HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.91.18~:. _ .:.
PITRiN COUNTY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
DATE '~'(~K-/L /! ~ l/U~~+r j~ CASE # / /~
APPLICANT ~Ej` ~ / I~~SCIGI'~ "•~/C'~//~,~HONE ~ o
MAILING ADDRESS /~tJ I~UX 7 5 J '-^'V[I(~G//~/r/NC.G <--y~JlbG~-~``~
OWNER Sf~ ~~ PHONE ~~ ~'J"'J~eP
MAILING ADDRESS ~ /~ '7
LOCATION OF PROPERTY ~~~`' 2 ~pr G 2' .
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 tufi. "
Applicant Signature
(To be completed by the Zoning Department)
g ~• g g 'al
too forward o thine applicatonl to o the Board ' of e Adjustment,lcand
reasons for not granting a building permit:
S'3G Zone District
Re esting: Lot Size
-~c u s e., ~8 ~ . .
C~'QCaJCQ 7 8 ' Front Yard Setback Variance, where OG G ' 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:
Hardshipf
Zoning Officia
Application filed "~ '~~ Date ~ ,._~T~~ ~ ~! _
Notices mailed ~~25 ~~ `~/'/}
Parcel ID ~~1~/~-/~~'01-~~~ Secretary l~!! ~ ti--'
Resolution to Building when Completed ~_ ~ Yes ~ _ ~ No
~;
~~~ ~ ~ ..~
,,,
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
E
VARIANCE DESCR BED g LORJS• AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR US
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 ahe meeting
may then be adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said
Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from th,e
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 surroundin ro ert owners and others affected i
g g. -g p p y Y q :n
decidin whether to rant or den the re iYest for variance.
THE PARTICULARS OF THE HEARING AND OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE ARE AS
FOLLOWS:
Date and time of meeting: May 7, 1991 at 5:15 p.m.
County Courthouse, Commissioners
Meeting Room
Name and Address of Jeff & Priscilla Dickinson
Applicant: P.O. Box 533
Carbondale, CO 81623
Property Location or Bock 2, Lot 22
Description: Crystal River Country Estates
qu 4 PP
construction of a proposed single-family residence and a 78 foot
y arage,
frontstard setback variance ?foroconstru tionro€'strict ntGrant for
where 100 feet is required in the RS 30 zone di ing of
this request would place the proposed residence 72 feet from the
Dickinson's front yard property line and the garage 22 feet from the
Dickinson's front yard property line.
VARIANCES GREATER OR LESS THAN REQUESTID COULD BE GRANTED.
Duration of Variance: Temporary Permanent X
THE~RITKIN COUNT~RD OF ADJUSTMENT
/L///,ILL ~~%r~~--
Cindy .Christensen, Secretary'
at';.NA:t~,.3y
- -- - - --- - - --
~,
::~
.,,
_ ~ ,.
.April 15, 1991
TO: Pitkin County Board of Adjustment
FROM: Jeff and Priscilla Dickinson
SUBJECT: Front yard setback variance
PROPERTY: Lot 22, Block 2, Crystal River Country Estates
ZONE DLSTRICT: R-30
We are requesting a variance on the 100 foot front yard setback.
The reason for the change is to enable us to locate the house
further to the west on the property to minimize potential impacts
from flooding and disturbances to the landscape.
This change is necessary in order to move the house away from a
bend in a ditch located north of 'the house lcscation. Moving the
house will eliminate potential danger from flooding. This move
will also reduce the. impacts on the site due to shortening the
distance to the road.
In previous years the culvert on the road above the house has
become clogged with debris and jumped the bank. We wish to make
the house move in order to minimize the impact on us if this were
to happen again.
Another reason for requesting this variance is to allow for
placement of a carport close to the road. Thisl,ocation for the
carport will allow the access point from Crystal Circle to be moved
further south, thus reducing danger from flooding when the culvert
crossing Crystal Circle at the east edge of the property becomes
clogged and overflows. This will also reduce impacts on the site
by minimizing disturbances caused by the driveway And grading.
The carport will be located below t'he ledel of the road and will
be screened by berming and vegetation.
This change .will move the house 28 feet into the 100 foot front
yard setback, and the carport 78 feet into it. Ari application for
a 1041'amendment has been filed 'with the planning department to
expand the building envelope.
We have been in contact with the adjacent landowners, and
subdivision architectural review committee regarding moving the
house, and you will be receiving 'letters from them.
Thank 'you for your consideration.
Je & Priscilla Dickinson
PO Box 533
Carbondale, CO 81623
963-01.14
,.
~,~ ~ ~ =e
~~a~-. ,,1~;$. ~;.,..
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS" _ ,
TO LOT' 22, BLOCK 2
CRYSTAL RIVER°`COUNTRY E~S'TATES ''
Noel & Cornelia Minor
0490 Crystal Circle
P. O. Box 343
Carbondale, CO 81623
Roger & Diane Zastrow
483 Crystal Circle `
Carbondale, CO 81623
Diane Taylor
128 Crystal Circle
Carbondale, CO 81623
Phil & Antonia Palmiotto
8240 County Rd. 115 #5
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Tom & Sydney McBrayer
0074 'Crystal Circle
Carbondale, CO 81623
Bob McGill
0535 Crystal Circle
Carbondale, CO 81623
Richard & Anne Ureche
2930 County Rd. 113
Carbondale, CO 81623
Lisa Henderson '
821 Sovereign Way
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
~a ~°rs:~~y~'~
..,, _ ,., m ,•. ,; .., ,, ,.. ,.
...
»:u
a~~
APRIL`29, 1991
PIT'f.IN" COUNTY BUILDING A$ID Z"bI~ING
I, NoelyJ. Minor, being o~ner of and residing jt, Lot 23 Block
2 of Cr stal River Countr Estates have no ob'ections to the
front, yard variance, to Lot 22 Block 2 of Crystal River Estates.
My property adjoins Lot 22 to the south.
e inspected Lot 22, and think. the variance is in the best
inter
I avest of adjoining land owners.
If I may be of any further assistance, please feel free to call
me at'963-OTTO. `
Sin erely. C
/y/ e J. Minor ~`~_
„~ i ? '
__
~gnR~ .,A.. r ~ ..„_. n, .., i,... .a
~_
April 8, 1991
Attna" Joanna Schaffner
Pitkin County Planning & Zoning Dept.
130 S.! Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Lot 22, Block 2, Crystal River Country Estates, Pitkin
County
Dear Ms. Schaffner
I am writing this letter in support of the requested valiance
setback requests for Mr. & MrsC Jeff Dickinson." I am the owner
of Lot 28, Block 2, CRCE which is directly below their lot.
As an adjacent property owner, I observed their lot drainage
during our 20 year flood last August of 1990.
I feel. that they are taking the best possible approach to
alleviating flood damage to both their .property and mine if
they are granted these variances.
If I can be of any further assistance, please contact me at
963-3681, or 0128 Crystal Circle, Carbondale, CO 81623.
Sincerely,
Diane Taylor
Secretary/Treasurer
Crystal River Country Estates
Water Co.
' o, } 9 3:.~ gyp ~,
'~ Sincerely,
~N~!~b
~~'°'."~-. ~901..
Z+~?~2
~~~ y' 1 19g1
April 30, 1991
'P0: Pitkin County Board of Adjustment
Cindy L. Christensen, Secretary
RE: proposed Variance; Block 2, Lot 22 Crystal River Country
Estates. The Dickinson property.
I urge you to enforce the subdivision Architectural Control Committee
decision that the proposed garage seti4~aclr of 22~~'~eet'is not adequate',
and deny this variance as ,requested.
I understand that lot 22 will be a difficult lot ° build oxi a t.
the existing drainage which cuts £hrougti`~t`"lie property. ~ khkve 'no
p ~ ce the"'short`dis£ancersquested. I
PP ..,
willlsu wort thelgarage setback of 50 feet`as~recommeh"tied by the
Architectural Control Committee,.
This Committee has been very successful in,,protecting the property
_. ,r
owners of the subdivision, by insuring adherence to the filed,.
covenants in the past and need cont~iraed county support to do so
in the future.
Sincerely,
o _ /n ~e'4-y~-t-
Tom Mc Brayer
Block 2, Lot 20 Crystal River Country Estates
ec: Crystal River Country fistates Architectural Control Committee.
.;~~
May 2, 1991
TO: Pitkin County Board of Adjustment
Cindy L. Christensen, Secretary
RE: Proposed Variance.; Block 2, Lot 22 Crystal River Country
Estates. The Dickinson property.
In meeting with Mr. Jeff Dickinson, the Architectural Control
Committee gave approval to his plans and the location of his
proposed single-family residence including the 72 feet set
back from the front of his property line. We did not
approve the location of the garage and recommended that the
minimum set back for the garage to be 50 feet from the front
of the property line. This is written on the plans submitted
and returned to Mr. Dickinson. We support the request for
the requested variance for the single family residence but
strongly oppose the present planned location of the garage.
This was the unanimous decision of the Architectural Control
_...,.
Committee.
Sincerely,
~y~ ~~~
Roger Zastrow
Crystal River Country Estates
Architectural Control Committee Chairman
r A,;.ar a.~:;~ $
w~ ~ v. we.m sro.~ Kro3W.~..h ~t~ .. e.::: ~. ,.., ,..,,...
i
j
~ - _ _.
t ,~ i-
~~ ~ ~~ L
i , v i~'4 ~
_ -_
~ ~n
r ,
.. ! ~ .
i ~ ~ i, ..
~ ~~~
,~
~_
k
+~
it
L
`/ i
S`.
p, _',.
,J, ~ ~ C
<, ~ ~ .-.
~~~
~C ~ ~ ~ r^
~! ` t: F ~ ~ z . ter- ~
~ ~ ~
°~~a,~ s
ti
~I,_. i ~{~ F. s T
~ ~~ ~^
~`
S ~\ ~e `A_
~1~~( `` ~` ~I ~ \
~ ~> ~ T~ ~Lf~y
i
!,
I~+P r]~Ki~~~ -~-Ic
,.
~ ~ ~. ;
..
7.4 MILES
TO CAR BON DALE
/I~
~/
i,
Directions to Lot 22, Block 2, Crystal River Country Estates
To get to subject property; drive 7.4 miles south of Carbondale
turn left at concrete bridge and mail boxes, stay to left, road
will curve to right going up a slight incline, when you reach the
tap you will cross a wood covered box culvert, subject property is
to the right of culvert.
