Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.87.18BOARD OF ADJJSTt9ENT ,~~ <„~ DATE //11 SJ/"~ 19 ~'~ CASE# 87-18 APPLICANT (5/}/t~ ~ ~0 ~~~ ADDRESS 13a.~ q~E~ ~P f~ ADDRESS OWNER LOCATION OF PROPERTY {~Q"r Cj ~LLC 3 F/LiCJb J i3-2c~sr~ ~2r~cT f//~~,ac~ ~~[3 _ ., Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made par this Case No. 87-18 The board may return this application if it does not,, contain all the fac in question. Applicant's description of proposed variance showing ustification: r ~ ' ~ 1 -~ ~/ _ f ~ ~ '' ~.~ ~ / ( /:- y I SSSUUUU / Applicant Signature ? li7 p'~'Z.- i Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building Inspector to forward this application to the Board of Adjustment and rea~~ r not cxranting a~bJuiding permit: ~ ~~V. ~ ~v~~~/v Jn~ / <~ ~ 'rv~z~,~ ~ ,..~ ~=~ rte- e~`~ ~ 66// Building Inspector pate Permit rejected: 5'-/~i ~`~ Board decision Appii~a`iOn `filed ~'~?ai'_ed Date Secretary Board of Adjustment ~' ,~~, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REOUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to Pitkin County Resolution of Tune 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 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 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 th.e request for variance. THE PARTICULARS OF THE HEARING AND OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE ARE PAS FOLLOWS: Date and time of meeting: Tune 2, 1987 5:15 Name and Address of Applicant for Variance: Gary C. Moore F.O. Box 9468 Aspen, CO 81612 Location of Property or Description: I.ot 6, Block III, Filing 1, Brush Creek Village Subdivision Variance Requested: 1.5 ft, sideyard setback variance Duration of Variance: Permanent: XX ;Temporary Condition: THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT fivan Gu21, Chairman ' G'.4,2 ~C o 2 ~-- C3ox y9~68" ~.sp~Qa - ~n81:6r"~ ... _. _ ^ ,. _ - ~ZS s'o ~ s` ~ ,~i9C~EftIT J°n, o pfi!Z7 a~ L~cvu~~. .... - .....r .. .. ... , _,..-.„.:. 1 _,w-:n^.y~^x~ ...., .., .,.w ~~rx ~_,> ,.,:iU!~+t.rr:P'~~.~,'^~:i~, .3 .aa5--°r"*,~"ra7~~~',..~-+4'is w, ,'"' . ,: ;~ ,_. ~L'aT... / le/L.~ ~ .. _ . -,-._._ ....~-r~.. ..,...,.,rrti,.. ^-.. '^~. 'r^>'r -Y ., -:dw3,.n m . wvl:.. ~:- ,. ~ .,.....-„ ~"-,.`r '-z-' w~.=.~+~::*~r~-»n-:'-"x>,ra'm.~« ^.:w^- ,..,„„- ":~'~Y ".~ M ua .n,.~,, .n.~,t l f° .. .,. v:':.r ~ 2`aw :;„,~.:... 9<3s.a.,-yz•:', ~ ~~'.'tav; // `r Nc r~, ~'-~r;~7=.d .:,:art i. ~~ ~~ /~/~J .r-°'ef ~ ,_,pm ,. 'a°;:F=.,»,. .,0. `:. '?- ,~.,a rom.f..n Y_+!'[~~~~N .~u,~d i~ rY....a .. ... n .,R ~ - ~a,t qx ..... __--...-..,. __ _ ,.. ,«.r . . ,~„~.,=,n.. .~.~,.c.„wv.ri . .:..-.~.~ ,.: ..-: o-».~ , ;., h.~,.au„I,.:r. :+,+'., ux ,. ,.:„cn q r.,.. r, ...a.;.itirus m:, ,.. S..r. ~:~,,~; -~, ,.. ,~.. k Fas ..4SP,~~v ~ _.,. ~,.~ ~~~...-. ~ ,o. .. __ - ~- .. _ . _,. , . ~ ti .--_ ~ , . , ~C1'f' ~ ~~. ~....U ,~.~' .. . .. . ....... .... wa G,' ra ..rx.. .sx:~ ~~-x ,fi*.'.,. ,„~,a ...,:" ~~^ h~s„wr";-yir T, '',..... __ ..sos C'_ypr~iss.. P7' ~a ~ I~ .._ _ T 7 G Cc,r! rA~N !/i ~u~ ~ a . q~{a ~F 3 : . or 2 /3L h'~ . ...:,.. ,_U.~wC~.n',~L ' 1": J/}PJ~-^~Cti.,,(~RY ~R~\A~~l'fa1GNPJ. I l9IfCYL .. ... ~ „.. / ~ .. - . r .. P~er'~~e ~.cg.. 9~ta~y et ~ l~L f'I ~ __. ~OVQCL9 ~~S5 „V'1LG/PiE~...~,h ~O ;~, _ .~ -o-r 7 /3C fr: p~« . SF „ q--, .. t'M.r~ ~ .~ ~G.,q- ~c s~~ru .. .anx m,.,.,sr:f ~3 rar t o 3 9 / , ~,. . _....,w~ .. ~~ „~. ~~ ra ,, ~... 7ro .. ~~-, ~~.. ~ ~, , _ _ _ ___ _ I:; :" ~: ~ r .. r ~ ~~} 3 !, !, I P , ` . PUBLIC NOTICfi NOTICfi OF ;PUBLIC RfiARING BBFORB'THE PITRIN CbUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO AT,~,;P1~OP'SFt4"'~`~1~3~'~"AF''F'6CT~SD"B'~' TfIS Ft~Q'QB3`1~Eb '' ' ZONING' OR 'USfi V9RTA't~"C~B'~DW~~`~ft~t~'IiDx` BELOW:" I Pursuant to'Ptkin County Boning Resolution of~ June"5, IJ55, as amended, a Pu61c.Heariag°will be held in the County Commissioner"s"Robm~"Ptka?"Coithty 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 "authori'Ey for v'"eziance from the provisions of the County Zoning Resolution'~~`~~`~`""' ", "' ., ": All per ~ ' ~ 'y, riance are invited ~to sons affected the proposed va appear and _state"'their vieoPi~"~"r'p"rotesfs,' or objections. If 'you "' cannot appear a '~ are u . ,by ~ 1y at~"`~b`iic2i meeting, then you a ob jrged'„'to e your viewer'°sonal~ ~' _ stay "' eater, particularly if 'you had ection'to such variance, as 'the Board of Adjustment will gibe serious `~'"1"` cons ideration,to`~tke opinions'. ,o,f;'surrounding property owner's"","end' others affeoted 'in 'dii"ciding wh'e'ther to grant or deny the 'regiY'e'st for variance' F~m,;~~~ '~`"~a~ , ,sr ~ ~"` '' DATE AND TTM~~OF ~iE'~~Tt~1i~ ~~Jue ~2, 1987 at 5 15 p m~`" ~ , ~; "'• Paul and Patricie''budley,~` 666 $eat Sopris Creek Road, requesting N` a 6 'f`t'. ~ rea"r'yard s'et`back- variaace~. _ ~' `" r;,; Gary C. Moore, Lot~'"6, ~loCk 3,' ~Fi,ling 1, Brush Creek Subiiivislon, ' M ~', requesting a 15 ft sid`eyard setback variance., a I o- s_ v e^~+tr~ ~~ r , ~,i onse,~,~~~y~ ryt~° % , `~s ,. I - :, . ~~".: .. ~ :. :ate ./,;*.. a ~` . ~'~' ~'`.'=~#' - .=,~y . Ronald and Marsha '~ochi'i~'eld, Lot Z3, B1'ock Z, Filing 2, Brush ~4 Creek Village Su'bdiviaion;' 1779 Juniper; Hill Drive, reque`s`ti`n"g a ~.;,,_ 20 ft. sideyard setback variance ~, I ~,, Martina Navrvatil'oba, 2'`8i0~3~ ~ ghway 8'2, requesting a T6 fi;' I frontyard setback variance"'"~""`„w,i.,,', I ' ~,, John W`east, Lot 8,"Fi~liag ~ 1,~~~$asalt, 'Sopris Creek Cabins, ~-, requesting frontyarc~ and 'sfdeyard setback variances. ~' ` »,- ', .. ~ i-'a x.y i° rx ' -^y. .. sty tX r pr/1zY~, ~ d Y3t, ~ I ,, .; Jim Condit, Seve'Yi'0'aks Subdivision', Lot 4, requesting a 50 ft ,. 1- ~., frontyard setback variance ~~ i' '" ' a i ' x'tatyg€"y \q.: tT Ysx 1 ~ ~~i'~, ', I M h ~: ., mow' '~w,~Yy^~~`"F i': 1 r ~°n 'h~.. '4. p _ * 9..v ~ I : -..~__ -. - - .. - r ~1. - .. ... Minutes' Pitkin County Board of Adjustment Special Meeting June 2, 1987 Members Present.:. Evan Gull, Chairman. Kand Sh~affrari Melinda Pearson Peter Dobrovglny „, . Bob Miller. Patsy Newbury, Acting Zoning Official was present with staff recommendations. Gull called the meeting to order Pearson asked r~~ " a ~+, a.. ~v,, that sentence beginning with Without a variance ~ e st the minutes from .Case 87 10 ,Gull*also had a spelling . ,.~.< in Case 87-13 (Courtesy)~.~`Miller mad"e a motion to acc minutes of April 28, 1987, as amended. Pearson seconVd motion. Dobroyolny abstained. Al 1, other members were The motion passed 4 - 0. ept the ed the in favor. ~.. .ti_...y~a ~ , . u:, 7. , ....,. ,,,. Dobroyolny informed the„Board that .the County in the process of rewriting the code. He informed the Board ghat there"i a . meeting set up with the County code consuTtant~~next Ae"dnesday. He thought it would be an opportunity to present the things i ,~ .._" , .~,~ .ww..M_. d + the Board memberseto~let himukhanows,whatdtheyrwouldtlike^,,hima~oed bring up, Gull suggested Hµighw'ay ~2 signs, clarification an that they had to come back ip, for an annual review, barns and :;.u:,.rs~;;~a: ~.__ d oncfrontyyard~diGull alsoasuggestedrthe potential thataFARiantion setbacks be determined on lot size rather than zone Shaffran suggested a clarification on ease tints and how, se~tbacfcs are +s ` ,.. _. „ measured from them. Gull asked all applicants if__they had properly posted their signs. All had. V~V The applicant was present. He was requesting a 6 ft. setback variance from the rear property 1"ine There was one undeliverat~le notice to the Bureau of Land Nana"gemerit. Dudley explainedthe lot was7200 f~~ wide Thee depth~is the problem. He didn't feelthe variance would be a problem ~ecause;there are,_ no dwellings, it's $'LM 7and. Nirhroklas^ybampiris had determined that the envelope was the only goo<1 b~uild'ing site `ori the priiPPr~Y due to topography. He continued that the Planning Departmen _. .... .,,,. ,. ~ t had 1 ..~.... ,,,....„..;.» .wa d.+NF, h' x35wu,.e,.,o-'.G,.~.i S s.BC ~S :arf.~^~4aawF+rw,S6X:d.<xrG.}R'~.SFr,d.des.•ww+'~6Wr_...»+J:.aw'k+~k'S 'l' ,'' P • approved the envelope through the 1041 Hazard Review. Dudley >' • use also pointed out by moving the house back, it pr"oxides the ho,..... with more,visu~a protection from the road and neighboring houses. Shaffran questioned the amount of tfie variance ,It was deter mined that it would be a 4~ foot rear yard variance "Dobrovolny commented that the address mus£ be wrong`.''Dudley replied th'at` he ,, had been given tie°address by the Bul~'ing Departmeht and it ~~~ • chose not to would be corrected later Pearsotl"asked why they • him not encroach .._ _ ~_ build in the portion''o~ `the lot~~tha would allow ,, ,. .,., on the setbacks. Dudley replied that it was due.to topography, it is a very steep lot:' Dobrovolnyagreed'that"~aue to,the steepness; of the Iot, that was the~anly building'site. Sh'affrah ' made a motion that a 20 ft. front yard se"tback variance and a 40, ft. rear yard setback variance be granted due to„the irregu~`ar shape of the lot. Dobrovolny seconded the motion T~he~'motion passed 5 - 0. Case 87 18 Gary C Moore Lot 6 Slack 3 Filing 1 BrushC{reek Subd1V1S10I1 n• -.~.,, ,..,an;x .,v.x,v2,f.S'raz~'^i,1rm.~Tvre"Y.vrca,~<. x,...nR/A~'"S.'"~~.~'~,... zag ~'a.,~~.~ °:d, ^~"t1. ,n"",f'~ ~~ ,;,'~ ~~ _. The applicant was present. The applicant was applying for 15 ft. rear yard setback variance duP to excavation costs. Moore coulddsubat the .lot was steep, by moving 'the house°15~•ft. he „ .., . stantially reduce"the excavation costs and preserve the vegetation. He continued that he„had built most,"'of the houses o'h' ,. the adjacent properties and they weY~e' ag'reeabTe to the variance. " Mrs. Krieger, the owner of the lot directly above Lot 6 was present. More felt the 15 ft would not 'affect, her .,The living areas planned to be op the other si~e~#f thae house Krueger objected to the variance becausnt~yarvwas n tF a ~iar'ds`hip cas"e; all that was involved was_ higher excavation ~o t`s, tfiere are alter- natives. She continued thatp the„yhouse world be higher and closer, she had a hea~t~i~ problem a ~=d'~had mo ved up there to be away from car exhaust and wood smoke, and shoe did not want the house any closer that it legally s~fiould be. She, felt that excavating costs and long driveways"wer'e `p art of building on steep lots. Moore pointed out tha£ he still had the option of building the house as high as he originally waned and more of the house would be visible :Gull clarified that, cost iaas not.., • considered a hardship they could us'e to grant a'variance. Dobrovolny though a house could be„designed to fit`the„site and` not encroach on the setbacks Pearson agreed Gull felt they did not have the. denial of areaso~able use Shaffran moved to deny the request due to no' ~gmons~ a~tedMlacTc obi reasona"bile nse of ti ` were th favor, the land. Dobrovolny seconded the motion. A1`l the motion carried 5 - 0. Case 87-19 - Ronald and Marsha Hochlieta - irra .,utupC[ .,1~~ The applicants were pre's~efit.'"~°' They were requesting a 20 ft. rear yard setback variance, due to downz.oning, topography and an erroneous survey that had been done Mr Ho~hfieldwbegah that they had recently purchased the House, wit t`~ie intent of remodeling the house. Their financing is`contingent on being 2 .~.~..-,--- ... ~.. .. _ ,. .....~ •.. s ., _. ,,..~ ,... ,.. .a;7..3, x' ., a.. .. . Sr„„a ,C ~..o-,xn..,. Fr~:~'„ .ea ,b, .,w~ _ ~.F _ ..~ able to remodel. They were shown some plans that were approved by the County in 1981. They later found out thewsurveyywas incorrect.. The house is presently ehcroaching in hie sou£hwest holas Lampir. corner. A, eological survey had been done by Kduedtosdaainagll Hochfield had ingixired about expanding up the slo ~. w.; _. ,8--~~,.. pe of the hiis. on the side of the house. Lamplris had strongly e Hochfields against expanding in that dire,c„tion ~ ,a _~ "u ~ w,".e.,m , problems.. `T~ampiris had written a letter to that`~'ef£ec~. ~` al p ac ,: ., .y~~~~ e to expand the house, even though it~is t~hie corner t Hochfield continued £hat this was ttheonthouohtcoaltawoeady ulii encroaches. The only neighbor, the Crowle s, whltw ould be an effect, had no objections, irr fact " y g improvement. Dobrovolny asked`about the front side of the house. Hochfield replied that`the"septic system was there and 'it ,lust was not feasible. Gull read Lampiris' letter into the record. Gull felt the problem of tie'".:errone,bus surv~,y"was awkward because it was dixe to human error, n'ot topograp~"iy. Shaffran had a problem with the variance because it would be compounded an .. . ~~ ,P.: error. iochfield explained £'hat it, "was a '"rv r'y steep lot`, that is why the second ,driveway was`put in: After some";discussion, a site visit was sch~,duled fore Friday ;, June 5, 1987 at 8:30 a.m. Dobrovolny moV'ed to adjourn th`e case until~a site vss _t~,~could be " " made. Pearson seconded the motion ~ All were in favor.' ~~ie motion carried 5 0 ,Dobrovolny had t``o leave tFie meeting at . , k. . , _ >., ~ , -. this point. 1,arry ricninzie vi n~~~ _ ~ ~-- applicant. The applicant was..requestXin from Z5 feet to 15 ft. There were two as undeliverable, one to Colorado Depar other to Violet Corbin. There was also . ~ x- ~,-~ u - ~, ~_ McCluskey that Gull read into £he recor M K' be an that they would Tike to cts wa"s"v"'rd'pre~'`~~'"ting the l o' reduce"`1the 'setback tices that were returned ~.. ent of 'Highways and the c inzie g ,.. to the north of the house, along what was.." road to'campground. McCluskey objected to stated that the lot was an undersized lot' ld extend practically into fFi"e" road. S askey was p"resent. 'shingle"`car'gar"age ccess ~` " ga~rage.~~ She `~ ~ ~~ he garage addition a'ted, as the 'house ~. wou is built she looks directly into the house an is a^ ea con in the night with all the lights on. 'She also objected to the fact" that there were no trees to hid the garage fr'dm"'the road, McI{inze`was asked why tf~e garage could not be built on the other.. side of th_e house. McKinzie`replied that they would still require a variance and the owner wanted to have an attached ,,>~ garage. Gull explained to McKinzie`t~iat~the variances that 'were , granted in the past were granted for speoi'~icFbui`ldngs, t~`iey were not envelope granted variances. The garage would conform to the side yard setback and rear .yard, but not to'the`1Q;6.ft. , setback. Sha£fran felt that there had been 5o much impact in that area because of`~tlxP house and the encroadhm ._„ ,r ,xw_.~,,,w Pn~ of '75 ft.,that she would hale a problem granting"anything else. Shaffran did no ~ "not h~aving a gar"a~e was d hardship t feel `'that a 3 ' . i ~,. ~, ~ "_, t ._ _~ -_. .----.. ,... :., .. +.H.~,.avi~ F..~~..~...,w::+rv:-t,«,.: w^.a.,~'sur.';w~r4~.+a .ex...YL:^,..xa.L-..'rn~.X .. '"~.~%a4,u~dsuie~v~an '~cr+m54 {' ~'' Pearson agreed that a garage was not conditional for having full use of one's land. Tom Coggins, the caretaker for the house was' present.. He stated that~the original idea was to put the garage° in a corner of the property, but`the owners felt that. would impact the neighbors, he felt it was a necessity because the, ly occupied 25i much of the year and they needed it tousecuruld onr vehicles and bicycles, etc. He continued that they were whlling to do'what ever was necessary to landscape the area to minimize the impact. McCluskey pointed out that the Forest Service had moved the old Campground road, that provided them with adequate, safe parking. 'McRnzie asked if there was anywhere he could put the garage. Gull replied not without a variance, Pearson moved to deny the request for a front yard setback variance. Shaffran seconded the motion.,. The motion, carried 4 - 0. Case # 87-21 - John weast iu~ ~ _~~-~• John Wheeler was pre"sent representing the owner`, "'John Weast who was also present. The applicant was requesting a setback torhiscc. The existing building is non conform cannot be met. The applicant wants to add setback requirements ople and a baby abin because presently there are`two Pe ng and the living in 350 sq. ft. Pearson questioned whether a variance was necessary. Newbury stated that this area was created by a special employee housing review process. Lot 8 is PMH unit with • 'income"category. Wheeler stated thatitheyiwere awarentfiattthisowonld only be the first of the approvals they would have to have.,. After some discussion, Shaffran made the moi.ion to approve'a setback variance according to plans submitted, due to downzoning and inappropriate zoning, with the condition that the applicant comply with the requirements of the PMH review. Pearson .seconded the motion. The motion carried 4 - 0. r. _.. The applicant was present re 1e"sting a front yard e had Just finished a ofs50oft.~L TheLapplicant explained that h` ." os`siblebbyk 1041 Hazard review The recommendations of the revtew were that the wildlife impact should be minimized as much, as p preserving the native vegetation. Moving the house closer to d do this. This would also minimize the wildfire ~hSkroaTheoapplicant continued that, further baci on the lot. the topography is very steep. The geologist's repd'rt also suggested moving the house forward qn the lot for adequate drainage. Gull asked if there was any response from £he neighbors: There was not. After some discussion, 5haffran moved tg grant a 50 ft• front yard setback variance and 25 ft. side yard setback vari- ances due to substandard lot size and to presertie the native vegetation. Pearson seconded the motion. The motion ,carried 4 0. Meeting was adjourned. 4 __ T- ~ - . ~ __ _ .w i',c ,..~F xyty .a.r,,.w.t~U2 ..,».~:u...k~. NA...y„:; sU, s,„, we" E4., d~, ~4 }w.x. _, ., m~,i 3^fi Respectfully Submitted, Secretary (~,c-f~.-,a~ Chairman ~1c3 ©~Q~- Date 5 Kandi 5haffran moved that the following be adopted: BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION N0. 87-18 Gary C, Moore, Lot 6, Rlock 3, Filing 1, Brush Creek Subdivision 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, 30-28-11$(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 ar 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 YT RESOLVED that the applicant's request for a 15 ft. rearyard setback be denied due to no demonstrated lack of reaasonable use of the land. Additional conditions or restrictions: WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. Peter Dobrovolny seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolu- tion. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: Evan Gull - yes Kandi Shaffran - yes Peter Dobrovolny - yes Robert Miller - 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: ^(`yt O~l~/ _~p1 ~_U Secretar'S•dJl The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado `mod,-, ~ /~ ,~~.i ~~r ~ Chairman _,__. :_ t