Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.84.27 Paul Krausch moved that the following be adopted: BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE COUNTY OF PITKZN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 84-27 Stephen Chefan, Lot 102, Starwood 14 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 I1, Section 16-1.3, Pitkin County Code (Land Use Code) and Colorado Revised Statutes, 1973, 30-28-118(2) (C); and, WHERF,AS, based on the evidence presented, the Hoard 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 8nd purpose of the Zoning Resolutions and the zoning maps'. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the applicant's request for a 20' frontyard setback variance for construction of a new residence Additional conditions or restrictions: WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. Joe Zanin sernnded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: Dottie Fox - yes Peter Dobrovolny - yes Paul Krausch - yes Joe Zanin - yes The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the. County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: July 17, 1984 Attest: ~ ,~~te.. .c /. lYV'.n Secr tary The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County,. Colorado ~-~ 2L~~- Chairman /1 /1 11 V i.~li ~~J1 t BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DATE July 2 1984 i 19 CASE# 8~' o`t7 APPLICANT Sachs, Klein & Seigle ADDRESS OWNER Stephen Chefan _ ADDRESS LOCATION OF PROPERTY Lot 102 Starwood 14 Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part of this. Case No. TheF BOdrCl may return. this application if it' does nat. contain all the facts in question. ,Applicant's description of proposed .variance showing justification: Please see attached letter. . ~ .' Applicant Signature Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building Inspector to forward: this. application to the ,Board of Adjustment and reaso~~ of .granting a bng permit: ~ / ~~~ryh~.,~~/~ ~~~ .. Building Snspector Date Permit rejected:: ~-~6^~'S" ~ Board decision Application filed ~ ~ Date, Mailed: ...~ . .. ': ., .. .. Secretary Board of Adjustment; ' 201 N. Mill Street, Aspen r^ $ACHB, KLEIN ~& SEIGLE HERBERT S. KLEIN PROFEB610NAL CORPORATION JON DAVID SEIGLE ATTORNEYS AT LAW JAME9H. DELMAN - B. JOSEPH KRABACNER 201 NORTH MILL STREET RICHARD J. DELACENBERIE• ASPEN. COLORADO B10i 1 NANCY J. DELACENSERIE• f90B1 826.8700 •~*m w vnsco.sm oH~r July 2, 1984 Audrey Richman Pitkim County Buildincj Department 110 East Hallam Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Stephen Chefan Lot 102 Starwood 14 Dear Audrey: OF COUNSEL JlFFREY. H. 8ACM8 This letter should serve as a formal application for a request for a variance .from the front yard setbaok requirement for the above. referenced property. Please find enclosed our filing fee in the amount of $25.00 and twelve copies of the site plan of the property indicating the variance requested. The applicant-seeks a request to reduce the front yard setback from 100 feet to 80 feet. The reason .for the request is because of the topographical features of the property and a change in the setback requirements in Pitkin County since the platting of the. property. The developer originally designated a building envelope on the subject property that had access off Larson Drive so that the front yard setback would have been off Larson Drive. Since the original designation, the setback requirements have significantly increased and accordingly,-that portion of the Lot that was designated as the building envelope would have been undevelopable because it was totally comprised of the various setbacks.' The Stanwood Architectural Committee and the Board of Trustees of the Stanwood Homeowners Association approved. the relocation of the building envelope to the lower portion of Lot R-102 which necessitated changing the access .from Larson Drive to Epply Drive. The present site plan that is enclosed for consideration by the Board of Adjustment, has been approved by the Stanwood Homeowners Association, 'the Red Mountain Ditch Company, and the U.S. Forest Service who has an interest in .the property because of the location of the Sunnyside Trail. Q "~~~!33 Y • Audrey Richman July `2, 19$4 Page 2 I am also enclosing a list of property owners within 300 feet of the property and their addresses.. It is my understanding that this matter will appear on the agenda for the special meeting of July 17, 1984, Sincerely yours, SACHS, KLEIN & SEIGLE Professional Corporation By Jon' 'd Seig e JDS/nlw Enclosures. cc: Stephen Chefan .ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS James Hartrich P.O. Box 12285 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Robert Nichols P.O..Box 1285 Aspen, Colorado 81617 William and Paula Bernstein 3535 East Kentucky Drive Denver, Colorado 80209 Ford Schuman P.O. Box 4067 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Marjorie stein c/o David Dominick Dominick., Kovell_& Stern, P.C. 835 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 T ~ +h RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves » c. r, «otau e. e. a ~, ca BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PITKIN COUNTY JULY 17, 1984 Members Present: Dottie Fox, Acting Chairperson Paul Krausch Joe 2anin Alternates: Peter Dobrovolny Fox called the Special Meeting of the Pitkin County Board of Adjustment to order. There were no minutes from .the last meeting at this time. Ron A. Timroth 84-25 3687 E. Sopris Creek Road, requesting a height variance for construction of a garage. Fox informed. the Board xhat Timroth was in an RS-30 zone which allows a 12' height half-way between the ridge and the save of the building, not to exceed 17' at the top of the ridge. She questioned Timroth as to what he was proposing to do. He explained that he built the garage into a hill. The existing garage has a slope ramp that exceeds 3-i/2 feet over a pad distance of approximately 10 `, so that in the winter time he either slides into the garage or he can't get out of the garage. The new garage is located on the other side of; the drive, up-hill, and it was necessary that it was built into the .side of the slope. The roof line of his existing residence has a 9-12 pitch, so he put the same pitch on his garagewhich raises his height on the south side. He measured and found that .the total. height now is 19', which means that he is requesting a 2' height variance. If he lowered the roofline, then the save would hit . the ground. Fox questioned if this was a proposed structure. Timroth stated that that was correct. Fox then questioned if the structure was not built at this time. Timroth stated that it was built. He explained that due to a series of events with communication with the Building Department, he started to work without a building permit. He stated that a atop work order was placed on the structure. He then made application but continued the construction of the garage without following up on the permit or picking the permit up. He stated that it was not finished, but the walla and roof was up. Zanin requested that the members look at the plans for the garage to see how the design and height were drawn. Timroth gave them a brief diacription of the submitted plans. Krausch stated that he was reviewing the situation without letting the issue of it being built already. Fox pointed out that on the application it was stated as being a proposed structure. Dobrovolny didn`t have a problem with the garage, feeling that it blended well with the residence, but could not see the hardship that was involved. Timroth stated that with a creek on one side and a road on Che other side, he was cramped for space. He stated that he could not widen the driveway and build another garage without pushing 1t into the County 'Road. Krausch questioned if a roof with less pitch wouldn't solve the problem. Timroth stated that a different pitch would not correspond with his residence and also he had had bad luck in the paet.with a 6/12 pitch. If he was not allowed the variance he would not have the, garage. • i RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves nee c. r. xocau e. ,. a e. co. July 17, 1984 Board of Adjustment Page 2 Fox questioned Bill Drueding, Building Department Zoning Officer, what the next step would be if the variance was denied. Drueding stated that Timroth would be requested to rear off the present roof and bring in plans for a roof that would conform to code. Zanin questioned if there was a legitimate hardship involved in this request. Dobrovolny and Fox agreed that there was not a hardship. Fox explained to Timzoth what hardships the Board could work with when granting a variance. Krausch moved to deny the request for a height variance on the grounds that there was not a hardship. Dobrovolny second the motion. A, vote was taken and all were in favor. Jonn R. & Pat R. Zollinger, Lot 33, Swiss Village 84-26 requesting a 7.5' aideyard setback variance and a 9' rearyard setback variance for construction of a garage. Fox explained to the Board that the area is zoned R-15, with setback requirements of 30' front, 10' from the sides and rear. Mr. Parker was there to represent the Zollingers. Fox questioned if there was any other location on the property where the garage could be placed. Parker explained that the entry to the lot was the only reasonable entry due to the slope of the lot. He pointed out various features of the lot. The Board determined that the actual variances needed were from the side and front. Parker pointed out a gully located on the property and explained that the proposed location for the garage would be hidden from view for the most part. There was a copy of a letter from the homeowners that feel the proposed structure was ok. Zanin moved to grant a 7-1/2' aideyard setback variance and a 29' frontyard setback variance due to topographical hardship and the placement of the septic system. Krausch wondered if the structure could be pushed back from the frontyard. Parker stated that that would make the structure closer to the septic system. Krausch second the motion. A vote was called for and all were in favor. Stephen Chelan 84-27 Lot 102, Stanwood 14, requesting a 20' frontyard setback variance for construction of a new residence. Fox explained to the Board members that the property is zoned AF-1, with a frontyard setback requirement of 100', side and rearyard setbacks are 30'. Jon Seigle was there to represent the owner. He explained that Stanwood designated the building site when it was first platted, but zoning changed after that. After deducting the required setbacks there was no lot left. Stanwood agreed to relocate the building site. Seigle had a topo map of the property tp present to the Board members. He pointed out the new designated building site. The access was then changed to Epply Drive. He also pointed out the Red Mountain Ditch that ran along the property. He felt without a variance the. lot would be unbuildable. Dobrovolny felt that a house could be designed to fit within the setbacks. Siegle explained that they owner was trying to stay away from Stein's property. Fox stated that David Dominique contacted Biil Mason and expressed Marge Stein's concern that the house not come further down the property. .Seigle felt that the topography of the lot, the presence of the Red Mountain Ditch and the fact that there is a lot of precedent from the Board for granting variance in Stanwood, it was an appropriate request. -. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves July 17, 1984 Board of Adjustment Page 3 Seigle pointed out the location of Epply Drive and stated that the rational for the frontyard setback was to get the house away from the front read. Fox felt that a redesigned structure could fit into the setbacks. Krausch agreed. Dobrovolny agreed also. Seigle explained to the Board that the Starwood Homeowners Association had been consulted several times to agree on a design, and felt that the design was blending in consistent with the neighborhood and had shown legitimate hardship. He pointed out that it was a 3 acre lot. Krausch stated that in past times the Board had requested that the house be redesigned to fit the building envelope. Seigle pointed out that in his past experiences with Starwood requests, the variances had been granted. He felt that there had always been a solution possible and ',the Board was there to help compromise. Fox questioned why the situation wasn't dealtt. with at the architectural level instead of encroaching into the setbacks and then coming before the Board. Seigle stated there. was some confusion at the time that the architects met with the Building Department. The exit/entrance to the lot had been in question at the time. Krausch was solid in his feeling that the house could have been designed to fit the lot, Ted Guy explained to the Board that the architects misunderstood the issue. about. frontyard being the side. that access is taken from. Seigle felt that the land use code as sold had inadequate information in it. Drueding questioned where the confusion stemmed from if the access was changed after the conversation with the Building Department. Ted Guy pointed out the various difficulties if the house had to be turned to fit around all the topographical areas on the lot. Seigle stated that much attention was given to positioning the house in the interest of the neighbors. Drueding•:~etated that confusion was possible with the way the land use code is worded regarding the frontyard of property. Zanin could see the problem. Fox agreed that there were many issues that an out-of-town architect could be confused by. Dobrovolny pointed out that if the historical access had been used there would be no problems and the resulting damage to the hillside if that access had been used would be horrible. Krausch moved to approve the variance based on the topographical hardships. Zanin second the motion. A vote was called for and all were in favor. Ronald Harris 84_28 Lot 8, Block 5, Knollwood, requesting a variance from his present F.A.R. requirement. Fox explained to the Board members that the house was existing in Knollwood Subdivision. The request was for an $0 sq.ft. addition of a bath, with a deletion of 128 sq.ft. of exlsting space. Larry Yaw was there to represent owner. The house was builk within the F.A.R. but prior to the inclusion in the F.A.R. code that subgrade space counted. He pointed out that the basement was subgrade and did not meet the ventilation requirements set forth by the code. Yaw stated that at the time the residence was built the F.A.R. was. below allowable F.A.R. by 97 sq.ft. The owner will be moving to the area permanently and needs the expansion of the bathroom. Fox needed clarification regarding the deletion of the 128 sq.ft. Yaw stated that the ceiling would be opened up, somewhat like removing a floor. Yaw felt the hardship was due to the fact that the basement was of no use in a code .sense. K -~ . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves x c. r. xucxa ,. e. a c. co. July 17, 1984 Board of Adjustment Page 4 Yaw gave a description of the house and the changes they were planning to make. Yaw emphasized that the addition could be .done without a problem. under the prior zoning. Yaw stated that they still needed to get approval from the Homeowners Association. Krausch questioned the hardship involved. Yaw felt that while the basement is .counted Yn the F.A.R., 'it is unusable except for storage. Dobrovolny felt that if the definition of F.A.R. had changed since the construction of the residence it would be classified as downzoning. Bill Drueding, from the Building Department, questioned what would deter the basement from being excavated out and beinglrenovated into living space. Yaw stated that it would have to be brought before the Board again. Drueding stated that. it would not because it was already counted. Krausch suggested that a condition might be placed on the motion. Fox agreed with that suggestion. There was a dlscusaion as to what type of condition should be placed on the motion. Drueding suggested that the condition be recorded so that during a title search it would be discovered. Krausch wondered if it was fair to take away an owner's right to build 2500 sq.ft. of house in return for 80 sq.ft. .Yaw stated that in order to make the apace habitable a series of several things would have to occur. Fox questioned if the Building Department had control to the point not ta'let the house be expanded into a duplex in .the future. Drueding did not feel that they did. He also pointed. out that the renovations would be decreasing the non-conformity of the structure which would be allowed in the City. Krausch moved to grant the variance due to changes in .the F.A.R. definition. Dobrovolny second the motion. A vote was called for and all were in favor. Respectfully submitted, Chairman Scanned 9/19/07 File Finders Box #11 LARGE PLAT(S) AVAILABLE TO VIEW AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AVAILABLE TO BUY AT CLERK & RECORDER