The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutpitkin.boa.80.41PLANNING CASE SUMMARY PROJECT OWN ER(S),ADDRESS(5), PARCEL ID(S), & LEGAL(S) FORM Owner (Owner First Last Project Addresx(ez) Project Parcel(x) Project egal Descdptlon(x) Name Name/LLC Alm" Attend being a part of Loh 2 & JamezA Wingers 8895 Upper River Rd 261321100003 y in Sec. 21, Township 95, Range SSW ofthe 6th P.M. Woody Creek Case Name Variance Plan Case Number Plan Case Planner Date Received 8OA80d1 10/09/1960 Parcel Site Acres Zone DIi4iR Floodplaln Background Description of Project or Development Sideyard Setback Variance P.mbe Xwrexatlay MeetInryMbnW& Publk Heermg PubPC Ib4TePqubetl Xon<a Xobce WaWb TyPowAMNe BOA I/25/1980 1 Approved Planning Application Plan Case Status Incomplete Letter Sent Date Completeness Deadline Date Approved Additional Material Submitted Data Completeness Review Date Waitlisted Letter Date final Decision Approval Date Ready for Reforms Date Acceptance Labor Data 1125119W Rehrtetl BY Date gathered Referral Data Due Public Comment Due Date N/A Remarks R-wae1D-wwntTrw wceptima eneXxoraetl BOA Resolmion 8041 NR 11/25/1980 Vested RightsO Yes®No Vested Rights Approval Date Vested RightsFxpirez Date Vested Rights Publication Date REFERRALS: N/A e tt''HAL lD 30AR!) OF ADJUSTIM ENT County of Pitkin Date Ca # Applicant t _ �tl _ __-- Address_ c) . s-3 O N er � _. _ Add res s Location of Property —,)�Q� rL (Attached) Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made a part of this Case No. The Qoard may )'(turn this application i it Applicant's descrip ion of proposed variance 94UV�-tP to- Q 2L-M-Y�/ zk.;t C- 000 ow ie"G I App icant Signature does not contain all the facts in question. showing justification: Provisiorls of the zoning resolution requiring tie application to the Board of Adjustment and rct son GilV 0,.. d , Date perml _il rejected: Building Wpector to forward thiN for not granting a buildit; permit: -/ f�,0 O c� Grp Ctl� Building frisp. SignatuTc Hoard Decision Application Filed: v� 1 Mai Ted: Q C; � ,secretary, Doard of Adjustment COUNTY TREASURER OCT 91980 3-7 PITKIN COUNTY ASPEN,COLORAD0.81611 Dottie Fox moved that the following be adopted: BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 80-41 James Wingers/Setback Variance - Woody Creek 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 Revised 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 adjorning 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 15 foot sideyard variance for a fence and a 40 foot sideyard setback variance for a storage barn is denied. 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 Dottie Fox yes Clark Smyth yes Joe Zanin yes Paul Krausch yes The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: November 25, 1980 The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado Attest: 1��22ZZ�v Chairman Secretary C._... ., NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEF1 1E PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADS ENT 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 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 FEARING AND OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE PRE AS FOLLOTNS: Date and time of meeting November 11, 1980 at 5 : 15 o'clock pm Name and Address of Applicant for Variance: James A. -Wingers P.O. Box 1530 Aspen Location of Property or Description: a tract of land being a part of Lots 2 Township 9 South, Range,85 West of the (Woody Creek) Variance Requested: a 15 ffot sideyard varaince for a fence setback variance for a storage barn. Duration of Variance: Condition: & 7 in Sect -ion. 21, 6th P.M. and a 40 foot sideyard Permanent_ XXXX ; Temporary THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD 0? ADJUSTMENT Bill Mason, Chairman r�a TO: FROM: DATE: RE: 506 E. MAIN STREET James A. Wingers ASPEN, COLORA®® 81611 Patsy Newbury, Zoning Enforcement Officer May 31, 1979 Junk Yard YOU ARE HEREBY ADVISED that your junk yard at 4000 Woody Creek Road described as part of Lots 2 and 7 of Section 21, T9S, R85W of the 6th pm, as recorded in Books 301, pages 312, 304, and 404, is in violation of Section 3.011.42 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code which prohibits junk yards in the RS-20 zone (Resource Zone). YOU ARE FURTHER ADVISED that this violation constitutes a misdemeanor, and upon conviction you may be punished,by a i fee of not more than one hundred ($100) dollars, or by imprison- ment in the County jail for not more than ten (10) days or. by both fine and imprisonment. Each day during which the violation exists shall be deemed a separate offense. YOU ARE FURTHER ADVISED to correct this violation by removing the junk c rs and mi ce aneous parts from the site. 8o"- 0 , v YOU ARE FINALLY ADVISED that this notice is issued pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes 1973, Section 30-28-124BII. cc: Sandy Stuller Bob Child 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 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 4nd 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 Adjustmen;; will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the requeot for variance. DATE AND TIME OF MEETING: November 11, 1980 at 5:15 o'clock P.11. Roy Carl Vance NWg, NW4 and SW�,NW4, Sec 9, all in T10s, R88 West of the-6th p.m. requesting a 25 foot frontyard setback variance. I James Wingers 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 frontyard 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 HE—,—� BEFORE THE PITKIN COUN,� .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 AhD OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCER ARE AS FOLLOWS: DATE AND TIME OF MEETING: Octpber 28, 1980 at 5:15 o'clock P.M. Name Location Variance Requested Rcy Carl Vance NW34,NWI� and SWk,NW34 Request variance of of Section 9, all in 25 ft. from requ4~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 '•0 ft. sideyard the 6th P.M. setback variance for a storage barn. Dr. F.P. Chairamonte Lot 3, Block 1, Request for 56 ft. filing 1, Gateway of frontyard setback for Snowmass Subdivision residence and 57 ft frontyard setback for a garage. Duration of Variances- Perm^nent PITKITI COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT William Mason, Chairman r� 7 y O w r) 17- S AhTO1A) LU/T o /! ! ' � NG -Box -4765- A5PclU Ga. 1�0&r_kT 100 A A�� c-I Ct� . S'r! 1 z . No- 7, 1980 To Pitkin County Board of Adjustment We strongly object to granting a variance to Case # 80-41 located See. 21 T9 1185W Doody Creek, Co. These are small 2.3 acre parcels of land that were purchased to live on with not more than a house & guest house. Due to land sold for Pitkin County Right- of- way & RS-20 set back we feel there is not enough area for a large 2000 sq. foot building & possibly a home in the future. Sincerely, c: • !/{J'.. f �� 1. 8 "ProUct%ve restrict 3 upon $aid rty Aic, .stri�tis and` bardeas landfitsand oov�eaaats Rich - shall �. With the 9 Upon and inure ,to the benef�.t of Be artits th eirs; suecaBeors aad assipa,. "forever tomid ,ubl�.cr_p►. shall be used for res.dentiax ,. 11:18Y be used fa is wild- , {. and other fare cta, 11 not ea�tend' rise of .24 _4 _` :tao�uc =iipOn � ia3rd .. � 1 •' ;��. - tQ iih Y : bs' or boovr i I r t rorlly Aye my -P tra 4-of on* eyan1 . jreaar onit ii�bi ,dye 4. All sanitation 'facilities r_ ltidenCe structure. s �- struceure to be u a sldaac='�om bra . pra ertp shall ars be cted on.: `: acres e; 6.,., •, pp VAMAnce be . f irst obtained : she `or the Ainimm 'lot .aizt r Cads Erta f 'as to -of manner provided d br reced: f y. law, EMPT 6* L idatiom Of. asp of tbaa to dgi w or tburt or #a i�ac. wi shall, ne a the Provisions rich oball: in in �'fQ tier, EL .k -_- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT November 25, 1980 Fresent: Bill Mason, Chairman Dottie Fox Clark Smyth ....=: o•. :a't:u: Joe Zan in Paul Krausch 100 Leaves r •-c,1 was called to order at 5:15 p.m. by Chairman, Bill Mason. Dottie Fox ...-.-.i rc gave tha minutes of the last meeting approved as written. Paul Krausch .. . I th,: moti•m. All in favor. Motion carried. ailnnr/Sethaek variance - in 442,._F.lk Mountain Subdivision 80-43 '.,r> C,-i•r: ,.r w:,r 1.r^_rent to represent his wife in her request for a 35 foot frontyard V- sideyard, a 6 fat sideyard and a 15 fact rearyard setback variance. :.iII •'a . •tra•r3 that thn reason that the Wr:idner's are requesting the variance is r'a, ttl- tot was do-;nznned and that they could not meet the current County n ir- r stat_r=J that access is taken from subdivision road, Elk Mountain Drive. 11. 1 . •"d ci,,: R',l a l.lot plan t:hnw L,q thr• requested setbacks. Mr. Weidner ::tis .::al: he had originally requested 15 feet in the rear, but had since ,learned mr:;r _..:.enants call for 20. He stated that he would be willing to decrease the sir- -.f t,- house ir the rear by 5 feet, thereby meeting the covenants. 6i 11 Maser, itated that there were no objections from the surrounding property owners. ttie F,--x asked if the main reason for desiring this orientation was to save the ,rrn� am,l m,, b^ in the clearing. Mr_ Weidner replied that this was correct; to move tt=. Ll r:-. to the front of the lot would require taking out many Aspen trees. Clark Sr,'_'1-, stated that Mr. Weidner needed variances all the way around the lot anyway, due to d:-.1,z•r,:.ing. 6i11 ':,:.n statee that the Board usually does not have problems granting variances ,...r�r •..,.,...:,i:g is involved if the requests stay within the covenants. Clark moved to grant the variance requests stated above with the rear setback a: •_n:?I r_ 20 feet making the rearyard variance 10 feet. Dottie Fox seconded the iv. t.i-.a. All in favor. Motion carried. Ki llaim H3}9c/Setback Variance - Lot R-40, Starwood Subdivision 80-44 Bail To t;, architect, was present to represent Mr. Hayes in his request for a 70 fc-:t frontyard setback variance. Mr. Poss stated that the lot sits on the ridge Ltr,r::o-.-: in '!nit 44. 'llic area is AF-1 zoning and requires a 100 foot setback. pit the house right on the ridge; and even the survey did not in^I_ce t..� s xec dr000ff to Whine Horse Springs. He then stated that he had r,b• e i:..: a:.:.r•,val from the Starwood Homeowners and the house is within the 100 t.t radx;s fr m the stake as required. He stated that the house is setback 30 _set frca the property line. +•.r. Pons stated that he and the Hayes' have attempted to work with the Homeowners to redv*.e the impart of the house and have kept it low and tucked it into the hill RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT November 25, 1980 Page 2 as far as possible. Mr. Poss 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. Scufkr 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. He 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 He. 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 sane variance would be granted for his lots. Don PeLise 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 tptally 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 condition 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? 12 I N° 13 10 ...-,a 0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves -L '"•F AWUST!-!U1T November 25 1980 Page 3 =4 n.ilar in two cases, chances are that the decisions would be the same. L,;ttie: F'xx asked if the fact that the lot, because of being downzoned, provided i::a ie`:i.e living scare, if that would constitute the hardship. Bill Mason stated t6=t hi felt it was indeed a case of downzoning. eat r.ie Fox moved to grant the variance to allow a 2,400 square foot house, 1,200 sq. Cr.•. cf that being basement 5 feet below grade, due to downzoning, because it doesn't L r.n de living spa=e. Paul Krausch seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried. I-Jrmn,mtain Lumber/Height variance Airport Business Center 80-46 :arlie 1^le was present to represent Pick Gates in his request for a 6 foot height :car; r.: construct an accessory building. Mr. Cole stated that zoning requires buildings can not be more than 12 feet tall, and that what they desire ,.! is ,_al led an accessory building because the building will not involve any I :al activity. . said practically that lumber yards have to store as much of the fine . -.a ,rials under ever, for the simple reason that it deteriorates in the _- ve stated that intermountain has lumber stacked higher than 12 feet now, that they are asking is to be able to put some cover over the existing stacks. that a 12 font height limit is impractical for a lumber yard. And ,.s building would not be as high as the surrounding buildings in the area. !b: •! that tt,ey al^n think, that this would kx. an improvement to the area, and w,_i-i them to take down the existing frame and black visquene. ..i'1 . =-ail 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. r'lark Smyth, who works for John McBride at the Airport Business Center, stated that C tv re i.; a technical problem F,ocau.vc the lot line runs through the proposed structure. rrrti_ Fax asked if the structure had to be in that specific location. Mr. Cole stated that that location would he most efficient. And Patsy Newbury stated that _ the l,rotosed location is within the setbacks. +sr• f.-Ac Mated that the structure will be permanent and will have a foundation i `•r f--.ter= for pests, have three sides and a shed roof. 'i+r% " •'-h stayed that there is an easement and Holy Cross could need the land. stated that they had no say as to the future prospects of someone needing -i i: ,..na , and could only consider the variance request. Mr. Cole stated that if -i_! r.,t have to meet the setbacks and could place the shed on the property line r t:r +n•:y might .consider moving the structure. l� -tie Fox moved to grant the 8 foot height variance due to the innate use hardship. •'Jerk. 5,-:th disqualified himself, and stated as an adjacent property owner and part -f --hi re.-_htural review board at the Airport Business Center, that they would 1!r: •>e: wl.^re the sr.ru t.0 ra would be placed but they did not have any problem �i-- •..a hei,-h, variance. Paul Krausch seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion a_r,r, !ary and Clay Boland/Setback Variance Stark Mesa Tract 80-47 F^Sand was not present. Paul Krausch moved to table the request until the next meeting. Clark Smyth seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT November 25 1980 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 VarianceWoody Creek e0-41 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 property from across 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 an 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 ratner than the setback variance. Mr. Wingers stated that Mrs. Kopp complains about any use of his property, and ultimately doesnot want Mr. Wingers on the property. Paul Krausch asked if there was a residence on 'the property. Mr. 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 cr 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 Aleorn%o view, bu't 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. She stated that there was no FAR requirements in either of the zones on Mr. wingers property (PS-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 be 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 alive 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° 14 1 1 N° 15 • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT November 25, 1980 Page 5 there was enough room of 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 motion. All in favor. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned by Bill Masor., Chairman, at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: 1. :; ,, -'1 - ...... RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Special Meeting November 11, 1080 Sler..bers present: Bill Mason, Chairman Dottie Fox Clark Smyth Carl Nutzhorn Associates: Joe Zanin The meeting was called to order at 5:15 p.m. by Chairman, Bill Mason. Dottie Fox wanted to go on record and have the minutes of the last eeetin„; am,•-nd!d to state that she voted to deny the Ham's variance request tecause she felt that it could start a precedent that would allow many businesses on highway 82 to come in and request two signs for safety reasons. Carl Nutzhorn moved to have the minutes approved as amanded by fxittie Fox. Clark Smyth seconded the moLion. All in favor. Motion carried. Dr. Chiaramonte/Setback Variance - Gateway at Snowmass 80-42 Joe Seigle was present to represent Dr. Chiaramonte in his request for a 70 foot frontyard setback variance. Sir. Seigle stated that wb: _-n ttii:; lot was originally subdivided there was no zoning and no setbacks. he then stated that Patsy Newbury had told him that it had been downzoned this summer to AF-1 which requires a 100 foot setback, and th%t Lbt- lot I•u only 200 fact wldo. Sir. Seigle taLa Lud th:LL the applicant would like to have a variance to 30 feet because the 100 foot setback would place the house in the drainage area on the proper- ty. There is a down slope into what becomes a natural draw. Also the elevation at that point would require a fairly sizable road cut. He then read into the record a letter from Dr. Chiaramonte's architect restating what Sir. Seigle presented to the Board. Carl Nutzhrrn asked Sir. Seigle to be more specific because he not see the draw and the slope on the topographical map. Carl Nutzhorn then asked why the :30 foot setback and why not something closer to the required 100 feet. Mr. Seigle stated that they arrived at the 30 foot setback because it would require the least amount of road cut, and any further down on the hill would create a very steep access that would result in having to switchback the driveway. Patsy Newbury agreed with him. Mr. Seigle stated that a big road across the face of the lot would impact i some neighbors and that his client did not want to have to do that. Clark Smyth stated that it looked as if the grade would be about 10% and that was fairly steep for a driveway. Carl Nutzhorn stated that he still did not see from the topo why the house had to be only 30 feet from the highway. Joe Zanin asked how far the. leech field had to be from the property line. Patsy Newbury stated that it had to be ten feet. Bill Mason stated that the placement of the house as proposed will allow the leech field to stay well above the area of drainage. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Board of Adjustment November 11, 1980 Page 2 in this area many times in the past. Clark Smyth also stated that the covenants were 30 feet before downzoning. It was stated that there had been no objections from the ajacent property owners. Dottie Fox moved to grant the 70 foot frontyard setback variance due to topographical hardship. Clark Smyth seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried. Jim Wingers/Setback Varaince woody Creek 80-41 Jim wingers was not present at the meeting to request his variance. but Bob I(opp was present and the Board decided to let him place his objection in the record now so he would not have to return for the next meeting. Mr. Kopp asked if the Board had received a letter from Mr- Alcorn and Bill 'Jason proceeded to read into the record Mr. Alcorn', letter objecting to the garage structure because they did not feel that there was enuugh land for both house and garage. Bill Masan stated that the Alcorn:; are next door neighbors of Mr. wingers, and that Mr. Kopp is across the way. Mr. Kopp stated that he wanted to make the Board aware of the deed resLrictions on Lhe property. Ile submitted to the Beard a cop)' of the deed and stated that the land was restricted to residential purposes only. Also thnt it is restricted to two arms per residence and that Mr. wingers may no longer have two acres after selling an easement to the County. Patsy Newbury said that the Board does not have the right to enforce deed restrictions. Carl Nutzhorn asked Patsy Newbury about the distinction between junk and antique cars. She stated that antique cars are cars that are 25 years old and licensed with an antique sticker from the state of Colorado. She stated that Mr, wingers does have stickers for about ten of his cars. Dottie Fox asked if there was a limit to how many antique cars someone can own, and Patsy Newbury stated that there was not. Patsy Newbury then stated that she is familiar with all this because she has gone through nbatement of a junkyard procedures with Mr. Wingers. Bill Mason stated that the Board would carry over the wingers case and the Vance case until November 25, 1980. The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m. by Bill Mason, Chairman. Respectfully submitted: W�fh� - 411� Mutia Bull, Secretary Calrk Smyth stated that the�ard hasi�ranted variances to 30 feet �0 it Nc 7, 1980 To Pitkin County Board of Adjustment We strongly object to granting a variance to Case # 80-41 located Sec. 21 T9 R85W Woody Creek, Co. These are small 2.3 acre parcels of land that were purchased to live on with not more than a house & guest house. Due to land sold for Pitkin County Right- of- way & RS-20 set back we feel there is not enough area for a large 2000 sq. foot building & possibly a home in the future. Sincerely, 1! 1• 1 I• I • LEGEND � NOTES • FOUND #5 PEBAR W/TN BLANK ALUM. CAP. TOE OF BANK . TOP OF HANK - ////// Ji�� J� / } FOUND 5P/KE. V O .7 1POWELE ,e POLE, - GALE ,,v _ 2OFT. CALLS /N ( ) AQE 1i'ECORD FROM 7/7-LE L'OMM/TM E/✓T 0 CLUMP OF OAK ORU5H. O /O dD 30 y0 -� GO BEAR /NGS A.2. E TRUE 304VEY 0,2/EN7-2Z-A WITH FOUNLI MONU.�/ENTS. P114T A,QEPA2ED BY GER ARC /-/. PE's/✓/AN FOR R073E.e7- L, f A"MEL/A KOAP DA7�D 31/S/69 E //311-73 CONST/TOTES A -A/ 16 I IS ` /NTE�iK AG P/7.2T OF T/-f/S FLRT _ _ 22 FOR AODIT\OVAL lA1FORMATION N89°04E, 14 SI.83! REGUFVROMC POSITION NORTU LINE SEC 21 E W v`(EST LINE LOTS \ £8 SEE SUR-vEY PREPARtD 6N C�ER4RD N. - PESMAN FOR RpSERT 1. E AMELIA t<OPP GATED 3115I69 1�31T3 I 0 J_ C O 1 385. O �8Z",l6,w cAP ° c- w -- Ism T AP !'. .n 1 Q P0.8.RECORD POSITION OF OFSORIPT\ON \' O 60 OASEo ON T\ES Sv-iowN TO NE `Il' L PROPERTY BASED GOz- SEC 21 WHIC�1 00 NOT SON FIELD LOCATION OF FOUND • OON FORM WITH FIELD Gv1DENGE r SOS°00� 10043 �S 6RE-RODsw/BIZTq AWM AS SHOwN. CAPS ALGNG NORTH LINE OF 1\ .SET � PROPERTY £ ^/EST t-INE of n BAC',e ``§� LOTS l tis B Is O 4Cv TRUE \ CORNER K�pG g Go Ko ,Or,T AMEr.Ik �' ` v W Q AREA= 2-IG*- ACRES O I — O 0 PERK TEST o 89,U c� 4.`7'S� ti _ UNDERG RO L'N ONO OR FpND RECDT-I LIT((F_5 D ESC,RIDTION FOR ((7 � RIGHT-OF,vvAC COR ` iT— w000Y CREEK ROgO � \ NOT � LOCATF-0 \ c 6 0 / 0 00 01 13UILDING PERM/T SURVE - of Ft TRACT OF LAND E-3E/N6 A PART OF LOTS 2 £ 7 /N SECT/ON a./, 7-95, 12 65 W OF THE 67-H 1 M AS DESCR/BED /N T/TLE COMM/T MENT-CASE NO. �9-5{ -04- 017. BV .SURVEY ENG/NEE�PS, -LNC. BOX ci.sD �n %{SPE N, C'OL.O. 6�a /�7 7 C ERTIF/CATION S GERAR,, //. PESMAN CE,P T/FY THAT TH/5 PLAT /S PLOTTELJ FROM F/ELF NOTES OF A SU.2YEY MADE BY ME E (/A/vER MY ,SUPER✓/5/On/ /N TUNE, /977. COLO /"PROF. EMG.e. E LAND SUR ✓EYO.0 '�4"--�376 B N � �4s FODUD �S RE -ROD W�cAP L.S. 2316 SET' IN cONC W� T FENCE POST ON 5 SOUTH S\pE OF ROARING FORK R\�/ER o Ilm 0 Z � v11(D7- A • I •I •