Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.87.15_, * ~ BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT .-- DATE ~ ,. 19 APPLICANT ~,,,J 1G1~1 1 l OWNER _0! .. LOCATION OF PROPERTY OSI P ~~ ~ I CASE# 87-15 -- ADDRESS ~~ 7IZI r7~ll ~j~, B~G,II/ ADDRESS~~[~ . _ ~Q , 0 Any pertinent c~t~5must accompany this application, and will be made part this Case No. The Board may return this application if it does not contain all the fact= in question. Applicant's description of proposed variance showing justification: Applicant S:igrrature ~"' Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring thf=_ Building Inspector to forward this application to the Board of Adjustment and reason for not granting a buiding permit: T ~~ ~ s ~~ ~ _e~;~ T\1~:a ~ fc ~. S.~.S:.~`:~:1.~ ~~~~v ~:\-S:-+i...~~i-+.._~~ ~eJ- rt(je~l.!1'L 2.'E411L ~L^C~ y" =a- '~~F~•e.~~C: mil;-f~~ o,taja`~x._.~"c~~.y ifs ~ = _~;~ ct ~``'~^~. ~`` (/ Building Inspect Date Permit rejected: .Application filed Mailed Board decision Date ,.,,; Secretary Board of Adjustment a r* ~at'~~~l3iB~ ~.. .. .., r ~ ~. ~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC REARING BEFORE 2HE PITKIN COUNTY BEARD OF AA~TTSTM'EN'P TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTEb BY THE REQUE5T~D 7,0'NING OR USE ' VARIANCE DE$CRZBE'D BELOW: ` Pursuant to Pitkin County Resolution of June 5, 'L955, as amended, a Public Hearing will be held in the County Commissioners Room, Pit&n County Court House, Aspen, Colorado, or at such other lace as the m pp eating may then be ad,jourhed) to th the said Board of Ad'ust renuestinanauthoriatiforfvariance from the provisions of t'hment q g y e County Zoning Resolution. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited fo appear and state their views, pYOtasts or objections. If you cannot appear personally at. such meeting, then you are urged to state your vies by letter, particularly if you have'object'ion to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment. will give serious consideration to the opsnions o£ surrounding property owners and other affected in deciding whether to grant or 'deny the request for variance. ASEFOLLOWSULARS OF THE HEARING AND 0)" TfiE RE"QUNSTEb VARIANCE ARE'A` { Date and time of meeting: April 28, 1987 at 5:15 p.m. Name and Address of Applicant for Variance: Stan Hall P.O. Box 9121 Aspen Vi:l.lage, CO 81611 Location of Property or Description: OBIS Holland°Hills Road ' Holland .Rills Subdivision Variance Requested: Frontyard Sotback'Variance Sideyard Setback Variance Duration of Variance: Permanent: XX _Temporary Condition: THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD 'OF ADJi}STIKENT Evan Gull, Chairman ~~~~ ,. .. ,~ ~ ~ fi i Properties adjasent to Parcel#30 #31 Rudolph Netzer Box 2322 Aspen, CO 81612 923-5878 #28,29 M/M Nostdahl 607 E Cooper Aspen, CO 81611 923-5578 #34,46 Dr. Sydney Smock 8231 N 74th place Scottsdale, AZ 85012 #18 Peter Abplanalp Box 3122 Aspen, CO 81612 927-4494 #50 Joe Villanno] Box 11775 Aspen, CO 81612 ~~'~ ate,°~3 ,~^ - .~ -. 0 r------------------ I tgi4 Yn •[i[R9XMW IMM J/~ D M MCLLYID NIILe I LNVLD.. M[TWOIIY M[TCM. ~ l J AREA 60 2u~'~:::.zt;;~: I AREA. S/ `~ V SCALE GATE PE VISIDNS G PURPOSE HOLY CROSS DETAIL MAP /••200' 2-/97I _ /N/T/AL owaw/yc____ ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION .e-nre,n .xrou uu{[__,___:.__,___ ncr.__ GIENWOGD SPRWGS. COLORADO ~HOGLANO N/LLS SUBO/V/S/ON y ~ oleo .~ ~~ ' eD uro.rt COLORADO 34 FAGLE surf a copnrT rowns.n MAr No _'` • _ 7 / "-' pR Ft N.OEPi: NOLV CRO.'.S EIECTRK R$SN,IMC, r'OLD_ TBS ggEAS __,_ __ __ pR ev1f.OSBU~/N ARRAOV[p ev P/TK/N, R. BBW 6086/ c Ec do R~ oRre ?////l9 l 9-IOLLAN'D HI~.LS SUBDIVISION a ~,~. a ' S ~5 0 ~c cr.e~ 3cJ z- ~„14~j / M`r Ra'ap.{l i J C~'we1~ (`(FF / ~ ~ r„%a.c _ r-mod c1.ec~ 9' -S~oY~ ~Y0.roKR -~-~ ((Q V., -~ ~- JCL ~ ~ I~ . i'=Nor f~ ~ M~a 0 r `~ ~ n ~m ~ ~~ Legal Description: S vs~_, µn~Te~r A parcel of land designated as Parcelel 3 `~ on the Plat of Holland Hills at Basalt as filed with the Clerk and Recorder"~Pitkin County, Cdlorado, situated in Tract 55, Township 8 South, Range 86 West of the 6th Prin- cipal Meridian and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point whence a brass cap marked for A.P. No. 2 of Tract 64 bears S 41°57'31" E 614.23 feet; thence S 05°40'00" E 199.63 feet; thence N 75°00' W 210.03 feet; thecce N 10°30'24" W 101.08 feet; thence N 45°34'00" E 132.93 feet; thence S 65°42'16" E 117.04 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.86 acres more or less. I herehy certify that this Improvement Location Plat was prepared for Yvonne Hall, and that it is not to 'be relied upon for the establishment of fence, building or other fu- ture improvement lines. 1 further certify that the improvements on the above described parcel on this date, 21 April 1986, except utility connectipns, are entirely within the boundaries of the par- cel, except as shown, that there are no encroachments upon the described premises by improvements on any adjoining premises, except as indicated, and that there is no appar- ent evidence or sign of any easement crossiny or burdening any part of said parcel, ex- cept as noted. ey /t~r~e P . L . S . t 4,1 1 ~-a,,L~ovC v~vt-~. (._oc_n_~is~,ti. ~ 6 cit. 4, , , r; ~ ~/NES' /N SPACE t ~..: r ,p,9tio ~i,~~~ ;,.,,'' SYDNEY L%h'C/COME (L.S. %4//lJ s~..~f.,.~ ~»,°°' BOX 121 CAR80NOALE COLO. 303.953-385 >.... ___~. a o Rte' ccef F:r"a 1-{O' ~__ _ __ _ , ~a,re ~,. ~ Melinda Pearson moved that the following be adopted: BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE COUNTY OF PITBIN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION N0. 87-15 Stan Hall, 0515 Holland Hills Road 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 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 relaef will not cause subsfan- 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 RES"OLVED that the applicant's request for a 7 ft. frontyard setback variance and a 3 ft. sdeyard setback variance be granted due to downzoning. Additio#aal conditions or restrictions: WARNING:. Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. Joe Zanin seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resoaution. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: Evan Gull - yes Joe Zanin - yes Spiro Niarhos - yes Peter Dobrovolny - yes Melinda Pearson - yes The Resolution was 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 Pit/kin County, Colorado ~(~ ' 1, Chairman .~ I Minutes Pitkin County Board of Adjustment April 28, 198'7 Members Present: Evan Gull, Chairman Spiro Niarhos Melinda Pearson Toe 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 werEp four sets of minutes before the Board, including one set from 1985 that had never been signed. Zanin moved to approve the minutes of 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. m or-ice - earl and Lou Klenck= 1076 E. Souris Greek Rd Botli applicants were present. They were requesting side and rearyard setbacks 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 reduce the rearyard setback to 10 ft. and the sideyard setback to 40 ft. in order to put the size addition t17at they wanted. He showed the Board members some pictures of 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 wars 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 hove 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 would be. Seeger replied 'r5 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 acre lot. and the house on it is situated as high up nn the lot as possible, probably infringing on its setback, so it's a long way away, Mrs. Klenck stated that there is a very steep embankment at the 1 ,, t n. -, edge of the property line, so there is a very definite division between the properties. Niarhos asked where the other adjacent lots were located. Klenck and Dobrovolny showed the $oard. Pearson asked about the property owners to the North. Mrs. Klenck stated that she had spoken to and shown the location of the proposed addition to all of the neighbors, except onP who was out of town. Pearson was concerned because of the inaccurate date on the sign. Gull replied that they did not have any complaints on file. Zanin moved that a variance be granted of 39 ft. to the rearyard setback and 9 ft. to the sideyard setback due to downzaning. Niarhos seconded the motion. The motion passed. 5 - 0. Dobrovolny was the alternate voting. °°~ m or-ii - Mollie Favour and Brad Miller - 40$ Twinin Flats Rd. Both applicants were present. They were requesting a frontyard setback variance and a sideyard sei;back 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 impossible to build anywhere on the lot and be 100 ft. from the road, because the lot is not that wide. They° have a 3 acre lot, 150 ft. along the river, part of it is along Highway 82 and Twining Flats Road cuts across the lot. Miller explained the topography of the Iot. 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 the ownership of the road. Miller explained that there was an easement for the road. He continued the Twining Flats area is not a subdivision, but there are about 13 lots in that area and !n any 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 to 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 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 road, which was the only thing that was platted. 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 center line and a 30 ft. sideyard setback variance due to downzoning. Pearson seconded the motion. The motion was passed. 5 - 0. Miller was the alternate voting. Case # 87-12 - Maz•tin Schlumberger - 260, The applicant was Doc Henry Road variance to Present. He was requesting a 7 ft. height get a 4-12 roof pitch. Schlumberger explained that there was a shed there now, which he'd like to replace with a new barn that was a little larger and to get the pitch required by code, which is over 3-12, he would need the additional 7 ft. 2 ... ~ ',; Gull asked Seeger for the definition of a barn. Seeger replied that in the RS-Z0, R5-30, RS-160 zones, a barn can be as tall as a house. In the other zones, accessory structures, including barns can only be as tall as I2 ft. Gull a~:ked how big the lot was. Schlumberger replied 3 acres. After ::ome discussion about past variances for agricultural use, Dobrovolny moved that 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 height. Niarhos seconded the motion. The motioq passed. 5 - 0, Dobrovolny was the alternate voting. " oc-i3 - lleak Price Lot R-96 Starwood Subdivision Zanin explained that he would be abstaining 'from voting on 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 l.ot is zoned AF-1, 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 would not look directly into the house next door, they would have more privacy as well as their neighhors and it 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 h,ad already been to the Starwood Homeowners Association and been approved. Mrs. Price replied that they were in the midst of :it. Gull asked if their plans comply with the building envelope:; that were speci- fied. Price replied that they didn't specify an envelope, they couldn't find the stakes. Ellie Brickham ask<>d if they had found the stake. Zanin replied that if they F;o by the survey, they couldn't find the stake, they would be 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 i.he 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 was chjecting t~ 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 be granting any variances 3 . - ,,,~~ far the height of the building. Gull asked her if the Starwood Homeowners restrictons'wez-e more restrictive than the County. 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 (4/21/87). Gull asked if Iqr. $ernstein had received the written notice with 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 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 were no 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. "u5c *' ai-lq - 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. 'Phe property is zoned AF-1. Cramer began that he wanted to build a barn to store 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 he huge at 12 ft. in height. Gull asked the applicant the size of his prop- erty. He replied 310 acres. Niarhos moved that a 3 ft. E in. 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 sPCanded the motion. The motion passed 5 - 0. Miller was the alternate voting. Case # $7-15 - Stan Ha21 0550 Holland 11i11.s Road Yvonne Hall was presen£. The lot was zoned AF-1, which requires 100 ft. frontyard setback, 30 ft. sideyard setbacks and a 30 ft. rearyard sethack. 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 sethack 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 mgv~d that a 7 ft, frontyard setback variance and 3 ft. sideyard setback variance be granted <iue to downzoning i,o build a garage. Zanin seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 - 0. Dobrovolny was the alternate vesting. 4 _,,, The applicant was present with her lawyer, Pete Van Domelan. The applicant was requesting a 4 ft. sideyard setback variance for a residence which was constructed in 1978. Van'Domelan explained that Heldman is in the process of selling the house, in 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, which requires a 15 ft. sideyard line and the setback. is now 11.1 ft.. He researched the records of the Building Department and the sideyard setback was approved, there is a notation: "zoned R-30 PUD" from Patsy Newbury. The site plan that was submitted then is exactly the same as the new one. Van Domelan could not come up with an explanation of why it had happened, but 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 Jatnes E. Moore, the owner of Lot 2, the adjacent lot on the east side, stating that the setback variance did not pace problems far him. The other was a note Pram Gretchen Gorog, the owner of Lot 1, stating that they also had no problem with the setback variance. Seeger explained that this was not far an addition, but in order for everything to be settled anal clear for the new owner. Zanin made the motion to grant a 4 ft, sideyard setback variance to accom- modate the existing encroachment shown on the plat. Dobrovolny seconded the motion. The motion passed. 5 - 0. Dobrovolny was the alternate voting. At the request of Seeger, Gull asked the Board members if there were any objections to rescheduling the next meeting for Sune 2, 1987, due to Onsgard's scheduled vacation. TT ere `W ere no objections. Niarhos moved that the meeting be adjourned. Zanin seconded the motion. All were in favor. Respectfully submitted, Secretat'y Chairman 5