Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.84.28 Paul Krausch;aved that the following be adopted: BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE COUNTY OFPITKIN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 84-28 Ronald Harris, Lot 8, Block 5, Knollwood Subdivision 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-?.8-118(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 adjoining 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, AE ZT RESOLVED that the applicant's request for a variance to exceed his F.A.R. by 80 sq.ft. for an addition Additional conditions or restrictions: WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. Peter Dobrovolnyseconded 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: IlC~~ALU OG~~x Sacr tart' The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, (COl~',or~a/do «, l/ Chairman ~nnn!`1 ~~I„~s'J _' • ,BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT . DATE 3 July 19 84 CASE# ~Y- a-~ APPLICANT Hagman Yaw Architects, Ltd ADDRESS OWNER Ronald Harris ADDRESS E-1215 1st National Bank 332 Minnesota Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 LOCATION OF PROPERTY LOt 8 Knollwood - Rlcsrk ~ Pitkih County, Colorado Any pertinent, data must accompany this application, and will be made part of this .Case No. The Soarfl may return this application if it :does not contain all 'the facts in question. Applicant's description of proposed variance showing justification:, Mr. Ron Harris 'has recently purchased an existing single family residence located on Lot 8, Knollwood Subdivision. His purchase was, in part, based on the square footage notation on the as-built working drawings which indicated a total floor area below. the allowable F.A.R. (0.16 to ,1). Upon examination, it was determined that the residence was, in fact, in excess of the aNowable F.A.R. Mr. Harris wishes variance to construct an 80 sq. ft. bathroom space to the house. In addition to other physical alterations. planned-for the interior, we will be deleting t28 sq. ft. of existing space, thus the resulting floor area will be less than exists. We appreciate your consideration for variance in .this case. ' Applicant Signature Larry YaW for Ronald rri Provisions of"the zoning resolution; requiring .the Building Inspector to, forward this .application to the Board of Adjustment and reason for not granting a buding;permit: ~>~ _ ,~i~,,.,cQ~! luilding Inspector~a~ / p~a~ Date Permit reTectede Application filed Board decision Date Mailed Secretary Board of Ad ustment I ..+ Adjacent Property Owners Lot 8, Block 5 -Harris K nol l wood Lots 7 E 9, Block 5 R.G.B. Construction Co. 222 South Bemiston Clayton, Missouri 63105 Lot 52, Mt. Valley 2nd Filing Miller, Jack S. DeBlois, Amelie Z. Box 4285 Box 11656 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Basler, Erwin J. and Helen V. Thomasen, Harry G. 2901 Highland Drive Thomasen, J.F. Northbrook, Illinois 60062 No. 7 Collins Island, Balboa Island, CA 82662 Lot 20, First Filing Heyman, Juliane M. 653 Cieneguitas Santa Barbara, California 93110 ~i~nni~ ~,r t y V 'ls J ,~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves u c. r, eoa[a ,. e. a c. co. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PITKIN COUNTY JULY 17, 1984 Members Present: Dottie Fox, Acting Chairperson Paul Krauach Joe Zanin 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 that Timroth was in an RS-30 zone which allows a 12' height half-way between the ridge and the eave 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 3-1/2 feet over a pad distance of approximately 10', so that in the wihter 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, ao he put the same pitch on his garage which raises his height on the south aide. He measured and found that the total height now Sa 19', which means that he is requesting a 2' height variance. If he lowered the roofline, then the eave 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 stop work order was placed on the structure. He then made application but continued the construction of the garage without following up on the permit ar picking the permit up. He stated that it was not finished, but the walls 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 discription of the. submitted plans. Krauach 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 the other aide, he was cramped for apace. He stated that he could not widen the driveway and build another garage without pushing it into the County Road. Krauach 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 past with a 6/12 pitch. If he was not allowed the variance he would not have the garage. _, RECO~tD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves C. i. x0[C [Fl e. 9 t, 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 Timroth what hardships the Board could work with when granting a variance. Krausch moved to deny the request €or 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. John R. & Pat R. Zollinger, Lot 33, Swiss Village 84-26 requesting a 7.5' sideyard setback variance and a 9' rearyatd 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 homepwners that feel the proposed structure was ok. Zanin moved to grant a 7-1/2' sideyard 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 Chefan 84-27 Lot 102, Starwood 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 Starwood designated the building site when it was first platted, but zoning changed after that. After deducting the required setbacks there was no lot left. Starwood agreed to relocate the building site. Seigle had a topo map of the property to 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 Bill 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 Starwood, it was an appropriate request. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Y N C. I. MO[CY.LL L. L. 1 L L0. July 17, 1984 Board of Ad~uatment 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 road. Fox felt that a redesigned structure could fit dnto 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 conai'stent 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 Che 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 dealt'. 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•,~stated 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 80 aq.ft. addition of a bath, with a deletion of 128 sq.ft. of existing space. Larry Yaw was there to represent owner. The house was built 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. _- RECORD OF-PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves + x c. r. xo¢xn r. a. s v. ca July 17, 1984 Board of Adjustment Fage 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 in 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 being. renovated 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 discussion 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 space habitable a series of several things would have to 'occur. Fox questioned if the Building Department had control to the point not to 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, {{i / /l_G r'~J~ r~. /77 ~~u~ ~ ` ~j Chairman .Scanned 9/.19/07 File Finders Box #11 LARGE PLAT(S) AVAILABLE TO VIEW AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AVAILABLE TO BUY AT CLERK & RECORDER