Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.81.39 Paul KrausclROVed that the following be adopted: BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTPIENT OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 81-39 Michael & Dorothy Herman, Lot C-25 Ridge of Red Mtn 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 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 and purpose of the Zoning Resolutions and the zoning maps. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the applicant's request for a 12 foot sideyard setback for a solar greenhouse. Additional conditions or restrictions: WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. Kandi Shaffr~gconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: Bill Mason - yes Paul Krausch - yes Clark Smyth - yes Bill Lukes - yes Kandi Shaffran - yes The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: September 29, 1981 The Board Adjustment o Pitkin County, o ' rado Attest: nnr j d~ ~ ~~m p~ Chairman V~~'~`~!'' I (~. . r. Secn tary County of Pitkin .~ ~o Date _ 19 `~ ~ ~ u Case~# ~ `~ Applicant i ~ ~; ~ ~ 1, ~2~ wl f^~1s~% Address Cpl ~J t~~a.~T ~~;~;t ,(Z~ ,~Sp~ ~. ~J~;n Owner i I '~~~~„'a,J O~cR Vt~~,n-tLl~~)Address 5.~~e Location of Property C,-'~-~ ched) Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made a part of this Case No. The Board ma_y return. this application if it does not contain all the facts in question. Appli(cant's'/description of pr~~op~o;Js~ed~~variance shoring justification: ~~. 3 ~~'~I- ,~~ K1~k-Q C,PQ.4.~.llJ~k-) ~ (lXtKi~. Q^^J[".C~ ~(,r~ C~~-,/'~~~ ~.v-c~~ S~.~i-w.eU _ ~-h,.~-c.~.,~ ~. ~,~c ~ .,..~!-~ `~~~-C~ ~r-~ ~-,,. LE-~~-Cl, ~-~~ . R-PPU ~ ~T S~k S F! ~~ ~ v~e...~,e. ~ C-L~{ (e~ssT~ 1 ~ ~3zfo~ ~~~~Jao ~ ~5, Applicant Signature ~ Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building Inspee}or to forward this application to the Board of Adjustment and reason for not granting a building permit: Building InsN. Signature " Date permit rejected: Board Decision Application Filed: Date: Mailed: Secretary, Board of Adjustment ~Al TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMEPfT ~Q~~g~ '`~ ~~ =-~- '" p ~~~~ (30~ 3g~s ~ ', ~~ Pe-~ ~ C.e~ . ~'/ 6' ~ ~~ C ~ ~ r !7O YC' ~Q~'~ ' ~P~ Cn;. ~ 161 v l~toa~(fi ; Nc~nk~ 2,~ qci ~ga~~-r Ne~v¢ ~p,~tj ; Cr~Q~~~ ~~, -_ ~--- ( ~~ , i ~p LEI r"II~1 i~SCrtN~ /} S PEn;~ C.~~` _ ,fir ~ ~ ~~ u% ~ ~ N1 ~ frlh"l_ ~c~ a'~ F /LAS G~ ~ e' IkP~ C~ F~Ibi~ l A: ~/ ~t~E1QQ4 REGORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1CC Loavos rav w e. r. xn¢xn e. e. s ~. ca PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT t September 29, 1981 Members Present: Bill Mason, Chairman Paul Krausch Clark Smyth Associates: Bill Lukes Kandi Shaffran Chairman, Bill Mason, called the meeting to order. Clark Smyth made a motion to accept the minutes from the last meeting, Kandi second the motion. All in favor, motion passed. It was reported that '4ichael Dumeresque, Lot C-26, Ridge of Red Mountain would not be coming before the Board at this particular time. No time was set for the future for this particular case. PRichael & Dorothy Herman, Lot C-25 Ridge of Red Mountain 81-39 requesting a 12 foot sideyard setback for a solar greenhouse. Michael Herman was there to represent himself. He described that he wanted to extend his deck out over the existing shed and square off the end. This would give him maximum solar gain. This point of the house does face exactly due south. It was determined that the deck would be built over the shed to produce a 90 degree angle. Bill Lukes wanted to know if they planned to enclose the deck with glass. 11r. Herman replied that they would be enclosing the deck with glass. Bill Lukes wanted to know if the existing deck was within the setback area. Bill P4ason wanted to know if the IIerman's had an approval from the Homeowners Association. 1-1r, Herman replied that they had approval and that someone was suppose to advise the Board by phone. Bill :Jason recommended that a letter be in the file from the Association. Paul Krausch questioned what direction the setback was needed. It was pointed out that it was actually a south-east direction. Bill Mason pointed out that it was small lots, not a standard R-30, but about 10,000 square foot lots. Bill Lukes wanted to know the hardship basis for applying for the variance. rlichael Herman replied that one, he would like to reduce his heating bill and, two, to get the maximum gain from the solar house this 90 degree angle is necessary, Bill Lukes questioned what Mr. Herman would do if he did not get the variance. Michael Herman did not know what the alternatives would be. Fie advised the Board that the shed was attached to the house when the house was built. It was determined that this construction would not extend beyond the present shed. ?dichael Herman then penciled in the wood- shed for the Board's information, Paul Krausch verified with Bill Mason that the house has never had a variance to be built. Clark Smyth felt that the fact it was a non-conforming lot made it a hard- ship and, also, the Board has the power to grant variances based on solar needs. Bill 6lason advised to move based on the solar. Paul Krausch agreed. Bill Lukes felt that the Herman-s main reason for needing the variance is not really based on legitimate reasoninm. He stated that the Herman's would still have the. same orientation and still have the area, it would just be a smaller amount of greenhouse 00005 . _ ~_ _,- N° 52 ! RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1GG Leaves ~ raga c. r. xnaxu r.ae i. ca Board of Adjustment September 29, 1981 Paul Krausch did not have a problem if the variance was based on size and shape of the lot. Kandi Shaffran agreed. Paul Krausch moved to allow the variance based on the size and shape of the lot. Kandi Shaffran second the motion. Clark Smyth wanted to amend the motion due to the fact that as stated, the motion would allow the Herman's to add space to the house which could be done at another portion of the house and not require a variance. The fact that the Herman's need this particular space is because it is solar space and Clark felt that should be included. Paul Krausch said that he did not want to set a precedent of letting people add whatever they want to just because they want to put solar anpli- cation on their homes. Clark Smyth stated that the motion should inclu3e both reasons. Paul Krausch moved to approve the variance based upon the fact that it is an application for an addition to take advantage of solar access which is only possible facing the south, but that the variance be based upon the fact of the irregular shape of the lot. Bill Lukes commented that there was no documention that this is the size of greenhouse that is required to perform the desired function. All in favor. P.4otion passed. David Grusin, Lot 6, Block 1, Red Mountain Ranch 81-40 requesting a 5 foot rearyard variance to add a deck onto the house presently under construction. Robin :Moyer was there to represent the Grusins. Moyer explained that the Grusins had already been through a long process with the Homeowners Association relative to siting this house on the property. The Association insisted that the house be sat back approximately 84 feet from the front line. The reasoning for this was to save the stand of brush oak. Moyer read a letter from Jack Barker and the Homeowners Association regarding this siting of the house. This creates the need for a variance to put a deck outside the living room of the house. The lot is steep in this area. It was determined that the Grusins had an excavation permit at this time. It was also determined that the Grusins could get a 6' deck without a variance, however, the deck would be under the overhang. Mrs. Dodge was there as an adjacent property owner to object to this variance request. She explained that she had had discussions with P,4r. Barker of the Red Mountain Ranch Homeowners Association but since she was not a member her property was not taken into consideration when siting the location of the Grusin's house on the property. She had submitted a letter to the Board of Adjustment explaining her position. The Dodge property sits below the property of the Grusins. The Dodges plan to build an art studio on their property and the Grusin's deck would invade on the privacy of the studio where Mrs. Dodge's son would be working, r,Irs. Dodge complained that residents not in subdivision associations should not be victims of these associations. Paul Krausch wanted to know how close ~.4rs. Dodge was to the Grusin property. hlrs. Dodge was not sure how close the proposed studio would be to the Grusin deck. It was determined that the studio would be half way between the Dodge house and the Grusin property. a i a. x~ s3 aooo~ ! RECORD OF PROCEEC~NGS 100 Leaves rar« w e. r. «aa«n r. e. s c, ca Board of Adjustment September 29, 1981 Bill Rlason questioned Mr. Moyer about moving the house 8 feet back to Red Road. 9loyer pointed out that the excavation had already been i done. Bill Mason stated that the Board had always gone along with Homeowners Association, but when the Association abuses someone that has no control, the Board has the right to over rule the Association. Moyer explained that they could not move the house back because of the excavation and the fact that they would get into a law suit with the ' Association. It was determined that the deck had always been in the i house plans. Bill Lukes realized that the house was designed especially for the size of the building site designated to the Grusins and he did not feet that the size of the deck was excessive, however, he felt that the Association was taking advantage of the Dodges and he was concerned over this. Paul Krausch felt that the Board had no choice but to provide the variance due to the hardship that the Grusins was placed with, but with the understanding that the Board of Adjustment request the Red Mountains Homeowners Association to reconsider their decision because of the hardship placed upon the Dodges and they consider paying for the relocation of the foundation for the house. Bill Lukes disagreed with this. He felt that the Board had a re- sponsibility to respond to the adjacent property owners because they are the people impacted. He did not feel a strong obligation to grant a variance based on unusual requirements for other parts of the property. Bill Lukes made the suggestion that an evaluation be made to see what difference moving the house 8 feet would make on the impact to the Dodge's studio. Robin i4oyer made the suggestion that the Board members come to the site and make an inpsection. The members were agreeable to this. Paul Krausch asked Mrs. Dodge when they were planning to build the studio. This was not know at that time. Mrs. Dodge wanted to know if there were any way that the Board of Adjustment could discuss this situation with the Homeowners Association, Bill Mason suggested that P+ir. Barker could join them in making a site inspection. He also suggested that ",4rs. Dodge join them also. Clark Smyth felt that there was a legal problem with the Board being able to grant a variance. There is not a topographical reason that the house cannot be moved back, nor is the lot exception- aly narrow to prevent it being moved back. If not for the Homeowners Association and the excavation that has been done the Board Would probably tell them to move the house back 8 feet and he did not fell that the Board could act just because the Homeowners Association created the hardship. Paul Krausch felt that the Board could grant a variance due to the hardship-the Association put on the Grusins. Moyer stated that the house could not be moved back at any rate because the house was designed to fit into this space of the lot. It was not originally designed to be this way but due to the fact that they were pushed into this area the house had been redesigned. Moyer then read from the Homeowners Association covenant stating that "the architectual committee shall establish the setback re- quirements from the front lot line." 000007 ~' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves rpn+ u c. r. ho[au s. e. a [. ce. Board of Adjustment Septemer 29, 1981 Bill Mason then read the Powers and Duties of the Board of Adjustment. It was stated that the Board could decide based on narrowness, ' shallowness or shape of property, topographical conditions, or ~ extradornary or exceptional physical characteristics not created by the applicant subsequent to the adoption of the regulations. Bill Mason stressted the point of not created by the applicant. He also pointed out to the Board that the applicant did not create # the problem, however, the applicant was a part of a body that did create the problem. Robin Moyer showed to the Board that there was another deck on the house that was approximately another 20 feet closer to the Dodge house but within the setback regulation. Be pointed out that the Dodges were objecting to a deck that was 20 feet behind another deck. Clark Smyth was still questioning the legal rights that the Board had in granting the variance. Bill 14ason agreed saying that he wasn't sure that a variance could be granted under a hardship that was created by someone else. Bill R4ason then questioned Patsy Newbury what the County Attorney's opinion was. Patsy stated that the County Attorney, Sandy Stuller, does not feel there is a hardship. Paul Krausch disagreed stating that the applicant did not create the hardship, but that the Homeowners Association did. Clark Smyth still felt that legally the Board of Adjustment could not grant a variance for this parti- cular case. Paul Krausch stated that he would like to get an opinion from Sandy Stuller on the subject whether or not this Board has the right to provide a variance for someone whom has been put• in a position like this because of local building requirments and covenants of Red Mountain Homeowners Association. Clark Smyth would second that. Bill Mason felt that would be the best thing to do, Mrs, Dodge would be notified of this meeting. 1lrs. Dodge wanted to know if the Board would be meeting to do a site inspection. Bill ^.Iason replied that they would not, they would meet with Sandy Stuller first and see if the Board had any rights to act in this matter. But that the members would be going up on their own to look at the property. It was decided that, if Sandy Stuller was free, the members would meet at 3:30 the following day to discuss this case. Bill Lukes moved to table this motion until legal opinion is received from the County Attorney at 3:30 p.m. Wed. 30, 1981, Clark Smyth second the motion. All in favor, T;dward A. Lewis, Lot 20 Little Texas S/D 19oody Creek 81-35 requesting a 10' sideyard setback variance to construct a single family residence. This case was tabled from the meeting of September 15, 1981, due to the fact that a sign was not posted. Roger Kerr was representing l;dward Lewis. This sign has now been posted. Kerr explained that the required setbacks are 30' on the sideyards and the lot is 75' which would leave 15' of buildable property. They would like a 10' variance on the sideyards, There were no objections from the adjacent property owners. Patsy explained to the members that the lots are very small and non-conforming. Clark Smyth motioned to allow 10' sideyard setbacks based on the exceptional narrowness of the lot. Bill Lukes second. All in favor. N° 55 000:008 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Board of Adjustment September 29, 1981 Jay F. Halliday, E1 Rancho Deluxe S/D Lot 2 Sect 9 81-37 requesting a 80' frontyard setback variance and a 10' sideyard setback variance to construct an underground storage building, Mr, falliday was there representing himself. This case was tabled from the meeting of September 15, 1981, due to the fact that no one was at the meeting to represent this case. Tt was determined that there was no objections from the adjacent property owners. Jay showed to the Board members where his present home was located on the property. He explained that the zoning of the property when it was first purchased was R-15. He explained that he always called the ~,rystal River his frontyard line and the Building Department calls the access the frontyard. This determination is what creates a problem for him as far as being in his setbacks. He wanted to push the building in the bank so the flat area could be used as corral. The building will practically be all underground, just the front will be exposed. The roof will be covered with dirt. Jay informed the Board that subdivision has been done on this property and a 100 year flood plain had been established, The zoning at this time is AF-1. Bill Mason questioned Patsy Newbury as to whether this would fall under downzoning. Patsy replied that it definitely would. Clark Smyth moved to grant the variance based on topographical considerations and extreme narrowness of the lot. Kandi Shaffran second the motion. All in favor. Bill Mason adjourned the meeting. Respectfully submitted: 2t ^c { Secretary #~ N° 56 U00009