Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.88.18 PITISIN COUNTY BOARD QF ADJUSTMENT DATE 1re~ t ~ 19~ :, ' id's .~~.'> ,.. CASE # 88-18 APPLICANT ~ n.~;~/ ~~~ - `, '-rJa ~YY.L v^: a.. AIIDRRSS ~y~; , .,~.:...,^. ~'Iriv, ~, OWNER_~ 9.. Y ~ ,a,~.~, ADDR$SSsy2 1r, >;m, :. °~I.~v~ ~w - T LOCATION OF PROPERTY ~~ ~u,~ 7-G,. ~~~- ~,gn.4'' ~ Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and wil'1 be' made part of this Case # 88-18 The Board may return this application if it does not contain all the facts in question. Applicant's description of proposed variance showing justification: Applicant Signature Provisions of the zonin resolution re uirin the Zonin Officia forward this applicaticr to the Board of Adjustmen'£ ~andgreaaons`1 for not granting a building permit: ~f%'~' ~~G,gL Jf/o11C2 Zoning Official Date' permit rejected ~// Applicatiog _filed?',1~-1s~ Notices m"ailed 41;ai ~~6 ~~_30 ®~CD'~ .. ~ VARIAI~ICE `TSE~S"C"RTB"$.~"""~„L-~.~i,w,w,.~-.,>,~.°,~.,~,,,~,.~_.>,..,._.a.....: - _ . . ~ ,, _. Pursuant to T'ztk,n County'"~'~Ceso~uion of .fungi ~ I~~~;'was ' ~ , amended, a' F'ulilz'c "~'e'aring~~"`wa'~ie" ~i"e~c~'~in'' ~'~e bis"rict"`2"ourt="~~ " "` ` ~ ten, ~M.-,».~.w,~„..,,~ Room, Pitkzn Coun~g ~ ~urt ~ouae; span', o ox~ado (or at s ch , u , other place as the meeting may then'be'adj'ourned) to consider an ` ' r~~~.. ~, application' fired ti+i tfi t~he'saad ~oar`~ o~'""Adjustment r'eques~ting authority for variance°'from tfie'prevsions'of 'the,rgo;un£y Zoning .. _._- Resorution:' A1r persons affected"Ei'"" -the " ,,, ~.~..„ku ,,,. ,,,-"..~, y, ,proposed variance are invited to appear"a~nd state £heir views, protests or object ns ~"f ' ." -,,.~~_, io . you „ cannot appear personal"ly amt such pmeeting, then you aµre u°Y~ged to ~" ~ y_ state your Uiews >;y Tetter, particularly zf you haye o6jedtion to ,~ such variance, as 'the Doard ~'~"~dj ~stment'wirl ive'seY'zous consideration to the opi n,~ons of surrouipg property' owners- at~d ~ '~ ~ _.._ . iw:.. _ other effected zn,decidan e~'-ego graht or den ~he'requ'est Y ' ,. ...w.,~._ .., . for vaY iance: ,.: _.... , THE "Pif'~~'`t "~,'`' ,- ,,, ::~ ,N, `~ rw-,e~C~v9~ `.~~ ewi°~ Gve. 'Y°'r't'iewauu~"...c4u.,ai': Date and time off' mee~zng. "~grzT' x"`5,`1"~' ~5~~ _ .__. G-~ m . . .. .., . .. _ Name and Address of` App~'r'icant f r "" o arzance: Joseph DeT~ar'ia . _... ,. ~ - „ .. _. 3 ~ .-v.,l-n ._..,a _. .. ~- .. .:,~-~...M ~._.s..a..a:.n.«,.~,;~e~..w+.:am,w-~~.uwe...;ac...,~:.,a}rw.wa*s~saw~rmvh.wN...s~, re... kswe. ~ Miami, Florida Location -~o`f"~l~roperty "or Descrzpt~ on g~ ~ ~~ ~ ~"~F ~~"`"""'~"` " ° 030-.g"`Hunter`"'G~"reek~`d ;' ..._,,,,M~,w„x._. _ k ,,.., . __.,_„... _.. ,-,._..,...._„.,._ ...__.,., - ,__,. ~ 'Brock...-~mm~ anc Lot 11 Variana'e Re nested ~ ~.. appr'oval_ to permit £1~ie' a'd~ditzon a ~ sq ' ` ~~~ ~ , o cover an enclose the residence front entr wa The rasultant f~'iior"ar a " ` e would be 99'~ s.4• =fit :- in "exbe~ss"'bf "the 'arlosaaar'e' floor, area: - lance- •., ~ ~.~;~ "-~ .;,~ ~ .,.»;,~ on of'Var Permanent' ~C7t ~``e npRor'ary ... on. Condit ~ ..... ,... ' Evan Gurr, Chairman "' ' officea: .mail adelr~ss: - 5'17 East Hop`fiir+s"'dve"""~""nYre ~""_., '~""" ._ - SO~~East""I~Y°s"`i`n""~ti~eet ~" A'spe'n; C'olowac~o E~!'f~1,I_... ,. 3d~~9''~~=~''~ ~_w~~.~,,;~. -- ~~~.~ s ieH, Colorado 8'1'6'1'1 {~ ,rQi -~'~+.o L+ow^Z`°,. 1 `> YS D. ~4V°~ ~%!OVlGc7/1~'uw17~°'rq Ipid y, ~`i S ~ ~~.°-~ ~GG.fi'SS.!/G~ ~J^.a Gfr °'4'W~ ~\Z ~ W1` tpp7~~.6'. ~(( ~~YiG.vJ^fi'^~ed, '`^.ldu~e.vy .'J ~-C~,(IY:~• ~~ylDwc(~11o~ i Yi-G W{t?'tPi(i' ~~~~ s~aly=~ ac.v~~, ~i~V•e.~P~ .1'Oy ~G-e- ~-'-`~1 GJ~dt~/ ~~ /~ c, vy ~ ~~5 rit 21/~ ~~-~~ t,~se ~ ~~- ~eti~ ~"~G~e- S t'~-1f.S cc....u~e~ _S ~ ifilt~ ~.v'~.. G!-GcuY', ~ivJY 1~ a.,! 2 '~da a...S-~~.Z V~ W V V Y1 ~,. ~~..fr.F~• I iCi'bY ni ~ ~~ yi}/u ~. '~ ~4Fi k ~ w 7 c--~-(_a~-~c2 ~L ~ 'S ~~.~+Y~/ O~~sPe. -1'U~s G~a~vrc(-°ry'Jw5 c,~vtr.~t~-~dt!I ~'ta.s { l, { C.i ( p ( { _,~''a.°r dv~@/ffi c~ ~saav e,~'i>~ 7 ~ - ~t'~~ _ E...iv~er'S i-i ~,'~" ^_ Y~/';~«a,'~t-~, b 'I t~Yi ~. , . ~-a r -~ °~~ ~-e+r y~.vQ -lac.. a,v~a(.~. 5 B 9~'~ta.`~' ~ rr~ z9 ~~ - ~' ~~a~-ai~fd-~vC s~u~wv~ -~'@.e~" does No~ rN~,ve.~<~e ~~- - 1k .YZ OSN~'- IGOi~( ~"t9'/ Ya.~Cs I \Yt~ r' '~'"'l0 eV a r11-Prl'aC, Q ~ ' ~Q~.(. ; CJL/4'S / _. !` 0.>Pr~r:~S av1 ~ --~d~--ably Btiv1`7~J~1•,~O ~ra~^^; d'b"wvt7"e,. Gv'rr~,t= ~Q°~G -- ___ .. i, I -- -i.. .. ,_: a ,, ~.. I, .. _... m _ _ _ ' ~... , ~~ ~... ~ .. µ>, x:.. ... .: arr w..T ~ t ~ Y7:a1. ...r lYU £.: •: hU 11 M G Il.. ^. _ '~ x ~ ~ ~ .~ 7. .. ...... .. _~..... __... ...i . ~....-.s.. ~.......~ ... ... . .......~. ~.~--............ ~. : v -~..... i i ~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ li '~~ -I I ^i. i I /~ /~ I .~~ if ~ ~ - - ~, ,: q ~ ~, '~ I, a ' ~ ~ - ~ i .: ~.w._..., ~_ ,~,..__ . ~~ ee q ,1 n - . , -__.,___.._ 1'rGl H n ~'O~.~n b i 5~ Ir ~.ilnn. 3~ '~~~ _ .. ,._.__.-- -_-._ .,..M_ - _... t.~- n ~.. •~. o~ ~'"'~ 'x'70 ~ ~ __.,_ .r.....-_,} ~..__ ~.w...__-._-_ ~ -• - ~ 1 rah , --i.-~H d-L cY~ ~, r~ CG 2 v~ ~j ..: .._ __,.__._,..._ ., .. _ ._.„,." ,_ VJ_., ,. - - o~. 3^71 ~~~ .-~ --~ o ~t of ~'t ~ p ~/ ~ o _. (7 D 4 ~ _.. _ _ _ . - .-- i~ {~ r / ; ~..-~.... _.~._ ..w..p.~ -, . IY ~ ~' 1 i n~D,C/~-~yi' ~ V d %'' C~ ~ f/~ I may, ~~e ~G l~ Gc ~. J ~ bC~, , ~-~ ~~ __ q z v_ ~-~-7 ~ . iPE'N. KIN REIGIONA~ ~lJ1LC'll\TG ~l`~EF~AFlTfV1E1V'I"' nETOR TO NFO SE•YD eR R~~UFD a .-_ . ~~~,h O ,~ ~L ,. ~~ss Brian Rapp 0651 Hunter Creek Road„ c%o Aspen Ski Co. P.O. BOX 1248 Aspen, Colorado 81612 6 East Main Street,, * Aspen, Colorado 896'11 --- ---- _ Y. ~NC.._e,_~„y _ E ,Y f ,~ _._` a_AG.n... .__. _. _y._`... Qs~(3C~!3'7 SUN LAKES MARKETING A Limited Partnership 25612 E. J. Robson Boulevard Sun Lakes, Arizona 85224 April 21, 1988 Evan Gull, Chairman Aspen Pitkin Regional Building Department 506 E. Main 'Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE2 DeMaria 0309 H+.anter Creek Road Variance Request Dear Mr. Gull, The request for a variance by Mr. DeMaria will not in any way effect my property which is located at 0312 Hunter Creek Road. In reviewin request I hope tYas bariance is granted. ' Since lv i J. Robson EJR:do 0 01 m m a 3 m Z R i W !D Q 0 m d 0 ~_, ..._., _~_~z - . , a . ._ __. ... k , ,gyp x r ..~ •t_.~. ~ ~. Z ~', .,_. ® <. '. .. Z F r ~ _ r„ s=, ~ Z 9 'b ~ o rp ~ n u~ m -~ rn k Cy ~ ~ ~ ~ fi ~ N x m ^° ~ 0 ~ ~ G ~ ~ ~ N `d N O N ~ H "f ~) n F x .~, . ~ ,~ ., .~, N W N• p C1N ~ 2a¢ a 3 O ~, a.+ .b a C "lj 4 ~ " O ~ o ~ "~ . N ~~~~' ~ ~ R . ~~ A. ~N, i ~ '. r a ro~ ,~ b i ~ cb , L ~ _ ,_ ___ ~' \a ~ T o-d R ~ ~ ~ ~ I)~. c. ~g99° (~ ' ~ [. .l yyqq [j 4 ~1 U ~ 4 1 • yy ~~~~. i ` ^~ ~ `{~~ I . ,_~~ 1) ~h_ ~ 4ar R ) ~ ~ • ~ 6 v-. tl ® : la "~ t 4 {: - h ~ ,, ems.. e.. av i ... =;r Minutes Members Present: Pitkin County Board of Adjustment April 26, 1988 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. -ux - 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 82 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 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. tease # SR-na _ n.. __~ .,__ .. __ Charlie Schwaub and John Cottle. of Hagman-Yaw Architects were present representing the Macks. Schwaub explained that it was an requestgwasufortantaddifonaleady 132 sq. ft. over F.A.R. The 218 sq, ft. to enclose the entry- waY• (350 sq. ft. total) yThere is an existing entry alley, which the feel is a safet hazard.. He stated that they felt they were in concurrence with '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 entrywaq w'ou'ld not impact the road, it I~ti ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ 'i would be barely visible from the road. Zanin stated that he was familiar to the house and agreed with Cottle. There were no" objections from 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 Cottle 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. Ail were in favor and the motion carried 4 - 0.' Case #RR-T1 - r~..i ., .,a , __. ,., - --- Carl and Lou K1enk 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 Y Conrad coould live within the.. g g ce. nfirmed that a setbackavariance~wasepermissionato 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 exhibits submitted. The motions can be as specific as desired. He .continued that its helpful years down the road when someone is trying to interpret the variances.' Road. Rory and Barbara Janz 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 trot 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 Balances choice of building site. Balance also pointed. out that she would not have to remove any of the old pine tress on the site. Dobrovoin,y moved that a front ,yard setback of 75`ft. be granted, where 1'00 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. ~~~ ~~ 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. Zanin'pointed out that there was no way to build and maintain the 100 ft. front yard setback variance. Dabrovolny felt the hardship was topographi- cal, the solar potential is marginal on_this site. Pearson questioned whether such a large variance was necessary. Bruegger P Zaninlmovedhto grants at 65 f}$tfrote for any potential neighbors. topographical hardship. Dobrodolny secondedbthe motianCe All to were in favor. The motion carried 4 - 0. Case # RR-7 n _ tt~_ , __-_ _ .. ~ . 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 lot and therefore which side of the lat would be 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 he able to build within all the setbacks associated with the AF-1 zone. The Board explained to Levinson how the front yard is determihed, it is side that access is taken from, they did not have the author- ity to change the definition of "front yard". Levinson 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 th'e building envelope would be 100 ft on the side and 30 ft. an the front. Levinson con°tinued that this agreed with the 1041 plat; the property had just gone through 1041 review for wildfire hazard. Bobrovolny made. the motion that a 70 ft. front yard setback variance,. for a 30 ft, front yard setback where a 100 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 Buttermilk Road. Zanin secgnded the oration. 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 #o mane. 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. ~~ Robin Molny was present requesting a 70 ft. front yard setback variance. Zoning for the property is AF-1 and requires a 10'0 ft. front yard setback. Molny explained that the lot was very steep. Observance of the 100 ft. setback would severely limit the solar aspect. Observance of the setback would place the view plane of the viewh eMolnylstatedtthatoheedba~ow the horizon and eliminate not feel' the variance would affect an ane setback varianelse. Pearson moved to grant a 70 ft'. front yard ce due to topographical hardship. Shaffran seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed 4 - 0. Case #88-16 - The Inn at As en 21646 W. Hi hwav 82 Dick Rather and Diane Schweiner were present representing the Inn at Aspen. Rather explained they were following their identfica- tion/replacement schedule. They were requesting approval for 3 signs. Shaffran suggested reviewing each sign separately. placgedralonggHghways82orto rgplacetthedexisting sign. gThe toigrantnapprovalzforftheereplacementaoflthehdentificatninomoved along Highway 82. The new sign is net to exceed the sq.ifootage favoreandlthen~ sign-. Pearson seconded the motion. All were in motion passed 4 - 0. The second request was to replace the main sign on the face of the building. The sign presently reads "Barrington s;" and they would like to change to read "The Inn at Aspen". Rather ex- plained that many people did not know what Barririgtons was, he felt they would attract more busines's 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 the 200 ft. setback. The sign would have been within the 30 sq. ft. requirement 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 Z00 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 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 because the sign is on the building and the building had gto'stion 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 20'0 ft. setback. bobrovolny 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 ?; - i 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 Z00 fit." setback,. for cut-out letters. Schweiner explained that it did conform except for the line underneath which added the extra .75 s4• 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 sg. 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 main identification'sign on the building as submitted on building permit application #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. 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 Mi17s, 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 6lills 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 nqt. make a decision on the 'base that night. He stated he wa the Director of Safety and Technical Services for Rocky Mt. NaturaQ Gas. Jim Krohe was also present. He explained the main pipelines were 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 o'f 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 Village, it makes sense to put both in the same place. The line from Snowmass ', comes off at Brush Creek Road. Shey cannot, for techni- cal reasons, put the line mare than a quarter of 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 Highway 82. Shute continued t at for safet reasons the buildin could not b submerged. Dobrovoln moved to table Case #88-1'7 until the next The motion ~• -y g e completely re ular meetin Zanin secahded the motion• all''were in favor. passed 4 0. _~n _ Stan Mathis was present representing Joseph T1eMaria. 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. The 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 long as the amount of non-comformity'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 'w ay to enter into the house,. except through the.. ,. garage. Pearson poihted out that since they were above grade, they should be 'included in the FAR. Mathis agreed. Mathis stated that they were removing lower decks to remove floor area. Mathis did not think this was"consistent with the intent of the code. He again stated that the removal of the loft more than g underneath to comeensate forrthenextraefloorgareae ~Conraddexplined that they p dined that they came in and were doing remodeling within 'the existing envelope, which is allowed and had been'pe'rmtted. Conrad does not know how the present situation came to be. The existing bouse 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 didn't feel that would accomplish ~. ', ~k. ~ .a. r;, what the code intended. Shaffran pointed out that. the code probably did not intend for ''a house to be almosti 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 questioned the amount of the variance requested. Mathis explained 5853 enclosed heated area (current) less 383 sq. ft. for the loft area and 455 sq. ft. of deck area covered by decks which adds up to 6308, making the existing' house 982 sq. ft. over the allowable. flour area. Pearson and Dobrovolny asked what the area required for the exterior 'entry covered by roof was. Mathis replied 239 sq. ft. The request was for the 238 sq. ft. for the entry and the decks should not 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 walltways and the reasoln 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 frgm the road. Mathis, 7anin az5d Liccardi all stated that they did not think it was visible from the road. Pearson made the motion tv grant the 239 sq. ft. additional square footage for the construction of an exterior covered stair as shown on the exhibit submitted due to safety concerns and due to the fact that it cannot be seen from the road. Dobrovvlny seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed 4 - 0. 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 to 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 haves enough flat area. Shaffran read a letter from Carolyn Casebeer and Suzanne green 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 that the new barn was larger than the old barn and needed a setbar_k variance. Boyles stated that he was not moving any r.loser to the road with the addition. After discussion, Zanin moved to grant a 40 ft. front yard sethack 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 # 8~i-05 to amend the motion to read that the request 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 `--- d' 9/z3~g Date . .; ., ;- . - Melinda `Pearson moved that the following b',e adopted: BEFORE"'fi1fE".$'$:A~~" F A3TTS~7I~~NT~~~.~u.,x ,.. ,. ~: .. ., . ,.;x .-.. »:;.~~, _~ .; ,.;-: OF THE L"'b~~"'$~~.,~~>.<~'~''kr~IN~,~..a~ <~~~u,~~.., .~ ~~ m. ~e+~.1 .M+L MM' a . ,:<~a, M ¢~ m..., ..~.t s T~fiE~°`>d~ ` C~o~~t~~r~"~,t, ~~ n,a,. , . ,:~, , s. n ,, ~ ,~~ .~~~~~ .. •, .. ,_ , ,. RESOLU'ffON~ N"0:`'$$-,1~.:,„ M, ~.,. a, ....,_. _.,:. ,...,.,.:. _.:_ ,,. ,;-., Joseph DeMaria, 0309 Hunter Creek $oad, Lot 1'I $Tock` 4,„s'Red,,, ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~,.,.,:~.,,. Mountain Ranch WHEREAS, the subject property is within the unincorporated area of Pitkin County; Colorado; and, WHEREAS, tie Board of Adjustment is vested with the power to ran or deny such varlan y c s b virtue of Title 1~~ S"ec£'ion~ ~ "~ e r.. ~. 15-1.3 Pi#kin ~ouity cod' {Land Dse Code) and Colorado Revised Statutes ls~i3 30"=28 11$(~~" (G}~; and, WHEREAS, based on the evidences px~`e"5`erited, the Board of Adjustment ~~ makes the following fi'ndrigs; 1. Proper notice procedures, including the notification of all ad,7oinng property owners; has been shown by the applicant. 2• The required hardship or practical diffieulEp ` ~' "` has been established( ~• Granting such relief will not cause'~ub'stan- tial detriment to the public welfare and'wiIl not substantial) im a p y p it the intent and' pur os`e"of the .Zoning"Resolutions and th'e zaning maps. - NOW, THEREFORE, $E'"IT R~$O~~V"E'D that th.e applcant's'request fore tionooflanfexterior-toner'edlstairlasls"hownron'.the exhibo~struc- submitted due to safety conce`Y~ii°d^ #*nd' the fact that 'the addati.on will not be seen ;from the road, be granted, Additional conditions or restrictions: WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. ' '' Peter Dobrovolny seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolu- tion. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: Kan di Shaffran - yes Peter D'obrovoln Me;I inda Pearson - "" J'oe'~an nrnr ' "-' ye~Y - yes yeS"~ - The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of'Colorado. DATED: April 26, 19$8 ..... ... r ... ,._ ,,_ The.. ;; . {. Board of Adjustment of Colorado ' Pifkin County, Attest: '~'cz.t~-ICS., C~'~S~~fR~t d' ~..,i/k „~T/~.._. Secretary n 9 CharxmJ an-'~ ~.