The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutpitkin.boa.87.12BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT -. ~' -_. " ., T:~ t~ta 19 X5'7 CASE's 87-12 DA.c. ,.,... ,• o .. . ww w ADDRESS ,. ,... ~ .., , MM S ch lu h ~ e~ 3~ Cam- ~, APPLICANT,,ryry~~~"IIIGr ~ „.. ,,,w _ 43JX a~,, ~ ~i6bF OWNER ~ /P¢;~'!r C,i _,l~a~.,n,/" -t milYl,f., SCI~IIUM~r~/ADDRESS." ~ v ~i~'''' ~/ LOCATION OF PROPERTY ~6d~ ~t'VCJ C(1C~1 ~~/`~ W00(~~ C7~Cf~-- ~. ~ i~~`~ ale part y nt data must accompany this application, and~will be m ` An pertine s'Y this Case No. 87-12 The Board may return this application if it does not contain all the fact PP •P P P. 4 In question. A licant s descri tion of ro osed variance showin justification: ~, ? ~ Ucvoance~ t~ needed'- ~p ob~ta~JV a- ~- l~ r0~ p ~~c ~. - ~ ~s ~'o a ccr~mod~-~ a s-F-c~.~- r~ - ~'~ rnc~c~- -fhQ-- -ex~ ~~~ ~~ ~-IvUC~hu Tcs an~- -~-he.. pro~~~ . Pva-~,~ ~ur~ ~~vcfure--P ~e~pfuceme,vF SmaeF, del-i'nc~~+n~ fqu~P~~" andr ha ~P'ani - w a- n,~u~ layer' iQ,2. f~~-r~-• ,- Ap is g Provisions, of the zoning resolution requiring the Building Ins;~ector to forward this application to the Board of Adjustment ands sn9 ~ not arar,ting a buidingpermit: ~ 4lt s ~ i=~tye~ is `~.e~ 1~~-~ i ~,~r.~r~.e.3:~1 R~~ sue. Building Inspec o ~n Board decision Dat_ emit rejected: _. Date Appli~a ion ~i1ea ;ta; 1 ed Secretary'BOard of Adjustment C~a~Cs~P~'?~ ~~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PITKIN,.COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNfiR5„AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED LON1N6 L~H u5h .. wu. .„... ,mw..w~«»~r,a~avruwd+.:ms~.a.~:w;ril~rx w»+Mht«~,O,SG i.t m.~i; al)m.^,t=v 9~'*'. VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW_:;,_ Pursuant to Pitkin Count Resolution of June 5 1955, Y ,,. _,.. ~ a s amended, a PuD1ic Hearing will-be held_in the County Commissioners Room, Pitkin Gaunty Court House, Aspen, Colorado, .. (or at such, other place as the meeting m'ay then be adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjus''tm~en£ requesting authority for variance from the provisions af`the County Zoni;ngResolutien, A11 persons affected. by the proposed variance are inyited,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, par`~cularly~if"you"have objec'fion `to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to t_he opinions of surrounding property owners and ' g equest, other affected in decidn whether to grant or deny the r for variance. THfi PARTICULARS OF.,,,THE,_HEARING,AND OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE ARE ,., r. ~.,..,,,. , ~ N ~ , .,~. ,~.....„,~r 7>..~,o ~,~ .. ~ ~ ~, :~..~~: AS FOLLOWS i, ' , Date and time of meeting: April 28, 1987 at 5: T5 p.m. Name and Address; of Applicant for Variance: Martin and Mimi Schlumberger "' P.O. Bax 223 Woody Creek, C0 81656 , Location of Property or Description: 2605 .Doc Henry Road Woody Creek, CO 81656 Variance Requested: 7' Height Variance _ ' Duration of Variance: Permanent: XX ;Temporary Condition: TAE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT G~'~...~-~ ~~1~ _... 4 i Evan Gull, Chairman ®~~~~~~ .„. ..„~ ~-. ..., .. x:.. r. . ...~wd'.,.,a'1.~.bz*s#~~~... s~~aA?~i 5h.i,:Ek'}~:xxa°a,~ttN.tti'~S'-#+b» „N.,~;x, _.„,~, .rds.S~ ~ ,, ~. ~~ ,~~ ~~Y~Pl-f _' ~~ wn.4y~ 't ~ a~~o ~'G 1~,~,i P_~.L.. /~ G-~.~r~~ Rye~~ lu,.~ r~ . ; f ;, p D q~ Ja ~=th.- C7 ci.~n.. ~ ~ - ~~noei. ~t~ 9~~~aq I .,. ~ ry,. i, F~ .i i ~ > r <._ ~.,.; ~ kf~ " I i,... ~ ~~ r. ,. s.f ~ _.. ~ i ~ ., i ~. .. ~ ~ ,- i' -J Q.C~IZi~e i ~'u _ - ., ~d ii ~, ~~', ', .. ... '. ', ',. ~ ~ (~ 5ha'cn.