Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.84.38• . BOARD OF•ADJUSTMENT ~ ~ ~j DATE ~~~i=ca,s ilw,: ~ O , l a ~¢- 19 CASE # ~c ~ l - ~(~, APPLICANT ADDRESS l~d~~~lrl~e i~;.s~;~~jsx~ ' I ~i}J 1 OWNERS~:~ttiua'r^c~ t"-t~X,G--~~; ~-cat~<;~r~~ ~:r ADDRESS'~TX (ci~E-7 -~i~ Y=ic~1 LOCATION OF PROPERTY `~-~--~Y~~-;~.., -.~ ~~• ;L~ I p~<<~~.~ r Any pertinent dates 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: ~ac'Y~ `~-rt r~"1 /~~ /- ltD 7r~E' /.chi.%°i S ~ ~ > cam.-••7`~„ T/~/ 1 ~~/•T~ i.5, /'x2 cam"„ ~ ~Yr~.:~ J7~~~- ^:'il. ~i~'Y~ -1FYc.rr~,' 7~c] ~%:~~' _.-~<ric%~ ~~i f~a?~t~.:' rr~~'~ 1;~~"~i- C,~4cii/~hw~ c~u:t.as.~:s s:r.9,Srt-/ \ -~ <_;..- t. h ~ _.F_ ~ ~. Thy /~L -:~ //is~ .-~vsr ~j.1J ~Gt'i'nfl-7i e~C~_h"L _, , ~`; ,y~. ~, ? r,..~~~•e- ~ri~ ~.:si;-2 r~ _~ ~~. Applicant Signat - ~ Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building Inspector to forward this application to the Board of Adjustment and reason for not granting a, buidin 'permit: _ ~s,aOP~~ ~~ ^~~~~~~~ /`~,.~s,li .~w,L77'I-.rml~~ ..~. /GO '¢+.nr.- Gt-GC~...i ~c'.Gc~ .c«..L .S'o ,~c...,. - ' Building Inspecto Date Permit rejected: f-io -g ~ Board decision Application filed Mailed Date Secretary Board of Adjustment Joe Zanin moved that the following be adopted: BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 84-38 Starwood Homeowners Association, Common Area WHEREAS, the subject property is within the unincorporated area of Pitkin County, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the Hoard of Adjustment is vested with the Hower 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. NO[9, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the applicant's re4uest for a 65' frontyard setback variance for construction of fire truck barn/ maintenance building Additional conditions or restrictions: WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. Peter Dobrovolny seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: Bill Mason - yes Paul Krausch - yes Dottie Fox - yes Peter Dobrovolny - yes Joe Zanin - yes The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: September 25, 1984 The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado Attest: /~i;,f/(if a' `//~/~"L '~ •"1 - f ~ ~ ~. `,y ^~ ~` ~ Chairman .,..e~~~~q Secre ry LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS STARWOOD FIRE/MAINTENANCE BUILDTNC STARW000 HDME OWNERS ASSOCIATION September 10,19P4 R-10 & P-10 Robert Ray Edith Ray P.O.Box 1147 Aspen, CO P1612 R-ll Richard M. Moore Zinnette S. Moore P.O. Box 2084 Aspen, CO 81612 R-12 b P-12 Ben H. Wells Katherine G. Wells 35 Westmoreland Place St. Louis, MO 63]('8 C-1 Starwood Home Owners Association P.O. Box 629 Aspen, CO 8]612 R-5 6 P-5 Claudine Longet Williams P.D. Bax 11.958 Aspen, CO 81612 R-6 Walter Scarborough P.O. Box 1547 Aspen, CO 81612 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves C. , NO ECY EL B. 6 L. CO. PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMIINT SEPTEMBER 25, 1984 Members Present: Bill Mason, Chairman Dottie Fox Joe Zanin Paul Krausch Alternates: Kandi Shaffran Peter Dobrovolny Bill Mason called the regular meeting to order. There were no minutes from the last meeting to review at this time. Fox questioned if the Board was goine to have a chance to meet with the County Attorney, Tom Smith. Mason stated that there would be a meeting but had not had an opportunity to contact Smith so far. Pitkin County Bus Maintenance Facility 84-33 20101 W. Highway 82, requesting a sign variance. They were not attending the meeting and have withdrawn their request. Tony & Diane Rutgers 84-34 512 Spruce St., requesting a variance to exceed his F.A.R. in the amount of 200 plus square feet. Tony Rutgers was there to represent self. He explained that he had three lots in the Williams Addition and was allowed to build a three-car garage. It was in an R-15 zone. His proposed location for the garage would allow access from the new loop road being placed for Centennial. This would also help to block the development from his view. He explained that he would like to convert one of the stall into a shop/ storage area and have the rest for a two-car garage. Rutgers now exceeds the F.A.R. as allowed by that zone, but feels that he is a victim of the zoning. Patsy Newbury, Zoning Official, explained that he has a large lot with less building mass then most in that area. Mason questioned if the notification sign was posted. Rutgers stated that it was. Mason then questioned the remaining applicants if they had posted their notification signs. All had. Krausch questioned what the F.A.R. was in the existing structure. Rutgers felt the size was approximately 1650 on three lots. He explained that the house had been built approximately 1890.. The