The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutpitkin.boa.93.39 PITRIN COIINTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DATE OGTDiS~~ S, ~ 9q3 CASE # ~ ~ ~~ APPLICANT T~lOM~ S J . 1~f11. ~ PHONE 9aS-s 7~'8 MAILING ADDRESS S.Z 0 CcJ . NAt-~~l M sr. AsPE~/ G~~ ~/6 // OWNER __.TF-SOMAS .T. DALE PHONE 9.~7_S_'S 788 MAILING ADDRESS LOCATION OF PROP ~.5~_~~ 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 ti-~i~"~~ c~ (To be completed by tha 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: ~~ Zone District Requesting: 0 ~c, 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. ~' Height Variance, where ~~ is required. Square Feet where a maximum of sq. ft. is allowed. Other: ~TO C~1riA'~JuM~f" 0. /1~dt1 bOtA./l Zoning OfficialcA..//~Q~~ Application filed lD ~ 43 Parcel ID No. .Yloy3 _a~~UU_dO1 Date of Meeting Z q?J Notices Mailed /D 2/ 3 Secretary ~A,A~~-~~~ Refer Resolution to Building Department ; _~ Yes ; _~ No Ovv0D1~~ o-{~ Z~ ,, C~ BEFORE THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to Pitkin County Resolution of June 5, 1955, as amended, a Public Hearing will be held in City Council Chambers, City Hall, First Floor, Aspen, Colorado (or at such other place as the meeting may then be adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the County Zoning Resolution. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. THE PARTICULARS OF THE HEARING AND OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE ARE AS FOLLOWS: Date and time of meeting: November 2, 1993 at 5 Plaza 1 Meeting Room Courthouse Plaza; 530 Thomas Daly Thomas Daly 520 W. Hallam St. Aspen, CO 81611 34700 Highway 82 (Cozy Point Ranch) 15 p.m. Owner: Name and Address of Applicant: Property Location or Description: E. Main Requesting approval for a 3 foot height variance, where a maximum height of 20 feet is allowed for an accessory structure, for construction of a barn. VARIANCES GREATER OR LESS THAN REQUESTED COULD BE GRANTED. Duration of Variance: Temporary Permanent X THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Suzanne L. W ff, Secretary ,.q, ~. ~~O~Q • Ober 5, 1993 Pitkin County Board of Adjustment Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Members of the Board of Adjustment: We are asking for a height variance on a building we would like to build on our ranch at 34700 Highway 82, Aspen. We wish to erect a clear span metal Butler-type building. The beam depth in this type of building would not give us enough head room while on a horse under the existing allowable height. We need this building for riding and training roping and cattle horses that we plan to raise on the ranch. We also will use the building for calving first year heifers through January and Febru- ary. Also, as in the past, we intend to have the "Happy on a Horse" group ride once a month in the arena. This group consists of approximately 20 handicapped children in the Valley and several adults. There are some very big smiles when they ride a horse under the supervision of a therapist. We donate the space and other people donate their time at no charge to the children and adults in this group. Among many other things, ore have repaired and painted the metal fence around the ranch and have been improving and cleaning up the ranch. Any neighbors rre have heard from seem happy we are keeping it as a ranch. We are good neighbors with everybody and will do everything we can to make Cozy Point pleasing to the eye. Sincerely urs, ... ~-""~'~~ Judy, Jacquelyn and Tom D ODUUU3 ~ ?_ ADJ~NT PROPERTY OWNERS • COZY POINT RANCH Gordon Dundaker 2458 Old Dorsett Road Maryland Heights, MO 63043 Robert L. and Amelia L. Kopp Box 100 Aspen, CO 81612 Christopher B. and Anthony R. Knoop 1 Locust Hill Road Cincinnati, OH 45245 Walter B. Mills Box 68 Aspen, CO 81612 Edward Stanley Sanditen .610 West End Aspen, CO 81611 Larry and Mary Wallace Box 1146 Aspen, CO 81612 William L. Landman and Robert J. Giacinto 27 Light Hill Road Snowmass, CO 81654 Cozy Point Ridge Ventures, Inc. c/o Joseph Krabacher 201 North Mill Street Aspen, CO 81611 John Sheehan and Suzanne Wasser Box 1149 Aspen, CO 81612 Gillian Baxter and Robert A. Baxter Box 969 Aspen, CO 81612 Michael H. Blacker, Trustee 1870 South Bayshore Drive Coconut Grove, FL 33133 Mark Houston Wagnon and Brucer Landon Lee 141 Grove Court Aspen, CO 81611 David Lambert and Lynne Marie Symons 0571 Holland Hills Rd. Basalt, CO 81621 ... ; o- . 000004 August, Inc. • • Box 1191 Basalt, CO 81621 Dwight Shellman Box 2710 Aspen, CO 81612 William J. Cleary and Stanford H. Johnson Box 416 Aspen, CO 81612 William J. Cleary Box 1755 Aspen, CO 81612 Kathleen A. Chamberlin Box 588 Aspen, CO 81612 Stanley Bialek and Christopher F. Swatta Box 4291 Aspen, CO 81612 Dixie Rinehart and Carol R. Rinehart Box 11000 Aspen, CO 81612 Gregory Garcia and Helen Dolores Jaurequi 206 South Arizona Silver City, N.M. 88061 Stanford H. Johnson Box 416 Aspen, CO 81612 John R. Keifer 4431 N. Swan Road Tucson, AZ 85118 Camilla K. Sparlin Box 2363 Asepn, CO 81612 Horizons "At the Fork" c/o Richard W. Huffman 5101 Olson Memorial Hwy. Golden Valley, MN 55422 Susan L. Mauntel Box 10496 Aspen, CO 81612 Brian A. DeWolfe Box 3833 Aspen, CO 81612 ~':, 000045 z Bradley R. Miller a~ Mollie Favour Box 89 Woody Creek, CO 81656 Justine F. and Ransom B. Woods, Jr. Box 12288 Aspen, CO 81612 Harold Franklin Clark, Jr. Box2775 Aspen, CO 81612 William George and Janet Diane Mohrman Box 3624 Aspen, CO 81612 George D'Angelo 104 E. Second Street Erie, PA 16507 Nancy Torinus Box 2125 Aspen, CO 81612 Ellen S. Weiss Box 3078 Aspen, CO 81612 Salcott Holding LTD. Box 173 Roadtown, Tortola BVI, 4742877209 Helen W. de Golyer and Joe H. Warren 20 St. Laurent Place Dallas, TX 75225 Justin and Karen Wolfson 636 Albemarle Shreveport, LA 71106 Mountain Mobile Mix Drawer 368 Glenwood Springs, CO 81621 Pitlcin County Commissioners 506 E. Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 .,r. 3 ~~' - ~ `7 - ~/ 3 LiL 9C~~.7 ~-LL ~~ `- ~~ ~ 9eo6crt t. app 34425sIwy82 a~1A~ Aspd~, CO 81i1Z ~~~ C~C~ a~i~ce~- (~ _~ ~2v.~a.~v~ G~ahdc~wt~-e• cc~ a ~. l~c~CiLL,eYiY7'c;P !/ ..r7iGZR-L/tf'GI ._-~~R~ ~t?~C~/ .c~~ `~c^O ', C~ ~~ ~~~~~~ Aspen, Cobrado 81611 (303) 920.5090 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES CITY: -63250-134 -63270.136 -63280-137 -63300-139 ~s331o-1ao -63320-141 X3330-150 -63432-157 -63432-157 -00100-00000-31070 GMP/Conceptual GMP/Final SUB/Conceptual SUB/Final All-2 Step Applications All 1 Step Applications Staff Approval Zoning Plan Check Sgn Permit Use Tax for Sign Permits HISTORIC PRESERVATION: -63335-151 Exemption -63336-152 Minor -63337-153 Major Devel. -63338-154 Signif. Devel. -633-155 Demolition COUNTY: X3160-126 GMP/General -63170-127 GMP/Detailed -63180-128 GMP/Final -63190-129 SUB/General -63200-130 SUB/Detailed -63210131 SUB/Final -63220132 All 2 Step Applications -63230133 All 1 Step Applications -63240149 Staff Approval -63450-146 Board of Adjustment -63235146 Zoning Plan Check REFERRAL FEa; -63360-143 Engineering -County 00115 -63340-163 Engineering-City 00123 -63340190 Housing 00125 -63340205 Environmental HeaRh PLANNING OFFICE SALES: -63080-122 County Code -69000-145 Other (Copy Fees) TOTAL ,oo ~a,oo Name: C ~ Phone: ~~J'57 X577 p.