Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.87.39~ ^4 BCARD OF ADJUSTt•?EN': ~+ k rw, ,. , ., '~ ' ~~ ~' ., < ,_. .~ ,- . ' ~~ iQ-UL~ 19 ~ ~ CASnrt 87 39 'DATE w..,_~. _~ .: ~ i. ~ , I~^/~ ~} ~.- ADDRr.SS (~• APPLICANT Y~4iJ~~t _ . ... .. ... ......, _, _ .~ a 1 ^ ADDRc,SS ( S-A-~nc.~_ LOCATION OF PROPERTY C`7~ ~ ~l.~G~ ~ ~ILtN~ .. .. u h Vi.. I r, Any pertinent data must•accompany this application, and will be mace pa: . ,.. - No . 87-39 this Czse , The t3oard may return this. applicaton_if it does not contain all the fa . ~ -•p P P ee showiaa in question. Applicant,. s,desc,.i tion of ro osed`varian justification: 7`~~C Dui ~~ ~~: S~~EWNr ss o~ '~`c:° .C~'7' 2~rL€~ta(j sl~br'7` ~ ~S G&~~5~`~ c~ E~tl~- 8- - Cc°~4cc Cv~a ~j6tn~c`~r~" ~~ ~~~~-, G~sv C~rJito~ PC~Gc= ¢~~~ ~,a~f-t~ ,,5~•V"~~6t~, ~~r ~R6~c~ l ~ ~-~ ~ G~ ~sP 4cCE`SS. .._.. . (ao -F-h Applicant Signature Provisions of '-he zoning resolution requiring tae Building Inspector t reasor. fcr not ,. forty@rd this aop~ ~ca'~_ci to tae Board o£ Adjustment and '~"~''~ arar,ting a buidiag permAmit ~ ,/j [^ / _ ,*`G~~b' U ~© ~-~-J ;_ n,nc-o,;• Boarc decisicn ~~ ., _ .._ _..~~ Date -.p •--- ... __~_ .... ..,.:,. ::'Secret:r ~o-rc oc :,c, _.._ Q~$~ ~3t' 1 ..___. ra:xo.r:.~etn~+t7 -Urfa/sa__s-593 ~~"~Aseaen: CcloradoB'16'1~__ . i ASPE,~I*PITKIN REGr(C'~~1`l~'L;_ BUIL1fC~(NGi .~]~'~'-i~~RT1~~'"~`~~_. . ., ~ NOTICE "OF 'PUBLIC REA'RI'NG. " . _ ._ ,.__ . BZ+F''ORE~ fiRE~' PT'TK.TN"'."b`0"UN~"Y..:.SOeYRD"0~,~`"A~J`'~'1V1~~1'"~.r..,',_..,.....,.,.-.~...~,,..,.!,..~..,...,.r.,., TO ' ERTY-'OWNEftS 7~E'FBC'3`Eb gY.: ~-R,. C~"1~"Ir'~`..~..,.,,.~..,~.....~::... VA ALL PROP :. - - ...__.. _.. . .... _:~TRh" ~"RE....._,.,-_.'.'~''.~, ,.... RIANC:E D735CRI$E1S BELbTt ~ e ' - _., _.. Piursuant to Pitkan CoiYnty" Resolution of" ~uxne ~,~~II; a"s ~~r- amended, a Putil'io Rearing wall be"h"eld i_n ~he''County' Commas sinners`°fFooriY,' Pitrciai Coun~y"`Caur'~ Douse, asp n ~orado;"`~~'or at -'such oth'er`"place as `the`~meetang`'~ ~ t"Tsen be ad',lourne~) to ' consider an application -filed wi£h"the"said ~cii,'rd-ot`; Adjustmen `~"` "'"`"' requesting authority` for varaance from the prov~saons of"'"t`~ie "" Cognty'Zoning Rego'lutaom ~-."~.._. ~- All persons affected by 'the proposed baraace`~a invxted~ to`"•"~ "'"""''A~ . ~ ~ • ~ • ~. ... - t.-. +w.. ..^ ~ je XYU. ..I ... .~: .ebhWM" +1XJn,.dibwn..we-4v rrv....x.........+w appe'ar'"and state th,e_ir views, prates'ts `or "ob" ec~`ions., If kyou can»ot, appear personally at_ such mgeting, "tlie~n~you are~u~rged to state your views by letter, part'i~ii7arly ,.3f you ~`aave ob,7ection to "' " ' - .v e . w,F+,t N~amn ~ Y etln O nCWPV+F ~ fa'r3.mwrs+xe'eeF v~N .. wwe. a+...... ..- _ such varaance,'"a's tie oard of"~A~jus men'"t_wa`7'~give serious ., ..... _. con;siderataon "'to -'the`n aixioins 'of sirrou~ndin ~~" ~"~~' `"'"" ` ' P g property owners and >,.., other affected an decad'an whetlier to ^'fi y 4quest~~~ ' g' grant o den the r`e~ .~, for varaance ._ .. THE PARTICtTLARS°"OF THE"""ll~i"X'RYT~`C .A2~'~""b'N"~"' ~1` A AS 'FOLLOWS .., _ .. .. -, ._, 'Date and trm-e"df"mee~ing:'~'.September ~J, "l""~"~"! a~'"T~"~a~ p:maµ" FR 4Y-M, y4, _... Name and Address of" Applicant ~`or~"'Gariance'• ~ "' Robert'"and Gillian 'Baxter P.O."Box 963 " CO $16 Aspen ,.,.n of Prll ., ,~ ._ s~ -, <~ ,,,~. Locatio Lot' 9 ""B'lock loperty or D'e'scriptions ., . „.....