The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutpitkin.boa.84.24 / y . BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT . DATE ..JUNe 1'2.. 19 ~ CASE* p,q- :;ty APPLICANT a-\.rf.,6'S l,. c::::.U"-IN1f"R!. A.l.A. OWNER FdtoJ~L.p ~. ~~ ADDRESS ~ ~3ot ,64uJ, aJ. ADDRESSJO e. ~-rn sr. "'.'1. "'.'1.:-- LOCATION OF PROPERTY WI 7 ~t.dG\<. 3 z.,..n;:> F'UkJb ~~ Tt1 S""'OfAJ""~S ME!'5tI- S(}IU'IVI Sl~, 0tP St-XlWH~SI c.o. Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part of this Case No. The Board may return this application if it Goes not contain all the facts in question. Applicant's description of proposed variance showing justification: \ Applicant Si9natur~L-~ Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building Inspector to forward this application to the Board of Adjustment and reason for not granting a buid.il)g permit: _ _ 4' I. .' ;41 .I..J- ~~~1f"'~~ ,r?S-JIJ ~ 7(Hf......)#L/ r- 1-'"7.,(~,4J ,(." ~-";-:r ~#'.I~..-.P~ ~!':\ fl' . _ --.. '. ...... . .....:- .:~ ~. 1&3 lJ~ 7 i . . . ./J ~.1$\lW II BuUdin. In."eto~ f 9f4 Date Permit rejec'te4l .-- . Board decision Application filed Mailed Date Secretary Board of Adjustm~nt C."'~n,-...ql \..IuV'd ,'.~' ~",.\~".tfr.",.. ....CC -, """~."" '" ~~.,.. ~, ''''''C"~' """,'",,""'~--'~'.v '"t.".,."...;-. ~._~ 1'-"- -....._,__..____ ..___ ____.,.. ___~ I; ill , ' . . J-r"~;;...~ ~1Det-Jce UIT 7"l,<<;jc.~ ~t> FU"'~60_ ~mlt~~1"'1P. .s:~~~~_ .l.P~WMHs,.aL4~r>t:) ~8'/CS . ~ ___ o " -..--.---..,------ - -----.--. ..-..-....- .l,.trr"..l J.lAt;t::.4- ~ F!.c..{Io/.ft?). -- Ct'F4ct"9EJMJl2W .s~,'1S$~.b5w) __ ~t::'SO'" I lL~~_____",_~...y~l'5erF4" ..l.____________ ~ ~~-----------------_____n_____.z..L~ -5DUtH.a8I"_~~~_n___ _ ____ .,,~JW:f~:.s_t_c::4,~I~----- ____ _ JL~~J!JJ~IS ~~t.________ __ ,:Ii ~ I-~-~-~_E'....,~- ---(~9f'~ .1/o.lW<;::''@:I'J1::&./__ .fU~-tsr:~-_ - un__ - ---"'~A--af"-Z.kn~_______ F'~-t s.!Jf<'oN.,j~~ - n. -p..::-c~~f'\I'i'Ilf'l'J___ L~"'" '"", ~~---_n--________~.M-__~1l:t("~!n.J ~J;8'_____ -- ~f ~a.~l,,"JL________n_ . .....~lilll:f...~_"~"J~ o -----.-.---..-----.. l&r*&!~i_~E!UIo.&)- ___~~lPnt,...-.-_- __.. _________ ~-UA11r:>.A.~~....t5_---___ __ __~7~__ _ _ __ _.______ -~t~, "~J~_ -__ ------ -f..lrr"t;~...;~i--W;a~~S-~-. ___ ___~o c~~,..,~-t<-,~~ J._ -- - -- foC..JL'Z,'13 _ _ __________ ____ u__ $I\lO""~~\ CO. ~l~ - (..0,- ._e; k,~ 3 WI;> FlI,.,I>>>) o t..t.NPMJoN I MIt-TfII-J lit. , L,.~J.J I f51e.VNA 1l~1l'~'1"" $Tl"=-l ~Mf"l~ New..3fif!~tf1,,!)J_ ~ -- -oOC-GQZ -.- - . . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves liMe. '.MOICKtL...... \.. co. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PITKIN COUNTY June 26. 1984 Members Present: Bill Mason, Chairman Dottie Fox Bill Lukes Paul Krausch Alternates: Kandi Shaffran Peter Dobrovolny Bill Mason. Chairman, called the regular meeting of the Pitkin County Board of Adjustment to order. He questioned if the Board members had any corrections or additions to the minutes from the last meeting. There were none. Bill Lukes moved to approve the minutes and Kandi Shaffran second the motion. All were in favor. Fox questioned about the landscaping at the Cozy Point Ranch, which was a condition at the time of approval. Patsy Newbury, Zoning Official, stated that there was no request for any set landscaping. Fox wanted to read the minutes regarding that issue because she felt the Board took time on that feature of the approval. Lukes felt that the Board felt strongly regarding that problem at the time. Mason requested that the minutes be checked by the Building Department. Bela & Joan Mecseri 84-22 Lot 8-A, Samuelson Tract, 0095 Riverbend Road, requesting a 90' front yard setback variance and a 27' sideyard setback variance for construction of garage. Mr. & Mrs. Mecseri was there to represent self. Patsy Newbury explained that the choice of the location for the garage was because the property is against the railroad. Fox pointed out that any location would require a variance. Newbury stated that the lots were created prior to zoning. Originally the lots were zoned AF-2. Mason then questioned all the applicants to insure that the notification signs were posted properly. They were. Fox moved to grant the variance for a 90' front yard setback variance and a 27' sideyard setback due to the shape of the lot and the downzoning. Shaffran second the motion. A vote was called for and all were in favor. Karen & Richard Beebe 84-23 1481 Snowmass Creek. requesting a 15' rearyard setback variance for relocation of deck. Mr. & Mrs. Beebe were there to represent self. They explained that the problem began with the shed roof, which had been added to, and due to the slope of the roof, it creates a pocket of water causing damage to the house. To correct the problem they need to change the pitch, and by doing an addition to the house it would be more economical. They would be building Over an existing deck. A variance would be necessary because the deck is non-conforming due to the present zoning regulations. The original building was constructed when the property was zoned AF-2. in 1972, at which time the setback requirement was 75'. The proposed addition would not encroach over the originsl footprint. The proposed fire escape would encroach into the setbacks also. The addition would probably be a bedroom in the future, Lukes did not feel there was a problem with the request, but was not sure if there was a hardship. Krausch moved to grant the variance based upon the downzoning. Lukes second the motion, A vote was called for and all were in favor, -' . . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves IiI!I C. r. Hl)(CI(~L B. 8. 6 l. CO. Page 2 Board of Adjustment June 26, 1984 Ronald Parker 84-24 Lot 7, Block 3, 2nd Filing, Gateway to Snowmass, 0055 Light Hill Road, requesting a 20' sideyard setback for each side for construction of residence. Mason disqualified himself because he was involved in the sale of the property. Fox took over as the Chairman. Fox questioned if there were any objections from the adjacent property owners in the file. There were not. There was a sign placed on the property. Charlie Cunniffe was there to represent the owner. He stated that the request was made to fit the residence on the lot. He claimed that relief was necessary due to the topography of the lot. The house was position to receive the maximum sun and view from the lot, Ne~ury stated that the zoning was originally AF and was now RS. The original setbacks were 100' for the front yard , 30' for the sides and rear and that was what the house was designed for. Cunniffe stated that he found out after the design that the setbacks were more. Krausch felt that the house could be made to conform with the setback requirements and still benefit from the solar aspects if the garage were attached in another direction. Cunniffe stated that the design wraps along the grade of the property and is set one story into the grade. If the garage were turned it would hamper access to the garage from the road. Cunniffe:stated that the location...of the structure now pulls the house down from the nearest neighbor and saves some trees. He felt that due to the topography he was pinched for a location for the structure. Bill Lindman, an adjacent neighbor, pointed out his property and his proximity. to the proposed garage. He felt his view would be interfered with. Cunniffe stated that the garage is set into the ground and the house is nestled one full story into the ground. He felt that the house was lowered into the ground as much as possible. Lindman felt his view would be less hampered if the house WaS further down on the lot. Another neighbor was there who did not want the house further down on the lot because it would be closer to her. Cunniffe pointed out to the Board that he had made compromises with both neighbors and if moved in either direction would be breaking his work with them. Dobrovolny felt a house could be designed to fit the required Setbacks. Cunniffe stated that he designed the house with incorrect information. Cunniffe pointed out a gully where the garage is bordering and would not be able, to go any further in that direction. The sanitation system would be placed in the flattest area of the property. Dobrovolny felt that the situation did not exist that the property owner was not able to get rea~onable use of his property. Krausch felt that there was adaquate space on the lot for a structure. He suggested that the garage might be moved more to the north, Cunniffe stated that they could not have an attached garage with the 50' sideyard setbacks. Cunniffe stated that it would be easier to understand if the lot were seen. Mason suggested a site visit after poles had been staked to location and height. Cunniffe stated that he was pressed for time and expense for the owner. It was determined that the site visit would be the following Monday, at 7:00 a.m., and they would meet at the Snowmass Post Office. Meeting was then adjourned. Respectfully submitted, I ~' 10\., cJ'&.LG. ~ /-..rv.n ~ . .. t gd/ ~~ Chairman Scanned 9/19/07 File Finders Box #11 -