Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.87.07;BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT r ~~` .._ ~ _, ti .,,f, ; y a~-o7 DATE „ 'S__. t ~ ~ ,,. ~ 19 g T" CASE# ,_. APPLICANT _ ~vt lV1® ~rt~~L ADDRESS, S 7Z ~nte S`7' OWNER ~n'~„ T ~ ~~l~e c ADDRESS ~Sr;~-, ~ i~A/.6 LOCATION OF PROPERTY _..._ . _,.., .. ~.~,.., ,n......r=:~......-m~.r-n.~~u.m...xw~.~~.A:a:~~vm~nr:a ~ra+sa>sm.,.ti!fi~~F., vzS.n :'B~nwWs .4nswv~r=~'. ~?,x Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part this Case No. 87-07 The Board may return this application if it does not contain all the fact in question. Applicant`s des ription of proposed iivariance showings I j~ jt:stification,:(,% c;Qvv~ `~~7'~ .dOMe... Ci~~~tipn{~r, S~(~Ck-~k ~z~DTCaC~Q ~f'GGk.LC,~2 ~ N1 t l l~ ~k G~ CE ~G~l/n C4 A ~}Zt77 n~ ~ ~J e Q%P 8 e(~ t'f1UF'~°: U U rj ' _ ~ ~sc~nce ut~9pm ~ ~ ~cx w~ ~ ~ ~~ s Oflrr~ . <L fi ~~~ ~Ct,mC !.o M t,~.:i~Q ~ ~ i ! t~e'~ ~-2~. ~Ckl~2 Q-c.t~-c~©~ h t iu-d homes CRd ; ~ ln'6-w ~~ctc~~. QQ~a ..~_n~s ~atA'(~Oez~na~ ~~ii~ (~~~m2- ~~~w2CirQ ~/E'Ga.CA C~ri~_ ..D~)~ p~'E'NVC ~ -~ csr~ ~c.Q~l~-. ~L>2C Uwl'L. i..~Q.. v~ ~p'y~~ jy~~ ~ '~' i '1 -dQ~ j ~F/ C~ Ce OCQ~U~e:~p+~te~e-t-' ~',~-i- 1,~~ ~ rEpeo~ ~p i ea. ~C~l'~ C~AO~..tn~ V~ ~ UUU Applicant Signature Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building Inspector to forward this application. to the Board_,of Adjustment"ari"d reason for not granting a buiding permit: '. V~,~S ~v^'`'~~~,.-k;, 'ZS z~,~~J-~, t2`~5 Rst~~;.~~~.,~ .~'°~~ c_~ct~` Se`~4~~2, 1~ ~- S~c~Q.,~.R_`,l~ , ~w `~ ta~~,~R~c.:te: ~~~" ~l~.~s z_~~~e. ~ts`~~ie~ c~`.~5 ~~~-~.' ~-:~~' ~ F~s~t~ti±`~eewS ~~ `~-~ ~~~`~~ci~ti~~' v~tl~ ~ SL'f..`a~.c~~~ ~~~ -~~~5 L~Q~RI.c~v~C~-Sv. ~:~4.'i~. 0.~~~c•~.~*-e~ c~(~~.'~e~; V'~~1c>~.,~ ~ ~~~L.~S c~c9~.~'~in~ tis 0.\,I,~~~I,. "~'~R~~~i~?gv~ w~~tt ~Y..~,x.Q.s~~~ 0.~~~«~e.~ ~-!~'1~. ~~. ez.~~R-etc. Building In specto ~ ~- r ~ s i ~~ ~~: Date Permit rejected: decision Application filed Date Mailed i~.:y-T ~~A~~~~ j ~`i~~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ;, ~~ BEFORE THE PIT1f~N COUNTY BOARll 'OF~ A]77U5'TT~IE~IT` TO ALL PROFBRTY `b"h~NERS`AF~'$C"TEti"~"$"Y' TIIE~RE~UE'STEb'Z`21N~~NG"bT~'~TTSff` ~~ VARIANCE DfiSCRIBED BELOW:' "' Pursuant to Pitkin Cgounty Resolution of June 5Y'1955, as amended a Public Hearin will be field in the Count Commissioners Room, Pitkin County Court"House, Aspen; Colorado, (or at such.,other .place as the meeting may then be adjourned) to consider an, application filed with the said Board of`Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of tfie Y: ,:". County Zoning Resolution: `` "' All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections"i If you appear personally at such".meeting, then you are urged to state your vies b letter "'" `°"'" "" ~"" "°"' '"' ""° y , particularly-if'you have object"ion to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will gave serious consideration to the opinions of"surrounding property owners and _ M, other affected in deciding"`whether to"grant'or deny the request for variance. THE' PARTICULARS 'OF THL HfiARING ANB bF`"TTE "12B'~J'ttES1'TsD""'~i1lt`I'Ak'CE A'R'E '' '"" AS FOLLOWS: Date and time of meeting: March 31, 1987 5115 p.m. Name and Address of Applicant for Variance: Anthonty I. Rutgers 512 Spruce St. Aspen,' C0 81612 Location of Property or Description: r 512 Spruce Street, Aspen Variance Requested: Allowable FIoor Area Ratio Variance of 1104 sq. ft. uration o 'Variance: Permanent: X% ;Temporary Condition• - ~,4,.. ". _,.".~. THE P'ITKIN COUNTY"'BOA"RD 0~' A'D.7'[151'M"8NT'` ~"" ~~~ ~_ ,: Evan Gull, Chairman ~.e~ T- y.. Minutes Pitkin County Board of Adjustment March 31, 1987 Members Present: Evan Gull, Chairman Melinda Pearson Spiro Niarhos Joe Zanin Kandi Shaffran Peggy Seeger, Zoning Official and Tom Smith, Pitkin County Attorney were present with staff recommendations. Gull called the .meeting to order. Gull asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes. Shaffran replied that she had not been there, but the minutes seemed unclear. She noted the corrections on her copy of the minutes and gave them to Onsgard to change. Pearson did not want to vote on the minutes until she had a chance to read them thoroughly. Niarhos moved to table the minutes until the next regular meeting. Pearson seconded the motion. The motion carried ,5 - p, Smith informed the Board that they were being sued by Barbara Stanford. He explained that the Aoard of Adjustment was named as the only defendant in the suit, no one was named individually in a professional or individual capacity. No damages or claims. e re quest is to overturn the de, - cision of the Board. ~ Case 87-07 Anthon L. Rut ers 5I2 S nice Street F..t I ', Anthony L. Rutgers was q g ng an FAR ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~prese~nt. He was requesti~~ ~ variance. The property is zoned R-15 re uirin 30 ft. setbacks. Gull asked him to confirm that he had posted the sign. He replied that he had. Rutgers explained that they had lived in the Williams Addition for 12 years. It is an oId house. They have continually upgraded the house. Extra square footage was never a necessity before, but. at this time they have a five year old boy and plan to have another child in the near future. He continued that he had started a petition for annexation into the Cify of Aspen, which would have allowed them to more than double the allowable square footage an¢ have some realistic setbacks. The Aspen City Council approved the petition initially, but on final approval tabled the petition because of a pending lawsuit between Pitkin County and Responsible Parties vs. Rnvironmental Protection Agency. This situation could be unresolved for quite a long time. Rutgers felt that time was up and that cvas why they were coming before this Board. They did not feel that the addition would impact the neighborhood, due to the high density of the area. He showed the Board some photographs of the area. The lot size is 11,000 sq. ft. The allowable floor area is 1,764 sq. ft., the applicant. is already exceeding the allowable FAR' anii would like to put an addition of 334 sq. ft. Zanin questioned what the hardship was. Pearson asked if they were aware of the FAR restrictions when they purchased the property. Rutgers replied that they had, that they hadn't had any children at the time.' Shaffran did not feel that it would impact th'e neighborhood at all. Rutgers stated that their hardship was that their needs had changed. Shaffran defined hardship for the applicant. Rutgers stated that there was no physical hardship. Joe fidwards pointed out that they had an 11,000 sq. ft. lot upon 15;000 sq. ft. FAR restrictions have been imposed. If he had a 15,000 sq. ft. lot, Rutgers would not need a variance. It is only due to the small size of the lot, which arguably inappropriately large zoning had been imposed, that had created the problem. Edwards felt the hardship could be fit within the language of the code, whereby due to the shape or the size or the narrowness br the exceptional conditions of the physical characteristics of the lot, a variance could be granted. He thought that would he within the authority of the Board to do that, using a loose and liberal reading of the code. He pointed out that Smith might disagree. .Smith agreed that it was a rather liberal interpretation of the code, but not inappropriate. Shaffran made the motion that they be granted the FAR variance not to exceed 335 sq. ft. over their allowable floor area ratio. due to character of the neighborhood and the fact that the zoning would be more appropriate to be city zoning rather than county zoning. Niarhos seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 - 0. Case 87-08 - Rufus Crockett Lat 13 Block 3 Aspen C,rove Subdivision -- The lot is presently zoned R-15, requiring a 30 ft. frontyard setback, 10 ft. sideyard setbacks and a 10 ft. rearyard setback. The applicant was requesting a 15 ft. frontyard setback variance and 6 ft. sideyard setback variance. The Board had received two letters of protest to the variance application. One was from Brooke Smith and other was from Olivia .Jones. Both were read into the record. Joe Edwards was present re'present'ing the applicant. The architect, Donald Roarke was also present. He showed the Board pictures of Lot 13 and the. adjacent lots. it is a very steep lot with a 30'o slope. He also showed the Board pictures to illustrate the impact of the variance and the impact if the variance ware not grantc>,d, Edwards continued that tlxe house could he built. within the setback, but it would move up the hill, it swill become closer to the neighbors. The house saoilld ha above the vegetation and more visible. Shaffran asked if the vegetation would be destroyed during construction. Edwards replied that it would not, i.f the driveway were placed where they wanted to place it. Many lots in the neighhorl?ood are. very 4 I f„" steep.. Because of the hilly topography, there are many retaining walls and unusual solutions to the steepness. The solution they were suggesting was not uncommon for this. subdivision. It would actually be an improvement because the house would tie down lower and the vegetation would not be disturbed. Roarke brogan be telling the board that they had spent much time siting the house, ber_ause of the slope and they felt it was in the best spot for the topography and for the minimum impact on the neighbors. The house would be tucked into the hill. The long rectangular space ' into the hillside will allow them to maintain the existing vegetation within 4 - 5 ft. of the house. If the variance were not granted and it were moved up the lot, the house would be more dominant on the lot. He pointed out that the measurements were taken from the edge of the"private easement, not from the edge of the property. 