Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.82.31f3T~t~RU UI~' t:DJU:~TMENT • County of Pitkin • Date ~/lv 1.9~~~ Case # ~~--.31 Applicant/~p/,f= ~iv'sT'~ Address ~OX ~~Y7 /~~.~~''~~, ~r Owners.l,~:~n~' ~ _ Ui~'~.0 Address~,,Z~~~ i~t~~~%r'.~~ / " ~,. Location of Property~~ i~>; -~~,~[11t..~Og1./ (Attached) Any pertinent data must accorripany this application, and will be made a part or' this Case No. The Board may return this application if it does not contain all the facts in q/u'~estion. Applicant's description of?~proposed variance showing justification: `'~ -- ~ ~ . ,~~~~-~~ jam'>~r~,~ ~' ~-r0'~~i~-~'`~"} Applicant Signature ~~ Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building Inspector o forwarc this application to the Board of Adjustment and reasor, or not granting a building permit : G~~r..(/ ~, .-L.~- CL ~'~o~~~, Cj~ ~ ~ ~~~~~r Building Insp. Date permit rejected: Application filed: Mai led Board decision _ Date Signature Secretary, Board of Adjustment ___ .... ~ ~' ~~ 019 ' $ A ~~ ,~: ,~~ A ._. ~ ~_ • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS • 100 Leaves iam w e. r. HoecKe~ s. e. s i. co. .BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ~dembers Present 9lternates: September 28, 1982 Bill Mason, Chairman .Dottie Fox Paul Krausch Clark Smyth ••Joe Zanin Bill Lukes Sandi Shaffran Bob Throm Evan Gull Bill Pdason, Chairman, called the meeting to order at the Commissioners Room at 5:15 in the front hallway. Since the Commissioners Room was occupied, Mason moved the meeting to the Courts on the next floor. The meeting was then recessed. The meeting was reconvened in the Courts. Mason questioned if there were any comments regarding the minutes from the last special meeting; on September 14, 1982. ~,4ason mentioned that Dwight Shellman's name was misspelled. He also stated that in a motion made by Zanin, financial hardship was used as the hardship in the case of Don Lemos. He stated that he had always been against the use of financial hardships and he requested that that be struck off the record. Throm motioned to accept the minutes, Lukes second the motion. ,All in favor . Fox suggested to the Board that ~Ves Light, County Attorney, should -spend some time with the Board to discuss interpretation of the rights that the Board has in granting variances. Mason stated that 3'te would get with Light regarding a meeting on a night when the agenda load will be light. Shaffran suggested that at the same time they +could discuss some issues among themselves. Krausch wanted to know if since the last meetin; a definitive answer on the subject of agriculture building had been given. Fox stated that she did some research on that and the Planning office was working on a code amendment to define what an agriculture building is and that would be forwarded to the Board. Krausch wanted to know, when the definition of such s building came through, would that buildin; then not need a building permit. Fox stated that she discussed this with the County Attorney, a.nd he stated that he did not think the code required a building permit for an accessory building like that, but the zoning would require the same variances. Clyde Brannon , 0726 Red ",4ountain Road , Red :'.it S /D 82-31 requesting a rearyard setback to construct an exterior deck. Don Kopf was there to represent °.1r. Brannon. ~,iason disqualified himself because he is an adjacent property owner and he requested that Dottie Fox act as chairperson. Fox read the application stating that this was in the R-30 zone and required a 20' rearyard setback. Kopf ~T° 81 ~.-~ .~ ~w -~ _ ~ - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves CORM !1 C. I. Mt1ECN EL t. B. 1 L. CO. September 28, 1982 Board of Adjustment Page 2 stated that the reason for the request was because the deck was more than 18" above the ground and therefore had to adhere to the setback requirements. FIe presented some photos taken from the south .looking up alongside the house. Kopf pointed out the deck system and stated that along one line a group of evergreens would be planted. .$e pointed out the Hodges property and stated that :~fr. Hodges had no objections to the deck system which ran into an easement that belonged to the Hodges. Hodges had given Brannon permission to landscape that piece of property. Kopf stated that there was not a homeowners association. Kopf requested Mason's opinion because he is a neighbor and is familiar with the property. lfason used the photos to explain some features of the property. Kopf stated that there was an existing deck in violation, put on by a previous owner, and they had contacted '_'dr. Hodges regarding that deck and he stated that it didn't bother him. Fox questioned whether any other adjacent property owners had any comments. Mason stated that he lead talked with Hodges and he was agreeable and would be sending a letter stating such. Also he talked with Jim PdcDade, another adjoining property owner, and he had no objection. '!Eason then wanted to know if a sign was posted. Kopf stated that a sign was on the front entrance coming off Reds :.fountain Road. Fox wanted to know if this vas the only location available for the deck. Kopf stated that it would "garbage the area" if put on the other side. Shaffran stated that she didn't like the idea of building right up to the lot line. gopf pointed out that the property next to it was unusable. Shaffran understood but still was uncomfortable with granting variances like that. Krausch auestioned if there was a variance granted for the deck that was already in violation. Kopf gave a brief history of the house, explaining that some variance had been granted for the guest house +on the property, which was a kitchen, bath and bedroom. Fox questioned Zf there was a hardship making it impossible to build elsewhere. Kopf stated the accessibility to the house made it difficult to place elsewhere. Fox questioned if there was a topographical hardship on the land. Kopf felt that there was. The deck would be 5' off the ground. It would not be an enclosed structure. Krausch stated that .he did not see justification to granting a variance. Fox stated that there were definitely other places that the deck could be built. The members explained to Kopf the guidelines that they must follow. Dopf stated that the topographical situationwas that the adjacent property is not adequate for building and would never be used. Shaffran pointed out that they had to make their decisions based on the applicant's property, not the adjacent property. Kopf felt there were no other places to build the deck to keep within the configuration !of the house. He pointed out the steep section of the property. He stated that there was only 22' between the main house and the guest house, which would not be enough room. Throm suggested an alternative that would not need a variance. Kopf felt that wouldn't work due to the topography and the drainage problems. Fox questioned if there vas any other discussion. Zanin questioned about the grade. Throm showed him the photos and explained some features. Krausch moved to deny the request do to lack of justification. Lukes second the motion. Vote was taken for. All in favor, ":Eason abstaining. ~T° 82 (~ ;, .. ._~ - :~ nom. _ ._ ~ . :~~-Naar-_. _._ - c. ~„-- ~ r RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS /OIIM M C. I. XOECKEL !. !. S L. CO. 100 Leaves September 28, 1982 .Board of Adjustment Page 3 Kathy Honea, 7804 Highway 82 82-32 requesting a 192' frontyard setback variance for shed. Kathy Honea was there to represent self. She explained that it was an odd shape of property and pointed out the features of the property. She explained that if the shed was placed in such a way that a variance was not needed the neighbors complained about the closeness and the smell of the horses. There is no .dwelling unit on this property. The shed is presently there. Throw mentioned that it brought the Board back to the agriculture building issue. Fox questioned if there was another place on the property to avoid encroaching on the setbacks. There is another spot that it would just barely fit but would be close to the neighbors house, something they were opposed to. Honea stated that it did not obstruct view. There were no objections in the file. Krausch wanted to know if this was the type of building that did not require a variance. Fox stated that to her understanding it didn't require a building permit, but would require a variance. Krausch worried about controlling the violations if a building permit was not necessary. Throw suggested that Light come in to give an opinion on the building. Krausch was concerned with the fact that people would start to think if they went ahead a,nd built within their setbacks they could come to the Board and automatically receive the variance. Lukes felt this would open the door for landowners to determin what their hardships are and then present the Board with double hardships of existing structures. Krausch questioned whether the property could be determined unbuildable because of the setbacks and the irregular shape of the lot. IIe then felt that could be used as the hardship. Newbury felt that the lot was unbuildable. It was determined that Honea did not post a sign. Fox motioned that this be tabled until the next meeting so the sign can be posted and to get additional information from the County Attorney. ~'ox also suggested that some letters be gotten from the neighbors regarding the placement of the shed. Zanin second the motion. All in favor , Owner Joseph Jerkins, Applicant Matt Meyers, 0229 j'~rights Road, Bed Mountain S/D - 82-33 requesting a 15.7' frontyard setback variance for construction of garage/recreation room. Shea Lee from Caudill Gustafson & Associates Architects was there to represent A,Iatt ~l4eyers. She presented a letter to the Board from Joseph Jerkins giving permission for Matt Meyers ~o request this variance. There was a sign posted. She showed to the members a layout of the property and pointed out the adjacent property owners. She presented photos of the property to the members. She pointed out that the property is steep down to Wrights Road. She explained that this was the only flat portion of the property. There is a vertical embankment in back with no retaining wall. Meyers would like to put in a retaining wall for safety reasons. This addition would go on the north side of the house rather than on the south side due to the fact it would create a driveway to steep to use and would cover up solar value, since that side is completely glass. The recreation room would go on top of the garage; strickly recreation with no intention of plumbing. Lukes felt that there was very strong topographical reasons to s~rant the variance. Jim Moran was there to represent Mrs. Newhouse, an adjacent property owner. Isis position was that Mr, Jerkins is in violation of the side- yard setback on his client's side of the property. Mr. Moran gave 'a brief history of the house. Mr. Herndstadt, a previous owner, built a deck in 1977 which encroached into his client's property. There eras also a master bedroom went into the setback. It4oran attempted to contact Herndstadt and an agreement was reached, tentatively. in April of 1978 to exchange easements. In April of 1980 correspondence ~v~ s~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves IOMI M C. -. NO[CKEL 1. ~. ~ L. C0. September 28, 1982 Board of Adjustment Page _4 was sent to Mr. Jerkins regarding the problem and in September 1980 correspondence was received from Mr. Jerkins stating that something could be worked out but he was not happy with original agreement proposed and suggested a meeting. However, nothing more was heard from Pdr. Jerkins. There, even though r4oran felt that the spot chosen for the garage was the only feasible spot, he thought the Board should delay consideration or condition it upon working out something for the violation of the deck and master bath with Mrs. Newhouse. Throm felt that a variance could be granted as a topographical hardship, however, they should listen to Mrs. Newhouse and let them settle the problem. Krausch stated that because of topographical problems it is entirely possible that the variance be granted, however, they would prefer to act on it after the difference with Mrs. Newhouse is worked out. Krausch motioned that the Board defer the action on the request until they have worked out the problem with the adjoining property owner. "yiason requested that a letter from A4rs. Pdewhouse's attorney stating that the problem is solved be included. Shaffran requested an amendment to the motion, calling it a variance violation rather than a problem. Krausch agreed. Shaffran second the motion. Vote was called for. All in favor. Bruce McIntyre, Lot 16, of Section 15, Twnshp 8S, R88`'V, 0437 Thomas Road 82-34 requesting permission to construct barn 36' x 28'. ',4ike Ferguson and Bruce 'McIntyre was there. Ferguson explained that they were asking for a 35' frontyard setback for the barn. He showed a drawing to the members of the barn on the property. `.Iason read letters from adjacent property owners into the record who had no objections to the barn. Mason questioned what the topographical hardships were. ~clntyre explained that in one section he had an apple orchard, the yard had been landscaped for at least 30 years and he pointed out the parking lot. Another problem was that they were putting in a new septic system required by the Environmental Health Dept. and an area had been set aside for that. Throm suggested moving the tack room and placing the barn within a prescribed area. Newbury stated that the property was originally zoned AF-3, which required a 50' frontyard setback, 20' on the sides and rear. The setbacks now are 100' frontyard and 50' on the sides and rear. Ferguson pointed out the access to the property. Krausch stated that a 65' frontyard setback variance was needed. Throm pointed out that that would place it on top of the intended septic tank_ Lukes questioned if the applicant could conform with the 50' setback of the previous zoning. Throm again suggested that the tack room be moved and the barn could be within the 50' setback. ".4cIntyre stated that they could move within that setback. Zanin motioned to grant a 50' frontyard setback variance due to downzoning. Krausch second the motion. All in favor. Meeting was adourned. Respectfully submitted, `~ t t N" 8~ Chairman ' .Y Scanned 7/26/07 File Finders Box #10 LARGE PLAT(S) AVAILABLE TO VIEW AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AVAILABLE TO BUY AT CLERK & RECORDER