Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.88.45 .. PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DATE ~ ~~ ~`~ ~ ~~ 19 ~g ~ha~e~~~-. ~c~c~o CASE # '`1 / APPLICANT 'M~'~~-- `~ FQ. ~'~1~]~~% ADDRESS'' `J~fl~1`~ ~-+1'~1~9~i PK P x'1-1 OWNER '~~ ~~' ADDRESS Sert'~~, LOCATION OF PROPfiRTY ~1-`- SNS~~~ 1^ptN~ t'~5i'~1-1 Any pertinent data must accoip ryy 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: ~t a ~ ?o c2`` G```~ g~ J, 1 ( ~, i M.~C55.`~`~..- 0.iJ4 '"~~ _ S.J•J ^~~c, n~w~ C-V'~-c'-c`'~`C~t" i r ~a G~ o r.~ rcr.. e ~ ~ a--- acme"" ~r \ v-C--i v. ~ C.1.- (~ rs~-l~rG , .n ~ S'~^( v c.-~.o ~~ o-Tg`~~s.a- 1{1 ~~ ,~~~.~ ~a yea Applicant Signatur G.:J~"~- 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 rejected Board decision _ _. Application filed Date Notices maled7/~ ~,r Secretary L ~~i~'f3'f~ ~ ;. Aspen/Pi 130 aspE ,. ing Office treet 81611 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PITRIN 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 County Court House, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such other place as the meeting may then be adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of tie"'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: Date and time of meeting: September 6, 1988 at 5:15 p.m. Name and Address of Applicant for Variance: Marc Friedberg 54 Shady Lane Aspen, C0 81611 Location of Property or Description: 54 Shady Lane Aspen, CO 81611 Variance Requested: requesting a variance for a 6' frontyard setback where 30 feet is required in the R-30 zone, to allow for the construction of a residential garage. Duration of Variance: Temporary. Permanent• X Condition: THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ICandi Sh ffr Chai e sow ~~i~~~2 .,., .a...__. ~_~_~_ _..,,, . , n~. ~, .. ,. w ~, r l? ,S ----~~T..~.~~ .. .. ~.. „„,. ~. -_; _e:7~_ ~,~.-- ~ ~,,'r . __ .... ~- w ~. '.~ , ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ._: e~ 4, ~c ~- _ ~, ~ ~ a .. . ~~;~~$1~ i , ,. r ~~ ~ ~ ~- ;=~J ---_- // ~ - _._-X- o-- _.________--_ ~ -- ,~d ~ _ .. O = ~ ~ _ _ --- - ~ ~- ~-- ~ 3'N 0 Q .~ Iri ~~ ~\.., „~, ~r> _, )` a'v ' 1\ ~ ( ,Lb W V ~ t~"~ ~ v i ~ ~ _ ~\ ~\. r \`~~ L ~ ~ _ _.\ ~ \ ~ 1 \\ \ \ 9 l ! (\ ~ \\ ~ ~ `~ ~ `~ ~ \\ n t A ~ ~ \ ~~ m ~ ~ ~U m ~ i .~ - ~ m ' "'~'; C I ~ ~~\ ~ ~ li~ C `~~ 9~ \~ ~ ~ 1~~ z ~ d 0 _ I ',, ~b r -~ - O X~ _. ~ ., _.., v ~ N ~. ~ ~ ~ _ ~~ h ~ ~ ~~ ~j. / ~ ~ _ ` ~ ~\ ( Q) i o, C. V1T ~-^~ ~<< ~~~ ~ ~? s ~.u~.~ 1-w s, e.. .. ~ _ ~ - ~ - 1.P1 ~t)~l.Sf~~ ,. ... .. .. .;.~N ..F, :..~. ,,... r. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA DATE`: December 29, 1987.' AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Emergency Ordinance:. Friedberg Dedication. STAFF RESPONSIBLE FOR IT~2x: DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE: Tbm Smith, Bud Eylar. Land Improvements to the Red Mountain Road are currently sched- uled for the Spring of 1988. In order to complete the improve- ments, it will be necessary for the County to acquire ,property where necessary for widening the road. Marc and Karen Friedberg have agreed to donate approximately 4,OOG square' feet of land necessary for this project, The transaction must be consummated in 1987 in order for the Friedbergs to claim tax benefits in 1987. Acceptance of a quitclaim deed by emergency ordinance is necessary for this purpose. In addition, the Friedbergs have requested an agreement for the construction of road 'improvements, also attached, which provide `for the County 'to construct two parking spaces on the. property to replace the existing spaces which will be lost by the widening of the road; that the County cooperate regarding a setback variance as may be necessary in the future