Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.93.44 PITKIN COIINTY BOARD OF ADJDSTMENT DATE November 14, 1993 APPLICANT MAILING ADDRESS CASE # ~~ ~ J PHONE 925-5590 520 E. Hyman, Suite 301. Aspen, Colorado 81611 OWNER Charles Ho PHONE 813/383-2810 MAILING ADDRESS P.0. Box 1072, Longboat Key Florida 34228 LOCATION OF PROPERTY 0100 Clark Lane, Woody Creek Co~orado Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part of this Case. The Board may return this application i~ it does not contain all the facts in question. ~-~ Applicant Kevin MacLeod (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: /'~-L Zone District Requesting: to.e.Lot Size .~ G ' Front Yard Setback Variance, where C.'~ ' 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: Zoning Official Application filed ~~ 11 3 Parce ID No. 2'~(a3-/~p2-dO-QoZ Date of Meeting Z 1 3 Notices Mailed L ~I Secretary h.Q, Refer Resolution to Building Department ' ' Yes ' ' No i-i ~-~ I/~ ~ ~'~G~IG~YI (/~ f~~ O U O U~ 1 ~-C' ~~ BEFORE THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to Pitkin County Resolution of June 5, 1955, as amended, a Public Hearing will be held in City Council Chambers, City Hall, First Floor, Aspen, Colorado (or at such other place as the meeting may then be adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the County Zoning Resolution. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. THE PARTICULARS OF THE HEARING AND OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE ARE AS FOLLOWS: Date and time of meeting: owner: Name and Address of Applicant: Property Location or Description: December 7, 1993 at 5:15 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall Charles Ho Kevin MacLeod 520 E. Hyman, Suite 301 Aspen, CO 81611 0100 Clark Lane Tract of land situated in Lot 15, Section 9, and Lots 2, 3 and 4, Section 16, Township 9 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M. Requesting approval for a 50 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a single family residence. Approval of this variance request would allow the proposed residence to be located 50 feet from the front property line. VARIANCES GREATER OR LESS THAN REQUESTED COULD BE GRANTED. Duration of Variance: Temporary Permanent X THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ~z~'w~i~-~'li/~-~ Suzanne L. W f, Secretary 00000? ~ ©^ November 10, 1993 ©~ Pitkin County Board of Adjustment 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 ARCHITECTURE PLANNING Re: Ho Residence Front Yard Setback Variance INTERIORS To Whom It May Concern, It is requested that the Front Yard Setback from the property line bearing S 00°!: 09' W be reduced from the current 100'- 0" to 50'- 0", claming a topographic hardship. The Pitkin County Planning Office has required a 1041 hazard review on for slopes on the subject property. This approval was granted based on the building envelope shown on the enclosed site plan on October 7, 1993. The approved building envelope has determined to avoid development in the areas with slopes in excess of 30%, as will as remaining out of the flood plan of both Woody Creek and the Roaring Fork River. As a result of the bank that slopes down to the Roaring Fork River, which contains slopes in excess of 50%, there is a very limited development area on this site, approximately 1/2 of a acre on a site of almost 6 acres. It was also intended to limit the developments visual impact from both Highway 82 and River Road, and maintain the present pasture that is located to the south of the building envelope, this further reduces the development to a area of approximately 14,000 sf inside the required setbacks and off the slopes. As is indicated by the survey by Alpine Surveys there was a existing residence located on the site which encroached on this setback by some 40'- 0" The Pitkin County Land Use Code is in the process of being revised, and it has been recommended that the front yard setback for this parcel would be reduced to 50'- 0". It is anticipated that this code revision will be adopted in the early part of 1994. This reduction of the front yard setback will only impact the adjacent owners to the east , Fernando Alendo. The Ho's are currently working with the Alendo's to develop a landscape from which both owners will benefit and ensure proper privacy. I hope that you will agree that this application demonstrates a hardship based on topography. If you have any questions or require any additional information please don't hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely Kevin MacLeod Project Manager OOOOfl3 CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS •300 W. COLORADO AVE. • BOX 2863 • TELLURIDE, COLORADO 81435 •303/728-3738 FAX 728-6722 Ho Residence 0100 Clark Lane Woody Creek, Colorado 81656 List of adjacent property owners: Alendo, Fernando P.O. Box 4232 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Radeke, Harold J. 8 Barbara A. P.O. Box 2647 Aspen, Colorado 81612 'Ward, James H. 8 Faylis P.O. Box 949 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Teague, Harry & Anne P.O. Box 147 Woody Creek, Colorado 81656 Bradley, Edward R. Jr. 524 W. 57th Street, 9th Floor New York, New York 10019 Sears, Vera E. 14000 E. Linvale Place Suite 601 Aurora, Colorado 80014 McDonough, Willard William Jr. 419 E. Cooper Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 OOOOQ4 ~TIFICATE OF OS•TNERS?;rp . Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the State of Colorado hereby certifies that CFLARLES T.R. HO AND LINDA HO are the owners in fee simple of the following described property: A Tract of Land situated in Lot 15, Section 9, and Lots 2, 3 and 4 Section 16, Township 9 South, Range 85 4Test of the 6th Principal Meridian, Pitkin County, Colorado, described as follows: '•~- ' Beginning at a point on the Westerly line of a County Road whence the Quarter Corner common to said Sections 9 and 16 bears N 06°36' W 530.32 feet; thence S 89°50' W 744,25 feet to the center of the Roaring Fork River• thence N 24°2a' W 53.54 feet along the center of the Roaring Fork River; ' thence N 42°27' W 220.24 feet along the center of the Roaring Fork River; thence N 49°43' W 247.44 feet along the .center of the Roaring Fork river to the confluence of Woody Creek; thence I,T 62°O5' E 67.09 feet along the center of Woody Creek; thence N 45°06' E 188.40 feet along the center of Woody Creek;. thence N 16°46' E 74.15 feet along the center of Woody Creek; thence N 36°09' E 56.10 feet along the center of Woody Creek; thence N 43°21' E 34.16 feet along the center of Woody Creek; thence N 54°56' E 28.11 feet along the center of Woody Creek; thence N 58°11' E 76.47 feet along the center of Woody Creek; thence S 59°15' E 128.54 feet along the center of Woody Creek; thence S 45°10' E 77.26 feet along the center of Woody Creek; thence S 41°45' E 114.55 feet along the center of Woody Creek; thence S 72°02" E 75.97 feet along the center of Woody Creek; thence N 82°11' E 65.23 feet along the center of Woody Creek; thence N 65°32' E 129.86 feet along the center of Woody Creek to the Westerly line of said County Road; thence S 23°47' E 615.83 feet along the Westerly line of said County Road to the point of beginnin. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. Subject to easements and rights of way and encumbrances of record. This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and is furnished for informational purposes only. PITKI COUNTY B?: authoriz s CERTIFIED T0: ~~(~UQ INC. ature 1, 1993 @ 8:30 A.M. A; ~^ Ho Residence ~~ Vicinity/Directional Map ARCHRECTURE PWVNING INTERIORS The subject property is located a 0100 Clark Lane, in Woody Creek. Clark Lane is located approximately 0.1 miles to the west of the Woody Creek Tavern on the south side of River Road. There is a log entry gate with stone horse heads at the entry to Clark Lane. The Ho residence is the first residence to the left, or the south. -waoD1' cz~K '1 ~VE~N 2~v~~2 ~ ~O K N i G ~+v~a~ g2 Pizo.-~o-t' LOG~TI oT.I to O 4ll ® V N ~ ~-a Asr~Erl i CHARLES CUNNIFFE ARCHITECTS • 300 W. COLORADO AVE. • BOX 2863 • TELLURIDE, COLORADO 81435 • 303/728-3738 FAX 728-6722 ~~ OO .~ B ~ i ~~ 90 ,~2 c?2 „~. S 9 202 9~3 6 ~s 9q r ~ 2~ ;~ 1 ~ a f Qo,eB Rr~q O 1 ~ c2 6 o r c`4 O14 0 2.0 RC ~? >~ r/9.62 os o' . \_ 9930 OlOi /, z.o ac 5 017 2.0 aC ~~ /~, \ . Ol0 4,0 aC 301 ac t 3 ROq~ ~ ~~ . o ~~• 023 .o ac. , i I. . _. ~ :_~' . J ,,, 0 //`~ 4 O ~ ~ ~~ '~' ~6 ~~a• i ~ ~ . 'o ~J~.3@ 62.32 0 o'ff' 020 018 019 P68.a3 \~ ~ ti 2.8 AC. ~ @@ 2.9 RCS ~~ '@0 ~~39S ~ ~ ca m _. r ` a~, ~ PTO C/L ~ ~6 o~ ~ ° ~/L , SS ~ ~. WOODY O6 '~ /' . , ! ~ 'CREEK ~ ~- '' 4' 1 N + ~ E ti p ~ __' e 2 sr s3 ~,q ~ s4 61. - ?6.50 ra ~\ / ~ ~ TO C/L 00 ~ ~° ~ ~ S0B ~ 00 00 ~ `9 \ 1 i.o ac. ~~. oo ~o> z.~ ac. ~ ~,~ ~ ,. G~. ~ ~~2 / C'~ 6 O \ 9 ~o '/ ~ 00 / ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ,~~00 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~5~~ ~~ a •~ `~• I ~6, ~ I 2.3 R C. % ~'' o ~ ~ i~ C~ ~ ~ c \ ~~I /a 4 i o- \ OO o~ (QQT ~~ O`'~ ~~ ODU ~l7 ~~~ z.o ac. z.o Rc. ;,;~ C~ ~ 1' :42.1@ ~ ~ \ N 1.O@ ~ ~' 02 1 ~ c2.0 aC ,. ~ r v ~; ~9j -~9~EK N ~~Y Cry 001 s:i ac. LOT 1 ~ O10 a.1 ac. s I . ~\ ~ i' 3~ I 'v. °7I.6C r 3 1 S.E9 ' d~ 011 z.? RC. August 1, 1993 Pitkin Counfy Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Co. 81611 To whom it may concern As the owners of the property at 0100 Clark Lane, Woody Creek, Co. I authorize Kevin MacLeod, and Charles Cunniffe /Architects to Represent my interests in the Front yard Variance Application to the Pitkin County Board of Adjustment. If there any question regarding this authorization please don't hesitate to contact me at Sincerely, r~ Charles Linda Ho P.O. Box 1072 Longboat Key, FI. 34228 (813) 383- 2810 ODU~~ NON-MERGER CERTIFICATE PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC., A DULY LICENSED TITLE INSURANCE AGENT IN THE STATE OF COLORADO~HEREBY CERTIFIES THAT THE ATTACHED CHAINS OF TITLE ARE TRUE AND ,CORRECT COPIES OF DOCUMENTS DULY RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. BY EXAMINATION OF.THE ATTACHED CHAINS OF TITLE IT CAN BE DETERMINED TH.~iT NO MERGER OF TITLE H.~1S TAKEN PLACE BETWEEN THE PROPERTIES. PITKIN4/COyU~NTY i~? ~~E,~INC. BY: I AAIAflIl ~'7L~'~t'~ AU'PHCTRIZED F ICER DATED: AUGUST 6 1 93 . JOB NO.: 93-854 0~~~~9 -63250-134 -63270-136 -63280-137 -63300-139 -63310-140 -63320-141 -63330.150 -63432-157 -63432-157 -00100-00000-31070 HISTORIC PRESERVATION: -63335-151 -63336-152 -63337-153 -63338-154 -63339-155 COUNTY: -63160-126 X3170-127 -63180-128 -63190-129 -63200-130 -63210-131 -63220-132 -63230-133 -63240-149 -63450-146 -63235-148 REFERRAL FEES: -63360-143 1)0115 -63340-163 00123 -63340-190 00125 -63340-205 PLANNING OFFICE SALES: -63080-122 -69000-145 GMP/Conceptual GMP/Final SUB/Conceptual SUB/Foal All-2 Step Applications All 1 Step Applications Staff Approval Zoning Plan Check Sign Permit Use Tax for Sign Permits Exemption Minor Major Devel. SignH. Devel. Demolition GMP/General GMP/Detailed GMP/Final SUB/General SUB/Detailed SUB/Final All 2 Step Applications All 1 Step Applications Staff Approval Board of Adjustment Zoning Plan Check Engineering -County Engineering -City Housing Environmental Health County Code Other (Copy Fees) Name: ~hC~~-~Ld CC~~L(~~LF Phone: Address: TOTAL ri2.oc Sz,GL' Project: '/ y ~36~, // ~3 - ~ ~} Check #: 7 7 U Date: ~~ '~ ' No of Copies: / OOOEl10 - - A. 'i ~ LAND USE APPLICATION FEES cITY: • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PTl'KIN 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 Boazd of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the County zoning Resolution. All persons affected by the proposed variance aze invited to appeaz and state their views, protests, or objections. If you cannot appeaz 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. A VARIANCE GREATER THAN OR LESS THAN THAT REQUESTED COULD BE GRANTED. DATE AND TIME OF MEETING: Tuesday, December 7, 1993; 5:15 P.M. Council Chambers, City Hall Bielec, Rosa & Mullen, Michael: requesting approval fora 9'6" reaz yazd setback variance, where 30' is required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a deck. Property Location: Lot 12A, Block 7, Filing 1, Brush Creek Village Subdivision; 2653 Juniper Hill Road. Ho, Charles: requesting approval fora 50' front yazd setback variance, where 100' is required in the Af- t zone district, for construction of a single family residence. Property Locafion: 0100 Clark Lane; a tract of land situated in Lot 15, Section 9, and Lots 2, 3 and 4, Section 16, Township 9 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P. M. Birnkrant, Don: requesting approval for an 80' front yard setback variance and a 10' south side yard setback variance, where 100' and 30', respectively, are required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a single family residence. Property Location: 0044 Doc Henry Road; a tract of land in Lot 15, Section 9, Township 9 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M. Submitted to the Aspen Times on November 23, 1993. To Be Published in the Aspen Times November 26, 1993. County PO #301003 Minutes Pitkin County Board of Adjustment January 4, 1994 Members Present: Rick Neiley, Chair Michael Cooper Shira Geller John Wheeler Bill Lukes Members Absent Staff: Ellie Brickham Rod Dyer Joanna Schaffner, Zoning Enforcement Neiley opened the meeting at 5:20 p.m. and introduced the Board to those present. Case_93-44, Charles Ho, 0100 Clark Lane Schaffner announced that the applicant has chosen to withdraw the application. The minutes of December 7, 1993 were approved with one revision. The last paragraph on page 3 which states "Neiley moved..." should be revised to state "Brickham moved...". The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~,~~ w Suz ne L. Wolff, cretary 1 Rick Neiley, Chairman ~~~r~12 Minutes Pitkin County Board of Adjustment December 7, 1993 Members Present Rick Neiley, Chair Michael Cooper Rod Dyer Shira Geller Ellie Brickham Bill Lukes John Wheeler Staff: Joanna Schaffner, Zoning Enforcement Neiley opened the meeting at 5:15 p.m. and introduced the Board to those present. Case #93-36 Chester Pohle and Michael Pixley, Lot 3, Block 2, Filing 1, Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Subdivision This case was tabled at the meetings on October 5 and November 2, 1993, and at the site visit on October 13, 1993. Geller and Wheeler are not voting on this case. Chester Pohle, Michael Pixley and their architect Richard Klein were present to request a 70 foot front yard setback variance, a 30 foot north side yard setback variance and a 30 foot south side yard setback variance, where 100 feet, 50 feet and 50 feet, respectively, are required in the RS-30 zone district, for construction of a single family residence. Klein indicated that the house has been relocated to the bottom of the site, and that the garage is buried below the house and is accessed directly from Gateway Road. Also, the back wall of the house is buried into the hillside. The soils on the site are being reviewed, as requested by the Homeowners Association. He added that the setbacks requested are consistent with the subdivision's ,guidelines. Pohle stated that the Homeowners Association requested that a culvert be installed to prevent a drainage problem, which they have agreed to do. Joe Raczak, representing the Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Homeowners Association, was present. He noted that the Association was originally concerned with the possible undermining of the road, and requested soils testing and structural engineering. Klein showed Raczak the revised plan for the house, which had not yet been reviewed by the Association. Raczak stated that he felt the new design addressed their concerns. Neiley moved to grant a 70 foot front yard setback variance, a 30 1 ~~Ol1~J Neiley and Lukes are not voting on this case. Michael Mullen was present to request a 9' 6" rear yard setback variance, where 30 feet is required in the AF-1 zone desidence,for construction of a deck on an existing single family Mullen stated that they are proposing to construct the deck outside of the living room area. Schaffner noted that a scenic overlay review was approved by the Planning Office. The deck encroaches to the 20 foot setback line, which is consistent andtis also sconsistenthwith the hroear yard constructed in ro7 o~sed Code. setback in the p p Joe Coffey,,owner of he had no objections an adjacent lot, was present, and stated that to the variance request. Mullen stated that there is encroaches into the setback. constructed on the second floor Neiley noted that the deck the setback. ,n existing concrete patio that The proposed deck would b2 over the patio. would not increase the encroachment into Dyer moved to grant adue'to construction of a deck, motion, and all were in favor. rear yard setback variance for downzoning. Brickham seconded the Case 93-44 Charles Ho 0100 Clark Lane Neiley and Dyer are not voting on this case. Kevin MacLeod, representing the applicant, was present to request a 50 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a caretaker dwelling unit. MacLeod stated that the slopes immediately to then Lion of the building envelope are in excess of 50% and that a p roved lot is in the floodplain. The building envelope was app through a minor 1041 Hazard Review. The owners are constructing a new principal residence and a detached caretaker dwelling unit and would like to maintain all of the buildings in the same area. 2 oo:~r~ foot north side yard setback variance and a 30 foot south side yard setback variance, for construction of a single family residence, due to downzoning and topographical hardship. Cooper seconded the motion, and all were in favor. • The caretaker unit is the structure for which they are requesting the setback variance. He added that he has spoken with several of the adjacent property owners and has not received any objections. The neighbor who would be most impacted by the setback variance is working with the applicants on a landscaping plan to screen the improvements. There was no public comment. MacLeod stated that the hardship is the topography on the site: they are unable to build in the steep slope areas and would have to cut up the property to access the only other flat building area. He added that the requested setback is consistent with the setbacks in the proposed Code. Schaffner noted that the Board of County Commissioners is hoping to adopt the new Code by January 1. Lukes stated that topography should not be a justification for a variance for an accessory structure when there is reasonable use of the building envelope outside of the setbacks. Wheeler added that a building should not be permitted to encroach into the setback just because the approved building envelope encroaches into setback. Neiley noted that the Board must consider the public interest, and that the other flat area on the property, which would not require a variance, is much more visible from the river and would, therefore, have a greater impact. Lukes stated that simply approving the variance would not preclude future use of the pasture. Neiley replied that the building envelope is defined, so any owner of the property would have to return to the Planning Office to build outside of the envelope. He added that the Board can approve the request with the condition that the pasture not be utilized in order to preserve the views from the river. MacLeod noted that the owners chose the location for and clustered the improvements on the property in order to preserve the open pasture. Lukes noted that he does not question the owner's right to have a principal dwelling, but does question the right to have a caretaker unit that has not been requested by the County. Brickham moved to grant a 50 foot front yard setback variance, based on topographical hardship and the approval of the building envelope through the 1041 Hazard Review process, with the condition that no further development be allowed outside of the building envelope without an opportunity for future public review. 3 00001 Schaffner confirmed that the applicant can choose to withdraw or to table the application if the conditions are not acceptable. After further discussion, Lukes moved to table the application to the January 4, 1994 meeting to allow MacLeod to consult with the applicant. Cooper seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case 93-45. Don Birnkrant. 0044 Doc Henrv Road Brickham and Wheeler are not voting on this case. (The first 10 minutes of this case did not record.) Don Birnkrant was present to request an 80 foot front yard setback variance and a to foot south side yard setback variance, where 100 feet and 30 feet, respectively, are required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a single family residence. Birnkrant stated that he received approval from the Board of County Commissioners to legalize the existing house on the lot as an employee dwelling unit and to construct a new single family residence on the lot. The location was chosen to minimize the impact on the adjacent property and the visibility of the residence from Upper River Road. Birnkrant noted that the irrigation ditch through the property limited the possible building areas, and that he wants to preserve the willow tree which blocks the view of the house from the road. An existing shed will be removed. Schaffner explained that she determined the front yard to be the entire length of the NW lot line, including the 62.32' portion of the lot line running NW to SE. only a portion of this lot line fronts Doc Henry Road. The remaining portion is the McDonough side lot line. The proposed structure lies 20' from this portion of the lot line. (See site plan in file.) Lukes noted that although the proposed structure is located 20' from the lot line, this portion of the front lot line lies approximately 62' behind the portion adjacent to Doc Henry Road. Therefore, he reasoned that visually the effective front yard is 20' plus 62', or 82'. There was no public comment. A letter of support for the request from Bill McDonough, an adjacent owner, was read into the record. Birnkrant noted that the only other buildable location on the property was not acceptable to the adjacent neighbor and would have greater visual impacts. Wheeler stated that a 30 foot front yard setback would be consistent with the proposed code, and that he did not see why a 20 foot setback was necessary. Lukes agreed with Wheeler. 4 ~n~~~ Birnkrant noted that he will not have auto access to his house and that he will use the existing access. Neiley noted that the shed that is being removed is closer to the property line than the proposed residence will be. Cooper stated that he agreed with Lukes as to the effective front yard. He added that the public interest is better served in the proposed location than in the open area closer to River Road, where the viewplane would be adversely affected. Neiley stated that the Board could condition the approval with a requirement for future review of any improvements on the property which might encroach into the viewplane, since the viewplane is a major consideration for the Board's granting of a variance. Schaffner added that retaining the willow tree should also be a condition of approval if the tree is being used as a justification. Neiley noted that the residence could be located elsewhere on the property, but that the unique conditions on the property, such as the ditch, the viewplanes, the willow tree, and the "effective front yard", make the proposed location the best one on the property for development. Neiley moved to grant an Eo foot front yard setback variance and a 10 foot south side yard setback variance, based on the unique conditions on the property, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The willow tree must not be removed unless required by natural circumstances/causes. 2. One of the unique conditions is the preservation of the viewplane; if development expands east of the easterly line of the building footprint, Board of Adjustment review will be required. Cooper seconded the motion, and all were in favor. ***************************************************************** The minutes of November 2 and November 3 were approved as written. The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Suz nne L. Wolff, ecru etary (~ ~\ ~ / r I i~~- Riek Neiley, Chairman 5 0~~ ~1~ ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena SVeet Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920-5090 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES cITY: -63250-134 -63270-136 -63280-137 -63300-139 -63310-140 -63320-141 -63330-150 -63432-157 -63432-157 -00100-00000-31070 HISTORIC PRESERVATION: -63335-151 -63336-152 -63337-153 -63338-154 -63339-155 COUNTY: -63160-126 -63170-127 -63180-128 -63190-129 -63200-130 -63210-131 -63220-132 -63230-133 -63240-149 -63450-146 -63235-148 REFERRAL FEES: -63360-143 00115 -63340-163 00123 -63340-190 00125 -63340-205 GMP/Conceptual GMP/Final SUB/Conceptual SUB/Final All-2 Step Applications All 1 Step Applications Staff Approval Zoning Plan Check Sign Permit Use Tax for Sign Permits Exemption Minor Major Devel. SignH. Devel. Demolition GMP/General GMP/Detailed GMP/Final SUB/General SUB/Detailed SUB/Final All 2 Step Applications All 1 Step Applications Staff Approval Board of Adjustment Zoning Plan Check Engineering -County Engineering -City Housing Environmental HeaNh PLANNING OFFICE SALES: -63080-122 County Code -69000-145 Other (Copy Fees) Name: i~ / d` t~ti ~~ Cd ~ C~/~L~-~'~ Phone: d Address: TOTAL Z c~ Project: ~~ y ~3 ~ ~- ~i 3 - ~F ~ Check a: L~-'r ~ L Dols: No d Copies: