Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.83.27 • Bi 11 Luke s moved that the following be adopted BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTr'lENT OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION N0 . 8 3 - 2 7 Gordon Whitman, 3476 Woody Creek Road 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 adjorninq 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 for a 25' frontyard setback variance for addition to residence Additional conditions or restrictions: WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this .resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. Dottie Fox seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The roll havincj been called, the vote was as follows: Bill Mason - yes Bill Lukes - yes Dottie Fox - yes Joe Zanin - yes Paul Krausch - yes The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of_ Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: September 27, 1983 Attest: Secre~ry The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado ~ _. ~~ Chairman v • BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • DATE vl~1l~~ Lt J ~ ~- 1 /~. I CANT (_ I UV~ '~ Y Y\ 1 1 ~"' ~~L'E'~ APPL 1 ~©~~ OWNER ~~~- LOCATION OF PROPERTY ~~"~L 19 CASE# c~3- ~rl ADDRESSJ'1 ~~LIYC~ F~ ADDRESS ~J~1A _)~~~ ~~~ ~ '~Il~~b Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made ,part of this Case No. The Board may return this in question. Applicant's justification: ~~~i~~c~ application if it does not contain all the facts description of proposed variance showing ~ov,~ un¢.u~~o~ ~bov~. ~oc~1 ~ ~ vto~~~C~+~ ~o~~i~Foek ~w~.~ ~~ ~~~ w~c~.ew~, `~( ~~~,~~a.. ~ 1~(~~- ~ci,~. V . ~ ~ ~ ~~~c 1,ocp Flo ~ 1~ (~v~~~2 ~~~?~12 '4 Applicant Signature_ ' v Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building Inspector to forward this application to the Board of Adjustment and reason for not granting a buiding permit: ? ~ _ _. ^/ .cam T/ ~ ~ ~~j-B~'~' ,1,,a. /LSO ~~-~ ~_,~~ Date Permit rejected: Application filed Mailed 7 Building Inspector ~' ~,c/~/ r/ Board decision Date Secretary Board of Adjustment ~,,.,.,J`„-, • • ~ ~.~ac~~~ ~~o~.~ o,~~.~s ~~ C, ~ow~~ ~ doss [3ox `tom ~t~.~ ~~R~~ki Cb~ ~s~~~ ~ . Cho v~~, ~ '~s W~~,, ~~~k, ~1~ ~~5~ 3. ~~ ~' 1~1~~~ ~~t~~ ~~~Kt ~~ g~~ 4 ~ ~(7~ ~~~'~ oz~2 ~~~ ~ ~ti~ea1~~ ('~a~, ~m~a Su~~, . _., v. .. • BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PITKIN COUNTY September 27, 1983 Members Present: Bill Mason, Chairman Paul Krausch Dottie Fox Joe Zanin Bill Lukes Alternate Members: Karidi .Shaffran Bob Throm Evan Gull Mason called the regular meeting of. the Pitkin Co. Board of Adjustments. to order. He questioned if there were any comments to be made on last months minutes. Bill Lukes moved to accept the minutes as received. Joe Zanin second the motion. Florence Antonides, Lots 62,63 & 64, Elk Mountain S/D 83-25 requesting a 36' frontyard setback variance for construction of a residence. Phil Mackay was there to represent owner. He handed out a revised survey to the Board that was different from the one originally submitted. He pointed out that he had lost 10' from one side. He asked the Board if he could proceed with the original foundation that required the frontyard setback since he realized that new publications. had to be made in the paper for the sideyardysetback variance that he now. required. .~ This would allow the owner to get the foundation in before the winter. Mackay explained to the Board that lots 63 and 64 could not be developed under the present rules. He explained that there were no other homes within 300/400 feet of the proposed structure. The proper notification was posted and he had.a photo of the sign. Mason informed the Board that there were no objections in the file. Newbury stated that the lots were small. John B. Armstrong, owner of Lot h5, was there to comment. He was against the variance request. Lukes questioned what the setbacks were prior to zoning. Newbury explained that the setbaoks for this property were not. established at the time it was created, but it was zoned R-30 before the present zoning of AF-a. ~ That would have made the setbacks 30' in the front and 15'on the sides and rear. She also reminded the Board that the covenant of. the subdivision needs to be taken into consideration, which have setbacks of 25' on the front and 20' on the aides and rear. The members determined which side was considered the frontyard. Fox questioned what variances were being requested at this time. Mac}~ay stated that on the frontyard he has determined that he will be 2' less than what he originally thought. Lukes wanted to consider the entire package subject to the publication of the notice in the paper for the sideyard. Krausch agreed. Mackay stated that he had contacted the owners being effected by the change and they had no problems. Newbury dice. not have a problem with dealing with the issue now. Krausch motioned, due to downzoning, to provide the variance in its entirety with the understanding that legal notices be made and if objections are expressed the Board will then deal with the issue. .Fox added that-_ the shape of the lot would be another reason to grant the variance request. She also second the motion. A vote was taken and all were in favor. Gaston Caperton, Lot 2, Block 1, Red Mountain Ranch 83-26 requesting a 10' frontyard setback variance for construction of a 2-car garage. Barbara Wynch was there from David Fi:nhblm and Assoc. to represent owner. She explained the variance needed by the owner and, produced a letter of approval. from the Red Mountain Ranch Homeowners Association with the ,condition that the owner show them landscaping plans. She read the letter to the members and there is a copy in the file. Shaffran questioned when the landscaping was due. Wynch stated that the work would be done as soon as possible because there was a deposit made with the homeowners association. Fox wanted to be shown where the garage Page 2 ~oard of Adjustment • September 27, 1983 would be placed. Wynch poirited;out'the 'existing, roof line and explained that the house line would just be extended. Since the road is higher than the house, the addition would have a low profile. Krausch wondered why the house was placed on the lot as, it was. Mason explained that the lot' had a drop off and the property has topographical problems. Mason felt that a garage in this climate was a necessity. Fox questioned about the original garage. Wynch explained that it was a carport and has since been converted into living space. Mason stated that there were no objections in the file. Fox motioned to grant the variance for 10' setback due to topo- grahical problems with the land. Zanin second the motion. Krausch expressed his concern that owners turned garages into living space and then need variances to build garages. Mason agreed that such instances have occurred with the Board. Newbury, reassured the Board that the floor area ratio would control the amount of growth to a certain extent. Fox wondered if the Board could regulate how much a person could add on to their home. Mason called for a vote. All were in favor. Gordon Whitman, 3476 .Woody Creek Road 83-27 requesting a,25' frontyard setback variance for construction of residence. Whitmer, not Whitman, was there to represent self. He explained that it was an addition to. his house and it does not go any further toward the road than the existing house which has been there fo.r '1Q years. Throm requested that Whitmer point out where the neighbors are. He did so, using the plat map. He pointed out his proposed addition and the driveway,, which he sketched in. Newbury explained that it was AF-2 when he began, which was a 75' frontyard Setback and has been downzoned to AF-l. Lukes moved to grant the variance due to downzoning. Fox second the motion. Vote was called, for and all were in favor, Raymond Willey, Lot 4, Crystal River Park S/D 83-28 requesting a 66' frontyard ,setback variance, 5' sideyard setback variance on the east, and a 10' sideyard setback variance on the west for construction of house. Raymond Willey was there to represent self. He explained his constrictive lot. Mason questioned if the request fell within the subdivision covenant Willey stated that it did. There were no objections in the file and a sign was posted. John Ostwald was there from the Homeowners Association. He stated to the Board that the Homeowners Association, nor the representing attorney, has not reviewed the plans for the proposed structure, as required by the covenant Willey stated that it was his impression that the HO wanted approved~plans,~which at point there were none. ' Mason suggested that any approval given could be subject to HO approval. Another neighbor was there, Tom War, to question exactly what the setbacks would be and what Willey had planned. Willey showed the plot plan to War and explained where the house would be placed. He explained that his access would be Chair Mountain Drive. Fox questioned what the topography of the land was. Willey stated that it was flat. Lukes questioned. if the Homeowners Association would be satisfied with a motion subject to their approval. Ostwald stated that they would be satisfied. Lukes moved to grant the variance request as stated due to dpwnzoning Subject to the approval of the Crystal River Homeowners Association. Krausch second the motion. A Note was called for and all were~in favor.. John D. Caruthers,. Lot 30, Ridge of Red' Mountain, 83=29 requesting a variance to construct a garage. Sharon Kahn was there to represent the owner. She stated that a 10' variance wa.s necessary for this proposed garage. She presented a letter from the homeowners association giving approval because it does not impact the subdivision. '-Page 3 • Board of Adjustment • September 27, 1983 Kahn described the lot and the position of the present house. She pointed out the existing garage; which was being turned into a den, explaining the house was small. Mason questioned the addition in relation to Lot 31. Kahn pointed out the lo.t on the plot plan. Mason explained that he had a letter from Dave Ryerse, Jr., owner of Lot 31, against the variance request. Mason read the letter to the members and a copy is in the file. Kahn explained that the position~of the garage would be less of an impact then if they placed it differently. Mason mentioned that he also had a telephone conversation with Mr.,Ryers.e and Mr. Ryerse had stated that he had no,t seen enough information. on the proposed addition. Throm questioned the entrance into the present garage. Kahn stated that it was a straight angle into that garage. It was stated that it was impossible to get out of the garage during th.e winter. Paul Krausch had to leave the meeting. It was questioned haw far the addition would be from Ryerse. Kahn answered that it would be approximately 150'. It was determined that the den could not. be placed anywhere else~on the property. Zanin moved to grant the variance request due to topography. Newbury questioned how close, the garage would be to the road. Kahn stated that there was a berm between the garage and road so it wouldn't interfere with plowing. Fox second the motion. A vote was called for and all were in favor. Peter Ware, 0248 Handy Drive, Carbondale 83-30 requesting a 10' sideyard setback for construction of garage., Ware was there to represent self. He explained to the Board that at the time he began construction on the residence there was not a problem with the setbacks. He has been working on the house for three years. Newbury explained that the need now was due to downzoning. Lukes questioned if the garage had been started. Ware stated that he had excavated when the house was excavated and he has been pouring extra concrete into the hole off and on, and was then warned by the Building ,Department that his permit might have expired. Fox moved to grant the variance .due to downzoning. Zanin.second the motion:, A vote was called for and all were in favor. Stephen Che_fan/James & Carol Hartrich, Lot R-102, Stanwood Sixteen,, 83-31 requesting a 70' frontyard setback variance.and a 22.5' sideyard set- back variance for const.ruct~on of house. There was no .one there to represent the owners. Mason stated that he had a call from Hartrich stating that if he wasn't here they "should table the application. A representative of Dr. William Bernstein, owner of ,Lot R-103 and Lot R-99, was there to comment. He stated that they were concerned because the variance is requested on a Tot with 4.1 acres. They felt that there was enough room on that lot to meet the setback requirements. Also the covenants of Stanwood prescribe buildings sites and the architectural committee is supposed to approve the proposed building site and he wasn't sure that that had been done. Mason stated that the Board wouldn't act on this unless they had received approval from the homeowners association regarding the site selection. Mason stated that he also received a phone .call from Mr. Nichols, owner of Lot R-101, objecting until he' had received more information. Audrey Richman of the Building Dept., stated that Jon Seigle had called the Dept. and stated that the application might be withdrawn because the sell has not gone through. Mason suggested that the application be tabled. Fox motioned to table the case. Lukes second the motion. All in favor. Jon Busch, Block 3, Lots 21-22, Williams S/D 83-32 requesting a variance from his current allowable F.A.R. Jon Busch was there to represent self. He presented a larger picture of the residence to the .Board members. He explained the size of the stairs in questions and how .unsafe they are. He pointed out that the residence is very small.' He stated that the staircase y Pa e 4 g Board of Adjustment September 27, 1983 would increase his F.A.R. by 14'.' Fie,explained that he was limited to where the .stairway could go. Newbury stated that the house was over the F.A.R at the present time. Busch went on to say that the house was a duplex and a nonconforming unit.. Evan Gull motioned to grant the variance due to unsafe conditions of the present structure and to keep within the intent of the building codes. Lukes second the motion. A vote was called for and all were in favor. Meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Secretary 1 A ~, J ~~ ~_ Chairman 1 Scanned 8/7/07 File Finders Box #10 LARGE PLAT(S) AVAILABLE TO VIEW AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AVAILABLE TO BUY AT CLERK & RECORDER