Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.84.44 . . Joe Zanin moved that the following be adopted: BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 84-44 The Aspen Group, Inc., 70 Pacific Ave. Bldg 15 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 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\" THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the applicant' s request for a 10' sideyard setback variance for placement of a satellite dish Additional conditions or restrictions: WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. Kandi Shaffran 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 Kandi Shaffran - yes The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: December 27, 1984 The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado Attest: J1~ ~a#Il- Chairman =o~b('V", ~ c hCTT'\o., "- Secretary ()~,.,.,. "......1 )I \...' ,,--' ....j . ~ . BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT . DATE /2/0/;)/ , 19 p,/ CASE# H,,!-'-j4 OWNER C;;/24fJ /Z.Jol] A/t::/lJwJ"( y::;:.;(. ADDRESS 'ILl /4t:;~'" /7..-<. ./ ,( I "1"'Hc /J.f/'E/J 4/'-<:.'~'//,. .:J:;.H, . ADDRESS ( A/e~ /1 APPLICANT LOCATION OF PROPERTY ~) /,r;D'Nc , Av,~ Xf/'dN g"'~d /.:..;4' ~.l /J /d9 #;; S' / Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part oj 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: Se.i?_ /J TY:4 (" /I ::- f;> DCJr/?/,T;D~ '.., APp~icant Signature 0~J~ WI<c0 r-Wc.Hl'1dJ -.D7JTI().J A ("A. , 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: . (.~ . ~ ~ ~-4J 10 ~.::uu.. $"-,7. rv' Date Permit rejected: Building ,n.peoto4 ?f..'7t- Board decision Application filed Date Secretary Board of Adjustment (~~'r(",-")...,ry .I' ''I...~...... "~ . . '. .1-,._._..___ .... _.~'-, .~.--_.- -:.:.:..::..,. --.',...' - '. ..:.'. , .~----.."'.... ,., o Channel 12 o gr:assroots television Box 2006. Aspen.l::olorado'81612 :...udl\\ "..Ild>"1l ,">> . ~'0 hdfi. .fI'-u't_ A.,~n~u.,lnr"("'"lrr hk'phont: (.\~.ii 'UHIOOO November 12, ]984 Planning and Zoning Comnission c/o Richard Grice Planning Offic~ Ci.ty of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 8]611 Dea r RicJmrd: As per our telephone conversation last week, I am submitting a reguest that the Plannlng and Zoning Commi""i on permit Channel ]2 to install a satellite ~eeeption dish adjacent tc cur offices. We are located in Building 15 of the Airport Business Center. ~his equipment v.'ill be used to allow Cllannel 12 to bring more diverse prograrrming to our viewing audience.. Through the use ~f 1)crrot.Jed equipment ""~e. have been able to car~y a national t:el12conference on the Arms Race, live coverage of the Space Shuttle as it 'Ceccvered a disabled sBtelli::e as well as an independent film showcase.series. I have included 3 site plan indicating the proposed installation site for this .equi.JJTllent. The oricr..tation will be to the simth'''est loo't\..i~)g O""2.T thC! garage behind GUr studic. The dish \l.dll be facing the same direction aoS the two dishes at Canyon Cable. H.')wcvert the vie" of this equipment from Highway 82 will be much more .restricted due to the "rchitec tur" of the buildings in the area. We have cOI!sulted 1....lth our building landlord. Fau1 lohne-on, and .lohn HcJ5ride, owner of che Airport Business Ce~ter. They ha\.'Q given theho permissiorJ for un to proceed. I!1 .'addition, we have spoken Hith O\.l~ neighbo1: to the east, Dr. Craton Bnr'kholder, concerning the 1a11::1.- scapJr.~ Lha.t hE wa~lts tq shie.ld the rear of the dish from visitors entering and It:aving his office. This ~s also indicated on the site pIarl dra;...ring. I 'would request that the Planning a,nd Zoning Commission take up tbis ",atter at their earltest opportunity. We would like to offer the COlnTIUnity the benefj, t of the. programming available through tlds t.>ch-' nolagy as soon as possible. Please cont3C'.t me if you have: any questions. Thank you for your consideration. YOIJrs trtlly~ l-1:thJ 1tvuM-L- }t1.chael Munroe Resouree Naoager lllr1'r.. ,..,4'10 3 .1<.,......1...-.', --~...~ , .. Channe112 g~sroots television Box 2006 . Aspen, Colorado 81612 Sl;udl" Bulldln, 1\.007(1 P"adO.' ^'"1:nul' A.<pc'n 8u.~ln;~,. (:.."IIt"F Trkp",mt(.\O,\),)l\,1I0CI() SA'CELITE UISH INSTALI.~TION PLAN: Height: 13.5' (inst"Ued) Hidth: 12.0' Color: off-white Attitude: Variabl.~, 0 degre.es from SOl~t",h tc :;lpproximatzly 35 degrees fr0m South_ (Siml13r to the attitude of Canyon C"ble's sBtelite dishes)" Sl..:pport: The dish support frame ,,,,ill b? moun'ted on a one meter square concrete pad that will act as a footing. The pad must be constructed. Apl')E'2ral1Ce: Th~ dish will be partially obstructed from the high'A-ay by building i5 at the ABC in which Channel i2 is house,da Foliage will be placed behind the dlsh (f2cing P3cific "vel to Dcreen it frOt" view from the North. The profile of the dish will be seen against th" <lest "all of tl:e Aspen Anim31 Hc.spital(rather. than the sl',y). We have chosen t.he prop')sed si tP. in o!'der to cree-.te the Ti!lnlrnUm visual i,mpact. The possible alternatives are a location on the property between huildi!.g 15 and th~ ABpen Ardmal Hospi tal (just off ot Pacific Avent.:e) to. the l~orth of the prop0sed location, and on the roof of bui,lding 15. Eoth alte:rnatives ""~~1.:1d haVe &n i.ncreased 'Jisual impact_ LOCATION DESCRIPTION 'l'he satellite dish will be located approximately ten feet from the southeast corner of Building #15. ()""''--''''-'f'1I1' t - "'\" " ...... .J /. ~.. . . /es Jell. fe-clco/uJ Svife LfO~ ~ / 7Z 20 S. /.?E/LA/A.E .L)E,A.,/VE~ Co .$02-2- 7-, ~ lZ'J.AIC..c!. )1oo/u 7"h ~Ac/I/c. AvE A/e-j Co tf/6/j - - , .I11/G/l.O -CAaJc Co~ % LA,vyorJ U!./L flux SY7 A..!jJe~ L Q g/t /1- /-i!~ CoV^-t( L~"~e~ l1o;".t-(L Ur G.t4! Z Co~ ,p U, lJu,>< ~ 0 Eo/.!'c/ ..L ct~~o ~?7Zf1 { , , lo n r-." ..." r- l.,.t'.!\~.__ .iJ --- . f €.€.~ ~ \~~'''J> \lj~. \\'t)\\ ,.,_ J" r~' f ASPHALT PARKING ".. \, \ :AP ~ ---, 1 I , , \ i ",( , , ; ., ~ " r 'j ; c)\ , '\~. ,. AiTITVDE: ANGLE ~ ~I ~I "~I '\ .....;.;'.,.-. ;~;". ,., w -,' ,: - ,", I 127.6':t. lW>>J \ \n:~ ~'ELEC ME1ER ", P<.V, \ ' ',I HAP 1 ' Ii ' I: o -10'-1: ~ I' ~ I Ii I / -- ~~ .:.-------'/ . SET> I REB^R WI Pl>\o S. Cf.\P L.S.9164 GRAVEL PARKI NG ,;> -0 , , 0 t..~..ri-,,; , 0 . ,'.0 o c_ LOT 2 29006 I sa, FT. fl!LO: 584"3400"W 1~4.6G ltl4.64 :.' , ~' . MERICAN A (PRIVATE) I \. , . " Ii ,. i FCUNC, REBAR WIPLAS,C'AP L.f..4043 I 11.1 ANIMAL HOSPliAL_ ",r- ..- .ritli' r-r- L()T .:' s "' '" ~ '" VI '" '" FOUND: REBAR WI PLAS. CAP L.5.9016 '" ..'" "'" ..oj ...,. d -' ~ POWER L.INE ---=---""" " I , SET. REBAR W/PLAS.CAP L.S.9IB4 ROAD (..'.,.,-....rllf1l6 ~ ,. , .. I ....... . ~ - ". . g()1 ~ OJ))' ~~~ MEMORANDUM TO: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission, FRO!,l: Richatd Grice, Planning Office Grass-Roots Neb/ork Satellite Dish Special Review RE: DATE: December 4, 1984 -----------------------------------.--------------------._------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------- Grass-Roots has requested approval of theil' plans to install a twelve foot (12') dish at the southeast corner of Building ns at the Airport Business Center. The dish site I~ill be visually isolated among buildings to a significant degree but ~/ill be partially visible from State Highway 82 over the garage behind Grass-Roots' studio. The profile of the dish will be seen against the west I~all of the Aspen Animal Hospital. Shrubery is proposed to ncreen the back of the dish in order to mitiaat" thp impact on the Animal Hospital. ----- The nning Office concludes that the visllal-1.rnpa-ctn---w-4dl--b.e_mi.n~mal , therefore recommend approval. '-.---~ We would note that the proposed dish site I,.'ill be ~/ithin the ten foot \\ (10') side yard set-back necessitating the Board of Adjustment's approval of the set-back variance. The varianc'3 would not present any)' proble:ofi from a life, health or safety point of vie~/. i IS \0,\ LJ-;ldv / -~r IWY~+--f/ar'a-:r~e AlfrlJvJ " "'-. (l'''''' ,.,........,.., . >: '.1 '-"'; i .. . . BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PITKIN COUNTY December 27, 1984 Members Present: Bill Mason, Chairman Paul Krausch Joe Zanin Alternates: Kandy Shaffran Bill Mason called the meeting to order. from the last meeting. Mason questioned their notification signs. They all had. There were no minutes as of this time if all of the applicants had posted Bertrand & Janice A. McDonnall 34-43 Lot 5, Block 2, Aspen Grove siD, requesting a variance from bhe Floor Area Ratio for remodeling. A letter was received from Gideon Kaufman, representing the adjacent property owners stating that there was no objection to the variance if a covenance was signed for parking. Lenny Oates was there to represent the owners and stated that the owners could make the committment as to whether or not the covenance is acceptable to them. Oates stated that he was also representing the First National Bank of Aspen, who sold the property to the McDonnalls. Oates returned the posted sign to the Board along with an affidavit stating that the sign was posted for the alotted time. Oates also presented the Board with a letter from David Michael which he requested be read into the record. Michael, as an adjacent property owner, expressed his support for the variance request due to the fact that he wanted to see the property put back in the form of a single family residence among other reasons. Oates explained that the First National Bank 1eant some money in a secondary position on the above property, and after much research ,felt the value was there and nothing was brought to their attention with regards to problems. A second kitchen was mentioned in the appraisal, but the bank felt if it did create a problem it could be removed. The property was then foreclosed and offered for sale to the McDonnalls. At the time that the McDonnalls went to get a building permit to renovate the property they were advised that the property was over the allowable F.A.R. Oates stated that was why the applicant was before the Board with this application. Oates stated that the owners were willing to agree to restore and maintain the structure as a single family residence and also to agree not to park on Alice Lane and to plow in a timely the fashion the area adjacent to their property that the County could not reach. Newbury stated that the previous owner did a garage addition with a room above which brought them to their maximum floor area ratio. At that time it was required that the second kitchen be removed. Newbury stated that it had been an ongoing problem for some time. Mason questioned if that construction had taken place around 1980. Newbury acknowledged that it had. Shaffran remembered that in 1972 the kitchen on the South side had been expanded. Oates pointed out to the Board that the property in question was a candidate for possible annexation by the City and under R-15, as currently exists in the City, is under the existing F.A.R, would conform. Krausch questioned what exactly brought the house over the allowable F.A.R. It was determined that when the garage was enclosed, which was done without proper permits, was when it went over the allowable F.A.R. Shaffran questioned why the realtor involved was not aware of the problem and present the problem to the bank. The banker involved was present and explained that they went by the appraisal that was done and when the second kitchen was mentioned, the McDonnalls had agreed that they were going to take it out. The banker also pointed out that it was the F.A.R. that was the problem and not the second kitchen. Mason felt that it was an unusual hardship and did merit the consideration of the Board. Shaffran stated that she did not have a problem with the variance request but wanted to comment that she felt it was a realtor's responsibility to research the lots. . . . PRADFORO PUElLISHING co., DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Page 2 Board of Adjustment December 27, 1984 Krausch questioned Newbury if the Building Dept. had ever followed up on information that illegal building had been taking place. Newbury stated that if a complaint was called in the Building Dept. propably investigated. Krausch moved to grant the variance to the McDonnalls. Shaffran thought the appliances had been removed from the second kitchen and wondered why they were still calling it a kitchen. Oates stated that the past owner had removed many fixtures in the house when he left. He stated that the applianced for one kitchen would be replaced. Krausch continued that the variance be granted to the McDonnal1s recognizing the unusual circumstances with the understanding that the parking be accomplished as requested and that the residence be converted to a single family residence. Zanin second the motion. Newbury expressed her concern that a permit for a garage would be requested. McDonnall expressed the desire to have a garage on the property at some time. Mason felt that at that time, due to the configuration of the lot, the owner would need to come back before the Board. A vote was called for and all were in favor. The Aspen Group, Inc. 84-44 70 Pacific Ave., Bldg 15, requesting a variance to place a satelite dish within the 10' sideyard setback. Mason pointed out to the Board that the P&Z had reviewed the request and had no objections. Greg Poschman was there to represent Crassroots T.V. along with Michael Monroe. The satelite dish would allow Grassroots to bring in programs produced elsewhere. Poschman explained that Building 15 is 12.3' from the next building and the dish is 12' wide and will be tilted on an angle to fit into that location. Kraucsh questioned why that location was chosen for the dish. Poschman stated that it was the least intrusive location. Other options were out in front of the building, which would probably require a variance, There were no objections from the adjacent property owners. Krallsch suggested the roof. Poschman stated that one, the accessibility would be more difficult on the roof, and two, the loading on the roof would be a problem. Also it would be more visible on the roof. They felt that placed where proposed would be better for the security of the dish. Zanin moved to grant the variance for a 10' sideyard setback variance with the approval of planning and zoning due to the fact that it is the least intrusive location. Shaffran second the motion. A vote was called for and all were in favor. Steven Fisher 84-45 Lot 3, Holland Hills SiD, requesting a 20' variance from the NW property line a 40' variance from S.E. property line, a 20' variance from access road to the NE for a single family residence. Darryl Hersky was there to present the owner. Mason questioned what the original setbacks for that subdivision were. Newbury stated that there was no problem with the Highway setback. She explained that 100' was required from the front yard and 30' from the sides and rear. She stated that after a plot plan had been done it was determined that all he needed was a variance from the front yard setback. An 80' setback was necessary. Newbury also pointed out that Holy Cross has a right-of-way across the property for a service line. Krausch questioned why the owner did not put the house 100' from Highway 82. Hersky stated that they were trying to keep the home as far back as possible from Highway 82. Mason questioned if Hersky had placed the house in line with the others in the area. Hersky stated that there were no others. Mason felt that the decision of the Board regarding this application could set a standard for future construction and they could keep the houses away from Hwy 82. Shaffran agreed. Krausch moved to grant the variance of 80' front yard setback due to downzoning. Shaffran second the motion. A vote was taken and all were in favor, Hersky questioned if the owner could build up to 100' of the Highway although it was not stated as such in the application. Krausch stated that that was nnt how the application read and they were acting by what the application proposed. Shaffran added that the Board agreed to the variance because they like the thought of keeping the house back from Highway 82. Hersky questioned if the other setbacks were permanent even though the only variance requested and granted was the front yard. Mason stated that if the owner was within the legal setbacks, the Board could do nothing about it, although they prefer it further from Hwy 82. . -'. . . SI'U,DFOItO PUBl.ISHING ca_, DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Page 3 Board of Adjustment December 27, 1984 Margaret Mason 84-46 0024 McSkimming Road, requesting a la' rearyard setback variance for an existing gazebo. Mason was there to represent self. At the last meeting Mason was denied the variance to enclose her gazebo and now she is requesting that the gazebo be allowed to remain. She informed the Board that she talked with Jim Reeser, who surveyed her neighbors property, and he said that the owners did own 7~' into the easement. Also, Holy Cross stated that the owners own that amount of the easement. However, there is no proof in writing. She had a lead from a gentlemen who worked with Aspen Title, but had not heard back from him. On the other hand, it cannot be proved that they do not own they part of the easement. Newbury stated that the setback requirement on the rear is 10'. With the possibility of the 7~' added to her property, and the I' of room she had now, the request would be for 2' which Krausch felt was very reasonable for the enclosure of Mason's gazebo. Krausch stated that he would be willing to vote for such a variance if proof could be established that the 7~' of the easement was her property. He then made a motion granting a 2' rearyard setback variance for the enclosure of the gazebo if proof could be established that she owned the property. Zanin second the motion. This is with the assurance that the gazebo be allowed to remain no matter what determination was made regarding the easement. A vote was called for and all were in favor. Heeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, \ \, ~. " , -...;:..,,~', ~\(.' '\(('C\., \ ml' 7fJa~ / Chairman