The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutpitkin.boa.82.40 -- - Paul Krausch moved that the following be adopted: BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSnffiNT OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 82-40 Gale Levinson, See 13 & 24, Tnshp 8S R87W, Nystrom SID, W. Sopris Creek WHEREAS, the subject property is within the unincorporated area of pitkin County, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment is vested with the power to grant or deny such variances by virtue of Title II, Section 16-1.3, Pitkin County Code (Land Use Code) and Colorado Revised Statutes, 1973, 30-28--118 (2) (C); and, WHEREAS, based on the evidence presented, the Board of Adjustment makes the following findings: 1. Proper notice procedures, including the notification of all adjorninq property owners, has been shown by the applicant. 2. ~~e required hardship or practical difficulty has been established. 3. Granting such relief will not cause substantial detriment to the public welfare and will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Zoning Resolutions and the zoning maps. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the applicant's request forxa 35' sideyard setback variances Additional conditions or restrictions: WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. Clark Smyth seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: Bill Mason - yes Paul Krausch - yes Clark Smyth - yes Joe Zanin - yes Kandi Shaffran - yes The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: January 25, 1983 The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado A cL~, .~ (' 1--."", ,_ Secret~y ~/~.-::k/?1 / Chairman ('II ~, ....... """"," 1 . '. '.'- ..~ Attest: ". ~ Date 19 Applicant ~IJJ.~ ~ " Owner QI1 '- ~- e BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Count:' of Pi tkin e 8Q-- :8 '-ic 1/ / / /l-S I/- : e:./ -6 I c1 .). 06/VL/~ ~: . ,Y t')) ?Jl -- . Location of Property ~ / :i......:f ~ 'I /~~ R.s, Q,p 1~ y 7 vJ ~A~-V---#. /.$ C~~~~ (Attached) ~y p:rti~ent data ~st accompany this application, and will be made a part of this Case No. ~C:::;' L/ / 'J1;~(1/~dre s s71/ () / L G '-.,1 ( \ /1/i'(JN A_ddress Case # The Board may return this application if it does not contain all the facts in question. Applicant's description of proposed variance sho~ing justification: ,,~ J~~L- l ~ 'L i -t.C,-,~ -~'~., I? 7.3 +- (:fvv't tt -~ -<--i l-~ (~~~'--'-"L J&n:J' .n ~:AJ '._ {L-~-<U v----Y R. s: 5 C ~~ J ~ ( H:/ -,~,-,~r'S. \..--i^-f. -:9-1L~~t1 ~ ~ :f "L~~ (~~^--A-(-k1,'-#-~ .'-"--"''{' C~Iof'.Jc i/L to", ~'" ':' -~ · \ ,- J - .}, 0 II ~ (..J~J'-6>--''-~ ~ ~ c{ Q~ ---..t-~ \...l.~ I S -p J...,' t tt~ J.~,-,,--J,,~~ ,1 J ~7 . If '-fJ' './11 /___ ilL.. . ~{' I, --1/1" . /' '('~-1. II -.9 ...--v~, l ~ -~ W, 'L--f~, " CiS (1 t-dLp' 'OVJ--:'- v ''+ . r:f---'(, \..iL ''-'<. 1\...1'-. ~) --.iJ, 8. ^ t ~I L ~ '., 1-" u~,~uti IS ....r/I U"'" t-'~"'-q '-- .-ti~ _4A_,JJ'-.z 0--<-- '--'\. (.el " .J( - -cL ''-'<. r"-v '-- ,r0..J!. , ) 6----- ,,', t / ' v'- -tJ~ j\""U:.L,\, -t '" ~ '--~ ~_L~zt4--~.:i:, -;).J;~ /J--~~-H-l -r--"c~40'/ it,,-~ ~ ''Js. ,(tl ~J( YI--~~soJ,L~ -~~ ~ ~",- " ~.\' f? (i...-~ \JJ~ fj., '-'~ t:!JJ.,Ur (J'-f( --ct'f :L-L{~ d-("-~ ,-,'~ ',; :..L ~l---d~L~'6r-t\~ ~ '(r~.' ~ j- u~l(j, I t J I .;f;~-1<...~~ ~ 0'7 ~~:Jr- ~, U v~ ~~'-iJ 'f;::;J '11 ~' ' -. ~J.. / App Ii can t Signa tu'1>-i1 J./{. L --"-L....,l.()..... Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Buildi Inspector to forward this application to the Board of Adjustment and reason for not granting a building permit: R:s~.J D Al~~ .,;;-C ~'L<Lc. a-, ~ ./LL-d. u.!..-ItLL--1- ,J.[ttrM'--I~ ~~J-- / hJ/rnZ!!~r;k .7-;) ;;?"".-~ &~) U -A (7/ i/ Building Insp. Signature~/~\)1 Date permit rejected: Board decision ' Application filed: Hailed: - Date: Secretary, Board of Adjustment r..... , rl*'~' ;" J1 ? ,":.:l. I '-Cl..) J'S to:;, ';' L~OCJ'-{~ dJ18,'1 u' 3 , C'~""''''''''' _...~~......,,~:w - fb. ~ ~~~~ ~.,c ((3 f..- ;f (ro '-I ~J~' ~ ~ ~L~~~~(t-- ,,~( 1", -,/ -..... r - , ~ ~11 r(~Ari. ~ ~~) -....- - - "'J C""".. ,,' " ~.~ ~ . "J';':. :.' ~... " ..'j, r; ,,>) . "'~ , ;0;(. '. " ~1<. , , " '~ ~ .. ~.).:>~ ' {'t:;~. :,"." ' ~r " ~:;,': <~' " r".li- -:,. " . k;' " .' (' j . . ' , t'::':'" . " . '.... '.... ~.~,.,;.( ~-" ", J ~;.. ," j.,' ~.~. ';" ..~ .':.......". 'P'lt..... :K"'", I' _ ,;." ; , 1(' ',' '.' .. ..... ' . . ~ '." - '. . f"~ ,.. ", "'t.... . "". ~::\;.t7, ,,'.:, ,.- ,,,..~' .', .:; ~ ,,' ~~;~~:~~ ~. ,.....',i";~. . . I':'\~':. .... " .' . .: .". ~:.. ' " . , .: ~ .\, ; , " ' .t.. .~ .. . r ~/""" """,' "...'1",- '""''-'" ,/'0 If- ,.> -- ,-' C -!UA./V eJ~A~...~ CA:a APe T/2 73 -CASt /4Z-51' API Tk'. 7t: (411 Ti,12. 78 -EAG T 2139,.86' .' - ~ ~ ~" =" #J r. 1.,.,--... l\j 14...:. ~ ..~ I, _vi ~ .' .cA,~IB "',' ~~~ ' Yio&101>/ ~I~~ ~~/I ~ ~ ,,,~~~ ~y .. ~I~ ~..,.rk / /'\ \j~ 0(" \~..o~ \ ~ 'V\ \\v- ~tYf~ ';# , \ \ .\~ C?\o~ ~ \ \ .~' \ ~. \~\ \ \ --.)\ \ \ W\ ~- '\ \ ~ \\\ U) i \\~)\ \ \ \~ II \ ,\ 1 \~ it--bi~ ~ ~~;o ~\ \' \ \"'_ ~s _tJ~fi!.ae.1:l' ~"....', " -..l ~\~ 6t1'f!. F\..AN P't::If2 ~\~~ ~~ . \ \ \ I ~ ~ - ~e. ~"''rl"r-J ~~ ~~~' \ ". \~I ~\ ._____., ' QO . i, \,,)\ '. \'/ \ "t\\\ \' - . . "h. ~ , ~ ~ %..~~.1\t. ~ /,' '\ ,"~ 't\~ ,./ . :: " \ ~.~~~t\ ;/. , (, \\. / \, ~. V~l . -- - 'fb'" 0 " ..., " ,-cP./1A?- \ , ...:~ ',' ,/ \~~ 0, . ~~~~ ~ ~\1\ ~\ ... ....... -~ ...- tJ,f) 0 ' "... " ----:r- ~ , , . '>.....',7.( t'~ . \ p,JO ,~:/<\i) ~\o ,~ \ ",.A Y ./f' '~lP~' l \ (JJ'!t ,....l~ ,~tV.>' 0~ e;~J ~ -:.\~ \ - 10 ~e:c:.' ~'( 0 ~~~~, \ ..-(i~ r1' f-o U ~ ~l ~ \ J. .f.f/;) ~ f-J 1:'- ~ ~ \ -t ~ ~~c;t'''~1 v;. ~ \- ,~ ~~1 ~~~. \' ~. ~~~ \ :> -- ~ , - NO/7!::S- ~~~~, \"'~ lS"' ~ ~ ~~..... ,~lJ> ~ ~ ~ ~13\ , ~-~ .<e:\. ~ , -:t:.. ~ · , "L~ ~~~, ~ -\~ , ~:I- .)f-v /3fd -I . 15p f ~ IC. 17)1/ ~ t-l~o ~ 'poD. !>t~ ~~) ~ /-(t-Y 1./ ft ,,~~c.' ./ - ., e"" -(t. J l' ...- , fA~ (j/4;;tJ ..t- . '".~ (1JO .~foI1 ~'? . 4 of tlJ.i ~A~ 'l.\tJ> 0 ~~' ~c> ,fJ/.:I'~ ~ f- 10" !J~I t-4 . j I ~o "k eC; . ~ 6 ,.A ~,.... ,t-! e,A - (p \ ~ ~1 tJ6 ~ ~#;, -' r-f~ ", >t::.4Te5~.Er NQ~ REe,.;.{i." I WITH ALUM/NUM C,4P MAk"K:.ED ;~W' . iD .ee.e.4€ c:!CAP .s~r BY tFLO::J,e4CO E'/y&A/ee.oE"','^/G CO, M,AI!"KEO 1'!J7/0. . .ID .f?Ef!;;iJe ~CAP LS 55/7 '/~ ~ND SURvc.\.-' OR/6/A./.4rc ~.eOM /Y!OA/UMEAf7':::- r _ _ BY rt..Or::JRADO r:;/-/6/A1EERj1v'6 Gc', AS -::!,LIOV'.-'/ooJ ON -PLAT; ~ NO~TH 5/il P~AN 1/111# C'H"'~:~1 ~ .," - e e \ \ \ \ ~f- fO"" e ,,-t \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ <tA~ ,~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I ! \ \ \ \~\,,()tI ~,~~? ~~~ \ \ \ /' \ / V , \ ~~ \ ~~~ ) : '~/ \ \ /' /" /" /' :: ff2,t:)fY IZ-TY ~Ne.. -<t.. COUN~ ~ - N?~.n" 5770 00'00" W ENL.A/1<GSt:J SIr:: P4AN /: 3D C. ~ 'to'" ".,.....,. r- .' __ '_, ,.J ~~ , ..~ '1-~~ ~,~ V+c' . at- ~ I'" ~ 0 ~. i'l\ xtd . - s: ~..' -I -,' fl F.!' , , ' J: /:j \\ . : /r// ,,: . -z' /. ' ~~/// l r I I I I J.. , ' . ., , . . , '^::..I "- " ,'"' " " ~ ". I ""\ l Ii: (~~,,'''''.l'''''''''/..~ . ,. u '_ ,,' J ... I ~i I ~ L~ ~ I ~ r-n--1L ~~ ~ ;> I tl ~ I \ r~ ~ ~&. ! ir I . ,I . ~!! I 'U":t J' / __ ,L .Jr f. I \L- " .,' . '1 '" II: ,~G';J ,~~ll-" -)i1f\i i i Ii : Tl'! : ~ I , J~..! I I" !' ~ I _ ,~'I I i I . ",1Lj - f --< R "I i TTT I II . . ~_ ill :,,; -l--l 1 I I __; 'rl 0 ~ 1l*L! Ii: LLiIM 11 : : II ill>> I ,_ :Of'j N=,--, . I > ~W '.n 17 ..JA 'H - L Iii I }_ I ~ ''11'' I I 11 I Wi ' ,[,_~ I ... "'I' ,- '" '~-' . -'L' I I I I I I W ~_ II' ~~...., IIIII (l2\- I i.' ~ 'W II '.~ .. r-H-++-H I I) n 1 ~ t-. "'~l I I I I I W ~ . C!I> I t :J"': il I I I , I ~? illll' i 1111111 ~ i 111'11 i,' III1 ilL I J ;, " ~ 1.. iJ W _. J t : -; + ;: J 1I1111!illlllllllll II " T ..L.it.1..J.' i ,11 I I rt- 1/ , III->-j.fn r LL " ,,~I i ,[-j-I. . I I I I ' I. I . I ^ " .----.., " ..,TOliiiiI ~ . 1'" .,. I III u '\I I'dlu h -1L I \ I il .. ,," II,' '': I 5 _ h" ,,~ . R~ -. "~TT '/I. I "" 14,., 'I -. II I:::::J >8 L1 j" I I I \J ~ ,.:1 i i i ~, I 11) ., ..:. W: i J.t'L i: ;> I U "Il~ M __J.'" ~~~~ I :~~~ j . ,.. g~ I '\J. . ()1 I. s S . - Z . \\. ~ ~ ~ <) ~ \-0 ,~ I) ft ,\ ~ .. u." .G a., ;:1: . lrJ ".7- ::>> l~t .. . (~ """'''''"1 . , , '_ .' /I r-- l 1~-- f)* . ~ z& . s . - r. .c. I ,/ ~ / " A. ~ 1 I f t l' II 0J ~'1 L~ ~I yJ' " ,....: . -' . U "2~ i~ \\'~ . " . .' . " .\. '" :': :, , I ,':. ;' 4..,. -"."-.---. -I ~ C,,,,.. " ,." "'"" ~ ~. .' - '_ ,..01 ~ ~ ~ il :c 5 R C." ." r.......( _ u' of} ........J r. ~ ~ ~ a\ I 3. (,.. ' " !'" '" I" 4' _ .___0 r a r ~ ~ 2 3: ~ o L .I C.",...,.." 1 .. '.... '... -....A. . X' \). ~ ~ '" ; I C. "\\''Ii. . ') ~ .. '.J '_, _.~2 \ ~"]::-=- 1i --- i .. -c. - ~ --- ~ / / / / / I I"''''' r..... ~.../'f ] '-... ~.,,' -- -...... C'(/\,l". d /) (: !'\ j r , !\J~ --XJ I ._,' ~ ,0 -.. ''-. ""'-"'~ B-c...,c // 3'~ T2~-~-_A-~-.iIf'J Q\ , If IG; 'Z ( 0) ~_"j:::J '--Lj <S;-v:J..-b~ ~ o ~)0~~ ><-- / c;- I 0 ( ;.-1j4 , \ ,l'-G 'f (b ( L- r) ~-lL ri(r/~Jc-~ (\ G ( Cj.~",l._ (~- -v~_ "~L--G'-VVG-J~~~ -~-<2) e .... e e BRAOFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Februa~y 22, 1983 Members Present: Bill Mason, Chairman Dottie Fox Joe Zanin Paul Krausch Bill Lukes Patsy Newbury, Building Dept. Alternates: Kandi Shaffran Bill Mason opened the regular meeting of the Pitkin County Board of Adjustment. He asked the members if there were any questions or additions with regards to the minutes from the Special Meeting of February 04, 1983. Mason suggested that Special Meeting should be added to the beginning of the minutes. Krausch requested that his name be correctly spelt. The secretary, Audrey, stated that the County Attorney had pointed out that the stop work order mentioned in the second paragraph was posted on January 21, not Jan 1st. Fox moved to accept the minutes as corrected. Zanin second the motion. All in favor. Loyal E. Blair, Lot 27, Crystal River County Estates 83-3 requesting a front yard setback tor construction of a residence. Blair explained the dimensions of the lot, which was 1.06 acres, 392' long and 161' deep, leaving about 11' feet for a residence. He stated that the subdivision was laid out before the setback requirements was set. He explained that the house was tilted for solar gain. Patsy Newbury explained that what Blair needed was a 39' front yard setback variance. Mason stated that there had been no complaints from the neighbors once they looked at the distance on the sideyards. Blair explained the topographical layout of the land and where the brush was placed. Fox questioned when downzoned. Newbury asnwered that it was downzoned from AF-3 to AF-1 when all the other downzoning took place. Newbury explained that AF-3 would have given Blair a 50' front yard setback. The property is now zoned RS-30. Newbury explained that all the lots along the area were zoned RS-30. Krausch questioned what assurances a potential buyer~_ had that a lot such as this would be buildable. Blair stated that he had no assurances, but he has a contigency that the loan had to be approved, and such an approval would not be given if he couldn't build on the lot. Fox questioned if potential buyers were warned of such problems. Newbury stated that most real 'estate agents were aware of these problems and they contacted the building department with questions. Mason read a letter from Warren and ,Fern Brethower, an adjacent property owner to Blair. They did not object but wondered why this procedure was necessary each time someone wanted to build. Mason stated that the Board could not give blanket variances and the law stated that each case had to be looked at individually. Fox stated that this was a classic case of downzoning and topographical hardship and move to grant the variance request of 39' front yard setback. Krausch second the motion. All in favor. Mason stated that he went before the commissioners and presented Bill Lukes to be moved up to member position. He stated that there was no problem with that. Mason also informed the Board that one application, from Mr. Robert J. Snyder, had been received for the opening for alternates. Mason stated that this would have to go before the commissioners. Mason also asked the commissioners to come up with a whole schedule of appointments for the Board members. He explained that alternates were automatically reappointed every year, but regular members were staggered. e e BRADFORD ,"UBL.ISHING CO., DENVI[R RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Board of Adjustment February 22, 1983 Page 2 Fox brought up the issue of the sign at Snowmass Cabin on Highway 82 in Old Snowmass. Fox stated that the sign heading west is hazard because it is so bright. Krausch agreed, stating that not only is it unsafe, but so very bright that it detracts completely from what the county is trying to maintain up and down Highway 82. Mason stated that he thought the sign would be a dull light instead of the bright light it now has. Fox stated that nothing was said about the sign being put into a mound. Lukes stated that he had discussed the matter with Bill Drueding, Zoning Enforcement Officer, and Drueding had agreed that it wasn't a good sign and Drueding thought there might be some enforcement possibility in terms of not being an indirectly luminated sign. Krausch pointed out that the variance was for two signs instead of a two-sided sign, which leads him to believe that anyone can put a sign with that type of lighting up on Highway 82. Fox stated that was her main concern. ~ewbury stated that it conforms to the sign ordinance with regards to size, height and everything. The members expressed worry that other signs such as the Snowmass Cabins will be put up along Highway 82. Mason stated that he would work on that problem. Krausch felt the Board should do something to encourage Snowmass Cabins to tone down the light in the sign. Newbury explained that the indirect lighting code for signs was to get away from the neon signs. As there was no further business for the Board, Mason adjourned the meeting. Respectfully submitted, ~, ~Q--'.' Q., (. J.-.-.'lY\o... ''- _ CI Chairman r' ..... e e BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., OENVE:R RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT January 25, 1983 Members Present: Bill Mason, Chairman Clark Smyth Paul Krausch Joe Zanin Alternates: Kandi Shaffran Evan Gull Bob Throm Bill Mason opened the meeting, He questioned if there was any discussion regarding the minutes from the last meeting. Shaffran pointed out a section of the minutes regarding a statement by Terry Kirk, owner of Lazy Glen and the zoning of the property. She felt it was unclear. The secretary stated she typed the statement as Mr. Kirk had said because it had seemed unclear to her also. Gull explained that the owner was suggesting that anything in the setback that doesn't allow the use of the zone at all, is therefore not in that zone. Krausch moved to approve the minutes as typed. Gull second the motion. All in favor. Gale Levinson, Sec 13 & Creek requesting a 70' front yard variances and 30' rearyard family residence. 24, Tnshp 8S, R87W, Nystrom SID W. Sopris 82-40 setback variance, 35' sideyard setbacks setback variance to construct a single Gale Levinson was there along with the potential buyer, Mr. David Konick. Ms. Levinson explained to the Board that Konick wanted to buy the property and build a solar single family residence. Mason questioned if she was familiar with the original covenant and what the setbacks were in that. Levinson stated that she was not. Smyth wanted to know what the size of the property was. Levinson replied that it was 115' wide, approximately li acres. Konick pointed out that the lot was very narrow which was the reason for the sideyard setback requirements. Krausch wanted to know why they were requesting setbacks for the front and rear. It was the belief of Levinson and Konick that such setbacks were necessary, Mason explained to them that the front yard was determined by the access and using that determination a front yard setback was not necessary. It was determined that the rearyard was not necessary also. Konick explained how the property had a gradual slope and then a quick drop-off. He pointed out there was then trees and brush. Krausch motioned to grant a 35'sideyard setback variances due to narrowness. Shaffran questioned if there were any objections. There was not. Mason questioned if there was a sign posted. There was. Smyth second the motion. Krausch questioned Konick about the dimensions of the wing-like construction on the sides of the house. He felt that the wings make the variance more than necessaryvfor the size of the house. Konick explained that for the solar construction of the house it had to face the southernly direction. Throm felt that how much the encroachment of the setback was was a mute point. Gull agreed. A vote was called for and all in favor. r '... e e BRAOFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Board of Adjustment January 25, 1983 Page 2 Grizzly Groundskeeping & Landscaping, Inc., owner, Colorado Dept. of Highways, State of Colorado, Airport Business Center 83-1 requesting permission to change an existing zoning use. Brooke Peterson was there to represent the owners. Mason verified that all adjacent property owners had been notified. Smyth questioned if there was a sign. He was told that there was. Brooke Peterson stated that what they were trying to do was purchase the property and stated that there was a certain amount of concern because of the site, which was clearly on Highway 82 and they wanted to made sure the intended use of the property, which was to remodel the existing building and plant trees and store shrub where the present gravel pile is, and he wanted to make sure that would be acceptable to the Board. Mason verified that the existing building would be used. Peterson stated that there might be cedar siding put on the outside. Smyth questioned if this was something the Board even needed to act on. He pointed out that the building already existed and didn't feel that a change of use was within the domain of the Board. Smyth stated that it was a permitted use. Peterson stated that Patsy Newbury, from the Building Dept., was concerned with what the potential owners wanted to do outside the building because it was within the 200' highway setback. Mason felt that would be a change for the better, beautifing the property outside the building. Smyth felt the Board could say where buildings go but trees and gravel piles were out of the jurisdiction of the Board. Mason agreed. Krausch questioned if Peterson talked with the County Attorney. Peterson stated that he had and received the reading that as long as the Building Department had no problem the County Attorney had no problem. Mason restated that the Board could not grant a use variance. Shaffran felt that the tenor of the Board liked the idea. Mason questioned ,Peterson what he would prefer the Board to do. Peterson stated that he needed an affirmative statement from the Board. Mason suggested that a letter could be written that the Board had no objections. Smyth felt that since there was nothing the Board could do by law, they probably should do nothing at all, Krausch agreed with that. Mason stated that a copy of the minutes could be given to Peterson as verification in writing that the Board had reviewed the process and no objection had been made. Gull stated that he wouldn't be favorable to an expansion to the building and was taking advantage of this opportunity to express his opinion. Peterson stated that was not in the plans for the near future. Cecelia Jane Rigsby, case 82-43, was not able to come to the meeting. Mason presented to the Board an application from Garfield and Hecht, Kirk Holleyman representing. He explained that Holleyman had been told by the Building Dept, and led to believe by the County Attorney, that he would not need to go through the usual process of publishing a notice in the paper and notifying the adjacent property owners. Later in the afternoon of this date, Holleyman determined that was not the case after discussing the matter with Mason. He was not before the Board to ask to be hear. Mason stated that the case could not be heard this evening, but suggested they hear the case as soon as possible. Holleyman had put a notice in the paper and the -. " e e BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Board of Adjustment January 25, 1983 Page 3 earliest date they possibly could meet was February 4, 1983, for a special meeting. Mason requested that a quorum be attempted. He explained that the issue would be the Silverking project. Holleyman explained that Creative Equity, a party to Silverking, is losing a considerable amount of money daily as this case drags on and he wished to expedite this meeting as quickly as possible. Mason expressed no objections to calling a special meeting and wanted to make sure there would be a quorum. Jay Calvarese, Asst. County Attorney, stated that the County Commissioners supported a special hearing on Friday, February 4, 1983. Throm and Shaffran stated that they would be able to attend. A~so Gull and Zanin. Shaffran pointed out that Lukes always attends meetings and would probably be able to make it. It was determined that 9:00 a.m. would be a good time. Holleyman expressed his appreciation to the Board for their consideration in this matter. Next Mason read to the Board a letter of resignation from Clark Smyth, stating his reasoning as a problem with time since joining the County Planning & Zoning and also the letter mentioned his disagreement with the decision made by the Board regarding the Lazy Glen Trailer Court. The letter requested that the Board accept his resignation. Mason encouraged Smyth to remain on the Board, stating that Clark had been a strong member. Gull expressed his opinion that he would like to see Smyth stay, and if the problem was the decision of Lazy Glen, he feillt theidifference of opinions between the members was the foundation of the Board. The Board had a discussion regarding the decision made on Lazy Glen. Shaffran and Krausch expressed their feelings about the decision that they came to. Smyth expressed his feelings about what Lazy Glen had requested. Krausch stated that the Board had been persuaded mainly by the concern and needs of the residents. The members requested that Smyth reconsider his decision for another 30 days. Smyth stated that his main reason for resigning is the time factor and the amount of time he needs to put into P&Z. He expressed that he has enjoyed his time with the Board. Gull motioned to accept the resignation submitted by Smyth. Zanin second the motion. All in favor. Mason stated that he would go before the Commissioners to recommend moving Bill Lukes up to a member position and then advertise to have two additional alternates added to the Board. Meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, \ ~ . _ ~\ ~- c\^-_L^---". '- ,~ c.},_ rY't r, ----.., SecretaClry J)/ ?l4a4c~ Chairman e e 8RAOJPORD PUBLlaHING CO., DEN VIER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS December 16, 1982 Special Meeting Members Present: Bill Mason, Chairman Paul Krausch Altnerates: Bill Lukes Evan Gull Kandi Shaffran Meeting was called to order at 5:15 p.m. in the Commissioner's Room and re-convened to the District Court Room since the Commissioner's Room was occupied. Mason questioned if there were any additions or corrections to be made to the minutes from the last meeting. Lukes moved to accept the minutes. Gull second the motion. All in favor. Robert Jenson, Highway 82 across from the Holiday Inn. 82-37 informed the Building Department that they will ~ot be needing the variance because the selling deal fell through. Krausch motioned that the applicant be removed from the agenda. Shaffran second the motion. All in favor. Gale Levinson, Sec 13 & 24, Tnshp 8S, R87W, Nystrom SID W. Sopris Creek 82-40 requesting a 70' front yard setback variance, 35' sideyard setback variances and 30' rearyard setback variance to construct a single family residence. The owner could not make this meeting and requested the Board to table until the January meeting. Shaffran so moved. Lukes second. All in favor. Peter C. Rosell, 7827 State Highway 82 82-38 requesting permission to change the use of a garage into living space. Peter Rosell was there to represent himself. He stated the garage was very large and that type of space was not necessary to him. Mason questioned if the applicant would then return to the Board requesting permission to baild a garage once the present one was turned into living space. Rosell stated that he didn't foresee that and basically didn't use a garage. Patsy Newbury, Acting Building Official, stated that the variance was granted specifically for the structure to be a garage. Rosell had a copy of the resolution ~rom that variance granted in 1976. Lukes questioned if the variance was for house and garage and was told that the house was built prior to zoning. The va~iance was for a setback from Highway 82 to enable them to have a garage. Mason read the minutes from that meeting. Lukes felt that the lot size and the 200' setback restricted building on the lot. Mrs. Samuelson, an adjacent property owner, was there and gave a brief history of the house, stating that the garage was longer ttian. the house as the past owner was planning to use it as a foreign car repair garage. She stated this was not known at the time the variance was received. She stated that the neighbors would not e e ."ADP'ORD ~UBLISHINQ CO.t DENVf:R RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Board of Adjustment December 16, 1983 Page 2 object to Rosell bringing the two units together to make a nice home. Krausch requested more detail from Rosell. Rosell explained that the buildings were 2' apart and he would tie them together on either end to enclose the house. Krausch questionediif the addition would include a kitchen. Rosell was not sure, stating they were thinking of moving the old kitchen into the new section. Krausch was concerned that the property would be turned into rental housing. Rosell stated that the building plans would be obviously a single family residence. Rosell explained that he was before the Board because there was concern that the original language specifically stated garage. Krausch did not get that from the reading and didn't feel a variance was necessary at this time. Gull p0inted out the variance would be necessary for a building permit to be issued for the construction when connecting the two structures. Krausch stated that he was concerned because there was another item on the agenda that deals with the same subject matter and was uncomfortable about making a decision on this property. Gull pointed out in this case there LS no land that does not fall within the setbacks, and in the following case there is land that is not inside the setbacks, agreeing with Krausch about the precedent. Krausch wanted to make it clear to the spectators in the room that a decision to grant this variance was for specific reasons, such as the size of lot and ,the inability to build anywhere without encroaching on the setback. Lukes felt it could be pinned down to the fact that it is an existing structure but felt that irrelevant as long as he is within his allowable floor area ratio. He felt this issue was comparable to the Holland Hills Subdivision. Mason stated that each case was reviewed individually and precedent was not set by any particular case. Shaffran suggested that some conditions be set on the variance if granted. Gull and Lukes felt that would not be fair to the next owner. Shaffran stated that she was concerned that in the future another garage would be requested. Mason felt that would be the decision of the Board at ~hat particular time. Shaffran moved to grant the request due to downzoning. Gull second the motion. Lukes wanted to add to the motion that it was also due to the size and location of the lot. Krausch agreed with that amendment. Shaffran and Gull also agreed. Vote was called for. All in favor. ~azy Glen, Inc" Approximately '12 miles.west of Aspen on Highway 82 82-4: requesting that the applicant be allowed to place five mobile home pads and mobile homes within Highway 82, .200 foot setback. Larry Green, Attny. with Delaney & Balcomb, P.C., was there to represent Lazy Glen. He thanked the Board for calling this special meeting. He presented to the Board another map which shows the layout of the existing Lazy Glen Mobile Home Park. The Board also had a blow up of the expansion area. He explained that the expansion was so Mr. Terry Kirk, owner, could compensate for the large sums of money incurred in making the park safe for the existing residents. He described the work that was done, which included moving some of the mobile homes from the flood plain. This work was required by the Pitkin County Commissioners in 1979 when the park was re-zoned to SR. The request at this time is a variance to add seven mobile homes within this expansion area, five of which to the south will be within the 200' setback of Highway 82, They will be approximately 100' from the edge of the road. Kirk took some measurements and the 200' setback was shown on the map, showing several mobile homes (69 out of 90) that were already within the 200' setback. To date e e ."AD~O"D ~UIILlaHINa CO., DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Board of Adjustment December 16, 1982 Page 3 the expansion area had been used by the residents as a storage area for recreational vehicles, snow machines, junk cars, etc. This expansion will also be a chance to clean up this area by the owner. Mr. Green stated that he felt this change is greatly in the public interest because it will allow the owner to maintain low- income housing along with adding 7 more units. Also he pointed out that without the variance nothing could be done with the land. He stated that it would enhance the aesthetic of the area because they would be cleaning up the storage area, In addition he stated the Commissioners had imposed a requirement that this area be screened from Highway 82 with vegetation. Green then presented a petition to the Board signed by over 50% of the residents of the mobile home park showing their support of the plan. He also stated that the request has been approve upon general submission to the County Commissioners and he submitted the minutes of that meeting. Shaffran questioned why the trash couldn't be cleaned up whether the expansion was allowed or not. Green stated that it was not an either/or situation, but the expansion would inspire the owner and residents to clean up the park. Kirk stated the area was being cleaned at this time. Mason stated that at the last meeting when advised that Lazy Glen was requesting a special meeting, the Board reviewed the resolution and the members showed. strong feelings about encroaching into the 200' setback. Mason contacted two of the Commissioners and made them aware of how the Board felt about the 200' setback. Mason stated that he did not want the Board to be in a bind about approving the request and suggested to the Commissioners that the resolution not be signed until the Board had come to a decision. Mason felt that if the Board did not approve the variance the Commissioners would still have the ability to help the Lazy Glen, Inc., whereas if the resolution had been signed and the Board had denied the variance the resolution would be dead. Green did not know what could be done further if the Board did deny the request. Krausch recalled a situation where the Commissioners had encroached within the 200' setback without going through the Board when building the Tourist Information Center on Highway 82 and was of the opinion that the Commissioners could do something. Krausch was concerned with consistency with the Board if they approved this request after denying certain requests in the past. Green p6inted out that some of the residents questioned how this ca~ be turned down when the Snowmass Garage is building within the setback and the Pro Shop is being built within the setback. Mason stated that the City handled the Pro Shop and built where they wanted, even though the Board complained. Lukes pointed out a time saver would be not to run through all the building that has been done within the 200' setback, but he wanted to hear the hardships on this case. He pointed out that there are no precedents set when granting a variance and other issues will not reflect on this case. Mrs. Samuelson was there as an adjacent property owner and requested to see where the mobile homes will be placed. She stated that she had no qualms as to whether or not th~ mobile homes are placed there, however the survey does not show a road granted to her on a quick claim recorded in Book 246, Page 691. She was concerned that the locations of the mobile homes would be encroaching that particular road. Green stated that he learned about this earlier in the morning and had not had a chance to research. Samuelson had a copy of the deed and read such to the Board, Green stated that neither he nor the owners had any thought of taking away the right of access or the road from the Samuelsons. Samuelson requested that that be surveyed in so that if granted, the survey would stand as such. Green stated that the owner was more than willing to get the survey so everyone knows where the road is. e e .RAOP'ORD PU8LISHING CO.. DI!NVr:R RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Board of Adjustment December 16, 1982 Page 4 Gull questioned for clarification if the 200' setback was from the center of the highway or from the edge of the property. Newbury stated that it was from the property line. Gull felt that all seven of the mobile homes would be in the setback. Terry Kirk, owner, stated that with regards to the access in question, they had no intention of cutting off the access but had plans to make it a better road. With regards to the 200' setback and how many trailors would be encroaching, he stated that the Building Department had already granted two of the trailors to be moved from the other end due to the flood plain. Gull was not referring to those trailors but to the total seven new ones. Green stated that their information had been that the 200' was from the center line, but if it was from the property line then the argument for the variance is stronger because they are precluded from any use of the land. Gull pointed out that they are excluded from any expansive use as the property is being used already. Gull was concerned that the proper amount of mobile homes be requested for so the procedure will be complete. Newbury stated that those two homes were placed there under the direction of the Planning Department, which was a decision made under special review. Kirk explained to the Board the history of the trailor park and the improvements that have been done. He explained that these actions have been taken for the better of the residents and the better of the county. "He stated that these actions have incurred heavy capital expense for the park. He felt the only way the park could recoup these expenses was to either raise the rents or try to expand. He stated that if the variance request is rejected his only recourse would be to raise the rent an estimated $100 more a month for each trailor. Shaffran requested Kirk to address the required screening and how he planned to do this. Kirk stated that they would use whatever was necessary to satisfy the requirements of the Commissioners. Mason stated to Kirk that he appreciated his efforts to retain low-income housing in the County, but instructed the Board that variances could not be granted due to economic hardships. Commissioner Michael Kinsley was there to verify a statement by Kirk which was that the County has put heavy requirements on the on the trailor parks, this one,in parti~ular because of its location. He felt that Kirk had maintained and worked hard to keep a good trailer park. Mason explained to the public there that they were conscience of employee housing and had worked to put one in, explaining that in that particular case the park was developed prior to zoning downvalley. He explained that to grant a variance a hardship had to be available. He emphasized that if a hardship could not be found for the Board the Commissioners could make things happen to help the park. A resident from the park stood and stated that he had a hard time understanding where the Board's priorities were because he felt economic hardships was one of the most important hardships. He pointed out that there were mobile homes already within that setback and compared to the economic hardships he questioned what was wrong with a few more. Shaffran stated that the Board could only act within their charter, which excluded economic hardships, whereas the Commissioners do have broader powers. Kinsley felt that the Commissioners did not have another avenue to follow. Gull felt that denying the variance would not be denying a reasonable use of the property. Krausch stated that the County Attorney has come before the Board several times and explained their restrictions and the Board does not have a legal right to provide a variance for e e eRAOl'ORD rUIILlaHING co. I D!:NYIER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Board of Adjustment December 16, 1982 Page 5 financial hardships. Shaffran explained to the public what hardships that the Board had to work with. Green pointed out that the charter of the Board provides them with the hardship of extreme narrowness, shallowness or shape of a particular piece of property rendering it useless, which he felt applied to this case. Gull and Krausch felt that the property was usable and being used. Green pointed out that the deprivation of this land in a profitable manner creates a hardship for Kirk and the residents. Gull felt that reasoning such as that would eliminate any zoning in the valley. Gull felt that the use of 93 trailers on that property was a reasonable use. Green wanted to pinpoint the issue to the section of land where the expansion was to take place. Gull felt that segregating the land into sections was not appropriate. Kirk pointed out to the Board that the pieces of land, was zoned differently. One is zoned MH and the piece in question is zoned SR. Doug Lukes, resident of the park, felt that since this was a chance for seven more low-income housing availabilities that would not cost the people of the county anything, the Board should let common sense rule and allow the variance. He pointed out that there was no one there' to oppose the request. Mason stated that he felt that it was not in the jurisdiction of the Board to act upon this issue since there was not a hardship they could work with. Krausch felt that the Commissioners could help the park if the Board turned down the variance. Kirk stated that he didn't want to get involved with the political games, but according to the County Attorney a variance is necessary or the expansion cannot be done. He also pointed out that in the Daily News it was written that the Board was going to deny the request prior to the meeting and after discussing the matter with Commissioner Bob Childs, he found that if he was denied he could apply only after a year. Mason stated that the resolution was not signed and would not be dead. He stated that when the resolution goes back before the Commissioners he would represent the Board and express their feelings on the issue. Mason also stated that the Daily News would hear from him because the Board had not voted on this issue at any time prior to the meeting. Kirk pointed out to Mason that the first motion made by Kinsley was to drop the 200' setback-and the County Attorney stated at that time that made no difference, the variance was still required. Green read from the charter the hardships the Board must follow and felt that the property had peculiar and exceptional hardships. Gull did not feel with 93 trailers that the owner was being denied reasonable use of the property. After an outburst from one of the residents present Gull moved to deny the request based on the fact that there are no grounds under their charter to grant the request. Ralph Mason, another resident felt that maybe downzoning could be a justifiable reason since the trailer park was there prior to zoning. Shaffran questioned if the present owner bought the park after the zoning. She was told that he did not. Newbury pointed out that that particular parcel has been rezoned to PMH. Green corrected her by saying that it was in the process of being rezoned. Newbury questioned if the owner would be able to meet the criteria for density. Green stated that they would under the mobile home code as PMH in the new section only. Lukes questioned if this parcel of property is an identifiable e e .RADFORD I"UBLlBHING CO.. DI!NVI!R RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Board of Adjustment December 16, 1982 Page 6 piece of property and what the current zoning was. Green stated that currently it is zoned SR. Kirk stated that the entire park was zoned SR but there are only 93 allowable trailors in that SR zoning so even though zoned SR its not zoned SR because they cannot put any more trailers in that area. There was plans to rezone the area. Green stated that the rezoning was part of the total application before the Commissioners. Lukes questioned about the money invested into the park improvements. Kirk gave him a bread- down on the amount spent. Lukes stated what he felt was that the Board had reviewed cases where the applicant obviously could not afford to tear down something that is already built and move it and the Board has faced this type of problem before and one of the aspects of this case was the fact that the residents have come before the Board with the chance of a rent raise and he pointed out to the applicant that he felt that didn't sit very well because it was close to a blackmail of the Board. Krausch stated that he agreed with Lukes and didn't buy the story about Kirk having to raise the rent to such a degree if he couldn't sell the additional trailers. Krausch felt that that was a bad argument for Kirk to choose to convince the Board to grant this variance. Shaffran suggested that the downzoning aspect be discussed. Lukes questioned several aspects of the site map, He felt that it could be possible for the park to come in at a later date for more trailers. at the east and west end of the property. Kirk stated that wouldn't be possible because of the allowable amount in the mobile home park code along with a sewage lagoon. Krausch asked if the owner was not going to put in any more lots if the seven lots are given a variance tonight. Kirk stated there was no possible room to put in any further. Gull stated that the argument of "it's not possible to put in any more. .." is the same as the fact that the zoning at this time does not allow any more and he did not see the distinction. Another resident stated that Kirk was requesting the variance for the betterment of the residents, not to threaten them with a raise of rent but it was something that must be done to carryon. He stated that he appreciated Lazy Glen and felt the seven extra trailers would be an opportunity for seven additional families to have a home. Another resident felt the Board was not fair in making Kirk look like a landbaron. He stated that the rent has not been raised in three years and was defending Kirk and his brother: :as a friend. He also apologized for the other resident that spoke out of turn before. He explained that he had put his labor into the upgrading of the park along with the Kirk brothers and they did much more work than the amount that Kirk is trying to recoup. Lukes requested that th~y discuss the downzoning aspect again. He stated that when downzoned it created additional limitations on the property and had a hard time seeing the limitations as being unreasonable as there are a good deal of trailers there already. He did not feel that the land has been left unusable due to the downzoning. However, he did trust the decisions of the Commissioners to make this park a better place to live. Krausch stated that he was at the point where he felt that he could support the variance by reaching and granting the variance due to downzoning to help provide housing for people who need the housing. The Board was assured that the new trailers would be considerably further from the road- way than some of the existing trailers. Samuelson spoke again and was still unsatisfied until she knew where exactly the new trailers would be. Krausch suggested that when the motion was made, it would be included in the wording that it would not conflict with the existing right-of-way, or whatever was necessary. Green stated that such an action would not move the trailers closer to the road. Newbury suggested that there might be two different lots to be dealt with at this time. because it isn't just a right-of-way but a deed of land. Gull stated that he had a problem using downzoning as a e e ."AOP'OAD ~UDLISHING CO.. DI!NVI!R RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Board of Adjustment December 16, 1982 Page 7 reason because everything in the county has been downzoned and even though this project has been downzoned he didn't feel it had been denied reasonable use. Shaffran stated that if there is a way to help the people out, and this is a definite need, they should work for it. Krausch stated he was torn also, but what pushed him to support this case is that there is a desparate need Qn the part of the people and it does cooperate with the objectives of the county. Newbury pointed out that the lot would be rezoned, but to carryon the park needed this variance. Newbury went over the zoning history of the park. Mason spoke to the Board members and stated that the only thing he had heard to allow the variance would be because of downzoning. Shaffran felt that this situation was similar to another where they were pushed into a decision by another Board, a decision they were not comfortable with. Gull withdrew his previous motion to deny the request. Lukes felt there were a lot of considerations as to why this should not be approved, but keeping in mind th~t the development will probably happen anyway it helps to make up his mind. He moved that the Board approve a 140' variance from the Highway 82 setback, due to downzoning with consideration to' the fact that the owner has owned the property prior to any zoning whatsoever. In addition the lot has qualities of narrowness that aggravate the problem. As a condition on the motion, Lukes included that there be some satisfactory resolution to the quick claim deed or any other legal problems that don't increase the amount of variance required. He also included in the motion that it is absolutely the intention of the Board at this time that no further development occur on the related properties of Lazy Glen Mobile Home Park. Shaffran second the motion with great reservation stating that it is very important to the Board to preserve the 200' setback but in certain cases in which the Board have to be human about it. Lukes was concerned with being put in a situation where the Board had to vote for a variance on the 200' setback. A vote was called for. Four was in favor and Gull was against. Motion approved. John & Caroline Moore, 12 Salvation Circle 82-42 requesting a 15.93' front yard setback variance and a 7' sideyard' setback variance on the west side for construction of an addition and garage. John Moore was there to re~resent himself. Mason stated that he is an adjacent property owner and withdrew himself from the voting. Mason asked if the homeowner association had approved this addition. Mason stated that Tim Greggs, a member of the association, had talked with him and had met with Marty Kahn, the president of the association, and told Mason that the Board had approved expansion of the house. Moore explained that the house was built in 1972 and' they bought the house in 1974. At this time the house is within the 30' setback from the road. He explained that the addition would encroach about a foot more into the front and the deck would go even further into the 15' sideyard setback. This addition is necessary because the kitchen is too small. Krausch questioned why that particular direction was chosen. Moore explained that was the only direction where the kitchen already was. Krausch questioned why they couldn't expand toward the south. Moore answered that the front of the house is land that falls off rapidily. Moore stated that he wanted to build a garage as he does not have one, but understands that he has a problem with the homeowners association because it is a separate structure and will need special permission from them. The association does not allow separate structures. Mason stated that Greggs did not mention a garage, Lukes felt that what the Moores planned was consistcnt with the lines of the house and not an unreasonable request. There were no objections from the adjacent property owners. Gull qucstioned e e -4 " ~ .ItAOF'ORO PUBLISHING CO. I DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Board of Adjustment December 16, 1982 Page 8 the height .of the proposed deck. Moore explained the structure and where the steps would be. Moore explained the type of slope the house was built on. Krausch stated that he had no problem with the request. Mason stated that as far as the topography of the land there is a definite hardship. Krausch motioned that the variance be granted for topographical reasons with the understanding that final approval be received from the homeowners association for the garage. The dimensions were defined as 8' sideyaFd setback variance and a 16' front yard setback variance. Gull second the motion. Vote was called for. All in favor. Meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, ~ K'I Ae.LA e (' A..m.a /t ) SecretarYQl liL/ .~J/a~ , Chairman ' . - Scanned 7/26/07 File Finders Box #10