Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.87.25,. BOARD OF ADJUST.~SEN'f ~ ~~ LOCP.TION OF PROPERTY L..p~ Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part this Case No. $x-25 The E3oard may return this application if it_does not contain all the fac'. _ .. _,. in question. Applicant's description of proposed variance showing justification; ~a~N;-~,- ~~ r~E Su3Div~5ia•~ ".tz~ ~4tt- lMv'~~-~S ON +~N`f I..oT to ~ ~zoc~D A3 ~ URRcM-4L.~ ~ 1 loD~ k~P~:o.-~ . SNP I5 ~4 ~~c:'~.~~ 1~~ ~l,o,a;~~ W.res _ _ (~.~.rEe-~ ~b~ts~ {~'c R~.a. k~9~2~ ~~ 1 E. ~A~(.i.N~c~i' ~la~fYc~t-~ Applicant Signature Provisions of the z forward this applic arar,ting a buiding " ng resolution requiring the Building Inspector to on to th,e Board of Adjustment and reason for not mit, . ~ } ~.~' ''~p rn~-' ~'S - ~ c l~~lue~u rkG ~u.£c.oJ ~v /D'a _g~r`~t.'~~Z~rs e~c~ o r pa,_e '- -ejected; Board decision ~,~rm, z ~~ ~~ "led Date ,a, • `~, Secretary'3oard of Acijuscment ~~~~~?~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PITKTN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT` TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTfiD 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 C'ommis- such othRoom, Pitkin County Court House, Aspen, Calorado, {or at sioners,er 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'invted to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give set~ious ~' consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and other affected in decidin whether to " ' g grant or deny the request"' for variance. THE PARTICULARS OF THE HEARI~7G AND``6F THE REQU~STEb t~A#'IANCE `ARE'" AS FOLLOWS: Date and time of meeting: June 30, 1987 5:I5 p.m. Name and Address of Applicant for Variance: John B. Young 0095 Light Hill Road Location of Property or Description: Lot 2, Block 1, Gateway of Snawmass Mesa 0095 Light HiYl Road Variance Requested: a 60 ft. frontyard setback variance. Duration of Variance: Permanent: XX :Temporary Condition: THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF 'ADJUSTMENT Evan Gull, Chairman --.~ _ ,. ti ,< ~~ ~ - _ ....- .. _ ~~.,. ... . ~>S P v FY•.~ ~1..la3tkri'k:°+k~ P.o.~,~ 4-t2 Sc~n~u~v~ ~C~~ g~c~~ ~Sa3 SuRRR"~'t`S ~~ CL~~o+~ ~ ~RRQ~ ~,c~.s p Za 73~' ?. 0 . Gaon 2030 ~,~Nw-av~SQQ-~ZYs ~C,o~ ~\bo\ P+~ ~ ~O`c.r~ d.~ ~Z4 tv . CtA ~o at >j 2\~ ~Ko ~~E ~L.v~ ~o~~~c3~K ~ ~ u-~ r~a~5 boob2 ~~1~ ~! 3 r 1~ ~~ y 6' ~ ~ / / ~ / cLru/e+~~~r _ 50 ~/ ~ ~. Y, l~ .~ (~a~s. ~.outco~ 2'S'~~ fY4x~l.Q .. i~ _ J' lbu.SC' W..~.~ ~o~E (_o~ ,2 :B t o[,.fe. ~ ~.a.J 2.: 1 "= ~O sCo~.es: - - - - - ~ -- ~- ~5 'u.{i.t c~~~ eR,~.e'+rt2+lt ci.loK.~ F. e.a.. Q~cetl~_ siclz d a-1l (off. S~x2c ~{ ~DUx10oSQS t I hereby certify that this Improvement Location Certificate of Lot 2, Block 1, Gateway of Snowmass Mesa subdivision, Thizd 1•'iling, Yitkin County, Colorado, was prepared under my direct supervision, that it is not a land survey plat or improvement survey plat, and that it is not to be relied upon for the establishment of fence, building or other future improvement. lines. I further certify that the improvements on the above described. parcel on this date, 9 December 1983, except utility connections, are entire- ly within the boundaries of the parcel, 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 ap- " of saidevidence or sign of any easement crossing or burdening any part parcel, exq~pt as noted. / `/ sy~ c .a. Street Address: 0095 Ligght H(11 ` Snowmas5, Color ~~i 14111 ~avE{: , ~~~'~~: i Br L ,__,~ ... 'j R/i s+ I--.~ r~ ,. Joe Zanin moved that the following be adopted: B~EFORB TRB' BOARD"'OF ~ADJ~~'fXt~`fV"T ~ '~ ~ ~~ OF T$$ COUNTY OF PTTKIA STATE OF COLORADO" RBSOLUTION`NO. 87-25 John B. Young, Lot 2, Block 1, Gateway to Snowmass''Mesa 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 variance'§'by virtue of Title II, Section 16-1.3 Pitkin'County code {Land Use Code) and Colorado Revised Statutes 19'73 30-~28-11'8~~') (C);'and, makesAthebfolIowinghfindingnce presented, the Board of Adjustment s: 1. Proper notice procedures, including the notification of all adjoining property owners, has been shown by the applicant. 4 2. The re wired hardship or 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, TRfiRfiFORE, BE IT RE$'Ol:VE'D that-the applicant's request for a 60 ft. frontyard setback variance be granted due to downzoning. Additional conditions or restrictions: WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. Melinda Pearson seconded the. adoption of the foregoing Resolu- tion. The roll having been ''called, the vote was as follows: Kandi Shaffran -.yes Melinda Pearson Robert Miller yes Yes - ;Joe Zanin - yes The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of dolorado. DATED; June 3'0, 198'7 The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado' Attest: Zc,-'~~~„~ Chairman '` .. u u __ 3 ,,. Minutes Pitkin County Board of,Adjustment June 30, 1987 Members Present: Kandi Shaffran, Acting Chairman Melinda Pearson Robert Miller Joe Zanin Patsy Newbury was present with staff recommendations. Shaffran called the meeting to order. Pearson moved to approved the minutes from the last meeting and site visit as submitted. Miller seconded the motion. The motion carried 4 - 0. Erleyne Loucks was present. She was requesting a 70 ft. frontyard setback variance, an 8 ft. sideyard setback variance and a 7 ft. sideyard setback variance. fihe lot is only 80 ft: "` wide and 120 ft. long. The septic system `is 1'ocated in the upper' middle portion of the lot, The applicant's neighbors, Jeff Kurt z. and Dia L nn were "'" Y present. They had no objec'~ions. Zanin asked if they had the Homeowner''s Association approval. Loucks replied that there wasn't an association. Shaffran suggested for uniformity that the sideyard setback variances if granted should' be both 8 ft. Zanin moved to grant 70 ft. frontyard setback variance, an 8 ft. sideyard setback variance and an 8 ft. sideyard setback variance"due to downzoning. Robert Miller seocnded the motion. TTie motion carried 4 - 0. ` g si a ey ad chosen, the solar access was blocked by the existing trees, because of that they'had revised their plans. They did not want to lose ail the trees. There is a 10 yr. old Blue Spruce tree that would block about 2 hours of a limited solar aspect. She explained to the Board that she no longer wanted to built the garage that was: 'shown, but wanted to place the house where the garage would have been. The setback variance required would be the same. Kurtz submitted to the Board, a signed sheet from the neighbors giving their blessing to the original and revised plans. After some discussion, Miller made a motion that a 10 ft. side Bard variance and a 70 ft. frontgard variance be granted due to solar access. Pearson seconded the motion. The motion passed 4 -'0. --- is Lynn waa present. She was requesting a 70`ft. frontyard setback variance and a 10 ft. sideyard setback variance. She introduced her contractor, Jeff Kurtz to the Board. Lynn explained that they would like to build a solar `home. With the original buildin "t th h ,;' Case 87-2d - Stefan KaeTin - 0561 Meadowood Drive ,~ , __, ... Stefan Kaelin was present. Curtis Cleveland, his contractor was also present. Cleveland explained that they were requesting an additional 52 square feet of floor area to construct an enclosed entry way to make the entry to the house work more efficiently. He continued that-this is a two story roof shedding snow onto the entry way. There was also a problem with opening the door, without stepping around it. Cleveland continued that the Tans had been a ~ ' P pproved by the Meadowoo3 Homeowners_As`soca- tion last week., There was a letter of protest from'King Wood= ward. He was concerned that the variance., if granted would set a :.... ,_, precedent; he felt if there was''no undue hardship the variance should be denied. Kaelin stated that the way the door is constructed now is not a hardship, but if someone was hurt, it would be a hardship. He continued that they wanted`to enclose P Y , entrcawaorand wouldanothlookonice.noHe feltdthetproposedfentrent Y Y y way, would be an improvement to his house and to the Meadowood Subdivision. Woodward was present. He clarified that the Home= owners Association had not approved the project. They had simply put the burden of a J f a variance was grantedPrthey hadtno problemfwithutheedesign. '' Woodward stated that he personally did not have a problem with esign, he was concerned "with setting a precedent. Shaffran assured him that"all cases were"considered on a case by .case basis. Waodward questioned if there was a hardship under which a variance could be granted. Kaelin felt that the FAR restrictions were to prevent someone from huilding a house that was too large far the lot, he felt tli`a£~really did not apply in his case. { Shaffran explained to Kaelin that the State only allowed the Board certain hardships under which to grant a variance. Pearson suggested eliminating FAR from somewhere else, for example the carport. She did not see a hardship to grant. a variance. The hardship was man made. Zanin was in agreement that there was no basis to rsance, Pearson moved that the yariance bye grant a..,°a... _ ... _ .