Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.88.19~~ ~( j BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DATE -! t~ 19 PITKIN COUNTY ', CASE # ~S-~9 APPLICANT~QUC{j(~}S ~C ~~~exitiJ ~~~DRESS ~3~7 C~~S7`~cL~ OWNER J/ ~11 //~~ ADDRESS`^{i~C(~Y~/~/~° W UG/fp~ LOCATION ~JF PROPERTY (~S/~ ~ ~- f"S~ - / moo. Q~ / ~.....;,. l _ ~.. ,. ,-, z i Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part of this Case # ~S9,~q , .. The Board may return this application if it does not contain all the facts in question. Applicant's description of proposed variance showing justification: 1Yt~ 6c~ar Ever-eel fa 11"i~. ~~c~~;a.-~ c'~ n7..t ~.€o~ ~ s, 19 87~ ...:~ ctSK r~r~.cl~ -t-c 6~ ~, ~i.C~f~_~.~ R~6~ a` I~ n,y 6c~~.c G~ The ~ X i s~~~C ~S lr. 6 cv~r e> ~f-~u~v ~f r ar~,J ~, J/7~ e. frr~.~e~ i~ue~. ~~e~rlaT ~ rrie. }~ ~U//d n~i~ ~~ze~ i~ / 9J9 -~ ~y I~f lip ~ ,~.uo~ ~~ h.~u~ o~ o~ cha.~c~ !tip ib c~e>9RS ~ T aL~ ~s~: ~~ ~c~~ c~~. r ~~e. `~~ `~'2~., ~-' ~ -~e_e c~r-+~ a,~-~ y c~ /~-~~ ca. I l bu ~ /r.~~~°-is ~ ~-~1 its ,, Q,u/~ p~cetil t~/~~'cK ~ee~ ~ - ~ec.P hricre. be.~v /~S ~ c~ rc~., y~~3-oa7 ~ ~/5 ,`~ y Applicant Signature ~ 4.-/J ~ ~ 1 Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Zoning Official forward this application to the Board of Adjustment and reasons for not granting a building permit: ~i}R1~1 ~?~sED~ e5 dD Fr F2on~ ~uG^D8-SAC (~Rop, Llq~, Wp}ER~ IQQ FT. /5 l~t~ulRr:.p 1N RS-3o 1 uD, Zoning Official Date permit rejected_j~~~¢Jq~ Board decision~~'~~ Application filed .~;' I n` Date_~1~7~Iq'6 Notices mailed ~i`~ -s`c Secretar J r ay v , Ac.~ a ~~ __ ~ . - i .. f ~ ~ .. ..,~ . ate., VARIA~~`i'P'~`'S"~fF'~ m~H...~„,_.,., .. Pixrsuant to Pitkx Count I~esolu oil o June ~~~ .~x"" `' { "' „' 9,. . ,Public lte'ar n Y'_s_ P ~, 5'; f~s"5~'",`° as' rict Court- amend'ed~_~a n Coun ourt `~ousebieAseen~ xC;xorai~o~t •_'..+......_~.....__...~_....,,_...._ ....~, Room Pitki °"tp`"°"'p" (or' at'such other place as'the meetin ma then be ad'aurned to c~+nsXder'arr' applxcati'ot~ file~`aais ,the said Board of Adj'us_tment'~reque~ting ' authoritq for va`riaz~cs_frQm the pravision.s.,of.t;he County Zoning u . _, ... .. .. ... .....~ _....., Resol"tion: , .. ,.. , 1111 ~ -,. ~ ~~.av.»,W:µ,,:„;:;~..~,~w.x. .,.M,,. - ~ .a,i~{+ --, _-~ i- ~„.,,.. persons affected~`by the, proposed variance a`re xn~ited to ~ ~ appea'r'~`nd state their views, pTbtests or objections' If'you cann'at , aPPear peY~°S~Yi"a^lly at such meeting, then ybix are iur/~eii to_ stateyour-views by`sletter, p"art~~cu7.arfy i~ you have"o'~i,7eG~ion. tom such parlance, as the Board of Ad,ustment will give'se~xous - c_onsider'ati on to the opnrsY~'s°`~b#`suYrtsUPfi in`~~LL" other' affected in ~`ecid"~"n w e `~"'~~~'°"-°~"' ' g Property owne'rs' "and g `"~i~t~ier to grant ,or deny the request' for v THE PA~tfi~tf~~ AS' 'FCL'1,f7~~".,~ ,~.~.,,..~..,a - ~; j Date ~ - - _ ~„ ~ a`iadKtime`~~of meeting" April ~26, ~'J~~~ .Q~. 5.1`5` ~m ,<"`°~~.. -^•~~~,~-'~,.~,< "x"~' Name' 2Ch'ii Adiiress of'Applicant foAfo%'~».•'•.-~'.A~" ~~ P. .~';. V~" g ~`,~:, ~-:.,>. 4 - -Variance Dou l~s R. nd Town ~oy~es r.::: 07"7 Z`rys~a _ ~.ane CarbondaAe, ~ CO'°87.6Z'~ . .... . .. .. ....... „.._,~.w,_. ~... __.,U,. _,~„~.~.2~. i „_ .«,,~~.~~.,~.~;~Y„~-.:~,~.,~..w... - .. r ~}.,~, -aa,.,. .:i-:.. ~ ,. Location of'~Pro ert" _o r, l5escrxpt``an~:~`t'~'~"`~'' P. Y Lot 3 Ploclc ~.."°~r sta _ ~`iverNCountrq Estates ..-..._. -' Variance Regixested:._.,. :-, ,w., „_..,.,...~ ~ ~ .' t. se~£`b"3a'~""variance . !. •. ..: <, Dixration of '',Variance': `"Permanent RR ~ Tempa~r~i-'~°'r'T`'~" ter`° °~'~"" ~'~'~°°° Condit'%on: ,.._,... ,, , ,,:.,:._,.,_..,. ,., ,~ . .~m~._.:.:.M:~~..~:in~`:~.,.:~ ~ _, . ,, THE `p'Y1`~`C'Y''~""°C~;~~ 0 ~T3' ~ >.~r'-. ~"' C-1~~~ . ' -: , ,. E''dan"Gu"7`T; Cha}rmpn __. .~..__ W..w..~,._____,~v__._ ,. ; _ "'" offices: rrfa~ i~naaddress 5'17 Fast 1-topT~ins"~Cvenu~ .~. ~" _ .. 506 East M"a:n Aspen, Colorado 30,3/~'~~'+3"'9'".~`"„""""""""~ spen, Ccilorado 876?I~ "~ ..-a- i i i_ i a -ia .. __ ... ~ ~ ~ ~~ i - 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 previous meetin with two correctio Pearsontsecondedethefmotion. All were ingfavor and the motions carried 4 0. n -08 - BMC West Cbraoration Lot _Z, Block 1. Amon ' 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 dscu$sion`about cut-out letters and painted re uestedaffran made a motion to approve the wall sign as q inclix g ~ ding 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-ou'E let~ers~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. A1''Y 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 reques was for which they feel an additional 218 sq. ft. to enclose the entry- way. (350 sq. ft. total) There is an existing entry alley, is a safety 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 entryway would not impact the road, it ~_ 1I~ v } .nl,w .Y KNx~.nNY4'm~a ~xnsavmtrmMin~lR+e '., ~ Y. ~ i would be barely visible from the road. Zanin stated that he was familiar to the house and agreed with Cottle. There were`no, factcthats from the neighbors. Shaffran stated that due to the J e is no'signifcant 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 ble 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:' Case #88-11 -.Carl and Lou Klenk 1076 E. So rs Creek Rd. Carl and Lou IS received a varlenk were present. They explained that after they fiance last year they had gone to see their ar- chitect and changed the plans for their addition. They were now ,, requesting a 4'9 ft. side yard setback, variance and a 10 ft. rear yard setback variance. Klenk explained they were basically doing the same thin g: but on the other side of the house. The Klenks explained where the proposed addition would be located. The ConrPeyrson pointedgout that a vagiagce was not necessary as.iong astbadkconfirmedveewzthn the lan uaae of theclastevariancer that a setback variance was permission'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 exhibits submitted. h be as specific as desired. He continued that its helpfullyearsadown the road when someone is trying to interpret the variances. Road,# 88-12 -'Ror and'Barbara Jane Salance 1755 Snowmass Qreek setback varianra Jane were present requesting a 25 ft. front yard Rory and Barbace. The Salances 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 Salances submitted to the record a notarized letter fram 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 of 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. . ;.,. .,.;,^ a ..., .;:xv:#ck i I' . John Bruegger'was present. He was requesting that a 35 ft. front yard setback Ue 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. Dobrovolny felt the hardship was topographi- cal, the solar potential is marginal on this site. Pearson questioned whether such a la ex laine rge variance was n'ecessa'ry'`' Bruegger P d 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. Dobrovolny seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried 4 - 0. Dan Levinson was pres"ent representing Alan Marcus. Levinson was re uestin that the a lican q g PP t be allowed to determine which side of the lot was the access side of {he lot and therefore which side of the lot would be the front yard side. All the houses in the are a, access from Oak Ridge Road. If there were able to consider that side of the lo't the front, they would he able to Board ex lainpll the setbacks associated with the AF 1 'zone. The bslsddelthat ad to Levinson how the front yard is determined, it ccess 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, ir. keeping with being more'specific in the wording of motiens, 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. L'evins;on continued that this agreed with the 1041 plat; the property had just gone through 1041 review for wildfire " azar Dobrovo ya,, emotion that a 70 ft. front yard _:.. ... setback variance, for a'00 f granted and thatlny made the9„_ front yard 'setback where a 100 ft. front rd setback is usuall required from Oak Ridge Drive'b'e the building envelope described be no closer than 100 ft. from West Buttermilk Road. ZanS.n seconded the' motion. 'Pearson felt it wasn't right to have 2 one hundred feet set acks. Pea rson also.did not want to grant a 70 ft. variance house5oould noriance would be sufficient. Levinson felt that the t be designed until the access side was determined.. He wanted to make it clear that the house was not designed yet. He continued that the were riot intending to dodge the system. Y All were in favor of Dobrovolny's motion. The motion carried 4 - 0. _~ . . ,~_.. _ , w_w. ~.~. ~ ... .. esq. ~. ,_ .~,. ~~ ~a ~.: Robin Molny was present requesting a 70 ft. front yard setback e. onxn fo varian~'' g r the property is AF-1 and requires a 100 ft. Observance oftthekl0 Molny explained that~the dot was very steep. 0 ft. setback would severely limit'ttie solar theesouth0eleyation of the'housecbelowlthelhorizon'andwelimne of P inate the view,. Molny stated that he did nat 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. All were in favor and the motion passed 4 - 0. Case X88-16 The Inn at Aspen 21646 W Hi'ghwav 82 Dick Bather and Diane Schwelner were present representing the Inn at Aspen.. Rather explained they were following their identifica- tion/replacement schedule. They were requesting approval for 3 signs. Shaffran suggested reviewing each sign separately. The first re uest was for a 6 s ft. identification si n to be placed alon qHi hwa B2 to rg lace the exi ~g , g g y ~ P sting sign. The height and the. size of the si n is 'exactly 't he 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 pres^e'n'tly reads "Barringtons" and they would like to ,change to read "The Inn at Aspen". Rather ex- plained that m felt they wou~any people did not know what Barringtons was, he d 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 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 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.200 ft. setback, but he was note sure. Pearson'"thou ht that it could be approved under down- zonzng. Conrad admitted he didn't consider the setback question because the sign is on the building and the building had t'o conform to the setback. There was some discussion about how the si uation coul should be allod have come about. Sd~affrein questioned if they the code allowWed 2 identification signs. Dobrovolny stated that s 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 ~_ . L, ... ^~i! ay ~a~~~+~+,=.te~v ~a.~KV.+{a :~.. n..wwa xs* ' - been removed for a period of 4 months for construction in 1984. Rather explained that it was a safety problem. People'coul'd not see t e 'sign until they were right in front of the buifdi'ng and thehsagneconformeduto themcodefenotrconsderngSthef200 ftked if setback for cut-out letters. Schweiner explained tha'E it did conform except for the line underneath which added the extra .75 sq. ft. Zanin stated he did not have aproblem with the request. Pearson felt if they were going to encroach into the setback they should at least conform to the size requirements. Rattier' 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 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 b`e approved because it was replacing an existing sign. Pearson moved to approve the.. main identification sign on the Zanin seconded on buildin pp approved 4s-spbthetmoton. All ~erermntfavorlandlthe#motion,was the guttd request was for a sign on the back awning. This was on ermi t side of the building, well within the 200 ft.' taubant exist problem is that customers did not know the res- d. 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. A,11 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 lie was in Denver and could not make the meeting. He wanted the Board to know that he had signed the easement agreement under dures's 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. pro 0 have lOnl'sed location was in the Scenic Foreground and it may' 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 Kroheywas'dalsohpresentPrvHeeexplainedkthetmaNntpipelGnes were _ . . , . ,. .., ,, _. installed in the 1960s. Everything that was put in is too small. They ark 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 bf 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 tillage. It is a very dangerous situation, Since they need to put in a si:ation for both Aspen ,and Snowmass Village, it makes sense to put both in the same place. The line from' Snowmass`come~' off at Brush Creek Road. They cannot for techni- cal reasons, put the line more than a quarter of a mile from the turn-of £. There are not many locations to put the station. He showed the Board the site and possible buildings. It is the site is ha that Mil was d agreed to. It, would not conflict with the train site and the least visible from Highway 82. 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 seconded the motion; all were in favor. The motion passed 4 - 0. tease #88-18 - Joseph DeMaria 0309'Ilun`ter Creek Road Lot ll., Rl L n o a Stan Mafhis was present representing Joseph DeMaria. Ike was { requesting a variance to the allowable floor area ratio. Mathis pproxima e 4 0 s f t. The eliminated the loft area T1 theyahadabeentcauethemooyverathesallowablelFAR.a Hefstat,'ed th1e at ght in the change over between Patsy and Chris. thesamount of 'non~comfoor area over'the allowable FAR, as long as o t out that the waterhdrains onstherstairstthTheyrwoulddlhke toecovese ' r thoushtrs and would add over 200 sq. ft. of area., They had g and had been told by Patsy Newbury that they could add the extra area because 'they were removing the loft. Conrad'does not interpret it is the onl the code the same. way. Mathis felt the harushp was a safety factor, it is not visible from Hunter Creek Road and y way to enter into the house, except through the garage. Pearson pointed out that since they were above grade, they should be included in the FAR. Mathis agreed: Mathis g Mathis did gotethinkethisowas con'sistentkwith theointentoofatea. codeed Heaa ain stated that the removal of the loft more than'he 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 wYthin the existing envelope, which is allowed and had been permitted. Conrad does not know P how the situation came to be. The existing house as over able F.A.R. s FhA,gllWtesept o Conrad could not approve ady'additional hout Board o'f Adjustment approval. Pearson suggested removing 't he overhangs. Mathis didn't feel that would accomplish -. :>.: -,;.,. .._ ~ ,w. .; „~. ..... r3 r .... r_ ..f'... , 4 ,. mv,". ~ . .. ;S2' ~A,~r.!ti `h,..`^S"~ ... . :. I..:. :... .. ..... what the code intended. Shaffran pointed put that. the code probably did not inten'd'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. llanny Liccardi, the general contractor for DeMax•ia pointed out they had givexi 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 floor area.' Pearson and Dobrovplny asked what the area required fpr the exterior entry covered by roof was. Mathis repliecl 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 walkways and the reason that they were tlxere was because the hill was a drop off and were necessary for access to the doors. Zanin agreed, lie 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 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 on the exhibit submitted due to safety concerns and due to the fact that it r_annot be seen from the road. Dobrovolny seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed 4 - 0. y~l~-1 `1 Doug $oyles was present requesting a 40 ft. front yard setback for cons'tructi'on 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 have enough flat area. 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 that 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 CQse # 138-05 to amend the motion to read that. the request ..... .+ .:. :.: a.wA w : ~wx-::s:.w,~N.ua,:..+,.wudu ..na.?;~ ~a 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, `~(, <`_~I C-... CYO ~x• ~r ~ Secretary ' Chairman ~ &/iq/8~4 Date ' April 13, 1988 To: Pitkin County Board. of Adjustments We a.re the only lot owners who reside year around near the barn owned by Douglas & Joan Boyles. This barn was built in 1979 and will be rebuilt in the exact location. ~1e request that th.e set back re- quirerrient be waived. Respectfully Submitted, Caroly Casebeer 0358 Crystal Lane Carbondale, Co~81623 Suzanne Breen 0337 Crystal Lane Carbondale, Co 81623 O(' ~ ~ t~~~).~3 n ~,, Joe Zanin mav'ed that the following be adopted: I BEFb~tE THE Bb`RD OF'~'AbJ`b~°`~'M~13~C"..~..~ ,:.-_.br. ,.i.,~.~ ~,~, ,..,;.~ _...,r~,,., OF THE' C~fJl"V'TYM O~`'-P:L~1'~.,~..~:,.,<+,u~ ,....,,,,~,~~.. _a,..,~,raa. a ~., ..~.~ , .,...,.,.. STATE°.U.F,..CdL'bTtADO- q _...,,u. ~ ., _~,~ . .~ ~,.~. ..~ ., , ..W .>,~ RESOLUTION N"tl:"'"$8-1:9_„ ~ ,~ Douylas and Joan Boyles, Lqt 3, flock l,` Crys~ " g ~ ~ al River Countr Estates '" WHEREAS, the sub"ect p y J pro ert is within the uriinco poxated are of Pitkin County, Colorado; and, r a WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment is vested with the pawefi""to ,,, grant or deny such variances"""by virtue of Title FI, Section 16-L. 3, Pitkzn County code (Land Use Code} and CoI'orado Revise°d Statutes, 1`9"73;"'"3'R'=2$=~ 1$(`2`) ` {C) ; and„ _ ~: ~ ;~ .. a ~ ,. ,: WHEREAS, based on the evidence pres'en'ted, the Board of Adjustment makes the followring findangs-: 1. Proper notice procedures, inciudang the ~ "' '` no i i owners'cation of alb" a~Joining property '' " 'has been shown by the applicant. 2. T!he required hardship_or practical dzffcul$y ` has been established.""' 3. Granting such .relief will n"o`t cause'substan-- publiq welfare and-will _ notlsubstantially impair the intent and purpose of the Zonsng Resolutsons and the ` zoning maps. ". ...... ,. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RES6LVED`~that $ti~e appli'cant's reques approval of a 40 ft._ front yard-setback variance to recoffs his barn, Additional conditions. or restrictionsr WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this rasolutioh may result in rehearing and posszble revocation. u,~.,, ~ i...:, or ct Melinda Pearson seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolu- I tion. The roll having been called, the vote_ was as,follow's:' Kandi Shaffran - yes Peter Dobrovolny ^°- -! Melinda Pearson'..-" `- ~~~ ,..~,.~ ids ,~~ Yes .The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkn, State of Colorado. DATED: April 26, 1988` __ ,.. .. .. ~ _ .,_ _:; The Board of Adjustment of Colorado Pitikin County, Attest:. _ ,_ I, ~ ~ ~ ~~ w~ Secrete y _ G~~, ~._ C-~_-hai~rman • ~ i ;:; f ~~ ,, .'e ed~.,a a h, . "' +v .,..Y. '\ ti5't ~. 'xah .~.&~",.- '' ~ d a `1- i ,.