Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.84.10 Joe Zanin moved that the following be adopted: BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 84-10 Trafalger Management, Lot 2, Aspen Oak 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, 30-28-•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 adjorning property owners, has been shown by the applicant. ?.. 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. NC[4, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the applicant's request for a 40' frontyard setback variance for an addition Additional conditions or restrictions:: WARNING: 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 Joe Zanin - yes Dottie Fox - yes Evan Gull - yes Paul Krausch - yes The Resolution vas adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: March 27, 1984 Attest: ___ ~c1,vn c, Sec etary The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado Chairman ~ ~.~,,,..J.~~ yt_, '. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DATE 9 19 APPLICANT P•lichael J. Ernemann. Architer.t ADDRESS P.0_ gox 460?, At Pn, ('f] OWNER Trafal ger P1anagement Comaany Inc. ADDRESS p,0. Box 7114. Pasadena _ CO LOCATION OF PROPERTY Lot 2, Aspen Oaks Lots, Pitkin Countv. Colorado 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: The owners wish to build an addition to their existing house and request a variance allowing a portion of the addition to be located within the 100' front yard setback. The request is for a variance to establish a front yard setback of 60'-0" for this addition. The existing house built in 1973-4 by a previous owner, is located, with minor exception entirely within the front yard setback. Thus, a hardship exists in that an addition, in being attached to the existing house, will in part, have to fall within that 100' setback. Further, existing topography defines the only buildable area of the subject property to be that area between the front yard property line and a steeply downsloping bank occuring approximately parallel to that property line in the vicinity of the 100' setback. This would necessitate that an addition be placed, at least in part, within the setback zone. ~-~ - - Applicant Signatur 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 permit: ~ '~~ ~/l ~ T/ ~~/V~~ ~ / Lit.(.'. ft-i ~'~-~..~ ~ ~ ~"Y(.-e -~. ~ / ~ l ~~ r .//~- .,~L~Z`'GL(/~• ~ '~CL2~ , ~ ~ u L L~G' LL-~2 iC~' ~/y ~ CL'E- .t~ ~~, ~ 3z 4„3 ~-~ ~.- ~j ~ Building Inspector '- ' %.., ~ ~~~ Date Permit rejected: Board decision v Appli~:ation filed Date mailed Secretary Board of Adjustment GEORGE S. GRADOW March 8, 1984 Pitkin County Board of Adjustment Pitkin County Courthouse 506 E. DZain Aspen, Colorado Dear Board of Members: This letter authorizes Mr. Michael Ernemann to apply for a Set Back Variance for a proposed addition to the property owned by the undersigned, located on Lot 2, Aspen Oaks Lots, Pitkin County, Colorado. Very truly yours, TRAFALGAR MANAG NT COMPANY, INC. a California ~poration r ///~ / ~/ / !J ('~ ,~ By :, ,~ ~eorge S. Gradow, President GSG:nr ~,:.,,,J,y3 POST OFFICE BOX 7114 PASADENA,CALIFORNIA J1109 (213) 7J5-J760 ADJACEf~T PROPERTY OWNERS TO LOT 2, ASPEN OAKS SUBDIVISION Lot 1 David R. Slemon 434 East Cooper Aspen, CO 81611 Lot 3 ffichael & Beatrice Ernemann Box 4602 Aspen, CO 81612 Lot 5 Donald H. Henley 9134 Sunset Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90069 Lot 6 John G. Wilcox Box 3194 Aspen, CO 81612 Lot To Norm Clasen ~.= S.E. Box 4230 Aspen, CO 81612 Lot To Christopher H. Guenther N.E. 9605 North Linde Court Mequon, WI 53092 ~., _ . , I. - : . " " . ",;"./.....,:,.:' L~ -- ---- ..... ..... ----- --........... '" '\ ---- - C':/:::':5 . S>liE: Pt..A-N I . 'e 1" == ;2.0'....01' Adc,IT~N fi:;'~ 1}"'1e. ~NiO~ -@/Y-'OOW' e THE ERNEMANN GROUP/ARCHI~S 720 East Durant ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-2266 ._ U ' I~ ~ ~E~~~vvt ~ ~~, ; C:~ ~ 1 ~ + I i ~~~~~~~ ~G~3Q~~~~~~Q~ DATE ~ JOB NO. ~(/v'~C'~ 12 ATTENTION RE .Lt ~Gl~ ' ~~'SW GENTLEMEN: WE ARE SENDING YOU ~ Attached ^ Under separate cover via ^ Shop drawings ^ Prints ^ Plans ^ Samples t~,'Copy of letter ^ Change order n the following items: ^ Specifications COPIES I DATE I NO. I DESCRIPTION `f" /e%v Gf`L'v~ `~~' ~' ~`r,~ J , ~~/ ~t ~~~ ~~" ~1 ~' l ~i~ a tl~ 2-~i fiZ ot-.. I J - - '/ ~ + __ i - -I - THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ^ For approval ^ Approved as submitted For your use ^ Approved as noted ^ As requested ^ Returned for corrections ^ For review and comment ^ ^ FOR BIDS DUE. _ __ 19 REMARKS ^ Resubmit copies for approval ^ Submit copies for distribution ^ Return -corrected prints ^ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US .. .. J COPY TO -` - _ _ - SIGNED: ;~~~,~/I~~/~/-- FORM2ao-2 Avallabiefrom~~Inc,Groton,Mass oiaso If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. BEFORE T~ PITKINvCOUNTYyBOARD OFVA~STMENT `~ AT:i; PR('PERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE. VARIANCE `ESC' ; I3ED pEI OW: '~ursu~~nt to Pitkin County Resolution of June 5, 1955, as amended, a .'ubl ~ c` [Ie<_;ring will be held in, the County Commissioners Room, Pitkin County 'Dort :louse, Aspen, Colorado,. (or at such .otY~er place as the meeting may '}yen .~e adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of ;ldjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the :,ounty Zoninq Resolution. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views protests or objections. If you cannot appear, personally :~t such meeting, then ,you are urged to state your vies by letter, :_~articularly if you ha~~e objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustme ~~rill ~~ive serious cons~.deration to the opinions of surrounding property ,owners and other affecf:ed in .deciding whether to grant or den- the request -~~ ~ ~ i u i i, C `i'fs! ?~AR.`''ICULARS OF THE HEARING AND OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE ARE AS FOLLOWS D,~ i end time of meeting: March, 27, 1984 ~ at 5:15 0 ~ clock pm U`:: an~i Address of Applicant for Variance: Traf.a].ger Management Company, Inc. c/o Michael J. Ernemann,, P.0. Box 4602., Aspen Loc-~tio,,~ of Property or Description: Lot 2, Aspen Oaks Variance Requested: a 40' frontyard setback variance for an addition to existing structure. Duration of Variance: Permanent: xxx .;Temporary Conc? 1 tion THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF .ADJUSTMENT ~ ~~~ Bill Mason, Chairman ~~-~~ ~- ~ ~,.,„r~.,,.., .~. ., d \, ~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ e~ ~~ 1 ..J ~~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ~ o C. i. HOECK EL 8. B, a L. CO. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PZTKIN COUNTY MARCH 27, 1983 Members Present: Bill Mason, Chairman Dottie Fox Paul Krausch Joe Zanin Alternates: Bob Throm Evan Gull Bill Mason, Chairman, opened the regular meeting of the Pitkin County Board of Adjustment. He questioned the members if there were any corrections or additions to the minutes from the last meeting. Zanin moved to accept the minutes as typed. Evan Gull second the..motion. All.were.in favor. Boise Cascade. 84-09 Lot 1 & 2, Block 1, Filing 1, Aspen Airport Business Center, requesting a variance to construct a 12' high fence on the south property line. Roger t~olfe was there to represent Boise Cascade. He explained that the fence was to screen the building materials stored on the site. Throm questioned why they didn't want to put the fence all around. Wolfe explained that there was a chain link fene presently around the property. Throm questioned why a 12' high fence was necessary. Wolfe stated that a 7' high fence would not screen the building material. Fox questioned why Boise felt the fence would be necessary. Wolfe stated that the Basalt location would be closed and all material would be moved to the Airport Business Center location. Mason questioned why Boise felt the screen was necessary and if they were worried about theft. Wolfe stated that protection of material was partly the reason and the fence would make the property look better for the community. He explained that this was the first phase and the second phase of the expansion would be a remodel of the exterior of the building. He gave a brief description of the structures on the property. Fox questioned if a sign had been posted giving notice of the hearing. Wolfe was not aware that such a sign was necessary. Mason stated that if a sign was not posted then the request would have to be tabled until the April meeting. Krausch questioned what type of fence the applicant wanted to build. Wolfe stated that it would be„a wood fence with concrete block pilsters reinforced every 20'. The blocks would be painted to blend with the Boise color scheme. Throm questioned why Boise didn't want to put up a chain link fence. Wolfe stated that the code allows a chain link fence up to 6', but that would not be high enough to scr'een'the material. Throm questioned if Boise wanted'screening or security. Wolfe stated that screening was the most important aspect. Mason stated that there w'e're rio objections on file from adjacent property owners. Krausch questioned if Boise was requested to screen the building materials. Wolfe stated it was something that Boise wanted to do. Brooke Peterson was there representing Grizzly Landscaping, stating that the owner was concerned about the need for the fence and also that there be a consistency in the policy of the Board of Adjustment. He suggested that it might be better for Grizzly and Boise to work out an agreement about the type of fence along that property line because Grizzly will have one style and Boise another. Also there is a dispute over who owns approximately 2' of property on that side. _ • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves C. E. HOECKEI R. R. 8 1. CO. March 27, 1984 Board of Adjustment Page 2 Mason pointed out that the present Boise Cascade building is 200' from the highway. 35' of the fence would be within the Highway 200' setback. Fox questioned the consistency of the Board regarding the decision. She stated that the 200' setback should be considered in this decision. Gull agreed with Fox, stating that he had problems with letting anything new occur within the 200 feet. Krausch suggested that the members go and look at the site. Wolfe stated that he would put line up to give the members a clear vision of what they wanted. Fox moved to table the variance until the sign is posted. Zanin second the motion. All were in favor of tabling the issue until the April meeting. Trafalgar Management Co.; c/o Michael J. Erneman 84-10 Lot 2, Aspen Oak S/D, requesting a 40' frontyard setback variance for an addition to existing structure. Michael Erneman was there to represent owners. mason questioned if the sign had been posted. There were no objections in the file from adjacent property owners. Erneman stated that the residence was built in 1973-74 and subsequent to construction new zoning was inacted which redefined the setbacks and the house is practically entirely outside the setback requirements. He presented to the Board members a drawing of the house showing the one small portion that is conforming with setback requirements. He also pointed out a ridge on the property that the house must follow because the terrain drops off beyond that point. He presented a topography map for the Board's information. He stated that there was no other area to build the addition on the lot. There was a note from Norm Clasen saying that he has no objection to the variance request. Erneman pointed out the proposed addition and where the existing driveway is located. He then pointed out where the proposed drive would go. The new drive would be entirely on the applicants property. The proposed addition is a one story addition that won't be that visible from the road because it will be tucked into the hill on the downhill side. Fox questioned the square footage involved. Erneman answered that it would be approximately 1500 sq.ft.( a 2-car garage, storage area, a child's bedroom and a guest bedroom, a play-area and an exercise room) 'T'here would not be a problem with the F.A.R. There is not a garage presently. Mason stated that he felt that the hardship was topographical. Zanin moved to grant a 40' frontyard setback varrance due to topographical hardship. Gu11 second the motion. A vote was taken and all were in favor. Motion passed. James Mollica 84-11 1/2 mile up Castle Creek Rd., requesting a 95' frontyard setback variance for construction of a single family residence. Mollica was there to represent self. He stated that he felt his hardships were due to the exceptional narrowness, shallowness and shape of the lot. He explained that if he adhered to the setbacks as required on the property it would allow a 20 x 35 footprint. He is requesting a frontyard setback variance of 95' and in front of that is approximately a 50' perpetual easement to the center line of the river, then the river and the hillside, then some access roads and then Castle Creek Road. He felt that would leave room between his structure and the main road. He explained that the entire property was surrounded by property owned by Gary Jacobs. Approvals for Jacobs states that there will be no further development on the property. Mollica also gave a brief history of the property he owns, having been decreed by the Courts in 1979. Fox questioned if the applicant should go before P&Z first for 1041 review. Mollica stated that he had been advised by the Building Dept. to go before the Board of Adjustment first. Patsy Newbury, of the Building Dept. stated that there had been a misunderstanding and that the applicant could probably get the variances handled during the 1041 review. Mollica stated that during a meeting with Richard Grice of the Planning Dept., Grice encouraged going before the Board first so that a placement for the house could be determined. • • ' C E. NOCC.EL B. B. h l CJ. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves March 27, 1984 Board of Adjustment Page 3 Mollica stated that he was aware of the 1041 review and the problems created by the property and felt after observing the Jacobs review through P&Z, he could handle the problems. Fox questioned what he planned to do about the irrigation ditch. Mollica explained that it had been abandoned for several years and might be reopened for ascetical purposes. He stated that it only serviced the two properties and did not go to the Marolt ditch. Mollica posted his sign and took photos of it. Newbury read from the Pitkin County Land Use cod'e,~$ection 6-6, explaining how P&Z could handle applications regarding setback variances. Mason questioned Newbury's feelings regarding the Board taking action. Newbury stated that the County Attorney, Tom Smith, wanted to speak with the Board regarding their decision and requested that the request be tabled. Fox stated that she would not be comfortable granting the variance until P&Z had made a decision. Zanin had a question about the access. Mollica pointed out a court decreed easement. Mason explained that the frontyard was determined by the side that the access is taken. Gull stated that either way the frontyard is determined, Mollica is still limited in his building site. Krausch questioned if the property has been deemed a building site. Mollica stated that it has by a court decree. Fox added that that decision was subject to 1041 review. Bill Walters, representing Gary and Jessie Jacobs, was there. He produced copies of the review material for the Jacobs 1041 review. He pointed out to the Board that P&Z had to review the overall picture and felt that the request belongs in front of that body. He gave copies of the minutes from the Jacobs 1041 review to the Board members and requested that a copy be included in the file for ?`lollica. He urged the Board to let P&Z handle this request. Mason felt that the Board should'not take action at this time. Mollica questioned if P&Z could handle the setback problems, or if he would have to revisit the Board of Adjustment. Mason felt that he would need to come back to the Board. Mollica was concerned that he needed to know where he would be locating the structure prior to going before P&Z. Mason stated that he would get some guidance from the County Attorney. Gull wanted to have a recommendation from P&Z before making a decision. Krausch agreed. Newbury stated that the 1041 restraints would set out where the structure would have to go. Fox also pointed out that whatever the Board might give him at this time could be changed completely when P&Z got through with the review. Albert Kern was there to represent Mr. & Mrs. Wachs. He wanted to know how long t11e request would be tabled. Mason stated that everyone would be posted as to how long the item would be 'tabled. Nick McGrath requested that the item be tabled to a date certain. He was there to represent Mollica. Bill Walters agreed to this, pointing out to the Board that Mr. Jacobs had to resite his location at least twice before receiving his approval from P&Z. Fox moved to table the request until the April meeting. Krausch second the motion. A vote was taken and all were in favor. Paul Yelinek, 84-12 Lot 27, Crystal River Estates, requesting a 25' frontyard setback variance for construction of residence. Mark Pushkis was there to represent the owner. He explained that the depth of the lot does not allow the owner to meet the setback requirements. Newbury stated that to some extent it was a problem due to downzoning but also there is a topographic problem. Pushkis stated that this lot was basically flat. Newbury stated that these lots were formed prior to any zoning. Mason questioned is the applicant was within the requirements as set forth when the subdivision was formed. Newbury stated that it was. Gull felt that the residence was sited as appropriately as could be. He moved to approve the variance of 25' due to downzoning. Krausch second the motion.. Mason questioned if there were in homeowners association requirements. Newbury stated that there was not. A vote was called for and all were in favor. 4 d c. f wOCCK EI e. e. 9 t. CJ. March 27, 1984 Tleeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, / ~~~ ~ Secretary RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Board of Adjustment Page 4 100 Leaves ., Bill Mason, Chairman Scanned 8/21/07 File Finders Box #11 LARGE PLAT(S) AVAILABLE TO VIEW AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AVAILABLE TO BUY AT CLERK & RECORDER