Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.81.32Clark Smythmoved that the following be adopted: BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTPIENT OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 81-32 John Stewart, Lot #66, Elk ^.4ountain 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, 30-28-~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 adjorning 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 IT RESOLVED that the applicant's request for a 46 foot frontyard setback variance and, 25 foot sideyard setback variance for construction of a single family residence Additional conditions or restrictions: WARNING: .Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. Paul Krausctlseconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: Bill Mason - yes Dottie Fox - yes Paul Krausch - yes Clark Smyth - yes Joe Zanin - yes Bill Lukes - yes Robert Throm - yes Kandi Shaffran - yes The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: August 25, 1981 The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado Attest: ~- t ~~ l Secret} Chairman ~~~0~ c~ l3 '' ~EAL TO BOAP.D OF ADJUSTMEM1IT • County of Pitkin Date August 3, 1981 19 Case # ~l- 3'L 526 Foberts Cu 0 d. Applicant John. H. Stewart Address Ft. North, Texas 76114 Owner Seme Address Same Location of Property Lot #~66, Elk Mountain Subdivision, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. (Attached) Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made a part of this Case No. The Board may return this application if it does not contain all the facts in question. -Applicant's descri;{s±F-'~.,, - n •-ariance showing justification: Requesting variance from current requirement in order to a11oNr - residential building (plot plan enclosed) to be .erected according ~" = to."Declaration of Restrictions, Reservations and Covenants Affecti.n~ Elk Moun~a.in Subdivision in Pitkin County, Colorado", recorded July 28,1964, as Document No. 118345 of the records of Pitkin County, Colorador i Applicant Signature~~ ZL/~` _~ Provisions of she zoning resolution requiring the Buil n Insp~etor to forward this „sylaJ.iratiQn_tn ,the Rnard_ of Adjustment and reason for gra tin~g ~a building perm' , \~~ 8uiloing Insp. Si ature "";jets T:ermit-7ej~ecteri. Board Decision Application Filed: Mailed: Date: Secretary, Board of Adjustment COUNTY TREASURER C~ ° _ AUG111981 ~~/°z~~`/ PITKIN COUNTY ~ ~,~ v 7tSHEN, CDLORADQ 815111 Owners of adjacent property. Colomo, Inc. C/0 Larry Mincer, Attorney P. 0. Box 850 Glenwood Sorin~s, Colorado 81601 ~ailliam J. ~M1=orley P. 0. Box 666, Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Peoples National Bank of Tyler Executor of 2. J. and Oleta Spuiell estate. p, 0. Box 2001, Tyler, Texas 75701 John B. Armstrong P. 0. Box 1183 Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Gary Chas. Weidner 276 10th. Carbondale, Colorado 81623 LOT #66, ELK MOIIT?TAID' SUBDIVISIOD'. 9i. is~' w I i i I ! ~ I W o ~ 0 •f 0 CABIN 0 0 ~~ N N ' N ~________ _____. __1 n J i o C a _ ~o Gerege io i excavation, i- Deck o & o garage. -_ __ -35'--- 20' E- .3' ~ n i I i ~_ i i I i ® l! ~~R 9 0' ~ ~. 'I v~ ~a., hsc y . ~~y - nor s~ ~- • S.G. Z ~*-lu..:.- a- ~ a,~ low ~:, ~, pu.G, .~.: -- ~ a.~oa-, Q~ yaws- (.~sw.~ ~S ,ra,~; . ~.~ryr ~.~~~ c~~~~ County/T~reas~uj rer's pOf~fice, Pitkin County, Colo. 7D___..__>. _o ~ IA Y_ __ ,/ //., Aspen, lo/ ~ r f ~ 19.~ (Account DOLLARS I Credit to Fund. ~ UI ~ / --- ~ ~'3 r 3 ~. noxcx[~ cn, ocnvex .Treasurer r:Deputyi c 0 0 c 0 v LOT #66, ELK MOIIP'T'ATF SUBD7VTS7~P' i N N r 0 V ro Scale 1" -- 10~ s ,~,~"` s~ /- ~~,~y LOT .S~ (IG"Gts~~ ~- '~J I~LZ ~ ' ~ "z l.~l`"`` ~ ~~"`d`"~ cva.~ ate' aaF ~a~:.~.~ 30 ~ A~~~ o~. act ~. ,o~-- ~ a~ao- ~ Q,t yam, ~"'~ ar 'r"`,~.' ~.~ vf/~ ooooog ~~ REC3RD OF PROCEEuiNGS 1Gd Leaves ronx w c. r. xnrcxe~ e. e.a ~. ca. PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT August 25, 1981 Members Present Associates Bill Mason, Chairman Dottie Fox Paul Krausch Clark Smyth Joe Zanin Bill Lukes Robert Throm Kandi Shaffran ?deeting was called to order by Bill 'dason. He asked the Board if they had any objections to the minutes from the last meeting. Dottie Fox moved to accept the minutes. Paul Krausch second the motion. All in favor. Motion passed. Leon Norton, 7528 Highway 82 81-29 requesting a variance to erect a 6 sq. ft. sign on present fence. Leon Norton was there to represent himself. He had included a picture of the sign he wants to erect and he brought one of the letters to show the exact size and color he would be using. The letters would be put on a natural colored fence that is presently there. He also brought pictures of the property in question for the Board members to see. Kandi Shaffran asked if the sign would glow at night or be lighted. Leon replied that it would not. Paul Krausch questioned Patsy Newbury why Leon had to have a variance to erect the sign. Patsy stated that any sign along Highway 82 had to be approved by the Board. Dottie Fox made a motion to approve the variance request. Paul Krausch second the motion. All in favor. Motion passed. Richard Barnes, 108 Trentaz Rd. 81-30 requesting a 49 foot frontyard setback variance for addition to employee unit. Robert Bates was there to re_resent Richard Barnes. Robert explained that they wanted to build a lean-to on the left hand side of the unit to store snowmobiles, snowcats, motorbikes, etc. He stated that the lean-to would be covered by trees and shrub and would not be seen. Robert showed the Board members where the garage and house sat on the lot. It was determined that there were no objections from the adjacent property owners. Bill Lukes wanted to know what hardships were involved. Robert stated that the reasons for not placing the lean-to on the other side of the garage was that to much scrub would have to be removed and it would be seen from that side. Dottie Fox questioned what the size of the shed wou7.d be. Robert replied that it would be approximately 10' and would be connected to the roof-line. Paul Krausch wanted to know if the lean-to would be closed in. Robert said that the back and sides would be walled in and the front would be open. Paul Krausch moved to approve the variance request due to the fact that it is an addition to an existing structure and there is topographical hardship. Dottie Fox second the motion. Bill Lukes voted against it, there were four votes for it. ?lotion passed. OUOU09 No 4s RECt~RD OF PRGCEEDINGS 10u Leaves ICY •9 C f ~1'CN fI. B. B. f 1. l0. August 25, 1981 page 2 John Stewart, Lot #66 ,' Elk "fountain S/D 81-32 requesting a 60 foot frontyard setback variance and a 5 oot sideyard setback variance for construction of a single family residence. John Stewart was there representing himself. John Stewart stated that his problem was that he was 5 foot short for sideyard clearance and 60 foot short for frontyard. Bill ?Mason read a letter from Mr. William J, fvorlPV raFa,rding Lot 56 in Elk Mountain S/D stating that when this property was given a zoning variance a precedent ~a,p,a aat of maintainine 30' setbacks on all four sides on all lots of the subdivision. Patsy Newbury stated that the subdivision covenant had 25 foot setback, Bill P.~ason said that in that case Mr. Stewart would be staying within the covenant with his request. Bill Lukes questioned whether a variance for one lot would effect any other lot in the neighborhood. Bill Mason stated that every variance is handled as a separate variance, Patsy Newbury stated that the Board could not set precedents but had to take each case at a time. The owner of Lot 65, John Armstrong, was there and he stated that he came before the Board at the same time as Mr. Worley and he was granted the same variance, 30', and he said that it was said that that would be a precedent. The files regarding these cases were brought before the Board and Bill Mason read through the minutes. It was not found that any precedent was set on either case. John Armstrong explained that he was under the impression that the setback was a set standard. Paul Krausch stated that he felt that ?dr. Armstrong had come to the Board with a specific request and that the Board had not set a specific size that he could have. Bill Mason re-emphasized that the Board does not set any precedents. Clark Smyth felt that due to the downzoning, 25 foot setbacks are not un- reasonable and it seems that a precedent was not set on the previous cases of Armstrong and Worley. Dottie Fox felt that since "dr, Stewart was within the covenant there is no reason that he cannot be granted his request. Bill Mason stated that the Board never went below the covenant. Paul Krausch stated that if Mr. Armstrong wanted to come before the Board again and get the additional five feet there would be no problem. Bill Mason agreed, Clark Smyth made a motion to grant the variance request based on downzoning and the magnitude of the variance is no greater than the covenant states. He amended the request to be a 25 foot sideyard, 46 foot frontyard'setback and 39.5 yard rearyard setback, Paul Krausch second the motion. John Armstrong questioned as to whether this would now be the precedent. Bill Mason said that it would not and that the Board never sets a precedent. All in favor, motion passed. Jan Edwards Tom Fulker Wildrose Ranch 15488 Highway 133 81-31 requesting a 24.5 foot frontyard setback variance for construction of storage building. Jan Edwards was there to represent self and partner. The reasons for putting the building in that particular area is because there is a natural drainage behind tl~e area and it is a very hilly area. They want to earthshelter the building and that would be the most natural place to place it. Dottie Fox was familour with this area due to a previous P & Z meeting, Jan Edwards had included a picture of the notice to show the Board members. There were no objections from the adjacent property owners. Paul Krausch wanted to know how big the lot was. Jan replied that the lot was 14 acreas, Clark Smyth wanted to know why the building could not go anywhere else on the property. Jan stated that when she had originally planned to build a house, gara~•e and solar greenhouse, the county had no problem because it was zoned R-2, One ,year later the ordinances had been re-written. She stated that the proposed building was a workshop/solar greenhouse/storage building which was a separate • Kn 46 000010 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ~L~Q Leaves r~wv ~. c. r, urrtc«rr e. e. n i co. August 25, 1981 Page 3 structure 100 feet from the proposed home. Paul Krausch wanted to know why she didn't build behind the drainage. Jan stated that there was a driveway rightt°that spot and she would not have to tear up any more terrain. Jan stated that there were probably lots of woody areas that she could build on but they are inconvenient to reach in the winter and when she bought the property an agreement was reached that the buildings would be clustered due to the fact that there were elk there. From the highway the proposed structures would not be visible. Dottie Fox wanted to know what the topographical hardship would be. Jan Edtivards stated that the county considerations was the elk wintering range and that the natural water drainage cut through that portion of the lot. Also she wanted to build into the hills that cut through the property for solar reasons, ^.lark Smyth questioned Jan as to why she could not build the structure adjacent to the proposed house. Jan replied that due to the solar need and the fact that a lot of meadow would be used to do that. Also the fact that there is a road access to the proposed site for the shop. Patsy Newbury told the Board that the property was downzoned from AF-3 to RS-20. The AF-3 would have required a 50 foot setback. The property was purchased previous to the downzoning. Dottie Fox made a motion to approve the request due to topographical hardship of the natural drain ditch and due to the downzoning. Clark Smyth said the only reason he could see was the downzoning. Dottie Fox amended her motion to state due to downzoning. Clark Smyth second the motion. All in favor. Notion passed. Christine A. Gerschel Lot 10 Block 3 '.17eadowood S/D 81-33 requesting a variance from floor area ratio to construct dressing rooms and shower in existing structure, Christine Gerschel was there to represent herself. Bill Mason read a letter from the chairman of the n4eadowood Homeowners Association stating that they had approved it. Robert Throm told the Board that he would not take part because he was associated with the applicant socially and in business. All the adjacent property owners had been notified and there were no objections in the file or otherwise. Bill :liason then requested that Pos. Gerschel show the Board what is was she planned to do. She explained that she wanted to transform half of the existing garage into a changing room and bathroom for the pool. Also she needed to use the rest as an extra bedroom for her mother who is disable and cannot manage stairs. The garage in question will be wasted space because the driveway is dangerously steep and will be moved to another portion of the lot and 'another aara~e be build. At this point the floor area ratio in the house is at its limit and the remodel of the garage would call for an additional 250 feet. The Board members did not know if they could grant this variance or not. She did not need a variance to build the new driveway and garage. Bill Mason advised her that he would check with the County Attorney and see how the Board should act on this. On August 26, 1981, Bill Mason contacted the County Attorney and was advised that the Board could not grant a variance of this sort. A telephone poll was taken and Clark Smyth made a motion to deny the request. Paul Krausch second the motion. All in favor, motion passed. N° 4~ 000011 RECCRD OF PROCEEOiNGS i0u Leaves raw ~n c. r. xnrcxn e. a. a c. co. August 25, 1931 Page 4 Another application for alternate member was submitted to the Board ~ from Evan Gull. After review of this resume', Clark Smyth moved to accept Mr. Gull as an alternate member. Dottie Fox second the motion. All in favor. Motion passed. It was brought before the Board the need for a special meeting during the month of September for four cases. It was agreed by the members that a special meeting would be held on September 15, 1981. Meeting was adjourned. Respectfully Submitted Secretary ~~~~ (~f/c.~lr,~..~ Bill "dason, Chairman ~~ ~~ .r i ooooi2 No..~_Etst.'Y u_ County Treasurer's Office, Pitkin County, C~jolo. Aspen, Colo.,_ n `~ ~~ 19~ of ~t.~ ,f ~ DOLLARS Account Credit to. ~' Cpl ~ ~ ~~~~3 Fund. C^O $,~J~~ _ Treasurer nn11611'i mss' `-' Deputy *xr c c xoccrcec cn ocx~rx LARGE PLAT(S) AVAILABLE TO VIEW AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AVAILABLE TO BUY AT CLERK & RECORDER