~ Address ~o~l1 W -IIQA1 ~ Project: Ra'~'Wn~ ~~ !' --,~¢s-~ ~ - - 5' 3 39 ~7v Check #: 25 ~ R Date: ~~ `~ - -~' No of Copies: 'OOU 0~1Q4 • County of Pitkin State of Colorado The undersigned, follows: } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY } ss. POSTING OF A VARIANCE HEARING } BEFORE THE PITRIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT being first duly sworn, deposes and says as I, ~~~1~1 AS J ~~~~ , .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 ~a? Nl~ day of OCTI~B[=12 , 19 ~~ , to the ~~D { day of ,(~((f~ U~N~3~ , 19~. (Must be posted for at least nine (9) full days before the hearing date). YApplicant's i `~ o Z ~W ~ ~ ~ ff` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ o O~ ~. A ~~~{~ ~ ~ Subscribe and sworn to before me this ~ day of ~~ (~~`~"1~ ~~ , oooo~~~ WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL, My Commission expires : -.~`~ -~`~~~~' i #~ DS 12/ i r /93 13:24 Rec $. + +k:. 735 F'G 650 Silvia Dzrdis, F'itF::in Cnty Clem Doc $.~?~~ RESOLUTION OF THE PITRIN COUNTY, COLORADO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTING HEIGHT RELIEF FOR THOMAS DALY RESOLUTION NO. 93-39 WHEREAS, Thomas Daly, owner of 34700 Highway 82, is requesting approval for a 3 foot height variance, far construction of a barn; and WHEREAS, a maximum height of 20' is allowed for an accessory structure in the AF-1 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 3 foot height variance be granted for construction of a barn, due to practical difficulties, as per the plans submitted (Exhibit nBu). WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. 000`? ~ #364~ca1 12/1'"! 13:24 Fec ~.~?i~ E+f: 733 F~jl Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Cl er 4::, Doc $.f~ci Resolution No. 93-39 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: Suzan e L. Wolff Secretary ck Neiley, Chairman ~~n~~~ r #364 i O 1 1. r /93 13: ~4 Rec $. ~ ~U BF:. 7~'G 652 Silvia Dae „ FitF::in Cnty Clerk, Doc ~> EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description for property owned by THOMAS DALY Township 9 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M. Section 9 Pitkin County, Colorado I OQ`?`~? -~ M II ~ I~ LL _ I I~ n ~ ~I ~I ~o II ~• o ~ ~I :~; ~ II ~~ ~I ~ it ~ ~ ~I I c ~ II "~ I ~' ~ I ~; ; i ~~ .~ ' i ~ ~ ~I `.: ~; i I ~I ~, > ~ I ~~ ~ II ° ~i ~_ ... .~ .. ~' II ~' ~ I I ~I i it it I I ~I ~ II II II I I I I I I I~ I I ~, I~ I~ i~ I~ I~ ~I II I~ II 0 0 0 ~l'_ 3 I I ~~ 0 ~O .lp W dowo~ o° *~ ~ ~' ~ LL a O ~ ~ N I~ ~ 2 x 2 _~ ~. v °. o a~ n„ ~~ II =_ .- ___- - - I' - I I i ~ - of 8 2.'~ I ~`'~' I i t I ~ j~ I I -- jl ~ I I - -~,~o-or-or I ~ I ~ ~.. _ e I - II F --- -- II < ° _ II w I I ..~ - --- ~ I `~ o ,' g W * ~ '~ s .. . S° ~ ~ d ~ gFo a e F ~ • Y K d~ a~ d~ d~ d 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 appear personally at such meeting, then you aze urged to state your views by letter, particulazly if you have objection to such vanance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. A VARIANCE GREATER THAN OR LESS THAN THAT REQUESTED COULD BE GRANTED. DATE AND T11~4E OF MEETING: Tuesday, November 2, 1993; 5:15 P.M. Plaza 1 Meeting Room, Courthouse Plaza Building, 530 E. Main, 1st Floor Daly, Thomas: requesting approval fora 3' height variance, where a maximum of 20' is allowed for an accessory structure, for constrncrion of a barn. Property Location: 34700 Highway 82 (Cozy Point Ranch). Haeck, William: requesting approval fora 35' front yard setback variance and a 5' west side yazd setback variance, where 75' and 20', respectively, are required m the AF-2 zone district, for construction of a single family residence. Property Location: SE'/aSE'/s, Section 4, Township 10 South, Range 88 West of the 6th P.M. Greenwald, Betty: requesting approval fora 5' north side yazd setback variance, where 15' is required in the R-30 wne district, for construchon of a garage. Property Location: 738 Hunter Creek Road; Lot 6, Block 4, Red Mountain Ranch Subdivision. Adcock, Gene: requesting approval fora 95' front yard setback variance, where 100' is required in the AF- 1 zone district, for construction of a pump shed. Property Location: 4070 Lower River Road. Submitted to the Aspen Times on October 19, 1993. To Be Published in the Aspen Times October 22, 1993. County PO #301003 000014 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 Filin 3 Gateway of Snowmass Mesa 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 00~0?5 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 75k 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. :'ohle 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 - - oooo? s 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 walla 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 Rid a 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 ~~nn,1'~ Brickham seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case 93-39 Thomas Daly 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-l 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, Rance 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 ~nnn~(y 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 ~~0~1J 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 prevent, 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 "Cokes 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, °-v~ Suzan a L. Wolff, Secretary ~~--~~ Neiley, Chairman 6 ~~~~~~ i Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303)920-5090 OFFICE LAND USE APPLICATION FEES CITY: -63250-134 -63270-136 -63280-137 -63300-139 -63310-140 -63320-141 -63330-150 -63432-157 -63432-157 -00100-00000-31070 HISTORIC PRESERVATION: -63335-151 -63336-152 -63337-153 -63338-154 -63339-155 COUNTY: -63160-126 -63170-127 -63180-128 -63190-129 -63200-130 -63210-131 -63220-132 -63230-133 -63240-149 -63450-146 -63235-148 REFERRAL FEES: -63360-143 00115 -63340-163 00123 -63340-190 00125 -63340.205 PLANNING OFFICE SALES: -63080-122 -69000-145 GMP/Conceptual GMP/Final SUB/Conceptual SUB/Final All-2 Step Applications All 1 Step Applications Staff Approval Zoning Plan Check Sign Permit Use Tax for Sign Permits Exemption Minor Major Devel. Signrf. Devel. Demolition GMP/General GMP/Detailed GMP/Final SUB/General SUB/Detailed SUB/Final All 2 Step Applications All 1 Step Applications Staff Approval Board of Adjustment Zoning Plan Check Engineering -County Engineering -City Housing Environmental HeaRh County Code Other (Copy Fees) N TOTAL • ,t ,oo ®q~_ Cia-oo ame. Phone: _~1~.j'S7~=- Address: ~ ~ -t}Q'f1 - /~L)n \j ~ 9~ ~~ Project: 5'3 -7,9 Check #: Date: ~ _, . r~ _ , '. No of Copies: