Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.85.27BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DI?TE "~C-rat- /tom 19 ~~~ CASE# ~ji-~-] 1,;, .=~~y~~j APPLICANT ll~. ~-I-I~'~~ ADDRESS \~~~C'.1~1 `p, ~i(,It~ OWNER~~I_{~GS[ ~1L.~~'ti~ ADDRESS~~~_~F.~l~~ \12AiL ~-1t`,G-~ car.-1 f-l.ll. LOCATION OF PROPERTY ~(TjL~, ~~xf~" Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part 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 jusci.ficationc ~1-~' IAkb ~l+d~tF~1c.~,.. ~P7 ~.c.',A~.t~yF c'/1' ~tllE... •',P~..~p~1.._ C~~V ~.,~p,;=1E- ~Jf-~ _":iJ~ 1.+4~.~I;ig~- <'LV.~t. Y~"C LsCN!E~JiE- ^"k~~- 1C>O~ G~('tyfG".IG-. ~y~`~G 'f~1 ~ ~l:~t~~ ~~%' -FL~~~IIA'T'F.~ 'fl^GS~- ~T mac.` t=~uk'~'~ `:AIL - .~ _., t; ,.., „F. !' Y Prp , 4 , ;_ (_., ~ ~~ ~ Applicant Signature ll Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building Inspector to forward this application to the Board of Adjustment and reason for not granting a huiding~/permit: /~s~ Date Permit rejected: Application filed Mailed Building Inspecto /,. Board decision Date Secretary Board of Adjustment ", .~ . ----_ • • ~~~~G~ ~~ .~~` ^~3 ~~ f,~ ~~'~~ ~ ~~ fir. ~` ~,vG-~ CX~~ ~°- ~~~ ~r ~~~ 2ti'7~' ~2cj3 -~_,h_,~u~- ~~ 3~ ~ ~ y,~ G~. ~'~ ~ ~t~Z ~'~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~2 ~ ~ ~,~~ ~a ~~ ~> ,~ 4~ ~ ~,,C~i2 6~ ~~ ~~ 2 ~~ ~. ~a~',' ~r,~,rZ ~~ ... , PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT September 24, 1985 MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Krausch Kandi Shaffron Joe Zanin Bill Lukes Spiro Niarhos Peter Dobrovolny Bill Mason Bob Throm Patsy Newbury, zoning official, was present to give staff recom- mendations. Case #85-24; Albert Kern Mr. Kern has applied for a variance to put a carport on the north end of his property. Mr. Kern showed the Board some pic- tures of where he wants the carport. He wants the carport over the place where he now parks his cars. He advised the Board that the house is built on a 50~ grade. The site is within the setback liimits. The proposed site does not obstruct view and due to the topography is the most logical place. The height of the garage will be lower than the level of the road. It is the best site for the carport since it will not be obstructing the view. The carport will only be closed in on the north side. He advised the Board that he had put a variance request sign in place and that he had not had any complaints from his neighbors. After minor discussion, Kandi Shaffron moved to approve the variance. Paul Krausch seconded the motion and it passed. Case #85-25; Thomas Stewart Mr. Stewart is requesting a 29 foot sideyard setback on Lot BB6 on the North Fork Road up the FryingPan to build a garage. Mr. Stewart advised the Board that the site he picked out is the only logical one and that he would not have to cut down any trees and it would be the most convenient place. He advised that if he were to put it anywhere else he would have to cut some trees down. Mr. Stewart advised the Board that there was a variance sign in place on the property. Bill Mason advised the Board that he received a letter from the Greens, neighbors of Mr. Stewart. The Greens were present at the meeting and Mr. Mason asked them if they would like to volun- teer any information that was not in the letter. Mr. Green advised Mr. Mason to go ahead and they would then make a few comments. They wished to protest the site for the garage. A copy of a phone conversation was read into the minutes. Their letter in opposition to the site of the garage was also read into the record. Four reasons they cited as reasons for their oppo- sition to the site are: la the structure is presently under -1- construction and is presently sitting 12 feet into their proper- ty; 2) their conversations with Stewart indicated that he would move the garage, but so far has not; and 3) they pointed out five alternate sites where the garage could be located; 4) the proper- ty is flat and several trees have been cut to do the construc- tion. Mr. Mason then asked Mr. Stewart if he had any comments or arguments with anything contained in the letter. Mr. Stewart said that he agreed with everything in the letter. He advised that the whole thing came up when he thought he knew where the property line was. He also said that when Mr. Green told him that the garage could be on his property, he stopped construction and began investigating the possibility. He said he did discover that he was in fact on the Greens' property. Bob Throm questioned the Greens as to where the structure was in relation to their house. A discussion ensued regarding the location of the structure. Mr. Mason then asked Patsy Newbury if she had any comments. She advised that she didn't feel the trees were that important in that area and felt the lot was flat and there are other areas where it could be built. A discussion was held, while looking at the lot plans, on the different areas where this garage could be built. Mr. Stewart was asked if he could build the garage on two other sites, according to the map, and he advised that he would have to cut down some large pine trees. His concern is not