Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOA:86-13_River Road Ranch_100 E River Ranch RdCover Sheet Case #: Applicant Name: Address: Parcel #: Case Name: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - DATE July 31 19 86 CASE#.96.-/3 APPLICANT The River Road Ranch Company OWNER Stephen L. Main ADDRESS 1637 River Rd. P.O. Box 9 Woody Creek, Colo. 81656 ADDRESS LOCATION OF PROPERTY Lot 12-B, Aspen River Valley Ranch. 1637 River Road A Plat and legal discription Marked "Appendix 1" attached. Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part cthis Case No. , The Board may return this application if it does not contain all the facts 1n qUestlOn.Applicant's description of proposed variance showing lustification: The applicant has utilized the property, together with leased pasture, for agricultural purposes (livestock grazing and hay production ) for the past seven years ·and wishes to build a hay barn with attached equipment shed to store his hay and farm equipment. Applicant has harvested between 150 to 200 tons of hay annually and owns twelve (12) pieces of agricultural farm equipment which are neccessary for his farming needs; and the proposed barn would be used for the storage of both. The square footage of the hay barn will be 4000 sq. ft. total and the storage shed space will 1800 sci. ft. The construction of the barn will be of wooden pole type with metal roof and siding. The hay barn will be 100 ft. long and 40 ft. wide with the interior height to the roof joist of 17 ft. to accommodate the use of a hay stack wagon which owned and used by applicant in his haying operation. The equipment shed will extend 18 ft. from hay barn. The overall height of the barn will not exceed 28 ft. The poles to be .used will of treated type and set in concrete. The construction and materials used in the remainder of the barn will be of highrq-h]nd standards to insure the integrity of the building.Annlicant 142 01,, , _-_ 1111!1«81 \UA Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the (,Gil®-ing-Inspector toforward this application to the Board of Adjustment aKd reason for not granting a buiding permit:TAL 40*Neaph. (5 fUqu-e·'6\Hc 1 420*- oo.Gle,*su...., 4 \\0-4\·,reknk 4262 -Lowlvac kigLAN,es A AP--\ 03\Ale_\€ 8-1.-*44, a€21?65.01«.49-(Au.es. -%O kn. /1 916 -tu> balcilk, 546- 3 -2 010-ta. 4- 41<-04_ E-tee,LU#.f 41 3 A o 'Da,4-y Q oel>e- 1 T Building Inspecto:4(y<fei11( Date Permit rejected:Board decision Application filed Date Mailed Secretary Board of AdjustmentFEn /'Ti rl 1;:::3 , 1 *asia ' r.-8. R. EL 1 0--0 U LE=1/ .. ==h /7\ 1-1 11==3 · d *8518 .11 S. 141- ev 1 - trht U Urk, APPENDIX 1 DESCRIPTION - .RARCEL B A parcel of land situate in Tracts 70 and 72, Sections 25 and 26, lownship 8 South, Range 86 West of the Gth Principal Meridian being more particularly described as follows: Beginning AP8of Tract 71, thence N 86'22'07" E 999.65 feet along line8-7 of said Tract 71 of said Township and Range: thence S 16'OR'33" W1150.00 feet; thence N 90°00'00" W 650.37 feet; thence S 00'08'06" W 389.82feet; thence N 74'25'43" 31.12 feet; thence N 00'OR'06" E 1422.81 feet to the point of beginning, i.taining 20.81 acres more or less. COOC::,r , J Uitty <.. List of Adjacent Property Owners Lot 13, Aspen River Valley Ranch. Owner: Mr. Dick Fitzgerald 1475 Sierra Vista Dr. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lot 12-B, Aspen River Valley Ranch Owner : Mr. Jim Gibbons 1470 Silver King Dr. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Lot 11, Aspen River Valley Ranch Owner:Mr. James Collins P.O. Box 9174 Aspen, Colorado 81612 The Aspen River Valley Ranch Homeowners Association c/o Mr. Bo Cote, President P.O. Box 88 Woody Creek, Colorado 81656 000((33 4,A i. · STEPHEN L. MAIN .D n unv 977* PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. Title Insurance Company 601 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 DATE: MAY 30. 