HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.88.43-~
PITKIN COUNTY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
DATE August 22, 19 88 CASE # ~d /G~_i
APPLICANT Lee and Sandy Godfrey pHONE 927-3394
c/o Robin Ferguson
ADDRESS 0522 Glen Eagles Drive, Aspen, CO
OWNER Metro National Bank PHONE 293-3333
ADDRESS 475 Seventeenth Street, Denver, CO
LOCATION OF PROPERTY 0522 Glen Eagles Drive (Aspen Highlands
Subdivision)
Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be
made part of this Case # ~S'~/_3 The Board may return this
application if it does not contain all the facts in question.
Applicant's description of proposed variance showing
justification:
~I~- l
See Exhibit °'A" attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference..
Applicant Signature~;~i..- ~~,`~~rs,.v
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:
Zoning Offici
Date permit rej
Application fil
Notices mailed~,,~~~~ , ~;
y
Board decision ~°- ~-?~ °
Date .;~
Secretary ~ >a'~` ~ ~`w
AS,peil/Pl
130
asp
ing Office
treet
X1611
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE
VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW:
Pursuant to Pitkin County Resolution of June 5, 1955, as
amended, a Public Hearing will be held in the District Court-
Room, Pitkin Counc.y Court House, Aspen, Colorado, {or at such
other place as the meeting may then be adjourned) to'oohsider an
application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting
authority for variance from the provisions of the. County Zoning
Resolution.
All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to
appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you
cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to
state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to
such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious
consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and
other affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request
for variance.
THE PARTICULARS OF THE HEARING AND OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE ARE
AS FOLLOWS:
Uate and time of meeting: September 6, 1488 at 5:15 p.m.
Name and Address of Applicant for Variance: Lee & Sandy Godfrey
0522 Glen Eagles Dr.
Aspen, CO 81611
Location of Property or Description: 0522 Glen Eagles Dr.
Aspen, GO 81611
Variance Requested: requesting approval of a 1' sideyard
setback variance in zone AF-1, where 30 feet is required, to
allow for solar gains.
Duration of Variance: Permanent: X ;Temporary
Condition;
THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT'
K~ a~~/~hairper~-
EXHIBIT A
The subject residence, built in 1966 and consisting of
approx. 2,000 sq. ft., was one of the first constructed in the
Aspen Highlands area. As built, it is in violation of existing
set-back requirements, being approx. 17.3 ft. from the southern
boundary of the property, abutting lands owned by the Aspen
Highlands Skiing Corp. The site totals approx. .975 acres.
Applicant desires to construct an addition of approx. 875
sq. ft. on the southern portion of the existing structure. As
this would have the effect of extending ttie residence to within
approx. 1 ft. of the southern property line, a set-back variance
is required.
The long, narrow shape of the property, and the topographic
features of the site, necessitate this request. Expansion to the
north could be accomplished without a variance, but is highly
impractical due to the steep sloping hillside, the northern
er..posure, and the close proximity of tYie only other residence
immediately abutting the property (Schwartz residenceD The only
other direction in which the applicant could expand without a
variance is tc the east, or directly behind the existing
structure; however, this too would be extremely impractical, and
pose an undue hardship on the applicant. Because of topographic
conditions, e.g. mountain peak, looming immediately behind and to
the east of the existing structure, solar access would be greatly
inhibited, if not altogether blocked, during the winter months.
Expansion to the south, on the other hand, is on fiat ground, is
concealed from all other area residences, and permits full access
to sunlight and passive solar gains.
The proposed addition will be concealed from all abutting
property owners, with the exception of the Aspen Highlands Skiing
Corp. , whose nearest lifts are at least 1000 ft. away from the
subject property. Accordingly, this variance request can be
granted without c«using substantial detriment to the public good,
and without substantially altering or impairing the intent and
purpose of the zoning district regulations, and the policies and
regulations of the County Code.
~,~~a ,.„~ ~,
s~r~~~
09/AD3
~
.; u .-. ..,.
.+SPEN/PItKIN PLANNING OFFIC
- t
130 Soutli Ga(e'iia Sheet
?'~
,: ~-"
`Aspen; Colorado 81611
' '"~ ~
~
,.
(303) 925-2020 `
LAND USE APPLICATION
E
'' ~T" w~ ~`~~ ~"'
F
ES
~
-
~
OOtt3 - 6372f - 47331 - '~ OMP/CONCPPTUAL~ f ~-r ~ 4 ~
-63722 - 47332 GMP/PR0.IMIIJARY4"'`"y
~ ~ ~'~•
Y
63723 -47333 •
.rs,
n r
`GMP/FINAL .." '"
-63724 - 47341 ., 1, i..,
SUB/CONCEPTUAL -
63725 - 47342' SUBMRELIMINARY '"
63728 ~ -47343 SUB/FINAL ,'.~~r a:'~~_
63727 ''.- 47350 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS ~
- 63726 ~ ~- 47360 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS]
' "'CONSENT AGENDA"ITEMS k
REFERRA
P -i
: '~` -
L
EES
~00725 ~ fi3736 '-47380 .
,ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH:~~ P ~ <<__
6971] ` '~' _
06113 ~ 63731 ~- 47480` ENVIAONMENTAL COORD `
'-00173 63732 ~~ "'47480 ,,
ENGINEERING~~
SUB=
PLANNING OFFICE SALES "` '- s
"00113 -63061" ' -09600 COUNTY CODE '
-63062 ~=09000 ~~COMP PLAN
. '63066 -09000 COP`/'PEES "`
~
:•: : -63069 -09000 OTHER ~E3LOfj
`
._ _.. ~ ~ SUB-'
~)n ~avSa
Name: »~t,~trf( J
~t~t hone ~'~
1~
Addree++~
ProlecP .•
Check N ~ j z°~ ~ ~ Date *_
• AtltlitionaYBi0in9~ - #~of HOUle:
f~~?(~E3{D~a
y..._.. .,.r
ADJACENT. PROPERTY OWNERS
1. James E. Moore 2. Alan E. Schwartz'afad
Box 7Q7 'Gail S. Schwartz
Aspen, CO 81612 Box.`4366
Aspen, CO 8;1612,,,,
3. Aspen 'Highlands 4. Howard L. Gottlieb and
Skiing Corporation Anne B. Gottlieb
Box T 1000 Lake Shore'Blad.
Aspen, CO 81512 Evanston, TL 662'02`
5. U. S. Forest Service
806 West Hallam
Aspen, CO 81611
^~,~~
1'
t;
is ;~_
asaa G,~
~~~°
~~ ~
~~
~~
~v
~~~
~~~a~~
... ~~ V ~,., ._ ~ .~ ~~ ~u
I
N ..~gsnmti¢,y~c,-'4-l:sy b`:'~: ~.~d.'jY : T>+-~m+..~; T
{.'2V G~ ~ ~ ~ ,, .. ~. } A'~bM '~-fin ,, ..
4 t r Y r .R" „„ ~a ~ q.~. :.d.
~~ ~ .1SPEFl%P1rC`I(IFl PLd(~Ylli G~'~O~Flf:~t ~t•
""'' 19b SoutA Gal~"`ia'Str`ee"~ts'"1~ .-~~~t; ^'~ '
r,- ~ Aspen, Colciado BiBii 44~ ~~~'
v 4 -'' (3031m925=2U~0 ~ '~ ~ ~fi'"~, r'
LAND USE APPUCATfCN FEE ~~,.~ ~~~
00713 63721 - 47331 MGMP/CONCEPT'U'A'YL ' ~`I~ ~ a
R- - ~ ~ -'63722 "' = 47332 GMPJPR`EL7.1 `~nx~ -~ ~'~ i * ~- .
' 63723 ~ --4'7333' GMP/FINAf: ~.;. ~ - ~ ~ ~~~~5
v. .63724 47341 SOBTC017CEPTUAL ` > ~.x5' -
~e / ,.,,, 63726 -47342 'SUB%PFiEL1~1~NARV ~~" - 'y "~ ~~^~„ ' r
._. i 4 ," 83728' ' -47343 ~ ~SUB/FINAL " ~ ~~ `J4i `~e~ -
- _ "'-83727°„ ;~ = 47350 ' ALC'2-STEP APPLICATIONS ;~;~,"~`~w~~~"""'~~"'`' "~~'~
- - 63728 ~ ", ~- 47360 ALL 1=STEP APFLIC]1TICN'~S~ i.?',r~ ~':nt"?S`+,si"» ,,~.:.. `„ ,
(',r; ..j.~^:,rrc:,' -:>~;;.~,>y..c.~,t.wy;.~CONS~ENTAGENf1A`fTEKAS "%i:',~:';il.~a:. ~~ -
_ _ - REF,ERYiAL`FEES:' :P.-e'm .~T•,, ~=X''Sr~. '','o&. ~ ~:_i.'J.~'~' ".-'^~ - -,.
': ~ 00125 i~ -63730 - 47380 ~ ~~ EIVV~'R~OIJM'L'9VTAC NEJiL'Y(f~~" ~~ ~,`~n~~''.~~~ ~%c%~'`~'"~ `~Y^k~~~:'~`~~.~.•~ J. .
^'.i: r 00123..., :83730 - ~ 47380 `:i 5=}10U~I~NG''~' ^s_ J` ` a kr :t3+~+-- ~..r.~~. . ~-..,';_. ; '..
~+~.~ ~
`ffi"~
00175 ' ~rv 63730 ~ 47300 '""~NGINEERIN(t .r r w.,',~t"''~-'~~1"' ~ ~~
a
w~. ~.
triOV•••lxa~~°i~^,+`'e~i`mnv.~"s"~k}f „!k~4 C.e,~y+;~~L,S*G,9,a ~*~ ~4>ru~^`~.+ -a -
.:5; OOt13, rd`__83771 s-l-~'a-47'437~W G}u1P~'reG`~EEAAL.r~,:~~*~~~~~.' "44.,.k~ ~i d. -. .
~="83713`'tb7433''""""GMp/Fl~IKfC""'y'~wyg. c~~k~'~~ 5 -
.i.'ws63714 -x'8°.w•~.1'67~i~"'` ~UBVGENERAU~' ""~ r~"~. ''Yr ,"~'~,', ""`~ c'~' ~ .
y"=63715'~"~'=4T4#2 ~~~~'§U~B'%tlE7A1'C,ED-~"-`+""^v~.~:~~ ~~'^'+-'~`qY:^"°:
~ ~sT .,,- r . yr: - ~w^~ .,<~ •~ yk ~~"'-'y ~'~~ '
~~_ 83716 `-.t"' 47`4`43.n; "t~ SUB'/F'7NAL ~, ~.'~~:ud3`5'~'.~~s+°.'^r. TY"'°
~ ' -83717" x""`47450 `'vAlL 2-STEP APPLLICTIONS ~ 4~"P"t+~"' i~-
-63718 -.47460 ACL f STEEP APPI t~Arlnue~ ak... s. ... ,
'.00723:.._..._63730"-: ~;~~--a748U ~~ NolfB~'t~G"`a»-"'~'CM.;,""r~-axr;r'~u'^wa;p^:res.~'q,•p.-.~ -;
OOtt3 ' -83731 ~~ 47480 ~, ENVipONMENTAL CbORD K"+"~^~` x - 1- ' % `
00113 - -'63732'. ,•a "47480 ,w.•El~`C(R(16G~ Luc-a.w ~.:.e `:ln`"';,~a`Sn ,'~'?." ~ w ,~.' .
PLANNING OFFICE SALES . ' "~:F= sfi".':.;r-~: ~ .
'.00113 =63081 '~-'08000 "COUNTY CGCiE" .I tan. ~-~-
ra..
8306E - - =091700 ~ "COMP PI.nR °~~7 ~r ' ;'~ 'b ~ - s
~: •63`088- 0'9`00"0 COP~~ES ~?"~i.'' 7 "
- -83069 09000 OTNER "~Qfj . •-.•,'' - 1~~1~~~~~^^'h ,i r ~. ~?~ '
k, ' sue~TbiA~ M , "
it ' --77 ~~ :..:''~ ,,__'I ,.~r;.yw",~ `tid aC•rx~ ~~,,
Nama »~~~`r"~4-y~N IIJ~hone~p-~aa. Y "'''z~.~r~.va
Addreao . .. '~Tl- ., "x Prolecf,~'-, yi ~ "± -
:_-'-. :. 'yr7d?...s~r~ G S S : 6 g /6 j Cf' ....,:. .y°,'~ , ~ .r ~,; d -1i,
."Check ga'`13.?{~ ~ - -.,,,K..>I;.. T~~^~~,.
Date
AddiBonal~~8filing - ~ ~ .-~ r& of Htiursr~~~-'a'»~ `'
- ~~ ~ * "~
o~ 302 G~,c,ee f d>:.7 LwL.~ f ~ ,~ 1 ,~ ,
:~.
. ~~~ ,mss -
,:i : ....., ~?~.,~; .;.:;...~,.
eft t~~~i)~
.......- :. .t,.,...,,..4 .. -... ~,.e~.. -.- -.. v. ., i, .., .,
~.. 2tY
Peter Dobrovolny moved that the following be adopted:
BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
OF THE COUNTY OF PITRIN
STATE OF COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. 88-43
WHEREAS, Lee and Sandy Godfrey, owners of 0522 Glen Eagles Drive,
Aspen, request a 1' side yard setback; and,
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 by the Board of Adjustment, that
a 12.7' side yard setback variance to run from 65' - 150', to be
measured at right angles from the West property line, so that the
extent of non-conformity not be increased, and a 35' front yard
setback variance be granted.
WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolutiGn may
result in rehearing and possible revocation.
Kandi Shaffran seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution.
The roll having been called, the vote was as follows:
.~
Resolution # 88-~
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: September 06, 1988 The Board of Adjustment
of Pitkin County, Colorado
Attest:
_Sec tar
Chairman
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
ADJUSTMENT TO ALL
ZONING OR USE VARIF
r ,-
Pursuant to Pitkin County Zoning Resolution of June 5, 1955,
as amended, a Public Hearing will be held in the ;District,
Courtroom, Pitkin County Court House, Aspen, Colorado, (or at
such other place as the meeting may then be adjourned) to
requestingn authoritylofor lvariance from the Bproesioiisj of mthe',
County Zoning Resolution.
All persons affected by the proposed variance are inyited_to,
appear and state their views, protests, or objections. If you'
suchety r' an e,~s asy thet Boa rd r ofcuAdjustment w 11 e g ve cserous
consideration to the.. opinions of surrounding property owners and
others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request.
for variance.
DATE AND TIME OF MEETING: September 6, 1988 at 5:15 p.m.
Jeri Ann Rovsekr requesting a variance for a 10' rearyard
setback at the north, side of the property, where a 30' setback is,
required in the AF-1 zone, Property Location: Lot R-45;'
Starwood Subdivision, Pitkin County, Colorado.
Edward Golub: requesting a variance for a 5' setback where a
30' setback is required in the AF-1 zone, to allow for the
construction of a residential. garage. Property Location: 0086
Horseshoe Drive, Basalt, Pitkin Comity, Colorado,
Dennis Horton: requesting a variance for a 41' frontyard setback
and a 10' sideyard setback, where 100' and 30'' respectively are
required in the AF-1 zone, to meet septic and well+ requirements.
Property Location: Lot 22, Elk Mountain Subdivision, Redstone;
Pitkin County, Colorado.
Gerald Hosier: requesting a variance for 3' height variance
where 28' is required in the AF-1 zone", to allow for completion
of residential house. "Property Location: Township 105, Range
84W, Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, Pitkin County, Colorado.
setback where 30'f rs . requredt ing the aAFa1c zones' to 'allow yfor
solar gains on an addition to residential, house. Property
Location: 0522 Glen Eagles Drive, Aspen, Pitkin County,
Colorado.
- -. ,,r ,..~ .~.: , .. ~,...... ~ .;,~.;
~._
Dennis Dembs and Michael Roth: requesting a 292 square foot FAR
variance, where 5,998 square feet is required in the R-30 zone,
to allow for solar gains. Property Location: Portion Lot 1,
Westerly 1/2 Lot 2, Block 2, Red Mountain Subdivision, Pitkin
County, Colorado.
Marc Friedberg: requesting a variance for a 6' front yard setback
where 30 feet is required in the R-30 zone, to allow for the
construction of a residential garage. Property Location: 54
Shady Lane, Pitkin County, Colorado.
Stan and Kandi Shaffran: requesting a variance for a 16'-6"
setback where 30 feet is required in"the R-15 zone''; to allow for
the construction of a residential garage. Property Location:
Lot 19, Filing I, Mountain Valley Subdivision, Pitkin County,..
Colorado.
1_ .~..
Submitted to Aspen Times, Tuesday, August 23, 1988
to be printed in the Thursday, August 25, 1988 edition
P 0 ~~ 41357 -Pi"~kin ~kn~
,... _. , .,.... ~ ..r.. ~-.. ~. ~ i~i,.. ai.
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARB" OF'
ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUE°5`TED'
ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOWc
Pursuant to Pitkin County Zoninq Resolution of June. 5, 1955,
as amended, a Public Hearing will be held in the District
rensestinan apple tion hit d wthuthe saidnBoard of oAdjustment
qu g authority for variance from the provisions of the
County Zoning Resolution.
All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to
appear and state their views, protests, or objections. If'`you
cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you; are urged to
state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to
such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious'
consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and
others affected in decidn whether to`~`"
g grant or deny the request
for variance.
DATE AND TIME OF MEETING; September 6, 1988 at 5:15 p.m.
construction of la ~resid ti aingarage. 1Property Location: f Lott4e`
Ardmore Subdivision 110 Ardmore Pitkin County, Colorado.
Submitted to Aspen Times, Tuesday, August 24, 1988
to be printed in the Thursday, August 25, 1988 edition
. :. _,,,.,~ ., . :w»., w,w .~:,"uc. =.+a ,» 'l:~ar! t -r . . r u^'. ... f, rt9±`1k. ~ ~ d. s+~ ~.a ~~1,8 .`'u ~P+~*,.p:
P':.... ;~. ~ '
.. e~" ~ ' 'ji.
Minutes
Pitkin County
Board of Adjustment
September 06, 1988
Members Present:
Kandi Shaffran, Chairman
Evan Gull
Peter DobrovoTny'
Melinda Pearson
Robert Miller (via phone)
Francis K'rizmanich, Pitkin County Zoning Enforcement Officer,
was present with staff recommendations.
meetingnu~esl wash tabled n untlorthe anext2 regularly rscheduled
The Board was notified of an incorrect notice which was sent to
all adjacent. landowners of Dembs/Roth. A correction notice was
sent to the adjacent landowners on or about the 25th August. The
,.,
Public Notice which appeared in the Aspefr Times on ,august 25th
reflected the correct variance request.'
Since two of this evenings cases required certain Board members
to abstain from voting, it was agreed that alternate members
would be reachecT by phone for"their vote. to allow those cases
involved to he heard ancT not"tablec`('c~ue to hack off`quorum.
A let£er submitted y, re asked to.
since Dreher ris out by attorney John Thomas Kell 5 qu ~ 3 4y~..
table Dreher s variance request until the next 're ular meetin
of the country and is unable to'be reached b
Kelly.. Pearson made a motion to table the "case unt~.l the next.
regular meeting. The motion was seconded by Dobrovolny, and
carried 4-0.
Case # 88-36. Jeri Ann Rovsek Lot R-45 Starwood Subdivision
Architect Roger Kerr was present with Elli ~rickham and Paul
... . ,.
Taddune members of the Starwood FI"omeoGiners Association, on
behalf of Ms. Rovsek. The original request for a '5' setback was'
reduced to a 10 rear and setback to create rivac an
obstruct neighbors view. Because this case was last tabled,
whichran asked 'if the notification sign waspstilly pos to 'not
ted, to
adjacent lahdownerpMredRichard Fenton a whorwould be most impacted
~~ ~ ,..
by the variance. Fenton stated he had no objection to the
variance and would. prefer it be granted so his view would not be
blocked. He also expressed a preference to have the grading for
the entrance roadwa ,minimized. way would also
blacement nofn the lhouse andd that nthea now be~h ev' is the third
P y e this present
location to be best situated for all parties concerned. After a
discussion on what the hardship in this case was, if it was
justified, and if a hardship was even needed to make a motion, it
was decided that "view" could be included under topographical and
would apply to this case. Gull stated that the- "protection"
re u
q fired by Starwood is far more 'severe' than the zoning allows
for and that althou h tecfinicall th`e Board ma have difficult
dointedeoutnthatn sincef S trwoodf mpact by rclenyingi11ptactiPea'rson
P was a private subdivision, any
did not a71ow public access, the public would not be affected b
this variance. She then made a motion to approve a 20' rear yard
setback variance due to topographical hardship and the desire to
preserve-the view corridor_ of adjoining neighbors. Gull seconded
the motion and~'it carried 4-0.
Case # 88-40, Edward Golub 0086 Horseshoe Drive Basalt CO
Edward and Ka a Golub were qu ' e yard
y present to re est a 5 sd
setback variance for a three door, existing garage which was,.
built without a building permit. Golub followed a covenance
which allowed him a 5' setback, while the county code requires a
30' setback in the AF-1 zone Golub presented pictures of the
structure, and all agreed it was "tastefuYlyr c~one'i Go7,ub also;
presented letters from` all ad}'oining`property owners, none of
vrhich opposed, and mosf of" whic~i` tpioug~it tTie ~'garag~', was' we15. done
its was necessary lto build 'the egarageh on the orighte side e f ttfie~
According to Golub, the garage `was` much needed, and Goluli
confessed he would ratTier selY the f~ouse 'than "'"d"o without thee`
garage. Golub said he would fight to keep his garage. When
asked by Pearson why he did not apply for a"permit and if he~dd
not do so because he knew it would not be"approved hy,.the~County,"
Golub replied that he. did not know he needed a permit, that not
even'the house had a permit, and that no ones,"down there"! builds'
with a permit. Shaffran stated`"`that-granting this request for a
variance would not be fair to those who wait for `permission to
build legally, and that the Board would' be ratifying the "do
n t
need a permit" attitude. TTiree"motions were made, including one
which would have Golub remove one bay for a 15' setback, but no
motion was carried. bobrovolny suggested that the area. be'
investigated to determine how rampant non-conformity was in that
area. He made a motion to table the case pending additional
information on non-conformity on other properties in that
subdivision. Krizmanich offered to investigate the area before
the next meeting. Gull seconded the motion, and if `carried 4-0.
---
^. . ,. _~ , s .. „~aM ~ =.+.6.q, .re+,,.l'u.ra. ,. ,~~'r ,xslr ~.' u~mr x Ts; 'a3.` w+ n Y °..'a'K in9~
. , .:.
._
Golub was informed by Shaffran that„ the. sign of notification
could be removed.
Dennis Horton was present to request a 20' side yard variance and
a 59' front.. yard setback variance., Norton's ,total lot area is
11, 970 square feet, and yet is zoned AF-1~. A _lot "~k~a'~ size wound '~
,.~,.~ ..
normally require an R-1$ zoning. Horton" said he believed`,
covenance restrictions were 5' on the sides, and 30' from the,,,
front, but was not absolutely sixre `After referencing the Code
Book to determine setbac7cs for an R-15 zone; it was determined
..n ..#GRaGli+!3..Pxwpw*4Mw
, v
restectivel nd 1Gullwmadeapalmoton Ito fra t and Oside setbacks
p y, ' front yard
g
setback variance, and a 20' side yard setback variance due to
downzoning, to result in R-15 setback lines,,.. Shaffran seconded '
~:.
the motion and it carried 4 0
.. r_r .. ~ -- ~ ~ ~_
Case # 88-42 Gerald Hosier 56 T10S R84W Pitkin Countv
..... ..r r... .. u»iax"sn .. i. K.{vx u~.,.ua n n... i~ n.. .M~k: n Ian.. r<.~ iu ..
General Contractor, Steve Hansen and attorney, Ted
Gardenschwartz were,, present to represent' Hosier along with
architect, Mike MaHaffey. Gardenscfiwartz informed the Board that
x..µ-... - n. ~. .
the addresses of three ad7`acent landowners wire.omitted from,t~`"'~ie
submitted list, and presented letters from these landowners
(Bourkes, Benedcts, and Mc Closkeys'), whereby they waived notice
of the. meeting. and also expressed their approval of the
variance. Hansen confirmed that during excavation. of the lot,
~,~,
discrepancies were found be~weeiY`tTie actual site conditions, and
rn. W,. .~ .. .,.
the survey done by Alpine Surreys After reviewing a sui=~iey done'
by Schmueser, Gordon, Meyer, `Inc , ex=zoning Official Chris
Conrad. found a previously unnoticed irrigation ditch which caused
a discrepancy in tfie topography of the west end of the ,garage. "
At the point of the irrigation ditch, the house ridge line does
not compl""fit' with height restrictions by three feet Hosier
thereb re onstru _
fran reasoned that a neater neg p
occur ins awn eattempt £orllower ~t~ie houseetTlan by grantAing othe'
variance,. and made a motion for a" 3 height variance due to,
topographical' hardship. t~obrovolny seconded the motion and, it
carried 4-0.
Case # 88-43 Lee and Sandy Godfrey. 0522 Glen Ea41e Drive,
.. - -x_ ~<<, .~.~ ~:
A oen _„...
Alan Schwartz and Robin. Ferguson were present to represent the
Godfreys. The Godfreys requested a_1'_setback for an addition to
their house to improve solar access. The house was the first to
be built in its area., and violates current AF-1 zone"setback
regulations. A11 but one of the adjoining neighbors approve of
__.---------~no~rdTr~o_ gran.~'~ T2:~ T-~rde-y-aYa' sit-bacTC`~7a'ri~i~ce to Tun ro~T-
•" ' , ,.. .~,~ u
the addition which would be outside of their view. Engineer,
Pat Dobe, was present representing the Aspen Highlands Ski
Corporation, and owner Whip Jones. Jones does not approve'of an
addition coming within 1' of his property Yine when other sides
of the house are available for additional construction. 'Schwartz
claims no real impact on the Highlands exists, since ski lifts`
are 1000' away, and the addition wou13 be visible 'only to those'
skiing at the Highlands, 1200' away. J'one's, however fears that
the area. may be re-zoned to a higher density zone in the near
future, as' it has been in the Tieback area. Jones' reasons that
should re-zoning occur, the addition to the Godfrey house would'
have an adverse impact on any future development, causing Jones
to move any development he may plan, further up 'the mountain,
thereby assuming Godfrey's current hardship. Schwartz argued
that the possibility of the area being re-zoned was "extremely'
remote", and that the south side was the only side"'conducive for
maximum solar access, since. the house is otherwise shaded by the
mountain. Ferguson further argued that with the addition on the
south side, access to certain rooms in the house would be,
possible without the building- of a corridor around the house.
Regardless of the arguments presented, the- gen'eraY consensus of
the Board was that 1' was too close to ~e to ary property line.
Gull acknowledged that the hardship was caused by the original
plans of the house, but that infringement on the setback should
not continue. The Godfreys should have been aware of the. setback'
regulation when they purchased the house. Dobrovolny then made a
motio'n' to grant "a` 12.7' side yard setback "va`riance to run from.
65' - 150', to be`measured a£ right angles from the FTest`property`
line., so that the extent of non:-conformity not be increased, and
a 35' front yard setback variance. TTie motion was seconded by'
STiaf~rar~ a'nd'Carried 4-0
Tim Hagman and Doug Bayles were present to represent Dembs and`
Roth. Pearsdn a`hs~ained from voting because of her employment at'
Hagmah-Yaw and her'Ynvolvement on £h1s case
,_ .,m _. ,. x., .
A variance tq FAR was "dieing' sought `to `a~~`ow for" the extension of
roof overhangs and f"or the construction of an open d"ec"~; `Hagman
explained the ambiguity in the zoning code with regards to'
overhangs and. decks and their affect on ~AR~'calculations.'
Krizmanich agreed that information received from the building
anyln~nd vidual n inspect nary Due nton the t unclart~yreta on nhow`
overhangs "'affect the FAR of a house, 'Hagman`=Yaw reduced the'
original overhangs t`o 2 1%2', so not to~ exceed what was"thought`
to be the FAR and to comply with what they believed to°'be Code.
It was finally determined that 30" overhangs should not be
included in FAR calculations. Hagman requested that two
dimens ons and whi chd based on Hagman-Yawl exp riencethwouldlallow
. ,..
.~_~... .a ._ -- 1 .. _._.,.,_
' g increase
for desired shadin from the sun. This woul cause an
to the total FAR of 196 square feet. These overhangs fi...~
aye been
designed for one side of the,. house, only, and would not
total pFARdeckl ul t oons.gwho The uBoard,d lnotsgw onlthemattert
precedence, opted for an administrative, position
Gull 'made `a motion "in accordance. With our position as being a
Board to hand down opinions on administrative judgments 6f`the
Building Departmenh, that we direct the Building 'Department to
exclude the three overhangs and i deck presented, [and that they]'
_ ~.
not be included in the__FAR calculations for the plans submitted".
..
Dobrovolny seconded the motion and tNcarried 4-0 with Bob Miller
,.... ...
voting yes by phone.
Case 88-45 Marc Friedberg, 54 Shady Lane, Aspen
Mark Friedberg was present to
construction of a three-sided, g
there is a 12' differential be
property grade, Tie' claims top
presented an agreement with tY
BOCC,resolution, whereby the Co
variance. Although initial pla
Hagman-Yaw, Pearson admiated to
the project. Shaffran suggested
since a quorum would then not be
grant a 24' front yard setback v
garage, due to topography and
Shaffran seconded the motion, an
request a 6' variance for the
lass, residential garage. Since
tween Red M'ountain'" Road and his
ographical' hardship ~ ~`'riedberg
e County a's outlined on a 1982
unty supports his request for
ns for tTie ga "rage!. 'were` done bX
not being at all;familar with
Pear'sori ritTf abstain from voting
present. Gull made a motion to
arance for the construction of a
other extenuating circumstances:.:
d itcarried 4-0~. '~ ~`~
Case # 88-46, .Stan & Kandi Shaffran, Olb4 Lupine Drive, Aspen
.r , ,,. , .:,. ~ ... ,~ .,~ .,..: , .,.." .. ,. ~... " ..
p ques€ a Y6'.6' front yard
Stan. & Ka"nd~ Sliaff"ran were resent to re
setback variance so they may build a residential garage. The
Shaffrans presented pictures of tIie, site'as well as letters
~x resin g royal prom nei hbors who would stand; to suffer the
P ~ g pp g
reatest ne ative m act. ~'"convenand~ for the area requires a
20' front yard setback. 17ownonng and topographical hardships
as well as safety concerns (entrance_ near`a blind corned"were
discussed. Shaffran also mentioned, that,mthe_~„garage would
obstruct solar equipment were it to be placed on the other side,
of the house. Pearson made a motion ,to grant a 16'.6' front yard
setback variance for the construction _of a„ garage due to
downzoning and topographical hardship. The motion was seconded
by Dobrovolny and carried 4-0, with Shaffran abstaining from
voting and Bob Miller voting yes by phone." `'
The meeting was adjourned.
`" i~ .,
~ G>
Respectfully submitted,
"Secre ary
Ckia i rman
Da°te ~