Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.82.13_ ,;. 1 • COUTI~i:y Gf i itl;in £~ to _ /'~~ Y 2$ 1 s S?- ~ Case ~ -~~ :~ - ~ °Appl:cant f~~Gt-F~°+~~2C~ l~'• GP-SH'h'1l~^I Address 8o~t tIZ"j ~ASP~L'~ Cp C'~~ner R tGN~rRp 1-~ , C~-•SH'~'V1.4 Vt Address BOX 112"] ASf~ ~ €.oGation of Property ~Ldr' I"~. , oRGtC~ ~S't'A'T~5 ~OD?.~- CH~'1212~' (Attached) ~`,ny pertinenfi data must accor~pany this .~ppiication, end Y;ill be made a ,part of this Case tto. The 3oard mad r-e~urr. this application if it does not contain all tl;e facts in question. Applicant`s description oT" proposed variance shcti•;ing justification: ~ P12cv l t~E f't 10' s ! lO~yl~trel~ R~u~TI ~ T?~ A ZO'• 5~7'I3ACK "fa A;u.cw. '~ ~ GorVtS'f~vtT1 ~ of Ar IJEW 3 cAl2 G~A•~~b' '~• Wv12KS~aP. PR~EVItrt1S. AF -2 '2.ov1 lvlG A~~'1~ A Zc' SIDE` ~1A~2p . ~ . ~ : P2ovIbE A v~s,ri.t,4vt,c~ ~ 1°c-2 ,o, RooF S`fY~v~'Tt1vtG . Tb co'ut-ra T1.1'E L~ctst~t\/Z, t--X•~rti art: NoR~ht' S ta=E ~~`~~ -'fa RC`bvr.6 PRo~r~,~v+~s o~ . slow A~rn !cam i4ccv~.~crt~,ncr~ hJ~F1u-1 , i.a--»`S Ak w!-.r~12. -Ct~'1S RooF U~avi.r~ ~-~3o covb'12.. . A PRotk~sE» :STO12v-~ ~-%LT"~~~ kswtc.H ~rvLo C°~,3~ ~xcessl~ ~ E-ecsH ~.osS - 1 po5~'h ~~~ ~CtS71N-~ ltitrYt~ . . -. - ~~ • ~.~ . / . - ~ '~ .App? i cant Si canatGre ~ ~--~~ • } Pro:~isiors of the zoning resolution reyuiril~y the Buiidirlg Inspec'~or to forti•;ard this . application to the hoard of Adjustmont and reason for, not granting a building permi / ~; ~ ~L~ ~ ~, , ~f.~. ~ ~~,~''-~Y,~/~`'~LG~G.¢,./JC~C ~GC~~'_re~ tZ~.L;~°."Lt~'.2~ l i~~=r LL- ~. L /G i'L1~',er-,..._t ~Q~G~; e-~'G' ' ~''~- 'o Gl "~ .- . ~2~,,~<1,,~,c .,-~ Lz~ ~'C_~ 8uildrTng Insp. Signature- ~ ,~~-uf~4titi~~ • , - ;~~ , Hate erati t rejected: ~ P Qoard decision Application Filed: Etailed: Uate: Secretary, Qoard ot~ Adjustment .___. COUNTY TREASURER &~~70~ p: _ PITKIN COUNTY ' ASF~fi(-, ~OLP~RADCQ 816"ril '• ,"' ._ ._ .... - `, ;,, f„~ BEI't7itE T~PI'~"I^;IN CGJf~TX L'O~tiRU OF.' AP,JUiT~iiT ' T(7 AI,T, PROPERTY 047t1ERS AFi ECTED EY ::?E i~:r3UL;;;.i'D ?OtJZNG OR USE VARIANC% L'E.r.,CF~ZI3%li F3ELOF7: Pursua:,t to Pitkin County Resolution of June 5, 1955, as amended, a Public F?caring sill be held in the County ~Comnissianers Room, Pitkin County Court f?o use, Aspen, Colorado, (or at ~uch other place as the meeting may trien be adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Eoard of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisioi~ of the County Zoning Resolution. All parsons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at st:ch meeting, then you are urged to stag your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Eoard of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinicns of •,~ surrounding ;'~r~aerty oW-rers and other affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. `I'H`r.' PAR.TIC'JLARS OF i"F:% HEARING Aril OF THW REQUESTED VFR.I~;Cp: i-^.^--; e"-~S FOLLOt?S: .~ Date and time of. meeting c June 29 , 1982 at 5 : 15 0' clock_~m • Name and Ad;~ress of Applicant for Variance: Richard H. Cashman,•P.O.•T3ox 1127, aspen, CO Location cf :roperty or Description: __ Lot 14, Orchard Estates Variance °.equested: • • a 50'' irontyard setback variance and a 10' sideyard setbac?: variance to construct a ~ara~;e/workshop and a variance for a roof. structure. Duration of Variance: permanent XYX Temporary Condition: THE PTTKIN COUNTY' BOnPD Oi ADJUSTMENT • ~~ rn~~_ _ • Bill Aiasara, Chairmen ~. ~ , ..e 1 C f -~'~-(2Y.~ c~S ~ ~1 P~'P!°L 1 c,d,T? 01:1 ~-2 V ~°~12 ! ISM UE A pJ A~c~1 T pR a~ ~ av~.1'~ !Et2 G~-~ b ~~~ do 2. 1 cl,,,e v~ L~,~ ~ ~~ ~ ES f , ~~ hX3'Yt 17Pr t- E Gc~ $1 toZ?j . Lo'f 13 ~'~. F ! T3 ~ t wt v~ o'~t ~ . 11 ~a ST~rE H t~H ~~ sz cA~2 r3c+n i0A ~ ~o $! 1. Z 3 ~~ T° i ~ ~~ ~ ~ - ~ TT'~ $o'X 2°l L 13~t~~..T- c a S I to Z (3o~X 13 13 ~T cF /~ Prc.c ~ , . ,D~ L~ GQ1~l57Y1 cIz?1 ~1 ~ I I~iL 5302- v ~ S'T~- R t cA ST'. I°a2P~-~is~ v~u.~'I ~4 ~izoN~ 8SZ53 . .,.,.,.3 C..., ~. ASPEN~PITKIN REGIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT L tuR+~ o ~ ~tB l . 13y~e Aspen CO 81612 .J `~~,~ ~--__ __ -~ ._ , «~ M --- J'si~ i E'8. ~,, - .- r. ,'~' r 506 East Main Str®et ~ Aspen, Colorado 61611 ~o. 48209 ~,F~S. ~'~ . County Treasurer's Office, Pitkin County, Colo. A~~pen, Colo., ~' ~~ 19~~ ~PrptuP~ ,pf R~C~~L~~~,`^lifr_`~ : ,~~r~r~2„y ~,~~ ` / 3 ~~- / , . ~ ~e ,c.~Pid ~.r-/ .~-t~•~-~- ~~~.~fr~ v nOLLARS ~~.- - 7 `~ ~ .. Account o£ Credit tn~ ~~/~~ -~~~1~ THE f. F HOECK EL C~. DENVER Fund. /( gy ~ L_ LL- Treasurer Deputy N ~~ Q1 m 3 m. 3 c~ 'o n ~. 0 9 Z z m 0 z r °_ ~° ~ ~ 'r 0 z o ,~. . 0 .~ C ' \ N ,. 3 m z ` -~ -„, r~~ ~ <A ~4 r ~+ 1. f . ,\`{ r .~ ~pc."., C~~'. L P {t,~ c:~'~~\ ~~ {"~'~ -_ t' ~ nr*, aK ~~ .~ ~ b ~~ Y~`~... o ~~~. ~ ~~ ~ ..a N N •RAD~ORD rUB LI•HINC CO., DENVER R E C O R D O F P R O C E E D I N G S BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT June 29, 1982 Members Present: Bill Mason, Chairman Dottie Fox Paul Krausch Joe Zanin Clark Smyth Alternates: Bill Lukes Bob Throm Kandi Shaffran The meeting was called to order by Bill Mason, Chairman, in the Commissioners Room. Due to the election being held that evening regarding the jail issue, the Board could not use this room. Mason requested that someone recess the meeting to re-convene in the City Council Chambers. Fox so moved. Krausch second the motion. The meeting recessed to move into tl~e Chambers. The meeting was re-opened for the regular Board of Adjustment for June 29, 1982, in the City Council Chambers. Martin Horowitz, Block 7, Lot 8, Brush Creek S/D 82-12 requesting a 65' frontyard setback variance for construction of garage. P.2r. Horowitz, or a representative for lair. Horowitz was not there. The case was placed last to see if anyone would show up. Richard Cashman, Lot 14, Orchard Estates 82-13 _, requesting a 50' frontyard setback variance and a 10' sideyard setback variance to construct a garage/workshop and a variance for a roof structure. John Huish was there representing Pair. Cashman. Mason requested that the regular members vote, but wanted input from the alternate members. lt4r. Huish explained that the variance requested is two-fold, (1) the variance on the sideyard to the east of the existing residence is 10', which would give them a setback of 20' in an area where 30' is required. The area was downzoned from 20' to 30', and with the existing facilities at the rear of the property now, the variance would make it possible to add the garage/ workshop. (2) The frontyard setback variance requested would ,~ allow for the construction of a covering over the existing entry way and drive, and also the construction of a proposed storm entry on the north of the residence. He pointed out the entrance of the residence on the plot plan. He stated that in the winter the owner is plagued with snow and ice. Mason questioned Newbury if there was a zoning change with the front setback. Newbury replied that the front setback was originally 75' setback. Mason stated that under the original zoning the applicant would only need 25' setback variance. Fox questioned about the topo of the lot. Huish answered that it was basically flat. Fox then questioned if there was any other place to build the garage/workshop. Huish stated that it would be desirable to attach it to the house. The owner wants to keep it as close to the house as possible, Mason stated that he didn't have any problem with the garage addition because it falls within the original setback. He felt that there was no case of downzoning for the 50' frontyard setback variance because even at the original zoning for the property it would still need a 25' frontyard setback variance. Fox questioned if the owner • • •RADFORD rUeLIfHIHG CO., DCHVlR R E C O R D O F P R O C E E D I N G S June 29, 1982 Board of Adjustment Page 2 would drive in from Apple Way to the garage, Huish replied that that was correct and there would be a new driveway off of Apple Way to the garage. Mason questioned if there was a sign posted. Huish replied that there was. Throm questioned the size of the driv.eway.. Huish stated that it was 15' to 20' gravel. Krausch asked for the dimensions for the garage/workshop. Huish stated that the garage/workshop would be approximately 27' wide x 55' long. Krausch verified that a 10' variance was necessary for the garage. Krausch questioned how much of the 27' was garage as opposed to how much is shop in the back. Huish explained that the shop is at the extreme south end and the 27' allows for passage from the house to the shop without having to climb over the cars. Krausch questioned what would happen if the building was brought to 17' so as not to need a variance. Huish stated. that that would be unworkable. He stated that the owner owned a Cadillac and it would not fit. The owner was requesting 3 stalls. Krausch wanted to know what the proposed addition was. Huish stated that the house was a terrible energy consumer and would like to put some space with passive solar features. The proposed storm entry on the north side is part of that energy improvement and at the extreme east end of that proposed addition would be another entry way with utility space. Shaffran wanted to know if the access was going to change and if so would that change be considered as their front, Newbury stated that the driveway would still be on the other side and would be considered duel fronts, but the original driveway was still considered frontyard. Smyth wanted to know if the proposed addition would need a variance also. Huish agreed that it would, but would be possible to cut some space out of that and be able to stay within the present setbacks. Smyth questioned if there was any objections from the neighbors. Mason replied that there were no objections in the file. Lukes questioned what the hardship involved was. Huish replied that the garage space was necessary for the vehicles and the increased use of the family for the sideyard variance,. and the frontyard variance is to improve the snow and ice situation in the winter and the energy problem. Lukes wanted to know if there was presently a garage on the west end of the residence, Huish replied that there was. Mason wanted to know what that would be used for, Huish replied it would be increased living space. Lukes suggested that the present garage could have been added to and living space been placed in another area. Huish stated that would have been more difficult because of the way the house is framed and also due to a new deck that was just added. Smyth stated that he had trouble with the fact that the applicant has a one acre flat lot and the garage would not be located some- where else. Zanin stated that two years ago a request similar to this was denied. Mason agreed and explained the situation to the other members and the applicant. He stated that case was over the previous zoning. 117ason felt that if this request went over the previous zoning it would have no hardship, Fie felt there was no problem with the proposed garage, But the frontyard setback went over the original zoning and he had a problem with that, Fox suggested that he could have the airlock. Mason agreed, if the applicant would stay within the original 75' setback, but that would eliminate the shelter to drive under. Lukes stated that simply because the lot has been downzoned does not mean the owner is entitled to the variance. Krausch stated that he would feel inconsistent in saying yes to this request after some of the requests that have been turned down. He felt that there was plenty of space on lot to build. Smyth suggested that there was another way of handling the desired construction. Throm stated that he felt they were there to help any- way they could where a hardship has been created. He stated that he would vote for the airlock and proposed ~;a.rage using downzoning as the hardship. ?vlason agreed that the Bc.~.trd was usually granting variances to help pc~~ple out. Shaffran agreed that the Board does • • •RADFOhD PUB LIBNING CO., DENVER R E C O R D O F P R O C E E D I N G S June 29, 1982 Board of Adjustment Page 3 try to help with hardships, but the county had a reason to downzone, and felt the downzoning hardship should be used when the setbacks create a situation where nothing can be built. She felt, however, if variances were granted just because they were downzoned, the downzoning would have been rendered useless. Zanin motioned to deny the variance due to lack of hardship. Krausch second the motion. Vote was called for. All in favor. Ivlotion was denied. Jack/Rita Ham, Snowmass Cottages, 9461 State Hwy 82 82-14 requesting a sign variance. Jack Ham and Jim :~4oran, his attorney, was there to request the variance. Moran questioned what the compo- sition of the Board for this case would be. Mason stated that Krausch, Fox, Zanin, Smyth and Mason in case of a tie. Moran requested that Fox excuse herself from consideration of this case on grounds that during the preliminary hearing Fox was the complaining witness and stated that it would make Moran and Ham more comfortable. Fox questioned what would happen if she refused. Moran questioned Mason what the public by-laws were concerning this. Mason did not know of any. He stated that if there was any doubt in their own minds they would excuse themselves. Fox Mated that she did not know what conflict of interest she may have. Moran felt that with Fox as a voting member the applicant will not get a fair hearing. Fox stated that there were four other members voting who could vote against her and she refused to excuse herself. 1~Soran requested Mason to excuse Fox from the case. Mason refused to do this. Moran then asked the remaining members if his request offended any of them and would create a bias opinion. The members expressed no problems. Moran pointed out the plot plan that showed the cottages. He placed three other plans on the wall that further explained the position of the cottages. Moran stated that presently there was approximately 64 or 65 square feet of various signs at the location that was very ineffective. The sign that the applicant wants to use is a split face sign, in which one side would face each direction of the road, reading Snowmass Cottages. The backs of the signs would blend with the scenery and would not allow light through. The applicant felt this type of sign was necessary for safety reasons. The building codes states that the applicant is permitted to have a sign and the applicant stated that he was within all requirements of the code. Moran exhibited an aerial photo of the area. He felt placing the sign in this manner would give people coming from downvalley a line of site of about 200 or 300 feet which would allow reaction time. Also, it was stated that there are some very nice trees in the area in which the owner did not want to destroy as was previously suggested. It was pointed out by It~oran that Commissioner Childs has stated that he was in favor of the split sign if it would save the trees. Moran showed the Board the color chart indicating the earth tones that would be used. hIoran summed up his presentation by stating that a variance for the sign was necessary and if the split sign was not acceptable, the trees would be removed and one sign would be placed there. I14oran then showed some slides to the Board with regards to the viewing coming to the cottages from both sides of the Highway. Krausch was trying to relate the split signs with the ski signs on the highway as you are cominn to a ski area, A4ason stated that at the airport there are two signs and at the Airport Business Center there are two signs. Fox stated that she had objected to those also. • •RADIORD rUBt,IeNING CO., DlNVlR R E C O R D O F P R O C E E D I N G S June 29, 1982 Board of Adjustment Page 4 Lukes questioned how the sign would be illuminated. Ham replied that it was plastic, internally luminated by florescent tubes. Lukes asked if it would be similar to the old Plum Tree sign. Moran was not familiour with that sign, Mason pointed out how dangerous the intersection at the cottages was. Krausch questioned, if the patrol thought the sign was needed for safety reasons, why something legal wasn't done. Ham replied that the reason is that it isn't an incorporated village and that is what it takes to slow the traffic down. Fox also mentioned that the state might do some turn lanes to help the traffic situation. Moran wanted to remind the Board that the fence marks the boundary between Mr. Ham's property and the highway departments right.-of-way and the sign cannot be brought out between the highway and the fence. Slides were shown with the other signs that are presently being used. These signs would be taken down when the one split sign would be placed up. Lukes expressed his opinion about the lighting of the sign. He was against the use of lighting that is concealed within the structure of the sign but regarding that a four practically naked florescent tubes creating an }ncredibly bright and glarey sign design which was not intended when the code was written. Krausch requested an example from Lukes. Lukes stated the Plum Tree sign. Krausch wanted to know what he liked~as a lighted sign. Lukes replied that indirect lighted signs such as the Airport Business Center. Mason agreed, stating that he did not approve of spot lights. Krausch questioned if Lukes approved of the Husky sign which is internally lighted. Lukes said that that was not an offensive sign, Moran assured the Board that the sign would be lighted exactly as the code specified. Smyth felt that it was a good idea to separate the faces on the sign. He motioned that per- mission be granted to allow the sign with split sides, Fox argued th~.t there was other places for the sign even though she loved trees. She felt that if you let one sign like that be erected, other people will request such a sign and the Board will not have a leg to stand on. Fox felt that this would be weakening the sign code, Krausch felt that with the split sign, one would only be exposed to one sign on each direction. Krausch second the motion with the clause, to make it clear for the record, that this was not a pre- cedent for future requests to the Board. Mason agreed stating that the owner is entitle to a sign and since the owner is restricted by the highway right-of-way and a split sign is the best solution, but this does not set a precedent. Fox suggested that when the inter- section is changed and made safer and a single sign is reasonable, could the variance be conditioned to be changed. Smyth questioned if the signs have to have an annual review. It was stated that they do not. Lukes suggested that Smyth ammend his motion to assure that the lighting is indirect. r.~ason felt they had to go with the code requirements and would need to rely on the building department to regulate it. Fox questioned Smyth if he would consider the amendment for future consideration of the necessity of the sign, Smyth did not have a problem with that. Krausch did have a problem with Fox's suggestion and objected to it. Smyth reverted to his original motion to grant the variance request, wit~i the understanding that this does not set a precedent. Krausch second the motion. Vote was taken, four for and one against, Fox voting against. • • •RAD-ORD -URLIB HIN6 CO., DENVlR R E C O R D O F P R O C E E D I N G S June 29, 1982 Board of Adjustment Page 5 Richard/Julie Lindner, Lots 8 & 9, Block 19, Riverside Addition 82-15 requesting a 26.5 frontyard setback variance for construction of a garage and a floor area ratio variance for passive solar entryway. Richard Lindner was there representing welf, Pdason stated that he had visited the site and the sign was in place. Lindner explained to the Board that additional information had been received from a solar expert which explains the third request included in the floor area ratio variance request. He explained that the first request is to allow building of a proposed 3 car garage in front of, and attached to, the existing house which would encroach into the front setback a distance of 3.5 feet. The setback is now 30'. The second request is to allow building of a glass enclosed passive solar entryway along the south side of the proposed garage. This would insure more efficient heat retention and solve the problem of roof pitch which creates a hazard in the winter with ice/snow build up, The third request would be the recommendation to add a direct gain passive solar system for thermal mass heat storage on the south side of the house made by the solar consultant as per the information given the Board. Fox questioned how much setback would be necessary for that. Lindner replied that that was not an issue of setback but an issue of the F.A.R. He stated that this was explained best in illustration #2 of the packet submitted to the Board. Krausch re- quested that Lindner explain the illustrations. Lindner gave a brief explanation of the situation. Newbury gave a brief description of the property location. Fox wanted to know what the setbacks on the side were. Newbury replied that it was 10'. Mason felt the garage would not be so far out that it would interf ere with plowing. Fox stated it looked like this was the only place to build. Mason pointed out that this was an undersized lot. Fox motioned that the variance be granted due to the topographical hardship and the solar consideration for the solar addition. Zanin second the motion, Vote was called for, All in favor. Mark Pushkis, Lot B-10, Redstone Ranch S/D 82-16 requesting a 55' frontyard setback to construct residence. Pushkis was there to represent self. He explained that the frontyard would be on the south side and the porch side of the house was on the west side. Mason questioned Newbury if this request would fall within the intent of the original setbacks. Newbury replied that it would. Smyth verified that this was a three sided lot and if ...s~tayed within the present 100' setback there would not be a buildabre a'r'ea: He was told that was correct. Fox wanted to know what the topography of the land was. Pushkis told her it was basically flat. Krausch motioned to grant the variance due to downzoning. Smyth second the motion. A vote was called for. All in favor. William/Patricia Gates, 4074 River Road, Woody Creek 82 -17 requesting a 70' frontyard setback variance for construction of a shed. William Gates was there to represent self. Gates explained that the shed could not be built .anywhere else on the lot due to the topography. 11~iason wanted to know the location. Gates stated that it was across from Stutsman-Gerbaz. The Board members were familiar with this location. Fox wanted to know if this was the shed that was already built. Newbury stated that there was a shed on the back that was suppose to come down under the last variance. Fox questioned if the shed was down. Gates stated that it was not. Fox questioned if that wasn't conditional with the previous variance granted. Newbury stated that any decision made by the railroad regarding the shed does not effect the decision of the Board. Gates explained that they had a license from the railroad to use their land and the agress road and shed was included in that license, which stated that everything must remain exactly as it is. Fox questioned if this made them in violation with the last variance granted. Gates pointed out the correct property line and the area that the railroad requested the Gates to put up a chain link fence. It was determined that a variance had been granted to the Gates to build the deck contingent upon removing the shad. Gates disagreed saying that the • • •RADPORD PU6LIBHINC CO., Dl.NVlR R E C O R D O F P R O C E E D I N G S June 29, 1982 Board of Adjustment Page 6 variance was for the house, not for the addition, Krausch felt that if the owner leas not complied with a condition of a previous variance, he was not inclined to grant another variance to the applicant. Gates stated that there was no condition with regard to the shed when the previous variance was granted. Throm suggested that the present variance request be discussed until the files could be brought before the Board explaining the previous variances requested. It was stated that the shed was under construction, having been started without a building permit. This would not be a livable space. The file was brought before the Board regarding the previous variance granted. r.4ason read the minutes which were from August, 1977, and it was concluded that there were no conditions about removing the shed from the variance that was granted, Smyth motioned to grant the variance request due to topographical restraints. Zanin second the motion. Vote was called for, four was for and one against. Krausch voting against, Daniel Nall, Lot 11, Orchard Estate 82-18 requesting a setback variance- as shown on plot plan for construction of solar addition. ldall was there to represent self. He explained that the south end of the house is tihe only place where a solar green- house could be installed and gain the solar benefit, The proposed greenhouse is 200 square feet with 144 square feet of glazed area. He explained how the heating process would work and carry the heat into the bedrooms, also on the south side of the house, Mason questioned Newbury what the original setbacks had been. Newbury replied that they were 20' from the side. Newbury stated that the subdivision was subdivided prior to zoning and wasn't zoned at the time it was subdivided so the lots do not conform to present zoning, which is AF-1, Krausch wanted to know the amount of variance needed. 11.6' sideyard setback was necessary and approximately 20' frontyard setback was necessary. There were no objections from the adjacent property owners. The sign was posted. Fox motioned to approve the variances for the sideyard and frontyard be granted because of the downzoning and for solar reasons. Smyth second the motion. Vote was called for. All in favor. Dr. John Shea, Lot 23, Ridge of Red Mountain 82-19 requesting a 27' frontyard setback variance for construction of a single family residence. Dick Fallin was there to represent the owner. P~ason questioned if the sign was posted. Fallin stated that there was not a sign posted. IL4ason explained that the Board could not take action if the applicant has not placed a sign or proper publication was made. Throm suggested that the Board could hear the request and the sign be posted later, Mason explained that the Board had never handled it that way before. Fallin suggested that the Board could make comments regarding the application after the last case is heard so he would have something to tell the owners. Mason asked if the Board was willing to do that. They were willing to take a look at the application. Lukes moved to table the Shea residence until the next special or regular meeting, Mason dis- agreed saying they were thinking about hearing the issue now, Mason suggested that this case be recessed until a later date, Lukes so moved and Smyth second. All in favor. Dennis Krieger, Hwy 133, Crystal River 82-20 requesting an 8.5' sideyard setback variance for construction of shed. Krieger was there to represent self. He explained that they have an old shed that the roof collasped on this winter and he produced a photo of the shed. The proposed shed would be replacing the shed that collasped this winter and would be 8.5 feet short of the 30 foot setback. This is a different shed from the other variance • C~ ^RADFORD rUBL19HING CO., DENVER R E C O R D O F P R O C E E D I N G S June 29, 19$2 Board of Adjustment Page 7 that was granted to the Kriegers previously, This shed would be for storage, lawn tools ect. The previous shed had a smaller~~~ foundation than the proposed shed, however, the proposed shed will be less in size because it won't have the awnings that was on the previous shed. This shed would be wood whereas the previous shed was metal. This shed is presently built but without a building permit and the building department red-tagged the structure. Mason questioned the situation when it was an existing building encroaching the setbacks and it has to be repaired or rebuilt, Newbury states the code states that the structure could be rebuilt if burned. Smyth motioned that the variance be granted since the county wording fails to include other disasters other than burning. Krausch second the motion. Vote was called for, All in favor. Mason then called for any corrections or additions to the minutes from the last meeting. Fox moved to approve the minutes as typed, Zanin second the motion. Dr. Shea's case was resumed. Fallin explained that the encroachment was necessary for a new residence. The reason for this was a sewer easement that runs through the lower' half of the building zone, The building zone is a little more than half of the lot, The other part of the lot was designated as the greenline by the Planning Commission due to the fact that it was over 30%. The property be- tween these two points is very narrow, The owners, Fallin explained, would like to build a two story, four bedroom house, Fallin did not -feel that a height variance would be necessary, Fox questioned what would happen when the road is plowed and the snow would pile up. Fallin stated that a retaining wall would be placed on the north side of the house to create proper drainage, Mason briefly described the property in question. Fallin stated that he had checked about bringing the house over into the sewer easement andthe sanitation department was against that, Fox questioned about the size of the house. Fallin answered that the house would be approximately 3800 square feet. Shaffran questioned if the homeowners association had responded to the request. Fallin said thaw the issue had not been presented to the association and there was no response from the association in the file. Smyth felt that there was no other place to build. llsason felt that the Board did not have a problem with the request and would have to make approval based upon the sign being posted. Krausch motioned that due to the topographical difficulties of the lot along with the sewer easement, that the variance be granted with the condition that the sign is posted and no objections come within the ten day period and that the homeowners association approves. Also, he included that hearing the case with the sign not being posted does not set a precedent. Zanin second the motion. Vote was called for and all in favor. Meeting was adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, -~c~ tie ~ ' 11~: c 1~ ~~~~ tom- ~(V1 ~>..rG-- ~~ Chairman ~~ ~~ pitkin County' C°lo• t9~ Q9 ~ surer, s ~ ffiCe, ' 1 ~ No 482 County Tres p pen, Colo.,-- ~ ~ _ / ~ ~ //~ L n ~ /^ l~ ~ ~~r~r -___ _ D4LLpRS f`. ~% Account Fund• redit to ~ / J ~~ ~ ~ ~ Bye i .j'reasurer l Deputy LARGE PLAT(S) AVAILABLE TO VIEW AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AVAILABLE TO BUY AT CLERK & RECORDER