Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.min.1977r _ ^'' ~; RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves iORM 50 C. F. NOECK EL 9. B. & L. C,. '-. PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT January 25, 1977 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Mason, Chairman Dottie Fox Jim Markalunas Henry Stein Chairman Bill Mason called the meeting to order at 5:25 p.m. Election of Chairman Chairman Bill Mason stated that at the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners meeting of January 24th, the Commissioners had reappointed himself, Dottie Fox, Henry Stein, and Jim Markalunas to the Board, Frank Smotherman had submitted his resignation due to a change in residence and the two alternates to the Board, Jamey Johnston and Carl Nutzhorn had expired terms. Mason stated that the Commissioners were going to publish the vacancies in the newspaper and make appointments at the next meeting. Chairman Mason also stated that it was necessary for the Board to elect a chairman for 1977. Jim Markalunas made a motion to re-elect Bill Mason. Motion seconded by Dottie Fox. All in favor. Motion carried. After a brief discussion by the Board, it was decided to continue scheduling the Board meetings for 5:15 p.m. Richard Slaughter/Setback Variance - Lot 32 Woodrun I Mr. and Mrs. Richard Slaughter and David Finholm, architect, were present and stated that they were requesting the use of Snowmass' 15' setback requirement due to the steepness of the site in the north direction. The Board reviewed the location of the proposed site, and a note from Homer J. Rader, adjacent property owner, was read into the records of the meeting stating that he -had no objection to the proposed variance. The Board's consensus was that due to the steepness of the terrain and the fact that the area was heavily wooded there would be no problem in approving the proposed variance. Chairman Bill Mason pointed out that at one time, the Board had attempted to give this area a blanket variance since the area was already subdivided, platted, etc., but there was some question as to the legality of such a blanket variance. Dottie Fox made a motion to grant the setback variance as requested, seconded by Jim Markalunas. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Al Gabbitas/Setback Variance - 70 Riverbend, Wingo Junction John Spencer, Contractor, was present representing the applicant. Application stated that this was a side lot setback variance. Structure with a one car garage is 60' long and is 27.4' from the property line. Spencer stated that the applicant would like to add 10° to the garage area in order to make it a two-car garage. This would bring the structure to within 17.4' of the property line. A letter from adjacent property owners Betty E. Adams and Maxine Fairchild was submitted and read into the record. The letter stated that they had no objection to the proposed variance as long as the garage maintains the stype and material of the residence on the property. ~. ~°'^~, , ° ~~ a. .. ~ ~,.. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Board of Adjustment Pa e 2 January 25, 1977 Spencer stated that this was indeed the intention of the owner. Dottie Fox questioned if the structure would remain single-story. Spencer stated that it would remain single story with room for a van, an automobile and some storage, Jim P1arkalunas made a motion to approve the requested setback variance. PQotion seconded by Dottie Fox. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. A request was made by the Board for an investigation of the Wingo Junction sign and what action could be taken to have the sign removed. The request is to be forwarded to Sandra Stuller, County Attorney. Jim Markalunas made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by Henry Stein. All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m. Res ectful submitted, ~ E~~~ as {'~/Armstrong Rec~brding Secr ary ~~ Vp~4Y 'u''45~0 1~ O .. .._ ._ ..~ .fir; .., ..n 5'. a'..c .,. s. .>>.a +,x.._.,. dw,..~i.wz..~Kir»v:m.,... x:S'n:JY2t1`'~R'.1x°~~~,"~~~.°"={GW1 ~.,. .~ 4`~mTr5~~' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ~. ~; ~. 100 Leaves FORM SA C. F. HOECI(El 0. B. 8 L. G0. PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT February 22, 1977 MEMBERS PRESENT ASSOCIATES Bill Mason, Chairman Dottie Fox Jim Markalunas Henry Stein Carl Nutzhorn Paul Krausch Clark Smyth Bryan Harper Jon Mulford Peter DeMuth Chairman Bill Mason called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. The new associate members were introduced to the Board. Chairman Mason pointed out that he would like the associate members to attend each meeting if possible in order that they could keep informed on the cases and decisions of the Board. OLD BUSINESS Chairman Mason stated that the Board needed to elect a Vice-Chairman to take over the duties of the Chairman in his absence. Henry Stein nominated Jim Markalunas, seconded by Carl Nutzhorn. All in favor, motion carried. Chairman Mason further pointed out that the Board had not been taking action on minutes for the Board meetings. He stated that if it was acceptalbe to the Board, if members have no comments or changes in the minutes withh 5 days after receipt of the minutes, the minutes would stand approved. Mason also pointed out that the lights at the Pomegranate had been removed as per the request of the Board. Building Inspector Fred Crowley pointed out that the Building Department follows up on all decisions of the Board and if the members of the Board have any questions on follow-up action takin by the department on Board decisions to feel free to contact him. Mid Continent Coal Co /Height Variance for Thermal Dryer - 4 miles west of Redstone Bob Delaney, Vice President and General Counsel for Mid-Continent, and John Reeves were present to represent the applicant. Delaney stated that this was a request fora height variance for a second thermal dryer which would be approximately the same height as the original dryer. Delaney then described the structure and its operation. Henry Stein pointed out that the Board should just pass on the height variance only and should not involve itself in the other considerations. Chairman Mason stated that he had discussed this appeal with Hal Clark, Land .Use Administrator, and submitted a letter from Clark recommending approval of the requested variance. This letter was made a part of the file. John Reeves stated that the nearest residence was approximately 4z miles away. Dottie Fox stated that her concern was with the proposed State air emission buffer zone of 10 miles from a wilderness area, but felt that it would be some time before that would be adopted. ...,z_, ..,. ~,~. ti~...:;. e...R .a,~. , f..*~~h. ,:_ ~ :.~4y:,, ~,; ~,;. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Board 2 23, 1977 Dottie Fox also stated that she did not feel AF-1 was a suitable zoning category for this particular area. Bryan Harper pointed out that the requested height for the dryer was a safety factor and this should be a major consideration of the Board. Henry Stein made a motion to grant the requested variance for the height of the thermal dryer, seconded by Jim PAarkalunas. All in favor, motion carried. Charles Meola/Frontyard Setback Variance - Lot 10 Ridgerun II Charles Meola and Phil Merten, architect, were present. The request was fora reduction in the front yard setback requirement of 30' to 20' at the north-west property line for a proposed garage in conjunction wtih a single family residence. Phil Merten pointed out the location of the house and the proposed garage. Peter DeMuth gave a brief background of the situation in West Village in regard to the setbacks. Phil Merten stated that he felt the variance was justified for the following reasons: (1) comfortable slope in the vicinity of the house itself; (2) would not like to move the house into the clearing, but rather would like the privacy afforded by the trees; and (3) the closest corner would be no closer than 40' from the pavement and 20' from the property line. Chuck Meola stated that he had received preliminary approval from the Snowmass Design Committee. Dottie Fox made a motion to grant the setback as requested, seconded by Carl Nutzhorn. All in favor. Motion carried. Dr C R Lombardo/Frontyard Setback Variance - Lot 85 ,_ Woodrun I Phil Merten, Architect, was present representing the applicant. Merten stated that this was a request fora reduction in the front yard setback requirement of 30' to 15' at the south-east property line fora parking garage only. Merten located the site of the proposed garage and stated that it is currently an open parking area. He stated that the applicant would like to construct a two-car garage in this location. Merten stated that considering the steep slope of the lot, a 15 foot setback would eliminate the need fora raised bridge to a tall garage structure set back 30 feet. He stated that the need for excessive driveway grading to a garage setback 30 feet at a lower elevation on the site would also be eliminated. This would also permit construction of a low-scale garage in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Pete DeMuth pointed out that the garage would impinge upon the turn-around easement. He further pointed out that this was located on a very narrow private road., and gave a brief history of the building in the area of that particular cul-de-sac. Jim Markalunas pointed out that the purpose of the cul-de-sac was primarily for emergency equipment and would prefer not to encroach upon the easement. Peter DeMuth stated that the emergency vehicles were able to turn around, but expressed some concern about possible difficulty if there was excessive snow. ~~~~iiyyTT Lr,,,4D i.;r1y 'S O 1~~ _ ~_ .. ~ ;. ... ,.,_.: .._ ..:,.:. .b. ;':..... _ .. .::.a:KU w'...,ar. ,.,. SS v.ara'~,':~.G Ff~RS>~..~~.,."+?a 9,.;i a:H~l^~,...~`i~l~%` ,. ,.. _ .. _, v" FaaM of ELe e a L C0. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Board of Adjustment Pa e 3 Februar 22, 1977 Clark Smyth pointed out that the problem was created by the placement of the house on the lot rather than specific terrain difficulties. Merten submitted a photograph of the ho us e, .pointing out that the house was considerably down the hill. It was the general concensus of the Board not to allow the garage to impinge on the cul-de-sac easement. Merten stated that the applicant would be willing to move the garage six feet, if necessary. Fred Crowley, Building Inspector, stated that although he was aware of the possibility of a problem with the cul-de-sac if the garage were to encroach into the easement, he would prefer to see as many automobiles off the road as possible. Jim Markalunas made a motion to grant the requested 15' setback with the condition that the garage be located in such a position so as not. to encroach into the cul-de-sac easement. Motion seconded by Dottie Fox. All in favor. Motion carried. A general discussion followed on the relationship between the Board of Adjustment and various architectural or design review boards. Carl Nutzhorn made a motion that the Board not rule on applications for variances until any appropriate homeowners association or architectural review board has heard the appeal. Henry Stein stag_d that he felt it was the homeowners responsibility and not an appropriate action for the Board to take. The motion died for lack of a second. Henry Stein made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Jim Markalunas. All in favor. Motion carried. Chairman Bi11 Mason adjourned the meeting at 6:40 p.m. Respectfully ubmitted, ,, ~~ ~ ~~ ase Armstrong, yording Secretary °~~t~a~~ ~® d. ~~ ~- .. k,.... ;, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 50 C. F. HOELK EL 9. 8. C L. PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTr1ENT March 29, 1977 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Mason, Chairman Henry Stein Dottie Fox Jim P1arkalunas Carl Nutzhorn ASSOCIATES: Clark Smyth Paul Krausch Peter DeDluth Jon Mulford 100 Leaves Chairman Bill Mason called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. The minutes from the February 22, 1977, Boa~"d of Adjustment meeting were approved by the Board as submitted by the recording secretary. Sandy Stuller, County Attorney, was present to answer any questions the Board might have on procedures, powers, duties, etc. Sandy submitted a brief summary of the litigation currently in progress with Universal Landmark and reviewed the case with the Board. Sandy also submitted a copy of City of Aspen Ordinance #37 with a brief explanation of the ordinance with emphasis on the importance of record keeping in the event a case comes to litigation. Stuller stated that the ordinance was an appropriate guidEline for this Board. The Board requested that Sandy follow up on the Wingo Junction matter involving a truck with a large sign and flood lights directed at the sign and Christmas lights at the Junction directly off the highway. A general discussion followed between the Board and the County Attorney. Sandy pointed out that in any cases which came up where the Board might desire to have a resoltuion drafted in order to more clearly state the conditions of their motion, she would be more than happy to draft the resoltuion. Sandy stated that the primary responsibility of the Board was to relieve unanticipated problems of zoning. Dottie Fox and Bill Mason requested that Sandy look into the progress that was being made on a new sign code for Pitkin County and explained the problems which the Board was currently experiencing with the limited guidelines set out in the current code. Thomas G. Fisher/Setback Variance - 26677 East State Highway 82 Tom Fisher was present to present his application to the Board. Fisher located the site of the proposed addition and stated that they would be planting trees for aesthetic reasons. Fisher further stated that they would maintain the same architectural design in the addition. Carl Nutzhorn stated that he felt the owner should be made a part of the application, either through a signature on tfie application or through a letter stating that they approve of the variance being sought by the applicant. Also, the Board requested that the Building Department make sure that the applicant submit dimensional, scaled plans showing their request. ~~ ~ ~/ l.~ Ali ZJ Y ~~ w" _ . .. v..+~'i.: .xr w1.-Y..r!~d-m n+nrwr w fx af.v 2o.xkPl~$S~N$SHF~.9)+lYw~#~v:W!+~~im.wmY`~w~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FRRM 50 C F. HOECI(El B. 6. B L. CO. Board of Adjustment Page 2 March 29, 1977 The applicant pointed out that the addition would be not only for bathroom facilities, but would also include a small kitchenette and a small storage area. Dottie Fox made a motion to grant the variance as requested. Motion seconded by Carl Nutzhorn. A71 in favor, motion carried unanimously. Shaffran, Stan/Setback Variance - Lot 2, Block 3, Gateway Subdivision, Filing 3 Do to an error in the legal description of the location for the proposed variance, this case will have to be republished and will come before the Board of Adjustment at their next regularly scheduled meeting. Steve Fitzel/Setback Variance - Lot 6, Block 2, Filing 3, Gateway to Snowmass Mesa Randy Wedum, architect, was present representing the applicant. l,ledum stated that the application was a request to allow a 20' setback from the access road to the lot to allow cutting through existing 7'6" bank for a garage opening allowing the rest of the building to be built below grade and to allow a solar mass to the north side of the building and sod over the entire roof. Wedum stated that for practical reasons, the access would be better if the Board would allow them to cut through the bank and the house would be much less imposing if he could use the plan presented and build the house below grade. Clark Smyth stated that he was familiar with the lot and had no objections to the proposed variance. Jim Markalunas stated that if the land can be better utilized with less impact and no objections from adjacent property owners, as is the case with this particular application, he felt the Board should grant the variance requested. Jim Markalunas made a motion to grant the variance as requested, seconded by Dottie Fox. All in favor, motion carried unanimously. Dexter A. Morse/Setback Variance - Lot 17, Ridge Run I Dexter Morse was present and pointed out that his request was for a 10' variance on the north side of the building site so that he house would be 10' from the property line. Morse stated that this would result in less cutting of trees, less total excavation and disruption of the lot, it would move the house further from the roadway, would move the house further out of any view planes. Morse futher pointed out that the east and north sides of the lot are designated as preen space on the Snowmass Master Plan, so the move would not disturb that concept and this would also be a better and more efficient use of the topography. Morse stated that he was aware of the possibility of the houses being built on the 6,000 square foot lots near his house and stated that he was willing to take the chance that they would be built futher back on their lots. Nenry Stein made a motion to grant the variance as requested. Plotion seconded by Dottie fox, Carl Nutzhorn asked if the proposal had been before the Snowmass Architectural Board. Morse stated that he had been before the Snowmass Architectural Board with his preliminary proposal and would be appearing before them again for his final presentation. r,r?~~ !a,`H ~® ~ h ~_, ~,y ~s° i, ~ P- 8 ''. ~~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 700 Leaves i. . ~., iOPm 50 C. F. xOECI(EL 0. B. 9 L. CO. i. Board of Adjustment Pa e 3 March 29, 1977 ~r:: Bill Mason called fora vote on the motion before the Board. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Dottie Fox made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by Jim Markalunas. All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, i ,~? /'/'` --' % Casey strong, ecording cretary w..J °..~a.°^-.^.~°.--- .,~.::sW ..,a ~xi,. -.~rN.4~i:..sa.~,.r,.;<,a.,~~~~aW^~~,a~ar.:s;~,sa:~s~rs. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM SD C. F HOECK El9 B @ l CO m1 PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT April 27, 1977 MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Markalunas, Vice Chairman Carl Nutzhorn ASSOCIATES: Clark Smythe, Bryan Harper Peter DeMuth Vice Chairman Jim Markalunas called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. Members present were Jim Markalunas, Clark Smyth, Bryan Harper and Peter DeMuth. Shaffran, Stan/Setback Variance - Lot 2, Block 3, Filing II, Gateway-at-Snowmass Applicants Stan and Kandi Shaffran were present to present their application. Application is for a front yard setback variance to 20'. Shaffran submitted a survey and photograph of the site explaining that due to the contour of the land that his proposed site was the only possible site for a building. Shaffran stated that a soil test had been taken on the site and the soil was firm. He stated that the house was designed so as to be unobtrusive and that it would be in a stepped configuration for some type of a solar system. Bryan Harper made a motion to grant the requested variance due to topographical difficulties. Motion seconded by Peter DeMuth. All in favor. P1otion carried unanimously. Schennum, Earl/Setback Variance - Lot 3, Aspen Highlands Peter Lund and Debbie Schennum were present representing the applicant. Lund stated that the applicant would like to build a tennis court with a 10' high fence which would front on the Maroon Creek Road with no setback from the road. Lund stated that if the tennis court were to be relocated to meet the setback requirements it would destroy a number of trees. He stated that the applicant would be going up with a cinderblock retaining wall. DeMuth questioned whether or not there would be problems with snow removal on Maroon Creek Road. Lund responded 'that the road already had an 8'-10' shoulder and felt there would be no problem with snow removal. Jim Markalunas questioned if there would be any problem with covering the tennis court. Building Inspector Fred Crowley stated that if the applicant decided to put in a bubble for the court he would have to go through the Board of Adjustment again. Bryan Harper made a motion to grant the variance due to undue hardship. Plotion died for lack of a second. Vice Chairman Jim ;larkalunas requested that the Board members take a look at the site of the proposed tennis court before acting on the request for the variance. It was also the general cgncensus of the Board that the Building Department provide more information on the applications as to why the requests for building permits were initially denied. The Board requested more adequate and detailed information, i.e., topographic map showing vegetation and shoulder of Maroon Creek Road. ~~ .. , ,~, , . _. .. ,.... ~,.. s,... ...,. ,, ~W RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOflM 50 C. F. HOECKEl 6. 0. 8 L, CO. ' Board of Adjustment Page 2 April 26, 1977 's.:-: Lund requested that the Board table the request for variance until the Special sleeting of the Board of Adjustment on May 10th. Request granted. Hansen R. D./Setback Variance - 13685 State Highway 82 R. D. Hansen was present and stated that his application was to allow the relocation of the existing house and outbuildings further from State Highway 82 but still within the 200' arterial setback. He stated that the property was not deep enough for full compliance with the setback. Building Inspector Fred Crowley stated that were the applicant to comply fully with the 200' setback, his house would be in the river. He stated that the applicant desired to use the existing septic system. Crowley further explained that the house would not be located in the floodplain area. Markalunas stated that the request appeared to be an improvement since it would be further from the highway. Hansen stated that by moving the house further back it would also provide a sound buffer by the trees. Hansen further stated that he would like to move the trailer. Crowley stated that they would not be allowed to move the trailer since it is a non- conforming use. Carl Nutzhorn arrived. Nutzhorn questioned whether or not moving the house to the proposed location would put it in a stream margin. Crowley stated that he was unfamiliar with any stream margin in that area and felt that it was not applicable to this case. Delores Stutzman was present and stated that she was acting as spokesperson for the five adjacent property owners. She stated that the adjacent property owners were in favor of the request. Clark Smyth made a motion to grant the requested variance due to the topographical considerations and the fact that the request would be more in compliance with the setback requirements, variance to include the existing house and addition. Motion seconded by Bryan Harper. All in favor, motion carried unanimously. Schumann, W. Ford/setback Variance - Lot R-76, Starwood Robin P1olny, architect, was present representing the applicant. f4olny gave a brief explanation of the request. He stated that the owner desires to erect an exercise room and dressing room in conjunction with his bedroom and swimming pool area and was requesting a rear yard setback of 6' for a small portion of the addition. Molny stated that the existing house was built in 1972. He stated that the proximity of the setback line to the existing structure would create a practical difficulty and undue hardship. Molny further stated that there would be no detriment to the public good nor alteration or impairment to the intent and purpose of the zoning code. Nutzhorn questioned the vertical difference from the house. Molny stated that it would be a 9' difference from the existing floor level. Molny further stated that they were proposing solar collectors. which would be approximately 6'-7' above grade level. There were no objections received from the adjacent property owners. ~; ~. ~r=: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ~.. F OXM 50 C. F. XOE LK EL B. B. B L CO. ^: Board of Adjustment Page 3 April 26, 1977 Carl Nutzhorn made a motion to grant the requested variance on the basis that it would encroach only 6' into a 30' setback and due to the terrain would not obstruct the view of future buildings on the adjacent parcel and the present organization of the house dictates that this would be the most appropriate location for the addition. Motion seconded by Peter DeMuth. All in favor, motion carried unanimously. Arneson, Roy/Setback Variance - Lot 46 & 46A, Redstone Roy Arneson was present and stated that he wished to build a 4' wrap-around deck to connect the side door to the front 6' deck. He stated that the side deck would protrude 3' into the sideyard setback. It was pointed out that the applicant had just built the house, and Nutzhorn questioned whether or not it would be considered an undue hardship since the applicant was aware of his required setbacks prior to building the house. Bryan Harper made a motion to grant the requested variance on the basis that the width of the lots were so small so as to present an undue hardship. Motion seconded by Peter De°1uth. Nutzhorn stated for the record that he felt the addition of the deck would be coming extrememly close to the property adjacent to Arneson and stated that if there had been an objection from the adjacent property owner, he would have voted against the motion before the Board. Arneson pointed out that the area was zoned commercial so most property owners in the area were aware that they would be close to their neighbors. Peter DeP•1uth stated that he felt from the safety factor the deck would be a good idea as a safer egress, Bryan Harper stated that he felt the blanket zoning would constitute a hardship. Vote on motion before the Board - All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. Sutton, Michael/Setback_Variance - Lot 8 Block 2 Filing 2 Brush Creek Village David Hauter, Architect, was present to present the application to the Board. Hauter stated that they were requesting the setback variance to minimize scarring of the hill, to minimize fill and cribbing on the steeply sloping site and to achieve the best solar orientation for an energy conserving design. It was further pointed out that the applicant did not wish to put the parking and driveway in the view area and there would be no obstruction to the view of the adjacent house. Hauter stated that there would be a passive solar system with a greenhouse. Building Inspector Fred Crowley stated that he felt that the proposed site was the best location for the house. Peter DeMuth pointed out that the topographic map submitted by the applicant did not indicate the steepness df the lot upon which the applicant was basing his argument. Hauter suggested an onsite inspection of the proposed site since none of the Board members were familiar with the lot. P1arkalunas requested that the applicant stake out the location of the house prior to any site inspection. The applicant stated that this had already been done. Nutzhorn made a motion to table the request until the members were able to make a site inspection. Motion seconded by DeMuth. ~,rra' --- ..., ~ .. _ ' . t .r. . °+~ s.as 9 `.`'"#,. ~.N* n :°''~gE,S"h° ~i,°...z ~e~fh.:.t:w^~4"Ws'MJ',"`~'v`~'~S RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM M C. F. HOECR EI B. B. B L. CO. PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Play 10, 1977 Special Meeting MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Mason, Chairman Jim Markalunas Carl Nutzhorn ASSOCIATES: Peter DeMuth Clark Smyth Chairman Bill Mason called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. The minutes of the April 27, 1977, meeting were approved as submitted. Abbott, Danny/Setback Variance -Shield-O-Mesa Danny Abbott was present and explained that he was asking for a front setback variance of 65' from the property line and two sideyard setback variances, one for 35' and the other for 15'. Abbott pointed out that there was an error in his original application, and that adjacent property owners had been sent certified letters with the correction explained. The legal notice published in the newspaper contained no error. Brian Goodheim, real estate agent, was present and stag parcel of land. Goodheim stated that originally, there since burned down that was at one time believed to have The land was sold to Abbott with the understanding that clear and it would be best to have the parcel surveyed. house was not on the lot. 'd that he had sold Abbott the had been a house which had been included in that parcel. the property line was not The survey revealed that the John Bieschel was present from Tri-Co and stated that the foundation of the burned down house was indeed not on the property which Abbott had purchased. Patsy Newbury, Assistant Building Inspector, was present and stated that she was familiar with the lot and felt that the site Abbott was proposing to build the garage on was the best possible site on the property. Doug Jenkins, adjacent property owner was present and stated that he, too, felt that the proposed location of the garage was the most suitable site on the lot to build. A letter was submitted to the record from Willett S. Moore, a property owner in the area, stating that he objected to the unsightly cabin presently on the lot. Abbott stated that the cabin was a small, old miner's cabin and he wished to use it for storing building materials. Possibly sometime in the future he would remove it. Jim Markalunas made a motion to grant the requested variance due to the unusual topographical and boundary features of the tract which create an undue hardship. Motion seconded by Peter DeMuth. Those in favor - P1ason, Markalunas, DeMuth and Smyth. No members opposed. Motion granted. Grubman, William/Setback Variance - Lot R-73, Starwood Eleven Larry Yaw, architect, was present in place of the applicant. Yaw stated that the request was for a setback variance for an addition of a deck and bedroom addition and that it could not logically be placed at any other location. ~~ ~ '". ~ _. F0PM50 F xoEKELa e e `o RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Board of Adjustment Pa e 2 Ma 10, 1977 Yaw stated that he had a signed approval from the Architectural Design Committee in Starwood and would bring a copy of the letter to submit to the file. He also pointed out that it would not impinge upon the views of the neighbors. Clark Smyth made a motion to grant the requested variance due to the topographical considerations, the fact that it does not impinge upon the neighbors and the fact that the Starwood Architectural Committee had given their approval to the proposed addition. P1otion seconded by Jim Markalunas. Those in favor - Mason, farkalunas, Smyth and Defluth. No members opposed. Motion carried. Cubbins, Terry/Lot 6 Block 1 Filin I Brush Creek Villa e Setback Variance Due to an error in the application filed for the variance and therefore an error in the publication, it will be necessary to republish the request for variance and reschedule the proposed application for the Board of Adjustment meeting to be held on May 31, 1977. Schennum, Earl/Setback Variance - Lot 3 Aspen Highlands Peter Luhn was present to represent the applicant. Pete DeMuth stated that he had made a site inspection of the proposed tennis court and had made notations on the map in the file. DeMuth stated that there was approximately 7' of pavement and approximately 17' down to the proposed fence. He further stated that there would be no visibility problem for automobiles caused by the fence. DeMuth did point out that there was a power company easement running through the area of the proposed tennis court. Carl Nutzhorn arrived at 5:55 p.m. Peter DeMuth made a motion to grant the variance to permit the northwest corner to come to a -0- setback due to the hardship that would be caused by the scarring of the land and the fact that the request was on a technicality since a 6' fence would be allowed without having to go before the Board. Motion seconded by Markalunas. Those in favor - Mason, Markalunas, DeMuth and Smyth. fJutzhorn abstained. No members opposed. Motion carried. Mountain Chalet - Ralph Melville/Height Variance - Snowmass Villaqe Ralph Melville was present to present the application to the Board. Melville explained that the original height given was for 37', and the average height would still be below 37'. Chairman Bill Mason gave a brief history of the Mountain Chalet and explained that the request had come before the Board of Adjustment in the past and had been granted. The applicant had not acted upon the variance within the year required so the variance had expired. Melville stated that all the rough-in work had been done for the addition of the two floors including the plumbing and the engineering. Mason said that he felt the Mountain Chalet at present looked unfinished and felt it would improve the appearance of the building if it were completed. Melville submitted photographs of the present building. A letter from Snowmass Corporation President William K. Martin was read into the record endorsing the proposed variance. ~y~~~~ ~~ _" _ _. ~a.+..,,-, ».„eraR.wx}3, ' wo.Kear~mnaz~+.-m:m'a~uk~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ~. ~,. Board of Adjustment Pa e 3 May 10 1977 Carl Nutzhorn made a motion to grant the variance as requested due to the fact that the variance had been granted previously by the Board and it would be a hardship upon the applicant not to allow them to complete the building. P1otion seconded by Clark Smyth. All in favor, with the exception of Peter DeMuth who abstained due to conflict of interest. P~lotion carried. Sutton, Michael/Setback Variance - Lot 8 Block 2 Filin~II Brush Creek Village David Haute r, architect, was present to present the application for the Board. He stated that the request was being changed to a 10' sideyard setback rather than something less. Hauter stated that it was the best natural site for the house, the 10-acre zoning does not conform to the original layout of Brush Creek Village and this location would minimize the scarring of the land. Bill Mason stated that he had made a site inspection and felt that the proposed location was the best possible site for the house. Markalunas stated that by moving the house down on the slope it would preclude the use of a passive solar system. Markalunas made a motion to grant the requested variance due to the topographical conditions and stated that any other location would preclude the use of the passive solar system. Motion seconded by Smyth. All in favor, motion carried unanimously. Jim Markalunas made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by DeMuth. All in favor, motion granted. Meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m. Respectfully s fitted, ~~ %l~ ~~-~-___. Casey AYrmstrong, Reco~g Secretary „.:::. x3 1 .~-.rwaR~sAr .n-ww~e~~~kc~.x».owa:+,'~,:~± RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves PITKIN COUNTY 80ARD OF ADJUSTMENT May 31, 1977 MEMBERS PRESENT ASSOCIATES: OLD BUSINESS Bill Mason, Chairman Carl Nutzhorn Henry Stein Jim Markalunas (Late) Paul Krausch Clark Smyth Bryan Harper Bill Mason requested that the Building Department check into firewood storage areas at the extension of Owl Creek Road, the junction of Owl Creek Road and approximately 1/2 mile from the Woody Creek turnoff. Terry Cubbins/Setback Variance - Lot 6, Block 1, Filing I, Brush Creek Village Terry Cubbins was present and stated that he was requesting a 10' setback from the property line due to terrain difficulties. He stated that he would still be 60' from the edge of the existing road. He stated that this would be the best location since they planned to use a passive solar sisytem. Cubbins presented a topographic map and a site plan of the proposed location of the house. Henry Stein made a motion to grant the variance requested due to topographical difficulties. Motion seconded by Carl PJutzhorn. All in favor, motion carried. James Win ers/Floor Area Ratio Variance - 20 Queen Street Jim Wingers was present and stated that presently the house had a bathroom that was only 4' z 5' and the shower was only 2' square. He stated that he would like to add a bathtub. Fred Crowley, Building Inspector, stated that the addition would not increase the density. Bill Mason questioned Wingers on the shed in the rear of the lot. Wingers stated that it was a storage shed for his tools and would not be near the addition. Wingers stated that he had lived in the house for ten years. Bill Mason stated that he felt a hardship did exist since the bathroom facilities were unreasonably small. He stated that he would like a letter from the owner, P1r. Kappelli, before the building permit was issued. Wingers stated that eventually he would like to either move the shed or completely remove it. Jim Markalunas arrived at 5:30 p.m. Clark Smyth stated that 258 square feet seemed like a great deal of room for an extension of the bathroom and felt that some of the area could be turned into a bedroom at some future date. ~~ ~~~~~? x::~a .. 'AF ...... ....... .. :.. .. w:..,:~..+a-s.mµ.:>,.wAar ~ar:rnn:rwr... A........-,. n;.,,,...«rw RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Board of Adjustment Pa e 2 May 31 1977 Bill Mason pointed out that it was the responsibility of the Building Department to enforce the requirements of the permit. Flenry Stein stated that if the addition did not cause more confusion and other adjustments he felt there should be a proper bathroom in the house. Bryan Harper stated that to not allow the variance could be considered an undue hardship. Henry Stein made a motion to grant the proposed variance due to undue hardhship created by the excessively small bathroom facilities. Motion seconded by Bryan Harper. All in favor with the exception of Jim Markalunas who abstained. Motion carried. Tracy Wynn/Setback Variance from Hi fiwa 82 - Lot 6 Block 4 Knollwood Subdivision Tracy Wynn was present and submitted photographs of the site and a plot plan showing the present location of the house. Wynn stated that he was requesting a 30'-35' setback from Highway 82 fora proposed garage. He stated that his request was due to topographical difficulties. Wynn located the site of the proposed garage for the Board and stated that the garage would be no closer to the highway than the house. Fred Crowley stated that the applicant would be meeting the regular requirements of the subdivision, would just be unable to comply with the setback requirement from Highway 82. Wynn stated that he was planning a double garage. Carl Nutzhorn made a motion to grant the requested variance. Motion seconded by Bryan Harper. A71'in favor, motion granted. Charles Carusori (Jack McTarnaghan)/Setback Variance - Lot 41 Block 1 Filin I Mt Valle Jack McTarnaghan was present representing the owner. McTarnaghan stated that they were requesting relief from the 100' setback from highway 82 on the south side and the setback on the north side which is Lupine Drive. McTarnaghan stated that the access is from' Lupine Drive and the applicant would like to hold the house location toward Lupine to avoid as much of the steep lot fa 17 toward Highway 82. This would also give the driveway a reasonable grade. The applicant requested a setback of 35' to 40'. McTarnaghan stated that any house designed for this lot would require a setback variance. Also, there would be a shelf for both levels of the house so as not to have such a steep enbankment. A representative for Jim Skarda, adjacent property owner, was present and questioned the applicant on whether or not the location of the proposed house would hamper their view. After he was assured that it would not, he stated that Skarda had no objections to the proposed variance. McTarnaghan stated that it would be lower than the house next to it. Bill Mason stated that after reviewing the site he felt it was the only logical spot for the house. Jim Markalunas agreed. Another adjacent property owner was present and stated that he, too, had no objections to the proposed variance. Jim Markalunas made a motion to grant the proposed variance due to the unusual topographical difficulties. Motion seconded by Bryan Harper. All in favor, motion carried. W _, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM •,0 0.F, xoEC6Et e. 6. & 1. Po. Board of Adjustment Pa e 3 P1ay 31 1977 Ralph Woodward, Jr./Setback Variance for Deck:-..Lot 54~"Block~l sHolland Hills .."_.~._i Ralph Woodward was present and stated that all the lots in Holland Nills were narrow. He Stated that his lot was only .77.74 feet wide. Woodward stated that he had already constructed the'sundeck and it was in the setback. He stated that he owned the lot on the side which the setback would affect. He stated that the deck was built on that side for the sun. Woodward stated that almost the entire deck encroached into the setback. He stated that the deck was 10' x 26'. A letter from Paul Adams, adjacent property owner, was submitted stating that he recommended the requested variance. That letter is made a part of the file. Paul Krausch questioned whether or not it would create a problem if Woodward decided to sell the other lot. Woodward stated that he was not considering selling the lot, but did not feel it would create a problem. Henry Stein made a motion to grant the requested variance due to difficulties created by the narrowness of the lot. Jim Markalunas seconded the motion. All in favor, motion granted. Richard Furman/Setback Variance - SW; of Section 13 T10S R85W of the 6th P M Sam Caudill was present to represent the applicant. Bill Mason stated that he would have to abstain from voting on this case due to a conflict of interest. Caudill stated that there is only one practical buildable site on the subject parcel due to the topographical characteristics of the site. He stated that the buildable site was a small bench located approximately 24 feet above the elevation of Castle Creek. Due to sewage disposal and access problems (water table and steepness of grade), the only buildable site is the small bench with access and egress only by a road to be constructed which would branch off from the Music School road. This condition would place the west line of the structure only b0 feet from the property line rather than the required 100 foot minimum. Fred Crowley stated that the parcel was unbelievably restrictive and stated that he ' felt that the proposed site was the only possible building site. Bill Mason stated that the house would have a very low profile from the road. Henry Stein stated that the natural growth by the road would act as a screen and stated he felt one would be unable to see the house from the road anyway, Bryan Harper made a motion to grant the requested variance due to topographical difficulties. Motion seconded by Ciark Smyth. All in favor with the exception of Bill Mason who abstained. Motion granted. Snowmass Resort/Height Variance - Rear of Lot #4, SnowmaSs Village A representative from Snowmass Resort was present and stated that they would like to erect a tent of approximately 5,500 square feet fora practice studio for ballet on a wooden platform. He stated that they were requesting an exemption to the 28 foot height limit. The tent for the ballet practice area has a center pole which reaches 36 feet. He stated that they had had some difficulty finding practice space. The applicant stated that the tent would be down by September 15th, but hoped that they would be able to erect the tent every summer. l~d® 4;r ~;~(~" ~~ s RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 50 C. F. XBECM EL B. 0. B L. CO. Board of Adjustment Page 4 May 31, 1977 Bill Mason stated that he would like the Board to take care of the matter so that they would not have to deal with a similar variance every year. Mason suggested that Board grant the variance to allow the applicant to erect the tent every year from June 1st to October 1st. Bryan Harper stated that he objected to that in the event that there were objections to the tent. Henry Stein stated that they could make the variance conditional and review it if there were objections. Jim Markalunas made a motion to grant the variance from June 1st to October 1st subject to review in 1978. Motion seconded by Bryan Harper. All in favor, motion carried. G. Geittmann/Setback Variance - Lot 21, Block 2, Filin 2, Brush Creek Villa e Gunther Geittman and Al Albritton were present to answer any questions the Board might have on the application. Bill Mason stated that adjacent property owner Gagne had called him, and although he had objected to the proposed variance previously, he now had no objections. The application is a request for a setback variance to 5' of the property line. A topographical map of the lot was submitted by the applicant. Fred Crowley stated that the lot line was going to be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Crowley stated that there would be no increase in density. Albritton stated as originally proposed, the setback would have been 30', but water was found in an area which made it necessary to move the house. Bill Mason pointed out that the driveway needed for access would be awfully steep. Geittmann stated that that was the only practical location for the driveway. Al Albritton stated that as now being presented, the setback would be approximately 7 feet from the property line. Albritton further stated that they had lowered the roof line so as not to impinge upon the view of neighbors. Henry Stein made a motion to grant the requested variance due to the topographical difficulties of the land. Motion seconded by Jim Markalunas. All in favor, motion granted. P~eeting was adjaurned at 6:25 p.m. Respectfully s fitted, ~.s ~ Casey mstr ng, ecor i g Secretary b ~~~~~~ 1`~ ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves . F. HOECK EI B. B. B L, CB. PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT June 28, 1977 MEMBERS PRESENT: 6i11 Mason lienry Stein Dottie Fox Jim Markalunas Carl Nutzhorn ASSOCIATES: Peter DeMuth Clark Smyth Bryan Harper Paul Krausch Chairman Bill Mason called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. As there were no corrections to the minutes of the last meeting, the minutes stand approved as submitted. Chairman Mason asked the members if they could be present for a Special Meeting of the Board of Adjustment to be scheduled for July 12th. Bryant Baker/Setback Variance - Lot 1, Aspen Tennis Club Subdivision Applicant request variance for rear property line setback. Chairman Bill Mason read a letter received by Albina Williams expressing her objection to the proposed variance. Baker was present and submitted the signature of Albina Williams, adjacent property onwer, stating that she had no objection to the proposed variance. The signature was obtained after the letter was written and he had explained the purpose of the variance to her. Bill Mason pointed out that he and Henry Stein had visited the site. Baker submitted the following reasons which he felt constituted extreme hardship on the applicant: (1) Reduce heating cost 55%; (2) Reduce water evaporation 80-85%; (8) Humidify total environmental of house; (4) Prevent unattended small children from drowning in pool; (5) The winds are so strong at times the furniture blows away to neighbor's yard and fills pool with weeds and debris; (6) There are seven houses served on a deadend dirt road with 28 cars in and out causing an excessive dust problem. Get out of the pool to sun and your body is layered with dust; (7) Much needed visual privacy from road traffic; (8) Enclose unsightly pool equipment; (9) Will prevent loose dogs and cats from defecating around pool area; (10) House is incomplete without solar system enclosure; and (11) Will improve appearance of property. Baker located his requested setback on a plot plan. He stated that he had no objections from the property owners whose signatures he had. Baker stated that he would be within five feet of the property line with one corner only. Baker gave a brief explanation of the solar system he proposed. He submitted a letter from Marco Engineering giving their recommendations for the solar system. This letter is made a part of the file. Bill P1ason stated that after reviewing the eleven items, he felt that there was no hardship involved. Baker stated that at the present, he resided in the house only half the year, but planned to live there year round in the future. 1T(°1 t §k~~Y ~ do~. i ~~, r ~~' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fOflM 50 C. f. XOECKEL B. B. fi L CB. ~. .. 3p", Board of Adjustment Pa e 2 June 28, 1977 Mason stated that although he felt th epoint was well-made about preventing children from falling in the pool, he felt that could be accomplished by fencing. Baker pointed out that the gas costs had risen steadily and would continue to rise. He felt that this would be one of the solutions for conserving as much fuel as possible. Henry Stein stated that he would like to know what the hardship would be if the applicant -buitl the structure within the setback requirements. He stated that a structure half as big might fall within the setback requirements. Patsy Newbury, Building Inspector, stated that the required rear yard setback for that area was 20'. Bob Ziegler, owner of Lot 2, was present and stated that when work was begun on the project, he went to the Building Department and found out that Baker did not have a permit. He stated that he bought the land with the understanding that the setbacks would be complied with. John Wendt, owner of Lot 12, stated that he was opposed to the variance request for the following reasons: (1) Baker is a part-time owner; (2) Against the wishes of the people that were there at the time he put in a pre-fabricated house; (3) also believed that the lot had been subdivided and Baker owned half and a corporation owned the other half; (4) the fact that Baker hacl gone ahead and attempted to build something without a permit. Baker stated that 3t the time he bought the lot, there was an architectural control committee which he submitted his plans to. The house was approved by the members of the committee. At that time, the drawing included that part of the strucutre. Since that time, the setback requirements had changed. The zoning had changed. At that time there was no 20' setback. Baker stated that he was a full-time owner but a part-time resident. Baker stated that he planned to live there full-time and his house was not for sale. It had been on the market previously. Baker stated that John Wendt's office drew up the deed to subdivide the lot. Dick Martin, owner of Lot 3, stated that he was opposed to the variance because one of the reasons he bought his lot was because there were covenants and rules. He stated that there were already several violators of these rules. Willis Standish, owner of Lot 9, 13 and 14, stated that there is not a homeowners association because not all the homeowners had agreed to have an association. He stated he would like to see all the covenants which they have followed since there is no association and would be opposed to Baker's setback request. Baker stated that it could be his contention that the original permit did cover that structure, and at that time it was within the setbacks. He stated that he was told by the Building Department that the existing structure that is 8 feet high from the grade could become an 8' fence if he bermed the outside up 5'l1". There are three structures and three buildiny permits issued for that property - the house, the tennis court, and the garage. The permit for this structure was not issued because the carpenter that framed it works in Denver and he came over to start it and had the plans to get the permit and failed to do so. Baker stated that the Building Inspector told him it was normal for a lot of the builders to start if they know they are going to be getting a permit. Baker submitted photographs of the lot and the structures. He stated that he could backfill 2'1" and build a fence 5'11" and this would be legal. It was the general concensus of the Board that this would be illegal. Baker stated that Marcus had done the same thing. Dottie Fox stated that she considered a pool a luxury rather than a hardship. e _ ,.,. __ ..,:_.. ... ~,., .. .., cv- .. . ...:..:. ..... ..~(e ma_.,I^^'~w ...vivF.-au.'s':.,<,..una~a~din,~~th RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ~.,.' FBRM .~ C. F. HOECK EL B. B.8 L CQ. ~, Board of Adjustment Page 3 June 28, 1977 -, Carl Nutzhorn stated that he agreed with Henry Stein in that there was not a hardship. He felt it might be possible to develop solar heating system on east side of the building. Markalunas stated that he did not feel a hardship had been demonstrated. Dottie Fox made a motion to deny the variance. Motion seconded by Henry Stein. All in favor. Motion carried. Variance denied unanimously. Top of the Village Association/Setback Variance Requestgfor overhang easement fora pool deck extension. The proposed deck will overhan to within one foot of the property line. Larry Dempsey, Resident "4anager for Top of the Village, was present and submitted the following into the file: (1) A letter dated April 22nd from Peter DeMuth of Snowmass Corporation which outlines the criteria which had to be met in order for Snowmass Corporation to agree to the request; (2) A letter dated May 18th from Peter DeMuth confirms approval of design of deck extension; (3) A letter from Dempsey dated May 24th to Snowmass Resoi;°t Association requesting their approval of the deck extension; (4) A letter dated May 27th from Tom Blake, General P1anager, stating they had no objections; (5) Approved copy from the Snowmass Design Committee and a survey. Dempsey stated that the tasis for the request is for convenience and safety. Peter DeMuth gave a brief explanation of the approval of Snowmass Corporation. Dempsey stated that the deck extension would be at the same level that the existing pool deck is on. Dempsey submitted photographs of the deck. Carl Nutzhorn stated that since there were no objections from the property owners and they had gotten Snowmass approval, he saw no reason to deny the variance. Markalunas questioned Dempsey on the slope of the ground and felt that it looked rather steep. Dempsey submitted the Architect's representation of the grade and stated that it was approximately 35%. Henry Stein made a motion to grant the variance as requested due to the safety factors and the terrain features. Motion seconded by Markalunas. All in favor, motion carried unanimously. Pitkin County/Sign and Setback Variance from Maroon Creek Road Karen Smith was present from the Planning Office and stated that the adjacent property owners had been notified and the locations were posted. She gave a brief explanation of the proposal. Karen stated that this was in conjunction with the Maroon Creek bus system which is a mandatory bus system. Plaroon Creek Road will be closed form the Forest Service guard station on. Karen stated that there are two sections of the Pitkin County Land Use Code that are involved: (1) the Board has authority to approve off-premise signs (Section 5.70.02(b)); and (2) a variance from the 50' setback on Maroon Creek Road. Karen presented a facsimile of the signs and gave the locations (as appear on the appli- cation). The second sign would replace the existing Forest Service sign. Smith stated that they are trying to do everything they can to alert people by other means, such as the media. Tried to locate the signs in order that sight distances are not impaired and design a color scheme to fit in with the landscape. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ~. FOPM 50 C. F. HOELK EL 9. B. 8 L GA M~' Board of Adjustment Paqe 4 - June 28, 1977 ~s Dottie Fox questioned what they planned to do if the bus system was a success. Karen stated that they would have to come before the Board again next year. She stated that there would be a Public Hearing on the project three weeks after it is begun. If it is not working, the signs will be removed at that time. The wording on the signs was discussed. Markalunas made a motion to approve the signs at the proposed locations and to leave the wording open. Dottie Fox seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. t3~~~~~~ ~° ':::.,.,, ... .w S# ,.~`,:. s.. x.. .a e.:;+u :? ~. ~: "1u *_.. ~';.: eti~''~YAh'f2'.%w:'x, k~» 4.h$~F°.~ ., °,:a' *. .~'k,$~i Respectfully submitted, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOPM 50 B. F. XO ELK EL B. 9. B L CB. PIT KIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT July 12, 1977 MEi~16ERS PRESENT ASSOCIATES Bill h1ason, Chairman Dottie Fox Henry Stein Jim h1arkalunas Carl Nutzhorn Peter DeD1uth Clark Smyth The meeting was called to order by Chairman Bill Mason at 5:15 p.m. Sandra Stuller, County Attorney, was present and pointed out that the Notice of Public Hearing which had appeared in the Aspen Times on June 30, 1977, stated that the public hearings were scheduled for July 15, 1977, rather than July 12th. q discussion followed with the applicants, the Board members and the County Attorney as to the proper way to correct the error. Due to the error in the publication, Dottie Fox made a motion that the Public Hearings be rescheduled for the Regular Meeting of the Board of Adjustment on July 26, 1977, and that the public hearings be republished. The exception was the application submitted by John P1cBride for the Airport Business Center, inasmuch as there were no adjacent property owners to be notified, it was determined to hold the public hearing on his application on July 15th (in conformance with the public notice) so as to expedite his application. Motion seconded by Henry Stein. All in favor, motion carried unanimously. It was decided that the regular meeting of the Board to be held on July 26th would begin at 4:15 p.m. rather than the regular time of 5:15 p.m. due to the length of the agenda. Dottie Fox made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by Carl Nutzhorn. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m. ~~~~~R ~ 1®T~ " r.""q^"...vrm^^ ;.. .,:' .. i wa~Xaoar~s ~:m.., r ~,~,~ A.xxrt. 42 .w ~ m~:4~S.. nttr<xn"s~mlaxA:'~' ~e~ aCF,(rf?'~"'gWd r` s!~y.,'~z$4k+w `' Respectfully submitted, ', , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 40 C. F. XOECH EL B. B. & L CB. '., PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMEPIT July 15, 1977 MEMBERS PRESENT ASSOCIATES Bill P1ason, Chairman Dottie Fox Jim Markalunas Carl Nutzhorn Clark Smyth Chairman Bill P1ason called the meeting to order at 5:15 o.m. John McBride was present to submit his application to the Board. As stated on the application, the permit was denied because the floor area ratio and area of land for apartments are inadequate. John submitted a site plan of the Airport Business Center and pointed out that it was somewhat outdated. ~1cBride stated that it was his understanding that he could not come beofre the Board of Adjustment and ask fora variance from the Board which would would constitute rezoning. He stated that he felt there was a basic error in the Code and would like to discuss that error with the Board. McBride stated that throughout the entire Business Center, which was zoned primarily commercial, there is a density requirement of .36 and this was the principle density requirement. He stated that when you get into apartments, that density applies and additionally, an open space requirement applies of 1200 square feet per unit. McBride stated that there were two other criteria when you got into the area of housing. He stated that they were zoned for employee housing specifically, which meant no rentals of less than six months and also that they were zoned on the basis of one unit of employee housing per business. He stated that the point which he objected to was the requirement fora minimum lot area of 4,000 square-feet. McBride stated that he would like to kngw what affect the four original buildings would have on the line, in other words, if they are to build any other projects on the lot, be it commercial building or another employee housing unit, where should the line be drawn between the two. He stated that when they submitted the project in 1971-1973, they showed it with approximately 75,000 square feet of land around it. He stated this was approved and a building permit was issued. PlcBride explained that now, since he owns the entire lot, there is a question as to where the next building would have to be built. He stated that all he would like to do is ask fora clarification and acceptance of what was done before ahd they could operate under the plans that were submitted or just the floor area ratio and the open space requirement and not have to add a great deal of land to those apartments. County Attorney Sandra Stuller stated that McBride's problem is that he has one lot with a number of existing units. He does not want the County to apply existing density require- ments to the existing project. Stuller stated that she misunderstood PAcBride and though he had before the Building Inspector an application for a particular project that had been denied. ~~1cBride stated that the reason it was denied was because if they built the project and had to include 4,000 square feet per unit for the original four buildings it would create a hardship. McBride stated he would like the requirements clarified and defined so that they could come in and build without the 4,000 square foot requirement. ~® ~-~~~ _,:.. , a~ , wren ~rvms s~ urrcow,+r _t+oCS.w SMc?s2>m~#a:;w~hta~a4w++hstor~~*ax~'~,~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 50 C. F. XOECK EL 6. 0.8 L. CO. q3,; Board of Adjustment Page 2 duly 15, 1977 Stuller questioned if the appeal was from a denial of a pending application which the Board was supposed to be reviewing. McBride stated that having built the four units some time ago, he is suddenly told that what they submitted then was inadequate and he must add a great deal of land to those units; which makes them so unfeasible that from a development point of view, that it would be best in about 5 years to bulldoze them down and go back and put in a commercial building that would operate just under the floor area ratio. He then stated that he was asking for a variance from the code requirement of 4,000 square feet per unit for the existing units. Sandy stated that this was a different proposal entirely, and that what D1cBride had was, a basic interpretive legal question. She stated, "Are you arguing that the Board of Adjustment can review that interpretation of the Building Inspector? That the present density requirements must apply to the entire lot and therefore all existing and new projects will come under the same calculations?" McBride stated that he had been told by the County Attorney that if he came to the Board of Adjustment and asked fora variance similar to the one he vaas given last year, that this lot area requirement be waived for Lot 3, Block 4, that the County would sue him because it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Board of Adjustment. Sandy stated that the proposition to him was that he could not come before the Board and ask them to, in effect, rezone his property, however he describes his application. Sandy asked McBride if he would like the Board to interpret the effect of those existing structures on the lot and the consequences for future development on the site. Sandy stated that the Board of Adjustment can make such interpretations if they are reviews of administrative decisions. McBride stated that the reason he got a denial was because Patsy Newberry and Hal Clark had said there was a contradiction and they would abide by floor area ratio and open space requirements. Then, when he went in for the final building permit with the working drawings, he was turned down and the basis was not only that the row houses they were trying to build require 4,000 square feet of lot area, but so would the existing buildings. Sandy stated that she felt he could very well accommodate the row houses on the lot, but that McBride was trying to preserve the balance of the lot for future development. The denial was not a hardship, other than a personal financial hardship. Sandy stated that this was a philosophical and political issue to be resolved by the Board of County Commissioners through the rezoning process. P1cBride stated that he was not asking to be rezoned. Sandy stated that what McBride was trying to do is to have the Board of Adjustment review an interpretation by the Building Inspector to the effect that the existing structures have to be recognized under the existing zoning requirements because the land on which they lie was never subdivided from the lot, so all of the lot must be looked at as a whole. Sandy stated that this was a legitimate question before the Board of Adjustment if McBride wished to phrase it that way. McBride stated that if the 4,000 square foot requirement applied, it would make the project unfeasible. Carl Nutzhorn asked if there was a lease which defined the line. McBride stated that the line was defined by the plans in the Building Department. Sandy ,stated that at the time he filed the application, he did not have to file the survey plat defining. the building site for purposes of building calculations. Sandy stated that if McBride wanted to define his lease as being a subdivision of the property, he would be in violation of the subdivision regulations. - .. ,.. ,_. ..«. ~ ,.. A»vat.. r+ak,w<x.r,.r...zv+kx vs r~sa~..n~~ltax'~sPG.,~s~.:ae.~'w~<"s~~.^~S'?..~aw`.',;.~r RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM W C. F. HOECK EL B. B. B L. CO. ~ Board of Adjustment Page 3 July 15, 1977 z Karen Smith of the Planning Office was present and stated that the Planning Office did not realize that there had been confusion over the last variance that was granted. She stated that the Plann ing Office did not feel that the code was contradictary, in fact, each of those separate means of calculating density (.36 for commercial and 4,000 square feet per unit for residential) has a very separate purpose for different types of uses and should be considered cummulatively. In addition to that, for the residential zone, there is an open space requirement which P1cBride says he agrees with. Karen went on to in that he did build rior to those zone district re ulations, but the P1 doesanottthipkrthat thathnecessarplyenegatesetheir impoe~.stated that McBanden~a0fficeect A general discussion followed on what constituted a desirable density. Karen stated that there was a specific zoning category for employee housing - PtiIH zoning. McBride stated that he was only zoned for employee housing. Karen Smith stated that he was not zoned for the type of employee housing which lends itself to being employee housing forever. Sandy stated that she did not agree that the Airport Business Center is zoned for employee housing. She stated that it is zoned for commercial/industrial uses to be segregated and concentrated in that area. The only permitted housing is employee housing generated by onsite industrial and commercial uses. The employee housing becomes secondary, complementary as opposed to principle, and therefore should be accommodated. Sandy stated that if McBride's argument is that he is supplying a basic community need for employee housing, that the tool exists for that type of more dense, concentrated development, but the price of this is control on sale and rental. P4cBride stated that he was zoned for a limited amount of employee housing for people who work in the area. Sandy stated that her argument was that if McBride wants a basic reconsideration of that ratio as established by the Code, he should go before the County Commissioners. Sandy stated that McBride's arguments should focus on the issue - why does he feel these particular units should be isolated from the balance of the tract and be viewed in the, past historical density perspective as opposed to the present. McBride stated that he would like to ask for an acceptance from the Board fora variance from the Land Use Code for the units which were built prior to the Code. Sandy stated that it was not possible to get a variance for an existing structure. She asked if he would like a review of the interpretation by the Building Inspector that the entire lot is viewed when considering his existing application, and when he takes the entire lot into consideratioh, it falls short. McBride stated that hw was asking fora variance from the code for the existing project and that it be treated as it was originally submitted. Markalunas stated that all the Board could grant a variance for was something that was going to be built, not something after-the-fact. Building Inspector Fred Crowley stated that he felt the structures were a pre-existing, non-conforming use. Bill Kane of the Planning Office stated that the building plans that Fred was presented with did include a line that was surveyed and had a metes and bounds description. lJhat Fred was asked to do was to issue a building permit and agree that it would not prejudice future development on the other side of the line. Kane stated that he felt the question was inappropriately placed before the Board of Adjustment. _. ~_... u & '"~ i. ,., RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fOflM 50 C. F. NO ECK EL B. fl. 9 L. CO. Board of Adjustment Page 4 July 15, 1977 McBride stated that he felt if the County requires that employee housing has to have that much open space (1) more employee housing won't be built, and (2) in about five years, he might as well bulldoze them over and put in commercial space because there is a zoning fora higher density with commercial. Markalunas questioned whether or not there was a Master Plan for the Airport Business Center and McBride stated that there was. Sandy stated that the issue, as she felt McBride would like the Board to address themselves, would be a general review of an interpretive decision by the Building Inspector. She told the Board that they had two authorities. First, as a variance authority. Second, they have authority to review any interpretation of the code given by any administrator who is enforcing it or applying it. She stated that she believed that what McBride was trying to say was that the interpretation given that all structures must be reviewed in calculating the density for the lot is wrong. She stated that McBride feels that he is entitled to the benefit of his earlier application to the effect that only certain and limited land areas are to be attributed to the existing structure and the balance of the lot is free for development under the new provisions of the code. His argument is that he presented site plans showing designated areas. At the time, he had no leasing provisions for them, he just showed a building plan. Obviously, he did not have tb do a surveyed area or survey for his building permit application specifically defining the building site. McBride stated that he had to conform to the density requirements at the time. Sandy stated that the converse argument and the one Fred was acting on was that there is still an entire lot which has never been subdivided. Therefore, no part of the development of it can enjoy non-conforming status. Nutzhorn stated that if the Board granted him the variance to build them there and have the line where he wanted, Sandy might challenge it in court. If he built it the way the Building Inspector insisted, McBride could then goip court and say the line was placed incorrectly. Sandy stated that drawing the line was not the problem. She satted the problem was the parceling and conveyance of an interest in that property subsequent to drawing the line. Physically, the only constraint existing now, given P1cBride's argument, is the physical constraint of how many buildings you can get on the lot. Sandy explained that subdivisions could only occur if you are in conformance with the zoning code. You cannot create a nonconformity by it. Sandy stated that if those parcels were subdivided and McBride owned both, you would have to dummulate the acreage in order to satisfy the existing requirements. McBride asked that his application be withdrawn. Jim Piarkalunas made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by Dottie Fox. All in favor, motion carried. . ., .. ,x 2~ .,.,..,&,e,w..e.nxn.c vzk Y~e.4+e?vi.iNt. .~l~Y~aPbT *h&s(+za„N 4.9.9ii Meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m. ~~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FORM W C. F, HOECI(EL B. 0. 8 1. CO. ' PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT July 26, 1977 PIEMBERS PRESENT ASSOCIATES Bill Mason Dottie Fox Carl Nutzhorn Jim Markalunas Henry Stein Clark Smyth Paul Krausch Peter DeMuth The meeting was called to order at 4:25 p.m, by Chairman Bill Mason. Douglas R Boyles/Setback Variance - Lot 53, Holland Hills Doug Boyles was present and explained that the lot as platted is only 77 feet in vaidth, which, with the required setbacks of 20 feet on each side, leaves only 30 feet in the center of the lot for the house.. This he felt"was too limited and does not leave room for taking advantage of sunlight for solar use or views, as explained in the application. Boyles stated that if he put the house any place else on the lot, there would be no room for the septic system. Jim Markalunas arrived. Carl Plutzhorn stated that he did not feel the solar heting systems constituted a hardship and did not feel the Board could grant variances on that basis alone. Markalunas stated that the limitations imposed by the setback requirements on the lot constituted a hardship. Boyles stated that there was probably only one other lot that had not been built on in Holland Hills which would have essentially the same problem as his lot. Dottie Fox made a motion to grant the variance on the grounds that imposing the 20 foot setback requirement on this particular lot constituted a hardship. Motion seconded by Jim Markalunas. All in favor, motion carried. Carl Nutzhorn requested the fact that the setbacks were 42 feet into one side setback and 6 inches into the other side setback be reflected in the minutes. Destination Resort Corporation/Setback_Variance - Lot 34, Woodrun I A representative was present from Destination Resort Corporation. He stated that they were requesting a cantilevered second floor balcony deck to extend four feet outside the rear lot setback line. He stated that the request had already received approval from the Snowmass Architectural Committee and that he had been told by the Committee that the County Building Department allowed this type of encroachment. He stated that the deck would extend toward the forest Service land so that no neighbors would be affected by the variance. He stated it would still be 20' to the property line. He also pointed out that a foundation permit had been issued by the Building Department so construction of the house had already begun. Patsy Newberry, Buildiing Inspector, stated that the applicant was aware at the time the foundation permit was issued that the deck did not meet the setback requirements and would have to have the approval of the Board of Adjustment. ~~ ~pe~.,CJ~~!; d~ ,_ _... RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves 0. 0.&L. CO. of Adjustment Paqe 2 July 26, 1977 The applicant stated that the total width of the deck would be 8 feet. Jim Markalunas made a motion to deny the variance on the basis that no hardship had been demonstrated. Motion seconded by Carl Nutzhorn. All in favor, motion carried. R. Grant Haviland/Setback Variance - Tract 32, Swiss Village Mr. Haviland was present and stated that due to the size of the lot and the terrain surrounding the house, the proposed garage addition can only be placed at the location stated on the application. Haviland submitted photographs of the lot and the house, pointing out the location of the proposed garage. Haviland explained that this addition would also increase the living area by 300 square feet from the present 600 square feet. Haviland located the septic tank oh the plot plan for the Board. There were no objections from adjacent property owners. Patsy Newberry stated that the setback requirement in the R-15 zone was only 10 feet so the applicant would be encroaching only a minimal amount into the setback. Jim Markalunas made a motion to grant the variance as requested due to topographical difficulties. Motion seconded by Carl Nutzhorn. All in favor. Motion carried. Joseph E Casselman/Setback Variance - Section 16 Township 9 South, Ranqe 88 blest Mr. Casselman was present and explained that due to topographical difficulties, including the Jessup Ditch and the public service power line, he was requesting a 50 foot setback from the highway rather than the required 100 feet. Casselman submitted a plot plan and located the ditch, the power line and a cliff. Paul Krausch arrived at 5:00 p.m. Patsy Newberry stated that she had visited the site and felt that the proposed location was the only feasible location to place the house. She stated that the area had a number of topographical limitations and recommended that the application be approved. There were no objections from adjacent property owners. Dottie Fox made a motion to grant the requested variance on the basis of innumerable topographical difficulties. Motion seconded by Clark Smyth. All in favor, motion carried. William F. Gorog/Setback Variance. -_Lot 6 Replat I Ridge of Red Mountain Mrs. Gorog was present to present the application to the Board. It was explained in the application that permission was being requested to construct a pool on the southwest corner of the property in accordance with a drawing which was submitted with the application. Because of the limited size of the lot, it is not possible to utilize any other site. The location chosen will permit utilization of existing Berns and will permit maximum shielding from the street. The front setback line would not be violated, but permission is requested to have the pool extend approximately 60 inches across the west side setback line. No structures above ground level are contemplated in the construction. Patsy Newberry confirmed that there would be no structures above grade in the setback. There were no objections from adjacent property owners. Clark Smyth made a motion to grant the requested variance. Motion seconded by Dottie Fox. All in favor, motion granted. Henry Stein arrived at 5:15 p.m. ~~ (y~3aY~~[j ,:~.. .. .., .. aw a .: ~:'_ Yt. .. x :4"...a'f'b' IM'HN ~i.nryw`ulNd seY. wf.~y:$":,mJ.< Tw:dSrAM.-At{R.~'* _. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM SD C. F. HOECK EL 9. B. @ L, CO. *' !e' Board of Adjustment Page 3 July 26, 1977 P.C. Rapp/Setback. Variance - Lot 3 Block 3 Filing II Brush Creek Village Al Albritton was present representing the applicant. Albritton submitted a change in the requested variance. He stated that the surveyors had informed the applicant that due to drainage areas on the lot, it would be unwise to place the house at the originally proposed location. Albritton pointed out to the Soard the new proposed location which would only encroach on the setback requirements from the road. This would put the house approximately 61 feet from Vista Drive. Albritton submitted a topographical map of the lot showing the difficulties with placing the house within the setback requirements. Albritton stated that the house was. approximately 32' x 52' and that it was Bob Smith's house that was being moved onto the lot. Peter Defduth arrived. Dottie Fox made a motion to grant the variance due to topographical difficulties. Motion seconded by Jim Markalunas. All in favor, motion granted. W. Ford Schumann/Setback Variance - Lot R-76, Starwood Robin Molny, architect, was unable to be present at the meeting to represent the applicant, and requested that the request be tabled until the next regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment. Jim Markalunas made a motion to table this application to the next regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment scheduled for August 30, 1977. Motion seconded by Dottie Fox. All in favor, motion carried. Jim Markalunas made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by Dottie Fox. A71 in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m. C (3~~ (~3~ N°' ~._ ._,... _~ .~ ~P ._ ...v ..~ <., ~,tk ...,w....e,~.~~~rwem.xaauaw~as.~swl.,k~.' Respectfully submitted, _ _. ~: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FBPM 56 C. F. HOECI(EL 0. B. & L. CO. PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT August 30, 1977 MEMBERS PRESENT ASSOCIATES Bill Mason, Chairman Henry Stein Dottie Fox Carl Nutzhorn (Late) Bryan Harper Paul Krausch Peter DeMuth Clark Smyth The meeting was called to order at 5:20 p.m. by Chairman Bill Mason. In the absence of two of the regular members of the Board of Adjustment, Peter DeMuth and Bryan Harper were selected to be voting Associate members. The minutes of the July 12th, July 15th and July 26th meetings of the Board of Adjustment were approved as submitted. Steve Smilack/Wingo Junction - Sign Variance Mrs. Phyllis Smilack was present. Patsy Newbury, Building Inspector, was present and stated that she had received a telephone call from some homeowners in the area stating that they would like to object to the illumination of the sign. They stated that the lights were shining in their windows and they felt that 10:00 p.m. was late enough to have the sign lit. Ms. Smilack stated that the light was not shining directly on the sign but was shining on the driveway in order that it would be lighted and people would not drive into the ditch. Bill Mason stated. that there had been a problem in the past with the sign on the truck. Phyllis Smilack stated that the truck had been in Carbondale for three months. Dottie Fox stated that she wanted to be certain that the sign variance involved only the Wingo Junction sign. County Attorney Sandra Stuller was present and stated that she did not agree with the "automatic renewal" interpretation of the applicant and stated that she felt the variance should be reviewed annually. Dottie Fox made a motion to grant the variance for the sign as it exists now with no lightning directed at the sign. The variance would be reviewed in one year. Bryan Harper seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Richard Rowan/Setback Variance - Lot 2, Jukati Subdivision The applicant requests a variance fora 5 foot sideyard setback rather than 10'. Rowan was present, as well as Gail Weinberg, Architect for the project. They stated that the variance was needed in order to provide space between the garage and the house for a walkway to the rear door. A 15' front setback is requested to conform with the variance (15' front yard setback) given for the house. t~~~~~~ e ~p --__,.~ P ': RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ,<< Board of Adjustment Page 2 August 30, 1977 ~; Rowan stated that the garage would remove his cars from the roadway. Gail stated that the original subdivision setback was 5 feet. By placing the garage anywhere else on the lot it would prohibit the greenhouse or would place the garage right next to the house. She further stated that the character of the neighborhood is such that there will be no visual or esthetic damage due to the high fence. Gail stated that it would destroy the visual charachter of the Victorian house by moving the garage right up next to the house. There is a bay window which does not show on the plan submitted by the applicant. The window extends approximately 5 feet beyond the wall of the house. If the garage were moved right up next to the house, one would look directly into the side of the garage from the living area. Rowan stated that he would like to plant trees and landscape the area between the house and the garage. Bill Mason stated that he did not think the applicant had demonstrated a hardship. Carl Nutzhorn arrived. Rowan stated that the garage would be a single car structure and the main reason for building the garage would be to get his cars off the road. He stated that he felt the hardship would be that if he was not granted the setback variance, the garage would be touching the house. Dottie Fox stated that she would like to table a decision until the members had made a site inspection. Dottie Fox made a motion that the Board continue this hearing to Wednesday, September 7, 1977, at 4:30 p.m. at the site. Motion seconded by Carl Nutzhorn. All in favor, motion carried. William Frederick Gates/Setback Variance - Lot 7, Section 6, T9S, R85W Rick Gates was present and stated that due to the unique shape .of the lot and the fact that almost three quarters of the lot is very steep bank or river, they propose to place the structure as shown on the topo submitted to the Board. Gates stated that the leach field must be placed in a specific spot. Patsy Newbury stated that the lot itself dictates the location of the house. Bill Mason read a letter submitted by the Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Company which requested the Board to stipulate the following conditions if it was decided to grant the variance: (1) That the applicant construct and maintain a six foot high, heavy-gauge chain link fence to separate his property and the Railroad right-of-way. (2) That access to the applicant's property will be via existing public road and that the tracks will not be crossed by anyone occupying the applicant's property except at the previously established public crossings in the vicinity. Gates stated that the train only runs once or twice a week and usually at about 3:00 a.m. Paul Krausch stated that he felt it would be unreasonable to require Gates to build a fence when there is also an apartment building and a duplex right next to his property. Bryan Harper made a motion to grant the requested variance due to topographical restrictions of the lot. P4otion seconded by Henry Stein. All in favor, motion granted. McCoy stated that there was a construction time constraint. Clark Smyth stated that his biggest objection is to the part of the fence which would be RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Board of Adjustment Page 3 August 30, 1977 Aspen Valley Hospital/Setback Variance for Sign Glen Scott and Terry O'Prey were present to represent the hospital. Scott explained that this was a request for the main entrance sign off Castle Creek Road. Scott explained that they wanted the sign easily viewed from approaching traffic in either direction. The dimensions of the sign will be 5'82" x 1'82". They will be illuminated from the inside. Scott stated that he feels it is essential to have the sign at that location due to the high embankment. He stated that the sign would be 8' from the ground. Henry Stein made a motion to grant the variance, and that the Board would review the variance on a yearly basis. Motion seconded by Dottie Fox. All in favor, motion carried. Frank and Virginia Hardison/Lot 13 Block 2 Pitkin Green - Setback Variance Bill Jordan, Attorney for the Hardisons, was present to represent the applicant. Jordan stated that the variancehad been denied by the Board previously based upon the fact that the architectural committee approval had not been obtained and there was a lawsuit pending with the adjacent landowner (Dr. Kirk). Submitted with the application were copies of the dismissals from court, committee approval, plans deleting outside steps and letters of approval from surrounding landowners. Jordan stated that the grounds for granting the variance hsould be based on the narrowness and steepness of the lot. Bill Mason read the letters written by the adjacent property owners. Bryan Harper made a motion to grant the variance due to topographical difficulties. Motion seconded by Dottie Fox. All in favor, motion carried. Pitkin County/Sardy Field - Setback Variance for Fence Bill Mason read the letter from Clark Smyth (acting as John McBride's representative) objecting to the setback variance for the fence. Doug McCoy, Airport Manager, was present and stated that the fence was in the Airport Master Plan. McCoy sited the specific F.A.A. rules and regulations regarding security and the requirements for the fence. John Young, Assistant Airport Manager, stated ithe County did not erect a fence which met F.A.A. specifications, there would be a fine of $1000 per person or vehicle found on the ramp. McCoy stated that the fence would be 3400' long, with 1400' of that within the setback. McCoy described the location to the Board and submitted a plan showing the location of the fence. Much of the fence would be shielded from view by the earth berms. McCoy stated that the fence would be a green chain link fence. Carl Nutzhorn suggested that they put up a 6 foot fence with three strands of barbed wire. McCoy stated that there was a construction time constraint. Clark Smyth stated that his biggest objection is to the part of the fence which would be right next to the road. Smyth stated that the Mobil station is required by the P.U.C. to have the same type of fence for storing towed cars and questioned whether or not they would be allowed to do the same type of thing. ,_.: ~. _...;::. ~., .~._ ..,. r ~. .,ate:.. _~._., .:~~^..~.~ ~:4 __ ', g RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves C. F. NBEBIIEL 0. 0. 8 L. C,. Board of Adjustment Pa Q@ 4 August 30, 1977 McCoy explained to the Board what the different alternatives were for the placement and design of the fence and felt that the placement they were proposing was the best. Henry Stein stated that if the F.A.A. requires this type of fence, he felt the Board should go ahead and grant the variance. Stein commented that he felt the Board should write a letter of apology to John McBride for requiring him to meet the setback requirements and then being forced to allow the County to get a variance. Bryan Harper stated that he agreed with Henry Stein about the Board granting the variance. Henry Stein made a motion to grant the variances as requested. Motion seconded by Bryan Harper. Dottie questioned if there were plans for landscaping the fence. McCoy stated that he would like to, but there were no specific plans at this time. Those voting in favor of the motion - Henry Stein, Bryan Harper, Bill Mason, Dottig Fox• Those opposed - Carl Nutzhorn. Motion carried. W. Ford Schumann/Lot R-76, Starwood - Setback Variance Robin Molny, Architect, was present and stated that the, applicant wishes to construct a solar collector on the setback intruding 16' into the setback. He stated that the justification was due to the terrain requirements. Molny stated that the Board had granted the applicant a similar variance previously for a small triangle. Molny pointed out that Schumann is at the dead end and his collector would not be visible by the surrounding property owners. He stated that they are made of black chrome. Dottie Fox made a motion to grant the variance as requested. Motion seconded by Henry Stein. All in favor, motion carried. The meeting was continued to Wednesday, September 7th, at 4:30 p.m. to be held at Lot 2, Jukati Subdivision. Respectfully submitted, ry ~® ~~~~~~ .,..u ~. ~ • L - .~ - ... i , e;. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 700 Leaves ~,» H FBPM 50 C. F. HO ECK EL B. B.B L CO. ~ L, `~.. PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT September 7, 1977 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Mason, Chairman Dottie Fox Carl Nutzhorn ASSOCIATES: Paul Kra usch The meeting began at 4:40 p.m. and was continued from the August 30th meeting. This meeting took 'place at Lot 2, Jukati Subdivision at the site of Richard Rowan's variance request. The members had suggested that a site inspection would be in order. Rowan requests a variance fora 5 foot sideyard setback rather than 10'. Rowan was present to answer any questions the Board members might have. Carl Nutzhorn stated that he did not see a hardship in this case since there was ample room on the other side of the house to place the garage. Rowan stated that he had wished to place a greenhouse addition on that side of the house, and if he completed the addition, he would then have to ask for a setback variance on that side of the house for the garage. Rowan stated that he wished to have the garage at the requested location in order to remove his automobiles from the street. Bill Mason stated that he would be more willing to grant the setback variance as a variance from the front rather than the side if the applicant wished to move the garage closer to the street. Dottie Fox and Paul Kra usch stated that although they felt the requested location for the garage was probably the most logical location, they did not feel the applicant had demonstrated a hardship. Carl Nutzhorn made a motion to deny the requested variance on the basis that the applicant had not demonstrated a hardship. Motion seconded by Paul Kra usch. All in favor, motion carried. Dottie Fox made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by Paul Kra usch. All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m. Respectfully sub fitted ,~`~ ~~ Casey strong, Recordin ~7a? ~$~~~~~ - ~. ~, _~ _:.. a.. .. ~, ,:M ,. .ar ,. ,.SH.r ,_.w. .-a ,.,~n__ szY. 3-6 .zw.ur»4 n....~,a.,t.-a...~a,~...:.,..v„ua.{i'. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT October 11, 1977 MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Markalunas, Vice-Chairman Henry Stein Carl Nutzhorn ASSOCIATES: Peter DeMuth Clark Smyth Paul Krausch Bryan Harper The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chairman Jim Markalunas at 5:25 p.m. The two associate members who were chosen to vote in the absence of the two regular members were Peter DeMuth and Clark Smyth. Victor B Leatzow Jr /floor-Area Ratio Variance - Lot 9 Filing I, Mountain Valley Victor and Penny Leatzow were present. Jim Markalunas stated that this was a request for a variance to construct a three-story addition on the own'er's side of the duplex. It was stated in the application that the applicant needed a garage (lower level) for storage of yard equipment, recreational equipment, antique auto, tools and a workshop to preserve and protect as well as to enhance the looks of the property. The applicant stated that they currently use visquene to cover as much as possible which the applicants stated had been termed "ugly" by the neighbors. A living room (main level) they felt was necessary since they would like to expand the kitchen into the dining area - both of which the applicant felt were inadequate and would like to use the present living room as a dining room. The upper level would be changed into a master bedroom and closet and room fora desk area, Fred Crowley, Building Inspector, explained that the Leatzows were present to request a variance from the floor/area ratio requirement in the R-15 zone district, and were presently over the floor/area ratio allowed. Peter DeMuth questioned if this was an expansion of a non-conforming use. Fred stated that they could expand the area. He stated that they were proposing a 30% floor/area ratio as opposed to the allowed 16%. Mr. Leatzow stated that the primary objective of the addition would be for .the garage. He stated that he had four motorcycles, four automobiles and tools that he would like to cover. Richard Grice, County Zoning Enforcement Administrator, submitted a copy of the history of zoning violations associated with the residence. He stated that he would rather not see the problem increased. Grice further stated that presehtly the residence was a legal duplex. Mr. Leatzow stated that the house was built by Doug Gargel, and in 1972 Leatzow put in a concrete floor without a permit. When he found out that a permit was necessary, he obtained one from the Building Department. Mr. Leatzow proceeded to explain the history of the violations and his attempts at compliance. He stated that he felt most of the objections to the addition were based on personality conflicts with his neighbors. ~_... ~;:, .. ~, cw,, ~s,. 6= s , o-,.k ~ vz~4'r~^~A9 ..a a;.~"N. ~ .. ., . yY: j. + ~ _,aw(. x:KS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 50 C. F. HOECI(EL 0. B. & L. L0. Board of Adjustment Page 2 October 11,__1977 In reference to a complaint by adjacent property owner Arlene Jarmon, Leatzow stated that he himself ahd called the Building Inspector to check the other side of the duplex for compliance and the Inspector found an illegal triplex had been created by the tenants. The tenants were subsequently evicted and the extra kitchen removed. Jim Markalunas stated that he did not feel the applicant had demonstrated a hardship as set out by the Pitkin County Land Use Code. Henry Stein stated that he felt the purpose of the Board was to review an application insofar as it has not been possible to get a building permit and decide whether or not there is a hardship involved. It was not the purpose of the Board to get involved in neighborhood personality conflicts. Carl Nutzhorn stated that he did not feel a hardship had been demonstrated by the applicant. Jim Markalunas read the applicable section in the Pitkin County Land Use Code pertaining to undue hardship. Building Inspector Fred Crowley stated that if Leatzow could meet his setback requirements, it would be possible for the Building Department to issue him a permit to build an unheated garage. Mr. Leatzow requested that his application be withdrawn. At this point, Jim Markalunas stated that although the applicant had withdrawn his application, he would like the Board to hear the comments of the property owners present at the meeting. Bill Heldman, past President of the Homeowners' Association, was present and stated that he had some objections, but it was determined that the objections were not in order as far as the meeting was concerned and they would be discussed with the applicant outside of the Board meeting. Shirley Anderson, adjacent property owner, was present and stated that she had had a history of problems with the Leatzow residence. She stated that any construction on' the property would affect her a great deal as far as the slope and drainage were concerned. Wally Lord, Vice President of the Homeowners' Association, was present and stated that he felt there would be a height problem with a three-story addition. Fred Crowley stated that that was not necessarily the case and said that the method used for determining the height of a building could be explained to Lord at a later time during office hours in the Building Inspectors Office. Arlene Jarmon stated that she felt the Homeowners' Association had a binding agreement with the Pitkin County Commissioners which stated that the County Boards or Commissioners could not approve anything which was opposed by the Homeowners' Association. Fred Crowley stated that although the County tried to work with the various. homeowners' associations, they were not legally bound by covenants. imposed by the homeowners' associations, but consideration was given to their objections and opinions. The applicant was told that he could re-apply to the Board in the event he decided to build the garage and was not able to meet the setback requirements. ° ,,, uc ..ye a J nr .~:u ~. te[m>'WV.a*frvi ak .avPis.h',.q .da, a<«, ~~N.~ rwn nwav RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 700 Leaves FOPM 50 C. F. XOECI[EL B. B. B L. CO. Board of Adjustment Page 3 October 11, 1977 Michael Spalding/Setback Variance - Tract 64 Section 21 Township 8 South, Ranqe 86 West The applicant withdrew his application, consequently there was not a representative at the meeting. Henry Stein made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Bryan Harper. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:10 p.m. ~~ t~;~CaC~~y ,. .,_. _ . _ _v~ ,..m ~~._ _, ,ti .. _,., ..:,:: w .«,.w~ ,~~, a....~~~ ,,,.w..,:~ Respectfully submitted, s~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOPM So <. F. XOECR EL B. B. & L. PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT November 29, 1977 MEMBERS PRESENT ASSOCIATES: Bill Mason, Chairman Dottie Fox Jim Markalunas Bryan Harper Clark Smyth Peter DeMuth Paul Krausch Chairman Bill Mason called the meeting to order at 5:20 p.m. There was a discussion concerning whether or not the December meeting of the Board of Adjustment should be on December 27th or December 20th. It was the concensus of the Board that it would be easier to get a quorum if the meeting were held on December 20th. Robert Bowers/Setback Variance - Lot 106 Mountain Valley Robert Bowers was at the meeting to present his application to the Board. He submitted plans and gave a brief explanation of his proposal. He stated that he was requesting 'a variance from the sE~tback requirements because the residence was built within the present setbacks. He stated that due to the extreme grade of the existing driveway, it was impossible to use the driveway and parking on the street created problems for snowplowing. He stated that the proposed garage would be excavated and provide offstreet parking during these conditions. Bowers stated that the lot drops approximately 30 feet and is not in view. He further stated that the proch would tie into the deck that is there presently. Fred Crowley, Building Inspector, explained that the excavation had been started with the permission of the Building Department, and that if the Board denied the requested variance, Bowers could just use this fora driveway. Crowley stated that the Homeowners' Association in Mountain Valley had already approved Bowers' proposal. Bowers stated that he felt the hardship was that if there are cars on the road, there is difficulty plowing the road. Dottie Fox made a motion to approve the variance for the proposed garage and porch. The motion was seconded by Bryan Harper. All in favor, motion carried unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 5:55 p.m. _.,.. .,_ ~ d.e.,... . «,..~ ,.,. ,..,~ n ~ ..,o-«r tim ..S ..~.w,, a~'; w~-A....mLrr*fa~~o, :'"mav,W w,ab,.,k,Y~aw~w...:.i~.,v~45's Respectfully submitted, ~, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FBRM !4 C, F. MOECI(EL 0. 0. 0 L. CO. Board of Adjustment Page 2 December 20 1977 Dottie fox stated that she also did not feel the variance was appropriate. Jim Markalunas stated that he did not feel that the Board of Adjustment was the proper body to review the application. Bob Francis stated that he was not certain that Section 7.11 applied as far as expanding a non-conforming use, but was told by the Planning Office that the Board of Adjustment was the appropriate Board to seek relief from. He stated that the Board of Adjustment had appellate powers over decisions made by the Building Inspector. Carl Nutzhorn questioned the possibility of the request being a use variance. Sandy Stuller stated that it was an expansion of a non-conforming use. Paul Krausch stated that he was not personally opposed to the variance request since the Zoning Enforcement Administrator had not been opposed to the request. He stated that since opinions had been solicited by area residents, he did not feel these opinions should be ignored. Sandy Stuller stated that the "financial hardship" was not applicable, and the community need issue is more applicable to the Special Review procedure. The owner stated that this was not a financial hardship but a safety and convenience hardship since the store serves between 300 and 400 people per day and has one delivery a week, meaning they have to store their stock on shelves, etc. Bob Francis stated that he felt Section 7.07 would apply as long as the applicant does not increase the floor area of the building. Dottie Fox made a motion to deny the request variance due to not wanting expansion of non-cgnforming uses. The motion died for lack of a second. Bob Francis stated that the applicant is the lessee of the building for 3 more years, with a possible 5-year extension. Carl Nutzhorn made a motion to table the variance request until such time as the applicant investigates the possible 200 foot setback requirement and the possibility that it would be more appropriate to go through the Special Review procedure. Motion was seconded by Henry Stein. Those in favor - Markalunas, Fox, Stein, Nutzhorn. Those opposed - DeMuth. Motion carried. Frank La6ioia (Laz 61en Greenhouse)/Hi hwa 82 West Si n Request No one was present to represent the applicant, so no action was taken on this request. Dottie Fox made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by Henry Stein. All in favor, motion carried. tdeeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m. ~°