Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.87.27.,r. ~ BOARD OF ADJUSTbfENT F.I DATE. (// ~ 19 ~ ~ CASE's 87-27 '~ 7 ~ ~ d K . _ ADDRESS P7~'Ga1.~~'f,, .$Ty a ~ ,eAy A. PLIANT c,d // S >'~, OtaNERT !- GD~/r/ 2 ADDRESS („yam G~ ..d,.. ,l~lt- __ D e "~e/e,E'/4 /~i //S Chi, LOCATION OF' PROPERTY (' Cf~ ~ `JT ~ /Cc~I ~l~ SA~:'~ Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made par± this Case No. 87-27 The i3oaru~ may return this application if it does not contain all the fac in question. Applicant`s description of proposed variance showing justification: I` .~ JKJ-us- /L.Q~.v-pR.~V :k7 D~-~-~ e,-a-~- ~~ ,v~-~ U'-[2pd~j~;2rc~-...~`S iR?a~-~,ey.~i,Ce ~~ ~~ Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building Inspector to fbrward this application to the Board of Adjustment and reason for not arar,ting a buiding permit: _ Date Per^:` rejec~ed: App +-.~_or. `filed Applicant Signature~~~./f~ Board decision Date. :~ . ,.ai? 2d `' °'"'""' Secretary Board of /ldjuscmen.t f.3~st3~~)1. _.....~ ,~ ,_ ~n.~~, ~, .. . , .., :, ~. , _ „_ .. ., ~. ~ , ._ ,,.,,. ~ ..: w NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED 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 Commis- sioners 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 views 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 the request for variance. THE PARTICULARS OF THE_HEARING AND OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE ARE„ AS FOZLOWS: Date and time of meeting: June 30, 1987 5:15 p.m. Name and Address of Applicant for Variance: J. T. Zoline c/o 0962-B Stage Road Aspen, CO 81612 Location of Property or Description: 0962 Stage Road Variance Requested: a variance to the sign code. Duration of Variance: Permanent: XX .;Temporary Condition: THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Evan Gull, Chairman` ~vs~=moo `. ~3~. 5.~~~.. ,~_~_!~~-~~ _.~.. ,. ,.,.,: ., _ ~~J-/V C3 .~ ,G.o~G~_,,r~ ffo~-~.,,..~z._, /f/%~/+~y_~. 0- - _...,.,_Y~._... /~.,q~ ,. ,~ -__»___-w,..~.~- ~ti,. ~~ .. .:.. e: .. ..n. ... '.- ~ ~ ...+n.~.".~' .`." 1 ~ ~ a ~~ h '~.~... ~ .'f 1`..T~'~?~a;` P 1PJY'Y~. e/~~KA "r~~ 4tl§Pi YEJ _ . .u ...~ ~.,, __~ .. ,_ _ .. _~._w ._..~ _...~ _._._ ._. ,,- _--_ _~._.~ ___..._~____..__,,.~ _._ ,,___._._, ~~,~... r , ~,,~.~_ ___. _ ~w,:_ ___,~_~.~.,..~.,~,....__.._._._._.Y.w _~..._ ._..... _, a- n...~ ---..... -q-~-.,,,.~,~~ ~..~.~_..~, ... ;,_a~~__. .._..~..~_~_---~~~--~-,~--~-~---rm-~,.,~--~-._ ~ ,~----~-~ ...~.... .:., p... ~..~ vP u.. Wk ,«a ee ... VI. .. .a a .. : ... ..a.~ .. w. .tA. S; ~... a.' I ., rvy ....9 _ _ _ _..M ....a . _, _ , ~1 ~,.' sozDNEx ~ 0501 STAGE RD. ASPEN, CO. ~~ 81612 / Jan 29, 1987 ,~ ~ a, .nu( THE P_ITKIN COUNT't BOART) OI' A~`DJUSTNP~T~T - - - Evan Gull, Chairman Asreu, Co -- - 81611 _ Dear Members: ~~7e are unable to attend the public hearing requested by J.T. ZoLne scheduled for June 30,regardng a sign ordinance varience to be located on his ranch'at 0962 Stage Rd. Because our home on Stage road is besides the Zoline proposal, we naturaly have a personal interest in your variance debate. As I told Brad, (M.r. Zolines employee)`, we are not inset by the' size of, the sign which is~psoposed to be 2' x 3'. However, we do have several concerns r2'~asding its location, quality and long range a~fect on this area. 1. If there is no alternative site for the sign other than beside our house, we°`would hope that it be ' located low and hndscaped so as to be visable only from the road 2. The sign should be of professional quality, not hand lettered in an ams euraish way or made to appear less than in good taste. 3. Since the variance requested is for a permanent permit, we are canC'erned'that it may opAr_ the door in this rural setting for a further depreciation of Stage road. (~~itness the KYTy radio tower, it's adobe house, dum ing grounds and storage glut across the road from us~. Please consider these ooncerns in your deliberations. Si er y au Soldner p. v a . ' ~. x' ..a_. i. ... Minutes Pitkin County Board of Adjustment June 30, 1987 Members Present: Kandi Shaffran, Acting Chairmam 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 visif as submitted. Miller seconded the motion. The motion carried 4 - 0. vase or-ac - >;rleyne Loucks Lot 5ti Elk Mountain Subdivision Erleyne Loucks was present. She was requesting a 70 ft. frontyard setback variance, an $ ft. sideyard setback variance and a 7 ft. sideyard setback variance. The lot~is only `80 'f t'. wide and 120 ft. long. TT~e septic system is located in the upper middle portion of the lot. The applicant's neighbors, Jeff Kurtz and bia Lynn were present: They had no objections. Zanin p Y 's Association approval. Loucks asked Lf the had the Homeowner ociation. Shaffran suggested fore uniformityathatethewsideyard setback variances if granted should be both 8 ft. Zanin moved to grant 70 ft, frontyard setback ,_ . variance, an 8 ft. sideyard setback variance arrd an 8 ft. sideyard setback variance due to downzoning. Robert Miller .. ,._. seocnded the motion. The motion carried 4 -`"0.' ~~~c or-co - oia Lvnn Lot 6'! Elk Mountain Subdivision Dia Lynn was 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 P y originaldbuhldingesiteutheylhadto build a solar home. With the chosen, the solar access was blocked by the existing trees, because of that they had revised their plans. They did ngt want 'to lose all t`he 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 submittaii 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 yard variance a'nd a 70 ft. frontyard variance be granted due to solar access. Pearson seconded the motion. The motion passed 4 - 0. Case 87-24 - Stefan Kaelin - 0561 Meadowood Drive .~,.~ . ~ . ~" ~., s Stefan Kaelin was present. Curtis Cleveland, his contractor was also present. Cleveland explained that they were requesting an additional b2 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 plans had been approved by the Meadowood Homeowners Associa- protest from Kin Wood tion last week. There was a letter of granted would s war e was concerned that th et a precedent; he felt if there was no undue hardship the variance should be denied. Kaelin statee variance if constructed now is not a hard..h~ that the way the door is r ip, but if someone was hurt, it would be a hardship. He continued that they wanted to enclose the carport. The way the door is now, would not be an efficient Y Y Y en~r iaouldabe anumprovement tochis houselandhtopropased entr' wa 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 approval on the Board of Adjustment. If a variance was granted, they had no problem with the design. Woodward stated that he personally did not have a problem with the design, he was concerned with setting a precedent. Shaffran assured him that all cases were 'considered on a case by case basis,. Woodward questioned if there was a hardship under which a variance could be granted. Kaelin felt that the FAR restrictions were to prevent someone from building a house that was too large for the lot, he felt that°'really" did not apply in fis case. Shaffran explained to Kaelin that the State only allowed the Board certain hardships under which to grant a variance. Pearson suggested eliminating FAH from somewhere else, for example the carport. She did not see a hardship to grant a variance. The hardship was manmade. Zanin was in agreement that"there was no ' basis to grant a variance. Pearson moved that the variance be motion.duTheomotionopassedn~traoed hardship. Zann'secon'ded the ,•,~aa ouuuivision _, John Young was present. He was requesting a 60 ft. frontyard setback variance. He explained that his lot was a one Zfrtheot. It was downzoned in 1,97b. He wanted to add a garage. garage were placed to the back of the..lot, it would workinere with the solar heating"system. The solar system is ' g 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 be granted as well. Shaffran explained that a new application would have to be submitted and a sign posted and neighbors notified. There were ~ ~ .. no neighbors present. Pearson asked what. prevented him from ' g garage back. Young replied that the proposed location movin the to be as far away from his neighbors as possible. was chosen Shaffran stated that if the garage were moved back, he would need a side. yard setback variance, and might impact the neighbors more. Zanin moved to grant a 60 ft. frontyard setback variance due to downzoning. 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 lot 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 9146rsare£tof Phichothe 6willsnever'beYablee£olbuildle The house q• r Y is remote exce t for one house owned b Bob 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 in the subdivision had been notified. She continued that they were going before the Homeowners Association on the 2Tst of July, they couldn't meet questioneduntil after the decision of this Board, Shaffran if there was confusion about whether the variance was Y notices that had been sent. Greenwoodrstated postedld Greenw had received phans. Pearson asked how it was ood replied as a setback var- fiance, After some discussion, Zanin moved that a 30 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 not built to their allowable FAR. The motion passed 4 - 0. no s was resentin J.T. Zoline. T end of their field statin the n e south ephone numberaandwaHorseuBoardgngermisKnottsfdrewcaanch,gthentelhe Ugh sketch for the Board describing what the sign would look likeoand where it would be located.' He proposed a 2' x 2' sign at a height of 6 ft., placed on his property directly across frgm the Pomegranate Inn, facing the.highway, on a rocky knoll, setback 15 or 20 ft. ~. u: ,. ... ..~ ,.,. , ~ ~ ~ r ~::.ti.~-+ Shaffran asked what color and material. Knotts replied it would he a wooden sign, .brown or green; something subdued. Pearson asked if they would be comply with the Pitkin County Sign Code. Knotts replied that he would: Shaffran 'reminded Knotts that the code required that the applicant to come back to Board for a year review. Pearson moved t sign.y Zanin seconded the motion approve the placement of the n. The motion passed 4 - 0. 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 parch 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 $2 setback. There would be a very small additional enr_roachment. 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. Newbury explained that g y g q were changed. She thought the hi hwa was reali ned`about the Domelan explainedCthat theerivertime the house was built. Van 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 that 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 13 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 ~_Ridt£e 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 Lot 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. IIe showed the Board where he would 4 _.--_ like to place his garage didn't think there was a garage sa they would be his neighbors. Shaffran first was from William T Board granting the varia berlin, his concern was whether it would block h have a height problem. done about the~cul-de-sa he was just trying to ma driveway he would have t He spoke with his neighbors and he problem. He placed the house and located the farthest possible away from read two letters into the record. The ipps stating that. he was in favor of the nce. The second was from David Cham- the height of the proposed residence and is view. Moore stated that he did not He didn't feel that anything could be c. He was the last person to fit in and ke it work. He explained that from the o 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 on that cul-de-sac. Zanih moved that a variance be granted for an additional 25.8 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 ;T ~c-h~.,~? Chairman ~/~~_/3~ _ ......„,: ~ .._.._, „,., w ... . w.. ~.~ . n. -, ~ ~. ~ ..,,~{b. -- ~- ng be adopted:. Melinda„Pearson move d, ,that the follow,.. BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJU$TMSNT OF TRH COUNTY OF PITKIN STATfi OF COLORADO RfiSOLUTION N0. 87-27 J.T. Zoline, 0962 Stage Road WHBRBAS, the subject property is within the unincorporated area of Pitkin County, Colorado; and, WRERfiAS, 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 Count code Statutes 1973 30-28-1I8(2)L(C);UaridCode) and 'Colorado Rev 'sed WRfiR,fiAS, 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 relief will not cause substan- tial detriment to the public. welfare and will not substantially impair the inten# and purpose of the Zoning Re§glutions and the zoning maps. NOW, TRBRfiFORfi, Bfi IT RESOLVfiD'that the applicant's request for permission to place a sign conforming to the Pitkin County Sign Code on a rocky knoll on the south end of their field be approved. Additional 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 Resolution. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: Kandi Shaffran - yes Melinda Pearson - yes Robert Miller - yea Joe Zann - yes The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATfiD: June 30, 1987 The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado Attest: Secretar ~c~, S Chairman -> ....,