Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.93.16PITRIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJIISTMENT • DATE _ ~` 6 " -{~ APPLICANT _~A.~VIw~ ~ uq,~,/s~ MAILING ADDRESS ~~ ~ ©~ `~~~ OWNER MAILING ADDRESS CASE # __ ~~ 1 ~/W PHONE q~ 3- ~(3 y3 ~(~~ I `c~Q-~'~ PHONE 92 3 - Y3 Y3 PD $ ~~ 9'fl l3 ~s Ae~r ~'© ~~612 LOCATION OF PROPERTY Rys- Any pertinent data must accompa~y this a pl'c on, and will be made part of this Case. The Bo may ret i application if it does not contain all the fac s n Dues ' Applicant Signature (TO be completed b~/the Zoning Department) • Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Zoning Official to forward this application to the Board of Adjustment, and reasons for not granting a building permit: Requesting: ~ F-1 Zone District •0"7 c Lot Size Front Yard Setback Variance, where ' is required. z~ ' Rear Yard Setback Variance, where 3 0 ' 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: X0-1 Co~"~n~t,~e~,tin~c rt/I n p(p~ha~ GiGi-t.~,c~2 Zoning Official ~m.e~ra //cQ.cQ~`,n Application filed ~ / ~ ~ ~ Parcel ID No. ~~Z ~ `/ 3 - 7`~ / _G j, _J~~j • Date of Meeting /r(3 _ Notices Mailed `I 3 2J Secretary ~~1hk~~ ~~~ Cc. q'3 ~-ty-- Refer Resolution to Building Department Yes No i i i i i_i i-i ,x ~, -a J I a • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OiPNERS 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: June 15, 1993 at 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall Owner: Calvin Z. Daks Name and Address of Calvin Z. Daks Applicant: P.O. Box 9063 Aspen, CO 81612 Property Location or Lot R-45, Block 5, Starwood Subdivision; Description: 889 S. Starwood Drive Requesting approval for a 24 foot rear yard setback variance, where 30 feet is required, in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a detached garage. Approval of this variance would allow the proposed garage to be 6 feet from the rear property line. VARIANCES GREATER OR LESS THAN REQUESTED COULD BE GRANTED. Duration of Variance: Temporary Permanent X THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ~ l,ti~l X y Suzanne L. ff, Secretar ,~,• NOTICE OF PIIBLIC HEARING TO ADJACENT PROPERTY ONNERB 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: June 1, 1993 at 5:15 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall Owner: Calvin Z. Daks Name and Address of Calvin Z. Daks Applicant: P.O. Box 9063 Aspen, CO 81612 Property Location or Lot R-45, Block 5, Starwood Subdivision; Description: 889 S. Starwood Drive Requesting approval for a 24 foot rear yard setback variance, where 30 feet is required, in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a detached garage. Approval of this variance would allow the proposed garage to be 6 feet from the rear property line. VARIANCES GREATER OR LESS THAN REQUESTED COULD BE GRANTED. Duration of Variance: Temporary Permanent X THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ~-b~y~A ~ W ~'~ Suzanne L. Wolff, ecretary E?; t fi . l .n ~,. ~ `~~u W ~ c~~, ~O.C3ax °l©63 ~~a, CO. ~I6~2 ~.o~a~~o~J ~t ro e~ ~ S. S~a~W oad 1~~'~l~o~' 2yS Sfavc~lpod ~~ L2~~?v~ ~~ ~eq t~eCs~'' ~~ ~ ~~ ~baoK V4./'i cu.~~e ~Q.~,uc~e, ~ e rea~a,v~ ~~`1i~.~, ~ b' (S;~. ee'~~ or fie. ,p l~ n~-~v~' o a a.` e s~G.t~N' ~~ OI(9w (~u~q ~C'em1..50.~15 ~ ~0 0 ( a ~ie.~1 ~lae,vr.~s~~9 ~d~ I~~ ti1e~~~bc~'s "~ ~ . w • ~ _. ~ ,~" _/~co~ c,,,rQ,l c-ca.i ~- ~, e ra.~.~ : ~"N e rd e r rta ~.~l~ic4. ~ ~.s ~1c~-u~C'a.~ cl~"cu~ rmu5 W2 ~d~o ~.erro a.c(~ ~~ s~,~om.~1c . ~~ -you f n~ @ ~©1` 3 ~~~~ Lo-~ ~a lmaer~ ~oNt ~c5~~r~~-r, ~ ~e.ue,ra,u~ ~i.( (Ccc.~.~ ~ off' ~ bu,i;(d d`~1, (~e, fo ~ a,~rraw,u~6s ~ s ~m,~ C au. scd,, (o ~ ~e e.~.d,~z~ ; s~~.~~s~ ~0~ P~~~~~~~ C'a~ ro~n~b~~ b ~,i,lolw~ ev, a rvKem.d.~z,1(~ ~~' .Ir- l •~ ~ resev' d~e e~ C~ r ndA o6 ~- h ~~~~ I1.ti. ~ s ce.~ ,nrr~ ou/ .~Je~ I~(om/'s ~/,eQ..J C~r~~dla rs ou~cQ, ~!e r'e. ~5~~ P (m.cen~~~ a,~e~~ 1~ ~'I-ie ~~`~. ~ ,r O ~ ~ c 1~~ ~e 1J \ 0 1~ V~o ~ ~ ~ p~~<.~ C~ 8rbc2 © \\oS~ ~~CeJ~v' //~~ (~;~ e N ~~ ~ r b( 2 U ~~IES ~~e~ ~/1~~'~~ 01 i ~ ~3 P®~~ ~~~~ ~,~e~, ~ ~16~Z N/ fl fS ~f ~,~r s ,~ ~ G ~~~ slwtu ~? ff ~n (~t ~ (c~~ r .lei e ~a~~ ~1-~ ~~~ ~eflr,~ ~'~~~~ ~'a ~ ~. ~ ~ ~~h~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~` ~J~ ~ c7~ ~~ ~t®.~~ ~ l_-~ . c o 02 c -2 G~ r 'PO ~ i2s2 ~s ~ ~ X16 (2 ap ,~~ d~ '~ °~ ~~ ~ a ~° ~ -; ~~ ~-~~~ ~ -~ -d~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ $ ~-~'s -~~~d~a -,~ 3 ~ ~ ~. ~ ~d ' V7 ~ Q ~ ~ (~ o 41 ./- ' L ~~~ 3 Y~ c11 ~~4 7 ~ ~Co ~a€ ~~ '€ ~- ~ ~a~ ~ ~ ~. z 0 3 N ~- ~~ `~ a~ ~(. ~~ r 'Z ~° ~~ ~. d 0 ~~ v~ ~~JJ 4 m ~~ ~~ ~~r~~y f'°: -~ ,~ f UGC 0' L• vJ ! o NOTICE OF PIIBLIC BEARING TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS ~~~ L..~ tea-~r-e-. /,~.~ ~'~-~~-c`~. ~ ~'l.~ 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: June 15, 1993 at 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall Owner: Calvin Z. Daks Name and Address of Calvin Z. Daks Applicant: P.O. Box 9063 Aspen, CO 81612 Property Location or Lot R-45, Block 5, Starwood Subdivision; Description: 889 S. Starwood Drive Requesting approval for a 24 foot rear yard setback variance, where 30 feet is required, in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a detached garage. Approval of this variance would allow the proposed garage to be 6 feet from the rear property line. VARIANCES GREATER OR LESS THAN REQUESTED COULD BE GRANTED. Duration of Variance: Temporary Permanent X `~' IIl'~~ THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT jL~ti-d~rU~t ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~/~ Suzanne L. ~ a1ff, Secretary FENTONINTERNATIONAL, INC. Boxe ~~ " '°ii A6PEN,COLO RAOO B7 B'12 _ STA•OOD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIA~N P.O. Box 629 Aspen, Colorado 81612 June 2', 19°3 _. J ~ i ( 'I ~~ I _._ - I n~t:ein Coun*.y Board of Ad;;us+~^e^+~ °: t:.,r. Ccurty Ccurthcuse 505 °ast Ma_.. Acger., CO 815„ mt:;~ le±±e1 _.~ t0 riCtlf" ,. t:':at the eta: wood "emeovme. ., _ y `y' O .. ..fie equ^ wY, Asscc,at,,... ha., ..,, o~^' ct,cr. tc +.he va_~~....~ _ ~s+.ec? ~^ Dr. & Mrs. Cal Dakc, :.ct .°.-45, Starwccd Subdi..