Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.83.06• • Dot t i e Fox moved that the following be adopted BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTD4ENT OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 83-6 Gerald L. & Rheta Fulton, Lot 9, Double K Ranch S/D WHEREAS, the subject property is within the unincorporated area of Pitkin County, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment is vested with the power to grant or deny such variances by virtue of Title II, Section 16-1.3, Pitkin County Code (Land Use Code) and Colorado Revised Statutes, 1973, 30-28-•118(2) (C); and, WHEREAS, based on the evidence presented, the Board of Adjustment makes the following findings: 1. Proper notice procedures, including the notification of all adjoining property owners, has been shown by the applicant. 2. The required hardship or practical difficulty has been established. 3. Granting such relief will not cause substantial detriment to the public welfare and will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Zoning Resolutions and the zoning maps. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the applicant's request fo ~ 80' frontyard setback variance for a proposed addition Additional conditions or restrictions: WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. Pau 1 Kr aus c h seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: Bill Mason - yes Dottie Fox - yes Paul Krausch - yes Joe Zanin - yes Bill Lukes - yes The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: March 29, 1983 The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado Attest: - ~ ~ lb,w 1 S w ~ ~.vr~r. nom. Secret~y Chairman • < . r • r i . ~ .7 BOAKD OF ADJUSTMENT ~~. ,--. • County of Pitkin Date march 15 1983 Cas e # ~~ - ~.~ Applicant Gerald L. and Rheta D. Fulton Address 0400 Horseshoe Drive Carbondale, Co 816: Owner same Addre s s same Location of Property Lot 9 Double K Ranch Subdivision Pitkin County (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. A plicant's description of proposed variance showing justification: Proposed maser bedroom and bath addition to the east side of the existing single family residence. The proposed addition will lie twenty (20) feat within the 100 foot front setback. When the house was built fn 1975 the front setback was 75 feet. The original house plans submitted to the building department show this proposed addition. The house was built to allow the addition to conform to the 75 foot setback. R detached garage, built in 1975, presently lies et the 75 foot front setback. The front line of the proposed addition would lie five (5) feet behind the front line of the existing garage. Applicant Signature-~~~~~,,~C,(~~-, Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building Inspector to forward this application to the Board of Adjustment and reason for not granting a building permit J /r ~/L t_~> < 4 ~Zc-cv' -~. •`z:., i, ~~''L.e z ._'~c C-~ ~ .. tL f :,`~7: •~ ~ f ~- ..2 - - u' T~ / • / ~ °~ / ..J ~ .~ L `r ~ 1t_ / ~ . ~- ~J,../ ,c-'i.i ..~/~i ` -I "..~v~~ ~ ~~~' r ~r r -/ L~<3~~- ~iL~-L~:"~.'"~/-~i.~-tC_~ ~~~~ .~:~c~2~~, .~ r%7~r~-( ~~C1.t. ~ L -~:~ l~C . ; ~1 <_-~~ ~~~' ~~ <.. , . Wiz., ,( t._a..~..- ~ ,"l Date permit rejected: ,-~--/~-~ Application filed: Building Insp. Signatur~~,~.,;~ j~ Z.~~~,~ Board decision / / ~~ Date Mai led .<n:~ -....,~ ~ - ~~ ~ ~v`~1 Secretary, Board of Adjustment ~, ..., 1 ., ... w - • • G, L, FULTON AND COMPANY, INC. 0400 HORSESHOE DRIVE - EMMA - CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 303/927-3339 Lot 9 Double K Ranch Subdivision, Pitkin County List of Adjacent property owners and their mailing addresses: Walter Dalton Box 263 Basalt, Co 81621 William Uadnais Box 1639 Basalt, Co 81621 Doris Walker 0391 Horseshoe Drive Carbondale, Co 81623 James and Lynn Bullwinkle Box 845 Basalt, Co 81621 Daley Construction Co. 5302 Uiata Rf ca St. Paradise Valley, Arizonia 85253 ~~. ~ .. 8 CAP ~sao~ _____ __ ------------- - ~i ~ I --- , ~ ~ t • REBAiR 8 CAP ~ ~ ~ .~ N 89°00' E 253.25' 26.86' ~ 8.6T~ 21.66' I 94.87' ~l I N f~ ~~I Os d f~ tD ~ Q ~ ~i M IA ~_ ~_ I I i t2 ~' i 8 •~' L TWO STORY ~ FRAME HORSE ~3 O n d m 0 O O Z ~ ~. I ~, ~O• ~~~~ ~~ J~ ~ ,~ N ~ ~ i ~ ~ y ~ ~/ i i i I 1 l I I I ~' 1 ` , ~` 35' ~ ~0~ ~pC, \ ~ 4-- ~~~,0 ~ ~E FAME GARAGE ~ \ ~ 1 ~ _ T~ I ~~` `\\ ` \ ~, \ ~ ~\ _~ ~ ~ ~ 5\ ,~a~ ~ .~- ~~ 2~ 5~ FRAME SHEO 31' 16' - ~O' ,~A~ :BAR 8 CAP R=644.92 ~ / L= 42.59 ~ , / 0 cu / O ~ 2 ~J ~ ~ ~ O I I I l 1 R = 232.65' L=22644 \ 'y~ 30 ~ \, REBAR 8e CAP („r.. %~~, ~~ . ~. JOHNSON (JOHNSON-LONGFELLOW >~ ASSOC.,I NC.), A REGISTERED SURVEYOR ' OF COLORADO, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ON THIS 28th DAY OF JANUARY, BEY WAS MADE UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION; OF lOT 9, DOUBLE K TKAZ A TVlIO STORY FRAME HOUSE WAS POUND TO BE ENTIRELY WITHIN A1.L EASEMENTS AND ENCROACHMENTS IN EVIDENCE,OR_KNOWN ~ ~ ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT "tilarch 29, 1983 Regular ?t4eeting itiembers Present : Bi 11 ~I,Lson , Chairman Dottie Fox Paul Iirausch I3i]_1 Lul:es Joe Zani.n Alternates: Bob Throm Evan Gull Bill Rlason called the regular meeting of the Pitkin County Board of Adjustment to order. He questioned if there were any corrections or additions to be made to the minutes from the last meeting. Dottie Fox questioned a statement that Mason made about the Snowmass Cottage Sign, Mason had stated, 'I felt the sign would be a dull light'(Second page, upper part). Mason stated he hoped the sign would be a dull light. Fox also pointed out that in a statement she made about 'the sign being put into a mound' should read, 'on a mound'. Joe Zanin moved to accept the minutes with the changes. Bill Lukes second the motion. Fox reported to the Board that P ~ti Z on April 5, presented by Fox stated that P & Z would be couraged that a representative meeting when they reviewed P ~ he would talk with Grice about th~.lt would go before I' & Z. K Of.rice expose the Board to the i_t goes to P ~~ Z. the sign ordinance is coming before Richard Grice of the Planning Office. working on the language and she en- of the Board be at the Commissioner',s Z's final draft. Mason stated that the Planning Office recommendation rausch requested that the Planning Ordinance so input can be made before Nicolas Heller, 83_x} Lot 1 , Block 5, Knolltvc.~od Sill , r. equest~n~_. a 3 i ' highway 82 setback variance for the addii;i.on of a. greenhousc>, Heller was there to represent self. Ile explai_necl that he proposed to build <~ greenhouse on the side of his residence. H~~ vas advised b,y thc~ I3uilding Dept. of the 1.00' setback from Hi_z;h«~ay 82, which 1Laves his lot unbuildable. The house is encroaching; this present setback because it was built in a.pproximatel,y 1970 before the zoning. He stated that he wanted to build the greenhousc.~ on t;he south side which would cause him to encroach about 1.0'. He stated that he got advice from several ~~rc~hitects and ho could not avoid encroaching. He originally requested 12' but had recalculated the distance. Heller explained that ~ of the addition i.s greenhouse and a is a living room extension. And hc:•~~rould build a two car garage on the north side of the property. 1'ox questioned if the greenhouse was for solar purposes. Heller said it was. It would be primarily used to generate 50% of the heating for the house. He explained that he would need to reinsulate the walls. Heller stated that he would fit the garage into the required setbacks. • • • ii.' ~; ~. ~. I. f.ffV;l N. Ci. B L. L7. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Board of Adjustme~rt March 29, 1983 Page 2 Heller explained that the addition to the living space came out to the lines of the house and the greenhouse addition goes beyond the existing line of the house. Ileller pointed out the existing living room, •showing where the greenhouse would be attached to the south side as an extension to the living room. Fox felt that the Board has justification for solar purposes and since the amount is only 10' she had no objection. Lukes pointed out that the house faced both south- east and wouth-west, which «~ould be equally usable for a solar addition and questioned if Heller had considered the other side. Heller stated that he was trying to wral:~ the greenhouse a.:~our.d, enclosing the porch. Zanin, stating hc: kn~=w the location of the house, felt that more sunlight was available i.n the position that Ilel_lc~r was proposing. Fox motioned•to grant the variance request dui to topography of the site and due to solar- nurpc;ses. Zanin second. the motion. 49hen vote was called for Lukes voted against, Mason, I't~~x Krausch and Zanin voted for. David Beck 83-5 0104 Sagebrush Lane, Lot 14, Block 2, Filing 2, Brush Creek Village, requesting a 10.62' frontyard setback variance and a 25.8' sideyard setback variance for construction of addition. Beck was there to represent self. He explained the history of the house. IIe explained that he wanted to build a stairway and enclose the bottom half of the house. The house is an A-frame and with three children he needed the additional room. He explained that the property went straight down in one direction and straight up in the other and what i1e was proposing was the only way. He would be adding an interior stairway. Beck pointed out his neighbors to the Board members. Newbury stated that he had a 100' frontyard setback. Mason read a letter from Robert Spencer, adjacent property owner, stating that he had no objection, but felt it would be beneficial to his property and the neighborhood as a whole. Newbury stated that much of the house was encroaching the setback. The house was build prior to the current zoziing. Krausch moved to grant the request on the grounds of downzoning making; it impossible to improve upon the house. Bill Lukes second the motion. All i.n favor. Gerald L. & Rheta Fulton, 83-G Lot 9, Double K Ranch S/D requesting an 80' f~:~ontyard setback variance for a proposed addition. Fulton was there to represent self. Ife gave a brief description of the history of the house. Iie explained that he started with the intention of building in phases. Since the construction of the first and second phase, which was done in 1975 when the setback was 75', the area ha~c been~re--zoned and now has a 100' setback. Fulton explained that thr: original house plans showed the potenti~.z,l addition, with a side oE' the house with only one window which is the size of the door and the electrical stubbed in i_n expectance of the addition, Mason stated that there were no objections in the file from adjacent property owners. Ilis access is off Horseshoe Drive. Krausch questioned if the existing garage would be converted into living space. Fulton replied that it would not be. Throm questioned the topography and Fulton replied that it was level. The addition would not be higher than existing roofline. Fox motioned to grant a variance of 20' due to the downzoning, Krausch second the motion. All in favor. • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ..M •~ c r u,ecK r~ n. e. a i Board of Adjustment 14arch 29, 1983 Page 3 ATV Associates, Highland Inn 83-7 _ _ __ 1G50 1;laroon Creek Rd. requesting a 4' to 8' height vari_a.nce and a 13~' height variance fo.r a staircase. Joe Edwards and Joe Cooper vas there to represent the owners, along with the architect, Tom Sopoci. Joe Edwards began by showing the members some additional drawings that were not included in the packet. He explained that they have received detailed submission approval from P & C and the County Commissioners and generally have had approvals from all levels of the process. Edwards explained that according to the code the existing grade is used for the height determination, and the Building Dept. is interpreting that to mean the grade before man put the ski area there. They tried to go back and determine what the natural grade was. He then pointed out the complex building form, sitting on a knob of land, designed with "three fingers" :following the land form at three different elevations. He pointed out the design on sheet #18. ~Nhen connecting the three areas, a section was necessary coming down the hill and the corners 'stick out', Edwards explained that to create the desired skier circulation fill was going to have to be brought in which would raise the buildings up a bit and this created ahe height problem on the corners of the buildings. Edwards introduced Sopoci .to answer questions about the usage and necessity of the extra height. Mason pointed out that the original .Highlands Inn had received a height variance also. Sopoci had some overlay sheets to depict the original site. He then placed overlay sheets to show the c,han€;es over the years in the grade. He did an~overlay with the existing Highland Inn and the proposed ITiY;hland Inn grades. Fie explained .how the buildings stepped down the grade. Kra.usch questioned i. f' the developers would excede the height restriction based upon the existing grade. Sopoci stated that in one case the existing grade is slightly lower, so the 28' height would be slightly lower also. Throm questioned what the commissioners had felt about the height problem. Edwards stated that they had been sent to the Board of Adjustment. Edwards also stated that the detailed submission approval. required them to come before the Board regarding the height. The area of the height problem is at the end of the units where an exit is and pointed out the area where the mechanical ventilation exhausting equipment was for the kitchen of the restaurant. There would be no living units above the height allowance. The Board members discussed the situation and the history of the area. Fox felt that in this case it does not propose a problem but she also felt that the 28' height limitation should be adhered to in most cases. Krausch moved to approve the variance request based on topographical hardships, Fox second the motion. Lukes asked to be excused from the voting. Mason requested that Evan Gull vote. All in favor. ;lason discussed the applicant, Rob Snyder, for alternate membership to the Board. There was a discussion of what the Board is looking for in a member. Fox stated that it would be good to have a down valley representative. It was determined that they would continue to look for an applicant for the second position. ~1leeting was adjourned. 1Lespectfully submitted, ~- , .._ /c~.1....e~~,•r.ti.. ~~ ~.L_~-,{V r-. c.,~._--- . ~-"l..-C'f I ,/ ~_~(;L'y' r i c'am' - - ~'l,airinan Scanned 7/26/07 File Finders Box #10 LARGE PLAT(S) AVAILABLE TO VIEW AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AVAILABLE TO BUY AT CLERK & RECORDER