VICINITY
NORTH, ~ *;r:;,a,r,`~.~;
a J25-3775
s
"~ .
WEEK...
talamute is
ft the Aspen
°n you see
..LL.~(u w(uc a asu:..
lements should be haziill"e3
` e zoning department and
ae,. _red the cases to inspector
Bill Drueding.
While the IIPC.members said
they were pleased to see a "siib-.
terrain level being nlahzed; they"
denied Ernemann's submissjon„
on the basis that development
review standards were not met.
The architect may'return with`
an amended p7wposal in the
future.
public n
~: jia~~arV V1a ~ 4: aaU
the term lie
Rk"1'e offic
er' spac.: ~sbn
Architects are in ch.
Ua ~(I(V V(UG WV WULLVaJ Vl W
for building for the I3PC's p
of
4-Head VCR With F
• 4 Heads for Clear Sped
• On•SCrcen Pro9rammin
• 179-q1. Cabb-CemPaW
•9eaxlly Coda
• Dual Cnaettea
I/3-~88
- f2~J3 Tres
aE
6
e
I6Y]Oe • LC
---• ~epm ,.ad use xegouuonw .,-. tan
t ~ beautiful vufenoe. wbae 1q9 feet 6o teae :ed t;D rect. For eadwr inromwioa rnntau me •~, (~_l~'I
re•PeaivelY.ererdquired iu lhall8J9mnadin ~•"" ... ...,.~s j'. '
ett,, pp P[t>oa rmetns offie:. eL >3o swtL ea. •
Yt be able t0 tri for eoaslraction a ` n}aea 6ng1e- Stc
famry residenea. PropeRy lae~tlem I.oe 7, . ~°awnsi ~ch~eir~_mm
Block 7, 1RlinH 3, Caraway to 9aomagnfe.a a;storie_Yteietrafien em®at+ee
320-541 O ~ ~~ ~ me Aroori 1s~ea epH xs;YSSi< euw~a> m. , ame. ~p,a ~s. issL
,..
• do r1 &~'F~i~.~w
. s..
., ... ;.:
,.~
w .,
.;, v _._.- ,...-,. , ,,.,
...
,,,
. ~.
_~ ..~ u x ..... ~~ ,_ ..,r.
~~: ~,
SPEN/PLT~KI~NtPGAN~NG OFFIC[. {
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5098
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES ,
City _... _. ,...~. M.,.. ... , ,. _>. ....
00113 -63250-134 _.....
-63270-136
63280-137'
-63300-139
63310-140
63320-141
00125
00123
00715
County
00113
00125.
00123
00113
REFERRAL FEES:
-63340-205 ,..
-63340-190
63340-163
631fi0-126
-63170-127
63180-128
63190-129
63200-130
63210-131
63220-732
63230-133
63450-146
REFERRAL FEES:
63340-20&
-63340-790
-63360-743
PLANNING OFFICE SALES
00113 -63080-122
63090-123
63140-724
69000-745
ENVI~RONfr1ENTAL HEALTH
HOUSING
ENGIN~EEAING -
~~ SUBTOTAL
GMP/GENERAL
GMP/DETAIL`ED~'~
SUB/DETAILET3
SUBIFINAL
ALL 2-STEP ApPCICATIONS
ALL 7 STEP APPGOATIONS7 ~ "
CONSENT AGE14'D~i ITEMS ~ ~ ~ U~
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ~'~ .-.:
ENVIRONMENTAL~HEALTH
HOUSING
ENGINEERING
CITY/COUN'fYCODE
COMP. PLAN
COPY FEES
OTHER
SUBTOTAL
~ ~.f f ~=~, ~,~f~~~:a
Name:
Address: ~ n 1, fl ~~~
3- ~/'vt ~ ~e-`
Check # ~G~J
Additional billing: _. _
TOTAL
Phone:
Date:... .. y /.'~- ~7l
#ofHours. ..~.... ~.. -. - ~ ~~
-. ~a.M1f.r~a. a,
~ sx
;. ,,;
_.. ~ ._
~ Xti 1 P{"( f-k
Reception No.
Recorded at „_
WARRANTY DEED ,
Z
0
W
C]
W
L1.
Yn
0
W '
w
~~
C'~
THIS DEED,. Male this 12th day'of Ma re h 19 9 0 .
between Gregory Don Poraker 6,_Lois .lean T'or3ker
of the s a i ~_ *County of G aY f i e l d and State of
Colorado, grantor(s), and Jeffrey Edward Scott Pickinsoi~
and -Priscilla Arenas: Dickix~sonry G.
N~
BOOR ~~~ PAGf
~tt~o~H~'s~•ra~P
~~
~,~ `Z0
SII.VU pAVIS
PITKItI CHTY RE40RDE,l1_
MAR' ~~ ~~ 8~ ~M ~9~
whose legal address is 7fi4 I,ineo_ln Street, Carbondale, Colorado 91623
of the said County of C. a r f i to d- and State of Colorado, grantees:
WITNESS, that the grantor(s), for and in consideration of the sum of
TEN DOT.LARS & OTHER VALUABLE CONSIDERATION DOLLARS,
the receipt and sufficiency of which is hcieby acknowledged, ha s_ granted bargamed sold and conveyed and by these presents
do rant,ba tn,sell,con andconfirntuntothe antees thctnc~irs~an$assi nsv~forevernot~,~„•.~.,.,. ~~ ~~
g rga: vey gr g n tenancy tmeonunon brit
,,
oflanl t P i k inhe real properly together wrth improvements, tf any suu~ttc, lying andbcing in tfic -`-°s'a i~d County
and State of Colorado described as follows. Lot 2 2 , "Block '1 , C r y s t a l
.. „~ _._
River,Country Estates, ?itki~n' Coun'ty`, Cloi•ado together with an
easement.. and right of way for ingress and egress as shown tin plat
of said subdivision.
also known by street and number as V,aean t ,land
'fOGETHER with all aGd singular the hcrcditamcnts ;md appurtenances thcrcunto belonging, or in gmywtse appertaining. the
awcnion and nwcnions, nawiudct and remnmdcn, mnlx, tvuros and protils Ihcrcol: nod :111 Ills cnhuc, right, title, intcrokt, ctauu nnJ
dcuuutd wluiiukvcr of )tic grngtoit+). cithor.`iu law ui' oyuity, ul', iu and to the. above b,u gainc~i premises.with rho porcdiuancnt+ and
appurtenances.
7b HAVE ANDTO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described', with the appurtenances, unto the grantees, their heirs
and assigns (Dreyer. And the .grantor(s), forthemsclveS- heirs and personal representatives do covenant,
grant, bargain and agree to and with the grantees, thcrheirs and assigns, thatat thu time of the enseating and delivery of tficsc
presents i s well seized of the premises above conveyed, has good, smc, perfect, absolute and mdcfcasible estate
p good right, full power and Lawful authority to grant, bargain sell and convey the same in
of inheritance, in taw, in tee sim le, and ha s ~~~~~ • ~~~
manner and form aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes,
assess nls, enemnbrances n~ restrictions of whatever_kind or nature soevcr, except taxes a n da~• a s s e s sin e n t s n o
et ~ e or ava~ e, zon~ng r~g{~73gti~ns ~g~em&nt~ ~~il r~stri~~~on~ o
or in BB k 2 n goo a ~,tt 7~O c a e o0
e1cl, age 3 ~ an~ Boo~C 8 age 82 gBook 48 a e 71 ~nd e feet
any improve a t,ai t { t { {7 mi eral rq h~s reser.vat ons of
"Ilse grantor(s) shal~an~ wdl WA~tKrAA•~A13D ~~RLp/!rR SEFEN~ the move-bargained' ~remtses. m the quiet andl'peaceable
possessiorrof the grantees', their heirs and assigns, against all and every person or persons Lawfully claming the whole or any pan
thereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the grantor(s) have executed this deed on the date set forth above.
5
Unda M. Otls ' .~
3415 Ponderosa Court . . _ ;~-~- ~?~ ~/~~' ' ' t r. i
Grand Junt:tion; Cf~'81506' u~ d ~~T-
`b~ ,, ,
`If in Denver, insert "City and;' ~ ,
r
STATE OF COLORADO
ss.
County of r~~~_xzl
The foregoing inswment was acknowledged before~/m~e~this~ ~~~-~ day of ~1~=' `~~ . , I9 y/
by ~OYt,. ~G~'z.C/"'h-GvOv-~•!-~A'~+z !o'Yti~2?/ ,i.,.,ir r,,,,
My commission expires I~/p27 , 19 ~~ .Witness my hand and official st.al.'. ~~\w"•, ~~(+
record
Rev. $.8G. 'WARRANTY DEPD Ito Jdat TenSnlsF ~i.,i~
Bradford Patilishing, 1743 Waztt SC, Denver, C08o202-(303)292.2506-7.69 a ,,^;'r' ~'~~ag-.r-
-y u
A a_
~~ ,. r
County of Pitkin }
}
State of Colorado }
AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY
ss. POSTING OF A VARIANfCE HEARING
BEFORE Z'IiE PITKIN COUNTY
' BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT '
The undersigned, 'being first duly sworn,
follows:
deposes and says as
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(Jthe said sign was posted and visible continuousl
from the ~~ 7~ day of ~~~ ~-'~ 19 ~
~jJ ,
to the .- day of / ` L ~~ 19~,
(Must be posted for at least nine (9) full days before the
hearing date).
C, ~ ~ ~---
~'~ ,
---.,~
~,4 licant's Signature
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this ~ '~ day of ~ ~.
19~_, by ~ ~ ~ ~ , .
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
My, Commission expires:_~~~-~r _Cj
Notary Publ
,.
""~ Y $ t #332989 CAS/^S/91 ib: i5. °c ~.Oi~ E;F` 647 F'G 42
'~ ~ "~ ""~~ 3ily"i~~Davis~y Fi~F;i~ Cnty Cler4', Doc ~.~~~~
RESOLUTION OF THE PITRIN COUNTY, COLORADO
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
GRANTING $ETBACR_RELIEF,FOR.JEFF & PRISCILLA DICKINSON
,.~ ..~ .. .-%s.4 .mvw a9ma e tea. .dE: 4<
RESOLUTION NO. 91-18
WHEREAS, Jeff & Priscilla Dickinson, owners of a tract of
land situated at Block 2, Lot 22, Crystal River Country
frontryard setback svariancemfort on tru tbonof as garaget
where 100 feet is required, in the X25-30 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,followinq findings:
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
substantial detriment to the ...public
welfare and `will not substantially
impair the intent ,and purpose~'of the
Zoning Resolutions and the zonngmaps.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment,
that a 28 foot front yard setback variance be granted for
construction of a single-family residence., as per the plans
submitted marked _Exhibit ,'!B", and a 50 foot front yard
setback variance be granted for construction of asdetached
residential garage, with the condition that the, garage be
built within the building envelope as shown on the Minor
1041 approval plat filed in Plat Book 26, Page 30, marked as
Exhibit "C".
WARNING:. Any violation of the terms_.,of this, resolution may
result in rehearing and possible revocation.
__ ~ .. ,~,~ ... .. , -_ ~.. _ ~ ,_~w ~, ..e~.. . ,~... _: ,:U,:,
.....
'"">3~484 x]5/28/91 16e i 1 Fiec ~ OCR fik; 647 F'G 4?
.ilvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty L. .r k:, Doc ~.UO ~ '
Resolution No. 91-(8
Page 2
The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of
Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
DATED: May 7, 1991
ATTEST:
~~_8tifd~~JiC/~
Cindy~Christensen,
Secretary
The Board of Adjustment
of Pitkin County, Colorado
aI~-ndi ShaffYan~~'~,/ ~~
Chairman
-,
z
W
O
tr
W
tt.
N
.,
t~
t1W,~
CG
...~
l~
•,..
Rcc `ptir „'~~"~9£39 U..~/~S/41 l1 Ftec `s. Ory EtF; 647 PG 4 OOl{ ~~~ t'1~~1t
Silvia Davis, ~'~ .n Cnty Clerlr, Doc ~.f~U - _
WARRANTY DEED ~ ~,_7i ~~
3R~~8°4~'S~T^6'-°
THIS DEED,Madcthis 12,th day of March .19 90.
between Gregory Don Foraker 6 Lois Jean,'„ Foraker
of the said Count of Garfield andStatcof
+ ickinson
Colorado, grantor(s), and an d f "pr].S EC3.11arArC'T]c~.a^ Dlc]cnsoIl G.
N~
.~
`L0~ b ~ l~
SILYIA DAYIS
PITKtIi CNTY RE09RDER
HAR I~ ~~ 8~ r~ f90
whoxlcgaladdrcssis 764 Lincoln Street, Carbondale, Colorado 81623
'~~
of the said County of G$ r f i e 1 d and Smte of Colorado, grantees:
gr f the sum of
WHTEN~ D tLLARSrc& fOTHER VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, _,_ ~~+KS•
the raxipt and sufficiency of which is hlrcby acknowledged, ha s granted, bargained, said and conveyed, and by these presents
do grant; bargain, sell, convey and rnntirm unto the grantees, thciebcirs and assigns forever, not in tenancy an comnuin bw
.W cY, p poly together with improvements, i! any, situate, tying and bcing`n the s a I'd County
in' inttcnan all theteai ro ~ ~~
of P i t k in and State of Colorado, described as foltows: Lot 2 2, B l o e k 2, C r y s t a l
River Country EstaEes, Pitkin County,"'Clorado toge'flier with an
easement and right of way'for ingress and egress a's shown on plat
of said subdivision.
STF+TE DOCUME~JTlIR`1~~''
,~~a~s
17t. ..~'~''"~~ r ..
also known by strut and number as vacant 1 a n d
TOGETHER with all and singular the hcrcditamcnts a7aiappuacnanccs thcrcuntp hdouging, or in anywise appertaining, U7c
awcniml and n~~rsams, mnuliiakr ulul rcmailatcn:, rears, iz;.etas and Iml(ts tiromd: and 7111 n7c czaiitc, riµid, title ua~rcs4 claim and
denuual whutMwyrr of tla•grmikGts), cidlrr iu 171war avpdty, Ilt,ill 7a71i III IIW atNIW1 tN7rg71117ed pten11M1%, wiitl tic hlilulilaliiclils imd
uppurlcn77nces.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained altd desc "
_ ribcd, with the apportcna~tlclx, unto the gmalccs, their heirs
and assigns forever. And the grantor(s), forthemxl V es belts attd personal rcprcxntative5 do` covcnait,
grant, bargain and agree to snit with the gnrltces, Utcit heirs and assigns, that at the lime of the ensea(ing and ddivcry of these
prcxnts i s wcU seized of the premises above conveyed, fa a good. sure. perfect, absolute and indefcasiblc estate
of inheritance, in law, lit Cce simple, aad ha s good right, full powerandlawful autlarity to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in
manner and form aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from' all former a_nd oihcr grants, bargains, sales, liens, razes,
as. ts, encumbrances Ild restrictions o whatever kin or nat rc sower, ezcc taxes and assessments n o
euCs~°e or avka~le, zon~n r g~~gt~ n's ~~~em nts ~~~ r stri~~~on~ o
y or in g 2 n oog a gook ga a o0
2ffrt, age 3 g an~~Boo~C 8~, Irage 82~ gook 487, Pagge yl$ ~nd.e feet
ai~y im roveme t°aistri~t i {7 m3 eral.r' hts r ervations f
7lie gran~oKs)ahall an~ w1i1lYAARANT'Ai~D~RE~~R BEFEN~ the a~iove-bargamc7~~~remtses meifSie gmel and-pcaceabi~
possession of the gmntccs, their heirs and assigns, against all and elcry person or persons lawfully claiming the whole or any part
thercoL
1N WlTNCSS WHEREOF rite grantor(s)have
executed this decd on the date sct`forth above.
r
STATE OF COLARAI~0
Countyof ~S.xLJ
/~
i
record
`~ V
r'o - W>
~~ n
y 1~
n ~~
:_ ~ Y
s _.~~
~1
N O.
3
G
K Q
ti •.
- N
Silvia Dav/~S/91 ibs~li c ~.~~~ Pf'; 647 F'G 44
'.~ Y. #3:x._989 VJis, F'itkin Clerk, I3ac ~.t~~?
~ ~ 1„ b ; +- "C '' J~ ¢ 1'~isu,_,,a D~cr~rk,~rl
104; Mir~~~ ~v~~l ~P~iTA-r
(loll MI ~~~~>
~eo K ~~
~a~,¢.. ~
,u,,
5 ~_ ,
r'
4
n
/:
ITE
xa.e (•so.
Y S
Minutes
Pitkin County
Board of Adjustment
May 7~~ 1991
Members Present. Kandi,Shaffran, Chairman
~stan l~iahis'~"'
Ted Guy
John Ostwald
Evart dull ~`
Members Absent: Rick Ne11e
y
.,.,, ..: ; . ,,. r~ . ,,,. , .,
staffarecominendationstandPCOmmentsunty Zoning Office, was present with
Shaffran opened the meeting at 5:20, p.m. and introduced the Board, to
those present.,
Case 91-10 Danell _Di sk & robin„YLbr2on Q~ra mP2tina. Scott Lindenau
architect, was'pre'sent represem
the Board with"reviewed archite~
4M atin ~..n.
requesting a 2 foot height"vaYia
Pitkin County Land Use Code, for
garage.
Lindenau,briefed the Board ,on tY
H..~>.~. ~ .,
meeting: chang~.ng e dour-cam'
the breezeway fram 2'0 feet to, 16
could visualize the ~5~opa°s'e
what was requested at the
were made, to the plans for
Bruce,Hazard, from Design 4
stated that they have no'"p
that the' trees that Wil<
preserved.
the
2, 1991
meeting.
a
The
3 feet.
ighbor's
the adjacent neighbors;
st being made and feel:
Shaffran commented that she styill cannot"she a hardship on this reques£,
that it seems more of ~ a" °Y"equs~ `"'fo"'~r "design ra~`ier khan., hardship.
Guy asked how~far Lindenau would have to move everything back to be in
. *h y y £ed"'~between 6 to 8 feet MT ..,w., .. ,. {,
COnfOrmal'1,Ce and ~Lln2teriau $~a Hs,.. a~~;-z"„ .ti..-. ,-~a,::~.~iaa ~,r~.e,,m'? +~ ~r..+x.r,x n..
After further discussion, the Board stated that.,. they still could not
find a hardship for this request.
1
/1+ r,^' a
Guy made a motion to deny the request for a two foot height variance,
where 12 feet is required per the Pitkin County Land Use Code, due to
lack of hardship. Mathis seconded the motiom and all were in favor.
Case 91-18. Dickinson Jeff & Priscilla Block 2 Lot 22 Crvstal River
Countrv Estates
Jeff Dickinson was present to request a 28 foot front yard setback
variance for construction of a single-family residence, and a 78 foot
front yard setback variance for construction of a proposed detached
garage, where 100 feet is required in the RS-30 zone district.
Dickinson briefed the Board as to why the request was being made by
showing the topography of the land.
Four letters were submitted into the record: Noel J. Minor, Tom
McBrayer, Roger Zastrow, and the Architectural Control Board. All these
letters were in favor of the request, except for the 78 foot front yard
setback requested for the garage.
Gull asked if there were any covenants that Dickinson had to abide by.
Dickinson stated that there was just an Architectural Review Committee.
Tom Newland, Assistant to the County Manager, commented on the problems
of drainage that occur in this area.
Shaffran asked for public comment; there was none. Dickinson also
mentioned that he had met with all the neighbors about his request.
Dickinson stated that he would be willing to drop the carport (garage)
from the application. Gull stated that he would be willing to grant a
50 foot variance.
Guy made a motion to grant a 28 foot front yard setback variance for
the construction of a proposed single-family house and a 50 foot front
yard setback variance for construction of a detached residential garage,
with the condition that the garage be built within the building envelope
as shown on the approved Minor 1041 approval plat filed in Plat Book 26,
Page 30, due to topographical hardship and downzoning. Shaffran
seconded the motion and all were in favor.
i.ase ~til-la. Lazy Glen Greenhouse & Nursery 25828 Hwv 82 Snowmass
Frank LaGeoia was present to request a Highway 82 setback variance for
placement of an identification sign. LaGeoia stated that he did have
a sign up that was too big and was illegal. LaGeoia submitted a copy
of the proposed new sign, which is in compliance with the sign code of
the Pitkin County Land Use Code. The new sign will be placed in the
position that the old sign was located, and will be eight feet high from
the existing grade.
Guy made a motion to grant the sign permit as requested and to grant a
67 foot Highway 82 setback variance for placement of this identification
sign. Ostwald seconded the motion and all were in favor.
2
~°
Roger Sherman wa`s pYeaent to request a 54'"foot"`fron`t yard setback
Variance, where .100 feet is. required in the AF-1 zone. district, for
construction of"a`single-family residence. '
Sherman reviewed the plans for the, proposed location of the single-
family residence.
Shaffran asked if anyone from the public was present with comments and
no one was.
setback variances where 1Og0 feet i Y requiredgrin the AF to zonerdgstricd
t
for construction of a sin le-famil residence due to downzonin and a
topographical hardship. Shaffran seconded the motion and all were in
favor.
---_-- _"_ __--.. .,__ ....... ...... ..,c-.....Y va~.ca, K~. l.VillCy tvL~ Llle appllcanLS,
were present to request a ~ foot height variance,' where 12` feet is
required per the Pitkin County Land Use Code, for construction of an
accessory'struCture.
Oates stated that this area has floodplain problems, vegetation
problems, hillside problems, and the addrtonal.problem of the railroad
right-of-way, which he~behieves is a topographic feature and needs to
be preserved. Oates also stated that there are many letters in the file
approving this request.
Vance Grenko went into further detail, for the re est and showed th
Board the site plans which~~ ~ P that the propa ed location of the
e
accessory structure is the onl lace where it can be bualt.
Shaffran asked how large the property was and Grenko stated that it was
36 acres.. Shaffran also asked why this was not considered a barn.
Schaffner distributed the definition of d barn to the Board per the
Pitkin County Land Use Code whchWstates:
Barn. A building used to shelter,__or enclose livestock, poultry,
feed, or field equipment ,accessory to existing agricultural
o erations • , at , ..„a.. _ nt shall aiip`~ f~].oor'
space be applied to reside tial uses. in no eve,
Oates stated that this is an accessory structure because it does not
fall within tha uidel'" `~"""
j g roes"of a barn, therefore;`they would need a
variance. Oates referred to the photograph submitted in the,_.,file,
showing the stee cliff that
P goes up to a mesa on,,top of the property,
which is not accessible year round.
Shaffran stated`that the problem isn't where, Grenko wants to locate the
accessory structure, but the Height of this structure. Gull also stated
3
,->. . ,
that the crux of the issue still comes down to that the Code prohibits
accessory structures to exceed a limit of 12 fee£ and that the Code is
very specific in its intent. Guy stated that he can't find a hardship
to this request.
Oates stated that if this structure were moved, it would encroach on
the historic railroad right-of-way and should be preserved. Ellen
Grenko stated that there are also three large conifers on this land that
would be ruined if this proposed structure were moved.
Shaffran asked if anyone from the public was present to comment; there
was no public comment.
Grenko stated that his intent is to build a beautiful structure.
Shaffran stated that if the Board voted on design, then it would be
unfair to any applicant if the Board imposed their taste on their
design, therefore, the Board goes strictly by the guidelines in the Land
Use Code, which states a hardship has to be proven (i.e., topographical,
downzoning or solar access).
Shaffran stated that the Grenko's could argue the interpretation of a
barn or an accessory structure, but that is the only other recourse in
this request.
Grenko asked if an orchard. is considered an agricultural operation.
Schaffner stated that just because there is an orchard on the property,
does not necessarily make it an agricultural operation. Schaffner than
read into the record the definition of an agricultural operation.
Grenko stated that he does not plan on using the structure for a
residential use. Gull commented that office and ho y uses are
classified as residential uses and could not accept this structure as
a barn as it is referenced on the submitted plans.
Guy asked for Schaffner to read the part of the Land Use Code which
states what criteria the Board of Adjustment can grant a variance.
Oates stated that the Board is seeing hardships as the topography of
the lot, as he is seeing other features of this lot, i.e., the
floodplain area, the existence of an historic railroad right-of-way and
the existence of an orchard and vegetation which should be considered.
Gull stated that even if this structure were to be built on a flat piece
g o find a hardship. The
oint is that the Grenko s want a two-stor ac
phe LanddUsehCodeadoesonot allow. not be abye tcessory building, which
Oates asked if the Grenko's are permitted a barn. Schaffner stated that
being in the RS-30 zone district, they are allowed a 28 foot high barn.
After further discussion, Shaffran moved to table this case until the
next meeting on June 4, 1991. Guy seconded the motion and all were in
favor.
4
~*,
xiccy rsoone ana Micnaet rnompson, Architect, were present to request
30 foot southwest side yard setback variance and a 30, foot northea
,~~w
side yard setback variance, where 50 feet"for both"is required in t'
RS-30 zone district, for construction of a single-family residence.
p ed the Board on tghe area. Tho ~so g statepd that this
structure biseto be a two-bedroom Yiome one-stor hi h and fits within
the 20 foot setbacks that are re uired in the subdivision lat.
Shaffran asked for""public comment.' Bill'
present as adjacent homeowners. Landman rE
a site visit; Huber agreed. Shaffran's`tate
in the Gateway Mesa area, ahd all 'are vE
therefore, feel that a site visit is not wa
Boone stake out the house and meet w£`fi"the
Gull stated that because of dealing'wth t
and that 'this is a classic application of d
an objection to granting it right away.
Gull also stated that Boone is subject to
committee in this subdivision, and ghat would
way to address,"the concerns of the neighbors.
i and
the ]
Shaf~fran suggested
who are concerned'.
ivison many times;
~, he would not have
an architectural review
be the 'more appropriate
After a brief discussion, Guy moved to grant a 30 foot southwest side
yard setback variance and a 30 foot northeast side yard setback variance
due to downzonng, as on the plans submitted. Mathis seconded the
motion. All were in favor with Ostwald abstaining.
Case #91-17, Board of County Commissioner's 0205 Redstone Boulevard
Tom Newland, Assistant County Manager, was`pY~es'ent to request an 8 foot
front yard setback variance, where 30 feet is required, and a 7 foot
north side and ,
' y setback variance wherublcfrestroomequired, in the B-
1 zone district, for construction of p facilities at the
Redstone Park.'
Newland spoke briefly of the hlstory on
received approval from the Redstone ~-Iistor:
There is an existing County dike that runs
Crystal River is behind. that dike. "The 1
proposed where'it is because of the exist
playground, picnic areas, and general open
restroom design is to make it appear as a
existing museum,. Newland further explained
the project. Newland has
.calYPreservation Committee.
across th"e prbp~rty and the
cation for the restroom is
Ong uses of the park; i. e. ,
space. The 'intent of the
typical outbuilding to the
the design of the restrooms.
Shaffran asked if anyone was present from the ublic. Herb Klein
p
adjacent property owner 'to Redstone Park, sEa~e-`d"~that'~ie~~~was"oppos`ed~to
the variance as it would be too close to his property line, and that
this is less than a .pleasant type"us'e. Klein stated- that he felt
putting the restrooms within a couple feet of his property line is not
5
right and could possibly diminish the value and enjoyment of his
property. Klein is the only property owner that a restroom facility
would affect (no matter where the location of the restroom).
Guy stated that because there are other possible locations, and given
that the single property owner that this would affect has a problem with
this location, cannot grant this variance. Shaffran agreed.
After further discussion, Guy made a motion to deny the variance as
requested due to lack of demonstrated hardship. Mathis seconded the
motion and all were in favor with Ostwald abstaining.
Gideon Kaufman was present to request an 88 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.
Guy commented that his office did the structural engineering for this
applicant. He stated that he believes that this should not create a
conflict since the work is already done and would place an unfair
hardship if Guy and Mathis disqualified themselves (since there would
be no quorum on this case). It was decided that there was no conflict
and both could vote on this case.
Kaufman stated that this is an existing non-conforming lot (7/10 of an
acre) which the County downzoned to AF-1. The Molasky's want to place
the addition under the existing deck and want to add about 400 square
feet to an existing 1,700 square foot house.
Kaufman submitted three letters of support from the neighbors into the
record.
There was no one from the public present for comment.
After further discussion, Shaffran moved to grant an 88 foot front yard
setback variance and a 5 foot side yard setback variance, as on the
plans submitted, due to downzoning. Ostwald seconded the motion and all
were in favor.
- ~.,. _.
16 Townshi 9 South Ran a 85 West
Erin Hazan was present representing the Radom's as purchasers of the
Grady property to request a 52 foot front yard setback variance and a
25 foot north side yard setback variance, where 100 feet and 30 feet,
respectively, are required in the AF-1 zone district for construction
of a proposed addition to a single-family residence.
Mathis commented that Guy and Associates was approached by the Radom's,
potential buyers, on being their architects. They were not hired, but
Mathis did speak to them about their property and gave them ideas. He
believes there is no conflict and the Board .agreed.
6
.__~..
?.:'Ana xeaCe..
-.
Hazan stated that some of the Y
house to begin with. One side
that restricts building on t
irrigation ditch that has hi
Therefore, thei proposed loca
addition. Hazan also submitt
neighbors supporting this reque
lips are that. th is is a very small
:he property-has a 30 inch culvert
side, on the other side is an
.cal value and 1s 8 feet deep'.
s..
1s ... ,.~~ .„_ a
the only .,. ...,.. .y.
lYoca~tion for `the
nto the record
.:,:.,. letters from the
...~:.~, ., y,. _, _~.. -, •.
Mathis has been on the site and so hast Ostwald and realize the
difficulties of this site. Shaffran asked 1f "There wa.~ an ubl"c
comment and there was none.
After further discussion, Shaffran moved to„grant a 52 foot front yard
setback variance and a 25 foot north side, yard setback variance, as
shown on the plans submitted, due to exceptional physical kardships
and. practical dfficulties.__ Ostwald seconded the motion and all were
in favor. ..~ .:,.. ... .,
Mesa 5uoa1v1s1on
Tom Putt re ested a 13 fog y ~ , t
e
varlanceae where s o0acfeetYl 50c fee£ and 50 tfeet~h respectively tbark
required in the RS-30 zone district for construction, of a single-
family residence.
There was no one present to represent this case, but the Board felt
that this was a typical downzoning case for Gateway to Snowmass.
' rout yard
setback variancelsau 301 footGsouth~side tyardr setback 3variance and a 20
foot north side yard setback variance, as per the plans submitted, dUe
to downzoning and topographical hardship. Guy seconded the'moton and
all were in favor.
The minutes of the April 2, 1991 meeting were approved as written..
The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p'. m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cindy h: hristerisen, Secre't'ary
Kandi shaffran, Chairman
,, a