Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.83.05 e e Paul Krauschloved that the following be adopted: BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTHENT OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 83-5 David Beck, 0104 Sagebrush Lane Lot 14, Block 2, Filing 2 Brush Creek Village 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 adjorninq 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 substantial 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 10.62' front yard setback variance and a 25.8' sideyard setback variance for construction of addition. Additional conditions or restrictions: WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. Bill Lukes seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: Bill Mason - yes Dottie Fox - yes Paul Krausch - yes Bill Lukes - yes Joe Zanin - yes The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: March 29, 1983 The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado Attest: '1' /~j,./tf' >n-?a~ A./rJ,NL.... e.~(lN\ Sec~ary Chairman ( '\ ,~ l- ,... ,.,. , ..,. ,., .~' .:. "--,' '- .." ...... e County of Pitkin e Date March 14, 19~ Case # &3- .::..-::::- Applicant Qavid Beck Address P .0. Box 859 . Aspen, CO. 81612 P .0. Box 859, Aspen, CO. 81612 Owner William Wood Address Location of Property 0104 Saqebrush Ln. Brush Creek Vi IIaqe Lot 14 Block 2 Filinq 2 (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 propo?g8,variance showing justification: 'The applicant requests a variance from the :1m foot yard setback requirement of Article 3-2 of the Pitkin County Code. The existing structure was bui It within the setback area . prior to the establishment of said setback requirement. The applicant aske for a variance allowing him to be an addition to the existing structure within that setback. The proposed addition will estend an additional 4.5 feet into the front yard setback for a distance of 20 feet. (-;; '\ / /1 I I' Applicant Signature \ JAV ~/ .'~/~.- -../ . - - Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building Inspector to forwarc , this application to the Board of Adjustment and reason for not gran~ing a bUildi;:r perr;i t: / /). //, '/ " )1 .--I I . /.-<;.- ;LJ-r..-t,.{. A F-/ !L7':'~V J'L~<I.'W ~-?/1..L,' l::;i:'"<--<z4.,",,V <..1/1../ !<:.,~k. ~'1(.- >;ru " c,Lc,1. .L_~/--r:'-"~;_ ,'7 <1 () <. I, r . ILt,~,,{ //2._',1',,,;~L.d;l.-<- .. tt /:. ,- c~ -<Yt-t~A"-/-'-"'/ --'j1'--<'-;J"/ ~2 ....,U(. 1'<.....", ../ .,!'" - ' ' / J CL' /!~,/~,("'Ol{..!:t/."~vl._4,f:' ~.-.'I " -+ / ,)' f 1(./i1.' ,t./ '~' ~.I t:;f_, <"-<. .-l'(J'/-L.(-- / I I., V ~1:..cA_ ' 1..-i.4L.<L.~ />'I,.6!~....' .AZ.-i.Vl" , ,'-~.. ,- ""'- ~ .(1 JL' ~ ,/1, C ,-" If f. {~~.. -r /.:::1/l/:/.~- L'~ir-~- '-".... .J...~, .C-lu-S'~.-1't.---<-__1,_..jt-4{- t.L-n~U" -". ....-'/--1 . i.--';tc:J ~;u :'!J:', " j.~j-'L-1;X /+ .I,t- ,<- ;'/.t-t<_ ,.....<<<, ~u:llding Insp . Signature '/;;/-.:u1 .;";1.' '/ /' /t~' (..t.,/~ -< ,~ .._..._-t.1_~ . L ; / "- ~. '- . - ,-....... .. . . / Date permit rej ected: .....3 - -;". '1' -=-; Board decision ' Application filed: Date: Mailed: Secretary, Board of Adjustment ("'"'''' '''#''',') .~ '. '" '..., "-", ...JI....., . c'! ~:" Lo + t3 2 ~< If IQjf i tt'S / 5' /z ;th/ II () / /",? ') O~CAP R Vu,'-.i1 Lo: t ~ & - I V '- ~~ I, <f-S- T3/acJ 3;:;,/ I ~ 0 ~0V;.t .. {V, l/ Ft Pl-eft. .(3y1a~ f711 /;//1 ~s ( dk'jO" Po f<>6Y ~ '2. ( c:r - .(- , 11-<) ~ q {0 { 2---- I ... Cf~''''')''''.-J '.. ,-, "- ....... e e. , 1\ .-" 1\- /"/ l' t\) t~ tt'o t,~ C ~ \ \ \ \ J>~ ~~ \ ~,~ ---_/ \ ~\l \ ~ ~" \ 1-f \ \ ...> \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ "- "- " "'- "'- "- "- "-... FND REeARe '" " "- "- "- '- ....... ............ ...... --... ........ l'l.!"''''' ,...,... -1. .: ;'~ '.J.. ., 7,4G,,' R-S;: 1-ce \....€ FNO RE: e L,S, 7'i'7~ \.~b.. SUR OF ~ PRe LCX.: ~I~ ~R\ AN JO ~\J .::{(, lq~ ~ e ~ e " -;0 l,; \\t) \"\. l t \f\,"'(j CL \\.\.U.:\!"\. ~ G.~~ ..rt~_\J\~;CJ tL<-- ~\<a~"& ~ ~~ 0\.\.,,\;') ~L 'K \ Lci.1- i l\ l~ l K ~ ~ L ""0 2 ~)'I.~; "- ~ 'f:.... \) \ \... \..v(j 'S I...'-~') ~ \. "l\ ,~ ,,,, i'-.\ Ie"" d ~d .> C\.. ~Al\oo\ a L0\~ ~~ ~--L \\.\.L ~ \- LC'..J-\- ~ "'-.c \.J...C"~ ~ d ) l=+ IS P.J l ~~ 2... j.\l\":'Q "2) X l '''''~ N-.a G\iJ;",,,-,-:,> -\c o-~ ~\lA..H'U~\A.. ~k~~A~ ~ ~ ~~~ \;""-~\)U"'~'-~~ \v..::,lJ.... ~~A~,,--c.\-'-'L ~ ~L ~. ~\. \~,-l ~ ~G ~'C~ ~''- \~ . l'Ilo- ct\':lC \- ~'". \ 0.. ~ 0..... v~\c'" l.. . (l'~\. _.U~ ~~~ l ~Q.'.,-~ l , ~... 'tr~, T \\~l~\a "6\~'\"2- 92~'" '-\lS~ 4 ~ \~""'~>~\ ~\~ {) ~. 2/2.<.o/"6?>' '06' DJ~"t), )~Jl( flr...'~ '-"__""- ,. '~. / -4---,1 ,< ') ,-~ LO; L- ..J "-- < ~'I, \,1. // i7 Ie; U I q S I 4-/.-1 ( t i Vf- , I v /' () I /" ----:r C' PI/" /;A I /"V ' , ._). ~'T -) C?..:J--e- 'u Y C,-(,')Y( j,...,(/" --r -.---- ~- - --,--- '.-..-'-------- ~ t.o-k ( - Y' - <) -137J3!~;'7-1 - , rQ_0.t4 fJ~,f}- tv, t/ - P Vi -eft. -er-4J;;, _ flYi -hIlL --e5 (' oz;m, - EQ~)6Y '<, '2 ( ? _ ________ -- -- (- ,. P-<::'~/V1 q{G! 2,. -,' , ~ ----- ----- e e RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves C H ':~,' I l' [1. If \.. ,. ). BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT March 29, 1983 Eegular Meeting Members Present: Bill Mason, Chairman Dottie Fox Paul Krausch Bill Lul<:es Joe Zanin in ternates: Bob Throm Evan Gull Bill Mason called the regular meeting of the Pitkin County Board of Adjus~ment to order. He questioned if there were any corrections or additions to be made to the minutes from the last meeting. Dottie Fox questioned a statement that Mason made about the Snowrnass Cottage Sign, Mason had stated, 'I felt the sign would be a dull light' (Second page, upper part), Mason stated he hoped the sign :'~o~~J_~ be a dull light, Fox also pointed out that in a statement she made ;lbout ! the sign being put into a mound' should read I 'on n mound'. JOf' Zanin moved to accept the minlltes with the changes. Hill Lukes second the motion. Fox reported to the Board that the sign ordinance is coming before p & Z on April 5, presented by Richard Grice ()f the Planning Office. Fox stated that P & Z would be working on the language and she en- couraged that a reprpsentative of the Board be at the Commissioner ':s meeting when they reviewed P & Z's final draft, Mason stated that he would talk with Grice ,lbout the Planning Office recommendation that would gu before P & Z. Krausch requested that the Planning Of rice expose the Board to the Ordinance so input can be made before jt goes to P & Z, Nicolas Heller, 83-4 Lot 1, Block 5, Kn611wood SID, requesting a 37' highway 82 setback variance for the addition of a greenhouse. Heller was there to represent self. He explained that he proposed to build a greenhouse on the side of his residence. He was advised by the Building Dept. of the 100' setback from Highway 82, which leaves his lot unbuildable. The house is encroaching this present setback because it was built in approximately 1970 before the zoning. He stated that he wanted to build the greenhouse on the south side which would cause him to encroach about 10', He stated that he got advice from several architects and he could not avoid encroaching. He originally requested 12' but had recalculated the distance. Heller explained that ~ of the addition is greenhouse and ~ is a living room extension. And he would build a two car garage on the north side of the property. Fox questioned if the greenhouse was for solar purposes, Heller said it was. It would be primarily used to generate 50% of the heating for the house. He explained that he would need to reinsulate the walls. lItoller statl~d that he' would fit the garage into the required setbacks. e e - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves r ,- H'JlCr~'- L r~ :1. II Ie'. ~ ---._- ._--_._~-----------_._-_.._~--_.__._--_.__.. -, . - _.. .~--~.---- ----.---.-.- ----- DOQrd of Adjustment March 29, 1983 Page 2 Heller explained that the addition to the living space came out to the lines of the house and the greenhouse addition goes beyond the existing line of the house. Heller pointed out the existing living room, showing where the greenhouse would be attached to the south side as an extension to the living room. Fox felt that the Board has justification for solar purposes and since the amount is only 10' she had no objection. Lukes pointed out that the house faced both south- east and wouth-west, which would be equally usable for a solar addition and questioned if Heller had considered the other side. Heller stated that he was trying to wrap the greenhouse around, enclosing the porch. Zanin, stating he knew the location of the house, felt that more sunlight'was available in the position that Heller was proposing. Fox motioned to grant the variance request due to topography of the site and due to solar purposes. Zanin second the motion. When vote was called for Lukes voted against, Mason, Fox Krausch and Zanin voted for. . David ~eck 83-5 0104 Sagebrush Lane, Lot 14, Block 2, Filing 2, Brush Creek Village, requesting a 10.62' front yard setback variance and a 25.8' sideyard setback variance for construction of addition. Beck was there to represent self. He explained the history of the house. He explained that he wanted to build a stairway and enclose the bottom half of the house. The house is an A-frame and with three children he needed the additional room. He explained that the property went straight down in one direction and straight up in the other and what he was proposing was the onl~ way, He would be adding an interior stairway, Beck pointed out his neighbors to the Board members. Newbury stated that he had a 100' front yard setback. Mason read a letter from Robert Spencer, adjacent proper~y owner, stating that he had no objection, but felt it would be beneficial to his property and the neighborhood as a whole, Newbury stated that much of the house was encroaching the setback. The house was build prior to the current zoning. Krausch moved to grant the request on the grounds of downzoning making it impossible to improve upon the house. Bill Lukes second the motion, All in favor. Gerald L, & Rheta Fulton, 83-6 Lot 9, Double K Ranch SID requesting an 80' front yard setback variance for a proposed addition. Fulton was there to represent self. He gave a brief description of the history of the house. He explained that he started with the intention of building in phases. Since the cobstruction of the first and second phase, which was done in 1975 when the setback was 75', the area has been re-zoned and now has a 100' setback. Fulton explained that the original house pfans showed the potential addition, with a side of the house with only one window which is the size of the door and the electrical stubbed in in expectance of the addition. Mason ~tated that there were no objections in the file from adjacent property owners. His access is off Horseshoe Drive. Krausch questioned if the existing garage would be converted into living space. Fulton replied that it would not be, Throm questioned the topography and Fulton replied that it was leve 1. The adcU t ion \Vou td not be hi gher than exist ing roof 1 ine. Fox motioned to grant a vQriance of 20' due tel the downzoning. Kraus(~h second the mnti.Oll, :\ 11 in favor. e e .;. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves -1,0..( " C. F. ~;,-J[':l< (: I,lL ll. Ii- L. C '). Board of Adjustmefrt March 29, 1983 Page 3 ATV Associates, Highlahd Inn 83-7 1650 Maroon Creek Rd., requesting a 4' to 8' height variance and a 13~' height variance for a staircase. Joe Edwards and Joe Cooper was there to represent the owners, along with the architect, Tom Sopoci. Joe Edwards began by showing the members some additional drawings that were not included in the packet. He explained that they have received detailed submission approval from P & C and the County Commissioners and generally have had approvals from all levels of the process, Edwards explained that according to the code the existing grade is used for the height determination, and the Building Dept. is interpreting that to mean the grade before man put the ski area there. They tried to go back and determine what the natural grade was, He then pointed out the complex building form, sitting on j'.l knob of land, designed with "three fingers" following the land form at three different elevations. He pointed out the destgn on sheet #18, When connecting the three areas, a section was necessary coming down the hill and the corners 'stick out'. Edwards explained that to create the aesired skier circulation fill was going to have to be brought in which would raise the buildings up a bit and this oreated the height problem on the corners of the buildings. Edwards introduced Sopoci to answer questions about the usage and necessity of the extra height. Mason pointed out that the original Highlands Inn had received a height variance also. Sopoci had some overlay sheets to depict the original site. He then placed overlay sheets to show the changes over the years in the grade. He did an overlay with the existing Highland Inn and the proposed Highland Inn grades. He explained how the buildings stepped down the grade. Krausch questioned if the developers would excede the height restriction based upon the existing grade. Sopoci stated that in one case the existing grade is slightly lower, so the 28' height would be slightly lower also. Throm questioned what the commissioners had felt about the height problem. Edwards stated that they had been sent to the Board of Adjustment. Edwards also stated that the detailed submission approval required them to come before the Board regarding the height. The area of the height problem is at the end of the units where an exit is and pointed out the area where the mechanical ventila~ion exhausting equipment was for the kitchen of the restaurant. There would be no living units above the height allowance, The Board members discussed the situation and the history of the area. Fox felt that in this case it does not propose a problem but she also felt that the 28' height limitation should be adhered to in mc)st cases, Krausch moved to approve the variance request based on topographical hardships. Fox second the motion. Lukes asked to be excused from the v~ting. Mason requested that Evan Gull vote. All in favor. Mason discussed the applicant, Rob Snyder, for alternate membership to the Board. There was a discussion of what the Board is looking for in a member. Fox stated that it would be good to have a down valley representative. It was determined that they would continue to look for an applicant for the second position. Meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, , _AA.'-~) ~ \Z" ~f"'v<'. ('.____ r\> ',_ .I J~m~/Vl- Chairman Scanned 7/26/07 File Finders Box #10