Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.93.45 PITRIN COONTY BOARD OF ADJIISTMENT DATE 1 '^~ I~ g )~ ~~ APPLICANT IJOv~ ~irnkrar~l' MAILING ADDRESS I ''U 17L~ ~~ (,Jg~ OWNER ,( ~DV~ K~r~K r~ar~~ MAILING ADDRESS LOCATION OF PROPERTY 00 o x I (~ 9-g - 8~, 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 '1 I~~n (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: ~,~ ~ /~ Zone District Requesting: rt~5c~e Lot Size ~~ ' Front Yard Setback Variance, where i~L' is required. ' Rear Yard Setback Variance, where ~ is required. ~' ? 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. Other: Zoning Officia3~--' c+-~ o~„nti /' ~ A lication filed / t 5 ~(,a ~ PP °~ Parc~1 ID No, i try ~i - L~`13-00 -D~C.% Date of Meeting ~Z 7 Notices Mailed ~ I I L 3' ~ ~ Secretary ~~_T `~~~i Refer Resolution to Building Department ; _ ; Yes ; _~ No ooooc-i ~'3y r-~ u CASE # CJ ~ / ~ ~q / PHONE ~ a'3 J ~~ i~ ~P ~wee~k G~ 4s'G~~S ~ PHONE ~'3 y~7 ~~ Gre `S 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: Property Location or Description: December 7, 1993 at 5:15 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall Don Birnkrant Don Birnkrant P.O. Box 298 Woody Creek, CO 81656 0044 Doc Henry Road A tract of land in Lot 15, Section 9, Township 9 South, Range 85 West Requesting approval for an 80 foot front yard setback variance and a 10 foot south side yard, where 100 feet and 30 feet, respectively, are required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a single family residence. Approval of this variance request would allow the proposed residence to be located 20 feet from the front property line and 20 feet from the south side property line. VARIANCES GREATER OR LESS THAN REQUESTED COULD BE GRANTED. Duration of Variance: Temporary Permanent X Do~~~~ THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ~~ C"li~ Suzanne L. W `f, Secretary ~, November 15, 1993 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE 44 Doc Henry Rd To Whom It May Concern: A variance is necessary to optimize the placement of a new principal dwelling. The Chesen site is best because: A. Least visible and furthest from Upper River Road. B. Least impact on David Sears, my neighbor on adjacent Lot 13. C. Consolidates improvements at one end of the property. Hardships A. Downzoning B. Irrigation ditch and Lot shape. I am requesting a 20 ft sideyard setback to the south. (adjacent to Lot 13) Why? Cannot move North due to the irrigation ditch. I am requesting a 20 ft setback off the west side of the property. (adjacent to Lot 10) Why? The building envelope narrows to the east due to the irrigation ditch. .i Secondary Consideration This site allows complete preservation of the weeping willow tree, (see Photo) by keeping the entrance to the west (see floor plan.) This tree is the largest on the property and provides a considerable visual buffer from River Road. Sincerely Don Birnkrant 000003 Adjacent Property Owners 1. Steve and Missy Prudden 7406 Upper River Road Woody Creek CO. 81656 p~ 6ox is , ---~ ~:::.:_`:i 1 2. Bill McDonough '~®°" 0060 Doc Henry Road Woody Creek, CO. 81656 ~{l9 E Goop2r Ave . A5~ Co 8I(vl1 3. David Sears Upper River Road Woody Creek, CO. 81656 P~ (~~x I ros 4. Bill and Gail Braun 0333 Woody Creek Road (County Rd 18) Woody Creek, CO. 81656 Po 0~ 33'7 5. Michael and Sherry Flack 0201 Doc Henry Road Woody Creek CO. 81656 P o ~6ex a~ Wea~y C.ree,k ~ Ii~S(o 000004 i. ' REGI~7EA~0 w' JUHhSUH '~~ "p'~ lA)~0 9URYEYOR BOX 249 7100DY G~, ZK, COLORADO !1666 {303) -3496 1L iCAI[ 1~, 100' -O UNO N N[1 AN 1 CA- Lt, .~ ~o , Q- ,~1 AO• O~ I-0, 0 LO f,~sfk ,~D I ep fkl t~ •.. / rnclJoK7~ ~ - ~_~~ ^1 ~ IJ ~,@t 10 2,77 ACN[tA • IN DIC aT [7 NOt N[tAN •ITI -uTnD CAI L7 fou UNL[7t OTNCAMI/[ XOT[1 Beainninq at a point whence the 1/4 Corner between said Sections 9 and 16 bears S63°33'E 1,015,80 feet) thence S20° ' 14 't9 615,22 feet to the center of the I Roaring Fork Rivers tlTence S67°49'E 85,73 feet along the center of the Roaring Fork River to the confluence with the center of Woody Creekj thence N62°05'F. 67.09 feet along the center of Woody Creekj thence N45°06'E 188,40 feet along the center of Woody Creeks thence N16°46'E 74,15 feet along the center of Woody Creeks thence N36°09'F, 56,10 feet along the center of Woody Creeks thence N43°21'F. 34,16 i feet alone the center of Woody Creeks thence N54°56'E 28,11 feet along the center of Woody Creekj thence North 119,97 Feet ~ 114,92 feett thence N71°58'W 237,38efeetNto°theE ~ point of beginning, , A tract of land situated in Lot 15, Section 9 and Lot 4, Section 16, Township 9 South, Range 85 West of the Sith Principal Meridian described as follows: Platted from notes of a field survey made by me in June and Oc 1987, ~~~~Q~ LL! nY nty~fi i ,~ ©~ ,. .~ ,. ~~~s L O~T f 5 9 ~ - ~° R ~ ~ Pa ~ !~ ,~ T o - , .. o ~o~se ~ .~~'~,. ~ , ~O / ~- . 14 J J ~V1c ©a~ti P^® Pss~Q ha~,S ~ ~=.. ~qv.~ . 10 ~3 ./ ooooos .~,~ ~ ~2~ ~' a ~~~~ ~Pi .70` . ~5'ec. ~, /~0 :.. • ~ , , ?~ . ;. , 12/07/92 24108 Nee'y.00 HK i711r/d 1 mil•rle bavis. pitkln Cnty Clark !~y~~! `i r - : Doe •. d0 ~ x~ ; . t n is ' t. [~ ~,~~ ~" t. Ski V,~ RuaLDTlox or Tss soAaD o: coolrt~r ~ , > , `~~" *",~ aalxlulorau os .** ~ `'"~ '~ *~'~' +!+'.. - COV1Fp7 COLp1p-DO, 01tA11T2110 ))PPAOVAL TO T8! `r~ ' `*~~_,1i HIRltlptAllT R31PL07!! , + ~ ~'1 D7riLL2110 DMIT i- ,~~ ~~2nn~T i ~ nt G N 1~/ ~ ., ~~~~ ' ~~(ZiNGiP/k'!.. Reaolntioa 110, s7-~ ~~.; /1~ 5 i ~ ~NGt crz.~. ~-n,J G ~:ID u . REC_ 2TA~ ~ Zl7 le) .L , 1• T. Donald eirnkrant, hereinafter "llpplicantl", his applied: - •':~•+~ to the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, . - t% Colorado, hereinafter "Board", for approval o! a bandlL?~'' •.~" employee dwelling unit ~.+',. pursuant to Section 3-B. ~~'~~ ~ ~'~~' ii a ,,. ~o s>, ' Land Code. ~ ) o! the., ,._ ...ysr Use K.,_ ",.q{n:: ^;si~.~!"S'~ Z. The Applicants ` tr~~ s; `, ' lot is coned A?-1 and is a ~ `''~~' PProximately s r~,.~. 2 • S acres in siae. ~ ~ /.../yyy~~~~~ 3. Said parcel is speailically deacribed.in'Exhibit •r 4• The Applicants ro ~ '+'~", " °'mr P pose to deed restrict a "bandit» "'`~ ""'+ x~t pursuant to Ordinance 91-11. unit ~~1~e app ` ~ ~ ~ S • The Hoard heard this a p, ~ ~~..~,t,e ff pplicat,lon at a regularly rohsdule8 ,, meetin ' ,. q on Ootobar 27, 1992, at which time evidence and„,G:'~ r,,}~'r*„ testimony was presented with respect to this a ~~ PPllcation. f` °~` '+. 6• The Hoard determined that the ,sly' r. proposed employee unit :'~, ~ ~" meats the criteria established in Section 7-8.13 (s) o! the Land Vsa Code. ~• TEE11!!OlE, Da IT RHeOLYED by the Board that !t does ,,,` ~r ~,., hereby grunt approval to the Birnkrant Employee Owellinq Unit ~.;,1, ~ ' application subject to the !allowing conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of the building permit for the propotad principal dwelling unit, the on-site sewage treatment system . shall be upgraded to accommodate two residential dwelling units in accordance with Pitkin County regulations governing on-site systems, ' ~ ~i 1 ,~r{~ ~l} fn- 7 ~. M +. t OOV~vi .. ~ ;'~ iYY r'JJ 1,. t3s~ ~iiro7ivz INFO/ a.~ s.oo. BK N~ Pe ~ '~. ~ ~ IIl,1,Vi~, Devit• Pltkln Cnt '~`r ~:,,~~ r q ~ .. _ --_ y' CI er k • Doc- !. 00 i> t'~:~~f r ++~i ~ ~ ~, 1 r , Resolution No. 92-~ ~~~ E"~` ~,~, Page 2 <:'"..~ 1 , _ ~,, r ° „~~~ 2• Tha cumulative residential tloor area (exclusive of accessory} F"~!".~5 structures) on the property, shall not exceed 5000 square':': '~'%; feet, unless approved by the Pltkin County Board of ,, Commissioners pursuant to a special review. The subject property shall be so limited as long as the employee dwelling exists. The employee dwelling unit mey ba demolished or ~. removed trom the property without review by the Board c+t ', county Commiaeionera. Upon removal of the employee dwellih3 unit the subject property may ba developed in accordance with the Land Uae Coda. - ~ 3. The proposed princlpal dwelling unit shall ba subject to all - •~ applicable regulations o! the Pitkin County Code. • 4. Prior to recordation of an employee housing dead restrictions " the existing residence shall ba inspected by a building" ' otficial to aeaure compliance with health and safety • regulations of the Uniform Building Code. Should any i °;~~•> violations ba found they shell be rectified before recordation'•" '>.cti~'"' of the deed restriction. •:;,,,"r _ . ~ ~ ': rri.y s. Prior to recordation of an employee housing dead restriction, " • the well wafer shall ba tested to ensure that water quality -'''`~ meat^ the requirements of the Colorado Department of Health.'-. 6. The applicant shall record an employee housing dead~,'~. ~~? restriction on the existing residence pursuant to Section 3- '" 8.13 (b)(4) of the Code (Ord. 91-11), prior to oeaupancy of :,• .'~~' the proposed primary residence. `-'>.~~ ~;.~~ r. 7. Prior to leasing the unit, the applicant shall notify tht r'~., '_,;„y4~^- Housing Authority, and have the prospective tsnent eomplsts`•^. "'~~``"~ the required qualification forms and submit thou to the';';r:~":',`~``" Housing Authority for approval. `"~" ' 8. The applicant shall provide to the Housing >+uthority a oo ~1 o! the executed lease at the tiu the unit is rented and u py•""" ,~~~• renewal of the laaaa term. ~. Von - ~µ°", 9. The applicant ^hall comply with all material rapreuntetiona ~~,i._ made in the application and 1n the ~,'•' public uetinq. 11PlROV'/D >ufD ADOPT><D O11 T1I/ 27TM D71Y 07 OCTO/ER ~ ''"-~~' . _ , ~~,: BOhAD 01 COIIRT7 COR712//ZOII=R/ m-Q~~~~~ O! •ITRIII COQNTL~ COLOR>10O "':_° ,. ; ~ ' ~L. I;r J es R. True, Chait^an • "'' e~/~- 9-9 z ,~~.r X134'2 12/07/92 11~ R+c f,UO aK i/7~i ~ ' lilvia Qavia, Pitkin Cnty Cltrkt Doe f.00 1~7! .. ~---. Y • V {#~. . ).: ~~ _ ': a... 1u EXHIBIT "A" 4 ~.~~; ;t., I' ~ A!J ~1.':'~' T )~I .y its 1~ I.a. ~_...`+ ~. .. ~, ! ~ ' F , sa'„ ~A ... A TRACT OF LANG ~ ' ~~ SOUTH S'ITUATSD IN J.OT fS OF SGCTIUN ~', +'..+p { .n h~:f, . RANCY. SS MEBT OF TNII 6th PRINCIPAL ~- OMNtNth~'!i. ..1:.. PAR?ICOLARLY DCSGR.ISED AB POLLONSt. MLRIb1At1~~ IIPIRR :.,.•..:• ~rt'J.'. i' - ~ BEGIYJIINC AT A POINT ON 11Di NESTERLY LINE OF COUNTY ROM' ! +~ ~ `- , A "~ SOU'~'I1I?UAftTEIi CORNER Or SAID SDCYION 9 BraRS . ° ~ ° r ,° rEEt, socrcN 32 ~ 7a test 3uo.is .; THENCE NORTH 73°OB' N'F:Sl' 111.98 FEET: . „ ". ?IO?NCE Nardi 82°.I6' WFST 11,2.18 FEE?; <; ~ w,4z ~fIffJJCE h'ORTN 72°0%' R~,,-I 11?.93 FEEI• ~ ``~• '~. 77-ENCE NORTH 73°48' WFST' 86. ~ r'..ry..l TIfENCE SOUTIi 89° ~ 30 FEET: ... ,;, J3 xEST 68.93 FEhT; ° `. ~_; t THENCE NOHTN.?4°42' EAST 1L„92 FEET; w ,. ' THENCE NC{rl7i'71°58' HEST 62.)2 FEET: , a%"~"ti: TItF?ICE MOitTH 4S°31' EAST ?11..96 FEET TO A POINT ON Zfu ; M1'~z ~~'.~'^ COUNTY ROAD; Mr.4TERLY LINE OM`'' TIiENCE SOllfli 35°S1' EAS7 /.17.19 FEtT ;~` RoAU; ALONG WESTERLY LINE oX,~Sllill bOURY'Y++~°, `;~` 7'IIENCC' SOUTR 14°34' EA;T ].0/„ 70 FEET ALONG riFS7F7iL7> LINT: Or SAID a + y ~,~ ROAD TONNE IOIlrI' OF DtJCINNIIK;. COUNTY^%~' .'~ ~: ,,°,~~„' 't,.~ ANDS :. .. '" "F.'~++~` , t .Y AH EASE-Q!'N? FOR INGRESS M10 FldtR9S 60 FEET IN WIDTH - , A Pat1'ION OF OVEtt~ eLONO AND j . ';I, ~1' 13 SECTION 9, i'OMNSNIP 9 SOUT3I i,+' - •,v SIXTI! PRINCIPAL -47iIDIAN, TIIF.' NOltTNW@,,ry•ERLY LINE~OPMS~11 p860~~ Or TN$ '~_~ BrING DE.SCRIDED AS FOLLOWS: rOD? EA3EI~4NT'` ,.; +, , RFJISiNNINC AT A PO1NT ON 711F: GOIiTFn/F,S.I•F7tLY LINE OF COUNTY ROAp WI~TICE .,; r,; ~4 THF. SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAiD SECTION 9 DEARS SOUTH 39°<l' EAST 867. i,6 REE1': ~' ~~~ TIiF?R:E SOUTH /,S°31' riFS7' 287.01, FI:L•'I; ';w TIfEFlCE NOIrTN 71°g8' WF..^i 7,8.82 FlLT: ,,;, i TItENCE NORTII 65°39' WEST 2/,I ,60 FECI. 3'J COUNTY CF PJTKIN, STATE OF r.OfAIU!DG o~UU~O .:,; :~:, ::-•~.. " 5 .- r~~t'y"' .., . .., -~•, ~, ~~,~` ; if( R 1:'• f~~ / .< ' ~y ~ .. October 14, 1993 To Whom It May Concern: My neighbors, Don and Wendy Birnkrant, recently contacted me regarding the location of their proposed new home at 0044 Doc Henry Road. In order to make their chosen. design fit properly on their site, they need to locate the west side of the house 20 feet off of my east side property line. This plan is accept ble to me. Si ely, Bill McDonough 0®~~1 ~~ T H E WOO ~Y C R E E K C A U C U S Post Office Box 299, Woody Creek, Colorado, 81656 TD: Pitkin County Planning And Zoning, County Commissioners, Planning Staff: Tim Malloy FROM: Woody Creek Caucus Planning Commission RE: Birnkrant Employee Unit Submission DATE: November 4, 1992 *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*_:k_*-* The Woody Creek Caucus Planning Commission has reviewed the Birnkrant Employee Unit Submission. Our understanding is that he intends to convert his present home to a deed restricted employee unit and build a new unrestricted residential unit on his property of 2+ acres on Doc Henry Road. Mr. Birnkrant has requested a total floor area for both units not exceeding 5000 (five thousand) square feet planed on the portion of his property nearest to the corner ae~joining the McDonough parch] where a sh~c1 now stands. While the 5000 square foot total is not a required limitation for approval, the Woody Creek Caucus Planning Commission requests another review for any future enlargement of floor area. The Woody Creek Caucus Planning Commission has no objection to this proposal as stated and endorses his submission. For The Woody Creek Caucus Planning Commission: James Collins Jackie Lothian Bob Sterling Tom Melberg Bayard Hovdesven a~ V ~~ 0 3 ~o ._ ._ •\ ~ ~~ ~ . ~3 O ~ s ~a o 3 5 3 Q a J 4d~ ~d ~oC ., -.~ ~~ 0 x 00~1(t1'3 a f ~1 H, u~. o- 'a o ~~ c s s X Sep. 14 '93 14:36 0000 Frontier Log Homec TEL 303-249-7892 P. 2 x 0 _. 5 '!1 .. ~ i ~ r O 4 ~ .~ t"' a z oouu~4 e P • 14 ' ~+3 14:36 0000 a 0 .. 5 .. ~ R ~ i ~ i' !~ 4 ~] ~ Fr ier Lag Homes TEL 303-24892 P. 2 Q~~L11 0 r*i ~~ ..o ~ Z a, ~ -rI ~O d ro r D z OVI,~~~ tJ 'd Z68L-672-£0£ X31 sawoH 50~ .~atyuu.~3 0000 L£~7ti £6. bS 'daS v n ~9!-`T*,~~q Ai"+rs3z~"iw~74 TJ~y~q". ;e`$~ ANNING OFFICE LAND USE APPLICATION FEES cITY: -63250-134 GMP/Conceptual -63270-136 GMP/Final -63280.137 SUB/Conce tual p -63300.139 SUB~nal -63310.140 All-2 Step Applications -63320-141 All 1 Step Applications -63330-150 Staff Approval -63432-157 Zoning Plan Checc -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. -&3339-155 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/Fnal -63220-132 All 2 Step Applications -63230-133 All i Step Applications -63240-149 Staff Approval -63450-146 Board of Adjustment ~ o . J U -63235-148 Zoning Plan Check REFERRAL FEES: X3360-143 Engineering-County 00115 -63340-163 Engineering-City 00123 -63340.190 Housing 00125 -63340-205 EnvironmentalHeaRh PLANNING OFFlCE SALES: -63080-122 County Code -69000-145 Other (Copy Fees) ~~' TOTAL "=" ~U ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'% Name: i - !~ Phone: ~ Address: ~ ~- Projeet: ~~ iuDO~/~'P~ o,(r ('iJ ~/~ i~ X1'3-'~5 Check ~: Dam: T No of Copies: / OU(1017 ~ ~ • County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY } ss. POSTING OF A VARIANCE HEARING State of Colorado } BEFORE THE PITRIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJIISTMENT The undersigned, being first duly shorn, deposes and says as follows: I, ~ C1PAr1~~n~ ~c9~nP<-~0\ ~1 -~,n~/'~~ , 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 property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign\was posted and visible continuously from the day of ~)~~-In~ln a ~ 19 ~ ~ to the „~~ day of _ ~D~ ~~ ~ i,-. 19 ~ ~ (Must be posted for at least nine (9) full days before the hearin1g date). ~~ Applicant's Signature ~`~ Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~~~~-~ day of ~ ~.~C.Qm=~~1t,, 19~, by ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~, Gt /~ WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. My Commission expires •F~y'Comm.++~i~J~atmcy6~,1996~ ~~ ~~ ~z ~ otary Public's Signatur_~ ~,~~ Address t ~t PUBLIC ~Q~~~~ ~< 1 oo~~~~ :. .~. j .~~ ML- r j i i - ~.~ t ~ t+ ~ ~ -, .1.. f . . .. _ i~ r' ~ - ~ j 1 1 \1 I ~ ~ ~ w (~-~,~k ~N~ S~~`~~ ~~ ~~y ~~. T~~~ ~-.~~-t - ~~~~~~~A~t C ~t -~~ ~~ srt~~5~t - -nn~~~,.~~i~C ~~~- -o) T~~~ ~~tifi -b~ ~sy ~~ L~~~~ ~~Id celE~ec~ -t~~~e ~~ c~~e~ of ~Ino~ ~~S ~ v.9~~~0w t~r~e ~D~eln~NC~ ~~~c.~ ~- 1n~"' ~neM y ~~ , . _. . p y ~, a U I `~~ ~~w ~ 1 v~~-0 ~ ~-- ~ ~ N~~ C .~ ~r~k~,~~ fio I~~-I- S~° Q~ ~ooc~~ c,~ee k - ~~~~-~~ P~~~`~~` ~~ C~~~~) No~~ s ~~~ r 11 ~.e~.: ~~ o.,,,,, Qcu~s55 ~ ~~ Yz~~ ~d . ~~ ~-~~~ CS ~ ~ ~e ~~~ ~~ U~~~~ ~~~ ~cv~~s v~~~ R~~~ ~~ ::: ;> ;t,. ,. ! j ~ , #363737 i~i/1~/9 3;: C6 Rec ~.Oi~ bt; 738 PG 7~ Silvia Davis, P~:in Cnty Clerk:, Doc ~.~~'? RESOLUTION OF THE PITRIN COUNTY, COLORADO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTING SETBACK RELIEF FOR DON BIRNRRANT RESOLUTION NO. 93-45 WHEREAS, Don Birnkrant, owner of 0044 Doc Henry Road, is requesting approval for an 80 foot front yard setback variance and a l0 foot south side yard setback variance, for construction of a single family residence; and WHEREAS, 100 feet and 30 feet, respectively, are required in the AF-1 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 an 80 foot front yard setback and a 10 foot south side yard setback variance be granted for construction of a single family residence, as per the plans submitted (Exhibit "B"), due to the unique conditions on the property, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The willow tree not be removed unless required by natural circumstances. 2. If development expands east of the building footprint, Board of Adjustment review will be required. -~~,il~~ WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. 000024 #36515 r ~~ 1 / 1~4 13::6 Rec $. i ~<~ BY. 738 ~ 765 ~ ~ Silvia Davis, Ritk:in Cnty Clerk:, Doc ~.o<~ Resolution No. 93-45 Page 2 The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: December 7, 1993 The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado ATTEST: 1~titi?~¢,~i ~~ Suz nne L. Wolf Secretary ~QU~2~ #36JfJ( U1/~qq 13:26 Rec ~,~iC~ E+K 738 ~ 766 Silvia Davi Pitkin Cnty Clerk:, Doc ~,_ EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description for property owned by DON BIRNRRANT A tract of land in Lot 15, Section 9, Township 9 South, Range S5 West of the 6th P.M. 0044 Doc Henry Road Pitkin County, Colorado ~~fl~Ls #36Crg, ~~1/13/94 ~26 kec ~.pf.~ $~ 7~g PG 76 v Silvia Davis, Pit Cnty Clerk, Doc $,qD o°v / ,~bc F S a O~ p,~a` W~~'"` `mow` \t's~~~ +•`~$ S `h'rD$e _. ... disk ~~~£1^~SLL1i:T s Soso c8 ` ~~~ ~ . ~~ \. ~~ ~Ci ~ •~ di{.~ 5~ ~ \ \\ ~~ ~ ~ 3 l --~10 --- -- ao / i w ~krs S"'' ,.~ :_~ :. 0000`' ~ • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PTTKIN 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 authonty 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. A VARIANCE GREATER THAN OR LESS THAN THAT REQUESTED COULD BE GRANTED. DATE AND TIME OF MEETING: Tuesday, December 7, 1993; 5:15 P.M. Council Chambers, City Hall Bielec, Rosa & Mullen, Michael: requesting approval fora 9'6" rear yard setback variance, where 30' is required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a deck. Property Location: Lot 12A, Block 7, Filing 1, Brush Creek Village Subdivision; 2653 Juniper Hill Road. Ho, Charles: requesting approval fora 50' front yard setback variance, where 100' is required in the Af- t zone district, for construction of a single family residence. Property Location: 0100 Clark Lane; a tract of land situated in Lot 15, Section 9, and Lots 2, 3 and 4, Section 16, Township 9 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P. M. Birnkrant, Don: requesting approval for an 80' front yard setback variance and a 10' south side yard setback variance, where 100' and 30', respectively, are required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a single family residence. Property Location: 0044 Doc Henry Road; a tract of land in Lot 15, Section 9, Township 9 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M. Submitted to the Aspen Times on November 23, 1993. To Be Published in the Aspen Times November 26, 1993. County PO #301003 0~~~)?~ L.J Minutes ~` Members Present: Staff: Pitkin County Board of Adjustment December 7, 1993 Rick Neiley, Chair Michael Cooper Rod Dyer Shira Geller Ellie Brickham Bill Lukes John Wheeler Joanna Schaffner, Zoning Enforcement Neiley opened the meeting at 5:15 p.m. and introduced the Board to those present. Case #93-36, Chester Pohle and Michael Pixley, Lot 3, Block 2, Filing 1, Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Subdivision This case was tabled at the meetings on October 5 and November 2, 1993, and at the site visit on October 13, 1993. Geller and Wheeler are not voting on this case. Chester Pohle, Michael Pixley and their architect Richard Klein were present to request a 70 foot front yard setback variance, a 30 foot north side yard setback variance and a 30 foot south side yard setback variance, where 100 feet, 50 feet and 50 feet, respectively, are required in the RS-30 zone district, for construction of a single family residence. Klein indicated that the house has been relocated to the bottom of the site, and that the garage is buried below the house and is accessed directly from Gateway Road. Also, the back wall of the house is buried into the hillside. The soils on the site are being reviewed, as requested by the Homeowners Association. He added that the setbacks requested are consistent with the subdivision's ,guidelines. Pohle stated that the Homeowners Association requested that a culvert be installed to prevent a drainage problem, which they have agreed to do. Joe Raczak, representing the Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Homeowners Association, was present. He noted that the Association was originally concerned with the possible undermining of the road, and requested soils testing and structural engineering. Klein showed Raczak the revised plan for the house, which had not yet been reviewed by the Association. Raczak stated that he felt the new design addressed their concerns. Neiley moved to grant a 70 foot front yard setback variance, a 30 1 ~QUU23 Neiley and Lukes are not voting on this case. Michael Mullen variance, where construction of was present to request a 9'6" rear yard setback a0 deck on an gexisting single family aesidence,for Mullen stated that they are proposing to construct the deck outside of the living room area. Schaffner noted that a scenic overlay review was approved by the Planning Office. The deck encroaches to the 20 foot setback line, which is consistent with the setbacks when the house was constructed in 1978, and is also consistent with the rear yard setback in the proposed Code. Joe Coffey, owner of an adjacent lot, was present, and stated that he had no objections to the variance request. Mullen stated that there is an existing concrete patio that encroaches into the setback. The proposed deck would be constructed on the second floor over the patio. Neiley noted that the deck would not increase the encroachment into the setback. Dyer moved to grant a 9'6" rear yard setback variance for construction of a deck, due to downzoning. Brickham seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case 93-44 Charles Ho 0100 Clark Lane Neiley and Dyer are not voting on this case. Kevin MacLeod, representing the applicant, was present to request a 50 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a caretaker dwelling unit. MacLeod stated that the slopes immediately to then Lion of the building envelope are in excess of 50% and that a p roved lot is in the floodplain. The building envelope was app through a minor 1041 Hazard Review. The owners are constructing a new principal residence and a detached caretaker dwelling unit and would like to maintain all of the buildings in the same area. 2 ~oQU~© foot north side yard setback variance and a 30 foot south side yard setback variance, for construction of a single family residence, due to downzoning and topographical hardship. Cooper seconded the motion, and all were in favor. The caretaker unit is the structure for which they are requesting the setback variance. He added that he has spoken with several of the adjacent property owners and has not received any objections. The neighbor who would be most impacted by the setback variance is working with the applicants on a landscaping plan to screen the improvements. There was no public comment. MacLeod stated that the hardship is the topography on the site: they are unable to build in the steep slope areas and would have to cut up the property to access the only other flat building area. He added that the requested setback is consistent with the setbacks in the proposed Code. Schaffner noted that the Board of County Commissioners is hoping to adopt the new Code by January 1. Lukes stated that topography should not be a justification for a variance for an accessory structure when there is reasonable use of the building envelope outside of the setbacks. Wheeler added that a building should not be permitted to encroach into the setback just because the approved building envelope encroaches into setback. Neiley noted that the Board must consider the public interest, and that the other flat area on the property, which would not require a variance, is much more visible from the river and would, therefore, have a greater impact. Lukes stated that simply approving the variance would not preclude future use of the pasture. Neiley replied that the building envelope is defined, so any owner of the property would have to return to the Planning Office to build outside of the envelope. He added that the Board can approve the request with the condition that the pasture not be utilized in order to preserve the views from the river. MacLeod noted that the owners chose the location for and clustered the improvements on the property in order to preserve the open pasture. Lukes noted that he does not question the owner's right to have a principal dwelling, but does question the right to have a caretaker unit that has not been requested by the County. Brickham moved to grant a 50 foot front yard setback variance, based on topographical hardship and the approval of the building envelope through the 1041 Hazard Review process, with the condition that no further development be allowed outside of the building envelope without an opportunity for future public review. 3 OoO~~3~ Schaffner confirmed that the applicant can choose to withdraw or to table the application if the conditions are not acceptable. After further discussion, Lukes moved to table the application to the January 4, 1994 meeting to allow MacLeod to consult with the applicant. Cooper seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case 93-45. Don Birnkrant, 0044 Doc Henrv Road Brickham and Wheeler are not voting on this case. (The first 10 minutes of this case did not record.) Don Birnkrant was present to request an 80 foot front yard setback variance and a 10 foot south side yard setback variance, where 100 feet and 30 feet, respectively, are required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a single family residence. Birnkrant stated that he received approval from the Board of County Commissioners to legalize the existing house on the lot as an employee dwelling unit and to construct a new single family residence on the lot. The location was chosen to minimize the impact on the adjacent property and the visibility of the residence from Upper River Road. Birnkrant noted that the irrigation ditch through the property limited the possible building areas, and that he wants to preserve the willow tree which blocks the view of the house from the road. An existing shed will be removed. Schaffner explained that she determined the front yard to be the entire length of the NW lot line, including the 62.32' portion of the lot line running NW to SE. Only a portion of this lot line fronts Doc Henry Road. The remaining portion is the McDonough side lot line. The proposed structure lies 20' from this portion of the lot line. (See site plan in file.) Lukes noted that although the proposed structure is located 20' from the lot line, this portion of the front lot line lies approximately 62' behind the portion adjacent to Doc Henry Road. Therefore, he reasoned that visually the effective front yard is 20' plus 62', or 82'. There was no public comment. A letter of support for the request from Bill McDonough, an adjacent owner, was read into the record. Birnkrant noted that the only other buildable location on the property was not acceptable to the adjacent neighbor and would have greater visual impacts. Wheeler stated that a 30 foot front yard setback would be consistent with the proposed code, and that he did not see why a 20 foot setback was necessary. Lukes agreed with Wheeler. 4 OOOU?? Birnkrant noted that he will not have auto access to his house and that he will use the existing access. Neiley noted that the shed that is being removed is closer to the property line than the proposed residence will be. Cooper stated that he agreed with Lukes as to the effective front yard. He added that the public interest is better served in the proposed location than in the open area closer to River Road, where the viewplane would be adversely affected. Neiley stated that the Board could condition the approval with a requirement for future review of any improvements on the property which might encroach into the viewplane, since the viewplane is a major consideration for the Board's granting of a variance. Schaffner added that retaining the willow tree should also be a condition of approval if the tree is being used as a justification. Neiley noted that the residence could be located elsewhere on the property, but that the unique conditions on the property, such as the ditch, the viewplanes, the willow tree, and the "effective front yard", make the proposed location the best one on the property for development. Neiley moved to grant an 80 foot front yard setback variance and a 10 foot south side yard setback variance, based on the unique conditions on the property, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The willow tree must not be removed unless required by natural circumstances/causes. 2. One of the unique conditions is the preservation of the viewplane; if development expands east of the easterly line of the building footprint, Board of Adjustment review will be required. Cooper seconded the motion, and all were in favor. ***************************************************************** The minutes of November 2 and November 3 were approved as written. The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~~~~ Suz nne L. Wolff, ecr~etary f~ r ~; i;~_- Riek Neiley, Chairman 5 OC1OO33 ASPEN/PITKIN 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 Permd -00100-00000-31070 Use Tax for Sign Permits HISTORIC PRESERVATION: -63335-151 Exemption -63336-152 Minor -63337.153 Major Devel. -63338-154 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 `~ a -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 County Code Q i~ ~~ ~.~ -69000-145 Other (Copy Fees) ~ - TOTAL f -' U ` ' Name: /~/i/'7 ~' /r)`/~r/ ~%z i I!r Phone: ~ % ~ , (C ~'~ ~s / - ~~ Address: / fi~~ c~ Pro ect: ( ~~ Check #: Date: ~ _ ~ No of Copies: /