Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.88.26BQAr2D OF ADJUST:]°"~`''-~ ' DATE May 17, 1988 19 88 CASck 88-26 A??LICANT Rory A. and Barbara Jane Salance ADDRcSS Box 11117, Aspen be 6r I5/gger contract to purchase itxwith closing u _ s prrv ER Currentl owned b Edon She and Harris III ADDR"SS Box 182, Snowmass,Co Y / LCCATIQ"7 OF PROPERTY 1755 Snowmass Creek Road with legal per attached description on survey. _ . _. .,.,. ,.,, ;:. ,~,,~:. ._ . ..,~, ......... ... .._:.:,y ,.... .. ,.;: Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will b_ made i this Case No. 88-26 The [3oard may return this application if it does not contain all the in euestion. Applicant`s description of proposed variance showing justi`_ication~ We previously received a 25' variance for our building envelope. We are now requesting a 50' variance. We need the additional 25' extension into the,.. 100' setback of Stuart Edgerly's property for the following reasons: 1) Our initial survey introduced while obtaining the first variance .was merely an estimate of location; when the surveyor actually measured it in relation to the property setbacks, we discovered we miscalculated by several feet; 2) Due to the thermal glass laws and building codes of Pitkin County, we found that the back face of our proposed building site was not south-facing; consequently we had too mach exterior glass unless we were to rotate the ' building envelope further into'the setback. 3) If we were to move the building envelope further to the west, the house would be located in,the_ natural avalanche area and drainage area: We understand 'that we have already received one variance and greatly appr~ec'ar~te- consideration for an extension of that variance. ' 1 Applicant Signatur ~ Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building Inspector for~.~ard this ap~'~cation to the 9oard of Adjustment ar.d reaso, for nc arar.ting a 5uiding oer:-~r::. s~~ L~~~a ~6~7~~ _....,,. !" r 3221 / Bui'_din^ _~s-ec~cr .. .,~_._ .-~;,~c..o~• ~(~la/gg =oard cec'_sicnV~Q.~~ ,.. ~. ~~1-s V .`?x% _. TO A~L,PROPERTY'OWNER5 ~FFECTED'BY THE.l2E4UESTED 70NINC OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW, ~_ ,_ ,_ _ " , P'sxrsua~kYt.,to,.Pltk~pr~oMrr£y Resolution of `7une 5, ;1955, as amended, a Public H~e'arxng'""will be held, in the"1~xstrx.q£""Court-_,' Room, Pithxri- C'ounty'Court House, Aspen, Colorado, (or a£ such _ otIi~er'place as the meeting may 'then Ue';a~ljoitrned) ~o.`co sxi~er an, - i ~. application filed, with, th,e,. said ,Board, o~.„A3,7ustment requesting; aiithor;ty for, variance from, the, rovxsxa'ns o£. tTie Co:xnt _.,_ . ~ ;., -. ~ ~, Zoning Resalution,_, 1 .., ,._ All persons".affe.ct e': ,,_:;....~._. s..--,---.,,-...,::- ar~~`;-.~~„.. „.4.~,;:,.a_. d, by the prop'o'sed` variance e ~nv,ted, to _-,'-' _~ a £a$e,_their views, protests ar obdections. If you ppear appear personally at-such meeting, then you are urged to cannot state 'your Views by letter; par'ti~`c~ularly yif youJ'ltav'e'os6~ection,'to` such variance, as t2xe Board of AdJUS°~ment wx'1l`~ give "s`erxou"s cons'ideratxon to .,the opxnxons'o"f-'surid'u'n'c~'i proper'` o ne~`rs~a~d"'" ~~'"`"` other affected:,-in, ,deciding` whether to,,, grant or deny _the~ r~e~ques£ for variance., ~" THE PA7,tTICULAR,S,OE,_THE, REARING ANA 0~' TRE~RE~TlESTED,VAR~I~`E'A~tE',, F ,' _ - .. - . . _. Date and -time.;; of: mee.t;ing: ' 'N1ay 31, 1988 at 5: l5" p:in: dress'of.Applicant for Varian Name a ~._..--, _ Oe.: - .,.. , ; _ nd Ad, u-_- . .lane Balance . ~ : - ;- Ror and Barbara ,_ P . 0 . B o'x" 11117 . As en `' CO 81812 _ . , _ .,- Looati,on of Property'or Description: see attached;-`legal deSCrl'P°t'lori - _ . _ ;. _- ... Varian, .._.,....._. - _. oe,_Re'ilue'sted: 40 ft.' fro'n't yard setback ,.variance _ Duran k., .'~ :...«.m.. nn of Variance; ~T'ermanPnt R'~ T"em oxary - „~ Condition ., ~ .. _, __ '~ -,r~~_ PTTKTN COUNTY, BO~AI?D `O~' ADJ;USTNl~',NT' . Evan'.Giz1"l; ` Ctiairuian,.,.,,--rr~--~--.. , ,_....._. ;r ..- - i' :,- offices: mail a~ddressh"' ;":' "~" 5'f7'East~fdpkir~t~dven~ts' "_. .. -:_ .- ,- X06"East'IVlainSt~ee6;: A.spen~ Colorado'>~15'("T` '"` _ "`""3~]3JJ~25"=59_'73 - µ ~?.speri, Colorado 8'(E'`a11 „~. ,. Minutes Pitkin Count Board of Ad:ustment May 3.1, 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 n9 '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 As en 21646 W. Hi $wa 82 Diane Schweiner and Dick Rather were present.. Conrad 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, not the 13.5 he had originally thought. There was some discus- sion about the fact that this was the third sign they are requesting and whether a variance should be granfed. Rather g P brou ht u 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 ttie'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 showed the Board a plan of the building which showed the scale of the awning in relationship to the bulk of the entire building. Dobrovolny felt that most of the sign code was intended for signs visible from Highway 82. 