being able to turn into the garage without having to cut don more trees to make a turnaround. The Greens did not agree with Mr. Stewart's concern with cutting trees and the problem of parking. Mr. Green presented the Board with some pictures. He said that Mr. Stewart had a local Basalt contractor build the garage and he himself is a contractor in Texas and should know that you cannot violate property lines. The Greens have worked hard on their property to meet the codes and thought Mr. Stewart just wanted it where it is and that's the way it would be. Mr. Green advised the Board that he and his father went to the property and found three good sites on the otherside of the driveway that could hold the garage. Mr. Green expressed the fear that since the garage is so close to their house, if there were a fire in the garage, they wouldn't have time to respond. There is also a power line and water line that could be knocked out if there were a fire and they wouldn't have any water power. Mr. Green also thought the property was too conjested. As a final comment, Mr. Green said that for Mr. Stewart to say he couldn't build the garage any other place is totally false. He built a toolshed behind his house that is blended in so well you can't tell that it was recently built and the Greens haven't objected to that. Mrs. Green reiterated that their main concerns was the fire hazard. They also have a picnic area which is very close to the garage and they don't like that either. Mr. Mason asked Mrs. Newbury what the setback was and she advised that it was 30 feet. Mr. Mason said that from what he's heard from Mrs. Newbury regarding the other building sites in the -2- area and that it could be put in an area ante, he doesn't feel there is a hardship Stewart agreed that it was not a hardship to not grant the variance since there was seconded the motion. Motion was passed. 85-26; Bob & Silvia Morrison not requiring a vari- for Mr. Stewart. Mr. case. Mr. Zanin moved no hardship. Mr. Lukes Bob Morrison has requested an 8 ft. setback variance on Redstone Blvd, to put an addition on his antique shop. He wants to add to the existing building but needs to go out a feet further to the north and will keep the same plane on the build- ing. It has been approved by the Historical Society. He then showed the Board what the new building addition would look like. The entire front would be redone. Mrs. Newbury advised the board that he was already at 25 feet and wanted to reduce it to 20 feet. There have been no objections from adjacent property owners. Mrs. Newbury said she understood that there could be objec- tions from someone. He introduced a positive letter from the Country Store. There were no comments from the people at the meeting. Mrs. Newbury said that the public library already sits out further on that lot. The County rents the building for the library from the Morrisons. The building already existed and the County rented it from them. When the property was first zoned it was zoned tourist for some reason, Mrs. Newbury advised the Board. It was changed back to business which is the proper zone. It is a non-conforming structure and that is why they are before the Board. Mrs. Newbury has a reservation about a 30 foot set- back in the business zone. There are other businesses on the road edge and it will not have a considerable effect on the area. Mr. Mason said that because the residents of Redstone are very vocal and since they hadn't received any negative calls or let- ters, then the residents must be willing to accept the addition. Paul Kraush moved to grant a ten foot variance based upon the irregular shape of the lot. Mr. Lukes seconded. Motion passed. #85-27; Ernest Alson, Little Texas Mr. Alson is requesting a front yard variance in Little Texas. His house is right on the river. Wayne Landis, Mr. Alson's son-in-law, was present to present the case. Because all of the lots in Little Texas are long and skinny, it's hard to comply with the zoning and so the need for a variance. They have tried to stay within the 30 foot sideyard setback. Mr. Lukes moved to grant a 62 foot frontyard variance and a 2 foot sideyard variance due to the irregular shape of the lot. Mr. Zanin seconded the motion and it passed. 85-22; C.A. Killinosworth Mr. Killingsworth wants to build a garage on his property. The lot is very irregular and he needs a 15 foot variance. The -3- house is now 30 feet from the property line. There have been no comments from any of the neighbors. Mr. Killingsworth was asked what his objection would be to have a detached garage. Mr. Killingsworth said that it would block everything out. Some of the other neighbors have garages and one recently had to get a variance. Mr. Zanin moved to grant a 16 foot variance due to the irregular shape of the lot. Mr. Throm seconded the motion and it passed. Meeting adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, '-'hC~u ~c' - C`. a-r~~CL ~C Secretary Chainran ~~/~7 --7 -4- Scanned 10/9107 File Finders Box #11 LARGE PLAT(S) AVAILABLE TO VIEW AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AVAILABLE TO BUY AT CLERK & RECORDER