Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.84.06 - e Joe Zanin moved that the following be adopted: BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTHENT OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 84-06 Ted Koutsoubos, 0032 Mule Deer Run IA'HEREAS, the subject property is wi thin the unincorporated area of pitkin County, Colorado; and, vJHEREAS, 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 89' front yard setback variance and a 15' sideyard setback variance Additional conditions or restrictions: WAffiJING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. Evan Gull seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: Bill Mason - yes Paul Krausch - yes Joe Zanin - yes Bill Lukes - yes Evan Gull - yes The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: March 13, 1984 The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado Attest: &1' ?nC~ . ( Chalrman ----L~J. fleA-mOl( Secr tary ('. '. .., (-.,. ,.. , "1 j; ~. _, \.! ~_ ",--.II e BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT e DATE February 13, 19 84 CASE# - -. ( -' / APPLICANT R. Jerome Wood ADDRESS Box 11748, Aspen, CO 81612 419 E. Hyman ADDRESS Aspen, CO 81611 OWNER Ted Koutsoubos LOCATION OF PROPERTY 0032 Mule Deer Run, Snowmass, CO 81654 Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part of this Case No. The Boar~ ffidY return this application if it does not contain all the facts in question. Applicant's description of proposed variance showing justification: The applicant requests a variance from ttelOO' front yard setback requirement and the 50' side yard setback requirement. There is no portion of the lot that does not fall within the required setback. ThiS:~ll new construction. The house is situated on the only portion of the lot that is not 30% slope. Applicant Signatu~~~ ~ Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building Inspector to forward this application to the Board of Adjustment .and reason for not. gr~ting a /buiding perm~2t;t7V -;i ~~t-'-'7Yl~/97?-~~'~ ~<-- q;1 II .t3LJc..-/1 t. " f: ~1i'-/ / .3-?i.~Ii:~ 'j / h /(.~~ / fJ tJ .tP-rZ-?z:UV y) c:' 3D ~ 11.-'-I-u.-C4v / L- // / y) . ~ :::i~Ut->~ L~<._ a...;r' v~rA-.h-c./. 7U~u ~~ / r //....-,J/ r/~p-Q.L.L, G--?Y?Jl...-I?C-.1!..~ ~-- (j / "/ Building Inspector '--'-~- (J Date Permit rejected: Board decision Application filed Date ;VIa i led Secretary Board of Adjustment (., , ,. '.'\0 ,,, ~.'lo "':'") ; \. ;1 -......, ~.~ ~ .- ~!}I;/l)a;r~ofPt!L ~ #1 ;; ~~ [lc? F/~5fL - 9%; ~~::r- a,t~ ~?J f/~/;:L -?;;;:,~ tU jt2h:-; (lo il ~ /;:l --~~~ /1~ a5t5/. ~ff~& ~.Ld~/ 0/1 %O~2 . . ,-: .~ he:::lc;;; i - e ':: II Oh\.<:t. ~ t; . I -~. U . \.:..) -C:"'~ ~--~, If't(''''''('3 (;, ~ '_J ~--" ...-. ' ~ . \ ....-:.... " ~~ . .~,~ :;', ~/'- " .' ,'. ~, .:.... : l' ~ ~C< ~" . " ,.:~:.-); .' ~,j,~ ~ .~ ~~< " ~." .. . ;~ ".... .;:.... . ',' ,.,:.'~f.>Y..:J.f(,::~~ . , ,,' . '~,~})~:' '.. ..' ~~~~~~t\'f."t~i!t. .,,.,,;: '. .~;;> ~,. ;~'~'; '. ;S, , ,?~.-.; "'^. ~.. ""'. '~:, >'.~ l' ".~ " ~ : .' ). //" -~",., 5 c: .c. L. E:: (. 2J ~E:t.::T CDI\JTDU=l li',;- t=:..; J ~.l ..,~.~~~~ ./ ":, .;./ .:~.. 'r. .,," '," ~ -i' . .....lo ~... _ _ -~...- '," " ,i /, ~/ >/ , r ,.- rt (I \' \ ' , .. i , I ' i \ '\ \ i, I .----:--.-- , -....- ._~j:. ..~i ; r .~ ----- - .---- -.--. --- \ . . --------- .- -.-....- .- - ........--.. . . .----- ( (- ~- _...-~. _-e~""'" '\. r ." . .- ..._...---~., '-~::J~;~ -,j.. ... :'C 'J, 17 ....:J ,;-~ ,..;c' I -~:.--. . t;;:,::- .., ~ -"-0 ~;:z '\ 5'.1.. 56 '1 // ~p <,j./ @) ~,4'_, ~ Srl e / ,/ ::2. , , i , ."'~'~;~~: e i,; 'f' ;; \, .<H'~~:~~:;~~~e1~t~~~;~:~~~i.~~~:::". 't:ONT08Q ~ 'i' ,-:'> t",' PLAT . -. '-..:J - ...:..:,-=:..: .~ -J ;:'1 Tl< I t\! .n I"' rT'Y ,.. r-.. L ,~ '\JO'Vl A ~r< su q 'Jf::_ Y I N :...~ e -, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ORM d ," H,)(CKEL [1. I'. 1\ L. CJ. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH n. 1984 SPECIAL MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Mason. Chairman Paul Krausch Joe Zanin Bill Lukes Alternates: Evan Gull Bill Mason opened the meeting regarding the tabled items from the February 28, 1984, meeting. Ted Koutsoubos. 0032 Mule Deer Run 84-06 requesting an 89' front yard setback variance and a 15' sideyard setback variance for construction of residence. Jerome Wood was there to represent the owner. A sign was now posted. Wood explained that it was an RS-30 zone which allowed a very minimal buildi~g spot. He pointed out the placement of the structure to avoid the steep seGtion of the lot-. Krausch questioned if a front yard setback w~s the only ~ecessaryva~iance. Wood agreed. I~ was pointed out that there was' a deck within t;he sideyard setba,ck that would be considered a structure. Mason questioned what the subdivision. covenance setbacks were. Newbury stated'that it. was AF-2. sathe front yard setback was 50' and the sideyards' were 20'. which would s.tillrequire variantes. She pointed out that the terrain was rugged onth~t lot. ian'inmoved to grant the.variances of 89' on the front and a 12' on the.side'due to topographical hardship. Gull second the motion. A vote was called for. and all were in favor. Shane/Bette Ortell, 0040 Elk Range. Drive 84-07 requesting a 76' front yard setback, 8' .west sideyard setback and a 54' re2[yard setback variances for construction of residence. Wood was there to represent owner. He stated that the proper signs had been posted for this request also. Wood stated that after hearing the objections made by Mr. Heien at the last meeting, he had re-evaluated the situation and found another location to place the structure that would be better for everybody. He stated that variances would still be necessary. Rob Weien was there and looked at the new positioning of the residence. Weien presented some photos to the Board members and Wood used these to show the proposed building site and the adjacent property. Weien agreed to the new positioning of the residence. Krausch questioned if notices needed to be sent to the adjacent property owners regarding the changing of variances. Newbury questioned if the variances were greater than originally proposed. Wood stated that it would be greater off of Light Hill Road, but the frontage setback would be significantly less. And there would be no encroachment on the south side yard. Newbury questioned if the structure would be closer to residences presently there. Wood answered that they would not be. Newbury produced a plat of the subdivision. After lookiqg at the adjacent lots, the Board decided that the change would not be a substantial impact'on any of the lots. Lukes moved to grant a 20' frbrityard s~tback variance and a 40" rearyard setback variance due to topographical hardships. Krausch second the motion. A vote was called for and all were in favor. Me~ting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, .' () uC<C.(C:ll k:~ ~J.....,/nn< . R'Mot,.'~a~. ~an e e RECORD' OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves <. ['-:,K,L hi. '\ l CJ BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 28, 1984 PITKIN COUNTY HEHI3ERS PRESENT: Bill Mason, Chairman Paul Krausch Joe Zanin Bill Lukes Alternates: Evan Gull Bill Mason called the meeting to .order., He questioned, if there were any que~o t ions or additions to be made. to the' minutes of the last meeting. He ,.]anted clarification of the minutes with regards to the "grey area of . the COdl that the Board could not handle ...". Newbury explained the situation to \lason as it occurred at the meeting . There were no' other comments. LUKes moved to accept the minutes. Krausch second the motion. Alan Fox, 84-02 Lot 7, Block 3, Aspen GroveS/D~ requesting a 6' sideyardsetback variance fot construction of garage. Mr. Fox was there to represent self,. Joe Zartin disqualified himself because he is associated with Mr. .Fox closely. Mason questioned exactly where the driveway would be. Fox produced a copy of the survey with the existing driveway, which he claimed to be a hazard. He stated that his plans included making a new drive. .Hason stated that he did a site inspection and explained to the Board members that the lot was very steep. Mason felt it was the only reasonable place to put the gar3ge due to the terrain. Krausch questioned if the residence was no\.] existing and how far from the right-of-way the house was. Fox answered that it was 7.4' away. It was determined that the house was non-conforming. Mason stated that there were no objections in the file and a sign was posted. Gull moved to grant the variance due to topographical hardships. Krausch second the motion. A vote was called for and all were in favor. Grizzley Landscaping & Nursery 84-03 21905 W. Highway 82, Aspen, requesting a setback variance from the Highway 82 corridor for construction of a trellis. The owner, Bob Jensen, was there along with his representative, Brooke Peterson. Jensen explained that the structure would not have a roof, but a device to provide shade for the plants. Mason stated that a sign was posted and there were no objections in the file. He stated that he did receive a call from Clark Smyth, an adjacent proper'ty owner, and Smyth was against anything happening on the site. Gull stated that he recalled from the original variance that it would not be looked upon favorably for additional structures being added in this location. Glen Horn was there. to repreSent the Planning Department and had some objections. He.stated that his office'objected to any construction at all within tqe 200' .corridor. Also, they felt that'. anv additional construction with that corridor would be inconsistent with the original proposal made by this applicant-He presented a letter to thE' Board from the applicant in response to the County's request regarding the original proposal. This propos~l was suppose to reflect the highest level of development anticipated on the site. It also stated. that additional build out beyond the scope of the proposal would be prohibited. The applicant did respond at that time that he would be willing to'limit,the' e e RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 leaves IR"'I ,. ~, 'i,-)i~'.: K [l H. lJ. ;<, l. C ,J. February 28, 1984 Board of Adjustment Page 2 size of the improvements on the lot ...~ The planning office felt that based upon these representations any further construction on the site would be inconsistent with the orlgin:11 st}l mission. Horn al!Oo discussed tile i::,;sue of the fe'Lce pla.:..ed 0n tt-,e applicant' b prUpe1. ty. The feLlce ~;as to be painted by August 1, 1983. He gave a brief history of the correspondence between the Planning Dept. and the applicant. He produced copies of this correspondence. He requested that if the Board should approve this request that a condition be placed on the approval regarding the painting of the fence. Newhllry questioned the applicant about the access to the property from Highway 82. Peterson stated for the record that Grizzley Landscapes prior agreements are irrelevent.to the Board, both legally and from a practical standpoint. But he did address the issues. He stated that he had been in contact with Curt Stewart, County Manager, and both felt that the issues had been dealt with. He explained that the fence was not painted right away because of stock brought in. Also they were informed that the fence could not be painted. But they have found a contractor since then that can paint the fence and will be painted prior to any stock arrival this spring. . Peterson explained that an agreement had been reached with the County Commissioners to attempt to limit the ac;cess from that property because pf the danger of Highway 82. He explained to do that an agreement had to be reached with Boise Cascade for an easement and were working on such. Peterson also mentioned the comments being made about the issue. of a retail. opera t ion on the site. Peterson stated that at no time did the applicant agree to not have retail operations on thatprbperty, but. agreed to limit the retail. operations. The applicant i$ basically a landscaping business. Peterson pointed out that the ad :in the telephone. book was run without permission from the applicant. He pointed out to the Board that at this .time they were not adding to the square footage of the property, but were trying to limit the amount of direct sunlight that the plants were getting The structure would not be usable for any other use. Bill Lukes stated that he agreed that the trellis fell into a grey area of the code, and was relatively low impact. But was concerned that it was within the 200t setback. And felt that the applicant went into the situation knowing what the restrictions would be on the property. Peterson agreerl, but pointed out that the applicant was not aware that a trellis would be necessary during the original application. Jenson pointed out that the trellis would be behind the existing fence and vines would be growing on the fence. He felt that visually it would have no impact. Horn stated to the Board that Peterson has represented the facts honestly to the Board and suggested a compromise of removing the trellis during the winter months. Jensen stated that he wanted plants to be growing on and around the trellis and the post would be set in concrete. Lukes que$tiQned if any other locAtion was possible on the site. Jensen stated that he waS thinking of placing it in the back, but that was wh~re his hardwear was stored so shield3d from Highway 82. . e e RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves 1RM" ,- f' >I';I(O([L fl. 0. .'t L. ca. February 28, 1984 Board of Adjustment Page 3 Mason questioned the applicant what the hardship was in this case. Peterson pointed out that the hardship was because the entire Property was within' the 200' setback. He. also pointed out that it .was not. a hardship created by the applicant. Mason stated that the vari~ncewas originally granted becduse there were existing' structures and the applica~t did improve the property. Peterson stated to the Board that the structures removed by the applicant were more in square footage than the proposed trellis. Mason pointed out that the applicant could not produce a hardship that the Board could grant a variance on. Lukes stated that.he could not vote to :lpprove the request, but was open to a motion to table the request and review the minutes from the previous variance for any guidance. Mason questioned the other Board members. Peterson questioned if the denial would be because of the previous agreements or because the Board does not want a structure such as this to be built. Mason did not have A problem with the structure, but was hard pressed for a hardship. Mason suggested that it be built lower than 6' to comply with codes. Gull felt that the restrictions on the property were clear when the applicant bought the property. Lukes stressed the fact that it was within the 200' setback corridor which was an important fact. Zanin moved to deny the variance request based on the fact that there was not a hardship. Krausch second the motion. A vote was called for and all were in favor. Alberto Hodari, MD 84-04 Lot 17, Block, Red Mountain SiD, requesting a 16' front yard setback variance for construction of an addition. ~ob McGraw'and Bill ,Poss:werethere to represent the owner. Mason pointed out to the.Board that a sign had been posted and that a letter wason file from Felix Boie as adjacent property owner, not agreeing to a variance until he had viewed the plans. Krausch stated that he was confused with the request. Poss stated that it \v3S an existing residence that encroached upon the 30'. setback. As part of t he upgrading, they are proposing a new roof structure' .that would help with snow load. Poss stated that their hardship was due to the topography of the area where. the existing residence was located. Mason questioned if there would be any more excavation. Poss stated that the ared was over-excavated and they would be putting in a retaining wall and stepping the grade. Mason questioned where the parking would be Pas,; stated that there would be two within a carport and two out in front. McGraw pointed out on the drawings that the shaded area exists now and the cross-section would be the additional overhang. He explained that the interior area being added was 42 square feet of entry-way. Mason questioned if the Homeowners Association had been notified. Poss stated that they were on the agenda in three weeks. He stated that informally the Association had liked the upgrading of the structure. It was determined that a height variance was not necessary. Lukes moved to grant the variance as shown on the submitted site plan for the carport, enclosed entry and roof overhang subject to the approval of the Red Mountain Homeowners Association due to topography. Gull second the motion. A vote was called for and all were in favor. - e RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS. 100 Leaves . . lRM ""t':.KrL IJ. s, II- L. CJ. February 28, 1984 Board of Adjustment Page 4 3-J's, Lot 104, Mountain Valley 84-05 reqlJesting a 20' front yard setback variance for construction. of a garage. Alan Lauer was there to represent the owhers. He explained that there was no other location for the garage on the lot. He presented a topography map to the Board so they could see the grade. He explained th~t the present driveway was very steep. It was determined that the garage was mostly underground. Lukes questioned if the old driveway would be re-vegetated. Lauer stated that the owners would want to use in the summer. Mason stated that he would prefer to see it re-vegetated. Kraus~h moved to grant the variance based on topographical hardship. Lukes suggested an amendment adding the description of 22 x 20 garage just for clarification. Krausch did not object.' Joe Zanin second the motion. A vote was called for and all wer~ in favor. Ted Koutsoubos, 0032 Mule Deer Run 84-06 requesting an 89' front yard setback variance and a 15' sideyard setback varjance for construction of residence. Jerome Wood was there to represent the owner. Wood informed the Board that there was not a sign posted for this property. Mason stated that they would have to table the item until the sign has been posted for nine days. Shane/Bette Ortell, 0040 Elk Rang~ D~ive 84-07 reql:esting a 76' front yard setback. 8~ west sideyard setback and a 54' rear yard setback variances for con.struction of, residence. Wood was also represent ing this owner and a sign 'had not beert posted on this ,property. Mason stated that this item would have to be ,tabled also. Krausch questioned if they could act on these items with the condition that no objectibns' come from t~e posting of the sign~RobWeie~:was there to object:to.this request. He is the owner of Lot 9. which is directly south of .the lot in question. He stated that he would like to see the house located closet to the center of the lot to ?llow him more privacy when he places his residence on his lot. Wood explained that there was no location on the lot that was not within the setbacks. Lukes stated that the Board would try to work with Weien. but the applicant would need a variance one way or another. Wood stated that tbere wasn't a lot he could do because of the slope of the property. Luke suggested that a special meeting be set up after the signs had been properly posted. A meeting was set up for March 13, 1984, at 5:15. John H. Stewart. Lot 43. Elk Mountain SID 84-08 requesting a 53' front yard setback variance and a 5' sideyard setback variance for construction of residence. Mr. Stewart was there to represent self. There were no objections in the file at the time of the meeting. A sign was posted. Newbury stated that the property was not zoned when subdivided. Gull questioned if the request conformed with the covenance of the subdivision. Newbury stated that they were. Mason stated that in past cases they tried to keep the structure within the covenance setbacks. Gu]] moved to grant the variance due to downzoning. Paul Krausch second the motion. A vote waS called for and all were' in favor. Meeting was adjourned. Scanned 8/21/07 File Finders Box #11