__,.. - ..< ~...„ ~ _.„.,,. ~ A ....s r ... denied due to lack ofdemonstrat'ed` arclship. Zanin secoriaed the _:,, , motion. The motion passed 4 - 0:'~ mesa suoaivision °° John Young was present. He was requesting a 60 ft. frontyard setback variance. He explained that his_lot was a one .~., ,,M acre lot. It was downzoned in 197b. He wanted to add a garage. If the garage were placed to the back of the lnt, it would interfere with the solar heating system. The solar 'system is working beautifully and he did not want to change that. He continued that it was not a topographical hardship, 'the lot was very flat. He considered a garage a necessity in their case; his wife is a mid-wife and delivers 'babies at all hours of the night. Newbury asked Young if he was aware that he_had a height problem. He was not and asked if a height variance could tie granted as well. Shaffran explained that a new application would have to be submitted and_a sign posted and neighbors notified. There were r no neighbors present. Pearson asked what prevented him from moving the garage back. Young replied that the proposed location was chosen to be as far away from his neighbors as possible. Shaffran stated that if the garage were moved back, he would need aside yard setback variance, and might impact the neighbors more. Zanin moved to :grant a 60 ft. Yrontyard setback variance due to downzonng. Pearson seconded the motion. The motion' carried 4 -0. Gretchen Greenwood was present representing Gwen Sharp. The applicant was requesting a sideyard setback variance. Greenwood explained that she was not sure how much of a variance would be required. She explained that the Iot was extremely steep, She gave the Board a short history of the house. The hardship was topographical. There is no where else~on`the lot that a carport or anything else could be built. The current floor area'of the house 6688 sq. ft. and the allowable FAR is 9146 sq. ft., which they will never be able to build. The house is remote except for one house awned by $ob Lorton. Greenwood submitted a letter from Lorton stating that he had no objections.' Shaffran read the letter into the record. Newbury explained `that the setback variance would actually be for the frontyard"setback, not the sideyard setback. Shaffran asked if they were proposing to build up to the lot line. Sharp replied-that they were. Pearson asked if there were any neighbors present. There were not. Greenwood stated that every single owner i'n the subdivision" had been notified. She continued that they were going before the Homeowners Association on the 21st of July, they couldn't meet with them until after the decision of this Board. Shaffran questioned if there was confusion about whether the variance was for the front or sideyard in the notices that had been sent. Greenwood stated that all owners had received plansr Pearson asked how it was posted. Greenwood replied as a setback var- iance. After some discussion, Zanin moved that a 3Q ft. front- yard setback variance be granted due to topography. Pearson seconded the motion. Shaffran was not comfortable with granting a 0 lot line variance for a carport. She didn't feel that was a hardship. Greenwood stressed that the carport would be`un- obtrusive. Shaffran was impressed by the fact that they'had riot built to their allowable FAR. The motion passed 4 - 0. Case 87-27 -_J_,T. Zoline, 0962 Sta¢e Road Brad Knotts was present representing 7.T: 7.olir'e. The applicant was requesting permission to place a sign 'on the south end of their field stating the name of the ranch, the telephone number and "Horse Boarding". Knotts drew a rough sketch for the Board describing what the sign c,*ould look "l'ke and where it would be located. He proposed a 2' x 2' sign at a height of 6 ft., placed on his property directly across from`the Pomegranate Inn, facing the highway, on a rocky knoll, setback 15 or 20 ft. ~ +~ a Shaffran asked what color and material. Knotty replied it would be a wooden sign, brown or green; something subdued: Pearson asked if they would be comply with the Pitkin County Sign Code. Rnotts replied that he would. Shaffran. reminded Knotty that the code required that the applicant to come back to Board for a yearly review. Pearson moved to approve the placement of the sign. Zanin seconded the motion. The motion passed 4 - 0. Case 87-28 - Christine Sparovic, Sparovic Lot Split-l-A Peter Van Domelan was present representing the"'applicant, Christine Sparovic, who was also present. Van Domelan began that presently there is a garage 'attached to the house with a four foot overhang. The variance' request was to extend the overhang from 4 ft. to 8 ft. to convert the garage to living quarters and have a porch on front. This would improve the appearance of the house. The porch would be at ground level. The other request was to permit an addition. They wanted to remove the present structure which encroaches on the 100 ft. Highway 82 setback. There would be a very small additional encroachment: The footprint would be 92 ft. from the Highway edge of right of way. They would like to place a 4 ft. roof overhang on the addition. The original house was constructed in 1960. Sparovic was not required to get a variance at that time. I3ewbury explained that in 1965 the setback requirements were changed. She thought the Highway was realigned about the time the house was built.. Van Domelan explained that the river bordered the south side of the property; there are restraints imposed by the floodplain. Charles Cuniffe, the architect was also present. He explained that they were trying to add an addition that was clean and simple. Van Domelan explained £hat this was only the first step in the review process due to the fact that they were in the Highway 82 view plain. Pearson had a problem adding the 4 ft. overhang to the existing garage because it encroached further into the 100 ft. Highway 82 setback. Cuniffe explained that even with the additional overhang, the new front would be a much quieter look, it would help with the next step of the review process and it would give the house a covered entrance. Shaffran felt it was downzoning problem, the house was built prior to the current zoning. Pearson moved to grant a 51 ft. frontyard setback variance for the expansion of the roof over the existing garage and a I3 ft. frontyard setback-variance°for the proposed addition as demonstrated on the attached drawings. Zanin seconded the motion. The motion passed 4 - 0. Case 87-29 - James K. Moore - Lot 2, Ridge of Red Mountain Replat 1 James Moore was present. He was requesting a 258 sq. ft. variance to the allowable floor area ratio. He explained that there was supposed to be a cul-de-sac on Bighorn Lane. The owner of Lo't 4 has extended his concrete driveway into the cul-de-sac. The owner of the lot right. next to Moore's driveway has installed a gate into the cul-de-sac. He showed the Board where he would 4 ~ ~" - . like to place his garage. He spoke with his neighbors and he proble garage.solthethwouldabealocatedm He placed the house and Y the farthest possible away from his neighbors. Shaffran read two letters into the record. The first was from William Tipps stating that he was in favor of the Board granting the variance. The second was from David Cham- berlin, his concern was the height of the proposed residence and whether it would block his view. Moore 'stated that he did not have a height problem. He didn't fe,e2 that anything could be done about the 'cul=de-sac. He was the Iast person to fit in and he was just trying to make it work. He explained that from the driveway he would have to make a sharp turn, the extra space was necessary to turn into the garage and pull- up and in. He checked with John Moore of the Homeowners Association. Pearson asked why didn't he design the house with the garage further back. Moore explained that the neighbor next to him was using part of his property. He had two people close to him on both sides and no cul-de-sac. Pearson questioned giving an FAR variance to make a garage work. She found it hard to grant an FAR variance for topography. Shaffran didn't feel it would be possible to call in all the neighbors that were encroaching, although it was a man- made problem, they did not have the enforcement to control situa- tions like this. Zanin pointed out that they had given 4 or 5 variances for houses an that cul-de-sac. Zanin moved that a variance be granted for an additional 258 sq. ft. to the FAR be granted due to topography to be used for the garage only. Miller seconded the motion. The motion passed 4 - 0. Meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Secretary ~c-I-~.,~ Chairman ~~ ~~a .mow ~, ,. .i~,