The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutpitkin.boa.88.20 PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DATE Mai' 9 19 88 ~r 5F Pac+i fc+ pvP. APPLICANT Robert Sn der ADDRESS 41 ' AspenD "Go " 81611 OWNER.RPnP'TOrRaZ~ ADDRESS LOCATION OF PROPERTY. Any pertinent data must accomppany this application, and will be made part of this Case # 88'2D ss CTF The Board may return this application if it does not contain all the facts in question.. Applicant's description of proposed variance showing justification:The owner wishes to build a 8' x 10' deck identical to 7 other decks that were constructed during the' summer of 1987. The deck. as designed will eneroack`apprux. ~S' into the setback. The dot line that"is shown on the site plan was created to enabled the developer tosell~the units ~.n phases and for no other reason. Because" the pr6~ect iS completed. the likelyhood: that another structure would ever be constru hill oted there is quite remote. Also the side drops off sYiarplg dust'north of the proposed deck which also would prevent anything being constructed adjacent t;, the lot line. This application is for 'the construciton of a second floor deck and. it should. be noted. that the owner"below constructedran i~d~enfical ... _r~, ground. level deck 3ust below where this proposed ds:cK"iaoiil~ go. ,~,~- Applicant SignaturPL/~~~G~~~~- ./`%~ ~ ~ ~ _~ Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Zoning Official forward this application to the Board of Adjustment and reasons for not granting a building permit: ~, ~eb,A~ NOTICE. It~~.~ I r 1 ~I~~v Zoning Official °°"",~ Date "permit rejected ~ /(~ Board decision fce [- Application filed~at~<, Date ~i=~l~'E'~ Notices mailed- ~~jc~lai <ti Secretary -~c,. v d4SPE1V*'PITKIN R~~a1OINAIL,,`E"3ULLC'~tlVt~E~~1~TMENT , , , 'NOT'ICE OF PUBLIC `HEARING' ,...:w~~m, -. ±~s-.rte-•s~~,. ~~-...; $FORE ~1'HE ,PITK~N COUNTY BOARD OF kD3U TFIENT TO At~°"T''Ifd7~ERTT!'"OWNER AFFECTED X 'FHE` REdUES'T'EA ~dT~"IN~ dl~ _ USE VARIANCE DESC{,RII~ED,~,~liLOW _,. ..- R+.. °, r- ~ F ~ ~ -~.:.-~r~, _ ~,~,.x,. ~... '"'~~ -~.~~ ~ ~ursix-a~,t_.tQ Px,tkin' Coixntp Re"salutxon of June 5;w' 195b', as amended, a Public' Hearing' wi11 be ,he,Ii1`'in 'tfie T1is`frict' Court"' Room, Ptkip County Court','ffou~e; Aspen; "Co1o'rado;'(ox at such. other place' as the meetzng'`'Y~2ry'then be 'ad'jou'rned~~ £o, cdns,i~er an:, application'filed w3th'the"staid°. oard~of'~djustfnent requesting authority fox varianc,e~ frpm a provisions o~`"`t~xe un~y ~o'nzn Resolution,, , , .., . ,. - - _; " A3'1 peYSOns-affectad by 'the, proposed variance are',xnyited to appear' an,d state their views, protests or objections If"you p,,.~~...., q m w "„-,r„^g3 :~+w xt w,~ ~amw~e.oWwre^dwwws+c'w.wm~aw ~~ - canrrot; appear pe'rs'azia'1~5 y 2sucTi~ mee~"zng, en you are urged to state'' your ~v,iews_ by letter'; pa'Y'tacularly zf you, have. o``i'i,~ection to~~ such variance, as the Board o1" Xiijustment wiYl give'"~erious' .. c'onsi'c{eratzon,to'the apznions of,surround~ng property owners -and ' other, ~affegted zn dgcidzng;whether to -grant or kdeny 'th,~e,~requeyst~~ ',- Mf rt for v~rianc*e'. r - :.... _ _ THE 'P~RTTCULARS OF THE 'HEARING A,Nb dF THE REQttE"STBD,"'VARTAIVCE ARE AS FO L~T.OWS.t ..._„ .,.. ~ .. ..,.- "~'«"rrvyn,r aaaw.:ns N:.~e+w*aa~.~wur~.~p'..~.x.w tF'.v~>. D'te -and time_,af mee "_, w ,_ , - ,;, --, ,_- -, ....._.... ~ ,tang May 31, 1988 at ~;15 p m" `" .. - ... -- Name 'aud Address'af,Applicant for' _ .., Rabert,.,$nyder ., ~ _ 9.~_,;: ~ ~ ,..,_ 473E" '~aczfc Ave;;`°-, . _, _F..-.-, .,, 3 F . Aspen; C0 ..,87~6~ I opertY or Descript ,-.,, on of Pr ocati lil Ai ~ ion: sport Gen.ter ' ~_...;.. Aspen, CO $1611 .. . ~, .. ,. „ Variance Requested: ~, ..$~ 4 ft.,'s,zde~"ya"r'd setback Yar ,ance'' _ ,,,_„ Aurat,ion of Variance P,ermanent.~%S ;Temporary ADJACENT LANDOWNERS ,_ Rene Tornar,e Application 413C Pacific Ave Deck Addition John P. McBride 303E Pacific Ave Aspen, Ca E:ibii Dru Smyth 294A Marlborough 5t Hoston, Ma. Q21ic. John. Wang 533 R. Hdpkins AspenrCo. 31611 Lisa Richardson P.o: $c,>: 10355 Aspen, Co. 31x.12 Dom Popish P.O:'Bo>: 732 A=_.pen, Ga. 31012 Dennis CYNeiI 415D Paci#ic Ave. Aspen, Co. 31011 Anne Convey 415E Pacific Ave. A=_per~, Ca. 31615 Robin Farley/Derry Corbett P.O. Bor. `9473 Aspens Co k£'Sai Steve Douglas P.C?. Box 3~3E; Aspen, Co. 31612 ` Bart PepitonE P.O. Hox 2627 Aspen, Co. 31e12 Cindy Maetzold P O. Bo> 920 S } Aspen> Co. 3 fL612 Doug ClarK 415C Pacific Ave. Aspen, Ga. 3.1611 ,Rob Srn/der 4156 Pacific Ave. Aspen, Co. Hbf D.J. Newbury 415H Pacific Ave. Aspen, C:o. 32 b 1 S -.--^>^°--•"'-' .. ;,.... - :.. w T. ~:-;~ ,. G..,..a:, t:::_M;. ~..rr~..:wt~v.~s,~~.',::n~v~~, ...kxea.«.~u't~rmr5q..~eiiedtx;;~,.°~,r~~s~,.,.,~~r~xl:k.a ..~:i:. Minutes Pitkin County Board of Ad.iustment May 31, 1988 Members Present: Kandi Shaffran, Chairman Peter Dobrovolny Melinda Pearson Bob Miller Chris Conrad was present with staff recommendations: Shaffran called the meeting to order. There ''were no minutes to review. There was a letter from Evan Gull resigning as chairman and expressing interest in remaining on the board as an alternate member. Shaffran mentioned that there had been two other applicants interested in serving on `the Board and she hoped They could be appointed by the next meeting. Case #88-16 - The Inn at Asoen 21646 W Hit~hwav 82 Diane Schweiner and Dick Rather were present. bonrad informed the Board that he had made a mistake in his earlier calculations, the sign was only 3.25 sq. ft. over what was allowed by'code, rrot the 1.3.5 he had originally thought. There wasVsome discus- sion about the fact that this was the third sign they„are '' requesting and whether a variance should be granted. itather brought up the fact that the sign was not"visible from the highway, in fact he didn't think it ''was visible from off the' premises and showed the Board photographs to illustrate that``' ' .. ,,. point. Conrad stated that it was questionable whether they needed a variance or not, if the sign were not visible. Conrad ..., . . s owed the Board a plan of the buiT3ing which sFiowed`£he scare of r_elationshi to the bulk of the entire buildin Dobrovolny felt that mostpof the sign c'o'de was intended'`for s• Y igns visible from Highway $2. After discussion, Shaffran moved to approve the sign as submitted due to-the fact that it is not visible from Highway 82 and shall not be placed in such a!manner as to obscure 'the vision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and not constitute a hazard. Miller seconded the `motion. All were in favor and the motion carried 4 -'0. Steven Shute was present representing Rocky Mountain Natural Gas. Shaffran'moved to remove case from #88 17 from the table. Dobrovolny seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed 4 - 0. :Shute explained as part of their safety and general upgrading program they were°planning to build a new town border station for Aspen and include in that one', facilities for Snowmass Village. This station would measuYe the gas and reduce the pressure before it entered such highly populated areas. After two years of research they felt fhe proposed site was the only possible site. Shute continued that they were precluded from 'the other side of .Highway 82 because that was"the most probable alignment of the enlarged highway. Shaffran asked about the possibilit of a car hittin the buildin from Shale Bluf Shute staffed that it was zm ossible from one wa and hi hl unlikely, if not im ossiblepfrom the other sgde~ _,Shaffranyas"fs. p ked about emissions. Shute replied that the gnly emissibns'wotzld be from a flue; it is required to heat 'the gas before 'it enters the regulator. Shaffran submitted to the recorcl a letter from Suzanne Caskey, Chairperson of the Clean Air Advisory Board supporting the location. Shute explained that they had 'g one before the PlaYining and Zoning Commission recently. He stated . g - g ,... Y wouldtbe mlore wound a 16' X 24" lY Build"inY thatgthey thought ppropriate thah an of the buildin designs that were submitted.' He continued that they would hire a landscape architect or a regular architect to make sure the building would be the least obtrusive. Shute continued that he had done 'much soul searching .and could not recommend that the building be placed underground, due to the equipment. It would have the potential for a gas leak, in a room 'that size would only tape a matter of seconds and quick exit from the building was important. If the building" were placed underground it would require two exits and a long driveway. Shute was asked about the proximity to the highway. Shute stated that the present one was less than 10 ft. off the road and that most'of the ones they had built are close to the road and they hadn't had. any problem with them. He thought it was preferable for the station to be closer to the highway rather than close to a permanently occupied subdivision. Peter Van 'Domelan, representing Walter Mills was ter Mills was also present. Van Domelan stated that Millsnti`as Wal" agreed to grant the easement to Rocky Mountain Natural Gas for the use requested wad has no objection to tlxe location. He requests that the building be constructed in such a way that the visual impact Pe_minimiped. They would feel most comfortable with a to o ra hical ma Shaffran asked Mills if he still felt as he did .last month. He stated that Van Domelan had expressed his feelings. Conrad stated that they had'been working on 'this for a long time. He brought up the question of a public utility the fact that they were required to provide public service. Shute stated that the building would be located 88 ft. from the guard rail^and 62 ft. from the right of way. Shute explained if they moved it further from the highway the building would be visible for 1/4 mile, in the proposed-location the building would be visible for only about 3 seconds at 45'miles per hour. Shaffran felt that public safety should be their first concern'., not the visual impact,. but tucking the bu~ilc~iri~g in would help. Shute again explained that they were limited by the location of wa,: , ~ „ u cz ~.~ the existing pipelines. Pearson asked if this was just a temporary solution. Shute replied that it was not: Conrad reminded the P.oard that a hardship needed to be demonstrated. This had been addressed in a'letter'to the Board from Tom Smith. ,. Dobrovolny su ggested a site. visit to determine At there were any alternative sites. Shaffran moved to table Case #88-17'until a site visit could be scheduled. Dobrovolny seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed 4 - 0. The meeting was scheduled for Friday morning at 9:00 a.m. Mills and Shute both said they would be attending. Case #88-20 - Robert Snvdar for R~°rs"e Tor7i~r'~" 414C Pacific Ave. Robert Snyder was present representing Rene Tornare. He was requesting a 4 ft, side yard setback for the construction of a deck similar to pother decke'constructed during 1987. Only two units were affected by the setback. The lot line was determined to allow the project to be sold ih phases. Only 4 more decks could possibly he built. Aft statedtshepdidn thseetwha{dether they were built the plan was to s and remove the lot line. Pearson ' e hardship is. Dobrovolny and Pearson suggested having the Iot line adjusted, so a variance would not be necessary. Snyder explained that they only wanted to amend tihe plat once. Pearson moved to deny the request aue to lack of demonstrated hardship. Shaffran seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed 4 - 0. Case #88-21 - Dau¢ Luc]•s Iot-43 Holland Hills Subdivision Doug Lucks was present requesting a 25 ft. front. yard setback variance and a 22 ft. 6 in. side yard setback. Lucks asked if the Board had received letters from all the neighbors. The following neighbors: Barbara Schutz, Anita Glatz, Randy Troxel and Noel Kelleher, Sue and Joe Schoeller had sent letters supporting the variance request. Shaffran also read into the record a letter from the Holland Hills Home`Owners Association supporting the variance. Lucks explained that since he had' submitted the application he had change3'the orientation of the house, but, the setbacks would be unchanged. He wanted to be as far as possible from the other houses. He explained that there was an irrigation ditch. and he wanted to place the house to avoid possible water damage. There is a history of irrigation ditch breakage history. He explained that the proposed location would obtain the best solar advantage. Dobrovolny made the motion to ' grant a 25 ft. front yard setback variance and a 22-1/2 ft. side yard setback variance from the north property line due to topography and downzoning. Pearson seconded the motion. A11 were in favor and the motion passed 4 - 0. Case #88-22 - William Lerner 0287 Ao-ache Trail William Lerner was present, requesting a 21.1 ft. front yard _,... ,., .. .._ a 1,.. .. n ._. r. > ~ ,n rt. .xan a setback variance. He explained that he wanted to build a garage. The area he had been using to park his cars was right behind the house and was i;n the front yard setback. He showed the Board pictures of i:he area. He stated that 'building the garage at the 30 ft. setback'would require removing many mature oalc trees and require extensive excavation. rerner sated that the lot sloped quite a bit and if he were to place the garage there it would require extensive cutting. Dobrovolny stated he was haling trouble seeing where there would be extensive excavation. p•g y you rae couldn't really see a hacdshi a rGernerDstatedhthattated Nally couldn't see how steep ,. „ the lot is from the "ran suggested a site visit. Pearson felt the applicanteshouldaprovide a topo if .they were requesting a variance for a topographical hardship. After` discussion, Dobrovolny moved 'to table Case X88-22'un"tiI a site visit could be made. Shaffran seconded the motion. T'he motion passed 4 - 0. Robert and Yvonne Davis were present, requesting a 70 ft. front yard setback variance and a 15 ft. side yard setback variance'"due to downzoning. The Davis's felt they were conforming to what"was' consistent with the neighborhood. The downzoning had made the Davis's lot. unbuildable. Shaffran moved to grant a TO ft. front yard setback variance and a 1~ ft. side"yard setback"variance due anddthezmotion passe~r4secOnded the motion ,_ All were in favor Case #88-24 - The River Road-Ranch Co Iot 12-6 Asnen River Vallev Ranch Conrad explained that this case had been withdrawn. Case X88-25 - John Ukraine Lot 84R Starwood 14 Jim Columbo was present, representing John Ukraine, requesting a 40 ft. front yard setback variance. 'The lot curren'tly'has an existing main home and a detached caretaker unit. Both struc- ures wer e built in 1974. Since the down7oned. The'- would like to demoln the property has been replace it with sh the main house and a new-home. They wanted to put the home in the same location to minimize the environmental impact to the property and it would be difficult to move the house back, due to the topography of the lot. Conrad stated that the Starwood Homeowners Association felt that if they forced the new house to be built up slope they would have an even bigger problem than if the variance were granted. Pearson moved to grant a 40 ft. front ,yard setback variance due to downzoning. Dobrovolny seconded the motion. All wire in favor and the mation passed 4 - 0. Rory and Barbara Jane Balance were present. Mrs. Salance explained that they $ad come befgre the Board last month and a 2E ft. front yard setback variance had been approved. Due to a smapl chan e in the buildzn site and an erroneous splyewithethe totblacegtheirdhousenwhereetheyewantedyandestall comft. variance site chosen by the 1041 review. Stewart Edgerly, Ted Flanagan and Lisa Olsen, neighbors, were present, Edgerly explained that he had talked to the Balances before they purchased the lot and it was obvious 't hat a variance woulg,be necessary. He continued that he didn t realize that thF on final variance was for 25 ft. and due to the fact that he was leaving for Australia the next day, he didn t attend the last meeting. Now that the variance had jumped to 50 ft., he was very concerned. He stated that he gran e t e had 5alances an easement. He showed the Board pictures of the Balances lot taken from~hi~slot.~~~~~'He~explained the nei ,hborhoo LL... Y gproposed houselwass nosed the lot as a greenbelt of sorts and the g ing to be placed in the middle of the lot. Edgerly suggested that they move the house up into a more harmonious part of the lot. Salance explained the allowable building area as determined by the 1041 review. Flanagan and Olson pointed out that the proposed location was not a an advantageous site for solar gain. Edgerly stated that he was opposed to the 25 ft. variance that had been granted, so he was even more opposed to the 50 ft. variance. He felt it would totally block his view and the house would be loomimg over his house. Edgerly stated that. if there was no other place to ,put the house they should conform to the setbacks as closely as possible. The Balances did not want to move the house, the plans had been drawn and if the house were moved the house design would have to be changed, she understood Edgerly's views, but they had bought the lot and part of that was the view. They wanted to place the house in the middle of the hot rather than on the side of a meadow:. Rory Salance stated that he felt that they had tried very hard to accommodate Edgerly's wishes. After discus- sion, Dobrovolny thought the Board needed more information about the 1041 envelope. He stated 'he would be inclined to turn down the variance and they would have to go with the first variance. Shaffran agreed, and stated that-the hardship was now of their own making. Shaffran suggested to the Balances and their neigh- bors, that since they were neighbors, that they should get together and work out a solution. There was some discussion between the neighbors about aTternatce sites. The Balances agreed to let Onsgard or Conrad know if they wanted to be on the agenda for the next meeting. There was general agreement that the Salanc to table Ces should met with their neighbors. Dobrovolny moved ase X88-26 pending the applicants providing the Eoard with more information. Pearson seconded the motion, All were in favor. The motion passed 4 - 0., The Balances asked if they ~~. ~~. ..__ :.. ~ n'__ .. ~ I. could build on, the old variance. Shaffran replied that they could. Miller moved to nominate Shaffran as the new chairman, since Gull had requested that he be made an alternate member due to his schedule. Dobrovolny seconded`th'e mo£i~on. A1~I'kae"re ri favor. Miller moved to adjourn. Dobrovolny seconded the motion. A11 were in favor. The motion carried 4 - 0.' Respectfully submitted, ~~ 1..LLC'-.. L, S' aryl Chairman 8/i 9/88. Date k? " 1. 7 ~` ,,.J'rr~ a~.^ t.;~ns ^Wsu~a"~',4-,~R .r.:.Y-~ :~?.~.s ..~..w~..,.reilr":. ~. .:~: I.~ r '-mom . .,. i i ,:. , ,,,_ ado t 2 b I 4 "~,.. _w,. .;,.. . :: Melinda Pearson movd~Y that the followin be p d; g BEFORE `:T7~~'~Yf"""OF~""AD~ifS'~'~~1` ;,cx:.~ ,,.,. M ;~..~,*~:,~ ~..,,.,,+„, ,~c,,: ;~:si OF TA$" C~~N~~'I~ `~~`~'~'1~°Ii~~V ~`.~..: aa~~.~, ~~I .. .a.~.~;K, ~~ _. ,~, ., .,..-~., STATE OF bOhb'RADO .__ . ~ ~ .;;. . r .. . _a,. RESOLUfi~T'OY~7 bTd:'~88-20, ~ ~- ,=~~1 t . ,...~~~ .,, rv~..~ _. , ~ ~ ~. ~... ~,. " „t _.. ,.., Robert Snyder for Rene Tornare, 413C p"aci~ic'Ave. ,.., WHEREAS, the su a o~~ ~, =s, r.,, :. _..~ ~ 1 a - ~, hject property is within theY i r un nco ponated area of Pitkin County,. 'Colorado; and, .. ~~"., ..,~,.~ .,~ - WHEREAS, tfie Boar~dof Adjustment v h ~ _ ss ested with t e grant or deny such_variances"'by virtue of Titl ~ o e I , Sectbn 16-1.3, Pitkin G~ounty code {Land Dse Code) and Colorado Revised Statutes, 1973, 30=~$"="~~'~"~'~') " "~)~' "' d { ; an , WHEREAS, based an the evidence°'pre~s,en'ted, the Board of Adjustment makes the follocaing findi'ngs': 1. Proper' notice procedures, including the ; notification of all'~d,joining property '` o ' wners ,; has been shown'by the applicant.. 2. mhe required hardshi or ,.. ~"` praatical difficulty h _ as been estabIished ,..._ t.. ~ ,.,,_ .... ~: ng such relief will not causexsubstan- t 3 ti altdetrim t -. en to the public welfare end will not substantially impair th i e ntent and purpose*6f the $oning Resolutions- and the- __ . zoning, maps. " NOW, THEREE'~P}'~", ~yy,Ras~.x.-~~~~r"_, ~.., at '~.w"">~`2'=.d-~',"u`~,,.+sk~r~.:mr r ~~»~ x~}„~~~tj ~.awu3.vw.;xi.~su ~,ww:u~~~t-a t 3L~ h approval of 4 ft e applicant s request ~or,a , ~de yard setback variance"was""denied"`dixe to lack of demonstrated hardship:'""" ' 1 .. ' ... Additional c ndit ,. ions or restrictions:` ~ ARNING: An dthe terms of this resolution may vioearinn a result in reh ' n g passible revocation.' an i Shaffran se tion. The roll fic'ondgd the ado tion of the foregoi P lu- avi R £o n been called, the vote wa's^'a'~ s. low r. ., ~ _ , Kandi Shaffran -yes, Melinda Pearson`=. yes '. Bob Mil `le - .. ` ' a r yes Peter D obroVOln es <`' '- Y y the Countutopn was adopted by.vate of the Board, of Adjustment of Y f Pitkin, State ofi'~C'oldrad'o: DATER: May 31 .. .._ ,~_. ~,.. ... ... ,:, k d~, . ::, ;, ,_ ,, 198~'~~~ The Board of Ad'jus'tmerst of ~ Pitkin County,,Colarado Attest: ~ " ~~i ('~ Secreta ~,.r C Irma '. '~ ~ r:-:.. ; ~i S h Y ~P _~~...~