Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
pitkin.boa.90.48
PITKIN COUNTY B(/O~ARD OF ADJUSTMENT DATE ~ d~ 19 [ ~ CASE # ~ ~ J APPLICANT ~~ l~-h~ ~• ~~~^ PHONE /~~ ~U ! ~ ~ a/ 7 ~•'O y/~`~~ MAILING ADJDRESS~~ /~U~ ~/T~-~ OWNER ~)D~-~~ S. ~~~''- PHONE ~~"> ~/ MAILING ADDRESS S/~'/'"~~ LOCATION OF PROPERTY l D J ~`~J C ~~~•~- 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. ~~~ l~ Uu~ Applicant Signature (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: rZone District Requesting: ~.5~~~ Lot Size ' Front Yard Setback Variance, where i5 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 Official~~F_t;t.P'G; /,.-i ~~~il ~nc 1.~ ' rn/ 1 ~~~ Application filedlQ~~ Date Notices mailed..~737- /d'/-00- OOls• /7 Parcel ID # /b.~~,,=~d ~• Secretary ,GLLI~u Lcalt.r.<a/~„ Q~~~Q1 O Z ~~ 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 John S. Walker P.O. Sox 11538 Aspen, CO 81612 Lot A, Smuggler Lot Subdivision 109 Mascott Drive Requesting approval for 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. Granting of this variance would allow the entrance gateway to remain. Duration of Variance: Temporary Permanent X THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT '~ Cind L. Christensen, Secretary ooouo NOTICE OF PIIBLIC 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 John S. Walker P.O. Box 11538 Aspen, CO 81612 Lot A, Smuggler Grove Requesting approval for a 5 foot variance, where 30 feet is requi2 variance, where 12 feet is required, for construction of a ranch gate. would allow the gate to remain as property. Duration of Variance: Temporary south side yard .setback ed, and a 2 foot height in the AF-1 zone district, Granting of this approval is already located on the Permanent• X THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT "~ U Cindy Christensen, Secretary ®~Q~;J • JEREMY M. BERNSTEIN • ATTORNEY AT LAW WHEELER SQUARE LAW OFFICES 315 EAST HVMAN AVENUE. SUITE 308 ASPEN, COLORADO 81811 303 928-8166 October 8, 1990 Cindy Christensen Aspen/Pitkin Planning Dept. City Hall 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Walker Variance Application Dear Cindy: FA%:928-1090 Enclosed please find a completed application form for an Application for Variance submitted on behalf of John Walker, the owner of Lot A, Smuggler Grove, Pitkin County, Colorado, also known as 109 Mascott Drive, Aspen, Colorado. Enclosed please find a check in the amount of $25.00 payable to the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office. I am also enclosing the following exhibits: 1. Nine (9) copies of the legal description of the subject property marked as Exhibit "A" to satisfy paragraph 4 of the Requirement List. 2. Eight (8) copies of the survey marked as Exhibit "B" showing the structure (ranch gate) as it presently exists. Exhibit "B" is intended to satisfy the requirements of paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Requirement List. Because this structure has already been erected, Exhibit "B" reflects the actual dimensions of the ranch gate as opposed to the "floor plan of the proposed structure." 3. Exhibits "C-1" through "C-4" which are pictures of the structure in question. 4. Exhibit "D" which is a copy of Section 10.27(d) of the Uniform Fire Code. 5. Exhibits "E-1" through "E-12" which are pictures of other ranch gates in Pitkin County. 6. Eight (8) copies of a letter marked as Exhibit "F" describing why the variance is necessary. This should be read in conjunction with Exhibit "D." Exhibit "F" is submitted in satisfaction of paragraph 7 of the Requirement List. ooouo~ JEREMY M. BERNSTEI~ • Cindy Christensen October 8, 1990 Page -2- 7. Eight (8) copies of the list of all adjacent property owners and their mailing addresses marked on Exhibit "G" in compliance with paragraph 10 of the Requirement List. 8. Eight (8) copies of a vicinity/directional map with directions with a notation where the notification sign will be placed marked as Exhibit "H" in compliance with paragraph 9 of the Requirement List. 9. I am also enclosing self-addressed and stamped letters size envelopes with names and addresses of all adjacent property owners with Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 in compliance with paragraph 11 of the Requirement List. This Application for Variance is being submitted prior to October 15, 1990 for the November 6, 1990 Board of Adjustment Meeting. We would like to post the Notification Sign no later than October 30, 1990. I will personally place the Notification Sign on the property nine (9) days prior to the meeting date and I will sign the Affidavit as required in paragraph 12 of the Requirement List. If you have any questions or comments concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ~~ ~ - ~~~ C~erem M. Bernstein JMB/mms enc cc: John Walker O(9U~°~ JEREMY M. BERNSTEIN • ATTORNEY AT LAW WHEELER SOUARE LAW OFFICES 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 305 ASPEN, COLOflADO 81611 303-925-6166 FAX: 926-1090 October 8, 1990 Pitkin County Board of Adjustment City Hall 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 ATTN: Jan Carney RE: Walker Variance Lot A, Smuaaler Grove Pitkin County, Colorado Dear Board of Adjustment: This office represents John Walker, the owner of Lot A, Smuggler Grove, Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. In the Summer of 1990, Walker constructed a ranch gate at the entrance to his property off of Mascott Drive. We are enclosing Exhibits "C-1" through "C-4" which are pictures of the ranch gate in question. Prior to constructing the ranch gate, Mr. Walker's foreman, Joe Arlige, attempted to comply with the Pitkin County Building Code by contacting the Pitkin County Zoning Department and the Aspen Volunteer Fire Department with respect to constructing the ranch gate. According to Mr. Arlige, he was advised that he could not build the structure off of Midland and he was advised by the Aspen Fire Department that the structure had to have a fourteen (14) foot clearance for fire trucks. Mr. Arlige was apparently unaware of the twelve foot height restriction set forth in the Pitkin County Building Code with respect to such structures. The owner, Mr. Walker, was proceeding in good faith when he relied on Mr. Arlige to construct the ranch gate within the building code guidelines. Subsequent to the construction of the ranch gate, Mr. Lucero, Zoning Enforcement Officer of the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, advised Mr. Walker that he must obtain a variance in order to bring the ranch gate into compliance with the Pitkin County Land Use Code. The purpose of this letter is to advise the Board of Adjustment of Mr. Walker's position and the reasons why such a variance should be granted in this case. EXHIBIT "F" ooouos JEREMY M. BERNSTEI~ • Pitkin County Board of Adjustment October 8, 1990 Page -2- First, Mr. Walker apologizes to the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office for the misunderstanding which resulted in the construction of the ranch gate first without first obtaining a variance. Second, Mr. Walker believes that a variance should be granted in this case because if he builds a ranch gate in compliance with the twelve foot height restrictions set forth in Section 3-2 Air and Bulk Requirements, of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, this would create a conflict with the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code which has been adopted by Pitkin County. Section 10.207 (d) Vertical Clearance of the Uniform Fire Code provides, "fire apparatus access road shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen feet six inches." A copy of Section 10.207(d) of the Uniform Fire Code is attached as Exhibit "D." In order to provide adequate clearance for fire trucks, Mr. Walker had to construct a ranch gate which had a thirteen foot six inch clearance. The clearance is actually around fourteen feet because Mr. Vandemark, Fire Marshall for the Aspen Fire Protection District, told Mr. Walker that an additional six inches was advisable because of snow conditions which could raise the grade between four to six inches. The ranch gate measures sixteen feet at the top, as demonstrated on the improvement survey. The additional two feet is a result of the cross bar which measures between eighteen to twenty-four inches. Third, the ranch gate is in keeping with the traditional entrance to ranches here in the West. There are numerous ranch gates in Pitkin County in excess of twelve feet. Attached as Exhibits "E-1" through "E-12" are pictures of twelve (12) ranch gates throughout Pitkin County taken by Mr. Walker. This is a random and certainly not an exhaustive sample of ranch gates. We assume that the owners of the ranch gates have obtained variances from the Board of Adjustment before constructing these structures. Therefore, this issue has been before the Board of Adjustment in the past and the Board of Adjustment appears to have granted numerous variances for this type of structure. Mr. Walker used his best efforts to comply with the Pitkin County Land Use Code by instructing his contractor to contact the appropriate local officials before commencing construction. Mr. Walker acknowledges that it is his responsibility to insure that he satisfies Pitkin County Land Use Code when building in Pitkin County. We do not believe that the timing in this matter, that of applying for a variance after the structure has been built, should adversely affect the decision of the Board of Adjustment. OUOOCa JEREMY M. BERNSTEII'~ • Pitkin County Board of Adjustment October 8, 1990 Page -3- In summary, Mr. Walker requests that the Board of Adjustment grant him a variance to permit him to maintain the ranch gate structure at its present height of sixteen feet. The structure itself is well-removed from Midland Road and is located on a private road leading to Mr. Walker's residence. It is aesthetically pleasing, meets the height requirements set forth by the Uniform Fire Code and follows the tradition of ranch gates constructed elsewhere in Pitkin County, Colorado. Sincerely, .~~~. ~,( (~erertfy M. Bernstein Attorney for John Walker JMB/mms cc: John Walker ~D~U~~ ALAN J. SHAPERO • UNIT G-11 MID PARK CONDO P.0. BOX 3659 ~ ~` e ~ ASPEN CO 81612 ~~ f~ ALEXANDRA HALPERN P,0. BOX 2210 ASPEN CO ARTHUR R. PHILLIPPE P.0. BOX 8245 ASPEN CO B. JOSEPH KRABACHER 201 NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN CO 81612 81612 81611 1/2 INT LOT 3 EAST MEADOW UNIT 208 ASPEN VIEW UNIT 307 ASPEN VIEW CARLA J. LONNHOLM UNIT A-11 MIDLAND PARK CONDO 101 MIDLAND PARK PLACE #A-11 ASPEN CO 81611 CATHERINGE ANNE HAGEN UNIT B-10 MIDLAND PARK CONDO 111 MIDLAND PARK PLACE #B10 ASPEN CO 81611 ~ CHARLES 0 eCLAIRE UNIT 102 ASPEN VIEW ~~S!~ BINDLE OBINSON 1801 T MUSEUM DRIVE SUITE 102 JAC ONVILLE FL 32207 CHERYL MARGARET HAYNES UNIT 302 ASPEN VIEW 140 MIDLAND AVE #302 ASPEN CO 81611 CHRISTOHPER P. LACY P.0. BOX 4192 ASPEN CO 81612 UNIT D-2 MIDLAND PARK CONDO CLAIRE L. SANDERSEN TRACT B METES AND BOUNDS P.0. BOX 187 /'1 ASPEN OUODU9 CO 81612 ~~~~~~`~` t'~ /q 9$ /~,~ DAVID H. WEBSTER UNIT G-2]. MSDI_AND PARK CONO(? P.O. BOX 10362 i ASPEN ~ CO 81612 DAVID NEIL PATTEN UNIT A-13 MIDLAND PARK CONDO 101 MIDLAND PARK PLACE #A-13 ASPEN CO 81611 DEB SUE URBACH UNIT 206 ASPEN VIEW ~~F,,~~99~~ 0. BOX 1284 fi ASPEN CO 81612 DOUGLAS GRAYBEAL UNIT B-21 MIDLAND PARK CONDO P.O. BOX 2948 ASPEN CO 81612 DOUGLAS McPHERSON N0. UNIT SMUGGLER GROVE P.O. BOX 4412 ASPEN CO 81612 ERNST FYRWALD UNIT E-3 MIDLAND PARK CONDO 428 EAST HYMAN ASPEN CO 81611 G. MORIA ROMESBURG UNIT A-12 MIDLAND PARK CONDO 101 MIDLAND PARK PLACE #A-12 ASPEN CO 81611 GARY M. SPECKMANN UNIT 207 ASPEN VIEW 1310 RIVERSIDE DRIVE BOULDER CO 80302 GENE MICHAEL HYDER LOT 1 EAST MEADOW P.O. BOX 8560 ASPEN CO 81612 `'YIACK B RINGER UNIT 306 ASPEN VIEW if ^. P. BOX 9955 ''~ PEN CO 81612 JACK H. BUCKLEY UNIT 303 ASPEN VIEW j tl j ~ ASPENIDLAND AVE #303 CO 81611 JAMES C. HECK UNIT H-12 MID D PARK CONDO . ~ P. 0. BOX £3416 ASPEN CO 61612 JAMES D. HANCOCK UNIT G-10 MIDLAND PARK CONDO 120 MIDLAND PARK PLACE #G-10 ASPEN CO 61611 JAMES MICHAEL McPHEE UNIT D-1 MIDLAND PARK CONDO 131 MIDLAND PARK PLACE #D1 ASPEN CO 61611 JANE ROSEN UNIT F-1 MIDLAND PARK CONDO P.O. BOX 91353 ASPEN CO 61612 JANETTE LOGAN UNIT 205 ASPEN VIEW 0094 ELK RANGE DRIVE OLD SNOMWASS CO 61654 JEAN M, SHERRY UNIT D-3 MIDLAND PARK CONDO P.O. BOX 10612 ASPEN CO 61612 JEANNE MARIE RITTER UNIT H-11 MIDLAND PARK CON00 110 MIDLAND PARK PLACE #H11 ASPEN CO 61611 JOHN D. WALLA UNIT C-1 MIDLAND PARK CONDO JEAN D. WALLA P.O. BOk 161 ASPEN CO 61612 JOHN M. 2ELL UNIT B-12 MIDLAND PARK CONDO P.O. BOX 11314 ASPEN CO 61612 JOHN S. WALKER TRACT A SUBJECT PR OPERTY PART OF RIVERSIDE PLACE R P.O. BOX 11536 ASPEN CO 61612 JOSEPH EDWARD WELLS UNIT F-2 MIDLAND PARK CONDO . 0 O O ~ 1 ~ 130 MIDLAND PARK PLACE #F2 ASPEN CO 61611 JUDITH A. KOLBERG 141 MIDLAND PARK #E-1 ASPEN CO 81611 JULIA A. DOWS KIRWIN P.O. BOX 12280 ASPEN CO 81612 KATHRYN LEVINE LOUISE BRAINARD P.O. BOX 11354 ASPEN MARCIA POUTOUS P.O. BOX 914 ASPEN 0 MIDLAND AVE #202 SPEN CO 81611 KATHRYN 5. KOCH 121 MIDLAND PARK PLACE #C4 ASPEN CO 81611 UNIT E-1 MIDLAND PARK CONDO 1/2 INT LOT 3 EAST MEADOW UNIT 202 ASPEN VIEW UNIT C-4 MIDLAND PARK CONDO UNIT F-3 MIDLAND PARK CONDO CO 81612 UNIT 301 ASPEN VIEW CO MARK V. HARRINGTON 111 MIDLAN PARK PLACE #B-22 ASPEN CO MARY JUDITH SCHWALBACH 111 MIDLAND PARK PLACE #B-13 ASPEN CO NANCY h~DONNELI ®, ~ q.~ 18 KIOWA #118 ANTA MONICA CA 81612 81611 81611 90049 UNIT B-22 MIDLAND PARK CONDO UNIT B-13 MIDLAND PARK CONDO UNIT 204 ASPEN VIEW PAMELA GASSMAN UNIT C-2 MIDLAND PARK CONDO #2C MIDLAND PARK PLACE ASPEN CO 81611 PAMELA M. CUNNINGHAM UNIT E-2 MIDLAND PARK CONDO s n 141 MIDLAND PARK PLACE #E-2 Q~U~i-% ASPEN CO 81611 ~~ PATRICIA CHALOUPKA UNIT 305 ASPEN VIEW 140 MIDLAND AVE ~ i ASPEN CO 81611 PATRICK J. KEELTY LOT 5 EAST MEADOW 729 WEST FRANCIS ASPEN CO 81611 PAUL J. HANRAHAN UNIT A-21 MIDLAND PARK CONDO MARY C. HANRAHAN 101 MIDLAND PARK PLACE #A-21 ASPEN CO 81611 ROBERT C. OSBORNE UNIT 201 ASPEN VIEW ~Q~ S ~~~ ASflEi~-- 1 CO ___ 81611 JGf~1yt)-~ ~~ ~ ~' ,~ G~O~ RONALD L. MOREHEAD UNIT H-10 MIDLAND PARK CONDO ERLINDA MOREHEAD P.O. BOX 9432 ASPEN CO 81612 RONALD M. CHAUNER 111 MIDLAND PARK #D4 ASPEN CO SARA B. GARTON 00101 MODLAND PLACE #A-10 ASPEN CO SHAEL JOHNSON P.O. BOX 3549 ASPEN CO SHAWNN BOYD P.O. BOX 2204 ASPEN CO SHELDON GROSS P.o. Box yes I ~3 ~ SHERRY R, CASHIO 140 MIDLAND AVE #304 ASPEN CO 81611 81611 81612 81612 UNIT D-4 MIDLAND PARK CONDO UNIT A-10 MIDLAND PARK CONDO UNIT G-13 MIDLAND PARK CONDO UNIT H-21 MIDLAND PARK CONDO UNIT 308 ASPEN VIEW ffi4~2 j~! "°~ UNIT 304 ASPEN VIEW 81611 ., n O~J~iiiJ ~[~U~~'1 STEPHEN C. HACH ER GROVE S0. UNIT SMU MARTHA AMES ~ 23 SMUGGLER R9dD ASPEN a CO 81611 STEVEN E. RICE UNIT B-11 MIDLAND PARK CONDO 111 MIDLAND PARK PLACE #B-11 ASPEN CO 81611 SUE L. CHESSLER UNIT A-22 MIDLAND PARK CONDO P.O. BOX 7871 ASPEN CO 81612 SUSAN FENZEL UNIT 203 ASPEN VIEW 616 EAST HYMAN AVE ASPEN CO 81611 ,~ SUSA V. ZELLER }I ~ P.O. BOX 3612 1/2 INT L OT 4 EAST MEAD OW ASPEN CO 81612 TERRY S. ALLEN UNIT G-12 MIDLAND PARK CONDO P.O. BOX 9768 ASPEN CO 81612 THOMAS BOYLAN UNIT C-3 MIDLAND PARK CONDO 121 MIDLAND PARK PLACE #C3 ASPEN CO 81611 THOMAS LAUCKS UNIT 101 ASPEN VIEW P.O. BOX 11990 ASPEN CO 81612 THOMAS W. GRIFFITHS UNIT E-4 MIDLAND PARK CONDO P.O. BOX 11583 ASPEN CO 81612 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR BlM BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 50629 U.S. HIGHWAY 6 & 24 GLENWOOD SPRINGS CO 81601 VALERIE M. BONIS UNIT G-22 MIDLAND PARK CONDO P.O. BOX 3834 ASPEN CO 81612 WILTON K. ONEAL ROBERTA L. ONEAL . P.O. BOX 4294 ASPEN CO 61612 1/2 INT LOT ~ST MEADOW UUUu n/Pitkin Planning Office South Galena n, CO 81611 /Pitkin Planning Cffice out h.- 6a3~ena _----. ,_ • -_f'O:: 81611 :: _._._ :~._ .. .:.. . ._. ROBERT C. 0580RNE ~ 140 MIDLAND AVE #201 ASPEN CO 81611 fl5~[11'fO ~~ 6111tOQ9 1G89 l~?f2~/44 F~4tdARGtZpl~ TIME EyfF"IREQ ~~ •`". = -- '",: - KATHRYN LEVINE i 140 MIDLAND AVE #2D2 ASPEN CO 81611, z/Pitkin Plannira Office South Galena a, CO 81611 _ ~ ... . SUSAN V. ZELLER , P.0. BOX 3612 ASPEN CO 81612 _~a._~a__' .,,.._~_.__.._ ~,.. „~ __~.:t :fin,, ~ iii _,=tT: a",1 .. O~n,,.., .. .~vLv /Pitkin Planning Office outh Galena CO 81611 =` .. `~~ „ " ' ~ '- ~~:" . _ NAN(;'Y~ `.r MCfl0~=w 11618 K A #~® SANTA MOfWjp 1 _ ~itkin Planning Office tth Galena CO 81611 ~~,~~, v ~, - _, ;~~ . .~ , ~~Yi~~E, ; `tip `~~vR f~, CHARLES D. LeCLAIRE ~ C~, BINDLER/ROBINSON .,_ 1801 ART MUSEUM DRIVE SUITE 102 JACKSONVILLE FL 32207 >itkin Planning Office xth Galena ' CO 81611 G~~~ ~ ~~ ~~' er~,~ *e~ o A1~ '4ja ~~D . NprKNOwN ^EBRA SUE URBACN P.0. BOl( 1284 ASPEN !~ "OAA ~ 0,- T,25 1. 'rOC,; CO 91612 ~.._ --'"`-'.-~. " .lip - ~------ '~IaY~9, c79o...-.-, ' hode Island L) :c~us?%'-? t'il.~:lc 7.~.Ly~ 3~b :i.~1.'=:'i"-{~J 1J: f lE+~TlR:iit': iil [~'~{~L~~yt IC73'rr ~i~ ~[~i?~i)A'i~.l~..IfiL'WSi pN t~1L~ ^~ _... SA .. (1nn w r~ A i/ .. a ', U ~Pitkin Planning Office Guth Galena CO 81611 JACK BARRINGER P.0. BOX 9955 ASPEN l 1990 rn ai~i~ BARR95S _4~]? 1C89 14lESf94 -_ ~ BARRITl6Ett ` _ , RL~~Tt~ .. SHELDON GROSS ~ P.0. BOX 185 ASPEN CO 81612 ¢~pqqq ~~~~~~tlt~c EXPIRED !54 CLiR TP z,lPitkin Planning Office South Galena z, CO 81611 _'~„ "' ~~,, STEPHEN C. HACH ` ~ ~".. MARTHA AMES ~~ -, 23 SMUGGLER }2AA9-i~~~'+'~°`'"" ASPEN CO ~:.,~'. ~, N, ia_ ,~, o ~~:. i 1~ 1 =?~:, 1 81611 n - ODUU~8 EXHIBIT "A" John Walker Lot A, Smuggler Grove Pitkin County, Colorado also known as 109 Mascott Drive, Aspen, Colorado 03J,~~~` Office January 25, 1991 Mr. Terry Allen, President Midland Park Homeowner's Association c/o Sara Garton . 110 Midland Park Place Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Pitkin County Board 'of Adjustment meeting February 5, 1991 Height and setback variances for John Walker Gateway Entrance and 109 Mascott Drive Dear Mr. Allen: Although we are not required to re-notify adjacent property owners of this coming hearing, we understand that many of your homeowners have concerns regarding Mr. Walker's gateway, located on Lot A of the Smuggler Grove Subdivision. You may inform homeowners with interest in this case that Mr. Walker's application to the Board of Adjustment will be reviewed in the meeting room on the second floor of City Hall, at 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, at the Board's next regularly scheduled meeting; Tuesday, February 5, 1991, at 5:15 p.m. Anyone wishing to express an opinion regarding this matter should write to the Pitkin County Board of Adjustment, at 130 South Galena, Aspen, Colorado 81611, attention Cindy Christensen, or attend the meeting. Please feel free to contact me at 920-5090, if you have any questions. Sincerely, ~~~~~~~~ oanna S. Schaffner Pitkin County Zoning cc: Case #90-48; Walker, John Board of Adjustment file ieryc/ed paper n o o O V n • JEREMY M. BERNSTEIN• `'°e~+ ~~~"~~4.. f..e1 . . I 1.. _.. ~.r .b .~ S1 C'h~ , ~""~/V .. __ .:Vb Cindy Christensen Aspen/Pitkin Planning Dept. City Hall 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 December 11, 1990 RE: Walker Variance Application Dear Cindy: DEC 13199Ci FAX: 925-1090 The Walker Variance Application was originally set for hearing on November 6, 1990. There was not a quorum for the Board of Adjustment and the matter was tabled and re-set until January 8, 1991. I advised the Board of Adjustment on November 6, 1990 that it was highly likely that I would be out of the State of Colorado on January 8, 1991 and further advised the Board of Adjustment that I would probably request that the matter be re-scheduled until February 5, 1991. It appears that I will be out of the State of Colorado on January 8, 1991 and in order to obtain a firm hearing date, I am requesting that this matter be rescheduled for February 5, 1991. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, JMB/mms cc: John Walker ATTORNEY AT LAW WHEELER SQUARE LAW OFFICES 315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 305 ASPEN, COLORADO 81811 303-925-8168 -rrti v _r/~ emy°M. Bernstei a0~D21 November 5. 1990 Pitkin County Board of Adjustment Aspen, CO Dear Sir: 1 understand that you are reviewing Mr. Walker's gate and fence in the Smuggler Gx-ove Subdivision. I wish to express my concerns regarding these. Z do not believe that the gate should be place over a road that has to be used by other people and should remain unobstructed for emergency vehicles such as fire trucks. A gate like this should only be placed, if at all, in front of a personal driveway that is not shared by others and will not obstruct emergency vehicles trying to get t.o a house. The fence that has been constructed along Mascotte is an improvement in that it hides the cluttered back yards of the houses along it. but it has made a traffic problem at the corner. It is not possible to see around the fence to oncoming traffic. I hope that you will consider n,y comments when making your decision regarding Mr. Walker's gate and fence. Thank You. Sincerely, , Jane D. Lewis 89 Ardmore Court Aspen, CO 00002?. November 5, 1990 Members of the Pitkin County Board of Adjustment: My property is adjacent to John Walker's. I hate looking at his Texas Ranch gate. It shouldn't be allowed at all, and to give it a variance is ludicrous. This isn't an "accessory structure", it's a sign. It has no function other than to announce the presence of a rich Texan. _Sincerely, , ~/ David H. Webster ~ ~_,~~.,~4p ..,-,,, ~~i~ k~~. ~5~I, ./ ``r ''~"' ~ 'x ~, ,`_9fa OOUt:; Pitkin County Board of Adjustment Aspen, Co 81611 November 4, 1990 z Z MEMBERS OF THE BOARD - My family has owned the property adjacent to what is currently John ' O Walker s property since 1968. There have been many previous owners of Mr. Walker's property in that time, but none has taken so many liberties with it as Mr. Walker has. C He has willfully ignored County regulations in the fences and structures he has built. If you give him V that variance you will reinforce the sentiment that all our zoning regulations are whimsical, r insignificant, and easily dodged. It will set an outrageous precedent in the East End, and we can only m imagine the structures which will follow. Please do not let him claim hardship for the non-essential structure his huge gateway is. It is out of scale with the densely populated neighborhood and too enormous an entry for his very small piece III of property. He definitely cannot move it farther into his property as that brings it even closer to ours, yet that does not constitute hardship as he had no good reason to build it at all. T There are beginning to be many more of these ranch entry gates in Pitkin County. Out in the country, O perhaps even on enough property to constitute a small ranch, they may be pertectly appropriate. But ' v /~ Mr. Walker s property is small, is in the middle of suburban Aspen, in a crowded area. Another, more serious violation is the fence which Mr. Walker has built at the corner of Mascotte and Ardmore. This fence is a danger to all traffic and pedestrians, as it is too tall to allow for clear sight N around the corner. The near-collisions with other cars and small children have been so numerous O that the neighbors who must drive this road have begun to honk their horns as they near the corner, which makes it a noise nuisance as well. There is no hardship here, either. Mr. Walker only needed to abide by existing laws concerning fences. III Both of our properties border Forest Service land. In a related incident, although not within your jurisdiction, Mr. Walker helped himself to large boulders from the Forest Service property, and also ~n built part of his new garage on Forest Service land. This is not a man who understands boundaries. V ~ Mr. Walker is currently in negotiation with owners of Midland Park units over a property dispute. Most m of those neighbors will not come forward at this time to protest his gate and fence for fear of sabotaging those negotiations, but many are outraged. Please don't think he has the endorsement Z of the majority of his neighbors. He cannot prove hardship in any way. Just because it has already been built doesn't mean it had O a right to be there in the first place. The East End deserves as much zoning protection and enforcement as other areas in Aspen. Please don't allow him to set this precedent for our neighborhood. J Sincerely, R~ij^f~ eF. ~ $~:., , .~fu,°,,~6•~ ti N Ann Sandersen Owsley nit?!/ ^ j'9~Q Q.~ ". . i `~ ~ ~ ` ~_ r ~\v 'v `~~ ~ ~ ~\ ~,J ..J ~ I C ,~ \~ \~ p \ / J ~ ~\ J ~ 1. ~i r. ~ , ~ . , ~ ~ jk~ ~I ~` ~~ ~ J~ ` a ~ c ~~ \~:J\ '•v \~~ ~~~ _ l ) I ~` J I 'KJ ~V~ v~' 1 ~S~ 11 v U ~d ~~ ~ `--d \\~ y ~~ ~i V v iu) i~ J `~7 ~~ 3 '~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~. ~ J ~ d II\\ --~ ~J~ Ol s~ ~ ~~ ~,-u~ r ~ \` ~ ~ ^, J J „ \ ti ` \ ~~^ / .~ J ` ~ G ~rl !; ~ ` ~ ` 1 ~! J , l ~ ~ G r _ ~ ~~ ~ -~ J ~ ~ ~ J N `~ ~ _~ ` 'j ~~ ~~ ~» ~ ~ y, } ? J ~ S J ~ '_ 1_ ~ _ e~ J ~~ j % YYY -~ `~ ~ ~ ,~ ~-~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -t J \ 1 U0002;~ ~~ ~~ 1 l~ J ( Al \~ ~ ~ \ \~ ~ ~ ~- ~~ ~~ ~~ -~ `~ `~_ ~~~ ~~ ~(\\ nn1 V ` ~, ~, oo~oL~ M E M O R A N D U M TO: Francis X. Krizmanich, Zoning Administrator Q~ FROM: Joanna S. Schaffner, County Zoning DATE: February 13, 1991 RE: Zoning on John Walker parcel Parcel ID# 2737-181-00-008 At your request I have reviewed the parcel ID maps and the Pitkin County Zoning Maps to determine the correct zoning on the John Walker parcel. The Parcel ID map indicates that Walker's is the last county parcel located directly north of the East Meadow Subdivision and adjacent to the east of Midland Avenue. The zoning adjacent to Midland Avenue is R-15. My finding is that the AF-1 zone begins directly East of the Walker parcel where BLM land lies. Therefore, my determination is that the Walker parcel is zoned R-15. See photo copies of maps attached. Orange = Midland Avenue Purple = North property line of Walker parcel ~h~~ is ~- ~5' a.~ P~~s ~ ~k~ ~h Gv~„~ers ~6K ~A ~S ,~~ ~/-~. i%"~~ks ~X~ 00002? w a ~•~'~ M-~p'°~ -- wrraa..sao-aa 2~Ota.,~ wxnr-orro.es T se ea _ .-~ ~ for ..ea ~'~ ® '~ e.o zi. ,~.,~ C ~ ».,o z,s. ~~^ 4' ~" ~ ' 31'z~ ERST MERDOH ® ® O ~(~/ J r ®~~ T ~3.z as SUB. ® ^_. I I 8i T i I q /l` /Ml "n c'ri =z 1 ' 2 oc sa..x ® ".. E " DISTR~T T ~ Q ~ ® y ~ _ 1-gFS ~ i ®~ ® ® ® ® y II, ~<I ® ® r ,a.~ `~O ~~ ~ ~ ® ® GALE g~~T w.sa y ~ ::, „ "`'~•~ .'^_5~, t'='~ zs 3 I~~ .~+ ~ I `~ 'ea : u~na T4 ® ' ® 2 ,e,.ee ' . ® "~ ice' ® ® ~ 3 s ~~ 4STr~T I R ® TI +o zea.~a ® NrDEPE NCE ® ~ ® 2 '~~ TA DISTRICT I,CFX zav,,~V 23 ® ~ .. F tea. o R ^~ ® ~ .: ® ® PROMONTORY o ~ o •yµ STREE ~ Wuraat, y ~ ® y SUB.O ~ ~.~ Nc - T l ~. ~,.~~ - _ \ ~" M~' eyV~`K b'w ,_zsv zes.le ~ ee ~koo ® ~ a zez.,e 12 IS 1 ® or e T '' .. ~/ ® d d' 1 w ~ 3 ~ ~' ~ ® s e N h a ASPEN CITY LINNTS ®' f[ ' ' ~ ~ i Q s a ® M' .,a J 2 e~ N zVr i' DER 8 ® > 121 rm .y SUB. ®~ y ~ ~ 0 -••cGT o ¢ 6 y ® 1 ® ~ dry-' ® d 'a,p®`~' ~a''R 18 ® ~ I MARGANET MEADOWS' ® tAl M2' ~ '• d Qu " $UB[MVISION © 7 ew_t.W ,o >a ~~ IS ~~ .moor Hrz taw°'WiW 17', '~µ. n..° 7 ~ ~ U N 4 `V g ~ o- ANDERSON \+ ® _ ~ 7 _ SUBDIVISION ~ , r I \ + • ~ ~ Ir ~~ / 2 ® SDBDm WN® ~c0 ® ® ~ .. Rik.:. ~,.^ ® ®N. ^ ~Q94 1 ~ 7 1 #l;. ~ ~ , 4, . ~1 R fY n N.QO~ ' b ~ ; OO ~ .® y --- ~ .y~ `i~~rlcj. ~, 1/ X_ 3®J o ~ ® t- ' s y, o ioo.oo 11 ~ ® b, ~ ®®B ~ B Mee-!b ' $ ~ 12 ~ W 'ter ® wzsic '~`~ - ~ o s ee.n ,zo.x F ~ 2 t na ~ :.. m :®' rnn Nez-..c zeew w ,s ~ ~ ® a S ' OOp a ; 12 BgVISION ^ ~ y ~ y „ J1~ 1 - ' ® ~ NER ® ~' I y.,'N ~sezi ~ '~ ~ 1 ~ Y ' /- i., fo ~N 1 ~ ® ® 9 17 $ ~ , ® ~ y ® ~ ~ to ® 2z ° 0 17 f' ~ ®z ®' ~ ~ ~ ® ® y aznc no ,n d . ,~° i _ 510E 2, 6`' o° N z9 es c l0 . RN£R ~ ~ 1 'J 1 ~ a 'R r°. r 19 20 21 ®N -55W O , ~ •'~ ~ ~ ~ ® n. s 8 P ~f 5ry'~~ f O Ne9 53 531.6 ~ .~'.4 ~ y~ g rze.rz ~ 2 S ~ y ~ T ~ STRROOOJ NN ~ ~ Fi ,,,~ s s ~ SUB. e II ' `:(/ II ~~ ~ .. I 1 ~~ o . ' '~ ~. O _ _° ri ° ~ _°_ 1 / ~~: '. :. ~' .~ i -ti ~W _~ 4''' ~ O p O O ~ ~ r ~-`~ ~ ~ W \ `~ e oooo~~ .~ ...~-. W ::~~- off, ~~ • V ~( ', ~ 7' ',~ w ~-- ~ .a ~; ~' ' . ,; . ~~ ' ~~~~ ~~a ; b 3~~ ` s.. ma `~ ' y- tf1 , a ~.. ~ I~ ~ 33~ ~~ Z $~~ t N ~~ \ ~, 0.~ 4 Ceatle r'°'~ t .~ ~!, ~. O `'•" ~ ~~ Cr\ eQk ~s ".i ~.. ~rp ~tll~ 9 N a p 3 jg _ b ~~ ;,; ~ ~,x A $ ~_ ~ ' vlopuao oraep nrnlls ~ ~ a W ° O b ~ r+r~ '~ a ` w ~ p~ !y. 77 '~y~~1 sal-sa ry 4 DLFW D; ~~ ~ +. rna r d }~C~ I ~ ~ 3 ~• '~,~. - ~~ . ~~~ ~,~~ ?eg j o 0 ~~P9~ 4 1 '~ 8 ~9 ~,~ ~ '~s ~ ~~L F M li ~i~ ppp Ywobwr ~C ' 3~ 5~ g ?°$ p.= 0.3°^ o°°~°@ _°~= ms°° a3~° °°Sp° °2m ~ ' ~ ° t , I I I'. i. ~ ' ,. i ' f ' , ~~~.~ . e' J" •t~ ,:. o~ •~ C_ ~ V ~ ~ l- Ot ~~ ©t ~~ Q ~ ~ v c.,: t. :~ i.; O 1 D ,- ~ ~~ .. C•l '~• ~' 70.208.10.207 UNIFORM FlRE CODE roamer deter or hinder the fire department from gaining immediate access to said equipment or hydrant. A minimum 3-foot clear space shall be maintained azound the circumference of the fire hydrants except as otherwise required or approved by the chief. f (b) Ideutlfkadoo of Hydraufs or Equlpmeut. All fire protection equipment i or hydrants shall be cleazly identified in a manner approved by the chief to prevent parking or other obstruction. Flro Apparatus Access Roads Sec. 10.207. (a) Geceral. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the provisions of this section. (b) Where Required. Fire apparatus access roads shall be required for every building hereafter constructed when any portion of an exterior wall of the first story is located more than l50 feet from fire department vehicle access. EXCEPTIONS: 1. When buildings are completely protected with en approved automatic fire sprinkler system, the provisions of this section may be modified. 2. When access roadways cannot be installed due m topography, waterways, nonnegotiable grades or other similar conditions, the chief may require additional fire protection as specified m Section 10.301 (b). 3. When there arc not more than two Group R, Division 3 or Group M Occupan- cies, the requirements of this sectlon may be modified, provided, m the opinion of the chief, fire-fighting or rescue operatlons would nm be impaired. More than one fire apparatus road may be required when it is determined by the chief that access by a single road may be impaired by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions or other factors that could limit access. For high-piled combustible storage, see Section 81.109. (c) Width. The unobsvuctured width of a fire apparatus access road shall be not less than 20 feet. (d) Vertical Clearance. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. EXCEPTION: Upon approval vertical clearance may be reduced, provided such reduction does not impair access by fire apparems and approved signs are installed and maintained indirxting the established vertical clearance. (e) Permiesibk Modifkatlons. Vertical clearances or widths required by this section shall be increased when, in the opinion of the chief, vertical clearances or widths ate not adequate tu provide fire apparatus access. (f) Sur[ace. Fire appamtus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads'of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. (g)1Wrahig Radius. The [tuning [adios of a fire appazatus access road shall be as approved by the chief. (h) Tursarousds. All dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 fcet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the taming around of fire apparatus. EXHIBIT nDn Ul3~U: ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFI 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303)920.5090 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES city 00113 -63250-134 GMP/CONCEPTUAL 00125 00123 00115 County 00113 00125 00123 00113 -63270-136 -63280-137 -63300-139 -63310-140 -63320-141 REFERRAL FEES -63340-205 -63340-190 -63340-163 -63160-126 -63170-127 -63180-128 -63190-129 -63200-130 -63210-131 -63220-132 -63230-)33-~ ~ '63450-14Si_/~ REFERRAL FEES: -63340-205 -63340-190 -63360-143 PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00113 -63060-122 -63090-123 -63140-124 -69000-145 GMP/FINAL SUB/CONCEPTUAL SUB/FINAL ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HOUSING ENGINEERING SUBTOTAL 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 OTHER Name: ;. .~,, ~ i ;', ~~ Address:- 1~~. - ~J1 ' Check # ° J~7 3lr Additional billing: i -~ ~~ SUBTOTAL ~/~~~~ -^ TOTAL - ~~- 'j .-, Phone: ~ -'~ ~ ~;? ,: Project: - -• % i %'_i v J i ~ Date: l #of 0~(J~J,: :~, County of Pitkin State of Colorado The undersigned, follows: I, AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY } ss. POSTING OF A VARIANCE HEARING BEFORE THE PITRIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT being first duly sworn, Jeremy M. Bernstein deposes and says as 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 26th day of October 90 5th 19 ' to the November 90 day of ~ 19 (Must be posted for at least nine (9) full days before the hearing date). ~~ Ap licant's Signature Jeremy P'I. Bernstein Attorney for John Walker Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of November 19 ~ 90 by Jeremy P•1. Bernstein . '~:' WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL..SEAL. u '~t `' `' My Commission expires : _ 0~1~ 1~~1 ~ o~ d~~ - i)_, W A " ] a Nota Public's Signat ~r,S ~~~' 900 Garfield Avenue, #301 Address ~~ Carbondale, CO 81623 ;: ,9 .t , , {' ~' ~ ..j.w. '! .. ,~ ~ i. M ~ 1 ~ , ~ ~~. i aa~~w-; s ~,'. .;y:, t I ~ ' ~i 1 ~1 .. .~j~:,. yr ~ 1 rr~~ 1 14 ; II .. ~+ T~,~ ~ ~ f If ~,.... r s:. , .., - ,~ ;. ~~ ~ ~ t 7 ~' ~ f4 ~ ~ ,• ~~• ! .. .. = ~ `~ - " ~~! ~''' 'cif i ~ 1 ~ v .. : 11 . ~ 4w1,. .~~ ~:. 4t .. ,: ;.... . y,~ . J k •~f . ~ 1 t ~ • ` ..~ _.N hM1. m e- ~i ~-{T:~ CK157,V5 ;x,~P'Cs ^~~ trt^t11iR ~:X:r3 ~~ TPf ly ~ ~t D "~1 C L O ~ m• _ z m ~ 0 x W N n, m r r- N r m n 0 Pad Y~ r° s' w ~ C-1 r m r N L`~ ~~ ~' ifl {"' 4.~ SCt S .1] :_~ e- t, ~° .Ci ~ ~`~- oUVv4U r~ ~_i ~~~ '~ ° m ~ N ~ O (7 R ~N. O ~ ~ wW~3 r ~~ ro r~r ,~ w ~ r- n ~a 0 M Y' C1 (D -'~ r ~~, q' n LJ ~. V.. '~~ 3 i 1 ~'±~ ~'~ rF ~~ r :~ f r~ f 'i j j j ! 6 I +.1y1 11?"k v oD-i y m x nY r z o `z Q ~~~,~,~ z m _7 o c H D Z c m m ac ~ N .,~ 4 N n r m ~' i< z r '. r- cr x ro r a 7 l~ n F'h M w m ' "~' i OOOOk' ~l. L~~' • y r ;v ui w m RS O"~ (D @ ~ V] ".T O \ c ro c~ rr w o ~' rr x c~ w may rr o, m ro r~ r rww r• 0 r~ ~n r• fD ar ~ c!7 a O 'O O W m m Z 3 :O H ~ O r ~ a z 0 0 D W c o m ~o z ~ m o a .- n 0 p r m r F.. ~~ T l , ~ i ' ~. ~~ ~_,, - • ~ ~ i 1E 1'• l ~~ ~ ~~ 2 m D ~ ~ 'P D p ,,/ ,~p'/ I` ~ / ~~t0~ j ~ 3 \~ ~' l?Y :~, ~ y. ~~ y _ ~ . y' ~. ~~: Y~'j ~.: A1..'e :d4Trf "P~e:~: _.t.._ai'_• i~iY~i e" re.:' ft7 "" ~.. i =~" ~..._ ' L':t; , F"i. f.~_':. ~_:. a::..;. ,;. UUUU4~ Y ~ F- ~i m w ~ ~o~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ro c~ ~r N. o~'rt x G1 r~ mw ~ rN rnm ro ~~ r ~w w N- 0 rn m w n m ~r i ' F ~ ~~ ' J /. ~. ~~ ~W~ ro o~d m m ~~~ o~ ~ro C1 ct N• O~'ct mw~ r r rn N b r~ r rwa ~. ~` o ~n w n m SI }',r .~ ~~_~ CtdE~ C7 ~~ ~~ a a p ~ m vo W rn ~ g 2 a p w y ~7 ~ O m ~, ~ N Q A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ D ~( s 2 0 n O N o .-~ Q ~' F-f }-~ k] \ 7 ~(i~~~t~s °- y a 7~ 1 °I ~'~~. (/~1__.. ~~\. /~ a ~'w~ ~/ ~ ~, y ~ o A c ~' A "'n r ~A r C ~ Q m C 2 ~ L=' Q is H m `~ m ,~~~"' c ^~ , ~. t~ A T-n -r ~ , ~ fry I-?, a i-. t~ ~ O ,A. ~ °` aof .. N N C''O ;; O*? ~~ N V ~ ` Aµ~ un,[,-~ ~~ ~~~ ~/ ~~,~,~, '~ '' 1 ~J-'i. `~ jf rf l;~l~'L;`s1 i .; 1; ;,~ ,~, OQ~~;4y a~ ';~ _~ a ~' ~~ ~ ~ ~o~ ~ro o~"' rt ~~~ ~~ro ~~~ a ~, p ~~ H1 M n m D 'O Ca N D vo ~ m• x z w w o a x ~ .p H .p Z ~ Gf N ~ 7 J7 V 4 ODUU4 ~~ ~ o~ ~o~ ~ro oxfi x c~ r• ~w~ r i-' rnm ro r 7 f' ,~ w w ~- ~cz n rh ~n r• m . ~-. '~ ~ ~~ ~~. i• l', . t ~~~ w~ ~ o~ ~~~ o~ cro nrtr- oxrt er L~ r- co w ~ , ~ H, rnm ro r ;~ ~ r m,N . r- w. d fh M r- n m av ~ ~„ . _ 'o o m Z' r W ~ o ° x = ~ ~ ~ ~ N o 0 ~- ~ o. r _.I N (' f 1 ODUU4i • ~~~ ~ ~ Q m m ~ N7 O~ G b O~fi x n' a9 pp QI `.3 a c o r F' f' .. , „ y ;~ ° m m ro '~ -i ~ ~ r yam ,.,.. ~ ~~ N. ~ "I' s ~' ~ M M r- 0 m D N3tn U1 W D -1 v ~m m~n-~v Z 3 2 2 c a m L7 Z G] D r 3 O mm. ~~ x a n x ~. 0 p N H r 000048 T _` ~ G. .i 'f ~ ~' ~.. 4'- <Z ,~, C', -~.+.- ~~- ~ ~~ CJ 1'~'~~~~~ ~ /n6~ II `/ 1 ( ~ ~~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ " (J r,; ~ ~ ~ ~~~~'- S~'~-~~~ ~- V ear"-ti ~- ~~2~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~k~~ ,~,6 ~~ ~ ~k~_~ ~ ~ w_ C-O~w~,~ ' j ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ou4~ ~.~~~~ ~~ ~ ~. ~e ~~,,z~ti~ ~~ ~, ~ ~, ~'-"' ~ ~'c1 050000 ~~~ ~c -/i ~ ~_, ~~: ~' ~ ~ ~ ~,a~ ~,' ~° Y ~-~ ,, ~~ -~- ~~~'~/ n n{~-y~,--~ 1,~~'Y~F~'~l ~~ ~~'21 ~~~ ~~~/ fi ._____-~ '~-t J~- ~~~.ti~~ /~~ e~~~ ~~~~, .~~~ ~-f ~Z~ ~ ~~J. °~ ~% ~; i` (~-~~ ~~1z.~~ oOO IJi /" j~ i ; ~ ~ ~~~-~ C~~C~~ ~-~~~~ ~~ r #330822~/c'~ r /91 13 ~ ~~ Rec S. Oi~ Ph; ~ F'C 233 Silvia Davis, F'itki.n Cnt.y Clerk, Doc $.cii; r RESOLUTION OF THE PITRIN COUNTY, COLORADO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTING SETBACK RELIEF FOR JOHN S. WALKER RESOLUTION NO. 90-48 WHEREAS, John S. Walker, owner of a tract of land situated at Lot A, Smuggler Grove, requests a 4 foot height variance, where 12 feet is required, for the approval of an existing ranch gate; 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 4 foot height variance, where 12 feet is required, be granted to allow the ranch gate to exist, as shown on the plans submitted (Exhibit "B"), due to conflict between the Pitkin County Land Use Code and the Uniform Fire Code, whereas the Fire Code deals with health, life and safety issues. WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. OOOU5? #33irfiz~ /tip/91 13:=~ Si 1 vi a Lavi s ,.,~ Rec $. cj~i &f:: ~ .1 f='G 234 FitE::in Cniy Cler':, Doc ~.cjp Resolution No. 90-48• Page Two • .- _ , The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: ATTEST': / v~// February 8, 1991 The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado ~~ ,,(~ .~i Christensen, ~ Kandi Shaffran,' etary Chairman 000~5:~ r j _ #3'~?B~< 03/C.i7/91 13: S< Rec ~. OC> EiK 641 PG 235 Silvia Davis, Pi~tk:in Cnty Clerl::, Doc x.00 EXHIBIT "A" John Walker Lot A, Smuggler Grove Pitkin County, Colorado also known as 109 Mascott Drive, Aspen, Colorado ~~U~~~'t ~00115:~ #33tig?r p3/i~, /41 .3:52 Rec ~. sici F;~:.: 641 F6 236 Silvia Davis F'itE::in Cnty Cler4-, Doc ~.C~V EXHIBIT "B" e . m 0 J1 v r,, ~, ., m ~~ I71 ~) 0 D m D 'm o ~ z A~ A c 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 00005 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 Hall 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. ~0~~~~ 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 # y7°iySL ~~~~~ 5 { • • Minutes Pitkin County Board of Adjustment February 5, 1991 Members Present: Kandi Shaffran, Chairman John Ostwald Stan Mathis Ted Guy Rick Neiley 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 J1a1C56 foot rfront 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 1 ~Q~~~~ 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 QOQ~O© 1 • • * 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 Guys 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. John and Jan Walker, and Jeremy-Bernstein jattornee were to request a 5 foot south sideyard setback variance where 30efeet 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. 3 " QQU~~11 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 axe 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 00~~6~' . t • • 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 Attorney's 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, Chai nan 5 0~~~6~ 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. 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 ooous'= Guy made a motion to table this case until a quorum is present. Mathis seconded the motion and all were in favor. Tom 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. Using a survey, Gardner showed the Board where the proposed garage would be located and the topography of the land. Lyn Hancock, neighbor, was present to state his objections to this request. Hancock's concern was that the garage would be too close to the road. Gardner and Hancock discussed alternative locations for the garage. Hancock feels that the garage should be pushed back further from the road's right of way. Hancock requested that a site visit be made and Gardner agreed. Guy suggested tabling this case until a site visit could be made. Guy made a motion to table this case to the site visit, scheduled for Wednesday, November 14, at 8:30 a.m. Mathis seconded the motion and all were in favor. Darrell and Mary Wedam were present to request a 65 foot front yard setback variance where 100 feet is required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a single-family residence. Darrell Wedam went into further detail of what he intends to do. Mary Wedam stated that the subdivision covenants require a 30 foot front yard setback. Gull asked if there were any comments from the public. There were none. After a brief discussion, Guy made a motion to grant a 65 foot front yard setback variance as indicated on the plans submitted, for the construction of a single-family residence, due to topographical hardship. Ostwald seconded the motion and all were in favor. Case #90-50. Camel. Shirley 102 North Little Texas Lane Shirley Carnel and architect, Roger Kerr, were present to request a 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. There was no one from the public present for comment. Kerr presented photographs of how the house looks presently. 2 000~)Er' 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. Randy Wedam was present representing Robert Dolan to request 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. 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 Stanwood 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. 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. ***************************************************************** 3 ~U~u~D The minutes of the October 2 meeting were approved as written. It was also agreed by all Board members present that the January meeting be rescheduled from January 1, 1991 to January 8, 1991. The next meeting will be December 4, 1990, in City Council Chambers, City Hall. The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Respectfully Submit.~tLe~d, CiceXl% ~ ~~Ceb f~C~.'„-~ Cindy Christensen, Secretary Evan Gull, Acting Chairmam ~~~U~! ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFF 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920.5090 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES City 00113 -63250134 GMP/CONCEPTUAL -63270-136 GMP/FINAL -63260-137 SUB/CONCEPTUAL -63300-139 SUB/FINAL -63310-140 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS -63320-141 CONSENT AGENDAATEMS / 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- - ~ ~ -63450-14fi/ REFERRAL FEES: 00125 -63340-205 00123 -63340-190 00113 -63360-143 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HOUSING ENGINEERING SUBTOTAL GMP/GENERAL GMP/DETAILED GMP/FINAL SUB/GENERAL SU B/DETAILED SUB/FINAL ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HOUSING ENGINEERING ,. PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00113 -63080-122 CITY/COUNTY CODE -63090-123 COMP. PLAN 63140-124 COPY FEES 000145 O ~ o ~ ~,^j OTHER SUBTOTAL ~` - TOTAL ~ ..,.,. ~.; ~ Phone: / ~ ~ -~ , Name: ~ ~ ~ tieT , "`~ Ir , Address: ~ ' ` -' f Project ' . : ~. -~~ ~ ~ `• %~-7 ~t`~ Date: ' - Check # AddiOonal billing: