HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOA:86-15_Bill Lukes_117 AABCCover Sheet
Case #:
Applicant Name:
Address:
Parcel #:
Case Name:
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
..
DATE August 9, 1986 19 CASE# 61.(,: - 67
155 Lone Pine Road
APPLICANT William C. Lukes ATA ADDRESS Aspen CO 81611
PO Box 1248
OWNER Aspen Skiing Company ADDRESS Aspen CO 81612
LOCATION OF PROPERTY Lots 3C & 3D, Block 3, Filing 1 of Aspen Airport Business Ctr.
also known as 117 Atlantic Avenue at the Business Center
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:
Applicant requests a 17'-3"
single flagpole adjacent to
provided an interpretation
free-standing flagpoles as
above grade.
, Please see attached letter.
(approx.) height variance for installation of a
existing building. The Planning Department has
of the County Land Use Code which would classify
accessory structures with a height limitation of 12'
Applicant signature l/(. ) lU...,
Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building Inspector toforward this application to the Board of Adjustment and reason for not
granting a buiding permit:14 0.0 mj 45 %5..tits*.4 4 liks¢L ock.40*€1 -4.nuk
44 2-0°-UAH. Uk-0, 40*_ S .0 33 4-Lekj AUL -*6 14-(8·n.
3 - 41. [3-1-14.- 4 Lutk, ,A--c.-223<x-6 ,
Building Inspect Tri luf
Date Permit relected:Board decision
Application filed Date
Mailed Secretary Board of Adjustment
E
C 9 4 n, Q. : , U %; 4
ul U c
..
.
/A-\
d# 0/r
Peter Dobrovolny moved that the following be adopted:
BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN
STATE OF COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO.86-15
Aspen Skiing Company, 117 Atlantic Avenue
Lots 3C & 3D, Block 3, Filing 1, Aspen Airport Business Center
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 18' height variance for the installation of a single flagpole
adjacent to existing building.
Additional conditions or restrictions:
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
Kandi Shaffran - yes
Melinda Pearson - yes
Bob Throm - yes
Peter Dobrovolny
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:
90-LL\0- 0/hacti 1 €l
Secretaryd
2-·1-1 96 -D
Coccal
Chairman
..
111
'
WILLIAM C LUKES AIA
ARCHITECT
0155 Lone Pine Road
Aspen Colorado 81611
303.925.2132
August 9, 1986
Pitkin County Board of Adjustment
c/o Aspen/Pitkin Building Department
513 East Hopkins
Aspen Colorado 81611
re:Aspen Skiing Company
Administration Building
Request for Variance
Members of the Board:
The Aspen Skiing Company respectfully requests a zoning
variance to allow installation of a single free-standing
flagpole at their Airport Business Center building.
The proposed flagpole will be 9 meters (approximately
29'-3") high. as measured from the existing grade at the
front of the building.The flagpole will be made of
fiberglass with an integral color and will display an
American flag of appropriate size.The location of the
flagpole is adjacent to the entry "bridge" to the
building, between two stands of aspen trees which are
approximately 20-25s high.It will be the same height as
the penthouse of the adjacent ASC building.
A variance is required because the Pitkin County Land Use
Code does not include any provisions or specific
requirements relating to the size or location of free-
standing flagpoles.The Planning Department has
interpreted the code as allowing a flagpole which is
mounted to a structure to be classified like a chimney or
mechanical projection which, in the B-2 zone, would allow
a height of 38 feet.Because this proposed flagpole is
free-standing and because the Land Use Code is somewhat
silent on this type of "structure". the Planning
Department has determined that a flagpole is an accessory
use or structure and is limited to a 12' height.
Clearly, a 12' height requirement would effectively
preclude a legal flagpole in the County, a situation
which seems to have been unanticipated in the Code and
unnecessarily restrictive in light of (1) the negligible
impacts and (2) the community and patriotic pride
associated with the American flag.
Ul. L, Uf, J
Board of Adjustment
August 9, 1986
page 2
There is no specific hardship caused by the character of
the property which would justify this request for a
variance, but rather an inconsistency between the height
allowed for a flagpole mounted atop a building (38') and
one installed on the ground (12').The applicant and
owner believe that a free-standing flagpole, located
between stands of trees of similar height, would be more
architecturally appropriate and pleasing to the public
than one mounted on or above the building and would not
conflict with the intent or any stated requirements of
the Land Use Code.
The proposed flagpole will be located approximately 50'
gglside of the 200' Highway 82 setback and will be within
the front walled yard on the property.We have proposed
a location which will result in the flagpole being
generally seen against the mass of a building of similar
height.
We therefore request a height variance of approximately
17'-3" from the 12' height restriction for accessory
structures.
Sincerely.
William C. Lukes AIA
encl.
CC:Sue Smedstad
John McBride
c , a n n n A
L ·,Uu·J i /
Aspen Skiing Company
Pitkin County Board of Adjustment
August 9. 1986
LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
Lots 3C & 3D Aspen Skiing Company
Block 3 PO Box 1248
Aspen. Colorado 81612
Lots 3A,B,E, & F Klaus Obermeyer, Trustee
Block 3 Obermeyer Trust
PO Box 130
Aspen. Colorado 81612
Lots 4A & 4C
Block 3
John P. McBride
105 Pacific Avenue
Aspen. Colorado 81611
All of Block 2 John P. McBride
Lots 3C & 3F John P. McBride
Block 4
Lot 3B John P. McBride (landowner)
Block 4
condominium owners:
Shop Unit 1 LAS Investors
PO Box 2012
Aspen. Colorado 81612
Shop Units 2&3 and Charles Thomas Griffin
Office Units 3&4 Judith Judd
105 Pacific Avenue
Aspen. Colorado 81611
Shop Units 4.5. & 6 John A. & Judith A. Hill
130 Mediterranean Avenue
Aspen. Colorado 81611
Office Units 1&2 Franz Elsigan
Freddi Bissig
105 Pacific Avenue
Aspen. Colorado 81611
Office Units 5&6 Ray A. Lavender
PO Box 1129
Aspen. Colorado 81612
ceo C nr
Li J
r,W i .6-1-1 i. .....r ERTIFICATION OF DEDICATDIN AND OWNERSHIP
lill* MI I' 'Ali *111/Irt r*, r», l-,•t i•oiltilt: 9, 'L( 01 +41 .G'FILING NO. 1 WH ilm' M MA *1 4 "Co•51 ,• „Al 100• , i: ·A,! Iii J, ·•1 M,
111U "COOU P I . I CD-.CAD.„10 .5..1.1. l, 14,1.$, .19.1.1 10
A PART OF THE SE 1/4 SECTION 34 .TgS, R 85 W AND A BART ,11;EMTS "MuN W-Ii,01 1,1{ '•1,1 H-- 01 14 9' AUMN< 1<
1,1*01 BU1111€53 Clll* illl 110 I tal,IC' 10 41 CO,Ilhlit # 'l,rl 'DIS 'I
OF THE NE 1/4. SECTION 3, TIC S.R 85* OF THE 61'h PM Co•IA,1.101. IN,I CI.T.1. olel•••1 0• umMMI [0¥1•41•TS'o S'• 1'5"
.Af[0 1// 1/1,1,/9 '/como ·U•f ·1 1':, !•100• 1 •t 46 '4 • i•
It .£ t.1 ..tl.1 0 01 %." 0.,It 'I .15$[1% t: "C 11 .1 4, 1 0.5, f '*CO'Di
PITKIN COUNTY . COLORADO 4,5 AM••i•& . 4. .0. 4 •I .Gl '•1 •I® ,•'t•' 1.• 4 41'*U 43•' "'
R • ino 00
4•0 [MIES #w 0(01CAN 10 1,4 •UllC Ult'lli[$ I,SI 001'0$ of A, ,0,
'•'# 62 ' ' '**, *I'It' t*Il.IS 0. 1.: 'IA;•5 /AM•ls // )•1 ,•ST,Wille• 4,0
5 u T 1,1 - li t •11• 0..111« f •C' 1 1,1 %,•CLUOI•G .1 " 1'.Ill/'0 11!Clel L"
T !0 r-t I , 114 S IOU Illl lill lit '11[ 1·Jil 110, al '•5'111 I [Slitt 10' •A ..1. .."CE ./ '1Pt'C-/1 01 SUCM & 41:4'. SUC• "'S To ' •S.'ula •1/I•
[,AI[Ils ue •,i; 1#ai. i, uin 2/10 A i i 110ibli 1,0 im,of" i•-i' "i'
P"INTS T•{ -U:lg,lu 00 »/Rni' 01£,CAN /1 411 IC U$: 1/1 •C•01 AS ™O-
m UlnED c m no!010 ill,le M P» ,•!f wH| A[ |Ca wAO %@MAL §
!0 'J* IC 'St ,0. "19'JUY 01 .Il, 10.0 0% COUT CO-lit,0*1»$t
/1/3/0 7•Ii • ..1 D" 9'
:3 .t,•lot 81,0.
WTE OF COLD„JO ./
CO#,Of 'il•,. ..
TH{ fO12,, i.,..EN; ..5 ACKMOIlGEO Uot •! INIS - CA, 0,
81 Jol• P .:.Riot
ILTI111$ IT M10 AllO OfFI+A
1 C-/Ss/oIl ".IMS
I ./
liD Till '42 2
SuRVEYORS CERTIFICATE
1 Ju'l ..1.U"A REGISTEMO 1-0 sul{,01 00 M{1101 CIRT," IMA' 1 IAVE
m,ARED 1,1,5 El,DO •10 RISTAND AU M lin A,%11 Mi•ESS BUM f w,
THE RE/litTED LO:$ A»0 GTHil FEITUIES m ACCUIAIELY Alle CONMECTLT S,IW •fIEO
S•Ii AE IASID ON FIELD Sul¥€TS INO t!•,1 T)[ loAD$ AND URATT[O ,),1 colmil
0,1 111[ ¢Roullo
1/ ./TNES; I//O/ ,Ii" SET li H•/O •ID ;f/L hlit j
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVAL AND DEDICATION
111,1 -1,10[D U/ #:1&!ED Pli: OF bl[ ASPE,1 41*MN lu:111€SS CE41!I /,Lid 40Ae DZ<VE' V 'ME 'Al OF COUNT, co-1 101•[Ri OF '111,11 COUNT. CotoRIOO9W L_ _ 0' 99 T.OiD, CATIONM MAGS ISM€"" ACCEP !10 M
11,1 "01,4 4*'DS[$TM,$ A-!0¥Al OUU T 111* TD CUENIE[ UTIIlia
OR U.VIC[ # IC! ' 1 t|* S ,UN Il•91[ ,•CAT,0,1 0, TMI "1"cusl' 'Ecomo '
Appt•WIC fl *LI!,00, 4 A, /9:i #O ABO IY /11' 100• 4 •1 PAG[ 421* 11 lilli•
AW/jf
Cd,14'11 kIT,111 COUN
?404, Canh, 4/uk 0, Coll'MIC«t.5
CLERK AND RECOWDERS CERTIFICATE
Tils 4,1-10 1»0 :111•1* 0 /1,1 01 1,11 4%/tll AlVOIT militit CE*'EN fill»G H
' 1+ 1* 111 1.1 Of FIC[ O' 'Mt C[' UID "CO.Ot. 0, /11W1 COUIT' ED,O.'00 111ivi i• 4,1 -• 7 I '41 14 f
A,44/4 .41'evt..lip,
10 @ 9-8
t.
9-A
t 21
8
4. 76
'C 10,2. ri
3-H
3-I
%.
4
3-A
5
2 LOCATION MAP
16.1., *4 4
D 4
to 3 3
0
2 >A 2 2
OO
Street '4
4
GREENBELT EMBELT 2
ExCEPTIO
2
652 50 N 31•07 00' w
6•34.21 00.Z •1960 00·
'117506'
Stots H5hwal 92
MQILL
1-14 UTILITY FASE•eNTS Pe .Err
UNLEBS OTHERWISE 5TATEO
NON-/ADIAL LINE TO CURVE
ob.
1•''Int:
.HT'..ANTIC AVS.
89
Xy-
r 1 -
r U'
23
r
1 71 4
Lr
L-J L R
72
CLL 73
008.
U
Urrl £
1 St r
1 r 4-
+8
A4
6 11'-11 0
J
ID
1
,1 rot 0 4 J r.l.&'J
%/-
41,3 '3 j 00
= -1
0
9 4 J ..i
I .
0
k
0
t IL
31
66
1-£
3, 1
b 19 1
U. n :i
A
t.)'
40
1g
-3
1
po· 4.
110-4
. lh,- 'ki--25 Macut:37'L=-
N
a I E.
r .13:11.:i-¢fiERT,6 IF---112'41=1 - i - 1-- 1-1-
21'#.6 4. :
1·:- 0,4
1 4 1
Ity /1 1
bli- ,"1
11 ™
; li ' 3 fr.--*·-f---_-r· ' 1 III 4 1' f
. 4: ...31: 3
3 < 1 --41211 1121 N? Pot 2 1 ·1 r.
1.
0
1 1.'0 >y 1-1 <2111 62,7E ' § 0--.s--4 Y '. 1' 7-lm-tt' 931.- -, E 1
1 i ·25 '.f - -' + *7= _,$1'2.43 4 . +W /2-= t.3 -'*...... =-
,1
yal T
3
1,2.i J :.tj//2 r0- 2 -- .r ,ri
v 1 29
t :1» 4 L
M ' 6 1' 3 9* ,T lic -9
.i h .41 1.
-49·
-:- 1 !!
1 1. 13 'll.4 . 1 7 -EFI=I,9tf
'11 .
DirAL .3
1 i
1 11--913 1 1 91 10 - ,1 1 ,» r
f 111
.
....0, ·V
U)1 / 6 1 & -/ I.-r-1. t e. 04 /*.
I ,)1 11·.· d-i: B. -3 74 :..=k
1 A
it E.,
y 11 1 -2
n
1
4
·'im. R & FS
JA--4 4 2
lb.
r 1 M BTE,Ze (029 ' it )C )
Vt,tjuuu
. 39 'IMH e141·OVJ Hol IVA€il 9
\j01»74 1
d/*2/194--- :1 Li <l,51:L-i 1*14 -1 7 -1....=I€> 'ytir- 4-]li
11·. 1
41 -t
7 Id,
173- · .1 fl '- 4 -- 44-49--- +-·--71T u
1 ·· 11 1,7 1 -11 - ---45r 0 1-1__ 2,<9-Er-41 L =-- 1
r
j.. 34®: . 14 .-513 f [;9/:
'Ill .W
,
,- . · ;1 2.4
1.- ,1022 1--491 P. . 1 -,
D--1 1 : .4- i-4. 1 11 - ..11 1
!
.
mUL 4 0 -45-mE .1+2--il-71
A a Al 11 Z
6 4
1
n U
11
.
1,
1 .7.... -1
0 -i -1 :ir
1. 11
1 -e:
1
4 li L ,»--2 1 Lt
e 1% 1
r f. - 6-41-- f.,> 1 3 4.2
1 2
-4- A
1 1 1 .ilt f
FU
, i> 3
1·.4' ,f)- ·3·Zi
I r
I >
-5-4---.-----* 15
-r R 57 8 43
l. 9 -6
0
r el
tion nric
U..JUL'u'l
-Rl. 1 1 7 ----k-k 1 +. G
4
..71
1 , Pi L
f-/
1
11
40!Loug 4 - . rF.., ; r.. liti .]?fli.·,
1 1
1
ile.#IN -
1.-21
1
1 -
1
-4 4 4
8519
ASPEN/PITKIN 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 GS. CO
-61002 CONTRACTORS
LICENSE
-61120 MOBILE HOME
-63316 PLANCHECK
NAME:A. 4.-C ( /(L -in- A--4.·,,
PERMIT: 646 -/S
PROJECT: _f-12 '
DATE: A 21
CHECK# /091-
PL m·te
INITIAL: <ED
Cocclo
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 in 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 zore 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 and a two-car gar:lge with a workshop
on the second floor.The proposed garage locations which would
be tucked into the hillside, would save landscape and 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 phins to put plumbing in Lhe
workshop.
Gull felt that the original interpretation of the frontyard
should be upheld by the Board.The members agreed and felt 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 garage/workshop
would be compatible to the main structure.It was the general
feeling among the members that a different design could be made
to 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.
After 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,, due 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 19'2",
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 Lots 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 n 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 took up space on the other side of the principle structure.
There would be a workshop (for furniture making and storage) in
the rear of the garage, which explains the size needed, and a
root collar.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 uncom·fortable with t·he i.dea 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 taken and
three were for and two opposed.The motion did not pass.
Pearson discussed the option of moving the building und various
design changes.tier 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 v ote w as taken and three ware for
and two opposed.The motion did not pass.
Throm fell the Board was; forcing the applicant to go against, 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 favor.
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 an
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 loft (not to exceed 25' to the peak) due to the
deal made with the Whites by the County.Lukes second the
motion.A vote 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 architect, 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 Board,
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 rand four
were for, one (Shaffran) opposed.
Aspen.Skiing Company 86-15
Lots 3£ & 30, 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 Ln favor.
Respectfully submitted,r : n
0/i/L*L-2
ChairmanSecretary
--8519
ASPEN/PITKIN 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 0,15-· «-1
-61002 CONTRACTORS
LICENSE
-61120 MOBILE HOME
-63316 PLAN CHECK
NAME:/1 k.4 i t<L·,¥L. 'l--I&/LI.)
PERMIT: d?l., - / T CHECK#/099
PROJECT:An 2 6 r,1 4 ei
DATE: 61 3.- INITIAL: (2