for construction of a parking garage; and that the County' agree to protect evergreen trees which may possibly be affected by the project. The transaction saves the County a significant amount of money, since` an appraisal estimated value' at`'ap-' proximately $50,000. A copy of the appraisal is attached for your review. ALTERNATIVES/OPTIONS: 1. Approve emergency ordinance authorizing acceptance of quitclaim ,deed, and approve agreement for the construction of road improvements. ?. Refuse to accept quitclaim deed and refuse to execute payT0.211t for the construction oz road improvements. RECOMMENDED STAFF ACTIOfi' Staff recommends approval of the emergency ordinance authorizing acceptance of quitclaim deed, and approval of the agreement of the construction of road improvements. c:\word\contract\ais.eo 1 ~~~8~°~7 ~.._ ..._. .. ..;. ,d .. .,,. ~;:, n ,. wl;i. as ~. .',... .v ... aawa ~ ..,R.w. ~. - EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF TAE BOARD' OF 'COiJNTI'`"CO~fT5S2'O~ERS~"" OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORAbO,_'A~P~l~~7"Y2`' "` ~., ~ ,° FRIEDBERG"'TAND DONATION"' ~ ~`~'~ ~ ~ ' Ordinance No. 87 - RECITALS 1. Marc S. Friedberg and Karen S. Friedberg are the owners of certain real property in Pitkin County, 'Colorado, described as follows: the SW 1\4 NW 1\4 of Section 7, Township l0 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M., more fully described in Book 532 at Page 549 of the Pitkin County Records. 2. The Friedbergs wish to convey, and the Board wishes to accept, a portion- of the above-described property consisting of approximately 4,000 square feet for public roadway, drainage, and utility purposes, as described in .Exhibit "A" to the quitclaim deed attached hereto. 3. It is necessary for the Board to act 'on this donation on an emergency-basis without notice as required by law, 'in order for the transaction to be consummated: in 1987, or the County would be required to purchase or condemn the 'property at considerable expense in order to construct the ,proposed roadway, drainage, and utility improvements. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOAR'15 OF' COUNTY" COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, that acceptance of the quitclaim deed attached hereto is hereby authorized and approved., 1 .. ,~ INTRODUCED, FIRST READ, AND ADOPTEb THIS' 29TFT DAY OAF DECEMBER, 1987. ` PUBLISHED AFT$R AD6PTIbN IN THE" A5T~~"N" Th'ME~S GOTI' THE ~ DAY OF , 1988. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY,' COLORADO' gY George Madsen, Chairman ATTEST: Jeanette Jones Deputy Clerk & Recorder APPROVED AS TO --F~-O//RM: ~j~'~-~' Thomas Fenton Smith County Attorney c:\word\contract\friedberg.ord 2 .. ,. ~ .. , .. ..,.. .. ... ...... .dam o-0. Fe r .u1.. ... L ... _ AGREEMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION `OF ROAb SMPROVE2+IENTS ..THIS AGREEMENT made this day of 198_, by and between Marc S. Friedberg and Karen S. Friedberg, hereinafter referred to as Friedberg, and the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado., hereinafter referred to as County; WHEREAS, Friedberg has granted to the County a certain deed for roadway purposes; and WHEREAS, to protect the remainder of the Friedberg property, the County has agreed to construct certain improvements and make certain design changes, more fully described below. NOW, THEREFORE, Friedberg and County, in consideraticn of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth; agree a's follows: Article 2. Parking and Stairway Improvements dueetoethepreponstructi nlofetheeRed1MountaipaRoadWhichswere lost 'The new parking spaces will be constructed on a platform 24- foot wide by 24-foot long and retained by a masonry block foundation as shown on the attached sketch: Building materials shall be similar to the structure of the Friedberg residence. existi g timprovements d sign to hniquesp s milar to thoseg of tithe Article 2. Building Setbacks The County shall not oppose exemption from 'the Building Setback requirements of the Pitkin County Land Use Code upon application to the Board o£ Adjustments should Friedberg wish to construct a parking garage on their land at the location of the new parking spaces. Article 3. Construction Practices During construction of the Red Mountain Road t ,. th 4 ever 5 'een trees adaace takto the construction areato Proorcto, "~ g he County 7 be innin construe- tion on the road, the trees shall be inspected and 'measured. Coproaem tlothen theeCounty shallo eplaceothe trees ~ intriendroad, unty s sole cost. v x ~ _. Article__4_. Desi4n Chances The County shall modify the current construction plans for the Red Mountain Road to reflect the following design changes. 1. The concrete curb and gutter shall be eliminated along the West side of the. road adjacent to the Friedberg property. 2. No parking limitation shall be placed at the Red Mountain road adjacent to the Friedberg property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Friedberg and County have signed this agreement'in triplicate. This agreement will be effective on ~ 198_ FRIEDBERG: COUNTY: By BY. Marc S. Friedberg By Karen S. Friedberg c:\word\contract\friedbrg.agr 2 l~~v. i~d 1~,9. r i N O O O 0 ~~ r. H ,~ ~ ~~ It o, a ~r ~' f ,, ~ \ ~~) I .. ,~ i f~ ~J m b O c -f 1z D rL ~~ 0 D C7 ~~ ~~, ~/ //~ ~-.-, r ~ ~ 1 / ,..% ,~ ~, ~ ~ Zm i y ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ J o ~ 1 J A~ ~ ~ ~ ~ D ~' 1 b S I ~ ~ __ , 1 '~~ '~ ~ ~ I I ., ~` ,\ ~ ~ o ~ ~ S D N ~ ~ ~ I S ~ S o x '8 t- N ~ O I n ~ ¢ ~ ~ c ~ t~ ~ ~ ~ ro A d ` ~ Ri ~ ~ ~ .Tl _ ~ / ti /'r ~~ ll ~ ~`f ,_ ` T ~~ ~~~ r ~ ~ /, / /~ ~; °~ ~~~~ ~ o / / / o / "~ x ~ ;, 3 ~i ~i - -~ r /~~ / ~ ~ r ,, ,~~~ ' / o - ~ CJ~ ,---- r- N a N lsl Z f-' _~ 0 y ~~ ~ N%P ( 'f"Kf~l'~Pi ~N (~~ F ~~ "~ ~" "~ ~~~ > w PE A G I s y ~ ~ s ~~3~ S~O 1 ~1 8 M8 .~ftl~@2[r~~"~` ° i ~' ~ ~ r a° . 7-~ Aspeir `Colorad"d'Bt~11 ""~'`"~ ~ '" , ,~.~..y~ , ~ .~ LAND i1SE APPLICATION SEES ~~~,„~,~~,~, r ~t ~ 001 i3 - 83721 7 OMP/CONCEPTUAL ~" '~ 'a ~'~ 4733, i TP~~~ -~ - ~~ -4733 _ INARY '- ~-~ ° 2 GMP/PRELI 63723 __." ~~ 47333 GMPiPtN'XL 8372d "-'::.. 473'41•_. "'..SL78/CON~EpPYTt1A<. 3:°a"° mt~>.'~~. ~ i,,. ' 63725 -47342 SUB/PRELIMINARY ~ `" ~" '' " '"`~` `" _" " 5_; -83726 -4343 SUB/F1NAl .. 63727 ~ ~~ - 47356 AlL 2-STEP APPLfCATiON ;6 xl' 63726 ~pp ~ - d7360 ALL 1-STEP APPITOATIONS~/" {~. ' ~ t " ~ "' CONSENT"dGENT3X ITEMS REFERRAL FEES. ', '~~" a ~'- 'r °' 00125 00123 63730 63730 47380 ENVIRONMENYAL IiEAl7ry ° * " 47380 HOUSING ~ ' ~ . ..,~. xax°ezi~:.z,. ,, f .`~'°'" 63777' "`."~ .47450`1` . 63718 `""`~~~x- 47460 . :: OOt'13 =63732 -47480 ENGINEERMG "k .`~'"`~t s l "" r;,: r O ~ a . , r::. ...: .. ~- a'"'PLANNIFIG OFFICE SALES L S S T TA """~`~ '` ` OOt73 -. =63081 ~~_,_-,'00000 COUNTY CODE ~ ~ ~~._ ~4'=63032 -09000 u COMP. PIAN~ ~ j " '*M;-;i ~ ~~ ~ mrg„~ -63066 -09000 COPY FEES . n .. 63069 09000 OTHER-Qci+'V _° ~ ~ ~,~,, , _ ` SUB=TOTAL_ -~ TOTAL _ ~ ~ C,,,,,~1 NamA' I1~r •~kl a _ Phone ~ ~`"4" %iddres>•' ~'d- ~r-',~ ~' ProleCt:~ ChaCk k ~~`p Dater Additional Billing: ~~ ~~ #'bf'HOteis `i'"i s C'~i°Y1-'.~ s,~u w ~~ i h~~~ ~ ~~~~ ... ' , Evan Gull moved that the following be adopted: BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJ[TSTT+IENT OF THE COIINTY OF PITRIl~ STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 88-45 WHEREAS, Marc Freidberg, owner of 54 Shady Lane, A'spen,'requests a 6' setback for the construction of a garage; and, WHEREAS the sub'ect p y orporated area Y7 pro ert is within the uninc„ of Ptkin Count Colorado; and" WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment is vested with the power to grant or deny such variances by virtue of Title IT,' Section 16-1.3, Pitkin County Code (Land Use Code)`and Colorado Revised Statutes, 1973, 30-28-118(2)`(C); and, makesAthebfollowinghfindngsce presented, the Board of Adjustment 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 i;npar the intent sand purpose of the Zoning' Resolutions and the zoning maps. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by`the Board of Adjustment, that a 24 ''front yard setback variance be granted for the construction of a garage, due to topography and other extenuating circumstances. WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. Kand-Shaffran seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: ~„y ,, 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 Ptkiri County, Colorado Attest• ~/ Secr,~tary Charma ~. PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE` THE PITRIN COT~NTY'BOARD OF ` ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECT$D BY THE REQUESTED' ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: 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 consider 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 obTections. If `you y y p y hen you are urged to statet our viewse b ~ letter t articularingif you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and for varianceted in deciding whether to grant' o`r dei~j~`"the request' DATE AND TIME OF MEETING: September 6, 1988 at 5:15 p.m. Bruce, Dreher: requesting a variance for a 22' frontyard setback where 30 feet is required in the R-15 zone, to allow for the. construction of a residential garage. Property Location: Lot 4, Ardmore Subdivision, 110 Ardmore, Pitkin County, Colorado. Submitted to Aspen Times, Tuesday, August 24, 1988 to be printed in the T~iursday august 25, 1988 edition .. T ..~ ._ ~ . u ~, ~ ..,tiz, ~ Y .. .. ... ..,: w1, y x e. ,r,... ~ ..,.. k ...,.. ~.. ,~ PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPER OR :N COITNTY BOARD ._..0~" >• BY ''I'H~ REQCT~ST~D Pursuant to Pitkin County Zoning Resolution of June 5, 1955, as amended, a Public Hearing will be `Fiel'd ~ °n the District Courtroom. Pitkin Count Court House As en Colorado 0 such other lace as the meetin ma t en be 'ad'ourned r at 5 Y 7 ) to consider an a lication filed with the sai re estin a thorn for variance from th Board of ,Adjustment qu 9 Y e 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 o'f Adjustment will, give serious 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 Rovsek: requesting a variance for a 10' rearyard setback at the north side of the property', wTiere`~ a '30' setback is StarWOOd SubdivisionF Pitk n~County~pColoradocation':~ Lot R-45, 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 County, Colorado. ' ton: requesting a variance for a 41' frontyard setback redniredoi sdeyard setback, where 100' and 30' respectively are qu ' n 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 10S, Range 84W, Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, Pitkin County, Colorado. Lee and Sandy Godfrey: requesting a variance for a 1' sideyard setback where 30' is required in the AF-1 zone,`to allow for solar gains on an addition to residential house. Property Location: 0522 Glen Eagles Drive, Aspen, Pitkin., County, Colorado. :. v~ ~~ Dennis Demos 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. Submitted to Aspen Times, Tuesday, August 23, 1988 to be printed in the Thursday, August 25, 19"88"'edition P 0 {~ 41357 - l~t~Fk~n Coknf~ .. K:;~..... :4 ., _. I, .. Minutes Pitkin County Board of Adjustment September 06, 1988 Members Present: Kandi Shaffran, Chairman Evan Gull Peter Dobrovolny Melinda Pearson Robert, Miller (via phone) Francis Krizmanich, Pitkin County Zoning Enforcement ',Officer, was present with staff recommendations. Shaffran called the meeting to order at 5:27pm. The reading of the minutes was tabled until the next regularly scheduled meeting. 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 A"seen;, Times an August 25t1 reflected the correct variance request. Since two of this evenings cases required certain Board members to abstain from voting, it was agreed" tha`t`~alternate members would be reached. by phone for their vote `~o "allow hose` cases involved to be heard and not tabled due to lack of `quorum: "', A letter submitted by attorney John Thomas Belly, requ'ested' to table Dreher's variance request until the" next regu~ar'`meeting, since Dreher is out of the country and is unable to be reached by Kelly. Pearson made a motion to table the-`case until. the next regular meeting. The motion was seconded by bgbrovoTny, and carried 4-0. Case # 88-36, Jeri Ann Rovsek. Lot R-45, Stanwood Subdivision Architect Roger Kerr was present with Elli Brickham and Paul Taddune, members of the Stanwood Homeowners ASSOCiaEion, on behalf of Ms. Rovsek. The original request for a 5' setback was obstructt neighborse view rd sBecause thisYec sep wasacla t atabledt Shaffran asked if the notification .sign was still posted, to which Briekham replied. yes. Brickham presented a letter from adjacent landowner Mr. Richard Fenton, who would be most impacted ,a_< 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 roadway minimized. (The Rovsek driveway would also be on Fenton's lot). Taddune noted that th`is` is the third placement of the house, and that they now believe this present location to be best situated for all parties concerned After a discussion on what the hardship in this case was,L~f ~it was justified, and if a hardship was even needed to make a motion it was decided that "view" could be included under topograp"bical and would apply to this case. Gull stated that the "protection" required by Stanwood is :far more 'severe' tb'an~`t~ie`zoning allows findinndatseveret~u tificationa for the v ariance nave difficulty 4 7 _. ...., .. ~ . , .practically I don't see anything but negative impact by denying:, it". Pearson pointed out that since Stanwood was a private subdivision, and did not allow public access, the public would not be aff this variance. She tTien made a motion to approve a' ected by 20' rear yard setback variance due fo topographical hardship and'the desire to preserve the view corridor of adjoining negf~bors. GuII"seconded the motion and it carried 4-0. Case # 88-40. Edward Golub. 0086 Horseshoe Drive Basalt CO Edward and Kaye Golub were present to request a 5' side yard setback variance for a three door existsn ara e w built withou£ a building permit. ~ Golub followe'dg a c ich was which allowed him a 5 setback while the count code re Tres a 30' setback in the AF-1 zone. Golub, presented p3:cture sof athe' agreed s£ was tastefully clone{. Golub also; presented Ye€ter~l"'frditt all adjoining pro~5erty owners, 'none of which opposed, and most o€ which tTiough£ the garage was`well donee.. and a welcome ad`d£ioia~ ~o 'tie neigh°orfiood°; " Golub 'riten£oned that it was necessary to' build the garage on the right side of the house because a pas£ure~was to £he left o~`'"£~Se""douse',""and tFie cni-v~> ti. ~. i. r. ~-' F~.-..... .: ~....~.... :F .. T....:'~.. ..~.. iT.''a" -'°":is.."m,„a~_w_aa_+,w.. ;p:~sh'%,.w.h-..: ~.. m .• garage. Golub said he would ; figfit to ~taep'"~iis "°garage. When asked liy Pear'sor~' wTy h`e did not apply for a permit and if he did withbaheermise hshaffrermitotand tha£e`no n e odown~herethbuilds p stated that granting this request for a needdalpermta attitude. t Three rmotionsd were madeylnncludingoone which would have Golub remove one bay for a 15' setback, but no' motion was carried. Dobrovolny suggested that the "area"be investigated to determine how rampant non-conformity was in that area. He Mad 9 a mo ion to table the case end card"' information on non-conformit on other subdivision. Krizmanich offered to nvestig ~e the eareanbefore the next meetin Gull seconded the motion and i tied 4-0. 4~ { a, i. ,. ,... Golub was informed by Shaffran that the sign of notification could be removed. Case # 88-41, Dennis Horton, Lot #22, ETk Mountain Subdivision. Redstone _ ae59'sfroret yard setback variancest Hortonssdt to 11 t area isa 11,970 square feet, and yet is zoned AF-1. A lot that size would normally require, an R-7.5 zoning. Horton said he believed covenance restrictions were 5' bn the sides, and'30' from the, front, but was not absolutely sure. After referencing the Code Book to determine setbacks for an R-15 zone, it was determined that 30', and i0', were applicable. for front and side setbacks respectively. Gull made a motion to grant a 7d' front yard' setback variance, and a 20' side yard setback variance' due fo' downzoning, to result in R-15 setback lines. Shaffran seconded the motion and it carred'4-0. Case # 88-A2, Gerald FTosier, 56, `T10S,`R84W, Pitkn County General Contractor, Steve Hansen and Gardenschwartz were present to r architect, Mike NIaBaffey.';G'ardenscT the addresses of three 'adjacent~lan submitted list, and presented let (Bourkes, Benedicts, and Mc Closkeys o€ the meeting and also express variance. Hansen confirmed that, di discrepanc~es~were found ~e£ween; tai fhe survey" done by Alpine S`urveys". "" by Schmueser, Gordon, Meyer, Ind, Conrad found a orevousTv unnotzcei~" a discrepancy in the At the point of"`their: not comply with heigr thereby requested' a v'i house. Sfiaff"ran"`reaso`. occur in an attemp£ variance, and made a topographical hardship. carried 4-0. from di £o lower the motion for a Dobrovolny 3' atitorney, Ted osier along with ned`the Board that' omitted from the' these landowners they 'waived notice approval `of the anon of" t~'ie `lo£, £e conditsons, and wing a survey done tg Official Chris ridge line does' feet, Hosier - variance due to' the motion and it Case_~ 88-43, Lee and Sandv Godfrey, 0522 Glen'Eagle Drive,. Aspen 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=l'zone`"setback' regulations. All but one of the adjoining neighboYS approve of M '` a _ ~ ,i.~;~ a , the addition which. would be outside of their view. Engineer, Pat Dobie, was present representing the Aspen Highlands Ski Corporation, and owner Whip Jories`.' `Jones does not approve of an addition coming within 1' of his property line when other sides of the house are available: for additional construction Schwartz claims no real impact on the Highlands exists, since s~ci lifts are 1000' away, and the addition would~be visible ;only to those' skiing at the Highlands, 1200' away. Jories,' however fears that the area may be re-ioned to a higher density zone in the near. ,., ... _ ,.' ons that. should re-zonin occur the addition to the Godfre hou g. Y . haver an adversea impact lon tany Tfuture development causyse would ng 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,condiicive'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 general; consensus. of the Board was that 1' was too elose,to be ;~o any property line. Gull acknowledged that the hardship was caused by the original plans of the hawse, but that infringement on the setback should not continue. The Godfreg§ should have been aware of the setback, motiontfo g ant~ae~2p~~chsasdee y rc'i~'§e'tT~ackDvarianceytoeruriafrom' 65' - 150', to be measured at right angles from the'ToTestproperty' line, so that the exteht'of non-conformity nct be increased, and a 35' front yard setback variance. The, motion was seconded b Shaff`ran and carried ~="b`: ` Y gm g y e present to represent Dembs and Roth xa Pearsond abstained lfrom voting because of he'r'" empl" ayment ~t4 " Hagman-Yaw and her involvement on this case. ' A variance to FAR was being sought to"a17."ow`for tYie extension. of` roof overhangs and for the construct"ion of an open deck. `Hagman ' explained the ambiguity in the zoning code with 'regards to' overhangs and decks and their affect on FAR "calculations.' Krizmanich agreed- that information received from 'the building/ zoning departments could vary depending on the interpretation of any individua"1 inspector. Due to t2ie "uncTarty", on how overhangs affect the FAR of a house, Hagman-Yaw reduced the original overhangs to 2 i/2' , 5o not to exceed `what cSas'""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 overhangs be extended an additional 2 1/2' and that another area be extended an additional 4°9:!'; which were the original dimensions and which, based on Bagman-Yaw experience, would allow f% -~tl '. '. .. sa ~ d u _~. for desired shading from the sun. This would cause an .increase,,, to the total FAR of 196 square feet. These overhangs have been designed for one side of the house only, and would not negatively impact any neighbors. Hagman also made a request for a 6' open-deck extension, which would add 96 square feet to the total FAR calculations. The Board, not wishing to set precedence, opted for an administrative position on the matter. Gull made a motion "in accordance with our position as being a Board to hand down opinions on administrative judgments of the Building Department, that we direct the Building Department to exclude the three overhangs and 1 deck presented, [and that they] not be included in the FAR calculations for the plans submitted". Dobrovolny seconded the motion and it carried 4-0 with, Bob Miller, voting yes by phone. Case 88-45 Marc Friedberg. 54 Shady Lane, Aspen Mark Friedberg was present to request a 6' variance„for the construction of a three-sided, glass, residential garage. Since there is a 12' differential between Red Mountain Road.,. and his property grade, he claims topographical hardship. Friedberg presented an agreement with the County as outlined on a 1987 BoCC resolution, whereby the County supports his 'request for a variance.. Although initial plans for the garage were done by Hagman-Yaw, Pearson admitted to not being at all familiar with p j gg in from voting sincera quorum Swouldathen n tube present.noGullsmade a motion to grant a 24' front yard setback variance for the construction. of a garage, due to topography and other extenuating 'circumstances: Shaffran seconded the motion, and it carried 4-0. Case # 88-46, Stan & Kandi Shaffran, 0164 Lupine_Drive,__Aspen Stan & Kandi Shaffran were presen£ to request a 16'.6'' fron£ yard setback variance,. so £Tiey may build- a residential' garage.. The Shaffrans presented pictures of the site as well as Ietter5 expressing approval from neighbors who would stand to suffer the. greatest negative impact. A conversance for the area requires a 20' front yard setback.. Downzoning and topographical hardships as well as safety concerns (en£rarice is near a blind corner] were discussed. Shaffran also mentioned that the, 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. Respectfully submitted, ~,~~~ a ~ `": SeCfe ary Chairman ~n~i~/g8 Date _..~..a ,:. .. a.,., t. ,~,F.