The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutpitkin.boa.90.13 I ~ e,~. Zoning Official CLL ~~ f PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DATE ~ Q ~ II 19 ~' CASE # ~~~'~~ APPLICANTCy~/~fl{~~~~I~~ PHONE ~~~ -~~,~I MAILING ADDRESS 1~ f 1 ' d 3J~'~`7c OWNER ~ ~ „~~C2G 7y c~y~7 MAILING PHONE L ~ ~ ~~ " V LOCATION OF PROPERTY_~~ 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. Applicant Signature onrv ~ , ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- (To be completed by the Zoning Department) Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Zoning Official forward this application to the Board of Adjustment, and reasons for not granting a building permit: Requesting: ni-3o 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. .Square Feet where a maximum of .63sq.ft. is allowed. 18'Y. !03 ~~..vaIn1„n.cA. Other: Sfl s /.L~A~ .CyAr-rv~nv~oM.~A. ,ti tJf"'vur.~.an~.. Hardship: Application filed' .(d4, ( (~(9G Notices mailed -Q U_ Parcel ID # a . 7-O(~-GS-(30 OQ0001 O'* ~-V Date~/~¢.cC~ Cad l~(40 Secretary~5 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 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 the District CourtRoom, Pitkin County Court House, 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 other 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: March 06, 1990 at 5:15 PM Name and Address of Applicant: Santiago Garza c/o Sharon Kahn P O Box 3386 Aspen, CO 81612 Property Location: Lot 7, Ridge of Red Mountain Subdivision Requesting approval for a 303.17 additional square feet, where a maximum of 3150.03 square feet is permitted in the R-30 zone district, per the Pitkin County Land Use Code, to allow for the construction of an addition to and renovation of an existing single family residence. Also requesting an 18 foot front yard setback variance and a 4.6 foot rear yard setback variance for the construction of a residential garage. The granting of these variances would allow the house to expand by 303.17 square feet, and be situated 12 feet from the Garza front yard property line and 15.4 feet from their rear yard property line. Duration of Variance: Temporary Permanent• X THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT J nna S. 'chaffne Secretary 000002 25 February 1990 Pitkin County Board of Adjustment 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 8161 1 RE: Garza Remodel -rear yard setback variance As the owner of the house at Lot 6 adjacent to the Garza residence the board should be aware that egress from my driveway requires that I back out precariously onto the right of way easement and drive quite a distance past three houses before I can make a turnaround to get onto N1ght Hawk Drive. The pending revisions to widen and deepen the Garza driveway would be advantageous to us as a turnaround area, which they have agreed to; we also would be able to share the off-street parking created by this new driveway area when necessary. Please note that we would not object at all to the proximity of the garage to its west property line as the garage (west) side facing us is well concealed by the sloping grade and shrubbery; our house is quite a distance from that property line and also forward t south) of the Garza residence, so the visual impact adj~ent to the property line is negligible. Conclusively, we feel the new plan is an asset to us functionally and certainly this remodel would be an improvement to the neighborhood. Thank ou, sGunn ~~ Jim Goodman aaooo3 ,5~ v ~--~~.co~~ Q ~~, I ~~.. 6o~zz- G~~-z_~- ~ ~~. ~i c1 v~a~, ~~ - Z 3 - ~c~,o-4z.~,.~ ~~.'~i ~ ~ I C ~ a (fie ~~~ ~s\ W ~~ c~.~a, (LL.... (,oC~. h ~~{~-~-~x.y.d~ C~~ 000004 5 M Geller Architecture 19 February 1990 Box 10339 Aspen Co 81612 . Tel 3039255444 Pitkin County Board of Adjustment 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Rear Yard Setback Variance/F.A.R. Variance Lot 7, Ridge of Red Mountain Replat No. 2 HARDSHIP: This lot isnon-conforming in both lot area and lot width. Client requests an F.A.R. allowance that meets the minimum lot area for R-30 zoning; Client requests a r~r yard setback allowance due to lot width non-conformance; Note that existing setbacks are presently non- conforming. The following lists the pertinent zoning information: 1. jQpg: R-30 2. Minimum rear yid setback (west): 20'-0"; existing ~ 15.4' 3. Minimum lot width: 125'-0"; existing ~ 88'-0" 4. Minimum lot area: 30,000 SF; existing ~ 27,1 14 SF The following lists the pertinent F.A.R. information: 1. Lot area (existina); 27,1 14 SF 2. P~tbiic & Private access ri t of wav: Nighthawk Drive: 1545 SF Private access easement: 1338 SF 3. F.A. R. ~ .13: 3150.03 SF THE FOLLOWING IS THE YARAINCE REQUEST DUE TO HARDSHIP LISTED ABOVE: F.A.R. (for 30,000 SF) ~ .13:3525.21 SF Note that remodel deletes existing fireplace due to energy inefficiency and adds a gas firepl~e, requires removal of exterior siding due to thermal inefficiency and the addition of insulation and new siding on all exterior wal Is. 2. Rear yard setback (west): 6'-6" Note that garage at rear yard will have no impact visually as the north rear wall is below natural grade; landscaping ai north and northwest walls will be replaced and added. Note that Lot 6 neighboring drive entry is inadequate; revisions to Lot 7 garage and driveway wi I I provide off street parking by moving garage north into hi it and a turnaround area to be users by neighbors ~ lot 6. cc: S.& C.G./S.K. aoooo5 THE RIDGE OFD MOUNTAIN HOME OWNEI~ASSOCIATION Office of the%~'cX8f35~g President Post Office Box 3619 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Shira Geller Architect Box 10339 Aspen, CO 81612 Dear MS Geller: 5 Mar 90 Our Architectural Review Committee has considered your request regarding variances pertaining to the remodel of the Garza house on Nighthawk Lane. We have no objections to the proposed expansion of the house by an additional 184 square feet, thereby exceeding the FAR for that lot. Nor do we object to the addition of another garage bay even though it goes to within 13,5 feet of the western boundary line, This is contingent upon our under- standing that the owner of the house and lot immediately to the west of the Garza residence has provided you written approval to this proposed variance. Would you be kind enough to provide us with a copy of this letter. It is also our understanding that a copy of the final remodel plans will be submitted to us for our review and approval prior to the start of any construction in accordance with The Protective Covenants of The Ridge of Red Mountain Home- owners Association, Thank you. S :..,. ~~ ~~ ~~ John Moore President aoooofi 13 November 1989 Pitkin County Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 8161 1 RE: Rear Yard Setback Variance Lot 7, Ridge of Red Mountain Replat no. 2. I am aware of the rear yard setback variance request far a garage bay addition and have no objection to such request. The new garage bay (south facade) will be located ~'-cam' ± from the west property line (existing is 15.4' from the west property line). Sincerely yours, ~~rl~« ~ Santiago `- r O'000~l'7 S M Geller Architecture 2 January 1990 Box 10339 Aspen Co 81612 • Tel 303.925.5444 Pitkin County Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 8161 1 RE: FAR Allowance Variance Lot 7, Ridge of Red Mountain Replat No. 2 I am aware of the FAR allowance variance request and have no objection to such request. Lot 7 does not meet zone R -30 minimum lot area requirements and is therefore non-conforming. Sincerely. urs, ~ly:,~< San Owner QDQ~~~ AFT't H AP U ~ ...v,........ ._ _. (,pUf.IN Kfll]IIN6 IM~P4ClOR 6. UNL£33 OTHERNISE D¢SZCNATF.D TIIEIiE E%I STS A FIVE FnOT L'tI LI iY EASP.°!ElIT ON FACH SIDE OP ARD RURNSNG PARALLEL TO FACH LOT LINE. ), ON LOTS 1, 6r ). d, 10 A DETAILeU FOUNDATION, STRUCTI'RAL. ,AN~ILITY INV65TIGATION IS Iw[oMM{N~ Lei Pi70E CONSTRUCTION Or STRUCTURES OR EXGVATIONS. R. ANY PRIOR EASE.YENTS NECESSARY TO SERVE PRO-ERTY AD.IACERI' 'IO THAT NEREIN REPLA7T1m AN A6tCTYLIl1l1m IN '~ ICATION Sb TNIS FIAT AS SRONN TIP.RECN. ~, TNI E)ISTS ftis: aROTt -Tt"r COV¢NARLS POR RI[10E 01 RED NOUNTf.IN AAF STILL iN 6PP[CT A~ ARL IID'I MON2 PIL ft AfI M1i 4Y TNIS PLAT. S°l9~ fei.aN iL 77 ~~ / ~IE IO ~ i p ~ •~ . '~" .1 ~~•.~ ~ TAW •tiTB4C~a G HE .:U'tEJ BY R-3C ..,.,. •.. r \ ~ %' r `~ ~~ ,' .\ ~ ~ \ CIS"PICT G~VLY h THIS .~. ~ \~ ~ z,;,, .'MVP ~ ~ ,, ,, 1. .~ ~r"• < ZI 4:'i e. GSE MEN( "` • 1 •1 ~~ rJG ,~! ,9E.,. c TI ~ I ~' ~ r J `. .,v 6 ~, ; R x' r ~ Va ~~ l_ I II ~ T-~'. •P s voo 3 . ' 19.i ~ ~sr \i Yra°li ~. p r5., ti •r ~a J '5E--.. 5 .:,..N, g i~~'e T ~. •us ,~ • ego ""t3ji '.Nn°uE soo~ <,~ ~ 4,. ~~ i aeon ~s r ~~ ~~~ ~ ~, ~\~N~ ' ' e.•ar°i6 , eP.w bl•io' \~ miw.oo' ,. R.AKN111G G.OMMISSION APPROTA4~ TM14 PLAT of YffE RkD9E OF R€) ' fll 1 OF PTTKMI GI ~q:'... ~~MS ~ DRY CF ~z`i. ~,~ ',x MOUNTAW REPEAT N022 IS APPROVED If~ PLJ1lM1N^u ANO ZONIN Ii COMMISSION AND ZOHN.; COAAI4SION ~: ~, °,s''^: ::000009 39N~ )9 i~• _f• /~ ~^ `ft x•• 6s o'/~ ~~ :+{a ti~.'~5 '. JTI9)~ ' • I 'e~~ ;~i ., ~' ..a ~, / A .\ ~~,,q~. ` ~~K -~r•rr d, W iC , ~.u~o~o ~`` . -; `t .r .~ +r NN,swrr . 1 6' If 7. ~,: ,°..~ r ;PEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303)920-5090 E3270-136 GMP/FINAL { -63280-137 SUB/CONCEPTUAL { -63300-139 SU BIFINAL l -63310-140 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS ~ b3320-141 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ~ , REFERRAL FEES: 00125 £3340-205 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 X3340-190 HOUSING 00115 -63340-163 ENGINEERING I SUBTOTAL I I County 00113 -63160-126 '~ GMP/GENERAL I -63170-127 GMP/DETAILED ------ ~, -63180-128 GMP/FINAL ~ -63190-129 SUB/GENERAL I, E3200-130 SUBlDETAILED '~ -63210-131 SUB/FINAL ------- ~,, -63220-132 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS ~--~- -63230-133 A TEMS _ CONSENT AGENDA -63450-146 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT "' REFERRAL FEES: -63340-205 I ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00125 00123 b3340-190 HOUSING i 00113 -63360-143 ENGINEERING PLANNING OFFICE SALES ' 00113 -63060-122 CITY/COUNTY CODE , -63090-123 COMP. PLAN i -63140-124 COPY FEES i -69000-145 OTHER , SUBTOTAL ~---- ~ TOTAL °O~ I Phone: Narne: _ ,. ; . ; -: ' '. i, , r - ' ` `) Address: (. - < - - I ! Project: r ~ ,.• 9D-f - ~ ~~ A ~, I 7-~[1~ ~~ ~ Check • ~ ~ ' Date: l - LAND USE APPLICATION FEES cny 00113 -63250-134 GMPlCONCEPTUAL Additional billing: ooooi.o .. • ~~ County of Pitkin ) AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY )ss. POSTING OF A VARIANCE HEARING BEFORE THE PITKIN COUNTY State of Colorado ) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says as I,---''~~~ A51 \ J; ~ ~_, 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 ~ ~ day of ~-~ :. ,,,~ 19~_, to the -~, day of blfilZlr~4- 19~_ (Must be posted for at least (09) full days before the hearing date). :~~ ~~,t,..~ Applicant's Signature (Attach photograph here) f ~QDt~11 Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~_ day ~~2~`~ _, 19~, by LrZ~~ ~~~~~ WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICI:4L SEAL. My Commission expires: ~- d 3- qQ__ Notary Public's gnature Sir a C ,~ic~~,; %~k~, Address :~a~_~ ~2s ~~aa . hrNTIV. '~~'~~T~' ~l.