Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.93.42' ~. PITRIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUBTMENT DATE 1D - ~~ -~j~j CASE # APPLICANT ~ tLnf~iL+O/'a//knT~. P/H~ONE MAILING ADDRESS 2-`~ D \~ ~wvL2. (,I~ (1.( OWNER ~C /~/~ ~~t~ G~SL.{/L^ PHONE MAILING ADDRESS Z { ~)'' rr~~.vl a ~~ ~7~/~,{ LOCATION OF PROPERTY `~I,el 7O '7O1 ~ ),E.L Q,~,.~ 3 - N~ q6v ~o !e 3 Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part of this Case. The Board may return this application if it does not contain all the facts in question. _-- Applicant Signature (TO be completed by the Zoninq Department) Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Zoning Official to forward this application to the Board of Adjustment, and reasons for not granting a building permit: Requesting: ~F-f Zone District Lot Size ~_' Front Yard Setback Variance, where ~~ is required. Rear Yard Setback Variance, where ' is required. ' Side Yard Setback Variance, where ' is required. ' Side Yard Setback Variance, where ' is required. Height Variance, where ' is required. Square Feet where a maximum of sq, ft. is allowed. Other: Zoning Officia ~Q~„~o Application filed ID l2 ~ 3 Par~ID No. ~~~'~ - b~2-fO -6~~ Date of Meeting Notices Mailed ll Secretary Y~(h~flhey~ ~~ Refer Resolution to Building Department ; _~ Yes ; _~ No 3 ooooo~ ~-~ zy BEFORE THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to Pitkin County Resolution of June 5, 1955, as amended, a Public Hearing will be held in City Council Chambers, City Hall, First Floor, Aspen, Colorado (or at such other place as the meeting may then be adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the County Zoning Resolution. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. THE PARTICULARS OF THE HEARING AND OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE ARE AS FOLLOWS: Date and time of meeting: owner: Name and Address of Applicant: Property Location or Description: November 2, 1993 at 5:15 p.m. Plaza 1 Meeting Room Courthouse Plaza; 530 E. Main Wildbrook, Ltd. Wildbrook, Ltd. c/o Gene Adcock 278 Ronce Lane Carbondale, CO 81623 4070 Lower River Road Requesting approval for a 95 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a pump shed. Approval of this variance request would allow the proposed shed to be located 5 feet from the front property line. VARIANCES GREATER OR LESS THAN REQUESTED COULD BE GRANTED. Duration of Variance: Temporary Permanent X THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT uzanne L. Wolff, Secretary O~OOL"n 'rJ U- Is ~rL r~ e.~P~-~,-M-- ~ ry ~ u 'rcv (~~ I,~.c~ fl ~ 'ter.!-s '~U ~' R-T- ~~-~ L p~~ ~xi ~>r,y ~ ~,.3it.~ ~~~ . .QUA Nw.~~i .ri ~~r.w a+~ S~~ '7 qp,. , ~s° .: r..r ». f~ E I ~ ~ i I I' I ~ I 1 ~~~ i ; jl ' ' fDla.or~ AAlawoF, 1 ~ ~ ~ 'Rs~, s ~ a~ I r !l_~ t I i i 7~v~ 2 ~~~ G/ ~ i ! ... ~'d9 I l~f„r;~ ~;.~!i~~f~~r~ # 3Bt;i~ittg 117saeciion Ge~urtl~~al~t ~~ 40 w__ ~ '4 , i ~tl/.~7~N~ i r,~.rT - ~~N -~ Gict~. V-N c.~, I ~ ~ .. 5 .._ i __ ~G E ! VF :E Q; p NOV 1 1 1993 ~~ BUILDING 876-2734~A sF~' E1+FC,, ~ 81602 '1~. r~ ~ S 1Z~ •a - - - - _ ---- _/~ --/.0.~ ~25~3 Co7'rn+~a-~~~ C.B~~~ e ~~ L ~cA ~ 5~~~~ ~~~~'a ¢ ~~~~ v ~ 7 S 5 GS~.~.1 z.~,oc ~ ~s -- C© ~?6~j Syr ~©C..LOC~' ~1` . ~~ - F~/6~ L ~. - ---- - - -_- -- - - - -__ ,. OU'JU04 - -- - _ -- - -- ---- . -__ .., ~. TLW ~ Sec. 6, "r.9'3., ..=..-.+ ~'.. 85' off'kG~¢ /[.'~,J?: IBC.. `''~; ].C.71'I<i oT•Hj _.. GrsY\L$$ CIL]n~OIULCLISI ~')1QCf`~ jl la[,o.41' \J. ' . ~ ..~- 3a'W 41 v II 'j\ta,KelMq Vn.~ o QQ~ /}. I 1 : Iv / (. ~n ~' "'i7'' i ~~ ~, m ~. Y.. ~ ~ 1~ ~ 1 ~i ~: J ~ _~ f 3' 1°. ~ , I I~ ,~ 7 c ~d ° M ~U) , ~ ?`~ Legal Descrlplion: See Paye •- ~' 'LI 1¢v¢1~ n° tl l 0 U M ~ f'J]~ Y~lL1.l I ~~ .I \ ~" :J .,5.54;1' j I hereby certify tllal on October 4, 1900, a survey was performed by mn and undnr my direct supervision of the real property shown and described herer~n. A thl'ee- level frame building was Found to be nn said property as shown hernun. All case- ments, rntroachmenls and rights-of-way In evidence nr I:nawn to mf+, are shown. 'this survey Is true and correct to Lila best of my kriow(e!lya anJ belirf, OOQJ05 f f.fa\cQftYq.our~..d.~ f~nsc~IfU ~ plftaviv yx.Ip• 46a ~)~4Ms>~~~ NOV 1 2 199? #3-740 Z'wupYov2m~'v~,k; SuY~fe~{ g" L/NES /N SPACE SYDNEY LINC/COME(L.S.l4/llI .1Y1 e,,~ S~.~E ~ Vp T~ e~ dom. , 5 ~o~; c~~ ~3 ~3 C3a78 6~o~CeLn C'dal~ Co. g(~z3 ~' ! r , ~; . QUj f f~l~. .,p e '~~fe ' ax:s':y- ~ ~/~f4 .. ~.~ ` • F, , FM1~~ r ,, , k f'~. ~~~ ~'K/G ~ vc~ r ~a~~ ,./' !~(I Nnv y ' ®~~~ 1 ~ 199.E .. ~;9 7'..~" . .a~ i ~ B~si4~int~ iris ~'~iojx [~c~~ ~n~ant # 3 ~ +4 d- -- - - f~ ..~~~ ~ ~I;\ \ ~- -` ,~ i I , I~ ,; ~; ~~ ~~~. ,~ Ek;~ry ~~MP --L.-... _.__ . . ___ I ~ ` • • ~ ` V '~ ' ~ 0,. r~or/P7P i _ n ~ 1.. 1 , .... ... ..~~~..Are~ [3Uia•f-bi'"~ P.O. Box 2814 - (3Q3) 87&2734 ~NgpC-C7QR~ Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 a~~~a~s i ;;~; ~r 1~ ~~ 1' ~ j1- 9 x G ao~ -r Trv.f~ ~.P"~ Vii`, ~, fxv O-~r ~~'° 1 roe ~1~,~ SEt,25~6(c~3 two, :3., /'r~ b p,; ~..~.~.r. _•~~~ .~ w .r ~,......: .-~=---- Z-CPM/...., ~r..6 Slr Pn~ • ~~ ;eA~R ~~~ O a =% rrrct Z~~~ "~_ zcc ®~ LAND USE APPLICATION FEES CITY: -63250-134 -63270-136 -63280-137 -63300-139 X3310.140 -63320-141 ~333o-1so -63432-157 -63432-157 -00100-00000-31070 HISTORIC PRESERVATION: -63335-151 -63336-152 -63337-153 -63338-154 -63339-155 COUNTY: -63160-126 -63170-127 -63180-128 -63190-129 -63200-130 -63210-131 -63220-132 -63230-133 -63240-149 -63450-146 -63235-146 REFERRAL FEES: -s33so-143 00115 -63340.163 00123 -63340-190 00125 -63340-205 PLANN ING OFFICE SALES: -63060-122 -69000-145 ~~ ~ Lf ~t `- Name: 1. C i7 L , Address: ~'~~ ~ ~ ~ D Check #: _ i / n.,.,,. GMP/Conceptual GMP/Final SUB/Conceptual SUB/Fnal All-2 Step Applications All 1 Step Applications Staff Approval Zoning Plan Check Sign Permit Use Tax for Sign Permits Exemption Minor Major Devet. Signif. Devel. Demold'an GMP/General GMP/Detailed GMP/Final SUB/General SUB/Detailed SUB/Foal All 2 Step Applications All 1 Step Applications Staff Approval Board of Adjustment Zoning Plan Check Engineering -County Engineering -City Housing Environmental Health ~ "' ,G~i County Code Other (Copy Fees) TOTAL FZ.GO Phone: ~ ~ 3 - ~ / c 3 Project ~'(~ " `~ Z- ~ No of Copies: 0` :%"~~ 1 ,. ~s~ ';"~ ~• 7 ,~...ty`t' ~~'~1 ~ M, \.. t ..f1 ~ k-. ~_ ~~~ . x. ~ ~ .,~ ~}~~yy~f~ ~M J,,. , `~ >. _ x ,~.; . •t ~ `~ .•r a. , ^ '~ . ~,: ~;i ~ ~ ei -T r ~:`.d; r `x ~,~'a ,S: , .f r; ..:. ~,S ~ ~ I ~~ i i 1 , \A ~r~r~~~~s ~ ~ ~ ~. _ .~;; t. ~~ 1 ~~ ~~ 'r~re' . r ~.r a i y i ~~ T F~ ~T rr~'::1r~ 'tti~ t:! '~ ,. i _ - 4 j~ +) p 3 _ :;. _'.. .~ ,.~. s:~ ~. .~ .~,. J',, S s `- _,,, .~f . ~, .., ~. . .~~.:: ~~~ ~,t . 777NNN111 ` +t f E .. -. ~, ~, ,. - -. . ~3'i ~~) . :r,~~,~~ ~~ . ., . e ~ . ~~~~ ~~ '',''I ,''` ~~ -~---'- ~-~ ~:~ t~ -N~ ~ ~SS~ ,~ ~ .D.~ ~~~3 ~l 6 /L ~~._ ff~ L ~ o'Jyr-yxli~+ ~~A~/// ~ ~~~~A i~ 0 7~S Gs~~A ~,ac ~ ~6 S: ~ ~ ~-° `" ° . ~, II ~ pa0t~~ 1 ,~--- • ~,,- /~Oc_c ocK f~, ~,~ - FS/6~ L ~. '~~ ~~~ ~ 00001 r #364705• '1ii93 13:D8 Rec $.OG Bk: ~ F'C 666 Silvia Davis, F'i tk.in Cnty Cler k~~ Doc 3.UU RESOLUTION OF THE PITRIN COUNTY, COLORADO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTING SETBACK RELIEF FOR WILDSROOR, LTD. RESOLUTION NO. 93-42 WHEREAS, Wildbrook, Ltd., owner of 4070 Lower River Road, is requesting approval for a 95 foot front yard setback variance, for construction of a pump shed; and WHEREAS, 100 feet is required in the AF-1 zone district; and WHEREAS, the subject property is within the unincorporated area of Pitkin County, Colorado, (as described in Exhibit "A", attached); 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 adjoining 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 substan- tial 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 by the Board of Adjustment, that a 95 foot front yard setback variance be granted for construction of a pump shed, due to the unique conditions on the property which result in practical difficulties, as per the plans submitted (Exhibit "B"). ~~ WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. oooos3 #364 i OS 12/ 1 ~ 13:28 Fec ~. ~~0 bh.. 735 F'~.7 Silvia Davis, F'itH:in Cnty Cler4:, Doc 3.U0 Resolution No. 93-42 Page 2 The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: November 2, 1993 ATTEST: ~U,c~~~~ltl:~ Suza ne L. Wolf Secretary The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado R~ck`'N~iley, Chairman ~~~~1~ #364iit5 1!/93 13:28 Fec $.Cii~ Fti:;! F'G bbB Silvia '.7~'vis, F•it4:in Cnty Cler4::, Doc $,~i~i EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description for property owned by WILDBROOR~ LTD. 4070 Lower River Road Part of Lot 7, Section 6 Township 9 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M. Pitkin County, Colorado i r ODUU15 #3647U~2/ 17/9.= 13: ~£i fiec ~. OG Bk:•.5 F'G 669 Silvia Davis, F'it4::in Cnty Clerk, Doc x.00 F e.::..-.. ~Jd~~-.k )-.r,;~J ~XFF~41T I~B 11 p3~,'~. as~ w. at khc 1~t-k Y'• rc.. ~'~Cx.'rl•lo•~r'n! "T µ•rasS ~ ioWLCil34 (i~aC4' I Iotio.41• . \. ' ~ ' ~ •~*'~ yo ~ ~ ' atz7•io'w 411.5'1 .• ,. ry 3 . ~ ~ eau a ~~"" J ..e , I ~>r~.~• ~ M ~~3lJl '1O~c •~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ` _ ~ I . , dom. V~ Tc~ Pv ~ . y ~''=- 3 a ., °~~ ~G3 1 ~ ~_:, M ~ ~.~ m ~ ~ r:. ' ' .,' ~ C g ~ 3 ~ 7 ~ (~ e .~ ~z~.~ ~~ c aQ~ o. ~z 1Q~, `111 W4 ~' ai4a ~. (~ (V . bo e ~ ~: TTII 1 legal Descrlyllon: See Paye •-i,.~dicSokss 3oacv.~reb~~.~ri Cyr w:'•r4••a~ f_.5.5;1'.~'1 I ~r Q~~~~? NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to Pitkin County Zoning Resolution of June 5, 1955, as amended, a Public Hearing will be held in the District Courtroom, Pitkin County Court House, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such other place as the meeting may then be adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the County zoning Resolution. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests, or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. A VARIANCE GREATER THAN OR LESS THAN THAT REQUESTED COULD BE GRANTED. DATE AND TIME OF MEETING: Tuesday, November 2, 1993; 5:15 P.M. Plaza 1 Meeting Room, Courthouse Plaza Building, 530 E. Main, 1st Floor Daly, Thomas: requesting approval fora 3' height variance, where a maximum of 20' is allowed for an accessory structure, for construction of a barn. Property Location: 34700 Highway 82 (Cozy Point Ranch). Haeck, William: requesting approval fora 35' front yard setback variance and a 5' west side yard setback variance, where 75' and 20', respectively, pare ~equired in the AF-2 zone district, for construction of a single family residence. Property Location: SE /aSE /a, Section 4, Township 10 South, Range 88 West of the 6th P.M. Greenwald, Betty: requesting approval fora 5' north side Yazd setback variance, where 15' is required in the R-30 zone district, for construction of a garage. Property Location: 738 Hunter Creek Road; Lot 6, Block 4, Red Mountain Ranch Subdivision. Adcock, Gene: requesting approval fora 95' front yard setback vaziance, where 100' is required in the AF- 1 zone district, for construction of a pump shed. Property Location: 4070 Lower River Road. Submitted to the Aspen Times on October 19, 1993. To Be Published in the Aspen Times October 22, 1993. County PO N301003 ~0~~~7 Minutes Pitkin County Board of Adjustment November 2, 1993 Members Present: Staff: Rick Neiley, Chair Michael Cooper Rod Dyer Shira Geller Ellie Brickham Bill Lukes John Wheeler Joanna Schaffner, Zoning Enforcement Neiley opened the meeting at 5:20 p.m. and introduced the Board to those present. He welcomed new Board member Shira Geller. Case 93-05 Robert F. Leonard Lots 10 11 & 12 Block 5 Kistler Subdivision The application was tabled to the January 4, 1993 meeting. Case 93-20. William & Barbara Howell. Lot 3 Block 3 Filing 3 Gatewav of Snowmass Mesa At the request of the applicant, the application was tabled to the December 7, 1993 meeting. Case #93-36. Chester Pohle and Michael Pixlev Lot 3 Block 2 Filincr 1, Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Subdivision This case was tabled at the meeting on October 5, 1993, and at the site visit on October 13, 1993. Cooper and Geller are not voting on this case. Chester Pohle and Michael Pixley were present to request a 70 foot front yard setback variance and a 20 foot north side yard setback variance, where 100 feet and 50 feet, respectively, are required in the RS-30 zone district, for construction of a single family residence. Pohle stated that they have attempted to provide the additional information that was requested at the site visit, including a revised site plan with the driveway specifications. There was no public comment. Pohle indicated that an attempt was made by a previous owner to excavate for a building site on the lower part of the lot, but was abandoned when they encountered problems with the soil and steep slopes. He noted that they plan to contour and revegetate that area, as well as the areas disturbed during construction, as 1 0000?8 requested by the Gateway Homeowners Association. Pohle stated that an architect calculated the driveway to achieve the 12$ grade requirement and located the house in the optimum position to achieve that grade. He pointed out that the plan shows the retaining walls necessary for the house and the driveway, and the existing trees on the site which the driveway will not disturb. Wheeler stated that the trees will not live because they will be disturbed by the berm. Lukes agreed that 75$ or more of the trees will be buried in dirt and will die. Neiley asked why the retaining wall and the stairs on the plan were not included in the variance request. Schaffner responded that the stairs were on grade and the retaining wall was built into the hillside, so they are allowed within the setback. Wheeler questioned whether the topography of the tut could be justified as the hardship for this request. Neiley noted that downzoning would be the justification because the owners are unable to fit the improvements outside the required setbacks. Neiley moved to grant a 69 foot front yard setback variance and a 27 foot east side yard setback variance, due to downzoning. Dyer seconded the motion. Wheeler and Lukes were opposed, therefore, the motion failed. Brickham asked the applicants if they had considered entering the house on the second level to lessen the cut necessary to get to the first level. Pohle replied that the architect informed them that they would then have to increase the amount of fill, and the Gateway Homeowners Association had stated a preference for not increasing the amount of fill. Wheeler asked if they had considered a detached garage. Pohle replied that the Homeowners Association preferred that they not have a walkway or stairs from a garage on the lower portion of the lot to the house in its proposed location. Wheeler stated that the house is in the worst topographical site on the lot, and that he would like to see the applicants looking for a site on the lot that makes more sense for building. Pohle stated that the house is designed for a sloping lot, despite the Board's comments to the contrary. Neiley responded that the problem is that the flat floor plan they have presented does not fit into the site effectively because it requires a large retaining wall and a lot of cut and fill, and added that the applicants do not seem to have chosen the best design or the best location given the problems with the site. Pohle noted that they will have the same problem if they build on 2 0000?9 the lower portion of the lot because the lot is narrower at the bottom, which will require them to build even closer to the lot lines. Also, they will not be able to get a driveway to the house because there is not enough room for the switchbacks that would be required. Lukes stated that a variance will be required for the house anywhere on the site, and that he would prefer to see the house developed on the lower portion of the site. He added that being able to drive directly to a house is not an intrinsic property right, and that the site just may not allow it. Wheeler noted that the fire department does not need to be able to drive to the front door. Wheeler stated that the applicants did not use the topographical map to their advantage in order to minimize the impact of the development on the site. Pohle replied that there will be a scar on the property no matter where the house is sited. Brickham disagreed, noting that the house could be stepped down the hill with the entrance on the upper level. Wheeler added that stepping the house would avoid a big berm and retaining wall. Neiley stated that the applicants have a justification for a variance, but that the development plans are not suited to the site, and that it seemed obvious that they would not gain support for this specific variance. Lukes moved to table this case to December 7 pending receipt of a revised site plan. Wheeler seconded the motion and all were in favor. Case 93-37, Richard Kaufman Lot 1 Ridoe of Red 'Mountain Subdivision Lukes and Wheeler are not voting on this case. David Finholm, representing the applicant, was present to request a 1'6" height variance, where a maximum height of 28 feet is permitted, for an addition to a single family residence. Finholm stated that a variance was granted for the addition in February, 1993, but that the house design has since been changed. He noted that when the building is finished, the roof will actually be lower than it is now, but it will still exceed the allowed height because the original building was approved based on a previous definition of building height. He added that they are lowering the bulk of the roof and adding an overhang to protect the house from the sun. There was no public comment. Dyer moved to grant a 1'6" height variance, due to downzoning. 3 ODUU20 Brickham seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case 93-39. Thomas Daly. 34700 Highway 82 Neiley and Geller are not voting on this case. Thomas Daly was present to request a 3 foot height variance, where a maximum of 20 feet is allowed for an accessory structure, for construction of a barn at Cozy Point Ranch. Daly stated that he is constructing a barn and riding arena, and that the request for extra height is based on the height necessary for headroom when riding in the arena. He added that the barn will be in the same location as the previous barn and will have little impact on the adjacent landowners. The proposed barn is a little larger than the previous one. Schaffner noted that in the RS-20 and RS-30 zone districts, a building such as this would be permitted a maximum height of 28 feet because it would be considered a principal use. However, in the AF-1 zone district, the building is considered an accessory use and must abide by the more restrictive height requirement. This parcel contains approximately 200 acres. Daly noted that he wants to maintain the property as a ranch. Neiley stated that the Board has granted variances in the past to similar structures in order to maintain legitimate agricultural uses. Howard Hardy, a neighbor from Brush Creek Village, stated his approval of the variance request. Wheeler moved to grant a 3 foot height variance, due to practical difficulties. Cooper seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case 93-40 Robert Durham SE~SE~ Section 4 Township 10 South, Rance 88 West of the 6th P.M. Dyer and Neiley are not voting on this case. Robert Durham was present to request a 35 foot front yard setback variance and a 5 foot west side yard setback variance; where 75 feet and 20 feet, respectively, are required in the AF-2 zone district, for construction of a single family residence. Durham stated that the property had been reviewed for wildlife issues, and that the proposed building envelope received 1041 approval. The envelope is in a level meadow located in the narrowest part of the lot. The rest of the property is heavily forested. There was no public comment. 4 ooou2l wheeler moved to grant a 35 foot front yard setback variance, a 5 foot west side yard setback variance and a 10 foot east side yard setback variance, due to the unique conditions on the site not caused by the applicant. Brickham seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case 93-41. Betty Greenwald Lot 6 Block 4 Red Mountain Ranch Subdivision Brickham and Lukes are not voting on this case. Charles Paterson was present, representing the applicant, to request a 5 foot north side yard setback variance, where 15 feet is required in the R-30 zone district, for construction of a residential garage. Paterson stated that the existing house is currently being remodelled, and that the topography of the lot prevents the owners from building the garage anywhere else. He added that there is not a garage on the property now,- and that all of the neighbors have garages. He noted that the Homeowners Association approved the request, subject to any objections from the neighbors, and no objections have been received. Neiley read into the record a letter from Jeanne and John Russell, stating their approval of the variance request. Paterson indicated that the garage will follow the roof line and will be attached to the house. A utility easement prevents them from building more than a one-car garage. Wheeler asked why the garage could not be moved closer to the house or built in another location, and added that he did not feel that topographical hardship was a justification for this variance request. He also noted that an owner does not have a given right to a garage. Pat McAllister, representing Burton Goldberg, an adjacent landowner, stated Mr. Goldberg's opposition to the variance request, due to the lack of a hardship. He also questioned the visual impact of the garage and stated his client's concern for the integrity of the zoning in the subdivision. Paterson questioned the impact of the garage on Mr. Goldberg and reiterated that there was no other location on the property for a garage. He noted that the neighbors who would be most impacted by the garage have no objections. Neiley stated that he would like to visit the site to determine if there is an actual hardship or any negative impacts. 5 0®~~~~ Geller, who has already visited the site, asked if the garage could be moved farther back alongside the house. Paterson replied that the garage would block the windows in the caretaker unit if it was moved back, and that it would make the access to the garage more difficuit. Dyer moved to grant a 5 foot north side yard setback variance, due to topography and practical difficulties. Cooper seconded the motion. Wheeler and Neiley were opposed, therefore, the motion failed. Neiley moved to table the application to a site visit on Wednesday, November 3 at 8:30 am. Wheeler seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case 93-42 Wildbrook Ltd 4070 Lower River Road Wheeler and Brickham are not voting on this case. Gene Adcock was present, representing Wildbrook, Ltd., to request a 95 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a pump shed. Adcock stated that their well went dry, so they had to drill the existing well deeper. The equipment is currently below ground, but the Health Department has required them to have the equipment above ground, which requires the construction of a structure around the equipment to prevent freezing. ` There was no public comment. Neiley moved to grant a 95 foot front yard setback variance, due to the unique conditions on the property resulting in practical difficulties. Dyer seconded the motion, and all were in favor. ***************************************************************** The minutes of October 5 were approved as written. The minutes of October 13 were approved with the deletion of the sentence "Lukes stated that allowing the owner to build on the upper part of the lot was not consistent with the zoning or land use codes." The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, U""" - -` Suzan a L. Wolff, Secretary ck Neiley, Chairm.x~ _ v` ~,.•. 6 OOOtI=?•~ LAND USE APPLICATION FEES CITY: -63250.134 -63270-136 -63280.737 -63300-139 -63310-140 -63320-141 -63330-150 -63432-157 -632-157 -00100-00000-31070 HISTORIC PRESERVATION: -63335-151 -63336-152 -63337-153 -63338-154 -63339-155 COUNTY -63160-126 -63170-127 -63180-128 -63190-129 -63200-130 -63210-131 -63220-132 -63230-133 -63240-149 -63450-146 -63235-148 REFERRAL FEES: 00115 -63360-143 00123 -63340-163 00125 -63340-190 -63340-205 PLANNING OFFICE SALES: -63080-122 -69000-145 Name: c~L' (. f ~ ``F7l C D/L- Address: l 'C~,X .~ (.- `,'}7 Check#: ~ C) OFFICE ~ oi~ GMP/Conceptual GMP/Final SUB/Conceptual SUB/Final All-2 Step APPlications All 1 Step gpplications Staff gpproval Zoning Plan Check Sign Permit Use Tax for Sign Permits Exemption Minor Major Devel. SignN. Devel. Demolition GMP/General GMP/Detailed GMP/Final SUB/General SUB/Detailed SUB/Final All 2 Step Applications All 1 Step'4Pplications Staff Approval Board of Adjustment Zoning Plan Check Engineering -County Engineering -City Housing Environmental Health county Code Other (Copy Fses) r~ <<= 000024 TOTAL `- Phone: ~ 4. ~ ~ f ,' ?, Project ~ Z . J No of Copies: