Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.82.22Clark Smyth -~',,~;~•~~ i.t<<~ t t:Yzc fo] ] owing 1~~ ~ ~~c;c,;,t_~~d : }''•E;`Ohk:, iui'; T}UA1~L~ l)~'' 1t~;t;U7i7'P:hIT OI' TIIi'. COUPaTY Oh i~1TI:T;: S7'71TE Or' COLORADO r,L~soLVTIOIa h~o. 82-22 Jon David Seigle, Lot 44, Starwood 5, Pitkin Ai.IFRE~~S, the :~~~bjc:c.t, r>rcl~~~rty is within the unincorporated arc a of I':i.._.r;?.n County, Colorado; ~.u~u, WtI_'1?.P;~~.S, the Foard of Ad justment i.s vested with the power to grant cr deny si;ch v,:.rian ,•es by v~irtuc: of Title II, Section 16-1. 3, Pi tkin County Code fL~ nd Llse code) avid Color<^~do Revised Statutes, 19'13, 30-?.8- llu (2) (C) ; and, V7HEF:;AS, I,asec! on tPie evidence presen~ed, the Board of Adjustment ma3cc,s the follo~~:ing findings 1. F~roper_ notice procedures, including the notification of all ad joa:•ni_n~_-, px°oper_ ty owz~er. s , has been shown by the ap~~licant. 2. The regizired hardship or practice]. difficulty has been established. 3. Granting such relief will not cause substantial detriment to the x»zblic welfare and wil]_ not substantially impair the intent and }%urpose of the Zonincr Resolutions and the zoning maps. NOP;, 'PIIEi2%I~ORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the ap_licant's reaue$t for a 20' sideyard setback variance ~or construction of a addition Additional conditions or restrictions: tivA:NIIvG: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. Bill Lukes seconded the adonti.on of the foregoing Resolution. The roll havinry_ bun called, the vote wa.s as follows: Paul Krausch - yes Evan Gull -yes Clark Smyth - yes Joe Zanin - yes The F.e:aoli_~tion w~,s adoF>ted by vole. of tiie Ijoard of Adjustment of the County of }'i.',_';in, Stat^ of Color<~do. DATI~D' July 27, 1982 'i'h~: Roard of_ Adjustment of Fi_ta•:.in County, Colorado Att < <.t A ~. Secretary - ~:.l~a i.rm~-it~ ~, ....: y n APPCAL TO BOARD OF ADJUST~4EP1T County of Pitkin • Date July 12 19 82 Case ~ ga _ a~., Applicant Jon David Seigle Address 201 N. Mill, Ste. 201, Aspen,CO owner Jon David Seigle Address 201 N. Mill, Ste. 201, Aspen,CO Location of Property Lot 44, Starwood 5, Pitkin County, Colorado (Attached) Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made a part of this Case No. , The Board may return this application if it does not contain all the facts in question. Applicant's description of proposed variance shoring justification: Applicant requests a side yard setback variance from the 30 foot setback required by the AF-1 Zone designation to 5 feet as necessary to mitigate topographic hardships. In October of 1978 this Board granted the applicant a variance from the side and rear yard setbacks to 5 feet because of the fact that all but approximately 6,000 square feet of the 133,500 square feet of the subject property was unbuildable because of topography. The applicant desires to add an addition to his house which will involve an encroachment upcn the existing setback. The lot was created before the imposition of the AF-1 Zcne designation and now is adversely affected by the setback requirements. The improvements on the lot cannot be seen from any other lot or residence in the Starwood Subdivion. There are approximately 2,000 trees surrounding the applicant's house and the house is down in a draw so that the granting of this variance of setback will not impact any neighbor in any manner. Please find site plan attached. . Applicant Signature Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Build ~-lnsp ctor to forward this application to the BoaJrd of ,/Adjustment and reason for not grant'n1g a building ermit:~/ ~~~ .iv.~ ~~u ~C-/ ~ Y j"%` / `1 ~'d-LG~~i:- ,~.~ ~~-GQ-~ ~ ~~f ; c:?CGLL -' LC2 Gt-'~ ;:tfiC-/' /.' U 7 ~ ' ~ ~' , . ,, `` ~ Building Insp. Signatur ~ ` ~ ,~Ic.~~-~scf, ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ Date ermit re ected: ~ ~ ~.-~ P j Board Decision Application Filed: Date: Mailed: Secretary, Board of Adjustment 'I~iz~SsZ- List of Adjoining Property Owners Mary Webster Box 4052 Aspen, CO 81612 Tract R-43(5), Tract R-45(5) Eleanor R. Brickham BOX 167 Aspen, CO 81612 Tract R-65(9) Winifred Johnson Box 1919 Racine, WI 53401 Tract R-64(11) Edward B. Righter P.O. Box 19 Springville, N.Y. 14141 Tract R-54(8) Richard H. Rufer and Charlotte Ann Rufer 7 Briarwood Place, RR #1 Fargo, North Dakota 58103 Tract R-88(16) • F,..,, ,.'.3 r • ~RADIORD PUOLI•HIND CO., OCNVlR R E C O R D O F P R O C E E D I N G S BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT July 27, 1982 Members present: Bill Mason Clark Smyth Paul Krausch Joe Zanin Alternates: Bill Lukes Evan Gull Meeting was called to order by Bill Mason, Chairman. Patsy Newbury from the Building Department, advised the Board that Dr. Shea (an applicant from the previous meeting) posted his sign for 10 days. Mason called for a motion regarding the minutes from the~~last meeting. Krausch motioned to approve the minutes, Zanin second the motion. All in favor. Martin Horowitz, Block 7, Lot 8, Brush Creek S/D 82-12 requesting a 65' frontyard setback variance for construction of a garage. Martin Horowitz was there to represent himself. He explained that they needed the variance because of a slope on one side of the lot. This particular area for the garage would allow them to take advantage of some solar application. Placing it in an area that would not encroach upon the setback requirements would be putting it too 'near to his leach field. He stated that also there would not be any visual impact if the garage was placed in this location. ~.Iason stated that there were no objections from adjacent property owners on file. Lukes questioned which side the garage would be to the pump house. Horowitz pointed out on the survey where the garage would be in relation to the main house and the pumphouse, Krausch questioned the terrain problems on the lot. Horowitz stated that there was a 2 foot dropoff for every ten feet of land. Krausch questioned what the topographical hardships were as stated on the application, Horowitz explained that the more the building is moved down, the more it would show. He explained that if he set the building back the entire 100' required he would be too close to his leach field. Also it would necessitate a height variance. Or he would have to create a new driveway which would create problems with grade and elevation, Gull questioned what the zoning history was on this lot. Newbury stated that it was zoned AF-2. She stated that the problem was that the frontyard setback had never been designated before and was done so in 1978. Gull stated that the change was not with the zoning but with the frontyard designation. Mason stated that the lots in Brush Creek had had to have variances for each one so far. Lukes questioned if there would be a height variance. Horowitz stated that it would not, it would be one story with a pitch roof over one section. Gull wanted to know if there would be a living unit in it. Horowitz said it would not. Zanin moved to grant the variance request based on the terrain features, Krausch second the motion. All in favor. Robert J. McGill, Lot 12, Block 2, Crystal River Co{zntry Estates S/D 82-21 requesting a 12.20' sideyard setback variance and a 11,01' frontyard setback variance for construction of a garage. Robert McGill was there to represent himself. He explained that his lot is in the higher end of the subdivision, which runs 150' wide. When his lot was purchased and house was built there was a covenant variance with a 50' setback from the property line. He did have his elevations marked on the survey to show topo. The driveway is 40% grade. He stated that it ~ _ • • •RAD/ORD -U/ll/HIN6 CO., D6NVlR R E C O R D O F P R O C E E D I N G S Page 2 Board of Adjustment July'27,.1982 would be impractical to put in another driveway because the first drive had to have a slight switchback due to the steepness, Gull questioned the present zoning, Newbury stated that they were not RS-20, originally zoned AF-3, which is for 1 acre sites. She stated that the property is too steep for such zoning. Krausch moved to grant the variance due to the topographical features of the property, Smyth second the motion, All in favor. Jon David Seigle, Lot 44, Starwood 5, Pitkin Co. 82-22 requesting a 25' sideyard setback variance for construction of a garage. Jon Seigle was there to represent self. Seigle stated that a variance was granted to him in 19?9 for construction of the house and then for construction of garage. This request is for house addition. He stated that it would encroach on two setbacks, one would• be a 3' encroachment and the other one would be a one foot encroach- ment. He stated that he had a 3 acre lot, but he pointed out much of the property was unbuildable with heavy forest and steep topb, The area that is buildable is the area before the gully shown on the survey. He stated that the property is invisable from other lots. Krausch questioned what the variance request was. Seigle stated that he needed to go within five feet, but wasn't sure that he would need all that. He stated that he would be going to the Starwood Homeowners Association after getting the variance from this Board. It was stated that the Association was notified by mail. Lukes felt uncomfortable that there was no specific reason as to why the amount of variance requested 'was necessary. Seigle stated that the proposed building drawn has not been staked yet and he is trying for the margin of error. Kandi Shaffran joined the meeting at this time. The members were confused about the amount of setback variance and the area that the setbacks were necessary, Seigle showed the members where the present house was and where the gulch was and where the proposed addition would be. Smyth stated that he had a problem with additions. He felt it is almost an incentive for people ~to build a little piece at a time to get what they want, just because there is an existing house and one is limited to hwere one can build. He wasn't sure if that was reason enough to give a variance or deny a variance. Gull stated that as a result of the permission being given in the first place to come within 5' of .the property line; it isn't necessary to be any stricter than the last time. Newbury stated that the lot has definite topography hardships, Lukes felt that there would not be a large amount of impact and the subdivision is very controlled but would want it to be contingent upon formal approval by the Associaiton. Zanin questioned the amount of variance that Seigle wanted. He stated that since the Board was having trouble with him going to 5 feet of the property line, he would like to go within 10 feet of the line which would make it a 20' variance setback. Smyth motioned to grant the variance request of 20' setback variance (this will include the two lotlines) based on topographical hardship. Lukes second the motion, All in favor, Krausch pointed out that he had a problem with the Board maintaining the setback requirements set by the County unless there is just cause not to. He had a problem with things like swimming pools and tennis courts because he does not think they a.re necessary to live in and requested that at some time the Board could have a discussion on that subject. He also had a problem with consistancy, Mason suggested that this fall, during a light agenda, the situation could be discussed. ^RADIORD rUSLIf HIND CO.. DlNVlR Page 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Board of Adjustment July 27, 1982 Michael Erneman, Lot 3, Aspen Oak $2-23 requesting a 90' frontyard setback variance for construction of a single family residence. Michael Erneman was there to represent self. Erneman explained that the lot is on the ridge. The original intent of the layout of the lots was that they were to be ridge-top lots and that they would not be buildable on the steep face slopes. Zoning has'not been set and 100' setback is necessary, He pointed out 'the access of the lot, therefore becoming the frontyard. 80 feet down from the uppermost property line, the topography immediately becomes quite severe, 50% or better. Above that is 25% or 30% in the area where the house will be placed. On the far side is an encroachment problem with a noise from a neighboring pool, so placing the house there would not be reasonable, He had a letter from David Slemon, representing the Aspen Oak Association and read the contents of the letter to the Board (a copy of which is on file). The letter stated that they were favorable to the request. Erneman showed a drawing of the property and the site of the proposed building. Herb Kline was there to represent Hal Kroeger, who is an adjacent property owner. He stated that Kroeger was in the process of for- mulating his construction drawings at this time. He had maps showing the topography of both properties. It indicates that the proposed building sites of both gentlemen are on approximately the same elevation. Kroeger is concerned that this house would be placed 10 feet from the property line, which would effect the placing of his residence. Kline suggested that maybe Erneman and he could work out some sort of compromise as to height and such. Erneman did not disagree with owrking out the situation as best as can be with Kroeger, but it was in his own best interest to build a building that would not be intruded upon by something that Kroeger intended to build. Kline suggested that the decision by the Board be postponed until such time that Erneman and he could discuss plans for the house. Erneman stated that was not possible due to a closing date. Krausch felt that the Board had a responsibility to give a variance when the property had topographical problems. Kline agreed but felt the Board could restrict the height. Erneman stated that he would be having a pitched roof, which would look better than a bunker on the hillside. Kline wanted a committment on the height of the residence. Smyth did not feel that the house would have much impact at 250 feet away. Lukes and Shaffron felt that even though they respect the feelings of the adjacent property owners, they can't tell an owner how to build his residence, especially when the adjacent property owner hasn't built his own house yet. Krausch felt that 250 feet would not do any damage. He felt that the area was limited as to where the house could be built. Smyth motioned that the variance as requested be granted due to the topographical considerations, requesting that the house be built at least 100 feet away from the access road and that Mr. Erneman make the best efforts to coordinate with Mr. Kline's client on the height and the location so that it minimizes the impact upon the views. Kline requested that the 100' be eliminated due to the fact that it might hamper in placing the house. Mason pointed out that the part about Erneman is not binding, that the Board cannot force Erneman to work with Kroeger. The motion was repeated. Krausch second the motion made by Smyth. Vote was called for, All in favor. Meeting was adjourned. _. Scanned 7/26/07 File Finders Box #10 LARGE PLAT(S) AVAILABLE TO VIEW AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AVAILABLE TO BUY AT CLERK & RECORDER