HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.87.21BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
,.-
•' . ; Is . .
..
_ • _.,
~ '•' I
', ~ <_~ ,,
.. CASE# 87121
DATE ~~7/ /3 /.' 19 '_/_
APPLICANT ~/Q{~/1/ C Lf/fFEELL~/Q ADDRESS Z//p TEAL CT• ~~~~/
..-~~~~:tm« ..,~~~..;. ~.,,,s~."~O. /off j24d
OWNER \ ~/~ 1.c/~,~T ADDRESS~~~a ~ in R/~
LOCATION OF PROPERTY
Any pertinent
this Case No.
The Board may
in question.
justification:
- .,w a.....~w.-e~akX,m d"sa S': }:~,~me x „ ....~ .w~x, a q„ ~: e_..u .:iF ~ ...:F., w., ~ .~ . ....
data must accompany this application, and will be made part
87-21
return this application if it does not contain all the fact
Applicant's description of proposed variance'`sliowing'
11' yfl2iA.vc~
~ ~E ~.v>.v~ ,~~z ~ DA2~€G /S fIF-/~,
~ ~'~STr~G gN/e/~iri~ !5 N~•t/ Gan'J{~~.yr,~./U ~ Ov<
7~ __ _ S'~ ~ ~ of T~ Co r ~ r~~ Fdv~rr
Ceti Nv i gE ~E T, ~'i~ Fr~~ ~v E /~ /L,E4'v,-~ ~'i.~
jb /ivG/~i9~'.E 77~ Fodl" D,ee,~T OrtJ T/~' L3ciLr~orid
S A-TT~ c~~ Sr ~ D~~ti,
G.JN~ ~~ /~~ Applicant Sig
Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building Inspector to
forward this ,application to the Board of Adjustment. and reason fo//r not
g~ing a buiding perm~~t~d ~Q/~, ~ e/APd'~L+%'~^-u
1U/I/-s1-r%tr-' 'C~.2~a•¢._~~ ~PJfL/!i.s~-'~LC~""`"_' y ~'/.t.~
~~~, G/ ~ Building Inspector
Date Permit rejected: ~~'~ 3 - ~'~ _ Board decision
filed Date
Applicatior. _ ,~ ...~..,w <,,. ex r
~, y
Mailed Secr'etary'"board of Adjustment
®t~ ~ ~~~
'.,sirs. .. ,5 u,t ....m.. > ~ . ,.,.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TO ALL, PROPERTY OWNfiR5 AFFfiCTED $Y THE,.REQUESTED ZONING OR USE
VARIANCE DESC,RTBfiA BfiLOW:
Pursuant_to Ptkin.__County Resolution of ,.,,June,;,b, 1955, as
amended, a Public Hearing will be held"in the County
Commissioners Room, Pitkn douiz~y"Court House„ Aspen ;° Colorado,
..... F g ,. ,~ . ~ ed) to
consider an application filed with the said Board of Ad,7us
~~ he .
requestinghauthorityaforavarhanceefroai the prep be adJourntment
County Zoning Resolution. ovisions of t
A11 persons affected_by the proposed variance are invited to _
appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you
cannot appear personally at such'meetng, then you `are urged to
state your vies by `letfer, particularly if4yatii have o'Sje'ction to
consideration tostheeopingonsf fdsurroundinglpropeyty owners and
other affected,in decidin whether to grant or den the request
for variance.
THE PARTICULARS, OF THfi HEARING AND OF TAE REQUESTED VARIANCE ARE
,„ _..~~ ~ ,.,w « ..w ,,,,~,..,w„~,w.., ~s>, ,.,, i~..,t,bw»..p~..~ .ws ~. ~ .,.,
AS, FO'LLOWS:" ,.~.
