The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutpitkin.boa.91.45„,; ':,~ `.i+ :..a~,M `w DATE ~y. it t~:, PITdtIN CO~7NTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT September 9, 1991 APPLICANT Richard and Jennifer Croft MAILING ADDRESS 0285 Lighthill Road, OWNER Richard and Jennifer Croft PHONE 925-8700 MAILING ADDRESS 0285 Lighthill Road, Snowmass, Colorado 81654 LOCATION OF PROPERTY 0285 Lighthill Road, Snowmass, Colorado 81654 -~6{~~ g~~ ~ Any pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part of this Case. The Board may return this a~ cation if it does not contain all the f~act^s in question,./ Applicant Signature (To be completed by the Zoning Department) Provisions of the zoning resolution requiring the Zoning Official to forward this application to the Board of Adjustment, and reasons for not granting a building permit: S-3 ~ zone District Requesting: ,1/~ Lot Size ' Front Yard Setback Variance, where ° is required. ' eRee~ar Yard Setback Variance, where ' is required. ~~ ' N 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: Zonin~gy Official~,/~ Application filed - - / Date !~-~ Notices maile,ld ~p Parcel ID #.~!I-Ui'?~',3~3-t~$-'t~o Secretary Resolution to Building when Completed ~°" ,~,_ ; CASE # ~~~ PHONE 925-8700 Snowmass, Colorado 81654 d/ ~_~ 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: October 1, 1991 City Hall, 2nd Floor Meeting Room Richard and Jennifer Croft Richard and Jennifer Croft 0285 Lighthill Road Snowmass, CO 81654 0285 Lighthill Road Lot 8, Block 1 Requesting approval for a 25 foot no~~th side yard setback variance, where 50 feet is required in the RS-30 zone district for construction of a proposed residential garage. Approval of this variance would place the proposed garage 25 feet from the Croft°s north side yard property line. VARIANCES GREATER OR LE88 TEAN REQUESTED COULD BE GRANTED. Duration of Variance: Temporary Permanent X T ~. P#TKIN COUNTY (BOA1j,D~ ADJUSTMENT (// /~^ ~/f/ / a!( 1 istensen, Secretary ? ki' 9 i,q'~ ? t REQUEST FOR VARIANCE AT GATEWAY TO SNOWMASS MESA, FILING 3, BLOCK 1, LOT 8 REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE: This request is for a variance of 25' from the 50' side lot set-back line presently required by Pitkin County'Zoning for the purpose of building a garage. The garage will be built adjacent to the house on the lot which is already located 25' from the side lot line. The garage will measure 20' wide, 24' long, and '13' high, and will be unfinished in its interior, and will not be connected to or contain any provision for electrical service or plumbing. The house which the garage will service was built approximately 15 years ago. The site lay-out was made at that time with the rear of the house. positioned at the north edge of the property at a distance of 25' from t-~e side lot line (in conformity with the deed restrictions and zoning requirements at that time). Fill dirt and site preparation when the house was built created a level space at the northeast corner of the house wh 25' from the side lot line. That s ace has been u ch is also only p sed for parking cars. All other areas, except the driveway to the site, were left in their natural condition with a slope in excess of 30 degrees. We plan to build. the garage in the same :Location as where we presently park our cars. All other areas on the lot have an excessive slope which would prevent any type of stable construction. Our only alternative is to build the garage on the driveway (which has a slope of approximately 15 degrees), which would make construction difficult and expensive, would make access difficult, would require the removal and relocation of the septic tank and drain field pipe, and would block views from the house and entrances into the house. The down-zoning which occurred subsequent to the site planning for this lot now prevents us from putting the garage in the most reasonable location fo,r practical use and aesthetic appeal to us as well as to our neighbors. misc#3.var09061.1 Gateway to 5nowmass Mesa Property Owners Adjacent to Filling 3, Block 1, Lot 8: Filling 3, Block 1, Lot 7: J. Wayne and Bette L. Price Box 10056 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Filling 3, Block 1, Lot 11: Elaine Nancy Saxen 520 Estes Street Lakewood, Colorado 80226 Filling 3, Block 1, Lot 9: J. Robert Weien Box 3506 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Filling 3, Block 4, Lot 3: William and Polly M. Simmons 2505 North Broken Circle Flagstaff, Arizona 86001 Filling 2, Block 4, Lot 1: William E. and Joyce R. Hoffner 0266 Light Hill Road Snowmass, Colorado 81654 Filling 3, Block 4, Lot 1: Joseph S. and Janet L. Raczak 0234 Light Hill Road Snowmass, Colorado 81654 misc.1st09061 /PI7~N, PLANNING OFFICE h Galena ;oloraao slsll 'r~ • dm '°~ ~=b~,~~05 Nort "4`~~~~ a M. to 001 ~ ' ( ~ ~~+ F.$. +R Ce;'~t ~';. _ . ,. _" .,,> ##337886 10/^8/91 16:43 Rec x.00 Pk:: 660 F'6 170 Silvia Davis, F'itkin Cnty C1erE.,s.Doc x.06 ERHISIT "A", LEGAL DESCRIPTION Gateway to Snowmass Mesa, Filing 3, Block 1, Lot 8 - -_ _.. ~ O 7.:. 8~ L OCK' / GA TE 1//~9 RUOFF~G ~G ASS Tf~/ perE° 75'//x'/L/7Y f3///T. q[oN6y EACH S/DE ~ AL.(- [Or ONES. ,a SCALE //NCN: 40 1MPROVEXENT LOCATIUN CERT IfICATE 'new .Fean~ /n p/x~ I hereby certify that this improvement location certificate was prmpared by Scarrow fi Walker, inc. for Richard 5. Crofi, that it is not a land survey plat ar improvement survey plat, and that 9t is not to be relied upon far the estetilfsheent of fence, building, or other future. improvement lines. I further certify that the improvements on the above described Darcel on this dace, August 15, 19445 except utility connacttons, are entirely within the boundaries of the Darcel, except as shown, that there are noencroacheants upon the described premises by Tmprovements pn any adJoininq premises, exeeDt as indicated, and that there is no bPparenf evidence or sign of any easement crossing or burdeni~p any part of said parcel, except as noted. I further certify that according to the tlationaT Flood Insuranee Progran Flood Boundary and Floodway mp (nc. 0804100094-C), [his property does not lie within the t00year flood plain. This property is suhJact to rights-of-way and easements of recprd a pig S!~ le Commitment preparedby Pitkin County Title, Inc. (couuai tment No. PCT-38"OS): gyp, ..~~pq, yC y ' Scerrow fi Walker, Inc. y.,raw1. ~- ~y - a ~ >° ~i .~ 811 Colorado Avanua frankW. Harts S~VS.t 494 ~~Q Glenwood Springs, Colorado J' 1.,,,~y/gv` , Job No. 89.119 ~ HAL l~M~ IES~1 r, t ~~ ~. ~~ _ ,~ c ~~ . s r`. L N iff "' U' U T O! y S C MJ ct = fj •.. .. -:c ti~~ i a~ in ~ •., , -. > > .,Q ~ ~~ w ~~M N P- > > P'.~^' .+ #~ ~ ~' ~ _._ G~9 TE1//~9 ~ OFF/G ~GASS TN/ D ~::: Found in plate /JO/'/5'64°Ci a{ _ 8Nr NOOSE • w /i/NL'L ~ ~• . O O D~ m N m 7t 3 T 1 ..•~ N 9 FporE° 7.5'vli[/7Y Es~T. ALON6y EACH S/OE ~~ 'ALL. LOT !/NEJ. SCr9C.E / /NCN- 40 FEET PitAf6st-D ~ "Y"! ~O siirs ~ cAfaltGrq.;/ ~, / r ~t 1 1 ~ ~l I ~ i, r ~_i~Nyv IPPL'6at. ~ ~ r 8 Las /.{C,,Wt N{LL 2.o R~ t' MESA ca.na. round /q ~i pNC• d + 6J •P9' P I Q P ^0 c p5 ~ Z°pD of 1 ~ Vl Po• g g•Lg 5 ~ R, /i e9 V kQ IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE 1 hereby certify that this improvement location certificate was, prepared by Scarrow fi Walker, Inc. ' for Richard 5. Croft, that 1t is mt a land wrvey plat or lnprovament survey'pta[, and [hat ft is not to be ratted upon forthe cstebltshment of fence, building, or other future. improvement lines. 1 further certify that the impravementc on the above described Parcel on this date, August 25, 1989, except utility connections, are entirety within the boundaries of the Darcel, except as shown, tMt there are no encroachments upon the described premtaas by fmproveaenteon any. adJaining premise9, except as~ndiYated, and flat there is nd aDDerenf evidence or sign of any easement erasstn ar M{rdeni an part of said parcel, except as noted. i further certify Chet according to the tlational Fiaod Insurance Prpgram Flood 9oundahy and Flaodway aap P,no. 0808700058-C), this property does not ife within"the t00year flood plain. Thit property is suhJect to righCSrof-way and easements of record a ig S1~ le Comitment prepared by Pftkin County Title, lx. (commitment No. PCT-3805). p .~~Mpa 4. 1D c?''~'` C ~~!• rosy €:~C.l-) l (3 : F,me Scarrow 6 Nalker, Inc. ~,nw.\..~ ~~~~-.'~8 ~1> tt .['S `{ 911 Colorado Avamuo Frank W.Narr1 l~~.l 588 aQ~' Glenwood GDrings, Colorado S \ y/SJ Job No. 87.229 ~ ~'~( AND [ ., ~; o~ .~ .~ a ~° ~. x ;~ W 9& "' U ~ a ~~ c p-, J ,t C ,a .,i ti~ Y ,ti ~.{ i Q-Ll b7 7 ~.r, a ,_, > r ~+Q ~ ~ ~ ~.ti ., r- > > rr{~ ~+ ~~ ~` g d: p{, 'tSF to o+' -J EL JEBEL /BASALT "" CoNoC.C~ o~U ffi sigrro~J S NowmA55 IvoAD --- s Nawcvt(\5 S G/1T£.LUn~ baw~. i- -Not to Scale - ~f~ ~~ L'~fk'.K .~ N1FInB~K 62f~'i F ~`'~r.D su,~,tvtr Directions from Aspen: MULEOS.f-R. ~ (lUN a ASPEN :~---- ,. ~c.K4-~. ~f tJ `ANt, LlG\ITMILL +~ Roq-A .--~_. 'R\C`.Kl~~ ANA StNN1f-~R- ca oFT From Highway 82 at t}ae Conoco station at Snowmass (not Snowmass Village), turn left: on Snowmass Creek Road; In approximately 9/1U mile, cross small bridge and then turn right at Gateway Mesa (third driveway after small bridge); Follow Main Road through subdivision for approximately 1 and 1/10 miles staying on Gateway (passing Picket Pen on the left and Muledeer Run on the right); Turn right on Lighthill Road; In approximately 2/10 mile, turn left at driveway with black mailbox numbered 0285. \\io"~i1-1C.~n~c~ \ V^J Lti:s\`~ ~~_ PzvRL£.D N~X\ 3`D ~P\\L 1?~ox . y. 1 .., J_ _.._. _. STEWRP,T TITLE G""NWOOD 001 _ ,_ 10:04191 1,,:27 ~L'tz'L'LOIAT czncx ' vvu.LY~~`t~ ./rae. Tteg. band 5urveYora and ]ni;ineers 899 Coloxado Avonu® C3lenwood $pringe, C~larado $1801 (308) 945.8664 ~GZ ®~ ~~ ~4~~jC~ 46~"°~'~'C _a pctober 4, 1999 To: Rlahaard Croft 201 N. M111 Street, SuSY~ 203 Aepsm; Galararlo ,B161S Re: Job ~ 91.248, Lot 8, 81ock 1, Filing Dear Rlaharc9: Gateway of 5nowmaas Meaa Subdivision, '1"hird the N r' Inc. This Setter is tc canfixrn that on October 3; 1991, SCa1k"Ok7 ~ ~ ortheast flagged t:he Nar~hwest Corner of Lot 8. tre-~stala2ishad aCUi 'flagged CortYer of Lot 8, also 2 points on line (~'.O.L.'s) ~~ 8et axidkfle location and North sine of Lot 8 in the tjeneral vicinity of the prapoaed ga a~ flnal9y the twci NartherlY Caruox~'bf saii garage were set and fla~gc,~ed 1tt accor~9aracs with bulldittry setback lines. ~nlY~ ~~ '~'`~~~ ` ~~ \\1\1It11111111dJgl, ry$taVett R. P2lClS \`~\\\\ ~gt,4 ~~~~. {..$. ~f 22890 .•~``~Ct~'~«i°i Wl fib'"• c~.'~J~® .er~uu-z,1, L' S A ~,:. w'b i F SPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFIC`~ 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920-5090 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES City 00713 -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/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS REFERRAL FEES: 00125 -63340-205 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 -63340-190 HOUSING 00115 83340-163 ENGINEERING SUBTOTAL County 00113 -63160-726 GMP/GENERAL -63170-127 GMP/DETAILED 83180-128 GMP/FINAL -63190-129 SUB/GENERAL 83200-130 SUB/DETAILED -632 7 0-1 31 SU B/FINAL 83220-132 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS ' 83230-133 ~ ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ ~ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS -63450-146 ~ BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REFERRAL FEES: 00125 83340-205 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 -63340-190 HOUSING ' 00113 -63360-143 ENGINEERING PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00113 83080-122 83090-723 83140-724 89000-145 I Name: ~ \ Y U,l."'Y _ c ;. Address~: /'`~ 1 ~Y ~ G ~ J ~~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ Check # ~-;' ..~ ~ It Additional billing: ~. _ /.J SUBTOTAL ~ TOITAL ~ Phone: /:~ 7 - / ~~ ~ T- Projec : ~ , ~G~~i ~~.; ~' 7/ - S.. Date: ~ "J ~- CITY/COUNTY CODE COMP. PLAN COPY FEES OTHER ~, /, ,,~ G.. Q ~ 8~ /J C.... OC GA TE y//9 Y OF S/1/Oy//~'I~ISS /'MESA 7"f-//RD yCO rner found i n pfd Ca ~~ noe I ~~ a..we r_ Line ~.. ~..~~ ~fjrU• M C'eTNEX J't eNO `~ NOUSE lfi' ~' ~ /N PlAC(.- ~( ~ c ~/G //1/G .. ~ C ~ ~o.:+o 1 ~ /`v~ ~ Wmo STEPS c!~RItG`y /~ ~ / ~ 1 + 1 ' per. ~sn>~ure ~ E i 6 UY ~~~t , ~ /rPYtZC~. ~ I ~ __ / ,/ ~o CJ O P Q, Cn N ..-•. N 9 AGOnlFy £ACN S/.OE AF AL.C, LOT uNfS. a5~ eZo A~ '! pa: 3 $ 2 S'C~9GE / /NCN= 40 FEET ~ 5~A INPR04ENENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE ~Dlner y-UV nOI %n ., place w u •.D O wo .~ 4 = 6J'P9' .¢ . ie/.~s~ n U , \ Q Q n. ~ r .,~ ~ I hereby certify that this improvement location certificate was prepared by Scarrow & Walker, Inc. for Richard S. Croft, that it is noC a land survey plat or improvement survey plat, and that it is not to be relied upon for the establishment of fence, building, or other future improvement lines. 1 further certify that the improvements on the above described parcel on this date, August 25, 1989, except utility connections, are entirely within the boundaries of the parcel, except as shown, that there are no encroachments upon the described premises by improvements on any adjoining premises, except as indicated, and that there is na apparent evidence or sign of any easement crossing or burdening any part of said parcel, except as noted. I further certify that according to the National Flood Insurance Program Flood Bcundary and Floodway map (no. 0809100058-C), this property does not lie within the 100 year flood plain. , This property is subJect to rights-of-way and easements of record a ip le Commitment prepared by Pitkin County Title, Inc. (commitment No. PCT-3805). ~p,.~Rpt~,CrR;p ~ wr4• ~~~ ~~N a (3 , ~ Scarrow & Walker, Inc. ,ny,'`~ •~_ ___ __ __ ~;> 811 Colorado Avenup frank W. Nahri 3t~.p 598 +'aJj Glenwood Sprin s, Colorado J' °~ ~ Job Nc. 89,229 NAI tAN ~, t .1 ~~ ~,• . ~ I;~ ~, ,~ 7 ~ O~ .. =o" ---`-- 1 r-------------------------~ I. i ~ ~ N~ p , i ~ i ~ i ~ i .i - t ' t i ~ i G, p.. i I I i I i- TNlckENf'0 60hr:' i i SLAIS nN G,KAP~ i I i I I i Nip„ i ~ I ~ i I I I t i i i `,Dii i I I ~ i I I I i I I I I I I y_p~ L. -- _ _. _ ~ _._ __. _ ___ ~ _ _ ____~ I i F~ooQ Pc Ant ?'/~ ~n y c2orT c7AR~1C~~ BY: ~-G,N (3U/[.pERs, LNG, 9~~/9l ~~ t ,. ~:~ ....~~~. F.G. sMINGLES.. _..._ ._ __.__.___._ o N yi"0.5, ~ ~_ /~_ $~/ ____._.~~-\~J :<' ,~ 6 L.._/, ~/ \ ENS. 7`,Puss~S ~ ay,~O.G. ,..____-I -- i VvA~~- SE~T»N TY/'• ScA~E: a~y~~-A~_p,. ~' ~rl' ~ 4 '( S . ~ ' i~' l4~1' i f'`.Y County of Pitkin State of Colorado The undersigned, follows: } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY } ss. POSTING OF A VARIANCE HEARING } BEFORE THE PITRIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT being first duly sworn, deposes and says as I, ~ ~C1~f~-~D C~C~~ ,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 ~~~ ~ day of ~~~~-~lQ~~ 19` , to the ~ S'~ day of ~C~ ~ ~,~~ 19~. (Must be posted for at least nine (9) full days before the hearing date) . ~'--~~ ,.~ ~-r s Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~S`f day o f OC`rOL~~Z- , 19~, by I~ tCt~~i2~~ C~~7` . , ~~S ~' ,~.u, a~~yf ~ t~ T° ~ rt 1 £g t '.il .~ i. ~.'/yi ~~,,: . ""' `~< `~ WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. ~u~ K~ fiR~ ~, ~ -~ 4, / My Commission expires: ~ .L`~ ~`~ r 'r ~ ~~ ~ ot a ry N Pu blic ' s Signature , j~ ~ ~ ` /- ['} /~+ /V- /}' 1 ,~!Y1 l lfr xM.n, ' ~Ff<>~.~~` ~; `.. ~: y = Address w. ~~ , ` } - ~ ~~ z-_~: ~r .. 4+ }} ~'P i ;~. I I ~ }~ YY ~: '. I~ ~ '~. 3 ' ;? ~` i{ ~~'..E ~ 1 ~.~ '>- ~~ '.~ .-:A• :.~ _.~ .~.___ y~., , t. '~ 'yam' i/ i e-I ~A #+337886 ~''/2B/9i i6:43 Rec $. GG RFr FG 168 Silvia Lnvis° Fit};in Cnty Clerk9 Doc ~.GO RESOLUTION OF THE PITRIN COUNTY, COLORADO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTING SETBACK RELIEF FOR RICHARD AND'JENNIFcR CROFT RESOLUTION NO. 91-45 WHEREAS, Richard and Jennifer Croft, owners of a tract of land situated at Lot 8, Block 1, Filing 3, Gateway of Snowmass Mesa Subdivision, requests a 25 foot north side yard setback variance, where 50 feet is required in the RS-30 zone district, for construction of a residential garage; and WHEREAS, the subject property is within the unincorporated area of and in County, Colorado, (as described in Exhibit 11At1, attached); 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, 3o-as-ils(z) (c); ana, WHEREAS, bas2d 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 25 foot north side yard setback variance, where 50 feet is required, for construction of a proposed .residential garage, be granted due to downzoning, as per the plans submitted (Exhibit uBn). WARNING: Any violation of the terms of this resolution may result in rehearing and possible revocation. #33?BBb iG _S/91 16:43 fiec ~,OU~BK•660 ~~, 169 ` Silvia Davis,... Pitkin Cnty Cler•b., Doa''ffi.0~~ Resolution No. 91-~ Page 2 The Resolution was adopted by vote of the Board of Adjustment of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. DATED: October 1, 1991 The Board of Adjustment of Pitkin County, Colorado ATTEST: Cin 1~Christensen, Secretary Kan i ShafT~, Chairman 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'Dstrict Courtroom, Pitkin County Court House, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such other place as the meeting may then be adjourned) to consider an, application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the County zoning Resolution. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests, or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by letter, partieularly,•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 G1~EATER THAN OR LESS THAN THAT RfiQIISBTED COIII:D BE GRANTED. DATE AND TIME OF MEETING: October 1, 1991 at 5:15 p.m. • City Hall, 2nd Floor Meeting Room Dillingham, Dale & Sharon: requesting a 37 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. Property Location: Lots 2, 19 and 20 of Section 9, Township 9 South, Range 85 West. _ 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): requesting 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. Property T,ocation: Parcel 3, Beatrice Placer M.S. No. 11426, also known as 0960 Castle Creek Road. Croft„ Richard & Jennifer: requesting a 25 foot north side yard setback .• variance,' where 50 feet is required in the RS-30 zone district, for construction of a proposed residential garage. Property Location: Gateway to Snowmass Mesa, Filing 3, Block 1, Lot 8. Gardner, Thomas R.: requesting a 40 foot front yard setback variance for construction of a proposed addition to a single-family residence, a 61 foot front yard setback variance for construction of a proposed residential garage, and a 50 foot front yard setback variance for construction of a proposed gazebo, where l00 feet is required for each in the RS-30 zone district. Property Location: Lot 16, Shield-O- Terrace. r-, ,-~, 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. Luber, 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 & Lyntte: requesting an 80 foot 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 # .. Minutes Pit_kin County Board of Adjustment October 1, 1991 ' Members Present: Members Absent: Staff: Kandi Shaffran, Chairman Evan Gull Ted Guy Stan Mathis Rick Neiley John Wheeler Rod ,Dyer Joanna Schaffner, Zoning Enforcement Officer Shaffran opened the meeting at 5:15 p.m. and introduced the Board to those present. Dale Dillingham was present to request a 37 foot front yard setback variance, where l00 feet is required in the RS-20 zone district, for construction of an addition to a single-family residence. '" Dillingham explained the history of the home.' The home was built in 1950, before the zoning regulations. Dillingham submitted 'two letters from adjacent property owners, Howard Vagneur and David Hoff, supporting his request. Shaffran asked for public comment and there was none. Gull moved to grant a 37 foot 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.) Motion passed. Case #91-45. Croft. Richard & Jennifer. Lot 8 Block 1 Flina 3 Gateway to Snowmass Mesa Richard Croft was present to request a 25 foot north side yard setback variance, where b0 feet is required in the RS-3D zone district, for construction of a residential garage. Croft briefed the Board on the present location of the house and the driveway and the topography of the surrounding land. Croft setbacks hwereh rehoired Was Croft also tst tedears ago before "the 4u~ that the proposed location for the garage is the only level spot on the property that would not require removing trees and vegetation. 1 ,--, ~,~- e 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 abstain so he left the room. i:ase ~7i-4~. a,acxev. mare Alen. ~i~racz ~, wnice czar xancn Deanna Olson was present representing Mary Ellen Lackey to request a 30 foot northeast side yard setback variance, where 50 feet is required in the RS-20 zone district, for construction of an addition to an existing barn. Olson showed on the plans submitted exactly where the encroachment would be and where the addition is to be constructed. Schaffner stated that this is the barn that the Board did a site visit on in 1989 when it was originally built on Tam Scott'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 motion to grant a 30 foot northeast side yard setback variance, where 50 feet is required, for construction of an addition to an' existing barn, due to topographical considerations and the unusual narrowness of the property. Shaffran seconded the motion and alI were in favor. Motion asked. John Wheeler had to abstain from the next case and left the room.. Ted. Guy re-entered the room. Case #9'1-44.'R.R.F. Corporation (Furman) Parcel 3 Beatrice Placer M.S. #1142.6 Roy Parsons Was present representing the owner to request 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. Shaffran read to the Board the previous case requesting a 50 foot variance, which was approved. Neiley stated that the characteristics of the property have not changed and the topography notsbell the same. This would be a single-story addition and would seen from Elie 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 variance, where 100 feet is required in the p,F- 1 zone district, due to topographical hardships, as shown on the plans submitted. Neiley seconded the motion and it passed with all in favor. John Wheeler re-entered the room for the rest of the meeting. 3 'J~ 1~: 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 zone 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 constrttction of a proposed addition to a single-family residence, due to downzoning, as per the plans 4 ~. submitted. Guy seconded the motion and four were in favor with Gull opposing. Motion passed. "' Marty Schlumberger was present representing Peter Guber, to request a 10 foot height variance, where 12 feet is required per the Pitkin County Land Use Code for accessory structures, for construction of a ranch gate. Schlumberger stated that Guber wants to move an existing gate to another location. Shaffran~asked how it was built`be~ore without a variance. Shaffran asked if there was any public comment and there was none. Schaffner asked if what they were going to do Was to disassemble the existing gate and then"relocate it. Schlumberger stated that the top part will come off and that will be reused. The stone pillars will be new. Schlumberger briefed the Board on the new location for the ranch gate. From the center of Owl Creek Road, it is to be 140 feet back. It was further stated that this parcel is between 800 and 900 acres. Neiley stated that he has no problem with ranch gates'. After further discussion, Guy moved to grant a height variance for the new ro osed ranch gate being no higher than the existing ranch gate, and Wheeler amended this motion where the bottom of the "Y" on the ngYame of the ranch (Mandalay) is 13 feet 6 inches from natural ade due to Code conflict with the Fire Code. Wheeler seconded Guy's part of"the motion and 'Guy seconded the amended portion of the motion and four were in favor with Shaffran. opposing. Motion passed. David Warner was present, representing the Hornings, to request an 80 foot front .yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the AF-1 zone district, for construction of a proposed deck. Warner stated that the Hornings were given approval to build with a 20 foot setback, as per Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 80-25. It was discovered that the applicant did hot go to the Board of Adjustment to obtain this variance. thines: stated that they want this motion to take care of two g First, to be able to build a'deck and also to establish the 20 foot ,setback that everyone believed 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. F-, ,,-., 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. ease ~y1-51, riLxin c:ounLy, riLxin county airport, axa saray Fie1a 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 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 3o 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. Skiaffran 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 Smith further stated that the beacon is for visual use by aircraft. This i5 used if instrumentation 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 that the beacon is approved in the Airport Master Plan, in the last amendment. It was requested as part of the Grand Application in April by 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, with the con3ition that the Board of County Commissioners review and approve the submitted design plans and specifications. Gull seconded the motion and all were in favor. Motion passed. Regarding the necessity of a fence, the question was asked how many deer have been hit. Smith stated that there has been one strike last winter season, but that everyday employees at the airport have to go out onto the field to chase the deer off of the runway. Shaffran asked if the electrical fence will hurt the deer. Smith stated that the fence will just shock them and will not hurt them. Smith stated that the fence is to be 12 strands, electrified (solar powered), there will be less gates than what is presently existing. Guy stated that he doesn't think there needs to be so many strands. Neiley asked if the Division of Wildlife reviewed the plan design for the fence. Smith stated that they have not, but that this type of fence has been installed at other airports and has proved to be effective and 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 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, SO feet and 10 feet are required for the front yard, both side yards and rear yard, respectively, in the PUB zone district, for the erection of an electric fence, as per the plans submitted. 'Guy seconded the motion and all were in favor. 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 8 Kandi Shaf ran, Chairman