Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.84.30 , , BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DATE J/...LL. 'I. 1"7 19 !2:L CASE# [:>.'-1-,30 APPLICANT \ )AJJ~T /ll~ tV tE: ADDRESS 'BO)c 9;/3'12. , /kpw 0J / Jf1 )JET /Y!{)/v7E " . . OWNER ADDRESS LOCATION OF PROPERTY OlI~'Jl g nw:)v'YltL~S GetiC ~D, Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part of this Case No. The Board may return this application if it does not contain all the facts in question. Applicant's description of proposed variance showing justification: There are three factors that limit the placement of Pole Shed (three sided shelter for horses) . 1. The shed should be built on the west side of the house. This way the horses will be protected from the north winds and be visable from the house. One of the horses is 2 months old and should be watched especially through the first winter. 2. The shape of the land and the land and the terrain is limiting. The north side is irrigated land and wet and pitched so that the water drains toward the county road. , 3., There is a, leach field Applicant Signatur~~ ~ and sept1c system d1rectly behind the house. provisions of the~oning resolution requiring the Building Inspector to forward this application to the Board of Adjustment and reason for not granting a'buiding permit: JL ~~"-)""--~_~~~K5'- 3ttJ, Jh~CA-jauL/ ^){7/~6""-7 A-/<~d/ .-<-~> /~ fi ~d~. ft~L/ ./tUZA-/.-"-~.Lf S~);'L-C- (/ I- Date Permit rejected: >f'L.<.1 I=; v II Building 'n"p."'O~i C~7J _ Board decision Application filed Date Mailed Secretary Board of Adjustment lln r,,...#..ry \..1" , ~ ",~ ....... .,. iiIi.. - Bob Throm moved that the following be adopted: BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 84-30 Janet Monte, 2129 Snowmass Creek Road WHEREAS, the subject property is within the unincorporated area of Pitkin County, Colorado; and, MiEREAS, 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. Grantin~ 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 20' front yard setback variance for construction of three-sided shed Additional conditions or restrictions: to place the structure as close to the leach field as feasible WAfu~ING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. Dottie Fox seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: Bill Mason - yes Bill Lukes - yes Dottie Fox - yes Paul Krausch - yes Bob Throm - yes The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED, Augus t 28, 1984 The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado Attest: gYLCh~ _~'-,~""-'. l2~"~"T>---- Secr~tary C,,,,,,,,loo""l \J\.S '.j',# . " - - - - - ~~~ !l po 2;(} ~ r. 7 ~ C6- f/{p{~ --1 ~s ,"&.D~d 3~ ~4 ~. ~ I c.J2. q t./ Q20 -------.: - ~- --- L <f (j; C' c'(~ L..- RoC; ~ f6Q b~ 9(p3 ~o-JJJ CO 'Gl(O~Y l~~: ~~ ~~~-::1 ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ~ <0 C, F. HOreKEL 8. 8. " L, <';0. PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 28, 1984 Members Present: Bill Mason, Chairman Bill Lukes Dottie Fox Paul Krausch Alternates: Peter Dobrovo1ny Evan Gull Kandi Shaffran Bob Throm Bill Mason called the meeting to order. Mason questioned if there were any questions or corrections to make to minutes from the last meeting. He suggested that a motion be made regarding the Knudson application. There were no conIDents from the public regarding the sign posted. Bob Throm moved to approve the minutes as written and noted that no protest was heard regarding Mr. Knudson and therefore the variance was granted. Krausch second the motion. A vote was taken and all were in favor. Janet Monte 84-30 2129 Snowmass Creek Road, requesting a 20' sideyard setback variance for construction of a pole barn. Monte was returning to the Board this month after making sure the notification sign had been properly posted on her month. She was originally on the July 31, 1984, agenda. Monte explained that her property had an odd shape and the variance was necessary to place the shed in a location visible from her house and to keep the horses away from the swampy area of her property. She explained that the barn needed to be on the North side. She pointed out the leach field, where the property was very rocky, and the irrigated portion of the property. She also explained that the back of the barn needed to face North for the horses protection and she wanted to keep the front of the shed toward her house to keep them visible. There were no objections from the neighbors. The proposed shed is three-sided and 12' x 24' (high enough for the horses). It was determined that she needed a 20' front yard setback variance based on where the access is taken on the property. The Board members discussed what the reason could be for granting the variance. They all agreed that the use was reasonable. Lukes felt that the buildings would be properly clustered on the property as proposed by Monte. Gull felt that there were no hardships involved and the setbacks should be adhered to has set forth by the County Land Code. Monte reiterated the need for having the back of the shed toward the north and the importance that she be able to keep an eye on her horses during storms and such. Lukes questioned if she would be willing to move the shed as close to the leach field as possible. She stated that she would. Krausch felt that the Board had no legal grounds to grant the variance. Shaff ran felt it was a reasonable use of the land but was unable to come up with legal grounds also. Lukes felt that the Board could make spot decisions in cases the BDCC could not have taken into consideration when the zoning was first determined. Throm moved to grant the variance based on the irregular shape of the lot and its north facing attributes. Lukes proposed an amendment that the variance be granted up to 20' and that the stable be located as close to RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves < <. c.~, ~OECHL B. e. It \, ~,J. Augus t 28, 1984 Board of Adjustment Page 2 the leach field as is practical. Monte agreed. Fox second the motion with the amendment. A vote was called for and all were in favor. Mason questioned if the remaining applicants had properly posted the notification sign. All had. James M. Ferguson 84-31 Lots 11 & 12, Block 4, Chair Mountain Ranch Subdivision, requesting a 20' front yard setback variance and a 15' sideyard (north) setback variance for construction of residence. James Ferguson was there to represent self. He explained that Lot 12 had a slight rise where he proposed to place the structure which would be screened by a row of trees. Mason questioned what the original setbacks were when the subdivision was originally subdivided. Ferguson felt that it had been less than what was required now. Ferguson had no plans to sell Lot 11. Krausch questioned why he did not want to place the structure more in the center of the two lots. Mason felt that in the future there may be a chance to sell the lot. Ferguson stated that Lot 11 was basically all evergreen trees and produced too much shade for any potential solar benefits. Ferguson stated that the property was not dead flat. Krausch moved to provide the variance as requested due to downzoning. Mason added that Ferguson stay within the original setbacks as set forth in the original subdivision. Gull questioned if another variance for the Highway 131 setback would be necessary. Mason felt that if they specified that Ferguson stay within the original covenance it would cover the Highway 133 seto3ck. Krausch amended his motion to read that the variance be for any setback as they may exist. Fox second the motion. A vote was called for and all were in favor. Park Meadows Condo 84-32 21873 W. Highway 82, requesting a variance to place a sign on the property. Richard Davis was there to represent the Condominium Association. He explained that they would be replacing the existing sign with this new, appealing sign. Mason questioned if the sign conformed to the Pitkin County Land Use Code sign ordinance. Colette Penne was there from the Planning Department and pointed out that sign was too large. Gull felt that the Board member's role was to look at sign requests once they conform with the code requirements and personally did not want to review a sign variance when the area of the sign was oversized. Mason agreed. Davis read from the code the information he used when determining the sign size allowed. Colette Penne pointed out the difference he has proposed and what is allowed. Fox questioned the proposed lighting and felt it was more than the new sign code allowed. Mason suggested that Davis talk with Patsy Newbury of the Building Department and also suggested that the Board table this issue until such time he has brought his sign into conformance. Mason and Fox reminded Davis to place a notification sign nine days prior to the next meeting he plans to attend visible to the general public. Fox moved to table the issue until a later date. Lukes second the motion. All in favor. Meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted / / " i" ' ( Ill. J ;:2,), ,...."......, ~ m/ $Ufiv Chaiman Scanned 9/19/07 File Finders Box #11