7.anin asked Ellie Brickham for her comments. Brickham felt the proposed location of the house would be better for her clients. Morgan Russell', the owner of Lot 10 was present. He sairl this was the first chance he had to look at the site plan. He felt the frontyard variance would impact two houses, his in parf.icular: He recommended the Aoard table the variance request until he and the other neighbor were able to walk the lot. He didn't see any"other impacts other thazi the house wauld he 15 ft. closer to his house. Roarke thought if the applicant's house were moved back 15 ft. it would only move about 5 ft. further away from Russell's house, because of the angle. Gull asked if he had received a'legal notice. Russell replied that he had. Russell questioned what the hardship was. Edwards explained the the hardship was due to tapography, the steepness of the l.ot. Raarke stated that everythisYg that was done was done for the best use of the site, riot just. for the owner but for the neighbors as caell; there is eo sense i.n having a dribeway that is unusable in this climate, there is no reason nn infringing an everyone's privacy and dominating the site by moving up the hill. Edwards also wanted the Board to note that the house is facing away from the neighbors, the applicant would he looking down Highway 82. Russell restated that he was objecting because he had not had time to walk the lot and study the plans 'to determine the scenic impact. He continued that he felt that since the architect had said the house could be moved up the lot, that the proposed location was an elected choice; he questioned how the Board weighs elected moves rather than dictated moves. He felt that variances for reasons other that code were potentially dangerous. Roarke restated that'it was possible to move the house, but not logical. %srnin sr~grstc.d tabling this rase until a site visit could be made. Niarhos explained to I?ussell i.hat with today's technology, nothing; 'is a physical hardship. A structure could be built anywhere. He continued that what the Board was lepkinF;' for was what a ;~~easonzcble man would look ai ape! consider a hardship. Pearson felt. that rs home r.nuld he buili: in the setback. 7Viarhos agrE~r,d that: snmet:hing cou'id he built, but. felt that thc: proposed hou;;e matched the rontnurs well ,ind had the least. amount of impact to the neighbors and. matchcul the rest 3 _... ~.... _,. .,r . , ,.., ~~i i. ~ , ,.,_ h .aw of the homes in the neighborhood. Shaffran stated that it. is a very steep site; she liked the idea of the construction barking in and out and not disturbing the vegetation; she also felt it would be difficult to put a switchback in the driveway. Pearson restated that she felt a house could not he designed in the setbacks and not have switchbac]<s and not disturb the vegetation. Roarke stated that he had worked on the project since last fall and had not found a way. Shaffran thought some of the solutions that could be built within the setbacks would be worse. Gull stated that he did not have a problem with the variance. He felt it was typical of the variances .;in the area and would rather see the house lowered in and have less impact on the hillside. Pearson said she hated to grant a variance if one isn't needed. Niarhos moved that 15 ft. frontyard setback variance. be granted and a 6 ft. sideyard setback variance be granted due to unusual topographical restrictions of the lot and-due to the fact that the way the project has been proposed, has the least impact on the surrounding vegetation and the majority of the neighbors. Shaffran seconded the motion. The motion passed 4 - 1. Gu12., Niarhos, Zanin and Shaffran were in favor. Pearson was opposed. Case #, 87-09 - Carol Farino Tot ~}, Clausen-Pei3ck Suhdivision_ Carol Farino was present. She is under contract to purchase the lot. Rick Lindner was also present representing the owners of the lot, by power of attorney. The subdivision has four lots. Two of the neighbors were present. Farino was reque$t.ing a front, side and backyard setback variance as well as a FAH variance. Farino showed the Aoard a site plan of the house as it. already exists. The lot is zoned R-30. She would like to add a second floor to the existing house. She thought that historically the house was zoned R-15. She tried, when designing the house to conform to the requirements of R-15. The house would also be within the setback requirements of R--15 and the allowable FAR, if the easement in her frontyard could be included in her lot area. In addition to adding on the second story, she wanted to build a 2 car garage. She wanted to locate the garage so as riot to block her or her neighbors, the Leepers, view of Pyramid Peak. She felt it was a hardship for all the homeowners to have to include the 30 ft. easement. in their lot areas. AlI the neighbors felt that the easement should be vacated for manv reasons, including safety reasons'. Smith explained the problem in vacating the easemeni. is that there are two lets from the Gar.n Subdivision that use the road a.s their access. He was not optimisf.ic, unless atn alternate means of access is provided for the other people. Ile also saw a problem in granting a 0 lot. line on the sett~ack for the garage, Lindner stated he had shown the house to 50 prospective owners, bc.ct no one was interested in working with this problem. The subdivision had hc:en inr.xis;tence for 20 years. Lindner felt the hardship was that no ane was willing tca purc-hasc rrsidc~nces o:P 140() squari, :Feet. Nine of the houses can comply with R-30 zoning, they were created as 15,000 4 . _ ., ;~ a k ~, ~ ,~.etc.,s. , " ~ ,. ~}.,,,: h^ :, l i ~,.. sq. ft. lots and that is how they should be treated. Steven Conger, a neighbor felt that it is outrageous a third of his lot. size was not counted, it destroys the value of the property, he also did not feel it was the intention of the code. He continued that the Larsens were not present, but they felt that way also. Gull felt that the code should have been written with a minimum allowable square footage and he felt that it is unreasonable to restrict someone to 1400 sq. ft. He continued that he was reluctant to not count the easement in the FAR or sefhack calculations, because the code is very specific on that point. Smith pointed out that it was a private access road. He suggested reducing the easement to what was actually used. Farino stated that she understood Smith's concern about the road curving around her garage, if she put her garage on the l.ot line. There was some discussion about a minimum allowable FAR. Leeper explained that he felt the easement was a hardship." Gull fe"It that FAR should be tied to lot size rather than by zone, similar to the City's zoning. Gull did not have a problem with FAR, but did with the garage. Shaffran agreed with Gull that vaca£ing the easement was not the answer, but the applicant. request seemed reasonable. Smith felt it made sense, it was a Iitieral interpretation of the code, that the FAR did need to''reflect the lot size. Gull stated that he would be comfortable with the garage if it were slid back to the house, hot necessarily closer to the house but in line with the house. Pearson ha~i a problem with that because she felt all the deighbors would than be making similar requests. Pearson asked what the hardship was. Giill and Niarhos replied dosanzoning. Pearson questioned that because i~o one was sure if the property had been downzoned. Niarhos moved that a 720 sq. ft. variance to the FAR be (;ranted due to the hardship of the property being downzoned and ghat i;he garage be no closer to the existing 30 ft. road easement that. the existing house is. 7,anin seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 - Q. Niarhos made a motion to adjourn. Pearson seconded the motion. All were in favor. Respectfully submitted, Secretary` Chairman Date 5 Kan di Shaffran moved that the following be adopted: BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THfi COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION N0. 87-07 Anthony L. Rutgers, 512 Spruce Street WHEREAS, the subject property is within the unincorporated area of Pitkin County, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the Board o,f 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 wi71 not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Zoning Resolutions and the zoning maps. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the applicant's request for a variance to allowable floor area ratio was granted due to the character of the neighborhood and that the zoning would be more appropriate to City zoning rather than County zoning. Additional conditions or restrictions: WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. Spiro Niarhos seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: Evan Gull - yes Joe Zanin - yes Melinda Pearson - yes Kandi Shaffran - yes Spiro Niarhos - yes The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment'of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED :_ April 28, 1987 Attest: ,~ Secretary The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado Chairman