HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.87.41:.. ,... _
~.
w °? cOARD OF AD~7"(7ST'•3x'~^'
. ~.
DATE ~~(-~}~ ' ' 19 ~'`7 C~SER 87-41
T-~-~ •
A??LICANI' lavl _ ADDRESS ~o_Pvorc d.o3~
0[iNER `I7 v~ tz,asntu3S~~_ ADDRD;SS_~t,[I Go Slcol2
LOCATION OF PROPERTY (_oT I~ ~v~ ~"~"-~
~1_T'LGt N. Go c.4lv'~ 2 39 2 ~i i.t i ~» 4-G-i u,i., CL D ~ G'cs I-c~rr~nc~
Any pertinent datta ust accompany this application, and w11 be made pa
this Case No. 87-4~
The Ooard ma return this a lication if it does n
instification:Applicant's desarinton of proposed bariancelshowi the fa
7 ng
~~~-
Anplicah Signature
Provisions of the zonin5 resolution requiring the 3uildir.g Znspect~r t~
foriayr3 this applicatien to the Board' of,Adjustmen`t and'reasor. _crnot
arar,ting a 'ouidng germ ~ ~
~,. y ~flF-/ /0~
:z~_
^r ,>,_-• t re-ncted: So3rd cec~sirn I ~ is
.. _
it
Date
ecret~rl Board __ ~c..._.._
~~~~~~~1
,: ,~
S e.Mm . y .
ASP~'1~'*PIt~CII~`~
...., _ ..
.._. .
~.. .
_ . ,- u.,~ ,.... ...
EEFORH T'$1s'"
Pursuant to ~Pitk~in Coiin't itesolution o~"un~~~'~`~"`g"~~'" as"°'~"""~°""'"
amended, a Pu~~"c ~'ea~`ii~ng~wi~ l ~~e~-$"e'~i~"Win the County' Comets=
signer's Roam, Pxtkin`"boun"ty our ouse,eAspen,''Colo,rado; (or"°at
such otfier p1"ace as'the meeting m'ay then be ad,7oixrned'} to
con~sxder ~n,- application filed wx ~~.«^~-=~-~ °- ;-~
°~" said hoard o~ ~"d;justment _
re uestin authority fo,c'~"variance from the provision's `of"`f'he
C6unty 'honing Resolutoiti a...
A'll persons affected `by-the `propts's''e'd variance 'ar'e {invited to
aPI~eaY' °a'hd state'`~heir views, protests er'objections".' If you
cannot appear `p~rs25na11y at such mee~,ting, then you "ara"""SY~ged to "
state"your dews ~y letter, partxcularl if ~'
such variance,' a5'"'"the~Board of Ad"justment wx1T' gi eel riousion',to ;
corisxderation to the, opinions of surroui'ng propertq' owndrs d
other af"fec~e~T' xn_ ~decidin whetTie'r~o "~` '
for variance. g g'r~~n'£ or deny the requ'e'st
„:
THR' ~etTt'IT'C`C~"~X~S'~"`'~`~
Da-'k'e and time''~f mee£xn p ~~ ~~ k ~~, . -
g Se tember ~J.: :,~" .,a P m ..
Name slid AiTc'Cre'ss'af'..A ..~~ c~foor ~:~~^,~_, .~ ..:.. '. ._.d~
D,aVid '~o"r~t~
Aspen; CO 81612
' ~w~.»n,.w~nwe...«xww+~n.:~ ~ m:~w.«.+ww-+~-waw.--...u,~:wo-.w ~~... wurv~,..~urww,..M _ '«..
Location` o~"~ p`roperty' or Descrip£-'ion ' "' '
Lot T~, B o~""`°c cf `'7 ;"~~~riis`h~'~`Cree i11`age ~ufiilivl$xOn °~»-x"t, a c,:~.r; ~f.,r~,.m.«.i ,~... ae. a:
2392 Joni ~r '~"
' ~ ~ ~ -~
Variande Requested`"
mMw+.S°JYi '~'~+"' "4 A~vM af, M4 _F b N i - d 9- ~~
a 20 f~:'~'ron yar' setback variance a
Duration of"'~Variaria'e ~ ' "'Perman,~ent `S% ryA: TemporaY~~*! z
~ .,
Conditaoxr: - - - - ~
-.
'S~S" ~`T T~"N ~`" A
~G ~."E qi--- C=am ..:e
Evan GulY,- Chairman '" ''~~'
offices: _ ~~~~~~2
rJ'~7 i=aSt t ~; :.rte -~ gym.-mwrc2 n,a, c. _.. ...;"'~„""i'h:~' ~" ~ _w.:. t.rrN ",«-lYl~li aUC7~reSS: - - -',
Aspen; Colorado 816'19 ~~~ 5:ast ICi~ain`°~treeti -~
30%5125=" :.~,~ ,,~~ ~ .~,~.., „~~.. _!~
aspen', Caloraclo5'I~V`~"`'
4
Mork/Rasmussen
Variance Application
9/14/87
The owner requests that the Board of Adjustment grant a 20 foot
reduction in the required 100 foot front yard setback.
The reason for the requested variance is a building area
restricted by topographical and natural vegetation
considerations. The topography of the land becomes considerably
steeper above the 110 foot line and to the northwest of the
proposed building site.
In order to place the structure with in the required setbacks,
the south west corner of the building would be placed on slopes
of up to 40%. This would also necessitate the removal of a
substantial amount of existing, large (10-15 feet) scrub oak
trees.
We believe that by placing the structure as indicated on the
accompanying drawing, we will be able to keep the building height
to a minimum, disturb the least amount of existing vegetation and
reduce the amount of damage to the natural environment.
7 t7T"fE, MICHAEL bPlh E. HC~PhINS, AVE ..,..,,, (Lt7T 61 ...ak~._ . w ,.
., ASf~Efll, Ct>. 8].bil,
2. PRC>'fAS~e_ JAC(733..M~> ",. _.,..... ,„I'tJX 1335„.: (l.t?T ,7,~.~ .,.,.a. a.. ~ .. ~ .a ~.. _ .___.
A~-}BEN, Ct7. 816i'
3. HC>RC~WITZ, MARTIN PC~X '2622 i~C~T S} ,.
__ _ ASPEflI' CG. SY61'T'. ..
4.
- S P.
GAEENEY, fHtil%A _ MR. & MRS. CRAIG WALLACE (I CST id}
~~"~"(~'~GtiAF2'`l"'
~~
'
~C
'"
~
,
i
FF
~F
C/C>
FSC~S
I~AW (S~
4729 ECHO R~SAD
LC7nMFIELU HILLS, MIB8 45013 .
P
. ,
,
5. 6QRFA,CH, ERvW YM Fx RUTH x;10325. XAyV~'~SyE~~R, CT.,,, t . (l.fr f~ 1'i >~ ,. i
C~. LYANIEL A.
.L4EAN9 F~?X 11917 (LDT .12,7..:.., ,
, Aa~'~'Ne CL'i; ~ BY61^,c
7. PEEARSCtN, SPENCER C~r. EC~X a59~ ~y<L4T 137 ~ u„ i .
n
S'~BI
N
^~
:"
e Ct
.
PE
A~
i~ CPSEVr WILLIAM
t 203 _ (1_OT il~
3
]3
3
X
c-
~
. :_
_
y_ x~,~3g
,
~
-
nn
AJf'C149
g A.
F<RAVC'R9 RI "HARD
}. 4775 N W 13 ND STREET (LU7 14} ..,,i. .,.
.V 1. .i,,.f..
Vn
'
~
y
. _ .
':F
@7
C1~A ~.~~,+~'\A~9 1=L. ~~JJ
~t} Ly p~~9 ^~
-. .. ....~~.,.%.., +,. ,. " a,. ,z a,~ ...rd..,.ves...x5„~!S:x,~„-.t€.u ~»:...*~E'~C".rw,.,.P.kaki:~5;~4^.1.,,,~-ash'.~se.~^"~'~'~~'+,ta.~t'?~S'"
,~ h.
w ~' _ ',
.~ ;
Melinda Pearson moved that the following be adopted:
BEFORfi THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN
STATE OF COLORADO
RESOLUTION N0. 8?-41
David Mork, Lot 15, Block 7, Bruch Creek ViT.lage Subdivision,
2392 Juniper Hill Road
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 IT;`Secton "
16-1.3, Pitkin County code (Land Use Codej and Colorado Revised
Statutes, 1973, 30-28-1 T8 (2) (C}; and,
WHEREAS, based on the evidence presented, the Board of Adjustment
makes the following findings:
1. Proper notice procedures, including #.he
notification oi` all adjoining propertiy
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 send
purpose of the Zoning Resolutions and. the
zoning maps.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the applicant's request for a
20 ft. frontyard setback variance was granted due to topography.
Additional conditions or 'restrictions:
WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may
result in rehearing and possible revocation.
Shaffran seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The
roll having been called, the vote was as follows:
Sandi Shaffran - yes
Joe Zanin - yes
Peter Dobrovolny - yes
Melinda Pearson - no
Spero Niarhos - yes
p d by vote of theBoard of Adjustment of
the CountytofnPitkinaoState of Colorado.
DATED: 9/29/87
Ai;test:
~'Caa.c,~ C,.,
Secretary
The Board of Adjustment of
Pitkin County, Colorado
~~~, ~~
Chairman
~.. ...,,., i ....,.... a~
~""`~
Minutes
Pitkin County
Board of Adjustment
September 29, 1987
Members Presen
doe ~anin
Melinda Pearson
Spiro ~fi arhos
Chairman
Alternates Present:_ Roberrt Mille r "
Peter Dolirovolpy
Shaf£ran called the meeting to order. After reviewing the
minutes of the last meeting, Dobrovolny stated that the spelling
of Jons Milnor's name should be corrected Shaffran pointed out
that Tehack was misspel"led twice `y~`~D'o'brovolny move
. ~. <..,
accepted as corrected. Miller seconded~d' that` the
minutes be the motion.".
,.. . , ,,.
All were in favor,.
Qn_av mo.~ r.,.,,,o,,. M;rhaal T,inkin - Lots 10 - lE~,_.As~en Park
Application was incomplete.
until.. the next regular meeting.
The motion carried 5 -.0,.,
w~ .,., .. ,..~ _ ..... .
Niarhosmseconciedt~ble case 87-37
ne motion.
87-38 Lawton H Ferguson 232 Picket Pin Lane
._... ,.._ . ,~ ,.wy^.r~.«aMwm~+".%4bab',~`i~°.n4.u5.w~«%3.v.N+wiwen n~^w4~p., 4~7Jin .sue., v~.m._^.3 ..>-.i :, .~,,f ..~~~. _. ~.
The applicant was present. He was requesi;ing a 15 ft.
forntherconstructionrofnaegarage;3anf80 f`'~'"a'``frorityardasetbackance
variance for an addition. and x.92.5 ft. frontyard setback
variance for the construction of~ a carport '~ ~ "flf sta£"ed that $e
had a growing family and needed`the~extra room Heeaexplained
that 'the locations of tkie`additions were chosen to make the best.
..,
~~ none of the 'neighbors"ha'd
use of the solar gain. He stated that
to.add on the sout~i or
any objections. Ferguson did not want __ ~ ;~ a
west side because it does not makes sense wi
house and would disturb the extensive~7andsc
pointed out that Ythe ~har"~~hips"~~"`
Niarhos were
stated that there was, a parking area already
that was another reason that they had chosen
garage. Shaffran explained the different har
could grant a variance for. Ferguson"stated
one acre lot, it downzoned in 1974 and made
that is a hardship. Niarhos asked liim;
after it was downzoned. Ferguson repli
~....~ .
lot 3'1/2 years ag`o. Dobrovolny questi
addition on the north side; if the addi
1
ping 'di`e bade done.
~«»,.~ ..
an made. Ferguson
in existence and
the location of the
ships 'tha't they '_.~ ...,.
~..~
that .the lot i.s a
o conform `to RS-35,
had bought 'the`~lot
t lie `h"ad bought the'
ned LLthe placement of the
ion"were placed on the
~~.,e„~;u~~~N,.,.„;?~.~..,a...?%F<_..cwt,~.swop-~~,~m~-z~r~~~:.s~,:»rr-~ssa¢wvatisF~ai:
~~
east side, the addition would be„solar also Parson pointed, out,
;., n..,
that there were design solutions, to the, proTileuis, a11" the i
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 carport. There was
some discussion as„to whether a permit application was necessary `'
ti ..-- ~rz~zr.~n: _ ~,. ~. s_. ~~_ ~.
before a variance could be granted. Fe"rguso'n summar,}zed, that the
.,.~
hardships were solar access, topographical anal with, lope of the
driveway that would_;be required, V'"lie'woul"d' prob'alily riot be able to
g ~ .. ,,... , . .....~ P ,. W .._, ... a
problem withhthe garage,wbutedid haveravoroblemdwith theeadd-
ition. Zanin asked why could not'pull the garage back. Ferguson
explained that he would lose his parking area. Mrs:"Ferguson
pointed out that the prop"osed location o'f 'the`~gar"age~`c7ould cause
g to grant a
the least disruption of the ve etation Zanin moved
15 ft. frontyard setback variance any a 30 ftw s~heyard setback
variance due to solar access and den the request fpr tfi@ 60 `ft. ';
for t'i'e additioon and request for
frontyard setback variance
back for tie construction of the
the 92.5 ft. frontyard set ~ ~~ ~~
... , .. ...,.~, ... a ......
carport due to lack of demonstrated hard~s~hip'~''Niarhos secon ed
the motion. All were in favor The motion passed 5 0. Miller
was the alternate voting.,
Robert Baxter was present. He. was ,requesting a 60 ft.
The lot was so
steepYthatstherekwasrnonwaydto gettdownrinhor back out. He
stated that his neighbor had done the„same thing. A neighbor,
_._.,,..
Jacob Protas-was present. $e was questioning the height of the
house.. Baxter explained to him the,l,ayout of t:he proposed house.
He stated that from Protas' house there is no way that he could
see the house. Protas' concern was that all the other houses in
._,
the neighborhood did conform to the setbacke.{ Pearson agreed
~. ~ v .. ~ _.... ...., .
that was a concern. Shaffran doubted that t{ey all' conformed.
Baxter stated that he would prefer to 'put his house"that 'far in,
arc-
but it couldn't be done. Protas asked it he had really rese
winter. Shaffrantmovedtto grantda160~`ft:Wfront~yard''setbadkin the;
variance due to topographical hardship. Dobrovolny seconded the
y ,.
motion. Shaffran, Dobroboln Niarfios and Zan in were in navWas
Pearson was o osed. ThP mot~.on carried ~ 1. Dobrovol
PP y
the alternate voting.
87-40 Airport Plaza Building Robert Lorton - 209 Ventnor Ave.
Chuck Vidal was present representing the ~~wner. He began
that he was not sure that he needed to be there, because the work
was below grade. The situation was, he explained, wa§ that there
was a steep slope, a storage area exists to the side of the
building, below grade, in the winter it fills with snow, they
,--
°^"""'.'.,""_-i-.~..-.. ., :::a^ r sic-;.+..,..>a.as..;-ws+.,hey.s1",Su;~:±INF.n<"a""r'F^e.,~3i...:Fr,..a.~i$E~.XdyF:w","~i,~'a,'.a~,,.".P.+s.~a.4.~.,N~1.k. s°~4e,~`:^
building, below grade, in the
would like to put a carport r
It's 7 ft. into the setback
sides. Zanin moved to grant
due to the fact that. the work
seconded the motion. Niarlios
Dobrovolny and Miller voted.
carried 5` - 0.
-a~ Chnrk and Sandv Maver -
c
winter it fill s,. with snow, they
of to the top~of the rriiibng.
It is already enclosed on three
7`}'~ft s~eyar'ii'se£~acli v'ariance'
was below gY`ade. Dobrovolny
....t... „~,.~,.,,,,. „..,, _
Warren Palmer was present representing the applicants., They
were requesting a l0 ft. sdeyard setback variance.. Palmer
explained that it was a very steep site, from 30 to 50~. T e
o story addition. If the additionu,were
owner wanted, to add a tw ~;,.
_:. - ,
added anywhere else it would require a`s`teep"cut or"enlarging the
parking area. He submitted letters of no objection from t
adjacent neighbors. Palmer added that`if the addi£gion were
.,_.
into the hil'the applicant proposed the house
placed wherelside and virtually invisible. Sh_ would be ~tuc~ed
• affran agreed that
v ..,.., ._,_. ~. .
it is quite steep.
lustrating the stee Palmer showed pictures to the Board it ,.
pness of the lot. Zanin moved to grant~a 10
ft. sideyard,setback variance du e_ to topography S~affran_
seconded the motion. Miller was the alternate member vo`ting."
The motion carried 5 - 0,,,
via Morx -
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"ver°y""re"strictive, the
„_
hardships are topography and the vegetation. Re explained t`ha£"
part of the lot is_n the slide area and that. dictate two
g -. _.,. ~n ~. ,. ,,..a.
as. Both area would be xn.the set"~ac}~c. one of the
bui in are
., .mom,.. ~~.,~., ~,~~~v ~:_.
sites would confl,,ct with an existing well. Tie site tkiey hadU`
chosen would make Ehe best use o_f the solar and would have the
x ~,.,
best views and would disturb the least amount of vegeta"`tion
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 passed 5 - 0. '
informal discussion„with Michael Lipkin about
There was an _.. _....,,_ ..; ,.
his application.
Pearson made the motion to adjourn. Miller, secondedt.
All were in favor.
Respectfully submitted.,
3
Secretary
4
.:. ._ .,.;:.. .nw .~ ,...e..w....>r_,rsa,.;~a~sad.k&sM~aWkbc;~kn~1'..4=c,.e..~r""~w.x~~rri~S&