Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.83.37 Joe Z an in moved that the following be adopted: BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJbSTMENT OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION No. 83-37 David Koenck, Lot 4, Block 3, Filing 2, Gateway of Snowmass 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, 30-2.8-•118(2) (C); and, WHEFLFAS, 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. '. 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. MOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the applicant's request for a 70' frontyard setback variance and a 30' sideyard setback variance on each side for construction of residence Additional conditions or restrictions: WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. Kandi Shaffran seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: ' Dottie Fox - yes Bob Throm - yes Paul Krausch - yes Kandi Shaffran - yes Joe Zanin - yes The Resolution caas adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustmeht of the County of Pit]•:in, State of Colorado. HATED : Novembe r 2 9, 19 8 3 The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado Attest: ~~.~ ~ ~. Seery Chairman • • ~OARD OF ADJUSfiM~NT. • ,~ : ; ~' i . ,.• ~ ~ ~. • DATE .November 9 ' 19 83, ~ . •, ~ :CASE# , ~ ~~ 3 -3r7 ~, `• ~ .. P :,O . 'Box' .8 7.3:4' • .. ~ ~ ' D~vid• Koer~cl~•• ~ As en,, CfJ ~ 81612 APPLICANT ' , •' •ADDRE$S P, OWNER ~ .• .. .' .ADDRESS LOCATION OF PROPERTY. Ga:t'eway ~ of ~Snowmass, - Mesa ~ Subdivisions ~ Lot 4 , Block .3 , Firing Z ~ , , ' Any pertinent 'data must accompany .this applic'aton, .ar1d ,will. }fie, made part of this Case No. ~ ~ • . • The Board may return this application,if 'it does not contain alI the facts in~ question. Appl:ican , '.s description of.' pXop(o^sed 'variance showing: " justification: q.~E ~ ;'„~~~, ~~ QC"~ '~~~ D'VI. ~. r ~X : ~ ~ , ~f- t . .. ;f 7' +il rd' ~ {~ 1 S' 11 . , ~~ ~ h .,. ~• ~,• ~ 'APPlcan't 'Si,griatu.r Provisions of the zdrliMg resolut;i;on °zeguiring' ,the., :$ui,ld~ng~ Inspector to forward this applicatipn, to'; the. ~,oa~d'•,of. `Adjustment' and' ~reasari •:for :n;ot.~ granting a .b.uiding ,permit ~ ~ ~' ~~ •/ ~~ ~ , !'. .•. • ' , • Bui,ldi'ng. Inspector j !:;ate Permit rejected:.• ~~ `, ..'' Board.~decision ~ .~ ~ '. .~ C, (~ ... %~uEalication filed ~, ~ •.. .v D~:te ..• . •. ,; r .. . . • ,':ailed ~ ,- -- :. -.-- _.. • .:. ~ • .. • .. ;,r Secretary' Bo'a:rd. of.~Adj,ustment .,~ ' t , 7 ~ ' .. ~ ;~ lox ~ ~S ~-~ ~ - I ~` A X31 aGlc.,. 2 ~~-y+d ~-t I C ~~jj <J2 , r!S' ~V"Iah.+~ti~i.SS . ~Q S~ ~~~x~l •ll ~ 5t-~~ ~U ~ .., Dom, ~ . ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ,.. ,. ~. ,, ~ .. ~, 'r • • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT :~?ovember 29, 1983 Regular '~eeting Members Present: Alternates: Dottie Fox, Acting Chairperson Paul Krausch Joe Zanin Kandi Shaffran Bob Throm Evan Gull Dottie Fox, acting chairperson, called the meeting to order. She questioned if there were any additions or corrections to the many minutes that were done during October. She pointed out some wordings in the sentences that she wanted to clarify on Wage 5, first set, regarding Hendric~s feelings and on page 7, regarding a statement made by Moran regarding the building permit, which was stated as building department. There were no other corrections. Zanin moved to approve the minutes. Throm second the motion. All in favor. Peter Dobrovolny 83-39 694 Highway 82, Snowmass, Colorado Requesting a variance for a business identification sign. Th.e sign will be two-sided and attached to the building. 6 square .Feet in size and the building is approximately 100' from Highway 82. Peter Dobrovolny explained that he was not aware until he became an alternate member with the Board that a variance was necessary. He explained that he would be expanding his practice and needed to change his sign. Fox questioned what the color. scheme would be. Dobrovolny explained that the background would be light orange and the lettering would be brown. Gull questioned Pasty Newbury, of the Building Dept., if there were any letter limitations in the code, such as letter sizes. Newbury stated that the letters were limited to 12 inches. Shaffran questioned the lighting of the sign. Dobrovolny stated that there was two deck lights on his end of the building; -the up-valley side he was planning to elliminate. Fox questioned Necabury if a sign needed to be posted for a sign variance. Newbury did not feel