Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.83.24• Paul Krausch moved that the following be adopted: BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTA4ENT OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO . 8 3 - 2 4 William Mohrman, 576 Twining Flats Road 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 adjoining property owners, has been shown by the applicant. 2. The 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 for a Additional conditions or restrictions: WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. Bil 1 Lukes seconded the adoption of the foregoing Resolution. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: Bill Mason - yes Bob Throm - yes Paul Krausch - yes Kandi Shaffran - yes Bill Lukes - yes The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of_ Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED• August 22, 1983 The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado Attest : /`~ c~ ` ( ~L~~-- (~ n Chairman Secretly " " "" ~ARD OF ADJUSTMENT ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ 19 ~ CASE# ~3 -a~-l .DATE +r^~' E; ^~ LL r .laY-r°f 1'~/1~~GrVl~~an ADDRESS/• C~ APPLICANT ~' I ~/l OWNER ~j/1/~ ~_ ADDRESS LOCATION O PROPERTY ~~~ ~1~~i~ ~~ U ~'~s ~~~ Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part of 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 ~~ter dv~P aeeAmpanyin~ s~e~ Applicant Si Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Building Inspector to forward this application to the Board of Adjustm/ent and reason for no~ granting a buiding permit: u~/ ~~ / Y ~.~G~~~sc-~~Gt~-Q, .~'~-c L 6 ~- ~/~ . ~"~ ~ ~ Building Inspector ~! _ ~ ~ Date Permit rejected: Board decision Application filed Date - Mailed Secretary Board of Adjustment 1 \~ •%V • Bill and Janet Mohrman Box - 3(a2~ As pen, Colorado 81612 Pitkin County Board of Adjustment: We are applying for a 40 foot variance from the required 1C(~ foot sFtback on our property at 567 Twining Flats Road. It is ap proximately 1~0 feet from the property liAe to the beginning of a very steep slope. In o rd er to make maximum use of the sunlight, the house must be closer to the road or it will be shaded too much. This is important since we (Ilan to incorporate a greenhouse into the deck on the south side of the house whiwh will heat a rock and water storage reservoir, so we need the greatest possible solar gaia. Thankyou, Billand Janet Mohrm C f ` ~ ~i~~~I~~ ~ ~ I • ~ ~ i 1 ~ .. \.~ ,.r - i ~ • \ • N G' i °°~ o~~ ~~ d~~ ~% 6 y3 -~ ~~,Z - ~c - ac~% 8 D U,,3 pOC v c~ -~ ~ o ~' ~r~ ,zrz- aC'-©t' C(~in,. lr, ~- Jn~td /I~c~~v~rn~rL gym. ~P .S/~j~1~~-~ ~~L• Q~~rse ~"c-S ~vl ~~ CJ ~ c f~- IY.- l/c`.Q ~',~,~~ S ~- Fey/s ~~~~ ~' hr.~,~ ~ f ~~ F C ~~n f7 Vin. ~l6/Z ~~~ 5 3 r s,~~-w ~ s 3 ~~. _ ~y/65 ~ ~ r~iz ~~~ 4~Z ~ 5 } s~,~-~Z ~~~g~6r,~ ~~~ y~~ ~5~~,; ~r~,~,z 3 ~ I .S~i~~' c R~? ~i ~r~w ~, ~ ~~ C~. DGff3 C' C::.: ~ . "~ .: '~ n • ~~ ~;T~s ~~ ,~~~ ~ ~/~~ ~ ~~ G f ~ - .~ Z 3' - c X ~G.' ~' 9 .~-- 3 ~t ' S ~. f0~; G P~vp~s ~ ~ T M ~a Hey>5~ ~ ~ w . ~ t `~ `~ ~` 1' ___ ~-.___.- w ~'r~ S ~c L, ~,, ~_ . ``~ s ~ ~~ ~7 .. ,..~ .~ !` " A tract o1' land bein~rt of Lot 9~ Section 1~•, `.I'own~ 9 South, Iiunr~r_ `'~ ~ 85 West oP the 6th P. M. ~ i'itkin County, Colur:~clu, :;ui~i tract being rnorc fully described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Northeasterly ~•ir'}, t, oi' way line of Colorado Highway No. 82 from whence the Notthw~~ct ~:oi•ner of said Section lE~ bears N. 60°54'15" W. 1532.73 feet; thence urotuul u curve to the riE;trt wii;h a radiur. oP 1482.3 feet a distance of ~~_s1.54 feet (the r.hord oi' which curve hears ;. 23°1+1' 30" E. 231.31 feet along the Northeasterly right ~,i' way line of Colorado highway Pdo. v2; thence N. 47°00' E. 421.55 feet; thence arouiicl r~ ~..ia7•v~: to the left with u radius of 821.6 feet a distance of ~'~3.13 feet; thenc~• ;,. !+'~°00' W, 401.;G feet to the point of beginning. .-~ ~...,~ _. • o ~ 1 .-. ~ r r y a F r ~' ~ CHI =~ o 1 ~~ f a o ~ _ ~7 %i~ a • . y ~ _ i • v ~_ .~! • - _ 1 ~~ f~ 3 I ~ 1 CT~ I ~ I , ~ I I •-~ • e '„"'~-~ - f4 ~ N . a a `. - _ . u ,~ v~ 7AX O:STAICT JT 1 ~F ,,,a,jr T T~---~'T ~T ~f --T T ; T-~T--T--TT-T T T T'---ITT- T .e r. n,~w ae wawn,~ea ooe I TAX Di5 RICT 1 CF I 1 ( ~ i ~ - ~ ee. k _ ~ I 8: 1 - Ya _~ , - ~ /ol k - I 1 1 b ~~" ~ C 1 N~ I ~"~J ~ ~ ~~~ 1 ~O I ~~ 1 .. /I" s 4 _ ~;{, ~ i ~` q j add ' \ 1 I o lam,. ( o I ~ -- .. i $_~M ~ - -- .,~ ~ ®° 1 1 - - - ~~ ~'- I I t ',e ~ 3 s - - 6 ~_... oee-er ___. .. ../ ~ O~ I .O ~ se ~ ~ r S y ; r ~.- ~Tt ' ~ s i gb. ~J~ f,.° ltli~ o i ` •e~ ~ +'~t j o~ , `: y, ~ ~ 3p SP 8 I to 1 N W Q~ ~{ ~ '~~ E ~ ~ ~ R ~ ~ '3 ~ To• 9 /~ /~~ ~~ ~~ ~' ~~ j .T o Ra . /~~ F°t. .a zo J ' e - ao o q~~ _ u s~ ` o + ' ,+/~ . b .~ .- .. G' '~ •\ ~ yap I r' ~~ c+i+i, o o ~~ ` u . i ,, :' .'. 1 ego- ~ +o U I ~ ~ ~ a ` ~ ~ _ Iaa.00 Ia0A7 IaS.~e ~- \•• ~ t :9D.Y. { ~ .... . ra ~4Al.lf SS]30 ~ 2a9.2e eal ~ _ _ Nj w.a ! ,so.oo g ~ r ~ es~aa I ~. ~ ~,jd iST N ei ; A~ k ~o I -~ '~"J- p, ~y I ~ wz r +' ~ ~. ~ ~ 1 ~ Y'"Q 1 _ ,® ~~ ~. e P+ P • aO ~ ~4 i ~ ~ ~ °~ I _ I . ~' 1 m c r~+- tti I 1 5 m ~~ 1 ~• . ; Oy ~ r O ~ D 1 ,• 1 • 1 ~ J 1 1,>;N ~~ E __~~ _ 8 . ----____~ _________; _.._____~_ ~________ - 1 I ~ ~ ;~ ~ ~ ~ ;~ i ~ ~ _ - i 6 ~ _ a 1 - j ~ ~, fi 1 j ~ 1 1 / ~ If l I I I 1 ~ tir ~ I mo ~, \' ma 1 I a ~ <. ~ I 1 ! IRm ~~ _: ~ ~ I J ~ I ` "~ 1 I 1 I I 1 1 / t 1 ~ 1 1 1 ' I I i I 1 1 1 ' 1 ; I A+3so 1 \ 1 i t \ J nu.r w+mon - _ ~.• ~N~ y • M11 ~- ` A . ... _. ._~ I f '_i '2 L>fGf'J~ ~t:• I'T 1^rart~CClUrf~rY t10,1I~J~ 1-~i, ;nr),; try, ;•;r:rrc. ~.:, hr.i~ ;.•1::~'•+f;;t'.'Y C'v:Ir::t:.`~ i11't'R~T1:U fl}.' '!'iIl'•: l'tt:~lUr.~1'I:I) ZOtditiC viZ U mss: ~til!t_Gi;iir'I~ t)1:.;Cl:J:ilr~D LtGLCi;, . 1~u1:su~,rC to f•i.ta:i.r, :'ounty Itesdlutiarl of .Tune ~:ti.7.1 h: heZc .in the <<oirnty C~mmi.::ianc:r, Ro~~m, Pit t'-.~- at'. ~ rich o2;lcr g].uca as Lhe mr±r^t171Q may then be ;.: ~ t-~c;. ;.+i.t.l~ t!.~ r,oi.d t;o~rJ cE Aci ju<:tment reuucsting 1,.~..v.~si~,r,c; c~ the Caurlty Zoning lr;,;olution. 5, 1c~55, ar... aroer.dcd, a t'ttLli.c flCa;•in~ kin County C:o~.)l:t f!ouac, P~.sper., rc~lo~,')cic~ adjourn~.;di to cUn,;ic3cr an ahhl.icuti.:~n aut.l.crr.ity ft: r. varictl;Cn front tl)c All hcrscns affected by the proposed variance a>:e invited to appe~~r and state their :•iews, t~rotcst.s or o!;jections. If you car)not ar~pear Pc:rson~111y at such me~:tinq, then you t:..~r. ur,ed to state your views kry letter, particularly if you have oi.~jr.ction to such L'c~rl<'i:1CC, ~.S t:~iE: °OJrd O~ Adjust,ment W111 give SCr10u3 COn.`;i.dt?r1t:!OIl t0 the GL>lnlOnS hi .,urrounc'. ~.I:a t~r~pcrty o~-rlers and other ~.ffected ir. deciding whe*~hcr to gram or. .deny the ~~uc?:.+est for v,~riancc. "rr: l~iti%%T7CfII..`,:•S OF THE 7~FA;2TPdf: Ar`?l n,, ~rur *~rnncC+~::^ :':::'.I':`."O :' R°~ ,^, ^~•••~ •. .~. .. .. u .. VLL+yi%... . Date and tiae c,f meeti:ng: Auailst 2'2. .1983 at 5:15 21ame and Ad3ress.~:f'Applicant'for.Var:iance: , William Mohrmar>•, P.O. Box 3624, Aspen, Co ~ •. TACation cf :property or bescriptiari.:" ' 5~7 Twining Flats Road V,:ri.ance Requested: Y o' clcc'r.~m a 40' frontyard setback variance for construction of a residence Iluration of Variance: Permanent XXX Temporzry Condition: ,~ ~~~ ~~~ .~ ~ ~ . ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ i~ . ~~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s~. ~. .~ TFIE PITKIN CUUNTY BOARD Or ADJUSThtiNT Bill 1;[ason , Cha;..rrl:.i;-i ~ ~~ ~~ ,~ Qom' ~ ~~ ~~', ~~ .. . . ~. ... -~ ~. .. i. ~~ • • i O O ~ ~ O ~ j (D (/~ 00 W n ~ O O tvOo ~~~ ~ v ~ ~ ~~ 1~^~1 • _ wO~ o~ ~ /~ V1 ~, i~ o • D n 3 ~Z ~c d~ ,,~ D ~~,N I~ N ~;N ~U~Ya N 8 ~ ~ l~ ~~ ~,~ g =p N ~ ~~ S ~~ ~,..,~,,.,y ..._, _ .. ,, J ~) fJl T~ c- !j. t~+!! ~;II ~~ i ~ .... ___ - ... _ ~..-o' .... _- -- -. - _---__.._.. ~ - _._.. t ~'' n ~ ~ I~ T j i it ~ ~ ~ ~fl ~ ~ t7 s .1 -~ ~, ` N ~' ~~ ~ t ., ......, a- Q ~ ~ 8 ° T ~ 08 ~:-- _~ ----- _~-------- - -_-= _ ~i ' 1 `~ . ~: ,\ i '' `. ;~~ ~_ '~ r i ~ lip 1 i ~ ~ ~ tt 1,, ~ ~ /J~ i~ ~= 7 ~ • // / / .' / f ` ! ~ ,i ~... ~., .. I .~,. .r' ~, ^ ~,~ ~~ ~~;~a%/ ~; ~ ~rb ' a ~=% -~ - .. ~~ ~_. ,- ~~ , . ` ~= .. • ,, i f • 19- o ~ i '~ i ~~ r ~ a ~ ~ s a. ~ ~, ~. r P 0 O ~e . w ra ry * /~ .'L 1~,/^ ,~ w • Members Present: SPECIAL ,MEETING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT August 22, 1983 Alternates: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS _.- .._. . Bill Mason, Chairman Paul Krausch Bill Lukes Bob Throm Kandi Shaffran 1.00 Leaves Mason called the special meeting to order. He questioned if there were any comments about the minutes from the last meeting. Lukes stated that in the motion for The Frome variance, the work "variance" is mentioned twice.He suggested that one "variance" be deleted. Throm motioned to approve the minutes. Krausch second the motion. Vote was called for and all were in favor. Mason informed the Board that Phil Wier had applied for position as a member of the Board. Mason suggested that some type of action should be taken at the next meeting regarding filling the two positions that are open. Krausch questioned Patsy Newbury, representing the Building Department, about the Ruthie's Restaurant, presently under construct,ior. on Aspen Mountain. He questioned if they went through a review. Newbury. stated that they went through a special review. Stirling Cooper to contest the Building Permit issued to Bonnie Cockrell, at the entrance of .Difficult Campground. Mason briefly reminded the Board about the case that was just before. them for a variance to construct the Cockrell residence. Mr. Stirling Cooper was there to speak with the Board. Cooper gave the history of the property, explaining that he was born here and very familiour with the property. He explained that hisfather, Theodore Cooper, was one of the trustees of the property, called Aspen Park, and also secretary of the association. He explained how the property was sub- divided by his father and associates, and how they donated ground around the river to protect the river. He was referring the Board members to a handout of 10 pages given to the members at the beginning of the meeting. During his rendition, he emphasized the word "betrayed" stating that the Forest Service had betrayed them the most. His mother sold 58 acres to A.R. Smith to construct a Boy's Camp. According to Cooper, A.R. Smith then, during a discussion with one of the members of the association, claimed .some land that the members had stated they might sell some additional land to him. There had been no deed involved, according to Cooper. On page 6 of the handout, it explains how the property eventually got into the hands of Ms. Cockrell. Cooper claims that there was no deed, but only a letter from Mr. F.D. Willoughby, which Cooper felt was no substitute for a deed. He explained that there were a total of 5 trustees tYlat should have been involved in the sell. ., • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ~h ~ C ~~~~(CYFL f~ i3. ~ 1. t..). _---~ 2 Board of Adjustment August 22, T,983 Cooper pointed out the question asked on page 9 and felt that the main reason he was there. This stated that in a court case (No. 81CV129) on May 20, 1983, Judge T.W. Ossola: "The court concludes.. that it (the deed to A.R. Smith) is not ambiguous, that it is not subject to various interpretations. As both plaintiff and defendent Lewis derive their titles from A.R. Smith, the Court concludes that. neither party has established legal title to the property and that legal title remained vested in the grantors to A.R. Smith:' Cooper felt that he and the other heirs of the original owmers have titled to Bonnie Cockrell's ite. Cooper pointed out to the Board that the property seemed to be measured from the middle of the Difficult Campground road for the variance. He claimed that the middle of the road was never included in that parcel. He complained that the Forest Service has allowed Cockrell to build the house blocking his access to his favorite skating pond. Cooper felt that the Board should not have given a variance to Cockrell because the septic system would dump into the ponds which would dump into the Roaring Fork River. Mason stated that the septic system was not an issue handled by the Board. Cooper also ppihted out that from the footer to the edge of the pavement of the .road, according. to his measurements, is less than 29 feet. He questioned if the Board had understood that they were allowing a.house to be built that close to the highway. Mason stated that all considerations were taken when reviewing the variance request by Cockrell. Cooper recalled another incident when he was requesting a variance on property across the highway and felt that the Board was inconsistent. Cooper questioned the Board if they were convinced that he owned one- sixth of the property in question. Mason stated that the Board would probably not have issued a variance if there was a question of the title during the meeting. Throm questioned if the Board was the body to solve the problem and felt that it was a title action. Wes Light, County Attorney, stated that the issue before the Board was whether Patsy Newbury was correct in issuing the Building Permit. Light stated that the permit can be issued if either attorney gives a title opinion or if the department receives a current committment of title insurance. The Building Department did receive a copy of a current committment of title insurance disclosing the ownership was in Ms. Cockrell's name, and that does meet the full requirement of the code. Light stated that unless there was some basis for the title company to withdraw the committment for title insurance, the county will continue to honor that committment. Light stated that if Cooper feels that the committment is improper, then the claim is not through the Board of Adjustment, but against the owner of the property directly. Light questioned Ashley Anderson, representative of the owner, and Bill Tom, owner of the.Aspen Title, if they were standing behind the .policy. Bill Tom answered that they were. Light stated that under current regulations, it was not the Board or the County's position to judge. Light also stated that if the County Health Department gave a permit for the septic that was all that was necessary for the Building Department to issue a permit, and if it wasn't a proper septic permit, then Cooper would need to go through a state agency for investigation. s 4M ~ ~ ~i ~:GCKE~ fl. 13. Y 1. CJ. Page 3 • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Board of Adjustment August 22, 1983 Krausch questioned which access road had been represented during the meeting requesting the variance. Newbury stated that the Difficult Campground had been represented .and she had no proof that the Highway Department owned that road. Cooper filed an objection with the Board that he was never notified as an adjacent property owner. Lukes questioned if the variance was a dead issue. Light informed the Board that once the variance is granted the only step that can. be taken by someone that disagrees with the variance is to appeal the decision to a court of law. It was determined that the name of owner for Mr. Cooper's property is Michael Fit2gerald {5$ owner) and that gentleman was notified.'. Krausch questioned again abqut the setback of the structure from Highway~8.2.. Newbury pointed out the turnoff for Difficult Campground Road and,wheze the structure was placed from that point.. She stated that due ~to the zoning, the setback was 100' and a 71' frontyard setback was granted., Bill Tom stated to the Board that an extensive seareh.was done on th,e property due to another reason, and; the government agreed with: Tom's finding. Cooper disagreed, feeling that the government never owned the property. Lukes questioned what should be done if they acted on improper information. Light stated that if the B©ard had definite proof that that was the case, then action could be taken. Krausch felt that a just decision was made at the time of variance request using the information given to the Board, but now there seems to be several questions creating doubt. He questioned what the role of the Board would be if there were now doubt in the validity of the information given at that time. Light answered that at this time the Board needed to decide if Patsy Newbury was right in relying on the title insurance and issuing the building permit. With regards to the variance granted for.Cockrell, if they felt the information was improper, then they could ask Light to invesitgate and he could put a conjuction on construction if he found an "intent to mislead". Cooper felt the Board had granted a variance without sufficient evidence. He stated that he was going to have the Highway Department come up and post where the right-of-way is and he will watch the septic system carefully.. He stated that he was going to document a11. the mistakes caused by the Board of Adjustment issuing the variance for Cockrell on bad information. Mason replied by stating that the Board acted on information received in good faith and: then requested a motion from the Board regarding the issue. Cooper wanted it on record that he 'felt that the Board had set a bad precedent. Krausch moved that the Board uphold the action of the Building Department due to the evidence presented to the Building Department. Throm second the motion. Vote was called for, and all were in favor. William Mohrman, 567 Twining'Flats Road 83-24 requesting a 40' frontyard setback variance for construction of. residence. Bill Mohrman was there to represent se~.f. Mohrman informed the Board that the adjacent property owners were notified. He stated that the variance was needed because if the structure was set within the 100' setback it would be too close to the hill in the back,, creating too much shade in the winter months and that would deter their solar gain. Mason was familiar with the property they wanted to build on and felt it was a, limited buildable lot. There were, no objections from the adjacent property owners. Krausch moved to approve the variance request based upon the topgraphy of the lot. Lukes second the motion. Vote was called for and all were in favor. • ~' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ~qM •r C. G ~~O ECK EL 8. B. 9 L. CO. 100 Leaves Page 4 Board of Adjustment August 22, 1983 Red Mountain Homeowners Association 83-21 requesting a height variance to place a gate and sign across road as entrance to subdivision. George Bryan was there to represent the Association. Jane Mayer was there to express an opinion but had to leave. Bryan explained that he did take the plans up to her house and answered he.r questions and she was satisfied. Bryan,. stated that another gentheman had recommended a speed bump to slow people down along Reds Road. Luker questioned if it .was a private road or a county road: Newbury stated that it was a, private road with public access. Newbury,eauti.oned that the sign had to be high enough to allow access of emergency of emergency vehicles ;and trash vehicles, moving vans and etc. Bryan stated that:his, research ~~ound that the height should be .at least 16'. He personally would prefer to see the height at 20'. Mason questioned about the gate. Bryan stated that. the ga,t.e would be.le.ft open, wanting it mainly to point out that it is private property. Bryan explained that owners were finding campers in. their frontyards. Mason questioned Newbury if the sign conformed to the sign code. Newbury stated that depended on the type of sign it was to be considered. Bryan stated ,that the main sign would read Red Mountain Ranch and at the bottom there would be. No Parking signs and Private and Street Identification signs. Newbury agreed those signs would be identification signs and would have to be 6'. Lukes did not feel they should be giving a variance for the request because the intent of the code is to limit the height of structures and signs. The Board members could not determine a hardship for granting the variance request. Bryan gave a description of the banks on each side of the road. He felt that the hardship was the inconvenience of the homeowners in the area. Krausch was sympathetic, but felt it should be solved within the rules of the county. Robin Ferguson, secretary of the Homeowners Association, explained to the Board that signs have been tried and nothing has been helpful. Krausch questioned if the Association had gone to the Sheriff's office for enforcement along the roads in the subdivision.. Robin stated that they will not tow on private roads. Mason advised Bryan what signs and structures would be allowed, but advised against having a main sign with little signs hanging underneath.. Sh.affran moved to deny the request based on the: fact; that there was not a hardship: Lukes second the motion. Vote was called for and all were in fav~ir: Irving & Estelle Tasman, Lot ll.& 12, Block 1; Kistler.S/D 83-20 requesting a 10' sideyard setback for construc.tion.of an accessory building. Irving Tasman was there to represent self. This is, the second application with the Board of Adjustment, since he was tabled at the last meeting. Tasman Stated; that h~.was requesting the variance for a garage since they did own several cars. He explained that this needed to go on the south side of:his.property for; egress reasons, and was leaving 10' between the proposed structure and .the: main residence so emergency vehicles can go around the house. Krausch confirmed that the structure would be on the property line. The Board members tried to replace the structure to keep if from being right on the property line. Bill Brown was there as a neighbor to object to the structure because it would block his view from a ., RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100. Leaves >R. •~ C. F. ~~OFCK EL e. B. fl L. CO. Page 5 Board of Adjustment August 22, 1983 hot tub he plans to install He thought a solution had been worked out between he and Mr. Tasman, but then received the notice that Tasman was still needing a variance. Lukes stated that he understood the need, but wanted to reiterate that the goals of the zoning laws was to restrict density and location of construction on sites. He did not see any reason to allow a structure to be built on the property line. Tasman stated that the lot was small. Shirley Thompson was there as a,residence of Redstone. She felt that .the lot was being crowded and she presented some .photos tp the Board"of the lot and the construction going on. She objected to any further building on the. .lot. She also'stated to...the Board that a letter had been signed by Mr. Tasman regarding.landscapi.ng trees and if that was done there would be no access to the proposed structure.. Tasman stated that the trees would be arriving within the next week. The Board members continued to try;to locate the structure away from the lot line.. Lukew questioned about th.e riparian setb"ack that.wa,s also requested by the applicant. Newbury explained that would be necessary if there were swamp along the river, but in this case, the bank area is dry and nothing is growing there. Tasman qu.estioried Newbury as to how far he must be from his main structure. Newbury answered that he could build within the 10' necessary ,setback. if he used a 1-hour firewall. Shaffra;n moved to deny the variance request due to the fact that the Board is against placing a structure on the lot fine. Krausch second the motion. Vote was called for and all were in favor. Kevin Cassidy, 28007 State Highway 82 83-23 reque-sting a 22' sideyard setback for proposed addition to house. Rod Bartlet was thereto represent owner. He explained the con- figeration of the property, pointing out the unusual shape. He explained that Cassidy owned 'lots 0,1 and 2. When he attempted to attain title insurance he found that he was right on the property line. Cassidy then made a deal to trade land with the property owner of lots 3 & 4 in order to give him room for his title insurance. The owner would like this addition for a formal dining room and a breakfast nook. At this time the kitchen-dining .area is approximately 6' square. Shaffran.questioned what the hardship was., Bartlet answered that .the extra room was necessary for, the family.. The original setback was 20', which was changed in .1974... The present owners have had the house for 13 years. Newbury stated. that the present house was built prior to all zoning. Bartlett presented some photos of the house t.o the Board members. Bartlett stated that the house was approximately 1500 square feet. Krausch moved to grant the v'ariari.ce request due to downzoning. Throm second the motion. A vote was called for and all were iri favor. Snowmass Cottages, John, Ham, 9461 Highway 82, Snowmass. 83-22 requesting a renewal of tli:eir sign permit. No one was there .to represent the applicant. Mason pointed out that Ham is one of the first to comply with 'the code and to come back for a sign Yenewal. Mason met with Ham prior to the meeting and visited the site. He also met with the County Attorney. He was informed that all the ~. ~ .. ~9M `.0 _. i1~ECKEL d. 0. fi L. CO. RECORD Of P~iOCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Page 6 Board of Adjusment August 22, 1983 Board could act on wa three things: l.) Whether there i.s a ne~d~ for the variance.; 2) All conditions.when.the variance was gzan'ted have been complied with; and 3) Has not Changed.any,of~the conditions. Krausch was troubled by two items. ~He feLt he vsas mislead about the colors of the sign and.the lighting. ,Also, he felt, with the representations made about safety, that they must have know about the turning lane that was just put in. Throm stated that the representing attorney and the owner should be questioned about . that issue. Newbury pointed out to the Board that the berm was represented as being behind the sign, but the sign was placed on top of the berm. Throm moved to table the issue until such time that Mr. Ham could be there to discuss the matter with the Board. Lukes second the motion. Vote was called for and all were in favor. Meeting adjourned. Respectfully submitted, (`~ v ~ c~a~,a / ~~ C.~ m C).rr._ _ %~ L~~iC~ %' ~ / Qi~'C,.r ^. CS. Chairman Scanned 8/7/07 File Finders Box #10 LARGE PLAT(S) AVAILABLE TO VIEW AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AVAILABLE TO BUY AT CLERK & RECORDER