Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.93.36 PITRIN COIINTY BOARD OF ADJIISTMENT l~ DATE CASE # ~ 3' 3 ~0 APPLICANT Chester Robert Pohle pHONE (303) 925-3746 -t~elrael d }~.3E}e~ MAILING ADDRESS 810 Bonita Drive, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Chester Robert Pohle OWNER Michael J. Pixley PHONE (303) 925-3746 MAILING ADDRESS _ 810 Bonita Drive, Aspen, Colorado 81611 LOCATION OF PROPERTY Gateway Road, Snowmass Colorado - Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Lot 3 Block 2 Filina 1 ni,~ 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. ,_ _ . Applicant Signature (To be completed by the 2oninq Department) Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Zoning Official to forward this application to the Board of Adjustment, and reasons for not granting a building permit: Zone District Requesting: lacce! Lot Size g ' Front Yard Setback Variance, where GG ~ is required. ' Rear Yard Setback Variance, where ' is required. ~.iZ' ~ Side Yard Setback Variance, where 7G ~ 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: __ kQL (k ,O,vta.~~ -fA,r,~. Zoning Official L,C~\~Jr,,.u~ i ~ ~~ ~ ``11 Application filed ~3 Parcel ID No. 2.y(p'1- 3Y3-D?-bO7 Date of Meeting /0 ~ ~ 3 Notices Mailed .?/ q,~ Secretary Y~ Refer Resolution to Building Department ; _~ Yes ~ _~ No OUOU01 ~-(,3 Sj ~ , NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS 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: October 5, 1993 at 5:15 p.m. Commissioners' Meeting Room, Pitkin County Courthouse Chester Pohle & Michael Pixley Chester Pohle & Michael Pixley 810 Bonita Dr. Aspen, CO 81611 Lot 3, Block 2, Filing 1 Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Requesting approval for a 78 foot front yard setback variance and a 20 foot north side yard setback variance, where 100 feet and 50 feet, respectively, are required in the RS-30 zone district, for construction of a single family residence. Approval of this variance request would allow the proposed residence to be located 22 feet from the front property line and 30 feet from the north side property line. VARIANCES GREATER OR LESS THAN REQUESTED COULD BE GRANTED. Duration of Variance: Temporary Permanent X THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ~~~~- ~~ ~ Suzanne L. Wolff, Secretary 00000? .:,;y CHESTER POHLE M1:CHAEh J. PIXLEY 810 BONITA DRIVE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 December 2, 1993 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attn: Fitkin County Board of Adjustment We request a variance due to the hardship of a nonconforming size lot and extreme topography. Due to the nonconforming size lot and extreme topography we are unable to conform to the required setbacks. The required setback from the property line to the front of the house is 100 feet; due to the extreme topography we request. a 30 foot setback. In addition, this setback will allow a driveway to be constructed from the county road to the house at the required 12~ grade. The required setback from the line which separates lot 1 from lot w is 50 feet. Due to the extreme topography and the non- conforming lot size we request. a 20 foot. setback on the NE side of the house. The required setback from the line which separates loi 3 from lot 2 is ;0 feet.. Due to the extreme topography and the non- - conforming lot size we request a 20 foot setback on the SW side of the house. Attar_hed is a copy of a certified topographic survey demonstrating this extreme topography, the non-conforming lot size, and the Location of the proposed building site. This survey has been updated to reflect the two areas at the base of the lot which have been disturbed. This survey shows, i_n addition to the proposed building site, the grading plan (driveway improvement plan) for access to the proposed home. The existing topographic contours are dashed and the proposed contours resulting from the construction of the road and building pad. are shown in solid lines. Also shown are the fill slopes on the driveway and house pad as well as any required retainment structures. The retaining structures, where necessary will be a combination of concrete and natural boulders; this will effect. a more natural. appearance as opposed to merely using concrete structures. Any areas which are disturbed due to construction will be revegetated with a Dryland Pasture Mix of grass seeds, etc. along with selected groupings of native scrub oak consistent with existing vegetation. It is our intention to have a landscape plan developed by Felix Jimenez Landscape to achieve this objective. C 1,~,~. Pa-~~. i~-l~v ~y '~j 000003L(L / CHESTER POHLE MICHAEL J. PIXI,EY 810 BONITA DRIVE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 October 27, 1993 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attn: Pitkin Corxnty Board of Adjustment We request a variance due to the hardship of a nonconforming size lot and extreme topography. Due to the nonconforming size lot and e?ctre.me topography we are unable to conform to the required setbacks. The required setback from the property line to the front of the house i.s 100 feet; due to the extreme topography we request a 31 foot setback. In addition, this setback will allow a driveway to be constructed from the county road to the house at the required 125 grade. The required setback from the line which separates lot 3 from lot 4 is 50 feet. Due to the extreme topography and the non- conforming lot size we request a 23 foot setback at the NE corner of the house. 