The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBOA:86-21_Duane Piffer_622 Redstone BlvdCover Sheet Case #: Applicant Name: Address: Parcel #: Case Name: Bob Throm moved that the following be adopted: BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 86-21 Duane Piffer, Lots 72 & 72A, Redstone S/D 0622 Redstone Blvd 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 5' sideyard setback variance for construction of storage building/garage based on the historic application of previous building officials who granted the applicant 5 feet on the north side and also due to downzoning. Additional conditions or restrictions: WARNING:Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. Bill Lukes 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 - no Bob Miller - yes Bill Lukes - yes The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pilkin, State of Colorado. DATED:August 26, 1986 The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado Attest:917<ucia. 09=cya 13· *Secretary Chairman 2 - 19 1 -7 panr,04 L u U U'u i r .. /2x BOARD OF ADJUSTMEN'r. DATE g .12-XC 19 1 C CASE# APPLICANT 2) U A u. F F¢)-ADDRESS R „9 sto-*-L_ C b / o OWNER SA-C-ADDRESS G.../.LA% LOCATION OF PROPERTY Co-1 5 72-4 ?ZA Re_osid Al Sub R €_D S 7 rv·L , (& / 0 Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part o thls Case No. The 11 ard mav returr this appl ication if it does not contain all the facts in question.Applicant' s description of proposed variance showing justification: 3 £ Ak< LAD AcY; 4 70 ,€P/ACC_ AW e K :S>;-P 82&7'711 t/LE M A S t. */1 4 612 3, d •U Ittl ·L pkuphxl 2 42 52 1 0 A.7 h- 43- 1 U..} 0 4 ( 0 12 Re_ 7 u ¥*ke. 604/A, 5 AL//ACC IA., 1¥4 4 5 70·LA C_ , /p /B c c_ A-- C •'e. -21 1/AIA<1 0 ·t- 1 no 14 e_ 30 o..4_ 9 :2 €. 9 '09-97 L 5 44 Z.-- Applicant Signatur 4-2 85 »XQLL C#L-O rA LaS:4 40. ' ..e<.Cl- 1- 0 .369••·- h.4.,L·3AC'pn. J j O<.5, Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building Inspector toforward this application to the Board of Adjustment and reason for not aranting a buiding permit: bIb7 -«, Q-Qj/Levt<fi a SLJ'AJJ,42/37 CL A' aLL trlal OCLAJ..CL-4/1/0 'BN ' u« E- /5 -=d"u.J l' .9, Date Permit rejected:Board decision Building Inspectc Application filed Date Mailed Secretary Board of Adjustment (00002 Sh- - a.\ R<,9>70. c CoheolLe\..0,0 Pe ST 8-h 1,91 -4. G).e-tk)06& spls' COIC> g 1(6'L Le-+5 692<-9 A p i ¢ «- V nue- Pe 4 1 ' 0 622. 12*)01/e.. ENCQReDS-roue_ /6 1 0L o -r- 5 70 y 70 A 5 k ...cr '3 · *4 44 y T. P. 01 20% 6/7 5 6 2 6 N. ReD CAd d . (0|06*JO CYL] ---4Cole,420 --865'1 001 5 71_,_ 1 1-4 7 3 7 3 t1 5 , 754 , 77/t-77 At 71, 79 4 Blitlh , C€«- OF#-L f ff-'6L & 411 -c u:. £- 0622- *<59(oue- [flu3 Reks-rouc__i Coto_ g/6 23 2 095 72. 2 72,4 _. - Mo„.:>.0 Bob U rwl-0.-lised c t S l U )4 .r - --St•- Fowle- Beh 53 C ..bou41< / /6 (uLdr 7f - SA-1 6 24* CA-IA,Q__ 6 f 12_ Fi. C k 6 I O LL-,1 [34 541-rt A ID 2/6 2 1 loT 5 7C ¢ 7 4 A - (00923 .. Le si«- Rcul, E l lew , M. N A- c q9 / 20 x '45/5 (,A) A 5 4 :Au Cot Go 11•41 92924 R.Di,Dee- Sk 6 -31<. 6 s "u -,3- CLCo b 9 - d k 0065au .54,4- L F. 2 Ca (R:A U , -.-Bo\Ae._, A /0 '36 -303_645 Cf ; CIA -1Uht , 24 M 4 u S J 2- A i-)€w C_ M . F. slaz_So 9"k.'I/23-,44 Lu 47g.ell€4., e.• Co It)go Ill - - 60 1% 6 2- 2 6 9 A . ---- 3-0cs__ R ,-L-r * Al 42(7 5 - 7000 &A 57 *4.:Aecti Al b. 8 306 DeN,/cj.Co /6 36297 4 0 + S 6 3 2 4.3 h. E q k<-, f-U , * 5 6-,-- . L 4 Ae., AE le -£ M . F. 0 5- 74 ££DS(0- Flvcf). Rd)570- 2-t C to 3/423 l-675 91 ¢ Cl A 13.44 (dit , 30 RAJ i A licia 2.2,5 +14•Jou£- Cou,7- LiA, Co L U & 4£6 p..,Aa- 6 85( 2- 045 46 <f 66 A A e 5 4 , 3-ok#J G 4€ 5 4 LALIAC_ C -/020 Laise.1 47-. - - Gle- u.,02 8 09'5, Col= %160\r, 48 n. ,-4- GV K CRA --- rjocke - 5, bj:lli Adj DO 4 51 63.1,#uc . R 5 )-ra. C A to 53( c 23 1-- loYS 7X ' 7YA- gOi goA 1 . Euck.u.,c-} 304•L 3 u. c k A u A u LQ e S ARA,-6 1 -2 l G S + Le- le- 5 2 . D€ -·r 0-t--u (016 Col 3 4 5, C 5. A G 7,47 A b n &41- 1 P.O BOK B A u u 4-1 1 277 E-/4 9 crrYii CA,=6! itek- E (1,677, 0 18 9'1Cls Posr 666<e. 862 7320 F-7, (301,800 G e#·-ip:L 30983L J Ill J 1 9286 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 . 6. C C - 61002 CONTRACTORS LICENSE -61120 MOBILE HOME -63316 PLAN CHECK --3NAME: /) e r PERMIT:>11 - A CHECK# f ·f, PROJECT· _ /... - , i . DATE:it )4114 '.INITIAL: C«- buu uu / 1. 1 r 1-,.,rj/6 ' /44Y' &* I . 9 "94 yorc. 0 '4f .4 \™.1 f. t u O -SUV, t0 ,1/10* 19 f q cler.k , &'74·:11 111 2 h N \6' -At':COD, 6.„ / .(49-N ill \ './. - I. ---- 3 4 7 1 ", 2-04 '7'I,(l I ' 34_ 4 0 Ex--ate: 1 1 30' 4 1 1593 3A 00/011-0 01 (11 ir ma 0 - l:ndll-cubls ·touM-4 ¥eUre f caa Lot 71 1 \4221 Lot '70/A \\ 26prove·,uit Locatovl Bat I hereby certify that this Improvement Loc,ation Flai oi Lots 72and 72A, Revised Plat and Addition to a Portion of itedstone Subdivision,bedstone, Pitkin County, Colorado, was prepared by me, the improvementlocation beinf based on a previous Droporty rurvey that has been monu-mented by others. I further cortify trat the improvoments on the above described parcelon this date, 8 August 1979, except utility connoctions, are entirelywithin the boundaries of the parcel, except Bs shown. that there are noeneroachments upon thr· dercribed promitles by ir"r,rovem„nts on Any adjoin-inf premises, except an indicated, and the:10 1.hore ir no evidnnen or signcd' any easonant crousinp· or burdoning any unrt- of raid parcel, except asnoted. 1 d... //'U..1-46-(/1.W Cy noicome 1.,:;. 1411] Street Address:0622 Redstone Boulevard Redstone, Colorado G] 02 06 SURVEY PLAT 72* ,-Ku:.visecO -yUu|: 2 U,£4*l££7,1. , 6 .2 >/'t>v t.(c.>¥L Ch 3426·1-,3¥1.2 61-£4:uvt/31,01 LINES IN SPACE -1 ''ll'·161. SYDNEY LINCICOME ( L.S. 14111) BOX 121 CARBONDALE,COLO.303-963-3852 1 ) (31 '.1,1 0 \ 1.(,1-1 SCALE:1"=30' 41 .6 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 zone does not allow a barn over 12' heights 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 garage with a workshop on the second floor.The proposed garage location, 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 plans to put plumbing in the 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 Boards 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 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 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 taken 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 felt 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-lah-n -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 and four were for, one (Shaffran) opposed. Aspen Skiing Company 86-15 Lots 3C & 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, 4 Secretary Chairman 9286 . 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 :i. Cr - 61002 CONTRACTORS LICENSE -61120 MOBILE HOME -63316 PLAN CHECK NAME:2, r. e 7. 41T PERMIT: Mi - .4 1 CHECK# 70&9 PROJECT: DATE: 1 9 j @'/ U · INITIAL: (19