The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutpitkin.boa.80.43PLANNING CASE SUMMARY PROIECI OWN ER(S),ADDRFSS(S), PARCEL ID(S), Is LEGAL(S) FORM Owner iOwner First Last Project Addresses) Project Parcel(sl Project Legal Descdlstlon(s) Name Name/LLC' Dia Lynn�Weidner S69 FIk Mm Dr Z192D3051159 Lot 6Z E1k Mountain Subdivision _ REPURESE -_NTATIV F: I Dia Lynn Weidner SF Case Name Weidner Frantyard and Sldeyard Setback Variance Plan Gse Number Date Received Plan Case Planner 80Ad0 13 lOp/1980 Parcel Size Acres L Zane District Floodplaln Description of Project or Development Background F.ntyard and Sidryard Setback Varianre worn a x>.re..axr m.rn1yanxlwm armk xe,n�g w�nw..xwesra xwer P,. v.w P?alA oos. BOA 11/25/1980 s _ Yes 11/13/1980 Approved himmomPlanning Application Plan Case Staus Incomplete Better Sent Date Completeness Deadline Date Approved! Additional Material Sobmined Date Completeness Review Data Waitlisted Letter Date Final Decision Approval Data Ready for RefemDate Acceptance better Acceptabetter Date 11 /25/1980 Referred By Data Referred Referral Date Due Public Camment Due Date N/A Remarks Covenant Required? Plat Required O Yes®Ne O Yes® No everantlx¢uiirs", in -coma RRrlace. consever. BOA Resalutien 80/43 NR 11/25/1980 REFERRALS, N/A TO BOARD OF. ADJUSTMENT { County of Pi tki n Date Oct. 7 _ 19 80 �j Case # Applicant o PP nia Lynn Wei _r Address 276 Tenth St, Carbondale, CO 81623 Owner Dia Lynn Weidner Address same Location of Property Lot # 47 - � lk Mountain Subdivision (Attached} Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made a part of this Case No. The Board may return this application if it does not contain all the facts in question. Applicant's description of proposed variance showing justification: We need the southwest corner of the house to be 15 feet of the back line in order to orient the house slightly southeast for maximum exposure to sunlight, as we have planned to build a passive solar structure. Also we have designed the horse to fit around the existing Aspen trees so that none have to be cut down. Those Aspen saplings falling within the sight will be trans- planted. Also, the house fits onto the natural clear= ing existing on the lot and will be fairly secluded from view by a large stand of trees to the front of the. property and to the sides. The back wail will be bermed in to the level of the second story, permitting a view for the neighbors to the rear of us. All other walls_. of the house will fall within the recommended limits. Applicant Signature Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building Ins pecto to forward this application to the Board of Adjustment and reason for not granting a building permit: �` ��o-,,,.� sic -ate ��t.� ..k.Ld�t/► �61-�'�-`-r'v �t�I''1' --� Building Insp. Signatu Date permit rejected: Board Decision Application Filed: d Datee::" Mailed. 'l)Cl%�� %31 / � ' r�ttiI (a- Secretary, Board of Adjustment M -7 r q Ss^o d6UNty TRiASUREN pwwz OOUNTY rot ORAM r3ibY Clark Smyth moved that the following be adopted: BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 80-43 Dia Lynn Weidner/Setback variance - Elk Mountain 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 :.evised 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 adjorning 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 substantial 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 35 foot frontyard, 7 foot sideyard, 6 foot sideyard and a 15 foot rearyard setback variance is granted. Additional conditions or restrictions: WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. Dottie -Fox seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: Bill Mason yes Dottie Fox yes Clark Smyth yes Joe Zanin yes Paul Krausch yes The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: November 25, 1980 Attest: r► � : �-0, Secretary The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado Chairman NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEF E PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJOENT 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 County Commissioners 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 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 FEARING AND OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE ARE AS FOLLOWS: Date and time of meeting: November 25, 1980 , at 5:15 o'clockpm Name and Address of Applicant for Variance: Dia Lynn Weidner 276 Tenth Street, Carbondale, CO Location of Property or Description: Lot #42 Elk Mountain Subdivision Variance Requested: a 35 foot frontyard, a 7 foot sideyard, a 6 foot sideyard and a 15 foot rearyard setback variance to construct a residence. Duxxxxration of Variance: Permanent ; Temporary Cc.ndition : THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Bill Mason, Chairman OWNERS OF ADJACLNT LOTS #43 Fair Oil �o.: P.O. Box 689, Tyler, Texas 75701 #55 Colmo Inc.: c/o Mr, Larry Mincer, Attorney P.O. Box 850, Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601 #67; Gary C. Weidner: 276 Tenth Street (husband) Carbondale, CO. 81623 #1 k`olmo Inc.: see above #40 #4 2 Colmo Inc* of of Dia Lynn Weidners lot seeking setback variance I 2-3� i f i Lof # q-Z No. 37297 $ , County Treasurer's Office, Pitkin County, Colo. Aspen. Colo., zfi - � -�, , 19- C1 Kerriur14 b of )/tm� � - y ►`Y I Account of DOLLARS Credit to Fund. - ��r/ j 4 — / �� j� l Treasurer Deputy THE C. F. HDECKEL C�_ DEHYEH PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY TIIE 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 County Commissioners 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 the County Zoning Resolution. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear PT!d state their views, protests, or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by letter, particul.arly 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 deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. DATE AND TIME OF 1IEETING: November 25, 1980 at 5:15 o'clock P.T. Dia Lynn Weidner Lot 42, Elk Mountain Subdivision requesting a 35 foot frontyard, a 7 foot sideyard, a 6 foot sideyard and a 15 foot rearyard setback variance to build a residence. William Hayes Lot R-40, Starwood Subdivision, Unit #4 requesting a 70 foot frontyard setback variance to build a residence. Ella Scufka Lots 15 & 16, Williams Addition, Block 3 requesting a Floor Area Ratio variance of 1200 square feet. Intermountain Lumber Lots 9A & 9B, Block 5, Airport Business Center requesting a 8 foot height variance to build lumber storage shed. Mary & Clay Boland Lot 10, Rlock 1, Stark Alesa Tracts requesting a 50 foot frontyard setback variance to build a horse barn. - To be printed in the Aspen Times on November 13, 1980 $I PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW:. Pursuant to Pitkin County Zoning Resolution of June 5, 1955, as amended, a Public Bearing will be held in the County Commissioners 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 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 meei:ing, then you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Ad.justmen; 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: Roy Carl Vance James Wingers November 11, 1980 at 5:15 o'clock P.M. NW4, NW- and SW4,NW4, Sec 9, all in T10s, R88 West of the- 6th p.m. requesting a 25 f foot frontyard setback variance. I A tract of land being part of lots 2 & 7 in Sec. 21, T9s, R85w of the 6th p.m. requesting a 15 foot sideyard variance for a fence and a 40 foot sideyard setback variance for a storage barn. Dr. F.P. Chiaramonte Lot 3, Block 1, Filing 1, Gateway of Snowmass requesting a 56 foot fron-tyard setback variance for a residence and a 57 foot frontyard variance for a garage. Dia Lynn Weidner Lot 42, Elk Mountain Subdivision requesting a 35 foot frontyard, a. 7 foot sideyard, 6 foot sideyard and a 15 foot rearyard setback variance to build a residence. To be printed in the Aspen Times on October 30, 1980. -f RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 0 100 Leaves N PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT llovnmbe.r 25, 1980 1 crewnt: Hill Mason, Chairman Dottie Fox Clark Smyth i Associa t<s: Joe Zan in Paul Krausch called to order at 5:15 n.m. by Chairman, Bill Mason. Dottie Fox ..� the minutes of the last meeting approved as written. Paul Krausch 1,11 in .favor. 14otion carried. -Lie 'her/Setback Variance - Ent 42, Flk Mountain Subdivision 110-43 ._ .. was r.resr-nt to represent his wife in her request for a 35 foot frontyard _.-t sideyar'_, a 6 foot sidoyard and a 15 f,wt rearyard setback variance. . i "a +staraj "hat the reason that the Weidner's are requesting the variance - lot wa-= duwnz,mc-d and +ghat they could not meet the current County . .- -sta`e8 that a^cess is taken from subdivision road, Elk Mountain Drive. the Board a plot plan showing the requested setbacks. Mr. Weidner h_ hail +,riginally requested 15 E.,ct in the rear, but had since .learned rants call for 20. He stated that he would be willing to decrease the .- ..ease in the rear by 5 feet, thereby meeting the covenants. ] ...�tai that thee« were no objections from the surrounding property owners. -c__ n asked if the main reason for desiring this orientation was to save the . -. •+ a! 1 -n hcl ir. the .J,:arinq. Mr. Weidner rep]idthat this was correct; to move 0:,i fr;nt of the lot would require taking out many Aspen trees. Clark tLa` •]r. Weidner needed variances all the way around the lot anyway, due Bill 'canon stated that the Board usually does not have problems granting variances .ten •_,..r.zor.; ng in involved if the requests stay within the covenants. roved to grant the variance requests stated above with the rear setback __- ;:f-c- raking the rearyard variance If) feet. Dottie Fox seconded the :roticr.- All in favor. Motion carried. ' lv% la:r !!a-es/Setback Variance - Lot R-40, Starwood Subdivision 80-44 Sill 1- - arttitect, was present to reprn_sont Pot. Hayes in his request for a 70 settack variance. Mr. Pass stated that the lot sits on the ridge _r 5..r—,. _.. :'nit -4. The area is AF-1 zoning and requires a 100 foot setback. 77..• V. _ . _+ w-.0 L1 ,it the house right on the ridge; and even the survey did not __-_ steer dror_,off to White Horse Springs. He then stated that he had -- c.,al `rpm the Starwood Homeowners and the house is within the 100 frim t}he stare as required. He stated that the house is setback 30 fa:t fret tim pr'.;.erty line. Mx. F.;+' stated that he and the Hayes' have attempted to work with the Homeowners to rc'r:,, the impart of the house and have kept it low and tucked it into the hill RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT November 25, 1980 Page 2 as far as possible. Mr. Pass stated that the lot has an easement to Johnson Drive. Bill Mason stated that there were no objections from the adjacent property owners. Dottie Fox asked if the Starwood Subdivision had setbacks in their covenants. And Bill Mason replied that they did not, but that each lot has a stake and that houses have to be within 100 feet of the stake. Patsy Newburystatedthat when those lots were laid out, the setback requirements in the County were 30 feet. Paul Krausch asked what the hardship would be, and Bill Mason stated that it would be topographical because the lot does drop off steeply. Joe Zanin moved to grant the 70 foot frontyard setback variance due to topographical hardship. Clark Smyth seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried. Ella Scufka/F.A.R. Variance - Lots 15 & 16, Block 3, Williams Addition 80-45 Attorney Brooke Peterson was present to represent Ms. Scufka in requesting a 1,200 square foot Floor Area Ratio (FAR) variance. Mr. Peterson stated that most of the structures on the surrounding properties have basements. He also stated that the aesthetics of having a 1,200 square foot house on top of a 1,200 square foot base- ment are not going to upset what is presently in the Williams Addition. Mr. Peterson stated that although he was not involved in the oriainal lot split, the existing zoning at that time allowed 2,400 square feet. its also stated that he felt the circumstances surrounding the nature of the property are important to consider because the property has been in Ms. Scufka's family for many years. Bill Mason read into the record a letter from Don DeLise stating that he owns Lots 17 & 18 in Williams Addition and he is conditionally in favor of the variance'if the same variance would be granted for his lots. Don DeLise was present and Bill Mason asked him if he had a lot split on his lots. Mr. DeLise said that the lots had not been split, that they were owned together as one site. Bill Mason then asked Patsy Newbury if Don DeLise would be allowed 2,400 square feet on his two lots, and she stated no because the FAR in R-15 zoning is only .16 of the total lot area. Mr. DeLise stated that basements did not used to be included in the FAR, and that they are included now. Bill Mason asked Patsy Newbury for the definition of a basement and she stated that a basement is anything five feet below grade, whether used for storage or living space. Clark Smyth asked why the County had included basements in FAR, and she stated that there had previously been a problem in Mountain Valley and Aspen Grove where basements that were not included in the FAR were actually becoming tptally visible and adding a second story onto these houses. Clark Smyth then asked Patsy Newbury if the lot were not substandard how large a house could be built. She stated that if the lot were R-6 they would be allowed twice the FAR. Clark then made the point that the situation is almost like do%m- zoning. Patsy Newbury agreed with him. Brook Peterson stated that he had no problem agreeing to having Ms. Scufka's basement meet the definition outlined by Patsy Newbury as a condition of the variance. He then stated that the visual density will not be changed, that, the lot is flat. Don DeLise asked if the variance for Ms. Scufka was granted if it would set a precedent. Bill Mason stated that it would not have to, but it could. He stated that every case must be decided on its own merits, but that if all factors were N: 12 1 N° 13 n • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves S+'ST"^IS November 25 1980 Page 3 two cases, chances are that the decisions would be the same. 1 -.x asked if the fact that the lot, because of being downzoned, provided living spa::e, if that would constitute the hardship. Bill Mason stated it was indeed a case of downzoning. -ovc+ to grant the variance to allow a 2,400 square foot house, 1,200 sq. .. .. �,t being basement 5 feet below grade, due to down zoning, because it doesn't .E r•r_ rg space. Paul Frausch seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion �:r.•- --.. n L•^ber/Height variance Airport Business Center 80-46 xes r-resent to represent Hick Gates In his request for a 8 foot height an accessory building. Mr. Cole stated that zoning requires `.._._-1 :ry tut-3ings can not be more than 12 feet tall, and that what they desire .1 1.: .al an arcMrrory building h3cause the building will not involve any .-- _- :•e: activity. + r. sai9 era-tically that lumber yards have to store as much of the fine .3rials under cu,r-r, for the simple reason that it deteriorates in the _e s*ate,] that Intermountain has lumber stacked higher than 12 feet now, ' an. e_I .at they are askir3 is to be able to put some cover over the existing stacks. .F -:-a•a+ -hat a 12 foot height limit is impractical for a lumber yard. And .., -.9 i- h•eil+inq would not be as high as the surrounding buildings in the area. H, r.. -. that tt,ey also think that this would be an improvement to the area, and a. 1; ,;}•rs teem to take +own the existing frame and black vlsquenc. Fill '"is^a said that he considered this request in the same category as barns, in that ... _. :?.t limit itself is a hardship in terms of the use of the structure. Clark vtN , who works for John McBride at the Airport Business Center, stated that r'-,-;re is a technical problem because the lot line runs through the proposed structure. +- _e 7-x asked if the structure had to be in that specific location. Mr. Cole .. •. e-i tt:at location would be most efficient. And Patsy Newbury stated that - th cr :7' 4 lorati,on is within the setbacks. --.. r.-aced that the structure will be permanent and will have a foundation rc.tars for posts, have three sides and a shed roof. stated that there is an easement and Holy Cross could need the land. :.. 3-,ar4_ sty rF,] that the7 had no say as to the future prospects of someone needing ea_nt, and could only consider the variance request. Mr. Cole stated that if .+i9 e t have to meet the setbacks and could place the shed on the property line _ _; might consider moving the structure. - c___ For_ moved to grant the B foot height variance due to the innate use hardship. ___k =-7rh disoualified himself, and stated as an adjacent property owner and part _. _. _rcYeite ch rural review board at the Airport Business Center, that they would i-.` +.�'rnow where the structure would be placed butthey did not have any problem �. .. .e height variance. Paul Krausch seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion errici. c1 Flay Roland/Setba,;k Variance Stark Mesa Tract 80-47 .._ _-,land was not present. Paul Krausch moved to table the request until the next Clark Smyth seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves BOARD OF ADJUSTMF.:;T November 25, 1980 Page 4 Roy Carl Vance/Setback Variance 15484 Highway 133 80-40 Roy Vance was not present. Pual Krausch moved to table the request until the nest meeting. Joe 7anin seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried. James Wingers/Setback Variance - Woody Creek 80-41 James Wingers was present to request from the Board a 15 foot sideyard variance for a fence and a 40 foot sideyard setback variance for a storage barn. It was stated that there were comments in the last minutes by Bob Kopp stating his objections to the two variances. Bill Mason then read into the record a letter written by Grlene and C. Dole Alcorn, adjoining property• owners, stating their objection to the two variance requests. Mr. Wingers stated that Mr. Kopp overlooks his property from across the river approximately one-half a mile away. He then stated that the shad would cover any use of the property that would infiltrate his view. Mr. Wingers then went on to say ,that Mr. Alcorn is his neighbor and he himself has a great amtunt of junk on his property. Mr. wingers stated that the Kopp'sare objecting because they regret selling the property that is in their view plane. He felt that the Kopp's and the Alcorn's objected to the size of the shed rataer than the setback variance. Mr. Wingers stated that Mrs. Kapp complains about any use of his property, and ultimately does not want Mr. Wingers on the property. Paul Krausch asked if there was a residonce on 'the property. Mr. Wingers stated that there is not at this time, but that he has plans to build in the future. Joe 2anin asked if there was not also a variance for a 12 foot fence. Patsy Newbury asked if he wanted to build a 12 foot fence an top of the berm or a six foot fence on top of the berm. Mr. Wingers replied that he was looking for a six foot fence on top of the berm to block the junk from the Alcorn's view, but that he thought perhaps a 12 foot fence would block the junk from the view off Woody Creek Road. Bill Mason asked if he would have problems with FAR if he builds a single family residence with the 2,000 square foot shed on the property. she stated that theme was no FAR requirements in either of the zones on Mr. Wingers property CRS-20 and AF-ll. Bill Mason reminded the Board that what Mr. Kopp calls junk cars are actually registered as antiques. Dottie Fox asked why the shed had to be in the setbacks. Mr. Wingers replied that what he wants to do is push the shed into the bank where it would be less visible, and move the driveway easement over by the bank to improve the view problem. He then stated that he would put the antique cars in the shed and alleviate the problem with Mr. Kopp. . Clark Smyth asked if Mr. Wingers really wanted the fence there; he replied no, that Bill Drueding suggested it and he was doing it for the County only. Dottie Fox asked why he would need the fence if everything was to go into the shed. Mr. Wingers replied that he needed the fence until the shed could be built. The fence would be an immediate abatement, that would keep people quiet. Clark Smyth stated that the Board had not been shown hardship that would allow them to grant the setback variance. Mr. Wingers stated that he did not mind puting the shed on the middle of the property, but that he was trying to do Mr. Alcorn a favor by making it as inconspicuous as possible. Bill Mason pointed out that Mr. Alcorn had not objected to the placement of the shed but rather that he did not feel that N° 14 1 N° 15 r a RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT November 25, 1980 page 5 Urore was enough room on the property for a house and the shed. Dottie Fox stated that she did not see any reason to grant the variance. Dottie Fox moved to deny both the setback variance for the shed and the height variance for the fence due to lack of hardship. Clark Smyth seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned by Hill Mason., Chairman, at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: N4 16 I r-r 2 No. �� County Treasurer's Office, Pitkin County, Colo. Erfriurb, of Account of Credit to— THE C. E, HUCKEL Cri.. 05MVER _. Fund. Asp-;n, Colo.. a DOLLARS Treasurer Deputy