straddles the common property line, and functions as a driveway for the applicant's and five other properties. As required by the County Code, surface easements are subtracted from lot area to determine FAR. Thus, the 40 foot easement subtracted from the lot area (34,160 square feet) reduces the maximum allowable floor area from 4,440 square feet to 3,370 square feet (a 1,070 square foot reduction), and encompasses one fourth of lot. The current floor area of the house is 3,270 square feet, which leaves only 100 square feet for expansion. The proposed addition would add a total of 900 square feet to the floor area. The 5 foot side yard setback variance would allow for enclosure and expansion of the front porch, and a new deck. According to Vann, the encroachment should not impact the adjacent owners, and since the FAR variance would not increase the bulk of the house in relation to its lot, it, too, would not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. The five other owners who share the driveway have all consented to the request. Vann noted that if the easement was conveyed today, the County standards would only require a 30 foot easement. The easement was imposed at the time of subdivision, prior to construction of the home, and was, therefore, inherited by the applicant. The neighbors are not similarly encumbered. Wheeler asked what the maximum allowable floor area would be if the easement was 30 feet. Vann estimated that it would be less than 1 ~~~~21 the 800 square feet requested, but more than is currently permitted. Schaffner noted three issues: (1) the plat indicates 5 adjacent property owners, but only 4 were notified; (2) the reductio of the easement for the purpose of calculating floor area is not unique to this lot; (3) the deed in the file shows that the property was conveyed in 1979, and the zoning regulations were in place prior to that time. Vann replied that the house was built in 1959, and platted in 1958, in advance of those regulations. The deed was conveyed in 1979 from husband to wife. Vann stated that one property owner owns two of the adjacent lots. Vann stated that the house was built when no FAR restrictions were in place, and that the adoption of FAR--imposed -significant restrictions on the size of the house that could be built on the lot. Vann noted that the oversized easement imposes exceptional practical difficulties on this lot, and that this hardship warrants a deviation from a strict interpretation of the requirement that all of that square footage be subtracted from the lot area. The 40 foot easement adversely affects this property as compared to adjacent properties with regards to size. Vann noted that the reason for subtracting the easement for FAR purposes is to provide for future construction of a road, but the existing road adequately services the lots. Guy noted that he would be reluctant to grant an exception by ignoring the platted easement, even though today the driveway would be dedicated as a right-of-way set aside exclusively for access, Vann stated that he could ask all the homeowners to amend the plat and reduce the easement to 30 feet, but noted the difficulty involved in re-platting. Guy noted that replatting would benefit all of the owners because they all own land that does not count towards FAR. Guy stated that if the FAR variance was granted, nothing would then preclude a future tear down and rebuild of the house using the new FAR. Schaffner stated that variances do not run with the lot, but with a specific development plan. Guy agreed. Neiley stated that he views the easement as a restriction, but does not see the hardship in a 3,200 square foot house as opposed to a 4,000 square foot house. However, the easement does present a unique condition not created by applicant. Neiley stated his reluctance to change the requirements just because only a portion of the easement is being used. 2 DOQQG~ Guy noted that the width of the road could be increased in the future to comply with the regulations of the State Forest Service and the Sheriff's Department with respect to fire access. wheeler asked if the variance requested was based on the difference between a 40 foot and a 30 foot easement, or based on the entire encroachment of the easement on the applicant's property. Vann responded that the request is based on something in between the two. 900 square feet represents the applicant's practical need for expansion. With no easement, the applicant would have an additional 1,070 square feet of floor area, but is only asking for an 800 square foot variance. If the easement was 30 feet (which exceeds the County standards), the additional floor area available would be less than the 800 square feet requested, probably closer to 600 square feet. Vann stated that the applicant is willing to compromise to attain any additional square footage above the ------ currently remaining 100 square feet. Guy stated that the technical problem of possible insufficient notice would prevent the Board from granting a variance without the condition of renoticing the neighbors. He stated that he was uncomfortable granting a variance that would give credit for anything less than the 40 foot easement. With only a quorum of the Board present, he suggested granting the side yard setback variance and tabling the FAR variance to allow the applicant to determine the amount of additional floor area permitted if the right-of-way was 30 feet. Neiley stated that the side setback variance would be of no value without the FAR variance. Vann agreed and stated that the technical difficulty could be corrected. Neiley noted that unique conditions could be found with respect to the 30 foot easement as opposed to the 40 foot easement, but not with respect to the road in place which is less than both. Guy moved to table Case #92-35 to October 6, 1992, to correct the notification and to provide the applicant the opportunity to provide a corrected survey for a 30 foot easement and the resulting square footage. Wheeler seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case #92-36. Raymond Woodrow 5980 Snowmass Creek Road Raymond Woodrow was present to request a 65 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the RS-30 zone district, for a proposed ranch gate to replace an existing gate. Woodrow presented the signatures of all of the neighbors he was able to contact, none of whom object to the proposed variance. He noted that he has a very narrow property of 10 acres. 3 OOOfI?3 Schaffner stated that the ranch gate complies with the new accessory height requirements, so the Board need only be concerned with the setback of the gate. Woodrow noted that the property is fenced 35 feet from the road. There was no public comment. Guy noted that the lot was non-conforming. Neiley stated that the gate is part of the existing fence, and that relocating the fence 100 feet from the road would be unreasonable. Fences under 6 feet are not subject to building permit review. Neiley moved to grant a 65 foot front yard setback variance for a proposed ranch gate on the grounds of practical difficulty, in accordance with the plans submitted. Guy seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Mark Bedell was present to request a 50 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the RS-20 zone, for construction of a single-family residence. Bedell noted that there are two existing structures on the site: a barn and a trailer house that will be torn down. He would like to build on the location of the existing house, which is within 87 feet of the property line. This location allows him to use the flattest area of the site, which slopes off below the existing house, and gives him the best solar access in winter. The County downzoned the property with the RS-20 zoning, and created a substandard lot. Bedell proposes to move the existing barn which sits within 25 feet of the property line to a location within 50 feet of the front yard property line. He stated that the proposed changes in the Land Use Code would adopt a 50 foot front yard setback for a substandard lot in the RS-20 zone district. Schaffner was not aware of that proposal, and informed the Board that they could only rule on the existing code. Guy noted that the closest conforming zone district would be AF-2, which requires a 75 foot front yard setback. Wheeler stated that a 75 foot front yard setback variance could be granted based on downzoning, but that he did not see any extreme topographical hardships that would justify an additional 25 feet for the setback. Guy agreed. There was no public comment. Guy stated that the first public hearing on the new Code will occur before the next Board meeting, and depending on the outcome of the hearing, the Board might be more comfortable granting a variance 4 000()24 ~. based on the new regulations. Schaffner noted that the Board could approve a 75 foot variance now, and Bedell could then come back to the Board to ask for a 50 foot variance, but that he could not make the same request to the Board within a year. Neiley asked Bedell if he would like to table the case to the October 6, 1992, meeting, and Bedell stated that he would. Neiley moved to table Case #92-38 to October 6, 1992. Guy seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Joanna Schaffner addressed the Board, stating that Chris Trautner has requested that this case be tabled to October 6, 1992. Guy moved to table Case #92-39 at the applicant's request. Neiley seconded the motion, and all were in favor. - ~.a~c ~~a-47, riarx Loaas. kf k323V rilghwav 133 Mark Dodds was present to request a 60 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the RS-30 zone district, for construction of a single-family residence. Dodds noted that the Carbondale city water line and the Bain- Thomas ditch both run through his lot, creating great hardship in finding room to build on the lot. His lot is 2 acres, and is only 22 feet wide and 34 feet long. Schaffner stated that the property went through a Minor 1041 Hazard Review in which wildlife and floodplain hazard areas were reviewed. A building envelope outside the hazard areas was approved. Guy noted that the lot shows definite topographical hardship. Kenny Osier, a neighbor, noted that in 1972 Robert Sewell deeded access and right-of-way to all existing roads in the subdivision to the residents of the subdivision. Dodds' driveway is one of those roads, and is the most commonly used road that joins with the railroad bed. He asked if the other residents would still have access to the railroad bed. Laurie Osier stated that they are not against Dodds' building, but just want to know the impact of the setback on the access. John Stickney, President of the Crystal Oaks Bridge Association, stated his concern that the 30 foot right-of-way on Dodds' property is very close to Dodds' building envelope. He noted that the dedicated road, S. Bill Creek Road, is platted, but has not been used. His concern is with access by the residents of the subdivision. Schaffner stated that the Board of Adjustment is not the proper forum for this access issue, and that the Board can only decide 5 ~Q~~~~~ whether or not a hardship is exhibited, which warrants a variance. Neiley noted that the lot is entitled to a building envelope, and that it does not directly impair any claimed access. Neiley stated that this is a classic downzoning case. Guy moved to grant a 60 foot front yard setback variance for a proposed single-family residence, on the grounds of topographical hardship and downzoning, as depicted on the plans submitted. Neiley seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Neiley referred the neighbors to the Open Space Board, which is in the process of studying and mapping the area. The July 7, 1992 minutes were approved as. written. Neiley stated that he had spoken with Jim True, who urged the Board of Adjustment to set up a worksession with the Board of County Commissioners to discuss the conflict of interest policy. Schaffner will follow up. The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 Respectfully submitted, ~G--o.r~.~_ Suza ne L. Wolff, Secretary 6 ~~n~?~ SPEN/PITICIN PLANNING OFFICE ~ 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920-5090 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES aTY: -63250-134 GMP/Conceptual -63270-136 GMP/Final -63280-137 SUB/Conceptual -63300-139 SUB/Final -63310-140 All-2 Step Applications -63320-141 All 1 Step Applications -63330-150 Staff Approval -63432-157 Zoning Plan Check -63432-157 Sign Permit -00100-00000-31070 Use Tax for Sign Permits HISTORIC PRESERVATION: -63335-151 Exemption -63336-152 Minor -63337-153 Major Devel. -63338-154 Sign'rf. Devel. -63339-155 Demolition COUNTY: -63160-126 GMP/General -63170-127 GMP/Detailed -63180-128 GMP/Final -63190-129 SUB/General -63200-130 SUB/Detailed -63210-131 SUB/Final -63220-132 All 2 Step Applications -63230-133 All 1 Step Applications -63240-149 Staff Approval -63450-146 Board of Adjustment ~ ` `' -63235-148 Zoning Plan Check REFERRAL FEES: -63360-143 Engineering -County 00115 -63340-163 Engineering -City 00123 -63340-190 Housing 00125 -63340-205 Environmental HeaRh PLANNING OFFICE SALES: -63080-122 O O~~? County Code -69000-145 Other (Copy Fess) _ TOTAL t C C' ~ ~ %~ I t ` ~ ~ ` i ~ ~ i ` c ' ' Name: - Phone: ' Address: { ~ ~ ~/' (~ G Project: ~Z 3 I Check#: ~ ~ -~ _Date: ~~ ~ i ~ ~ ~~ ` No of Copies: