Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.80.40PLANNING CASE SUMMARY PROIECI OWNER(S),ADDRESS(S), PARCEL ID(S),&LEGAL(S)FORM Owner Owof .Is Last Project Addresses) Project Parcel(sl Project Legal Description(s) Name iName/LLC NW 1/4 NW 1/4 and SW 114 NW 1140f Roy Cad Vance 15484 Hwy 133 M909200017 Sec. 9, all in Township lO S., Rangea W of bth P.M. New Address: 103 Trout Run Dr APPLICANT: Roy Cad Vance OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE: Roy Cad Vance Case Name Vance Fmntyard setback Variance Plan Case Number Date Received Plan Case Planner E.C-40 09/22/1980 Panel Size Acres Zone District Floodplaln Background Descripgon of Project or Development Fradyard Setback Variai Nouce PeMebea Peeiewenay Meebeacer Wn Puhlk H...no Public Xre-swuaetl Notice WaOeb Ty ye or Arno. BOA 10/28/1980 yes Yes Conti tined BOA 11/11/1980 Yes yes Continued BOA 02/03/1981 Yes 1 Approved Planning Application Plan Case Status Incomplete Lener sent Date Completeness Deadline Date Approved Additional Material Submitted Date Completeness Re lew Date Waitlisted Letter Date Final Decision Approval Data Ready for Referrals Date Acceptance letter Date 02/03/1981 Returned By Data Referred ReferzaI Date Due Public Comment Due Daft N/A Remares grouted ou'mi ,,ww Necepuonv Are, Rai BOA Residdi 801 NR OW0311981 REFERRALS: N/A SWEAL TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 4 County of Pitkin Date C1 K 19 Case # ?b-- 0 Applicant 12OL? C AQ-L j, . tJZ Address 1?3 Ckw- t zAt-kz�- Owner ' ` Address Location t of Property N Nw a 1d +N! of S. q., Jw G4- , 4 l -�'' �'' `'-rC` . i `a- 41 � (A ached) `Hv? �� 1►} L=�it�s-v t'� c� h}_ F. i�.,,q`ti' I�t� ��`�t^D.i' � i�U.�t,� # ►37i � , Any.pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made a part of this Case No. The Board may return this application if it does not contain all the facts in question. Applicant's description of proposed variance showing justification: W ►�% �o bye 1 d � ,n 15 i� �50 -�2e-t 13 3, l°i �'Y►1Cti�•� } ;,cad e d izrl 4 bu i, d 1� L t- Lj;&st A AZ 'Pi W- bI W4% � hbD� n �� kbu oA� . IswSc� �#n�- . ►33 � , Cy�Off "S.adl4. �.sl�•c�.133 t S.�-• tzi5h ; Ssc�s )�x'C � �13 Applicant Signature Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building Inspector to forward this application to the Board of Adjustment and reas,on for not grantin_g a building permit: -A7 lz-4� Building Insp. Signature &1�4 Date permit rejected: Board Decision Application Filed: aAJ, I i V? Date: Mailed: OefC/a&" 3v, /9&; , / 6. Secretary, Board of Adjustment COUNTY TREASURER ED rSnEP40,rOd PITKIN COUNTY WEN, COLORADO 81611 so - Tom Tweed moved that the following be adopted: BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 80-40 Roy Vance/Setback Variance - 15484 State Highway 133 WHEREAS, the subject property is within the unincorporated area of Pitkin County, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment is vested with the power to grant or deny such variances by virtue of Title II, Section 16-1.3, Pitkin County Code (Land Use Code) and Colorado i.avised Statutes, 1973, 30-28-118(2) (C); and, WHEREAS, based on the evidence presented, the Board of Adjustment makes the following findings: 1. Proper notice procedures, including the notification of all adjorninq property owners, has been shown by the applicant. 2. The required hardship or practical difficulty has been established. 3. Grantinq such relief will not cause substantial detriment to the public welfare and will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Zoning Resolutions and the zoning maps. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the applicant's request for a 25 foot frontyard.setback variance to construct a garage was granted. Additional conditions or restrictions: WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. Clark Smyth seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: Bill Mason yes Clark Smyth yes Carl Nutzhorn yes Paul Krausch yes Tom Tweed yes The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: February 3, 1981 The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado Attest: ` Chairman Secre`ary NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEF( THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF AD,___MENT TO ALT, PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to Pitkin County Resolution of June 5, 1955, as amended, a Public Hearing will be held in the County Commissioners Room, Pitkin County Court House, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such other place as the meeting may then be adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the County Zoning Resolution. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and other affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. THE PARTICULARS OF THE HEARING AND OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE PRE AS FOLLOWS: Date and time of meeting: Februray 3, 1981 , at 5 : 15 o' clockPm Name and Address of Applicant for Variance: Roy Carl•Vance 15484 State Highway 133, Carbondale Location of Property or Description: 15484 State Highway 133 Variance Requested: a 25 foot frontyard setback variance. Duration of Variance: Condition: Permanent XXXX ; Temporary THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD 0r' ADJUSTMENT --- -e'� -M C, 3 Bill Mason, Chairman NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFI THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF AD MENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to Pitkin County Resolution of June 5, 1955, as amended, a Public Hearing will be held in the County Commissioners Room, Pitkin County Court House, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such other place as the meeting may then be adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the previsions of the County Zoning Resolution. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and other affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. THE PARTICULARS OF THE HEARING AND OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE ARE AS FOLLOWS: Date and time of meeting: November 11 , 1980 , at 5:15 o'clock tam Name and Address of Applicant for Variance: Roy Carl Vance 15484 State Highway 133, Carbondale Location of Property or Description: 15484 State Highway 133 Variance Requested: a 25 foot frontyard setback variance. D-,:ration of Var-iance : Permanent XXXX , Temporary Condition: THE PITKIN COUNTY BC"_2D OF ADJUSTMENT Bill Mason, Chairman ASPEN 0PI'1°'KIN 4R.-GIONW-U&I- BU1LD11 DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M. TO: Roy Carl Vance 15484 State Highway 133 Carbondale, CO 81623 FRO11: Mutia Hull, Secretary for the Board of Adjustment DATE: January 26, 1981 RE: Board of Adjustment Meeting on February 3, 1981 This me, -no is to notifiy you that you case #80-40 will be heard by the Bca.rd of Adjustment on February 3, 1981, Tuesday, at 5:15 p.m.. Also a sign must be posted 9 days before the meeting stating: NOTICE OF HEARING BOARD OF ADJUSTIMENT to be held at Pitkin County Courthouse 5:15 p.m. in the County Commissioners Rm. on February 3, 1981, to consider a variance for owner Roy Carl Vance for a setback variance. You or your agent will need to be present at the hearing to present your caCe. 5OE Ear z kIN/lo-I t Street Anp;,n, Oolortado F3' S11 3O3/525-51:',73 �sc 41AV� No. 36768 $,:,5 : - County Treasurer's Office, Pitkin County, Colo. Aspen, Colo., ' ~� I cr, , ' EPfeiUPb of -x_ Account of Credit to f � / (:-6�3�� Fund. - - DOLLARS Treasurer —Deputy IF C. E. HOECHEC C11 E)EHVFP NOTICE OF PUBLIC TEARING BEFOOR PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADAWT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to Pitkin County Resolution of June 5, 1955, as amended, a Public in will be held in the County Commissioners Room, Pitkin County Court House, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such other place as the meeting may then be adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the previsions of the County Zoning Resolution. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. I£ you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and other affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. THE PARTICULARS OF THE HEARING AND OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE ARE AS FOLLOWS - Date and time of meeting: November 11. 1980 , at 5:15 01clock pm Name and Address of Applicant for Variance: Roy Carl Vance 15484 State Highway 133, Carbondale Location of Property or Description: 15484 State -Highway 133 Variance Requested: a 25 foot frontyard setback variance. Duration of Variance: Permanent XXXX Temporary Condition: THE PITKIN COUNTY BO:__2D OF ADJUSTMENT r ` 0 Bill Mason, Chairman - -...-:r..-�_�:,., --- - - - =•a.s is:. LL.?W:.. _ �i _y:S:aea:ri.r.;•m "+:.i+a+.+�a''^�-`- �'irl..5�_a '�. o � / �_ �y IM BUILD%G PERMIT APPLICtfION Jurisdiction of. Applicant to complete numbered spaces only. 4025 JOB ADDRESS f� NO, BLK a. y�+N,j ofSe� q fa i11�ht� TRCACT }.(,.�� (/��T' �`o°�LOT. Jr1 ��)Il� l��� a lW�F ij BA�jl " ki �' OWWLq<_,%w L k MAIL ADDR SS ZIP •I PHONE CONTRACTOR MAIL ADDRESS 3 C�,� PHONE LICENSE N . ARCHITECT OR DESIGNER MAIL ADDRESS 4 �`� PHONE LICENSE NO. ENGINEER 11 ( MAIL ADDRESS 5'frt; PHONE LICENSE NO. LENDER MAIL ADDRESS 61 BRANCH USE OF BUILDING 7 cvfYlf),Ngis 8 Class of work: B NEW ❑ ADDITION ❑ ALTERATION ❑ REPAIR ❑ MOVE ❑ REMOVE 9 Describe work: C 66 10 Change of use from _---- Change of use to 11 Valuation of work: $ q / 1 PLAN CHECK FEE PERMIT FEE SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Type of Const. Occupancy Group Division Size of Bldg. (Total) Sq. Ft. No. of Stories Max. Occ. Load Fire Zone Use Zone Fire Sprinklers Required ❑Yes []No APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY. PLANS CHECKED BY APPROVED FOR ISSUANCE BY No. of Dwelling Units OFFSTREET PARKING SPACES: Covered Uncovered NOTICE SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMB- ING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUC- TION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 60 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 120 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COM- MENCED. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT, THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. Special Approvals Required Received Not Required ZONING HEALTH DEPT. FIRE DEPT. SOIL REPORT OTHER (Specify) SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTOR OR AUTHORIZED AGENT (DATE) f SIGNA TU R& F OWNER IF OWNER BUILDER (DAT ) PLAN CHECK VALIDATION WHEN PROPERLY VALIDATED (IN THIS SPACE) THIS IS YOUR PERMIT CK. M.O. CASH PERMIT VALIDATION CK. M.O. CASH 2 Form 100.1 INSPECTOR INSPECTION RECORD DATE REMARKS INSPECTOR FOUNDATIONS: SET BACK TRENCH REINFORCING FOUNDATION WALL & WEATHER PROOFING CONCRETE SLAB FRAMING INT. LATHING OR DRYWALL EXT. LATHING MASONRY FINAL USE SPACE BELOW FOR NOTES, FOLLOW-UP, ETC. PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW:. Pursuant to Pitkin Count-, Zoning Resolution of June 5, 1955, as amended, a Public Hearing will be held in the County Commissioners Room, Pitkin County Court House, Aspen Colorado, (or at such other place as the meeting may then be adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the County Zoning Resolution. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear Pnd state their views, protests, or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meei:ing, then you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Ad.ju6tmen;; will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. DATE AND TIME OF MEETING: Roy Carl Vance James Wingers November 11, 1980 at 5:15 o'clock P.M. NWI, NWI and SW4iNW4, Sec 9, all in T10s, R88 West of the-6th p.m. requesting a 25 foot frontyard setback variance. A tract of land being part of lots 2 & 7 in Sec. 21, T9s, R85w of the 6th p.m. requesting a 15 foot sideyard variance for a fence and a 40 foot sideyard setback variance for a storage barn. Dr. F.P. Chiaramonte Lot 3, Block 1, Filing 1, Gateway of Snowmass requesting a 56 foot fron-tyard setback variance for a residence and a 57 foot frontyard variance for a garage. Dia Lynn Weidner Lot 42, Elk Mountain Subdivision requesting a 35 foot frontyard, � 7 foot sideyard, 6 foot sideyard and a 15 foot rearyard setback variance to build a residence. To be printed in the Aspen Times on October 30, 1980. PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to Pitkin County Zoning Resolution of June 5, 1955, as amended, a Public Hearing will be held in the County Commissioners Room, Pitkin County Court House, Aspen,Colorado, (or at such other place as the meeting may then be adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the County Zoning Resolution. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests, or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration tothe opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. THE PARTICULARS OF THE HEARINGS AND OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCER ARE AS FOLLOWS: DATE AND TIME OF MEETING: October 28, 1980 at 5:15 o'clock P.M. Name Location Variance Requested Roy Carl Vance NW-4,NW4 and SWk,NWk Request variance of of Section 9, all in 25 ft. from rao•," ~ed T10S,Range 88 W. 6thPM front yard setback from Hwy 133. James Wingers A Tract of land being a Request a 15 ft. sideyard part of lots 2 & 7 in variance for a fence Sec. 21, TQS, R85W of and a 40 ft. sideyard the 6th P.M. setback variance for a storage barn. Dr. F.P. Chairamonte Lot 3, Block 1, filing 1, Gateway of Snowmass Subdivision Duration of Variances: Permanent Request for 56 ft. frontyard setback for residence and 57 ft frontyard setback for a garage. PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT William Mason, Chairman ) / RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT February 3, 1981 Memtf.rs present: Bill Mason, Chairman Clark Smyth Carl Nutzhorn ATom Tweed Paul Krausch e+.rrl wa•: called tc order by Bill Mason, Chairman, at 5:20 p.m. 100 Leaves rcr: ::L1-a/F1-r:r Area Patin Variance - Lots 17 6 18, Block 3, Williams Add. 80-48 Lun :r LI.> was present to request from the Board a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) variance J %,riare feet to construct a 2,400 square foot residence. Bill Mason stated _._t t.h.- is similar to Ella Scufka's variance request that the Board granted i:: I,..•.xier. Oca LeLise stated that his request is exactly the same as Ella's and t at thei ).rorartiss are next to one another. Bill s'er:on read into the record a letter wrf:.ten by Ella Scufka in which she stated that sl:_ was in favor of the variance fcr Mr. DeLise. Fill asked if there were questions that anyone would like to ask Mr. DeLise i.r Ta..: ci stated that the situation is exactly the same as Ms. Scufka's. :lark Vrt;th moved to grant the 1,200 square foot FAR variance and to restrict the a•i li^i.: al 1,2:9 7—jare feet to basement, baseu on the fact that the area was down- -..:a i. _art nutziorn asked if 'Mr. DeLise has accepted that restrictions he replied ti.at hL. ha.:_ earl Nutzhorn Eeconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried. s "crc- ith ^racis/Sethack Varince - Lot 9, Block 1, Red Mountain Ranch 81-1 Lrak..� lac-_" was present to represent Mr. s Mrs. Gracis in their request for a 22 f.-.. fr-.ot7ard setback variance. Mr. Jacobs stated that there were no frontyard se+.�a•.ks 1:. the Fed Mountain Ranch covenants, but that the County requires a 30 f.,t '_ror.t.;ard setback. He then proceeded to acquaint the Board with the location of the h jse. Pill 'as:n stated that all the adjacent property owners had been notified and Drake stated that most of them are also on the Board of Trustees of the Red Mountain i?:ro s.nc•:s Association, and that he had met with Board and they have indicated they w•.re in favor of the setback variance. Mr. Jacobs stated that Jack Barker, president of t-e Homeowners Association, wanted the house up the hill as far from him as l:r.;.Sihle. Mr. Jacc..bs stated that the main reason for the variance request is that if the house were to Le brought into conformance with County regulations, it would have to be brought do,4i the hill to have the driveway bypass the house. The slope of the lot is acercxir•ately 30%, but to get off the road there are places where the slope is 75% and 45r but the majority of the slope of the lot is roughly 30-32%. N" 17 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT February 3 1981 Page 2 Drake Jacobs then presented a site model to show the lay of the land and the proposed house. tie stated that the Red Mountain Ranch covenants require that the building be not more than 20 feet above the average finished grade. In this case that would mean almost having to bury the house. He stated that the two wings will have sod roofs so that all that will be seen from the road is the garage. The driveway; conforming to the County access code, comes off at an angle and requires a fairly high retaining wall, which will be broken up with two planters. If the building is brought down the hill to conform with the County setbacks - the owner .: can afford to build the driveway, that is not the problem - it is a matter of another 125 feet of mountain being cut apart to put the driveway in. He stated that he feels that it is an environmental concern rather than any other motivation in asking for the variance. Mr. Jacobs stated that he has a letter from the Homeowners Association. tie stated that the Homeowners agreed to a 10 foot setback, in the letter; but that was a mis- understanding and that they verbally agreed to the 8 feet that nowr appeared necessary for the placement of the house, and it may be possible to add another foot, so that the house would be 9 feet from the property line. He stated that he is asking the Board for a variance of 22 feet which is what was in the public notice. He again stated that although the actual number of feet was in confusion, the Homeowners Association was in agreement with having the house up the hill and having the driveway hug the road as closely as possible. The Homeowners had asked that the driveway come in another way, but after conferring with Pat Dobie, County Engineer, it was decided that the itomenwners request would not be in accordance with the County access code. Bill Mason asked that another letter be written by the Homeowners Association with the correct setback stated. Drake Jacobs agreed tothe request. Carl Nutzhorn asked what the distance from the blacktop to the corner of the building would be, and Drake responded that it would be 25 feet, with a shoulder that leaves plenty of room for plowing. Bill Mason stated that it seemed to be a typical case of terrain hardship. He also stated that the Red Mountain Ranch Homeowners Association is very strict and if they approved of the variance the Board generally agreed with them. Tom Tweed asked to have the actual request confirmed, be it 8 or 10 feet. Drake stated that he has worked closely with his surveyor and is trying to situate the house on the contours to keep the height down to please the Homeowners Association. Mr. Jacobs then stated that he has done some reworking and needs to place the house with a 9 foot setback, requiring a 21 foot variance. Paul Krausch asked about the hardship, stating that the terrain does not vary from the top -of the lot to the bottom, therefore what is the hardship involved in placing the house lower on the lot to meet the required setbacks. Drak;: Jacobs stated that he felt that the hardship was the large scarring of the mountain that would occur if the house were moved down the hill to meet the required setbacks, and that the hardship would be placed more on the community that would have to look at the scarred mountain than the owner who could afford to build the driveway either way. Drake Jacobs also stated that he had a letter from Pat Dobie, County Engineer# saying that the proposed driveway is the best way to access the property. Carl Nutzhorn told the Board that the Planning and Zoning Commission has been given the authority to vary front, side and rear yard requirements for single family dwellings and duplex structures when necessary to preserve existing vegetation, and although that is not grant to the Board of Adjustment, it is a consideration. 1 T? is j • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves OF ADJUST: -ENT February 3, 1981 Page 3 •, tt.:.kins, an adjacent property owner was present and stated that even though the :t is to move the house .further from his house, he has many problems because .._..-_- runs counter to the contours rather than with them, and the roof is too tie stated that he felt that there were other solutions to the problem • . .,- not by redesigning the house. He then stated that removing the -.:--i--::•r raterials would be a problem. Paul Krausch asked if he was objecting to . .., ,,f ,hc huu'.c. Mr. llupkinn stated that he was objecting to the variance .. .. ._..o the house does not address itself to the site. Paul Krausch stated t:.or. rh• E•;ard does net have the right to make a judgement on the aesthetics of .the .: o•i r.r. Rockins stated that he objects because the house becomes more obvious as it 1- c.:_d up the hill both from the road and the town. asked how many cars the garage would hold and Mr. Jacobs stated it was a t 1-1ra?e, and part of the space that appears to be the garage is entrance way }{ ":.rl rn sta�,d that he felt the exposure of the house would not be more if i i _:•: hill. Mr. Hopkins said that the expansive roof would be more obvious r: t!e hill. brace ntated that he was attempting to give the appearance of u�r ! a two story building. He stated that entire house is approximately 2,500 :•: n: Hs then went on to say that the exterior of the residence was planned r, ur. •. +1 re scrub oak. and sage in the winter months. asked Mr. Hopkins his feelings on the additional switchback necessary _. ...-..•_ is :roved down to the required setback. Carl Nutzhorn voiced the Board's %:.e scarring would be unsightly. Mr. Hopkins agreed,and stated that there r r, rendous problem with getting the sewer lines in and dropping the house : _ I L• ato the r,roblem even more. Xr. Ja_.;ts states that as it is proposed, the majority of the building is within t!r•_ 1r) f—t r:ceback. b- stated again that the Board can not make a judgement on how to build a h­u all the Board can do is make a judgement on whether to grant the 10 foot e srtlack. He stated that if the Board set the house down the hill, it would still t- ears, house. bi•:c •. u. :i•n followed between Mr. Hopkins and the Board. Mr. Hopkins saying that he the concept of hardship when he felt the house could be designed -... - therefore eliminating the hardship. The Board told him that they could v t'-is house and the hardship involved in moving the house down on the i hill. -%i was asked if he would rather see the scarring of the hill if the ?: iaround, he replied that he did not want to see that happen. He by the Board that he should take up his complaint with the Homeowners r...-.:ia•.'� that it was out of the jurisdiction of the Board of Adjustment. . - .. .. .v�•-? to grant the 21 foot frontyard setback variance due to topo- - ip subject to confirmation by the Homeowners Association. Tom Tweed -.-,Lion. All in favor. Motion carried. Sign Variance - T Lazy 7 Rands 81-2 =Lis !'•.icn read into the record a letter from adjacent property owners Ben and r.n Lianco stating that they approved of the requested sign variances. :. ,s Ferguson, an attorney with Holland and Hart, was present to represent the _.:ar,s in their request for three sign variances. He stated that there are three �j sacarate applications that address four signs. He told the Board that they have the i a�.r !. .: sty bared on either axceptional topographical conditions or other extraordinary N° 19 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT February 3, 1981 Page 4 or exceptional physical circumstances or conditions on a particular property not created by the applicant subsequent to the adoption of a particular regulation, and they have the authority to grant a variance if the application of the zoning regula- tion would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties, or an undue hardship upon the owner of the property, and provided that there is no substantial detriment to the public, or that the intent purpose of the zoning regulations would not be violated, he then proposed.to the Board that the four signs all fall within this category. He stated that the signs involved are directional signs and the variances are for size only. The size provided by the new sign code is 6"X30". The first signs he addressed are the Chuckwagon and Stable signs. He stated that one of the reasons that the Ranch has a variety of signs is that there are various activities and facilities to offer to the public as they drive by. He then stated that the road is heavily travelled, and there is a problem with traffic congestion and directing cars to the different parking facilities available. He stated that they also want to minimize the pedestrian traffic from one side of the road to the other. He showed the Board a map designating the location of the signs in question. Mr. Ferguson stated that the four signs are old signs and have been on the Ranch for a long time. Carl Nutzhorn asked if there was a possibility that the signs had been grandfathered. Mr. Ferguson agreed that he thought that there was a definite grandfather possibility, but he stated that the reason that the Deans have difficulty with respect to this, and the reason that they are before the Board is that they have been cited by the County for criminal violations of the sign ccie. He said, showing pictures of the sign in question, that'the signs are aesthetically pleasing signs that are posted on trees, not posts, the colors blend into the surrounding environment, and they have to be of that size given the location so that they will be noticed. He stated that the Deans want to avoid putting a sign on a post next to the road, thinking that that will detract from the guest ranch and rustic approach desired. - Consequently the signs in question here are 3'X2'3". He also stated that there is a definite curve in the road that requires that the signs be large enough to be seen. Bill Mason again asked how much bigger these signs are then those allowed. Mr. Ferguson stated that the signs are both 3'X2'3" and are considered directional signs which are required to be 6"X30". Mr Ferguson stated that the two signs could be made to conform, but they could not then be placed as far back from the road and would have to be placed on posts rather than trees. Carl Nutzhorn stated that these signs are directional and not identificational because there is more than one sign. Mr. Ferguson