HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.87.10^a" .
ti~
~~
~ t/"
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
I
>..
DATE ~ / ~~1~9 ~~7 CASE#~~r 87-10
APPLICANT ~~-rC-~ /~.~~A G[oc/~i .L'=/JeK ADDRESS, 6 ib ~ .sa~`i S'CReec'~
OWNER~oc! ~n=ss~~ ~EENG/C ADDRESS~a76T_C SS oa`s rE~.~u
ea~~o.~a~c`~, cam. ~®~~
LOCATION OF PROPERTY /t7 `/{r E So ~ ~ /~ '@~ P~TK .~ C,ou,/!~ v
~~fiL De-seRy~T.o..> .~ri.~rc/~l~o 'To .s'~u~2v~ / F
« ,~~ ~,~.. . ~ d_-~a~ ~ ~, , a o, a.
Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part
this Case No,_ 87-10
application. if it does not contain all the fact
description of proposed variance s~iowing ,
o ~ .A: ~- o 'X 3a ~ lj~'~1~corf /}.~r.l !3~%/f !r~/~i~`/a~
,b [//Gcf /fr> f~cOcd<~loN 1'LO ~'.C~C°X~s~ia-~ l~caSf
wir,C r,w y-~(~~ sEfib,9~/~ ,~2~~~.i.~E-i-fc~v~s Thr+-7"~ier-sF~TLy rxisf; 4~~
/}z~ .4c-gu~ s~.N~ 7h~ n~T fi~~- f2~.~.e s~T b.~c/l fs~ ~r-~~~~~ ~b
/o F'T, ~} N ~ fiC k ~- 7~~s- sever" sr7- bn?~,~ b~' R~~'u ~ ~ o ~` ° 5~/ ~%.
The board may return this
in question. Applicant's
jListification: ~~~~fj~,~
.T~ l~9 fi"JpoSS/~LcT 7~'0
7'hL~p/~~$s~..~f ~~A2 y~a.e~sFT6.~r%rs' =~~~/,~°T, ~}.~G/~'s
A~J r~c~~ ?o /F ~'-er~9L~ ~~s-7'v.2
~~ ~,
Applicant Signatur
-k~~b V '~C'K
Provisions of the zoning resolution. requiring the Building Inspector to
forward this application to the Board of_Adjustment and reason foz not
granting a buiding permit:
~~e\~r._~ ~s ~o e0.~k-e,.c~. iw 'RS-30 2..~w--e.. , ~4~~~5 ~ei~
V.,;as ~Sc~ Q-~-~:r~ ~ c~i.ocysV~ Zow~~ ~S~ ~o zow2 ~U,1Rrz,s
~ c~c~ ' -~ `~~ow'~ yClfZC~ SQ~ki ~Dcd,~~ e jC~ Scr,~-Q, l~o.(~LC~
~o '-~' nom ~--`c~..~d. ~~5~• VV
`1 k~s c,,~P\ocs,,,,~ ~ts !RQ~~s~:~ c. -~~c~3. ~ ~.-~.. ~c~t~c~. ~ ~'-
Building Inspector
Date Permit rejected: Board decision
Application filed Date
Mailed
Secretary Board of Adjustmeht
~~~~~~~~
•aw,.vq/~ ... ... ,.. ':'. ..... s ...~. . vn .c .. ~'. >..,... n a{:1.< UA .. .~ xhe yeku H4Yink
i
~N ..y p. .'. aZ" `:.". y ':. .'bn wf ~.~. ~ .'.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE PITI{IN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT,,
TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING, OR USE.
VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW:
Pursuant to Pitkin County Resolution of June 5, 1955, as
amended, a Public Hearing will be held in 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 7,oning 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 THE HEARING AND OF THE REQUESTED. VARIANCE ARE.
AS FOLLOWS:
Date and time of meeting: April 28, 1987 at 5;15 p.m.
Name and Address. of Applicant for Variance:
Carl and Lou Klenck
1076 E. Sopris Creek Road
Carbondale, CO $1623
Location of Property or Description:
1076 fi. Sopris Creek Road
Carbondale, CO 81623
Variance Requested:
40'Rearyard Setback Variance
9' Sideyard Setback Variance.
Duration of Variance: .Permanent: XX :Temporary
Condition:
THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Evan Gull, Chairman
e {Y 8F~11 ~
!?oarul oO Acl~merLth
'.
Aj~~?.rrinth: Ctrrre ayul Loa,_. ,..,
lh,~ ~'o~2ocainr~! .ice a .~i~f_ Q_' arL~acen.~ f'2Ot''"~~ o~2s us+~flLira 3D0 G_~. qB
Wait n2o~o~c.~1~:
L~, %'~oQn~ ~cvysmcut
840 N~ea.tJ~~ %2oad
!?ee~,i.e?sl, .~~2no.vs 6G0~5
LocLi.e L~ae~trcea
i~,U. ['3oz 71.5:.._
~ P.t, Co.Pvnado &' 9621
r~ae UuwG~~
999 i3. k'iutno~ Lai,+'+zv,~ Lent~!+-
R.S~wi., Co:~oiusclo &1611
GI.i..P~'iam U. f2nclv~z
0191 k1, SA~ULii3 Gc?.¢h l~2d.
~<irr~,gnrlrc fie, ~o pocarlo b'16Z3
C.eou~e PJ?1.vn~ut.
°1108 ~". Jo~iuh Gw,PJ?..'~l.
Ccu~P.onr/ri,2e., Co.!?ou~r1A 81623.....,
~°f'!i !!Jcu?voo21
13~613opne
i7~ Le<c, Sow 5027 9
,...~----..:---~. :, , ..:. , .::: ,,., ;.:. .. ,., x,.,,,, , k,..; n~~.tuv 5~~;:y '~'^: '~''v~.3Y:. ~:."pucJ+~s~`W,''~i",`•F
~. ~ ..
.w
Minutes
Pitkin County
Board of Adjustment
April 28, 1987
Members Present: Evan Gull, Chairman
§piro Niarhos'
Melinda Pearson
Joe Zanin
Alternate„Members Present Peter Dobrovolpy
_.. _, ,.. ~ Bob""~~i11er.
Peggy Seeger, Zoning Official was present to give staff recommen-
dations.
Gull calRed the meeting to order. There were fourisets of
minutes before the Board, includiag one set from 1985 that tied
never been signed. Zanin moved to approve the minutes of
September 24, 198, J'anuar'y 27, 19$7F''ebruary 24, 1987 and March
31, 1987. Miller seconded the motion All were i;n favor
Gull reminded the applicants of ,t he requirement that the notice
sign be posted in accordance with the regulations..,
case m o~-ice - ., .
Both applicants we~"e~`""p~`ti""e`sent. They were req~0sf a.ng side and
rearyard setbacks for an addition of a bedroom and~ba~h a•Their
,, .~ ,~..
property is located in an RS 30 7one•, affected try doainzoning:"
Mr. Klenck began that the logical place~to built an addition is
the place where the setback is already encroached,on, He wanted
to reduce the rearyard setback t~o l0 ft and the §ideyard setback
. ,~
to 40 ft. in order to put the size addition that they 'wanted.
He showed the Board members some pictures bf the douse and the
lot. Dobrovolny pointed out that the date"on the'Klencks sign is
wrong. It had the meeting listed as May 8th "Do{~rovolny
continue d, that the reason he knew the sign was wrong was because
he lives above their lot and drives by it every day. tie stated
he was familiar with„the house-and it is the only''logical place
to add on to the house. Gull asked Seeger how large a parcel in
an RS-30 zone should be. Seeger "replied 30 acres. The Klenck's
lot is about 2 acres. Gull asked what the AF 2 zone setbacks
m ,,. ,
thatdheewasSnoteespecially7concerned fit. and 20 f't. G~'ull stated
• about the rearyard setback
considering the infringement that t„ already there. He wa., more
• setback. Dobrovolny explained the
concerned about the sideyaLd t
he rented the lot directly above which was a 2 acre lot and the
..
house on it is situated as high up nn the lot as possible,
"`""`"~' .,o it's a long way awe
probably infringing on its setbmack, y•
Mrs. Klenck stated that there is a very steep embankment at the
., ,.. r
., _ .~, .. ,. ~ C ~ err
.._ ,.-. _., >,,:_,. 1,. ~•'., .. :aL .. Y,. ,,., t. .~rv.w-.?k wik7 ~t`1'7"s.~. .rz :~^3.4~i }m~.,.~.Tfih ~. v5~4i. ~' .~E'~T'.`.a;
s~ . ~,,
edge of the property line, so there is a very definite division
between the properties. Niarhos asked where the"o£her ad,7acent
lots were located. Klenck and Dobrovolny showed tie Board.
Pearson asked about the property owners"'to the North. 'Mrs.
Klenck stated that she had spoken to and shown the location of
the proposed addition to all of the neighbors, except` onP who was
...,
out of town. Pearson was concerned 'because"'of the„inaccurate,,,
date on the sign. Gull ;replied that they did not have ;any
complaints on file. Zanin moved that a variance be granted of
39"ft. to the rearyard setback and 9 ft to the sdzeyard setback,
passed.do5nzo0ningDobrovolny was~theaal~'erna`fe wotinge motion,
Case # $7-11 - Mollie Favour and Brad Miller 406 Twining Flats
Ha. ... ~.~.,.
t~e~xm ,e~.^ ..»msaW~,~w. ~c ~.~ia~F+~4iet.K..„x?`rcmr.s _"~a,n ,~n5 .~9~aaN~uc z~~.1.w,,,, xX Both applicants were present. They were requesting a
frontyard setback variance and a sideyard setback variance to
build a 1900 sq. ft. single family dwel"ling'within 30 f£. of the
road. The property is zoned AF-1. Favour explained that it is
impossible to build anywhere on ~.,~ ft from the
' ~
a ~ acre lot,
150ditbealong the-...rover s..parttof"titl~stalong~ergeeey~ry.. ,.,F..rc.~.,.
ay 82 and
Twining Flats Road cuts across the lot. Mi xplained the
topography of the lot. He also explained that there is a log
structure on the lot, built by Paul Dudley, it does not have
plumbing. They said they would like to keep up the dwelling for
storage and a workshop. Seeger stated that it was checked today.
It is not a legal dwelling. Gull asked about theownership of
the road,. Miller. explained that there was an easement for the
s"•ub'c~'iyision,
road. He continued the Twining Flats area is not,a
but there are about 13~lots`'°'in~that~"area'ahd many of them ace"~
close to the road. Zarin mentioned that in that area there have
been a lot of variances granted because"tlie lots run steeply to
the river. Dobrovolny asked if the road was not a"public road,
but just an easement, wasn't all they need would f~~e a frontyard
setback variance. Seeger replied that she had been instructed by
the County Attorney, that all surface easements must be deducted
from the lot area for setback measurements Seeger suggested
that the variance„be measured from the center line of the roa~3,
which was the only thing tha was p1af:°fed." Niarhos made a
motion to approve a 35 ft. frontyard setback variance with the
additional condition that the house be built no closer than 30
ft. from the platted centerline and a 30 ft. si"d;eyard setback
motioncwasupassedow~zonOnb`•Millerswassthenalterna;teovoting"'The
_ 4 chlumberger - 2605 Doc Henry Ho_ad
Case Th873pplicanttwasS'pr'"es~e~n"t. He was requesting a 7 ft. height
newrbarnsthathwasthelittleflar~*er hnddtolgett~heepitchlrequhred
by code, which is over 3-12, he would need the additional 7 ft,
.....wt»a v~.krMs~,~s>,. s+~a..w,.~£.;i:=,~.im„m~ r.~~r~s~...at. "~?. _~ .+;
.. ., ..
Gull asked Seeger for the definition of a barn. Seeger replied
that; in the RS-20, RS-30, RS-160 zones, a barn caa ~e a's'tall as
a house. In the other zones, accessory structures, including
barns can. only be as tall as 12 ft. Gull asked how big the lot
was. Schlumberger replied 3 acres., After some discussion about,
past variances for agricultural use, Dobrovolny moved "th'a£`a{"7
ft. height variance be granted in order to construct a barn/hay.,
storage building, that can't properly be used and creates a
hardship for the agricultural operation without the increased
.;. -
Dobrovolnylwasotheealternateevotngh. The motion passed. 5 0
v a a c n ~. ~ ., ., ,,. -._
Zanin` explained `that he wofild be abstaining rom 'voting on
this case. The applicant was presentµwit~i ~is w,if;e, Mary Price
and their lawyer, Jeremy Berstein. They were requesting a 70 ft.
frontyard setback variance Their lot is zoned AF-1, which
requires a 100 ft: frontyar'd se~'back; 30` f£": "~sideyard setbacks
and 30 ft. rearyard setback. Price showed the Board a model of,
the house and explained why they wanted to locate ,the house where
the did. They would like to tuck t ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~„~ ,_,
they would not look directly into thhe house back on the lot, so`
y • " they would
~~ ~ e house nex~~~~oor,
have more privacy'as well as their neighbors and it would` `
appreciate. the value of both properties. He continued Ghat if
_..
the driveway came off of Eppley they would not need a variance.
If the driveway came from where ,they would like to locate it,
they would need a variance The reasons for locating; the
. xi . ,rm x.:-.,r. .... .. ..
-, ..
driveway there would ,for safe`t`y, it would be a much FTat'ter
driveway. He also pointed out that by locating the house where
they wanted to, it would be less obtrusive to the, houses that
would be built above theirs in the future. Dobrovolny and Gull
pointed out,that they would be"unable to conform_,V~°.eady beent~oard
setback in either case. Gull asked if they had a
tihe Starwood Homeowners Assoc}.anon and been approved. Mrs.
" .,
Price replied that they were in the mid~'stT'of~3t. Gull -asked if
their plans comply with the building envelopes that were speci-
fied. Price replied that they didn't specify an envelope, they
couldn't. find the stakes. Ellie Brekham asake~ if they had
found the stake. Zanin'replied'th~at ii'`t~`iey ~o by the survey,
they couldn't find the stake, they would he about 3 ft. nut of
the envelope, to move th,e house the 3 ft., they wbuld have"£o cut
down a large group of aspen trees. "Bric'kham explained that she
was representing Dr. Bernstein. He objecfs to it, because the
,.,:" ,s,„.. e
Homeowne
was ob ' e ~ ~, i -.
cting because they had not approved the design ar t:~hc
site of thehhauseot f3Ppckham replheuse. Niarhos asked her i
' d the design. Bernstein
interjected and asked Bric}sham: in what capacity w'as she appear-
ing. She replied that she was representing br. B"erri"stein and the
Starwood Homeowners Board. Niarhos asked if she 'was ohjecting'to
the height or the site of the building. Brickham, replied the
height. Niarhgs explained that they ware-here to approve the
location of the building and would not be granting any variances
_... -~------'- -•-^--_- ~..,. y„ ..,;.:, yv..,,6;, ., o^,,,,,.. ;'. .«w 4u+.w."~ ~.zi9*& +wL aM`M~fi°~".Y ~~~SY~w.+~'
~~ ,~
... y. '~. a. o .~. s. ~ .. _. :. r. ~ ..;-r
eea . «. ~ ....k knrv 3p. „v o. ,. Ya .~- p=~
for the height of the building. Gull asked her if the Stanwood #
Homeowners restrictions were more restrictive than. the County.
Brickham replied that they were not. 'Pear"son asked if the
neighbor objected to the proximity of the house to his. Brickham ,
replied that he was. She also brought up the £act,that the
Stanwood Homeowners did not receave`notice of the meeting and
the. sign posted on_the property 'had the wrong date'on it
(4/21/87). Gull asked if Dr, _Bernsten had received the written
` orrect date on it. ~~ric'kham replied that lie
notice wat t e c
d that they"could not see 'the sign on the
had. She objecte
property. Zanin stated that the sign was placed at the entrance
of the driveway. Gull's interpretation was that there had been,
adequate notice, the sign with the meeting date listed as one
week early, would give an interested neighbor time, to pursue the
meeting and find out the new date. Gull continued that the
homeowners had received legal notice, the sign had been posted,
and' that in the future the .policy of notifying Homeowner's
Associations as a courtesy would be reinstated. There werewno
further comments. Pearson moved that a 70 ft. frontyard setback
variance be granted due ta~d~ownzoning. Niarh'os seconded th
re
motion. The motion passed 5MI-~`0. Dobrovolny and~Mil.ler wee
voting. Zanin abstained.
case ~ ~i-14 - uui,alu n. .,, ~ ...~
The applicant 'was pies"e'rit He was `r"e questing a height
vrolerty is zoned 'AFtltheCramersbegannthatrhe wantedrto build a
P P '
barn to store 6,000 to 8,000 bales of hay, and it would require
that height, because the stack wagon would requirq, that height to
tip, also a building to store that much hay would he huge at 12
ft. in height. Gull asked the applicant the size. of his prop-
d that a 3 ft. 6 in.
erty. He replied 310 acres. Niarhos move
height variance be granted for a hay barn due to the hardships
imposed by the code on an ongoing agricultural use, which would
require a building of this size to accommodate normal power
equipment used for this .operation. Zanin seconded the motion.
_ e voting.
The motion passed 5 0, Miller was. the alternat
case s n~-io - a~uc, „a~~ ~ ~ ~,~.... ..-__.. .._--
_. _.,~
Yvonne fTall was present: "`fihe lot was"zoned .?+F=1, which
a 30 ft. rearyard setback. The lot was 88 acre The applicant
wasurequesOtOngt.setbackavarianceskto~30onstructeaagarage~acCiiln'~
asked why the applicant didn't move the garage closer to the
house and avoid the sideyard setback problem. Hall had spoken 'to
_. _ ..., _
a plans examiner at the building Department and was told she
would require a 1-hr. fire-rated wall. PearsonRmro"ved that a 7
ft. frontyard setback variance and 3 ft. sideyard settiaok
variance be granted due to downzonng to build a garage. Zanin
seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 - 0. Dobrovolny was
the alternate voting.
~.
s.
,_. .... r. , .. , , was, , ~~ , „_. ~au~ ,~..,~,~ ,
.<.
•
,, ,.
of Red Mountain ,
Pete Van Dome an
The applicant was present with her lawyer the house, i•
The applicant was requesting a 4 ft. sideyard setback variance
for a residence whsch was constructed in 1978. Van Domelan n
explained"that'~$eldman is %n the proces's'of selling
connection with that, the purchaser had requested an improvement
survey. It was discovered that the northwestern setback line is:
~.
in violation. This lot is zoned R-30, whi~cfi requires a 15 ft.
sideyard line and "t lie"s'etback is noia'll.l ft. He researched the
records of the Building Department an,d the sideyard setback was
approved, there ig a notation: "zoned R-30 PUD" from Patsy
' .... _,,. .~,. lY the
sameuas thehnewlo~e laVanhDomelanscouldtnottresentedwtohproblem
explanation of'w~`~'it had happened but' it is causing a the
with the potential purchaser. Van Domelan p
Board, two letters from neighbors suppor~Ming Heldman. Gull read"
both into ,the record. The first was .from Tames E. Moore, the
owner of Lot 2, the adjacent lob on the east side,' stating that
the setback. variance did not pose problems for him. The other
----« _-••• staving" that
was a note from Gretchen Gorog"-the owner .of Lot 1,
they also had no problem with the setback variance Seeger
explained that this was not for an addition; bud yin order for
everything to be settled an d,clear~for the. new owner Zanin made,
the motion to grant a 4 ft. sid`ey"ard"'se~~back"variance to accom-
modate the existing encroachment shown o
_. _, ,.. ., Vn the OlatDobDovolnylwas
seconded the motion. The motion passed.
the alternate voting.
if there
At the request of Seeger, Gull asked the Board members
were any objections to rescheduling the next meeting for June 2
1987, due to Onsgard s scheduled vacationw There were no
>„ .....
n: .~, ..row .~
objections.
Niarhos moved that the meeting be adjourned Zann seconded t e
motion. All were in favor.
Respectfully submitted,
~,
Secretary
..
-`° ~°~ Chairman'
,:
,.,, .... ,.:., . ,.. . ,_,> ~s, n~,,.,.5: ar,A,rma.a3~+z~~s ~ zr,r; ,.xx.=.~~'..!tau'~..<.~.'~:arc.:'^$~#%.~m~%~'..~"`~rn"~.`~,'~'1 ~.`~~.~,
.,
:Joe 7anin moved that the following be adopted:
BEFORE THE NOA$P7 ~,~;".1~~~~'~"p"~;s w~-_~,.w~~~~,x~z,-N>.~ ~,_:,.~si 4,~...,~,.,~te
OF THE' COIINTY"bh'" P~'TI~'N" ,x.,~.~ .~.>::f~ ., ,,_,t.,._ „~ ~, .~_,,, A .,,~xw,.,~
STATE"fix' COL~OR~1D~,.~~ .K~.. _,,~,.. ...i .,. ...._. ~. _ , ..~:_::~,
RBSOLUTION N0 .' 87-10
Carl ahd Lou Klenck, 1076'fi. Sopris Creek Road
WHEREAS, the subject property is within the unincorporated area
of Pitkin County, Colorado; afid,
WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment is vested with the power to
grant or deny such variances by virtue of Ttle'TI," Section
16-1.3, Pitkin 'Coun£y co' (Land ~(Jse~'~Code} and Colorado `Revised
Statutes, 1'973, `3"6 ~$-"~jg(Zj"' ~'~~ ~ and,
WHEREAS, baked on~~~the evidence pres`e~tited, the Board of Adjustment
makes the following findings:
1• Proper notice procedures, including the
notification of all adjc,inng property"
owner's, has been shown b'y the applicant.
2. The required hardship or `p"fnctical 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, THERE~'QRE, BE IT RE"S"6~V~"j~`w'that'the applicant's~requejs't~for~~a-~„~ ;^,~ _ .~;~:,
39 ft. rearyard setback and a 9 ft, sideyard setback variance was
granted due, to downzonng.
Additional conditions or"restrictions '
WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution maq
result"in rehearing and possible revocation.
Niarhos seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The
roll having been called, the vote was as follows:
Evan Gull - yes Joe 2anin - yes
Spiro Niarhos = yes ,,~, .
Melinda Pearson - yes'- Peter 13o`b"rovolny - yes
y on was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of
the Countutof Pitkin, State of q`olorado.
DATED: June
Z' 1987 The Board of Adjustment of
Ptkin County, Colorado
Attest:
':3C~..u-~ cam-- ~-
Secretar
- . , ~, ...
_ ~