HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.min.07.07.2009't:7
MINUTES
Meeting of the
Pitkin Connty Board of Adjustment
July 7, 2009, 2009
Members Present: Jim Rifkin, Robert Throm
Co-Chairmen: Patrick McAllister and Jamie Brewster-McLeod
Members Absent: Rick Head
Staff: Susan Pearson, Zoning Officer and acting secretary
Jamie Brewster-McLeod opened the meeting at 5:30pm.
CASELOAD:
07-2009 James C. Kempner
101 Little Teaas Lane
The applicants representative, John Wheeler, was present to request a Front Yard setback
variance of 20 feet where 30 feet is required for a resulting Front Yard setback of 10 feet,
and a Rear Yard setback variance of 15 feet where 30 feet is required for a resulting Reaz
Yazd setback of 15 feet, for the construction of a lower level addition to a single family
home.
The public notice was submitted and there were no members of the public present to
comment on this application.
Wheeler presented the Board with the details of this case. He spoke about the original
setback reductions achieved through a past BOA application and approval.
Wheeler explained that in this case they were not actually increasing the setback
encroachment on the ground, just installing a lower level which incorporated new deck
space and new lower level space.
McAllister asked about what portions of this addition would be seen by the public and
Wheeler responded that a new face, including a new walkout, would be seen at the front of
the house.
The Board wanted to blow what hardship is appropriate for this case and Wheeler
responded that zoning was the hardship because of the way that the front yard was
designated on this property.
Jim Rifkin made a motion to approve the application due to the topographical conditions of
the lot, Pattick McAllister seconded the motion, and it passed 4 - 0.
08-2009 Gunter Schaldeck
Lot 1, Block 7, Brush Creek Village Subdivision
Mathew Langhorst, representing the applicant Gunter Schaldeck, was present to request
height variances for two, tiered retaining walls of 8 and 10 feet where a maximum height of
i ~' 3
,,
6 feet is allowed within the setback for the construction a driveway. 'The proposed tiered
walls will be 8 feet and 10 feet in height for a total of 18 feet n,nning for a linear distance of
about 75 feet.
The public notice was submitted. There were three members of the public present to
comment on this application: Sarah Challinor, David Elston and Larry Jones. The
members of the public who were present were asked by the Board to first let Langhorst
speak and then they would be allowed to comment.
Langhorst, explained the history of this property and the problems with the current 1041
approval which include the access easement for the driveway in relation to the elevation
of the garage, fire truck access and Medicine Bow Road. Langhorst explained that
Catherine Berg, the County Planning Engineer had been working with him for quite a
while to min;mize the driveway slopes, and the home owner had sunk the house into the
ground about as far as it would go; furthermore, he has sited the house at the very bottom
of the building envelope to minimise slope and sight problems. Langhorst explained that
because of adverse topographical conditions it was necessary for both the upper and
lower retaining walls to occur in the setback.
Riflcin asked what existed currently for an access. Langhorst responded that currently
there was a wall and a drive for access.
Langhorst explained that there would be plantings in front of the wall for screening and
softening.
Throm asked what the wall would be made of. Langhorst explain than the wall would be
made from a series of interconnecting blocks.
McAllister asked if there was actually two full walls and Langhorst explained that yes,
there were 2 fall walls with about 5 feet of space between them for landscaping for
screening and softening.
Brewster-McLeod wanted to know in plain words exactly what the walls in the setbacks
amounted to.
Langhorst explained that the first wall would be over 6 feet by 1 to 4 feet through the
setback and the second wall would be about 18 inches above 6 feet, for a span of about 75
feet.
Public Citizen, David Elston, identified on the site map, where his house sits in Brush
Creek Village and stated that he doesn't want to look up and see a 10 foot wall inside of
the driveway. Langhorst corrected him and explained that the wall would be on the
outside of the driveway and that they would not be destroying any vegetation. Elston
restated that no matter the configuration he doesn't want to see a massive driveway and
wall. Elston then asked about the space between the two walls. Langhorst explained that
there would be plantings to screen both walls as there was a 5 foot space between the two
walls and plenty of room in front of the first wall to screen as well. Langhorst also stated
that he would work with the neighbors and come up with renderings as to the color and
vegetation choices.
Public Citizen, Sarah Challinor, requested that height poles be placed. Langhorst argued
that the height pole would probably not be seen as the wall would probably not be seen.
Bob Throm stated that in his opinion that height poles were rather ineffective.
Jamie Brewster-McLeod asked if there was a Brush Creek Village Homeowners
Association and Elston said that there was, but, it is basically non-operational.
2
._., ~.
Langhorst continued to speak about the driveway cut, the access envelope and the
existing culverts and how they all contributed their own challenges to the development
process.
Public Citizen Lany Jones, asked if the cut was as long in distance as possible and if the
house had been sunk into the ground as deep as possible. He requested that the home be
sunk low as possible as his home is on the lot above.
Brewster Mcleod called for a motion and Throm moved that the height variance for the
tiered retaining wall be allowed due to topographic conditions. Rifkin seconded the
motion and it passed 4-0.
Throm called for discussion and asked how the public who were present felt about the
Boazd's decision. All three citizens present said they were satisfied but wanted to be
involved in the design process of the retaining walls. Langhorst committed to keep the
neighbors involvedin the process.
lull`-l1yY~1.`F
Brewster-McLeod made a motion to approve the minutes from the April 7s' Boazd of
Adjustment meeting, McAllister seconded the motion and it passed 4-0. Brewster-
McLeod made a motion to approve the minutes from the May 5~' meeting, Thmm
seconded the motion and it passed 4-0.
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned.
*ss**ss*s*s*ss***s*sssss*ssss*sss*****#*******•*******************~*****
Respectfully submitted
as
usan Pearson, Acting Secretary
Da
~•
Date