The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutpitkin.boa.87.02LOCATZON OF PROPERTY ,,:uU~ Any pertinent„data must„accompany this app ica ion, 87-02 this Case No._ The Board may return this application if it does not contain .all the facts in question,.-. Appl9,cant's description of proposed variance showing justification:' Due to down zoning of entire area, require front set back. variance of seventy five feet to twenty f%ve feet, side set back variance of fifteen feet to, fifteen feet, and, rear set back variance of ten fleet to twenty ~... feet. ,. ,, Applicant Signatur/~~~~ Provisions of the zoning resoluL--ion requiring the Building Inspector to ~.r. forward ,this application 'to"'the Board of Adjustment and reason for not, granting a buiding permit: ~~Yt~S `~~'°e-~`~'"l ~s .,~ ~~ ~~-\ Zow-e c~~s~~~,~', w1~c,~ YZ-ec~ui~s a ~~~w~ v~o.l~ ss~~.~,. ,a~ \oo~~• ~ sib:-e `t4R-~„s~`c~a.~~.o~ 30-~-~ 0..N c~: `CZo a~ y°'~• sst`~- o~ 30 ~ . -C~s- o.pp~ccx~v~k ~s ~~u,.as~~~o~ s~. L?c,.R,v~w~.a., ohs ;:..~~ ~ ~~~e-,.~ '~°,(~ ~ \5 ` -~c '~~ ~~~ 5vc1--e., yvRS~.s, av.,c~, lo`-~c -1-0 ~c~;~.~,• Building Inspector Date Permit r~jecteds Board decision • Date Application filed Mailed ,~ ~ ,,, _ s„~ „~_;,~_~a~~„~Secr~t~'a°ty Boa'r'd of Adjustment ~ ~" -.. -. __~ . , ,. ,.~. _._ ,. _ ._~_ ....~., .a„~~.x. ~,.~~m„~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING __.. ~ .....T x . ,.. k-, .,rry.1 L._ BEFORE THE PITEIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROP~HTY OWNERS AFFECTED BYyTHE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DES,GRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to Pitkin County Resalution,of June 5, 19b5, as amended, a Public Hearing will be held in the County Gomm'issionerrs Room, Pitkin County Court House, Aspen, Colorado, d) 'to {or at such other Face as the meetin may then be ad'ourne consider an application filed with the paid Board.af Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provssions 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 vies 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 TAE ,HEARING AND OF THE,REOUESTED. VARIANCE ARE AS FOLLOWS: Date and time of meeting: January 27, 1987 at 5;15 p.m Name and Address of Applicant for Variance: Louis Pasto#~ 30282 Wingfoot Drive Evergreen, CO 50439 Location of Property or Description: Lot 16, Crystal River Park Subdivision Pitkin County Variance Requested: 75 foot froptyard setback variance 15 foot sdeyard setback variance 10 foot rearyard setback variance Duration of Variance; Permanent:. XX ;Temporary. Condition: THE PITEIN COUNTY $OARD OF ADJUSTMENT Lx?y~. CzS`5~--- Evan Gull, Chairman .-'~-.-~_. .. .:~.'^~ .w,.. ..„...3 eaae+aaa`a~sw., of r~.r.zvs,Fa,^jSk'e+w...x rwao-ea. ...- ~uw ,.. ... - January 13.; 1987 x; ,~ Pitkin County 8uild.ing Dept. ~. 501 E. Main. _.. _ , , ~_.:,~ ..., ..._. ~ ....... ,~ ~- ~ x. ... d p .81511 w,w,~,~ .:.-, .._ ; -,,•,.._.W.. x . ,::... ,_.~, As en, Co n...:. 1 -1 .,. :1 i Dear Laura, Enclosed please find the attachmenktof ad;7acent land owners„ for, the variance request on Lot 16, Crystal Riyer~Subdivis~op, The afore „ mentioned, request b, ing submttted.by Louis Pastor to t'heme'oar o , a~`jus~~n~nt an~,<.a ...., . Thank you for~atten~ion on this matter; S~ijncerly, (/~~,, ,~~ ~` Robert McCormi ck, , , 'Attorney in factP~oN Louis~~Pas£~or,,kTy ~ ~; :r : , h _. ;x. ~~..urJ~ w ~.. , ,saw.,, r. ~ ~. r m. _TONE BLVD. R„OPl~ COLOI~AID~ 6123 (30SJ~963 3408 0117r/z REDS , .. ~.:~, ~,,,~..~ n, a~ a~ -.. ~p ..a,w. +ks+~.t~+..i+n..~av.wgastf~,. emxs., 5+'_W^ `.. .. i- . .. ~. ow.eh~, rtu "M~iw~.SMNW~' ~ __ +& ~..~rv.~y..,M wry~^ w. ~.-N ~. i k ' T' ' Owners to Lot 16 Crystal River Adjacent Land " Park Subdivision , kv ,. Ralph H. and Nancy J. Richards, _ ~~ ~ 2112 Plaza del ;Dios .. ' ,.,~ ~,~, , r. .-,.w .a_ aw..~~«u:. gnu+n.~.+.a ~;::a v,~.:,,., ..,~a,n ~ a.zs..a,,.xa .c,w,x".,~. w+va~ „ae :...,. .s..~r, ..,u w 9" Las" Ve as, Nev.'s' 2; " ,"~`, William D Geq"rge a~t~d,William D George Jr "jointly with'~Targawet Hou~~on"' ,"s.~ .. . ,..._.. ._ _.~ _. _. ,:: ,_ ---~~ 3779 S. Glencoe St ...~~„ „~ ,s. ,. Denver, Colorado 800.37, _ .. _ s~M .,~ ~. ~~„ ~„ ~.~;,_~ ,.~. Colmo Inc. ,~,~~, ~ ~ .. `" c/o Lawarence, M Nh ncer Atty. . . ..... `' k Rve 810 Pi tki `n , , , Gl enwood 'Spri ngs ~ Co'. `"$~bO~T'._,.r...~ .~.~.,~~~„~, ~w .~ v~~ ,~.~„~...w~ .~.,.~.,_.. .~...~.ry~.~ Crystal River.Park,Homeowners Assn c/o John Van Dis _"„ ve 0360 Crystal Park Ori ~` " " _v, .., _ M... _ Redstone', Co. $,1623 m .,..,,. , _ ... ... . ... .... , .. , - .~ ,., ,. ... _ ,. ,.. ,. ..,, ,. _, ,. ,-, , _ . , , ~» ~, _ _ _. f' e._ r rv.iwFF*MYT'}w. ~e ..Y~=n v. Alma'M~v.."?w`Yji'~.2G.AM$~.+.w"lwiana~.at"'Au Wyo. ~t~11'~'.* '.m~.w'Trv~~F$}',e%mr.v,iun 6N}C"~"'^u,Y~4.'b.Fm.fw~d5~@xdWev wnA-.nIP..Y«.vU._`&.«. Na T ,. ,, e a:. s .,. .r.- .. . Y. s ft.,s,- , ti .3~ ,` ice. ''`' . a "' F' POWER OF ATTORNEX , (LIMITED) LQUtS rEfSTQr~ , ,of ,,. tT, _ d t ~. KNEW ALL MEN BY THESE PRE ~~~ t " "y ~~e~`Qt~I;~) ~ C ~ C-u ~ (~ PCB re ost^ s ecia] trust ~e~~E't~'t~"~~>~-~-6"~~ County of ~ SC~ ,State of P g P and confidence iq ~~G' f3~T ~1~~~ C'~ ~M(G I of the County >~„ . r n.m„.r p , w, >~ .~,~ „i,. ,~ , of 'n (-(~"f~/li.l ,State of C •`~L 7 ~'.!