~.,ion, A° Colc.adc. r.Ne . If y^,. !:ave ary' quests,.. pleace mall ,.,,. at n25_fl93°. S~...,e~ely, Ju_~stc^. Se..retary Starwccd °o:aeowrers A~~cciaticr. cc: Starweed Homeoevrers Asccciatioa 3oard /: r (,, , ~~ a G `(3- 35/-~ 3 -/Ql7 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES cm: -63250-134 GMP/Conceptual -63270-136 GMP/Final -63280-137 SUB/Conceptual - -&3304139 SUB/Final -63314140 All-2 Step Applications -63324141 All 1 Step Applications -63334150 Staff Approval -63432-157 Zoning Plan Check -63432-157 Sign Permk -0010400000-31070 Use Tax for Sign Permits HISTORIC PRESERVATION: X3335-151 Exemption -63336-152 Misr -63337-153 Major Devel. -63338-154 Sign'rf. Devel. -63339-155 Demolition COUNTY: -63164126 GMP/General -63174127 GMP/Detailed -63180-128 GMPlFinal -63190-129 SUB/General -63204130 SUB/Detailed -63214131 SUB/Fnal -63224132 All 2 Step Applications -63230-133 All 1 Step Applications -63240-149 Staff Approval -63454146 Board of Adjustment ~/ ~J.'J -63235-148 Zoning Plan Check REFERRAL FEES: -63364143 Engineering -County 00115 -63344163 Engineering -City 00123 -63340-190 Housing 00125 -63340-205 Environmental Heahh PLANNING OFFICE SALES: -63080-122 County Code -69000-145 Other (Copy Fees) TOTAL ~~- Q ~~ ~/~/ / Neme: ~ "a c i/~ ~ /L~ , - Phone: Address: ~~1~~ 3 Project: ~~~ ~ ~a_ , F»_ ~'3-rc~ ;,, . Check #: -Date: i~/'% No of Copies s ~. i • County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY } ss. P03TING OF A VARIANCE HEARING State of Colorado } BEFORE THE PITRIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJIISTMENT The undersi ed, being first duly sworn, deposes and says as follows: I, ~+~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ b einy •r 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 day of ~w~- 19~, to the ~ S day of ~-vw~'~ ig~, ~~ ( be posted for at least nine (9) full days 's 5i~'i~~i,4i' :'~,`~" •„~; ~., ~>. ;;~~ ,~. ;~~..,.,•; .s f ,,~ ,~; Subscribed and sworn to before me ,,,'~~ this (Sty day of J c~~^' °. ,. c ~~ ~, ~=r ~ . 19 i 3 ~ by CA I v' ~ ~ Z - lea kS ,. ~~ "''- ~ WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. ~. /' : ~'`y~r My Commission expires: ~ s `r 7 ~ ~` ~ - ~; A ' Notary P.ublic's Signature ~~,. . _: f:. ;,~~; Address M~Y 1 ~8 w ~. AGENDA/MEMO PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT September 2, 1997 at 5:15 P.M. PLAZA ONE CONFERENCE ROOM, COURTHOUSE ANNEX, 530 E. MAIN STREET, ASPEN, CO 97-20 JOHNS, DAN AFR-10 26501 Highway 82 Requesting approval fora 68' Arterial Highway Setback Vaziance, where 200' is required, for construction of an attached gazage. (cont. from 8/5/97) 97-25 VAUGHN, DENNIS R-15 0221 South 7th Street, Aspen Requesting approval for a T south Side Yazd Setback Vaziance, where 20' is required, to enclose an existing garden house to be used as an office. 97-27 LITTLE WOODY CREEK LTD. RS-20 1137 Little Woody Creek Road, Woody Creek Requesting approval fora 10' Front Yard Setback Variance for a garage addition and an 87' Front Yard Setback Variance, where 100' is required, for a new driveway. 97-28 RRF CORP. - FURMAN, RICHARD AFR-10 960 Castle Creek Road Requesting approval fora 7' Front Yard Setback Variance, where 50' is required fora 5.021 acre lot, and a 57' Major Road Setback Variance, where 100' is required from the Castle Creek Road right-of-way, for an addition to asingle-family residence. The applicant is also requesting approval fora 6' Major Road Setback Variance, where 100' is required from Castle Creek Road right-of-way, for a retaining wall. 97-29 DAKS, CAROL & CALVIN AFR-10 889 S. Stazwood Drive Requesting approval for the following Rear Yazd Setback Variances, where 30' is required for a 3 acre lot: 19' for a retaining wall, 29' for a boiler enclosure, 22.5' for wood storage and 22' for a hot tub. 97-30 CLARK, HAL AFR-10 555 Twining Flats Road Requesting approval fora 11.5' Rear Yard Setback Variance, where 30' is required fora 2.1 acre lot, to construct a garage addition to an existing single-family residence. Minutes of the August 5, 1997 meeting. PLEASE CONTACT GEORGE LILLY, 920-5442, AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO CONFIRM IF' YOU WILL ATTEND THE MEETING. Note: The Boazd of County Commissioners will review the Richards Appeal of a Board of Adjustment Decision (fence at Holland Hills) on September 24, 1997 in the Plaza One Conference Room (1st Floor -Annex Building). Land Use items begin at 3:00 pm. g:\planning\pitkin\boa\agendas\aug97.doc o000~.1 #360987 ~~9/ 1.3 ir9: 50 Fec S. Crir Bk: 723 •59 Silvia Davis, F'itk:in Cnty C:ler4::, Doc $.irir RESOLUTION OF THE PITRIN COUNTY, COLORADO BOARD OF ADJIISTMENT GRANTING SETBACK RELIEF FOR CALVIN DABS RESOLUTION NO. 93-16 WHEREAS, Calvin Daks, owner of 889 S. Starwood Drive, is requesting approval for a 24 foot rear yard setback variance, for construction of a detached garage; and WHEREAS, a 30 foot rear yard setback is required 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 24 foot rear yard setback variance be granted for construction of a detached garage, due to topographical hardship, as per the plans submitted (Exhibit "B"). WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. 00~~?? r ~ • • i#36098~ 09/1 3 09:50 Rec $.0c'~ bk: 723 P6 860 Silvia Davis, F'itk:in Cnty Clerk, Doc ~,Ui~ Resolution No. 93-16 Page 2 The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: July 6, 1993 The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado ATTEST: Suzan a L. Wolff, S -~ etary Q®~~ #36r~9S r U9/ 13/93 09: SU Fec $. ~?~? BF:: 723 F•~ 861 Silvia Davis, Fitk.in Cnty Clerk:, Doc $.i?<? EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description for property owned by CALVIN DARE Lot R45, Block 5 Starwood Subdivision Pitkin County, Colorado QQ~o~.Y ~.. r~- ~_ M~ I~ QU LU O L 01 ~ U ~~ n (j U7 C ~ ..i .., U tY. ^+ N \ .a o ro ~ o^ > V M + ~ n `."i. ~:: 0005 i :\\o W Ny 4 J r la a L~ ~O a ~~,:: Et. ~ ~ ? 3 ~ 4~~ ~t ~ a ii J A ~ ol.i3 ~: °nk ~a4~ f ' ' ~~ i / ~ ~~ ~ ~ "ii : Y _~ _ ,+ r ~ ., ~ r 9^ io .. ~ ~ ~ ~ A o ~ ` ~./.v I ~~ ; a~a I-+- ~ // , 1 / / ~ ~ I ~ / \ /</ / " ~ yv ~_--/-- l ' / $ / ~, ~ / _ ~•i l I / / / / ~~/ /fl„ ~lC~ ~ / i /i / ~ ~ j \ i ~ i /'~ / ~\ ~~ ~ i i ~ ~~ // ~ / / i Ao\\ ~~ / ~ _ IGI ~=-e ~~ ~ m ~~\ \~ ~ I• `.g~ ~ I I I ~ FFS5 1\ a NC~~\~ » \\\ ~I ~ ~ I 1 I ~ ~ R ~*~~ ~~ ~ ~ AID ~ ~ ~ •' ~ ~ e \ `~ U \ \\ 1 I ~ 1 ~ ~ \ I n I ~ ~ ~ I 11 \\ ~\ \ \ 3 I n 11 \ \ \ I I \ ~\ ~\ 1 ~o I I C \\ 1 1 \ I ~ ~~ ~ ~ I \ ~ \ \ ~ I I ~\ ~~ ~ \\ \\ ~ 1 i j 1 1 ~ \ \~ \\ \\ \ 1 1 '~ \ I \\ \\ \1 1 11 \\ ~\ ~ ~~ \ \ \ \ ~ \ \ 11 \ ` 11 ~ ` 1 ~ \ \ \ 1 ~ \ ~ \ 1 11 g ~~ \ \I \ I \ 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 ~~ J w ~a .~ . u~ ... --~ ~~f p _ I sf~` S7\ ~:.~ ~§ 1 I •'' r ~ I ~ I I ~ dl I ~ tl~ ~ / ' I ^ 1 ~ 1 I I ~ • 'e Yt~:~ ll l o .- ~~3 I \ ~ 1\ 1 ® 1 :'3 O\ l \ ~ F 1 W ;$ \1 4 ~\rot's F ~~ 2\ ~~~~..dd~~ 1 1 1 1 I I I I I, I ~ i j II II II 1 1 1\ ,` \I ~ 11 ~\I 1 \ \ , 1 \ ~ 1 ~ \. ' 1' ............. ° I Y \~\1 ~ 1 i I~~\ ~ \ \ \ __ 1 \\ ~ ~ ~ ~ r 311 I \ 11 / II i it 1 I \ 11 f' J~.. ~ 11 I I 1 1 1 1 I I ~ i I I I j I 1 ; 1 I I I ' e, i .. ~ 'I I i : _ I I I !: I I t ~ II ; I i I ll r ~ I I I t ~: I I ~ i _~ i 1 e_ I i 1 m sl j \ I I :, I I I I: I. I i ~y.~, , v l I C I I' ~ ~ r l I I I I •. I `,.i ~ i ~•i ~ , } ~ I M 1 ~ i i ~ `: 1 I I 1 ; ~ I RI ~`'' ° I I' ` I I i 1 I I I ~ ~~_ I I I I ~I I III': l ' ~j R. 1 I ».I ate, I I I i 1~, I l I l i I i ': I MI .• I i ~" I I I I i I •, ,. ~ ~~ I ~ I I 11 1 1 ~'~. I•. II i i t I ~ I I i l`t I I I ~,~I I I ''. I I/ ~ ICI ( I I I I. I I I I I'i {o I j I j I'~. ~ ~ I ~» ~: o~ .1 I. I I''. 1 I, I I IM 11ff i ~' I I\ I I I I ~ I I 1 1 I T, I 1 I I I 1 ~ ~• ,~ r 11 I 1 ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ i'll II~INII IIII il'~'1~• \, I I, 4~ c .° NOTIC[:OP PUBLIC HFAR~I3GPORG'f1II3 PI'fKIN COUNTY R ARll OP AD]USi'tv1L-N'P TO ALL PROPERTY OW S AfPGCTGD 13Y "fHls R13QULS7 70NING vAKIANCG llGSCR1BGD 1313LOW: Pursuant to Pitkin County Zoning Resolution of June 5, 1955, as amended, a Public Hearing will be held in the District Courtroom, Pitkin County Court House, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such other place as the meeting may then be adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the County zoning Resolution. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests, or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. A VARIANCE GREATER THAN OR LESS THAN THAT REQUESTED COULD BE GRANTED. DATE AND TIME OF MEETING: Tuesday, June 15, 1993; 5:30 P.Al. Council Chambers, City Hall Kaufman, Richard & Sylvia: requesting approval for an 8' height vaziance, where a maximum height of 28' is allowed for a principal structure, for construction of an addition to a single family residence. Property Location: Lot 1, Ridge of Red Mountain Subdivision. " Kadota, Gregory & Anderson, Deborah: requesting approval fora 52' front yazd setback variance, a 14.5' west side yazd setback variance, and a 14.5' east side yazd setback variance, where 100', 30' and 30', respectively, aze required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a single family residence. Property Location: Lot 39, Holland Hills at Basalt Subdivision. Strom, Deborah: requesting approval fora 70' front yard setback variance and a 20' rear yard setback variance, where 100' and 30', respectively, are required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a single family residence. Property Location: Lot 36, Crystal River Park. Summers, Monroe: requesting approval fora 30' front yard setback variance, where 100' is required in the AF-1 zone district, for an addition to a single family residence. Property Location: Lot 16, Holland Hills at Basalt Subdivision. St. Benedict's Monastery: requesting approval fora 5'9" height variance, where a maximum of 28' is allowed for a principal structure, for construction of a ventilation structure for the Meditation Hall. Property Location: 1012 Monastery Road; Township 9, Range 86, Section 18. Modell, Andrew: requesting approval fora 26' front yazd setback variance for an addition on the north side of the single family residence, and a 42' front Yazd setback variance for a deck addition on the east side of the house, where a 100' front yazd setback is required in the AF-1 zone district. Property Location: Lot 5, Block 2, Filing 2, Brush Creek Village. Daks, Calvin: requesting approval fora 24' rear yazd setback variance, where 30' is required in the AF-I zone district, for construction of a detached garage. Property Location: Lot R-45, Block 5, Starwood Subdivison. O'Donnell, William & Mary Beth and the Roaring Fork Ranch Partnership: requesting approval for a 50' front yazd setback variance and a 40' east side yard setback variance, where 100' and 50', respectively, are required in the RS-20 zone district, for the relocation of an existing ranch gate. Property Location: 6190 Upper River Road; Township 9, Range 85, Section 5, a portion of Lots $, 6 & 10; and Lot 3, Pazcel C & a portion of Pazcel B, Aspen River Village Homes. Smith, Chris/Airport Amoco: requesting approval for an 18' front yard setback variance, where 30' is required in the B-2 zone district, and a 26' arterial highway setback variance, where 200' is required. Property Location: Lot 1, Block 6, Aspen Airport Business Center. Submitted to the Aspen Times on June 1, 1993. To Be Published in the Aspen Times June 4, 1993. County PO #301003 0®n~~ 6 5~ 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 Heazing 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 aze invited to appear 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, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. A VARIANCE GREATER THAN OR LESS THAN THAT REQUESTED COULD BE GRANTED. DATE AND TIME OF MEETING: Tuesday, June 1, 1993; 5:15 P.M. Council Chambers, City Hall Kaufman, Richard & Sylvia: requesting approval for an 8' height variance, where a maximum height of 28' is allowed for a principal structure, for construction of an addition to a single family residence. Property Location: Lot 1, Ridge of Red Mountain Subdivision. Kadota, Gregory & Anderson, Deborah: requesting approval fora 52' front yard setback variance, a 14.5' west side yard setback variance, and a 14.5' east side yard setback variance, where 100', 30' and 30', respectively, aze required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a single family residence. Property Location: Lot 39, Holland Hills at Basalt Subdivision. Strom, Deborah: requesting approval fora 70' front yazd setback variance and a 20' rear yazd setback variance, where 100' and 30', respectively, are required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a single family residence. Property Location: Lot 36, Crystal River Park. Summers, Monroe: requesting approval fora 30' front yard setback variance, where 100' is required in the AF-1 zone district, for an addition to a single family restdence. Property Location: Lot 16, Holland Hills at Basalt Subdivision. St. Benedict's Monastery: requesting approval fora 5'9" height variance, where a maximum of 28' is allowed for a principal structure, for construction of a ventilation structure for the Meditation Hall. Property Location: 1012 Monastery Road; Township 9, Range 86, Section 18. Modell, Andrew: requesting approval fora 26' front yard setback variance for an addition on the north side of the single family residence, and a 42' front yard setback variance for a deck addition on the east side of the house, where a 100' front yard setback is required in the AF-1 zone district. Property Location: Lot 5, Block 2, Filing 2, Brush Creek Village. Daks, Calvin: requesting approval fora 24' rear yard setback variance, where 30' is required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a detached garage. Property Location: Lot R-45, Block 5, Starwood Subdivison. O'Donnell, William & Mary Beth and the Roaring Fork Ranch Partnership: requesting approval for a 50' front yard setback variance and a 40' east side yard setback variance, where 100' and 50', respectively, are required in the RS-20 zone district, for the relocation of an existing ranch gate. Property Location: 6190 Upper River Road; Township 9, Range 85, Section 5, a portion of Lots 5, 6 & 10; and Lot 3, Parcel C & a portion of Parcel B, Aspen River Village Homes. Submitted to the Aspen Times on May 18, 1993. To Be Published in the Aspen Times May 21, 1993. County PO #301003 ~~~~~~ TO: Board of Adjustment Applicants FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Board of Adjustment Secretary RE: June 15, 1993 Meeting DATE: June 2, 1993 As you were informed on May 28, 1993 by Joanna Schaffner, the Board of Adjustment meeting scheduled for June 1, 1993 was cancelled due to lack of a quorum. We have rescheduled this meeting for June 15, 1993 at 5:30 PM in the Council Chambers on the first floor of City Hall. Your property must be posted with the enclosed sign from Sunday, June 6, 1993 to Tuesday, June 15, 1993. Please complete the enclosed affidavit of posting and bring it to the meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me at 920-5093, or Joanna at 920-5105. OOUO1:J Members Present: Minutes Pitkin County Board of Adjustment Regular Meetinq July 6, 1993 u Rick Neiley, Chair Michael Cooper Bill Lukes Rod Dyer John Wheeler Evan Gull Staff: Joanna Schaffner, Zoning Enforcement Gull opened the meeting at 5:25 p.m. and introduced the Board to those present. Case 93-05. Robert F. Leonard. Lots 10. 11 & 12 Block 5 Kistler Subdivision This case was tabled at the April 6, 1993, May 4, 1993, and June 15, 1993 meetings. Gull moved to table this case to the August 3, 1993 meeting. Dyer seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case 93-15. Andrew Modell. Lot 5 Block 2 Filing 2 Brush Creek Vi lac~e_Subdivision This application was tabled at the June 15, 1993 meeting. Glen Rappaport was present, representing Andrew Modell, to request a 26 foot front yard setback variance for an addition of the north side of the single family residence, and a 42 foot front yard setback variance for a deck addition of the east side of the house, where a 100 foot front yard setback variance is required in the AF- 1 zone district. Rappaport presented photographs to the Board. Gull stated that the proposed addition would increase the encroachment into the front yard setback and would exceed the 75 foot setback. He noted that either he could approve a 75 foot front yard setback, based on the AF-2 zone district requirements, or he could accept not complying with the 75 foot setback, if the addition did not encroach into the setback any more than the existing structure. Rappaport stated that he wanted to improve a specific area of the existing house, and, therefore, did not consider putting the addition on the other side of house, where it would not encroach into the setback, and added that he was trying to put the public space away from neighbor's property. 1 0000'9 There was no public comment. Cooper stated that he was an adjoining property owner, and asked if anyone objected to his voting on this case. There were no objections. Cooper moved to grant a 26 foot front yard setback variance for an addition on the north side of the existing house, and a 42 foot front yard setback variance for an addition on the east side of the existing house, due to topographic hardship and downzoning. Three members were in favor, with Gull and Lukes opposed. Motion failed. Discussion of the two separate front yard setback requests ensued. Gull stated that the topography of the site did not provide enough justification for the increased setback encroachment. Lukes moved to grant a 26 foot front yard setback variance for an addition on the north side of the existing house, and a 35.5 foot front yard setback variance for an addition on the east side of the existing house, due to topographic hardship. Neiley seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case 93-16 Calvin Daks 'Lot R-45, Block 5, Starwood Subdivision This application was tabled at the June 15, 1993 meeting. Calvin Daks was present to request a 24 foot rear yard setback variance, where 30 feet is required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a detached garage. Daks noted that the application was tabled at the previous meeting pending receipt of a letter of approval of the variance request from the Starwood Homeowners Association. Neiley read into the record a letter from the Starwood Homeowners Association, stating their approval of the variance request. There was no public comment. Dick Fenton, a neighbor, stated by letter that he has no objection to the request. Lukes moved to grant a 24 foot rear yard setback variance, due to topographic hardship. Dyer seconded the motion. Four members were in favor, with Gull opposed. George Draper was present, representing the owner, to request a 40 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the 2 o®l)~?0 C~ • RS-30 zone district, for construction of a garden shed attached to the existing garage. There was no public comment. Schaffner clarified that the front yard is considered the east side of the lot, and that a side yard setback variance was not required. Gull noted that the lot is approximately 1 acre, which is inconsistent with the zoning. Neiley moved to grant a 40 foot front yard setback variance, due to downzoning, in accordance with the plans submitted. Gull seconded the motion, and all were in favor. At the applicants' request, Dyer moved to table the application to the August 3, 1993 meeting. Gull seconded the motion, and all Were in favor. Peter and Catherine Smith were present to request an 85 foot arterial highway setback variance, where 200 feet is required, for construction of a single family residence. Catherine Smith stated that their lot is a 4 acre lot, 2 acres of which are located on the river and up the bank on the opposite side. They received Minor 1041 Hazard Review approval for the building envelope. She noted that complying with the arterial highway setback requirement would put them in violation of the slope restrictions and in the river. There was no public comment. Gull moved to grant an 85 foot arterial highway setback variance, due to downzoning and topographic hardship. Dyer seconded the motion, and all were in favor. John Wheeler arrived at 6:05 PM. Case 93-22. David Swersky 4076 Lower River Road David Swersky was present to request a 100 foot front yard setback variance and an 18 foot NW side yard setback variance, where 100 feet and 30 feet, respectively, are required in the AF-1 zone district, for relocation of an existing carport. Swersky stated that he is proposing to realign his existing carport 3 00001 to accomodate a new access to his property. The Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Company issued a residential yard lease to him, which permits him to lease the land from his property line to the center line of railroad tracks. He also received a direct access permit from the railroad to cross the railroad tracks from Lower River Road to access his property, which is more convenient than the current access. The carport is located in the only flat spot on the property, so he would like to turn it and leave it in the same location. There was no public comment. Swersky noted that the carport will have less of a visual impact after it is turned, and that he will no longer need to use his neighbor's driveway to access his property. Dyer moved to grant a 100 foot front yard setback variance and an 18 foot NW side yard setback variance, due to downzoning. Gull seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Wheeler did not vote on this case. Tom Stevens was present, representing the owners, to request a 23 foot front yard setback variance, where 30 feet is required in the R-30 zone district, for construction of an attached garage. Stevens stated that an application for an administrative scenic overlay review is currently being reviewed by the Planning Office. He stated that a variance was granted in-1991 to allow an 18.4 foot front yard setback, but the proposed addition was not built. The current proposal is to construct an underground attached garage to accomodate two cars. The Ridge of Red Mountain Subdivision requires off-street parking for four cars; the owners currently have four surface parking spaces, which are all visible to the neighbors. The drop in grade on the side of the house is such that only the garage door would be visible and the garage would disappear underground. On the only other buildable space on the lot, the garage would obstruct the view from and the solar exposure of the residence. There was no public comment. Neiley read into the record a letter from the following neighbors, all stating their support for the variance request: Ann and Jim Goodman, Kenneth Gutner, Albert and Shirlee Kay Myers, Donald P. Weiss, Joseph Honnberqer, Heidi Bookout, Dorance and Mary Ryerse, Salvador Valencia, Maria Luisa Garza de la Mora, Edward Calesa, Plato Foufas, and Arthur Rosenstein. Gull moved to grant a 23 foot front yard setback variance, due to 4 Q~~~~~h topographic hardship. Dyer seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Neiley did not vote on this case. Case 93-24, William Baker, Lot 10, Holland Hills at Basalt Subdivision Bill Baker was present to request a 35 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the AF-1 zone district, and a 100 foot arterial highway setback variance, where 200 feet is required, for construction of a detached garage. Schaffner noted that Baker received a variance approval from the Board of Adjustment in February of 1992 (Resolution No. 92-15). Before granting the variance, the Board asked for additional information as to other setback variances granted along Highway 82 in the Holland Hills Subdivision. Research showed that a 100 foot arterial highway setback variance was generally being granted, and the Board granted that amount to Baker. Baker did not build the garage that was approved. Baker stated that the currently proposed garage is in a different configuration than the one previously approved, and was designed to take advantage of the new accessory height limit. There was no public comment. Neiley moved to grant a 35 foot front yard setback variance and a 100 foot arterial highway setback variance, due to downzoning. Dyer seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Gull did not vote on this case. The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~M,~~~~ Nu~L ~ t1..~'~~~ Suzan a L. Wolff, crG 5 ~~ rl i ~ ~ ~ Rifck eiley, Chairman 4 Minutes Pitkin County Board of Adjustment Special Meeting June 15, 1993 Members Present: Members Absent: Evan Gull, Acting Chair Michael Cooper Bill Lukes Rick Neiley Rod Dyer John Wheeler Staff: Joanna Schaffner, Zoning Enforcement Gull opened the meeting at 5:30 p.m. and introduced the Board to those present. Case 93-05 Robert F. Leonard Lots 10 11 & 12 Block 5 Kistler Subdivision This case was tabled at the April 6, 1993 and May 4, 1993 meetings. Dyer moved to table this case to the July 6, 1993 meeting. Cooper s@conded the motion, and all were in favor. David Finholm was present, representing the applicant, to request an 8 foot height variance, where a maximum height of 28 feet is allowed for a principal structure, for construction of an addition to a single family residence. Finholm noted that when the house was built, height was measured perpendicular to the natural grade. The definition of height has since changed to state that height is measured from existing or finished grade, whichever is most restrictive. The building exceeds the current height limit, as the site was excavated during construction of the house. He stated that the plans for the house include adding a roof to shade the windows and a deck on the southwest side of the house for sun control, and a minor remodel. Schaffner stated that it is difficult to match the existing roof lines because of the change in the way height is calculated. She also noted that the applicant received scenic overlay approval from the Planning Office. Gull noted that the Ridge of Red Mountain Homeowners Association endorsed the proposed change in a letter to David Finholm, dated April 6, 1993. 1 00(1024 There was no public comment. Dyer moved to grant an 8 foot height variance, where a maximum height of 28 feet is allowed, based on downzoning. Cooper seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Gregory Kadota was present to request a 52 foot front yard setback variance, a 14.5 foot west side yard setback variance, and a 14.5 east side yard setback variance, where 100 feet, 30 feet and 30 feet, respectively, are required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a single-family residence. Kadota stated that the .82 acre lot is located in a zone district for 10 acre lots. He based his setback variance request on the setbacks in the Homeowners Association guidelines. Lukes stated that the subdivision guidelines require a 20 foot side yard setback, but that Kadota's proposed house only has 17.5 foot side yard setbacks, and is therefore not in compliance with the subdivision requirement. There was no public comment. John Wheeler arrived at 5:55 PM. Gull stated that he would be willing to approve the request because it conforms with the 15 foot side yard setback requirement in the R-30 zone district, which is the closest conforming zone