present zoning was established in 1976. Rutgers stated that he could build a three-car garage because it is a three bedroom house, but was not allowed to call one stall a shop because that would increase his F.A.R. Patsy Newbury explained to the Board how the code specifies a garage and the size of garages. There were no objections from the adjoining property owners. The existing shed on the property would remain. Rutgers explained that he had the permit and was building the three-car garage at this time. Fox moved to grant the variance due to downzoning. Zanin second the motion. A vote was called for and all were in favor. Rutgers assured the Board that there was to be no plumbing or electrical. George Norman 84-35 Lot No. 7, Little Texas S/D, 3214 Woody Creek Road, requesting a 18' sideyard setback variance for proposed addition to residence. Dick Fa11in was there to represent the owner. Fallin explained that the area is zoned RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves < < .o«.E~ w ~o. Page 2 Board of Adjustment September 25, 1984 AF-1. The lot is approximately 75 x 25 off the Woody Creek Road and bordered the river. Fallin stated that it was suggested to him that a 12' variance be requested. He pointed out a change in elevation on the property. The owner would eventually like to do a garage against the bank with a sod roof to blend with the hillside. Mason questioned if there were any covenants for the Little Texas Subdivision. Newbury stated that the subdivision was done in 1952 and did not have any specific setbacks. Krausch wanted more information regarding the owner's plans. Fallin stated that the owner has proposed closing the existing front porch, extending the living room, which would create the necessity for the variance request. Also under consideration was to make the extension from the back and convert the existing master bedroom into a living room and do a new addition for the master bedroom. He explained that if coming from the rear of the house they would not encroach more than 12' on the sideyard set- back. Fox pointed out that regardless of which direction the addition went a variance would be necessary. Mason stated that there were no objections from the adjacent property owners. Zanin pointed out that the proper wording for a variance would be an 18' sideyard setback variance. He moved to grant the request due to the irregular shape of the lot. Krausch second the motion. Don Rayburn had written to the Board that he had no objections to the proposed addition. Fallin questioned if the frontyard setback could be given a variance at this time also. Action could not be taken because proper notice had not been given to the adjacent neighbors. A vote was called for and all were in favor. ]awton Ferguson 84-36 0232 Picket Pin Lane, Old Snowmass, requesting a 47' frontyard setback variance for construction of a residence. Lawton Ferguson was there to represent self. Ferguson explained to the Board members that the property was located at the base of Gateway to Snowmass Mesa, in the meadows. He read a letter from Holly and Bruce Benson stating that they had no objections to the proposed structure. He explained that this structure was a permanent residence for himself. He felt that the zoning requirements put undo hardship on a lot of this shape and size. The location of the house makes use of the best solar advantage. Due to the steepness of the lot on the south and a relatively high ridge approximately 100 yards beyond the winter sun would be greatly reduced if the house were pushed in a southerly direction. Also, the further south the house is moved would increase the cut into the hillside, creating a greater visual impact for the county roads below. If the house were moved further east it would make ingress and egress extremely difficult in the cainter and would involve greater visual impact from the County road below. Ferguson also explained that positioning the house as proposed would remove the house from the views of a neighboring duplex and fourplex. He pointed out that he had a legal, deeded access from the road below. If he could not get the variance he would be forced to access from below which would change his frontyard setbacks. It coas determined that a 40' sideyard setback variance and a 47' frontyard setback variance. Martha Ferguson pointed out that the parcel was zoned for a 30 acre parcel and it was only an acre. It was determined that the leach field was in place but the house was not under construction. The topography climbs along the back of the property and becomes very steep. Shaffran was in favor of preserving the land and not creating massive cuts for access from below. Mason questioned the zoning in Gateway. Newbury stated that originally it was all AF-2. Krausch moved to grant the variance request based on solar constraints and downzoning. Fox suggested topography. Mason was in favor of topography rather than the downzoning. Krausch was in favor of all three reasons. Fox second the motion. A vote was called for and all were in favor. „.ono„o ,~a~,s„,„~ ~,., ,E„„ER R E C O R D O F P R O C E E D I N G S Page 3 Board of Adjustment September 25, 1984 The Inn at Aspen 84-37 21545 W. Highway 82, requesting a variance to extend the sign at the location. The representative for the Inn at Aspen explained to the Board that they were back before the Board because the brass plaques originally approved were not easily seen by traffic without light. They were proposing to externally illuminate the sign with the dimensions specified on the drawings submitted to the Board. He stated that the two brass plaques would be taken down and the newly proposed sign would be the primary method of identifying the property. He stated that flood lamps (small) would be on either side of the sign. Fox questioned if it was a reflective sign. It was not. The representative assured the Board that no reflective surface would be used, but would be a matt finish with a dull surface with a rust color; He stated that they would conform with all other sign along Highway 82. Mason question Newbury if the sign conformed to code requirements. She explained to the representative that the sign could only be 6 square feet. He pointed out part of the sign code that stated 10 square feet were allowed. She referred him to Section 5-500.2 for adjacent to the right- of-way of Highway 82. This specified that the sign may have lettering on two sides, each side of which may have lettering not to exceed 6 square feet and the maximum height of 8 square feet... The representative stated that they would adjust their square footage to conform along with their height. Newbury verified that the 6 square feet is in the sign area itself. The representative questioned the Snowmass Cottage signs and the fact that they Caere internally luminated. Newbury explained to him that they had recieved a variance for those signs and Fox explained that the code had been changed since then. Krausch complimented the owner for the job done at the Inn at Aspen. Fox moved to grant the sign variance for a sign no larger than 6 sq.ft. and no taller than 8 sq. ft. from the highway level with the lighting within the required foot candles. Shaffran suggested that the two brass plaques be removed. The representative would like to leave those in place for direction. Krausch suggested the plaques be allowed until the owner had to return for the annual sign renewal and then reevaluate the situation. The representative was willing to comply with any requirements set forth by the Board. Fox amended her motion for the removal of the two existing plaques. Krausch agreed with her amendment. The representative did not feel that they could be used as an argument by future applicants, and would prefer they be allowed and if they did become an issue, then be required to take them down. Fox kept her motion as is. Shaffran second the motion. A vote was called for and all were in favor. Fox requested a clarification regarding the sign code. Starwood Homeowners Association 84-38 Common Area, requesting a 65' frontyard setback variance for afire station. Jim Flood was there to represent the Homeowners Association. He explained that it would be a combination fire station and maintenance building. It would be a three bay garage. He stated that it was voted on by the Association. The fire truck would be from the Aspen Fire Department and would be available to fires all over the district. He explained that the road would not be changed. Newbury felt that there was a topography hardship with the lot. Flood stated that the security guard would be in charge of looking after the truck. He explained that the problem now was the 107 grade of the road going to Starwood. This system would have the fire truck there and the standard truck could go up the hill quicker and the response time would be shortened from 10 minutes to 4 minutes. Shaffran questioned if it would be lit up. Flood stated that it would not. The maintenance equipment would also be stored in this structure, getting them off the main road. There were no objections in the file. Zanin moved to grant the variance request due to topographical hardship. Dobrovolny second the motion. A vote was called for and all were in favor. The meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Scanned 10/8/07 File Finders Box #11 LARGE PLAT(S) AVAILABLE TO VIEW AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AVAILABLE TO BUY AT CLERK & RECORDER