~ 17 U have made constituted and appointed, and by these presents do make, constitute and appoint the said h~,CL~~t ~~ ~(~C51Z1 m([C (-~", my true and lawful attorneyto act forme and in my name, p my sole use. and benefit, with full power and authority to do lace and stead, and for ~ ~~ and perform each and gyery act necessary, as fully as 1 might do if personally present,to accomplish and complete the following act or transaction to wlt: f%ka~os~,p lJt~~i~Ff~cr/- .~c7~ r~c~t-aAcl~ t~ut'~>~=:s .~.. O N (_o'(` 1 ~ C t~ySl't4L- F~rti/t~."` Su$i?7V151GN, CC'lUN?~ of (~rT4:lN, *This Powei ofAttoroey shall not be affee(ed liy disability of the principal. * cfiective_upon-th€-dlsabil+iy-e£-tlae-pcistciAal. *This Power of Attorney shall automatically cxpircby rts own terms upon"c'ompletionof the limrted'putpose set forth above. EXECUTED this I ~ ,,,, day of i ___ ~ Principal STATF OF ~,, C_'o /~ °"r. ~. G ~'^. ~ ss. .__ a n. . ~ 7'"" ~ ~~ Connry o4 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged bcforc me this ~'1 y-,,, day of ~-0 `? `~ ~d !~ , 19 ~, _ 7 ~.5~~ ", 'ncipal. Ol~I~S ~Ct •, by - ,the Pu ~ ,., _ . Witness my. hand and official seal. ~~'~ C~ ~~e'G~- .. .,.,, . _ .. .,, . p2~4 R -DS70ttE l~4'sTD. R~~SFO>;lE, CO. 81'^u23 My commission expty'~~S:~,a n,l~, w~^h o , *S¢ike zccoMing to fact. ~~ N0. 34L. POWER nF ATTOR~F,Y (LIMITED) C. Bradford Publ has 5925N 6th Ave L:,kcwooi. C080214=(3021?i3~6n00 - _.~.„ -. .. .,~- ,,., ,,._ ~~, _,.,A~.., ~.,,..r , .xa .c"s.k:,.3m,a1.~'r.2Y~'-A^,"'S°:"'ti~"~~3`~?~t~".ffi1~i''r~?~~i'~~."f'~.`.';t'~ar~k~'?'"+,~.,,~~s~.` __ _ _ 'a .. v U ..+,. M. se'"`LIMITED POWER OF ATTORNEY~'eg ~ ,,~~p KNOW ALL MEN, BY ' THAT, DE151SE' ANN , Ll 4fa 4. constitute and., appoint ROBERT,M000xMi Lx co ueuai=~~~y in her name, to execute only those documents regardi variance for setback purposes on Lot No 16, Crystal Pitkin County, Colorado. does hereby AtEo=ney,`and rig the proposes Rive r, Subdivision of GIVEN the power to use all means and processes in the law ,,for the full and effectual execution of the bus~nes~s her4ei~n described, and n her name to necessyry documents for ,the purpose aforemenfioned`. to sa , do, act, transact, determine, accomplish, and makeAnddgenerallyje g finish all matters and thin s whatsoever relating to the aforesaid .... documents, as fully, amply, and effectually, to all intents and purposes, as DENISE ANN ACEE if ,present, ought or might personally do. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, DENISE ANN ACEE ,has hereunto set her and and seal, this 16th. day of January, 1987. //l~ ~97/.~e ~,! ~ 1,CL2d DENTS'K~ ANF7 ACEE ~ ~~ STATE OF MARYLAND, COUNTY OF BALTIMO5RE16t'h day of January, 1987, personally BE IT 'RENI~EMB`EF(ED,'That on this ~ to wit: appeared before me,the subscriber, a Notaiy`~Publc in and. for theaState of A/. Mx $ \et ~.YZF Maryland, County of Bal`Eimore, and acknowledged the foregoing ins~`rument of writing to be he'r act,, My Commission Expires: ~l c_ STATE OF COLORADO, COUNTY OF PITRIN, to wit: 1987, BE IT REMEMBERED, That on this day of , personally appeared before me the subscriberr, a Notary Public in and for the State of Colorado, County of'""Pi"tkn, anc~ acknowledged the foregoing instrument of writ'rig to be his act. My Commission Expires: '~ „r '. ,,:. ,« ~ b,.,g n. ,w, J, ~ 9:~zwn ,.~e.av =ru ,nnYN ,.^+4;x'<, ae ravie .eu.,.1#~Amu?,rn ~ ~ b W~ µi~~t 1Y3Ny.?a'..^Hi..M. ~. r. P.1PSU bhrz l~P F#tiA a N _ _ _ ~ -, I il ~ w. Iq l~ i _. .. .... r x. ~. .~i f i ., .. .,u. .. .. is ~ .. .. „s. .. x.f. ,..0.,i _~~. & ., _ r,f 1 4 ~~ 93 ,50 ~ r ~ -- ~ ~ ~ f ` __ ~, , .._._~ _.. ...._ ~...--a- ,.{ ;, , ~.: :~, :.. v-~ c~ ,::>- - ,_ ., . A iy U ~'< I i i t ,, 91 ,. <,:, F) 11 :ro ~~> + _ --- - ~ ~ I I rr r.rf~a" _ I I ~ i - --~ -.. d.. ~.-._. _~.. ..... --- ~ ~.l_~ -. 7LFfr -t~ 2'a i;~ ;t~ f 4 \.;- :) ~•° I -r=te--- ~~,,,.:7a[. ~'iuc;.' ,~i fir' ---_-~-- ,, ,. ,....:.:.~ >vra.u....u.Una.<a,m..t...a..,w. '=iu~ax .. anw „,Ww~:,r. r,arf;,v'.w/:ra.~@u<<.a,Yi6zkk%v~rm'atlaroLw:a'GS?!:J:s'.~u~}w"atP.rYVf~'~3 .. ~ ~4 M7NIITSS PITKIN COUNTY BOARb OF AT)JiJSTT~IFN;'1' January 27, 19$r g irperson ''. Members F'rescnt: T3i11 Luke, Actin, Cha Melinda Pearson ''' Toe Zanin _ .,. .. ..... ... Spero Niarhgs Robert. Miller John Howarth Feggy Seeger, 7.onpg Off:icia] was present with staff recommendations. T,ukes called the meeting to <irder. There we:rE. three sets of r a minutes to be reviewed. Zanin made the motion to approve'thP .~ _ ~ .. ,.....~<...~.~.,,~. ,~ ,., ,4Np., a.. minutes of September 30, 19'IIG, October ~LF3; 19~G and ;~ovember m 19£36. Niarhos seconded-the motion., All were xn favor. Case.# 87 OI_z Barbara Stanford 302 As~ren Grove Cemc£ery Lnne -». ~ ~ .w , Zanin stated tha£"hP would Ge a1~s"£axnxng from voting on 'this case v , because he is a hr~meowncr in~t'~i~e sup vi ion. $oworth a3so wg~"` "" ,u.,~~,.~ ~~~ ~t ~.~r~,~ ..PHA ~- • ~ ~ .,. ,a,,,,.,.. ..._ . abstaining because his firm is „empaye~ 'by Bax~iara S~`an~£orc~l` om Smzth, Fitkin County Attorney was present. snd he h,egan £.tte ~ ~, discussion. f{e explained that he had, been working with Itegg"y of Zoning Official and the Building Bepartmenf lle g .. . . . askedrSeegec to explain the circumstances involved xn the posting of the sign. Seeger remndeiT t~e Board th~f there was a~'~ .. ~w„~.. ..,..+.eti„a~,c"tc xbuar~,art ~r:~l+ re+.aL v.;.tnxw,ao-a ~,..=,K r*--. requiremenit that the sgri~be posted for" seven days prior ~o t`~'ie hearing. She continued that,_the sign for the Stanford properly` ` was not visible curing a site visit earlier tiSa£ 'day.` She had _ ,, also been notified by several property owners an January ,~~;..._."`~' 19f37, that the sign was not up: She had pictures of thg-site t_q , show the Board.` Teremy`Aernstein was present, representing Barbara St'anford., He gonfirmed that the sign was `not there now, but. had been posted at the proper time;"~on~Jthe"siign posit as ""` Seeger had recommendet3., ,,Seeger clarified that she. had said on„ ~' its own sign post, but that perhaps she had not made herself •,,;. ...,.,.__~._. clear. Bernstein ,stated that•he had posted the sign with his wife, Elysse F.lligt and tha£`she would be_able to confirm`that. a . , s i-.-G~ ox,.'n N~+•.•. +-"~ [...,m~+'k'~xzr „v-witdwi ~ -. I .- .~ Bernstein asked, if anyone had seen the sign. Zanin and several other homeowners,satd that they had seen it, but that had nqt . ,;e;. wre..,..,. ...;~. «.. .... ........ .. ... ,. remained up. N„ick McGrath was''present representing the some o,f He felt_that,ell of the neighbor§had r~dceived . ~ ,u.~ ....... ...... . . noticenandnthat they would be willing"toywave` t'~e posEi~ng"`" requirement, Lukes felt that they had demonstra}ed thati'the sign had been posted. He asked if there were any`'other objections dealing with the. sign. posting. Bernstein or=gan his presentat.i.on by introducing Anrly Hecht. and Barbara Stanford. Lukes requested that he explain to the Board what they were, asking for and what. was the basis for the rCrlue::i. Bernstein si;at:ed that they were asking foe a height variance, a setback variance and an C'AR (flvr,r area ratio) variance. Bern-- stein felt: that this c,-~sP involved a gvvri faith misunderst;nnding br-•iwecen Bar},ara Stanford and P~itkin Cmutt.y. He• ea:F~~lairn~d 1.h:+t when Stanford purchased thy: itroperty, she thought she owned the gr.-rvca t-oad that went, across leer pt-uperi.y, r}tc had a meeting with the homevwna~rs association and offered to trade the gravel road for some adjoining Irutd. "'he Cemaet^ry Asso~iaiion took t.he, position i:hat: there was alreariy an easement for i:he road. Bern-" ste:i.n explained that. there was a series of paat.s- Bernstr-•:in explained. that it was difficult iv determine:, exactly wherre the road begins and ends, because it. is a gravr:l road, bul. that it has a beax-i.ng on ttte setback and FAR variances. Bernstein explained that. if the setback was measurer{ :from the traveled Portion of the road (photographs were Providedl then there was a setback of thirty feet.. He aIsn qur;siioned which side of the lot. sans the front yard. He felt. the i.ntr~nt of the front yard setback was so the inhabitants d:id not :impact vn {:he road, an"d detc.rmnde by where. the access was to the house. h'iarhos questioned wherre the access was to the house, where the public way actually was. Bernstein felt the ownership of tha= road ca as a difficult: issue and for the purposes of this hearing, !.hey would concede ownership of the road to Pi.tlcin County. The setback issue, he cont.inueel was unexpected. The. 6uitdi.ng llr:part;ment had suggested that the house be rotated ax•ounr}' io allow more glass area. Stanford. did ne,t think there would be a prohl.em because she considered her front. yard to he on the other si.¢e of the house. Andy Hecht pointed out. that: the road was a road tq the cemetery, if the Board c_onciuded that the side that bordered the gravel t°vad' was the frontyard, ii :is not a highway or Heavily traveled road and that. they dial have 30 ft. from the traveled portion of the gravel road and they were only s;hyrt. a few feet if the road were fully improved. Lukes asked hosa wide t}ie road i_s now. Dave McFiride from Aspen Surveys was present.. He explained that the width of the road varied, the road was irregular, it varies from (Z to 18 feet.. McGrath asked if McBride had personally measured. the road. McBride said that he had. Smith wanted to explain the history of the lot. t.o the FSoard. The Eastwood Subdivision Plat shows a County Road between Lots 1 and 2. There is no road in that. lvcat.ivn. There never has been a road in that location. The rciad runs through Lot t and is knoson as the Aspen Grove Cemetery Rrl. and has probably been there for 100 years. Smith submitted to the record an affidavit from Warren Conner who has been n resident: of Aspen, his entire life (63 years) and is very familiar with the area and has traveled the Aspen Grvve Cemetery Road at. least vnce yr twir_e a year since 1938. The affidavit indicates that, i:he Aspen Grove Cemetery Lane as it i.s preseni.ly aligned has always been in t.hai. C location, at least since 193£i. Smith 'felt the issue w•is now cne„ .,,.,....,, setback is measured. He continued that the code is quite <:lear,_ _, that the setback is measured from the e$ge of` t"'~~e right of way.' The original plans submitted~to't"hp Building Department measure,, t ~ ~ ~.~ the setback from the edge o~ the Count" Roa~,`whrch has never existed except on Dept. does nit insthe Eastwood Subdivision Plat The Building pect eves site and had no way of~ltnowilg ili~at public right of way existed on the lot In 1985, at a meeting in his office,' Barbary Stanford hadr requ"e'sted~that tTie~ Cou;nrty ~riovF°'" the road to the location on the Eastwood subdivision plat, she Grove Cemetd that there was no base ~`or tfi'e Counl;y to do that re is a historic right'of~gwa'y","rr~t own as~`,the Aspen becauseothe''ery Road 'and there was no dedication for the road in ,.. i. v.,~y.~w. .n1vWC, ,n •-i-ans, ara....~, I d,; Y-'~ha s the location shown on the Eastwood plat Basically it appears rs rn error. The building plane as ~ .v `_ _ _ r.,... oritinallyusubmitted were" n ~4~~. ~ ,_,.~,,_4~U g• rn er"ror Seeger had no 'w ay of knowing that they were in error until,cgmplaiiits Megan to come in to the ' ent. At this time, Stanford was informe_~l_again of~thenCounty°sm'posit.ion. Tf the County road were moved it w~ald have to go through other private properties, It is the„C;qunty's position that the setback;. should b_e measured from the edgE of the . m.t , a~ O u t 7 a S O tY.&tMt rflr «.a,~ gravel road. Smith also parnte '"`"t~ 'l`_ ,;meane`~tia~ arbitrarily assigned the roar] an eight foot right of way and there was no ~~' basis to assume thaty He rontinued that the co3e"is clear on the ^c:°+9"4T ^ k`:+.u,'.priYH .a vt.N4~W4rv}`--h '.u Wu I+' ,r f w....~.+'#r 4~rrru.,.. definition of the front "ya`rd sett ac~;~ie access side of the '~o~ is the front- yard~fo`r~setback purposes (Sec 20 1, Sec 3 2). He argued that there would be no uniformity rn""~``ront yard setibacks if were to depend on where a homeowne,r_ loca~ed h,~s.Wdrivewav fie also pointed out in this ca~e__irtt was clear"hwliat"si~e *of4~c ,1~~ ~~,~~~.~y ... _ ~_~ 1'~~ing S~ep~. was accessed from the public right of way e ui had requested a precise measurement from the road and had not r ,.., ~ ~ ~rv~ ~ ~,> .~ received i.t'yet, so Smitfi was not sure how much of a variance was matron. _s.~ necessary. Lukes asked if the a plicant had better i`nfor `~" `~~"`~~ ~~"~~ :d the problem ~ ~ ,.._ ~~ McBride explainP 'n measuring where the gravel road began. The applicant would be comfortable with ah4ft variance Smith,contlnued that Seeger did not have the ail"tliarrty to a`~Yow violate the code, if it were not For all the aomo n4,aY,r, ,.~ ;.,. su ~ ,i k ,.,F, b .. ,} .. .. «_ plaints from the community, she would Have no"p"roblem suggesting ,... M1yu Hi~'r',e'`K u,Kx.4~.$ ~xr d. ui„ i w. s d.. ti. •ae~ that the Board grant Stanfor a be i'nvolved'in complying with EhP expense and hardship that`"would 3 ft. variance because of the code, even though zt was, they felt,"a hardship of her own' ~- ,,, ., making. . McGrath wanted to address the _se;tback problem from the iiome- .,,~, owner's Association point Of view. His first exhibit was aTn easement agreement between the,_,Cemetery Association and ~~e of Aspen. The City had needed a location- for 2 water tanks • g oca~ the Cemetery association had a. ~eedgthat they could be I~.~W~ the cemetery property. The Cit re nested a 30 ft easement where the road connects to the County Hoad,. He pointed out the 'C aunty does maintain the road, their snow plowing equipn cannot plow an eight foot road. Smith submitted t,o the~cecc 3 d u ., e ,.~,o n . to that. ent ' rd a ~. i i I ~1 ~ memo from Tom Newland, County Planning Engineer that stated that the road is maintained by the County, part of the County road system, included in highway user fund system. McGrath continued that the City had needed a minimum of 20 feet to maintain the water main that goes along the city and county road, but had requested 30 ft. He also submitted to the record map that. Larry Frederick had drawn. He showed the Boardmembers where the neighbors homes were located. Frederick had measured 20 ft. right of w<,y in place. Frederick had measured from the last time the road had been plowed. He felt it was wider in the summer. The road accesses the I{el.ly property and the Cemetery. Frederick measured, latterly in ten ft. increments, from the road, using a 20 ft. right. of way, to thc: house and got measurements of 22' 6" and to the second pillar 23' 6". McGrath stated. it was the applicants burden to provide accurate information and they disputed the information that had been provided. They thought the setback violation was between 8' 4" to 6' 4" which the neighbors felt was very significant. Niarhos askeck what: a reasonable road width was. Newland replied that a driveway standard which requires an 8 - 16 ft. width and one lane of traffic. a a McGrath po:inteci out that; the Board was not here to decide what the width of the road should be, only to decide if they were going t.o gx-ant a variance from where the road is. Lukes felt that he didn't want to spend too much time on the width of the road, he felt the location of the road was generally agreed on; he felt the question was were the variances justifiable, appropriate and whether there were hardships involved. He continued that whether the variance was 4 ft. or 6 ft. did not change any of the facts involved. Lukes asked when the building permit was submitted. Seeger replied .it was originally submitted 5/12/86. Seeger continued there had been 5 surveys submitted, each varying on some issues. Smith stated tlxat the gravel road was never surveyed, but simply sketched in. The homeowners and Smith had asked for a survey showing the road :in place and the distance from the road in place to t}xe house. Lukes felt there was a 3 - 5 ft. area in question. Pearson asked hoca the house was pointed. Seeger replied that Heiser had pointed the two back points of the house. Bernstein explaineck that originally the house was aligned differently and there had not been a setback problem. The Building Department had suggested in order to get the maximum glass area that she rotate the house. When the house was x•otated it created the height and setback problem. Seeger was not aware of any comment from the Building Department about the house's position. Smith pointed out that the Building Department does not do the designing. Bernstein stated that they were not suggesting that 4 the Ruilding Dept. was responsible, he continued that the Building Dept had keen very helpful. Seeger stated that from her department, or to her knowledge, from the FSuiidi Department had made that statement She also stated-that surveys that she had seen had the house i~ocae~ in the s< >a~ ~ b location. Niarhos poin't:ed out That the dimensions of t „a., under construction„was bigger that the` dimensiions „o f.