HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.boa.91.46.. ~ ~ -.
PITRIN COUNTY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
~~~ ~i~
DATE ~~ / ~/ _ CASE # ~`
APPLICANT ~Nti^WIA~~ ~ Cn /~C/lA~ '~2 PHONE X23 ~`{U~
MAILING ADDRESS ~ +3c~X SGo-U `asyor,~m~s ~.e1~1-e_.~ Cv ~ ~~ t~
OWNER ~vt !_ PHONE
MAILING ADDRESS
LOCATION OF PROPERTY L-~T' i („ S /~ OL--G(l - U' T~~az/iCL
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 ~ /-6•-~~ e~ /~v~J~y,.~
(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:
RS-3c~ Zone District
r Requesting: Lot Size
~fda'a L/~
~,~,t~„~Q ~! ~ _ ' Front Yard Setback Variance, where r~G ~ is required.
gQc2E ~ S~ ' 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:
Zoning Offi
Application filed ~-
Notices mailed
Parcel ID #~'~'~~`"a~~''Ob''o~,~i,
Resolution to Building when Completed
~_~ Yes ~_I No
`- --` 1'a~`a~Y'oPe~'=Y_rrne; .tne-gara5e~rre~er-rronr rn~~~ rront-var^~,~~-r<r---
NOTICE OF PIIBLIC 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
Thomas R. Gardner
Thomas R. Gardner
P.O. Box 5600
Snowmass Village, CO 81615
Lot 16, Shield-O-Terrace
Requesting approval for 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
residential garage, and a 50 foot front yard setback variance for
construction of a gazebo, where 100 feet is the requirement for
a front yard setback in the RS-30 zone district. Approval of these
variances would place the proposed addition 60 feet from the front
yard property line, the garage 39 feet from the front yard property
line, and the gazebo 50 feet from the property line.
VARIANCES GREATER OR LESS THAN REQUESTED COULD BE GRANTED.
Duration of Variance: Temporary Permanent X
THE ItITKIN COUN Y B iOF ADJUSTMENT
/~ ~ ,~
~~~
Cindy Christensen, Secretary
F k,' ~d ~ ti NW..~
,,
~~~,- ~~th, ~~a,
~+spen/pit'r:irr r~lann^ng OY`•iae
?3Q 5. Galeha
Aspen, 00 8?'E17
At*n. ~.11en
Opewr olanning and: Zaning Ccr~mss'on,
Th:= Fbllcwir,c~ 1e~t~r can*a;ns wr~fgrma~•ian rei,a•ing 2a my regtiest
far a RidgeliYre Revi*~w {ardi;ianae P3q. 9fJ-9p}. ': am as'k=ing far
thi^ee requestn; a garage, a,n addit%ar. °'n my Name, anew 'a ,gaxeba
gv~ar my sc-:ptrc tanws. ,x,11 ^.:hree re;~~r^es~s tc~ b~ bui'?t. an my 2.53
ears,. Lat i~, sectign 22 Shield-a-ternaae_
N!y aja,^a~e dime~;nsians ~r'i;?7 be 2q'x 30' ~~-1th a 12/4 rcaci~" it utll
be 'facated an my g apenty u~"ith a tai gra~'w. ? hive r~aeived a 39'
prcaperty Tine v~ri~nce rpn February ii, rgg?_ This the anly
bu•i lding si*:e an my pra~erty fc~-:-• the garage i4p fi`eat i"rarn: my
far t~-,e addit'ian to rr,y hare, X am p':'annir,g to add z two level
StY`UCt'wr•e. The d7m.=nSic)n> aF she additign wi?`1 i5`X 2E'ar 4?6`so.
Th` tgtal {•Gr rsoth l~veTs eauals 832"s:,. The ~dditian tui11 be
adjaaer,t ta`my existing rw`p leve?'hawse C26'x 32' ar 832's~}" The
twa `4evels p.~ rry .hquse totals 3T~C''sc~. i~i,^ barns is an a '13a ,grade
and the a~jaaent ~:dd-`t-ian wi;1 alsca ti,e can 13`~ made. ~~atP•~ will
ha•~e a t2/~ roaF. rho Heal str•~uctune w. i1 have ane ieVe'i buY1t
into the t1i11 side alsa, i^F. a_ the first leya? c,f the e,xist-ing
hawse.