that they did. Throm cuestioned if there were any other signs on the building. Dobrovolny stated that there were signs for the realestate company in the other half of the building. Fox questioned Newbury if the letters were within the grope r height. Newbury stated that the requirement was just for cut-out letters. Newbury then determined that no letter shall be larger than 12" in height except for the initial letter which may be 18" high. Dobrovolny agreed that he could adjust his lettering to mee'~ these requirements. Shaffran moved to grant the sign approval with the condition that the sign conforms to County Code, which is that. the first letter is no higher than 18" and the followirq letters no higher than 1?_". Krausch second the motion. A vote was taken and all were in favor. ' • • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves 1RM ~! ,,, HOCCK EL B, B. 9 L. CO. Page 2 Board of_ Adjustment January 12, 1984 Steve Knudson 0127 McSkimming Road, requesting a 156 square foot floor8area ratio variance for addition of entry way. Knudson was not there due to a snow storm that was detaining him in Denver. He had requested that they call him and discuss the matter over the telephone. Fox read the application, explaining that the entryway was necessary to keep down heat loss. ~dewbury also explained that at this time the structure was a duplex and the owner was trying to make the unit a single family residence, which is what the zone requires. Also a storage shed located on the property would be torn down. '`?ewbury stated that the owner would be taking out the kitchen in the second unit. The proposed stairway would be outside the structure. Zanin confirmed that the stairway could not be placed inside. Fox pointed out that there were no complaints from the neighbors. Krausch questioned why it was referred to as an entryway instead of a stairway. I~'ewbury answered that it would be like an airlock. Fox felt that the fact that there were no F.A.R. requirements at the time of construction should be considered. Gull moved to grant the variance for an additional 156 square feet over the floor area ratio thats allowed because of dbwnzoninq changing the F.A.R. with the condition that the property reverts back to a single family residence in accordance with the current county zoning. Zanin second the motion. A vote was called for and all were in favor. Philip/Sally Miller Lot 5 n 83-35 ~zeolat 2, Ridge of Red Mountain S/D, requesting a floor area ratio variance of 499 square feet for addition of residence. Phil Miller was there to represent himself. He explained that the basis for his hardship is that at the time the F.A.R.'s were imposed, 13% was ab_plied to R-30 lot with a minimum lot size of 30,000 square feet. He explained his reasoning behind the purchase of his lot in 1975. He gave a brief explanation of the history of his lot and how the size of the lot is smaller than ~ehat the F.A.R. zoning is meant for. He pointed out that if his lot was located in any of the other subdivisions, i.e. Mountain Valley, Aspen Grove, they could build out to 1.6 and that is what they are basing their hardship on. There was a study that he out together that was included in the packet to the Board members. Phil explained that he had been to the homeowners association and had reviewed his request with them and they approved his request. He presented photos of his residence to the Board and pointed out that he wanted to expand over his garage, which would not increase the footprint of the residence. He explained that they would not be going any higher than the existing roofline. He stated that his neighbors would not be impacted as far as their view is concerned. I<rausch questioned what the square footage of the residence presently was. Miller stated that according to the architect is was 2098 square feet. He also stated that the assessor's office showed his residence as being 2240 square feet, which exceeds the F.A.R. by 50 square feet. But he stated that he had noted that the assessor's figures were not exact all the time. • )RM ~~~ ,: E ~i ~~ECK EL B. B. K L. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Page 3 Board of Adjustment LJ 100 Leaves Dlovember 29, 1983 Miller made the point that it would only be fair to adjust the F.A.R. requirements of his lot to fit the size of his lot, instead of the larger lots in his subdivision. Fox stated that she did not see a major impact in comparison with the large homes in that area. Miller stated that the house was built under the present zoning, but due to constraints of a budget, was not planning any additions at that time. Fox informed the Board that there were no objections in the file from adjacent neighbors. Gull stated that he felt it was a reasonable approach. Shaffran questioned if the Board had the right to change the zoning on that lot. Gull stated that they were not changing the zoning but were allowing the variance request. Newbury explained to the Board that with this lot a given amount of land was dedicated as open space to bring those lots up to their required zoning requirements. She explained that this is the thing that is not reflected in the lot itself in these clustered areas. When this area was being dedicated part of the land came from what would have been Miller's lot. Krausch felt that the Miller's bought and built their home with the present conditions and could not see a hardship. Also he was troubled with setting a precedent, and felt that this argument could potentially be unlimited in scope. He was not favorable to granting the request. Shaffran wonde-red what grounds the Board could act upon. Throm questioned the use and Miller stated that it would be a bed and bath. Gull felt that there was a large number of instances where there are inappropriate zoning on lots of incorrect size and this is one example. Krausch questioned about the fact the owner bough t the lot with the present conditions and knew what he was getting into. Gull was dealing with the .fact that the zoning is inappropriate to the size of the lot. Fox felt that the Board was appointed to handle situations where lots were handled unfairly by the zoning process. Gull explained to Krausch that he was trying to apply the appropriate zoning to the size of that particular lot, stating that he was against F.A.R. variances on a lot that is appropriately zoned. Krausch agreed that the lot was inappropriately restricted in the floor area, a'hardship thats imposed upon the lot. But he had a problem considering it a hardship imposed upon the owner who bought the lot knowing what the limitations were. Gull felt that it would not be unreasonable for Miller to go before P&Z to get the lot rezoned. Shaffran felt that the owner bought his lot on the Ridge and to live there he had to live under the zoning of that area, instead of comparing the zoning to that of Mountain Valley, where he didn't live. Miller answered that priorities changed and he just wanted a fair F.A.R. for his lot size, in comparison with other subdivision lots of that size. Zanin questioned if the Board had the authority to act nn this request. Newbury stated that if there was a hardship they could take an action. Miller requested a straw vote to get a feeling of what action the Board would take. Krausch stated that he Lelt inclined to vote against the .request, but since it was an entirely different approach from anything brought before the Board he was interested in thinking about the matter and discussing it more. • • ORM ~• C. f H;ICCKEL P. H. Y L. CJ. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Page 4 Board of Adjustment November 29, 1983 Newbury suggested that a meeting be held with County Attorney Tom Smith to discuss the matter. Shaffran wanted to know what the hardship could be. Fox felt the hardship was an inappropriate zoning which lowered his F.A.R. due to the dedication of open, space cutting into his lot size. Shaffran pointed out that was very different from other hardships that the Board has always used as a guideline. Throm stated that not all cases can be looked at .in such a black and white manner. Krausch felt that they must follow the guidelines. Throm felt that it would be worthwhile to request a special meeting and invite the county attorney to clarify the bounds in which the Board works under. Fox motioned to table the issue until direction could be gotten from the County Attorney. Shaffran second the motion. All the members were in favor. Alfred/Valeria Braun 1440 River Road, Woody Creek 83-36 requesting a 100' frontyard setback variance and a 50' rearyard setback variance to construct a cedar fence over 6' tall. Alfred Braun was there to represent self. He explained that the main reason for making the fence so high is to hide the view of his neighbors property. He presented some photos of the property to show the Board members what his property looked like and what his neighbors property looked at. Fox wanted to know if the situation of the neighbors property had ever been brought to the attention of the zoning enforcement officer. Braun stated that it had, and was sited in 1981 for operating an illegal dump, but the property was still in bad shape. Braun claimed that his fence would not block the neighbors view from the deck of his residence, as is allegated in a letter to Braun from Gary Gidley, the neighbor. Krausch questioned if this was the only neighbor that was objecting. Braun answered that it was. Gary Gidley was there to voice his obje;~tions. He presented photos to the Board members showing his fence, which he admitted was too high, but stated that he got permission from Braun to build the fence that high. He claims that Braun has vehicles and gas tanks on his property also., He did not feel that the ,3raun fence should be that high and claimed that he obstructed his view. He pointed out the area of the fence that blocked his view and requested that it be stepped at that point. Pat Fox was there also. I-ie agreed that Gidley did not obstruct any views with his fence, but did }guild the fence on an easement that belongs to Fox. Also he stated that Gidley violates the scenic quality section of the Pitkin County Land Use Code with the state that his property is in. Don Feeley was there and stated that he was not in favor one way or another regarding the fences but wanted to state his displeasure with the need for the fence and was backing up Fred for wanting the fence. He urged Gidley to clean up his property and try to organize his equipment. Gull moved to deny the variance and encouraged the neighbors to work toward taking care of the situation through the courts. He felt that there were no grounds for the Board to work with. Krausch felt that the County should enforce their codes and since nothing has been done to clean up Gidley's property, the Board has every. rig}Zt to give Mr. Braun some assistance. Gull's motion was not seconded. Braun stated that if the County could force Gidley to clean up his property he would lower his fence. • fRm ~~ _ r~. ~I'CKEL Ii. n. R 1. CO. Page 5 Board of Adjustment November 29, 1983 Throm motioned to grant the variance on the basis that Pitkin County Land Use Code, Section 2-16 Scenic Quality provides this Board with the ability to grant the variance for the 7'6" height. Krausch suggested that something be mentioned about taking the fence down. Throm stated that he didn't want to do that. Krausch second the motion as originally stated but expressed his concern that the County has not followed up on the violation. Shaffran expressed concern that the Board was exceeding their bounds. Throm stated that if they were someone could come talk with them. A vote was called for. Fox, Krausch, Zanin and Throm were for. Gull make an opposing vote. The motion passed. David Koenck mot 4, Block 3, Filing 2, Gateway of Snowmass, requesting a7 70' f_rontyard setback variance and a 30' sideyard setback variance on each side for construction of residence. navid Koenck was there to represent self. Fie explained that he was not aware of the setback requirements set by the County on the lot and presented to the Board his drawings of the residence. He was assured at the time of purchase that the subdivision covenant was in effect. He stated that he did do research at Clerk & Recorder and found that the covenant was recorded. Krausch questioned how Koenck was mislead.' I{oenck answered that he was assured by the real~estate broker. Newbury added that the area was originally zoned AF-2 and his setbacks would be ok under that zoning. Fox wanted to know if there was another place on the property, to place the structure. Koenck stated that it would be very difficult because he was trying to place for solar benefit. Throm pointed out some other locations. Koenck had a topo map to show the most practical location. Zanin moved to grant the variance request due to the topographical hardship and for the solar conditions. Shaffran second the motion. ?~ vote was called for and all were in favor. Throm suggested that Newbury or whatever, to advise them Sno~,~nas s area . The meeting was adjourned. Resz~ectf_ully submitted, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves contact the realitors in a letter, of the downzoning in the Gateway of rr.,-_-, ~~~ c~ ~~ L „~ ~~~"//~,,~h,, airpersbn Scanned 8/7/07 File Finders Box #10 LARGE PLAT(S) AVAILABLE TO VIEW AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AVAILABLE TO BUY AT CLERK & RECORDER