The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutpitkin.boa.93.30 PITRIN COIINTY BOARD OF ADJIISTMENT DATE Aun»sf. 16, 1993 CASE # l-.~~=~~-~ APPLICANT Roscomare. Ltd. (Harrv and PHONE 9 0_4g9 Kathy Sloan) c/o Jane Ellen Hamilton MAILING ADDRESS 117 So. n Ana ~~ 2B A pen CO 81611 OWNER ~toc oma r..d. and M~ d an h PHONE Holdings MAILING ADDRESS (same as above) LOCATION OF PROPERTY Lots 15 and 16. Castle Creek Vallev Ranch Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part of this Case. The Board may return this application if it does not contain all the facts in question. Applicant Signature (To be completed by the 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: 19F ~ Zone District Requesting: Lot Size ' Front Yard Setback Variance, where ' is required. ' Rear Yard Setback Variance, where ' is required. ' Side Yard Setback Variance, where _ _' is required. ' Side Yard Setback Variance, where ' is required. ' Height Variance, where ' is required. Square Feet where a maximum of sq. ft. is allowed. Other: Zoning Official C?o~-~_/~ U ' °' Application filed ~ l ~~ `1 -~ Parcel ID No. ~ ~ 3~~- Z ~I -C~a -CC~/ Date of Meeting Notices Mailed Z 9 Secretary .~-i ~-tik ~(.U~ Refer Resolution to Building Department ~; _; Yes ; _~ No NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS BEFORE THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to Pitkin County Resolution of June 5, 1955, as amended, a Public Hearing will be held in City Council Chambers, City Hall, First Floor, Aspen, Colorado (or at such other place as the meeting may then be adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the County Zoning Resolution. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. THE PARTICULARS OF THE HEARING AND OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE ARE AS FOLLOWS: Date and time of meeting: Owner: Name and Address of Applicant: Property Location or Description: September 7, 1993 at 5:15 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall Roscomare, Ltd. Roscomare, Ltd. Harry & Kathy Sloan c/o Jane Ellen Hamilton 117 S. Spring St., Suite 2B Aspen, CO 81611 Lots 15 & 16, Castle Creek Valley Ranch Requesting approval for setback variances for construction of an avalanche deflection wall between Lots 15 & 16. VARIANCES GREATER OR LESS THAN REQUESTED COULD BE GRANTED. Duration of Variance: Temporary Permanent X THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT uzanne L. 1 f, Secretary Jane Ellen Hamilton Attorney at Law 117 South Spring Street Second Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 August 13, 1993 VIA HAND DELIVERY Joanna Shaffner Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Variance Application Dear Joanna: Telephone (303) 920-3393 Facsimile (303) 925-1277 Enclosed for your review is the material required for the request for a variance by my client, Roscomare, Ltd., the owner of Lot 16, Castle Creek Valley Ranch, for the avalanche defense structure to be constructed upon my client's property. I understand that by submitting this application on or before August 16, 1993, we will be guaranteed a hearing before the Pitkin County Board of Adjustment on September 7, 1993. It is imperative our hearing occur on such date, for construction of the structure must be completed in time for the concrete to cure before winter. In accordance with the Pitkin County Board of Adjustment Requirement List, we submit the following under cover of this letter: 1. A completed application form. 2. A $52.00 application fee. 3. Signed letters from Roscomare, Ltd., and the owner of Lot 15, Castle Creek Valley Ranch indicating their approval of this application. 4. Eight copies of a survey, including topographical information, showing where the structure will be placed on the property with accurate dimensions to the property lines. 5. Eight copies of a letter describing why this variance is necessary, including an engineering report from the applicant's avalanche expert accurately depicting the avalanche defense structure. 6. Eight copies of a vicinity/directional map. 7. Eight copies of a list of all adjacent property owners and their mailing addresses. ~' Joanna Shaffner August 13, 1993 Page Two 8. Addressed and stamped envelopes to the names on the adjacent property owners list with the Planning Office as the return addressee. Please contact us when the notification sign is available to pick up to post upon the property. In the meantime, should you need any additional information, or should you have any questions about the enclosed materials, please do not hesitate to contact us. Si cerely, Q~ J e Ellen Hamilton JEH/cp cc: Kathy Sloan (w/o enclosures) a; VARIANCE APPLICATION Harry and Kathy Sloan, the limited partners and general partner of Roscomare, Ltd., a California limited partnership (the "Applicant") record owner of Lot 16, Castle Creek Valley Ranch (the "Property"), purchased the Property in January, 1990. At the time the Sloans purchased the Property, a 1041 Hazard Review Exemption was of record which showed the building envelope within which the existing home was located was free from avalanche hazard. In reliance upon these approvals, the Sloans closed upon the purchase of the Property and commenced renovation of the home which existed within the approved building envelope. In February, 1993, a large avalanche hit the southeast corner of the Sloans' home, blew out windows and walls and completely filled several rooms with snow the consistency of cement. Avalanche experts retained by the Sloans opine that had anyone been in the rooms hit by the avalanche, they would have died. Following the avalanche, the Sloans investigated all conceivable methods of mitigation of future hazards. They learned the home could not be re-located to another suitable location on the Property due to nature of the design of the building (log construction), the presence of other avalanche chutes on the Property, the large and very dense aspen grove which covers most of the Property, setback limitations and other site considerations. In addition, the home could not be relocated and rebuilt at less than a cost of many hundreds of thousands of dollars, even if a suitable site existed, as it would have to in essence be completely disassembled and then reassembled. The Sloans also investigated avalanche mitigation measures such as planned releases in the avalanche release zone (rejected because of the uncertainty of the results of blasting) and snow retention fences placed in the release zone (rejected because of the environmental damage this method would cause as well as the cost -estimated to be in excess of one million dollars). Finally, at their avalanche expert Arthur I. Mears, P.E.'s suggestion, the Sloans engaged Mr. Mears and a colleague of his from Switzerland to design an avalanche defense structure to divert any future avalanche around the home. It is this structure for which the variance from setback limitations is sought. Mr. Mears believes that the avalanche which hit the Sloans' home was of the 30-year return period magnitude, and thus has a significant annual return probability. The deflecting structure he designed for the Sloans will reduce the probability of damage to the home by future avalanches up to a 100 year return period avalanche (three times the magnitude of the one which struck in February) to 1% - 10% of the current level of probability of damage - obviously a very significant level of protection for the home. Mr. Mears' report is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". The structure will actually work to deflect avalanches around the perimeter of the house, depositing snow in areas unoccupied by any structures. The deflecting structure consists of a wall whose vertical height on the impact side of the wall will be 20 feet from finished grade to the top of the wall along the entire length of the structure. This vertical distance will be maintained for a minimum of 15 feet away from and perpendicular to the wall. The 15 foot area will be used for snowplows to remove snow from the wedge side of the wall during the course of the winter so that snow does not accumulate and allow subsequent slides to move over the top of the wall. The wall will be approximately 250 linear feet in length. The entire inside of the wall will be filled with approximately 3350 cu.yd. of fill dirt and top soil to add additional strength to the wall. This interior wedge will be revegetated and landscaped in accordance with plans submitted to the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office in conjunction with the 1041 Hazard Review Exemption application which was granted for the construciton of the structure on August 5, 1993. The wall must be located precisely as shown on the maps of the Property included with this variance application in order to protect the home. Thus it is necessary that the structure not only encroach into the setbacks applicable in the AF-1 zone district, but must actually cross the property line between Lots 15 and 16 of the Castle Creek Valley Ranch. The consents to this variance application of the owners of both Lot 15 and Lot 16 are attached as Exhibit "B". A more clear-cut example of a circumstance which is appropriate for a variance could hardly exist. The avalanche hazard is caused by exceptional topographic and physical characteristics of the Property which were not of the Applicant's creation. The Applicant did not construct the house; it was constructed and located in its present location by the party who received a 1041 Hazard Exemption to place it in what turned out to be an avalanche zone. If a variance from setback limitations is not granted to the Applicant, it will result in exceptional and undue hardship to the Applicant as the Applicant cannot occupy the home without the construction of the avalanche defense structure during the winter without actually placing human lives in danger. Therefore, the Applicant requests setback variances for the construction of the structure upon Lots 15 and 16, Castle Creek Valley Ranch in order to allow the wall to be built in the fall of 1993. a:\disca\sloaavar.aPP 2 PITRIN COUNTY TZTLE, INC. 601 E. HOPKINS, 3RD FLOOR Vincent J. Higens ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 President 303-925-1766 303-925-6527 FAX ADJACENT OWNER'S STATEMENT Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance State of Colorado, hereby certifies the following list is of adjacent property owner's to a tract being part of the and the Bonanza Placer in Sections 23 & 26 in Township 10 West, owned by Roscomare, Ltd., as obtained from the most County Assessors Tax Rolls. Christina Davis Vice President Agent in the a current list Good Luck Placer South, Range 85 current Pitkin NAMES AND ADDRESSES BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION -------------------------------------------------------------------------- MIDRANCH HOLDINGS, INC. C/O BJERRE MILLER WEISSENFLUH 1800 CENTURY PARK EAST LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 MARY RALPH LOWE ERMA G. LOWE 5 POST OAK BLVD. SUITE 1010 HOUSTON, TX 77027 PERRY B. LEFF ABBE LANE LEFF 444 NORTH FARING LOS ANGELES, CA 90077 U.S. DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT P.O. BOX 1009 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 RALEIGH ENTERPRISES A CALLIFORNIA CORPORATION 11444 WEST OLYMPIC BLVD. LOS ANGELES, CA 90064 METES AND BOUNDS METES AND BOUNDS METES AND BOUNDS METES AND BOUNDS METES AND BOUNDS AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE ~''7 ~ ~ ~x~r~3 ~~~ AVALANCHE DEFENSE DESIGN CRITERIA BONANZA PLACER AVALANCHE Prepared For Kathy and Harry Sloan Prepared By Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Inc. Gunnison, Colorado July, 1993 r,.. 1 OBJECTIVES AND LIMITATIONS This report has the following objectives: a. Specification of the defense structure type (a splitting wedge); b. Determination of structure size and orientation; and _„ c. Calculation of design-avalanche pressures on the deflecting structure. The report also has the following limitations: a. Wall thickness, strength, and stability have not been specified; these must be determined in final design; b. The structure footing size, strength, shape and structural details have not been specified; and c. The stability of the backfill material inside the wedge has also not been specified. The deflecting structure is designed to protect the Sloan residence from design-magnitude ("100- year return period or 1% annual probability) avalanches. The avalanche size and energy considered in defense structure design is larger than the event of February, 1993. Extraordinary and extremely rare avalanches may exceed design magnitude size and reach the building. As a rough estimate, the probability of damage to the building will be reduced to 1% - 10% of the present level. Furthermore, avalanche hazard in the general vicinity of the Sloan house will be high or extreme at times; persons could be caught, buried, or killed by avalanches on the driveway or near the house during these conditions. 2 AVALANCHE DYNAMICS ASSUMPTIONS Standard computational procedures (Balm, ct. al., 1990; Mears, 1992) were used to compute the design avalanche dynamics and specify structure size and impact loads. The following summarize the primary conclusions used in structure design. Avalanche velocity: Avalanche flow density: Avalanche thickness at wedge: Snow thickness on ground: Snow running surface thickiess: Snow internal friction (Lamda): Deflecting angles: 15 m/sec 200 kg/m' 2.2 m 2.0 m 1.0 m 2.0 40° (north wing); 45° (south wing) ` :~ 3 DEFLECTING STRUCTURE PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS Figures 1 - 4 provide performance specifications that set forth position, height, and strength criteria that the structure must satisfy in order to resist the design avalanche forces and protect the Sloan residence. Exactly how these criteria are satisfied is not specified, therefore wall thickness and reinforcing dctails arc beyond the scope of this analysis. However, the following dctails must be satisfied in final design. a. WALL HEIGHT. The vertical wall height on the outside (impact side) of the splitting wedge must be maintained at 20 feet (finished grade to top of wall) along the entire length of the structure. This vertical difference must be maintained for a minimum distance of 15 feet away from and perpendicular to the wall (see Figures 2 and 3). b. IMPACT LOADS. The loads provided in Figure 4 must be considered impact rather than static loads because they increase yuickly from zeio to the maximum specified in Figure 4. Because impact loads may produce strains in structures which are larger than equivalent static loads, specification of an impact factor may be required in final design. The loads given in this report may need to be multiplied by the impact factor to ensure structure stability. Typical impact factors range from 1.5 to 2.0, but the magnitude of this factor must be determined by the structural engineer in final design. 4 REFERENCES Salm, B., Burkard, A, and Gubler, H.U., 1990, Berechnung von Flierslawinen (Avalanche Dynamics Calculations), Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research Technical Report No. 47, Wcissfluhjoch. Mean, A., 1992, Snow-Avalanche Hazard Anal~~sis for Land-Use Plamting and Engineering, Colorado Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado, Bulletin 49. Rep~ort~preparcd ~b/y~, Arthur I. Mears, P.E. Avalanche-control engineer 2 .,,~ ~~ O~ ., /%~~~~ ~~ ~ /~ I ~;.'~~ (; ' I I t ;~~ - l .~ /~ ~' ~/ J1 / ~' ;~ o~~ ilg ~446.7~_ x . ~~ ~r1t . ~ ~: , ~ , .„ .,y :;~: ' J' ~ ~~~ ~~ t~, l~ 1. +J ~ ; ' . ` . i,1~ / t, 1~/I~;4 ,h~~ .' ; ' / / , I; r ~' A 4 ~~ 1 , ,I'~ ;' ;' '~, i~ ~',l r ,~ ': i. , ~~ ~ I ~~~ !~ (i~~,I '::~ ~F ~'~~ h~~l ti~1i;i>.I ~ ~ cat J' ~ ~; / OBJ ~ 84 OBJ f~yl; 8458.1 //, BJ r~ ~'~ ~ ~. i~ ~ , ~ ~' i I : i ,'1 ~ ~ ` i t ~: 4 I- ` ,r,~ 111 ~l r; ~l. ~8507.8~`' ~, %~8 ~ . •-„ i i i ~o E lll~ n I ~~ ~ 14~(~ ,~ ~ i ~~~ / FIGURE 1. Position and orientation of the spliUing wedge above the Sloan house. Locations f ~ t ~ of the "north wing" sections (Nl, N2, and N3) and th e "south wing" sections (Sl, S2, and S3) ~ ~ ~~ : arc shown here; section views arc in Pigures 2 and 3. r ~~ / , , ' •~~ '~. 3 v rrr rt-~ Prope/4y ~iVte /~ ,~; ~_ ~ • ! ~ `~`~\``:. ``N ~~ 1`Y'h. X\ ~,\\` i r i ~ •~` ,'~ ' ~\''~ ` t ~ \'i\~'~ ( ,,'~ ~ \' i!' ~ (1 + i l ! ~ ~~ , (~ /J/I i i /~/ i / ~ I / /' ll~~ ~~~ I ' . •.\ : ' ~ ~ ~~;' . . . • ~ , ll ~ " / 1' l 'll ~, . ~ ~Xtt`B~T B ~ N N N r f .-~ W W N N N Noo 00 n -na ev_a r r n rvrH f ~~ SECTION N1 1" = 10.0' (Outside) \ - _ i _ Ground _._:__~_-1 ~`~ Cut _- 111 SECTION N2 1" = 10.0' (Outside) I `,. (Inside) T ---- 8,530• Fill ~, ~.~ (Inside) 20 ft (TYP•) Y ---- 8,5zo' Ground Fill Cut ~ , (Minimum) ~ ~ _ , - - _ __,~\ SECTION N~ 1" = 10.0' (Outside) t ---- 8,510' \ _ -_. -Cut `---..._` --... \ I I •~ ` ~ \ i FIGURE 2. Cross sections through the "north wing" of the deflecting structure. The thickness ~ of fhc structure is schematic only; thickness must be determined in final design and satisfy the impact pressure criteria given in Figure 4. i 4 SECTION S1 1" = 10.0' _.___... . _ ~ .... (Inside) (Outside) 20 ft + (TYP•) I 8 520' ---- A N N N F F F ' ~ /l _W W W_ ~ '~ '"'^'^ h °O % ~ Fill - ~ Cut j o O -n / / O°" -Ground ~ ~ n (~ n (V C1 M1 / - ' ~. Pi " ' SECTION S2 1 = 10.0 (Inside) (Outside) _ -- i 8510' ---- ~~ Fill _ - ._ i . -~ Cut ' J _ _ - ~ ~ ---- / _ _ _ Ground ~ ~--1$ft(typ •_ -- ~ (Minimum) SECTION 53 (Inside) 8,5510' ---- 1" = 10.0` Fill ~) it /.' ------%, i ~ 'Ground I -' // - ' FIGURE 3. Cross sections through the "south wing" of the deflecting structure. The thickness of the structure is schematic Duly; thickness must be determined in final design and satisfy the impact pressure criteria given in ~igurc 4. 5 I SECTION 1" = 5' N N N hFF W W W W_ _W W_ N N N 000 MOO ~H ~Hd aoa r ri r HfV t~ t •~ PLAN 1" = 5' PS PS =.0.4PN at all heights i ~ \~ FIGURE 4. Design impact loads. Normal loads (PN) and shear (Ps) act over the entire wall Icngth. 71rc loads given may need to be multiplied by an impact loading factor in final structure design. C Jane Ellen Hamilton Attorney at Law 117 South Spring Street Second Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 August 18, 1993 VIA HAND DELIVERY Joanna Shaffner Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Telephone (303) 920-3393 Facsimile (303) 925-1217 RE: Variance Application for Lots 15 and 16, Castle Creek Valley Ranch Dear Joanna: Enclosed, as we discussed on the telephone this morning, is a copy of the page from the Castle Creek Valley Ranch Final Plat showing all of Lot 16 and most of Lot 15. This plat should demonstrate that the variance being requested is from the side or rear lot lines of the lots (for which each setback in the AF-1 zone district is 30 feet), depending on how you interpret the front yards of these lots. It is my understanding from Joe Wells, who was the planner on the Castle Creek Valley Ranch project, that the access to Lot 15 shown on the enclosed page is the only access to a public road for that lot. Please contact me if I can provide any additional information or answer any further questions you may have. Enc. cc: Kathy Sloan (w/o enc.) JEH/cp Sin rely, J e Ellen Hamilton J ~~L-~ .~-i?3 F F.' I l a 1 9 c:L Ori F1 • .... F.E _: I LEN~,E • '._. CONSENT TO APPLICATIOt1 wit ~l f3 /, F' Ei 1 The undersigned, H:~rry Sloan, is the general partner of Rosconare, Ltd., a California limited partnership, the record owner of Lot 16, Castle Creek Valley Ranch, and hereby Consents to the filing of any and all land use or variance applications on his behalf with reference to the proposed avalanche defense structure by Jane Ellen Hamilton, Attorney at Law, 117 South Spring Street, Suite 2B, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920-3393. Roscomare, Ltd. BY: Harry Swan, ene-rai-Partner .~Idww4k.e.ee. T i t L - ~ - ~ ~-• '1' U E• ;~ C.. ,., 3 L G iy I~J 1 rl- I ~ 10-31=+-6533 Hr=~RRY SLLiAN `~..;' July 27, 3993 Ms. Suzanne Konchan, Director Pitkin County Planning Department 130 South Gelena Street Aspen, CO 81b11 Iv E 'c. J t~ E 242 POS F ,J 2 JUL. 27' 93 15 Re: Construction of Avalanche Deflection wall on Lot 15. Castle Creek Yatley Ranch Dear Ms, Konchant Midranch Holdings, Inc. ("Midranch"), a Delaware corporation, is the owner of record of 4ot 15, Castle Creek Yatley Ranch P.U.D,/Subdivision located in Pitkin County. Colorado. Mr. Harry Sloan and Ms. Kathy Sloan, the owners of Lot 16, the property contiguous tv Lot 15, have recently requested permission to build a portion oP the avalanche defense structure on properties in part owned by Midranch. Midranch has grented permission for the construction pf the avalanche Construction wall, the legal form of the perm1031on to by incorporated within an appropriate dpcument t0 be prepnrcd by counsel fpr Midranch and Mr, and Ms. Sloan. The ~Constructton, maintenance, landscaping and other Pitkin County requirements sho~ll be solely the responsibility of Mr. and Ms. S1oen. o nlresponsibility assralated to a d infCO function with Any costs incurred for said construction. yourfcooperation in accepting this i tternas written notification tovPitkin County of Midranch's intent would bo appreciated. It haws been related that time is of thq essence and your assistance in expediting the process would be helpful. Through appropriate mailings, please send all information in Conduction with this undertoking tv Midranch Holdings, Inc., c/o Raleigh Enterprises 11444 west Olympic Boulevard, 11th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90064.. Sincerely. MIDRANGH HO4DIHG5. INC. George I, Secretary GIA:1c ca: Mods Bderre Harry Sloan Kathy S1onn u~ ~'~- ... r Illt,r :c ~,~ VICINITY MA .~/ .\ P 0 /~ 1\ I ~ ..• lOM n l '' ~ I '~ \ • .,'': is ;y..... ,; ...::. _•_- ..\ .It tl I Ili, li, ~~ , ~ V.i '~ ~~,)~, ~ ~ + t.,j 4. \ ~( w•,. '1 ~ ~I `~./ . II III ~"\~ ~Pa. Y M1 ,li gter^ ,IGuI, h 1 ./. :I .` = . k.G Q ~~pri rqp i t r % u rrl b ~ •~'''~ qa ~, dF' I~ .1111 ( II. ..L ~,~: m ~ :.'~ ~, I I;, ,~ •I, ,. I . ,.~, ,,,,.~' __ z ~ ~ 5 1 " I ~ r, ;r I ail ~, , n¢ ~.', I i{~ •NJaler c I 1 ~ t ~. ~'. u~ ( y r I' ,.Tank '.l f e y' 1•r ~ J•. I R n. O 1 I. I ~../' 2 o l ~ a ~ +I ~. •iJ ~ Ill 1 I l / ~~ / ~ I '• rl1 S 1 ~. .1~~ G?I i _ / Jl I{ // r l ry II ill l i \ \ Kl . ~,~WPI i _ / I 4 ~ r~ I /I-l/ 1 ~ b I Tei q ~. ,er :;~ ,/I ~ ,III II ~. ~,, 1,.___~ rlx ~\4 ~ r„ // 01111 lj °• b ' 1 ~ /rHVr l / 1 / \) ~ f .. N ~11t al I `~\. 1) / I 7 ., y °36 I ~ ~ Ilq ~~ ~ I\1. I~ _ r ` ( ~ ~ ~ I l I I ~ ~~ ~ el I ~ ~ { I 1_,,.. ~ ~ , b I' ~~ / ~ % -.'~ I I ' e~ eaoo' ~ ~ ~~~I fI (/ I ~~~rt ~ ll , 'L ' I ~; a I, '~ •; p l / ~ ., ~ ,". I III it ~. / I 11 i' ~ 'bbol r //+Ir I I I I ~ 11' r l I I ~' i ~. ~ ~ , / i 111 ?( 1~ ~) ~ I ~~ ~. •~~ h III II'I 1 'f ..I II ~3 I~ ~~~,. I'll/, ~I ' I~ 1 1i 1.1i1 1 1 ~ Ir ' Ali fl 'I(,/ I / c./ ' -- 1 / ~ f r~ l/:. ~ it I !~1 ~ I ~ ~ I ~ '!I n 'LI/,. { I~ I~ I ~/1 7 111 I{ Q' td .~ 2 I ~4I /il l,'., 11~ ~>,1 f(~~ 11 I ~` I I b "ol ll' 'Ir, ~, .ysoo rll 1(/ill ~N.,r1 1,\\., ~ 9CY ham/ Ilcll I ,1{{I~I~ ~ \ {/,I I I(II 1~ ~,~Il ply fl ,~~~I~ I IIII `ill `{ III I I I lur ° ll r/// I, 1,1 / l e I. , II r ~:, f r , 1 I I 11 I I/ l~' ~/ ~1 ~1 I~~I it ~1 ~I~ (I (I III - M10~'~~ I ~ I 'I~' III t I h ~/ ",ill ~/.,~ r , II,' .. ~o~~ )c I 0~ r 1 1 U` I / I ~ I II. ) 1/ ( 1 Am / I ~. I1~ ( { I l' c 1 d ~ I ` ~.~. II 1 I•• / ill~Il~lllllll,lll.h ~"~I~~~IIt f IIi1 '$ 'I I, r~ './ I' I I 1 ~I l I 111 ` ~1', ~ {I ", I;' 1111',II~~ In I Ir)~, I. I- ~ 1_ l I 1 1 ~ I jr I. "t 1 1 4 (f~i / t I ,,l ,f ~ I -~ ,'.1 I~~1 l l 11 ; il(I '+III I~~{I L I , (/+/,VL, _ ~~~ I, 1'`~ 920° ~~~ I 1-.I I ~~~ ~~~ t ~/ - 1 I I ~I ~~ , ~ (.,- ~h{. 'I{ m ~I {I I{ If ~ I I~ IIII i{I Illl y \\ Ir li~\ I^, '~ ~~ , ` ~~~ I '){ ) r r.r III ~{~ll ~~ .'~~.I~ Illu I n~ G;I ~ ~ .:ill,{l'g~~ ~1~~ J• I j. n I, I \~ .a~~~ , , ~~ ~~I ~~~~1110111~~ ~ I,~ ,I 08 ~,; , -,,, / 191 fJfll I t0, 'I9 /' __ 1 ~' ~~ 1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /'~~/ rl ti ~ 111 I~ ~'l~ I I/~;r I ( ~~ ~~ 1 1 ~t T - / ~I l~l ~,./u. A ~V i~l)I. ~~ 11 ~. {li II ~, .A .i~L' '\ , , r , II I,-/1 I Iii c .1~ 11 II .~l ~~~ ii~ . ~ , I I~ ~ 1, ~Il ia9~~V ello e t o) I t o I I II ~rl \ p rk r 1~ r I '111 1~'I 1'1 1111 11 I , I I /,i ~ 1~ ~)~~~1/ it r n. ,~ II O ~ ~ I ~ ~ ;I II`I\'`(~It )11:1 ,;l~lj I / Llll oo ., ~tAI I ~„ II ~. ~~ A. i ( ~ ~ I ~.~!".I I I ,II ~11 1 )1. I 111 {~ o pal I III ~ I `~l~' III i{I Il I l t 1 e o 11 1 I /r7r .~I. l I~1' l,.,I ~,1I~11 )).)))~~.II III o t~ ~~.~I t). c ~> ~I .335 ~I~ { `~ II' I')I,hm PI \' 'I'll ~. .1. ~,. ii, \~ ~ '111.1'.11.. '1 ,1 ~ 1~ ~ IrI I 1 I~ 1 Il\ /~ Il I/ 1 11 X11 ~ ll~~)11111 ~e.l ,~/~~ . I 11 I III '1 I m' (! ~ , I I )d I,n it Il. '. ,m~ ~ I 1 ; u l 1 o '` I t 1 I~~I ~ y it 11 ~ 1) YII . ~ ' 1 ~ ~ I I C a1' ~ ,. .I ~ p r Iw n,.l~^~I~ III II)'~~ 1 ~1 ~) l)I I~ ,1\1t1~~ `I ~1 I I 14w1 t ` 1 lI ~t r,, 1 1(11111 ~~I~~ Ii~1Y, 11 ~I,ry 111 ~.,~~~/~1 I ",. r'i l~'1'I'1 t1~ I Ill I~ a 1~ ~. li, i( ~ ~~: ~ I~ 480 X00 ~~I' I II ~ ~ ~ M. ~dl .) 1~A`~~~ F~~~~ ~ II~) ~I hill ll a ~I~~I.1. ~~~ I{~ ~~ 111111,~1~ 4 V °~~111~ ir~ Qncrs 11{} ~;~ ~' ~ ~I / t 11', \ ~PO ~ l,ll (: 1 ~ll~~~i ro.m ~ ,t,i I Po .s:.'~ ,~34 I { ~I , I . ~ iy'1` 'j ~~ ~ ° ~ ~~ I I1 I1 ~ G '' u . ; , ~~,I 1 l~l~ll ) 1 Il~~l~? ~ ~~~~ ~ I~ ,., l I Il~o'I 11 I~~~",)) 11'l~~ ~e1~~1 ' 1,1, •. I~/ 1 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Cobrado 81611 (303) 920-5090 2-7 3 S- 2 6 ~~ 00 -~d LAND USE APPLICATION FEES CITY: -63250.134 GMP/Conceptual -63270-136 GMP/Final X3280-137 SUB/Conceptual -63300.139 SUB/Final -63310-140 All-2 Step Applications -63320-141 All 1 Step Applicaticns -63330-150 Staff Approval -63432-157 Zoning Plan Check -63432-157 Sign Permit -00100-00000-31070 Use Tax for Sign Permits HISTORIC PRESERVATION: -63335-151 Exemption -63336-152 Misr -63337-153 Major Devel. -63338-154 Sign'rf. Devel. -63339-155 Demol@lon COUNTY: -63160-126 GMP/General -63170-127 GMP/Detailed X3180-128 GMP/Final -63190.129 SUB/General -63200-130 SUB/Detailed X3210-131 SUB/Final -63220-132 All 2 Step Applications -63230-133 All 1 Step Applications -63240-149 Staff Approval -63450-146 Board of Adjustment ~7. C D -63235-148 Zoning Plan Check REFERRAL FEES: -63360-143 Engineering-County 00115 -63340-163 Engineering-City 00123 -63340-190 Housing 00125 -63340-205 EnvironmentalHeakh PLANNING OFFICE SALES: -63080-122 County Code -69000-145 Other (Copy Fees) TOTAL ~ 2. ~ b ' I Name: Ja-~' ~(,~-~ 1 I'1 ~ O - 3 3 9 ~ -~~ ~ pnune: - Address: / ! ? S ~ ,Sb1.Lh~ prcjeet: C(' 3 ' 30 Check #: ~! -Date: ' ~ , No of Copies: - / ~''< COUNTY OF PITKIN ) STATE OF COLORADO ) AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY POSTING OF A VARIANCE HEARING BEFORE THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says as follows: ~_ I, Craig Dance, representing an Applicant before the Pitkin County Board of Adjustment, personally certifies that I posted the signs prepared by the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office signifying Notice of the variance hearing on this matter in conspicuous places on both subject properties, that owned by Roscomare, Ltd. and that owned by Midranch Holdings, Lots 15 and 16 of the Castle Creek Valley Ranch (and the signs may both be seen from the nearest public way, Midnight Mine Road) and that said signs were posted and visible continuously from the 27th day of August through the date of this Affidavit, September =~- , 1993 (indicating they were posted at least nine (9) full days before the hearing date). Affiant's Sig ture k ~, //S~~u~~bscribed and sworn to before me this ~ f day of ~_"l'~` `~'", by taC R. (-~-~.tr WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. ' My Commission F~tpiros 12-2&98 My.,Commission expi es: Notary Pn ' ' Sign r n4A ~ 41(c~ ...a ~~~a ~ ... ~~`~ ~~ ~~ cr~a~, ~~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ odd ~a~~ ~ dab J ao~ in~`~~N ~a~ ,~e'~ d~ .~ c~ I + i i ~. ,' { ~ ' ' ~ ~ ' ' i;~'~ ' ~~ aa~~ ~ i i ,~ ~~ i ~~ i e ~ i ~ ~~~~ f ~ ~ ~i 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~, `\ `~ nt \ ~ icy ~ ~ ` 1~ ' C I. ~ \~ ~ 1`~~0~ i j i ,~_. ~- I~bo/s / a,~ cuaoa~o~ ~ '' ~ k~ . ~ ~~ ~I ~L07 n ! i ~ ~ ~ i ~ Yj ~> : a.. ` ~ ~~ ~.' ,~~ \ ~i ~ ' ~ I €~~~ ~ ~. -f'.~d z~~•rz 9I ~~L~07 r ~/ wr aw ss~v .or\ i - i - ---~ \/ ~ i ~- i ~ ' ' i ~ I V I I f _ ` i ~' ~' ~~roa1 ~ ` ,~ , ,, ~` ' i ,' . ~~ ' ' / -~ y ~~ . ~~~ ~' .' ~~ w•~ t ~. `, .~,: h M u h • :~~r1f ;ry .. d"' t +'~ r '+', ~~" ~ i~ ~ _ . ~ i ~q ,tea ~? _, '. w .ac ~~ ~`~ • t '~ -:f -~'8 t Y• ,thy F z . ~~v~n yy fr ~ 3~'Y~ IkifYj ~ ~ ~, ~ ~. ;' S~ A A7r 4 d ~' 3v-.. t .l't : ~: ~ ~~ ~ • - . , q.^a isz rS~ ~:.. ' ~ ~,a. ~f ~p ~. TrS ~. .; ,. ~MIM.tlA tea :~ ~~ 3' i r i i ~ ~ r~ i 1 ~ ' /i I' ' i ~ i 1 ~~'~~ ~- ~'~ ~_, `: r ~ r st.~ .. ~w•~.~ . _ ~., s ~ ~ ~a ~ ~ '~ .s -~ ;~i_ ~. '~ 1 ~ 89P.RU lif A '~' ~~2~ ~~~[• , GDJUS~MENt • ;. 1='<. :i .:~o~~~11 i~ ~1~ :~A; i `~ ;~ }~ r~ ~ s1'~ ` • . 1 _~ ^`~ ~~ ~b 7 }~ ~ w !'~ ~. j e. ~ - ? R •' ..~ _t yak , ~ e ~-,~ ~ 1 ~~~•~ ~ .. Win. , ,~ ,, _ ~,~ t •-,•' ~#~ ,.' ii ~' - ~ ~ ~ ,~ i _ ~ ~i ; 3 _ t , _ ~" ^. ~A. .. ' ~ 1' 4~~/. •~~ 1 ~'~ ~: r f #362166 10/lf;/93 11• Fec ~.C~O Bk.: 727 PG 262 • Silvia Davis, F~itf::in Cnty Clerk:, Doc ?+.i~i~ RESOLUTION OF THE PITRIN COUNTY, COLORADO HOARD OF ADJIISTMENT GRANTING SETHACR RELIEF FOR ROSCOMARE, LTD. AND MIDRANCH HOLDINGS, INC. RESOLUTION NO. 93-30 WHEREAS, Roscomare, Ltd, owner of Lot 16, Castle Creek Valley Ranch, and Midranch Holdings, Inc., owner of Lot 15, Castle Creek Valley Ranch, are requesting approval for setback variances, for construction of an avalanche deflection wall between the two lots; 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 setback variances be granted for construction of an avalanche deflection wall, due to the unusual danger presented by the topographical situation above the lots, as per the plans submitted (Exhibit "B"). WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. OODU25 #362166 1~j/18/93 11~ Fec ~.C>0 Bk: 727 PG 263 • Silvia Davis, F'it4::in -nty Clerk:, Doc $.Oc~ Resolution No. 93-30 Page 2 The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: September 7, 1993 ATTEST: Suza a L. Wolff, Secretary o~~Q~.~ The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado • #36166 1~?/18/93 11:• F:ec 5.~~~> PI:: 727 FG 264 • Silvia Davis, Fit4::in ,..nty C1erL:, Doc $.~?~? EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description for property owned by ROSCOMARE, LTD Lot 16 Castle Creek Valley Ranch and MIDRANCH HOLDINGS, INC. LOT 15 Castle Creek Valley Ranch Pitkin County, Colorado ~0~~~7 ~~//~~~4 //' i r / ( ~ ~ ~j / I '•~ r ~~~ i; ` / / / I I , , ~ ' I ~ ; t i, d ~ ,' ~ % ~ ' ~ •o ~ i' i ' ~ /1 ~ ;% /' / A /~ __• /w /J~ ( 11(3 0 446.7_ x ; J / OBJ a OBJ 1' 45 OBJ f to S i ~ ~a p ~ v // ~ i, i/ ~ l ~ ~I (/ ~/ ~x r N 4` y ~ ~ i~~ ~ U ~ ~ j~ri. ~ ~ ~ it ~~ ~ 1 r, -- ~ ,: I , ,I t ~ ~ ~ lIl iJ~' i +~' I `` ct f8507.8~`'• r , N ~ ., t~ `\ ~ ~o j J ~ ~ ~'~ ti ~i r; ,i lk , ~ ~~' 84 .8 8458.1 3 \ ~ ~ ~ ,~„ ~ t f ~//mow o, LoT ` /~ ~ I (~I o I fiGURB 1. Position and oricntalion of the spliUing wcdgc above the Sloan hnusc. Locations ~' ~ :' _ of the "north wing" scctions (N1, N2, and N3) and the "south wing" scctions (S1, S2, and S3) ~ ",~ .\ arc shown here; section views arc in Pigures 2 and 3. i .\ scnt.e: r' = so' `\~~ ~ -., 000028 • , I 11 .....-= Prope/fy ~iVie ~~, ~' _'' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to Pitkin County Zoning Resolution of June 5, 1955, as amended, a Public Hearing will be held in the District Courtroom, Pitkin County Court House, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such other place as the meeting may then be adjourned) to consider an application filed wtth the said Boazd of Adjustment requesting authonty 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 opintons 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, September 7, 1993; 5:15 P.M. Council Chambers, City Hall Lowry Trust: requesting approval fora 70' front yazd setback variance and a 17' reaz yazd setback variance, where 100' and 30', respectively, aze required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a single family residence. Property Location: Lots 37 & 38, Crystal River Park. Roscomare, Ltd: requesting approval for setback variances for construction of an avalanche deflection wall between Lots 15 & 16. Property Location: Lots 15 & 16, Castle Creek Valley Ranch. Bradley, Ed requesting approval fora 36' front yard setback variance, where 100' is required in the AF- 1 zone district, for an addition to a single family residence. Property Location: 646 Twining Flats Road; Township 9 South, Range 85 West of the 6th PM, Section 16, part of lots 4 & 5. Swersky, David: requesting approval fora 100' front yard setback variance and a 22' NW side yard setback variance, where 100' and 30', respectively, are requrred in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a detached garage. Property Location: 4076 Lower River Road; Township 9 South, Range 85 West of the 6th PM, Section 6, part of Lot 7. Kelso, Suzanne Pfister: requesting approval fora 61' front yard setback variance, where 100' is required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a barn. Property Location: Tract 2, West Buttermilk Pfister Tracts. Chester, Robert & Larson, Nancy: requesting approval fora 10' south side yard setback variance, where 30' is required in the AF-1 zone district, to remodel an existing deck. Property Location: Lot 21, Block 2, Filing 2, Brush Creek Village. Submitted to the Aspen Times on August 24, 1993. To Be Published in the Aspen Times August 27, 1993. County PO #301003 000(J?9 r 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. li & 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 93-11. 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 OOOU30 r ~ 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 movedlto 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. Case 93-20 William and Barbara Howell Lot 3 Block 3 Filina 2 Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Subdivision 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 Lowry Trust, Lots 37 & 38. Crystal 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. 2 000~~`;1 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. 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 00~~~~ 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 Bradley 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 OUOU33 • 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 93-343 Suzanne 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 (y ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE • 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303)920-5090 2 / 3 5 - b I- cc• -Ce; LAND USE APPLICATION FEES cITY: -63250-134 GMP/Conceptual -63270-136 GMP/Final -63280-137 SUB/Conceptual -63300-139 SUB/Final -63310-140 All-2 Step Applications -63320-141 All 1 Step Applications -63330-150 Staff Approval -63432-157 Zoning Plan Check -63432-157 Sign Permit -00100-00000-31070 Use Tax for Sign Permits HISTORIC PRESERVATION: -63335-151 Exemption -63336-152 Minor -63337-153 Major Devel. -63338-154 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 i Step Applications -63240-149 Staff Approval -63450-146 Board of Adjustment S7.O D -63235-146 Zoning Plan Check REFERRAL FEES: -63360-143 Engineering-County 00115 -63340-163 Engineering -City 00123 -63340-190 Housing 00125 -63340-205 Environmental Health PLANNING OFFICE SALES: -63080-122 County Code n n ~ (~ 7 -69000-145 Other (Copy Fees) TOTAL Z . O b `7 r / Name: /Q.N,f I ~-t¢.~ ~l~~n< <-~h~1D--y~ Phone: ~ /~ - 3 3 Address: ~ S ~ Sb1.(-~'~~ Project: ~ 3 - 3U Check #: Date: - ~ No of Copies: -