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 Dlountain 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 measure the gas and reduce the pressure before it entered such highly populated areas. After two years of research they felt the proposed site was the only possible site.. Shute continued. that they were precluded from the other side of Highway $2 because that was the. most probable alignment of the enlarged highway. Shaffran 'asked about the possibility of a car hitting the building from Shale Bluffs.,, Shute stated that it was impossible from one`way'ah'd highly unlikely, if not impossible from the other side. Shaffran asked a out emissions. Shute repTi"ed that'~the only emissions would be from a flue; it is required to heat the gas before it enters the regulator. Shaffran submitted to the record a letter from Suzanne C'askey, Chairperson of the Clean Air Advisory Board supporting the location. Shute explained that they had gon e before the Planning and Zon3n'g Commission recently. He stated that they had found a 16' X 24"' log building that they thought would be more appropriate than any of the building 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 't he building be placed underground, due. to the; equipment. It woulrl have the potential°for a gas Ieak, 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 tcao exits and a long driveway. Shute was asked about the proximity to the highway. Shute stated that the present ane was less than 10 ft. off the road and that most of the ones they had built are close to thought ithe road and they hadn t had any problem with them.. He 't was preferable for the station to to oloser to the highway rather than close to a permanently occupied subdivision. Peter Van Domelan, representing Walter Mills was present. Walter Mills was also present. Van Domelan stated that Mills fias agreed to grant the easement. to Rocky Mountain Natural Gas for the use requested and has no objection to the location. He requests that the building be constructed in such a way that the visual impact be minimized. they would feel most comfortable with a topographical map. 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 servrce: ' uard rail and at the building would be located $$ ft. from the ghute stated th62 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 not the visual i'm'p actblbutstuckinghthedbuldi.n~rinlwouldoncern, Shute again explained that they were limited b the l~ocationpof 2 - ..... . -. ,, ... ,., -a, .. ..~.. ,.M.~ ~, ,~ ,,..~. ,„,~, .u:.. ~, i ~ r ._ ~., a -.,. . ex , ~a~^ .d w ,der-.. xne... .,. t.. ..,.., ., the existing pipelines. Pearson asked if this was just a temporary'solution. Shute replied that it was not. Conrad reminded the Board that a hardship needed to be demonstrated. This had been addressed in a letter to the Board from Tom Smith. Dobrovolny suggested a site visit to determine it there were any alternative sites. Shaf£ran moved Eo 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 Snvder for Rene Tornare 413C Pacific Ave Robert Snyder was present .representing Rene Tornare. He was requesting a 4 £t. side yard"setback for the construction of a deck similar to 7 other decla constructed during 1987. Only'"two ' units were affected by the setback. "The lot Iine was determined' to allow the project to be solii in phases. Only 4 more 'decks could possibly be built. After 't hey were built the p`lari was 'to amend the plat, show the decks and remove the lot line. Pearson stated she didn't se e. what the hardship is. Dobrovoln'y and ' Pearson suggested having the lot line adjusted, so a variance would not'be necessary. Snyder explained that they only wanted to amend ,t he plat once. Pearson moved to deny the request due to lack of demonstrated hardship. SSia`ff`r'an s`eco`nded'"the motion.v" All were in favor. THe motion passed 4 - 0. Case #88-21 - Doug Lucl;s I'ot 43 Holland Hills Subdivision Doug Lucks was present requesting a 25 ft. front yard setback variance and a 2'L 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 Nvel Kelleher, Sue and Joe Schoeller had sent letters supporting the variance request. Shaffran also read into the m .e~~,.. record a letter from the Holland IIiI supporting the variance. Lucks explls Home Owner's e~ssociation dined that since he had submitted' the application he liad changed tfi`e" or`ientation~ of the house, but the setbacks would be unchanged. lIe wanted to be as far as possible from the other houses. He explained that there was an irrigation ditch and h'e wanted to place the house to avoid possble,water damage. There is a history of irrigation ditch breakage history. He explained that the proposed location would obtain the best solar advantage.' Dobrovol,ny 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 Iine due wereoPngfavor and dhenmotion•passeds~n-se0conded the motion. A'll'"' Case #88-22 - William Gerner 087 Aplche Trail William Gerner was present, requesting a 21.1 ft. front yard _ <,.~, ,aA.~..,,., ..,~.,., n..., _,,>. .. ,.._.,. .~_.....,.~, ,t~ a, ~ ~~ setback variance. He explained that he wanted to buld'a garage. The area he had been using to park his cars was right behind the house and'was in the front yard setback. lIe showed the'Board pictures of the area. He stated that building the garage at. the 30 ft. setback would require removing many mature oak trees an<i require extensive excavation. Lerner 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 having trouble seeing'cahere there would be extensive excavation. Pearson agreed. Dobrovolny stated he r_ouldn't really see, a hardship. Lerner stated that you really couldn't see how steep the lot is from the pictures. Shaffran suggested a site visit. Pearson felt the applicant should provide a topo if they were requesting a variance for a topographical hardship. Ai'ter discussion, Dobrovolny moved to table Case #$8.-22 until a si't'e visit could be made. Shaffran sebanded the motion. The 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 gr-ant a 70 ft."front yard setback variance and a 15 ft. side yard setback variance due to downzoning. Miller seconded the motion. All were in factor- ' and the motion .passed 4 - 0. Conrad explained that this case had been withdrawn. Case X88-25 - John Ukraine Eot 841{ Starwoo`d 14 '~ Jim Columfio was present representing John Ukraine, requesting a 40 ft. front yard setback variance. The lot currently ~as`ari"" existing main home and a detached caretaker unit. Both'struc- tures were built in 1974. Since then the property has been downzoned`: They would like to demolish the mairi'house`and' '' J' replace it with 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 Assgciation felt ghat if they forced the new House to be built up slope they would 'have an even bigger problem than if the variance were granted. Fearson moved to grant a 40 ft'. front yard setback variance due to downzoning. Dobrovolny seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed 4 - 0. Case #88-26 - Rorv A. and Barbara lane Balance 1755 `Showmas`s' Creek Rd. Rory and Barbara Jane Balance were present. Mrs. Balance explained that they had come before the Board last month and a 25 ft. front yard setback varian,'ce had been approved. Due to a small chan e in the buildin site and an erroneous survey the setback granted was not. adequate. They nred~ed a 50 ft. 'variance to place their house where they wanted and~~sti'11`~~coinp~ly~~~with~the~~~~ site chosen by the 1041_,review. Stewart Ed~,erly, Ted Flanagan and Lisa Olsen, neighbors, were present. Edgerly explained that he had talked to the Balances before they purchased #he'lot and it was obyious''that a variance would be necessary. He continued that he didn't realize that the orig"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 had granted the Balances an easement. He showed the Board pictures of the Balances lot taken from his.. ;lot.,.,. He explained the neighborhood had always used the lot as a greenbelt of sorts and the proposed house was gging 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. Balance 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'o t it would pposed to the 50 ft. variance. He fel y house would be loomim`g over his . _., house. Edger~ylstated thatthf""there was no other place ,to put the house 'the should conform to the setbar_ks 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 't hey had bought the lot and part of that was the view. They wanfed to' place the house in the middle of the lot rather than on 'the side of a meadow. Rory Balance 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 abouE 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 g reed and stated that the hardship was now of their own makin g Shaffran suggested to the ,Balances and their ne,igh- boretheraa since they were neighbors,, that they should get g nd work out a solution. There was some discus's ion between the neighbors about alternative sites. The Salances agreed to let Onsgard or Conrad know if they wanted to Ue on the agenda for the .next meeting. There was general agreement that the Balances should met with their neighbors. Dobrovolny moved to table Case #$8-26 pending the applicants providing the Board with more information. Pearson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed 4 - 0. The 5aIances asked if they 5 y could build on the old variance. Shaffran replied that, they could. Miller moved to nominate Shaffran as the crew chairman, since Gull had requested that he be made an alternate member dine to lii"s '' schedule. Dobrwolny seconded. the motion. .411 were n'favor. '~ Miller moved to adjourn. Dobrovolny seconded the motion. A11 were in favor. The motion carried.4 - 0. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Chairman g~/ y'~L5 Date E?