Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.84.08 e e Evan Gull moved that the following be adopted: BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTHENT OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 84-08 John H. Stewart, Lot 43, Elk Mountain SiD WHEREAS, the subject property is within the unincorporated area of pitkin County, Colorado; and, \~lEREAS, 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, vJHEREAS, 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. Grantin9 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. NO\1, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the applicant's request for a a 53' front yard setback variance and a 5' sideyard setback variance Additional conditions or restrictions: WA~~ING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. Paul Krausch seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: Bill Mason - yes Paul Krausch - yes Joe Zanin - yes Bill Lukes - yes Evan Gull - yes The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: February 28, 1984 The Boar.d of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado Attest: J:.)" /.U/~4~ "' Chairman ____Irl,(l~~. ,J2i:) mu"__ Secretary .. : i :; :~ :; ;") I ., e BOARD OF ADJUSTME~~ DI\TE February 8, 1984 19 CASE# /-:- > I . C (- APPLICANT John H. Stewart ADDRESS 526 Roberts Cut-Off Fort Worth, Tex.76114 OV,,TNER Sa.me ADDRESS LOCATION OF PROPERTY Lot 43, Elk Mountain Subdivision Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part of this Case No. The Board may return tf~.i.s ctptJlh..ct,--lUll l..... iL-. dves r,0C contdii. u.::'l tLc in question. Applicant's description of proposed variance showing justification: +--.~'-- ..L- vl\...... L.. "-' A request for a side yard set back variance from 30 ft. to 25 ft. and a front yard set back variance from 100 ft. to 47 ft. These variances would nermit the building of a residence which would be complimentary to this neiphborhood. To conform to present covenants would restrict this residence to a size which would be virtually uninhabitable as well 8S detrimental in appearance to this subdivision. Applicant Sign:?1--~-#~~ provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building Inspector to forward this application to the Board of Adjustment and reason fer not granting a buiding permit: Building Inspector Date Permit rejected: Board decision Application filed Date Hailed Secretary Board of Adjustment { \ . ~ , .. ,~ . , " "'-.... \..;; \. ... \._~ .__ .....~ ..w e e Janus.ry 12, 1984 Pitkin County Building Dept. 506 East Main st. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attn: Mrs. Newbury; Please find enclosed drawing of Lot #43, Elk Mountain Subdivision showing location of resi- dential building which I propose to build there. I am requesting a 5 ft. side yard variance allow- ing a 25 ft. side yard setback, and a 53 ft. front yard variance allowin~ a 47 ft. front yard set- bs.ck in location of this building. I will be glad to comply with any other requirements necessary in this matter. Thank you for your consideration of my request, Very truly, 1~,1' 1 '. d~/7fr(,?)/JA/Jaj' -:>H. Stewart- ... ~. ,.~Roberts cut..~ Rd. . Fort Worth, Texas 76114 Phone (817) 738-7748 {l.!"" ".#'-'3 L - : \_~ lo,-, ... JI e e January 26, 1984 Pitkin County Building Dept. 506 E. Main Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attention: Mrs Patsy Newbury As mentioned to you previously I am attempting to request set back variances for a residential building which I pronose to build on Lot #43, Elk Mountain Subdivision. You very helpfully advised me that several regulations would require my attention before this request could be consid- ered. I understand that a standard application form is being mail- ed to me to be used in making this request. Upon receipt of this form I will complete it and return to you. I am listing below the names and addresses of all owners of nroperty adjacent to this lot, one of the reauirements which you mentioned in our recent telephone conversation. Lots #1 & #2 Colomo, Inc. P. o. Box 850 Glenwood Springs, Colo. 81601 Lot #42 Dia Lynn Weidner, P. O. Box 919 Carbondale, Colo. 81623 Lot #44 Harry & Joyce Black, First Hutchings Sealey National Bank P. O. Box 1500 Galveston, Texas 77550 Lo t # 54 Christonher M. and Milada A. Lee P. O. Box 995 Basalt, Colo. 81621 I will make every possible effort to qualify for your February 28th. Board Meeting. Thank you very much for your help in this matter. Very truly, ~~~~~ ~ H. Stewar't/J ~./ c : : :.: :~ :.: } e e .lnterFlrst InterFirst Bank Galveston, N.A. Post Office Box 1500 2200 Market Street Galveston, Texas 77550 (409) 763-6561 s. Greg Davis Vice President and Trust Officer March 5, 1984 Bill Mason, Chairman Aspen-Pitkin Regional Building Authority 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Lot 44, Elk Mountain Subdivision, Pitkin County, Harry Black Estate Dear Mr. Mason: Please be appraised that as owners of the above referenced lot we oppose and protest the 5 foot side yard and the 53 foot set back outlined in your February letter for Lot 43, Elk Mountain Subdivision, Pitkin County. Please let me know the & Trust Officer SGD:rs (l f 't''t' If. ,,-. r \..:-. />..1.-..' ..."J e f ~~, Yr~ e re.kwtA~ 26,lQi+ A6fJIM~~ ~1~U. &ul~ Dt~t ~ of> ~fA~~ 60(, W A~ *.u:t ~~ I CD 9llo II ~e.: ~est ~{,&L?Q.e.k 1Ja.fiQ..V\CL -lo-r Lf3 ,~ ~h1. ~u.lo~sl~ "R~ bloe.lMlc* F'e-lHultrLj 2~, l'\i4 D.eax-Si ('~: We- \N.we 1M> o~jectUn... -b tv.. ?lewa.v+s~~~~ V~~ k tJeHoa.ck t)~'QM.eu. U~I we.cio ~~ b l'(fWe~ tJ~ ~ttKvt bve,rQ ~ ~ ha.D pv-o bl ew ,LM ~ ~ ltb1ANt~ ~ 11 "bcli.vi~Itn'\ . P 16 0lAK~du-6~~ l-it~ P,}~ ~h-t ollOW51,u) l'Vtrn. ~ true. welt ftK tlU~. As 0"lAX.~ ~ ~hf. ~51e.cM 1~~iAA vzkct.,lLtAJ O"U..y-lot [W61I) 16 ctl.r-t~~ ab~ lo-r -Jt 43 I wt will ~ \,.,ewe ~ ~~ bVl ~~~ 11- tl ue., . 6 "" ~d t1M:~ trt+td eOlt ~e., t"ttLve. Wtntl.J tt.uM be... t51Al UJt!l fW ett cLt '} ~ a.~ PANe.d. tAt tlu ~ ulocLt.VisiO'1' l.o~ l!txtti4M~ 6..fe Vlot ll~ 1M bUc!t I/l;1Q1tu.s , brAt t>uctA fA p/l-tfent or fk.vel.cp~ WMa ~ b llv'e.tI.le.- fA. d.ut~i~ pvo~l~ LM Y~Q,yrL h> w~k'..y Mac1AtJ{li~ # we. W01&t:t t1 PfYe CUt ~ kV1~ w kt Iitw o-v" 1ItDt 0 UY eovtc.vvts Me, t.tMMLttfJ~ W UM~. ~QM.k.~0"Li , CLt.vt~Jo ~ VM . ~ fuR.cul.a A. l.u- li>, ;Jt54 m AtrlAM"'~ ~ Lt~ ell. vi 6i0"'V\ q21-Lf313 , rr}\ -1J~ (\y~ \\1 tvl) r \ r(v~ t. ~ ~ {I \J "\. '\' , \, 10 ~ At ~yl' . 'f ( : . .. ~.'~ :_::: s ') t) l' , ,1,_ { ASPEN/PITKIN REGIONAL BUILDING'DEPARTMENT 110 E. HALLAM ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-5973 NAME: O,--.L,,-- I PERMIT: He.; -('l t~ PROJECT: ,-L .1, ,fp DATE: '::::'/-9.<.~/,;;:v 00136 - 61210 - 61212 - 61215 - 61214 - 63311 - 61220 - 63004 - 63313 - 61 002 - 61120 - 63316 I BLDG. PERMIT PLBG. PERMIT ELECT, PERMIT MECH. PERMIT BLDG. PERMIT REV I EW REINSPECT/ON CODE BOOKS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CONTRACTORS LICENSE MOBILE HOME PLAN CHECK ...., -..;;.<...) c(~ /:)', '-~!'(u(,/11- CHECK# ..3'7';" / /Iii :4 I INITIAL: AI" ~,..:\...., .': 1 \ 1- ..' , r-:: I" ' . \~~ ff3r-17 d · I, ~ ~ ~ _. I"'>,-S '-LWct~i.-..:j \, ~..~~ ,\ -- l r~--\ \ u ("""'f''''''#''~''''' ~ \. i \.J ........ ". w .,,- ,.---.---.. ._,_. 1- ~- ,,-\ ~...., N --- 1 I L-.-. c,..,~, ,,' ') (:1,.... '... 'oJ.")- 'l. i { '3 & --~y._-_..- --. -J\-; ;. .j .,.. I Fir /,1;' I ] S?.'^- ! dElll C iVl V ..L/"~ /1 0 &~ .'~ 7 '3 - -... - ..... -. '- -:3 .:1 I :J (j II! V.J.. N i : 0 IN >11 :] I I ;?J:, "7b ~ '-. I Jf ';Jr;nOH a3Sf)dO~J Q-{1 t g ,'b8 .-\ .r \ Y' ';\ 1.--~If!-~ '---...-// --- ~-_\ :1., -I-f} 7 '.' I ,11- . '.'.-'---~-.'~"'-'._-_. --.--- ,lb ',fit' I I ~ / '- ^ Vj1.;}JI/(J(j t ~- , e ! I e ...... , ''). t-- e t<" ...... " . ... ..- qrt --.- . , e ''1J.o I w7' e J fl/%/J nrh:. /~..n ~i e r/y - p"iJ ~ /1A~'C:zt: -rJZ~~ -f? /?'vlV . e - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100,Leaves H(lUKft Il. fl. It L. CC). BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 28, 1984 PITKIN COUNTY MEl'IfJ ERS PRESENT: Bill Mason, Chairman Paul Krausch Joe Zanin Bill Lukes Alternates: Evan Gull Bill Mason called the meeting to order. . He questioned if there were any. questions or additions to be made to the minutes of the 'last m~et~ng. He wanted c.l arification of the minutes with regards to the "grey area of the code that the Board could not handle ...". Newbury explained.the situation to ~lason as it occurred at the meeting. . There were no other comments. Lukes moved to accept the minutes. .Krausch second the motion. Alan Fox, 84-02 Lot 7, Block 3, Aspen Grove SiD, 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 to be a hazard. He stated that his plans included making a new drive. . Hason 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 g8clge due to the terrain. Krausch questioned if the residence was nm,' existing and how far from the right-of-way the house was. Fox answered thnt it was 7.4' away. It was determined that the house was non-conforming. HaS(l]1 stated that there were no objections in the file and a sign was posted. Gull moved to grant the variance due to topographical hardships. Krilllsch second the motion. A vote was called for and <;111 were .in favor. Grizzley Landscaping & Nursery 84-03 21905 W. Highway 82, Aspen, requesting a setback variance. from the Highway 82 corridor for construction of a trellis. The owner, Bob Jensen, was there along with his representative, Brooke Peterson. Jensen: explained that 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 fil~~ He stated that he did receive a ~all from Clark. Smyth, an adjacent property owner, and Smyth was against anything happening on the site. Gull stated that he recailed from the original variance that it would not be looked upon favorably for additional structures being added in this location. Glen Horn was there to represent the Planning Depilrtment and had some obje~tions. He stated .that his office objected to an\' construction at all within the 200' corridor. Also, they felt that an y addi tional 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 th~ original proposal. This proposal was suppose to reflect the highest lev,'l of development anticipated on the site. It also stated that additional build out beyond the scope of the proposal would be prohibited. The applicant did respond at that time that he would be willing to limit the e e RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100.Leaves r: H:lfCKEl B. G. it l co. February 28, 1984 Board of Adjustment Page 2 size of the improvements on the lot .... The planning office felt that based upon these representations any further construction on the site would be inconsistent with the orlgin~l ~llmission. Horn also discuss~d tile i",sue of the fe,-,ce pla.:ed un the applicant' IS prUpeL ty. The fe'lce ~;as to be painted by August 1, 1983. He gave a brief history of the correspondence betl:een 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. Newhury questioned the applicant about the access to the property from Highway 82. Peterson stated for the r~cord that Grizzley Landicapes prior agreements are irrelevent to the Board, both legally and from a practical $tandpoint. Bu t he did address the issues.. He stated that he had b.een in contact with Curt Stewart, County Manager, and both felt that the. issues had. been dealt with. He explained that the fente ~as not painted right a~ay bicause of stock brought in. Also they were informed that the fencecotlld .not be painted. But they have found.a contractor ~ince then that can paint tbe 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 actess from that property because of.the danger of Highway 82. He explained to do that an agreement had to be reached with Boise Cascade for an easement and were working on such. Peterson also mentioned the comments being made about the issue of a retail oper~ltion on the site. Peterson stated that at no .time did the applicant agree to nut have retail operations on that property, but agreed to limit the retail operations. The applicant is basically a landscaping business. 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 be usable for any other use. Bill 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 agreerl~ but pointed out that the applicant was not aware that a trellis would be necessary during the original application. Jenso'n pointed out that the .trellis would be behind the existing fence and vines woul~ be growing on the fence. He felt that visually it would have no impact. Horn stated to the Board that Peterson has represented.the factp honestly to ' the Board and suggested a compromise of removing the trellis during the ~inter months. Jensen stated that he wanteqplants to be growing on and arouhd the tre] lis and the post would be set.in concrete. Lukes questioned if any other locil Lion \vas possible on the :site. Jensen stated .thathe was thinking of plac ing it in the back, but ,that was where his hardwear was sto:red soshieldaJ from Highway 82. e e RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS lOO.Leaves )RM' C, F, H()[CKEl B. B. It L. LO. 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 th~ entire property was within the 200' setback. He also pointed out that it was not a hardship created by the applicant. Mason stated that the 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 ~inutes from the previous variance for any guidance. Mason questioned the other Board members. Peterson questioned if the denial wouid be because of the previous agreements or because the Board does not want a structure such as this to be built. Mason did not have a problem with the structure, but was hard pressed for a hardship. Mason 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. Zanin moved to deny the variance request based.on the fact. that there was hot a hardship. Krausch second the motion. A vote was called. for and ~11 were in favor. Alherto Hodari, MD 84-04 Lot 17, Block, Red Mountain sin, requesting a 16' 'front yard setback variance for construction of an addition~ Bob McGraw and BillPoss werethere to rep u'sen t the owner. Mason pointed out to the Board that a sign had been posted and that a letter was on file froI!l Felix Boie as adjacent property owner, not agreeing to a variance until he had viewed the plans. Kra\lsch 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 area was over-excavated and they would 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 out in front. McGraw pointed out on the drawings that the shaded area exists now and the cross-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 that they were on the agenda in three weeks. He stated that informall y the Association had liked the upgrading of the structure. It was determined that a hei~ht variance ~as not riecessary. .Lukes moved to grant the variance as shown on the submitted site plan ,for the carpllrt, l'nclosed entry and roof overhang subject to the approval of the. Red :lounLl in Homeowners Association due to topography. Gull second the motjr)l1. A vote was called for and all were in favor. e e RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves H',r:>(fl tl, 1..'1' l C,l, February 28, 1984 Board of Adjustment Page 4 3-J's, Lot 104, Mountain Valley 84-05 requesting a 20' front yard setback variance for construction of a garage. Alan Lauer was there to represent the owners. He explained that there was no other location for the garage on the lot. He presented a topography map to the Board so they could see the grade. He explained that the present driveway was very steep. It was determined that the garage was mostly und~rground. Lukes questioned if the old driveway would be re-vegetated. LaUl:r stated that the owners would want to use in the summer. Mason stated thut he would prefer to see it re-vegetated. Kraus~h moved to grant the varLwce based on topographical hardship. Lukes suggested an amendment adding the description of 22 x 20 garage. just for clarification. Krausch did not object.. Joe Zanin second the mption. A vote was called for and all wer~ in favor. Ted Koutsoubos, 0032 Mule Deer Run 84~06 requesting an 89' front yard setback var.iance and a 15' sideyardsetback 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 until the sign has been posted for nine days. Shane/Bette Ortell, 0040 Elk .Range Drive 84-07 requesting a 76' front yard setback, 8' west sideyard setback and a 54' rearyard setback variances for construction of residence. . Wood ~as also representing this owner and a sign had not been posted on this property. Mason 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 Weien 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 places his residence on his lot. Wood explained that there was no location on the lot that \Vas 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 set up for March 13, 1984, at 5:15. ' John H. Stewart, Lot 43, Elk Mountain SiD 84-08 requesting a 53' front yard setback var.iance and as' sideyard set.back variance for construction of residence.. Mr. Stewart was there to represent self. 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 subdivided. Gull questioned if the request conformed with the covenance of the subdivision. Newbury stated that they were. Mason.stated that in past cases they tried to keep the. structure withirithe ~oven~nce setbatks. Gull moved to grant the variance due.to.downzoning. Paul Krausch second the motion. A vote was called fot and ail were in favor. Meeting was adjourned. e , .''' : j .~ ~ J...~ i ASPEN/PITKIN REGIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT 110 E. HALLAM ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-5973 00136 - 61210 BLDG. PERMIT - 61212 PLBG. PERMIT - 61215 ELECT. PERMIT - 61214 MECH. PERMIT - 63311 BLDG. PERMIT REVIEW - 61220 REINSPECTION - 63004 CODE BOOKS - 63313 BOARD OF /)._.....<.1 ADJUSTMENT, c{-'; - - 61002 CONTRACTORS LICENSE - 61120 MOBILE HOME - 63316 PLAN CHECK U, ,j.J({~!(I/I.~- CHECK# 3'; ;;l, (1, NAME: LI:",j,-- I PERMIT: f~'-/ -(', f-j PROJECT: ~ I, ,,//-' ! ' DATE:. ,:;.' .:),::.://;: 'I /,';-1 :::: { _INITIAL: /1/' Scanned 8/21/07 File Finders Box #11