Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.88.13_ ~ ,~,m n ~.. ~ ~.. .y ~!:.. ~ ~ .. .,~. ~ ~. ~. rvr. -~. w Irv.. f i .. - .~ DAY f_ } ~" PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJU5fiMENT DATE_~a y, ( ~ 19_~ CASE # 85-13 -.' f ~ ~ ~1a7-3oZ4~ "l~ 6iK k^Nnye f~a APPLICANTT +^ r qG-'si4C ~~~ ADDRESS_ Snaw„nslce Cbc ~yAdSY OWNER .,J h zf~6111 k~ra~ ~ D` [.~ H {y! j~~j~.,~onrr ao. ADDRESS `~ Lc~ °nn ~.~d s< ~sl6 s'9 LOCATION OF PROPERTY~o'f' I /oc~, oZ ~~/, ~~ Gp~rao~g,T Tcr ~iYlOU/7M des /~B~in S4thdaJi ~t Any pertinent data must accom any this application, and will be made part of this Case # 88-1p3 The Board may return this application if it doers not contain all the facts in question. Applicant's description of proposed variance showing justification: 'T i.JOU (~ L, k~ ~ 3 a ' FrcxcK~l yA,-d 5~'f Ll,y,a(k ,. Gff; '#' /~- 1Gr~' Se.'F~iAek ~~e Su,l~~w~ S,~' Wvu`d gam. iw f} 3v a/ slo z ~.~h 7 / /J oor S'o !q )- r'7o fan TWl i f24J,t ~ ~~ Applicant Signature y~J~~-- Provsions of the zoning resolution requiring the Zoning Official forward this application to the Board of Adjustment and reasons for not granting a building permit: ~® See L~~ar. !(~rie~ ~~~(?~~ Zoning Official Date permit rejected // ~~ Board decisiontpJ~d Application filed ~ Date '+~2ic~A Notices mailed Iz -sue Secretary_4c~ Q~~'~~~ ASPEN*PITKIIV 1=t~G~~NAC BC.J1~bYNAi~ ` ~ '"" - _.., r ..i TO"IiLZ; l~'1?~1'A'RT'Y""b~11~`'f~a"~'~`~`~`~~• `" , VARIANCE ISSSCI2IB'E]S"~'E`~OW':.r,._.,~t.....,. ,,,~.,.. .....__,.,..~:.,.u„..,.,,::.,,, :_., ........:........., ....._ . Pursuant to Pitkin County "peso"Yu~"sots `of`~"une ~';~, a's " '~ } amended, a Public ifearing will be~field` in" a is"~r'i'c our's`"~"'~"~`'" _ ~~.~ r Room, 1?'tkin County G~our~"""tlouse "` spen o oado4, m~( t ~ , , or a su c~ other Iace;as the meeta.n "~''' "`""°"'""°"' ' P g 'may' then be" a"d~ja rued) to"'co'nsid"er an , applicatzon,faled witli t°Iie sai"~ oar'~"~""o""~~'"" s meat reque°s'£ing w.~. . - ,. _. ...a~..~. authors f provxsYOns o a or varian"ce f4rom`the ""`"`"""""" """" "` y „ou,n~ `ing` ". y`"~'° n „„W , Resolution, ~ A11 ,~ .,~ r.;.-.m ~ ~ i - persoiis affecte~"liq the proposecf~variance are znvitecl'to ~. _ > 'Prot'est's ~.:©r,~.o x .... «., s, ~.n~.~.,... ~...,.. _ ap~pear',and state their views `~jec~ions ~f° you - , cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to ~~ „_..,. state r;` gar~icuY'ar"ly rid you have bbjec~;"ion'to _. eW b e ' s u c v '"""'""' """" - ariance as the : ~ , 8o~ er aou s ~~ .o~~~~us'tmen~~ wi~~give ' M y .. .w... . :~...,,,,,.~ w..,~«.~„~.. ..„ .1._,. P ~,.-_......., '' - __ cbly"5'id i.ozis `a~'~'`surrounc~,ing' p'roP-ert 'owners' and t i t ~ ~ w µ..„~- . " _ " w~. „~„ - .,-~ ,-.YV ,,,. other affected , n decdi.'n ,M g w~ie~iier "`t"`o"""gran oreny'~ifie request , for v a riance. -i - THE PARTICULAR'S' OF"`""'1'`1~'E'~`I1~~A~S`$`~~"~" _ w,~ .,. ~w,. _.._....._...,.r~. ~~.:..... ~......,.. _...., _...~,... h,_..... _._ .__._..,~_r...w., .......,..~._m .d,.. _..... _. _ .... . A'S. ~''b~L6'W~`: Date a'Ud time'"of meet""i"ngi~µ`~p''ri7 '~'~~ :`` p.'m: ,. , PP ... -.. i' _....-. '.._ - Naive and Address of ~`' licant""'for'""'Variance - John M: Bruegg"ei~°"...~,.,~~,:.a..~,.,..-.,.,.._..~rs.. -, tir., .v,.,,.,. -_ ..... ,t, >-3 i. ~.- _. . 47 'Elk"'#ange fir: s .._. . ,T,_ . Sxiowmas CO _81654". ,. .,. ,.-,.,"... ......,_.:. . .. .., ... _~,- _..:p.... y P :,~.,~::.~e:~~, ~ ~~~„~~;~ ~~...N ~ Locati,. on o'f Rro er1;'"""`or "~D'esc'rz`~'~""i~'on• ~~'~M~ ~ _. ~~ n ~ ....,. look_ Lot 1 B "2', k~iling"Y";""~"a eway""£"o"""Sn"awm'as5'° a vYS a sa u a. Varian 'c e R'e'uas""ted"'"~" y ••• _••• .•• ~ _ «..w.n'.'^s"~wuvmmemw.uw.a.~vvr.wrW.~•1~v..:re.~.:..,,. =.x..#r..r ...; 1. 4.a~e::X.: a.L.+ f': ....> « f n"r....,. ~s..~~,_~, .. .~.r 65...ft.,., f"r'on~"""`a"ry"d'~~set a6"~`"c"~""'Variance . .. 4....,...~ ..... ,.. • . .. .. D'ix'rat'ion of"'Variance• ` ""'~ermanen"~':`"" ""` e y, mPora ry _. .. .. .: - Conditions _ _ _. ,4/l '_ .. ~~~~,z/s ~.~c~y ~~ ~~~ ~~ _. _ . ~~ -- ~~x :~ Lam/ ... ~~~y ,~/ y ~D ~ /3,/O ~~~ ~ ~~n 9~z~ / ~o~ ~ ~izec~ ~~ L~~oe,.i~,4 ~i7eo,~/y,v~ ~ / iiz3~ ,, ;' ~ ~. ,; ..; ~~~~~~` /I~~ ~ Le f 9 Lod /D `` / > / ,..~ ~ ~ /.iJ / /Yiz/~~.L 2, ~/rF~/~ ~P/r~,/ ,~o ;6 ~ s cjvcw~~.rss, CO.f'i~s~ ~ ~%z Bin ~6~~ ~~e J~ Cep. fl~~/a . L-o~l~/1~-/~I~'nl -.~J"~.°-- Cy:1~e-~befl~J /' C~~~-f~u~. /v ~n/o~-~~nr5 !"/e.Sa/.SUbC~'iu~S•~N ~o~ ~!/ ... ~d1nlMf'fi~C/ ~. ~~G ~Gl .. _.. ~~~ > :~ L~ ~ Z ~C/~.,~'. ~5 ~~3 lC~ ~39~ /~~~ ~o. ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~.~/o rv,~-/iris, ~D- ~/~ ~~ L~~ ~ >°v. ~. /~-~e./, Coo ~i~ ~~ o~c~c~~~ ~._ ._ ... _..~ . Lo f ~~~' ~i.~: /r~~rsS~ L~O. ~~(a ~G~ ~~~ ~sA L~~ /~~ ~~~/y,/ ~./.~~/~z ~~ CC ice. %~ Jau~/ ~~ ~3. %~ d.~„~~; ~% . 9~s ~o//J~x ~`~~~ G ~e ~ ~~ . ~~G/~ 11LpING DEpgRTIyIENT Jennifer Bog 5641 L. Weber West Village' Colorado 81615 ~-- ::e __ _ ~. aS ,y ..~,: ~_ `. R ~ ~G' ,- !"I. • _ ;~.:;. cs I`~,'E~7(~f%;i~d 'I'C) SGi`!E~E:1% alpr.ado8~611 i`i0l,~lc:fi (_!1F') 7d{) ryL;q.~FiE:f~t; m ,-,- . DEPARTMENT JUSTMENT 'ED ZONING QR USE June 5, 1955, as District Court- -ado, (or at such rued} to consider an ustment requesting rf the County Zoning ariance are invited to aYr-- ~ ~b jections. If you cannot appear ,._ .;hen you are urged to state your views 'by lecc~., f you have objection to such variance, as the $oard of "A'dju~...__ will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and other affected in deciding, whether to grant or u'eny the request for variance. THE PARTICULARS OF THE HEARING A'ND OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE ARE AS FOLLOWS: Date and time of meeting: April 26, 1988 5:15 p.m. Name and Address of Applicant for Variance: ' John M. Bruegger 47 Elk Range Dr. Snowmass, CO 81654 Location of Property or Description: Lot 1, Block 2, Filing 1, Gateway to Snowmass Mesa Subdivision Variance Requested: t 65 ft. front yard setback variance" Duration of Variance: Permanent: XX ;Temporary Condition: THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARB OF ADj'USTMENT " offices: 5'17 East HopklnsAvertue Aspen, Colorado 8T6'11 t.~c-~~---C."'~~ Evan Gull, Chairman mail address: 506 East'Main Street 30'3%925=973 i~spen;L'oi`o~edbTs~s~~ .". -___.- .r ~.,:, ~S. ^'"3'H,~'iµ~~p~,'ari,;;,v.:*. r4;~ c. ~~ G',^~"a',4"C~hnZ~.^{~^,°,'i£~`,'"~~'~.. {a .^~,~skp"""'~rc~i4 k'"" ~ sp ~ ~lcs s^p..rJ ~, &'% ^a .4SPEN4PITK1'f~f .="t~~ICONAL BUIL,DI`..~~"D~PA'RTMENT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEA'RZNG BEFORE THE PITRIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPfiRTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTEb ZONTNG~ OR USfi VARIANCE DBSCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to Pitkin County Resolution of`Jiai~e 5, 1555; as amended, a Public Hearing will be held in the District Court- Rogm, Fitkin County Court House, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such <,..~, . H. .,. other place as th'e meeting may then"be adjou'rn'ed) ko'considec an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment"requesting authority for variance from the probisions 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 biews'by letter, particularly if qou haye'olijecton to such variance, 'as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and other affected. in decidng,whether to grant or deny t'he request for variance. THE PARTICULARS OF THE HEARING AND OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE ARE AS FOLLOWS: Date and time of meeting: April 26, 1588 5;I5'p.m. Name and Address of Applicant for Variance: John M. Bruegger' 47 Elk Rang'e' Dr. Snowmass, CO 81654 __ ~"^*>, Location of, Property or Description: Lot 1, Block 2, Filing 1, Gateway to Snowmas`s'M~esa Subdidsion !~' 65rftnefrontuearddsetback variance' Y ,, , Duration of Variance: Permanent: XX ;Temporary Condition: offices: 5'17 East Hopklna Avenue Aspen, Colorado $'16'1'1` THE PTTKIN COUNTY BEARD OF `ADJUSTMENT ., ~ ,. ; . Evan Gull, Chairman . ~ . mail addreas• 5[~r5"EasC Main Street 3'CS3%925=5973`" " Aspen, ~oloracyo 8611 ^ ~ ~__ ,.w ~ ; a°i m ~- n ~o 0 ~ n x o O ~ A M ~ ~ ~ a H p t" o p W ~ O' O n o ~ ~ ~ ,_ ~. T R.. ~t'.iu' ~. v ~~ ~ ~, _.._._ y. G sY m gJ: ~,;n's .. o- 4 {i{ h3 Lt1 1 ~~; . ' ~ , ~ I ~ ~ r ,~ ~ ~, ~ ~~ ._ ,~ ~ , ' ~ ~ = .r ,. __ , ~u m , ~ ~ ' ~ } . ., z 1 r , ,. ` w .; c :~ t r A ~ i _ Z ~ p I ~ 1 i 3 ~ ~ ' a . I m z ~ ~ , . .. ~ ':. err ! n_. 6~ { ,.. ~ .,. ,~ 1,1~ p. C L Y rqR rt ~' I ' 1 u ~ ~ l ', '. i , ~ ~ ~ . .~ t .. i ,. ~, .,:. , _ Joe Zanin moved that the. following tre adopted: BEFO$E TAE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF'COLORADO RESOLUTION N0. 88-13 John M. Bruegger, Lot ,l, Block 2, Filing 1, Gateway to Snowmass Mesa Subdivision` WHEREAS the sub'ect rporated area of Pitkin C'ounty~, Coloradortand$ within the uninco grantAor denyBsuch variancesmbytvirtueSOfdT`itle IIe S~ct~"to on 16-1.3,'Pitkin County code (L"and 'Use 'C ode) and Colorado Revised Statutes, 1973, 30-28-118(2} (C}; and, WHEREAS, based on the evidence presented, the Board of Adjustment m. ,_ makes the following findings: 1. Proper notice procedures, including the n'atification of all adjoining property owners,, has been shown by the applicant. ' 2. The required hardship or practical. diffcu7.ty has been' established. 3. Grantingsuch relief-will not cause substan- ..,. " tial detriment to the public welfare and 'will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the 'Zoning'"'R'esolutions and"the z'onng'maps. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the applicant's request for a 65 sq. ft. front yard setback variance, due 'to 't'opagraphcal hardship,. be granted.. Additional ;conditions or restrictionst WARNING: Any violation of the„terms 'o,f this,_resaTution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. ' °" "' Peter Dobrnvolny seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolu- tion. The ;roll having been called, the vate.,was as follows: Asndi Shaffran - yes Peter Dobrovolny - yes Melinda Pearson.- yes Joe'Zan'in - yes T e Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. !.Adjustment of DATED: April 26; 1988 Colorado Attest: Secretary The "Board'o'f "` Adjustment of Pitkn County, ~~-~-~~ Chaff ma'n' r Minutes Members Present Pitkin County Board of Adjustment April 26, 1988 Kandi Shaffran, Chairman Peter Dobrovolny Melinda Pearson Joe Zanin } i 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 twa corrections. Pearson Seconded the motion. A11 were in favor and the motion carried 4 - 0. Roger Wolf was present representing BMC West. The request was tc 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 82 would be exactly the same size. After discussion about cu£-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 an the application. Zanin seconded the motion. Pearson fe'1t that they could have a sign that would conform to the 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 was 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. 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 F.A.R. The request was for an additional 218 sq, ft. to enclose the entry- way. (350 sq. £t. total) There is an existing entry alley, which they feel is a safety hazard. He stated that they felt Y the were ig concurrence with the intent of the zoning codes because they were not increasing the height, bulk 'or the mass of the buildin 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 ~. , w,_ . ~. .. ~._ .~~ ..-,~ .. . ,..~~,. .... , ... _ ...:x,a. would be barely visible from the road. Zanin stated that he was amiliar to t ob'ections frhe house and agreed with Cottle. There were'no° J om the neighbors. Shaffran stated that due to 'the 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 bottle about other possible solutions. He said it would be possible to remove all 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. 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 addition. They were 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 Klenks explained where the proposed addition would be located. The setback variance required had not changed since the last varian- ce. Pearson pointed out that a variance was not necessary as `long as they ,could live within the language of the last variance. Conrad confirmed that a setback variance was peYtnission 'to encroach a certain distance from the property line, unless it was specifically addressed in the motion. Conrad suggested in the future the Board should grant variances per exhibit's submitted. helpfullyearsadown thesroadfwhenssomeonedis ~ryingttouinterpretts the variances.' Rory and Barbara Jane were present requesting a 25 ft. front yard setback variance. The Salances explained that they were limited by their choice of building sites by an avalanche area and by the flood lain. Th the setback, Tere was not a place to build that would not be in he Salances submitted to the record a notarized letter from A. Stuart Edgerly III stating that he had no objec- tion to the Salances, building in the setback. Edgerly is the' adjacent neighbor most affected by the Salances choice of building site. Salance also pointed out that she would not have to remove any df the old pine tress on the site. Dobrovolny moved that a front yard setback of 75 ft. be granted, 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. .. • ~ •• •.e •~• •. •.x :}rW t44 ,o'c #.:I.fWtixdw.s abu4'Y +S 1':.\4 m. tii' V •.v,:h`h't '~. ~, ~Sr i ~, ¢.. I.:. 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. setbactc would provide very poor solar potential. Zanin 'pointed out that there was no way to build dnd maintain the l00 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'nec"'essary'` Bruegger explained that' it was the best site for any potential neighbors. Zanin moved to grant a 65 ft. front yard setback variance due to' topographical hardship. bobrovolny seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried 4 - 0. Dan Levinson was present representing Alan Marcus. Levinson was requesting that the applicant be allowed to determine which side of the lot was the access side of the lo_t and therefore which side of the lot would Ge the front 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 £he front yard is determined, it' is side that access is taken from, they did not have the author ity to change the definition of "front yard". Levi.nson,'fe,lt,it would be closer to the intent of the code to change the access rather than to grant such large setback gariances. 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's'pe°cfic 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 thent. Lev~nson Jus~inued that ghis a reed with the 1041 plat; g propert had gone throu h 1041 review for wildfire ` h~anrd. Dobrovolny made theym'otgon that a 70~ft front"yard setback variance for a 30 ft. front yard setback where a 100 ft. front yard setback is usuall re uired from Oak Ridge Drive be g ted and that the building envelope described be no closer than 100 ft. from West Buttermilk Road. Zanin seconded the motion. Pearson felt it wasp'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 not intending to dodge the system. All were in favor of Dobrovolny's motion. The motion carried 4 - 0. .' rubmw ti rr ~a + k ~,: ._ ,_~.. - ~,. ~ -,~~ ~ ~ . E ~ • t t Robin Molny was present requesting a 70 ft. front yard setback variance. Zoning for the property is AF-1 and requires a 100 ft. Observanrd setback.' Molny explained that the lot Was very steep. yace of the 100 ft. setback would severel p _ y limit 'the solar theesouth elevation of the housecbelowlthelhorizhe view plane of on and eliminate the view. Molny 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 topographical hardship.` Shaffran seconded the motion. A11 were in favor and the motion passed 4 - 0. Case X88-16 - The Inn at Asoen 21646 W Highway 82 Dick Rather and Diane Schweiner were present representing the Inn at Aspen. Rather explained they were following thr_ir identifica- tion/replacement schedule. They were requesting approval for 3 signs. Shaffran suggested reviewing each sign separately. The first request was for a 6 sq. ft. identification sign to be placed alang Highway 82, to replace the existing sign. The height and the size of the sign is exactly the same. Zani:n moved to grant approval for the replacement of the identification sign along Highway 82. The neW sign is not to exceed the sq. footage favoreandl£henmotion passeds4n-s e0conded the moti.on., All were in 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 hat many people did not know what Barringtons was, he felt the 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. D'obrovolny bmission the sign was about Z~lftedwothinh~gea2'OOrftQgsetback.sul'he sign would have been within the 30 s ft, re uirement except for the line underneath the Inn at Aspen added an additional .75 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. onrad stated t g before the im ohat the si n and building were probably there p sition of the 200 ft. setback, but he was not 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 building had to conform tq 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 I sign of 6 sq. ft. within the ?,00 ft. setback. Dabro'volny 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 h ad only _- . ran v <.w.MM.~. >~ .r. Wa., y A . b'!fat r • • x +°d;S YCY: { been removed for a period of 4 months for construction in 1984. Rather explained that it was a safety problem. PeopYe''coizld'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. conform~exce tuforutheelinesunder'neathewhchladded that it did P ed the extra .?5 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 all their logos. Dobrovolny agreed with Pearson that it would set a precedent. After discussion about various ways to reduce the aq, footage, Conrad reiterated the need for clarification of the sign code. There was some discussioa 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 main identification sign on the building as submitted on building permit application #1'1925. 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. Shaffran 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 the variance he wanted to make sure the building was completely concealed. Conrad gave the Board some background information. ,.He stated that Mills 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 fo 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. Tim Krone was also present. He explained the main pipelines"were""' ` .._ _... ., .. ,S,jnt:w-.y.. atim- l .ry ., ,.. o- ~ ,. _ -...._ i- ~ j i*~ !>. i 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 measure the gas and to drop the pressure of the gas. It is not. a good situation. There is no town border station for Snowmass village. The pressure is not cut until the gas is up to the last hotel in the village. It is a very dangerous situation. Since they need to put in a station for both Aspen and Snowmass 4illage, it makes sense to put both in the same place. The line from calwreasonsmes off at Brush Creek Raadquarter ofnnot, for techni- put the line more than a a mile from the turn-off. There are not many locations to put the station. He showed the Board the site and possible buildings. It is the site that Mills had agreed to. It would not conflict' with the train site and was the least visible from Hi hwa 8... that for safet reasons the buildin couldynot b' Shute continued y g e completely submerged. Dobrovolny moved t'o table Case #88-1t until the next regular meeting. Zanin seconded the motion; all were in favor. The motion passed 4 - 0. 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. Tfxe loft area had put them over the allowable FAR. He stated that they had been caught in the change over liebween Patsy and Chris. Patsy used to allow floor area over'the allowable FAR, as long as the amount of non-conformity was not increased. They took the loft out and there is a stairway 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 200 sq. ft. of area. They had thought and had been told by Patsy Newbury that they could add the extra area because they were removing the loft. Conrad does not interpret the code the same way. Mathis felt the hardship was a safety factor, it is not visible from Hunter Creek Road and it is the only way to enter into the house, except through the pointed out that si garage. Pearson y above grade, the show Mathis agree Mathis dild be included in thge FAR: ndecksetowremd~ Mathis stated that they were rPmovin lower ove floor aria. d not think this was 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 had 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.R, without Board of Adjustment approval. Pearson suggested removing the overhangs. Mathis ddh't feel that would accomplish ~_ s .... ~~=M m ,.. u~.~ a, A ,.«as~a~a~~, ~. ~ .tl ~. .k u,. i what the code intended. Shaffran pointed out that the code probat,ly did not intend for a house to be almost 100,.0 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 Lccax•di, the general contractor for DeMaria pointed out they had given up'the mechanical room downstairs. "Pearson questioned the amount of the variance requested. Mathis explained 5853 enclosed hewed area (current} less 383 sq. ft. for the loft area and 4:55 sq. ft. of deck area covered by decks which adds u to 630$ nor area. PearsonganduDobrovolny askedvwhathGhela~eat~requi' makixig the red for the x arior Y Y q Mathis replied 239. sq. ft. The re uesttwasofox•rtheb238osq.wft.' for the entry and the decks should nqt have be removed. There was some discussion about whether what was already there should be approved. Liccardi wanted to clarify that the lower decks were covered walkways and the reasgn that they were there was because the hill was a drop off and were necessary for access to the doors.. Zanin agreed, he stated that he was familiar with the house:. Fearson asked if the entry way could be seen from the road. Mathis, 7.anin and Liccardi all stated that they did no'G'thnk it was visible from the road. Pearson made the motion to grant the 239 sq. f£. additional square footage for_the r_nnstruction ~f an exterior concerns tair as shown on the exhibit submitted due to safety covered sand due to the fact that if cannot he seen from the road. Dobrovolny seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed 4 - 0. - bou~las and Joan Bovles Jot 3 Block l __~rystal Doug Boyles was present requesting a 40 ft. front yard setback for construction of a barn. He stated that his barn, built in "' 1979, had burned down in November and he wanted tq use the foundation to rebuilt-the barn. He stated that the foundation and slab were just waiting for a building. He could not push the building back because he did not have enough flat a.x•ea. Shaffran read a letter from Carolyn Casebeer and Suzanne Breen into the record supporting the variance. Conrad submitted a picture of the barn under construction. Boyles admitted that•the barn was almost rebuilt: Conrad stated that Boyles had worked with Patsy,. the issue was Ghat the new barn was larger than the old barn and needed a setback variance. Boyles stated that he was not moving 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 from the edge of the pavement. Jefferys had researched past minutes and found that a similar variance had been granted for a neighbor. After discussion, Shaffran moved to reopen CAse # 88-05 to amend the motion to read that the request ....,.:. i. ....~:. ~ Y ~ i I: I 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. A11 were in favor and the motion passed 4 - 0. Motion to adjourn. Respectfully submitted, Secretary ° /cal.-..~'G~.1r~/ &/ q ~~ Date