HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.min.03.05.1996MINUTES
Pitkin County Board of Adjustment
March 5, 1996
Members Present:
Michael Cooper
Paul Rudnick
John Wheeler
Shira Geller
Rod Dyer
Bill Lukes
Staff:
Joanna Schaffner, Zoning Officer
George Lilly, Secretary
Lukes was elected as the new Chair.
Lukes opened the meeting and introduced the Board. He determined that Rudnick would
sit out on the voting.
Case ~96-02. Helen Blaze, An "open space" parcel in the Ardmore Subdivision, across
Ardmom Drive from Lot 6.
Charles Fagan, who rapresented the applicant, was present to request approval for
variances from the setback and floor area requirements of the R-15 zone district to allow
issuance of a building permit for an illegal residential garage. Since this item had been
tabled from the February meeting, he recapitulated the key points, which were: Mr.
Blaze put in a pad and some retaining walls for which a building permit was issued, and
later put a roof in for which no building permit was issued. The variance is requested to
retain all or a portion of the roof. Fagan presented several pictures showing the garage,
indicating that the owner is proposing to cut off the wooden extensions that support the
roof, bringing it back to the masonry walls. He stated that this would eliminate the FAR
allocation issue. The owner also proposes to cut back the overhang by six inches which
would then eliminate the setback conflict on the back line. These proposed changes
would leave only the front yard setback variance at issue.
Members of the public were invited to speak. Rosemary Bilchak and Gordon McAlpine,
neighbors of the Blazes, stated their opposition to the variance, miterating that they felt
that the lot was already overbuilt, no building permits were issued, the structure crosses
property lines, it constricts the road, and them is no undue hardship.
Schaffner addressed the FAR issue, stating that the existing house is over FAR and that
the accessory structure is necessarily tied to the house. What is not clear, she said, is
whether the excess FAR of the house reduces the available FAR on the accessory parcel.
Debbie Quinn, the Assistant County Attorney, stated that the FAR for the principal lot,
Lot 6, was not tied to the FAR of the accessory parcel.
Fagan added that that was one of the masons the lots had not been merged--to retain the
FAR on the parcel with the garage. He also noted that the house had been re-zoned into
FAR non-compliance, as had the other homes in the subdivision.
Quinn continued that the County had initiated litigation against the Blazes because of the
illegal structure and that a judgment had been rendered stating that if the Board did not
grant the variance the roof is to be removed and the garage returned to the originally
approved and permitted structure (which was walls only six feet above existing grade).
When the possibility of the accessory parcel being conveyed as a separate entity was
discussed, Fagan suggested that, if the variance were to be granted, a requirement would
be that there would be a deed restriction that the parcel could not be conveyed separately.
Cooper noted that historically the Board has not approved an illegal structure built
knowingly by an applicant and that typically the Board does not approve a variance when
directly effected neighbors oppose it.
Wheeler voiced his objection to the applicant's intentionally not merging the parcels as a
technicality to approve a structure that otherwise would not be approved
Geller restated what Fagan had earlier mentioned as the applicant' s right to build a
structure on the property that was 4.75' wide by 18' long and wondered how the
neighbors would feel about that.
Lukes moved to deny the requests for variances. Wheeler seconded.
Geller and Dyer opposed. The motion failed. Discussion ensued as to how many votes
for or against a motion was required.
Dyer moved to grant a 30' frontyard setback variance where 30' is required if the
applicant removes the wooden portion of the structure based on existing topographic
hardship.
Rudnick proposed that if the variance were to be granted, there be a condition that it
would be valid only so long as Lot 6, the easement parcel, and the accessory parcel were
all commonly owned.
Dyer restated the motion. Geller seconded.
Wheeler and Lukes opposed. Motion failed.
Lukes ruled that the Board closes the case with no action--there is no motion to deny, but
the variance request is not granted.
Case ~96-04. Brad Benson. A parcel of land situated in the NW 1/4 SW 1/4 of Section
23, Township 10 South. Range 88 West of the 6th P.M.
Lukes noted that the request was for approval of a 30' rear yard setback variance, where
30' is required for a 1.436 acre lot in the AFR-10 zone district, to construct a single-
family residence.
Schaffner introduced the case, saying that the applicant had had a hearing officer review
for 1041 issues and the proposal before the Board is for the construction of a residence in
the rear portion of the lot which is up against a hillside and would encroach into the
setback. The hearing officer asked that the applicant request the variance and without the
variance granted the hearing officer would not approve this plan. Schaffner further
explained that, although the property is in a platted subdivision, the subdivision was
never approved by the BOCC since the subdivision was created prior to BOCC review
being required.
Stephen Kent was present as Brad Benson's representative. He showed the Board his
maps with the proposed building site, as well as the adjacent existing structures, and
referred to his heating with Francis Krizmanich regarding 1041 review.
Schaffner clarified, saying that Krizmanich had given tentative approval subject to the
applicant receiving the setback variance. She said that normally the Planning Office does
not favor zero setbacks, but in this case, with the topography of the hillside, the proposed
building site could be allowed.
Kent indicated that the proposed building site was chosen because it left the pasture open,
which he felt was more appealing for the entire neighborhood. He showed photographs
of the potential view planes of his closest neighbors, the Mecheaus and Susan McCoy,
and asserted that the proposed building site was least impacting on them, as well as
leaving the adjoining tennis court intact.
Public comment was requested. Mike Mecheau and his mother, Paula Mecheau, were
present and referred to the letter written by Ms. Mecheau.
Lukes read the letter from Paula Mecheau into the record, which stated a current
opposition to the proposed building site, as it would bring the structure approximately
100' from her living room window and would affect her privacy.
Mr. Mecheau also provided photographs to convey his understanding of what the view
plane would be if the structure were to be built on the proposed site and reiterated the
concem about privacy.
Rudnick pointed out that, at that point, no hardship had been suggested and that the case
seemed fairly straightforward.
Susan McCoy, another neighbor, addressed the Board in support of the Benson proposal,
citing an aesthetic benefit to the entire neighborhood and expressing concern that the
removal of the tennis court would present a hardship to all those who use it. She agreed
with Kent' s contention that a structure in the middle of the pasture would be less than
desirable, and that it would negatively impact her view.
Joan Benson reiterr~t~.d that the proposed building site was picked with both the Mecheaus
and McCoy view planes in mind, hoping to optimize the situation for everyone.
Geller expressed concern over two homes being so close and the potential fire danger
involved.
Wheeler agreed with Rudnick that no demonstrable hardship had been established. He
also pointed out that the existing approved building envelope is actually closer to the
Mecheau residence than the proposed building site, and possibly more in the view plane.
Cooper moved to deny the setback variance request based on the lack of hardship and the
opposition from a neighbor. Lukes seconded. Wheeler opposed, suggesting that the
applicant table the request and re-apply after having worked some things out. Lukes ruled
that the motion had been voted on and passed, 4-1, thereby denying the application.
Lukes brought up the adminstrative issue of who is able to vote. He referred to
Schaffner's memo that stated there can be five voting members and up to five alternates.
Wheeler pointed out that any alternate chosen by the Chair could vote, not necessarily the
senior alternate, and suggested that alternates rotate voting from case to case. Consensus
was reached and this rotational method of voting by alternates was adopted.
Schaffner mentioned that the BOCC is currently pursuing staggering the appointments of
Board members so that their terms overlap, instead of all expiring simultaneously.
Wheeler moved to approve the minutes of the February meeting, Cooper seconded,
unanimously approved.
Meeting adjoumed at 7:20 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
George Lilly, Secretary Bill Lukes, Chair