Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.92.32 PITRIN COIINTY BOARD OF ADJDBTMENT DATE ~l~(~1 E' ~~ ~ ~ ~qe2 APPLICANT MAILING ADDRESS OWNER MAILING ADDRESS LOCATION OF PROPERTY Applicant +. r ~ i 11'il , CASE # ~ ~ - /~, ~~-/ PHONE '1 Z~' ~!-y~o'• ~(. S~IOWMGtss CO ~'1654- • PHONE -1 Z~ - 4.00 a. (To be completed by the Soninq Department) Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Zoning Official to forward this application to the Board of Adjustment, and reasons for not granting a building permit: .~D Zone District Requesting: '•~/o Lot Size ' Front Yard Setback Variance, where U 1' is required. ' Rear Yard Setback Variance, where ' is required. C~ ~ Side Yard Setback Variance, where ~' is required. ' Side Yard Setback Variance, where ' is required. ' Height Variance, where ' is required. Square Feet where a maximum of sq. ft. is allowed. Other: I,, Zon7~igng Official / _ Application filed lX ~ Id ~ I Par ID No. ~Uto7 -~.3-(~.~ -~~~ Date of Meeting Notices Mailed ~ ' ,7~ ~ _l Z Secretary a L(.G~,G-~~-(1 .( '~( ~f Refer Resolution to Building Department ; _; Yes ; _; No OOQO~J1 cs~, ~ ,~; Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part of this Case. The Board may return this application if it does not contain all the facts in question. ~I U NOTICE OF PIIBLIC FEARING TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS BEFORE THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to Pitkin County Resolution of June 5, 1955, as amended, a Public Hearing will be held in City Council Chambers, City Hall, First Floor, Aspen, Colorado (or at such other place as the meeting may then be adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the County Zoning Resolution. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. THE PARTICULARS OF THE HEARING AND OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE ARE AS FOLLOWS: Date and time of meeting: owner: Name and Address of Applicant: Property Location or Description: July 7, 1992 at 5:15 p.m. Commissioner's Mtg. Room, Courthouse Gateway Investment Co. Inc. George Draper 161 Light Hill Road Snowmass, CO 81654 Lot 7A, Block 4, Filing 2 Gateway Road, Gateway to Snowmass Requesting approval for a 30 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required, and a 40 foot west side yard setback variance, where 50 feet is required, in the RS-30 zone district, for construction of a single-family residence. Approval of this variance would allow the proposed residence to be 70 feet from the front yard property line and 10 feet from the west side property line. VARIANCES GREATER OR LESS THAN REQUESTED COULD HE GRANTED. Duration of Variance: Temporary Permanent X THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT u u u ~ Suzanne L. Wolff , Secretary Variance application, Lot 7A, Filing 2, Block 4, w Gateway to Snowmass Mesa, Snowmass, CO. My reasons for applying for a variance are as follows: The greater part of Lot 7A consists of a very steep hillside covered with a variety of scrub oaks, juniper and service berry bushes. Building a house on this hillside which faces North, would mean removing a great deal of the established growth and result in a cold, expensively built and many-levelled house with poor, snowy access. Sunshine would be extremely limited in the winter months. The proposed location allows a flat Southerly orientation with an easy access and would result in minimal scarring of the hillside. The hillside is visible within the subdivision and also from Snowmass Creek Road. Sincerely, -, . ~1 George Draper. i~ OUDtiG3 Variance Application, Lot 7A, Fil*'~ng 2, Block 4, Gateway to Snowmass Mesa, Snowmass, CO. Adjacent Property Owners: Stuart Duncan, Box 148, Snowmass, CO 81654-0148. David Richman, 1675 Broadway, #2800, Denver, CO 80202. Barbara Smart & J.D. Van Sant, 7719 Parkwood Drive, Stockton, CA 95207. The Sails Company, C/- Hriant Baker, 2727 W.6th Avenue, Denver, CO 80204. Kurt & Barbara Pitcher, 40 Quail Run, 3101 Old Pecos Trail, Santa Fe, NM 87501. Kenneth 6 Victoria Upchurch, 1311 Gateway Road, Snowmass, CO 81654. Jo Anne Hager & Steve Arumet, Box 589, Snowmass, CO 81654. ~~'u~~ 8 u o ~ o !I m RE k CAP 1. S. / I „ $3317 FOUND (TYP.) ~ I w ' " ' ~ N eoroo oo a 111.09 ~ / L 7.5 UTILITY ~`-- y / , EASEMENT (TYP.) SCALE; I" .100` ~ / S0 1 _ / ~ IN ! ~ - - 1 so' / ` $ 1 $ ~ ~ LOT 7A ; so' LOT 14 / SETBACK 1 ~ 1 / ~~(TYP.) 1 ~ .. // ~ r / 100' ! ~ / / g ~ ~ A d r~ V ~ ~ Q ~ ~ // )~ p ^" a 7093' " ~~ i i p . 18 R .71.08' ~ n'1 Q0 7 ' ~ l .8 .92 GP p .10'03'58' R .145.08' p .41'04'15' ' T ~ 12.78' ' R .183.87 i .68 78' l ~ 25.49 . L ~ 131.69' NOTE: 1) THIS SURVEY IS BASED ON ThIE EXISTING PROPERTY CORNERS SHOWN AS FOUND . 2) THfS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO RESERVATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, COVENANTS AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD OR IN PLACE. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION LOT 7A, BLOCK 4 GATEWAY OF SNOWMASS MESA SUBDIVISION SECOND FILING IMPROVEMENT SURVEY STATEMENT I HEREBY STATE THAT THIS IMPROVEMENT SURVEY WAS PREPARED BY HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC. FOR GATEWAY ENTERPRISE COMPANY. I FURTHER STATE THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL ON THIS DATE, JUNE 8, 1992, EXCEPT UTILITY CONNECTIONS, ARE ENTIRELY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PARCEL EXCEPT AS SHOWN, THAT THERE ARE NO ENCROACHMENTS UPON THE DESCRIBED PREMISES BY IMPROVEMENTS ON ANY ADJOINING PREMISES, EXCEPT AS INDICATED, AND THAT THERE IS NO APPARENT EVIDENCE OR SIGN OF ANY EASEMENT CROSSING OR BURDENING ANY PART OF SAID PARCEL, EXCEpJ,,,,AS NOTED. 000005 BY: ,~- Variance Application, Lot 7A, Filing 2~ Block 4, Gateway to Snowmass Mesa, Snowmass, CO. Vicinity/Directional Map. Travelling down vailey on Highway 82, turn left at the Old Snowmass Conoco. Drive up Snowmass Creek Road for 1.3 miles, crossing a bridge on the way. Take the first right after the bridge which is signposted Gateway Mesa. Keep right and travel up the hill for another mile. The lot is on the righ t at~he top of a sharp left curve. Acros~ `he road is a ~triveway and sign with the name "Dune tb 1..~ F ODUU06 in d~w4 Rz '-'? ASPEN EARTHMOVING~ INC. P.O. BO% 325 SNOWMASB~ COLORADO 81654 303-927-4744 June 25, 1992 Re: Lot 7A, Block 4, Gateway to Snowmass Mesa To Whom It May Concern: After inspection of this site for George Draper, it is my feeling that to position the proposed house down the north facing slope any more than planned would cause great difficulty in excavation and result in the destruction of most of the vegetation on the hillside. Yours truly, SGK/bl OODUO7 Stephen G. Kinney Vice President ,< A n ~ .......n °~YLI .. _..~_ W U LL N~ ~ 0 0~~ FF~ _Z ~e a a »o N ~ Z mo$ ~ ~ aaw Z NO N W a a aC7 at`°m oaoZ~~~ o z C7 ~n U~iULLN47w Z o ~ a a~~ ~~ Z HMV W C~7 G~7 Nt=AQ6~ a W d LL Z z W O yV {p pp~~ pp N Q W t9 ' M V a U dd aR ' a ~~~~~~ I W I 7 D Z ~_ J U a ~ . . a O J ~ I/J J F Z ~ w Z Z~W p z w Q y Z w=w y w w LL OO T 6 N_ p_N p~_ S O S if, ~C N O ~w z gwg a- w ~ F 2 O ~W ~a aawo z c7 ~ a a~ ~ z~aZa<~'k'~o zC7w ~sW w w z w~ z N w o O z w O °~ LL Q ~?@~csoLLN~m¢ ¢rnz ~a aaa~al3~wzap »(7 gpap= (7 C7 C7NNy¢Q~dl W ~ W U~UO f/) w w ~~pp pp~~ pp ((~y m ~p LL 1(J p ~J (~ 1~ N ' N N tq f7 f7 ~ O ¢ ~ 01 V W N ' ^ O ,{ ,{ ,a,a{{ ff~~ll yy~~ ¢ fVNOV ~ ~Opp Q ¢a~~ pGGp~~ ~ S a_ ~_ ~_ ai N N~ N O LL O) f~'J N O O O ~~~~w~w~ ~ ~~~w ~~~ww O z n m N Z m pQ pp_ pN_ p_Np gypp- asaa U O 8 0 0 ~ O ):4'%. <'. ` .Y.:'ti, 1'~~l .:Y' j~ a Z a p ~~ m OF N A- County of'Pitkin State of Colorado The undersigned, follows: } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY } ss. POSTING OF A VARIANCE HEARING } BEFORE THE PITRIN COQNTY BOARD OF ADJQBTMENT being first duly sworn, deposes and says as I, ~ • G-E~~'GE l~RHPC~ , being or representing an Applicant before the Pitkin County Board of Adjustment, personally certify that the attached photograph fairly and accurately represents the sign posted as Notice of the variance hearing on this matter in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the v2 _ day of ~JC~n1E 19 9a to the ~- day of ~/LIL~ 19~. (Must be posted for at least nine (9) full days befor a hea ing e . i pplicant' Signa ure Subscribed and sworn to before me this L day of ~~, 19~~, by Il. ~reo~4e. ~ oe/'. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. My Commission expires:_ la_ -/y ~9</-9~/ ~! -~Qo _ , N ar Public's Signature P.o. R~ is~g~ ,~.~-,, ~ . Sib ~a Address OD~!?~~ ~'~r -t ~; ~' '~~ f~~ ;kS j ~ M ~/' !ti;ii: ~ -, :. ~~..~ .. ~~ ~~ ~' y~'i !, ~~ ~'~ ,~ ,..~.,;~ ~~ , ;~ . .. ~:. .; 'R r ~~ ~. x ,~.. r • • X347563 08/._/9 11:03 F.ec g.OO Bk; 685 770 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc 5.00 RESOLUTION OF THE PITRIN COUNTY, COLORADO BOARD OF ADJIISTMENT GRANTING SETBACK RELIEF FOR GATEWAY INVESTMENT COMPANY, INC. RESOLUTION NO. 92-32 WHEREAS, Gateway Investment Company, Inc., owner of Lot 7A, Block 4, Filing 2, Gateway to Snowmass Mesa Subdivision, requests a 30 foot front yard setback variance and a 40 foot west side yard setback variance, for construction of a single-family residence; and, WHEREAS, a 100 foot front yard setback and a 50 foot side yard setback are required in the RS-30 zone district; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is within the unincorporated area of Pitkin County, Colorado, (as described in Exhibit "A", attached); 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 by the Board of Adjustment, that a 30 foot front yard setback variance and a 40 foot west side yard setback variance be granted for construction of a sing}. -family residence, due to topographical hardship, pursuant to to plans submitted (Exhibit "B"). ti7 WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution ~,an~'y result in rehearing and possible revocation. 00001?. / • #341565 U8/1U/•11:03 Rec ~.UU BY.. 685 PG ?,a Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc t.OU Resolution No. 92- 3 Z Page 2 The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: July 7, 1992 The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado ATTEST: Suza a L. Wolff, Secretary ~~~Q~3 i C~ #341565 08/10/9^c 11:03 F2ec $. 00 BF: 68S FG 772 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description for property owned by GATEWAY INVESTMENT COMPANY, INC. Lot 7A, Block 4, Filing 2 Gateway to Snowmass Mesa Subdivision Pitkin County, Colorado I OOOU~4 F\/ ;:\~. (~ ~' #347565 48/10/92 11:03 Rec x.00 PY. 683 PG 773 ~~' \ ~^', Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00 ~~ ~/ ~~ \ ~~ ~~ ~1 ~ y~ ~ ~ `, c~ \ ^ ~ i _ ~' `~ -- -~ v i /. `\ '~ //:. i !\ _ ' ~ j \i, - ~ ~ j ~\ \\ , \ ~ 1~ ~ ~ ' ~j ~\ ~ `-- - --- _. _- I ti / / n,/~ ~ a (+ ~ f~ 0 ~ ~e. \~. / ~ ~ ~~ / N- ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ c.~ ~' ~ "ti 11 ~~~ \ \ / /' J ~ O ~ ~L Se.~ ~ e ~ ~~ ~.~ ~ ~:.~ S ~ ~N ~~~ im, ,, \~ ~\ i~ _:G 6 A 14 ~, f \ \ `3J 1' F£ •'C ~:~ ~; r- ~_q.i. S s _ C^~6 x ~ ~ "' >~ •~~ >- _ , `o ~ r~ OOOU45 ~ ~~? NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PITIQN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to Pitldn County Zoning Resolution of June 5, 1955, as amended, a Public Hearing will be held in the District Courtroom, Pitkin County Court House, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such other place as the meeting may then be adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Boazd of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the County zoning Resolution. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appeaz and state their views, protests, or objecfions. If you cannot appeaz personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by letter, particulazly if you have objection to such variance, as the Boazd of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. A VARIANCE GREATER THAN OR LESS THAN THAT REQUESTED COULD BE GRANTED. DATE AND TIME OF MEETING: Tuesday, July 7, 1992; 5:15 P.M. . Conunissioners Meeting Room, Courthouse Donald Stone/Judith Family: requesting approval fora 30' front yazd setback variance and a 15' south side yard setback variance where 100' and 30', respectively, are required in the AF-1 zone district for construction of asingle-family residence. Property Location: Lot 4, Block 5, Filing 1, Brush Creek Village. Gateway Investment Company: requesting approval fora 30' front yazd setback variance and a 40' west side yazd setback variance where 100' and 50' respectively, are required in the RS-30 zone district for construction of asingle-family residence. Property Location: Lot 7A, Block 4, Filing 2, Gateway to Snowmass Mesa. Mills Trust: requesting a 13' front yard setback variance, where 30 feet is required in the R-15 zone district, for construction of a residential garage. Property Location: Lot 51, Filing 2, Mountain Valley Subdivision. Weinreis, Joe: requesting a 25' reaz yard setback variance where 50' is required in the RS-30 zone district for the construction of a second floor addition to asingle-family residence. Property Location: 1470 Snowmass Creek Road. Submitted to the Aspen Times on June 23, 1992. To Be Published in the Aspen Times June 26, 1992. County PO # Jr-~3/ 6 ~~~~~5 f r • Minutes Pitkin County Board of Adjustment July 7, 1992 Members Present: Rick Neiley, Chairman Evan Gull John Wheeler Rod Dyer Michael Cooper Members Absent: Ted Guy Stan Mathis Staff: Joanna Schaffner, Zoning Enforcement Neiley opened the meeting at 5:15 p.m. and introduced the Board to those present. Case #92-31. Glick Family Trust. L8. B2. F2. Meadowood Subdivision Andrew Hecht was present, representing the Glick Family Trust, to request a 150 square foot increase in floor area, where a maximum of 3,118 square feet is allowed for this lot in the R-30 zone district, to cover an entry. Hecht showed on the plans how the overhang would shelter the entry from blowing and melting/freezing snow, which presently create a dangerous situation. He mentioned that the Code exempts 3 feet of an overhang from floor area, so the front entry overhang would add 20 square feet to the floor area. A trellis with three logs across the top would be constructed over a portion of the patio, and would add 126 square feet to the floor area. The trellis was designed to provide continuity with the existing architecture and the overhang. Neiley read into the record the letter from Paul Patterson, President of the Meadowood Homeowners' Association, stating their approval of the request. Hecht stated that the overhangs would not be visible to the public. The inclusion of trellises in the definition of floor area was discussed. There was no public comment. Dyer noted that the trellis is an architectural feature that provides continuity. Gull stated that the applicant's intent is to deal with bulk and to minimize the visual impact. Neiley stated that unique conditions are present that are not 1 O~~US J caused by the applicant, and that create a dangerous situation. Hecht noted that the overhang and the trellis present two distinct issues. Neiley responded that the walkway overhang could be considered necessary for health and safety reasons, but that the trellis seemed to be a more aesthetic/design related concern, and that he would be more inclined to accomodate a request relating to safety. He also stated that covering the walkway comes within the Board's authority to grant variances, but did not feel that the Board had the authority to approve the trellis. Wheeler noted that the division of the project into two distinct requests makes it easier for the Board to approve only the more necessary part of request. Dyer agreed that the Board does not have the means to approve the trellis. Wheeler moved to grant a 20 square foot increase in floor area to cover an entry, on the grounds of personal and safety hardship, as per the drawings submitted. Wheeler also moved to deny a 126 square foot increase in floor area for the trellis. Gull seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case #92-28 Donald Stone/Judith Family, L4. B5, F1, Brush Creek Village Subdivision Donald Stone and Judith Family were present to request a 30 foot front yard setback variance and a 15 foot south side yard setback variance, where 100 feet and 30 feet, respectively, are required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a proposed single- family residence. Stone noted three reasons for the request. First, unbuildable slopes on the lot create a topographical hardship. Second, the house was designed to minimize its visual impact, and in its scenic overlay analysis, the County Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously in favor of the site as plotted. Third, the Brush Creek Village Landowners' Association wants to preserve the density of ancient scrub oak on the property in order to provide privacy among the residences, and therefore also approves the site as plotted. John Wild, the designer of the Stone home, and a 30 year member of Brush Creek, was present. Jim Crowley, a member of the Brush Creek Village Landowners' Association, was present, and stated his approval of the request. Martin Horowitz, a front yard setback objections. n adjacent homeowner, asked questions about the and the visual impact of the house, but had no Op0of8 Neiley moved to grant a front yard setback variance not in excess of 30 feet, and a south side yard setback variance not in excess of 15 feet, as depicted on the plans, on the basis of topographical hardship and downzoning. Cooper seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case #92-32, Gatewav Investment Co., L7A, B4, F2, Gatewav to Snowmass Mesa George Draper was present, representing Gateway Investment Co., to request a 30 foot front yard setback variance and a 40 foot west side yard setback variance, where 100 feet and 50 feet respectively, are required in the RS-30 zone district, for construction of a single-family residence. Photographs were presented for the record. Neiley read. into the record a letter from.Stephen G._Kinney, Vice President of Aspen Earthmoving, Inc., supporting the request because of the possibility of destroying the whole slope if the building was moved down the hill. Neiley noted that the site is very steep and presents definite topographical problems. There was no public comment. Neiley and Gull questioned the closeness of the house to the side property lines and the impact of moving the house farther away from that line (ie. at least 15 feet). Draper responded that moving away from the side line would also force the house farther down the hill, which would be detrimental to the slope, and would create a larger obstruction of the neighbors' view. Dyer moved to grant a 30 foot front yard setback variance and a 40 foot west side yard setback variance, due to topographical hardship. Cooper seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Rick Neiley abstained from voting due to Bob Smith was present, representing the Mills Trust, to request a 13 foot front yard setback variance, where 30 feet is required in the R-15 zone district, for construction of a garage. Smith stated that the present parking structure is falling down, and that it would be more expensive to shore up the existing railroad ties than to build a new garage. The new one-story garage would have a new driveway, and would have improved access from the garage to the house. The garage roof peak will be lower than the roof peak of the house. Al Fiorello, a member of the Board of Directors of the Mountain 3 OU(1019 Valley Homeowners' Association and an adjacent landowner, was present, and stated his approval for the request, but also questioned whether the owner could be required by the Board to berm the foundation and replant the slope to maintain a growth buffer between his house and the proposed garage. Gull stated that any conditions that the Board imposed on the variance would not have long-term value, because it is difficult and impractical for the County to enforce such conditions. Neiley stated that the site design still requires the approval of the Homeowners' Association, which would be better able to impose such conditions. Wheeler questioned the necessity of the 27 foot width for the garage, if the intent is to provide parking for two cars, and the closeness of the garage to the street, and stressed the Board's desire to grant a minimum variance. Fiorello stated that a bigger buffer is maintained with the proposed site, and that making the garage narrower and moving it farther away from the road would increase the size of the foundation and its visual impact because the ground drops off behind the garage. Smith stated that the garage is 24 feet wide with a 3 foot overhang; the extra width provides storage, and the overhang and walkway improve circulation between the house and the garage. Gull stated that the owner has the right to put the garage at the other end of the house, where it would have a severe impact topographically and visually. The proposed site would minimize these impacts. Gull moved to grant a 13 foot front yard setback variance for a garage as depicted on the site plan, due to topographical hardship. Dyer seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case 92-27, Mary Ellen Lackey, Lot 5, White Star Ranch This case was tabled at the last meeting. Mary Ellen Lackey was present to request a 5 foot height variance, where 12 feet is the maximum permitted for accessory structures per the Pitkin County Land Use Code, for an existing ranch gate. Lackey stated that the ranch gate was on the plans that were approved by the County. They were told that they needed a minimum height of 13 feet 6 inches for fire truck access, but they did not know about the 12 foot height limit stated in the County Code. Wheeler stated that in view of the two different height constraints, the applicant acted in good faith, and that it would 4 000028 be a hardship to reduce the height. He also noted that the surrounding property owners have no objections. Wheeler reversed his denial from the previous meeting. There was no public comment. Gull moved to grant a 5 foot height variance for an existing ranch gate. Wheeler seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case 92-34, Joe Weinreis, 1470 Snowmass Creek Road, Joe Weinreis is requesting a 25 foot rear yard setback variance, where 50 feet is required, for construction of a second floor addition to a single family residence. A representative was not. present. Neiley stated that this is a classic case of downzoning. Wheeler stated that the addition would not increase the footprint of the house. There was no public comment. Neiley moved to grant a 25 foot rear yard setback variance, for construction of a second floor addition, in accordance with the plans submitted, due to downzoning. Wheeler seconded the motion, and all were in favor. The June 2 minutes were approved as written. Neiley asked the Board to review the Meeting Procedures memo that was distributed. The Conflict of Interest Policy that was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners was discussed. Dyer read the statement, "No member of the Board of County Commissioners or member of any of its Appointed Boards shall represent an applicant or advocate in any matter then pending before the Board of which that person is a member." Dyer stated that this imposes a severe constraint on certain Board members, who do not have anyone else in their offices to represent their clients who might come before the Board. The Board members agreed that the policy was exclusionary, and that participation on a citizen advisory board should not incur hardship, especially considering the difficulty of getting people to volunteer to be on such boards. Dyer agreed to draft a letter to the Board of County Commissioners for the Board of Adjustment members to sign. The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 PM. 5 OODU21 Respectfully submitted, ~V Suzanie L. Wolff, Secretary 6 00002?