HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.94.09DATE March.. 10, 1994 „, CASE # ~'`7'b~
REPRESENTATIVE MnnrCe aumm r~ _PHO'NE 9?7-4?~9 ('h)
925-4446
MAILING ADDRESS ~ POB 1?047. ABperi. CO X1612 ~'
OWNERS Monroe & Glenda Summere PHONE ___927-4229
MAILING ADDRESS game
~ .._
LOCATION OF PROPERTY I~ot `76, Ho land Hil1n at anal "'~ ibd't'~ri ~io'~
~. , -4488 Holland HiT'f s Road, Haealt, CO 81521
Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be
m~ddo srnotfcontainaall theefactsdi~aquestion,ths application if
owner's Signature.
(To be completed by the Zoning Department)'
Provisions of the zonin resolution re he Zoning official
9 _~ _. quiring t
to forward this application to the Board of Adjustment,~and reasons
for not granting a building permit: a~
'S, "~ Zone District
Reaq~u~esting: Lot Size
~_' Front Yard Setback Variance, where 100 ~ 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.
_ .. _ A
_... .. r
Zoning Officialr~ '~ ~ ~ ',
Application filed q Parce D No. ~y(p'-ZD/-D/ -QOJ
Date of Meeting y °f ~ / p
Notices Mailed ~ Z~ g Secretary -_~~U (~LC!E'~~
r i
Refer Resolution to Building Department Yes ~!<
---
_. ~: ,,. ,. _ :;, :, ,.,..~,,,,A~ ~~..,.:N .
:z
i I.. 'c L.
,.~~riw `w.. u.
BE'4FORE THE PITKIN COTINTY' B6A12D' ~dF'" AD.7i7STMEI~T" """ `' '' ~
VARIANCE DES~RIBED BELOS~AFFECTED'' BY THE 'T2EQ'iJES'TE"D "'Z~SI~TNG "OR ' USS I~
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 m!a~ 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 varian ,
fed in decidin a whetf Adjustment will, give serious
consideratio' to the opinions of surrounding. property owners and
others affect g her to grant or deny the request
for variance,
THE PARTICU RS OF fiHE HEARING A
AS FOLLOWS: ~ Nb OF' THE"REQ'UES`PED 'VARTA~'7C~ ;ARE'
Date and time of meeting: April 5, 1994 at 5:15 p.m.
r Sheriff's Conference Room
Pitkin County Courthouse
Owner: Monroe Summers
Owner's Address: P.O. Box. 12047
Aspen, CO 81612
Property Location or Lot 16, Holland Hills
Description:'" 0088 Holland~Hlls Road
Requesting approval for a 21' front yard setback variance, where
100' is required in the AF-1 zone 'district, for construction of an
addition to an existing residence. Approval of this variance
request would allow the proposed addition to be located 79' from
the front property `line.
,. ; ..
VARIANCES ~REATER OR LESB THAN"'~ItEQ'UE$~1'~S C.`OfYLD ~:E 2A`~fT'I1E~.;`' ~~ ,
I ~~
Duration of Variance: Temporary Permanent X
I THE PITKIN COUNTY- BOARD OF ADJ(fST~'T~NT ~.
~~~-~~,~
uzanne L. Wol Secretary
~~ ~~ ~~'~
~...~ .u.
March 10, 1994
MANAGEMENT
MAINTENANCE
LEASING
SALES
P.O. Box 12047
Aspen, Coiorado 81612
(303)925.4446
Pitkin County Board of Adjustment
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Summers Residence Addition
0088 Holland Hills Road
Variance Application
ladies and Gentlemen,
Lots in the Holland Hills at Basalt Subdivision average less than 1 acre in
size and were platted before the county downzoned. The existing underlying
zone is AFl, with minimum 10 acre lot size restrictions. Our lots are all
therefore classified as "substandard" lots in the AFl zone and are required to
meet 10 acre lot setbacks. As you are probably aware this is usually
impossible.
Lots in Holland Hills should realistically be zoned AF3. The setbacks for
AF3 in the County are 50' front, 20' side, and 20' rear. Our existing home
and proposed addition would be well within these realistic limits. Ten acre
lot requirements on a one acre lot present an immediate, automatic and
unavoidable hardship.
In our case the existing structure projects 10 feet into the prevailing AF1
south (side) lot line setback and approximately 20 feet into the West (front)
lot line setback. The house was apparently originally laid out in it's present
location to avoid an irrigation ditch which bisects the property lengthwise,
and to build into the existing slope below the ditch.
You may remember that we applied for and were granted a variance last
May for the same project. This current application represents roughly the
same square footage addition to our home in a different footprint from the
original application.
After thorough consideration we determined that the additional cost of
excavation into the uphill slope and rearrangements to the irrigation system
were more than offset by the convenience of not having to give up our
housing while this project is underway. The original plan would have made
the building uninhabitable for much of the project. This plan will have much
less impact on the existing structure, our lives and living conditions.
(.f.:;'~R G:t~
~, _,
Pitkin County Board of Adjustment March 10, 1994 page 2
The revised footprint actually reduces the intrusion of the structure into the
100' front setback by eleven feet. Most of the rew fouridation walls for the
new addition will fall outside of tlie'I00' setback.
We will appreciate your consideration and approval of this application.
Thank your
Sincerely,
~~
roe G. Sum r
Pitkin County Board of Adjustment March 10, 1994 page 3
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
Glen and Beverly Caldwell (Lot SS)
..
0062 Holland Hills Road
Basalt, CO 81621
Dr. Sidney and Ann Smock (Lot 17)
Anestheology Associates
8231 N. 74th Place
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
Peter and Brigette Abplanalp (Lot 18)
0412 Holland Hills Road
Basalt, CO 81621
John and Beth Ware (m/b old Hico Lumber yard)
POB 9070
Aspen, CO 81612
y g gl ( I-Ioagland Ranch)
0145 Hoao land Ran h Road
Basalt, CO 81621
Alpine Christian Fellowship (Lot 11)
0167 HoTlarid ~~IIs~Road
Basalt, CO 81611
- --- --
.~.. *.a .,.w ...-qrl uS+tu..vyn n. •'• : A.e( i. d-N,7ne 41 Y} i
........ 1 . ~. ., idly=;
~~
.,'..,.
PUBL'SC ~"IiEytt2 TYaf:~.."Mri "an.Tar.s~wnn -`r'.,n~~iti;".:.~>"" '~.,..:.i:'~r° % "' '::''.I !;
BEFORE THE PITKIN
TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS 'AFFECTEb BY THE T2EQUESTED
VARIANCE DESCRIBED "'B~E~Ofi~T:~"'"~"`~` '~ "~"' °'
3 0 IBDI
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 Adju§tmenf 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 _
consideration ~toathe opi nions off su mound ng proper yl ownserious `~
ers and
others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request
for variance.
THE PARTICULARS 'OF THE HEARTN~G. AI~SD~ OF""THE"`REQ~T~"S~ED ~7ARIANC'~E „ARE i
AS FOLLOWS:..
Date and time of meeting:
Owner:
Owner's'Address:
April 5, 1994 at 5:15 p.m.
Sheriff's Conference Room
Pitkin County Courthouse
Monroe Summers
P.O. Box 12047
Aspen, CO 81612
Property Location or Lot 16, Holland Hills
Descriptione 0088 Holland Hills Road
qu tinq approval for a 21' front yard setback variance where
100 1
additi$ required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of an
on to an existing residence. ,Approval of this variance.;..,.
request "would allow Fie `propiise°~" a~c~iton to be located 79' from
the front property line.
VARIANCES, GREATER 'O12~LESS' ~1'~~1~1~"R"~'iT~"S"TYj""COOL~D~B~~~~RA17TE~D. ~'" "-f
Duration of Variance:
~% ~ 'fro (~ e-e-?~-( e-~e s
~~~p~ -
~~ ~.
/I ~
Temporary Permanent X
THE PITKIN COt7NTY BCSARD `O~'' AD'J~T`STMENT ~ 4. ""
uzanne L. Wol ,~ Secretary
___~
. , ~ .r o ~ ~ .~ .~.~.~ _ti ,.. z~.~, vim. , x '~ ~ ~ ~a ~ ,~..~:.,. ,,~,
LL ,~
~<~
1
~; N ~~< ~.. ~ :~ ~~.
wr
~.~
:m k
~sv
,. _ ,
'~ ` ~SpE ~ NiNQ QFF E-
,:: . _' ' i30 South Galena Street /-,
Aspen. Cuforado 81571
~
(303) 920-5090 -.
LAND USE AppCI0A710NF~ES'Y° <,.,... _, , , ; ., _ . ,,
'. CITY:
-63250-134 °
-63270-136
-ti3280-137
-63300=139
-63310-140
- -63320=141
-63330=150
-63432-157 .
•63432-157-
-MR011 UseTazfor'Sigh Permits
HISTORIC PRESERVATION: `
-63335=151 Exemption
-63336-152 Minor
-63337-153 Major Devel.
`, -63338-154 Sgn'rf. DeJel.
X3339-155 DemotRiorti
COUNTY:
63160-126 GMP/General
-63170.127 GM~P/Deiail°ed
-63180-128 GMP/Final ~ ` '
-63190.129 SUB%Genera(
-63200-30 SUB%Detailed
-63210-131 SUB/Flnal
' -63220.132 A112~5tepApplications ~~'
-
-63230=133 A111 Step Appficafions ' `
~-
-63240-i49- Staff Approval
-63450-148 Board of Adjustment /l r}
-63235-148 Zoning Plan Check ~-
REPER4RAC FE`ES:^ '
-63360'-t43
„„, -„
°
Engineering-County
00195 63340-fi63 Engineering -City
00123 -63340-190 Housing
' 00125 -63340-P°05 Erivironmental Health
PLANNING OFFICESAL~§:
-63Q80-1'22 County Code
-69000-145 Other(Copyfees)
/ TOTAL - CL
y,
/
Name: L/~%i ~ ji. ;:./~~ -
.~ -'71~ ~2 ,
tPho
- ~~~~
ne:..
' Address:.. i i7 ~,~i l"~'~ i ~ Project ~ - .
~~ J
"~
_ •'
i
l
..
Check #:~~~!-~~Date: '~1~~~
No of Copies: _ ~ ~~-0~
- . _, =i
i
County of Pitkin
State of Colorado
The undersigned,
follows:
I,
being or
representing an Applicant before the Pitkin County Board of
Adjustment, personally certify that the attached photograph fairly
and accurately represents the sign posted as Notice of the variance
hearing on this matter in a conspicuous place on the subject
property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that
the said sign~w//as posted and visible continuously from the ~?~
day of /Y ~~/ZP~ 19 ~' to the _ 5 ~-
day of /~f2«- , 19~. (Must be posted for
at least nine (9) full days before„t~ hearing dat~.
licant's
~~~ ~
Subscribed and s
this day of
19 , by
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
My i~omenMr~lon *xplres 9J27/86
My Commission expires:
~.uu~• ~ ....,,..... - - - -
S: !'S ~~ ~~v THF_ DlSTRiC~'
COURT~tUOM OHIA~B~L~--
1"O CONStU~R
_. ~ ~ .-a'
} AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY
} ss. POSTING OF A VARIANCE HEARING
} BEFORE THE PITRIN COUNTY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
being first duly sworn, deposes and says as
to before me
r
A
36994 ~ ES- , ~i a F'--~8~ ~ i y~ l i l / 9~ ~?3 : 31 F' F'G 1 OF 4 REC
S ILV I A DAV I S F' I Th:: I N GOUI~ITY CLEF«~:: °~ RECORDER cj. cjcj
RE80LOTZO~T OF THE PIT1fIN COLTNTY~ COLORADO
BOARD OF ADJIISTltENT
GRANTING SETBACK RELIEF FOR MONROE SDbII~ERB
RE80LIITION NO. 94-09
WHEREAS, Monroe Summers, owner of 0088 Holland Hills Road, is
requesting approval for a 21 foot front yard setback variance, for
construction of an addition to a single family residence; 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
21 foot front yard setback variance be granted for construction of
an addition to a single family residence, as per the plans
submitted (Exhibit "B"), due to downzoning.
DOC
WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may
result in rehearing and possible revocation.
~ ~
Resolution No. 94-09
Page 2
The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of
the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
DATED: April 5, 1994
ATTEST:
The Board of Adjustment of
Pitkin County, Colorado
Suza a L. Wolff, ecretary
X6994 r ~"" f J<~ F'-y81 ~ ~~ / 1 1 / 94 <:?~ ; :~ 1 F' PG OF 4
,y
.,
Y..
36994 Fi-iv<~ F'-~8i~ q~/11/94 ~~3:31F' PG i OF 4 REC `DOC
SILVIA DAVIS F'ITk:IN COUNTY CLERY. ?y REORDER c7.dU
RESOLUTION OF TSE PITRIN COUNTY, COLORADO
BOARD OF ADJIISTNENT
GRANTING SETBACK RELIEF FOR T~IONR6E''`SUMN8R8
RSSOLIITION NO. 94-09
WHEREAS, Monroe Summers, owner of 0088 Holland Hills Road, is
re estin a y t6ack~variance, for
constructgoa of anladditioni to a single fa ly residence; and
WHEREAS, 100 feet is required in the AF-1 zone district; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is within the unincorporated area of
Pitkin Count Colorado (as described in E"x5bit "A"
Y, 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 Count Code Land U
1973, 30-28=118(2) (C); ande Code:) and Colorado Revised Statutes,
WHEREAS based on the evid
makes the followin findinehce presented, the Board of Adjustment
g gs~
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 wil& 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 RESO
yard setback LVED by the Board of Adjustment, that a
an fadditiont to a sin le'variance be granted for construction of
g family residence, as per tfie plans
submitted (Exhibit "B"), due to downzoning.
WARNING: r~sultointrehearing and possible revocationion may
P-- r'?,
Resolution No. 94-09
Page 2
The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of
the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
DATED: April 5, 1994
ATTEST:
Suza a L. Wolff, ecretary
~,
36994 f B-7~C> F'-281 C>5 / 1 1 /94 n3: 31 F F'r 2 OF 4
The Board of Adjustment of
Pitkin County, Colorado
~ ~•
369947 Fi-754 F-~92 45/11/94 43:31F PG 3 OF '4
EXHIBIT "A"
Legal Description
for property owned by
lSONROE BIIAMERB
Lot 16
Holland Hills at Basalt Subdivision
Pitkin County, Colorado
,~- EX~f1 ~ lT "13" T
~,\ i4
r'~
J `n J - //
1
)
~7 "~
~
~\ '
W
Nh
~r ~~
[~ ~:
I,
:~ `
'
-.
n
t.
`k\ .,1
_ w
i , 1u.
'
~ ~
A
r.' ` i .
.
,A
..1
1 ;~ 1`1
~ \ S ~~'l
17 <i\
,
l
-..A . ,
yr cif" j 1
's _. ~ ~
,,. ~ u r a. a, t
~, 1_ --\ ~ 5 _z
2 T1 ~
q ~, _.,. \ P. ~\\ ,
t
X.
1c,
N 4
5 d
\
\
r
c;
,~
;v 4
.~
?°
~'
,
,~
~. ~.
F_ .
~~ „
i,:
l.. \
\ ,
T ~ \ -~
~,:. t 9
~~
,£b'lo£ r1 „b~,bZ,bb N
_~
~~ \
\9~~~
~~~
369947 $- r 50 F-^83 OS/ 1 1 /94 <~3: 31 F' F'6 4 OF 4
..
,. . ,. ~.
NOTICE OF
TO ALL F
Pursuant to Pitkin County Zoning Resolution of June 5, 1955, as amended, a Public Hearing will be held in the
D ~ trict C) urtroom; Pitkin Pounty Court House; Aspen, Colorado; ;or at such other place as the meeting may then be
ad'ourned to consider an a lication filed with the said Boazd of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the
provisions of the County zoning Resolution.
All persons affected by the proposed vazance 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,' particulazly 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 `vaziance. A
VARIANCE GREATER THAN OR LESS THAN THAT REQUESTED COULD BE GRANTED.
DATE AND TIME OF MEETING: Tuesday, April 5, 1994; 5:15 P`.M'
Sheriff s Conference Room, Courthouse
Raczak, Janet & Joe: requesting approval fora 93' front yard setback variance, where 100' is required in the RS-
30 zone district, fqr construction of an addition to a single family residence. Property Location: Lot 1, Block 4, Filing
3, Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Subdivision; 0234"Light Hill Road.
Schmidt-Olander, CheryL• requesting approval fora 23' front yard setback variance and an 11' north side yard setback
vaziance, where 100' and 30', respectively, are required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of an attached gazage.
Property Location: Lot 29, Crystal River Park Subdivision; 66 Crystal Park brive. `
Bone, Lawrence: requesting approval for an 80' front yazd setback valiance, a 15' west Side yard setback variance,
and a 9' east side yard setback vaziance, where 100', 30' and 30', respectively, are required in the AF-1 zone district
for construction of a single family residence. Property Location: Lot 2, Crystal River Park Subdivision; 0044 Chair
Mountain Drive.
Taylor, Lawrence: requesting approval for a'18' front yard setback variance, where 100' is required in the RS-30 zone
district, for `construction of a single family residence. Property Location: Lot 36, Block 2; Crystal River Country
Estates.
Summers Monroe: re uestin a royal fora 21' front and setback variance, where 100' is required in the AF- " `
q g PP Y 1 zone
district, for an additiogto an existing residence: -Property Location: Lot 16, Holland Hills at Basalt Subdivision; 0088
Holland Hills Road.
Duran, Manuel: requesting approval fora 40' front yard setback variance; where 100' is required' in the RS-30 zone
district, for placement of a modular home. Property Location: Lot 4, Crystal View Heights.
Ho, Charles: requesting approval fora 50' front gardg etback variance, P by a 100' is required in the AF-1' zone
district for construction of a detached cazetaker unit/ ara a/tack room. Pro ert Location: 0100 Woody Creek Lane.
q g PP g Y g Y
required, f~r onstructionsoif asingle family re~ide ce~~Poperty Lot ation:arTract B~Hansen'saT82, where 200' is
racts; Township 9
South, Ran a 85"test of the 6th 1'.M., Section 6.
Maness, Jake & Sharori: requesting approval fora 15' front yard setback variance and a 15' rear yard setback
variance, where 100' and'30', respectively, aze required in the AF-1 zone district, and a 62' major road setback variance
as measured from the Highway 133 right-of-way; where 100' is required, for construction of a single family residence.
Property Location': Lots 1 & 2, Elk Mountain Subdivision; 10 Elk Mountain Drive.
9 g PP Y
setback vaziance for a porch addition, and a 6' front yard setback variance for an exterior stairway; where a 30' front
and setback is re~uGed inrthe Rt15Aazone disfro`~ct 1Property Location c LotazS nce for an access deck, a 3' front yard
Y q 0, Block 2, Filing 2, Mountain Valley
Subdivision; 0281 Mountain Laurel Drive.
Submitted to the Aspen Times on March 22, 1994.
To Be Published in the Aspen Times March 25, 1994.
County PO #0011'3 `
_.
n. ~., . ..~. ~.,.
a. ,. , .._ , -...
,t"'a
E'~,~,
Cooper stated that the lot is exceptionally narrow. Lukes added
that the width of the property at one end is less than the front
yard setback.
Cooper moved to grant a 93 foot front yard setback variance, due
to the exceptional narrowness of the property. Brickham seconded
the motion, and all were in favor.
Case 94-06, Cheryl Schmidt-Olander, Lot 29. Crystal River Park
Mary Schmidt was present, representing the owner, to request a 23
foot front yard setback variance and an it foot north side yard
setback variance, where 100 feet and 30 feet, respectively, are
required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of an attached
garage.
Lukes read into the record a letter from Paul Markham, President
of the Crystal River Park Homeowners Association, stating that the
Association has no objections to the variance request.
Schmidt stated that. the property is located on a cliff above
Highway 133, which prohibits compliance with the 100 foot front
yard setback.
There was no public comment.
Cooper noted that there was no place to locate the garage on the
property without obtaining a variance. Lukes agreed that the
garage has been sited in the least impactive location, and approved
of the placement of the narrower side of the garage facing the
highway.
Brickham moved to grant a 23 foot front yard setback variance and
an 11 foot north side yard setback variance. Cooper seconded the
motion, and all were in favor.
Neiley arrived at 6:00 P.M., and did not vote on this case.
Case 94-07, Lawrence Bone, Lot 2, Crvstal River Park
This case was tabled to May 3, 1994, at the applicant's request.
Case 94-08 Lawrence Taylor Lot 36, Block 2, Crvstal River Country
Estates
Raymond Gotfredson was present, representing the owner, to request
a 78 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required
in the RS-30 zone district, for construction of a single family
residence. Gotfredson is the prospective buyer of the property.
Gotfredson stated that he sited his residence within the required
building envelope. An overhead power line crosses the lot, and
°t
2
~'
n Jil.
Holy Cross Electric requires that structures be no closer than 14
feet from the high point of the roof to the power line. He noted
that the corner of the house is„probably too `close to the power
line, and that he would; not have a problem with moving the
footprint of the house within the~.envelgpe.
The Board discussed relocation_ of, the house wtriin the envelope,
. ~ r.,;
' y xp oard aari only grant
~he least variance necessary r and th to it seems possible to grant
a lesser variance than that requested in the application.
P P y, Y , .. : g ~ ~ dj scent
Nro~ert,eowner ogtatnc that he hgs no ob'ections to the v t than
re est as lon as the buildin site is no farther eas riance
depicted on the plans and the building, rs only one story high.
There was"no public'commenE.
Neiley stated that a 30 foot front yard setback is consistent with
the closest conforming zone district and with the proposed'Code.
Neiley'moved to grant a 70"foot froiYt yar"ct setback yarian'ce, such
that the footprint shown on"tkie plans is not 1"es§ than 30 feet from
the north property line, based on downzoning and the prior 1041
approval. Cowper seconded the motion, and all were in favor.
Case 94-09 "Monroe Summers" Lot 16 Holland Hills
Monroe Summers was present to request a 21 foot front yard setback
variance, where 100 feet is required in the AF=i zone district, for
construction of an addition to a single family residence.
Summers stated that the Board granted a variance in May of 1993 for
a new deck and a remodel of the `existing residence. ~ When ,they
realized that they would have to move out of their house during the
1' 9
current ~ variancec request rs Bless thana the previous nvarianc at the
e that
was granted. The footprint has changed, but the same amount of
square footage is involved.
There was no public comment.
Lukes noted that he prefers this configuration. to the original one.
downzonoved to rant a 21 foot front and setback variance., due to
ing. Brickham seconded the m tion, and all were in favor.
Case 94-10. Manuel Duran & Ace Lane.,. Lot 4, Crystal View Heights
David Rippe was present, representing the owners, to request a 40
foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the
RS-30 zone district for placement of a modular home. '
3
.,
Rippe stated that Lane employs Duran, and is helping him to finance
this home. There is a 35 foot ditch easement through the middle
of the lot to the rear of the proposed location of the residence.
He also noted that the lot is much steeper towards the rear, and
that the house is as far back on the lot as possible.
There was no public comment.
Lakes stated that the house should not be pushed closer to the
ditch.
Neiley moved to grant a 40 foot front yard setback variance, due
to downzoning, topography and unique conditions on the property,
including the ditch. Lakes seconded the motion, and all were in
favor.
Case 94-11. Charles Ho. 0100 Woodv Creek Lane
Neiley did not vote on this case.
Kevin MacLeod was present, representing the owner, to request a 50
foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the
AF-1 zone district for construction of a detached caretaker
unit/garage/tack room.
MacLeod stated that this application was considered by the Board
in December, at which time the Board discussed approving the
variance request with a condition that would restrict future
development on the property. The application was tabled to allow
MacLeod to consult with the owner, who decided to wait for the new
Code to go into effect. However, since the new Code has not yet
been adopted, the owner decided to return to the Board and to agree
to the condition that was previously discussed.
Neiley noted that he remembered that they were trying to preserve
the viewplane across the open meadow on the property.
Lakes stated that they were trying to prevent the owner from coming
back for future improvements, and stressed that an owner does not
have the right to build an unlimited amount of square footage if
the property cannot handle it.
MacLeod noted that the owners and the neighbors all want to
maintain the pasture as open space, which is why they decided to
locate the caretaker unit within the front setback. The unit will
,.~,
be below the main residence. The owners are working with the
neighbor on a landscaping plan for screening.
Lakes noted that he still agrees with the Board's previous decision
to require review by the Board of Adjustment for any future
improvements on the property.
Neiley stated that the Board can place appropriate conditions on
4
_ *-•,
an approval in order to preserv`d the public interest. $e noted
that a"motion could state that on„the.. grounds of topography"an° in
the public interest of 'preserving the viewplane, any ~~future
improvements proposed outside of the approved building envelope
could be subject to review `and approval by'the'Board of Adjustment.
>chaffner
~uture'ap~
that the x
not
of
nsidered.
.eod suggested that £I
recording, including the
Board's
the authority to review a
being requested. She added
fig envelope, therefore,'the
pprovaT in order to build
:d that the condition will
future because Soard o€
~ific development, an$`will
future' improvements are
Lan could b`e resfxbmitted for"
Pion.
Lukes noted that the granting of a variance does nothing to limit
or address future development of a property,`an3 that tradeoffs
should be made to develop one portion of a property in lieu of
another. Schaffner responded that building envelopes are
established in order to ,limit :how much of"'a 'property can be
developed, and that a hardship must be proven for each variance
granted.
Ne.'.ey read the motion that was made by the Boil"rd in December,
"F.' :kham moved to grant a b0 foot front yard setback variance
base=3 on topographical hardship and the approval of the building
envelope through the 1041 Ha'z'ard 'Review process, with the condition
that no further develo ment be allowed outsi
p de of the building
envelope without an opportunity for future public review 1~y this
Board." Neley noted that'the motion should include, as requested
Sc a ner tat t e owner be re fired to rec
ord a sit
4.~ ~~ ~ , e plan
which includes tkie Board'o~ Adjustment s condition of approval in
order to make the condition a matter of record.
There was no public comment.
Brickham moved to grant a';50 foot front yard setback variance, as
noted above, including the oo`nditon requested by Schaffner. Lukes
seconded the motion, and all were in favor.
Case 94-12 .Tom Girardi Tract B Bansen's Tracts
This case was tabled to May 3, 1994, at the applicant's request.
Case 94-14. Jake & Sharon Maness. Lots 1 & 2 Elk Mountain
This case was tabled to May 3, 1994, pending approval of a Minor
1041 Hazard Review.
5
stoned if the Board has
ition if a variance is not
~w is outside of the build:
__ .
have to amend the '1041.,.
envelope. She also not
ly be referenced in the
solutions only apply to sp
ly be reviewed when
... 2~.._ e„, ,M _. ,ate,. u as: ., n.~ .+srz~r ~~
~--~ L.
Case 94-15, Al & Gale Fiorello, Lot 50, Block 2, Filing 2, Mountain
Valley
Rick Neiley did not vote on this application.
Al Fiorello was present to request a 19 foot front yard setback
variance for an access deck, a 3 foot front yard setback variance
for a porch addition, and a 6 foot front yard setback variance for
an exterior stairway, where a 30 foot front yard setback is
required in the R-15A zone district.
Fiorello stated that they are removing the existing deck and are
constructing an addition on the northwest side of the house. The
entrance to the house will be relocated and the access deck will
be shortened. There will be a porch where the deck reaches the
house,. and a staircase down to the yard from that porch along the
side of the house. All of these improvements will be located below
the street and will not be visible from the street.
Neiley noted that there is no other way to access the house.
Fiorello stated that the existing bridge is approximately 12 feet
off of the ground, and is visible from the street, therefore, the
impact will actually be lessened. He added that none of the
improvements will exceed the height of the existing roof lines.
There was no public comment.
Lukes stated that the impacts are negligible.
Lukes moved to grant a 19 foot front yard setback variance for an
access deck, a 3 foot front yard setback variance for a porch
addition, and a 6 foot front yard setback variance for an exterior
stairway, due to topographic considerations and unique conditions
on the site. Brickham seconded the motion, and all were in favor.
*****************************************************************
The minutes of March 1, 1994 were approved as written.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
c~~~~ rvI N -~~ - U V
Suza ne L. Wolff, Secretary
6