Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.84.15 e e Bill Lukes moved that the following be adopted: BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTHENT OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 84-15 Janver C. Derrington, Lot 1, Unit 1 Orchard Estates WHEREAS, the subject property is within the unincorporated area of Pitkin County, Colorado; and, MiEREAS, 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 5' front yard setback variance Additional conditions or restrictions: WA&~ING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. Bob Throm 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 Bob Throm - yes The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: May 29, 1984 The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado Attest: ,/iu ~'l'~ Chairman l' ~ T, \' II' r.., ;-' , ;l-.J,.I'_"'~ _,-==-_A,v..A ^ l ~ J ~ c t... tY)(1 _'-- Secretary e BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT e . DATE 19 APPLICANT JaVlVe-r- C I DefT't~ V' Carbc~le Co ADDRESS --41), IrA-'''' "/ <:.J ('f" ~.::/ LOCATION OF PROPERTY ~1- 1 . UVl.J'+ I . On:A..l &rd e>~ fubclt~1 , / I / CASE# 8'-4-15 ADDRESS~'1' p{UtM S1, OWNER sa~ Pt~t~ Ce~~~ V 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 dE:.sc~i.ption 9~ ,p;oposed variance ,rhow~ng , justification: TN.- y-e.sldeVlU Ls' tl.\ a SU..lodWLSlOj/) +t1a+ was pl~Tt-ed t'Vl L'173 prt{J(" tv~ e.>>lastmetll+ 0~+kQ... C()UYl~ 2-0VlI'~ ord 1'V)cH1~. TNL l'Gfs are. ~t1 7 tzctc. avd~ \~V\\+,'-al Z-OVlI'Vl'1 JVV\pOS~t:Y W~ NF-2 &12 aue..- W11V1J~U.1N\ lo1s wl1eV\ +WL houS-e- w.-at bLid+ IVI i97f8) ~ 75 J?i, ~n+ ,Gjdr-d sefb~' ~~V\-1e,vtt -tor 1\-1=--2 t.-O~ w a~ ~ bserre.d,r 5(.{.h~f-1'&~ J ~ lq+ LAJ ti-'S ~U,.-tkeJ dowV\. 2-0~ to A-F -I w hcct.., recrUl,-r-e.3 I oJa~ t1-lIllt, lo'6 ClM--cl to? ~~, ~t/\+ /t.;] ~ ~e+b ocJ:- :. Tko- afrLl('a~+ ~~ fita+ (;2 v-a ,1cHLCQ b<::-:1 rcwt/--e.d ..tor ~ c.Ctll-eV\.ti!<, ~LL~ \t1.11'VI I~U k~ Lat -.a(z.e ~ ~ -e'l'LS+'~ '2-S-#, eV1.Cro~c..l>Iyv, evt+ ~'\.-\to ~ J.c'-'\.i ~ ~ se..+bc;x:b- req.-~ir-e-IM~~ Tk prorpo<:>€-d ~Jd;fwV\ 6 OVl ~ <.J6ack-F1~ stile bT~ 1tow~ CLo b.s ruo+ G~LL~€. art-V r-ftu-+her ellLui1dClt fV1 eA-'l+' (j Applicant Signature ~~C:= Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Buildi ~ Inspector t~ forward this application to the Board of Adjustment and~~ason for not Z::~/;"l':-)~~/h/ ~(~~ S4)~~~~~\ . '/-".. '"<. l' ~. i ~.'~'~:'~:.."~~'.... . "" 1 r. 'I ~ ~i.'{ t;.3 I i Ii ! I. ; i I i- II t r, I, l ~- S...., - i?-'1 i; : Building Inspecto.. ~ ~ "-7;.'; ;:. ~': J. LS,;;:,::i) , Date Permit rejected: Board decision Application filed Date Hailed Secretary Board of Adjustment (l''t. '''.'' n...') ~\.t \......." '''_ -.....$ ~ II "" . ~. p , e e ~<;Ie-M+ Properh-. ()Lul'l~ fo . 1 / U\,\,+ OWL; !9n:ht7M-d B~ J p,'+k.tt." ~Jvl ~ ,CD c. T(iV\,~ Lo'W'l~+U- J[. L(!)+ 2-,L{~V+ ()~10r-d1~ E?~ f-x,)< 2-€i2- ~ ~f-eV)) CO 8{~ll @ El,~~b~ W,P'pu- lo+ 7J()~[+{)~ 6'roLt~ B~~ ~)( 1074- -bas~l+J Co S {Co?...l @ W; / b LLr ~. ?.e-r-de-{ ?.'2..50 E mVVl~ Rd, Cav-lo~vtdoAe-) CD 13 [&>23 " , . ED hl-aV\ A I S~,~ '2255 EYVlV\I1d~, Ca,bovtdale.; CO blro2..3 (~~~""I ''t:... 3. .. .. , '_J' -_- ....JI r ,\ ,j c ~~ '~~ -~~~:~"~: q. . e . .. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves C f' >,'I[CKF.l A. U. ft l. t.:J. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PITKIN COUNTY May 29, 1984 Members Present: Bill Mason, Chairman Paul Krausch Joe Zanin Bill Lukes Alternates: Bob Throm Kandi Shaffran Evan Gull Peter Dobrovlny Bill Mason, Chairman, called the t1ay 29, 1984, regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment to order. He questioned if there were any corrections for the minutes from the last meeting. Joe Zanin moved to accept the minutes. Evan Gull second the motion. All were in favor. Laurie Van Woerkom was back before the Board to get a clarification on the amount of variance granted to him at the last meeting. He explained that a survey was just done and the amount from the proposed garage to the property line was 27'9". The amount given to him by the Board was a 50' setback and the amount necessary is more in the area of 75'. Evan Gull stated that he didn't have a problem with the distance but wondered if the Board could legally amend the motion at this stage. Mason felt there wouldn't be a problem since it was a topographical hardship and there were no objections originally. Gull motioned to amend his previous motion to 75' setback variance in the front yard. Krausch second the motion. All the members that were at that meeting agreed to the changes. Janver C. Derrington 84-15 Lot 1, Unit 1, Orchard Estates SiD, requesting a 25' front yard setback variance for construction of an addition. Mr. Derrington was there to represent self. He explained that the addition was for a kitchen on his residence. He stated that the zoning had been changed since the original construction of his residence, which leaves him with a non-conforming front yard setback. Bill Lukes moved to grant a 5' front yard setback variance due to downzoning. Bob Throm second the motion.. A vote was taken and all were in favor. The Board advised Derrington that if he planned to expand beyond the footprint of the residence, he would need to come back to the Board for another variance. Jan M. Haugen & Terry Koladish, 84-16 0296 Sopris Creek Road, requesting a 40' sideyard setback variance for construction of shed. Terry Koladish was there to represent ~elf. She explained that the shed was actually a shelter for horses. Throm asked that Koladish explain the other buildings located on the property. She pointed out the house, barn and the front area where they wanted to put the shed. Dobrovolny stated that he was familiour with the property and had no objections. He pointed out that the adjacent neighbor was out of view of the property. Krausch questioned why the shed could not be built somewhere else within the setback requirements. Koladish stated that another placement would put the shed in front of their residence. Dobrovolny pointed out another area and Koladish stated that it wouldn't work when dealing with the horses. Dobrovolny explained to her that she must demonstrate a hardship before the Board could grant a variance. She stated that the hardship was in the function of her operation. Mason didn't feel that the Board could act on that hardship. e . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves 1:('" ,- C. f':lrr-Kfi A. fl. It l (;,l. Page 2 Board of Adjustment May 29, 1984 The members questioned if the property had been downzoned, but no one was sure if it had been. Throm suggested that Koladish return to the Board with a better description of the property to see if a hardship is obvious. Mason pointed out that a better description may not help because of all the other available areas to build on the property. Dobrovolny and Krausch agreed. Krausch moved to deny the request due to the lack of hardship. Lukes second the motion. A vote was taken and all were in favor. Richard E. Smith 84-17 Lots 33 & 34, Crystal River Park, requesting a 65' front yard setback variance and a 23' rearyard setback variance for construction of residence. Smith was there to represent self. Mason questioned if the proposed house was within the original setbacks of the subdivision. Mason pointed out that the area had been downzoned. Also he questioned what the covenances were. Lukes questioned if the proposed decks would be over 30" from the ground. Smith stated that they would be. Lukes stated that must be taken into consideration when granting the variance. Krausch moved to grant the variance due to downzoning for a 65' front yard setback variance and a 15' rearyard setback variance. Joe Zanin second the motion. A vote was taken and all were in favor. Lynn Britt 84-18 Lot 5, Block 2, Filing II, Gateway Mesa, requesting a 75' front yard setback variance for construction of residence. Britt was there to represent self. He explained that the covenance of the subdivision allowed 30' setback from the front, 25' from the sides and 20' from the rear, which would allow him to place his residence on the lot. Krausch questioned why that particular spot had been chosen. Britt explained that it was one of the flatter spots and he pointed out the nice vegetation throughout the property that he wanted to save. Zanin moved to grant a 65' front yard setback variance and a 35' rearyard setback variance due to downzoning. Bill Lukes second the motion. A vote was called for and all were in favor. Henry & Nancy Lowe 84-19 Lot 15, Shield 0 Terrace SiD, requesting a 40' front yard setback variance for construction of residence. Peter Dobrovolny represented Mr.