The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutpitkin.boa.82.33JOe Zanln m<.rv~.al that the iol _ ut~;_it~~; .~~ .uin~~~tC!.I BT'?';ikI: 'I'~IE ROAIi.D 01~ EDJU;;"f; Nit OF Tt1P COUNTY OT' I'I`I'I~I}; STATI? OF COLOP.Ai~O RI'sf~ohCJ~hION r.o. 82-33 Joseph Jerkins, Applicant Matt Meyers, 0229 Wrights Road, Red Mountain S/D WfIE'Rr:1:S, the subject property is within the uninc:or.I~orated area ort: Pitlc.iil County, ColorGc?o; and, wIiERE;AS, the Board of Adjustment is vested with the po;~er to grtin'_: or d~_ny such variances by virt~~e of Title Il, Section 16--1.3, I~ikin Ccran!-y C,~de (Land Use Code) an:] Colorado Revised Statutes, 13'13, ?0•°~:3--11~;2j (~; ; ~,~,.,,, F~HFIS;l1:~, based on the evidence presented, the Board of Adjustment makes t?-rc~ following findings: 1. Proper notice procedures, including the notification of all ad;orni_riq property owners, has been shown by the applicant.. 2. The required hardshic or practical difficulty has bt-cn est~::,~.__islr~d. 3. Granting such relief will not cause substantial det.~-imerrt. to ti.u public welfare and will not substantially impair t;~e i~,t_e~r~ <~nd purpose of the Zoning Resolutions and the zoning maps. NCI.7, TIiEREF^RE, BE IT RESOLVED that the appli.can.t `s recruest {nor a 18.7' frontyard setback variance for construction of garage/recreation room. Additio>1a.1 conditions or restrictions: Motion was made for a 19' frontyard setback 67~1P,~yING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may res:~l.t in .r.ehearir;~ and possible revocation. Bill Lukes seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The roll. having baen galled, the vote was as follows: Bill Mason - yes Joe Zanin - yes Dottie Fox ~ yes Bill Lukes - yes Paul Krausch - yes The Rai>o]_;:t:iar~ ~ti•a`i ac]o}ate~c] by vote of the Board of T~,d justm~nt. of the ~c.u!:t-y of }'ith.ir;, Statx: of Colvcado. L~AZ'rn • October 12 , 1982 At:tcst :'~crc~ - y Tl.e i;o«rd iy_^ %~djustlr:cr~t of I': tl;in County, C` ~_c;r rig 7 C',:; i i m~,r, ... Date Sept. 13 19 82 ~ Applicant Matt Meyers BOARD OF ADJUSTMFTIT County of Pitkin • Address Box 942, Cas e # ,~ ~ -- ~ ' Traverse City, Mich. `ti VUY Owner Joseph Jerkins Address 525 Industrial St. Bldg. i~alaluaGVlJ, 1`~.i.vii. •t~vvv Location of Property 0229 Wrights Road -.Red Mountain Subdivision - SW4 of Sec. 6, T10S R84W 6PM (Attached) Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made a part this Case No. The Board may return this application if it does not contain all the facts in question. Applicant's description of proposed variance showing justification: See Attached 1 CAUDILL GUSTAFSON & ASSOC. ARCHITECTS, P.C. y Applicant Signatu Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building Inspector to forwar • this application to the Board of Adjustment and reason for not granting a building permit: c~~?~- ~/~-~.~ -tee, Cam„ L.l~ /e 3 0 -~.~ -~'~=e•- atia~~ /' ~' Building Insp. Signature - Date permit rejected: Board decision Application filed: ._ Date: Mailed Secretary, Board of Adjustment *Applicant's Representative: Caudill Gustafson & Associates Architects, P.C. P.O. Box FF, Aspen, CO 81612 925-3383 ~~~ ~~ i~~a 4 Attn: Shae Lee ~- c-<x_~us" . ~... • BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Pitkin County Description of Proposed Variance for Matt Meyers • The applicant is requesting a variance for construction of a garage/recreation room on the N.W. corner of the existing house, (see Section). This addition would protrude into the area of the required setback, (see improvement survey), however, causing minimal change in massing of the existing house. As noted on the site section, the garage would be hidden on the uphill side by earth and would cause minimal disruption in views from the street below or the house above. The applicant is aware of the need of a soils report from a qualified soils engineer and he is also aware that the retaining wall on the north side must be designed by a qualified structural engineer. The existing "cut in bank" (see site plan) is not retained in any way so it is the applicant's desire to continue the retaining wall to form a small enclosed yard where his young children can safely play. CAUDILL GUSTAr=SON AND ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS P.C. P O L3CJX FF ASPEN COLORADO 61 61 1 303-925-3383 APPLICANT: Matt Meyer • OWNER: Joseph Jerkins • ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER-S Elizabeth S. Wo.rden P.O. Box 1027 Aspen, CO 81612 Lacey T. Neuhaus 60 Huntley Drive Houston, TX 77027 Kenneth Robert Wright 1440 High Street Boulder, CO 80302 James B. Kurtz Leasing Co. 5500 S. Steele St. Littleton, CO 80121 Donald G. & Suzanne Swales Box 1596 Aspen, CO 81612 Frank Goldsmith P.O. Box 3126 Aspen, CO 81612 J. Cook Wilson, Jr. 5000 Longmont #11 Houston, TX 77056 ~;AUC;~LL GUSTAF50N AND ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS P.C. P O [?OX FF ASPEN COLORADO B1 B1 1 303-925-3363 L~ u VLACHOS/JERKINS & H R~ Y U E A PROFESSIONAL CORPORAtION/ATTORNEYS AT LAW 729 ACADEMY STREET • KALAMAZOO MICHIGAN 49007 • (616) 381-6646 JOHN N. VLACHOS • JOSEPH J. JERKINS JOHN R. HURLEY September 14, 1982 Caudill, Gustasson & Associates Architects, P.C. P.O. Box FF Aspen, Colorado 81611 Gentlemen: It is my understanding that a hearing on the variance application is going to be held concerning the rl~~ ~y located at 029 Wrights Ibad, Aspen, Colorado. Please be advised that Mr. Matthew Myers has my permission to apply for the variance. Very truly yours, ~ ~d '.. Jo" ph J. Jerkins JJJ/ir J u r a I\ i ~ ~ ~.« Ill: .. DENVER OFFICE HOLLAND & HART SUITE 2900 ATTORNEYS AT LAW WASHINGTO N, D. C. OFFICE 555 SEVENTEENTH STREET DENVE R,COLO RADO 80202 TELE PfIONE (3031 575-8000 600 EAST MAIN STREET SUITE 1200 1675 EYE STREET, N. W. WA TELECO PIER (303) 575-626f SHINGTON, D. C.20006 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE (2021 466.7340 TELEPHONE (303) 925-3476 TELECO PIER (2021466-7354 MONTANA OFFICE SUITE 1400 WYOMING OFFICE 175 NORTH 27TH STREET SUITE 500 BILLINGS,MONTANA 59101 TELEPHONE (4p 6) 252-2166 2020 CAREY AVENVE TELECO PIER (406) 252-1669 CHEYENNE,WYOMING 82001 TELEPHONE (3 0 71 6 32-2160 TELECO PIER (307) 778-8175 ARTHUR C. DAILY (303) 925-3476 p October 12, 1982 S. E.DENVER OFFICE BUILDING 5-SUITE x002 5555 DTC PARKWAY ENGLEWOO D, COLORADO 80111 TELEPHONE (303) 575-8350 Pitkin County Board of Adjustment Pitkin County Courthouse 506 Fast Main Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Variance Application of Joseph J. Jerkins Dear Board Members: As you know, this firm represents Ms. Lacey Neuhaus, owner of Lot 9A, Block 3, Revised Red Mountain Subdivision, which property adjoins the tract of land for which Mr. Jerkins is presently seeking a setback variance. Mr. Jerkins advised us today by phone that he is signing and returning to us a reciprocal easements agreement which effectively resolves the existing controversy between the two landowners. In light of this representation, on behalf of Ms. Neuhaus we hereby withdraw all objections to the Jerkins variance application now being considered by you. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, ~. { Arthur C. Dai for HOLLAND & HART ACD/pal cc: Ms. Lacey Neuhaus Mr. Joseph J. Jerkins • • ~ ,~. 0 O X s s N aP ~~ 3 a 3 ~~ IInn 1~ U' z= ,-~ U~ (L Q_ < O i Z t. A~s> ~.~r`~ ~. J OUr 15 ASPEN/PITKIN REGIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1 10 E. HALLAM ASPEN, COLORADO 8161 1 (303) 925-5973 00136 - 61210 BLDG. PERMIT - 61212 - 61215 - 61214 - 6331 1 - 61220 - 63004 - 63313 - 61002 - 61 120 - 63316 PLBG. PERMIT ELECT. PERMIT MECH. PERMIT BLDG. PERMIT REVIEW REINSPECTION CODE BOOKS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ~S~ CONTRACTORS LICENSE MOBILE HOME PLAN CHECK NAME: ~ c`~.--tl..:~-t C ~~..~u~l,.,~,., V PERMIT: ~'~-•~ CHECK#. •-~-~'/U PROJECT: 1`~e~~ .s DATE: ~ INITIAL: ~`f~_ ~~.. ~ r1 ~` ~ J L ~~: e~ .~1. `Y \ ^~ ;.'-' `~. ~: ~j~Y R~~ w~ s L~ '~-~ - v ~(~~ `~ ~ ~ ~~ -~ ~ ~~o ~ `t~ ~ ~~ ~ 7`d r 3 1 i ~ ~~z ~~ 1 j"i (~~ T C ~~ z~ ~~ ~: ~ ~ ~Q --•. b~_ '` 1 ~ + R ~R yM .~t,A~ ~ ~.. ' f..:i~,q r~. ,. ;:~;;a , ,k.~ . ~. ~; .:.-q~~ Cf1r ?V1 ~ •. xn~:• ~{;t, i; f~ ;,`, ~,, ~. ,,~ ` Y~ ,~ U` ~' ` N I ca t K 1' t ~ v 1 h~rN~, ~ ~ r.~~, ~f.` ~~~J4' 1..~. 1 i { 0~ { ~~! ..:. ~g7 ,ti. h .. ;, D, v i. t^ ~ ~Y~ r N~ <, A C ~P' ~C iv G~ 'u~ ,~ ~, J~ ,~ ~.; ~~ \+~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ :~~ C~ ~~- i1~Lv I 1. i ~; ~~a '~ ~_ 11 ~(` ~` 1 ~..1 ~' ~ 1i. ~`; , 7 -~ ~r. ~.~ `~~ __r~ i_ ~, .~_ ,~, ~, L _~ 1.T.. i\ 1 ,i _~ _~ 1 f I~ . I,l $a: d ~..i ~ ~ r I a•.,: ;_- ~ K^4~s;.. s>`~-. ~: ~: YE i I t 1 ~ ~' .~~~~~~w~1k ~ /i . . q 1~, rt ~/~' .~ ~' r• ~~ .. t ~~ y; • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMI;~TS Oc tobE:r 12 , 1982 Special P,leeting :.1~ ~ur}~ers Present Alternates i'hcr urinutes front r,n ~vc~ci to approve i i~ f avoi• . Bi 1.1 l~.lason , Chairman Dottie Fox Paul i~rausch Joe Zanin P~van Gull L'ob '1'lirom Nandi. Shaf f ran 100 Leaves the last ureetins; was reviewed by the Board. Fo.. thc~ nlinrttes. Joe Zanin second the motion. All •;u l cst to Panne, Planning Office, came before the Board with Paul ?iubin re~;ardin~; llidstate ".lot ors. 14idstate ~alotors previously came I~c~fc>re th~~ Bc.~ard un Tloventber 24, 1931, requesting a 95' frontyard ,etb~rck for an addition, in which they received. However, there ~t.r~, .r mi:;undc~rstandin,~ w.itlt the applicant, Paul Rubin. Panne c~•.l~ I ,~ i ne•d that. t.;t i ~; c~.a~c> hac} also been before P i Z and the Board ~~! c'c- ,nty ~;c)I;lIll1S51c)llt'I's. Penne had informed Rubin that the Highway c~;~~asc cis their setback from the center of the highway. When the I,c>crrcl tuc~l: ac•.t iuu cin th~~ case, the measurements reflected the center Iinc~ 01~ the hil;hway. She explained that the 95' variance from the I~rupc•t•ty I i.ne would not lie feasible because the building only sits heck some 70' or 7~' front the property line. She explained that the ;r~.ic;ition would encroach only 1.4' more than the present building does. That would be at one point of the building and would otherwise not extend out from the original building. Rubin explained that he t~.i~pl i ~~d accordin; to how he was instructed, which was to use the measure- ;~te~nt fror~.~ the cents>r line. wewbury explained that at this time '.Lubin nc~c~deci a c:onsc~ttsus front the from the Board so he could start can c~~>c•avation. Then he would have to reapply with proper advertisement. Iii!, i u ~ tat. cad 1 h:r I l i nic was important because of a loan the owners were ;;~,in„ fur. Pc:nne stated that the Commissioner's approval was worded t i~at i f thc, addi t.ion didn't encroach any further than the existint; l,ui lclin#.;, it was fine. Fox stated that P & Z was interested in the ~~ i ~;ri;~ I intlr,rc• t u f Lhe bu i 1 ~l i nl;. 1Lrausch agreed with P ~c Z that as lon<; :,~. ; i]c~ l~ui7ciin!; dice not encroach any further it would be satisfactory. '.1:i~,~~n cluc~titic,ned whirl, would happen if they approved and then received ~~I~.jc~ct.ionti, which didn't necessarly mean that the variance would be ~lc~~t i cad. Thrum strnlrested that the approval be subject to that type cif uccurrance. Krausch moved to amend the resolution for Midstate 'l~~tc~c•s reith thc~ provision that it be properly advertised and no ~~l~jc~c:tion:; come forward. Shai'fran suggested amending the motion to ~~tate subject to advertisement only. Krausch agreed. Fox second the motion. A71 in favor. ~I° ~ t ...., . . • .. ~ _f. ~. ~r. !~. / • Y • •~~ r' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Oct.obor 12, 1982 Board of Adjustment Pame 2 liath,y Honea, 7804 IIwy 82 82-32 rc~quc•stin; a 192' frontyard setback variance for a shed. This was t ~il~ 1 c~d Crom rho 1 ast meat i.n~;. ?~;lesson has since had a meeti n!; with t ii,~ ('aunty A(.tor•nc~y, 1'~eti T,i,~•ht, Lit;ht requested that the Board rnec~t this. fall and have the County P ~i Z look at Section 18.32(c) and ~~li;~n;;c~ 1.hc~ wc>r•dini;. Aftrr t,a.lkins; with Light, ;Mason felt, th~.it, t.hc~re w~~uld bo uo problem t;rant.in€; this variance because of the irreular ~;h.cpc~ of the lot, the trees on the property alon with protectin,r t h~~ intcrr<~:~t, oi' the nei,~;h}~ors. Fox wanted to question Light about I fi~• :~~)U' {ii~~:l~w,r~~ tic•I I,ac~k, whic•.h was set to protect the open sptrcc and t;~~een area, but with the recent action of City Council setting thc~ pro :-shop within the Setback, Fox was concerned about the County dilaii.nf; their position on the open space setback. °,4ason felt it was a~;roc~able to the Rolland lliils on the front lots, which the Board was 1~>rcc~d by the Courts Lo allow. Fox pointed out that she did have uir~~tiler place to place the she` . Ilonea was there, and stated that she iY.LCi r:~casured the property and would still need a variance to place the ~hc~d on the wider end of the property. She also presented a letter l~r•~~in ri noi.~hbor stating the their problems with havin€; the horses ~;~~ c•lose. hrausch felt the shed was in the most practical spot ~,f t i~<~ I)1•r,I)c•1•t.y. 'hhc~rc~ was more discussion on the open sp~rce ;i7on!~; ~.i ~;ir•,vay 5~~. ~:rausch motioned that the Board provide a variance in I n i ~, c~~r~c~ bc~c~au~c~ ,~ I' the i r•ref;ular shape of the lot and because the bUllding is ag~riculturo in nature. Fox added that this is a concern of the Board and will not set a precedent for building within the 2~)0 highway setback. Bill Lukes second the motion. All in favor. c~v.~ner Joseph Jerkins, Applicant 'Matt ':Zeyers, 0229 Wrights ll,oacl, :'~~cl ~~loun 1 ai n_ S/D _ 82-33 ~~<~~tuc~stin<;• ~i ~~ i ' -l`~rontyard setback variance for construction of a ~;;~ ~•.c?, c'/rc•<•r'cat ion room. This was tabled from the last meeting after ;.Ir. .',loran, representing '~Irs. Newhouse, an adjacent property owner, ~~t~,jocted to the variance stating there was already an encroachment onto :~.Irs. :~lewhouse's property that needed to be dealt with. `lhea Lee vas t hero to represent '.Ir . Jc~rhi ns and '>Ir . "•.4eyers. Shea presented to thc, Board ~ letter from ).Ir. Rloran's firm, written by Mr. Art Dailey, ~advisinm that the controversy has been resolved and all objections vvir:hdrawn. She read this letter to the Board and it was entered into the records. Shea then briefly went over the variance requested and the h~rrdships involved. Zanin stated that the point had been r•<~;~ched where rho i~oard lrad decided that there ryas a definite hardship. It was ciecide,i that with the af;reement between the property owners there would be no need to deal with the deck on the other side. Zanin motioned to r;rant a 1~' setback variance due to topographical hardship. Bill Lukas second. All in favor. ;~our;la.~ A71an, owner John Gager, Woody Creek g2-30 b!• i n ; i u~; their reque:~t bac:l~ before the Board this evening, but they ~~alled and canceled. r,4ason entertained a motion to cancel the case, ~ due t~~ the Cast that Allan cannot give a definite time for when he will be back before the Board.. Fox motioned to cancel the issue duc~ to lack of adequate signature on the application. Throw second t hc• motion. All in favor. Pesl~ectfully submitted, Chairman • r}:J 1 /qM M C. I. NOFCKfI ~. ~. • L. C0. Members Present: Alternates: • • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT September 28, 1982 Bill Mason, Chairman Dottie Fox Paul Krausch Clark Smyth Joe Zanin Bill Lukes Kandi Shaffran Bob Throm Evan Gull 100 Leaves Bill Pdason, Chairman, called the meeting to order at the Commissioners Room at 5:15 in the front hallway. Since the Commissioners Room was occupied, Mason moved the meeting to the Courts on the next floor. The meeting was then recessed. The meeting was reconvened in the Courts. r~4ason questioned if there were any comments regarding the minutes from the last special meeting; on September 14, 1982. "Mason mentioned that Dwight Shellman's name was misspelled. He also stated that in a motion made by Zanin, financial hardship was used as the hardship in the case of Don Lemos. He stated that he had always been against the use of financial hardships and he requested that that be struck off the record. Throm motioned to accept the minutes, Lukes second the motion. All in favor. Fox suggested to the Board that ~'Jes Light, County Attorney, should spend some time with the Board to discuss interpretation of the rights that the Board has in granting variances. Mason stated that he would get with Light regarding a meeting on a night when the agenda load will be light. Shaffran suggested that at the same time they could discuss some issues among themselves. Krausch wanted to know if since the last meeting a definitive answer on the subject of agriculture building had been given. Fox stated that she did some research on that and the Planning Office was working on a code amendment to define what an agriculture building is and that would be forwarded to the Board. Krausch wanted to know, when the definition of such a building came through, would that building then not need a building permit. Fox stated that she discussed this with the County Attorney, and he stated that he did not think the code required a building permit for an accessory building like that, but the zoning would require the same variances. Clyde Brannon, 0726 Red Mountain Road, Red 117t S/D 82-31 requesting a rearyard setback to construct an exterior deck. Don hopf was there to represent 14r. Brannon. '~4ason disqualified himself because he is an adjacent property owner and he requested that Dottie Fox act as chairperson. Fox read the application stating that this was in the R-30 zone and required a 20' rearyard setback. Kopf --~ N° 81 :- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves /OIIY M C. /. NOECK[L ~. ~. d L. C0. September 28, 1982 Board of Adjustment Page 2 stated that the reason for the request was because the deck was more than 18" above the ground and therefore had to adhere to the setback requirements. He presented some photos taken from the south looking up alongside the house. Kopf pointed out the deck system and stated that along one line a group of evergreens would be planted. He pointed out the Hodges property and stated that :sir. Hodges had no objections to the deck system which ran into an easement that belonged to the Bodges. Bodges had given Brannon permission to landscape that piece of property. Kopf stated that there was not a homeowners association. Kopf requested Mason's opinion because he is a neighbor and is familiar with the property. Mason used the photos to explain some features of the property. Kopf stated that there was an existing deck in violation, put on by a previous owner, and they had contacted Mr. Hodges regarding that deck and he stated that it didn't bother him. Fox questioned whether any other adjacent property owners had any comments. Mason stated that he had talked with Hodges and he was agreeable and would be sending a letter stating such. Also he talked with Jim McDade, another adjoining property owner, and he had no objection. !4iason then wanted to know if a sign was posted. Kopf stated that a sign was on the front entrance coming off Reds ~dountain Road. Fox wanted to know if this was the only location available for the deck. Kopf stated that it would "garbage the area" if put on the other side. Shaffran stated that she didn't like the idea of building right up to the lot line. Kopf pointed out that the property next to it was unusable. Shaffran understood but still was uncomfortable with granting variances like that. Krausch questioned if there was a variance granted for the deck that was already in violation. Kopf gave a brief history of the house, explaining that some variance had been granted for the guest house on the property, which was a kitchen, bath and bedroom. Fox questioned if there was a hardship making it impossible to build elsewhere. Kopf stated the accessibility to the house made it difficult to place elsewhere. Fox questioned if there was a topographical hardship on the land. Kopf felt that there was. The deck would be 5' off the ground. It would not be an enclosed structure. Krausch stated that he did not see justification to granting a variance. Fox stated that there were definitely other places that the deck could be built. The members explained to Kopf the guidelines that they must follow. Dopf stated that the topographical situationwas that the adjacent property is not adequate for building and would never be used. Shaffran pointed out that they had to make their decisions based on the applicant's property, not the adjacent property. Kopf felt there were no other places to build the deck to keep within the configuration of the house. He pointed out the steep section of the property. He stated that there was only 22' between the main house and the guest house, which would not be enough room. Throm suggested an alternative that would not need a variance. Kopf felt that wouldn't work due to the topography and the drainage problems. Fox questioned if there was any other discussion. Zanin questioned about the grade. Throm showed him the photos and explained some features. Krausch moved to deny the request do to lack of justification. Lukes second the motion. Vote was taken for. All in favor, Pdason abstaining. ~_` N° 82 .-v,..~s.L~-.'._ .. _. " .. .,rte ~a!c'~'~.__",~. ~ _ _ -: ~ • • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves /0M1 M C. /. NOECNEL E. !. f L. CO. September 28, 1982 Board of Adjustment Page 3 Kathy Honea, 7804 Highway 82 82-32 requesting a 192' frontyard setback variance for shed. I%athy Honea was there to represent self. She explained that it was an odd shape of property and pointed out the features of the property. She explained that if the shed was placed in such a way that a variance was not needed the neighbors complained about the closeness :and the smell of the horses. There is no dwelling unit on this property. The shed is presently there. Throm mentioned that it brought the Board back to the agriculture building issue. Fox questioned if there was another place on the property to avoid encroaching on the setbacks. There is another spot that it would just barely fit but would be close to the neighbors house, something they were opposed to. Honea stated that it did not obstruct view. There were no objections in the file. Krausch wanted to know if this was the type of building that did not require a variance. Fox stated that to her understanding it didn't require a building permit, but would require a variance. Krausch worried about controlling the violations if a building permit was not necessary. Throm suggested that Light come in to give an opinion on the building. Krausch was concerned with the fact that people would start to think if they went ahead and built within their setbacks they could come to the Board and automatically receive the variance. Lukes felt this would oven the door for landowners to determin what their hardships are and then present the Board with double hardships of existing structures.. Krausch questioned whether the property could be determined unbuildable because of the setbacks and the irregular shape of the lot. Iie then felt that could be used as the hardship. Newbury felt that the lot was unbuildable. It was determined that Honea did not post a sign. Fox motioned that this be tabled until the next meeting so the sign can be posted and to get additional information from the County Attorney. Fox also suggested that some letters be gotten from the neighbors regarding the placement of the shed. Zanin second the motion. All in favor . Owner Joseph Jerkins, Applicant Matt Meyers, 0229 ti'Vrights Road, fled Mountain S/D 82-33 requesting a 18.7' frontyard setback variance for construction of garage/recreation room. Shea Lee from Caudill Gustafson & Associates Architects was there to represent P,4att ~t4eyers. She presented a letter to the Board from Joseph Jerkins giving permission for rdatt 1~ieyers to request this variance. There was a sign posted. She showed to the members a layout of the property and pointed out the adjacent property owners. She presented photos of the property to the members. She pointed out that the property is steep down to Wrights Road. She explained that this was the only flat portion of the property. There is a vertical embankment in back with no retaining wall. Meyers would like to put in a retaining wall for safety reasons. This addition would go on the north side of the house rather than on the south side due to the fact it would create a driveway to steep to use and would cover up solar value, since that side is completely glass. The recreation room would go on top of the garage; strickly recreation with no intention of plumbing. Lukes felt that there was very strong topographical reasons to grant the variance. Jim Moran was there to represent Mrs. Newhouse, an adjacent property owner. Isis position was that Mr. Jerkins is in violation of the side- yard setback on his client's side of the property. Mr. I14oran gave a brief history of the house. Mr. Herndstadt, a previous owner, built a deck in 1977 which encroached into his client's property. There was also a master bedroom went into the setback. Moran attempted to contact Herndstadt and an agreement was reached, tentatively. in April of 1978 to exchange easements. In April of 1980 correspondence N° 83 r' ~,. .. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS -am w c. -. eoacKU -. s. s ~. ca September 28, 1982 Board of Adjustment Page-_4 100 Leaves was sent to Mr. Jerkins regarding the problem and in September 1980 correspondence was received from Mr. Jerkins stating that something could be worked out but he was not happy with original agreement proposed and suggested a meeting. However, nothing more was heard from r,4r. Jerkins. There, even though P,4oran felt that the spot chosen for the garage was the only feasible spot, he thought the Board should delay consideration or condition it upon working out something for the violation of the deck and master bath with Mrs. Newhouse. Throm felt that a variance could be granted as a topographical hardship, however, they should listen to 114rs. Newhouse and let them settle the problem. Krausch stated that because of topographical problems it is entirely possible that the variance be granted, however, they would prefer to act on it after the difference with Mrs. Newhouse is worked out. Krausch motioned that the Board defer the action on the request until they have worked out the problem with the adjoining property owner. Mason requested that a letter from Mrs. Newhouse's attorney stating that the problem is solved be included. Shaffran requested an amendment to the motion, calling it a variance violation rather than a problem. Krausch agreed. Shaffran second the motion. Vote was called for. All in favor. Bruce McIntyre, Lot 16, of Section 15, Twnshp 8S, R88~'V, 0437 Thomas Road X82-34 requesting permission to construct barn 36' x 28'. ',4ike Ferguson and Bruce ?~4cIntyre was there. Ferguson explained that they were asking for a 35' frontyard setback for the barn. fie showed a drawing to the members of the barn on the property. Mason read letters from adjacent property owners into the record who had no objections to the barn. Mason questioned what the topographical hardships were. McIntyre explained that in one section he had an apple orchard, the yard had been landscaped for at least 30 years and he pointed out the parking lot. Another problem was that they were putting in a new septic system required by the Environmental Health Dept. and an area had been set aside for that. Throm suggested moving the tack room and placing the barn within a prescribed area. Newbury stated that the property was originally zoned AF-3, which required a 50' frontyard setback, 20' on the sides and rear. The setbacks now are 100' frontyard and 50' on the sides and rear. Ferguson pointed out the access to the property. Krausch stated that a 65' frontyard setback variance was needed. Throm pointed out that that would place it on top of the intended septic tank. Lukes questioned if the applicant could conform with the 50' setback of the previous zoning. Throm again suggested that the tack room be moved and the barn could be within the 50' setback. °dcIntyre stated that they could move within that setback. Zanin motioned to grant a 50' frontyard setback variance due to downzoning. Krausch second the motion. All in favor. Meeting was adourned. Respectfully submitted, -~,.~.=iJ~t.iCL.d c~ rm et. c I~T° 84 ~.~~ ~~~~ Chairman 00(~,~5 ASPEN/PITKIN REGIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1 10 E. HALLAM ASPEN, COLORADO 8161 1 (303) 925-5973 00136 - 61210 BLDG. PERMIT - 61212 PLBG. PERMIT - - 61215 ELECT. PERMIT - - 61214 MECH. PERMIT - 6331 1 BLDG. PERMIT REVIEW ' - 61220 REINSPECTION - 63004 CODE BOOKS - - 63313 BOARD OF ~~, ADJUSTMENT ~-~- - 61002 CONTRACTORS LICENSE 61 120 MOBILE HOME - 63316 PLAN CHECK - NAME: ~ .~~-'~ V PERMIT: _?~~~~ -~~ CHECK# ,~~~? ~O 'x'11 ~, ~ t"1'~t~ j -`_ S PROJECT :----- ~~ ~ INITIAL: ~- DATE: Scanned 7/26/07 File Finders Box #10 LARGE PLAT(S) AVAILABLE TO VIEW AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AVAILABLE TO BUY AT CLERK & RECORDER