The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutpitkin.boa.93.20PITRIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJIISTMENT 9 } DATE UlJIV~ I~~ ~~Q-~ CASE # rl ~' 4~~ //~ ~, "~ ~y~ 7 APPLICANT ~(/1 t~1fLt~uc ~ ~~I GU./~C-~ Ll f~- r~ ~ ` PHONE `~ 1 ~ - =~~ .=•!~ MAILING ADDRESS OWNER ~`~- MAILING ADDRESS S~- LOCATION OF PROPERTY PHONE ~~-2_ 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 (~LL1~l, ~~T~7~CN~ (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: Q S ~ Zone District Requesting: 1. aurtLot Size 7~ ~ ' Front Yard Setback Variance, where lib ' is required. "- ' Rear Yard Setback Variance, where ' is required. ~ a ~ ' ~ 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: Zonin q Official a' ~ ~~ ~ J ..-,. ~ ~ ,~ Application filed lF ~ I ~~ '> Parcel D No. ;~. ~ ~[ / -._`~'r >i- ~ ' ='~'S Date of Meeting l r S Notices Mailed ~ 22 ~ ~ Secretary ~t1~ F~•t~l~a,~L1 t' ~(~~ ~~~ Refer Resolution to Building Department ; _; Yes ~ _~ No ~U~~~~ ~a l~ ; ~ ~~ ~~'~ C~ NOTICE OF PIIBLIC NEARING TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERB 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: July 6, 1993 at 5:15 p.m. Commissioner's Meeting Room, Pitkin County Courthouse William & Barbara Howell William & Barbara Howell 1591 Gateway Road Snowmass, CO 81654 Lot 3, Block 3, Filing 2 Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Subdivision Requesting approval for a 79 foot front yard setback variance and a 32 foot East side yard setback variance, where 100 feet and 50 feet, respectively, are required, in the RS-30 zone district, for construction of a detached garage. Approval of this variance would allow the proposed garage to be 21 feet from the front property line and 18 feet from the East side yard property line. VARIANCES GREATER OR LE88 TBAN REQUESTED COOLD BE GRANTED. Duration of Variance: Temporary Permanent X THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ~~ ~ w~ Suzanne L. W 1 f, Secretary ;~' a ~~ William & Barbara Howell 1591 Gateway Road Snowmass, CO 81654 May 20, 1993 Dear Pitkin County Board of Adjusters, We are asking for a variance to build a garage on our property (Lot 3, Block 3, Filing 2) in Gateway to Snowmass subdivision. As you know, the lots here are zoned RS-30, even though ours is only 1.1 acres. Our homeowners' association has frontal setbacks of 30' and 20' on the sides (the same setbacks for adjusting setbacks to lot size that have been recommended to reform the setback rules), and we are following these guidelines on the side (east). As to the front setback, our existing home (built in 1982) violates the homeowner guidelines by being only 22 feet at its northeast corner from the road. Similarly, the northeast corner of our garage will be at 22 feet from our frontal property line. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, ~~ ~~~~ William Howell ~~~ t~ # 9. ~J Adjacent Property Owners to W[Iliam & Barbara Howell 1591 Gateway Road, Snowmass CO 81654 (2467-343-05-005) (2467-343-05-006) Donniel Hecker ~~~~ P.O. Box 812217 Boca Raton, FL 33481 (2467-343-OS-004) Koenck Family Trust--Llyod A. Keonck, Trustee Box 8734, Aspen, CO 81612 [David Koenck, 1579 Gateway Rd.] (2467-343-05-003) Donald K. and Norma J. Olsen 1545 Gateway Rd. Snowmass, CO 81654 (2467-343-05-001) Milton E. and Bruna Landman 1185 Broad St. Bloomfield, NJ 07003 (2467-343-02-436) Luke and Susan Hecht Box 8428 Aspen, CO 81612 (2467-343-OS-437) David and Marilyn-Sue Walsh 7 Lurcott Lane Central Islip, NY 11722 (2467-343-OS-001) RickHeedeandSusanHassol 1626 Gateway Rd. Snowmass, CO 81654 (2467-343-00-025)] Robert J. Freeark and Ruth Nelson Prudential Home Mortgage Atin: Tax Dept. P.O. Box 4157 Frederick, MD 21701-0909 (2467-343-00-026) Cort Lewis 332 Larkspur Highland Park, IL 60035 {3 ~$ (Lam 3 , X31-GC-K 3, ~ L/ NG z~. • , ~u1~' OLD st.%cwYt~ /Hu-~ y~ ~ ~ ~v I /s Jm tle s t~ 5 l / Utz ti~ E:-__ . __ ! .TAKE !sr R.~6rt~; 6ATE u,~Av 2D. • ~JIND UPM£SA ~ lt'HGN P-GAD p~1,Elr'E LS C~Ef, 5>-AYCti' ~[ Fd~kSE- SHOE Z is ~ A tT /~ /} j ~ I..AST Jr~USc T-- - ----- "„ •~CFORf (iJKDESAC '± j j Clskl 6~ZsurnY) / , I I I II / H , "• u i ~ I z I ~/~ Ni ~ /~. LL ~ to `® ~~ I II k~. ~ I j ~, L7 I ~ j ~, ~. _. I ~~ `E_ a m I ~~ Y \~/ 4 ¢ ® R ®~ T~ 1 F V~ j e~ ~ ® / .. a Y ~ ~--~~ SP`• ...~ 7 F fM^~'s\~ \ \ ,~ ._ ~®Y ~® QYry 9 V4 0 ®Y ~`' _ i ' Qp - 9 ~' ®~ ...~. Y ®Y w.w.ox Q` Y -- . . ~ e ~ ..e~.ro o.~. ____ ~ 4 -p ~S e _____ _--_ d ______- t ~` c cm ° ~ ~ S ~~ ~n~na Y °-~~_ • "~' = z ' Y - O ~ - o i~ b Y y F Y y ~ W R®" ~®~ ® .®~ I z y ~~ .---- ~Y .®Y ® ~®Y O Y ~ -~ .`y , ^ e ®e s~iy O® ~- ®®"®- ,®" a j Y® O - s^ ~~ i ~L..... r--~-,'~-~-r.~-rr--~1-1 ~_. I PQ ~' P5 G a~. ~\e P~0p~~ ~~ • ~ - F a `` .~ ~ ~ ,1y ~ ~ i' i ~ ~ i :~ ,/Z5 ., / ,`g. l ~ +••' tt~ \\~ ~~•~ :i `t ~ `V d ~~\ , ~/ \~ ....,~ ~~ .\ ••..,~ . .~.t~.w Prc~~(~~ Q G5 4pP ~~ J0 ~C~ r a w 0 0 0 v Z 6~ ~ n~ / ~_ ~/ 1 'k~+j •/ ~f~ ~~ ~D.O~ < -- QpdFy SO\'PP 42 ~O Alpine Surveys, Inc. Post Office Box 1730 Aspen, Colorado 81612 303 925 2688 ®~ 5 ~~ tiP `~O ft~ 6 NOV.1986 Reasiorts 17 NOV. 1992 S~'.3•~9 Avv TOPO ~ ~ 86•!41 C~i~ SPEER/ HOWELL LET c~?Lv~4 fZ~ G~ ~~-rril` 3 0 0 ~n ~ 9 !~ u __ November 30, 1993 iT ASPEN . PITKIN Wi 1 1 iam Howel 1 PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 1591 Gateway Road Snowmass, CO 81654 Dear William, We are unable to table indefinitely your Board of Adjustment application as you requested. If you would like to pursue your request for variances for a detached garage in the future, you will need to reapply to the Board. In order to close your current file, please send us a letter stating your intention to withdraw this application. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Suzdnne L. Wolff, Secretary Board of Adjustment , J GL G~~ 7~ ~ r C jg~~ 5~1-a~c.~- 01-v1 U~/~ ~~;~~~2~ ~ T 3 ~ ~~G~-31 ~U~ Z. t l G ~~(~ Sal R / (/~U~/'(~ , , 130 Soule GueNA STRRET . ~AsveN~o~AOO Blblr • PEOde 303.920.5090 Fnx 303.920.5197 ' nmim ~~ ~«vdm wa, MEMORANDIIM TO: Suzanne Konchan, County Planning Director FROM: Rick Magill, Planner RE: Howell Scenic Overlay Review DATE: June 9, 1993 APPLICANT: William and Barbara Howell SITE LOCATION: 1591 Gateway Road, Snowmass, CO REQUEST: Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 3-1.13 and Ordinance 90-07, the applicant requests approval of an administrative scenic overlay review for a detached garage/laundry room/office/storage unit directly adjacent to the main residence. Section 3-1.13(D)(1) of Ordinance 90-07 authorized the Planning Director to approve development within the mapped scenic overlay area when development is found to have an insignificant impact on the visual qualtiy of the ridgeline or overlay area. The Planning Director may approve development with conditions upon a finding that: a. The proposed development will be placed so it does not break a ridgeline, or b. Visible development is thirty percent (30$) or less of the existing square footage of the structure. The existing character of the architecture is one of "stepping down the slope" and is the most site sensitive design in the area. The proposed structure, as described by the applicant, although slightly higher than the main residence, will be consistent with this theme. The existing and proposed structures, although visible from a small section of Capitol Creek Road, do not effectively break the ridgeline from that or any other sightline. The proposed structure, as described by the applicant, will be partially "bermed into the earth" and be surrounded by mature junipers so as to further mitigate visual impact. FINDINGS: i. The proposed structure will not significantly impact the visual quality of the ridgeline. 2. The visible aspect of the proposed development due to sensitive siting and design, screening by existing mature trees, and partial berming of the proposed structure + ; o+. constitutes 30$ or less of the existing square footage of the residence. RECOMMENDATION: Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Director approve the Administrative Scenic Overlay Review for the Howell addition on Lot 3, Block 3, Filing 2, Gateway to Snowmass Subdivision, 1591 Gateway Road. APPROVED: nw:~ w.n~u MM-2 g'n<~ n~ Suz ne Kon an, Cou y Planning Director ~ fo ~ Date s' . N --- --- c~ -. ___._' -.- _ _. /~ _ ~_ _.. __ ~ I - ~y - - ' I i 1.. I ~ ~ o~ I ~ e _ its} '~,1 ~++ 1 1y~ i 1 ..- __. __-_ _ 1 i ~ I N - -. - __ ___ - ~, - ; - f ,~ , I~ -- - - --- - -- ' ~-. -_ _ 1 S ~, i. T- -t 1 ~ f~ ;~ i - ~ i i f. i. _. .. : ' I - - - , ;i% ! . __ ._ _ - ~fy ~ ! - - _ -- + _.. ---- ~ ~ ~ -- -- --- - - - ~ ~ ~ - -- ,_ .-_ ,_ i i - _ - - --- -- n~~ ~°lI - - ----r~ 1~ v li - ~ I - i .. -- ---- i - -- - __ -- - ~ - - I ~ ~ - : ~ _, _. ,, _---- --- - - _ _ - - ~ i , l - - - - _ _~ - - - ,~~ --- - - -- -- ~ ~ .- - ----- _ i , --- -- - I ~' ---- - ~ !>al ---- - -- --- - -- - _!. i __ . _~. _~_ L-- --- - --- _ _ - -- -- - - - - - ---- ~ :. ' I -- ~ ~ ----- --- __ _ _ , . - -- .__ . -~--~- - ,~ I -~ J 0 N ~ ---- ~ - -- ZO I ^ d i1 ~' ` 8~ X (Da SLi~ 'D'1~. ~i - ~ I -- ~: 1,.~~ r G V~:1~.. e~ ~ ~~ (C~ ,~~~ ~^ ,~ 0 k1ot,~y ~L R~Si~ icy ~~ ' r # ~' ~ -F~ i' Q J f • • )- a r i~ .y; ~' ~ 2c~~_ n~~ -~ - --- 1 ~,~ i i~ I( i ~ ~ 1 l~` ,~ I~ I I~ l~ ~_ d- 1 f ~I u y- ~~ ~-s-~ • • ,~ ~~ ,t ~.~~ ~, ,- 0 ~, ~~ -63250-134 GMP/Conceptual -63270.136 GMP~nal -63280.137 SUB/Conceptual -63300.139 SU~nal -63310.140 All-2 Step Applications -63320.141 All 1 Step Applications -633.'10.150 Staff Approval X3432-157 2onirg Plan Check -63432-157 Sign Permit -00100-00000-31070 Use Tax for Sign Permits HISTORIC PRESERVATION: -63335-151 Exemption -63336-152 Misr -63337-153 Major Devel. -63338-154 Sign'rf. Devel. -63339-155 Demolkion COUNTY: -63160-126 GMP/General -63170-127 GMP/Detailed -63180-128 GMP/Final -63190-129 SUB/General 53200-130 SUIi/Detailed -63214131 SUB/Fnal -63220.132 All 2 Step Applications -63230-133 All 1 Step Applications X3240.149 Staff Approval -63450-146 Board of Adjustment ~~~° ~ -63235148 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 Other (Copy Fees) ~ 'O ~ TOTAL GJ/LC hM HOW -1_ ELL ,'1• '.~ ( Name: -- Phone: ' Address: ~ ~ ~ ~ r-/ "Pro t: 3-Z o ~, Check #: ~ Date: No of Coges: / LAND USE APPLICATION FEES CITY: • • County of Pitkin State of Colorado The undersigned, follows: I, 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 theI~S~ day of _ ~C.~-~n-~.__ 19 ~~' to the day of ~ 19~. (Must be posted for at least nine (9) full days before the hearing da_te). Applicant's Signature Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~ day of ~L~~VE , 19~, by ~;'iit ir~,ti i tJ~ ~~---- (Attach photograph here) WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. My Commission expires • ~Y Commission expires 4/9y'gy } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY } ss. POSTING OF A VARIANCE HEARING } BEFORE THE PITRIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJIISTMENT being first duly sworn, deposes and says as ~~ ( e NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PITICIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to Pitldn 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 caning 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 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 REQUFSTID COULD BE GRANTED. DATE AND TIME OF MEETING: Tuesday, July 6, 1993; 5:30 P.M. Commissioner's Meeting Room, Courthouse Roess, Thomas: requesting approval fora 40' front yard setback variance, where 100' is required in the RS- 30 cane district, for construction of an addition to a single family residence. Property Location: Lot 10, Block 1, Filing 3, Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Subdivision; 0341 Light Hill Road. Howell, William & Barbara: requesting approval fora 79' front yard setback variance and a 32' east side yard setback variance, where 100' and 50', respectively, are required in the RS-30 zone district, for construction of a detached garage. Property Location: Lot 3, Block 3, Filing 2, Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Subdivision; 1591 Gateway Road. Smith, Peter & Catherine: requesting approval for an 85' arterial highway setback variance, where 200' is required, for construction of a single family residence. Property Location: Township 8 South, Range 87 West of the 6th PM, Secfion 12, in Government Tract 60. Swersky, David: requesting approval fora 100' front yazd setback variance and an 18' NW side yazd setback variance, where 100' and 30', respectively, are required in the AF-1 zone district, for relocafion of an ezisfing carport. Property Location: 4076 Lower River Road; Township 9 South, Range 85 West of the 6th PM, Section 6, part of Lot 7. Doerr, L. John & Annie: requesting approval fora 23' front yazd setback variance, where 30' is required in the R-30 zone district, for construction of an attached one-car garage. Property Location: Lot 37, Midge of Red Mountain Subdivision; 52 Nighthawk Drive. Baker, William: requesting approval fora 35' front yazd setback variance, where 100' is required in the AF- 1 zone district, and a 100' arterial highway setback variance, where 200' is required, for construction of a detached garage. Property Location: Lot 10, Holland Hills at Basalt Subdivision; 0028 Holland Hills Road. Submitted to the Aspen Times on June 22, 1993. To Be Published in the Aspen Times June 25, 1993. County PO #301003 ~~~~~~ Minutes Pitkin County Board of Adjustment November 2, 1993 Members Present: Rick Neiley, Chair Michael Cooper Rod Dyer Shira Geller Ellie Brickham Bill Lukes John Wheeler Staff: Joanna Schaffner, Zoning Enforcement Neiley opened the meeting at 5:20 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 Gateway of Snowmass Mesa troduced the Board to Shira Geller. _12. Block 5. Kistler 1993 meeting. Block 3. Filina 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 ',0002 t _ 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. Chester Pohle was present to request a 70 foot front yard setback variance and a 20 foot north side yard setback variance, where 100 feet and 50 feet, respectively, are required in the RS-30 zone district, for construction of a single family residence. Pohle stated that the lot is steep anti irregularly shaped. They propose to build on the upper portion of the lot and to access the lot from the top because the lot is narrower at the bottom. By accessing the house at the top of the lot, the driveway will meet the County requirements for a maximum grade of 12$, and will also meet the fire department requirements. Pohle noted that the Gateway Homeowners Association approved their site plan. Evan questioned whether the Homeowners Association has the ability to approve variances from the setbacks in their covenants. Francis Krizmanich, a homeowner in Gateway, urged the Board to visit the site because the topography on the survey does not seem to accurately reflect the topography of the site. Photographs presented to the Board seemed to confirm this concern because the excavation at the bottom of the site is not reflected on the topographic survey. He said that he feels the bottom of the lot provides better access to a flatter building area, on which a split level home could be constructed with less cut and fill. The house is designed for a flat lot, and is proposed to be built on the steepest part of the lot, which will require a lot of cut and fill. In response to questions about the access, Pohle responded that accessing the building site from the bottom of the lot would require switchbacks to meet the County driveway standards, and that the switchbacks would be too narrow for fire trucks. 1 ?00023 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 to 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 Ridge 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 Q~ll~~~ There was no public comment. lJ Gull moved to table this application to the November 2nd meeting. Neiley seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case 93-38 Roaer Smith 2020 Maroon Creek Road Randy Schofield, representing the applicant, was present to request approval for a 15 foot front yard setback variance, where 100' is required in the AF-1 zone district, and a 15 foot major road setback variance for Maroon Creek Road, where 100' is required, for construction of a covered walkway on an existing single family residence. Schofield explained that the applicants would like to construct a covered walkway because the entry to the house is very dangerous in the winter due to snow and ice accumulation. He noted that variances have been granted in the past for this house because the lot is constrained by Maroon Creek and Maroon Creek Road. There was no public comment. Lukes moved to grant a 15 foot front yard setback variance and a 15 foot major road setback variance due to specific site constraints, including topographical hardship. Gull seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case #93-20 William and Barbara Howell Lot 3, Block 3, Filing 2, Gateway 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, Suzafi e L. Wolff, 'SeT cYetary 3 (/~,Y, I ' I ~___---~ F{iicl~ Neiley, Chairman 000025 Minutes Pitkin County Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting September 7, 1993 Members Present: Members Absent: Staff: Evan Gull, Acting Chair Rod Dyer Bill Lukes John Wheeler Rick Neiley Michael Cooper Joanna Schaffner, Zoning Enforcement Gull opened the meeting at 5:35 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, May 4, June 15, July 7, and August 3, 1993 meetings. Wheeler moved to table this case to the November 2, 1993 meeting. Lukes seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case 93-i1, Thomas Girardi. Tract B, Hansen's Tracts Tim Hagman, representing the owner, was present to request approval for a 100 foot arterial highway setback variance from Highway 82, where 200 feet is required, for construction of a single family residence. Hagman stated that the property is divided into two benches, one on the level of Highway 82 and another on the level of the river. The owners chose to use the building envelope on the lower bench, and the higher bench will not be used. The lower site is constrained by the 100 year floodplain, the 20 foot riparian setback, and the 200 foot arterial highway setback. The applicant is seeking relief from the 200 foot arterial highway setback. Schaffner noted that the original request for a 100 foot arterial highway setback variance was based on the building envelope, and not the proposed structure because plans were not available at the time public notice was posted. Hagman stated that the buildable area is long and narrow. The residence sits below the road and is not visible from the highway. He noted that the owners plan to landscape extensively for privacy and to shield the house from the highway. There was no public comment. 1 UOO(12~ Gull read into the record letters from Judith and Jerry Gerbaz and Richard and Laura Stutsman, stating their support for the variance request. Hagman noted that the veterinarian next door is within the 200 foot highway setback. Lukes stated that a design element, such as the Porte-cochere, should not be allowed to increase the encroachment into the setback. Wheeler suggested that a 20 foot highway setback variance would be appropriate. The Board discussed granting a 20 foot variance or waiting for the applicant to present specific plans. Gull movedto grant a 20 foot highway 82 setback variance as per the plans submitted, with the following modifications: remove the Porte-cochere and move the garage, to comply with the variance granted, due to topographic considerations. Dyer seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Dyer moved to table the application to the October 5, 1993 meeting, at the request of the applicant. Wheeler seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case 93-29 Judy Beth Lowrv Trust Lots 37 & 38, Crustal River Park Nancy Smith was present, representing the owner, to request a 70 foot front yard setback variance and a 17 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. Smith stated that the Crystal River Park Subdivision was platted before the zoning regulations were adopted, and that a 100 foot front yard setback is required for lots that are only 100 feet deep. She noted that Karl Avery, a neighbor, is concerned that the residence will obstruct his view of Chair Mountain. She stated that he does not have a view of the mountain in the summer because the area is heavily treed. The house will not be as high as the existing trees. She added that Avery's house is only 20 feet from the property line. She noted that they chose to build on Lot 38 because it is less steep, and therefore easier to build on and easier to access. Gull read into the record a letter from Karl Avery, stating his concern with the proposed location of the house and its impact on his view, but he was not opposed to the specific variance requested. 2 o~U~G~ There was no public comment. Schaffner noted that the Covenants for the subdivision require 30 feet in the front, 20 feet in the rear, and 15 feet on each side. Gull added that the R-30 zone district has comparable setbacks to Covenants, and that this lot is approximately 20,000 square feet. Smith suggested that the house could be turned more to be within the 20 foot rear setback. Wheeler stated that he would be hesitant to allow less than a 20 foot rear yard setback, especially with the concerns of the neighbor. Dyer moved to grant a 70 foot front yard setback variance and a 10 foot rear yard setback variance, due to downzoning. Wheeler seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case 93-30. Roscomare. Ltd & Midranch Holdings Inc Lots 15 & 16. Castle Creek Vallev Ranch Jane Ellen Hamilton was present, representing the applicants, to request setback variances for construction of an avalanche deflection wall between Lots 15 & 16. Hamilton stated that the existing house on Lot 16 was built in a building envelope that was approved through the 1041 Hazard Review process. In February, a massive avalanche hit the house and completely filled several rooms with snow. Subsequently the owners of Lot 16 extensively researched methods of protecting the house, and determined that there was no other option except to keep the house in its present location and build an avalanche defense structure, a wedge-shaped wall above the house to divert snowslides around the house. To be most effective, it is necessary that the structure cross into the adjacent Lot 15, to which the adjacent owners have consented. Hamilton added that the proposed structure will protect other buildings that exist on the property. There was no public comment. Hamilton stated that the avalanche deflection wall will be 20 feet from finished grade on the back side, and the area above the wall will be left unvegetated. The side facing the house will be screened as much as possible by vegetation. She added that the lot received 1041 approval in 1986 based on an "expert" report that said the envelope was free of avalanche danger. Schaffner stated that the wall is considered an accessory structure, and can therefore be 20 feet high. Hamilton stated that triggered releases of snow were not feasible because of the lack of controlled circumstance. Constructing snow fences in the avalanche release zone would tear up the hill, would not prevent a release, and would require 4-5 miles of fencing. The 3 '1001? structure has been reinforced and "bulletproof" windows have been installed, but something besides the structure must absorb the force of an avalanche. She added that the hardship is not of their creation because the residence was constructed before they purchased the lot. Lukes stated that an avalanche could be shielded at the house, but then two sides of the house would be unlivable. Hamilton replied that the engineers stated that a structure could be constructed to bear the load of a 30 year avalanche, but one could not be "retrofitted" to bear such a lateral load. Gull moved to grant setback variances for an avalanche deflection wall, as per the plans submitted, due to the unusual danger presented ~y the topographical situation above the lots. Dyer seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case 93-31 Ed Bradlev. 646 Twining Flats Road Charles Roberts was present, representing the applicant, to request a 36 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of an addition to an existing single family residence. Roberts stated that the grade drops at the 100 foot setback, and that they do not want to lower the building in order to maintain a logical grade entry. Also, they chose to design the addition to avoid demolishing the existing decks and to save an existing tree. He noted that the house already encroaches on the front yard setback by 40-50 feet, and the addition will not increase the encroachment. He added that the adjacent houses also encroach into the setback, and the house is well screened from the road. There was no public comment. Gull noted that numerous variances have been granted on Twining Flats Road, and that he would prefer to force development toward the road rather than towards the river. Lukes moved to grant a 36 foot front yard setback variance, due to downzoning. Gull seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case 93-33 David Swersky 4076 Lower River Road David Swersky was present to request a 100 foot front yard setback variance and a 22 foot NW side yard setback variance, where 100 feet and 30 feet, respectively, are required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a detached carport. Swersky stated that he was granted a variance for the carport, but after he built the new driveway, he realized that there was not 4 000029 enough room to turn a car around and nowhere to plow snow. Therefore, he is requesting an 8 foot side yard setback instead of the 12 foot setback previously granted. The adjacent neighbors, including the Railroad, do not object to the change in the variance. He noted that the carport will be less visible to the public because it will be closer to the Railroad berm, and will have less impact on his immediate neighbor because the carport will be open to the house, rather than to the road. Gull stated that the closest conforming zone district is R-15, which allows a 10 foot side yard setback. Dyer moved to grant a 100 foot front yard setback variance and a 20 foot NW side yard setback variance, due to downzoning. Wheeler seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case 93-341Suzanne Pfister Kelso Tract 2 West Buttermilk Pfister Tracts Wheeler moved to table the application to Thursday, September 9, 1993, at 12:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Dyer seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Lukes moved to table the application to Thursday, September 9, 1993, at 12:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Wheeler seconded the motion, and all were in favor. The minutes of August 3, 1993 were approved as written. The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Suza ne L. Wolff, ecretary 5 ODn~~JO r Minutes Pitkin County Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting August 3, 1993 Members Present: Evan Gull, Acting Chair Rod Dyer Michael Cooper Bill I,ukes Members Absent: Rick Neiley John Wheeler Staff: Joanna Schaffner, Zoning Enforcement Gull opened the meeting at 5:15 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, May 4, June 15, and July 7, 1993 meetings. Gull moved to table this case to the September 7, 1993 meeting. Cooper 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 William Howell was present to request a 79 foot front yard setback variance and a 32 foot east side yard setback variance, where 100 feet and 50 feet, respectively, are required in the RS-30 zone district, for construction of a detached garage. Howell stated that a portion of the existing house is 22 feet from the front property line. He stated that the Covenants for the Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Subdivision require a 30 foot front yard setback and a 20 foot side yard setback. Schaffner noted that a variance was previously granted by the Board to allow the owners to connect the garage to the house in order to have an office in the garage. Don Hecker, a neighbor, was present to express his concern with the height of the garage. Howell showed him that the garage has been downsized and is lower in height than was originally proposed. Hecker then stated that he was not opposed to the Board granting the variance for the revised garage. Gull stated that the closest conforming zone district is R-30, which requires a 30 foot front yard setback. He noted that Howell's lot is larger than the 30,000 square foot minimum lot area 1 00(1 (;`~?. _ti required for the R-30 zone, and Howell is asking for a smaller setback than is allowed in the R-30 zone district. Lukes noted that he would not be willing to grant less than a 30 foot front yard setback, which would comply with the R-30 zone and the subdivision covenants. Howell asked the Board to table his application until the next meeting to determine if the Homeowners Association would approve the 22 foot front yard setback. Gull moved to table the application to the September 7, 1993 meeting. Cooper seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case 93-25 Petrol Aspen Inc Lot 1 Block 6 Aspen Airport Business Center Chris Smith, representing Petrol Aspen, Inc., was present to request a 21 foot front yard setback variance, where 30 feet is required in the B-2 zone district, for construction of a canopy over the two existing fuel pump islands. Smith stated that the two pump islands are currently located in the front yard setback. He added that the canopy will be integrated into the existing design of the station, and will be approximately sixteen feet high and narrow, with four supporting columns. There was no public comment. Gull noted that a letter in the file from John McBride stated his approval of the variance request. Gull stated that the Amoco represents a unique use. Lukes moved to grant a 21 foot front yard setback variance. Dyer seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Mark Dodds was present to request a 35 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the RS-30 zone district, for construction of a deck on an existing residence. Schaffner stated that a variance was previously granted by the Board and a building envelope was approved through the 1041 hazard review process. An amendment to the building envelope was approved to allow him to add a deck, with the condition that the deck not extend over the ditch. She added that the deck will increase the non-conformity of the structure within the setback. There was no public comment. 2 o~~nZ? Dyer moved to grant a 35 foot front yard setback variance, due to downzoning. Cooper seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case 93-27, Jack Brewer, Lot 1 Block 5 Aspen Airport Business Center Ed Sabbaugh was present, representing Jack Brewer, to request a 22 foot front yard setback variance, where 30 feet is required, for a handicapped access ramp to the Range Rover showroom. Sabbaugh stated that the difference between the floor of the old train depot and the outside grade is 30 inches, therefore, the access ramp must be 30 feet long. Schaffner noted that the structure previously received a variance from the Board for the eaves to project into the 200 foot highway setback. She also added that the owner is required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to provide a handicapped access. Sabbaugh noted that the handicapped access ramp could not be located elsewhere because of the ramp and double doors that are used to get vehicles into the showroom. Gull stated that the ramp will have minimal structural impact and presents a reasonable solution. Dyer noted that the ADA requires that the handicapped access must be located at the front entry. There was no public comment. Cooper moved to grant a 22 foot front yard setback variance. Dyer seconded the motion, and all were in favor. Case 93-28, Carol Soffer Lot 12 Filing 1 Meadowood Subdivision Spencer Schiffer was present, representing Carol Soffer, to request a 123 square foot increase in floor area, where a maximum of 2,908 square feet of floor area is allowed, to enclose an existing balcony and add a covered porch. Schiffer described the history of the addition to the residence to the Board. The original architect decided to enclose the balcony (48 square feet) and to reduce the carport (127 square feet), which he thought would result in a net reduction in the floor area. The plans were submitted to the Building Department, and they assumed in good faith that there was no problem. However, the carport was exempt from floor area calculations, and therefore could not be used to offset the increase in floor area. Also, the carport is now too small to be considered a carport; it is considered a roof 3 ~0~~~~ overhang, a portion of which is included in calculating the floor area. Therefore, Soffer has a net increase in floor area of 106.5 square feet. Schiffer noted that the house was non-conforming when Soffer bought it, and exceeded the allowable floor area by 671 square feet. The house is finished now, but Soffer cannot get a Certificate of Occupancy or a loan. Schiffer noted that the mistakes were made innocently, and that Soffer would not have permitted the builders to go forward if she had known there was a problem. He also added that restoring the carport and balcony to their original state would increase the footprint of the house. King Woodward, representing the Meadowood Homeowners Association, was present to state the Association's approval of the request. Gull read into the record a letter from Steven R. Wickes, President of the Meadowood Homeowners Association, noting that the Board of Directors voted unanimously to recommend that the Board approve the variance request. Cooper stated that he was troubled by the precedent that would be set by granting a variance to correct a mistake. Schiffer noted that the alternatives are drastic, and stated that this represents an "exceptional situation...not created by the applicant". Lukes stated that the impact of house is less now, but that he felt the only justification for granting the variance was that the Homeowners Association, which is very strict, supports the granting of the variance. Gull moved to grant a 123 square foot increase in floor area, due to the minimal impact of the increase and given the endorsement of the increase by the Meadowood Homeowners Association. Dyer seconded the motion, and all were in favor. The minutes of June 15 and July 6, 1993 were approved as written. The meeting was adjourned at 6:25 p.m Respectfully submitted, ,~~~f~.ni~~ C ~~~=-(~~~~i, Suzan a L. Wolff, 3 eretary 4 ~,` , i _~ ~~ R' k eiley, Chairman OOOn`~~A -. Minutes Pitkin County Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting July 6, 1993 Members Present: 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 Village 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 000035 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 00003 • 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 0~~~,~~ 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 Honnberger, 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 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, a Suzanhe L. Wolff, Secretary 5 ~~ ~ ,~ . ~ Rick eiley, Chairman oon~~o ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE • 130 South Galena SVeet Aspen, (:olorado 81611 • (303) 920-5090 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 Permi[ -00100-00000-31070 Use Tax for Sign Permits HISTORIC PRESERVATION: -63335-151 Exemption -63336-152 Minor -63337-153 Major Devel. -63338-154 Sign'rf. Devel. -63339-155 Demolition COUNTY: -63160-126 GMP/General -63170-127 GMP/Detailed -63180-128 GMP/Final -63190-129 SUB/General -63200-130 SUB/Detailed -63210-131 SUB/Final -63220-132 All 2 Step Applications -63230-133 All 1 S[ep Applications -63240-149 Staff Approval -63450-146 Board of Adjustment ri 2 • ° O -63235-148 Zoning Plan Check REFERRAL FEES: -63360-143 Engineering-County 00115 -63340-163 Engineering-City 00123 -63340-190 Housing 00125 -63340-205 Environmental HeaRh ~1 Q 0 n «~ PLANNING OFFICE SALES: L1 -63080-122 County Code -69000-145 Other (Copy Fees) TOTAL ~ . 0 0 ~ ~LC(}f M {-~ D W E L L N ame: - Phone: Address: Project: ~ J' Z U Check #: Date: No of Copies: