Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.92.31' PITRIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJIIBTMENT r I DATE Ma 11 1992 CASE # };1.~ APPLICANT Garfield & Hecht. P.C. N1~Y,'~n PHONE 925-1936 MAILING ADDRESS 601 East Hvman Avenue. Asoen. CO 81611 OWNER The Glick Familv Trust dated Aoril 7. 1987 PHONE ~ y ~ MAILING ADDRESS c/o Garfield & Hecht, P.C.. 601 E. Hvman Ave.. Aspen. CO 81611 LOCATION OF PROPERTY Lot 8, Block 2, Meadowood Subdivision. Filing 1; 75 Bluebonnet Trail Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part of this Case. The Board may return this application if it does not contain all the facts in question. GARFIE~LD~& H~EC~HT, P.C. ,~}~ ) Applicant Signature Bv: ~%~-~-~~-~J~, ~~`~l-~2`J Catherine H. McMahon (TO be completed by the Zoning Department) Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Zoning Official to forward this application to the Board of Adjustment, and reasons for not granting a building permit: Requesting: /~i-30 Zone District Lot Size ' Front Yard Setback Variance, where ' is required. ' Rear Yard Setback Variance, where is required. ' Side Yard Setback Variance, where ' is required. ' Side Yard Setback Variance, where ' is required. ' Height Variance, where ' is required. ~5 ~ Squar//e Feet where a maximum of 311 sq. ft. is allowed. Other: 1t,U C'c`r(td~, OU'l I1iUC~7.n 4 ~~ 4 Zoni/;ng Official- r Application filed Jr"~~-eta' Parce]f~ID N .~ IJj - I~I -D~-(X Date of Meeting ~,~~ Notices Mailed -S ,~A l.~- Secretary Refer Resolution to Building Department ; _, Yes ; _; No OOOOQI a-~y(~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OiPNERB BEFORE THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to Pitkin County Resolution of June 5, 1955, as amended, a Public Hearing will be held in City Council Chambers, City Hall, First Floor, Aspen, Colorado (or at such other place as the meeting may then be adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the County Zoning Resolution. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. THE PARTICULARS OF THE HEARING AND OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE ARE AS FOLLOWS: Date and time of meeting: owner: Name and Address of Applicant: Property Location or Description: June 2, 1992 at 5:15 p.m. 1st Floor Council Chambers, City Hall The Glick Family Trust Garfield & Hecht, P.C. 601 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 Lot 8, Block 2, Filing 1 Meadowood Subdivision 75 Bluebonnet Trail Requesting approval for a 150 square foot increase in floor area where a maximum of 3,118 square feet is permitted for this lot in the R-30 zone district, to cover an entry. Approval of this variance would allow the existing structure to exceed allowable floor area by 150 square feet. VARIANCES GREATER OR LE88 THAN REQUESTED COULD BE GRANTED. Duration of Variance: Temporary Permanent X THE iTKIN COUNTY B D OF ADJUSTMENT . Cindy Christensen, Secretary 00000? ® IB,~ IB~.~pl IBI~I1 ~~ll-Iq~IBl.~1I/.~ryp~rl~I. ~dll~ll ~Le Lelll ~ lllllle illllllly Bl+q ll e~e RONALD GARFIELD* ATTORNEYS AT LAW TELEPHONE ANDREW V. HECHT** VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDIN G (303) 925-1936 ROBERT E. KENDIG TELECOPIER *** MICHAEL 1. HERRON 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE (303) 925-3008 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 1ANE ELLEN HAMILTON CATHERINE H. McMAHON**** 'also admired ~o New York Bar ..ala° adm"`~ l° Ma 11 19 9 2 Y Distrin of Columbia Bar I "also admirted w Florida Bar ''also admired ro Illinois Bar Pitkin County Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Glick Residence Variance Application Gentlemen: We represent The Glick Family Trust ("Applicant"), owners of the residence located at 0075 Bluebonnet Trail, Aspen, Colorado, in Meadowood Subdivision, in connection with the above-referenced variance application. The Applicant purchased the property on December 2, 1991, and is in the process of remodeling the residence, including an exter- ior remodel of the patio and entryway areas. As part of the exter- ior remodel, Applicant desires to cover the existing walkway to the main entrance to the residence with a single ply membrane roof approximately 5 feet wide by 11 feet long, and the secondary entry to the residence with a single ply membrane roof approximately 5 feet in width by 2 feet long at the opposite end of the patio area (see the shaded roof areas on the drawings submitted). Since the existing residence contains 3,117 square feet of the allowable FAR of 3,118 square feet, the covered walkways require a variance of approximately 60 - 65 square feet of floor area. The purpose of the variance request is to keep the walkway to the main entrance and the entry to the secondary entrance clear of melting snow and ice in the winter months and dry in rainy weather. The existing structure the present roof lines heavy snows, resulting it) and ice formation walkway and secondary overhang, there is no at either entry. The and guests from the entryways. is presently guttered, but the gutters along on either side of the walkway cannot handle in dripping onto the walkway (and people on during the winter. Similarly, since the entrance presently have no roof or adequate protection during rainy weather to keep dry proposed roof areas would protect residents foregoing inclement conditions at both dd~~~~ GARFIELD & HEGYIT, P.G. Pitkin County Board of Adjustment May 11, 1992 Page 2 The existing design of the residence was not created by the Applicant, as the residence was recently purchased from a previous owner. The strict application of the FAR regulations in this case does result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to, and undue hardship upon, the present owner in that the design of the residence offers no protection against inclement weather condi- tions during any season at either of the entryways. The proposed roof areas add no additional living area to the residence, but rather serve only to alleviate the practical difficulties to and hardship upon the owner and guests in inclement weather caused by the poor design. The Applicant's proposed plans, including the increased floor area necessitating the variance, have been approved by the Meadowood Homeowners Association (see the letter from the Association submitted with the Application). For all of the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that the Board authorize a variance from the strict application of the floor area requirements in order to relieve the owner from the dif- ficulties and hardship imposed by the present poor design of the residence. There is no detriment to the public good and the cov- ered walkways will in no way alter or impair the intent and purpose of the zoning district regulations or the policies and regulations of the Aspen Land Use Code. Respectfully submitted, GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C., attorneys for the Applicant Catherine H. McMahon CHM/cm Enclosures cc: Arthur Glick ~D~~~Y RONALD GARFIELD* ANDREW V. HECHT** ROBERT E. KENDIG MICHAEL ]. HERRON*** JANE ELLEN HAMILTON CATHERINE H. McMAHON**** 'also admiueJ to New York Ber ""also admi¢e4 m ~iurial or cowmnia Bar "`"also admirmd m Florida Bar * "also admi~md m IlLnois Bar Joanna Schaffner Zoning Department 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 ~t41~1Fd1E1L® ~ ~[lE~~[7~', 1~,~, ATTORNEYS AT LAW TELEPHONE VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING (303) 925-1936 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE TELECOPIER (303) 925-3008 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 May 11, 1992 Re: Glick Residence Variance Application Dear Joanna: Enclosed in connection with the above-referenced variance application are the following: 1. A completed Application form; 2. A $50.00 check payable to Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office in payment of the Application fee; 3. Three copies of the floor plan of the proposed addition to the structure (you have informed me that you will check the building plans submitted to the building department for the exact dimensions of the covered walkways, as 3 feet is exempt from floor area); 4. Eight copies of a letter describing why the variance is necessary; and 5. Eight copies of a vicinity/directional map with written directions. We will be submitting a list of adjacent property owners and mailing addresses, together with the self-addressed envelopes later this week. In addition the owner's letter of authorization that we represent them in connection with this variance application will be submitted later this week, together with a letter of approval from the Meadowood Homeowners Association. Should you need anything further, please do not hesitate to call me. ~Qn(~~ GARFdE~.D & ~9EGHT, P.G. Joanna Schaffner May il, 1992 Paqe 2 Please schedule the hearing on our variance request for the June 2, 1992 meeting of the Board of Adjustment. Also, please advise as to when the public notice is ready to be picked up. Thank you. Sincerely yours, GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. Catherine H. McMahon CHM/cm Enclosures cc: Arthur Glick ooooos RONALD GARFIELD* ANDREW V. HECHT** ROBERT E. KENDIG MICHAEL J. HERRON*** JANE ELLEN HAMILTON CATHERINE H. McMAHON**** •also admitted ro New York Bar '"also admitted ro Disvia of Columbia Bar •'alw admitted a Florida Bar • "alw admined e Illinois Bar Joanna Schaffner Zoning Department 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 May 15, 1992 Re: Glick Residence Variance Application Dear Joanna: Enclosed in connection with the above-referenced Variance Application are the following: 1. The list of adjacent property owners and mailing addresses, together with stamped, addressed envelopes. 2. Six (6) copies of the plan of the proposed addition that shows the additional floor area required after excluding three feet from all perimeter walls. This completes the application, with the exception of a letter from the Meadowood Homeowners Association approving the 146 square feet of additional floor area as opposed to 60 feet. Sincerely yours, GARFI~E~LD~,& HlE/CHT,\~-P/.C.~J / Catherine H. McMahon CHM/cm Enclosures ~~IryT(~l~rr`~IRII~rI~~Ipf IIF~'.1 l~r~Iq~llr~.~ ~~Irlp~.kl~ l~r~~ ~~llllll lllla Yd LJ~ ~ lllllle ~llllll 9 n e~e ATTORNEYS AT LAW TELEPHONE VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING (303) 925-1936 TELECOPIER 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE (303) 925-3008 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 ~ll~~~~~ ~,,,,,,,,, ,.~ l.uren~ecY STEWART TITLE OF ASPEN, 1NC. 602 E. HYMAN • ASPEN, COLORADO 61611 • (303) 925-3577 May 15, 1992 Ms. Katie McMahon Garfield & Hecht 601 E. Hyman Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Adjacent Owners Searc; Our Order #19227 Dear Katie, Listed below are the names and addresses of owners of real property adjacent to The Glick Family Trust, Lot 8, Block 2, Meadowood Subdivision. Tage J. and Pauline L. Pedersen King R. and Anne Marie Woodward 0701 Meadowood Dr. 0675 Meadowood Or. Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611 Niklaus G. and Gertrud E. Kuhn P.O. Box 8016 Aspen, CO 8161,'D~ Thomas J, and Jeanette G. Anderson P.O. Box 226 Aspen, CO 81612 Meadowood Homeowners Association* P.O. Box 8774 Aspen, CO 81612 *NOTE: The Homeowners Association is included because there is "Common Area" adjacent to the subject lot. Address is from Stewart Title files. No address appears in public records or tax rolls. Although we believe the facts stated are true, this letter is not to be construed as an abstract of title, nor an opinion of title, nor a guaranty of title, and it is understood and agreed that Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc., neither assumes, nor will be charged with any financial obligations or liability whatever on any statement contained herein. Sincerely, ,~~~~<~~ Peter P. Delany Vice President ^~ DU~U~O May %~ , 1992 Pitkin County Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 ATTN: Joanna Schaffner Re: Glick Residence Variance Application Gentlemen: This is to advise you that as owner of the property located at 0075 Bluebonnet Trail, Meadowood Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado, we authorize Garfield & Hecht, P.C. to represent us in connection with the above-referenced variance application. Sincerely yours, DG/cm THE GLICK FAMILY TRUST dated April 7, 1987 Doris Glick, T ustee ODUUQ9 MESSAGE DISPLAY TO JOANNA SCHAFFNER From: John Ely Postmark: Jun 16,93 2:25 PM Subject: GLICK Message: FOR YOUR RECORDS: THE BOCC WILL NOT BE SEEKING THE REMOVAL OF THE PERGOLA LOCATED AT THE RESIDENCE OF DORIS GLICK. IF YOU NEED ANY THING FURTHER LET ME KNOW ----------=====X=====___------- ~~~~' A~~coaAi . Rrv~Ni April 22, 1993 Mr. and Mrs. Glick c/o GARFIELD & HECHT 601 East Hyman Aspen, CO 81611 PLANNING Si WNING DEPARTMENT re: Trellis located at 75 Blue Bonnett Lane - Meadowood Dear Mr. and Mrs. Glick, Your request for an extension from the April 14 deadline to remove your trellis has been reviewed and approved by the Planning Director., Suzanne Ronchan. An extension has been granted until July 15, 1993. Failure to remove the trellis by July 15,.1993 may result in legal action by Pitkin County. As always, youY cooperation is appreciated. Sincerely, `\ /~ Joanna Schaffner Zoning Officer cc: Suzanne Konchan, Planning Director John Ely, Assistant County Attorney I3O SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO BS611 PHONE SO9.Y2O.$OSO ~ FA%309.92O.S]97 000011 P~m~~ MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Joanna Schaffner From: Suzanne Konchan Postmark: Apr 19,93 11:24 AM Status: Previously read Subject: glick ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Message: DEORIS CALLED A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO AND SAID SHE IS OUT OF TOWN 'TIL END OF JUNE AND WANTED AN EXTENSION. I WOULD BE WILLING TO GIVE HER UNTIL FIRST OF JULY TO REMOVE ILLEGAL TRELLIS. IS THAT OK BY YOU? IF SO, PLEASE DRAFT A LETTER. THANKS ----------=====X=====___------- ~~~~~h ASPEN • PITKIN March 24, 1993 PLANNING Bi ZONING DEPARTMENT Mr. and Mrs. Glick c/o GARFIELD & HECHT 601. East Hyman Aspen, CO 81611 CERTZF: re: Trellis located at 75 Blue Bonnett Lane - Meadowood Dear Mr. and Mrs. Glick, The trellis located in your front yard is in violation of Section 301.A of the Uniform Building Code; Section '3-2, Area and Bulk Requirements, and Article 18 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code; Board of Adjustment Resolution 92-31; and a Correction Notice issued by a Zoning Officer on February 24, 1993. The issue of defining this improvement as a trellis was discussed and upheld by the Board of Adjustment on July 7, 1992. Your attorney, Andy Hecht, attended this meeting and participated in the discussion on your behalf. The Board nonetheless denied your request based on a lack of hardship. Your work subsequent to the action by the Board of Adjustment, was performed without necessary approvals nor permits. The trellis must be removed by April 14, 1993, or this matter will be turned over to Assistant County Attorney, John Ely. Please note: failure to comply can result in $300.00 per day fines and/or 10 days in jail for each day the violation continues. Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated. Sincerely, /~,-~' ~oanna S. Schaffner County Zoning Officer cc: John Ely, Assistant County Attorney Suzanne Konchan, County Planning Director Francis Krizmanich, Zoning Administrator Stephen Kanipe, Chief Building Official 000033 130 Souru Gaina~n Srueel A.re~.~, Qn<IRnuu Slbll PnorJr 303.9205f19~ Fax 303.9?0.5197 rnm,~.,~ ~.,.i,a pp, RONALD GARFIELD* ANDREW V HECHT** ROBERT E. KENDIG MICHAEL 1. HERRON*** 1ANE ELLEN HAMILTON CATHERINE H. McMAHON**** +alro aamnlea m New Ynrk Bar +also aaminea ~o Discnc~ of Columbia Bar "also admitted m Florida Bar • *also aaminea ~o ntiaoia ear ATTORNEYS AT LAW VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 May 28, 1992 Pitkin County Building Department Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 ATTN: Cindy Christensen Re: Arthur Glick - Variance Application Dear Cindy: ,IUN ~ TELEPHONE (303) 925-1936 TELECOPIER (303) 925-3008 As per our telephone conference this date, I am requesting that the hearing for Arthur Glick's Variance Application set for June 2nd, be tabled until the beginning of July. Thank you. Sincerely, GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. Cind~~ Merrill Secretary to Andrew V. Hecht AVH/cm ~O~OS~ ., ~.~ May 16, 1992 Pitkin County Beard of 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 A'rTN: Jcanna SCY:af Fner F'~~: Arthur i;l:~ 7S Elneiot. GE:ri"::l t';tlE'7: : Ad us freer. t ••icriance ApN. :.~tion Trail . `•.1s 1S tC adV.:Se '~:ili that the Meadowood Homeowners ASSD~::!~: «cn ::es approved tha plans for the exterior re.,v~deling oz i'r.. Glick residence. The :SSSOCiation is aware that *'~ covered walk- ways zrr the two ertrie~ 'wD the residence and the. :dition oI the: lcry tr~. '. Lis over a portirr: of tl-~e Y-•atio area result in an excess of ap_so:. ~*.ely lab -re feet over allowable floor area. The ~~over~~.l .:alkaays are designed to keep the entr}aays clear of mel:.- ing stow during the xinte. and dry :n rainy weather, and the lcx; trellis is an integral part cf that overall design. Since t;~• remodel will add no l;.vi.ny area to the residence, the Pssociati:r:"~ ha: no cbjection to t!~e E.:ard o Adjustment approving a var:~3n-.e for tha additional '_:e fe_+~ of floor area. Sincerely yours, MEADOWOOp HGDLE4WtiERS ASSOCIATION ~`zt ~s t ~cn.tT 00001 RONALD GARFIELD* ANDREW V. HECHT** ROBERT E. KENDIG MICHAEL I. HERRONxxx LANE ELLEN HAMILTON CATHERINE H. McMAHON**** "also admived io New York Bar •"also admired ~o Dismici of Columbia Bar •ah admiucd to +" Florida Bar ++also admired to Illim~ic Bar Joanna Schaffner Zoning Department 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 ~d4~Y ll~lld® ~ lllllle'V llllll9 y e`ile ATTORNEYS AT LAW VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 May 12, 1992 Re: Glick Residence Variance Application Dear Joanna: TELEPHONE (303) 925-1936 TELECOPIER (303) 925-3008 Enclosed is a letter of approval with respect to the above- referenced Variance Application signed by the President of the Meadowood Homeowners Association. Please add the letter to the application packet submitted yesterday. I will see that the list of adjacent property owners and envelopes are sent to you as soon as I receive the list from the title company, and will also be submitting the owner's letter of authorization. Thank you. Sincerely yours, GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. ~~C~J~'YG~'°~C/tiK-6'~ -~ Catherine H. McMahon CHM/cm Enclosure cc: Arthur Glick N+aY 14 ~99it 00(]0.6 May 11, 1992 t ~:kir. County Board ` P_djustme~t " ~'~ '~ ut.h Cll., -, , A"TtJ: Joanna Schaf_~~er R=_: Arthur Glick <<ariarce Application 75 ~1'.rebonne.t Trail ~:,nr ! e.~:..i: i'his is to ldvise you that the Meadowood Homeowners Assccia- t~.:.n has appa-oved the plans for the exterior remodeling of the J_i~:: rasidsn~e. The Association is aware that the covered walk- ,.:_;:~ at *.ha too entries to the residence result in an exc_ss of apt:r~~.tiim~tely 60 square fe°t over allowable floor area. S`r:ue the _ e: ee? ~~~alkways are designed to keep the entryways clear -.~:. mFlr- • ~ s~iow ciurit.g the winter and dry in rainy weather and wi i add ro .. ,~.rn; area to the residence, the Association has no obj- ion to r.::~ ward a£ Adjustment approving a variance for. the addir:cnai 6U ~sct of floor area. Sincerely yours, MEADOWOOD HCIMEOWNF.RS ASSN. _ :.~:17ti Bl : ~. ~s ~ AEN"T 0000? ? ~ ~i Yd c . • ~ MI l•urM o~~ „ 2 m `jelA or 3 F. ~~n~ ~ 4~'Pr ~~ rfi tg ~ ~ C 1M V ~odne or ~ F° 3 E ~ ~ ~ _ ! Aryy~N ~~8~ ~. as 4ge i~oLn ~ +},~ ; 1 P ~~ ~!t ~ ~J ~ •Y Purpyh hfj 1 } "Y ~1 0 IEF ~ ~X . Gee .~ # @ a q,I~' E ~ _-.. Rivet .1~ ^. (any C If ulrM 'i '` ~Y / IO 3=f ~, P, N • O ! ~ ~y ~Plunrh. Mtl ~ ~ !g , f ~~ ~_ Blivsr Ousen Aondol. ~ S ~ a . ~, ~ s IIgY a s a, ylp~ r t ~ ~ otW f`~, m ~ 'eYAA.,u rC !6 y 'Y .s ~ 4 ~ ~ ~" ~u y- a petl. Cn•k Ur I C.mdr7 n I. ~~~ N N ~~~ ~~ 1\/VM .._ i 1 t ~. D 4 ~I ~I ~a 0000.':.9 ^r~ • d er~n~s~~• Ol Ei TSL:?E IJp I h(1~J1 SNfI? h0'd ~N101 ~\ ~~^ ~5 l~ -t- _~ a ~1 ~_~. ~ ~' 9 ~ .~ ~ .~ ....... ~.:~~ ' ~ o e~ j - ---- .. ~i ~` =~ h ...... `~ r, z ~ .. \. .I: W W W ;.li Q ~ .:I:; _ _ \ 4 'e ", 1 ~~ ~ ~ ~ .,: ~ 3 .,. ~ ~ ~ a o D ~i ,~ o /~ LNG ~ r i ~ ; ; .1,,~;,,:.;., , -~.i~.:. _ ~"~T ... N a t~.. ~ ~ W _ ~~~ ~~ a 3 ~i~~~ ~ ~ U_ .. d l f'~ ~ ,h is .. rn~.i nnn~~~r, r ni r-,ttr.~~~=. nntl"~n~n^.nm rn~rnl idn~ll ~na.n ,rr,t-t'->I,~i+ r~•d nNlol jJ~ t W ~~ ~• L; 2 0 JI i, ' ~w w w ~ 1 ~ ~~1 q` ~ ~ i YJ ~ ~ 3 n, 4 .~~ ., ::-~ OOOU~1 N ~ q ~ {{ ~~3 ~~ ~`~~ ~~ ,~~~ _~~ ..~2 _~.--~- ~ - ~w ~N .. ._r rn•:i ^nn~n~F ni. e.rrr,~zr rinti~nNinrim Rnn~ iin~~ =n:~n ~F,F,r-r,~-NdH A D 9 ~ o ,T ~ - A^'t EN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE'.,'' ., ' 130 South Galena Street - Aspen, Colorado 81677 -. ~ _ ~ ' (303) 920.5090 " - - .LAND USE APPLICATION FEES Ciry 00113 -63250-134 GMP/CONCEPTUAL " -63270-136 GMP/FINAL ~ ~ - -63280-737 - SUB+CONCEPTUAL -63300-139 SU&FINAL - -63370-140 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS 13320-141 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS REFERRAL FEES: 00125 -63340-205 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00723 -63340-190 HOUSING 00115 -63340-163 ENGINEERING SUBTOTAL County 00173 -63160-126 -63770-127 -63780-728 -6319A-129 13200-130 -63210-131 13220-132 13230-133 13450-746 REFERRAL FEES: 00725 13340-205 00123 13340-190 00113 13360-143 PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00113 13080-122 13090-723 13 7 40-1 24 19000-145 / ~ / Name:"'i l(1 j ~- ~~Y J Address: r1.6 (J ~ ~ ~ ~" h7 Check # Copies received: GMP/GENERAL GMP/DETAILED GMP/FINAL SUB/GENERAL SUB/DETAILED SUB/FINAL ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HOUSING ENGINEERING CITY/COUNTY CODE COMP. PLAN COPY FEES nTUCo T SUBTOTAL TOTAL -~ v -~ r~ ~. G ~ Phone: ~-;,~.~ - / i /~.- Project: /1 r Z~~ Date: ' / / ~/ ~~ #otHOUrs: ooou2? County of'Pitkin State of Colorado The undersigned, follows: I, John Walker being or representing an Applicant before the Pitkin County Board of Adjustment, personally certify that the attached photograph fairly and accurately represents the sign posted as Notice of the variance hearing on this matter in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the 22nd day of May , 19 92 , to the 2nd day of } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY } 8s. POSTING OF A VARIANCE HEARING } BEFORE THE PITRIN COIINTY BOARD OF ADJIISTMENT being first duly sworn, deposes and says as June 19 92 (Must be posted for full days before t h aring e). CU~T°''6 pliCant's Signature I at least nine (9) I~ ~~~ WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. Mp Commission expires: s ~~ ~ otary lies Si! ature ~~ - Subscribed and savor to before me Gti~ this -3 da °f 19~~ by 0 J ~ 0 3~~~o3'O ~ ~ ~ ~ S O "` ~. ~ O N o ~~_3 wo~`~dN~a m O ~gy~F~mo. d 3 ~ p ~ ~ Z N y~~ ~_~ j a N d S~ Q ~a~i~c?Q°.' Q~_,n ooo~~~~~ ~Ot m~ ~ ~ _ ~~ < a rn .~. o ~o3~m;.~w^ 3 ~ .m no o'O~ ~ o' .3.~ ~~om~m`m3 ~ vimco 0 C ~.. - ~coi '~Omom rn~ 3 c o 3 m o o J a s-'_ ~.. fD m~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ti ~ so V/ O ~ ~' c p N ~ p~ j q ~~ fco.. D. `' '~°~o~N µ ~ n ~ ~ ° Z O I ~° m a 3 m- OUOU2& G of O ~i 0 o a m °6 ~ m ~ m ~ .r,{ ~ om? m .IX~II O N ~ maw ~' \/ /~n ~~ ~~Q ~ r N °~a ~O n o z S .~ 7 (~ ~ < N f°~~ ~ ~ ~ Z m?'.c _T _ (D N „ .[ /~ Z O J C'a ~~ O Z ~ ~T7 ~7 ~~O ~z ~ ~ ~-p ~ A ~~ ~ n 3 a-~ ~ IT1 Z d N :D J ~~ Q O N id _l p ,JJ \ 4 ~ - _. :- , `_ _, _ J _ __ `+' c~ i`f - r ~ - ~_ .. \ r . ~ ti+ C , ,~ r" ~ r 'rya ~ y ~ ~, ~ ~~ r ~, z ~ c~, ~• ~ ~ ; ~; ~ ~~ ~ ~ (~ „: ,~ .' r, ,. .~ ~k" i r. ~.. t. Y ~! ~~, ~ _.. , ~~ ., t~vJU=?~ ~ y •~1 M ~i a ~~ t" ~~ 1 ~~ 1 ~ i it iv `wP -! ii Y ~7 1~ ~jyy~~ f('I~• c .. , TTT ~ i r f ~ ~, S ~, ,.. ~~ . ....r ~ ? / -~ ~' ~ .x..~;, c~% ~7~-> ~~ • oooo?~ ~~t~~l=c ~~~ ,~ ~ ~ C~~~r~~n_,~~ ,~~ ~. ~ aZ `~ ~~ -, / `~~-zit' ~ ~c~-ya, ~-~ r - ~~~~~zr° ~~ ~~% ~ ~ ~~,-e , ASPEN*pITKIN REGIONAL BUILDING DEPART. NT ~ CORRECTION NOTICE ~( STOP WORK ORDER GltcK ~m;1y-1'r,~st Job Located at S I have this da p ~ ~ mow y ins ected this structure and these premises and have found the following violations of Cit Colorado State laws governing same: y~ Count y and/or Respond By tmvr.~e~ a You are hereby notified that n Photos Taken:Yes~No^ premises until the above violations ore work may be done municate with this office b are corrected. If upon the to the appropriate authorities fo bove date, this m you do not com- violations ma after will be referred y sub'ect enforcement. Failure to correct the both; or to misdem you to a civil suit for an in' eanor criminal prosecution, function, or a fine, or may carry a sentence of fine or imprisonment, or~ both. w((~hich upon conviction \ .To4Y.tiq ~'L1PY~.leS Dat ~On/n I pector to gqDepart t .9 epartment PltOne; 920.E .sz3 ODUU27~0 NOT REMOVE THIS TAG ~ • May 11, 1992 -;.ra "::rant= ~a-ard .?ciju3tr.~ ':^. ,r b`"I;i. 7r_.n~~na Sci~.~i:: :a- R~~ Arr_hur G1i~:k. "'..__::r:ce P,vrlication 75 'r7J',.t~abcru. r T~ a~i; „'- : . C~ "r,as is to advise you that ti:e Meadowood Ho»~eowners Asseci,~- ~ ri :a~, ;rpl~so~rE:d the Mans fot the exterior remodeling of the a_,-:;. _i3.~:,,~e. the Association is aware that the cnve.rc:d ~.:a?k- ,.:, ~. °un entries tr the residence resu]t in an e>:~s~_::~• ,~2 r. ...'.^?~~'?!Y 6:l square PE :'t OVC?r a11PWdble flo[ir fired. ~ 'a. t:::Q .:.c-::' •,<+?}:ways are desia*~ed to keep the ertryway:a cleai r~t~2r- s !:rK .'::.rir,9 the winea:: and dry in rainy weather and w i ~~ aid r;c~ :.; ::.e , r.., the resider~c:e, the Association has no obj- or, t~~ c..^~~,rd .;!' '.djusr.mE:nt ur•;,t owing a variance for the addic. ,na. so :=:.::': of floor area. Sincerely yours, MEADOW0017I~C~*IFOWNL;R:: A5:;.. .....:.'.! b 0000$ -. ~ " i Mav i~. 1f~92 Pi±..k. n Count1 ~'c.ar'. ..,~ ncl . ' m.~. r.'. 13v .,.:nrth Galena Asyer, CO 816tt krthur ~.:_ _ :..tree ,;;•; -lion 75 El..e:LC.~ . ~ a,i ;~ ..... _ ~tv„ . is to ~sdv.ae ..:.; 1.;:.: rc Meadowood Homeown_rs el::.c;_ s5 approved r.h~> E:,.: ., Yc r the exterior .re,~ode; my c,r cL r_-ia._ic :- esidence. Thr` .t s_.-~c;,3r+~ ;;, <>; aware that + cc.v~_red walk- waYS *..he two ertr ~: . .o ?.h.- ~, : idence and ttu ;-lition of r,r<< icry t i rs Duet's ~:.,' :. of t•~c: } .+t.io area resul'. in an excess o` ~~-,~_:• :. ~*:ely 7.4 ii ~ tact vve~~ allowable floor area. The cvere~! .;:lk•aay~ arc ~ ::gn_d tv ka.:p the entryways clear o.f rre'~ r:g sr ., ; w c~uriny th? ., ~-:._. :;r.d d:-, : n rainy weathr.'r, .+n~rl th=:: .. "'~c:tt>> ;.s an inte.yra: i,~ct c tta:it overall des4gn. Sinca *. ieme~iei .ail l acid nr l -: i r, ~ ,~.,., ' o the residence, the Associ-sti, . tz-~: n:~ r:;jeeY.ion tc~ _ :~:~.; ~.cjustma_nt approv.inq a var:;a~ -. fcr *_;;e~ n:lditional _ .. ..., of -nr area. sir.c.erely yours, MEADOWOOA Ho1~;E;0Vt ;~i~.S AS8OC.IA'PL:.'i tr,% --- __. _ I7iz~s ~ ~~~s i 0000.29 i #347562 OS/~/92 10:59 Fec ~.Oti Etk 685.758 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk:, Doc ~.~~~~? RESOLUTION OF THE PITRIN COIINTY, COLORADO HOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTING SETBACK RELIEF FOR GLICR FAMILY TRUST RESOLUTION NO. 92-31 WHEREAS, the Glick Family Trust, owner of Lot 8, Block 2, Filing 2, Meadowood Subdivision, requests a 150 square foot increase in floor area to cover an entry; and WHEREAS, a maximum of 3,118 square feet is allowed for this lot in the R-30 Zone district; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is within the unincorporated area of Pitkin County, Colorado, (as described in Exhibit "A", attached); 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 substan- tial 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 by the Board of Adjustment, that a 20 square foot increase in floor area to cover an entry be granted, due to personal and safety hardship, and that a 126 square foot increase in floor area for a trellis be denied, in accordance with Exhibit "B". I WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may ~ result in rehearing and possible revocation. 000038 #34756^c OS •/9? 10:59 Ftec $.00 BK 68~ 759 Silvia Davi>, Pitk.in Cnty Clerk, Doc ~. ~ Resolution No. 92- 3I Page 2 The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: July 7, 1992 The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado ATTEST: G.-V`i'u~~ ~ye~ Suz ne L. Wolff, S tary ODUU31 #47.°,62 08/14/9 10:59 Fec 3~,t~(5 BF.: 683 PG 760 Silvia Davis, Fitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc #.c~0 EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description for property owned by GLICR FAMILY TRIIST Lot 8, Block 2, Filing 2 Meadowood Subdivision Pitkin County, Colorado 00003 -- ---_ - - ` - _i- -- h .o ~ 0 ~iiQ (•.1 ~L ~~ U u ~~ ~~ .~ V~.~ ~" Y C7.,. Pp. o .. ~ N ~ M m ~ro ri ° ~o ~ u~ .~ t~ v ., r~ .~ ~N _ ~ •lJ~~ _~l" ~~ _~.~ z ~~ { ~~m j c l~ ~' ~ r _ 1i o ~;~ + ~ ~ ~~ ` ~~ -v ~ r--~ N- ,i;,: i. ~' e'•'~~ .` ~ h ~' ~ ( 0 ~ >~ Q ~ ~ n 3 € z ~ ~ ~. r ~ ~ L ~T 0 e mt .. _.. .. I -~ Is+~ 1 ~` ~~ r Q Z '~ ~ t~ ~ •v D 000033 m S ~'_ ~~ ~o ' ~d \\ -a ~ ~ ~~ `Y'^ l \\ ~~~- i~ TOTaL P.04 r NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to Pitkin County Zoning Resolution of June 5, 1955, as amended, a Public Hearing will be held in the District Courtroom, Pitldn County Court House, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such other place as the meeting may then be adjourned) to consider an application fffed with the said Boazd of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the County zoning Resolution. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appeaz and state their views, protests, or objections. If you cannot appeaz personally at such meeting, then you aze urged to state your views by letter, particulazly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opimons of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. A VARIANCE GREATER THAN OR LESS THAN THAT REQUESTED COULD BE GRANTED. DATE AND TIME OF MEETING: Tuesday, June 2, 1992; 5:15 P.M. 1st Floor Council Chambers, City Hall Aspen Village/Kerr, Cathy: requesting approval fora 15' front yazd setback variance and a 7' reaz yazd setback variance where 30' and 10', respectively, aze required in the SR zone district for placement of a mobile home; and a 6' rear yard setback variance and an 8' side yazd setback variance where 10' and 10', respectively, aze required in the SR zone district for construction of a shed. Property Location: Aspen Village, Lot #131. Boyd, Constance (Heatherbed Lodge): requesting approval fora 30' front yard setback variance, where 75 feet is required in the AR-1 zone district, for construction of a barn; and a 15' front yazd setback variance, where 75 feet is required in the AR-1 zone district for construction of an employee dwelling unit. Property Location: 1679 Maroon Creek Road. Lackey, Mary Ellen: requesting a 12' height variance, where 12' is required per the Pitkin County Land Use Code, for an existing ranch gate. Property Location: White Star Ranch, Lot #5. Cretti, Clark: requesting a 2' front yard setback variance and a 6' north side yard setback variance, where 30' and 15', respectively, are required in the R-30 zone district, for construction of an attached garage. Property Location: Redstone Subdivision, Lot #13. Calaway, Connie & Jim: requesting a 70' front yazd setback variance, a 10' rear yard setback variance, and a 15' west side yard setback variance, where 100', 30' and 30', respectively, are required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a single-family residence. Property Location: Crystal River Pazk Subdivision, Lots 9A and 10A. Glick Family Trust; requesting approval fora 150 square foot increase in floor area where a maximum of 3,118 square feet is permitted for this lot in the R-30 zone district, to cover an entry. Approval of this variance would allow the existing structure to exceed allowable floor area by 150 squaze feet. Property Location: Lot 8, Block 2, Filing 1, Meadowood Subdivision (75 Bluebonnet Trail). Submitted to the Aspen Times on May 19, 1992. To Be Published in the Aspen Times May 22, 1992. County PO # ~Q~U~~ Minutes Pitkin County Board of Adjustment July 7, 1992 Memk~ers Present: Rick Neiley, Chairman Evan Gull John Wheeler Rod Dyer Michael Cooper Members Absent: Ted Guy Stan Mathis Staff: Joanna Schaffner, Zoning Enforcement Neiley opened the meeting at _5:15 p.m. and introduced the Board to those present. Andrew Hecht was present, representing the Glick Family Trust, to request a 150 square foot increase in floor area, where a maximum of 3,118 square feet is allowed for this lot in the R-30 zone district, to cover an entry. Hecht showed on the plans how the overhang would shelter the entry from blowing and melting/freezing snow, which presently create a dangerous situation. He mentioned that the Code exempts 3 feet of an overhang from floor area, so the front entry overhang would add 20 square feet to the floor area. A trellis with three logs across the