agreed with him and stated that they are allowed only one identification sign and that one says "T Lazy 7." Mr. Ferguson stated that there is no picture of the second sign, but it is seasonal in the summer months when the bus system is in.operation. The sign is placed near the Highlands, and says "T Lazy 7 Ranch customers proceed ahead." He stated that this is an off premises sign, but the problem facing the Deans is obvious because of the way L-C bus system operates. Carl Nutzhorn asked what the dimensions of this sign were. Mr. Ferguson approximated that the sign is about 3.5'X4'. He stated that the reason for the large size is so that it is readily spotted, because it is in an area where there is a tremendous amount of congestion, i.e. people, cars, stop signs and other things. He stated that the Forest Service and County transpor- tation approved of the sign prior to its placement in that location. Mr. Ferguson stated that his particular application is for a permanent -seasonal variance to be in effect only when the buses are running. N° 20 , .;r...'.,:. j::. �� • ]!: •rat�.4r-. �a!�"d�:./1f'�`7!net71"AP�1=,s'iJ -,. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves B' iPn CF ADJL•ST!,1E7T February 3, 1991 Page 5 r,.rguson stated that the last sign to be considered is a large sign, it is 4'XB', . ... the Sr—obile sign. He stated that the road ends at the corral in the winter. stated that in the winter there 'S a tremendous number of cars that come up _.r to enjoy the winter activities, and they all need a place to park. ,ted that last year another parking lot was added to alliviate the parking on ad. _.. : r:-,:on stated that this sign tells the coustomers where to go to rent the iles and where they are to park. He then stated that this is also a seasonal _ --his cne cainted white to blend in with the winter colors. Bill Mason asked ,r. •:.e oca_rational period of the snowmobiles is. Mrs. Dean stated that it is r r-,ly from Thanksgiving to Easter. Mr. Ferguson again stated that the sign tc t:eln the customers know where to go and to alleviate confusion and _..,c•,r.ning parking. -ry interjectnd that she wondered if there were not four separate businesses _. _ i :..:c ae. Mr. Ferguson stated that the businesses are operated separately a:.: ;i`fr,rent tax numbers. Mrs. Newbury stated that if these businesses were on •, .iicg call, each one would,be allowed its own identification sign. L,.,i `_,a 0.1 if it would to possible to have another sign concerned with Cross '••. r.�tr,• i ir.; and the fact that dogs are not allowed to run loose in that area. t. :-.. .. -ted that since the Deans run the parking lot that is used by the skiers, t i.�t.; rl.ar�_ the Forest Service would provide the sign. Rick Thompson, of the F •:r C._...-, stated that he had nothing to do with the size of the signs. He r. t.i ti:at la:;t sumtrr_r the Forest Service had someone stationed at the stop sign __.•:r in-; that area, and the person told those who wanted to go to the Ranch t. o.' -. .._-e allowed, but that the road was closed to traffic after that point. .. tl.at as far as the sign for Cross Country skiers ,was concerned that the l.ec-r rcrvice has worked with Greg Mace in Castle Creek, and would have no objection ciwi wi+.ii the Ia:aa•:. lie than stated that if they did put the sign up, they w-J dr t. •: to meet county codes. He was asked and answered that he has no objection ,: :; -,• d signs as an adjacent property owner. •x- :. rr�scr., to surarerize, stated that he believes that each of these signs in the =ri ar:ce re-pssts fits within the guidelines and standards that are set forth in +;.•: on which ti'e Ba:ard has the authority to grant variances. Ile stated gnat he t; ;_ ! ti:e L-ans ha.i demonstrated the practical difficulties that would result if r'!c were f:•rced to have smaller signs. He stated that they also feel that t.:.o,r ,ancc •1,ra a benefit for the public rather than creating a substantial d-,it,:nt te-;a,i;e they direct and ease confusion. He therefore requested that U.0 L,.and approve the requests before them. Fatiy ::ew ury stated again that she felt that each business has the right to be i- „•zfi,ai at each site. Carl Nutzhorn stated that it seemed that Mr. Ferguson 1�Ii• that if they don't got a variance on each of these signs that they are ls't xiti: a resir?ual criminal charge. Mr. Ferguson stated that that is the disposi- ti_n -,f Uie criminal case. earl :..tzhorh stated that the only problem that he had was with the snowmobile sign :a r;,:r than neeQed. Mr. Ferguson suggested that because of the lateness in the U,at r`•rhaps a variance could be granted for this sign for the remainder of the %ea.'-n , and next year they could bring in a sign that meets code requirements. Fa•.il Frausch moved to grant a variance for the two signs listed in Exhibit A, the '.'h*.i.::wagon and Stables signs, two permanent signs; the hardship created by the change in tt:r, sin code. Carl Nutzhorn stated that he would like the motion to include that he retards these signs as quite possibly grandfathered, and that they are not aesthetically ir:--nsistent with the locale. Clark Smyth seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried. 21 _...v,Mg..K• _,...i. ;�tr-- . r-,.:..,!R..aa.:«/t7°raAr^q'�".�,rm.,... ... ..., ... r''r`"r""`•. , I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves B'AP.D OF ADJUSTMENT February 3 1981 Page 5 k-i..on stated that the last sign to be considered is a large sign, it is 4'XB', Snowmobile sign. He stated that the road ends at the corral in the winter ;-at,,d that in the winter there is a tremendous number of cars that come up t=:-•. _ enjoy the winter activities, dnd they all need a place to park. .! t--at last year another narking lot was added to alliviate the parking on ._. ... :cr- stated that this sign tells the coustomers where to go to rent the _ ?j;d where they are to park. He then stated that this is also a seasonal ._ .: tainted white to blend in with the winter colors. Bill Mason asked .. __ katior.al period of the snowmobiles is. Mrs. Dean stated that it is _ ...-. !: fr•n Thar,%sgi-;inq to Easter. Mr. Ferguson again stated that the sign ,.•-1r t%e customers know where to go and to alleviate confusion and ...c_rsing parking. .. , intc-r _,ected that she wondered if there were not four separate businesses �.. •, :1r. Fcrqunlrzi stated that the businesses are operated separately _. -.. :iicerent tax numbers. Mrs. Newbury stated that if these businesses were _. .. ir.,1 mall, each one would be -allowed its own identification sign. . ir. d if it would be possible to have another sign concerned with Cross j:r.q and the fact that dogs are not allowed to run loose in that area. c sted that since the fjeans run the parking lot that is used by the skiers, the Forest Service would provide the sign. Rick Thompson, of the tv:ae, stated that he had nothing to do with the sire of the signs. He . last Sururer the Forest Service had someone stationed at the stop sign that area, and the person told those who wanted to go to the Ranch ,.:31e allc.ed, but that the road was closed to traffic after that point. tt-at as far as the sign for Cross Country skiers was concerned that the -. .­i-^_ ha-; worked with r;reg Race in Castle Creek, and would have no objection .. . ..-. -.ith the Deans. fie then stated that if they did put the sign up, they to meet county codes. He was asked and answered that he has no objection . ,._•c r_lose9 suns as an adjacent property owner. stated that he believes that each of these signs in the •w thin t:.e guidelines and standards that are set forth in the Board has the authority to grant variances. fie stated that he • .can; had demonstrate-d the practical difficulties that would result forced to have sr�ller signs. He stated that they also feel that -..- n:k�,•!- _..s a btnefit for the public rather than creating a substantial ,: r. r. c•r; muse they direct and ease confusion. Ile therefore requested that ._ ari aiprove the requests before them. stated again that she felt that each business has the right to be ..-. ..• i at each site. Carl Cutzhorn stated that it seemed that Mr. Ferguson that if they don't get a variance on each of these signs that they are !.: a re_i-'.•lal criminal charge. Mr. Ferguson stated that that is the disposi- __ .:e criminal case. :arl ':itz^.orn stated that the only problem that he had was with the snowmobile sign ..-_ ; larger than needed. Mr. Ferguson suggested that because of the lateness in the 1t.at perhaps a variance could be granted for this sign for the remainder of the oral r.ext year they could bring in a sign that meets code requirements. to grant a variance for the two signs listed in Exhibit A, the _ .. , a-.9 Stables signs, two permanent signs; the nardship created by the change in _._ r.i.. Carl Uutzhorn stated that he would like the motion to include that he _- _.._s- suns as quite possibly grandfathered, and that they are not aesthetically -i_-er't with the locale. Clark Smyth seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion N*0 21 +IelanillillUUrbrow • • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS • 100 Leaves BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT February 3, 1981 Page 6 Tom Tweed moved to grant a variance for the permanent -seasonal sign at the Highlands that would allow the sign to exist while the buses run (Exhibit B). Carl Nutzhorn added that the applicant needs to be responsible for removal of the sign after the end of the season. Paul Krausch seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried. Clark Smyth moved to grant a variance to the sign listed in Exhibit C (Snowmobiles). It would be a temporary variance to last until Easter at which time the Deans would preser• for permit a new sign meeting code requirements. Tom Tweed seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried. Mary 6 Clay Boland/Setback Variance - Stark Mesa Tracts 80-47 Mary Boland was present to request from the Board a 50 foot frontyard setback to build a horse/hay shed. Mrs. Boland told the Board that Stark Mesa is 5 acre lots and at the time everyone accepted the setback at 50 feet. She said that the setback is from a private subdivision road and that the area is very rural. She then stated that the house is setback 50 feet from the road and showed the placement of the house and shed on the site plan. She said that the shed is placed behind the house so that it is not visual to the neighbor who's sight plane it would be in. She then stated the necessity of having a horse shed when one has horses, and the convenience of having the shed close to the house. Also in terms of the existing house there are picture windows an all other sides, therefore the north side is the most logical for the placement of the shed. Bill Mason asked if the 50 foot setback was within the previous zoning, Patsy Newbury sai.i that it was. Bill then stated that the Board could base the hardship on downzohing. Clark Smyth asked about the possibility of putting the shed on the other side of the house. Mrs. Boland stated that everyone in the area has agreed that this placement of - the shed is most aesthetically pleasing because of the slope of the land. Bill Mason stated that there is a letter in the file from Robert Morris of the Homeowners Association stating that they had no objections. Mr. Mason stated that he had also gotten a call from Bill Blakesly, a neighbor, who said that the shed was already built, bu: he had no objection. Clark Smyth moved to grant the 50 foot frontyard setback variance due to the hardship created by downzoning. Tom Tweed seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried. Roy Carl Vance/Setback Variance - 15484 Highway 133 80-AO Roy Vance was present to request from the Board a 25 foot frontyard setback variance from Highway 133. Mr. Vance stated that his lot is almost 1 y4 acres, but it is 850 feet lo:. and 108 feet at the widest point. He stated that lie wished to build a garage and that there is no way that the garage could be 100 feet from the property line, but he could get it 75 to 80 feet from the road and place it down so it will not be seen from the road. It was asked if the garage was located on the site plan, and Mr. Vance stated that it was not because he could place it on either side of the house, but wanted to go in line with the house. lie stated that the house is not located 100 feet from the property line either. It was agreed on by the Board that the extreme shape of the lot is a topographical hardship Mr. Vance stated that he would place the garage on the south side of the house. Tom Tweed moved to grant the 25 foot frontyard setback variance due to the shape of the lot. Clark Smyth seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned by Bill Mason, Chairman, at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully -submitted, N° 22 4 1 1 0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT November 25, 1980 'ombe.•: s present: Bill Mason, Chairman Dottie Fox Clark Smyth •, ..oeia tes: Joe Zan in Paul Yrausch 100 Leaves She me.-:tin7 way calledto order at 5:15 p.m. by Chairman, Bill Mason. Dottie Fox to ha'.z: the minutes of the last meeting approved as written. Paul Krausch set:nded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried. Oia 1-; nn w•,idnn r/S`tback Varian m - Lot 42, Elk Mountain Subdivision 80-43 'a r;.4r,i nor was present to represent his wife in her request for a 35 foot frontyard a 7 fo•;t sideyard, a 6 foot sideyard and a 15 Wot rearyard setback variance. Lil', "a-,;.n stated that the reason that the Weidner's are requesting the variance �i r:._ lot was dawnzoned and that they could not meet the current County ... ,. ..: cr ;toted that access is, taken from subdivision road, Elk Mountain Drive. _.;.:el tl.+_ B•�ard a ylot plan showing the requested setbacks. Mr. Weidner ._ .. ,c h!• had originally requested 15 feet in the rear, but had since learned k'ue : c:enants call for 20. He stated that he would be willing to decrease the rf the house in the rear by 5 feet, thereby meeting the covenants. Lill Mason stated that there were no objections from the surrounding property owners. '.:r tie Fox as•Y.ed if the main reason for desiring this orientation was to save the -h< and to be in the clearing. Mr. Weidner replied that this was correct; to move `ir hiuge, to the front of the lot would require taking out many Aspen trees. Clark -,rt• snared that Mr. Weidner needed variances all the way around the lot anyway, due �� dam.-zsair,g. ::ill r.,s••; stated that the board usually does not have problems granting variances ,.'•n i.•:.zoning is involved if Ott, requests stay within the covenants. ..a ... : :. m-,ved to grant the variance requests stated above with the rear setback t-, 21 feet making the rearyard variance 10 feet. Dottie Fox seconded the r:•i n. All in favor. Notion carried. iizyez/zetwack Variance - Lot R-40, Starwood Subdivision 80-44 was present to represent Mr. Hayes in his request for a 70 c fr- .t=_ •rd setban ack variance. Mr. Poss stated that the lot sits on the ridge J in Unit 44. The area is AF-1 zoning and requires a 100 foot setback. 'I?.e 1 i=- would put the house right on tt,,- ridge; and even the survey did not ir.,l ode t.,e steep •lron;ff to White Horse Springs. He then stated that he had otrained _•pr•.val from the Starwood Homeowners and the house is within the 100 f_c,t ra—."s fry the stake as required. fie stated that the house is setback 30 fe-at frn the property line. t'r. ra-•: �tatnl that he and the Hayes' have attempted to work with the Homeowners to re Duce the imr.act of the house and have kept it low and tucked it into the hill N^ 12 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT November 25, 1980 Page 2 as far as possible. Mr. Pose stated that the lot has an easement to Johnson Drive. Bill Mason stated that there were no objections from the adjacent property owners. Dottie Fox asked if the Starwood Subdivision had setbacks in their covenants. And Bill Mason replied that they did not, but that each lot has a stake and that houses have to be within 100 feet of the stake. Patsy Newbury stated that when those lots were laid out, the setback requirements in the County were 30 feet. Paul Krausch asked what the hardship would be, and Bill Mason stated that it would be topographical because the lot does drop off steeply. Joe Zanin moved to grant the 70 foot frontyard setback variance due to topographical hardship. Clark Smyth seconded the motion. All in favor.. Motion carried. Ella Scufka/F.A.R. Variance - Lots 15 6 16, Block 3, Williams Addition 80-45 Attorney Brooke Peterson was present to represent Ms. Scufka in requesting a 1,200 square foot Floor Area Ratio (FAR) variance. Mr. Peterson stated that most of the structures on the surrounding properties have basements. lie also stated that the aesthetics of having a 1,200 square foot house on top of a 1,200 square foot base- ment are not going to upset what is presently in the Williams Addition. Mr. Peterson stated that although he was not involved in the original lot split, the existing zoning at that time allowed 2,400 square feet. He also stated that he felt the circumstances surrounding the nature of the property are important to consider because the property has been in Ms. Scufka's family for many years. Bill Mason read into the record a letter from Don DeLise stating that he owns Lots 17 6 18 in Williams Addition and he is conditionally in favor of the variance if the same variance would be granted for his lots.' Don DeLise was present and Bill Mason asked him if he had a lot split on his lots. Mr. DeLise said that the lots had not been split, that they were owned together as one site. Bill Mason then asked Patsy Newbury if Don DeLise would be allowed 2,400 square feet on his two lots, and she stated no because the FAR in R-15 zoning is only .16 of the total lot area. Mr. DeLise stated that basements did not used to be included in the FAR, and that they are included now. Bill Mason asked Patsy Newbury for the definition of a basement and she stated that a basement is anything five feet below grade, whether used for storage or living space. Clark Smyth asked why the County had included basements in FAR, and she stated that there had previously been a problem in Mountain Valley and Aspen Grove where basements that were not included in the FAR were actually becoming totally visible and adding a second story onto these houses. Clark Smyth then asked Patsy Newbury if the lot were not substandard how large a house could be built. She stated that if the lot were R-6 they would be allowed twice the FAR. Clark then made the point that the situation is almost like down - zoning. Patsy Newbury agreed with him. Brook Peterson stated that he had no problem agreeing to having Ms. Scufka's basement meet the definition outlined by Patsy Newbury as a :ondition of the variance. He then stated that the visual density will not be changed, that the lot is flat. Don DeLise asked if the variance for Ms. Scufka was granted if it would set a precedent. Bill Mason stated that it would not have to, but it could. He stated that every case must be decided on its own merits, but that if all factors were N° 13 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS i 100 Leaves BDA 4, OF ADJUSTMMT November 25 1980 Page 3 I similar in two cases, chances are that the decisions would be the same. L-= tie Fox asked if the fact that the lot, because of being downzoned, provided an 9e s::a to living spa=e, if that would constitute the hardship. Bill Mason stated that he felt it was indeed a case of dowr�oning. �Cot-ie sox moved to grant the variance to allow a 2,400 square foot house, 1,200 sq. f-:ct of that being basement 5 feet below grade, due to down zoning, because it doesn't I.raci'r: Iivi r:g space. Paul rrausch seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried. Inter -^,stain Lamer/Height Variance - Airport Business Center 80-46 ^l:arlie Vole was present to represent Rick Gates in his request for a 8 foot height varia" e to crr.struct an accessr,ry building. Mr. Cole stated that zoning requires that. a-o:ss^ry buildings can not be more than 12 feet tall, and that what they desire tb 1-ii:3 is :alled an accessory building because the building will not involve any l'r. t ;_ sai•! I.ractically that lumber yards have to store as much of the fine I.nt.er x.aterials under cover, for the simple reason that it deteriorates in the j Q'�ri�zr. Hi stated that Intermountain has lumber stacked higher than 12 feet now, al t_'at the;: are asking is to be able to put some cover over the existing stacks. •hat a 12 fnnt height limit is impractical for a lumber yard. And tt.dL tnis building would nut he as high as the surrounding buildings in the area. Fe stated that they also think that this would be an improvement to the area, and k Id ill•.w then to take down the existing frame and black visquene. :ail r :-aid that he considered this request in the same category as barns, in that .--- _. _- - limit itself is a hardship in terms of the use of the structure. ^o works fnr John McBride at the Airport Business Center, stated that -finical problem because the lot line runs through the proposed structure. '•i x ao'xc3 if the structure had to be in that specific location. Mr. Cole t-:. a•. Location would be most efficient. And Patsy Newbury stated that -,? Io a'i,n is within the setbacks. •tr. _t�l that the stru^tare will be permanent and will have a foundation for posts, have three sides and a shed roof. I h stared that there is an easement and Holy Cross could need the land. F -. -'st a+ed that they had no say as to the future prospects of someone needing anal could only consider the variance request. Mr. Cole stated that if .t have to meet the setbacks and could place the shed on the property line f..i7ht consider moving the structure. to grant the 8 foot height variance due to the innate use hardship. .I__. '-y�i: ligqualified himself, and stated as an adjacent property owner and part -f ,, ;r,.1.:te Mural review board at the Airport Business Center, that they would f wra:.t t-, %n.ow where the structure would be placed but they did not have any problem ,t wi--it the height variance. Paul Krausch seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion di ^arri�d. ^ar• and ^lay Boland/Setback variance Stark Mesa Tract 80-47 Ma 2-land a: not present. Paul Krausch moved to table the request until the next ...�.::ng. Clark Smyth seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried. �T^ 1:] RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT November 25 1960 Page 4 Roy Carl Vance/Setback Variance 15484 Highway 133 80-40 Roy Vance was not present. Pual Krausch moved to table the request until the next meeting. Joe Zanin seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried. James Wingers/Setback Variance - Woody Creek - 80-41 James Wingers was present to request from the Board a 15 foot sideyard variance for a fence and a 40 foot sideyard setback variance for a storage barn.* It was stated that there were comments in the last minutes by Bob Kopp stating his objections to the two variances. Bill Mason then read into the record a letter written by Erlene and C. Dole Alcorn, adjoining property owners, stating their objection to the two variance requests. Mr. Wingers stated that Mr. Kopp overlooks his prolr rty frttn aoro." the river approximately one-half a mile away. He then stated that the shed would cover any use of the property that would infiltrate his view. Mr. Wingers then went on to say that Mr. Alcorn is his neighbor and he himself has a great amount of junk on his property. Mr. Wingers stated that the Kopp's are objecting because they regret selling the property that is in their view plane. He felt that the Kopp's and the Alcorn's objected to the size of the shed ratuer than the setback variance. Mr. Wingers stated that Mrs. Kopp complains about any use of his property, and ultimately does not want Mr. Wingers on the property. Paul Krausch asked if there was a residence on the property. J:r. Wingers stated that there is not at this time, but that he has plans to build in the future. Joe Zanin asked if there was not also a variance for a 12 foot fence. Patsy Newbury asked if he wanted to build a 12 foot fence on top of the berm or a six foot fence on top of the berm. Mr. Wingers replied that he was looking for a six foot fence on top of the berm to block the junk from the Alcornts view, but that he thought perhaps a 12 foot fence would block the junk from the view off Woody Creek Road. Bill Mason asked if he would have problems with FAR if he builds a single family residence with the 2,000 square foot shed on the property. site stated that there was no FAR requirements in either of the zones on Mr. Wingers property (RS-20 and AF-1). Bill Mason reminded the Board that what Mr. Kopp calls junk cars are actually registered as antiques. Dottie Fox asked why the shed had to be in the setbacks. Mr. Wingers replied that what he wants to do is push the shed into the bank where it would he less visible, and move the driveway easement over by the bank to improve the view problem. He then stated that he would put the antique cars in the shed and alleviate the problem with Mr. Kopp. Clark Smyth asked if Mr. Wingers really wanted the fence there; he replied no, that Bill Drueding suggested it and he was doing it for the County only. Dottie Fox asked why he would need the fence if everything was to go into the shed. Mr. Wingers replied that he needed the fence until the shed could be built. The fence would be an immediate abatement, that would keep people quiet. Clark Smyth stated that the Board had not been shown hardship that would allow them to grant the setback variance. Mr. Wingers stated that he did not mind puting the shed on the middle of the property, but that he was trying to do Mr. Alcorn a favor by making .it as inconspicuous as possible. Bill Mason pointed out that Mr. Alcorn had not objected to the placement of the shed but rather that he did not feel that N° 15 • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT November 25, 1980 Page 5 there was enough room on the property for a house and the shed. Dottie Fox stated that she did not see any reason to grant the variance. Dottie Fox moved to deny both the setback variance for the shed and the height variance for the fence due to lack of hardship. Clark Smyth seconded the notion. All in favor. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned by Bill Manor.,. Chairman, at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: 1►ttt 711, dui�- i N° 1 f /33 No.-- 6768 ��— 'County Treasurer's Office, Pitkin County, Colo. Ruriorb /f Account of Credit to - L. F. HULLKLL Li)„ ULNVEH Fund. Aspen, Colo., m DOLLARS Treasurer Deputy