The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutpitkin.boa.93.37PITRIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DATE 9/~3I `3 CASE ~ 3-3~ 9 APPLICANT Td D n ~ rT /` r D l~ 'PHONE / ~ -/ Z S SCI / 3 MAILING A DDRESS FJ/Uf f'DLiY~ J ~/Nf{DL I'Y~ , BbX 2$ ~q ~ A-~P~p~f D OWNER ~1 SCI-fA-~ZD KA~L~FYYILFN PHONE N ~I~. S'y312 ~R~P~ MAILING ADDRESS '7`f o ~~-e~-Dn - ) ~ usKE~vN , w1 ~ ~{9 y~,~ ~vy~r~~9 LOCATION OF PROPERTY L- 07` ~ / R ! D (rte 6 F ~~ IYL b tti PJ "j'f} / ~/ Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part of this Case. The Board may r~tu~ th3s,application if it does not contain all the facts in o T~ Applicant Signa (To be completed by the Zoninq 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: R-3o Zone District Requesting:! 3o~a• Lot Size ' Front Yard Setback Variance, where ' is required. ' Rear Yard Setback Variance, where ' is required. ' Side Yard Setback Variance, where ' is required. ' Side Yard Setback Variance, where ' is required. rCo,~ ' Height Variance, where ~_' is ~2d tl~e ma~,rn.,,,-,,, ~ecm~~~.ec~. Square Feet where a maximum of sq. ft. is allowed. Other: Zoning Official ~axaA ~~/C1~~~~-.2~. Application filed 9 l3 ~ 3 Parcel~ID No. i~ 3 S_ %~_6~ _O~S Date of Meeting /D Jr 9 3 Notices Mailed ~ Z~ ~ Secretary ~hk ~ Vv Refer Resolution to Building Department ~ _; Yes ; _ ; No I00000 ~' ZS 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 Richard Kaufman Todd Bartok Finholm & Finholm Box 2839 Aspen, CO 81612 Lot 1, Ridge of Red Mountain Requesting approval for a 1'6" height variance, where a maximum height of 28 feet is permitted, for construction of an addition to a single family residence. VARIANCES GREATER OR LESS THAN REQUESTED COULD BE GRANTED. Duration of Variance: Temporary Permanent X THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ,J LLl ~Cl.l'~'1 ~~,1,,~'~` (Suzanne L. lff, Secretary 00000? ~ ~ ~ ~ f; September 13, 1993 Aspen / Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen CO 81611 Boazd of Adjustment Variance Request For Kaufman Residence Why_vaziance is neceaca~yr •• The variance being requested is a height variance to the present code and how it defines the height limit. When this residence was originally constructed the definition of height stated that from xistin r de the maximum height for a building with a pitched roof could be 33 feet. It was acceptable to modify the grade lower than the existing grade at that time. The present definition limits the height from existing grade or finished grade, whichever is most restrictive. This new definition eliminates the possibility of the hardship which we aze now facing. As you can see from the on final radin plan provided that the west part of the site was flattened out adjacent the residence to provide pazking and for installation of the city water tank which is also on the property. F I N H O L M Sc F' I N H O L M ARCHITECTS INCORPORATED A I A POST OFFICE BOX 2839 ~ ASPEN, COLD RA~O 8t 6Yz TELEPHONE 303-9z5 57t3 ~ FACSIMILE 303-9z0 447Y oc~nn~?~ Kaufman Residence September 13,e 1993 Page 2 This addition to the existing residence is planned to accomplish two basic needs: 1.) To add roofs which will greatly decrease the solar gain in this building. It is almost uninhabitable in the afternoon because of the heat build-up due to poor solar design in the first place. 2.) General upgrading of the building including new kitchen, enlazged master suite to include a study, and to provide via a roof deck, sun protection from the middle floor. The part of the new addition which will not meet the new height limit is the midpoint of the new roof over the new deck as viewed from the west elevation. Please note that this point is not as high as the existing house. Also note that approximately two feet of height of the existing roof will be removed during renovation thus reducing present height impacts. Architecturally the addition of the roof over the new deck and the new deck extension over the middle level will create deep shadows not only protecting the spaces behind from too much sun but will create strong horizontal lines that will visually reduce the present vertical, plain look that exists presently. We respectfully request that a height variance be granted to this new design so that additions to this building can be done which will result in a positive architectural addition and a thermally more compatible space. Thank V. Todd D~~U~~ APR-30-93 FR I 1 4 1 ~ fiMSTORE - CLAY ~.-. P _ 01 +r'D4/~~9/,93 08:33 $303 ,97;t71 FINAO[.M & ASSOC.