Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.85.23I • BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • DATE August 13 19 ~r~ CASE# .~`"~ APPLICANT Harry Teague Architects ADDRESS 210 S. Galena St. , Asnen OWNER Rodney Jacobs ADDRESS Box 599 Asnen, CO 81612 LQCATION OF PROPERTY Lots 5,6 & 7, Asnen Park Subdivision, Pi (3 miles East of Asnen on Highway 82) Any pertinent data must accompany this ap lication, 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: Granting of the proposed 14 foot setback variance is iustified by reason of the hardship and practical difficulties resulting from the narrowness and configuration of the Jacobs nronerty in its relationship to the topography of the site, that portion of the nronerty directly behind the existing house being greater than 50°/ grade. In addition, special consideration must be given in this case to the preservation of existing trees. ~,._ ~ l03`~ ~ °~~ 13~~ Applicant Sig Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the forward this application to the Board of Adjustmen granting a buidin.g permit: /-n ,~ru,~~ J J,,~gc,u~_rs~.,.aacLLVcn~~zJy'~:2c~ ~rD~`yza..,,.z~L~~'~~~-e.a~.ac4(-~) c-•-"L [/ ~~ l~JTy~ /•.cl'l=~ -~- ~. .~LL ~ d"`"L! ~'tdl'"B"`„G~ h~ox- .`",9 .~1..c~ ,u-}{- yj~r'LC2Ld CLtI ~i/~ `~ "c ..~.a s,~.,~~,~' f~.o.z.~.Zry ..i~ur~ ,nL'~-`"-V ~' ~ ~~"" c.~C.-,~ ~ Building IngJpect ~ c Date Perms rejected: ~~ Board~cision Application filed Mailed to Secretary Board of Adjustment ....., ,. HARRY TEAGUE ARCHIT~TS 210 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 303/925-2304 LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS Hank Thurston Box 470 Ashen, CO 8167.2 Kevin Cassidy Box 7711, Ashen, CO 81612 United States Government Department o~ Agriculture k'orest Service 806 ?+1. Hallam St. Ashen, CO 81611 ~~ ' .., .l ,. ,~ ,.., ;a, ' ~ HARR~ TEAGUE ARCHITECTS 210 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 303/925-2304 JOB: J Q ~- ~ L~ S EVENT: ~ K'- ~ 2 G /r L L , DATE: \/,~ V ~~ I °_, ~ f`~ S SUBJECT: J n` G o yj S ~ /: 1~ fo ~ T ! ~"~ ~ .-, ,~ ~_ G4 i.q I3~.5>b 5 u ~~ h ~ Jz- T' ~h ~Tc I!: ~-. ~..i E r"c) __ -- ~ 9 8 7 {! ~~-~ ~ ACTION REQUIRID: I.' T IrJ~ ~ ~~-.. l~ 0 9 3.7 320. t~ DATE COMPLETED: MAXWELL ALEY ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW August 21, 1985 Pitkin County Board of Adjustment ~ Building Department 506 East Main Street Aspen CO 81611 Gentlemen: POST OFFICE BOX 5096 ASPEN, COLORADO 61612 1303)925-3691 With reference to the lot line setback variance applied for by Rodney Jacobs under date of August 13, 1985, 2 enclose a letter of support from my clients, Henry W. Thurston and Hilda A. Thurston. Sincerely, Maxwell Aley ~ MA:me cc: Mr. and Mrs. Henry W. Thurston w/enclosure ~,..,.1..,} ~,,. ., P.O. Box 470 Aspen, CO 81612 August 15, 1985 Pitkin County Board of Adjustment c/o Building Department 506 E. Main Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Members of the Board: I, Henry w. Thurston have reviewed in detail the plot plan for the proposed construction of the Jacobs addition which would encroach within the 30' setback along our common lot line. I have also physically reviewed the location of the proposed addi- tion on the site with Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Teague, and find the proposed encroachment to be of no disturbance to me or the use of my land. I believe that the design of this proposed addition is accomplished in a desirable way given the physical layout of the existing house and the terrain. My privacy will not be af- fected, as this addition is on the very rear of Mr. Jacobs' property and my house is located well forward of Mr. Jacobs'. I support Mr. Jacobs' request for a variance and recommend that the Board grant his request. Sincerely, ~'• ~~~~ Henry W: Thurston HWT/kls Hilda A. Thurston ~i,...rl,•r r August 8, 1985 County Board of Adjustment Pitkin County To Whom It May Concern: I am the neighbor immediately to the west of Rodney H. Jacobs in the subdivision Aspen Park. By this correspondence, I support the addition designed by Harry Teague and outlined to me by my neighbor Rodney Jacobs that is to go on the rear of his house (on the east side). I realize that there is a topographical constraint and an uncommon lot configuration and I feel it is in the best interest of both Rodney and myself as his neighbor to allow this addition as requested. Sincerely, ~~~ ~~~~ Kevin Cassidy ~,ix ii n+.\L S \.l .J .l VV PITRIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMBNT SBPTBMBHR 3, 1985 The continuation of the August 27, 1985, Board of Adjustments was called to order at the site of Rodney Jacobs' residence, Lot 5,6, & 7, Aspen Park S/D. Board members present were: Bill Mason, Chairman Dottie Fox Bob Throm Paul Krausch Kandi Shaffran Peter Dobrovolny Harry Teague had marked the area of the proposed building addition showing where the setback cut through it. This was demonstrated on the ground with surveyor's tape. He explained where the existing bedroom was at the second and third levels of the building and explained how the addition to the house and the bridge, which would extend to the new area continuing a master bedroom and gym and hot tub, would work. He explained that the large spruce's roots would be injured if they went closer to it. At the rear was' also a large boulder. Krausch stated that he felt it was a large house and a large lot and could not justify the variance of the setback. He could see no hardship. Throm felt it was a logical location for the type of addition they proposed. There was a diacussion concerning the topographic hardship. Shaffran asked that Teague explain the house as well as the addition. Teague pointed out how a part of the addition would be built onto the existing building enlarging existing rooms and the new area would be attached by a bridge that would be another bedroom and an exercise room with a hot tub. The bridge would be one story from the existing grade. Fox pointed out that it had less impact then in many cases. There was discussion of the home occupation and whether or not some of that use could be converted. Throm made a motion to grant the variance request. The motion died for a lack of a second. More discussion followed regarding the hardships involved. Krausch moved to deny the request. Fox second the motion. A vote was called for and all but Bob Throm were in favor. He voted nay. The meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ~~ a~ Chairman PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMHNT AUGUST 27, 1985 Members Present: Bill Mason, Chairman Dottie Fox Paul Krausch Alternates: Bob Throm Evan Gull Peter Dobrovolny Sandi Shaffran Bill Mason called the regular meeting of the Pitkin County Board of Adjustments to order. He questioned if there were any corrections or additions to the minutes from the last meeting. Fox moved to accept the minutes as written. Krausch second the motion. All were in favor. Lot 45, Holland Hills, requesting a 25' sideyard setback variance for construction of residence. J.R. McCarthy was there to represent the owners, along with the owners. Ae explained that after the property was bought, four or five years ago, the owners found an irrigation ditch on their property along with other items. The owners wish to build a log cabin, approximately 45' square, and also wanted to take advantage of solar gain with south facing glass. McCarthy pointed out a hill on the lot and the low side of the property. They wanted to bring the road around the hill to the low side. The owners do not want a separate garage. By placing the structure here, the most solar gain can be attained. There were no objections in the file from the adjacent property owners. McCarthy stated that he discussed the situation with the BLM representative and they did not have an opinion either way. Throm questioned the contours. McCarthy stated it dropped approximately 12 to 15 feet. Near the house it dropped ap- proximately 7'. Throm proposed that the structure could be built on top of the hill. McCarthy stated that the hill somewhat sheltered the house. The hill is of irregular shape. Dobrovolny questioned about the garage. McCarthy pointed out that the garage fitted underneath the living room. Height limitations can be met. McCarthy felt that this was the best possible location for placing the structure with regard to the topography, the solar access, the view of the owner, and pushing it away from the view plain of the highway. Dobrovolny had made a site inspection and felt where the house was staked out was the most gentle area and the driveway would provide gentle access to the house. He did not think that the solar hardship was a reasonable hardship, but due to the topography and downzoning the applicant had a legitimate request. Krausch moved to approve the request for variance based upon the combination of topo- graphical and downzoning hardships. Dobrovolny second the motion. A vote was called for and all were in favor. C A Killinasworth 85-22 Lot 12, Little Texas S/D, requesting a 15' sideyard setback variance for addition to cabin. There was no one there to represent the applicant at this time. 1 Rodney Jacobs 85-23 Lots 5,6, & 7, Aspen Park. S/D, requesting a 14' sideyard setback variance for addition to residence. The applicant's repre- sentative had stepped from the room, so Mason suggested that the Board hear the Redstone Church's variance request. The Church at Redstone 85-19 Lots 1,2,3,4, Block 1, Kistler S/D, was back before the Board after redesigning their structure to conform more closely with the height limitations set forth by County code. At the July 30, 1985, meeting the Board gave the Church some guidelines to follow in the redesigning. Doug Self presented to the Board some new drawings showing the redesign. He compared it with the old design so the Board could see clearly the changes. The roof line was dropped down to 32'10" and the tower was decreased down to 41'3" and the bulk of the tower was reduced. Patsy Newbury of the Building Department, had received a copy of a letter from the Redstone Historical Society, approving the changes to the Church's design. Newbury stated that the legal height is 28' half way between the ridge and the eave and 33' at the peak. This would mean that the Church now conforms with the height code and the tower needs a variance request. The Board members agreed that a church should have a tower. Mr. Self stated that the plans were taken around to the neighbors for their approval, and everyone was satisfied. Shaffran expressed a concern for future uses of the structure. Fox stated that wasn't a subject that the Board could deal with. Gull didn't feel right about placing a deed restriction on the building. Krausch wanted to be certain that the only item requiring action was the tower height. Newbury stated that was all they were requested to deal with. Dobrovolny and Throm thought that the new design was architecturally better. Fox was worried about the bulk. If the F.A.R. and setbacks were in con- formance with ttie zoning and building codes, the Board did not have a say regarding that. Fox moved to grant the variance for a 41'3" high steeple due to aesthetic considerations. Gull second the motion. A vote was called for and all were in favor. R_odnev Jacobs 85-23 Lots 5, 6, & 7, Aspen Park S/D, requesting a 14' sideyard setback variance for addition to residence. Harry Teague and Daniel Delano was there to represent the owner. Teague pointed out the features of the property to the Board members. The proposed addition at this time was a combination of a kitchen and a bedroom. The existing kitchen and bedroom are in the back of the house and that is the reason for doing the addition to the rear. The reason for the cut out was a 16" diameter spruce tree. This also allows light to get to the addition. Teague included letters from the adjacent property owners expressing they had no objections to the addition. He explained that the other adjacent property owner was the forest service, who was further up the hill. Mason thought that a variance had been granted on this property previously. Teague was not aware of any. Krausch wanted discussion on the comments that Patsy Newbury had put on the applicants application. He questioned the existing gazebo that was built without zoning approval. There was a permit issued however. There is a deck on the southeast aide that was built without a permit. There is not a problem with the F.A.R. There was a question if the structure was going to remain single family. A heated walkway connects a studio to the main house. Delano used the building plans to point out the layout of the residence. There will be no extra kitchens. There will be a sink in the gym which would be under the enlarged kitchen. Krausch thought the kitchen could be extended without encroaching 2 into the setback. Teague agreed but pointed out that the bedroom/bath extension would encroach. Krausch wanted to know why that couldn't be added on elsewhere. Dobrovolny thought there were many areas that the residence could be added on to without encroachment. Teague pointed out several features of the property that created a topographical hardship for them. The owner also wanted to keep everything contiguous so to use the existing plumbing. Krausch did not see the hardship involved. Mason pointed out the large trees they were trying to save and the steepness of the slopes. However, Krausch felt there was plenty of buildable space. Teague explained that snow builds up on the west side and a stone retaining wall was on one side due to the steep grade. If they flipped the addition it would not make sense, even though it could go there. They would have to build some of it on stilts, some would have to go underground and the snow would buildup. Also, on the west side it would be move of an impact on the neighbors and they wouldn't be adding onto the rooms they were trying to add onto. Throm felt there was a topography and aesthetics hardship. Mason confirmed that aesthetics as a hardship had been used in the past. Fox felt that Teague was applying good land use and she felt that one of the responsibilities of the Board was to help the owners out in situations like this. Caull agreed that there was no significant hardship on anyone and topography could be used as the hardship, however there is no depravation of use and there isn't a significant hardship on the owner except he cannot place the addition where he wants to. Krausch disagreed feeling that the alternatives had not been fully investigated. Throm moved to grant the variance due to topographic hardships. Fox second the motion. Krausch voted no and Shaffran expressed concern about granting the motion based on past variance request decisions and was inclined to vote no. Teague pointed out that the neighbors did not object and Masan read the letters for the Board's information. Shaffran felt strongly about approving this request due to past experiences where, in another situation, the applicant misrepresented what he intended to do with a struc- ture. Krausch questioned if the architect would reconsider the plans to see if it was at all possible to stay within the setbacks. Teague stated that there were places the addition could be done but it would not be desirable to the owner nor the people driving up and down the highway or the neighbors. Krausch questioned if the two structures could be joined. He felt there were plenty of choices opened to the architect. Mason pointed out the tree that the owner wanted saved. Krausch pointed out another location that did not have trees. Throm felt the Board should act decisively on the request and that the architect had come before the Board with the beat place possible for the architect. Mason suggested a site visit. Everyone agreed that would be helpful. The site visit was made for the following Tuesday, September 3, 1985, at 8:00 a.m. Throm moved to table the meeting until such time. Fox second the motion. All were in favor. Respectfully submitted, i~~~(tiG ~J ' / ~1J Chairman 3 Scanned 10/9/07 File Finders Box #11 LARGE PLAT(S) AVAILABLE TO VIEW AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AVAILABLE TO BUY AT CLERK & RECORDER