-,tie, Smith•saidkhs asked., for any other comments on the tgad i e wanted it, to he dear that Peggy had appro original plans based on what was'~suhmitted ~o her Seegf explained tci the $pard that on the sur`v'ey the County rig, was shown below the gravel road, She thought thati was t.l There was no reason for her to doubt 'the Iodation of th ..,., i.t was in a subdigision that had ~ieen approve' an signe w. ~.vn.,..w.:-, .,. It measured about 45 ft. , wellmwithirr the 're'quirem`en't. also pointed out that McGrath and he ;had met with'Stznf ~. Gr` C t ~o one tg all ' ,a~y~ p«;~r aa_,~ .iuv..rx,~,p~ _ ~« Tiou eus~ ~~,xw,~ .~„ ... ..~ ,. ~ .. original >u'e. ~d the w~ ~ _ ,,. t' of way , advised her of the existence of the Aspen rove eme ery ..,., ,..at ~ it w>as public road and_it was not gnii~g 'iro b~e mo'ved, before the „,. ., plans were submitted. Mr.Grath felt that anyone who... had, be the site would have know that the document was misleadin 1 =hkk M1 ¢ps -n a 4nlbu of the. designations gravel'road'and`Coun£y raad`:"''1'~ie measurements were taken from across the road in place. ca totally improper. ~ Bernstein wante'~cr~to carry one point ~. ...., y Stanford purchased the lot., her'subdiyision"plat sowed" ft. County Rd. and she honestly believed that the road have been at the edge of hover 'property, she had no inteii mislead anyone. dukes pointed out that intent should b some other forum. Bernstein continued that constructio ~~., .~.. M,~.,„>M~ in July, 1986. The first notice of complaint at ate w of was dated 11/10/86, at that time fCie house was 75% c .. w.. . McGrath said that,gvgry land owner present had called t Building Department in June and that_„they had a meeting Smith on 6j',10/86, he wanted to make it clear.,"`hat Stanf known that `the County owned the road and-that she was m the setback incorrectly and she did not inform Seeger't was any dispute over the location of tTxe road.` Bernste'~ that there were many things that could have Teen one, ~ that waiting until the hpuse was 75% complel;e to'f~`7.e'"tl complaint. Pearson asked' if -there was` a md'p?''available showed theprope'rty lines'anil~how tlie.ouse were situa`~i -- bdivisi submitted his copy of the Eastwood Su ~on'pclat'~S ,.» stated that she had never thought of a setback problem, she thought of th'e frontyNard~as on the ofher' sz,dg of th _... ., ,. she also thought she owned the gravel road, because she. for it. She stated that she had no intent to mislead a ,~ ~ ~ ;~,H.. ~e ,~+~ Smith pointed out that the sµtatement she hack ,7us~ made contradicted by the plans submitted b'y Stan ord on I2/9 show a 30 ft. front yard setback on the side. with the g road. Smith showed the,Bpard that the CountyRo'ad was .. v .a ~.Y ..a~.{yJi y,kG SYn9.S6~P"=3'M U, .'~.n. .. ... same place as the County Road on tie survey sulimit'te~ b Stanford, the Aspen Grove Cetnetery Road is located to t of where the. County Road is located o,n the plat. it`is 5 en on xecaiise o h i s' ,.., .a,.... ~_ ~..,, a'~hirty should t t tb e left to n start'eeT as aware- amli`lete.'= hw.th Tom'" ` ord had easurin~ ~' " ~""` ha't~~there ner _. ~.... first t ... .. 'Smith f oc~.~.~ ~t.~,w„~...~...:~, cause Ouse, :,,.. .., d raid was /~`6`i3hich ' " ravel `' "` 'ri ~ t~n.e.~.t~. ,. ~ .,. ,._ north t shown m " ~ I ~, at. all on the plat. Lot 1 would include the Aspen Grove Cemetery Road. The dedication language on the Eastwood Subdivision Flat does not include language dedicating a County Road in the location shown on the plat. Sm.i,th continued that he had discussed the matter with Chuck Vidal and he had said he could not remember since it had been 20 years ago, but that he cou).dn't imagine proposing to move the road. There is no record of the County accepting or doing anything to move the road from where i.ts historically been. He felt: it was a mistake in the Eastwood Subdivision plat. Lukes asked Bernstein t.o state the hardship basis (pursuant to the code) for the three variance requests. Bernstein felt t;he hardship was From the steepness and pitch of the lot. If the allowable floor area was built on the lot,, due to the drop off, they had run into the height problem. Fearson asked if the Board was in agreement about where the front yard setback side was. Lukes replied that they had not. voted on it. Smith pointed out that it was a serious consideration, because if the homeowner was able to chose which side would be the front yard, the Board would have no control. Niarhos felt it was not the access to the home, but the access from the road that was the determining factor. Niarhos made the motion that the Board accept the language used by Smith in defining access to the property from the right of way as being the front yard of the property, which in this case would be the southern portion of the lot. Pearson seconded the motion. The motion passed 4 - 0. Bernstein began his discussion on the height question. h'hen the house was rotated around, the house was moved onto the pitch and caused the height problem. The Building Department came out to do an inspection and informed Stanford of the height problem. Hagman redesigned the roof. Bernstein presented an affidavit from Larry Doble and Bob Sutherland that stated that at a meeting on October 9, 1986 with Jim Wilson of the Building Department that they had found a solution to the problem. They had dropped the roof 7-1/2 ft. The Building Department inspected the house in November and they informed Stanford that the roof was between 6 inches to 4-1/2 ft, too high. Michael Manchester was present. He explained that he only become involved in the project a few weeks back. He had a model of the house as built before the change. He had two drawings of the house as built. Fie explained that the roof was lowered to a 4-12 pitch, and a new truss design was made. He showed how much of an encroachment there was. Lukes asked Seeger if there was a clear problem and the Building Department, tried to work with the applicant. Seeger gave the Board a quick history of the project--10-16-86, due to the numerous complaints, Bill Drueding, Zoning Enforcement Officer took pictures of the house and measured the house with the construction crew and the house measured about 39-I/2 ft. Seeger contacted Stanford that day and alerted her to the problem and 6 ,. ~' „ that it would have to be cprrected She had to get a ridge . ..., elevation dine by s surveyor. A'meeting~was'he~d af" 10%2"1 86"q Seeger's office with herself, Tim "h~i7son";` Building Official, Stanford and tier c9t?tractor, Bob Sutherland They had a survey . ~. ,,.~.h~: . done that day by Mr•: Mct{enzie o£`Alpine S`urveyti; £hat showed the top roof o~~er Chc>, 7 ft that it was expected to be;. That_ survey '„ :~ was not snbniitted tp the Building Dept`:" Stanford felt there was.. some probletiis and wouldp get back- to 'the Building_Dept. 10'/27/86, a meeting was scheduled, no one showed up. 1OJ28/86, a meetn g was scheduled, no oi7e showed up. 10/29/86, there was a meeting"' between Seeger,'S9ilsan, Stanford, Larry Doble and Tim Hagman. There were $l:,etches without dimensions or elevations shown a. .. ,,« ,. ,__ ,. ,~ .;. ~' a„u. ara:^a)am-m, W Ar ie µ+,kb ~: aE 4 dA. ~ , - There teas not enqugh in.~ortn °€ion a€ "`~~t meeting or i son or Seeger to det;ermitre if the revised drawings complied with";the,, pp , . r ..~ h"at~ Alpine "Surve"gs `w"~ts` .,.. , height limitations. Stanford stated t su osed to have dropped off a survey..' Seeger rapl4ed that she had not. recci~ed tfint .:uryey. Smith asked if she .attempted to get that information at that meeting. '"Seege"r "r"eplied that she had explained exactly what was necessar}~. On 11/1.7/86 she had „- contacted Sutherland, Hagman, Survey Engineers bn that, day' Wilson had ,.contacted them. On 11/25/86 a survey and drawings were submitted but were incomp'l`ete and did nowt shpw the . -, ~r.'~~ ~~, ti. ~ equested t On 12%d/86, Seeger contacted"Bern rein an formally r he information. Smith asked if~Seeger had received thevinformatian before a 's'top 'ta rk or"~edr ~ia`~d"`~een„ ,issued ' Seeder " re lied that she, had received the survey on 12/10/86, the before the„s qp work order was issued,,,, Smith stated tha€x he a. would not dispute the affidavits_Lhat were presented`,°'bu€ his:` „• _ ., question was that a resp~hszbleconclusion to come y,;~o~after ~ wix °"" ' ' s'tate~l'i~at everything they had heard from`_Seeger: Seeger also _,.,. the last thing that she said at the meeting was to ,lust make sure_ the height does not exceed 28' at mxdp nt and does not g~o° 5' ., ..:. ,_ ' t they were nat here t"o dispute above that... Bernstein felt tha m• "u who said what, he said when Seeger formally requested the informat.iori, he confirmed it with a letter, because he felt that .,,. .. _ ~.,~w « ~ the request for information had no€ been tr~ansmzf`t'~ed correctly Bernstein continued that 'Stanford had been frantic, s e e t the "" contacted professionals and's~ie`~h`~ad" w~al`"k"~ed~ away t"~iin+l`cxng the P ~e p actuallywss solve s e the ar '~thai t"'hey `had been acting in good fa~th, and thisewouldmb~e c ~thard lowe~lt at as, "' Lukes oirj g of the roof. w, _ , p ted out that the dra ngsn fhat c$er'e ~'su~imitted by Tlagman ` .. did show compliance with.. the code, bu£`tlie subsequent building .~. ,.~._ did not comply with the code. 'Bernstein agreed that it did not comply.. T.ukes didn't see any misleading by the Building`Dept.' Bernstein felt it was an honest misunderstanding Smith asked,. ... ,..:. :~, F.P.,..~. a. , Bernstein if he was saying that the ~uaing~ept."~ ~aut1S`oYiz`ed the „ code to be violated. Bernstein replied that he was not .. ,.w,.~ ....~„ ~, ,4.,.. .,, .