~ Briish'Creek'V'illage ,~,_.~.....~,,~.~.w......_ ...-,.,._....,..~«,,.. _.." UPP,`er `Banc~;l2d.. ,.......,... ...,~ 4...,.,.,. ,._....,_ ._ .,. - ~ Varaarr ~ ee Requested: .~....o .,..... a 60 f,'t. 'froiitgar,d setbacTi~v.ariance _ `~`._ _.....,._,_ ., _..-,.- _...-_.., ;' D'ixration of Variandei "' _. Pe'rmanent,: ZX. ; fiempor~r''q ..: ' ~-:p-"-~,~,..;.: . ~. a Condit}on• ~~.,., TRE'~''ITB IN 'C'bU1VTY :'B15A12D 'd~'" ~b:7"t#'S-7'1~1~'1".V _. "`. " -.Evan (lull,.. C'haarman ~ ~~r ^Y offices • dd""rei'~ ' mien a 5'17"' East Nop ei"`~ens Avenue. __ ... .. ~ ... ..."...,... `.'r5~IC~'~. EVaar"ii~rsr:`~~..ve~,r ,__. -,... . _-.,. - -_ - - - Aspen; Coloiraclo_>~''~'~"1"""`.•."" - spa?n-, A ~. ~ ~. /~ Minutes Pitkin County Board of Adjustment September 29, 1987 Members Present: Kandi Shaffran, Acting Chairman Joe Zanin Melinda Pearson,,,, ,. 1. Spiro Niarhos Alternates Present:. Robert Miller _Pe~ter D"obrobolny r _. _. Shaffran called the"meeting to order. After reviewing the ..~ ,.,,.. w _ . minutes of, the last meeting, Dobrovolny 'stat'ed that the spelling of Jons Milnor's name should be "corrected Shaffran pointed out a w ,~. ~.~„;~ _~~ ., ~-t .w~._.. ~~ that Tiehack,was misspelled twice Do~tiroyol.ny moved that the " tion. minutes be accepted as corrected. Miller seconded the mo All were in favor. Application was incomplete until the next regular meeting. The motion carried 5 - 0. - LOLS lU - 10 tlspeat roan Zanin moved 1;o table case.$7-37 Niarhos seconded the motion. 87-38 Lawton H Ferguson - 232 Picket Pin Lane fnontThe applicant was present He was requesi-ing a 15 ft. yard setback variance and a 30 fit" sideyard se"tback„variance. .._. for the construction of a garage, an 80 f~.~'frontyard setback variance for an addition and a 92 5 ft frontyard setback variance for the construction of a carport lip stated that he had a growing family and neededFt~e extra room Re explained that the locations of the additions were chosen to made the best ._ use of the solar gain. He stated that none"oi< the'neighliors had any objections. Ferguson did not want to add on the south or west side because. it doe's, not makes sense with the ~layou~~` o`f~"the house an Pointed outtthatthe extensive lanydsctaping fie had done. v _ ~,.~„ Niarhos the hardships were man made Ferguson stated that there was a parking area already in existence and that was another reason that they had chosen the location of the garage. Shaffran explained the differen~"h~ardships"that they could grant a variance for. Ferguson stated that the lot is a one acre lot, it downzoned in 1974 and made ,to conform to RS-35, that is a hardship. Niarhos asked him if `he had bought"the of '~ after it was downzoned. Ferguson replied that he had bought the lot 3 1/Z years ago. Dobrovolny questioned the placement .of the addition on the north side; if the addition were placed on the 1 .. o.. ~,..,. ...~ ...w . ~ ~,_,. east side, the addition would be solar also. Pearson pointed out that `there were design solutions to the problems, all the hardships seemed self imposed. 'Ferguson .stated that the garage was a necessity, the addition and carport were secondary; he has not applied for a permit for the addition or' carpdrt. There was some discussion as to whether a ermit application was necessary' drivewaysthat ewouldrbedrequgred~oheawouldlprobablyhnotobetablehto get out of there in the winter. Dobrovolny did not have a problem with the garage, but did have a problem with the add- ition. Zanin asked why could not pull the garage back. Ferguson .... ~, exp ained that he would lose his`parking area. Mrs. Ferguson pointed out that the proposed location of the garage would cause' the least disruption of the vegetation. Zanin moved to grant a 15 ft. frontyard setback variance and a 30 ft.'§idepard`setback variance due to solar access and deny the request for the 80 ft. frontyard setback variance for the addition and the request for the 92.5 ft. frontyard setback for the construc:t:ion of the carport due to lack of demonstrated hardship. Niarhos seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed 5 - 0`: Miller was bhe alternate voting. 7- Robert Baxter was present. He was requesting a 60 ft. frontyard setback variance due to topography. The lot was so steep that there was no' way to get down in or back out. He stated that his neighbor had done the same thing. A neighbor, Jacob Protas was p'reseht. He was questioning the height of the house. Baxter explained to him the layout of the proposed house. He stated that from Protas' house there is no way that he could see the house. Protas' concern was that all the other hoses in the neighborhood did conform to the setbacks. Pearson agreed that was a concern. Shaffran doubted `that they all conformed. Baxter stated that he would prefer to put his house that far in, but it couldn't be done. Protas asked it he 'h ad really researc- hed it. Baxter stated that the $riveway would be a hazard in the winter. Shaffran moved to grant a 60 ft. frontyard setback variance due to topographical hardship. Dobrovi~lny seconded the motion. Shaffran, Dobrovolny, Niarhos and Zanin were in favor. Pearson was opposed. The motion carried ~ - 1. Dobrovolny was the alternate voting. 87-40 Airport Plaza Building Robert Lorton - 209 Ventnor Ave. Chuck Vidal was present representing the owner.° He began that he was not sure that he needed to be there, because the work was below grade. The situation was, he explained, w'as that there was a steep slope, a storage area exists to the side of the building, below grade, in the winter it fills w9.th snow, they 2 ,. . _ ,. v,-. ~~ .,.... . .> .~. ,~ ~ ~ ~ 9 • ~- {..- .~ ~ ~ ~~ building, below. grade, in the winter it fills with snow, they would like to put a carport roof to the top of the crabbing. It s 7 ft. into the setback. I£ is already 'enc`losed on three sides. Zanin moved to grant a 7 ft. sdeyardasetback variance due to the £act that the work was below grade,, Dobrovolny seconded the motion. Niarhos abstained. Both alternates,. Dobrovolny and Miller opted. All were in favor. The motion carried 5 - 0. Warren Palmer was presdn't representing the applicants. They were requesting a 10 ft. sideyard setback variance. Palmer explained that it was a very steep site, from 30 to 50%. The owner wanted to add a two story addition. Tf t`lie additon`were ' added anywhere else it would require a steep cut or enlarging the parking area. He submitted letters~of no objection from the two placednwheregtherapplicantrproposedhthelhouse wouldbn were • y e tucked into the hillside and virtuall invisible. Shaffran 'agreed that it is quite steep. Palmer showed pictures to the Board i1- lustrating the steepness of the lot. `Z"anin moved to grant'a 10 ft. sideyard setback variance due to topography. Shaffran seconded the motion. Miller was the alternate member voting. The motion carried 5 - 0. - 7.n+ 7~, Ill ,. ,. i. n n-___~t .. ___ _, ., .~ _~___ Paul Rasmussen was present, as well as his architect, Rod Dyer. The applicant was requesting a 20 ft. frontyard setback variance. Dyer began that the site was very restrictive, the hardships are topography and the ve etation. He ex lained4that g p. part of the lot is in the slide area and that dictates two building areas. Both area would be in the setback. One of the sites would conflict with an existing well. the site they had chosen would make the best use of the solar and would have the best views and would disturb the least 'amount of vegetation. Pearson moved that a 20 ft. frontyard setback variance be granted due to topography. Shaffran seconded the motion. Dobrovolny was the alternate voting. The motion pas'se'd 5 - 0. There was an informal discussion with Michael Lipltin about his application. Pearson ;made the motion to adjourn. Miller seconded it. All were in favor'. Respectfully submitted, 3 _, _ , , . , ,:a.., _ ... ,,. ~ , ~,M. ~ ~, .. .. ^„x,tid. ne.. +;"'~sy,~'r 1x$~kti .nkat v*, ,: ;z E?e4,S~5,¢?tk+"ro'~3r"„. ~ ~. ~, Secretary ` ~~~-~-~ Chairman Date 4 f~~ `Vl r^ r^ 11 i ~ ~i~ .^... ~. 'nb ~t ~/ ~. s k ~I VV UVVV ~ ~ o ^s~"LO `~. ~ ~a0 paQ~Q~ p 4 V' a Q' ,1 ° "3 ._ OI° .y„ ~ I q~ a Nq : Y e e ~ _ ~~~ ~ ~~ V r~ . 'C ~ti ~ ~ It ~ 1 l4 M, ` ~ h n ~_ i ~ ~ ~~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~y Ai- i ~~ ~ y v \V~ V2.. i /f: ..\ ~. ~I l~ °/ ~~ ..fie i qi j~: 4, c- a^ . ~ ,~ y _. v,. _ _ .Y. I y r ~b \ ~AQI ~ ~~ .`a. 1, ~ y ~4 •.r_.~ i \~ ' ~ N v ~ \ i ~ ~." ; 1 ,/ 71` 1 Q ..q . ~ / ~! , ~~~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~r n. ~~__~ ~~ ~ ~~ %titi a s~1 : ~ ~ . c ~ n~~ ~ ~ ~. \ ~ N ~ ~~ `.~ m~~ La t _ ~ ~~i t' / ~ t v '~ .' 4 ..99LLii.. ~ . `C ~ ~Ilpn ~ ~!~ ~Y dTy\ ~i'" ~I / \ R A T C , ,1~ ~.. .{h.' eft t.~o Y7 ~ •` eK r ~ ., , , >':~ a Y "~ ~ y pa . ~} ~ ~{ o ` ~ b ,,.t. r'. ~` ~ `A ~' N 4qt~ ~ y ~ Ap^ 4; "mss t/~s ~~ ~ ~ ~ Q 'Sb i /,. . ~ ~ , ~ ~ U ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .... I; ., r ..a. ~ . , _. m..h:' _,w...::;{.,unyt„„w~~x~ .. ~v itw ,, c, yzaa.,v?,. .~n~a ,, "" _ Kandi Shaffran moved that the following be adopted: BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION N0. 87-39 Robert/Gillian Baxter, Lot 9, Block 1, Filing 2, Brush Creek Village _: .. 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 relief will not cause substan- tial detriment to the public welfare and will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Zoning Resolutohs an'd'the zoning maps. NOW, THEREFORE., Bfi IT RESOLVED that the applicant's request for a 60 ft. 'frontyard setback variance was granted due to topo- graphical hardship. Additional conditions or restrictions: WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. Dobrovolny seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution.. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: Kandi Shaffran - yes Melinda Pearson - no Joe Zanin - yes Spero Niarhos - yes Peter Dobrovolny - yes The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: 9/29/87 Attest:' CZ:t.t~ Cti. ~~l~o .~t~~ Secretary The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado Chairman