top would be constructed over a portion of the patio, and would add 126 square feet to the floor area. The trellis was designed to provide continuity with the existing architecture and the overhang. Neiley read into the record the letter from Paul Patterson, President of the Meadowood Homeowners' Association, stating their approval of the request. Hecht stated that the overhangs would not be visible to the public. The inclusion of trellises in the definition of floor area was discussed. There was no public comment. Dyer noted that the trellis is an architectural feature that provides continuity. Gull stated that the applicant's intent is to deal with bulk and to minimize the visual impact. Neiley stated that unique conditions are present that are not 1 00005 caused by the applicant, and that create a dangerous situation. Hecht noted that the overhang and the trellis present two distinct issues. Neiley responded that the walkway overhang could be considered necessary for health and safety reasons, but that the trellis seemed to be a more aesthetic/design related concern, and that he would be more inclined to accomodate a request relating to safety. He also stated that covering the walkway comes within the Board's authority to grant variances, but did not feel that the Board had the authority to approve the trellis. Wheeler noted that the division of the project into two distinct requests makes it easier for the Board to approve only the more necessary part of request. Dyer agreed that the Board does not have the means to approve the trellis. Wheeler moved to grant a 20 square foot increase in floor area to cover an entry, on the grounds of personal and safety hardship, as per the drawings submitted. Wheeler also moved to deny a 126 square foot increase in floor area for the trellis. Gull seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Donald Stone and Judith Family were present to request a 30 foot front yard setback variance and a 15 foot south side yard setback variance, where 100 feet and 30 feet, respectively, are required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a proposed single- family residence. Stone noted three reasons for the request. First, unbuildable slopes on the lot create a topographical hardship. Second, the house was designed to minimize its visual impact, and in its scenic overlay analysis, the County Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously in favor of the site as plotted. Third, the Brush Creek Village Landowners' Association wants to preserve the density of ancient scrub oak on the property in order to provide privacy among the residences, and therefore also approves the site as plotted. John Wild, the designer of the Stone home, and a 30 year member of Brush Creek, was present. Jim Crowley, a member of the Brush Creek Village Landowners' Association, was present, and stated his approval of the request. Martin Horowitz, an front yard setback objections. adjacent homeowner, asked questions about the and the visual impact of the house, but had no 2 00003 Neiley moved to grant a front yard setback variance not in excess of 30 feet, and a south side yard setback variance not in excess of 15 feet, as depicted on the plans, on the basis of topographical hardship and downzoning. Cooper seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case #92-32. Gateway Investment Co L7A B4 F2 Gateway to Snowmass Mesa George Draper was present, representing Gateway Investment Co., to request a 30 foot front yard setback variance and a 40 foot west side yard setback variance, where 100 feet and 50 feet respectively, are required in the RS-30 zone district, for construction of a single-family residence. Photographs were presented for the record. Neiley read into the record a letter from Stephen G.. Kinney, Vice President of Aspen Earthmoving, Inc., supporting the request because of the possibility of destroying the whole slope if the building was moved down the hill. Neiley noted that the site is very steep and presents definite topographical problems. There was no public comment. Neiley and Gull questioned the closeness of the house to the side property line, and the impact of moving the house farther away from that line (ie. at least 15 feet). Draper responded that moving away from the side line would also force the house farther down the hill, which would be detrimental to the slope, and would create a larger obstruction of the neighbors' view. Dyer moved to grant a 30 foot front yard setback variance and a 40 foot west side yard setback variance, due to topographical hardship. Cooper seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case 92-33. Mills Trust. L51 F2 Mountain Valley Rick Neiley abstained from voting due to conflicts. Bob Smith was present, representing the Mills Trust, to request a 13 foot front yard setback variance, where 30 feet is required in the R-15 zone district, for construction of a garage. Smith stated that the present parking structure is falling down, and that it would be more expensive to shore up the existing railroad ties than to build a new garage. The new one-story garage would have a new driveway, and would have improved access from the garage to the house. The garage roof peak will be lower than the roof peak of the house. Al Fiorello, a member of the Board of Directors of the Mountain 3 ODUU37 Valley Homeowners' Association and an adjacent landowner, was present, and stated his approval for the request, but also questioned whether the owner could be required by the Board to berm the foundation and replant the slope to maintain a growth buffer between his house and the proposed garage. Gull stated that any conditions that the Board imposed on the variance would not have long-term value, because it is difficult and impractical for the County to enforce such conditions. Neiley stated that the site design still requires the approval of the Homeowners' Association, which would be better able to impose such conditions. Wheeler questioned the necessity of the 27 foot width for the garage, if the intent is to provide parking for two cars, and the closeness of the garage to the street, and stressed the Boards desire to grant a minimum variance. Fiorello stated that a bigger buffer is maintained with the proposed site, and that making the garage narrower and moving it farther away from the road would increase the size of the foundation and its visual impact because the ground drops off behind the garage. Smith stated that the garage is 24 feet wide with a 3 foot overhang; the extra width provides storage, and the overhang and walkway improve circulation between the house and the garage. Gull stated that the owner has the right to put the garage at the other end of the house, where it would have a severe impact topographically and visually. The proposed site would minimize these impacts. Gull moved to grant a 13 foot front yard setback variance for a garage as depicted on the site plan, due to topographical hardship. Dyer seconded the motion, and all were in favor. This case was tabled at the last meeting. Mary Ellen Lackey was present to request a 5 foot height variance, where 12 feet is the maximum permitted for accessory structures per the Pitkin County Land Use Code, for an existing ranch gate. Lackey stated that the ranch gate was on the plans that were approved by the County. They were told that they needed a minimum height of 13 feet 6 inches for fire truck access, but they did not know about the 12 foot height limit stated in the County Code. Wheeler stated that in view of the two different height constraints, the applicant acted in good faith, and that it would 4 ~~~~~~© be a hardship to reduce the height. He also noted that the surrounding property owners have no objections. Wheeler reversed his denial from the previous meeting. There was no public comment. Gull moved to grant a 5 foot height variance for an existing ranch gate. Wheeler seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case 92-34. Joe Weinreis. 1470 Snowmass Creek Road Joe Weinreis is requesting a 25 foot rear yard setback variance, where 50 feet is required, for construction of a second floor addition to a single family residence. A representative was not present. Neiley stated that this is a classic case of downzoning. Wheeler stated that the addition would not increase the footprint of the house. There was no public comment. Neiley moved to grant a 25 foot rear yard setback variance, for construction of a second floor addition, in accordance with the plans submitted, due to downzoning. Wheeler seconded the motion, and all were in favor. The June 2 minutes were approved as written. Neiley asked the Board to review the Meeting Procedures memo that was distributed. The Conflict of Interest Policy that was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners was discussed. Dyer read the statement, "No member of the Board of County Commissioners or member of any of its Appointed Boards shall represent an applicant or advocate in any matter then pending before the Board of which that person is a member." Dyer stated that this imposes a severe constraint on certain Board members, who do not have anyone else in their offices to represent their clients who might come before the Board. The Board members agreed that the policy was exclusionary, and that participation on a citizen advisory board should not incur hardship, especially considering the difficulty of getting people to volunteer to be on such boards. Dyer agreed to draft a letter to the Board of County Commissioners for the Board of Adjustment members to sign. The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 PM. 5 DOOJ39 Respectfully submitted, Suzan a L. Wo~ ~ ecretary 6 000040 ..• Minutes Pitkin~County Board of Adjustment Jung 2, 1992 Members Present: Ted Guy, Acting Chair Evan Gull John Wheeler Rod Dyer Mike Cooper Members Absent: Rick Neiley Stan Mathis Staff: Joanna Schaffner, Zoning Enforcement Guy opened the meeting at 5:20 p.m. and introduced the Board to those present. Guy read a letter into the record from Cindy L. Merrill, Secretary to Andrew V. Hecht, who is representing the Glick Family, requesting that this case be tabled to the July 7, 1992 meeting. Dyer moved to table Case ,#92-31 to July 7, 1992, Wheeler seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Jams Parker was present, representing Cathy Kerr, toVrequestya 15 foot front yard setback variance and a 7 foot rear yard setback variance, where 30 feet and 10 feet, respectively are required for placement of a mobile home; and a 6 foot rear yard setback variance and an 8 foot side yard setback variance, where 10 feet and to feet, respectively, are required for construction of a proposed shed. Guy read into the record the letter from Patrician Dickerson, Manager of Aspen Village, that they are aware of the request being made and approve of this request. Guy asked Schaffner if this met the standards as far as the Code for mobile home parks, and the request does meet these standards. It was mentioned that this is a double-wide lot. There was no public comment_ Wheeler asked why the shed had to be so close to the property line and asked if it could be moved closer to the mobile home. After further discussion, it was agreed that a 5 foot variance would be more acceptable than 8 feet, which would leave 7 feet between the shed and the trailer (instead of 11 feet). 1 OUOU41 a y .. Dyer made a motion to grant a 15 foot front yard setback variance and a 7 foot rear yard setback variance, for placement of a mobiles! home; and a 6 foot rear yard setback variance and an 5 foot side yard setback variance, for construction of a proposed shed, due to downzoning. Wheeler seconded the motion and all were in favor. Case #92 26 Bovd Constance (geatherbed Lodae). 1679 Maroon Creek Road Guy stated for the record that he has done work previously at Heatherbed Lodge, but is not currently doing work on this property and believes that there is no conflict. Jim Curtis was present to represent Constance Boyd. Boyd is requesting a 30 foot front yard setback variance, where 75 feet is required in the AR-1 zone district, for construction of a barn; and a 15 foot front yard setback variance, where 75 feet is required for construction of an employee dwelling. unit. - Curtis briefed the Board on the history of the lodge and the layout of the land. Heatherbed Lodge has already received approval from the Board of County Commissioners for an employee/manager/owner dwelling unit and an accessory barn. Curtis stated that there is an existing structure where the dwelling unit is proposed to be built. The new structure will be incorporating some of this existing structure. The intent of the setback variance is essentially to allow both structures to be up against the hillside, further away from the floodplain, and minimize the visibility from Maroon Creek Road. There was no public comment. After further discussion, Gull made a motion to grant a 30 foot front yard setback variance for construction of a proposed barn, and a 15 foot front yard setback variance for construction of an employee dwelling unit, due to topographical hardship and pursuant to the plans submitted. Dyer seconded the motion and all were in favor. Case 92-27 LacKe mar ~~~=a~ ...,.. ~ ------ Guy turned the Chair over to Dyeand st a ed down fromlthi casehe remodel on the Lackey property, pP Mary Ellen Lackey and Gary Combs were present to request a 5 foot height variance, where 12 feet is the maximum permitted for accessory structures per the Pitkin County Land Use Code, for an existing ranch gate. Schaffner stated that at the time of posting, Lackey oda togthettop a 12 foot height variance for an addition of a pag of the existing ranch gate. The applicant has dropped the pagoda from the plans and is only asking for a variance for the existing ranch gate (which is presently 17 feet high). 2 0000~~ The ranch gate has been in existence for over one year and does conform to the setback requirements. Dyer asked what the Planning Office's view was on ranch gates. Schaffner stated that the Board of County Commissioners are not willing to support a change in regulation or policy to allow for ranch gates in the County. Zoning believes that if they are kept out of the setback, they need a height variance because the accessory height limit of 12 feet conflicts with the Fire Department requirement of 14 to 15 feet for their emergency vehicles. Combs stated that the gate was indicated on the approved building plans. There is a•letter from White Star Ranch Homeowners' Association.. giving their approval for the existing gate only. Gull stated that he finds it difficult to oppose what are clearly privileges that have existed and have been granted, especially since this existing ranch gate is outside the setbacks. Wheeler stated that if this had come before the Board before being built, that he would have denied the request. Guy stated that since he is not voting on this case, to get an approval, it would have to be unanimous. Guy asked Lackey if she wanted to table this request to the July 7 meeting and she stated she would. Gull moved to table Case 92-27 to July 7. It was seconded and all were in favor. Case #92-29. Cretti. Clark. Lot 13 Redstone Subdivision Clark Cretti was present to request a 2 foot front yard setback variance, and a 6 foot north side yard setback variance, where 30 feet and 15 feet, respectively, are required in the R-3o zone district for construction of an attached garage. Cretti stated that the Redstone Historical Society granted approval for this request. On their recommendation, Cretti moved the proposed structure back two feet. Schaffner stated that the applicant is going through a minor 1041 hazard review and that the Planning Office sees no problem with the variance request. Cretti stated that the proposed garage will be back into the hillside where there has already been some excavation. This is to be a two-story structure. There was no public comment. 3 ~UL~I~'SJ a After further discussion, Wheeler moved to grant a 2 foot front yard setback variance, and a 6 foot north side yard setback ~ variance, due to topographical hardship and pursuant to the plans submitted. Gull seconded the motion and all were in favor. rai n ., .....i . ~.. ~.... - Connie Calaway was present to request a 70 foot front yar se ac variance, a 10 foot rear yard setback variance and a 15 foot west side yard setback variance, where 100 feet, 30 feet and 30 feet, respectively, are required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a proposed single-family residence. Calaway stated that there is a change in the request. The adjoining neighbors, the Bostrons, at Lot 8A, asked Calaway if she would move the proposed residence to 40 feet from the lot line. The Bostrons have agreed to honor the same agreement .from their side of the adjacent lot line. Therefore, a west side yard setback variance is no longer being requested. Wheeler stated that this is a clear case of downzoning. There was no public comment on this case. After further discussion, Gull moved to grant a 70 foot front yard setback variance, and a 10 foot rear yard setback variance, due to downzoning, as shown on the revised plans submitted. Cooper seconded the motion and all were in favor. StevevSmart was present to request approval for a 45 foot rear yarn setback variance, where 50 feet is required in the RS-30 zone district, for construction of a proposed single-family residence. Smart stated that a 40 foot rear yard setback variance was already approved on February 4, 1992, but that the footprint of the house has been changed. The elevations and the footing of the building have been changed due to cost. Guy read the February 4 minutes into the record. Wheeler stated that with the reconfiguration of the house, he felt this was too close to the property line. Whereas a corner of the house was close to the property line in the first request, the whole facade of the house would be 5 feet from the property line per the present request. Smart stated that the owner of Lot 4, who would be most affected, has walked the site with Smart and suggested the change. Moving the proposed residence back further, a tree might have to be removed. 4 00004 L • ~ After further discussion, most members had difficulty supporting a 45 foot rear yard setback variance, but would support a 40 foot rear yard setback variance. Gull moved to grant a 40 foot rear yard setback variance, where 50 feet is required, due to downzoning and topographical hardship. Cooper seconded the motion and all were in favor with Wheeler voting no. Motion passed. *****************,t*******,t*******#****,t***,t************************ The May 5 minutes were approved as written. The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ C~ Cindy Chr' tensen, Secretary C ed Guy, Acting Chai 5 oo~u~~ ~ENIPITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303)920.5090 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES City 00113 -63250-134 -63270-136 -63280-137 -63300-139 -63310-140 -63320-141 REFERRAL FEES: 00125 -63340-205 00123 -63340-190 00115 -63340-163 County 00113 -63160-126 -63170-127 -63180-128 -63190-129 -63200-130 -63210-131 -63220-132 -63230-133 -63450-146 REFERRAL FEES: 00125 -63340-205 00123 -63340-190 00113 -63360-143 PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00113 -63080-122 -63090-123 -63140-124 -69000-145 GMP/CONCEPTUAL GMPIFINAL SUB/CONCEPTUAL SUBIFINAL ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HOUSING ENGINEERING SUBTOTAL GMP/GENERAL GMP/DETAILED GMP/FINAL SUBIGENERAL SUB/DETAILED SUB/FINAL ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HOUSING ENGINEERING CITY/COUNTY CODE COMP PLAN COPY FEES OTHER ~, / / ' Name:. ~ Address: ~ / ' ~ ~ -" / ~ ~'.... ~ ~~ Check # ~, ~,~ ~ ~ SUBTOTAL TOTAL /'. Phone: -'~ - ---'. •i L7n ~i Date. # of Hours: Copies received: