Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.90.47 PITRIN CODNTY BOARD OF AD3USTMENT DATE ~~ ~ ~ JC CASE # ~~~ APPLICANT ~ ~ ~%h'(.1~~'~ ~~,~'nAi~,~ PHONE Jc' -~5~/C` MAILING ADDRESS I~ (3c%X SE, Grp 52;~~c, .M~r , ~ 11 ~c,c- ~~, ~ ~~ ,' OWNER Soh?~ PHONE MAILING ADDRESS LOCATION OF PROPERTY S~f/L L rJ - c~ - -rE~.r~~ L 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 S (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: Zone District Requesting: a~ ~ W` Lot Size 5 ~ ' 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 sq. ft. is allowed. Other: Hardship: Zoning Off icialC~''~~~JVC.(~. /j,i%~' ~' p- •~ Application filed _JC -9~ ~U DateL~~~ ~~j--;>D Notices mailed ~0~0~"-3~-~1 n ~~ Parcel ID #~4~ `~~ `,,Z~2 ~-V ~ -u l~ Secretary (/~/~ ~J (/.Q.ccp.~.-- 000001 4-~ 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 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: Name and Address of Applicant: Property Location or Description: February 5, 1991 at 5:15 p.m. 2nd Flr Mtg. Room, City Hall Thomas R. Gardner P.O. Box 5600 Showmass Village, CO 81615 Lot 16, Shield-O-Terrace Requesting approval for a front yard setback variance where 100 feet is required in the RS-30 Zone District, for the construction of a residential garage. This is a rehearing from the December 4, 1990 Board of Adjustment meeting. Duration of Variance: Temporary Permanent X THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT .- / / Cindy Christensen, Secretary 00000? 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 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: Name and Address of Applicant: Property Location or Description: November 6, 1990 at 5:15 p.m. City Council Chambers, City Hall Thomas R. Gardner P.O. Box 5600 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 Lot 16, Shield-O-Terrace Requesting approval for a 56 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the RS-30 zone district, for construction of a residential garage. Granting of this approval would place the proposed garage 44 feet from Gardner's front yard property line. Duration of Variance: Temporary Permanent- X THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ~- L C/~~P.~~ Cindy Christensen, Secretary ~DD~Q S 3 The variance to build the garage on my property is necessary because o'F the topography hardship on the building site seen on the ner.t page. ODUUU~ • C~ Lynn Hancock, President Old Snowmase Shield O'Terraces H.O.A Jan.7,1991 0525 Shield 0' Road Old Snowmass, CO 81654 Dear Lynn, I'm sorry I had to decline attending the latest meeting of the Homeowner's Architectural Committee. First, I must say that the frustration and aggravation I have experienced in dust trying to go through the process of getting approval for my simple garage has caused me some mental and physical discomfort. I have had difficulty sleep- ing at night and even find myself getting nauseous at work when I start thinking about my proposed garage. This experience has been educational. I have learned that I can't please everyone. I intend to build my modest garage within the laws of the State of Colorado and Pitkin County - and to suit my needs. It's unfortunate that I can't please everyone, but I have been patient and listened to all of your opinions. I have made concessions. The conclusion that I have come to is that it is reas- onable for me to have a garage, and within the constraints of my building site, I will build the nicest garage I can. You have all built in this neighborhood and I have been tolerant and respectful of your building needs. I have never caused problems for any of my neighbors even though my taste and opinions may not have agreed with the plans I have seen. After all, I have always felt that it was their property and an individual should certainly have some rights concern- their own house that they will have to live in. Sincerely, T omas R. Gardner ~ ©~nn~ ~~: /~v~ ~v~ G~Gr~I~ C/v S L 6 lhas. /~ L~~rd.~..tR ~w p/ /Y~ /~/.lav ~3 G a v ~i~ OCa~.~v/wt ~ti-BG~ ~7~ru-.~.r S.~~ttA - a ~~{ a I~ocrn-~s ~' 1' i ~ K t iv Cp 7~ b'°1.so~'. '~/~d ~-~i4rvz X . ~ ~~~~~ .SifiOu/~t.~t5 l/~e.G.a~e ~ ~d<a O ~(v ~.$ ~~ ZG~" ~Oa ~i Cv-tee/<. ~d~, ~~(~,~~ ~7E~r~R'T ~ Saw~RA Hc~srT2s ~~5- ~~E?~-~tif ~c~ l/A'iC ~GGA "YV pulft a G S . C_O ~ ~/(O ~yN-,~ ~ ~ ~d~~~ ~ ~~u~o O ~ j Z 5 S ~i % t c D © ~ d ~ d ~ .~NUuJirt ~ rs~ C~'o ~ ~/lv ~ ~~mcu A~ ~ A ~~ f! fit/ 3 o R' z C'c~i Nv~ , 000006 /s ~~~ ~~ //~~ _- l'~ ~ / (~lP~/N !.?ova/c/ i~ ~2~RA i ~6- 6~~3~ ~%~ ~ ~ Flo , ~iGiz ~~ G ~' ~~ ~~ N ~ / C~J"'` ~- -. ~ ~ ~~N~ G // ~/ s~ ~~ S~ ~o~es /D ~ Sa. ~~ ~~ ~(Z ~DTK~ ~o l ~~6 ~~ 1 A' 9 t:.n z{ Cf~rJ i ~.._~` Q ~ ~-, PITKIha C~•~°!.'Y A~SrSSC~R ~'~y ,li ' ~' J~ J~" ~~~~V~ 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 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: November 6, 1990 at 5:15 p.m. City Council Chambers, City Hall Name and Address of Applicant: Property Location or Description: Thomas R. Gardner P.O. Box 5600 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 Lot 16, Shield-O-Terrace Requesting approval for a 56 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the RS-30 zone district, for construction of a residential garage. Granting of this approval would place the proposed garage 44 feet from Gardner's front yard nronarty lino. ~ _ ~,~~, n c (~o ~~ 32 ~ cL D J ?I}VG28431E 6ISI23.~£19 2690 1Of2~t90 ~0~~~~ PIN~aAT~RE 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 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: Name and Address of Applicant: Property Location or Description: November 6, 1990 at 5:15 p.m. City Council Chambers, City Hall Thomas R. Gardner P.O. Box 5600 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 Lot 16, Shield-O-Terrace Requesting approval for a 56 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the RS-30 zone district, for construction of a residential garage. Granting of this approval would place the proposed garage 44 feet from Gardner's front yard property line. Duration of Variance: Temporary .~ n/1 G M-E.vfl- _. ~~ ~/6;i ~~ _.:~ I~np'a Jr1.~~ Permanent• X THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT .: .:+ ~ N'1i t ~~ ~p JO4C ~o Yea .. c ~ i_ ~ ~ • i• S E~~v ~~5 •~,, DoT (s~~T~o~.l Zz) i,L ~CAL..E. i' =x{~ A parcel of land situate in Lot '3, Section 22, Township 9. South, Rango 86 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point whence the South ~ corner of Section 22, Township 9 South, Range 86 West of the 6th Principal Meridian bears South 19' 00' 00" West 669.02 feet, thence North 17. 4,1 ', EafsE 242.66 feet; thence North 38'15' East 214.72 feet, thence porth 34 53' East 103.56 feet, thence North 12'40' East 122.90 Peot; reserving a 30 foot right-of-way and utility easement on th~~ easterly aide of the above described four courses, thence Sou:'' 77.06' East 155.16 feet;'thence South 64.37' East 115.00 feet; reserving a 15 foot utility easement on the southerly side of the above described two courses; thence South 35'00' West 300.00 feet; thence South 53'46' West 465.72 feet to the point of bey ginning, and; together with right-of-way for access and utilities -"described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Snowmass Road whence the South k Corner of Section 22, Township 9 South, Range 86 West of the 6th Principal Meridian bears South 57'13'00" West 879.79 fee ti end being 30 feet on both sides of the following described line: North 59'58' West 45.08 feet; South 35'01' West 161.84 feet; South 47.17' West 363.60 feet; South 64.17' West 272.73 feet; South 97`07' West 394.61 feet; North 33°30' East 320.00 feetr North 2Y 14' East 126.94 feet; North 13.01' East 287.96 feet] North 27°36' East 264.86 feet; North 17.41' East 242.66 fee d North 38°15' East 214.72 feat; North 34.53' Eest 103.56 feett North '12°40' East 163.43 feet, whence said South } net Sect~q~l;,ayi~eara south 22. 00'00" west 1398.14. ~{~oo~l `~ (NOTE: A11111sUUoUUknown as Lot 16, Shield-O-Terrace) ~~ CASEIAAD SIIFII+IARY SHEET PITRIN COIINTY DATE RECEIVED: 2 6 1 DATE COMPLETED: PROJECT NAME•_ Project Address APPLICANT' Thoma Applicant Address P/ CEL ID AND CASE NO. v~b $~-~.'la-ni -00(p P14-91 STAFF MEMBER' ES REPRESENTATIVE: Thomas R.Gardner Representative Address/Phone: P.O. Box 5600 Snowmass Village, Co 923-5409 PAID: YES~c NO AMOIINT: S152.00 NO.OF COPIES RECEIVED 1 TYPE OF APPLICATION: P&Z MEETING DATE 1 S .. '~a- 2 S PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO BOCC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO Q Staff Level: 1041 Minor Nazard Review: Date of Approval. y~`' REFERRALS: Attorney Engineer Housing Aspen Water Envir.Hlth. Manager Div.Wildlife Caucus Zoning Other: -Aspen Consol S.D. _Mtn.Bell -Holy Cross -Aspen Fire _Basalt Fire -Carbondale Fire _Div.Water Res. -Airport Manager _CO Geo.Survey _ School District _ Rocky Mtn Nat Gas State Nwy Dept (Glwd) (GrJtn) _ Snowmass Vill IISFS (Carbondale) USFS (Aspen) BLM City P&Z DATE REFERRED:- ~! ~6 ~~ INITIALS: FINAL ROUTING: DATE County -County Engineer ~ Zoning Housing _Envir. Health Other- __ ~; i FILE STATUS AND Assn. OOQOI'? _ MElSORANDOli TO: Amy Margerum, Planning Director FROM: Ellen Sassano, Planner RE: Gardner Minor Ridgeline Review DATE: March 4, 1991 ----------------------------------------=----------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- REQIIEST: The applicant, .Thomas Gardner, has applied for a building permit for construction of a garage which is to be accessory to his existing residence. The existing residence is approximately 1,799 square feet in size and is located on Lot 16 of the Shield-O-Terrace Subdivision. The garage is proposed to be 540 square feet in size. Both the existing residence and garage are located within the mapped scenic overlay/ridgeline area for Snowmass Creek Road. The existing home and proposed garage do and will break the skyline from one perspective on Snowmass Creek Road. However, the broader view of the home and garage site from the Road does not break the skyline. Topography of the lot is such that building must occur either on the ridgeline or encroach on significant slopes. Section 3-1.13(D)(1) of Ordinance 90-07 permits the Planning Director to sign off on ridgeline development "within the mapped scenic overlay (which) is insignificant and will not impact the visual quality of the ridgeline or overlay area." In addition, an administrative review may occur when proposed ridgeline development meets the following criteria: In the case of additions or remodels of existing homes, visible development is thirty percent or less, of the existing square footage of the structure; The applicant proposes to build a garage which is to be no more than 30$ of the floor area of his existing residence. The "visible" development will be far less than 30g. As such, the garage may be exempted from the full ridgeline review. Given the location of the existing residence on the ridgeline, the addition of the garage will not add a significant visual impact. FINDINGS: The visible aspect of the proposed garage addition constitutes 30~ or less of the existing square footage of the residence. The proposed addition does not significantly change the visual quality of the ridgeline. OOOfJ~,~~ ~~) Director sign off proposed by Mr. Subdivision. Planning Staff recommends that the Planning on the space below, to approve the development Gardner on Lot 16, of the Shieldo Terrace APPROVED: fe /L~li /~7l%G~-~ Amy Margerum, P annin~/ g~ Director MEMO_GARDNER_SO 0®~~~ ~t Z~7 ~R I p~A-r ~LRQL70VINC~ y4ND ZONING S 1lAUls ,4 NolY1t_ ON LoT l~ Sf1/tLl~-o.-TE~2ACE A+oO Z~rt aLAlU/v1NCa -co ~ti~Li7 ~4 G.4KA6L 6~ 1"N-E ~.! ~eOpE2T,~ . m y i-i~om ~ ~ s 17 R~ sg ~a.s~c ~~ET ,qn,r~ Z,an~, ., i ~oiN(. Tp '~OLLOw -i'+-~~ ~(rJ6E L!N(~ .4r>Mr/(1iS-r,4TWE ~v-LL WL-1k,L1 S"C/~"t~S 'TO /'~c~~LD TI-FC Gq~A6E 30 O~ 1~`1y Sq~A¢E ~~-TAG~ pFMY }bmE Tl4L 3e/a of m y Ni~mL t cp 0 c,.,~~s -ro .5 yC%' ~r,~,a~zE ~~t Sc~ ~ .a,.-, ' ~LAN!'UIN(o TO Bcti~lf~ A ZO ~ a27 G~A6~ TIVP, G IvE m ,/ ix- aw S N'1EETINC~. ~ ~ y0~ "Fo~L ybu2 /2/q(~ c c,n,~c, ~4p/e'IlNrSTAt1t~" S/NC~/2Ely ypcc25 000015 • ~~. SHIELD O' TERRACES HOMEOWNER'S ASSNI GO Lloyd Bishop 0727 Shield O' Terrace Road • Snowmass, CO 81654 303/923-5159 (Home) • 303/925-4705 (business) January 10, 1991 Mr. Tom Gardner PO Box 5600 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 CERTIFIED LETTER Dear Tom: At the January 3, 1991, meeting of the Shield O' Terraces Home Owners Association you submitted to the group a set of plans for a structure you propose to build on your property, and requested approval of the group for the proposed construction. Since there was some confusion reagarding your property/plan diagram and approved setback variance, the group decided to have you stake out the exact location on your property where you propose to place the structure. You were advised that the Association's architectural committee would review the plans, examine the site, and communicate to you its decision on your request for approval of plans and site location without delay. On Saturday, January 5, 1991, the architectural committee met at your property and examinee the site you selected and outlined with engineer tape. After a thorough review of your plans and a lull discussion of your proposal the Committee voted unanimously to deny your request for approval of plans and site location. The Committee asked me to notify you of its decision and to state our willingness to meet with you to explore alternatives, i.e., a smaller, garage only structure that would minimize impact on the ridgeline. I called you on Monday, January 7, 1991, and requested that you meet with the Committee at your property at 8 P.M., Thursday, January 10, 1991, and in our telephone conversations you told me you did not want to meet with the Committee to discuss alternative plans for your garage, and that you intend to proceed with your existing plans regardless of what we say. As you know, all of us who live in Shield O' Terraces are subject to the Protective Covenants for that area. Those covenants provide that plans for improvements must be approved by the architectural committee before excavation or construction of any improvements on residential property is begun. A negative decision of the Committee may be appealed to the Association at a regular or special meeting. The Association's officers and trustees administer and enforce the provisions of the Protective Covenants. Please be assured that the officers and trustees intend to Tulfill their covenant responsibilities. Sincerely, Lloyd ishop (/~ Secf tary/Treasure ~~... , cc: Pitkin County-Ridgeline Review Commit ee Shield O'Terraces Home Owners Association-Officers & Trustees SOT-91 Gardener L1 ~~~~~~ l/~ ~ g~1 0~ q ~ ~Q~ 9 V J~ ®~'J~~ ~'~r'.~'1-PJ i.. 1 '.~* ~.~ ~ T 1<< rn~ C. {;:7 tl.".-.UF•.) i ;,_~ r .• ~~~~ ~. C=l `j t~? i.l <....~ /'7G~/ ~j; /n9/7 /S ! ~ / J~O ~I~ O/~ ~ G' ~~ ~ OJ` /'00,~ ~,s ~~~^ ~ ~ /Y/E'cLSGI/t~'c~/ es? ~cGtlQ~' • ~I n f ~ _, ... _~ - (ouu~~aV" ~-"~o.J JU,~,~~y~ i f f 'r, i, i, c •~~c>rJ C.~A''ue.,i D y-----~:-. -_. ~d~.:~ .~ ~ ,~ r',aS ~N -.....--'~..r-'~~ .. _. ~0~~~9 ~I 1 ___.~,. [et-r~ 7 i / L ~~ e' i ~: ~~, ` lll,r"~~ f ~/ ~AL[" I = to K"E t T \ ~ - (~~ ~~ \\ ~ s v'~ 0 ~~ .~ dam ~ , ' ~~ ~ ~ 6 os ~ \ . ~ ^ ,/ ~ ~-~ U`~ ~ ~~ -~ ~~ 9~ 90 . ~ ~ ~'-__ ~, -_ '~~ - --- - ~~ DO fl L~,eUSN ~, '~. oooo~o ,~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~, -~ o ~ ~'- N x~ ~ ~~ f P r ~~ P \~ ~~ f ~I ~P f ~ ~~ 3'-p' MiIY. i y ---."----- I ~- - - - _ - -~ ~I I I --- - ------- - - - I I I --- ---- _: --- - - I I - -------- I,I I 1 ~+---_ -'~' _-~ 1 ~ _ li 1 ~ II i I~ II \\ II ~ ~, i` i i ~ i I ' ~~ ~~ -----= ____~_ ~ ' ~ '~, I ~ ~ ~__ - -- - -- - ~' '' 'i' 1 I ,M ~ ~''' i, i ~ ii ~; i i ~ ~F ~ ~, i ; I -- - ..1 , ~ 1~ 1 ~,1 i ' _ L' ' -- - - _ N ;~ ~ ~ ~ --- --- - -- - ~ x i ~~ ~ ~~ t 1 1 ~, ~~ I~ I I ( II ~~ ~ I ~' x ~` I iI j it ~ i; y ~,, 1 I ~, ~~- - -i-1~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ { i I ~ \ z I 'i i ~rn I I ii ( ', ~~ ~ . ~. ~ 1~~ I I i i I -- --- ~: I. I~ i i i - ! - i ~ ~ ~ 1 i _. . . 1 l _ _._. _. I +.=0"HEN./ ~"`-~ _. ... _ - t _ _ r-r 1 1~ ~ ~ 0~0~~1 '~ ~' G i ~ L~ ~~ ni I -;; . ~ ~' ,., ~~\\ ~\ ~.. ____. i ~ ~. ._. '~7 jh n f ~ ~n i j~ I, ± i F_. _ ~ ~ I '!''~..~z-~4a, '~ I~ ~'~' 5 i. a i i i I ii I ~. d pi; ~I ~ i G rk~ ,_ ~ ~ ~ - w ~ A JI i~ 'r ~ I'r ~~~. 6~ i '_,~ 7'"'J ~' .rih\!!'L~! r~,rr.~~ --1~d13n a-.jv_. #.w I J --- ~t~~ ;. i~ -! - m ~a ~~ --~ __ ., ~;: 6 ~. (1 -___~~ ~~ i ~' ' J i' ~., I i ~~ i i r~~ I ~~~~ / ,;~ j' r ~~ / ~ .~ / ~ ;~ . PPS( v~ / ~ i ~.~ ~ o ~~ ~~ ~l5it SE~L ANK- 3 f Ror~~7 2 lF~ ~aa~ 5 00 ry ,Q i/ N~ /~ ~~ ~~ n ~ / -~~,~~~ ccp FourJD ~,. 12770 wi ,l' V 1 a 1 V ~~~ ~ v j ~,~ U ~/ ~ h.l 3F~' 1 ~' CIS" E i8. lo-t i ~ i, 2~ I %hG~-~`~ *- ,r .. 0~~~2~ R BEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920.5090 LAND U SE APPLICATION FEES city 00113 -63250-134 GMP/CONCEPTUAL -63270-136 GMP/FINAL -63280-137 SUB/CONCEPTUAL -63300-139 SU B/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 ' -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 -63090-123 -63140-124 -69000-145 CITY/COUNTY CODE COMP. PLAN COPY FEES OTHER {I-~ /. Name: ~il ~'b'i"r,/~• ~ ~fil~lil?~ Address: ,.; '~_~ Check # ~r L~~~ Additional billing: _ 1 SUBTOTAL ~7~ TOTAL -x' ~1 i7 Phone: C-~ ~ -..:~ ~/ ~'_) ~/ Project' ~,-.~,~;- ~__ j'.'i ' / 1 ~ ' --~ ~,,J '', iJ ~ ~ , '~ _ ~ ~ t~ 6'. I L Date: ! ~ ; -" ~~ 000'?' • County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY } ss. POSTING OF A VARIANCE HLARTNG State of Colorado } BEFORE THE PITKIN CODNTY BOARD OF ADJIISTMENT ,, 'Y` ~ ~ r~ The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says as follows: I , ~4c5r,-~.A~ ~. ~ ~+O~IJ~~ 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 Jo day of , 19~, to the t / ~ ~ day of , 19 90 (Must be posted for at least nine (9) full days before the Applicant's S Subscribed and swor~ to before me i this ~ day of .'t% ~' <'.~I/J~/ , WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. My Commission expires: -` ? qty Notary Public's Signature y Address OOOU~?5 ~~ ,~ ~_ ~ ~ ~ c ~ =~ ~m ~ ~~~ c ~, ~ a ~ ~ ~~,~~ w v pl O ^~ T , `I E d ~ ~3, ~~ ~~~ n.~ ~~~~ ~' 000026 + i! dll ~- ~ ~ ~ z h ~ G c, T 4 ~ ~- ~ m ~ i _ ' }~ ° ~ ,~. ` _ ~: ~ N r ~'~ . y~V. pp ` G~ ~.l, C. Y~ ~. I ,_ :` 6' f/J ,.~~ ~.. ,: ~~ ~ (!` ;r s, OOOU~ i ' S ~ #33G82~~/~:t r''/91 13:54 Rec ~.i~p PF::~1 F'G 237 ~ ,t 1. via „t;vis, F'i.tL•in CntY Cle;^b:, Doc $.~-,.~ RESOLUTION OF THE PITRIN COUNTY, COLORADO BOARD OF ADJIISTMENT GRANTING SETBACR RELIEF FOR THOMAS R. GARDNER RESOLUTION NO. 90-47 WHEREAS, Thomas R. Gardner, owner of a tract of land situated at Lot 16, Shield-O-Terrace, requests a 61 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the RS-30 zone district, for the construction of a detached garage; 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 61 foot front yard setback variance be granted to allow for construction of a detached garage, as shown on the plans submitted (Exhibit "B"), due to topographical hardships. WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. OQfl~~v #33~15~3 O"` -7/41 13:54 Rec ~. t~i> BK 6~ 'G 238 Silvia Da F'9.t4~in Cnty Clerk:, Doc ~<..in"~ + Resolution No. 90-~ Page 2 The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: February 5, 1991 ATTE~ Cind L. Christensen, Secretary The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado Ka i affran, Chairman ooouLo #33U8~3 03/C?; 1 13: v4 Fec ~. OCi BF::. 641 P~39 Silvis Davi.s'~itkin Cnty Cl.er6::, Doc: ~.U~.. ~~ ~/S~ ~~ \ ~o T ~~~ ~~ _~ A parcel of land situate in Lot '3, Section 22, Township 9 South, Range 86 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point whence the South ~ corner of Section 22, Township 9 South, Range 86 West of the 6th Principal Meridian bears South 19'00'00" West 669.02 feet, thence North 17'4' East 242.66 feet; thence North 38'15' East 214.72 feet, thence h~i~Ll~ 34 53' East 103.56 feet, thence North 17 40' East 122.90 Peet; reserving a 30 foot right-of-way and utility easement on thr~ easterly side of the above described four courses, thence Sou,'' 77'06' East 155.16 feet;'thence South 64'37' East 115.00 feat; reserving a 15 foot utility easement on the southerly side of the above described two courses; thence South 35'00' West 306.00 feet; thence South 53'48' West 465.72 feet to the point of be- ginning, and; together with right-of-way for access and utilities described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Snowmass Road whence the South k Corner of Section 22, Township 9 South, Range 86 West of the 6th Principal Meridian bears South 57.13'00" West 879.79 feet; and being 30 feet on both sides of the following described line: North 59'58' West 45.08 feet; South 35°O1' West 161.84 feet; South 47'17' West 363.60 feet] South 64°17' West 272.73 feet; South 97`07' West 394.61 feet; North 33°30' East 320.00 feet; North 22'19' East 126.94 feet) North 13.01' East 287.96 feet; North 27.36' East 264.86 feet; North 17.41' East 242.66 feet] North 38.15' East 214.72 feet) North 34.53' East 103.56 feet; North '12°40' East 183.43 feet, whence said South ~ Cor- ner Section 22 b ears South 22 00'00" West 1398,14, O~~~JJ (NOTF,~ Alcn knnom ac r~• 1C, c?,;..l,p_n_m„-_,,.,,~ 1"1 ~ ~~~ r #33ng~3 i~3/Or/91 13. Rec 2.t:u> rik. 641 F'6 240 \ Silvia D•_.vis Pit4::in ant ~:.erk. -C 9 Y y Dcc ~.~~ EXHIBIT "B" ~ 6<'~ ~Ja, ~ i / ~ i i ~ ,, / \~ ~ r ~ yy ' i / X13' /3b~ '~ L~ ~ ~~ \~ _. ~i > ~. J BRO f/ ~ AaCq i i. ~30~ e~ ~ ~ _ \ \ BRUSH \\ ~ ` ~. ~ \ ~. \ ~ ',, ~. ~ ~~ o \ ~ ~ o 000031 ~ ~ . 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: February 05, 1991 at 5:15 p.m. City Council Chambers, City Hall Gardner, Thomas: requesting a front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the RS-30 zone district, for the construction of a residential garage. Property Location: Lot 16, Shield-O-Terrace Subdivision. This is a renotification for a continued hearing. Walker, John: requesting a 5 foot south side yard setback variance where 30 feet is required in the AF-1 zone district, and a 4 foot height variance where a maximum of 12 feet is required by the Pitkin County Land Use Code for accessory structures, to allow for an existing entrance gateway. Property Location: Lot A, Smuggler Grove Subdivision, 109 Mascott Drive. This is a renotification for a continued hearing. Submitted to the Aspen Times on January 22, 1991. To Be Published in the Aspen Times on January 24, 1991. County PO # 49556 00003`? 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: November 6, 1990 at 5:15 p.m. City Council Chambers, City Nall Gardner, Tom: requesting a 56 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the RS-30 zone district, for the construction of a proposed residential garage. Property Location: Lot 16, Shield-O-Terrace. Walker, John S.: requesting a 5 foot south side yard setback variance and a 2 foot height variance, where 30 feet and 12 feet, respectively, are required in the AF-1 zone district, for the construction of a ranch gate. Property Location: Lot A, Smuggler Grove. Wedam, Darrell & Mary: requesting a 65 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required, in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a proposed single-family residence. Property Location: Lot F-3, Redstone Ranch Acres. Camel, Shirley: requesting an 90 foot front yard setback variance and a 20 foot rear yard setback variance, where 100 feet and 30 feet, respectively, are required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a proposed addition to a single- family residence. Property Location: Lot R, Little Texas Subdivision (102 North Little Texas Lane). Dolan, Robert: requesting. a 50 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a proposed addition to a single-family residence. Property Location: Lot 87, Starwood Subdivision. OOOU33 City of Aspen: requesting a 55 foot front yard setback variance, where 75 feet is required in the AF-2 zone district, and a 64 foot major road setback variance, where 100 feet is required per the Pitkin County Land Use Code, for construction of a temporary cover over the James E. Moore Pool. Submitted to the Aspen Times on October 23, 1990. To Be Published in the Aspen Times on October 25, 1990. County PO # H7°/~i[~ 00003 Minutes Members Present: Pitkin County Board of Adjustment February 5, 1991 Kandi Shaffran, Chairman Stan Mathis Rick Neiley John Ostwald Ted Guy Evan Gull Joanna Schaffner, of the Pitkin County Zoning Office, was present with staff recommendations and comments. Shaffran opened the meeting at 5:20 p.m. and introduced the Board to those present. Shaffran stated that Case #91-4, Tom Hansen, will be tabled until the March 5, 1991 meeting. At that time, plan changes will be reviewed. Thomas Gardner was present to request a 56 foot front yard setback variance where 100 feet is required in the RS-30 zone district, for construction of a detached residential garage. Since this case was not properly continued at the November site visit, it was determined by County Attorney, Tim Whitsitt, that the approval granted at the December meeting be considered null and void, as the case should not have been heard without proper renotification. Adjacent property owners and the Aspen Times were renotified that this case would be heard on the February 5, 1991 Board of Adjustment meeting. Schaffner informed the Board that any decision made on this request will be contingent upon approval of a pending scenic foreground review. The Board has the option to table the case until the scenic review is completed. Members of the Shield-O-Terrace Homeowners Association were present to comment on Gardner's request. They were: Henry Lowe, Lynn Hancock, Lloyd Bishop and Sherling Lauricella. Shaffran read the minutes of the November 6, 1990 meeting, the November 14, 1990 site visit, and the December 4, 1990 meeting. Shaffran read for the record a letter from the Shield-O-Terrace's Homeowner's Association and a letter from Tom Gardner. Henry Lowe discussed the Association's position on this request. The Association met in late December, where Tom Gardner appeared and presented his plan for the Association's approval. The Architectural Committee told Gardner that they would review the 000035 plans, examine the site and give their reaction to his proposal. All seven members were unanimous in their opposition to the plan that Gardner had submitted. The Homeowners believe that the structure Gardner is proposing is too large and that the location is inappropriate pursuant to Shield-O-Terrace's covenants which require that a structure's size and location conform and harmonize with the natural surroundings and with existing structures. Pictures were submitted to the Board showing the location of the existing house and proposed garage. The Association's principal objection is that the proposed structure impact on the ridgeline. Lowe presented an alternative plan which the homeowners have approved. Lowe asked if the Board was granting a variance on distance from the road only, or is the Board granting approval for the plans and structure submitted? Shaffran stated that any approval would be for the plans as submitted. Gull stated that if the Homeowner's Association's greatest concern is the impingement of the ridgeline, then they should be satisfied with the variance granted in December, which located the proposed garage away from the ridge and closer to the road. Gull stated that Lowe's alternative would put the structure 14 feet closer to the property line than the approved variance. Lloyd Bishop stated that the homeowner's association was originally focused on the setback. After discussion, the setback became of lesser importance than the impact to the ridgeline. Hancock stated that the minutes of the site visit suggested a 45 foot front yard setback variance would be approved, and that at the December 4, 1990 meeting, a 61 foot front yard setback variance was granted. Guy stated that he believed that this was due to the accuracy of the various maps submitted, and the confusion between the edge of the road and the right-of-way. Hancock stated that he would be more comfortable if the entrance to the garage were changed to face a southerly direction (instead of facing the road). Guy illustrated what this idea would look like. Guy suggested that if the garage were rotated, Gardner would increase his chances for ridgeline review approval. Guy stated that he believed that none of this was germane to the issue of the setback, and that he is still comfortable with the setback variance granted at the December 4, 1990 meeting. Shaffran asked for comments from the Board. * Ostwald stated that the 61 foot variance approved at the December meeting was not inappropriate. 2 000036 * Neiley stated that there is hardship on the site and that he has concerns with the garage being so close to the road right-of-way. He believes that Guy's suggestion of rotating the garage is a good idea is more appropriate. * Guy stated that he would still approve a 61 foot variance. * Gull proposed to change it to a 55 foot variance, for reasons already stated. * Mathis believes that after the ridgeline review is completed, the garage would probably have to be moved back 9 feet anyway. Gull then made a motion to grant a 55 foot front yard setback variance due to a topographical hardship. Guy seconded the motion. Guy and Gull were in favor with Neiley, Ostwald and Mathis opposing. After further discussion, a motion was made by Mathis to grant a 61 foot front yard setback variance due to topographical hardship as per the plans previously submitted. Guy seconded the motion and all but Gull voted in favor. Shaffran did not vote. Case #90-48. Walker. John S Lot A Smuaaler Grove John and Jan Walker, and Jeremy Bernstein, attorney, were present to request a 5 foot south sideyard setback variance where 30 feet is required in the AF-1 zone district, and a 4 foot height variance, where 12 feet is required per the Pitkin County Land Use Code, to allow for an existing ranch gate. Stan Mathis and Evan Gull abstained from voting due to conflicts with the case. Bernstein stated that the ranch gate is 16 feet high, has an approximate 24" cross bar, with the height beneath the crossbar 13-1/2 feet to 14 feet. Bernstein stated that Ed Van Walraven, the Fire Inspector, attended the December 4, 1990 meeting, and stated that the fire code requires at least a 13-1/2 foot height for their fire equipment to pass under. This is based on the Uniform Fire Code which was adopted by Pitkin County, Section 10.27(B), Vertical Clearance, which provides fire apparatus access roads will have an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet, 6 inches. According to District Fire Marshall, Wayne Vandemark, the Fire Department would prefer to have more than 13-1/2 feet for clearance due to snow conditions. This is why the gate was built at its present height. Bernstein submitted at least 15 pictures of illegal ranch gates throughout the County. 000037 Schaffner stated that the Zoning Department realizes there are a lot of gates in Pitkin County that are illegal, but that is not the issue. Since there is a great desire for such ranch gates in the County, the BOCC was consulted by Zoning Administrator, Francis Krizmanich, on whether the accessory height limit should be raised, thereby allowing the gates to conform to County height requirements. The Commissioner chose to not raise the accessory height limit, and instead suggested that such gates be prohibited. Bernstein stated the ranch gate was built to indicate to the public that they were entering a private access and not a public road. Ostwald asked if the Building and Planning Departments were consulted before this was built. Bernstein stated that the two departments were consulted by the builder. Guy asked for further explanation as to the procedure followed before the ranch gate was erected. Schaffner confirmed that two men came into the Zoning Office. They were told that a ranch gate would be considered an accessory structure, would have to meet accessory height requirements of 12 feet, would have to stay out of the required setbacks and that a permit was required. The gate was then erected without a permit and subsequently cited for violation of the Pitkin County Land Use Code by Buddy Lucero. Shaffran read for the record the letters from the public and the phone messages that the Zoning Department received regarding this case, then asked for any further public comments. Candy James, representing the Homeowners from Midland Park, commented that the majority of the homeowners do not have any problem with the ranch gate. Neighbor, Ann Owsley stated that she has seen other ranch gates that were erected without permission and had to be cut down, so the Board can make the same decision for Walker to remove his ranch gate. Owsley stated that the Walkers live in Texas for the majority of the year, whereas the other neighbors live there year-round. She stated that the traffic into the area has not been reduced by the ranch gate but rather more traffic has been induced by the gate because of realtors, individuals, etc., believing that this is a big development worth looking at. Owsley stated that she is not against ranch gates but feels that the area is too small for this type of gate. Shaffran asked if the Walker's believed that just as many people were entering the driveway with the ranch gate being there as when it was not. They disagreed and felt that the ranch gate has cut down on the automobile traffic immensely. 4 00003 Gull commented that he believed that this property was not in the AF-1 zone district, but rather in the R-15 zone. After some discussion and review of the zoning maps, it was decided that the Walker property is in the R-15 zone district and therefore the need for a side yard setback variance was eliminated. Neiley commented that he likes gates and believes that they are not an inappropriate use of property. Neiley also commented that he feels they are not appropriate in the R-15 zone district and more appropriate for a larger piece of property. Ostwald commented that the Fire Code is more concerned with life, health and safety than the Land Use Code, and should take precedence. After further discussion, Neiley made a motion to grant a 4 foot height variance for the existing ranch gate, due to the conflict of height restrictions between the Pitkin County Land Use Code and the Uniform Fire Code which require structures to be at least 13-1/2 feet high. Guy seconded the motion and four were in favor, Gull and Mathis abstaining. The minutes of the January 8 meeting were approved as written. The Board expressed extreme dismay over the County Attorneys negating the Gardner December 4th variance approval. The next meeting will be held March 5, 1991, in the second floor meeting room of City Hall. The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, '~ Cindy L Christensen, Secretary Kandi Sha ran, Ch i an 5 000033 ~J Minutes Members Present Members Absent: Pitkin County Board of Adjustment December 4, 1990 Kandi Shaffran, Chairman Stan Mathis Evan Gull Rick Neiley John Ostwald Ted Guy Joanna Schaffner, of the Pitkin County Zoning Office, was present with staff recommendations and comments. Shaffran opened the meeting at 5:20 p.m. and introduced the Board to those present. The meeting began with the Gardner case which was tabled from the November 6 meeting to provide for a site visit. (Ted Guy was not present to vote on the first case.) Case #90-47 Gardner Thomas Lot 16, Shield-O-Terrace Thomas Gardner was present to request a 56 foot front yard setback variance where 100 feet is required, for construction of a detached garage. Gardner reviewed what was discussed in the November 6 meeting and at the site visit on November 14, 1990. Gardner submitted a new set of plans which show the change that he is requesting. The proposed garage will be placed further back into the hillside. Shaffran asked if there were any members of the public present to comment. There were none. After a brief discussion, Gardner stated he would place the garage 7 feet off of the right-of-way. Ostwald asked if Gardner could move the location of the garage back another 2 feet to allow for a parking apron (this would be 9 feet off the right-of- way with the right-of-way being 60 feet). Gardner had no problem with that request. After a brief discussion Gull made a motion to grant a 61 foot front yard setback variance for the construction of a detached garage, as per the plans submitted on December 4, due to topographical hardship. Mathis seconded the motion and all were in favor. 1 oU~~~~ Marguerite Collier, Bill Lipsey, architect and Chuck Brandt, attorney, were present to request a 20.5 foot rear yard setback variance, where 50 feet is required for construction of a deck. Shaffran stated that there was a problem with notification on this case. The correct request was written on the sign but was incorrectly stated in notices sent the adjacent property owners and posted in the Aspen Times. Therefore, any decision on this case will be subject to no objections being made after renotification to the adjacent property owners and the Aspen Times, and prior to the January 8, 1991 meeting date. Brandt also submitted a copy of a letter of consent from Collier's neighbor, Kenneth Wang, and the minutes from the November 5, 1990 Starwood Homeowners Association meeting, also approving this request. Also made a part of the file is a copy of the Minor Ridgeline Development Review from the Planning Office approving this request for a deck. Paul Taddune and Ellie Brickham, representing the Stanwood Homeowners Association, were present stating that there were no objections to this request. Mathis made a motion to grant a 20.5 foot rear yard setback variance for construction of a proposed deck, due to downzoning, as per the plans submitted, pending renotification of the neighbors and Aspen Times, and no objections from this renotification. Ostwald seconded the motion and all were in favor. Since no notification of this meeting was posted at this site, Shaffran moved to table this case to the January 8, 1991 meeting. Guy seconded the motion and all were in favor. Joe Lalande, representing Don Davis, was present to foot west side yard setback variance, where 50 feet for construction of a proposed workshop/storage shed. request a 15 is required, Lalande reviewed what Davis wanted to do and stated that the location on the plans is the only place to put the shed due to the topography. Gull mentioned that because of the 1041 building envelope, there are constraints as to where the shed, can be placed. Shaffran asked if there was anyone comment and there was no one. 2 from the public present to ~~~~~1 Gull made a motion to grant a 15 foot west side yard setback variance for construction of a proposed workshop/storage shed, due to topography, as per the submitted plans. Ostwald seconded the motion and all were in favor. The minutes of the November 6 meeting were approved as written. The next meeting will be January 8, 1991, in City Council Chambers, City Hall. The meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, h P~~ Cindy L Christensen, Secretary 3 Kandi Sh ffran, Chairman 00004? Minutes Pitkin County Board of Adjustment Site Visit November 14, 1990 Members Present: Evan Gull, Acting Chairman Stan Mathis Ted Guy Members Absent: Kandi Shaffran John Ostwald Rick Neiley Case #90-47 Gardner Thomas Lot 16, Shield-O-Terrace There was no quorum present at this site visit so no vote could be taken, however, the case was discussed with all present so that a decision could be made at the December 4, 1990 meeting. The neighbors present at this site visit were Lloyd and Caroline Bishop, Lyn Hancock, Jan Johannssen, and Shirley. David Cerullo, who resides in the Gardner home, was also present along with Tom Gardner. Gardner showed the group where he planned on building the garage. Hancock stated that his concerns are the size of the structure, what the structure is to look like, and the setback from the road. Gull stated that requirements in the Land Use Code regulate the size and height of structures, and that the Board will consider Gardner's request for relief from setback requirements only. After discussion with the various neighbors, it was decided that a 45 foot front yard setback variance from the property line would be best suited for this site. Further discussion will be held at the December 4, 1990 meeting. Respectfully Submitted, ~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ Cindy ~ Christensen, Secretary Evan Gull, Acting Chairman ~~~U~3 Minutes Pitkin County Board of Adjustment November 6, 1990 Members Present: Members Absent: Evan Gull, Acting Chairman John Ostwald Ted Guy Stan Mathis Kandi Shaffran Rick Neiley Joanna Schaffner, of the Pitkin County Zoning Office, was present with staff recommendations and comments. Gull opened the meeting at 5:20 p.m. and introduced the Board to those present. Gull stated that four members are needed for a quorum, and four yes votes are needed for approval. Since only four members were present at this meeting, a unanimous decision must be reached for approval to be granted. Therefore, applicants have the option to have their request tabled until the December 4, 1990 meeting when more members may be present, or to wait for Neiley, who was expected to arrive later in the meeting. Barbara Howell called the Planning and Zoning Office on Monday, November 5, 1990, and requested that their application be withdrawn. Case #90-48. Walker, John, Lot A,_Smuaaler Grove Jeremy Bernstein was present representing John Walker, requesting a 5 foot south side yard setback variance where 30 feet is required in the AF-1 zone district, and a 4 foot height variance, where 12 feet is required for accessory structures per the Pitkin County Land Use Code, for the approval of an existing, illegal ranch gate. Gull abstained from this case because he is Walker's neighbor. Therefore, with only three Board members, voting could not take place as a quorum was not present. Bernstein requested, and the Board agreed, that testimony from Ed Van Walraven, of the Fire Department, be heard at this time and entered into the record. Van Walraven stated that for a fire truck to pass beneath a structure, the minimum height necessary for the structure is 13 feet 6 inches. An additional 6 inches of clearance is suggested to allow for packed snow on the road beneath the structure. 1 ~U~~~t`. After a brief discussion, Guy moved to grant a 90 foot front yard setback variance and a 20 foot rear yard setback variance as indicated on the plans submitted, due to nonconforming lot size. Ostwald seconded the motion and all were in favor. Case #90-51. Dolan,. Robert. Lot 87, Starwood Subdivision Randy Wedam was present representing Robert Dolan to request a 50 foot front yard setback variance where 100 feet is required in the AF-i zone district, for construction of a proposed addition to a single-family residence. The house was built in 1974 when the subdivision required a 50 foot setback from Eppley Drive. Dolan wishes to continue with the same setback for the proposed addition. Wedam mentioned that Dolan has already received Starwood Homeowners' Association approval for this addition. There was no one present from the public for comment. Ostwald moved to grant a 50 foot front yard setback variance as indicated on the plans submitted due to downzoning. Guy seconded the motion and all were in favor. Case 90-52. Citv of Asoen, Moore Pool at Maroon Creek Road Rod Tweet was present representing the City of Aspen to request a 55 foot front yard setback variance where 75 feet is required, and a 64 foot major road setback variance where 100 feet is required per the Pitkin County Land Use Code, for construction of a temporary structure to cover the James E. Moore Pool. Gull asked how the covered area would relate to the existing fence and pool. Tweet explained that the structure will be attached to the existing building, will be inside the existing fence, and will cover the pool only. Mathis moved to grant a 55 foot front yard setback variance and a 64 foot major road setback variance as on the plans submitted, due to downzoning. Guy seconded the motion and all were in favor. Case #90-48 was brought to the table again, but Neiley had not yet arrived. Bernstein requested that the case be tabled until the January meeting since he was scheduled for court during the December meeting, but informed the Board that he may need to table the case until the February meeting if a January conflict could not be resolved. The Board agreed to table the case until January 8, 1991. ***********************,r********,t*,r********,t********************* ~~~U~~ ~EN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE • 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303)920-5090 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES city 00113 -63250-134 GMP/CONCEPTUAL -63270-136 GMPIFINAL -63280-137 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 SU B/DETAILED -63210-131 SUB/FINAL -63220-132 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS -63230-133 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ --~----- CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS - ~ -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 -63090-123 -63140-124 -69000-145 (i (/_ Name: ~ 11 ~ X11 / Address: ~- ~- J `> •~ ~ Check # '~~~ Additional billing: _~~~ ~¢ ~ - ~. „ 1 SUBTOTAL ~~ TOTAL ~/ Phone: ~~ i ~ t/ '- ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ Pry7jectr~ 0 J ~ IG ~); - Date: r u I` ~- ° ~ 1''~- CITY/COUNTY CODE COMP. PLAN COPY FEES OTHER Scanned 3/19/08 File Finders Box #15