- NirGZ5~171~~AcE~ FtGCk ~, fox a~ i~. ~ ~ ~ ., S~tnEr k. Sc~ob~r~lf~rv . i{ , (,iS'illpanl,- r Schob~~-Ce~r~:~ ;; r}_ {~ i .. x i-I v "{,~ I ~{ I ~~ ~, ., .il. ..n. dr i ...._ Y i ~ 1 ......~ ~ ' ti . ~ ~' - ~ j ~s'i~a.~ s. 3.s~27 1\ IiR.9, C^~.~ ._ ,,, . Y+, , i„ '. S .r. Cif°(~Qf33 ~; ; F .{.-_ ' '. P~ \~ ~~ .. ~' `~. `'< ,,t '< t, ~aP C~ G~ ate, f- I~t~.7, !_3;~.r ~c't'c. ~. ~t- lrU .. ~ FiGCt&~ Fr,. i G°f .. ,. .,~ ~ j ~ •.-~ ~ .. ~; }: r i xi,b }.. F,I '~'- v;;r i i~~~~ i " ,~ Minutes Pitkin County Board of Adjustment April 28, 1987 Members Present: Evan Gull, Chairman Spiro Niarhos Melinda Pearson Joe Zanin Alternate Members Present: Peter Dobrovolny Bob 'Miller Peggy Seeger, Zoning Official was present to give staff recommen- dations. Gull called the meeting to order. There were four sets of minutes before the Board, including one set from 1985 that had never been signed. Zanin moved to approve the minutes o£ September 24, 1985, January 27,'1987, February 24, 1987 and March 31, 1987. Miller seconded the motion.. All were in favor., Gull reminded the applicants of the requirement that the notice sign be posted in accordance with the regulations.` " case ~ n~c-iu - cart ana Lou nLencx - loco n. ~ovris creex na. Both applicants were present".~ `"'They we're"requestiri'g 'si3e'a'nd rearyard sethacks for an addition of a bedroom and bath, Their property is located in an RS-30 zone, affected by downzoning. Mr. Klenck began that the logical place to built an addition is the place where the setback is already encroached'on. He wanted to reduc',e the rearyard setback to 10 ft. and the sideyard setback to 40 ft. in order to put the size addition that they wanted. He showed the Board members some„pictures pf the house and the, lot. Dobrovolny pointed out' that the date on the'"Klencks sign is wrong. It had the meeting listed as May 8th. Dobrovolny continued that the reason.. he knew the sign was wrong was because he lives above their lot and drives by it every day. He 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-Z `z one setbacks would be. Seeger replied 75 ft., 20 ft. and 20 ft. Gull stated that he was not especially concerned about the rearyard setback considering the infringement that is already there. He was more concerned about the sideyard setback. Dobrovolny explained that he rented the lot directly above which was a 2 a'dre lot and the house on it is situated as high up on the lot as possible, probably infringing on its setback, so it's a long way away. Mrs. Kle,,nr_k stated that there is a very steep embankment at the ~. .. edge. of the property line, so there is a very defi between the properties. Niarhos asked w erne the o lots were located. Klenck and Dob~ro~volny s~owe~'~t ~~ _ ,,,.: Pearson asked about Lne pr ~r=• ~y ~^••~• ~ °- °--- - - ._,. d't'~iat"""she had spoken to and shown the Klenck state the proposed addition to all of the neighbors, exc out of town. Pearson was concerned because. of the date on the sign. '''dull rep~'ied""that "they did not" complaints on file. Zanin moved that a variance 39 ft. to the rearyard setback and 9 ft to the si due to downzoning. Niarhos seconded "the motion passed. 5 - 0. bobrovolny was the alternate voti to division er 'adjacent Mrs. • ,_,~... ocaton of ~. t one wfio-was naccurate ve any granted of yard setback e motion R t .~ Both a plicants were present. T ey were reque nu. ..... .:, sting a frontyard setback variance and a sideyard setback variance to build a 1900 sq. ft. single family dwelling within 30 ft. of the road. The property is zoned AF 1 Favour ,explained that it is roadssbece to build anywhere on the lot and be 1004ft. from-the ause the lot is not that wide They have a 3 acre lot; 150 ft. along the river, part. of~it is aI'ong Highway II2 and Twining Flats Road cuts,_across the lot Miller explained the topography of the lot. He also explain°e'd that there is a log structure on the lot, built by Paul D"udley, 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 the,ownersh`ipwof the road. Miller explained that there was an easement for the road. He continued the Twining Flats area is not`''a 'subdivision,, :,n,. but there are about 13 lots in that area"and many of them are close to the road. Zanin mentioned that in that area there have been a lot of variances, granted because the lots run steeply 't°o'- " the river. Dobrovolny asked if the road was not a public road, but just an easement, wasn't all they need-would be a frontyard setback variance. Seeger replied that she had beef Lnsfructed by the Coucety Attorney, that all surface easements must be ded'ucte'd from the lot area for setback measurements;,, Seeger suggested that the variance be measur_ad frometbe.buil ante with the motionwto approveyat35nftt~frontYardasetbackrvarihosfma~de a'o3d, t no additional condition that the hous closer than 0 ft. from the platted center line and a 30 ft. sid;eyard setback variance clue to down2oni J., ,.. _t_..,. motion was passed. 5 - pug Pearson seconded the motion The Miller was the alternate vot'in~g. Cas ware # 87-12 - Martin Sc um er er place The applicant was present. HP was requestin ht fiance to get a 4-12 roof pitch. Schlumber er fined that e was a shed there now, which he'd like to reexplatfwithea• they new barn that was a little larger and to get the pitch required by code, which is over 3-I2, he would need the additional 7 ft. Y~ M1~~ ~;~y~~., !. I - - ili v .~.. v. r . ~ 4 uY ~lw^Sv fame m rV{ RY ryiF vFrhV'l.veuY~.~uwb~ r.. ~NSbnhr~Y~S A!YJ.MFnR13. tr~MWT3 .. Gull ask, g n. Seeger replied ed See er for the definition of_a bar s ahhouse.,thInRtheOother302ones-laOcessory structures,brnclud~ng a barns can only be as tall as 12 ft. Gull asked how big the lot was. Srhlumberger replied 3 acres. After some discussion about past variances for agricultural use, Dobrovolny moved that ~ 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 t,fie increased height. Niarhos seconded the motion. The motion ',passed. 5 - 0. Dobrovolny was the alternate voting. vase ~ ur-13 - ueax rrice Loc n-no acarwouu auouivisivn Zanin explained that he "v"rould 6'e abstain'ing fr'am'voting o`n ` this case. The applicant was present with his wife, Mary Price and their lawyer, Jeremy Berstein. They were requesting a 70 ft. frontyard setback variance. Their lot is zoned AF-l, which requires a 100 ft. frontyard setback, 30 ft. 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 they did. They would like to tuck the house back, on the lot, so they worild not look directly into the house next door, they would have more privacy as well as their neighbors andxt would appreciate the value of both properties. He continued that 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 driveway there would for safety', it would be a much flatter 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 to the frontyard setback in either case. Gull asked if they had already been to the 5tarwood Homeowners Association and been approved. Mrs. their plansecomply whth theebuildhngmenvelopestthatuweresspeci Pied. Price replied that they didn't specify an envelope, they couldn't find the stakes. E11ie Brickham asked if they had found the stake. Zanin replied', that if they go by the survey, they couldn't. find the stake, they would he about,3 ft. out of the envelope, to move the house the 3 ft., they would have to cut down a large group of aspen trees. Brickham explained that she was representing Dr. Bernstein. He objects to it, because the Homeowners have not approved .the house. Niarhos asked her if he was objecting because they had not approved the design or the site of the house. Brickham replied the design. 'Bernstein interjected and asked Brickham in what capacity was she appear- ing. She replied that she was representing Dr. Bernstein and the Starwood Homeowners Board. Niarhos asked if she wa`s olijecting'to the height or the site of the building. Brickham replied the height. Niarhos explained that they were here to approve the location of the building and would not he granting a.ny variances 3 . x for the height of the building. Gull asked her if the Starwood Homeowners restrictions were more restrictive than the„Qounty. Brickham replied that they were not. Pearson asked if the neighbor objected to the proximity of the house to his. Brickham replied that he was. She also brought up the fact that the Starwood Homeowners did. not receive notice of the meeting and the sign posted on the property had the wrong date on it (4/21/8'7). Gull asked if Dr. Bernstein had received the written notice faith the correct date. on it. Brickham„replied that he had. She objected that they could not see the sign on the 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 lasted as one week early, would give an interested neighbor time to pursue the meeting and find out the new date. Gull continued that ,t he 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 were nn, further comments. Pearson moved that a 70 ft. frontyard setback variance be granted due to downzoning. Niarhos seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 - 0. Dobrovolny and Miller were voting. Zanin abstained. Case # 87-14 - Donald K. Cramer' River Road The applicant was present. He was requesting a height variance to 21'-6" at the highest point for a hay barn. The property is zoned AF-1. Cramer began that h`e wanted to build a barn to, tore 6,000 to 8,000 bales of hay, and it would require that height, because the stack wagon would require that height to tip, also a building to store that much hay would be huge at 12 ft. in height. Gull asked the applicant the size of hxs prop- erty. He replied 310 acres. Niarhos moved that a `J- ft. 6 in. height variance be granted for a hay barn due to the hardships imposed by the code on an ongoing agricultural us'e, which would require a building of this size to accommodate. normal power equipment used for this operation. Zanin seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 - 0. Miller was the alternate voting. Case # 87-15 - Stan Hall 0550 Holland hills Road Yvonne Hall was present. The "Tot"was zoned"A`F-l, which requires 100 ft. frontyard setback, 30 ft. sideyard setbacks and a 30 ft.' rearyard setback. The lot was .88 acre. The applicant was requesting setback variances to construct a garage. Gull 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. Pearson moved that a 7 ft. frontyard setback variance rind 3 ft. sideyard setback variance be granted due to downzoning to build a garage. Zanin seconded the motion,, The mot.ign passed 5 - 0. Dobrovolny was the alternate voting. 4 _. ,.,_ ,. ~ , ..A.~, . , . ,. ~.~ w of Red Mountain The applicant° ca'as `pres""ent wit The applicant was requesting a 4 ft for a residence which was constr explained that Heldman is in the connection with that, the~purch~a survey. It was discovered that in violation. This lot is zoneT sideyard line and theq setback is records of the Building"Depar"tm'e approved, there is a notation: " Newbury. The site plan that was her lawyer, Pete Van Domelan,. sideyard setback variance ~cess'"of?sellingn~Dheehouse, in ~iad requested an improvement, northwestern setback line is 0; whic"h~r"e quires a'`15 ft. i`11 I ft He Y'esearched the.. ~_ ~"'~._xxos"r`, ~n""v:irii" se`tb`a'ck was zoned .~. from Patsy is~ exact'ly the same as the new one Van Domelan could not come up witq an uYo ftuu.YY'Sr' "' explanation of why it had happened,"6'ut it"is causing a problem with the potential purchaser. Van Domelan presented to the' Board, two letters from neighbors supporting Heldman. Gull read both into the record. The first was from James E Moore, the .., owner of Lot 2, the adjacent lo_t"on~the east side, stating that .... .. ..... _ „~ , ... ., other was aenotekfrom1Gretchen Gorog~stherownersofotiutl~~~n ordeing that they also had no problem with the setback variance. Seeger explained th~xt this was not for an addition, r for everything to be settled and clear for the newowri~~r Zanin made ~, ~ . ,...». ,w m modatetthn to grant a 4 ft. sdeyard~'set~ack variance to accom- e existing encroachment shown on the plat. Dobrovolny seconded the motion. The motion passed. 5 - 0. Do$rovolny was the alternate voting. At the request of Seeger, Gull asked the Board members if there, e any objections to rescheduling the next meets ~ , 1987, due to Onsgard's scheduled„vacation. There wereonoSune 2 objections. Conde t e motions mAlldweretinhfameoeting be ad,7ourned. Zarin se, Respectfully submitted, .. %CLL\.~ G_ C•'i"1~~01-fie ~(`~' ~~ec"r`eta~y ~~~~~ ~ - ( ~ - ~ 7 .,,.. ..... ....:. ... u. .:.,. ,._,. Chairman „q .. _y. .., _ .. x S e .~yl u.un ... eY.. ki5 v3o-., .. ZN't'4^S'~a:SR.a4 _,a_14 .s..d+'~i IYU'%:lu'S„ or,~Aa..~"~.eb~`i>.~n.G~.nxz) ~~ nu rikM:r.W..~,."'N`'~"~+/nc'"Wa' ~ , a ....,,~ . ...,:~ ,,~ Peter Dobrovolny moved that the following be adopted: BEFORE THS BOy*~ '' "y'j~ _~:,~y~~.,dwwn.,~~ i ~.~~,... ,:..„~, lflLL ~~A~~ul VU.T~l'1151~1~2+feR.J-x~6::: w':aa:.`.`I. 3.. r3 of THE ' c`o~xi`T'Y°"~~ ~PiT~l~~ ~ ,~~.a,~...~.,.. ~>,~ ~ . Kr.~~.~.., ,,~." . , , ~. _.., ..<~.,:,~; STATH' ~OF COLOAA"D'~""°' .w„.,, w , ..w.._ ,_ ..~ ,_ .....a.,._.. .w_. ..,.... . RESOLUTION N0. 87-i2 Martin Schlumberger, 2605 Doc Henry Road WHEREAS, the subject property is within the unincorporated area of Pitkin County, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the B"oard`of Adjustment is vested with the power i:o 6a1t3orPdtkinsCountyrcod~e)L(C)vUandC'ode)mandeCol' Section Statutes 1973 3~=2'g-"lt'g" 2 lorado Revised WHEREAS, based on the evidence presented, the Board of Adjstment 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 'siibstan- tial detriment to the public welfare and will not substantially impair fhe intent and'' purpose of the Zoning Resolu`tions'and the zoning maps. NOW, THEREFOttE,`'"B~"" 17+""'g'°S`S"5~~""''tthe~naPPllcant's request~for~ a 7 ft. height variance was granted in order to construct a barn/hay storage building that cannot be used and creates'a hardship for agricultural use without the variance. _. Additional conditions or restrictions: WARNINGt Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. Therrollahavingebeenecalledadthelvotefwaseasofollong Resolution. ws: Evan Gull - yes Joe Zan_in - yes Spiro Niarhos - yes Peter bobrovolny - yes Melinda Pearson - yes ` The Resolution wa's adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: June 2, 1987 Attest: Secretary The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado Chairman ,, r