HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.82.30
or
BOARD OF ADJUS'l'MEN'I'
4It County of Pitkin
e
Date September 15
19~
Case #
82-
Applicant
Douglas Allen
Address 530 E. Main St., Aspen, CO 81611
Owner John P. and Deborah L. Gager
Address PO Box 4745, Aspen, CO 81612
Location of Property
See attached description S 10, T 9 S, R 85 W
(Attached) .,
Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made a part of'
this Case No. 82-
The Board may return this application if it does not contain all the facts in
question. Applicant's description of proposed variance showing justification:
A 95 ft. front yard setback variance and 45 ft. rear yard setbac~ for
construction of residence, caused by exceptional narrowness or shallowness
of the specific piece of property at the time of enactment of zoning regula-
tions and not created by the applicant s~bsequent to the adoption of zoning
regulations, the strict application of which would create undue hardships
upon the applicant.
Applicant Signatu~~ ~~
Owne r: ,,, _ ~
Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building Ins~ector to forwar
this application to the Board of Adjustment and reason for not granting a
building permit:
Owner:
Building Insp. Signature
Date permit rejected:
Board decision
Application filed:
Date:
Mailed:
Secretary, Board of Adju&tment
/""""""
\.., ' . ',' ,~ '.' ~
4J'-
BOMm 01:' }\DJusrrMEN'I'
e
County of Pitkin
e
Date::
?... 3\
19.2A-
Case #
?5~ - ? C"')
9.;:;,-- 8'.3/ 'i'
Applicant J)""K'\~;--" ~\\\0,1\
,
Address 5 '.~cJ E, \'<\C^~,
c,;\ ,
Owner
~ <- ...~~ r-, ('.:::~c.....n .0 A.
,
Address
Location of Property
_l,_u
('^-~-'. C~,Q (); d,Q,C,j.J\ LQ ^ ,("'/n
\
(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:
CL c", 6 I _..>v-. Cy"J. 'Y 0\..- '- ('~ ... f":; Q..-t L, o. Q... tc.... ,-.') ()JV. n/~\ " , \
""'\ . \\ ' ,~ ('V,,\ CJ
... t ..., ' \ ~
l...\ :::.." ./\...,0 cv. '\ \,~'(.J-J'\ cl .I~ '" \..')('"K \.C '. -10-''-. (,L, I
.. ~ _f'_':L,'l:- /, 'A r 1 r:,
, '\..~ ,,-~,,-A... \ v"f')
(,4 I\_~_/L~ d'...9-./'(, C. ~
Applicant Signatu,42,zL d'L-
Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building' Ins~ctor~C to forward'
th~s <;tpplicat~on to ;he Board of Adjustment and peason for ,not grantin~
bull~'ng perm t : ~,Ik<u ~<V fl%"-/ .,c~L -7- ~y ,~.- - JA.-
~t~...-vL--e/~1.k~~ ~ ~..JZ;- ~ ~u-L I-:- S -:Jf..~ I)~~ ~.v~
_ (j / I' fY ~~h -=-<the./G ..../_5;1Yj rC ~<~<4 ~",d-" 0-:..-v I
vA A,..::;t.' V?tAV?t..fV/-J - ~L
# ~...4-r...?~~.--<:t Building Insp. Signature / ...
, U
Date permit rejected: Board decision
Application filed:
Date:
Mailed:
Secretary, Board of Adjustment
(~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-~ ~: ;~
--4q:L.t .'} \ Cl g ~
~
-fF 9() B i"
;
/:I ,,2'j';' f>u
....,.',,),
e
9~9~
~d~
e
~~9hp!J8~.
,5":JCl~ad ~ Jbed, Ye?td Y~
~,-e~ cf/o//
;jtJ~J .91',5-d'~/d'
September 3, 1982
Audrey
Building Department
506 E. Main St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Audrey:
Enclosed is a list of the neighboring property owners and their mailing
addresses for Doug Allen's variance request.
Donald Henley
9134 Sunset Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90069
Vagneur Ranch Co.
PO Box 127
Woody Creek, CO 81656
Paul Marvin
Terry Marvin
PO Box 8648
Aspen, CO 81612
Lita Warner Heller Trust
PO Box 98
Woody Creek, CO 81656
Grace Ewing Huffman
Box 486
Woody Creek, CO 81651
OR
c/o Ewing Trusts
140 Broadway
New York City, NY 10005
,.B.eJ,d.:!.:!.!. -i"ox
~~s u.J~~ .
;3.." ~J..-^ (~ 0~~.J
~ ~(W) ~") s a \,
The assessors office does not seem to have an address for Revill J. Fox.
I have been trying to check for sure that he is the correct owner and
will let you know as soon as I can find out anything. Thank you.
Cordially,
0.JjjJ4-f-'.c
Denison Levy
Secretary to Douglas P. Allen
( ~ ' ~ ' ~ ~__~ ~.: 3
NU',l'::tCE Of 2UflLIC flCMU1JC
BEfORE THE P ITl<IN COUNTY DO,iRD Of ADJU'sT:1ENT
ro ALT. PROPERTY Ov.'NERS AFFECTED BY THE REqUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW:
Pursuant to Pitkin County Resolution of June 5, 1955, as amended, a Public Hearinq
will be held in the County Commissio~crs Room, Pitkin County Court House, Aspen, Colorudo,
(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
surroundin~ ~r0perty owners and other affected in deciding whether to g=ant or deny the
request for variance.
THE PARTICULARS OF THE HEARING AND ,OF THE REQUESTED VARIk.'lCE l>RE AS FOLLOI"lS:
Date and tue of meeting:
S \-.. 14 1982 . 5:15
eptemwer ',at
o · clock pm
Name and Address of Applicant for Variance:
. Owner is John Gager, Applicant is Douglas Allan, 5~0 E. Main St.
Location of ~roperty or Description:
Sec 10, Tshp 9S, Range 85W, Sections of lot' 3~4: & 6 Little Woody
Creek
Variance Requested:
.
a 95' front yard setback variance and a 45' rearyard setback variance
for construction of residence.
Duration of Variance:
Permanent
xxx
.' Temporary
Cond! ticlll :
, ,
"
THE PITKIN COuNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ,
ASPEN.PITKIN REGIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT
(
Donald Henley
9134 Sunset Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90069
N E-Y'f::1!..
M (-\ I L-8-D
( .. .. " ,,, ~" , ~,1
\....~ . ~ ~ 0- ~..
,~
. .
'.
,
.
~
\
.
~
J
(
\
I
I
.'
~.
.
~ :
..-Oc
1
FROM: ' .
--p't.l<..D ~ ~ f\d~lY,>-\-r"NC."
s-D ~ 'C. YY\. 0....'. t\ ~
~~~f\ Co -<z,~ I'
Customer Number, if any:
TO:
,-
,."
C-.hA21t~ W,l,
a \\..312-+\ c.. L..Q.EEJ:.. V', \ \ kiL
'~ll~ ~ t]s~\9
LABEL 11B JAN/B2 * U.S.G.P.O. 1981-357-478
----....--~---
, -
, .
f' :::;: ( ;../ : I
.: / .
:i
-..... -
.
........)h:f..~.
47026511
\ OJ I ',; (:~ 1.~'4:
'I""f)
SERVICE GUARANTEE: ,
DomestiC ma!lmgs under this service made at c1eSlOn.1ted I
USPS faCllllJes on or belore ii speellled d~110'ilt tlme.wllI I
be accepted 'or express stup ment to a de~JI~)naled USPS I
delivery area havmg Express Mall SfHYICe rOf 0--'" ddY
delivery to an addressee or agent on or tI~loro the time
specified by Ihe USPS al mall,ng. USPS w,1I retuna UDOn I
appllcalion to originating otlice,the postage tor anv Ship'
nts maIled under nus sel\flce and nQ! meetlno the
Ice standard except for those delayed bV stnlre or
Ik stoppage. See USPS NOllee 43 for aelails.
NSURANCE COVERAGE:
See USPS Notice 7 or 63 fo, ..cluslons of coverape
(1) Document Reconstruction Insurance, Non,nepollable
documents are Insured against losS, damage. or rllill1'}
up to $50,000 pe' p.ece. subject to a i1mlt 01 $500,000
per occurrence.
(2) Merchandise Insu,ance. ParcelS are Insu'ed aga'nst
loss. damage, or "fling up to a maximum ot $500
. Or
P02!f-'C.
--,
L-J ;0 \/.r ':Jrn ~ LJdle Del
II To Whom, Dale
LJ & t,j1'e,s of C;:1.
.. h __'__,"_ .
':", -;,., I ~: .. ,-, ./. Signature is required upon delivery
.; '" '7 '< \ -"" ; Cialms lor delay, loss, damage or IIfling must De maae
, I 'h. I < 'I J wlthrn 60 days, Claim forms may be oblalnea at the post
L- -=-..""'..:'-L :__ _. '.~ _ office 01 mailing.
EXPRESS MAIL SERVICE
"
- .
. ','
~'!' .,
-'-,'
Lfill,
/j ~l~l;]~~~~~
~
.. ;
-'
r i . ,
",-
l a J;llIL:fJ ~
:~
'0;';- i;
FROM: (~ t\....l . _ \ ",Co(\4-
r,.~ ~~ _-\ ...."'~;:;"'T" ,'-
~ E.~ N\.A\t\ ~+
.f\.~~ ~ (6 ~l~ l'
I Customer Number, if any:
TO:
C-Po~~\d. ,"~1\\i...,\
q \'~'t -:'Cf\SE.. -\-- Q:}.~~
lo~ ~~~~\~ CA q~~
LABEL 11B JAN/B2 * U.S.G.P.O. 1981-357-478
~ , e. j .
, ..
..
.
'.
"~i.
47026513
SERVICE GUARANTEE:
DomestiC maIlings under thIS service made at aeslgn~ted
USPS facllilies on or before a specllied depOSit lime,wlli
be accepted for express shipment to a desionated lJSPS
delivery area haVing Express Mati SelVlce tor nexl day
delivery to an addressee or agent on or oell)re lne lime
specllied by the USPS at mailing. USPS Will retund upon
ap IicatlOn to originating ottlce,lhe postage for any Ship'
ts mailed under thIS service and flo1 r'IlP.etmg the
Ice standard except for those delayea by ,stnke or
w k stoppage, See USPS Notice 43 tOI aetalls,
SURANCE COVERAGE:
See USPS NOlic. 7 or 63 lot .xcluSlons of covel age
(1) Docum8nt Reconsl,"c/lon Insurance Non'negot'able
documents are Insured against lOSS. damage. or nthng
up to $50,000 per p.ece, sublect to a limit of $,00,000
pe' occurrence,
r-, T (' \' " - rr" D.; ~ e (21 Merchandise InsuranC8, Pa'cels are insured against
: ~ & f..:Je'!sS 01 Dcl. toss, damage, or rifling up to a maximum of $500,
____,~ - - ~_ ____ __, ___ - _u____
'I: CIS r, t : P, '9']' ~nature is reqUIred upon delivery
) , '.. ~/: c.!I~a:,ms lor delay, loss. damage or rifling must De made
i ' Within 60 days, Claim fo,ms may be ootalned at the post
__ ..,..;. _: _. ottlce of ma.llng,
EXPRESS MAIL SERVICE
II ' , '~
(~ . ~:I<
(-- "' ~
'.~.' TTl .~ ~_'.::; L~~!
,:,. t1I~ ~ ___.... ~
I'
..0
,
(~ ~ ~ : ~ ~~ : : 5
,~ '
"
e
e
.
September 15, 1982
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
PITKIN COUNTY
COLORADO
We hereby request a hearing for a variance of the Building Set Back on
the following described property, to wit:
The following described land situated in Section 10, Township 9
South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M. more fully described as
follows:
A 30-foot strip of land known as the Scott Brothers' Road, together
with a 50-foot strip of land being parallel to and lying northwest
of said road, being a total of 80 feet in width, situated in lots
3, 4 and 6 of said section 10, said 80-foot strip of land lying
northwesterly of the following described line:
Beginning at a point on the westerly line of said Section 10 whence
the southwest corner of said Section 10 bears S 00028'51" E. 3.14
feet; thence N 13010'20" E 676.07 feet; thence N 36041'10" E
287.70 feet; thence N 27018' E 279.17 feet; thence N 390 12' E
295.88 feet; thence N 42019' E 293.59 feet; thence N 490 10' E
262.19 feet; thence N 450 46' E 303.94 feet; thence N 400 43' E
168.50 feet; thence N 360 08' 19" E 450.06 feet; thence N 3r 15'
42" E 195.73 feet; thence N 460 27' 34" E 403.92 feet; thence N 490
26' 26" E 93.70 feet; thence N 330 15' E 160.00 feet; thence N 520
35' E 512.00 feet to the northeast corner of said lot 3.
c)ib~~ j)(lL,
530 E.~n St., First Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 925-8318
JOHN P. GAGER
DEBORAH L. GAGER
(~'::~ ~._:~,:G
f ..,.
,
..
e
e
August 31, 1982
BOARD OF ADJUSTERS
PITKIN COUNTY
COLORADO
We hearby request to be heard for a variance on a Building Set Back on
the following described property, to wit:
The following described land situated in Section 10, Township 9
South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M. more fully described as
follows:
A 30-foot strip of land known as the Scott Brothers' Road, together
with a 50-foot strip of land being parallel to and lying northwest
of said road, being a total of 80 feet in width, situated in lots
3, 4 and 6 of said section 10, said 80-foot strip of land lying
northwesterly of the following described line:
Beginning at a point on the westerly line of said Section 10 whence
the southwest corner of said Section 10 bears S 00028'51" E. 3.14
feet; thence N 13010'20" E 676.07 feet; thence N 36041'10" E
287.70 feet; thence N 27018' E 279.17 feet; thence N 390 12' E
295.88 feet; thence N 42019' E 293.59 feet; thence N 490 10' E
262.19 feet; thence N 450 46' E 303.94 feet; thence N 400 43' E
168.50 feet; thence N 360 08' 19" E 450.06 feet; thence N 370 15'
42" E 195.73 feet; thence N 460 27' 34" E 403.92 feet; thence N 490
26' 26" E 93.70 feet; thence N 330 15' E 160.00 feet; thence N 520
35' E 512.00 feet to the northeast corner of said lot 3.
First Floor
(~~:~~~_~~~7
NUTlet: OF PUnLIC flEMUrJC
BEfW Tl.IE PITKIN COUnTY DOl\RD OF ~STt1ENT
ro ALL PROPERTYOVlNERS AFFECTED BY THE RE0UESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW:
Pursuant to Pitkin County Resolution of June 5, 1955, as amended, a Public Hearing
will be held in the County Commissio~ers 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
slJrroundin~ Jr0perty owners and other affected in deciding whether to g=ant or deny the
request for v~riance.
THE PARTICULARS OF THE HEARING AND ,OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE l>RE AS FOLLOt'lS:
Date and time of meeting~
September 14 I 1982 . 5: 15
, at
o I clock pm
Name and Address of Applicant for Variance:
.
'Owner is John Gager, Applicant is Douglas Allan, 530 E. Main St.
Location of ~roperty or Description:
Sec 10, Tshp 9S, Range 85W, Sections of lot 3~4: & 6 Little Woody
Creek
Variance Requested:
.
a 95' front yard setback variance and a 45' rearyard setback variance
for construction of residence.
Duration of Variance:
Permanent
xxx
Temporary
Condi ticm :
, ,
\
THE PITKIN COuNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
is (".L! IYJ~
Bill Mason, Chairman
.-,
01 e ~
0
m '0
m m
m Z
(JI .
rt '0
~ -
~
m ,:;
5' -
Z
en D
rt
, m
m G)
m -
rt 0
Z
. )>
r-
)> m
(JI c
'0 -
m r-
:J C
.. t"I(,Ot:l -
n o 1-1. 0 Z
W w t:l Ii)
0 I~ ~
5' ;J> I-' C
t:lCl.lp.
, (Jq~ m
m CD t:l :J::
a. I-'WCD ~
0 CD CD t:l
wC+1-'
m - CD D
~ L 1j '<l ~
m ()f-'
:>><l ~
~ p.
~ m
(,0 Z
0
0 ~
(j)
(,0
"
"
,
,
, ~
e
~" .
.
~
,
'Q ~'.., l,. l 0 Ji:t~1L. .;j ::
,),:~...~ ...
(
\
\
.,
(
FROM:
"7,.\-<-o~" ct\
~ E.~ N"\ A\ t'\
.(\~p e:J\
~ c~--A- \'<Vc..(\ ~
~+
a:,
.ql~ l'
Customer Number, if any:
TO:
"J)D~ ~ \d. -\-\e...n \ L,\
q \'~~ "Swf\SE- -\- ~~~
Lo~ ~!\<1~ \~
CA
q<Yl.o~
LABEL 118 JAN/82 *' U.S.G.P.O. 1981-357-478
~,) ~
i'
6
'OIl
..
..
.
e
~
.. ;
.......,
llL~, /~ (iijfjJ;B--~~;~
47026513
~~
;".
'/ I' ,,~
SERVICE GUARANTEE: I
Domestic mailings under this service made at aeslgnated
USPS facilities on or before a specified depOSit lime,wllI
be accepted for express shipment to a deSionated USPS
deliverv area haVing Express Mall ServIce for next day I
delivery to an addressee or agent on or Da1Gre the time
specified by the USPS at mailing USPS will relund upon
ap licallOn to onglnattng office. the postJge lor any shlp-
Is mailed under this service and r')Q~ mp,eting the
Ice standard except for those delayed by strike or
k stoppage. See USPS Notice 43 for dela,I..
SURANCE COVERAGE:
See USPS Nolice 7 or 63 for exclUSions of coveraqe,
(1) Document ReconstructIOn Insurance. Non'neqoliaole
documents are Insured against loss. damage. or rltllng
up to S50,000 per piece, sUOJect to a limit ot $,00,000
per occurrence.
rn. [),:.te (2) MerchandIse Insurance. Parcels ~re insured agamst
':os ::;r 0,;1. loss, damage, or flfling up to a maximum of S500,
__...______----1
I' l' 3 ...-s;;nature is reqUired upon delivery
. .S/: C.;Ii!a'lms for delay. loss, damaqe or rifling must be made
wlthm 60 days, Claim forms may be obtamed at the post
office of mailing,
11 r, ~
v._
i---~ To ",~,
~_J 3. t.:_~j,
'I;,
)
EXPRESS MAIL SERVICE
, '
."
,~ '
,
. .
.
~
..
...
r-~-"--"'~-
I.
,I =):( ~';'';
) .
,~
"~'_".,..."",-.....-..._,-.-;,.,-
.,.,.......,}....~~-.~.~~....-.'''''..._-_..,.^.,."'''..,.,.~'-........~.~.~~
e
r
.
... :
--..
,_--=e
-=,.1..... -i.....
.........'Ni'L,
Customer Number, it any:
fflO~ .'
--pu.'~<-D'~ 0:\. (\d<JlY~-\-I"f\<C.I\~
s-D ~ 'C . Y"(\.. 0.....'. (\ .:>\-
~~<;"f\ Co ~,~ I ,
"
TO:
e_hAelt~ WIl, .
CJ... ~Q.....n c. CeELl::.. V, \ , ~L
'~llOc-'5 'T)(' rzs Q. \9
. -
,.iof
'.
LABEL 11B JAN/82 * U.S.G,P.O. 1981-357-478
.~--_.._--~- ----------...;..---.
..
"
"
I
,
-
1 '
.
'.
.
...
,. I.',~ 1,'- i ~
47026511
'IV" ()
SERVICE GUARANTEE:
DomestiC mailings under thIs service m(lde at desiQnated
USPS facilIties on or before a specrhed d~pO<;lt tllrle will
be accepted for express shipment to a dC'i1qllafed USPS
delivery area having E:.xpress Mall Sf-fVree for npxl dtiy
delivery to an addressee or agent on or helOro the 'line
specilied by the USPS al mailing. USPS will reluna uoon
apphcalion to onglnatlng office, the posfage tor any shlp-
ents mailed under this servIce and nol meetln:'] [he
Ice standard except for those delayed by Sfnlte or
rk stoppage. See USPS Notice 43 for aetalls
NSURANCE COVERAGE:
See USPS Notice 7 or 63 for exclusions of cQveraqe
(1) Document Reconstruction Insurance. Non-neQotiable
documents are Insured agaInst loss. damage, or nfill'HJ
up to $50,000 per piece, subject to a hmll 01 $500,000
per occurrence.
(2) Merchandise Insurance. Parcels are Insured agaInst
loss, damage, or rifling up to a maximum at $500
I"J 0 ZHJ r.
'.':d 'fir: .', ,"'::;!1-:~
DE;I
r=~ To \Vhom, Dei'.? ,
L-.J & r-. j,'1rC"3S of L, ';'J.
. ,., T
.-'to' ! fl' 1
I Lt, ~ 1J
EXPRESS MAIL SERVICE
l~.._._
~ Signature is required upon delIvery
~ . ClaIms for deiay, loss, damage or r1fhng m"ust De m~oe
J wIthin 60 days, Claim tarms may be oblalned at the post
oflrce of mailing.
"
.'... 0-' ~
....
."
,~ '
I
. .
,
-.
1'~
"',
'"
..
-' ~ ,-
'"
e
e....
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
: '.;, ,." l c.;,
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
'...~,
October 12, 1982
Special Meeting
:d( 'mbers Present: Bi 11 Mason, Chairman
Dottie Fox
Paul Krausch
Joe Zanin
~,
Alternates:
Evan Gull
Bob Throm
Kandi Shaffran
'1'ti(: lIJ inu tes from t he last meet ing was reviewed by the Board. Fox
::lIJ\'('c! to approve the minutes. Joe Zanin second the motion. All
ill l'a\'or.
t'
C()l~tte Penne, Planning Office, came before the Board with Paul
Huhin regarding Midstate ~lotors. Midstate Motors previously came
before the Board on November 24, 1981, requesting a 95' front yard
~etback for an addition, in which they received. However, there
was a misunderstanding with the applicant, Paul Rubin. Penne
r~::plained that this case had also been before P 8,z; Z and the Board
l' County Commissioners. Penne had informed Rubin that the Highway
!iW",SUres their setback from the center of the highway. When the
"J;LJ'Cl too]< action on the case, the measurements reflected the center
line of the highway. She explained that the 95' variance from the
I) t.o I)('rt y l1ne wou ld not be f easi bIe because the bui lding on] y sits
b;lCk ::;orne 70' or 75' from the property line. She explained that the
adc: i Lion wou ld encroach on ly 1.4' more than the present bui Iding
UOI.:S. That would be atone point of the building and would otherwise
nut extend out from the original building. Rubin explained that he
applied according to how he was instructed, which was to use the measure-
ment from the center line. Newbury explained that at this time
~{ubin needed a consensus from the from the Board so he could start
on c:xcavation. Then he would have to reapply with proper advertisement.
llubin stated that time was important because of a loan the owners were
!':oi ng for. Penne stated that the Commissioner's approval was worded
that if the addition didn't encroach any further than the existing
lillilding, it. was !'inl". Fox stated that P E',. Z was interested in the
\'j~-;ual impact of the building. Krausch agreed with P &. Z that as ]on!~
as the building did not encroach any further it would be satisfactory.
l,bson quc::;tioned what would happen if they approved and then received
o~,j ections, which didn't necessarly mean that the variance would be
denied. Throm suggested that the approval be subject to that type
of occurrance. Krausch moved to amend the resolution for Midstate
~otors with the provision that it be properly advertised and no
obJ C'l' l j Cl1S come forward. Shaffran su~gested amending the motion to
state subject to advertisement only. Krausch agreed. Fox second
the' motion. All in favor.
.
Iii.
.
N?
87
, ~\' ;'." -.; .,', .i;;i~-p, 'J, ,.,;; :..:.,'....' .':
II""
,
...'
e
e:J
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
Octolx~r 12, 1982
Board of Adjustment
Pa~e 2
Kathy Honea, 7804 llwy 82 82-32
rc~questing a 192' front yard setback variance for a shed. This was
tabled from the last meeting. ~Jason has since had a meetin~ with
I iJ(' Coun t y At t()rney, We~ Light, Light requested that the Board meet
this fall and have the County P % Z look at Section 18.32(c) and
('Ilan:~(; the wording. After talking with Light, Mason fel t that there
w()uld be no problem granting this variance because of the irre~ular
:-,il:lJh' or tlw lot, the trees on the property along with protectinr;
tlll~ intprest of the neic;hbors. Fox wanted to Cluestion Li~ht about
I ill' ~2')()' hj';'ll\vav sl~tback, which was set to protect the open space
and green area, but with the recent action of City Council settinr:;
1Ij(' pro shop wi thin the ~etback, Fox was concerned about the County
d i I ut i np; thl~i r posi t i on on the open space setback. ~,Iason fel tit was
a!~l'("l~alJle to the lIollan<.l lIill~ on the front lots, which the Board was
((Ij'('('d by thf~ Courts to allow. Fox pointed out that she did h:lve
::II'lLill'l" placl.! to pLu:e the shed. Honea wa~ there, and stated that she
'i:id J:I('aSIIf"\'c\ t.lH' ]Jl"opl~rty and would still need a variance to place th<=;
Sl\l!<.l on the wider end of the property. She also presented a letter
I'j'O!l1 a jH'ii~hbor stating thl~ their problems with having the hor~es
c.;(l ('los(~. Krusch felt tile shed was in the most practical spot
(ll till' pj'(lf)(.rty. TIH~rl' was more discussion on the open space alonf.':
;; i n;i1way 82. 1~rausC;1 mot ioned that the Board provide a variance in
i Iii '; ('aSI~ l)l>('ause of' the irregular Shape of the lot and because the
tJlji iding is agriculture in nature. Fox added that this is a concern
oj li1c~ Board and will not set a precedent for building within the
2UO highway setback. Bill Lukes second the motion. All in favor.
.L
OWD0r Joseph Jerkins, Applicant Matt Meyers, 0229 Wrights Road,
'(, 'd \Joun ta inS /D 82-33
!:,:q~li'(>still!2;'~al-Ii-:71 [rant yard setback variance for construction of a
'~;:ll':l gl'! rl!lTL~a t ion room, Thi s was tabled from the last meet in~ after
J,lr. /,loran, representing ~Irs. Newhouse, an adjacent property owner,
.,jl,j(','ll'd III Lil(' v:ll'ial1l'(> statin~~ there was already an encroachment onto
"irs. ,1('whousc's prOpcTty that needed to be dealt with. Shea Lee was
I !\('I'(' lu l'vjJl'C;SL'llt '.II'. ,Jt]l'kins and Mr. \1eyers. Shea presented to
Llll" Board a letter from }Ir. ~loran's firm, written by Mr. Art Dailey,
'(Ii\' i sing that the controversy has been resolved and all objections
withdrawn. She read this letter to the Board and it was entered
in t.lJ the r(~c()rds, Shea then briefly went over the variance requested
:ll1d 1 be hardships involved. Zanin stated that the point had been
]'('aciled where> the Uoard had decided that there was a def ini te hardship.
Il was deciJeJ that with the agreement between the property owners there
WUllld be no need to deal with the deck on the other side. Zanin motioned
to grant a 19' setback variance due to topographical hardship. Bill
Lukes second, All in favor.
Il'
)'<llllS_I:'~ 1\llal1, OWnl'j. .John Gager, Woody Creek 82-30
)]' in. l:~ their rf:quest back before the Board this evening, but they
(~\ I; c'd and cancelpd. Mason entertained a motion to cancel the case,
<.lUG tlJ the fact that Allan cannot give a definite time for when he
will be back before the Board.. Fox motioned to cancel the issue
dUt; to lack of adequate signature on the application. Throm second
t!w motion. All jn [a-vor.
a,
nl~Sp(~C t f'u lly submi t ted,
N?
8S
Chairman
~
'..
e
e
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
co.
-- ~ -"
._-_._--------~-,
-=
BOARD OF ADJUST~ENT
September 14, 1982
Members Present~ Bill Mason
Dottie Fox
Clark Smyth
Joe Zanin
Alternates: Bill Lukes
Bob Throm
Bill Masoni Bill Lukes, Clark Smyth and Joe Zanin visited Don
Lemos' property, the case having been tabled at the last meeting
so this field inspection could be done. Dottie Fox visited the
property on her own. Don Lemos was there to Doint out the
property features. Bill Mason questioned abo~t a chicken coop which
appeared to be too close to the road. Lemos explained that that
had been built with no problems. Joe Edwards was there to re~
present Don Lemos, and argued that downzoning created the hardship.
Joan Cooley, a neighbor, stated the advantages the barn
created for the ne1ghbors as well as the Lemos.
The group then returned to the Commissioner's Room at the Court
House and called to order the Special Meeting of the Pitkin County
Board of Adjustment. Due to the elections the meeting would re-
convene in the City Hall Municiple Chambers.
Mason, Chairman, reconvened the meeting at the Municiple Chambers.
" " '
. Don Lemos t 0262 Woods Road. Woody Cr~ek ..." . . '. 8.2~29
Continuation of meeting on August 30', 19C12 which was tabled' lint'll
the site inspection could be made. The Board members had received
information and maps from Joe Edwards showing the relationship of
the property and its features. Mason stated that he had given the in~
formation to the County Attorney for his opinion. Mason stated that
there was a question on the zoning of agriculture and how it was inter-
preted. Mason questioned if the Board members had anything they
wished to add. Fox asked tor a definition of agriculture use.
Wes Light, County Attorney. read from Section l8-3.2(c) from the
Pitkin County Land Use Code. Smyth wanted to know if it was correct
that agriculture buildings did not need a permit. Light stated that
the code specifically stated that buildings used for specific purposes
in the above section does not need a building permit" He stated that
Mr. Edwards position as to why he is asking for a variance at this time
is because the code is not totally clear on that point' Edwards stated
that if the variance was not granted and the county took action to
abate the use, the applicant would probably advance the position that
they didn't need a building permit which also means that they didn't
need to come before the Board. Edwards stated that the fact that the
code states that a building permit is not necessary was brought before
the Board in his packet to them because there was the issue of
whether Lemos was making up a story about a conversation with a building
inspector stating that a permit was not necessary. Smyth questioned
the County Attorney as to what means the county has to control
agriculture buildings to make sure they comnly with setbacks if such
buildings do not need a permit. Light stated that there were other
N<<!
72
e
e
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
,.,... 'It C." HO[CKEl .0 .. a L. co.
provisions in the code whiqh enable the county to step into situations
where there are violations~ such as zoning codes; regardless of whether
there is a building permit. Fox stated that the question at the
last meeting was whether a variance would have been granted had they
known about it before it was built. Edwards stated that was the main
reason for his letter to them, to give them some zoning history of
the parcel. He explained that prior to 1976 it was zoned R-15~
encouraging development on a narrow piece of land with a road on
one side and a steep embankment going qown to the river on the other
side. In 1976, it was changed to AF_l; with setbacks designed for
a la-acre site. Mason, for the record: commented on a letter given
to the Board from John Ostwald of the Building Department stating
that Lemos continued to finish the structure between meetings.
Dwight Shullman made comments as a neighbor of the property in
question. He explained that the barn has cleaned up the property:
which is a benefit to all the neighbors. He felt that conditions
for granting the variance do exist and urged the Board to do so.
Smyth wanted to address the legality of granting the variance. He
felt that the barn could have been moved over or placed in other
places. He did not feel that topographv could be used as the hard_
ship. Mason questioned him on how he felt about the downzoning,
Smyth disagreed with Edwards regarding the zoning for the lots.
He felt that it was a 2 acre lot and even with the setbacks there
was a buildable area. Lukes stated that even though the downzoning
impacted the area~ he didn't feel that it created a particular
hardship because ther~ is buildable area. Edwards pointed out that
all lands under water, or under roadway or lands exceeding 45%
in slope occupying more than 30% of lot area may not be counted.
When these are subtracted from area of lot~ it makes it less than
a I acre parcel. Also moving the barn in 15' would not allow Mr.
Lemos to make a loop for turning a horse trailer around.
Smyth stated that he wanted to agree with Edwards and after looking
at the barn it does not bother him that it is there: but he was
unsure whether the Board had a right to grant the variance because
he was not sure about the rights the Board had that would apply.
Light stated that there was such a broad range of discrection in
types of hardships that can be interpreted as set forth in the
code that there is no legal prohibition to prevent them f,rom granting
a variance in this situation. Light felt that the Board; and he
stated that court interpretations back this uo~ there isa very
broad range of powers granted to Boards of Adjustments to interpret
situations that create a hardship. Smyth stated that other inter~
pretations by County Attornies were more restrictive\' Light reminded
the Board that facts and circumstances have to be in the record to
support findings of the Board. Smyth was concerned that this would
set a precedent. Light assured that each case would have to be handled
individually. Fox felt that it would be more reasonable to be able
to consider other factors in the land than just the topography and
downzoning. Light pointed out that the code states physical character_
istics and extraordinary or exceptional physical characteristics;
which gives the Board a broad range.
N<! 73
e
e
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
'ORM w C. Po HO[CKEl .. .. a L. co.
Zanin felt that not granting the variance would create a financial
hardship and due to the fact the neighbors have no objections and
since everybody has encroached on that road in one way or another~
he moved to grant the 15' setback for downzoning; Smyth wanted to
amend the motion for the exceptional characteristic or condition
that they probably didn't need a building permit. r~ason felt that
Zanin's motion subject to downzoning would be sufficient. Fox second
the motion. Vote was called for. Four ayes and one nae (Bill Lukes
voting against).
Mason questioned if there was any comments regarding the minutes
from the last meeting. Fox moved to accept as written. Lukes
second. All in favor.
Douglas Allan~ Woody Creek 82~30
requesting a 95' front yard setback variance and a 45' rearyard
setback for construction of residence. Mason requested Douglas
Allan to explain the map. Stan Mathis hung a larger copy of the
map on the wall and showed a graphic footprint of the property.
He described the property as being app, 4300' long and 80' wide.
He stated that there was no visible way to meet the setback require~
ments in this RS-20 zone. Throm requested that Mathis point out
the neighboring property owners. Smyth wanted to know how the
lot was created. Douglas Allan stated that the lot was created
by deed in 1976. Smyth wanted to know why such a narrow tract
was created. Allan did not know. Mason wanted to know how many
acres. Allan replied that it was app. 8. Dwight Shullman,was there
to represent Mr. Donald Henley, an adjacent property owner, and
he stated that the property was created as a road: subject to road
easement. He felt that it was a ridiculous reouest and that the lot
is legally unbuildable.
Art Daley was there to represent the Huffman's; another
property owner. He stated that the easement refered to
in to between 5 landowners in 1970 for mutual benefit.
~asement for road use only.
Lenny Oates was there to represent Charles Wyly: Terry Marvin and
Quinton Vidor, who is not an adjacent property owner; but utilizes
the road. He backed up what the two previous lawyers said; and he
felt that that piece of property was never intended to be developed
as a residential homesite. Oates questioned Allan what the situation
was, Allan explained that John Gager was the owner and that Allan
was under contract with Mr. Gager to buy the property. Allan stated
that Mr. Gager had given him full authority to request this variance.
Oates informed the Board that Mr. Gager phoned his office and
stated that he did not approve of the application. Oates felt that
it would be totally inappropriate for a variance to be granted under
this situation. Oates was also concerned that they were not pointing
out a definite spot for the house to be placed. Mathis stated that
they wanted to go through this procedure to get a "straw vote" to
see if the Board would support the variance request. Mathis then
questioned the County Attorney if the Board had the power to consider
what might be a disagreement in easements as it considers the hardship
problems in setback. Light stated that the factual circumstances were
one criteria and two! the code makes it clear that they make a review
of these thin~s in respect to the owner of the nroperty. Li~ht felt
that someone to be an applicant for a variance must be the owner of
the property. He stated that if the Board needed further evidence
to demostrate ownership of the property it can request that. Mason
stated that there was a conflict as to what the owner has allowed.
adjacent
was entered
A perpetual
N<!
74
.
e
e
'0ItII 'It C. Po HOECK!L eo eo a I.. to.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
Lukes questioned if this was a recorded agreement for the easement
and not an informal agreement between the property owners. Oates
stated that it was recorded April 8~ 1971; in book 254 on page 587.
Shullman felt that buying a piece of property that doesn't conform
is a self inflicted hardship. Allan stated that they could prove
that the title is correct and that the tract is created at least
as far back as 1960; and the Scotts Brothers Road is referenced
as 30' on the 80~ tract. Allan stated that one can build on an
easement if the owner wants to take that chance. Fox wanted a
clarification as to whether the owner wants the variance granted
or not. Oates stated that Gager said that he did not approve and
did not want to agitate the neighboring property owners, Allan
stated that as of September 13. 1982 Mr. Gager was in full support
of the request. There was no documentation in the file regarding
the owner, Oates suggested that the Board proceed as if the owner
concurred. Light advised the Board that either the owner give an
agent the authority to sign the application or the owner sign the
application himself. He advised that the Board should not go any
further until this is decided. Throm suggested that it would be
worthwhile for the applicant if they took a straw vote. Mason
did not feel that was particularly appropriate for this case.
Fox advised the applicant that the Board did take into consideration
the feelings of the adjacent property owners and the applicant
should be aware of that.
Smyth motioned to deny the request due to the fact that the
application was invalid. Bill Lukes second the motion, All in
.favor,
Meeting was adjoined,
Respectfully submitted.
,,_ _ .....t"~L c.(.^-". '~ (j)_ .; ~ r>n C, L_
"&1' '~~.'
Y Chairman
N<l
75
Scanned 7/26/07
File Finders Box
#10