'Phe required setback from the line which separates lot 3 from lotl is 50 feet. As situated, the setbacl. line of the home will be at 75 feet at the SW corner of the house. Attached is a copy of a certified topographic survey demonstrating this extreme topography, the non-conforming lot size, and the location of the proposed building site. This survey has been updated to reflect the two areas at the base of the lot which have been disturbed. This survey shows, in addition to the proposed building site, the grading plan (driveway improvement plan) for access to the proposed home. The existing topographic contours are dashed and the proposed contours resulting from the construction of the road and building pad are shown in solid lines. Also shown are the fill. slopes on the driveway and house pad as well as any required retainment structures. The driveway and house pad fill slopes never exceed 45 degrees; where slopes would exceed 45 degrees, retaining structures will. he used (and are noted on the survey sheet) to maintain 45 degrees or less. This will allow us to properly revegetat.e. In addition, two cross-sections of the driveway/grading plan are included for your convenience. Please note that the driveway construction will essentially be a 50~ cat and f=ill feature.. The retaining structures, where necessary will be a combination of concrete and natural boulders; this will effect. a more natural appearance as opposed to merely using concrete structures. ~~D~Q~2 The survey also~ows the amount- of fil] slr~~ associaG~d with the c•onst.ruction oC the driveway and the house pad. This slope area will be revegetated with a Dryland Pasture Mix of grass seeds, etc. along with sr-elected groupings of ualive scruh oak. consistent. with existing vegetat}on. This revegetaton will be irrigated initially wii-h a spray system and afterwards with a drip system. Phis will allow us to adhere to the guidelines for water conservation dictated by the Gatew.xy to Snowtnass Mesa Homeowners .Assr>ciation. We have found a source to purchase the Dryland Pasture Mix. In addition, it is our plan to bri-ng in fill dirl to the two disturbed areas on the lower portion of the lot; this will cover the scar over the exposed shale area. We will contour the fill dirt to match the existing topography and will subsequently rcvegetate with Dryland Pasture Mix and selected scrub oak plants consistent with the existing vegetation. This area will be initially :irrigated with a Temporary water system until the vegetation is firmly iu place. Sinc erely',~~~^ ~~ ~~"~ Chet Pohle /'1 ~~~~~ ~/ Michael P.ixl~e~~ y ~~~~~~~ CFIE;;T~F; F01;_.. ~ICHP,EL ^I _r` 5ep[errit~t 9, ,w?3 ~p~_ ~~itP:i~. ''larv ink ^tfi.e Asp= ~olr~; s~~ 2.16?~ ~~ '7+J @f~Ur ;1. ... l,ii r._ '~~JG tO tree rl .,.~C~ ~~ _ .!"I ~__„ _ ~i~, _i~o-_ ..~ _, . ~ __~~ .~ :4pflJ. ~~~. .ir'_ ~. ~.. r, _~_ ~'_ .AIL=. _ ,'will E' ~ ,:J~~-1;:",y _ ~11'_ Uf"3U I~_ to __:I? ~ .. ~ ._ _ _ i T'~c t_YUi r'd setbac4~ t. -,,, tl-.:_ pr ~~;;.:_, :,_ .._ _ ._ `I ' . 1 P _ `lam -.. - -i''~^, fa.;et; dUC :~., _ ,`r __ t p~gf'flpfi}'~~.Yt" :~',.__~ a Je _[., .Ct ~_d {:. v~l t~l- SOU lty YUd(~ t0 t E. ~~_.. _ ~__ ~~.< ~'Cj l_~l i.: r _ _.,` J ode. _ h:iase ._~.. :~., ~ ..._ 'h ~Y ;i;>'.te• >e~o" 1 t ~. __t this .irivev~a, ~raJe ;.:~oial!~ ,_ ~~ ~ ~ n-' _-- ~_.., f`/ _ ~lll Iti._:it ~. ELI! _~le r- ~Y7 i IN1' c~~ I~IEa ~. ~ ~li~'t r c ._ ~ t~ i':) tr..~ '_. ~,1r)~t apr'. j' t0 l!tlSt l"aCt ~l .;3i ~p,~: ~'~.~ ~ ~?iJ p, f i r- f` ,,,~~ ;~ ., _~, ~,~.~~ ~ _,, tn~ ~;~,_ ~n; r spar>. __ t _ °r~~,rn c` _ __ i .et. D~,~_~ t - ~,~' r uitlt *u~c:t app ~_hd _ ~ >', c.nf:~ ~.,, _, ?_' ~~ „_, ;urn. F. o± '_,;i ... _ _ ,,.,.. ~, ~ : . .~ l~_,t ~ _ ~~ ;._ct, ', _it~aatcd, tl7c: s~~t:~ac{ tic cf _h~_ nr_ ~~~!l n~ _ .~:. i'K fl YY _ ii y +. f _ ~ Ufl'IE ,_ ~ ,F; ~";~ r-~ r j, _ _ ~:`1C6~ B i~', C~~.. ~ OOOOC~6 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS 7o Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Lot 3, Block 2, Filing 1 Gateway Road, Old Snowmass 1. Malcolm W. & Melanie G. Terry P.0. Box 1371 South Hampton, New York 11968 2. Mountain States Masonry, Inc. P.0. Box 2217 Aspen, Colorado 81612 3. Verla Jean Hall 0695 Gateway Road Snowmass, Colorado 81654 4. John M. Bruegger 0047 Elk Range Drive Snowmass, Colorado 81654 5. Nancy L. George 8669 Bay Colony Drive Indianapolis, Indiana 46234 6. Wolfgang and Roswith Kauffmann 2436 Fairmont Avenue La Crescenta, California 91214 oaooo~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERB~ _ ~199i 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: October 5, 1993 at 5:15 p.m. Commissioners' Meeting Room, Pitkin County Courthouse Chester Pohle & Michael Pixley Chester Pohle & Michael Pixley 810 Bonita Dr. Aspen, CO 81611 ~~;~ Filing 1 ~--~> rmass Mesa setback variance and - there 100 feet and 50 u_ - . __. --._._.--° 0 zone district, for "•~-='~" '-"' "" ~ Approval of this >idence to be located feet from the north 'OIILD BE GRANTED. Verla Jean Hall 0695 Gat -' Snowmas; ~~~Q~~ Permanent X !ir•.LLL45 81E~541~3C!B ia9~ 3 ~ ~: C~'i-fy3 Hr',LL~I!ERLti SEf~fJ h1D',!ED LEFT t•~+1 ADDRE55 RETURtd Tu SEt•IDEF: I II,,,I I,,,,.11,.II„11,,,11,,,11,„li,,,,,, II il,,,l I,,, Il,,,l 'ct , , Y BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT L. Wolff, Secretary CfIESTER PONLE MICHAEL J. PIXLEI' 310 BONITA DRIVE ASPEN, COLORADO E1fit1 September 3, 1993 DIRECTIONS TO THE GATEWAY OF SN01"!MASS MESA SUBDIVISION LOT 3, BLOCK 2, FILING 1 795 GATEINAl' P,OAC Take Highway B2 to the Conoco Station. Turn lef* and drive up Snowmass Creek Road. Turn F',ih', on Gateway Road and follow Gateway Road into the Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Subdivision. Lot ;, block 2 ( ?95 Gateway Read` is the first lot on the right past SOS Gateway Road, 305 Gateway Road ;; a natural wood sided home with a green metal roof. ?95 Gateway Road is situated between this home and the Smith P,ohde home which is marked by a sign "Smith Rohde." ooooe9 FROM HEper-r ','alley Peeltu F'HOfL PF.1. 4~'~ 4C~1=~ pal a • • . PRC]3~''P~R`TT.FS LT.'--.'.1_T_T)__F~~I2_ SA7.E____OF2__U_NDER C_O_NTRACT r'OR SALE AS OF 8 28~F39 r g r Cw~ ~ ~y3j/ O ; i F/L/N6 / '? ~ .... $/d~°p f/L1NG F ~ ~ '~ )"c . Sa le. t _ F~c/NG a I Me~oy lb~ 0,.0,00. J a _ 1-~°ke~~r.~1e ~ i '0 ~ B OCK ( / ', -'7 L. ss,ta kalS,oo„ G •., / ~V O ~_ e .,~ _ m O C; ~ ~ ® O ~C •--~- O ~ .~ 6 Y ~ J ~ ~~ ~ ~ o „ o ., r D~® T ~ /~3 °' ocr ! a o ~~`` © © I G BLp V ® ~ Q ro N h T J . .ZJ . ~ ~._ .o .. _1 cK ~' ~ , P .. a._ l ~JN~• ~w}.Y~cl. f/L/NO 9 ~r F/L/NO P ~ S ~ f/L/N~ / ~ r ` I fe;.