The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutpitkin.boa.82.34 e e Joe Zanin n:uv, '<1 tlJiJ t: tJH~ fu] J,y",j nC[ be.: i:l,,'_)jlt:ec]: BEr.'()):l; 'rIlE DOllPD OF' ADJU:~'l'!'JI=t\''I' OF 'rEE COUNTY OF PI'J'Kn: f:']'f\TE (IF COLOR]\DO W::SOU;'I'ION NO. 82-34 Bruce McIntyre, Lot 16, Sect 15, Twnshp 8S R88W 0437 Thomas Road t^!I-!ERFA,:;, the s l1!Jl cct propert}' is wi thin the unincorporated area of Pitkin COU'lty, Colo:racJo; and, ~.;!U>~I;J\.S, the T~(jJ.i.d of l,djl1stment is vested with the :Dower to qra.nt or deny such vaxiances by virtue of Title II, Section 16-,1.,3, PitJdH County Code (Land Use COlk) and Co10rddo Heviscd Statutes, JC)73, 30-28'--118(2) (C); and, vlJIEREAS, based on the evidence presented, the Board of Adjustment Ini1kes the follmlinC] findings: 1. Proper notice procedures, inc1udinq the notification of all adjorninq prolJerty owners, hets been shown by the applicant. 2. The required hardship or practical difLicul ty has been ec3t;:cblished. 3. Grantin0 such relief will not cause substantial detri~ent to the public velfare and \.;i11 not substantially impair the intE'_nt G.nd p'.1rpose of the Zoning Resolut.i()Ds and the '7.:oning maps. NO!'; T 'J:'EEREl'OfC, BE IT RESOI,\lED that, the arml i nwt.' s reauest for a 50' front yard setback variance to construction a barn Additional conditicns or restrictions: i'JAR..'HNG: AllY violaU.on of the terms of t:hj s resolu'cion may result in rehe-ad ng and possible revocation. Paul Krausc'lFcondec1 the adopLion of th(' foregoin~f Resolu'.;ion. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: Dottie Fox yes Bill Mason yes Paul Krausch - yes Joe Zanin Bob Throm yes yes The HesoluLi.on \;~,,-' adoDt:ec1 by vote (Jf the. Board of Adjustrncn~ of Lhe County o[ T']tJ.:in, ::,;tCltc uf CCilorado. D1\'1'I':D' September 28, 1982 'j'he BO.'1rd of 1\d:ju::;t.r.1("nt or Pitkin COUll Ly, C;)lorado lit t <':,t:: &' .--.---.---ti._.~-- _. _ _ "/I,, A ,-), o. /.' .'1 /h,. '-- ~- <;:.-"-"..'-"-"."..........1- --;s:...l.l;.;..lu. L".>L._,., [)(: cr(~ i ~] ry CiL1'i nlldn "')'1 C':'~ ~' BOAR!) 0[.' ADJUS1'ME;NT e County of Pi tkin e D3.te__~ __19~ Case # '6d.. _ ?)q Applicant Il~ ~ ;J // %!~ddress O(i3/\\'\th'V\.C'd~ ~(C) Owner ,/)'1~--<- ''/ J) C )~.~.~ J;A Address OLJ 3/1~\o L-V\("iS' '1?c~ ,- . ': ,/. ./ - Location of Property 'Lc+ l~ 1"')1:. ~C\.~~,,\ is, 'To,.o...tt~~ n cg s.t"),-,---\-~, , ' I ~~V\.(;,,, <8?' l,O.o~~ C!'~,~ (~\'^-\-\,\ ~R~,^c:P14 \ M~ v~,~.,~ ~., (Attached) · v , Any pertinent data must acc8mpany 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 showing justification: ~Qv~vv\"e6'~OV\ -\-0 C'~v,~~,",,;t ~It'~ LIAV'& V~'G'~ <::C'~s< (~'S<~() ') ~\il..V\ 3 CO' X ;). c:g I l,.O '^ : <. \... t 'A \ \~ ...0 b:-\",- ~ '" S.-Q.--\-' ~ ",d( C 0 ~ -". ' Applicant Signature f)-U'1A __ c//lh t::: I '. I Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building Inspector to forward this application to the Board ?f Adjustment and reason for not granting a building permit,: ~ ~ ,~ ~ In~~ ..5#;k.~.~~~~ I?~-sp~, (f7~(J~ ..~ ~~..A2---L~ e:4d I Building Insp. Signature ~ Date permit rejected: Board decision ' (; Application filed: Date: Mailed: Secretary, Board of Adjustment !'" , . , '6'000 ~, 'f}8l( hI ~.,',.:J ........__.~ .......~._,..,. c " : ~ ~ :~~ : ~ ' ~ '. . .. -. . :-. '-' . . '. ~. . . . . ~. . -e . . ~. -- . -. ~. A -- . -8 -At -. -:. . . . -:. ~. .- ~\ ~2. :it 3 ~i..f ~6 cH(,. ~ -7 e e ;'\~-s Ac~~ ~~OfQ~1 OV"::J'--..R..~O ':S-c>~ cz-..R. A"'9Q~~",\C', rV\\4~~ (., \ o~7 ~'-'O'i \ 6-3 C ~I/l...l.o(' > r\c~ 04 \ e l G.:, <6 l (, ). 3 c"'~v;z.\ "l\ E \'^o.'"~"- s C v<4 v:2... \x-.W'~14 \.Q I Co ~ l b 2 3> (;v-\........1 C'l.v,~ ~ :\ 04 +\~VZbQvi..-\- \6ox 9 cq Cf C AvL\o~w, D~ \,e ~ CD -S \ " .;L 3 -::rct)"'1f\ C\.....~ ~ V4"\v\~ -\-\O\~QV\ CJ ~ S 2> no ',1,..\0 v-....C'" '\ 1?~ c i.t4 vl. '00..... $)'-'1 Le l ("'c) ~ q, J. 3 (e ~) \'1 'C4vt. [J 14""~ T..........e ~1. ~i ~,.., :"'Ci l4./..Q. ~(!'? X <.[ I ( i4V1...~)." D"-4-\'4C, l CD 't,\ " 'J.-3 Y\'\ \. \(~ C-{, ~ lQ "'? 14'-'\. \ ;. ~ ~ De -3 14....J1 ~tc!" Lf d. 't <1 "t-\ \..0 'I I -6 ?:. C' ~V~~0 "\~ 04. \.Jl ,C~ ~:>, b ~ ~ (~ ; ~ -~: ~~ :: 3 .~ 'C~~IIL& Qv,~ 6cJ ~ ;t 3 6 ''":}" l.'~ ~,'.~ yV\ 4\ It3- ~ --0:'S t,o C "" V1.. bo ... (04 l-e i (" C :1 . ~~. J.~_: ~., , .-.-- iT 85/ \ \ SC/lLE / /NCH'GO FEeT \ I /5 2}z. ~\ luv ~~ I i ~1 ~ (( v R88er/ O~ THE eG TN P/t1 .- .....,...., tI'. ..,. __ ...;' .: ,,!J.,,'~C;'c.i.-:.'- I f() . \1/ \ ' \ 308.08 . ~ .P/:'P l' ~ />' -! .5 ~ 70</-9-"E -r/5; ~~~1d-- , /310~ / ~-~ fJ \ () ./'1.9' \J .,)". ~. ..... ," .',,, '3 ~ /98 J. ~ ';& ~ ') is ~, ~ C\ Ii) I) rl) ('~ ~ , , ;l/ ,/, /_l/ [I) ~ ~ '.I) () ll) I'( ~ "- \. /l.Y~G' _ rOUND ~ 351.3C1' (< /\/CP7"CJq."W o \ \/ v ~"-:.. 0 CJ "' !.,'" :::.. S23059'U 3/8.0' _ ~-",- p/N ~ FOUND -z..... .A-7RCL-L , ,.~ " , Thl~; is to certi fy that nil the 10th <lay (,f January, 1977. 'there ',JaS a ~;urvey made by SCARRm.J AND HM,KER. INC.. of the improveme:1t5 o~ :1 parcel of land situ<ltcd in l.ot 16 of ~cction 15. Tmmship 8 South. ....-.-; Range BS West of the ~ixth Principal Meridian. County of Pitkin. SUite of Colorado. There \-1<15 found a one and one-half story lo~ house with full basement and asphalt shingle rO(lf. ~To{;ether ,.;ith a shed all to be located as shO'..;n on this plat. The location an(l dimensions of all buIldings. improvements. c~sements ~nd rights-of-ways in evid- ence or knO\v'tl to me a.nd .(,llcroachments by or on the premises nre accurately 5hO\...n. 1 I I 1 \ ~.v .SC!~~Y!~I.~_ MJI!_ ~'0.15T::.:;..__D~(~. 1'.0. BClX lj60 CLENHOOD Sl'RnlGS, COLORADO (' ~ : ':: ~~ :.~ 11 -t~e jt~/;~:Z:~~ ffI1 -t/u j1t~ JJt~ 3u~- , / V / . llUi' '~ ' (\.. , It! .. -~!//l7! ,1 . li { /~,j_ ~ tV L: ,.4,v;~ ~ /~, : " '- -/' ,~/t7~1 ~( ',,- , l- ")" >\ (,. ,;, -<.. / " --? -/ - . I V J ...,L'1'~~, .:::..1"" (. (...-l-~~~_~" ' . ... / ~ /: 7 .::~..-'~ /?'{ 6 C .k-tJ'?-<L-- ~'-".,.; ..L. ;<) /' /- /, . / vb JJ./~ A.~1,~ C~ 4 , /{,~~ _'~LVLiL / h..Q... .-c.^-~4, , " /'~~ ;:;tJ4J CA-~ J //~~~t 1-j~. <:<-<-....~'t:"''--'v<.-t--- C (: 3 'S" --- L ,/ - , . /!I /,C~~"-L N 4<(~~_ ~n<~ "f-oc--T---- % //L'1:JIr'~ " ''-Lk'/. ~~- ~ 7'(c.."t --~ /?"-r-- '</(:of ('<::./-.. ,7~ // , . / -4 ~ CZ'l./ 7-'~ U' ICl.Ae,.I-/ /~. ~-~.f C,-,,'-~~"V-h r tfl~~(J-~v~.JJ uJ~ .i~ ~~ IrEcf-c~ -to ~ ~'6 (1\-v-sLQ.~ U-~~ I,)n,. ~ : \ he:.. ~NJ,A L, {$C0~.. W-'<- l "~ ~~ ~I.~ \f-4- J!~'L~k-v~ L~,--_ -; (~ ~ t,'~ ).~ ~+, 'f,~ d'iCjL "'" ' " ('... r.. { ..~~...J ~. J' I {u, Qt~.J C'-(~~~~ r tf~(~-A,L(;~ ~r)J . liJ ~ 1~ v'lu ty&1-c~~ -h ~ ~6~~\".L UCY"v~ (?.n,. ~ i\\Kc. ~~\..- j$Q./vu C WJ<.. ~..~ ~+- ~..~ ~ ItVLc Lvv Y L~'-- ;l~ ~ l,t~~~ ).~ . ~+ c'0~ It?;L . r ,. , .... We /utJe IU L'.6 I dJt,r -4 -tk ~r(J-Ji. V$)(tzJtU ff"t/u /1Il'-JIt'f:r 3u~. c./ .I /",,"""" .'~i ' () (, ,,', I," .. -.// II ~ I ~ ""., / )X/,;116 ~ \~, ,,/ : LUM.I f; lJH.) :,~ ~ '....t-,: : :1 ' , r / ,/ i/.. <-/ /~7/f / ;~, v~ ~,",,-,'-'t' ~f C~-R'. ~ ~ ~ U~ 4;~ ~6 0--6~~ L. , . ~ 1 / 1..6 c8~ ~~ u- ~~ ~ /~ ~.., ,~ ~7~~ I '7h1/~2-:1 J 4c~~~ 7 ~i_?~~<-A_CJ~ CJ~ 3 .'ff ;11 /k~CLL U hr(<A€. -K6- "f;~~ %..ft=~/_ d=-<,_ ~ .~ ~~;.( ~~;J-'2-Z;~ // / / /1 cr 4~c<-''i~ala...u---- J r- - (,~ -. -, --#_~.:.::'~-?---"'::z;.-~ -~~-~ ~"i:C. - _ _...."...... ._.~ {.-t..-. <, ......:~__.::_~.___'"="'-'"F~-_._- <'-, ~.~ e - .. e ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ,..... C." HOrCM:1L I. I. . L. co. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT September 28, 1982 Members Present: Bill Mason, Chairman Dottie Fox Paul Krausch Clark Smyth Joe Zanin Alternates: Bill Lukes Kandi Shaffran Bob Throm Evan Gull Bill Mason, 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. Mason 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 Dpn Lemos. He stated that he had always been against the use of fIDnanciil 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 Wes 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 he 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 meeting a definitive answer on toe 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 a building came through, would that building then not need a building permit. Fox stated that she discussed this with the County Attorney, and 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 Mountain Road, Red Mt SID 82-31 requesting a rear yard setback to construct an exterior deck. Don Kopf was there to represent Mr. Brannon. Mason 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 , ! N<1 81 . ' , e (., t..,...:, ''''-Y,,:::-=:-=-~:~ .~~-' ~.~' _~_ ..,....... _.;,,~'.... "~':':~~_':C'~:~~'~_";~'F_'_' .,. .'- (., (,..lo "_ e , , ,~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves 'GIll. C, P. "f)tCKI'l. .. .. . 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. He 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. He pointed out the Hodges property and stated that Mr. 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. Mason 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 Mr. 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 had talked with Hodges and he was agreeable and would be sending a letter stating such. Also he talked with Jim McDade, another adjoining property owner, and he had no objection. Mason then wanted to know if a sign was posted. Kopf stated that a :sign was on the front entrance coming off Reds Mountain Road. Fox wanted to know if this was 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. Kopf pointed out that the property next to it was unusable. Shaffran understood but still was uncomfortable with granting variandes like that. Krausch questioned 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 if there was a hardship making it impossible to build elsewhere. Kopf stated the accessibility to the house made it difficul~ 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 eould 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 was 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, Mason abstaining. N~ 82 ... e e ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ,_ tI C.'o MOECKEL I. I. . L. co. September 28, 1982 Board of Adjustment Page 3 Kathy Honea, 7804 Hi~hway 82 82-32 requesting a 192' front yard 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. Throm 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 opjections 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. Throm 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 and 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 structure~. Krausch questioned whether the property could be determin~d unbuildable because of the setbacks and the irregular shape of the lot. He 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. Fox 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 Wrights Road, Red Mountain SID 82-33 requesting a 18.7' front yard setback variance for construction of garage/recreation room. Shea Lee from Caudill Gustafson & Associates Architects was there to represent Matt Meyers. She presented a letter to the Board from Joseph Jerkins giving permission for Matt ~eyers to 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 drivew~y 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 grant the variance. Jim Moran was there to represent Mrs. Newhous~, an adjacent property owner. His 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 was also a master bedroom went into the setback. Moran attempted to contact Herndstadt and an agreement was reached, tentatively. in April of 1978 to exchange easements. In April of 1980 correspondence N<! \. :^L 83 . ;, :- f <'" ., ~-.""............--~. -. .,.-.-- 'i,"". "~~.p-~-, - - -- ............. '# '-;0 e e w ,.." C.,. MOECKEL I. I. . L. Co. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves 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 Mr. Jerkins. There, even though Moran 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. Mason requested that a letter from Mrs. Newhouse'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. Shaff ran second the motion~ Vote was called for. All in favor. Bruce McIntyre, Lot 16, of Section 15, Twnshp 8S, R88W. 0437 Thomas Road 82-34 requesting permission to construct barn 36' x 28'. Mike Ferguson and Bruce McIntyre was there. Ferguson explained that they were asking for a 35' front yard setback for the barn. He showed a drawing to the members of the barn on the property. Mason read letters from adjacent property owners into the record who had no objections to the barn. Mason questioned what the topographical hardships were. McIntyre 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' front yard setback, 20' on the sides and rear. The setbacks now are 100' front yard and 50' on the sides and rear. Ferguson pointed out the access to the property. Krausch stated that a 65' front yard 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. McIntyre stated that they could move within that setback. Zanin motioned to grant a 50' front yard setback variance due to downzoning. Krausch second the motion. All in favor. Meeting was adourned. Respectfully submitted, A -,.) A {{r /2AC^ r'mr" _ f3~/ ~~ Chairman ' N<<! 84 Scanned 7/26/07 File Finders Box #10