Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.90.35 PITRIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DATE -~IU/'" /'~/ /9~~ CASE # ~/ ~ ~ APPLICANT <AG.?a~/~,Qd.+B/~/~ ~j2lry5o~/ PHONE - pL?" 3.9~1h/ MAILING ADDRESS ~" Z ~~~. ~~ Gs~ ^~ ~ ~ y~ A ,nn c. ~S C~ G ~ ~~ ~ ~ Y OWNER -%'"~ MAILING ADDRESS ~''~ PHONE 3i~"/~ LOCATION OF PROPERTY PsQJC- u~ ~.rSwgy ,~Bb~~/6A~n/I aN~w,~,~ Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part of this Case.. The Board may return this application if it does not contain all the facts. in question. Applicant Signature ~~..~sY--- (To be completed by the Zoning 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 3~ Zone District Requesting: /-~ ° Lot Size ~~ ~_' Front Yard Setback Variance, where /C-G ' is required. ' Rear Yard Setback Variance, where ' is required. /C ' ~ Side Yard Setback Variance, where S v ' is required. ' Side Yard Setback Variance, where ' is required. ' Height Variance, where ' is required. Square Feet where a maximum of sq. ft. is allowed. 'JE' Other: ~J__ ® ,/ Hardship: /'i6~'I ('iCD~D~,fnli7f;'w.s(.l~ il0"T /'xJ.~ Application file/d~ ~ Notices mailed ~1"~-~V Parcel1 ID #a?~~C~ ~~3~3"©ti ~'~'~- Secretary C~2gve~ Sire V~S~~ O~~oa•cC~ nne.vtila U ~ OUtI~"UI ~~9ss ~~~ n y a~ Z o e ~x~~c~,r~,eq , ~~,~~yF~ J J ~2~~^S X32 pZoningg Officia case 0~~~~/~ Dat NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 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 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 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 other 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: Name and Address of Applicant Property Location or Description September 11, 1990 at 5:15 pm Lawton Ferguson 232 Picket Pin Lane Snowmass, CO 81654 Base of Gateway Subdivision Snowmass, CO Requesting approval for a 71 foot front yard setback variance and a l0 foot west side yard setback variance where 100 feet and 50 feet, respectively, are required, for construction of a single- family residence. Approval of this request would locate the house 29 feet from Ferguson's front yard property line and 40 feet from Ferguson's west side yard property line. Duration of Variance: Temporary. Permanent• X THEJPITKIN~TY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Cind L. Christensen, Secretary 00000? On September 25, 1984 the Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County granted us a variance on our property located at 0232 Picket Pin Lane, Snowmass (see attached copies of 1984 application and approval). Based on our hardships at that time (solar advantages, topography of site and an attempt to reduce scarring of the hillside by~minimizing access cuts), we were given a front and sideyard variance, and the house was placed in its present location. We now wish to add on an attached garage, den, and bedroom/bath. Based on the layout of the house, topography and solar considerations, the most advantageous placement would be the north side of the existing dwelling, requiring a frontyard setback variance of 22' from the existing house (to 31' from the lot line) and sideyard variance of 10'. our reasoning and hardships are as follows: 1. Solar considerations. An addition to the north side of house would allow southeast light into every existing and proposed room, producing maximum solar gain. Adding to the southeast side would preclude sunlight in two existing bedrooms; it would also make direct egress to the outside from these two bedrooms difficult. Adding to the southwest side of the house would preclude the majority of solar gain for the entire house, which is currently enhanced with a solar greenhouse, skylights and dormer windows. 2. Scale and Topography. Adding onto the north side of the existing house would allow for natural insulation, as the lower floor would be partially below grade. It would thus keep the height and scale of the addition to a minumum, in keeping with the low impact look of the house. Adding to the southeast side of the house would not take advantage of any natural insulation and would rise tremendously out of the ground, becoming grand in scale and we think, unsightly. 3. Safety. Placement of an attached garage can only occur in one place -- directly off the driveway on the north- west corner of the existing house. The garage, among other benefits, will allow us to turn around in our own driveway, giving us a clear and unobstructed view for exiting our property. Currently we must back out onto Picket Pin Lane and into our neighbor's driveway -- we've already had one accident. C~ Z ~ ~x 1~n C Uu.~ie c ~~~UQ~J Impact. Adding to the north side of the property would minimize impact on all adjacent property owners and would in no way conflict with anyone's view, aesthetic or noise factors. Addition to the south and east side would impact aesthetic and noise levels of adjacent property owners. Land Use Code Revision. The garage would encroach 10' into our sideyard setback on the west side. If the proposed Land Use Code is revised and adopted, sideyard setbacks would return to those for a one acre parcel. At 40' we would then be within legal setback require- ments. We therefore claim a sideyard setback hardship based on this proposed re-evaluation of setbacks in Pitkin County. BOA90.WP5 OOOtI~~ ~-_. DATE September 10 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT Lawton Fi. Ferguson 19 84 CASE# ADDRESS Box 55 Woody Creek OWNER Same ADDRESS Same LOCATION OF PROPERTY 0232 Picket Pin Lane, Old Snowmass (aka Tracts 81 and 82, Section 34, Township 8 South, Range 86 West of the 6th P.P4. Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part of this Case No. The Board"tray'return this application if it does not contain all the facts in question. Applicant's description of proposed variance showing justification: " The subject property was subdivided from a larger parcel in January, 1970, before the downzoning of the County and its subsequent rezoning to RS-30. It is therefore a nonconforming lot, 1 acre in size and setbacks designated for 30-acre parcels create difficulties for our particular lot. The septic system has been installed on the most level portion of the lot, and where we plan to build the home takes maximum advantage of solar orientation, access and natural insulating factors. The lot steepens towards the south and southwest, calling for greater excavation and reduced solar advantage, as the contour of the land continues to climb towards a ridge approximately 100 yards to the south. We therefore request approval of this application .~ Applicant Signature/ki ~ ~ ~~; ; ?/ ~~ R,~ ~, ~ ~. Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building Inspector to forward this application to the Board of Adjustment and reason for not granting a buiding'permit: Building Inspector Date Permit rejected: Application filed Mailed Board decision Date Secretary Board of Adjustment 000005 Paul Krausch moved that the following be adopted: BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTD]ENT OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 84-36 Lawton Ferguson, 0232 Picket Pin Lane wFIEREAS, the subject property is within the unincorporated area of Pitkin County, Colorado; and, F71iEREAS, 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. NO[•7, THEREFORE, AE IT RESOLVED that the applicant's recuest for a 47' frontyard setback variance and a 40' sideyard setback v2riance for construction of residence. Additional conditions or restrictions: f•7AfLUING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result i.n rehearing and possible revocation. Dottie Fox seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The roll havinU been called; the vote was as follows: Bill Mason - yes Paul Krausch - yes Dottis Fox - yes Kandi Shaffran - yes Joe Zanin - yes The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: September 25, 1984 The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado Attest: ffll tt~~ Secre y ~oVVQ~ Q ,/~-i~~~~t_ Chairman ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS 1. Bruce and Holly Benson P.O. Box 425 Snowmass, CO 81654 2. Tract A Corporation 624 N. Canyon Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Rocky Mountain institute 1739 Snowmass Creek Road Snowmass, CO 81654 ~o~~Q7 PARCEL A: TYat part of Tracts 81 and 82, Section 34, Township 8 South, Range 86 West of the 6th P.M., described as follows: Beginning at an iron post with a brass cap monument marked for Angle Point No. 6 of said Tract 81; th ~tce South 88°55'49" West, along the South line of said Tract 81, a distance of 150.46 feet; thence North O1°04`11" West, along the easterly line of Gateway of Snowmass Me ;a Subdivision, First Piling, 202 feet, more or less, to the Southwest co per of property described in Book 245..at page 740 of the Pitkin County ' Re .ords; ' th:nce South 89°57'59" East, along the Southerlq line of said property 299.45 fe::t, more or less, to the centerline of a 20-foot road easement; th.:nce 102.88 feet along said centerline and along the azc of a curve to [h~•. left having a radius of 311.32.feet, the chord of which beazs South 10°07'10" We::t 102.41 feet; . thence North 87°43' West, along the Northerly line of property described in Book 245 at page 738 of the Pitkia County Records, 129.7 feet, more or le: s, to the Westerly line of said Tract No. 82; thence South O1°18' East, along said Westerly line, 103.36 feet, more or lees, to the point of beginning. County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. ~.. Exhibit "A" 000008 ~ O e~ ~ °O e~ ... eO e O Q. e N ~ ~ - ~ n ~ ~ ~ a a v ~ ~ a ~ \ ~ \ ~^ ~ . - ~ ry~ J~ ~~ \ ~ Q w. \ ~ ~ O ~~ o' Z Z - ~I. ~ f~ ~ _` !`_ G~ O ~ ~~' v- ~ ~ / ! yO, 6- ~ !C~ !~ 7• / ~n / i ~ ~ / ~ ~ a X0009 a 0 ~ ~ o N 3 oO oO cD iD tt ~ o~ ("' o L ~~ '- //~^^ v+ \`~ O 0 r eo ~ C ~L o (O ~ ~ W ~~ O in ~ 0 ,o ~, ~~ 10 September 1990 G~ti MOU~r ~2 J'i'STITU~~ Cindy L. Christensen, Secretary Pitkin County Boazd of Adjustment Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Ms. Christensen: As an adjacent land owner, Rocky Mountain Institute would like to register support for the setback vazience (notice attached) requested by Lawton Ferguson, 232 Picket Pin Lane in Snowmass and subject to a hearing on 11 September 1990. A[ this time, no negative impact on Rocky Mountain Institute is anticipated from [his construction. In fact the proposed northward addition is preferable in our eyes to one in an easterly direction. Please contact us if you need further comment. Sincerely, ~~ L. Hunter Lovins Executive Duector LHL:cc ]) 3 9 S N O W M A S S C R E E X ROAD , S N O W M A S 5, C O L O R A D O 8] 6 5 4- 9 1 9 9 (303) 92]-3 A5/, 92I~3128 O'~DUi~ c~{o~y Denson 1~ox 425 cSnowmaas, eo~oaaclo 57654 `~ - c~ . ~~~ ~~ti~ , ~ ~.~-~ ~~ oooo~~ 00001? ~ ~ o ~ r~ ~ d ~, ~ ~ ~ .,. ~. ~ ~ ~a ~~- y~ N e ~~ ~, ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~~~ ~~~~~ ~ x.~~~e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~? 8 ~ q M q. ~ 0. _~ i O v J 0. N` ~ 4 i ~ 3 ~ `l \SPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFIC 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303)920.5090 LAND USE APPLICATION F EES aty 00113 -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/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS REFERRAL FEES: 00125 -63340-205 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 -63340-190 HOUSING 00115 -63340-163 ENGINEERING SUBTOTAL County 00113 -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/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS -63450-146 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REFERRAL FEES: 00125 -63340-205 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 -63340-190 HOUSING 00113 -63360-143 ENGINEERING PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00113 -63080-122 CITY/COUNTY CODE -63090-123 COMP PLAN -63140-124 COPY FEES -69000-145 OTHER Name: r ( _: `?'',, ~-~ Address: ~ ? 7 .~ C. >(~r v J f LG ~ , Check # ~ ~~~_~j~j Additional billing: _ ~ G1~`- J SUBTOTAL ' ~~ TOTAL ~ `~~ 7' 7 ~ f ~•c~ Phone: _ ~7 ~~ i..~ Project: C +2' ~r / i/- ~)~ , /_~ ~ Date: ,j ~ - #of oooug~ County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY } ss. POSTING OF A VARIANCE HEARING State of Colorado } BEFORE THE PITRIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says as follows: I, being or v 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 property (as it could way) and that the said sign wa from the ~ ~~ day of to the ~ ~~ day o f ~ - ~,~ ast 1 be seen from the nearest public s posted and visible continuously 19, ~~ ~ ~~ ~'r f l ` , 19~ . nine (9) full days before the ~~~ _ Applicant' Signature Subscribed and sworn to bef~;:e :ne NO j ~~ ~ - this ~ day of ~ ~. OF HEARi11~~= ~ 19~, by lY1ar--Ihu ~'~~u ,~,J BOARD OF WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. AD~tJST ~ ~ HELD ~ ~~' My Commission expires : _~12~ ~DUNTY ~ AT TIC p~~ 5~ ~3 H~ 111 ~~~-~'v"``~ l ~aw E.~. -- ~- ~~ ' ' O~ 7' :~ otary Public's Signature . ~ --~~- j 3~~ M ~r~.P~.nd ~,~.~ ~,~~~ Address ~Q, _QQ~ ~, ~ .~~ ~~I_ .: ,~ ~ . •: ., ~: ~~ ~. ~~ Paul Krausch r,.oved that the following be adopted BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUS TT9ENT OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION No. 84-36 Lawton Ferguson, 0232 Picket Pin Lane ,~ WHEREAS, the subject property is within the unincorporated area of Pitkin County, Colorado; and, FiHERF.AS, the Board of Adjustment is vested with the Hower 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, 47HF.RF.AS, based on the evidence presented, the Board of Adjustment makes the followinc findings: 1. Proper notice procedures, including the notification of all adjorninc property owners, has been shown by the applicant. ~. 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. 010[9, THE?.EFOFiE, AF, IT RESOLVED that the applicant's request for a =7' frontyard setback variance and a 40' sideyard setback variance for construction of residence. Additional conditions or restrictions: 47AFL~lING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result i.n rehearing and possible revocation. Dottie Fox seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: Bill Mason - yes Paul Krausch - yes Dottis Fox - yes Kandi Shaffran - yes Joe Zanin - yes The Resolution was adopted by vote of the IIoard of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado- DATED Sep tenber 25, 1984 The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado .%.t test: _ /~ _~ •-. -, _ ;i Chairman / `e"e=~~~ -- 00007 v RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Board of Adjustment September 25, 1984 p,~.:, . AF-' The lot is approximately 75 x 25 off the Woody Creek Road and bordered [hc river. Fallin s[ai ed that iC was suggested to him that a 12' variance ho r,~y ursted, He pointed out a change in elevation on the property. The own,~r would eventually like [c do a garage against [he bank with a sod roof [o blend with the hillside. N;u;~r,i yues[ioned if there were any covenants for the Little Texas Subdivision. 8ew6i~.ry seated [hat the subdivision was done in 1952 and did not have any spec it it setbacks. Krausch wanted more information regarding the owner's pin n>. Fallin stated that the owner has proposed closing the existing front porch, extending the living room, which would create the~necesaity for the vari:~,n n' request. Also under consideration was to make the extension from th,~ I~., •~k and convert the existing master bedroom into a living room and do ;~ n•~~; adJicion for the master bedroom. He explained that if coming from the rear of the house [hey would no[ encroach more than 12' on the sideyard set- bar,.. Fnx pointed out that regardless of which direction [he addition went a v,~rinn?e would be necessary. Mason stated that there were no objections ^° fns^.: Ih~~ adjacent property owners. 7.anin po Sn tad out that [he proper wording for a variance would be an 18' sideva rd setback variance. He moved to grant the request due Co [he irregular !;h:'rv' ~~I the lot. Krausch second the motion. Don Rayburn had written [o th~~ i'„~.ird that he haJ na obj actions to the proposed addi[Son. Pullin q u~•:.~i„ncd if the fron [yard setback could be 61ven a variance at Ch1s time al s,,. Action could no[ be taken because proper notice had no[ been given [,~ Ihc. adjacent neighbors. A vote was called for and all were in favor. Law Can ter usm, 023? Picket Pin Lane, Old Snowmass, requesting a 47' fron[yar se[ ac v V Rv construction of a residence. Lawton Ferguson was there [o represent solf. Ferguson explained [o [he Board members that the property was located d at tl,v base of Gateway to Snowmass Mesa, in the meadows. He read a letter from r Ho11y and Bruce Benson stating that they had no objections to the proposed hi nn1olfLe HeHfeltp tha lathe zoningsrequirement saput undoahardshipionna lo[r r nt Ihi:: ahtq>e and size. The location of Che house makes use of the ea[ solar advantage. Due to Che steepness of Che lo[ on Che south and a relatively ° high ridge approximately 100 yards beyond the winter sun would be greatly reduced if the house were pushed in a southerly direction. Also, the further s,n,~h the house is moved would increase [he cut into the hillside, creating # a vu•.~ter visual impact for the county roads below. If the house were ,,,,.~, ~~! lureher east it would make Ingress and egress extremely difficu t n il„ ~'. ur or :unl would Involve Y. ~'r'~~tur viaun 1. impact from Chc Coon Cy road below. L,.rl",:;,,n also explained [hat positioning the house as proposed woo 1J rmnuvu tho i„~u sc from [he views of a neighboring duplex and fourp lax. He pointed ,~,i ilh,~fvirianco he woulddbedforcedeto accesehfromabelowowhlchfwould change[ hi~ li~,n tva rd setbacks. II w., :: Jctc rm fined that n 40' sideyard setback variance and a 47' frontyard .;,~11~~~1; vnrlance. Ma rth:~ Fc rgu sun pointed out that the pn reel was zoned for '.n ar re parcel and it was only an acre. IC was determined Chnt the leach ~f is ld was in place but [he house was not under construction. The topography rlimL~: along the back of the property and becomes very steep. Shaffran w.r. . in Invar of p mr:o rv lnF; Chc land and not cren ling massive cuts Cor ocuens I,~•,,, b,•I.,w, Masan yuus Cluuud thu •r.oning Li CnCewny. Newbury aln[ml Choi ,,, i~r iually iC wos all AF-2. Krausch move) Co gran[ [he vnrinnce request 6,,srJ on solar cons [r sin is and downzoning, Fox au ggca[ed CupographY• in P1,~s~~n was in favor of topography rather than the downzoning. Krausch way in favor of all three reasons. Fox second the motion. A vote was r.,l Ld lac and n11. were In favor. O O at~~:;~i~ 4>3 ~ ». Minutes Pitkin County Board of Adjustment September 29, 1987 Members Present: Randi Shaffran, Acting Chairman Joe Zanin Melinda Pearson Spiro Niarhos Alternates Present: Robert Miller Peter Dobrovolny Shaffran called the meeting to order. After reviewing the minutes of the last meeting, Dobrovolny stated that the spelling of Jons Milnor's name should be corrected. Shaffran pointed out that Tiehack was misspelled twice. Dobrovolny moved that the minutes be accepted as corrected. Miller seconded the motion. All were in favor. 87-37 Ted Cooper. Michael Lipkin - Lots 10 - 16 Aspen Park Subdivision Application was incomplete. Zanin moved to table case 87-37 until the next regular meeting. Niarhos seconded the motion. The motion carried 5 - 0. 87-38 Lawton H. Ferguson - 232 Picket Pin Lane The applicant was present. He was requesting a 15 ft. frontyard setback variance and a 30 ft. sideyard setback variance for the construction of a garage, an 80 ft. frontyard setback variance for an addition and a 92.5 ft. frontyard setback variance for the construction of a carport. He stated that he had a growing family and needed the extra room. He explained that the locations of the additions were chosen to make the best use of the solar gain. He stated that none of the neighbors had any objections. Ferguson did not want to add on the south or west side because it does not makes sense with the layout of the house and would disturb the extensive landscaping he had done. Niarhos pointed out that the hardships were man-made. Ferguson stated that there was a parking area already in existence and that was another reason that they had chosen the location of the garage. Shaffran explained the different hardships that they could grant a variance for. Ferguson stated that the lot is a one acre lot, it downzoned in 1974 and made to conform to RS-35, that is a hardship. Niarhos asked him if he had bought the lot after it was downzoned. Ferguson replied that he had bought the lot 3 1/2 years ago. Dobrovolny questioned the placement of the addition on the north side; if the addition were placed on the 1 ~d~~~f~ east side, the addition would be solar also. Pearson pointed out that there were design solutions to the problems, all the hardships seemed self imposed. Ferguson stated that the garage was a necessity, the addition and carport were secondary; he has not applied for a permit for the addition or carport. There was some discussion as to whether a permit application was necessary before a variance could be granted. Ferguson summarized that the hardships were solar access, topographical and with slope of the driveway that would be required, he would probably not be able to get out of there in the winter. Dobrovolny did not have a problem with the garage, but did have a problem with the add- ition. Zanin asked why could not pull the garage back. Ferguson explained that he would lose his parking area. Mrs. Ferguson pointed out that the proposed location of the garage would cause the least disruption of the vegetation. Zanin moved to grant a 15 ft. frontyard setback variance and a 30 ft. sideyard setback variance due to solar access and deny the request for the 80 ft. frontyard setback variance for the addition and the request for the 92.5 ft. frontyard setback for the construction of the carport due to lack of demonstrated hardship. Niarhos seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed 5 - 0. Miller was the alternate voting. 87-39 Robert/Gillian Baxter, Lot 9, Block 1, Filing, 2, Brush Creek Village Robert Baxter was present. He was requesting a 60 ft. frontyard setback variance due to topography. The lot was so steep that there was no way to get down in or back out. He stated that his neighbor had done the same thing. A neighbor, Jacob Protas was present. He was questioning the height of the house. Baxter explained to him the layout of the proposed house. He stated that from Protas' house there is no way that he could see the house. Protas' concern was that all the other houses in the neighborhood did conform to the setbacks. Pearson agreed that was a concern. Shaffran doubted that they all conformed. Baxter stated that he would prefer to put his house that far in, but it couldn't be done. Protas asked it he had really researc- hed it. Baxter stated that the driveway would be a hazard in the winter. Shaffran moved to grant a 60 ft. frontyard setback variance due to topographical hardship. Dobrovolny seconded the motion. Shaffran, Dobrovolny, Niarhos and Zanin were in favor. Pearson was opposed. The motion carried d - 1. Dobrovolny was the alternate voting. 87-40 Airport Plaza Building Robert Lorton - 209 Ventnor Ave. Chuck Vidal was present representing the owner. He began that he was not sure that he needed to be there, because the work was below grade. The situation was, he explained, was that there was a steep slope, a storage area exists to the side of the building, below grade, in the winter it fills with snow, they 2 ~~~U~~ -.~:;. y ~. ~~. ~ °, ~f, ,i'y:l ~` ,~ ~'. s 1 .• / '~ ~ i~ i, ~' I 1 ,I Y.iv ±`~ •.;i' ~ . :.~ ~. 'i ~'' ~ ~~` - ~ qal _ ~ .?* ~'. ~~ , ~,:,~ r ...,.::_~r_ _.w.,,, "" .~ Y ~S' ... ,r ~; "• .tip .._ ~ '~ °,• " E k •,i y #3~4 10/03/90 15:07 Fiec S.O~C 631 FG Silvia Davis, Fitkin Cnty Cler4::, Doc 5.00 ~y3 OF THS PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO BOARD OF ADJIISTMENT GRANTING SETBACK RELIEF FOR MARTHA & LAWTON FERGIISON NO. 90-35 WHEREAS, Martha and Lawton Ferguson, owner of a tract of land situated at Section 34, Township 8 fSOUth, Range 86 West, Tracts 81 and 82, 232 Pickett Pin Lane, requests a 30 foot front yard setback variance, and a l0 foot west side yard setback variance, where 100 feet and 50 feet, respectively are required in the RS- 30 zone district, for the construction of an addition to a single-family residence and for construction of a proposed attached garage; 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. 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 30 foot front yard setback variance and a 10 foot west side yard setback variance be granted to allow for construction of an attached residential garage and an addition to a single-family residence, as shown on the plans submitted (Exhibit "B"), due to a nonconforming lot size. WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. 000021 #3<bF`~4 10/03/9p 15:07 Rec ~. Up 631 ~'G Sily Davis, Fitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc g. pp 1~~ Resolution No. 90-~ Page 2 The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: September il, 1990 ATTEST: Ci L. Christensen, Secretary The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado ~ °~~~i~ Evan Gull, Acting Chairman ~~U~~? I~ C~ C~ - - 531 68e4Davi s~/9U 15; p r Rec ~, Op E+Y.: 631 FG 143 F•itkin Cnty C1erh, Doc ~,p~~ ~ PARCEL A• That part of Tracts 81 and 82, Section 34, Township 8 South, Range 86 West of the 6th P.M., described as follows: Beginning at an iron post with a brass cap monument marked for Angle Point No. 6 of said Tract 81; thence South 88°55'49" West, along the South line of said Tract 81, a distance of 150.46 feet; ' thence North O1°04`11" West, along the easterly line of Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Subdivisioa,~First Filing, 202 feet, more or less, to the Southwest corner of property described in Book 245..at page 740 of the Pitkia County ' Records; thence South 89°57'59" East, along the Southerly line of said property 299.45 feet, more or less, to the centerline of a 20-foot road easement; thence.102.88 feet along said centerline and along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 311.32.feet, the chord of which beazs South 10°07'10" West 102.41 feet; thence North 87°43' West, along the Northerly line of property described in Book 245 at page 738 of the Pitkin County Records, 129.7 feet, more or less, to the Westerly line of said Tract No. 82; thence South O1°18' East, along said Westerly line, 103.36 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. .:.. ~.,-~ . , ~:,~ tj; 1j dp 1 ~ ~ l J .j Exhibit "A" O~it~~iJ EXHIBIT "B" w a h U ul a m I aJ am N I 6 u6' 3ti OyF- jj Zae O~ LLma Y CJ ~ 3 DO 61 106 w I ~ 69 £OI U'ld f7NIHV3B di) S15V9 h -~ W -'` V O1 LL I m `_ y I ~ 3 _ ~_ W y n W ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 t I I 0 ~ V r r r-__ _ I Ir ._J e csi g I o,., : m ?. ~ ~.9 ~ 3 3 .i ~' ~~J W i I N a N bl ~ P I ; 1n YI - ~ ~_ '~s j ~ ° °m m _ si.ei_- 6 Ir _ w y < ~ I x ~} - J ..~_ 19 ` _.......~....... LL ..... -~- - ~ 1 ~~~ ..• , ;i I 8 •i ~. ~ :. W ' .l l ....: 6 i:' ... ......~.. ,. ...._ .... J . ~ ~...____ ~_ ___ ._- M 12 Z I ON .__ 66 i0Z GOZOZ M„Il pO eION z a m w ~m z~ ~z ow LLm (/~ L O OO ~L i a a r 0 o ~o LLC ra ~~ ~ y a d ~+ ~ a Y ~ I~ F+ C~ (~' N Y [II C' n -~ r+ T ~ n ~ ~ ~ 4 T J d t ~ M (3 ~ !+ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PITKIN 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, 1955, 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 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. DATE AND TIME OF MEETING: September 11, 1990 at 5:15 p.m. City Council Chambers, City Hall Shaw, Jenifer: requesting an 18 foot rear yard setback variance, a 35 foot north side yard setback variance and a 15 foot south side yard setback variance, where 50 feet is required for all three, in the RS-30 zone district, for a proposed addition of a single-family residence. Property Location: 1472 Snowmass Creek Road, Snowmass. Ferguson, Lawton (Robin): requesting a 71 foot front yard setback variance and a l0 foot west side yard setback variance, where 100 feet and 50 feet, respectively, are required in the RS- 30 zone district, for the construction of a single-family residence. Property Location: Base of Gateway Subdivision, Tracts 81 and 82, Section 34, Township 8 South, Range 86 West. Cheever, Eddie: requesting a 65 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required, in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a proposed second level to be built over an existing garage. Property Location: 1054 South Starwood Drive, Lot R-57, Filing 8, Starwood Subdivision. Hefner, Robert A., III: requesting a 23 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the RS-20 zone district, for the construction of a single-family residence. Property Location: Tract R-8-B, Starwood Subdivision, aka 452 Trentaz Drive. Lucero, Mariano (Buddy): requesting a 60 foot front yard setback variance, a 45 foot north side yard setback variance and a 45 foot south side yard setback variance, where 100 feet, 50 feet ~Q~t~irJ 5 ~ ... .l.. •. ~ f 5 and 50 feet, respectively, are required, in the RS-30 zone district, for construction of a single-family residence. Property Location: Tract 23, Gesberg Property, Section 21, Township 9 South, Range 88 West. Lorton, Tracy A.: requesting a 34.5 foot west side yard setback variance, where 50 foot is required in the RS-30 zone district, for construction of a single-family residence. Property Location: Above Wildridge II & Sinclair Road, Snowmass Village. Coates, Jeff: requesting a 100 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the RS-30 zone district, for construction of a fence. Property Location: 2567 Snowmass Creek Road, Section 2 and 3, Township 9 South, Range 86 West. Submitted to the Aspen Times on August 28, 1990. To Be Published in the Aspen Times on August 30, 1990. County PO # 47987 ooau~o Minutes Pitkin County Board of Adjustment September il, 1990 Members Present: Members Absent• Evan Gull, Acting Chairman John Ostwald Rick Neiley Ted Guy Kandi Shaffran and Stan Mathis Buddy Lucero and Joanna Schaffner, of the Pitkin County Zoning Office, were present with staff recommendations and comments. Gull, as acting chairman, opened the meeting at 5:20 p.m. and introduced the Board to those present. Gull stated that there were only four members present, and to have a variance granted, you need four affirmative votes. Zf anyone wants to be tabled until the next meeting when more members may be present, they can do so. Rudolph Netzer was present to request a clarification on Resolution 88-31 which should be corrected to reflect the granting of a 15 foot north side yard setback variance to the center of the abandoned drainage ditch on the west side of the lot, for construction of a single-family residence. Schaffner and Netzer stated that what was stated on Resolution 88-31 was different than what was approved at the July 5, 1988 meeting (according to the tape of that meeting), and Resolution 90-42 would be correcting this error. Resolution 88-31 indicated that approval be granted for the "building envelope as submitted allowing the building no closer than 50 feet of the eastern property line and no closer than 35 feet of the southern property line and no closer than 35 feet of the center of the abandoned drainage ditch on the western side of the lot." What was actually approved was a 50 foot front yard setback, a 35 foot north side yard setback and a 35 foot south side yard setback to the center of the abandoned drainage ditch. Guy made a motion to adopt Resolution 90-42 granting the 15 foot north side yard setback variance as originally granted on July 5, 1988. Ostwald seconded the motion and all were in favor. 1 OOOO2Z Marty Pickett, Attorney, and Larry Yaw, Architect, for Lorton, were present to request a 34.5 foot west side yard setback variance, where 50 feet is required, for construction of a single-family residence. Pickett stated that they were before the Board previously (August 2, Case No. 90-31) and were denied their request for a 35 foot rear yard setback variance and a 25 foot south side yard setback variance. Yaw has redesigned the proposed house and has shifted the proposed location of the house back to satisfy Wagman, the neighbor, preserve the conditions placed on them by the Planning & Zoning Commission and still preserve the trees located on the property. Yaw mentioned that they have 7,000 square feet of buildable land on a 35-acre parcel because of restrictions placed on the lot during the 1041 Review process. Gull asked for public comments; there were none. Neiley stated that he does not particularly like where the proposed location of the house is, but he has talked with Rick Knezevich, attorney for Wagman (neighbor to the Lorton's property), and Wagman does not oppose this request. Neiley also commented that he would support it because the applicant has made an effort to reduce the height of the building, whereas if they were pushed back into the legal building envelope, a two-story house would probably be built, and would have a more negative impact. Neiley made a motion to grant a 34.5 foot west side yard setback variance where 5o feet is required due to topographical hardships and prior review by the Planning & Zoning Commission, as per the plans submitted. Guy seconded the motion and all were in favor. Case #90-34. Shaw, Jenifer, 1472 Snowmass Creek Road Jenifer Shaw was present to request an i8 foot rear yard setback variance, a 35 foot north side yard setback variance, and a 15 foot south side yard setback variance, where 50 feet is required for all in the RS-30 zone district, for an addition to an existing single-family residence. Shaw submitted a certified survey of the property. Per the survey, it was decided that a rear yard setback variance is not needed. Gull asked for any public comment. Joe Hawley, neighbor, was present with a survey of his property and was concerned that the proposed addition would affect his property. The proposed addition will not affect his property. After a brief discussion, ~Q~v~~ it was decided that what Shaw .was requesting would comply with the required setbacks that pertain to her size lot. Guy made a motion to grant a 30 foot front yard setback variance, a 40 foot north side yard setback variance, and a 20 foot south side yard setback variance, due to downzoning and nonconforming lot size, subject to renotification, as per the plans submitted. Ostwald seconded the motion and all were in favor. Martha and Lawton Ferguson were present to request a 71 foot front yard setback variance and to foot west side yard setback variance, where 100 feet and 50 feet, respectively, are required in the RS-30 zone district, for an addition to a single-family residence and for construction of a proposed attached garage. This request would enable easier access to the garage and would eliminate the necessity to use a neighbor's drive. Ferguson submitted photographs of various angles of the location of the house and where the proposed additions would be located. Ferguson further explained the necessity for the requested variances. Ferguson also submitted letters of two neighbors approving the requested variances. Gull read the letters into the record. Lawton Ferguson stated that he could change the location of the garage, but this would entail cutting in a new road which would scar the hillside. Gull asked if there was any public comment; there was none. Neiley commented that he had trouble with this because of the variances requested on September 24, 1984 and September 29, 1987. Further discussion on these two meetings further clarified that what is being requested at this time is not the same that was requested in the two previous meetings. Guy made a motion to grant a 70 foot front yard setback variance and a 10 foot west side yard setback variance due to a noncon- forming lot size, as per the submitted plans. The change in request from the front yard setback variance requested and what is granted is to conform to the setbacks in the zone district that relate to the size of this specific lot. Neiley seconded the motion and all were in favor. Case #90-36 Cheever Eddie Lot R-57. Filing 8. Starwood Subdiv. Lenny Oates, Attorney, and Jack Miller, Architect, were present representing Eddie Cheever, requesting a 65 foot front yard setback variance where 100 feet is required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of an addition to a single-family residence. Oates submitted a letter from the owner authorizing them to proceed with Cheever's application for variance. 3 00009 Oates gave some history on the lot stating that it was downzoned in the 70's. Oates is asking for a variance to add an addition on the southwest side and a second story on an existing garage. The roof line would be lower than the original house. There were no comments from the public. Ellie Brickham, member of. the Starwood Homeowners Association, stated that the Association had no problem with this addition on condition that it was approved by xhe Board of Adjustment. Neiley moved to grant a 6s.5 foot front yard setback variance for the addition to the garage, and a variance for the front yard setback to permit the front entryway to protrude 4 feet from the front of the existing structure, as shown on the plans, due to downzoning and pending renotification. Renotification is necessary because the setback requested did not include proposed overhangs. Guy seconded the motion and all were in favor. Tom Todd, Attorney, and Ellie Brickham, Architect, were present representing Robert Hefner, requesting a 23 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required, in the RS-20 zone district, for construction of an addition to a single-family residence. Todd gave a short history of this subdivision, similar to the case above. The location of this house is hidden from all adjacent neighbors and is tucked down on a ridge. Gull asked if there were any comments from the public and there were none. Guy made a motion to grant a 23 foct front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required, due to downzoning. Ostwald seconded the motion and all were in favor. Mariano "Buddy" Lucero was present requesting a 60 foot front yard setback variance, a 45 foot north side yard setback variance and a 45 foot south side yard setback variance, where 100 feet, 50 feet and 50 feet is required in the RS-30 zone district, for construction of a single-family residence. Lucero gave some history to the property. Lucero stated that the past owner contacted the adjacent property owners to see if they wanted to purchase this small parcel of land. This parcel is less than .125 acres. The property is very small and Lucero wants to build a 750 square foot single-family residence. Lee Copeland, neighbor, was present to state her concerns about the closeness of this proposed house to the property lines. ~ 4 ODUU3O Copeland also stated that the tax records of this lot indicate that this is not a building site and she thinks that the lot is just too small to build upon. The zone district that would be closest to this size lot would be R-6 and requires a 30 foot front yard setback, a 5 foot side yard setback, and a l0 foot rear yard setback; therefore, the variances requested on this size lot are not unreasonable. Ostwald "made a motion to grant a 60 foot front yard setback variance, a 45 foot north side yard setback variance and a 45 foot south side yard setback variance due to nonconforming lot size, per the plans submitted. Neiley seconded the motion and all were in favor. Jeff Coates was present requesting a 100 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the RS-30 zone district, for construction of an 8 foot high fence. Coates submitted a letter that he had drafted for all his neighbors, which they all signed, approving his request. Coates stated that this request is to conform with a Division of Wildlife requirement for an 8 foot fence to contain exotic animals, or to keep wildlife away from exotic animals. The exotic animals refer to the reindeer that Coates owns. The fence will be a wire mesh fence, which you can see through. Fences are permitted in the setback if they do not exceed 6 feet, but because the Division of Wildlife has requested an 8 foot fence, a variance is required. Gull asked if there was any public comment and there were none. Guy made a motion to grant a 95 foot front yard setback variance where 100 feet is required to comply with Division of Wildlife regulations. Neiley seconded the motion and all were in favor. ********************,t*******************************,t**********,t* The minutes of the August 2 meeting were approved with the corrections as noted. The next meeting is October 2 and will be in City Council Chambers, City Hall. The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Respectfully Su~tted, oooo~~ Cindy Christensen, Secretary Evan Gull, Acting Chairperson 5 ~SPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFIC~ 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920-5090 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES City 00113 -63250-134 -63270-136 -63280-137 -63300-139 -63310-140 -63320-141 GMP/CONCEPTUAL GMPIFINAL SUB/CONCEPTUAL SUB/FINAL ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS REFERRAL FEES: 00125 -63340-205 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 -63340-190 HOUSING 00115 -63340-163 ENGINEERING SUBTOTAL County -63160-126 GMP/GENERAL 00113 -63170-127 GMP/DETAILED -63180-128 GMPIFINAL -63190-129 SUB/GENERAL -63200-130 SU B/DETAILED -63210-131 SUB/FINAL ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS -63220-132 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ -63230-133 CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT -63450-146 REFERRAL FEES: ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00125 -63340-205 HOUSING 00123 -63340-190 ENGINEERING 00113 -63360-143 PLANNING OFFICE SALES CITY/COUNTY CODE 00113 -63080-122 -63090-123 COMP PLAN -63140-124 COPY FEES -69000-145 OTHER 00003? Name: t ~Y - / 6S'~ ~/'' Address: ~ ~ ~ ~J`~ / ~, L~(~ ~ Check # ~ ~2f ~ l ~` '° -.i~> -~ SUBTOTAL ~~- TOTAL 7 -~ ~f~-~- ~ ~,-t1 Phone: ~ ~~- , - Project (~+~'~ "'~`-- % ; , ~/ Date: #of Additional billing: LARGE PLAT(S) AVAILABLE TO VIEW AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AVAILABLE TO BUY AT CLERK & RECORDER ,- Scanned 3/19/08 File Finders Box #15