Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.83.19Bi. i l Luke s moved that the fallowing be adapted • BEFORE THE Btl1LRD tH.+' ADJt7STMSNT ' . OF THE CI3UNTY OF PITKZN - . STATE t3iF COLORADO • R~$OLUTION NO . 8 3 -19 ~ • Anthon~r George, Gateway to Snowmass; Bloch 4,; Lot 13~ • . 2nd .Filing ... ~ ~ .. • WIiEREASR the. ~rubject property • is wi~t2iin: the ~unincox~porated':aitea .of. Pitkin .. . .County,, ,C~olorado,= ~ and:, ~ ... ~ .. ~. ~ ~ • . wHEi~EAs, ~ t~}s Board of Adjusts~it is.~vested wfth tt~e ,psswez. to. •g~rant; or deny .` •. •. gucii.•vari~ances ~ virtue :of .T~.t3~e I*; Ss~etibril&-;1:3,. P~.tl~~.n.Co3fnty Co~IQ.~ ' Cz~and Use '•Coclea .,and Colazadts R~ovalsec3: ~Staktutesi~r '19~3;~ 34-2~t .l]8.(2~-;'.(C)•F.; aii~t,_•~.~' • ' WHEREAS„ b~se~• on they evidence ~ presenteEd,-.the •-Hoard of ;;Ad~,u~atarerit~ makes. the;.. :. • • ~ •• . - , followiriq..#'indings ' . . ~ - . . ~ ~ ; . 1. proper notice procedures. in,~Iuting the ratification of all ~ ad f orriir~q ~ • • ~aroperty owners, has been' shawn:~by the applicant: ~ ~ • • -2. The required hardship or practical difficulty .has been established. . 3. ,:Granting such relief Nill not cause $ubstazstial detriment to the .. • .Public welfare and will. net sutbstante].ly iagaair the :intent and purpose of the Zoning Reso3utions and the zoning maps. id!OW, TT~EREP'ORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the applicant's request .for a :20' frontyard setback vairance and an 18' sideyard setback Addi,ti!onal conditions or restrictions: -motion. made to-grant request as shown on revised plans. WARPING: Any v#.olatian.of the terms of this resolution may result in:rehearing~ ~. and .possible revocation. ~ . Evan Gull adconded. the adoption of: the foregoing Resolution. The roll • • having; been called, . the vote ,:was as •.fallows : ; . ' .. ~ gl,l Mason -yes 'paui~ Krausch - des. ,. Dottie: Fox -yes ~ Evan 6u11 -,' :yes ~ : ~ : ~ . , • Ba.],l Lukes. Ye.~ ~ ~ .. ~ • ; • . • The Re$aluticin was, adopted bjEr~ vote. of the •Hoard of ~Ad3ustment• of • tt~e 'tbunty •• ~, of P3~tkn,. State cf Colorado. ~ • ~''`~ ~~ July 2 6' , 19 8 3 The Hoard a!~ Add ustmsr-t of Ptkin : • County, Colorado Attest : ~~~/~~j~~ • ---,r G~C~~ ~- . .:, ~ , ,c,l~rnoe~-~ cx,airmar,. . • YIr County of Pitkin Date~,~ '3'u~~. 19 $__3 __ - Case # o , ~ _ / q Applicant R: Gta~rt Address (S~ ~~~ SL~A~1ASC e.~~ Owner P~.~, ~ R 6 ~2~ Address ~PtMt Location of Property __ G.w~z t.~ -}~, ~~~; ,,._,~~~ ~~ ~~ '~ y ~ ~ ~~, 2 =~ i~`li"'a ~ (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 showing justification: wt ~0~~1 t.1~= 32' s,~E sE?~ 6~t~z a~ ~~1. •s;,= ~ P~.~« ~' ZF c.,c Ca.:,~ ~y~ ~. ~, V~ ~~c ut t,a:1~ ~ ~t A~c ~ ~~.~ '-~"~.cs ~~St . ~t ~~ • ~J ~ La.'sv~l ~. ~ b,~1~ -~-~ a..t z -~a.~ t t per. ~.t ~,~~. aF ~. r poop .~~,,~~. ~ ~~.c ~-, h c~cP, q~z,, -~~.z P~~~ ~ of ~~ ~ ~t t eta ~ ~ LJ.~~ rQO w,~ ~~w ~ . ' Applicant Signatures~~n ~_ Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building Inspector to orwarc • this application to the Board of Adjustment and reason for not granting a building permit: Date permit rejected: Application filed: ~iai led Building Insp. Signatur Board decision Date: Secretary, Board of Ad~~ustment ~`' •, . .~, .. ~+ +~~,~-- ._--__--_.~__~_~s - ~ ~_------ ---------.----- .~ ..~ '' -_ __--~- ----~=~" [mod Lr7~- sL+1 Lr ._ ~~. r '- ----~__._._. _.~__. __- _~ • f. .A f ~ RECORD QF RRO~EEDINGS 1Q0 Leaves . MM Y C. f, MO(CKE~.~. B. ! L. C0. B4A~tD ~F ADJUSTMENT • July 26, 1983 Members Present. Bill .Mason, Chairman Mason ,called the re,.gular meeting o€.,the Ptkin County•.Soatrcl of • Ad•3ustment~to ©rder. #ie asked if-there'were any comments. regazding • the minutes;from the last meeting. .Throm.questoned the.othe•r Board: members .i~f they were satisfied with the construction of • ' the.barn•at.the Cgzy Point Hanch. All the members seemed satisfied. . Patsy :Newbury of the Building Department stated that the barn was. c`©rrect,ly placed into the ground. Joe Zanin motioned to approve the minutes. Dottie Fox second the motion: Mason s.po3ce with the .Board about the op®nngs for two new members on the•Board. Mason mentioned shat two letters have been received .from Peter Dobrovolny and Robert Snyder for membership. Throm suggested that, these applicants could be invited to the meetings:• Fox suggested that publication k~e made in the paper requesting applications for the position again.. Macon agreed Viand then the • applicants would be invited to the meetings. Doug.Fre;.Lot 52,.Holland.Hills 83-ib requesting `a i3' sideyard setback variance. and:.a 5': frontyard'... setbaCls for : construction o~f a residence. Mr. Fr.e was there 'to x~epre•sent. .~ pelf . .• He ~ explained the variances. ' he :needed.. Mason° stat c~ :that: the .... . shape .of~ the- lots , dial present a' problem... Fox •questione~ about :;the ~. ' ~ • zoning. ~ Newbury:.sta.ted .that:.it• was •originally •'subdiv~.ded, befci:r~ . ~t was. zoned. T~en.• it was AF: 2: •and •aiow.•the •zoning is ~AF-1. Newbury':,. . , • stated that: the .houses 'lined ~•up well.:with his ~ec~ues.t. `~'Fr.ie stated. °.• • that the .frontyard s:etback~ r~eque.st .was. due •to a hi'l; in the back . • ;~ . :.• • . . he was trying to, avo.cl,, RiChard~ ~~lancYiard,'• LOt.'S.1; was them ~:to.• object. to the reques't' fore 'the . fr~intyartl va•~`iance :request:: Frie. ~ ~ ~ . stated .that • he could .live :with the •, i©0' frontyard .setback,. •.but~ nee~d~d .... ~ • the sideyard setback: Blanchard felt :that .was a ;yeas©nable r..,et~uest, ~ • • Monroe Summers,.gresident o~ the Homeowners Association~pi: Holland.' . Halls wss. there to talk with the Board about the association; •I~e . had no•problems with the request that Frie was making,. but, wanted to mention .to the Board that review. and approval by the associatian's• • architeetizal committee had not been done. He requested that the ' Board work with the homeowners association to withhold issuance • of a bu.iidang permit until the association has had an opportunity • to discuss the project. Mason stated-that he was pleased'to be ,. .. .., _. .. .. : ., • ' ~ REGORd {)F PRO-C~E~~N~S 100 Leaves ,IM St C. h MOECIIEI {. {. { L. C0. ~ ~ .. . Page. 2. Board of.Adjustmer~t July 2fi, 198:3 informed 'tha.t; • there, •w.~s~ ~ a .~hoiin~towners ~. aassbc.i.at,Q.n anc1 ~that•, the ~ . . Board .'had al~tays • tried : to ;raork~ w.~:,th• :these. •bodi•es . Mason. • stated. :tYiat , : . . they would. be~~.ncitified in :•the ~ future fora applican~.s: in the ' area.. ... ~ . Fre stated .that his planswere :approved by Faul Adams:.. .Sumtn~rs. . stated , tkiat aclains was' Writ . a, ~ represent~t~.ve • honteowr-ier .: . Mr + ~!rie .~ • felt that he' had followed the : pxoper ateps.• far•;homeowners . .. , .: . association ;ap.pro~ial, 'Fo~c.;.questcined'..which •homeowners ~ association:'' ~, was proper'.. Summers .s.tated: ~that~ :h~is~, ..made' up cf • represent¢d 'home-• ~ .. : • • owners,. w'i.Tl• act' as' the .architectua.l :committee,' and: • th.a~t..ther ~ • ~ . • gapers were filedwith' .the: Secretary o•f .State'. • Kr.ausch: moved; to prodide a..sideyard' setback variance o.f ' •13' .on `eadh side,: but no frantyard setback,•du.e to'zoning etianges on•the prope•rty.. Fox amended .the :motion to ir~clucle 'subject to the approval of. the ' Holland Hills Homeowners As•socation'. Krausch stated .he .did not want to accept that amendment on his motion. Summers stated that he • had no:prob.lem with the present request. Fox withdrew her amendment. ~,ukes second the motion. Vote was called for, all in favor. ' ,: James•Linn, Q946 Willoughby Way, Pitkn Green 83-17 .requesting an additional 61q square feet of Floor Area to cover ' a walkway. 'Dan Levinson was there to represent the owner. He .~ gave :the members.' a brief history .of the groperty, . 'He .described ' the location of the lot..'He.pointec# out the area where the ears would be parked and a depression in the property along the distance between the park2ng area and the entrance of the house. The owner wanted.to:put up.a walkway along this area and a cover.to protect, the visitors and residents from the weather. He explained that it~• •' •' would be. 'anopen structure'. Larry Yaw was :there., . as. an: adjacent ~irags~ty. owner;.'~questioning what the•'floo~~ area amount for -the entire .si~te:~ . .~. was... •Levi:n~son: ai~swe,red that.prior :to the, addition 'it ~wou~.d. be .arQUrid.' ~ • 1p;400~,square feet.• Yaw que~stioned~:f there;:wa•s a:~design .probl'~m:.~ ~ . preventing thst~- ,from . •ii~cl•ud~ng the ;cover •. with'ri~' the allowa~ile; , .. . ~ • : .. floor area retie. .Levinson stated that it..was..a~ large '~~amily;.and :~ • they rie.eded. a]:~. the epaee•••po,ssible in'•the: hvti.se. ~'hr©m:,reque,sted :.. .. • Levinson .to dsaiv .the. ;walkway '.on, .tk~e, ".pzesented' gkot .~ plan,; .: Wynne •.. ' • • Lightn~:r. 'was: tYiere and• wanted 'to•.~lsnow~'if .the :st~eeg• area on. the ': ~ ' property was taken ~•i.rito consideration` wheri': the. F A: R ' was :calculated : ~ • • , ~ ' Levinson explained. that calculations: are made on buildable ;area' only • • ~ • ~ , on. new lots. •This `is an existing lot.with•a structure. already. on ~ '. ~. it. That structure would be. demolished and they would•~ta'rt.from:• scratch:. Lightner mentioned that the .property already had a.garage. •. ~:• Levinson state.c~ they wou-ld --keEp--the .:garage: Lightner questioned....... • ._ ~.. if the plans had been presented to the Pitkiri Green Homeowners Association for review.. Levinson stated that they had•'riot. •Fox •: informed: Levinson that the .Board. would want approval from that particular body: Levinson stated that he wanted to see if ' there: was going to be any technical problems before taking it before them. Yaw felt that there was n©t enough information brought before the Board, and~also felt that the size. of the residence was being'. imposed on a property of small size•considering the steep slope that •. . :« . N. • ~ ~ • _` r'~• :'~,. ' RECORD OF PROC'EE[1tNGS .~ 10f1: Leaves. ~' . MILL C. f. NO[CKLi.6 ~.. 1. CO. ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ . Page 3. ~. ; . ~ Board Qf Ad~:~~tm~nt. ~. duly . 2~i, ~ 1983 - was :not°.buldab•ie:. Yaw feint • the. "hard~hp:• wa's :seif-imposed: .~•H.;s ~ . . ~ . requested the' ~ec~ard 'ta~,deny ..or tak~le for more nfoxxnation.: :Leyinspn.' ~ •.'.~ explained tti.at the ..hardsh'ip was :the d~:pressori in .• tle: land : between ... the. parking area ~anci the 'house . ~ He ~• stated that it• etas : fdr: visitor-.type; ~~ parking: 'x`he .~wa.lkway s~ al~.bw.ed b1~tt the cQVe~ing .ie th`e• probi•ein. ~.• Mason felt, that •denying 'the' request: would .n©£ be :denying access ~to . the residence:. Throni, stated that; ~e..~aoitld like to' see' elevatigns,:•. but wa's unsure if thelack of a covering was a hardship. The members agreed:.that it .would be hard to. justify .a hardship. Levinson' suggested that the issue be:tabied until he could pet's;reading from •:~.. the homeowners assoe~ation...Fox ~aotioned to table. the request. • ~anin•secorid the motion. Vote was called for., alZ in favor. William Frome, ,18,81. Emma Rd. ,,,, $3-18 • requesting a 90' frontyard setback for a solar'addition. Hill Frome was there to. represent self. Joe .Zarin was excused from the meeting. Mr. Frame. explained 'that the lot was downsoned from a 75' setback:.on th•e front to 100' • He explained :that. he was trying •to face the . addition to. gain southern exposure for the solar aspect, He pointed out the corner of the proposed addition that arse exactly ,7' into the • .required 'setback.. The present house was bunt prior to .the downzbning.~ • Fox questioned if they would be using solar curtains or, other solar •~ •. ,type .installations . ..Frome :stated that ail. that they h:ad. 'at this ~ •. ~ • time 'was. .insulated glass. • • Krausch. mentioned as a g~*ner:al, observation; ~ . that iri cases of solar. additions, :more informaton.:is , rre~ecied 'to. •' • ~ ~ • ~ • .determine •i:£ there is: a real.:caure o~ hardship:,; Frome •explained ~ ~ . .:~ • to the Board that.' he would have a.: brick f•loo~^ to soak ~~up heat and.: ~ . '•. ~ . that therewould; `be a gre•enhouse,,: 'where they would. grow many punts. ~. ~• ~' • ' F.ox' tnoti,o.hed to 'apprrive :a var•anCi~ for. a ':93' . frontyar~l :setback var~tarice d~ae to 'the .down2aning: KrsusCh secoxid~; the` motion. ;Vo.t'e was. •Called' . '~ •• • for, ala 'in Favor.. ~ ~ ~ .. .Anthony . Georcle, . Gateway . to Snowmas;s Hlock - 4 , • Lot 1~3 2nd • Fil~.nq 83-19 • . ~ . • requestinng a 20'. ~frontyard se'tbac~ar.a.anGe an+~~ an ~s~. ~s~~eyard ~ .. .setback far each: s~,de ft~r construction of 'a re~s~:dexic~e. • •Tcany George ~ ' was there and presented to• the Board an~updated'~map. since some'` ' changes had beef made subsequent to the time of packet.mailing. •, They. .pointed .out the,eievaton changes of the property, .Mason ~ . stated that several properties in that area had been before the Board ~ . . beca~zse , _cif ..the.. lot . con.f.iqura ions~_.:_.. _ Newbury,...stated.., that... the _.ar.ea..:_ ',. ~ _..__. was-originally zoned~AF-2 with setbacks of 75' in -the front and ' 20' in the sides and rear, George stated that he was trying, to save some trees on his lot. .Lures motioned to grant the•variance 'requests as shown on the. revised ste~plan. Gull second the motion., Vote was caked for and ,all were in favor. ~ •. ' ~ ' ~ . .. ~EGfJ~ip~ OF' RRGIGEE~IIVGS: ~ ~, :. ~ • ~~ l~ves~ ~ , . tlM4 SI C. F; No(sKtl 1. 1. ~ L.G10.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' page 4 ~. Board •of Ad~~stnt. ~u'ly a~:6~•~ 398.3:' . ~ .' lrvinq :& Estelle Ta~sman.:I,o~s 13.'.&'`.'12; ~ ~1~ock: 1. Kiatle~ ~S~D ~ ; -83-•20• • ' . r,eque~sting.•a~ 10`~ s~.deyard-•setback• for.construct'xon~ Qf 'an.•..aeceasory•' '' •• bu•ild#.ng.. Herb Klein was there $long~°with' I•~vi~g Tasman.• ':Kl'ein ' expla~.ned the request of • tYi'e •Tasmans.., He • explained that. they wanted •. to.; bu~,lcl an' accessory structure c-n• the lot line: ~He Mated that . they also needed.. a 5.' varies be from the< 2;4' riparian. The accessory ~. ~ • bui'Iding.wc~uZd''be far .storage. Fox ,questioned if there .would:te ' an~ssue.regarding the-F.A,R. Newbury stated that .there~could'be. ' T~;lei~n ':stated that accarding ~'to their architect, there would not be•: ' Klein suggested that tt'he` problem be. ssal~ted at this time, .Newbury • . explained that: she. did not have the :necessary numbers available ~ • to deal with the issue. She•alsa questioned if there was a sign' posted; It 'was .determined that there had not been ..Klein presented the Beard.with some photos of the property and the structure presently being built:' .Bill Brown;.'an adjacent. property owner, was there with objections •• ~• to ~tl~e•.proposed accessory buildng..'I3e explained his intentions • with h~.s property and objected because it-would block views from his motel. Tasman explained to the'eoaxd why the building was proposed~~ • fQr that area. If he placed the structure on the other.s.ide.he would'~~• '~ .obstruct the park which is the next. property :.. 'There .were some, trees .• •• • on the:. •property that. he .did not want do df sturb, ,and he; .d°$dn ! t ~ ' ' ' ' want ~ to.• block access ~to .the'. •back.:.of• :h•s 'house . .. ~ • ' •• Klein .stated • that, '.the .hardship was: 'that •'~he',1.©ts ."wez~e ~ • ' •' platted .before• •;•• •• :. ~ • . there 'here •'any ;zpn~.ng. ' Lures .que:st~.oned • i,f tlis'.~lot was..: purchased ~.• . •. . . prior to 'the downzon,~ng,.: .Klein . stated- that it. ~•as ,not.~•~ Luker. • .: _~. ' • questioned the p:l:ace~ient. of.:~the• .s:tructure : in.~'ariQther 'area.: ;. Tasstari~:•: . • ~ . stated. that• he w.Qt~1d,..not have'. access, .around the main structure:'. Throne quest©ned :why . the ~ shed co~xl:d 'not be. `moved to • a .'p~c~per place • :. ~ . Tasman,; stated •.that 'would :take "up' •hi,.s backyard and ~ still ~ y+ciuidn:''t ..: :: ' • • ~ • help the Brown's ,complaint: Brown stated. that 'he would' be ~bu•il$~g' • . •: • a hot tub .for his customers and. if _ placed as proposed;'. the $h~edwould ~ .' ~ ' be in .the view. plain.: Likes questioned .:if. this •was thought of ~at ': the time;•of the .planning of the'resde.nce. Tasman stated it .was.; ;but. ••• was 'pul'led because there was.a question of the F.A.R•.,'.however; now hs,architeet states that there is 4OO square feet:ieft. Fox ~~ • ques.ti'oned.if they could act on the issue if there was•still'a• question of the F.A.R. and the proper posing had not accured. Gull felt. that. the intent of the zoning was to prevent a structure like'ths• being,~juilt on the .property 1ine.• Tasman expla~.ned that•the living, area was separate from the business, and, he had a walk area around to ' tkie_.1.i_vi~ni}.. ar-ea~_ ~that._he- d~.dr~ !;t~ -wa-iat• :tci:.-©bs•ta~uc.~..w-th -•tk~~..s-had„_ _ . ~o~- _ • _.:._w felt tha't.'there wasn't a hardship if. there was another .place to place the shed... • Luk:es felt that the F.A.R.•should be agr~:ed upon between the ~ppliEant and ,the I3~x"ld.ng- Department;; before the aiaa;rd tries to act on int. . Newbury ;stated .t'h'at ' if ,the structure eras... a garage there ~ waul,d 'not' ~ ~ . . be an :F.'A 'R. problem; .but .there would' still be a' aetback,'grobhem. •' Luken .f.elt ,uricomfor.table placing . a: structure. right on• the '•p'roperty.' • •~ ' . line... .R~.ein .made the, statement that the, ward' usua;l:l ~ ran.ted' ~ ~ ~ ' . ' y 9• varianoe•'s of ;this type. in . #tedstona . T3ie members; di$agreed stating ~ •: : • • that ..there .ha,s • not beexi a• . case. directly Qn •• the •• lot • lYne . Lukas' naotonea,. : .~• . to ,deny ,the. request: ''.: He sugge$ted that Tasman follow the s~etb•ack.. ~ ' • • . ' Klein' suggested' to the Boated;. to .table ,the •~matter. • ~;uk'es moti'oned' • to• . - table ,the regt~•est. Throin..seoond •_the n-ction., Mote was called. for- ~ . • a.11 were ~ i.n favor .. .. : ' • .. . Y , . ~ ~- ~ , . ., .. _ .~_w. ,_ y ~: u. ,., ~~.~ . .. _ . ~~. ~. RECCI.RD~ OF PR~CEEatNGS ~ . ~.. ~ ~ ', i00..L~eaves ... ... .. ' , . .. Page 5. , Board• of ~ Adjustment ~ ~ Judy: 26, .1983 .' . ~~ taloody $iock; NE~~, ~ NEB Sec 2.a,. T..8S, R: 83W of the 6th P:M.. 1 Pr. in .~ P:an.Road re, uesta~n 63-2:0 : ~ . q g~a 1~ rontyar setback variance or construction of a.' residence. Tom Duesterberg,and Pat Trott was there.ta represent the owner. Duesterberg pointed out the natural featureffi of the lbt .that ,the proposed residence would be built around. „,H~ maintained • that they were trying .to keep the residence at least 35' from the high water mark of. the river to the living room, They wanted to kei~p. the existing dirt road that~comee in from the .Frying Pan Road. He~presented to the Board the floor plan of the residence; He .,pointed out trees that would screen the residence from the Frying Pan Raad. He~stated that the variance was ,actually for the carport. Newbury ' advised the Board ageinst pushing the structure. any closer to the. river.: Newbury stated. that there. had 'not been zoning chenges, ~ • but the narrowness of the l.ot created difficulty. There were no ~ ~~ ob~ject:zon~s qn file from the adjacent property.. owners, ,but, the ~ ~ ~~ • . applcai~t~. had forgotten .to place , a sign ' on the .,pr©perty~.: ~ Fox' ~motioned~' ~ . to grant the varance::~egtzes~t : of 16.'~ `due ~ to the .lot: configuration ~' .. ~ ,. and topography. Rrausch •second h~e ••motion: ~ ; dukes.: suggestied- ~ari~ amendme:rit stating the mot~iori~.:as .'.grant:. the ~var~;ance. reques~~.as represarited .on :the drawi~nq~..~ Fox' •agreed:: VQ~.e Was:, c.a]~~;ed ~far.:~ : ~~~ .Ail in'. favor.- Rect Mbuntaln Ranch .I~olaeown$rs Ass©ca~a~ion,, ~.repr~~en~ted , by • sari '.Le~x~a; ; ~ ~. was . there to get .~a reading"fram• the. ec~ard• to.~put ',up,~.$ ~ sign, at •the.:., ...~ • ; • entrance' of the. su~div~:~s.ion. The. Bard ~1©oked at ,the drawnc~s:,and ~~ advised .Ron ~a :notify theproperty owners effected by~ .the sign ~ ~ ~ ~ • outside of .the. subdiv,isi,on and to come before` the ga•ard 'at, the ,next meeting: . Meeting was adjQUrned.. .~ Respectfully submitted, Se~.nned 8/7/07 File Finders Box #10 LARGE PLAT(S) AVAILABLE TO VIEW AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AVAILABLE TO BUY AT CLERK & RECORDER