district. Kadota stated that he would be willing to comply with the 20 foot side yard setback requirement. Lukes stated that there is no clear hardship for the Board to grant the side yard setback variances as requested, but that a clear hardship was exhibited with the front yard setback variance request. He noted that he thought Kadota should comply with the subdivision's setbacks. Dyer moved to grant a 52 foot front yard setback variance, a 10 foot west side yard setback variance, and a 10 foot east side yard setback variance, due to downzoning. Cooper seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Wheeler did not vote on this case. 93 07 Willoughby Ponds Trust Lots 5 and 7 Willoughby Ponds Subdivision This case was tabled at the May 4, 1993 meeting. Jim Curtis, representing Kay Bucksbaum the owner, was present to 2 000025 request a 6 foot west side yard setback variance for Lot 5 and a 6 foot east side yard setback variance for Lot 7, where a 15 foot side yard setback is required in the R-30 zone district, for construction of a ranch gate to cross Wildflower Lane. Curtis stated that the 7 lot subdivision was approved in 1988, and that the Bucksbaums subsequently purchased all 7 lots. They are building a house on Lot 3, and want to build a ranch gate 50 feet back from Willoughby Way. They are requesting variances for the gate because they did not want to increase the width of the gate to comply with the setback requirements. Julie Augur, a neighbor, was present to state her opposition to the ranch gate. She stated that a ranch gate was not appropriate in the neighborhood, and questioned the height of the gate. Gull read into the record letters from John W. Cronin, Jr. and Yvonne Thomas, neighbors, stating their opposition to the request. Schaffner noted that the height of the gate is within the County standards. Lukes stated that ranch gates do not provide a benefit to the County, that a hardship was not evident, and that the gate would impact the adjoining properties. Wheeler stated that ranch gates are acceptable to him, if they can be constructed outside of the setbacks. Gull noted that the neighbors would have no recourse if the gate was constructed outside of the setbacks. Gull moved to deny the applicant's request, due to lack of grounds for a variance. Dyer seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case 93-12. Deborah Strom. Lot 36 Crvstal River Park Jochen Wolf was present, representing Deborah Strom, to request a 70 foot front yard setback variance and a 20 foot rear yard setback variance, where 100 feet and 30 feet, respectively, are required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a single family residence. Schaffner stated that the applicant received approval for a variance request in November, 1992, but that the configuration of the house has changed. Wolf stated that they would now like to attach the carport to the house. This change will enable them to cut fewer trees, shorten the driveway, and lessen the amount of excavation. Pat Gleason was present, representing the Crystal River Park 3 ®~~~?~ Homeowners Association. He sent a letter to the Board after an owner expressed concern for the septic field. However, since then he has spoken with Tom Dunlop of the Environmental Health Department, and the septic issues have been resolved. Therefore, he stated that the Association was in favor of the variance request. Wheeler noted that the variance was not being increased, just modified. Wheeler moved to grant a 70 foot front yard setback variance and a 20 foot rear yard setback variance, due to topographical hardship and downzoning, as per the plans submitted. Lukes seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Monroe Summers was present to request a 30 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of an addition to a single family residence. Summers stated that his 1.23 acre lot is a substandard lot in the AF-1 zone district, and that his house was built before downzoning. The house is currently 80 feet from the front lot line. The addition to the house would remain within the 80 foot front yard setback, and a covered deck would extend 10 more feet into the setback. He noted that it would be difficult to expand in another direction because of the slopes on the lot and a historic irrigation ditch above the house. Wheeler stated that the deck increases the encroachment into the setback, and added that 1 and 2 acre lots require a 75 foot front yard setback. Summers stated that the AF-3 zone district, which is based on 1 acre lots, has a 50 foot front yard setback requirement. There was no public comment. Wheeler moved to grant a 30 foot front yard setback variance, due to downzoning. Lukes seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case 93-14 St Benedict's Monastery 1012 Monastery Road Steve Conger and Scot Broughton were present, representing St. Benedict's Monastery, to request a 5'9" height variance, where a maximum height of 28 feet is allowed for a principal structure, for construction of a ventilation structure for the Meditation Hall. Broughton stated that the proposed ventilation structure is non- mechanical, and will provide natural, passive ventilation. The 4 ~o~QG~ Code permits mechanical units to extend beyond the height limit. He added that the structure is similar to a steeple, and gives the "impression of being on a religious building." Schaffner stated that Bob Child, a neighbor, asked her to state for the record his support for the the variance. There was no public comment. A note from Connie Harvey, a neighbor, stated that she had no objection to the request. Schaffner stated that the Zoning Office does not consider this to be a mechanical structure, therefore, a height variance is being requested. The Board agreed that the structure was not mechanical. Gull mentioned that the Meditation Hall is a religious structure, and the Board asked Schaffner whether the Code addresses steeples. Schaffner replied that the Code does not address steeples. She quoted from Board of County Commissioners Resolution No. 90-06, which amended the definition of height, and states "Antennae, chimneys, flues, vents, and similar structures shall not extend over three feet (3') above the specified maximum height limit. In no event shall any structure, including antennae, chimneys, flues, vents, water towers, mechanical equipment, solar equipment, and similar equipment exceed thirty-eight feet (38') in height." Lukes noted that the County benefits by good design at the Monastery, which is a unique situation in the County. Wheeler noted that another applicant to the Board was not granted a height variance because design was not considered to be a hardship. Lukes stated that the Code does not address steeples; therefore, the Board must make a judgment. Gull moved to grant a 5'9" height variance, due to the unique nature and character of the property. Dyer seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case 93-15, Andrew Modell, Lot 5, Block 2, Filing 2, Brush Creek Village Subdivision Glen Rappaport was present, representing Andrew Modell, to request a 26 foot front yard setback variance for an addition of the north side of the single family residence, and a 42 foot front yard setback variance for a deck addition of the east side of the house, where a 100 foot front yard setback variance is required in the AF- 1 zone district. 5 QQ~U.LO Michael Cooper announced that he was an adjacent property owner, and asked if anyone objected to his voting on the case. There were no objections. Rappaport stated that the existing house is in the setback, and that the applicant is asking for an additional 12 foot encroachment into the setback. He noted that the addition could not be designed for the other side of the house because the owner wanted specifically to enlarge the kitchen and create a definite entry for the house to improve circulation. He also proposed to add new deck area to the house. Schaffner clarified that there are two separate front yard setback variance requests. Gull stated that the zoning for a 2 acre lot would require a 75 foot front yard setback and a 20 foot side yard setback, and that it would be difficult to justify granting a variance that would lessen those setbacks. Rappaport noted that the slopes on the property probably determined the original building site, and added that he could not find any variance requests for the property on file in the Zoning office. Bob Krueger, an adjacent owner, was present. He stated that he complained to the Building Department during the construction of the house that the house was being built in the setbacks, but Building would not come to investigate. He also added that visitors to Modell's house use his driveway for parking, and that Modell's house is directly visible from his house. Wheeler stated that he would support a 75 foot front yard setback for the addition, but would deny the proposed setback for the deck which would increase the nonconformity of the residence. Rappaport stated that he designed the addition to direct the public space away from the neighbor's property to lessen the impact. Lukes agreed that it makes more sense to expand in the direction shown to minimize the impact on the neighbors. Gull noted that the owner has the right to expand in the other direction without a variance. Krueger stated that he does not have a problem with the variance request, but that his complaint was related to previous events. Wheeler stated that the encroachment into the setback should not be increased because the structure already encroaches 60 feet into the setback. The Board discussed how to define the setback variance, and 6 OOO®LJ recommended tabling the application for the applicant to provide a revised plan. Lukes moved to table the application to the meeting on July 6, 1993 at the request of the applicant. Dyer seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case 93-16, Calvin Daks, Lot R-45, Starwood Subdivision Calvin Daks was present to request a 24 foot rear yard setback variance, where 30 feet is required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a detached garage. Daks noted that a drainage ditch runs through the property, and creates a topographic hardship. The Starwood Subdivision Covenants prohibit interference with the neighbors' viewplanes; in the proposed location the garage would only impact one neighbor, Dick Fenton, whereas in any other location it would impact more neighbors. Gull read into the record a note from Dick Fenton, stating that he has no objection to the proposed variance. Daks stated that Starwood has not yet reviewed the proposal, but that the Association would only object if the garage impacted the neighbors' views. Lukes noted that the garage is buried in the slope at its highest point. Wheeler noted that the setback reduction was rather severe. He questioned why the garage was being built away from the ditch so as not to interrupt the flow, but the driveway and retaining wall were being constructed across the drainage. Daks replied that raising the driveway will not interrupt the drainage. Lukes stated that he would be reluctant to make a decision before Starwood reviews the application. Daks requested tabling the application, pending approval from Starwood Subdivision. Dyer moved to table the application to the July 6, 1993 meeting. Cooper seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case 93-17, William and Marv Beth O'Donnell and the Roaring Fork Ranch Partnership, 6190 UoAer River Road Brooke Peterson and Greg Mozian were present, representing the owners, to request a 50 foot front yard setback variance and a 40 foot east side yard setback variance, where 100 feet and 50 feet, respectively, are required in the RS-20 zone district, for the 7 ~D~Q~~ relocation of an existing ranch gate. Peterson stated that they are proposing to relocate an existing ranch gate, which is owned by the O'Donnells, but is presently located on property owned by Mike Underwood. The O'Donnells have agreed to move the access road onto their ranch property and to relocate the ranch gate. The variance requested is based on the size of the parcel where the gate is to be located, and the existing topographic conditions. He added that the existing gate was approved as part of the original building permit, and that relocating the ranch gate will decrease its non-conformity because it will be 20-25 feet farther back from the road. Also, one entrance to Lower River Road will be eliminated, which is important from a safety standpoint. Peterson noted that Mike Underwood authorized him to state that he is in favor of the plan and has no objections. Mozian stated that the gate is being relocated onto a non- conforming lot, which creates setback restrictions. The requested 50 foot front yard setback would put the gate approximately in the middle of the property. The proposed location of the access road was determined by safety concerns because further west the grade of River Road gets steeper and the sight lines decrease. The side yard setback is restricted because of the location of a high pressure gas line and the existing cottonwoods, which they would like to maintain. He added that the gate has more visual impact in its current location, than it will have in the proposed location. Lukes noted that the relocation would decrease the non-conformity of the gate. Wheeler added that the gate is existing, and is located on a ranch property. There was no public comment. Dyer moved to grant a 50 foot front yard setback variance and a 40 foot east side yard setback variance for relocation of an existing ranch gate, due to downzoning and that the gate is existing. Cooper seconded the motion, and four were in favor, with Gull opposed. Chris Smith was present, representing Petrol Aspen, Inc., to request an 18 foot front yard setback variance, where 30 feet is required in the B-2 zone district, and a 26 foot arterial highway setback variance, where 200 feet is required, for construction of an additional fuel pump island at the Aspen Airport Amoco. Smith stated that other fuel pumps encroach in the highway setback, 8 Qo~~~~ including those at the Airport, Aspen Village, and Stutsman- Gerbaz. He also noted that there are encroachments into the highway setback at the AABC, including the RFTA terminal, signage, and post office boxes, and that there are many encroachments at the airport. He quoted BOCC Resolution No. 87-34, which states, "Uses other than structures (off-street parking, lights and signs) shall meet the minimum setbacks as follows: This is required in order to provide essential sight distances along arterial highways, major roads, and collector streets for vehicular traffic and pedestrians entering and leaving such right-of-way." He noted that this resolution has been interpreted to allow gas pumps and miscellaneous structures in the setback, and added that the encroachment at the Amoco will not materially impact the "essential sight distances". Schaffner quoted Section 3-8.2(a) of the Land Use Code, which states, "...the minimum yard requirement for all yards adjacent to such rights-of-way shall not be less than 200 feet from an arterial highway right-of-way"; and Section 3-8.2(b), which states, "In order to provide essential .sight distance along arterial highways..., no accessory structure or use shall be located within 100 feet of the arterial highway right-of-way". Schaffner noted that in the past, she has interpreted this to mean that the first 100 feet of the right-of-way is sterile, that the second 100 feet accepts accessory structures, and that principal structures must be located 200 feet from the right-of-way. She noted that Francis Krizmanich of the Zoning Office determined that her interpretation does not represent the intent of the Code, and that BOCC Resolution No. 87-34 clarifies that the first 200 feet from the right-of-way should remain sterile. Therefore, uses in the second 100 feet from the right-of-way have been erroneously approved. Smith stated that the County has proposed to create a business center frontage road between Highway 82 and the Amoco, which would provide access to the bus barn and the County maintenance bldg, as well as to 22 acres of potential commercial property. He noted that the creation of this road would essentially neuter any impacts that might be created by his encroachment into the highway setback. He noted that only approximately the top two feet of the gas pump will be visible from the highway, and that the new pump will substantially alleviate traffic problems by preventing gas customers from creating gridlock on the road while waiting for pumps. He stated that the new pump could not be located on the other end of property because the dogleg in the road makes egress very dangerous, he would have to relocate the carwash, and he would have to redevelop the entire property and relocate the cashier. He noted that the Amoco provides a public benefit, and that it is in the public benefit to maintain efficient flow and safe egress at the Amoco. Currently, circulation is awkward and unsafe; during peak periods, traffic on the County road backs up as far as the Amoco from the Highway 82 intersection. Smith noted that the traffic light at the AABC/Highway 82 intersection will provide 9 00003? predictable exiting from the AABC, which should control the gridlock, and added that the Amoco suffers a hardship because of the County's disregard for the safety of the roads and traffic flow at the AABC. Lukes stated that in site planning, one generally does not develop towards an intersection that is increasing in density, and that as much of a buffer as possible should be maintained from such an intersection. The new intersection will only increase the congestion near the Amoco. He also added that the 200 foot arterial highway setback is a fundamental zoning concept, which should be maintained intact, and that the setback is not implemented only for vehicular safety. Smith stated that his hardship results from the design of the station, and from the necessity that they provide their service while maintaining safe egress and good circulation. Wheeler stated that he was opposed to granting the highway setback variance. Wheeler moved to deny the applicant's request for a 26 foot arterial highway setback variance for construction of an additional fuel pump island. Lukes seconded the motion. Three were in favor, with Cooper and Dyer opposed. After discussion, Wheeler moved to deny the applicant's request for a 26 foot arterial highway setback variance for construction of an additional fuel pump island. Lukes seconded the motion. All were in favor. ***************************************************************** The May 4, 1993 minutes were approved as written. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Suza ne L. Wolff, Secretary 10 ~; I P ---~_ Ri N iley, Chairman OOI1~133 u LAND USE APPLICATION FEES cITY: -63250-134 -63270-136 -63280-137 -63300-13g -63310-140 -63320-141 -63330-150 -63432.157 -63432.157 -00100-00000.31070 NISTORIC 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: 00115 -63360-143 -63340-163 00123 -63340-190 00125 -63340-205 PLANNING OFFICE SALES: -63080-122 -69000-145 OFFICE t ~,~ ~. ~ '~`'~-~ 3 /Oil GMP/Conceptual GMP/Final SUB/Conceptual SUB/Final All-2 Step gppl~ations All 1 Step Applications Staff Approval Zoning Plan Check Sign Permit Use Tax for Sign Permits Exemption Minor Major Devel. SignB. Devel. Demolition GMP/General GMP/Detailed GMP/Final SUB/General SUB/Detailed SUB/Final All 2 Step Applications All 1 Step gpppcations Staff Approval Board of Adjustment Zoning Plan Check Engineering -County Engineering - City Housing Environmental HeaRh County Code Other (Copy Fees) ~_ O 3. ,y Name: ~ ~ TOTAL ' Address. ~ ~l 3-~ Phone: - _ r o ~ Project `~ /,-- :. Check #:~ ; 7 -.' _ ~ cl,~ -: /~„(~ .-7-,'=Date: ~ ~i `/', No of Oopes: _. } Scanned 3/27/08 File Finders Box #18 LARGE PLAT(S) AVAILABLE TO VIEW AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AVAILABLE TO BUY AT CLERK & RECORDER