HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.87.23~,,c``
:,
,~
BOARD OF ADJOST'r1ENT
~ '~' } i i ' y ,, ,
DATE ~~~~'? ~ _ 19 CASE$ 87-23
APPLICANT ~ J ,~vt~^i ? ~ ADDRESS. 3~ 8~i 77S C~}/zs3,w~~~
'
.
I
vzylVL3
W
t
`
OP7NER ~>/Y G~~~ ;
h
.
^t
I,,.s. _~~
~ K`
..";
ADDRESS. Gof~~iC7~SCt~}ozr3aaD,y~r
LOCATION OF PROPERTY I-f~TS ~l~-{d7 ~a.~nl3rN'c^o ~r" ELK ~~T Sit r3 DivisrN"' LLk /KTd~~
LU, rflG `z
Any pertinent data must accompany this application, ,and will be made,, part
this Case No. 87-23
Thstifcaton;r~urn this application if pt goes not contain all the fac',
in question. A licant s d scri tion of ro osed variance showin
7 ~irt{z~RGaiT ~~ ~ q
~~ ~ ~~ ~.~
i
Applicant Signature '
Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building Inspector to
forward this application to the Board of Adjustment and reason for not
arayr,~ting a buiding permit: ~~
~~-uL~Jt~cL ~2e,.~tV ~V ~ze~e-t2~c~.z/ -
Da*_e ?°_...i*_ rejected:
Building Inspecto
Board decis~on
~.~~
`'led Date
ADD 11"~d.._ i. _~
}'311 Ert ..~ r:~j ~ -
~'~~- -r ~°-' -~'---~ Secietary'~~3oardof na Lstment
~~. ~~~
,., i.
.. :. , .,.: i.~ . . i.:..
NOTICE OF .PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THfi fITKTN COUNTY BOARD_OF ADJUSTMENT
TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED. ZONING Oft USE
VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: `
Pursuant to Pitkin County Resolution 'of June 5, 1955, as
amended,'a Public Hearing will be held in fhe County Commis-
sioners Roam,. Pitkin County Court House, Aspen, Colorado, (or at
such other place as the meeting may then be adjourned)"to
consider an application fined 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 vies 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
other affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request
,_ ,
for variance.
THE PARTSCULARS OF T$E HEARING AND OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE ARE
AS FOLLOWS:
Date and time of meeting: June 30, 1987 5:15 p.m.
Name and Address of Applicant for Variance:
Dia Lynn
P.O. Box 775
Carbondale, CO 81623
Location of Property or Description:
Lot 67
Elk Mountian Subdivision
Variance Requested:
a 70 ft. frontyard setback variance and an 10 ft. sideyard
setback variance.
Duration of Variance: Permanent: XX ;Temporary
Condition:
THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
~z~. ~~y~: (-,, ESL. ',
Evan Gull, 'Chairman "
~~~~'~~~
'd '{. ,
STATEMENT OF' ITVmETdT
To Whom it May Concern,
Jeff Kurtz, owner-builder and paramedic and Dia Zynn, pro-
perty owner, health care professional and educator, have joined
in partnership for'the time and purpose of creating a solar home
in the Elk plountain Subdivision of Redstone, Colorado.
We have each taken a 6 month leave of absence from our respect-
ive careers and our home in Maui, HI. to be in Redstone until
the projectied completion. of this house in January, 1988. We
are each contributing equally, donating land, materials and our
skills and labor, plus. our combined savings and loan to assure
successful completion of our home.
Our orientation is toward a natural, peaceful, beautiful environ-
ment for ourseldes and our guests to enjoy.' We'`intend to pre=
serve whatever trees, shrubs, flowers and land contours we can
and preserve the place for m*ildlife as it was before cohstruc~-
ion. We also seek the cooperation .and support and good-will
of our neighbors in the subdivision, the town, the county and
the state. It is our practice to improve our living and working
spaces from the way we found them, for £he safety and pleasure
of all concerned.
We intend to operate within whatever guidelines are normal and
fair to everyone involved in our project. Our goal is to erect
a safe, efficient, sturdy, solar assisted house. To be ecologic-
ally hax•moneous with the environment, we propose to use non-toxic
building materials, locally obtained i.e. lumber, rock, siding
and some factoryvsecond appliances or furnishings. For financial
prudence we will do most of our own labor with pr'ofeesional ass-
istance where needed; we are contracting with local workers to
help enhance the local economy.
Jeff and Dia have lived in the areas of Basalt, Carbondale and
Glenwood Springs variously since 1974. We appreciate the valleys
and the privilege of being allowed to build our home here. We
are looking forward to a mutually satisfying relationship with
everyone involved with this project.
Thank you for your cooperation in making our dream a reality.'
Respectfully,
Jeff Kurtz
Dia Lynn ~~ ~-~'~`1
P.O. Box 775, Caa~ale CO 81623
X303) 963-0439
`bK
4
y°x T £"
+
~~~ .,
N.'
t
f .
, ¢
p~
'
..
K
i~
't.`~CY~k.. ~ :.~...~y
.: n
~
'd~`q ~ i
..
~
{
1'
.. W .- _ ., __ ,_
y~A„•'~"~`y~ . . (YyY'F pi's ~.f~+4kT~ ~' .~0 ,~~F~:,.
y;,?;,~~,. p.,. '; ~"'i_wlr~,.'/;\+yS[arttt~ty~'oy//Cq~ortltr~atty~''1~
~.liw'H7% kk'L.M _ _ .. ~% 1 1:J `Y~~ 3S 1 1 ~ d 1J~. ~ .. '~,
p G2 HYMAN Asa EN (,Oi ORA DO 81511 (101) 92i 957!
.r c
KurtzY+xsF,° ~a~ ~>s~'~~ C x a ~" , ~$~~N { __ .,
K~ uha xo`s'a Rd ~ ~~~;ri ~k":~fi .o--~, ,~ ' '~i'~ +
.A` ~ :.;s a Mdillf("F,r~1 HI 96708t~„c~. ~~G ~~ ~ a7r~°,~~ak° `~` t i~ '
;;~~+ ;'rz Surr."ounding property' owners of Sher Gary Ckiarles Weidner and
"s.;a;,;'.a Lynn Weidner property described as.i;ot's 42 and 67, Elk Mountain
'ilbdivssion ~''°r ~ rr ~+~w ,~" ,
~~MkY",_ ~::~"~," ~ zi',~xiui~ + i -FF' i~'`s SR ~,~b ~ I'~
i N,3~~~ k
'. r a W ~,...t - Y s, ~ ~,
~~~ x ~ ^,s-kMx.iz~ ~~i, a .
.. A .,'search of .'the records of this.;`office, and those, of the
~, ors'"and Treasurer of Pi,tkin Counrty;'Cblorado reveals the
''Assess
"'=" follociing''"~ owner of..'.,"'property '" surrotindinq the above described
~,
'~xrpropartp:i;~ra~`~," +"'' of{zd~it~,k~ ~i I,
xr r e6'38. ~'ny, : , i ',
r,' : s I 39",~~ 40 and 55 Elk Mountain Subdivision '
rres~~: Colomo;'.Inc. "`
'c.a,;~.; .1,~::za~.;,:.c.~,. Box 850 ;~,«v;: 1 I~
Glenwood Springs, Co 81601
Acquired ,title by Sheriff',s.Deed recorded August 23, 1972 in Book
"~"'266 at Page'174 as Reception No: 153482::"_:,As of May 6, 1987 they
~`-~
are still sri title. ,.,,
Lots 43 ,ETk„Mountain Subdivision A, ',
'~Hw,;,:P,,~~serlt O,y.~p;,~r:. John H.°~Stewart, acid Mercedes J: Stewart '
"-' ~ rn'-' .~
~,~ <° y',, n 526 Roberts Cut 'Off ~',,,y. +',
.„',. "~"w '. Fort Worth; 'Texas 76114,,, ,';. ~ ' ~
"~'~"James W 'Fair'acquired'_'ttle by Warranty,Y)eed recorded September 1,
"~"L.1G64 in"k;Book 209, at Page 31. as Reception No. 118620; by deed
~;: ~ •.
~. recorded'~7eceinbe'r 5;""1983 in Book 456_''at`'Page 837 as Reception No.
~~-~,;255463 title~.°;v>as conveyed to Ray King and Barbara King, they
`rrn
;, '""con se ed c~tto `~ ;tbe present owners John. H: `Stewart` and Mercedes J.
~.R, .
fifix~;5tewart bp;!deed recorded beceinber 5; 1983 "in'Book 456 at Page 839
~;~"'as Reception No. 255464. , ',
~,; ,
Lot 66 Elk Mountain Subdivision '""''" "'
.xeser~t Owner: John H. Stewart and Mercedes J. Stewart
""*; "", 526 Roberts'Ci:t~ Off ""'" '
' Fort G7orth; Texas 7611 "
Harvey M.~Harker acquired title by Warranty Deed recorded December
12, 1964 in Eook 210 at Page 523 as Reception No. 119362, by
Special Warranty 'Deed recorded November 2, 1981 in Book 416 at Page
799 as Reception No. 236839 the pre`sent `owners `acquired title.
y~~ '^3' .{e y ': ~ d a~
r
lA. n1 ' S t k Y s l~ it ~
S'~t;~~n Y;: z ~~yaiz i nl.l ds 4B "~8i~^$
',:.~,r,.; 5~ Eik~?~iountazn S_ubdivision•_ -. ~ - ._.-_i ..,.- -
~-~°;.ou:-tt Cwntrc William J. ~Torley "
~"~'<°'~' ~' X97 Redstone Blvd.
:yfi:'n _
.. .-. P.edstona
Ca:bords'_a. Co 8?023 .
. -.. ~:'~~' ~ _ :_,a'.C.°. ..',CQUlr?d t_i:.2 _`):~/ C.°>(~ r.'C~?Cf_'?:~ iii-L v'~'x1 ~?~, S9C~~;J 1:1
-. ... ?' 9 at Pars 527 as P.eception tio. 123824, slie corv~ped i,o _
;::~ta,'''`d~,7ner by deed' recorded August""5, 1980 in' Be'ok ~~32 at Page
xt~., .
2 as Rcr_eotion No. 225791.
'"~ ?.1t;iou,h -our search was thordiigh "'and we believe the statement ~~
-.-'~: t'c~3_n to;'be true, -this is neither a guaranty or opinio*i of 'title
~"c: it is understood and agreed that Stewart Title of Aspen, 'Inca
y ,... • ,.
-,_t?r.c=i- assumes nor-will be charged with anp y~iriancial ohligat_i_ ons _
"<'. ;., :. '' iabilzt'~~oxi anp statement contained herein. ..
.:
;. , ~ / -
.,,~..~ ~ l - -, - _ ._ .
r,azel I. Herwick
'Pitle Examiner
'µ ~?~,
r'pb rsF. n. ,.y~ k. M. u.T ,, ~~
._ q
~.; .~ /
,,
~ir~o
...
~ <_. ,~
-~ ..
~ ~ ~ S ~ o ,.
ti~
GvT/
~ / ~,~ o ,.
/ Fj
~ ~ a
~l ~,~ ~ ,~
(tj Sa° Ra `~ ryi (~ ~ I
a ~6~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r,~ N
I diO USG';I a
/ ' ~ 8' ''
--.~.~~~~ r , /~~
~,
1__
-_____ L
~ `i ,~.
,.... _, .. ~ ... -~ ~ - I .
® NEBR. A1J~ ~.rtP t'b~Mn Feu F'CReE_ •.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lots 42 & 67, E;k Mountain Subdivision
Pitkin County,' CoTora~lo
Gom'(jrnst ~ i y ~s~'"lc'rs. G~uwry ur~As^2
~rVB arH.vc2 e~iA eywra+
_r ,, _. ..a.,~ ~.,~, ~, i. s. ~:
_ _ __._
1' tTx t',t ~,C~UN.;; Y~ C.Ul.UPAL~p
4. ,'. .; i t5c~
~ SO`
c
I ~1
~I
'Q f: - ~/i ~/
r _~ S 7 1~7 -r.
4-t.
N N .
0
.9 •( ~ ri c~
;~ ~~
Qp ~ ~
,~ ~,
a 3_.: _ o•
'~, q 5 r . .~ ~ ~~ ., %a..
Si.S 17.. O ~ - Po 0 1 ~
o ml~ei za~ 1 ;- ti° qG
~,
, 3 ~`
i ., v y ~` ~ a~> ,
p W ,I . ;
N N '~~ ;~ l to ~ f. a ~' 9 ~, :';.~ ~_ `..'..--.....,
Y o
Oi~n 6i Q . ~ `\ '~ Iw•r rah.
~ i r;i ~~ 0 ( ~ o ~ ~r0
- 0 9~p t. ,.. N yJj 16 r
c. .~
~ lob c~4 ... ., 7.5~
N ._ _. --•- ~ 2 11 .
_ -. r t
. - .5
y ~ ~ l9._...... .,.M,.._.e.e, ,„;~ C`.. ~e9 y;~.. ~ ~s~: n. r~ ~r.$ a',?WU..,y0 ...e~?:,C). ^'a, N '. ..
~~ -• z
~ ~ \~~.~ / ~.~~~(~ f ~ ' ~ ;~; ~ r o ... roc 1,
%%, . ti .i .1 ~ ~
5 ~ 1 .,~
n04c eon ,T,. at! .. J h Y~,~q,~ oO..
// ~ „~0 8}
,~4~ rS9~ 8 ~„ ~ 0 N ,.,~ V
.~ ~ ~~~~
~ c 4~1{~ ~ ~ ' " 2 l
., _. - _~_
_.. Q
~ Z ~ o inn' 2a °/ ( ~ ' `•
m ~ ~' ,: /
~, \~-102 / r~ ~ ..~, \ /, .
i +'L
r~ ;}~ ~~ o~.2b ~ _}oo j: t In rL, ~~ p 1 ,.
.. ~,
i
I
,. _....
_.
SA .~ t~i '' x ~ .O h ,' dy
•r t ~^ I
xo ~ u
,x V'' a 7` 7 °. (~ ~'~ 1
B . ~ :. S X11 5....~°+~ .I ~ra• Cam. '1 \J O ,r 11 ~~ I 1 i
'f r'? J av 1 O tJJ J//'r oG ~ ., /7 ,~~ , 'J
a` ...- . t .1'-~,~~/ - +.U % a .l !I t ~` .. ~O li SE'ii NW'/. ~ i
' u
r ,
,~ .J
N
•J }~} vls
^.,
' ~ ~ ..,. ~ ., i. '~ y O i 1
...._ . r ~_.. _ !. ~ _'••
_._._
_ ._.
~~ ~ '.'02.1 ~, ar .. qi [[ °~ •. xJ <a
I $ ' ..~
P .r . ~:r O \~ ~~ ~rrr ~ 1 ~ +. + :.
' - i., i dr~i J L. t w .~. r' ~~
~.. ., x J .: r, _SryL..22_
4 S . 1 ~' ~"'L I O
,F ~l: i:~ ~`Sr 't r
..,.. :.I:: r ~r w ~R
~ ter' ~ •' t f t • rr" t "•~"^M~~4 ~.. ! .r ' a~ `,'r _ , , i
r, ! b . y. ,, ICY T 1~-.k,r,. V.,
•Y ~ J't ~ t ; r ttr J • I A. Y.. •
t,/ ~tr ,i/+. ~ r
.R I.^.. J J_..Jas.. J ., 'p.t r/t J M1.7 ~
cy r n t ;,~ ,j'xt ,,,.. g r J / p yu i
1 i~ , _, ~ r ~\ t l i
{ , i ~ ~...., ~P°i Y I,
~ ~ t ~~. F (. N.. /rr
t ~ ~, q.. i' ` ~ ~~ .
S fi , 9 r l J" / /" i.
x ///!!!\\\.......
Jx r~ r t'"~' \~r+\~ t tY1
v I :` 4 , f
~., 6 a •~ ~~`.
~. u ~' g ~ ter- SF, •. ,.
n _.
J 7 M t ~ ~Y
•~.~ ... c r/" :e.
e JV J b w ...
r./ i~
/
r
e% i
NEB swy~__
/ ~;
/ -
MAP OF
ELK MOUNTA/N SUBD/V/S/ON
SrxWSfO :.v _
PiTK/N CWNTY, COLORA'DO'
JCJLf : .N<N r!O /!!!
JMCCC I Y 2 JN[CTJ
3~.~
~.~ q:t. `. '.~'.
Q d i ~,~'ti a 8
.~ O
~11~^~
0 V
~ V~VVV
n a
.._~~ ~.
h^~ ~.
0
W ~
T~
M
V 1,
N
~~
m
d
' ..r ~. ..
y
~. ~ ....
O
_I ~
a
o
"i .i.,x.. ..
O
~: ~. _.~ O
Q®_~ O
._ _.~ ~----- ---_ .O ~_,... ~.
i ~
_.. _ --
CS 0.,,~(~.. o-
-~
,...._ .. ~._. T-... .._, ,_..
~~
o
'
J N
^ S
FI
_.. ~._.
d i
;~ ___ A
N ~
Z
1 ~
~ '~ ~ ~~
--
.~ '"'
'"~ ' eo. £
Q. oa g~~
~ ~
~, i ~
1,.
-t
m""e- -.
C?e a^~~°
y
.t _
Robert Miller moved that the following be adopted:
BEFORIi THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMuENT
OF THE COUNTY OF PITKYN
STATfi OF COLORADO
RESOLUTION N0. 87-23
Dia Lynn, Lot 67, Elk Mountain Subdivision.
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,
WHERE A5, 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 that the applicant's request for a
70 ft. frontyard setback variance and a 10 ft. sdeyard setback
variance be granted due to solar :access.
Additional
conditions or restrictions:
WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may
result in rehearing and possible revocation.
Melinda Pearson seconded the adoption of the foregoing Reso-
lution, The roll having been called, the vote was as follows:
Kan di Shaffran - yes Melinda Pearson - yes
Robert Miller - yes Joe 2anin - yes
The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of
the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
DATED: June 30, 1987
Attest:
Secretary
The Board of Adjustment of
Pitkin County, Colorado
~~ ~~ ~2f ~;~~ _~
aclt,~~ Chairman
,.. .. m
i.,. ~, ... ~ ..:. ~ , .~
_- d
vY q. I
~`
~.
Minubes
Members. Present:
Pitkin County
Board of Adjustment
June 30, 1987
Kandi Shaffran, Acting Chairman
Melinda Pearson
Robert Miller
Joe Zanin
Patsy Newbury was present with staff recommendations. Shaffran
called the meeting to order. Pearson moved to approved the
minutes from the last meeting and site visit as submitted.
Miller seconded the motion. The motion carried 4 - 0.
vase ar-cc - srlevne Loucks Lot 58 Elk Mountain Subdivision
Erleyne Loucks was present. She was requesting a 70 ft:
frontyard setback variance, an 8 ft. sideyard setback variance
and a 7 ft. sideyard setback variance. The lot is only 80 ft.
wide and 120 ft. long. The septic system is located in the upper
middle portion of the to
t. The applicant's neighbors, Jeff
Kurtz and bia "Lynn were present.' They had 'no objections. Zanin
asked if they had the Homeowner's Association approval. Loucks
replied that there wasn't an association. Shaffran suggested for
uniformity that the sideyard setback variances if granted should
be both 8 ft. Zanin moved to grant 70 ft. frontyard setback
variance, an 8 ft. sideyard setback variance and an 8 ft.
sideyard setback variance due to downzoning. Robert Miller
seoonded the motion. The mo ion carried 4 - 0.
vaac or-co - rna Lvnn Lot 67 Elk Mountain Subdivision
Dia Lynn was present. She was requesting a 70 ft. frontyard
setback variance and a 10 ft. sideyard setback variance. She
introduced her contractor, Jeff Kurtz to the Board.' Lynn
explained that they would like to build a solar home. With the
original building site they had chosen, the solar access was
blocked by the existing trees, because of that they~had revised
their plans. They did not want to lose all the trees. There is
a 10 yr. old Blue Spruce tree that would block about 2 hours of a
limited solar aspect. She explained to the Board that sle no
longer wanted to built the garage that was shown, but wanted to
place the house where the garage would have been. The setback
variance required would be the same. Kurtz submitted to the
madeoalmotionathateall0dit1asideeyardrrvamiancecandjan7pMft,eg to
frontyard variance be granted due to solar access. Pearson
seconded the motion. The motion passed 4 - 0.
Case 87-24 '- Stefan Kaelin - 0561 Meadowood Drive
....
,.. .,
ns`Y.:
r
,, ~ ~- -
,.
Stefan Kaelin was present. Curtis Cleveland, his contractor
was 'also present. Cleveland explained that they were requesting
an additional 52 square feet of floor area to construct an
enclosed entry way to make the entry to the house work more
efficiently. He continued that this is a two story roof shedding
snow onto the entry way. There was also a problem with opening
the door, without stepping around it. dleveland continued that
the plans had been approved by the Meadowood Homeowners Associa-
tion last week., There was a letter of protest from King Wood-
ward. He was concerned that the variance, if granted would set a
precedent; he felt if there was., no undue hardship the variance
should be denied. Kaelin stated that the way the door is
constructed now is not a hardship, but if someone was hurt, it
would be a hardship. He continued that they wanted to enclose
the carport. The way the door is now,- weuld not be an efficient
entry way and would not look nice. He felt the proposed entry
way, 'would be an improvement to his house and to the Meadowood
Subdivision. Woodward was present. He clarified that the Home-
owners Association had not approved the project. They had simply
put the burden of approval on the Board of Adjustment. If a
variance was granted, they had no problem with the design.
Woodward stated that he persanally did not have a problem with
the design', he was conce'rn'ed with setting a precedent, Shaffran
assured him that all cases we're considered on a case by case
basis. Woodward questioned if there was a hardship under which a
variance could be granted. Kaelin felt that the FAR restric£ions'
were to prevent someone from building a house that was too large
for the lat, he felt that really did not apply in his case.
Shaffran explained to Kaelin that the State only allowed the
Board certain hardships under which to grant a variance. Pearson
suggested eliminating FAR from somewhere else, for example the
carport. She did not see a hardship to grant a variance. The
hardship was man made. Zanin was in agreement that there was no
basis to grant a variance. Pearson moved that the variance be
denied due to lack of demonstrated hardship. Zanin seconded `f he
motion. The motion passed 4 - 0.
John Young was present. He was requesting a 60 ft.
ront and s
y etback variance. He explained that his l,ot was a one
acre lot. It was downzoned in 1975. He wanted to add a garage.
If the garage were placed to the back of the iot, it would
interfere with the solar heating system. The solar system is
working beautifully and he did not want to change that. He
continued that it was not a topographical hardship, the lot was
very flat. He considered a garage a necessity in their case; his
wife is a mid-wife and delivers babies at all hours of the night.
Newbury asked Young if he was aware that he had a height problem.
He was not and asked if a height variance could be granted as
well. Shaffran explained that a new application would have to be
submitted and a sign posted and neighbors notified. There were
<w. .~~~
~ ~ ,..
no nPg hbors present. Pearson asked what prevented him from
movie the
was chosen garage back. Young replied tha£ the proposed location
to be as far away from his neighbors as possible.
Shaffran stated that if the garage were moved back, he would need
a side yard setback variance, and might impact the neighbors
more. Zanin moved to grant a 60 ft. frontyard setback variance
due to downzoning. Pearson seconded the motion. The motion
carried 4 -0.
Gretchen Greenwood was present representing Gwen Sharp.
The applicant was requesting a sideyard setback variance.
Greenwood :explained that she was not sure how much of a variance
would be required. She explained that the lot was extremely
hardshi we gave the Board a short history of the h~ouse.~ The
flooraareaPofttheghouse166$glseecould be built.elTh.eocurrentot
q ft. and the allowable FAR is
9146 sq. ft., which they will never be able to build. The house
is remote except for one house owned by Bob Norton. Greenwood
submitted a letter from Norton statin that he had no ob'ecti
thefsetbackavariancetwouldnactuallyeberfor thebfrontxardlsedbthat
y ack,
not the sideyard setback. Shaffran asked if they were proposing
to build up to the lot line. Sharp replied that they were.
Pearson asked if there were any neighbors present. There were
not. ,Greenwood stated that every single owner in the subdivision
Homeownersotified. She continued that they were going before the'
Y, Y t
with them untilcafternthe decision of this Board.coShaffranee_
questioned if there was `etinfusion about whether the variance was
for the front or sideyard in the notices that had been sent.
Greenwood stated that all owners had received plans. Pearson
asked how it was posted. Greenwood replied as a setback var-
lance
yard setbater some discussion, Zanin moved that a 30 ft. front-
ck variance be granted due to topography. Pearson
ae0olotdline variance forfarcarwortnotShemdidnablfeeltthgrant,ing
p at was a
hardship. Greenwood stressed that the carport would be un-
obtrusive. Shaffran was impressed by the fact that they had hot
built to their allowable FAR. The motion passed 4 - 0.
vase a~-z7 - J.'i'. Zoline 0962 Sta e Road
Brad Knotts was present representing J.T. Zoline. The
applicant was requesting permission to place a sign on the south
end of their field stating the name of the ranch, the telephone
number and "Horse Boarding". Knotts drew a rough sketch for the
Board describing what the sign would look like and where it would
be'located. He proposed a Z' x 2' sign at a height of 6 ft.,
placed on his property directly across from the Pomegranate Inn,
facing the highway, on a rocky knoll, setback 15 or 20 ft.
3
> .. ,. e s.~ ? . < 4Pvm ovFSd. r. xscf!m~ ~-znu, F(i , ` ~,
Shaffran asked what color and material. Knotts replied it would
be a wooden sign, brown or green; something subdued. Pearson
asked if they would be comply with the Pitkin County Sign Code.
Knotts replied that he would. Shaffran reminded Knotts that the
code required that the applicant to came back to Board for a
yearly review. Pearson moved to approve the placement of the
sign.. Zanin seconded the motion. The motion passed 4 - 0.
vase a~-cu - cnristx.ne 5oarovie Sparovic Lot Split 1 A
Peter Van Domelan was present representing the applicant,
Christine Sparovic, who was also present. Van Domelan began that
presently there is a garage attached to the house with a four
foot overhang. The variance request was to extend the overhang
from 4 ft. to 8 ft. to convert. the garage to living quarters and
have a porch on front. This would improve the appearance of the
house. The porch would be at ground level. The other request
was to permit an addition. They wanted to remove the present
struc ure which encroaches on the 100 ft. Highway 82 setback.
There would be a very small additional encroachment. The
footprint would be 92 ft. from the Highway edge of right of way.
They would like to place a 4 ft. roof overhang an the addition.
The original house was constructed in 1960. Sparovic was not
required to get a variance at that time. Newbury explained that
in 1965 th;e setback requirements were changed. She thought the
highway was realigned about the time the house was built. Van
Domelan explained that the river bordered the south side of the
property; there are restraints imposed by the fioodplain.
Charles Cuniffe, the architect was also present. He explained
that they were trying to add an addition that was clean and
simple. Van Domelan explained that this was only the first step
in the review proces's'due to the fact that they were in the
Highway 82 view plain. Pearson had a problem adding the 4 ft.
overhang to the existing garage because it encroached further
into the 100 ft. Highway 8Z setback. Cuniffe explained that even
with the additional overhang, the new front would be a much
quieter look, it would help with the next step of the review
process and it would give the house a covered entrance. Shaffran
felt it was do~anzoning problem, the house was built prior to the
current zoning. Peax•son moved to grant a 51 ft. frontyard
setback variance for the expansion of the roof over the existing
garage and a 13 ft. frontyard setback variance for the proposed
addition as demonstrated on the attached drawings. Zanin
seconded the motion. The motion passed 4 - 0.
James Moore was present. He was requesting a 258 sq. ft.
variance to the allowable floor area ratio. He explained that
there was supposed to be a cul-de-sac on Bighorn Lane. The owner
of Lot 4 has extended his concrete driveway into the cul-de-sac.
The owner of the lot right next to Moore's driveway has installed
a gate into the cul-de-sac. He showed the Board where he would
4
~' ~' ` ~ .
like to place his garage. He spoke with,. his neighbors and he
didn't. think there was a problem. He placed the house and
garage so they would be located the farthest possible away from
his neighbors. Shaffran read two letters into the record. The
first was from William Tpps stating that he was in favor of the
Board granting the variance. The second was from David Cham-
berlin,. his concern was the height of the proposed residence and
whether it would block his view. Moore stated that he did not
have a height problem. He didn't feel that anything could be
done about the ~cul-de-sac. He was the last person to fit in and
he was just trying to make it work. He explained that from the
driveway he would have to make a sharp turn, the extra space was
necessary to turn into the garage and pull up and in. He checked
with John Moore of the Homeowners Association. Pearson asked why
didn't he design the house with the garage further back. Moore
explained that the neighbor next to him was using part of his
property. He had two people close to him on both sides and no
s
cul-de-sac. Pearson coned giving an FAR variance to make a
..
g g
allathewneighbors thatdwer4riard to grant an FAR variance for
topography. Shaffran didn't feel it would be possible to call in
e encroaching, although it was a man-
made problem, they did not have the enforcement to coptrol situa-
tions like this. Zanin pointed out that they had given 4 or 5
variances for houses on that cul-de-sac. Zanin moved that a
variance be granted for an additional 2'58 sq. ft. to~the'FAH be
granted due to topography to be used for the garage only. Miller
seconded the motion. The motion passed 4 - 0.
Meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary :~e-I-~~,~ Chairman ~