The, gexeb~ w"fill t?w: 8'x ~' and. wi'71 aav~r ;.wa septic tank .cavern.
It „r.?11 stand ~ fram my hawse at a ^-"~, grade- Gn the aazebq
f lagr w~11 bra ~~ snap dinar 'Fqt"~ access ra anQ of the sapt^'a tank
cavern.
In accardan'ce with the 8D_07 adirianae 'F ~.^ri1'" gar the address of
my adjacent: awners and my a^chite~.^~ural p7'an~ wil'i fallaw the
viscaal ~u~li`ty guiaeTin~s qn the lacatican and the building site.
Enalased please i~i,~id fqur i^-ems rel~ztang to the 'e^e~•iew. 1. A ,:qpY'
a~F my s?.rrvey' showir,r,. e"ievat;gn, "lacat'gn ar the additi,pn> as ave11
as the garage 2. Tapgg:~`aphi~al mi~p showing 1ar_atign and ~=levatian
of the gars„ ~ 3: ~^nr~itectura olar~s 'Fan the garage. `and rrhe
add`'stiar 4.. T6',a list c~F the at3,~aaert awn~rs t., my prgrer~ty.
4 .:,
A
Lloyd Bishap
0727 Shield 0' Terrace Rd
Snnwmass, CO 81654
Lynn Hancock
0525 Shetld 0' Road
Snowmass, CO 81654
Stewart Holmes
0644 Shield 0' Road
Snowmass, CO 81654
Franz Kopp
Po Box 5055
Snowmass Village, CO 81615
Sherling Lauricella
7715 Snnwmass Creek Rd.
Snowmass, CO 81654
Ron Pingatore
Q594 Shield 0' Road
Snowmass, CO 81654
Harry Smith
Po Bax 205
Woody Creek, CO 81656
Father Thomas Bradtke
104 South Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
ir.~~';:
'~ meet; outi-~a~7'_I7T-FTesE-353:-6o~-~ee~{~3oucn-sa--z r-~resc-z rrr
#~3U823 c73/~~!/91 1 t; v4 Sec 9~. ~~p Rh 641 F'G „x,,39
Silvia Davis,kin Cnty C1er4,, Doc ~,v~Y'
~'7a ~X~~ p i + ~A' ~
~~
o~
`~.1, ~~
\.
~-~ T
( ~~ C~c.-~' ~ O rJ Z z.
~t
y;G~al~. ~' _~
A parcel oi' land situate in Lot '3, Section 22, Township 9 South,
Range 86 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, more particularly
described as follows:
Beginning at a point whence the South -~ corner of Section 22,
Township 9 South, Range 86 West of the 6th Brncipal Meridian
bears South 19.00'00" West 669.07 feet, thence North 17.4' Sant
34.2536 East~103e56efeetththence Noast 214.72 feet, (hence &orLl1
' ' rth 12'40' East 122.90 Pect;
reserving a 30 foot right-of-way and utility easement on thc•
y
77s06rlEastd155fl6hfeet~'~thencerSoed four courses, thence Sou:'
' uth 64. 37' East 115.00 feet;
reserving a'15 foot utility easement on the southerly side of
the above described two courses; thence South 35'00' West 300.00
feet; thence South 53'48' West 465.72 feet to the point of be-
ginning, and; together with right-of-way for access and utilities
`described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the Snowmass Road whence the South k .
Corner of Section 22, Township 9 South, Range 86 West of the >•
6th Principal Meridian bears South 57`13'00" West 879.79 feet;•
and being 30 feet on both sides of the following described
line: North 59'58' West 45.08 feet; South 35.01' West 161.84
feet; South 47.17' West 3b3.60 feet; South 64`17' West 272.73
feet; South 47`07' West 394.61 feet; North 33°30' East 320.00
feet; North 22'14' East 126.94 ..fee t; North 13.01' East 287.96
feet) North 27.36' East 264.86~feet; North 17.41' East 242.66
feet; North 38°15' East 214.72 feet) North 34.53' East 103.56
feet; North'12.40' East 183.43 feet, whence said South ~a Cor-
ner Section 22 bears South 22°00.00" West 1398.14.
ti
~:
o
m
`0 U
D
tY~ p
n
m
~+ -,
~ L'
m ~,
ie +~
C
try ct
~~
V ~y
-N
.~
tr. 2
m
rv ~,
~ >
+- r
a
r-
aa
m •~
r~ >
r:. ,n
rc~ .~
~ L'3
<,:,.
(NOTF.~ AlSb kno+~ ag L:ot 16 Sh~ePd-o-rerrace~
I ~ f!:
. - ; ~ ~~
i.
1
,~~~a
'.. i^S
_._.____. .....' f
#337887 2n/i8/91 ib:45 Rec $.nC7 Pf~ 660 P6 1?5 -.
t ,.
Silvia Davis, PitF;in Cnty Clerk, Doc ~.OG ~:....:.
..,.. , .
r
} ,.
)1.
~~~~ bc-}- ~~~
m --
o <:~~
l`~`. 1I~
_..-~. i
l ~ ) ~ ~ ` ~
Yr,2 w -~.~ - ..
- ~ ~ ~ ~' `~
} ~- ~Q~~CdPY
~,`_ \
~., - ~ . - '
. _ -
~:~ s . .
'; Q o~. 4 `'moo .
u-~ ZR~ 3 An '`T-
~Rw~ do :.. '~.\ _ J
o \
• ~~ rte. °. ~' GIs .
I ~
m R °..~ / 1 ~ 6 __
4
w ~
~ ; i ~ ~ ` ~ ~~ 9~
v~ `` ~ ,~ \
w ~ z ,.yam + ~ .~ \ .
D d ..t .`; AQ .~
p ~ ~ Z~'
~ ~ , ~~.
o ~~ ;~' ~,
.~ ..~... M1-. r
. ti ~ ~ ~;~ ~~~, ~~ E
• ~ ~ ` tv
~;1 ' ` y
0
i ~.
__.._ ~ Iw ~ ',
y
i
III
-__- ---- -
~____ ---~____~---_---
~_
1
.___.~~_-_:
_
~ ~.::
t=
. co''T ~xTlorl
~ E~~
..... _ _
y / A
~-..~
.~..
~~12}}(~[" CvC v--c
-H-!A ~u G
fY~vv irv (,, !QC~ ~
'c>rv~ G 6}2 ~1G Ir
np ~.~
8e
Y• w~.
~A
;:~
u
~,
- ~,
a
0
O ~
_, ,
_.~ ~ ~
Y ~e ~~ .]
~..
.~
~~ ~ ~~~
6
,~ ~7+ \ ..
~. ~.. ~ r.
~µ ~
1 2 ~ ,\ , .
s-~~J
~~~
~, Z _ ~.\
'N_ ~ R a.. ~.7•_
a-y~~.T,
`
o ~
,,
` '
r \ ~
~,
. ~ 1`~ ~ '.
t ~
r
J
S
4
I
f:4 3.9
i133~:~823 O~/c:~r/91 i~t;;4 Sec ~.pU PK 641 F~
Silvia Davis,^.tk:in Cnty Clerb::, Doc ~. r39
E~7~ Cx~c b, + "~},~
~ti
'/s~,
' ~.~. \
\\
DoT ~;
'~~e,c~Tior..l 2L~
~c.~~..~ ~~ =5d+
A parcel of land situate in Lot '3, Section 22, Township 9 :>outh,
Range 86 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, more particularly
described as follows:
Beginning at a point whence the South ~ corner of Section 22,
Township 9 South, Range 86 West of the 6th Principal Meridian
bears South 19°00'00" west 669.02 feet, thence North 17.4' East
242.66 feet; thence North 38'15' East 214.72 feet, thence hn,tYe
34' S3' East 103.56 feet, thence North 12°40' East 122.90 Peet;
reserving a 30 foot right-of-way and utility easement on th<~
easterly side of the above described four courses, thence Sou;"
77'06' East 155.16 feet;'thence South 64. 37' East 115.00 feet;
reserving a 15 foot utility easement on the southerly side of
the above described two courses; thence South 35.00' west 306.00
feet; thence South 53° 48' West 465.72 feet to the point of be-
ginning, and; together with right-of-way for access and utilities
described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the Snowmase Road whence the South k
Corner of Section 22, Township 9 South, Range 86 West of the
6th Principal Meridian bears South 57'13'00" West 879.79 feet;
and being 30 feet on both sides of the following described
line: North 59. 58' West 45.08 feet; South 35°O1' West 161.84
feet; South 47'17' West 363.60 feet] South 64° 17' West 272.73
feet; South 47`07' West 394.61 feet; North 33°30' East 320.00
feett North 22'14' East 126.94 .feet; North 13'01° East 287.96
feet; North 27°36' East 264.86 feet; North 17.41' East 242.66
feet) North 38°15' East 214.72 feet) North 34.53' East 103.56
feet; North '12°40' fast 183.43 feet, whence said South y Cor-
ner Section 22 bears South 22°00'00" West 1398.14.
Y FF to ~ `.i.1 9
f1 ®::
(NOT F.; Alcn knr~wn ac T.n• 1r c~.: .. i.a_n_m„.. ,. ., ,~„~
- - .. .
_.
D
A' ~N/PIT~(CIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena S1reeT
Aspen, Colorado 81617
(303) 920-5090
LAND USE APPLICAT ION FEES
City
00113 -63250-734 GMP/CONCEPTUAL
-63270-136 GMPlFINAL
-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:
00725 -63340-205 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
00123 -63340-190 HOUSING
00115 -63340-163 ENGINEERING
SUBTOTAL
County
GMPIGENERAL
GMP/DETAILED
GMP/FINAL
SUB/GENERAL
SUB/DETAILED
SUB/FINAL
ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS
~''1 ALL 1STEP APPLICATIONS/
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
~ BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REFERRAL FEES:
OOt25 -63340-205
00123 -63340-790
00713 -63360-143
PLANNING OFFICE 8ALE5
00713 -63080-122
-63090-123
-63740-724
-69000-145
00113 -63760-726
-63770-127
-63780-728
-63190-129
-63200-130
E3270-137
-63220-132
-63230-733
-63450-146
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
HOUSING
ENGINEERING
CITY/COUNTY CODE
COMP. PLAN
COPY FEES
OTHER
s~°
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL ~--~
C~~ 3 - J ~
~
Phone: •.
t
date:
#ofH
.,,.:n ~1.. t. ,' ,,'c. ,~
Additional billing:
^~ a
County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE BY
ss. POSTING OF A VARIANCE HEARING
State of Colorado } BEFORE THE PITRIN COUNTY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says as
follows:
I, _ "T'µorn~s iZ_ C, .A-2b~..+ce 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 Z ~ ' " day o f _ S ~ ~ t e nn c3c ,~ 19
to the ~~" day of __ ('7 c ~ v ~3 ~ r~-
19 <~
(Must be posted far at least nine (9) full days before the
hearing date).
Applicant's Signature
Subscribed and sworn to before me
t-
this ~~ day of ~~'- nn'; ~ ,
__._..--
19~, by -~ l~rt ;1r~ t"~`~ ~-~~,_ ~. <~ t~'~ ~
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
I
My Commission expires: ~~
_. _ _ I
Address --.
~i~~~-
,~ ,
#337887 1~''E/91 16:45 F'er $,OU BF': 66`='G 172
Silvia DavYS, FitFrin Cnty Cler4;, Doc "~';C~p
RESOLIITION OF THE PITRIN COIINTY~ COLORADO
BOARD OF ADJIISTMENT
,,
GRANTING SETBACK RELIEF FOR THOMAS R. GARbNER
RESOLIITION NO. 91-46
WHEREAS, Thomas R. Gardner, owner of a tract of land situated at
Lot 16, Shield-O-Terrace, requests 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 in the RS-3'0 zone district; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is within the unincorporated area of
Pitkin County, Colorado (as described in Exhibit "A", attached);
and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment is vested with the power to grant
or deny such variances by virtue of Title II, Section 16-1.3,
Pit-cin County Code (Land Use Code) and Colorado Revised Statutes,
1973, 3o-zs-ils(z~ (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
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, 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.
#33r867 1~'~8/91 16:45 Rec x.00 Pt: 6c~FC, 173
Si ]. via Davts, Pitkin Cnty Cler4i, Doc ~.pi~
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:
o ~-~-~~
Cin L. Christensen,
Secretary
' I di ShaiTfran,
Chairman
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING `
BEFORE THE PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE RE~UESTEID`
ZONING VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOWb
Pursuant to Pitkin County Zoning Resolution of June 5, 1955, as
amended, a Public Hearing will be held in the District Courtroom, Pitkin
County Court House, Aspen, Colorado, (or at such other place as the
meeting may then be adjourned) to consider an application filed with the
said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the
.provisions of the .County zoning Resolution..
All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear
and state their views, protests, or objections. If you cannot appear
personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by
letter, particularl}~~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 S-ARIANCE GREATEl2.THAN OR
LESS'THAN THAT REQUESTED COIIL"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 B 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 Location: Parcel 3, Beatrice Placer M.S. No. 11426, also known
as 0960 Castle Creek Road.
Croft, RiohardY& 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 100 feet is required for each
in the RS-30 zone district. Property Location: Lot 16, Shield-O-
Terrace.
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 a~ 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 & .Lynne: requesting an 80 ~fbot 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 Ftirport:• requesting a height variance to allow 'fdr a 55
foot high beacon. Also requesting 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 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 #
A
Minutes
Pitkin 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.
ron, Section 9. Lots"
Dale Dillingham was present to request a 37 foot front yaxd 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 clownzoning.
Shaffran seconded the motion and all were in favor. .(Rick Neiley
was not present during this case.) Motion passed.
Gateway to Snowmass Mesa °"
Richard Croft was present to request a 25 foot north side yard
setback variance, where 50 feet is required' in the R.S-30 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
stated that. the house was built about 15 years ago before the
setbacks were required. Croft also stated that the proposed
location for the garage is the only level spot on the property that
would not require removing trees and vegetation.
1
•! Y
~~~
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 ~n 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 areal 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
r, {
r F
For the next case, Ted Guy had to abstain so he left the room.
Case #91-43. Lackey. Marv Ellen. Tract 5, White Star Ranch
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 all were in favor.
Motion passed. '
John Wheeler had to abstain from the next case and left the room.
Ted Guy re-entered the room.
Case #91-44. R.R.F.. Corporation (Furman) Parcel 3 Beatrice Placer
Roy Parsons was present representing the owner to request a 64 foot
front yard setback variance, where 100 feet is required in the AF-
sin le-familrict for construction of a proposed addition to a
g y 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
is still the same. 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 variance, where 100 feet is required in the AF-
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
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 construction 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.
rasa a.2• ~~.+aa uaus.+cayca va.~ y+a cgcaa a. acra c.av wavy ac... ..a, cy...........
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 before without
a variance.
Shaffras 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. $chlumberger stated that
the top part will come off' and that will be reused. The stone
pillars will be new. Sahlumberger briefed the Board on the aew
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 proposed ranch gate being no higher Han the existing ranch
gate, and Wheeler amended this motion where the bottom of '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
seconded Guy's part of the motion and Guy "seconded the amended
portion of the motion and four were in favor with 5haffran
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 ktesolu£on
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 establish
the 20 foot setback that everyone believed existed.
Guy asked Warner if the deck was part of the original building
p rner stated that it was, but a different shape. This
wilhbe anaabove-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 downzoninq 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 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 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
Smith further stated that the beacon is for visual use by aircraft.
This is 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 condition 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, 10 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
s
Kandi Shaf ran, Chairman