Date anal time of meeting: June 2, 1987 5;.15
Name and Address of Appligant for Variance„,
.,
John Weast
P.O. '$ox 1240
Basalt, C0 81621
Location of Property or Desnription:
Lot 8, Filing 1, Sopris Creek 'Cabins
Variance Requested:
A sd'eyard setback-variance and a.rearyard setback variance
Duratian of Variance: _ ,Permanent: XX tTemporary
Condition:
THE P`ITEIN COUNTY $OARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Egan Gu~~l~, Cha'iririan
~~~~~~
---w-^^~--°-----,------mm^^-~----- ~- -
.. .~ _.. ~. ~ . ,. ~....u.
_ I _, ~.
// > /
___--
_,
.. / ~ ~._ Ci6.a~ .~.?
~ "
_.
__.
. _. -, __... •.. _..-... .L'7N//~C__[.. ~Ct GBH /'~~ ',.
- ___ ,.
- ~ --
__...
C)~f~+€~(~3
--- -------
NOTICfi OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT "
TO ALL PROPBRTY OWNERS AFFE`CTfi'D' B1' THE REQUE`S'Tfi°D $0'N`TNO OR U'SE
VARIANCE DfiSCRIBED BELOW.,.: .... ..._ _.. ...,.. ..,. _,,. ,
Pursuant to Pitkin County Resolution oP June 5, 1955, as
amended, a Public Hearing will be herd in the County
Commissioners Room, Pitkn_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 'Boar.Y. off' 9djus~tment "
requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the
County Zoming Resolution.
All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to''
:,;
appear and state their views, protests'or objection's. 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 df 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.
THfi PARTICULARS OF THE HEARING AND OF THE REQUfiSTED~VARI'A'NCE ARE'"
AS FOLLOWS:
Date and time of meeting: June 2, 1987 5:15
Name and Address of Applicant for Variance:
John Weast
P.O. Box 1240
Basalt, CO' 81621
Location of Property or Description:
Lut 8~ Filing i, Sopris Creek Caons
Variance Requested.:
A sideyard setback variance and a rearyard setback variance
Duration of Variance:
Condition:
~~~~~7
Permanent: XX ;Temporary
THE PITKIN COUNTY'BOARD'`OF ADJUSTMENT
~.
Evan Gull, Chairman
~~rn~-uU-~ o~°~~I~~~~~ ~t~~~~~
~, ~. , .. ~ ~ ~a.. ,4 .~.~~.~~
~x
9
'``
3
~'
~~
..
~;
h.~
3.
k
'~...
^q :
I.
~•
F.
~:
x
;..
~~
~.
a.
,..
•!
~C .
S'-
k:,.
i9Si9t"
`i
r.
~:.
6.
1
r
ri
~..
.. ; ...... ,. i ..~. ~; +m~ks;+:: x V vY .i,~,r,xar ~'4s v'?r .~.',`^'^^7Y++rg•'G Y~, a~~v,.t`~'.~rbd~?".",~+i, a~"* t ~'.kar~? n ^y~ . , i„~ki:-~` 91=vd.?, '.y x{:"=i'~+'
'.
.. . ; n . , ,i„ n ~ ..
u ~~
La'f AREA ~ X192 S•F - ; ,.
~.
' ~~Exisi'IrJ yl`iibl0= "3~05,~,
", " .'`` ~ `7hi~i71'~'1i7F1 I.ohlE2 LE-x/EL"y I'~{'~J
~n~lTlor~ ~t~P~~ I.E,rEi. - ~~h,.
----(oTai. G1~Arrnl~(lora 7~6.F
, ~ ~ -..
~..~ •~q 0.~''Z
o ~ G~., O,R,S
Imo""/,7/'~ ~ -.:..
f \
v r1~ ~--
SCALE /"'=/D"
~:irar: ~xpHN,3rokJ
.y i' n -
~ y_,,._.
cA~, ~ \
' ,~
.-- ,d ~
l'
c-~- -1.
s~ -~ .
~i-
o-
- ~~
-,
,~,
~~~
,..
~~~
"~
~.a
~ ..T.
.Q __
N ~'`' _
~
.
.
x=~
r
?'.. ,..
N ~~°~s~'oo''w
~/. 03
iV y3°D2 "DU "E'
i,~. y3
e, a
,. .. -. ...,... .~ sna i r F'
-
d
~.1G
'1"N'~ J~N~.1
.~in
I~-IF~S'C ~F
~~r
PRG t ._
_
__
.
~; c
~~~,~4p~57Et6 ~>i)-'~ BUILDING PERM / T
'~ .
,
~`9~3 °j
~~ SURVEY LOT
o°°
.y Q •
~
~'" °SUHy~~oo
~~
~
.~
.
P
SOPRIS Cl?EEK CAI~INS ti Y
' ~'
F
9
~
COI
`~
,,
,
f~~ILI.~G NU, 1 (~(; y~ ; k
OA7f.• y ~3 ~1 o,~OT.~o' Awas ~,~~~r^
~ ,
•
,
,.
~~~ .
~2 ~ ~ ~d t~
~~ ~~~~/~~ Mks,
. __ ___ .___ ~_____ r__:e,.. ~ ~
rI ~~ f
~~ ,.~,,._ d i ,,,
?qtr ,; u'^x,`,~$r"Cy ,.~+c~ <~, F~ -*a~..o ~ V
:~ ~:,:
~a~p~o~,
~o,~s~
X2.1 N,'~` ~
s
~:. ;~
r 'u ~+es
G
~1,.
F
~J
~~ i
~~,
k
~,
o,sz
O, BS
~U~ - /~
~~~ir~u /
,~ . w,.
.u iii°i
~~ \\~ \
~- ~ .~ ~ p
~ _„
ti=er a .. -.1M ~ ,,,y.. ~`'~. A
_-- . ~:.
~~ ti
19a~
~c ae ®J~~G ~~
w
p
6" -~- _ _. ,...
'~,
N ~`'_
. ~,
-y
~o
i 0
tis'~ ~3
~~
~~ `. o\ ~~
?.
f-,: .
,~J YN'
°~
00 7'L
~~ ,
N ~G °~~' ~DD~~I/1/
~/. 03
N y3°02''OU'~'
i~. y~
/NO/CA7"ES R~BP,P E C,~P FDUNO (,LS /S~/O)
S of-,z~s C'~s'~~'h' Sv.a/iv~s~o~/ ,~'/,~~n+~ .vo. /;:
'~ ~ ~ -,.
4 ..,
~,.: ~ ~, ,~..:~P~y.~1~ CauNrY, coLar~gv0
.„
~~
. _ ~ „ ,. ~ ~ n~~
,.~. .
v~ `']J ~\
Mr tiaF
~~~ts ~~, ~~ BUILD/NG PE R M I T
13501 ~ SURVEY LOT o°
°SUR~F'yJODO~ SGPR/S CREEK CAI~INS
1F COlO~~'
FlL lNG NCO, 1 ~~}~~;~~
..
____ ~ .
,~
.~
-~
rt..
_._w. ,. ... :.
~~
FI20M _
--- - -- -- ---
_ }_
_JOFi ADllHESS: ~ `~-yII ~_ ^%JZ-a./_~ __ ~ ~ J
~,F;GA1. DI,SCF?IPT70N:.~%~~lti'r!_U~~r/ ~ - -- -T-- ~ YY ~
DATE: ad""b - ~l°
-----~-----.-------------- „j ~ UU""
____
Attacli!ed for 'your review is a project that has received all of the
required inspect.inns and is'ready,for the issuance of the'Ce.rtificate of
~ccupar,cy.
