The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutpitkin.boa.88.08.. ~ ~, w-. ~M, . ,. ~, ..... , ~ .-- PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DATE Z~ 19' ~~ (~ U~~ APPLICANT BMC WEST CORPORATION a~J / OWNER BMC WEST CORPORATION CASE # $$-08 ADDRESS Aspen, CO. ADDRESS Boise, ID LOCATION OF PROPERTY lot 2, Block 1. Aspen Airport Business Center Edina No. 1 Any pertinent data must ac$cso~~any 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. Applicant's description of proposed variance showing justification: Replace existing Boise Cascade Building ~1aterial Center sign on building with BMC 1Jest Building Materials Center sign. Replace existing Boise Cascade Building Materials Center road sign with BP1C West Building Materials Center sign. Applicant Signature Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring ~e Zoninlg` Official forward this application to the Board of Adjustment and reasons for not granting a building permit:. ~„~, J~~ S sea; 1 ,~- G ,%' Zoning Official ~... Date permit rejected. Board decision~y,U,~ Application filed Date ~~~~~ Notices mailed Secretary' «~bl3 ®(~®~i~~ ~+,; .. B$FORE THE "Pf2'3{'T'N.,,,Cd`U~'t`'~''.g`~`A "'~~~~'. ,.~ T6"AL]C' VARIA'NC Pursuant to°Pitkin~ ame'rided, a Publio Hearx Roam, P'itkini d`ou"n"tyo`ui other place, as the meeti application' fil,e~cF~wi~~fi" aut hority fo`r `var'iance f Resolution. "' ~'"~ y'Resolutian of ,.June ,5;' 3'~`5'S, as will by"hel'd in the'D~stric't'Court.='; " lfouse, aspen; ~o~cirada, (or, at such may` then be ,adjourned) to`;6a`nsider an s'aad""I o r~"`o'~'~~A~justment~~ regiiesting ti -~ ., „ e' prow .,.: _., >m,,~~, "isi,ags of the County zoning A rsons'"affected pp.ear"andes.tate 'their"'vi~by "the"proposed a ws`,"p'ro£ests 'or ca'n'not appeax persb'ria11Y at.'sucli meeting, state. your views. by letter, particularly such variance; °'as~`tlie oar ~'oA~ju's'~ment con'sideratidn to ~tl"ie~"o ~`"""~""~ °"' piniions o'~~surroiirr"c~ _...~. ~....,.,,„ ~w .~.,„.-v, other affected xn°'~ci~'ing'"w ie er. gr. a for' variance. "' THE PA12T'rC`D'L`A'~'a~""6" a ar.iance' a^r'e""'invited to bJec'tons. ~f`you . ' hen yon are Yxrg'ed to you havepobjection to ill:"`"give serious °' g propn'rty owners and gr;,deny the request Date and time of meeting....,,.April'.,~6,`_"~`k„'.~~"v»p "y":.~a`i.",~`,».~"°'"":':.,._,.:,,-~ ~.......<.,...x ~'+~' ~",'.ti.Naip$:W ..lG"&.',M1iM1'YMPSFAM^.'.wYC4Nbgmm%F{»N"Aw.aNWn Name 'and ,Adc[re"ss of "A`""'"~icantor ariance• ~,-_ B17C"'West..,2`o"rpora ion:-~-~--, ., . ..- .,~..,,.,~ Bo'i'se, Ti~a`kio _.. _.._.,M ; _. Pra er't or b'e Lota2,QBlock l,pAspen -Arp`sarigtion;~u_ .>.y, .., ___._ A'ort Business Center ~ " _ ~~~ ~~ Variance Requested approval of an' identification sign containing less khan ~,sq:T ~'~t~ ""~~~`'"'"` - e s ... Y M. ,e~...~1-~ p -,. ~ of signage £o replace the existi"rig"Eose„~Cascade sign. .. „_ , , v _ Duration 'of Variance:" Permanent Temporary _' Condition ..u .,.„., _m..M._..m ___w. _....._ _.w _ ~., _.._ - .__ _...,.. __. , _. ~ __. TFIE" ~. E'dan' G unazrman office's: _ P n ._;: - .~,.~«:.~:'md:l address: " 61~i=as`E`~lo"dins venue _.,. ,._. .. ,a .. .. `5d~6 E~st"~lain'~trest ISspeT:';"Colorado 8161'1 ..... 303RJ'"~'S=~ °.;,~,°.~ .,_~ ~ 3. ;:. ASPP~"~ BE TO AL'L"1~b' VAR Ted? ~».r.:~~~„~,..:,.,.~.~,_.~.w.._ __. ~_. . Pursuant...to Pitkin' ' ~ a~~-dePitk%n "~`opn Y~ourt ouse~eal pen• 1Co] of g may then be ad c apher place as the mec'tine-said Board of~fic plication filed with tl~ au Rethorrty for variance",from the proy_isions solution., he_,Diestrict' Coixrt orado, (or at such urrled) to consider an ' justment requesting of the County-honing All persons affected, by the `prOp'US~ed variance are' invited to appea"r""and state their vi''eias';''~S~otests ~o`z="objections~ If you pear" ers•o~ra 1 at h meeting then yoti y le£te ticul. .y "ob'ectiot! to statetyour 'views b .. y, .rd p~rAd~usa`~j- ' if '_.ou -havsse~ Sd ;to ' _.. ,... ». _ ......~ ., y give , such variance as'"the 13oa of ~~-u'., M tment will consideration to the opinions.~'of surrounding property owners ahd y,.w....,b,-~<.. g .miss s,.w.;.a,... other affec`t'eil'in d'eci~`in w et er to grant. or deny the request for variance. °' °' ~. Date and time of meeting March 29, 198$ at 5'lp.m "" Name end Address of App1ir~"ant»`°~'o ariance' "' ~ `~"`~"`" West Corporation' Boise. ,,.T~a~i~"°.,,,.,-...~»~:».,. ,... ,..<..~..,..._.,. ..: .., . -.. .. .. y. .• •;~~. •.°• M ,NrWe 1 'wua.YU"n i`>."!~':.'::'n!:rv.-w.+t..»m.vMmlxnJl..l6 A^..IbA:..r~#.?+M.fir Po'.r.~+,.."'h'F. Location of ~'ro ert », ,,:u.~:-,:.-~_,... ,,.,~_ -^'t,9.. P._ y~„or Description Lot 2, Bloc~r"t, Aspen Airport Business Center, Filing "1 .,, r .:. Vari' _ gppro'~+al::,~.._~.m__.p___...~:,-,....,-~, ::~:...w..:...~~...~:..:.,,.._____... once Re` g q to re lace exis re'~u'~st,in a ~ ting Boise 'Cascade'sfgn'» ' _ _ ..:.u. -.-.. _ -. <... .. _ ~ ~ -_ •._.~:.•4,„,,,~,,.~.,r.:»... ;..,_..~:~~>~•~.:..,n°."Temp ~:....,,: ,: m,:•:•.:.:,~: a ion of ,Varianc'e'.' Permanent • XX ur , ovary. ~ . Condition: THE PI"T'R ~;G1.J0'y~, Evan Grill, -Chair'm'an ~:..,.t. w ..» ~ .. _ ,~ ,. e r: -,. M, Fes:-, ,. _- o ices: .. 517•Ea`stl-lopk'ins'it~`veriu~"`''' r r~~~»~~~wS®6 East 'Ma »...._ Aspen, Colorbdo 8'Y6~'I'f".»_.."""__, .'.",-""" .._' _ - .." ...` _,~, in°`'S°'treet 303j9~ Aspe'n', Colorado 8'161'1 ._ .. yr, ~~ SOS Ee~t Mein SEree"t ' '~ Aspen, Colorado 8161'1 ' 30x/928-5973" ~"~'- ASPEN+PITKiN ,." FECa1QNAL BUILDING"'Q'~i~dFf1'S1%1)=`IiiY'` ~ ~" Jurisdiction of Applicant to complete numbered spaces on/y. General '~ Construction Permi[ NOl .~ ~ fi :~ ~ ~ ,o LEGAL LOT NO. BLOCK TRgCYOR $UBDIV SICr'N' ~ 't DESCR. III SEE Ai TgCHfD SHEf T) 2 I As en Air ort Business Center-Filin 1 OWNER MAIL gOORE55 _.... 2iP PHONE 3 . _ BMC West Cor oration Box 8008 Goise, I6 83707 208-338-1754 ~~ ~~ CONTRACTOR MgIL ADDRESS PHONE q ilcfrvsE No , Ima a National 444 E. Amit Road 3oi'se ID 208-345-4020 ' ~ ARCHrtECT OR DESIGNER FiuII AODRE6'S nHONF LICENSE NO' 5. ~ ~ - ENGINEER MAIL ADD RESE PHONF. 6 LICENSE NO 1 „... _ USE OF BUILDING ~ ~ 4 .YdPa 7. ~ g Class Df work: ^NEW o ADDITION ~ ALTERATION C REPAIR ~~tv10VE' ~ ' ~ W ~ I I RECK , ~_.._ _,:,.. .,.,,. :axs .,,.r .+I .~ i5~ ~ ~~ ~ . ~ ~~"~ g, Change of use from NA Change of use tD PLAN CHECH FEE PERMITbEE TOTgL FEE ~ 1 O.Vatuation of work S 1400.(]O T~ Pe m en~5i,i Ton o«mancv evoGo ioi Area 17. REMARKS: Re lace existin B01 S2 CdSCdde ~~ si ns with BMC 4iest Si n $I. IA.iltlin9 IT $o d•<F„ NO. olSf Odes Mdx. O[[. LOdtl • .. .,_5 NO OF BE DROOMS Use zone - F re sgcn4len R.R On.a E%ISTING ADDED _ / Over ^ rv ' _ %/ ~ o ~ ^/- ~ ' ~ "' '"" NO ,~Dwe nn UnnS DFF5TREETPARKiNG SPACE L .. ,.. Co~oc° uncov«eP ,.....,, N.. ` ~~'~ ,_ Special Approvals REOUIq ED AUTKORIZE'D BV DATE ZONING .. _ a.= ~; 4PPLICATIOMACCEPTEp PLgNS CHECHED AGPgOVED FOR'p55OgNCF HEALTH DEPL By qv. , 60R REPORT _ . By DATf Dq TE PARK DEDICATION OnT[ - "" WATER TAP ' NOTICE SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FpR ELECTRICAL PLUMBING"" ENC DEPT - HEATING, VENTILATING 0'R AIR CbND(71ONfNG „~ <.. THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF'WORk OR CONST%iUCYl01V`" " FIRE MARSHALL ~~ AUTHORt2Eb I$NOT CO t>tMFNCEd W)YitW f2tl DAl"$, OR IF'CON'SYRUC" ' OTHERISPECIFh / rr TION OR WORK IS SUSPE NtlED OR ~AB"ANDONED~FOR A PER16D OF' X20 ~ DAYS AT ANV TIME AFTER`WDRK fS'CO'A4MENCED" ~ a ' I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE aEnO dN0 E`%d MINEtl PHIS 4PPLICATiON°"~" ' E 6AME TO BE"('RUE ANO SO'RR ECY ALL PRGVISYDNS ~F 'CAPl6' - AND ORD NAM CES GOVERNING THIS TYPE ~OF GJORK VJt LY" BE COMPU fO wYTH ' WHETHER SPECIFIED H oa Nor' THE GRANTING oP'A t'ERMIT DOES NoT PRESUME TO GIWE AU O Tv TO VIOLAT OR CANCE "TH { 5 THIS FORM IS A PERMf"'i'"015LY WI=1"ElV r%ALIDA L E P ibvI 10N5 OF ANV OTHER STATE O L AL LAW RE ~ TED GUL ING CON5Tq UCfiIOM OR THE ER~ FoRMANCE DF coN rlbN. !. -3~ • bYOHK STARTED'1NPYN`OU7 PEflKf/T INWlLG BE 64U$GE FE~ ~- ~ ~~ y sl GrvgTV RE OF CO TgACT q Oq UTHORIZEO ENi ID TEl _ IGNgTIi P[ nc n.. c... .. ......_ u... '~ VALfDATION PERMIT VALIDATI6N CK. O M.O. O CASH C1 PLAN C`NE`L`12~VX L"iY5k1TYON 'd'K. ~d~"' N1.0, fl CASH p I WHITE-fNSPEC70R~5 COPY YELLOW-dSSES5bil'S"COPY' PiN`K'"B`U7lDIN'G"tiEPgS7YM~E N~I~"KI(~E` ` GOtD CUSTO'n7ER'SICOPY , + :. A z s.a w. ,.:s.c.., Below are listed. the property owners on record within a 300' radius of our property: Bob Jensen 21905 HWY 82 Aspen, Co. 81611 Micro-Cable Communications Corp. A Washington Corp. C/0 Canyon Cable 201 A.A.B.C. Aspen, Co. 81611 'Mtn States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 1801 California St. Denver; Co. 80201 Paepcke, Walter P. Life Insurance Trust C/0 Morrison & Morrison 105 West Adams Street Chicago, I11. 60603 BMC W Corp.. Rog r ulf, Mgr Q~B~Ix'~)'$ _~a=?? , SPEi~AIRPO US~I l~SS eswiamg nAaterials Centers / ~ SCALE I"= 30~ 6ASIS OF BEARING ~ FOUND MONUMENTS .NW CORNER TO~SW CORNER OF EXCEPTION TRACT, A.A.B.C., FILING N°~I. REBARSAND AL.CAPS L:S. 12083. SETS REBAR AND CAP L.S. 20151 C^TTTITTT~ZTl17"17 C"~ !`~TTTTTY1'C'-7\T 1, DAWEL =. M°KENZIE HEREBY CERTIFI' THAT"'ON `:(PRIC~30TH.; 19fi4~"- AND JUNE t3 TN.; 1884 A SURVEY WASPERFORMED UNDER MY D~RFLT- ION AND SUPERVISION OF' TATS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1, ASPEN AIRPORT ' BL;SINE55 CENTER , FILING N°~ I , PITKVN COUNTY, COLORADO. THE WOOD FRAME' BUILDINGS WEREFOUND TO BE LOCATED AS SHOWN HEREON. THE LO C1iTfON A'18b DIMENSIONS 9~ ALL"BLSYLd(N~;""~~ ""~`- IMPROVEMENTS, EASEMENTS,RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN EYiDENCEGF2KNauN 70 ME AND ENCROACHMENTS BY OR ON T1iE5E PREMISES ARE ACLU RATE`.Y SHOWN. '.. .. •,. ALPWE SURVEYS BY' DANIEL F. M°KENZtE' .;uNE 18 TH.,. fJBq- L.S. 20151 NOTE. AT CLIENT'S REQUEST NOT ALL FENCES, ASPHALT UTi CITIES, ANO BUILDINGS WERE LOCATED, ra •- . tap, . ~; ~... ~ ., .~ , ~,. x .. f. . ,r _"b. _ ^`~ _ .c. -o ~ ~,. ~-. `~'. >.. . ..,a: ;~ u r. ~ Title BUILDING PERMIT SURVEY " ' __.. _ .. .: .....:.,.. ., ,: LOTS I AND 2 ;BLOCK I . Ca ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER' FILING N°- PITKIN COUNTY . COLOR~~~~:` ~~'~~ `~ ~ "~~ ~ ~~ ' ""~ ~ ' ~ No 83-150- ant BOISE-CA? ~~ j Q~0(1f)6 ~ ~~ E . ;_ O 10 20 30 60 .._ .~._ ~.. a-.....~e. tw. ..,a... w~ dLr' rn.. n ..wl I .,~.. .,,,.. .. .::.c i. .r. ~ .~.. ..3 ~ a~„.r,Arv 3.,. _.+a .i .t .. ed.~ °~ tom'' Y ,, ~ ~ 1 ~. t{ ~ i ~ ' ~ ~ E ~ w H _, ~. c. v .avsu fin c4u,. .. ~ ~s8~ ~ f. ~r,~ ' iii 1 ~,. i n r ~ I i1 ; n . U Z O ~ w Y C ~...._ y ~ ~,~ i j ~ }i ~ ~ _~ - J f I. y ~ U y~ 1r~ r ~ U j p. d~ > _. ~ __ _ pI 8 a 7' o ~~- ' U lr~i i . ~~ ~, X ~ ~ E - ~ ~ -- ~ Ki ~1~ 1 Ilf ~1 ~1 ~ n ~ ~~ <j 1 r ~~ t ) tl, 15S ~ U1 ~ o ; ~ B 1 ~ tJl 1 ~ a a ~ {nl ~ ul 11 J r ~ '~ oa~~nv~11 *~ t S • - „ N ~ ~ ~ _ ~ c 1 ~ j g $ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ tl 1 ' ~ N ~{~ t~ ~cp _~ 1111 ~` _ .` f w g ~~ - _ .N T ~ ,Y ~ 5>~ ~' Y ~ ~ ~, f u S o ~ ~ R w m - i"- ,~1 ~ ,'t ti 0t~! ~. ~( `'1 ~ 1 111 1111 d ~ s ff ~ _ ~ 1~ ^ ~ ,` F ~.f) 5 ~ ~ '7 ~ ms , ~ LL ; it1 1`,~ o ff} 5 ) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ € c C.J ~ Gil S5 /~ ~ /~` ° X "' w ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~~ I 1 ° T s U O O W ~ Z U w~ V V U w -~ S W I . O t i ~ N Z ~ z 3 ro ¢ = _z " ~ QO --t -- ~ - _ ~ - ~ '° a W tD q LL a ~ ~~ ~ a c \\1 ~ ¢ ~ ~ Q ~ Q O O ~ 7 ~ O , O r W f ~. 1 ~ v ~ ~ 0 ~ l ' Q Z v ~ Q 4'+ U ~ _ ~ ~ O r T c ' T_ ~ " '1 - 1- ~-- i w W ~ c ' : U Z Z ~ci~r a w WO v~ ~ ~ W u- • w w W 3 W W cn CA ~-- (~ Q ~. w N d t'~ ~ A h ~ z~ - cn J ~ w N ~ s F- z ~ ~- W z ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ Cn U ,~. ~ ~ o ~ w >J ~ 1 .. S ~ W N ~ w N ~ LL w Q L -„ to It N \ X . ~. Z O O w V { .. t ~ }~y SC' ~ •''s - . :_ ~; ~. } J~ (~ r a a r y V: i~ W /~ W 'I a ti O 6 ~'i z, \ '' . \ \ \ \ ~~ \ -~ JI>. \ r ~ \ ~ _~ . `\ \\ \~ opp \ ~ \~ ~~ ` ~ 1 1 I I I 1 i I L__ c~"J +! u Q ~ ~ C~ IV r__~ . `~~ `, ~. . . . ;, ` , . \ .~ ., ~, . \o ~ \ -- ~ ~ ~.. ' ~ I ~ ~ i~ lo~~ 1 1 i i 1 1 1 i ... J r--`------i ` ~0\\~`\ ~ `. ~[ F S173O :1MQ15 ON L \~': ~ ~ \ \ a i I N ~ ~LLZ~ ~ , ~ O j ~ ~~ 3m~ ' \ ~` ~ '.~ ~ •.:: .~1 i ~_._... ..~60L-. . _ y _~_~_ 1 SIG' N NBV i FGKSN u!X+L~. J97cu.~vTh.A (S.e~ f}}r~,yc~ep APlkdONl. ~'I 0 it i it ~! iI i, 6!i tiS m~F'~ofON ~I ~DCa6 of B~,ACti'T'DP o° N Y I O f z W ~ N Q f W I { w I N ' I f ~ 1 i ~ I ~ ~, ~ I i i 3IN I ~ ~ m n ~ ~ ~ i z I ~ I ~~ ~ I I t I f I ! t 1 i ~ ~.. f w~ I ~ n I ~ ~, ~ IIi ~ I I c ' ~ ~ ~ t , ~. ~G nc I !°? T 3 3e'- 'o- N F6,r,~~: Lir/~ __.. .., ;: ~..; ~~ c~ C O ;~. :L~' i ~', . ;. r 0 y I, ~ .. 11.16 t; ~ !' 11~ 4 i ei~, ~' S ~Y, :.~. ~; 1 ~: - ;*~ 1ti.~i _.. -_-~----~-:~ ~ w.. , ,.< ._ ,. ., , ., .. T~+sd .: ~S ~''~.. NEa~F'. k~:. C .. ,~wi".'a~ ;da+Ea~aS >~._ ",Mh.S~t?i ~+ ~Cl ~ ,. i i. I .; .:,; ,. Il _ ~ .. 3 1 a ~ .. }'. _... .~ A . r z ~ ° I y fy ; i ~~~~ ., .,. . ..,~.. u., ._. ,.- - ._.. ~, .._..,. ... ~,. 7 'Y" ~ 1 r1J ~ i i „~ ~z :~Li~ 1 ~~ i ~ i _ ..,_ 111 ~~ !L ~~ t~'> I _ i ~ _ ilS {~ i t ~ i z~~ 7 LLB _..~ , .1~ ~~~ t __ _.___ Minutes Pitkin County Board of Adjustment April 26, 1988 Members Present: Kandi Shaffran, Chairman Peter Dobrovolny Melinda Pearson Joe Zanin Chris Conrad, Pitkin County Zoning Enforcement Officer, was present with staff recommendations. Shaffran called the meeting to order. Dobrovolny moved to accept the minutes of the previous.meeting with two corrections. Pearson seconded the motion., All were in favor and the motion carried 4 - 0. Roger Wolf was present representing BMC West. The request was to change the existing Boise Cascade signs to BMC West signs. The sign on the building would have less square footage than the present sign. 'The sign along Highway $2 would be exactly the same size. After discussion about cut-out letters and painted signs, Shaffran made a motion to approve the wall sign as " requested including approval of the 15" BMC letters due to the fact it was an abbreviation, as illustrated on the application. Zanin seconded the motion. Pearson felt that they could have a sign that would conform to th'e code. She felt the code was clear on cut-out letters and how the sign should be measured. She continued that if a sign was bigger than the 6 sq. ft. there should be a good reason. Wolf felt the code taas not clear on abbreviations. Dobrovolny felt that code was unclear, but did not have a problem with this request. Shaffran called for a vote. All were in favor and the motion passed 4 - 0. Case # 88-09 - Dr. and Mrs. Robert Mack Lot 1 Block 4 Red Mountain Ranch Charlie Schwaub and John Cottle of Hagman-Yaw Architects were present representing the Macks. Schwaub explained that it was an existing House that it is already 132 sq. ft. over I'.A.R. `The request was for an additional 218 sq. ft. to enclose the entry- way. (350 sq. ft. total) There is an existing entry alley, which they feel is a safety hazard. He stated that they felt they were in concurrence wi#h the intent of the zoning codes because they were not increasing the height, bulk or the mass of the building. He submitted to the record a letter from the Red Mountain Homeowners Association supporting the variance. Cottle stated that the proposed entryway would not impact the road, it i .. .. would be barely visible from,the road. Zanin stated that he was familiar to the house. and agreed with Cottle. There were no. objection's from the neighbors. Shaffran stated that 'due t~o'fhe fact that, there is no significant increase in height, mass or bulk and 'that it will not impact the neighborhood, she would make the motion to approve a 350 sq. ft. addition to the F.A.R. Shaffran asked Cottle about other possible solutions. E~e'sad it would be possible to remove X11 the overhang, but he didn''t think it would meet the intent of the code. ' Zanin seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion carried 4 - 0. Case #88-11 - Carl and Lou Klenk 1076 E Sooris Creek Rd Carl and Lou Klenk were present. They explained that after they received a variance last year they had gone to see their ar- - , .. ,. chitect and changed the"'plans for their ad~"it'ion. They~w'ere now requesting a 49 ft. side yard'setback variance and a 10 ft. rear yard setback variance. Klenk explained they were basically doing the same thing but on the other side of the house. The I{lenks explained where the proposed addition would be located. The long asttheyrcouldolnvedwithinhthealanguageeofatheolastcvarancesian- Conrad confirmed that a setback variance was permission to encroach a certain distance from the property line, unless it was • y TheumotiopsBcandbe asdspecificmas1desirederaRehcontinuedmthatd its helpful years down the road when someone is trying to interpret the variances. Case # 88-12 - Rorv and Barbara Jane Balance 1755 Snowmass Creek Road. Rory and Barbara Jane were present requesting a 25 ft, front yard setback variance. The Balances explained that they were limited by their choice of building sites by an avalanche area and by the floodplain. There was not a place to build that would not be in the setback. The Balances submitted to the record a notarized letter from A. Stuart Edgerly III stating that he had no objec- tion to the Balances building in the setback. Edgerly is the adjacent neighbor most affected by the Saiances choice of building site. Salance also pointed out that she would not have to remove any of the old pine tress on the site. Dobrovolny moved that a front yard setback of 75 ft. be gran ea, where 100 ft. are normally required, as depicted on the survey due to topographical hardship. Zanin seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried 4 - 0. ~ .W~ 1 ~1e .. _.. .._i ,,r a.,_ John Bruegger was present. He was requesting that a 35 ft. front yard setback be approved where a 100 ft. front yard setback is normally required. Bruegger explained that a 100 ft. setback would provide very poor solar potential. Zarin pointed out that there was no way to build and maintain the 100 ft. front yard setback variance. Dobrovolny felt the hardship was topographi- cal, the solar potential is marginal on this site. Pearson questioned whether such a large variance was necessary.'" Bruegger explained that it was the best site for any potential neighbors. Zanin mov ed to grant a 65 ft. front yard setback variance'due to topographical hardship. -obrovolny seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried 4 - 0. ase # £38 on Subdivisi-l4 - Dan Levinson and AIan Marcus Lot 4 Asoen Oaks Dan Levinson was present representing Alan Marcus. Levinson was requesting that the applicant be allowed to determine which side of the lo't was the access side of the lot and therefore which side of the lot would be the fron£ yard side. All the houses in the area access from Oak Ridge Road. If there were able to consider .that side of the lot the., front, they would be able to build within all the setbacks associated with the A.F-1 zone. The Board explained to Levinson how the front yard i_s determin'ed, it is side that access is taken from, they did not have the author- ity to change the definition of "front yard". Levinsorri'felt it would be closer to the intent of the code to change the access rather than to grant such large setback variances. Levinson pointed out with the setback 'variances he would be able`to build very close to all sides of the lot. Dobrovolny suggested, in keeping with being more specific in the wording of motions, tabling the case until a more specific request was granted. Levinson stated that he could state definitively that the building envelope would be 100 ft on the side and 30 ft. on the front. Levinson continued that this agreed with the 1041 plat; the property had just gone through 1041 review for wildfire hazard. Dobrovolny made the motion that a 70 ft. front yard setback variance, for a 30 ft. front yard setback where a l06 ft. front yard setback is usually required from Oak Ridge Drive be granted and that the building envelope described be no closer than 100 ft, from West Butterirtilk Road, Zanin seconded the motion. Pearson felt it wasn't right to have 2 one hundred feet setbacks. Pearson also did not want to grant a 70 ft. variance if a 50 ft. variance would be sufficient. Levinson felt that the. house could not be designed until the access side was determined. He wanted to make it clear that the house was not designed yet. He continued that they were n`ot intending to dodge the system. All were in favor of Dobrovolny's motion. The motion carried 4 - 0. ._ ..~,. ~ _„ r.. ~: v ~~. ~: ... .,a. Robin Molny was present requesting a 70 ft. front yard setback variance. Zoning for the property is AF-1 and requires a 100 ft. front yard setback. Molny explained that the lot was very steep. aspect ancObservance0offthessetbackwwouldsplacelthelviewtplanelor the south elevation of the house below the horizon and eliminate the view. Molpy stated that he did not feel the variance would affect anyone °else. Pearson moved to grant a 70 ft. front yard setback variance due to to o raphical hardship. Shaffran P seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed 4 - 0. Case #88-16= 'The Inn at Aspen 21646 W Hi~hwav 82 Dick Rather and Diane Schweiner were present representing the Inn a As en .'I Rather ex 1 p P / pj ained they were followpg their identifica- tion re lacemeht schedule. They were requesting approval for 3 signs. Shaffran suggested reviewing each sign separately. The first request was for a $ sq. ft. identification sign to be placed along Highway 82, to replace the existing sign. The height an,d the size of`the sign is exactly the same. Zanin moved to grant approval for the replacement of the identification sign along Highway 82. The new sign is not to exceed the sq. footage of the existing sign. Pearson seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed 4 - 0. The second request was to replace the main sign on the face of the building. The sign presently reads "Barringtons" and they would like to change to read "The Inn at Aspen". Rather ex- plained that many people did not know what Harringtons was, he felt they would attract more business with the name of the hotel rather than the name of the restaurant. They wanted to establish the principal use of the building as a hotel. .Dobrovolny pointed out that according to the submission the'sign was about 20 ft. within fie 200 f't~. setback. The sign would have been within the 30 sq. ft. requirement except for the line underneath the Inn at Aspen added an additional .7b sq. ft. Conrad said it was open to interpretation whether the sign on the building, as a flat wall sign and not a structure was subject to the 200 ft. setback. Rather stated the Inn had been there for 19 years. Conrad stated that the sign and building were probably there before the imposition of the Z00 ft, setback, but he was'ffbt sure.. Pearson thought that it could be approved under down- zoning. Conrad admitted he didn't consider the setback question because the sign is on the building and the (iuiTd`ng had to conform to the setback. There was some discussion about. how the situation could have come about. Shaffran. questioned if they should be allowed 2 identification signs. Dobrovolny stated that the code allows for 1 sign of 6 sq. ft. .within the 200 ft. setback. ,Dobrovolny felt if the sign had been abandoned or taken down for any length of time, they wouldn't be able to approve the sign. Rather explained that they had been a sign in that location since 1969. He continued that the sign had only ., . . .. a .. _..: ~ .....~,. _. been removed for a period of 4 months for construction in 1984. Rather explained that it was'a safety problem. People could not see the sign until they were right in front of the building and it had been the cause of many fender benders. Shaffran asked if the sign conformed to the code, not considering the 200 ft. setback, for cut-out letters. Schweiner explained that it did conform except for the line underneath which added the extra .75 sq. ft. Zanin'stated he did not have a problem with the request. Pearson felt if they were going to encroach into the setback they should at least conform to the size requirements. Rather explained that the line was for conformity with a27. their logos. Dobrovolny agreed with Pearson that it would set a precedent. After discussion about various way's to reduce the sq. footage, Conrad reiterated the need for clarification of the sign code. There was some discussion that in order to be consistent with the BMC request heard earlier in the meeting, that the extra .75 should be'approved because it was replacing an existing sign. Pearson moved to approve the maig permitfapplica"sign on the building as submitted on buildin tion #11925. Zanin seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion was approved 4 - 0. The third request was for a sign on the back awning. This`was on the Buttermilk side of the building, well within the 200 ft. setback. The problem is that customers did not know the res- taurant existed. The sign would identify the building as a hotel and restaurant,. After some discussion about the sign code, there was general agreement that clarification was needed. Skiaffran moved to table the request for the awning sign. Pearson seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed 4 - 0. Conrad stated that he would have some clarification for the Board by the next meeting. A telephone. message had been .received earlier in the day from Walter Mills, the property owner who had granted the easement. Shaffran read the message into the record. It stated that he was in Denver and could not make the meeting. He wanted the Board to know that he had signed the easement agreement under duress and wanted Rocky Mt. Natural Gas to wait to see where the highway was going to be aligned. If the Board did grant $he variance he wanted to make sure the building was completely conr_ealed. gav thataMillse the Board some background information. He stated had granted Rocky Mountain Natural Gas an easement. The proposed location was in the Scenic Foreground and it may have 1041 considerations. Steven Shute was present representing Rocky Mt. Natural Gas. He did want to explain to the Board what they were doing, although he realized the Board could not make a decision on the case that night. He stated he wa the Director of Safety and Technical Services for Rocky Mt. Natural Gas. Jim Krohe was also present. He explained the main pipelines were "~~ ,. .;~ ~ „ ~ ~.~ ~aw.~ „ ~ ._ . ~ .. . installed in the 1960s. Everything that was put in is too small. They are trying to upgrade the service. The present border station for Aspen is located at the corner of the Castle Creek Bridge. 'The purpose of a town border station is to meaxure the gas and to drop the pressure"of the gas. It is poi; a good situation. There is no town border station for Snowmass Village. The pressure is not cut unti`T the gas is up to the Tast"`hote"1in the village. It is a very dangerous situation. Since they need to put in a station for both'Aspen and Snowmass Village, it makes sense to put both in the same place. The line from cal reasons the turnmoff.coTherefaretnotemanyelocationsutotputotheostation~mchni- He showed the Board the site and possible buildings. It is the site that Mills had agreed to. It would not conflict wt.th the train site and was the least visible from Highway 83. Shute continued that for safety reasons the building could not be completely submerged. Dobrovolny moved to table Case #88-17 until the next regular meeting. Zanin 5ecoiyded the motion;. all were in favor.' The motion passed 4 - 0. - Joseph DeMaria 0309' Hixnter Creek Ro~id Lot 11 Stan Mathis was present representing .Joseph DeMaria. He was requesting a variance to the allowable floor area ratio. Mathis explained that the floor plan used to include. a loft area of~" approximately 400 sq. ft. They eliminated the"loft area. Tte loft area had put them over the allowable FAR. He stated that they had been caught in the change over between Patsy and Chris. Patsy used to allow floor area over the allowable FAR as ton the amount of non-conformity wa~ not increased. They took the as e loft out and there is a stairwa on the north side of the house that the water drains on the stairs. They would like to cover the stairs and would add over g 200 sq. ft. of area. They had thou ht and had been told by 'Patsy Newbury that they could add the extra area because they were removing the loft. Conrad does was gnsafetyt~actYr~ditths notevisibleMfroms"T~untnrtC'ree"kgRoa'dpand it is the onl wa to enter t,nto the house exce t throu h the gara e. Pearson pointed out that since they were above grade, they should he included in the FAR. 64athis agreed. Mathis Y Mathis didtnotethinkethisowas~ lower decks to remove floor area. consistent with the intent of the code. He again stated that the removal of the loft more than offset the decks and the entry way. Mathis explained that they were adding decks, but removing some of the decks underneath to compensate for the extra floor area. Conrad explained that they came in and were doing remodeling within the existing envelope, which is allowed and tiad been permitted. Conrad does not know how the present situation came to be, The. existing house is over the allowable F.A.R. so Conrad could not approve any additional F.A.H. without Board of Adjustment approval. Pearson suggested removing the overhangs. Mathis didn't feel that would accomplish _ .:: . .. , _.._ .. .ter r 1 _..... - s+ 1 i i:.. i .-.. I .. ,,. what the code intended. Shaffran pointed out that. the code probably did not intend for a house to be almost 1000 sq.'ft. over the allowable F.A.R. Shaffran read a letter from Edgar J. Robinson into the record. Mr. Robinson, an adjacent property owner, had no objections to the variance. Danny Liccardi, the general contractor for DeMaria pointed out they had given up the mechanical room downstairs. Pearson questiolied the amount pf the variance requested. Mathis explained 5$53 enclosed heated` area } q, (current less 383 s ft. for the loft area and`'4ri5 sq ft:`~of deck area COVeL't3d by decks which adds up to 630f3'', making the existing house 982 sq. ft. over the allowable fluor area. Pearson ahd Dobrovalny asked what the area required for ttie ' exterior entry covered by roof was. Mathis replied 239 sq. ft. The request was for the 238 sq. ft. for the entry and tie decks should not have be removed. 'There was some discucrion'abvut" whether what was already there should be approved. Liccardi ... wanted to clarify that the lower decks. were covered walkways and the reason that they were there was because the hill was a drop off and were necessary for access to the doers. Zarin agreed, he stated that he was familiar with the house. Fearson asked if the entry way could be seen. from the road. Mathis, 7,ar.in an~d~ Liccardi all stated that they did not think it was visible from the road. Pearson made the motion to grant the 239 sq, ft. additional square footage for the construction of an exterior covered stair as shown nn the exhibit submitted due 'to safety concerns and due to the fact that it cannot be seen from the road. Dobrovolny seconded the motion. All were in favor. The " motion passed 4 - 0. - Douglas and Joan Bo les lot 3 Block 7 Crustal Doug Boyles was present requesting a 40 ft. front yard setback for construction of a barn. He stated that his barn, bi"ilt in 1979, had burned down in November and he wanted to use the foundation to rebuilt the barn. He stated that the foundation buildin back because he did e and slabg were just waitiYg fosebeerlandnSu~arrnecBreennintouth'the record su not have enou h flat area.' Shaffran read a letter from Carol n Car pporting the variance. Conrad submitted a picture of the barn under construction. Boyles admitted that the barn was almost rebuilt. Conrad stated that Boyles had toorked with Patsy, the issue was that the peso barn was larger than the old barn and needed a setback variance. Boyles stated that he was not movYng any closer to the road with the addition. After discussion,"' Zanin moved to grant a 40 ft. front yard setback variance to reconstruct his barn. Pearson seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed 4 - 0. Onsgard brought up a request from Ross Jefferys who wanted his variance worded fro~o the edge of the pavement. Jefferys had researched past minutes and found that a similar variance had been granted for a neighbor. After discussion, Shaffrad moved to reopen CAse # 338-05 to amend 'the motion to read that the request .Jr _ . for a 50 ft. front yard setback be measured from the edge of the paved road, rather than the edge of the property. Dobrovolny seconded the motion. All were in favor and. the motion passed 4 - 0. Motion to adjourn. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Chairman f~f g /S~g Date _. :. ~a': .. Kandi Shaffran moved that the following be adopted': BEFORE THE BOARD"~F ADJUSTMENfi OF THE COUNTY OF PIT82N STATE OF COZ6RAD0 RESOLUTION N0. 88-D$ BMC West Corporation, Lot 2, Block 1, Asgen Airport Business Center ` WHEREAS, the subject property is within the unincorporated area of Pitkin County,'C'ol'o'rado; and, WHEREAS., the- Boa"rd of Adjustment is vested with the power' to ~ ~' grant or deny such variances by virtue of Title II Secti''on ''' " 16-1.3, Pitkin Bounty code {land IYS'e' "ode} and Co`1'ora~o Revised Statutes, 1973, 30'-2$-17.8`{2} (C}; and,... _ "., '; WHEREAS, based an the evidence ,presented, the ~B"oax3 c~T Adjustine'nt ~' makes the following findings: ' ' 1. Proper notice procedures, including the n,'otification of all adjoining property owners has been shown b the app'1~"`'~"~~~~ ~ ~_~ ,,._,._ „.. ~-- S' scant." 2. The required hardship or practical difficulty _.:. has been established. 3. Granting such relief will not cause suhstan- tial detriment to the public welfare and'will not substantially impair the`i"n~'en~"'arid'~~'s~"""~~~~`" purpose of the zoning `Resolutions ''and t7e '' zoning maps. NOW, THEREFORE,"BE TT RESOLVE7)~that the applicant's request for' an identification sign located along"11'ighway°8"~ he granted due ..:. N.,." ~ , . .,. .:_ o t e fact. the size of the sign was not"'bu`ng increased:"~' .Additional conditions or restrictions: ,., .~.r . ..._, . ~.... ,. .. WARNING: Any violation of t7ie~ferms of this'"'resolution may result in rehearing and possible r'evocat"ioii. Joe Zanin seconded. the adoption of theforegozng ltdsolution T}ie "' ~~~ roll having been called,` the vofe was~~as ~o11'ows: Kandi Shaffran - yes Peter Doba`avolny - yes !' Melinda Pearson -yes Joe Zanin -yes '' " I` The Resolution was ado ted b vote of the Board of Adjustment of P Y the County of Pitkin, S`tat~~e of'~olorad~o T ~ ` DATED: April 26, 19$$ Colorado Attest: Secretar The Board of Adjustment of Pitk'n Comity, " ~~ rma~~ .. ~,. µ