Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.84.04 Bill Lukes moved that the following be adopted: BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTD4ENT OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 84-04 Alberto Hodari, MD, Lot 17, Block 1, Red Mountain S/D 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, 30-2.8-•118(2) (C); and, 4~HEREAS, based on the evidence presented, the Board of Adjustment makes the following findings: 1. Proper notice procedures, including the notification of all adjorning 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. i•10~9, TIiEREFORE, BF. IT RESOLVED that the applicant's request for a 16' frontyard setback variance for construction of an addition Additional conditions or restrictions: Subject to approval by Red Mountain Homeowners Association G9AFcNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and .possible revocation. Evan Gull seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: Bill Mason - yes Bill Lukes - yes Paul Krausch - yes Evan Gull - yes Joe Zanin - yes The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DA`Z'ED: February 28, 1984 Attest: _____ ~ r Secre ary The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado l'a Chairman \,~ , 1 ., ..... r ~C~y U ~~ ,~/~{~ LLD ~ BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Z~ 3 ~oc~3'a3,ov 1 DATE ~ 1 R i 19 ~~ CASE# t ~' t - C." l APPLICANT ~~,~~ ~ ~,,., n~~ ~ Assess , or„h, +o~+~. ADDRESS 605 E . Main . Ashen . Co . . OWNER_A1 hPri:~ H~~ia ri 1~~ .1~ . ADDRESS 690 Mullet St., Detroit Michigan, 48226 LOCATION OF PROPERTY T,nt. l 7 Rl n~.k 1 Rsd 114nnnta i n i~anr•h Cnh ~ RPrl AMtr~ R71 a Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made 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 : 1. The Hodaxi Residence is at present a non conforming structure , with 944 s.f. of interior floor area infringing on the front yard set back. Mr. Hodari would like at this time to improve his property by the following: 1)Doing a complete interior renovation.2)By adding 414 s.f. of total new living space.3)Removing existing shed roof and residing entire bldg. 4)Adding usable deck space. The reasons for our needing a variance for further front yard infringe- ment are as follows: 1)Our new roof structure is overhung 5ft. beyond existing perimeter wall.There are two reasons for this; to create a covered walk of 485 s.f. accessing the western two bedrooms, & the new roof is supported by a columnade which aleviates the necessity of our reinforcing the ex- isting block wall. 2. The 104 s.f. of open carport is_an already existing retained parking area. We merely wish to construct a roof over this area. The scope of this site leaves no other alterna- tives to covered parking. 3. The existing interior layout dictates the location of our new 42s.f. entry foyer which further encroaches on our front yard set back. The existing space on our srounn level does not provide enough s.f. for a formal entry and still allow all other functions. In con- clusion,we desire relief from the zoning code to allow u.s to improve an already nonconforming resi- dence, to i,~a.Ke this structure more functional to the owner and more aesthetic lly pleasing to all who live in this area. Applicant Signature ri°°~, -----~ Authorized represen~a~°ve "'f Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building Inspector to forward this application to the Board of Adjustment and reason for not ~ granting a buiding perm't: fr ~3c~ l~~c~~~ ~ze-~ ~~ ..~ ~°~ ~~/4y 4~ tt Building Inspector u r~ Date Permit rejected: Board decision _ Application filed Date Mailed Secretary Board of Adjustment ~,. ~ ~ a _, .. s 506 East Main street BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION • Aspen, Colorado 8'16'1'1 General 303/925-5973 ASPENOPITKIN Construct Ion Perms t REGIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT ~),~•){~ Jurisdiction of r,rm*>I~~~=~„T.,,., NO. t 1111 VVlVl 1 Applicant to complete numbered spaces only. JOR AUDRE SS 1 _ R.ed Mnunta.i n R.na rl _ AcT~an _ C':n _ LEGAL LOT NO I HLOCK IHAC'I (JR SVRUI VISION I11 SE E. HIfACHEUSHE ET) '~ DESCR 17 1 Red Mountain Ranch OWNER MAIL AUUItl SS TIP PHONE s. Alberto Hodari, M.D. 690 Mullet St.. Detroit. MI. 48226 313 225-5239 CONTRACTOR MAIL ll Ul,Itl S> 1'1 /~)NI LICE NSE NO a. undecided ARCHITECT OR DESIGNER MAIL AU()Rf '. ~, R110(Vl LICENSE NO 5 William Poss & Assoc. 