~ Bernstein stated that the Building D'`ep~'. had reviewed the,, plans and said yes this would work, and he `realized that;, the Building „ ,~..4 - , Dept. was not responsible for errors in construction or plans that are i.'ncorrectly drawn. Bernstein felt there was a~,clear 7 attempt to cooperate with the Building Department and the affidavits showed that two professionals had walked away with a clear feeling that they had a solution to the problem. Seeger restated that on the day of the meeting, nothing was complete and nothing was submitted. Niarhos asked to see what was approved. Bernstein said it was his understanding that: the Building Department commonly gave verbal authori.zati.on• Seeger replied that she did give some indication or guidance but that she never approved anything structural without a permit. Lukes stated that he had a problem with getting involved in that issue, because clearly what had come out of the meeting was to comply with the code. Bernstein agreed. From the originalf roof to the new roo:F is about a 6 ft. difference. He can't i:e).1., there are functional things that are expected to he worked out. in the field. Manchester was asked if there were structural. solutions to the problem. He replied that there arc, solutions, all would require removing roof. Pearson asked if the grading was much lower than the original grading. Manchester said that rough grading is 1R" lower that the original. McGrath pointed out that the plans for the house had 10 ft. pilings. The house in place today had 18 ft. 6 in. pilings. He felt. that was significant. He presented a rough sketch of the area and showed where the various neighbors lived. He pointed out; that all. of the houses were below tree line. He continued that in the summer, because they were all below tree line, they afforded privacy to all neighbors. He presented pictures of all the houses with a brief explanation of they related to the Stanford house. He continued that it was the only house that was built on pilings above tree line. Niarhos asked Manchester if the encroachment was 8/10 ft. Manchester replied that it was not, because of the low pitch, they were controlled by the midspan. Seeger explained that the violation varied from 6" to 4-1/2 ft. The midspan problems are the greatest. Manchester wanted to explain the basis for his numbers was to take the information from the surveys. The existing grade information is missing. He took that information from the research plan and had to do an overlay of the two drawings to get grade vs. partially completed house, he felt that could account for the difference. He felt that all measurements matched. Seeger pointed out that she h.ad asked for existing grade. McBride cannot give the existing grade if it has been disturbed. Frederick had 2 photos showing the Stanford house and the impact. on his own. He questioned the difference in the pillars. His basic complaint was the height and its impact on the neighborhood, he felt it was a shame to allow that house to be so obtrusive. He felt the height, setback and FAR should he considered as violations. 8 _. Lukes asked if the entire lot was measured, would the FAR be in ,x.,.r• . compliance. Seeger replied it would be Smith replied that, if_ what they thought the correct measurements were used, the i violation would be 144 sq. ft. Zf the'mechancal'room were ' filled, and the rogf lowered so it could not be used as livable 4 n, r n 'r Yte#uw' Y" +G 4i:U 'eRf l - • 'h '• iPawas goinFAR problem w~utd be allc~via~.ec~ ,"a~ernein~„felyt ~th~F~Aw re ,rr , ' ~ g to be for storage, there is no possi6t~iy ofrya bandit unit;: Bernstein,felt it war anNexpensive way to correct the mistake.. ,._. .. -~~- s n. Frederick stated he had,n~t heard a reasonw•why a variance should be granted. He felt variances shoulde granted before the . .. N-+oxakrrce .lea... ».. .., r..r .-.+ building is built, Any reasonable person would have known there , was going to be a problem. He continued that he had no problem with someone trying to maximize what was le-gaily allowed nn the lot, he had trout~le believing that this was due to„innocent errors. ,; _ _.,, Bernstein pointed out that if ttie house were moved .back 3'ft it ..... - ,w. u., =5»ar; i .-~. ~a,w~ma. '.a e. '& I J ~'~x.; ~ :.; '.S. sl=r~ _.. ~... would still'be a large house with open spare at%~=Eie bottom Manchester said the the probable solutions would probably have solutionlwould~cost aboutwau$755000.1aHeeexplaine~t~that.fthevthe would be willing to plant vegetation to lessen the impact. to comply w;lie Lindner wanted to say that they had been required Rick and Juith the code a,nd it wasn't fair that the Stanfords would not be required to. Andrew Doremas a Yee e e~`L~f'`~~'th'~a`~t'`°~~ "' ~"'rx everyone should be_required to follow,,,the same code ,_...,~»» a_,v. ...... .~_ u....,,.. -.,. ....,._ _,. Lukes opened the case up to Board discussion. Pearson dial not 1 feel comfortable granting a variance when shed},d no,t understand ~.~,~.,.. ,.r .- the hardship. Niarhos wanted to know what t:he actual ' A discussion followed about the discrepancy encroachment zs. ...,......,M...~;~~r ~uw~,a~. ~w~,,.z»....< between the Building Dept. measurement an'~R~ie applicants " measurement, Niarhos questioned whether it was the massiveness .f~: ,,,..w.,~~_ i ..,-... ,. P- of the house or the height of the house t,hdt they were concerned with. Pearson felt that problem was `compounded by the setback' violation. Niarhos questioned if the' overhang was brought back, would the height probably be within code. Lukes explained that the height and bulk of the house, the edge of the gravel road is .__ ' urately drawn in on the _ hard to define, but is reasonably ace surveys, it looked to him that it was about a five yard front yard setback variance. He felt that in considering the height ., ~. Derartmenthe Board should use„the information t~ia~`the Building p had provided. He felt that tie .~ - 1/2 - 4-1/2 ft. was withn,the,omargin6s of reasonableeeb~o~ee~"~a"- everyone had tried to come up with an decorate measurement. He suggested the Board members use numbers that. reflect the'$uslding d5"s w,., i ivaA,x,~xC..r2.,. e ...~. I. e es v, e De artments measurements; a 5 ft. front yard setback, 4 /2 builttaccordi~g'requirement. Niarhos'felt,that"if the owners had ,r~x~ ,...M, ., ~ ._. ,, _.. to plans there would no't haye,heen a pro~i~e,m. 9 .,' .,. .., ..,,k~ f , k zuA ;{ rc ". ,., v, .t~"~, ar '~ $':t+,~ '"- `~',. x, .;;j. ~a v x° ,.xs ~~ The applicant had submitted incorrect infoi°mation. Stanford explained what she felt: the hardships were: for the setback, they believed that they owned a lot thai: they could count. the whop lot for the setback and FAR, it. was not a consideration, until the }louse was built, she felt that she had done. everyt.h.ing t;~ conform. Niarhos felt that ignorance on the part of the applicant was not a hardship. McGrath reminded the Board that Stanford was ai a meeting with the Frederick, the Lindners, Smith and himself, it was discussed that the road could not be included in i:he calculation for the FAH and brad to be considered for her setback and he felt that was nol a hardship. Pearson felt. that the surveys had adds°~ssed the front. yard survey and she felt the, problem had been precipitated by the owner. Bernstein poini;ed out that. McGrat.h's perception of the meeting and his clients perception of the meeting were different. Smith suggested ghat as a matter of procedure, a recommendation to staff to prepare a resolution that would he approved at the next meeting emhody:ing the substance of the meeting and the decision. Bernstein brought up possibility of tabling the issue until more. accurate information could be provided. Niarhos made a motion the the Board of Adjustment direct staff to prepare a document outlining all issues, submitted by both parties that had been brought up at this meeting that could he voted on at the next meeting. Niarhos made the motion t:o deny the variance oix the setback due to lack. of hardship, the height variance due to lack of hardship and approve the F'AR variance. Luker second the motion. Pearson felt that the FAR variance was tied in to the other. Luker felt. the basis for calculating the FAR liad to be objective and should be measured from the four corners. Pearson questioned tlxan if that were the case than they couldn't use it foz° the setback measurement. Niarhos said he was assuming that the gravel road was an easement, not. a right of way. Smith felt it was a prescriptive right of way. He felt which ever decision. was made i.t should be consistent. Luker and Pearson agreed. Luker withdrew his second. Niarhos withdrew his motion. Pearson made the motion to direct the staff to review the recommendations made by the Board of Adjustment and recommended that the setback variance be denied do to lack of hardship, the height variance be denied due to lack of lxardship and the FAR variance be denied due to lack of hardship. Niarhos seconded the motion. Luker, Pearson, Niarhos and Miller were in favor. Zanin and Howorth abstained from voting. Motion was passed 4-0. ~~ - Louis castor Lot 16 _ Crustal River Park Subdivision. Luker designated that he would not be voting, all other members would be voting. Robert McCormic}c was present representing the applicant, he explained that the lot was in Redstone in the ax•ea that was downzoned to AF-1, which requires a setback of 100. Pastor was asking far a setback of 75 front yard setback variance a 15ft sideyard variance on both sides and 10 ft. rear yard setback variance. Luker asked if the sign was 10 Arr t . .. posted. 7.anp pointed out that .the Eoard had ,not ever granaed a ~...." . , variance to a building envelope. McCormick4YexpTained that 'the applicant wanted to center the house, but it was dependent on where the septic system was located. Zan,in made a motion that case be tabled until applicant could provide t"he $oard'with information about the size and location of the house. Niarhos seconded the,moti~n. Allwere'in favor Motion passed 5 0. .. _ ~..,~~,. .. f r- ,,... ~ ~a. Niarhos made the motion to adjourn. Pearson.,. seconded it. .All were in favor. Meeting was"ad;jotiirned. Respectfully submitted, -- ," .. ,. r,, Chairman.. Secret°ary _ ` Da e 11 _. w. ..., ..~... ... .~. . ,.... t ~ 39 :. .t .. ,C ~ ;,, Joe Zanin moved that the following be adopted: BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THfi COUNTY OF PITEIN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION N0. 87=02 Louis Pastor, Lot 16, Crystal River Park .Subdivision WHEREAS, the subject property is within the unincorporated area of Pitkin County, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the Board. of Adjustment is vested with the power to grant or deny such variances by virtue of Title II, Section 16-1.3, Pitkin County code (Land Use Code') and Colorado Revised Statutes, 1973, 30-28-118(2) (C); and, WHEREAS, based on the evidence presented, the Board of Adjustment makes the fallowing 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 REStlLVED that the applicant's request for a 75 ft. frontyard setback variance and a IO ft. sideyard setback variance. Additional conditions or restrictions: WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. Bill Lukes seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: Evan Gull - yes Bill Lukes - yes Kandi Shaffran - yes Joe Zanin - yes Melinda Pearson - yes The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: 2/24'./87 Attest: ---~~3 ~fl/-~ ~_ Secretor The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado ~~ Chairman -'"F , ~