~• ulc '~ 5'S,odo C(h~s~ +p~ u.;ls ~ ~'~'0~'>f~ 9 ~ ~ v es9 r ~ ~i ~- ~i'~Zj~,~8oi'- c,t~ ,tvnroh, ~ wewaa ~ HOLY CROSS oErAK MAP scACe/•-zaa' ra ~~,uec..oeAt~a~.~1( ELECTRIC AS50CtATION E'ATEIB~YOf SNOWMASS ros~a~~ „~~ ~-^r^ a~a~2,~___,„r!1.. o~[~+w0oo sagnacs, caoar,oo I% A a .v - yry~ee-~_-_-~__ C.OLOMDO J< FAriLE f~a,i•~CWNIY ,owlwu ..•,u -• ea.rti. u.r, •wtr teoff luQra~c.ue. .•c. COLO. Tl J. T/ _- __.~-_~ oae.v w'"Ts"--. weovyw P1TK/N R.If W. ARFA '-'~u ea~cae a+ ~4n ly SfC.Jf !I ' 1N d«ukS ,~,h-e„~ rnof, ~«wf~~,=, GATEWAY TO SNQWMASS s,9'~ u.; ~( h.e p fQ~pq~ MESA SUBDiViSiQN ~t~nr~1 fl October 14, 1993 Michael Pixley 810 Bonita Drive Aspen, CO 81611 A$PEN • PITK]N PLANNING Ri ZONING DEPARTMENT RE:' 795 Gateway Road Board of Adjustment Application Dear Micha~l, At the site visit on October 13, 1993, the Board unanimously approved tabling the case to the November 2, 1993 meeting, with the following conditions: • Include on the topographic map the exact location of the driveway, including the trees as they relate to the driveway; • Provide drawings which show the extent and elevation of the cut and fill required; and • Describe how the visual impacts of the cut and fill will be mitigated. Please provide 8 copies of this information to me by October 27, if you would like it to be included in the Board members' packets. Otherwise, please bring this information to the meeting on November 2. I will call you when I have a location for the meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me at 920-5093. Sincerely, Suzafhne Wolff, Secretary Board of Adjustment ~~~~~ ~ . f ransmittal memo 7671 # of pages t Post-It'" brand fax ` ' To ~ ~ I/`I `r ''.. From l.I.Z~VN~ UV~ F Co. Co. Dept. Phone# q ~O ~~h3 -7 ~I Fax# /]~~ i ~ Fax# ]SO SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLUFADO $](]] PHO4E 3O3.9ZO.SO9O F.4%.i03B20.S]9J I4inhtl onrcry[IN pap` Aspen-Cobrado 81611 ~. yG ~ - ~ y 3 (303) 920-5090 _ O ~ ~ ~ , G y LAND USE APPLICATION FEES CITY: -63250-134 GMP/Conceptual -63270-136 GMP/Final -63260-137 SUB/Conceptual -63300-139 SUB/Final -63310-140 All-2 Step Appl'x:ations -63320-141 All 1 Step Applications -63330-150 Stall Approval -63432-157 Zoning Plan Check -63432-157 Sign Permit -00100-000001070 Use Tax for Sign Permits HISTORIC PRESERVATION: -63335-151 Exemption -63336-152 Minor -63337-153 Major Devel. -63338-154 Sign'rf. Devel. -63339-155 Demolition COUNTY: -63160-126 GMP/General -63170-127 GMP/Detailed -63180-128 GMP/Final -63190-129 SUB/General -63200-130 SUB/Detailed -63210-131 SUB/Foal -63220-132 All 2 Step Applications -63230-133 All 1 Step Applications -63240-149 Staff Approval -63450-146 Board of Adjustment F7. o O -63235-148 Zoning Plan Check REFERRAL FEES: -63360-143 Engineering -County 00115 -63340-163 Engineering -City 00123 -63340-190 Housing 00125 -63340-205 Environmental Heakh PLANNING OFFICE SALES: -63080-122 County Code -69000-145 Other (Copy Fess) TOTAL tZ . CO /~,, r, ' , ~rla'ti E'f.'7"~ N DC~ ( n t / - ame: , KC A.if ~] phone: ~` ~ ~ Address: R 1 U ~u YLt..r-cl T ~J [J~ ~ Project: ~Q - -~>Lh , ~ `I 3 - 36 Check#: ~C'~ Date: ~ ~ ~ ~_.,. No of Copes: ~ / ~0~~1? County of Pitkin State of Colorado The undersigned, follows: } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY } a9. POSTING OF A VARIANCE HEARING } BEFORE THE PITRZN COIINTY BOARD OF ADJIISTMENT being first duly sworn, deposes and says as I, Chester Pohle and Michael`' Pixley , 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 2~~+ day of ~ ptember, 1993 19 93 to the 4th day of October , 1993 ., (Must be posted for at least nine (9) full days bemire the hearing d~e) Applicant S C- Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~'^ day of ~(~.~ , 1~ by C~-a.~1-.~ '11~~~c~ 'p~~~sl WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. My Commission expires• u 1 ~1~ Notary Public's Signature \o~ ~. l1oQ are (>~ _,;,~ 'e- ~oY Address ~ Lo $111 ~~ ~9 (~{ c<X-_ e ~ J W oooo~ i. j (i i ~ s '_' ~ _ W '~ AY ~i` N ~•~ .t# ~x ~j • ~ ~ - ~.. .~ • n(';T - 6199? NOTICE OF PIIBLIC HEARING TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS 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: Data and time of meeting: Owner: Name and Address of Applicant: Property Location or Description: October 5, 1993 at 5:15 p.m. Commissioners' Meeting Room, Pitkin County Courthouse Chester Pohle & Michael Pixley Chester Pohle & Michael Pixley 810 Bonita Dr. Aspen, CO 81611 Lot 3, Block 2, Filing 1 Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Requesting approval for a 78 foot front yard setback variance and a 20 foot north side yard setback variance, where 100 feet and 50 feet, respectively, are required in the RS-30 zone district, for construction of a single family residence. Approval of this variance request would allow the proposed residence to be located 22 feet from the front property line and 30 feet from the north side property line. VARIANCES GREATER OR LE88 THAN REQUESTED COIILD BE GRANTED. Duration of Variance: Temporary Permanent X THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Suzanne L. Wolff, Secretary ~0~~~ x r- r° r `:rri ^:~i m:,.m`x. -i x:. r~ cap ~;i :~?;-; m . ~ irI M T~• 11~•y~ 77i t: w •5~ $:. n`:- ~ tnf>n "IyTjry f^ iT? ~.n u: ~o~ m~ o ~n t to r ~ w w (,j ~ W 4 ~^ rt N a d x w iN ,~ r x: r r m +x w ry P.n 4 F-+ t~~ ft+ !a :n L~.! ~a W~ ,c s w ooo©js • a' i i,. ~, , ~\ 11 4~ ~ !^ r ~~~ ~$~ 1` a ~' ~~ f E e 511 ~~ ri `~ ~ 1 ` .r • #365676 ~ i 1 / 1 1 i 94 i. 4:10 ~ 5, 0~ ~ Bk: 738 FG 502 Silvia Davis, Fi*_k:in Cnty Clerk, Doc 3,0:~ RESOLUTION OF THE PZTRIN COIINTY, COLORADO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTING SETBACR RELIEF FOR CHESTER POHLE b MICHAEL PIXLEY RESOLUTION NO. 93-36 WHEREAS, Chester Pohle and Michael Pixley, owners of Lot 3, Block 2, Filing 1, Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Subdivision, are requesting approval for a 70 foot front yard setback variance, a 30 foot north side yard setback variance, and a 30 foot south side yard setback variance, for construction of a single family residence; and WHEREAS, 70 feet, 50 feet and 50 feet, respectively, are required in the RS-30 zone district; and WHEREAS, the subject property is within the unincorporated area of Pitkin County, Colorado, (as described in Exhibit "A", attached); and, WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment is vested with the power to grant or deny such variances by virtue of Title II, Section 16-1.3, Pitkin County Code (Land Use Code) and Colorado Revised Statutes, 1973, 30-28-118(2) (C); and, WHEREAS, based on the evidence presented, the Board of Adjustment makes the following findings: 1. Proper notice procedures, including the notification of all adjoining property owners, has been shown by the applicant. 2. The required hardship or practical difficulty has been established. 3. Granting such relief will not cause substan- tial detriment to the public welfare and will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Zoning Resolutions and the zoning maps. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment, that a 70 front yard setback variance, a 30 foot north side yard setback variance, and a 30 foot south side yard setback variance be granted for construction of a single family residence, due to downzoning and topographical hardship, as per the revised plans submitted (Exhibit "B"). WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. 000017 ~.. #365616 U1/i1/94 14:1~~ Rec ~.~?U BK. 73B F'G 503 Silvia Davis, F'itk:in Cnty Clerk:, Doc $.~>~~ Resolution No. 93-36 Page 2 The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: December 7, 1993 The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado ATTEST: G Suz ne L. Wolff, Secretary ~ i Nei ey, Chairman ~o~r~ #36566 ail/ii/94 14:1~~ Rec $.i~ci BF:. 738 F'G 304 Silvia Davis, F'itk:in Cnty Clerk, Doc x.00 EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description for property owned by CHESTER POHLE 6 MICHAEL PIXLEY Lot 3, Block 2, Filing 1 Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Subdivision Pitkin County, Colorado ~0~0~_~ '#.-";j~~yic~ t~l 1tIy4 14; 1i:~ sec 3>. i)i~ Bt~.. 73 FhYi"~~JT '3. Silvia Da~ F'itk:in Cnty Cler;.., Doc ~ 505 \ \~ ~, _ -tt _ ..~ \ ~ ~~_~ i \ ~ ~ ~ -- _ ,. ~ _ ~ .`cam, ~. _' 111 - ~ 1 ~ ~ I ~ h% ,I. _~ {J~~I _. - - _ !~ G 1'l \ ~y ~~_ - ya L I AeA „` _ > ~ fry ~ ' ~ er •~ ~ j t. ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ J b nj ~ - s.. -~~-~~ `~ p' T-i _- Ile ~~ ~!- rt i ~ : 1 L. I.r f __ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, thy n r l ~~~I- `~ ~ i ~ j i T 1 2~ _ iN >O~ J s s. ~ P ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ _ v~ » a~ s _) ~ ~` 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 appeaz and state their views, protests, or objections. If you cannot appeaz personally at such meeting, then you aze urged to state your views by letter, particulazly if you have objection to such variance, as the Boazd 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 LFSS THAN THAT REQUESTED COULD BE GRANTED. DATE AND TIME OF MEETING: Tuesday, October 5, 1993; 5:15 P.M. Commissioners' Meeting Room, Courthouse Pohle, Chester Robert & Pixley, Michael: requesting approval fora 78' front yard setback variance and a 20' north side yard setback variance, where 100' and 50', respectively, aze required in the RS-30 zone district, for construction of a single family residence. Property LocaUOn: Lot 3, Block 2, Filing 1, Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Subdivision. Kaufman, Richard: requesting approval fora 1'6" height variance, where a maximum height of 28' is permitted, in the R-30 zone district, for an addition to a single family residence. Property Location: Lot 1, Ridge of Red Mountain Subdivision. Submitted to the Aspen Times on September 21, 1993. To Be Published in the Aspen Times September 24, 1993. County PO 6301003 ~~~~~~ a Minutes Pitkin County Board of Adjustment December 7, 1993 Members Present: Staff: Rick Neiley, Chair Michael Cooper Rod Dyer Shira Geller Ellie Brickham Bill Lukes John Wheeler Joanna Schaffner, Zoning Enforcement Neiley opened the meeting at 5:15 p.m. and introduced the Board to those present. 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 OOOU~? 4 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 district, for construction of a deck on an existing single family residence. 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 sconsistenthwitht the rear yard constructed in ro7 o~sed Code. setback in the p p Joe Coffey, owner of an adjacent lot, was present, and stated that he had no objections to the variance request. Mullen stated that there is an existing concrete patio that encroaches into the setback. The proposed deck would be constructed on the second floor over the patio. Neiley noted that the deck would not increase the encroachment into the setback. Dyer moved to grant a 9'6" rear yard setback variance for construction of a deck, due to downzoning• Brickham seconded the motion, and all were in favor. 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 theo tion of the building envelope are in excess of 50~ and that a e was approved lot is in the floodplain. The building envelop through rancinal residencerandealdetached caretakeredwellingcunit a new p P and would like to maintain all of the buildings in the same are . 2 00023 foot north side yard setback variance and a 30 foot south side yard setback variance, for coosTrauktical hardsh p glCooper secondednthe due to downzoning and top g P _,.+;.,,,_ 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 000024 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 l0 minutes of this case did not record.) Don Birnkrant was present to request an 80 foot front yard setback variance and a 10 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 0~~~75 ,a 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 80 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. *********,t************************************,r********,t********* 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, ecr~ etary 5 a c~ I~~_- Riek DYeiley, Chairman 0~~~~6 • Minutes Pitkin County Board of Adjustment November 2, 1993 Members Present Staff: Rick Neiley, Chair Michael Cooper Rod Dyer Shira Geller Ellie Brickham Bill Lukes John Wheeler Joanna Schaffner, Zoning Enforcement Neiley opened the meeting at 5:20 p.m. and introduced the Board to those present. He welcomed new Board member Shira Geller. Case 93-05. Robert F. Leonard. Lots 10. 11 & 12. Block 5, Kistler Subdivision The application was tabled to the January 4, 1993 meeting. Case 93-20. William & Barbara Howell. Lot 3, Block 3 Filing 3 Gateway of Snowmass Mesa At the request of the applicant, the application was tabled to the December 7, 1993 meeting. Case #93-36, Chester Pohle and Michael Pixlev Lot 3 Block 2 Filing 1, Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Subdivision This case was tabled at the meeting on October 5, 1993, and at the site visit on October 13, 1993. Cooper and Geller are not voting on this case. Chester Pohle and Michael Pixley were present to request a 7o foot front yard setback variance and a 20 foot north side yard setback variance, where 100 feet and 50 feet, respectively, are required in the RS-30 zone district, for construction of a single family residence. Pohle stated that they have attempted to provide the additional information that was requested at the site visit, including a revised site plan with the driveway specifications. There was no public comment. Pohle indicated that an attempt was made by a previous owner to excavate for a building site on the lower part of the lot, but was abandoned when they encountered problems with the soil and steep slopes. He noted that they plan to contour and revegetate that area, as well as the areas disturbed during construction, as 1 ppOO2~ requested by the Gateway Homeowners Association. Pohle stated that an architect calculated the driveway to achieve the 12~ grade requirement and located the house in the optimum position to achieve that grade. He pointed out that the plan shows the retaining walls necessary for the house and the driveway, and the existing trees on the site which the driveway will not disturb. Wheeler stated that the trees will not live because they will be disturbed by the berm. Lukes agreed that 75~ or more of the trees will be buried in dirt and will die. Neiley asked why the retaining wall and the stairs on the plan were not included in the variance request. Schaffner responded that the stairs were on grade and the retaining wall was built into the hillside, so they are allowed within the setback. Wheeler questioned whether the topography of the lot could be justified as the hardship for this request. Neiley noted that downzoninq would be the justification because the owners are unable to fit the improvements outside the required setbacks. Neiley moved to grant a 69 foot front yard setback variance and a 27 foot east side yard setback variance, due to downzoning. Dyer seconded the motion. Wheeler and Lukes were opposed, therefore, the motion failed. Brickham asked the applicants if they had considered entering the house on the second level to lessen the cut necessary to get to the first level. Pohle replied that the architect informed them that they would then have to increase the amount of fill, and the Gateway Homeowners Association had stated a preference for not increasing the amount of fill. Wheeler asked if they had considered a detached garage. Pohle replied that the Homeowners Association preferred that they not have a walkway or stairs from a garage on the lower portion of the lot to the house in its proposed location. Wheeler stated that the house is in the worst topographical site on the lot, and that he would like to see the applicants looking for a site on the lot that makes more sense for building. Pohle stated that the house is designed for a sloping lot, despite the Board's comments to the contrary. Neiley responded that the problem is that the flat floor plan they have presented does not fit into the site effectively because it requires a large retaining wall and a lot of cut and fill, and added that the applicants do not seem to have chosen the best design or the best location given the problems with the site. Pohle noted that they will have the same problem if they build on 2 ~~~~?~ • the lower portion of the lot because the lot is narrower at the bottom, which will require them to build even closer to the lot lines. Also, they will not be able to get a driveway to the house because there is not enough room for the switchbacks that would be required. Lukes stated that a variance will be required for the house anywhere on the site, and that he would prefer to see the house developed on the lower portion of the site. He added that being able to drive directly to a house is not an intrinsic property right, and that the site just may not allow it. Wheeler noted that the fire department does not need to be able to drive to the front door. Wheeler stated that the applicants did not use the topographical map to their advantage in order to minimize the impact of the development on the site. Pohle replied that there will be a scar on the property no matter where the house is sited. Brickham disagreed, noting that the house could be stepped down the hill with the entrance on the upper level. Wheeler added that stepping the house would avoid a big berm and retaining wall. Neiley stated that the applicants have a justification for a variance, but that the development plans are not suited to the site, and that it seemed obvious that they would not gain support for this specific variance. Lukes moved to table this case to December ~ pending receipt of a revised site plan. Wheeler seconded the motion and all were in favor. Lukes and Wheeler are not voting on this case. David Finholm, representing the applicant, was present to request a 1'6" height variance, where a maximum height of 28 feet is permitted, for an addition to a single family residence. Finholm stated that a variance was granted for the addition in February, 1993, but that the house design has since been changed. He noted that when the building is finished, the roof will actually be lower than it is now, but it will still exceed the allowed height because the original building was approved based on a previous definition of building height. He added that they are lowering the bulk of the roof and adding an overhang to protect the house from the sun. There was no public comment. Dyer moved to grant a 1'6" height variance, due to downzoning. 3 000029 Brickham seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case 93-39. Thomas Dalv, 34700 Hicthwav 82 Neiley and Geller are not voting on this case. Thomas Daly was present to request a 3 foot height variance, where a maximum of 20 feet is allowed for an accessory structure, for construction of a barn at Cozy Point Ranch. Daly stated that he is constructing a barn and riding arena, and that the request for extra height is based on the height necessary for headroom when riding in the arena. He added that the barn will be in the same location as the previous barn and will have little impact on the adjacent landowners. The proposed barn is a little larger than the previous one. Schaffner noted that in the RS-20 and RS-30 zone districts, a building such as this would be permitted a maximum height of 28 feet because it would be considered a principal use. However, in the AF-1 zone district, the building is considered an accessory use and must abide by the more restrictive height requirement. This parcel contains approximately 200 acres. Daly noted that he wants to maintain the property as a ranch. Neiley stated that the Board has granted variances in the past to similar structures in order to maintain legitimate agricultural uses. Howard Hardy, a neighbor from Brush Creek Village, stated his approval of the variance request. Wheeler moved to grant a 3 foot height variance, due to practical difficulties. Cooper seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case 93-40. Robert Durham, SE;SE;, Section 4. Township 10 South, Range 88 West of the 6th P.M. Dyer and Neiley are not voting on this case. Robert Durham was present to request a 35 foot front yard setback variance and a 5 foot west side yard setback variance, where 75 feet and 20 feet, respectively, are required in the AF-2 zone district, for construction of a single family residence. Durham stated that the property had been reviewed for wildlife issues, and that the proposed building envelope received 1041 approval. The envelope is in a level meadow located in the narrowest part of the lot. The rest of the property .is heavily forested. There was no public comment. 4 000030 ~ i Wheeler moved to grant a 35 foot front yard setback variance, a 5 foot west side yard setback variance and a 10 foot east side yard setback variance, due to the unique conditions on the site not caused by the applicant. Brickham seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case 93-41. Bettv Greenwald. Lot 6, Block 4, Red Mountain Ranch Subdivision Brickham and Lukes are not voting on this case. Charles Paterson was present, representing the applicant, to request a 5 foot north side yard setback variance, where 15 feet is required in the R-30 zone district, for construction of a residential garage. Paterson stated that the existing house is currently being remodelled, and that the topography of the lot prevents the owners from building the garage anywhere else. He added that there is not a garage on the property now, and that all of the neighbors have garages. He noted that the Homeowners Association approved the request, subject to any objections from the neighbors, and no objections have been received. Neiley read into the record a letter from Jeanne and John Russell, stating their approval of the variance request. Paterson indicated that the garage will follow the roof line and will be attached to the house. A utility easement prevents them from building more than a one-car garage. Wheeler asked why the garage could not be moved closer to the house or built in another location, and added that he did not feel that topographical hardship was a justification for this variance request. He also noted that an owner does not have a given right to a garage. Pat McAllister, representing Burton Goldberg, an adjacent landowner, stated Mr. Goldberg's opposition to the variance request, due to the lack of a hardship. He also questioned the visual impact of the garage and stated his client's concern for the integrity of the zoning in the subdivision. Paterson questioned the impact of the garage on Mr. Goldberg and reiterated that there was no other location on the property for a garage. He noted that the neighbors who would be most impacted by the garage have no objections. Neiley stated that he would like to visit the site to determine if there is an actual hardship or any negative impacts. 5 ~0~~?~~ Geller, who has already visited the site, asked if the garage could be moved farther back alongside the house. Paterson replied that the garage would block the windows in the caretaker unit if it was moved back, and that it would make the access to the garage more difficuit. Dyer moved to grant a 5 foot north side yard setback variance, due to topography and practical difficulties. Cooper seconded the motion. Wheeler and Neiley were opposed, therefore, the motion failed. Neiley moved to table the application to a site visit on Wednesday, November 3 at 8:30 am. Wheeler seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case 93-42. Wildbrook. Ltd 4070 Lower River Road Wheeler and Brickham are not voting on this case. Gene Adcock was present, representing Wildbrook, Ltd., to request a 95 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a pump shed. Adcock stated that their well went dry, so they had to drill the existing well deeper. The equipment is currently below ground, but the Health Department has required them to have the equipment above ground, which requires the construction of a structure around the equipment to prevent freezing. " There was no public comment. Neiley moved to grant a 95 foot to the unique conditions on the difficulties. Dyer seconded the front yard setback variance, due property resulting in practical motion, and all were in favor. The minutes of October 5 were approved as written. The minutes of October 13 were approved with the deletion of the sentence "Lukes stated that allowing the owner to build on the upper part of the lot was not consistent with the zoning or land use codes." The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, UV ~" Suzan a L. Wolff, Secretary Neiley, Chairman 6 00003? Minutes Pitkin County Board of Adjustment site Visit October 13, 1993. Members Present: Rick Neiley, Chair Ellie Brickham Evan Gull Rod Dyer Bill Lukes Members Absent: Michael Cooper John Wheeler Staff: Joanna Schaffner, Zoning Enforcement Neiley opened the meeting at 8:50 a.m. This item was tabled at the October 5 meeting. Michael Pixley was present to request a 65 foot front yard setback variance and a 6 foot north side yard setback variance, where 100 feet and 50 feet, respectively, are required in the RS-30 zone district, for construction of a single family residence. As requested at the Board's meeting on October 5, Pixley provided a revised survey and cross-sections of the house and the slope, staked the site and erected a height pole. The Board reviewed the proposed location of the residence, and discussed the necessity of constructing a retaining wall up to 20 feet high above the residence because of the slope of the site. Neiley moved to grant a 65 foot front yard setback variance, and a 6 foot north side yard setback variance, due to downzoning. Dyer seconded the motion. Dyer and Gull were in favor, with Neiley, Brickham and Lukes opposed, therefore, the motion failed. Neiley stated that the proposed location for the house is the most difficult one on the lot. Gull stated that this case presents a clear case of downzoning, that the owner is entitled to build on the property in a reasonable envelope, and that the Board should apply the setbacks for the appropriate zone district based on the lot size. Neiley read from the Land Use Code, Section 16-1, Powers and Duties of the Board of Adjustment, "The Board of Adjustment shall have the following powers and duties...subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards, in harmony with the public interest and the most appropriate use of the area." He stated his concern with the 000033 extent of the cut and fill that would occur on the site, and its impact on and visibility to the public. Dyer noted that any house anywhere on the lot would require retaining walls, and that the 12$ slope restriction for the driveway means that the driveway could not reach the house anywhere else on the site. Dyer noted that he is concerned that: the topographical map is not accurate, the trees in the area where the driveway is to be located are not shown, and the driveway is not shown. Schaffner noted that the applicant is not required to maintain the trees on the site. Pixley stated that they intend to remove as few of the trees as possible. Lukes stated that even if a driveway is not cut, the cut and fill for the house will still be visible, and there will be at least a 6 foot tailing slope below the house. Neiley stated that he would like to get more information from the applicants, including: the exact location of the driveway, the extent of the cut, and a plan for mitigating the visual impact. He added that the proposed location for the house might be the worst possible one on the lot, but it may be the only location that can be accessed. Schaffner stated that the County Engi:eer can approve a variance to the maximum 12$ grade requirement for the driveway, but that above a 12$ grade, a driveway is required to have switchbacks. There is not enough width on the property for switchbacks. Neiley moved to table the application to the November 2nd meeting, with the following conditions: include on the topographical map the exact location of the driveway, including the trees as they relate to the driveway; provide drawings which show the extent and elevation of the cut and fill required; and describe how the visual impacts of the cut and fill will be mitigated. Brickham seconded the motion, and all were in favor. *********************************************~****~:********,r***** The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Suza ne L.~lff, cV~e retary ;C c ~ eiley, Chairman 000034 ., Members Present: Minutes Members Absent: Staff: Pitkin County Board of Adjustment October 5, 1993 Rick Neiley, Chair Evan Gull Bill Lukes Ellie Brickham Michael Cooper Rod Dyer John Wheeler Joanna Schaffner, Zoning Enforcement Neiley opened the meeting at 5:20 p.m. and introduced the Board to those present. He welcomed new Board member Ellie Brickham. Chester Pohle was present to request a 70 foot front yard setback variance and a 20 foot north side yard setback variance, where 100 feet and 50 feet, respectively, are required in the RS-30 zone district, for construction of a single family residence. Pohle stated that the lot is steep anti irregularly shaped. They propose to build on the upper portion of the lot and to access the lot from the top because the lot is narrower at the bottom. By accessing the house at the top of the lot, the driveway will meet the County requirements for a maximum grade of 12$, and will also meet the fire department requirements. Pohle noted that the Gateway Homeowners Association approved their site plan. Evan questioned whether the Homeowners Association has the ability to approve variances from the setbacks in their covenants. Francis Krizmanich, a homeowner in Gateway, urged the Board to visit the site because the topography on the survey does not seem to accurately reflect the topography of the site. Photographs presented to the Board seemed to confirm this concern because the excavation at the bottom of the site is not reflected on the topographic survey. He said that he feels the bottom of the lot provides better access to a flatter building area, on which a split level home could be constructed with less cut and fill. The house is designed for a flat lot, and is proposed to be built on the steepest part of the lot, which will require a lot of cut and fill. In response to questions about the access, Pohle responded that accessing the building site from the bottom of the lot would require switchbacks to meet the County driveway standards, and that the switchbacks would be too narrow for fire trucks. 1 pOOO35 Gull noted that the footprint of the house on the topographic survey is larger than the house presented in the plans. Lukes feels that it is important that the applicant submit a correct survey. Other Board members did not feel an accurate survey was necessary if they were going to visit the site. Gull stated that he would prefer to see the house staked on the site, and would like to see cross-sections of the house and the slope and the height of the house. Neiley noted that downzoning is often used to justify granting variances for lots in the Gateway Subdivision because it is impossible on many of the sites to locate improvements within the setbacks required by the County. He stated that the Board has an obligation to grant a minimum variance and to grant a variance that is not detrimental to the public good and interest. Pohle stated. that he agreed to the Homeowners Association's request to revegetate the existing excavated area on the lower portion of the lot and any slopes that are impacted during construction. Neiley noted that a building on the lower site would require larger variances. Lukes stated that he was concerned that the applicant would obtain the setback approval, and then return tD request a height variance. Schaffner suggested that the applicant provide a revised footprint which accurately reflects the proposed structure, and then the Board could conduct a full review. Neiley moved to table this item for- a site visit. Cooper seconded the motion, and all were in favor. The site visit was scheduled for Wednesday, October 13 at 8:30 a.m. Pohle will stake the site, erect a height pole, and provide an accurate footprint of the house on the topographic survey and cross-sections of the house and the slope. Case 93-37, Richard Kaufman Lot 1 Ridoe of Red Mountain David Finholm, representing the applicant, was present to request a 1'6" height variance, where a maximum height of 28 feet is permitted, for an addition to a single family residence. Finholm stated that notice of the hearing had not been posted on the site. The board previously approved a height variance for the residence for the roof addition, but the currently proposed design is different. The variance being requested is actually less than that previously granted. Finholm noted that the Red Mountain Homeowners Association has approved the new design. 2 D~QU~~ There was no public comment. Gull moved to table this application to the November 2nd meeting. Neiley seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case 93-38, Roaer Smith. 2020 Maroon Creek Road Randy Schofield, representing the applicant, was present to request approval for a 15 foot front yard setback variance, where 100' is required in the AF-1 zone district, and a 15 foot major road setback variance for Maroon Creek Road, where 100' is required, for construction of a covered walkway on an existing single family residence. Schofield explained that the applicants would like to construct a covered walkway because the entry to the house is very dangerous in the winter due to snow and ice accumulation. He noted that variances have been granted in the past for this house because the lot is constrained by Maroon Creek and Maroon Creek Road. There was no public comment. Lukes moved to grant a 15 foot front yard setback variance and a 15 foot major road setback variance due to specific site constraints, including topographical hardship. Gull seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case #93-20, William and Barbara Howell Lot 3 Block 3 Filing 2 Gatewav of Snowmass Mesa Subdivision Gull moved to table the application to the November 2nd meeting. Cooper seconded the motion, and all were in favor. ***********************,r*********************~***~**~************ Gull announced his resignation from the Board after 12 years. The minutes of September 7 and September 9 were approved as written. The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, i `/ ~i.ti{~r,l"~~~~~~L~~ 1 Suza~4 a L. Wolf ,~SecT retary f A ~/ ~ ~-~ I~lic1, iley, Chairman 3 000037 - - 130 South Galena Sveet • Aspen, Colorado 81011 2 ~{(~ (303) 920-5090 .3 `f 3 , d ~ B LAND USE APPLICATION FEES CITY: -63250-134 GMP/Conceptual -63270-136 GMP/Final -63280-137 SUB/Conceptual -63300-139 SUB/Final -63310-140 All-2 Step Applications -63320-141 All 1 Step Applications -63330-150 Staff Approval -63432-157 Zoning Plan Check -63432.157 Sign Permit -00100-00000-31070 Use Tax for Sign Permits HISTORIC PRESERVATION: -63335-151 Exemption -63336-152 Minor -63337-153 Major Devel. -63338-154 SignB. Devel. -63339-155 Demolition COUNTY: -63160-126 GMP/General -63170-127 GMP/Detailed -63180-128 GMP/Final -63190-129 SUB/General -63200-130 SUB/Detailed -63210-131 SUB/Final -63220-132 All 2 Step Applications -63230-133 All 1 Step Applications -63240-149 Staff Approval t ~ 7 0 lJ --- -63450-146 Board of Adjustmen -T -63235-148 Zoning Plan Check REFERRAL FEES: -63360-143 Engineering -County 00115 -63340-163 Engineering -City 00123 -63340-190 Housing 00125 -63340-205 Environmental HeaRh PLANNING OFFICE SALES: -63080-122 County Code 5 9000-14 - 6 Other (Copy Fees) GO f , ( ~ ( t J l1 ~ r~ tS V TOTAL Z ~ ^ ~ ~ V Name: / Y 1wLb"~7~~ DC.I~ /l-,iY A Phone: I~ `'/ ~) l) ~~~ ~ ~ Projeck ~jjp,~ , Address: ~j3.3~ U~.„ ~_ Check #: rC~ Date: = No of Copws.