HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.88.34~ by a' ~ ~'• a` ~ ~ ~`.•i'v, z .. .; ~ -+~.~ t e~ y' ,.+M•. ~. ~£ r:
~.t
4
+
1°~S '~ .~, ,.,n ~
t.: :
• "° PITHIN C0UIVTY - y
`:
BOARIt OF ilnJ05TMB1~T t. _ , ~s
-
S
_ -`Y
DATE ~
1 ~u~ r I~
19~~
CASE # 88-34
-~ ~~~~,
APPLICANT COrD~ond Ba.~.~iyc~/~ ADDRESS I179y~9~~11 /33
Gar~ebs~dv/e
'G x/62„
~
/
OWNER ~y~/~
9/J ~
~~
d
~
i
~_Q
122
.
ADDRESS 5a~.,~ ~< ar
~dt re
~
LOCATION OF PROPERTY 9~f.2J ~i'jCl/Jlij/J(~ 8Z „~'~nr~~~~~/,~
_~_' ~/6S5
Any pertinent data must acco~n~3~y 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's description of proposed
variance showing justification:
We are requesting a variance to the set-back requirements in order
that we may construct the proposed addition to our cabin, which is nec-
essary in order to make it more liveable. The addition, as shown on the
drawings submitted herewith, will extend the west end of the cabin, cre-
ating a garage and work area at-ground level, and much needed living space
above. By extending the cabin in this way the set-back from the highway
will remain the same as it is for the existing cabin, the building site
will be above the elevation of the 100 year flood plain, and it will not
be necessary to remove the large trees which are between the cabin and
the river.
_ ___-~-r.._~.~,.~.-.--~-~.,,.~.,,-_.-
Applicant Signature £,.,~~
Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Zoning Official
forward this application to the Board of Adjustment and reasons
for not/ granting a building permit:
G~tL IUOT(C~
Zoning
Date permit rejected ~~ f~
Application filed
Notices mailed
a ~.- ~~ a
:~.~ 1313 ~ ~ a .
---c~~~l$`'
: ~~~
P~
~.
Official
Board decision
Date (~~,,.r~ ~~~
Secretary~_!
V x
~p01{+~ c 1.17x} f}tM'1
-{O 2~L
~~C ~1GSLf
~oiU ;~jZe,vne lzryos
~0 23J
;=l-s~~.nJ B I61 L
~1-~~~a.~a,e qYs
'/~o S'pD
SJUovJn-t
•~e~, l-k-~ntait
~d 2rsd
Asper
~~~ S-re„u
1414 !V • G~~r~/D~e
C'o~0 S~R~ , c.C~LO,
S~~
'~~cb-r~ Bz~ae.
'~o ,3 `~
SnJp~./wa+-S S
-~y}~..,~}- OssD~
pv 2~~
~N~~-ss
fo $oX5S7
~5~~
----------
Q(?~~t~~
~.
~"
v ~ E-
Evan Gull moved that the following be adopted:
BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJiJSTMENT
OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN
STATE OF COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. 88-34
Carol and Bob Ewald, 9427 Highway 82
WHEREAS, the subject property is within the unincorporated area
of Pitkin County, Colorado; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment is vested with the power to
grant or deny such variances by virtue of Title II, Section
16-1.3, Pitkin County Code (Land Use Code) and Colorado Revised
Statutes, 1973, 30-28-118(2) (C); and,
WHEREAS, based on the evidence presented, the Board of Adjustment
makes the following findings:
1. Proper notice procedures, including the
notification of all 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
35' frontyard variance from the highway, a 160' variance on the
building envelope in addition to staying within the envelope on
the survey submitted, but not to include the porch, be granted.
Additional conditions or restrictions:
WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may
result in rehearing and possible revocation.
Peter Dobrovolny seconded the adoption of the foregoing
~' Resolution. The roll having been called, the vote was as
follows:
n,
Resolution # 88- 3~
Page 2
Kandi Shaffran - yes Melinda Pearson -yes
Evan Gull - yes Peter Dobrovolny - yes
The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of
the County of Ptkin, State of Colorado.
DATED: August 2, 1988 The Board of Adjustment of
Pitkin County, Colorado
Attest•
-<~9' Se etas i Chairman
Minutes
Pitkin County
Board of Adjustments
August 2, 1988
Members Present: Kandi Shaffran, Chairwoman
Peter Dobrovolny
Melinda Pearson
Evan Gull
Chris Conrad, Pitkin County Zoning Enforcement Officer, was
present with staff recommendations.
Shaffran called the meeting to order at 5:25PM. The reading of
the minutes was postponed until the end of the meeting.
Conrad informed the board of a problem in case numbering, and so
cases were in heard in the following order.
Chris Conrad submitted a letter by
that the variance request for his
be tabled until the September 6,
minute conflict. Gull moved to
Dobrovolny seconded the mot~.on.
motion carried 4-0.
John Thomas Kelly, requesting
Kelly's) client, Bruce Dreher,
1988 meeting due to a last
accept the postponement, and
All were. in favor;" and the
Bill Brashear was present to represent Richard Knecht. A
variance was being sought to allow Rnecht to build a House and
barn sa he may avoid a floodplain and sloping portion of
property where drainage would be a hardship. Conrad confirmed
that Knecht's building envelope is very tight. Gull observed
that since the barn would lie on an upgrade, it would be 1.5'
higher than the house. Conrad pointed out that an accessory
building has a 12T restriction, and anything higher is a
principal structure. In this case, the house must be higher than
the barn. Dobrovolny commented that the proposed barn would be
too close to the road. Brashear replied that this would allow
for better access and that the rear of the barn would have no
access at all. Neighbor John Olson was present to object to the
height of the barn, claiming it would o7~strzct his view and be
out of context. Olsen asked if Knecht would be able to
eventually change the height of his 72' house, to which the board
answered 'yes'. Gull remarked that Knecht might also choose to
request a height variance on the barn. Brashear suggested a
stipulation be placed on the variance to restrict Knecht from
building higher. Gull offered a compromise in a motion to grant
a 29' setback for the house and a 40' setback for the barn, due
Dobrovolnyrandlthe motionhwas carried 4 0 tion was 'seconded by
Jim Crowley was present representing the Landowners Association.
Mr. Crowley explained how residents in Brush Creek spent
$60 000
, - $70,000 last year maintaining Brush Creeks' roads
even though the roads are owned by the county. Large trash
trucks weighing up to 30 tons empty, destroy these roads, thereby
Landowners c ro osed Brush Creek residents. The Brush entrance to
g P p, placing two dumpsters near the Creek
the subdivision so the trucks needn t enter the development,
thereby saving the roads. The dumpsters would be placed on the
right of way which is approximately 60', with a 30' easement on
the side. They proposed further, to build enclosures
approximately 6' tall with four sides and a roof, similar to
those in Snowmass. Cedar shakes would cover the enclosures.
One dumpster would be placed on each parcel, one which belongs to
the subdivision, the other belonging to Mr. Jerold Seheinbaum.
A letter from Mr. Scheinbaum supporting the construction was
submitted. Brush Creek Landowner, Mr. Spencer Pearson was'also
present in support of this variance. Gull pointed out that the
purpose of setbacks is to protect neighbors from each others
problems and that in this instance, a group 'bf nei.ghbors' are
facing an administrative ,problem. If the county had wanted £o do
the same, he continued, they would just do it, and not be in a
position to obtain a variance. After a discussion on what the
exact hardship in this- case is, Dobrovolny motioned for a 0'
setback variance for construction of two trash enclosures' as
presented on the drawing, due to topographical hardship. Gull
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion carried 4-
0.
Case 88 - 34 Carol and Bob Ewald 9427 Hi hwav 82.
Bob and Carol Ewald were present requesting a variance which
would enable them to build an extension on their house. The
Ewalds proposed to add a front porch cover with a gable which
would protect their front door from the weather, and a garage
with much needed living space above. The addition would be
covered with wood siding as is the bank in Snowmass. Since the
Ewalds intend to leave the surrounding trees standing, the
addition would be hidden from view of Highway 82. Chris Conrad
confirmed that the document was prepared for 1041 review for
floodplain. Although Shaffran thought the addition' would look
nice and argued that such variances have been alYo`wed before Por
larger buildings, Pearson countered that it's only'be2n'done on
non-view sides, and that the `addition would have a large impact
on Highway 82. Though Pearson had 'a problem with the whole
thing', she admitted she could 'go with the house'. Evan pointed
out that legally, the Ewalds could build a 30" overhang for their
porch without a variance, but the Ewalds suggested that a larger
one would look much nicer. Gull made a motion to grant a 35'
front yard setback variance. from the county road, and a 160
setback variance from the South property line of Highway 8'2 as
depicted on the drawings but not to include the 6' porch roof
submitted on the application in addition to staying within the
building envelope on the survey submitted, due to downzoning.
The motion was seconded by Dobrovolny, and the motion carried
4-0.
Case # 88 - 35 Richard Smith. Lot Y Crystal__River Subdivision
Mr. Richard Smith and Robert McCormick were present requesting
variances which would allow Smith to build a house on property
which has previously been downzoned. Although the'suldvision is
zoned AF-1, the lot is closer in size to an R-15 zone. A
covenance for the subdivision requires that 30' front yard i5r
side yard gnd 20' rear yard serporation, mtontallow forppaoval
could be ranted from the Co 5.,
deviation on the front and rear sides and a 10 deviation on the
side yard. Smith pointed out that several other variances have
been granted for that same subdivision. Gull suggested that
setbacks for an R-15 zone apply to this lot, with setback
requirements of 30' front yard,'10' rear yard, and 10' side yard.
Pearson motioned to grant a 72' front yard setback variance, a
2' south side yard variance, a 10' north side yard setback
variance and a 10' rear yard setback variance, due to downzoning.
Dobrovolny seconded the motion, and the motion carried 4-0.
Case # 88 - 36 Jeri Ann Rovsek Lot R-45 Starwood Subdivision
Gary Kerr and Elli Brickham were present to represent Ms. Rovsek.
They requested variances which would allow the Rovsek's to place
a pre-built log house, approved by the Stanwood Architectural
regu ations the house would block nei hbors view of So
Kerrltex lained that itotwas not e the lot wh c h presin zoning
1~ ented the
P, particular house which the Ropris.
hardshi but rather the seks
intended to place on the lot. Gull pointed out that setbacks
protect neighbors from one another, but that ° by `d'enying it
[variance? we're hurting the people the setbacks are supposed to'
help. That's where we have a conflict". Shaffran argued 'that
distances between neighbors must be protected 'for future'
landowners as well as those currently affected. °She suggested
ahain K and made arm thi n ao table tthe requestwuntil ae newmmeeners
. ting
has been rescheduled. Shaffran informed both Kerr and Brickham
that notice must again be posted, or the request for a variance
withdrawn. Gull seconded the motion, and it was carried 4-0.
Case # 88 - 37. Nancy MacKenzie Lot 2 Sterling Subdivision
Bill MacKenzie was present on behalf of Nancy MacKenzie tc
request a variance which would allow the MacKenzie house to be
built in a position to allow for greater solar intake. According
to MacKenzie, current zoning regulations would place the house in
the winter .shadows of the h
y p p y ggeills'by 2:30PM, thereby reducing solar
efficienc Shaffran su sted an estimated 20' envelope for the
entire rear ro ert line to account for its jaggedness.
Dobrovolny explained that a solar excuse was not a viable excuse.
Gull noted that no two acre lot 'should have a 20' setback.
Shaffran suggested that this was really a downzoning issue. Gull
made a motion to grant a 25' front yard variance, a 30' side yard
variance and a 30' rear yard v
ariance, to make setbacks conform
to that of an AF-2 zone due 'fo downzoning. The motion was
seconded by Pearson and carried 4-0.
Case # 88 - 38 Robert and Karen Hillebrand Lot 40 Holland
Hills subdavision.
Robert Hillebrand was present to request a 20' variance for an
AF-1 zone 'which was previously downzoned. Dobrovolny made a
motion to grant a frorit yard setback variance of 80' due to
downzoning and topographical hardship. Shaffran seconded the
motion and it was carried 4-0.
Case # 88 - 39 Daniel Sullivan 0368 Willoughby Wav
Dan Levinson was present representing Daniel Sullivan. Sullivan
wished to
extend his garage by one. bay. Since the topography
between the road and house dro s off
ranted the 1 hardship, and pointed p out th Levinson claimed
topographic at a variance was
g original owner for the construction of the present
garage. The proposed addition would lie below the road and be
hidden by trees. Shaffran pointed out that 20' was too wide for
one bay, to which Levinson remarked that Sullivan intended a bay
for his car and extra space on the side to allow for motorcycles
and the like. Letters from neighbors, Kern and Josephson "
reflected their approval, and neighbor Guideon Kaufman was
present to voice the approval of other neighbors and himself. A
motion was made by Gull to grant a 30' front yard setback
variance as shown on plans due to topographical hardships. The
motion was seconded by Pearson and carried 4-0.
Minutes were reviewed and a motion was made by Pearson to accept
the minutes as corrected. The motion was accepted by Gull and
carried 4-6. The meeting was adjourned at 7:45PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Secr,~tary
~~-,.. ~ ; ~~~ tic ~.~
Chairman
Date
_._ ~, ~ .:
_ x t` 1 ..y o .. ~ ~ ,--
y-y~ 1 i ,.~~,..}~L J~~I.w~-s- ~c'^.~ ...a. -4- E..9 ~ ~ ~ _..._~ .~." 1
w I
1
. ~ y ..
. '1 ... ...... .... '-LV..,~... i. .~
r.:. ._:....~._._~ . '.. r.~..
. _.. _-w....-.~ ._. ~._..~:...~ _ _._...... ._ l
o• y .aoo.es
~~
a ~ ~ ~ ~ -t
~~
~~ ~ ~ ~I
w ~ ~~
b oo ~
~~~ ~
a ~ ~~ b ~~
~ i 4
~ ~ i i i
o~ ! ~ ~
b ~ I i
ti o ~--y ~- -- _~
Io ~
~ ~~~,~ ~I I~ v o
~ ~ ~ e , ~, ~
a ~ ~ `~
..~.._.
\\ ~ ~ r
~,~ I
i p, ~ - ~_~
~f~. ~ ~ .r. 1.
3____i, k . ~ -a i L
tly Y f( _ jj \\pp
} ... ..
A (D ,j.
> ~. ~ rv ....y 1 ~ s y .. ~~ ~ ! ~~~ ~~fi' ~ ~ ~ f~ ~ +...a
L ~ G :~ ~ ~
C f i ~ f 1 f.... _ J- ~..-L i. 1 1 r, ~ _• T_ v.
' E
f'".
_1-~-(
.. ...~ ~.. . -.-.. v
+ :. . .
..~ ~.~ _
.---f- ._ ~ ~.__,_~_ ~_._.
_. __
,~
1~ O - _-~ i ''-~-' ~---...
j ~~
~ ~~ b ~
b ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~,
~ n ~ o
~~ ~ ~
~ y ~ ja ~ 3 -----~-.--
~ ~ !~ ~ I; ~
Q
o ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
,~
~ ~ ~~
~~ ~~
~ ~ ~ -_' _~
;~
- - __ -i~
d I~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ,e-x, ,~s.~-n .nom
~~ ~ ~
t o ~~- -I~
,~
°~ o I~ ~ ~I _ .__ . __.... _
° ~~
~, I~ ~
o . , _._ ~~ it
~---
if
...
~.
~'~~i=, a `~ A '~~`~,~;~~=;-~=.
r- ..i-»-
b
~'
0
b
0
~J
~b ~ _
,n
~.
y
y
0
(~
,.
.i ~ f '
~O~ ~
~ ' ~ I -~?II~IJ
G ' ~t ~~ j
~~ I
;~ ~ ~ ~~ r ~
~, ~ z ~ ~ 1~
~ ~
n ~ ~ ' ' ~~
~ ~ I: ~
`,
I ~~
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
_~ ~ ~ ~-
' ~~ ' ~ 1-
- ~ ~ ~ jay ~ ~
j~~ ~( a~I~EI~1~~ ~~
~~-j~f
a, ,
f ~4i +~..
n ;{~~;
~~ ~ ~ % ,
`' ~ :I'~
~ v, ' ~Ig~~~l ~
I+~ ~'~tl
;..
r~t~
~i ..l
.~' y _ ° ~
~ ~
,,,
l,_;~I
~ 1!~i~~ j q ~ ~ ~ n
~ ~ I~~~? ~ E~~~E' ~ ~ ~
'n~ ~
~ ~
' ~ ~ ~
N
~, ~~' ~ ~ \
~, ~ ~
~,. ,j~4~~t ~~f ~~
o A ~ ~~ _ ~
a '•° e ' 8 • 6 ',
~i
,,
5 3 Qi `
\Z
\\ ~
.~---- _-
_ _.+~
~_ ~~
__ _ F° ~..
,rn
i~ - - s
,~_. _. ._
_. ..._ ._
'~ '' _r , ~_ ~-
~~
~~
~~
~~
~ ~
0 0
b
~ ~~`
a
~ '
~ 0
_,
-b
k
t~
Y
I~
b
ti
o '~
c ~
~ ,,~
b ~Q•
' 9 !~
1 i
i
j it I~' ~-l-
i~ ~ ~~
S~~i~
~p,,'il
r~ ii~~
f ___
~ .~_~_
I ~ ~ " ~ ~' -~----_--__~.
s~~-i
~~i i) `~~~~j~.
~; ~ ~,f~ ~
~~
_~__ ~ ~~
l ~ '~ ~~
__ ~ ~ I
i y,~.
'~ I ~
o j ^~~~
!`
i ~ ~
~;~ ~ ~ ~
- - a I o
I~ ' °
`~ ~ ~ Ij
j R ~\ ~
' , t I~
i :,~ ~ ; ~ )
'~ I. ~~ ~ t
~~ ~t~
DDD E i ~ ~ i ~ l
.__ ~
r
b
~ _~ _:,. .
. '~
h
_.
~..
__ ~_ ~_~ _..
~_.. .
~.
',
Q -- i ~ a
~, : -: y5e~._ _ - •ay.~'A9HIYE'9N~d"~«~Msn -. _ ~ ~ ~G ~