~ot~f /~~r~ llJ~ ~ZL~~7'/~l~ 000 1? fil4~ /~/o~77f u/~7 ~yl,~i1/~770J~ - E~'/5T7NG ~x • ~~~ ~/5~ ~~~ y~= ;_ .. • ~~ •• •i _. _ e~'U 1 ~` e~oH ^i ~ =~ ~+' ~ ~ RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ~.I LY~A p1,V~5 YING AN INCREASE IN FLOOR A REA FOR THE REMODELING PITI~J?i : ,~ti;V i2eCOR QER OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND GRANTING SETBACK RELIEF FOR A RESIDENTIAL GARAGE ~u1 „T U ~ ~ 53 ~~I fi ~~ II N RESOLUTION NO. 90-13 WHEREAS, Santiago Garza, owner of Lot 7, Replat 2, Ridge of Red Mountain, requests an additional 184.63 square feet FAR variance where a maximum of 3105.03 square feet is allowed, for the remodeling of a single-family residence; and a 13 foot 5 inch rear yard setback variance where 20 feet is required, for a residential garage, 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 F3oard 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 not been established for the increase in floor area but has been established in granting the setback relief for a residential garage. 3. Granting such relief will cause substantial detriment to the public welfare and will substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Zoning Resolutions and the zoning maps for the FAR, but will not cause substantial detriment for granting a setback relief for the residential garage. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment, that an additional 184.63 square feet for the remodeling of a single- family residence, as shown on the plans submitted (Exhibit "B"), be denied due to lack of demonstrated hardship. ALSO, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment, that a 13 foot 5 inch rear yard setback variance be granted for a residential garage, as shown on the plans submitted (Exhibit "B"), due to topographic hardship. WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may . ,, ~~QQ1J result in rehearing and possible revocation. • ~" pones 6Z~ vac:. ~'~ -- Resolution No. 90-1~ Page 2 The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: March 6, 1990 The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado ATTEST: I ~/~/~ ~-J(I ~ y-. Cindy L. Christensen, ecretary 00~~114 Ka i Shaffran, Chairman ... y ~' . • • ~~ cook ~i~~j ~~~~. ~~ Exhibit "A" Legal Description for property owned by SANTIAGO GARZA Lot 7, The Ridge of Red Mountain Replat No. 2, Pitkin County, Colorado 000015 P ~ . ~ V v~ ~ EXHIBIT "B" / `` \ ~\1 ~~ ~~ ~\ m\ u~ m s, ,~, ~'. >\ Y ..~rclFn .......... ..\ ,,. .... r~~_ ~+9 aJ W _____ _ 39 ~q. ~~~~~ 11Q.89 FIELD !115'00 KECO~D'~ 1 `` ~i ~" `.' \, 1 1i.. 7 ~' . ~` ~r AREA 327, 11450.FT \ ~\ cV.G ~\ ~ 9 ~ \ `` N` `G ~( X7.0 N\ ~ W \O N ~ 1 ~c L 1Z ~i ~s ~E 1' 1 -=~c~~l II~ I I .~'.sl', ~ G~l~>>JJG~s~~^~"ire `r„Pp ~, 4 1, c ~,.E~ .... _ I ka,~ ... - -.....,_, 1 ~~ _ 'S EA_~e~ENf FO SO ` SE NEFi) o, P _ \\\ ~' h~ ~ p;iq•~'4a~ 1 R= 35.00 L- 12.16 '~ __~ 4 ARE4 4505 SO. iT G/~ ~~r , lY; >0 2~~ ................................ AREA FOUND' W17N° ORNtK RED P LAP(L.5. 9018) ~ ~i . /~ i~ ia~\ 1\ ~ ~ E55 A~~ 11 _ ~~~ 1V i .., .i~ U1~ • i 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, Pitkin County Court House, 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. DATE AND TIME OF MEETING: March 06, 1990 at 5:15 PM. Mackey, Greg: requesting a 30 foot west side yard setback variance, where 30 feet is required in the AF-1 zone district, for the erection of an eight foot fence. Property Location: Lot 56, Holland Hills Subdivision, Pitkin County. Dickerson, Robert: requesting a 50 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the AF-1 zone district for the construction of a residential house. Property Location: SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4, of Section 23, Township 8 South, Range 83 West, Pitkin County. Philosophos, John, and Roules, Oren: requesting a 5 foot front yard setback variance where 30 feet is required in the R-30 zone district, for the construction of a single family residence. Property Location: 0260 Wright Road, Red Mountain, Pitkin County. Hansen, Tom: requesting a 90 foot front yard setback variance and a 17.5 foot east side yard setback variance, where 100 feet and 30 feet respectively are required in the AF-1 zone district, for an addition to a single family residence. Property Location: 4074 Lower River Road, Woody Creek, Pitkin County. Aspen Valley Hospital: requesting approximately 11 foot front yard setback variance where 30 feet is required in the PUB zone district, for the placement of an identification sign. Also requesting sign permits for three identification signs. Property Location: 0200 Castle Creek Road, Pitkin County. 00001" .::. . Miller, Lee: requesting a 70 foot front yard setback variance where 100 feet is required in the AF-1 zone district, for the construction of a single family residence. Property Location: Lot 4, Block 6, Filing 1, Brush Creek Village, Pitkin County. Hoff, Dave and Ruth: requesting a 30 foot rear yard setback variance, where 50 feet is required in the RS-20 zone district, for the construction of a single family residence. Property Location: Portions of Lots 19 & 20, Section 9, Township 9 South, Range 85 West, Woody Creek area, Pitkin County. Garza, Santiago: requesting a 184.63 square foot variance in floor area where a maximum of 3150.03 square feet is allowed in the R-30 zone district, for an addition to a single family residence. Also requesting a 13.4 foot setback variance, where 20 feet is required in the R-30 zone district for the addition of a residential garage. Ppoperty Location: Lot 7, Ridge of Red Mountain, Replat 2, Pitkin County. Submitted to the Aspen Times on February 20, 1°90. To Be Published in the Aspen Times on February 22, 1990. County PO # 46810 ~ '~~ i ; oooo~a Minutes Pitkin County Board of Adjustment March 06, 1990 Members Present: Kandi Shaffran, Chairman Rick Neiley Ted Guy Member Absent: John Ostwald Evan Gull Stan Mathis Francis X. Krizmanich, Pitkin County Zoning Administrator, and Joanna Schaffner, Zoning Technician, were present with staff recommendations and comments. Shaffran opened the meeting. at 5:23 p.m. and introduced the Board to those present. Schaffner stated that Robert Dickerson (Case 90-05) and Donald Rutherford (Case 90-07) have been renotified as required and no objections from adjacent property owners have been received. Shaffran questioned whether Greg Mackey (Case 90-04) needed to be renotified and reposted as well. Schaffner stated that only renotification needed to be completed and this was done. Shaffran stated that the fence was already in existence, so if someone would have objected, they would have already done so. Case 90-08. Philosoohos/Koules 0260 Wriuhts Road Red Mountain Tim Philosophos was present to request a 5 foot front yard setback variance where 30 feet is required in the R-30 zone district to allow for the construction of a single-family residence on an existing foundation. According to Philosophos, the house was designed for minimal visual impact and minimization of slope disturbance. Philosophos also wants to recontour the road to correct drainage problems. Shaffran wanted to know why building plans were not submitted. Philosophos stated that the Board of Adjustment application asked specifically for copies of the floor plan of the proposed structure, with all uses identified. He believed that if the building plans did not match the floor space, the setback variance requested, if granted, could become void at a later date. Krizmanich had no comment about the variance, but added that the applicant will need an encroachment permit for the second access. OOOU19 Shaffran asked if there were any members of the public present who wanted to contribute comments. Neighbor Bob Leimacher stated that the line of trees and railroad ties along the road make it virtually impossible for the road to be plowed. It was Leimacher's opinion that this variance request is only for financial gain, not for any topographical hardship. Philosophos stated that he is willing to pave the entire road and intends on improving the character and safety of the road, but that the road itself is not affected by the proposed variance. Leimacher believed that a variance would affect the road. Guy believes that there is no benefit to the community because the house is already going to be extremely big. He does not see any hardship and would not vote in favor of the variance. Mathis agreed. Philosophos wishes to minimize disturbance on the hill. Gull stated that the applicant has not reduced the impact of the house on the hill as stated by Philosophos. Neiley disagreed and believes the proposed house is not offensive and has a good design. Mathis stated that because the building encroached into the setback before, does not mean it should be allowed to encroach again. After the Board reviewed all the material presented, Guy made a motion that the five foot front yard setback variance be denied due to lack of demonstrated hardship. Mathis seconded. The motion was passed 4-1 vote, with Neiley opposing. Case #90-09 Hansen Tom 4074 Lower River Road, Woodv Creek Tom Hansen was present to request a 90 foot front yard setback variance and a 17.5 foot east side yard setback variance, where 100 feet and 30 feet, respectively, are required in the AF-1 zone district, because of topographic difficulties and a nonconforming lot size. Hansen has resided at this address for approximately three years and wants to construct a workshop/garage area, add a bathroom and extend an existing office. He is self-employed and the garage would be used to do his own vehicle repair, storage of equipment and inventory. Hansen did not have topographical maps, but did show photographs of his property. Discussion was held on what should be specified as the front yard. Part of the building already encroaches into the railroad easement. Shaffran stated this is a nonconforming lot size and the appropriate zoning for a lot this size (1/3 acre) would require a 30 foot front yard setback. 2 _, , , ~000~0 ~ Y No one from the public was present to comment on this case. Other design alternatives for the garage setback were discussed. The previous owners had received two setback variances. Guy suggested to grant the side yard setback variance, but change the request from a 90 foot setback variance requested to an 80 foot or 85 foot setback variance. Shaffran still believes this is too much. Neiley stated that in the future the railroad easement may become a very hot issue. Mathis stated that he cannot support this variance request because it is for a business and may cause excessive noise and more traffic. Shaffran suggested that Hansen take all the comments made by the Board and redesign the addition so a minimum variance would be necessary. Shaffran moved to table this application until the April 3, 1990 meeting. Guy seconded the motion and it was passed 5-0. ~.ase 7u-uo ns en Valle Hos ital 0200 Castle Creek Road Ed Stuessi, ASI Sign Systems, and Tom Lake, Aspen Valley Hospital, were present to request an 11 foot front yard setback variance where 30 feet is required and a request for sign permits for three signs, in the PUB Zone District. Stuessi submitted a rendering of the proposed signs for Aspen Valley Hospital, Castle Creek Terrace, and for Mountain Oaks. The signs are all 36 X 38 which is approximately 9.7 square feet (within the l0-foot limit). The size of the lettering is also within code requirements. Signs for Aspen Valley Hospital and Castle Creek Terrace are to be internally illuminated for easy identification in the dark. The sign for Mountain Oaks was not to be internally illuminated.. Krizmanich stated that internal lighting is prohibited by the Pitkin County Land Use Code. Krizmanich read from the code regarding internal lighting. John Keleher, a neighbor, wondered if the lights for Castle Creek could be on a timer to turn off at designated hours. Neiley believed that the signs should be illuminated because of their importance. Lake commented that the signs for the Hospital and Castle Creek Terrace should be lit to prevent confusion when going to the hospital. The Board agreed. A site map and photographs were submitted to the file indicating the locations of each of the signs. The Aspen Valley Hospital sign is the one that encroaches into the setback. 3 ODU'J21 Neiley made a motion to approve the signs with only the Aspen Valley Hospital sign being internally illuminated and to grant the 11-foot front yard setback variance due to safety concerns so people may recognize the hospital sign immediately. Mathis seconded the motion and it was passed with a 5-0 vote. r~~e ~on_~i t.~;llor Loo i.n* 4 Rlnck ~. Filinn l_ Rru ch Craak Lee Miller was present to request a 70 foot front yard setback variance where 100 feet is required in the AF-1 Zone District, for the construction of a single-family residence because of topographic hardship. Shaffran read a letter from the Brush Creek Landowners Associa- tion, which stated that the Board of Directors is supportive of this application, and have no objections to the requested setback variance. The neighbors also have no objection to this setback variance. There were no members of the public present to comment on the setback variance. Shaffran stated that she is familiar with this area and it is extremely steep. After a brief discussion, Guy made a motion to grant a 70 foot front yard 'setback variance where 100 feet is required due to topographic hardship. Shaffran seconded the motion and it was passed with a 5-0 vote. Michael Manchester and Dave Hoff were present to request a 30 foot rear yard setback variance where 50 feet is required in the RS-20 zone district, for the construction of a single-family residence and to allow for the preservation of mature trees. Manchester presented a letter from Dale Dillingham, an adjacent property owner, in support of the setback variance request. Shaffran read the letter and it was submitted to the file. Mathis stated that he may have a conflict, but the Hoff's and Manchester felt there was no conflict. Photos of three large spruce trees were submitted which was the main reason for the setback variance request. The Hoffs want to keep the view and the trees, and preserve the vegetation already in existence. By locating the house where proposed, it would leave the trees as is and allow for the use of solar energy. Mickey Herron, attorney for the applicant, commented that the newly proposed Pitkin County Land Use Code as submitted and prepared by Glenn Horn, has changed the setback requirement for 4 ~Q~~~? . , . an RS-20 zone district, thereby making only a five foot variance request necessary. Neiley commented that he has a hard time seeing a hardship and further stated that he could accept a 30 foot setback variance based on this being a 7.68 acre lot located in a 20 acre zoning district. Manchester stated they could move the proposed location of the house, but the trees would be removed. The Board agreed that the trees should be preserved. Schaffner stated that the Board has used a topography hardship to preserve trees and vegetation before. Shaffran commented that the Board tries to help when a request would also benefit a neighbor. Neiley made a motion to grant a 30 foot rear yard setback vari- ance based upon extraordinary and exceptional physical charac- teristics on the site which were not created by the applicant. Mathis seconded the motion. The motion was passed 4-1 with Gull opposing. Sherry Geller, architect for Santiago Garza, represented this case to request a 184.63 .square foot variance from FAR and a 13 foot 5 inch rear yard setback variance (to permit a setback of 6 feet, 6 inches), where a maximum of 3150.03 square feet is allowed and 20 feet is required, respectively. Guy stated that he might have a conflict with this case, but Garza felt there was no conflict. Geller stated that this is a nonconforming lot (should be 30,000 square feet and it is 27,114 square feet; lot width should be 125 feet minimum and is only 88 feet). The existing house is presently nonconforming. (Because of errors in the notification, whatever action taken, renotification will have to be done.) Geller explained that remodeling is to be done because this house has five bedrooms, ten occupants, a one-car garage and no off- street parking. Geller presented a letter of support from neighbor, Jim Goodman, stating that the variances requested would benefit him. A second letter was read from John Moore, Ridge of Red Mountain Home- owners~ Association. This letter also stated that these variances would be acceptable to them as long as the neighbor agrees. 5 000023 ., ..,~.. Neiley stated that the need for the variance appeared more aesthetic than due to a hardship. Guy and Shaffran agreed with Neiley. Shaffran suggested splitting the variance requests and making a motion on the FAR portion. Shaffran made a motion to deny the FAR request variance due to demonstrated lack of hardship. Guy seconded and it was approved 5-0. A discussion resumed on the request for a variance 13 feet, 5 inches from the 20 feet that is required with the result of the building being 6 feet, 5 inches from the property line. Guy made a motion granting the 13 foot 5 inch rear yard setback variance due to topographical hardship and a nonconforming lot width. Mathis seconded the motion. It was approved 4-1 with Gull opposing. This -is dependent on renotification of the proper variance request and a corrected letter from John Moore. Shaffran made a motion to accept the minutes of the February 6, 1990, meeting. Shaffran then read a letter from Bryan Harper requesting that the Board of Adjustment meet at least twice a month during the months of March and April to alleviate the backlog of building permits stopped by various requirements and allow the citizens to be able to start construction during the spring and summer months. This was discussed and it was decided that meetings will be kept at once a month. Schaffner stated that because of the time needed for notification and posting, it is virtually impossible to have two meetings per month. This will be discussed again in April. Neiley moved to adjourn the meeting; Shaffran seconded-the motion ... and the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, L'~ ~ / `/, Cin L. Christensen, Secretary 6 aoooz~ :'~ ~~ _• i ,~'6. ~haf frafn, Chairman ._., PEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFIC ~ 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 87611 (303) 920-5090 LAND USE APPLICATION F EES City 00113 -63250-134 GMP/CONCEPTUAL -63270-136 GMP/FINAL _ -63260-137 SUB/CONCEPTUAL -63300-139 SUB/FINAL _ -63310-140 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS _ -63320-141 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ _ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS _ REFERRAL FEES: 00125 -63340-205 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 -63340-190 HOUSING _ 00115 -63340-163 ENGINEERING _ _ SUBTOTAL County 00113 -63160-126 GMP/GENERAL -63170-127 GMP/DETAILED -63180-128 GMP/FINAL _ -63190-129 SUB/GENERAL _ -63200-130 SUB/DETAILED _ -63210-131 SUB/FINAL _ -63220-132 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS _ -63230-133 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ _ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS _ r] 6 -63450-146 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ~~ REFERRAL FEES: 00125 -63340-205 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 -63340-190 HOUSING _ 00113 -63360-143 ENGINEERING PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00113 -63080-122 CITY/COUNTY CODE -63090-123 COMP. PLAN -63140-124 COPY FEES -69000-145 OTHER OOO .. SUBTOTAL Q"'~ _ .g~~_ TOTAL ~-~• ~~~```~~~., ~~~...,, Name: ~c ~ J G7 Phone: Address : Project: ,' - Sao-e _ Check # Date: ~ ' l Additional billing: #of Hours: Scanned 11/14/07 File Finders Box #15 /.' LARGE PLAT(S) AVAILABLE TO VIEW AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AVAILABLE TO BUY AT CLERK & RECORDER