Pitkin County board approves variances to legalize unpermitted deck, allow one‑story addition on Juniper Hill Drive property

The Pitkin County Board of Adjustment on June 3 approved variances to legalize an existing unpermitted rear deck and to allow a one-story, rear addition to a single-family home at 2365 Juniper Hill Drive.

Patrick Raleigh, a planner with Raleigh Design Planning representing applicants Allen and Barbara Reif, told the board the requests respond to “existing conditions” on a 2.8-acre AR-10 parcel where the house — built in 1979 — already sits inside the rear-yard setback and the deck was constructed by a prior owner without permits. The application seeks a 30-foot rear-yard variance for the deck (30 feet is the usual requirement) and a 17-foot rear-yard variance for the proposed addition (where 30 feet is required). Raleigh said the administrative site-plan approval for the addition anticipated roughly 2,100 square feet of new construction that would bring the total house to about 5,750 square feet.

The board heard that the lot is steeply sloped below the residence, is inside a “severe wildfire hazard area,” and that planning staff and a wildfire expert have advised mitigation measures. Raleigh said neighbors closest to the improvements had been contacted and that the most-impacted neighbor provided written consent; no written objections were on file.

Joanna, a planning staff member, read the board’s recommendation that, while staff does not support development constructed without permits, if the board approves the deck variance it should be conditioned so the variance “not be used for future development other than replacement or repair of the existing deck.” Joanna also noted that case law and county guidance require the board to identify specific practical difficulties or undue hardships in the record rather than rely on the general phrase “existing conditions.” The board reviewed prior variances tied to the parcel, including an earlier rear-yard variance in 1991 and a front-yard setback resolution (82-12) related to the original house location.

Board members expressed more comfort approving the unpermitted deck than the proposed addition, but several said the addition largely reacts to the preexisting house footprint. One board member asked whether the deck encroached into a utility easement; staff responded that easement enforcement is separate and would be addressed between the applicant and the easement holder. The board discussed limiting the approval to a one‑story addition and restricting replacement of the nonconforming deck to the same mass (preventing a future two‑story replacement that would increase bulk within the setback).

Board member Christophe moved to approve the variances for the deck and for the one‑story addition, citing the site’s preexisting conditions and previous approvals for the property; a board member seconded. The motion passed with affirmative votes by the board (the roll call in the record shows Christophe and Seth voting in the affirmative and the board chair announced the motion carried). The board’s approval included the conditions read by staff: the deck variance is limited to the existing deck (repair or replacement only) and the addition approval is limited to the one‑story mass shown in the submitted exhibit; any increase in bulk or a new dwelling in the setback would require a future land‑use application.

The applicants were told they must obtain building permits after the variance and that the variance does not relieve them of private obligations such as any required permissions from utility easement holders.

Votes at a glance: the board approved the requested 30‑foot rear‑yard variance for the deck and the 17‑foot rear‑yard variance for the proposed one‑story addition; both approvals were conditioned on limits to future expansion and compliance with building‑permit and site‑plan requirements.

The board moved next on a separate case after noting a public memorial for Marty Horowitz, who had been connected with the property’s early history.