The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutpitkin.boa.88.35 Gc~3.3~-cry Bob m cLcXM ~'G k PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DATE JULY 14 1988 CASE # 88'35 APPLICANT RICHARD E. SMITH ADDRESS0075 Chair Mtn. Dr. Redstone, Co. 81623 OWNER Colomo Inc. ADDRES LOCATION OF PROPERTY LOT Y CRYSTAL RIVER PARK SUBDIVISION, PITKIN COUNTY Any pertinent data must accgtnp3~ny this application, and will be made part of this Case # The Board may return this application if it does not contain all the facts in question. Applicant's description of proposed variance showing justification: This lot is part of Crystal River Park Sub. which was approved by the county in 1966. The entire area was down-zoned to AF-1 in the mid 1970's and cannot meet the set back requirements fora 10 acre lot. To build we need a front yard setback of 72 feet, a south side yard varience of 2 feet, a north side yard setback varience of 10 feet and a rear yard setbact varience of 10 feet. / J Applicant Signat ~_~s2~:~--u 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: 1~4~ /~TDcE (J d°""e-"-_"_ 6`d! E"i ice'"^a 13'14 ~ "p-lS-St`d Zoning Official Date permit rejected ~/8 g Application filed~_~~~~g Notices mailed Board decision .Date /`,Q,~,~f, ~ Secretary C1 ~, or r a ASPEN¢PITKII\i . + NOTICE OF PUBLIC REARING BfiFORE THE PITK2N COUNTY BOARD bF ADJUSTMENT ~ .,. ~ . , .rte .~, ~ a ~~....~ .,,, ~ <. „,.. F- ~, , TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE ~ VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW ~ xµ:µ ~.w~ Mz.~U ~ ~ ~ „ ~~ rt.~. r,>? ~.,.rzn~ .,.....,; ...,....~ . , ..,.,, .. .~ ,. ~ County Resolution of June 5, 1955, as Pursuant to Pitkin , amended, a Public'Rearing`will be held"Tin the District Court Room,'Pitkin County Court Rouse, Aspen, Colorado, (br at such other place"as the meeting may then be ad,7ournPd) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Ad,7nstment`requesting ~ provisons 'of` "Cie G'`ounty 'honing` authority for variance from the~ Resol o y d to persons affected b the proposed variance are invate All appear and state thear views, protests or objections. I£ you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you 'are urged to state yo m° views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious a the opinions of surrounding property owners. and consideration t _ other affected in 3eciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. ERRING AND OF THE REQUESTED VARZANGE ARE THE ARTICUI.ARS OF T E _ ~ ~ .. ..~~ .-, .~..._ ., r^ s y..~m-., w- .. ~.~,....... »+x .aam..q r....¢5,«v.,a.m#^ w .x+. 1Cd9.. M .J.m. ..- AS FOLLOW;5'c _, s' ~k ~ Date and time of ,meeting': August 2,,1988 at 5:15 p.m. ~ Name^and Address ,of Applicant for Var.,ance,; Richard E. Smith 0075 Chair Mountain Drive.. ,, Redstone, CO 81523 "' "`~ °" ' Location of Property ar Description: Lot Y, Crystal River Park'Subd3yision Variance Requested: __ 28 ft. front yard setback variance, a'28 ft. south side yard setback variance, a ZO ft. north side yard setback variance and_,a 20 ft. rear yard setback variance. ~: XX ;Temporary of Variance:. Permanent., ConditQOn THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ~ 1Ccw~Cj,l~ ~A,i.l.4 ~_ -- Karidi Shafrran, Cha`~persan ~~ig~t~ ~ offices: mail address: ` 517 East Hopkins Avenue 506 East' Main Street ~ Aspen, Calorad® 81611 303/995-5973 Aspen, Colorado 8'1'6'11 _ ~. ;~ LAW OFFICES LAWRENCE M. MINCER LAWRENCE M. MINCER KRISA NDRA L. KREFT NEIL $. MINCER 8i9•PFTK4W-0YEWHE P.O. BOX 850 GLEN WOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 TELEPHONE: (303) 9455448 AI~G 11988 July 29, 1988 Francis Krizmanich City and County Planning Department 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Krizmanich: Colomo, Inc. is the owner of Lot Y, Crystal River Park Subdivi- sion in Pitkin County, Colorado, street address 0075 Chair Mountain Drive, Redstone, Colorado 81623, and has entered into an agreement to sell the property to Richard E. Smith. The owner hereby consents to the application of Mr. Smith to the Pitkin County Board of Adjustment for a setback variance and authorizes Mr. Smith, or his designate to proceed with the application. Yours very truly, ~_ ence M. Mrnce , Secretary a d Attorney for Colomo, Inc. LMM/rjj -~`b ADJACENT"LANf~'OtiII~E"RS""'I'0~'L~0'~'~1~;~CRST~ L~P •I( ,~'4"~">~~~~~~,w.;9,a.