Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.85.09 Evan Gull moved that the following be adopted: BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION N0.85-09 E.T. Jones, 1038 Owl Creek 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, 30-28-118(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 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 substan- tial 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 28' frontyard setback variance and a 10' rearyard setback for addition to residence Additional conditions or restrictions: WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. Peter Dobrovolny second the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: Paul Krausch - yes Peter Dobrovolny - yes Kandi Shaffran - yes Evan Gull - yes Spero Niarhos - yes The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: ~~ 3p ~ \~1?,S The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado Attest: ,:C~-~ ~ :-cam \C, Secretary Chairman J ~: - • BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • 19 1.~-ZY CASE# ~~' ~~ DATE APPLICANT ~ ~~ ~1 C {~-~ CS ADDRESS /O ~ `f O ~~ ~ C 1Z~~Y~ pp l~ ~~ ~ OWNER ~ -~ J ~ {V ~S ADDRESS ~ 9as- ~3ao8 LOCATION OF PROPERTY ~ (,.~ I C 1~ ~ ~=K ~ ~ Y~-d,7 Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part of this Case No. The Board may return this in question. Applicant's justification: application if it does not contain all the facts description of proposed variance showing ;~ ~~~/ ~/,-r' ~Lfidt~ r~ 7 ~a rlt .~~~fi~,~~ ,~~~ yet ~ ~* 55l (p -Y-ia~s C"T Applicant Signature .~ ~ /2E-~ Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building inspector to forward this application to the. Board of Adjustment and reason for not granting a buiding permit: ~" p - r y.~ .~u.~ 1L2~[-eti ..~~ ~~z'e ~C~ ~/ - ~ ~ti^~ic-~c..rG' - a~ ~i'/ ~t~~~~fza,+~aZ..~ ~~/ Date Permit rejected: Application filed Mailed Building Inspector Board decision Date Secretary Board of Adjustment ~..,...,..n v a,~if ~G Q.LGY11 - _ -- -- - - ~f- -.- _._ .~gh1Y.~2-9 % _ - -1-' ~ ~ ~-C~,..` +.1.) W4~-~~.t1 /1rvl.p t~ _. W2~ . __ _ __ I ~,~~ o~~ . 6ouri+w,e a ~,llL,, G~1txxtl ums~ .was .E~ ~'llfo'if 7'73G1U ,,,..,.r,~~3 (z.r.., ~~,~., 1 ~ne~ ~i7~ ~' f I~J~ BOARD OF ADJUSTMBNT PITKIN COUNTY April 30, 1985 Members Present: Paul Krausch, Acting Chairman Alternates: Evan Gull Kandi Shaffran Peter Dobrovolny Spero Niarhos Krausch called to order the regular meeting of the Pitkin County Board of Adjustments. He questioned if there were any comments or additions to the minutes from the last meeting. Gull moved to approve the minutes. Krausch second the motion. A vote was taken and all were in favor. Ronald Parker 85-07 Lot 5, Block 9, Filing 1; Brush Creek Village, requesting a 35' frontyard setback variance for conat~ruction of residence. Also, up to 80' of the driveway retaining wall may be over 6' height within the 100' frontyard setback required. Charles Cunniffe was there to represent the owner. Re pointed out the proposed location of the house on the plot plan. He explained that the lot was landlocked from the three other sides with regard to accessibility and was exceptionally steep. The other part of the lot is mancos shell and unbuildable. There has been a very dramatic driveway cut to get to that area of the lot. Dobrovolny questioned the present grade of the driveway. Cunniffe stated is was approximately 5% to 6X, 6% to 8% in some spots. Attempts were made to make the cut as gentle as possible. They trying for the least visibility. The retaining.wall is 320 feet long. They are considering retention under the driveway to break the length. Gull felt there was clear topographic hardships. Cunniffe felt the proposed location was the only natural building spot. There was a mud slide potential and the owner and contractor were anxious to put the. retaining up as soon as possible. Niarhos wanted to know if the wall was .structural or crib. Cunniffe stated that it was crib. Niarhos questioned the ability of the wall to hold the road. Cunniffe explained that the wall was engineered. He showed a design of the wall and had plans to step the wall out to make more attractive. Krausch wanted to know specifically where the wall would be and the heights involved. Cunniffe could not give specifics. The homeowners association were strongly encouraging that the wall be placed as soon as possible. Shaffran wanted assurance that the owner would place the wall if the variance was given and there would be no danger to Brush Creek Road. Cunniffe stated that the owner was liable to the .homeowners association. Bruce Strand and Kathy Weisenberg was there as adjacent proper owners to question about the wall. They were concerned about drainage and looks. Cunniffe stated that there were a series of pipes that would run underneath the driveway and the moisture would be routed into gravel in the crib wall. Bruce also questioned the height of the wall. The highest spot at this time is 11'6". This is down from 22'. He explained they were trying for a series of terraces that could be planted up to hide the wall. Cunniffe was wanting to put a retaining wall'on the lower side of the road to act as a guardrail for when the roads are very muddy and dangerous. Dobrovolny did not have a problem with the frontyard setback for 1 the house, but was uncomfortable with the request for the wall. A better definition would be necessary for a decision to be made. Cunniffe said that he could not describe the wall because they have not developed the final answer yet. But due to the situation something had to be done immediately. Dobrovolny stated that the Board could say no and Cunniffe could build a series of 5'11-3/4" retaining. Cunniffe would like to do that to make more attractive, but was unsure that would work. Gull suggested that the Board set a limit they felt acceptable. Shaffran thought it might be best to look at the property. Krausch shared the concern of Dobrovolny. The wall would be timbers and landscaped. Strand was concerned about the life span of the wall. Cunniffe explained that was why they were concerned with getting the proper engineering to insure longevity. If they are limited to a certain height, there could be problems. Cunniffe felt that stepped terraces would be the best option. Strand thought that would be good. He was, relieved that the proposed location was the best ,and natural spot and not just chosen for the view since it has created such a cut in the area. Krausch suggested that a limit be given to each section of wall. Dobrovolny wanted to know why the wall height could not be determined now. Cunniffe stated that the subdivision road is mainly on fill and some of the .fill changes character. The engineers will not give him a definite answer as to what will be necessary to retain the road. A site visit would not help because of the unknown character of the soil underneath. Cunniffe suggested a 10' limit for each section of wall and if the wall needed to go higher, they could step back and plant it out. Krausch and Gull were agreeable to that suggestion. Gull moved to grant the 35' frontyard setback variance for the house and to allow the construction of the retaining walls in sections up to 10' in height. Horizontal separations will be 50X of the vertical separations. The hardship would be considered topo- graphical. Shaffran second the motion. A vote was called for and all were in favor. William & Janet Mohrman 85-08 0567 Twining Flats Road, requesting a 55' frontyard setback variance for construction of residence. This is 15' addition to a variance of 40' granted to Mohrman in 1983. Mohrman was there to represent self. Since taking a solar course, he now desires to build a solar conventional home. The original design in 19Q3 was a log house. During the solar class he was advised to locate the house on an east-west access to expose the glass part of the house to the southern sun. By changing the design, and the need for a garage it1 the future, he is requesting the additional 15' towards the road. There is a slope in the rear of the property and Mohrman hopes it will act as a reflector in the winter months. Jim Ward was there in support of Mohrman's request. Hal Clark sent a note to the Board giving support too. Shaffran moved to grant the request due to solar orientation and topographical hardship. Dobrovolny felt that the difference the additional 15' would make is insignificant. Mohrman explained that the garage was originally intended for the rear of the house but was unacceptable to his wife because it took up too'much yard. Gull pointed out that the hardships obvious in the original variance were still there. Krausch did not feel there was a problem as there were no objections from the neighbors. Shaffran could see Dobrovolny's point that there was no real harclsh.ip for this particular request. After reviewing the plot plan, Gull did not feel that an amendment to the original variance was necessary based on the information that has been brought before the Board. Dobrovolny needed to see the site and graphic difference in sun availability between the structure with the variance and without the variance to convince him there is sufficient difference to justify an amendment to the original 2 variance. Gull pointed out that if Mohrman was going for the maximum amount of sun gain the house would be pushed out and not the garage. Mohrman was thinking of making the garage an employee unit someday, which would be solar at that time. Shaffran withdrew her motion due to the questions raised by Dobrovolny. Krausch wanted to know if a.variance had to be granted at this time for the future garage., Mohrman wanted insurance that he would be able to build the garage. It was determined that the location was the only reasonable spot for the garage if Mohrman did come in at a later date. Mohrman had plans to glaze one wall of the garage for solar access and a greenhouse effect. Dobrovolny now questioned granting a variance for a future structure that's use was in question. Krausch suggested that the application be tabled and Mohrman redesign the proposed structure. Shaffran wasn't sure that would help. If he redesigned there would probably not be a need for a variance. Gull didn't think the proposed plans were maximizing the solar orientation. Mohrman explained the system as planned using hot water heat. Dobrovolny still could not see sufficient hardship. Krausch-was in favor of the simple logic, pointed out the large hill in the rear of house, felt the garage was in logical. spot for parking cards and none of the neighbors objected. His opinion was that the lot was small and difficult to work with. Encouraged lot visit to convince the other members. The house had been staked in the winter. The members were willing to visit site. Shaffran worried that the garage was placed there for convenience. It was determined that they would meet the following Thursday, May 2, 1985, at 9:00 a.m., at the property. The application was tabled until that time. E.T. .zones 85-09 1038 Owl Creek, requesting a 65' frontyard setback variance and a 23' rearyard setback variance for an addition to residence. Jones was there to represent self. He explained that he was living in the old Owl Creek Schoolhouse and needed more space because of the three children. An addition of the bedroom created the need for one variance and expansion on the other side created the need for the second variance. A large drive in the front and steepness in the rear keeps Janes from addinglon those sides. The area is zoned for 10 acre lots and this lot'is 1/2 acre. Using the plot plan submitted to bhe Board, Jones clarified the additions that he planned. Dobrovolny did not have a problem with a request because the structure is encroaching the existing setbacks as it sits now and any additions would need a variance. Gull moved to approve a 28' frontyard setback variance and a 10' rearyard setback due to downzoning. The bedroom addition would not exceed the existing overhang. Dobrovolny second the motion. A vote was called for end all were in favor. The meeting was adjourned until Thursday morning for the site visit. 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PITRIN COUNTY SPECIAL MEETING Mav 2. 1985 Members present: Paul Krausch, Acting Chairman Alternates: Kandi Shaffran Evan Gull Peter Dobrovolny At 9:00 a.m., the members met at the site to view the stakes as placed by Mohrman showing the proposed structures. With the requested variance the garage would be 15 feet from the road. The members noted that the other houses were more in line with the original variance of 40' granted Mohrman. After viewing the property, Dobrovolny still did not feel that there was a hardship that justified the additional 15' variance. Gull thought that the original variance was in character with the lot size and the neighborhood. It was noted that the cars from the garage would back directly into the road if the additional variance was granted, possibly creating a safety hazard. Mohrman pointed out to the Board members that the 'road was pushed into his property. 1{e was against pushing the house further into the hill because he would lose afternoon sun. After viewing the lot, Krausch agreed with the other members that there was not justi- fication in granting the variance request. Shaffran could not find sufficient reason either. Shaffran moved to deny the variance request due to lack of a hardship. Dobrovolny second the motion. A vote was called for and all were in favor. The meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Chairman 1