HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.87.08BOARD'OF ADJUSTMENT
„,
DATE March 16 19 R7
APPLICANT R, ',;
OWNER Rufus Crockett
LOCATTON OF PROPERTX ~°t 13 Block 3, Aspen
' ;
CASEN 87-08
Box 3837
ADDRESS Aspen, CO 81612
Box, 3837
ADDRESS~~ rn g161a
Any pertinent data must accompany. this application., and will, be made par
this Case No . 8'T08 _
The Dozed may return this application if it does.not; contain all the fac
in question. Applicant's.des:ariptio-n.of.proposed war,arice shbwii~g
justification: '
See Attached Exhibit A
Applicant Signature~;~~~~~_
' not
fo~wardothsuadinicaermitlt~sth~tgDardeof1Adjustrctent and~reasonpforor.to
g'.r.an.t.ing a b ~. 9 P
~,-ee: ~-~.~hc~tiuls•iov~ t~.~c~s ~eSS;-~~~wsvz~w~+v~j
s Q-sW ~ ~
~-~ ~s (~~.Qss.~~\~~ z>o.w-:ec1 ; ' 'R ~s ~~c~ui~e~~~,,: sc>~~ ~c~~w aR
S-~.~~.m~_~' 1`i~~~\- s~c~' v~c~.czc~.~ ~p~'ic •''~Q~4n9~se-~•
T1'~- ~ '~'-~-PP~'~e,Gw \ r5'Ro-ques~'i•.u?~ a l7an~ewce~-~C~~P-eti~ •~a,ga~LT ~'.~c. ~e~ .o~ ts., ~a
' Building Inspector
Board decision
Date Parmkt rejected;
.Date
Application fi.le:d, •
Mailed ~ - Secretary ',Board of Adjustment
Q{x~~
.,, ,.. ~.e~..,v..~z, ,w,ma;,xe.~r. .. w,me .x~u., 4 v.~ r..-~kk t,aro. x,na~+;xaehs*+~taarcmY:.4:~~: sW m~, „. t-'~° k.w„~+1.'„Fw9'.
.-
,> ., . d
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
.,,..,.,~ ,.~. ~ ,,,-. «.,~~ ~. ~ 1J, z _.,..~ ..~,a~ . ,. _...,~ ..... , ,.
BEFORE THE PITEIN COUNTY, BOARD OF~ADJUST~MNmT •4 ~9,,, f.~e „ w.o-a i~ f.,x.~
TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE
VARIANCE DESCRIBED BE'~OC~ .v,;.. ,> ,~. ,..r:,. ..~ -3,,,,j.... _..., .,~.., ,-. ..,....,,.
Pursuant to Pitkin County Resolution of June 5, 1955, as
• ounty
ill be held in t e C
amended., a Public Hearing wthenmeetingtmayuthe Aspen, Colorado,
Commissioners Roam, Pitkin
(or at such other place as
consider an application fil n be adjourned) to
ed with the said Board of adjustment
w
requesting authority for variance from the provisions"``of the
County Zoning Resolution. µ ~
ppear and state their views, rotests or obje' ~
cannotlappearopersonall~ydafYsuch meeting, thouchaveaob'ectont°to
state your vies by letter, particularly if y J to
such variance, as'the Board of Adjustment will give serious
consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners snd
other affected in deciding whethe`r• to g'r'ant or'deny the request
for variance. _
THE PARTICULARS OF THE HEARING AND OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE ARE
AS FOLL04V8: ;:,
Date and time of meeting: '"March 31, 19$7 5:15 p.m.
Name and Address of Applicant far Variance:
Rufus Crockett
P.O. Box 383? _ _ ,. ,,
Aspen, C0 81612
Location of Property or Description:
Lot 13, Block 3 Aspen Grove Subdivision
Variance Requested:
Frontyard Setback variance of 15 ft.
Sideyard Setback variance `of 6 ft. °
Durati6n °of Variance; Permanent: XX ;'Temporary
Condition:
THE PITEIN_C,OUNTY BOARD_~~F ADJUSTMENT
Evan Gull, Chairman
V da.'l.5'~.~~~
EXHIBIT A
1. Request a side-yard setback variance to allow deck
side yard setbackg to protrude six feet into ten-foot,` `
2. Request (if necessary, depending on interpretation
of structure to rotrude 6~ feet into 30-foot front- and
setbaocktandrdeck andnroo£roverhangktoaprotrudeoanladditee~al
ten £eet for a total encroachment into setback of 16„ f
At the time this subdivision was platted in 1963, the
setbacks were much less (20 feet front yard and five feet.
side yard). Also, this Lot 1~3V'was platted fairly narrow
with the long side of the lot running up hill into steeper
topography. T'he lower southwest side has a shallower grade,
while most of the site is significantly steeper at a rise of
..
ten feet vertical to 18"feet hcrizontal.
To allow the setbacks will allow the• house to be
constructed on the shallower grade and minimize t"he`e~ca-"'
nation, fills and disturbance of the natural vegetation. As
the house is sited, the driveway enters the„property on the
southeast side off a platted private driveway easement from
the circle at the end of McSkimmin Road and follows t
existing topography orith little disturbance and rises only
~• ere
rive feet to reach the garage. However, if the house whe
set back up hill into the steeper portion of the lot, the
driveway rise would have. to be_19 feet and be lengthened to
85 feet and require a switchback and a considerable cut and
_..,u.. ...,.....,. , .
fill and disturbance of ,land form and vegetation.
The side-yard setback on the northwest is to allow the
house to move to that side to provide adequate room for
driveway turn arounds. Lot Y4, the adjacent lot on the
northwest side, is covenanted against any development above
the driveway easement and so,, will not be •i.mpacted by the
setback variance.
It is possible a front-yard
depending on what is determined a
Section 3-2 defines the access si
yard. Access will _be frgm tlie" s<
driveway from the turn around at
If the southeast side ~f this to
front yard, the requested setback
setback is not required
the front yard. The Code
e of mthe lot as the front
tthea~t side by a private
he end of`•I~c`S``kimmn.g Road..
is determined to "be the
is not requ-ed.
The gr.:~nting of the variance wi.11 not adversely affect
the nei.el~boring properties, will minimize site disturbance,
,t_
will m1;.i.mlze t1~c saving of- existing vegetation and c~i.ll
provide t11e residence,~aith better access, less hard (drive-
way) surface area. and a more natural setting.
ll2/20
~~~'~~)~
~. -.- .. - ~.• <n<kir A Vbi'~ ~ k.nmM~n. •R V'an. ~ nh`w ...w StlVVi114 ua..:::+..aAw.4
CROCKETT VARIANCE REQUEST - Lot 13 Block 3 Aspen Grove Subdivision
LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTYrOWNERS a
,,. r. ~ ., ..,.. . _ .., ,. _.~.
Lot 14 .Block 3:
Oliv3~ Coan Dunaway
1207 Elm Street
Denver, CO 80220
Lot 12 Block 3•
Brooks Smith
3211 Cold-Elains'prive '
Hacienda Heights, CA 91745
Lot 10 Block 3:
Russell Morgan
Robin B. Supplee and Pamela M. Supplee
P.O. Box 2349
Aspen, CO 81612
~~ n-. , _ ..-~..m , w+ ..a..,+~ a<.e~ x wsi «.ea«a.ns>:3oe+~t4b_.~~aa,.;smewr+LM+„~RN"ts("ma[?~Mbtrc~+kr+
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING,~BEFORE THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PR"OPERTY 'OWNERS AFFECTED BY 'THE REQUESTED"
_,
ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW:
Pursuant to Pitkin County Zoning Resolution of June 5, 1955,
as amended, a Public Rearing will be he13 in the County
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 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 u~°ged to
state your views by letter, particularly if you have olijecfon "to
such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious
consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and
others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request
for variance.
DATE AND TIME OF MEETING: March 31, 19$7 at 5:15 p.m.
Anthony Rutgers, 512 Spruce St., Aspen is requesting an 110.4
square ft. variance to the allowable floor area ratio,,
Rufus Crockett, Lot 13, Block 3, Aspen Grove Subdivision is
requesting a 15 ft. frontyard setback variance and' 6 ft. sideyard
setback variance.
Carol Farino, Lot 4, Clasen-Pecjak Subdivision is requesting a 9
ft. rearyard setback variance, a 8 ft. sideyard setback variance,
a 15 ft. frontyard setback variance and a floor area ratio
variance.
Minutes
Pitkin County
Board of Adjustment
March 31, 1987
Members Present,. fivan Gull, Chairman
n
Melinda Pearson `"
Spiro Niarhos
Joe Zanin
Kandi Shaffran
Peggy Seeger, Zoning Official and Tom Smith, Pitkin County
Attorney were present with., staff ,rPCOmmendations.
Gull called the meeting to order.
Gull asked if there were any additions or corrections to t
opy of
minutes seemedfuncleae~aeShehnotedeth~'occhanbeionPearsonbdethe
the minutes and gave them to Onsgard g d not
want to vote on the minutes.. until she had a chance to read them
thoroughly. Niarhos moved to table t}ie"miriutes until the next
regular meeting. Pearson seconded the motion. The motion
carried 5 - 0.
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 t;he suit, no one was named individually in
a professional or individual capacity. No damages or claims.
The request is to overturn the decision of the Board..
Case 87-07 - Anthony L Rutgers 512 Spruce Street
Anthony L. Rutgers was present. He was requesting an FAR
variance. The property is zoned R-15, requiring 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 old 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 anot}xer child in th,e near future. He
continued that he had staried a petition for annexa£ori into the
Ciiiy of Aspen, whi<:h would have allowed them_.to more than double
the allowable square footage a.nd have some realistic setbacks.
The Aspen City Council approved the petition initially, but on
final approval tabled the„petition because ~£ a pending lawsuit
between Pitkin County and Responsible Parties vs. Environmental.
Protection Agency. This situ<rtion could he unresolved for quite
a long time. Rutgers felt that time was up and that was why they
were coming before this Board.. They did not feel that. the
-.. ~. ,, e ~, ..'T'b,. r rcF; r!ix^~wa~d,.~..~ .tti~~.ak ,.,.,. t.cn..~Yn6'P1*~'cA,~r...+~"''Sr"'it }.`'tkCi1>'~1
4 ,.
µ
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 and
would like to put an addition of 334 sq, ft. Zanin questioned
what the hardship was. Pearsgn 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 tl?e
time. Shaffran did not feel that it would impact the
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 Edwards painted 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 or the exceptional conditions of the physical
characteristics of the tot, a variance could be granted. He
thought that would be within the authority of the Board to do
that, using a loose and liberal reading of the code. ffe 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 charar_ter of the neighborhood and the fact that th.e zoning
would be more appropriate to be city zoning rather thatlcounty
zoning. Niarhos seconded the motion. Motion passed 5 - 0.
The lot is presently zoned R-15, requiring a 30 ft.
frontyard setback, 10 ft. sideyard setbacks and a l0 ft. rearyard
setback. The applicant was requesting a 15 ft. frontyard setback
variance and 6 ft. sideyard setback variance. The Roard 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 representing
the applicant. The architect, Oonald Roarke was also present.
He showed the Board pictures o:f' Lot 13 and the adjacent lof.s. 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 were not granted. Edwards continued that ttie
house could he built. wi.t.hin the setback, but it would mave up the
hill, it will become closer to the neighbors. 'Phe house would be
above i.:he vegetation and more visible. Shaffran a.^,ked if the
vegetation would he destroyed during construction. Edwards
replied that, it would not, i:f t.}:e driveway iaere placed where they
wanted to place it. Many lots in the neighborhood are very
~:
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 impr w ement because the house would he down lower
and the vegetation would not he disturbed. Roarke began be
telling the board that they had spent much time siting the house,
because 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 tie tucked into the hill. The lgng rectangular space
into the hillside will allow them to maintain the en,sting
vegetation within 4 - 5 ft. of the house. If the vsr.iance Caere
not granted and it were moved up the lot, the hvuse 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. 7anin asked Ellie Brickham for her comments.
Brickham felt the proposed location o£ the house wgnld be heater
for her clients. Morgan Russell, the owner of Lot 10 was
present. He 's aid this was the :first. chance he had tg loq}c at the
site plan. He felt the frontyard variance would impact two
houses, his in particular. He recommended the Board table the
variance request until he and the other neighbor were abi.e to
walk the lot. He didn't see sny other impacts other than the
house would he 15 ft. closer to his house. Roarke thought if the
applicant's hvuse were moved har_]t 15 ft. it would only move about.
5 ft. further away from Russell's hvuse, because o£ 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 duc to topography, the steepness
of the lot. Roarke stated that everything that was done Baas done
for the best use pf the site, not just 'for the owner but fnr the
neighbors as well; there is no sense i.n having a driveway that i.,
unusable in Chis climate, there is mo reason on infringing on
everyone's privacy and dominating the site by moving up the hill.
Edwards also wanted the Bard to ngt.e that the hvuse 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 douse could he moved up the lot, that the
proposed location was an elected choice; he questioned how the
Board weighs elected moves rather than dictated moves. i7e felt
that variances for reasons ot}aer that cede were potentially
dangerous. 13~arke restated that it was possible to move t'ne
house, but not logical. 7anin suggested tabling fhi.s rase until
a site visit could he made. Viarhos Nxpiained to Itussel.l i:hat,
with today's technology, nathin,; is a physical Prarde;hip. A
stra.acture cvul.d be built anywhere. i?e cvnti.nc.ted tl;at what the
P,oard was looking for was ayhat. n .^as~nahle man saoulii took at and
consider a hardship. Pearson f~,lt that a home. could he built in
the ::etbaclc. Niarhos agreed that something cotalri he built, but
felt that tine proposed house-~ matched the rr>ntonrs well rand had
the Ieast amount of impact t.c the neighbors and matched the rest
3
of the homes in the neighborhood. Shaffran. stated that it is a
very steep site; she liked the idea of the constructign backing
in and but and not disturbing the vegetation; she also felt if.
would be difficult to put a switchback in the driveway. Pearson
restated that she felt a house Could not. be designed in the
setbacks and not have switchbacks and not disturb the vegetation.
Roarke stated that he had wprked nn the project since last fall
and had not found a way. Shaffran thought some pf the solutions
that. could be built within the setbacks would be worse. Cull
stated that he did not have`a problem with the variance. He felt
it was typical of the variances in the area. and wqulc7 rather see
the house lowered in and have less impact on the hilis.ide.
Pearson said she hated to grant. a variance if one isn't needed.
Niarhos moved that 15 ft. frontyard setback variance he granted
and a 6 ft. sideyard setback variance be granted due t,o unusual
topographical restrictions of the lot and due to the fact: that.
the way the project has bean proposed, has the least impact on
the surrounding vegetation a.nd the majority of the neighbors.
Shaffran seconded the motion. The motion passed 4 - 1. Gtt17.,
Niarhos, Zanin and Shaffran were in favor. Pearson was apposed.
Case # 87-09 - Carol Farino Lot ~1, Clausen-Pejack Subdivision
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 regitestinn; a
front, side and backyard setback variance as well as a FEtH
variance. Farino showed the Board a site plan of the house. a:: i. t.
already exists. The l.at is zoned R-30. She would-like t:o add a
second fl.onr 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 th.e setback requirements of R-15 and the
allowable FAR, if the easement in her frontyard could he included
in her Lot area. In addition to adding on the second story, sh.e
wanted to build a 2 car garage. She wanted to locate the garage
so as not to block her or her neighbors, the f,eepers, view of
Pyramid Peak. She .Felt it was a hardship for all the homeowners
to have to include the 3-0 ft. easement in their lot areas. A7.1
the neighbors felt. ghat the Easement. should he var.ated for many
reasons, inclc.uiing safety reasons. Smii;h explained the problem
in vacating the easement. is that there are two lets from the Gang
Subdivision ghat use i;he road as their access. Ifie was no Y.
optimistic, antes an alternate mesas of <zccess is provided Fnr
the other people. He also aw a proh7em in granting a 0 lot line
on the se.thack for :the qar^ge. Lindner stated he had shown i-hc~
house to 50 l~rospectivc~ owners, ht.tt no nn<= was interested in
working wif:h thin problem. 'ihe s~ibdivision had been in v~xiestenc-e
fox- 2Q years. Lindner felt the hardship was ghat ao one eves
willing to purcha.sce rc•side~nces of 1n00 square ffet. "lone of the
houses can comply with It-30 zoning, they were created as 1.5;000
4
~~ .. ~. ~_ . ~ ,~. ...._ o, ,.,_
sq. ft. lots and that is how they should be t-reated. Steven
s~zeewas1notlcountedelittdestroyssthetvalueuofathelprdpex•tys het
ff1S0 did not feel it was the intention of the code He continued
that the Larsens were not present, but they fait that"way also.
e should have been written wsetbaclclnl
Gull felt that the cod•ga• aqd~ ft feHe cont~inuedsthataheow~zs~~ mum
allowable square foota ~~ e to
restrict someone to 1400
reluctant to not count the easament in the FAR, or
calculations, because the code is `very specific on that point.'
Smith pointed out that it was a private access road. „Iie_
suggested reducing the easement to what was actually used.
Farino stated_that she understood Smith's concern about the road
,..~o .~~~ , ,_
curving aroundher garage, if she'•~~put~hei^ garageon the lotTine.
There was some discussion about a minimum allowable FAR. Leeper
.. .
explained that he felt the easement_was a hardship. Cu11 felt
that FAR should be tied to lot si.ze~rather t~kian~by zone, similar
to the City's zoning. Gull did not have a problem with PAR, but
did with the garage. Shaffran agreed with Gull that vacating the
easement was not the answer, but the applicant rr,quest ,~•eme~d
reasonable. Smith felt it made sense, it was a liberal
interpretatign of the cgde, that~Ehe Y''AF2 did need tq reflect. the
lot size. Gull stated that he would be comfortable with the
garage if it were slid back to i.he house, nbt recessa`ril.y"cToeer `
to the house but in line with ttte house. ?earson had a problem
with that because she felt all the neighbors would than be maknc;
_..
similar requests. Pearson, asked what ftie hardship was. Giill. anti
..
Niarhos replied downzoning. Pearson questinned that !recaus'e iii
one was sure if the property had been downzoned. Ni_arhgs moved
that a 720 sq. £t. variance to the FAR be F;ranted due. to %he
hardship of the property being downzoned and ghat i;hP }rara~a be
no closer to, the existing 30 ft. road easement that the existing
house is. Zanin seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 - !1.
Niarhos made a motion to adjourn. Pearson seconded the motion.
All were in favor.
Respectfully submitted,
~z"~_c•-ic._i •,~~-=fit°.~r -.--- ----
Secr?tary` Char.rmaa
-~(~~~f------
U3ta
..
2 ., ~,.
Hacienda Ets., Ca..
Mir. 22, 178!2
Mr. Evan. Gull, Cha3rnasr
Pitkin County Board of Adtustment
Aspen, Co. ,,
Dear Mr, Gull,
In answer to your.. notice of, the t~neeting scYzeduled
for Mar, 31 to consider Hufus Croc'~c'ett`~s'"abpYicatfor for "
variances on h;s property next to me ple and of `se"venal
Ellie Brckham the architect of my housease allow
others,in the vicinity, to act as my'proXy ih this meeting.
I,_trixst her Judgment complet:el,y, and she ,is authorized
to act for me in the. matter,
Yours truly, j`~-
Brooks Smith
3211 Cald Prins Dr ..'
FIa.cienda Hts, CA. '~}1'j4~
~~~~~
,a.,,~ .., .. r ~sv~..h.
._
.,
Spiro Niarhos moved that the following be adopted:
BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT„
OF TRfi COUNTY OF PITAIN
STATff OF COLORADO
RESOLUTION N0. 87-08
Rufus Crockett, Lot 13, Block 3, Aspen Grove Subdivision
W$fiREAS, 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 Ti le II, Section
16-1.3, Pitkin County code (Land Use Code) and Colorado Revised
Statutes, 1973, 30-28-11$(2) (C); and,
WHEREAS, based on the evidence presented, the Board of Adjustment
makes the following findings:
1. Proper notice procedures, including the
notification of all adjoining property
owners, has been shown by the applicant.
2, The required hardship or practical difficulty
has been established.
3. Granting such relief will not cause substan-
tial detriment to the public welfare and will
not substantially impair the intent and
purpose of the Zoning Resolutions and the
zoning maps.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the applicant's request for a
15 ft. frontyard setback variance and a 6 ft. sideyard setback
variance be granted due to the unusual topographical restrcfions
of the lot and the project as proposed will have the least impact
on the surrounding vegetation and the majority of the neighbors.
Additional conditions or restrictions:
WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may
result in rehearing and possible revocation.
Kan di Shaffran seconded the adoption of the foregoing Reso-
lution. The roll having been called, the vote was as foLllows;
Evan Gull - yes Joe Zanin - yes
Randi Shaffran - yes Melinda Pearson - no
Spiro Niarhos - yes
The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adju§'tment of `
the County 'of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
DATED: March 31, 1987
Attest:
Secreta4~y
The Board of Adjustment of
Pitkin County, Colorado
~+.e~,h8 Chairman
' ,'
,~
m N'"
~:
~C
~ `~
~• v
0
~_
° `~ ~
~~
d'
'~~'
C~
. v y` ~ \0
I~ _ ~ ~ i
-r. ~' ..--~~ .~ / /
~~_- Iii _l ~~~ _ ~~~^' ~~ ~~ ,~ \~
~.. --~--- -y"^ ..-sue' ~!'-- / / \
~-'' ,•- ..ham '~. i ..- ~-""r. •--'
/' \\ \
_~ - ~ / r R
2,
"-- -'~
r~ S
e`er *~~ `~o
a Re
_ ,o' e~~ , ~ Sao
°, ,~ s F
\__>
o R~
S~
- E
_ ~
J ~ ~ ~~
i c ~~~'~ ~ \\ \
i~ ~ \ \ ~
O QP ^'~.\ ~\\ \\\ ~
\ v ~~_~ \\ \\ \\.
. ---_~ ~
\,
~\
~\
4 ~n
f'\ \
~~~
,- ~ ~ ~_~
\p ~ --'___ ~-t-- _ __s----~\ \\ ~ ~\ ~~~
- _ \ \ \\ \ -
_._- ~ r r \ ~ ~._
1 ~ \ =• .,~
~_ ~ ~ `1,
a'. ~. t~,
?.ot 13 Block 3 , ' ` ~ 1 ~~
aspen Grove Subdivision O,',,,,' ~~ ,,,,, ~ , ! _ ,
.... j .... y.
>itkin Co Colorado ~ ~~g~ ~ ~_ ' ,' w
Scale 1" = 20r Vh'
r?xcerpt from Survey ~~ S~ / /~: <7
Prepared by ~ / S~ / l ~/~, /" ' -~
A7.pine Surveys, Inc. QG~ / //'
-^'opy of Entire Survey Plot Attached ~`L1-('~1
v /~
,/' -~ ,<-~n'
:.. ~ .
~~
Y~
S
O
i
Nh
>.4
.y
~`~~~ a a , . -,~.r,. I.
LdT 13 ~
_ L 1 5 AtRE~ ± ,
-^
~ ~
7
~ ~~~ b
0
Q S1 w
_~ os Q
0
~~
v3 "~
t `~ ~~ 1 ~' ~ ter, ./
Z ~~
^ ~."'
. ~ ^„ -•
t..~~ ^ 1
__./ !.
!^' \
./~~ = :,
_ _- ~. .~--GAIZ~AG~c- faN N~ \
~ ~~ \
,, ~ .
~ ~ ' ~`
I ~ r
~AC_..6E~5CRlP.i~C~
tr
T 13, ~LOGK 3 - 1 i , ,- , ,~
A5PEN GROVE. ~; '' ~t `--...~
I?1SKlt,.i "Co`utaTY Gta~c~i2ib.t~7 "j' ~~' i ~ ~
ya~~; ~
/ u ~ / r
~URV E-Y PREVVa.R E t~ PrY .. ~~ ~k~~'' .~.
A,LA IN E, SURV CY tNf~ ti~tG, „i~ ~ ~ /
ccT 2z t9aL~ ,-~'
UANt~L ~ McKEJ~i'Z18. L~~Otg) ~
_ ~~
N
~~
Y/ /
\OO
0 0°~ ,
h8i~ ~ , i jj ~K~
~~
r
/ij `~
~~
~ ~~~;/i;ii.
/,' ~, '~, <i,
~9 j ;; ~, ~; %%; K
"~%~j 'tom:- ;/
~~i :;~/.
o ,,,, ~
n ~//11~~~i/..Il
„~~ k.:i', ~ ~
-VICINITY MAP
LC~T l3~ P LoGK ~
~ASpEN GROVE 5U6DIVi<jl<
_:p1TKIN G/~UN-CY, CLaLURAG
PPJJ
5i b~NGLE,
k~ ° 355 , ~`~` `;
- -_ ~~ //
cS
~~~
~7
B ~~'~
3 .-
~c 5
'E'j
2.7~/~
..--~ G' ,~~~
4
't'rc 51LI M'`~~ 1 NG
~/L G~
5
~~°~~~~~
F
O
U
h
r0
0'
p
M
4i
b
P
O
O
N
Z
I
SET. ~~ \
•.~\
O
.' ..3`SS2 O
~ ,~\
t
SET
~,, .
,w< . ;'. ~,., 'i ;
6tT
LOT 13
Il~
I
{S
f
I
FOUND:
STONE MONUM
CDR.S M6612(
SET
Il® ..
_... ._... .._. .... :, . ..,. ..~ ....,. Y .~~.. ~ Revisions„. ..,; ._...
{ Q~ If1E $UfVe S Surve ed f3AUG'~I98~~
p y ~ Drattetl IS AUG 1984 °DMc
Post Office Box 1730
Aspen, Colorado 91612
303 925 2688 - 5 /l Cif (9 A'p{'q
- 4~4. lJ fk D'
~3 i
s
z~
on
~~
*_ FI
Ee
~°'
~d
sy
~s
ter.
F
_ S ~ ~
_ i~
/i
/~: i iii i ~ ~ __
i ~ __ __
%~ , _'
.....~ //
' ~, .° %
d~
8
a
n
U
C
~ /~ S
'
~ ~ ~
~/ 4~ ~ N u
U ~t4
~/ L~_
-g
" ~ r n
c bam
'
( y F a
~
~~>+ ¢
~-- c
x
fr
___- a
rs ~
&
„
_
~~L.~i~V1{d~
__, , ,_ .
~ ~
_. _..-,_l~is
~.'~..77"J?Q.~~SZd L~Oe'~ ~ ~ :~*"lel~"" S`Gti-~h Q.. _ ~_---_,
_V ,~ -
/~~ .l~~ J I ,.. ., _ ......_,..a
..~~ pls.-~-,'••~c~~ ~ ,`~
w _-.~
~. _ .w.,, m~. . H...
/' ~, ~l,~_- _:_:
___
..._..
20 ~dY
~.~.~...
W.,m~. _._.:~..~..a~.._...
._. ~~ -_~.~,~ cs.
_. ~..
~~ . _ ~-~,~,~,-~ . ~, -ads `~;~,.~ --,fir:
~.
_.._
_. ` ~~
_.6l. . _
_._... ;.
..__. _..
~,.
__ Qtr '~'at.f.G~-y ,.d$ S~4_ R
_._ _ . ,_.
,.S
~ ~ - . _ r„^-n-...,~,;.w.,.,......&*`++'"~= 1sxw..."S^x;+rz<T:"*z"': i Y, ^'s:~.~...W''.=..~.`:..c; _ ;e. ~';nnx?rrY° »uk~','''cW. ' u h~sac ;•s_;+1~., _
' t ...~ ..._«r, +wl-...-..m *^+x~...x..:..k.rs....w_~» ." -'..,.>..^.,G.~~.~.t~,n .,.r .. ~ , ~ ~ .x, ... ~'' ._....«~.i ~ V_
a'.id'i :~+~i3.:.w... A ~~-?~ • .:, y 1. 4i*ii " S a
-
' --~. _ ,._ _. .. »es. `.+w+s-+u.+ac ..::iv9 "a'4:SH~~"~L.%k, -,-,.w._. N ~ ~:2 ',
ty..~a~
ti/~~' r"~ ~~ ........_...N.._....,~,...11._......__._.. .. -. .t..... .. a .. f, .t ...'i_ .:. .._. ~. ~..__, :..
. ..
~,.._. ..
_.... d8S~sS J
.~
.~
::~:~-
-
__---. - i
-- . ~ :
^._ . _ ry -
~ ~r~`~~ , __ -
.._ _
-. _..., _____..~ ---....5 ~-acrd ,p'arJe4''caE. __
_ ~ __
:~~_ ~ ,~ ,
:~
- - _-._._ w.__ ,
,_,w:
s u'
-.- r_ ... ~_ .~.~...p.,~.-...;.o.~.~w:...a"~e~.w...,..._.~..~..r..._.,.'S."~t..i':i',.~,... ..,..~ _.. ~. r..Wt ~. ~ .i_-...: r~ t - I--:...._«~.
r. ., , ~, .~ .~:.
. .
^„i+'^M-v- ..__w.z..w~..,~~_re„~,,:s~aJ.'-r±Mu4.'vp%~'i=NP::~4'.:s'4~:~:a+=.:vi:"ll'~5'•.+i., ::5 . ~ti
u.. _. ~, ~ r ...:~,
..
_. : ....'
.._._..w..._._ __ ~~ ...x - _.,. .. ~... .. ~~.~ ., ~.. .. t.
... _ , _.... ..~.a. ~ ~
.... „ ...~.... a. ,,...... ~-. i ~~
rv
- ,,.-^....----wµs,:W'-..:wr:..^..:..~:~i...-.v~«=:d:.,:: L`,'.»':s^Y:Y_ •';I ;«, ,..f_„ _; 4 s„' ~. s;~ - '.! s, e' ~ ~' E -, G_w.
~_~, .
..
: i ,
:,., i .
...........,j.t.......-•---._..,....-...iMw.....:.~...:..~._.i...'....:»:.....1+..-!"r--•F::»i.:.c..3;+'.zA..,.a;rx::t.L;~,, 't-_,-a ,- ::
~w
.._....~...,. v. .....__._»~d......_..... ^ a..ew,,; .fir '_, ,..iti ._. ~,., .. ... ..i-. ;.' r :' ~ ~ ~,I'
.. __...n..... ,. I , _ .. ,.~
- ~ i~ ~ ,
1
_.
:
_. ~..,._.,,,:,_,. ~..... _....-!--+--»........' ,:.„. 1..~_*_' '' ...1'~, - - -~`r-,le'..ev£..-':spa. - (~,.y,~ L-°d~2£d: 4 j..':,
- ~ 4 .'~S ;••••=••~bro++-r+.u,n+,-:m.r.,a..+ "x.;.Y.I:azL ttNe?k,I, .._.. I ~n t.~.NP M.'M1w `.`.
. __....__..n._ ..~.. _. .... J., ..
'.,aJ.:....:..}u.ur_..:.. :.. ~ .. .. _..~^ .. , ..'~:'. :. Flu :..ice-.- }; ~v.
S%R
- _ _._ _ ... ................... 4
____ .. - .._.. _ ..F..m-....„.,..:.~a.:«:a.....s.. u__ :-YI. x..,- :~.~,p;;;;,,,[_ 4-..~$L:.;.....-»:~'_'d.'....., 4' ., ._ ..~ a ,yi '!~ I. I - ~ £'.. t.
,,
.~ 1"M *} ~.k..
~1 ~,'''1 .u.. µ ..
.. _ _.,_ ...._.. _ { ...m..r~..;.~n_....u..._+...v..:~wr.,w..u..,:.L..:m..~6d+:i...:: ::.2^, iy~{ '- - J 9' _ ! ~ ~ , pdbt.&
. ~. ~, ..... ~ ~ .f4
_. .......... ... ti. - I -
- .-,-,u ....... .+W -..{.+---+...r+--.....a..M+.+uu+ k. T.~t2 6 ~v.,-l~ic 1,
._ - .._ ~ ' ^
-. .- ..,. -~.-.,.p,.."--....,«..ww....i_.,.~., {_.:,~b '-e.6 '.~.... _, ..x.. J... ~_. r... ~' ,'J.:~ SKI v * ~ ......
,,...-- .. .~ _..-.~--«.=~.r.m«p.:<r~rS#rn '~..`~R@4'..<:'_yu:7.""!:.;_}i,-,', ~y-:.e, ,y~...,,a ~y l,. ~~ ak ~*taa
..:.-~.:x: r. ,: :.. y,
-~-.:.-.ts° -w;:s.~.}k.:::t»..ao-.. >.:" :.;a': Tom' :s:'i'~::.:1=^,i._.. ' ,
- ».~-e«;~...~.~.».....rswr.;.k.. - v ~ y~ l!'at~.s i S 4s .€~. 1 A":..
' -~µ.,r.l,<L;-a.a. ~'~,.'.~:a...~a:.,.o_ikt:~=a,. ,`l,i~a' lhrw~.: A .v . ~,.
='-~^':
__ ., „~ .14 It ~. i.,