~~_ J ~- - ;y~uuz ~, #9 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS - KAUFMAN RESIDENCE TRACT A, B, C, OPENSPACE C/O LYNNE LEVINSON P.O. BOX 2012 ASPEN CO 81612 LOT 2 GARY HOLMES C/O CM5 LAKESIDE, A MINNESOTA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP 2561 TERRITORIAL ROAD ST. PAUL MN 55114-1500 LOT 11 TERRY & ROBERTA TURKAT 130 NORTH BEVERLY GLEN LOS ANGELES CA 90024 LOT 12 FRANK BATTEN 150 WEST BRAMBLETON AVENUE NORFOLK VA 23510 LOT 13 ELIZABETH MUSSER 3080 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BLDG ST PAUL MN 55101 LOT 14 A.T. DICKENS C/O LETTER ONE CONSTRUCTION 23945 CALABASSAS ROAD SUITE 208 CALABASSAS CA 91302 OO~lO^~ ~ _ ~:~ •~ ~~ #8 WRITTEN DIRECTIONS TO THE PROPERTY FROM ASPEN PROCEED DOWN MILL STREET TOWARDS RED MOUNTAIN, TURN LEFT ON RED MOUNTAIN ROAD AND PROCEED UPHILL UNTIL INTERSECTION OF DRAW DRIVE AND RIDGE ROAD. CONTINUE UP R[DGE ROAD PAST BENNETT BENCH ROAD MAKING A GRADUAL TURN TO THE LEFT. THE HOUSE IS THE FIRST ON THE LEFT. THE SIGN WILL BE AT THE DRIVEWAY TO THE HOUSE. SEE DOTTED LINES ON THE ATTACHED MAP. ~~~Q~7 ~, ~_ oq m x~ .ire v°°Ee .,.10~ c. V ° C oaQ~ ~ ~ {1~~' a o, F, ~9~V ° E ° ^+ Ia 'I~° ~ W 4te °O eeq •~yO A ~q 3 Eea Z° ` n 3 c o ~ e ~ ~Y ° -~ r` • 4 • >: ~M t ~+Y 34 ~r~ / ~ F ~. s a 3. ~ t~ O~ .II ~ ~ • r ~e ,~ _ I _g r ~ ~_ SING Ous~a 6onEd~ d° o•° a 'i $pt~ taal~ ~r-_.._. u~o.I f\e ~~~U~'J r ~ r^l as .; Ql i '~ ~ y F x "' v"' t y 0 ~ ~ s I = ri•I gF ~ ° ~ a b=a ~ 9 b` • ~~ _~ ~ y q ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ N ~ < = o ~ • ,y s I a Q O w, I tl ~°gDwti % Q ~ La 4y = a W ` / J Q a.wa.+°~ ~ v ~ . ~. ~ ., , ~Iai~J . ~,°.rr ~ ~ ~ 3 \~ ~ I o : ~ ~. ~ _ I Aspen. Cobredo 81611 / c303)920-so9o 273v~0/y-~-ozs LAND USE APPLICATION FEES CITY: -63250-134 GMP/Conceptual -63270-136 GMP/Rnai -63280-137 SUB/Conceptual -63300-139 SUB/Fnal -63310-140 All-2 Step Applications -63320-141 All 1 Step Applications ~i3330-150 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 Mirror -63337-153 Major Devel. -6333&154 SignH. Devel. -63339-155 Demolition COUNTY: -63160-126 GMP/General -63170-127 GMP/Detailed -63180-128 GMP/Final ~i3190-129 SUB/General -63200-130 SUB/Detailed X3210-131 SUB/Flnal -63220-132 All 2 Step Applications ~i3230-133 All 1 Step Applications -63240-149 Staff Approval -63450-146 Board of Adjustment -63235-148 Zoning Plan Check REFERRAL FEES: -63360-143 Engineering -County 00115 -63340-163 Engineering-City 00123 -63340-190 Housing 00125 X3340-205 Environmental HeaRh PLANNING OFFICE SALES: -63080-122 County Code -69000-145 Other (Copy Fees) TOTAL ~~ ;~ n ~r //JJ N ~ ! ~~ LQ~ ss J ~ ' ame: l,~ ~~ / ^ i Phone: Address: f~_/ ~~i~ ,~! ~ Project: /!° yr4r~-[, 6-"~ - >_ --- ~"tl- 37 Check #: S y 6 pate; ~ _ No of Copies: / '~, /~ ~Ql1llU~ County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY } ss. POSTING OF A VARIANCE HEARING State of Colorado } BEFORE T8E PITKIN COIINTY HOARD OF ADJDSTMENT The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says as follows: T, VINCENT T. BARTOK , 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 F property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the ,~,Q~~ day of OCTOBER , 19 93 , to the Ist '1 day of NOVEMBER 19 9.3 (Mu,~t be posted for at least nine 9 full da s before n ,~`~,/~~ ~ ) Y hearngidar~ s ~ ~ ~. OUOU1O Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~hday of OCTOBER WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. My Commission expires • % ~~~~~_ ~ ; ~_ ~C~i'~~l~U ~ l\ ~ ~> ~~:a-~- _ Notary Public's Signature ,, ~~~~~ a ~~~ C1~~ , ~ n ~~~ ,.~ ~~.~ :< < s~ ~sL ~ a ~:~ Address ~ i~~ ~, ,y f, ~. ~x .~.~ -~ ,~s_. ,~~ ~ #364 ~ 2 /17/93 13:x; Rec ~,n0 ,35 F•G 662 Silvis .,vis, Fitk:in Cnty Clerk, ,,. $,tii1 RESOLUTION OF THE PITRIN COUNTY, COLORADO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTING HEIGHT RELIEF FOR RICHARD RAUFMAN RESOLUTION NO. 93-37 WHEREAS, Richard Kaufman, owner of Lot 1, Ridge of Red Mountain Subdivision, is requesting approval for a 1'6" height variance, for construction of an addition to a single family residence; and WHEREAS, a maximum height of 28 feet is allowed; 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 1'6" height variance be granted for construction of an addition to a single family residence, due to downzoning, as per the plans submitted (Exhibit "B"). t WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may ~; result in rehearing and possible revocation. ~~0~~~ ~ ~- #3647Ci4 1~/~ ; 1~,~, Silvia ^~ Rec 5•ci~-' Ek: 735 • Davis, ,'itk:in CntY Clerk: 063 Doc $, ~_~~~ Resolution No. 93-37 Page 2 The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: November 2, 1993 The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado ATTEST: L~ Suzan e L. Wolff, ecretary Rick Neiley, Chairman I i r aooo~~ #384 7 04 iC/ 17/93 13: ~ 7 Fec $. C.~ii BF: 735 F'G 664 Silvia Davis, F'itk:in Cnty Clerk:, Doc $.ii~1 EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description for property owned by RICHARD ItAUFMAN Lot 1 Ridge of Red Mountain Subdivision Pitkin County, Colorado r! 000013 #364x64 12/17/93 ~._~ Rec ~.UO BK: 735 F6 665 Silvia Davis, F•it4::in Cnty Clerk:, Doc x.66 ~~ .~ _1 ~~ -. ~..,~ tg ~~ a \ ~ ~,' ~~. i , L J '„ ~•i E~ .... _, . ri. -. ~~~~-1 ~i ~, §I jj i 4r S. ~~ I ~ _ i~ ~ f ~ !. ' A -'- -_- -__ ... 3 '~ - -_- ~_-V__ '~ _ ~, II i _~ ~,j---'+I I I~__-- ~L-_ li I =>_. ~. r-----_~ _ ---__--.J. I .,... _r. - ~--L _ ~' ~.. ",' '~ ~ ~~ 3 ~ 1~ I I '. iI 9, ~' III ~Y' '',`: 'i u~ 1 I y~_ __ _ ~xrt~6~-r "g,~ 0006J~ 4 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 Boazd 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 appeaz personally at such meeting, then you aze urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such vanance, 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 LESS 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 yazd setback variance and a 20' north side yazd setback variance, where 100' and 50', respectively, are 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 ah 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 1/301003 s •.. Minutes Pitkin County Hoard 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 in those present. He welcomed new Board member Case 93-05. Robert F. Leonard Lots 10 11 & Subdivision The application was tabled to the January 4, Case 93-20. William & Barbara Howell Lot 3 Gatewav of Snowmass Mesa troduced the Board to Shira Geller. 12. Block 5. Kistler 1993 meeting. . Block 3. Filing 3 At the request of the applicant, the application was tabled to the December 7, 1993 meeting. 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 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 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 oQ1J'J~O 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 downzoning 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 ~Q~~~ •. 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 7 pending receipt of a revised site plan. Wheeler seconded the motion and all were in favor. Case 93-37. Richard Kaufman Lot 1 Ridae of Red Mountain Subdivision 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 ~Ql/V~ f3 Brickham seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case 93-39 Thomas Dalv 34700 Hiahwav 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 Townsh~ 10 South. Ranae 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 0000'.9 . ti Wheeler moved to grant a 35 foot front yard setback variance, a 5 foot west side yard setback variance and a l0 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. Betty 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 00~~~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 "Lakes 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 e L. Wolff, Secretary 6 000021 Minutes Pitkin County Board of Adjustment October 5, 1993 Members Present: Members Absent: Staff: Rick Neiley, Chair Evan Gull Bill Lukes Rod Dyer Ellie Brickham Michael Cooper 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. Case #93-36. Chester Pohle and Michael Pixley Lot 3 Block 2 F111na 1. Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Subdivision 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 and 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 01~U~i2 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 000023 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, Roger 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. 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, ~ o x~ti~ ,. r,i~~~~,~ ~L~D%(~„ 1 _ Suza a L. Wolff',=Secretary 3 r ' ~ { i I~licl~' N~e'iley, Chairman 007024 ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE ~ ~~~,.-,. 130 South Galena SVeet • Aspen, Colorado 81611 r/ ~ (303 920 5090 ' ~~~~ - ~ ~ 5 ) - j:5 r L ( 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 Signrf. 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 -63450-146 Board of Adjustment .,~ ~l / -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 -69000-145 Othe r (Copy Fees) n O O ll ~ ~ ~ TOTAL s~ ~ ~ ~> Name: ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~/" ~ S/ ~ L p v J ! - t Phone: Address: /%~ ,~ ~~ ~_ Project: ~~ y rs > t ~ JyrL//..~%, ' Wiz,,,' / cr ~ 37 Check#: ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ . ~' ~ - ~ r No of Copies: -