~' ~X LOT Z ..u w ;_ _, _... _ ... ., JAMES J OHAN _< <, __..~.... ~.-._,~ J. YVO'F1NE`~~A~1. _~~. .w ,. ._.,... ~ ,~....... .. .._t. 1845 SIMMS LAKEWO'Ob, CO."80215 LOT 30 PAUL D. AND Ai~~NETTE M~IR~CI~JI'P+I"...,, ... ~„~ .. .. f~,,, ~ . ..... ...... .~~.. ... ... >.~~ w r~ a.... ~. .,_ ,:,« .0037 C~HAI"R M1'~` DRS ~ ~ ;s .. , ..,... , , . ,. REbSTONE, C~;~.81623 .,.. ._ :,:,.>, .. ...,., :.. ..,, , . ~ „f. .a. , LOT 11 JOHN H. VAt~ OTS ANNE R~. VAfiV b'TS ~ '" ~ 0360 CRYST~(L "'~AR~C ~DR _, o < ~ . . , . ~ ,,:; , w , ~.~,...~ . ~ .. ... _ ,. ~_ REDSTONE Cb":" 816"23'~~~"~ `" ;. ..... r , LOT R Ronald E. Banta `"° "' Sarah Jean Barta 345 P•leadowview~`Dr. ," Evergreen`;' Co. 80439 LOT 1 AND 2 RODERIC`l~ SP~I~S1'~i wr,.~:, .. ,d.., ».. ,~,.,., ..~., .w. _,...,. .~, ~. ~._:.,.: .,.,.. ,...~yj . 1200~57"£fi St:~ Su1te 200 ~~ ` ``~ ' ~ ~~ ~ ~.~ ~`' " ` DENVER , ~ Co. `02'02 a CRYSTAL RTVE~"'PAR'~~b`~%1E06J~t~1?S'`"~N,..r~,,..., ~,~.~~,:.~~,~.,.~.,.~.,, ,t ..~,,,..~„_R...a...~~ ..~~.,..~~:,.~ ~~..~..~ , ~C/0 Anne Van Dis 0360 CRYSTA`L~'~`AR~' D.R:.a~~:_ .. _: __ w ., ,.. _._ . , .,M .: , ~ ~. ...r.... . ~ :. _ .. ,. ,.._~ REDSTONE, CO, ,.81623 ~; ~ti It ^~~y Y 5 z h Melinda Pearson moved that the following be adopted: BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE COUNTY OF PITICIN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 88-35 Richard Smith, Lot Y, Crystal River Subdivision 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 Resolutions and the zoning maps. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the applicant's request for a 72' frontyard setback variance, a 2' southside variance, a 10' northside setback variance, and a l0' rearyard setback variance, be granted due to downzoning. Additional conditions or restrictions: WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. Peter Dobrovolny seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: ,~ Resolution # 88- 35 Page 2 Kandi Shaffran - yes Melinda Pearson -yes Evan Gull - yes Peter Dobrovolny - yes The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: August 2, 1988 The Board. of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado Attest: i-~~. Se eta C airman ' ~ ''" Minutes Pitkin County Board of Adjustments August 2, 1988 Members. Present: Kandi Shaffran, Chairwoman Peter Dobrovolny Melinda Pearson Evan Gull Chris Conrad Pitkin Count Zon y ing Enforcement Officer, was present with staff recommendations. Shaffran called the meeting to order at 5:25PM. The reading of the minutes was postponed until the end of the 'meeting. Conrad informed the board of a problem in case numbering, and so cases were"in heard in the following order. ' as Kell re bea tab~l d auntile theme Sept mberl 6 (K 19 8'smeetingt duerutog aYelast manute conflc£. Gull moved to accept the postponement, and Dobrovolny seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion carried 4-0. $ill Brashear was present to represent Richard Knecht. A variance was being sought to allow Knecht to build a house and barn 'so he may avoid a floodplain and 'sloping portion of property where drainage would b'e a hardship. Conrad confirmed that Knecht's building envelope is very tight. Guli observed that since the barn would lie on an upgrade, it would be 1.5' higher than the house. Conrad pointed out that an accessory building has a 12' restriction, and anything higher is a principal structure. In this case, the house. must be higher than the barn. Dobrovolny commented that the proposed barn would be too close to the road. Brashear replied that this would allow for better access and that the rear of the barn would have no access'at all. Neighbor John Olson was present to object to the height of the barn, claiming it would obstruct his view and be out of context. Olsen asked if Knecht would be able to ~. eventually change the height of his 72° house, to which the board answered 'yes'. Gull remarked. that Knecht might also choose to request a height variance on the barn. Brashear suggested a stipulation be placed on the variance to restrict Knecht from building higher. Gull offered a compromise in a motion to grant a 29' setback for the house and a 40' setback for the barn; due to topographical hardships. The motion was seconded by Dobrovolny and the motion was carried 4-0. Jim Crowley was present representing the Landowners Association. Mr. Crowley explained how residents in Brush Creek spent $60,000 - $70,000 last year maintaining Brush Creeks' roads even though the roads are owned by the county: Large trash trucks weighing up to 30 tons empty, destroy these roads, `thereby increasing costs to Brush Creek residents. The Brush Creek Landowners proposed placing two dumpsters near the entrance to the subdivision, so the 'trucks needn't enter the development, thereby saving the roads. The dumpsters would be placed on the right of way which is approximately 60', with a 30' easement on the side. They proposed further, to build enclosures approximately 6' tall with four sides and a roof; similar to those in Snowmass. Cedar shakes would co', osures. ver the encl One duinpster would be placed on each parcel, one which bel'ohgs to the subdivision, the other belonging to Mr. Jerold Scheihbaum. A letter from Mr. Scheinbaum supporting tfie cons"truc£on was submitted. Brush Creek Landowner, Mr. Sperioer 'Pearsonw'as also present in support of this variance.. Gull pointed out that the purpose of setbacks is to protect neighbors from each others problems acid that in this instance,. a group of neighbors 'are facing an administrative problem. If the county had wanted to do the same, he continued, they would just do it, and not be in a position to obtain a variance. After a discussion on what the ase is Dobrovoln setback avariancen forlsconstruction of two t motioned for a 0' rash enclosures as presented on the drawing, due to topographical hardship. Gull seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion carried 4- 0 Case # 88 - 34 Carol and Bob Ewald, 9427 Highway 82. Bob and Carol Ewald were present requesting a variance which would enable them to build an extension on-their house. The Ewalds proposed to add a front porch cover with a' gable which would protect their front door from the weather, and a garage with much needed living space above. The addition would be covered with wood siding as is the bank in Snowmass. Since the Ewalds intend to leave the surrounding trees standing, the addition would be hidden from view of Highway'82. Chris Conrad confirmed that the document was prepared for 1041 review for floodplain. Although Shaffran thought the addition would look nice and argued that such variances have been allowed before for larger buildings, Pearson countered that it's only been done on non-view sides, and that the addition would have a' large impact on Highway 82. Though Pearson had a problem with th thing she admitted she could go with the house Evgan a whole + * ' ,pointed out that legally, the Ewalds could build a 30" overhan for their porch without a variance, but the Ewalds suggested that a larger n to grant a 35' one would look much nicer. Gull made a motio Y p P,., Y Y 9 a 160' front and setback variance from the countne rof dFTi hway 82 as de icted on the drawin s but not to include the 6' or setpba~~ed aorta the a o lia tiouule asubmitted o sta in witch roof submi build pp Y g hin the ' ing envelope on the s rv y due to downzon,ng. p y, ried The motion was seconded b Dobrovoln and the motion car, 4-0. Case # 88 - 35 Richard Smith Lot Y Crystal River Subdivision cCormick were present requesting variances rwhich twould 1 ow Smith' to bizild'~a house on property which has previously been downzoned. Al`tliough the sizf~dvision is zoned AF-1, the lot is closer in size to an R-15 zone. A covenanee for the subdivision requires that'30' front yard, 15' side yard and 20* rear yard setbacks be maintained. Approval could be granted from the Corporation, to allow for a 5' deviation on the front and rear sides, and a 10' deviation on the y Smith ointed out that several other varaan side ard., p ces have g setbacks nfor an Rh15 zone apply 1toonthisGull suggested that lot,with setback requirements of 30' front yard, 10' rear yard, and l0* side yard. Pearson motioned to grant a 72' front yard setback variance, a. 2' south side yard variance, a 10' north side yard'"setback variance and a 10'' rear yard setback variance, due to downzonng. Dobrobolny seccnded the motion, and the motion carried 4-0. Case # 88- 36 Jeri Ann Rovsek,. Lot R-45, Starwood_Subdivision Gary Kerr and Elli Brickham were present to represent Ms. Rovsek. They requested variances which would allow, the Rovsek^s to place a pre-built log house, approved by the Starwood Architectural Committee, on their lot: However, if kept within zoning regulations, the house would block neighbors view of Sopris. Kerr explained that it was not the lot which presented the, hardship, but rather the particular house which the Rovseks intended to place on the lot. Gull pointed out that setbacks' protect neighbors from one another, but that " by denying it [variance]'we're hurting the people the setbacks are supposed to help. That's where we have. a conflict". 'Shaffran argued that distances between neighbors must be protected for future landowners as well as those currently affected. She suggested that Kerr and Brickham discuss the matter with the Homeowners again, and made a motion to table the request until a new meeting has been rescheduled. Shaffran informed both Kerr and ',Brickham °, that notice must again be posted, or the request for a variance withdrawn. Gull seconded the motion, and it was carried 4-0. Case # 88 - 37. Nancy MacKenzie Lot 2 Sterlina Subdivision Bill MacKenzie was present on behalf of Nancy MacKenzie to request a variance which would allow the MacKenzie house to be built in a position to allow for greater solar intake. According to MacKenzie, current zoning regulations would place the house in the winter shadows of the hills by 2:30PM, thereby reducing solar efficiency. Shaffran suggested an estimated 20' envelope for the entire rear property line to account for its jaggedness. Dobrovoln ex lained that a solar excuse was"not a viable excuse. Gull noted` tha£ no two acre lot should have a'20' setback. Shaffran suggested that this was really a downzoning issue. Gull made a motion to grant a 25' front yard variance, a 30° side yard variance, and a 30' rear yard variance, to make setbacks conform seconded by Pearson and car ied 4~p downzoning. The motion was Robert Hillebrand was present to request a 20' variance for an AF-1 zone which was prevsously downzoned.. Dobrovolny made a motion t 5 grant P 5r Pt."yard setbacpk' variance of 80' due to downzonin and to o ra hical hardshi Shaffran seconded the motion and it was carried 4 0. Case # 88 - 39 Daniel Sullivan 0368"Willouahby TnTav Dan Levinson was present representing Daniel '`Sullivan. Sullivan wished to extend his garage by one bay. Since the topography between the road and" house drops off, Levinsom ,claimed topographical hgrdship, and pointed out that a variance was granted the on final owner for' the construction of the ,present garage'. The proposed addition would lie below the road and be hidden by trees. Shaffran pointed out that 20' was too wide for one bay, to which Levinson remarked that'Sullivan intended a bay for his car and extra space on the side to allow for motorcycles and the like. Letters from neighbors, Kern and Josephson reflected their approval, and neighbor Guideon Kaufman was present to voice the approval of other neighbors and himself. A motion was made by Gull to grant a 30' front yard setback variance as shown on plans due to topographical hardships. The motion was seconded by Pearson and carried 4-0. ( ,„saw,,,.. l Minutes were reviewed and a motion was made by Pearson to accept the minutes as corrected. The motion was 'accepted by Gull and carried 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at Tc45pM. Respectfully Submitted, o _ Secrztary Chairman ~~~/2. /fig Date r ~ ~~ _, ~,_,,, ,~ .. ~ ,.. ~ _ .~.v ~ ,. . :.. p s