Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1100 Black Birch Timeline***development definition in 1991 included vegetation removal. Annexed ord 30-67. (jan 1968) Zoned under Ord 05-1968 (march 1968). April 1967-August 1968 Zone district map shows it as R-15 1975, 1983, 1988 show the west parcel as R-30, main parcel as R-15 PUD  when did this happen. Lots of ordinances in the mid-70s about mandatory PUDs. Big update to zoning code in 1974. Land use plan 1973. 1988 – both lots R-15 All R-30 Tom wells, sheldon gordon • Land Use Application Title • Land Use Application Scope • Entitlement information • Associated Permit • 1976 o Permit application for original house – 326-76 o Permit application for original detached 2 car garage – 411-76  This application is in the records twice – one copy shows that it was renewed three times, through 1980 • 1979 o Coa.lu.sm.Sheldon Gordon.1979 o Believe this is associated with coa.lu.su.gordon.1979  1408/1409 Crystal Lake. Memo refers to a concurrent subdivision and this parcel is above the roaring fork with a steep slope. o Memos talk about an application – only three pages. This was for the new development o Approved via p&z minutes, conditioned with a trail easement • 1986 o Landuse Case.SM.1100 Black Birch Dr.16A-86  single sheet? Need to continue looking into o P&Z June 17, 1986 o Permit? • 1989 o Coa.lu.sm.Gordon exemption 273501307017.90A-89  denied (confirm) • 1991 o Coa.lu.sm.Gordon.A8-91 o Expansion of SFR + creation of ADU o Approved via P&Z minutes with conditions laid out in memo; minutes.apz.19910416 o Conditions fulfilled? o Permit info: 1-143  Note on permit app saying that they withdrew the ADU...  Note on change order 5 stating that they are maxed on floor area  c/o in 1998  plans from 1992 (without permit number) do not show all the accessory sheds etc. under the pre-1990 folder in SF • 1992 o Coa.lu.sm.Gordon.A3-92 o Expansion of SFR o Approved administratively with conditions laid out in memo o Conditions fulfilled? • 2004 o 0202.2004.ARGR o Includes patio plans from 1997 this would have been prior to CO of the 1991 permit. o Includes 2004 civil driveway drainage/snowmelt storage plan – doesn’t show all the structures When the eastern portion was added it stated that no additional development rights were associated Trying to make the argument that they should be able to maintain the status quo for landscaping. What can we do about the fisherperson’s easement that was never recorded? Are the old approvals valid? Parks is planning on sticking with the previous stipulations. From the covenants – neither bocc nor city are signatories 1. History of the addition of the property including property rights. 2. Building envelope If we never recorded the easement – is it still valid? Ask for floor area calculations. Better to deal with this up front. Kevin – do we ask them to rip out the east side below 15’ setback also, based off historic zone district maps and letters in the land use file I think they filled in C but actually meant that there was a conservation/open space easement. Letter signed by planning director includes additional space in calc of floor area 36,621.695 SF – area below high water line. Assuming “in creek” = high water line 36,621.695-3,600= 33021.695 33,021.695-15,000=18,021.695 4,500 sf FA + 6(18,021.695/100)= 5581.3017  5,581.30 SF allowable **didn’t reduce for steep slopes when addition was built in the 90s Zoning  refer out if they are keeping and provide floor area Building  will need a retro-active building permit as well as all buildings complying with current code