This epp7.i.cation is being referred for Planning Department review
..
because: I
','trtcr,~trl Ry: __ __ ____ - _ _ _ Dakc. to-'~D-Q
.`«2---- --,
it.. Waived Ry: ------__...-- --°~~/_/- Date:
Pe:viec+ed By: ~.a~----•- -- -=---- Date:. _//f0~---- ---'----
--.rs ~n~--~--~Q~------------: ---------- 1-- -----------------
----
It»v.i. ri'r: rsinplctr~;d a review of comple. t.ed project, the 'Rui ldng Depart.m en t.
is h.~~reby tiotifi.ed that the fgll~owi.ng items need tgbe ad~dres's,e<i1iy the
_ .~^,.__.~.~.~~~ _._/JLjlfiC. _L~J~ _~~ _4?L2_~_!S' -l~~l___-Oi~GC'.'- ------"--
~j / / -
~~s tl ~i~~i
~~ a ~ „~ ~ ~
I7 ~
"a
.. .t a. r . 4:U,...
~~~ ~ ~ ;:.
~ ,.:moiandum
xs,~~~ "~opris Creek Cabins - Subdivision Exemption ~
•~~ ~~ :February •G, 1981
~~'> ~ , PAGE" fiW0 ,
". , ~
r
V
rewired, This unit would then be very similar„to unit #10 which
has already been remodeled, After remodeling and after the 1980
PP
unitlwasabubltnin tTiee194'0 s`andtwouldeheoenlabe $47,000. This
r' ed to 600 sq
'" C.• Unit #7, also PMH contasns some 500 sq,ft. This one bedroom
~'~, unit was built in the late'1950 s. The
~~ Stove and will be rewired, separately m'unt has a wood=burning
\,, etered, have electric heat,
and thermopane wind$33,OOOhe1-price after reconditioning and after
the 198~b`~~G.P,I. is
^u D. PMH unit (k8 is a studio with 350
t ~
1 4
3 ~
,,
C '
,y
1 ;
~;
i
a
i
~ ~~ Ar,~~; ~~x ._~,-, sq. ft "This" un t would remain
in the low income categof'y,`c~rreht"~'y"''$27,500`"""and•~"increase~' by the
1980 ~.P':I The studio was... also built in the.,. late 1,950'x,
The old boiler room would become a common area. All units need
thermopane windows.` Tile extra land (horse corral) could be set
up for purchase by the hoineowner$ at their option. `Should the
application be approved, the prices above have been agreed to by
the applicant,
16~y (3 irel'~
... ,...y s-... t
April 13, 1987
To 'u~Thom it may concern:
y ;cured the consent
of a majority of Homeownersare's~dingeattSoprise'Creek Cabins, in
order that he m'ay cosistruct'an addition to his unit, ~8. This
is ih a~'co'rdanc'e with Article V22S', ~"ect. 1. of the Declaration
of Covenants for Soprs Creek Cabins dated July 9, 1980.
S~ elg,
_~ry R. Bannon, r
Sopris Creek Cabins' Homeowners
~~z~u;39
(~~1~3~1~
.,.. _. ,., ~... , .. _ ,.-a- ,..... r w I
:'`ar'k` ":-~:.
.'i. '{A.
~' i_
{ _:
~; . .
,~::, .
~~ '
w;
~,?, '
~~ - a
~,,;
Vii, .
?°:
,.
.»w',
~m .
a ~ t'"~
NO'TIbB OF~PUBLTC,`"ftR'~ L'
~~i~"'
y'
~~,
~,',
M1~~ a~".:
~}
x 1
~Y a .
l.? i
Pursuant to Pit ~~CR
as am'ertdei), a 'Pu61ic"H~ea~i'i;
Commissioners Rooai, "Pit"ki'n"
(or at such other place,''as
cons',ider, an' application f~l
requesting .., y ~N
antlior'it for' va
County Zoning Resolution
All persons affec~e~"~
a .<.
ppear and state their`'v~ew
cannot appear personally at
state'your'biews by letter,
such variance, as the Board
consideration to the»~opin~o
others affected in'ileciiiing
for variance. ""''
DATE ,AND TIME OF MHSTING "'
Paul and Patricia Dudley; 5
a 6 ft. re'aryard~ setback va'.
Gary'C.' Moore, Lot 6?; Block
requesting a 15 ft`.`sid qa'r~
^^k': ys
Ronald and Marsha Hoch`i'ield
Creek Village~`Subdiviaion~~;
20 ft. sid,eyard,set6ack`var':
. - ,. -~ ,... t~
Martina Navratilova; 2810'"~$~~1
frontyard'setback variance,'
John Weast, Zot $, >!i~tAgr"~
requesting frontyard end si<
Jim Condit, ~"even Oe~Ca ~aubd9
~frontyard setback variance
r .~.,,~.sqc
t ~m
' '~.' E /NVa(ry k
IN '„ ^b~s.'~'N^PA'"+vxy,Rj
~, ~ ~ ~'~ uo-ax a ~ t yr Sk,
,, ^, f
s
~9~~~
..,y S^~A
i
" I
~, ~ ,
T,
a iA
3$~IC NOTTCB~
)R$'THB PT't"KIN"C~'UNTY )~~OA$ll``bF
,~ .. -. ... 4. Y , "TSb"~~. _ a._ _ .
~1~~'~25 AFFS`CTSD"BY"TIiB F~'BQ'UfiS
L"6 BfiLb~fVi~
~.. i i ~
- ,.:..:
qLO"Wing Resolution ot` Jun'e's 5; 19$3,
"dill be herd in the"County``
4~,_.
innty Court House, Aspen, Colorado,
ie,meeting may then be adjourned) to
C'"cditli `the "said Board of Adjustment
Dance'from the provisions of the"' a
~$? `~`~
~ ''
tie proposed variance are invit}ed,~to
p'Y~otests, or objections. If you
uoh meeting, then you 'are urged ,to
~ar~'icularly if you have objection to
a~,.Adjuatment w'i11 give serious'''"
`"'$Tf' surrounding property ownersµ and
"k`e`'t'her to grant or deny the request
~s ~", 19,87" _, at 5.15 ,', _.,,~. ~,
P. m.
QA~Ba'sf Sop"r'is 'Creek Road, requesting
an'ce.
c Filing 1, Brush Creek Subdivision,
se'~6ack variance. '`
dot"'23 Block 2, Fills! 2 . B ,, ~ '.-_r.
. g rus~
79,JUniper Hi 11 Drive,'request,in'g as
A~C`e
~`ighway 82, requesting a l0 ft.
rs,,
!',Basalt, Sopris Creek Cabins",~`' '", ~ ;„
setback variances: ,~~, .,
]ai`on, Lot ',4, requesting a 50 f~"` "'?` ~
~~y~ W n ff
~~ ~' ~' :~
r tL< r a ~} ~-
~ ~ ~ a ^k I '
C
a iS I ~ ~ ~, ~~ t 4 4~
Y
A
_,
Minutes
Pitkn County
Board of Adjustment,
Special Meeting
June 2, 19$7
Members Present~_ Evan Gull, Chairman
.~.~»
.. r .. r.
Kandi $haffran "`
Melinda Pearson °"
Peter Dobrovolny
Bob Miller `
Patsy Newbury, ..Acting"Zoning Offici.a]. was present with staff
recommendations.
Gull called the, meeting to order. Pearson' asked that
sentence beginning with "Without a variance. ._, ." be s
the minutes from„Case 87 10 Gull also had'"a spellin
t Y "f rymylye •wd~'~ ix wW
in Case 87-13 (Coixrtesy) Miller made a mo ion~"£""o mac
minutes of_April 28, 1987, as amended Pearson secon
motion. -obrodolny abstai`ned., All other members wer
,.. ., .
The mation passed 4 - 0,
Dobrovolny informed the_Board that the Cou
~,
rewriting the code. HeY informed the Boax'c~
meeting set up with the "C oixn£y`cade`consuT
He thought it would be an opportunit'p~to p
the code, that the Board Nought should be
the Board members. to ,let him know what` the
bring up. Gull suggested Highway 82~s~i~gns
that they had to came back in, ,f or an;,_:'arnua
accessory buildings, setbacks. Pearson'su
on front yard. Gull also suggested the go
setbacks be determined,gn,lot.size rather
~,
suggested a clarification on easements and
measured from them.
ty in the
he'
cess of
gestiea a czar
exit`al that'F
Gull asked all,appiicants if they had properly posted their
signs. All had.
Case 87-17 - Paul and Patricia Dudley 5660 East Souris Creek
.. ,. ..~_,F w. r_ r ....~; ,14.a rVw.`5.~.- rr ..rv ttN 'Fr ~. SP4A.3Yu~ n«'x-..4r u. ^; rtI< .~.,...
Road _. _ _
The applicant was present. He was requesting a 6 ft.
setback variance from the rear„property line. There was one
undeliverable notice to the Bureau of Land Management. '"Dudley
..~,
explained the lot was' 1200 ft. wide. T'he 'd~eptfi'~i§'the' problem.
He didn't feel the variance would b'e`a prot~lem because there are
no dwellings, it's BLM land.'"Nicholas Lampirs had determined
that the envelope was the only good building site on the property
due to topography. He continued that the Planning Departxnent;had`
1
_._ -c.Y .y.~_. 4m'rci +r`A+v.: ::,~ .,.,Y .,_. Ys. .. :;--.bre. ,::
approved the envelope through the 1041 Hazard Review. Dudley
also pointed out by moving the house back, it provides the house
with more visual protection from the road and neighboring houses.
Sh<iffran questioned the amount of the variance. It was deter-
mined that it would be a 40 foot rear yard variance. Dobrovolny
commented that the address must he wrong. Dudley replied that he
had been given the address by the Building Department and i.t
would be corrected later. Pearson asked why they chose not to
build in the portion of the lot that would allow him not encroach
on the setbacks. Dudley replied that it was due to topography,
it is a very steep lot. Dobrovolny agreed that due to the
steepness of the lot., that was the only building site. Shaffran
made a motion that a 20 ft. front yard. setback variance and a 40
ft. rear yard setback variance he granted due to the irregular
shape of t-he lot. Dobrovolny seconded the motion. The motion
passed 5 - 0.
The applicant was present. The applicant was applying for
15 ft. rear yard setback variance due to excavation costs. Moore
stated that the lot was steep; by moving the house 15 ft.. he
could substantially reduce the excavation costs and preserve the
vegetation. He continued that he had built most of the houses on
the adjacent properties and they were agreeable to the variance.
Mrs. Krieger, the owner of the lot directly above Lot 6 was
present. Moore felt the 15 ft. would not affect her. The living
areas planned to be on the other side of the house. Krieger
objected to the variance because it was not a hardship case, all
that was involved was higher excavation costs, there are alter-
natives. She continued that the house would be higher and
closer, she had a health problem and had moved up there to be
away from car exhaust and wood smoke, and she did not want the
house any closer that it legally should be. She felt that
excavating costs and long driveways were part of building on
steep lots. Moore pointed out that he still had the option of
building the house as high as he originally wanted and more of
the house would be visible. Gull clarified that cost was not
considered a hardship they could use 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 a reasonable use. Shaffran moved to
deny the request due to no demonstrated lack of reasonable use of
the land. Dobrovolny seconded the motion. All were in favor,
the motion carried 5 - 0.
Case 87-19 - Ronald and Marsha Hochfie_ld_- 1779 Jun~er hill Road
The applicants were present. They were requesting a 20
ft. rear yard setback variance, due to downzoning, topography and
an erroneous survey that had been done. Mr. Hochfield began
that they had recently purchased the house, with the intent of
remodeling the house. Their financing is contingent on being
2
able to remodel, They were shown some. plans that were approved
by the County in 1981. They later found out,the'survey".was
incorrect. The„ house is presently encroaching in the southwest
corner. A geological survey had heefr done by Nicholas Lampiris.
Hochfield had ip;quired about 'expanding up the slope of the hill
on the side of the ,house. ,Lampiris had strangly advised the
g ue to drainage
ndin in that'diYection d
Hochfield's against expa~~~
problems. hampiris had written a letter to tfiat `eFfect
Hochfield continued that this was 'the only logical place to `
expand th,e,house, even though it is the corner i.hat already
encroaches. The only neighbor, the Crowleys, who it would
effect, had no objections, in fact they fhought. it would be an
improvement. Dobrovolny asked about the front side of the house
Hochfield replied that the septic system was there and t~just ~v ~"
was not feasible. Gull read Lampiris' letter into the record.
Gull fel£ the problem of the erroneous survey ws5 awltq~ard because
it was due to human error, not topography. Shaffran had a
problem w~.th the variance because it would be compounded an '
error. Hochfield explained that it_was, a very steep Io't, that is
why the second driveway was put in. After~msoma cl_iscussion, a` '
__.,, .
site visit was scheduled for .,,Friday, June 5, T987 at 8:30 a.m.
. ._
., . ,_.
Dobrovolny moved to adjourn the case until a site visit,~could be
arsofi,"sec,onded the motzon. nAll were in favor. The _
t ..
thisopoin~ried 5 0 Dobrovolny had to leave t.~e meeting 'a
... ~ ,
Larry Mcl~in'zie of ._~'i~l 1'oss~' Architects was'represPnting the
applicant. The applicant was requesting to reduce the etback
from 25 feet t,o 15 ft. There were two notices that were returned _
as undeliverable,. one to Colorado Department" of 'Higl"iways"sanc~~'thse' "~`
other to Violet Corbin. There was also a_,letter from Maureen
.-..-. ~-.. ~^m* .. ~ s p~axw~ ,mwu~?x~eie.A'l+nma~ ,i.awn :..enm lad„~¢
McCluskey that Gull read into the record. McCluskey was present'.
_.,._ ,
McKinzie began that they would like to build a single car garage
to the north of the house, along what was the access. ;,,.
,::
road to campground. McCluskey objected to the garage 'She
stated that the lot was an undersized lot and the ga'ra'ge additio
would extend ractical y into the road. She~st"ated, as the'housn
p e
is built she looks directly into the house and is is a beacon. in"
the night with alI the lights on. S,he_ also obje'ct'ed to' tfie fact
that there were no, trees to ,hid the_garage'from the road.
McKinzie was asked why the garage could not be built on'the,other
' replied that`~they would still
side of the house. McKinzie
require a variance and the owner wanted to have an attached
garage. Gull explained to McKinzie, hat the variances f~ia~ were
granted in the past were granted for specific bui.ings', "hey
were not envelope granted variances. The,.garage"would nonfarm to
the side yard setback and rear yard, butnbt"to the 100 ft.
setback. Shaffran felt that"there„_h ad been So mtich„impact in
e house and the encroachment of~75"
ranting anything else
ftatthatdshecwouldohave a problem~g~~ ~ "~~~~ ~ "~ ~~~~~~~ "~~ ~~~ ~ "~~~ ~~~
not having a garage was a .hardship. I`
Shaffran did not fee,l..,that a". "
^1 ^)
Pearson agreed that a garage was not conditional for having full
use of one's land. Tom Goggins, 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
house wot.tld only occupied 25% much of the year and they needed it
to secure their vehicles and bicycles, etc. ({e continued that
they were willing to do what. ever was necessary to landscape the
area to minimize the impact. McClusl;ey pointed out that the
Forest Service had moved the old Campground road, that provided
them with adequate, safe parking. McKinzie ashed 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 # 47-21 - John F4east Lot H, Fili~_1, SO~ri.s Creek Cabins
.Tohn Wheeler was present representing the owner, John Weast
who was also present. The applicant. was requesting a setback
variance. The existing building is non-conforming and the
setback requirements cannot be met. The applicant wants to add
to his cabin hecause presently there are two people and a baby
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 $ is PMH unit with
350 sq. ft., a studio unit to remain in the low income category.
Wheeler stated that they were aware that this would only be the
first of the approvals they would have to have. After some
discussion, Shaffran made the motion to approve a setback.
variance according to plans submitted, due to downzoning and
inappropriate zoning, with the condit:inn that the applicant
comply with the requirements of the PMH review. Pearson seconded
the motion. The motion carried 4 - 0.
Case 87-22 - Jim Condit Tract 4 Seven Oaks Subdivision
The applicant was present requesting a front yard setback
of 50 ft. The. applicant explained that he had just finished a
1041 Hazard review. The recommendations of the review were that
the wildlife impact should be minimized as much as possible by
preserving the native vegetation. Moving the house closer to
the road would do this. This would also minimize the wildfire
risk. The applicant continued that further back on the lot the
topography is very steep. The geologist's report also suggested
moving the house forward on the lot for adequate drainage. Gull
asked if there was any response from the neighbors. There was
not. After some discussion, Shaffran moved to grant. a 50 ft.
front yard setback variance and 25 ft. side yard setback vari-
ances due to substandard lot sire and to preserve the native
carried 4 -
vegetation. Pearson seconded the motion. The motion ,
0.
Meeting was adjourned.
9
~' ~" .
Respectfully Submitted,
Secretary
a'c~~:,aj Chasrman
Date
5
~,~ ,
Kandi Shaffran moved that the following be adopted: "' `°
BEFORE 'THE $OAR1~ OF AD.J"~~`T`M'~~'~'"'"~." ~` `~
OF THE'COUNTY OF pITKIN ~"
STATE OF 'COLORADO- ~ "
RESOLUTION N0: 87=21
Jahn Weast, l,ot 8, Fi„ling 1, Soprs Creek Cabins
WHEREAS `the sub'ect `~ ''.',"., "._..,,.'"._._.,."'
j property is withan the unincorporated area
of Pitkin County; "C"olo,ra~lo"anc~", '~`"~""~~"~"~ `
WHEREAS, the Hoard of Adjustment in vested wi'tli the power to
rant or d
56-1.3 piny such variances by virtue of Title ,II~, ~aection "" "
1
tkin County code (Land Use Code) and Colorado Revised
tatutes, 1973, 30-28-I18 2 C"•`and;~
WHEREAS, based on the, evidence presented, the Board of ':Adjustment
makes the following Yind"ings''
1. Proper notice procedures, including the
w ,.
notification of" a11~"adjoining p'ri~perty
owners, has been shown by the applicant.
2. The required"hardsliip or practical dafficulty
has been established. `~'"~" "" ~ "
3. Granting such relief wili~~~not cags~e~~su°bs~'an-~~ ~~ ~ `'•'~~~ '~ '~~ ~ _ ' ~~~~~
tial detriment to the public welfare and will
not substantially impair the intent and._"
purpose of the Zoning Resoautioirs and the
zoning maps.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RE3dT.~ "that""the"applicant's request for a~~~ •A ry• rv ~~
a setback°variance be granted according to the plans submittted
due to downzonng and inappropriate zoning.
Additional conditions or 'restrictions the applicant must comply
with.. the conditions of the PMH `review.`" '"""" "" `'
-.;~~.., ., d ~~P.a ,~ ~,
WARNING: Any volation'of the terms of"this r"'eso'luton may
result in rehearin 'and ~" ""~"`~ '"`` "'
g possible revocation.
Melinda pearsan seconded the adoption of the foregoing Reso-
lution. The roll having been called; the vote was as°follows:
Kandi Shaf£ran - yes Melinda Pearson - yes
Evan Gull - yes
Bob Miller - .yes
The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of
the County of pitkin, State"af"Co`"`lorad`o ."W """~` ~' •~ '
DATED: June 2, 1987 ,The Board of Adjustment of
,_ pitkin "County, Colorado .,,.,,.,:.: ., ,r ,..,.. ,
Attest:
l.G~-- .retar ~e.~~., ~ C~ ,_
_. ~._
a+, atin, wY~^4W a+,a h3;4. sF .~ara `}~' .a '~"&"' to ~.,p
,.i?5