&Mrs. Lowe. He described the property and explained the placement of the residence. Mason stated that he received a call from Alan Walker, a neighbor, and after discussing the plans felt there was no problem and he had no objections. Lukes moved to grant a 40' front yard setback variance due to topographical problems, Bob Throm second the motion. A vote was called for and all were in favor. Elizabeth Carter 84-20 Block II, Filing 2, Meadowood SiD, requesting a 5' sideyard setback variance for addition to garage. Carter was there to represent self. Mason had some letters from residents and he entered them into the record. Tom Hubbard stated that he objected to the request. Carter stated that she was told they objected because they were afraid it would set a precedent. There was also a letter from the homeowners association which Mason read into the minutes. King Woodward was there also from the homeowners association. Carter explained what they wanted to do and what the garage would be used for, A portion of the present garage would become an entrance for the house. Krausch questioned why the 5' additional space was necessary. Carter pointed out the part of the garage that is used as the main entrance. That would be . . e . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves C. F. KO(CKEL B. O. & L. l:J. Page 3 Board of Adjustment May 29, 1984 widened which would take away from the size of the garage. She also stated that they wanted a two-car garage. Evan Gull pointed out that in his opinion Carter did not have a hardship. Mason questioned her what she felt her hardship was. She explained that it was a pie-shaped lot. Gull explained to her that she was not being deprived the practical use of her land and there were no obvious hardships such as downzoning or topography. King Woodward was there to give the homeowners association op1n10n. The association had determined that they would have to abide by the Board decision regarding the matter, however he too could not see a hardship. Ms. Carter pointed out that the setbacks where originally 10' on the side. Krausch questioned if the Board should wait to make their decision until the homeowner association had reviewed the request. Mason stated that normally the Board did wait. Mason suggested that the request be tabled. Shaffran felt that might be a waste of the applicants time since it seemed there was not a hardship. Krausch moved to deny the variance for lack of adequate hardship. Lukes second the motion. A vote was called for and all were in favor. u.s, Capitol Corp, c/o Design Workshop Inc. 84-21 for former Holiday Inn now know as Inn at Aspen, requesting a variance for entrance sign from Highway 82. Mark Fidel from Design Workshop was there to represent u.S. Capitol. He described the size of the gates and the size of the sign letters. The actual plaque would be approximately 2' wide and 3' long facing out. There would be two facing out. Mason stated that they were within the code for one information sign. Mason stated that there would only be one sign under the code requirements and the Board would not consider the request for the second sign. Lukes requested a description for the light source. It would be a 75 watt low light. Lukes wanted the lighting to be consistent with what the County and Board wants for the county. Fidel stated that it would not be mercury. The Board determined that the size was appropriate, It would not have fluorescence lights.. Zanin moved to grant the Inn at Aspen to have a sign to conform to the sign code ( sized 2' x 3') Krausch second the motion. Lukes wanted to amend the motion to read that the lighting would be incandescent lighting. Zanin and Krausch agreed. A vote was called for and all were in favor. Mason advised the Board that Boise Cascade had been tabled again because the required research had not been completed. Meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, ", , \" . ., !, " J ~,((/7'?{lMYJ'L- Chairman ..('..., Scanned 9/19/07 File Finders Box #11 LARGE PLA T(S) A V AILIBLE TO VIEW AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT A V AILIBLE TO BUY AT CLERK & RECORDER I .' .- .