Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.91.44e. ,. ~, ;,;. _.._ .._ .... ,. ~. .a • >. t ~; PITKTIT COIIN'1`Y BOARD OF ADJD'STMENT DATE _, _~_,September 6, 1991 CASE # ~"L! -`7 y APPLICANT Caudill Gustafson Ross ~ ova, PHONE 925-3383 MAILING ADISRESS 234 East Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 81611 OF7NER R.R.F. Corporation PHONE 925-9591. MAILING ADDRESS P.o. Box 4282, Aspen, Colorado 81612 LOCATION OF PROPERTY 0960 Castle Creeek Road, Pitkin County, Colorado 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 /~/~.--_.-~-._..:~--~ v oce.seava_=..~ao=se~~~-e~veea _e=°ves~eao=Ca=_____a=~e=a~a~be=~ooa~:~.. (To be completed by the Zoning Department) Provisions of the_zoning resolution requiring the Zoning Official to forward this application to the Hoard of Adjustment, and reasons for not granting a building permit: F"/ zone District Requesting: ~ozl' .Lot Size (9~ ' Front Yard Setback Variance, where /SLe 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: Hardship: Resolution to Building when Completed Yes I-I No Zoning Officiate ~ ~ // i Application filed ~ /~/ Date ~8 Notices mailed ~'~D` l Parcel ID #©'~? 3~-~ 3<~ ~"01~ Secar~tary _ ~' a >¢,~~ ~, 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 Ha 1, Frst`~'loor; Asperi; Colorado (or at such gther 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 Zohing Resolution. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. THE PARTICULARS OF THE HEARING AND OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE ARE AS FOLLOWS: Date and time of meeting: Owner° Name and Address of Applicant: Property Location or Description' October 1, 1991 City Hall, 2nd Floor Meeting Room R.R.F. Corporation .(Furman) Caudill Gustafson Ross 234 East Hopkins Aspen, CO 81611 0960 Castle Creek Road Parcel 3, Beatrice Blacer M.S. #11426 Requesting approval for a 64 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the AF-1 zone district for uction of a proposed addition to a single-family residence. Approval of this., variance would place 'the proposed addition 36 feet from the front yard property line. 9ARIANCEB GREATER OR LE6'8`THAN REQUESTED 'COULD BS'GRANTED. Duration of Variance: Temporary Permanent X THE P~TKIN COUNT BO~F ADJUSTNTENT GJ 2= ~~~ Cindy L Christensen, Secretary Q k. ~ 5 {y Y ~. µf;. w September 6, 1991 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Request for Variance in Setback -Furman Residence Addition Q The applicant hereby requests a variance from the 100 foot setback to allow for the construction of an addition td an existing Residence. A variance was approved in 1977 allowing for construction of the original house within this setback. In this case as well as in the previous request the variance is requested due to the fact that the buildable portion of the site is on a bench within the 100 foot setback from the front property line and the remainder of the site drops off severely down to the flood plain adjacent to castle creek. The proposed 1028 S.F. Addition is a one story extension of the lower level at the south west corner of the existing residence. The proposed Addition will be a permanent extension of the original house already allowed within the setback and will be located on the only logical remaining buildable portion of the site. Due to its relationship wRh the existing Residence, overall Architectural design compatibility, and its location on the sfte below the road the addition will have a minimal visual impact. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, CAUDILI G ON ROSS & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS, P.C. /~------ Gary s AIA CAUOILL GUSTAFSON ROSS 6 ASSOCIATES oRCHITECTS, P C_ R.O. BOX FF ASREN, COLORA00 $1692 303-925-3383 List of adjacent property owners to Furman Residence: Music Associates of Aspen Box AA Aspen, Colorado 81612 BLM land' across Castle Creek Edward Wachs Boz 405 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Leonard V1/aldbaum Suite 904 303 E. 17th St. Denver, Colorado 80203 ,--, September 6, 1991 Aspen/Pitkin County Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 The undersigned is the owner of the Residence at 0960 Castle Creek Road and is aware of and has no objection to the variance request from the Board of Adjustments. The undersigned also gives full authorization for Caudill Gustafson Ross & Associates Architects, P.C. to represent him in this matter. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 4 R~~ Richard Furm n ~ ~~ ~~ List of adjacent property owners to Furman Residence Music Associates of Aspen Box AA Aspen, Colorado 81612 BLM land across Castle Creek Edward Wachs Box 405 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Leonard Waldbaum Suite 904 303 E. 17th $t. Denver, Colorado 80203 ~~r~>ritm': u~ -.~,_---- ~.. M ._M,~,.. ~ , ,~ ;~ ,; oaiiBrt •n~ Owners: R.R:F, Corporation Richard and Rosemary Furman P.O: Box 4284 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Property Location: 0960 Castle Creek Road Legal Description: Parcel 3 Beatrice Placer M,,S. No. 1:1426 Pitkin County, Colorado s. ~ea„~t9~'u*k ~; Vicinity Map Furman Residence_Addtioh Request forVariance Aspen on Highway 82 to the Castle Creek Road,.Tumoff,_ p 1 Follow Caste Crelek Roadda(verowest out of. pp 'mately 1/2 mile past hospital'turtioff. Take access road to Music.,. ,_ School off to the Left grid then take first left to subject property. Sign for variance will be located.at School Road'ancj Castle Creek Read as noted below intersection of Music , ,, ,, w- _ ~„ .,.. - ;~ x _, r . :.. -. a . - .. ... ,a ~ ~~, -_ . , .,:~„~:~ ~ r, 'PEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE - 730 South Galena Street ~ Aspen; Colorado 07671 .(303) 920-5090 ' r LAND.USE, APPLICATION FEES City 00713 -63250-134 GMP~ X3270-736 GMP, -63280-137 SUB/ -63300=139 SUB/ ' -63310-740 ACC1 F>3320-741 ALL ,. ... ('(iNl EPTUAL - ;- ,,, ~ APPLICATIONS ~ ~' ~ APPLICATIONS/ AGENDA ITEMS REFERRAL FEES;. 00125 -63340205 ENVIFONMENTALHEALTH '~ 00123 -63340-190 HOUSING" 00115 -63340-163 ENGINEERING SUBTOTAL County 00113 ~31B0-126 -63170-127 -63180-128 -63190-129 -632b0-130 -63210-131 $3220-132 -63230-133 C i7 ~ ~ -63450-146 ~' i7EFEFRALFEES: ~ ' ~ 00125 -63340 205 ENVIRONMENTAL~HEALTH ~~ ~ 00123 -833'40-190 HOUSING _ 00113 ' -63360-143 ENGINEERING ' PLANNING OFFI CE SALES _ 00113'' -63080-122 CITY/COUNTYCODE -63090-123 COMP:PLAN -63140-124 COPY FEES -69000-145 OTHER ' SUBTOTAL TOTAL ~ ~~ Name: ~~ U C, l n 1 ~ '1!S ~ Q~ St5 T 7 Phone: x' 3 5 ~~ 3 i ~ -l Address: hc.~(, a ~ t f /-i_~ T~ _ ~. _ 7 Project: h y f ~~1 Q t i -. rx.; ~ %/- ~/~% Check #..~ ~ ~ ,. _,._ Date:...... ~ Y/ Additional billing: #of Hours: .. ,... ,.. ,. r;., ~~-_... ~. r .,- w .. e, sn :x. County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY } ss. POSTING OF A VARIANCE HEARING State of Colorado } BEFORE THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says as follows: I~ Gary Ross being or representing an Applicant before the Pitkin County Board of Adjustment, personally certify that the attached photograph fairly and accurately represents the sign posted as Notice of the variance hearing on this matter in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the 22nd day of September , 19 91 , to the 1st day of Octobef , 19.91 . (Must be posted for at least nine (9) full days before the .~ hearing date) . ,-'~ -~~ ...... _ A cant's signature `. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 22nd day of Se~,tember , 19 91 by Gary Ross WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. My Commission expires:~~~i '~ /,1 ' ~TNotary Public's Signature Adc),r ss ~ ~ / ~ ~ ) ~ ~~~ / w 164 , y # .,r 885 10/28/91 16:42 Rec,~.C10 BK 660 F'G 'Silvia Davis, Pit4kn City Clerk, Doc ~.VO, RESOLUTION OF THE PITRIN COUNTY, COLORADO BOARD OF ADJIISTMENT GRANTING SETBACR'RELhEF FOR R.R.F. CORPORATIbN ' RESOLUTION NO. 91-44 WHEREAS, R.R.F. Corporation (Furman), owner of a tract of land situated at Parcel 3, Beatrice Placer M.S. X11426, requests a 64 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a proposed addition to a single-family residence; and WHEREAS the Pitkin Count sub}ect property is within the unincorporated area of y, Colorado, (as described in Exhibit "A", attached); and, WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment is vested with the power to grant or deny such variances by virtue of Title II, Section 16-1.3, Pitkin County Code {Land Use Code) and Colorado Revised Statutes, 1973, 30-28=118(2) (C); and, WHEREAS, based on the evidence presented, the Board of Adjustment makes the following findings: 1. Proper notice ,procedures, including the notification of all adjoining property owners, has been shown 'by the applicant. 2. The required hardship or practical difficulty has been established. 3. Granting such relief will not cause substan- tial detriment to the public welfare and will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Zoning Resolutions and the zoning maps. NOW, THEREFORE., BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment, that a 64 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required, for construction of a proposed addition to a single-family residence, be granted due to topographical hardships, as per the plans submitted. (Exhibit "B"). WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. \ \ \ Q \ 4 \ ,. ~1 '. ' ,-,. #~3i$8v Lia?s~91 16:42 Fec ~.Otl BK bE~'PG 167 Silvia Davis, Pit4::in Cnty Clerk, Doc ~.OG r \ 1\ ~, a ~,. ~~, ~ _ ` Q ` Cl \ ~ l7 7~ \ e~ ~ Or ~. .1 \ ~. !. S : ~ ~ \ •~, t .o . 1 ~ ~ ~ '. 1 ~ \ v 1. ~ 1 ~ \ •, . \: ._ i l `': I .11:.1 ~ l y lt'.` 1 ~ .1 ZZ "" ! K t I „t \ r r ~t I >' ~:' i 1 ~ t ~ 11 i ~nn~~d o1 •wal f t. ~ 1111 1~ 0 1 i~ lei t~ j ~' 11'.1 I .' I io~~ ~ `' ,, 1 / ,~,,1; ; I ~\ 1 ~ e 1 1 ;~: Q:' ~ 4 ' 1 D1 l!~ i 4 1~ I } `~, 1'•~`'' S `. 1 t q. 1 1 1 1 - , .t '~ ~ 1 a ' ~ ~ PF~+ .. ,,1 m O *x \' u Q :iC' K - . )~ ,',. t ' .. f, i .: +• TO amendedr a p b to Pitkin County .Zoning Resolution of June 5, 1955, as lic Hearing will be Held in the~Dis~rict 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 tYe County zoning Resolution. and stat persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear e their views protests, oY objections. Tf you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by letter, ~tarticularly 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 VARSANCE GREATER T$14N O`It LEES THAN TEAT` YYEQU~''b'1'Eb CO~D~ $~'.d ~~iTE1) 'v ." `. ,i .:. „- .~ ,. .. r~ ~,- ~. DATE AND 'l2ME bF 'MEET`N'G Oc'~ober 1; " 1991" at , 5:15 p': m. ~ ~ ' ~' 'City'"Ea1T; 2~n3`Flbor Meeting Room varia~gh~~ Dale & Sharon: requesting a 37 foot front yard setback nce 'where 100 feet is required 'in the R5-2'0 zone district for g ~ f a proposed addition to a single-family pesidence. Pro ert Locat Ranper85tf+7est o on• Lots 2 19 and 20 of Section 9 Townshi 9 South; Lackey, Mary Ellen: requesting a 30 foot northeast side yard setback variance, where 50 feet is required in the RS-20 zone district for construction of a proposed addition to a barn. Property Location: Tract 5, White Star Ranch. R.R.F. Corporation (Furman): variance, where 100 feet is construction of a proposed Property Location: Parcel 3, as 0960 Castle 'Creek Road. Croft, Richard ~ Jennifer:~requestng a 25 foot north side yard setback variance, where 50 feet is re wired in the RS-30 zone district fo on of a ro osed residential ara e. Pro ert Location: Gatewaucto p P, ng 3, Block 1, Lot 8. P y , r y Snowmass Mesa Fil fordconstrhomas, R.9 requesting a 40 fog ~ uction of a proposed addition a 61 foot front yard setback variance f residential garage, and a 50 foot fro construction of a proposed gazebo, where in the RS-30 zone district. Property Terrace. requesting a 64 foot front,,. yard setback required in the AF-1 zone district, for addition' to a single-family residence. Beatr~,ce Placer M.S. No. 11426, also known ~t front yard setback variance to a single-family residence, or construction of a proposed ~t yard setback variance for 100 feet is required for each Location: Lot 16, Shield-O- d-y Brinkman, Deanna: requesting a 65 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in th RS-20 zone district, for construction of a proposed addition to a single-family residence. Property Location: Lot 9, Block 2, White Horse Springs, also known as 0653 Trentaz Drive. Guber, Peter: requesting a 10 foot height variance, where 12 feet is required per the Pitkin County Land Use Code, for construction of a proposed ranch gate. Property Location: 2100 Owl Creek Road. Horning, Joe 8 Lynne: requesting an 80 fcot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a deck. Property Location: Maroon Creek Ranch Subdivision, Parcel No. 2, also known as 2065 Maroon Creek Road. Pitkin County Airport: requesting a height variance to allow for a 55 foot high beacon. Also requesting a 2 foot height variance; a 30 foot front yard setback variance; a 10 foot .north side yard setback variance; a 10 foot south side yard setback variance; a 10 foot rear yard setback variance; a 50 foot major road setback variance and a 100 foot Highway 82 setback variance, where 30 feet, 10 feet and 10 feet are required for the front yard, both side yards and rear yard, respectively, in the PUB zone district, and where 50 feet and 100 feet are required for'the major road setback variance and the Highway 82 setback per the Pitkin County Land Use Code, for the erection of an electric fence required to meet FAA requirements. Property Location: Sardy Field off of highway 82. Submitted to the Aspen Times on September 17, 1991. To Be Published in the Aspen Times September 19, 1991. County PO # Members Present: Kandi Shaffrari,''Chairman Rick Neiley ..,,_ ; Evan GuII ' John Wheeler Ted Guy Members Absent: Stan Mathis Rod Dyer Staff: Joanna"Schaffner, Zoning Enforcement Officer Shaffran opened the meeting at 5:15 p: m` and introduced the Board ,_ to those present. Dale Dillingham wa~p~~~ent °to request a 37~ foot front yard setback variance, where l00 feet is required in the`Y2S-20 none district, for construction of an addition to a single-family residence:'' Dillingham explained the history 'of the home. The`home was'biilt in 1950, before th`e zoning regulations. Dillingham "submitted two Setters from adjacent property owners, Howa'r`d 'r7agneur and David Hoff, supporting his'requast. " Sha'ffran asked for public comment and there was none. `` Gull moved to grant a 37 fpot front yard setback variance for the proposed addition, as per the plans submitted, due to downzoning. Shaffran seconded the motion and all were in favor. (Rick'Neiley was not present during this case.f" Motion passed. Case #91-45 Croft Richard & Jen'n"ifer Lot 8 Block 1 " Filing 3 Gateway to Sriowma'es" 1~Iesa "` ' Richard `Croft"was'" »reseht 'tb request a 25 foot north side yard dstr r _ istruction of a Croft briefed the Board on the pre~e the driveway and the topography of stated"that' the house"was built ab~ setbacks were required. Croft "alp location for the garage is the only "1e would not require removing trees and =ntial garage. it location of the house and Cie surrounding land"' Croft ut 15 years ago before the > `stated that the proposed ... gel spots on ~t~i"e property that vegetation. 1 .~ "', L' Shaffran asked if there was any public comment. Rob Weien, adjacent neighbor, was present to comment on this case. Weien stated that there is not a legal survey of this land and that he believes the property line is not accurately shown. Weien's major objection is the location of the property line, which the Board has no control over. There was further discussion on the location of the property line. Shaffran stated that the variance would be made from the legal property line. If the property line on the plans is inaccurate, then the 25 foot request would be from the correct property line. Neiley asked Croft if the proposed garage would be any closer to the north property line than the existing house. Croft stated that it would not. Croft stated that he would be building on the driveway that is presently on the property. Croft also stated that he has already received approval from the Homeowner's Association Architectural Review Committee. Shaffran stated that the Gateway of Snowmass covenant requires a 20 foot side yard setback variance. Schaffner stated that no matter where the property line is determined to be, the garage cannot be built any further into the setback then what would be granted by the Board. Weien stated that he does not see how a judgment can be made on the impact without knowing where the accurate property line is located. Weien had a further objection to what the garage is to be built upon. Weien believed it to be fill and the garage would be built too high. Jim Atchison, the builder, stated that what is to be built on is granular road base that has been in place for over 15 years and the garage is to be 14 feet to the peak, which would barely clear the trees in the back. Guy stated that he sees what Weien's objection is, but that the hardship the Board is looking at is that this subdivision was approved years ago with certain minimum standards, the property has been downzoned since then, and blocking somebody's view is not grounds to deny the variance. Croft has a real hardship in this case because of the downzoning. He is asking for a variance that is less than what the Board would probably grant under the standards used previously in this subdivision. After further discussion, Guy moved to grant a 25 foot north side yard setback variance where 100 feet is required, for construction of a residential garage, as shown on the plans submitted and after the north property boundary has been staked, or the property corner found and marked, so that a true determination can be made as to where the 25 foot setback should be marked, due to downzoning. Wheeler seconded the motion and all were in favor. Motion passed. 2 For the next case, Ted Guy had to ,,.my'~^. ~. ~ + abstain so he left the room. addition to oari ex Rt~.ng b me distri t,,a for cconstruction f of an Olson showed on the plans submitted exactly where the encroachment stated that this ris the barn thatlthe Bti rd d ~ a sit ~visitaonnin 1989 when it was originally built on ~'aii""~cott's" land. "" ' Shaffran asked for public comment and there was none. Olson stated that they are encroaching an additional 4 feet" into' __,: _.., the side yard setback. After further discussion, Neiley made~a°inotion to grant a'30 foot ~r ~, 1 northeast side yard~`setback variance,-where 50 feet. is required, for construction of an addition to an existing barn; due to Motiontpassed.affran seconded tie inotionuandl allrwexee in fadore ', John Wheeler had to abstain from'the nett"case, and left the room.', Ted Gnjr'"'r"~2=entered the loom. .. Roy•Parsons was present representing the owner to request a 64 foot front`yard setback variance', where"100 feet is required in the"AF-' single-famlvlresidenceonstruction of a pY`oposed addition to a, Shaffran read to the. Board the previous case requesting a 50 foot' v r is fiance, which was approved. Neiley stated that the characteristics of the property have not changed 'and the topography' ' still the sable. This would be a single-story addition and would not be seen from the road. Shaffran asked for public comment and there was none. After further discussion, Guy made a motion to grant a 64 foot front yard setback dariance, where 100 feet is required in the AF- 1 zone''district, due to topographical hardships, as sliown'"oii'the' plans submitted. Neiley seconded the motion and it passed with 'all in favor. ._. ~ , r , .... ~;. g,.u, ~,:. John Wheeler re-entered"the robin"for the rest of"tl`ie meetn 3 .,: _ w ...r .,.._.._ ,~. Case #91-46, Gardner. Thomas R., Lot 16, Shield-O-Terrace Thomas Gardner was present to request a 40 foot front yard setback variance for construction of a proposed addition, a 61 foot front yard setback variance for construction of a garage and a 50 foot front yard setback variance for construction of a gazebo to cover two septic tank covers. The front yard setback requirement in the RS-30 zone district is 100 feet. Gardner received approval for a ridgeline review by the Planning and Zoning Commission in September 1991. Schaffner stated that Gardner is looking for three variances. The Board can review them all together or individually. Shaffran asked if anyone was present for public comment and there was not. Gardner stated that the angle of the garage has been changed to the original position of what he had requested in Case No. 90-47. The garage is to be parallel to the road. After further discussion, Guy moved to grant a 40 foot front yard setback variance for construction of an addition to a single- family residence, a 61 foot front yard setback variance for construction of a proposed garage, and a 50 foot front yard setback variance for construction of a gazebo, where 100 feet is the front yard setback requirement, due to topographical hardships. Gull seconded the motion and all, were in favor, with Neiley voting no for the garage. Motion passed. Deanna Brinkman was present to request a 65 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the RS-20 zohe district, for construction of a proposed addition to a single-family residence. A Minor 1041 Hazard Review has been completed for the proposed addition. Brinkman submitted additional photographs showing that her house is not visible from the road. Shaffran asked if there was any public comment and there was none. Wayne Poulson, architect for Brinkman, was also present. The house was built in 1972 and is very unobtrusive. This would be a one- story addition. After a brief discussion, Shaffran made a motion to grant a 65 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the RS- 20 zone district, for construction of a proposed addition to a single-family residence, due to downzoning, as per the plans 4 ,. Ate'. ` j submitted. Guy seconded the motion and four. were in favor ,with Gull o osing. Motion passed. ` pP a 10 foot height variance, 'where 12 lei Comnty"Land Use Code for accessory str a ranch gate. schlumberger stated that Guber wants anothe'r` location." Shaffran asked how a variance.^' tCl.Cl. VLLLC1 ~ l.V 1CljUCal. required per the'Pitkin res; for construction of to move an existing gate to it was built before, without comment and there was none. ng to 'do was to disassemble the top part will come off and ghat wll'`b~`"'"reused. The stone , pillars will be new.' Sahlumberger' briefed the '$'oard on the new location for the ranch gate. Frtim the center bf "Owl L~"reek Road, it is to be, 140 feet back,.,. ,. ,. . It was further stated that this parcel is between 800`arid 900 ° acres. Neley stated that he has no"pfoblem with ranch gates. After further-discussion, Guy moved to grant a height variance for the nets proposed ranch gate Being no higher tFian~the existing ranch gate, and Wheeler aiaended this motion where the bottom'®f the "Y" on the name of the ranch (Mandalay) is 13 feet 6 inches from natural grade, due to Code conflict with the Fire Code." Wheeler .. sortioha econ&ec' the amended ofu~thep mr t' on and mfourn were' ~ in A f ~ µ.. 0 osin Motion avor_ with, Shaffran pp g. passed. 80 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required. in the AF=1 2bii'e"district, for coris~ruction of a proposed deck. aa20 foot seed that the FTornings were given approval to build with tback as" ' °"""~ "" ° per Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 80-25. It was discovered that the applicant did not go to the Board of Adjustment `to obtain this variance.` Warner''stated that they want this motion to take care of two things. First, to be able to build a deck` and` also to" es`talilsh x~xr~,. , ,. ~ ..._ the 20, foot setback that ever"yorie bel`ievec~ existed:" Guy asked Warner if the deck was part of the original building permit.. Warner stated that it was, but a different shape. This will be an above-grade deck-. ~ ' 5 ~--, ~->.. Shaffran asked if there was any one from the public to comment on this case. There was none. Guy made a motion to grant an 80 foot front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required, for construction of a proposed deck, due to downzoning and topographical hardship, as per the plans submitted. Neiley seconded the motion and all were in favor. Motion passed. Scott Smith, Director of Aviation at the Pitkin County Airport, was present to request a height variance to allow for a 55 foot high beacon. Also being requested is a 2 foot height variance; a 30 foot front yard setback variance; a l0 foot north side yard setback variance; a 10 foot south side yard setback variance; a 10 foot rear yard setback variance; a 50 foot major road setback variance and a 100 foot Highway 82 setback variance, where 30 feet, 10 feet and 10 feet are required for the front yard, both side yards and rear yard, respectively, in the PUB zone district, and where 50 feet and 100 feet are required for the major road setback and the Highway 82 setback per the Pitkin County Land Use. Code, for the erection of an electric fence. Smith stated that the FAA has made it mandatory to have a rotating beacon on all airports that want to remain certified. Without this certification, no commercial airline will be able to land at the airport. Toni was present to represent neighbor Elizabeth Paepke. Toni asked Smith where the beacon was to be located.. Smith showed on the plans submitted the proposed location. Shaffran asked Smith how wide the beacon is to be. Smith stated that the circumference of the pole is 27" at the base, shaped like a barber pole, with the top of the pole at approximately 18". Smith stated that the beacon operation will be tied to the runway lights, therefore, the beacon will not be on 24 hours per day. Once the beacon is installed, the specifications call for the engineers to do field testing so that shielding can be accomplished to block the beams from intruding in the windows for the people who have residences on the ridges that surround the Airport. Gull stated that it was his understanding that the Board of Adjustment does not have any jurisdiction in these regulations over governmental agencies any way, and that a governmental agency does not have to fall under the zoning regulations of a particular county. Toni asked Smith if they could contact a property owner and locate the beacon elsewhere. Smith stated that the beacon has to be on airport property so that aircraft can locate the airport. 6 r _: n~ Thishisuusedriftinstrumerit he beacon is for visual use. by aircraft. ' ~ ~ ation features"are not working. Wheeler asked if Smith had gone in front of the`BOCC on'the beacon. Smith stated that formally he has not. Smith''stated't7iat the beacon is approved in the Airport Master plan; in the last amenc7ment.'I't" was requested as part of the Grand Application in April kiy the Chairman of the` BOCC. _ . :. .. ,._ After further discussion on the beacon, Guy made a motion to grant a height variance to allow for a' beacon; witfi the condition that the Board of Coul~Yty Commissioners review and approve the submitted design plans and specifications. Gull seconded the"motion 'and all wex`e in favor. Motion passed. Regarding the necessity of a fence, deer have been hit. Smith stated last winter season,.. but that everyd to go out onto the field to chap Shaffran asked if the electrical f stated'that`the fence will. just shi Smith stated that the fence is to b powered), there will be less gates the question was asked how many that there has been one"strike y employees at the airport have ~' the deer off of the' "runway. once will hurt the deer': Smith ~k them and will not hurt them. 12 strands, electrified (solar han what is presently existing. Guy stated that he doesn't think there needs to be so many strands. .._ .a,r .. . ~,. ... Neiley`asked if the'Dvison of°"Wildlife reviewed the plan design for the fence. Smith stated that ;they have not, but that this type effective as been installed at other airports and has proved to be nd is less expensive. Neiley had to leave the meeting during the discussion, so was unable, to vote. It was"decided by the Board to vote on the beacon and the fence separately. For the fence, Gull made a motion to grant a 2 foot height variance; a 30 foot front yard setbaok variance; a 10 foot north side yard setback variance; a l0 foot south side yard setback variance; a 10 foot rear 'yard setback variance; a 50 foot major road setback variance and a 100 foot Highway 82"setback variance, where 30 feet, SO feet and"10 feet are required for the front yard; both side yards ahd rear yard, respectively, in the PUB zone v submitted.f Guyhseconded the motion and all were insfavor.he plans Motion passed. Smith will review the design of the fence with the Division of Wildlife. ~- ~ :.~ Shaffran moved to approve the minutes of the September 3, 1991 meeting. Gull seconded the motion and all were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~. Cindy L. ristensen, Secretary Kandi Shaf ran, Chairman 8 gd~'~'~~ - r~xk `" + a ryr- { ~ p~.~ .. ~ '... v ~ (/1 r~r- ~qv _ _ ~~~ / ~; l ~~ ~ v: ~~ s sr ,y. ~~ _ ~ ~ D `.~ x „Fay o ~ f~i ¢p ~- .. ~ „~ -y r '' J ~J ~ ~' l •~ w ~ `'' vi` . /' "i .r ~/ l ~,. ~' _ .- t.~ ~Y -'' ,, }~ .J-'' .. ..: ~I .r _ L _ - r~ 1 - - - - _ _ ...- -^' r~^~ _ _._ _ .. ,. •.e _ _ ~ ~ ~ - ._r/l ~ .. -- - ~~ ! .~...~ ~..r r r...- .- -~ _ . - - . _ _- ._ _ };.• _ _ ''S •••tir: c ...: _ L ~ ~.~ •.. ---- ..ao RESIDENCE -,`'~ .~' ~ - - - _ - _.- ~ _-- > - p~olL i ~ ~ - t .: r.~a _ . ~, ! ' ~-~~i ~iF:f~~N JsA~)c_ -~ ~_~1\''` - ~DEGK '~i'J~, 'f mil/ // ~~ . _. _ --. _ .,. _ or.e4r.:'~ `---. -__ °_-• -• _ 65_T6dR12_ C3EGiL_ , ~- .~'~• 6 ' .~ r.; - -.. _.. _-~._ .__ .-ti._.. - '.4` ~: _~` ' ~ "' ~ F ~,:,, A , G ~, ~~ F -P`L D T PLAN ~x~i~I`T" --~ ' _ _ , - ~r - - _ ... _,_ ~~ . 4} 1= S i D~ G l= F N~(2: - ~..._ .. _ r may/ k'UD1Lt~ A~S~OGIATES ARGH1'?EGT~ -`A ZA;-~ -- LY I y}, ~ i ,: r~r , ri: r { ._ .i, i r ~ r ~ .. ~V a __. ~/~' ` <~~ r a 4+. K. p V ~; w r .~! t s fy.,t~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ °. ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ F h,,: 4 r s n ~~ f f r r~~ Y ::x:. } ., ~' . , rx~,_?,?M. '~;` ~,~~ ~ < ~" - .... ... .... nib. ~ i1 `. 'i. -s?v `'fr~`''s~:?>