Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOA:86-27_Daniel Shank_332 Horseshoe DrCover 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.86-27 Dan & Rose Shank, 332 Horseshoe Drive, Emma 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 50' frontyard setback variance for addition to residence. Additional conditions or restrictions: WARNING:Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. Spero Niarhos second the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: Evan Gull - yes Bob Throm - yes Melinda Pearson - yes Bob Miller - yes Spero Niarhos - yes The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED:November 18, 1986 The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado Attest:L) Secretary Chairman f,:A U U %, ./. A J OLL-/3«If - I - - -I .. 1 Not /i BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT .. DATE November 11, 1986 19 CASE#04 2 7 Drawer 340 APPLICANT Peter Dobrovolny, for ADDRESS Snowmass, CO 81654 747 Fryingpan Road, OWNER Daniel and Rose Shank ADDRESS .Basalt, CO 81621 LOCATION OF PROPERTY 332 Horseshoe Drive, Basalt, Pitkin County, CO Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made par this Case No. The Board may return this application if it does not contain all the fac in question.Applicant's description of proposed variance showing justification:The Owners wish to construct an 866 s.f. t addition to this residence, Current zoning is AF-1 with a front yard setback of 100 ft.'The entire existing house and proposed addition lie within the setback, requiring a variance for construction.As the addition will be to the rear of the residence, encroachment will remain unchanged.Point of construction closest to the front property line will be the ridge line of the existing house, approximately 67 feet.Request for setback variance is therefore 33 feet. Applicant V Signature. 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:T AL- a.-9 th<avst \Pas El-vu Q.N..st CA).Jkyks-q,-, luu , o.u- A V - i21.0- -L. s«Ki»&*_ *>U AQ-»A'G QL Al- m·..ca j oo 5 5.aL.5 530, A-Rail. 30. Building Inspect» Date Permit rejected:Board decision Application filed Date Mailed Secretary Board of Adjustment i- .IT\n [1 w go 3 U 10<U n,tn"f,O If .tr-O U uz=) 4 1727/ NoT -1 04,0 5 k.,0 k AD-1- 1 Ke,0,0,44 \2. UAD/CAL<, 4- NA,ucy B -7-ge. 6, ck 3 GU 90€ 59 560€DR. 44 2'90.1 9,4 le C o ,- 9 1 61-3 kO4 G -CIA,AC € E.9. 1\,/ILA € 4 LA T,5 4'·A t..; 016$7 Woxise skoe Oil ' E PIA '1AA ULA . CA (2 bc PA le Ca 8,623 1., 0 + 6 ft 1 -=· ose p k -t . 4 RUC 04 I, C {A <21: 5-0 1 love.% S dR ee (€ 2 D, d-A€ St,/4 9,#le C 0 9l623 LoT 11 , 1 Pot.&5 -Sh b-:>All<ele 4 N , FA Ye <5+Atd- 6ox 94 0 C. At Se,Al OA lei 2 b %1613 Le + t<- ._. G>,AR. y 40,0 -+ \<,44( Rf'U 1.%, A ( ca<e - 6 16 C 1=120 w 56© e OR. C. A¢ '30» OA\€Co 9/62.3 na n ar. 7 6/,uu'JJ DOUBLE K RANCH SUB. T 8 S., R. 87 W SEC. 14 ROAD EMMA ....1. .- ----1 1958 1938 i ' 1 11 1 0035 ,(6 0030 p517 -:,1,,g .1.. I. 19 4:0512 = - - 4 ent--2 1 -2--Ift 94-2 i: I I il . 009 0086 2 10 0452 1 0455 13 i 7 .I ! fF-£-1-10144 16- 0400 4 1 6391 1 9 0265 0209 '- HORSE SHOE DRIVE03669 0268 /060 P A 2·-I:Zz> A PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 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 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 others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance, DATE AND TIME OF MEETING:November 18, 1986,at 5:15 p.m. Aspen Skiing Company, 21588 W. Highway 82, Aspen, requesting a sign variance for Buttermilk Ski Mountain. Dan & Rose Shank, 332 Horseshoe Drive, Emma, Colorado, requesting a 50' frontyard setback variance for addition to residence. b BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PITKIN COUNTY SPECIAL MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 1986 Members Present:Evan Gull, Chairman Bob Throm Alternates:Melinda Pearson Bob Miller Spero Niarhos Peter Dobrovolny Peggy Seeger, Zoning Official, and Francis Krizmanich from the Planning Office were there with staff recommendations. Gull called the meeting to order.There were no minutes to review at this time. Aspen Skiing Company 86-26 21588 W. Highway 82, Aspen, requesting a sign variance for Buttermilk Ski Mountain.John Hansen, with the Aspen Skiing Company, was there as the representative.Presently a sign exists at the entrance which is 36.8 sq.ft. with brown and white coloring. During the approval by BOCC of the Master Plans it was agreed that Aspen Ski Corp would be allowed a sign.After submitting the sign drawing and application, it was determined by planning, due to the size of the proposed sign, that the Board of Adjustment should act on the submission.Throm went on the record requesting that the BOCC approve a sign code for submissions having a set standard so that reviews and yearly reviews by the Board would not be necessary.However, in this case, the size is way over the allowed amount, which would require the Board's review.Throm felt that the BOCC should have reviewed the sign request at the time of approval of Master Plan. Hansen stated the sign would be placed on the side of the mountain, towards the road.The colors are basically charcoal with white letters, with the Aspen Ski Co. logo on top in red/blue/green colors.The letters would be internally illuminated.There would be a light grey border around the sign and the logo, using the same colors as the new signs on Aspen Mountain. The sign area, the lettering, the structural height, and the lighting does not conform to the sign ordinance.Gull felt that there was significant justification to have a larger than normal sign on this site, due to the fact that it is not a normal commercial site.Dobrovolny felt that size of sign could be advantageous as safety features, however not absolutely necessary.Niarhos suggested that signs could be placed along the highway that indicated a ski area was pending if traffic safety was the issue.The members discussed the distance usually involved when reacting to directional signage.He felt Rign as proposed was too large. Pearson questioned if this was a variance request for the illumination of the sign.Hansen could do exterior lighting, which would comply with the code.The design, however, was for internal illumination for several reasons:felt more with the intent of code since it created less accessory items next to the sign, and the internal lighting would be more subtle.Niarhos did not feel internal illumination was necessary.The sign would be placed at the foot of a berm requested by BOCC during their review.Throm suggested a mock sign to help determine the actual impact of the size of the sign along Highway 82. Krizmanich gave a brief description of the BOCC review and their support of the berm and sign, however, specifics were not discussed.The proposed sign is considered nice but does not meet the size standards.He did not feel there was a hardship situation, and felt if safety was the issue, they should discuss with the Highway Department and possibly use their "ski area" signs.He expressed concerned with what happens to the scenic view along the corridor and how people along the valley would feel about such an oversized sign.Due to those reasons, the Planning Office could not support the proposed sign. Throm suggested that they allow the sign internal illumination .Mt ' for reasons of logic and better appearances. Then after ' reviewing a mock up of the sign, they could decide on sizes. Hardship, Throw felt, was not absolutely necessary if there was justifications and the justification was that the sign made good logical sense.Seeger felt the Board should not make a decision granting a variance without a hardship specified and requested a postponement until such time the County Attorney could attend to make a ruling on the legality of such a decision.Pearson was uncomfortable making a decision without a hardship, and opposed the illumination and size of the proposed sign.Dobrovolny also agreed that, in the past decisions, had been made without hardship, but with discomfort on the Board's part. Fred Smith, with the Ski Corp, suggested th.ey could put the illumination internally and if Pitkin County did not Like the effects they could disconnect it.There was some discomfort on the Board's part with that suggestion. There was a discussion as to the issues that needed to be handled in the review process of this sign request.Seeger requested again that the application be tabled until the County Attorney could be present to advise the Board on the matter.Gull felt the variance was within the jurisdiction of the Board and that the Board had the right to determine the hardship and grant the variance if they chose to do so. The Board determined that the lettering size was not a problem, however the sign area needed modification.There was discussion whether an additional problem existed since the structure supporting the sign was within the required setback.Fred Smith felt that the special zone of AF-SKI took care of that problem. A discussion was held on how to compromise and bring the size to some conformance.The Ski Corp agreed to conform to the height requirements.Gull moved to approve a sign with the following conditions: -lettered Buttermilk portion of the sign conform to the proposal presented with the exception that they remove the words "Division of Aspen Skiing Company"... -a logo be allowed of 2 feet squared on each side to be attached ... -any portion of the signage to conform to the 8' height limit and any portion of the supporting structure conform to the 6' height limit... -not to be internally illuminated, but to be externally illuminated... -height limit on "Buttermilk" lettering to conform -existing sign to be removed. This allows the sign to be 22 1/2' x 12.2': approximately 20' on each side.· Throm second the motion.He suggested an amendment stating the reason on the Buttermilk portion of the sign, excluding the "Division of Aspen Skiing Company" was for the benefit of the public and safety on Highway 82 and nonconformity was being reduced by removal of existing sign.The motion and all amendments were accepted.A vote was taken and four were in favor, one against (Spero Niarhos).The motion passed. Dan & Rose Shank 86-27 332 Horseshoe Drive, Emma, Colorado, requesting a 50' frontyard setback variance for addition to residence.Dobrovolny was there to represent the owners.He explained that the addition was approximately 660 sq.ft. on the west side of structure.The nonconformity that currently exists with not be increased in ter·ms of infringement in the setback, .. When the house was originally built the setbacks were not existing.There is no FAR requirements in the AF-1 zone.Throm moved to grant the variance request due to downzoning.Niarhos second the motion.A vote was taken and all were in favor. The meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Secretary #5ING,Chairman - -;<<J D_<t ;, sub ·PR·'1 -=31.: t.ti flitly. - .. /0 >942% '1 '17.f /*ff .·/ 6 .A:'C ,/ ', I 19 2 1kl »:WIKE?*i ' m ... lip. Ify" 244 !43' 35 4 tr 4% 4 Ittit ft i. t-' »t.l. LUI DOUB_E K RA\CHES aka 0332 HORSESHOE DRIVE BASALT, COLORADO NOTES THE BASES OF THIS IMPROVEMENT SURVEY WAS FOUND PROPERTY MONUMENTS ON ALL FOUR (4) CORNERS OF THE PROPERTY, AND THE RECORDED BEARtNGS AND DISTANCES BETWEEN SAID CORNERS THE FOUND MONUMENTS HAVE BEEN IN PLACE AS LONG AS THE OWNER HAS OCCUPIED THE PROPERTY AND ACCEPTED HORSESHOE BY HIM AND THE NEIGHBORS AS BEING THE PROPERTY CORNERS DRIVE 2 THE SUBDIVIStON PLAT RECORDED FOR DOUBLE K RANCHES CALLS +OR RIGHT-OF-WAY IRRIGATION EASEMENTS ALONG EACH LOT LINE, 5 FEET IN WLDTH ON EACH SIDE OF SAID LOT Ll NE AND 10 FOOTf EASEMENTS ALONG ALL DITCHES PLATTED 0 AND UNPLATTED, ARC-3 - 6720 THE FENCES LOCATED ALONG THE LOT BOUNDARIES HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN HEREON FOR CLARITY OF THE BOUNDARY SHOWN R - 232 65'4 THE NEIGHBORS FENCING ON THE SOUTH OF THE LOT IS LOCATED APPROXtMATELY 7 TO 8 FEET WITHIN THEIR PROPERTY, FENCING ON THIS PROPERTY ENOROACHES, ARC=197 72'THE NEIGHBORS PROPERTY TO JOtN TAEIR FENCING R= 3558 87'5 THIS SURVEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TITLE SEARCH BY SURVEYOR TO DETERMINE 1 BOUNDARIES, OWNERSHIP, OR EASEMENTS OF RECORD THIS SURVEY IS THE C.VARD WATER ESTABLISHMENT ON GROUND OF THE LOT 7, DOUBLE K RANCHES AS SHOWN ON PUMP THE PLAT RECORDED FOR SAID SUBDWIS]ON IN THE OFFICE OF THE PITIUN COUNTY *,r CLERK AND RECORDER IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 35 FOR INFORMATtON REGARDING TRUE BOUNDARIES, EASEMENTS, RIGHT-OF-WAYS OR TITLE OF RECORD, A INSPECTION OF ALL PRIVATE AND PUBLIC RECORDS WILL BE REQUIRED --- 8SL 6 UTILITY LOCATIONS OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN ARE UNKNOWN TO SURVEYOR 7 THIS SURVEYOR ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR THE BOUNDARY MONUMENTS SET BY OrHER SURVEYORS PL NTLP b (568'3 2 5 0 col LOT 8 0 LOT 7 WOCID LOT 61/2 1<J PORMF R AlME WVH BASEMEN1 oE PATIO/ST HYWITHI POOF PRIVATE ,DRIVEWAY 2- GNAVEL -2 ' f Or@,vrWAY , CARPORT _ 1 2WALK 9-ALK --2 Lr t ( 53) 24 - ME 1 AL DOGNOUSE /-•r'X-5 SHED0, 17 N 4 RUN 7 160 Ft FRAIT «P j ee'[9€,IC IN AF-1 ZONE 3 e l LONCRETE 0 0 0 SCALE 1" = 30' SURVEYORb STATEMENT 0 to 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 4 LOUIS H BUETTNER, A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR iN THE STATE OF COLORADO, 30 5'DO CONFIRM HEREBY CrHAT A SURVEY WAS PERFORMED BY MYSELF OR UNDER MY SHOP 0 DIRECT SUPERVISION IN OCTOBER OF 1986, ON LOT 7, DOUBLE K RANCHES,t BUM O,NG 1 1 BASALT, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, TO ASCERTAIN THE LOCATION OF AS MANY IMPROVEMENTS THEREON, AS RELATED TO THE EXISTING BOUNDARY MONUMENTS* FOUND ALUMINUM CAP PROPERTY MONUMENT, {MONUMENTS HAVING BEEN SET BY OTHERS) THE APPARENT IMPROVEMENT'; ON THENO IDENIIFICATION AS TO SURVEYOR A PROPERTY MONUMENT SET, PLASTIC CAP,PROPERTY ON OCTOBER 19 1986, EXCEPT UTILITY CONNECTIONS, ARE ENTIRELY. WITHIN MARKED "BUETTNER 13166"THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PARCEL, EXCEPT AS SHOWN THERE ARE NO ENCHOAUHMENTS PROPERTY BOUNDARY APPARENT OPON THE PARCEL BY ANY ADJOINING PREMISES, AND THAT THERE tS N 89° 02' E 384 76'NO APPARENT EVIDENCE OR S EGN OF ANY EASEMENTS CROSSING SAID PAR¢ELt¥ FENCING RIGHT-OF·-WAY CENTER LINE EXCEPT AS NOTED THE MONUMENTS SHOWN HEREON ACTUALLY EXISTED AT TIME OF SURVEY AND WERE LOCATED BY ME, AND THAT ALL D}MENSIONS AND DETAILS X X k X X X X 50 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK LINE SHOWN HEREON ARE CORRECT TO THE 94*T24, MY KNOWLEDGE ' Af LOUIS H BUETTNER LS 13166 DATE 56-27 NOU ACCORDING TO ¢CLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGALATION BASED UPON ANY ]EFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN SIX YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DIS¢OvER @UCH DEFECT IN NO EVENT, MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY ··FECT IN THIS SUR¥E¥ BE *OMMENCED MORE.WAAN TENYEARS FROM DITE OF THE CERTIFICATION sHOWN HERE 9 4 ¥L 1 4 0. ' 12 2 r%,1>,FAG diph> Airff f:··Cor.Jitff fl,10%3°923*443i