605 E Main St. Aspen, Co. 925-4755 C-2239 ENGINEER A'IAII AUURF SS 1'11ONE LICENSE NO. s. Lawrence Doble, P.E. Box 3139 Aspen, Co. 81612 925-5575 16702 VSE OF BVILDING ~ one family residence $ Class of work: I ~ NEW IvADDITION Imo, ALTERATION ~ REPAIR ~I MOVE r ~ WRECK g. Change of use tram nn nl~~n(rn -c" IPI AN CIIf(KFFE II'E I:.MIT FLf I TI)TAL FEL Change of use to II II I vw= „1 I ~~ul,,,cl~,,,~ Drcu Pa,~cv G,o~P Lot Area 1 0 Valuation of work: S 280 , 000.00 _ 11. REMARKS: ~ ~ - ITI.~I~~ ... .~-4~ +y~~ v.~7,. ~ ,,.7 ... mil' , ~. i~„1 Buil,l ii~~~ I Nn ri151,~i irs I Maz OCC Loatl 1lV 11V G V1 (Irital Squa,e lt) rPCiciPncP infrino'PC n yard , both exist in#; and new construe NO OF BEDROOMS Ilse 7nne F.re SPnnl.lers Requ..etl I -t ion. Accompanying this application EXISTING ADDED /~ yes ^ N~ is required mayerial to the Board of I ' J ~~ r N„ , ~ Uwelliri~ lip, I•, [)I f Sl RF FT PARKING SPACES j adjustments for a front yard varianc "~~r,~tl „^~°°efQ° Also plans have been submitted to - - -_ Special Approvals I REQUIRED AUTHOW17Fn BV I DATE the Red Mountain Ranch Architectual / TT~- 'y7 ~'I ZONING ~ ~~ ~-~/ ,,~~~~f2I~~ ~G ~(~X review board for their approval. ~'VL(A ~ HEALTHDFPT I I ~, ~,1,Ir I ,: PPLIC ATI(1N ACI-FPTE U PLNNS (1,1 ( Kf I1 l~Vt'V+i iVI U { t'. 1, ISSII /. fv( I `"`'"`~T E;- I Hr I iT~ -7E I tTnTF I DAu NOTICE SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 120 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUC TION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 120 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OH NOT THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUT HORITV TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF ANV OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PER FQRMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION SIGNAT Vf(E Of CONIRACIOH OR AUIHORI11 L1 At.F Ni (UATI) URE UI OWNi R~ UWNLk BUILUf R) (f1Alt ) SOIL REPORT I I I I PARK DEDICATION WATER TAP I I ENG DEPT I ~, ~ N`~ Df~ -~-rl I I ,/~y ~ OTHERISPECIFVI 1 _ ' ` 3~E~-~ ~ J ~ ~ [ / C~ THIS FORM IS A PERMIT ONLY WHEN VALIDATED WORK STARTED WITHOUT PERMIT WILL BE DOUBLE FEE 4 ~.. s .-~ ,.r ~ VALIDATION PERMIT VALIDATION CK. ^ M.O. ^ CASH ^ PLAN CHECK VALIDATION CK. ^ M.O. ^ CASH ^ WHITE INSPECTOR'S COPY YELLOW ASSESSOR'SCOPY PINK BUILDING DEPARTMENT FILE GOLD -CUSTOMER'S COPY • ~/ ~ and associates 605 EAST MAIN STREET /ASPEN, CO.81611 /303.925-4755 Lip-t ai .a~.1. ~,d~acent property owners to the Headari re~ide~:se,- L,ot 17 dock 1 Red fountain Ranch. Lot 18~- ~ioii, David. c. de Ruth B. Bcax 1.3:33 ~~pex~ , Co . 81.613 .Lot 18-- ~3oehm, F-e~.~.~ 3~. & R~u~h 3.51.0 ~'. Altadena 3~r. .A.ltadena,. CA. 914(31 Ltat 12- L~.n~e- 1~'a~ner , Assoc . Rt~x 9923 Aspen , Go . 81.81.2 L©t'10-.Biota Land & Livestock Ca., Inc. 19#0 Springy St. Paso Btahles, C~.. 93446 Benedict, Fredric A. Benedict, Fa~rienne P . C3 . Boat 40 Aspen, Co, 81812 ~~.~~v :~ . 'PF crchifie~tur and ~+~r~r~~n~ }~ :.. ~~ s e .. N OD \~ n •~ s ~ ~ iT iw ~~ •~ r- .. i ..,~ N TO REPLY BY MAILGRAM MESSAGE, SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR WESTERN UNION"S TOLL -FREE PHONE NUMBERS 3 V• ! ~;,~~ ', ~ •. . ~ _•~ ~ < <. P _ Z ~~ ) C r ASPEN/PITKIN REGIONAL 1 J w BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1 10 E. HALLAM ASPEN, COLORADO 8161 1 (303) 925-5973 00136 - 61210 - 61212 - 61215 - 61214 - 6331 1 - 61220 - 63004 - 63313 - 61002 - 61 120 - 63316 BLDG. PERMIT PLBG. PERMIT ELECT. PERMIT MECH. PERMIT BLDG. PERMIT REVIEW REINSPECTION CODE BOOKS BOARD OF --~ ..- ADJUSTMENT ~ =~ CONTRACTORS LICENSE MOBILE HOME PLAN CHECK NAME: ~~ rY-. ~ .°~~ '. ~~_:' :.r PERMIT: ~~'y - v` ~ ~HECK# ~+ - `~~ PROJECT: ~ ~c~~ r ~~~ ' ~ DATE: ~' 1~'•` ~°~ ~1 INITIAL: h~' .... sos East `lfvlain Street UILDING PERMIT APPLICATION Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-5973 ASPENO_PITKIN REGIONAL BUILDI~Is DEPARTMENT ~; x Jurisdiction of t> 1 Applicant to complete numbered spaces only. JOB ADDRESS 1. T ~+ ~ n ~j31oCk j Art _ Acnr,~n - C_'n __ LEGAL LOT NO. BLOCK I TRACT OR SUBDIVISION '2 DESCR~ ~~ 1 Red ~d4untain Raneb OWNER MAIL ADUftE55 s' Alberto Xodari, M.D. 6J0 Mullet St.. Detroit. CONTRACTOR MAIL ADDRESS a. undecided ARCHITECT OR DESIGNER ~ MAIL ADDRESS 5. 11 NO. General Construction Permit ~i~~~ (LI SEE AT rACHED SHEET) 21P PHONE ICI. 48226 313 225-5239 PI/ONE LICENSE NO. PHONE LICENSE NO. C-2239 LICENSE NO. 16702 Wi iam Poss. & Assoc. 605 E Main St. Aspen, Co. 925-4755 ENGINEER MAIL ADDRE 55 PHONE 6• Lawrence Doi~lr3 , P . L . Box 3139 Aspen , Co . X31612 925-5575 USE OF BUILDING ~• one family residence g Class of work: ^ NEW q.ADDITION ~ ALTERATION 4~ REPAIR ^ MOVE ^ WRECK g, Change of use from ~~TC ~- Change of use to „ „ 10 Valuation ofwork: S 2s0,000.00 11. REMARKS: m_T ~~yr~ ^/te}a. ,``` Y td.ai ~A'~C"~-LT~l~ 1 yard, both existing and new construe -tion. Accompanying this application is required ma'~erial to the Board of adjustments for a front yard varianc Also plans have been submitted to I~ the Red.~Sountain Ranch Architectual I review hoard for their approval. rPPLICATION ACCEPTED I PLANS CIIl CKFU I APPROVCD F()R ISSUANCE PLAN CHECK FEE 'PERMIT FEE 1 TOTAL rFEE 7 ype of Conslr uClion I Dccupa nCy Group I LOt Area 3 Sue or Burltl mq I No, of St nr Fez I Max, Occ. Loaq ITolal Square Ft.) '1©~. OF BEDROOMS _ use zone Fue Sbnnklers Req uvee EXISTING I ADDED I p'l~ ', R~ I (~ ves ^ No ~~17 ~; !, Nn, nl Dwelling Unite OFFST REET PARKING SPACES: ~ Coveretl I Uncove retl Special Approvals ZONING HEALTH DEPT SOIL REPORT B" By By PARK DEDICATION GATE UATF DATE - WATER TAP NOTICE SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING;'VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORI2ED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 120 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUC- TION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 120 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS A.ND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF ANV OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PER FORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTOR OR AUTHORIZED AGENT (UAT L) (DAIS ENG. DEPT OTHER ISPECIFV) REOUIRED ~I ,AUTHO,i~„ZEDBV I PATE .,~,~ ~, ~~ ~rrr„elc ~ , - ~,,, yam, c- ~t~a~.t. ~ ) f_„-.t r.r'- ' ~,~9~. `Q <zer-..7` /~ ;., 1 I/ f ~ . ~. ~ I ~ ~ ~ I I I $,V! -~ ~'~ , I C ~ I I ~, THIS FORM IS A PERMIT ONLY WHEN VALIDATED WORK STARTED W/THOUT PERMIT W/LL BE DOUBLE FEE VALIDATION PERMIT VALIDATION CK. ^ M.O. ^ CASH ^ PLAN CHECK VALIDATION CK. ^ M.O. ^ CASH ^ WHITE -- INSPECTOR'S COPY YELLOW -ASSESSOR'S COPY PINK - BUILDING DEPARTMENT FILE GOLD -CUSTOMER'S COPY J ' ~ / ~ . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SRN ~^.E'K f'. F. ~ 5 C:l. ' BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY .28, 1984 PITKIN.COUNTY ~IErIBERS PRESENT: Bill Mason, Chairman Paul Krausch Joe Zanin Bill Luken - Alternates: Evan Gull 100 Leaves Bi]_] Mason called the meeting to order. He questioned. if there were any questions or additions to be made to the minutes of the last meeting. He warted clarification of the minutes with regards to the "grey area of the code that the Board could not handle ...". Newbury explained the situation to ;Mason as it occurred at the meeting. There were no other comments. Luk,~s moved to accept the minutes.. Krausch second the motion. Alan 1' ox , 84-02 Lot 7, Block 3, Aspen Grove S/D, requesting a 6' sideyard setback variance for construction of garage. Mr. Fox was there to represent self: Joe Zanin disqualified himself because he is associated with Mr. Fox closely. Mason questioned exactly where the driveway would be. .Fox produced a copy of the survey with the existing driveway, which he claimed t.o be a hazard. He stated that his plans included making a new drive. PZason,stated that he did a site inspection and .explained to the Board members that the lot was very steep. Mason felt it was the 'only reasonable place to put, the , garage due to the terrain.. Krausch questioned if the,re.sid.ence was now existing and how far from ,the right=of-way the house was: Fox answered that it was 7.4' away. It•was, determined that the house was non-'conforming.. Mason stated that there were no objections in the file and a sign was posted. Gull moved to grant the variance due to topographical hardships. Krausch second the motion.. A vote was called for and all were in favor: Gr<<zley Landscaping & Nursery 84-03 21905 W. Highway 82, Aspen, requesting a setback variance frgm the Highway 82 corridor for construction of a trellis. The owner, Bob Jensen, was there along with his representative, Brooke Peterson. Jensen explained th~it the structure would not have a roof, but a device to provide shade for the plants. Mason stated that a sign was posted and there were no objections in the file. He stated that he did receive a call from Clark Smyth, air adjacent property owner, and Smyth was against anything happening on the site. Gull stated that he recalled from the original variance that it wr,uld not be looked upon favorably for additional structures being added in this location. Glen Horn was there to represent the Planning Department and had some objections. He stated that his office objected to any construction at all within the 200' corridor. Also, they felt that any additional construction with that corridor would be inconsistent with the original proposal made by this applicant. He presented a letter to the. Board from the applicant in response to the County's request regarding the original proposal. This proposal was suppose, to reflect tfie highest level of development anticipated on the site. It also stated that additional build out beyond the scope of the proposal would be prohihited. The applicant did respond at that time that he would be willing to~limit the r L .~ • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves 1R N. .~.~E'-K El R. 'i~ n ~. C7. February 28, 1984 Board of Adjustment Page 2 size of the improvements on the lot .... The planning .off;ice felt that based upon these representations any further construction on the site would be inconsistent with the or2gincl snlmission. Horn alto d.iscussed.tue issue of the fe«ce ~.la~ed on t :e aYplicaut'S px'upeity. The, fe.ice ~.as to be painted by August 1, 1983. He gave a brief history„'of the correspondence between the Planning Dept. and.the applicant., He produced copies of this correspondence. He requested that if 'the Board should approve this request that a condition be placed on the approval regarding 'the painting. of the fence. Newbury questioned the applicant about the access to the property from Highway 82. Peterson stated for the record that Grizzley Landscapes prior agreements are irrelevent to the Board, both legally and from a practical standpoint, But he did address the issues. He stated that he had been in contact with Curt Stewart, County Manager, and both felt that the issues had been dealt with. Ile explained that the fence was not painted right away because of stock brought in. Alsa they were informed that the fence could not be painted. But they have found a contractor since then that can paint the fence and will be painted prior to any stock arrival this spring. Peterson explained that an agreement had been reached with the County Commissioners to attempt to limit the access from that property because of the danger of Ilighway 82. He explained to do that an agreement had to be reached with Boiae Cascade for an easement and were working on such. Peterson also mentioned the comments being made about the issue of a retail operation on the site. Peterson stated that at no time did the applicant agree to not have retail operations on that property, but agreed to limit the retail operations. The applicant is basically a landscaping lausiness, Peterson ' pointed out that the ad in the telephone book was run without permission from the applicant. He pointed out to the Board that at this time they were not adding to the square footage of the property; but were .trying to limit the amount of direct sunlight that the plants were getting The structure would not t5e usable for any other use. 8i11 Lukes stated that he agreed that the trellis fell into a grey area of the code, and was relatively low impact. But was concerned that.it. was within the 200' setback. And felt that the applicant went into the situation knowing what the restrictions would be on the property. Peterson agreed, but pointed out that the applicant was not aware that a trellis would be necessary during the .original application. Jenson pointed out that the trellis would be behind the existing fence and vines would be growing on the fence. He felt that visuri.lly it would have no impact. Horn stated to the Board that Peterson has represented the facts honestly to the Hoard and suggested a compromise of removing the trellis during the winter months. Jensen stated that he wanted plants to be growing on and around the trellis and the post would be set in concrete. Lukes questioned if any other location was possible on the site. Jensen stated that he was thinking of placing it in the back, but that was where his hardwear was stored so shield:~d from Highway 82. ~~ ~]RM ~ .. ~t~E CK CI B. U. N L, lJ. • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves February 28, 1984 Board of Adjustment Page 3 Mason questioned the applicant what the hardship was in this case. Peterson pointed out that the hardship was because the entire property was within the 200' setback. He also pointed out ,that it was not a hardship created by the applicant. Mason stated that th,e variance was originally granted because there were existing structures and the, applicant did improve the property. Peterson stated to the Board that the structures removed by the applicant were more in square .footage than the proposed trellis: Mason . pointed out that the applicant could not produce a hardship that the Board could grant a variance:on. Lukes stated that~he could, not vote to approve the request, but was open to a motion to table the request and review the minutes from the previous variance for any guidance. Mason questioned the other Board members. Peterson questioned, if the denial would be because .of the previous agreements or because the. Boar<1 does not want a structure such as this to be built. Mason did not leave a problem with the structure, but was hard pressed for .a hardship. Masan suggested that it be built lower than 6' to comply with codes. Gull felt that the restrictions on.the property were clear when the applicant bought the property. Lukes stressed the fact that it was within the 200' setback corridor which was an important fact., Zann moved to deny the variance request based on the fact that there was not a hardship. Krausch second the motion. A vote was called for and all were in favor. Alberto Hodari, MD 84-04 Lot 17, Block, Red Mountain S/D, requesting a 16' frontyard setback variance for construction of an addition. Bob McGraw and Bill Poss werethere to represent the owner. Mason pointed out to the Board that a sign had been posted and that a letter was on file from Felix Boie as adjacent property owner, not agreeing to a variance until he had viewed the plans. Krausch stated that he was confused with the request. Poss stated that it was an existing residence that encroached upon the 30' setback. As part of the upgrading, they are proposing a new roof structure that would help with snow load. Poss stated that their hardship was due to the topography of the area where the existing residence was located. Mason questioned if there would be any more excavation. Poss stated ;that the are~~ was over-excavated and they iaould be putting in a retaining wall and stepping the grade. Mason questioned where the parking would be Poss stated that there would be two within a .carport and two ou't in front. McGllw pointed out on the drawings that the shaded area exists how and' thc~ ross-section would be the additional overhang. He explained that the interior area being. added was 42 square feet of entry-way'. , Mason questioned if the Homeowners Association .had been notified. Poss stated th~~t they were on the agenda in three weeks. He stated that informally the Association had liked the upgrading of the structure. It was determined that a height variance was not necessary. Lukes moved to hrant the variance as shown on the submitted site plan for the carport, enclosed entry and roof overhang subject to the approval of the Red Mountain Homeowners Association due to topography. Gull second the motion. A vote was called for and all were in favor. A i ~. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves JRM ~ ~~~.r:K EL o. I! ) 1. CJ. February 28, 1984 Board of Adjustment Page 4 3-.T's, Lot 104, Mountain Valley. 84-05 requesting a 20` frontyard. setback variance for construction of a garage,. Alan Lauer was there to represent the owners. He explained'.Ghat there was no other location for the garage on the lot. He presented a tdpography map to the Board so they could seethe grade,, He. explained that.the present driveway was very steep. It.was determined that the garage was mostly underground. Lukes questigned.if the old driveway would be r:e-vegetated.'. Lauer stated that the owners would want to use in~the summer. Mason stated that he would prefer to see it re-vegetated. Krausch moved to grant the variance based on topographical hardship. Lukes suggested an amendment edding the description of 22 x 20 garage just for clarification. Krausch did not object.' Joe Zanin second the motion. A vote was called for ,and all were in favor. Ted Koutsoubos, 0032 Mule Deer Run 84-06 requesting an 89' frontyard setback variance and a 15' sideyard setback variance for construction of residence. Jerome Wood was there to represent the owner. Wood informed the Board that there was not a sign posted for this property. Mason stated that they would have to table the item unt:i] the sign has been posted for nine days. Share/Rette Ortell, 0040 Elk Range Drive 84-07 requesting a 76' frontyard setback, 8' west sideyard setback and a 54' rearyard setback variances for construction of residence. Wood was also representing this owner and a sign had not been posted on this property. Masan stated that this item would have to be tabled also. Krausch questioned if they could act on these items with the condition that no objections come from the posting of the sign. Rob [•Jeien was there to object to this request. He is the owner•of,Lot 9, which is directly south of the lot in question. He stated that he would like to see the house located closer to the center of the lot to allow him more privacy when he planes his residence on his lot. Wood explained that there was no. location on the lot that was not within the setbacks. Lukes stated that the.Board would try to work with Weien, but the applicant would. need a variance one way or. another. Wood stated that there wasn't a lot he could do because of the, slope of the property. Luke suggested that a special meeting be set up after the signs had been properly posted. A meeting was s'et up•for March 13, 1984, at 5:15. John H. Stewart, Lot 43, Elk Mountain S/D 84-08 requesting a 53` frontyard setback variance and a 5' sideyard setback variance for construction of residence. Mr. Stewart was there to represent se71 There were no objections in the file at the time of the meeting. A sign was posted. Newbury stated that the property was not zoned when sul~ciivided. Gull questioned if the request conformed with the covenance of t:he subdivision. Newbury stated that they were. Mason stated that in past cases they tried to keep the structure within the covenance setbacks. Gull. moved to grant the variance due to downzoning. Paul Krausch second the motion. A vote was called for .and all were in favor. P-feeting was adjourned. ,r ~. • i . ~ .;: ASPEN/PITKIN REGIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1 10 E. HALLAM ASPEN, COLORADO $1611 (303) 925-5973 00136 - 61210 BLDG. PERMIT ' 61212 PLBG. PERMIT - 61215 ELECT. PERM17 - - 61214 MECH. PERMIT - ' - 6331 1 BLDG. PERMIT REVIEW - 61220 REINSPEGTION - - 63004 CODE BOOKS - - 63313 BOARD OF ~~ ADJUSTMENT _ `-- - 61002 CONTRACTORS LICENSE - ' - 61 120 MOBILE HOME - - 6331 6 PLAN CHECK ----- NAME : ~~-'-~ `~`~ --y _ C~ ~ I .-CHECK # ~- PERMIT: ` PROJECT:f ~ ~~ . ~t\C\c-,~_~ ,INITIAL: DATE:- ~ ~