1986 (303) 925-1766 · ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the State of Colorado hereby certifies the following list is a current list of adjacent property owners within 0 feet of the subject property set forth on Schedule "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof, as obtained from the most current Pitkin County Assessors Tax Roll. NAME AND ADDRESS STEPHEN L. MAIN P.O. BOX 2376 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION SUBJECT PROPERTY JAMES E. GIBBONS PARCEL C, SEE ATTACHED MAP 1475 SILVER KING DRIVE ASPEN, COLORADO 816 I 1 RICHARD P. FITGERALD PARCEL A, SEE ATTACHED MAP 520 E. COOPER AVE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 JAMES H. COLLINS, 11 INTEREST SHIRLEE B. COLLINS, TRUST, 15 INTEREST P.O. BOX 9174 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 LOT 11, SEE ATTACHED MAP UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTE 806 W. HALLAM STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 LOT 10, SEE ATTACHED MAP IKE f nannr,,1Ut,UUU A * 339 AL. Y TRACT*71 13 TRACT 71 407 i f PARc a. A I2 I0 484 X 1 i TRAC 70 TRACT 70 i RAECea_ 82 XU \4.I J co \ 440 \ 2\Sto A TRACTS 1 ". 'al -14. -\<37>d LOT 19 5.£18 or ,"ann f.6- UMIC ---- 'WR+9*Mew4*79*p n*Tr 296 >- RIO - 00 -s-G 1.. ASPEN*PITKIN ENVIAONIVIENTAL HEALTH O TIVIENT 'INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT NO.im TYPE OF PERMIT: <Initial Construction C )Emergency Use C }Repair Work, (PE•viou• Permit I .)C )Alteration of an existing syztem, ' 'or installation (Previrs Pymit 1 4 C )Uic Permit as a rcault of Sale ()Othori ISSUED TO: . . DATE OF ISSUE . Owner Grel€ MAI J Home Phone *3-47#iR Business Phone MailingAddress ?.0.8% 9. Wooor-(lzEEK, 00 91&56 PhoneAgent Mailing Address Sewage Disposal System Work to be performed by DUJAJER-- r-EUC NWEL This permit valid only for premises }ocation by tha following legal dcucription:ARUL /28 -Aseed RN<£44£[24* LOT SIZE 20, 9 1 A c.£ES 0 WATER SUPPLY U)€ Ll- .AVERAGE PERCOLATION RATE 23 Mt A / 1 WcA . Thi. Individual Sewage Disposal rermlt ts granted with regard to the following use: 04-C0,1 Ninber ofi Dodroom, /Loft, /Garbage Disposals Dishwashers 0.Clothes Washors CALCULATED AVERAGE DAILY WASTE LOAD 200 cALLON s. THE NATURE OF THE SYSTEM INCLUDED UNDER THIS PERMIT: rype of Tank er Tre,tment Unit:S€pr icIT16'A=-Tank Capacity 75-0.Gallon Minimum Method of rinal Otapolal:6#VELEss·Aese#770,1-724886 Abiorptioq Area 40·0 Squa/c reet Minimum Oescription (including brand name, if any} of other equipment or appurtnanccia 58-7- - '0" DIAMET€R. APE BY ADL- Miu,MoM op \33 u,WAL F€Er. Other Condltion, or Specificationes STAGES REQUIRING INSPECTION BY THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT: 1 ) no fore Excavation ()Upon completion of excavation and prior to platement of gravel Before coverini distribution/ kystem of absorption field 4<Prior to backfill of any component C lother, Specifyi Plans Jnd npecifications of the proposed sewage disposal system have been revlcwcd .ind are considered sattifactory. Pecmliston AM hereby granted to the owner or his ogent. to perform the work indicated above in acc·ordance with the Pitkin County Individual Sewage Disposal Reanlations in ctfect on the date of issue.In addition to general provisions Set forth on the revene hereof, thia Permit 1, subJect to tlic following additional terms and conditions:.DOE APPROVED FOR ISSUE BY (title)4 The abave individual *cwago disposal sy,ter• inatalled byhi been in:,pected fer use by a reprricntative of the Aspen/ritkin inviroirle,•tal Health Dep·trtinent. The ownic asiume• all responsibility in coic of fallure or in.,dequacy of thi. sewage di:poial aystem.Completo •*-built drawin, •ttachod. DATE OF FINAL INSPECTION CoccosBY: ' TTLE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-2020 82%2 PAL-- ti»--0 - - t .2.-· --·-2&*L__2*-**0-1//-0-- -44/%51 ---# - I. F T 111-413fc¢323<406 <>-LD u ---,1 0/k ---7200 -<- I--1- 1 /71-27.1.-»- --44*Q»liff-r..5 -l' ,/Cy\-//12 - «h - . ERIZS3-WER_LINE. EMENT---'- '/\\\\ 03393«1 -7--4 --»----,2 --/-I..- -f.--101 XZI-----__ ___pe:. \-»u-/-- -----(f··- --1<. 2 - 0 5,65¢ AdR¢S)x52 - _-ROSM---..----,·--,·C,·®C€liCE·4 -22...e --©-r.--h .Qi)tz:m*gy/Xy)/41 \(1/-r#Off-- 5,/ 2/1 < _- .0-f 2 1-h-- 2101 --- - 3e4 f I f ill -- - -UL \ 1 210499kil) C i ;\\ 4 ./0 -7 \ 1 0P cn9--- - k / 9/// /// ..0 -0.\\ V -L- » v f / 4 *5 <Ar. 1 ... 12 -13 4284 AGES r.- ««02-=1>-I..Ml1 -94>f (3 40 f/ i ) fl- /- :1, \ 42> .- I.-.1 1 IL--- 3 + 39.36\ACRES / I - h7. t-=UbeO -21·. / .-1.-f I /-4.:,J . /-+ - --i-31«11 ---WA-· . ..----514 v---0 .7-1142-2==---I--*-*- 251 -cr-i--a---_* ze{fciffbj, :+ - - -. . .%-1 b' 14'..3-3 -- -.-- - --- ».1 - m-915*3438"W 30 obl --- -- ----f--MI-8"E 30.>- a. · +1-.2 --A; ®0 - 72-· 1(2 0 41 W--·t.5*·44=--S. . LD? 11 - C ·1 N 33°03 47 1 3844 303-»-»hor-r....H ict--331- 2 1---7----- - 4.3--70 i b -O1 0. 5-,C 'OUS T KES 4.,, 1l 0 - --.---J ' - i.,Ik»©04-4 Ee 44--XKA 73 : . 216 -0-7--33.\9,/13 C-- 3-:EX --21 --_--4€ze©ta=3--- C Lf u--- - A-_ 115% . -0--„-,0*L-$#- - - . 'cr- r yt - /2.<- *C===1&1£ N%=UC CA *74 --- /,t . 4155- 547%%-3 C«E79,-p-,- _____ -1-Orr==72 «792-- 2 .-.731 - h InZE:i-z-------#S--7-' 5 87 - --- - 70 7«:-:--€F.t:·..Lb . . - : -----1 6o 0 n 0 0 G. 0 fi =91 , 0 0 A P 2 TR 70 t k &TSS R86W / 44-0---) ho»%-2 4 - -2-- A >- SCA.7£RED 211*2VEES V 2 0 ES 66 5 1 31'80 --L N ;154 57 '43.»182 65 1 N 6.Xqi'45' 1>r 47 00 1' ' 4 ·APPENDIX 14 0?t 27 . Book 508 pAG[118 AP i TA. 71 t; i ll N09°48'20"E 931.35' 1.:400' COLORADO UTE ELECTRIC EASEMENThk . 4 1,) *. AP 8 TR. 713a tri 7 ... - Iu 10 -649 18 .cm NES• 22 4 ·999.i XI id ll Aer&288 - Ck 6 DISTANCE 182.95 30.00 304.43 C389.82 31.12 Joe NO. 897223A '%./Ill/i s<TTRAc -rs 70,7 1 472 EFGH][Efts & corisfliutinRs -reS.,f? 8(3 A< , Crli PM.1512 GMAND AVEIHIE, SUITE 21061,1-RWOOD SP11113GS, COLoft,IDO olo[1 " 2/7-Ar. Couh./-7-r, COLORADO /03! 0.(5-5.U.0 COCC07 Ar,/ \13 '07"E 55' V 001 14 0 0 04 +00 tk 650.37' TILITY 590°00'00'E EASE .O) 0 4 49. 4 rb / VO 03 LINE BEARING 7 0 1 N74°08'14'W lo 2 615°51'38W 0 0 3 S33°03'47'W 4 N 0°08'06'E 5 N74° 25'43"W Cfk ..// Bob Throm moved that the following be adopted: BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO.86-13 The River Road Ranch Company 1637 River Road 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, RE IT RESOLVED that the applicant's request for a 16' height variance for the purpose of constructing a hay barn with an attached equipment shed due to the fact that he is denied reasonable use of the property. Additional conditions or restrictions:The structure cannot exceed 28' to the midpoint. WARNING:Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. Peter Dobrovolny second the adoption of the foregoing Resolution.The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: Evan Gull - yes Bill Lukes - yes Kandi Shaffran - yes Bob Throm - 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 26, 1986 The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado Attest: 1ALL.10_ 0,1,069 LSecretary 2 I91 1 Chairman c,17 n fir, 1 LUU»Ul PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 26, 1986 REGULAR MEETING Members Present:Evan Gull, Chairman Bill Lukes Kandi Shaffran Bob Throm Alternates:Bob Miller Peter Dobrovolny Melinda Pearson John Howorth Evan Gull called the regular meeting to order.Peter Dobrovolny approved the minutes pending corrections as marked on a copy of the minutes.Throm second this motion and all were kn favor. Gull questioned if all applicants had posted the notification of hearing sign and all indicated that they had. The River Road Ranch Company 86-13 1637 River Road, requesting a height variance of 16' from the zoning regulations of AF-1 which require accessory structures to be 12' in height, for the purpose of constructing a hay barn with attached equipment shed.Steve Main, a general partner, was there to represent the Company.The hay barn would have a connecting equipment shed.He presented a topography map with a layout of the property and the placement of the proposed structure.The property has recently been split and requires the duplication of the existing barn.The lot is in the AF-1 zone and has 21 acres.This particular zone does not allow a barn over 12' height, allowing another 5' to the peak.The metal roof would be dark brown to red clay brown. The members felt it was an appropriate use for the property and would create no negative impact.However there was discussion as to the hardship involved.Throm moved to grant the variance request of 16' height variance, which cannot be over 28' to the midpoint due to the fact that he is denied reasonable use of the property.Dobrovolny second the motion.A vote was called for and all were in favor. James L. Crowley 86-14 Lot 24, Block 2, Filing 2, Brush Creek Village, requesting a 55' frontyard setback variance for an addition to the existing residence and a 16' height variance for the construction of an accessory structure,Ted Mularz, the architect for the proposed addition, was there to present the request to the Board.The site was described as steep and Mularz wanted to establish exactly where the frontyard was as the first issue.He described the addition as an airlock und a two-car garage with a workshop on the second floor.The proposed garage location. which would be tucked into the hillside, would save landscape und have less of an impact.Photos were presented to the members showing stakes placed and also a few had the garage superimposed to show the full impact.There were no remarks from the homeowners association.There were no plans to put plumbing in the workshop. Gull fell I hut the original interpretation of the frontyard should be upheld by the Board.The members agreed and fell no problem with the variance setback request.The height variance necessary was determined as 11'.Dobrovolny felt that the workshop could be incorporated into another location around the garage.Mularz pointed out that the roof of the garagejworkshop would be compatible to the main structure.It was the general feeling among the members that a different design could be made lo comply with the code and lessen the height impact.Mularz explained that the design as it stands allowed the windows on the second level to pick up the south sun, helping to heat the space. Aiter discussion Lukes moved to grant a 10' frontyard setback variance for the airlock and a 55' frontyard setback for the garage/shop, which is not to exceed 1300 sq.ft., diie to topographical hardships, and to deny the request for a height variance due to a lack of hardship.Throm second the motion. A vote was taken and all were in favor. Joseph Zoline 86-16 900 Stage Road, requesting a 7' height variance for the construction of an agricultural building.This property consists of 180 acres and is in the AF-2 zone.Mr. Zoline was there to represent self.This building would be a horse barn with a hay loft.The minimum height of the prefabricated barn is 19 ,0,1 , with dimensions of 30 x 70.He presented to the Board pictures from the catalog showing the barn with wood siding and a dark brown metal roof. Paul Soldner, a neighbor, was there to support the request for the barn.He encouraged that the structure be placed closer to Old Stage Road to preserve the view plain that he now has.This was not an issue for the Board, but Zoline agreed to try to work with Soldner. Shaffran moved to grant the 7'height variance due to the large size of the lot, the reasonability of an agricultural use such as a barn and the lack of visual impact.Throm second the motion. A vote was taken and all were in favor. Clyde W. Stratton 86-17 Tract 6, Swiss Village Tracts, 0189 Ute Trail, Carbondale, requesting a 40' sideyard setback variance to construct a garage. Clyde Stratton was there to represent self.Stratton stated he reasoning for the placement of the garage was due to a transmission Line which ran through his property and a garden which Look up space on the other side of the principle structure. There would be a workshop (for furniture inaking and storage) in the rear of the garage, which explains the size needed, and a root cellar.His principle building is small and Stratton felt his need for additional space and placement of his vehicles was reasonable. The zoning of the property is RS-30 and is approximately 1/2 acre.The original subdivision covenants required 10' setbacks. Lukes uncomfortable with the idea of granting a setback variance for what was essentially a commercial use of the property, since the owner planned on making furniture in the workshop. Dobrovolny questioned the hardship and if a garage could be built within the setback.Lukes felt the size was an issue since granting variances increases the impacts involved.There was discussion among the members regarding the sizes of the proposed structure and the principle building. Shaffran moved to grant the setback request as specified on the plans submitted, 40' on the sideyard and 36' on the rearyard, due to downzoning.Throm second the motion.A note was Eaken and three were for and two opposed.The motion did not pass. Pearson discussed the option of moving the building and various design changes.Her concern was the impact on the adjacent property owner.She restated the motion as 35' sideyard setback variance and a :36' rearyard setback variance due to downzoning. Shaffran second the motion.A vote was taken and three were for and two opposed.The motion did not pass. Throm fell the Board was forcing the applicant to go agninst. the contour of the land to enter the garage, creating an additional burden on the applicant.There was more discussion regarding options in designing the structure.Pearson' s motion was reconsidered.pearson once again made that motion and Shaffran second.A vote was taken and four were for, one (Lukes) opposed. Stephen Prudden 86-18 2496 River Road, Woody Creek, requesting a 30' sideyard setback variance to construct an agricultural building.Steve Prudden was there to represent self.He gave a brief history of the property.Also, he described to the Board how he had upgraded the land and was involved in agriculture, even though the property was small (1.245 acre).The proposed barn is modeled after a carriage shed.The adjacent property owners have not opposed, but have approved of the improvements that he made to the property. After discussion, the members felt the request a reasonable use creating a low impact to the area.However, there was a question of what the hardship is.Dobrovolny expressed concern with the closeness of the structure to the property line, but was in favor of the clustering of structures and the low impact of the proposed structure.He moved to grant a 29' sideyard setback variance due to limitation of use created by the existing septic field.Lukes second the motion and encouraged the maximizing of agricultural use of the property.A vote was taken and all were in tavor. Lani White · . 86-19 Lot 1, Randall Park S/D, 909 Spruce Street, requesting a 13' height variance to construct a barn.Lani White was there to represent self.The property involved contains 2 acres and White desires to keep horses for pleasure and finds the need to include an area for hay storage within the barn.The size would be approximately 1500 sq.ft., allowing room for the animals to jump. She then figured the amount of hay necessary to feed the horses through the winter, using that to determine the cubic feet necessary for storage.She gave a brief description of the property features and the neighboring properties. Raymond Auger and Cecil Lewitz were there as neighbors to discuss the proposed structure.White explained how the height of the barn would relate to the height of the existing principle structure, falling 8' below.They had no objections to the proposal. This property was given to the White's in a trade the County Government established with them.There would be a trail easement, as required by the County, running through the lower part of the property.At the time of the trade, she advised the County of the improvements she would be making. There was un ordinance involved with the trade, but no mention was made of the improvements except in a verbal fashion.Lukes felt the land use code intent was to keep the bulk down to lessen the impact on areas in the AF-1 zone, and the Smuggler area was a prime area to enforce this code, particularly on a 2 acre lot. Dobrovolny pointed out that, if denied, White has the right to make the proposed structure bigger, since it can't go higher, or put another structure on the property, increasing the bulk of development on the property.This proposal was a more reasonable solution for the property. Throm moved to grant the height variance of 13' for construction of a barn/hay left (not to exceed 25' to the peak) due to the deal marie with the Whites by the County.Lukes second the motion.A vo t e was taken and all were in favor. Sharon Kahn 86-20 Tract of Land in Lot 13, Section 12, Township lOS, R85 West, South 7th Street, requesting a 10' sideyard setback and 10' rearyard setback variance to construct a retaining wall.Sharon Kahn was there to represent herself along with her architects Art Yuenger.The retaining wall is required by conditions set forth in a 1041 review recently done on the property.At the time the of application, it was thought the wall would be 10', but now it is determined to be 6'.However, they are before the Board because it is a permanent structure, on the property line, and there is a concerned adjacent property owner there to state their opinion.John Seigle was there to represent Chris Tolk, questioning the interpretation of the frontyard.There was a question of the access and Peggy Seegers, Zoning Official, gave the technical definition of access. The Board was not going to question the interpretation of the frontyard by Seegers since it was not the issue before the Boards and since the wall in question was six feet, and therefore, not a structure, action was not necessary regarding the setbacks. Duane Piffer 86-21 Lots 72 & 72A, Redstone S/D, 0622 Redstone Blvd, requesting a 10' sideyard setback variance for construction of storage building/garage.Duane Piffer was there to represent himself. There presently is a shed on the property line which was at one point an outhouse.He proposes to tear this down and, build a garage.His reasons for building the structure on the property line was the placement of his driveway and he wanted to provide wood and gardening tool storage for Lot 70 and he would have gardening tool storage for his side.Throm questioned the legality of the request since it involved encroachment. The structure would be kept small.Lukes was concerned with the fire protection involved putting it on the property line and the possible misuse of the structure by the neighbors.Throm questioned if the garage could be moved 10' . Piffer stated that his house would be in the way and it would create difficulties with the driveway.It was determined that the property was downzoned at some point.There would be no water or electricity in the structure. Gull was willing to deal with a 5' setback variance.The Board did not approve of the storage shed being across the property line.Also there was the question of the legality of such a proposition. Throm moved to grant a 5' sideyard setback variance based on the historic application of previous building officials who granted the applicant five feet on the north side and also due to downzoning.Lukes second the motion.A vote was taken and four were for, one (Shaffran) opposed. Aspen Skiing Company 86-15 Lots SC & 3D, Block 3, Filing 1, of Aspen Airport Business Center, 117 Atlantic Avenue, requesting a 18' height variance for the installation of a single flagpole adjacent to existing building.Bill Lukes was there to represent the Ski Company. The flag pole would be as tall as the building, approximately 29' feet high. Dobrovolny moved to grant an 18' height variance for the purpose of installing a flagpole.Throm second the motion. A vote was taken and all were in favor. Shaffran moved to adjourn the meeting.Dobrovolny second the motion.All were in favor. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Cha irm an 8518 - ASPEN/PITK]N REGIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT 506 E. MAIN ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-5973 00136 -61210 BLDG. PERMIT -61212 PLBG. PERMIT -61215 ELECT.PERMIT -61214 MECH. PERMIT -63311 BLDG. PERMIT REVIEW -61220 REINSPECTION -63004 CODE BOOKS -63313 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 45, CO -61002 CONTRACTORS LICENSE -61120 MOBILE HOME -63316 PLAN CHECK NAME:.)'hu Pil•& Ror·,1 Rnmt.L PERMIT:a /.- i .9 CHECK# /€)90 u PROJECT: /-11·9 4 (, m #9 DATE: 6-A 11 -INITIAL: 62 #364412 12/10/93 10:55 Rec $.00 BK 734 PG 514 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 Bill Lukes moved that the following be adopted: BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 86-14 James L. Crowley Lot 24, Block 2, Filing 2, Brush Creek Village 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 a 10' frontyard setback variance for the airlock and a 55' frontyard setback for the garage/shop due to topographical hardships, and the request for a height variance was denied. Additional conditions or restrictions: The garage/shop is not to exceed 1300 sq.ft. WARNING:Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. Bob Throm second the adoption of the foregoing Resolution.The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: Evan Gull - yes Bob Throm - yes Kandi Shaffran - yes John Howorth - yes Bill Lukes - yes The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED:August 26, 1986 The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado Attest: v CLLL la- 0400(0 1 8 Secretar* 2-19. T 7 2-2%44 Chairman 00 0021 .. NNO> PLANNING R#364412