The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutpitkin.boa.82.24 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT tit County of Pi tk:i.n tit Date u o-C( 19 8 ::. Case #- "z:: ' ~ ~ " ~ ~ Applicant o T/ S ~- , CkoSJ Address /7()() ---: 77 L.. I';;' 'c ; .... . 'Iv-, b Owner 5-'"" t::-". J,~","''''''''~_ Address .s .;:\ ,,)._. ..-i...... Location of Property t. 0-1- S-o C'lk M+. s-....1-. S't>f:.~o; IIOS. ~e8 w o.{. ,+1. ~f\.1 72/-...{.k~.... 'II.. Co-ro. (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: Ks<."1'-'''')+ 5,-<r...-"yc/' r1",.\., .s -e{ b" (. k d;J-t"'...."...J "" S' sl,c..w"'-. 0'- C\_+i-o,d\,~ L-- / Q vo..\..) . >.. J 6....... ,DJ .,,~C }.,-.~;t ~ ~ '" j -+- w';' ~ l A- '-^> . '-\. I ~ ~ \,)\..;-....., \., I> ,,^J~ €ClJ+<-co,)-d Ii k '" vJ ;..... ~ ""- 'H-U ... ~ )....k~....._ ,. \) 1-, '-r ~ !;: 4-5 r.. ~ +u 5.... w a.:}"'- J ~sr oS'" \ 5'.>-'-'+-1'__. Applicant Signature Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building this application to the Board of Adjustment and reason for building permit: 05iJ ~. ~ Inspector to forward not granting a Building Insp. Signature Date permit rejected: Board decision Application filed: Date: Mailed: Secretary, Board of Adjustment ( n ""1 ' J ........, ~. ~ ;4-J.J ~ 0.. r: 'i' '" t- f ... v p ~ ;- ~ 7 0 ~ " '?... J . Lll+ I~ LIl+- if 8 Lo+- >-j t.... t+ f.{ 7 No. 49382 '71 Cbl6l....0 7:'.....c.. ~\1 I...~..." fv1i~c~'" 15 0.,1' 85 C G Ie", '-V 00 l 57>1-~ ""'-7:J ~ Col 0 :?;-/ ~ 0 I J 'l -~.1 l...~.f f.~r- .% u Aq)-() 5("0. c: ~ Sy r~'\> '-\. s. '"P; J- ~f; D'" "?, 0, B () 7' {Q (, .2 B 0 .... I J ~;.. ( 0 10 . ff 03tJ (, I T. 1<. 6,0;,0 k J 7'.u. Boy 5775 ,.(.J1>~-- Cclo :?/ b I ) I.$' l/'1 hQ">, W. c1 7<tt.~o..).c\ f?),-a.......s f'lo3 P~",-J.l'(-h..... L<:;:-......'" A-........1 i-t..._ G""1l o...f'.7 B ? <> S County Treasurer's Office, Pitkin County, Colo. 8- (<a Aspen. Colo.. '67- - 2'-1 1Rrrriurli Df ~ ~ ~--e-"..:t . ~ 'r ~ l &-V if 0 ' Account of Credit to Fund. o 0 13 Cs., -lo~ ~ I 3 By c - ';;- 1-~~ $ kJ-, . 19- DOLLARS - . -- - (""""" "-.r'") , ~w . Treasurer nepu ty .. . .. ~ - -.... . ~ ,.. ~_.. , -; e ,:yo ~ I P'; ~ -SJ ~ {~~A 51 6.=- ObOI-f5'~ ," ~. 331. 50' C. kcL:.::N:. if," , j '10" G:.. I "" " --g o >- ~ '..l' 0- -.J) ~ ~ 10 tf' j>ToyoSQcl (wu..se bc.a.:{.L.c::wL ( ) ,-,........ I_Ot.. It:> 6.= 3i032:00. "R: ;2. i 2...50' ch.cl: :N 03'" '-/B'oo"G:, 11 5". Y8' \ :hCot.eS: \ · ~ ~YLdl.LQ-leS -50~- ^IeV::a...'Y'" ~ c.ay> ~' w ~ u ,CJ t..:.t ~ <f ckt ct L 'V1..ct9. Q. c2QSQ YvlQ.'VL .t C u r \ 1'- I - 0 i -, <-1 \ c,"_s de a1( (o.to \-'V1.<2 S ,...''''''' J (' -: . . .~ ,. Suyvet!, La+. 50, (. ~~"V'I.- BY: LINES IN SYDNEY LINC/COME (L.5./4/1/) BOX 121 CARBONDALE, COLO. 303-963-3852 30 kd'tt 1Q82.. I SCALE:I": .20' l. e e frJJo...cS?",-'t- "'f...oP~...J7 ow....~J-J. L~+ /3 '7' IS' C b l 6 .1-. 0 1:' "" c. . ~O L. ~.. 'VI /v1 ., I-t C ~ .... 15o~ SSc G \ Q " ....v 00 .l. 5p 6-: "0'.) ... CQ \ 0 3'1 ~O ( '17 lli-i- <( & J ~ -.'tJ 2.. ~J t~p .% Aq)- Q 5 (> 0.. <: ~ S'y s 4-" ....... s V; J-. -J i l;.... "f; 0, Bo-r' I Q (, :2 13 0 '" l J ~... c 0 \ o. g- 63tJ ~ I L O+- ;7- I T,7<.3rc,oks T. U" 13 (;I -I .~ 7 75 A. > pJl........ C cl 10 3'1 (, ! ) L. 6+- If 7 tv'lo"y w. <1 T<?lc~o.).~ f:yo.......s f 'I () 3 ?..JC",- .a. 1 '( -h ..... L ~ ..... '" A- v-) +-1.... T:-.> -tI oJ. 7 9 7.2--.? " ~. . e e. BRAO"ORO rUBL&SH\HGCO" ca:jqVf:R RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Boa~d of Adjustment August 17, 1982 <, Members Present: Dottie Fox Bill Mason, Chairman Paul Krausch Joe Zanin Clark Smyth Alternates: Kandi Shaffran Bill Lukes >.-~ ~. Bill Mason, Chairman, called the Special ~eeting oi the Pitkin County Board oi Adjustment to order. He questioned ii there were any corrections or additions to be made to the minutes oi the last meeting. Paul Krausch moved to accept the minutes as typed. Kandi Shaffran second the motion. All in iavor. ~ . < Otis Cross, Lot 50, Little Elk Mountain SID 82-24 requesting 4 additional ieet to the 83' front yard setback variance received irom the Board of Adjustment in 1980. Mason questioned if any oi the senioe members remember the past meetings that were held regarding this property. May 27, 1980, was the iirst request brought before the Board in which Fox, Krausch, Smyth and Zanin participated. At that meeting the request was tabled until a decision was made by the County Attorney as to whether the covenance of the subdivision was still binding. The next meeting involving this request was September 30, 1980, and Mason briefly read irom ~he minutes stating that Fox moved to grant that request and the request was granted. Newbury explained that this variance re- quested today was due to the fact that when the property was cleared if showed that the house would sit lower on the property. Mr. Cross was there to represent himseli. He explained that after clearing the property it looked diiferent. He then presented some photos of the property to the Board members so they could see how the shape oi the property was. Cross explained that the house itself would be 25 feet from the road and the porch would be 13 feet from the road. Mason pointed out that a porch is considered part oi the dwelling unit as iar as setbacks are concerned. Cross stated that in the covenance for the subdivision, porches are excluded. Mason stated that the Board followed the Pitkin County Rules and Regulations. He stated that, aiter reading the previous minutes, the Board had taken into consideration the covenance setback and made sure the house was within those. Mason questioned which direction the entrance will be. It was determined that was south- west. Cross explained that a garage would be under the porch and another garage would be under the other porch. Shafiran requested that Mr. Cross explain exactl~ what he needed. Krausch went over the iact that an 83' front yard setback variance and a 22' sideyard setback variance was granted in 1980 and he i~uestioned Cross as to what is necessary now. Cross stated that :au aT' variance would put him 13' irom the property line which was vm~t be needed. Krausch questioned wether the sideyard setbaclk U\ut was obtained earlier was still good and was told that it WAS. Cross stat2d that since 1974 the gully on the property had moved and increa~Ad in size. Smyth questioned ii Mr. Cross could move his house co the east four feet. Cross explained that he would be moying oii the hilltop and would experience trouble ) e e. BRADprORD PU8LI8Hn'--'? Co... OI:N'fD' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS "Page 2 Board of Adjustment August 17, 1982 with the elevation. Cross explained that the elevation makes a rapi0 drop-ofi at that location oi the property. Smyth stated that 91'.~ctding to the topographical map, if the house was moved 4 feet: only 1 ioot oi elevation would be picked up. Cross stated that the map was done in 1976 and when the property was cleared it shows the slope which the map doesn't show. Fox questioned ii there were any objections. Mr. Ivan Dump was there and he was opposing the request because it was against the covenance. He is not an adjacent owner but has a lot down the road. He was confused as to what occurred at the past meetings, because he only remembered the one request that was denied. Newbury stated that was the request ior a 95' setback --;:::^n" .i~ nce. Mason read irom the minutes in which the last v .~ ~nce request was granted. Shaiiran pointed out in the minutes thai the lot was listed as 51 and asked ii that was a typographical error. It was decided that it was a typo. Lukes questioned Mr. Dump what exactly he was against, and if the house was set back 25' would that be exceptable to him. Dump stated that a garage would be built under the porch and he objected to that. He also objected ~o that meeting where the request was granted because he was not aware of the meeting. Dump was concerned that a precedent would be set. Shaifran assured him that the Board did not set precedents. The Board determined that the porch would be a garage with a deck on top. It was determined that the Board granted the original yequest because the porch in the covenance would be excluded; however at that time there was not a garage under the porch as it is now. Lukes doesn't understand what is so critical about the other 3~ feet that Cross is now requesting. Cross explains the position oi the two garages and the porch. Smyth had a problem with the request because it could be moved over. Cross ielt that would impair him from using the iront of the house to his advantage. Smyth stated that the slope looked constant to him irom the views that Cross had presented. Krausch questioned about the covenance and Mason stated that the Board had always tried to stay within the covenance and the County Attorney had previously informed the Board that covenance were in affect for 50 years. Mason was not sure that Cross was staying within the covenance because you could not consider 'the garage structure as a porch. Mr. Dump stated that he was concerned that the covenance was being whittled away at. ,Shaffran stated that she had a problem with the garage under the proch making it much more of a structure. Lukes questioned that, since the original variance was granted ior a house and deck, would the garage under the deck make a difierence to the variance . granted. Newbury stated that as far as the building department is concerned, the deck and garage is the same. Smyth ielt that with a garage under the porch they were not within the covenance. Lukes pointed out that earlier the members wanted the house within the covenance and it was given a variance because it did coniorm and now Cross was requesting something that did not conform. Smyth mot~oned that, given the iact that the Board had heard this case ~hr~e ttimes, and given the fact that the present proposal does lIl~t i".'i.t im wit.h the cO\Tenance, nor the previous downzoning, that t'Jhe va:r:i!'.3nc~ be denied. Krausch second the motion. Vote was called for~ All in iavor. Krausch pointed out that the September variance granted was granted for a deCk or porch within the covenance and he felt that it was important that Mr. Cross realize that that variance does not include the garage, which is a structure. The members agreed with that. Cross wanted to know if he moved his structure over iour feet if he could build as planned. Newbury stated that he could " e e. aRADF'ORD P'UDL.ltlHING CO., D!:NVI:R RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Page 3 Board of Adjustment August 17, 1982 park under the deck, but he could not enclose it. Shaifran asked about the shed. It was decided that it would be moved. Krausch stated that Cross should be 17 feet irom the deck and 27 ieet to th edge of the house. Cross agreed. Shaffran requested that the typo of Lot 51 instead of 50 on the September 30, 1980 meeting be corrected. ~ Meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, ~^" d /VlAA e-(.h (Y'{A ^- I /121' ~~. ~rman No. 49382 e County Treasurer's Office, Pitkin County, Colo. 8- l<O e ? ~.~ $ iRrrriurll of ~ ~ ~~^~ _ ~. T ~ {&-if Account of Aspen. Colo. ~2 - 2</ 19.5 2--- -----nGLLARS Credit to Fund. By r _I,}- Treasurer 00 13Co _. tcJ~ ~ /3 Depu ty THr c. F HlIECKE:L en., DENVER Scanned 7/26/07 File Finders Box #10